United States • ;:/-:"•: ^
Environmental Protection
:Agencyv ;yv ;;:,/; ,.':^
5:>:C; ^Office, qf Water-•''"•]- ,:
:' --^:^. .Washington DC 2Q46CL
;f-;^::;g:: .s
;:.'•;.•:;';.>•-;,'.•';; ;""^..r-'/.T;.-'.'.:-,-,-:". ->,;.-'..-';*;-;;^.'-; -/•/;::",";.';,'->;--;.'.>^-"-,v--LtO'V-^ •'*',-",~v,-'. s'j> ^-i;\V^'-H^vt\v'^'-:'-^*^"'^":rviA"'«^ I
• s- \_ - ;•; : V•*-:'> --;' . "•-•/.,:" ;':.•>-; ..;;•• -j.?*;<<•'^- -• j.-..,-:v;:•:;.-,•,;•,.=.»-;'?*;ft;•'";•«;<.: »'-': *•--'•-*'•;-r-ij*".;^' ;:5-'v-Jsi" ' W•-**"•":-" '"''."•'«'' v^*-*'-^- .-,-•-:-.f^c: --^-i.-,: *r...-r~, I
S'^?4i::^;i«teife^ii^fea^
-------
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
This report was prepared pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, which states:
(b)(1) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1, 1975,
and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter, a
report which shall include—
(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State
during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental descriptions
as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal, and other varia-
tions, correlated with the quality of water required by the objective of
this Act (as identified by the Administrator pursuant to criteria published
under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water quality described in
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;
(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such State
provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population
of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in and on
the water;
(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of
pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for the protection
and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife
and allows recreational activities in and on the water, have been or will
be achieved by the requirements of this Act, together with recommenda-
tions as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for
what waters such additional action is necessary;
(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic and social
costs necessary to achieve the objective of this Act in such State, (iii) the
economic and social benefits of such achievement; and (iv) an estimate
of the date of such achievement; and
(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants,
and recommendations as to the programs which must be undertaken to
control each category of such sources, including an estimate of the costs
of implementing such programs.
(2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together with an analysis
thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975, and October 1, 1976,
and biennially thereafter.
Cover photo taken at Indian Lake, NY,
by John Theilgard, Pittsboro, NC
-------
Acknowledgments
This report is based primarily on water quality assessments submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by the states, territories, American Indian tribes, the District of Columbia, and
interstate commissions of the United States. The EPA wishes to thank the authors of these
assessments for the time and effort spent in preparing these reports and reviewing the draft of this
national assessment. Additional thanks go to the water quality assessment coordinators from all
10 EPA Regions who work with the states, tribes, and other jurisdictions.
Key contributions were also made by staff throughout the EPA Office of Water. Additional
material was provided by the United States Geological Survey, the United States Department of
Agriculture, and EPA's Office of Research and Development.
EPA would also like to thank all of the artists and photographers who contributed their work for
inclusion in this document. We regret that we were unable to include all of their fine work in this
document.
Contractor support was provided by Research Triangle Institute (RTI) under Contract 68-C7-
0056. RTI provided data analysis, technical assistance, editorial support, design, typesetting, and
graphics.
-------
For more information about the National Water Quality Inventory
Report or its content and presentation, contact:
Susan Holdsworth ,
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503F)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW :
(202)260-4743
(202) 260-1977 (fax)
For additional copies of this report, the appendixes, or other
water quality assessment materials, please see the order form
at the back of this report.
-------
Contents
Page
Chapter 1
Introduction 3
Waters of the United States 5
Highlight: The Water Cycle 6
Water Quality Standards 10
Water Quality Assessment 11
Summary of Use Support , 13
Waters Assessed for the 1998 Report 14
Pollutants That Impair Water Quality and Their Sources .15
Highlight: Pollutants and Stressors That Impair Water Quality 18
Highlight: Comprehensive Assessments 24
Part I: Water Quality Assessments
Chapter 2
Monitoring and Assessment 29
Introduction 29
Water Quality Monitoring - Who Collects the Data 29
Monitoring Councils 30
State and Tribal Agencies 30
Local Governments 31
Volunteer Monitoring 31
Research Organizations and Other Private Entities 32
Federal Participants 32
Highlight: Region 7's Monitoring Strategy 34
Type of Data Collected 36
Biological Integrity Data 37
Chemical Data 37
Physical Attribute Data 38
Habitat Data 38
Toxicity Data 38
Data and Information Management 39
Using Data To. Describe Water Quality 40
Highlight: New Information Management Tools 42
Highlight: Nutrients and Pesticides: NAWQA Program
Highlights National Research 47
Chapter 3
Rivers and Streams 51
Water Quality Assessment 52
Summary of Use Support 53
-------
Page
Highlight: State Progress Toward Comprehensive
Assessments: West Virginia Example 54
Individual Use Support 59
Water Quality Problems Identified in Rivers and Streams 60
Pollutants and Stressors Impacting Rivers and Streams 63
Sources of Pollutants Impacting Rivers and Streams 64
Highlight: Nutrients in Streams: Findings of the U.S. Geological
Survey NAWQA Program 66
Highlight: Agricultural Water Quality Accomplishments 68
Highlight: Restoring the Mississippi River Ecosystem 74
Highlight: Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations .... 78
Chapter 4
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 81
Water Quality Assessment 82
Summary of Use Support 83
Individual Use Support 85
Water Quality Problems Identified in Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds ... 86
Pollutants and Stressors Impacting Lakes, Reservoirs,
and Ponds 86
Sources of Pollutants Impacting Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds .... 90
Highlight: Washington State's New Lake Nutrient Criteria 94
Highlight: New Jersey Bond to Support Lake Restoration Projects 96
Highlight: Sources of EPA Support for State Lake Protection
and Restoration Projects 97
Chapter 5
Coastal Resources - Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs .... 101
Water Quality Assessment 101
Estuaries 103
Summary of Use Support '. 104
Individual Use Support 105
Water Quality Problems Identified in Estuaries 106
Pollutants and Processes Impacting Estuaries 106
Sources of Pollutants Impacting Estuaries 110
Great Lakes Shoreline Ill
Summary of Use Support 111
Individual Use Support 112
Water Quality Problems Identified in Great Lakes Shoreline Waters ... 113
IV
-------
Page
Ocean Shoreline Waters 115
Summary of Use Support. 116
Individual Use Support 116
Water Quality Problems Identified in Ocean Shoreline Waters 118
Coral Reefs .120
Hawaii's Coral Reefs ...121
Coral Reef Degradation in Hawaii 121
Status of Hawaii's Coral Reefs 122
Coral Reef Management in Hawaii 122
Florida's Coral Reefs . 123
Developing a Water Quality Protection Program 124
Florida's Coral Reef Monitoring Program 124
Ecological Problems Affecting the Sanctuary 125
Future Monitoring and Research Activities 125
American Samoa's Coral Reefs 126
Status of American Samoa's Coral Reefs 126
Highlight: One Stressor of Hawaii's Reefs - Tropical Fish Collection 128
Highlight: Harmful Algal Blooms 130
Highlight: 1998 - The Year of the Ocean 133
Chapter 6
Wetlands 137
Introduction 137
Functions and Values of Wetlands 138
Storage and Filtering of Water 138
Storage of Sediment and Nutrients 140
Growth and Reproduction of Plants and Animals 141
Diversity of Plants and Animals 142
Extent of the Resource 143
Wetland Loss in the United States 143
Highlight: New England Biological Assessment of Wetlands
Work Group 144
Designated Use Support in Wetlands 146
Monitoring Wetland Health 149
Summary 151
Highlight: Wetlands and the Clean Water Action Plan 152
-------
Page
Chapter 7
Ground Water Quality •. 157
Ground Water Use in the United States 157
Ground Water Quality 160
Sources of Ground Water Contamination 161
Highlight: Ground Water and Surface Water - A Single Resource 162
Fuel Storage Practices 165
Waste Disposal Practices 166
Agricultural Practices 167
Industrial Practices 168
State Overview of Contaminant Sources .169
Ground Water Assessments 171
Ground Water Quality Data 173
Highlight: Tribal 305(b) Submittals 174
Highlight: Different Types of Monitoring Settings 176
Examples of State Assessments 182
Conclusions and Findings 187
Chapter 8
Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 191
Public Health Concerns 191
Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories 193
Highlight: Survey of Mercury in State Fish Contaminant
Monitoring Programs 196
Shellfish Contamination 199
Drinking Water Source Assessments 201
Summary of State Drinking Water Assessments 201
Sources of Drinking Water Use Impairment 203
Ensuring Safe Drinking Water 203
Highlight: Protecting Sources of Drinking Water 204
Recreational Restrictions 211
Highlight: The Clean Water Action Plan and Public Health Protection . . .212
Aquatic Ecosystem Concerns 216
Pollution Impacts 216
Habitat 217
Nutrient Enrichment 218
Sediment Contamination 219
Highlight: The Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment Project 222
VI
-------
Page
Chapter 9
Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection 229
Introduction 229
Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Improvement 231
Costs of Water Quality Improvement 231
Benefits of Water Quality Improvement 232
Water Quality Costs and Benefits Identified by the States 237
Chapter 10
Controlling Nonpoint Sources '.247
Background 247
The National Section 319 Program 247
Clean Water Action Plan Key Actions for Nonpoint Source
Pollution 249
Section 319 National Monitoring Program 249
Reports on Section 319 Activities 251
Nonpoint Source Management Programs and Implementation . . . . .251
Bad River Watershed Project, South Dakota .251
Wetlands to the Rescue — Spragues Cove Stormwater
Remediation Project, Massachusetts 252
Protecting the Edwards Aquifer — Urban Development BMPs
in Central Texas 253
Funding for Nonpoint Source Control 253
Clean Water State Revolving Fund 253
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program 254
Part II: Individual Section 305(b) Report
Summaries and Recommendations
Chapter 11
State and Tribal Recommendations 259
Nonpoint Source Abatement and Watershed Protection Initiatives . . .259
Examples of Nonpoint Source Concerns 259
Recommended Measures for Nonpoint Source Reduction 260
State and Federal Responsibilities 260
Adopting a Watershed Approach 260
Toxics Contamination 261
Identification and Assessment 261
Ground Water Pollution and Management 262
Additional Measures to Protect Ground Water 262
vii
-------
Page
Government Coordination 262
Monitoring and Data Management 262
Improved Monitoring 262
Expanded Electronics Capabilities 263
Financial and Resource Needs 263
State Issues Requiring Assistance 263
State Recommendations for Financing 264
Improved Outreach 264
Pollution Prevention and BMPs 264
Involving the Public 265
Special Concerns/Recommendations 265
Salton Sea 265
Conclusions 265
Chapter 12
State and Territory Summaries 269
Highlight: Color Maps in the State and Territory Summaries 270
Chapter 13
Tribal Summaries 385
Chapter 14
Interstate Commission Summaries 405
Appendixes are available separately. They may be downloaded from the EPA
Office of Water website at http://www.epa.gov/305b or ordered from the
National Center for Environmental Publication and Information (order form
included in this document).
VIII
-------
Figures
No. Page
1 -1 Ground Water 10
1 -2 Percentage of Waters Assessed for the 1998 Report 14
3-1 States and Tribes Assessed 842,426 Miles of Rivers
and Streams for the 1998 Report 51
3-2 Summary of Use Support in Assessed Rivers and Streams 58
3-3 Individual Use Support in Rivers and Streams 60
3-4 Leading Pollutants in Impaired Rivers and Streams 61
3-5 Leading Sources of River and Stream Impairment 62
3-6 The Effects of Siltation in Rivers and Streams 63
4-1 States and Tribes Assessed 17.4 Million Acres of the Nations's
Lake Waters (Excluding the Great Lakes) for the 1998 Report ... 81
4-2 Summary of Use Support in Assessed Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs . 84
4-3 Individual Use Support in Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 85
4-4 Leading Pollutants in Impaired Lakes 87
4-5 Leading Sources of Lake Impairment 88
4-6 Lake Impaired by Excessive Nutrients/Healthy Lake Ecosystem . . 89
5-1 Summary of Use Support in Assessed-Estuaries 104
5-2 Individual Use Support in Estuaries 105
5-3 Leading Pollutants in Impaired Estuaries .107
5-4 Leading Sources of Estuary Impairment 108
5-5 Sources of Bacteria 109
5-6 Summary of Use Support in Assessed Great Lakes
Shoreline Waters 111
5-7 Individual Use Support in the Great Lakes 112
5-8 Leading Pollutants in Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline Waters ... 113
5-9 Leading Sources of Great Lakes Shoreline Impairment 114
5-10 Summary of Use Support in Assessed Ocean Shoreline Waters ..116
5-11 Individual Use Support in Ocean Shoreline Waters 117
5-12 Leading Pollutants in Impaired Ocean Shoreline Waters 118
5-13 Leading Sources of Ocean Shoreline Impairment 119
5-14 U.S. Coral Reef Areas 120
6-1 Depiction of Wetlands Adjacent to Waterbody 137
6-2 Flood Protection Functions in Wetlands 139
6-3 Ground Water Recharge Functions in Wetlands 139
6-4 Streamflow Through Wetlands ' 139
6-5 Streamflow Maintenance Functions in Wetlands 140
6-6 Water Quality Improvement Functions in Wetlands 140
6-7 Shoreline Stabilization Functions in Wetlands 141
6-8 Coastal Wetlands Produce Detritus that Support Fish
and Shellfish 142
IX
-------
Page
6-9 Aquatic and Wetland Species at Risk 143
6-10 Percentage of Wetland Acreage Lost, 1780s-1980s 146
6-11 Sources of Recent Wetland Losses 147
6-12 Causes Degrading Wetland Integrity 149
6-13 Sources Degrading Wetland Integrity 150
7-1 National Ground Water Use 158
7-2 Ground Water Withdrawals by State in 1995 158
7-3 Volume of Ground Water Used for Irrigation in 1995 159
7-4 Ground Water Withdrawals in the United States, 1950-1995 ... 159
7-5 Sources of Ground Water Contamination 161
7-6 Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination 164
7-7 Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks 165
7-8 States Reporting Ground Water Data 172
7-9 Texas Water Quality Inventory 173
7-10 Sources of Ground Water Monitoring Data 179
7-11 Idaho's Hydrogeologic Subareas and Major Aquifer
Flow Systems 185
7-12 Ground Water Areas and Sites Impacted by Nitrate 185
7-13 Location of High-Priority Ambient and Fixed Station
Network (FSN) Ground Water Basins and Monitoring Points .... 186
7-14 Monitoring Points with Upward Trends in Sodium or Chloride ..187
8-1 Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories in the United States . . 194
8-2 Pollutants Causing Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories
in Effect in 1998 195
8-3 Sources Associated with Shellfish Harvesting Restriction 201
8-4 States Submitting Drinking Water Use Support Data in
Their 305(b) Reports 202
8-5 Compliance of Community Drinking Water Systems with
Health Requirements in 1998 210
8-6 Waterborne Outbreaks in the United States by Year and Type ... 211
8-7 EPA's 1998 National Sediment Quality Survey Areas
of Probable Concern 220
9-1 Costs Incurred in Wastewater Treatment Works in
New Hampshire 1972-1997 .241
10-1
States Using SRF Loans for NPS Programs 253
-------
Tables
No. Page
1 -1 Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report 16
6-1 Summary of Threatened and Endangered Species That Are
"Wetland-Associated" 143
7-1 Summary of Contaminant Source Type and Number 170
7-2 Monitoring Results for Nitrates 180
7-3 Monitoring Results for Volatile Organic Compounds 181
7-4 Monitoring Results for Semivolatile Organic Compounds 182
7-5 Monitoring Results for Pesticides 183
7-6 Monitoring Results for Metals 184
8-1 Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions reported by the States 200
8-2 Criteria to Determine Drinking Water Use Support 202
8-3 National Drinking Water Use Support 203
8-4 Sources of Drinking Water Use Impairment .203
8-5 Regulatory Subset List of the CCL .209
9-1 Summary of 1994 Current and Planned Spending under
the Existing CWA 231
9-2 Arizona's Water Pollution Control Costs 238
9-3 Program Costs for Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency's Bureau of Water 239
9-4 Summary of Cost/Benefit Analysis for Lakes Restoration
Projects in Illinois 239
9-5 Summary of Costs Dedicated to Improvement of Water
Quality in Puerto Rico 242
9-6 . Funding Expenditures and Project Costs for Wastewater
Projects in Utah 243
9-7 Federal and State Funding for Improvement of Water Quality
in Wyoming 245
9-8 Benefits Derived from Man-Made Lakes of Greater than
1,000 Acre-Feet in Wyoming 245
XI
-------
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
The River of Words Project
The River of Words project is a
nationwide K-12 poster and poetry
contest that invites young people
to explore their own watershed,
discover its importance in their lives,
and express what they learned, felt,
and saw in words or images.
Poet Laureate Robert Hass'
commitment to environmental
education inspired the International
Rivers Network, a 10-year-old grass-
roots group committed to protect-
ing the integrity of watersheds and
the people that depend on them, to
initiate this effort. Hass believes that
neither poetry nor science alone can
make the next generation better
stewards of the earth. "We need
both things—a living knowledge of
the land and a live imagination of it
and our place in it—if we are going
to preserve it. Good science and a
vital art and, in the long run, wis-
dom."
Each year, eight National Grand
Prize winners (four in poetry and
four in art) and one international
winner are chosen to go to
Washington, DC, with their parents,
where they are honored at an
awards ceremony, luncheon, public
reading, and art show at The Library
of Congress.
Throughout this report you will
see artwork and poetry from the
River of Words contest. Many thanks
to the artists, their teachers, and
International Rivers Network for
sharing these conceptions of water
with us. For more information about
the River of Words project, visit their
web site at http://www.irn.org.
XII
-------
HIGHLIG
"GWT HIGHLIGHT
Fishing on the Ouachita
I burn my lure beneath the surface,
Cordell redf in, real as a rainbow
you like to feast on.
Starving striped bass
cruising for a bleeding shad,
you rise swift as white gulls above me,
deep from your blue hidden kingdom.
I wait for the moment
when I feel your strike
like a flood swallowing a levee.
Your fight breaks the water,
silver courage stronger than this line.
It gives, you take,
becoming my wish for another day.
River of Words 1998 Grand Prize Winner (Poetry, Grades 3-6)
Tyler Sellers, Srade 3, MS
River of Words 1999 Finalist, Stephen Rawl, Age 15,
Trout Temptations, FL
XIII
-------
-------
Executive Summary
-------
-------
The Quality of Our Nation's Water
Background
The National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress is the
twelfth biennial report to Congress
and the public about the quality of
our nation's rivers, streams, lakes,
ponds, reservoirs, wetlands, estuar-
ies, coastal waters, and ground
water. This report is prepared under
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act. Section 305(b) requires states
and other jurisdictions to assess the
health of their waters and the extent
to which water quality supports
state water quality standards and
the basic goals of the Clean Water
Act. This information is submitted to
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) every 2 years and
summarized in the biennial report
to Congress.
States' Section 305(b) assess-
ments are an important component
of their water resource management
programs. These assessments help
states
• Implement their water quality
standards by identifying healthy
waters that need to be maintained
and impaired waters that need to
be restored
• Prepare their Section 303(d) lists
of impaired waters
• Develop restoration strategies
such as total maximum daily loads
and source controls
• Evaluate the effectiveness of activ-
ities undertaken to restore impaired
waters and protect healthy waters.
EPA and the states continue to
work to improve these assessments
through better and more extensive
monitoring. Our goal is comprehen-
sive monitoring of all waters. This is
a challenging task given the
demands placed on limited state
and federal resources. However, this
is a vital goal given the important,
and costly, water resource manage-
ment decisions based on state water
quality monitoring data. This report
reflects incremental progress toward
the goal of comprehensive assess-
ment. It includes information sub-
mitted by all 50 states and the
District of Columbia and 5 territo-
ries, 4 interstate commissions, and
9 Indian tribes.
How Do States and
Other Jurisdictions
Assess Water Quality?
Water quality assessment begins
with water quality standards. States
and other jurisdictions adopt water
quality standards for their waters.
These standards must then be
approved by EPA before they
become effective under the Clean
Water Act.
Water quality standards have
three elements. First are the desig-
nated uses assigned to waters. The
Clean Water Act envisions that all
waters be able to provide for swim-
ming and the protection and propa-
gation of aquatic life. Additional uses
described in the Act and adopted by
states include drinking water and
fish consumption. Second are the
criteria. Criteria help protect desig-
nated uses. For example, criteria
include chemical-specific thresholds
that protect fish and humans from
exposure to levels that may cause
adverse effects. The third element is
called the antidegradation policy.
This policy is intended to prevent
waters from deteriorating from their
current condition.
After setting standards, states
assess their waters to determine the
degree to which these standards are
being met. Currently, states use two
categories of data to assess water
quality. The first and most desirable
category is monitored data. These
data are field measurements that are
not more than 5 years old. They
include field measurements of bio-
logical, habitat, toxicity, and/or •
physical/chemical conditions in
waterbodies, sediments, and fish tis-
sue. The other category frequently
used to fill information gaps is eval-
uated data. Evaluated data include
field measurements that are more
than 5 years old and estimates gen-
erated using land use and source
information, predictive models, and
surveys of fish and. game biologists.
How Many of Our
Waters Were Assessed
for 1998?
This report does not describe
the health of all waters of the United
States because states have not yet
achieved comprehensive assessment
of all their waters. States assessed
almost 25% of the nation's total
river and stream miles; 40% of its
lake, pond, and reservoir acres; and
30% of its estuarine square miles for
this edition of the biennial report.
ES-3
-------
Therefore, this report summarizes
the health of only that portion of
waters that states reported on in
their individual 1998 water quality
inventories.
States reported fairly significant
increases in the amount of rivers
and streams assessed between
1996 and 1998. Assessed river and
stream miles increased by 21 % from
694,000 to over 842,000 miles. This
is considerable when you realize that
only 1.3 million river and stream
miles are perennial waters that flow
year round. The remaining 2.3 mil-
lion miles or so are intermittent or
ephemeral, which means they are
dry for some or most of the year.
EPA and states recognize that,
in spite of the progress made
toward comprehensive assessment,
we still have a long way to go.
Oceans, wetlands, and ground
water quality are poorly represented
in state monitoring programs. EPA's
wetland and ground water protec-
tion programs continue to work
with states to develop assessment
methods and improve monitoring
coverage. EPA is initiating a coastal
monitoring program, Coastal 2000,
that will provide a baseline charac-
terization of coastal waters and data
needed to develop water quality
standards for these waters.
What Is the Status of
Our Assessed Waters?
States focused the majority of
their assessment activities on rivers
and streams; lakes, ponds, and
reservoirs; and estuaries. States
reported that 65% of assessed river
and stream miles, 55% of assessed
lake acres, and 56% of assessed
estuarine square miles fully support
the water quality standards states
evaluated. The remaining assessed
waters are impaired to varying
degrees. The amount of assessed
waters identified as impaired
changed somewhat between 1996
and 1998. However, states indicated
that these differences more likely
reflect changes in monitoring
design, assessment methodology,
and water quality standards than
actual water quality changes.
The states bordering the Great
Lakes report on almost 90% of their
Great Lake shoreline. The assess-
ments indicate that one or more
uses is impaired for about 4,700
shoreline miles. Much of this impair-
ment is due to historic contamina-
tion by persistent pollutants that still
impact fish consumption.
States assessed very small
amounts of ocean and marine
resources, wetlands, and ground
water. This is due in part to a lack
of water quality standards and other
assessment tools for these resources.
EPA and states are working to devel-
op water quality standards and
improve characterization of these
resources.
What Do States Identify
as the Leading Causes
and Sources Affecting
Impaired Waters?
For the subset of assessed
waters identified as impaired, the
report presents the leading pollut-
ants and sources of pollution
reported by states, territories, com-
missions, and tribes. In terms of the
nature of impairment, the bottom
line did not change significantly
from 1996 to 1998. For example,
across all waterbody types, states
and other jurisdictions reported that
• Aquatic life, swimming, and fish
consumption are among the top
impaired uses.
• Siltation, nutrients, bacteria, and
metals are among the top pollutants
causing impairment..
• Pollution from urban and agri-
cultural land that is transported by
precipitation and runoff (called
nonpoint source pollution) is the
leading source of impairment.
It is important to understand
the difficulties in identifying causes
and, in particular, sources of pollu-
tion in impaired waters. For many
waters, states and other jurisdictions
classify the causes and sources as
unknown. EPA and states are work-
ing to develop methodologies for
both determining the causes and
sources of impairment and describ-
ing the level of confidence in the
classification.
How Does Impaired
Water Quality Impact
Public Health and
Aquatic Life?
Water quality standards are
adopted to protect public health
and aquatic life. Specifically, water
quality standards establish condi-
tions designed to ensure that
• Water quality supports a balanced
population of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife
• Water is safe to use for drinking
water, fish consumption, swimming
and recreation, and other beneficial
uses.
ES-4
-------
When waters do not meet water
quality standards, one or more of
these uses are impaired. Depending
on the nature of the impairment,
this may mean that certain public
uses must be restricted. For exam-
ple, fish consumption may be pro-
hibited or restricted, beaches may
be closed to swimming, and drink-
ing water utilities may have to install
more costly treatment devices. Toxic
chemicals, as well as viruses and
bacteria, threaten human health
through the consumption of con-
taminated fish and shellfish or
through contact with contaminated
waters.
Toxic chemicals, bacteria, and
viruses may also impact aquatic life.
In fact, aquatic organisms are more
sensitive than humans are to some
chemicals. In severe cases, exposure
can kill aquatic organisms. Lower
levels of exposure can cause deform-
ities and sores and can reduce the
reproductive success of organisms.
Aquatic life is often impaired by loss
of in-stream habitat for organisms
and by conventional problems such
as low dissolved oxygen, siltation,
and excess nutrients. While extreme-
ly low dissolved oxygen can result in
fish kills, these problems usually
exhibit less dramatic, but more long-
term, impacts on aquatic life. These .
stressors result in alteration or loss of
the biological integrity of aquatic
communities.
What Is Being Done
To Restore and Maintain
Water Quality?
Public polls consistently docu-
ment that Americans value water
quality. In addition to its economic
benefits, clean water provides recre-
ational and aesthetic benefits. As a
result, local, state, and federal agen-
cies; the private sector; and other
organizations are working to
improve water quality. According
to President Clinton's Clean Water
Act Initiative: Analysis of Costs and
Benefits (EPA800-S-94-001, 1994),
these partners spend between $63
billion and $65 billion dollars each
year to improve and protect water
quality.
This study estimated that private
sources spend a combined total of
about $30 billion per year on pollu-
tion prevention and control efforts.
Agriculture spends another $500
million per year on activities that
reduce its impact on water quality
including implementation of best
management practices to control
the effects of nonpoint source
runoff. Municipalities spend a total
of $23 billion per year, primarily on
wastewater treatment plants, drink-
ing water treatment, and storm
water pollution control.
State and federal governments
dedicate almost $500 million and
$10 billion, respectively, to water
resource protection and restoration
efforts each year. These efforts
include developing and revising
water quality standards, monitoring
and assessing water quality, char-
acterizing causes and sources of
impairment, developing total maxi-
mum daily loads and allocating
these loads to point and nonpoint
sources, implementing permitting
programs to address point sources,
and developing and implementing
best management practices to
control nonpoint source pollution.
Significant resources are dedi-
cated to restoring and maintaining
water quality. Water quality monitor-
ing and assessment is a critical tool
to help ensure that these resources
are used effectively to achieve water
quality goals. EPA and state environ-
mental agencies recognize that
water quality monitoring and assess-
ment programs need continued
strengthening to be able to evaluate
the effectiveness of water quality
protection and restoration efforts.
ES-5
-------
-------
Introduction
The National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress is
the primary vehicle for informing
Congress and the public about the
quality of water in our nation's
rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, reser-
voirs, wetlands, estuaries, and
coastal waters. This document char-
acterizes waters by their capacity
to meet water quality standards
established by states, territories,
and tribes. The Clean Water Act
grants states the authority and
responsibility for establishing water
quality standards and sets a nation-
al goal that all waters will, at a min-
imum, achieve the basic goals of
supporting healthy aquatic commu-
nities and allowing swimming and
other recreational activities.
Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act requires states and other
jurisdictions to assess the health
of their waters and the extent to
which their waters support water
quality standards, including the
basic goals of the Clean Water Act.
In addition, Section 305(b) requires
states to identify the contribution
of nonpoint sources to water qual-
ity impairment. It also calls for an
analysis of the social and economic
costs and benefits of achieving the
goals of the Clean Water Act.
Section 305(b) specifies that states
submit reports describing water
quality conditions to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) every 2 years. Section 305(b)
also requires that EPA summarize
the reports submitted by the states
and other jurisdictions and convey
the information to Congress bien-
nially. This report, the twelfth in a
series published since 1975, satisfies
the reporting requirements in
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act.
This report is organized into
two major sections. Part I presents
the national assessment. The infor-
mation reported by the 50 states
and the District of Columbia, 5 ter-
ritories, 4 interstate commissions,
and 9 tribes is compiled for each
type of waterbody and presented in
Chapters 3 through 7 of this report.
These national summaries identify
the portions of waters that were
assessed and, of those assessed, the
portions found to be supporting
the water quality standards and the
portions that are impaired. Each
chapter also describes the most
widespread causes and sources of
water quality problems emerging
from the information reported. The
final chapter in Part I addresses the
costs and benefits of achieving the
goals of the Clean Water Act.
Part II includes two-page fact
sheets that summarize the informa-
tion reported by each jurisdiction.
The first chapter in Part II summa-
rizes recommendations provided by
states on improving water resource
management and the assessment
process. The full report submitted
by a jurisdiction is available from
the point of contact named on its
fact sheet.
This report is a compilation of
information submitted in individual
The Clean Water Act of 1972
. . . it is the national goal
that, wherever attainable,
an interim goal of water
quality which provides for
the protection and propaga-
tion offish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the
water. . .
-------
4 Chapter One Introduction
1998 water quality inventories by
states, territories, interstate commis-
sions, tribes, and the District of
Columbia. The water quality infor-
mation contained in this report
reflects their efforts to assess their
waters against their water quality
standards. It is important to note
that the states, tribes, and other
jurisdictions do not use identical
methods to rate their water quality
nor are their water quality stand-
ards identical.
States exercise flexibility pro-
vided in the Clean Water Act and in
EPA regulations when they establish
water quality standards and assess
attainment of those standards. This
flexibility is important because there
are natural variations among waters
across the United States. Variations
in location determine the type of
fish communities that waters sup-
port. Variations in geology influence
the natural chemistry of the water,
which, in turn, influences the toxic-
ity and bioavailability of pollutants
entering the water from human
activities.
There is a trade-off between
flexibility and consistency. Without
consistent monitoring and assess-
ment methods in place, EPA and
states cannot compare data over
time to identify trends in water
quality. For example, states and
other jurisdictions may modify their
standards or assess different water-
bodies from one reporting period
to the next. Similarly, it is difficult
to compare data from one state to
another because they may use
different indicators to assess attain-
ment of water quality standards
and are quite likely to have different
standards.
For more than 10 years, EPA
has been Working with states to
pursue a balance between flexibility
and consistency in the Section
305(b) assessment process. The
most recent development in this
process was the publication in
September 1997 of the revised
Guidelines for Preparation of Compre-
hensive Water Quality Reports. These
guidelines reflect the recommen-
dations of the National 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup, which is
made up of states, other jurisdic-
tions, and EPA. This 1998 Report to
Congress is the first report since the
new guidelines were published. The
workgroup intends that these
guidelines will be in effect for both
the 1998 and 2000 reporting
cycles. A few key elements of the
revised guidelines are
• Comprehensive assessments
of all waters and all applicable
standards
• Electronic reporting of water
quality assessment data
• Georeferencing assessed waters
so that both healthy and impaired
waters can be located on a map
H Documenting the quality of data
used to support assessments.
EPA and the states recognize
the need to continue to improve
the water quality assessments
reported under Section 305(b).
Increasingly, these assessments are
used to identify and prioritize water
quality problems within states. For
example, Section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act calls for each state
to develop a list of impaired and
threatened waters. These are waters
that do not or are not expected to
meet water quality standards after
implementation of water pollution
-------
Chapter One Introduction 5
controls. The Section 305(b) assess-
ments are the primary tool for iden-
tifying these waters and the pollut-
ants contributing to impairment.
After preparing 303(d) lists,
states develop total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs). A TMDL is the
amount of a pollutant the water-
body can accept and still meet
water quality standards. The differ-
ence between the TMDL and the
current load to the waterbody is
the amount of pollutant that must
be reduced by pollutant sources
(both point source discharges and
nonpoint source runoff).
Unified Watershed Assessments
also rely heavily on the state 305(b)
assessments. In an effort to pro-
mote holistic, watershed-based
problem solving, the Clean Water
Action Plan called for states to work
with local and federal partners and
identify watersheds most in need
of restoration or protection. In addi-
tion to 305(b) assessments and
303(d) lists, states use information
on wildlife and fisheries, forestry,
agriculture, and land use in defin-
ing priorities for watershed restora-
tion.
The Index of Watershed Indi-
cators (IWI) is another tool that uses
the 305(b) assessment results. In
the past, IWI was a discrete tool
used to look at national watershed
health. It is evolving toward a set
of data layers that includes 305(b)
assessment results, the 303(d) lists
of impaired waters, and other
national and local information.
EPA and state water programs
are currently working on sequenc-
ing water quality monitoring to
determine water quality standards
(WQS) attainment/nonattainment
so that it better supports the full
range of water quality management.
activities. The sequence of activities
consists'of
• Characterizing waters for the
305(b) assessment
• Using the subset of waters
identified as not supporting WQS
to develop 303(d) lists
• Identifying source contributions
• Developing TMDLs
• Implementing source controls
• Performing followup monitoring
to evaluate the effectiveness of
source controls and to track trends
in water quality improvements.
Waters of the
United States
Integrated water quality man-
agement begins with a basic under-
standing of how water moves
through the environment, comes
into contact with pollutants, and
transports and deposits pollutants.
The water cycle depicted on page 6
illustrates the general links between
the atmosphere, soil, surface
waters, ground waters, and plants.
The United States has diverse
water resources. The major types of
water resources assessed by states
and covered in this report are
described below.
Rivers and
Streams
Rivers and streams
are characterized by flow. Perennial
rivers and streams flow continuous-
ly, all year round. Intermittent or
ephemeral (nonperennial) rivers
and streams stop flowing for some
-------
6 Chapter One Introduction
HIGHL1GH
HT HIGHLIGHT
The Water Cycle
The water cycle describes how
water moves through the environ-
ment and identifies the links
between ground water, surface
water, and the atmosphere (see
figure). For convenience, discussions
of the water cycle usually begin and
end in the atmosphere. Water in
the atmosphere condenses and falls
onto the earth in the form of rain or
snow. The rain or snow can contain
contaminants from air pollution.
The rain and snow may fall directly
onto surface waters, be intercepted
by plants or structures, or fall onto'
the ground. Intercepted water
evaporates directly back into the
atmosphere or drips onto the
ground.
On the ground, rainfall arid
melting snow percolate deeper into
the ground, saturating the soil and
recharging ground water aquifers.
Trees and other plants take up
water in the upper soil zone
through their roots and return the
water to the atmosphere in a
process called transpiration. Ground
water below the root zone may
migrate many miles and emerge
(or discharge) into a distant surface
water.
When rainfall or melting snow
saturates soils, water runs off the
ground into surface waterbodies
(such as lakes, streams, wetlands,
and coastal waters). Runoff may
dislodge soil particles and pollutants
and carry them into surface water-
bodies. Surface waters may evapo-
rate back into the atmosphere,
percolate into the underlying
ground water, or flow into other
surface waters until reaching the
ocean. From the ocean, water
evaporates back into the atmos-
phere, completing the cycle.
-------
Chapter One Introduction 7
period of time, usually due to dry
conditions or upstream withdraw-
als. Many rivers and streams origi-
nate in nonperennial headwaters
that flow only during snowmelt or
heavy rains. Nonperennial streams
provide critical habitats for nonfish
species, such as amphibians and
dragonflies, as well as safe havens
for juvenile fish escaping predation
by larger fish.
Nonperennial waters pose chal-
lenges to monitoring programs
because their flow is unpredictable.
Some intermittent waters' flow
recurs predictably during particular
times of the year, for example,
following spring snowmelt. Ephem-
eral waters are almost impossible
to monitor because their flow is so
unpredictable. Most states focus
monitoring activities in perennial
waters, although many states
monitor intermittent waters during
periods of predictable flow.
The health of rivers and streams
is directly linked to the integrity of
habitat along the river corridor and
in adjacent wetlands. Stream qual-
ity will deteriorate if activities dam-
age vegetation along river banks
and in nearby wetlands. Trees,
shrubs, and grasses filter pollutants
from runoff and reduce soil erosion.
Removal of vegetation also elimi-
nates shade that moderates stream
temperature. Stream temperature,
in turn, affects the availability of
dissolved oxygen in the water
column for fish and other aquatic
organisms.
Lakes,
Reservoirs,
and Ponds
Lakes, reservoirs, and ponds are
depressions that hold water for
extended periods of time. These
waterbodies may receive water
carrying pollutants from rivers and
streams, melting snow, runoff, or
ground water. Lakes may also
receive pollution directly from the
air.
Pollutants become trapped in
lakes, reservoirs, and ponds because
water exits these waterbodies at a
slow rate. Therefore, they are espe-
cially vulnerable to additional .inputs
of pollutants from human activities.
Even under natural conditions, sedi-
ment, nutrients, and organic mate-
rials accumulate in lakes and ponds
as part of a natural aging process
called eutrophication. Increased
loads of nutrients from human
activities such as wastewater dis-
charges, septic systems, and agri-
cultural runoff can overload lake
systems and accelerate eutrophica-
tion. Algae blooms, depressed
oxygen levels, and aquatic weeds
are symptoms of accelerated eutro-
phication from excessive nutrients.
The Great
Lakes
The Great Lakes—
Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie,
and Ontario—are the largest system
of fresh surface water on earth, by
area. They contain approximately
18% of the world's fresh water
supply. The Great Lakes basin is
currently home to one-tenth of the
population in the United States and
one-quarter of the population of
Canada.
Despite their large size, the
Great Lakes are sensitive to the
effects of a broad range of contami-
nants that enter the Lakes from
polluted air, ground water, surface
water, wastewater discharges,
-------
8 Chapter One Introduction
and overland runoff. Even dilute
quantities of toxic chemicals can
have adverse effects on water quali-
ty because many toxic chemicals
persist in the environment and
concentrate in organisms, including
fish.
Scientists estimate that atmos-
pheric deposition contributes 35%
to 50% of a variety of chemicals
entering the Great Lakes each year.
Atmospheric deposition occurs in
two forms, wet or dry. In wet depo-
sition, precipitation events (such as
rain or snow) remove pollutants
from the atmosphere. Dry deposi-
tion occurs when particles settle out
of the air directly on a lake surface
or within the extensive land basin
draining into a lake. It is difficult to
manage atmospheric sources of
pollutants entering the Great Lakes
because these pollutants may origi-
nate in the Great Lakes basin or
hundreds of miles away.
Estuaries
The fresh water of
rivers mixes with
the salty ocean water in estuaries.
Estuarine waters include bays and
the tidal portions of rivers. Estuaries
serve as nursery areas for many
commercial fish and most shellfish
populations, including shrimp, oys-
ters, crabs, and scallops. Most of
our nation's fish and shellfish indus-
try relies on productive estuarine
waters and their adjacent wetlands
to provide healthy habitat for some
stage of fish and shellfish develop-
ment. Recreational anglers also
enjoy harvesting fish that reproduce
or feed in estuaries, such as striped
bass and flounder.
Pollutants from both local and
distant sources tend to accumulate
in estuaries. Most pollutants that
enter rivers flow toward the coast.
As rivers approach the coast, their
mouths broaden and currents slow.
The low flow and fluctuating tides,
typical of estuarine waters, reduce
flushing and trap nutrients and
pollutants. This natural trapping
process lays the foundation for rich
estuarine ecosystems but also
makes estuaries vulnerable to over-
loading of nutrients and pollutants.
Historic development patterns
have amplified this natural process
in estuaries and along all our coasts.
Historically, industrial development
and population centers have clus-
tered around estuarine bays that
provided access to shipping and
an adjacent waterbody for waste
disposal. Now, many coastal cities
must address historic contaminated
sediments and develop alternative
disposal systems for their outdated
combined sewer systems.
Ocean
Shoreline
Waters
Our ocean shoreline waters
provide critical habitat for various
life stages of commercial fish and
shellfish (such as shrimp), provide
habitat for endangered species
(such as sea turtles), and support
popular recreational activities,
including sport fishing and swim-
ming.
Despite their vast size and
volume, oceans are vulnerable to
impacts from pollutants, especially
in nearshore waters that receive
inputs from adjoining surface
waters, ground water, wastewater
discharges, and nonpoint source
runoff. Beach closures due to
elevated bacterial concentrations
are one of the most visible
-------
Chapter One Introduction 9
symptoms of water quality degra-
dation in ocean shoreline waters
resulting from activities onshore.
Wastes disposed of offshore may
also impact nearshore waters. Oil
spills from tankers or offshore
extraction facilities can generate
persistent adverse impacts on
ocean shoreline waters.
Coral Reefs
Coral reefs are
among the most
productive ecosystems in the
ocean. These living ecosystems are
inhabited by a wide variety of fish,
invertebrate, and plant species.
They also provide important eco-
nomic opportunities, primarily in
terms of fishing and tourism. Coral
reefs are found in three states—
Hawaii, Florida, and Texas—and
five U.S. territories—American
Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana
Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
Recent evidence indicates that
coral reefs are deteriorating world-
wide. To prevent further deteriora-
tion of coral ecosystems, President
Clinton signed Executive Order
13089 on Coral Reef Protection.
This order created the U.S. Coral
Reef Task Force made up of repre-
sentatives from the three states and
five territories with coral resources.
In response, these areas have initiat-
ed or increased efforts to identify
the causes of coral reef degradation
and approaches to prevent further
loss.
Wetlands
In general, wet-
lands are a transi-
tion zone between land and water
where the soil is occasionally or
permanently saturated with water.
Wetlands are populated by plants
that are specially adapted to grow
in standing water or saturated soils.
There are many different types of
wetlands, including marshes, bogs,
fens, swamps, mangroves, prairie
potholes, and bottomland hard-
wood forests. Wetlands may not
always appear to be wet. Many
wetlands dry out for extended peri-
ods of time. Other wetlands may
appear dry on the surface but may
be saturated underneath.
Saltwater wetlands fringe estu-
aries; freshwater wetlands border
rivers, lakes, and the Great Lakes
or occur in isolation. In general,
wetlands improve water quality,
provide critical habitat for a wide
variety of fish and wildlife, provide
storage for flood waters, and stabi-
lize shorelines. Wetlands filter sedi-
ment and nutrients (from both
natural and nonnatural sources) out
of the water before they enter adja-
cent waterbodies and underlying
ground water aquifers. Wetlands
also provide storage for floodwaters
and reduce the velocity of overland
runoff. Reduced velocity translates
into less damage from flood waters.
Wetlands can be physically
destroyed by filling, draining, and
dewatering, or wetlands can be
damaged by the same pollutants
that degrade other waterbodies,
such as toxic chemicals and
oxygen-demanding substances.
Ground
Water
Beneath the land's
surface, water resides in two gen-
eral zones, the saturated zone and
-------
10 Chapter One Introduction
the unsaturated zone (Figure 1-1).
The unsaturated zone lies directly
beneath the land surface, where air
and water fill in the pore spaces
between soil and rock particles.
Water saturates the pore spaces in
the saturated zone beneath the
unsaturated zone in most cases.
The term "ground water" applies
to water in the saturated zone.
This water is an important natural
resource and is used for myriad
purposes, including drinking water,
irrigation, and livestock uses.
Surface water replenishes (or
recharges) ground water by perco-
lating through the unsaturated
zone. Therefore, the unsaturated
zone plays an important role in
ground water hydrology and may
act as a pathway for ground water
contamination.
Ground water can move later-
ally and emerge at discharge sites,
such as springs on hillsides or
seeps in the bottoms of streams,
lakes, wetlands, and oceans.
Therefore, ground water affects
surface water quantity and quality
because polluted ground water can
Figure 1-1
Ground Water
contaminate surface waters.
Conversely, some surface waters,
such as wetlands, contain flood
waters and replenish ground
waters. Loss of wetlands reduces
ground water recharge.
Water Quality
Standards
In 1972, Congress adopted the
Clean Water Act (CWA), which
establishes a framework for achiev-
ing its national objective ". . . to
restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity
of the nation's waters." Congress
decreed that, where attainable,
water quality ". . . provides for the
protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and provides
for recreation in and on the water."
These goals are referred to as the
"fishable and swimmable" goals of
the Act.
The Act required states, tribes,
and other jurisdictions to develop
water quality standards to guide
the restoration and protection of all
waters of the United States. EPA
regulations require that, wherever
attainable, they include, at a mini-
mum, the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Act. States must submit
their standards to EPA for approval.
Once approved, water quality
standards are the benchmark
against which monitoring data are
compared to assess the health of
waters under Section 305(b), to list
impaired waters under Section
303(d), and to develop Total
Maximum Daily Loads in impaired
waters. They are also used to
-------
Chapter One Introduction 11
calculate water-quality-based
discharge limits in permits issued
under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES).
Water quality standards have
three elements: designated uses,
criteria developed to protect each
use, and an antidegradation policy.
• State designated uses are the
beneficial uses that water quality
should support. Where attainable,
all waters should support drinking
water supply, recreation (such as
swimming and surfing), aquatic life,
and fish consumption. Additional
important uses include agriculture,
industry, and navigation. Waste
transport or disposal is not an
acceptable designated use. Each
designated use has a unique set of
water quality criteria that must be
met for the use to be realized.
States, tribes, and other jurisdictions
may designate an individual water-
body for multiple uses.
• State water quality criteria
come in two forms, numeric criteria
and narrative criteria.
Numeric criteria include aquatic
life criteria, human health criteria,
biological criteria, and sediment
quality guidelines. They establish
thresholds for the physical condi-
tions, chemical concentrations,
and biological attributes required
to support a beneficial use.
Narrative criteria define, rather
than quantify, conditions that must
be maintained to support a desig-
nated use. For example, a narrative
criterion might be "Waters must be
free of substances that are toxic to
humans, aquatic life, and wildlife."
Narrative biological criteria address
the expected characteristics of
aquatic communities within a
waterbody. For example, "Ambient
water quality shall be sufficient to
support life stages of all indigenous
aquatic species."
• Antidegradation policies are
intended to protect existing uses
and prevent waterbodies from
deteriorating even if their water
quality is better than the fishable
and swimmable goals of the Act.
Water Quality
Assessment
Section 305(b) of the CWA
requires that states evaluate the
extent to which their state waters
meet water quality standards and
achieve the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Act. This section calls
for states to report the results to
EPA every 2 years. The states,
Water quality standards
consist of
• Designated beneficial uses
• Numeric and narrative
criteria for biological,
chemical, and physical
parameters
• Antidegradation policy
-------
12 Chapter One Introduction
participating tribes, and other juris-
dictions measure attainment of the
CWA goals by determining how
well their waters support their des-
ignated beneficial uses. They deter-
mine designated use support by
comparing water quality data to
the narrative and numeric criteria
developed to ensure use support.
States, tribes, and other jurisdictions
assess waterbodies for support of
the individual uses designated for a
particular waterbody, which gener-
ally include the following individual
uses:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody
provides suitable habitat for protec
tion and propagation of desirable
fish, shellfish, and other aquatic
Drinking Water
Supply
The waterbody
can supply safe drinking water with
conventional treatment.
Fish Consumption
The waterbody
supports fish free
from contamination that could
pose a human health risk to
Shellfish
Harvesting
The waterbody
supports a population of shellfish
free from toxicants and pathogens
that could pose a human health risk
to consumers.
Primary Contact
Recreation -
Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
waterborne diseases from raw
sewage contamination).
Secondary
Contact
Recreation
People can perform activities on the
water (such as boating) without risk
of adverse human health effects
from ingestion or contact with the
The water quality is
suitable for irrigat-
ing fields or watering livestock.
States, tribes, and other juris-
dictions may also define their own
individual uses to address special
concerns. For example, many tribes
and states designate their waters for
the following additional uses:
Ground Water
Recharge
The surface water-
body plays a significant role in
replenishing ground water, and
surface water supply and quality
are adequate to protect existing
or potential uses of ground water.
Wildlife Habitat
Water quality sup-
ports the water-
body's role in providing habitat and
resources for land-based wildlife as
well as aquatic life.
-------
Chapter One Introduction 13
Tribes may designate their
waters for special cultural and
ceremonial uses.
Culture
Water quality sup-
ports the waterbody's role in tribal
culture and preserves the water-
body's religious, ceremonial, or
subsistence significance.
States, tribes, and other juris-
dictions determine the level of use
support by comparing monitoring
data with the narrative and numeric
water quality criteria adopted to ,
ensure support of each use desig-
nated for a particular waterbody. If
monitoring data are not available,
the state, tribe, or other jurisdiction
may determine the level of use
support with qualitative informa-
tion. Valid qualitative information
includes land use data, fish and
game surveys, and predictive model
results.
States identify the type of data,
monitored or evaluated, that they
used to make each use support
determination. Monitored assess-
ments are based on recent moni-
toring data collected during the
past 5 years. These data include
ambient water chemistry, biological
assessments, fish tissue contaminant
levels, and sediment chemistry.
Evaluated assessments are based
on qualitative information or moni-
tored information more than 5
years old.
Summary of Use
Support
For waterbodies with more
than one designated use, the states,
tribes, and other jurisdictions con-
solidate the individual use support
information into a summary use
support determination:
Good/Fully Supporting
All Uses - Based on an
assessment of available
data, water quality sup-
ports all designated uses. Water
quality meets narrative and/or
numeric criteria adopted to protect
and support a designated use.
Good/Threatened for
One or More Uses -
Although all the assessed
uses are currently met,
data show a declining trend in
water quality. Projections based on
this trend indicate water quality will
be impaired in the future, unless
action is taken to prevent further
degradation.
Impaired for One or
More Uses - Based on
an assessment of avail-
able data, water quality
does not support one or more
designated uses.
Use Not Attainable -
The state, tribe, or other
jurisdiction performed a
use-attainability analysis
and demonstrated that one or
more designated uses are not
attainable due to one of six condi-
tions specified in the Code of Federal
-------
14 Chapter One Introduction
Regulations (40 CFR 131.10). These
conditions include
• Naturally high concentrations of
pollutants
• Other natural physical features
that create unsuitable aquatic life
habitat (such as inadequate sub-
strate, riffles, or pools)
• Low flows or water levels
• Dams and other hydrologic
modifications that permanently
alter waterbody characteristics
Figure 1-2
Percentage of Waters Assessed
for the 1998 Report
Rivers and Streams
842,426 miles = 23% assessed
Total miles: 3,662,255 (of which 35% are perennial,
excluding Alaska)
Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs
Estuaries
Ocean Shoreline
Waters
Great Lakes
Shoreline
DJ 17,390,370 acres = 42% assessed
• Total acres: 41,376,729
03 28,687 square miles = 32% assessed
• Total square miles: 90,465
Gl 3,130 miles = 5% assessed
• Total miles: 66,645, including Alaska's 44,000 miles
of shoreline
OS 4,950 miles = 90% assessed
• Total miles: 5,521
• Poor water quality resulting from
human activities that cannot be
reversed without causing further
environmental degradation
• Poor water quality that cannot
be improved without imposing
more stringent controls than those
required in the CWA that would
result in widespread economic and
social impacts.
Waters Assessed for
the 1998 Report
This report does not describe
the health of all waters of the
United States. Chapters 3 through
7 summarize the health of only
the portion of waters that states
reported on in their individual 1998
water quality inventories. Figure 1 -2
compares the amount of waters
assessed for the 1998 report to the
total amount of waters in the
United States.
Most states do not assess all of
their waterbodies during the 2-year
reporting cycle required under
CWA Section 305(b). However,
following the recommendations of
the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup,
many states are employing tech-
niques to enable them to character-
ize all of their waters. The approach
used by most states is a rotating
basin approach. Some states are
using statistically based sample
designs.
Under the rotating basin
approach, states achieve compre-
hensive monitoring of all waters
over a set period of time (typically
5 years). In each year the state
Source: 1998 Section 305(b) reports submitted by the states, tribes, territories,
and commissions.
-------
Chapter One Introduction 15
monitors a portion (typically one-
fifth) of the watersheds within the
state. This approach enables states
to integrate their monitoring activi-
ties with other regulatory activities
such as permit issuance.
A statistically based approach
uses random sampling designed so
that data collected at a relatively
small number of sample locations
can be extrapolated to characterize
all waters of the state. An advan-
tage of this approach is that it
allows states to characterize state-
wide water quality each year. A
random sample design also reduces
the potential for bias in the selec-
tion of sample locations.
Some states' monitoring pro-
grams combine both of these
approaches. They apply a random
sampling design within each water-
shed under a rotating basin moni-
toring schedule. This allows them
to both improve the statistical con-
fidence of sampling results and
integrate their monitoring program
with other regulatory activities.
Because states employ different
monitoring designs and because
they have not achieved compre-
hensive assessment of water quality,
the summary information in this
report is not intended to predict
the health of waters that have not
been assessed. Rather this report
presents a description of the waters
that states have assessed. It identi-
fies which of the assessed waters
appear healthy and which are
impaired. For those waters charac-
terized as impaired, states provided
information on the causes and
sources of impairment.
Pollutants That
Impair Water Quality
and Their Sources
Where possible, states, tribes,
and other jurisdictions identify the
pollutants causing water quality
impairments and the sources of
those pollutants. Causes of impair-
ment are pollutants or stressors that
prevent water quality from meeting
numeric or narrative criteria adopt-
ed by states to protect designated
uses. Causes of impairment include
chemical contaminants (such as
PCBs, dioxins, and metals), physical
parameters (such as temperature),
and biological parameters (such as
aquatic weeds). The leading causes
of impairment reported by the
-------
16 Chapter One Introduction
states, tribes, and other jurisdictions
in 1998 are described in the high-
light beginning on page 18.
Sources of impairment generate
the pollutants that cause water
quality impairment (Table 1-1).
Point sources discharge pollutants
directly into surface waters from a
conveyance. Point sources include
industrial facilities, municipal sew-
age treatment plants, combined
sewer overflows, and storm sewers.
Nonpoint sources deliver pollutants
to surface waters from diffuse
origins. Nonpoint sources include
urban runoff that is not captured in
a storm sewer, agricultural runoff,
leaking septic tanks, and deposition
of contaminants in the atmosphere
due to air pollution. Habitat alter-
ations, such as hydromodification,
dredging, and streambank destabi-
lization, can also degrade water
quality.
In Chapters 3 through 7, EPA
tallies the significance of causes and
sources of pollution by the percent-
age of assessed waters impaired by
each individual cause or source
(obtained from the Section 305(b)
reports submitted by the states,
tribes, and other jurisdictions). It is
important to remember that this
tally reflects the condition of the
subset of waters that were assessed
and identified as impaired. It does
not address the condition of the
waters that were not assessed.
Table 1-1. Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report
Category
Industrial
Municipal
Combined Sewer
Overflows
Storm Sewers/
Urban Runoff
Agricultural
Silvicultural
Construction
Resource
Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydrologic
Modification
Habitat
Modification
Examples
Pulp and paper mills, chemical manufacturers, steel plants, metal process
and product manufacturers, textile manufacturers, food processing plants
Publicly owned sewage treatment plants that may receive indirect
discharges from industrial facilities or businesses
Single facilities that treat both storm water and sanitary sewage, which
may become overloaded during storm events and discharge untreated
wastes into surface waters
Runoff from impervious surfaces including streets, parking lots, buildings,
and other paved areas
Crop production, pastures, rangeland, feedlots, animal operations
Forest management, tree harvesting, logging road construction
Land development, road construction
Mining, petroleum drilling, runoff from mine tailing sites
Leachate or discharge from septic tanks, landfills, and hazardous waste
sites
Channelization, dredging, dam construction, flow regulation
Removal of riparian vegetation, streambank modification, drainage/
filling of wetlands
-------
Chapter One Introduction 17
In the West
In the West, water flows uphill
Leaping across the Tehachapi Mountains
To fill the mouth of the City of Angels.
In the West, the streams serve us ^
Captured and prisoned, in tunnels, in siphons and* aqueducts
Bleeding into our irrigated lands.
In the West, once the rivers'voices
Coaxed the salmon, surging thick against the current
Lured the antelope and bison herds to their banks.
Now there is silence.
In the West, the rivers are the disappeared
Their bones buried in a common grave
We forget their names
And call the land "£>espiatipn" . ;
River of Words 1998 Grand Prize Winner (Poetry, Grades 7-9)
Todd better, <5rade_9, AZ
V
River of Words 1999 Grand Prize Winner (Art, Grades K-2)
Ella Katherine Darham, Raging River, MT
-------
18 Chapter One Introduction
: /^=^. ' ' '
HlGHLIGH|f|-| MJGHT HIGHLIGHT
:
-------
Chapter One Introduction 19
HIGHLIGH
replenishment from the atmosphere
and photosynthesis performed by
algae and aquatic plants. The result
is a net decline in oxygen concen-
trations in the water.
Often, water quality managers
measure the biochemical oxygen
demand (or BOD) of pollution or
natural organic materials in water.
BOD is a measure of how much
oxygen is consumed during the
degradation of organic matter and
the oxidation of some inorganic
matter. Toxic pollutants can indi-
rectly elevate BOD by killing algae,
aquatic weeds, or fish, which
provides an abundance of food for
oxygen-consuming bacteria.
Oxygen depletion can also result
from chemical reactions that do not
involve bacteria. Some pollutants
trigger chemical reactions that place
a chemical oxygen demand on
receiving waters.
Other factors, such as tempera-
ture and salinity, influence the
amount of oxygen dissolved in
water. Prolonged hot weather will
depress oxygen concentrations and
may cause fish kills even in clean
waters because warm water cannot
hold as much oxygen as cold water.
Warm conditions further aggravate
oxygen depletion by stimulating
bacterial activity and respiration in
fish, which consumes oxygen.
Removal of streamside vegetation
eliminates shade, thereby raising
water temperatures, and accelerates
runoff of organic debris. Under such
conditions, minor additions of
pollution-containing organic mate-
rials can severely deplete oxygen.
Nutrients
Nutrients are essential building
blocks for healthy aquatic communi-
ties, but excess nutrients (especially
nitrogen and phosphorus com-
pounds) overstimulate the growth
of aquatic weeds and algae. Exces-
sive growth of these organisms, in
turn, can clog navigable waters,
interfere with swimming and boat-
ing, outcompete native submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV), and, with
excessive decomposition, lead to
oxygen depletion. Oxygen concen-
trations can fluctuate daily during
algae blooms, rising during the day
as algae perform photosynthesis
and falling at night as algae contin-
ue to respire, which consumes
oxygen. Beneficial bacteria also
consume oxygen as they decom-
pose the abundant organic food
supply in dying algae cells.
Lawn and crop fertilizers,
sewage, manure, and detergents
contain nitrogen and phosphorus,
the nutrients most often responsible
for water quality degradation. Rural
areas are vulnerable to ground
water contamination from nitrates
(a compound containing nitrogen)
found in fertilizer and manure.
Very high concentrations of nitrate
GHT HIGHLIGHT
-I
-------
20 Chapter One Introduction
HIGHLIGHMl-j jjjpHT HIGHLIGHT I
; S^
m;
1 ' •'
p.
•
U
;::
::
;::
11
"
!r
r
:
:
::"
1,
:„
'-
(>1 0 mg/L) in drinking water cause
methemoglobinemia, or blue baby
syndrome, an inability to fix oxygen
in the blood.
Nutrients are difficult to control
because lake and estuarine ecosys-
tems recycle nutrients. Rather than
leaving the ecosystem, the nutrients
cycle among the water column,
algae and plant tissues, and the
bottom sediments. For example,
algae may temporarily remove all
the nitrogen from the water col-
umn, but the nutrients will return to
the water column when the algae
die and are decomposed by bacte-
ria. Therefore, gradual inputs of
nutrients tend to accumulate over
time rather than leave the system.
Sedimentation
and Siltation
In a water quality context, sedi-
ment usually refers to soil particles
that enter the water column from
eroding land. Sediment consists of
,3
particles of all sizes, including fine
clay particles, silt, sand, and gravel.
Water quality managers use the
term "siltation" to describe the
suspension and deposition of small
sediment particles in waterbodies.
~
Sedimentation and siltation can
severely alter aquatic communities.
Sedimentation may clog and abrade
fish gills, suffocate eggs and aquatic
insect larvae on the bottom, and fill
in the pore space between bottom
cobbles where fish lay eqqs.
J :D*-J
Suspended silt and sediment inter-
fere with recreational activities and
aesthetic enjoyment at waterbodies
i J
by reducing water clarity and filling
in waterbodies. Sediment may also H
carry other pollutants into water- H
bodies. Nutrients and toxic chemi- H
cals may attach to sediment parti- H
cles on land and ride the particles •
into surface waters where the •
pollutants may settle with the H
sediment or detach and become H
soluble in the water column. H
Rain washes silt and other soil H
particles off of plowed fields, con- •
struction sites, logging sites, urban B
areas, and strip-mined lands into 1
waterbodies. Eroding streambanks 1
also deposit silt and sediment in H
waterbodies. Removal of vegetation •
on shore can accelerate streambank •
erosion. 1
I
Bacteria and Pathogens •
Some waterborne bacteria, 1
viruses, and protozoa cause human 1
illnesses that range from typhoid •
and dysentery to minor respiratory I
and skin diseases. These organisms 1
may enter waters through a number H
of routes, including inadequately •
treated sewage, storm water drains, B
septic systems, runoff from livestock H
pens, and sewage dumped over- H
board from recreational boats. •
Because it is impossible to test 1
waters for every possible disease- •
causing organism, states and other •
jurisdictions usually measure indica- 1
tor bacteria that are found in great •
numbers in the stomachs and H
intestines of warm-blooded animals H
and people. The presence of indica- •
tor bacteria suggests that the water- 1
body may be contaminated with I
untreated sewage and that other, 1
more dangerous, organisms may be 1
-------
Chapter One Introduction 21
HIGHUGHffj-J IjteHT HIGHLIGHT •
-;..- • \iiir !
present. The states, tribes, and other
jurisdictions use bacterial criteria to
determine if waters are safe for
recreation and shellfish harvesting.
Toxic Organic Chemicals
and Metals
Toxic organic chemicals are .
synthetic compounds that contain
carbon, such as PCBs, dioxins, and
DDT. These synthesized compounds
often persist and accumulate in the
environment because they do not
readily break down in natural eco-
systems. Many of these compounds
cause cancer in people and birth
defects in other predators near the
top of the food chain, such as birds
and fish.
Pesticides are chemicals applied
to control or eliminate insect,
fungal, or other organisms that may
seriously reduce the yields of crops
or impact the health of livestock.
When pesticides run off the land
1^
and enter waterbodies, they may
become toxic to aquatic life. Some
™
newer pesticide agents decompose
rapidly after application; however,
many older types are more persis-
tent. These longer-lived agents can
pollute larger areas and many forms
(e.g., DDT or chlordane) can build
up in sediments or bioaccumulate in
1— — ~.~f
food chains, posing potential health
risks to wildlife or humans.
"Total toxics" is a term used
by a number of states to describe
various combinations of toxic pol-
1
lutants identified in waterbodies.
These may include pesticides,
toxic organic chemicals, metals,
un-ionized ammonia, and chlorine.
In some instances, laboratory tests
with plankton, minnows, or other
target species may show the pres-
ence of toxicity, but more work
may be required to identify the
specific toxicants. These impacts
from unknown toxicity may also be
summarized under the concept of
total toxics.
Metals occur naturally in the
environment, but human activities
(such as industrial processes and
mining) have altered the distribu-
tion of metals in the environment.
In most reported cases of metals
contamination, high concentrations
of metals appear in fish tissues
rather than the water column
because the metals accumulate in
greater concentrations in predators
near the top of the food chain.
pH
r
Acidity, the concentration of
hydrogen ions, drives many chemi-
cal reactions in living organisms.
The standard measure of acidity is
pH, and a pH value of 7 represents
a neutral condition. A low pH value
(less than 5) indicates acidic condi-
tions; a high pH (greater than 9)
indicates alkaline conditions. Many
biological processes, such as repro-
duction, cannot function in acidic or
alkaline waters. Acidic conditions
also aggravate toxic contamination
problems because sediments release
toxicants in acidic waters. Common
sources of acidity include mine
drainage, runoff from mine tailings,
and atmospheric deposition.
. * " . " - ^x"p*-T-~
-
~_
_ .«" -* j. ~ _ "- _
- - _ , . „«„ , - ~ ~ ^
„
_ .
^, ""».. V - ~ -, f, — ™_
-
, ,
—
_
-
— -^
, „ , „„
-
^ _-=_ — - _
-
-
-------
22 Chapter One Introduction
I HIGHLlGH|||-4 fpHT HIGHLIGHT 1
I <^
'\
.
Habitat Modification/
Hydrologic Modification
Habitat modifications include
activities in the landscape, on shore,
and in waterbodies that alter the
physical structure of aquatic ecosys-
tems and have adverse impacts on
aquatic life. Examples of habitat
modifications to streams include
• Removal of streamside vegetation
that stabilizes the shoreline and
provides shade, which moderates
in-stream temperatures
• Excavation of cobbles from a
stream bed that provide nesting
habitat for fish
• Burying streams
• Excessive development sprawl
that alters the natural drainage pat-
terns by increasing the intensity,
magnitude, and energy, of runoff
waters.
Hydrologic modifications alter
the flow of water. Examples of
hydrologic modifications include
channelization, dewatering,
damming, and dredging.
Suspended Solids
and Turbidity
Suspended solids are a measure
of the weight of relatively insoluble
materials in the ambient water.
These materials enter the water
column as soil particles from land
surfaces or sand, silt, and clay from
stream bank erosion or channel
scour. Suspended solids can include
both organic (detritus and biosolids) H
and inorganic (sand or finer col- •
loids) constituents. Under low-flow H
conditions, excessively high sus- •
pended solids can become siltation •
problems as the materials settle out 1
and impact the substrate on rivers 1
or fill in reservoirs or the upper ends 1
of estuaries. 1
Turbidity is an optical property •
of very small particles that scatter I
light and reduce clarity in water- 1
bodies. Although algal blooms can H
make waters turbid, turbidity is •
usually related to the smaller inor- •
ganic components of the suspended H
solids burden, primarily the clay •
particles. In addition to creating H
aesthetically undesirable conditions, 1
turbidity helps trap heat. This can H
become a problem in cold water H
trout streams where fish are 1
adapted to a particular range of 1
temperatures. •
Noxious Aquatic Plants I
Noxious aquatic plants refers to 1
species of rapidly growing macro- •
phytes (vascular plants as opposed 1
to algae) that may lead to unwant- •
ed alterations in the ecological bal- H
ances of lakes, rivers, or other water- •
bodies and that can also interfere 1
with human recreational activities. •
In most cases, the nuisance plants I
~ ™ / ~ ^H
are nonnative introductions such as •
the Eurasian milfoil or hydrilla. •
Oil and Grease 1
Oil and grease can be docu- 1
mented quantitatively from •
chemical tests or from qualitative 1
' - ' : •:•'"'. ; • •''. • ' :•' :'-'*'.' . ••' :•",.' "..'-• -.. -• .••••• .-;-• : •":; 1
-------
Chapter One Introduction 23
observations of surface films with
distinctive oily sheens. Oil and
grease problems are usually related
to spills or other releases of petrole-
um products. The most dramatic
cases are associated with accidents
involving oil tankers (e.g., the Exxon
Valdez) or major pipeline breaks.
Minor oil and grease problems can
result from wet weather runoff from
highways or the improper disposal
in storm drains of motor oil. Large
amounts of oil can be toxic to fish
and wildlife, but even persistent
surface films may decrease reaera-
tion rates and cause damage to the
gills or other exposed surface
membranes of fishes.
Salinity and
Mineralization
Salinity and mineralization are
measures of the concentrations of
various salts or other minerals
dissolved in water. In near-coastal
areas, these dissolved materials
will include appreciable levels of
sodium, which is a natural compo-
nent of seawater. In estuaries where
the natural inputs of fresh water
have been reduced from upstream
dams or diversions, evaporation
may increase the salinity levels to
very high levels that can stress fish
or shellfish. For inland areas, the
concerns commonly focus on such
chemicals as dissolved chlorides or
sulfates that can lead to high levels
of mineralization. Areas with under-
lying gypsum deposits will often
show high levels of mineralization as
reflected in tests for total dissolved
solids. Some reservoirs and river sys-
tems in arid regions may experience
increases in mineralization levels
that may make the water hard to
use for drinking water or even irriga-
tion purposes.
HIGHL'lC
GHT HIGHLIGHT
River of Words 1999 Finalist, Lauren D. Beebe, River of Peace, Age 11, CA
-------
24 Chapter One Introduction
HIGHLJGH;
HT HIGHLIGHT
Comprehensive Assessments
EPA and the states established
a goal of comprehensively charac-
terizing all surface and ground
waters of each state using a variety
of techniques targeted to the con-
dition of, and goals for, the waters.
These techniques may include a
combination of targeted monitor-
ing and probability-based designs.
Currently, states report on only
a fraction of their waters (see
Figure 1-2, page 14). In the past,
states focused their monitoring
on waters with known problems.
This puts healthy waters at risk of
deteriorating without anyone
knowing. The goal of comprehen-
sive assessments is to be able to
characterize all waters of the state
in an unbiased manner.
Comprehensive assessment is
an evaluation of resources that
provides complete spatial coverage
of the geographic area or resource
being studied. It provides informa-
tion on the assessment value (con-
dition of the resource), spatial and
temporal trends in resource condi-
tion, causes/stressors and sources
of pollution, and locational infor-
mation.
Different methods are used by
the states to achieve comprehen-
sive monitoring. The two primary
monitoring designs employed to
achieve comprehensive assessment
are probability-based design and
targeted design. These designs are
implemented on a statewide basis
or on selected watersheds under a
rotating basin approach, or both.
Several states discussed the use
of probability-based monitoring.
This involves choosing monitoring
sites using statistical techniques
that allow the state to infer the
results for a specific waterbody
type across an entire river basin,
an entire ecoregion, or the entire
state.
• Maryland used a probability-
based design to assess the biologi-
cal condition of headwater streams
statewide.
• Arizona developed a probability-
based network of ground water
wells in order to make statistically
valid statements about water qual-
ity in each of its aquifers; these
aquifers will be sampled on a rotat-
ing basis until the entire state is
assessed.
• The western states of EPA Regions
8, 9, and 10 are developing a
probability-based sampling design
to characterize water quality of all
perennial rivers and streams of
each state under the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Project
Western Pilot.
Many states are expanding
their targeted monitoring designs
to be more representative of water
quality. Monitoring stations are
-------
Chapter One Introduction 25
representative of a stream water-
body for a distance upstream and
downstream that has no significant
influences that might tend to
change water or habitat quality.
Examples of such influences
include point or nonpoint source
inputs, change in [and use, or a
large tributary or diversion. The
targeted monitoring design is
commonly used in the rotating
basin approach.
About half of the states have
implemented, or are in the process
of implementing, a rotating basin
approach. Under this approach,
states intensively monitor a differ-
ent set of basins each year. Typi-
cally, each basin in the state is
monitored intensively in 1 out
of every 5 years. Thus, the total
amount of water monitored over
the 5-year period approaches
1 00%. South Carolina has
increased the number of sites
monitored over a 5-year period
by more than 50% due to the
state's conversion to a rotating
basin approach.
However, since monitoring
resources in most states are rela-
tively static, EPA is encouraging
states to incorporate probability-
based monitoring into their rotat-
ing basin frameworks. This may be
the most powerful way for a state
to achieve the goal of comprehen-
sive assessments without increasing
their monitoring budget. Several
states are already implementing
"
this concept. Indiana samples
water chemistry, fish and aquatic
macroinvertebrates, and fish tissue
and sediment contaminant levels at
probability-based sites in selected
basins each year. South Carolina
has also implemented a statewide
probability-based network. West
Virginia is testing a probability-
based design within a rotating
basin schedule to provide assess-
ment summaries for all streams
as well as for a subpopulation
of smaller headwater streams. See
the highlight on West Virginia's
progress in achieving comprehen-
sive assessments in Chapter 3.
Data sharing and coordination
is another tool for increasing the
amount of waters assessed. Many
states have successfully used citizen
volunteer monitoring and antici-
pate increased emphasis on volun-
teers in the future. Several other
states are redesigning their state-
wide water quality monitoring pro-
grams, sometimes in cooperation
with the U.S. Geological Survey
and other state and federal agen-
cies. A number of states have
formed monitoring councils. They
provide a forum for local, state,
federal, university, and volunteer
organizations to coordinate moni-
toring activities. EPA encourages
the states to incorporate the goal
of comprehensive assessment of all
waters into such monitoring initia-
tives.
: -"- -'•••-.•'•.-.'" " . . "• '•..'"";• •" . . ' . . :
, *. • •• " '"-• " ' - ,"••'---."-.--•• . • . 4 ' •• . . -
••-' ' .- ••"*"..-,. ''."-' •-•. . ' '• •-,"
HIGHLIGH/nj-l IjJGHT HIGHLIGHT
^V
.
— - - —
,
K -
. ~ S
*
— — — — _ ^ —
^
"-^ **"" "™ -
_ _ _ ^-=_ _„-=-
-
".'"'" . - ' "
" •• - • - . ' '- ...• . ^ _ ;_ . . • -
-------
-------
Parti
Water Quality
Assessments
River of Words 1998 Grand Prize Winner (Art, Grades K-2)
Alex Schneble, The Night, Grade 2, WA
-------
-------
Monitoring and Assessment
Introduction
Water quality monitoring is
essential for an understanding of
the condition of water resources
and to provide a basis for effective
policies that promote wise use and
management of those resources.
One of the goals of the Clean
Water Act is "to restore and main-
tain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation's
waters." Monitoring activities are
aimed at measuring progress
toward achieving this goal.
States and other jurisdictions
use monitoring information
to assess the quality of water
resources. These assessments char-
acterize waters that support water
quality standards, identify impaired
waters, and describe potential
causes and sources of impaired
waters.
In 1997, EPA and the states set
a goal to characterize all surface
and ground waters in the United
States. They developed a strategy
to achieve comprehensive assess-
ments within 5 years. This strategy
embraces a variety of monitoring
approaches to reflect the diversity
among state monitoring programs.
Most states focused on rivers and
streams initially through a rotating
basin approach. Many are expand-
ing their efforts to include other
waterbody types.
Monitoring our nation's waters
is a big job. There are over 3.6
million miles of rivers and streams;
41.4 million acres of lakes, reser-
voirs, and ponds; 90,500 square
miles of estuarine waters; 67,000
miles of coastal shoreline; and
5,500 miles of Great Lakes shore-
line. To reach their goal of compre-
hensive assessments, states are
looking beyond their own
monitoring programs to identify
opportunities to partner with other
organizations collecting water
quality data.
This chapter describes monitor-
ing activities of local, state, federal,
and volunteer organizations and
efforts to share data in order to
expand our knowledge of water
quality in the United States. It also
explains the process by which
states use monitoring results to
assess the quality of water
resources.
Water Quality
Monitoring - Who
Collects the Data
Hundreds of organizations
across .the country conduct some
type of water quality monitoring.
States use much of these data,
although not all of it, when report-
ing on water quality under Section
305(b) of the Clean Water Act. This
section of the Act asks states to
report on whether waters in the
state are impaired or are supporting
water quality standards. This
includes the designated uses
assigned to each waterbody and
Monitoring data are needed
to
• Identify healthy and
threatened waters that
require protection
• Locate impaired waters
for restoration
• Inform the public of
use restrictions and
cautions
-------
30 Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment
the narrative and numeric water
quality criteria adopted to protect
th6 designated uses. States need
specific monitoring data that they
can use to evaluate whether the
criteria are met and the uses
supported.
Organizations conducting
water resource monitoring include
government agencies at all levels—
federal, state, interstate, local, and
tribal. They also include research
organizations such as schools,
universities, and foundations, as
well as industries and volunteer
organizations. Because there is so
much data being collected by so
many organizations, states face an
enormous task of trying to assem-
ble relevant data. Many states form
monitoring councils to help coordi-
nate monitoring efforts across
organizations.
Monitoring Councils
Several states are forming
monitoring councils to better utilize
resources and maximize the quality
and quantity of water resource
monitoring data. A monitoring
council brings together a network
of stakeholders conducting moni-
toring for the purpose of collaborat-
ing, communicating, and exchang-
ing information. A monitoring
council provides a forum identifying
environmental measures and the
sampling and analytical methods
most appropriate for answering
local questions about local waters.
Councils provide an opportunity to
enhance mechanisms for data shar-
ing and to test state-of-the-art tools
such as geographic information
system (GlS)-based mapping
techniques. Many states are using
monitoring councils to develop a
Comprehensive State Monitoring
Strategy.
The National Water Quality
Monitoring Council was formed in
October 1997 following the recom-
mendations of the Intergovern-
mental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality. Members include
industry, academia, municipalities,
agriculture, and volunteer monitor-
ing groups. Current priorities of the
Council include establishing the
basis for rational monitoring pro-
grams, identifying comparable
monitoring methods, expanding
the use of comparable methods
through multi-institutional collabo-
rations, and improving access to
monitoring data. For more informa-
tion, visit the Council on the
Internet at http://water.usgs.gov/
wicp/itfm.html.
State and Tribal
Agencies
Every state and territory collects
data to characterize water quality.
A growing number of tribes also
monitor their water resources.
States and tribes receive pollution
control and environmental manage-
ment grants from EPA that help
them establish and maintain moni-
toring programs. These programs
monitor a variety of water resource
conditions including physical and
chemical parameters, biological
indicators, and habitat.
Often with limited resources,
state and tribal monitoring pro-
grams support a number of objec-
tives. In addition to assessment of
whether waters are safe for drink-
ing, swimming, fishing, and other
beneficial uses, state and tribal
monitoring is an integral part of
-------
Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment 31
water management and regulatory
programs.
States and tribes use monitor-
ing data to review and revise exist-
ing water quality standards and
to develop new standards. Many
states are monitoring biological
conditions in pristine waters to help
develop standards that protect
biological integrity. Recent efforts
by a number of states have been
aimed at developing standards for
estuaries, beaches, and wetlands.
Monitoring data on biological
integrity, physical conditions, and
chemical concentrations are used
to identify threatened and impaired
waters for 303(d) lists. States use
chemical concentrations and
waterbody flow data to develop
pollutant-specific total maximum
daily loads. These are designed to
achieve water quality standards in
impaired waters.
To reduce current loads to the
level specified in the TMDL, states
use monitoring data to allocate the
load reduction goals, called waste-
load allocations for point source
discharges and load allocations for
nonpoint sources. Then states and
tribes use monitoring data to deter-
mine the effectiveness of the source
controls and to measure progress
toward achieving the water quality
standards.
States and tribes also conduct
monitoring in response to citizen
complaints or catastrophic events
such as fish kills, chemical spills,
and red tides.
Local Governments
Across the country, a number
of local government agencies, such
as city and county environmental
offices, conduct water quality
monitoring. Local governments that
operate water and wastewater
treatment plants monitor water
quality. Drinking water facilities
monitor both raw or intake water
and the finished water that is dis-
tributed to customers. Wastewater
treatment plants (called publicly
owned treatment works) monitor
the quality of their wastewater
discharge and sometimes the qual-
ity of water entering the treatment
works. Larger municipalities also
monitor stormwater discharges,
and older municipalities with
combined sanitary and stormwater
sewers also monitor overflow
discharges.
Volunteer Monitoring
Volunteer monitors—private
citizens who volunteer to regularly
collect and analyze water samples,
conduct visual assessments of phys-
ical conditions, and measure the
biological health of waters—are a
rapidly growing contingent provid-
ing increasingly important environ-
mental information. Volunteers are
analyzing water samples for dis-
solved oxygen, nutrients, pH, tem-
perature, and a host of other water
constituents; evaluating the health
of stream habitats and aquatic bio-
logical communities; inventorying
stream-side conditions and land
uses that may affect water quality;
cataloging and collecting beach
debris; and restoring degraded
habitats. Volunteer data are used to
delineate and characterize water-
sheds, screen for water quality
problems, and measure baseline
conditions and trends, among
other things.
-------
32 Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment
For more information on volun-
teer monitoring, including a direc-
tory of organizations, visit the
Internet site http://www.epa.gov/
owow/monitoring.
Research Organizations
and Other Private
Entities
Private groups such as universi-
ties, watershed associations, envi-
ronmental groups, and industries
also conduct water quality monitor-
ing. They may collect water quality
data for their own purposes or to
share with government decision-
makers. Industrial and municipal
dischargers may also conduct moni-
toring as part of their discharge
permits.
This wealth of information from
individual agencies cannot be easily
aggregated to provide an overview
of national water quality conditions
because of inconsistencies in moni-
toring purpose and design as well
as data collection methods and
assessment procedures. In addition,
data are often stored without
accompanying descriptors, so
other data users cannot determine
whether the data are useful for their
own purposes.
Federal Participants
A study undertaken by the
Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality found
that 18 federal agencies conduct
approximately 141 separate moni-
toring programs across the country.
Most water quality monitoring sup-
ports specific programs or activities.
The following five conduct either
regional or national programs for
water quality monitoring.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
• Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) -
EMAP is a research program
designed to develop the tools nec-
essary to monitor and assess the
status and trends of national eco-
logical resources. EMAP's goal is to
develop the scientific understand-
ing for translating environmental
monitoring data from multiple
spatial and temporal scales into
assessments of ecological condition
and forecasts of the future risks to
the sustainability of our natural
resources.
EMAP is embarking on a 5-year
project in the western United States
known as the EMAP Western Pilot
Study. Its primary goals are to
assess the condition of the ecologi-
cal resources of the West and to
advance the science of ecosystem
health monitoring. The study will
generate state and regional scale
assessments of the condition of
ecological resources in the western
United States through monitoring
of coastal waters and rivers and
streams. Using monitoring results
and remote sensing, the study will
identify stressors associated with
the degradation of these resources.
The Western Pilot Study will
assess environmental conditions
in Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington,
and Wyoming. It is a partnership
between EPA's Office of Research
and Development; EPA's Office of
Water; EPA Regions 8, 9, and 10;
the states and tribes in those
regions; and additional federal part-
ners such as the U.S. Geological
Survey and the National Oceanic
-------
Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment 33
and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Responsibilities for moni-
toring and assessment will be
shared by these groups. All moni-
toring data will be housed in
STORET (see the highlight on
STORE! and other information
management tools on page 42).
• National Study of Chemical
Residues in Fish - In 1998, EPA
and NOAA initiated a study to
estimate the national distribution
of the mean levels of selected per-
sistent bioaccumulative toxic chem-
ical residues in fish and shellfish
tissue in U.S. waters. Both the shell-
fish and fish studies will continue
through 2002 and are being coor-
dinated with state and tribal efforts
as part of President Clinton's Clean
Water Action Plan. The shellfish
survey is based on data obtained
by NOAA's ongoing Mussel Watch
Project. The focus of the survey is
on mercury concentrations in
bivalve mollusks.
The National Fish Survey is
using a probability-based monitor-
ing design to sample fish tissue in
lakes and reservoirs. For these
waterbodies, the survey will identify
the chemicals found in the fish and
characterize the levels of contami-
nation in agricultural and nonagri-
cultural areas of the United States.
• Nonpoint Source National
Monitoring Program - EPA devel-
oped the Section 319 National
Monitoring Program to improve
our understanding of nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution and to rigor-
ously evaluate the effectiveness of
NPS pollution control activities.
Under this program, EPA's Regional
Offices nominate projects by
forwarding state proposals to
EPA Headquarters for review and
concurrence. Projects are selected
on a competitive basis from within
each of the EPA Regions. EPA works
with project sponsors to develop
approvable 6- to 10-year projects.
The project sponsors then work
through the state/EPA Section 319
process to obtain approval and
funding. As of September 1997, 20
projects had been approved.
U.S. Geological Survey
• The National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) Program is
designed to describe the status and
trends in the quality of our nation's
water resources and to provide a
sound understanding of the natural
and human factors that affect the
quality of these resources. Investiga-
tions are being conducted in 59
areas called "study units." These
investigations throughout the
nation will provide a framework for
national and regional water quality
assessment. Regional and national
synthesis of information from study
units will consist of comparative
studies of specific water quality
issues using nationally consistent
information.
• Since 1995, the National Stream
Quality Accounting Network
(NASQAN) has focused on monitor-
ing water quality in four of the
nation's largest river systems—the
Mississippi (including the Missouri
and Ohio), the Columbia, the
Colorado, and the Rio Grande.
NASQAN operates a network of
40 stations where the concentration
of a broad range of chemicals—
including pesticides and trace ele-
ments—and stream discharge are
measured. Prior to 1995, NASQAN
monitored water quality at as many
as 500 stations nationwide.
-------
34 Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment
H1GHLIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
I
I'i
Region 7's Monitoring Strategy
In an effort to more compre-
hensively and confidently character-
ize the region's water resources,
EPA Region 7 and the states in that
Region (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and
Nebraska) have embarked on a new
joint monitoring strategy. The strat-
egy seeks to create state monitoring
partnerships. These monitoring part-
nerships are established to capitalize
on scarce monitoring resources and
to coordinate monitoring efforts
among all the partners.
The New Monitoring
Paradigm
The goals of Region 7's new
monitoring strategy include increas-
ing the percentage of waters
assessed in the region, using indi-
cators of biological integrity to
describe aquatic communities,
obtaining statistically comprehensive
coverage of all waterbody types,
and improving confidence in overall
monitoring results. Steps EPA Region
7 has taken to date include
• Forming an EPA water monitor-
ing team - Region 7 provided the
internal organization (program
managers, state coordinators, and
technical monitoring experts) to
help define the problem, develop a
vision of how to solve the problem,
and derive a process to achieve the
solution.
• Working to build partnerships -
Region 7 and the states worked
hard to establish monitoring part-
nerships within each state. The
Region provides support to the part-
nerships through sharing of techni-
cal expertise, providing analytical
services, and through direct funding
of monitoring programs such as
R-EMAP.
• Creating a monitoring and
assessment framework - As shown
in the figure, the State/Regional
Assessment Framework draws on
information from a number of dif-
ferent sources. The goal of the
framework is to create a powerful,
scientifically defensible assessment
of a state's water resources.
• Using R-EMAP to help build the
framework - R-EMAP is a partner-
ship among states, EPA's Environ-
mental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP), EPA's Regional
offices, and other federal agencies.
R-EMAP produces ecological assess-
ments at regional, state, and local
scales.
• Conducting workshops -
Region 7 sponsors workshops for
states on topics varying from moni-
toring design to data analysis tech-
niques to developing biocriteria and
even biological taxonomy.
-------
Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment 35
' HIGHL1CH
CHT HIGHLIGHT
These efforts all focus on improving
long-term baseline monitoring and
building the working relationships
needed to do so.
For More Information
Lyle Cowles, EPA Region 7
(913)551-5042
e-mail: cowles.lyle@epa.gov
Region 7 State/Regional Assessment Framework
Goal: To create a powerful, scientifically valid assessment of each state's water quality
and riparian resources that can also be aggregated to assess all of Region 7.
State/EPA
Field Empirical Data
Water Quality
Biological Integrity
Habitat Quality
Fish Tissue Quality
Sediment Quality _
NRI Data
• Land Use/Cover; Soil Information
• Irrigation Practices
• Pesticide Application Rates
• Conservation Practices (inc. CRP)
• Ground Water Vulnerability
NPDES&319
Data „
(Point &
Nonpoint)
• Discharge Permits
• Nonpoint Source
Control Practices
Nebraska
305(b)
Iowa
305(b)
Water Quality Assessment
(with Environmental Indicators)
305(b)
Kansas
305(b)
Missouri
USGS/NAWQA
and Other Data
• Tribes
• Great Plains Program
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Universities
Remote Sensing
Data
• Land Use/Land Cover
• Greenness
• Riparian Corridor Quality
• Habitat Quality
Partners are organized by common monitoring objectives and data are
collected using a scientifically defensible monitoring network design.
-------
36 Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment
• The USGS is the lead agency in
monitoring atmospheric deposition
in the United States. The National
Atmospheric Deposition Program/
National Trends Network (NADP/
NTN) is designed to determine
variations in atmospheric deposition
that occur on a weekly basis and
to collect wet and dry deposition
products for analysis of elements
and compounds that can contrib-
ute to the chemical composition of
surface waters.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
• The National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) was established to generate
information about the characteris-
tics, extent, and status of the
nation's wetlands and deepwater
habitats. The NWI has mapped
89% of the lower 48 states and
31 % of Alaska. About 39% of the
lower 48 states and 11 % of Alaska
are digitized. Congressional man-
dates require the NWI to produce
status and trends reports to Con-
gress at 10-year intervals. In 1982,
the NWI produced the first compre-
hensive, statistically valid estimate
of the status of the nation's wet-
lands and wetland losses and in
1990 produced the first update.
Future national updates are sched-
uled for 2000, 2010, and 2020.
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
• NOAA monitors the nation's
coastal and estuarihe environments
to assess their condition and
whether their condition is being
affected by human activities. Tradi-
tionally, monitoring involved efforts
to inventory the characteristics of
coastal and estuarine areas, their
resources, and the human pressures
that threaten them. More recently,
the role of monitoring has been
expanded to include an examination
of the complex cause-and-effect
relationships that have developed
through human-induced pressures
on coastal areas, such as the effects
of metals, pesticides, and nutrients
on fish abundance, reproductive
success, and ability to feed.
Tennessee Valley Authority
OVA)
• Water quality and aquatic life
monitoring is conducted by TVA in
the Tennessee River system to iden-
tify pollution problems in specific
watersheds. TVA's program includes
measurement of physical, chemical,
and biological parameters at strate-
gic locations. In 1994, TVA launched
the Clean Water Initiative to make
the Tennessee River system the
cleanest and most productive com-
mercial river system in the United
States. TVA's approach is receiving
widespread acclaim and helping
shape national water policy.,
Type of Data
Collected
State water quality assessments
are normally based on five broad
types of monitoring data, in keeping
with the goals of the CWA: biologi-
cal integrity, chemical, physical,
habitat, and toxicity. Each type of
data provides useful information
about the quality of water resources.
Together these data help managers
identify and address water quality
problems.
-------
Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment 37
Biological Integrity Data
Biological integrity data repre-
sent an objective measurement of
aquatic biological communities,
including aquatic insects, fish, or
algae. These data are used to eval-
uate the condition of an aquatic
ecosystem with respect to the
presence of human perturbation.
Most states use biological
integrity data to interpret narrative
criteria or qualitative descriptions in
their water quality standards of
aquatic life use support goals. A few
states have adopted numeric
biological criteria into their water
quality standards.
Over the past few years, EPA
has distributed guidance on devel-
oping numeric biological criteria for
rivers and streams and, in 1999, for
lakes. This guidance supplements
previous guidance on conducting
biological assessments. It describes
the process of combining individual
measures or metrics of biological
health into a single value or index.
The metrics fall within four cate-
gories of characteristics of biological
health:
• Species composition
• Species richness
• Community structure and
function
• Individual organism health.
Eight to twelve of the metrics
are selected for inclusion in the
index. They are selected based on
their ability to predict associations
between environmental quality and
biological integrity.
Numeric biological criteria are
developed using least impaired or
pristine waters as the reference
condition. The metrics are meas-
ured and the index calculated for
the reference condition. The result-
ing numeric biological criteria
define the threshold of biological
integrity that is desired for all
waters in the same designated use
category. Numeric biological criteria
are adopted as part of the state's
water quality standards.
When a state with numeric
biological criteria conducts a bio-
logical assessment of a waterbody,
it collects data on each of the
metrics, calculates the index score,
and compares the score to the
criterion.,The index score provides
an overall measure of biological
integrity. States also examine the
individual metrics because each one
provides information on biological
health and can be an early sign of
change.
Chemical Data
All state water quality standards
include numeric criteria for chemi-
cal pollutants. These pollutants
include metals such as lead and
mercury, organic chemicals such as
pesticides and PCBs, nutrients such _
as nitrogen and phosphorous, and
bacteria such as Escherichia coli.
Numeric criteria exist for over 150
pollutants.
The criteria establish thresholds
for pollutant concentrations in
ambient waters and protect specific
uses. For example, there are criteria
that protect aquatic organisms from
acute and chronic effects of expo-
sure to specific chemicals. Another
set of criteria establish thresholds
for human health. These criteria
protect humans from exposure
Biological integrity is the
condition of a waterbody
displayed as "a balanced,
integrated, adaptive commu-
Jiity of organisms haying a
^species composition, diversity
and functional organization
^comparable to that of the
>: natural habitat of the
region." - :
rKafr, |;R,, and D. R. Dudley. 1981J
Ecological perspective on water
quality goals. Environ. Manage.
'''•' ' "
-------
38 Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment
through drinking, swimming, and
consuming fish and shellfish.
States compare ambient moni-
toring data to chemical criteria
when assessing whether water qual-
ity supports water quality stand-
ards. Monitoring for specific chemi-
cals in waterbodies helps states
identify the specific pollutants caus-
ing impairment. It also helps states
trace the source of impairment.
Physical Attribute Data
Physical data include character-
istics such as temperature, flow,
dissolved oxygen, suspended solids,
turbidity, conductivity, and pH.
Most states have adopted numeric
criteria in their water quality stand-
ards defining acceptable levels or
ranges for specific physical attri-
butes.
Physical attributes are useful
screening indicators of potential
problems. Many of them work
together with che_mical pollutants
to mediate or exaggerate the toxic
effects of chemicals. For example,
metals become more bioavailable in
low pH or acidic waters. This makes
metals more likely to harm fish.
Habitat Data
The purpose of habitat moni-
toring is to provide information
about the ability of a waterbody to
support various forms of aquatic
life. Habitat assessment typically
supplements other types of water
quality monitoring. The quality and
quantity of available habitat affect
the structure and function of
biological communities.
Habitat assessments generally
include a description of the site and
surrounding land use, description
of the waterbody origin and type,
summary of the riparian vegetation
along the shoreline and the aquatic
vegetation, and measurement of
parameters such as width, depth,
flow, and substrate. The combina-
tion of habitat assessments, biologi-
cal assessments, and chemical and
physical data provides insight into
the presence of chemical and non-
chemical stressors to the aquatic
ecosystem.
Toxicity Data
Toxicity testing is used to deter-
mine whether aquatic life beneficial
use is being attained. Toxicity data
are generated by exposing selected
organisms such as fathead min-
nows, daphnia, or algae to known
dilutions of wastewater discharge
or ambient water samples. These
tests are called bioassays. They are
conducted to document the pres-
ence of a toxicity effect at either an
acute or chronic concentration.
Acute effects will lead to exces-
sive mortality rates over the span
of a few hours to a few days. Such
severe levels of toxicity can often be
easily compared to chemical analy-
ses for metals or organic toxins to
confirm which pollutants are of
concern.
Chronic toxicity involves expos-
ing the most sensitive life stages of
an organism. These tests assess
effects of longer-term exposure.
Chronic bioassay tests are especially
helpful to document cases where
one or more pollutants are present
at fairly low concentrations.
When performed using a sam-
ple from a discharge, bioassays are
called Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)
tests and are often included as a
routine monitoring requirement in
-------
Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment 39
many industrial or municipal point
source discharges. Bioassays can
be useful for ambient waters where
nonpoint source factors are sus-
pected. Bioassays geared to ambi-
ent stream conditions can help to
determine whether poor biological
integrity is related to toxins, poor
habitat, or a combination of the
two.
Data and Information
Management
A number of data and informa-
tion management systems handle
the enormous amount of water
quality data generated by EPA
and the states. Many of the data
systems can be accessed via the
Internet. Several data management
systems are described below.
• STORET - The STORET (STOrage
and RETrieval) database is a reposi-
tory for water quality and biological
monitoring data and is used by
state environmental agencies, EPA
staff, federal agencies, and many
others. The original STORET began
operating in the 1960s. A modern-
ized, more user-friendly version
replaced it in 1998. This modern
system runs on personal computers
and includes a feature for data shar-
ing. EPA encourages users to trans-
mit their data over the Internet to
the STORET warehouse. This key
feature helps environmental man-
agers gather and analyze all rele-
vant and available data when
evaluating the condition of water
resources. Data can be downloaded
from the Internet at http://www.
epa.gov/storet For more informa-
tion on STORET, see the highlight
on New Information Management
Tools (page 42).
• Ecological Data Application
System - The Ecological Data
Application System (EDAS) is
designed to facilitate data analysis,
particularly the calculation of bio-
logical metrics and indices. It is
intended to take biological data
from STORET and help states
perform assessments. EDAS is a
custom-designed relational data-
base application for use with
Microsoft Access 97.
• Assessment Database - The
Assessment Database (ADB) is a
data management tool being used
by states to record surface water
quality assessment results and gen-
erate reports for use in preparing
305(b) reports. The ADB is a
complete replacement for the EPA
Waterbody System (WBS). The ADB
was designed based on requests
and feedback from WBS users. Like
its predecessor, the ADB contains
information that program mana-
gers can access quickly on the
water quality status of a particular
waterbody. Data elements include
waterbody identification, location,
designated use support status,
, causes of impairment, and sources
of impairment. For .more informa-
tion on the Assessment Database,
see the highlight on New Informa-
tion Management Tools (page 42).
In the future the ADB will be linked
to STORET.
• Permit Compliance System -
Information on water discharge
permits is contained in the Permit
Compliance System (PCS), a
national computerized manage-
ment information system. This sys-
tem automates the entry, update,
and retrieval of National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) data and tracks permit
-------
40 Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment
issuance, permit limits and monitor-
ing data, and other data pertaining
to facilities regulated under NPDES.
PCS records water discharge permit
data on more than 75,000 facilities
nationwide. For more information,
visit the PCS web site at http://
www. epa.gov/envirofw/html/pcs/pcs_
overview.html.
m Safe Drinking Water Informa-
tion System - The Safe Drinking
Water Information System (SDWIS)
is used by EPA to store basic infor-
mation about the nation's drinking
water supply. SDWIS/FED is the
national version of the database,
used by EPA to. track violations of
drinking water requirements.
SDWIS/STATE is an optional version
states can use to store three major
categories of information: inven-
tory, sampling, and monitoring.
Inventory data include information
on individual water systems such
as the system location, size, and
population served. Sampling data
include laboratory results for
chemical, microbiological, and
radiological contaminants regulated
by EPA and the state. Monitoring
information contains the schedule
for sampling required under each
EPA rule. Additional information on
SDWIS/FED is available on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/
safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm.
• National Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Advisories - The Office of
Science and Technology developed
a database for states to report fish
advisory information and fish tissue
contaminant data that support
advisory determinations. The
National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Advisories (NLFWA) contains fish
and wildlife advisory information
reported nationwide by states,
including the waterbody affected,
type of species, type of pollutants,
type of advisory, geographic extent
of the advisory, and name of a state
contact person. In addition, the
database contains information on
contaminants in fish tissue. The
database is available on the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/ost/fish.
• The Toxics Release Inventory -
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
stores data about toxic chemicals
used, manufactured, treated,
transported, or released into the
environment. The Emergency
Planning and Community Right-
To-Know Act and the Pollution
Prevention Act established report-
ing requirements for manufacturing
and other facilities that meet certain
conditions about the volume of
toxic materials they use or manu-
facture. Additional information on
the TRI is available on the Internet
at http:/www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri/.
Using Data To
Describe Water
Quality
Currently, to assess the quality
of their waters, states and tribes
compare monitoring results to
water quality standards. As
described in Chapter 1, water
quality standards consist of desig-
nated uses and specific criteria
designed to protect each use.
Data collected by state, local,
tribal, and federal agencies and
public, academic, and private part-
ners are needed to build the assess-
ments used to make better water
resource management decisions.
-------
Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment 41
Without data, we simply cannot
know where water quality problems
exist, where we need to focus our
efforts, or where progress has been
made.
Assessments performed as part
of the 305(b) process provide
important information for making
decisions about water resources.
For example, assessments can be
used to identify threatened and
impaired waters for 303(d) listings
and development of total maxi-
mum daily loads, establish point
source discharge limits, determine
restoration priorities for Unified
Watershed Assessments, develop
nonpoint source management
measures, and protect drinking
water sources.
EPA works closely with its local,
state, and federal partners to
improve the quality and increase
the amount of the data used to
support water quality assessments.
EPA recognizes the most effective
way to achieve these goals is to
look for opportunities to integrate
the monitoring efforts of its diverse
partners. One such opportunity
promoted by EPA is an integrated
assessment and reporting process.
EPA envisions that the same
monitoring data and decision crite-
ria used to assess water quality for
state 305(b) water quality invento-
ries may also support the identifica-
tion of impaired waters for state
303(d) lists. This information,
together with geographic mapping
tools, land use information, and
data on terrestrial ecosystem qual-
ity, forms the basis for states iden-
tifying priority watersheds and
developing watershed restoration
strategies (which are part of the
Unified Watershed Assessments
under the Clean Water Action Plan).
As these data layers become
available, they will be put on the
Internet as part of the Index of
Watershed Indicators. The IWI is
continuing to evolve to include
more detailed georeferenced data.
The data used to generate the
maps will be accessible through the
Internet from a number of sources
(e.g., STORET). These data display
tools will allow the public greater
access to water information locally,
and they will provide better, more
useful access for Congress to evalu-
ate water information on local,
regional, and national scales.
Ultimately, we will be able to
observe trends in water quality
both nationally and at the water-
shed level. This will provide
Congress and citizens with the
information needed to assess EPA's
progress toward its goals under the
Government Performance for
Results Act.
River of Words 1999 Finalist, Amanda Morris, Unfitted, Age 7, VA
-------
42 Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment
HIGHL1GH
I
HT HIGHLIGHT
New Information
Management Tools
EPA is offering several new
information management tools to
help states take advantage of new
data technologies. These tools help
states obtain and integrate data for
analysis of water quality trends. The
Assessment Database, STORET,
Index of Watershed Indicators,
Reach Indexing Tool, and the
Watershed Information Network
are all examples of new tools made
available to states by EPA to help
them obtain and manage data.
The Assessment
Database
The Assessment Database
(ADB) is a relational database appli-
cation for tracking water quality
assessment data. All states assess
-?!"lii"t! I'''•'';'•','l.i".l!
305(b) Assessment Database for Alaska
This Database contains 70 waterbodies with 82 segments.
Enter Data I
Browse Data I
Create Report I
Maintain ADB I
Cmxttcd U Djubm DA305b_?8M998 Rep«U\AJ«U\aJ(_adb\adbak*O,60.iIidb
(tfei. 0.7.1)
their individual waterbodies for
degree of designated use support
(e.g., "fully supporting aquatic life;
not supporting primary contact
recreation"). If a waterbody's uses
are impaired, the stressors and
sources of impairment are also
determined (e.g., "causes/stressors
are nutrients and sediment; sources
are urban runoff and row crop agri-
culture"). States need to track this
information and many other types
of assessment data for thousands of
waterbodies and integrate it into
meaningful reports. The ADB is
designed to make this process
accurate, straightforward, and user-
friendly for participating states,
territories, tribes, and basin com-
missions.
The ADB supports three princi-
pal functions:
• Improve the quality and consist-
ency of water quality reporting
• Reduce the burden of preparing
reports under Sections 305(b),
303(d), 314, and 319 of the Clean
Water Act
• Improve water quality data
analysis.
The ADB provides user-friendly
data entry forms and automates the
production of reports that states
-------
Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment 43
. HIGHUGHfpUHfcHT HIGHLIGHT
' ' vJL * I/]"
submit to EPA through the 305(b)
process.
For More Information
Tod Dabolt, EPA
(202) 260-3697
e-mail: Dabolt.Thomas@epamail.
epa.gov
STORET (data STOrage
and RETrieval system)
EPA maintains two data man-
agement systems containing water
quality information for the nation's
waters: the Legacy Data Center
(LDC) and the data STOrage and
RETrieval system (STORET). The
LDC contains historical water qual-
ity data dating back to the early
part of the 20th century and
collected up to the end of 1 998.
STORET contains data collected
beginning in 1 999 and older data
that have been properly docu-
mented and migrated from the
LDC.
Both systems contain raw
biological, chemical, and physical
data on surface and ground water
collected by federal, state, and local
agencies; tribes; volunteer groups;
academics; and others. All 50
states, the District of Columbia,
territories, and jurisdictions of the
United States, along with portions
of Canada and Mexico, are repre-
sented in these systems.
Each sampling result in the LDC
and in STORET is accompanied by
information on where the sample
was taken (latitude, longitude,
state, county, Hydrologic Unit
Code, and a brief site identifica-
tion); when the sample was
gathered; the medium sampled
(e.g., water, sediment, fish tissue);
and the name of the organization
that sponsored the monitoring. In
addition, STORET contains infor-
mation on why the data were
gathered; sampling and analytical
methods used; the laboratory used
to analyze the samples; the quality
control checks used when sam-
pling, handling the samples, and
analyzing the data; and the person-
nel responsible for the data.
For More Information
http://www. epa.gov/owow/
STORET/
Index of Watershed
Indicators
The EPA Office of Water and its
many public and private partners
developed the Index of Watershed
Indicators (IWI) to present the
health of the nation's aquatic
resources. IWI is designed to collect,
?*
•,~=— ^- - — ~. •'• - ~ -~
. -,„,. _ _ —
^?y5f i *
-------
44 Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
organize and evaluate multiple
sources of environmental informa-
tion on a watershed basis. The indi-
vidual indicators presented in the
' IWI are developed to provide infor-
mation on the health of watersheds
in an easy to understand format.
The goals of IWI are to
• Depict the current condition
of the watershed and indicate its
vulnerability to future degradation
• Educate and empower citizens
through easy access to both sum-
mary information and the underly-
ing details
• Provide a set of tools for water
resource managers at all watershed
scales
• Help measure progress toward
watershed goals.
Percent of Assessed Rivers
Meeting All Designated Uses
1994-1998 using latest state
information reported
I 1 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
< 20% Meeting All Uses
Insufficient Assessment Coverage
Index of Watershed
Indicators
Alaska
-------
Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment 45
.HIGH LICK
IWI contains tools and
resources that allow users to find
and manipulate data on a water-
shed. For example, Locate Your
Watershed allows users to find their
watershed using the county name
or place name or by picking it off a
map. A variety of options provide
ways to find drinking water sources
for a particular watershed or
county. Enviromapper for Water-
sheds provides interactive geo-
graphic information system (CIS)
functionality using environmental
spatial data. The Map Library serves
as an atlas of watershed data layers.
It provides links to on-line collec-
tions of maps for viewing..
Some of the data layers include
• 305(b) water quality assessment
results (see figure)
• 303(d) impaired waters
• Unified Watershed Assessment
rankings
• Waters supporting drinking water
use
• Contaminated sediments
• Ambient water quality data
• Urban runoff potential
• Agricultural runoff potential.
For More Information
http://www. epa.gov/surf/iwi
Reach Indexing Tool
The Reach Indexing Tool (RIT)
is a software tool designed to assist
users in the process of linking water
quality information to the EPA
Reach File 3 (RF3). RF3 is a hydro-
graphic database that displays
waters at a scale of 1 to 100,000.
During the reach indexing process,
waterbody identifiers from a state's
database become linked or geo-
referenced to the appropriate RF3
stream segments. This allows the
information contained in the data-
base to be mapped.
In an ongoing effort to supply
readily available information to the
public, EPA is mapping information
to improve its usefulness. For exam-
ple, states recently submitted
revised 303(d) lists of impaired
waters. EPA worked with the states
to generate maps showing the loca-
tion of these waters. A national
map of the 303(d) listed waters is
available as an IWI data layer.
Individual state maps can also be
accessed on the IWI web page
using Locate Your Watershed at
http://www. epa.gov/surf/locate.
For More Information
Tod Dabolt, EPA
(202) 260-3697
e-mail: DabolLThomas
@epamail.epa.gov
GHT HIGHLIGHT
-------
46 Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Watershed Information
Network
The Internet-based Watershed
Information Network (WIN) is a
roadmap of consolidated watershed
information and services to help
communities protect and restore
water quality. A tremendous
amount of water quality informa-
tion is now easier to find and
understand, and new information
and features are continually being
added to WIN.
WIN can help citizens answer
questions such as what is my water-
shed address, what is the health of
my watershed, what data maps and
assistance are availa'ble for my
watershed, and how can I get
involved in protecting and restoring
water quality. Decision makers can
use it in watershed protection and
restoration activities.
For More Information
http://www.epa.gov/win/
River of Words 1999 Finalist, Katie Hill, A Watershed for Everyone, Age 17, NC
-------
Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment 47
Nutrients and Pesticides:
NAWQA Program Highlights
National Research
Background
In 1991, Congress authorized
the National Water Quality Assess-
ment (NAWQA) Program. The
purpose of the program is to under-
stand, at a national scale, spatial
water quality patterns, water quality
trends over time, and how human
activities and natural factors affect
water quality. The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) designed this pro-
gram to focus on more than 50
river basin and aquifer systems
across the United States as "study
units" using a consistent, standard-
ized, scientifically based approach.
Research examines how water qual-
ity patterns are related to factors
such as chemical use, land use,
climate, geology, topography, and
soils.
Study Design
One of the challenges and goals
of the study was to identify where
nutrients and pesticides commonly
occur in rivers and ground water
and why some land use and envi-
ronmental settings are more vulner-
able to contamination than others,
particularly during certain times of
the year. To do this, water quality
was monitored seasonally as well as
during high-flow events over several
years at carefully chosen sites in
agricultural, urban, and undevel-
oped (mostly forested) settings.
Selected Findings
• Relative levels of nutrients and
pesticides contamination are
closely linked to land use and
to the amounts and types of
chemicals used in each setting.
Some of the highest concentrations
of nitrogen and herbicides were
detected in samples collected from
streams and shallow ground water
in agricultural areas. Some of the
highest concentrations of phospho-
rus and insecticides were detected
in samples collected from urban
streams (see Table 1).
• Streams and ground water in
basins with significant agricultural
or urban development, or with a
mix of these land uses, almost
always contain complex mixtures
of nutrients and pesticides. Con-
centrations of nitrogen and phos-
phorus commonly exceed levels
that can contribute to excessive
plant growth in streams. The most
prevalent nitrate contamination was
HIGHLIGHiri-l I llGHT HIGHLIGHT
Results compiled from the first
20 NAWQA study units are
available in the report The
Quality of Our Nation's Waters:
Nutrients and Pesticides, USGS
Circular 1225, or on the Internet
at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/
drc/drd 225/.
-------
48 Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Figure 1. NAWQA Study Units
detected in shallow ground water
(less than 100 feet below land sur-
face) beneath agricultural and urban
areas. Human health risks increase
in those aquifers located in geologic
settings, such as in sand, gravel, or
karst (weathered
carbonate rock),
that enable rapid
movement of
water.
At least one
pesticide was
found in more
than 90% of
water and fish
samples collect-
ed from streams
and in about half
of samples from
Virgin Islands
shallow wells
sampled in agricultural and urban
areas. Concentrations of individual
pesticides in samples from wells and
as annual averages in streams were
almost always lower than current
EPA drinking water standards and
Table 1. Relative Level of Contamination
Streams
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Herbicides
Currently
Used
Insecticides
Historically
Used
Insecticides
Urban
Areas
Medium
Medium-High
Medium
Medium-High
Medium-High
Agricultural
Areas
Medium-High
Medium-High
Low-High
Low-Medium
Low-High
Undeveloped
Areas
Low
Low
No Data
No Data
Low
Shallow Ground Water
Urban
Areas
Medium
Low
Medium
Low-Medium
Low-High
Agricultural
Areas
High
Low
Medium-High
Low-Medium
Low-High
guidelines. However, aquatic life
may be more at risk than human
health in agricultural areas.
• Land and chemical use are
important but not sole predictors
of water qualify. Concentrations
of nutrients and pesticides vary
considerably from season to season,
as well as among watersheds with
differing vulnerability to contamina-
tion. The patterns reflect many
factors, including soil type, slope,
streamside vegetation, the frequency
and magnitude of runoff from rain-
storms or snowmelt, and irrigation
and drainage practices. Concentra-
tions of nutrients and pesticides are
highest during rainstorms and
snowmelt following chemical appli-
cations.
• Long-term trends are some-
times difficult to distinguish from
short-term fluctuations, mainly
because water quality is constantly
changing from season to season
and from year to year. For many
chemicals, it is too early to tell
whether conditions are getting bet-
ter or worse because historical data
are insufficient or too inconsistent to
measure trends. Despite these chal-
lenges, some trends are evident
from monitoring of nutrients and
pesticides. These trends show that
changes in water quality over time
frequently are controlled by factors
similar to those that affect geo-
graphic variability, including natural
features, chemical use, and manage-
ment practices.
-------
Chapter Two Monitoring and Assessment 49
Water Sheds Under Your Feet
The water under my feet moving fast to the street
flowing fast to the Anacostia, with all the trash,
_sheds and puddles all in bubbles through the sewer
into the river, fast, fast, all the trash flowing right past
with all that I see and all that I saw I knew cleaning
the river would be a bore, we got together as a
::feam and started to clean, I looked around and
thought it was a dream t never thought the river would
get this clean, fast to the street water sheds under your feet
'• •'• -.'.:•. River of Words 1998 Anacostia Watershed Winner
- ',;, ,."'- Ann Shackelfor,d, Srade 8
River of Words Finalist
Thomas Bradley, Age 13, Beavis, OK
-------
-------
Rivers and Streams
All 50 states, 2 interstate river
commissions, Puerto Rico, the
District of Columbia (collectively
referred to as states in the rest of
this chapter), and 9 American
Indian tribes rated river water qual-
ity in their 1998 Section 305(b)
reports (see Appendix A, Table A-1,
for individual state and tribal infor-
mation). These states and tribes
assessed conditions in 842,426
miles of rivers and streams or 23%
of the total miles of all rivers and
streams in the country (Figure
3-1). Most of the assessed rivers
and streams are perennial
waterbodies that flow all year.
Some assessments included
nonperennial streams that flow
only during wet periods.
Altogether, the states and tribes
assessed 148,519 more river and
stream miles in 1998 than 1996.
This is a 21 % increase over the
693,905 miles assessed in 1996.
The states of Alaska, Idaho, and
Oregon, which did not provide
assessment information in 1996,
collectively reported on more than
66,000 river and stream miles in
States and Tribes
ASSESSED
23%
of their total river and
stream miles3'6 for the
1998 report
States and Tribes ASSESSED
842,426 Miles of Rivers and Streams 1
for the 1998 Report
Total River and Stream Miles:
3,662,255
(1.3 million are perennial, excluding Alaska)
This figure compares the total miles of rivers and streams (combination of peren-
nial and intermittent) with the subset that were assessed by states for the 1998
water quality report.
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-1.
River and Stream Miles
Assessed by States and Tribes
1998 a 842,426 miles = 23% assessed
• Total miles: 3,662,255a'e
1994
77% not assessed
1996 a 693,905 miles = 19% assessed
• Total miles: 3,634,152b
615,806 miles = 17% assessed
Total miles: 3,548,738C
1992 m 642,881 miles = 18% assessed
• Total miles: 3,551,247d
aSource: 1998 state and tribal section 305(b)
reports.
bSource: 1996 state and tribal section 305(b)
reports.
cSource: 1994 state and tribal section 305(b)
reports.
dSource: 1992 state and tribal section 305(b)
reports. ,
e The total number of river and stream miles
reported by the states increased between
1996 and 1998 due primarily to Pennsyl-
vania's switch to atlas values based on a
higher resolution hydrography database.
-------
52 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
1998. Other states reported signifi-
cant increases in assessed river and
stream miles because of changes in
their monitoring program or assess-
ment process.
For example, Delaware more
than doubled the number of
assessed river and stream miles in
the state, representing an increase
of more than 1,600 miles, due to
more comprehensive coverage of
the state's waters using the rotating
basin approach.
The states and tribes used
recent monitoring data to assess
43% of their assessed river and
stream miles (see Appendix A, Table
A-2, for individual state and tribal
information). Evaluated assess-
ments, based on qualitative infor-
mation or monitoring information
more than 5 years old, were used
for 45% of the assessed river and
stream miles. States did not specify
whether the remaining 12% of
assessed river and stream miles
were monitored or evaluated.
Compared to the 1996 reporting
cycle, states are using monitoring
data for a smaller percentage of
their assessments. In 1996, states
used monitoring data in 51% of
their river and stream assessments.
The summary information
presented in this chapter applies
strictly to the portion of the nation's
rivers assessed by the states and
tribes. EPA cannot make generaliza-
tions about the health of all of our
nation's rivers based on data
extracted from the 305(b) reports.
The primary reason the assess-
ment results cannot be used to
characterize nationwide water qual-
ity is that states have not achieved
comprehensive assessment of all
rivers and streams. Another factor
is the monitoring design used
to collect data. Very few states or
tribes use a statistical design to
randomly select water sampling
sites that represent a cross section
of water quality conditions in their
jurisdictions. Instead, many states
and tribes direct their limited moni-
toring resources toward waters with
suspected problems.
However, more than half of the
states are working to achieve com-
prehensive assessments. See the
highlight on page 24 for a descrip-
tion of some of the approaches
used. One approach, called rotating
basins, involves intensive monitor-
ing in different selected basins each
year. Another approach, called
probability-based monitoring,
involves statistical design that pro-
vides statewide characterization.
Some states, such as West Virginia,
use both approaches. See the high-
light on page 54 for a description
of West Virginia's approach for
achieving comprehensive assess-
ments.
National data from other
federal agencies, such as those
described in Chapter 2, and private
organizations will also clarify nation-
al water quality trends. In fact, the
U.S. Geological Survey recently
published a report comparing nutri-
ent and pesticide levels in natural,
agricultural, and urban streams in
20 study units across the country.
See the highlight on page 66 for a
brief description of these findings.
Water Quality
Assessment
States and tribes rate water
quality by comparing, data to
standards. Water quality standards
include narrative and numeric
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 53
criteria that support specific desig-
nated uses. Standards also specify
goals to prevent degradation of
good quality waters.
States and tribes use their
numeric and narrative criteria to
evaluate whether the designated
uses assigned to the waterbodies
are supported. Designated uses
reflect the goals of the Clean Water
Act. They aim to protect human
health and the biological integrity
of aquatic ecosystems. The most
common designated uses are
• Aquatic life support
• Drinking water supply
• Recreation such as swimming,
fishing, and boating
• Fish consumption.
After comparing water quality
data to standards, states and tribes
classify the waters into the follow-
ing categories:
• Good/Fully Supporting: Good
water quality supports a diverse,
community of fish, plants, and
aquatic insects, as well as the array
of human activities assigned to a
river by the state. These waters
meet applicable water quality
standards, both criteria and desig-
nated use.
• Good/Threatened: Good water
quality currently supports aquatic
life and human activities in and on
the river. These waters are currently
meeting water quality standards,
but states and tribes are concerned
they may degrade in the near
future. These concerns are based
on a trend of increasing pollution
or land use changes that may
threaten future water quality.
• Fair/Partially Supporting: Fair
water quality supports aquatic
communities with fewer species of
fish, plants, .and aquatic insects
and/or pollution occasionally inter-
feres with human activities. These
waters are meeting water quality
standards most of the time, but
exhibit occasional exceedances.
For example, occasional siltation
problems may reduce the popula-
tion of some aquatic species in a
river although other species are not
affected.
• Poor/Not Supporting: Poor
water quality does not support a
healthy aquatic community and/or
prevents some human activities on
the river. These waters are not
meeting water quality standards.
For example, persistent PCB con-
tamination in river sediments (origi-
nating from discontinued industrial
discharges) may contaminate fish
and make the fish inedible for years.
• Not Attainable: The state has
performed a use-attainability analy-
sis and demonstrated that support
of one or more designated benefi-
cial uses is not attainable due to
specific biological, chemical, physi-
cal, or economic/social conditions
(see Chapter 1 for additional infor-
mation).
Summary of Use
Support
Most states and tribes rate how
well a river supports individual uses
(such as swimming and aquatic life)
and then consolidate individual use
ratings into a summary table. This
-------
54 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
HIGHLIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
State Progress Toward
Comprehensive Assessments:
West Virginia Example
For the 1998 305(b) cycle,
states began developing plans to
achieve more comprehensive
assessments of their waters. The
EPA Guidelines made several rec-
ommendations on promising tech-
niques. States were encouraged to
Upper Ohio!
Upper Ohio2
M
F I
Dunkard Creek
Potomac
. Youghiogheny Drains
Lower
Ohio
Big
Sandy
Twelvepole
Creek
Middle
» ^PP .I,HI M,,U i,.-., ,,!'''¥;« itf^r^p™,/ '^Cheat^ • •"'"' M^ ^f
, M" •** Little V-^. , aPfe, ; „ 5.S^- - ^l' - «G "-' ' '"••'*
at - *•*••» • •» * •*" " J5i w' '" "afi.!1 ' <-&&?**ir~ 'S^i.5 »*y
T.ftS'1 '<,-: Kapawha i—s£ Tygart*?" i**5-'"^?•,,"/
^Ifi:;: '?§•;;„:;' *: :'''•"' "-'"'/llSi'Syall^y .?"""•"* a9 /'¥ Shenandoah2
,>::/ \
Elk
Shenandoahl
"*—^L
^—"— _ " Upper
fTug Fork. v New>
• James
Figure 1. West Virginia's Major Watershed Management Basins .
build on these suggestions and to
pursue other promising strategies.
Some key concepts are to
• Fit monitoring and survey work
within rotating basin assessment
and management plans
• Seek partnerships among other
natural resources agencies and
support from locally based volun-
teer monitoring groups
• Leverage resources among differ-
ent programs through state Perfor-
mance Partnership Agreements
(PPAs)
• Organize site-specific survey
work to support development of
environmental indicators for differ-
ent spatial scales ranging from
small watersheds to an entire state
• Consider innovative new tech-
niques such as probability-based
surveys.
The experiences of West
Virginia illustrate how states are
working to implement sound
approaches for more comprehen-
sive assessments.
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 55
.rHIGHLIGH,
West Virginia's
Watershed
Management
Framework
The foundation of West
Virginia's assessment program is
their Watershed Management
Framework (WMF), which includes
a rotating basin monitoring
approach. The major steps in the
West Virginia rotating basin system
depend on reliable assessment
information to define watershed
management objectives within each
of their major basins. As manage-
ment plans are developed and
implemented, an iterative process
then applies new assessments to
document progress and to make
any needed mid-course adjust-
ments. To ensure involvement from
all major stakeholders, an Inter-
agency Watershed Steering Com-
mittee (IWMSC) was created com-
posed of representatives from 12
state and federal agencies. A Citi-
zens Stream Monitoring initiative
seeks grass-roots involvement from
volunteer persons in local water-
shed groups. This program was
assisted through a "Save Our
Streams" grant from EPA and
technical support through the Izaak
Walton League. In addition to valu-
able assessment inputs, the West
Virginia Citizen Stream Monitoring
activities help ensure public partici-
pation in all phases of the rotating
basin management system.
GHT HIGHLIGHT
Upper Ohiol
Upper Ohio2
Dunkard Creek
Potomac
Youghiogheny Drains
Middle
Ohio2
Lower
Ohio £.
Big
Sandy
Twelvepole
Creek
Little
^ Kanawha Tygart
Valley
James
Figure 2. Shaded Basins Were Surveyed and Included
in West Virginia's 1998 305(b) Report
-------
56 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
The first results from West
Virginia's new rotating basins
approach are reflected in their 1998
305(b) report. For the Cheat River,
the Shenandoah River, the South
Scoping & Screening
1. Conduct initial public outreach to identify problems and issues.
2. Compile existing data. Conduct screening monitoring and analysis.
Pub8eOuuwch> I 3. Prepare hydrologic region status reports.
—i/ I
4. Determine priority watersheds and issues.
I
Strategic Monitoring and Assessment
S. Develop strategic monitoring plans for priority watersheds.
6. Implement strategic monitoring.
7. Conduct water quality assessment.
Management Strategy Development
8. Develop and assess integrated management strategies, including TMDLs.
Priority Watershed Management Plan
9. Develop and finalize management plans (who does what, when, where and how)
Implementation
pubfaOuUtxV> I 1 o. Implement point and nonpoint source management strategies.
Figure 3. Steps in West Virginia's Rotating Basins
Watershed Management Cycle
Branch of the Potomac River, the
Upper Kanawah River, the Upper
(North) Ohio River, and the
Youghiogheny River, major new
sampling efforts were undertaken
applying rigorous quality assurance
and bioassessment techniques to
document the status of aquatic life
support.
Probability-Based
Monitoring in West
Virginia
To improve the reliability of
their assessments, West Virginia is
also incorporating probability-based
sampling techniques into their
rotating basin surveys. A major
attraction is the potential to docu-
ment more precisely the extent
and severity of acid mine drainage
problems. These concerns can
impact both larger rivers and
smaller tributary streams but are
most commonly encountered in
upland areas on small headwater
streams. West Virginia is working
with EPA's Office of Research and
Development to prototype a strati-
fied random sampling approach
aimed at providing a baseline for
all streams but also for a special
subpopulation of the smaller head-
water streams. This is a particularly
appropriate application of random-
ized surveys since it is not feasible
to expect sampling for each of the
thousands of headwater streams in
the state. Within a few years, West
Virginia will be able to compare the
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 57
H1CHLICH
findings from its traditional nonran-
domized site surveys with the new
random surveys to develop statisti-
cally reliable estimates of conditions
on both watershed and statewide
spatial scales.
Conclusion
West Virginia is implementing
key components needed to achieve
comprehensive assessments of its
water resources through
H Increased interagency coopera-
tion
• Constructive involvement of
grassroots watershed organizations
and other stakeholders
• Application of new monitoring
approaches
• A more flexible application of
conventional assessment techniques
through their rotating basin system.
Potential Sample Sites
Figure 4. West Virginia Stream Samples - Rotating Basins
CHT HIGHLIGHT
-------
58 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
Assessed Waters
Total rivers and streams = 3,662,255 miles3
Total assessed = 842,426 miles
• 23% assessed
• 77% not assessed
Of the assessed miles:
• 43% were monitored
• 45% were evaluated
• 12% were not specified
Summary of Assessed Water Quality
35% Impaired for
one or more
uses
65% Good
aSource: 1998 state and tribal Section 305(b)
reports. ,
Figure 3-2
table divides assessed rivers into
those miles that are
• Good - Fully supporting all of
their uses or fully supporting all
uses but threatened for one or
more uses
• Impaired - Partially or not
supporting one or more uses
• Not attainable - Not able to
support one or more uses.
Forty-seven states, eight tribes,
two interstate commissions, Puerto
Rico, and the District of Columbia
reported summary use support
status for rivers and streams in their
1998 Section 305(b) reports (see
Appendix A, Table A-2, for individ-
ual state and tribal information).
Another three states and four tribes
Summary of Use Support
in Assessed Rivers and Streams
jGood
65%~
Tnfeatened
for One or More Uses
^Impaired
for One or More Uses
Not
Attainable
<0.02%
Tills figure presents the status of the assessed miles of rivers and streams.
Of the more than 800,000 miles of rivers and streams assessed, 65% fully
support tiieir designated uses and 35% are impaired for one or more uses. Ten
percent of the assessed waters are fully supporting uses but threatened.
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-2.
reported individual use support
status but did not report summary
use support status. In such cases,
EPA used either aquatic life or
swimming use support status to
represent summary water quality
conditions in the state's or tribe's
rivers and streams.
In addition, the Susquehanna
River Basin Commission provided
use support information that was
not included in the totals presented
here because the waters in their
jurisdiction overlap with waters in
New York, Pennsylvania, and
Maryland.
It is important to note that nine
states did not include the effects of
statewide fish consumption advis-
ories for mercury when calculating
their summary use support status in
rivers and streams. Connecticut,
Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, North
Carolina, and Vermont excluded
the impairment associated with
statewide mercury advisories in
order to convey information that
would have been otherwise masked
by the fish consumption advisories.
Because Ohio's summary of use
support was based only on aquatic
life use support data, it does not
include the effect of the state's
statewide mercury advisory either. If
these advisories had been included,
all of the states' rivers and streams
would have received an impaired
rating. (See the discussion of
mercury in Chapter 4.)
New York also excluded the
effect of a statewide PCB/chlor-
dane/mirex/DDT fish consumption
advisory for rivers and streams in its
summary data.
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 59
Altogether, states and tribes
reported that 65% of 840,402*
assessed river and stream miles fully
support all of their uses. Of the
assessed waters, 55% fully support
designated uses and 10% fully sup-
port all uses but are threatened for
one or more uses. These threatened
waters may need special attention
and additional monitoring to pre-
vent further deterioration (Figure
3-2). Some form of pollution or
habitat degradation impairs the
remaining 35% of the assessed river
and stream miles.
Individual Use
Support
Individual use support assess-
ment provides important detail
about the nature of water quality
problems in our nation's surface
waters. The states establish specific
designated uses for waterbodies
through their water quality stand-
ards. The states consolidate their
more detailed uses into six general
use categories so that EPA can
present a summary of the state
and tribal data.
• Aquatic life support - Is water
quality good enough to support a
healthy, balanced community of
aquatic organisms, including fish,
plants, insects, and algae?
• Fish consumption - Can people
safely eat fish caught in the river or
stream?
• Primary contact recreation
(swimming) - Can people make
full body contact with the water
without risk to their health?
• Secondary contact recreation -
Is there a risk to public health from
recreational activities on the water,
such as boating, that expose the
public to minimal contact with the
water?
• Drinking water supply - Can the
river or stream provide a safe water
supply with standard treatment?
• Agricultural uses - Can the
water be used for irrigating fields
and watering livestock?
Only four states did not report
individual use support status of
their rivers and streams (see Appen-
dix A, Table A-3, for individual
state and tribal information). The
reporting states and tribes assessed
the status of aquatic life and swim-
ming uses most frequently (see
Figure 3-3) and identified more
impacts on aquatic life and swim- •
ming uses than on the other indi-
vidual uses. These states and tribes
reported that fair or poor water
quality impacts aquatic life in
216,881 stream miles (30% of
This value does not equal the 842,426 assessed miles because every state did not
account for all assessed river and stream miles in the Summary of Use Support.
-------
60 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
Individual Use Support in Rivers and Streams
Percent
Good Good Fair Poor Not
Designated Miles (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Use Assessed Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
<1
Tills figure presents a tally of the miles of rivers and streams assessed by states for
each category of designated use. For each category, the figure presents a summary
of the proportion of the assessed waters rated according to quality.
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-3.
the 706,291 miles assessed for
aquatic life support). Fair or poor
water quality conditions also impair
swimming activities in 101,210
miles (24% of the 435,807 miles
assessed for swimming use
support).
Many states and tribes did not
rate fish consumption use support
because they have not included fish
consumption as a use in their
standards. EPA encourages the
states to designate fish consump-
tion as a use in their waterbodies
to ensure this use is protected and
to promote consistency in future
reporting. Most states report infor-
mation on fish consumption advi-
sories to EPA (see Chapter 8). Fish
consumption advisories identify the
species or size of fish that should
not be eaten or limit the quantities
of fish that should be eaten.
Water Quality
Problems Identified
in Rivers and Streams
When states and tribes rate
waters as impaired, they also
attempt to identify the causes and
sources of impairment. Figures 3-4
and 3-5 identify the pollutants and
sources of pollutants that impair the
most river and stream miles.
The following sections describe
the leading pollutants and sources
of impairment in rivers as identified
by the states and summarized by
EPA. It is important to note that the
information about pollutants and
sources is incomplete because the
states do not identify the pollutant
or source of pollutants responsible
for every impaired river segment.
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 61
Figure 3-4
Leading POLLUTANTS in Impaired
Rivers and Streams
Total Rivers and Streams
3,662,255 miles
ASSESSED Rivers and Streams
840,402* miles
548,985
miles
35%
IMPAIRED
291,263
miles
Leading Pollutants/Stressors
Miles
Siltation
Pathogens (Bacteria).
Nutrients •
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Metals
Pesticides
Habitat Alterations
Thermal Modifications
Percent of IMPAIRED River Miles
10 20 30 40 50
5 10 15
Percent of ASSESSED River Miles
20
States assessed 23% of the total miles of rivers and streams for the 1998 report.
The larger pie chart on the left illustrates this proportion. The smaller pie chart
on the right shows that, for the subset of assessed waters, 65% are rated as good
and 35% as impaired. When states identify waters that are impaired, they
describe the pollutants or processes causing or contributing to the impairment.
The bar chart presents the leading causes and the number of river and stream
miles impacted. The percent scales on the upper and lower x-axis of the bar chart
provide different perspectives on the magnitude of the impact of these pollutants.
The lower axis compares the miles impacted by the pollutant to the total
ASSESSED miles. The upper axis compares the miles impacted by the pollutant
to the total IMPAIRED miles.
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-4.
"Includes miles assessed as not attainable.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a river segment.
The pollutants/processes
<( and[sourcesshown here
"rnay not correspond direct-
- ly to one another (i.e., the
•£ Jejodjng^ pollutant may not
; originate from the leading
source). This may occur
1 because a major pollutant
i'may/be^eleased from
-t^many minor sources. It
also happens when states
idonothavetheinfor-
: motion to determine all
the sources of-a particular
- pollutant/stressor.
SILTATION is the most
common pollutant affecting
assessed rivers and streams.
Siltation
• Is found in 13% of the
assessed rivers and
streams (see Figure 3-4).
• Contributes to 38% of
reported water quality
problems in impaired
rivers and streams.
-------
62 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
Figure 3-5
AGRICULTURE is the leading |
source of pollution in assessed
rivers and streams. According
to the states, agricultural
pollution problems
• Affect 20% of the assessed
rivers and streams
• Contribute to 59% of
reported water quality
problems in impaired
rivers and streams
(see Figure 3-5).
Leading SOURCES of River
and Stream Impairment^
Total Rivers and Streams
3,662,255 miles
ASSESSED Rivers and Streams
840,402* miles
35%
IMPAIRED
291,263
miles
Leading Sources
Miles
Agriculture
Hydromodification,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Point Sources
Resource Extraction
Forestry
Land Disposal
Habitat Modification
Percent of IMPAIRED River Miles
10 20 30 40 50 60
70
170,750
57,763
32,310
29,087
25,231
20,020
19,928
18,451
5 10 15 20
Percent of ASSESSED River Miles
25
States assessed 23% of the total miles of rivers and streams for the 1998 report.
The larger pie chart on the left illustrates this proportion. The smaller pie chart
on the right shows that, for the subset of assessed waters, 65% are rated as good
and 35% as impaired. When states identify waters that are impaired, they also
describe the sources of pollutants associated with the impairment. The bar chart
presents the leading sources and the number of river and stream miles they
impact. The percent scales on the upper and lower x-axis of the bar chart provide
different perspectives on the magnitude of the impact of these sources. The lower
axis compares the miles impacted by the source to the total ASSESSED miles. The
upper axis compares the miles impacted by the source to the total IMPAIRED
miles.
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-5.
^Excluding unknown and natural sources.
*Includes miles assessed as not attainable.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a river segment.
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 63
In some cases, a state may rec-
ognize that water quality does not
fully support a designated use, but
the state may not have adequate
data to document that a specific
pollutant or stressor is responsible
for the impairment. Sources of
impairment are even more difficult
to identify than pollutants and
stressors.
Pollutants and Stressors
Impacting Rivers and
Streams
A total of 60 tribes and states
reported the number of river and
stream miles impacted by individual
pollutants and stressors, such as
invasive species (see Appendix A,
Table A-4, for individual state and
tribal information).
The states and tribes report
that siltation, composed of tiny soil
particles, remains one of the most
widespread pollutants impacting
assessed rivers and streams. Silta-
tion impaired 111,228 river and
stream miles (13% of the assessed
river and stream miles and 38%
of the impaired river and stream
miles). Siltation alters aquatic habi-
tat and suffocates fish eggs and
bottom-dwelling organisms (see
Figure 3-6). Aquatic insects live in
the spaces between cobbles, and
their habitat is destroyed when silt
fills in these spaces. The loss of
aquatic insects adversely impacts
fish and other wildlife that eat these
insects. Excessive siltation can also
interfere with drinking water treat-
ment processes and recreational use
of a river. Sources of siltation
include agriculture, urban runoff,
construction, and forestry.
The states and tribes report
that bacteria (pathogens) pollute
103,616 river and stream miles
(12% of the assessed river and
stream miles and 36% of the
impaired river and stream miles).
Bacteria provide evidence of possi-
ble fecal contamination that may
cause illness if the public ingests the
water. States use bacterial indicators
to determine if rivers are safe for
swimming and drinking. Bacteria
commonly enter surface waters in
inadequately treated sewage, fecal
material from wildlife, and runoff
from pastures, feedlots, and urban
areas.
Nutrient pollution was also
reported as a significant cause of
Figure 3-6
The Effects of Siltation in Rivers and Streams
Sediment
abrades gills
Sediment suffocates fish
eggs and bottom-dwelling
organisms.
Sediment blocks sunlight
and reduces growth of
beneficial aquatic grasses.
Sediment reduces available
habitat where fish lay eggs
and other aquatic organisms
dwell.
Siltation is one of the leading pollution problems in the nation's rivers and
streams. Over the long term, unchecked siltation can alter habitat with pro-
found adverse effects on aquatic life. In the short term, silt can kill fish directly,
destroy spawning beds, and increase water turbidity resulting in depressed
photosynthetic rates.
-------
64 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
Identifying Sources
Is a Challenge
It is relatively easy to collect a
water sample and identify pol-
lutants causing impairments,
such as fecal colifonn bacteria
indicating pathogen contami-
nation. However, detecting and
ranking sources of pollutants
can require monitoring pollut-
ant movement from numerous
potential sources, such as fail-
ing septic systems, agricultural
fields, urban runoff, municipal
se\vage treatment plants, and
local waterfowl populations.
Often, states are not able to
determine the particular source
responsible for impairment. In
tliese cases, many states report
the source of impairment as
"unknown." In tiie 1998
305(b) reports, states reported
unknown sources impairing
30,499 river and stream miles
(4% of the assessed river and
stream miles).
water quality impairment in the
1998 305(b) reports, with states
and tribes reporting impacts to
84,071 river and stream miles (10%
of the assessed river and stream
miles and 29% of the impaired river
and stream miles). While nutrient
pollution has been an ongoing
problem in the nation's lakes and
ponds (see Chapter 4), it is getting
increased attention because of its
effects on rivers and streams, partic-
ularly those that flow to sensitive
estuarine and coastal waters (see
Chapter 5). Excessive levels of
nitrogen and phosphorus may
accelerate growth of algae and
underwater plants, depleting the
water column of dissolved oxygen
necessary to maintain populations
of fish and desirable plant species.
Nutrients may enter rivers and
streams from municipal and indus-
trial wastewater treatment dis-
charges and runoff from agricultural
lands, forestry operations, and
urban areas.
In addition to siltation, bacteria,
and nutrients, the states and tribes
also reported that oxygen-depleting
substances, metals, pesticides,
habitat alterations, and thermal
modifications impact more miles
of rivers and streams than other
pollutants and stressors. Often,
several pollutants and stressors
impact a single river segment. For
example, the removal of shoreline
vegetation may accelerate erosion
of sediment and nutrients into a
stream. In such cases, the states
and tribes count a single mile of
river under each pollutant and
stressor category that impacts the
river mile. Therefore, the river and
stream miles impaired by each pol-
lutant or stressor do not add up to
100% in Figure 3-4.
This presentation ranks pollut-
ants and stressors by the geographic
extent of their impacts (i.e., the
number of miles impaired by each
pollutant or stressor). However, less
abundant pollutants or stressors
may have more severe impacts on
short stream segments. For exam-
ple, a toxic chemical spill can elimi-
nate aquatic life in a short stream
segment while widely distributed
bacteria do not affect aquatic life
but occasionally indicate a potential
human health hazard from swim-
ming. The individual state and tribal
305(b) reports provide more
detailed information about the
severity of pollution in specific
locations.
Sources of Pollutants
Impacting Rivers
and Streams
A total of 59 tribes and states
reported sources of pollution related
to human activities that impact
some of their rivers and streams (see
Appendix A, Table A-5, for individ-
ual state and tribal information).
These states and tribes reported that
agriculture is the most widespread
source of pollution in the nation's
assessed rivers. After agriculture, the
states and tribes reported that
hydromodification, urban runoff
and storm sewers, and municipal
discharges are the most common
sources of impairment to rivers and
streams.
• Agriculture - Agriculture is listed
as a source of pollution for 170,750
river and stream miles, or about
20% of assessed river and stream
miles (Figure 3-5). While this num-
ber is significant, it must be viewed
in light of the magnitude of the
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 65
agricultural sector in the United
States. According to the 1997
Census of Agriculture, 41 % of the
continental United States, about
900 million acres, is used for agri-
cultural production. Cropland
accounts for about 46% of the
agricultural land. Pasture and range
land make up another 43%.
Of the 53 states and tribes that
reported impairment from agricul-
ture, 28 reported the number of
river and stream miles impacted by
specific types of agricultural activi-
ties:
• Nonirrigated Crop Production
- crop production that relies on
rain as the sole source of water.
• Irrigated Crop Production -
crop production that uses
irrigation systems to supplement
rainwater.
• Range Grazing - land grazed
by animals that is seldom
enhanced by the application of
fertilizers or pesticides, although
land managers sometimes
modify plant species to a limited
extent.
• Pasture Grazing - land upon
which a crop (such as alfalfa) is
raised to feed animals, either by
grazing the animals among the
crops or harvesting the crops.
Pasture land is actively managed
to encourage selected plant
species to grow, and fertilizers or
pesticides may be applied more
often on pastureland than range-
land.
• Animal Feeding Operations -
either Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations (permitted
point source) or Animal Feeding
Operations (nonpoint source).
- Concentrated Animal Feed-
ing Operations (permitted
point source) - facilities in
which animals are confined,
fed, and maintained for some
period of time throughout
the year where discharges
are regulated through the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System.
- Animal Feeding Operations
(nonpoint source) - facilities
in which animals are confined,
fed, and maintained for some
period of time throughout the
year that are considered non-
point sources according to the
Clean Water Act.
The 28 states and tribes that
reported the number of river and
stream miles impacted by specific
types of agricultural activities iden-
tified the most miles impaired by
nonirrigated crop production.
These states and tribes report that
nonirrigated crop production
degrades 46,484 miles (27% of the
170,750 miles impaired by agricul-
ture). Following nonirrigated crop
production, the states and tribes
report that irrigated crop produc-
tion degrades 31,156 miles (18% of
the 170,750 miles impaired by agri-
culture). The states and tribes also
report that animal feeding opera-
tions pollute 27,751 miles (16% of
the 1 70,750 miles impaired by agri-
culture), range grazing degrades
19,469 miles (11 % of the 170,750
miles impaired by agriculture), and
pasture grazing degrades 10,597
miles (6% of the 1 70,750 miles
impaired by agriculture).
Runoff from irrigated and
nonirrigated cropland may contain
nutrients (nitrogen and phospho-
rus), pesticides, and soil particles.
-------
66 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
HIGHLIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
Nutrients in Streams:
Findings of the U.S. Geological
Survey NAWQA Program
As described in Chapter 2,
Congress established the National
Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) Program in 1991. The
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
implements this program to exam-
ine water quality patterns and
trends across the United States.
USGS recently released a report
analyzing the results of water quali-
ty monitoring at 20 study units
across the country (USGS, 1999,
The Quality of Our Nation's Waters—
Nutrients and Pesticides: U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey Circular (1225)).
Nutrient levels in streams
affected by different land use
activities were one aspect of the
01
6 6
Median
Concentration
Range in Concentration
includes 90% of sites
Undeveloped Agricultural Urban
(28 sites) (75 sites) (22 sites)
Dominant Land Use
Figure 1. Total Nitrogen in Streams
USGS report. For this report, USGS
looked at data from streams on
concentrations of total nitrogen
and total phosphorus. It compared
the concentrations found in agricul-
tural areas, urban areas, and unde-
veloped areas. Summaries of these
data are presented in Figures 1
and 2.
The highest total nitrogen and
phosphorus .concentrations were
found in streams draining water-
sheds with large amounts of agri-
cultural and urban land uses. These
data support the growing under-
standing of the contribution of
human activities, including the
amounts and timing of fertilizer
and manure applications and land-
and water-management practices,
on levels of nitrogen and phospho-
rus in streams.
Nitrogen
In more than half of sample
streams, total nitrogen concentra-
tions were above background lev-
els. High concentrations of nitrogen
in streams in agricultural water-
sheds correlated with nitrogen
inputs from fertilizer and manure
applications and from livestock
wastes. Elevated levels of nitrogen
in urban streams are probably due
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 67
, HiGHUGHfnQ |¥GHT HIGHLIGHT
-•:•..' ' .- \L-^L '
to a combination of sources includ- from wastewater treatment plants
ing fertilizers
golf courses,
vehicles and
used on lawns and contribute a large portion of
emissions from streamflow. However, phosphorus
power plants, and dis- concentrations have decreased dur-
charges from municipal wastewater ing the last 1 0 years as a
result of
treatment plants. reductions in the use of phosphate
detergents and upgrades
to waste-
Phosphorus water treatment plants.
The USGS report concluded
Total phosphorus levels were that human activities have
above background levels in most increased nutrient levels above
streams sampled. About half of the background concentrations in
urban streams sampled had aver- streams. In most cases, enrichment
age annual concentrations that of streams with nutrients
occurred
ranked among the highest in the jn small watersheds and/or regions
study. This was especially evident in dominated by agricultural or urban
the semiarid western and south- land use.
western regions where discharges
1 0
B
.=
Concentration,
o o
D In
Range in Concentration
• includes 90% ot sites
Median ^1 ^1
Concentration ^1 ^1
Undeveloped Agricultural Urban
(28 sites) (75 sites) (22 sites)
Dominant Land Use
Figure 2. Total Phosphorus in Streams
~
„ - _
, . __
,
\
,^- -~ -
,«.„... . „ , , ,,. —
-
,
_
- —
" . ---._•
s.
«, -™
-------
68 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
i HIGHUGH|Q-| jjfcHT HIGHLIGHT •
K 4T .
w P'
• !' "
K,
i
"il
f
III
'
;
;
I
1,
1
Agricultural Water Quality 1
Accomplishments 1
Agriculture is recognized in
watersheds across the country as a
source of nonpoint source pollu-
tion. On the other hand, agricultur-
al land use is recognized in many
areas as a "preferred" use for envi-
ronmental, social, and economic
purposes. Addressing problems
caused by various agricultural activi-
ties while maintaining the overall,
long-term sustainability of the envi-
ronment and the industry presents
special challenges.
The agricultural community,
through voluntary incentive-based
approaches, has been responsive to
the growing national concern over
degradation of our nation's waters.
Technical assistance and financial
incentives through U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) programs
such as the Conservation Reserve
Program, the Environmental Quality
Incentive Program (EQIP), and the
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program,
along with numerous conservation
programs at the state and local
levels, have helped landowners to
become better stewards of the
nation's natural resources while
meeting the demands of today's
markets. Financial assistance pro-
vided through these programs has
been especially effective in encour-
aging voluntary adoption of new,
more environmentally sensitive H
practices. H
Since the mid-1 980s, farmers H
and ranchers have adopted conser- H
vation practices, also referred to as H
Best Management Practices (BMPs), H
aimed at reducing nonpoint source H
pollution at an ever increasing rate. H
For example, Lake Washington in •
Mississippi was severely degraded H
with nutrients and sediments from I
agricultural lands. The landowners H
in the watershed, working through H
the local soil and water conserva- H
tion district, with technical assist- I
ance from the USDA's Natural 1
Resources Conservation Service, 1
developed a watershed manage- H
ment plan to address the water H
quality problems. In this project, H
landowners planned and applied 1
BMPs to the land surrounding the 1
lake to reduce sediment and nutri- H
ents entering the lake. Monitoring I
was conducted on several practices H
by the Mississippi Department of •
Environmental Quality to see how H
these practices affected the quality •
of water in the lake. As a result of 1
BMPs installed in the project area, 1
soil loss was reduced from more •
than 9.2 tons per acre per year 1
to 2 tons per acre per year on I
1 7,700 acres in the Lake Washing- 1
ton watershed. Monitoring also H
•'•'-"-'•... • •
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 69
HIGHLIGH/H-4 \WtiT HIGHLIGHT
-.'-.- - %Hir -~~"~
indicated that the installation of
BMPs reduced total suspended
solids entering the lake from agri-
cultural fields by 50%, total phos-
phorous was reduced by 83%, and
total nitrogen was reduced by 45%.
Farmers and ranchers in
Medina, Uvalde, and Bandera coun-
ties in Texas are using the EQIP to
protect water quality and quantity
in the Edwards Aquifer. The Aquifer
provides drinking water for 1 .5 mil-
lion people in the San Antonio area
and irrigation water for 1 00,000
acres of farmland. Through the
EQIP, crop producers have installed
improved irrigation systems that
save up to 50,000 gallons of water
per acre per year. Ranchers have
applied conservation practices to
1 20,000 acres of grazing land.
Water yields on some grazing lands
have increased by as much as
40,000 gallons per acre per year.
Vegetated buffers and filter strips
have been planted on 600 acres,
and improved management is
being practiced on 500 acres of
riverbanks. As a result, sediment
loading into streams, rivers, and the
Edwards Aquifer has declined by
300,000 tons; pesticide and nutri-
ent loading has declined by
545,000 pounds.
Another shining example of the
agricultural community taking vol-
untary proactive steps to address
the issue of water quality is evident
in Utah. In 1991, the landowners,
. i
water users, and resource managers
became alarmed that Chalk Creek
was the major source of sediment
ii- , ,i IA/I r** l_*l_
delivery to the Weber River, which
supplies water to Ogden and other
Wasatach Mountain Range commu-
nities. To address this environmen-
tal concern, the interested parties .
began working together on the
Chalk Creek Nonpoint Source
Water Quality Project. Most of the
agricultural land in the Chalk Creek
watershed is in rangeland, with just
2,000 acres of cropland. By 1 994, a
coordinated watershed resource
plan had been developed and a
local Technical Advisory Committee
had been formed to oversee imple-
mentation of the watershed man-
agement plan. By 1 997, most of
the major landowners in the water-
shed, working with the Summit Soil
and Water Conservation District
and other agencies, had begun
designing resource management
system plans for their own land.
Through this local initiative, the
community is realizing its goal of
reduced sedimentation into the
Weber River.
^
_
- __
-
__ _ ~
.
-
*. i* —
.T- — _ ^t ^ __-
f~ ^ - ~->~~ ~~"~
-
_ _*
— _ — •__
- Mff '
^
„"-'-- - - '
. . , -.-
.*- *
^C,^.^^ ,4-,-f ~ ~ —
-
"*"!..
:£*srts»«t ^ -w m -
_^_^,rt, — „ -^ _ _ _
^Atm^ T£ j^. — -- -
?.*
-------
70 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
Nutrients occur naturally in the soil
but are also added in the form of
chemical fertilizers and manure.
Rainwater and irrigation carry
excess nutrients to surface waters
and shallow ground water. The
transport of nutrients, pesticides,
and sediments from cropland can
be prevented or reduced by ensur-
ing the proper use and application
of chemicals, encouraging the infil-
tration of water and discouraging
runoff, and minimizing soil disturb-
ance.
Sources of pollution from ani-
mal feeding operations include
facilities that are treated as both
point and nonpoint sources. Animal
waste from these operations can
introduce pathogens, nutrients
(phosphorus and nitrogen), and
organic matter to nearby rivers and
streams. Pollution from animal facil-
ities can be prevented through the
proper siting and management of
the operation. Many facilities imple-
ment a comprehensive plan for
handling, storing, and using all
wastes produced. For more infor-
mation on animal feeding opera-
tions, see the highlight on the
Unified National Strategy for
Animal Feeding Operations on
page 78.
Improper grazing practices on
range and pasture can introduce
both soil particles and animal waste
into receiving streams. Implement-
ing a comprehensive grazing
management plan helps reduce
contributions of pollutants by
• Maintaining sufficient soil
cover
• Protecting riparian areas
from trampling
• Minimizing the direct deposi-
tion of wastes into streams.
Range grazing may generate
both soil erosion and animal waste
runoff. Land used for pasture graz-
ing usually has good ground cover
that protects the soil from eroding,
but pasture grazing can become a
source of animal waste runoff if
animals graze on impermeable
frozen pastureland during winter.
While agriculture was the lead-
ing source associated with impaired
•river and stream miles, the states
and tribes identified a number of
other sources. The top-ranked
sources are listed below:
• Hydrologic Modifications -
Hydrologic modifications (or hydro-
modifications) include flow regula-
tion and modification, channeliza-
tion, dredging, and construction of
dams. These activities may alter a
river's habitat in such a way that it
becomes less suitable for aquatic
life. For example, dredging may
destroy the river-bottom habitat
where fish lay their eggs. The states
and tribes report that hydrologic
modifications degrade 57,763 river
and stream miles (7% of the
assessed miles and 20% of the
impaired miles).
• Urban Runoff and Storm Sewers
- In urban areas, runoff from imper-
vious surfaces may include sedi-
ment, bacteria (e.g., from pet
waste), toxic chemicals, and other
pollutants. Development in urban
areas can increase erosion that
results in higher sediment loads to
rivers and streams. Storm sewer
systems may also release pollutants
to rivers and streams, particularly
during wet weather events. The
states and tribes report that urban
runoff and storm sewers pollute
32,310 river and stream miles (4%
of the assessed miles and 11 % of
the impaired miles).
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 71
• Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants (WWTPs) - Municipal
WWTPs treat incoming wastewater
from domestic sources and fre-
quently wastewater inputs from
industrial and commercial establish-
ments. Although municipal WWTPs
treat this waste before discharging
to rivers and streams, discharges
may still contain toxic chemicals,
nutrients, and other pollutants. In
some cases, during wet weather
events, municipal WWTPs discharge
untreated wastewater because of
operation and maintenance prob-
lems. The states and tribes report
that municipal sewage treatment
plants pollute 29,087 river and
stream miles (3% of the assessed
miles and 10% of the impaired
miles).
• Resource Extraction - Activities
such as mining and oil and gas pro-
duction may have adverse effects
on water quality. For example,
changes in the technology used for
surface mining have resulted in
much larger areas of land being
affected by the mining operations.
The runoff associated with these
activities is often high in acidity and
toxic metals, which can degrade
rivers and streams, creating condi-
tions that are harmful to aquatic
life. Mining can continue to cause
water quality impairments even
after activities have ceased. The
states and tribes report that
resource extraction pollutes 25,231
river and stream miles (3% of the
assessed miles and 9% of the
impaired miles).
• Forestry Activities - Commercial
forestry activities such as harvesting
of trees, application of fertilizer
and pesticides, and construction of
logging roads may impair water
quality by degrading habitat and
introducing pollutants to rivers and
streams. For example, tree harvest-
ing can cause erosion that increases
runoff. Trees harvested near stream
courses can reduce the supply of
large woody debris important in
creating fish habitat in streams.
Loss of riparian area timber can
also reduce shade and raise water
temperature. As the temperature
of water increases, it can hold less
dissolved oxygen, which is needed
by aquatic organisms. The states
and tribes report that forestry activi-
ties degrade 20,020 river and
stream miles (2% of the assessed
miles and 7% of the impaired
miles).
• Land Disposal of Wastes -
Various forms of land-based waste
disposal, such as septic tanks, land-
fills, and application of sludge, may
result in the runoff of pollutants to
rivers and streams. These pollutants
can include bacteria, hazardous
wastes, organic materials, and sedi-
ment. The states and tribes report
that land disposal of wastes pollutes
19,928 river and stream miles (2%
of the assessed miles and 7% of the
impaired miles).
• Habitat Modifications - Changes
to a river's habitat, such as removal
of riparian vegetation, riverbank
modification, and drainage and fill-
ing of wetlands, can make it less
suitable for the organisms inhabit-
ing it, create conditions favorable to
invasion by species not present
prior to the changes, or limit its
ecosystem function. The states and
tribes report that habitat modifica-
tions degrade 18,451 river and
stream miles (2% of the assessed
miles and 6% of the impaired
miles).
-------
72 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
The states and tribes also report
that "natural" sources impair over
33,000 miles of rivers and streams.
Natural sources include soils with
natural deposits of arsenic or salts
that leach into waterbodies, water-
fowl (a source of nutrients), and
drought, which causes low-flow_
conditions and elevated water
temperatures.
Sources such as mining and
forestry activities can play a more
significant role in degrading water
quality at a regional or local level
than at the national level. For
example, resource extraction
(including acid mine drainage)
contributes to the degradation of
43% of the impaired river and
stream miles in the coal belt states
of Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
These states report that resource
extraction impairs about 5,800
miles of rivers and streams. Yet, at
the national level, resource extrac-
tion contributes to the degradation
of only 9% of all the impaired river
and stream miles in the nation. At
the local level, streams impacted by
acid mine drainage are devoid of
fish and other aquatic life due to
low pH levels and the smothering
effects of iron and other metals
deposited on stream beds. The pri-
mary sources of acid mine drainage
are abandoned coal refuse disposal
sites and surface and underground
mines.
In the Pacific Northwest states
of Oregon and Washington, water
quality managers identify forestry
activities as responsible for almost a
fifth (19%) of the impaired river
and stream miles, but, at the
national level, states report that
forestry activities contribute to the
degradation of only 7% of the
impaired river and stream miles .
identified. Forestry activities include
harvesting timber, constructing
logging roads, and stand mainte-
nance. California, Mississippi,
Montana, and West Virginia also
report that forestry activities
degrade over 1,000 miles of
streams in each state.
Many states reported declines
in pollution to rivers and streams
from sewage treatment plants and
industrial discharges since enact-
ment of the Clean Water Act in
1972. The states attributed
improvements in water quality
conditions to sewage treatment
plant construction and upgrades
and permit controls on industrial
discharges. Despite the improve-
ments, municipal sewage treatment
plants remain the fourth most
common source of pollution in
rivers because population growth
increases the burden on our munic-
ipal facilities.
Several states reported that
they detected more subtle impacts
from nonpoint sources, hydrologic
modifications, and habitat altera-
tions as they reduced conspicuous
pollution from point sources.
Hydrologic modifications and habi-
tat alterations are a growing con-
cern to the states. Hydrologic modi-
fications include activities that alter
the flow of water in a stream, such
as channelization, dewatering, and
damming of streams. Habitat alter-
ations include removal of stream-
side vegetation that protects the
stream from high temperatures
and scouring of stream bottoms.
Additional gains in water'quality
conditions that address these
concerns will be more subtle and
require innovative management
strategies.
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 73
Through the Eyes of Morning
The long_
complicated
elements of morning
drape themselves across the dew touched meadow
as if they are
lace
from the intricate garments of a queen
who has chosen
'•'; '" : J this moment
to blow a frosty'kiss, to her people through the fog-
so intensely ghost white
that if you look deep enough
you can see yourself.
And so I look.
Deep.
Hoping that if something as simple
yet intense,
as young
yet ancient,
as morning"!
. knows who I am, maybe I will too.
But I only see the dew.
And the fog.
And who is anyone
through the distorted eyes of
morning?
River of Words 1999 Grand Prize Winner (Poetry, Grades 7-9)
Anne Atwell-McLeod, Age 13, ME
River of Words 1999 Grand Prize Winner (Art, Grades 7-9)
.Naomi Ce\mo, Wild and Free,- The River and Me, Age. 15, FL
-------
74 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Restoring the Mississippi
River Ecosystem
The Mississippi River and the
basin it sustains are an integral part
of the history, culture, economy,
and environment of the United
States. The main stem of the river
and its tributaries drain 40% of the
land in the lower 48 states. This
area includes parts of 26 states and
parts of 6 of the 10 EPA Regions
and is home to almost a third of
the U.S. population (see figure
below). The river is an extremely
important resource. It is a drinking
Figure 1. The Mississippi River Basin System
water supply for tens of millions of
people, it transports barges bearing
billions of dollars worth of cargo,
and, together with its remaining
wetlands, it is habitat to large and
valuable populations of waterfowl,
fish, and shellfish. In addition, bil-
lions of dollars are spent on recrea-
tion associated with the river.
In recent years, there has been
growing concern about water qual-
ity in the Mississippi River and the
Gulf of Mexico into which it drains.
In response, EPA and other con-
cerned agencies have launched
programs to restore water quality.
The Mississippi River Initiative
addresses point source pollution,
while a nutrient task force and
basin teams work to control non-
point sources in the Mississippi
River Basin.
Condition of the
Resource
Activities on the land that con-
stitute the Mississippi River's huge
watershed affect the quality of the
river and the Gulf of Mexico. The
river receives runoff laden with
fertilizers and other chemicals
and direct discharges of treated
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 75
; ' ' HIGHLIGH/fa|fGHT HIGHLIGHT
• ' \Ll2L .
wastewater from cities and facto-
ries. The engineering that has been
undertaken to control floods and
enhance navigation has taken a toll
as well. Separating the river channel
from the floodplain through flood
control and land use conversion
measures has reduced the ability
of the river to cleanse itself of nutri-
ents and has starved the marshes of
Louisiana of sediment needed to
offset subsidence and sea-level rise.
Compounding these problems,
the Gulf of Mexico, which is
strongly correlated with nutrient
discharges from the mouth of the
Mississippi River, is suffering from
hypoxia. Hypoxia is an absence of
oxygen reaching living tissues. In
coastal waters, it is characterized by
levels of dissolved oxygen so low
that not enough is available to sup-
port fish and other aquatic species.
Eutrophication or the overabun-
dance of nutrients, such as nitrogen
and phosphorus, causes hypoxia.
Excess nutrients may come from a
wide range of sources: runoff from
developed land, atmospheric depo-
sition, soil erosion, and agricultural
fertilizers. Sewage and industrial
discharges also contribute nutrients.
The Mississippi River
Initiative
The Mississippi River Initiative
began as a way to address the
unprecedented amount of pollution
currently contaminating the river.
In September 1 997, representatives
from affected U.S. Attorneys' offices
met in St. Louis for 2 days with offi-
cials from the Justice Department to
discuss the state of the river and
how best to work together to stop
point source pollution and clean up
the river. The Initiative has devel-
oped into a comprehensive, coordi-
nated federal effort to keep illegal
pollution, ranging from raw sewage
to industrial waste, out of the river
and to restore the river and sur-
rounding communities to their
historic grandeur. To stop illegal
point source pollution from enter-
ing the river, the Initiative employs
the cooperative efforts of the
Department of Justice, EPA's civil
and criminal enforcement groups,
the U.S. Customs Service, other
U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Coast
Guard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, state attorneys general,
state environmental agencies, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
other state and local leaders.
, »*£ " J
- — -— .
• * — , ™_ „
-------
76 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
L! HIGHLIGHOT^ jjjfcHT HIGHLIGHT
t ^F*^
|:
!'''
;
li
i
f r::, ' ',::,
1! '"!•!, > "iM" •
rill
:
J; '
lil
I,
!-«
I
!!
1
J- - : • ' ' •
r~
Sr •
Ifif '"
|r ;;;; • •.
'i,
nil,
It'll „ ,
Mississippi River/Gulf
of Mexico Watershed
Nutrient Task Force
ERA, together with representa-
tives from federal, state, and tribal
agencies and organizations, formed
the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force dur-
ing the fall of 1 997. The Task Force
was established to study the causes
and effects of excessive nutrient
runoff to the Mississippi River Basin
and to coordinate and implement
nutrient reduction activities to alle-
viate hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
To date, the Task Force has initiated
a two-track effort to respond to
the nutrients issue. The first is an
ecosystem/watershed management
track to develop and implement
nutrient reduction strategies in the
basin. The second track is to assess
the state of scientific knowledge
and understanding of hypoxia.
Task Force activities include
coordinating and supporting nutri-
ent management activities from all
sources, restoring habitats to trap
and assimilate nutrients, and sup-
porting other hypoxia-related activi-
ties in the Mississippi River and Gulf
of Mexico watersheds.
The Mississippi River
Basin System Teams
In December 1 997, EPA repre-
sentatives from the Gulf of Mexico
program, Office of Water, and EPA
Regions of the Mississippi River
Basin met in St. Louis to review the
issues and needs in the Basin. One
outcome of this meeting was the
creation of EPA teams for each
major segment or tributary system
of the Mississippi River. The follow-
ing teams were organized:
• Missouri River Tributary Team
• Upper Mississippi Segment Team
• Arkansas-Red-White River
• Tennessee .River Tributary Team
B Ohio River Tributary Team
B Lower Mississippi River Segment
Team.
The purpose of the teams is to
build upon and complement the
work of state, tribal, regional, and
local efforts to address the public
health and environmental issues in
the Mississippi River Basin. In partic-
ular, the teams work to enhance
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 77
HiGHUGHj
«GBT HIGHLIGHT
EPA's support for a number of exist-
ing multistate, multistakeholder
organizations and efforts. These
include the Upper Mississippi River
Basin Association (UMRBA), the
Ohio River Valley Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO), the
Corps of Engineers' Environmental
Management Program for the
Upper Mississippi River, and the
state of Illinois' Illinois River
Initiative.
River of Words 1999 Finalist, Jennifer Strand,
Age 14, Breezy Night, PA
-------
78 Chapter Three Rivers and Streams
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Unified National Strategy for
Animal Feeding Operations (AFCX
(March 9, 1999)
The USDA-EPA Unified National
Strategy for AFOs was one of more
than 100 actions President Clinton
requested in the Administrator's
Clean Water Action Plan. Animal
feeding operations, or AFOs, are
livestock-raising operations, such as
hog, cattle, dairy, and poultry farms,
where animals are kept and raised in
confined situations. When not prop-
erly managed, animal waste from
these operations can run off into
nearby waterbodies. Since the
1970s, factors such as the growing
concentration of animals at larger
feeding operations, the availability
of new waste and runoff controls,
and increasing water pollution prob-
lems have heightened awareness
that more should be done to con-
trol agricultural waste.
The AFO strategy addresses the
water quality problems resulting
from ineffective waste management.
These problems include runoff
polluted by excess nitrogen, phos-
phorus, pathogens, and other com-
pounds. Elevated concentrations
of these pollutants have been asso-
ciated with the contamination of
drinking water, crops, and animal
feed and adverse impacts to fish
and shellfish.
The draft strategy proposes a
variety of voluntary and regulatory
approaches. It is designed to help
AFO owners and operators remain
financially strong while reducing
threats to public health and water
quality. This draft strategy contains a
section encouraging industry leader-
ship to provide education, financ-
ing, and advice for pollution control
plans. The strategy establishes an
expectation that all animal feeding
operations develop and implement
comprehensive nutrient manage-
ment plans by the year 2009. These
plans include manure handling and
storage, application of manure to
the land, recordkeeping, feed
management, integration with other
conservation measures, and other
manure utilization options.
As part of the strategy, USDA
and EPA estimate that 95% of the
450,000 animal feeding operations
will implement voluntary compre-
hensive nutrient management plans.
An estimated 15,000 to 20,000 live-
stock operations will be required to
develop comprehensive nutrient
management plans as part of
permits under the Clean Water Act.
To date, approximately 2,000
permits have been issued to concen-
trated animal feeding operations
under the authority of the Clean
Water Act. The EPA program
intends to focus permitting and
-------
Chapter Three Rivers and Streams 79
enforcement activities on three
types of facilities:
• The largest concentrated AFOs
(or CAFOs, those with 1,000 or
more animal units [1 animal unit =
1 steer weighing 1,000 pounds])
• AFOs with unacceptable condi-
tions such as direct discharge into
waterways
• AFOs that are significant contrib-
utors to water quality impairment
within a watershed.
HIGHLIGHj
HIGHLIGHT
-------
-------
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Forty-five states, Puerto Rico,
and the District of Columbia
(collectively referred to as states in
the rest of this chapter) and two
tribes rated lake water quality in
their 1998 Section 305(b) reports
(see Appendix B, Table B-1, for indi-
vidual state and tribal data). These
states and tribes assessed nearly
17.4 million acres of lakes, reser-
voirs, and ponds, which equals
42% of the 41.4 million acres of
lakes in the nation (Figure 4-1).
The states and tribes based 65%
of their assessments on monitored
data and evaluated 17% of the
assessed lake acres with qualitative
information. The states did not
Figure 4-1
of their total lake acres3
for the 1998 report
specify whether the remaining
18% of the assessed lake acres were
monitored or evaluated.3
The number of assessed lake
acres increased from 16.8 million
acres to 17.4 million acres, a 3%
increase from 1996 to 1998. This
increase is due to greater monitor-
ing coverage from a number of
states including Arizona, Massa-
chusetts, Montana, and Nevada.
Wisconsin increased its assessed
States and Tribes
ASSESSED
42%
States and Tribes ASSESSED
17.4 Million Acres of the Nation's Lake
Waters (Excluding the Great Lakes)
for the 1998 Report
Acres Assessed:
1 7,390,370
Total Lake Acres:
41,376,729
This figure compares the total acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds with the
subset that were assessed by states for the 1998 water quality report.
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-1.
Lake, Reservoir, and Pond Acres
Assessed by the States and Tribes
1998 H 17,390,370 acres = 42% assessed
• Total acres: 41,376,729a
589/0 Not Assessed
1996 ffl 16,819,769 acres = 40% assessed
• Total acres: 41,684,902b
1994 B 17,134,153 acres = 42% assessed
B Total acres: 40,826,064°
1992 ffl 18,300,000 acres = 46% assessed
• Total acres: 39,920,000d
aSource: 1998 state and tribal section 305(b)
reports.
bSource: 1996 state and tribal section 305(b)
reports.
cSource: 1994 state and tribal section 305(b)
reports.
dSource: 1992 state and tribal section 305(b)
reports.
Note: Figures do not add to 100% due to
the rounding of individual numbers.
-------
82 Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
lake acreage by using volunteer
monitoring data.
These increases more than off-
set significant decreases in reported
lake acres from a number of other
states.
The states and tribes used
recent monitoring data to assess
65% of their assessed lake acres
(see Appendix B, Table B-2, for indi-
vidual state and tribal information).
Evaluated assessments, based on
qualitative information or monitor-
ing information more than 5 years
old, were used for 17% of the
assessed lake acres. States did not
specify whether the remaining 18%
of assessed lake acres were moni-
tored or evaluated. Compared to
the 1996 reporting cycle, states are
using monitoring data for a smaller
percentage of their assessments. In
1996, states used monitoring data
in 74% of their lake assessments.
Differences among state assess-
ment methods limit meaningful
comparisons of lake information
submitted by individual states.
States devote varying resources to
monitoring biological integrity,
water chemistry, and toxic pollut-
ants in fish tissues. The wide range
in water quality rating reported by
the states reflects both differences
in water quality monitoring and
differences in assessment methods.
The summary information pre-
sented in this chapter applies strict-
ly to the portion of the nation's
lakes assessed by the states and
tribes. EPA cannot make generali-
zations about the health of all of
our nation's lakes based on data
extracted from the 305(b) reports.
The primary reason the assessment
data cannot be used to make
general statements about national
water quality is that states have
not achieved comprehensive
assessment of all lakes. Another
factor is the monitoring design
used to collect data. Many states
and tribes direct their limited moni-
toring resources toward waters with
suspected problems. As a result, the
assessed lakes probably contain
a higher percentage of polluted
waters than all of the nation's lakes.
A risk of this targeted monitoring
approach is that healthy waters
may deteriorate without anyone
. noticing.
Water Quality
Assessment
States and tribes rate water
quality by comparing data to
standards. Water quality standards
include narrative and numeric crite-
ria that support specific designated
uses. Standards also specify goals to
prevent degradation of good qual-
ity waters.
States and tribes use their
numeric and narrative criteria to
evaluate whether the designated
uses assigned to the waterbodies
are supported. Designated uses
reflect the goals of the Clean
Water Act. They aim to protect
human health and the biological
integrity of aquatic ecosystems.
The most common designated
uses are:
• Aquatic life support
• Drinking water supply
• Recreation such as swimming,
fishing, and boating
• Fish consumption.
After comparing water quality
data to standards, states and tribes
classify the waters into the follow-
ing categories:
-------
Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 83
• Good/Fully Supporting: Good
water quality supports a diverse
community of fish, plants, and
aquatic insects, as well as the array
of human activities assigned to a
lake by the state. These waters
meet applicable water quality
standards, both criteria and desig-
nated use.
• Good/Threatened: Good water
quality currently supports aquatic
life and human activities in and on
the lake. These waters are currently
meeting water quality standards,
but states and tribes are concerned
they may degrade in the near
future. These concerns are based
on a trend of increasing pollution
or land use changes that may
threaten future water quality.
• Fair/Partially Supporting: Fair
water quality supports aquatic
communities with fewer species of
fish, plants, and aquatic insects
and/or pollution occasionally inter-
feres with human activities. These
waters are meeting water quality
standards most of the time, but
exhibit occasional exceedances.
For example, runoff during severe
thunderstorms may temporarily
elevate fecal coliform bacteria
densities and indicate that swim-
ming is not safe immediately
following summer storms.
• Poor/Not Supporting: Poor
water quality does not support a
healthy aquatic community and/or
prevents some human activities on
the lake. These waters are not
meeting water quality standards.
For example, lake waters may be
devoid of fish for more than a
month each summer because
excessive nutrients from runoff
initiate algal blooms that deplete
oxygen concentrations.
• Not Attainable: The state has
performed a use-attainability analy-
sis and demonstrated that support
of one or more designated benefi-
cial uses is not attainable due to
specific biological, chemical, physi-
cal, or economic/social conditions
(see Chapter 1 for additional infor-
mation).
Summary of Use
Support
Most states and tribes rate how
well a lake supports individual uses
(such as swimming and aquatic life)
and then consolidate individual use
ratings into a summary table. This
table divides assessed lake acres
into those that are
• Good - Fully supporting all of
their uses or fully supporting all
uses but threatened for one or
more uses
• Impaired - Partially or not
supporting one or more uses
• Not attainable - Not able to
support one or more uses.
Forty-four states, two tribes,
Puerto Rico, and the District of
Columbia reported summary use
support status for lakes in their
1998 Section 305(b) reports (see
Appendix B, Table B-2, for individ-
ual state and tribal information).
Montana reported individual use
support status but did not report
summary use support status. In this
case, EPA used aquatic life use
support status to summarize water
-------
84 Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Assessed Waters
Total lakes = 41,376,729 acres3
Total assessed = 17,390,370 acresb
• 42% assessed
• 58% not assessed
Of the assessed acres:
• 65% were monitored
• 17% were evaluated
• 18% were not specified
Assessed Water Quality
45% Impaired for one
or more uses
55% Good
"Source: 1998 state and tribal Section
305 (b) reports.
quality conditions in Montana's
lakes.
It is important to note that
seven states did not include the
effects of statewide fish consump-
tion advisories for mercury when
calculating their summary use sup-
port status in lakes. Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, North
Carolina, and Vermont excluded
the impairment associated with
statewide mercury advisories in
order to convey information that
would have been otherwise masked
by the fish consumption advisories.
If these advisories had been
included, all of the states' lakes
would have received an impaired
rating. (See discussion of mercury
in "Pollutants and Stressors
Impacting Lakes, Reservoirs, and
Ponds" on page 86.)
New York also excluded the
effects of a statewide PCB/chlor-
dane/mirex/DDT fish consumption
advisory for lakes in its summary
data.
The states and tribes reported
that 55% of their assessed 17.4
million lake acres have good water
quality (Figure 4-2). Waters with
good quality include 46% of the
assessed lake acres that fully
support all uses and 9% of the
assessed lake acres that fully sup-
port all uses but are threatened for
one or more uses. Some form of
pollution or habitat degradation
impairs the remaining 45% of the
assessed lake acres.
Figure 4-2
Summary of Use Support
in Assessed Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoir's™*^
7 ' • Jssgbr- -I*-1- «>*''"'••• '*}
7""*''* •-••
_^ xip**_ ,r—*,™—wi^ y»»T''' ^r-i-ir'- i°-. „•»*,'" .'-toff ' f,-,w. >,«•*,;* ti^w;"M * . . .*• •, w.-rfr -T >••'
'^ssJISsQ^EilZ^si'fci^Eca^ais^as^^
• • j
Impaired
for One or More Uses
Threatened
for One or More Uses
Not
Attainable
This figure presents the status of the assessed acres of lakes, reservoirs, and
ponds. Of the more than 17 million acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds assessed,
55% fully support their designated uses and 45% are impaired for one or more
uses. Nine percent of the assessed waters are fully supporting uses but threat-
ened.
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-2.
-------
Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 85
Individual Use
Support
Individual use support assess-
ment provides important details
about the nature of water quality
problems in our nation's surface
waters. The states establish specific
designated uses for waterbodies
through their water quality stand-
ards. The states consolidate their
more detailed uses into six general
use categdries so that EPA can pre-
sent a summary of the state and
tribal data. The standard uses
consist of aquatic life support, fish
consumption, primary contact
recreation (such as swimming and
diving), secondary contact recrea-
tion (such as boating), drinking
water supply, and agricultural use.
Forty-two states, one tribe,
Puerto Rico, and the District of
Columbia reported individual use
support status of their lakes, reser-
voirs, and ponds (see Appendix B,
Table B-3, for individual state and
tribal information). The reporting
states and tribe assessed aquatic life
use and swimming use most fre-
quently. They identified more
impacts on aquatic life use and
swimming use than the other indi-
vidual uses (Figure 4-3). These
states and tribes reported that fair
or poor water quality impacts
aquatic life in over 3.5 million lake
acres (29% of the 12.2 million acres
assessed for aquatic life support),
and swimming criteria violations
impact 2.8 million lake acres (20%
of the 14.4 million acres assessed
for swimming use support).
Individual Use Support in Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Percent
"z~ Designated
„,- Use
Good Good Fair Poor Not
Acres (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Assessed Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Aquatic Life Support
23
<1
, 4,705,329
This figure presents a tally of the acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds assessed by
states for each category of designated use. For each category, the figure presents
a summary of the proportion of the assessed waters rated according to quality.
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-3.
-------
86 Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Many states did not rate fish
consumption use support because
they have not included fish
consumption as a use in their
standards. However, through
separate tracking of state fish
consumption advisories, EPA esti-
mates that about 6.5 million lake
acres were under advisories in
1998. EPA encourages the states to
designate fish consumption as a
separate use in their waterbodies
to promote consistency in future
reporting.
Water Quality
Problems Identified
in Lakes, Reservoirs,
and Ponds
When states and tribes rate
waters as impaired, they also
attempt to identify the causes and
sources of impairment. Figures 4-4
and 4-5 identify the pollutants and
sources of pollutants that impair the
most acres of assessed lakes.
The following sections describe
the leading pollutants/stressors and
sources of impairment identified
in lakes. It is important to note
that the information about pollut-
ants/stressors and sources is incom-
plete. The states and tribes do not
always report the pollutants/stres-
sors or source of pollutants impact-
ing every impaired lake. In some
cases, they may recognize that
water quality does not fully support
a designated use, but may not have
adequate data to document the
specific pollutant or stressor respon-
sible for the impairment. Sources
are even more difficult to identify
than pollutants and stressors.
In addition, eight states did not
include the effects of statewide lake
fish consumption advisories when
reporting the pollutants and
sources responsible for impairment.
As a result, the pollutants associated
with the advisories (mercury for
seven states and PCBs/chlordane/
mirex/DDT for one state) are signifi-
cantly underrepresented by the
values presented in this report.
Similarly, the sources associated
with these pollutants, often atmos-
pheric deposition or contaminated
sediments, are underrepresented.
Pollutants and Stressors
Impacting Lakes,
Reservoirs, and Ponds
Forty-six states and tribes
reported the number of lake acres
impacted by individual pollutants
and stressors, such as invasive
aquatic plants (see Appendix B,
Table B-4, for individual state and
tribal information).
The states, tribe, District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico identi-
fied more lake acres polluted by
nutrients than any other pollutant
or stressor (Figure 4^-4). They
reported that excess nutrients pol-
lute 3.5 million lake acres (which
equals 20% of the assessed lake
acres and 44% of the impaired lake
acres).
Healthy lake ecosystems con-
tain nutrients in small quantities
from natural sources. Extra inputs
of nutrients (primarily nitrogen and
phosphorus) disrupt the balance
-------
Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 87
Figure 4-4
Leading POLLUTANTS in Impaired Lakes*
Total Lakes
41.4 million acres
ASSESSED Lakes
17.4 million1'acres
45%
IMPAIRED
7.9 million acres
Leading Pollutants/Stressors
Acres
Nutrients
Metals
Siltation
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Suspended Solids
Noxious Aquatic Plants
Excess Algal Growth
Percent of IMPAIRED Lake Acres
10 20 30 40
.50
3,454,361
2,111,056
1,172,738
1,101,936
802,270
665,575
626,514
5 10 15 20
Percent of ASSESSED Lake Acres
25
States assessed 42% of the total acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds for the 1998
report. The larger pie chart on the left illustrates this proportion. The smaller pie
chart on the right shows that, for the subset of assessed waters, 55% are rated as
good and 45% as impaired. When states identify waters that are impaired, they
describe the pollutants or processes causing or contributing to the impairment.
The bar chart presents the leading causes and the number of lake, reservoir, and
pond acres impacted. The percent scales on the upper and lower x-axis of the bar
chart provide different perspectives on the magnitude of the impact of these pol-
lutants. The lower axis compares the acres impacted by the pollutant to the total
ASSESSED acres. The upper axis compares the acres impacted by the pollutant to
the total IMPAIRED acres.
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-4.
* Eight states did not include the effects of statewide fish consumption advisories when reporting
the pollutants and sources responsible for impairment. Therefore, certain pollutants and sources,
such as metals and atmospheric deposition, may be underrepresented.
t Includes acres assessed as not attainable.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a lake.
• :The pollutants/processes
and sources shown here
may not correspond direct-
" ly to one another (i.e., the
leading pollutant may not
originate from the leading
source). This may occur
because a major pollutant
may be released from
"Tmany minor sources. It
also happens when states
do not have the infor-
mation to determine all
the sources of a particular
pollutant/'stressor.
According to the states,
NUTRIENTS are the most
common pollutants affecting
"aisselsSlcl lakes. Nutrients
:?•. Are found in 20% of the
; assessed lakes (see Figure
/\rv-4-4). ';•;•:• r .-"• ;•-;".. '.'.'
\ » Contribute to 44% of L
;•-'•;, -.-• reported water quality
problems in impaired
•'.-..' lakes; :-, ; '••-:.
-------
88 Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Figure 4-5
Leading SOURCES of Lake Impairment*
Total Lakes
41.4 million acres
ASSESSED Lakes
17.4 million'1' acres
45%
IMPAIRED
7.9 million acres
According to the states,
AGRICULTURE is the leading
source of pollution in assessed
lakes. Agricultural pollution
problems
• Affect 14% of the
assessed lakes
• Contribute to 31% of
reported water quality
in impaired lakes (see
Figure 4-5).
Leading Sources
Acres
Agriculture
Hydromodification
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Point Sources
Atmospheric Deposition
Industrial Point Sources
Habitat Modification
Land Disposal
Percent of IMPAIRED Lake Acres
10 20 30 40
50
5 10 15 20
Percent of ASSESSED Lake Acres
States assessed 42% of the total acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds for tJie 1998
report. The larger pie chart on the left illustrates this proportion. The smaller pie
chart on the right shows that, for the subset of assessed waters, 55% are rated as
good and 45% as impaired. When states identify waters that are impaired, they
also describe the sources of pollutants associated with the impairment. The bar
chart presents the leading sources and the number of lake, reservoir, and pond
acres impacted. The percent scales on the upper and lower x-axis of the bar chart
provide different perspectives on the magnitude of the impact of these sources. The
lower axis compares the acres impacted by the source to the total ASSESSED acres.
The upper axis compares the acres impacted by the source to the total IMPAIRED
acres.
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-5.
* Eight states did not include the effects of statewide fish consumption advisories when reporting
the pollutants and sources responsible for impairment. Therefore, certain pollutants and sources,
such as metals and atmospheric deposition, may be underrepresented.
* Includes acres assessed as not attainable.
* Excluding unknown, natural, and "other" sources.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a lake.
-------
Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 89
of lake ecosystems (Figure 4-6).
Excessive nutrients stimulate popu-
lation explosions of undesirable
algae and aquatic weeds. The algae
sink to the lake bottom after they •
die, where bacteria decompose
them. The bacteria consume dis-
solved oxygen in the water while
decomposing the dead algae. This,
in turn, deprives fish and other
organisms of oxygen. Fish kills and
foul odors may result if dissolved
oxygen is depleted.
After nutrients, the states
reported metals as the second most
common pollutant in assessed lake
acres, impairing 2.1 million lake
acres (12% of the assessed lake
acres and 27% of impaired lake
acres). States consistently report
metals as a major cause of impair-
ment to lakes. This is mainly due to
the widespread detection of mer-
cury in fish tissue samples. It is diffi-
cult to measure mercury in ambient
water. Most states rely on fish tissue
samples to indicate mercury con-
tamination, since mercury bioaccu-
mulates in tissue. States are actively
studying the extent of the mercury
problem, which is complex because
it involves atmospheric transport
from power-generating facilities,
waste incinerators, and other
sources.
Figure 4-6
Lake Impaired by Excessive Nutrients
Healthy Lake Ecosystem
Algal blooms form mats
on surface. Odor and
taste problems result.
Noxious aquatic plants
clog shoreline and reduce
access to lake
Fish suffocate
Dead algae sink
to bottom
Bacteria deplete oxygen as
they decompose dead algae
Nutrients cause nuisance overgrowth of algae as well as noxious aquatic plants, which leads to oxygen depletion via plant
respiration and microbial decomposition of plant matter. If not properly managed and controlled, sources such as agricul-
ture, industrial activities, municipal sewage, and atmospheric deposition can contribute to excessive nutrients in lakes.
-------
90 Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
In addition to nutrients and
metals, the states report that silta-
tion pollutes 1.2 million lake acres
(7% of the assessed lake acres and
15% of the impaired lake acres),
enrichment by organic wastes that
deplete dissolved oxygen in lake
waters impacts 1.1 million lake
acres (6% of the assessed lake acres
and 14% of the impaired lake
acres), and suspended solids impact
802,270 acres (5% of the assessed
Trophic States
Clear waters with little organic matter or sediment
and minimum biological activity.
Waters with more nutrients and, therefore, more
biological productivity.
Waters extremely rich in nutrients, with high biological
productivity. Some species may be choked out.
Murky, highly productive waters, closest to the wetlands
status. Many clearwater species cannot survive.
Low in nutrients, highly colored with dissolved humic
organic matter. (Not necessarily a part of the natural
trophic progression.)
In 1998, 32 states reported that 17% of the 7,373 lakes they assessed
for trophic status were oligotrophic, 33% were mesotrophic, 38% were .:'•'
eutrophic, 12% were hypereutrophic, and less than 1 % were dystrophic.
The Eutrophication Process
Eutrophication is a natural process, but human activities can acceler-
ate eutrophication by increasing the rate at which nutrients and organic
substances enter lakes from their surrounding watersheds. Agricultural
runoff, urban runoff, leaking septic systems, sewage discharges, eroded
streambanks, and similar sources can enhance the flow of nutrients and
organic substances into lakes. These substances can overstimulate the
growth of algae and aquatic plants, creating conditions that interfere with
the recreational use of lakes and the health and diversity of native fish,
plant, and animal populations. Enhanced eutrophication from nutrient
enrichment due to human activities is one of the leading problems facing
our nation's lakes and reservoirs.
Oligotrophic
Mesotrophic
Eutrophic
Hypereutrophic
Dystrophic
lake acres and 10% of the impaired
lake acres). While siltation generally
refers to the deposition of sediment
in the bottom of a waterbody,
suspended solids hang in the water
column.
Often, several pollutants and
processes impact a single lake. For
example, an activity such as
removal of shoreline vegetation
may accelerate erosion of sediment
and nutrients into a lake. In such
cases, the states and tribes count
a single lake acre under each pollut-
ant and process category that
impacts the lake acre. Therefore,
the lake acres impaired by each pol-
lutant and process do not add up
to 100% in Figures 4-4 and 4-5.
This presentation ranks pollut-
ants and stressors by the geo-
graphic extent of their impacts (i.e.,
the number of lake acres impaired
by each pollutant or stressor). How-
ever, less abundant pollutants or
stressors may have more severe
impacts than the leading pollutants
listed above. For example, extreme
acidity (also known as low pH) can
eliminate fish in isolated lakes, but
acid impacts on lakes are concen-
trated in northeastern lakes and
mining states and are not wide-
spread across the country as a
whole. The individual state 305(b)
reports provide more detailed
information about the severity of
pollution in specific locations.
Sources of Pollutants
Impacting Lakes,
Reservoirs, and Ponds
Forty-five states and tribes
reported sources of pollution
related to human activities that
impact some of their lakes,
-------
Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 91
reservoirs, and ponds (see
Appendix B, Table B-5, for individ-
ual state information). The states
reported that agriculture is the
most widespread source of pollu-
tion in the nation's assessed lakes
(Figure 4-5). Agriculture generates
pollutants that degrade aquatic life
or interfere with public use of 2.4
million lake acres (14% of the
assessed lake acres and 31 % of the
impaired lake acres).
Of the 35 states and tribes that
reported impairment from agricul-
ture, 16 reported the number of
lake acres impacted by specific
types of agricultural activities:
• Nonirrigated Crop Production -
crop production that relies on rain
as the sole source of water.
• Irrigated Crop Production - crop
production that uses irrigation sys-
tems to supplement rainwater.
• Specialty Crop Production - crop
production that involves growing
food items other than small grains
or forage crops (e.g., avocados,
cucumbers, blueberries, and cran-
berries) as well as ornamental
plants. Specialty crops may involve
more intensive production practices
(e.g., fertilizer, pesticides, and
irrigation).
• Range Grazing - land grazed by
animals that is seldom enhanced by
the application of fertilizers or pesti-
cides, although land managers
sometimes modify plant species to
a limited extent.
• Pasture Grazing - land upon
which a crop (such as alfalfa) is
raised to feed animals, either by
grazing the animals among the
crops or harvesting the crops.
Pasture land is actively managed
to encourage selected plant species
to grow, and fertilizers or pesticides
may be applied more often on
pasture land than range land.
• Animal Feeding Operations -
either Concentrated Animal Feed-
ing Operations (permitted, point
source) or Confined Animal Feeding
Operations (nonpoint source).
- Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (permitted, point
source) - facilities in which
animals are confined, fed, and
maintained for some period of
time throughout the year where
discharges are regulated through
the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System.
- Animal Feeding Operations
(nonpoint source) - facilities in
which animals are confined, fed,
and maintained for some period
of time throughout the year that
are considered nonpoint sources
according to the Clean Water
Act.
The 16 states and tribes that
reported the number of lake,
reservoir, and pond acres impacted
by specific types of agricultural
activities identified the most acres
impaired by range grazing. These
states and tribes reported that
range grazing degrades 596,452
acres (25% of the 2,417,801 acres
impaired by agriculture). Following
range grazing, the states and tribes
report that nonirrigated crop pro-
duction degrades 553,064 acres
(23% of the 2,417,801 acres
impaired by agriculture). The states
and tribes also report that irrigated
crop production degrades 410,204
acres (17% of the 2,417,801 acres
Acid Effects on Lakes
Increases in lake acidity can
radically alter the community
of fish and plant species in lakes
and can increase the solubility _
of toxic substances andLmagnify
their adverse effects. In 1998,
„ 17 states reported that, of the
3,317 lakes assessed for acidity
2% exhibited acidity and 17%
were threatened by acidity^An
additionallhree states didTiof
provide the number of lakes
assessed for acidity, but reported
that 430 lakes exhibited acidity.
Most of the states that assessed
acidic conditions are located in
the Northeast, upper Midwest,
'and the South.
Only 10 states identified
sources of acidic conditions.
"Alabama, Colorado, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maryland^ Montana,
Oklahoma, and Tennessee
reported that acid mine drain-
age" resulted in acidic lake condi-
tions or threatened lakes with
the potential to generate acidic
conditions. Other identified
sources were atmospheric depo-
sition and natural conditions.
-------
92 Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
impaired by agriculture), pasture
grazing degrades 345,011 acres
(14% of the 2,417,801 acres
impaired by agriculture), animal
feeding operations pollute 99,936
acres (4% of the 2,417,801 acres
impaired by agriculture), and
specialty crop production degrades
98,165 acres (4% of the 2,417,801
acres impaired by agriculture). See
Chapter 3 for a discussion of how
these sources impair water quality.
After agriculture, the states
reported hydrologic modifications
as the second most common
source of impairment in assessed
lake acres, degrading 1.2 million
lake acres (7% of the assessed lake
acres and 15% of the impaired lake
acres). Hydrologic modifications
include flow regulation and modifi-
cation, dredging, and construction
of dams. These activities may alter
a lake's habitat in such a way that it
becomes less suitable for aquatic
life. For example, flow regulation
and modification for the purpose
of flood control, drinking water
supply, or hydropower can cause
fluctuation in lake levels that
destabilizes the shoreline habitat.
In addition, the states report
that pollution from urban runoff
and storm sewers degrades
931,567 lake acres (5% of the
assessed lake acres and 12% of the
impaired lake acres), municipal
sewage treatment plants pollute
866,116 lake acres (5% of the
assessed lake acres and 11 % of the
impaired lake acres), and atmos-
pheric deposition of pollutants .
impairs 616,701 lake acres (3% of
the assessed lake acres and 8% of
the impaired lake acres).
As in 1996, more states
reported lake degradation from
atmospheric deposition than in past
reporting cycles. This is due, in
part, to a growing awareness of the
magnitude of the atmospheric
deposition problem. Researchers
have found significant impacts to
ecosystem and human health from
atmospherically delivered pollut-
ants.
The states listed additional
sources that impact several
hundred thousand lake acres,
including habitat modifications,
land disposal of wastes, flow regula-
tion, resource extraction, contami-
nated sediments, highway mainte-
nance and runoff, drainage and
filling of wetlands, and forestry
activities.
-------
Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 93
bear Night,
: I must tell you, silence
-.^:.. is no longer the virtue it once was, rather
it only reminds us how small and alone we
-:••.-'.:. really
are. Next time you wish us to celebrate a
cosmic event, please,
be more direct. A comet, or a meteor shower/
even some good old-fashioned fireworks. The star
'.; > was a nice" touch, I must admit:
more suited to the taste of poor mortals than this
• '._ awful,
_ divine,
stiffness.. '....•.-,
River of Words 1999 Grand Prize Winner (Poetry, Grades 10-12)
Sarah booley, Age 16, GA
River of Words 1998 Grand Prize Winner (Art, Grades 10-12)
Kristina Fisher, Moon River, Grade 12, MM
-------
94 Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
HT HIGHLIGHT
Washington State's New Lake
Nutrient Criteria
Trophic State — a classifica-
tion of the productivity of a
lake ecosystem
Ecoregions - areas of relative
homogeneity in ecological
systems or in relationships
between organisms and their
environments
The Washington State Depart-
ment of Ecology recently adopted
lake nutrient criteria as part of revi-
sions to the state's Surface Water
Quality Standards. The new criteria
establish a three-step approach for
identifying and protecting lakes that
are threatened or
impacted by excess
nutrients. The state
plans to implement
the criteria through its
watershed process.
Why Limit
Nutrients?
While nutrients
such as phosphorus
and nitrogen are needed for plant
growth, an excess of nutrient inputs
to a lake can result in unwanted
amounts of plants and algae. Excess
nutrients are a major cause of
impairment to Washington's lakes.
The nutrient criteria will serve to
protect or restore lakes that are
threatened or impacted by excess
nutrients.
A Three-Step Approach
Washington has adopted a
three-step approach to establishing
lake nutrient criteria:
Step 1 - Set an action value for
each ecoregion
Step 2 - Use site-specific studies
for lakes exceeding the action value
Step 3 - Use trophic states to
protect high-quality lakes.
The first step in the nutrient
criteria process relies on total phos-
phorus action values established for
each of the major ecoregions within
the state. The action value is a total
phosphorus value established at the
upper limit of the trophic state in
each ecoregion. Washington used
EPA's Ecoregions of the Pacific North-
west to establish the ecoregions
used in this project. Action values
for nitrogen were not established
because most lakes in Washington
are phosphorus limited. Phosphorus
limitation means that the amount of
phosphorus in the lake, rather than
nitrogen or both nitrogen and phos-
phorus, controls the growth of
algae. Only a very few lakes are
nitrogen limited and can be
addressed through lake-specific
studies.
If monitoring shows that the
phosphorus level in a lake exceeds
the action value, then the second
step may be used to identify accept-
able total phosphorus levels. The
-------
Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 95
- ' HIGHLIGHjfUjWHT HIGHLIGHT
lake-specific study is intended to
quantify existing nutrient concentra-
tions, determine existing characteris-
tic uses, and potential uses.
However, if monitoring data
show that a lake's total phosphorus
is lower than the action value, the
third step may be used to help
protect these higher quality lakes.
For these lakes, the upper range of
the applicable trophic state may be
used as the proposed criteria.
Involving the Public
Public involvement is vital to the
success of Washington's lake nutrient
criteria program. Through the state's
watershed process, members of the
public propose lakes in need of
nutrient criteria. These stakehold-
ers — which include homeowner
groups, lake management districts,
and local governments — often coor-
dinate the monitoring needed to
determine if the lake exceeds its
action value. These groups may
also be involved with conducting
lake-specific studies. Funding for
both lake monitoring and lake-
specific studies may come from
Clean Water Act Section 31 9 grants
or through the state's Centennial
Clean Water Fund program.
Once the state has proposed a
specific nutrient standard for a lake,
the public is invited to review and
comment on the proposed criteria
as part of the formal process for
revising and adopting water quality
standards. The public is also involved
during the formal adoption process.
State law requires workshops, hear-
ings, and responsiveness summaries
as part of this process.
For More Information
Stephen Saunders
Washington Department
of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98502-7600
(360) 407-6481
e-mail: ssau461@ecy.wa.gov
' " ' •
-
ta, - %*,-„,-_' - r^u , -
^ _ t - -~ - ~- - -.
<*-•*• -
**<*- ~ — ~ — - — - — — — -
5 -
r
- ~ -— -
/•
~ — ~"
-----..- ~ ~- ~ -
•*" "f .-*._-- — - __0.
~
#**,,-**& -•
S4 -
"
,
-**•
,
^ " ~ ~ V ~ r
1
1 _
-------
96 Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
HIGHLIGH|O-| |%HT HIGHLIGHT
I ^-:
', < • ' '" -i ' • • "'.i1 ' •" . .
l!,, ' . " ! i •• i:
'' '' ' .H
','""
is1". * : i , " .'", ', . • -.
i|,j Ml " 1 'i
''• '' i , ; i:'; ' .'
';" ;; • '.';'!- •
, ,; ; ,
f-' , ' '":,' /
';l
!'•'! <'l ' , ''! •
";. ''1
' ' '' : in'' t . •'
i" ''" ' • ' 1
r ; ' , ' ' • I1--
1! r,, . ' •; ', '
p. i1
I, r , , , ;, :
„'„!."" ' . i
'll'ii ' , !
' 1* '" ' '
' ' ''' ' ' '"'l ' ' '
iilF1'!1!*1" ' ' ,„ ''si!!1, l ,:' " i, ',' L| " ' !'|i,ltli , ' iln
New Jersey Bond to Support
Lake Restoration Projects
In the November 1 996 general
election, the citizens of New Jersey
passed the Port of New Jersey Revi-
talization, Dredging, Environmental
Cleanup, Lake Restoration, and Dela-
ware Bay Area Economic Development
Bond Act of 1996. This Act included
$5 million for lake restoration
activities at public, private, and
state-owned lakes.
In January 1 998, regulations
were promulgated and adopted for
the disbursement of the funds pro-
vided for in the Act. The state devel-
oped regulations modeled after
EPA's Clean Water Act Section 314
Clean Lakes Program, and allocated
funding for Phase 1 and Phase II type
projects. New Jersey's regulations
define Phase I Diagnostic-Feasibility
Study as two-part studies to deter-
mine a lake's current condition and
to develop possible methods for
lake restoration and protection. The
two parts of the study are the diag-
nosis of water quality conditions,
including determination of pollutant
loading sources, and the develop-
ment of a feasible management/
restoration plan to address water
quality conditions at the lake. Phase
II Implementation Projects are
defined as the implementation of
any water quality improvement
process(es) that have been recom-
mended by a Phase 1 Diagnostic-
Feasibility Study.
The regulations also include a
prioritization methodology to award
funds. One of the factors considered
most in the prioritization process is
public participation. Local interest
and involvement are considered to
be the critical element in a success-
ful lake restoration project. Project
applicants are required to solicit
public comment on any projects
and to encourage public involve-
ment.
Applications were solicited and
requests worth approximately $22
million were received as part of
57 applications. The New Jersey
Department of Environmental
Protection had originally proposed
awarding the funds in two separate
funding cycles. However, due to the
, number and amount of requests,
a decision was made to award all
funds ($5 million) immediately.
The appropriation process was
completed in January 1 999. The
Department of Environmental
Protection is currently preparing the
associated agreements for the recipi-
ents of the funds.
• '• • '••" " '2 '!-.. :..•-•':•. •':;"-:••' . -\!Y- VV ••.-;• I-':-'. -';':::-.-;': '•-'••'•-.-••
-------
Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 97
Sources of EPA Support
for State Lake Protection
and Restoration Projects
Support for Lake
Projects Through the
CWA Section 319(h)
Grant Program
On July 9, 1998, EPA issued
Guidance on the Use of Clean Water
Act and Safe Drinking Water Act
Authorities to Address Management
Needs of Lakes and Reservoirs, which
emphasized the eligibility of lake
and reservoir restoration and protec-
tion activities for funding under
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and also encouraged greater
use of the CWA State Revolving
Fund (CW-SRF) and the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act (SDWA) programs to
implement priority lake and reser-
voir management projects. This
guidance referred to the earlier May
1996 Nonpoint Source Program
guidance that included a separate
section on "Lake Protection and
Restoration Activities." This section
encourages states to use Section
319 funding for "eligible activities
that might have been funded in
previous years under Section 314
of the Clean Water Act."
In November 1996, EPA also
issued a set of Questions and
Answers on the Relationship Between
the Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Program and the Section 314 Clean
Lakes Program. These Questions and
Answers clarified that "Phase I, II,
and III projects, and lake water
quality assessments which were
previously done under the Section
314 Clean Lakes Program are eligi-
ble for funding under Section
319(h) grants." However, the
Section 319 guidance stresses that
"(l)ake protection and restoration
activities are eligible for funding
under Section 319(h) to the same
extent, and subject to the same
criteria, as activities to protect and
restore other types of waterbodies
from nonpoint source pollution."
There are several key criteria that
lakes-related work needs to meet
to be eligible for funding under
Section 319:
• The activity must be included in a
state nonpoint source management
program. Thus, state lake managers
and lake communities will need to
ensure that critical lake nonpoint
source control needs are included in
any updated state nonpoint source
management programs.
HIGHLIG
HIGHLIGHT
-------
98 Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
• States may use Section 319 funds
to update state nonpoint source
management programs and non-
point source assessments, including
Phase I Clean Lakes Diagnostic-
Feasibility Studies and statewide lake
water quality assessments, subject
to the following limitation: The
guidance provides that states may
use up to 20% of their Section
319(h) funds to update and refine
their programs and assessments.
EPA Regional Clean Lakes Coor-
dinators, EPA Regional Nonpoint
Source Coordinators, and their
counterparts at the state/local level
are working together to ensure
that critical lake nonpoint source
management needs are addressed
through Section 319. Key actions
include ensuring that lake manage-
ment needs are included in updated
state nonpoint source management
programs so that these activities are
grant eligible and ensuring that
high-priority lake management
activities are included in annual
work programs for Section 319(h)
grants.
Support for Lake
Projects Through the
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
EPA has also been encouraging
greater use of the CW-SRF to
address nonpoint source problems.
In creating the CW-SRF, Con-
gress provided broad eligibility;
states can fund virtually any type
of water quality project, including
nonpoint source, wetlands, estuary
and other types of watershed pro-
jects, as well as the more traditional
municipal wastewater treatment
systems. Lake managers can seek
funding for projects under the
CW-SRF as long as the problem is
identified in state nonpoint source
management programs. So, lake
managers will want to make sure
that priority lake management
needs are identified in the updated
state nonpoint source management '
programs.
The CW-SRFs have in excess of
$27 billion in assets and since 1988
have funded more than $900 mil-
lion in nonpoint source projects.
EPA has established a goal of mov-
ing 10% of the Revolving Fund
disbursements to nonpoint source
projects. Thus, in addition to the
funds available under the Section
319 Nonpoint Source Program, an
enormous potential exists for using
the CW-SRF to fund lake and reser-
voir restoration and protection proj-
ects as well as projects for other
waterbody types.
Support for Lake
Projects Through Safe
Drinking Water Act
Initiatives
The Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996 include new
provisions that can be used to help
protect and restore lakes and reser-
voirs that are sources of drinking
water.
-------
Chapter Four Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 99
' - - HIGHLIGHlolj jlJQHI HIGHLIGHT
Under the Amendments, EPA
issued guidance for State Source
Water Assessment and Protection
Programs in August 1 997 and, as
of summer 1 999, most states have
submitted their programs for EPA
review and approval. Also, many
states have already started to under-
take source water assessments for a
number of public water supplies,
many of which draw water from
lakes or reservoirs. These assess-
ments will help identify local needs
for protection and/or restoration
activities, and these activities can
, be funded by a variety of sources,
including the Section 319 Nonpoint
Source Program; the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund created by
the 1 996 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act, which can
make loans and grants for source
water protection; and the separate
Clean Water State Revolving Funds.
EPA anticipates that many of
the principles developed as part of
the existing Wellhead Protection
Program for ground water systems
will be applicable to surface water
systems. Among other options,
states may design source water
protection programs that build on
wellhead components such as
source water area delineation,
contaminant source inventories,
management measures, and contin-
gency planning. Approaches for lake
assessment and diagnostic tech-
niques developed under the Clean
Water Act should also provide
models.
Developing a new water supply
can be very expensive. Source water
protection can be a cost-effective
prevention strategy for ensuring safe
drinking water supplies for new and
existing supply systems. A poor
water supply also increases the costs
of treatment for both large and
small water systems. To address
source water protection, the new
law creates a program to ensure
that states conduct assessments,
coordinated with existing informa-
tion and programs, to determine
the vulnerability of sources of
drinking water to contamination.
Delineating source water protection
areas and inventorying sources
of contamination ensure that
communities know the threats to
their drinking water and can devel-
op and implement appropriate
protection efforts.
^ _ _ _ _ __ _
-
_ _ . .
•>'
,
,
'.
i
/- - ' ~ - ., .'- ~~!
-
*
~ ~ - - - ~ — - -
— -,— ^- . — - —• — -^ ~. ' ^
,,
. - .
_""
~ I
-
,
.-"•••
~ — ~> ^ * , *-*•,*„„, ^ ,
«-«,
-------
-------
Coastal Resources —
Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline
Waters, and Coral Reefs
The United States' extensive
coastal resources include nearly
67,000 miles of ocean shoreline,
more than 5,500 miles of Great
Lakes shoreline, nearly 90,500
square miles of estuarine waters,
and extensive coral reef areas.
The oceans are one of the
earth's most significant resources.
The global ocean affects the health
and safety of the world by provid-
ing food, recreation, local weather
amelioration, and global climate
stabilization. Predictions say that
75% of the U.S. population will
live, work, or play along ocean
coasts by the year 2015.
The Great Lakes—Superior,
Michigan, Huron, Erie, and
Ontario— are an important part
of the physical and cultural heritage
of North America. Spanning more
than 750 miles from west to east,
these vast inland freshwater seas
have provided water for consump-
tion, transportation, power, recrea-
tion, and a host of other uses. The
Great Lakes basin is home to more
than 10% of the U.S. population
and some of the world's largest
concentrations of industrial capac-
ity. Many consider the Great Lakes
the United States' fourth seacoast.
Estuaries are the waters where
rivers meet the oceans and include
bays and tidal rivers. These waters
serve as nursery areas for many
commercial fish and most shellfish
populations, including shrimp,
oysters, crabs, and scallops. Most
of our nation's fish and shellfish
industry relies on productive
estuarine waters to provide healthy
habitat for some stage of fish and
shellfish development. Recreational
anglers also enjoy harvesting fish
that reproduce or feed in estuaries,
such as striped bass and flounder.
Coral reef systems include a
collection of biological communi-
ties, representing one of the most
diverse ecosystems in the world.
Individual coral, which are tiny
animals called polyps, secrete a hard
calcium carbonate skeleton, which
serves as a uniform base for a
colony of coral. Coral reefs provide
habitats for a large variety of orga-
nisms that rely on the coral as a
source of food and shelter. Residents
of coral reefs include various
sponges; molluscs such as sea slugs,
oysters, and clams; crustaceans such
as crabs and shrimp; many kinds of
sea worms; echinoderms such as
star fish and sea urchins; other
cnidarians such as jellyfish and sea
anemones; various types of fungi;
sea turtles; and many species of fish.
Water Quality
Assessment
States and tribes rate water
quality by comparing data to their
state and tribal water quality
standards. Water quality standards
include narrative and numeric crite-
ria that support specific designated
uses. Standards also specify goals to
-------
102 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
prevent degradation of good
quality waters.
States and tribes use their
numeric and narrative criteria to
evaluate whether the designated
uses assigned to the waterbodies
are supported. Designated uses
reflect the goals of the Clean Water
Act. They aim to protect human
health and the biological integrity
of aquatic ecosystems. The most
common designated uses are:
• Aquatic life support
• Drinking water supply
• Recreation such as swimming,
fishing, and boating
• Fish consumption.
After comparing water quality
data to standards, states and tribes
classify the waters into the follow-
ing categories:
• Good/Fully Supporting: Good
water quality supports a diverse
community of fish, plants, and
aquatic insects, as well as the array
of human activities assigned to an
estuary by the state. These waters
meet applicable water quality
standards, both criteria and
designated use.
• Good/Threatened: Good water
quality currently supports aquatic
life and human activities in and on
the estuary. These waters are cur-
rently meeting water quality stand-
ards, but states and tribes are con-
cerned they may degrade in the
near future. These concerns are
based on a trend of increasing
pollution or land use changes that
may threaten future water quality.
• Fair/Partially Supporting: Fair
water quality supports aquatic
communities with fewer species
of fish, plants, and aquatic insects
and/or pollution occasionally
interferes with human activities.
These waters are meeting water
quality standards most of the time,
but exhibit occasional exceedances.
For example, runoff during severe
thunderstorms may temporarily ele-
vate fecal coliform bacteria densities
and indicate that shellfish are not
safe to harvest and eat immediately
after summer storms.
• Poor/Not Supporting: Poor
water quality does not support a
healthy aquatic community and/or
prevents some human activities on
the estuary. These waters are not
meeting water quality standards.
For example, estuarine waters may
be devoid of fish for short periods
each summer because excessive
nutrients from runoff initiate algal
blooms that deplete oxygen
concentrations.
• Not Attainable: The state has
performed a use-attainability analy-
sis and demonstrated that support
of one or more designated benefi-
cial uses is not attainable due to
specific biological, chemical, physi-
cal, or economic/social conditions
(see Chapter 1 for additional infor-
mation).
Most states rate how well a
waterbody supports individual uses
(such as swimming and aquatic life)
and then consolidate individual use
ratings into a summary table. This
table divides assessed waters into
those that are:
• Good - Fully supporting all of
their uses or fully supporting all
uses but threatened for one or
more uses.
• Impaired - Partially or not
supporting one or more uses.
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 103
• Not attainable - Not able to
support one or more uses.
It is important to note that five
states did not include the effects of
statewide fish consumption advi-
sories for mercury when calculating
their summary use support status in
coastal waters. Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas
excluded the impairment associated
with statewide mercury advisories
in order to convey information
that would have been otherwise
masked by the fish consumption
advisories. If these advisories had
been included, all of the states'
coastal waters would receive an
impaired rating. (See the discussion
of mercury in Chapter 4.)
Similarly, six states did not
include the effects of statewide fish
consumption advisories for other
pollutants. Connecticut and Rhode
island excluded the impairment
associated with statewide PCB advi-
sories, Maine excluded the impair-
ment associated with a statewide
dioxin advisory for lobster tomalley,
Massachusetts excluded the impair-
ment associated with a statewide
PCB/organics advisory, and New
Jersey and New York excluded the
impairment associated with state-
wide PCB/cadmium/dioxin advi-
sories.
ESTUARIES
Twenty-two of the 27 coastal
states, the District of Columbia, the
Virgin Islands, and the Delaware
River. Basin Commission (collectively
referred to as states in the rest of
this chapter) rated general water
quality conditions in some of their
estuarine waters (Appendix C, Table
C-2, contains individual state data). •
In addition, New Jersey and the
Interstate Sanitation Commission
reported individual use support
status in estuarine waters but did
not summarize overall water quality
conditions. EPA used shellfishing
use support status to represent
overall water quality conditions in
New Jersey's estuarine waters and
fish consumption use support status
to represent overall water quality
conditions in the Interstate Sanita-
tion Commission's estuarine waters.
Puerto Rico also provided informa-
tion on its estuarine waters based
on linear miles rather than square
miles. Consequently, the data could
not be aggregated with those
reported by the states.
Altogether, these states
assessed 28,687 square miles of
estuarine waters, which equals 32%
of the 90,465 square miles of estu-
arine waters in the nation. The
states based 63% of their assess-
ments on monitored data and eval-
uated 17% of the assessed estua-
rine waters with qualitative infor-
mation (see Appendix C, Table C-2,
for individual state information).
The states did not specify whether
20% of the assessed estuarine
waters were monitored or eval-
uated.
Although the number of
assessed estuarine square miles
remained fairly constant between
1996 and 1998, the percent of
assessed estuarine waters declined
significantly. This change is due to
the fact that Alaska, Guam, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands provided estimates
of their total estuarine waters.
These waters represent an increase
of over 49,000 square miles of
estuarine waters.
Estuaries Assessed by States
1998 H 28,687 square miles = 32%
assessed
B Total square miles: 90,465a'e
68% Not Assessed
1996 m 28,819 square miles = 72%
assessed
B Total square miles: 39,839b
1994 m 26,847 square miles = 78%
assessed
• Total square miles: 34,388°
1992
27,227 square miles = 74%
assessed
Total square miles: 36,890d
aSource: 1998 state section 305(b) reports.
bSource: 1996 state section 305(b) reports.
cSource: 1994 state section 305(b) reports.
dSource: 1992 state section 305(b) reports.
eThe total number of estuarine square miles
reported by the states increased between
1996 and 1998 because Alaska, Guam,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands provided estimates of their
total estuarine waters.
-------
104 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Assessed Waters
Total estuaries = 90,465 square miles3
Total assessed = 28,687 square miles
• 32% assessed
• 68% not assessed
Of the assessed estuarine waters:
• 63% were monitored
• 17% were evaluated
• 20% were not specified
Assessed Water Quality
44% Impaired
for one or
more uses
56% Good
"Source: 1998 state Section 305(b) reports.
The states constantly revise
their assessment methods in an
effort to improve their accuracy and
precision. These changes limit the
comparability of data from year to
year. Similarly, differences in state
assessment methods limit meaning-
ful comparisons of estuarine infor-
mation submitted by individual
states. States devote varying
resources to monitoring biological
integrity, water chemistry, and toxic
pollutants in fish tissues. The wide
range in water quality ratings
reported by the states reflects both
differences in water quality and
Figure 5-1
differences in monitoring and
assessment methods.
Summary of Use
Support
The states reported that 56% of
the assessed estuarine waters have
good water quality that fully sup-
ports designated uses (Figure 5-1).
Of the assessed waters, 47% fully
support uses and 9% are threat-
ened for one or more uses. Some
form of pollution or habitat degra-
dation impairs the remaining 44%
of the assessed estuarine waters.
Summary of Use Support
in Assessed Estuaries
Good
56%
Threatened I
for One or More Uses
Impaired
for One or More Uses
Not
Attainable
o%
This figure presents the status of the assessed square miles of estuaries.
Of 28,687 square miles assessed, 56% fully support their designated uses and
44% are impaired for one or more uses. Nine percent of assessed waters are fully
supporting uses but threatened.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-2.
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 105
Individual Use
Support
Individual use support assess-
ment provides important detail
about the nature of water quality
problems in our nation's surface
waters. The states establish specific
designated uses for waterbodies
through their water quality stand-
ards. The states consolidate their
more detailed uses into five general
use categories so that EPA can pre-
sent a summary of the state and
tribal data. •
The standard uses are aquatic
life support, fish consumption,
shellfish harvesting, primary contact
recreation (such as swimming and
diving), and secondary contact
recreation (such as boating). Few
states designate saline estuarine
waters for drinking water supply
use and agricultural use because
of high treatment costs.
Twenty-five states reported
the individual use support status of
their estuarine waters (see Appen-
dix C, Table C-3, for individual state
information). Most often, these
states examined aquatic life condi-
tions and swimming use in their
estuarine waters (Figure 5-2). The
states reported that pollutants:
• Impact aquatic life in 7,779
square miles of estuarine waters
(about 34% of the 22,447 square
miles assessed for aquatic life
support)
• Restrict fish consumption in
5,432 square miles of estuarine
waters (about 35% of the 15,260
square miles assessed for fish
consumption)
• Prevent shellfish harvesting crite-
ria in 4,929 square miles of estuar-
ine waters (27% of the 18,212
square miles assessed for shellfish-
ing use support).
• Violate swimming criteria in
1,976 square miles of estuarine
waters (9% of the 21,214 square
miles assessed for swimming use
support).
Caters e
Individual Use Support in Estuaries
Square Good Good Fair Poor Not
Miles (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Assessed Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
This figure presents a tally of the square miles of estuaries assessed by states for
each category of designated use. For each category, the figure presents a sum-
mary of the proportion of the assessed waters rated according to quality.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-3.
-------
106 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Water Quality
Problems Identified
in Estuaries
When states and tribes rate
waters as impaired, they also
attempt to identify the causes and
sources of impairment. Figures 5-3
and 5-4 identify the pollutants and
sources of pollutants that impair
the most square miles of assessed
estuarine waters. •
The following sections describe
the leading pollutants and sources
of impairment identified in estua-
ries. It is important to note that the
information about pollutants and
sources is incomplete. The states
and tribes do not always report the
pollutant or source of pollutants
impacting every impaired estuarine
waterbody. In some cases, they
may recognize that water quality
. does not fully support a designated
use but may not have adequate
data to document the specific pol-
lutant or stressor responsible for the
impairment. Sources of impairment
are even more difficult to identify
than pollutants and stressors.
Pollutants and Processes
Impacting Estuaries
Twenty-seven states reported
pollutants and processes related to
human activities that impact some
of their estuarine waters (see
Appendix C, Table C-4, for individ-
ual state information).
Often, more than one pollutant
or stressor impacts a single estua-
rine waterbody. In such cases, the
states and other jurisdictions count
a single square mile of estuary
under each pollutant or stressor
category that impacts the estuary.
Therefore, the percentages of estua-
rine waters impaired by all the
pollutant and process categories do
not add up to 100% in Figure 5-3.
The states identified more
square miles of estuarine waters
polluted by bacteria (pathogens)
than any other pollutant or stressor
(Figure 5-3). Twenty-five states
reported that bacteria pollute 5,919
square miles of estuarine waters
(21 % of the assessed estuarine
waters and 47% of the impaired
estuarine waters). Most states
monitor indicator bacteria, such
as Escherichia coli, that inhabit the
digestive tracts of humans and
other warm-blooded animals and
populate sewage in high densities.
Such bacteria provide evidence that
an estuary is contaminated with
sewage that may contain numerous
viruses and bacteria that cause
illness in people. Most states moni-
tor the indicator bacteria rather
than run multiple tests to detect
the numerous harmful viruses and
bacteria in sewage.
Pathogenic viruses and bacteria
seldom impact aquatic organisms
such as fish and shellfish. However,
shellfish can accumulate bacteria
and viruses from contaminated
water and cause illness when
ingested. Therefore, the Food and
Drug Administration and the states
restrict the harvest and sale of
shellfish grown in waters polluted
with indicator bacteria. Bacteria also
interfere with recreational activities
because some pathogens can be
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 107
Figure 5-3
Leading POLLUTANTS in Impaired Estuaries
Total Estuaries
90,465 square miles
ASSESSED Estuaries
28,687 square miles
12,482
square
miles
Leading Pollutants/Stressors
Miles
Pathogens (Bacteria)
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Metals
Nutrients
Thermal Modifications
PCBs
Priority Toxic Organic Chemicals
Percent of IMPAIRED Estuarine Square Miles
10 .20 30 40 50
05 10 15 20 25
Percent of ASSESSED Estuarine Square Miles
States assessed 32% of the total square miles of estuaries for the 1998 report.
The larger pie chart on the left illustrates this proportion. The smaller pie chart
on the right shows that, for the subset of assessed waters, 56% are rated as good
and 44% as impaired. When states identify waters that are impaired, they
describe the pollutants or processes causing or contributing to the impairment.
The bar chart presents the leading causes and the number ofestuarine square
miles impacted. The percent scales on the upper and lower x-axis of the bar
chart provide different perspectives on the magnitude of the impact of these pol-
lutants. The lower axis compares the square miles impacted by the pollutant to
the total ASSESSED square miles. The upper axis compares the square miles
impacted by the pollutant to the total IMPAIRED square miles.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-4.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair an estuary.
; The pollutants/processes
and: sources shown here
•Mgy^notcorfesporiddirect-
!Jytoone another (i.e., the
originate from the leading
-source}. Thismayoccur
bemuse a major pollutant
may be released from
fflany/fiinorsources. It:
^aisojiappens-When states
:donothaYetheinfor-
• motion to determine all
:the sources of a particular
pollutant/siressor.
According to the states,
PATHOGENS (bacteria) are
the,mostcommon pollutant
;affecting assessed estuaries.
High levels of pathogens
prompt health officials to close
areas to shellfish harvesting
and swimming. Pathogens
(bacteria)
• Are found in 21% of
the assessed portions of
estuaries (see Figure 5-3)
• Contribute to 47% of
_. reported water quajity
problems in the impaired
- portions of estuaries.
-------
108 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, -Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Figure 5-4
Leading SOURCES of Estuary Impairment*
Total Estuaries
90,465 square miles
ASSESSED Estuaries
28,687 square miles
16,205 L.56%
square \ Good
12,482
square
miles
According to the states,
MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES
and URBAN RUNOFF/STORM
SEWERS are the leading
sources of pollution in assessed
estuaries. These sources each
• Affect 12% of the
assessed portions of
estuaries
• Contribute to 28% of
reported water quality
problems in the impaired
portions of estuaries (see
Figure 5-4).
Leading Sources
Miles
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Atmospheric Deposition
Industrial Discharges
Agriculture
Land Disposal of Wastes
Combined Sewer Overflow
Percent of IMPAIRED Estuarine Square Miles
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percent of ASSESSED Estuarine Square Miles
States assessed 32% of the total square miles of estuaries for the 1998 report.
The larger pie chart on the left illustrates this proportion. The smaller pie chart
on the right shows that, for the subset of assessed waters, 56% are rated as good
and 44% as impaired. When states identify waters that are impaired, they also
describe the sources of pollutants associated with the impairment. The bar chart
presents the leading sources and the number of estuarine square miles they
impact. The percent scales on the upper and lower x-axis of the bar chart pro-
vide different perspectives on the magnitude of the impact of these sources. The
lower axis compares the square miles impacted by the source to the total
ASSESSED square miles. The upper axis compares the square miles impacted by
the source to the total IMPAIRED square miles.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-5.
*Excluding unknown, natural, and "other" sources.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair an estuary.
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 109
transmitted by contact with
contaminated water or ingestion
during swimming (Figure 5-5).
Twenty-two states reported
that oxygen depletion from organic
wastes impacts 5,185 square miles
of estuarine waters (18% of the
assessed estuarine waters and 42%
of the impaired estuarine waters).
Oxygen-depletion may trigger fish
kills and foul odors and can
adversely affect aquatic life.
The states report that metals
pollute 3,431 square miles of estu-
aries (12% of the assessed estuarine
waters and 27% of the impaired
estuarine waters). Similar to lakes,
this is mainly due to the wide-
spread detection of mercury in fish
tissue samples. See the highlight
on page 196 for more information
on mercury-contamination of fish
tissue.
The states also report that
excess nutrients impact 2,880
square miles (10% of the assessed
estuarine waters and 23% of the
impaired estuarine waters). As in
lakes, extra inputs of nutrients
destabilize estuarine ecosystems.
When temperature and light
conditions are favorable, excessive
nutrients stimulate population
explosions of undesirable algae
whose decomposition causes
oxygen depletion.
The states report that thermal
modifications (activities that alter
the temperature of estuarine
waters) degrade 2,222 square miles
(8% of the assessed estuarine
waters and 18% of the impaired
Figure 5-5
Urban runoff and storm sewers are
the leading source of impairment
in estuarine waters
Sources of Bacteria
Overloaded or improperly functioning
sewage treatment plants may release
waste that contains bacteria
Failing septic systems
may release bacteria
Some bacteria, such as fecal coliforms, provide evidence that an estuary is contaminated with fecal material that may
contain pathogenic bacteria and viruses harmful to people. Often, the pathogenic viruses and bacteria do not adversely
impact aquatic life such as fish and shellfish. However, shellfish may accumulate bacteria and viruses that cause human
diseases when ingested. Therefore, officials restrict shellfish harvesting in contaminated waters to protect public health.
Bacteria also impair swimming uses because some pathogenic bacteria and viruses can be transmitted by contact with
contaminated water.
-------
110 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
estuarine waters). Estuaries are
often home to large utilities that
discharge heated cooling water
as they produce electricity. The
change in temperature may impact
the ability of fish to spawn. In
addition, heated water holds less
dissolved oxygen, which is needed
by many aquatic organisms.
The states determined that
PCBs pollute 1,315 square miles
(5% of the assessed estuarine
waters and 11 % of the impaired
estuarine waters). Although use of
PCBs has been banned, quantities
of the chemical persist in the envi-
ronment. PCBs bioaccumulate in
the fatty tissue of organisms. Con-
sumption of contaminated fish and
shellfish can pose public health
threats.
The states also reported that
priority toxic organic chemicals
pollute 806 square miles (3% of the
assessed estuarine waters and 6%
of the impaired estuarine waters).
These chemicals, which include
pesticides such as DDT and chlor-
dane, pose risks to human health
and aquatic life.
Oxygen-depleting substances,
metals, nutrients, and priority
organic chemicals are. widespread
problems reported by more than
10 of the 27 coastal states. In
contrast, only a few states reported
significant impacts from thermal
modifications and PCBs.
Sources of Pollutants
Impacting Estuaries
Twenty-six states reported
sources of pollution related to
human activities that impact
some of their estuarine waters
(see Appendix C, Table C-5, for
individual state information). These
states reported that municipal
sewage treatment plants are the
most widespread source of pollu-
tion in their assessed estuarine
waters. Pollutants in municipal
discharges degrade aquatic life or
interfere with public use of 3,528
square miles of estuarine waters
(12% of the assessed estuarine
waters and 28% of the impaired
estuarine waters) (Figure 5-4).
The states also reported that
pollution from urban runoff and
storm sewers impacts 3,482 square
miles of estuarine waters (12% of
the assessed estuarine waters and
28% of the impaired estuarine
waters), atmospheric deposition of
pollutants impacts 2,922 square
miles of estuarine waters (10% of
the assessed estuarine waters and
23% of the impaired estuarine
waters), industrial discharges
pollute 1,926 square miles of estua-
rine waters (7% of the assessed
estuarine waters and 15%-of the
impaired estuarine waters), agricul-
ture pollutes 1,827 square miles of
estuarine waters (6% of the
assessed estuarine waters and 15%
of the impaired estuarine waters),
land disposal of wastes pollutes
1,508 square miles (5% of the
assessed estuarine waters .and 12%
of the impaired estuarine waters),
and pollution from combined sewer
overflows impairs 1,451 square
miles of estuarine waters (5% of the
assessed estuarine waters and 12%
of the impaired estuarine waters).
Urban sources contribute more to
the degradation of estuarine waters
than does agriculture because
urban centers are located adjacent
to most major estuaries.
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 111
GREAT LAKES
SHORELINE
Five of the eight Great Lakes
states rated general water quality
conditions in 4,950 miles of Great
Lakes shoreline in their 1998 Sec-
tion 305(b) reports (see Appendix
F, Tables F-1 and F-2, for individual
state information). These states
based 74% of their assessments
on monitored data and evaluated
14% of the assessed shoreline miles
with qualitative information (see
Appendix F, Table F-2, for individual
state information). The states did
not specify whether the remaining
12% of the assessed shoreline miles
were monitored or evaluated.
Figure 5-6
Summary of Use
Support
The states reported that only
4% of their assessed Great Lakes
shoreline miles have good water
quality that fully supports desig-
nated uses (Figure 5-6). Of the
assessed waters, 2% fully support
uses and 2% fully support uses but
are threatened for one or more
uses. Some form of pollution or
habitat degradation impairs the
remaining 96% of assessed Great
Lakes shoreline. This degradation
leads to fish consumption advi-
sories. Nearly all of the Great Lakes
shoreline supports recreation and
drinking water uses.
Summary of Use Support
in Assessed Great Lakes Shoreline Waters
Impaire
for One or More Uses
Threatened
for One or More Uses
2%
Not
Attainable
o%
This figure presents the status of the assessed Great Lakes shoreline waters.
Of the 4,950 miles of Great Lakes shoreline assessed, 4% fully support their des-
ignated uses and 96% are impaired for one or more uses. Two percent of the
assessed waters are fully supporting uses but threatened.
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-2.
Great Lakes Shoreline Miles Assessed
by States
1998 B 4,950 miles = 90% assessed
• Total shoreline miles: 5,521
90%
Assessed
10% Not
Assessed
1996 m 5,186 miles = 94% assessed
• Total shoreline miles: 5,521b
1994
1992
5,224 miles = 94% assessed
Total shoreline miles: 5,559C
5,319 miles = 99% assessed
Total ocean shore miles: 20,121d
Of the assessed Great Lakes shoreline
waters:
• 74% were monitored
• 14%. were evaluated
• 12% were not specified
Assessed Water Quality
96% Impaired
4% Good
aSource: 1998 state section 305(b) reports.
bSource: 1996 state section 305(b) reports.
cSource: 1994 state section 305(b) reports.
dSource: 1992 state section 305(b) reports.
-------
112 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Individual Use
Support
Individual Use Support in the Great Lakes
Percent
Designated
Use
Good Good Fair Poor Hot
Miles (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Assessed Supporting) Supporting) Supporting) '
Aquatic life Support |, -„;. ' j _ •_.,' ,_,;. ,„ -,"_•;., I,,,;,, ; .:,.. „
Tills figure presents a tally of the miles of Great Lakes shoreline assessed by
states for each category of designated use. For each category, the figure presents
a summary of the proportion of the assessed waters rated according to quality.
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-3.
The states establish specific
designated uses for waterbodies
through their water quality stand-
ards. The states consolidate their
more detailed uses into six general
use categories so that EPA can pre-
sent a summary of the state and
tribal data. The standard uses con-
sist of aquatic life support, fish con-
sumption, primary contact recre-
ation (such as swimming and div-
ing), secondary contact recreation
(such as boating), drinking water
supply, and agricultural use.
Five of the eight Great Lakes
states reported the individual use
support status of their Great Lakes
shoreline (see Appendix F, Table
F-3, for individual state informa-
tion). These states report that swim-
ming, secondary contact, drinking
water supply, and agricultural uses
are met in nearly all assessed shore-
line miles (Figure 5-7). The report-
ing states indicated that the great-
est impacts to Great Lakes shoreline
are on fishing activities.
The states bordering the Great
Lakes have issued advisories to
restrict consumption of fish caught
along their entire shorelines.
Depending upon location, mercury,
RGBs, pesticides, or dioxins are
found in fish tissues at levels that
exceed standards set to protect
human health. The water concen-
trations of most organochlorine
compounds have declined dramati-
cally since control measures began
in the mid-1970s. As a result, con-
centrations, of these contaminants
in fish tissue have also declined,
although 3,313 shoreline miles
(96% of the assessed Great Lakes
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 113
waters) still fail to fully support fish
consumption uses.
Water Quality
Problems Identified
in Great Lakes
Shoreline Waters
Only three Great Lakes states
identified pollutants and sources of
pollutants degrading Great Lakes,
shoreline (Appendix F, Tables F-4
and F-5, contain individual state
information). Limited conclusions
can be drawn from such a small
fraction of the nation's Great Lakes
shoreline miles. The top causes of
impairment cited by the three
states were priority organic chemi-
cals, pesticides, and nonpriority
organic chemicals. In addition,
excess nutrients, bacteria (patho-
gens), oxygen-depleting sub-
stances, and metals caused water
quality impairments in more local-
ized areas (Figure 5-8).
The states reported that atmos-
pheric deposition, discontinued
discharges from pipes, contami-
nated sediments, industrial dis-
charges, urban runoff and storm
sewers, agriculture, and municipal
sewage treatment plants are the
primary sources of pollutants that
impair their Great Lakes shoreline
waters (Figure 5-9). Discontinued
discharges refer to historical dis-
charges that resulted in sediment
contamination that remains today.
Figure 5-8
Leading POLLUTANTS in Impaired
Great Lakes Shoreline Waters
Total Great Lakes Shoreline
5,521 miles
ASSESSED Great Lakes Shoreline
4,950 miles
10%
Not
Assessed
4% Good
188 miles
Leading Ppllutants/Stressors
Miles
Priority Toxic Organic Chemicals
Pesticides
Nonpriority Organic Chemicals
Nutrients
Pathogens (Bacteria)
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Metals
Percent of IMPAIRED Great Lakes Shoreline Miles
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
1,391
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Percent of ASSESSED Great Lakes Shoreline Miles
States assessed 90% of the total miles of Great Lakes shoreline for the 1998 report.
The larger pie chart on the left illustrates this proportion. The smaller pie chart on
the right shows that, for the subset of assessed waters, 4% are rated as good and 96%
as impaired. When states identify waters that are impaired, they describe the pollut-
ants or processes causing or contributing to the impairment. The bar chart presents
the leading causes and the number of Great Lakes shoreline miles impacted. The
percent scales on the upper and lower x-axis of the bar chart provide different per-
spectives on the magnitude of the impact of these pollutants. The lower axis com-
pares the miles impacted by the pollutant to the total ASSESSED miles. The upper
axis compares the miles impacted by the pollutant to the total IMPAIRED miles.
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-4.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant of source may
impair a segment of ocean shoreline.
-------
114 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Figure 5-9
The pollutants/processes
and sources shown here
may not correspond direct-
ly to one another (i.e., the
leading pollutant may not
originate from the leading
source). This may occur
because a major pollutant
may be released from
many minor sources. It
also happens when states
do not have the infor-
mation to determine all
the sources of a particular
pollutant/stressor.
•These discharges resulted in sediment
contamination that remains today.
Leading SOURCES of Great Lakes
Shoreline Impairment
Total Great Lakes Shoreline
5,521 miles
ASSESSED Great Lakes Shoreline
4,950 miles
10%
Not
Assessed
4%
Good
188 miles
Leading Sources
Miles
Atmospheric Deposition
Discontinued Discharges from
Pipes*
Contaminated Sediments
Industrial Discharges
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Percent of IMPAIRED Great Lakes Shoreline Miles
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
1,017
1,017
684
140
134
133
120
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Percent of ASSESSED Great Lakes Shoreline Miles
States assessed 90% of the total miles of Great Lakes shoreline for the 1998 report.
The larger pie chart on the left illustrates this proportion. The smaller pie chart on
the right shows that, for the subset of assessed waters, 4% are rated as good and 96%
as impaired. When states identify waters that are impaired, they also describe the
sources of pollutants associated with the impairment. The bar chart presents the
leading sources and the number of Great Lakes shoreline miles they impact. The
percent scales on the upper and lower x-axis of the bar chart provide different per-
spectives on the magnitude of the impact of these sources. The lower axis compares
the miles impacted by the source to the total ASSESSED miles. The upper axis com-
pares the miles impacted by the source to the total IMPAIRED miles.
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-5.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a segment of ocean shoreline.
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 115
OCEAN SHORE-
LINE WATERS
Fourteen of the 27 coastal
states and territories rated general
water quality conditions in some of
their coastal waters (see Appendix
C, Table C-6, for individual state
information). In addition, New
jersey reported individual use sup-
port status in ocean shoreline
waters but did not summarize gen-
eral water quality conditions. EPA
used swimming use support status
to represent general water quality
conditions in New Jersey's ocean
shoreline waters. Texas provided
information on its ocean shoreline
waters based on square miles rather
than linear miles. Consequently, the
data could not be aggregated with
those reported by the other states.
All together, these states
assessed 3,130 miles of ocean
shoreline, which equals 5% of the
nation's coastline (including Alaska's
44,000 miles of coastline) or 14%
of the 22,419 miles of national
coastline excluding Alaska. The
states based 25% of their
assessments on monitored data
and 66% on qualitative information
(see Appendix C, Table C-6, for
individual state information). The
states did not specify whether 9%
of the assessed coastal shoreline
waters were monitored or eval-
uated.
The number of ocean shoreline
miles assessed by the states
decreased slightly between the two
reporting cycles. This decrease is
due primarily to the fact that, in
1998, the assessment information
provided by Texas could not be
aggregated with that reported by
the other states. Also during the
1998 reporting cycle, the states'
estimates of their total ocean shore-
line miles increased by more than
8,000 miles. This change is due to
the fact that Alaska refined its esti-
mate of shoreline mileage and
Guam and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Marina Islands pro-
vided estimates of their total ocean
shoreline. Excluding Alaska, the
other 14 reporting states provided
information on 69% of their own
4,536 coastal shoreline miles.
-------
116 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Ocean Shoreline Waters Assessed by SUITIITiary Of
states Support
Including Alaska's Ocean Shoreline —_———
1998 m 3,130 miles = 5% assessed
Total ocean shoreline miles: 66,645a
The states reported that 88%
(2,753 miles) of their assessed
ocean shoreline miles have good
quality that supports a healthy
95% Not Assessed
Excluding Alaska's Ocean Shoreline
1998 m 3,130 miles = 14% assessed
• Total ocean shoreline miles: 22,419
86% Not Assessed
Of the assessed ocean shoreline miles:
• 25% were monitored
• 66% were evaluated
• 9% were not specified
1996 m 3,651 miles = 6% assessed
• Total ocean shoreline miles: 22,585b
1994 01 5,208 miles = 9% assessed
• Total ocean shoreline miles: 58,421c
1992 01 3,398 miles = 17% assessed
• Total ocean shore miles: 20,121d
aSource: 1998 state section 305(b) reports.
bSource: 1996 state section 305(b) reports.
cSource: 1994 state section 305(b) reports.
dSource: 1992 state section 305(b) reports.
Assessed Water Quality
12% Impaired
for one or
more uses
88% Good
aquatic community and public
activities (Figure 5-10). Of the
assessed waters, 80% fully support
designated uses and 8% are threat-
ened for one or more uses. Some
form of pollution or habitat
degradation impairs the remaining
12% of the assessed shoreline
(377 miles).
Individual Use
Support
The states establish specific
designated uses for waterbodies
through their water quality stand-
ards. The states consolidate their
more detailed uses into five general
Figure 5-10
Summary of Use Support
in Assessed Ocean Shoreline Waters <1
'
Threatened
for One or More Uses
Impaired
for One or More Uses
Not
Attainable
<0.02%
This figure presents the status of the assessed miles of ocean shoreline. Of the
3,130 miles ocean shoreline assessed, 88% fully support their designated uses
and 12% are impaired for one or more uses. Eight percent of the assessed waters
are fully supporting uses but threatened.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-6.
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 117
use categories so that EPA can pre-
sent a summary of the state and
tribal data. The standard uses
consist of aquatic life support, fish
consumption, shellfish harvesting,
primary contact recreation (such
as swimming and diving), and sec-
ondary contact recreation (such as
boating). Few states designate
saline ocean waters for drinking
water supply use and agricultural
use because of high treatment
costs.
The states provided limited
information on individual use
support in ocean shoreline waters
(Appendix C, Table C-7, contains
individual state information).
Thirteen states rated swimming use
in their ocean shoreline waters, but
only nine states rated aquatic life
support, six rated fish consumption
use, eight rated shellfishing sup-
port, and nine rated secondary
contact recreation use. Limited con-
clusions can be drawn from such a
small fraction of the nation's ocean
shoreline miles (Figure 5-11).
It is important to note that
eleven states have adopted state-
wide coastal fish consumption
advisories for mercury, PCBs, and
other pollutants. The effect of these
advisories is not reflected in Figure
5-11.
assessed
Waters
Individual Use Support in Ocean Shoreline Waters
" Designated
'. . . Use
Good Good Fair Poor Not
Miles (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Assessed Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Aquatic Life Support
This figure presents a tally of the miles of ocean shoreline assessed by states for
each category of designated use. For each category, the figure presents a summary
of the proportion of the assessed waters rated according to quality.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-7.
-------
118 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Figure 5-12
Leading POLLUTANTS in Impaired
Ocean Shoreline Waters
Total Ocean Shoreline
66,645 miles
ASSESSED Ocean Shoreline
.3,130* miles
12%
IMPAIRED
377
miles
Leading Pollutants/Stressors
Miles
Pathogens (bacteria)
Turbidity
Nutrients
Suspended solids
Siltation
pH
Metals
Percent of IMPAIRED Shoreline Miles
20 30 40 50 60
290
176
Percent of ASSESSED Shoreline Miles
States assessed 5% of the total miles of ocean shoreline for the 1998 report. The larg-
er pie chart on the left illustrates this proportion. The smaller pie chart on the right
shows tiiat, for the subset of assessed waters, 88% are rated as good and 12% as
impaired. \VJien states identify waters that are impaired, they describe the pollutants
or processes causing or contributing to the impairment. The bar chart presents the
leading causes and the number of ocean shoreline miles impacted. The percent scales
on the upper and lower x-axis of the bar chart provide different perspectives on the
magnitude of the impact of these pollutants. The lower axis compares the miles
impacted by the pollutant to the total ASSESSED miles. The upper axis compares the
miles impacted by the pollutant to the total IMPAIRED miles.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-8.
•Includes miles assessed as not attainable.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a segment of ocean shoreline.
Water Quality
Problems Identified
in Ocean Shoreline
Waters
Of the 15 states that reported
on coastal waters, 10 identified
pollutants and sources of pollutants
degrading ocean shoreline waters
(Appendix C, Tables C-8 and C-9,
contain individual state informa-
tion). The primary pollutants and
stressors reported by the 10 states
include bacteria (pathogens), tur-
bidity, excess nutrients, suspended
solids, siltation, acidity (pH), and
metals (Figure 5-12). The primary
sources reported include urban
runoff and .storm sewers, land dis-
posal of wastes, municipal sewage
treatment plants, accidental spills,
industrial discharges, agriculture,
recreation and tourism activities,
and construction (Figure
5-13).
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 119
Figure 5-13
Leading SOURCES of Ocean
Shoreline Impairment'*"
Total Ocean Shoreline
66,645 miles
ASSESSED Ocean Shoreline
3,130* miles
12%
IMPAIRED
377
miles
Leading .Sources
Miles
Urban Runoff/Storm
Sewers
Land Disposal
Municipal Point Sources
Spills
Industrial Point Sources
Agriculture
Recreation and
Tourism Activities
Construction
Percent of IMPAIRED Shoreline Miles
10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of ASSESSED Shoreline Miles
States assessed 5% of the total miles of ocean shoreline for the 1998 report. The larg-
er pie chart on the left illustrates this proportion. The smaller pie chart on the right
shows that, for the subset of assessed \vaters, 88% are rated as good and 12% as
impaired. When states identify waters that are impaired, they also describe the
sources of pollutants associated with the impairment. The bar chart presents the
leading sources and the number of ocean shoreline miles they impact. The percent
scales on the upper and lower x-axis of the bar chart provide different perspectives on
the magnitude of the impact of these sources. The lower axis compares the miles
impacted by the source to the total ASSESSED miles. The upper axis compares the
miles impacted by the source to the total IMPAIRED miles.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-9.
t Excluding natural sources.
includes miles assessed as not attainable.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a segment of ocean shoreline.
The pollutants/processes
and sources shown here
may not correspond direct-
ly to one another (i.e., the
leading pollutant may not
onginate from the leading
_ source). This may occur
because a major pollutant
may be released from
many minor sources. It
also happens when states
do not have the infor-
mation to determine all
the sources of a particular
pollutant/stressor.
-------
120 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Figure 5-14
CORAL REEFS
Among the most productive
ecosystems in the ocean, coral reefs
are inhabited by a wide variety of
fish, invertebrate, and plant species.
These reefs are the living jewels
that encircle the shoreline in many
tropical areas, providing important
assets to local and national econo-
mies, including fisheries for food,
materials for new medicines,
and income from tourism and
recreation. Coral reefs also provide
coastal communities with protec-
tion from storms.
Coral reef areas are found in
only three states—Florida, primarily
in the Florida Keys; Hawaii,
throughout the Hawaiian archipel-
ago; and Texas, in the offshore
Flower Gardens (Figure 5-14). Lush
reef areas are also found in five U.S.
territories in both the Atlantic and
Pacific regions, including American
Samoa, Guam, the Northern
U.S. Coral Reef Areas
Jexas
U.S. Virgin Islands 1%
Guam 1%
Florida Keys 2%
American Samoa 2%
Puerto Rico 3%
'Other Pacific Islands 4%
N. Mariana islands 3%
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The proximity of coral reefs to
land makes them particularly sensi-
tive to impacts from human activi-
ties. Because they depend on light,
coral reefs require clear water for
growth and can be severely dam-
aged by sediment or other factors
that reduce water clarity or quality.
Recent evidence indicates that coral
reefs are deteriorating worldwide,
and many are in crisis. Symptoms
include loss of hard corals,
increased abundance of algae, and
a dramatic increase in bleaching
episodes and disease outbreaks. In
an effort to prevent further loss of
coral reef ecosystems, on June 11,
1998, President Clinton signed
Executive Order 13089 on Coral
Reef Protection, which created the
U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. The task
force is charged with the following
duties:
• Mapping and monitoring reefs
• Researching coral reef degra-
dation
• Working to implement measures
to protect reefs
• Promoting reef conservation
worldwide.
Efforts are under way in Hawaii,
Florida, and American Samoa to
assess the status of coral reefs and
identify pollutants and stressors to
coral reef ecosystems. The findings
will be used to develop manage-
ment actions to protect coral reefs
in these states.
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 121
Hawaii's Coral Reefs
The islands of the Hawaiian
archipelago are isolated by over
2,000 miles of ocean from any
major land mass. These remote
islands consist of 8 major islands
and 124 smaller islands, coral atolls,
and shoals. Because of its great
distance from all other major land
forms, Hawaii has an extremely
high level of endemic species—
species that are found nowhere else
on earth.
Coral reefs are important to the
Hawaiian Islands for several reasons.
The existence of coral reefs protects
and stabilizes the shoreline from
dangerous waves and storm surge.
The reefs are also the underwater
structures that create Hawaii's
famous surf beaches. Most of the
sand on Hawaii's beaches comes
from the breakdown of coral from
both physical and biological activity
as the polyps and small portions of
the coral skeleton are consumed by
coral-grazing fish such as parrotfish.
Because they provide shelter for a
wide variety of fish and invertebrate
species, coral reefs are a vital habi-
tat. They provide nursery areas for
many types of juvenile fish and
shellfish species. Reefs are also valu-
able sources of medicine such as
anticancer agents for the pharma-
ceutical industry; coral is now also
being used for human bone
replacement.
Coral Reef Degradation
in Hawaii
Natural impacts to Hawaiian
coral reefs occur as a result of hurri-
canes and severe storms. Outbreaks
of Crown-of-Thorn starfish popula-
tions that feed voraciously on coral
polyps kill large parts of the reef.
Coral bleaching and other coral
diseases are also natural stressors on
coral reefs.
Human activities also can cause
significant impacts to coral popula-
tions. These activities include
• Introduction of alien species from
ballast water of international cargo
ships
• Removal of selected tropical fish
and invertebrate species for the
aquarium trade
• Commercial and recreational
fishing pressures
• Marine debris, petroleum, and
other toxic chemical spills
• Nutrient pollution from nonpoint
source agricultural runoff or from
point source discharges from
sewage treatment facilities
• Sediment runoff
• Offshore dredging activities
• Marine tourism
• Urbanization of coastal areas.
See the accompanying high-
light for more information on the
effects of tropical fish collection.
-------
122 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Status of Hawaii's
Coral Reefs
In Hawaii's State of the Reefs
Report (1998), the state reported on
the status of a number of environ-
mental characteristics of Hawaii's
reefs, including:
• Water Quality - While the status
of water quality for human health
effects is fairly well known, little is
known about the environmental
effects of water quality in coral reef
areas. Increased nutrient inputs and
sediment loadings are a concern.
The state plans to improve monitor-
ing in coral reef ecosystems.
• Stony Corals - Overall, there is
no evidence of major declines due
to human disturbances, although
there have been some specific site
effects. With impacts from activities
such as illegal fish collection, coastal
development, habitat disturbance,
and introduction of alien species,
the state plans to increase monitor-
ing efforts and implement a num-
ber of management actions to
prevent coral decline.
• Other Corals - Although the
status of other types of coral is
poorly known, there is anecdotal
evidence of decline. These coral are
subject to overharvesting, increased
nutrient input, habitat disturbance,
and coastal development. The state
is considering limiting or prohibit-
ing their collection.
• Reef Fish - There is anecdotal
evidence that the population of reef
fish are on the decline. The state
plans to investigate recreational
take data and revise regulations to
take into account ecosystem effects
of reef fishing.
• Marine Turtles - One species
of marine turtle is in significant
decline. These turtles are subject
to poaching, by-catch in gill nets,
and harassment. The state plans
to investigate gill net rules and
strengthen protection and harass-
ment regulations.
• Hawaiian Monk Seals - This
species is in significant decline
because of harassment and death
by marine debris and discarded
nets. The state is working to protect
the critical habitat of the monk seal.
Little is known about the status
of other characteristics, such as
mangroves, seagrasses, and large
transient fish.
The state has documented
impacts to coral reefs from coastal
and urban development. For
example, "hardening" of shoreline
to protect private property has
resulted in the loss of approxi-
mately 25 miles of beaches on
O'ahu, nearly 9 miles of beaches
on Maui, and an estimated 3 to 5
miles of beaches on Kaua'i. Beach
loss can lead to increased turbidity
and wave agitation in the shallow-
est waters of the back-reef habitat
and depletes sand habitat for ani-
mals that live on top, in, or around
the substrate.
Coral Reef Management
in Hawaii
One of the greatest obstacles
to marine resource managers in
Hawaii has been a lack of an inte-
grated coral reef research and
monitoring programs to assess
changes in the health and diversity
of the reefs. In response to these
needs, the state developed the
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 123
Coral Reef Assessment and Monitor-
ing Program (CRAMP) in 1998
with input from leading reef scien-
tists and resource managers. The
goal of CRAMP is to detect changes
in coral reefs and increase under-
standing of the factors, both
human and natural, that influence
coral reef stability, decline, and
recovery. Collaboration between
the University of Hawaii Sea Grant
Program, the Hawaii Department
of Land and Natural Resources, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Marine Ecosystem Global Partner-
ship Program, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and other federal agencies
helped overcome geographic barri-
ers to conducting a statewide mon-
itoring program in widely dispersed
areas of the archipelago. CRAMP
has instituted monitoring at 31
CRAMP sites throughout the islands
including 21 open access area sites,
six marine life conservation area
sites, one natural area reserve site,
and three fisheries management
area sites. This integrated research
and monitoring program hopefully
will provide answers to help deci-
sion makers modify state laws gov-
erning activities that harm the
health of coral reef communities.
Florida's Coral Reefs
About 5,000 miles east of
Hawaii in the green-blue waters of
the Atlantic Ocean lies a very differ-
ent coral reef area—the Florida
Keys. The Florida Keys extend
approximately 220 miles southwest
from the tip of the Florida Penin-
sula. Adjacent to the Florida Keys
islands are spectacular, unique, and
nationally significant marine envi-
ronments, including seagrass
meadows, mangrove islands, and
,
- -
'
Jesse Xiang, Grade 3, NC
-------
124 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
extensive living coral reefs. These
reefs suffer from slightly different
stresses than those in the Hawaii
Islands.
Developing a Water
Quality Protection
Program
The Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary and Protection
Act of 1990 designated over 2,800
square nautical miles of nearshore
coastal waters from Miami to the
Dry Tortugas as the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary. Recog-
nizing the critical role of water
quality in maintaining Sanctuary
resources, Congress directed EPA
and the state of Florida to develop
and implement a Water Quality
Protection Program for the
Sanctuary in cooperation with
NOAA. Programs to monitor sea-
grass habitats, coral reefs and hard-
bottom communities, and water
quality were instituted with the
intent of integrating biological
information with water quality.
The Water Quality Protection
Program was developed in two
distinct phases. Phase 1 efforts
included assessments of the Sanc-
tuary's water quality, coral com-
munity, submerged and emergent
aquatic vegetation, nearshore and
confined waters, and spills and haz-
ardous materials. Phase 2 focused
on developing options for correc-
tive action, developing a water
quality monitoring program and
associated research/special studies
programs, and developing a public
education and outreach program.
Florida's Coral Reef
Monitoring Program
The primary goal of the moni-
toring project, which measures
the status and trends of Florida's
coral reef communities, is to assist
managers in understanding,
protecting, and restoring the living
marine resources of the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary.
A Sanctuary-wide, rather
than a single-location monitoring
program, is necessary to detect
ecosystem change in this diverse
and species-rich ecosystem.
This 5-year monitoring project
is documenting the status of reef
habitats at 40 randomly located
reef sites located within five of the
nine EPA Water Quality Segments in
the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary. Data for each successive
sampling year will be compared
with the prior year's data to obtain
a broader understanding of the
coral reef system in the Sanctuary.
As coral reef monitoring is integrat-
ed with the seagrass and water
quality programs, the results can be
used to focus research on determin-
ing causality and can be used to
inform and evaluate management
decisions. This monitoring project
provides the first real opportunity
in the Florida Keys to address these
questions at the spatial scales
required to detect large-scale pat-
terns and discriminate between
hypotheses.
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 125
Ecological Problems
Affecting the Sanctuary
The Sanctuary is part of a com-
plex hydrologic/ecological system
that includes the Everglades, Florida.
Bay, and other adjacent areas. The
variety and magnitude of recent
ecological problems in the Sanc-
tuary and adjacent areas of Florida
Bay indicate that existing manage-
ment actions are not adequate to
prevent continuing environmental
degradation. The Phase 1 report
outlined the following water quality
concerns:
• Major environmental problems
are occurring in Florida Bay includ-
ing seagrass. die-off, sponge die-off,
mangrove decline, and algal
blooms. The Bay is now in a crisis
situation. Historic alterations in the
quality and timing of freshwater
flow from the Everglades are
believed to be the major cause.
• Water quality in confined waters
(e.g., dead-end canals and marinas)
is deteriorating and this may be
affecting biota in nearshore areas.
• Septic field leachate from onsite
sewage disposal systems is degrad-
ing water quality in confined
waters.
• Sewage discharge from live-
aboard vessels is degrading water
quality in nearshore and confined
waters.
• Discharges from sewage treat-
ment plants may be degrading
nearshore water quality.
• Decomposition of weed wrack
and other windblown organic
debris is probably degrading water
quality in some canals.
• Stormwater runoff is degrading
water quality and may be degrad-
ing nearshore water quality.
• Water-temperature fluctuations,
increased nutrient levels, reduced
transparency, sedimentation, and
contamination from oil spills,
pesticides, and heavy metals may
be affecting Sanctuary coral reef
communities.
• Degraded water quality is prob-
ably adversely affecting submerged
and emergent aquatic vegetation in
the Sanctuary.
Future Monitoring
and Research Activities
The Phase 2 report recom-
mended that monitoring and
research studies be conducted to
collect additional data in key areas.
The highest priority monitoring and
research needs include
• Conducting a long-term compre-
hensive water quality monitoring
study
•• Developing models to predict
the outcome of in-place and pro-
posed water quality management
strategies
• Determining what quantities of
ground water nutrients are reach-
ing Sanctuary waters
-------
126 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
• Assessing leachate transport into
nearshore waters
• Conducting research to identify
the causal linkages between water
quality (e.g., levels of pollutants,
nutrients, salinity, temperature)
and ecological problems.
American Samoa's
Coral Reefs
A study of the coral reefs in the
National Park of American Samoa
was completed in 1998. The study
encompassed reefs on the northern
side of Tutuila Island between
Fagasa and east of Vatia at Amalua
and included reefs situated along
exposed coastlines and within
sheltered embayments. These reefs
represent a moderately diverse,
healthy, and resilient assemblage
of corals, invertebrates, and fishes.
The coral reef and aquatic areas of
the National Park of American
Samoa offer many opportunities for
snorkeling, diving, and aesthetic
enjoyment. Humpback whales can
be viewed when they visit the
island during summer months.
Status of American
Samoa's Coral Reefs
In general, the reefs in the
National Park of American Samoa
appear to be in good condition,
probably because of their isolation
from most human activities. Recov-
ery from hurricane damage in 1991
was well under way at most sites
in the survey, except for Fagasa,
which may have experienced
increased sedimentation from the
construction of a major road in the
watershed. There was no evidence
of outbreaks of coral-eating seastars
or gastropod snails in the reefs.
The reef below the old Vatia dump
(closed in 1995) shows no obvious
signs of degradation from the
former dump site with the excep-
tion of an unusual yellow film on
coral reef rubble under the waterfall
below the dump. Additional water
quality testing is planned for this
site.
Kurt Dalton, Grade 3, NC
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 127
A crystal
; snowflqj<;e
; falls down
on the
freezing
white
floor
of
January.
River_of Words 1999 Grand Prize Winner (Poetry, Grades K-2)
Martha Bregin, Age 7, MI
River of Words 1999 Grand Prize Winner (Art, Grades 10-12)
Angela Giles, As it Flows, Age 18, GA
-------
128 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
i.. i • ;i ,i ,,. ' is
1,4.** fcw* M'S
One Stressor of Hawaii's Reefs-
Tropical Fish Collection
Hawaii is the major supplier of
wild-caught marine aquarium fish
for the international market.
Reported value of all marine animals
collected for the aquarium trade is
$800,000 to $900,000 annually.
The number of commercial permits
increased by 39% between 1995
and 1998. Commercial collection
conflicts with other uses of reef fish
in two ways. First, some of the fish
species collected when small for the
aquarium trade are also caught
when larger by subsistence fishers
for food. Second, collectors have
depleted territorial species from
favored dive sites. Although the
direct sale of tropical fish represents
a significant economic contribution,
dive and snorkel operations gross
nearly five times as much in revenue
annually just from the sale of dive
and snorkel tours. In the past 5
years, the disputes among tropical
fish collectors, subsistence fishers,
and dive tour operators have inten-
sified.
A study conducted on the Kona
Coast of the Big Island of Hawaii
found a significant decline in the
populations of several species of
target aquarium fish. Abundance of
yellow tang, kole, longnosed butter-
flyfish, Potter's angelfish, Achille's
tang, and Moorish idols declined
43%, 17%, 54%, 48%, 63%, and
56%, respectively, at the monitored
locations.
Rare or solitary species that
bring the highest prices in the
aquarium trade are also more vul-
nerable to depletion because these
species often have slower recruit-
ment (replacement) rates. Many
coral reef fish and invertebrates
have complicated relationships to
the overall ecology of the reef and
their removal often affects the long-
term stability of the reef. Tropical
fish collection can damage coral
reefs in other ways as well:
• Barrier nets used for collecting
can entangle on reefs and break off
portions of branching corals.
• Collectors often chase agile fish
with hand or dip nets and can
inadvertently damage fragile coral
polyps by kicking the reef with their
fins or hitting it with other diving
gear.
• Many attractive tropical fish hide
in branching corals when chased
and some collectors break up the
coral colonies to get at the fish.
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 129
While tropical fish collection
causes stress to Hawaii's coral reefs,
it is by no means the only environ-
mental stress. Other stresses to coral
reefs include
• Degradation of water quality by
coastal and urban development
• Point and nonpoint sources of
pollution from both industry and
agriculture, including sedimenta-
tion, chemical pollution, and marine
debris
• Marine tourism, including snor-
keling/scuba diving, reef walking,
recreational fishing, recreational
boating, and multi-use tour boat
activities
• International shipping and oil
spills, including ship groundings
and sinkings
• Introduction of alien species,
including algae and other marine
emergent vegetation (mangroves),
invertebrates, and fish.
Lisa Parsons, Grade 3, NC
• HlGHLIGHl
fGHT HIGHUGHT
"^ • f:
-------
130 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
, HIGHLIGH^t-l IjjpHT HIGHLIGHT
[ ^ /^
|| ;: |;'ll:; ;"' ':'IJ:
"':=.' '•''. '• . ,,",
I :,;: ,;,
'"i"' i-1"1 i
: '"i1 ". ' '"
; ;,:,V .' £,,,- : . .
iff • »'!/';L : ": " " .•*.
i,,,j ; ',,"- r i
i
.
,' . ,. , . .
rf" ' ' , .":' 1 • " ,:i
P'1!;." ' <<' , • " \, ,
j,,' .h , •.;, ' h,,,, „
!, i' , , , ' '
[„""'
!
1
i
fir ,i Hi1 h, „,;'; iii1 i/ ' ' '" i1 "n , , "
i !''•„, • '!>."i '- . i , ,:-' '.','•
Ji'i." '• >:'| • •'
i'l!"; •;::•• , , ', ,•;•; ,
!,;, '; ' , '!;,,,„ , „ " „ ,
j';1' ' ''•- '" • "" •
li .1 , ' ' ' M, ,
I
i
1
|
I",!, ' ,„
?'JI", ' .1
SJ.-V , "I "" ' •':
jjn 'iii „
S' ' '. '
if"
Harmful Algal Blooms
Harmful algal blooms (HABs)
are best known for the problems
they cause in coastal ecosystems.
Large numbers of marine mammals
and seabirds may suddenly die,
certain fish species may become
hazardous to eat, or people may
develop health problems from
being near some toxic blooms.
Some harmful algae can discolor the
water, while other blooms, which
may not produce toxins, can cause
a loss of oxygen, such as in the
"dead zone" of the Gulf of Mexico.
Still others may threaten fisheries
and human health at very low
concentrations that do not discolor
the water at all. These microscopic
organisms, so small that thousands
would fit in a single drop of water,
pose an increasingly frequent
recurring problem for U.S. coastal
communities.
The algae responsible for HABs
are a very diverse group of organ-
isms. Many of the organisms are
plant-like, both single-celled vari-
eties and large, leafy macroalgae
(seaweeds). The most widely known
group of algae responsible for many
HABs around the world are the
dinoflagellates; less common groups
include diatoms (Pseudonitzschid),
some very small flagellates (Hetero-
sigmd), the brown tide organisms
(Aureococcus and Aureoumbrd), and
. the bacteria-like blue-green algae
(cyanobacteria). While most algae
species are not destructive, those
species that can cause harm are
increasing in bloom frequency,
geographic range, and bloom
duration.
What Are the Impacts of
Harmful Algal Blooms?
If HABs reproduce or accumu-
late to very high numbers, and then
cells begin to die in high numbers,
oxygen-poor areas develop as algal
cells die and decompose. Low-
oxygen waters are poor habitats for
coastal fish and shellfish. Addition-
ally, dense accumulations of these
algae may cloud the water to such
an extent that sunlight is blocked,
inhibiting the growth of submerged
aquatic grasses. Other harmful algae
produce toxins that can kill fish,
shellfish, marine mammals, and
birds. Severe human health prob-
lems are also linked to these toxins
such as tumors, nervous system
effects, amnesia, and the irritation
of respiratory tissues and skin. Some
severe cases have resulted in death.
Red tides, caused by the
dinoflagellate Gymnodinium breve,
have caused problems on the Gulf
Coast of Florida and on the East
Coast since the 1 500s. This alga is
common in offshore waters and,
following transport by ocean
currents, has caused blooms from
North Carolina to Mexico. The
I., , ,:. _ ' • .' .. . , ',,
I- ' •
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 131
, HiGHLiGHi
toxins produced by these red tides
affect the nervous system and blood
and can cause mass death in marine
animals and respiratory irritation in
humans. Blooms in the Gulf Coast
of Florida have been blamed for
economic losses of about $20
million per event.
Fish kills and human illness in
the middle Atlantic states have
recently been linked to the dinofla-
gellate Pfiesteria piscidda (Figure 1).
Exposure to Pfiesteria toxins in the
air or water at the site of an out-
break can cause skin irritation as
well as short-term memory loss,
confusion, and other cognitive
impairments in people. However,
there is no evidence that illnesses
related to Pfiesteria are associated
with eating fish or shellfish. To date,
toxic Pfiesteria outbreaks have been
associated with brackish, quiet,
poorly flushed, warm water; the
presence of schooling fish; and
nutrient-rich waters that are
thought to provide food for
nontoxic populations that may
transform into toxic blooms.
What Causes Harmful
Algal Blooms?
Algae, harmful or otherwise, are
natural components of coastal eco-
systems. However, the frequency,
range, and duration of HABs
appears to be increasing. Some
experts have attributed the global
spread of HABs to introductions
by ballast water from ocean-going
vessels. When these vessels
exchange or off-load their cargo,
they frequently empty the ballast
water taken on in a foreign port.
If the ballast contains living cells or
their dormant cysts, the
receiving waters are
essentially innoculated
with harmful algae.
Others have attrib-
uted the apparent
increase in HAB fre-
quency and duration
to land-based sources
of nutrient pollution,
but nutrients act differ-
ently on the various
species of harmful
algae. For a few HAB
species in U.S. inshore
waters, such as the fish-killing
species Pfiesteria piscidda and the
amnesia-producing diatom Pseudo-
nitzschia, there may be a direct link
between nutrient loads and the
expression of blooms.
Many HAB species are oceanic,
such as the red tide species Gymno-
dinium breve. They grow in nutrient
impoverished waters in the open
ocean and can be transported to
the coasts by ocean currents; thus
nutrients cannot be implicated as a
"cause." However, there is evidence
that the growth of the blooms may
GHT HIGHLIGHT
Figure 1. Pfiesteria piscidda.
-------
132 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
HIGHLIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
be augmented or perpetuated as
a result of encountering coastal
waters that have been polluted by
nutrients. In other words, when the
red tide organisms come into con-
tact with nutrient-rich waters, they
become "fertilized," causing rapid
growth. Scientists are hypothesizing
that the reduction of nutrient pollu-
tion should result in less algal
growth (including HABs). While this
approach will not prevent blooms .
completely, nutrient reduction
strategies should affect the duration
and spread of many harmful algal
blooms.
-I
River of Words 1999 Finalist, Lorielle Fiedler, Salmon, Age 13, CA
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 133
. ' .,- • • ' .-^Huo^pS^Hr-
1998 - The Year of the Ocean
OJL^j^j^ Q
^^^S^Tx^x^v
ffmf^T^:-^ \t*
JK2F v )
^IBfiK^^^^
^^*V^^~fc^_ *» ^*
^^^ ~^ "J l^k|rT^^ J
Over half of the world's human
population lives within 50 miles of a
coastline. We depend on the ocean
for many resources, including food,
recreation, energy, and climate
regulation. Because the ocean is a
boundless resource for people the
i ~
world over, any effective conserva-
tion efforts must be multinational in
nature.
Realizing that the ocean plays
a decisive role in shaping the life of
this planet, the United Nations
General Assembly passed a resolu-
tion declaring 1 998 the Year of the
Ocean.
The United States kicked off
efforts with a Presidential Proclama-
tion declaring 1 998 the Year of the
Ocean. Subsequently there were
two federal workgroups established
that identified three main goals:
+3
• Promote awareness and under-
standing of the value of the sea
and its resources
• Ensure the government does all
it can to promote exploration,
sustainable use, and conservation
of the sea
• Cherish our national heritage
associated with the sea.
As a result of these workgroups,
federal agencies published a series
of discussion papers on issues affect-
ing ocean conservation, including
transportation; tourism; national
security; environmental quality and
protection; and marine weather,
climate, and hazards. Other activi-
ties included hosting workshops
(on marine research and education,
sustainable coasts, and fisheries and
marine living resources manage-
ment), and encouraging dialogue
between -industry, academics,
government officials, and environ-
mental groups.
These activities set the stage for
the National Ocean Conference,
which took place June 1 1 -1 2, 1 998,
in Monterey, California. At the con-
ference, President Clinton and Vice
President Gore launched a series of
initiatives to explore, protect, and
restore the nation's ocean resources.
The President also charged his cabi-
net to develop recommendations
for a coordinated, disciplined, long-
term federal oceans policy in a year.
The Oceans: An Agenda for Action
• ' ; '
' -^ " ^^[^^
>£2r~ ^
,f «~ '- >
... -
« j* t
1*"*\™~>
•p- -v
"* *• -, *
_
"J.""-^™* ,_ _•""• " • — 2._H~ ~- _
",i - — — - -
'-^i3'1 ^~~-
»\J£^T ,
—• * - — — — *
7__ ^^ ^ - _ -
T
',','"' j
•- - —_ _ r .
'•
"t " i
, ^
-
jj ^ ^ _ _ _^_ —
•jCi
_ „». - " ~ ^ , ~ —
— -" _ _
»«^~ * ™
**"*". ,-
_
^ '-
-------
134 Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
HIGHLIGH;
HT HIGHLIGHT
outlines 10 ocean initiatives that
the United States shall engage in
to protect and enhance the use of
ocean resources:
• Protecting our Oceans from
Offshore Oil Drilling - A 10-year
extension of the offshore leasing
moratorium; a permanent ban on
leasing in national marine sanctuar-
ies.
• Building Sustainable Fisheries -
A ban on the sale or import of
undersized Atlantic swordfish.
• Ports for the 21 st Century -
Funds for dredging shipping
channels.
• Law of the Sea Convention -
The President called on the Senate
to ratify U.S. accession to the
convention.
• Protecting Coral Reefs -
Executive order directing federal
agencies to expand research, preser-
vation, and restoration activities for
the protection of natural corals in
the United States.
• Exploring the Last U.S. Frontier
- Initiatives to increase-research
and monitoring efforts.
• Protecting our Beaches and
Coastal Waters - Clean Water
Action Plan.
• Monitoring Climate and Global
Warming.
• Public Access to Military Data
and Technology.
To learn more about the U.S.
involvement in the Year of the
Ocean, visit EPA's website at
http://www. epa.gov/0 WO W/oceans/
yoto/.
Megan Collins, Grade 3, NC
-------
Chapter Five Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 135
Obstruction
Winds blowing, rivers flowing,
Birds chirping, animal slurping
From the river, big gulps
Quench their thirst.
The water glistens in the sun.
; -Twigs breaking, people raking
Leaves falling, dams stalling.
• A wall is there, stopping
And.holding
The river from flowing and going to its home.
River of Words 1998 Dam Fighter Award
Rachel Prieto, Age 16, MI
Arielle White, Age 9, Unfitted, CA
-------
'I1;'1!!! '' ''
ill"',",, '| '!
-------
Wetlands
Introduction
Wetlands are the link between
land and water (Figure 6-1). Wet-
lands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, fens, prairie pot-
holes, seeps, vernal pools, pocosins,
and similar areas. Most people can
easily identify some kinds of wet-
lands, such as marshes, as being
wetlands. However, other kinds of
wetlands are not as easily identified
because they may not be flooded
and are often dry during part of the
year.
All wetlands, however, are
flooded or have water just below
the ground surface long enough
during the growing season to
develop oxygen-poor soils. This is
important because almost all ani-
mals and plants use oxygen to
convert sugar, protein, and other
organic molecules into the energy
necessary to grow and survive.
Normally, when bacteria and
microbes in the soil decompose
dead plants and animals, the oxy-
gen that they use is replaced from
the air. However, oxygen moves
through the water about ten thou-
sand times slower than the air.
When a wetland or "hydric" soil is
saturated or flooded, the oxygen
used by the bacteria and microbes
is not replaced fast enough. As a
result, most plants cannot grow
there because they do not have
enough oxygen for their roots.
Wetland plants, such as cattails and
water lilies, have special adaptations
to temporarily survive without
oxygen in their roots or to transfer
oxygen from the leaves or stem to
the roots.
A wide variety of wetlands
exist across the country because
of regional and local differences in
hydrology, vegetation, water chem-
istry, soils, topography, climate,
and other factors. Wetland type
is determined primarily by local
hydrology, the unique pattern of
water flow through an area. In
general, there are two broad cate-
gories of wetlands: coastal and
inland.
With the exception of the
coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes,
coastal wetlands are closely linked
Figure 6-1
Depiction of Wetlands Adjacent to Waterbody
Terrestrial
System
fHyqroIogic Regime
'-Dry ": >
Productivity
Low to Medium'
Wetland
i Intermittently i
to Permanently Flooded
Generally High
Waterbody
High Water
Fluctuating
Water Level
Low Water
-Permanently Flooded -
Generally Low
Wetlands are often found at the interface between dry terrestrial eco-
systems, such as upland forests and grasslands, and permanently wet
aquatic ecosystems, such as lakes, rivers, bays, estuaries, and oceans.
Reprinted with modifications, by permission, from Mitsch/Gosselink: Wetlands 1986, fig. 1-4,
p. 10. 41986, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
-------
138 Chapter Six Wetlands
to estuaries. In these estuarine
systems, sea water mixes with fresh
water to form an environment of
varying salinity and temperature.
Tides and wind also cause the
water levels to fluctuate. Coastal
marshes dominated by grasses,
sedges, rushes, and halophytic (salt-
loving) plants are generally located
along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts
due to the gradual slope of the
land. Mangrove swamps, which are
dominated by halophytic shrubs
and trees, are common in Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, Louisiana, and south-
ern Florida.
Inland wetlands are most com-
mon on floodplains along rivers
and streams, in isolated depressions
surrounded by dry land, and along
the margins of lakes and ponds.
Inland wetlands include marshes
and wet meadows dominated by
grasses, sedges, rushes, and herbs;
shrub swamps; and wooded
swamps dominated by trees, such
as hardwood forests along flood-
plains. Some regional wetland
types include the pocosins of North
Carolina, bogs and fens of the
northeastern and north central
states and Alaska, inland saline and
alkaline marshes and riparian wet-
lands of the arid and semiarid West,
vernal pools of California, playa
lakes of the Southwest, cypress
gum swamps of the South, wet
tundra of Alaska, the South Florida
Everglades, and prairie potholes of
Minnesota, Iowa, and the Dakotas.
Functions and Values
of Wetlands
In their natural condition, wet-
lands provide essential ecological
processes called functions, which
are beneficial not only to wetlands
but also to their surrounding
ecosystems and people. Wetland
functions can be grouped into
several broad categories:
• Storage of water
• Storage of sediment and
nutrients
• Growth and reproduction of
plants and animals
• Diversity of plants and animals.
The location of a wetland in a
watershed and the size of a wetland
help determine what functions it
will perform. Not all wetlands
perform all functions nor do they
perform all functions at equivalent
levels. For example, some wetlands
naturally have greater capacity to
store water because of their land-
scape position. Many other factors
can influence how well a wetland
will perform these functions, includ-
ing weather conditions, quantity
and quality of water entering a
wetland, and human alteration of a
wetland or surrounding landscape.
Storage and Filtering
of Water
The historic loss of wetlands in
the Midwest was a significant factor
contributing to the severe flooding
in the Upper Mississippi and Mis-
souri River Basins in the summer of
1993. Wetlands help prevent floods
by storing and slowing the flow of
water through a watershed. Many
wetlands act like natural basins
and hold water from rain storms,
overland flow, and from flooding
rivers. As water passes through a
wetland, it is also slowed by the
-------
Chapter Six Wetlands 139
wetland's plants (Figure 6-2).
Through the combined effects
of retaining and slowing water,
wetlands allow water to percolate
through the soil into the ground
water and slowly move through the
watershed (Figure 6-3). In water-
sheds that have lost most of their
wetlands, the rainfall flows quickly
into streams and rivers and over-
loads their capacity to transport
water through the watershed. The
graph in Figure 6-4 shows the flow
of water in two streams in Massa-
chusetts. One stream does not have
many wetlands left in the water-
shed and has a steep hydrograph.
The other stream has a lot of
wetlands left in the watershed and
has a more stable hydrograph.
Increasing the amount of pavement
in a watershed can cause similar
problems. The result is that streams
and rivers flood and damage
homes, farms, and businesses.
In addition, streams and rivers are
severely damaged as their banks
erode and their channels become
flatter and deeper. Downstream
lakes and estuaries are also dam-
aged by the large influx of silt in
mud that makes the water cloudy,
buries plants and animals, and
prevents underwater plants from
getting the light they need.
Floods continue to seriously
damage the property and threaten
the livelihood of thousands of
Americans despite expenditures of
billions of local, state, and .federal
dollars over the years to reduce
flooding. Loss or degradation of
wetlands indirectly intensifies flood-
ing by eliminating their capacity to
absorb peak flows and gradually
release flood waters. Following are
several examples of the monetary
cost of wetland loss.
Figure 6-2
Streamflow Through Wetlands
Blackstone River at Northbridge, MA
Charles'River
at Charles River Village, MA
Flood Protection
Functions in Wetlands
Source: Washington State Department
of Ecology.
Figure 6-3
Ground Water Recharge
Functions in Wetlands
Source: Washington State Department
of Ecology.
August 1955
-------
140 Chapter Six Wetlands
Figure 6-5
Streamflow Maintenance
Functions in Wetlands
Source: Washington State Department
of Ecology.
• In Massachusetts, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers estimated that
over $17 million of annual flood
damage would result from the
destruction of 8,422 acres of wet-
lands in the Charles River Basin. For
this reason, the Corps decided to
preserve wetlands rather than con-
struct extensive flood control facili-
ties along a stretch of the Charles
River near Boston. Annual benefits
of the preservation project average
$2.1 million and annual costs aver-
age $617,000.
• The Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources estimated that it
costs the public $300 to replace
the water storage capacity lost by
development of 1 acre of wetlands
that holds 12 inches of water. The
Figure 6-6
Water Quality Improvement Functions in Wetlands
Nutrient
Removal
Sediment
Trapping 1^'
Chemical
Detoxification
Source: Washington State Department of Ecology.
cost of replacing 5,000 acres of
wetlands would be $1.5 million,
which exceeds the state's annual
appropriation for flood control.
• In 1988, DuPage County, Illinois,
found that 80% of all flood damage
reports came from homebuilders
whose homes were built on con-
verted wetlands. The county spent
$0.5 million to $1.0 million annual-
ly to correct the problem.
Restoring wetlands in a water-
shed can help prevent the amount
and severity of flooding. Restoring
wetlands can also improve the flow
of water during dry seasons by
allowing water to percolate into the
ground water and gradually enter a
stream rather than having rapid
runoff (Figure 6-5). Water entering
wetlands during wet periods is
released slowly through ground
water, thereby moderating stream
flow volumes necessary for the
survival of fish, wildlife, and plants
that rely on the stream.
Storage of Sediment
and Nutrients
Wetlands act like filters that
purify water in a watershed. Often
the water leaving a wetland is
much cleaner than the water that
entered the wetland. When water
is slowed or stored in a wetland,
much of the sediment settles out
and remains in the wetland (Figure
6-6). Thus, the water leaves a wet-
land less cloudy. Wetlands also trap
nutrients that are attached to the
sediment or dissolved in water.
Nutrients are either stored in the
wetland soil or are used by plants
to grow.
-------
Chapter Six Wetlands 141
Wetlands on the fringes of lakes
and estuaries keep the larger waters
clean by trapping sediment and
preventing shoreline erosion. Marsh
plants help dissipate wave energy
and their extensive root networks
anchor the marsh (Figure 6-7).
Without the plants, the waves
would eat away at the shore and
cause extensive erosion. Marsh
plants also slow the movement of
water, allowing sediment and nutri-
ents to settle and remain in the
marsh. Wetland loss and degrada-
tion reduce water quality purifica-
tion functions performed by wet-
lands.
The following examples show
the value of the capacity of
wetlands to store sediment and
nutrients.
• The Congaree Bottomland Hard-
wood Swamp in South Carolina
provides valuable water quality
services, such as removing and
stabilizing sediment, nutrients, and
toxic contaminants. The total cost
of constructing, operating, and
maintaining a tertiary treatment
plant to perform the same func-
tions would be $5 million.
• Forested riparian wetlands play
an important role in reducing nutri-
ent loads entering the Chesapeake
Bay. In one study, a riparian forest
in a predominantly agricultural
watershed removed about 80% of
the phosphorus and 89% of the
nitrogen from the runoff water
before it entered a tributary to the
Bay. Destruction of such areas
adversely affects the water quality
of the Bay by increasing undesirable
weed growth and algae blooms.
• A study of two similar sites on
the Hackensack River in New Jersey
showed the amount of erosion that
often results from the destruction of
marshlands. In the study, marsh
vegetation was cut at one site and
left undisturbed at the other site.
The river bank at the cut site erod-
ed nearly 2 meters (more than 6
feet) in 1 year while the uncut site
had very little bank erosion.
These examples illustrate the
integral role of wetlands in our
ecosystems and how wetland
destruction and degradation can
have expensive and permanent
consequences. Preserving wetlands
and their functions will ensure that
wetlands continue to provide many
benefits to people and the environ-
ment.
Growth and
Reproduction of
Plants and Animals
Some wetlands, such as salt
marshes, are among the most pro-
ductive natural ecosystems in the
world. Only rain forests and coral
reefs come close to matching their
productivity. They produce huge
amounts of plant leaves and stems
that serve as the basis of the food
web. When the plants die, they
decompose in the water and form
detritus (Figure 6-8). Detritus and
the algae that often grow on plants
are the principal foods for shrimp,
crabs, clams, and small fish, which,
in turn, are food for larger commer-
cial and recreational fish species
such as bluefish and striped bass.
Wetlands produce a wealth of
natural products, including fish and
shellfish, timber, wildlife, and wild
Figure 6-7
Shoreline Stabilization
Functions in Wetlands
Source: Washington State Department
of Ecology.
-------
142 Chapter Six Wetlands
rice. Around 95% of the fish and
shellfish species commercially
harvested in the United States are
dependent on wetlands during
some stage of their life. A national
survey conducted by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in 1991 illus-
trates the economic value of some
of the wetland-dependent prod-
ucts. Over 9 billion pounds of fish
and shellfish landed in the United
States in 1991 had ,a direct, dock-
side value of $3.3 billion. This
served as the basis of a seafood
processing and sales industry that
generated total expenditures of
$26.8 billion. In addition, 35.6 mil-
lion anglers spent $24 billion on
freshwater and saltwater fishing.
Diversity of Plants
and Animals
Wetlands are critical to the
survival of a wide variety of animals
and plants, including numerous
Figure 6-8
Coastal Wetlands Produce Detritus that Support
Fish and Shellfish
Coastal Wetlands Plants
.1/1,,
rare and endangered species. Wet-
lands are also primary habitats for
many species, such as the wood
duck, muskrat, and swamp rose.
For others, wetlands provide impor-
tant seasonal habitats where food,
water, and cover are plentiful.
The Arizona Game and Fish
Department estimates that 75% or
more of all Arizona's native wildlife
species depend on healthy wet-
lands and riparian systems during
some portion of their life cycle.
The abundant wildlife in wet-
lands also attracts outdoor recrea-
.tionists. Outdoor recreationists
attracted to national wildlife refuges
(NWR), which often protect exten-
sive wetlands, bring millions of
dollars and many jobs to adjacent
communities. The Fish and Wildlife
Service estimated that, in 1994,
bird watchers and other outdoor
recreationists spent $636,000 in the
communities around the Quivara
NWR in Kansas, $3.1 million
around the Salton Sea NWR in
California, and over $14 million
around the Santa Ana NWR in
Texas.
When wetlands are removed
from a landscape or are damaged
by human activities, there is a
decline in the biological health of a
watershed. Many species of plants
and animals decline in number. As
shown by the alarming amount of
amphibian deformities in the Great
. Lakes and New England regions,
many animals suffer from deformi-
ties and reproductive failure. Some,
such as the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
and Dusky Seaside Sparrow,
become extinct. The Nature Con-
servancy estimates that two-thirds
of freshwater mussels and crayfishes
are rare or imperiled and more than
one-third of freshwater fishes and
-------
Chapter Six Wetlands 143
amphibians dependent on aquatic
and wetland habitats are at risk
(Figure 6-9). Forty-six percent of
the threatened and endangered
species listed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service rely directly or indi-
rectly on wetlands for their survival
(Table 6-1).
Extent of the
Resource
Wetland Loss
in the United States
It is estimated that more than 200
million acres of wetlands existed in
the lower 48 states at the time of
European settlement. Since then,
extensive wetland acreage has been
lost. Many of our original wetlands
have been drained and converted
to farmland and urban develop-
ment. Today, less than half of our
original wetlands remain. When
added together, the total amount
of wetland loss is greater than the
size of California (see Figure 6-10).
According to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Wetlands Losses in
the United States 1780s to 79805,
the three states that have sustained
the greatest percentage of wetland
loss are California (91 %), Ohio
(90%), and Iowa (89%).
The average annual loss of wet-
lands has decreased over the past
40 years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's reports on the status and
trends of wetlands estimate average
annual losses of 458,000 acres of
wetlands from the mid-1950s to
the mid-1970s and average annual
losses of 290,000 acres between
the mid-1970s and mid-1980s.
Recent federal studies lead to an
average annual net loss of wetlands
Figure 6-9
Aquatic and Wetland Species at Risk
100%
l/>
5
+J
B3
c
O)
75%
50%
25%
0%
67% 65%
Source: The Nature Conservancy and State Natural Heritage Data Centers, 1996.
1 Table 6-1.! Summary of Threatened and Endangered Species
That Are "Wetland-Associated"
Category
Mammals
Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
Fishes
Snails
Clams
Crustaceans
Insects
Arachnids .
Plants
Totals
Number of U.S.
Endangered and
Threatened Species
as of May 31, 1997,
that are Wetland-
Associated or
Dependent
42
72
21
15
107
10
62
18
9
0
143
499
Total Number of
U.S. Endangered
and Threatened
Species as of
May 31, 1997
63
89
33
15
107
22
62
18
33
5
635
1,082
Percent
of Total
66.7
80.9
63.6
100
100
45.5
100
100
27.3
0
22.5
46.1
-------
144 Chapter Six Wetlands
- HIGHLIGH;
HT HIGHLIGHT
New England Biological
Assessment of Wetlands
Work Group
The New England Biological
Assessment of Wetlands Work
Group (NEBAWWG, pronounced
"Nee-bog") was formed in June
1998 to develop and improve
existing programs for assessing the
biological health of wetlands in the
New England region. NEBAWWG
includes representatives from each
of the New England states, various
federal agencies, universities, and
nongovernment organizations.
NEBAWWG has three main objec-
tives:
• Develop and institutionalize a
region-wide biomonitoring network
for wetlands
• Oversee state pilot projects and
address logistical and technical
issues
• Coordinate with and comple-
ment the efforts of other biomoni-
toring groups and interested parties.
Workshops and
Training Sessions
The first NEBAWWG workshop,
held in October 1998, provided
field demonstrations, an overview
of national bioassessment efforts,
and a discussion of planned New
England pilot projects. NEBAWWG
will host a series of technical train-
ing sessions with field components.
Topics to be addressed include:
• Classifying wetlands
• Selecting reference wetlands
• Sampling methods for different
assemblages (e.g., macroinverte-
brates, plants)
• Data analysis, including selecting
metrics and developing an index
of biological integrity (IBI)
• Managing, storing, and commu-
nicating data and information.
State Pilot Projects
NEBAWWG has started three
state pilot projects in Maine, Massa-
chusetts, and Vermont.
Maine
The Maine Department of
Environmental Protection (ME DEP)
started its preliminary field work in
the summer of 1998. The objectives
of the project are to develop
biological sampling protocols for
nontidal wetlands, measure wet-
lands attributes across a gradient
of human disturbance in a pilot
watershed, and identify candidate
metrics/indicators of biological
integrity on a watershed basis. The
Casco Bay watershed, located in
southern Maine, was selected as the
-------
Chapter Six Wetlands 145
•
study area because it is experiencing
high levels of development pressure
and consequent impacts to wet-
lands. The Casco Bay watershed
contains a broad range of wetland
types and conditions, ranging from
relatively undisturbed wetlands to
wetlands that are severely damaged.
During 1 999 and 2000, ME DEP
intends to develop sampling meth-
ods and identify candidate metrics
for the macroinvertebrate, algae,
and plant assemblages.
Massachusetts
Since July 1 995, Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management (MA
CZM) has been engaged .in a
regional research and demonstra-
tion project, called the Coastal Wet-
land Ecosystem Protection Project.
The goal of the project is to devel-
op, test, and refine a transferable
approach to evaluating the condi-
tion of both salt and freshwater
marshes using plants and macro-
invertebrates. MA CZM is develop-
ing the bioassessment methods to
determine the impacts of adjacent
land uses and nonpoint sources
of pollution on the ecological
integrity of these aquatic resources.
A product of the Coastal Wetland
Ecosystem Protection Project is the
publication, Wetland Ecological
Integrity: An Assessment Approach,
, -
which was published in 1 998.
This included development of the
Wetland Health Assessment Toolbox,
which can be accessed on the
Internet at http://www.magnet.state.
ma.us/czm/what.htm. The current
pilot project will refine the existing
wetland ecological assessment •
approach, protocols, and metrics.
MA CZM also intends to broaden
and field test the assessment
approach in other wetland types
and conditions.
Vermont
The Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation (VT
DEC) and the Vermont Nongame
and Natural Heritage Program (VT
NNHP) will jointly develop and
implement biological assessment
programs for vernal pools and
northern white cedar swamps. The
primary objectives of the first year
are to
• Evaluate existing information
• Identify and classify the vernal
pools and northern white cedar
swamps based on physical, chemi-
cal, and biological characteristics
• Identify candidate metrics of
biological integrity
• Develop and evaluate sampling
protocols.
HiGHLiGH/pUnJGHT HIGHLIGHT
^f JT w -- ~< -»*-*,
'<#
V^"*1" ~~ ""~
Sy%,JV ., j, .»* MB.-SI f,p*r t «,*ijr i*M «f s rr
"- _^-~ -
— t - ,=«-«.
»r ! * „ 5 ~ ~
„*.
-------
146 Chapter Six Wetlands
Figure 6-10
around 100,000 acres per year in
the contiguous United States.
Although losses continue to
decline, we still have to make
progress toward the Clean Water
Action Plan goal of annual net gain
of 100,000 acres per year by the
year 2005 and every year thereafter
(see highlight on page 152). In
addition, we need to be mindful of
the long-term Administration goal
of increasing the quality of the
nation's wetland resource base.
The decline in wetland losses is
a result of the combined effect of
several trends:
• The decline in profitability in
converting wetlands for agricultural
production
Percentage of Wetland Acreage Lost,
1780s-1980s
Twenty-two States have lost at least 50% of their original wetlands.
Seven of these 22 (California, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky,
and Ohio) have lost more than 80% of their original wetlands.
Source: Dahl,T.E., 1990, Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780'sto 1980's,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Passage of Swampbuster in the
1985 and 1990 Farm Bills
• Presence of the CWA Section
404 permit programs as well as
development of state management
programs
• Greater public interest and
support for wetland protection
• Implementation of wetland
restoration programs at the federal,
state, and local level.
Limited conclusions can be
drawn about sources of recent
wetlands loss because only eleven
states and tribes listed this informa-
tion in their 1998 305(b) reports
(Figure 6-11). These states and
tribes cited agriculture as the lead-
ing source of current losses (see
Appendix D, Table D-1, for individ-
ual state information).. Other losses
were due to residential growth and
urban development; construction
of roads, highways, and bridges;
filling and/or draining; construc-
tion; industrial development; hydro-
logic modification; commercial
development; and channelization.
Designated Use
Support in Wetlands
The states, tribes, and other
jurisdictions are making progress in
incorporating wetlands into water
quality standards and developing
designated uses and criteria specifi-
cally for wetlands. But many states
and tribes still lack wetland-specific
designated uses, criteria, and moni-
toring programs for wetlands.
Without criteria and monitoring
data, most states and tribes cannot
evaluate attainment of water quality
-------
Chapter Six Wetlands 147
standards. To date, only 11 states
and tribes reported the designated
use support status for some of their
wetlands (see Appendix D, Table
D-1). Only three states used moni-
toring data as a basis for attain-
ment of water quality standards.
• California reported that 11 % of
the 138;208 acres of assessed wet-
lands fully support all uses and
88% are impaired for one or more
uses. Causes of impairment include
metals, nutrients, salinity/total dis-
solved solids/chlorides, flow alter-
ations, and other habitat alter-
ations. Sources impacting wetlands
include agriculture, urban runoff
and storm sewers, and hydrologic
modifications.
• Iowa used best professional
judgment to determine the use
Figure 6-11"
support status of 33,221 wetland
acres during 1996 and 1997. The
state reported that 6% of assessed
wetland acres fully support all uses,
38% fully support all uses but are
threatened for at least one use, and
57% are impaired for one or more
uses. Impairment is due to nutri-
ents, siltation, flow alterations,
noxious aquatic plants, and exotic
species. Sources of impairment
include agriculture and hydrologic
and habitat modifications.
• Kansas assessed 35,607 wetland
acres for the current reporting
cycle, of which 25,069 were moni-
tored and an additional 10,538
were evaluated. The state reported
that, for aquatic life use support
(acute criteria only), 29% of
assessed wetland acres are fully
supporting but threatened,
Sources of Recent Wetland Losses
(11 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture
Residential Development
and Urban Growth
Road/Highway/Bridge
Construction
Filling and Draining
Construction ,
Industrial Development
Hydrologic Modification
Commercial Development
Channelization
States
2468
Number of States Reporting
10
Wetland Acres Assessed by
States and Tribes
Including Alaska's Wetlands
• 9,831,988 acres = 4% assessed
• Total acres (including Alaska)
= 274 million3
96% Not Assessed
Excluding Alaska's Wetlands
• 9,831,988 acres = 9% assessed
• Total acres (excluding Alaska)
= 107 million
91 % Not Assessed
aFrom Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the
'United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Source: 1998 Section 305(b) reports
submitted by states, tribes,
territories, and commissions.
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-4.
-------
148 Chapter Six Wetlands
5% are partially supporting, and
66% are not supporting this use.
Major causes of impairment are
nutrients, flow alterations, low dis-
solved oxygen, and turbidity/silta-
tion. Major sources of impairment
were agriculture, hydrologic
modifications, and natural proc-
esses such as climate variations.
• Kentucky reported that 973,168
wetland acres are threatened due
to the pressure of development.
This acreage includes all wetlands
in the state not in public ownership
or under some form of protection.
The estimate is based on National
Wetlands Inventory maps.
• Louisiana assessed aquatic life
use support in nearly 700,000 acres
of its 8.1 million total acres of wet-
lands. Over 99% of these acres are
impaired because of either mercury
or organic enrichment/low dis-
solved oxygen. The state reported
unknown sources and atmospheric
deposition as sources of impair-
ment.
• Michigan reported on one wet-
land 10 acres in size. This wetland
was impaired for aquatic life use in
the past, but has now been remedi-
ated and fully supports this use.
The improvement is due to a reduc-
tion in nickel contamination by an
upstream point source discharge.
• Nevada used best professional
judgment to assess 21,326 acres
(16%) of its 136,650 total acres of
wetlands. The state reported that all
of the assessed wetlands fully sup-
port designated uses.
• North Carolina used aerial pho-
tographs and soil information from
a 1992-1993 survey to rate use
support by current land use. North
Carolina rated wetlands on hydric
soils with natural tree cover as fully
supporting uses. Partially support-
ing wetlands have modified cover
and hydrology but still retain wet-
land status and support most uses.
For example, pine plantations still
retain value for wildlife habitat,
flood control, ground water
recharge, nutrient removal, and
aquatic habitat, although the modi-
fied wetlands support these uses
less effectively than undisturbed
wetlands. Wetlands converted to
agriculture or urban land use are
classified as not supporting original
• wetland uses. The state used this
methodology to assess use support
in over 7 million acres of wetlands.
The state reported that 66% of the
assessed wetlands fully support uses
and 34% are impaired for one or
more uses.
• Tennessee used evaluative data
to assess 787,000 wetland acres.
Of the assessed acres, 93% fully
support all designated uses. The
state reported that siltation, flow
and habitat alterations, and priority
organic chemicals impair the
remaining acres. Sources of impair-
ment include agriculture, hydro-
modification, filling and draining,
development, ground water load-
ings, and construction.
• The U.S. Virgin Islands used eval-
uative data to assess 927 wetland
acres. More than 99% of these
acres fully support all designated
use. Impairment to 1 acre is due
to sediment, bacteria, and low
dissolved oxygen associated with
urban runoff, municipal point
sources, and spills.
-------
Chapter Six Wetlands 149
• The Coyote Valley Tribe used
evaluative data to assess 1.6
wetland acres, all of which are
impaired for one or more uses. This
impairment is associated with silta-
tion, habitat and flow alterations,
weeds, and exotic species. The tribe
identified agriculture, development,
public projects, and municipal
point sources as sources of impair-
ment.
EPA can draw only limited
conclusions about water quality in
wetlands because the states used
different methodologies to survey
only 4% of the total wetlands in
the nation, and because 73% of the
assessed wetland acreage is in one
state alone (North Carolina). More
states and tribes will assess use sup-
port in wetlands in the future as
they develop standards for wet-
lands. Many states are still in the
process of developing wetland
water quality standards, which pro-
vide the baseline for determining
beneficial use support (see Chapter
2). Improved standards will also
provide a firmer foundation for
assessing impairments in wetlands
in those states already reporting use
support in wetlands.
Monitoring Wetland
Health
More than 25 years after it was
passed, the Clean Water Act still
challenges us to answer critical
questions about the physical, chem-
ical, and biological condition of the
nation's waters. While great strides
have been made to develop and
implement methods to evaluate the
condition of streams and lakes,
research on wetlands has lagged
behind. Considering that states and
tribes collectively reported the quali-
ty of only 4% of the nation's wet-
lands, the nation needs an effective
means to measure wetland health.
Currently, states and tribes have
insufficient data to evaluate the
health of wetlands or quantify the
extent of pollutants degrading wet-
lands and the sources of these
pollutants. Although most states
cannot quantify the wetland area
impacted by individual causes and
sources of degradation, 11 states
and tribes identified causes and
10 states and tribes identified
sources known to degrade wetland
integrity to some extent (Figures
6-12 and 6-13). These states listed
sediment as the most widespread
cause of degradation impacting
wetlands, followed by draining,
habitat alterations, and flow
Figure 6-12
More infbrtnation on wetlands
can be obtained from
EPA's Wetlands Hotline
at 1-800-832-7828,
9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time.
Causes Degrading Wetland Integrity
(11 States Reporting)
^Causes
Sedimentation/Siltation
Filling and Draining
Habitat Alterations
Flow Alterations
Nutrients
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Metals
States
9
6
6
6
4
3
3
2468
Number of States Reporting
10
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-2.
-------
150 Chapter Six Wetlands
alterations. Agriculture and hydro-
logic modifications topped the list
of sources degrading wetlands, fol-
lowed by development and draining
(see Appendix D, Tables D-2 and
D-3, for individual state informa-
tion).
As states and tribes incorporate
wetlands into water quality stand-
ards and adopt wetland-specific
uses and criteria, monitoring pro-
grams will become increasingly
important to determine if wetlands
are meeting their existing and
designated uses. Monitoring pro-
grams are also needed to prioritize
wetlands for protection and restora-
tion and to develop performance
standards for successful mitigation
and restoration efforts. Several
states are developing biological
Figure 6-13
Sources Degrading We.tland Integrity
(10 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture
Hydrologic Modification
Development (General) •
Filling and Draining
Road Construction
Construction
Resource Extraction
Urban Runoff
States
1 234567
Number of States Reporting
assessment methods to evaluate the
health of wetlands, designate uses
for aquatic life, develop biological
criteria, and determine if they are
supporting aquatic life uses.
• Minnesota has developed a
Wetland Index of Biological Integrity
(WIBI) using macroinvertebrates and
a Wetland Index of Vegetative
Integrity (WIVI) using plants for
depressional wetlands. Minnesota
plans to use these tools to evaluate
the biological integrity and aquatic
life use support of depressional wet-
lands. They are also partnering with
local governments to train volun-
teers to use simpler versions of these
methods to evaluate the condition
of wetlands.
• Montana is developing biological
assessment methods for wetlands
using macroinvertebrates and algae.
To partition natural variability
between wetland types, Montana
developed a classification system to
group reference wetlands by ecore-
gion and then by wetland type.
Preliminary results indicate detection
of impairments caused by metals,
nutrients, salinity, sediment, and
fluctuating water levels.
• North Dakota started its pilot
project in 1993. They are develop-
ing bioassessment methods for
depressional wetlands that are tem-
porarily or seasonally flooded. They
have developed a preliminary index
of biological integrity for the plant
community.
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-3.
-------
Chapter Six Wetlands 151
• Ohio started a pilot project in
1994 to develop biological criteria
for wetlands. Ohio is applying the
same approach to wetlands that it
used to develop its stream biological
criteria program. Methodologies to
assess vegetation, macroinverte-
brates, and amphibian assemblages
are under development. Ohio has
developed a Floristic Quality
Assessment Index to evaluate the
condition of the plant community.
• In 1999, Maine started a pilot
project to develop bioassessment
methods for wetlands in the Casco
Bay watershed. They are using the
macroinvertebrate and algal com-
munities to evaluate the health of
the wetlands. They are testing sam-
pling methods and intend to use
multimetric indexes of biological
integrity and advanced statistical
tests to evaluate the data.
• Florida is developing an integrat-
ed biological approach for evaluat-
ing wetlands. The project is focusing
on forested and herbaceous depres-
sional wetlands. They are develop-
ing sampling methods and multi-
metric indexes of biological integrity
for plants, benthic macroinverte-
brates, and fish.
Summary
Currently, most states are not
equipped to report on the integrity
of their wetlands. Only 11 states
and tribes reported attainment of
designated uses for wetlands in
1998. National trends cannot be
drawn from this limited information.
This is expected to change, how-
ever, as states adopt wetland water
quality standards and enhance their
existing monitoring programs to
more accurately assess designated
use support in their wetlands.
River of Words 1999 Finalist, Jennifer Koo, Earth's Cry, Age 18, CA
-------
152 Chapter Six Wetlands
H1GHLIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
V:
' !!>,„;".
Wetlands and the Clean
Water Action Plan
The Clean Water Action Plan,
announced by President Clinton
and Vice President Gore on February
19, 1998, is a comprehensive
plan that will not only protect
public health through clean water
programs but will also restore the
health of the nation's waters. The
Plan sets strong water protection
goals and provides states, commu-
nities, farmers, and landowners the
tools and resources to meet them.
Also included in the Action Plan are
cooperative strategies that encour-
age local communities to develop
and implement actions that take a
watershed approach (http://www.
deanwater.gov/). Within the Action
Plan are action items that address
wetlands both directly and indi-
rectly. These unique waterbodies
are directly addressed through the
themes discussed below and are
indirectly protected by improving
water quality programs, implement-
ing unified watershed assessments,
reducing polluted runoff, and
improving monitoring and assess-
ment.
A Net Increase
of 100,000 Acres
of Wetlands per Year
by 2005
The Clean Water Action Plan
sets an ambitious goal of a net
increase of 100,000 acres of
wetlands each year, beginning in
2005. To achieve this goal, the Plan
includes the following action items:
• The Corps of Engineers (Corps)
and EPA will work with their part-
ners to avoid wetland losses, deter
unpermitted losses, increase miti-
gation of unavoidable losses, and
improve the reliability of wetland
restoration.
• The U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA) will play a large role
in restoring wetlands through the
Wetlands Reserve Program, a volun-
tary program that farmers join
to receive financial assistance for
protecting wetlands.
• By 2005, EPA will work with the
Wetlands and River Corridor Part-
nership, a group of 30 government
and nongovernment organizations
involved in habitat restoration, to
restore wetlands in 500 watersheds.
• The National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration (NOAA) will
increase the acreage of coastal
wetlands restored annually by
encouraging wetland restoration
planning in state coastal zone
management programs. NOAA will
also continue state and local part-
nerships under the Coastal Wet-
lands, Planning, Protection, and
Restoration Program.
-------
Chapter Six Wetlands 153
• The Federal Highway Adminis-
tration (FHA) will increase net
wetland acreage resulting from
federal aid highway projects by
50% in 10 years.
Consistent
Determination
of Wetland Losses
and Gains
A necessary prerequisite to
achieving the wetland goal is ensur-
ing that reliable data systems are in
place to record losses and gains in
the nation's wetland inventory.
Currently the federal government
supports two major statistical inven-
tories of wetlands:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
• USDA's Natural Resources Inven-
tory (NRI).
These two approaches need to
estimate more consistently the rate
of wetland loss. The differences
between the two approaches need
to be reconciled, and a method of
tracking wetland gains achieved
through restoration needs to be
developed to accurately track
progress toward the 100,000-acre-
per-year goal, evaluate the impact
of policy and program decisions on
the goal, and make the inventory
more sensitive to relatively small
changes in acreage. The Plan
HIGHLICH
CHT HIGHLIGHT
-------
154 Chapter Six Wetlands
HIGHLIGH|y-| |jfcHT HIGHLIGHT 1
j|:i-
-------
Chapter Six Wetlands 155
I Want to Be
, I want to be a dogfish
^ -'and,catch a, leaping catfish
, jyjthjA/hiskers.as^ long as a stream.
* _„•-.-„,. «.:*i* j. //'l^lAodl^wanf to be
t -" r % • / #If * th'e rain tr''nklin£down on the world
* § K/ t-Yr/;//^^lIi59ItlTssi2n^fme- , _
4 ^'*r S * l//9 f - 'j*' -- J* — js^1—
i , <• D;,,^ of Word| ggg Srand fnze Winner (Poetry, Grades K-2)
r/ fr* Noa^ Ff'ank. <5rade_2, CA
7 /A* / --%i!*" ".''*''""- . . *
I I
i
River of Words 1998 Grand Prize Winner (Aft,_erades 3-6)
, ; Holly Heuer, Unfitted, Grade 5, CA
-------
-------
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is a vital national
resource that is used for myriad
purposes. It is used for
• Public and domestic water supply
systems
• Irrigation and livestock watering
• Industrial, commercial, mining,
and thermoelectric power produc-
tion purposes.
In many parts of the nation,
ground water serves as the only reli-
able source of drinking and irriga-
tion water. Unfortunately, this vital
resource is vulnerable to contami-
nation, and ground water contami-
nant problems are being reported
throughout the country.
This 1998 report represents the
second 305(b) cycle of data collec-
tion based on ground water guide-
lines introduced to states as part of
the 1996 305(b) reporting cycle.
This chapter presents the results
of data submitted by 37 states,
3 territories, 4 tribes, and the
District of Columbia in their 1998
305(b) water quality reports. States
(a term used to include territories,
tribes, and the District of Columbia)
reported ground water monitoring
data for a total of 146 aquifers or
hydrogeologic settings. Based on
these results, ground water quality
in the nation is good and can sup-
port the many different uses of this
resource. Despite these very positive
results, aquifers across the nation are
showing measurable impacts
stemming from human activities.
Through monitoring, elevated
levels of petroleum hydrocarbon
compounds, volatile organic com-
pounds, nitrate, pesticides, and
metals have been detected in
ground water across the nation.
The detection of some contami-
nants in ground water (e.g., metals
and MTBE) is relatively new and is
increasing. With each successive
305(b) report, emerging trends in
ground water contaminants will
become evident.
Ground Water Use
in the United States
Ground water is an important
component of our nation's fresh
water resources. The use of ground
water is of fundamental importance
to human life and is also significant
to economic vitality. Inventories of
ground water and surface water
use patterns in the United States
emphasize the importance of
ground water. The United States
Geological Survey (USGS) compiles
national water use information
every 5 years and publishes a report
that summarizes this information.
The latest USGS report was issued in
October 1998 for the 1995 water
year.
The USGS report shows that
ground water provides water for
drinking and bathing, irrigation of
crop lands, livestock watering,
mining, industrial and commercial
uses, and thermoelectric cooling
-------
158 Chapter Seven Ground Water
Figure 7-1
National Ground Water Use
Irrigation 63%
Commercial 1 %
Thermoelectric 1 %
Livestock Watering 3%
Domestic Supply 4%
Mining 3%
Industrial 5%
Public Supply 20%
Source: Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995.
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200,1998.
Figure 7-2
Ground Water Withdrawals by State in 1995
Virgin Islands
Volume (millions of gallons per day)
l 1 1,190 -14,500 i^Sl 205 - 709
710-1,189 ^H 0-204
Puerto Rico
Source: Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995.
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200,1998.
applications. Figure 7-1 illustrates
how ground water use is propor-
tioned among these categories. As
shown, irrigation (63%) and public
water supply (20%) are the largest
uses of ground water.
About 77,500 million gallons of
ground water are withdrawn daily.
In 1995, the USGS reported that
ground water supplied 46% of the
nation's overall population and 99%
of the population in rural areas with
drinking water. Our nation's depen-
dence on this valuable resource is
clear.
Every state uses some amount
of ground water. Nineteen states
obtain more than 25% of their over-
all water supply from ground water.
Ten states obtain more than 50% of
their total water supply from ground
water.
Each state uses its ground water
differently. Ground water use in indi-
vidual states is a result of numerous
interrelated factors generally associ-
ated with geography and climate,
the principal types of business activi-
ties occurring in the state, and pop-
ulation distribution. Fresh ground
water withdrawals during 1995
were highest generally in the west-
ern states, primarily to supply an
increasing population and to sustain
important agricultural activities.
Figure 7-2 shows the volume of
ground water withdrawn by states.
The 13 states that have the greatest
withdrawals account for 69% of all
ground water that is withdrawn
nationally.
Overall, agricultural activities
account for the majority of ground
water used in the nation. Figure 7-3
shows the volume of ground water
used for irrigation. Irrigation is
important for maintaining yields
from crop land in the western and
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 159
southeastern states. Generally, 75%
or more of harvested crop land in
many of the western states is irri-
gated, which represents an impor-
tant ground water use. Watering of
livestock also accounts for significant
withdrawals of fresh ground water.
Of all the states, California uses the
greatest volume of ground water
supplies to support agriculture.
Ground water use trends
between 1950 and 1995 generally
reflected the observed trends for
total water use for the nation (Figure
7-4). From 1950 through 1980,
there was a steady increase in fresh
ground water withdrawals, which
coincided with the steady increase
in our nation's total water use. Use
of fresh water generally declined
after 1980 through 1995, and fresh
ground water withdrawals declined
in 1995 to nearly 10% less than
estimated in 1980. This decline
occurred as the nation's population
increased 16% over this 15-year
period.
The current decline in water
use, including ground water use,
is attributed primarily to growing
recognition in recent years that
water is not an unlimited resource.
Conservation programs championed
by state and local communities low-
ered public supply per capita use
over the same 15-year period.
Two factors are contributing to
a lessening demand for water. First,
an increase in dry farming practices
has decreased the acres of irrigated
lands in the west and, thus, has
decreased the demand for fresh
ground water in this region. Second,
improved and more efficient
irrigation systems and techniques
have contributed to water conserva-
tion.
Figure 7-3'
Volume of Ground Water Used
for Irrigation in 1995
Virgin Islands
Volume (millions of gallons per day)
1=1 >1, 000 101-500
I . 4 501 -1,000 «M 0-100
Puerto Rico
Source: Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1 995. •
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200, 1998.
Figure 7-4
Ground Water Withdrawals
in the United States, 1950-1995
100
I
ol
o.
o
75
c
.2 50
£
25
Industrial.
Public Supply
Irrigation
I I III II III
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Years
Source: http://wwwga.usgs.gov/edu/earthgwusetrend.html
-------
160 Chapter Seven Ground Water
Industry has also improved the
efficiency of its manufacturing oper-
ations by focusing on water conser-
vation. For example, water recycling
practices by industries, adopted to
reduce discharges as well as operat-
ing costs, have been one important
development in the conservation
of water in industry.
Ground water continues to be
an important component of our
nation's water supply. The demand
for ground water to meet the
nation's needs must be coupled
with supply-management practices
to conserve this valued resource.
Ground Water
Quality ^^^
The evaluation of our nation's
ground water quality is complex.
In evaluating ground water quality
under Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act, our goal is to determine
if the resource meets the require-
ments for its many different uses.
Ground water quality can be
adversely affected or degraded as a
result of human activities that intro-
duce .contaminants into the environ-
ment. It can also be affected by nat-
ural processes that result in elevated
concentrations of certain constit-
uents in the ground water. For
example, elevated metal concentra-
tions can result when metals are
leached into the ground water from
minerals present in the earth. High
levels of arsenic and uranium are
frequently found in ground water in
some western states.
Not too long ago, it was
thought that soil provided a pro-
tective "filter" or "barrier" that
immobilized the downward migra-
tion of contaminants released on the
land surface. Soil was supposed to
prevent ground water resources
from being contaminated. The
detection of pesticides and other
contaminants in ground water
demonstrated that these resources
were indeed vulnerable to contami-
nation. The potential for a contami-
nant to affect ground water quality
is dependent upon its ability to
migrate through the overlying soils
to the underlying ground water
resource.
Ground water contamination
can occur as relatively well-defined,
localized plumes emanating from
specific sources such as leaking
underground storage tanks, spills,
landfills, waste lagoons, and/or
industrial facilities (Figure 7-5).
Contamination can also occur as a
general deterioration of ground
water quality over a wide area due
to diffuse nonpoint sources such as
agricultural fertilizer and pesticide
applications. Ground water quality
degradation from diffuse nonpoint
sources affects large areas, making it
difficult to specify the exact source
of the contamination.
Ground water contamination is
most common in highly developed
areas, agricultural areas, and indus-
trial complexes. Frequently, ground
water contamination is discovered
long after it has occurred. One
reason for this is the slow move-
ment of ground water through
aquifers, sometimes as little as frac-
tions of a foot per day. This often
results in a delay in the detection
of ground water contamination.
In some cases, contaminants
introduced into the subsurface
decades ago are only now being
discovered. This also means that the
environmental management prac-
tices of today will have effects on
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 161
ground water quality well into the
future.
Sources of Ground
Water Contamination
Ground water quality may be
adversely impacted by a variety of
potential contaminant sources. It
can be difficult to identify which
sources have the greatest impact
on ground water quality because
each source varies in the amount of
ground water it contaminates. In
addition, each source impacts water
quality differently.
An EPA/state workgroup devel-
oped a list of potential contaminant
sources and requested each state to
indicate the TO top sources that
potentially threaten their ground
water resources. States added
sources as was necessary based on
state-specific concerns. When
selecting sources, states considered
numerous factors, including
• The number of each type of
contaminant source in the state
• The location relative to ground
water sources used for drinking
water purposes
• The size of the population at risk
from contaminated drinking water
• The risk posed to human health
and/or the environment from
releases
• Hydrogeologic sensitivity (the
ease with which contaminants enter
and travel through soil and reach
aquifers)
• The findings of the state's ground
water assessments and/or related
studies.
Figure 7-5
Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Ground Water Movement
Intentional Input
>• Unintentional Input
p3ht;;;. -i, •?•<<•?.•>•••• Septic
s^&KM^~<
t,..:-*'.iv;-.;1..'; ,--,=./- Cesspool
' :
-------
162 Chapter Seven Ground Water
HIGHLIGH/fW jpHT HiGHUGHT
1 ~
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 163
HIGHLIGH
HIGHLIGHT
nutrients and contaminants are
transported between ground water
and surface water. For example,
contaminants in streams can affect
ground water quality during periods
of recharge and flooding. Polluted
ground water can affect surface
waterbodies when contaminated
ground water discharges into a river
or stream. Because contamination is
not restricted to either waterbody,
both ground water and surface
water must be considered in water
quality assessments.
Coordination between surface
water and ground water programs
will be essential to adequately eval-
uate the quality and quantity of our
nation's drinking water. Ground
water and surface water interactions
have a major role in affecting chemi-
cal and biological processes in lakes,
wetlands, and streams, which in turn
affect water quality throughout the
system. An understanding of these
interactions is critical in our water
protection and conservation efforts.
It is evident that protection of
ground water, as much as protection
of surface water, is of major impor-
tance for sustaining uses such as
drinking water supply, fish and
wildlife habitats, swimming, boating,
and fishing.
A. Dismal River, NE
J. Duckabush River, WA ^TRfe. B. Forest River, ND
I. Orestimba Creek, CA
C. Sturgeon River, Ml
H. Santa Cruz River, AZ
D. Ammonoosuc River, NH
G. Dry Frio River, TX ~*=**-^ E. Brushy Creek, CA
F. Homochitto River, MS
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139, 1998.
Ground water contribution
to stream flow
Surface water contribution
to stream flow
Figure 1. This map compares ground water contribution to streamf low
for selected streams.
-------
164 Chapter Seven Ground Water
For each of the 10 top sources,
states identified the specific contam-
inants that may impact ground
water quality. Figure 7-6 illustrates
the sources most frequently cited by
states as a potential threat to
ground water quality. Leaking
underground storage tanks (LUSTs)
are the greatest potential source of
ground water contamination. Septic
systems, landfills, industrial facilities,
and fertilizer applications are the
next most frequently cited sources
of concern. These findings are
consistent with state reports during
previous 305(b) cycles.
If similar sources are combined,
four broad categories emerge as the
most important potential sources of
ground water contamination:
• Fuel storage practices
• Waste disposal practices
• Agricultural practices
• Industrial practices.
Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Sources
Total
Storage Tanks (underground)
Septic Systems
Landfills
Large Industrial Facilities
Fertilizer Applications
Spills
Pesticide Applications
Hazardous Waste Sites
Surface Impoundments
Animal Feedlots
Storage Tanks (aboveground)
Agricultural Chemical Facilities
Salt Water Intrusion
Pipelines and Sewer Lines
Shallow Injection Wells
Mining and Mine Drainage
Urban Runoff
Salt Storage and Road Salting
Hazardous Waste Generators
Wastepiles
Irrigation Practices
Deep Injection Wells
Number Reporting on Top Ten
Contaminant Sources
Number Reporting on Contaminant
Sources in Addition to the Top Ten
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of States, Tribes, and Territories Reporting
37
31
31
25
23
24
20
19
21
18
18
13
13
13
14
12
12
11
8
8
6
6
40
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 165
Fuel Storage Practices
Fuel storage practices include
the storage of petroleum products
in underground and aboveground
storage tanks. Although tanks exist
in all populated areas, they are
generally most concentrated in the
more heavily developed urban and
suburban areas of a state.
Storage tanks are primarily used
to hold petroleum products such
as gasoline, diesel fuel, and fuel oil.
Leakages can be a significant source
of ground water contamination
(Figure 7-7). The primary causes of
tank leakages are faulty installation
or corrosion of tanks and pipelines.
Petroleum products are actually
complex mixtures of hundreds of
different compounds. Over 200
gasoline compounds can be sepa-
rated in the mixture. Compounds
characterized by a higher water
solubility are frequently detected in
ground water resources. Four com-
pounds, in particular, are associated
with petroleum contamination:
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylenes. Petroleum-related
chemicals threaten the use of
ground water for human consump-
tion becausejsome (e.g., benzene)
are known to cause cancer even at
very low concentrations.
Compounds are added to some
fuel products to improve perform-
ance. For example, methyl tert-butyl
ether (MTBE) is added to boost
octane and reduce carbon monox-
ide and ozone levels. Unfortunately,
this compound is highly water solu-
ble and incidents of MTBE contami-
nation in ground water are widely
reported across the nation. States
report that MTBE is frequently being
added to the list of compounds
monitored at petroleum release
sites. Thus, a new threat to ground
water quality has been identified
just in the past 5 years.
States report that the organic
chemicals associated with petrole-
um products are common ground
water contaminants. Petroleum-
related chemicals adversely affect
ground water quality in aquifers
across the nation. The most signifi-
cant impacts occur in the upper-
most aquifer, which is frequently
shallow and often used for domestic
purposes.
Figure 7-7 j
Cround Water Contamination as a Result
of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
-------
166 Chapter Seven Ground Water
Efforts to Fight Air
Pollution Create a
Water Quality Concern
What began as an effort to
fight air pollution became a
water quality concern that
necessitated dozens of costly
studies and created a public
health risk. Although methyl
tert-btityl ether (MTBE) helps
lower tailpipe emissions, it also
contaminates ground water
supplies. MTBE is more soluble
in water and less likely to be
degraded than other common
petroleum constituents. It is
also tentatively classified as a
possible human carcinogen by
EPA. In studies conducted by
tiie USGS, MTBE was the sec-
ond most commonly detected
volatile organic compound
(VOC) in water collected from
urban wells and the seventh
most commonly detected VOC
in urban stormwater. Although
frequently detected, only 3% of
me urban wells sampled were
characterized by concentrations
of MTBE that exceeded EPA's
draft drinking water health
advisory level of 20 micro-
grams Alter. All of the concen-
trations measured in urban
stonnwater were less than the
health advisory level.
Waste Disposal Practices
Waste disposal practices include
• Septic systems
• Landfills
• Surface impoundments
• Deep and shallow injection wells
• Wastepiles
• Waste tailings
• Land application
• Unpermitted disposal.
Any practice that involves the
handling and disposal of waste has
the potential to impact the environ-
ment if protective measures are not
taken. Contaminants most likely
to impact ground water include
rnetals, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), semivolatile organic com-
pounds (SVOCs), nitrates, radio-
nuclides, and pathogens. States
report that current laws and regula-
tions go a long way toward pre-
venting releases and that many
instances of present-day ground
water contamination are the result
of historic practices.
Improperly constructed and
poorly maintained septic systems
are believed to cause substantial
and widespread nutrient and
microbial contamination to ground
water. In Montana, approximately
126,000 individual onsite septic
systems are used by 252,000 peo-
ple, and ground water monitoring
has shown elevated nitrate levels
near areas of concentrated septic
systems. Widespread nitrate con-
tamination by individual septic
systems and municipal sewage
lagoons is a significant ground
water contamination problem
reported by Colorado and Arizona.
Landfills have long been used to
dispose of wastes and, in the past,
little regard was given to the poten-
tial for ground water contamination
in site selection. Landfills were gen-
erally sited on land considered to
have no other uses. Unlined aban-
doned sand and gravel pits, old
strip mines, marshlands, and sink-
holes were often used. In many
instances, the water table was at, or
very near the ground surface, and
the potential for ground water con-
tamination was high. Not surpris-
ingly, states consistently cite landfills
as a high-priority source of ground
water contamination. Generally,
the greatest concern is associated
with practices or activities that
occurred prior to establishment of
construction standards for landfills.
Present-day landfills are now
required to adhere to stringent
construction and ground water
monitoring standards.
Generally, discharges to surface
impoundments such as pits, ponds,
and lagoons are underregulated.
In Indiana, many surface impound-
ments neither discharge to surface
water nor have designed outfalls;
as a consequence, they have
the potential to leach metals,
volatile organic compounds, and
semivolatile organic compounds to
ground water. In Colorado, wells
located downgradient from tailings
ponds or cyanide heaps associated
with mining operations often
exhibit high concentrations of
metals. Arizona also identified sur-
face impoundments and leach fields
as significant sources of volatile
organic compounds.
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 167
Class V fnjection wells include
shallow wastewater disposal wells,
septic systems, storm water drains,
and agricultural drainage systems.
Class V injection wells are used to
dispose of wastewaters directly into
the ground. Because they are not
designed to treat the wastewaters
released through them, ground
water supplies can become contam-
inated. The large number and diver-
sity of Class V injection wells pose
a significant potential threat to
ground water. The state of Indiana
indicated that they are targeting
these installations for further legisla-
tive controls.
Agricultural Practices
Agricultural practices that have
the potential to contaminate
ground water include
• Animal feedlots
• Fertilizer and pesticide
applications
• Irrigation practices
• Agricultural chemical facilities
• Drainage wells.
Ground water contamination
can be a result of routine applica-
tions, spillage, or misuse of pesti-
cides and fertilizers during handling
and storage, manure storage/
spreading, improper storage of
chemicals, and irrigation return
drains serving as a direct conduit
to ground water. Fields with over-
applied and/or misapplied fertilizers
and pesticides can introduce nitro-
gen, pesticides, cadmium, chloride,
mercury, and selenium into the
ground water. States report that
agricultural practices continue to
be a major source of ground water
contamination.
Animal feeding operations can
pose a number of risks to water
quality and public health, mainly
because of the amount of animal
manure and wastewater they gener-
ate. Animal feedlots often have
impoundments from which wastes
may infiltrate to ground water.
Livestock waste is a source of nitrate,
bacteria, total dissolved solids, and
sulfates.
Livestock is an integral compo-.
nent of many states' economies. As
a consequence, concentrated animal
feeding operations occur in many
states. The high concentration of
manure in feedlot areas causes
confined animal feedlots to be a
concern for contributing to ground
water contamination.
Shallow unconfined aquifers
in many states have become
contaminated from the application
of fertilizer. Crop fertilization is
the most important agricultural
practice contributing nitrate to the
environment. Nitrate is considered
by many to be the most widespread
ground water contaminant. To help
combat the problems associated
with the overuse of fertilizers, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation
Service assists crop producers in
developing nutrient management
plans.
Human-induced salinity also
occurs in agricultural regions where
irrigation is used extensively. Irriga-
tion water continually flushes
nitrate-related compounds from
fertilizers into the shallow aquifers
along with high levels of chloride,
sodium, and other metals, thereby
increasing the salinity of the under-
lying aquifers.
Risk of Multiple
Contaminants
In a recent study by the Univer-
sity' of'Wisconsin-Madison*
researchers noted that common
mixtures of pesticides and I
fertilizers can have biological
'effects at the current concentra-
tions measured in ground
water. Specifically, the combi-
nation ofaldicarb, atrazine,
and nitrate, -which are the most
common contaminants detect-
ed in ground water, can influ-
ence the immune and endo-
crine systems as well as affect
neurological health. Changes in
the ability to learn and in
patterns of aggression were
observed. Effects are most
noticeable when a single pesti-
cide is combined with nitrate
fertilizer. Research shows that
children and developing fetuses
are most at risk. EPA is devel-
oping an approach to deal with
mixtures under the cumulative
risk policy. The initial step is to
deal with mixtures on a case-
by-case basis beginning with
the organophosphate pesticides
as a group. Dealing with mix-
tures of chemicals under the
Food Qiiality Protection Act
and Safe Drinking Water Act
will continue to be a challenge
in the future.
* Porter et al. 1999. Toxicology and
Industrial Health 15, 133-150. ,
-------
168 Chapter Seven Ground Water
Metals in the Environment
Metals may be present in indus-
trial and commercial process
waste streams. These metals
tend to be persistent with little
to no potential for degradation.
Predicting their mobility and
toxicity is complex due to the
large number of chemical
reactions that can affect their
behavior. Tlie scientific commu-
nity is only just now beginning
to unravel the intricacies
involved in predicting metals
behavior in the environment.
Pesticide use and application
practices are of great concern. The
primary routes of pesticide transport
to ground water are through leach-
ing or by spills and direct infiltration
through drainage controls. Pesticide
infiltration is generally greatest when
rainfall is intense and occurs shortly
after the pesticide is applied. Within
sensitive areas, ground water moni-
toring has shown fairly widespread
detections of pesticides, specifically
the pesticide atrazine. Many states
are developing or have developed
specific management plans to better
control pesticide application rates
and frequency to lessen the impacts
on the resource.
Industrial Practices
Raw materials and waste han-
dling in industrial processes can
pose a threat to ground water qual-
ity. States noted that industrial facil-
ities, hazardous waste generators,
and manufacturing/repair shops all
present the potential for releases.
Storage of raw materials at the facil-
ity are a problem if the materials are
stored improperly and leaks or spills
occur. Examples include chemical
drums that are carelessly stacked or
damaged and/or dry materials that
are exposed to rainfall. Material
transport and transfer operations at
these facilities can also be a cause
for concern. If a tanker operator is
careless when delivering raw mate-
rials to a facility, spills may occur.
The most common contami-
nants are metals, volatile organic
compounds, semivolatile organic
compounds, and petroleum com-
pounds. States reported releases of
each of these contaminant types in
association with industrial practices
in their 1998 305(b) reports as both
a current and potential threat to
ground water quality.
Cyanide spills associated with
ore processing continue to affect
ground water quality in Montana.
Ground water contamination
extending beyond mine properties
has occurred at nine ore processing
facilities. Water supplies have been
affected by at least three spills.
Thirty-eight ore processors are
known to have used cyanide at
some point during their operation,
and, of these facilities, four remain
active. Cyanide will continue to
affect the quality of Montana's
ground water in these mining areas
from past releases as well as from
the potential threat of future acci-
dental releases.
Spills are a source of grave
concern among states. The state of
Indiana reported that about 50 spills
occur per week. In 1996, 41 million
gallons of chemicals, industrial
wastes, and agricultural products
were spilled in Indiana. Montana
reports an average of 300 accidental
spills each year. On average, approx-
imately 15 of these spills require
extensive cleanup and followup
ground water monitoring. One of
these was the 1995 derailment of
railroad tanker cars in the Helena rail
yard that threatened to contaminate
ground water with 17,400 gallons
of fuel oil. Followup monitoring
demonstrated that rapid response
actions had prevented the majority
of the contaminants from reaching
local aquifers.
Volatile organic compounds
associated with solvent spills and
leaks from electronics, aerospace,
and military facilities that use these
chemicals as degreasirig agents
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 169
were identified by Arizona as major
sources of ground water contamina-
tion. South Carolina determined
that accidental spills and leaks are
the second most common source of
ground water contamination, and,
as in Arizona, these releases can
usually be .associated with petro-
leum-based products attributed to
machinery maintenance or manu-
facturing. Spills will never become
entirely preventable, but industry,
local governments, and states are
cooperating to control spills when
they do occur so that the impact to
the environment is minimized
Development of new technolo-
gies and new products to replace
organic solvents is continuing. For
example, organic biodegradable
solvents derived from plants are
being developed for large-scale
industrial applications. Environmen-
tally responsible dry cleaning tech-
nologies are being developed that
eliminate the need for perchloro-
ethylene. Legislation is being
considered in New York and by
other local governments and states
that would ban the use of perchlo-
roethylene by the dry cleaning
industry.
State Overview of
Contaminant Sources
States inventory the types and
numbers of contaminant sources
having the potential to impact
ground water quality in selected
aquifers. This type of information
serves three purposes:
• To identify contaminant sources
with the greatest potential to impact
ground water quality based on sheer
number of sites
• To determine the number of sites
actually having impacted ground
water resources
• To determine the remedial actions
being taken to address the contami-
nation and the degree of success.
For 1998, 26 states reported
contaminant source information for
specific aquifers. Table 7-1 summa-
rizes contaminant source informa-
tion for those 26 states. Many states
do not yet track this type of informa-
tion in an easily accessible format.
As shown in Table 7-1, under-
ground storage tanks (USTs) repre-
sent the highest number of potential
sources of ground water contamina-
tion. These findings are consistent
with data reported during the 1996
305(b) cycle. Over 85,000 UST sites
were reported in 72 hydrogeologic
settings in 22 states. Of these tanks,
57% were characterized by con-
firmed contaminant releases to the
environment and 18% had releases
that adversely affected ground water
quality. These sites are slowly being
cleaned up and restored. Nearly
21,500 (25%) of these sites have
been remediated as of late 1998.
Much of the money that supports
cleanup operations is provided by
State Underground Tank Remedia-
tion Funds. Eighteen states reported
that they have fully established
Remediation Funds.
States ranked underground
injection sites as second on the list
of potential sources of contamina-
tion. More than 31,000 under-
ground injection sites exist in the 72
settings evaluated. The percent with
confirmed ground water contamina-
tion is less than 5%, suggesting that
underground injection sites are less
of a threat than leaking USTs.
-------
170 Chapter Seven Ground Water
State sites include unregulated
chemical spills or historic sites for
which there is no responsible party.
These sites are not covered by an
EPA regulatory program. State sites
accounted for over 12,000 sites
present in 34 hydrogeologic set-
tings. Of these sites, over 50% have
confirmed contaminant releases and
over 25% have confirmed ground
water impacts.
For each of the sources listed in
Table 7-1, states attempted to iden-
tify the types of contaminants most
likely to be present. Although con-
taminants ranged from asbestos to
radionuclides, the most frequently
cited contaminants were
• Volatile organic compounds
• Petroleum compounds
H Metals
• Pesticides
• Nitrate.
Volatile organic compounds and
petroleum compounds were each
cited as contaminants of concern in
60% of the hydrogeologic settings
for which states reported data.
Metals were measured in ground
water collected from 52% of the
hydrogeologic settings. Pesticides
and nitrate were cited 31 % and
22% of the time, respectively.
Table 7-1 . " Summary of Contaminant Source Type and Number
Source Type
LUST
Underground Injection
State Sites
DOD/DOE
CERCLA (non-NPL)
RCRA Corrective Action
Nonpoint Sources
Landfills
NPL
Number
of States
Reporting
Information
22
17
17
17
19
19
8
6
22
Number of Aquifers
or Hydrogeologic
Settings for Which .
Information
Was Reported
72
72
34
54
59
50
29
26
66
Total
Sites
85,067
31,480
12,202
8,705
3,506
2,696
2,030
1,356
307
Number of Sites
with Confirmed Releases
Number
48,320
1,313
6,199
4,470
1,381
538
44
110
275
Percent
of Total
57
4
51
51
39
20
2
8
90
Number of Sites with
Confirmed Ground
Water Contamination
Number
1 5,436
172
3,139
286
802
267
31
110
249
Percent
of Total
18
<1
26
3
23
10
<2
8
81
CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
DOD/DOE = Department of Defense/Department of Energy.
LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank.
NPL = National Priority List.
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
— = Not available.
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 171
Ground Water
Assessments
The 1998 305(b) reporting
cycle was the second cycle for
which states reported quantitative
ground water monitoring data
on an aquifer-specific basis. Data
reporting increased in uniformity in
1998 as states became familiar with
the revised Ground Water Guidelines
and began developing methodol-
ogies to report the data in the
format requested. Increased consist-
ency in the way data were submit-
ted allowed for more meaningful
comparisons of reported data.
Thirty-one states reported
ground water monitoring data that
were used in this assessment. Ten
states and tribes reported ground
water monitoring data for the first
time in 1998. Additional data from
14 states were also received, but the
data were not compatible with the
305(b) data format and could not
be used in the national summary.
Figure 7-8 shows the states that
submitted ground water data for
the 1998 305(b) reporting cycle.
States that achieved full state
coverage in 1996 reported their
most recent monitoring results for
1998. States that implemented
rotating monitoring plans reported
data for additional aquifers within
the state.
Texas is an example of a state
that uses a rotating monitoring
design. The Texas Groundwater
Protection Committee is the
Number of Sites
with Active Remediation
Number
3,044
61
753
1,717
229
95
5
2
83
Percent
of Total
4
<1
6
20
7
4
<1
<1
27
Number of Sites
with Cleanup Completed
Number
21,438
452
3,242
1,937
316
67
3
. — '
33
Percent
of Total
25
<2
27
22
9
3
<1
—
11
Hydrogeologic
Settings
This term describes the geologic-
related ground water and sur-
face water factors that affect
and control ground water move-
ment into an area. Factors—
Isuch as depth to ground water,
soil type, and the amount of
recharge—-can be used to map
areas with common characteris-
tics. It is possible then to make
generalizations about the
vulnerability of-the setting to
potential contaminants.
Alleretal. 1987, DRASTIC — A
Standardized System for Evaluating
Ground Water Pollution Potential
Using Hydrogeologic Settings^
EPA/600/2-87/035. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
-------
172 Chapter Seven Ground Water
coordinating entity for Texas ground
water issues. The Texas Water Devel-
opment Board performs ambient
ground water monitoring on a
selected number of Texas aquifers
each year so that all major and
minor aquifers of the state are
monitored within a 5-year period.
Major and minor aquifers
underlie approximately 76% of
Texas' 267,338 square miles of land
surface. Major aquifers produce
large quantities of water in a larger
area of the state. Minor aquifers
produce significant quantities of
water within smaller geographic
areas or small quantities in large
geographic areas. Nine major
aquifers and twenty minor aquifers
have been delineated within the
state.
Approximately 4,200 domestic
and agricultural water wells are sam-
pled as part of this 5-year program.
Figure 7-8
States Reporting Ground Water Data
Figure 7-9 illustrates the aquifers
assessed during the first three moni-
toring cycles. The remaining Texas
aquifers will be assessed for 2000
and 2001.
Texas' goal is to completely
assess all major and minor aquifers
every 5 years. After this first 5-year
cycle is complete, a historical analy-
sis of ambient ground water quality
will begin as the state repeats the
cycle.
Hawaii provides yet another
plan for implementing statewide
ground water assessment. Hawaii
designed a three-phased plan.
Phase I uses existing information
from the Department of Health
aquifer research program and
wellhead protection assessments.
These data are compared with
ground water contamination maps
of detected organic chemical con-
tamination in the state. Together
these data provide an overlay of the
location of aquifers in the state,
locations where contaminants have
been detected, and specific aquifer/
wellhead areas that have been
assessed for vulnerability to contami-
nation. Phase I assessments were
submitted as part of the 1998
305(b) cycle.
Phase II assessments will be
reported as part of .the 2000 and
2002 305(b) cycles. They will be
based on data from the Hawaii
Source Water Assessment Program
(HISWAP). Phase II information will
provide comprehensive data on
public drinking water sources and
will identify
Puerto Rico
Ground water section submitted
Ground water section not submitted
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 173
• Source water protection areas
• Sources of contamination
• Susceptibility of source water to
contamination.
Phase III assessment will include
all completed HISWAP assessments
and any ambient ground water data
collected and/or analyzed. Phase III
will produce a comprehensive
database of public drinking water
sources and ambient ground water
data. Implementation of this phase
will depend on pending policy and
budget decisions.
Figure 7-9
Ground Water Quality
Data
For the 1998 305(b) cycle, states
assessed ground water quality using
three primary sources of data: ambi-
ent ground water monitoring data,
unfinished water quality data, and
finished water quality data (Figure
7-10). Furthermore, states reported
results for a smaller suite of analytes
relative to the 1996 305(b) cycle,
focusing primarily on volatile organic
compounds, semivolatile organic
compounds, and nitrate. Emphasis
on these three parameter groupings
is warranted because the presence of
Texas Water Quality Inventory
Aquifers inventoried in 1996
Aquifers inventoried in 1998
Aquifers to be inventoried in 1999
• •
Framework for Compiling
State Data
Assessment of ground water quality
under the 305(b) program is evolv-
ing, and many changes have been
implemented over the past decade to
develop an accurate.representation
of our nation's ground water quality.
One of the most significant changes
was the request that states begin
reporting ground water monitoring
data for specific aquifers or hydro-
geologic settings within the state. As
the states began reporting monitor-
ing data for multiple hydrogeologic
settings, EPA responded by develop-
ing a database to compile and
maintain the large volume of
ambient ground water quality data
being reported as part of the 305(b)
program. This database provides a
•framework for state-reported ground
water quality data.
Currently, thedataset contains
ground water monitoring data for
243 hydrogeologic settings, repre-
senting data reported by states for
the 1996 and 1998 305(b) cycles.
Obviously, this set of data provides
limited national coverage, and only
a limited assessment of ground
water quality on a national basis is
possible at this time. However, a
framework for reporting and compil-
ing data on a biennial basis has
been established, and, as states
report new data with each successive
3Q5(b) cycle, the data set will
mature. With continuing efforts, an
accurate and representative assess-
ment of our nation's ground water
resources should emerge.
-------
174 Chapter Seven Ground Water
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Tribal 305(b) Submittals
LA JOLLA INDIAN RESERVATION
Four Native American tribes
submitted ground water information
in their 305(b) water quality reports
in 1998. They are
• La Jolla Band of Indians of Pauma
Valley, California
• Twenty-Nine Palms Band of
Mission Indians of Coachella,
California
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians of Thermal, California
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians of Palm Springs, California.
La Jolla Band of Indians is
located in the San Luis Rey River
Ground Water Basin and the other
three tribes are located in the
Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin.
The Coachella Valley Water District
has undertaken extensive studies to
estimate ground water production
and overdraft in the Valley. Recent
estimates indicate that ground water
is in an overdraft situation with
more water being pumped out of
the Valley than is entering as
recharge. Estimates of overdraft in
the lower Valley range from 50,000
to 150,000 acre-feet per year.
Approximately half of the overdraft
is attributed to agriculture and half
is attributed to municipal and recre-
ational uses.
Anthropogenic sources of
ground water contamination include
agricultural chemical facilities, ferti-
lizer applications, irrigation and
drainage practices, wastepiles, deep
and shallow injection wells, septic
systems, underground storage tanks,
and industrial facilities. The overdraft
situation in the Valley causes higher
hydraulic gradients and increases
the potential for ground water con-
taminants to affect ground water
resources. One very common con-
taminant that is detected in ground
water on the reservations is nitrate.
All four tribes assessed ground water
quality using nitrate as an indicator
parameter.
Natural sources of contamina-
tion also impact ground water
quality. Fluoride-bearing minerals
present in the aquifer substrate
contribute high levels of fluoride to
ground water. Arsenic and radionu-
clides may also be present in ground
water through leaching of natural
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 175
sources. All four tribes assessed
ground water quality for fluoride.
Three of the four tribes assessed
arsenic and either gross alpha or
. uranium concentrations as well.
Arsenic and radionuclide data were
not available to the La Jolla Band of
Indians.
Ground water assessments were
conducted by reviewing historic
water quality data of operating
wells, monitoring the quality of
water from springs, and collecting
supplemental ground water quality"
data in the vicinity of the reserva-
tions. The number of wells sampled
ranged from five wells (La jolla
Band of Indians) to 47 wells (Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians).
Common parameters monitored on
the reservations included nitrate,
arsenic, fluoride, radionuclides,
volatile organic compounds, and
semivolatile organic compounds.
Monitoring data were compared to
federal drinking water standards to
assess whether the ground water
met beneficial uses such as drinking
water, agricultural supply, and/or
industrial supply.
Nitrate is present at detectable
concentrations in ground water
However, the maximum contami-
nant level, or MCL, for nitrate is
rarely exceeded. Fluoride and
arsenic are also present at detectable
concentrations. Radionuclides are
measured at concentrations that are
generally representative of back-
ground conditions.
Fluoride was the most frequent-
ly detected constituent at concen-
trations exceeding the drinking
water standard in ground water
collected from the 29 Palms Reser-
vation. Fluoride was measured at
concentrations exceeding one-half
the drinking water standard in
ground water collected from the
Torres-Martinez Reservation. In con-
trast, nearly 30%, or 20 out of 71
samples, exceeded the MCL for
arsenic in ground water collected
from the Torres-Martinez Reserva-
tion. MCL exceedances were rarely
observed in ground water collected
from the Agua Caliente Reservation.
Of the three tribes that tested for
volatile organic compounds or
semivolatile organic compounds, no
concentrations exceeded the MCL.
Hence, although some water quality
issues may exist on the reservations,
these water quality impacts do not
seem to be caused by anthropo-
genic sources. Rather, most of the
observed MCL exceedances can be
traced back to natural sources.
• :
'HIGHLIGHJffjWG'rirHIGHLIGHT
\£*^*JJS*~
*><
¥',.'.,' ' ,
H\ _ "•u f
r ' *— - — — r" • — *
kr i^iS" => ? -* < „ -^ V
&
J* * £**" 1 * ' v
, ~ -__^-^- _— — J^_--- -.„--=
t
-------
176 Chapter Seven Ground Water
]HT HIGHLIGHT
'ill |..
Different Types of
Monitoring Settings
Thirty-one states reported data
summarizing ground water quality.
In total, data were reported for
146 aquifers or other hydrogeologic
settings for the 1998 305(b) cycle.
States that were unable to report
ground water quality data for
specific aquifers assessed ground
water quality using a number of
different hydrogeologic settings,
Existing Monitoring
Areas
Proposed Monitoring
Areas
Figure 1. Arkansas Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program
Existing monitoring areas include Ouachita (1), Lonoke (2), Pine Bluff (3),
Omaha (4), El Dorado (5), Jonesboro (6), Brinkley (7), and Chicot (8). Expansion
areas will include Hardy (9) and Athens Plateau (10).
including statewide summaries,
counties, watersheds, basins, and
sites or areas chosen for specific
monitoring purposes. A brief
description of several ground water
assessment methods and their
rationale is presented.
Arkansas - Ambient Ground
Water Monitoring Program
The Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology
began its Ambient Ground Water
Monitoring Program in 1986 to
monitor overall ground water
quality in the state. The Program
currently consists of eight active
monitoring areas and two proposed
areas selected to evaluate potential
impacts from multiple land uses
(Figure 1). The areas are in different
counties covering the diverse geo-
logic, hydrologic, and economic
regimes within the state. One area
is characterized by the largest
community using ground water to
meet all of its needs. An objective of
the monitoring program is to moni-
tor water quality that is affected by
public and commercial well use. For
the 1998 305(b) cycle, Arkansas
reported their most recent round of
results for the eight active monitor-
ing areas.
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 177
Indiana - Hydrogeologic
Settings
Indiana developed a system
that allows for data to be analyzed
according to.similar surface and
subsurface environments. To inter-
pret the ground water sensitivity to
contamination, the analysis consid-
ers the composition, thickness, and
geometry of the aquifers; variability
of the confining units; surface and
ground water interactions; and
recharge/discharge relationships
(Figure 2). For the 1998 305(b)
cycle, Indiana selected hydrogeo-
logic settings that were vulnerable
to contamination and contain large
populated areas (i.e., areas of great-
est ground water demand). These
settings were principally outwash
deposits or fans of glacial origin.
Alabama - Cumberland
Plateau Ground Water
Province
Alabama divided the state into
physiographic provinces and is
assessing ground water quality in
aquifers in different provinces with
each successive 305(b) cycle.
Ground water quality in the Tus-
cumbia Fort Payne Aquifer outcrop
area in the Highland Rim Province
HIGHLJG
I'HTTilGHLlGHT
Hydrogeologic Setting
Ohio River Valley deposits
Outwash plain
Outwash system
Glacial outwash deposits
Outwash plain
Figure 2. Map of Hydrogeologic Settings
-------
178 Chapter Seven Ground Water
HIGHLIGH
II ':
: In
1,1
HT HIGHLIGHT
was evaluated in 1996. Alabama
provided ground water quality data
for the Cumberland Plateau Ground
Water Province for 1998 (Figure 3).
This area includes all or parts of 13
counties in north Alabama that are
underlain by three major aquifer
outcrop areas. The aquifers outcrop-
ping include the Pottsville Aquifer,
the Tuscumbia-Fort Payne Aquifer,
and those aquifers of Cambrian-
Ordovician age. The shallow
aquifers of the Cumberland Plateau
Ground Water Province are consid-
ered vulnerable to contamination
from surface sources through frac-
tures and sinkholes that provide
direct recharge to the subsurface.
Some of these aquifers are also
highly vulnerable to contamination
through karst features that provide
direct access from the surface into
the aquifer.
I
I
Tuscumbia Fort
Payne Aquifer Outcrop
Figure 3. Alabama Physiographic Provinces
3.
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 179
manufactured compounds (i.e., the
volatile organic compounds and
semivolatile organic compounds) in
ground water is a definitive indica-
tion of contamination from human
sources. Even if only limited data are
available for assessing ground water
quality, the presence of VOC and
SVOCs is of serious concern. The
presence of nitrate at concentrations
exceeding background levels is
another sign of human impacts to
ground water quality. In fact, states
indicated that they used nitrate as
an "indicator" parameter of water
quality impacts, and all 31 states
reported nitrate data.
States also reported monitoring
data for an "others" category. This
usually referenced inorganic and/or
metallic contaminants. Inorganic
constituents generally referred to
water quality parameters that were
more reflective of natural back-
ground conditions than adverse
impacts to ground water quality
resulting from human activities.
Some examples include sodium,
calcium, magnesium, potassium,
bicarbonate, fluoride, and chloride.
In contrast, elevated concentrations
of some metals can be a strong
indication of water quality impacts
resulting from human activities.
Metals that reflect human activities
include barium, arsenic, mercury,
cadmium, zinc, lead, selenium,
copper, chromium, silver, and
nickel.
Tables 7-2 through 7-6 present
state data for nitrate, VOCs, SVOCs,
pesticides, and metals. In most
cases, the reported data represent
average concentration values for the
monitoring period. However, some
states reported results based on the
maximum concentration detected
in wells during the monitoring
period. It is important to remember
that the aquifer monitoring data
reported by states represent differ-
ent sources, often with different
monitoring purposes, and care
must be taken in making data
Figure 7-10
Sources of Ground Water Monitoring Data
% Total
Ambient Monitoring Network
Unfinished Water Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Finished Water Quality Data from
Private or Unregulated Wells
Finished Water Quality Data from
PWS Wells
20 40
Percentage of States
52
26
13
55
60
Note: Percentage based on a total of 31 states submitting data. Some states used multiple data sources.
-------
180 Chapter Seven Ground Water
comparisons. Monitoring data most
closely approximating actual
ground water conditions (e.g.,
untreated ground water) are given
special consideration in these assess-
ments.
States reported aquifer monitor-
ing data for nitrate more frequently
than for any other parameter or
parameter group. Nitrate is well
suited for use as an indicator param-
eter. Its presence in ground water
systems is indicative of human activ-
ities and it can be detected at rela-
tively low concentrations through
the use of standard, reliable, and
relatively inexpensive analytical
methodologies.
Table 7-2 presents aquifer moni-
toring data for nitrate for the 1998
305(b) reporting cycle. With the
exception of untreated water quality
data from public water supply
(PWS) wells, the maximum contam-
inant level (MCL) of 10 mg/L was
exceeded in at least 40% of the
hydrogeologic settings for which
states reported nitrate data. How-
ever, although elevated nitrate levels
were documented by states in
ground water, the percentage of
wells that were impacted by nitrate
levels in excess of the MCL was less
than 5% for ambient ground water
monitoring networks and less than
1 % for drinking water sources. The
percentage of wells impacted by
nitrate was higher in the two special
studies reported by states. However,
these studies were specifically
designed to monitor land use effects
with the potential to contribute
nitrate to the environment, so their
data may be skewed.
Tables 7-3 through 7-5 provide
summary .information for VOCs,
SVOCs, and pesticides. States
reported ground water monitoring
data for VOCs more frequently than
for either SVOCs or pesticides.
Table 7-2. Monitoring Results for Nitrates
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Unfinished Water •
Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from Private or
Unregulated Wells
Finished Water
Quality Data
from PWS wells
Special Studies
Number
of States
Reporting
16
8
4
17
2
Number
of States
Reporting
MCL
Exceed-
ances
10
0
3
10
2
Total
Number
of Units
for Which
Data Were
Reported
95
20
4
57
6
Number
of Units
Having
MCL
Exceedances
38
(40%)
0
3
(75%)
26
(46%) .
4
(67%)
Total
Number
of Wells
for Which
Data Were
Reported
7,555
538
12,180
32,936
424
Number
of Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceed-
ances
307
0
62
379
68
Highest
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
55
out of 114
0
out of 1 73
48
out of 3,165
284
out of 3,057
33
out of 96
Average
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
8
0
21
14
17
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
PWS = Public water supply.
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 181
Approximately half of the reporting
states indicated that VOCs had
exceeded MCLs in ground water.
Approximately 25% of the hydro-
geologic settings were characterized
by MCL exceedances of VOCs in
ambient ground water. However,
only 6% of the wells used to assess
ambient ground water quality were
characterized by MCL exceedances
of VOCs. The greatest percentage
of MCL exceedances (9%) was
observed in private and unregulated
wells.
Four states reported data for
pesticides in ambient ground water.
Of these four states, two states
reported the presence of pesticides
at concentrations exceeding MCLs.
Levels of pesticides exceeding MCLs -
impacted 17% of the hydrogeologic
settings and 2% of the wells moni-
toring ambient ground water condi-
tions. Semivolatile organic com-
pounds were rarely measured in
ground water at concentrations
exceeding MCLs.
Forty percent of the hydrogeo-
logic settings for which states
reported ambient ground water
monitoring data were affected by
metal concentrations that exceeded
MCL values. The percentage of
hydrogeologic settings affected by
elevated metal concentrations was
even higher for untreated and fin-
ished water collected from PWS
wells. Again, although the number
of settings is relatively high, the
percentage of wells that are charac-
terized by MCL exceedances is rela-
tively low with approximately only
1 % of the wells monitoring ambient
ground water conditions being
. impacted. In contrast, 12% of the
wells supplying untreated water
quality data from PWS were
impacted.
Table 7-3. Monitoring Results for Volatile Organic Compounds
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from Private or
Unregulated Wells
Finished Water
Quality Data
from PWS wells
Special Studies
Number
of States
Reporting
9
6
1
17
1
Number
of States
Reporting
MCL
Exceed-
ances
4
3
1
9
0
Total
Number
of Units
for Which
Data Were
Reported
55
18
2
60
1
Number
of Units
Having
MCL
Exceedances
13
(24%)
3
(1 7%)
1
(50%)
. 13
(22%)
0
Total
Number
of .Wells
for Which
Data Were
Reported
3,644
404
23
1 7,021
0
Number
of Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceed-
ances
214
(6%)
9
2
(9%)
83
0
Highest
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
143
out of 441
6
out of 1 1
2
out of 1 9
47
out of 1,484
0
Average
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
16
3
2
6
0
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
PWS = Public water supply.
-------
182 Chapter Seven Ground Water
Examples of State
Assessments
Although very positive strides
were made in assessing ground
water quality in 1998, ground water
data collection under Section
305(b) is still too immature to
provide national assessments.
Despite the lack of national cover-
age, states have demonstrated
strong assessment capabilities.
Following are descriptions of two
states' assessments that may be
useful to other states in designing
and implementing monitoring
programs.
Idaho
Idaho is one of the top five
states in the nation with respect to
the volume of ground water used
to meet the needs of its population.
Idahoans use an average of 9 billion
gallons of ground water daily. Sixty
percent of this water is used for
crop irrigation and stock animals,
36% is used by industry, and 3% to
4% is used for drinking water. Even
though the volume of ground water
used as drinking water is relatively
small in comparison to the total
ground water used, more than
90% of the total population in
Idaho relies on ground water for
drinking water supply.
To characterize and protect this
valuable resource, Idaho developed
a monitoring approach that
includes a statewide ambient
ground water quality monitoring
network integrated with regional
and local monitoring. The statewide
monitoring network is used to
• Characterize ground water
quality conditions
• Identify trends in ground water
quality
Table 7-4. Monitoring Results for Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from Private or
Unregulated Wells
Finished Water
Quality Data
from PWS wells
Special Studies
Number
of States
Reporting
6
7
1
15
—
Number
of States
Reporting
MCL
Exceed-
ances
1
1
0
2
—
Total
Number
of Units
for Which
Data Were
Reported
18
16
1
36
—
Number
of Units
Having
MCL
Exceedances
1
1
0
2
—
Total
Number
of Wells
for Which
Data Were
Reported
357
338
2
12,518
—
Number
of Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceed-
ances
1
1
0
8
—
Highest
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
1
out of 81
1
out of 26
0
out of 2
7
out of 193
—
Average
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
1
1
0
4
—
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
PWS = Public water supply.
— = Not applicable.
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 183
H Identify existing and emerging
ground water quality concerns in
Idaho's major aquifers.
The monitoring network
consists of a statistically designed
set of more than 1,500 sites (wells
and springs) used for domestic,
irrigation, public water supply, and
stock purposes. These sites are
sampled on a rotational basis so
that most locations are sampled at
least once every 4-year period, with
some wells being sampled yearly.
Ground water samples are analyzed
for many of the analytes monitored
under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
All samples are analyzed for volatile
organic compounds, nutrients, fecal
coliform, trace elements, radionu-
clides, pesticides, and major ions.
Regional and local monitoring
can be used to (1) identify and
delineate ground water contamina-
tion problems that are smaller in
scale and may not be immediately
evident on the larger scale of the
statewide monitoring effort,
(2) determine the areal extent of
ground water contamination to
ensure that beneficial uses are pro-
tected, (3) determine the effective-
ness of remediation activities and
best management practices, and
(4) provide information, direction,
and prioritization to state ground
water quality programs. Thus far,
regional or local monitoring projects
have been used to further character-
ize many of the aquifers in Idaho,
especially those where ground
water quality has been identified as
a concern.
Idaho has a very diverse
geology and there are numerous
aquifers and aquifer types through-
out the state. Seventy major flow
systems, with each flow system
comprising one or more major
aquifers, have been identified
and combined into 22 hydrogeo-
logic areas. Each area represents
, Table 7-5. Monitoring Results for Pesticides
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from Private or
Unregulated Wells
Finished Water
Quality Data
from PWS wells
Special Studies
Number
of States
Reporting
4
1
1
1
2
Number
of States
Reporting
MCL
Exceed-
ances
2
1
0
1
1
Total
Number
of Units
for Which
Data Were
Reported
18
7
1
1
4
HH
Number
of Units
Having
MCL
Exceedances
3
(17%)
1
0
1
2
i^M
Total
Number
of Wells
for Which
Data Were
Reported
758
46
27
8
328
j^B
Number
of Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceed-
ances
16
(2%)
2
0
1
2
m
Highest
Number of
Wells that
. Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
8
out of 25
. 2
out of 3
0
out of 27
1
out of 8
1
out of 96
^m
Average
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
5
2
0
1
1
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
PWS = Public water supply.
-------
184 Chapter Seven Ground Water
geologically similar areas and gener-
ally encompasses one or several of
the 70 major ground water flow
systems. Figure 7-11 shows the
hydrogeologic area boundaries and
the major flow systems within
Idaho.
For ground water quality
management purposes, including
implementation of regional and
local monitoring, areas or flow
systems are usually further broken
down to a single aquifer or portion
of an aquifer that focuses on a
specific priority area. These priority
area boundaries are usually based
on considerations such as land use,
hydrogeology, ground water quality,
political boundaries, wellhead
(source water) protection areas, and
watershed boundaries. Figure 7-12
illustrates some of these priority
areas where there are elevated levels
of nitrate. This information is being
used to provide direction to various
ground water quality protection
programs in Idaho.
Data collected from all monitor-
ing efforts thus far indicate that
most of Idaho's ground water is
both potable and safe for current
beneficial uses. However, no area
tested is free of contaminant con-
cerns. At least 7% of the sites had a
constituent with a concentration
exceeding the Safe Drinking Water
Act maximum contaminant level.
Initial trend analyses indicate that,
overall, nitrate concentrations
increased from the first round (1991
through 1995) of sampling to the
second round (1995 through 1998).
Although results show that only 3%
of sample sites across Idaho exceed
the nitrate MCL of 10 milligrams
per liter, within the nitrate priority
areas (Figure 7-12), this value
increases to about 17%.
Table 7-6. Monitoring Results for Metals ,
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from Private or
Unregulated Wells
Finished Water
Quality Data
from PWS wells
Special Studies
Number
of States
Reporting
7
4
1
3
1
Number
of States
Reporting
MCL
Exceed-
ances
5
2
0
2
0
Total
Number
of Units
for Which
Data Were
Reported
40
4
1
4
2
Number
of Units
Having
MCL
Exceedances
16
(40%)
2
0
2
0
Total
Number
of Wells
for Which
Data Were
Reported
19,636
199
5
3,380
63
Number
of Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceed-
ances
111
(<1%)
23
(12%)
0
63
0
Highest
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
24
out of 28
20
out of 71
0
out of 5
46
out of 1,107
0
Average
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
5
8
0
16
0
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
PWS = Public water supply.
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 185
Pennsylvania
Nearly half of the population in
Pennsylvania relies on ground water
for drinking water purposes, and, in
some areas, ground water serves as
the sole source of water. To protect
its ground water resources, Pennsyl-
vania developed a ground water
monitoring system that accomplish-
es the following goals:
• Measures ambient ground water
quality
• Provides an indication of long-
term ground water quality trends
resulting from land use practices
• Assesses the success or failure of
land management practices.
Pennsylvania's ground water
monitoring program was developed
following division of the state into
478 ground water basins (Figure
7-13). Although the basins are not
true hydrologic units, each basin
considers similarities in hydrologic
Figure 7-11
Figure 7-12!
Idaho's Hydrogeologic Subareas
and Major Aquifer Flow Systems
Ground Water Areas and Sites
Impacted by Nitrate
Subarea Boundaries
Major Aquifers
Ground water quality monitoring data
compiled and provided by:
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Department of Water Resources
uses
Lewi: Eon
Nitrate Areas of Concern
i^B Priority Group 1
(>25°/o wells at >S mg/L)
gSjB Priority Group 2
(>50% wells at > 2 mg/L)
Nitrate Sites of Concern
O Priority Group 1
(>10mg/L)
-------
186 Chapter Seven Ground Water
and physical features. The basins
were prioritized for monitoring
purposes in 1985 according to
three main factors:
• Ground water use
• Potential unmonitored sources
of ground water pollution
• Environmental sensitivity.
The 50 highest-ranking basins
were selected for monitoring.
Two types of ground water
monitoring are used (Figure 7-13).
Ambient monitoring is used to
collect basin-wide data for basins
where little ground water quality
data exist. Typically, two rounds
of samples are collected in one
Figure 7-13
Location of High-Priority Ambient
and Fixed Station Network (FSN)
Ground Water Basins and Monitoring Points
Monitoring
point
A Ambfent
oFSN
Ground water
basin type
•I Ambient
HO FSN
Ground water quality monitoring
data compiled and provided by the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Water Supply Management
hydrologic year. Ambient monitor-
ing supplements other data collec-
tion efforts and provides a general
picture of ground water quality in
the watershed. Fixed station net-
work monitoring is used when long-
term data are required. Fixed station
monitoring involves collecting two
rounds of ground water samples per
hydrologic year for a minimum of
5 years. Basins selected for this type
of monitoring are typically high-
priority basins where regional
changes are occurring such as rapid
urbanization or other modifications
in land use or where specific water
quality problems exist.
Results indicate that ground
water quality in Pennsylvania is
typically good. This is despite
sampling in high-priority basins,
which likely biases the data and
presents a more negative picture of
the overall ground water quality.
In spite of the overall good
quality of ground water, exceed-
ances of drinking water standards
were detected. Some exceedances
result from naturally elevated con-
centrations of substances such
as iron, total dissolved solids,
manganese, or low pH. However,
trend analyses of nitrate, sodium,
chloride, and total hardness suggest
that ground water quality in Penn-
sylvania is undergoing some change
that likely results from human activi-
ties. Sodium and chloride were two
of the analytes exhibiting upward
trends at more than 10% of the
478 monitoring points (Figure 7-
14). Analytes with downward trends
at more than 10% of the 478 moni-
toring points included pH, nitrate,
magnesium, and sulfate.
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 187
Exact causes of the ground
water quality trends are difficult to
determine. Different areas of the
state are obviously under different
stresses and only general inferences
can be made from the data. Natural
shifts in ground water quality may
result from changes in precipitation
trends or cycles. Downward trends
in nitrate and sulfate at many moni-
toring points may reflect a reduc-
tion in sources of nitrate from agri-
cultural areas (fertilizers), septic sys-
tems, and atmospheric deposition.
Increasing trends in total dissolved
solids (TDS), chloride, calcium,
potassium, total hardness, and
sodium at many monitoring points
may result from increased nonpoint
source pollution such as road salting
and sprawling paved developments
and suburbs.
Conclusions
and Findings
Based on results reported by
states as part of the 1998 305(b)
cycle, the following are concluded:
• Ground water is an important
component of our nation's fresh
water resources. The use of ground
water is of fundamental importance
to human life and is also of signifi-
cant importance to our nation's
economic vitality.
• Assessing the quality of our
nation's ground water resources is
no easy task. An accurate and repre-
sentative assessment of ambient
ground water quality requires a
well-planned and well-executed
monitoring plan. Although the
305(b) program is definitely moving
in the direction of more and better
ground water quality assessments,
there is still much more that needs
to be done. Coverage, both in terms
of the area within a state and the
number of states reporting ground
water quality monitoring data,
needs to be enlarged. States also
need to focus on collecting ground
water data that are most repre-
sentative of the resource itself.
Specifically, states need to rely less
on finished water quality data and
more on ambient ground water
quality data.
• Good quality data is essential to
forming a basis for determining
ground water quality. Required
source water assessments under
Section 1453 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act should prove to be
helpful in augmenting the amount
Figure 7-14
Monitoring Points with Upward Trends
in Sodium or Chloride
Carbonate rocks
O Monitoring point
$ Monitoring points with upward
trends in chloride or sodium
Ground water quality monitoring
data compiled and provided by trie
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Water Supply Management
-------
188 Chapter Seven Ground Water
of data available and to generate
good quality data that can be used
to evaluate ground water quality
over time.
• The 1996 and 1998 305(b)
reporting cycles represent the first
time that states reported quantita-
tive ground water quality data.
One of the greatest successes was
the increase in uniformity of data
reported by states for 1998. There
was an increase in reporting
uniformity over the course of just
one 305(b) cycle as states became
increasingly familiar with the
reporting guidelines and developed
methods for obtaining and report-
ing the requested data.
• Although ground water quality
assessments are being performed
and reported under the 305(b)
program, vast differences in ground
water management are apparent.
Several 'states have implemented
monitoring programs designed to
characterize ground water quality
and identify and address potential
threats to ground water. Other
states have only just begun to
implement ground water protection
strategies.
• One of the most important
factors in deciding state priorities
concerning the assessment of
ground water quality is economic
constraints. Characterizing and
monitoring ground water quality is
expensive. Few states have the eco-
nomic resources to assess ground
water quality across an entire state.
Therefore, states are applying differ-
ent approaches to ground water
protection. These approaches are
based on each state's individual
challenges and economic con-
straints. Approaches range from
implementing statewide ambient
ground water monitoring networks
to monitoring selected aquifers on a
rotating basis. States determine the
approach based on the use of the
resource, vulnerability to contamina-
tion, and state management deci-
sions.
• National coverage increased from
1996 to 1998. In the 1996 305(b)
reporting cycle, states reported
ground water monitoring data for a
total of 162 hydrogeologic settings.
In 1998, states reported data for
146 hydrogeologic settings. Data
for 65 of the 146 settings described
in 1998 represented the most
recent monitoring results for units
previously described in 1996. Thus,
data were reported for 81 new
hydrogeologic settings in 1998.
• The conceptual framework for
designing and implementing a
ground water monitoring network
is similar across the nation. The
Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM)
concluded that the definition and
characterization of environmental
monitoring settings is a crucial first
step in the collection of meaningful
ground water quality data. States
across the nation are taking this first
step and defining and characterizing
hydrogeologic monitoring units.
Each of the states described in detail
their approach and the rationale for
that approach.
• EPA and the states need to devise
more efficient ways to integrate
ground water data collected
through the Section 305(b) water
quality inventory reports and
ground water data collected from
state source water assessments
under Section 1453 of the SDWA.
-------
Chapter Seven Ground Water 189
Other monitoring data from well-
head protection delineations, source
inventories, and other data collec-
tion efforts also must be integrated
to increase and improve the infor-
mation that is used to make deter-
minations on the quality of ground
water across the nation in the
reporting requirement under
Section 305(b) of the CWA.
• Although much progress has
been made in the 305(b) program
to assess ground water quality, large
gaps in coverage exist. The data
submitted by states under the
305(b) program preclude a compre-
hensive representation of ground
water quality in the nation at this
time but, more importantly, may
result in a skewed characterization
of ground water quality that is more
positive than actual conditions. If
this is the case, problems in ground
water quality may not be recog-
nized until quality has been
degraded to the point that the
resource can no longer support the
desired uses.
• Based upon ground water quality
data reported by states during the
1996 and 1998 305(b) cycles,
ground water quality in the nation
is good and continues to support
the various uses of this resource.
• Ground water contamination
incidents are being reported in
aquifers across the nation. Leaking
underground storage tanks have
consistently been reported as an
important source of ground water
contamination for all 305(b) cycles
for which data were reported. In
general, the threat from leaking
underground storage tanks is due
to the sheer number of tanks buried
above water tables across the
nation. Other important sources
of ground water contamination
include septic systems, landfills,
hazardous waste sites, surface
impoundments, industrial facilities,
and agricultural land practices.
• Petroleum chemicals, volatile
organic compounds, semivolatile
organic compounds, pesticides,
nitrate, and metals have been mea-
sured at elevated levels in ground
water across the nation. The most
frequently cited contaminants of
concern were volatile organic com-
pounds and petroleum chemicals.
These classes of chemicals have
consistently been reported as
ground water contaminants. States
have also reported increasing detec-
tions of chemicals not previously
measured in ground water (for
example, MTBE and metals). The
recent detection of these chemicals
may represent emerging trends in
ground water contamination.
-------
ui4u , , , <*
" iw?^^^Mfl^vt?^^^¥^*f«'*"^'^;*f^*^^i
*»«^
•' '• '
-------
Public Health and
Aquatic Life Concerns
Previous chapters described
states' and tribes' efforts to assess
the status of waters compared to
state and tribal water quality stand-
ards. States and tribes adopted
water quality standards specifically
to protect public health and aquatic
life. These standards include desig-
nated uses such as swimming, fish
consumption, drinking water, and
aquatic life. Water quality standards
also include numeric criteria, which
establish thresholds for the levels of
individual pollutants that are safe
for human exposure and aquatic
life.
This chapter describes how
impaired water quality may affect
public health and aquatic life. It is
made up of several sections, each
describing efforts to protect differ-
ent beneficial uses. These uses
include fish and wildlife consump-
tion, shellfish consumption, drink-
ing water, recreation, and aquatic
life.
Water pollution threatens both
public health and aquatic life.
Public health may be threatened
directly through the consumption
of contaminated food and/or drink-
ing water or indirectly through skin
exposure to contaminants present
in recreational and/or bathing
waters. Contaminants that threaten
human health include toxic chemi-
cals as well as viruses and bacteria.
Many contaminants present
in our environment have the
potential to affect human health.
Toxic chemicals have been linked.
to human birth defects, cancer,
neurological disorders, and kidney
ailments. Waterborne viruses and
bacteria can cause infectious hepa-
titis, gastroenteritis, dysentery, and
cholera.
Although aquatic organisms
can tolerate most viruses and bac-
teria harmful to humans, they may
be more severely affected by the
presence of toxic chemicals in their
environment than humans. Toxic
chemicals have the potential to kill
all aquatic organisms within a
community, kill select organisms
within the community, increase
susceptibility to disease, interfere
with reproduction, or reduce the
viability of their young. Toxic chem-
icals may also affect aquatic organ-
isms indirectly by altering the deli-
cate physical and chemical balance
that supports life in an aquatic
community. Whole aquatic commu-
nities can be lost either directly or
indirectly as a result of chemical
contamination in the water. Aquatic
organisms are also particularly
susceptible to changes in the physi-
cal quality of their environments,
such as changes in pH, tempera-
ture, dissolved oxygen, and habitat.
Public Health
Concerns
Toxic chemicals that remain
in the environment for long periods
of time can affect public health
through a variety of different
exposure pathways. Humans may
-------
192 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Bald Eagle
Cormorant
Lake Trout
Chinook Salmon
Bottom Feeders
Bacteria and Fungi
Humans
Bioaccumulation of Pollutants in the Food Chain
Certain organic pollutants (such as PCBs and DDT) have two prop-
erties that lead to high bioaccumulation rates. These pollutants are
hydrophobic (i.e., do not have an affinity to water) and thus attach to
particles such as clay and small aquatic plants called phytoplankton.
These organic pollutants are also lipophilic (i.e., have an affinity to lipids
or fatty tissues) and are readily stored in fatty tissues of plants and ani-
mals. As a result, these pollutants biologically accumulate (bioaccumu-
late) in phytoplankton, sediment, and fat tissue at concentrations that
exceed the pollutant concentrations in surrounding waters. In fact, the
concentration in surrounding waters may be so low that they cannot be
measured even by very sensitive methods. .
Small fish and zooplankton (microscopic grazers) consume vast
quantities of phytoplankton. In doing so, any toxic chemicals accumu-
lated by the phytoplankton are further concentrated in the fish, espe-
cially in their fatty tissues. These concentrations are increased at each
level in the food chain. This process of increasing pollutant concentration
through the food chain js called biomagnifica-
tion. .
The top predators in a food chain, such as
lake trout, coho and chinook salmon, and fish-
eating gulls, herons, and bald eagles, may accu-
mulate concentrations of a toxic chemical high'
enough to cause serious deformities or death or
to impair their ability to reproduce. The concen-
tration of some chemicals in the fatty tissues of
top predators can be millions of times higher
than the concentration in the surrounding water.
Eggs of fish-eating birds often contain some
of the highest concentrations of toxic chemicals.
Thus, the first apparent effects of a toxic chemi-
cal in a waterbody may be unhatched eggs or
dead or malformed chicks. Scientists monitor
colonies of gulls and other aquatic birds because
these effects can serve as early warning signs of a
growing toxic chemical problem.
Biomagnification of pollutants in the food
chain is also a significant concern for human
health. To protect their residents from these risks,
states issue fish consumption advisories or warn-
ings about eating certain types of fish or shellfish.
Plankton
Dead Plants
and Animals
Source: Adapted from U.S. EPA, 1994, The EPA Great Waters Program: An Introduction to
the Issues and the Ecosystems, EPA-453/B-94/030, Office of Air Quality Standards,
Durham, NC.
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 193
be exposed to toxic chemicals if
contaminated water is used as a
source of drinking water without
adequate treatment. Humans may
also be exposed through the inges-
tion of aquatic life that lived in and
ate organisms in contaminated
water and sediments. Specifically,
humans may be exposed to toxic
chemicals by eating contaminated
fish and shellfish. Because some
toxic chemicals accumulate and
concentrate in the tissue of fish and
shellfish, consumption of contami-
nated tissue can sometimes pose a
greater health risk than either drink-
ing or swimming in contaminated
water (see sidebar on bioaccumula-
tion, page 192). The concentration
of some toxic chemicals within fish
and shellfish tissue may be up to
1 million times the concentration
of toxicants in the surrounding
water.
Waterborne viral and bacterial
pollutants may also cause serious
human illness and death. People
can contract infectious hepatitis,
gastroenteritis, dysentery, and
cholera from waters receiving
inadequately treated sewage.
Bacteria and viruses may enter
human systems through contact
with contaminated swimming
and bathing waters or through
ingestion of contaminated drinking
water or shellfish.
Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Advisories
States and tribes issue fish and
wildlife consumption advisories to
protect the public from ingesting
harmful quantities of toxic pollut-
ants in contaminated noncommer-
cial fish and wildlife. In general,
advisories recommend that the
public limit the quantity and
frequency of consumption of fish
and wildlife harvested from con-
taminated waterbodies. The states
tailor individual advisories to mini-
mize health risks based on contami-
nant data collected in their tissue
sampling programs.
Advisories may completely ban
consumption in severely polluted
waters or limit consumption to sev-
eral meals per month or year in
cases of less severe contamination.
Advisories may target a subpopula-
tion at risk (such as children, preg-
nant women, or nursing mothers),
specific fish species that concen-
trate toxic pollutants in their flesh,
or larger fish within a species that
may have accumulated higher con-
centrations of a pollutant over a
longer lifetime than a smaller (i.e.,
younger) fish.
EPA evaluates the national
extent of toxic contamination in
noncommercial fish and shellfish
by counting the total number of
waterbodies with consumption
advisories in effect. EPA used its
database, the Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Advisories (LFWA), to
tabulate the number of state advi-
sories. EPA built the database to
centralize the fish consumption
advisory information independently
maintained by various state and
tribal agencies. The database was
updated by EPA in the spring of
1999. It can be accessed on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/
ost/fish.
The 1998 EPA LFWA listed
2,506 advisories in effect in 47
states, the District of Columbia, and
American Samoa (Figure 8-1). An
advisory may represent one water-
body or one type of waterbody
within a state's jurisdiction.
Jessica Coffey, Grade 1, OH
-------
194 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Statewide advisories are counted as
one advisory (see Appendix E, Table
E-l, for individual state data).
EPA cannot identify states with
a high proportion of toxic contami-
nation based solely on the number
of fish consumption advisories
issued by each state. National statis-
Figure 8-1
Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories
in the United States
O Puerto R\co
r&
^ ^
^j^ Virgin Islands
v|* Number of Advisories in Effect
•3s American Samoa (December 1998)
F-—TI 1-10
BHBI 11-20
•BBB 21-30
••• 31-50
^H 51-100
•^ >100
* Statewide Advisory
Note: States that perform routine fish tissue analysis (such as the Great Lakes states) will
detect more cases of fish contamination and issue more advisories than states with less
rigorous fish sampling programs. In many cases, the states with the most fish advisories
support the best monitoring programs for measuring toxic contamination in fish, and
their water quality may be no worse than the water quality in other states.
Based on data contained in the EPA Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories acquired from the
states in December 1998 (see Appendix E, Table E-1, for individual state data).
tics on advisories are difficult to
interpret because the intensity and
coverage of state monitoring
programs vary widely. Each state
can set its own criteria for issuing
advisories. Simply comparing the
total number of fish advisories in
each state unfairly penalizes states
with superior monitoring programs
and strict criteria for issuing con-
sumption warnings. In addition, it
fails to present an equitable charac-
terization of the number of fisheries
affected and the severity of con-
tamination problems.
. EPA has advocated consistent
criteria and methods for issuing fish
consumption advisories in several
recent publications and workshops
(see sidebar, page 195). However,
it will be several years before the
states implement consistent meth-
ods and criteria and establish a
baseline inventory of advisories.
EPA expects the states to issue more
advisories as they sample more sites
and detect contamination that
previously went undetected.
Mercury, PCBs, chlordane,
dioxins, and DDT (with its byprod-
ucts) caused 99% of all the fish
consumption advisories in effect in
1998 (Figure 8-2). EPA and the
states banned or restricted the use
of PCBs, chlordane, and DDT over
a decade ago, yet these chlorinated
hydrocarbon compounds persist in
sediments and fish tissues and still
threaten public health.
During the 1990s, the states
began reporting widespread
mercury contamination in fish.
As states expanded their tissue
monitoring programs, they found
elevated concentrations of mercury
in fish inhabiting remote lakes
that were previously considered
unpolluted. States from Wisconsin
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 195
to Florida reported widespread
mercury contamination in fish
collected primarily from lakes. The
source of the mercury contamina-
tion is difficult to identify because
mercury naturally occurs in soils
and rock formations. Natural
processes, such as weathering of
mercury deposits, release some
mercury into surface waters. How-
ever, resource managers believe
that human activities have acceler-
ated the rate at which mercury
accumulates in our waters and
enters the food web.
Air pollution may be the most
significant source of mercury
contamination in surface waters
and fish. According to EPA's Toxics
Release Inventory, almost all of the
mercury released by permitted
polluters enters the air; industries
and waste treatment plants dis-
charge very little mercury directly
into surface waters. Emissions from
Figure8-2
waste incinerators, coal-fired plants,
smelters, and mining operations
may carry mercury many miles to
remote watersheds (see sidebar on
air pollution impacts on water qual-
ity, page 198). Other potential
sources of mercury contamination
include slag heaps from metal
mines and land-disturbing activities
that may mobilize natural mercury
deposits, such as channelization,
reservoir construction, and drainage
projects.
Air emissions may further
aggravate mercury contamination
by generating acid precipitation
that increases acidity in lakes. The
accumulation of mercury in fish
appears to correlate with acidity
in a waterbody. Slightly acidic
conditions promote the chemical
conversion of mercury to a methyl-
ated form that is more readily avail-
able for uptake and accumulation in
fish. States, such as Louisiana, are
Pollutants Causing Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Advisories in Effect in 1998
Pollutants
Mercury
PCBs
Chlordane
Dioxins
DDT
Number of
Advisories
I
j_
I
I
1,931
679
104
59
34
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Number of Advisories Issued for Each Pollutant
In 1990, EPA began develop-
; ing technical guidance to help
the states adopt consistent criteria
and methods for issujng fish con-
sumption advisories. The guidance
consists of four volumes. EPA pub-
lished volumes in 1993, 1994,
;1995, and 1996 and second edi-
tions of two volumes in 1995 and
1997. Third editions of Volumes 1
and 2 are expected in 1999.
,• Volume'/: Fish Sampling
and Analysis recommends
standard methods for sampling
and analyzing contaminants in
fish tissue. r
• Volume II: Risk Assessment
and Fish Consumption Limits
suggests protocols for selecting
criteria for unsafe concentrations
of contaminants in fish.
• Volume III: RiskManage-
meht suggests protocols for deter-
mining if the health risk justifies
issuing an advisory.
: • Volume IV: Risk Communi-
cation recommends methods for
informing the public about fish
consumption advisories.
Th e Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant Data for
.Use in Fish Advisories is available at
http://www.epa.gov/ost/fish.
MERCURY
is the most
common contami-
nant found in fish.
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-2.
-------
196 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
HIGHLIGH
;HT HIGHLIGHT
Survey of Mercury in
State Fish Contaminant
Monitoring Programs
Exposure to mercury
can permanently
damage the brain,
kidneys, and develop-
ing fetus.
The presence of mercury in
fish tissue is increasingly an issue
of public health concern for states.
Of the more than 2,500 fish con-
sumption advisories in effect in the
United States in 1998, over 68%
were related to mercury. Mercury
contamination accounts for a sig-
nificant fraction of the impaired
waters in the United States.
Although 40 states currently
have fish advisories in effect for
mercury, until recently no national
survey had been conducted to
obtain information directly from
states on the levels of mercury
contamination in fish. In 1996,
EPA solicited data on
mercury concentrations in
fish collected by the states
as part of their fish con-
taminant monitoring
programs. All states were
asked to submit mercury
residue data collected in
their state waters from
1990 to 1995 so that EPA could
assess whether there were geo-
graphic variations or trends in fish
tissue concentrations of mercury
nationally.
EPA has assembled the data
provided by 40 states and the
District of Columbia. EPA's report,
published in September 1999
(EPA823-R-99-014), summarizes
these data and analyzes the geo-
graphic distribution of mercury
in fish, mercury levels in various
species of fish (see figure), and fac-
tors contributing to mercury conta-
mination.
The most commonly sampled
fish species were the largemouth
and smallmouth bass; channel, flat-
head, and blue catfish; yellow and
brown bullhead; rainbow and lake
trout; carp; walleye; northern pike;
and white sucker.
The fish species with the broad-
est geographic distribution nation-
ally was the largemouth bass,
which was collected and analyzed
by 25 of the 39 reporting states.
The maximum mercury concen-
tration reported for this species
exceeded the Food and Drug
Administration action level (1 ppm)
in 15 of the 25 states that analyzed
tissue from this species. The highest
maximum mercury concentration
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 197
HIGHLIGHT
V
for this species nationally (4.36
ppm) was reported by Florida.
Consumption of contaminated fish
harvested from local waters exposes
high-end fish consumers to poten-
tially greater risk of mercury expo-
sure than members of the general
population. The populations most
at risk because of their consump-
tion of locally caught fish are ethnic
populations, such as Native Ameri-
cans, Caribbean Americans, and
Asian Americans, and recreational
sport and subsistence fishers.
HIGHLIGHT
Concentration Ranges for Selected Species
1.40
Largemouth
Bass
. Walleye
Northern
Pike
Channel
Catfish
Bluegill
Sunfish
Common
Carp
Figure 1 . Mercury accumulates up the food chain from bottom feeders such as carp and catfish
to top predator game fish such as bass and walleye.
-------
198 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Air Pollution Impacts on Water Quality
Sources
Pollutants are released into the air from anthropogenic or natural sources. Anthropo-
genic sources include industrial stacks, municipal incinerators, pesticide applications,
and vehicle exhaust. Natural sources can be volcanic eruptions, windblown gases and
particles from forest fires, windblown dust and soil particles, and sea spray.
Transport
Pollutants released to the air are carried by continental wind patterns away from their
areas of origin. Depending on weather conditions and the chemical and physical
properties of the pollutants, they can be carried varying distances from their sources
and can undergo physical and chemical changes as they travel.
Deposition
Air pollutants are deposited to the earth or directly to waterbodies by either wet or dry
deposition. Wet deposition occurs when pollutants are removed from the air by falling
rain or snow. Dry deposition occurs when particles settle out of the air by gravity or
when gases are transferred directly from the air into water. Air pollutants that deposit
on land can be carried into a waterbody by stormwater runoff. This is called indirect
deposition.
Gases and'""~~ '
Partieulafe "'t "?. ..
Air Masses
Source: Adapted from U.S. EPA, 1994, The EPA Great Waters Program: An Introduction to the Issues
and the Ecosystems, EPA-453/B-94/030, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Durham, NC.
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 199
using this correlation to target
waterbodies with acidic pH and low
buffering capacity for mercury
sampling in fish.
The EPA LFWA database does
not identify sources of contamina-
tion in fish. Sources of contamina-
tion are difficult to isolate because
migratory fish may be exposed to
toxic pollutants in the sediments
and water column or may ingest
toxic contaminants concentrated in
prey miles from the sampling areas
where they are collected. Further-
more, migratory or resident fish
may be exposed to toxic pollutants
that have been transported great
distances from where they origi-
nated.
Shellfish Contamination
Contaminated shellfish pose a
public health risk particularly to
those who consume raw shellfish.
Shellfish, such as oysters, clams, and
mussels, extract their food (plank-
ton) by filtering water over their
gills. In contaminated waters, shell-
fish accumulate bacteria and viruses
on their gills and mantle and within
their digestive systems. If shellfish
grown in contaminated waters are
not cooked properly, consumers
may ingest live bacteria and viruses.
To protect public health, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
administers the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program (NSSP). The
NSSP establishes minimum quality
monitoring requirements and crite-
ria for state shellfish programs that
want to participate in interstate
commerce of shellfish. States
cannot sell shellfish outside of
their state boundaries unless their
shellfish sanitation program follows
NSSP protocols.
Coastal states routinely monitor
shellfish harvesting areas for bacteri-
al contamination and restrict shell-
. fish harvests in contaminated
waters. Most often, states measure
concentrations of fecal coliform or
total coliform bacteria, which are
bacteria that populate human
digestive systems and occur in fecal
wastes. Their presence in water
samples is an indicator of sewage
contamination that may pose a
human health risk from pathogenic
viruses and bacteria. Fecal bacteria,
however, may exceed criteria even
when no human sewage is present
because birds and nonhuman
mammals also excrete them.
The NSSP recognizes three
types of shellfish harvesting
restrictions:
• Prohibited Waters violate criteria
consistently; therefore, shellfish
cannot be harvested at any time.
• Restricted Waters may be har-
vested if the shellfish are transferred
to clean waters to reduce concen-
trations of bacteria.
• Conditionally Approved Waters
temporarily exceed bacteriological
criteria following predictable events
(such as a storm). Shellfish from
these waters may be harvested
when criteria are met.
The size of waters with shellfish
harvesting restrictions does not
equate with the size of polluted
estuarine waters because states
sometimes restrict harvesting in
clean waters. The NSSP requires
that a state prohibit shellfishing in
clean waters if the state cannot
monitor a waterbody on a routine
schedule that ensures rapid detec-
tion of unsafe conditions. As a
The National Shellfish Sanitation
Program addresses only bacte-
riological contamination of
mojluscan (not crustacean)
shellfish that are harvested for
sale in interstate commerce.
The Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Advisories addresses only chemi-
cal contamination of shellfish
(all types) that are harvested for
all purposes.
-------
200 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
result, funding for monitoring
activities can raise or lower the size
of waters classified as "prohibited"
even if water quality does not
change. Georgia, for example,
reported in 1994 that funding for a
new laboratory position during
1992 and 1993 restored shellfishing
to clean waters previously classified
as "prohibited" due to a lack of
monitoring.
As a preventive measure, the
states also automatically prohibit
the harvest of shellfish near marinas
and pipes that discharge waste-
Table 8-1. Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions Reported
by the -States
State
Alabama
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia3
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Number of Water-
bodies with Restrictions
—
0
26
37
12
11
7
39
122
254
Size
(square miles)
—
97.0
395.0
0
171.2
541.7
16.8
254.0
312.5
58.0
66.5
266.5
146.0
2,325.1
"The District of Columbia prohibits commercial harvest of shellfish in
all of its waters.
Source: 1996 state Section 305(b) reports.
— Not reported in a numerical format.
water. These closures protect the
public from accidental releases of
contaminated wastewater due to
treatment plant malfunctions or
overflows during severe weather.
The preventive closures apply to
marinas because fecal bacteria
concentrations may increase during
high-use periods, such as week-
ends. The states prohibit shellfish-
ing in these waters even though
these waters may not contain
harmful concentrations of fecal bac-
teria most of the time.
Despite these drawbacks, the
size of waters with shellfishing
restrictions is our most direct
measure of impacts on the shell-
fishing resource (Table 8-1). How-
ever, only 12 of the 28 coastal
states and territories and 1 inter-
state commission reported the size
of their estuarine waters affected
by shellfish harvesting restrictions.
With so few states reporting numer-
ical data, EPA cannot summarize
the national scope of shellfish har-
vesting conditions at this time. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration is developing a data-
base to track state restrictions that
should provide a more complete
profile of shellfishing conditions in
the future.
The reporting states prohibit,
restrict, or conditionally approve
shellfish harvesting in 2,325 square
miles of estuarine waters. About
14% of these waters are condition-
ally approved, so the public can
harvest shellfish from these waters
when the state lifts temporary
closures. For comparison, nine
states reported that over 7,000
square miles of estuarine waters are
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 201
fully approved for harvesting shell-
fish at all times (Appendix E, Table
E-3, contains individual state data).
Only eight states reported the
size of shellfish restrictions caused
by specific sources of pathogen
indicators (Figure 8-3). Other states
provided narrative information
about sources degrading shellfish
waters. For example, Louisiana
reported that sewage treatment
plant upgrades improved shellfish
harvesting areas, but environmental
changes that are causing negative
impacts include nonpoint source
pollution, sewage from camps, salt-
water intrusion, and marsh erosion.
Drinking Water Source
Assessments
The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) calls for states to determine
the susceptibility of waters to con-
tamination, while Section 305(b) of
the Clean Water Act calls for them
to assess the ability of waters to
support drinking water use. States
may prioritize their water resources
and perform drinking water use
support assessments for a limited
percentage of their water resources.
They are then encouraged to
expand their drinking water assess-
ment efforts to include additional
waters at each subsequent report-
ing cycle. EPA recommends priori-
tization based on waters of greatest
drinking water demand, with
further prioritization with respect
to vulnerability or other state prior-
ity factors. In addition, states are
encouraged to use a tiered .
approach in the assessment. This
tiered approach accommodates the
different types of data currently
available to states and allows for dif-
fering levels of assessment.
States use the general criteria
outlined in Table 8-2 to determine
the degree of drinking water use
support for waterbodies in their
state. These criteria may be modi-
fied by the states to fit their individ-
ual situations.
Summary of State
Drinking Water
Assessments
Thirty-eight states, tribes, or ter-
ritories submitted drinking water
use data in their reports. Figure 8-4
shows which states submitted drink-
ing water data for rivers and
streams and/or lakes and reservoirs.
Table 8-3 shows the total number
of miles of rivers and streams and
Figure 8-3
Sources Associated with Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions
Sources
Nonpoint Sources (general)
Point Sources (general)
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Discharges
Marinas
Septic Tanks
Industrial Discharges
• 8 States Reporting
Total
758
295
200
186
105
64
53
200 400 600
Square Miles Impacted
800
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-4.
-------
202 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table 8-2. Criteria to Determine Drinking Water Use Support
Classification
Full support
Full support
but threatened
Partial support
Nonsupport
Unassessed
Monitoring Data
Contaminants do not exceed
water quality criteria
Contaminants are detected but
do not exceed water quality
criteria
Contaminants exceed water
quality criteria intermittently
Contaminants exceed water
quality criteria consistently
and/or
and/or
and/or
and/or
Use Support
Restrictions
Drinking water use
restrictions are not in
effect
Some drinking water use
restrictions have occurred
and/or the potential for
adverse impacts to source
water quality exists
Drinking water use
restrictions resulted in
the need for more than
conventional treatment
Drinking water use
restrictions resulted in
closures
Source water quality has not been assessed
Figure 8-4
States Submitting Drinking Water Use
Support Data in Their 305(b) Reports
Puerto Rico
Q Virgin Islands
I Submitted Drinking Water Use Support Data
I No Drinking Water Use Support Data Submitted
Source: 1998 305(b) reports submitted by states.
acres of lakes and reservoirs
assessed and the degree of drinking
water use support for the entire
nation. The majority of waterbodies
assessed, 87% of rivers and streams
and 82% of lakes and reservoirs, are
fully supporting of drinking water
use. Only 3% of assessed rivers and
streams and 5% of lakes and reser-
voirs do not support drinking water
use.
A large improvement was seen
between the drinking water use
support data reported by the states
in the 1998 305(b) report and that
reported previously. In the early
1990s, only a small percentage of
rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs
were assessed for drinking water
use. For the 1996 305(b) report,
EPA developed guidelines for states
to use in assessing drinking water
use support. These guidelines were
modified for the 1998 report to
provide more flexibility to the
states. It is evident that this has
resulted in an increasing number
of states carrying out drinking
water use assessments. In addition,
more states reported on how they
classified waterbodies for drinking
water use and on sources of water
contamination. The increased data
available from these assessments
results in a more accurate frame-
work for assessing drinking water
use support in the nation.
However, many challenges
still remain. Twelve states did not
report data on drinking water use
support. Many of the 38 states that
reported data did not present any
information on how they classified
their waterbodies for drinking water
use support or on sources of water
contamination. This lack of informa-
tion complicates data interpretation
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 203
and presents challenges for accu-
rately assessing and representing
drinking water use support.
Sources of Drinking
Water Use Impairment
Because of the flexibility of the
guidelines for assessing drinking
water use impairment, each state
analyzed for different contaminants
and used different criteria for
assessing drinking water use impair-
ment. In addition, many states did
not identify the particular contami-
nants that caused drinking water
use impairment. Thus, it is not
possible to present quantitative '
data on this issue. However, based
on the limited number of states
identifying contaminants, Table 8-4
summarizes all of the contaminants
cited as causing drinking water use
impairment.
Ensuring Safe
Drinking Water
Thanks to decades of effort by
public and private organizations
and the enactment of drinking
water legislation, most Americans
can turn on their taps without fear
of receiving unsafe water. Ensuring
consistently safe drinking water
requires the cooperation of federal,
state, tribal, and municipal govern-
, ments to protect the water as it
moves through three stages of the
system—the raw source water, the
water treatment plant, and the
pipes that deliver finished water to
consumers' taps. Polluted source
waters greatly increase the level
and expense of treatment needed
to provide finished water that
meets public health standards.
The passage of the SDWA
Amendments of 1996 brought
substantial changes to the national
drinking water program for water
utilities, states, and EPA, as well as
greater protection and information
to the 240 million Americans served
by public water systems. The '
Amendments increased state
flexibility, provided for more effi-
cient investments by water systems,
gave better information to con-
sumers, and strengthened EPA's
scientific work in setting drinking
water standards.
Table 8-3. National Drinking Water Use Support
Rivers and Streams
Miles
Percentage
Lakes and Reservoirs
Acres
Percentage
Fully
Supporting
122,318
87
6,926,031
82
Threatened
5,844
4
303,374
4
Partially
Supporting
8,164
6
794,573
9
Not
Supporting
4,616
3
394,307
5
Total
Assessed
140,954
8,418,286
Table 8-4. Sources of Drinking Water Use Impairment
Contaminant Croup
Pesticides
Volatile organic chemicals
Inorganic chemicals
Microbiological contaminants
Specific Contaminant
Atrazine
Metolachlor
Triazine
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
c/s-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Trihalomethanes
Carbon tetrachloride
Ethylbenzene
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Arsenic
Nitrates
Iron
Copper
Chloride
Exceedance of total
coliform rule
Molinate
Ethylene dibromide
Dichloromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,1 -Dichloroethylene
Toluene
Benzene
Dichlorobenzene
Methyl(tert)butyl ether
Xylene
Fluoride
Manganese
Lead
Sodium
Exceedance of fecal
coliform rule
-------
204 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
?.,^.^,^.^
HIGHLIGH:
HTHIGHLIGHT
Protecting Sources
of Drinking Water
Introduction
In the United States today,
approximately 11,000 community
water systems serving over 160 mil-
lion people rely on lakes, reservoirs,
and rivers as their main sources of
drinking water. There is a growing
recognition that addressing the
quality and protection of these
water sources can prevent contami-
nation, thus reducing costly addi-
tional treatment and cleanup.
Across the country, drinking water
utilities are engaged in innovative
and successful source water protec-
tion programs. These programs
rely heavily on partnerships with
local governments and often
involve working closely with water-
shed councils, entering into land
exchange agreements with land
management agencies, and engag-
ing with local farmers to implement
best management practices aimed
at protecting sources of drinking
water.
The local actions that help
protect sources of drinking water
can generally be classified as:
(1) creating partnerships, (2) assess-
ing watersheds, (3) managing land
use in watersheds, and (4) acquiring
land.
Creating Partnerships
Instituting drinking water pro-
tection with a source water protec-
tion program involves balancing
competing interests and conflicting
demands within the watershed. This
can be done through watershed
planning committees or simply by
establishing good, long-term rela-
tionships among the partners,
which encourages a level playing
field for reconciling the commu-
nity's needs. It is important for
affected parties—water utilities, local
and state governments, watershed
councils, nongovernment organi-
zations, and others—to share infor-
mation effectively.
Example: Creating
Partnerships with Groups
and Individuals, Chester
Water Authority, Chester,
Pennsylvania
To protect the water quality of
its Octoraro Reservoir, the Chester
Water Authority has forged a strong
and lasting partnership with the
Octoraro Watershed Association.
This partnership bridges the gap
between the citizens who get their
drinking water from the Octoraro
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 205
HlGHLIGHfft-T hlcTm-flGHIJGHT
vi. Jl
Reservoir but do not live in the
watershed and the farmers and
landowners who live in the water-
shed but do not get their drinking
water from the reservoir. The
Chester Water Authority and the
Octoraro Watershed Association
have jointly supported many educa-
tion and outreach programs, and
the Authority has provided a meet-
ing place and administrative sup-
port services to the Association. The
Association promotes agricultural
best management practices (BMPs)
such as streambank fencing, barn-
yard management, crop rotation,
and the establishment of forested
riparian buffers throughout the
watershed. One of the Association's
greatest challenges has been con-
vincing farmers that the BMPs will
benefit both them and the water-
shed. Sharing success stories is often
a successful way to garner support
for BMP implementation. The Asso-
ciation also helps willing farmers
seek financial aid for their BMPs.
Funds are often available from local,
state, and federal partners.
Assessing Watersheds
One of the keys to a strong
watershed protection program is
the assessment of the area. It is
important to be able to identify
watershed problems and target
protection efforts. Watershed delin-
eation and assessment are tools
used to achieve these goals. Many
water utilities use geographic infor-
mation systems (CIS) to delineate
their watersheds. Afterwards, local
managers can use zoning maps to
identify land use patterns within the
watersheds and identify potential
sources of contamination that pose
the greatest threats to the drinking
water supply. A comprehensive
monitoring plan is also useful for
identifying watershed problems.
Example: Monitoring Data
to Support Protective Water
Quality Standards, Portland
Water Bureau, Portland,
Oregon
The Portland Water Bureau
draws its water from the Bull Run
River in the Mt. Hood National For-
est. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
administers the watershed under
several legal authorities including
the Bull Run Management Act (P.L
95-200). This act sets the produc-
tion of pure, clean, raw, potable
„ , _ — , _ „
F'~ " '
~«~.'...' '.
•WW
'5'7 - -
-
CTt.t. ., „,„ _ .
s^fe
5~ -"*."-'
'»,,
z~L -
i,^ * -
-**,"
A iTx ' . —
%*-. ~**" *~
Z.2-- "
as — _
J,-
»,""""
_
_
?
A Z t
*" „ '
^" j"
•*--.
9J*
L'_
iff ,->-:;— T — _ — „_
5** »-
xl* •
-------
206 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
HIGHLIGH:
HT HIGHLIGHT
water as the principal federal man-
agement objective for the area.
Consequently, the USFS must adopt
standards specific to the Bull Run
watershed that are more stringent
than its national standards. The
USFS, the Portland Water Bureau,
and the U.S. Geological Survey
share the monitoring responsibilities
of sampling, data collection and
analysis, and database manage-
ment. Monitoring is critical to unfil-
tered water systems, serving as an
early warning of turbidity-producing
events such as landslides and storm-
induced erosion. By tracking turbid-
ity levels during and after these
events, facility operators can either
divert heavily contaminated waters
or temporarily switch to an alterna-
tive ground water source. The Port-
land Water Bureau is also using the
monitoring program to estimate the
sediment loading from abandoned
. roads in the national forest.
Managing Land Use
in Watersheds
The type of land use in a
drinking water supply source area,
whether it is rural, urban, forested,
and/or farmed, presents a challenge
to managing the water source. Utili-
ties whose water sources are in a
forested area usually must contend
with logging, erosion, and timber
management. Systems whose
sources are in rural or suburban
areas may need to deal with septic
systems, agricultural runoff, and
erosion or recreational uses such as
swimming, hiking, and mountain
biking. In urban areas, utilities need
to address issues such as storm
water drainage, runoff from pave-
ment, and increasing development.
Solutions to the pollution from
these various land uses range from
simple, creative ideas that other
systems can easily adopt, to capital-
intensive projects that require
significant funding commitments.
Example: Managing Urban
Storm Water, Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority,
Boston, Massachusetts
Pollutant runoff from construc-
tion sites after large rainfall events
can stress drinking water treatment
facilities. Although the Massachu-
setts Water Resources Authority does
not regulate storm water releases
from construction sites, the Metro-
politan District Commission (MDC)
Division of Watershed Management
works with petitioners to review all
plans for the design and construc-
tion of storm water and erosion
control projects. These control proj-
ects are required under the state's
Watershed Protection Act and Wet-
lands Protection Act. In addition to
reviewing plans, annual watershed
sanitary surveys help MDC staff
identify areas of concern. Once a
specific threat to human health is
identified, the MDC works with the
responsible party to mitigate the
situation, In the future, MDC plans
to analyze pollutant loading at the
subbasin level and recommend
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 207
BMPs. The Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority and MDC plan
to conduct workshops to help
municipalities implement the BMPs
and may provide technical and
financial assistance.
Acquiring Land
One way to solve the problem
of competing land uses within a
watershed is to acquire all the land
surrounding a water source. Rather
than negotiate with individual
landowners, the system buys the
land surrounding a surface water
source. This solution is simple, yet
often difficult to implement.
Example: Land Acquisition
Program Targets High-
Priority Parcels, New York
City Department of Environ-
mental Protection, New
York, New York
New York City's water utility,
the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), has embarked on
a 1 0-year program of land acquisi-
tion within its watersheds. DEP has
committed $250 million to acquire
property associated with the Catskill
and Delaware River supply systems.
These supplies spread over 1 ,600
square miles west of the Hudson
River and provide 90% of New York
City's water. An additional $1 0 mil-
lion has been set aside for the same
purpose in the Croton Watershed,
which lies east of the Hudson. This
:
program operates under a 1 0-year
water supply permit from the New
York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (NYSDEC)
issued in 1 997. This permit enables
DEP to acquire, through purchase or
conservation easements, undevel-
oped land near reservoirs, wetlands,
and watercourses, as well as land
with other features sensitive to
water quality. No land will be taken
through eminent domain, and fair
market value is paid for all land. The
watersheds have been divided into
priority areas for acquisition, based
on natural features and proximity to
reservoirs, intakes, and DEP's distri-
bution system.
Conclusions
The examples provided here
are just a sampling of local actions
, being taken across the country to
protect sources of drinking water.
The common thread among the
1 ' -I.I— I* .i.* .C
examples is the coordination of a
drinking water utility's goals with
local watershed management initia-
tives aimed at aquatic ecosystem
restoration and protection.
This highlight was drawn from
Protecting Sources of Drinking Water:
Selected Case Studies in Watershed
Management (EPA 81 6-R-98-01 9, April
1 999). For more information on EPA's
efforts to protect drinking water sources,
visit the Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/protect.html.
'
HIGHLIGHrtl|WGHT HIGHLIGHT ~
•w* • ^*X
.'
*'"•-• ~~ - — —
,
sa~m^ q^^^-,,^.-^. , . _ _
_
if
e~ t rf j r- _
T'~
- — ,-"- '-'-- _
,----- -
_
'
" ," ' " - ' ' ~
-
c . - - -'- -
*r " ' • - - •
- - - -
- „ _ ^ . -
i? «z, ~ "^~ * ™~
",
L -i * _ :r -
„ -L - ~ '
r-, ,.. K-~,
s ' „
* \ & >•>
-------
208 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Drinking Water Standards
EPA sets national primary
drinking water standards through
the establishment of maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) and
through treatment technique
requirements.
MCLs are the maximum
permissible levels of contaminants
in drinking water that is delivered
to any user of a public water
system. The MCLs provide enforce-
able standards that protect the
quality of the nation's drinking
water.
Treatment techniques are
procedures that public water
systems must follow to ensure
a contaminant is limited in the
drinking water supply., EPA is
authorized to establish a treat-
ment technique when it is not
economically or technically
feasible to ascertain the level
of a contaminant.
Source Water Protection
The SDWA Amendments
establish a strong new emphasis on
preventing contamination problems
through source water protection
and enhanced water system man-
agement. The states are central in
creating and focusing prevention
programs and helping water sys-
tems improve their operations
to avoid contamination problems.
States are assessing the suscep-
tibility to contamination of the
source waters supplying public
water systems. These assessments
will provide the information neces-
sary for states to develop tailored
monitoring programs and for water
systems to seek help from states in
protecting source water or initiating
local government efforts.
Better Consumer
Information/Right-to-Know
The consumer information pro-
visions of the SDWA Amendments
herald a new era of public involve-
ment in drinking water protection.
Community water systems are
required to send customers an
annual report with information on
their drinking water quality. Each
report must provide the following
information about their drinking
water:
• The lake, river, aquifer, or other
source of the drinking water
• A brief summary of the suscepti-
bility of the local drinking water
source, based on the source water
assessments that states are com-
pleting over the next 4 years
• How to get a copy of the water
system's complete source water
assessment
• Level (or range of levels) of a
contaminant found in local drinking
water, as well as EPA's MCL for
comparison
• Likely source of that contaminant
in the local drinking water supply
• Potential health effects of any
contaminant detected in violation
of EPA's MCL and an accounting of
the system's actions to restore safe
drinking water
• The water system's compliance
with other drinking-water-related
rules.
This rule will affect 55,000
water systems, and the information
in the reports will reach 248 million
people nationwide. Large water
systems will mail the water quality
reports to their customers, either
with water bills or as a separate
mailing, and will take steps to get
the information to people who do
not receive water bills. Smaller
water systems may be able to
distribute the information through
newspapers or by other means.
Regulatory Improvements
Recognizing that responsible
flexibility, good science, and a
better prioritization of effort could
improve protection of public
health, the 1996 SDWA Amend-
ments established a new process for
regulating drinking water contami-
nants.
• New risk-based contaminant
selection. This list establishes priori-
ties for EPA's drinking water pro-
gram (Table 8-5). EPA published
the Drinking Water Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL) in the March
2, 1998, Federal Register (63 FR
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 209
10273). It includes 61 contami-
nants divided among three cate-
gories:
• Priorities for additional research
• Priorities for additional occur-
rence data •
• Priorities for consideration for
rulemaking.
• Occurrence Information. The
collection, organization, and ready
availability of contaminant occur-
rence data are taking on unprece-
dented importance. EPA has estab-
lished both a National Drinking
Water Contaminant Occurrence
Database (NCOD) and an Unregu-
lated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation, as required by the
SDWA amendments.
• Cost-Benefit Analysis and
Research for New Standards.
Regulations now formalize that in
developing all future drinking water
standards, EPA must conduct a
cost-benefit analysis, provide
comprehensive and understandable
information to the public, and use
the best available peer-reviewed
science and supporting studies.
• Disinfection Byproduct/
Cryptosporidium. Microbial pollut-
ants in drinking water may cause
acute gastrointestinal problems.
Yet some disinfection processes
that reduce microbial contaminants
create disinfection byproducts.
To strengthen control of microbial
pathogens, disinfectants, and disin-
fectant byproducts in drinking
water, EPA is developing a group
of interrelated regulations referred
to as the microbial disinfection
byproduct rules. These rules are
intended to address risk trade-offs
between the different types of
contaminants and to address the
waterborne pathogen, Cryptospori-
dium.
A Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disin-
fection Byproducts Rule and an
Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule were promulgated
in December 1998. The Stage 1
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byprod-
ucts Rule establishes maximum
residual disinfectant level goals and
maximum residual disinfectant lev-
els for chlorine, chloramine, and
chlorine dioxide. It also establishes
MCL goals and MCLs for total
trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids,
chlorite, and bromate.
EPA also issued an Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule in 1998. It includes treatment
requirements for Cryptosporidium
and filter turbidity monitoring
provisions.
Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund
The creation of a Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) program to assist commu-
nities in installing and upgrading
safe drinking water treatment facili-
ties is one of the more important
additions to the nation's drinking
water program.
All states have received EPA
funding to establish their DWSRF
The new amendments offer a
unique incentive for water utili-
ties and groups devoted to
watershed protection to form
partnerships and explore their
common ground. After all, the
goals of one group often affect
the goals of the other. For
instance, water utilities generally
strive to keep treatment costs
down, while watershed groups
typically look for ways to address
sources of contamination. Iden-
tifying such common pursuits
stands to benefit everyone and,
ultimately, the future of the
nation's watersheds.
Table 8-5. :Regulatory Subset LijSt of the CCL
Chemical or Microbial Contaminant
Acanthamoeba (guidance)
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3-Dichloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
Aldrin
Boron
Bromobenzene
Dieldrin
Hexachlorobutadiene
p-lsopropyltoluene
Manganese
Metolachlor
Metribuzin
Naphthalene
Organotins
Triazines and degradation
products
Sulfate
Vanadium
-------
210 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
programs. The program gives states
the authority to use a portion of
their DWSRF resources to support
new prevention programs. States
are encouraged to place a high
priority on use of funds for activities
aimed at protection of drinking
water by preventing contaminants
from entering sources of drinking
water.
Drinking Water
Concerns
Over 90% of people in the
United States get their drinking
water from public water supplies.
Although most public water sup-
plies meet drinking water stand-
ards, a diverse range of contami-
nants can affect drinking water
quality. EPA's Science Advisory
Figure 8-5
Compliance of Community Drinking Water Systems
with Health Requirements in 1998
Population served
by community
drinking water
systems in 7 998
= 25 3 million
Number of
community drinking
water systems
=54,367
89%
of population served
by drinking water systems
with no reported violations
of health requirements*
*As much as one-
fourth of the
community water
systems did not
complete all
required monitoring.
The compliance
status of some of
those could not be
assessed from the
data reported.
11%
• of population
,' served by systems ,
with reported violations
Source: U.S. EPA, 1999, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
Board concluded that drinking
water contamination is one of the
greatest environmental risks to
human health. This conclusion is
due, in part, to the variability in
quality of the source of water
supplying the drinking water. It is
also due to the potential for con-
tamination in the delivery system as
the water travels from the treat-
ment plant to the consumer's tap.
Under the Safe Drinking Water
Act, a public water system is
defined as a system that has at least
15 service connections or serves an
average of at least 25 people for at
least 60 days per year. There are
three types of public water systems:
• Community water systems are
those that serve the same people
year-round (e.g., cities, towns,
villages, and mobile home parks).
• Nontransient noncommunity
water systems are those that serve
at least 25 of the same people for
at least 6 months of the year (e.g.,
schools, day care centers).
• Transient noncommunity water
systems are those that serve tran-
sient populations (e.g., rest stops,
campgrounds, and parks).
In 1998, 89% of the popula-
tion served by community water
systems received water that had no
reported health violations (Figure
8-5). Of the 54,367 community
water systems, 9% reported MCL
or treatment technique violations.
These systems served nearly 30 mil-
lion people.
For all public water systems in
1998, there were 15,832 MCL or
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 211
treatment technique violations
reported by 9,788 of the 170,376
systems. Most of, these violations
were in small systems.
The greatest risk from unsafe
drinking water is exposure to water-
borne pathogens, which can cause
acute health problems requiring
medical treatment. As shown in
Figure 8-6, bacteria, viruses,
parasitic pathogens, and chemical
agents have all been shown to
cause waterborne disease out-
breaks.
For systems serving a large
population, a waterborne disease
outbreak can sharply impact a large
number of people. The 1993
Cryptosporidium outbreak in Mil-
waukee, for example, affected more
than 400,000 people, the largest
waterborne disease outbreak ever
reported in the United States.
Recreational Restrictions
State reporting on recreational
restrictions, such as beach closures,
is often incomplete because most
state agencies rely on local health
departments to voluntarily monitor
and report beach closures. Most
state agencies that prepare the
305(b) reports do not have access
to an inventory of beach closures.
The information obtained varies in
quality because health departments
that monitor infrequently will
detect fewer bacteria violations
than health departments with rigor-
ous beach monitoring schedules.
Nine states reported that there
were no contact recreation restric-
tions reported to them during
the 1998 reporting cycle. Sixteen
states and tribes identified 240 sites
where recreation was restricted at
least once during the reporting
cycle (Appendix E, Table E-6, con-
tains individual state data). Local
health departments closed many of
these sites more than once. Patho-
gen indicator bacteria caused most
of the restrictions. Other contami-
nants cited include syringes found
on beaches, toxics in seaweed,
floating mats of vegetation, and
pollutants in urban runoff.
The states identified sewage
treatment plant bypasses and
malfunctions, urban runoff storm
sewers, and faulty septic systems
as the most common sources of
elevated bacteria concentrations
in bathing areas. The states also
reported that natural sources and
Figure 8-6
Waterborne Outbreaks in the United
States by Year and Type
• AGI (Acute Gastro-
intestinal Illness of
Unknown Origin)
H Parasitic
D Bacterial
• Viral
11 Chemical
71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95
Year
Source: Levy et al., 1998, Morbidity and mortality surveillance summaries. Surveillance
for Waterborne Disease Outbreaks, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA,
V. 47(SS-5): 1 -34. http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr
-------
212 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
H!GHLIGHllj-| IjJGHT HIGHLIGHT • *•« — •
i y^
;:
, . r.
......
The Clean Water Action Plan
and Public Health Protection
The Clean Water Action Plan
(CWAP) contains several key action
items designed to improve public
health protection. Some of the spe-
cific actions call for increased effort
to ensure that fish and shellfish are
safe to eat. Federal agencies are
working with states and tribes to
expand programs to reduce con-
taminants that can make locally
caught fish and shellfish unsafe to
eat — particularly mercury and other
persistent, bioaccumulative toxic
pollutants — and to ensure that the
public gets clear notice of fish con-
sumption risks. Another main com-
ponent is to ensure safe beaches.
To achieve this goal, federal, state,
and local governments will work to
improve the capacity to monitor
water quality at beaches, develop
new standards, and use new tech-
nologies, such as the Internet, to
report public health risks to recre-
ational swimmers.
Actions to Reduce
Fish and Shellfish
Consumption Health
Risks
In 1998, 2,506 public advi-
sories restricting the consumption
of locally caught fish were in effect.
States and tribes issue advisories to
notify and protect their citizens
from unsafe levels of contaminants
in fish tissue that make the fish
unsafe to eat or unsafe to eat in
large quantities. Numerous inland
rivers and lakes, all of the Great
Lakes and their connecting waters,
a large portion of the nation's
coastal waters, and about 20% of
the national wildlife refuges with
permissible fishing are under fish
consumption advisories.
EPA is promoting consistent
methodologies for state and local
public health officials to use in issu-
ing or rescinding advisories for spe-
cific chemical residues, fish species,
and human population groups at
risk. Technical handbooks and pub-
lic information brochures can be
ordered through a special EPA .
website devoted to fish and shell-
fish consumption advisory issues
located at http://www.epa.gov/OST/
fish/. The EPA website allows users
to access a special database that
includes all available information
describing state-, tribal-, and feder-
ally issued fish consumption advi-
sories in the United States for the
50 states, District of Columbia, four
U.S. territories, and the 1 2 Cana-
dian provinces and territories. These
advisories inform the public that
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 213
.'•'.'
'
high concentrations of chemical
contaminants have been found in
local fish and wildlife, and they
include recommendations to limit
or avoid consumption of certain
fish and wildlife species. EPA has
upgraded this Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Advisories database for
interactive queries and mapping
using Internet web browsers. The
database has been enhanced to
include information on the actual
levels of the major pollutants in fish
tissue that can trigger advisories.
Tissue chemical residue data have
been included at sites where
advisories have been issued, as well
as other areas showing very low
levels of contamination. Watershed-
oriented analysis of such tissue
residue data may help define rela-
tively "clean areas" where the
public could be encouraged to fish
with minimal risks.
EPA is conducting research
to more accurately quantify and
predict the sources, transport, fate,
and exposure risks for major
pollutants that can lead to fish
consumption advisories. Consider-
able effort is being targeted on
mercury, which can be transported
over large areas through the atmos-
phere and where effective risk
management will require a multi-
media perspective and substantial
interagency and stakeholder coop-
eration. Pollution prevention and
more stringent regulatory controls
will be advanced for major emission
sources and for legacy pollutants
found in sediments. Prototype
studies on mercury-related fish
consumption advisory concerns are
in progress at lakes in Wisconsin
and in Florida to define effective
management approaches.
Fish advisories have also been
issued for other long-lasting toxic
pollutants, including polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs), chlordane,
dioxins, and DDT, even though
their use was banned or drastically
restricted many years ago. Many of
these pollutants settle into the sedi-
ments where they can remain as a
source of contamination well after
the original source is controlled.
Many of these chemicals are also
known or suspected endocrine
disrupters, which can cause repro-
ductive or developmental problems
of special concern for women and
children. The CWAP will accelerate
the development of strategies to
address these concerns about
persistent toxins and endocrine
disrupters.
HIGHLIGHO-I nfeiT HIGHLIGHT
fiTMi, f
Jf*'
It
*$ t ~ n
i.'
T-tf-f^-v
~Ht
* ~~ - -
j*V
>£• '
r
, ,
-------
214 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
HIGHUGHi
HT HIGHLIGHT
Actions for Improved
Beach and Recreational
Health Risk
Management
The CWAP has helped acceler-
ate the implementation of EPA's
Action Plan for Beaches and Recrea-
tional Waters (ORD and OW, EPA/
600/R-98/079). There are three
main action areas in this Beach
Action Plan. First, EPA will continue
to promote better recreational
water programs and improved
risk communication activities. An
example risk communication tool
is EPA's BEACH Watch website,
located at http:www.epa.gov/ost/
beaches. This website makes infor-
mation available to the public and
decision makers in a timely fashion.
To keep this database of
beach and recreational closure
information accurate, EPA will
conduct a National Beach Health
Survey annually to collect detailed
local beach information as well as
data on state and local monitoring
efforts, applicable standards, water
quality communication methods,
the nature and extent of contami-
nation problems, and any protec-
tion activities.
EPA will also develop a national
inventory of digitized beach maps.
These maps will be linked with
locations of pollution sources
through a geographic information
system. They are expected to
become an invaluable source of
information to local organizations
and the general public.
EPA will develop and support
strong regional and local partner-
ships through the Environmental
Monitoring for Public Access and
Community Tracking Program
(EMPACT). Current beach-specific
EM PACT projects with EPA offices in
New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the
Southeast, the Great Lakes region,
the South, the West, and the Gulf
Coast region are investigating the
use of better bacterial indicators,
exploring improved monitoring
methods, developing site-specific
predictive tools, and making timely
beach information available to the
public.
The second objective of the
Beach Action Plan is to improve the
science that supports recreational
water monitoring programs. The
Beach Action Plan's scientific
research addresses three broad
areas. Rapid analytical methods are
needed that adequately distinguish
between indicators of human versus
animal pathogens and that cover
indicators for'a broader range of
human disease organisms than
do present techniques. Modeling
tools are also needed to help pre-
dict conditions likely to increase
exposure risks, supplement conven-
tional monitoring in making man-
agement decisions to lift bathing
area closures, and to help in the
design of more sensitive and effi-
cient monitoring approaches.
Finally, studies are needed on the
impacts from combined sewer over-
flows (CSOs).
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 215
HiGHLIG
CSOs are widely believed to be
,a major contributor to bathing area
problems. EPA will target research
to quantify CSO exposure risks
under different flow regimes (wet
weather and dry weather) and will
document pathogen movement
and survival rates in intertidal water
and beach substrates that are often
the main areas of exposure for chil-
dren and other sensitive population
groups. EPA will coordinate its
efforts with other federal agencies
in addition to its extensive efforts
with state and local environmental
and public health departments.
J^^^I-S^^^^^^^^^^fc^g^^J
'^^^^^ji^^v'^&ias^^^^?^^^^?' Jz
GHTJilCHirGFIT
-------
216 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
waste spills restricted recreational
activities.
Aquatic Ecosystem
Concerns
A primary goal for waters of the
United States is that they support
aquatic life. As defined in Chapter
1, this means that the waterbody
provides for the protection and
propagation of desirable fish, shell-
fish, and other aquatic organisms.
This section describes how states
articulate this goal in their water
quality standards and how pollution
impacts aquatic life.
The states use a variety of
approaches for setting standards to
protect aquatic life. All states adopt
aquatic life as a designated use for
all waters unless they performed a
use attainability analysis and deter-
mined the use has not and cannot
be attained. Some adopt very gen-
eral use designations that simply
state that all waters shall support
aquatic life, while others adopt
detailed designations that describe
the characteristics of the aquatic
community that each type of water
shall support.
All states adopt numeric criteria
that establish thresholds for specific
chemicals. All states adopt narrative
criteria that prohibit the presence
of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.
Most state standards include narra-
tive criteria stating that waters
will support the propagation and
growth of all aquatic life.
To strengthen their ability to
protect the biological integrity of
aquatic ecosystems, EPA encourages
states to adopt designated uses or
biological criteria that define the
aquatic community structure and
function for a specific waterbody or
class of waterbodies. These can be
descriptive characteristics or a
numeric score based on multiple
measures of community structure
and function. Currently about half
of the states have or are developing
refined use designations or biologi-
cal criteria.
The challenge for EPA is to
summarize the states' individual
assessments, which are based on
substantially diverse standards. The
basis for EPA's summary is the final
assessment status reported by the
states on how supportive their
waters are of the aquatic life use
goal. As illustrated in the earlier
chapters, states report that one of
the leading reasons for waters
being judged as impaired is a
water's inability to meet the aquatic
life use goal.
Pollution Impacts
The Clean Water Act defines
pollution as any human-induced
change in the chemical, physical or
biological integrity of the nation's
waters. Pollution includes not just
toxic chemicals, but other stressors
as well. States reported that some
of these other stressors are the lead-
ing causes of impairment to aquatic
life. These stressors include habitat
alterations such as flow modifica-
tions and excessive siltation, nutri-
ent enrichment, and contamination
of sediments with persistent chemi-
cals. Following a description of how
pollution affects aquatic life, the
impacts of these three stressors are
explored.
A fish kill is one of the most
obvious effects of pollution on
aquatic life. This phenomenon is
normally attributed to exceptionally
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 217
low dissolved oxygen levels, usually
due to excessive nutrients in the
water, or to the discharge of toxic
contaminants to the water column.
A more insidious and less easily
observable impact of pollution on
aquatic life is stress on the resident
aquatic biota. An indicator of
aquatic life use impairment may
be keyed to an individual orga-
nism's health measured in terms
of growths, lesions, eroded fins, or
body burden of toxic chemicals and
their byproducts.
The most common impact of
pollution on aquatic life is the shift
of a waterbody's naturally occurring
and self-sustaining biological com-
munity. An example would be the
shift of a cold water trout stream
to a warm water carp-dominated
stream. This may occur due to a
variety of reasons, but the most
common are an elevation of tem-
perature, a lowering of available
dissolved oxygen, and an increase
in sedimentation due to land use
practices within the watershed.
These perturbations to habitat
and water quality may lead to an
undesirable change in the aquatic
community. Frequently associated
with changes in the biological
community structure are changes
in biodiversity, e.g., loss of taxa,
gain in invasive species, increase in
harmful algal blooms, and loss of
key food web support species such
as diatoms, seagrasses, and sub-
merged aquatic macrophytes.
Habitat
Habitat is the place where an
organism or community of orga-
nisms lives. It includes both living
and nonliving elements. The imme-
diate habitat or microhabitat for
aquatic life includes the ambient
water and its physical and chemical
characteristics, including tempera-
ture, flow rate, and dissolved oxy-
gen content. It also includes the
substrate or bottom of the water-
body, which can be rocky, sandy,
silty, grassy, etc.
The larger-scale habitat or
macrohabitat includes the stream
banks and the overall watershed
within which the waterbody and
the aquatic organisms reside. The
macrohabitat plays an important
role in protecting water quality and
aquatic life. It can act as a buffer to
the aquatic system and diminish
the impact of human perturbation.
Changes in watershed habitat
affect waterbody habitat. For exam-
ple, changes in the amount and
type of vegetation within the water-
shed and, in particular, alongside
the waterbody frequently result in
increased sediment loads, elevated
temperature, and wide fluctuations
in the volume and velocity of flow.
These changes, in turn, alter the
ambient water quality and the
EPA has currently issued
guidance to the states on how to
monitor the biological condition
of waters^ Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols Jor Use in Wadeable
Streams and Rivers: Periphyton,
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and
Fish, Second Edition (EPA 841 -B-
99-002) and Lake and Reservoir
Bioassessment and Biocriteria:
technical Guidance Document
(EPA 841-B-98r007). Further
guidance integrating the various
monitoring methodologies into
a comprehensive assessment
of aquatic life use support is
planned for Fiscal Year 2000.
lesslkrtin.
less Darling, Grade 3, NC
-------
218 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
EPA's nutrient team is devel-
oping a series of technical guid-
ance documents on techniques
used to develop nutrient criteria
for use in state and tribal water .
quality standards. The following
draft guidance documents are
undergoing peer review. They
are available on the Internet at:
http://www. epa.gov/ostwater/
standards/guidance/index.html.
Draft Nutrient Criteria Technical
Guidance Manual: Lakes and
Reservoirs, April 1999
Draft Nutrient Criteria Technical
Guidance Manual: Rivers and
Streams, September 1999
substrate in which aquatic organ-
isms and communities reside and,
ultimately, the biological integrity of
the aquatic ecosystem.
When rain falls within a water-
shed that has lost its natural vegeta-
tive cover, the rain flows more
rapidly over the land. This reduces
the amount of water that will per-
colate through the soil into ground
water. It increases the volume and
velocity of water entering the
waterbody. It increases dirt and
sediment carried into the water-
body. If excessive amounts of sedi-
ment are deposited in the water-
body, they can smother rocky,
gravel, and grassy substrates within
the waterbody that are critical to
the propagation of aquatic life. The
increased volume and velocity of
water can scour the sides and bot-
toms of waterbodies causing ero-
sion and compounding sedimenta-
tion problems.
Also, if the watershed histori-
cally had many trees, loss of this
habitat reduces the amount of tree
canopy shading the waterbody.
This can cause the ambient water
temperature to rise. Changes in
natural habitat can also affect nutri-
ent cycling within the waterbody.
Both of these changes can cause
significant shifts in the types of
species that are tolerant of this new
habitat and dramatically change
the biological integrity of a water-
body.
Stable habitat is critical to pro-
tection and propagation of bal-
anced indigenous aquatic commu-
nities. Habitat evaluation is one tool
used to assess the vulnerability of
an aquatic ecosystem. This infor-
mation helps target where limited
ambient monitoring resources
would be best spent. The limitation
of this approach is that, although
poor habitat is usually an indicator
of impaired aquatic life, acceptable
habitat quality does not mean that
aquatic life is healthy. EPA has
issued basic habitat assessment
guidance in the.stream and lake
bioassessment protocols. Additional
guidance is being developed for
other waterbody types including
estuaries and wetlands.
Nutrient Enrichment
Nutrients are essential building
blocks for healthy aquatic commu-
nities. They are necessary for
metabolism. Nitrogen and phos-
phorous are required in relatively
large amounts by plant and animal
cells. Insufficient amounts of these
nutrients results in less than optimal
growth of plants including algae
and other aquatic vegetation. Ade-
quate plant growth is essential to
support all the other organisms in
a healthy, diverse, and productive
aquatic community. Excess nutri-
ents, however, can have detrimen-
tal effects on water quality and
aquatic life.
Excessive amounts of nutrients,
especially nitrogen and phosphorus,
result in excessive growth of algae
and other aquatic vegetation and
potentially harmful algal blooms.
Nuisance levels of algae are asso-
ciated with dissolved oxygen
deficiency leading to fish kills and
imbalances in predator/prey rela-
tionships, decreased water clarity,
loss of natural submerged aquatic
vegetation (an important fish, shell-
fish, and wildlife habitat and nurs-
ery), odors, loss of natural biodiver-
sity, and changes in water chem-
istry, e.g., increased pH in many
waterbodies.
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 219
Nitrogen and phosphorus
are transported to receiving waters
from stream networks, rain, over-
land runoff, ground water, drainage
networks, and industrial and resi-
dential wastewater discharges.
Sources of nitrogen and phospho-
rus include fertilizers, sewage treat-
ment plants, septic systems, com-
bined sewer overflows, sediment
mobilization, runoff from animal
feeding operations, atmospheric
transport, and internal nutrient
recycling from sediments to the
water column.
Nutrient enrichment is not a
new issue. State 305(b) reports
consistently identify nutrients as a
leading cause of water quality
impairment. Traditional efforts at
nutrient control have been only
moderately successful.
In February of 1998, President
Clinton and Vice President Gore
released a comprehensive Clean
Water Action Plan. A key part of the
plan provides for expanded efforts
to reduce nutrient overenrichment
of waters. The Action Plan calls on
EPA to accelerate the development
of scientific information and guid-
ance concerning the levels of nutri-
ents that cause water quality prob-
lems in different types of waterbod-
ies and different geographic regions
of the country. It also calls on EPA
to work with states and tribes to
adopt criteria for nutrients as part
of enforceable state water quality
standards under the Clean Water
Act.
EPA, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and other partners are
working to accomplish the nutrient
goals of the Clean Water Action
Plan. EPA published the National
Strategy for the Development of
Regional Nutrient Criteria in June of
1998. In addition to describing the
approach for developing nutrient
criteria, it identifies some of the
other efforts of EPA and its partners
to address nutrient enrichment of
our nation's waters.
Sediment
Contamination
Certain types of chemicals in
water tend to settle and collect in
sediment. For example, some
chemicals such as petroleum prod-
ucts and chlorinated solvents do
not mix with water (are hydro-
phobic). Some metals such as lead
and mercury can settle out due to
gravity or can be adsorbed onto
sediment particles.
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. Bacteria
degrade some chemicals in sedi-
ment, but many persist for years
even after the original source has
been eliminated. In the water col-
umn, these pollutants may be too
dilute to measure. But because cur-
rents tend to deposit sediments in
distinct depositional zones, sedi-
ment can accumulate pollutants at
these locations to toxic levels.
When present at elevated con-
centrations in sediment, contami-
nants can be taken up by organ-
isms that live in or on sediments
and can bioaccumulate up the food
chain (see text box on page 192).
Contaminants can also be released
from the sediment back into the
water column. In both cases,
excessive levels of chemicals in
sediment might become hazardous
to aquatic life and humans.
-------
220 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
EPA has developed methodolo-
gies for assessing the risk of toxicity
to benthic dwelling organisms from
metals and nonionic organic com-
pounds. These methodologies are
based on an approach called
"equilibrium partitioning" that
accounts for site-specific bioavail-
ability of chemicals and has under-
gone full scientific peer review
from EPA's Science Advisory Board.
These methodologies can be used
by states assessing the potential
impacts of contaminated sediment
on aquatic life.
In 1998, EPA reported to
Congress on contaminated sedi-
ment. This report identified areas in
the continental United States where
sediment may be contaminated at
Figure 8-7
EPA7s 1998 National Sediment Quality Survey
Areas of Probable Concern
Other known areas of contaminated sediment (such as the Hudson River in New York
and the James River in Virginia) are not depicted on this map but will be included in
the year 2000 report to Congress.
From: The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States
(3 volumes), available at http://www.epa.gov/ost/cs/congress.html.
levels that may adversely affect
aquatic life and human health. The
report was prepared in response to
the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992. It was prepared in
conjunction with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, the Army Corps of Engi-
neers, and other federal, state, and
local agencies. Data from 1980 to
1993 were used in preparing this
report.
The report is based on existing
data. It identified 96 watersheds
that contain areas of probable con-
cern—many of which are already
well known to state and local
government agencies and the gen-
eral public (Figure 8-7).
According to this report, areas
of sediment contamination occur
in coastal and inland waterways,
in clusters around larger municipal
and industrial centers, and in
regions affected by agricultural and
urban runoff. The data and the
evaluation results are intended to
help local watershed managers
identify local areas where additional
analyses of water quality may be
warranted.
EPA's Office of Science and
Technology also developed the
National Sediment Inventory (NSI),
an extensive georeferenced data-
base of sediment quality moni-
toring and pollutant source infor-
mation for the nation's freshwater
and estuarine ecosystems. Environ-
mental managers can use NSI data
and assessment protocols now as
screening tools to help determine
the incidence and severity of sedi-
ment contamination and to identify
areas requiring closer inspection. In
time, NSI data and assessments will
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 221
reveal trends and help measure
progress in minimizing risk.
For more information on EPA's
contaminated sediment program,
visit the program on the Internet at
http://www. epa.gov/OST/cs.
In their 1998 305(b) reports,
11 states and tribes listed 115 sepa-
rate sites with contaminated sedi-
ments and identified specific pollut-
ants detected in sediments. These
states most frequently listed metals
(e.g., mercury, cadmium, and zinc),
PCBs, pesticides, PAHs, and other
priority organic toxic chemicals.
These states also identified indus-
trial and municipal discharges (past
and present), landfills, resource
extraction, and abandoned hazard-
ous waste disposal sites as the pri-
mary sources of sediment contami-
nation.
Appendix E, Table E-10, lists
individual state data on sediment
contamination for the 11 states
reporting. Several states preferred
not to list contaminated sites until
EPA publishes national criteria for
screening sediment data. Other
states lack the analytical tools and
resources to conduct extensive
sediment sampling and analysis.
Therefore, the limited information
provided by states and tribes prob-
ably understates the extent of sedi-
ment contamination in the nation's
surface waters.
EPA has developed guidance
and information sources to provide
states with better tools for assessing
and managing sediment contami-
nation. A list of sediment contami-
nation materials is available on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/OST/
pc/csn.html. Information on equilib-
rium partitioning sediment guide-
lines (sediment quality criteria) can
be found at http://www.epa.gov/
OST/pc/equilib.html.
River of Words 1997 Finalist, Adam Hirsch, Down by My Bay, Grade 7, CA
-------
222 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
HIGHLIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
The Mid-Atlantic Highlands
Assessment Project
The Mid-Atlantic Highlands
Assessment (MAHA) builds on a
number of previous regional initia-
tives in the eastern United States
including studies of acid rain effects
E3- Kinaviha-Uppcr Ohio
I—1 PttW WMtntieids
Figure 1. Three watersheds or combined drainage basins
(water resources subregions) can be assessed in the
Mid-Atlantic Highlands. The other watersheds
extend outside the Highlands region. A watershed
perspective is useful in viewing stream condition.
under the National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Project
. (NAPAP), the Environmental Moni-
toring and Assessment Program's
(EMAP) Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MAIA), results from the
trend analysis initiative known as
the Temporally Integrated Monitor-
ing of Ecosystems (TIME) project,
and a previous Regional EMAP
(R-EMAP) project coordinated by
EPA Region 3.
The geographic focus for
MAHA is several large watershed
areas on the upper Ohio River and
Susquehanna basins extending to
the west of the Blue Ridge and
other mountain ranges that form
the eastern Continental Divide.
This 79,000-Square-mile study area
contains all Of West Virginia, large
parts of central and Western Penn-
sylvania, portions of Maryland and
Virginia, and areas outside EPA
Region 3 in New York's Catskills.
MAHA's scientific focus is on apply-
ing random site selection approach-
es to assess the ecological health
of upland streams. Results can be
presented according to administra*
tive boundaries such as the states
of West Virginia or Pennsylvania.
Results can also be summarized for
such major basins as the Susque-
hanna, the Allegheny-Mononga-
hela, and the KanaWha-Upper
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 223
.HIGHLIG
Ohio; or for such major terrestrial
ecoregions as Western Appalachia,
the Great Valley, North-Central and
Central Appalachia, and the Ridge
and Blue Ridge ecoregion (see
Figures 1 and 2).
Pooling resources from state
environmental agencies, EPA, and
other federal natural resource agen-
cies, multiyear data collections were
undertaken on headwater streams
rated as first to third order. These
highland streams account for over
89% of the stream mileage in these
basins, but most available monitor-
ing work has tended to concentrate
on larger streams and rivers and
much of the data on these larger-
systems involves water chemistry
measurements. For MAHA, conven-
tional water chemistry measures
were made for such major parame-
ters as nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus) and pH (acidity). The
monitoring activities also developed
a variety of biological assessments
on fishes and various insect macro-
invertebrates that spend their early
life stages in the streams. For the
fishes, tissue analyses were also per-
. formed to measure concentrations
of such contaminants as mercury
(see Figure 3).
The information on the fishes
was worked up into a series of
special metrics related to species
diversity, the number of pollution-
intolerant (usually native) species,
the total number of fish species,
and so forth. These separate metrics
Figure 2. Ecoregions are areas with similar physical geog-
raphy, soils, climate, and vegetation types. The
Mid-Atlantic Highlands can be represented by four
aggregated ecoregions. Ecoregions provide a useful
perspective in viewing stream condition and charac-
teristics.
-------
224 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
HIGHLIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
are then combined into a compos-
ite indicator called an Index of
Biotic Integrity (Fish-lBI or IBI).
For the insects, MAHA selected a
macroinvertebrate index based on
analysis of features of the three
important taxa of the Ephemerop-
tera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stone-
flies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies)
that are the main source of food for
sports fish in most upland streams
with hard substrates of gravels,
pebbles, or rocks. An EPT macroin-
vertebrate indicator was deter-
mined based on the aquatic insect
collections. Observations were also
Figure 3. The majority of streams in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands
(i.e., 89% or 72,200 stream miles) are classified as first-
through third-order streams. This stream classification
is illustrated above for one hypothetical watershed in
the Highlands. The confluence (joining) of two first-
order streams forms a second-order stream; the conflu-
ence of two second-order streams forms a third-order
stream, etc.
• i -
made of the condition of the
stream substrate, banks, and the
riparian areas close to the stream.
Many of these standard biological
and habitat monitoring techniques
received a major boost from the
initial release and ongoing updates
to EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Proto-
cols for Use in Streams and Rivers:
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish
(available at http://www.epa.gov/
owow/monitoring/rbp').
Monitoring sites were randomly
selected to eliminate the possibility
of taking samples from bridges or
other easily accessed locations that
often will not be representative of
local stream conditions. Eliminating
this sort of site selection bias makes
it much easier to apply statistical
tests to the assessment results.
Margins of error and confidence
limits can be estimated for the con-
clusions drawn from the MAHA
project. For instance, for the FISH-
IBI and EPT scores, typical margins
of error were in the 10% to 12%
range.
In addition to the chemical and
biological sampling data, informa-
tion was assembled on watershed
conditions and general land use
patterns for the current time period
as well as available information
going back several decades. Bio-
assessment indicators are usually
compared against appropriate
regional reference conditions to
help define what indicator values
can be classified as good, fair, or
-
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 225
HIGHLIGHi
poor biological condition. For the
current time period, these could be
actual reference sites considered to
reflect the best biological condi-
tions currently attainable. From
historical records and museum
collections, MAHA also attempted
to define reference conditions
expected before large-scale Euro-
pean settlement of the area (that is,
"precolonial" conditions).
The results of the MAHA bio-
logical indicators showed differ-
ences depending on the selection
of the Fish-IBI or the EPT macro-
invertebrate scores. Using reference
sites reflecting best attainable cur-
rent conditions, approximately 25%
of the streams in the study area
would be rated as showing good
conditions, 50% fair, and 25% poor
conditions. For the Fish-IBI, the
results .for the overall study area
were 25% of the streams with good
conditions, 33% fair, and 42%
poor. For the Fish-IBI, shifting the
reference sites to a hypothesized
"precolonial" standard suggests
only 10% of highland streams
showing good conditions; 39%,
fair; and 50%, poor (see table).
The substantial differences in
the findings from the Fish-IBI and
the EPT macroinvertebrate scores
are the subject of ongoing investi-
gations. Two factors that may
account for the differences in per-
formance in the two indicators are
that some headwater streams either
showed naturally very few different
types of fishes or were essentially
without fish.
MAHA also carried out prelimi-
nary analyses on major categories
of pollution stressors. For eight dif-
ferent stressor or pollutant factors,
the top four involved nonnative
fish, excessive levels of nitrogen
(a nutrient), and problems with
either instream or riparian habitat
conditions (see Figure 4).
The Mid-Atlantic Highlands
Assessment project has
helped states gain facility
in applying bioassess-
ment techniques in ways
that encourage the
analysis of the results for
large landscape units
such as basins or ecore-
gions. For waterbody
CHT HIGHLIGHT
Comparison of Fish-IBI and EPT
Macroinvertebrate Scores (percent)
EPT
Fish-IBI
Fish-IBI
"precolonial"
Good
25
25
10
Fair
50
33
39
Poor
25
.42
50
Total Nitrogen
(Nutrient)
Riparian Habitat
Instream Habitat
Mine Drainage
Acidic Deposition
Fish Tissue
Contamination
Total Phosphorus
(Nutrient)
29%
20
% Stream Miles
Figure 4. Overall ranking of potential stressors influencing the
condition of Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams.
-------
226 Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
HIGHLIGH:
HT HIGHLIGHT
types such as small headwater
streams that have traditionally not
been adequately studied, random
survey approaches show great
promise as a way to develop a suit-
able baseline of information effi-
ciently and in a fairly short span of
time. While additional work is need-
ed to clarify cause-effect relations
between indicators of biological
health and specific pollution factors,
MAHA has considered several
potential stressors and made pre-
liminary estimates of the relative
magnitudes of their impacts. In the
future, regional analyses similar to
MAHA will become important con-
tributors to the Section 305(b)
process and to other watershed-
based management efforts by EPA
and the states.
River of Words 1999 Finalist, Elaine Sullivan, Age 9, A Frog Named Lily, MA
-------
Chapter Eight Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 227
Letter to the Architect
Not even you can keep me from
mentioning the fish, their beauty of
scaled brevity, their clipped-swishing
tails funneling in everything animal.
Wintertime when I saw them, their
pursed old ladies' mouths, gaping under
pooled clarity to share some gulled-up gossip.
Their bones, pure equilateral, poked stripes
at base and height, bereft of architects' errors
or human compensation. I remembered then
your last letter; you wrote you couldn't cut
another mitre, solder another joint, peel
another bit of glue from between your fingertips.
I'm going to crack soon, you said.
There must be some way to perfection
in this grasping for centimeters. The stick
will stay straight; the model be done,
done beautifully and done well someday.
I wrote back-I only know the cod with their
paling rib bones, their geometry unwarped by cold.
I know their tunnels dug frost-time underwater,
their crossings of snowf lake symmetry. When
the thaws come, their finned bodies filter
the halfway ice like clean spectra.
You must know-the sight is exquisite.
If only I could give the gift of fish-making
in as many words as this.
River of Words 1998 Grand Prize Winner (Poetry, Grades 10-12)
Rebecca Givens, Grade 11, GA
-------
j .--vSyas^ .-. .<,__.-. •/•?>•*•
-------
Costs and Benefits of
Water Quality Protection
Introduction
Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act calls for states to prepare
estimates of the economic and
social costs and benefits necessary
to achieve the goals of the Act. The
goals that states focus on are that all
waters are fishable and swimmable.
This means that water quality is
good enough to support a balanced
population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife and allow recreational activi-
ties in and on the water. Because
states develop water quality stand-
ards to support these and other
beneficial uses, they generally con-
sider the costs and benefits of meet-
ing water quality standards when
they evaluate the costs and benefits
of achieving the goals of the Act.
Unfortunately, this is a very
daunting task. It may seem fairly
easy to count the amount of money
spent on pollution control by the
public and private sector, but these
data can be difficult to obtain.
Measuring benefits poses a
more complex challenge. First,
benefits are realized by a wide
variety of users, ranging from
commercial fishing operations to
individuals who want to know that
the environment passed on to their
grandchildren will be healthy.
Second, it is easier to describe
benefits than it is to put a dollar
value on them because many types
of benefits do not involve market
transactions. Many argue that it is
not appropriate to try to put a dollar
value on all of the benefits of a clean
environment.
Ultimately, implementation of
the CWA takes place at a very local
level, and the costs and benefits of
cleaner water are realized initially
at the local level. For example,
improvements in water resource
quality usually result from invest-
ment of time and money to address
a specific problem or combination
of problems in a specific area.
Therefore, changes in the quality of
water resources, such as reductions
in levels of pollutants or improve-
ments in aquatic habitat, occur in
fairly localized areas. These localized
improvements in the quality of
water resources result in changes in
the structure and function of local
aquatic communities, including
populations of fish and wildlife. The
ways in which people value water
quality improvements reflect their
beliefs and priorities. Consequently,
implementation costs, the resulting
changes in the condition of the
waters, and the resulting benefits
are best generated beginning at the
watershed level and aggregating up
to the state and national level.
Unfortunately, neither the data
nor analytic tools and expertise are
available to comprehensively build
and estimate the costs and benefits
of achieving the goals of the Act
-------
230 Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection
from the watershed up to the
nation. Efforts to estimate the eco-
nomic and social costs of achieving
the goals of the Act are hindered by
a number of factors. The primary
factors are:
• Limitations of analytic tools to
characterize costs and benefits
• Insufficient data on water quality
conditions and trends and links to
benefits
• Insufficient data on resource
needs to fully meet the goals of the
Act.
The inadequacy of environmen-
tal data leads, in turn, to enormous
difficulties in estimating the nation-
wide economic and social effects of
attaining the CWA's goals. The lack
of watershed-level data on water-
body conditions and trends makes
the estimation of the resulting eco-
nomic and social effects at the local
level extremely difficult as well as
incomplete.
To provide some sense of an
overall national picture of past and
future effects of the CWA, absent
the information needed to build the
picture from the bottom up, EPA has
drawn upon the very limited num-
ber of national reports and data-
bases relevant to this topic. Sources
of such information include the
U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Census, the Sport Fishing
Institute, state reports, EPA, and
other federal sources. Though
unable to form the basis for a
precise estimate of nationwide
effects of the CWA, these studies do
provide a useful framework that
gives some sense of the magnitude
of these impacts. Some of these
studies express data in terms of eco-
nomic measures, while others use
different quantitative measures from
fields such as sociology and political
science. Still other relevant reports
express information in qualitative
terms, including national public
opinion surveys. The first part of this
chapter presents this overview infor-
mation.
The nationwide picture pre-
sented in this chapter is supple-
mented by anothersection that
contains information based on data
in the 1998 305(b) reports submit-
ted by the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the following
states: Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming.
Because they are easier to calculate,
estimates of the economic costs of
selected activities to improve water
quality are more common in these
reports. Estimates of the economic
and social benefits resulting from
improved water quality are more
difficult to quantify. Hence, state
reports, and this national report
from EPA, also include qualitative
descriptions of benefits and quanti-
tative results from small-scale studies
of the benefits of water quality
restoration. The second part of this
chapter presents this state-by-state
information.
-------
Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection 231
Costs and Benefits
of Water Quality
Improvement
Costs of Water Quality
Improvement
Estimates for the most current
available year (1994) of the costs of
implementing water quality control
programs called for in the Clean
Water Act are shown in Table 9-1.
This information was derived from
President Clinton's Clean Water Act
Initiative: Analysis of Costs and
Benefits. This table shows expendi-
tures associated with the implemen-
tation of the Clean Water Act
requirements. It includes implemen-
tation of all aspects of the cycle
for water-quality-based pollution
control:
• Development of water quality
standards
• Assessment of water quality
• Characterization of causes and
sources of impairment
• Development of point and non-
point source loading allocations to
achieve the water quality standard
• Implementation of source
controls
• Evaluation of the effectiveness
of controls
• Followup actions and reiteration
of the cycle to ensure all waters
meet water quality standards.
According to this report, private
sources spend roughly $30 billion
per year on water pollution control.
Table 9-1. Summary of 1994 Current and Planned Spending under the Existing CWA (S million/year)3
Description
Pre-1 987 CWA
base programs
WQS
TMDL
Monitoring
NPDES
Post-1 987 CWA
additional
programs
NPS Controls/
Watershed
Storm Water:
Phase 1
CSOs
Other Costs
Total
Private Sources
$25,286
•
$3,990
$943 -$1,073
$30,21 9 -$30,349
Municipalities
$17,190
$389 - $591
$1,650 -$2,555
$3,450
$88
$22,767 - $23,874
Agriculture
$191
$240 - $389
$431 - $580
State Water
Programs
$373
$125
$498
Federal
Agencies
$9,564
$234
$9,798
Total
(Quantified)
$52,604
. $988 -$1,339
$5,640 - $6,545
$3,450
$1,031 -$1,161
$63,71 3 -$65,099
aThe values shown here are only for administering the plan.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1994. President Clinton's Clean Water Act Initiative: Analysis of Costs and Benefits. EPA 800-S-94-001. Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
-------
232 Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection
In addition, municipalities spend
$23 billion per year and agriculture
approximately $500 million per
year. Federal agencies dedicate an
estimated $10 billion and state
water programs $500 million to
water resource protection each year.
In total, there is an estimated
expenditure of $63 billion to $65
billion per year to protect and
restore water quality nationwide.
Benefits of Water
Quality Improvement
Improvements in the physical,
chemical, and biological quality of
our nation's waters are valuable to
all Americans. The benefits of
achieving the objectives of the
Clean Water Act are, and will be,
manifest in a variety of ways includ-
ing
• Increased recreational choices
• New and expanded business
opportunities
• Improved property values
• Expanded educational and
research options
• Greater peace of mind, regarding
the condition of the natural heritage
we pass on to future generations.
Activities such as fishing, swim-
ming, and boating on waters would
not be adequately safe or sufficiently
satisfying without the control meas-
ures undertaken under the Clean
Water Act. Cleaner water lowers
treatment costs to agriculture and
to industries by avoiding pretreat-
ment costs before usage of these
waters. It also reduces costs to
drinking water systems that might
otherwise have to install additional
treatment technologies. Cleaner
waters also provide important
aesthetic benefits to Americans.
Although it is relatively easy to
list the various categories of health,
social, psychological, and economic
benefits to current and future gen-
erations, it is extremely difficult to
estimate the magnitude of such
benefits. Still, there are a number of
sources of data that provide some
indication of the scale of such bene-
fits. The following section presents a
sampling of such information.
Recreation
Water-based recreational activity
makes a large contribution to Amer-
ica's economy. A 1994 Roper Survey
found that beaches, rivers, and lakes
are Americans' top vacation choices,
followed by national and state
parks, many of which are centered
on natural water features. Overall,
Americans take over 1.8 billion trips
to engage in one or more forms of
water-based recreation. Given that
the recreation and tourism industry
in the United States enjoys sales
of over $400 billion annually,
economic activity associated with
highly popular water-based recrea-
tion is clearly quite large.
According to the 1994 National
Survey on Recreation and the
Environment (NSRE), sponsored by
the U.S. Forest Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, and other agencies and
organizations, 125 million Ameri-
cans over age 15 visited a beach or
waterside area—62% of those in
this age group. An estimated 78 .
million swam in a river, lake, or
ocean—an increase of 38% since
1982. Water-based nature study was
enjoyed by 55 million Americans,
representing 28% of the population
-------
Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection 233
over age 15. Remarkably, 27 million
people participated in some form of
viewing fish and other aquatic life.
All this recreational activity
generates, of course, a tremendous
amount of economic activity. For
example, anglers spent $15 billion
in 1996 for fishing trips, $19 billion
on equipment, and $3.2 billion for
licenses, permits, and other miscel-
laneous expenses, according to the
1996 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation conducted by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Expenditures for equipment related
to wildlife watching, much of which
is focused upon aquatic and riparian
species, increased by 21 % since
1991. According to this study, the
total impact of fishing-, hunting-,
and wildlife-associated recreation in
1996 was $101 billion. Though not
all of this can be attributed directly
to healthy waterbodies, all species
of animals and plants depend upon
adequate supplies of clean water.
There are indications that a
significant portion of the public
thinks that their enjoyment of
water-based recreation is restricted
by poor water quality. For example,
the 1994 NSRE found that 10% to
20% of various sectors of the public
felt that pollution problems con-
strained their outdoor recreation
activities. Actions taken to restore
impaired waters and protect the
integrity of currently healthy waters
should lead to a smaller proportion
of these sectors of the public feeling
that their outdoor recreational
experience has been compromised,
thereby increasing total overall
benefits to the nation.
The 1997 FWS Survey also
found that 20% to 25% of persons
characterized as "nature lovers,"
hunters, and fishers felt the quality
of their outdoor recreation experi-
ence was constrained by "crowded
activity areas." It is likely that, as
more waterbodies are restored to
healthy conditions, recreational use
will be less concentrated on those
waterbodies that are currently
healthy. This will result in less
crowding, on average, thereby
providing benefits in the form of
improved quality of recreational
experience to a sizable fraction of
the total population.
Commercial Fishing
The National Marine Fisheries
Service report on U.S. coastal and
offshore fisheries reported that the
value of U.S. commercial fish land-
ings was about $3.1 billion in 1998.
Shellfish landings represented slight-
ly more than half of this total. Over
80% of the value of U.S. finfish
landings was from species that are
dependent on near-coastal waters
for breeding and spawning. At the
time of the 1998 report, the U.S.
commercial fishing fleet included
nearly 75,000 vessels. Almost 5,000
-------
234 Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection
processing and wholesale plants
employed over 83,000 people in
1997.
Yet, the contribution of the
commercial fishing sector to the
overall economy potentially could
be increased if, through cleanup of
key coastal waters, thousands and
thousands of acres of shellfish beds
that are currently closed or restrict-
ed due to pollution could be
reopened to commerce.
Other Water Quality
Benefits to the Economy
Other highly important sectors
of the American economy are
dependent upon supplies of good-
quality water. In 1995, the USGS
estimated that manufacturing com-
panies used more than 9 trillion
gallons of fresh water each year.
According to the 1997 Census of
Agriculture, the agricultural sector,
which produced $197 billion worth
of products in 1997, is increasingly
dependent on irrigation of crops,
drawing upon both surface and
ground water supplies. The $100
billion/year soft drink and beer
industries are highly dependent on
supplies of high-quality water.
Good water quality is important
for local economic development.
Companies that want to attract the
best workers often locate in areas
noted for parks and open spaces,
where air and water quality are
good and recreational opportunities
are abundant. These amenities are
essential for the quality of life
required by today's workforce.
The Institute for Southern Stud-
ies published a study in October
1994 illustrating the relationship
between state economic growth
and environmental quality. This
study shows that strong environ-
mental standards and gross state
products growth are positively
related, although the causal rela-
tionships underlying this association
have riot been established. For
example, the study ranked Louisiana
last for jobs and environmental
quality. Eight other southern states
(along with Indiana, Ohio, and
Oklahoma) ranked among the 14
worst states in both categories.
Hawaii, Vermont, and New Hamp-
shire ranked among the top six
states for both jobs and environ-
mental quality. Six states ranked
among the top 12 in both cate-
gories: Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Colorado, Oregon, Massachusetts,
and Maryland.
Ecological Benefits
Restoration of impaired waters
and protection of threatened waters
promises to result in significant eco-
logical benefits. Currently, a dispro-
portionate number of aquatic and
semi-aquatic species of plants and
animals are endangered or threat-
ened. According to the Nature
Conservancy's document Rivers
of Life (1998), two-thirds of the
nation's species of freshwater mus-
sels are at risk of extinction, half of
all crayfish species are in jeopardy,
and 40% of the species of fresh-
water fish and amphibians are at
risk. Some of the causes of declines
-------
Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection 235
in populations of these species are
activities, such as overharvesting,
that are unlikely to be affected by
implementation of the Clean Water
Act. But other factors contributing
to the declining condition of a num-
ber of these species are addressed
by the Act. For example, pollution is
listed as a contributing factor in the
decline of 30% to 90% of the
species in each of four categories
of water-dependent species—fish,
crayfish, amphibians, and freshwater
mussels.
The Nature Conservancy con-
cluded that "protecting and restor-
ing 327 watersheds—15% of the
total (nationwide)—would conserve
populations of all at-risk freshwater
fish and mussel species in the United
States." This suggests that a wisely
targeted strategy for implementa-
tion of the CWA for both impaired
and threatened waters could signifi-
cantly contribute to the protection
and recovery of aquatic biodiversity
in the United States.
Not only is protection and
restoration of the ecological integrity
of our nation's waters deemed
highly important by the scientific
community, polling data indicate
that protection and restoration of
biodiversity enjoys strong public
support. A 1996 national poll con-
ducted by Beldon and Russonello
got the following responses from
a series of questions designed to
understand how environmental
protection fits into the priorities of
U.S. citizens.
• Compared to dealing with other
issues you are concerned about,
how important is maintaining bio-
logical diversity (preventing the
extinction of plants and animals)?
Very important 41 %
Somewhat important 46%
• Protecting jobs right now is more
important than saving habitat for
plants and animals.
Strongly disagree 19%
Somewhat disagree 45%
Even when asked about paying
more in federal taxes to have the
government buy land to protect
endangered species and habitat,
48% agreed, and 78% supported
tax incentives to encourage land
owners to voluntarily protect
habitats for plants and animals.
Other Indicators of the
Public's Perception of
Benefits from Cleaner Water
Results of other public opinion
surveys indicate that a large portion
of the American public believes that
there are problems with the condi-
tion of our nation's waters. A num-
ber of national polls have shown
that Americans view water pollution
as one of the top two or three envi-
ronmental problems in the United
States. For example, the 1993 Roper
poll conducted for the National
Geographic Society found that
75% of Americans felt that water
pollution is among the most serious
environmental problems facing
future generations. This same poll
found that 39% say that the quality
of the fresh surface waters in their
-------
236 Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection
community (used for recreation,
wildlife, and industry) was only
"fair" or "poor."
A 1997 poll conducted by
Roper for the National Environmen-
tal Education and Training Founda-
tion (NEETF) found that 72% of the
public believed that "environmental
protection laws and regulations
dealing with water pollution have
not gone far enough." This con-
trasts with 62% of the public who
felt this way about air pollution and
48% who said this about protecting
wild and natural areas. Only 4% of
those polled indicated they thought
laws and regulations dealing with
water pollution had gone too far,
compared with 6% for air pollution
and 7% for protecting wild or nat-
ural areas. A 1996 poll conducted
by Belden and Russonello found
that 64% of Americans strongly
agreed with the statement, "[Clean
Water Act] regulations should be
maintained because water quality is
worth the cost, and the regulations
have had positive effects on water
quality." Conversely, only 7%
strongly agreed with "We need to
reduce the hundreds of regulations
in the Clean Water Act because they
have become too restrictive and
expensive for business and private
citizens." (These findings were con-
sistent across all key demographic
groups, based on gender, races,
ages, and income and educational
levels.)
Regardless of whether the opin-
ions reflected in these poll findings
are based on an accurate under-
standing of the condition of the
nation's waters and the nature of
the rules designed to protect them,
these polling data do indicate that
any actual improvement in water
quality is likely to be perceived as
beneficial by a large portion of the
populace.
The 1996 Beldon and Russo-
nello poll provides some insight into
the personal values that underlie
support for protection of the envi-
ronment. Eighty percent (80%) of
those polled cited "wanting your
family to live in a healthy pleasant
environment" as a reason for per-
sonally caring about the environ-
ment. Seventy one percent (71 %)
said "responsibility to leave the
earth in good shape for future gen-
erations" was a primary reason for
environmental concern. "Nature is
God's creation and humans should
respect God's work" was chosen by
67% of those polled.
The 1997 Roper poll for NEETF
also found that people's concerns
about the environment were not
significantly tempered when placed
in contrast with economic consider-
ations. Fully 69% of those polled
replied "environmental protection"
when asked, "When it is impossible
to find a reasonable compromise
between economic development
and environmental protection,
which do you usually believe is
more important: economic develop-
ment or environmental protection?"
A 1993 Roper poll found that 76%
of the people felt that upgrading
municipal water treatment systems
was a good or excellent idea, even
if it resulted in raised local taxes.
Though one can question whether
these answers accurately reflect
what people would actually do
when confronted with such a
choice, the answers do suggest that
the public puts a high value on
-------
Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection 237
protection of the environment and
is willing to pay for such protection.
Another indicator of public
concern for protection and restora-
tion of water resources is the rapidly
growing number of people involved
in organized efforts on behalf of
streams, lakes, marshes, bays, estu-
aries, and coastal waters. For exam-
ple, the Adopt-Your-Watershed
database currently has over 4,000
local groups that are involved in
one or more types of waterbody
protection and restoration efforts.
In these examples, people are con-
tributing their time and energy,
perhaps as well as some of their
money.
Water Quality Costs
and Benefits Identified
by the States
Most states reported that they
encountered great difficulty in
reporting on the economic and
social costs and benefits of actions
to achieve the goals of the Act.
Most states were able to provide
some estimates of expenditures on
some aspects of water quality pro-
tection or restoration. Typically, this
cost information included the
amount of money provided through
grants or loans to upgrade munici-
pal wastewater treatment plants or
the annual budget for the jurisdic-
tion's water quality management
program.
When reporting on benefits,
most of the states provided limited
qualitative descriptions of the types
of benefits accompanying imple-
mentation of the Clean Water Act.
Several states, however, conducted
cost/benefit analyses. For example,
Illinois reported on a cost/benefit
analysis performed for three lake
restoration projects. The District of
Columbia reported on the number
of fishing licenses issued as an indi-
cator of the benefits of improved
water quality.
The following section highlights
some of the more recent data
reported by states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico in their
Section 305(b) water quality
reports.
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia
reported on the total operating
costs of treating wastewater at the
Blue Plains treatment plant. This is
one of the largest wastewater treat-
ment plants in the country. The
plant's service area includes the
District of Columbia and parts of
Maryland and Virginia. Increases in
costs have come mainly from aging
equipment and inflation's effect on
wages, equipment, and mainte-
nance costs. The total annual oper-
ating costs in 1998 were approxi-
mately $92.2 million. About $20
million of the 1998 costs were due
to the upgrade and operation of the
biological nutrient removal process.
Annual costs in 1999 are estimated
at $86.5 million.
The District offered a discussion
of the qualitative improvements
in water quality over the past
decade. Recreational fishing is one
area that has benefited from such
improvements. Routine surveys
conducted by the Fisheries Manage-
ment Branch reveal a significant
increase in the number of game
-------
238 Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection
fish, including striped bass and
perch. The sale of fishing licenses in
the District is also an indicator of
recreational use. In 1988, the
District of Columbia began to
require that anglers purchase a
license to fish in District waters. The
number of licenses sold from 1988
to 1995 increased from 4,900 to
12,695. However, in 1996 and
1997 the number of licenses sold
decreased slightly to 11,028 and
10,925, respectively..
Arizona
The population of Arizona has
been increasing rapidly. In 1950,
the state's population was 775,000.
By 1995, the population increased
to an estimated 4.2 million. Most of
this increase occurred in the two
largest cities, Tucson and Phoenix.
Table 9-2. Arizona's Water Pollution Control Costs
Program Name
Water Quality
Program
Management
Safe Drinking
Water
Water Quality
Assessment and
Monitoring
Point Source
Discharge
Nonpoint Source
Discharge
Public Health
Safety
Underground
Storage Tanks
Program
Superfund
Program
Total Water
Pollution Control
Programs
FY 1994
$1,615,300
$1,489,800
$2,177,200
$3,128,400
$1,344,000
$16,778,700
$2,102,200
$28,635,600
FY 1995
$1,463,800
$1,704,800
$7,031,700
$2,877,800
$1,770,700
$104,400
$23,836,200
$3,395,500
$42,185,000
FY 1996
$2,194,500
$1,780,200
.$1,728,600
$2,670,000
$1,801,800
$36,088,700
$4,142,600
$50,415,200
FY 1997
$1,805,500
$1,789,800
$1,943,500
$2,312,100
$1,386,800
,$32,187,900
$3,566,700
$44,992,300
This rate of population growth
will require the creation of addi-
tional sources of water to cover the
demand for agricultural, municipal,
and industrial use. At present, 60%
of the public drinking water supply
in Arizona is ground water. State
planners anticipate that the use of
effluent and surface water sources
will need to increase to satisfy the
increasing demand for water. The
goal is to provide inexpensive, high-
quality water supply to serve a
variety of users. For this to happen,
the state needs to increase its efforts
in protecting and remediating both
surface and ground water sources.
Arizona designates all ground
water aquifers for drinking water
use. The goal of the Aquifer Protec-
tion Permit Program is to prevent
pollution of Arizona's ground water
by controlling discharges from
wastewater treatment facilities,
industrial sources, and mining
operations. In 1997, the program
spent over $2 million and targeted
nitrogen reduction in discharges
that impact ground water supplies.
Nitrogen poses a serious health risk
in drinking water, particularly to
infants. Arizona's program resulted
in the removal of 12,179 tons of
nitrogen in 1997.
The annual expenditures of
the state's water quality programs
provide an estimate of the costs to
maintain water quality programs
. during the years 1994 through
1997. Table 9-2 shows this informa-
tion.
-------
Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection 239
Hawaii
Hawaii's 305(b) report esti-
mated that, since 1995, Honolulu
County has spent $279 million on
wastewater and public works proj-
ects; Maui County has spent $82
million on sewer operations, flood
control, and drainage; and Kauai
County has spent $7 million on
stormwater control and sewage
treatment. Although the state's
report did not provide detailed
information on monetized benefits,
the state noted that water quality
improvements increase the eco-
nomic well-being of the population.
Benefits include improved recrea-
tional opportunities, aesthetics, and
commercial fishing opportunities.
Illinois
Illinois' 305(b) report stresses
the fact that collecting information
on costs and benefits related to
the achievement of -the objectives of
the Clean Water Act was a complex
task, and the tools and information
needed are not readily available.
The state reported the individ-
ual program costs of pollution con-
trol activities in the state of Illinois
for the year 1996 (Table 9-3). In
addition to these costs, the Bureau
of Water distributed a total of $18.2
million in state construction grants
and an additional $66.6 million in
loans for the construction of munici-
pal wastewater treatment facilities.
The Illinois Bureau of Water
prepared a cost/benefit analysis of
efforts to restore water quality in
three inland lakes. By comparing
pre- and post-restoration water
quality conditions in the lakes,
annual benefits were calculated
based on potential increases in
"visitor days" estimates. The results
are shown in Table 9-4.
Indiana
Since July 1, 1997, more than
30 communities in Indiana have
obtained loans of over $174 million
for water quality improvements
through the State Revolving Loan
Fund (SRF) Program. One of these
Table 9-3. Program Costs for Illinois
Environmental Protection
Agency's Bureau of Water
Activity
Monitoring
Permitting
Planning
Compliance/Enforcement
Facilities Administration
Lake Protection and Restoration
Nonpoint Source Control
Ground Water Protection
Total
Total
$3,928,700
$2,785,800
$1,292,600
$3,596,600
$2,039,700
$754,100
$2,610,200
$1,804,500
$18,812,200
Table 9-4. Summary of Cost/Benefit Analysis for Lakes Restoration Projects in Illinois
Lake Name
Le-Aqua-Na
Johnson Sauk
Trail Lake
Lake of Woods
County
Stephenson
Henry
Champaign
Increase in
Annual Benefits
Post-
Implementation
$660,700
$487,630
$197,060
Total Discounted
Benefit 10 Years
@ 7-1/8%
$4,614,000
$3,405,500
$1,376,000
Restoration
Activities
$262,918
$131,000
$256,434
Benefits to
Costs (in dollars
earned to
dollars spent)
17.5:1
26.0:1
5.4:1
-------
240 Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection
loans included a $2 million drinking
water project.
Indiana's 305(b) report notes
that improvements in water quality
result in better recreational oppor-
tunities, more aquatic diversity,
healthier sport fish populations,
safer drinking water, increased use
of beaches, and healthier aquatic
ecosystems. The Office of Water
Management in Indiana did not
quantify these benefits. However,
through the Performance Partner-
ship Agreement with EPA they
expect to have the necessary
resources to quantify the significant
benefits of water pollution abate-
ment.
Louisiana
Louisiana spent approximately
$8.5 million in FY 1995 and $13.4
million in FY 1996 to protect the
state's water resources. While much
of this budget was self-generated
through permit fees and enforce-
ment actions, a portion was derived
through federal grants.
Louisiana's 305(b) report esti-
mates that, from 1992 to 1994,
the state's economy benefited from
water quality improvements of
approximately $1.6 billion. These
benefits are associated with com-
mercial and recreational fishing
($1 billion) and hunting and non-
consumptive uses ($656 million).
Although hunting and noncon-
sumptive wildlife activities are not
directly associated with water quali-
ty, terrestrial wildlife and especially
waterfowl are dependent on the
availability of high-quality waters.
In addition to these direct monetary
benefits, visitors to Louisiana have
an additional impact on many local
economies. Although all outdoor
recreation may not be water-based,
it can be assumed that water quality
is a factor in the overall environ-
mental perception of travelers.
Michigan
Since 1972, Michigan has spent
about $4 billion on about 1,100
municipal wastewater treatment
plant improvement projects. The
state estimates that $900 million is
needed to meet federal and state
requirements for municipal waste-
water treatment and an additional
$1.9 billion is needed to meet
optimal conditions that reflect
water quality enhancement,
growth capacity, and economic
development. In addition, the state
estimates costs of $1.0 billion and
$2.6 billion for combined sewer
overflow initiatives in the Rouge
and Detroit river basin communities,
respectively.
Michigan is currently investigat-
ing the possibility of using market-
based pollutant trading concepts to
optimize overall water quality while
minimizing costs. Through the
implementation of effluent trading,
the state expects to improve water
quality, minimize costs, form part-
nerships, and provide greater flexi-
bility in attaining water quality
objectives.
New Hampshire
The cost information New
Hampshire presented in its 305(b)
report is mostly gathered from
ongoing public pollution control
projects that have received state
and/or federal financial assistance.
The state estimates total spending
for wastewater treatment works
through the Federal Construction
Grants program of $838 million
(Figure 9-1). Through the State
Revolving Fund program, New
-------
Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection 241
Hampshire was able to provide
loans to municipalities totaling over
$153 million from FY 1989 through
FY 1997. In addition, the Governor
of New Hampshire and supporting
Legislature enacted Chapter 277 of
the Laws of 1992 to provide a new
20% to 30% state grant program
for local water pollution control
projects. This law directs the state
Department of Environmental
Services to maintain a priority list of
projects eligible to receive these
funds. The current priority list
includes 99 projects with a total
cost of over $96 million for FY 1998
and 23 projects with a total cost of
nearly $29 million in FY 1999.
New Hampshire noted that all
types of water pollution abatement
projects benefit the quality of the
state's water by reducing the load-
ing of pollutants into the surface
waters. However, the state had
difficulties in trying to quantify the
social and economic benefits of
these projects.
North Dakota
The costs associated with
municipal point source pollution
control programs in North Dakota
have been quite significant. Most
of these expenditures have been
in the area of capital investments.
In 1996 and 1997, approximately
$42.9 million from the State Revolv-
ing Fund was used for the construc-
tion of wastewater system improve-
ments. In addition to SRF funding,
several communities have upgraded
their wastewater treatment facilities
at their own expense.
North Dakota did not quantify
monetary benefits of water quality
expenditures in their 305(b) report.
The state notes that qualitative
benefits include the elimination and
reduction of waste loads to receiv-
ing waters and the reduction of
stressors to public health, such as
malfunctioning drainfield systems
and sewer backups.
Oregon
A 1997 report provides esti-
mates of the costs and benefits of
water quality improvements in
Oregon's Willamette Valley. At one
time, the Willamette River was one
of the most polluted waterways in
Oregon, but since the 1960s this
basin has experienced significant
water quality improvements. Most
of the pollution was coming from
municipal and industrial dischargers,
although nonpoint sources also
played an important role. The
report estimated that between $215
million and $282 million (1995 dol-
lars) have been spent annually on
water pollution control costs in the
basin since the 1960s.
Figure 9-1
Costs Incurred in Wastewater Treatment Works
in New Hampshire ($ millions)
1972-1997
State of
New Hampshire
Clean Water Act
State Revolving Fund
Municipalities
U.S. EPA
(Construction Grants Program)
Total = $991 million
-------
242 Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection
The qualitative benefits of water
improvements in the Willamette
Basin include increased participation
in water-related recreational activi-
ties, improved services and aesthetic
values, and reductions in water
treatment costs and human health
risks, among others. The quantifi-
able benefits range from $146 mil-
lion to $318 million. The state
reports that a cost-benefit analysis
would be difficult to perform at this
point since not all the benefits have
been quantified. However, the
report suggests that, overall, the
annual benefits of improved water
quality in the Willamette Valley may
exceed water pollution abatement
costs.
Puerto Rico
The Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board is in charge of man-
agement of water pollution control
activities, which is carried out using
a combination of federal and state
funds. Table 9-5 summarizes Puerto
Rico's estimated costs to improve
water quality.
Table 9-5. Summary of Costs Dedicated to Improvement
of Water Quality in Puerto Rico ($ thousands)
Destination
Water Pollution
Control
47 Municipal
Treatment Works
1 0 Municipal
Treatment Works
Construction Grants
Year
1996
1997
1989 to 1995
1996 to 1997
1997 to 2001
Amqunt
$2,242
$1,733
$2,395
$2,255
$129,364
$25,873
$24,425
$6,885
$3,766,349
Source
Federal
State
Federal
State
Federal
• State
Federal
State
SRF Program
Rhode Island
Rhode Island's 305(b) report
indicates that the state has spent or
allocated an estimated $351 million
from 1972 to 1977 in the improve-
ment of the quality of its waters.
Most of these funds came from EPA
through federal Construction Grants
Program funds. The money was
allocated among the following
projects:
• Six projects involved the con-
struction of new treatment facilities
and sewer systems
• Three projects included new
wastewater treatment facilities
(WWTFs) and installation of sewers
• Seven projects were directed to
upgrading an existing primary facil-
ity to a secondary treatment plant,
as required by the Clean Water Act
• Five projects involved specifically
sewering areas not previously sew-
ered and discharging to an existing
WWTF
• Five projects dedicated to
upgrading existing secondary
WWTFs to larger, more modern
facilities.
Rhode Island notes that the
environmental and economic bene-
fits derived from the investment in
these projects are significant. The
state reports an improvement of
the water quality in the shellfish
growing areas and in the finfishing
industries, which combined are a
$25 million industry. These activities
also support the $2 billion a year
tourism industry.
-------
Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection 243
South Dakota
The state of South Dakota
has placed a high priority on get-
ting all state wastewater treatment
facilities into compliance as soon as
possible. The state has several
"minor" facilities in need of upgrad-
ing. Many of the small communities
served by these "minor" facilities are
agriculturally oriented and financial-
ly strapped. The state works along
with the communities to leverage
additional grant funds. To improve
the quality of the state's waters, the
state has secured approximately
$2.5 million per year from its Con-
solidated Water Facility Construction
Program (CWFCP).
Utah
Since 1972, approximately
190 wastewater projects have been
funded in Utah, with funding
received from either EPA Construc-
tion Grants, the Utah Water Quality
Project Assistance Program
(WQPAP), State Revolving Funds
(SRF), or the Utah Hardship Grant
Program. Table 9-6 lists the assist-
ance that was given for five time
frames. The majority of the state's
projects have been for the planning,
design, and construction of waste-
water collection and treatment facil-
ities in communities.
The construction of centralized
wastewater collection and treatment
facilities provides water quality
protection for surface and ground
waters. Currently in Utah, very few
large communities remain on septic
tank/drainfield systems. Besides
these direct benefits of investing in
cleaner waters, the state's report
mentions:
• Better public education and
awareness about the need for water
quality and environmental protec-
tion
• Pollution prevention of water
quality degradation
• Better protection of fisheries in
discharge receiving streams
• State legislators' awareness on
the need of funding these projects
• Protection of human health
Table 9-6. Funding Expend
($ thousands)
Time Period
1 993 to 1 995
1985 to 1995
1972 to 1995
1996 to 1998
1972 to 1998
EPA
Construction
Grants
$838
$14,662
$207,081
$0
$207,081
itures and Project Costs for Wastewater Projects in Utah
WQPAP
Project
Costs
$21,308
$133,777
$165,198
$55,791
$220,989
WQPAP
Assistance
$11,373
$36,653
$47,122
$6,107
$53,229
Assistance
Received
(%)
53
27
29
11
24
SRF
Project
Costs
$73,990
$120,942
$120,942
$54,075
$175,016
SRF
Assistance
$49,982
$83,909
$83,909
$29,91 6
$113,825
Assistance
Received
(%)
68
69
69
55
65
-------
244 Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection
• Optimal reuse of biosolids result-
ing from wastewater treatment
• Community participation in over-
sight of wastewater treatment facil-
ity operations.
Vermont
Vermont spent approximately
$468 million of state, federal, and
local funds through 1997 to con-
struct municipal wastewater treat-
ment facilities and industrial waste-
water treatment systems. Approxi-
mately $69 million per year is spent
on the operation and maintenance
of treatment plants in the state.
Costs of assisting planning and
implementation of nonpoint source
pollution reductions total approxi-
mately $460,000.
Improved water quality in
Vermont has meant less weed and
algae growth, which resulted in
improved aesthetics and enhanced
swimming, fishing, and boating
uses. The state assumes that human
health is improved due to the
removal of pathogens from water.
Approximately 58 rivers and 3 lakes
have benefited from these improve-
ments. Vermont's report also men-
tions significant improvements in
the Upper White River, where 4,525
feet of shoreline were stabilized
and enhanced. Improvements
were also noted from the denial of
hydroelectric facility certifications in
five cases. As a result of these habi-
tat improvements, a total of 22.5 .
miles of Vermont rivers and approxi-
mately 3,600 acres of lakes have
been improved significantly.
Virginia
Since 1988, Virginia has admin-
istrated a State Revolving Loan
Program, offering loans to local
governments at or below current
market interest rates for wastewater
treatment improvements. Between
FY 1988 and FY 1997, Virginia has
received federal capitalization grants
totaling $358 million and has pro-
vided $72 million to the program.
In the state's 305(b) report, the
fpllowing benefits are attributed to
Virginia's loan program expendi-
tures:
• Eliminated 12 wastewater treat-
ment plants that provided only
primary treatment
• Replaced/upgraded 25 inade-
quate lagoons
• Upgraded/expanded/replaced
80 outdated treatment facilities
• Improved water quality at
38 locations by reducing infiltration
and inflow
-------
Chapter Nine Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection 245
• Corrected 21 potential health
hazard situations due to the elimi-
nation of septic systems, pit privies,
and straight-line discharges
• Eliminated 96 raw sewage over-
flow points.
Wyoming
Table 9-7 summarizes funds
dedicated to water quality improve-
ments in Wyoming. The state's
305(b) report notes that water
suppliers in Wyoming are generally
small and face more challenges as a
result of complying with mandated
water system improvements. This
results in extremely high costs for
drinking water in rural areas.
Although Wyoming could not
quantify the value of water used
for agricultural purposes, the state
provided an. estimate of the amount
of land and livestock supported by
water resources. In 1998, Wyom-
ing's water resources were used to
rear 1,530,000 cattle and calves and
680,000 sheep and lambs. The state
also reported a total of 1,426,897
acres of irrigated agricultural land in
the state, valued at an average of
$45.51 per acre. Wyoming esti-
mates that nonirrigated cropland is
valued at 32% of the value of irri-
gated cropland.
Wyoming's 305(b) report
included information from a
National Recreation Lakes Study
Commission estimate of the eco-
nomic impact of federal man-made
lakes in Wyoming. The estimate is
based on visitor days for specific
activities. The Commission found
that these lakes bring $436 million
and 6,300 jobs to the Wyoming
economy. The data from this study
are summarized in Table 9-8.
Table 9-7! Federal and State Funding for
Improvement of Water Quality
in Wyoming ($ thousands)
Year
1995 to 1996
1997 to 1998
1999to2000a
Federal Funding
$5,353
$5,089
$5,026
State Funding
$3,594
$3,868
$4,615
Authorized budget.
Table 9-8. Benefits Derived from Man-Made Lakes of
Greater than 1,000 Acre-Feet in Wyoming
Activity
Fishing
Boating
Swimming
" Camping
Wildlife
Observation
Other Land
Based Recreation
Total
Visitor Days
1,215,000
626,000
295,000
700,000
405,000
442,000
3,683,000
Total Economic
Impact
($ millions)
$230
$118
$12
$29
$28
$19
$436
Total
Employment
Gobs)
3,300
1,700
200
400
400
300
...6,300
-------
IS :
I
Ife!
I i
^•/•^^^ir^i-^^^sii^sft.^"
' "'*''' ' * '*'' '
-------
Controlling Nonpoint Sources
Background
Nonpoint source pollution
generally results from land runoff,
atmospheric deposition, drainage,
or seepage of contaminants. Major
sources of nonpoint source pollu-
tion include agricultural runoff,
runoff from urban areas, and runoff
from silvicultural operations. Silta-
tion and nutrients are the pollutants
responsible for most of the non-
point source impacts to the nation's
surface waters. These diffuse
sources are often harder to identify,
isolate, and control than traditional
point sources. As a result, from
1972 to 1987, EPA and the states
focused primarily on addressing the
obvious problems resulting from
municipal and industrial discharges:
issuing permits for point source dis-
charges, then inspecting, monitor-
ing, and enforcing those permits to
ensure that point sources met the
Clean Water Act requirements.
Sections 208 and 303(e) of
the Clean Water Act of 1972 estab-
lished the framework to address
nonpoint sources of pollution.
'States and local planning agencies
analyzed the extent of NPS pollu-
tion and developed water quality
management programs to control it
with funds provided by EPA under
Section 208. Best management
practices were evaluated, assess-
ment models and methods were
developed, and other types of
technical assistance were made
available to state and local water
quality managers.
The National Section
319 Program
In 1987, Congress enacted
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act,
which established a more concen-
trated national program specifically
to control nonpoint sources of
water pollution. Section 319
created a three-stage national
program to be implemented by
the states with federal approval and
assistance. States were to address
nonpoint source pollution by:
(1) developing nonpoint source
assessment reports, (2) adopting
nonpoint source management
programs, and (3) implementing
the management programs over a
multiyear time frame.
All states, and territories and
20 American Indian tribes now
have EPA-approved nonpoint
source assessments. EPA has also
approved 56 state and territorial
nonpoint source management
programs and 20 tribal nonpoint
source management programs.
Section 319 also authorizes
EPA to issue annual grants to states,
territories, and tribes to assist
them in implementing their EPA-
approved programs, for which
the states provide at least a 40%
nonfederal dollar match. From
FY1990 through FY1999, Congress
appropriated and EPA awarded
approximately $877 million for
Section 319 assistance. Funds avail-
able for grants in FY1999 alone
have increased to $200 million,
-------
248 Chapter Ten Controlling Nonpoint Sources
which nearly doubled from FY1998
appropriations.
In 1995, recognizing the grow-
ing experience of states, tribes, and
localities in addressing nonpoint
source pollution and the fact that
state, tribal, and local nonpoint
source programs had matured
considerably since enactment of
Section 319 in 1987, representa-
tives of EPA Headquarters, Regions,
and the states, under the auspices
of the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA), initiated
joint discussions to develop a new
framework for further strengthen-
ing state and local nonpoint source
programs. These discussions contin-
ued for more than a year, spanning
fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and
resulted in new national Section
319 program and grant guidance
jointly signed by EPA and ASIWPCA
and issued by EPA on May 16,
1996. This guidance reflects a joint
commitment to upgrade state
nonpoint source management
programs to incorporate nine key
program elements designed to
achieve and maintain beneficial
uses of water. The guidance also
provides for
• Discontinuance of competitive
award of a portion of each state's
annual Section 319 grant award,
thereby assuring each state and
territory of a firm annual planning
target at the outset of each annual
award cycle
• Reduction in the amount and
frequency of administrative over-
sight and reporting
• Greater flexibility for the states,
territories, and tribes in establishing
priorities for the use of these funds.
The nine key elements that
form the core of the new approach
are
• The state program contains
explicit short- and long-term goals,
objectives, and strategies to protect
surface and ground waters.
• The state strengthens its working
partnerships and linkages to appro-
priate state, interstate, tribal,
regional, and local entities; private
sector groups; citizens groups;
and federal agencies.
• The state uses a balanced
approach that emphasizes both
statewide nonpoint source
programs and on-the-ground
management of individual water-
sheds where waters are impaired
or threatened.
• The state program (1) abates
known water quality impairments
from nonpoint source pollution and
(2) prevents significant threats to
water quality from present and
future nonpoint source activities.
• The state program identifies
water/watersheds impaired by non-
point source pollution and impor-
tant unimpaired waters that are
threatened or otherwise at risk and
establishes a process to progressive-
ly address these identified waters
by developing and implementing
watershed implementation plans.
• The state reviews, upgrades,
and implements all program
components required by the Clean
Water Act and establishes flexible,
targeted, and iterative approaches
to achieve and maintain beneficial
uses of water as expeditiously as
practicable.
-------
' Chapter Ten Controlling Nonpoint Sources 249
• The state identifies federal lands
and activities that are not managed
consistently with state nonpoint
source program objectives and,
where appropriate, seeks EPA assist-
ance to help resolve issues.
• The state manages and imple-
ments its nonpoint source program
efficiently and effectively, including
necessary financial management.
• The state periodically reviews
and evaluates its nonpoint source
management program using envi-
ronmental and functional measures
of success and revises its nonpoint
source assessment and its manage-
ment program at least every 5
years.
The guidance also includes a
new section on lake protection and
restoration activities that encour-
ages the use of Section 319 funds
for eligible activities that might
have been funded in previous years
under Section 314 (the Clean Lakes
Program).
Roughly half of each state's
annual award supports statewide
program activity (staffing, public
education and outreach, technical
assistance) and half supports specif-
ic projects to prevent or reduce
nonpoint source pollution at the
watershed level.
Funding under Section 319 is
also available to American Indian
tribes with approved nonpoint
source assessment and manage-
ment programs. Tribal grants are
provided under a separate statutory
set-aside of the annual Section 319 .
national appropriation. Because
these funds are limited, tribal grants
are awarded by EPA Regions but
administered by EPA Headquarters.
EPA also provides special 319 grant
guidance and workshops and
consultation to assist tribes in
preventing and reducing nonpoint
source pollution on their lands.
Clean Water Action
Plan Key Actions for
Nonpoint Source
Pollution
The President's Clean Water
Action Plan (February 1998) recog-
nized the need to expedite the
effectiveness of state nonpoint
source management programs.
In so doing, it was announced that
"beginning in FY2000, EPA will
award any Section 319 monies
exceeding the $100 million author-
ized level only to those states and
tribes that have incorporated all
nine key elements (established in
the May 1996 guidance) into an
approved Section 319 Nonpoint
Source Management Program."
This means that only approved,
upgraded state nonpoint source
management programs are eligible
to receive the incremental $100
million requested for this program
in the President's FY2000 budget.
As a result, throughout FY 1998
and 1999, EPA has worked closely
with the states, territories, and
tribes to help upgrade polluted
runoff programs to incorporate
the nine key elements established
in the national guidance.
Section 319 National
Monitoring Program
EPA developed the Section 319
National Monitoring Program to
improve technical understanding of
nonpoint source pollution and the
-------
250 Chapter Ten Controlling Nonpoint Sources
effectiveness of various nonpoint
source control technologies. This
program selects watershed projects
that consistently monitor water
quality and land management with
standardized protocols for 6 to 10
years. As of April 1999, EPA has
approved and funded 22 projects in
18 states. Several of these projects
are summarized here.
The Long Creek watershed in
North Carolina, located 30 miles
west of Charlotte, plays host to a
mixture of agricultural and urban/
industrial land uses, including three
dairy operations and several beef
and horse farms. High suspended
sediment loads, nutrients, and
bacteria have impaired sections of
the creek, with crop and dairy
production believed to be major
contributors of nonpoint source
pollutants to the creek. One com-
ponent of the Long Creek project
employs an upstream/downstream
monitoring design located in a trib-
utary that drains the largest dairy
farm in the watershed. Best man-
agement practices (BMPs) were
installed between the two sites,
including livestock exclusion fenc-
ing, an alternative water system,
improved stock trails, heavy-use-
area stabilization, riparian area
establishment, and waste storage
and handling. Analysis of 80 weeks
of data collected since the installa-
tion of BMPs documents significant
decreases in nitrogen, phosphorus,
sediment loads, and bacterial
counts. With an 80% decrease in
pollutant loads and concentrations,
results have thus far exceeded
expectations. The Long Creek
project will continue until 2001,
with plans for additional BMP
installations and continued post-
BMP monitoring.
The purpose of the Waukegan
River project was to reduce the
sediment load discharge to Lake
Michigan from streambank erosion
of the Waukegan River. Erosion was
caused by increased urban runoff
and channelization, problems
common in many urban streams.
Utilizing Section 319 funds, innova-
tive streambank restoration tech-
niques were implemented to
demonstrate how water quality can
be improved by stabilizing eroding
streambanks and creating stable
stream habitat (combining riparian
vegetation with structural ele-
ments). Effectiveness of the tech-
niques is being documented
through EPA's National Nonpoint
Source Monitoring Program. This
effort incorporates three biological
elements—fisheries, benthos, and
in-stream habitats—with monitor-
ing stations located both in the
downstream treatment reach and
on the upstream control reaches.
A geographic information system
is also being used in the Waukegan
River to spatially characterize many
of the physical and hydrologic
features of the watershed. The
physical changes occurring are
being correlated with the water
quality and biological changes
taking place within the watershed.
The biological sampling results indi-
cate that the number of fish species
and their abundance has more than
doubled with the implementation
of the chosen techniques.
Otter Creek, one of the
Section 319 National Monitoring
Program projects, is within the
Sheboygan River Priority Water-
shed, 15 miles west of Lake Michi-
gan, in east-central Wisconsin.
Land use in the watershed is 67%
-------
Chapter Ten Controlling Nonpoint Sources 251
agricultural, with the site of study
encompassing a barnyard on Otter
Creek with a dairy operation of
approximately 50 cows. The stream
is typified by reduced aquatic
habitat due to excessive sediment
and nutrient loading from nonpoint
sources—mainly cropland and
dairy operations—and recreation is
limited by degraded fisheries and
high fecal coliform counts. Barn-
yard BMPs implemented at the site
include rainwater diversion and
distribution to a grass filter strip,
livestock exclusion fencing, and
development of a gravel-lined
channel crossing that now allows
access to the stream. Sampling
stations were established on Otter
Creek, with one station upstream
from a single barnyard-runoff
source and the other downstream
from that same source (with the
intention of minimizing inflows
other than runoff from the barn-
yard). Post-BMP sampling indicated
that implementation of barnyard
BMPs has reduced the loads of
suspended solids by 81 %, total
phosphorus by 88%, ammonia
nitrogen by 97%, BOD by 80%,
and microbial loads of fecal coli-
form bacteria by 84%.
Reports on Section
319 Activities
In 1994, EPA published its first
volume of Section 319(h) Success
Stories, which provided examples of
successful solutions to nonpoint
source pollution problems in states,
territories, and tribes. In 1997,
Section 319(h) Success Stories:
Volume II was published. This
second volume demonstrates the
maturation of the state programs,
replete with many examples of
documented water quality improve-
ments, improved fisheries, reduced
loadings, and increased public
awareness that are a result of the
many projects that have received
Section 319 funding. The reduc-
tions in phosphorus, nitrates, and
a lowered fecal coliform count in
the lakes, rivers, and streams are
successes of the 319 program.
Nonpoint Source
Management
Programs and
Implementation
States, local governments,
farmers, community groups, and
EPA Regions have initiated many
innovative projects across the
United States to manage nonpoint
source pollution in their waters.
The projects described in this sec-
tion have been published in Section
319(h) Success Stories: Volume II.
They exemplify the diversity of
approaches and settings of Section
319 projects.
Bad River Watershed
Project, South Dakota
The Bad River watershed, 3,172
square miles that drain into the
Missouri River at Ft. Pierre, South
Dakota, consists primarily of highly
erodible shallow and dense clays.
The river does not support its
assigned beneficial uses primarily
because its sediment load is 3.25
million tons per year, which also
-------
252 Chapter Ten Controlling Nonpoint Sources
severely impacts the Lake Sharpe
impoundment of the Missouri River.
In response, the Bad River
watershed steering committee,
composed of local residents and
government officials, selected a
watershed management approach.
The first step taken by the steering
committee was to conduct a moni-
toring and assessment program,
which revealed that the lower third
of the watershed produces two-
thirds of the sediment—primarily
from gully erosion on grazing lands
and streambank scour. The next
step toward a solution was to begin
a demonstration project in the
250-square-mile Plum Creek sub-
watershed to illustrate the feasibility
of pollution controls. In the Bad
River watershed, an array of prac-
tices were recommended, including
planned grazing systems, proper
grazing use, erosion control struc-
tures, riparian revegetation, range
seedings, water spreader systems,
and alternative stock watering
facilities.
The results of the demonstra-
tion project exceeded expectations
and achieved a significant reduction
in erosion and sediment delivered
to the Bad River. In 1990, Plum
Creek delivered 82.7 tons of sedi-
ment per acre/foot of runoff. The
average annual sediment delivery
during 1993 was 10.2 tons of sedi-
ment per acre/foot of runoff. The
project also achieved substantial
landowner participation, with
approximately 90% participating
in the Plum Creek watershed and
approximately 95% of the land
under some type of intense man-
agement. The watershed residents
have supported expansion of the
project to the rest of the basin, and
demands for technical and financial
assistance are about four times the
expected levels.
Wetlands to the
Rescue - Spragues
Cove Stormwater
Remediation Project,
Massachusetts
In June 1995, Marion, Massa-
chusetts, completed construction
of a wetlands system designed
to reduce stormwater pollutant
discharges that were adversely
affecting Spragues Cove. Elevated
levels of fecal coliform bacteria
were the primary concern; before
the wetlands system was built,
they had contributed to the closure
of shellfish beds in the cove and
threatened nearby swimming
beaches.
The town joined the Buzzards
Bay Project of the National Estuary
Program to obtain financial and
technical assistance to help build
the constructed wetlands system.
The wetlands system comprises
a sediment basin, two shallow
marshes located on both sides of a
deep pool, and a stone-lined chan-
nel. The project was designed to
store 1 inch of runoff with an aver-
age detention time of 14 days.
Prior to construction of the
wetlands system, fecal coliform
counts as high as 20,000 organisms
per 100 milliliters were recorded.
The latest data now indicate fecal
coliform counts of 10 organisms
per 100 milliliters in Spragues Cove.
In Massachusetts, the Water Quality
Standard for shellfish harvesting
without depuration is 14 organisms
.
-------
Chapter Ten Controlling Nonpoint Sources 253
per 100 milliliters. At this time, it
appears that the wetlands system
has successfully reduced the storm-
water pollutant loadings to levels
that permit the valuable shellfish
beds of Spragues Cove to be open
for harvesting.
Protecting the Edwards
Aquifer - Urban
Development BMPs
in Central Texas
Aquatic environments as far
downstream as the Gulf Coast
(about 150 miles) depend on
springs that discharge from the
Edwards Aquifer. The aquifer runs
under nine counties and serves as
the public water supply for numer-
ous communities. Because of the
importance of the Edwards Aquifer
to the population of central Texas,
in 1990 the state initiated formal
regulation of nonpoint source
pollution in the recharge zone with
a revision to the Texas Administra-
tive Code. Under the revised rules,
individuals, developers, their agents,
or government agencies seeking to
develop property in the recharge
zone must submit Water Pollution
Abatement Plans for approval by
the Texas Natural Resource Conser-
vation Commission (TNRCC).
The plans must include descrip-
tions of proposed site disturbance
and development, erosion and
sediment control plans, a geologic
assessment including recharge
features, a stormwater.pollution
mitigation plan, and other site-
specific provisions as deemed
necessary. This process is supported
by Section 319 funding and carried
out by the TNRCC's regional offices.
Through the permitting
process, developers, construction
staff, engineers, and water quality
specialists are educated in the
application of BMPs for prevention
of nonpoint source pollution. As a
result, there have been several
positive changes in development
activities over the recharge zone in
recent years and some innovative
solutions to satisfy the requirements
of Water Pollution Abatement Plan
permits.
Funding for
Nonpoint Source
Control
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
In addition to Section 319
funds, many states have taken
advantage of the Clean Water State
Figure 10-1
States Using SRF Loans for NFS Programs
-------
254 Chapter Ten Controlling Nonpoint Sources
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) to provide
loans to finance nonpoint source
and other water pollution control
programs (Figure 10-1). The 1987
Amendments to the Clean Water
Act provide states with the oppor-
tunity to use these funds for non-
point source implementation proj-
ects and to develop and implement
actions under the National Estuary
Program.
As of June 1998, CWSRF has
provided over $848 million worth
of loans toward nonpoint source
projects and over $5 million toward
estuary projects. Twenty-five states
are using CWSRF loans to fund a
wide variety of nonpoint source
and estuary management projects.
CWSRF loans are well suited to
funding these types of projects for
several reasons: the low-interest
nature of the CWSRF program
translates into substantial savings—
a CWSRF loan can provide up to a
50% or more savings compared
with financing at market rates;
CWSRF loans can be used to cover
100% of the project costs, includ-
ing planning and design with loan
repayments beginning 1 year after
the project is completed; and
CWSRF loans carry fewer federal
requirements than most federal
grants. These advantages can make
a CWSRF loan a more appropriate
mechanism for funding certain
types of nonpoint source controls
than a grant, especially one with a
high cost-share requirement.
CWSRF may be used to fund
implementation of any nonpoint
source project eligible for funding
under a state's approved Nonpoint
Source Management Program.
Examples of nonpoint source
projects that CWSRF can fund
include: agricultural BMPs such as
manure storage facilities, no/low-till
farm equipment, erosion control,
and stream bank buffers; urban and
forestry BMPs; wetlands restoration
and preservation; ground water,
source water, and wellhead protec-
tion measures; cleanup of brown-
fields; repair and replacement of
septic tanks; and stormwater con-
trols, among others.
CWSRF funds may be used to
develop a Comprehensive Conser-
vation and Management Plan
(CCMP) for an estuary and imple-
ment any estuary projects that are
part of an estuary's CCMP. Such
projects may include nonpoint
source controls, habitat restoration,,
and other actions to protect endan-
gered species. (For more informa-
tion, see The Clean Water State
Revolving Fund; How to Fund Non-
point Source and Estuary Enhance-
ment Projects, EPA909-K-97-001,
July 1997.)
Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control
Program
Shifts in population toward the
coasts, associated development
pressures, and other factors moved
Congress to provide states with
new information and tools to
achieve more effective protection
of coastal waters from nonpoint
pollutants. Congress enacted the
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 (CZARA),
which established under Section
6217 a new coastal NPS pollution
control program to be incorporated
into both state Section 319 CWA
programs and state Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA)
programs. NOAA administers the
-------
Chapter Ten Controlling Nonpoint Sources 255
CZMA and EPA administers Section
319, and the two agencies were
jointly charged with implementing
Section 6217.
Section 6217 requires that
states with federally approved
coastal zone management
programs develop and implement
coastal nonpoint pollution control
programs to ensure protection and
restoration of coastal waters. Thirty
states and territories currently have
approved coastal zone manage-
ment programs.
Under CZARA, state Coastal
Nonpoint-Pollution Control
Programs must provide for imple-
mentation of: (1) management
measures in conformance with
measures published by EPA in
national technical guidance,
and (2) additional management
measures as necessary to attain .
and maintain state water quality
standards where the baseline
measures do not accomplish this
objective. The CZARA further
provides that states' Coastal Zone
Management Programs must
contain enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementa- .
tion of the management measures.
EPA issued final technical
guidance in January 1993 titled
Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters. This
guidance specifies management
measures for five major categories
of nonpoint pollution: agricultural
runoff, urban runoff, silvicultural
runoff, hydromodification, and
marinas and recreational boating.
The guidance also describes specific
practices that may be used to
achieve the level of prevention or
control specified in the manage-
ment measures.
EPA and NOAA issued adminis-
trative changes to the program
guidance in October 1998 to assist
the states in developing and imple-
menting final coastal nonpoint pol-
lution control programs. These
actions provided greater flexibility
to states in prioritizing their activi-
ties, extended the implementation
period for management measures
to 15 years, and clarified a range of
enforceable policies and mecha-
nisms that could be used by states
to implement their programs.
All states with federally
approved Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Programs submitted nonpoint
source programs for EPA and NOAA
approval. By the end of f Y 98, all
of the submitted programs were
conditionally approved by EPA and
NOAA, requiring states to submit
additional information to obtain
final program approval. States
were allowed up to 5 years after
conditional approval to meet the
conditions.
The President's Clean Water
Action Plan (February 1998) recog-
nized the need to expedite the final
approval of state coastal polluted
runoff control programs. In so
doing, the CWAP established a goal
that all programs will be fully
approved by December 1999.
The recent administrative changes
mutually agreed to by states,
territories, EPA, and NOAA are also
expected to expedite the final
approval process. In some cases,
the administrative changes may
impact previous findings and condi-
tions on state coastal nonpoint
programs.
-------
-------
Part II
Individual Section 3Q5(b)
Report Summaries and
Recommendations
River of Words 1998 Grand Prize. Winner (Art, Grades 7-9)
Jennifer Brisson, Key to 'the River, Grade. 8, NC
-------
Ill 1:
lite
I -
*>•!
Li ' i '
-------
State and Tribal
Recommendations
In their 1998 Section 305(b)
reports, 33 states, tribes, territories,
and interstate commissions made
recommendations for improving
water quality management pro-
grams to achieve goals of the Clean
Water Act. This discussion summa-
rizes the key recommendations
made by these groups and is not
intended to serve as a complete
inventory or prioritization of these
recommendations. While many of
the recommendations coincide with
current EPA program concerns and
priorities, inclusion in this discussion
does not imply EPA or Administra-
tion endorsement. The most com-
monly stated recommendations
generally addressed the following
environmental and programmatic
concerns:
• Nonpoint source abatement
and watershed protection
initiatives
• Toxics contamination
• Ground water pollution
and management
• Monitoring and data
management
• Financial and resource needs
• Improved outreach.
This chapter briefly summarizes
state concerns and recommenda-
tions on each of these topics.
Nonpoint Source
Abatement and
Watershed
Protection Initiatives
Most states expressed a com-
mon concern for better manage-
ment of nonpoint sources (NPS)
of pollution. Both urban and rural
runoff carrying a wide range of
pollutants and stressors, such as
nutrients, sediment, litter, bacteria,
pesticides, fertilizers, metals, and
oils, were mentioned.
Examples of Nonpoint
Source Concerns
Many states provided examples
of their nonpoint source concerns.
• The District of Columbia
suspects that nonpoint sources are
responsible for the high levels of
toxic pollutants in river bed sedi-
ments.
• Vermont comments that wastes
generated from large farming
operations are equivalent to wastes
generated by a small- to medium-
sized city.
• Utah and Idaho report that
eutrophication largely due to non-
point sources is seriously degrading
water quality in many of their major
reservoirs.
The most frequently
reported recommendations
address several major
concerns:
• Nonpoint source abate-
ment and watershed
protection initiatives
• Toxics contamination
• Ground water pollution
and management
• Monitoring and data
management
• Financial and resource
needs
• Improved outreach
-------
260 Chapter Eleven State and Tribal Recommendations
• Rhode Island believes that a
majority of impaired waterbodies
on their 303(d) list are degraded
due to NPS pollution.
• Concentrations of the herbicide
atrazine are a growing concern in
Nebraska and are also noted by
the Ohio River Valley Commis-
sion.
Recommended
Measures for Nonpoint
Source Reduction
Many states report ongoing or
recommended measures to reduce
nonpoint sources.
• Georgia and North Dakota
contend that the most effective
approaches and measures are likely
to be improved watershed manage-
ment policies, vegetated buffer
requirements, and perhaps limita-
tions on pesticide and fertilizer
usage.
• North Dakota's stormwater and
NPS programs have coordinated
efforts to assist small communities
within watershed projects to
prevent pollutants from entering
runoff.
State and Federal
Responsibilities
Many states forwarded recom-
mendations addressing federal/state
NPS abatement roles and responsi-
bilities.
• Nebraska's 305(b) report recom-
mends that the federal government
not mandate control of NPS pollu-
tion through regulatory programs.
Instead, EPA should support the
state as it addresses nonpoint
source problems through its NPS
management program and its
watershed-based approach.
• New Mexico states that federal
mandates should be developed
only after adequate time has been
provided to states to fully deter-
mine the efficacy of their NPS con-
trol programs. They note that the
specific nature of nonpoint source
problems can vary widely among
states.
• New Mexico also notes that the
requirement of a nonfederal match
of 40% for all Clean Water Act
Section 319 grant awards is dis-
couraging federal agencies, who
own a third of the land in the state,
from instituting appropriate NPS
management projects.
• North Dakota notes that it
would be beneficial if state funds,
administered through grants to
priority NPS pollution watersheds,
could be made available.
Adopting a Watershed
Approach
Many states link NPS monitor-
ing and abatement to adoption of a
watershed management approach.
Several states report having ongo-
ing initiatives or plans for watershed
management approaches as
opposed to individual waterbody
approaches.
• The District of Columbia is
using a watershed approach for
the Anacostia River restoration as
well as nutrient reduction in the
Potomac River. They recommend
additional federal funding to
support such initiatives.
-------
Chapter Eleven State and Tribal Recommendations 261
• Arkansas hopes to establish
land use zoning and watershed
management plans at local levels
to facilitate the development/
protection of state surface and
ground water resources.
• South Carolina reports that their
Watershed Water Quality Manage-
ment Program has allowed them to
better utilize water quality monitor-
ing resources as well as resources
for developing permit limits.
• Utah is developing a geographi-
cally focused effort on major water-
shed management units in the
state.
• Michigan reports that some
feasibility studies conducted on
market-based pollutant trading
have shown that it has potential
application in watersheds requiring
nutrient loading reductions. They
anticipate that such trading could
provide financial incentives for
combined sources (industrial,
agricultural, and municipal) and
optimize water quality improve-
ment costs, where applicable.
Toxics Contamination
Many reports discuss problems
in identification, cleanup, and pre-
vention of various metals and toxic
organic pollutants in rivers and
lakes, fish tissue, and sediments.
They noted point and nonpoint
sources of toxics are both wide-
spread. Atmospheric deposition is
suspected in increasing levels of
mercury in fish in Arkansas,
Indiana, and Missouri. In some
cases, sources are attributed to
ongoing pollution and, in others, as
in the case of PCBs and chlordane,
to chemicals that continue to
persist in the environment long
after their use has been banned.
Identification and
Assessment
States reported a number of
concerns regarding identification
and assessment of toxics.
• Arkansas recommends that the
detection limits for persistent and
carcinogenic organics and highly
bioaccumulative compounds be
improved.
• Georgia noted that even low
levels of metals are a problem
because fish are highly sensitive
to metals.
• The Ohio River Valley Commis-
sion reports that states were not
in agreement regarding whether
chronic aquatic life criteria viola-
tions for total recoverable metals
were indicative of conditions toxic
to aquatic life.
• A number of reports mention a
lack of data and information on
sediment contamination. To
address this need, Nebraska has
begun work on establishing a data-
base for sediment contamination.
• Nebraska also recommends
continued EPA Region 7 support for
the Regional Ambient Fish Tissue
Monitoring Program and the devel-
opment of ambient water quality
criteria documents for chemicals
such as atrazine, alachlor, and
mirex.
-------
262 Chapter Eleven State and Tribal Recommendations
Ground Water
Pollution and
Management
Many states discussed issues
and activities relating to ground
water pollution and management.
Two recurring themes were the
need for additional regulatory and
voluntary means for restoring and
protecting ground water and better
multidisciplinary and cross-agency
participation and cooperation.
Additional Measures to
Protect Ground Water
• Arkansas reports that point and
nonpoint ground water contamina-
tion sources not regulated under
existing programs need to be
ranked according to impact poten-,
tial. They also suggest the need to
promulgate water quality standards
that would better reflect existing
water quality in different aquifers
and regions of the state (as in the
ecoregion approach for surface
waters).
• Delaware, which relies heavily
on ground water sources for
domestic water needs, reports
various contaminants of concern
including iron, nitrates, salt water
intrusion, and synthetic organic
compounds from various sources
such as agriculture or leaking
underground storage tanks.
• Utah has continuing concerns
regarding cleanup of ground water
contaminated by historical disposal
practices and spills. In response, the
state initiated monitoring studies
and integrated database develop-
ment and mapping efforts.
Government
Coordination
Several reports mention a gen-
eral lack of coordination among the
many government and nongovern-
ment bodies responsible for various
areas of ground water protection.
• Utah's report notes problems
with timely and effective remedial
actions and emergency response
due to differences in federal and
state administrative programs for
handling ground water contami-
nation. For example, the pollutant
concentrations that require
response often vary between state
and federal programs.
• New Mexico proposes that
ground water protection should
remain a state and local concern, '
with federal support of state/local
programs and initiatives. Several
states recommend improved hard-
ware and software standards to aid
in database development and data
exchange.
• Missouri notes that a complete
ground water protection program
should include a ground water
monitoring network and educa-
tional programs for transporters of
hazardous waste, those involved in
applying farm chemicals, and the
general public.
Monitoring and Data
Management
Improved Monitoring
A common recommendation is
the need for better monitoring for
specific concerns (e.g., biological
integrity, water chemistry, fish
-------
Chapter Eleven State and Tribal Recommendations 263
tissue, stream flow, sediment con-
tamination, estuarine waters, and
ground water) as well as better
coordination of monitoring pro-
grams.
H Rhode Island reports significant
gaps in currently available monitor-
ing data and estimates that some
25% of lake acres and 46% of river
miles are unassessed and that
streamflow gaging stations are
limited.
• New Mexico suggests that bio-
monitoring tests using warm water
species (e.g., fathead minnow) are
likely to be inadequate in protect-
ing cold water ecosystems and
recommends greater effort in devel-
oping methods using cold water
species.
• Connecticut recognizes that a
probabilistic monitoring design will
be necessary to assess low-order
streams in the state.
Expanded Electronics
Capabilities
Several states (e.g., South
Carolina and Rhode Island)
mention the need to expand and
improve their computer and elec-
tronics capabilities to make data
processing and management more
efficient.
• North Dakota and Utah note
that the cross-agency compatibility
of ground water databases could be
improved.
• New Mexico suggests that
federal agencies take on the role
of information management and
dissemination in areas of interest
to all states (such as sampling and
monitoring technology, contain-
ment and remediation technology,
risk assessment, and standards
development), rather than states
spending limited resources on
collecting similar information.
Financial and
Resource Needs
Many states expressed the need
for additional funding as a result of
increasing programmatic demands.
Some have adopted measures to
maximize resource use by address-
ing issues on a priority basis. How-
ever, others reported that they will
be unable to meet even basic needs
or priority concerns without addi-
tional assistance. For example, Utah
notes that new sources of funding
must be found to maintain basic
water pollution control program
functions such as monitoring,
inspections, and community
assistance.
The states cited multiple
environmental and programmatic
needs requiring additional
resources; some of the most fre-
quently cited were enhancing NPS
management programs, better
monitoring, improved database
management, construction and
maintenance of treatment facilities,
and cleanup of contaminated
resources.
State Issues Requiring
Assistance
• The District of Columbia,
Rhode Island, and Vermont
reported problems with combined
sewer overflows. The District of
Columbia states that federal assist-
ance is essential to manage this
-------
264 Chapter Eleven State and Tribal Recommendations
problem and additional funds are
required if any new controls are to
be instituted.
• Pennsylvania's report states that
current and projected state and
federal funding for abatement and
cleanup of abandoned mine drain-
age is only a small fraction of the
amount required.
• New York notes staffing and
budget shortages have hampered
their monitoring efforts, especially
with regard to ground water analyt-
ical services.
State Recommendations
for Financing
A number of states made
requests for additional funding of
specific programs.
• Rhode Island, South Carolina,
and the District of Columbia
recommend an increase in State
Revolving Fund monies to address
wastewater and drinking water
infrastructure needs.
• The District of Columbia and
Utah report burdens due to sub-
stantial decreases in Section 106
funds.
• North Dakota suggests use of
state funds, in the form of grants,
for priority NPS watersheds.
States also made recommenda-
tions regarding changes in funding
allocations.
• At least two states (the District
of Columbia and New Mexico)
noted that required state matches
•for federal funds are sometimes
burdensome.
• New Mexico recommends that
Congress provide sufficient dedi-
cated funds to tribes so they can
develop and implement effective
water quality management
programs.
Other suggestions include
providing additional general fund
appropriations, authorizing
increased discharge fees, full fund-
ing of Section 1429 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act amendments,
use of federal highway funds to
include stormwater treatment struc-
tures, and increased financial assis-
tance to state Underground Injec-
tion Control programs.
Improved Outreach
Several reports included recom-
mendations for improved public
outreach and education. The most
commonly mentioned contexts
for outreach were NPS pollution
management, wastewater opera-
tion and maintenance assistance,
and general water quality and
resource management.
Pollution Prevention
and BMPs
A number of states mentioned
a need for greater emphasis on pol-
lution prevention and best manage-
ment practices for NPS pollution
management. This includes educat-
ing the public on issues, sources of
NPS pollution, and management
measures in areas such as livestock
operations, zoning and land use,
riparian vegetation, and road main-
tenance. Mechanisms used or
recommended include workshops,
-------
Chapter Eleven State and Tribal Recommendations 265
seminars, public forums, and
guidance documents.
• Rhode Island, Nevada, Georgia,
North Dakota, Vermont, and Utah
mentioned the need for continued
emphasis, direction, and assistance
in this area.
• Vermont has developed a small
grant program called "Vermont
Better Backroads" to reduce runoff
from local roads.
• New Mexico notes that a pri-
mary cause of NPDES violations
nationwide as well as in New
Mexico is the absence of effective
operation and maintenance pro-
grams to enhance the skills and
competence of wastewater treat-
ment plant operators.
Involving the Public
A general theme in some
reports was a need for improved
outreach for pollution prevention
(e.g., water use and conservation),
citizen water quality monitoring
efforts, wetlands protection, and
a combination of voluntary and
regulatory efforts to improve the
quality of surface and ground water
resources.
Special Concerns/
Recommendations
States made recommendations
regarding specific regional or local
environmental concerns not men-
tioned above. For example, Mis-
souri, Oklahoma, Idaho, Pennsyl-
vania, the Susquehanna River
Basin Commission, West Virginia,
and California expressed concerns
with continuing impacts of aban-
doned mine drainage. Ongoing
problems with managing the zebra
mussel, an exotic species, are
reported in Pennsylvania and
Vermont. Other issues mentioned
include impacts due to channeliza-
tion, ongoing wetlands protection
and restoration issues, impacts of
silviculture on water quality, coastal
habitat restoration, lake manage-
ment, and water quality impacts
from increased recreational use and
development.
Salton Sea
Several tribes in southern
California, as well as the state,
mentioned a need for better moni-
toring and regional cooperation in
response to avian botulism and
other indicators of fish and wildlife
impacts in and around the Salton
Sea. These tribes also recommend
improving general surface and
ground water monitoring and
developing beneficial uses for their
waters along with associated criteria
to assess use support.
Conclusions
Many state concerns have root
causes in resource constraints, lack
of existing data or information, or
lack of coordination among multi-
ple bodies responsible for the same
issue areas. The states and other
governing entities recommended
that Congress address financial/
resource problems so that, at a
minimum, basic and priority activ-
ities can be implemented. The
importance of public involvement is
emphasized, especially for dealing
-------
266 Chapter Eleven State and Tribal Recommendations
with complex problems such as
NPS pollution, where control
options are difficult or expensive.
Flexibility in developing programs
tailored to individual conditions
and needs is recommended
especially for issues that can vary
widely among regions, such as
ground water and NPS pollution
management. Critical areas requir-
ing improved monitoring and data
development, such as toxics and
stream flow, are identified. The
reports also suggest the need for
proper coordination and data inte-
gration among different programs
to enhance efficiency and help
optimize use of scarce resources.
! :
I
I
I i i:
I -i
Christine, Grade 1, OH
-------
Chapter Eleven State and Tribal Recommendations 267
Amazon Slough Watershed
All summer long they come-
with or without dogs,
in loose, slow-moving bunches or alone,
hiking the steep, narrow path past the blackberries,
past the stream that is little more than a trickle now
in the hot depths of summer.
In the winter the stream swells-a vein, a pulsing artery of water
for deer that trip down from the forest's edge,
for raccoons that hide by daylight beneath our deck.
Chickadees, nuthatches, pine siskins
fly in and out of low brambly willows that line the banks.
The stream dips beneath the surface,
through pipes, culverts, under streets
and out again, into the wan winter sun,
a quarter of a mile away where it joins the slough,
brown floodwaters mingling.
Past ash and cottonwood,
in and out of cattails, willows,
past the place where each year
a family of ducks return
faithful to the stream,
and the huge blue heron is sometimes seen.
Moving toward the river,
where geese honk overhead,
and finally to its end
in the marshy reservoir,
the tiny stream which began
across our street
has traveled eighteen long miles
and now mingles with other waters,
glistening in the sun.
River of Words 1999 Grand Prize. Winner (Poetry, Grades 3-6)
Aaron Wells, Age 12, OR
-------
I •'!
I
I •:
p
m
m
-------
State and Territory
Summaries
This section provides individual
summaries of the water quality
assessment data reported by the
states and territories in their 1998
Section 305(b) reports. The sum-
maries provide a general overview
of water quality conditions and the
most frequently identified water
quality problems in each state and
territory. However, the use support
data contained in these summaries
are not comparable because the
states and territories do not use
comparable criteria and monitoring
strategies to measure their water
quality. States and territories with
strict criteria for defining healthy
waters are more likely to report that
a high percentage of their waters
are in poor condition. Similarly,
states with progressive monitoring
programs are more likely to identify
water quality problems .and to
report that a high percentage of
their waters do not fully support
designated uses. As a result, one
cannot assume that water quality is
worse in those states and territories
that report a high percentage of
impacted waters in the following
summaries.
Section 305(b) of the CWA
requires that the states biennially
assess their water quality for attain-
ment of the fishable and swimma-
ble goals of the Act arid report the
results to EPA. The states, participat-
ing tribes, and other jurisdictions
measure attainment of the CWA
goals by determining how well
their waters support their desig-
nated beneficial uses. EPA encour-
ages states, tribes, and other juris-
dictions to assess waterbodies for
support of the following individual
beneficial uses:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody
provides suitable habitat for protec-
tion and propagation of desirable
fish, shellfish, and other aquatic
organisms.
Fish Consumption
The waterbody
supports fish free
from contamination that could
pose a human health risk to
Shellfish
Harvesting
The waterbody
supports a population of shellfish
free from toxicants and pathogens
that could pose a human health risk
to consumers.
Primary Contact
Recreation — •
Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
waterborne diseases from raw
sewage contamination).
-------
270 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
.
!T!;4
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Color Maps in the State
and Territory Summaries
This National Water Quality
Inventory includes color maps dis-
playing use support for 35 states
that supplied their use support
assessments to EPA in an electronic
format, such as a database.
Depending on the type of data
submitted, EPA generated three
different types of color maps. Two
of them illustrate the aquatic life use
— Fully Supporting
— Threatened
—— Partially Supporting
— Not Supporting
Not Assessed
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
Figure 1. Color map showing the aquatic life
attainment status of each assessed waterbody.
support attainment status of specific
waterbodies. These could only be
prepared for the 15 states that
georeferenced* their assessment
findings to specific waterbodies. The
two types of maps reflect the level
of precision reported. One type
shows the attainment status of
assessed waterbodies (Figure 1).
The other type colors each assessed
waterbody based on the percent of
the waterbody that is fully support-
ing aquatic life use (Figure 2). In
most cases, these two types of maps
show all the assessment data for an
entire state. In the few instances
where a statewide map would be
difficult to read, only the assess-
ments from one or two basins are
shown.
The third type of map presents
assessment data that were georefer-
enced* to a watershed rather than
to a specific waterbody (Figure 3).
These maps color an entire water-
shed based on the percent of
assessed waters that are fully sup-
porting all uses. These maps present
the most generalized view of water
quality.
*Georeferencing describes the
process of locating a waterbody in
coordinates that can be used in a
geographic information system
(CIS).
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 271
HIGHL1G
Segment 80% -100% Fully Supporting
Segment 50% - 79% Fully Supporting
Segment 20% - 49% Fully Supporting
Segment 0% -19% Fully Supporting
^— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
Figure 2. Color map showing the percent of each
assessed waterbody fully supporting
aquatic life use support.
GHT HIGHLIGHT
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
KB 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
S3 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
am 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
^m 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
Insufficient Assessment Coverage
^— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
Figure 3. Color map showing the percent of the
assessed waterbodies in each watershed
fully supporting all uses.
-------
272 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Alabama
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlg!t Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Alabama 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Michael j. Rief
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
Water Quality Branch
P.O. Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
(334)271-7829
e-mail: mjr@adem.state.al.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at http://www.adem.state.
al.us/305bwebpg.html
Surface Water Quality
Since enactment of the Clean
Water Act of 1972, water quality
has substantially improved near
industrial and municipal facilities.
However, pollution still prevents
about 5% of the surveyed stream
miles from fully supporting state-
defined overall use. In addition,
19% of surveyed lake acres do not
fully support aquatic life use and
84% of surveyed estuarine square
miles do not fully support shellfish-
ing use. Oxygen-depleting wastes
and pathogens are the most com-
mon pollutants impacting rivers and
coastal waters. The leading sources
of river pollution include agriculture,
municipal wastewater treatment
plants, and urban runoff and storm
sewers. In coastal waters, the lead-
ing sources of pollution are urban
runoff and storm sewers, municipal
point sources, and collection system
failures.
Toxic priority organic chemicals
impact the most lake acres, usually .
in the form of a fish consumption
advisory. These pollutants may
accumulate in fish tissue at a
concentration that greatly exceeds
the concentration in the surround-
ing water. Unknown sources and
industrial dischargers are responsible
for the greatest acreage of impaired
lake waters.
Special state concerns include
impacts from forest clearcutting
and lack of streamside management
zones. Animal waste runoff is
another special concern that is
being dealt with through an opera-
tion registration rule.
Alabama did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
The Geological Survey of
Alabama monitoring well network
indicates relatively good ground
water quality. However, the number
of ground water contamination
incidents has increased significantly
in the past few years due to better
reporting under the Underground
Storage Tank Program and
increased public awareness of
ground water issues. Alabama has
established pesticide monitoring
and a Wellhead Protection Program
to identify nonpoint sources of
ground water contamination and
further protect public water
supplies.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 273
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Alabama's nonpoint source
management program initiated
a 5-year rotational watershed
management schedule approach
beginning in 1996. The approach
involves assessing and identifying
the causes and sources of nonpoint
source impacts, prioritizing impact-
ed watersheds, and providing
resources to protect or improve
water quality. The first river basin
assessments were conducted in
1996-1997 in the Lower Cahaba
and Black Warrior River basins.
Other priorities of the nonpoint
source program include demon-
strating best management practices
(BMPs); raising public awareness
through education, training, and
initiatives; and developing, priori-
tizing, and implementing nonpoint
source total daily maximum loads.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
During the 1980s, Alabama
implemented a multifaceted
approach to surface water quality
monitoring. This approach included
a fixed-station monitoring network,
reservoir monitoring, intensive
waterbody-specific studies, fish tis-
sue sampling, and compliance mon-
itoring of point source discharges. In
1996, the state proposed ASSESS, a
watershed-based strategy to inte-
grate surface water quality monitor-
ing with defined water quality
objectives and associated environ-
mental indicators. The objectives of
ASSESS include improving monitor-
ing coverage within river basins,
improving spatial detail of water
quality assessments, and increasing
total stream miles monitored over
the 5-year rotation period.
Summary of Use Support in Alabama
JRjyers and Streams
gJW^. Total Miles
Assessed
2,987
Percent
Good Good
(Fully (Threatened)
Supporting)
(Total Miles = 77,274)b
95
Impaired
(For One
or More Uses)
5
Individual Use Support in Alabama
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully Good (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting)
-------
274 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Alaska
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Alaska 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Drew Grant
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
Division of Air and Water Quality
410 Willoughby Street - Suite 105
Juneau,AK 99801-1795
(907) 465-5304
e-mail: dgrant@environ.state.ak.us
Surface Water Quality
The vast majority of Alaska's
watersheds, while not being moni-
tored, are presumed to be in rela-
tively pristine condition due to
Alaska's size, sparse population,
and general remoteness. However,
Alaska has localized water pollution.
Surface water quality has been
found to be impaired or threatened
from sources such as urban runoff
(Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau),
mining operations in the Interior
and Northwest Alaska, seafood
processing facilities in the Aleutian
Islands, and forest products facilities
in southeast Alaska.
Alaska did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is one of Alaska's
least understood natural resources.
It is the major source of fresh water
for public and private drinking
water supply systems, industry, and
agricultural development. Although
ground water is presumed to be of
excellent quality in most areas of
the state, specific areas of generally
good ground water quality have
been degraded by human activities.
Ground water impairment has been
documented in various areas of the
state and has been linked predomi-
nantly to aboveground and subsur-
face petroleum storage facilities, as
well as operational and abandoned
military installations. Other sources,
such as failed septic systems, also
contribute to ground water contam-
ination.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
has developed the Watershed Man-
agement Section, within the Divi-
sion of Air and Water Quality, to
implement the watershed protec-
tion approach that has been used
successfully in other states. The
purpose of this approach is to cost-
effectively improve the water quality
of Alaska's polluted waterbodies and
to protect its healthy watersheds in
cooperation with other agencies,
industry, interest groups, and the
public. The process to be used to
advance the watershed protection
approach in Alaska is outlined in the
document Watershed Partnerships in
Alaska.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 275
ADEC also supports numerous
additional water quality projects and
programs statewide, including: pol-
lution prevention, leaking under-?
ground storage tanks, contaminated
sites, industrial permitting, water-
body assessments and recovery
plans, water quality monitoring,
water quality technical services, and
public outreach and education from
statewide public service offices.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Alaska Watershed Moni-
toring and Assessment Project
(AWMAP) is a statewide water
quality monitoring project involving
local, state, and federal agencies;
industry; schools; the University of
Alaska; and other entities conduct-
ing water quality monitoring. A
recent AWMAP report identified
areas of the state (by USGS hydro-
logic unit) where water quality
monitoring is either absent or
insufficient to address the potential
pollution sources.
Other water quality monitoring
activities are conducted by ADEC,
other agencies, industry, and the
public. Applicant self-monitoring
of receiving waters is a common
permit requirement associated
with Alaska's major point source
dischargers. ADEC, in cooperation
with the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources (ADNR), has peri-
odically conducted water quality
monitoring related to placer mining.
Implementation of the State Ground
Water Quality Protection Strategy is
continuing, encouraging increased
ground water monitoring.
Summary of Use Support3 in Alaskab
Percent
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired
(For One
or More Uses)
Biyers and Streams (Total Miles = 365,ooo)
Total Miles
Assessed
Lakes (Total Acres = 12,787,200
99
100
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 33,257)
Total Square
Miles Assessed
237
Ocean Shoreline (Total Miles = 44,226)
Total Shoreline
Miles Assessed
100
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A summary of use support data is presented because Alaska did not report individual use
support in their 1998 Section 305(b) report.
bAlaska notes its assessments are biased toward those waters with known impairments.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
276 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
American Samoa
1 Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the American Samoa
1998 305(b) report, contact:
Carl Goldstein
USEPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-2170
e-mail: goldstein.carl@epa.gov
Surface Water Quality
The Territory of American
Samoa (AS) is located about 2,300
miles southwest of Hawaii and
consists of five islands with a total
of 116 miles of shoreline and
approximately 160 streams.
Although becoming more west-
ernized, American Samoa still retains
traditional Polynesian systems of
leadership, land tenure, and family
alliances. Due to cultural differences,
environmental policies are not
always effective.
Streams in American Samoa
serve as sources of potable water
and places for recreational and sub-
sistence fishing for many villages.
While there are no significant point
sources of pollutants, nonpoint
sources (stormwater runoff, erosion,
agricultural practices, road building,
careless solid waste disposal, and
individual sewer systems) contribute
to a reduction in stream quality. This
has resulted in a loss of aquatic habi-
tat as well as increased sedimenta-
tion, and turbidity. Monitoring data
for fecal coliform indicate that the
water quality of almost every stream
consistently exceeds the established
standards.
Coastal waters immediately
adjacent to villages show limited
water quality degradation, so the
protected uses for open coastal and
ocean waters appear to be met.
Two to five miles out from the
islands, American Samoa's tuna
canneries are permitted to dump
cannery sludge and other wastes. In
general, compliance with the Ocean
Dumping permit has been satisfac-
tory.
Because it is subjected to the
greatest amount of anthropogenic
or human-generated pollution, Pago
Pago Harbor has been identified as
an impaired waterbody due to ele-
vated levels of lead and tributlytin in
sediment and fish tissue. Also, large
oil spills occur several times a year.
To reduce the impacts of the spills,
the U.S. Coast Guard and AS EPA
worked together to develop an Oil
Spill Protocol and a 24-hour harbor
surveillance program.
American Samoa did not report
on the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
The majority of potable water
for the government water system
comes from ground water in the
Tafuna-Leone Plain on Tutuila. In a
1987 study, ground water contami-
nation was attributed to soil bacte-
ria, particulates, human and animal
wastes, poor well construction,
and the high permeability/low soil
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 277
filtration capacity. A 1989 study
found that total coliform bacteria
concentrations in well waters are
readily detectable after heavy rain-
fall; otherwise, all regulated con-
taminants are within EPA Safe
Drinking Water Standards.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Based on a 1988 assessment
report, the Nonpoint Source
Management Program was created
to encourage best management
practices. Completed projects
include soil stabilization demonstra-
tion projects, septic tank training,
waste oil collection, soil erosion
regulations, plan guidelines for
developers, watershed cleanup
projects, storm water planning,
and public education. In 1990, the
American Samoa Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program required
BMPs for sediment and erosion,
stormwater, and construction site
controls for all new development.
A Wetlands Management Plan
has initiated delineation and restora-
tion programs and the ASEPA has
begun riparian habitat restoration .
projects for 10 streams on Tutuila
Island.
Ground water restoration efforts
include sewer and sewage treatment
plant construction, public education,
and a water conservation program.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
A baseline water quality study
in 1979 led to the completion of the
first water monitoring strategy in
1984. Five rivers and 13 Pago Pago
Harbor sites are sampled for physical
and chemical parameters, and 15
streams and 21 beaches are tested
for biological contamination.
Individual Use Support in American Samoa
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
'and Streams (Total Miles = unknown)
Ocean Shoreline (Total Miles = 116}
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of American Samoa's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b)
report for a full description of the state's uses.
-------
278 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Arizona
— Fully Supporting
Threatened
—— Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
— Not Assessed
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Arizona 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Diana Marsh
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 207-4545
e-mail: marsh.diana@ev.state.az.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.adeq.state.
az. us/water/assess
Surface Water Quality
Good water quality fully sup-
ports aquatic life uses in 62% of
Arizona's assessed stream miles and
66% of its surveyed lake acres. This
means that 38% of its assessed
stream miles and over 33% of its
lake acres do not fully support
aquatic life uses. Turbidity, metals,
pathogens, and pH were the four
stressors most frequently identified
in streams. The leading stressors in
lakes were metals, pH, inorganics,
and turbidity. Natural sources,
agriculture, and resource extraction
were the three most common
sources of stressors in streams. In
lake assessments, flow regulation
is added as a primary source of
stressors.
Arizona did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Arizona monitors a network of
ambient water quality index wells
and compiles data from other moni-
toring programs, which are primar-
ily targeted in areas of known or
suspected contamination. Data
were reviewed in two watersheds
and five "active management areas"
(areas targeted as imperiled by over-
draft of ground water resources by
the Arizona Department of Natural
Resources).
Ground water contamination
varies significantly across the state.
Natural fluoride levels exceed stand-
ards and are a major drinking water
concern in several basins. In the
metropolitan areas, volatile and
semivolatile organic compound
(VOC and SOC) contamination
areas are being remediated by the
federal and state Superfund pro-
grams.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Arizona's nonpoint source con-
trol program integrates regulatory
controls with nonregulatory educa-
tion and demonstration projects.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 279
Regulatory programs include the
Aquifer Protection Permit Program,
the Pesticide Contamination Preven-
tion Program, and best manage-
ment requirements for controlling
nitrogen at concentrated animal
feeding operations. The state is also
developing best management prac-
tices for timber activities, grazing
activities, urban runoff, and sand
and gravel operations. Arizona's
point source control program
encompasses planning, facility
construction loans, permits,
pretreatment, inspections, permit
compliance, and enforcement.
Additionally, the state's Water
Protection Fund provides a source
of funding to restore rivers and
associated riparian habitats.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Federal and state agencies con-
tinue efforts to coordinate monitor-
ing, provide more consistent moni-
toring protocols, and provide mech-
anisms to share data, spurred by
tightened budgets. Monitoring
programs in Arizona include a fixed
station network, stream ecosystem
monitoring, priority pollutant moni-
toring, and monitoring to support
development of criteria. Biological
and physical integrity criteria are
being developed by the Arizona
Department of Environmental
Quality, which will recognize region-
al differences in biological communi-
ty structure and stream morphology.
Individual Use Support in Arizona
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Jtivers and Streams (Total Miles = 90,373)'?'c
Total Miles
Assessed
Lakes (Total Acres = 352,588)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Arizona's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes 2,531 miles of nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
cDoes not include waters on tribal lands, which total 37,130 stream miles and 65,128 lake
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
280 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Arkansas
— Fully Supporting
Waters of Concern
— Not Supporting
Not Assessed
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Arkansas 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Bill Keith
Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
(501)682-0660
e-mail: keith@adeq.state.ar.us
Surface Water Quality
The Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality reported that
69% of their surveyed rivers and
streams and 100% of their surveyed
lake acres have good water quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses.
Good water quality also fully sup-
ports swimming use in 93% of the
surveyed river miles and 100% of
the surveyed lake acres. Siltation and
turbidity are the most frequently
identified pollutants impairing
Arkansas' rivers and streams, fol-
lowed by bacteria, nutrients, and
metals. Agriculture is the leading
source of pollution in the state's
rivers and streams and has been
identified as a source of pollution in
four lakes. Municipal wastewater
treatment plants, mining, industrial
discharges, and construction also
impact rivers and streams. Arkansas
has limited data on the extent of
pollution in lakes.
Special state concerns include
the development of TMDLs and
more effective methods to identify
nonpoint source impacts. Arkansas
is also concerned about impacts
from the expansion of confined
animal production operations and
major sources of turbidity and silt
including road construction, road
maintenance, riparian land clearing,
streambed gravel removal, and
urban construction.
Arkansas did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Aquifer monitoring indicates
that ground water quality in Arkan-
sas is generally good. Secondary
maximum contaminant wells were
exceeded in a number of locations
for parameters such as pesticides,
iron, and manganese. Potential
sources of contamination include
disposal sites, underground storage
sites, agriculture, and mining opera-
tions.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 281
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Arkansas Nonpoint Source
Pollution Management Program is
currently being revised to include
all categories of NPS pollution. It
provides for continued monitoring
of water quality, research into the
effectiveness of BMPs, and imple-
mentation strategies for BMPs.
Beginning in 1997, a Priority Water
Program was developed to target
NPS-impacted watersheds for BMP
implementation. Ten watersheds
were selected for either more inten-
sive survey activities or BMP imple-
mentation activities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Arkansas classifies its water
resources by ecoregion with similar
physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics. There are six eco-
regions including the Delta, Gulf
Coastal, Ouchita Mountain, Arkan-
sas River Valley, Boston Mountain,
and Ozark Mountain Regions. By
classifying water resources in this
manner, Arkansas can identify the
most common land uses within
each region and address the issues
that threaten the water quality.
The state's ambient monitoring
network includes 133 stations moni-
tored monthly for several key water
quality parameters. Many of these
stations have been monitored for
15 to 20 years or longer. In addi-
tion, 103 additional stations sam-
pled quarterly were added in 1994
to assess previously unassessed
waters or waters that have not been
monitored in several years. The
data analyzed for this report were
collected from October 1995
through September 1997.
Individual Use Support in Arkansas
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
ivers and Streams (Total Miles = 87,6i7r
Total Miles
Assessed 69
6S (Total Acres = 514,245)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Arkansas' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report for
a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
282 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
California
I!
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
mm 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
•a 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
•n 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
mm 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
urn Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 8-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the California 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Nancy Richard
California State Water Resources
Control Board, M&A
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 944213
Sacramento, CA 94244-2130
(916)657-0642
e-mail: RICHN@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov
Surface Water Quality
Siltation, metals, nutrients,
bacteria, and pesticides impair the
most river miles in California. The
leading sources of degradation in
California's rivers and streams are
agriculture, forestry activities, urban
runoff and storm sewers, and
municipal point sources. In lakes,
siltation, metals, and nutrients are
the most common pollutants.
Hydrologic and habitat modifica-
tions, along with urban runoff/
storm sewers, construction, highway
maintenance and runoff, and
atmospheric deposition pose the
greatest threat to lake water quality.
Metals, pesticides, PCBs, and
priority organics are the most
frequently identified pollutants in
estuaries, harbors, and bays. Urban
runoff and storm sewers are the
leading source of pollution in
California's coastal waters, followed
by spills, agriculture, resource
extraction, and septage disposal.
Ground Water Quality
Salinity, total dissolved solids,
and chlorides are the most
frequently identified pollutants
impairing use of ground water in
California, followed by priority
organic chemicals, nutrients, non-
priority organic chemicals, and
pesticides. Leading sources are
septage disposal, agriculture, and
dairies. Potential sources of ground
water contamination include leaking
underground storage tanks, septage
disposal, agriculture, and industrial
point sources.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Through California's stormwater
permit program, two statewide
general permits have been adopted
addressing stormwater discharges
associated with industrial activities.
Dischargers are required to elimi-
nate most nonstormwater dis-
charges, develop a stormwater
pollution prevention plan to identify
and implement control measures
to minimize pollutants in storm-
water runoff, and monitor their
discharges.
The State Water Resources
Control Board and Regional Water
Quality Control Boards are imple-
menting a Watershed Management
Initiative to better coordinate and
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 283
focus limited public and private
resources to address both point
and nonpoint source water quality
problems especially in high-priority
targeted watersheds.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
California has developed a
number of programs to monitor
water quality in fresh, estuarine,
and marine waters of the state.
These include a Toxic Substances
Monitoring Program that focuses
on areas with known or suspected
impairment; the Toxicity Testing
Program for the identification of
high-risk areas as well as the spatial
and temporal extent of water qual-
ity problems and their causes and
sources; an underground storage
tank program to study the cleanup
of leaking tanks; and volunteer
monitoring.
Programs that focus on salt-
water monitoring include the Cali-
fornia State Mussel Watch Program
to detect toxic substances in bays,
harbors, and estuaries and the Bay
Protection and Toxic Cleanup Pro-
gram to identify toxic hot spots in
enclosed bays and estuaries. Cali-
fornia is also developing a compre-
hensive program for monitoring
and reducing pollution in Califor-
nia's coastal zone.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of California's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Includes bays and harbors.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due
to rounding.
Individual Use Support in California
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 211,513)"
Total Miles
Assessed
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 1,008)c
49
6Jt (Total Acres = 1,672,684)
67
Ifetlands (Total Acres = 275,812)
-------
284 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Colorado
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!git Hydrologtc Unit)
For a copy of the Colorado 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Sarah Johnson
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-3609
e-mail: sarah.johnson@state.co.us
Surface Water Quality
Colorado reports that 96% of its
surveyed river miles and 88% of its
surveyed lake acres have good water
quality that fully support aquatic life
uses. Metals are the most frequently
identified pollutant in rivers and
lakes. Mining and agriculture are
leading sources of pollution in both
rivers and lakes.
Colorado did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality in Colo-
rado ranges from excellent in
mountain areas where snow fall is
heavy, to poor in certain alluvial
aquifers of major rivers. Naturally
occurring soluble minerals along
with human activities are responsi-
ble for significant degradation of
some aquifers. Nitrates and salts
from agricultural activities have
contaminated many of Colorado's
shallow, unconfined aquifers. In
mining areas, acidic water and
metals contaminate aquifers. Colo-
rado protects ground water quality
with statewide numeric criteria for
organic chemicals, a narrative stand-
ard to maintain ambient conditions
or maximum contaminant levels
of inorganic chemicals and metals,
and specific use classifications and
standards for ground water areas.
Colorado also regulates discharges
to ground water from wastewater
treatment impoundments and land
application systems with a permit
system.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Colorado's Water Quality
Control Division recently reorga-
nized to streamline the Division and
to make it more responsive to major
new trends in water quality man-
agement. The cornerstone of the
new organization is the creation
of watershed coordinators and
watershed teams for the four major
watersheds in the state: Arkansas/
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 285
Rio Grande, Lower Colorado, Upper
Colorado, and South Platte. The
watershed coordinators make the
Division more responsive to local
communities and their concerns.
The watershed teams giv.e the
Division the ability to address key
issues using an integrated approach,
which will lead to more effective
solutions.
Other programs in Colorado
include the state's Water Pollution
Control Revolving Fund, nonpoint
source control program, and
permits programs.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1992, Colorado changed its
monitoring approach from a state-
wide network of routine sites and
special studies to basin-specific
monitoring of one major watershed
per year. During the 1996-1997
cycle, the Lower Colorado/Gunni-
son and Upper Colorado basins
were monitored. The basin monitor-
ing program has several long-term
objectives such as ensuring there is
an adequate database to study
changes over time, addressing
spatial and temporal variability in
water quality, evaluating the impact
of point and nonpoint sources on
water quality, determining lake
trophic status, and developing a
database for biological water quality
criteria. Colorado plans to devote
more resources to monitoring tar-
geted watersheds in the four basins
to support the development of
TMDLs.
Individual Use Support in Colorado
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
JSyers and Streams (Total Miles = 107.403)13
Total Miles
Assessed
29,363
18,952°
®S_(Tota[ Acres = 164,029)
Total Acres 88
Assessed
59,660
11
12,155
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Colorado's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
CAII of Colorado's rivers marked not attainable for swimming were not necessarily surveyed.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
286 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Connecticut
Segment 80% -100% Fully Supporting
Segment 50% - 79% Fully Supporting
— Segment 20% - 49% Fully Supporting
Segment 0% -19% Fully Supporting
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Connecticut 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Ernest Pizzuto
Bureau of Water Management, PERD
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(860)424-3715
e-mail: ernest.pizzuto@po.state.ct.us
Surface Water Quality
Connecticut has restored over
300 miles of large rivers since enact-
ment of Connecticut's State Clean
Water Act in 1967. Back in 1967,
about 663 river miles (or 74% of
the state's 893 miles of large rivers
and streams) were unfit for fishing
and swimming. In 1998, Connecti-
cut reported that 161 river miles
(17%) do not fully support aquatic
life uses and 220 miles (23%) do
not support swimming due to
stressors such as bacteria, PCBs,
metals, oxygen-demanding wastes,
ammonia, nutrients, toxics, and
habitat alteration. Sources of these
pollutants include urban runoff and
storm sewers, industrial dischargers,
municipal sewage treatment plants,
and in-place contaminants. Threats
to Connecticut's reservoir and lake
quality include atmospheric deposi-
tion, upstream impoundments, and
municipal sewage treatment plants.
Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen)
is a widespread problem in
Connecticut's estuarine waters in
Long Island Sound. Bacteria also
prevent shellfish harvesting and an
advisory restricts consumption of
bluefish and striped bass contami-
nated with PCBs. Connecticut's
estuarine waters are impacted by
municipal sewage treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows, indus-
trial discharges and runoff, failing
septic systems, urban runoff, recre-
ational activities, and atmospheric
deposition. Historic waste disposal
practices also contaminated sedi-
ments in Connecticut's harbors and
bays.
Connecticut did not report on
the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
The state and U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) have identified about
1,600 contaminated public and
private wells since the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Pro-
tection (DEP) began keeping
records in 1980. Connecticut's
Wellhead Protection Program incor-
porates water supply planning, dis-
charge permitting, water diversion,
site remediation, prohibited activi-
ties, and numerous nonpoint source
controls.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 287
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Ensuring that all citizens can
share in the benefits of clean water
will require continued permit
enforcement, additional advanced
wastewater treatment, combined
sewer separation, continued aquatic
toxicity control, and resolution of
nonpoint source issues. To date,
14 sewage treatment facilities have
installed advanced treatment to
remove nutrients. Nonpoint source
management includes education
projects and a permitting program
for land application of sewage,
agricultural sources, and solid waste
management facilities.
Wetlands are protected by
the state's Clean Water Act and
Standards of Water Quality. Each
municipality has an Inland Wetlands
Agency that regulates filling and
establishes regulated buffer areas
with DEP training and oversight.
Connecticut's courts have strongly
upheld enforcement of the wetlands
acts and supported regulation of
buffer areas to protect wetlands.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Connecticut samples physical
and chemical parameters at 27 fixed
stream sites and biological param-
eters at 47 stream sites. Other
activities include intensive biological
surveys, toxicity testing, and fish
and shellfish tissue sampling for
accumulation of toxic chemicals.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Connecticut's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Connecticut
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
giyers and Streams (Total Miles = 5,830)b
Total Miles
<1
Assessed 54
Lakes (Total Acres =64,973)
Total Acres 38
Assessed
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 612)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
288 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Delaware
Fully Supporting
—— Threatened
— Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
— Not Assessed
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Delaware 1998
305(b) report, contact-
Brad Smith
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
Division of Water Resources
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 739-4590
e-mail: bsmith@dnrec.state.de.us
Surface Water Quality
Delaware's rivers and streams
generally meet standards for aquatic
life uses, but 98% of the assessed
stream miles and 80% of the sur-
veyed lake acres do not meet bacte-
ria criteria for swimming. Bacteria
are the most widespread contami-
nant in Delaware's surface waters,
but nutrients and toxics pose the
most serious threats to aquatic life
and human health. Excessive nutri-
ents stimulate algal blooms and
growth of aquatic weeds. Toxics
resulted in 14 fish consumption
restrictions in three basins, including
Red Clay Creek, Red Lion Creek, the
St. Jones River, and the Delaware
Estuary. Agricultural runoff, urban
runoff, municipal sewage treatment
plants, and industrial dischargers are
the primary sources of nutrients and
toxics in Delaware's surface waters.
Delaware did not report on the
condition of wetlands.,
Ground Water Quality
High-quality ground water
provides two-thirds of Delaware's
domestic water supply. However,
nitrates, synthetic organic chemi-
cals, saltwater, and iron contaminate
isolated wells in some areas. In the
agricultural areas of Kent and Sussex
counties, nitrates in ground water
are a potential health concern and
a potential source of nutrient
contamination in surface waters.
Synthetic organic chemicals have
entered some ground waters from
leaking industrial underground
storage tanks, landfills, abandoned
hazardous waste sites, chemical
spills and leaks, septic systems, and
agricultural activities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Con-
trol (DNREC) adopted a watershed
approach to determine the most
effective and efficient methods for
protecting water quality or abating
existing problems. Under the
watershed approach, DNREC will
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 289
evaluate all sources of pollution that
may impact a waterway and target
the most significant sources for
management. DNREC has targeted
five basins for development of inte-
grated pollution control strategies:
Appoquinimink River, Christina
River, Indian River Bay/Rehoboth
Bay/Little Assawomen Bay, Murder-
kill River, and Nanticoke River.
Delaware's Wellhead Protection
Program establishes cooperative
arrangements with local govern-
ments to manage sources of ground
water contamination. The state may
assist local governments in enacting
zoning ordinances, site plan reviews,
operating standards, source prohibi-
tions,, public education, and ground
water monitoring.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Delaware's Ambient Surface
Water Quality Program includes
fixed-station monitoring and biolog-
ical surveys employing rapid bio-
assessment protocols. Monitoring
within the Fixed Station Network is
conducted monthly to quarterly for
each basin in Delaware. Delaware is
developing and testing new proto-
cols for sampling biological data in
order to determine whether specific
biological criteria can be developed
to determine support of designated
uses.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Delaware's designated uses
appear in th'is figure. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
bincludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Does not include waters under jurisdiction
of the Delaware River Basin Commission.
Individual Use Support in Delaware
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
givers and Streams (Total Miles = 2,509)b
Total Miles
Assessed
63
Lakes (Total Acres = 2,954)
JEstuaries (Total Square Miles = 812)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
290 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
District of Columbia
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
ma 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
BBB 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
mm 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
mm 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
mra Insufficient Assessment Coverage
—« Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the District of
Columbia 1998 305(b) report,
contact:
James Collier
Environmental Health
Administration
Water Quality Division
Suite 200
2100 Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20020
(202) 645-6601
Surface Water Quality
Water quality in the District of
Columbia continues to be impaired.
Each of the waterbodies monitored
was impaired for one or more of its
designated uses. The uses that relate
directly to human use of the water-
bodies were generally not sup-
ported, while those uses that
directly affected the quality of
habitat for aquatic life were at least
partially supported. For example,
the Anacostia River remains aestheti-
cally and chemically polluted. How-
ever, the pollution is at a level that
supports fish and other wildlife.
Submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) is found in the Anacostia and
Potomac Rivers, with the Potomac
supporting a diverse groups of SAV
species. The Potomac River contin-
ues to benefit from improvements
at the city's wastewater treatment
plant and combined sewer overflow
system improvements.
Major causes of impairment
common to the District's water-
bodies are organic enrichment and
pathogens. The sources of impair-
" ment with major impacts are
combined sewer overflows, urban
runoff/storm sewers, and municipal
point sources. These sources are
associated with the land uses
common in an urban area.
The District of Columbia did
not report on the condition of
wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
The drinking water source for
the District of Columbia is surface
water. The intake is located in the
Potomac River north of the city's
boundary. Consequently, ground
water is not monitored on a regular,
intensive basis. However, compli-
ance monitoring data are scruti-
nized for ground water related
information whenever it is available.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 291
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The District's water quality
programs are involved in the
process of identifying and evaluat-
ing CSO control methods; the initia-
tion of the TMDL process; the iden-
tification and support of projects
to control stormwater runoff; and
cleanups of trash and debris. Efforts
to restore the ground water quality
include underground storage tanks,
pesticide certification, and enforce-
ment programs.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The District performs monthly
physical and chemical sampling at
56 fixed stations on the Potomac.
and Anacostia rivers and their tribu-
taries. At each water chemistry
station, four samples a year are
collected for heavy metals analysis.
Biological monitoring is also imple-
mented in the District's tributaries.
Twenty-seven sites are sampled
at least once every 2 years for
biological, fish, morphological,
and water quality parameters.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of District of Columbia's desig-
nated uses appear in this figure. Refer to
the District's 305(b) report for a full
description of the District's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in the District of Columbia
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Jgivers and Streams {Total wiles = 39)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 238)
(Total
Miles = 6)
Total Square
Miles Assessed
100
100
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
292 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Florida
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
mm 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
•ten 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
mm 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
mm 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
ma Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Florida 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Joe Hand
Florida Department of Environ-
mental Protection
Mail Station 3565
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(850)921-9441
e-mail: joe.hand@dep.state.fl.us
Surface Water Quality
The overall majority of Florida's
surface waters are of good quality, but
problems exist around densely popu-
lated urban areas, primarily in central
and southern Florida. In rivers, nutri-
ent enrichment, low dissolved oxy-
gen/organic enrichment, siltation, and
pathogens are the leading causes of
degraded water quality. In lakes, the
leading problems result from nutrients
and algae. In estuaries, nutrient
enrichment, metals, and algae
degrade quality. Urban stormwater,
agricultural runoff, industrial and
municipal point sources, and construc-
tion are the major sources of water
pollution in Florida.
The state recognizes the integrity
of the following ecosystems as special
state concerns: Everglades system,
Florida Bay, Florida Keys, and Apala-
chicola River and Bay. Other issues of
special concern are widespread mer-
cury contamination in both marine
and freshwater fish, protection of
coastal areas and estuaries because of
their ecological importance and signif-
icant contribution to Florida's econo-
my, and integration of water quantity
and quality decisions.
Ground Water Quality
Data from over 2,900 monitoring
wells and 1,300 private water supply
wells in Florida's ambient monitoring
network indicate generally good water
quality, but local ground water conta-
mination problems exist. Agricultural
chemicals, including aldicarb, alachlor,
bromacil, simazine, and ethylene
dibromide (EDB) have caused local
and, in the case of EDB, regional
problems. Other threats include petro-
leum products from leaking under-
ground storage tanks, nitrates from
dairy and other livestock operations,
fertilizers and pesticides in stormwater
runoff, toxic chemicals in leachate
from hazardous waste sites, dry clean-
er operations, and landfills. The state
requires periodic testing of all commu-
nity water systems for 118 toxic
organic chemicals.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Florida's point source permitting
process was modified in 1995 with
the delegation of the National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program to Florida, but does
not include stormwater permitting.
The state wastewater program issues
permits for facilities that discharge to
either surface or ground water. The
state permit for surface water dis-
chargers now serves as the NPDES
permit. Florida permits about 4,794
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 293
ground water and surface water dis-
charge facilities. The state also encour-
ages reuse of treated wastewater
(primarily for irrigation) and the use
of constructed and natural wetlands
for treatment of wastewater as alter-
natives to direct discharge.
Florida has established several
programs focused on the restoration
or preservation of state waters. The
1987 Surface Water Improvement and
Management Act requires manage-
ment and restoration plans for pre-
serving or restoring priority waterbod-
ies and setting of Pollutant Load
Reduction Goals (PLRGs) for those
waterbodies. The 1999 Florida Legis-
lature enacted the Florida Watershed
Restoration Act to provide a process
for restoring waters through the
establishment and implementation
of TMDLs for pollutants of impaired
waters. The state has also purchased
environmentally sensitive lands for
protection since 1963.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Florida's Surface Water Ambient
Monitoring Program was integrated
with the Ground Water Ambient
Monitoring Program in 1996, while
SWAMP's biocriteria and bioassess-
ment work was moved to a separate
section. Florida has adopted a tiered
Integrated Water Resources Monitor-
ing Network, which includes sampling
.of both surface and ground waters, to
assess state waters. Tier 1 answers
questions on a statewide or regional
scale. Tier II addresses basin-specific or
waterbody-specific questions. Tier III
includes monitoring associated with
regulatory permits and evaluations of
TMDLs and BMPs.
Florida js developing assessment
methods and criteria for wetlands.
aA subset of Florida's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Florida
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
JRivers and Streams (Total Miles = 51,858)
b
37
akesTftotal Acres = 2,085,120)
uaries (Total Square Miles = 4,298)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
r
294 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Georgia
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Georgia 1998
305(b) report, contact:
W.M. Winn, III
Georgia Environmental Protection
Division
Watershed Planning and Monitoring
Program
4220 International Parkway -
Suite 101
Atlanta, GA 30354
(404) 675-6236
Surface Water Quality
The Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GAEPD)
reported that, of the river miles
assessed, 55% fully support aquatic
life use, 30% partially support this
use, and 16% do not support
aquatic life use. Major causes of
impairment for rivers include metals,
pathogens, and low dissolved oxy-
gen levels. For lakes, 73% of the
assessed acres fully support aquatic
life use, 25% partially support
the use, and 2% do not support
aquatic life use. The major causes
of impairment for lakes are metals,
acidity, and pathogens. For both
rivers and lakes, the major sources
of impairment include urban runoff
and storm sewers, industrial non-
point sources, and other nonpoint
sources.
Of Georgia's estuarine waters,
88% of the assessed square miles
fully support aquatic life use, 12%
partially support the use, and less
than 1 % do not support aquatic
life use. Fifty-four percent of the
assessed shellfishing area fully sup-
ports shellfishing use while 46%
does not support this use. Patho-
gens and low dissolved oxygen
levels were the major causes of
impairment. Urban runoff and
storm sewers, along with other non-
point sources, are the major sources
of impairment to Georgia's estuarine
waters.
Georgia did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Georgia's ambient Ground
Water Monitoring Network consists
of approximately 185 wells sampled
periodically. To date, increasing
nitrate concentrations in the Coastal
Plain are the only adverse trend
detected by the monitoring net-
work, but nitrate concentrations are
still well below harmful levels in
most wells. Additional nitrate sam-
pling in over 5,000 wells since 1991
revealed that nitrate concentrations
exceeded EPA's maximum contami-
nant level in less than 1 % of the
tested wells. Pesticide monitoring
indicates that pesticides do not
threaten Georgia's drinking water
aquifers at this time.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
During the 1996-1997 report-
ing cycle, river basin management
planning was a priority for the
GAEPD. The state completed work
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 295
on the final draft basin plans for the
Chattahoochee'and Flint Rivers in
1997, and the plans were adopted
in 1998. GAEPD is also working
with EPA on a Savannah River
Watershed Project and with the
Florida Department of Environmen-
tal Protection and the Suwannee
River Water Management District in
Florida to implement basin planning
for the Suwannee River basin.
In addition to basin planning,
the state also placed emphasis dur-
ing 1996-1997 on NPDES permit-
ting and enforcement, nonpoint
source pollution abatement, moni-
toring and assessment, Chattahoo-
chee River modeling, fish consump-
tion guidance, stormwater permit-
ting, treatment plant funding, and
public participation projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The GAEPD conducts long-term
ambient trend monitoring through
a fixed station network, toxicity
studies, intensive surveys, fish tissue
monitoring, lake water quality stud-
ies, facility compliance sampling,
aquatic toxicity testing at NPDES
discharges. In the assessment
process, GAEPD also draws upon
biotic data from the state's Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (DNR).
The DNR uses the Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI) to identify impacted
fish populations.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Georgia's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Georgia
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Streams (Total Miles = 70,1 so)b
Total Miles
Assessed 55
Cakes (Total Acres = 425,382)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 854)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
296 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Guam
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dig!t Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Guam 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Mike Gawel
Guam Environmental Protection
Agency
Planning and Environmental Review
Division
P.O. Box 22439 GMF
Barrigada, GU 96921
(671)475-1662
Surface Water Quality
Guam is free from pollution
of neighboring land masses due to
its remote location adjacent to the
' deepest ocean depths. Its shores are
washed by tropical ocean currents,
and air is freshened by unpolluted
trade winds. Therefore, water pollu-
tion on Guam is locally generated
and quickly dissipated into the vast
Western Pacific Ocean. Guam's
single lake has been a continuous
safe source of drinking water to the
U.S. Navy and some of the public.
Coastal recreation waters tested
weekly at 35 beach sites in 1997
showed violation of bacterial
samples in 187 out of 1,647 sam-
ples. Since 1991, only one Guam
beach has been closed to the public
because of toxicity of algae con-
sumed from that site. Main sources
of pollution problems are siltation,
sedimentation, and turbidity due
to stormwater-caused erosion and
treated sewage discharges, all of
which impact valuable coral reefs.
Guam did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
The Northern Guam Lens is an
aquifer under the northern half of
the island fed by rainwater that has
percolated through porous lime-
stone and floats on top of denser
seawater. It was designated a princi-
pal source aquifer by EPA in 1978
and is the major source of water for
the over 150,000 inhabitants and
over 1 million annual visitors to
Guam. Guam Waterworks Authority
pumps approximately 27 million
gallons per day of this high-quality
ground water for public supply in
addition to smaller levels produced
privately and by the U.S. Navy and
Air Force. From 1995 to 1997, 5 of
the over 125 production wells were
closed because of contamination by
TCE, PCE, and EDB. A few wells
have shown chloride increases in
recent years.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Guam Environmental
Protection Agency (GEPS) regularly
revises the Guam Water Quality
Standards. It administers permits for
sewer connections, individual waste
water systems, clearing and grading
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 297
(for erosion control), well drilling,
wetland use, 401 Water Quality
Certification, and feedlot waste
management, while supporting
NPDES permit administration and
coordinating with others in applying
the Federal Consistency, land use,
and seashore use permits. GEPA
policies require each development
to'contain 20-year stormwaters
within its lot, for nonpoint control
and recharge of ground waters,
and to limit density of unsewered
dwellings. Guam's new Land Use
Plan applies performance standards
to protect water quality. Filtration
systems have been installed for
removal of the contaminants found
at four production wells, while
investigations continue on the
sources of contamination.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
GEPA's Surface Water Monitor-
ing System, in place over 20 years,
was redesigned with emphasis on
watershed management in 1997.
It assesses quality of high public use
waters including 52% of all rivers
and representative reef, estuary, and
marine waters as well as all major
public beach areas. Updated micro-
biological methods were established
in 1996 and a marine biological
monitoring program is being pur-
sued to correlate with physical and
chemical monitoring. The GEPA
laboratory increased capabilities to
test water in 1997 and will institute
electronic reporting for the 305(b)
Program in 1999. The Guam Hydro-
logic Survey, which produces and
manages water data, was estab-
lished by law in 1998.
Individual Use Support in Guam
Designated Use"
Good Good Fair Poor Not
-------
298 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Hawaii
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
mm 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
ma 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
mm 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
ma 0% - 19% Meeting All Uses
•n Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Hawaii 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Eugene Akazawa, Monitoring
Supervisor
Hawaii Department of Health
Clean Water Branch
919 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 301
Honolulu, HI 96814
(808) 586-4309
Surface Water Quality
Most of Hawaii's waterbodies
have variable water quality due to
stormwater runoff. During dry
weather, most streams and estuaries
have good water quality that fully
supports beneficial uses, but the
quality declines when stormwater
runoff carries pollutants into surface
waters. The most significant pollu-
tion problems in Hawaii are siltation,
turbidity, nutrients, organic enrich-
ment, toxics, pathogens, and pH
from nonpoint sources, including
agriculture and urban runoff.
Introduced species and stream alter-
ation are other stressors of concern.
Very few point sources discharge
into Hawaii's streams; most indus-
trial facilities and wastewater treat-
ment plants discharge into coastal
waters. Other concerns include ele-
vated levels of arsenic from a now-
closed canoe plant and the spread,
through recreational contact, of
leptospirosis, a disease caused by a
pathogenic bacteria.
Hawaii did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Compared to mainland states,
Hawaii has very few ground water
problems due to a long history of
land use controls for ground water
protection. Prior to 1961, the state
designated watershed reserves to
protect the purity of rainfall recharg-
ing ground water. The Under-
ground Injection Control Program
also prohibits wastewater injection
in areas surrounded by "no-pass"
lines. However, aquifers outside of
reserves and no-pass lines may be
impacted by injection wells, house-
hold wastewater disposal systems,
such as seepage pits and cesspools,
landfills, leaking underground
storage tanks, and agricultural activ-
ities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Recognition of nonpoint source
pollution as the major cause of
surface water impairment in Hawaii
has led to the creation of the
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 299
Polluted Runoff Control (PRC)
Program. The PRC administers the
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program, which has oversight for
nonpoint source implementation
projects. In addition, the program
with the largest impact on nonpoint
source pollution is the stormwater
program. This is a permitting pro-
gram administered by the Clean
Water Branch of the Department of
Health for entities that discharge
significant quantities of stormwater.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Hawaii's monitoring program,
which is based on a network of
routine monitoring stations, has
continued to suffer setbacks due to
budgetary restraints over the past
several years. Toxics and biota
sampling were completely curtailed
and routine monitoring has been
reduced significantly. The Depart-
ment of Health (DOH) is investigat-
ing the use of Clostrida Pererfringens
as an indicator of sewage contami-
nation, and some new laboratory
equipment has been purchased.
Other than these two develop-
ments, DOH has not initiated any
new monitoring or assessment pro-
grams or made significant innova-
tions to the existing ones. Unfortu-
nately, further budgetary cuts are
expected in the future.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Hawaii's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b)
report for a full description of the state's
uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Hawaii
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially ' (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
||ivers,and Streams (Total Miles = 3,905)b
60
Lakes (Total Acres =2,168)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 55)
Total Square 100
Miles Assessed
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
300 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Idaho
1 Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Idaho 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Michael Mclntyre
Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Statehouse Mall
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 373-0502
e-mail: mmintyr@deq.state.id.us
Surface Water Quality
Idaho reports that 33% of river
and stream miles fully support uses,
while 67% are impaired for one or
more uses. Based on the state's pro-
posed Section 303(d) list, the major
causes of impairment in Idaho's
rivers and streams include siltation,
nutrients, thermal modifications,
bacteria, habitat alterations, and
oxygen-depleting substances. The
state has not yet determined the
sources of impairment to rivers and
streams.
Information on lake use support
was not included in Idaho's 1998
305(b) report because the state is
currently developing a lake and
reservoir beneficial use assessment
process. Based on the state's pro-
posed Section 303(d) list, the major
causes of impairment in Idaho's
lakes and reservoirs include oxygen-
depleting substances, nutrients,
acidity, toxic chemicals, mercury,
and flow alterations.
Idaho did not report on the
condition of wetlands.'
Ground Water Quality
More than 90% of Idaho's resi-
dents use ground water as their
domestic water supply. The major
sources of ground water contamina-
tion in Idaho are agricultural activi-
ties, waste storage and disposal,
mining, and hazardous material
transportation.
Ground water quality data in
Idaho come primarily from the
Statewide Ambient Ground Water
Quality Monitoring Network and
the Public Water Systems. On a
statewide basis, the ground water
contaminants of greatest concern
are nitrates, pesticides, and volatile
organic compounds.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
EPA has primary responsibility
for issuing NPDES permits in Idaho.
The Idaho Division of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) is concerned that EPA
does not have the staff to issue new
permits or revise and reissue old
permits. Major discharges are
inspected annually but minor dis-
charges do not receive this atten-
tion.
The nonpoint source program
in Idaho is administered on a water-
shed basis and includes provisions
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 301
for public education and technical
protocol development. Project
emphasis is placed on management
effectiveness, beneficial use monitor-
ing, public awareness, antidegrada-
tion, and endangered species issues.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Monitoring activities in Idaho
have focused on beneficial uses and
ambient water quality trends. Data
from DEQ's monitoring are used to
document the existence of uses, -the
degree of use support, and refer-
ence conditions. This monitoring is
made up of primarily the collection
of biological and physical data. The
ambient trend monitoring network
is designed to document water
quality trends at the river basin and
watershed scales through the collec-
tion of mainly water column con-
stituent data. Biological parameters
are being added to this network as
well. Fifty-six monitoring stations are
currently sampled on a rotating
basis to provide data for water
quality trend assessment.
Summary of Use Support3 in Idaho
Percent
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired
(For One
or More Uses)
iRfvers and Streams (Total Miles = iis,595)b
[Lakes (Total Acres = 700,000)
*«===*
Total Acres
Assessed
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA summary of use support data is presented because Idaho did not report individual use
support in their 1998 Section 305(b) report.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
302 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Illinois
— Fully Supporting
•— Threatened
Partially Supporting
— Not Supporting
Not Assessed
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This mop depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Illinois 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Mike Branham
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-3362
e-mail: epal 110@epa.state.il.us
For more information, visit IEPA on
the Internet at: http://www.epa.state.
il.us/water/water-quality
Surface Water Quality
The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA) reported
that over 55% of assessed stream
miles fully support aquatic life use,
which the state considers the single
best indicator of overall stream con-
ditions. The major causes of impair-
ment in Illinois' rivers include nutri-
ents, siltation, habitat/flow altera-
tion, organic enrichment/dissolved
oxygen depletion, metals, and
suspended solids. Major sources
include agriculture, point sources,
hydrological/habitat modification,
urban runoff, and resource extrac-
tion.
Fifty-two percent of Illinois'
inland lake acres fully support
aquatic life uses, while another 46%
partially support this use, and 3%
do not support aquatic life use.
The major causes of impairment
to Illinois' inland lakes include nutri-
ents, siltation, suspended solids,
and organic enrichment/dissolved
oxygen depletion. Major sources
include agriculture, contaminated
sediments (in-place contaminants
such as sediment, or phosphorus
attached to particles), and hydro-
logical/habitat modification.
Water quality continues to
improve in the Illinois portion of
Lake Michigan. Trophic status has
improved from mesotrophic/eutro-
phic conditions in the 1970s to olig-
otrophic conditions today.
Illinois did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality is gener-
ally good, but past and present
activities contaminate ground water
in isolated areas. Major sources
. of ground water contamination
include agricultural chemical opera-
tions, fertilizer and pesticide applica-
tions, above- and belowground
storage tanks, septic systems, manu-
facturing/repair shops, surface
impoundments, and wastepiles.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The IEPA recently directed pro-
gram resources toward a watershed-
based framework to effectively pro-
tect and restore natural resources.
This comprehensive approach will
focus on the total spectrum of water
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 303
resource issues, emphasizing
involvement of citizens and the
regulated community. The IEPA has
restructured its-program activities
using a priority watershed manage-
ment approach.
Illinois established a Great Lakes
Program Office in FY93 to oversee
all Lake Michigan programs on a
multimedia basis. Activities include
promotion of pollution prevention
for all sources of toxics in all media
(such as air and water).
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The IEPA has maintained a com-
prehensive surface water monitoring
and assessment program since its
inception in 1970. Monitoring activ-
ities focus on water and sediment
chemistry as well as on physiological
and biological data (e.g., aquatic
invertebrates, fisheries, and habitat).
Data from more than 4,000 stations
have been used in the assessment
of surface water quality .conditions.
In addition, over 600 volunteers
participate in citizen monitoring
of over 300 lakes as part of lEPA's
Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program,
which has been incorporated into
the state's water quality assess-
ments.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Illinois' designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b)
report for a full description of the state's
uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Illinois
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Bivers and Streams (Total Miles = 87,iio)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 309,340)
Great Lakes (Total Shore Miles = 63)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
304 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Indiana
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting Aquatic Life Uses
mm 80% - 100% Meeting All Uses
•a 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
mm 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
mm 0% - 19% Meeting All Uses
•cat Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Indiana 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Linda Schmidt
Indiana Department of Environ-
mental Management
Office of Water Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317) 233-8905
e-mail: lschmidt@dem.state.in.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.state.in.us/
idem/owm/index.html
Surface Water Quality
All of the surveyed lake acres
and 79% of the surveyed river miles
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life. However, 21 %
of the surveyed river miles do not
support swimming due to high
bacteria concentrations. A fish
consumption advisory impairs all of
Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline.
The pollutants most frequently
identified in Indiana waters include
PCBs, bacteria, priority organic
compounds, oxygen-depleting
wastes, pesticides, and metals. The
sources of these pollutants include
combined sewer overflows, resource
extraction, and land disposal. Many
sources are unknown.
Indiana identified elevated con-
centrations of toxic substances in
about 5% of the river miles moni-
tored for toxics. High concentra-
tions of PCBs and mercury were
most common in sediment samples
and in fish tissue samples.
Ground Water Quality
Indiana has a plentiful ground
water resource serving nearly 70%
of its population for drinking water
and filling many of the water needs
of business, industry, and agricul-
ture. The major sources of ground
water contamination in Indiana are
commercial fertilizer application,
confined animal feeding operations,
underground storage tanks, surface
impoundments, landfills constructed
prior to 1989, septic systems, shal-
low injection wells, industrial facili-
ties, materials spills, and salt storage
and road salting. Contaminants
from these sources include nitrate,
salts, pesticides, petroleum com-
pounds, metals, radionuclides, and
bacteria. Ground water protection
programs are being implemented
through the efforts of five state
agencies.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In February 1997, the Indiana
Water Pollution Control Board
adopted revised water quality
standards for those waters in the
Great Lakes Basin. Water quality
standards, including proposed sedi-
ment and wetland narrative criteria,
for the area outside the Great Lakes
Basin are currently under develop-
ment. Macroinvertebrate and
fish community data are being
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 305
evaluated for the purpose of devel-
oping biocriteria.
Point sources are regulated
primarily through the NPDES
program in Indiana. The state has
a goal of processing over 400
administratively extended permits
by June 1999. Nonpoint sources
are addressed through watershed
management and planning projects.
In 1996 and 1997, federal funds
totaling $4,450,000 were used to
support nonpoint source control
projects in Indiana.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
A new surface water monitor-
ing strategy for Indiana was imple-
mented in 1996 with the goal of
monitoring all waters of the states
by 2001 and reporting the assess-
ments by 2003. Each year approxi-
mately 20% of the waterbodies
in the state will be assessed and
reported the following year. Assess-
ment in 1997 and reporting in
1998 focused on the White River,
West Fork, and Patoka River basins.
Elements of Indiana's sampling pro-
gram include: fixed station monitor-
ing, TMDL development, trace
metals monitoring, pesticide water
column monitoring, bacteriological
sampling, and targeted fish tissue
and surficial aquatic sediment sites.
The program also includes a num-
ber of sites selected by probabilistic
design and sampled for fish com-
munity biotic integrity, benthic
aquatic macroinvertebrate commu-
nity biotic integrity, fish tissue
contaminants, surficial aquatic
sediment contaminants, and water
column chemistry.
Indiana is developing biological
assessment methods and criteria for
wetlands.
Individual Use Support in Indiana
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Bjyers and Streams (Total Miles = 35t673)b
Total Miles
73
6S (Total Acres = 142,871)
jSteat Lakes (Total Shore Miles = 43)
aA subset of Indiana's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
306 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Iowa
— Fully Supporting
— Threatened
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
— Not Assessed
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Iowa 1998 305(b)
report, contact:
John Olson
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Water Resources Section
502 East 9th Street
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515)281-8905
e-mail: john.Olson@dnr.state.ia.us
Surface Water Quality
There is impaired aquatic life
use in 19% of Iowa's assessed rivers
and 35% of assessed lakes. Swim-
ming use is impaired in 54% of 913
surveyed river miles and 26% of
assessed lakes, ponds and reservoirs.
Saylorville, Red Rock, Coralville, and
Rathbun reservoirs have good water
quality that fully supports all desig-
nated uses. However, siltation
threatens beneficial uses at all reser-
voirs, and agricultural pesticides
threaten drinking water uses at
Rathbun. Point sources still pollute
about 5% of the assessed stream
miles and two lakes.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies about
80% of Iowa's drinking water.
Agricultural chemicals, underground
storage tanks, agricultural drainage
wells, livestock wastes, and improp-
er management of hazardous
substances all contribute to ground
water contamination. Several studies
have detected low levels of com-
mon agricultural pesticides and
synthetic organic compounds in
both untreated and treated ground
water. In most cases, the small con-
centrations are thought to pose no
immediate threat to public health,
but little is known about the health
effects of long-term exposure to low
concentrations of these chemicals.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Pollution from municipal and
industrial point sources is controlled
primarily through the Clean Water
Act's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System through permits,
development and enforcement of
water quality standards, and legal
action. The program also includes
control of stormwater runoff from
urban and industrial areas.
Sediment is the greatest pollut-
ant, by volume, in Iowa. The state
adopted a nonpoint control strategy
of education projects and cost-share
programs. Later, it. adopted rules
requiring that land disposal of
animal wastes not contaminate
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 307
surface and ground waters. Landfill
rules require annual inspections and
permit renewals every 3 years. Iowa
regulates construction in floodplains
to limit erosion and impacts on
aquatic life. In 1990, a Nonpoint
Source Program was developed
whereby state and federal agencies
cooperate to implement water qual-
ity projects, including education,
demonstrations, and implementa-
tion of best management practices.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Iowa's Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) either maintains or
cooperates in long-term sampling
networks for both surface and
ground waters. DNR routinely
monitors metals, ammonia, and
residual chlorine at fixed sampling
sites. Limited sampling for agricul-
tural pesticides began in 1995.
Information about toxic con-
taminants in fish is from long-term
DNR/EPA and other monitoring
programs. Toxins in sediment are
monitored as part of a USGS study.
The role of biological sampling is
growing, with over 100 reference
sites sampled so far. The develop-
ment of volunteer monitoring pro-
grams will provide an additional
source of water quality information.
aA subset of Iowa's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b)
report for a full description of the state's
uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Excludes flood control reservoirs.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due
to rounding.
Individual Use Support in Iowa
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 7i,665)b
Total Miles
Assessed
70
19
6S (Total Acres = 161,336)
jFJgod Control Reservoirs (Total Acres = 31,700)
-------
308 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Kansas
Fully Supporting
— Threatened
—• Partially Supporting
— Not Supporting
Not Assessed
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlg!t Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Kansas 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Eva Hays
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Bureau of Environmental Field
Services
Forbes Field, Building 283
Topeka, KS 66620
(913)296-1981
e-mail: ehays@kdhe.state.ks.us
Surface Water Quality
Kansas assessed water quality
for 15,620 miles of streams during
1996-1997. Of these, 88% fully or
partially support designated uses.
Major causes of nonsupport are
fecal coliform, organic enrichment,
sulfates, and chlorides. Impairment
of streams is attributed to agricul-
ture, natural sources, hydromodifica-
tion, and ground water withdrawal.
Of the public lakes assessed
during the reporting period, 66%
of the total acres are impaired for
one or more uses. The major causes
of impairment are sediment, turbid-
ity, nutrients/eutrophication, and
taste and odor problems. Agriculture
and natural sources are the major
sources of impairment for lakes.
The trophic status of 68% of the
assessed lake acreage is stable over
time.
Most wetlands are on private
lands. Of the public wetlands
assessed, 29% support aquatic life
use but are considered threatened,
while food procurement use is fully
supported but threatened in 91 %
of wetlands. The major causes of
impairment are excessive nutrient
load, flow alterations, low dissolved
oxygen, and turbidity/siltation.
Agriculture, hydromodifications in
watersheds, and natural processes
are the sources of impairment. As
part of a special wetland project,
25,069 wetland acres were moni-
tored for toxics (heavy metals, pesti-
cides, and ammonia); 4% were
found to be impacted. Trophic sta-
tus studies indicate that 52% of the
wetlands are stable over time.
Ground Water Quality
The Kansas Department of
Health and Environment's (KDHE)
ground water quality monitoring
network is composed of 242 differ-
ent types of wells and conducts the
primary ambient ground water
monitoring in the state. Nitrate
contamination is a major concern.
During 1996-1997 high nitrate
concentration accounted for about
82% of the documented exceed-
ances of federal drinking water
maximum contaminant levels in
ground water. Other ground water
concerns included volatile organic
compounds, heavy metals, petrole-
um products, and/or bacteria.
The major sources of these contami-
nants included active industrial facil-
ities, spills, leaking storage tanks,
mineral extraction, and agricultural
activities.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 309
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
A Local Environmental Protec-
tion Program provides financial
assistance to 98 of the state's 105
counties to develop and implement
a comprehensive plan for protection
of the local environment.
The Point Source Pollution
Program regulates wastewater treat-
ment systems of municipal, federal,
industrial, and commercial sewage
facilities, stormwater, and larger live-
stock operations. Smaller livestock
facilities and other sources of pollut-
ants are addressed by the Non Point
Source Control Program. Directed
funds, mainly to upgrade large
wastewater treatment facilities '
serving cities, have resulted in
documented water quality improve-
ments at several locations.
All Clean Lakes Program proj-
ects are completed.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Every year, KDHE collects and
analyzes about 1,500 surface water
samples, 50 aquatic macroinverte-
brate samples, and 40 composite
fish tissue samples from stations
located throughout the state.
Wastewater samples are collected
at about 50 municipal sewage treat-
ment plants, 20 industrial facilities,
and 3 federal facilities to evaluate
compliance with discharge permit
requirements. KDHE also conducts
special studies and prepares about
100 site-specific water quality
summaries at the request of private
citizens or other interested parties.
Individual Use Support in Kansas
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Rjvers and Streams (Total Miles = 134,338)"
Total Miles
73
lakes (Total Acres = 181,337)
M/etlanqs (Total Acres = 35,607)
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Kansas' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
c Kansas designated uses do not address swimming beaches. Refer to the Kansas 305(b) report
on contact recreational use.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
310 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Kentucky
— Fully Supporting
—— Threatened .
— Partially Supporting
— Not Supporting
Not Assessed
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Kentucky 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Tom VanArsdall
Department for Environmental
Protection
Division of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)564-3410
e-mail: vanarsdall@nrdep.nr.
state.ky.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://water.nr.state.
ky.us/30Sb/
Surface Water Quality
About 75% of Kentucky's sur-
veyed rivers (excluding the Ohio
River) and 98% of surveyed lake acres
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life. Swimming use
is fully supported in over 99% of the
surveyed lake acres, but 75% of the
river miles surveyed for bacteria do
not fully support swimming. Fecal
coliform bacteria, siltation, PCBs, and
priority organics are the most com-
mon'pollutants in Kentucky rivers.
Frequently identified sources include
urban runoff, resource extraction,
sewage treatment facilities, land
disposal of wastes, and agricultural
activities. Nutrients, priority organics,
and PCBs have the most widespread
impacts on lakes. Potential sources
include resource extraction, agricul-
ture, and industrial discharges.
Declining trends in chloride
concentrations and nutrients provide
evidence of improving water quality
in Kentucky's rivers and streams.
Swimming advisories remain in effect
on 86 miles of the North Fork Ken-
tucky River, several streams in the
upper Cumberland River basin, and
the lower 5 miles of the Licking River
and two tributary streams in northern
Kentucky. Fish consumption advisories
remain posted on three creeks for
PCBs, the Ohio River for PCBs and
chlordane, the Green River Lake
because of PCB spills from a gas
pipeline compressor station, and for
five ponds on the West Kentucky
Wildlife Management Area because
of mercury contamination from
unknown sources.
Ground Water Quality
Kentucky maintains an ambient
ground water monitoring network
of more than 100 sites. Under-
ground storage tanks, septic tanks,
spills, urban runoff, mining activi-
ties, agricultural activities, and land-
fills have been identified as the
major sources of ground water con-
tamination in Kentucky. Bacteria is
the major pollutant in ground
water. The state is concerned about
the lack of ground water data,
absence of ground water regula-
tions, and the potential for ground
water pollution in karst regions of
the state.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 311
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Construction grants, state revolv-
ing loan fund monies, and other fund-
ing programs have funded the con-
struction of 26 wastewater projects
that were completed in 1995-1997.
These projects either replaced out-
dated or inadequate treatment facili-
ties or provided centralized treatment
for the first time. Kentucky requires
toxicity testing on many point source
discharges and permits for stormwater
outfalls and combined sewer over-
flows. The nonpoint source program
oversees projects addressing water-
shed demonstrations, education,
training, enforcement, technical assist-
ance, and evaluation of best manage-
ment practices.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Kentucky sampled 44 ambient
monitoring stations characterizing
about 1,432 stream miles during the
reporting period. More than 60% of
the state's least impacted streams .
have been monitored under the
reference reach program. The state
performed biological sampling at 17
of these stations in 1996 and 1997.
Thirteen lakes were sampled to detect
eutrophication trends. The state also
performed 29 intensive studies to
evaluate point source and nonpoint
source impacts, establish baseline
water quality measurements, and
reevaluate water quality in several
streams. Other data sources used by
the state include discharge monitor-
ing data, reports from the Kentucky
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Resources, and data from agencies
such as the U.S. Geological Survey,
the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.
Forest Service, the Ohio River Valley
Sanitation Commission, and Lexing-
ton and Louisville local governments.
Individual Use Support in Kentucky
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
livers and Streams (Total Miles = 49,1 osjb
Lakes (Total Acres- 228,385)
Summary of Use Support in Kentucky
Percent
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired
(For One or
More Uses)
VetlandS (Total Acres = 975,593)
Total Acres
Assessed
973,168
100
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Kentucky's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nohperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
312 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Louisiana
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
BBI 80% - 100% Meeting All Uses
mat 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
mm 20% • 49% Meeting All Uses
mm 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
•HI Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Louisiana 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Albert E. Hindrichs
Louisiana Department of Environ-
mental Quality
Office of Water Resources
Watershed Support Division
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
(225) 765-0511
e-mail: al_h@deq.state.Ia.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.deq.state.la.
us/planning/3 05 b/
Surface Water Quality
About 15% of the assessed
stream miles, 10% of the assessed
lake acres, and 11 % of the assessed
estuarine square miles in Louisiana
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life. Metals are
cited as the largest suspected cause
of impairment to the state's rivers,
lakes, and estuarine waters. This is
due to closer scrutiny of metals
criteria for water quality and the
increased sampling of fish for a
mercury contamination study.
The state notes that much of the
impairment due to metals criteria
exceedances may be the result of
sample contamination.
Organic enrichment/low dis-
solved oxygen, pathogens, and
nutrients are also cited as major
causes of stream impairment. Major
sources of pollution to streams
include agricultural practices, munic-
ipal point sources, and natural
sources.
Major causes of lake impairment
include organic enrichment/low
dissolved oxygen, siltation, and
turbidity. Major sources include
atmospheric deposition, natural
sources, and industrial point sources.
In estuarine waters, major
causes of impairment include
pathogen indicators and nutrients.
Major sources of impairment include
atmospheric deposition, natural
sources, septic tanks,'and land
disposal.
Ground Water Quality
Water in the state's major
aquifer systems continues to be
of good quality. For this reporting
cycle, EPA encouraged states to
select an aquifer of hydrogeologic
unit setting and discuss available
data that best reflect the quality of
the resources. Louisiana chose to
discuss the baseline monitoring
network for the Chicot Aquifer. The
data indicated this aquifer to be of
good quality with the exception of
one well, indicating a localized area
of concern.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The water pollution controls
employed by the Louisiana Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) include municipal and
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 313
industrial wastewater discharge per-
mits, enforcement of permit require-
ments, review and certification of
projects affecting water quality, and
implementation of best manage-
ment practices for nonpoint sources.
In 1997, LDEQwas granted NPDES
delegation by EPA. The LDEQ's
Water Quality Management Division
has implemented a nonpoint source
management program and has
been successful in implementing
voluntary controls and education
efforts. This has been done through
coordination with other concerned
agencies, such as the State Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Forestry,
the U.S. Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Service, and the Louisiana State
University Cooperative Extension
Service.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Louisiana's surface water moni-
toring program consists of a fixed-
station long-term network, intensive
surveys, special studies, and waste-
water discharge compliance sam-
pling. The LDEQ is currently revising
its fixed-station monitoring program
to operate on a 5-year cycle with
sample collections occurring in two
basins each year and rotating from
year to year. While the state does
not maintain a regular fish tissue
monitoring program, fish are fre-
quently sampled in response to
complaints or as a result of enforce-
ment actions.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Louisiana's designated uses
appear in this figure.. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Louisiana
Percent
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully CTbreatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Designated Use3 Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
pvers and Streatifis'(Total Miles = 66,294)b
Total Miles
Assessed
56
(Total Acres = 1,078,031)
349,643
(Total Square Miles = 7,656)
Total Square
Miles Assessed
2,969
Wetlands (Total Acres = 8,101,772)
Total Acres
Assessed
667,520
100
464,000
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
314 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Maine
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
mm 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
mam 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
BBI 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
•m 0% - 19% Meeting All Uses
m Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Maine 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Dave Courtemanch
Maine Department of Environ-
mental Protection
Bureau of Land and Water Quality
State House Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-7789
e-mail: dave.l.courtemanch®
state.me.us
Surface Water Quality
Maine's water quality has sig-
nificantly improved since enactment
of the Clean Water Act in 1972.
Atlantic salmon and other fish now
return to Maine's rivers, and waters
that were once open sewers are
now clean enough to swim in.
Ninety-nine percent of the state's
river miles, 90% of the lake acres,
and over 99% of the estuarine
waters have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses. All
lake waters in Maine are impaired
due to a statewide fish consumption
advisory. Oxygen-depleting sub-
stances from nonpoint sources and
bacteria from inadequate sewage
treatment are significant problems
in rivers and streams. Major causes
of impairment to lakes include nutri-
ents, siltation, oxygen-depleting
substances, and flow alterations.
Sources of impairment include agri-
culture, forestry, urban runoff, and
hydrologic modifications. Bacteria
from municipal treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows, and
small dischargers contaminate shell-
fish beds in estuarine waters.
Ground Water Quality
The most significant ground
water impacts include petroleum
compounds from leaking under-
ground and aboveground storage
tanks, other organic chemicals from
leaking storage facilities or disposal
practices, and bacteria from surface
disposal systems or other sources.
Maine requires that all underground
tanks be registered and that inade-
quate tanks be removed. About
23,000 tanks have been removed
since 1986. Maine also regulates
installation of underground storage
tanks and closure of landfills to
protect ground water resources
from future leaks.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
As the state makes progress in
restoring waters impacted by point
sources, new water quality problems
emerge from nonpoint sources.
Therefore, the most important
water quality initiatives for the
future include implementing pollu-
tion prevention, nonpoint source
management, watershed-based
planning, coordinated land use
management, and water quality
monitoring. The state is linking
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 315
pollution prevention with the water-
shed protection approach in a pilot
project within the Androscoggin
River basin. The state is also provid-;
ing local officials and citizen groups
with technical assistance to identify
problem areas and develop local
solutions for reducing pollution gen-
eration throughout the watershed.
The Maine Department of Envi-.
ronmental Protection completed a
Strategic Plan that will be used to
guide future environmental pro-
grams. The Strategic Plan is linked
with the state of Maine's Perform-
ance Partnership Agreement with
EPA. This Agreement provides an
opportunity for greater dialogue
and targeting on state priorities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Maine's surface water monitor-
ing program includes ambient
water quality monitoring, assimila-
tive capacity and wasteload alloca-
tion studies, diagnostic studies,
treatment plant compliance moni-
toring, and special investigations.
Due to budgetary constraints, some
of these activities are much more
limited in scope than is desirable for
accurately characterizing water
quality conditions in Maine.
Maine started a pilot project in
the Casco Bay watershed to develop
biological assessment methods and
criteria for wetlands.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Maine's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b)
report for a full description of the state's
uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Maine includes coastal shoreline waters in
their assessment of estuarine waters.
Individual Use Support in Maine
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Streams (Total Miles = 31,752)b
Total Miles "
Assessed
Lakes (Total Acres = 987,283)
JEstuaries (Total Square Miles = 2,852)c
Total Square 10°
Miles Assessed
2,852
<1
100
2,852
2,852
12
100
2,852
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
316 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Maryland
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting Ali Designated Uses
•• 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
m 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
mm 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
MB 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
MO Insufficient Assessment Coverage
—— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Oig!t Hydralogic Unit)
For a copy of the Maryland 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Sherm Garrison
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
Resource Assessment Service/TEA
Tawes State Office Building, D-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)260-8624
e-mail: sgarrison@dnr.state.md.us
Surface Water Quality
Overall, Maryland's surface
waters have good quality, but excess
nutrients, suspended sediments,
bacteria, toxic materials, or stream
acidity impact some waters. The
most serious water quality problem
in Maryland is the continuing accu-
mulation of nutrients in estuaries
and lakes from agricultural runoff,
urban runoff, natural nonpoint
source runoff, and point source dis-
charges. Excess nutrients stimulate
algal blooms and low dissolved
oxygen levels that adversely impact
water supplies and aquatic life.
Sources of sediment include
agricultural and urban runoff, con-
struction activities, natural erosion,
dredging, forestry, and mining
operations. In western Maryland,
acidic waters from abandoned coal
mines severely impact some
streams. Agricultural, urban, and
natural runoff and failing septic
systems elevate bacteria concentra-
tions, causing continuous shellfish
harvesting restrictions in about 102
square miles of estuarine waters and
temporary restrictions in another
71.1 square miles after major rain-
storms.
Maryland did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Maryland's ground water
resource is of generally good quality.
Localized problems include excess
nutrients (nitrates) from fertilizers
and septic systems; bacteria from
septic systems and surface contami-
nation; saline water intrusion aggra-
vated by ground water withdrawals
in the coastal plain; toxic com-
pounds from septic tanks, landfills,
and spills; petroleum products from
leaking storage facilities; and acidic
conditions and metals from aban-
doned coal mine drainage in west-
ern Maryland. Control efforts are
limited to implementing agricultural
best management practices and
enforcing regulations for septic
tanks, underground storage tanks,
land disposal practices, and well
construction.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 317
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Maryland manages nonpoint
sources with individual programs for
each individual nonpoint source
category. Urban runoff is addressed
through stormwater and sediment
control laws that require develop-
ment projects to maintain predevel-
opment runoff patterns through
implementation of best manage-
ment practices, such as detention
ponds or vegetated swales. The
Agricultural Water Quality Manage-
ment Program supports many
approaches, including Soil Conser-
vation and Water Quality Plans,
implementation of BMPs, and edu-
cation. The Agricultural Cost Share
Program has provided state and
some federal funds to help offset
the costs of implementing almost
8,000 agricultural BMPs since 1983.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality •
Maryland's monitoring pro-
grams include a combination of
water chemistry, compliance, aquat-
ic resource, and habitat monitoring
programs. In addition to traditional
monitoring, Maryland also conducts
an innovative randomized sampling
program in Chesapeake Bay waters
using a probabilistic approach to
sample analysis. Besides these pro-
grams, data from local governments
and volunteer groups are available
in some areas of the state.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Maryland's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Maryland
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
jHryers and Streams (Total Miles = f7,ooo)b
Total Miles 94
Assessed
6,682
17,000
17,000
100
<1
<1
(Total Acres = 77,965)
Total Acres
Assessed
21,010
21,010
5,023
63
<1
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 2,522)
Total Square
Miles Assessed
2,459
2,465
<1
1,839 qm 044
100
2,465
<1
<1
Note: Figures may not add to 100%.due to rounding.
-------
318 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Massachusetts
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting AH Designated Uses
mm 80% -100% Meeting Ail Uses
M3 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
HII 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
mm 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
•e* Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
CUSCS 8-Digft Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Massachusetts
1998 305(b) report, contact:
Richard McVoy
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Division of Watershed Management
627 Main Street, 2nd floor
Worcester, MA 01608
(508) 767-2822
e-mail: richard.mcvoy@state.ma.us
Surface Water Quality
More than half of the 1,495
river miles assessed by Massachu-
setts now support aquatic life,
swimming, and boating uses,
although half of the swimmable
miles still experience at least inter- .
mittent problems. Twenty-five years
ago, swimming and boating in
most of these waters would have
been unthinkable. The completion
of river cleanup will require target-
ing various sources of pollution,
primarily nonpoint source pollution
from stormwater runoff and com-
bined sewer overflows, and toxic
contamination in sediments (largely
historical).
Over a quarter (28%) of the
assessed lake acreage, excluding
Quabbin Reservoir, fully supports all
beneficial uses. The causes of non-
support include introductions of
nonnative species, excessive growth
of aquatic plants, and excess metals.
The sources of these stressors are
largely unknown, although non-
point sources, including stormwater
runoff and onsite wastewater
systems, are largely suspected.
Massachusetts' marine waters
lag behind its rivers in improve-
ment. Only 32% of the assessed
waters fully support all their uses.
However, all the major urban areas
along the coast either have initiated
or are planning cleanup efforts.
Foremost among these is a massive
project to clean up Boston Harbor.
Ground Water Quality
Organic chemical contaminants
have been detected in at least 245
ground water suppy wells (22% of
reporting sources). Three percent
have at least one exceedance of the
MCL. Other contaminants include
metals, chlorides, bacteria, inorganic
chemicals, radiation, nutrients, tur-
bidity, and pesticides. Since 1983,
Massachusetts has required permits
for all industrial discharges into
ground waters and sanitary waste-
water discharges of 15,000 gallons
or more per day. The permits
require varying degrees of waste-
water treatment based on the
quality and use of the receiving
ground water. Additional controls
are needed to eliminate contamina-
tion from septic systems and sludge
disposal.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Wastewater treatment plant
construction has resulted in signifi-
cant improvements in water quality,
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 319
but $7 billion of unfunded waste-
water needs remain. The Nonpoint
Source Control Program has imple-
mented over 60 projects to provide
technical assistance, implement best
management practices, and educate
the public. The state has also
adopted a combined sewer over-
flow policy that provides engineer-
ing targets for cleanup and is cur-
rently addressing several CSO abate-
ment projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Department of Environ-
mental Protection (DEP) adopted a
watershed planning approach to
coordinate stream monitoring with
wastewater discharge permitting,
water withdrawal permitting, and
nonpoint source control on a 5-year
rotating schedule. The DEP is also
adapting its monitoring strategies to
provide information on nonpoint
source pollution. For example, DEP
will focus more on wet weather
sampling and biological monitoring
and less on chemical monitoring
during dry periods in order to gain
a more complete understanding of
the integrity of water resources.
The state is developing biologi-
cal assessment methods for coastal
wetlands. The state is also partner-
ing with two watershed organiza-
tions to train volunteers to monitor
salt marshes.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Massachusetts^ designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
state's 305(b) report for a full description
of the state's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Including Quabbin Reservoir (25,000
acres).
d Includes "marine waters"— harbors, bays,
estuaries, and open ocean waters.
Individual Use Support in Massachusetts
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
givers and Streams (total Mites =8,229)°
Total Miles
Assessed
Lakes (Total Acres = 151,173)°
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 2,728)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
320 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Michigan
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIgit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Michigan 1998
305(b) report, contact:
John Wuycheck
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, Ml 48909-7773
(517)335-4195
e-mail: wuychecj@state.mi.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.deq.state.
mi.us/swq/gleas/gleas.htm
Surface Water Quality
Ninety-seven percent of
Michigan's assessed river miles fully
support aquatic life uses. Swimming
use is also fully supported in 98%
of the assessed rivers and over 99%
of the assessed lake acres. Priority
organic chemicals (in fish) are the .
major cause of nonsupport in more
river miles than any other pollutant,
followed by siltation and sedimenta-
tion, metals, and pathogens. Lead-
ing sources of pollution in Michigan
include unspecified nonpoint
sources, combined sewers, agricul-
ture, contaminated sediments,
municipal and industrial discharges,
and urban runoff.
Water quality in Michigan's
inland lakes is generally good to
excellent, with a number of out-
standing lakes. While almost all lakes
support swimming, a generic fish
consumption advisory is applied to
all inland lakes due to widespread
mercury contamination. Accelerated
eutrophication (overenrichment) is
also a concern in Michigan's lakes.
Nutrient sources associated with
human activities such as sewage,
fertilizers, detergents, and surface
runoff result in nuisance plant and
algal growth.
Four of the five Great Lakes
border Michigan. The open waters
of Lakes Superior, Michigan, and
Huron have good quality. Poor
water quality is restricted to a few
degraded locations near shore. Lake
Erie's water quality has improved
dramatically in the last two decades,
due to pollutant discharge reduc-
tions for nutrients, metals, and oils.
Water quality in Lake Huron has also
improved due to water quality
improvements in Saginaw Bay.
Ground Water Quality
Most of the ground water
resource is of excellent quality, but
certain aquifers have been contami-
nated with toxic materials leaking
from waste disposal sites, business-
es, or government facilities. The
Michigan Ground Water Protection
Strategy and Implementation Plan
identifies specific program initiatives,
schedules, and agency responsibil-
ities for protecting the state's
ground water resources.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Major point source reductions
in phosphorus and organic material
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 321
loads have reduced or eliminated
water quality problems in many
Michigan waters. However,
expanded efforts are needed to
control nonpoint source pollution,
eliminate combined sewer over-
flows, and reduce toxic contamina-
tion. Michigan has implemented
an industrial pretreatment program,
promulgated rules on the discharge
of toxic substances, and regulated
hazardous waste disposal facilities,
but many toxicity problems are due
to past activities that contaminated
sediments and atmospheric load-
ings.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Michigan employs a 5-year
watershed monitoring program
cycle to track whether waters of the
state meet water quality standards.
Each year the state focuses on 9 to
19 of the 61 major watersheds in
Michigan. The state's surface water
monitoring strategy was recently
updated, and additional funding of
$500,000 per year was provided to
bolster both "local" and state moni-
toring efforts. The enhanced pro-
gram consists of eight interrelated
monitoring elements: fish contami-
nants, water chemistry, sediment
chemistry, biological integrity, physi-
cal habitat, wildlife contaminants,
inland lake quality and eutrophica-
tion, and stream flow.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Michigan's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Michigan
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
JJjvers and Streams (Total[Miles = 51,438)"
GS (Total Acres = 889,600)
.Great Lakes (Total Shore Miles = 3,250)
Summary of Use Support in Michigan
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired •
(For One or
More Uses)
^fetjaads (Total Acres = 6,240,000)
Total Miles 100°
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
322 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Minnesota
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
mm 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
ma 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
mm 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
•n 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
•EI Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Minnesota 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Elizabeth Brinsmade
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Water Quality Division
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612)296-7312
e-mail: elizabeth.brinsmade@pca.
state.mn.us
Surface Water Quality
As part of its basin manage-
ment approach, Minnesota reported
on three basins for the state's 1998
305(b) report—the Upper Missis-
sippi, Lower Mississippi, and St.
Croix River basins. More than 50%
of the state-assessed river miles have
good quality that fully supports
aquatic life uses, and 26% of the
state-assessed rivers and over 67%
of the state-assessed lake acres fully
support swimming. The most com-
mon problems identified in rivers
are bacteria, turbidity, nutrients,
siltation, and dissolved oxygen.
Nonpoint sources generate most of
the pollution in rivers. Minnesota's
272 miles of Lake Superior shoreline
have fish consumption advisories.
These advisories recommend some
limits on fish meals consumed for
certain species and size classes.
Most of the pollution originated
from point sources has been con-
trolled, but runoff (especially in
agricultural regions) still degrades
water quality.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies the
drinking water needs of 70% of
Minnesota's population. The Minne-
sota Pollution Control Agency's
(MPCA) Ground Water Monitoring
and Assessment Program evaluates
the quality of ground water. The
program published several major
reports in 1998, including statewide
assessments of 100+ ground water
constituents and of nitrates specifi-
cally. The program has now shifted
emphasis to problem investigation
and effectiveness monitoring, at
local and small-regional scales.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Basin Information Documents
(BIDs) will include the 305b water-
body assessments as well as infor-
mation on a wide variety of water
resource issues and subjects. The
,BIDs will also include CIS maps
depicting the locations of permitted
feedlots in the state system and
relative numbers of animal units per
feedlot by major watershed. Based
on the BIDs, teams will target spe-
cific waterbodies and watersheds for
protection, restoration, or monitor-
ing. Specific strategies will be
spelled out.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 323
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In the 1998 assessments, in
addition to monitoring data col-
lected by MPCA, data from the
Metropolitan Council, U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, Long-Term Resource
Monitoring Project, Mississippi
Headwaters Board, local Clean Water
Partnership projects and Hennepin
County were used.
Minnesota maintains an Ambi-
ent Stream Monitoring Program
with 82 sampling stations, and
approximately 40 sites are visited
each year. The state also performs
fish tissue sampling, sediment moni-
toring, intensive surveys, and lake
assessments and supports a citizen
lake monitoring program.
In 1996, Minnesota piloted
a statistically based water quality
monitoring program in the St. Croix
River basin. The program used multi-
ple indicators to evaluate resource
quality including fish and macroin-
vertebrate community structure,
habitat, flow and basic water chem-
istry. Additional sites provided the
data to develop regional biocriteria.
The state is developing biologi-
cal assessment methods and criteria
for depressional and riparian wet-
lands. A pilot effort is underway to
develop a citizen wetland assess-
ment program in cooperation with
selected local governments.
The MPCA continues to be
involved with field investigations into
the cause of frog malformities.
Partnerships with the National
Institute of Environmental Health
and the USGS Water Resources
Division and Biological Resources
Division have been particularly useful
in carrying out teratogenic assays,
histopathological studies, and water
flow patterns at study sites.
Individual Use Support in Minnesota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
•Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 91,944)°
Total Miles
42
35
Lakes (Total Acres =: 3,290,101)
Lakes (Total Shore Miles = 272)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Minnesota's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
324 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Mississippi
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Mississippi 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Jeff Thomas
Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601)961-5157
e-mail: jeff_thomas@deq.state.ms.us
*Assessed river percentages presented in
this summary are based on the state's
electronic submittal of 305(b) data. Due
to the state's use of evaluated nonpoint
source assessment data, which focused
on potential problem areas (92% of the
total assessed river mileage), the result-
ing 305(b) data are biased toward these
waters. These evaluated waters have no
known monitoring data indicating
impairment.
Surface Water Quality*
Of the 46% of Mississippi's
river miles assessed (3% monitored
and 43% evaluated), 94% have fair
water quality that partially supports
aquatic life uses, and 1 % have poor
water quality that does not support
aquatic life uses. About 97% of the
assessed rivers are listed as not fully
supporting swimming. The most
common pollutants include nutri-
ents, pesticides, suspended solids,
and bacteria. Evaluative information
suggests that agriculture is the most
common source of pollution in
rivers, followed by municipal sew-
age treatment plants.
Of the assessed lake acres,
about 98% have good water quality
that fully support aquatic life uses,
and over 99% fully support swim-
ming. Nutrients, metals, siltation,
pesticides, and oxygen-depleting
substances are the most common
pollutants, and agriculture is the
dominant source of pollution in
Mississippi's lakes.
Over 88% of assessed estuaries
have good quality that fully sup-
ports aquatic life uses. The most
common pollutants in estuaries are
organic enrichment, turbidity, and
bacteria. The state attributes these
pollutants to urban runoff/storm
sewers, septic systems, and land
disposal activities. Of the waters
assessed for shellfish harvesting,
61 % are listed as restricted or pro-
hibited. Most of the restrictions are
mandates by the state's Shellfish
Sanitation program. Twenty percent
are classified as buffer zones border-
ing ship channels, and most of the
remainder is classified as restricted
due to proximity to wastewater
outfalls.
The state has posted eight fish
consumption advisories and three
commercial fishing bans due to
elevated concentrations of PCBs,
PCP, dioxins, and/or mercury
detected in fish tissues.
Mississippi did not report on the
condition of wetlands..
Ground Water Quality
Extensive contamination of '
drinking water aquifers and public
water supplies is uncommon in
Mississippi although localized
ground water contamination has
been detected. The most frequently
identified sources of contamination
are leaky underground storage tanks
and faulty septic systems. Brine con-
tamination is also a problem near oil
fields. Little data exist for domestic
wells. Ground water protection pro-
grams include the Pesticide Con-
tainer Recycling, Underground
Storage Tank, Underground Injec-
tion Control, Agrichemical Ground
Water Monitoring, and Wellhead
Protection Programs (approved by
EPA in 1993).
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 325
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Mississippi developed and
adopted (1994, after public review)
comprehensive regulations for con-
ducting Section 401 Water Quality
Certifications, enabling the state to
review federal licenses and permits
for compliance with state water
quality standards. Mississippi also
expanded its definition of waters of
the state to include wetlands and
ground waters.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Historically, the state annually
sampled about 25 of their 57 histor-
ical fixed monitoring stations on a
rotating schedule. The state has
been able to significantly expand its
fixed monitoring network to 143
stations statewide.
The state now monitors physical
and chemical parameters monthly,
metals in the water column quarter-
ly, and biological parameters once a
year. Several stations are also sam-
pled annually for metals and pesti-
cides in fish tissues.
In 1997, the state also adopted
its Basinwide Approach to water
quality managemenLThis basinwide
approach is supported by a rotating
basin fixed-station monitoring net-
work that augments the statewide
network of ambient monitoring
stations.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Mississippi's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Mississippi notes its assessments are biased
due to the state's extensive use of evaluated
nonpoint source assessment data, which
focused on problem areas.
Individual Use Support in Mississipp
Percent
Desighated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
and Streams (Total Miles = 84,bb3)b'6
<1
Lakes (Total Acres = 500,000)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 760)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
326 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Missouri
— Segment 80% -100% Fully Supporting
Segment 50% - 79% Fully Supporting
Segment 20% - 49% Fully Supporting
Segment 0% - 19% Fully Supporting
——• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Missouri 1998
305(b) report, contact:
John Ford
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
(573)751-7024
e-mail:
NRFordJ@mail.dnr.state.mo.us
Surface Water Quality
Almost half of Missouri's rivers
and streams have impaired aquatic
habitat due to a combination of
factors including natural geology,
climate, and agricultural land use.
As a result of these factors, many
streams suffer from low water
volume, organic enrichment, and
excessive siltation. In lakes, low dis-
solved oxygen from upstream dam
releases, pesticides, and metals are
the most common ailments. Agri-
culture, reservoir releases, contami-
nated sediments, and urban runoff
are the leading sources of lake
degradation.
The Missouri Department of
Health advises that the public
restrict consumption of bottom-
feeding fish (such as catfish, carp,
and suckers) from urban waters
and non-Ozark streams or lakes to
1 pound per week due to concen-
trations of chlordane, PCBs, and
other contaminants in these fish.
Missouri did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
In general, ground water quan-
tity and quality increases from north
to south and west to east. Deep
ground water aquifers in northern
and western Missouri are not suit-
able for drinking water due to high
concentrations of minerals from
natural sources. Nitrates and, to a
much lesser extent, pesticides also
contaminate wells in this region.
About one-third of the private wells
exceed drinking water standards for
nitrates, and about 2% of private
wells exceed drinking water stand-
ards for either atrazine or alachlor.
Statewide, the highest priority con-
cerns include ground water contam-
ination from septic tanks, pesticide
and fertilizer applications, and
underground storage tanks.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Sewage treatment plant con-
struction has restored many surface
waters in Missouri, but point sources
still impact about 90 classified
stream miles. The Missouri Clean
Water Commission has revised its
regulations to bring confined animal
operations into the point source
permit program consistent with
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 327
federal requirements. Nonpoint
source control efforts have been
greatly expanded over the past few
years. With a focus on agriculture,
approximately $2 million annually is
spent for statewide informational
programs, technical assistance and
demonstrations on a regional and
local basis, and BMP implementa-
tion in local watersheds. A dedi-
cated state sales tax provides an
additional $28 million annually for
watershed-level soil erosion control
programs.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Missouri's water quality moni-
toring strategy features approxi-
mately 40 fixed-station chemical
ambient monitoring sites, short-
term intensive chemical monitoring
studies, a rapid visual/aquatic inver-
tebrate assessment program and
detailed biological sampling in sup-
port of development of biocriteria.
The state also reviews water quality
monitoring data and published
studies done by others.
Missouri requires toxicity testing
of effluents for all major dischargers;
.has a fish tissue monitoring pro-
gram for selected metals, pesticides
and PCBs; and monitors river sedi-
ments for toxic metals and organics
and sediment pore water for toxic-
ity. Several nonpoint source water-
shed projects related to manage-
ment of manure or farm chemicals
have their own monitoring pro-
grams.
Individual Use Support in Missouri
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
givers and Streams (Total Miles = 51,978)°
Total Miles
Assessed
46
(Total Acres =292,204)
Total Acres 99
Assessed
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Missouri's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
328 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Montana
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
BBI 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
msa 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
mm 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
•• 0% - 19% Meeting All Uses
m Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Montana 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Robert L Barry
Montana Department
of Environmental Quality
Phoenix Building
2209 Phoenix Avenue
Helena, MT 59601
(406) 444-5342
e-mail: rbarry@state.mt.us
Surface Water Quality
Water quality assessments have
been done on about 10% of Mon-
tana's 177,000 stream miles and
94% of the 845,000 lake acres.
These assessments have focused
primarily on the largest lakes and
the perennial streams where water
quality problems were expected,
so the results are not representative
of overall state water quality. Of the
assessed stream mileage, 41 % has
been found to fully support all uses,
52% is rated as partially supporting
intended uses, while 8% does not
support one or more uses. Approxi-
mately 57% of Montana's assessed
lake acreage fully supports swim-
ming and drinking water uses.
Assessed lake acreage either fully
supports (14%) or partially supports
(86%) aquatic life use, with reservoir
water level fluctuations being the
primary reason for partial support
classification. Nonpoint sources of
pollution produce most stream and
lake impairment in the state.
Ground Water Quality
More than 50% of Montanans
get their domestic water supply
from ground water sources. Ground
water is plentiful and the quality is
generally excellent, but Montana's
aquifers are vulnerable to pollution
from increased human activity asso-
ciated with population growth. A
new statewide ground water plan to
protect ground water quality and
quantity has just been completed,
and implementation is underway.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Montana is actively pursuing
interagency/interdisciplinary water-
shed planning and management.
The Montana Watershed Coordina-
tion Council brings together all
water quality stakeholders to pro-
mote and coordinate watershed
protection efforts. During 1998,
state agencies participated with
federal environmental agencies in
development of unified watershed
assessments under the federal Clean
Water Action Plan initiative. Since
the most prevalent impacts to state
waters are from nonpoint sources,
management of these sources is key
to water quality protection and
restoration. The state Nonpoint
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 329
Source Management Plan employs
an approach emphasizing education
and voluntary action supported by
permits for selected activities. It
focuses on three major source cate-
gories: agriculture, mining, and
forestry. TMDL implementation plan
development and other watershed
planning efforts use a collaborative
process to identify and prioritize
management options that will
address all major factors threatening
or degrading water quality. -
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1997 the Montana Water
Quality Act was amended to pro-
vide new mandates and increased
funding for water quality assessment
and planning. The Montana Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality was
directed to complete, by October
of 1999, a review of the state list
of impaired waterbodies evaluating
the adequacy of the data used in
list development. Waterbodies lack-
ing sufficient credible data will be
targeted for immediate reassess-
ment. The process used to deter-
mine which impaired streams or
lakes receive priority for the devel-
opment of TMDL implementation
plans is also being revised. Finally,
an ambient water quality monitor-
ing program is being implemented.
The objectives of this program are
to provide an unbiased indicator of
current statewide water quality that
will also support trend analysis as
information accumulates.
Montana is developing biologi-
cal assessment methods and criteria
for wetlands.
Individual Use Support in Montana
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
fflvers and Streams (Total Miles =i76,750)b
(Total Acres = 844,802)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Montana's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
330 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Nebraska
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Nebraska 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Michael Cailam
Nebraska DEQ
Water Quality Division,
Surface Water Section
Suite 400, The Atrium
1200 N Street
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402)471-4249
e-mail: DEQ044@mail.deq.state.
ne.us
Surface Water Quality
Agriculture is the most wide-
spread source of water quality prob-
lems in Nebraska, but urban runoff
is also a concern. Agricultural runoff
introduces excess sedimentation,
bacteria, suspended solids, pesti-
cides, and nutrients into surface
waters. Municipal and industrial
facilities may contribute ammonia,
bacteria, and metals. Channelization
and hydrologic modifications have
impacted aquatic life in Nebraska
streams by reducing the diversity
and availability of habitat. Monitor-
ing has revealed that current water
quality criteria for the herbicide
atrazine is being exceeded
Nutrient enrichment and sedi-
mentation were the most common
water quality problems identified
in lakes, followed by siltation,
suspended solids, and nutrients.
Sources of pollution in lakes include
agriculture, construction, and urban
runoff. Nebraska also has 36 fish
consumption advisories in effect.
The contaminants of concern
include methylmercury, dieldrin,
and PCBs.
Ground Water Quality
Although natural ground water
quality in Nebraska is good, hun-
dreds of individual cases of ground
water contamination have been
documented. Major sources of
ground water contamination
include agricultural activities, indus-
trial facilities, leaking underground
storage tanks, oil or hazardous sub-
stance spills, solid waste landfills,
wastewater lagoons, brine disposal
pits, and septic systems.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Nebraska's Nonpoint Source
(NPS) Management Program con-
centrates on protecting ground and
surface water resources by perform-
ing watershed assessments and
-------
Chapter twelve State and Territory Summaries 331
promoting implementation projects.
Currently, Nebraska has 34 Section
319 funded NFS-related projects.
Nebraska revised wetland water
quality standards to protect bene-
ficial uses of aquatic life, aesthetics,
wildlife, and agricultural water sup-
ply. The state also protects wetlands
with the water quality certification
program and water quality monitor-
ing.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The state's Nonpoint Source
Management Program cannot be
effective without monitoring infor-
mation to identify and prioritize
waters impacted by NPS, develop
NPS control plans, and evaluate the
effectiveness of implemented best
management practices. In response
to this need, Nebraska developed
an NPS surface water quality moni-
toring strategy to guide NPS moni-
toring projects. During 1996 and
1997, the state conducted three
watershed assessments, diagnostic/
feasibility studies for three lakes, and
ongoing BMP effectiveness studies
in 10 watersheds.
Individual Use Support in Nebraska
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
jRiversjand Streams (Total Miles =*Bi,573)b
(TotelAcres =^280,000)
68
121,725
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Nebraska's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(fa) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
332 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Nevada
1 Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Dlg!t Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Nevada 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Glen Gentry
Division of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Planning
333 West Nye Lane, Suite 138
Carson City, NV 89706-0851
(775) 687-4670
e-mail: ggentry@ndep.carson-city.
nv.us
Surface Water Quality
Only 10% (about 15,000 miles)
of Nevada's rivers and streams flow
year round, and most of these
waters are inaccessible. For this
reporting period, Nevada assessed
1,631 miles of the 3,000 miles of
accessible perennial streams for
aquatic life uses. Fifty-one percent of
the assessed stream miles fully sup-
ported this use, while 42% partially
supported aquatic life use and 7%
did not support this use. In lakes,
74% of the assessed acres fully
supported aquatic life uses.
Agricultural practices (irrigation,
grazing, and flow regulation) have
the greatest impact on Nevada's
water resources. Agricultural sources
generate large sediment and nutri-
ent loads. Urban drainage systems
contribute nutrients, heavy metals,
and organic substances that deplete
oxygen. Flow reductions also have a
great impact on streams, limiting
dilution of salts, minerals, and
pollutants.
Ground Water Quality
Nevada lacks comprehensive
ground water protection legislation,
but the state does have statutes that
control individual sources of con-
tamination, including mining,
underground storage tanks, septic
systems, handling of hazardous
materials and waste, solid waste
disposal, underground injection
wells, agricultural practices, and
wastewater disposal. Land use
statutes also enable local authorities
to implement Wellhead Protection
Plans by adopting zoning ordi-
nances, subdivision regulations, and
site plan review procedures. Local
authorities can implement certain
source control programs at the local
level.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Nevada's Nonpoint Source
Management Plan aims to reduce
NPS pollution with interagency
coordination, education programs,
-------
Chapter Twelve' State and Territory Summaries 333
and incentives that encourage vol-
untary installation of best manage-
ment practices. The state's current
approach to controlling nonpoint
sources is to seek voluntary compli-
ance through nonregulatory pro-
grams of technical and financial
assistance, training, technology
transfer, demonstration projects,
and education. In 1994, the state
updated the Handbook of Best
Management Practices and sup-
ported NFS assessment activities
in each of the state's six major river
basins. Nevada's Wellhead Protec-
tion Program was finalized in
January of 1994.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Several state, federal, and local
agencies regularly sample chemical
and physical parameters at over
100 sites in the 14 hydrologic
regions of the state. The state also
coordinates intensive field studies
on Nevada's major river systems,
the Truckee River Basin, Carson River
Basin, Walker River Basin, and the
Humboldt River Basin. The state also
monitors a number of lakes and
reservoirs. Additional monitoring
data are provided by the U.S.
Geological Survey and the Nevada
Division of Agriculture (pesticide
detection).
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Nevada's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the state's \
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Nevada
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Ifhcers and Streams (Total Miles = i43,578)b
eg (TptaJJ^cres =533,279)
100
173,444
<1
Summary of Use Support in Nevada
Percent
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired
(For One or
More Uses)
(Total Acres = 136,650)
Total Acres
Assessed
21,326
100
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
334 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
New Hampshire
1 Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-D!g!t Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the New Hampshire
1998 305(b) report, contact:'
Gregg Comstock
State of New Hampshire
Department of Environmental
Services
Water Division
64 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2457
e-mail: g_comstock@des.state.nh.us
Surface Water Quality
In 1994, New Hampshire issued
a statewide freshwater fish con-
sumption advisory due to mercury
levels found in fish tissue, the pri-
mary source of which is believed to
be atmospheric deposition from
upwind states. When this advisory is
included in the assessment, all fresh
surface waters are, by definition, less
than fully supporting all uses. If this
advisory is not included in the
assessment, however, over 84% of
assessed river miles and 97% of
assessed lake acres fully support all
uses.
All of the state's estuarine
waters fully support swimming, and
nearly 99% support aquatic life
uses. None of the estuaries, how-
ever, fully support fish and shellfish
consumption. Approximately 60%
of the shellfish beds are closed due
to bacteria, and 84% of the estuar-
ies are defined as impaired because
of a consumption advisory due to
PCBs in lobster tomalley. All tidal
waters are considered impaired for
fish consumption due to a con-
sumption advisory for PCBs in blue-
fish.
Excluding the statewide fresh-
water fish advisory for mercury,
metals, PCBs, and bacteria are the
leading causes of impairment in
rivers. Low pH, exotic weeds, and -
nutrients are the major causes of
impairment in lakes. Nonpoint
sources are believed to be responsi-
ble for most of the pollution enter-
ing New Hampshire's waters.
New Hampshire did not report
on the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
New Hampshire is highly
dependent on ground water for
drinking water. Natural ground
water quality from stratified aquifers
is generally good; however, aesthet-
ic concerns such as taste and odor
exist. Bedrock well water quality is
also generally good, although this
water can be impacted by naturally
occurring contaminants including
flouride, arsenic, mineral radioactiv-
ity, and radon gas.
In addition to naturally occur-
ring contaminants, there are many
areas of localized contamination
due primarily to releases of petro-
leum and volatile organic com-
pounds from petroleum facilities,
commercial and industrial opera-
tions, and landfills. Sodium from
widespread winter application of
road salt is also a contaminant of
concern.
.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 335
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
New Hampshire has numerous
laws, regulations, and programs to
abate pollution from point and non-
point sources. Over the past 25
years, all significant discharges of
untreated municipal and industrial
wastewater have been eliminated.
To resolve remaining nqnpoint
source problems, the Department
of Environmental Services (DES)
initiated a watershed protection
approach in 1995, which is in the
process of being refined.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DES has several lake assessment
programs including an excellent vol-
unteer monitoring program. DES
implemented a 3-year rotating
watershed monitoring program for
rivers in 1989, and started a volun-
teer river monitoring program in
1997. To determine the ecological
health of surface waters, DES initi-
ated a biomonitoring program in
1995. In the future, DES hopes to
develop and implement a probabil-
ity-based monitoring strategy to
provide more comprehensive assess-
ments.
Individual Use Support in New Hampshire
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.,
aA subset of New Hampshire's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
state's 305(b) report for a full description
of the state's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Excluding the statewide freshwater fish
consumption advisory due to mercury.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
and Streams (Total Miles = iQ,88i)b'c
Total Miles 95
Assessed
<1
Lakes (Total Acres = 170,009)
Total Acres 97
Assessed
(Total Square Miles = 28)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
336 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
New Jersey
Percent of Assessed Rivers Meeting
Aquatic Life Designated Uses
ma 80% - 100% Meeting All Uses
•a 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
m 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
•a 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
•El Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
New Jersey notes that
aquatic life use support
assessments are based on
biological assessments of
streams.
For a copy of the New Jersey 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Kevin Berry
NJDEP
Division of Science Research
and Technology
401 East State Street, 1st Floor
P.O. Box 409
Trenton, NJ 08625-0409
(609) 292-9692
e-mail: kberry@dep.state.nj.us
Surface Water Quality
Surface water quality has
remained excellent in undeveloped
areas. However, 12% of the 3,815
assessed stream miles exhibited
severely impaired aquatic biota, 52%
were moderately impaired, and 35%
were not impaired. All of the state's
lakes are believed to be either threat-
ened or actively deteriorating. Estua-
rine and coastal waters are generally
in better condition. Shad populations
have increased in the Delaware
River from about 150,000 in 1980
to almost 800,000 in 1996 due to
improvements in water quality. New
Jersey has increased acres available for
shellfish harvest since 1980, and over
86% of available shellfish beds are
now available for harvest. All 179
ocean beaches (127 miles) and 92%
of bay bathing beaches fully support
swimming. Of the remaining bay
beaches, 2% partially support swim-
ming and 6% do not support the use.
Toxics in fish tissue have led to several
commercial fishing bans and recrea-
tional fish consumption advisories for
some species in fresh, tidal, and estua-
rine waters. Common surface water
pollutants include bacteria, nutrients,
and current and historical pesticides
and industrial chemicals. Sources of
pollution to New Jersey's waters
include effluent; combined sewers,
stormwater, and runoff; construction;
historical contamination; and air
deposition.
New Jersey did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
At present, there is generally
an ample supply of good quality
ground water in New Jersey. There
are, however, problems with ground
water quality in some areas. Natural
contaminants in some ground waters
include radium, radon, iron, sulfate,
and hardness. Pollutants include mer-
cury, bacteria, pesticides, and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Known
contamination by industrial and waste
disposal activities is being actively
managed. Overpumping in some
areas contributes to the incidental
spread and capture of contaminant
plumes and salt water intrusion. Over-
pumping is being addressed through
conservation, source water protection,
conjunctive use, and construction of
new supplies.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Through implementation of
the National Environmental Perform-
ance Partnership System and water-
shed management, New Jersey
continues to develop statewide and
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 337
watershed-based environmental
goals, milestones, and indicators for
improvements to water quality. The
Performance Partnership Agreement
and, in the future, Watershed Manage-
ment Plans, orients numerous water
program strategies toward meeting
environmental milestones.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
New Jersey uses benthic macro-
invertebrate monitoring to indicate
aquatic life designated use support
and potential causes of impairment,
including nutrients, toxics, and habitat
degradation. New Jersey began imple-
menting a redesigned chemical moni-
toring program that combines broad-
scale, long-term monitoring with
intensive, site-specific monitoring.
Shellfish beds are assessed based on
recent water quality data and field
surveys of pollutant sources. These
assessments are reflected in annual
regulatory updates of shellfish harvest
areas. Emergency closures of shellfish
waters are made as needed based on
water quality data. Ocean and bay
bathing beaches are also closed as
needed based on very extensive moni-
toring for bacterial contamination. In
addition, New Jersey recently formed a
Water Assessment Team to enhance
data assessment capabilities.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A subset of New Jersey's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
blncludes intermittent streams.
c New Jersey is developing an approach to
report its fish advisories in the context of
use support.
d Lake bathing beach data are being com-
piled and will be reported in the future.
e All estuarine waters are not assessed for
recreational uses; however, the state moni-
tors all 138 designated bay beaches and all
127 miles of ocean beaches.
Individual Use Support in New Jersey
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
and Streams (Total Miles - 6,450)b
JLakes (Total Acres = 24,000)
•*- j. 4
Iff^^lisN,1
Total Acres
Assessed
-
Stuaries (Total Square Miles = 0.06)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
338 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
New Mexico
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
mm 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
WCK 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
mm 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
tmm 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
en Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 8-Dlglt Hydrotogic Unit)
For a copy of the New Mexico 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Gary King
New Mexico Environment
Department
Surface Water Quality Bureau
P.O. Box26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110
(505) 827-2928
e-mail: gary_king@nmenv.state.
nm.us
Surface Water Quality
About 28% of New Mexico's
surveyed stream miles have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life uses. Ninety-nine
percent of the surveyed river miles
fully support swimming. The lead-
ing problems in streams include
turbidity, thermal modifications,
pathogens, nutrients, and metals.
Nonpoint sources are responsible
for over 91 % of the degradation in
New Mexico's 2,435 impaired
stream miles. Sources of impairment
include agriculture, hydrologic and
habitat modification, and recrea-
tional activities.
Agriculture and recreational
activities are the primary sources
of nutrients, siltation, reduced
shoreline vegetation, and bank
destabilization that impairs aquatic
life use in 89% of New Mexico's
surveyed lake acres. Mercury con-
tamination from unknown sources
appears in fish caught at 23 reser-
voirs. However, water and sediment
samples from surveyed lakes and
reservoirs have not detected high
concentrations of mercury. Fish may
contain high concentrations of
mercury in waters with minute
quantities of mercury because the
process of biomagnification concen-
trates mercury in fish tissue.
New Mexico did not report on
the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Approximately 90% of the
population of New Mexico depends
on ground water for drinking water.
The Environment Department has
identified at least 1,233 cases of
ground water.contaminatidn since
1927. The most common source of
ground water contamination is
small household septic tanks and
cesspools. Leaking underground
storage tanks, injection wells, land-
fills, surface impoundments, oil and
gas production, mining and milling,
dairies, and miscellaneous industrial
sources also contaminate ground
water in New Mexico. New Mexico
operates a ground water discharger
permit program that includes
ground water standards for inten-
tional discharges and a spill cleanup
provision for other discharges.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
New Mexico uses a variety of
state, federal, and local programs to
protect surface water quality. The
federal NPDES program is used to
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 339
protect waters from point source
discharges. New Mexico's Nonpoint
Source Management Program con-
tains a series of implementation
milestones that were designed to
establish goals while providing a
method to measure progress and
success of the program. Implemen-
tation consists of the coordination
of efforts among NPS management
agencies, promotion and.implemen-
tation of best management prac-
tices, coordination of watershed
projects, inspection and enforce-
ment activities, consistency reviews,
and education and outreach activi-
ties.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
New Mexico uses a wide variety
of methods to assess its water qual-
ity. Second-parry data including
dischargers' reports, published liter-
ature, data stored in EPA's database,
as well as data generated by the
U.S. Geological Survey are routinely
reviewed. The New Mexico Environ-
ment Department generates large
amounts of data through intensive
surveys, assessment of citizen com-
plaints, special studies aimed at
areas of special concern (e.g., mer-
cury concentration in water, sedi-
ments, and fish), short- and long-
term nonpoint source pollution
monitoring, TMDL investigations,
and effluent monitoring. Special
stream surveys conducted in 1996
and 1997 focused on the Gila and
Pecos watersheds. These surveys
are usually timed to coincide with
annual periods of stress for aquatic
life (e.g., low flows) and usually
include benthic macrpinvertebrate
assessments to evaluate the integrity
of aquatic communities.
Individual Use Support in New Mexico
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
ilvers and Streams (Total Miles = iio,74i)b
39
Lakes (Total Acres = 997,467)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of New Mexico's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b)
report for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
340 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
New York
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-D!git Hydrologic Unit)
also major sources of water quality
impairment in rivers and lakes.
Urban runoff is a major source of
pollution in the state's estuaries.
Bacteria from urban runoff and
other sources close about 104,000
acres (11 %) of potential shellfishing
beds in the New York City-Long
Island region.
Contaminated sediments are
a primary source of impaired rivers,
lakes, Great Lake's shoreline, and
estuarine waters in New York State.
Sediments are contaminated with
PCBs, chlorinated organic pesticides,
mercury, cadmium, mirex, and
dioxins that bioconcentrate in the
food chain and result in fish con-
sumption advisories.
Improvements to industrial and
municipal discharges have had a
significant impact on water quality.
Since 1972, the size of rivers
impacted by point sources has
declined from about 2,000 miles
to 230 miles.
New York did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
For a copy of the New York 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Jeff Myers
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Watershed Assessment
and Research
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518)457-7130
e-mail: jamyers@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Surface Water Quality Ground Water Quality
Ninety-nine percent of New
York's rivers and streams, 95% of
the state's lake acres, all of the
state's Great Lakes shoreline, and
99% of the bays and tidal waters
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses. Swim-
ming is fully supported in over 99%
of rivers, 87% of lakes, 94% of the
Great Lakes shoreline, and more
than 93% of estuarine waters. Sixty-
five percent of New York's Great
Lake's shoreline does not fully sup-
port fish consumption use because
of a fish consumption advisory.
Agriculture is a major source of
nutrients and silt that impair,New
York's rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
Land disposal, hydrologic modifica-
tion, and habitat modification are
Approximately 6 million people
in New York State use ground water
as a source of drinking water. The
state reports that 312 wells or
springs statewide have been con-
taminated to some degree by
organic pollutants. About 3% of the
state's public water supply system
wells (160 wells) are closed or aban-
doned due to contamination from
organic chemicals. The most com-
mon contaminants are synthetic
solvents and degreasers, gasoline
and other petroleum products, and
agricultural pesticides and herbi-
cides (primarily aldicarb and carbo-
furan). The most common sources
of contaminants include spills, septic
systems, landfills, and abandoned
hazardous waste sites.
.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 341
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
New York's nonpoint source
control program depends on the
cooperation of many individuals,
groups, and agencies to make it
work. The Nonpoint Source Coordi-
nating Committee is composed of
17 federal, state, and local agencies
that meet regularly to communi-
cate, cooperate, and coordinate
New York State's nonpoint source
program. Coordination at the local
level takes place through county
committees composed of local
agencies, representatives from state
and federal agencies, and public
interest groups.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1987, New York State imple-
mented the Rotating Intensive Basin
Studies (RIBS), an ambient monitor-
ing program that concentrates
monitoring activities on one-third
of the state's hydrologic basins for
2-year periods. The DEC monitors
the entire state every 6 years. The
RIBS strategy employs a tiered
approach in which rapid biological
screening methods are applied at a
large number of sites during the first
year of a 2-year study, and more
intensive chemical monitoring is
used to follow up the results of this
biological effort in the second year.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A subset of New York's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in New York
Percent
Designated Use8
Good Good Fair .Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Streams (Total Miles = 52,337)°
Great Lakes (Total Shore Miles = 577)
100
aries (Total Square Miles = 1,530)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
342 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
North Carolina
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
M* 80% - 100% Meeting All Uses
•01 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
•a 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
•M 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
•a Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Bastn Boundaries
(USCS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the North Carolina
1998 305(b) report, contact:
Darlene Kucken
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
(919)733-5083
e-mail: Darlene.Kucken@ncmail.net
Surface Water Quality
About 87% of the state's
assessed fresh water rivers and
streams have good water quality
that fully supports designated uses,
while 14% are impaired for one or
more uses. The major sources of
impairment are agriculture, urban
runoff, and construction. These
sources generate siltation, bacteria,
and organic wastes that deplete
dissolved oxygen.
Only 2% of the assessed lakes
in North Carolina are impaired for
aquatic life use. A few lakes are
impacted by dioxin, metals, and
excessive nutrient enrichment.
About 94% of the estuaries and
sounds in North Carolina fully sup-
port designated uses. Agriculture,
urban runoff, septic tanks, and point
source discharges are the leading
sources of nutrients, bacteria, and
low dissolved oxygen that degrade
estuaries.
Ground Water Quality
About half of the people in
North Carolina use ground water as
their primary supply of drinking
water. Ground water quality is
generally good. The leading source
of ground water contamination is
leaking underground storage tanks,
which contaminate ground water
with gasoline, diesel fuel, and heat-
ing oil. Comprehensive programs
are under way to assess potential
contamination sites and develop a
ground water protection strategy
for the state.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
North Carolina takes a water-
shed level approach to address
water quality problems. In 1998,
NC Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) completed its first set of
basinwide management plans,
which summarize water quality and
develop strategies for addressing
problems for each of 17 river basins.
Through the Unified Watershed
Assessment process, North Caro-
lina's DWQ identified 23 high-prior-
ity watersheds in need of restora-
tion. Within these areas, 11 smaller
catchments that are biologically
impaired will be studied intensively
to identify causes and sources of
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 343
pollution and develop strategies to
restore aquatic system health.
Addressing nonpoint source
pollution .continues to be a priority
for North Carolina. The DWQ has
begun implementing rules that
address nitrogen pollution from
urban areas, agriculture, and ferti-
lizer application across the entire
Neuse River basin. In addition, a
temporary rule is being imple-
mented in the Neuse basin that
protects riparian buffers adjacent
to all perennial and intermittent
streams, ponds, lakes, and estuaries.
A similar program for the Tar-
Pamlico River basin is currently
being developed.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Surface water quality in North
Carolina was primarily evaluated
using physical and chemical data
collected by the DWQ from a
statewide fixed-station network
and biological assessments. These
include macroinvertebrate (aquatic
insect) community surveys, fish
community structure analyses,
phytoplankton analyses, bioassays,
and limnological review of lakes and
watersheds. Other sources of infor-
mation were point source monitor-
ing data, shellfish closure reports,
lake trophic state studies, and
reports prepared by other local,
state, and federal agencies.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of North Carolina's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
state's 305(b) report for a full description
of the state's uses.
bA summary of use support data is presented
because North Carolina did not report
individual use support in rivers and estuaries
in their 1998 Section 305(b) report.
c Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in North Carolina
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
lakes (Total Acres =311,236)
30
<1
210,088
<1
Summary of Use Support in North Carolina
Percent
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired
(For One
or More Uses)
iRlyers and Streams (Total Miles = 37,853)9
P^--*-'-- -:- • . J ^ : : '. : : - :
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 3,122)
iWetlancIS (Total Acres = 7,175,000)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
344 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
North Dakota
Fully Supporting
— Threatened
Partially Supporting
— Not Supporting
— Not Assessed
—• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!g!t Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the North Dakota
1998 305(b) report, contact:
Michael Ell
North Dakota Department of Health
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 5520
Bismark, ND 58506-5520
(701)328-5214
e-mail: mell@state.nd.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.health.state.
nd.us/ndhd/environ/wq/index/htm
Surface Water Quality
North Dakota reports that 71 %
of its assessed rivers and streams
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses now, but
good conditions are threatened in
most of these streams. Sixty-seven
percent of the assessed streams fully
support swimming. Siltation, nutri-
ents, pathogens, oxygen-depleting
wastes, and habitat alterations
impair aquatic life use support in
29% of the surveyed rivers and
impair swimming in over 32% of
the surveyed rivers. The leading
sources of contamination are
agriculture, drainage and filling of
wetlands, hydromodification, and
upstream impoundments. Natural
conditions, such as low flows caused
. by water regulation,, also contribute
to aquatic life use impairment.
In lakes, 96% of the surveyed
acres have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses, and
85% of the surveyed acres fully
support swimming. Siltation, nutri-
ents, metals, and oxygen-depleting
substances are the most widespread
pollutants in North Dakota's lakes.
The leading sources of pollution in
lakes are agricultural activities
(including nonirrigated crop pro-
duction, pasture land, and confined
animal operations), urban runoff/
storm sewers, hydromodification,
and habitat modification. Natural
conditions also prevent some waters
from fully supporting designated
uses.
Ground Water Quality
North Dakota has not identified
widespread ground water contami-
nation, although some naturally
occurring compounds may make
the quality of ground water undesir-
able in a few aquifers. Where
human-induced ground water
contamination has occurred, the
impacts have been attributed
primarily to petroleum storage facil-
ities, agricultural storage facilities,
feedlots, poorly designed wells,
abandoned wells, wastewater treat-
ment lagoons, landfills, septic
systems, and the underground
injection of waste. Assessment
and protection of ground water
continue through ambient ground
water quality monitoring activities,
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 345
the implementation of wellhead
protection projects, the Compre-
hensive Ground Water Protection
Program, and the development
of a State Management Plan for
Pesticides.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
North Dakota's Nonpoint
Source Pollution Management
Program has provided financial
support to 50 projects since 1990.
Although the size, type, and target
audience of these projects vary,
the projects share the same basic
goals: (1) increase public awareness
of nonpoint source pollution,
(2) reduce or prevent the delivery
of NPS pollutants to waters of the
state, and (3) disseminate informa-
tion on effective solutions to NPS
pollution.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The North Dakota Department
of Health monitors physical and
chemical parameters (such as dis-
solved oxygen, pH, total dissolved
solids, nutrients, and toxic metals),
toxic contaminants in fish, whole
effluent toxicity, and fish and
macroinvertebrate community
structure. North Dakota's ambient
water quality monitoring network
consists of 27 sampling sites on
24 rivers and streams. The Depart-
ment's biological assessment pro-
gram has grown since 1993.
Currently, biosurveys are conducted
at approximately 50 sites each year.
North Dakota is developing
biological assessment methods and
criteria for depressional and riparian
wetlands.
Individual Use Support in North Dakota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
fffvers and Streams (Total Miles = 54,373)b
JLakes (Total Acres = 660,097)
aA subset of North Dakota's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b)
report for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
346 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands
Farallon de Pajaros (Uracas)
jfo Maug Island
o
Asuncion Island
,£> Agrihan
jQ Pagan
O Alamagan
O Cugun
O Sarlgan
CD Anatahan
° Farallon de Medinilla
Salpan
JJ Tinian
Aguijan
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
Rota
For a copy of the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands
1998 305(b) report, contact
Ike Cabrera
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands
Division of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1304
Saipan, MP 96950
(670) 664-8500
Surface Water Qualify
The Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) is
an archipelago of 15 islands in the
Western Pacific Ocean located north
of Guam. The largest and most
populated of the Islands is Saipan
with an area of 120 square kilo-
meters and 52 miles of coastline.
Currently, the majority of the moni-
toring of surface and ground waters
takes place on Saipan, but future
efforts will work to include the other
islands.
The streams and wetlands on
CNMI are not currently monitored
because they are not used for
drinking water or recreation. Coastal
marine waters are monitored
because the quality of the water
can affect the health of the coral
reef ecosystem, on which subsis-
tence, recreation, storm protection,
and tourism depend.
Both point and nonpoint
sources are responsible for lowering
the quality of CNMI's water. Sewage
outfalls, dredging, sedimentation
from unpaved roads and develop-
ment, and nutrients from golf
courses and agriculture are the most
significant stressors on the CMNI's
marine water quality. The sediment
and nutrients are the most detri-
mental to the health of the coral
reefs and are the two most signifi-
cant causes of marine water quality
impairment in the CMNI.
CNMI did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ninety-nine percent of the
drinking water on the islands comes
from aquifers. With an expected
population increase of 40% by
2000, protecting the aquifers for
present and future uses is a high
priority. Greater demands for water
have already led to overpumping of
the aquifer. Overpumping can lead
to high levels of chlorides in the
water and eventually to salt water
intrusion, an irreversible condition
that causes permanent damage to
the aquifer. Ground water quality
is also threatened from industry
(garment factories), failing septic
systems, and service industries (gas
stations, repair shops, and power
generators). In addition, there is also
concern about historical contamina-
tion from resulting from military
activities from 1940 to the 1960s.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 347
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Permits are required for all water
wells in the CNMI. The permits
require semiannual water sample
results on chlorides, fecal coliform
bacteria, and other potential con-
taminants. Along with the permits,
pumping rates for new wells and for
existing wells with increased chloride
levels are decreased. A fairly strin-
gent permitting program is also in
place for new septic tank construc-
tion and, at the same time, funding
is being sought to extend existing
sewer lines into highly populated
areas. Underground and above-
ground storage tanks must be
reviewed and approved before
installation. Chemical storage is
controlled by permitting and
inspection of storage facilities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
CNMI's Department of Environ-
mental Quality has an extensive
monitoring program that includes
monitoring public water supply sys-
tems and nearshore marine water
for traditional water quality param-
eters. Biocriteria methods are used
to monitor the health of coral reefs.
Although the extent of contami-
nation caused by World War II activ-
ities on the islands has not been fully
investigated, an area of particular
concern, the Puerto Rico dump, has
been found to be in violation of the
Clean Water Act. As part of a dump
closure plan, an independent firm
will be contracted to monitor and
evaluate the site and the water qual-
ity surrounding the dump.
aA subset of CNMI's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the commonwealth's
305(b) report for a full description of the
commonwealth's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Northern Mariana Islands
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
jpTvers and Streams (Total Miles = 59)b
Total Miles
Assessed
gstuanes (Total Square Miles = 15,975)
Ocean Shoreline (Total Shore Miles = 52)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
348 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Ohio
Segment 80%-100% Fully Supporting
Segment 50% - 79% Fully Supporting
Segment 20% - 49% Fully Supporting
Segment 0% -19% Fully Supporting
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Diglt Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Ohio 1996 305(b)
report, contact:
Ed Rankin
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Surface Water
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614) 728-3388
e-mail: Ed.Rankin@epa.state.oh.us
Surface Water Quality
For the 1998 reporting cycle,
Ohio provided an addendum to the
state's 1996 305(b) report, focusing
on aquatic life use support assess-
ments performed during 1996 and
1997. Of the 3,023 river miles
assessed for aquatic life use during
this time period, 57% were fully
supporting, 20% were partially sup-
porting, and 22% were not support-
ing. The state identified habitat
alterations, organic enrichment,
siltation, metals, flow alterations,
and nutrients as the major causes
of aquatic life use impairment. The
leading sources of aquatic life use
impairment include hydrologic
modifications, point sources, agricul-
ture, mining, and urban runoff.
In the state's 1998 report, Ohio
for the first time presented narrative
ranges of biological integrity for
rivers and streams. Ohio has narra-
tive ratings that are matched to the
state's aquatic life uses. Nearly 20%
of the assessed streams were rated
as excellent, indicating a high
species richness and diversity of fish
and macroinvertebrate assemblages.
Thirty-nine percent were rated as
good, indicating a well-balanced
community of fish and macroinver-
tebrates comparable to reference
conditions. Just under 26% were
rated as fair, indicating that one or
more organism groups deviate
moderately from reference condi-
tions. Fourteen percent were rated
as poor, indicating situations where
one or more organism groups devi-
ates substantially from reference
conditions. Only 2% of streams
were classified as very poor, indicat-
ing a virtual absence of any aquatic
life.
Ground Water Quality
About 4.5 million Ohio residents
depend on wells for domestic water.
Waste disposal activities, under-
ground storage tank leaks, and spills
are the dominant sources of ground
water contamination in Ohio.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Ohio is reworking its Nonpoint
Source Management Plan by form-
ing a number of working groups,
such as the headwater streams
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 349
working group, that involve multiple
agencies and other interested par-
ties. These groups are charged with
developing strategies with the ulti-
mate goal of protecting Ohio's rivers
and streams.
To fully restore water quality,
Ohio EPA advocates an ecosystem
approach that confronts degrada-
tion on shore as well as in the water.
Ohio's programs aim to correct
nonchemical impacts, such as
channel modification and the
destruction of shoreline vegetation.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Ohio pioneered the integration
of biosurvey data, physical habitat
data, and bioassays with water
chemistry data to measure the over-
all integrity of water resources.
Biological monitoring provides the
foundation of Ohio's water pro-
grams because traditional chemical
monitoring alone may not detect
episodic pollution events or non-
chemical impacts. Ohio EPA found
that biosurvey data can increase the
detection of aquatic life use impair-
ment by about 35% to 50%.
Ohio is developing biological
assessment methods and criteria for
depressional and riparian wetlands.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Ohio's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b)
report for a full description of the state's
uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Ohio
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fulty (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
givers and Streams (Total Miles = 29,113)b
Total Miles
(Total Acres = 188,461)
Total Acres
Assessed
jGreat Lakes (Total Shore Miles = 236)
«, ^ ;
Total Shore
Miles Assessed
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
350 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Oklahoma
— Fully Supporting
— Threatened
-— Partially Supporting
— Not Supporting
— Not Assessed
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Oigit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use-support status.
For a copy of the Oklahoma 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Shelly Carter
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
P.O. Box1677
Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677
(405)702-8198
e-mail: karen.carter@deqmail.state.
ok.us
Surface Water Quality
Thirty-seven percent of the
assessed river miles have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life uses and 61% fully sup-
port swimming. The most common
pollutants found in Oklahoma rivers
are siltation, pesticides, nutrients,
and suspended solids. Agriculture is
the leading source of pollution in
the state's rivers and streams, fol-
lowed by resource extraction and
hydrologic and habitat modifica-
tions.
Fifty-six percent of the assessed
lake acres fully support aquatic life
uses and more than 59% fully
support swimming. The most
widespread pollutants in Oklaho-
ma's lakes are siltation, nutrients,
suspended solids, pesticides, and
oxygen-depleting substances. Agri-
culture is also the most common
source of pollution in lakes, followed
by hydrologic modifications and
resource extraction. Several lakes are
impacted by acid mine drainage,
including the Gaines Creek arm of
Lake Eufaula and the Lake O' the
Cherokees.
Oklahoma did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ambient ground water monitor-
ing has detected elevated nitrate
concentrations in monitoring wells
scattered across the state. Monitor-
ing has also detected isolated cases
of hydrocarbon contamination,
elevated selenium and fluoride con-
centrations (some due to natural
sources), chloride contamination
from discontinued oil field activities,
metals from past mining operations,
and gross alpha activity above maxi-
mum allowable limits. Industrial
solvents contaminate a few sites
around Tinker Air Force Base. The
state rates agricultural activities,
injection wells, septic tanks, surface
impoundments, and underground
storage tanks among the highest
priority sources of ground water
contamination.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Oklahoma's nonpoint source
control program is a cooperative
effort of state, federal, and local
agencies with the Conservation
Commission serving as the lead
.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 351
technical agency. The program
sponsors best management prac-
tices, water quality monitoring
before and after BMP implementa-
tion, technical assistance, education,
and development of comprehensive
watershed management plans. The
Conservation Commission is work-
ing toward a goal of 70% coopera-
tive participation by local landown-
ers in BMP projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality monitors the
waters of the state for toxic contam-
inants through the Ambient/Bio-
trend Monitoring and Toxic Moni-
toring in Reservoirs programs. The
Ambient/Biotrend Monitoring
program consists of 22 core and
78 rotating stations and has been in
place since 1979. The Toxic Moni-
toring in Reservoirs program began
in 1980 and has involved monitor-
ing of over 50 different lakes in the
state. Oklahoma also participates in
the EPA Region 6 Ambient Biotoxic-
ity Network that began sampling in
1990.
The Oklahoma Water Quality
Monitoring Council (OWQMC) was
created in the fall of 1997 to devel-
op and implement a comprehensive
state water quality monitoring strat-
egy. The OWQMC organization
fosters cooperation among groups
involved in all types of water quality
monitoring and associated mapping
activities.
Individual Use Support in Oklahoma
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
JR|ygrs and Streams (Total Miles =78,778)?
48
Lakes (Total Acres = 1,041,884)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Oklahoma's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b)
report for a full description of the state's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
352 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Oregon
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlglt Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Oregon 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Dick Pedersen
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1390
(503) 229-6345
email: pedersen.dick@deq.state.
onus
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.deq.state.
or.us/wq/305bRpt/305bReport.
htm
Surface Water Quality
Seventy-four percent of Ore-
gon's surveyed rivers have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life use. The most common-
ly reported problems in the state's
streams include thermal modifica-
tions, pathogens, and habitat alter-
ations. Suspected sources include
agriculture, silviculture, and habitat
and hydromodifications.
In lakes, 35% of the surveyed
acres fully support aquatic life uses.
Common problems in Oregon's
lakes include nutrients, acidity,
organic enrichment, and metals.
Agriculture, natural sources, and
urban runoff/storm sewers are the
most commonly reported sources of
lake impairment.
Ninety-three percent of Ore-
gon's surveyed estuarine waters
partially support shellfishing use due
to periodic violations of bacteria
standards. Suspected sources of
bacteria include municipal and
industrial point sources, agriculture,
collection system failures, and urban
runoff/storm sewers.
In Oregon, 13,687 river miles
and 30 lakes do not meet state
water quality standards and are
listed on the Water Quality Limited
Waterbodies 303(d) list. Although
the list is significantly larger than in
the past, the increase does not sig-
nify that Oregon's waters are more
degraded than a few years ago. The
increase simply reflects the amount
of new information considered in
developing the list.
Oregon did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Oregon has two ground water
management areas and is studying
ground water quality in several
other areas of the state. Contami-
nants of concern include pesticides,
petroleum compounds, metals, and
halogenated solvents. Suspected
sources of contamination include
agricultural activities, above- and
below-ground storage tanks, land-
fills, septic systems, hazardous waste
sites, spills, and urban runoff.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ) is the state
agency responsible for protecting
Oregon's public water for a wide
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 353
range of uses. DEQ sets water qual-
ity standards to protect "beneficial
uses" such as recreation, fish habi-
tat, drinking water supplies, and
aesthetics. DEQ is now beginning a
10-year process of developing Total
Maximum Daily Loads for those
waterbodies that appear on the
state's 303(d) list.
DEQ regulates approximately
587 municipal wastewater sewage
treatment plants and 223 industrial
dischargers through individual per-
mits that set limits on pollutants dis-
charged. In addition, approximately
1,310 facilities have general permits
that limit discharges and 1,410 facil-
ities are covered by stormwater
general permits. DEQ also permits
and inspects septic system installa-
tions.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DEQ monitors water quality
with regular sampling of more than
50 rivers and streams in the 18
designated river basins in Oregon.
This sampling produces,conven-
tional pollutant data for determin-
ing trends, standards compliance,
and problem identification. Biologi:
cal monitoring is also conducted
under one of three sampling strate-
gies: probabilistic sampling for
extrapolation of conditions of study
units (e.g., ecoregion), best man-
agement practices effectiveness
monitoring, and reference site
monitoring. Other monitoring
includes studies of mixing zones at
effluent discharges, volunteer moni-
toring, and sampling of shellfish
areas for bacteria.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Oregon
Percent
Designated Use
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
fevers and Streams (Total Miles = ii4,823)a
Total Miles
Assessed
44
26
Lakes (Total Acres; =618,934)
•Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 206)
tt^,
Total Square
Miles Assessed
56
25
100
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
354 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Pennsylvania
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
mm 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
•m 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
wmm 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
•n 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
Baa Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 8-DIgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Pennsylvania 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Division of Water Quality
Assessment and Standards
P.O. Box 8555
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
(717) 787-9637
e-mail: frey.robert@dep.state.pa.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.dep.state.
pa. us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/
subjects/wqstandards.htm
Surface Water Quality
Nearly 66% of the surveyed
river miles have good water quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses.
The most widespread pollutants
impairing the remaining miles are
metals, which impact over 1,610
miles. Other pollutants include
suspended solids, nutrients, and
organic enrichment.
Abandoned mine drainage is
the most significant source of
surface water quality degradation.
Drainage from abandoned mining
sites pollutes at least 1,764 miles
of streams, 40% of all degraded
streams. Other sources of degrada-
tion include agriculture, urban
runoff/storm sewers, and habitat
modification.
Pennsylvania has issued fish
consumption advisories on 24
waterbodies. Most of the advisories
are due to elevated concentrations
of PCBs and chlordane in fish tissue,
but two advisories have been issued
for mirex and one for mercury.
Zebra mussels are present in
Pennsylvania in Lake Erie and the
immediate vicinity, as well as the
lower Monongahela, lower
Allegheny, and upper Ohio rivers.
There are about 175 publicly and
privately run zebra mussel sampling
sites statewide.
Ground Water Quality
Major sources of ground water
contamination include pesticide
application, aboveground and
underground storage tanks, surface
impoundments, landfills, hazardous
waste sites, industrial facilities,
mining and mine drainage, pipelines
and sewer lines, and spills. Petro-
leum and petroleum byproducts are
the most common pollutants in
ground water. Coal mining and oil
and gas production have also
elevated concentrations of several
elements (including chlorides and
metals in some regions). Pennsyl-
vania is continuing to develop its
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program (CSGWPP). The
CSGWPP provides a mechanism
for Pennsylvania and EPA to work
together to develop a comprehen-
sive and consistent statewide
approach to ground water quality
protection. Pennsylvania and EPA
will use the CSGWPP to focus on a
long-term process for improving
existing state and federal ground
water programs.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 355
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Eliminating acid mine drainage
from abandoned mines will require
up to $5 billion. The cost, difficulty,
magnitude, and extent of the prob-
lem have hampered progress. To
date, the Commonwealth has
funded studies to determine the
effectiveness of alternative tech-
niques for treating mine drainage
and preventing contamination. The
U.S. Office of Surface Mining and
EPA Region 3 have created the
Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative
to address water quality problems
associated with mine drainage in
Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia. It is hoped that this
initiative will involve private organi-
zations and local citizens, as well as
government agencies, in moving
toward solutions.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Water Quality Network
monitors chemical and physical
parameters almost monthly and
biological parameters annually at
153 fixed stations on rivers, streams,
and Lake Erie. The Commonwealth
also conducts ambient ground
water monitoring at 537 monitoring
sites.
Biological assessment methods
for wetlands are being developed in
Pennsylvania with the intention of
establishing criteria for wetlands.
Individual Use Support in Pennsylvania
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Ipvers and Streams (Total Miles = 83,260)";:
Total Miles
Assessed
34
JLajies (Total Acres -161,445)
Total Acres
Assessed
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Pennsylvania's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b)"
report for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
356 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Puerto Rico
' Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-DIgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Puerto Rico 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Ruben Gonzalez
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board
Water Quality Area
Box11488
Santurce, PR 00910
(787)751-5548
Surface Water Quality
In rivers and streams, 81 % of
the assessed miles have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life uses, less than 1 % partially sup-
port aquatic life uses, and 19% do
not support aquatic life uses. Swim-
ming is impaired in 20% of the
assessed rivers and streams. Patho-
gens, nonpriority organics, metals,
inorganic chemicals, and low
dissolved oxygen are the most
widespread problems in rivers and
streams. In lakes, 18% of the
assessed acres fully support aquatic
life uses and 82% do not support
aquatic life uses. Swimming is
impaired in 30% of the surveyed
lake acres. Uses are impaired by
pathogens, low dissolved oxygen
concentrations, and metals. Major
sources of impairment to rivers and
lakes include land disposal of
wastes, urban runoff, agricultural
activities, and collection system
failures.
Ninety-nine percent of the
assessed estuarine waters fully sup-
port aquatic life use and 95% fully
support swimming use. Metals from
land disposal and pathogens from
unknown sources are responsible for
the impaired miles. Industrial and
municipal discharges, collection sys-
tem failures, spills, marinas, urban
runoff, and land disposal of wastes
also pollute beaches.
Puerto Rico did not report on
the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Two wells were closed due to
bacterial contamination. Another
10 wells were closed for the follow-
ing reasons: low yield; contamina-
tion by trichloroethylene, nitrates, or
volatile organic compounds (VOCs);
high salinity levels; turbidity; arid
residual chlorine. The major sources
of ground water contamination
include agricultural activities, septic
tanks, industrial facilities, storage
tanks, and landfills. Puerto Rico
adopted ground water use classifica-
tions and water quality standards in
1990. During this reporting period,
Puerto Rico began the implementa-
tion of a ground water monitoring
network.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Puerto Rico requires permits
or certificates for ground water
and surface water discharges,
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 357
underground storage tanks, and
livestock operations. Certificates
require livestock operations to
implement animal waste manage-
ment systems and other best man-
agement practices. During this
reporting period, Puerto Rico issued
269 certificates for livestock opera-
tions. Other nonpoint source con-
trol program activities are directed
at erosion and sedimentation from
construction and mining activities
and sewage disposal from small
communities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board (PREQB) operates
three fixed-station monitoring net-
works and also performs watershed
monitoring on a limited basis. To
date, monitoring has been limited
to physical and chemical param-
eters. However, during 1996 the
PREQB, along with EPA, approved a
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol and
began a pilot project to determine
the feasibility of implementing it in
the near future. Puerto Rico also
maintains a Permanent Coastal
Water Quality Network of 88 sta-
tions and the San Juan Beachfront
Special Monitoring Network of
22 stations sampled monthly for
bacterial contamination.
Individual Use Support in Puerto Rico
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A subset of Puerto Rico's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the
Commonwealth's 305(b) report for a full
description of the Commonwealth's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
• (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Overs and Streams (Total Miles = 5,385)b
Total Miles
Assessed
67
19
kes (Total Acres = 12,111)
Istuaries (Total Square Miles = 549.9)
Note': Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
358 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Rhode Island
—— Segment 80%-100% Fully Supporting
Segment 50% - 79% Fully Supporting
— Segment 20% - 49% Fully Supporting
— Segment 0% -19% Fully Supporting
—" Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIgit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Rhode Island 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Connie Carey
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Office of Water Resources
235 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908
(401)222-3961
Surface Water Quality
Of the river miles assessed, 52%
fully support swimming use, and
approximately 37% fully support it
now but are considered threatened.
Approximately 23% fully support
aquatic life use and 50% are consid-
ered fully supporting but threatened.
The most significant causes of non-
support for rivers are biodiversity
impacts, pathogens, metals, and
nutrients. Potential sources of non-
support include both point and
nonpoint sources.
Of the lake acres assessed, 70%
fully support swimming while 23%
are considered fully supporting but
threatened. Approximately 43% fully
support aquatic life needs and 43%
fully support aquatic life uses but are
threatened. For lakes and ponds, the
major causes of nonsupport are high
bacteria, nutrient, and chloride levels.
Major sources of nonsupport are
mainly from nonpoint source impacts
such as urban and stormwater runoff.
In estuarine waters, approxi-
mately 77% support swimming uses
and 14% fully support them but are
considered threatened. Sixty-six
percent fully support aquatic life
needs while 18% are considered fully
supporting but threatened. Seventy-
three percent fully support shellfishing
use while 6% fully support it but are
considered threatened by bacterial
contamination, the major impact on
designated uses. Nutrients and low
dissolved oxygen in the Upper Bay
and coves are moderate causes of
impairment. Combined sewer over-
flows are the major source of bacteria
contamination. CSOs, urban runoff,
and municipal discharges are sources
of nutrient enrichment problems in
the Upper Bay and coves.
Rhode Island did not report on
the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
About 19% of the state's popula-
tion gets its drinking water from pub-
lic and private wells. Overall, Rhode
Island's ground water has good to
excellent quality, but over 100 con-
taminants have been detected in
localized areas. Thirteen community
and eight noncommunity wells have
been closed, and over 350 private
wells have had contaminant concen-
trations exceeding drinking water
standards. The most common pollut-
ants are petroleum products, certain
organic solvents, and nitrates. Signifi-
cant pollution sources include leaking
underground storage tanks, hazard-
ous and industrial waste disposal sites,
illegal or improper waste disposal,
chemical and oil spills, landfills, septic
systems, road salt storage and applica-
tion, and fertilizer application.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 359
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The focus on water quality has
gradually shifted from controlling
point sources to controlling nonpoint
sources of pollution. Construction of
wastewater treatment systems has
addressed the majority of the larger
direct discharges to the state's waters.
As part of the Watershed Approach,
the Office of Water Resources (OWR)
staff work with local property owners
and officials to develop management
plans and strategies to identify pollu-
tion sources and are involved with the
oversite and performance evaluation
of special water quality projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The OWR surface water monitor-
ing system gathers baseline data used
in establishing and reviewing the
state's water quality standards to mea-
sure progress and to supply informa-
tion for use in development of permit
limits for wastewater discharges and
total maximum daily loads. The OWR
performs bacteriological monitoring
at selected state-owned beaches and
provides intensive bacteriological
monitoring of shellfishable waters. EPA
protocols and USGS monitoring are
included in Rhode Island's monitoring
programs, as are many citizen moni-
toring groups, which supply supple-
mental water quality data for numer-
ous rivers, lakes, ponds, and estuarine
waters in the state.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Rhode Island's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Includes ocean waters.
Individual Use Support in Rhode Island
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor. Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = i,392)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 21,300)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 152)°
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
360 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
South Carolina
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
80% -100% Meeting All Uses
50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
0% -19% Meeting All Uses
Insufficient Assessment Coverage
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the South Carolina
1998 305(b) report, contact:
Gina Kirkland
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 898-4250
e-mail: kirklagl@columb35.dhec.
state.sc.us
Surface Water Quality
Eighty-seven percent of sur-
veyed rivers, 92% of surveyed lakes,
and 68% of estuaries have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life uses. Fifty-three percent
of rivers, more than 99% of lakes,
and 89% of estuaries fully support
swimming. Unsuitable water quality
is responsible for shellfish harvesting
prohibitions in only 2% of the
state's coastal shellfish waters.
Another 11 % of shellfish waters are
closed as a precaution due to
potential pollution from nearby
marinas or point source discharges.
Bacteria are the most frequent
cause of impairment (i.e., partial or
nonsupport of designated uses) in
rivers and streams; metals are the
most frequent cause of impairment
in lakes, but only 9% of lakes do not
fully support all uses; and low dis-
solved oxygen is the most frequent
cause of impairment in estuaries.
Toxic contaminants do not appear
to be a widespread problem in
South Carolina surface waters.
South Carolina did not report
on the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Overall ground water quality
remains excellent, although the
number of reported ground water
contamination cases rose from 60
cases in 1980 to 3,350 cases in
1998. The increase in the number
of contaminated sites is primarily
due to expanded monitoring at
underground storage tank sites.
Leaking underground storage tanks
are the most common source of
contamination, impacting 2,650
sites. Other major sources include
spills, landfills, hazardous waste
sites, and land application of waste.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental
Control (DHEC) initiated a Water-
.shed Water Quality Management
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 361
Strategy (WWQMS) to integrate
monitoring, assessment, problem
identification and prioritization,
water quality modeling, planning,
permitting, and other management
activities by river drainage basins.
DHEC has delineated five major
drainage basins encompassing 280
• minor watersheds. Every year,
DHEC develops or revises a man-
agement plan and implementation
strategy for one basin. The majority
of water quality activities in these
watersheds are based on a 5-year
rotation. The basin strategies will
refocus water quality protection and
restoration priorities for allocation of
limited resources.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Year round, DHEC samples
chemical and physical parameters
monthly at fixed primary stations
located in or near high-use waters.
DHEC .samples secondary stations
(near discharges and areas with a
history of water quality problems)
monthly from May through
October for fewer parameters. Each
year, DHEC adds new watershed
stations within the specific basin
under investigation. Watershed
stations are sampled monthly for
1 year corresponding with the
WWQMS schedule.
Individual Use Support in South Carolina
Percent
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of South Carolina's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
state's 305(b) report for a full description of
the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (total Miles = 29,898)"
es (Total Acres = 366,576)
IBS (Total Square Miles = 682)
Total Square
Miles Assessed 68
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
362 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
South Dakota
FuHy Supporting
— Threatened
• Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
— Not Assessed
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the South Dakota
1998 305(b) report, contact:
Andrew Repsys
South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Division of Rnancial and Technical
Assistance
Water Resources Assistance Program
523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-4046
e-mail: andrewr@denr.state.
sd.us
Surface Water Quality
Thirty-six percent of South
Dakota's assessed rivers and streams
fully support aquatic life uses and
37% of the assessed rivers also
support swimming. The most com-
mon pollutants impacting South
Dakota streams are suspended solids
due to water erosion from crop-
lands, gully erosion from range-
lands, streambank erosion, and
other natural forms of erosion.
Other impacts to streams were
due to elevated total dissolved
solids, low dissolved oxygen, ele-
vated pH, and water temperature.
Sixteen percent of South Dakota's
assessed lake acres fully support
aquatic life uses and 99% of the
assessed lake acres fully support
swimming. The most common
, pollutants are nutrients and siltation
from agricultural runoff and other
nonpoint sources that produce
dense algal blooms in many of the
state's lakes.
The high water conditions that
prevailed in South Dakota for most
of this reporting period and last
greatly increased watershed erosion
and sedimentation in lakes and
streams. Suspended solids criteria
were severely violated in many rivers
and streams, and there was an
increase in the incidence of fecal
coliform bacteria in swimming areas
at lakes. However, water quality
improved in some lakes that experi-
enced low water levels during the
late 1980s, and high flows diluted
bacteria in some rivers and streams.
South Dakota did not report on
the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
More than three-quarters of
South Dakota's population uses
ground water for domestic needs.
General ground water quality is
good, with only a few aquifers hav-
ing naturally occurring contamina-
tion. Deeper aquifers generally have
poorer water quality than shallow
aquifers but are also generally less
susceptible to pollution. The most
significant ground water quality
problems in South Dakota are
human-induced ground water
degradation from petroleum,
nitrate, and other chemicals
through accidental releases and
product mishandling, poor manage-
ment practices, improper locating of
pollutant-producing facilities, and
contamination of shallow wells due
to poor construction or location
adjacent to pollutant sources.
.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 363
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
South Dakota regulates point
sources through the National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System.
As part of the state's point source
program, South Dakota regulates
concentrated animal feeding opera-
tions (CAFOs). The state offers two
general permits, one for concen-
trated swine operations and one for
other CAFOs.
South Dakota relies primarily on
voluntary implementation of best
management practices to control
nonpoint source pollution. However,
the state acknowledges that the
technical and financial assistance
currently available is not sufficient
to solve all the NPS problems in
the state. Other solutions may be
explored, including enforcement to
increase compliance with state and
federal requirements.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
South Dakota conducts ambient
water quality monitoring at estab-
lished stations, special intensive
surveys, intensive fish surveys,
JMDL wasteload allocation surveys,
and individual nonpoint source
projects. Biological sampling is also
conducted for special studies and
diagnostic/feasibility studies. The
U.S. Geological Survey, Corps of
Engineers, and U.S. Forest Service
also conduct routine monitoring
throughout the state. Water samples
are analyzed for chemical, physical,
biological, and bacteriological
parameters.
Individual Use Support in South Dakota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially {Not , Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Streams (Total Miles = 9,937)
44
Lakes (Total Acres = 750,000)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of South Dakota's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b)
report for a full description of the state's uses.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
364 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Tennessee
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlglt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Tennessee 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Greg Denton
Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation
Division of Water Pollution Control
7th Floor, L&C Annex
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
(615)532-0699
e-mail: gdenton@mail.state.tn.us
Surface Water Quality
Of assessed rivers and streams,
73% fully support aquatic life uses,
21 % partially support these uses,
and 6% do not support them. Silta-
tion, habitat alteration, nutrients,
oxygen-depleting substances, and
pathogens affect the most river
miles. Toxic materials, pH, and flow
alterations impact rivers to a lesser
extent. Major sources of pollutants
include agriculture, hydromodifica-
tion, urban runoff, and municipal
point sources. Intense impacts from
mining occur in the Cumberland
Plateau region, and poor quality
water discharged from dams
impacts streams in east and middle
Tennessee.
Of assessed lakes, 90% fully
support aquatic life uses, 3% partial-
ly support these uses, and 7% do
not support them. The most wide-
spread problems in lakes include
nutrients, low dissolved oxygen,
metals, flow alteration, and priority
organics. Major sources of these
pollutants are stream impound-
ments, contaminated sediments,
urban runoff/storm sewers, land
treatment, and spills.
Tennessee identified 54,811
acres of impacted wetlands (approx-
imately 7% of existing wetlands).
Major threats include siltation from
construction and residential devel-
opment and loss of function due to
channelization and levees.
The Department of Environ-
ment and Conservation (DEC)
maintains a monitoring program to
identify public health threats. Swim-
ming advisories were issued at 33
waterbodies due to elevated bacte-
ria levels. Seven lakes and portions
of eight rivers have fishing advisories
due to fish tissue contamination.
Sediment contamination due to
legacy chemicals remains a problem
in some lakes and streams.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality is general-
ly good, but pollutants contaminate
(or are thought to contaminate) the
resource in localized areas. These
pollutants include volatile and semi-
volatile organic chemicals, bacteria,
metals, petroleum products, pesti-
cides, and radioactive materials.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Division of Water Pollution
Control adopted a watershed
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 365
approach to improving water qual-
ity and encouraging coordination
with the public and other agencies.
Each of the 54 watersheds is man-
aged on a 5-year cycle coinciding
with the duration of discharge per-
mits. Tennessee is also conducting
several total maximum daily load
studies to allocate pollutant loading
among all the point and nonpoint
sources discharging into
a stream or its tributaries.
The Division is actively identify-
ing strategies to reduce pollutant
loadings at streams not currently
meeting water quality standards.
DEC, in partnership agreement with
other agencies, has established a
goal to implement 100 control
strategies on TMDL-listed streams
by 2003. The DEC has also devel-
oped a wetland strategy to protect
and restore Tennessee's wetlands.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Tennessee's ambient monitoring
network consists of 156 active sta-
tions sampled quarterly for conven-
tional pollutants, nutrients, and
selected metals. The state also
performs intensive surveys, often
including biological monitoring at
streams where they suspect that
human activities are degrading
stream quality. The state samples
toxic chemicals in fish and sediment
at sites with suspected toxicity
problems.
With assistance from EPA,
Tennessee is subdelineating ecore-
gions and characterizing water qual-
ity at carefully selected reference
streams to help set clean water
goals on a regional, rather than
statewide, basis.
Individual Use Support in Tennessee
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Hivers and Streams (Total Miles = 6i,075)b
Total Miles
73
21
Lakes (Total Acres = 538,060)
yff~?" .--- __._----- '
Summary of Use Support in Tennessee
IfeTlands (Total Acres
Total Acres
Assessed
787,000
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
= 787,000)
93
Percent
Good Impaired
(Threatened) (For One
or More Uses)
•..-'.-•-• • . *
7
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Tennessee's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
366 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Texas
Percent of Assessed Rivera, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
•BB 80% - 100% Meeting All Uses
•n 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
mm 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
mm 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
•ca Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Texas 1998 305(b)
report, contact:
Steve Twidwell
Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512)239-4607
e-mail: stwidwel@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Surface Water Quality
About 91 % of the assessed
stream miles fully support aquatic life
uses, 3% partially support these uses,
and 6% do not support aquatic life
uses. Swimming is impaired in about
26% of the assessed rivers and
streams. The most common pollut-
ants degrading rivers and streams are
bacteria, metals, and oxygen-deplet-
ing substances. Major sources of
pollution include municipal sewage
treatment plants, agricultural runoff,
and urban runoff.
In reservoirs, 89% of the assessed
surface acres fully support aquatic life
uses, 7% partially support these uses,
and 4% do not support aquatic life
uses. Of the assessed lake acres, 97%
fully support swimming. The most
common problems in reservoirs are
metals, low dissolved oxygen, and
elevated bacteria concentrations.
Major sources that contribute to
nonsupport of uses include atmos-
pheric deposition, natural sources
(e.g., high temperature and shallow
conditions), municipal sewage treat-
ment plants, industrial point sources,
and urban runoff.
The leading problem in estuaries
is bacteria that contaminate shellfish
beds. Sixty-one percent of the sur-
veyed estuarine waters fully support
shellfishing use, 23% partially support
this use, and 16% do not support
shellfishing.
Texas did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
About 41 % of the municipal
water is obtained from ground water
sources in Texas. Identified ground
water contaminant sources include
storage tanks, surface impoundments,
landfills, septic systems, and natural
sources. The most commonly report-
ed ground water contaminants from
human activities are gasoline, diesel,
and other petroleum products. Less
commonly reported contaminants
include volatile organic compounds
and pesticides. The degradation of
ground water quality from natural
sources probably has a greater effect
than do all anthropogenic sources
combined. '
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC)
uses a basin approach to water
resource management with the Clean
Rivers Program (CRP). The coopera-
tive TNRCC/CRP program is a long-
term, comprehensive, and integrated
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 367
approach aimed at improving coordi-
nation of natural resource functions
within the agency.
Implementation of coordinated
basin monitoring is one of the priori-
ties of the program. The goal of this
activity is to provide a process in
which monitoring groups will coordi-
nate their activities with the TNRCC.
Coordinated monitoring meetings are
held in each of the 23 basins every
spring to bring together key monitor-
ing groups (state agencies, river
authorities, cities, volunteer groups,
U.S. Geological Survey, Corps of Engi-
neers, etc.). At the meetings, sched-
ules are cooperatively developed for
fixed-station and special study moni-
toring to reduce duplication of effort,
consolidate sampling and analysis
protocols, and improve spatial cover-
age of monitoring sites.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The TNRCC samples about 450
fixed stations as part of its Surface
Water Quality Monitoring Program
(SWQMP). The TNRCC samples
different parameters and varies the fre-
quency of sampling at each site to sat-
isfy different needs. The TNRCC also
conducts intensive surveys to evaluate
potential impacts from point source
dischargers during low flow conditions
and special studies to investigate spe-
cific sources and pollutants. About
3,000 citizens also perform volunteer
environmental monitoring in the
Texas Watch Program.
Individual Use Support in Texas
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Texas' designated uses appear in
this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Use9
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
IRivers and Streams (Total Miles = i?i,228)b
Total Miles 91
<1
[Lakes (Total Acres = 3,065,600)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 1,991)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
368 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Utah
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Utah 1998 305(b)
report, contact:
Thomas W. Toole
Utah Department of Environmental
Quality
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801)538-6859
e-mail: eqwq.ttoole@email.state.
ut.us
Surface Water Quality
Of the 8,705 river miles
assessed, 82% fully support aquatic
life uses, 12% partially support these
uses, and 6% do not support
aquatic life uses. The most common
pollutants impacting rivers and
streams are total dissolved solids,
habitat alterations, metals, sedi-
ments, and nutrients. Agricultural
practices, such as grazing, improper
manure management, and irriga-
tion, elevate nutrient and sediment
loading into streams. Point sources
also contribute to nutrient loads,
while natural conditions and stream
channel modifications also result in
impairment. The loss of riparian
habitat impacts the fisheries on
many streams.
About 65% of the asessed lake
acres fully support aquatic life uses,
34% partially support these uses,
and 1 % do not support aquatic life
uses. The leading problems in lakes
include nutrients, siltation, low
dissolved oxygen, suspended solids,
and noxious aquatic plants. The
major sources of pollutants are agri-
cultural practices, industrial and
municipal point sources, drawdown
of reservoirs, and land development.
Fish and wildlife consumption
advisories are posted on the lower
portion of Ashley Creek drainage
and Stewart Lake in Uintah County
due to elevated levels of selenium
found in fish, ducks, and American
coots.
Utah did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
In general, the quality of
ground water in Utah has remained
relatively good throughout the
state, although some ground water
degradation occurs in south central
Utah in the metropolitan area of
Salt Lake City and along the
Wasatch Front area from Payson
north to Brigham City. Sources that
present a risk for ground water
contamination include agricultural
chemical facilities, animal feedlots,
storage tanks, surface impound-
ments, waste tailings, septic sys-
tems, road salt storage areas, spills,
and urban runoff. In 1994, new
ground water regulations went into
effect.
.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 369
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The state's Nonpoint Source
Task Force is responsible for coordi-
nating nonpoint source programs in
Utah. The Task Force is a broad-
based group with representatives
from federal, state, and local agen-
cies; local governments; agricultural
groups; conservation organizations;
and wildlife advocates. The Task
Force helped state water quality
and agricultural agencies prioritize
watersheds in need of NPS pollution
controls. As best management
practices are implemented, the Task
Force will update and revise the
priority list.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1993, Utah adopted a basin-
wide water quality monitoring
approach. Intensive surveys have
been completed on the lower Bear
River, Weber River, Jordan River,
Uinta, Sevier River, Cedar/Beaver,
and Lower Colorado watershed
management units. Assessments for
the West Colorado and Southeast
Colorado River watersheds will be
completed in 1999, completing the
5-year monitoring cycle. In addition,
Utah has developed a fixed-station
network of 63 stations to evaluate
water quality trends throughout the
state. Monitoring is also conducted
for Total Maximum Daily Load
determinations, industrial and "
municipal facility compliance, non-
point source projects, and at 18
benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
stations.
Individual Use Support in Utah
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good
(Fully (Threatened)
Supporting)
Fair Poor Not
(Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting)
Bpers and Streams (Total Miles = 85,916)"
Total Miles 82
Assessed
6S (Total Acres = 481,638)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Utah's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report for a
full description of the state's uses. .
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
370 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Vermont
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
•Bi 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
mat 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
ma 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
mm 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
•BI Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Vermont 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Jerome J. McArdle
Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Water Quality Division
103 South Main Street
Building 10 North
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
(802)241-3776
e-mail: jerrym@waterq.anr.
state.vt.us
Surface Water Quality
Vermont's rotational strategy
calls for assessment of one-fifth of
the state each year, resulting in a
complete assessment every 5 years.
As part of this strategy, Vermont
reported only on rivers and streams
in three major river basins and on
138 lakes for the 1998 report. The
current survey found that 93%,
77%, and 88% of the assessed river
and stream miles in the White River,
Otter Creek, and Lower Lake
Champlain basins, respectively, fully
support the water uses for which
they have been classified. For
assessed lakes, 24% fully support all
designated uses, including fish
consumption advisories (which
primarily affect lake fish) for women
of child-bearing age and children
age 6 and under).
Common pollutants found in
the assessed waterbodies include
silt, pathogens, and nutrients, which
come from eroding stream/lake
banks, urban areas, and agricultural
lands. Additional causes of pollution
include .thermal modifications, flow
modifications, metals, total toxics,
algae, and low dissolved oxygen
resulting from atmospheric deposi-
tion, natural sources, flow regula-
tion, and habitat alterations.
Many of Vermont's lakes and
rivers have been cleaned up by
construction of approximately
150 municipal and industrial waste-
water treatment facilities. However,
more work needs to be done to
complete the cleanup job—primar-
ily to reduce pollution from non-
point sources.
Ground Water Quality
The quality of Vermont's
ground waters is not well under-
stood. Ground water contamination
has been detected at hazardous
waste sites. Other sources of con-
cern include failing septic systems,
old solid waste disposal sites, agri-
culture, road salt, leaking under-
ground storage tanks, and landfills.
The state needs to implement a
Comprehensive Ground Water
Protection Program, but lacks the
financial and technical resources to
do so.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
It is estimated that 90% of
the miles and acres of the state's
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 371
impaired waterbodies are caused by
nonpoint source pollution.
Vermont has been able to effec-
tively target areas, design work
plans, compete for and capture
funding and implement nonpoint
source projects directed at restoring
and protecting water uses and
values. (Two examples of these proj-
ects are the Lake Champlain Basin
Watershed Nation Monitoring
Program Project, an effort to eval-
uate the effectiveness of improved
livestock grazing, and the Vermont
Better Backroads Program, a project
to provide grant money to towns
for BMPs).
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Vermont's monitoring activities
balance short-term intensive and
long-term trend monitoring.
Notable activities include fixed-
station monitoring on lakes and
ponds, citizen monitoring, long-
term acid rain lake monitoring,
compliance monitoring for permit-
ted dischargers, toxic discharge
monitoring, fish contamination
monitoring, and ambient biomoni-
toring of aquatic insects, and fish.
Vermont is developing a water-
shed approach to surface water
quality planning, which calls for
surface water plans for all major
drainage basins or subbasins on a
periodic basis. The watershed
approach may also include local
watershed management plans with
protection and restoration strategies
for individual watersheds.
Vermont is developing biologi-
cal methods for vernal pools and
white cedar swamps.
Individual Use Support in Vermont
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Clivers and Streams (Total wiiies = 7,Q99)b
Total Miles
Assessed 68
Lakes (Total Acres = 228,915)
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Vermont's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
b Includes perennial streams only.
c Excluding Lake Champlain.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
372 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Virginia
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting Alt Designated Uses
wmm 80% - 100% Meeting All Uses
tKM 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
•m 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
tmm 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
m Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Digit Hydralogic Unit)
For a copy of the Virginia 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Harry Augustine
Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Division
Office of Water Resources
Management
P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23219-0009
(804) 698-4037
e-mail: hhaugustin@deq.state.va.us
Surface Water Quality
Of the 49,358 river miles
assessed, 42% fully support aquatic
life use, another 51 % fully support
this use now but are threatened,
5% partially support this use, and
2% do not support this use. As in
past years, fecal coliform bacteria
are the most widespread problem in
rivers and streams. Agriculture and
grazing-related sources contribute
much of the fecal coliform bacteria
in Virginia's waters. Urban runoff
also is a significant source of
impacts in both rivers and estuaries.
All of Virginia's assessed publicly
owned lakes fully support aquatic
life use as well as fish consumption
and swimming uses. Dissolved oxy-
gen depletion, possibly associated
with excess nutrients, and siltation
from nonpoint sources were identi-
fied as threats to some of these
lakes.
In estuaries, 7% of the assessed
waters fully support aquatic life use,
81% support this use but are threat-
ened, 10% partially support this
use, and 3% do not support this
use. Organic enrichment is the most
common problem in Virginia's estu-
arine waters, followed by low dis-
solved oxygen concentrations.
Based on available information, all
of Virginia's Atlantic Ocean shoreline
fully supports designated uses.
The Virginia Department of
Health Bureau of Toxic Substances
Information has five health advi-
sories and one restriction currently
in effect for fish consumption.
Virginia did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water programs in
Virginia strive to maintain the exist-
ing high water quality. Sources of
ground water contamination in the
state include fertilizer and pesticide
applications, underground storage
tanks, landfills, septic systems, min-
ing, and urban runoff. The Virginia
Ground Water Protection Steering
Committee meets bimonthly to
share information, direct attention
to ground water issues, and take the
lead on interagency ground water
protection initiatives.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 373
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Virginia's Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality recommends
control measures for water quality
problems identified in the 305(b)
report in their Water Quality Man-
agement Plans (WQMPs). WQMPs
establish a strategy for bringing
impaired waters up to water quality
standards and preventing the
degradation of high-quality waters.
Control measures are implemented
through Virginia's point source
permit program and application
of best management practices for
nonpoint sources.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Ambient Water Quality
Monitoring Program has grown to
include 1,620 monitoring stations,
of which 1,349 are ambient water
quality stations and 277 are biologi-
cal monitoring stations. Stations are
located to gather information from
industrial, urban, rural, and undevel-
oped areas of the state. Virginia's
305(b) assessments also utilize infor-
mation from fish tissue, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and volunteer
monitoring programs.
Individual Use Support in Virginia
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A subset of Virginia's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
cSize of significant publicly owned lakes,
a subset of all lakes in Virginia.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
pivers and Streams (Total Miles = 49,358)b
Total Miles
Assessed
51
Lakes (Total Acres = 149,982)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 2,451)
JIILjfer-?-•:.•••,'. •....'..' --• : : - • .
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
374 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
U.S. Virgin Islands
St.
Thomas *
*s
Water Island
St. John
St. Croix
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Virgin Island's
1998 305(b) report, contact:
Lorina L. Williams
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of
Planning and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Protection
1118 Water Gut Homes
Christiansted, St. Croix, V.I. 00820-
5065
(340) 773-0565
Surface Water Quality
The U.S. Virgin Islands consist
of four main islands: St. Croix,
St. Thomas, St. John, and Water
Island, and over 50 smaller islands
and cays located in the Caribbean
Sea. The islands lack perennial
streams or large freshwater lakes
or ponds. Water quality in the Virgin
Islands is generally good but declin-
ing due to increased point source
and nonpoint source discharges into
the marine environment.
The Virgin Islands municipal
sewage treatment plants, operated
by the Virgin Islands Department of
Public Works (DPW), are a major
source of water quality violations
in the territory. Poor preventive
maintenance practices due to the
lack of funding within the DPW
and negligence result in numerous
bypasses due to frequent break-
downs at pumpstations, as well as
clogged and collapsed pipelines
that frequently cause discharges
into surface waters. Furthermore,
stormwater runoff overwhelms the
sewage treatment plant, resulting
in numerous bypasses of raw or
undertreated sewage into bays
and lagoons.
Other water quality problems
result from unpermitted discharges,
permit violations by private indus-
trial dischargers, oil spills, and
unpermitted filling or dredging
activities in mangrove swamps.
Nonpoint sources of concern
include failing septic systems, lack
of erosion control measures for
coastal development, lack of control
measures for urban stormwater
runoff, and the disposal of vessel
wastes into marine waters.
Ground Water Quality
The Virgin Islands' ground
water is routinely contaminated
with bacteria, saltwater, and volatile
organic compounds. Leaking septic
tanks, municipal sewer lines, and
sewage bypasses contaminate the
ground water with pathogenic bac-
teria. The overpumping of aquifers
causes saltwater intrusion of the
ground water sources. The leaking
of underground storage tanks, and
indiscriminant dischargers of waste
oil cause VOC contamination.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Territorial Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (TPDES)
program requires that all point
source dischargers obtain a permit
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 375
to discharge low concentrations of
pollutants into waters. The Division
of Environmental Protection (DEP)
performs quarterly compliance
inspections.
The Virgin Islands is strengthen-
ing its Local Water Pollution Control
Act and its Water Quality Standards
and developing new regulations for
urban stormwater runoff and for
siting and constructing onsite sew-
age disposal systems and advocat-
ing best management practices.
The Virgin Islands has submitted
its Unified Watershed Assessment
Report pursuant to the Clean Water
Action Plan. More detailed assess-
ments of the most critical water-
sheds requiring restoration will be
developed beginning in FY 1999.
The Territory will also be devel-
oping Total Daily Maximum Loads
for various waterbodies identified in
the! 998 303(d) listing.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Ambient Monitoring
Program performs quarterly sam-
pling at 64 fixed stations around
St. Croix, 57 stations around St.
Thomas, 19 stations around St. John
and 5 stations on Water Island.
Samples are analyzed for the follow-
ing parameters: fecal coliform,
turbidity, dissolved oxygen, temper-
ature, Secchi depth, and salinity.
On St. Croix, 20 stations were also
sampled for phosphorus, nitrogen,
and suspended solids. Intensive
surveys are conducted at selected
sites that may be adversely affected
by coastal development. The Virgin
Islands does not monitor bacteria in
shellfish waters or toxins in fish,
water, or sediment.
Individual Use Support in the Virgin Islands
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Not
(Fuiiy Good (partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting)
.Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 921)
Total Square 73
Miles Assessed
•Ocean Shoreline (Total Shore Miles'•,= 173)
Summary of Use Support in the Virgin Islands
Percent
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired
(For One
or More Uses)
lands (Total Acres = 3,776)
21
<1
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
376 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Washington
' Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-D!git Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Washington 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Alison Beckett
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
(360) 407-6456
e-mail: abec461@ecy.wa.gov
Surface Water Quality
Washington reports that 63% of
their assessed river miles fully sup-
port aquatic life uses, 21 % partially
support these uses, and 16% do not
support aquatic life uses. Sixty-five
percent of Washington's lakes fully
support state-defined "overall"
use. Thirty-three percent of the
surveyed estuarine waters fully
support aquatic life uses, 43%
partially support these uses, and
24% do not support aquatic life
uses.
Low levels of dissolved oxygen,
temperature and fecal coliform bac-
teria from nonpoint source pollu-
tion, and natural conditions are the
major causes of impairment of des-
ignated uses in estuaries. Agricul-
tural runoff, land disposal, and
municipal point sources also cause
impairments in estuaries. Major
causes of impairment in lakes •
include nutrients and noxious
aquatic plants. Agriculture, non-
point source pollution, and natural
conditions are the predominant
sources of impairment in lakes.
Other sources include urban runoff,
municipal point sources, land
disposal, and construction runoff.
In rivers and streams, agriculture is
the major source of water quality
degradation, followed by hydrologic
habitat modification, natural
sources, and other specific and
nonspecific sources. "Causes of water
quality impairment from these
sources include thermal modifica-
tion, pathogen indicators, pH, and
low dissolved oxygen.
Washington did not report on
the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Washington reports ground
water contamination by metals,
trace elements, nitrates, pesticides,
petroleum, and synthetic organic
chemicals. Sources include industrial
activities, agriculture, municipal
wastewaters, mining, and onsite
sewage systems.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 377
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Washington provides financial
incentives to encourage compliance
with permit requirements, the prin-
cipal vehicle for regulating point
source discharges. The state also has
extensive experience developing,
funding, and implementing non-
point source pollution prevention
and control programs since the
early 1970s. The state has devel-
oped nonpoint source control plans
with best management practices
for forest practices, dairy waste,
irrigated agriculture, dryland agri-
culture, and urban stormwater. The
state is now focusing attention on
watershed planning. The watershed
approach is designed to synchronize
water quality monitoring, inspec-
tions, permitting, nonpoint activi-
ties, and funding.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Washington implements an
aggressive program to monitor the
quality of lakes, estuaries, and rivers
and streams. The program makes
use of fixed-station monitoring to
track spatial and temporal water
quality changes so as to ascertain
the effectiveness of various water
quality programs and be able to
identify desirable adjustments to the
programs.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Washington's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the state's
305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
CA summary of use support data is present-
ed because Washington did not report indi-
vidual use support for lakes in their 1998
Section 305(b) report.
Individual Use Support in Washington
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
pivers and Streams (Total Miles = 70,439)b
Total Miles
Assessed 63
16
Stuanes (Total Square Miles = 2,904)
Summary of Use Supportc in Washington
Percent
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired
(For One or
More Uses)
3BS. (Total Acres = 249,277)
35
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
378 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
West Virginia
This map shows assessment
information in the Cheat river
basin, one of the basins
assessed for West Virginia's
1998 305(b) report under the
state's rotating basin system.
— Segment 80% -100% Fully Supporting
— Segment 50% - 79% Fully Supporting
— Segment 20% - 49% Fully Supporting
— Segment 0% -19% Fully Supporting
~~ Bastn Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the West Virginia 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Mike Arcuri
West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection
Office of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304)558-2108
e-mail: marcuri@mail.dep.state.
wv.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.dep.state.wv.
us/wv/pubs.html
Surface Water Quality
West Virginia reported that 51 %
of their assessed river and stream
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses, and
82% fully support swimming, in
lakes, 32% of the assessed acres
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses and 100%
fully support swimming.
Metals and siltation are the
most common water quality
problems in West Virginia's rivers.
Nutrients, pH, oxygen-depleting
, substances, and pathogens also
impair a large number of river miles.
In lakes, siltation, turbidity, metals,
and nutrients impair the greatest
number of acres. Resource extrac-
tion, primarily abandoned mining,
impaired the most stream miles, fol-
lowed by agriculture, forestry, and
municipal point sources. Petroleum
activities were the.leading source of
degraded water quality in lakes,
followed by agriculture, forestry,
and construction.
West Virginia reported that fish
consumption advisories are posted
for the Kanawha River, Pocatalico
River, Armour Creek, Ohio River,
Shenandoah River, North Branch of
the Potomac River, the Potomac
River, and Flat Fork Creek. Five of
the advisories were issued because
of elevated dioxin concentrations in
bottom feeders or nonsport species.
The other advisories address PCBs,
chlordane, and dioxin in suckers,
carp, and channel catfish.
West Virginia did not report on
the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
West Virginia ranked mining
and mine drainage as the highest
priority source of ground water
contamination in the state, followed
by municipal landfills, surface water
impoundments (including oil and
gas brine pits), abandoned hazard-
ous waste sites, and industrial land-
fills. West Virginia has documented
or suspects that ground water has
been contaminated by pesticides,
petroleum compounds, other
organic chemicals, bacteria, nitrates,
brine/salinity, arsenic, and other
metals.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 379
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Office of Water Resources
(OWR) is the lead agency for West
Virginia's nonpoint source program.
OWR works with other cooperating
state agencies to assess nonpoint
source impacts, then develops and
implements projects designed to
reduce pollutant loads from agricul-
tural, forestry, resource extraction,
urban runoff, hydromodification,
and construction activities. Program
initiatives are based on education,
technical assistance, financial incen-
tives, and demonstration projects.
Current projects address nutrient
management from livestock opera-
tions, erosion control, neutralization
of acid mine drainage, pesticide
usage, and road stabilization.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
West Virginia's surface water
monitoring program includes com-
pliance inspections, intensive site-
specific surveys, ambient water
quality monitoring, monitoring of
contaminant levels in aquatic organ-
isms, benthic and toxicity monitor-
ing to assess perturbations, and
special surveys and investigations.
The state's Watershed Assessment
Program (WAP) is charged with
evaluating the health of West Virgin-
ia's watersheds. WAP assesses the
health of a watershed by evaluating
as many streams as possible, as
close to their mouths as possible.
The program collects and interprets
water quality and biological infor-
mation on watersheds on a 5-year
rotating cycle. WAP began evaluat-
ing random sites in each watershed
beginning in 1997.
Individual Use Support in West Virginia
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
givers and Streams (Total pies = 32,278)''
38
Lakes (Total Acres = 22,373)
aA subset of West Virginia's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b)
report for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
380 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Wisconsin
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
•HI 80% -100% Meeting All Uses
•a 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses
ma 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses
WB 0% -19% Meeting All Uses
«E3 Insufficient Assessment Coverage
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Wisconsin 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Ron Martin
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
(608) 266-9270
e-mail: martir@dnr.state.wi.us
Surface Water Quality
The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) found
that 31 % of the assessed river miles
fully support aquatic life uses, 25%
support these uses now but are
threatened, 36% partially support
aquatic life uses, and 8% do not
support aquatic life uses. The most
prevalent problems in rivers are
habitat and flow alterations, silta-
tion, excessive nutrients, pathogens,
thermal modifications, and oxygen-
depleting substances. The sources
of these problems are often polluted
runoff,'especially in agricultural
areas, and river modifications, such
as channelization, dam construc-
tion, and the loss of vegetation
alongside streams. Municipal waste-
water discharges also impair more
than 1,590 miles of streams, and
industrial discharges more than
1,250 miles.
About 37% of the assessed lake
acres fully support aquatic life uses,
3% support these uses but are
threatened, 55% partially support
these uses, and 6% do not support
aquatic life uses. The primary source
of lake degradation is deposition of
airborne pollutants, especially
mercury, and polluted runoff. All of
Wisconsin's Great Lakes' shoreline
partially supports fish consumption
use due to fish consumption advi-
sories posted throughout the Great
Lakes.
Wisconsin did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
The primary sources of ground
water contamination in Wisconsin
are agricultural activities, municipal
landfills, leaking underground stor-
age tanks, abandoned hazardous
waste sites, and spills. Other sources
include septic tanks and land appli-
cation of wastewater. Nitrate-
nitrogen is the most common
ground water contaminant. Nitrates
come from fertilizers, animal waste
. storage sites and feedlots, municipal
and industrial wastewater and
sludge disposal, refuse disposal
areas, and leaking septic systems.
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 381
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
WDNR is integrating multiple
agencies, programs, interests, and
jurisdictions in an "ecosystem
approach" that looks at all parts of
the ecosystem when addressing
water quality—the land that drains
to the waterbody, the air above it,
the plants, animals, and people
using it. Since the 1970s, WDNR
has prepared water quality manage-
ment plans for each of the state's
river basins that summarize the
condition of waters in each basin,
identify improvements and needs,
and make recommendations for
cleanup or protection. WDNR
updates the plans every 5 years and
uses the plans to rank watersheds
for priority projects under the
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program and
to address wastewater discharge
concerns.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1992, Wisconsin implement-
ed a surface water monitoring
strategy to support river basin plan-
ning. The strategy integrates moni-
toring and management activities in
each of the state's river basins on
the 5-year basin planning schedule.
In recent years, Wisconsin has
placed more emphasis on monitor-
ing polluted runoff and toxic
substances in bottom sediments
and tissues of fish and wildlife.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
Individual Use Support in Wisconsin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
fivers and Streams (Total Miles = 57,698)b
<1
(Total Acres = 982,155)
Lakes (Total Shore Miles = 1,017)
Ifc
aA subset of Wisconsin's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
382 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries
Wyoming
1 Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Wyoming 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Mark Conrad
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-5802
email: mconra@missc.state.wy.us
Surface Water Quality
Historic land and water man-
agement activities, compounded by
climatological events, led to acceler-
ated loss of streamside vegetation in
many parts of Wyoming during the
early parts of this century. This
downcutting resulted in consider-
able amounts of erosion, sediment
loading, and sediment deposition
as the streams reestablished more
natural and stable channels and
flood plains. Better land and water
management, along with improved
treatment of discharges, has
improved the water quality in Wyo-
ming over the last several decades.
Overall, the water quality in
Wyoming is excellent to good in
most of the state. Currently, the
most widespread problems in rivers
and streams are related to sediment
loading, and the resultant loss of
aquatic habitat, from activities such
as long-duration grazing, certain irri-
gation practices, and some activities
associated with road building and
maintenance. The second most
common water quality problems are
localized cases of fecal contamina-
tion from urban runoff, illicit con-
nections, and unknown sources.
These problems are being addressed
through numerous, locally led water-
shed improvement projects, educa-
tional programs, and active public
participation in the decision making
process.
Wyoming did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Petroleum hydrocarbons are
the most common contaminants
impacting Wyoming's ground
water, followed by halogenated
solvents, salinity/brine, nitrates, and
pesticides. Common sources of con-
tamination include leaking above-
and underground storage tanks,.
fertilizer and pesticide application,
spills, landfills, and pipelines and
sewer lines. Natural contaminants
are also found in Wyoming's ground
water. These include radionuclides,
flouride, metals, and salts whose
sources are primarily subsurface
geologic materials.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The state Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) over-
sees the NPDES program in
Wyoming. DEQ reviews industrial
and municipal permit applications
-------
Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 383
and ensures that proper design
criteria are implemented. Wyo-
ming's nonpoint source control
program is nonregulatory and relies
on voluntary cooperative efforts to
control IMPS pollution. Program
efforts focus on providing informa-
tion and education to the public;
demonstrating, implementing, and
cost-sharing best management
practices; and coordinating with
local, state, and federal agencies.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In the past, Wyoming relied
primarily on information from other
agencies to determine which water-
bodies had water quality impair-
ments and should be listed on the
303(d) list. After a lawsuit was filed
in 1996 over the state's Total Maxi-
mum Daily Loads program, it was
discovered that much of the infor-
mation used to list those waterbod-
ies was inconclusive. Wyoming
made an agreement with EPA that
it would list on future 303(d) lists
only those waterbodies that had
conclusive and scientifically valid
data suggesting impairment. In
1998 Wyoming tripled the size of its
monitoring staff to better conduct
comprehensive (biological, chemi-
cal, and physical) water quality
assessments on those waterbodies
on the 1996 303(d) list that lacked
that conclusive and valid data. Wyo-
ming has committed to monitoring
all those waterbodies by the year
2002 and developing TMDLs on
those waterbodies that need them
by the year 2007.
In addition, many conservation
districts have begun training to con-
duct credible and comprehensive
water quality assessments to provide
data needed for locally led water .
quality improvement programs.
Individual Use Support in Wyoming
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable-
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
TJfvers and Streams (Total Mites =
Total Miles 90
Assessed
Lakes (Total Acres = 325,048)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Wyoming's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state's 305(b) report
for a full description of the state's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
-FW 2
• ' • «« lki*
*l I
»i *i n !" r
it
« "Wlf « p t
^
nf
*iK
. ^JW*M*,
1 -r- »
1 -S" L
^**1,
,,,,!pf r*
rtr-
-------
Tribal Summaries
This chapter provides individual
summaries of the water quality
assessment data reported by eight
American Indian tribes in their 1998
Section 305(b) reports. Tribal partic-
ipation in the Section 305(b)
process grew from two tribes in
1992 to eight tribes during the
1998 reporting cycle, but tribal
water quality remains unrepresented
in this report for the hundreds of
other tribes throughout the country.
Many of the other tribes are in the
process of developing water quality
programs and standards but have
not yet submitted a Section 305(b)
report. As tribal water quality pro-
grams become established, EPA
expects tribal participation in the
Section 305(b) process to increase
rapidly. To encourage tribal partici-
pation, EPA has sponsored water
quality monitoring and assessment
training sessions at tribal locations,
prepared streamlined 305(b) report-
ing guidelines for tribes that wish to
participate in the process, and
published a brochure, Knowing Our
Waters: Tribal Reporting Under
Section 305(b). EPA hopes that
subsequent reports to Congress will
contain more information about
water quality on tribal lands.
Section 305(b) of the CWA
requires that the states biennially
assess their water quality for attain-
ment of the fishable and swimma-
ble goals of the Act and report the
results to EPA. The states, participat-
ing tribes, and other jurisdictions
measure attainment of the CWA
goals by determining how well
their waters support their desig-
nated beneficial uses. EPA encour-
ages states, tribes, and other juris-
dictions to assess waterbodies for
support of the following individual
beneficial uses:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody
provides suitable habitat for protec-
tion and propagation of desirable
fish, shellfish, and other aquatic
organisms.
Fish Consumption
The waterbody
supports fish free
from contamination that could
pose a human health risk to
Shellfish
Harvesting
The waterbody
supports a population of shellfish
free from toxicants and pathogens
that could pose a human health risk
Primary Contact
Recreation -
Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
waterborne diseases from raw
sewage contamination).
-------
386 Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
For a copy of the Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Michael Keller
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
600 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
(760) 325-3400 x204
Location of Reservation
Surface Water Quality
The Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians is located on
31,000 acres in the upper Coachella
Valley in southern California. There
are approximately 73 miles of
streams and rivers, including about
19 miles of perennial waters on the
reservation. Beneficial uses of surface
waters appear to be fully supported,
although some uses may be threat-
ened by pesticide applications,
sanitation problems associated with
unauthorized activity, and illegal
dumping.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality is gener-
ally excellent in and around the
reservation. Artificial recharge of the
aquifer with Colorado River water
has resulted in increases in total
dissolved solids concentrations in
some wells, primarily nearer the
recharge area in the northern
portion of the reservation.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
At this time, there are no point
source dischargers on the reserva-
tion, although planned industrial
and wastewater treatment facilities
may be permitted in the future.
There is a permitted discharge
upstream of the reservation. A non-
point source control program has
not been developed to date,
although the tribe has applied for
a Clean Water Act Section 319 grant
in conjunction with the Consortium
of Coachella Valley Tribal Bands and
is working with other parties in the
region on nonpoint source issues.
Recommended future actions to
address surface water concerns
include designating beneficial uses
and developing criteria. For ground
water concerns, source substitution,
conservation, monitoring, inter-
agency coordination, and wellhead
protection are recommended.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries 387
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Additional routine and event
surface water monitoring, as well
as additional review of monitoring
reports from local and state agen-
cies, is planned for future assess-
ments. Monitoring will include
physical, chemical, micro- and
macro-biological, and habitat com-
ponents. Recommendations for
expanded ground water monitoring
have also been developed. Specific
ground water concerns include
monitoring total dissolved solids to
identify spatial and temporal trends
and patterns, compiling historical
data, and installing additional
piezometer wells for monitoring
hydraulic gradient.
Individual Use Support in Agua Band of Cahuilla Indians
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good
(Fully (Threatened)
Supporting)
Fair Poor Not
(Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting)
yjjrs ^nd Strfjajrn§; (Total Miles = 67)b
Total Miles
Assessed
67
100
•
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Agua Band of Cahuilla Indians' designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the tribe's uses.
. blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
388 Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries
Augustine Band of Mission
Indians
(no perennial streams)
Location of Reservation
For a copy of the Augustine Band
of Mission Indians' 1998 305(b)
report, contact:
William Vance
Augustine Band of Mission Indians
84481 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA 92236
(760)398-6180
Surface Water Quality
The Augustine Band of Mission
Indians is located in the Coachella
Valley in central Riverside County,
approximately 1 mile south of the
city of Coachella, on a reservation
of approximately 520 acres. The
sources of surface water on the
reservation are the Coachella Valley
Drains, which run through 2.1 miles
of reservation land. Although the
Coachella Valley Drains appear to be
supporting the use of freshwater
replenishment for the Salton Sea,
this use has been threatened
because of pesticides, nutrients, and
microbiological indicators for other
drains in the vicinity of the Augus-
tine Reservation. Likewise, the sup-
port of warm freshwater habitat,
wildlife habitat, and preservation of
rare species has been assessed as
supporting but threatened because
of recent bird and fish die-offs and
the sensitivity of the ecosystem sup-
ported by the Salton Sea. Neither
swimming nor noncontact recre-
ation are supported in the Coachella
Valley Drains.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is a significant
resource for the Augustine Band,
supplying water for domestic uses
on the reservation. Limited data
indicate that ground water contains
relatively low amounts of total
dissolved solids, chloride, sulfate,
nitrate, and sodium. Metals such as
iron, aluminum, and chromium
have been detected in trace concen-
trations in wells on and near the
reservation. Background concentra-
tions of radionuclides (gross alpha
activity) have also been detected in
wells. The reservation has been
impacted by illegal dumping and
the overdraft of ground water by
local agricultural and recreational
users: Preliminary analysis of historic
ground water level data in the lower
valley indicates a significant decline
in water levels in wells.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
At this time, there are no point
source discharges on the Augustine
-------
Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries 389
Reservation. Future industrial or
wastewater treatment facilities
might require NPDES permits and
would either be negotiated with EPA
or the band. A nonpoint source pro-
gram has not yet been developed
for the Augustine Band, although
the band will be participating in a
Section 319 project performed in
conjunction with the Consortium of
Coachella Valley Tribes. Project tasks
include monitoring, public informa-
tion and education, ground water
protection, construction and moni-
toring of wetlands test cells, foster-
ing interagency cooperation, and
implementation of best manage-
ment practices.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
A surface water monitoring pro-
gram for the Augustine Reservation
has not yet been implemented.
However, monitoring of the quality
of stormwater runoff and irrigation
drainage water is a component of
the Augustine Band's overall water
quality management program.
Future monitoring plans include
monthly ambient water quality sam-
pling of basic parameters, metals
and pesticides sampling, and grab
sampling after rainfall events. The
Augustine Band also recommends
measuring ground water levels and
analyzing ground water quality so
baseline data can be developed, in
conjunction with the Consortium of
Coachella Valley Tribes, throughout
the watershed to facilitate manage-
ment of the resource.
Individual Use Support in Augustine Band
of Mission Indians
Designated Use3
Wivers and Streams
^?M
Total Miles
Assessed
2.1
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
(Total Miles
0
Percent
Good Fair Poor Not
(Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting)
= 2.i)b
.. * . -..:•• .'.-.. • - . . • 5,
100
100
2.1
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Augustine Band of Mission Indians' designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
390 Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries
Cortina Indian Rancheria
For a copy of the Cortina Indian
Rancheria 1998 305(b) report,
contact
Kesner Flores
Cortina Rancheria
P.O. Box 7470
Citrus Heights, CA 95621
(916)726-7118
Location of Reservation
Surface Water Quality
The Cortina Rancheria, home to
the Cortina Band of Wintun Indians, is
located on 640 acres in southwestern
Colusa County, California, approxi-
mately 70 miles northwest of Sacra-
mento. Surface water resources on
the Cortina Rancheria consist of a
series of intermittent streams that
generally flow from west to east, and
one perennial stream, Strode Canyon
Creek, representing a total of 6.9
miles.
Use of existing surface and
ground waters on the Cortina Ranch-
eria is limited, due to poor quality
resulting from naturally occurring
minerals. Most drinking and cooking
water is trucked in to residents of the
Rancheria from outside. Surface
waters appear to support aquatic life
use, although no fish have been
observed. Wildlife habitat use is
supported on the Rancheria, but
threatened. Potential sources of water
quality impairment include a small
asbestos monofill, an abandoned
mine, erosion from fuel breaks and
fire road cuts, livestock grazing, and
septic systems.
The Cortina Band did not report
on the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water on the Cortina
Rancheria occurs in limited quantities
and is of poor quality. Eighteen wells
on the Rancheria were sampled in the
fall of 1995 and analyzed for a suite
of conventional water quality param-
eters. The sampling results confirm
that naturally occurring inorganic
constituents are present at concentra-
tions sufficient to impair the useful-
ness of the water. Ground water on
the Rancheria is naturally high in total
dissolved solids, iron, and chlorides.
The water is also very hard and of
high pH. Potential human sources of
ground water contamination on the
Rancheria include a septic drain field
system, the asbestos monofill and
settlement pond, the abandoned
mine, and livestock grazing.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Cortina Band of Wintun
Indians is interested in the protection,
management, and enhancement of
the water resources of the Cortina
Rancheria. The Band intends to pur-
sue the development and implemen-
tation of a variety of water quality
management programs, including
those authorized under the federal
-------
Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries 391
Clean Water Act, as it determines to
be appropriate to properly manage its
water resources. The Cortina Band is
in the process of applying for Clean
Water Act Section 106 program
authorization and funding, and will •
develop water quality standards for
the Rancheria under this program.
While the Band does not currently
have a nonpoint source control pro-
gram, one is likely to be developed in
the near future and will address the
development and implementation of
best management practices. At this
time there are no point source dis-
charges on the Cortina Rancheria.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Cortina Rancheria water
quality assessment report is based
on existing information. Some surface
and ground water quality data have
been collected on the Rancheria,
primarily in conjunction with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs special studies
and tribal Integrated Solid Waste
Management facility development
activities. The Cortina Band intends to
continue the development and imple-
mentation of its water quality moni-
toring and assessment activities under
the Section 106 program. The moni-
toring program adopted for the
Rancheria will be used to determine:
(1) water quality status, use support,
and trends; (2) sources of water
quality problems and their priority;
(3) water quality management pro-
gram design and implementation
measures; and (4) water quality pro-
gram evaluation (i.e., compliance,
effectiveness, needs assessment, and
reporting). In addition, the Band plans
to develop data management sys-
tems, including geographic informa-
tion system capabilities, to enhance
tribal water resource management
capabilities.
Individual Use Support in Cortina Indian Rancheria
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good
(Fully (Threatened)
Supporting)
Fair Poor Not
(Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting)
jtjvers and Streams (Total Miles = ei.7)b
100
Lakes (Total Acres = 0.1)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Cortina Indian Rancheria's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the tribe's uses.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
392 Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries
Coyote Valley Reservation
Location of
Reservation
For a copy of the Coyote Valley
Reservation 1998 305(b) report,
contact:
jean Hunt or Sharon Ibarra
The Coyote Valley Reservation
P.O. Box 39
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
(704) 485-8723
H+H-H Parking
A Casino
B Education/Recreation
Facility
Surface Water Quality
The Coyote Valley Band of the
Pomo Indians is a federally recog-
nized Indian tribe, living on a
57-acre parcel of land in Mendocino
County, California. Segments of the
Russian River and Forsythe Creek
flow past the Reservation, although
flow diminishes in the summer and
fall. Fishing, recreation, and religion
are important uses for surface
waters within the Reservation.
Currently, the tribe is concerned
about bacteria contamination in the
Russian River, potential contamina-
tion of Forsythe Creek from a mal-
functioning septic system leachfield,
and habitat modifications in both
streams that impact aquatic life.
Past gravel mining operations
removed gravel spawning beds,
altered flow, and created very steep
banks. In the past, upstream mining
also elevated turbidity in Forsythe
Creek. The tribe is also concerned
about a potential trend of increasing
pH values and high water tempera-
tures in Forsythe Creek during the
summer.
Ground Water Quality
The Coyote Valley Reservation
contains three known wells, but
only two wells are operable and
only one well is in use. The old
shallow irrigation well (Well A) was
abandoned because it went dry
after the gravel mining operation on
Forsythe Creek lowered the water
table. Well B, located adjacent to
Forsythe Creek, is used as a water
supply for an'education/recreation
facility on the Reservation. Well C,
located on a ridge next to the
Reservation's housing units, is not in
use due to severe iron and taste
problems. Sampling also detected
high levels of barium, total dissolved
solids, manganese, and conductivity
in Wells B and C. However, samples
from Well B did not contain organic
chemicals, pesticides, or nitrate in
detectable amounts. Human waste
-------
Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries 393
contamination from septic systems
may pose the greatest threat to
ground water quality.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Codes and ordinances for the
Reservation will be established to
create a Water Quality and Manage-
ment Program for the Reservation.
With codes in place, the Coyote
Valley Tribal Council will gain the
authority to restrain the discharge of
pollutants that could endanger the
Reservation water supply and affect
the health and welfare .of its people,
as well as people in the adjacent
communities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Tribal Water Quality
Manager will design a monitoring
system with assistance from
environmental consultants. The
Water Quality Manager will sample
a temporary monitoring station on
Forsythe Creek and a proposed
sampling station on the Russian
River every month. A fisheries biol-
ogist will survey habitat on the
rivers every other year, as funding
permits. These activities will be
funded through an EPA General
Assistance Program (GAP) grant.
GAP grants assist tribes in increasing
their capacity to administer environ-
mental programs.
Individual Use Support in Coyote Valley Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
JRivers and Streams (Total Miles = Q,56)b
Total Miles
Assessed
0.52
23
0.52
0.52
a A subset of Coyote Valley Reservation's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the tribe's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
S94 Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries
La Jolla Band of Indians
For a copy of the La Jolla Band
of Indians 1998 305(b) report,
contact:
Jack Musick
La Jolla Band of Indians
22000 Highway 76
Pauma Valley, CA 92061
(760) 742-3771
Location of Reservation
Surface Water Quality
The La Jolla Band of Indians is
located on 8,900 acres in southern
California characterized by rugged
topography and a relatively wet
climate. There are approximately
37 miles of streams and rivers,
including about 4 miles of perennial
waters. The San Luis Rey River, the
principal waterbody on the reserva-
tion, was assessed as having threat-
ened use support. The suspected
causes of degradation include met-
als (selenium), ammonia, and total
dissolved solids, flow alterations,
and pathogen indicators. Suspected
sources of degradation include agri-
culture and hydrologic and habitat
modifications.
The La Jolla Band did not report
on the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water, as both springs
and wells, is used for drinking water
supply. Data from samples in the
Upper San Luis Rey basin indicate
exceedances of standards for iron,
manganese, sulfate, chloride, total
dissolved solids, and pH. Potential
sources of contamination include
wastewater from individual and
community septic systems, solid
waste disposal sites, agriculture,
underground storage tanks, and
inactive wells.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The tribe's water pollution
control program is implemented
through a number of activities,
including designating beneficial
uses, adopting criteria and stand-
ards, permitting, compliance and
enforcement, and education. The
tribe is also participating in a Clean
Water Act Section 319 nonpoint
source control project, which .
includes planning, voluntary and
regulatory-based implementation
of best management practices,
permit issuance, and education. A
Wellhead Protection Program is also
recommended to protect water
quality and public health.
-------
Chapter Thirteen, Tribal Summaries 395
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Water quality data collected in
the San Luis Rey River Water Quality
Management Plan were used for the
assessment. A sampling and analysis
plan has been completed for a one-
time sampling event to fill in gaps in
water quality data for both surface
and ground waters and better eval-
uate causes and sources of degrada-
tion.
Individual Use Support in La Jolla Band of Indians
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
flyers and Streams
JCSjjjg- f* '
(Total Miles = 36)fa
Total Miles
Assessed
100
8
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of La Jolla Band of Indians' designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
396 Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries
Manzanita Band of Mission
Indians
Location of Reservation
For a copy of the Manzanita Band
of Mission Indians' 1998 305(b)
report, contact:
Leroy J. Elliott
Manzanita Band of Mission Indians
P.O. Box 1302
Boulevard, CA 91905
(619)766-4930
Surface Water Quality
The Manzanita Band of Mission
Indians is located on a reservation
of 3,579 acres in southeastern San
Diego County, California, within
10 miles of the Mexican border.
Surface water resources of the
Manzanita Reservation include
approximately 2.1 miles of perennial
streams including portions of Tule
Creek, 9.1 miles of intermittent
streams, 1.8 acres of pond, and
21.3 acres of wetlands. Initial
monitoring results indicate that Tule
Creek does not appear to be sup-
porting water contact recreation at
this time based on fecal coliform
densities. The causes of water qual-
ity impairment are pathogen indica-
tors, with cattle and horses identi-
fied as potential sources.
The Manzanita Band did not
report on the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water resources on the
Manzanita Reservation include wells
and springs. Of the 26 wells ana-
lyzed for nitrate, 4 exceeded EPA's
maximum contaminant level and
another 13 yielded nitrate concen-
trations greater than half the MCL.
Other sampling indicated pathogen
contamination. Suspected sources
of ground water contamination
include cattle, horses, septic sys-
tems, and natural sources. Another
concern is the protection of well-
head integrity.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
At this time, there are no point
source discharges on the Manzanita
Reservation. Future industrial or
wastewater treatment facilities
might require National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
permits and would either be negoti-
ated with EPA or the band. A non-
point source program has not yet
been developed for the Manzanita
Band, although the band recom-
mends implementation of a well-
head protection and rehabilitation
program, wetland restoration plan,
-------
Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries 397
nonpoint source management plan,
and stream bank restoration plan to
address the reservation's water qual-
ity concerns. A CIS database devel-
oped for the Manzanita Reservation
can be used for spatial analysis of
nonpoint pollution sources, causes,
and management options.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
A surface water monitoring pro-
gram for the Manzanita Reservation
has not yet been implemented.
Based on recommendations in the
band's 305(b) report and in accord-
ance with the band's Section 106
water quality management pro-
gram, a monitoring program will be
implemented for the routine field
testing of basic water quality param-
eters. The Manzanita Band has also
proposed a ground water monitor-
ing program that would include
such constituents as minerals, met-
als, volatile organics, pesticides,
PCBs, radionuclides, and pathogens.
Individual Use Support in Manzanita Band
of Mission Indians
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially • (Not Attainable
Supporting) • Supporting) Supporting)
flyers and Streams (Total Miles = ii)b
m
Total Miles
Assessed
Lakes (Total Acres = 1.8)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Manzanita Band of Mission Indians' designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
398 Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries
Torres-Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians
Location of Reservation
For a copy of the Torres-Martinez
Desert Cahuilla Indians 1998 305(b)
report, contact:
Patricia A. Galaz
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
66-725 Martinez Road
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA 92274
(760) 397-8144
Surface Water Quality
The Torres-Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians Reservation is
located in the Coachella Valley in
southern California on 24,800 acres,
with 9,600 acres located in the
Salton Sea. There are 77.1 miles of
intermittent streams and rivers, with
no perennial waters on the reserva-
tion. Over 95% of river and stream
miles are considered to be threat-
ened or not supporting aquatic
users because of concerns with ele-
vated total dissolved solids, nutrient,
pesticide, and bacterial concentra-
tions. The Salton Sea is assessed as
not supporting fish consumption
and water contact recreation uses
because of recent bird and fish mor-
tality events related to outbreaks of
avian botulism. Its uses for sec-
ondary recreation, warm freshwater
and wildlife habitat, and preserva-
tion of rare species are assessed as
partially supporting because of
these mortality events.
The assessment of wetlands on
the Torres-Martinez Reservation was
included in the lakes assessment.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is a significant
resource for the Torres-Martinez
Band. Limited data from 13 wells
sampled from 1974 to 1993 were
used for the 1998 assessment. This
assessment identified water quality
concerns associated with high total
dissolved solids concentrations near
the Salton Sea and the presence
of arsenic. An overdraft of ground
water resulting in significant
declines in ground water .levels is
also of concern.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
At this time, there are no point
source dischargers on the reserva-
tion, although planned industrial
and wastewater treatment facilities
may be permitted in the future. A
nonpoint source control program
has not been developed to date,
although the tribe is planning to
participate in a Clean Water Act
Section 319 grant in conjunction
with the Consortium of Coachella
-------
Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries 399
Valley Tribal Bands and is working
with other parties in the region on
nonpoint source issues. Recom-
mended future actions to address
surface water concerns include an
integrated program of monitoring,
education, ground water protection,
construction and monitoring of wet-
land test cells, interagency coopera-
tion, and implementation of non-
point source management practices.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The conditions associated with
outbreaks of avian botulism appear
to be related to pH, salinity, temper-
ature, and redox potential. A moni-
toring plan has been developed for
these constituents for major drains
and channels and the Salton Sea,
in collaboration with the National
Wildlife Health Center. Monitoring is
also planned to evaluate the ability
of constructed wetlands to treat
agricultural drainage water before
discharge to the Salton Sea. Addi-
tional monitoring is planned for
future assessments. Monitoring will
include physical, chemical, micro-
and macro-biological, and habitat
components. Recommendations for
expanded ground water monitoring
for arsenic, total dissolved solids,
and a number of other chemical
and biological parameters have also
been developed.
Individual Use Support in Torres-Martinez
Desert Cahuilla Indians
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) 'Supporting) Supporting)
givers and Streams (Total n/iiies = 77)b
52
100
Acres = 9,600)
Total Acres
Assessed
9,600
100
100
9,600
100
9,600
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians' designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
400 Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries
Twenty-Nine Palms Band
of Mission Indians
Location of Reservation
For a copy of the Twenty-Nine
Palms Band of Mission Indians 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Marshall Cheung
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission
Indians
46-200 Harrsion Street
Coachella, CA 92236
(760) 775-4227
Surface Water Quality
The Twenty-Nine Palms Band
of Mission Indians Reservation is
located on two parcels of land total-
ing 390 acres in southern California
upstream of the Salton Sea. Surface
waters include the Coachella Valley
Stormwater Channel and intermit-
tent washes. For the 1998 cycle,
aquatic life uses in all assessed
streams were threatened, and swim-
ming uses were assessed as not sup-
porting. Unknown toxicity, chlorine,
and bacteriological contamination
are identified causes of impairment.
Municipal point sources, agriculture,
urban runoff, hydromodification,
habitat modification, and filling and
draining are identified sources of
pollution. Special tribal concerns
include improving monitoring .
programs, extensive pesticide and
fertilizer application in the water-
shed, and recent massive bird and
fish kills in the Salton Sea.
The wetlands associated with
the Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel were included in the rivers'
and streams assessment.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is a significant
resource for the Twenty-Nine Palms
Reservation and is threatened by
local agricultural and recreational
users. Fluoride, total dissolved solids,
sulfate, and uranium have been
detected in ground water. A trend
of increasing total dissolved solids in
combination with declining ground
water levels is also of concern.
Improved monitoring, water conser-
vation, and land-use planning are
recommended to reduce demand
for water and contamination.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Over the next several years,
new use classification, criteria and
standards, permitting, compliance
and enforcement, and education
initiatives will be pursued as part of
the point source control program.
The band will be participating in a
Clean Water Act Section 319 non-
point source control project as well,
in conjunction with the Consortium
of Coachella Valley Tribes.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries 401
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The 1998 305(b) report was
prepared for the initial year of the
CWA Section 106 water pollution
control program. The major
planned assessment activity is a
CWA Section 319 project, which
will focus on conditions in drainage
waters and the Salton Sea as part
of an effort to investigate conditions
associated with outbreaks of avian
botulism. This project will provide a
vehicle for developing partnerships
among local tribes, a number of
agencies, business interests, and the
general public.
Individual Use Support in Twenty-Nine Palms
Band of Mission Indians
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
(Stivers and Streams (Total Miles =
Total Miles
Assessed
100
100
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians' designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
402 Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries
Yavapai-Prescott Reservation
Location of Reservation
For a copy of the Yavapai-Prescott
Reservation 1998 305(b) report,
contact:
Heidi Pruess
Yavapai-Prescott Reservation
530 E. Merritt Avenue
Prescott, AZ 86301
(520) 445-8790
Surface Water Quality
The Yavapai-Prescott Reserva-
tion is located on 1,395 acres in
north-central Arizona, adjacent to
the city of Prescott. The tribe
reported that surveyed surface
waters are generally meeting
requirements for livestock and
wildlife but are not supporting
swimming and drinking uses.
Arsenic, other metals, nutrients,
radon, and pathogens are the
primary causes of nonsupport in
rivers and streams. Natural sources,
industrial point sources, grazing,
leaking underground storage tanks,
and runoff are the principal sources
of pollution. Nonpoint source
contamination from ranching and
from populated areas in and around
Prescott are major concerns of the
tribe, as is the bioremediation of a
Superfund site on the reservation.
The Yavapai-Prescott Reserva-
tion did not report on the condition
of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
In general, aquifers on reserva-
tion land are shallow and recharge
rates are relatively high. There are
no active water supply wells located
on the reservation; the tribe receives
its domestic water supply from the
city of Prescott. Radon has been
found to occur naturally in levels
above the maximum contaminant
level in each well sampled on the
reservation, thereby prohibiting use
for drinking water without treat-
ment. Petroleum products have
been found in one well.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Since 1992, the tribe has taken
several steps to protect and restore
surface water. A Water Management
Plan was developed that included
land-use planning components to
protect water and help the eco-
nomy of the tribe. More recently,
the tribe was awarded a grant to
restore 12 acres of wetlands impact-
ed by sand and gravel mining and
cattle grazing via fencing and
replanting. Underground storage
tanks on and near the reservation
have been inventoried and risks of
contamination mapped. Over 90%
of the septic tanks on the reserva-
tion have been removed, with
sewage needs being met through
the city of Prescott system.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Tribal Summaries 403
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1995 the Yavapai-Prescott
tribe received a grant under Section
106 of the Clean Water Act to eval-
uate surface and ground water con-
ditions. The tribe is actively develop-
ing use support designations, narra-
tive and numeric criteria, and anti-
degradation standards. A coopera-
tive program with the U.S. Geologic
Survey and other agencies has been
established to monitor surface and
ground water. In 1997, an assess-
ment identifying and quantifying
the risk of contamination due to the
leaking of underground storage
tanks located on and adjacent to
the land was completed.
Individual Use Support in Yavapai-Prescott Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) .Supporting)
Jgiverjs and Streajrns> (Total Miles =
Total Miles
Assessed
100
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Yavapai-Prescott Reservation Indians' designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
2
-------
Interstate Commission
Summaries
Interstate Commissions provide
a forum for joint administration of
large waterbodies that flow through
or border multiple states and other
jurisdictions, such as the Ohio River
and the Delaware River and Estua-
rine System. Each Commission has
its own set of objectives and proto-
cols, but the Commissions share
a cooperative framework that
embodies many of the principles
advocated by EPA's watershed
management approach. For exam-
ple, Interstate Commissions can
examine and address factors
throughout the basin that con-
tribute to water quality problems
without facing obstacles imposed
by political boundaries. The infor-
mation presented here summarizes
the data submitted by four Inter-
state Commissions in their 1998
Section 305(b) reports.
Section 305(b) of the CWA
requires that the states biennially
assess their water quality for attain-
ment of the fishable and swimma-
ble goals of the Act and report the
results to EPA. The states, participat-
ing tribes, and other jurisdictions
measure attainment of the CWA
goals by determining how well
their waters support their desig-
nated beneficial uses. EPA encour-
ages states, tribes, and other juris-
dictions to assess waterbodies for
support of the following individual
beneficial uses:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody
provides suitable habitat for protec-
tion and propagation of desirable
fish, shellfish, and other aquatic
organisms.
Fish Consumption
The waterbody
supports fish free
from contamination that could
pose a human health risk to
Shellfish
Harvesting
The waterbody
supports a population of shellfish
free from toxicants and pathogens
that could pose a human health risk
Primary Contact
Recreation -
Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
waterborne diseases from raw
sewage contamination).
-------
406 Chapter Fourteen Interstate Commission Summaries
Delaware River Basin
Commission
— Fully Supporting
— Threatened
Partially Supporting
— Not Supporting
— Not Assessed
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Delaware River
Basin Commission 1998 305(b)
report, contact:
Robert Kausch
Delaware River Basin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360
(609) 883-9500, ext. 252
e-mail: bkausch@drbc.state.nj.us
Also available on DRBC's website at
http://www.5tate.nj.us/drbc
Surface Water Quality
The Delaware River Basin covers
portions of Delaware, New Jersey,
New York, and Pennsylvania. For
purposes of the 305(b) report, the
Delaware River Basin Commission
(DRBC) has jurisdiction over the
Delaware River system, which
consists of a 206-mile freshwater
segment, an 85-mile tidal reach,
and the 782-square-mile Delaware
Bay. Nearly 8 million people reside
in the Basin, which is also the home
of numerous industrial facilities and
the port facilities of Philadelphia,
Camden, and Wilmington.
All of the riverine waters and
over 17% of the estuarine waters in
the Basin have good water quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses.
Over 26% percent of the riverine
waters do not fully support fish con-
sumption. All riverine waters fully
support swimming. Poor water
quality impairs shellfishing in over
14% of estuarine assessed waters.
Low dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions and toxic contaminants in
sediment degrade portions of the
lower tidal river and estuary. Toxic
contaminants and metals impair a
portion of the Delaware River. Shell-
fishing advisories affect 96 square
miles of the Delaware Bay.
In general, water uses received
less support during the current
reporting period than the previous
one. Most of the decreases occurred
in the tidal freshwater areas and in
Delaware Estuary. Bacterial levels in
the tidal freshwater areas were high-
er, and oxygen levels in both areas
were reduced.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Delaware River Basin Com-
mission and the states have carried
out an aggressive program for many
years to reduce point soures of oxy-
gen-demanding materials and other
pollutants and will continue to do
so. As part of an ongoing effort,
DRBC is developing a new model
to evaluate the impacts of point and
nonpoint pollutants on dissolved
oxygen levels.
The Commission has completed
Phase 1 of the Estuary Toxics Man-
agement Program, which is an
interstate cooperative effort to •
develop water quality criteria, as
well as policies and procedures, that
-------
Chapter Fourteen Interstate Commission Summaries 407
will set wasteload allocations and
effluent limits for point sources of
volatile organics and chronic toxic-
ity. Phase 2 of this program involves
the development of wasteload allo-
cations, nonpoint source load allo-
cations, and TMDLs for PCBs,
metals, and chlorinated pesticides.
Special Protection Waters regu-
lations protect the upper reaches of
the nontidal river from the effects of
future population growth and land
development through a compre-
hensive watershed management
approach.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DRBC conducts an intensive
monitoring program along the
entire length of the Delaware River
and Estuary. At least a dozen param-
eters are sampled at most stations.
The Combined Sewer Overflow
Study and the Toxics Study have
used specialized water sampling
programs to acquire data for math-
ematical models. New management
programs will very likely require
customized monitoring programs.
The Commission has begun the
preliminary steps to develop a bio-
logical monitoring program for the
198-mile long nontidal Delaware
River. The purpose of the biological
monitoring program is to provide
data on various biological commu-
nities in order to determine the
general condition of the biota and
to better understand the interac-
tions between water quality and the
biota.
Individual Use Support in the Delaware River
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
livers and Streams (Total Miles = 206)
(Total Square Miles = 866)
Total Square
Miles Assessed
BK-I
* A subset of the Delaware River Basin Commission's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the Commission's 305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
-------
408 Chapter Fourteen Interstate Commission Summaries
Interstate Sanitation
Commission
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Interstate Sanita-
tion Commission 1998 305(b)
report, contact
Peter L Sattler or Howard Golub
Interstate Sanitation Commission
311 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
(212)582-0380
Surface Water Quality
Established in 1936 by the
Tri-State Compact, which was
approved by its member states and
the U.S. Congress, the Interstate
Sanitation Commission (ISC) is a
tri-state environmental agency
formed by the states of New York,
New Jersey, and Connecticut. The
Interstate Sanitation District encom-
passes approximately 797 square
miles of estuarine waters in the
Metropolitan Area shared by the
states, including the Arthur Kill, Kill
Van Kull, Newark Bay, Lower Hud-
son River, Raritan Bay, Sandy Hook
Bay, Upper and Lower New York
Bays, Long Island Sound and its
embayments, and the Atlantic
Ocean.
Notwithstanding the significant
environmental gains that have been
made in recent years, a tremendous
amount of work remains to be done.
In the past several years, due to a
great degree to ISC's year-round
disinfection requirement, which
went into effect in July 1,1986, thou-
sands of acres of shellfish beds have
been opened on a year-round basis.
During the 1996 and 1997 bathing
seasons, monitored public bathing
beaches in the Interstate Sanitation
District were closed for a total of
879 days due to elevated levels of
coliform bacteria, urban runoff,
combined sewer overflows, and/or
wash-ups of debris. Due to a combi-
nation of factors including, but not
limited to, habitat loss, hypoxia, and
overfishing by commercial and
recreational interests, bag limits and
minimum size restrictions as well as
seasonal closures for several finfish •
species (i.e., flounder, fluke, black-
fish, striped bass, and porgy) were
promulgated by the states of New
York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
Topics of concern to the
Commission include compliance
with ISC Water Quality Regulations,
toxic contamination of sediments,
pollution from combined sewer
overflows, maintaining and expand-
ing shellfish harvest waters, opera-
tion and maintenance of infrastruc-
ture, plant capacity to handle addi-
tional waste flows from major devel-
opment projects, and the need for
development of treatment plant
process modifications for control of
nitrogenous constituents in effluent
discharges.
-------
Chapter Fourteen Interstate Commission Summaries 409
Ground Water Quality
The ISC's primary focus is on
estuarine surface waters shared by
the states of New York, New Jersey,
and Connecticut.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Through an enforcement pro-
gram to promote water pollution
control and to enhance the quality
of the District's surface waters, the
ISC continues as an active party in
addressing the cause of those condi-
tions that have resulted in continu-
ing contravention of ISC's dissolved
oxygen goals. Through its Manage-
ment Committee and work group
activities on the Harbor Estuary
Program (HEP) and Long Island
Sound Study (LISS), the Commis-
sion continues as an active partici-
pant in the ongoing effort to identi-
fy and address the sources of the
problems.
At the request of a coalition of
public action groups, ISC partici-
pated in discussions with New York
City regarding the wastewater flows
to the North River WPCP, which is
located on the Hudson River. The
Commission provided technical
expertise on acceptable methods of
flow monitoring and recordkeeping.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Commission continued its
summer surveys by monitoring
dissolved oxygen levels in Western
Long Island Sound and its embay-
ments. Monitoring of Western Long
Island Sound was increased, with
five new stations in Little Neck and
Individual Use Support in Interstate
Sanitation Commission
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
KWWV-- ••• • .:,-:-. . • •—: ~~ ~~~~~~- ~
JEstuanes (Total Square Miles = 992)
Total Square
Miles Assessed
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of the Interstate Sanitation Commission's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the Commission's 305(b) report for a full'description of the Commission's uses.
Note: All waters under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Sanitation Commission are estuarine.
Manhasset Bays. Microbiological
water quality surveys were conduct-
ed under worst-case conditions
(ebbing high tides associated with a
minimum of 0.25 inches of rain) to
determine fecal and total coliform
bacteria concentrations over the
shellfish beds of western Raritan Bay
off the coast of Staten Island, New
York, and in Little Neck Bay located
in Western Long Island Sound to
check compliance with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration's
National Shellfish Sanitation
Program.
-------
410 Chapter Fourteen Interstate Commission Summaries
Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission
(ORSANCO)
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the ORSANCO 1998
305(b) report, contact:
Jason Heath
ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45228-1112
(513)231-7719
e-mail: jheath@orsanco.org
Surface Water Quality
The Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
was established in 1948 by the
signing of the Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Compact by
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
arid West Virginia. ORSANCO is an
interstate agency with multiple
responsibilities that include water
quality monitoring and assessment
of the Ohio River mainstem,
emergency response pollution con-
trol standards, and public informa-
tion/education. The mainstem runs
981 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania, to Cairo, Illinois.
The most common problems in
the Ohio River are PCS and chlor-
dane contamination in fish and
bacteria, pesticides, and metals in
the water column. The states have
issued fish consumption advisories
along the entire length of the Ohio
River based on ORSANCO data.
ORSANCO also suspects that com-
munity combined sewer overflows
along the entire length of the river
elevate bacteria levels and impair
swimming. ORSANCO detected
bacteria contamination at all six
monitoring stations downstream
of major urban areas with a large
number of combined sewer over-
flows (CSOs).
ORSANCO used both biological
and chemical data to determine
aquatic life, use support. Assess-
ments of impairment were due to
violations of chronic criteria for
copper and lead. There was also
one location where biological data
indicated poor habitat conditions
on the mainstem Ohio River near
Louisville, Kentucky.
Public water supply use of the
Ohio River is impaired by dioxin
between'Racine and the Big Sandy
River and by atrazine downstream
of the McAlpine Rock and dam.
Atrazine levels prompted water
utilities to provide nonroutine
treatment.
Ground Water Quality
ORSANCO does not have juris-
diction over ground water in the
Ohio River Basin.
-------
Chapter Fourteen Interstate Commission Summaries 411
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1992, an interagency work-
group developed a CSO program
for the Ohio River Basin with gen-
eral recommendations to improve
coordination of state CSO strategies.
In 1993, ORSANCO added require-
ments for CSOs to the Pollution
. Control Standards for the Ohio River
and the Commissioners adopted a
strategy for monitoring CSO
impacts on Ohio River quality. The
Commission also established a
Nonpoint Source Pollution Abate-
ment Task Force composed of
ORSANCO Commissioners, repre-
sentatives from state NPS control
agencies, and representatives from
industries that generate NPS pollu-
tion.
In 1995, an Ohio River Water-
shed Pollutant Reduction Program
was established to address, on a
whole-watershed basis, pollutants
causing or contributing to water
quality impairments. These pollut-
ants include dioxin, PCBs, chlor-
dane, atrazine, copper, lead, nitro-
gen, and phosphorus. The objective
of the program is to determine the
extent of impairment, identify
sources, quantify impacts, and rec-
ommend to the states abatement
scenarios necessary to achieve water
quality objectives. The program is
being implemented following a
phased approach without the estab-
lishment of new regulatory struc-
tures to implement controls that are
environmentally meaningful, techni-
cally sound, and economically rea-
sonable.
Individual Use Support in the Ohio River Valley Basin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
givers and Streams (Total Miles'=981)°
Total Miles 81
Assessed
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of ORSANCO's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Commission's
305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
ORSANCO operates a number
of monitoring programs on the
Ohio River mainstem and several
major tributaries, including fixed-
station chemical sampling, daily
sampling of volatile organic chemi-
cals at water supply intakes, bacte-
rial monitoring, fish tissue sampling,
and fish population surveys.
ORSANCO uses the Modified Index
of Well Being (MIWB) to assess fish
community characteristics, such as
total biomass and species diversity.
ORSANCO is in the process of devel-
oping a more suitable index for
evaluating fish (and macroinverte-
brate) communities.
-------
412 Chapter Fourteen Interstate Commission Summaries
Susquehanna River Basin
Commission
Location of Commission
jurisdiction
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIgit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Susquehanna
River Basin Commission 1998
305 (b) report, contact:
Robert E. Edwards
Susquehanna River Basin
Commission
Water Quality and Monitoring
Programs
1721 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391
(717)238-0423
email: redwards@srbc.net
Surface Water Quality
The Susquehanna River drains
27,510 square miles from parts of
New York, Pennsylvania, and Mary-
land and delivers over half of the
freshwater entering the Chesapeake
Bay. For this 305(b) cycle, the Sus-
quehanna River Basin Commission
(SRBC) surveyed 3,520 miles of the
31,193 miles of rivers and streams
in the Susquehanna River Basin.
Seventy-two percent of the sur-
veyed river miles fully support desig-
nated uses, 23% partially support
designated uses, and 5% do not
' support one or more designated
uses. Major causes of stream impair-
ment are nutrient enrichment and
habitat alteration from agricultural
runoff. Other causes of significant
stream impairment in the basin
include metals, pH, total dissolved
solids, and habitat alteration from
coal mining activities.
Observed trends in nutrients
and sediment water quality in the
Susquehanna River at three main-
stem stations and three stations at
the mouth of major tributaries pro-
vide evidence of both improvement
or no change in stream quality.
The SRBC did not conduct any
lake water quality assessments for
this 305(b) cycle. However, a 2-year
project funded by EPA and the state
of Pennsylvania during past report-
ing cycles provided an inventory of
Pennsylvania lakes that can be used
in developing a lake assessment
program.
Ground Water Quality
The commission obtains ground
water quality information through
ground water withdrawal permits,
investigations, cooperative studies,
and surveys pertaining to existing
ground water quality or future
ground water quality in the basin.
Studies have shown that human-
induced problems are generally
localized and confined to a small
number of wells. Many of the
ground water quality problems in
the basin are related to naturally
dissolved constituents (such as iron,
sulfate, and dissolved solids). The
SRBC is concerned about ground
water contamination from agricul-
tural activities and septic systems,
and notes that limited attention is
given to the fact that point sources
can be sources of ground water
-------
Chapter Fourteen Interstate Commission Summaries 413
recharge and potential contamina-
tion.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The SRBC's role is to provide a
regional perspective for coordinat-
ing local, state, and federal water
quality management efforts and
promote compliance with estab-
lished standards. The commission's
point source control program objec-
tive is to encourage continued
upgrading and development of
needed public and private waste
treatment facilities. SRBC reviews
proposed discharge permits and
provides comments to permitting
agencies on matters within SRBC
jurisdiction. The goal of the non-
point source program .is to increase
control of stormwater runoff and
nonpoint source pollution through
the fulfillment of the objectives of
the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The SRBC's monitoring program
developed out of its responsibilities
and jurisdiction in interstate and
regional issues. To support the goals
of the Chesapeake Bay Program,
the SRBC monitors nitrogen, phosr
phorus, and sediment in the main-
stem Susquehanna River and its
major tributaries. The SRBC also
established an interstate water qual-
ity network to assess compliance
with state water quality standards
for streams that cross state lines.
Finally, regional water quality and
biological conditions in the basin
are addressed through six subbasin
surveys.
Individual Use Support in the Susquehanna River Basin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Good Fair Poor Not
(Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable
Supporting) Supporting) Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 3i,i93)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 79,687)
-VJ^^l
Total Acres
Assessed
-
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of SRBC's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Commission's 305(b)
report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
-------
Order Form
Additional copies of this report and related water quality assessment documents can be ordered from the
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) or accessed electronically on the Internet
through the EPA Office of Water website at www.epa.gov/305b/. To order hard copies, please check the boxes
beside the documents that you would like to order and return this form to the address on the reverse, contact
NSCEP at 1 -800-490-9198, or fax this form to NSCEP at (513) 489-8695. Due to limited supply, we can send
you only one copy of each publication. Allow 2 to 3 weeks for delivery.
|—1 The National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress. EPA841 -R-00-001. June 20QO.
'—' The complete report containing discussions of water quality information submitted by states, tribes,
and other jurisdictions as well as a description of the costs and benefits of water quality protection.
(434 pages)
DThe National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress - Appendixes (diskette).
EPA841-C-00-001. June 2000. This disk contains spreadsheet files with the data tables used to generate
the information presented in the 1998 Report to Congress.
(1 disk)
[—1 The Quality of Our Nation's Waters—A Summary of the National Water Quality Inventory:
1—' 1998 Report to Congress. EPA841 -S-00-001. June 2000. Brief synopsis of the water quality data submitted
by the states, tribes, and other jurisdictions in their 1998 Section 305(b) reports.
(16 pages)
[—1 Water Quality Conditions in the United States. EPA841 -F-00-006. June 2000. A short profile of the
'—' National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress.
(2 pages)
(—] Guidelines for Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports).
'—' EPA841-B-95-001. May 1995.
(350 pages)
I—l Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports)
'—' and Electronic Updates: Report Contents.
EPA841-B-97-002A. September 1997.
(225 pages)
I—I Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports)
'—' and Electronic Updates: Supplement.
EPA841-B-97-002B. September 1997.
(275 pages)
Ship to: _
Address:.
City, State, ZIP:.
Daytime Phone:.
(Please include area code)
-------
•€» "0
CO CD
0 JB
Q!
w
5'
CD
w
ashington
Uni
Protection
401 M Str
ted
States
CO
CD
"n-2"^
Of"§ H-
Ss-si
°^ 3
&^ ^
PS 3
' 8- §
J 5T
ISHSiili
-s^gBssffiai
------- |