National Water Quality
Inventory
2000 Report
-— J1 —
-^^j
- ,A i I
-------
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)(l) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1,1975,
and shall bring up to date by April 1,1976, and biennially thereafter, a
report which shall include—
(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State
during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental descriptions
as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal, and other 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 recommendations
as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for what
waters such additional action is necessary;
(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic and social
costs necessary to achieve the objective of this Act in such State, (Hi) 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.
Note that, pursuant to Public Law 104-66, the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act
of 1995, this 2000 National Water Quality Inventory is not considered a Report to Congress.
SEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington DC 20460
August 2002
EPA-841-R-02-001
Cover photo taken at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, NC, by Jim Crawford
-------
A Message from the Administrator
Christine Todd Whitman
I believe water is the biggest environmental issue we face in the 21st Century in
terms of both quality and quantity. In the 30 years since its passage, the Clean
Water Act has dramatically increased the number of waterways that once again
are safe for fishing and swimming. Nevertheless, as this National Water Quality
Inventory report points out, many of the nation's waters still do not meet water
quality goals. In particular, polluted runoff from farms and urban areas continues
to impair large numbers of our nation's rivers, lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters. Fish and shellfish
consumption advisories and swimming restrictions continue to be reported. The U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency and its many partners at the federal, state and local level are working together
to finish the business of restoring and protecting our nations waters for present and future genera-
tions. Please join with us in meeting the challenges ahead. :
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.
Contractor support was provided by Research Triangle Institute (RTI) under Contract 68-C-01-001.
RTI provided data analysis, technical assistance, editorial support, design, typesetting, and graphics.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
WATER
Dear Reader,
This 2000 National Water Quality Inventory report is the 13th in a series published since 1975 under Section 30S(b) of the
Clean Water Act. Section 305(b) requires states to describe the quality of their waters; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) must then summarize these assessments and transmit that summary report to Congress. Please note that, pursuant to
Public Law 104-66 (the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995), this edition of the Inventory is not considered a
Report to Congress.
In their 2000 reports, states, tribes and other jurisdictions assessed 19% of the nation's stream miles; 43% of its lake, pond,
and reservoir acres; and 36% of its estuarine square miles. The states also assessed the quality of their ocean coastline, Great Lakes
shoreline, wetlands, and ground water. The information contained in this report applies only to the waters assessed.
The states found that approximately 60% of assessed stream miles, 55% of assessed lake acres, and 50% of assessed estuarine
square miles fully supported the water quality standards set for them, although significant proportions of these waters were threat-
ened and might degrade in the future. The remaining assessed waters were impaired to some degree. Leading causes of impair-
ment reported by the states in 2000 include bacteria, siltation, nutrients, and metals (primarily mercury). Sources of impairment
include agricultural activities, hydrologic modifications (such as channelization, dredging, or flow regulation), municipal sources,
and urban runoff/storm sewers. The percent of assessed stream and estuarine waters found to be impaired overall has increased
somewhat from the last report in 1998, although that difference is more likely due to changes in monitoring approaches than
actual water quality degradation.
In 2000, metals (primarily mercury) were the leading cause of impairment in the nation's estuaries (up from third leading
cause in 1998); in lakes, metals were again the second leading cause of impairment. Increasingly, states are moving toward more
comprehensive examination offish tissue and are issuing statewide advisories that restrict the consumption of selected fish species,
especially for vulnerable segments of the population. Mercury, which originates from air transport from power generating facilities
and incinerators, mining, natural rock weathering, and other sources, was cited in approximately 2,240 of the 2,800 fish consump-
tion advisories reported in 2000.
In the past, data collection and interpretation efforts under the Clean Water Act were not always coordinated. The EPA has
been working with its partners to streamline and combine Section 305(b) water quality reporting requirements with those of
Section 303(d) (which requires states to identify impaired waters and develop allocations of the maximum amount of a pollutant
each impaired water can receive and still meet water quality standards). EPA has also developed guidance providing details on
water monitoring designs, data quality and data quantity needs, and data interpretation methods under this combined approach.
You can learn more about these monitoring initiatives by visiting our website at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring.
Sincerely,
Robert H. Wayland III
Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
-------
Contents
Page
Chapter 1
Introduction 3
Water Quality Standards 3
Designated Uses 3
Types of Monitoring Data 4
Who Collects the Data? 5
New Developments 5
Part I: Water Quality Assessments
Chapter 2
Rivers and Streams 9
Summary of Use Support 10
Individual Use Support 10
Water Quality Problems Identified in Rivers and Streams 12
Pollutants and Stressors Impacting Rivers and Streams 12
Sources of Pollutants Impacting Rivers and Streams 13
Chapter 3
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 17
Summary of Use Support 18
Individual Use Support 19
Water Quality Problems Identified in Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds .... 20
Pollutants and Stressors Impacting Lakes, Reservoirs,
and Ponds 20
Sources of Pollutants Impacting Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 22
Chapter 4
Coastal Resources — Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs .... 25
Estuaries 25
Summary of Use Support 26
Individual Use Support 26
Water Quality Problems Identified in Estuaries 27
Pollutants and Processes Impacting Estuaries 28
Sources of Pollutants Impacting Estuaries 28
Great Lakes Shoreline 31
Summary of Use Support 31
_^"X Individual Use Support 32
Water Quality Problems Identified in Great Lakes Shoreline Waters ... 33
-------
Page
Ocean Shoreline Waters 36
Summary of Use Support 36
Individual Use Support 37
Water Quality Problems Identified in Ocean Shoreline Waters 38
Coral Reefs 40
Coral Reef Degradation 41
Chapter 5
Wetlands 43
What Are Wetlands? 43
Value of Wetlands 43
Wetland Loss in the United States 45
Assessing the Quality of Wetlands 45
Chapter 6
Ground Water Quality 49
Ground Water Use in the United States 49
Ground Water Quality and Sources of Ground Water Contamination .. 49
Examples of State Assessments 50
Massachusetts 51
Arizona 52
Conclusions 53
Chapter 7
Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 55
Public Health Concerns 55
Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories 55
Shellfish Consumption Advisories 57
Drinking Water Contamination 58
Recreational Restrictions 59
Aquatic Ecosystem Concerns 60
Sediment Concerns (Sedimentation and Contamination) 61
Invasive Species 61
IV
-------
Page
Chapter 8
Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection 63
Water Quality Costs and Benefits Identified by the States 63
Maine 64
Michigan 65
North Dakota 65
Chapter 9
State and Tribal Recommendations and Special Concerns 67
Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution 67
Toxics Contamination 68
Protecting Ground Water 68
Financial and Resource Needs 68
Monitoring and Data Management 69
Protecting Ecological Integrity 69
Regulatory, Legal, and Jurisdictional Concerns 69
Conclusions 69
Part II: Individual Section 305(b) Report
Summaries and Recommendations
Chapter 10
State and Territory Summaries 73
Chapter 11
Tribal Summaries 187
Chapter 12
Commission Summaries 199
Appendices
Available only on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/305b
-------
Figures
No. Page
2-1 States and Tribes Assessed 699,946 Miles of Rivers
and Streams for the 2000 Report 9
2-2 Summary of Use Support in Assessed Rivers and Streams 11
2-3 Individual Use Support in Rivers and Streams 12
2-4 Leading Pollutants in Impaired Rivers and Streams 13
2-5 Leading Sources of River and Stream Impairment 14
2-6 The Effects of Siltation in Rivers and Streams 15
3-1 States and Tribes Assessed 17.3 Million Acres of Lakes
(Excluding the Great Lakes) for the 2000 Report 17
3-2 Summary of Use Support in Assessed Lakes, Reservoirs,
and Ponds 18
3-3 Individual Use Support in Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 19
3-4 Leading Pollutants in Impaired Lakes 21
3-5 Leading Sources of Lake Impairment 22
3-6 Lake Impaired by Excessive Nutrients/Healthy Lake Ecosystem ... 23
4-1 Summary of Use Support in Assessed Estuaries 26
4-2 Individual Use Support in Estuaries 27
4-3 Leading Pollutants in Impaired Estuaries 29
4-4 Leading Sources of Estuary Impairment 30
4-5 Summary of Use Support in Assessed Great Lakes
Shoreline Waters 32
4-6 Individual Use Support in the Great Lakes 33
4-7 Leading Pollutants in Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline Waters .... 34
4-8 Leading Sources of Great Lakes Shoreline Impairment 35
4-9 Summary of Use Support in Assessed Ocean Shoreline Waters .... 36
4-10 Individual Use Support in Ocean Shoreline Waters 37
4-11 Leading Pollutants in Impaired Ocean Shoreline Waters 38
4-12 Leading Sources of Ocean Shoreline Impairment 39
4-13 U.S. Coral Reef Areas 40
5-1 Depiction of Wetlands Adjacent to a Waterbody 43
5-2 Coastal Wetlands Produce Detritus that Supports Fish
and Shellfish 44
5-3 Water Quality Improvement Functions in Wetlands 44
5-4 Sources of Recent Wetland Losses 45
5-5 Causes Degrading Wetland Integrity 46
5-6 Sources Degrading Wetland Integrity 46
VI
-------
No. Page
6-1 National Ground Water Use 49
6-2 Sources of Ground Water Contamination SO
6-3 Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks 51
6-4 States Reporting Ground Water Data 51
6-5 Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination 52
7-1 Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories in the United States ... 56
7-2 Pollutants Causing Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories
in Effect in 2000 57
7-3 Sources Associated with Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions 58
8-1 States Reporting on Costs and/or Benefits 63
Tables
No. Page
7-1 Criteria To Determine Drinking Water Use Support 59
7-2 National Drinking Water Use Support 59
7-3 Sources of Drinking Water Use Impairment 60
For more information about the National Water Quality Inventory
Report, contact:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (4503T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-1155
This document is available on the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/305b or from the National Service Center
for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198.
VII
-------
-------
Executive Summary
-------
-------
The Quality of Our Nation's Water
This National Water Quality
Inventory, prepared under Section
305(b) of the Clean Water Act,
summarizes water quality reports
submitted by all 50 states, the District
of Columbia, and 5 territories; 4 inter-
state commissions; and 5 Indian tribes
in 2000.
How Do States and
Other Jurisdictions
Assess Water Quality?
Water quality assessment begins
with water qualify standards. States
and other jurisdictions adopt water
quality standards for their waters.
EPA must then approve these stand-
ards before they become effective
under the Clean Water Act.
Water quality standards have
three elements: the designated uses
assigned to waters (e.g., swimming,
the protection and propagation of
aquatic life, drinking); the criteria
or thresholds that protect fish and
humans from exposure to levels of
pollution that may cause adverse
effects; and the antidegradation policy,
intended to prevent waters currently
in degraded condition from further
deteriorating, and minimizing deterio-
ration of high quality waters.
After setting standards, states
assess their waters to determine the
degree to which these standards are
being met. To do so, states may take
biological, chemical, and physical
measures of their waters; sample fish
tissue and sediments; and evaluate
land use data, predictive models, and
surveys.
How Many of Our
Waters Were Assessed
for 2000?
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. For this biennial
report, states assessed 19% of the
nation's total river and stream miles;
43% of its lake, pond, and reservoir
acres; 36% of its estuarine square
miles; and 92% of Great Lakes
shoreline miles.
What Is the Status of
Our Assessed Waters?
States focused the majority of
their assessment activities on rivers
and streams; lakes, ponds, and reser-
voirs; estuaries; and Great Lakes
shoreline. States reported that 61%
of assessed river and stream miles,
54% of assessed lake acres, 49%
of assessed estuarine square miles, and
22% of assessed Great Lakes shoreline
miles fully support the water quality
standards evaluated. In the remaining
assessed waters, one or more desig-
nated uses are impaired.
States assessed very small amounts
of ocean and marine resources, wet-
lands, and ground water. This is due
in part to a lack of assessment tools
for these resources and, in the case of
wetlands, lack of water quality stand-
ards. EPA and states are working to
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, this report
presents the leading pollutants and
sources of pollution reported by states,
territories, commissions, and tribes.
Across all waterbody types, states and
other jurisdictions reported that:
• Siltation, nutrients, bacteria, metals
(primarily mercury), and oxygen-
depleting substances are among the
top causes of impairment.
• Pollution from urban and agricul-
tural land that is transported by pre-
cipitation and runoff (called nonpoint
source or NPS pollution) is the leading
source of impairment.
It is important to understand the
difficulties in identifying causes and,
in particular, sources of pollution in
impaired waters. For many waters,
states and other jurisdictions classify
the causes and sources as unknown.
EPA and states are working to develop
methodologies for both determining
the causes and sources of impairment
and describing the level of confidence
in the classification.
ES-3
-------
f IP! •
How Does Impaired
Water Quality Impact
Public Health and
Aquatic Life?
Water pollution threatens public
health both directly through the con-
sumption of contaminated food or
drinking water, and indirectly through
skin exposure to contaminants present
in recreational or bathing waters.
Contaminants that threaten human
health include toxic chemicals and
waterborne disease-causing pathogens
such as viruses, bacteria, and proto-
zoans.
Some of the problems caused by
toxic and pathogen contamination
include fish, wildlife and shellfish
consumption advisories, drinking
water closures, and recreational (e.g.,
swimming) restrictions. Reporting on
these impacts in the state Section
305(b) reports is often incomplete
because of jurisdictional and technical
monitoring concerns. EPA's National
Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advi-
sories (NLFWA) database listed
2,838 advisories in effect in 2000;
mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), chlordane, dioxins, and
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
(DDT) (with its byproducts) were
responsible for 99% of all the fish
consumption advisories in effect.
Ten of 28 coastal states reported
prohibited, restricted, or conditionally
approved shellfish harvesting in 1,630
square miles of estuarine waters.
Thirty-nine states, tribes, or territories
submitted drinking water use data in
their reports, and reported that the
majority of waterbodies assessed—
86% of river and stream miles and
84% of lake and reservoir acres—are
considered to be supporting their
drinking water use. Thirteen states
and tribes identified 233 sites where
contact recreation was restricted at
least once during the reporting cycle.
What Do the States and
Tribes Recommend to
Improve Water Quality?
A considerable variety of chal-
lenges and recommendations were
discussed in the 2000 reports. Many
pressing problems seem to have root
causes in resource constraints, lack of
adequate monitoring data, or lack of
coordination among multiple agencies
responsible for the same issue areas.
The states and other governing enti-
ties recommended that Congress
address financial/resource problems
so that, at the minimum, basic and
priority activities can be implemented.
The reports also indicated the need
for proper coordination and data inte-
gration among different programs to
improve efficiency and fully use scarce
resources. The states recommended
flexibility in developing programs
tailored to individual conditions and
needs, especially for issues that can
vary widely between regions, such as
ground water and NFS pollution
management. And finally, the impor-
tance of wider public involvement was
a common theme, especially for deal-
ing with complex problems like NFS
pollution, where control options are
difficult or expensive.
ES-4
-------
-------
-------
Introduction
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
water quality standards are being met.
States are to submit reports describing
water quality conditions to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) every 2 years. This report, the
thirteenth in a series published since
1975, summarizes state water quality
reports submitted in 2000. It is
important to note that this report is
no longer a Report to Congress,
pursuant to Public Law 104-66, the
Federal Reports Elimination and
Sunset Act of 1995.
This chapter introduces the
concept of water quality standards
and describes the monitoring data
and approaches used by the states to
assess their rivers, lakes, estuaries,
wetlands, and coastal waters.
Water Quality
Standards
In 1972, Congress adopted the
Clean Water Act (CWA), which
establishes a framework for achieving
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
offish, 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 CWA called for states to
develop water quality standards to
guide the restoration and protection
of all waters of the United States.
Water quality standards became the
centerpiece around which most sur-
face water quality programs revolve.
For instance, water quality standards
are the benchmark against which
monitoring data are compared to
assess the health of waters and to list
impaired waters under CWA Section
303(d). They are the endpoint used
to calculate water quality-based dis-
charge limits in permits issued under
the National PoEutant Discharge
EUmination System (NPDES).
The CWA allows states, tribes,
and other jurisdictions to set their
own water quality standards but
requires that, at a minimum, they
include the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Act, wherever attainable.
States must submit their standards to
EPA for approval.
Water quality standards have
three elements: designated uses, crite-
ria developed to protect each use, and
antidegradation policy.
• State designated uses are the
beneficial uses that water quality
should support. Where attainable,
all waters should support recreation
(such as swimming and surfing),
aquatic life, and fish consumption.
Additional important uses include
drinking water supply, agriculture,
industry, and navigation. Waste trans-
port or disposal is not an acceptable
designated use. States, tribes, and
other jurisdictions may designate an
individual waterbody for multiple
uses. Each designated use has a
unique set of water quality criteria
that must be met for the use to be
realized.
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 propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
provides for recreation in and
on the water. . .
• State water quality criteria come
in two forms, numeric and narrative.
Numeric criteria establish thresholds
for the physical conditions, chemical
concentrations, and biological attri-
butes required to support a beneficial
use. Narrative criteria describe, rather
than quantify, conditions that must be
maintained to support a designated
use. For example, a narrative criterion
might be "Waters must be free of
substances that are toxic to humans,
aquatic life, and wildlife."
• Antidegradation policies are nar-
rative statements 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.
Designated Uses
The states, participating tribes,
and other jurisdictions measure attain-
ment of CWA goals by comparing
-------
4 Chapter One Introduction
Water quality standards
consist of
• State designated uses
• Numeric and narrative
criteria for biological,
chemical, and physical
parameters
• Antidegradation policies
monitoring data to the narrative and
numeric criteria they have adopted to
ensure support of each use designated
for a specific waterbody. These uses
include:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody
provides suitable habitat for protec-
tion and propagation of desirable fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic organisms.
Drinking Water
Supply
The waterbody
can supply safe drinking water with
conventional treatment.
Fish Consumption
The waterbody
supports fish tree
from contamination that could pose
a significant human health risk to
Shellfish
Harvesting
The waterbody
supports a population of shellfish free
from toxicants and pathogens that
could pose a significant 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 contamina-
tion).
Secondary Contact
Recreation
People can perform
activities on the water (such as boat-
ing) without risk of adverse human
health effects from incidental inges-
tion or contact with the water.
Agriculture
The water quality is
suitable for irrigating
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 replen-
ishing ground water, and surface water
supply and quality are adequate to
protect existing or potential uses of
ground water.
Wildlife Habitat
Water quality
supports the water-
body's role in providing habitat and
resources for land-based wildlife as
well as aquatic life.
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
waterbody's religious, ceremonial, or
subsistence significance.
In their 305(b) reports, states
are asked to identify the type of
assessment—monitored or eval-
uated—they used to make each use
support determination. Monitored
assessments are based on recent
monitoring data collected during the
past 5 years. These data include ambi-
ent water chemistry, biological assess-
ments, fish tissue contaminant levels,
and sediment chemistry. If monitor-
ing data are not available, states may
use qualitative information such as
land use data, fish and game surveys,
and predictive model results. Eval-
uated assessments are based on
qualitative information or monitored
information more than 5 years old.
Types of Monitoring
Data
Section 305(b) assessments are
normally based upon five broad types
of monitoring data: biological integ-
rity, chemical, physical, habitat, and
toxicity data. Each type of data yields
an assessment that must then be inte-
grated with other data types for an
overall assessment. Depending on the
associated designated use, one data
type maybe more informative than
others for making the assessment.
• Biological integrity data are
objective measurements of aquatic
biological communities, usually
aquatic insects, fish, or algae, used to
evaluate the condition of an aquatic
ecosystem with respect to the pres-
ence of human impacts. Biological
assessment data are best used for
making aquatic life use support
decisions.
• Chemical data include measure-
ments of key chemical constituents
in water, sediments, and fish tissue.
Examples of these measurements
include nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorus, metals, oils, and pesti-
cides. Monitoring for specific chemi-
cals helps states identify the specific
pollutants causing impairment and
helps trace the source of the impair-
ment.
-------
Chapter One Introduction 5
• Physical data include characteris-
tics of water that such as temperature,
flow, dissolved oxygen, suspended
solids, turbidity, conductivity, and pH.
Physical attributes are useful screen-
ing indicators of potential problems,
often because they can moderate or
exaggerate the adverse effect of
chemicals.
• Habitat assessments include
descriptions of sites and surrounding
land uses, status of riparian and
aquatic vegetation, and measurement
of features such as stream width,
depth, flow, and substrate. They are
used to supplement and interpret
other types of data.
• Toxicity testing is used to deter-
mine whether aquatic life use is being
attained. Toxicity data are generated
by exposing selected organisms such
as fathead minnows, daphnia ("water
fleas"), or algae to known dilutions of
wastewater or ambient water. These
tests can help determine whether poor
biological integrity is related to toxins
or degraded habitat.
Who Collects
the Data?
Hundreds of organizations
around the country conduct some
type of water quality monitoring.
These include federal agencies such as
the EPA and the U.S. Geological
Survey, state water quality agencies,
interstate and local agencies, tribes,
research organizations such as univer-
sities, industry, and citizen volunteer
programs. They may collect water
quality data for their own purposes or
to share with government decision
makers. States evaluate and use much
of these data when preparing their
water quality reports.
The states, territories, and tribes
maintain monitoring programs to
support several objectives, including
assessing whether water is safe for
drinking, swimming, and fishing.
States also use monitoring data to
review and revise water quality stand-
ards, identify impaired and threatened
waters under CWA Section 303(d),
develop pollutant-specific total
maximum daily loads or TMDLs
(calculations of the maximum amount
of a pollutant that a waterbody can
receive and still meet water quality
standards, and an allocation of that
amount to the pollutant's sources),
determine the effectiveness of control
programs, measure progress toward
clean water, and respond to citizen
complaints or events such as spills and
fish kills.
New Developments
In the past, data collection and
interpretation efforts under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) were not always
coordinated. However, EPA is now
providing states, territories, and tribes
with guidance which recommends
they submit a 2002 Integrated Water
Quality Monitoring and Assessment
Report to satisfy CWA requirements
for both Section 305(b) water quality
reports and Section 303(d) lists. The
guidance (published November 19,
2001) is available at http://www.epa.
gov/owow/tmdl/2002wqma.html. In
addition, EPA and its partners are
developing new guidance, called the
Consolidated Assessment and Listing
Methodology (CALM), to provide
details on water quality monitoring
strategies and designs, data quality
and data quantity needs, and data
interpretation methods under this
streamlined, integrated approach.
For more information on CALM,
visit http://www.epa.gov/owow/
monitoring/calm, html.
Various data and information
management systems handle the
enormous amount of water quality
data generated in the United States.
These systems have been updated and
are generally Web-accessible, allowing
the user to retrieve actual raw data or
assessment findings for specific
waterbodies. Three of these systems
particularly relevant to the 305(b)
reporting process are EPA's STOrage
and RETrieval system (STORET),
the Assessment Database (ADB), and
WATERS.
STORET is the EPA's
central repository of
raw monitoring data.
STORET includes
both a Legacy Data
Center for historical
data, and recent biological, chemical,
and physical data. It requires a specific
set of qualifiers—including such
information as when and where a
given sample was taken, who took it,
why it was taken, what methods were
used to do so, etc/—-to accompany
each sampling result. Data in
STORET are available on the Web.
For more information, visit http://
www. epa.gov/storet/.
The Assessment
Database (ADB)
is a relational
system for track-
ing water quality
assessment results—whether or not
individual water segments meet uses,
and what pollutants and sources
impair them. The ADB is widely
used by the states for 305(b) report-
ing. Version 2.0 of the ADB, due to
be released in 2002, has a new inte-
grated approach that consolidates
surface water assessments under
Sections 305(b) ;and 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act.
Further information on water
quality results, including mapping
capabilities, can be obtained from
WATERS, a tool that unites informa-
tion for specific waterbodies (such as
their designated uses and impairment
status) previously available only on
individual state agency homepages
and at several EPA Web sites. State
and federal water quality managers,
as well as interested citizens, can use
WATERS to quickly identify the
status of individual waterbodies of
interest to them. Visit WATERS at
http://www. epa.gov/waters/.
-------
-------
Parti
Water Quality
Assessments
-------
-------
Rivers and Streams
All 50 states, 2 interstate river
commissions, American Samoa,
Guam, Puerto Rico, the District of
Columbia (collectively referred to as
states in the rest of this chapter), and
3 American Indian tribes rated river
water quality in their 2000 Section
305(b) reports (see Appendix A,
Table A-l, for individual state and
tribal information). These states and
tribes assessed water quality in
699,946 miles of rivers and streams
(19% of the total miles of all rivers
and streams in the country)
(Figure 2-1). Most of the
assessed rivers and streams are
perennial waterbodies that
flow all year, although some
assessments included nonperennial
streams that flow only during wet
periods.
Altogether, the states and tribes
assessed 142,480 fewer river and
stream miles in 2000 than in 1998.
This 17% decrease is primarily a
result of changes in assessment and
reporting methods in a few states.
The changes for the most part reflect
a move toward the use of more reli-
able monitoring data and a greater
reluctance to include qualitative
States and Tribes
ASSESSED
19%
of their total river and
stream miles9 for the
2000 report
States and Tribes ASSESSED
699,946 Miles of Rivers and Streams
for the 2000 Report
Total River and Stream Miles:
3,692,830
River and Stream Miles
Assessed by States and Tribes
2000 B 699,946 miles = 19% assessed
B Total miles: 3,692,830a
81 % not assessed
1998 EG 842,426 miles = 23% assessed
• Total miles: 3,662,255b
4
1996 n 693,905 miles = 19% assessed
D Total miles: 3,634,152C
1994 E 615,806 miles = 17% assessed
B Total miles: 3,548,738d
This figure compares the total miles of rivers and streams (combination of perennial and inter-
mittent) with the subset that were assessed by states for the 2000 water quality report.
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-l.
1992 m 642,881 miles = 18% assessed
i§ Total miles: 3,551,247e
aSource: 2000 state and tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
bSource: 1998 state and tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
cSource: 1996 state and tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
dSource: 1994 state and tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
eSource: 1992 state and tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
-------
10 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
information or older data in water
quality assessments. For instance, in
Wyoming, a new "Credible Data" law
prevented the state from submitting
over 90,000 miles of river and stream
assessments that were based on older,
evaluated data. For this reporting
cycle, New York reclassified almost
50,000 river and stream miles as
"unassessed" because limited reliable
monitoring data were available to
support assessments made in previous
years. In the past, New York had
listed all these waters as assessed with
good quality unless specific problems
were reported. The state is currently
revising its monitoring program and
plans to revisit these unassessed
waters in coming years. Virginia has
revised its assessment strategy in a
similar way based on EPA guidance,
which has led to a decrease of 10,000
assessed miles since 1998. Virginia is
placing greater emphasis on highly
reliable monitoring data, and is also
better able to track the size of moni-
tored waters with the use of an EPA-
developed database. All of these cases
indicate a shift toward the use of
higher quality data to make more
accurate water quality assessments.
Some states did see an increase in
the number of river and stream miles
assessed from 1998 to 2000. For
instance, Pennsylvania's efforts to
survey previously unassessed waters
resulted in the addition of over
20,000 assessed miles. Other states
reported significant increases in
assessed river and stream miles
because of changes in their monitor-
ing program or assessment process.
In 2000, the states and tribes
used recent monitoring data to
determine water quality conditions in
46% of their assessed river and stream
miles, compared to 43% in 1998 (see
Appendix A, Table A-2, for individ-
ual state and tribal information).
Evaluated assessments, based on
qualitative information or monitoring
information more than 5 years old,
were used for 36% of the assessed
river and stream miles for the 2000
reporting cycle. States did not specify
whether the remaining 18% of
assessed river and stream miles were
monitored or evaluated.
The summary information pre-
sented in this chapter applies strictly
to the portion of the nation's rivers
and streams 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.
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
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-four states, two tribes, one
interstate commission, American
Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the
District of Columbia reported sum-
mary use support status for rivers and
streams in their 2000 Section 305(b)
reports (see Appendix A, Table A-2,
for individual state and tribal infor-
mation). Another six states reported
individual use support status but did
not report summary use support
status. In such cases, EPA used
aquatic life use support status to
represent summary water quality
conditions in the state's rivers and
streams.
Altogether, states and tribes
reported that 61% of 699,946
assessed river and stream miles fully
support all of their uses. Of the
assessed waters, 53% fully support
designated uses and approximately
8% fully support all uses but are
threatened for one or more uses.
These threatened waters may need
special attention and additional
monitoring to prevent further deteri-
oration (Figure 2-2). Some form of
pollution or habitat degradation
impairs the remaining 39% of the
assessed river and stream miles.
It is important to note that
10 states did not include the effects
of statewide fish consumption advi-
sories for mercury when calculating
their summary use support status in
rivers and streams. Connecticut,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massa-
chusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, and
Vermont excluded the impairment
associated with statewide mercury
advisories in order to convey infor-
mation that would have been other-
wise masked by the fish consumption
advisories. New York excluded the
effect of a statewide PCB/chlor-
dane/mirex/DDT fish consumption
advisory for rivers and streams in its
summary data. If these advisories had
been included, all of these states'
rivers and streams would have
received an impaired rating.
Individual Use
Support
Individual use support assess-
ment provides important detail about
the nature of water quality problems
in our nation's surface waters. There
are six general use categories that
EPA uses to summarize the often
more detailed uses reported by the
states and tribes.
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
Assessed Waters
Total rivers and streams = 3,692,830 miles9
Total assessed = 699,946 miles
• 19% assessed
B 81% not assessed
Of the assessed miles:
• 46% were monitored
• 36% were evaluated
• 18% were not specified
Summary of Assessed Water Quality
39% Impaired for
one or more
uses
61% Good
aSource: 2000 state and tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
Figure 2-2
Summary of Use Support
in Assessed Rivers and Streams
Good
61%
„ .
Impaired
for One or More Uses -
Threatened
for One or More Uses
Not
Attainable
<0.05%
This figure presents the status of the assessed miles of rivers and streams. Of the close to 700,000
miles of rivers and streams assessed, 61% fully support their designated uses and 39% 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 A, Table A-2.
Note: Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
• 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 (swim-
ming) - 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 pub-
lic 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 and one tribe
did not report individual use support
status of their rivers and streams (see
Appendix A, Table A-3, for individ-
ual state and tribal information). The
reporting states and tribes assessed
the status of aquatic life and swim-
ming uses most frequently (see Figure
2-3) and identified more impacts on
aquatic life and swimming uses than
on the four other individual uses.
These states and tribes reported that
fair or poor water quality affects
aquatic life in 210,790 stream miles
(34% of the 616,860 miles assessed
for aquatic life support). Fair or poor
water quality conditions also impair
swimming activities in 88,679 miles
(28% of the 313,832 miles assessed
for swimming use support).
-------
12 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
Individual Use Support in Rivers and Streams
Percent
Good
Impaired
Designated
Use
.... (Fully Supporting (Partially
ralles or Threatened) Supporting or Not
Assessed Supporting)
Aquatic Life Support
66
34
28
This 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 summarizes of the proportion of the assessed
waters rated according to quality.
*O.S% rated "Not Attainable."
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-3.
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 2-4 and 2-5
identify the pollutants and sources of
pollutants that impair the most river
and stream miles. It is important to
note that information about pollut-
ants and sources is incomplete
because the states cannot always
identify the pollutant(s) or source of
pollutant(s) responsible for every
impaired river segment.
Pollutants and Stressors
Impacting Rivers and
Streams
A total of 55 states and tribes
reported the number of river and
stream miles impaired by individual
pollutants and stressors (see
Appendix A, Table A-4, for individ-
ual state and tribal information).
The states and tribes report that
bacteria (pathogens) pollute 93,431
river and stream miles (13% of the
assessed river and stream miles and
35% of the impaired river and stream
miles). Bacteria provide evidence of
possible fecal contamination that may
cause illness in people. States use
bacterial indicators to determine if
waters are safe for swimming and
drinking. Bacteria commonly enter
surface waters in inadequately treated
sewage, fecal material from wildlife,
and in runoff from pastures, feedlots,
and urban areas.
The states and tribes report that
sEtation, comprising tiny soil parti-
cles, remains one of the most wide-
spread pollutants affecting assessed
rivers and streams. Siltation, which is
also referred to as sedimentation,
impairs 84,503 river and stream miles
(12% of the assessed river and stream
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 13
miles and 31% of the impaired river
and stream miles). Siltation alters
aquatic habitat, suffocates fish eggs
and bottom-dwelling organisms, and
can interfere with drinking water
treatment processes and recreational
use of a river (see Figure 2-6).
Sources of siltation include agricul-
ture, urban runoff, construction, and
forestry.
Alteration to river and stream
habitats was reported by the states
and tribes to cause impairment to
58,807 miles (8% of the assessed river
and stream miles and 22% of the
impaired river and stream miles). In
this case, only habitat alterations that
do not affect water flow are consid-
ered because states and tribes report
stream flow alterations (such as dams
Figure 2-4
Leading POLLUTANTS in Impaired
Rivers and Streams
Total Rivers and Streams
3,692,830 miles
ASSESSED Rivers and Streams
699,946 miles*
39%
IMPAIRED
269,258
miles
Leading Pollutants/Stressors
Miles
Pathogens (Bacteria)
Siltation
Habitat Alterations
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Nutrients
Thermal Modifications
Metals
Flow Alterations
Percent of IMPAIRED River Miles
10 20 30 40 50
5 10 15 20
Percent of ASSESSED River Miles
States assessed 19% of the total miles of rivers and streams for the 2000 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, 61% are rated as good and 39% 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-axes 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.
and irrigation) under a different cate-
gory. Habitat alterations that do not
directly affect stream flow, such as the
removal of woody debris or stream
bottom cobblestones, can adversely
affect aquatic organisms whose health
and abundance depend on specific
physical and environmental condi-
tions. (For example, small organisms
such as young fish use submerged
logs to gain protection from preda-
tors.) Habitat modifications result
from human activities such as flow
regulation, logging, and land-clearing
practices.
In addition to siltation, bacteria,
and nonflow habitat alterations,
the states and tribes also reported
oxygen-depleting substances,
nutrients, thermal modifications,
metals, and flow alterations as leading
stressors. Often, several pollutants
and stressors adversely affect a single
river segment. For this reason, the
river and stream miles impaired by
each pollutant or stressor do not add
up to 100% in Figure 2-4.
Sources of Pollutants
Impacting Rivers
and Streams
A total of 55 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). The
most commonly reported sources
include agriculture, hydrologic modi-
fications, and habitat modifications.
Agriculture is listed as a source
of pollution for 128,859 river and
stream miles (18% of assessed river
and stream miles, 48% of impaired
river and stream miles) (Figure 2-5).
For the 30 states and tribes that
reported the number of river and
stream miles affected by specific types
of agricultural activities, the most
common types are: nonirrigated crop
production (degrades 26,830 miles),
animal feeding operations (degrades
-------
14 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
p
24,616 miles), and irrigated crop
production (degrades 17,667 miles).
Hydrologic modifications include
flow regulation and modification,
channelization, dredging, and con-
struction 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 53,850 river
and stream miles (8% of the assessed
miles and 20% of the impaired miles).
Identifying Sources
Is a Challenge
It is relatively easy to collect a
water sample and identify pol-
lutants causing impairments,
such as fecal coliform 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
sewage treatment plants, and
local waterfowl populations.
Often, states are not able to
detennine the particular source
responsible for impairment In
these cases, many states report
tlie source of impairment as
"unknown."In the 2000
305(b) reports, states reported
unknown sources impairing
39,056 river and stream miles
(6% oftiie assessed river and
stream miles).
The pollutants/processes and sources shown here may not corre-
spond directly 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 information to
determine all the sources of a particular pollutant/stressor.
Figure 2-5
Leading SOURCES of River
and Stream Impairment*
Total Rivers and Streams
3,692,830 miles
ASSESSED Rivers and Streams
699,946 milest
426,633
miles
39%
IMPAIRED
269,258
miles
Leading Sources
Miles
Agriculture
Hydrologic Modification
Habitat Modification
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Forestry
Municipal Point Sources
Resource Extraction
Percent of IMPAIRED River Miles
10 20 30 40
50
128,859
53,850
37,654
34,871
28,156
27,988
27,695
5 10 15
Percent of ASSESSED River Miles
20
States assessed 19% of the total miles of rivers and streams for the 2000 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, 61% are rated as good and 39% as impaired. When states identify
waters that are impaired, they also describe the sources of pollutants associated with the impair-
ment. 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-axes 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 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 Two Rivers and Streams 15
PATHOGENS are the most
common pollutant affecting
assessed rivers and streams.
Pathogens
• Are found in 13% of the
:;:::;-assessed rivers and
streams (see Figure 2-4).
•I Contribute to 35% of
reported water quality
'""' problems in impaired
rivers and streams.
Figure 2-6
AGRICULTURE is the leading
source of pollution in assessed
rivers and streams. According to
the states, agricultural pollution
problems
• Affect 18% of the assessed
rivers and streams
• Contribute to 48% of
reported water quality
problems in impaired
rivers and streams
(see Figure 2-5).
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 profound 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.
Habitat modifications—changes
such as the removal of riparian
(stream bank) vegetation—can make
a river or stream less suitable for the
organisms inhabiting it. The states
and tribes report that habitat modi-
fications degrade 37,654 river and
stream miles (5% of the assessed
miles and 14% of the impaired miles).
In urban areas, runoff from
impervious surfaces may include
sediment, 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 during wet weather events.
The states and tribes report that
urban runoff and storm sewers pollute
34,871 river and stream miles (5% of
the assessed miles and 13% of the
impaired miles).
The states and tribes also
reported resource extraction, munici-
pal point sources (sewage treatment
plants), and commercial forestry
activities as leading sources of pollu-
tion to rivers and streams. In addi-
tion, the states and tribes reported
that unknown sources impair almost
40,000 miles of rivers and streams,
and natural sources impair approxi-
mately 31,000 miles of rivers and
streams. Natural sources include soils
with natural deposits of arsenic or
salts that leach into waterbodies,
waterfowl (a source of nutrients and
bacteria), and drought, which causes
low-flow conditions and elevated
water temperatures.
-------
iljjirir-i""1
':; "'•£
.WifeiSg-^.:1!*^-!1 ' is- - - • ~ i T^iTffSTfrnE1''
^^«5ag?s*Sri?i^^5
-------
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Forty-six states, Puerto Rico, and
the District of Columbia (collectively
referred to as states in the rest of this
chapter) rated lake water quality in
their 2000 Section 305(b) reports (see
Appendix B, Table B-l, for individual
state and jurisdiction data). These
states assessed 17.3 million acres of
lakes, reservoirs, and ponds, which
equals 43% of the 40.6 million acres
of lakes in the nation (Figure 3-1).
The states based 68% of their assess-
ments on monitored data and eval-
uated 28% of the assessed lake acres
with qualitative information. The
states did not specify whether the
remaining 4% of assessed lake acres
were monitored or evaluated. Com-
pared to the 1998 reporting cycle,
states are using monitoring data for
a slightly larger percentage of their
assessments. The number of assessed
lake acres decreased slightly from
1998 to 2000, from 17.4 million acres
to 17.3 million acres.
The summary information pre-
sented in this chapter applies strictly
to the portion of the nation's lakes
assessed by the states and tribes. EPA
cannot make generalizations about
the health of all of our nation's lakes
based on data extracted from the
305(b) reports.
States and Tribes
ASSESSED
43%
of their total lake acres3
for the 2000 report
States and Tribes ASSESSED
17.3 Million Acres of Lakes
(Excluding the Great Lakes)
for the 2000 Report
Acres Assessed:
17,339,080
Total Lake Acres:
40,603,893
Lake, Reservoir, and Pond Acres
Assessed by the States and Tribes
2000 ffl 17,339,080 acres = 43% assessed
• Total acres: 40,603,893a
57% Not Assessed
1998 IS 17,390,370 acres = 42% assessed
gf Total acres: 41,593,748b
1996 ffl 16,819,769 acres = 40% assessed
M Total acres: 41,684,902C
1994 EE 17,134,153 acres = 42% assessed
• Total acres: 40,826,064d
1992 m 18,300,000 acres = 46% assessed
B Total acres: 39,920,000e
This figure compares the total acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds with the subset that were
assessed by states for the 2000 water quality report.
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-l.
aSource: 2000 state and tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
"Source: 1993 state and tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
cSource: 1996 state and tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
dSource: 1994 state and tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
eSource: 1992 state and tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to
the rounding of individual numbers.
-------
18 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
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-five states, Puerto Rico,
and the District of Columbia reported
summary use support status for lakes
in their 2000 Section 305(b) reports
Assessed Waters3
Total lakes = 40,603,893 acres
Total assessed = 17,339,080 acres
• 43% assessed
• 57% not assessed
Of the assessed acres:
• 68% were monitored
• 28% were evaluated
• 4% were not specified
Assessed Water Quality
45% Impaired for one
or more uses
55% Good
aSource: 2000 state and tribal
Section 305(b) reports.
(see Appendix B, Table B-2, for indi-
vidual state and tribal information).
Mississippi, New Jersey, and Ohio did
not report on summary of use support
for lake acres, so EPA used aquatic
life use support status to summarize
lake water quality conditions in these
states.
The states and tribes reported
that 55% of their assessed 17.3 mil-
lion lake acres have good water qual-
ity (Figure 3-2); 47% of the assessed
lake acres fully support all uses and
8% of the assessed lake acres fully
support 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 included in sum-
mary of use support.
It is important to note that
11 states did not include the effects
of statewide fish consumption advi-
sories for mercury when calculating
their summary use support status in
lakes. Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine,
Figure 3-2
Summary of Use Support
in Assessed Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, North Caro-
lina, Ohio, Vermont, and Wisconsin
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. Michigan
also has a statewide advisory for
mercury, and included that impair-
ment in the summary of use support.
New York excluded the effects of a
statewide PCB/chlordane/mirex/
DDT fish consumption advisory for
lakes in its summary data.
f—'-'.- • • J
Good
55%
Threatened
for One or More Uses
Impaired
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, 54% fully support their designated
uses and 44% 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 B, Table B-2.
Note: Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
-------
Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 19
Individual Use
Support
Individual use support assessment
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 qual-
ity standards and, for reporting pur-
poses, consolidate their more detailed
uses into six general use categories.
The standard uses consist of aquatic
life support, fish consumption, pri-
mary contact recreation (such as
swimming and diving), secondary
contact recreation (such as boating),
drinking water supply, and agricultural
use.
Forty-two states, Puerto Rico,
and the District of Columbia reported
individual use support status of their
lakes, reservoirs, and ponds (see
Appendix B, Table B-3, for individual
state and tribal information). The
reporting states assessed aquatic
life use and swimming use most
frequently. These states reported that
support of aquatic life use is impaired
in over 3.2 million lake acres (29%
of the 11.2 million acres assessed for
aquatic life support), and swimming
criteria violations impact almost
3 million lake acres (23% of the
12.7 million acres assessed for swim-
ming use support) (Figure 3-3).
Many states did not rate fish
consumption use support because
they have not included fish consump-
tion as a use in their standards. How-
ever, through separate tracking of
state fish consumption advisories
(SPA'S National Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Advisories), EPA estimates
that about 23% of the nation's total
lake acres were under advisories in
2000. EPA encourages the states to
designate fish consumption as a sepa-
rate use in their waterbodies to pro-
mote consistency in future reporting.
Individual Use Support in Lakes,
Reservoirs, and Ponds
Percent
Designated .
'"Use ""'"
Good Impaired
. (Fully Supporting (Partially
...••.-T-fJV'SS'ji-;. or Threatened) Supporting or Not
. Supporting)
Assessed
Aquatic Life Support
29
11,224,279
35
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 summarizes the proportion of the assessed
waters rated according to quality.
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-3.
Note: Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
-------
20 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
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 3-4 and 3-5
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 pollutants/stressors
and sources is incomplete. The states
and tribes do not always report the
pollutants/stressors or source of
pollutants impacting every impaired
lake acre. In some cases, they may
recognize that water quality does not
fully support a designated use, but
may not have adequate data to docu-
ment the specific pollutant, stressor or
source responsible for the impairment.
Pollutants and Stressors
Impacting Lakes,
Reservoirs, and Ponds
Forty-five states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico identified
the pollutants and stressors causing
impairments to lake water quality.
More lake acres are affected by nutri-
ents than any other pollutant or stres-
sor (Figure 3-4). States reported that
excess nutrients pollute 3.8 million
lake acres (which equals 22% of the
assessed lake acres and 50% of the
impaired lake acres). See Appendix B,
Table B-4, for individual state infor-
mation.
Healthy lake ecosystems contain
nutrients in small quantities from nat-
ural sources. Extra inputs of nutrients
(primarily nitrogen and phosphorus)
disrupt the balance of lake ecosystems
by stimulating population explosions
of undesirable algae and aquatic
weeds (Figure 3-6). The algae sink to
. the lake bottom after they die, where
bacteria decompose them. The bacte-
ria consume dissolved oxygen in the
water while decomposing the dead
algae. Fish kills and foul odors may
result if dissolved oxygen is depleted.
The states reported metals as the
second most common pollutant in
assessed lake acres, impairing 3.2 mil-
lion lake acres (19% of the assessed
lake acres and 42% of impaired lake
acres). This is mainly due to the wide-
spread detection of mercury in fish
tissue samples. Most states rely on
fish tissue samples to indicate mer-
cury contamination, since mercury is
difficult to measure in water but
bioaccumulates in tissue. States are
actively studying the extent of the
mercury problem, which originates
from atmospheric transport from
power-generating facilities, waste
incinerators, mining, and other
sources.
In addition to nutrients and
metals, the states report that siltation
(sedimentation) pollutes nearly
1.6 million lake acres (9% of the
assessed lake acres and 21% of the
impaired lake acres), total dissolved
solids affect nearly 1.5 million acres
(9% of the assessed lake acres and ;
19% of the impaired lake acres), and
enrichment by organic wastes that
deplete dissolved oxygen in lake
waters affects over 1.1 million lake
acres (7% of the assessed lake acres
and 15% of the impaired lake acres).
Often, several pollutants and
processes impair 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 category that impacts the lake
acre. Therefore, the lake acres
impaired by each pollutant and
process do not add up to 100% in
Figures 3-4 and 3-5.
-------
Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 21
Figure 3-4
Leading POLLUTANTS in Impaired Lakes'
Total Lakes
40.6 million acres
ASSESSED Lakes
17.3 million acres1'
9.4 million 55%
acres I Good
45%
IMPAIRED
7.7 million acres
Leading Pollutants/Stressors
Acres
Nutrients
Metals
Siltation
Total Dissolved Solids
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Excess Algal Growth
Pesticides
Percent of IMPAIRED Lake Acres
10 20 30 40 50
3,840,383
3,220,650
1,585,383
1,497,828
1,123,432
957,088
632,217
5 10 15 20
Percent of ASSESSED Lake Acres
25
States assessed 43% of the total acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds for the 2000 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-axes of the bar chart provide differ-
ent perspectives on the magnitude of the impact of these pollutants. 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.
* Eleven 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.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a lake.
^he pollutdnis/processes
may not correspond
directly 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
rom many minor sources.
It also happens when
states do not have the
information to determine
all the sources of a particu-
lar pollutant/stressor.
According to the states,
NUTRIENTS are the most
common pollutants affecting
assessed lakes. Nutrients
• Are found in 22%
— of the assessed lakes
(see Figure 3-4)
• Contribute to 50% of
reported water quality
problems in impaired
lakes.
-------
22 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Sources of Pollutants
Impacting Lakes,
Reservoirs, and Ponds
Forty-five states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported
sources of pollution related to human
activities that impair some of their
lake, reservoir, and pond acres (see
Appendix B, Table B-5, for individual
state information). The most com-
monly reported known sources of
impairment in lakes include agricul-
ture, hydrologic modifications, and
urban runofFstorm sewers.
Agriculture is the most wide-
spread source of impairment in the
nation's assessed lake acres (Figure
3-5). Agriculture generates pollutants
that degrade aquatic life or interfere
with public use of over 3 million lake
acres (18% of the assessed lake acres
and 41% of the impaired lake acres).
Riparian pasture grazing and irrigated
and nonirrigated crop production
were the most frequently cited types
of agriculture causing impairments to
lake water quality.
Hydrologic modifications, the
second most commonly reported
source of impairment, degrade
1.4 million lake acres (8% of the
assessed lake acres and 18% of the
impaired lake acres). Hydrologic
modifications include flow regulation
and modification, dredging, and
construction of dams. These activities
According to the states,
AGRICULTURE is the leading
source of pollution in assessed
lakes. Agricultural pollution
problems
• Affect 18% of the
assessed lakes
• Contribute to 41 % of
reported water quality
in impaired lakes (see
Figure 3-5).
Figure 3-5 ;
Leading SOURCES of Lake Impairment
*t
Total Lakes
40.6 million acres
ASSESSED Lakes
17.3 million acres*
45%
IMPAIRED
7.7 million acres
Leading Sources
Acres
Agriculture
Hydrologic Modifications
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Nonpoint Sources
Atmospheric Deposition
Municipal Point Sources
Land Disposal
Percent of IMPAIRED Lake Acres
10 20 30 40
50
3,158,393
1,413,624
1,369,327
1,045,036
983,936
943,715
856,586
5 10 15
Percent of ASSESSED Lake Acres
20
States assessed 43% of the total acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds for the 2000 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 impair-
ment. 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-axes 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.
* Eleven 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, maybe underrepresented.
^ Excluding unknown, natural, and "other" sources.
* 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.
-------
Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 23
may alter a lake's habitat in such a
way that it becomes less suitable for
aquatic life.
The states report that pollution
from urban runoff and storm sewers
degrades nearly 1.4 million lake acres
(8% of the assessed lake acres and
18% of the impaired lake acres), gen-
eralized nonpoint sources of pollution
impair about 1 million lake acres
(6% of the assessed lake acres and
14% of the impaired lake acres),
atmospheric deposition of poEutants
impairs 1 million lake acres (6% of
the assessed lake acres and 13% of the
impaired lake acres), and municipal
sewage treatment plants pollute
943,715 lake acres (5% of the assessed
lake acres and 12% of the impaired
lake acres).
As in 1998, more states reported
lake degradation from atmospheric
deposition than in past reporting
cycles. This is due, in part, to a grow-
ing awareness of the magnitude of the
atmospheric deposition problem.
Researchers have found significant
impacts to ecosystems and human
health from atmospherically delivered
pollutants.
The states listed additional
sources affecting several hundred
thousand lake acres, including habitat
modifications, land disposal of wastes,
flow regulation, resource extraction,
contaminated sediments, highway
maintenance and runoff, drainage and
filling of wetlands, and forestry activi-
ties.
Figure 3-6
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 agriculture, industrial activities, municipal sewage, and
atmospheric deposition can contribute to excessive nutrients in lakes.
-------
il I >
1 *
-------
Coastal Resources—
Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline
Waters, and Coral Reefs
The United States' coastal
resources include nearly 90,000 square
miles of estuarine waters, more than
5,500 miles of Great Lakes shoreline,
nearly 60,000 miles of ocean shore-
line, and extensive coral reef areas.
This chapter discusses the states'
water quality findings for these
diverse resources.
The findings in this chapter
largely agree with the water quality
and ecological assessment of the
nation's estuaries provided in the
National Coastal Condition Report,
EPA-620/R-01/005, published in
March 2002. The National Coastal
Condition Report was based on data
from a variety of federal, state, and
local sources, including EPA's
National Coastal Assessment
Program, with samples taken from
over 1,000 randomly selected sites in
the estuaries of the United States. For
a copy of this report, visit http://www.
epa.gov/o'wow/oceans/nccr/index.htmL
ESTUARIES
Estuaries are the waters where
rivers meet the oceans and include
bays and tidal rivers. These waters
serve as nursery areas for many
commercial and recreational fish
species and most shellfish popula-
tions, including shrimp, oysters,
clams, crabs, and scallops.
Twenty-three of the 27 coastal
states, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana 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). Puerto
Rico's information on its estuarine
waters was based on linear miles
rather than square miles, and conse-
quently could not be aggregated with
information reported by the other
states.
Altogether, these states assessed
31,072 square miles of estuarine
waters, which equals 36% of the
87,369 square miles of estuarine
waters in the nation. The states based
51% of their assessments on moni-
tored data and evaluated 32% of the
assessed estuarine waters with qualita-
tive information (see Appendix C,
Table C-2, for individual state infor-
mation). The states did not specify
whether 17% of the assessed estuarine
waters were monitored or evaluated.
The number of assessed estuarine
square miles increased slightly
between 1998 and 2000, as did the
percentage of total estuarine area
assessed. This is primarily due to
increases in the area assessed in a few
states. California, Florida, Mississippi,
and Washington all assessed signifi-
cantly more estuarine area in 2000
than in 1998.
The states constantly revise their
assessment methods in an effort to
improve their accuracy and precision.
Estuaries Assessed by States
2000 EE 31,072 square miles = 36% assessed
• Total square miles = 87,369a
64% Not Assessed
1998 ffl 28,687 square miles = 32% assessed
m Total square miles: 90,465b
1996 EH 28,819 square miles =72% assessed
H Total square miles: 39,839°
1994 D 26,847 square miles = 78% assessed
• Total square miles: 34,388d
1992 ffl 27,227 square miles = 74% assessed
m Total square miles: 36,890e
aSource: 2000 state Section 305(b) reports.
bSource: 1998 state Section 305(b) reports.
cSource: 1996 state Section 305(b) reports.
dSource: 1994 state Section 305(b) reports.
eSource: 1992 state Section 305(b) reports.
-------
26 Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Assessed Waters
Total estuaries = 87,369 square miles3
Total assessed = 31,072 square miles
• 36% assessed
• 64% not assessed
Of the assessed estuarine waters:
• 51% were monitored
• 32% were evaluated
• 17% were not specified
Assessed Water Quality
51% Impaired
for one or
more uses
49% Good
aSource: 2000 state Section 305(b) reports.
These changes, however, limit the
comparability of data from year to
year. Similarly, differences in state
assessment methods limit meaningful
comparisons of estuarine information
submitted by individual states. States
devote varying resources to monitor-
ing biological integrity, water chem-
istry, and toxic pollutants in fish
tissues. The wide range in water
quality ratings reported by the states
reflects both differences in water qual-
ity and differences in monitoring and
assessment methods.
Summary of Use
Support
The states reported that 49% of
their assessed estuarine waters have
good water quality that fully supports
designated uses (Figure 4-1). Of the
assessed waters, 45% fully support
uses and nearly 4% are threatened
for one or more uses. Some form
of pollution or habitat degradation
impairs the remaining 51% of
assessed estuarine waters.
Individual Use
Support
Individual use support assessment
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 qual-
ity standards. For reporting purposes,
the states consolidate their more
detailed uses into five general use
categories. The standard uses for
estuaries 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
Figure 4-1
Summary of Use Support
in Assessed Estuaries
<»•<••• • • •:•.}
Impaired
for One or More Uses
Threatened
for One or More Uses
This figure presents the status of the assessed square miles of estuaries. Of 31,072 square miles
assessed, 49% fully support their designated uses and 51% are impaired for one or more uses.'.
Less than 4% of assessed waters are fully supporting uses but threatened.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-2.
Note: Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
-------
Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 27
waters for drinking water supply use
and agricultural use because of high
treatment costs.
Twenty-two states reported the
individual use support status of their
estuarine waters (see Appendix C,
Table C-3, for individual state infor-
mation). Most often, these states
examined aquatic life conditions
and swimming use in their estuarine
waters (Figure 4-2). The states
reported that pollutants:
• Impact aquatic life in 11,391 square
miles of estuarine waters (about 52%
of the 22,047 square miles assessed for
aquatic life support).
• Restrict fish consumption in 6,255
square miles of estuarine waters (about
48% of the 12,940 square miles
assessed for fish consumption).
• Restrict shellfish harvesting in
5,288 square miles of estuarine waters
(25% of the 20,967 square miles
assessed for shellfishing use support).
• Violate swimming criteria in 3,245
square miles of estuarine waters
(15% of the 21,169 square miles
assessed for swimming use support).
Water Quality
Problems Identified
in Estuaries
When states and tribes rate
waters as impaired, they also try to
identify the causes and sources of
impairment. Figures 4-3 and 4-4
identify the pollutants and sources of
pollutants that impair the most square
miles of assessed estuarine waters.
It is important to note that infor-
mation about pollutants and sources
is incomplete. The states do not
555.
assessed
Figure 4-2
lndj^idua|jLJseSupport in Estuaries
Percent
Designated
"'"™"
„,„»,_,„,,,_ ,-,(-oocj impaired
iu"iare (Fully Supporting (Partially
,™.M!*§S, ,„„or Threatened) Supporting or
Assessed Not Supporting)
Aquatic Life Support
22,047
25
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 summarizes the proportion of the assessed waters rated
according to quality.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-3.
-------
28 Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
always report the pollutant or source
of pollutants affecting 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 pollutant or
stressor responsible for the impair-
ment. Sources of impairment are even
more difficult to identify than pollut-
ants and stressors.
Pollutants and Processes
Impacting Estuaries
Twenty-five states reported
pollutants and processes related to
human activities that impact some
of their estuarine waters (see Appen-
dix C, Table C-4, for individual state
information). Often, more than one
pollutant or stressor impacts a single
estuarine waterbody. In such cases, the
states and other jurisdictions count a
single square mile of estuary under
each pollutant or stressor category
that affects the estuary. Therefore,
the percentages of estuarine waters
impaired by all the pollutant and
stressor categories do not add up to
100% in Figure 4-3.
The states identified more square
miles of estuarine waters polluted by
metals than any other pollutant or
stressor (Figure 4-3). States reported
that metals, primarily mercury, pollute
8,077 square miles of estuarine waters
(26% of the assessed estuarine waters
and 52% of the impaired estuarine
waters). Similar to lakes, this is mainly
due to the widespread detection
of mercury in fish tissue samples.
Mercury bioaccumulates in fish tissue,
and the consumption offish with high
concentrations of mercury can be
harmful to human health. The health
risk is higher for sensitive populations
such as pregnant women, nursing
women, and children. Nine states have
statewide fish consumption advisories
for mercury in coastal and/or estuarine
waters that recommend restricting the
consumption offish from those
waters.
The states determined that
pesticides pollute 5,985 square miles
(19% of the assessed estuarine waters
and 38% of the impaired estuarine
waters). Pesticides such as DDT and
chlordane pose risks to human health
and aquatic life because they bioaccu-
mulate in fish tissues.
Oxygen depletion from organic
wastes impacts 5,324 square miles of
estuarine waters (17% of the assessed
estuarine waters and 34% of the ;
impaired estuarine waters). Oxygen
depletion may trigger fish kills and
foul odors, and can adversely affect
aquatic life.
The states reported that patho-
gens impair 4,764 square miles of
estuarine waters (15% of the assessed
estuarine waters and 30% of the
impaired estuarine waters). Most :
states monitor indicator bacteria, such
as E. coli, that inhabit the digestive
tracts of humans and other warm-
blooded animals and populate sewage
in high densities. The presence of
such bacteria in water samples is an
indicator that an estuary is contami-
nated with sewage that may contain
numerous viruses and bacteria that
cause illness in people.
Sources of Pollutants
Impacting Estuaries
Twenty-five states reported
sources of pollution related to human
activities that affect some of their
estuarine waters (see Appendix C,
Table C-5, for individual state infor-
mation). These states reported that
unknown sources impaired the great-
est number of estuarine square miles
(7,592 square miles). Of the known
sources, states report that municipal
point sources (sewage treatment
-------
Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Cora) Reefs 29
Figure 4-3
Leading POLLUTANTS in Impaired Estuaries
Total Estuaries
87,369 square miles
ASSESSED Estuaries
31,072 square miles
15,676
square
miles
Leading Pollutants/Stressors
Square Miles
Metals
Pesticides
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Pathogens (Bacteria)
Priority Toxic Organic Chemicals
PCBs
Total Dissolved Solids
Percent of IMPAIRED Estuarine Square Miles
0 10 20 30 40 50
8,077
5,985
5,324
4,764
3,652
2,622
2,494
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percent of ASSESSED Estuarine Square Miles
States assessed 36% of the total square miles of estuaries for the 2000 report. The larger pie chart
on the left illustrates this proportion. The smaller pie chart on the right shows that, for the sub-
set of assessed waters, 49% are rated as good and 51% as impaired. When states identify waters
that are impaired, they describe the pollutants or processes causing or contributing to the impair-
ment. This bar chart presents the leading causes and the number of estuarine square miles
impacted. The percent scales on the upper and lower x-axes of the bar chart provide different
perspectives on the magnitude of the impact of these pollutants. 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
may not correspond
directly 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
information to determine
all the sources of a particu-
lar pollutant/stressor.
-------
30 Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Figure 4-4
Leading SOURCES of Estuary Impairment*
Total Estuaries
87,369 square miles
ASSESSED Estuaries
31,072 square miles
14,873 I 49%
square I Good
miles
15,676
square
miles
According to the states,
MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES
are the leading source of
pollution in assessed estuaries.
This source
• Affects 19% of the
assessed portions of
estuaries
• Contributes to 37% of
reported water quality
problems in the impaired
portions of estuaries (see
Figure 4-4).
Leading Sources
Square Miles
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Industrial Discharges
Atmospheric Deposition
Agriculture
Hydrologic Modifications
Resource Extraction
Percent of IMPAIRED Estuarine Square Miles
0 10 20 30 40
5,779
5,045
4,116
3,692
2,811
2,171
1,913
0 5 10 15 20
Percent of ASSESSED Estuarine Square Miles
States assessed 36% of the total square miles of estuaries for the 2000 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, 49% are rated as good and 51% as impaired. When states iden-
tify 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-axes of the bar chart provide
different perspectives on the magnitude of the impact of these sources. The lower axis com-
pares 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.
'Excludes unknown, natural, and "other" sources.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-5.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may impair an
estuary.
-------
Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Cora) Reefs 31
plants) are the most widespread
source of pollution in their assessed
estuarine waters. Pollutants in munici-
pal discharges degrade aquatic life or
interfere with public use of 5,779
square miles of estuarine waters (19%
of the assessed estuarine waters and
37% of the impaired estuarine waters)
(Figure 4-4). The states also reported
that pollution from urban runoff and
storm sewers impact 5,045 square
miles of estuarine waters (16% of the
assessed estuarine waters and 32% of
the impaired estuarine waters); indus-
trial discharges pollute 4,116 square
miles of estuarine waters (13% of the
assessed estuarine waters and 26% of
the impaired estuarine waters); and
atmospheric deposition of pollutants
impacts 3,692 square miles of estua-
rine waters (12% of the assessed estu-
arine waters and 24% of the impaired
estuarine waters).
GREAT LAKES
SHORELINE
The Great Lakes—Superior,
Michigan, Huron, Erie, and
Ontario—are an important part of
the physical and cultural heritage of
North America. These vast inland
freshwater seas provide water for
consumption, transportation, power,
recreation, fisheries, 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
capacity. Many consider the Great
Lakes the United States' fourth
seacoast.
Six of the eight Great Lakes
states rated general water quality con-
ditions in 5,066 miles of Great Lakes
shoreline in their 2000 Section 305(b)
reports (see Appendix F, Tables F-l
and F-2, for individual state informa-
tion). These states based less than 1%
of their assessments on monitored
data and evaluated 75% of the
assessed shoreline miles with qualita-
tive information. The states did not
specify whether the remaining 25% of
the assessed shoreline miles were
monitored or evaluated.
Summary of Use
Support
The states reported that 22% of
their assessed Great Lakes shoreline
miles have good water quality that
fully supports designated uses, and all
of these supporting waters are threat-
ened for one or more uses (Figure
4-5). Some form of pollution or habi-
tat degradation impairs the remaining
78% of assessed Great Lakes shore-
line. This degradation leads to fish
consumption advisories. It is impor-
tant to note that two Great Lakes
states, Ohio and Wisconsin, did not
report summary use support status for
their shoreline waters. EPA used their
aquatic life use support information to
represent summary water quality
conditions. Nearly all of the assessed
Great Lakes shoreline supports
recreation and drinking water uses.
-------
32 Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Great Lakes Shoreline Miles Assessed
by States
2000 ffl 5,066 miles = 92% assessed
• Total shoreline miles = 5,521a
92%
Assessed
8% Not
Assessed
.&•
*•«!«!
I '•-
.is ••
|i!! ip
:jleA
1998 03 4,950 miles = 90% assessed
• Total shoreline miles: 5,521 b
1996 m 5,1 86 miles = 94% assessed
• Total shoreline miles: 5,521 c
1994 JZ 5,224 miles = 94% assessed
• Total shoreline miles: 5,559d
1992 10 5,31 9 miles = 99% assessed
• Total shoreline miles: 20,1 21 e
Of the assessed Great Lakes shoreline
waters:
• <1% were monitored
• 75% were evaluated
• 25% were not specified
Assessed Water Quality
78%
Impaired
for one ^^^| ^\ 22% Good
or morei
users
aSource: 2000 state Section 305(b) reports.
bSource: 1998 state Section 305(b) reports.
cSource: 1996 state Section 305(b) reports.
dSource: 1994 state Section 305(b) reports.
eSource: 1992 state Section 305(b) reports.
Note: Numbers may not add up to 100%
due to rounding.
Individual Use
Support
The states establish specific desig-
nated uses for waterbodies through
their water quality standards. For
reporting purposes, the states consoli-
date their more detailed uses into six
general use categories. The standard
uses of Great Lakes waters are aquatic
life support, fish consumption, pri-
mary contact recreation (such as
swimming and diving), secondary
contact recreation (such as boating),
drinking water supply, and agricultural
use.
Six 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 information).
These states report that swimming,
secondary contact, drinking water
Figure 4-5
supply, and agricultural uses are met in
nearly all assessed shoreline miles
(Figure 4-6). The greatest 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, PCBs, pesti-
cides, or dioxins are found in fish
tissues at levels that exceed standards
set to protect human health. The
water concentrations of most organo-
chlorine compounds have declined
dramatically since control measures
began in the mid-1970s. As a result,
concentrations of these contaminants
in fish tissue have also declined,
although 4,976 shoreline miles (100%,
of the assessed Great Lakes waters)
still fail to fully support fish consump-
tion uses.
Summary of Use Support
in Assessed Great Lakes Shoreline Walers
^^a^^^^^-e^^
~ Impaired
for One or More Uses
Threatened
for One or More Uses
22%
Good
22%
This figure presents the status of the assessed Great Lakes shoreline waters. Of the 5,066 miles
of Great Lakes shoreline assessed, 22% fully support their designated uses but are threatened,
and 78% are impaired for one or more uses.
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-2.
-------
Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 33
Water Quality
Problems Identified
in Great Lakes
Shoreline Waters
Only four Great Lakes states
identified pollutants and sources of
pollutants degrading Great Lakes
shoreline (Appendix F, Tables F-4 and
F-5, contain individual state informa-
tion). Limited conclusions can be
drawn from this fraction of the
nation's Great Lakes shoreline miles.
The major causes of impairment cited
by the four states were priority toxic
organic chemicals, nutrients, patho-
gens, and sedimentation. In addition,
oxygen-depleting substances, foul
odor and taste, and PCBs caused
water quality impairments (Figure
4-7).
The states reported that contami-
nated sediments, urban runoff and
storm sewers, and agriculture are the
primary sources of pollutants that
impair their Great Lakes shoreline
waters (Figure 4-8). Atmospheric
deposition, habitat modification, land
disposal, and septic tanks were also
cited as sources of pollution.
Figure 4-6 I
G°od water
§35
assessed.
"•••"* Individual Use Support in the Great Lakes
• Percent
Good Impaired
: _s j ,_ . •_.; ....... (fully Supporting (Partially
Designated Miles V Threatened) Supporting or Not
-v Use Assessed Supporting)
Aquatic Life Support
This 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 summarizes the proportion of the assessed
waters rated according to quality.
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-3.
-------
34 Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Figure 4-7
Leading POLLUTANTS in Impaired
Great Lakes Shoreline Waters
Total Great Lakes Shoreline
5,521 miles
ASSESSED Great Lakes Shoreline
5,066 miles
8%
Not
Assessed
22%
Good
1,095 miles
Leading Pollutants/Stressors
Miles
Priority Toxic Organic Chemicals
Nutrients
Pathogens (Bacteria)
Sedimentation/Siltation
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Taste and Odor
PCBs
Percent of IMPAIRED Great Lakes Shoreline Miles
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
I I I
I
I
I
I
497
109
102
98
73
53
43
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Percent of ASSESSED Great Lakes Shoreline Miles
States assessed 92% of the total miles of Great Lakes shoreline for the 2000 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, 22% are rated as good and 78% 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 Great Lakes shoreline
miles impacted. The percent scales on the upper and lower x-axes 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 F, Table F-4.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may impair a
segment of Great Lakes shoreline.
-------
Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs 35
Figure 4-8
Leading SOURCES of Great Lakes
Shoreline Impairment
Total Great Lakes Shoreline
5,521 miles
ASSESSED Great Lakes Shoreline
5,066 miles
8%
Not
Assessed
22%
Good
1,095 miles
Leading Sources Miles
Contaminated Sediments
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Atmospheric Deposition
Habitat Modification
Land Disposal
Septic Tanks
Percent of IMPAIRED Great Lakes Shoreline Miles
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
i i i i i i i i
l^H
•
•
•
•
i i i i i i i
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
519
152
75
71
62
61
61
Percent of ASSESSED Great Lakes Shoreline Miles
States assessed 92% of the total miles of Great Lakes shoreline for the 2000 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, 22% are rated as good and 78% as impaired. When states identify
waters that are impaired, they also describe the sources of pollutants associated with the impair-
ment. 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-axes 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 F, Table F-5.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may impair a
segment of Great Lakes shoreline.
The pollutants/processes
and sources shown here
may not correspond
directly 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
Information to determine
all the sources of a particu-
lar pollutant/stressor.
-------
36 Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Ocean Shoreline Waters Assessed
by States
Including Alaska's Ocean Shoreline
2000 Hi 3,221 miles = 6% assessed
• Total ocean shoreline miles = 58,618a
94% Not Assessed
1998 Hi 3,130 miles = 5% assessed
• Total ocean shoreline miles: 66,645b
1996 W 3,651 miles = 6% assessed
M Total ocean shoreline miles: 22,585°
1994 m 5,208 miles = 9% assessed
| Total ocean shoreline miles: 58,421d
1992
Assessed Water Quality
3,398 miles = 1 7% assessed
Total ocean shoreline miles: 20,1 21 e
14% Impaired
for one or
more uses
86% Good
"Source: 2000 state Section 305(b) reports.
bSource: 1998 state Section 305(b) reports.
'Source: 1996 state Section 305(b) reports.
dSource: 1994 state Section 305(b) reports.
eSource: 1992 state Section 305(b) reports.
OCEAN SHORE-
LINE WATERS
The oceans are of incalculable
value to our planet. The global ocean
affects the health and safety of the
world by providing 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.
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).
Texas provided information on its
ocean shoreline waters based on
square miles rather than linear miles.
Consequently, their data could not be
aggregated with those reported by the
other states.
Altogether, these states assessed
3,221 miles of ocean shoreline, which
equals 5.5% of the nation's coastline
Figure 4-9
(including Alaska's 36,000 miles of
coastline) or 14% of the 22,618 miles
of national coastline excluding Alaska.
The states based 34% of their assess-
ments on monitored data and 59% on
qualitative information (see Appendix
C, Table C-6, for individual state
information). The states did not
specify whether 7% of the assessed
coastal shoreline waters were moni-
tored or evaluated.
Summary of Use
Support
The states reported that 86%
(2,755 miles) of their assessed ocean
shoreline miles have'good quality that
supports a healthy aquatic community
and public activities (Figure 4-9). Of
the assessed waters, 79% fully support
designated uses and 7% are threatened
for one or more uses. Some form of
pollution or habitat degradation
impairs the remaining 14% of the
assessed shoreline.
Summary of Use Support
in Assessed Ocean Shoreline Waters
-Good, n
Impaired
for One or More Uses
This figure presents the status of the assessed miles of ocean shoreline. Of the 3,218 miles ocean
shoreline assessed, 86% fully support their designated uses and 14% are impaired for one or more
uses. Seven percent of the assessed waters are fully supporting uses but threatened.
Note: Numbers may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-6.
-------
Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
Individual Use
Support
The states establish specific desig-
nated uses for waterbodies through
their water quality standards. For
reporting purposes, the states consoli-
date their more detailed uses into five
general use categories. The standard
uses of ocean coastal waters consist of
aquatic life support, fish consumption,
shellfish harvesting, primary contact
recreation (such as swimming and
diving), and secondary contact recre-
ation (such as boating). Few states
designate saline ocean waters for
drinking water supply and agricultural
use because of high treatment costs.
The states provided limited infor-
mation on individual use support in
ocean shoreline waters (Appendix C,
Table C-7, contains individual state
information). Swimming was the
most often rated use. Limited conclu-
sions can be drawn from this fraction
of the nation's ocean shoreline miles.
The reporting states indicated that the
greatest impacts to coastal shoreline
are on swimming and shellfishing
(Figure 4-10). It is important to note
that 15 states have adopted statewide
coastal fish consumption advisories for
mercury, PCBs, and other pollutants.
The effect of these advisories is not
reflected in Figure 4-10.
Individual Use Support in Ocean Shoreline Waters
Percent
Good
Impaired
„ -— — . , —
Designated __
(Fully Supporting (Partially
fh
ignatea __ jywes^ _ or Threatened) Supporting or Not
Use Assessed 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 summarizes the proportion of the assessed waters rated
according to quality.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-7.
-------
38 Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
I
Water Quality
Problems Identified
in Ocean Shoreline
Waters
Of the 14 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 individ-
ual state information). The primary
pollutants and stressors reported by
the 10 states include bacteria (patho-
gens), oxygen-depleting substances,
turbidity and suspended solids,
(Figure 4-11). The primary sources
reported include urban runoff and
storm sewers, nonpoint sources, land
disposal of wastes, septic tanks, and
municipal point sources (sewage treat-
ment plants (Figure 4-12).
Figure 4-11
Leading POLLUTANTS in Impaired
Ocean Shoreline Waters
Total Ocean Shoreline
58,618 miles
ASSESSED Ocean Shoreline
3,221 miles*
94%
Not 6%
Assessed ASSESSED
14%
IMPAIRED
434
miles
Leading Pollutants/Stressors
Miles
Pathogens (Bacteria)
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Turbidity
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Metals
Nutrients
10
Percent of IMPAIRED Shoreline Miles
20 30 40 50 60 70
80
90
384
102
53
50
48
46
43
2468
Percent of ASSESSED Shoreline Miles
10
12
States assessed 6% of the total miles of ocean shoreline for the 2000 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, 86% are rated as good and 14% 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 ocean shoreline miles impacted. The
percent scales on the upper and lower x-axes 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.
-------
Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Cora) Reefs
Figure 4-12
Leading SOURCES of Ocean
Shoreline Impairment*
Total Ocean Shoreline
58,618 miles
ASSESSED Ocean Shoreline
3,221 milest
94%
Not 6%
Assessed ASSESSED
14%
IMPAIRED
434
miles
Leading Sources
Miles
Urban Runoff/Storm
Sewers
Nonpoint Sources
Land Disposal
Septic Tanks
Municipal Point Sources
Industrial Discharges
Construction
Percent of IMPAIRED Shoreline Miles
10 20 30 40 50
60
24 6
Percent of ASSESSED Shoreline Miles
States assessed 6% of the total miles of ocean shoreline for the 2000 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, 86% are rated as good and 14% as impaired. When states iden-
tify 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-axes 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.
*Excludes 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
directly 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
information to determine
all the sources of a particu-
lar pollutant/stressor.
-------
40 Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Coral Reefs
iil'ili, I.-!
1; v
niiiii >
•• I i :•!•-
CORAL REEFS
Coral reef systems are among
the most diverse ecosystems on earth.
Coral reefs are based on tiny individ-
ual coral animals called polyps, which
secrete a hard calcium carbonate
skeleton. They provide habitat for a
large variety of organisms that use the
coral as a source of food and shelter.
Residents of coral reefs include vari-
ous sponges; mollusks such as sea
slugs, oysters, and clams; crustaceans
such as crabs and shrimp; many kinds
of sea worms; echinoderms such
as starfish and sea urchins; other
cnidarians such as jellyfish and sea
anemones; various types of algae; sea
turtles; and many species offish.
These reefs are living jewels that
encircle the shoreline in many tropical
areas, providing important assets to
local and national economies, includ-
ing fisheries for food, materials for
new medicines, and income from
tourism and recreation. Coral reefs
also provide coastal communities with
protection from storms.
Coral reef areas are found in only
three states—Florida, primarily in the
Florida Keys; Hawaii, throughout the
Hawaiian archipelago; and Texas, in
the offshore Flower Gardens (Figure
4-13). Lush reef areas are also found
in five U.S. territories in both the
Atlantic and Pacific regions, including
American Samoa, Guam, the North-
ern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The proximity of coral reefs to
land makes them particularly sensitive
to impacts from human activities.
Because they depend on light, coral
reefs require clear water for growth
and can be severely damaged by
sediment or other factors that reduce
water clarity or quality. Recent evi-
dence 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.
'Figure 4-13
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%
Mariana Islands 3%
-------
Chapter Four Coastal Resources: Tidal Estuaries, Shoreline Waters, and Corai Reefs 41
Coral Reef Degradation
Natural impacts to coral reefs
occur as a result of hurricanes and
severe storms. Outbreaks of Crown-
of-Thorn starfish populations that
feed voraciously on coral polyps kill
large parts of Pacific Ocean reefs.
Coral bleaching and other coral
diseases are also stressing coral reef
ecosystems in both the Atlantic and
Pacific.
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 aquar-
ium 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.
In an effort to prevent further
loss of coral reef ecosystems, the U.S.
Coral Reef Task Force was established
in 1998. The task force comprises
many federal agencies including EPA,
and is charged with mapping and
monitoring coral reefs, researching
coral reef degradation, working to
implement measures to protect coral
reefs, and promoting coral reef conser-
vation worldwide. More information
on the interagency efforts to study and
protect coral reefs is available on the
Internet at http://coralreef.gov.
In 2000, a major protection
measure was enacted for the coral
reefs of the northwest Hawaiian
Islands, which represent nearly
70% of the coral reefs in U.S. waters.
The area was designated as a federal
Ecosystem Reserve and is the largest
nature preserve ever established in the
United States. It will protect more
than 4,000 square miles of some of
the most extensive and pristine coral
reefs in U.S. waters. The reefs extend
from near-shore areas just beneath the
ocean surface to a depth of 600 feet,
as much as 100 miles out to sea.
For more information on each
of the states and territories with coral
reef resources, refer to Chapter 10
(state summaries).
-------
Ill 111
I
-------
Wetlands
What Are Wetlands?
Wetlands occur where water and
land come together for a prolonged
period of time (Figure 5-1). They are
lands where saturation with water is
the dominant factor determining the
nature of soil development and the
types of plant and animal communi-
ties living in the soil and on its sur-
face. Wetlands vary widely because of
regional and local differences in soils,
topography, climate, hydrology, water
chemistry, vegetation, and other
factors, including human disturbance.
They are found from the tundra to
the tropics and on every continent
except Antarctica. Two general cate-
gories of wetlands are recognized:
coastal or tidal wetlands, and inland
or freshwater wetlands. Included
among the many types of wetlands
found in the United States are peat
lands, marshes, mires, vernal pools,
swamps, muskegs, wet meadows,
playas, bogs, pocosins, sloughs,
potholes, and fens.
It is important to point out that
unlike streams, rivers, lakes, and estu-
aries, some wetlands contain little or
no surface water and are primarily
influenced by high ground water
tables. These wetlands are normally
"dry" or have standing water for just a
few months out of the year, but can
be of extraordinary value.
Value of Wetlands
Maintaining and restoring the
quality of our wetlands is important
because of the many beneficial uses
that they provide to humans, aquatic
life, other wildlife, and the environ-
ment as a whole.
Wetlands can be thought of as
biological "supermarkets." They
produce great quantities of food that
attract many animal species. The
complex, dynamic feeding relation-
ships among the organisms inhabiting
wetland environments are referred
to as food webs. The combination
of shallow water, high levels of
inorganic nutrients, and high rates
of primary productivity (the synthesis
of new plant biomass through
photosynthesis) in many wetlands is
ideal for the development of organ-
isms that form the base of the food
web—many species of insects, mol-
lusks, and crustaceans, for example.
For many fish and wildlife
species, wetlands are primary habitats,
meaning that these species depend on
them for survival; for others, wetlands
provide important seasonal habitats,
where food, water, and cover are
plentiful. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service estimates that up to 43% of
the federally threatened and endan-
gered species rely directly or indirectly
on wetlands for their survival. Because
they produce so much plant biomass
and invertebrate life, estuaries and
Figure 5-1
Depiction of Wetlands Adjacent to a Waterbody
Terrestrial
System
Waterbody
Productivity
Low to Medium
Wetlands are often found at the interface between dry terrestrial ecosystems, 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. © 1986, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
-------
44 Chapter Five Wetlands
Figure 5-2
Coastal Wetlands Produce Detritus
that Supports Fish and Shellfish
Coastal Wetlands Plants
Iferi
..... ;;•
3 ..... i ..... 1:
.'jilt
; Zooplanktonu,-'*
Menhaden
«^
Figure 5-3
Water Quality Improvement Functions in Wetlands
Nutrient
Removal
Sediment
Trapping-^
ical\/
Chemical
Detoxification
Source: Washington State Department of Ecology.
their coastal marshes serve as impor-
tant nursery areas for the young of
many game and commercial fish and
shellfish (Figure 5-2).
Wetlands are also valuable
because they greatly influence the
flow and quality of water. They help
improve water quality, including
drinking water, by intercepting
surface runoff and removing or retain-
ing inorganic nutrients, processing
organic wastes, and reducing sus-
pended sediments before they reach
open water (Figure 5-3). In perform-
ing this filtering function, wetlands
save us a great deal of money. For
example, the Congaree Bottomland
Hardwood Swamp in South Carolina
removes a quantity of pollutants that
would be equivalent to that removed
annually by a $5 million wastewater
treatment plant.
In addition to improving water
quality through filtering, some wet-
lands maintain stream flow during dry
periods; others replenish ground
water. For instance, one calculation for
a 5-acre Florida cypress swamp that
is known to recharge ground water
reveals that if 80% of the swamp was
drained, available ground water would
be reduced by an estimated 45%.
Because of their low topographic
position relative to uplands, wetlands
store and slowly release surface water,
rain, snowmelt, ground water and
flood waters. Trees and other wetland
vegetation also impede the movement
of flood waters and distribute them
more slowly over floodplains. This
combined water storage and slowing
action lowers flood heights and
reduces erosion downstream and
on adjacent lands. Preserving and
restoring wetlands can often afford
a level of flood protection otherwise
provided by expensive impoundments,
dredging operations, and levees. In
Minnesota, for example, the cost of
replacing the natural flood control
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 45
function of 5,000 acres of drained
wetlands was found to be $1.5 million
annually.
Wetlands at the margins of
lakes, rivers, bays, and the ocean help
protect shorelines and stream banks
against erosion. Wetland plants hold
the soil in place with their roots,
absorb the energy of waves, and break
up the flow of stream or river cur-
rents. The ability of wetlands to con-
trol erosion is so valuable that some
states (e.g., Florida) are restoring wet-
lands in coastal areas to buffer the
storm surges from hurricanes and
tropical storms.
Lastly, wetlands play a major role
in our economy. For instance:
• Wetlands that support timber
harvests total about 55 million acres.
• Various plants like blueberries,
cranberries, mints, and wild rice are
produced in wetlands.
• About 96% of the commercial fish
and shellfish harvest and more than
50% of the recreational catch depend
on estuarine or coastal wetlands.
• The nation's harvest of muskrat
pelts is valued at over $70 million
annually.
• At least $18 billion in economic
activity is generated annually from
recreational fishing in coastal wetlands
by 17 million Americans.
• Nationally, economic activity
directly associated with recreational
bird watching (closely tied to wet-
lands and aquatic habitats) generated
191,000 jobs and more than $895
million in tax revenues in 1991.
Wetland Loss in the
United States
It is estimated that over 200 mil-
lion acres of wetlands existed in the
lower 48 states at the time of Euro-
pean settlement. Since then, extensive
Figure 5-4
Sources of Recent Wetland Losses
(9 States Reporting)
Sources
Filling and Draining
Agriculture
Residential Development
and Urban Growth
Road/Highway/Bridge
Construction
Dredging
Resource Extraction
Impoundments
States
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
2468
Number of States Reporting
10
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-4.
wetland acreage has been lost. Many
of our original wetlands have been
drained and converted to farmland
and urban development. One of the
surest ways to degrade the beneficial
use of a wetland is to eliminate it
through excavation, filling, or drain-
ing.
The average annual loss of
wetlands has decreased over the past
40 years. According to a report issued
by the National Wetland Inventory
(Status and Trends of Wetlands in the
Conterminous United States 1986 to
1997, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service),
the rate of wetland loss in the United
States has decreased to an estimated
annual loss of 58,500 acres (an 80%
reduction compared to the previous
decade). The Natural Resource Con-
servation Service's Natural Resource
Inventory (NRI), reporting on the
health of America's private lands, also
shows significant reduction in wetland
losses. The NRI found an average
annual net loss of 32,600 acres of
wetlands on nonfederal lands from
1992 to 1997 (a 58% reduction
compared to the previous decade).
The decline in wetland losses is a
result of several trends, including the
decline in profitability of converting
wetlands for agricultural production,
the presence of Clean Water Act
Section 404 permit programs as well
as development of state management
programs, greater public interest and
support for wetland protection, and
implementation of wetland restora-
tion programs at the federal, state,
and local levels. Filling and draining,
agriculture, and development are the
leading sources of recent wetland loss
(Figure 5-4).
Assessing the Quality
of Wetlands
Applying water quality standards
to wetlands is a key goal of EPA's
program to protect the nation's
wetland resources. According to the
-------
46 Chapter Five Wetlands
Figure 5-5
f
Causes Degrading Wetland Integrity
(9 States Reporting)
Causes
Sedimentation/Siltation
Flow Alterations
Nutrients
Filling and Draining
Habitat Alterations
Metals
States
6
5
4
3
3
3
2468
Number of States Reporting
10
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-2.
Figure 5-6
Sources Degrading Wetland Integrity
(9 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture
Construction
Hydrologic Modification
Urban Runoff
Silviculture
Habitat Modification
States
4
3
2
2
2
2
1 234567
Number of States Reporting
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-3.
2000 water quality assessments, the
states, tribes, and other jurisdictions
are making progress incorporating
wetlands into water quality standards
and developing designated uses and
criteria specifically for wetlands.
Eleven states have at least a portion of
their water quality standards already
in place for wetlands, while six addi-
tional states have standards under
development or proposed (see Appen-
dix D, Table D-5). However, most
states and tribes still lack wetland-
specific designated uses, criteria, and
monitoring programs for wetlands.
Without these, they cannot evaluate
support of designated uses in their
wetlands.
In their 2000 reports, only nine
states and tribes reported the desig-
nated use support status for some
of their wetlands (see Appendix D,
Table D-l). EPA cannot draw
national conclusions about water
quality conditions in all wetlands
because the states used different
methodologies to survey only 8%
of the total wetlands in the nation.
Additionally, only one state used
random sampling techniques and two
used a targeted approach (monitoring
where problems were known or
suspected).
States reported in 2000 that
the leading causes and sources of
wetland degradation remained nearly
unchanged from those reported in
1998. Sediment/siltation, flow alter-
ations, and nutrients top the list of
reported causes of pollution (Figure
5-5). Wetlands can sustain, and are
particularly noted for counteracting,
a certain amount of these sediments
and nutrients. However, excessive
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 47
amounts of nutrients such as nitrogen
and phosphorous affect wetlands
by causing too much vegetative
growth and decay that can alter water
chemistry and make vegetative
communities less diverse. Excessive
sedimentation can effectively smother
a wetland by physically coating its
surface and impeding vegetative
growth, or in extreme cases by creat-
ing too much distance between the
root zone and the ground water table,
so that it no longer retains wetland
characteristics. Flow alteration may
occur two ways: as a result of the con-
struction of drainage ditches or canals
that intentionally or inadvertently dry
out the wetland, or as a result of the
construction of flood control berms,
dikes, or levees that channel excess
water into the wetland or cause the
wetland to retain too much water,
significantly oversaturating it or even
transforming it to open water. Agri-
culture and construction are reported
as important sources of degradation
(Figure 5-6).
To adequately monitor the
condition of their wetlands, states
and tribes may apply a range of meth-
ods, including biological assessment,
hydrogeomorphic (HGM) assess-
ment, and geographic information
system (GlS)-based landscape analy-
ses. For instance, North Carolina does
not use on-site monitoring to deter-
mine use support for most of the
state's 7,175,000 acres of wetlands.
Instead, the state often assigns use
support designations to wetlands
using soil maps, National Wetland
Inventory maps, aerial photographs,
and information on land use practices.
Wetland area that has been converted
to agricultural or urban uses, for
example, has lost all or most of its
original wetland uses, and would be
classified as "not supporting." Wet-
lands where the vegetation, soil,
and/or hydrology have been altered
but most wetland uses remain intact
are termed "partially supporting."
North Carolina uses the support
numbers determined with these
methods to present a general idea of
wetlands status throughout the state.
In Louisiana, wetlands cover approxi-
mately 28% of the state's surface area.
The state is now developing a desig-
nated use category for wetlands that
will have specific water quality criteria
to protect different types of wetlands.
The state hopes this will be an
improvement over the current system,
which requires the development of
site-specific criteria before a wetland
can be classified. Louisiana is also
reviewing projects that would alter
the water quality standards to allow
certain wetland systems to be used for
wastewater management. The dis-
charge of treated sanitary wastewater
can help prevent wetland loss by pre-
venting subsidence of the sediments,
which is a significant problem facing
some of Louisiana's wetlands.
EPA and its state, federal, local,
and academic partners are developing
technical guidance on elements of
an adequate wetland monitoring
program to support the efforts of
states and tribes to accurately charac-
terize the condition of their wetlands.
Guidance on development of state
water quality standards specifically
tailored to the unique characteristics
of wetlands is also underway.
Wetland Acres Assessed by
States and Tribes
• 8,282,133 acres = 8% assessed
H Total acres (including Alaska)
= 105.5 million3
92% Not Assessed
aFrom: National Wetland Inventory, 2000.
Source: 2000 Section 305(b) reports
submitted by states, tribes,
territories, and commissions.
More information 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.
-------
-------
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is a vital national
resource. In many parts of the nation,
ground water serves as the only
reliable source of drinking and irri-
gation water. However, ground water
is vulnerable to contamination, and
problems caused by elevated levels of
petroleum hydrocarbon compounds,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
nitrate, pesticides, and metals have
been detected in ground water across
the nation. The detection of some
relatively new contaminants (e.g.,
methyl tertiary butyl ether or MTBE)
in ground water is also increasing.
Ground Water Use
in the United States
Ground water is an important
component of our nation's freshwater
resources. In 1995, the U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey (USGS) reported that
ground water supplied drinking water
for 46% of the nation's overall popula-
tion and 99% of the population in
rural areas. Figure 6-1 illustrates how
ground water is used nationwide. This
figure indicates that irrigation (63%)
and public water supply (20%) are the
largest uses of ground water.
Ground Water Quality
and Sources of Ground
Water Contamination
Evaluating our nation's ground
water quality is a complex task.
Ground water quality can be adversely
affected by human activities that
introduce contaminants into the
environment. It can also be affected
by natural processes (such as leaching)
that result in elevated concentrations
of certain constituents. 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 6-2).
Ground water quality degradation
can also occur over a wide area due
to diffuse nonpoint sources such as
agricultural fertilizer and pesticide
applications. Frequently, ground water
contamination is discovered long after
it has occurred. One reason for this is
the slow movement of ground water
through aquifers. In some cases,
contaminants introduced into the
subsurface decades ago are only now
being discovered.
Figure 6-1
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.
-------
SO Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
Sources frequently cited by states
as potential threats to ground water
quality include leaking underground
storage tanks, septic systems, landfills,
industrial facilities, and fertilizer
applications. If similar sources are
combined, four broad categories
emerge as the most important poten-
tial sources of ground water contami-
nation:
• Fuel Storage Practices — Leakage
from storage tanks can be a significant
source of ground water contamination
(Figure 6-3). MTBE, added to some
fuel products to improve performance,
is highly water soluble; incidents of
MTBE contamination in ground
water are widely reported across the
nation.
• Waste Disposal Practices —
Systems and practices that can con-
taminate ground water if not handled
properly include septic systems, land-
fills, surface impoundments, deep and
shallow injection wells, waste piles,
waste tailings, and land application
of waste.
• Agricultural Practices - Ground
water contamination can result from
routine applications, spillage, or
misuse of pesticides 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.
• Industrial Practices — Raw mate-
rials and waste handling in industrial
processes can pose a threat to ground
water quality. Storage of raw materials
at industrial sites can be a problem if
the materials are stored improperly
and leaks or spills occur.
Examples of State
Assessments
Fifty-two states, tribes, and terri-
tories reported on ground water infor-
mation in their 2000 reports (Figure
6-4). These states reported that the
major sources of ground water conta-
mination continue to be underground
storage tanks, septic systems, and
landfills (Figure 6-5). Of the six tribes
Figure 6-2
Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Ground Water
Intentional Input
Unintentional Input
. . i-n - - bs1 -Tank
. -.'•-. 4 Cesspool
Deep Discharge
Infection.. .. . I Kertilizer
Unined « F
Confining Zone
Leakage
Confining Zone
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 51
reporting on ground water, four iden-
tified septic systems as the major
threat to ground water quality on
tribal lands. Although positive strides
were made in assessing ground water
quality in 2000, ground water data
collection under Section 305(b) is still
too immature to provide comprehen-
sive national assessments. Despite the
lack of national coverage, many states
have demonstrated strong ground
water assessment programs. Two state
ground water assessments are summa-
rized below.
Massachusetts
In Massachusetts, 69% of the
towns rely solely or partially on public
ground water supply. The state cur-
rently has 2,648 ground water public
supply sources, and due to increasing
water demand there is a correspond-
ing increase in the development of
ground water sources. Because the
number of ground water sources out-
numbers surface water supplies by
more than 13 to 1, the state is able to
use public water supply (PWS) moni-
toring information to assess ground
water quality across much of the state.
Results of PWS monitoring show
that the overwhelming majority of
drinking water violations were due to
coliform bacteria. However, VOCs
were detected from sources across the
state and with nitrates are currently
the contaminants of greatest concern.
Protection of ground water from
point sources of pollution (such as
sanitary wastewater discharges and
industrial discharges) is achieved
through a Groundwater Discharge
Permit Program in the state's Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection.
The permits require varying degrees
of wastewater treatment based on the
quality and use of the receiving
ground water. However, additional
controls are needed to eliminate
contamination from septic systems
and sludge disposal. Individual septic
tanks serve about 30% of the state's
population. Contamination of ground
Figure 6-3
Ground Water Contamination as a Result
of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
^^^^^^.; <•.'..-"vVapors •."•'•'•'•.'•.';'.
m Dissolved Gasoline$$ll$llii$l>
igatLjrateg Zone
Figure 6-4
States Reporting Ground Water Data
i American Samoa
I Northern Mariana Islands
Ground water section submitted
Ground water section not submitted
Puerto Rico
-------
52 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
1 ijiiil
1
water supplies used for drinking water
has been a problem in densely popu-
lated areas where septic systems are
used. The state anticipates that new
technologies and regulatory changes
will be needed to reduce the level of
contamination from septic systems.
Recently, Massachusetts began
work on its Source Water Assessment
Program (SWAP), as required under
Section 1453 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and has established water
supply protection areas for both
ground water and surface water
sources. Other regulatory require-
ments, such as the state's Under-
ground Injection Control (UIC)
Program, target the source water
protection areas to implement controls
preventing the migration of contami-
nants to ground water. :
Arizona
Arizona assesses ground water
quality using several different meth-
ods. The state monitors a network of
ambient water quality index wells and
compares these data to health-based
Aquifer Water Quality Standards and
to the Secondary Maximum
Contaminant Level (SMCL) guid-
ance (for contaminants that do not
pose health risks). Data are also com-
piled from other monitoring pro-
grams, which are primarily targeted in
areas of known or suspected contami-
nation. To make water quality assess-
Figure 6-5
Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Sources
Storage Tanks (underground)
Septic Systems
Landfills
Spills
Fertilizer Applications
Large Industrial Facilities
Hazardous Waste Sites
Animal Feedlots
Pesticides
Surface impoundments
Storage Tanks (aboveground)
Urban Runoff
Salt Water Intrusion
Mining and Mine Drainage
Agricultural Chemical Facilities
Pipelines and Sewer Lines
Shallow Injection Wells
Salt Storage and Road Salting
Land Application of Wastes
Irrigation Practices
Number Reporting on Top Ten
Contaminant Sources
Total
39
31
28
24
23
22
22
17
15
13
12
12
11
11
10
10
8
8
7
6
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Number of States, Tribes, and Territories Reporting
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality S3
merits, monitoring data from the
index wells and targeted wells are
pulled together from the state depart-
ments of Environmental Quality and
Water Resources, from the USGS,
and from specific watershed programs
such as the Salt River Project. For the
2000 305(b) assessments, Arizona
compared the last 8 years of ground
water monitoring results to the
aquifer standards and SMCL guid-
ance. The state then summarized the
percentage of wells exceeding each
different standard. About 28% of
wells exceeded the standards for
VOCs and semivolatile organic com-
pounds (SVOCs), and 12% exceeded
nitrate standards over the past 8 years.
Fluoride and radiochemicals occur
naturally in the soil and water across
Arizona, and in some locations the
levels of these chemicals exceed
drinking water standards.
Ground water contamination
varies significantly across Arizona. In
the metropolitan areas, VOCs and
SVOCs contaminate ground water
due to inadequate historic practices
for disposing of industrial solvents
and dry-cleaning chemicals. These
contamination areas are being remedi-
ated by the federal and state
Superfund Programs. In addition, the
requirements of the state's Aquifer
Protection Permit Program have
greatly reduced the threat of ground
water contamination from point
source discharges. To protect ground
water resources from nonpoint
sources, the state relies on the applica-
tion of Best Management Practices
and other nonregulatory actions.
Conclusions
Assessing the quality of our
nation's ground water resources is no
easy task Required source water
assessments under Section 1453 of
the Safe Drinking Water Act should
prove helpful in generating good
quality data that can be used to
evaluate ground water quality over
time. Monitoring data from wellhead
protection delineations, source inven-
tories, and other data collection
efforts will increase and improve the
information that is used to make
determinations on the quality of
ground water across the nation.
-------
NO COMA
WHITE CROAKER
-------
Public Health and
Aquatic Life Concerns
This chapter describes how
impaired water quality may affect
public health and aquatic life. Several
sections describe efforts to evaluate
impacts on different beneficial uses.
These uses include fish and wildlife
consumption, shellfish consumption,
drinking water, recreation, and
aquatic life.
Public Health
Concerns
Water pollution threatens both
public health directly through the
consumption of contaminated food or
drinking water, or indirectly through
skin exposure to contaminants present
in recreational or bathing waters.
Contaminants that threaten human
health include toxic chemicals and
waterborne disease-causing pathogens
such as viruses, bacteria, and proto-
zoans.
Toxic chemicals have been linked
to human birth defects, cancer, neuro-
logical disorders, and kidney ailments.
Waterborne pathogens can cause
acute respiratory illness, gastrointes-
tinal problems, jaundice, dehydration,
inflammation of the brain, eye infec-
tions, and heart anomalies.
Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Advisories
To protect the public from
ingesting harmful quantities of toxic
pollutants in contaminated noncom-
mercial fish and wildlife, states and
tribes issue fish and wildlife consump-
tion advisories. Advisories may com-
pletely ban consumption in severely
polluted waters or limit consumption
to several meals per month in cases of
less severe contamination. They may
target a subpopulation at risk (such as
children, pregnant women, or nursing
mothers), specific fish species that
concentrate toxic pollutants in their
flesh, or larger fish within a species
that may have accumulated higher
concentrations of a pollutant over a
longer lifetime than a smaller (i.e.,
younger) fish.
EPA evaluates the national extent
of toxic contamination in noncom-
mercial fish and shellfish by counting
the total number of waterbodies with
consumption advisories in effect. The
National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Advisories (NLFWA) database,
which centralizes fish consumption
advisory information maintained by
various state and tribal agencies, was
updated in 2000 and can be accessed
on the Internet at http://iDww.epa.
gov/ost/fish/.
The 2000 EPA NLFWA listed
2,838 advisories in effect in 48 states,
the District of Columbia, and Ameri-
can Samoa (Figure 7-1). An advisory
may represent one waterbody or one
type of waterbody within a state's
jurisdiction. Statewide advisories are
counted as one advisory (see Appen-
dix E, Table E-l, for individual state
data).
-------
56 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
National statistics on advisories
are difficult to interpret because the
intensity and coverage of state moni-
toring programs vary widely. In addi-
tion, each state sets its own criteria for
issuing advisories. EPA has provided
guidance to the states and tribes for
developing consistent criteria and
methods for issuing and communicat-
ing fish consumption advisories in
several recent publications and at con-
ferences. However, it will be several
years before states implement consis-
tent methods and criteria and estab-
lish a baseline inventory of advisories.
EPA expects the states to issue more
advisories as they sample more sites
and detect new areas of contamina-
tion.
Mercury, PCBs, chlordane,
dioxins, and DDT (with its byprod-
ucts) caused 99% of all the fish
consumption advisories in effect in
2000 (Figure 7-2). EPA banned or
restricted the use of PCBs, chlordane,
and DDT over 20 years ago, yet these
chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds
persist in sediments and fish tissues
and still threaten public health.
The source of mercury contami-
nation is difficult to identify because
mercury occurs naturally in soils and
rock formations. Natural processes,
such as weathering of mercury
deposits, release some mercury into
surface waters. However, human
activities have accelerated the rate at
which mercury accumulates in our
waters and enters the food web. Air
pollution may, in fact, be the most
significant source of mercury contam-;
ination 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 discharge very little mercury
directly into surface waters.
Figure 7-1
Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories in the United States
Number of Advisories In
Effect (December 2000)
Q Advisories exist for specific waterbodies only
S Statewide rivers and lakes advisory included in count
• Statewide rivers only advisory included in count
• Statewide lakes only advisory Included in count
• Statewide coastal advisory included in count
D No advisories
NH = 8
MA =107
Rl = 3
CT=13
NJ=49
DE = 20
MD = 4
DC = iH
AK=OlH
HI =3d
AS =1Q
cu=on
PR=OD
VI =OQ
Note: A statewide advisory is issued to warn the
public of the potential for widespread contamination r
of specific species in certain types of waterbodies.
State advisory data should not be used for characterizing
geographic distribution of chemical contaminants !
or for making interstate or international comparisons.
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 EPA's National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories database acquired from the states in December 2000 (see
Appendix E, Table E-1, for individual state data).
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 57
Shellfish Consumption
Advisories
Contaminated shellfish pose
a public health risk particularly to
those who consume raw shellfish.
Shellfish, such as oysters, clams, and
mussels, extract their food (plankton)
by filtering water over their gills.
In contaminated waters, shellfish
accumulate bacteria and viruses on
their gills, 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 criteria
for state shellfish programs that want
to sell and transport their shellfish in
interstate commerce. Coastal states
routinely monitor water quality in
shellfish harvesting areas for bacterial
contamination and restrict shellfish
harvests in contaminated waters.
Most often, states measure concentra-
tions of fecal coliform or total coli-
form 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.
The size of waters with shell-
fishing restrictions is our most direct
measure of impacts on shellfishing
resources. However, only 10 of the
28 coastal states and territories
reported the size of their estuarine
waters affected by shellfish harvesting
restrictions. With so few states
reporting numerical data, EPA cannot
summarize the national scope of
shellfish harvesting conditions at this
time. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration is
developing a database 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 1,630 square
Figure 7-2
Pollutants Causing Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Advisories in Effect in 2000
Pollutants
Mercury
PCBs
Chlordane
Dioxins
DDT
Number of Advisories
II
II
I
_L
_L
2,242
726
101
76
44
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Number of Advisories Issued for Each Pollutant
Note: An advisory can be issued for more than one pollutant.
Based on data contained in EPA's National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories database
acquired from the states in December 2000 (see Appendix E, Table E-2, for individual state
data).
MERCURY
is the most
common contami-
nant found in fish.
-------
58 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Figure 7-3
miles of estuarine waters. About 11%
of these waters are conditionally
approved, so the public can harvest
shellfish from these waters when the
state lifts temporary closures. For
comparison, nine states reported that
over 7,300 square miles of estuarine
waters are fully approved for harvest-
ing shellfish at all times (Appendix E,
Table E-3, contains individual state
data).
Only three states reported the
size of shellfish restrictions caused by
specific sources of pathogen indicators
(Figure 7-3). Other states provided
narrative information about sources
degrading shellfish waters. The
reported sources included marinas,
stormwater runoff, waterfowl, indus-
trial and municipal discharges, agri-
culture, and septic tanks.
Drinking Water
Contamination
Thanks to decades of effort by
public and private organizations and
the enactment of safe drinking water
legislation, most Americans can turn
Sources Associated with Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions
Sources
Nonpoint Sources (general)
Municipal Discharges
Marinas
Industrial Discharges
Combined Sewer Overflows
3 States Reporting
Total
20 40 60 80
Square Miles Impacted
100
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-4.
on their taps without fear of receiving
unsafe water. Ensuring consistently
safe drinking water requires the coop-
eration of federal, state, tribal, and
municipal governments 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 treated water to
consumers' taps. Polluted source
waters greatly increase the level and
expense of treatment needed to
provide treated water that meets
public health standards.
The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) calls for states to determine
the susceptibility of waters to contam-
ination, and Section 305(b) of the
Clean Water Act calls for them to
assess the ability of waters to support
drinking water use. States use the
general criteria outlined in Table 7-1
to determine the degree of drinking
water use support for their waterbod-
ies. These criteria may be modified by
the states to fit their individual situa-
tions.
In 2000, 39 states, tribes, or terri-
tories submitted drinking water use
data in their reports. Table 7-2 shows
the total number of miles of rivers
and streams and acres of lakes and
reservoirs assessed and the degree of
drinking water use support for the
entire nation. The majority of water-
bodies assessed, 86% of river and
stream miles and 84% of lake and
reservoir acres, are considered to be
supporting their drinking water use.
While reporting on drinking
water use has improved over the past
10 years, many challenges still remain.
Seventeen states did not report data
on drinking water use support. Many
of the 39 states that reported data did
not present any information on how
they classified their waterbodies for
drinking water use support, and did
not identify specific contaminants or
sources of water contamination. This
lack of information complicates data
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 59
interpretation and presents challenges
for accurately assessing and represent-
ing drinking water use support. Table
7-3 summarizes all of the contami-
nants cited as causing drinking water
use impairment, based on the limited
number of states identifying contami-
nants.
Recreational Restrictions
State reporting on recreational
restrictions, such as beach closures, is
often incomplete. Most state agencies
rely on local health departments to
voluntarily monitor and report beach
closures, and this information may not
always be shared with the state water
quality agency. In addition, health
departments that monitor infrequently
will detect fewer bacteria violations
than health departments with rigorous
beach monitoring schedules.
Four states reported that no
contact recreation restrictions were
reported to them during the 2000
reporting cycle. Thirteen states and
tribes identified 233 sites where
recreation was restricted at least once
during the reporting cycle (Appendix
E, Table E-6, contains individual state
data). Three states (California, Louis-
iana, and New Jersey) reported on the
number of restrictions but did not
specify the number of sites at which
the restrictions occurred. Local health
departments closed many sites more
than once.
Most of the restrictions were
caused by pathogen indicator bacteria.
Other contaminants cited include
gasoline from spills, debris found in
the water, algal blooms, a cluster of
Shigellosis cases, and pollutants in
urban runoff.
The states identified sewage
treatment plant bypasses and malfunc-
tions, urban runoff storm sewers,
faulty septic systems, and agricultural
runoff as the most common sources of
elevated bacteria concentrations in
bathing areas. The states also reported
that natural sources (e.g., migratory
water fowl) and waste spills restricted
recreational activities.
EPA initiated a Beach Watch
program in 1997 to significantly
reduce the risk of waterborne illness at
the nation's beaches and recreational
waters through improvements in
recreational water protection
programs, risk communication, and
scientific advances. EPA conducted
the third annual National Health
Protection Survey of Beaches on the •
2001 swimming season. State and
local environmental and public health
officials voluntarily returned informa-
tion on 2,445 beaches—over 1,400
more beaches than in 1997, the first
Table 7-1. Criteria Jo 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
waterquality 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
Table 7-2. Rational Drinking Water Use Support*
Waterbody
Rivers and Streams
Miles
Percentage
Lakes and Reservoirs
Acres
Percentage
Good
132,080
86%
6,041,725
84%
Impaired
20,989
14%
1,202,850
17%
Total Assessed
153,155
7,259,955
"Does not include waters rated not attainable.
-------
6O Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
I
I
I Ell 1
year of the survey. This information is
now on the Beach Watch web site at
http://"www. epa.go'v/iaatersdence/
beaches/. The survey shows that 672
beaches (27% of the reported beaches)
were affected by at least one advisory
or closing. This percentage of beaches
affected is essentially the same per-
centage reported over the last 2 years.
The leading reasons cited for water
quality impairment at beaches were
elevated bacteria levels and rain events
(stormwater runoff).
Aquatic Ecosystem
Concerns
Although aquatic organisms can
tolerate most viruses, bacteria, and
protozoans harmful to humans, they
may be more severely affected by the
presence of toxic chemicals in their
environment. Toxic chemicals have
the potential to kill all or selected
aquatic organisms within a commu-
nity, increase their susceptibility to
liable 7-3. Sources of Drinking Water Use Impairment ;
Contaminant Group
Pesticides
Volatile organic chemicals
Inorganic chemicals
Microbiological contaminants
Specific Contaminant ,
Atrazine
Metolachlor
Triazine
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
«j-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Trihalomethanes
Carbon tetrachloride
Ethylbenzene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Arsenic
Nitrates
Iron
Copper
Chloride
Exceedance of total
colifbrm rule
Molinate
Ethylene dibromide
Dichloromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Toluene
Benzene
Dichlorobenzene
Methyl tertiary butyl ether
Xylene
Fluoride
Manganese
Lead
Sodium
Exceedance of fecal
coliform rule
disease, interfere with reproduction,
or reduce the viability of their young.
Toxic chemicals may also affect
aquatic organisms indirectly by alter-
ing the delicate physical and chemical
balance that supports life in an aquatic
community. Aquatic organisms are
also susceptible to changes in the
physical quality of their environments
such as changes in pH, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, amount of sediment,
and habitat.
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. The challenge for EPA
is to summarize the states' individual
assessments, which often are based on
very diverse standards. The basis for
EPA's summary is the information
reported by the states on the extent to
which their waters support the aquatic
life use goal.
In 2000, states reported that
aquatic life uses were supported in
66% of their river and stream miles,
71% of their lake and reservoir acres,
48% of their estuarine square miles,
94% of their coastal shoreline miles,
and 82% of their Great Lakes shore-
line miles. ,
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Conc&ms
Sediment Concerns
(Sedimentation and
Contamination)
Sedimentation (siltation) was the
second most reported cause of impair-
ment to rivers and streams, according
to 2000 state 305(b) data. Sedimenta-
tion impairs 84,478 river and stream
miles (12% of the assessed river and
stream miles and 31% of the impaired
river and stream miles). Sedimenta-
tion suffocates fish eggs and smothers
the habitat of bottom-dwelling organ-
isms such as aquatic insects. The loss
of aquatic insects adversely impacts
fish and other wildlife that prey on
these insects. Excessive sedimentation
can also interfere with drinking water
treatment processes and recreational
use of a river. Sources of sedimenta-
tion include agriculture, urban runoff,
construction, and forestry.
Sediment contamination occurs
when certain types of chemicals in
water settle and collect in sediment.
Chemicals in sediment often persist
longer than those in water, in part
because they tend to resist natural
degradation and in part because
conditions might not favor natural
degradation. When present at elevated
concentrations in sediment, contami-
nants can be taken up by organisms
that dwell in or on sediments and can
bioaccumulate up the food chain.
Contaminants can also be released
from sediment back into the water
column. In both cases, excessive levels
of chemicals in sediment may become
hazardous to aquatic life and humans.
In their 2000 305(b) reports,
12 states and tribes listed 196 separate
sites with contaminated sediments
and identified specific pollutants
detected in sediments. These states
most frequently listed metals (e.g.,
lead, copper, cadmium), PCBs,
pesticides, PAHs, and other priority
organic toxic chemicals. These states
also identified industrial and munici-
pal discharges (past and present),
landfills, railroad and construction
sites, marinas, shipyards, and aban-
doned hazardous waste disposal sites
(Superfund) sites as the primary
sources of sediment contamination.
Other states have not utilized numeric
criteria for chemical contaminants in
sediment or lack the analytical tools
and resources to conduct extensive
sediment sampling and analysis.
Therefore, the limited information
provided by states and tribes probably
understates the extent of sediment
contamination in the nation's surface
waters.
In 2002, EPA plans to release
the first update to the initial National
Sediment Quality Survey report
published in 1997. This report to
Congress identifies locations in the
United States where data suggest that
sediment is contaminated at levels
potentially harmful to aquatic life or
human health. EPA expects that this
information can be used to target fur-
ther investigations of sediment conta-
mination on a national, regional, and
site-specific scale.
In support of the National
Sediment Quality Survey, EPA has
developed the National Sediment
Inventory (NSI) database. This data-
base presents a compilation of envi-
ronmental monitoring data (sediment
chemistry, tissue residue, and toxicity)
from a variety of sources for the
nations freshwater and estuarine
ecosystems. EPA has also developed
guidance and information sources to
provide states with better tools for
assessing and managing sediment
contamination. For more information
on EPA's contaminated sediment
program, visit the program on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/
waterscience/cs/.
Invasive Species
Invasive species, also called non-
indigenous, exotic, or nuisance species,
are species of plants and animals that
establish a new range in which they
reproduce, spread, and persist, to the
detriment of the native species and
the natural environment. Over the
past decade, an increasing number of
these invasive species have been unin-
tentionally introduced into nonnative
aquatic environments resulting in
harmful, sometimes devastating,
ecological, public health, and socio-
economic effects. These invasive
species include fauna such as the
Asian clam, Asian green mussel, zebra
mussel, and Japanese shore crab; plant
species such as the salt marsh grass
Spartina alterniflora and Eurasian
water milfoil; and pathogens like
cholera. Introduction of invasive
species has occurred through several
routes, most notably through fouling
of ships hulls, discharge of ship ballast
water, Atlantic and Pacific Ocean
oyster shipments, and stocked fish
and shellfish via mariculture opera-
tions or the aquarium trade.
Through predation and competi-
tion, invasive species have contributed
to drastic reductions in some native
species and eradication of others,
thereby fundamentally altering the
food chain. For instance, salt marsh
grass has spread rapidly and displaced
native wetland species in northern
California, Oregon, and Washington.
-------
"S "
JL:,:
-------
Costs and Benefits of
Water Quality Protection
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, i.e., water quality
that is good enough to support a
balanced population of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife and allow recreational
activities in and on the water. Unfor-
tunately, this is a very daunting task.
Data on the amount of money spent
on pollution control by the public
and private sectors can be difficult to
obtain. Measuring benefits poses an
even more complex challenge—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.
Water Quality Costs
and Benefits Identified
by the States
Most states reported that they
encountered some difficulty in report-
ing on the economic and social costs
and benefits of actions to achieve the
goals of the Act. Many states were
able to provide some estimates of
expenditures on some aspects of water
quality protection or restoration
(Figure 8-1). Typically, this cost
information included the amount
of money provided through grants
or loans to upgrade municipal
wastewater treatment plants or the
annual budget for the jurisdiction's
water quality management program.
Reporting on benefits was more
difficult than reporting on costs and
most states provided only limited
qualitative descriptions of the types
of benefits accompanying imple-
mentation of the Clean Water Act.
A few states, however, conducted
cost/benefit analyses. The following
examples highlight some of the data
reported by states.
Many types of benefits, such
as a healthy environment to
pass on to our grandchildren,
cannot be calculated.
Figure 8-1
States Reporting on Costs and/or Benefits
D Alaska
I I Hawaii
I I Guam
d American Samoa
O Northern Mariana Islands
H Puerto Rico
H3 Virgin Islands
Based on state 2000 305(b) reports.
iHi Both costs and some benefits information
Costs only
I I No information
-------
64 Chapter Eight Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control
"
* ! •."
liii 1 '.
Ilili ill
illiliiill J HI
Maine
In 2000, the cost to administer
all water-related programs in Maine
was $11.1 million. This cost included
licensing, compliance, enforcement,
technical assistance, pollution pre-
vention, wastewater engineering,
environmental assessment, lake
restoration, nonpoint source (NFS)
controls, and ground water protection.
Although the state did not provide an
assessment of benefits for aU of these
programs, Maine did provide an
assessment of the value of lakes to the
state's economy.
Over the last 4 years, several
studies have been completed by state
and university researchers that have
linked water quality in Maine's lakes
to economic measures. A 1996 report,
Water Quality Affects Property Prices:
A Case Study of Selected Maine Lakes,
analyzed the linkage between water
clarity and property values. This
valuation study was the first of its
kind and led to a companion study
using contingent valuation methods
published in 1998, Lakefront Property
Owners'Economic Demand for Water
Clarity in Maine Lakes. A third
investigation of the value of lakes to
Maine's economy was completed in
1997, Great Ponds Play an Integral
Role in Maine's Economy. A fourth
study published in 1998 as a Ph.D.
thesis, Values and Impacts Associated
with Access Users' Recreational Use of
Maine's Great Ponds, illustrates the
value placed by transient users on
water quality and their willingness to
pay for water quality programs.
The results of all of these related
studies provided a means to quantify
the economic costs of lake water
quality degradation and the benefits
to the state of maintaining and
further improving water quality. The
state was able to determine that a
1 meter reduction of summertime
minimum clarity (secchi transparency)
resulted in a reduction of from 3 to
5% in expected market price of lake-
front property. Further analysis by the
state suggests that as much as 3 to
5% of the tax burden could be shifted
from lakefront owners to others in the
watershed, depending on the specific
town involved. Preliminary estimates
of aggregate property value loss on
the 164 monitored low-color lakes
(minimum clarity of 3 meters) ranged
between $200 and $400 million.
More than a quarter of Maine's
adults (>200,000 people) use lakes
each year. These users spend about
$100 million annually in recreational
costs associated with lakes, which
stimulates local economies. In addi-
tion, the consumer surplus, or the
value derived in excess of what is
paid for the recreational experience,
exceeds $7.5 million annually. The
study showed that this consumer
surplus would decline by $1 to 2 mil-
lion annually if small but measurable ;
declines in lake water quality
occurred.
Lake-based expenditures by all
users support over 50,000 jobs in
Maine and generate an estimated
$1.8 billion in total direct expendi-
tures. The state estimated that the net
benefit of avoiding measurable water
quality degradation in lakes exceeds
$2 billion annually. Estimates of the
willingness of access users to pay for ]
water quality is estimated to be $2 to
$6 million annually. The total value to
the public of water quality protection
for Maine lakes was very high, and
substantially exceeds current public
and private expenditures for water
quality programs and services.
-------
Chapter Eight Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control feS
Michigan
Since 1972, the state has spent
about $4.5 billion on about 1,100
municipal wastewater treatment plant
improvement projects. Michigan
estimates that $2 billion is needed to
meet federal and state requirements
for municipal wastewater treatment
and an additional $1 billion is needed
to meet optimal conditions that
reflect water quality enhancement,
growth capacity, and economic
development. In addition, the state
estimates costs of $700 million and
$1.2 billion for combined sewer over-
flow initiatives in the Rouge and
Detroit River basin communities,
respectively.
During the latter part of 2000,
Michigan promulgated rules to
establish legal authority for a state-
wide water quality trading program
designed to optimize the costs of
improving water quality, facilitate
Total Maximum Daily Load imple-
mentation, and provide economic
incentives for nonpoint source pollu-
tant reductions. Michigan's Water
Quality Trading Program investigated
the possibility of using market-based
poEutant trading concepts to provide
financial incentives for combined
sources (industrial, agricultural, and
municipal) and to improve overall
water quality while minimizing costs.
The results of the study indicate that
trading has potential application to
those watersheds that require nutrient
loading reductions (e.g., Huron,
Kalamazoo, Lake Macatawa, and
Saginaw Bay watersheds). Through
the implementation of effluent
trading, the state expects to improve
water quality, minimize costs, form
partnerships, and provide greater flex-
ibility for a sustained local economy
in attaining water quality objectives.
North Dakota
The costs associated with munic-
ipal point source poEution control
programs in North Dakota have been
quite significant. Most of these
expenditures have been in the area
of capital investments. In 1998 and
1999, approximately $29 miEion from
the State Revolving Fund (SRF) was
used to construct wastewater system
improvements. In addition to avail-
able SRF funding, several communi-
ties have upgraded their wastewater
treatment facilities at their own
expense. Beside construction costs,
$7 million per year is spent on operat-
ing and maintenance costs of waste-
water treatment facilities.
North Dakota did not quantify
monetary benefits of water quality
expenditures in their 305(b) report.
The state notes that secondary waste-
water treatment has been achieved in
every municipality. The qualitative
benefits of this include the elimina-
tion and reduction of point source
waste loads to receiving waters and
the reduction of stressors to public
health. The state also notes an
increased awareness of NFS poEution
such as runoff from confined animal
feeding operations and other types of
NFS poEution by both the public and
private sectors.
-------
if i:
£ ;;
-------
State and Tribal
Recommendations
and Special Concerns
In their 2000 Section 305(b)
reports, most states, territories, and
commissions (hereafter referred to as
states) and tribes included a section
that focused on priority challenges
and recommendations for improving
water quality management programs.
A wide and diverse array of concerns
and suggestions were expressed, rang-
ing from immediate technical needs
to broad, long-term programmatic
and policy directions. This discussion
briefly summarizes key recommenda-
tions made by these organizations. No
attempt is made to prioritize or criti-
cally assess these recommendations,
and the discussion does not reflect
EPA endorsement. Many of the
directions mentioned, however, do
coincide with current EPA program
concerns and priorities.
The most commonly stated rec-
ommendations and issues of concern
fell within seven general topic areas:
• Controlling nonpoint source (NFS)
pollution
• Toxic contamination
• Protecting ground water
• Financial/resource needs
• Monitoring and data management
• Protecting ecological integrity
• Regulatory/legal concerns.
Controlling Nonpoint
Source Pollution
Most states and tribes expressed
a need for the continued and acceler-
ated identification, prevention, and
control of NPS pollution. These
sources included both urban and rural
sources and associated nutrients, mud
and silt, litter, bacteria, pesticides,
metals, oils, suds, other pollutants, and
associated impacts to aquatic habitats.
Water resource issues, primarily
involving hydrologic modification,
were also highlighted by several states.
The need for more public partic-
ipation and outreach was seen by
several jurisdictions as a fundamental
challenge. Of particular interest was
educating the public about NPS
pollution and developing guidelines
for best management practices. Some
reports mentioned a need to empha-
size pollution prevention, education,
and voluntary efforts (in addition to
regulatory efforts) to improve water
quality. Examples of approaches
included water use and conservation,
pollution prevention demonstration
projects, volunteer water quality
monitoring efforts, wetland protec-
tion, and community assistance.
The most frequently
reported recommendations
address several major concerns:
• Controlling nonpoint
source pollution
• Toxic contamination
• Protecting ground water
• Financial/resource needs
• Monitoring and data
management
• Protecting ecological
integrity
• Regulatory/legal concerns
-------
68 Chapter Nine State and Tribal Recommendations
Toxic Contamination
Problems in the cleanup and pre-
vention of toxic contamination remain
a priority concern for many jurisdic-
tions. Sources of toxics were noted
as being widespread, and included
both point (municipal and industrial
treated wastewater) and nonpoint
(urban stormwater and agricultural
runoff) sources. Some sources of toxic
pollutants are ongoing—e.g., atmos-
pheric deposition was suspected as the
source of increasing levels of mercury
in fish—while in other cases, toxic
chemicals continue to persist in the
environment even though they are no
longer being used. The states cited a
lack of understanding of sources of
toxics in sediments, high expense and
difficulties associated with cleanup,
and other issues such as problems
finding dredge and disposal sites or
concerns about impacts of wetland
creation with toxics present in the
sediment. Several reports mentioned a
lack of monitoring data and the need
for an assessment framework to help
determine impairments. Toxic pollut-
ants in fish tissue have resulted in fish
consumption advisories for persistent
and carcinogenic organic compounds
and highly bioaccumulating com-
pounds that need improved detection
limits. Several jurisdictions cited
concerns about whether monitoring
data that are based on total recover-
able metal analyses and detection
limits above aquatic life criteria accu-
rately represent conditions toxic to
aquatic life.
Protecting Ground
Water
Several reports mentioned lack of
coordination among the many federal,
state, and local agencies responsible
for various components of ground
water protection programs such as
data collection, analysis, and research.
Sometimes this lack of coordination
resulted in poor or incompatible data
and lack of information sharing and,
at other times, programs operating at:
cross-purposes. Resource constraints
added to the problem of consistently
preventing or dealing with standard
violations. Finally, the absence of
comprehensive ground water moni-
toring networks and the need for
better educational programs for those
involved in the application of farm ;
chemicals, for transporters of hazard-
ous waste, and for the general public
were seen as a hindrance to ground
water protection programs.
Financial and Resource
Needs
Many states and tribes expressed
the need for additional funds to meet
priority needs or even maintain cur-
rent levels of effort. The most com-
monly cited funding needs were
for enhancing NFS management
programs, monitoring and data man- .
agement, "on-the-ground" pollution
control construction and mainte-
nance, controlling urban stormwater ;
and combined sewer overflows, and
toxics cleanup.
Typical suggestions'to remedy ;
funding problems included increased
Congressional appropriations, |
increased State Revolving Fund
(SRF) resources, and the removal of
disparities in matching funds require-
ments. Other suggestions included :
additional general fund appropria- ;
tions, authorizing increased discharge
fees, full funding of Safe Drinking ~
Water Act amendments, and use of
federal highway funds to include ;
stormwater treatment structures.
-------
Chapter Nine State and Tribal Recommendations 69
Monitoring and
Data Management
A frequently cited recommenda-
tion was the need for increased quality
and quantity of water data as well as
better coordination and management
of existing data among water quality
programs at all levels. State recom-
mendations for improvements in
information and data were closely tied
to needs for additional funding and
priorities for monitoring programs.
Some states noted a particular need
for attention to better ground water
data. Current ground water data are
scattered and not readily accessible,
impeding efforts to standardize and
integrate ground water into assess- *
ment efforts.
Some states and tribes continued
to recognize the need for improved
data management capabilities. In
some cases, training and technical
transfer were seen as priorities. States
also recommended improved hard-
ware and software standards to aid
data exchange across programs.
Several states identified support for
modernized STORET implementa-
tion and improved access to other
federal databases as high priorities.
Protecting Ecological
Integrity
Protection and restoration of
aquatic life and ecological integrity
was a common theme of many state
and tribal comments. Topics raised
included concern over habitat and
riparian impacts, need to maintain
biodiversity, need to strengthen
wetlands protection and restoration,
concern over fish and shellfish con-
tamination, and concern over the
Gulf of Mexico "dead zone."
Regulatory, Legal, and
Jurisdictional Concerns
Several recommendations and
challenges were provided in the 2000
30S(b) reports that focused primarily
on issues that are fundamentally regu-
latory, legal, or Jurisdictional in nature.
Many of these focused on either
TMDLs and ongoing implementa-
tion of Section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act, or the need to develop
new and improved water quality
criteria and standards.
Conclusions
A considerable variety of chal-
lenges and recommendations were
discussed in the 2000 reports. Many
pressing problems seem to have root
causes in resource constraints, lack of
adequate monitoring data, or lack of
coordination among multiple agencies
responsible for the same issue areas.
The states and other governing enti-
ties recommended that Congress
address financial/resource problems so
that, at the minimum, basic and pri-
ority activities can be implemented.
The reports also indicated the need
for proper coordination and data inte-
gration among different programs to
improve efficiency and fully use scarce
resources. The states recommended
flexibility in developing programs tai-
lored to individual conditions and
needs, especially for issues that can
vary widely between regions, such as
ground water and NFS pollution
management. And finally, the impor-
tance of wider public involvement was
a common theme, especially for deal-
ing with complex problems like NFS
pollution, where control options are
difficult or expensive.
-------
-------
Part II
Individual Section 305(b)
Report Summaries and
Recommendations
-------
-------
State and Territory
Summaries
This section provides individual
summaries of the water quality
assessment data reported by the states
and territories in their 2000 Section
305(b) reports and database submis-
sions (where applicable). 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 des-
ignated 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 swimmable
goals of the Act and report the results
to EPA. The states, participating
tribes, and other jurisdictions measure
attainment of the CWA goals by
determining how well their waters
support their designated beneficial
uses. EPA encourages states, tribes,
and other jurisdictions to assess
waterbodies for support of the follow-
ing 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 consumers.
Shellfish
Harvesting
The waterbody
supports a population of shellfish free
from toxicants and pathogens that
could pose a human health risk to
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 contamina-
tion).
Where individual uses have not
been assessed or were not reported, a
summary of use support is presented
for each type of waterbody:
Rivers and
and Streams
Lakes, Reervoirs,
and Ponds
The Great Lakes
Estuaries
Ocean Shoreline
Waters
Wetlands
-------
74 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Alabama
i
i
n ii i n
Iff!
'I1'1
• Rivers
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
1 State Border
For a copy of the Alabama 2000
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/EnviroProtect/Water/
wqrc30Sb2000/2000wqrc.htm
Surface Water Quality
Since enactment of the Clean
Water Act of 1972, water quality has
substantially improved near industrial
and municipal facilities. However,
pollution prevents about 73% of the
surveyed stream miles from fully
supporting state-defined overall use.
In addition, 10% of surveyed lake
acres do not fully support aquatic life
use. Oxygen-depleting wastes, patho-
gens, and alteration of natural habitat
are the most common causes of water
quality impairment in rivers. The
leading sources of river pollution
include agriculture, intensive animal
feeding operations, municipal waste-
water treatment plants, and land
development and construction.
Water quality in lakes is most
impacted by oxygen-depleting wastes,
nutrients, and toxic priority organic
chemicals. These toxic organic pollut-
ants may accumulate in fish tissue at a
concentration that greatly exceeds the
concentration in the surrounding
water, leading the state to issue fish
consumption advisories for affected
waters. Industrial dischargers are
responsible for the greatest acreage of
impaired lake waters, although
unknown sources and contaminated >,
sediments are also major sources of
impairment to lakes.
Special state concerns include
impacts from erosion, sedimentation,
and animal waste runoff. Inspection
and enforcement activities have
increased at construction and mining '
sites to deal with erosion concerns,
while the state is Working with agri-
cultural stakeholders to proactively
address animal waste runoff problems.
Alabama did not report on the
condition of wetlands, but described
the state's efforts to develop a wet-
lands conservation plan.
Ground Water Qiiality
Alabama selected one ground
water district for reporting in the
2000 cycle. Most of the public water
supply wells in the Southern Pine
Hills district were free from contami- i
nation, attributable in part to better
enforcement of construction and
operation standards by the state. In
wells showing some contamination,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and nitrates were the primary pollu-
tants. Significant developments in
Alabama's ground water program in
the last few years include the comple- :
tion of a study on pesticides in resi- ;
dential wells, the development of
regulations to deal with concentrated
animal feeding operations, and a series :
of festivals held in different areas of
the state to teach students about
ground water issues.
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 7S
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Nonpoint source pollution
remains a primary concern and threat
to water quality in Alabama. The
state'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
impacted watersheds, and providing
resources to protect or improve water
quality. Other priorities of the non-
point source program include demon-
strating best management practices
(BMPs); raising public awareness
through education, training, and
initiatives; and developing, prioritiz-
ing, and implementing nonpoint
source total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs).
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 tissue sampling,
and compliance monitoring of point
source discharges. In 1996, the state
proposed ASSESS, a watershed-based
strategy to integrate surface water
quality monitoring with defined water
quality objectives and associated envi-
ronmental indicators. The objectives
of ASSESS include improving moni-
toring coverage within river basins,
improving spatial detail of water
quality assessments, and increasing
total stream miles monitored over the
5-year rotation period.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
0% 73%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
27% 0%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
71% 23%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
4% 2%
Summary of Use Support
in Alabama
Percent
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
iBivers and Streams (Total wines = 77,242)^
73
27
Total Miles
Assessed
2,628
~
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 610)
100
Total Square
Miles Assessed
541
Individual Use Support
in Alabama11
Percent
Designated Use0
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
(Total Acres = 490,472)
a Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
b A subset of Alabama's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to
the state's 305(b) report for a full description of the state's uses.
c State combines assessment numbers for primary and secondary
recreation.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
76 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Alaska
of If1, i
llfflft!
• Rivers
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
• State Border
For a copy of the Alaska 2000 305(b)
report, contact:
Drew Grant
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Division of Air and Water Quality
410 Willoughby Street
Juneau,AK 99801-1795
(907) 465-5300
e-mail: dgrant@envircon.state.ak.us
Surface Water Quality
The vast majority of Alaska's
watersheds, while not being moni-
tored, are presumed to be in relatively
pristine condition due to Alaska's size,
sparse population, and general
remoteness. However, Alaska has
localized water pollution. Monitoring
efforts are targeted toward these areas
of known or suspected contamination.
Surface water quality has been
impaired or threatened from sources
such as urban runoff (Fairbanks,
Anchorage, and Juneau), mining oper-
ations in the interior and northwest
Alaska, seafood processing facilities in
the Aleutian Islands, and forest prod-
ucts facilities in southeast Alaska. A
significant number of surface water
impairments have originated from
fecal coliform contamination as a
result of septic systems. Other sources
of surface water contamination
include organic enrichment, turbidity,
and oil and grease that result from
urban runoff and resource extraction.
Alaska chose not to report on the
condition of its 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, aquaculture
(including fish hatcheries), and agri-
cultural 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 docu- •
mented in various areas of the state
and has been linked predominantly to
aboveground and subsurface petro-
leum storage facilities, as well as
operational and abandoned military
installations. Approximately 90% of
contaminated site areas contain petro-
leum products. Other contaminants of
concern include chlorinated solvents,
heavy metals, pesticides, cyanide,
arsenic, nitrates, and fecal coliform.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC) has developed the Alaska's
Clean Water Actions (ACWA).
ACWA is a new effort to assess the
effectiveness of current programs, the
health of Alaska's surface and ground ,
waters, and the funding necessary to
protect or restore waters that may be
at risk of pollution. ADEC also sup-
ports additional water quality projects
and programs statewide on pollution
prevention, leaking underground
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 77
storage tanks, contaminated sites,
industrial permitting, waterbody
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
Monitoring and Assessment Project
(AWMAP) is a statewide water qual-
ity monitoring project involving local,
state, and federal agencies, industry,
schools, the University of Alaska, and
other entities conducting water quality
monitoring.
The ADEC Drinking Water
Program maintains a database of
water quality for public drinking water
systems using ground water. When a
regulated drinking water supply well
is closed due to contamination, the
Contaminated Sites Program assumes
responsibility for remediation.
ADEC's Contaminated Sites and
Underground Storage Tank database
is used to help identify areas that have
contaminated ground water.
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 periodically
conducted water quality monitoring
related to placer mining.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
23% 30%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
41% 6%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
27% 25%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
43% 5%
Summary of Use Support3
in Alaskab
Percent
Good
Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Bivers and Streams (Total wines = 355,000)
64
36
Lakes (Total Acres = 12,787,200)
Estuaries and Bays (Total square Miles = 33,204)
89
Ocean Shoreline (Total shore wines = se.ooo)
Total Shore
Miles Assessed 63
37
25
a A summary of use support data is presented because Alaska did not
report individual use support in their 2000 Section 30S(b) report.
b Alaska notes its assessments are biased toward those waters with
known impairments.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
78 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
American Samoa
• Rivers
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Diglt Hydrologic Unit)
1 State Border
For a copy of the American Samoa
2000 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 in the Pacific
Ocean, approximately 2,300 miles
southwest of Hawaii and 1,600 miles
northeast of New Zealand. American
Samoa comprises seven islands.
Tutuila, with an area of 53 square
miles, is the largest and most popu-
lated island in the territory.
Of the river miles assessed, 9%
fully support aquatic life. The AS
Environmental Protection Agency
(ASEPA) reports that stream water
quality is most impacted by develop-
ment that affects hydrology and
degree of shading, or that increases
erosion and contamination by
sediments and nutrients. Poorly
constructed human and pig waste ;
disposal systems are additional sources
of nutrients.
Wetlands are being lost or
degraded by urban development.
Approximately 23% of wetlands
were lost between 1961 and 1990.
Currently, 30% of the assessed wet-
land acres fully support aquatic life.
American Samoa has 116 miles
of coastal shoreline. Of the assessed
miles, 14% are impaired for aquatic
life and 100% are impaired for swim-
ming and fish consumption. The
greatest threats to coastal water quality
are sediments and nutrients from
runoff. Solid waste (i.e., improperly
disposed trash) is another source of '.
pollution. Pago Pago Harbor is an
industrialized embayment that is
impacted by pollution from marina
and port traffic, a shipyard, and efflu-
ent from tuna canneries and a sewage
treatment plant. A fish consumption
advisory is in effect for the Pago Pago
Harbor due to elevated levels of lead
and arsenic in fish tissue.
Ground Water Quality
The government-run drinking
water facility utilizes ground water as
its source. The volcanic stratum of
Tutuila is highly permeable without a
large filtering capacity, so there is a
constant risk of ground water contam-
ination. The greatest threats to ground
water quality are pesticides, pollution
associated with automobiles, and
nutrients and bacteria from waste
disposal systems. Droughts of 2 to
3 months' duration can result in
drinking water shortages and saltwater
intrusion. Chloride concentrations •
in excess of 500 mg/L have been
reported.
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 7*>
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Region 9 USEPA administers the
federal NPDES program in American
Samoa with the assistance of ASEPA.
There are currently five industrial and
two municipal facilities permitted
under this program.
ASEPA developed a Watershed
Protection Plan to protect all inhab-
ited watersheds in American Samoa.
Through this process, ASEPA was
able to identify waters and watersheds
impaired by nonpoint source pollu-
tion. ASEPA began the Nonpoint
Source Management Program to
emphasize Best Management
Practices.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Since 1989, ASEPA has entered
into yearly cooperative agreements
with USGS to monitor ground water.
The government-run drinking water
system is also tested monthly for
residual chlorine, total coliforms, and
E. coli. The AS Power Authority tests
wellheads weekly for chlorides and
conductivity.
NPDES permit holders monitor
Pago Pago Harbor to document com-
pliance with their permits. Seventeen
stations are used for water quality
monitoring and seven sites are used
for sediment monitoring. The water
quality program will be updated and
expanded in 2001.
The ASEPA and other agencies
monitor water quality in embayments
as part of the Coral Reef Initiative.
Surveys are conducted biannually to
assess the impact of wastewater dis-
charges on nearby coral reefs. Other
monitoring programs include the
Village Water Supply Monitoring
Program, Beach Monitoring Program,
and Toxicity Monitoring Program.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
0% 56%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
4% 40%
Individual Use Support
in American Samoa
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Ocean Shoreline (Total shore Miles = 116)
iBivers and Streams (Total Miles = 169)
Wetlands (Total Acres = 512)
a A subset of American Samoa's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the territory's 305(b) report for a full description of the
territory's uses.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
80 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Arizona
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Arizona 2000
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/environAvater/assess/305/
Surface Water Quality
Good water quality supports
aquatic life uses in 79% of Arizona's
assessed stream miles and 88% of its
surveyed lake acres. This means that
21% of its assessed stream miles and
12% of its lake acres are impaired for
aquatic life uses. Turbidity, metals,
pesticides, and pH were the four
stressors most frequently identified in
streams. The leading stressors in lakes
were inorganics, pH, organic enrich-
ment leading to low dissolved oxygen
levels, and pesticides. Hydromodifi-
cation and natural sources were the
two most common sources of stressors
in lakes. In stream assessments, agri-
culture (including grazing), natural
sources, and resource extraction were
the primary sources of stressors to
water quality. Arizona did not report
on the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
""-i
Arizona monitors a network
of ambient water quality index wells
and compiles data from other moni-
toring programs, which are primarily
targeted in areas of known or sus-
pected contamination. Ground water
contamination varies significantly
across the state. In the metropolitan
areas, volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds (VOCs and SVOCs) '.
contaminate the ground water due
to inadequate historic practices for ;
disposing of industrial solvents and
dry-cleaning chemicals. These con-
tamination areas are being remediated
by the federal and state Superfund
programs. Fluoride and radiochemi-
cals occur naturally in the soil and
water across Arizona, and in some
locations the levels of these chemicals i
exceed drinking water standards.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
State and federal programs in i
Arizona are working toward the goal :
of identifying and remediating con- ;
taminated ground water and surface
water sites. The state's Water Quality i
Assurance Revolving Fund and the
federal Superfund Program work
together to assess and clean up sites
where water resources are contami-
nated by pollutants such as pesticides,
metals, and industrial solvents.
Activities that may result in nonpoint ,
source pollution are governed by the '
states Nonpoint Source Program,
which has adopted Best Management
Practices for agricultural irrigation and
concentrated animal feeding opera-
tions. Aquifer Protection Permits to
protect ground water quality are also
required for many nonpoint source
activities. Arizona is actively involved
in the United States/Mexico Border
XXI Program to improve water ;
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 81
quality along our international border.
One goal of the program is to imple-
,ment or upgrade wastewater treat-
ment facilities in border areas.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality has initiated a
rotating basin approach to monitoring
and assessing water quality. Each year,
2 of the 10 watersheds in the state will
be surveyed intensively while main-
taining a statewide network. Sampling
sites include a mixture of fixed long-
term sites (to help determine trends
in water quality), performance sites
(selected to evaluate effectiveness of
strategies implemented by permitted
dischargers), and reference sites (to
characterize regional conditions). The
type of data collected at each site is
determined by the purpose of the
monitoring, land uses, and pollutants
present in the watershed as weE as the
presence of threatened or endangered
species.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
23% 12%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
52% 13%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
60% 10%
Individual Use Support
in Arizona
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
JRivers and Streams (Total wines = 90,375)"
Total Miles 79
Assessed
21
Lakes (Total Acres = 335,590)
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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
27% 3%
-------
82 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Arkansas
Aquatic Life Use Support
— Good
—— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Arkansas 2000
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
90% 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 supports swim-
ming use in 100% of the surveyed
river miles and 100% of the surveyed
lake acres. Fish consumption is
impaired in 5% of river miles surveyed
and 5% of lake acres surveyed due
to mercury contamination offish
tissue. Siltation and mercury are the
most frequently identified pollutants
impairing Arkansas' rivers and
streams, and mercury is also the
primary pollutant in lakes. Agriculture
is the leading source of pollution in
the state's rivers and streams. Arkansas
has limited data on the extent of
pollution in lakes.
Special state concern^mclude the
development of TMDLs)-elimination
of toxic point source discharges^addi-
tional wetland protection mecha-
nisms, and more effective methods to .
identify nonpoint source impacts.
Arkansas is also concerned about
impacts from the expansion of con-
fined 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
In the past 5 years, Arkansas has
increased its focus on the quality and
quantity of ground water resources.
Aquifer monitoring indicates that
ground water quality is generally
good. Sources of contamination that
contribute to the degradation of
ground water include disposal sites,
underground storage sites, agricultural
sources (such as animal feedlots, fertil-
izer and pesticide applications) and
septic systems.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Arkansas Nonpoint Source '
Pollution Management Program was •
updated and approved in 1999. It
provides for continued monitoring of
water quality, research into the effec-
tiveness of BMPs, and implementa- :
tion strategies for BMPs. Beginning
in 1997, a Priority Watershed
Program was developed to target
nonpoint-source-impacted watersheds
for BMP implementation. Ten water-
sheds were selected for either more
intensive survey activities or BMP 1
implementation activities. The Piney
Creek watershed assessment was
completed in 1999, and the findings
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 83
included recommendations to imple-
ment BMPs to reduce turbidity and
bacteria levels and to stabilize stream
banks. The state is also currently
involved in projects to research and
implement BMPs for confined animal
feeding operations.
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, Arkansas
River Valley, Boston Mountain, and
Ozark Mountain Regions. By classify-
ing water resources in this manner,
Arkansas can identify the most com-
mon land uses within each region and
address the issues that threaten water
quality.
The state's ambient monitoring
network includes 140 fixed stations
monitored monthly for over 30 key
water quality parameters. In the last
few years, 100 stations located in
previously unassessed waters have
been added and are sampled on a
quarterly schedule. In the future,
Arkansas believes it will be necessary
to implement a biological community
sampling program to supplement the
chemical data that are currently used
to assess the status of in-stream
aquatic life.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored-
Good
51%
Monitored-
Impaired
14%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
35% 0%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
95% 5%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Individual Use Support
in Arkansas
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total wines = 87,ei7)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 514,245)
PTI
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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
84 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
California
Aquatic Life Use Support
—— Good
— Impaired
Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
111
For a copy of the California 2000
305(b) report, contact:
AdamMorrill
California State Water Resources
Control Board, M&A
Division of Water Qualify
P.O. Box 944213
Sacramento, CA 94244-2130
(916) 341-5548
e-mail: morra@swrcb.ca.gov
Surface Water Quality
Most of the assessed river miles
in California were impaired for
aquatic life use support (85%),
primary contact (80%), and fish
consumption (80%). The primary
contaminants cited for impairment
of rivers were siltation, nutrients,
pathogens, and suspended solids.
The leading sources of degradation
in California's rivers and streams are
silviculture, habitat modification, agri-
culture, and hydrologic modification.
Approximately 63% of the lake acres
assessed for aquatic life use were also
impaired. In lakes, nutrients and pesti-
cides are among the most common
pollutants. Agriculture, hydrologic
modifications, construction, urban
runofFstorm sewers, and resource
extraction pose the greatest threat to
lake water quality.
Metals, pesticides, priority organ-
ics, and organic enrichments are the
most frequently identified pollutants
in estuaries, harbors, and bays. Patho-
gens are the leading contaminant of
coastal shorelines, with urban runoff, :
spills, and municipal and industrial
point sources as the leading sources.
Most of the assessed wetlands were
impaired for supporting aquatic life
(89%), fish consumption (100%),
and primary contact (73%). Salinity,
metals, and nutrients were the ;
primary contaminants. In the past
few years, California has had 26 fish ;
advisories that primarily affected the
lakes, estuaries, and bays. Mercury,
PCBs, and DDT are the primary
contaminants responsible for the
advisories.
Ground Water Quality
Salinity, total dissolved solids,
and chlorides are the most frequently
identified pollutants impairing the
use of ground water in California,
followed by pesticides, nutrients,
priority organic chemicals, nonpriority
organic chemicals, and metals. Lead-
ing sources of ground water contami-
nation include leaking underground
storage tanks, septage disposal, land :
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 eliminate most non- :
storm-water discharges, develop a
poEution prevention plan to minimize
pollutants in stormwater runoff, and
monitor their discharges. The Under-
ground Tanks Cleanup Fund pays for
corrective action and liability costs :
related to cleaning up leaking
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 85
underground fuel tanks. Plans and
policies have also been implemented,
including the Containment Zone
Policy, which serves to isolate and
monitor segments of waterbodies that
cannot meet their water quality objec-
tives; the Pesticide Management Plan,
which protects surface and ground
water from pesticide contamination;
and the Watershed Management
Initiative, which focuses fiscal
resources on managing water quality
problems in targeted watersheds.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The State Water Resources Con-
trol Board (SWRCB) has developed
programs to monitor state water
quality. The Surface Water Ambient
Monitoring Program (SWAMP) will
focus on developing a sampling and
monitoring program, documenting
water quality conditions, and evaluat-
ing the sources of impairment in
targeted watersheds. The Toxic Sub-
stances Monitoring Program evaluates
specific toxic pollutants in areas with
known or suspected impairment.
The Toxicity Testing Program uses
integrative measures of toxicity to
establish patterns between surface
water toxicity, chemical causes, and
land use practices. The California
State Mussel Watch Program analyzes
toxic substances in mussels and clams
sampled from bays, harbors, and
estuaries. The SWRCB has also
implemented a Nonpoint Source
Pollution Management Program to
address the link between land use
and coastal water degradation. A
Citizen Monitoring Program has
been adopted to increase community
participation and improve monitoring
of waterbodies.
In 1999, the EPA approved
California's listing of Section 303(d)
impaired waters. The list will be
updated in 2002.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
6% 77%
Individual Use Support
in California
Evaluated-
Good
11%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
16% 68%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
16% <1%
a A subset of California's des-
ignated uses appear in this
figure. Refer to the state's
30S(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.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total wines = 211,513)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 2,086,230)
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 2,139)
s^_. _
Wetlands (Total Acres = 357,064)
-------
86 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Colorado
I'll11!1
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
—— Impaired
—— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Colorado 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Aimee Majewski
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive
Denver, CO 80246
(303) 692-3530
e-mail: aimee.majewski@state.co.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.cdphe.state.
co.us/op/wqcc/wqresdoc.html
Surface Water Quality
Colorado reports that 93% of its
surveyed river miles and 90% of its
surveyed lake acres have good water
quality that support aquatic life uses.
Metals are the most frequently identi-
fied pollutant in rivers and lakes.
Mining and agriculture are leading
sources of pollution in both rivers and
lakes, and industrial point sources are
also a major contributor of pollution
to lakes. Colorado did not report on
the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality in
Colorado ranges from excellent in
mountain areas where snowfall is
heavy, to poor in certain alluvial
aquifers of major rivers. Naturally
occurring soluble minerals along with
human activities are responsible for '
significant degradation of some
aquifers. Nitrates and salts from agri- ;
cultural activities have contaminated
many of Colorado's shallow, uncon- '
fined aquifers. In mining areas, acidic
water and metals contaminate aqui-
fers. Colorado protects ground water ,
quality with numeric and narrative ;
standards, and regulates discharges to
ground water from wastewater treat-
ment impoundments and land appli-
cation systems with a permit system.
|
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Impaired waters in Colorado are
identified on the 303(d) List of '.
Impaired Waters, and addressed by
the TMDL Program. TMDL Plans [
are prepared to outline how water ;
quality can be improved so that the
waterbodies can support their desig-
nated uses. The Water Quality
Control Division has fostered exten-
sive stakeholder participation in the !
development of the 303(d) list. Other
programs in Colorado include the j
state's Water Pollution Control
Revolving Fund, nonpoint source
control program, and permits
programs. In early 2000, the state
implemented the Colorado Ground
Water Quality Protection Council to
develop a comprehensive and inte-
grated ground water quality protection
program. To protect drinking water
quality, Colorado designed the Source '•
Water Assessment and Protection
(SWAP) Program; the delineation
phase is underway, and a geographic
information system (GIS) web site
application is being developed to
allow communities to access source
water maps through the Internet.
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 87
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
In 1999, the Colorado Water
Quality Monitoring Council was
established by an interested group of
stakeholders and the state's Water
Quality Control Division. The council
was patterned after newly formed
councils at the state and national level.
It serves as a statewide collaborative
body to help achieve collection, inter-
pretation, and dissemination of water
quality data and information.
In 1992, Colorado changed its
monitoring approach from a statewide
network of routine sites and special
studies to basin-specific monitoring of
one major watershed per year. During
the 1998-1999 cycle, monitoring
efforts were focused on the Arkansas
River Basin and the Upper Colorado
River Sub-basin. The basin monitor-
ing program has several long-term
objectives such as ensuring 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.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
22% 2%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
72% 4%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
72% 1%
Individual Use Support
in Colorado
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Bivers and Streams (Total Miles = io7,403)b
93
Lakes (Total Acres = 154,029)
"A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
c Includes 1,754 miles rated not attainable.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
19% 9%
-------
88 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Connecticut
Aquatic Ufe Use Support
Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Connecticut 2000
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. 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 2000, Connecticut reported that
21% of river miles do not support
aquatic life uses and 25% do not sup-
port swimming due to stressors such
as bacteria, metals, oxygen-demanding
wastes, nutrients, and habitat alter-
ation. Sources of these pollutants
include atmospheric deposition, urban
runoff and storm sewers, municipal
sewage treatment plants, and hydro-
modification. Although over 95% of
assessed lake acres support aquatic life
use and swimming, threats to
Connecticut's lake quality include
atmospheric deposition, upstream I
impoundments, urban runoff, and
bottom deposits.
Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen)
is a widespread problem in Connecti- >
cut's estuarine waters in Long Island
Sound. Bacteria also prevent shellfish
harvesting, and an advisory restricts
consumption of bluefish and striped
bass contaminated with polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs). Statewide
fish consumption advisories are in
effect due to mercury in freshwater
and PCBs in saltwater. Connecticut's
estuarine waters are impacted by !
municipal sewage treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows, urban
runoff, and atmospheric deposition.
Historic waste disposal practices also
contaminated sediments in Connecti-
cut'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
Protection (DEP) began keeping
records in 1980. Connecticut's
Wellhead Protection Program
incorporates water supply planning,
discharge permitting, water diversion, '
site remediation, prohibited activities,
and numerous nonpoint source -
controls.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Ensuring that all citizens can
share in the benefits of dean water
will require continued permit enforce-
ment, additional advanced wastewater
treatment, combined sewer separation,:
continued aquatic toxicity control, and '
resolution of nonpoint source issues.
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 89
The state has for decades been inves-
ting in efforts to abate pollution from
industrial and municipal point
sources. These efforts have been
successful in improving water quality
in many areas, but further improve-
ments are important particularly for
Long Island Sound and several rivers.
For Long Island Sound, the state has
set a goal to reduce the nitrogen load
by 59% over 15 years. It is hoped that
this reduction in nitrogen loading will
alleviate the hypoxic conditions found
in bottom waters of the sound.
To achieve this goal, a "nitrogen-
trading program" will be implemented
so that all sewage treatment plants in
Connecticut will be given economic
incentives to exceed the effluent qual-
ity criteria. To continue improving
water quality in other areas, manage-
ment efforts will focus on the control
and prevention of nonpoint source
pollution. Nonpoint source manage-
ment includes education projects and
a permitting program for land appli-
cation of sewage, agricultural sources,
and solid waste management facilities.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
In 1998, Connecticut imple-
mented a rotating basin approach to
monitor water quality. Basins assessed
for the current reporting cycle are the
Connecticut River, south central coast,
and southwest coast, which together
comprise 46% of the state's land area.
Connecticut samples physical and
chemical parameters at 27 fixed
stream sites and biological parameters
at 47 stream sites. In wadeable
streams, benthic community analysis
is the primary method used for deter-
mining aquatic life use support status.
Other activities include intensive bio-
logical surveys, toxicity testing, and
fish and shellfish tissue sampling for
accumulation of toxic chemicals.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
30% 41%
Individual Use Support
in Connecticut
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
15% 13%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
70% 7%
Evaluated-
Impaired
1%
Evaluated-
Good
22%
"A 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.
b Figures do not include
statewide fish consumption
advisory.
c Includes nonperennial
streams diat dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Usea>b
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Jj|ivers and Streams (Total Miles = s.
21
Lakes (Total Acres = 64,973)
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 612)
Total Square
Miles Assessed 60
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
90 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Delaware
Aquatic Life Use Support
—— Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Delaware 2000
305(b) report, contact:
David Wolanski
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
Division of Water Resources
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302)739-4590
e-mail: dwolanski@state.de.us
The report is also available on
the Internet at: httpr/Avww.dnrec.
state.de.us/water2000/Sections/
Watershed/TMDL/2000305b.htm
Surface Water Quality
The Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC) has found that 96% of the
state's rivers and streams do not fully
support the swimming use and 70%
do not fully support the fish and
wildlife use. Most of these waters do
not meet the standards because of
nonpoint source pollution impacts.
DNREC has found that 69% of
Delaware's freshwater ponds and lakes
do not support the swimming use
and 27% do not fully support fish and
wildlife use. Bacteria are the most
widespread contaminant in Delaware's
surface waters, but nutrients and
toxics pose the most serious threats
to aquatic life and human health.
Excessive nutrients stimulate algal
blooms and growth of aquatic weeds.
Toxics resulted in 20 fish consumption
restrictions in the state. Agricultural
runoff, urban runoff, municipal sew-
age 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 pro- :
vides two-thirds of Delaware's domes-
tic water supply. However, nitrates,
synthetic organic chemicals, saltwater,'
and iron contaminate isolated wells in;
some areas. Nitrates in ground water
are derived mainly from septic systems
and the land application of fertilizer
and manure. Synthetic organic chemi-
cals have entered some ground water
from leaking industrial underground
storage tanks, landfills, abandoned
hazardous waste sites, chemical spills
and leaks, septic systems, and agricul-
tural activities. ;
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
DNREC adopted a watershed
approach to determine the most effec-
tive and efficient methods for protect-
ing water quality or abating existing
problems. Five basins and 41 water-
sheds have been delineated. Under the.
watershed approach, DNREC will
evaluate all sources of pollution that
may impact a waterway and target
the most significant sources for
management. In 1998, Whole Basin .
Management activities took place ':
in the Inland Bay Basin, and in :
1999 activities were initiated in the ;
Delaware Bay Drainage Basin. Five r
watersheds have been targeted for
development of integrated pollution
control strategies: Appoquinimink
River, Christina River, Indian River
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Bay/Rehoboth Bay/Little Assawomen
Bay, Murderkill River, and Nanticoke
River.
Delaware's Wellhead Protection
Program establishes cooperative
arrangements with local governments
to manage sources of ground water
contamination. The state may assist
local governments in enacting zoning
ordinances, operating standards, and
source prohibitions, and in conducting
site plan reviews, public education,
and ground water monitoring.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Delaware's Ambient Surface
Water Quality Program includes
fixed-station monitoring and biologi-
cal surveys employing rapid bioassess-
ment protocols. Monitoring within
the Fixed Station Network is con-
ducted monthly to quarterly for each
basin in Delaware. Delaware is devel-
oping and testing new protocols for
sampling biological data to determine
whether specific biological criteria can
be developed to determine support of
designated uses.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
1% 27%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 73%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
10% 69%
Evaluated-
Impaired
18%
Evaluated-
Good
3%
a A subset of Delaware's
designated uses appear in
this figure. Refer to the
state's 305(b) report for a
full description of the state's
uses.
k Includes nonperennial
streams that dry up and do
not flow all year.
c Total size includes 419 mi2
of estuary that are in Dela-
ware but under the jurisdic-
tion of the Delaware River
Basin Commission (DRBC).
Individual Use Support
in Delaware
Percent
Designated Use9
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
givers and Streams (total Miles = 2,509)"
70
Lakes (Total Acres = 2,954)
Estuaries and Bays (Total square mines = 448.5)
Ocean Shoreline (Total shore Miles = 25)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
92 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
District of Columbia
i s
f"
>• I Bl
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the District of Colum-
bia 2000 305(b) report, contact:
Nicoline Shulterbrandt
Attn: Water Quality Division
DC Department of Health
Environmental Health
Administration
5th Floor
51N Steet, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 535-2190
Surface Water Quality
Some small improvements have
been observed, but water quality in
the District of Columbia continues to
be impaired. The uses that relate
directly to human use of the water-
bodies were generally not supported,
while those uses that directly affected
the quality of habitat for aquatic life
were at least partially supported. None
of the waterbodies monitored were in
full support of all assigned uses. For
example, the Anacostia River remains
aesthetically and chemically polluted.
However, 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 group of SAV
species. The Potomac River continues
to benefit from improvements to the
city's wastewater treatment plant and
combined sewer overflow system.
Major causes of impairment
common to the District's waterbodies :
are total toxics, pathogens, and
organic enrichment. The sources of
impairment with major impacts are
combined sewer overflows, urban
runoff/storm sewers, and municipal !
point sources. These sources are asso-
ciated with the land uses common in
an urban area. Special concerns of the
District include the control of toxic
pollutants in river sediments, funding
and implementation of wetlands pro- :
grams, restoration of the Anacostia
River, public education, and combined
sewer overflow abatement. The :
District of Columbia did not report
on the condition of wetlands. ,
Ground Water Quality
The drinking water source for the j
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, cornpliance monitor-
ing data are scrutinized for ground '
water-related information whenever it
is available.
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 93
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The District of Columbia's
environmental quality programs are
involved in activities to reduce die
impairment of water quality. Because
of the characteristics of the urban
environment, nonpoint source pollu-
tion is of great concern. The sediment
and stormwater control program pro-
vides technical assistance throughout
the city in order to regulate land dis-
turbance and to manage stormwater
and flood plain areas. In addition, the
nonpoint source program conducts
outreach efforts to educate developers
and residents about measures they can
take to help with pollution prevention.
Activities that might impact ground
water quality (such as underground
storage tank installation and remedia-
tion and pesticide use) are coordinated
with the ground water protection
program.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The District of Columbia per-
forms monthly physical and chemical
sampling at 56 fixed stations on the
Potomac and Anacostia Rivers and
their tributaries. At each water chem-
istry 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.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
0% 100%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
0% 100%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0%
0%
Individual Use Support
in the District of Columbia
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total wines = 39)b
100
Lakes (Total Acres = 238)
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 6)
a A subset of the District of Columbia's designated uses appear in this
figure. Refer to the district's 305(b) report for a full description of
the district'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.
-------
94 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Florida
Rivers
State Border
For a copy of the Florida 2000 305(b)
report, contact:
Joe Hand
Florida Department of
Environmental 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
Most surface waters in Florida are
of good quality, but problems exist
around densely populated urban areas,
primarily in central and southern
Florida. Continuing population
growth and development are placing
strain on the water resources of the
state. Nutrient enrichment, organic
enrichment, and pathogens are the
leading causes of degraded water qual-
ity in rivers. Overall water quality is
impaired for 48% of lake acres, result-
ing primarily from nutrient enrich-
ment and algae. In estuaries, nutrient
enrichment is the most common
cause of degraded quality. Agricultural
runoff and construction are the major
sources of water pollution to surface
waters in Florida.
The state recognizes the integrity
of the following ecosystems as special
state concerns: Everglades system,
Florida Bay, Florida Keys, and
Apalachicola River and Bay. Other
issues of special concern are wide- ;
spread mercury contamination in both1
marine and freshwater fish, protection
of coastal areas and estuaries because
of their ecological importance and
significant contribution to Florida's
economy, and integration of water
quantity and quality decisions as water
demands increase with population
growth in the state.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies about 87%
of Florida's drinking water. Data from
monitoring wells and private water
supply wells in the state's ambient
monitoring network indicate ground
water quality is generally good,
although local contamination prob-
lems 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 petroleum
products from leaking underground
storage tanks, nitrates from dairy and
other livestock operations, fertilizers
and pesticides in stormwater runoff, !
toxic chemicals in leachate from
hazardous waste sites, dry cleaner ,
operations, and landfills. Florida has
programs underway and in develop- ;
ment to protect ground water quality,
including discharge permitting
programs and standards and criteria '
development. The state also plans i
to assess ground water quality and
include additional information in ;
future reports.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Florida has established several i
programs focused on the restoration
or preservation of state waters. The
current goal of most restoration work
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries *ȣ
is to correct problems caused by excess
nutrient runoff. One method of
restoration has been the construction
of marsh flow-ways to filter out nutri-
ents and other poEutants before they
reach waterbodies of concern. The
state also has several different
programs that aim to improve water
quality by purchasing environmentally
sensitive lands for protection. In
addition, the 1999 Florida Legislature
enacted the Florida Watershed Resto-
ration Act to provide a process for
restoring waters through the establish-
ment and implementation of TMDLs
for pollutants of impaired waters.
Florida's point source permitting
process was modified in 1995 with the
delegation of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program to Florida, but
does not include stormwater permit-
ting. The state wastewater program
issues permits for facilities that dis-
charge to either surface or ground
water. The state permit for surface
water dischargers now serves as the
NPDES permit. The state also
encourages reuse of treated wastewater
(primarily for irrigation) and the use
of constructed and natural wetlands
for treatment of wastewater as alterna-
tives to direct discharge.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Florida has adopted a tiered Inte-
grated Water Resources Monitoring
Network, which includes sampling of
both surface and ground waters, to
assess state waters. Tier I answers
questions on a statewide or regional
scale. Tier II addresses basin-specific
or waterbody-specific questions.
Tier III includes monitoring asso-
ciated with regulatory permits and
evaluations of TMDLs and BMPs.
Florida is developing assessment
methods and criteria for wetlands.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
37% 10%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
32% 21%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
25% 40%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
28% 8%
Summary of Use Support
in Florida
Percent
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 51 ,ass)a
31
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 4,437)
Total Square 79
Miles Assessed
4,037
21
a Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
96 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Georgia
"IB II-i;
• Rivers
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Diglt Hydrologic Unit)
• State Border
For a copy of Georgia's 2000 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
e-mail: mork_wirin@mail.dnr.state.
ga.us
Surface Water Quality
The Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GAEPD)
reported that, of the river miles
assessed, 40% fully support beneficial
water uses. Major causes of impair-
ment include fecal coliform bacteria,
low dissolved oxygen concentrations,
mercury and/or PCB contamination
in fish tissue, and metals. For lakes,
16% of the assessed acres fully support
beneficial water uses. The major
causes of impairment in lakes are
metals, elevated pH, and fecal
coliform bacteria. For both lakes and
rivers, major sources of impairment
include urban runoff and other
nonpoint sources.
Of Georgia's assessed estuarine
area, 59% fully supports beneficial
water uses. Fecal coliform bacteria '•
and metals were the major causes
of impairment. Urban runoff and
other nonpoint sources are sources
of impairment to estuarine waters.
Georgia did not report on the ;
condition of its wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is an important
resource for the people, industry, and :
economy of Georgia. In 1995, ground
water was used for 91% of the rural
water supply, 23% of the total public
water supply, and 66% of the irriga-
tion supply. Across the state, ground
water resources are generally of good ;
quality, and no particular pollutant
represents a significant threat at this
time. Sources of ground water
contamination include underground ,
storage tanks, hazardous waste sites,
industrial facilities, urban runoff, salt-
water intrusion, pipelines, and sewer
lines. To protect ground water quality, '
Georgia's regulatory programs follow
an antidegradation policy to ensure
that regulated activities will not
become significant threats to water
quality. In addition, pesticide monitor-'
ing indicates that pesticides do not :
threaten Georgia's drinking water
aquifers at this time.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
During the 1998-1999 reporting ;
cycle, river basin management plan-
ning was a major priority for the state.
River basin management plans for
the Chattahoochee, Flint, Coosa,
Tallapoosa, and Oconee basins were
adopted by the Board of Natural
Resources in 1998. Georgia is also
working with the EPA and South :
Carolina on the Savannah River
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 97
Watershed Project, and with Florida
to conduct basin planning for the
Suwannee River. The GAEPD also
placed emphasis on other programs
in 1998-1999, including monitoring
and assessment, modeling and total
maximum daily load allocations
(TMDLs), NPDES permitting,
pollution abatement, stormwater
permitting, treatment plant financing,
fish consumption guidance, and public
participation projects.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The GAEPD conducts long-
term ambient trend monitoring
through a fixed station network, rotat-
ing basin monitoring, intensive sur-
veys, fish tissue monitoring, lake water
quality studies, coastal monitoring,
facility compliance sampling, and
NPDES discharger toxicity testing.
In the assessment process, GAEPD
also draws upon biotic data from the
state's Wildlife Resources Division
(WRD). The WRD uses the Index
of Biotic Integrity (IBI) to identify
impacted fish populations.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
15% 72%
Evaluated-
Impaired
12%
Evaluated-
Good
1%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
15% 72%
Evaluated-
Irnpaired
12%
Evaluated-
Good
1%
Summary of Use Support
in Georgia
Percent
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
JRivers and Streams (Total Miies = 7o,i50)a
Total Miles
Assessed
Lakes (Total Acres = 425,382)
Estuaries and Bays (Total square mines = 854)
Total Square
Miles Assessed §9
858
a Includes nonperennial streams that dry" up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
98 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Guam
i
• Rivers
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
' State Border
For a copy of the Guam 2000 305(b)
report, contact:
Mike Gawd
Guam Environmental Protection
Agency
Planning and Environmental Review
Division ;
P.O. Box 22439 GMF
Barrigada, GU 96921
(671) 475-1662
Surface Water Quality
With an area of 212 square miles,
Guam is the largest island in the
Mariana Archipelago. It is the west-
ernmost point of the United States,
lying approximately 3,700 miles west
of Honolulu.
Seventeen percent of the assessed
river miles in Guam support aquatic
life use. Three percent of the assessed
miles support swimming. Contami-
nants that impact stream quality
include suspended solids, organic
compounds, habitat modifications,
and nutrients.
Guam's marine waters are gener-
ally free of pollution except where
localized runoff or discharges occur.
Of the marine bay area assessed, 3%
supports aquatic life use and 65% sup-
ports swimming. Suspended solids,
metals, pathogens, and turbidity from
urban runoff and municipal facilities
were cited as impacting water quality.
Guam has 116.5 miles of ocean
shoreline. Seven percent of the
assessed miles support swimming.
The primary cause of pollution in
recreational beaches is microbial
organisms.
The only inland body of water
on Guam is the Fena Reservoir
constructed by the U.S. Navy as a
public drinking water supply. Guam
did not report on the condition of its
wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies approxi-
mately 75% of the island's drinking
water. The Northern Guam Lens is
an aquifer under the northern half of
the island fed by rainwater that has
percolated through porous limestone
and floats on denser seawater. EPA
designated it as a principal source in
1978. Contaminants that threaten
ground water quality include
chlorides and organic compounds
(e.g., trichloroethylene orTCE,
tetrachloroethylene, and ethylene
dibromide). Ground water in Chalan
Pago has been contaminated by
petroleum products released during a
gasoline spill from an underground
storage tank. '
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Guam Environmental
Protection Agency (Guam EPA)
plans to move toward a watershed
approach as part of the strategy to
improve water quality. Guam EPA
requires an Underground Injection
Control Permit for anyone construct-
ing a well used primarily for drainage
of storm water runoff. Ground water
is additionally protected through its
"Principal Source" designation, by
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 99
storm water and septic tank leachate
management under Land Use
Permits, and through the Pesticide
Management Program.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The Guam Water Monitoring
Strategy was implemented in 1978.
Currently, monitoring data are
collected at fixed locations using a
rotating basin design. Guam EPA and
the Department of Aquatic Wildlife
Resources (DAWR) are the main
agencies that participate in surface
water monitoring. Four watersheds
were selected at the beginning of fiscal
year 1996 for freshwater monitoring
by the DAWR. Planned revisions
to the monitoring strategy include:
(1) adopting a probabilistic-based
approach; (2) incorporating a Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol; (3) including
additional water quality parameters;
(4) establishing a Fish and Shellfish
Consumption Advisory Program; and
(5) conducting marine biological
assessments.
The Water and Energy Research
Institute of the Western Pacific
(WERI) conducted a study to meas-
ure heavy metals, PCBs, and poly-
cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
in marine sediments and organisms.
None of the organisms contained con-
taminant levels that exceeded current
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
standards.
An ambient ground water
monitoring system was established to
monitor pumping rates and chloride
concentrations at all production wells.
The USGS also monitors salinity and
water levels within the Northern
Guam Lens.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
This pie chart shows
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
52% 36%
Individual Use Support
in Guam
Percent
Designated Use
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
iBivers and Streams (Total wines =
•Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 915)
Evaluated-
Good
11%
Evaluated-
Impaired
1%
Total Square
Miles Assessed
JJcean Shoreline (Total shore MHOS = ne.5)
93
Total Shore
Miles Assessed
17
a Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
100 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Hawaii
Aquatic Life Use Support
— Good
—— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Hawaii 2000 305(b)
report, contact:
Terence Tertrya
Hawaii Department of Health
Clean Water Branch
919 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 301
Honolulu, HI 96814
(808) 586-4309
tteruya@eha.health.state.hi.us
Portions of the report may be down-
loaded from: http://www.hawaii.gov/
health/eh/cwb/2000-305b/
Surface Water Quality
Most of Hawaii's waterbodies
have variable water quality due to
storm water runoff. During dry
weather, most streams and estuaries
have good water quality that fully
supports beneficial uses, but the
quality declines when storm water
runoff carries pollutants into surface
waters. The most significant pollution
problems in Hawaii are siltation,
turbidity, nutrients, organic enrich-
ment, and pathogens from nonpoint
sources, including agriculture and
urban runoff. Introduced species and
stream alteration are other stressors of
concern. Very few point sources dis-
charge into Hawaii's streams; most
industrial facilities and wastewater
treatment plants discharge into coastal
waters. Other concerns include
elevated levels of arsenic from a now-
closed canoe plant and the spread of
leptospirosis, a disease caused by pathi
ogenic bacteria, through recreational
contact. 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 Underground
Injection Control Program also
prohibits wastewater injection in areas '
surrounded by "no-pass" lines. How-
ever, aquifers outside of reserves and
no-pass lines may be impacted by
landfills, leaking underground storage
tanks, agricultural activities, and haz-
ardous waste generators. Petroleum
compounds, metals, nitrate, and
organic pesticides pose the greatest
risk for future contamination.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Polluted Runoff Control
Program has supported approximately
35 grant proposals that address the
reduction or elimination of nonpoint
source pollution. The storm water
program administers permits for enti-
ties that discharge significant quanti-
ties of storm water and is managed
by the Clean Water Branch (CWB)
of the Department of Health (DOH).
The CWB participated in the Waim-
analo Watershed Monitoring Project
from 1998 to 1999. Other programs
included a training project addressing
erosion and sediment control, the
He'eia Coastal Restoration Project
that replaced alien coastal plants with
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
native species, and a study that inves-
tigated the integration of aquaculture
and taro production to reduce pollu-
tion.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The DOH restructured its
monitoring program in 1999. Major
changes include a reduction in the
number of stations being monitored
for microbiological contamination and
the elimination of all analyses for
physical and chemical contamination
along the shoreline. The emphasis of
the monitoring program has shifted
toward assessment of ambient condi-
tions in watersheds and the prepara-
tion of total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs) when necessary. The CWB
has completed its assessment of the
Waimanalo watershed and will
address the Kawa Stream watershed
next. Although the fecal coliform
standard remains in effect for Hawaii
as an indicator of sewage contamina-
tion, enterococci and Clostridaperfrin-
gens are also routinely assayed. The use
of C. perfringens may be preferable as
an indicator because fecal coliform
and eterococci are found naturally in
Hawaii as part of the microbial flora
in the soil.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored-
Good
2%
Monitored-
Impaired
5%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
30% 64%
Individual Use Support
in Hawaii
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total wines = 3,90.5)°
Total Miles
Assessed
ieS and Bays (Total Square Miles = 54.8)
100
a A subset of Hawaii's desig-
nated 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.
Ocean Shoreline (Total shore Miles = 1,052)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
102 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Idaho
'! I "
'(•:'• j-
• Rivers
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
' State Border
For a copy of the Idaho 2000 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: mmcintyr@deq.state.id.us
Surface Water Quality
Idaho reports that 53% of river
and stream miles support aquatic life.
Based on the state's approved 1998
Section 303(d) list (approved by EPA
in 1999), the major causes of impair-
ment in Idaho's rivers and streams
include siltation, nutrients, flow alter-
ations, thermal modifications, and
bacteria. Information on lake use
support was not included in Idaho's
2000 305(b) report because the state is
currently developing a lake and reser-
voir beneficial use assessment process.
Based on the state's Section 303(d)
list, the major causes of impairment
in Idaho's lakes and reservoirs include
siltation, nutrients, low dissolved
oxygen, and flow alterations. There is
also a fish consumption advisory for
mercury in place for the Brownlee ;
Reservoir. The state has not yet deter-
mined the sources of impairment to '
any surface water system. Idaho
did not report on the condition of
wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
More than 90% of Idaho's
residents use ground water as their
domestic water supply. The major
sources of ground water contamina-
tion in Idaho are agricultural activities,
waste storage and ;disposal, mining,
and hazardous material transportation.
Data on ground water quality in
Idaho come primarily from the State- ;
wide Ambient Ground Water Quality
Monitoring Network and the Public :
Water Systems. On a statewide basis, ;
the ground water contaminants of
greatest concern are nitrates, pesti-
cides, and volatile organic compounds.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
EPA has primary responsibility
for issuing National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (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 dis-
charges are inspected annually but !
minor discharges dp not receive this
attention.
The nonpoint source program in
Idaho is administered on a watershed
basis and includes provisions for
public education and technical proto-
col development. Project emphasis ;
is placed on management effective-
ness, beneficial use monitoring, public
awareness, antidegradation, and '
endangered species issues. ;
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 103
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The DEQjs responsible for
water qualify monitoring in Idaho.
Monitoring activities have focused on
beneficial uses and ambient water
quality trends. Sampling at 56 moni-
toring stations is conducted on a
rotating basis to provide data for
assessing trends in river water quality.
A synoptic monitoring program was
carried out in 1997,1998, and 2000 to
monitor lakes and reservoirs. Thus far,
60 lakes and reservoirs have been
monitored.
Idaho currently bases their 305(b)
assessment on their 303(d) listing of
impaired waters. This practice biases
the assessment toward more impaired
waters, and may not be representative
of overall water quality. Only moni-
tored data were incorporated into the
designated use assessment.
Idaho is planning to modify their
Beneficial Use Reconnaissance
Program (BURP) to include a plan on
monitoring and assessing lakes, an
expanded river monitoring system,
and a new rotating basin monitoring
plan. DEQJias reserved $50,000 from
Section 319 grant funds to support
this process. Idaho also plans to
implement EPA's Assessment Data-
base before the 2002 305(b) reporting
cycle.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
This pie chart shows
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
53% 47%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Individual Use Support
in Idaho
Percent
Good
Impaired
Designated Use
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
(Rivers and Streams (fotai Miles = 1 i'si'
Total Miles
Assessed
a A subset of Idaho's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to
the state's 30S(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.
-------
104 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Illinois
MI
I ilk
in
i
Aquatic Life Use Support
— Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
—— State Border
For a copy of the Illinois 2000 305(b)
report, contact:
Ten Holland
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-3363
e-mail: Teri.Holland@epa.state.il.us
For more information, visit IEPA on
the Internet at: http://\vww.epa.state.
il.us/water/water-quality/
Surface Water Quality
The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA) reported
that over 62% of assessed stream miles
fully support aquatic life use, which
the state considers the single best
indicator of overall stream conditions.
The major causes of impairment in
Illinois's rivers include nutrients, silta-
tion, habitat/flow alteration, organic
enrichment/dissolved oxygen deple-
tion, metals, and suspended solids.
Major sources include agriculture,
point sources, hydrological/habitat
modification, urban runoff, and
resource extraction.
Fifty-two percent of Illinois's
inland lake acres fully support aquatic
life uses.
The major causes of impairment
to Illinois's 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 sedi-
ment or phosphorus attached to
particles), and hydrological/habitat
modification. ,
In the Illinois portion of Lake
Michigan, all 63 miles support aquatic
life use. Trophic status of Lake Michi-
gan has improved from mesotrophic/
eutrophic conditions in the 1970s to
oligotrophic conditions today.
Illinois did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water ;quality is generally
good, but past and present activities
contaminate ground water in isolated
areas. Major sources of ground water
contamination include agricultural
chemical operations, fertilizer and
pesticide applications, above- and
belowground storage tanks, septic
systems, manufacturing/repair shops,
surface impoundments, and waste
piles.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The IEPA has directed program
resources toward a watershed-based
framework to effectively protect and
restore natural resources. This com-
prehensive approach will focus on the
total spectrum of water resource
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 105
issues, emphasizing involvement of
citizens and the regulated community.
The IEPA has restructured its
program activities using a priority
watershed management 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 conducts a variety of
water quality monitoring programs.
Among these programs are the
Ambient Water Quality Monitoring
Network, Intensive Pviver Basin
Survey (in cooperation with the
Illinois Department of Natural
Resources), Facility-Related Stream
Survey, Ambient and Volunteer
Lake Monitoring Programs, and the
National Nonpoint Source Monitor-
ing Program. Data from more than
4,000 stations have been used in the
assessment of surface water quality
conditions. In addition, over 600 vol-
unteers have participated in citizen
monitoring of over 300 lakes as part
of lEPA's Volunteer Lake Monitoring
Program, which has been incorpo-
rated into the state's water quality
assessments.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
35% 36%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
14% 14%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
2% 71%
Evaluated-
Impaired
24%
Evaluated-
Good
3%
Individual Use Support
in Illinois
Percent
Designated Use
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
JRivers and Streams (Total Miles = 87,iio)b
38
Lakes (Total Acres = 309,340)
Lakes (Total Shore Miles = 63)
a A subset of Illinois's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to
the state's 30S(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.
-------
106 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Indiana
lull
• Rivers
> State Border
For a copy of the. Indiana 2000 305(b)
report, contact:
Linda Schmidt
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
Office of Water Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317) 233-1432
e-mail: lsdhmidt@dem.state.in.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://wvvw.in.gov/idem/
water/planbr/wqs/quattty/IN305bOO
.pdf
Surface Water Quality
All of the surveyed lake acres,
Great Lakes shoreline, and 76% of the
surveyed river miles have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic life.
However, 38% of the surveyed river
miles do not support swimming due
to high bacteria concentrations. All
of the waters of the state are under a
limited consumption advisory for at
least some species offish based on
concentrations of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury. The
pollutants most frequently identified
in Indiana waters include PCBs,
metals (predominantly mercury),
and pathogens. The sources of these
pollutants most often identified
include nonpoint sources, agricultural
runoff, municipal point sources, and
hydrologic modification. Many
sources are unknown.
Ground Water Quality
Indiana has a plentiful ground
water resource serving approximately
50% of the state's population for
drinking water and filling many of the
water needs of business, industry, and
agriculture. In 19.98, the state began [
sampling nearly 400 wells represent-
ing 22 hydrogeologic setting types.
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, shallow
injection wells, industrial facilities,
materials spills, and salt storage and
road salting. Contaminants from these"
sources include nitrate, salts, pesti-
cides, petroleum compounds, metals,
radionuclides, and bacteria. There are
programs at all governmental levels to
monitor, evaluate, and protect ground
water resources in Indiana. The state :
is currently developing ground water
quality standards. In addition, the
source water assessment program will
identify the watersheds and wellheads
that supply drinking water, and 4,300
source water assessments are sched- ;
uled to be completed by May 2003.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
In February 1997, the Indiana
Water Pollution Control Board
adopted revised water quality stand-
ards for Great Lakes Basin waters. ;
Water quality standards, including
proposed sediment and wetland narra-
tive criteria, for the area outside the :
Great Lakes Basin are being devel- i
oped. Macroinvertebrate and fish ;
community data are being evaluated
for the purpose of developing bio-
criteria. ;
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 107
Point sources are regulated prima-
rily through the NPDES program in
Indiana. In 1999, the program focused
on issuing new permits and renewing
existing permits within state-required
time frames. The Nonpoint Source
Management Plan for Indiana was
updated and approved by EPA in
October 1999. This enables the state
to receive a full allocation of Section
319 funding.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
A new surface water monitoring
strategy for Indiana was implemented
in 1996 with the goal of monitoring
all waters of the state by 2001 and
reporting the assessments by 2003.
Each year, approximately 20% of the
waterbodies in the state will be
assessed and reported the following
year. Assessments highlighted in the
2000 305(b) report are the Upper
Wabash, Whitewater, White, and
East Fork basins. Elements of
Indiana's sampling program include
fixed station monitoring, TMDL
development, trace metals monitoring,
pesticide water column monitoring,
bacteriological sampling, and targeted
fish tissue and surficial aquatic sedi-
ment sites. The program also includes
sites selected by probabilistic design
and sampled for fish community
biotic integrity, benthic aquatic
macroinvertebrate community biotic
integrity, fish tissue contaminants,
surficial aquatic sediment contami-
nants, and water column chemistry.
Wetlands water quality standards
are under development in Indiana.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
43% 21%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
32% 4%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
36% 64%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Individual Use Support
in Indiana
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 35,6?3)b
Total Miles 76
Assessed
J_akeS (Total Acres = 142,871)
LakeS (Total Shore Miles = 43)
a A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
108 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Iowa
Aquatic Life Use Support
—— Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Iowa 2000 305(b) Surface Water Quality
report, contact:
John Olson
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Water Resources Section
502 East 9th Street
DesMoines,IA 50319
(515) 281-8905
e-mail: John.Olson@dnr.state.ia.us
Aquatic life use is impaired in
26% of Iowa's assessed rivers and 32%
of assessed lakes. Swimming use is
impaired in 52% of surveyed river
miles and 25% of assessed lakes.
Siltation threatens beneficial uses at
all reservoirs. Other common sources
of lake and reservoir impairment
include organic enrichment, siltation,
and nutrients. Leading sources of lake
and reservoir pollution include natural
sources, agriculture, and internal
nutrient recycling. Point sources still.
pollute about 2% of the assessed
stream miles and two lakes. Pollution-
caused fish kills are an increasing
source of impairment in Iowa
streams. Leading pollutants in Iowa's
streams include habitat alteration,
organic enrichment, pathogens, and
un-ionized ammonia. Sources of river
and stream contamination include
agriculture, hydrdlogic modification,
and channelization.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies about 80%
of Iowa's drinking water. Agricultural
chemicals, underground storage tanks,
agricultural drainage wells, livestock
wastes, and improper management of'
hazardous substances all contribute to;
ground water contamination. Several ;
studies have detected low levels of
common agricultural pesticides and
synthetic organic compounds in both
untreated and treated ground water.
The fuel oxygenate methyl tertiary :
butyl ether (MTBE) was the most
frequently detected volatile organic
compound (VOC) in a 1997 study
of ground water quality in eastern
Iowa. In most cases, the small concen-
trations of contaminants 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 chemi- ;
cals. !
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 pollutant
by volume in Iowa. The state adopted
a nonpoint control strategy of educa- :
tion projects and cost-share programs.
Later, it adopted rules requiring that
land disposal of animal wastes not
contaminate surface and ground ;
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 109
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 devel-
oped whereby state and federal agen-
cies cooperate to implement water
quality projects including education,
demonstrations, and implementation
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 chlo-
rine at fixed sampling sites. Limited
sampling for agricultural pesticides
began in 1995 and was greatly
expanded in 1999.
Information about toxic con-
taminants in fish is available from
long-term DNR/EPA and other
monitoring programs. Toxins in
sediment are monitored as part of a
special studies program. The role of
biological sampling is growing, with
over 100 reference sites sampled so
far, and data assessment methods have
been implemented. The continued
expansion of Iowa's volunteer moni-
toring program (IOWATER) will
provide an additional source of water
quality information.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
66% 22%
Evaluated-
Impaired
8%
Evaluated-
Good
4%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
51% 13%
Evaluated-
Impaired
20%
Evaluated-
Good
17%
a A 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.
b Includes 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 Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
IBivers and Streams (Total wines = ?i,665)b
Total Miles
Assessed
74
26
Lakes (Total Acres = 161,366)
Flood Control Reservoirs (Total Acres = 40,350)
Wetlands (Total Acres = 125,155)
-------
110 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Kansas
Aquatic life Use Support
Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Kansas 2000 305(b)
report, contact:
Theresa Hodges
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Division of Environment
Bureau of Environmental Field
Services
Suite #430,4th Floor
1000 SW Jackson
Topeka,KS 66612-1367
(785) 296-1981
e-mail: thodges@kdhe.state.ks.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.kdhe.state.
ks.us/befs/305b_2000/
Surface Water Quality
The Kansas Department of
Health and Environment (KDHE)
assessed water quality for 18,200 miles
of rivers and streams for the 2000
reporting cycle. Of these, 64% support
aquatic life use. KDHE determines
aquatic life use support based on acute
criteria only. Major causes of non-
support are fecal coliform bacteria,
organic enrichment, sulfates, chlo-
rides, and metals. Impairment of
streams is attributed to agriculture,
natural sources, hydrologic modifica-
tion, municipal point sources, and
ground water withdrawal. Of the
public lake acres assessed during the
reporting period, 53% support but are
threatened for aquatic life use. The
major causes of impairment are sedi-
ment, turbidity, nutrients/eutrophica-
tion, and taste and odor problems.
Agriculture and natural processes are ,
the major sources of impairment for
lakes. The trophic status of 53% of the
assessed lake acreage is stable over
time.
Most Kansas wetiands are on
private lands. Of the public wetlands
assessed, 26% support aquatic life use
but are considered threatened. The ;
major impairments are excessive
nutrient load, heavy metals, salinity,
elevated pH, flow alterations, low
dissolved oxygen, and turbidity/
siltation. Agriculture, hydrologic
modifications in watersheds, and
natural processes are the sources of
impairment. Trophic status studies
indicate that 65% of the wetland acres.
are stable over time.
Ground Water Quality
The KDHE conducts the pri-
mary ambient ground water monitor-
ing in the state. Of the ground water
samples that exceeded federal drink-
ing water maximum contaminant ;
levels, 76% were due to nitrate con-
tamination. Other ground water !
concerns included volatile organic
compounds, heavy metals, petroleum
products, and/or bacteria. The major
sources of these contaminants
included active industrial facilities,
spills, leaking storage tanks, mineral >
extraction, and agricultural activities. :
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Local Environmental Pro- ;
tection 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
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
facilities, stormwater, and larger
livestock operations. Smaller livestock
facilities and other sources of pollut-
ants are addressed by the Nonpoint
Source Control Program. Directed
funds, mainly to upgrade large waste-
water treatment facilities serving
cities, have resulted in documented
water quality improvements at several
locations.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Every year, KDHE collects and
analyzes about 1,500 surface water
samples, 50 aquatic macroinvertebrate
samples, and 40 composite fish
tissue samples from stations located
throughout the state. Wastewater
samples are collected at about
50 municipal sewage treatment 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.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
19% 81%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
10% 83%
Evaluated-
Impaired
2%
Evaluated-
Good
4%
Individual Use Support
in Kansas3
Percent
Designated Use°
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total wines = 134,333)°
36
Lakes (Total Acres = 188,506)
a Kansas determines aquatic life use support based on acute monitor-
ing criteria only.
b A subset of Kansas's designated uses appear in diis figure. Refer to
the state's 30S(b) report for a full description of the state's uses.
c Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
d Kansas's 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.
-------
112 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Kentucky
Aquatic Life Use Support
— Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed ,
— State Border
For a copy of the Kentucky 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Tom VanArsdall
Department for Environmental
Protection
Division of Water
14ReillyRoad
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-3410
e-mail: tom.vanarsdall@mail.
state.ky.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://water.nr.state.
ky.us/wq/305b/2000/2000_305b.pdf
Surface Water Quality
About 78% of Kentucky's sur-
veyed rivers (excluding the Ohio
River) and 95% of surveyed lake acres
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life. Swimming use
is fully supported in about 100% of
the surveyed lake acres, but 73% of
the river miles surveyed for bacteria
do not fully support swimming. Fecal
coliform bacteria, siltation, polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs), and priority
organics are the most common pollut-
ants 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, agriculture, land
disposal, and industrial and municipal
discharges.
Declining trends in chloride
concentrations and nutrients provide
evidence of improving water quality in
Kentucky's rivers and streams. Swim-
ming advisories remain in effect on
86 miles of the North Fork Kentucky
River and in several streams in the
Upper Cumberland River basin. Since
the period covered in the 2000 305(b)
report, the Kentucky Department for
Environmental Protection (DEP)
changed to a risk-based approach to
evaluate fish tissue data. In April
2000, the DEP issued a limited ;
statewide fish consumption advisory
because of mercury.
Ground Water Quality
Since 1995, the Kentucky Divi- :
sion of Water has sampled ground
water at approximately 170 sites.
Underground storage tanks, septic
tanks, spills, urban runoff, mining
activities, agricultural activities, and
landfills have been identified as the
major sources of ground water con-
tamination in Kentucky. Pathogens
are the major pollutant in ground
water. The state is concerned about
the lack of ground water data, absence
of ground water regulations, and the
potential for ground water pollution
in karst regions of the state.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Kentucky requires toxicity testing!
for 160 point source discharges and ;
permits for stormwater outfalls and
combined sewer overflows. The state's
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program oversees projects addressing
education, training, enforcement,
technical assistance, and evaluation
of best management practices.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Kentucky uses ambient water
quality monitoring to assess condi-
tions and detect long-term trends in
the larger streams and rivers of the
state. The state's ambient water quality
network expanded from 44 to 71 fixed
stations in May 1998. The ambient
monitoring stations for each basin are
sampled monthly during the year the
unit is in the monitoring phase of the
characterization cycle. During non-
targeted years, sampling takes place
bimonthly. The targeted basin for
1999 sampling was the Kentucky
River Basin, which has 16 fixed
stations. The state also conducts
biological monitoring and fish tissue
sampling. Approximately 25 water
quality and 250 biological sites are
sampled each year under the rotating
watershed approach. A random survey
of wadeable streams is also conducted
to increase the miles assessed for
aquatic life use. Seventeen lakes were
sampled in the Kentucky basin to
determine trophic status. Other data
sources used by the state include dis-
charge monitoring data, reports from
the Kentucky Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resources, and data from
agencies such as the U.S. Geological
Survey, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the U.S. Forest Service,
the Ohio River Valley Sanitation
Commission, and the Lexington
and Louisville local governments.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
46% 30%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
17% ' 7%
Lakes
Monitored-
Impaired
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
90% 8%
Individual Use Support
in Kentucky
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
[Rivers and Streams (Total wines = 49,105)"
Total Miles 73
Assessed
22
Lakes (Total Acres = 228,385)
"A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
114 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Louisiana
I
i
I , [-.
• Rivers
' State Border
For a copy of the Louisiana 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Albert E. Hindrichs
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
Office of Water Resources
Watershed Support Division
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
(225) 765-0511
e-mail: aljb@deq.state.la.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.deq.state.
la.us/planning/305b/
Surface Water Quality
About 16% of the assessed stream
miles, 8% of the assessed lake acres,
8% of the assessed estuarine square
miles, and 10% of assessed wetland
acres 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, estuaries, and
wedands. This is due to closer scrutiny
of metals criteria for water quality and
the increased sampling offish for
mercury contamination. Contamina-
tion of samples may also have led to
a high number of metals criteria
exceedences - a follow-up study in
1999 found that all but one of the
waterbodies tested were below metals
criteria levels. As a result of that study,
waterbodies with metals criteria
exceedences will be reevaluated before
any TMDLs are developed.
Organic enrichment/low
dissolved oxygen and pathogens are
also cited as major causes of stream
impairment. Major sources of pollu- •.
tion to streams include agricultural
practices, municipal point sources,
and natural sources. Primary causes ;
of lake impairment include organic
enrichment/low dissolved oxygen,
salinity/total dissolved solids, and
pathogens. Major sources of lake
impairment include natural sources,
hydrologic modification, and agricul-
ture. A large number of pollution
sources to lakes are unknown. In estu-
arine waters, major causes of impair-
ment include pathogen indicators and
nutrients. Major .sources of estuarine
impairment include municipal point
sources and land disposal although
many sources are unknown. Atmos-
pheric deposition and unknown
sources are the pathways for metals
impairing water quality in wetlands.
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 monitor-
ing network for the Mississippi River
Alluvial Aquifer. The data show that
water from this aquifer is of good
quality to meet public health stand-
ards with the exception of two wells
where arsenic levels were elevated.
However, this aquifer is only of fair
quality when considering aesthetic
factors such as taste, odor, and
appearance. ;
Programs Tp Restore
Water Quality
The water pollution controls
employed by the Louisiana
Department of Environmental
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries ITS
Quality (LDEQ) include municipal
and industrial wastewater discharge
permits, enforcement of permit
requirements, review and certification
of projects affecting water quality, and
implementation of best management
practices for nonpoint sources. In
1997, LDEQwas granted NPDES
delegation by EPA. The LDEC^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 Department of Agricul-
ture and Forestry, the U.S. Natural
Resource Conservation Service, and
the Louisiana State University Coop-
erative Extension Service.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Louisiana's surface water moni-
toring program consists of fixed-
station long-term network sampling,
intensive surveys, special studies,
and wastewater discharge compliance
sampling. The LDEQJias revised its
fixed-station monitoring program to
operate on a 5-year cycle with sample
collections occurring in two or three
basins each year and rotating from
year to year. In addition, long-term
trend sites on large rivers and Lake
Pontchartrain will continue to be
monitored statewide. While the state
does not maintain a regular fish tissue
monitoring program for organic com-
pounds, fish are frequently sampled in
response to complaints or as a result
of enforcement actions. Louisiana
does maintain an extensive fish tissue
monitoring program to test for mer-
cury contamination. This program
samples approximately 100 locations
per year.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
10% 81%
Individual Use Support
in Louisiana
Evaluated-
Impaired
8%
Evaluated-
Good
1%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
46% 30%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
17% 7%
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) . or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total wines = 66,294)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 1,078,031)
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 7,656)
Wetlands (Total Acres = 7,784,200)
a A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
116 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Maine
i
• Rivers
• State Border
For a copy of the Maine 2000 305(b) Surface Water Quality
IS',
report, contact:
Dave Courtemanch
Bureau of Land and Water Quality
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection
State House Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-7789
e-mail: dave.l.courtemanch@state.
me.us
Most of Maine's surface waters
support aquatic life and swimming.
Approximately 99% of all river miles
support both of these uses. Industrial
discharges, agriculture, and combined
sewer overflows (CSOs) are the major
sources of organic compounds and
pathogens that contaminate streams
and rivers. For lakes, 90% of the acres
support aquatic life and 96% support
swimming. Hydrologic modifications
have impaired some lakes by altering
water flow. Agriculture and urban
runoff often result in excessive organic
and nutrient enrichment that leads to
oxygen depletion. Less than 1% of
estuaries and bays are impaired for
aquatic life and swimming. Although
100% of all Maine surface waters
are included in this designated use
summary, some waters were not
assessed but were included into the
estimates by assuming they fully
supported these two uses.
All freshwater in Maine is classi-
fied as partially supporting fish con-
sumption due to a statewide mercury
advisory that limits fish consumption
for a subpopulation of the state. State-
wide consumption advisories are also
in effect for coastal waters due to
mercury and PCB contamination.
About 11% of estuaries are impaired
for shellfish consumption, primarily ,
due to an advisory for lobster tomaUey
(an organ that concentrates dioxins).
Maine currently does not have
designated uses or criteria to assess
wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
More than 60% of Maine house-
holds draw drinking water from
ground water sources. A significant
portion of Maine's ground water may
be contaminated, particularly in
unforested areas. Contaminants
include arsenic, MTBE, petroleum
compounds and halogenated solvents
(from leaking storage tanks), and bac-
teria. Petroleum compounds and halo-
genated solvents contaminate ground :
water. Bacterial contamination occurs
from injection of untreated wastewater
into the subsurface. Ground water
protection in Maine suffers from a
lack of monitoring data, funding, and
a centralized database. Although some
ground water may be highly contami-
nated, none has been classified as
undrinkable. Nonattainment areas
have not been designated.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Department of Environ- :
mental Protection (DEP) is attempt-
ing to reduce point source pollution
by seeking control of the NPDES
program from EPA. In addition, new
technology is being implemented to
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 117
reduce dioxin loadings from pulp and
paper mills.
Although CSOs serve 48 Maine
communities, the DEP is trying to
eliminate these systems. Since the
1998 report, 41 additional miles of
river have met the swimming criteria
as a result of eliminating CSOs.
Maine requires that all under-
ground tanks be registered and that
inadequate tanks be removed. Since
1986, approximately 23,000 tanks
have been removed. Maine also regu-
lates installation of new underground
storage tanks and closure of landfills
to protect ground water resources
from future leaks.
Maine is implementing measures
to protect the state's fish populations.
In 1999, the Federal Energy Regula-
tory Agency ordered the removal of
Edwards Dam from the Kennebec
River to improve water quality and
increase fish runs. An aggressive
management program was adopted to
aid the Atlantic salmon, which may be
listed as a threatened species. A future
goal is to manage excessive water
withdrawals that result in fish kills.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Maine is divided into six major
drainage basins. The DEP maintains a
5-year monitoring rotation. The
ambient ground water quality moni-
toring network comprises 2,198 public
water supplies. The Bureau of Reme-
diation and Waste Management is
responsible for sampling ground water
to determine the impact of spills and
landfills and to locate new water
supplies when old supplies become
contaminated from storage tanks.
Volunteers collected 40% of the
marine samples in 1999. Toxic pollut-
ants are monitored by the Surface
Water Ambient Toxics Program, the
Dioxin Monitoring Program, Gulf-
watch of the Gulf of Maine Council,
and the Casco Bay Estuary Project.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
44% 2%
Individual Use Support
in Maine
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
54% <1%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good impaired
50% 11%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
35% 4%
a A subset of Maine's desig-
nated 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 shore-
line waters in their assess-
ment of estuarine waters.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
jRivers and Streams (Total wines = 31,752)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 987,283)
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 2,852)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding
-------
118 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Maryland
• Rivers
' State Border
tap::
I ! !•
For a copy of the Maryland 2000
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
Approximately 54% of Mary-
land's surveyed river and stream miles
and 100% of the ocean shoreline
support aquatic life. Siltation, loss of
stream habitat, stream channelization,
excess nutrients, or bacteria impact
some rivers. In western Maryland,
acidic waters from abandoned coal
mines severely impact over 35 miles
of streams. More than half of the
assessed areas of lakes and estuaries in
Maryland have impaired water quality
that does not fully support aquatic
life. Lake and estuarine waters are
most often impaired due to low levels
of oxygen that are a result of excess
nutrients from agricultural runoff,
urban runoff, atmospheric deposition,
and natural nonpoint source runoff.
Excess nutrients stimulate algal
blooms and low dissolved oxygen
levels that adversely affect aquatic life.
Bacteria from agricultural, urban, and
natural runoff and failing septic sys-
tems can affect shellfish harvesting
and swimming in estuaries. PCBs
and pesticides that accumulate in fish
tissue impact a small percentage of
lakes and estuaries. Harmful algal '
blooms and potentially toxic algae
such as Pftesteria are issues of concern,
but currently do not negatively impact
water quality in the state.
Maryland did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is the only source ;
of drinking water for the Eastern •
Shore and residents of southern
Maryland. The state's ground water
is generally of acceptable quality,
although ground water is not used in
metropolitan areas because of local
contamination. Other localized prob- •
lems with ground water quality are
most common in the coastal plain and
central and western areas of the state,
where shallow aquifers and fractured
bedrock cause the ground water sup-
ply to be more easily impacted by land
use practices. Improper waste disposal,1
agricultural practices, and metals and
acid mine drainage from abandoned
coal mines all contribute to impair-
ment of ground water quality in these
areas. Across the state, extensive -
surveys for pesticides have revealed
very little contamination. The state
has been testing ground water for ;
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
since 1995, and has found that 6.2%
of public water suppliers detected the ,
substance in their ground, water
sources.
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries \V)
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Maryland's General Assembly
passed the Water Quality Improve-
ment Act in 1998, a landmark piece
of legislation designed to establish
strategies for reducing nutrient levels
in streams, rivers, and the Chesapeake
Bay. Under this act, almost all farms
in the state will be required to have
nutrient management plans. The state
will provide financial and technical
assistance to farmers and offer cost-
share assistance of up to 50% for
farmers to have their nutrient man-
agement planes developed by a private
consultant. The Agricultural Water
Quality Cost-Share Program also
pays up to 87.5% of the cost for farm-
ers to install certain best management
practices (BMPs) to protect water
quality. As part of the Chesapeake
Bay cleanup effort, Maryland has
pledged to reforest 600 miles of
streams and rivers by 2010. With
federal and state funds, the Conserva-
tion Reserve Enhancement Program
will help farmers create protective
buffers of trees between farmland and
streams in order to reduce harmful
runoff to surface waters.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Maryland's monitoring programs
include a combination of water chem-
istry, compliance, aquatic resource,
and habitat monitoring programs. In
addition to traditional monitoring,
Maryland also conducts an innovative
randomized sampling program using a
probabilistic approach to site selection,
which has greatly increased the state's
ability to assess more of its waters.
Besides these programs, data from the
Susquehanna River Basin Commis-
sion, local governments, and volunteer
groups provide additional monitoring
coverage in some areas of the state.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
40% 32%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good
23%
Impaired
6%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
25% 43%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
18% 14%
Individual Use Support
in Maryland
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
"Rivers and Streams (Total wines = s.
46
Lakes (Total Acres = 77,965)
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 2,522)
Ocean Shoreline (Total shore Miles = 32)
a A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
120 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Massachusetts
• Rivers
1 State Border
For a copy of the Massachusetts 2000
305(b) report, contact-
Richard McVoy, Ph.D.
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Division of Watershed Management
627 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Worcester, MA 01608
(508) 767-2877
e-mail: RichardMcvoy@state.ma.us
Surface Water Quality
Nearly half of the 1,344 river
miles assessed by Massachusetts now
fully support aquatic life. Over 30% of
assessed miles fully support swim-
ming. Swimming and boating in most
of these waters 25 years ago would
have been unthinkable. The state has
seen marked success in efforts to
reduce water quality impairment from
municipal and industrial point
sources. The completion of river
cleanup will require targeting primar-
ily nonpoint source pollution from
stormwater runoff and combined
sewer overflows (CSOs), and toxic
contamination in sediments (largely
historical).
Of the lake acres assessed, 49%
support aquatic life and 69% support
swimming. The causes of nonsupport
include the presence of nonnative
plants and the proliferation of aquatic
plants. Nonpoint sources such as
stormwater runoff and onsite waste-
water systems may promote problems
related to eutrophication. For lakes, ;
99% of the water assessed for fish
consumption was impaired due to
metals, PCBs, and dioxins that accu-
mulate in fish tissue. Most assess-
ments of Massachusetts's bays and
estuaries were targeted toward areas
of known pollution. The majority of
estuarine area assessed fully supported
swimming (69%) and aquatic life
(52%). All 9.5 estuarine acres assessed
for fish consumption were impaired
for that use. Municipal point sources
and other unknown sources are
responsible for water quality impair-
ment of estuaries.
Ground Water Quality
Protection of ground water from
point sources of pollution is achieved
through a Ground Water Discharge
Permit Program. The permits require
varying degrees of wastewater treat-
ment based on the quality and use of
the receiving ground water. However,
additional controls are needed to
eliminate contamination from septic
systems and sludge disposal. Con-
tamination of ground water supplies
used for drinking water has been a
problem in densely populated areas
where septic systems are used. Other
contaminants to ground water include
metals, chlorides, bacteria, inorganic
chemicals, radiation, nutrients, and
pesticides.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Although construction of
wastewater treatment plants has
significantly improved water quality,
$4 billion worth of wastewater needs
remain unfunded. The Nonpoint
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 121
Source Management Plan was
updated in 1999 and is being imple-
mented on a prioritized watershed
basis to prevent, control, and reduce
pollution from nonpoint sources. This
watershed-based program uses state
and federal Section 319 funds to pro-
vide technical assistance, regulatory
enforcement, training, and watershed
restoration efforts to combat nonpoint
sources. The state has also adopted a
CSO policy that provides engineering
targets for cleanup and abatement
projects.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The Department of Environ-
mental Protection (DEP) adopted a
watershed planning approach to coor-
dinate stream monitoring with waste-
water 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 com-
plete understanding of the integrity
of water resources.
Massachusetts is also working
with EPA under the 1999 Environ-
mental Performance Partnership
Agreement to expand the current
monitoring and assessment program
to include more resources for data
collection, identification of impaired
waters, and development of TMDLs.
The state DEP relies largely on other
organizations at the federal, state,
and local levels (such as the Division
of Marine Fisheries, the state Water
Resources Authority, and the
Buzzards Bay Program) to collect
monitoring data for coastal areas.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
11% 23%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
24% 42%
Lakes*
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
32% 40%
Evaluated-
Good
8%
Evaluated-
Impaired
18%
Not Attainable
* Excludes the Quabbin
Reservoir (25,000 acres).
Individual Use Support
in Massachusetts
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
[Rivers and Streams (Total wines = 8,229)"
52
Lakes (Total Acres = 151,173)
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 223)
Total Square
Miles Assessed 52
a A 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 Includes the Quabbin Reservoir (25,000 acres).
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
122 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Michigan
• Rivers
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
' State Border
For a copy of the Michigan 2000
305(b) report, contact:
John Wuycheck
Surface Water Quality Division
[Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48909-7773
(517) 335-4195
e-mail: Wuychecj@state.mi.us
A copy of the report may be
downloaded from the Internet at
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/
documents/deq-swq-gleas-
305b2000Report.doc
Surface Water Quality
The majority of Michigan's
assessed river miles support designated
uses (76%). PCB concentrations in
fish are the major cause of nonsupport
in rivers, followed by sediments,
pathogens, mercury, and nutrients.
Leading sources of pollution include
unspecified nonpoint sources, agricul-
ture, contaminated sediments, munici-
pal and industrial discharges, com-
bined sewer overflows (CSOs), and
urban runoff. Water quality in
Michigan's inland lakes is generally
good; however, a general fish con-
sumption advisory for all inland lakes
is in effect due to widespread mercury
contamination. Excessive nutrient
loadings from sewage, fertilizers,
detergents, and runoff cause nuisance
plant and algal growth in some lakes.
Four of the five Great Lakes
border Michigan. In general, Lakes
Superior, Michigan, and Huron have
good water quality except for a few
degraded locations near their shores.
Although water quality in the lakes
has been greatly improved by reduced
point source pollution, CSOs and
urban stormwater runoff continue to
cause bacterial contamination. All of
the Great Lakes :are under a fish
consumption advisory due to contam-
ination from PCBs, chlordane, and/or
dioxin. i
Michigan does not have a
program that routinely monitors
wetlands. ;
Ground Water Quality
Most of the ground, water is of *
excellent quality, but certain aquifers .
have been contaminated with toxic
materials leaking from waste disposal
sites, businesses, or government facili-
ties. The Michigan Ground Water
Protection Strategy and Implementa-
tion Plan identifies specific program
initiatives, schedules, and agency
responsibilities for protecting the
state's ground water resources.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Major point source reductions
in phosphorus arid organic materials
have been obtained through the
NPDES program and legislation that
requires detergents sold in Michigan
to contain <0.5%!phosphorous by
weight. However; expanded efforts are
needed to control nonpoint source
pollution, eliminate CSOs, and reduce
toxic contamination.
The Clean Michigan Initiative
controls $50 million to fund programs
that implement watershed manage- '
ment plans or address nonpoint \
sources of pollution. Section 319
grants are used to provide local •
governments with educational and
technical assistance on watershed
management. Michigan is also trying
to implement a Water Quality Trad-
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 123
ing Program. This program would
reduce costs of theTMDL Program
and provide economic incentives for
reduced loadings.
Michigan may attempt to
remove contaminated sediments from
White, Muskegon, and Deer Lakes.
Contaminated sediments and fish
were removed from Newburgh Lake
in 1998. After the contaminated
species were removed, the lake was
repopulated with healthy fish.
Although the effort was completed in
1999, its effectiveness has yet to be
documented.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Michigan employs a 5-year
watershed monitoring program to
determine if state waters meet water
quality standards. Each year the state
focuses on 9 to 19 of the 57 major
watersheds in Michigan. The state's
surface water monitoring strategy was
recently updated, and additional fund-
ing of $500,000 per year was provided
to bolster both local and state moni-
toring efforts. The enhanced program
consists of eight interrelated monitor-
ing elements: fish contaminants, water
chemistry, sediment chemistry, biolog-
ical integrity, physical habitat, wildlife
contaminants, inland lake quality
and eutrophication, and stream flow.
Michigan supplements water quality
monitoring through volunteer
programs.
Michigan is currently developing
an inventory of all the wetlands in the
state. The Department of Environ-
mental Quality developed an Index of
Biotic Integrity that may be used to
assess coastal wetlands in the future.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
76% 24%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Lakes*
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
24%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 76%
* Michigan considers all lakes
impaired due to a statewide
fish consumption advisory.
Note: Figures may not add to
100% due to rounding.
Individual Use Support
in Michigan
Percent
Good
Impaired
Designated Use3
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
[Great Lakes (Total snore wines = 3,250)
Total Shore
Miles Assessed
3,250b
100
Summary of Use Support
in Michigan
Percent
Good
Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total wines = 49,136)c
Total Miles
Assessed
76
24
Lakes (Total Acres = 889,600}
(Total Acres = 6,239,763)
a A subset of Michigan's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to
the state's 30S(b) report for a full description of the state's uses.
b Includes the effects of statewide fish advisories in assessments of lake
waters.
c Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
124 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Minnesota
• Rivers
' State Border
For a copy of the Minnesota 2000
30S(b) report, contact:
Elizabeth Brinsmade
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Environmental Outcomes Division
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
(651) 296-7312
e-mail: elizabeth.brinsmade@pca.
state.mn.us
Surface Water Quality
As part of its basin management
approach, Minnesota updated assess-
ments for three basins for the 2000
305(b) report—the Cedar and Des
Moines, Missouri, and Rainy River
basins. Statewide, about 50% of the
assessed river miles have good quality
that supports aquatic life, and 26%
of the assessed river miles and 68%
of the assessed lake acres support
primary contact. The most common
problems identified in rivers are
turbidity, pathogens, low dissolved
oxygen, suspended solids, and nutri-
ents. Nonpoint sources, such as land
disposal and runoff, generate most of
the pollution in rivers. Nutrients are
the primary cause of pollution in
lakes. Nonpoint sources contribute
most of these nutrients. Minnesota's
272 miles of Lake Superior shoreline
have consumption advisories for
certain species and size classes offish.
Most of the poEution from point
sources has been controlled, but
atmospheric deposition and runoff
still degrade water quality, particularly
in agricultural regions. Each of the
three river basins addressed in the
2000 report contain rivers and lakes
with fish advisories due to elevated :
mercury and PCBs.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies the drink-
ing water needs for 70% of Minne-
sota's population. The Minnesota
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 over 100 ground water constituents,
including nitrates. The program has ''
now shifted its emphasis to problem
investigation and; effectiveness moni-
toring at local and small-regional
scales.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Minnesota will target specific
waterbodies and watersheds for
protection, restoration, or monitoring
based on forthcoming Basin Infor-
mation Documents (BIDs). These
documents will include the 305(b)
assessments as well as information
on various water resource issues. The <
BIDs will also include GIS maps
depicting the locations of permitted
feedlots and relative numbers of
animal units per feedlot by major
watershed. In addition, Minnesota
has identified specific contaminants
that significantly contribute to water
quality degradation. Excessive inputs
of nitrogen in some river basins have
contributed to the hypoxic zone in the
Gulf of Mexico. Atmospheric deposi-
tion of mercury has resulted in wide- i
spread contamination of waterbodies.
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 1.25
Phosphorous from wastewater dis-
charges and runoff has led to eutro-
phication in some surface waters. The
MPCA is developing plans to reduce
each of these contaminants.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
In the 2000 assessments, in addi-
tion to monitoring data collected by
MPCA, data from the Big Fork River
Watch, U.S. Geological Survey, South
Dakota Environmental Natural
Resources and Clean Water Partner-
ship projects were used. Starting with
the year 2000, Minnesota will only
use monitored data in their surface
water assessments.
Minnesota is developing a
random sampling approach to select
monitoring sites within river basins.
Monitoring will focus on flow, basic
measures of water quality, and biologi-
cal measures. Criteria to assess stream
health are being developed from the
first phase of monitoring. Minnesota
also maintains an Ambient Stream
Monitoring Program with 82 sam-
pling stations. Approximately half of
these stations are sampled each year.
The state also performs fish tissue
sampling and lake assessments, and
supports citizen monitoring programs.
The MPCA continues to be
involved with field investigations into
the cause of frog malformations. Part-
nerships with the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences and
, the USGS Water Resources Division
and Biological Resources Division
have been useful in carrying out
teratogenic assays, histopathological
studies, and water flow patterns at
study sites.
The state is developing methods
and criteria to assess depressional and
riparian wetlands. A pilot effort is
underway to develop a citizen wetland
assessment program in cooperation
with selected local governments.
Data Quality*
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
30% 70%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
64% 36%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
'Minnesota does not use
evaluated data for assessment
purposes.
Note: Figures may not add to
100% due to rounding.
Individual Use Support
in Minnesota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
ftfvers and Streams (Total wines = 91,944)"
Total Miles
Assessed 50
10,876
(Total Acres = 3,290,101)
a A 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.
-------
126 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Mississippi
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
— Impaired
—• Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
Mississippi uses a rotating basin approach.
The Pascagoula Basin was most recently assessed.
For a copy of the Mississippi 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Natalie Guedon
Water Quality Assessment Branch
Office of Pollution Control,
Surface Water Division
Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601) 961-5150
e-mail: Natalie_Guedon@deq.state.
ms.us
A copy of the report may be down-
loaded from: http://www.deq.state.
ms.us/newweb/homepages.nsf
Surface Water Quality
Surface waters in Mississippi are
used for drinking, fishing, harvesting
shellfish, processing food, and sup-
porting aquatic life and recreational
activities. Sources of nonpoint pollu-
tion, such as urban runoff and failing
septic systems, are responsible for the
majority of impaired surface waters.
Of the river miles assessed, 72% have
fair to poor ratings for aquatic life and
88% do not fully support swimming.
For the 2000 report, most river assess-
ments were based on evaluated data
from areas of known or suspected
contamination. Sediment, turbidity,
and pesticides are the primary sources
of contamination in rivers. DDT con-
tamination offish in the Mississippi
Delta is also a concern, although
concentrations in fish have decreased
tenfold since 1972 when DDT use
was banned. Most assessed lake acres
support aquatic life (97%), swimming
(100%), and fish consumption (90%).;
Organic enrichment, pesticides, and
pathogens are the primary causes of
contamination when impairment !
occurs. Most of the assessed bays
and estuaries support aquatic life
(90%), primary cbntact (98%), and
fish consumption (100%). Metals
and nutrients are: the most common
pollutants impacting bays and estuar-
ies.
In the past, coastal waters suffered
from elevated bacterial counts due to
wastewater discharge from private and
public sewage systems. This problem
has been partially alleviated by the
construction of regional wastewater
treatment facilities, although expan-
sions are needed to meet demand. >
Currently, the majority of assessed
coastal waters support aquatic life
(100%), swimming (82%), and fish
consumption (100%).
Mississippi did not report on the
condition of its wetlands. Some
wetlands have been lost due to the
conversion of land for agriculture and
residential and commercial develop-
ment. ;
Ground Water Quality
Ground water in Mississippi is
of good quality because day layers
prevent widespread contamination in ;
most aquifers. When contamination
does occur, the most frequent sources
are petroleum compounds from
leaking underground storage tanks,
bacteria and viruses from failing septic
systems, and brine from petroleum
exploration and production. Few data
exist for domestic wells.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Mississippi adopted compre-
hensive regulations for conducting
Section 401 Water Quality Certifica-
tions, enabling the state to review
federal licenses and permits for
_
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 127
compliance with state water quality
standards. Mississippi also expanded
its definition of state waters to include
wetlands and ground waters. Ground
water protection efforts are focused
on the Wellhead Protection Program,
which addresses the compatibility
between water quality databases and
geographic information systems. The
immediate goals of the Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) are
to establish sufficient wastewater
collection and treatment along the
coast and address nonpoint source
pollution problems. Installing a weir,
closing four distributaries, and enlarg-
ing the channel addressed the prob-
lem of low flow in the Pearl River.
The increased flow rate should help to
preserve the natural mussel habitat.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Mississippi has adopted a basin
rotation approach to water quality
monitoring and assessment. The state
is divided into five basin management
groups. Targeted waters in one basin
management group are assessed each
year. Under this plan, comprehensive
statewide assessments will be com-
pleted every 5 years. The first of these
annual assessments, of the Pascagoula
River Basin, was reported in the 2000
305(b) report. Mississippi routinely
monitors 143 stations per year.
Mississippi is developing an
Index of Biological Integrity to ensure
a reliable and scientifically defensible
biological assessment methodology
for wadeable streams and rivers. This
effort involved sampling at more than
475 streams. These data will be used
to reevaluate the 303(d) listing of
impaired waters for streams that were
listed without site-specific monitoring
data.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
10% 12%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
13% 65%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
84% 9%
Evaluated-
Impaired
3%
a A 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 assess-
ments are biased due to the
state's extensive use of evalu-
ated nonpoint source assess-
ment data, which focused on
problem areas.
Individual Use Support
in Mississippi
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 84,oo3)b'°
Lakes (Total Acres = 500,000)
Stuanes and Bays (Total Square Miles = 760)
.Ocean Shoreline (Total shore Miles = 245)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
128 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Missouri
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Missouri 2000
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, channelization,
and excessive siltation. In lakes, low
dissolved oxygen from upstream dam
releases, pesticides, and metals are the
most common impairments. Agricul-
ture, hydrologic modification, contam-
inated sediments, and urban runoff are
the leading sources of lake degrada-
tion.
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 concentrations of chlordane,
PCBs, and other contaminants in
these fish. Mercury levels in fish in .
Arkansas and Missouri appear to be
increasing over time. Atmospheric
deposition is suspected as a major
cause. :
Missouri did not report on the ,
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
In general, ground water quantity
and quality increases from north to
south and west to east. Deep ground
water aquifers in 'northern and west-
ern Missouri are not suitable for
drinking water due to high concentra-
tions of minerals ifrom natural sources.
Nitrates, bacteria^ and pesticides also
contaminate wells in this region. It is
estimated that 3Q% of the private
wells occasionally exceed drinking
water standards for nitrates, 30% ;
for bacteria, and about 5% for pesti-
cides. Statewide, the highest priority
concerns include ground water
contamination from septic tanks,
pesticide and fertilizer applications, ;
and underground storage tanks.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Missouri Clean Water '
Commission has revised its regula-
tions to bring confined animal opera-
tions into the point source permit
program consistent with federal j
requirements. Nonpoint source con-
trol efforts have been greatly expanded
over the past few years. A dedicated
state sales tax provides funds for
watershed-level soil erosion control
programs.
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 129
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
In 1998, a task force from state
and federal agencies outlined a
statewide aquatic resources monitor-
ing plan. Missouri's water quality
monitoring strategy features fixed-
station chemical ambient monitoring
sites, short-term intensive chemical
monitoring studies, a rapid visual/
aquatic invertebrate assessment pro-
gram, and detailed biological sampling
in support of development of biocrite-
ria. Missouri now has in place
programs that register and inspect
underground storage tanks, programs
for wellhead protection, sealing of
abandoned wells, and closing of
hazardous waste sites.
Missouri requires toxicity testing
of effluents for all major dischargers;
has a fish tissue monitoring program
for selected metals, pesticides and
PCBs; and monitors river sediments
for toxic metals and organics and sedi-
ment pore water for toxicity. Several
nonpoint source watershed projects
related to management of manure or
farm chemicals have their own moni-
toring programs.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
14% 16%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
39% 32%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
70% 21%
Evaluated-
Good
9%
Evaluated-
Impaired
0%
Individual Use Support
in Missouri
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
iRivers and Streams (Total Miles = 51,978)"
47
Total Miles
Assessed 53
Lakes (Total Acres = 293,305)
a A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
130 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Montana
I
'
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
—— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For information about Montana's
assessment program or 305(b) report-
ing process, contact:
Robert L. Barry
Montana Department of
Environmental Quality
2209 Phoenix Building
Helena, MT 59601
(406) 444-5342
e-mail: rbarry@state.mtus
Montana's 2000 assessment data may
be accessed in an interactive format on
the Internet at: http://nris.state.mt.
usAvis/environet/
Surface Water Quality
Most perennial streams, major
lakes, and reservoirs are included in
Montana's assessment database, but
the coverage of intermittent streams
and small, nonpublic lakes is limited.
Of the river miles assessed, 18% fully
support aquatic life and 51% fully
support swimming. The primary
causes of river impairment include
flow and other habitat alterations,
siltation, metals, and nutrients. The
majority of lakes and reservoirs are
impaired for aquatic life (69%) and
swimming (60%). The main causes
of impairment in lakes are metals,
noxious plants, nutrients, siltation, and
organic enrichment. Agriculture and
resource extraction are the major
sources of these impairments. Mon-
tana did not report on the condition
of its wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
More than 50% of the state's
population utilizes ground water
sources for their domestic water
supply. Ground water is plentiful and '
the quality is generally excellent, but
Montana's aquifers are vulnerable to -
pollution from increased human activ-
ity associated with population growth.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
i
The Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ) administers ;
several programs to restore surface
water quality. Point source discharges :
are limited under the Montana Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System i
(MPDES) permit program and '-.
Nondegradation Rules. The Source
Water Protection Program helps iden-
tify the causes and sources of contami-
nation in public water supplies, assess
susceptibility to further contamina- '
tion, implement protection programs, :
and communicate information to
the public. The Water Pollution
Control State Revolving Fund Loan
Program is available to fund water !
pollution control projects. The DEQ_
is currently evaluating wetlands to
determine their restoration and
management needs.
The Ground Water Remediation
Program is responsible for contami-
nated ground water sites that are not
addressed by other state authorities.
The Montana Ground Water Pollu- ;
tion Control System administers :
permits for sources that may pollute
ground water (e.g., tailings and waste \
storage ponds) to minimize future \
contamination. ' :
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Montana law mandates that
"sufficient credible'data" be used to :
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 151
designate waters as threatened or
impaired. During the 2000 assessment
cycle, Montana developed a new
methodology to comply with this law.
The revised protocol uses physical,
chemical, and biological factors to
determine when water quality stand-
ards are being violated. Waters that
were designated as impaired using the
previous methodology with insuffi-
cient data have been removed from
the threatened and impaired list and
are prioritized for future monitoring.
Ambient water quality monitoring is
also used to supplement monitoring
data and provide unbiased informa-
tion on statewide water quality and
trends.
The Montana Bureau of Mines
and Geology is primarily responsible
for characterizing ground water qual-
ity. The Ground Water Monitoring
Program provides a long-term record
of ground water quality and levels.
The statewide monitoring network
currently contains about 830 wells
that are monitored monthly or quar-
terly. The Ground Water Characteri-
zation Program maps the distribution,
water quality, and physical properties
of the state's aquifers. Ground water
from aquifers in 28 areas will be
characterized for availability, quality,
vulnerability, and interaction with
surface water. The USGS also moni-
tors water level at 10 sites under a
cooperative agreement.
All of Montana's assessment
information is available on the Inter-
net. Surface water assessments are
maintained in the EnviroNet data-
base. Ground water data are contained
in the Ground Water Information
Center (GWIC) database. Both
systems are interactive and can be
used to view individual or summary
reports on water quality.
Data Quality
Due to recent changes in
Montana's assessment
program, a display of
monitored and evaluated
information is not an
accurate representation of
water quality in the state.
Individual Use Support
in Montana
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total wines = i76,750)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 844,802)
a A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
132 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Nebraska
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
— Impaired
—- Indeterminate
— Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Nebraska 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Michael Callam
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: rnichael.callam@ndeq.state.
ne.us
Surface Water Quality
Agriculture is the most wide-
spread source of water quality
problems in Nebraska, but urban
runoff is also a concern. Agricultural
runoff introduces excess sedimenta-
tion, bacteria, suspended solids,
pesticides, 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. Monitoring 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 pollu-
tion in lakes include agriculture, con- ;
struction, and urban runoff. Nebraska ;
also has 35 fish consumption advi- '•
sories in effect. The contaminants !
of concern include methylmercury,
dieldrin, and PCBs.
Ground Water Quality
Although natural ground water
quality in Nebraska is good, hundreds .
of individual cases of ground water
contamination have been docu-
mented. Major sources of ground '
water contamination include agricul- :
tural activities, industrial facilities, ;
leaking underground storage tanks,
oil or hazardous substance spills, solid
waste landfills, wastewater lagoons, ;
brine disposal pits, and septic systems.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Nebraska's Nonpoint Source '.
(NFS) Management Program concen-
trates on protecting ground and ;
surface water resources by performing ;
watershed assessments and promoting
implementation projects. Nebraska
funded 19 major NPS-related projects :
under Section 319,of the federal
Clean Water Act during 1998-1999. :
Nebraska revised wetland water
quality standards to protect beneficial :
uses of aquatic life.; aesthetics, wildlife, ;
and agricultural water supply. The
state also protects wetlands with the
water quality certification program
and water quality monitoring.
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The state's NFS Management
Program cannot be effective without
monitoring information to identify
and prioritize waters impacted by
NFS, develop NFS control plans, and
evaluate the effectiveness of imple-
mented best management practices. In
response to this need, Nebraska devel-
oped an NFS surface water quality
monitoring strategy that uses a rotat-
ing basin approach. In 1998, the
Loup, Niobrara, and White/Hat
Basins were assessed. In 1999, the
Lower Platte and Nemaha Basins
were assessed.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
9% 55%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
33% 3%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
88% 2%
Evaluated-
Good
4%
Evaluated-
Impaired
7%
Individual Use Support
in Nebraska
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
iRivers and Streams (total wines = si,573)b
Total Miles 75
Assessed
24
Lakes (Total Acres = 280,000)
Total Acres
Assessed
89,764
114,734
4,083
100
a A subset of Nebraska'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.
-------
134 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Nevada
Aquatic Life Use Support
— Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Nevada 2000 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 cycle,
Nevada assessed 1,559 miles of the
3,000 miles of accessible perennial
streams for aquatic life uses. Thirty-
nine percent of the assessed stream
miles fully supported this use. In
lakes, 100% of the assessed acres fully
supported aquatic life uses. Nevada
assessed 19,326 acres of wetlands in
this reporting cycle, all of which fully
supported all assessed uses.
Agricultural practices (irrigation,
grazing, and flow regulation) have the
greatest impact on Nevada's water
resources. Urban drainage systems :
contribute nutrients, heavy metals, '
and organic substances that deplete
oxygen. Flow reductions also have a
great impact on streams, limiting dilu-i
tion of salts, minerals, and pollutants.
A no-consumption fish advisory is in
effect for portions of the Carson River
and all of the waters in the Lahontan
Valley. The advisory is in place due to
high levels of mercury in fish tissue, i
Ground Water Quality
Nevada lacks Comprehensive
ground water protection legislation,
but the state does have statutes that \
control individual sources of contami- I
nation, including mining, under-
ground storage tanks, septic systems, <
handling of hazardous materials and
waste, solid waste disposal, under- i
ground injection wells, agricultural
practices, and wastewater disposal.
Land use statutes also enable local
authorities to implement Wellhead ;
Protection Plans by adopting zoning ;
ordinances, subdivision regulations, ;
and site plan review procedures. Local
authorities can implement: certain
source control programs. '
Programs Tp Restore
Water Quality
Nevada's Nonpoint Source (NFS) '•
Management Plan laims to reduce ;
NPS pollution with interagency coor- :
dination, education; programs, and
incentives that encourage voluntary
installation of best management
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 135
practices. The program promotes pub-
lic awareness, grazing and irrigation
practices, and erosion control meas-
ures. The state's current approach to
controlling NPSs is to seek voluntary
compliance through nonregulatory
programs of technical and financial
assistance, training, technology
transfer, demonstration projects, and
education. Nevada has developed a
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program (CSGWPP).The
core of the CSGWPP was endorsed
by the EPA in November 1997.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Several state, federal, and local
agencies regularly sample chemical
and physical parameters in the 14
hydrologic regions of the state. The
state also coordinates intensive field
studies on Nevada's major river sys-
tems, theTruckee River Basin, Carson
River Basin, Walker River Basin, and
the Humboldt River Basin. The state
also monitors several lakes and reser-
voirs. Additional monitoring data are
provided by the U.S. Geological
Survey and the Nevada Division of
Agriculture.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
33% 59%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
6%
2%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
42% 0%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
58% 0%
Individual Use Support
in Nevada
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
.Rivers and Streams (Total wines = 143,578)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 553,279)
Summary of Use Support
in Nevada
Wetlands (Total Acres = 136,650)
Total Acres
Assessed
19,326
100
a A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
136 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
New Hampshire
'In ii
• Riven
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
1 State Border
For a copy of the New Hampshire
2000 30S(b) report, contact:
Gregg Comstock
Water Division
Department of Environmental
Services
State of New Hampshire
6 Hazen Drive
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03302-0095
(603) 271-2457
e-mail: gcomstock@des.state.nh.us
A copy of the report may be down-
loaded from: www.des.state.nh.us/
wmb/wmbpubsJitm
Surface Water Quality
In 1994, New Hampshire issued
a statewide freshwater fish consump-
tion advisory due to mercury levels
found in fish tissue. The primary
source of mercury is believed to be
atmospheric deposition from both
in-state and out-of-state sources.
When this advisory is included in the
assessment, all fresh surface waters are,
by definition, less than fully support-
ing all uses. However, if this advisory
is not included in the assessment, over
83% of assessed river and stream miles
and 96% of assessed lake acres fully
support all uses.
With respect to tidal waters,
approximately 99% support swimming
and aquatic life. However, none of
New Hampshire's 18 miles of coastal
shoreline, 54 miles of open ocean
waters, or 21.24 square miles of
estuaries fully supports all uses. This is
primarily due to a bluefish consump-
tion advisory for polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs)' in fish tissue. Por-
tions of the estuaries are also consid-
ered impaired due to elevated PCB
concentrations in lobster tomalley
and bacteria contamination in waters
designated for shellfish harvesting.
Excluding the statewide fresh-
water fish advisory, 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 ',
responsible for most of the pollution
entering New Hampshire's waters.
New Hampshire has an estimated
7,500 acres of tidal wetlands, and
400,000 to 600,000 acres of non-
tidal wetlands. Permitted projects and
violations over thelpast 2 years have
impacted less than 0.04 percent of the
state's nontidal wetlands and there :
have not been any net losses of tidal '~
wetlands. :
Ground Water Quality
New Hampshire is highly
dependent on ground water for drink-
ing water. Although natural ground
water quality from stratified aquifers is ;
generally good, aesthetic concerns
such as taste, odor, land iron content
exist. Water from bedrock wells is
also generally of good quality,
although this water can be impacted
by naturally occurring contaminants ',
(e.g. fluoride, arsenic, mineral radio-
activity, and radon gas). ;
In addition to naturally occurring :
contamination, many areas are i
impacted by releases of petroleum and
volatile organic compounds from local
petroleum facilities; commercial and
industrial operations, and landfills.
Sodium used during winter as road •
salt is also a contaminant of concern.
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 137
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
New Hampshire has numerous
laws, regulations, and programs to
abate pollution from point and
nonpoint sources. All significant
discharges of untreated municipal and
industrial wastewater have been elimi-
nated. To resolve remaining water
pollution problems, the Department
of Environmental Services (DES)
created the Watershed Management
Bureau in 1999 and is currently refin-
ing and implementing a watershed
assessment approach.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The DES has several lake assess-
ment programs, including an excellent
volunteer monitoring program that
was initiated in 1985. Additional pro-
grams include acid pond monitoring,
beach monitoring, and trophic sur-
veys. The DES implemented an in-
stream biological monitoring program
in 1985, a 3-year rotating watershed
monitoring program for rivers in
1989, and a volunteer monitoring
program for rivers in 1997. In the
future, the DES will investigate alter-
natives to increase the percentage of
assessed waters.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored-
Good
16%
Monitored-
Im paired
7%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
68% 9%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
82% 3%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
14% 1%
a A 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.
0 Does not include statewide
fish advisory.
Individual Use Support
in New Hampshire
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
fifvers and Streams (Total wines = io,88i)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 168,017)
Estuaries and Bays (Total square wines = 21)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
138 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
New Jersey
• Rivers
1 State Border
For a copy of the New Jersey 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Kevin Berry
Division of Science Research
and Technology
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
401 East State Street, 1st Floor
P.O. Box 409
Trenton, NJ 08625-0409
e-mail: kberry@dep.state.nj.us
A copy of the report may be down-
loaded from: http://www.state.nj.us/
dep/dsr/watershed/305b/305b.htm
Surface Water Quality
The majority of river and stream
miles assessed for this reporting cycle
are impaired for aquatic life support
(63%), fish consumption (76%), and
swimming (83%), although monitor-
ing does not specifically target swim-
ming areas. Most pineland rivers fully
support swimming. Fish communities
improved in the Passaic, Raritan, and
Delaware basins. Of the lake acres
assessed, 87% support aquatic life and
67% support swimming. Lakes in
New Jersey are typically shallow
impoundments that are prone to
eutrophication. Only 1% of the
assessed lake acres support fish con-
sumption. This is due to statewide
fish consumption advisories for chain
pickerel and largemouth bass issued as
a result of mercury contamination.
New Jersey did not assess wetlands for
designated use support.
Marine waters in New Jersey are
typically of good quality. Of the
estuarine area assessed, 77% support
aquatic life and 98% support swim-
ming. All coastal waters support
aquatic life, fish consumption, and
swimming. Fish consumption use was
threatened due to ;advisories for
striped bass, American eel, lobster, and
bluefish due to organics contamina-
tion. '
Fecal bacteria, nutrients, and
mercury contribute to impairments
identified in surface waters. Nutrients
and fecal bacteria enter waterways
from nonpoint sources such as geese,
erosion, stormwater, and runoff.
Localized issues arise from combined
sewer overflows (GSOs), septic sys- ;
terns, occasional wastewater treatment
plant malfunctions, and possibly live- '
stock. Air deposition is a major source
of mercury and nitrogen.
Ground Water Quality
There is generally an ample
supply of good qualify ground water
in New Jersey. However, localized
ground water quality issues occur from:
naturally occurring contaminants
(e.g., radium, radon, arsenic) and r
pollutants (e.g., mercury, bacteria, !
pesticides). Over 6,000 sites are con-
taminated. New Jersey has established '
a Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) of 10 parts per billion for
arsenic. Six percent of wells sampled
in the piedmont area exceeded this
standard, although none exceeded the
national MCL of 50 parts per billion.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Department of Environ- '
mental Protection (DEP) continues I
to implement traditional water pollu-
tion control programs as well as ;
watershed management programs. i
Total Maximum Daily Loads '
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 139
(TMDLs) were developed for nutri-
ents in two lakes, volatile organic
compounds in the Delaware River,
and fecal bacteria in the Whippany
River. Nonpoint source projects were
focused on reducing biological impair-
ments, nutrients, and bacteria. Further
improvements are expected through
municipal stormwater permitting
and the CSO program. A Lake
Restoration Task Force will issue
recommendations on financing lake
management and restoration activities.
A Shellfish Action Plan aims to
increase shellfish beds available for
harvest from 88% to 90% by 2005.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The 151 watersheds in New
Jersey are aggregated into 20 Water-
shed Management Areas. River
assessments were based on data from
79 stations in the Ambient Stream
Monitoring Network and 200 addi-
tional sites that will be sampled for
2 years. Aquatic life assessments were
based on data from fisheries and
820 stations in the Ambient Biologi-
cal Monitoring Network. Contami-
nants in fish tissue were evaluated
through special projects.
Marine waters are monitored
through the Cooperative Coastal
Monitoring Program, Marine and
Coastal Water Quality Monitoring
Program, and EPA Ocean Monitor-
ing Program. The Shellfish Sanitation
Program monitors coliform bacteria at
2,500 stations in shellfish harvesting
areas. The DEP and U.S. Geological
Survey redesigned the ground water
monitoring network. The new Private
WeE Testing Act mandates sampling
for domestic wells. Site-specific moni-
toring is conducted at contaminated
sites.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
This pie chart shows
the proportions of waters
assessed for Aquatic Life
Use Support that
was based on each
type of data.
Rivers*
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
37% 63%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
" Data for aquatic life use are
given because a Summary of
Use Support was not avail-
able.
Individual Use Support
in New Jersey
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
[givers and Streams (Total wines = 8,020)"
.Lakes (Total Acres = 72,590)
Estuaries and Bays (Total square wines = 725)
Total Square 77
Miles Assessed
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.
b Includes intermittent streams.
c Includes statewide fish consumption advisory.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
140 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
New Mexico
• Rivers
> State Border
(fel'L;
Jj fit; •
lit IE IK;:
For a copy of the New Mexico 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Gary King
New Mexico Environment
Department
Surface Water Quality Bureau
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe,NM 87502-6110
(505) 827-2928
e-mail: gary_king@nmenv.state.nm.us
Surface Water Quality
About 30% of New Mexico's
surveyed stream miles have good
water quality that supports aquatic life
uses. Ninety-nine percent of the
surveyed river and stream miles sup-
port swimming. The leading problems
in streams include turbidity, thermal
modifications, pathogens, and metals.
Nonpoint sources are responsible for
over 91% of the degradation in New
Mexico's 2,675 impaired river and
stream miles. Sources of impairment
include agriculture, hydrologic and
habitat modification, recreational
activities, and resource extraction.
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 contamination from
unknown sources;appears in fish
caught at 23 reservoirs. However,
water and sediment samples from sur-
veyed lakes and reservoirs have not
detected high concentrations of mer-
cury. Fish may contain high concen-
trations of mercury in waters with
minute quantities; of mercury because
the process of bkraccumulation con-
centrates mercury in fish tissue. :
New Mexico did not report on
the condition of wetlands. ;
Ground Water Quality
Approximately 90% of the popu-
lation of New Mexico depends on
ground water for drinking water. The
Environment Department identified >
at least 1,235 cases of ground water
contamination between 1927 and '.
December 1999. Contamination most
often occurs in areas where the aquifer
is vulnerable due to a shallow water
table. Nonpoint sources of ground
water contamination, which account ;
for about 13% of pontamination ;
statewide, include small household
septic tanks and cesspools, animal
feedlot operations, urban runoff, and
application of agricultural chemicals.
Leaking underground storage tanks,
injection wells, landfills, mining and
milling, and miscellaneous industrial
sources also contaminate ground water
in New Mexico. New Mexico oper-
ates a ground water discharger permit i
program that includes ground water
standards for intentional discharges :
and a spill cleanup provision for other
discharges.
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 141
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
protect waters from point source
discharges. Nonpoint source surface
water pollution is addressed by the
State Nonpoint Source Water Pollu-
tion Management Program to prevent
and abate pollution by implementing
best management practices (BMPs).
This program helps insure that state
•water quality standards are met and
that wetlands are protected through
the water quality certification process
for Section 404 permits. The New
Mexico Environment Department has
also worked with the U.S. Forest
Service to reduce nonpoint source
pollution in many of the state's high-
est quality waters. These efforts have
been quite successful in many cases
and have resulted in the elimination of
some longstanding nonpoint source
problems.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
New Mexico uses a wide variety
of methods to assess its water quality.
Second-party data including discharg-
ers' reports, published literature, data
stored in EPA's database, as well as
data generated by the U.S. Geological
Survey are routinely reviewed. The
New Mexico Environment Depart-
ment generates large amounts of data
through intensive surveys, assessment
of citizen complaints, special studies
aimed at areas of special concern
(e.g., mercury concentrations in water,
sediments, and fish), volunteer moni-
toring programs, short- and long-term
nonpoint source pollution monitoring,
and effluent monitoring.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
17% 43%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good impaired
21% 19%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
12% 18%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
8% 62%
Individual Use Support
in New Mexico
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
[Rivers and Streams (Total wines = 110,741)"
Total Miles
Assessed
70
Lakes (Total Acres = 997,467)
a A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
142 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
New York
• Rivers
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
> State Border
For a copy of the New York 2000
305(b) report, contact:
JeffMyers
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Watershed Assessment
and Research
SO Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518) 457-7130
e-mail: jamyers@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Surface Water Quality
In previous years, New York has
focused monitoring efforts on areas
where water quality problems were
reported or suspected to occur, and
has assumed that all other waters in
the state were unimpaired. During
this reporting cycle, the state began
revising their methods so that more
good quality waters are monitored. In
light of this transition, the assessment
information reported for 2000 may
underestimate the size of fully sup-
porting waters in the state. Seventy-
two percent of New York's assessed
river and stream miles and 16% of
assessed lake acres have good water
quality that supports aquatic life uses.
Swimming is supported in 52% of
assessed river and stream miles and
26% of assessed lake acres. All of the
374 surveyed Great Lakes shoreline
miles were impaired for fish consump-
tion. •
Agriculture is a major source of
nutrients and silt that impact New
York's rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
Erosion and urban runoff are other ',
major sources of water quality impair-
ment in rivers and lakes. Urban
runoff, combined sewer overflows,
and municipal wastewater treatment
plants are the primary sources of
pathogens and other contaminants
causing impairment to 100% of the
assessed square miles of estuaries.
It should be noted that New York
assessed only about one-quarter of :
the state's total estuarine area, and the
remaining estuarine areas were not
targeted for asses$ment because prob-
lems were not suspected. New York ;
did not report on the condition of
wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
One-third of New York residents
(approximately 6 bullion people) 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. Nonpoint source contami-
nants such as bacteria, viruses, syn-
thetic organic chemicals, nitrate, and
chloride threaten 'ground water quality
throughout the state. Of private wells
contaminated by organic chemicals in
upstate New York, the majority (65%)
of cases results frdrn petroleum-related
contaminants such as methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MTBE) and benzene. (
t F
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
New York has recently begun a
program to develop Watershed Resto-
ration and Protection Action Strate-
gies for all state watersheds. These
strategies propose the priorities for
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 143
water quality restoration in each
watershed. A wide range of stakehold-
ers including federal, state, local, and
tribal representatives is involved in
developing restoration strategies for
the state's watersheds. New York's
watershed approach has already
focused on priority watersheds for
various activities including water
quality monitoring and restoration.
For instance, over $5 million was
allocated in 1999 to fund projects
under the Water Resources
Development Act to protect and
enhance New York City's drinking
water supply.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
In 1987, New York implemented
the Rotating Intensive Basin Studies
(RIBS), an ambient monitoring pro-
gram that concentrates monitoring
activities on one-third of the state's
hydrologic basins for 2-year periods.
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.
Historically, the Department of
Environmental Conservation's limited
resources were used to focus monitor-
ing efforts on areas where pollution
problems were reported or suspected
to occur. The state began to address
this bias in 1998, and the new RIBS
strategy places emphasis on the moni-
toring and documentation of good
quality waters.
Data Quality*
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
63% 37%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
23% 77%
* New York assessments are
based only on evaluated data.
"New York notes its assess-
ments are biased toward those
waters with known impair-
ments.
b A subset of New York's des-
ignated uses appear in this
figure. Refer to the state's
30S(b) report for a full
description of the state's uses.
c Includes nonperennial streams
that dry up and do not flow
all year.
Note: Figures may not add to
100% due to rounding.
Individual Use Support
in New York3
Percent
Designated Useb
Good Impaired
-------
144 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
North Carolina
• Rivers
> State Border
For a copy of the North Carolina
2000 305(b) report, contact:
Dcanna Doohaluk
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
(919) 733-5083 ext. 577
e-mail: Deanna.Doohaluk@ncmail.net
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.
us/bepu/download.html
Surface Water Quality
The majority of assessed lake
acres support aquatic life (98%),
primary contact (98%), and fish
consumption (89%). Impaired lakes
are impacted by excessive nutrient
enrichment, siltation, and noxious
aquatic plants. About 93% of the
state's assessed river and stream miles
have good water quality that supports
overall use. North Carolina also sur-
veyed about 5,600 river and stream
miles but did not have sufficient data
to assign a use support rating, so these
waters were designated as "not rated"
by the state (not assessed).
The major sources of impairment
to rivers are agriculture, urban runoff,
municipal point sources, and construc-
tion. These sources generate sEtation,
turbidity, and organic wastes that
deplete dissolved oxygen and lead to
habitat degradation. About 96% of the
assessed estuarine area support desig-
nated uses. Urban runoff, leaking
septic tanks, agriculture, wastewater
treatment plants, and marinas are
probable sources bf bacteria, low
dissolved oxygen,1 and chlorophyE a
that degrade estuaries. As assessed by;
soil maps and aerial photographs,
about 66% of the, state's wetland area '
fully supports designated uses. Silvi-
culture, agriculture, and urban devel-
opment are the leading sources of
wetland degradation. The state has -
17 fish consumption advisories in ;
effect, including an advisory for ,
mercury in king mackerel covering ;
all coastal waters.1
Ground Water Quality
About half of the state's popula-
tion uses ground water as their pri-
mary supply of drinking water.
Ground water quality is generally
good. The leading source of contami-
nation is leaking underground storage
tanks, which contaminate ground
water with gasoline, diesel fuel, and
heating oil. Comprehensive programs
are underway to assess potential con-
tamination sites and develop a ground
water protection strategy for the state.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
North Carolina uses a watershed-
level approach to,address water quality
problems. In 2000, the NC Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) was work- |
ing on its second ;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, the
DWQ_identified;23 watersheds in ;
need of restoration. Within these ;
areas, 11 smaller catchments that are '
biologically impaired are being studied
intensively to idehtify causes and ;
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
145
sources of pollution and develop
strategies to restore aquatic system
health.
Addressing nonpoint source
(NFS) pollution continues to be a
state priority. The NFS program com-
prises a cooperative network of state
and local agencies that extends to all
counties. The DWQJbas begun
implementing rules that address
nitrogen pollution from urban areas,
agriculture, and fertilizer application
across the entire Neuse and Tar-
Pamlico River basins. In addition, a
temporary rule is being implemented
in these basins that protects riparian
buffers adjacent to all perennial and
intermittent streams, ponds, lakes,
and estuaries. Riparian buffers are also
being proposed for waters in the
Catawba River basin. North Carolina
is seeking final approval of its Coastal
NFS Program from NOAA and
EPA, and continues implementation
of its Section 319 funding program
for innovative NPS best management
practices, public education and out-
reach, and restoration of impaired
waters.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Surface water quality in North
Carolina was primarily evaluated
using physical and chemical data col-
lected by the DWQ_from a statewide
fixed-station network, in addition to
biological assessments. These include
macroinvertebrate (aquatic insect)
community surveys, fish community
structure analyses, fish tissue analyses,
toxicity testing, phytoplankton analy-
ses, bioassays, and limnological review
of lakes and watersheds. Other sources
of information were point source
monitoring data, shellfish closure
reports, lake trophic state studies, and
reports prepared by other local, state,
and federal agencies.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
28% 6%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
65% 1%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
98% 2%
Note: Figures may not add to
100% due to rounding.
Individual Use Support
in North Carolina
Percent
Designated Use
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Lakes (Total Acres = 311,236)
Summary of Use Support
in North Carolina15
Percent
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 37,662)c'd
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 3,121)
" ~
Total Square
Miles Assessed
3,115
tWetlands (Total Miles = 7,175,000)°
34
a A subset of North Carolina's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the state's 30S(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
2000 305(b) report.
c Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
dThe good category includes some stream miles that were not
assessed, hut were assumed to support designated uses because they
had no known impairments.
e Assessment of wetlands was conducted with soil maps and aerial
photographs.
-------
146 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
North Dakota
iiiili i
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
—— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the North Dakota 2000
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-rnail: mell@state.nd.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.health.state.
nd.us/ndhd/environ/wq/
Surface Water Quality
North Dakota reports that 69%
of its assessed rivers and streams have
good water quality that fully support
aquatic life uses, but use support is
threatened in most of these streams.
Fifty-six percent of the assessed rivers
and streams fully support swimming.
Monitoring data for 147 miles of
rivers and streams are the basis offish
consumption use impairment in the
state. Fish tissues have shown elevated
methylmercury content. The major
causes of impaired use support in the
state are pathogens, habitat altera-
tions, siltation, nutrients, and oxygen-
depleting wastes. 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, 97%;of the surveyed
acres have good water quality that
fully support aquatic life uses, and
79% of the surveyed acres fully
support swimming. Twenty-one lakes
and reservoirs are considered impaired
for fish consumption use due to '
methylmercury contamination. The
remaining 198 lakes and reservoirs
were not assessed for this reporting
cycle. Metals, siltation, nutrients, and
oxygen-depleting substances are the ,
most widespread pollutants in North
Dakota's lakes. The leading sources of :
pollution in lakes are agricultural
activities, urban runoff/storm sewers,
hydrologic modification, and habitat ,
modification. Natural conditions also >
prevent some waters from fully sup-
porting designated uses.
i ;
Ground Water Quality
North Dakota has not identified ;
widespread ground water contamina-
tion, although some naturally occur-
ring compounds may make the quality '
of ground water undesirable in a few '
aquifers. Where human-induced
ground water contamination has
occurred, the impacts have been :
attributed primarily to petroleum
storage facilities, agricultural storage :
facilities, feedlots, poorly designed
wells, abandoned wells, wastewater ;
treatment lagoons, landfills, septic
systems, and the underground injec- ,
tion of waste. : ;
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 147
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
North Dakota's Nonpoint Source
(NFS) Pollution Management Pro-
gram was established to: (1) increase
public awareness of NPS pollution,
(2) reduce or prevent the delivery of
NPS pollutants to waters of the state,
and (3) disseminate information on
effective solutions to NPS pollution.
Since 1990,39 projects have been
completed and 32 are currently active.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The North Dakota Department of
Health monitors physical and chemi-
cal parameters (such as dissolved
oxygen, pH, total dissolved solids,
nutrients, and toxic metals), toxic
contaminants in fish, whole effluent
toxicity, and fish and macroinverte-
brate community structure. North
Dakota's ambient water qualify
monitoring network consists of
27 sampling sites on 24 rivers and
streams. The Department's biological
assessment program has grown since
1993. Currently, biosurveys are con-
ducted at approximately 50 sites each
year.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
This pie chart shows
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
22% 34%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
30% 14%
Individual Use Support
in North Dakota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
iRivers and Streams (Total wines = 54,427)"
Total Miles
Assessed
69
31
Lakes (Total Acres = 714,910)
a A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
148 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands
• Rivers
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
1 State Border
Farallon de Pajaros (Uracas)
xi, Maug Island
o Asuncion Island
£1 Agrihan
,0 Pagan
O Alamagan
O Gugun
O Sarigan
CO Anatahan
0 Farallon de Medinilla
Saipan
Tinian
"Aguijan
&
Rota
IlilCf'
llSS!
ill it
For a copy of the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands 2000
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 Quality
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 popu-
lated island is Saipan, with an area of
46 square miles and 52 miles of coast-
line.
Streams and wetlands are not
currently monitored because they are
not used for drinking water or recre-
ation. Coastal marine waters are
monitored because their quality affects
the health of the coral reef ecosystem
on which subsistence, recreation,
storm protection, and tourism depend.
Both point and nonpoint sources
affect water quality. Sewage outfalls,
dredging, sedimentation from
unpaved roads and development,
and nutrients from golf courses and
agriculture are the most significant
stressors on coral reefs and marine
water quality. ;
It is estimated that over 60% of
Saipan's wetlands |were lost as a result
of farming prior to World War II.
Increasing development continues to
threaten wetlands; on all of the islands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies 99% of
the islands' drinking water. Ground
water is also used for agriculture and
irrigation of golf courses. Increasing
demands for water have led to exces- ;
sive ground water withdrawal. Over-
pumping ground water results in
elevated chloride concentrations and
saltwater intrusion. Garment factories,
failing septic systems, and service
industries (e.g., gasoline stations,
automobile repair;shops, and power
generators) also affect ground water
quality. Septic tanks can result in
bacteriological and nitrate contamina-
tion, particularly when the systems are
poorly designed. There is also concern
about historical contamination result-
ing from military activities during the
1940-1960s (Worjd War II and post-
World War II), although the extent of
this contamination has not been fully
investigated.
The Division ;of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) requires 'that all wells ;
be permitted prior to exploration.
Operators submit [semiannual water
quality data that includes chlorides,
hardness, nitrates, .total dissolved
solids, conductivity, pH, and fecal col-
iform. Wells with elevated chloride
concentrations are1 required to reduce
their pumping rate. The DEQjs
developing a database to maintain the
monitoring data.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Puerto Rico dump threatens
both surface and ground water quality
on Saipan. Leachate from this area
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
contains contaminants such as metals
and synthetic organic compounds.
The DEQJias prioritized closing this
dump and improving water quality in
the surrounding area.
The Nonpoint Source Program
successfully constructed a wetland
within the grounds of the American
Memorial Park to reduce sediments
discharged into the nearby shoreline.
The DEQ_administers permitting
programs for septic systems and
earthmoving and erosion control. The
DEQ_also manages pesticide, under-
ground and aboveground storage tank,
and well drilling programs.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Surface water monitoring in the
CMNI focuses on marine waters and
coral reefs. Thirty-one sites at the
Saipan lagoon are monitored weekly
for traditional water quality param-
eters and two sites are monitored for
biological parameters. The DEQjuses
Enterococci and fecal coliform as
indicators of human or animal waste
contamination. Marine water and
ground water sampling was conducted
to support the final closure design for
the Puerto Rico dump.
The Marine Monitoring Team
assesses the condition of coral reefs in
the CNMI.The DEQdeveloped a
Long Term Marine Monitoring Plan
that uses biological criteria to deter-
mine ambient conditions and to
determine long-term changes in the
health of the coral reefs. Eight fixed
monitoring stations are incorporated
into this plan. Four stations are locat-
ed on Saipan, two are located on
Tinian, and two are located on Rota.
Summary of Use Support
in Northern Mariana Islands3
Percent
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles =15,989)
__^_100
Total Square
il Miles Assessed
0.8
a A summary of use support data is presented because the Northern
Mariana Islands did not report individual use support in their 2000
305(b) report.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
ISO Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Ohio
in 1 in
Hill 111
ill
Ill I
Aquatic Ufe Use Support
— Good
— Impaired
•— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
-— State Border
For a copy of the Ohio 2000 305(b)
report, contact:
EdRankin
Division of Surface Water
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614) 728-3388
e-mail: Ed.Rankin@epa.state.oh.us
A copy of the report may be down-
loaded from: http://www.epa.state.
oh.us/dsw/document_index/305b.
html
Surface Water Quality
Aquatic life and swimming are
supported in half of the river and
stream miles assessed in Ohio. Fish
consumption is impaired due to mer-
cury and PCB contamination in some
rivers. The Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) would like
to increase the percentage of river and
stream miles that support aquatic life
to 80% by 2010. The majority of lake
acres support aquatic life (61%),
swimming (67%), and fish consump-
tion (88%). Of the assessed miles of
Lake Erie shoreline, 84% support
aquatic life and 100% swimming.
Ohio advises sensitive subpopula-
tions such as children and pregnant
women to restrict consumption of all
fish caught in the state due to wide-
spread mercury contamination.
Individual waterbodies have fish
consumption advisories due to lead, !
mercury, and PCB contamination.
The most common contaminants
impairing Ohio's waterways are sedi-
ments, nutrients, pathogens, and toxic
chemicals. Most surface waters are
impacted by nonpoint source pollu- ,
tion that originates from combined
storm and sewer systems, runoff, habi-
tat modifications, 'and flow alterations.
Although most point sources have
been reduced through the NPDES
program, permit violations from '.
municipal and industrial facilities and
small treatment plants also contribute
to contamination. An increasing :
concern in some areas is the potential
impact of exotic species such as the •
zebra mussel on the ecosystem.
Ground Water Quality
About 4.5 million Ohio residents '.
depend on wells for domestic water. :
Each of the three main aquifer types
(sand and gravel, carbonate, and sand-
stone) exhibits distinct water quality. ;
Waste disposal, underground storage
tank leaks, and spills are the dominant
sources of ground water contamina- ;
tion in Ohio. | ;
Programs Tp Restore
Water Quality
To fully restore water quality, the
Ohio EPA advocates an ecosystem
approach that addresses degradation ;
on shore as well as in the water.
Ohio's programs aim to correct ;
impacts, such as channel modification
and the destruction of shoreline vege-
tation, that are not: related to chemical
contamination. The Nonpoint Source
Program emphasizes voluntary actions ,
to reduce pollution, especially through
land management practices.
The Watershed Resource Resto- <
ration Sponsor Program utilizes loan
interest to fund stream restoration ;
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 151
projects at no cost to the loan appli-
cant. The most important criterion for
these projects is that they provide
complete protection or restoration of
aquatic habitat that is sufficient to
meet the designated uses.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
In 1990, Ohio adopted a 5-year
approach to watershed-based moni-
toring and NPDES permit issuance.
However, given the current funding
situation, some watersheds will only
be monitored every 10 to 15 years.
Ohio utilizes volunteers for qualitative
sampling to screen potential problem
areas.
Ohio pioneered the use of an
ecosystem approach that incorporates
physical, chemical, and biological fac-
tors into surface water assessments.
Each year, the Ohio. EPA conducts
surveys in six to ten study areas with a
total of 350 to 400 sampling sites.
Lakes are assessed with a Lake
Condition Index that includes
14 parameters. A lake is considered
assessed if at least seven parameters
have values. The Index of Bio tic
Integrity is used to assess the overall
health offish communities in rivers.
Lake Erie is assessed using biological
criteria involving fish and macroinver-
tebrate communities. Ohio is develop-
ing biological assessment methods and
criteria for depressional and riparian
wetlands.
The Ohio EPA is also responsible
for monitoring ground water sources
and assessing the extent of contami-
nation. A database on untreated
ground water has been collected
through the Ambient Ground Water
Monitoring Network. Information on
treated ground water is compiled in
the public water system compliance .
database.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
55% 45%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
67% 33%
Evaluated-
Good
0%
Evaluated-
Impaired
0%
Individual Use Support
in Ohio
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
[Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 29,113)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 118,801)
Great Lakes (Total Shore Miles = 236)
IPi
a A 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.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
152 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Oklahoma
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
—— Impaired
— Indeterminate
— Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Oklahoma 2000
305(b) report, contact:
David Gann
Water Quality Division
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1677
Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677
(405) 702-8100
e-mail: David.Gann@deq.state.ok.us
A copy of the report may be found on
the Internet at: hltp://www.deq.state.
okus/wqdnew/305b_303d/
Surface Water Quality
Fifty-three percent of the assessed
river and stream miles have good
water quality that support aquatic life.
Over 60% of the assessed miles sup-
port swimming. Fifty-nine percent of
the assessed lake acres support aquatic
life and 63% support swimming. The
most widespread pollutants in Okla-
homa's lakes, rivers, and streams are
siltation, nutrients, suspended solids,
and pesticides. Oklahoma rates agri-
culture (including animal feeding
operations), hydrologic modification,
resource extraction, and urban runoff
as leading sources of pollution in both
rivers and lakes. 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 some monitoring
wells, isolated cases of hydrocarbon '
contamination, elevated selenium and
fluoride concentrations (partially due
to natural sources), chloride contami-
nation from discontinued oil field
activities, metals from past mining
operations, and gross alpha activity.
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 Qualjty
The Oklahoma Department
of Environmental :Quality (DEQ).
coordinates development of total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs).
About 15 projects^ addressing a range
of impairments are in various stages of
development. The DEQ_administers
point source pollution control pro-
grams except for agriculture and oil
production sources. The DEQjssues
NPDES permits, is responsible for
monitoring dischargers to ensure
compliance, and reviews facilities' self-
monitoring data. The DEQ_also
administers the stprmwater permitting
program. \
Oklahoma's nonpoint source
control program is a cooperative effort
of state, federal, and local agencies,
with the Conservation Commission
serving as the lead technical agency.
The program sponsors best manage- '
ment practices (BMPs), water quality
monitoring before and after BMP
implementation, technical assistance,
education, and development of com-
prehensive watershed management
plans.
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 1.53
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The Oklahoma Water Resources
Board (OWRB) collects data through
the Beneficial Use Monitoring Pro-
gram (BUMP) to document impair-
ments and sources, detect water
quality trends, and provide informa-
tion for Oklahoma's water quality
standards. BUMP includes both fixed
and rotating stations. Working with
other agencies, the OWRB has devel-
oped Use Support Assessment
Protocols to make impairment deter-
minations consistently. The OWRB
also administers the Clean Lakes
Program, which comprises lake assess-
ment, citizen monitoring, and diag-
nostic/feasibility studies.
The U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) monitoring program gathers
water quality, sediment, flow rate, and
stream gauging data. The USGS has
approximately 32 monitoring stations
in the state.
The DEQjmonitors toxic
contaminants through the Toxic
Monitoring in Reservoirs Program.
The program began in 1980 and has
monitored over 50 lakes in the state.
Oklahoma also participates in the
EPA Region 6 Ambient Biotoxicity
Network that began sampling in
1990.The DEQconducts project-
specific monitoring and assessment
related to TMDL development and
impairment verification. The DEQ_
has developed a centralized, online
database for water quality informa-
tion. The map-based system may be
accessed at: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/
wqdnew/305b_303d/2000_305b_
report_fmal.pdf7.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
17% 43%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
28% 12%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
19% 74%
Evaluated-
Good
6%
Individual Use Support
in Oklahoma
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
JRivers and Streams (Total wines = 78,778)"
47
a A 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.
-------
154 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Oregon
• Rivers
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydroiogic Unit)
> State Border
For a copy of the Oregon 2000 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.or.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.deq.state.or.
us/wq/305bRpt/305bReportOOa.pdf
Surface Water Quality
Seventy-four percent of Oregon's
surveyed rivers have good water qual-
ity that fully support aquatic life use.
The most commonly reported prob-
lems in the state's rivers and streams
include thermal modifications,
pathogens, and habitat alterations.
Suspected sources include agriculture,
silviculture, and habitat and hydro-
logic modifications.
In lakes, 51% of the surveyed
acres fully support aquatic life uses.
Common problems in Oregon's lakes
include nutrients, algae, acidity,
organic enrichment, and metals.
Agriculture, natural sources, and
urban runoff/storm sewers are the
most commonly reported sources of
lake impairment.
Six percent of Oregon's surveyed
estuarine waters fully support shell-
fishing use due to Aperiodic violations
of bacteria standards. Suspected
sources of bacteria^ include municipal
and industrial point sources, agricul-
ture, 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 sig-
nificantly larger than in the past, the
increase does not signify 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 ,
parts of the state. Contaminants of
concern include nitrate, pesticides,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) ,
and bacteria. Suspected sources of
contamination include agricultural
activities, above- and belowground
storage tanks, landfills, septic systems,
hazardous waste sites, spills, and urban
runoff. [
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Department of Environmen-
tal Quality (DEQ) is the state agency
responsible for protecting Oregon's ;
public water for a wide range of uses. :
The DEQ_sets water quality standards
to protect "beneficial uses" such as ;
recreation, fish habitat, drinking water l
supplies, and aesthetics. The DEQs
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 1SS
top priorities have been and will
continue to be developing Total Maxi-
mum Daily Loads for those water-
bodies that appear on the state's
303 (d) list and to participate in the
Oregon plan to restore salmon popu-
lations.
The DEQjregulates approximate-
ly 630 municipal wastewater sewage
treatment plants and 211 industrial
dischargers through individual permits
that set limits on pollutants dis-
charged. In addition, approximately
2,880 facilities have general permits
that limit discharges and 1,480 facil-
ities are covered by stormwater general
permits. The DEQ_also permits and
inspects septic system installations.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The DEQjnonitors water quality
with regular sampling of more than
50 rivers and streams in the 18 desig-
nated river basins in Oregon. This
sampling produces conventional
pollutant data for determining trends,
standards compliance, and problem
identification. Biological monitoring
is also conducted under one of three
sampling strategies: probabilistic sam-
pling for extrapolation of conditions
of study units (e.g., ecoregion), best
management practices effectiveness
monitoring, and reference site moni-
toring. Other monitoring includes
studies of mixing zones at effluent
discharges, volunteer monitoring,
and sampling of shellfish areas for
bacteria.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
10% 23%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
67% 0%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
4% 24%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
72% 0%
Individual Use Support
in Oregon
Percent
Designated Use
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total wines = H4,823)b
j Lakes (Total Acres = 618,934)
Estuaries and Bays (Total square wines = 206)
a A subset of Oregon'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.
-------
156 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Pennsylvania
• Rivers
• State Border
For a copy of the Pennsylvania 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Supply and
Wastewater Management
Division of Water Quality Assessment
and Standards
P.O. Box 8467
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8467
(717) 787-9637
e-mail: rofrey@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
Approximately 80% of the
surveyed 35,496 river and stream
miles in Pennsylvania have good water
quality that support aquatic life uses.
The most widespread pollutants
impairing the remaining miles are sil-
tation, which impacts 3,016 miles, and
metals, which affect 2,536 miles.
Other causes of impairment include
nutrients and pH. Agriculture is the
most significant source of surface
water quality degradation, impacting
2,736 river and stream miles.
Drainage from abandoned mining
sites pollutes at least 2,711 miles of
streams. Other sources of degradation
include urban runoff/storm sewers
and habitat modification. Of the lake
acres assessed, 38% support aquatic
life use. Organic enrichment, nutri-
ents, thermal modifications, and
suspended solids are commonly cited
for impacting lakes. While agriculture
is a large source of contamination, a
significant portion of the contaminant
sources remains unknown. Pennsyl-
vania has issued 33 fish consumption
advisories. Most are due to elevated
concentrations of PCBs and chlor-
dane in fish tissue, but two advisories
have been issued for mirex and one for
mercury.
Ground Water Quality
Pennsylvania has evaluated 10%
of its ground water using data from its
ambient ground water monitoring
program. For 2000, Pennsylvania aug-
mented ambient monitoring data
from 49 ground water basins with ;
information that was collected using
the 20 major sub-basins of the state as
reporting units. ]N>!ajor sources of i
ground water contamination include .
mining and mine drainage, above-
ground and underground storage
tanks, pipelines and sewer lines, sur-
face impoundments, spills, landfills,
hazardous waste sites, industrial facili-
ties, and pesticide application.
Petroleum and petroleum byproducts:
are the most common pollutants in
ground water. Coal rnining and oil
and gas production have also elevated
concentrations of several elements ;
(e.g., chlorides and metals) in some
regions. Pennsylvania continues to
develop its Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Program ,
(CSGWPP) that provides a mecha-
nism for Pennsylvania and EPA to
collaboratively develop a comprehen-
sive statewide approach to ground
water protection.:
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
A new program in Pennsylvania
called Growing Greener is the largest
single environmental investment in its
history. Growing Greener directs
nearly $650 million over 5 years to the
new Watershed Protection and
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 157
Environmental Stewardship Fund to
protect watersheds, preserve open
farmland, invest in parks and outdoor
recreation, reclaim abandoned mines
and wells, and upgrade water and
sewer infrastructure. This program
will provide grants to watershed
groups, local governments, and others
for the protection of Pennsylvania's
water resources, including manage-
ment and reduction of nonpoint pol-
lution sources. The impact of acid
mine drainage from abandoned mines
is a widespread concern in Pennsyl-
vania. The U.S. Office of Surface
Mining and EPA Region 3 created
the Appalachian Clean Streams
Initiative to address water quality
problems associated with mine drain-
age in Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and West Virginia. It is hoped that
this initiative will involve private
organizations and local citizens as well
as government agencies in imple-
menting solutions.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The Water Quality Network monitors
chemical and physical parameters
almost monthly and biological param-
eters annually at fixed stations on
rivers, streams, and Lake Erie. In
addition, at least 3,000 sampling
stations have been monitored by more
than 140 volunteer citizen groups to
help collect water quality data and to
foster community stewardship of local
water resources. Pennsylvania also
conducts ambient ground water moni-
toring at 537 monitoring sites. A fund
has been established, in cooperation
with the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, to assist permit applicants
with the wetlands replacement
requirements in commonwealth regu-
lations. In addition, a Wetlands Net
Gain Strategy has been developed.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
80% 20%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0%
0%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
38% 62%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Individual Use Support
in Pennsylvania
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
JBijyers. and Streams (Total Miies'= 83,260)b
80
20
a A subset of Pennsylvania's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the state's 30S(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.
-------
158 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Puerto Rico
Rivers
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!git Hydrologlc Unit)
State Border
For a copy of the Puerto Rico 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Ruben Gonzalez
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board
Water Quality Area
Box 11488
Santurce,PR 00910
(787) 751-5548
Surface Water Quality
Most of the rivers and streams in
Puerto Rico are impaired for aquatic
life (68%) and swimming (77%). The
primary contaminants responsible for
impairment include nonpriority
organics, metals, and pathogens. They
originate from onsite land disposal,
agricultural activities, and sanitary col-
lection system failures.
Lake water quality in Puerto Rico
is generally good, with most assessed
acres supporting aquatic life (74%)
and swimming (79%). Low dissolved
oxygen and high metal concentrations
are responsible for most of the
impaired lake acres.
Although Puerto Rico reports on
the quality of their estuaries, they
report in linear miles, which prevents
comparison with other state estimates.
Of 175 estuarine miles assessed for
this reporting cycle, 23% support
aquatic life and 28% support swim- ;
ming. Pathogens, nonpriority organ-
ics, and metals are cited as causes of '
impairment. This! does not include
any monitoring data from the San
Juan Bay Estuary: System. |
Eighty-six percent of coastal areas
assessed support aquatic life and 88% ',
support swimming. Urban runoff
and sanitary sewer overflows are the
primary sources of pathogens con-
taminating coastal waters.
Puerto Rico did not report on the
condition of wetlands. ;
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies 16% of
the population with drinking water. :
It is also used for various industrial <-
and agricultural applications. During
this reporting cycle, 86 wells were
closed for various reasons. Volatile
organic compounds and nitrates are ,
frequently detected at concentrations
that exceed national maximum con-
taminant levels. Bacteria, pesticides,
halogenated solvents, and petroleum
compounds are also common contam-
inants. The major [sources of ground
water contamination include agricul- ,
rural activities, septic tanks, industrial
facilities, storage tanks, and landfills.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board (PREQB) administers '.
•a Nonpoint Source Control Program. I
In the past 2 years, regulations :
were passed to reduce sedimentation
and confine animal wastes. A pilot
project is operating in the Lake Plata
watershed to reduce nutrient loadings
to the lake. A compost processing
plant converts poultry fecal waste into
organic fertilizer that will be marketed
to farmers.
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 159
The Point Source Control
Program focuses activities on adminis-
tering NPDES permits, controlling
underground injection wells and stor-
age tanks, and monitoring ground and
surface water quality.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
For this reporting cycle, the
PREQB included monitoring data
from its fixed-station monitoring
network. The PREQB has also devel-
oped a rotating watershed monitoring
plan to prioritize Puerto Rico's 101
watersheds. The 2002 305(b) report
will include a combination of data
from the existing fixed monitoring
network and the new rotating water-
shed approach. The PREQB estab-
lished a Permanent Ground Water
Monitoring Network to collect
samples from 100 drinking water
wells.
Eighty-eight coastal stations are
sampled for fecal coliform and entero-
coccus bacteria. In 1999, the PREQB
implemented volunteer monitoring at
six of the stations.
To date, most monitoring has
been limited to physical and chemical
parameters. However, in 1996, the
PREQB and EPA conducted a pilot
project to determine if a Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol could be
implemented. Unfortunately, the study
results indicated that no relationship
was found between macroinverte-
brates and chemical values or habitat
assessment. Further studies will be
conducted to develop biological water
quality indicators and new bacteria
and nutrient criteria.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
0% i 20%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
14% 66%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
42% 32%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
26% 0%
Individual Use Support
in Puerto Rico
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
[Rivers and Streams (Total wines = s,394)b
68
Lakes (Total Acres = 12,146}
Total Acres 74
Assessed
[Ocean Shoreline (Total shore wines = 550)
Total Shore 86
Miles Assessed
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.
^ Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
160 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Rhode Island
: 1
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
—— Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Rhode Island 2000
30S(b) report, contact:
Connie Carey
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Office of Water Resources
235 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908
(401) 222-3961
e-mail: ccarey@dem.state.ri.us
A copy of the report may be down-
loaded from: http://www.state.ri.us/
dem/pubs/305b/index.htm
Surface Water Quality
The majority of assessed river
and stream miles support aquatic life
(73%) and swimming (76%). Biodi-
versity impacts, pathogens, metals,
and nutrients cause impairment in
some rivers. Potential sources of these
contaminants include urban runoff,
land disposal, and municipal point
sources. Of the lake acres assessed,
83% support aquatic life and 95%
support swimming. High levels of
bacteria and nutrients and low levels
of dissolved oxygen impair lakes.
Major sources of these contaminants
are nonpoint sources such as urban
and stormwater runoff. No assessed
lakes or rivers support fish consump-
tion. This is due to fish consumption
advisories that result from dioxin,
PCB, and mercury contamination.
Approximately 73% of the
assessed estuarine waters support
aquatic life and 93% support swim-
ming. Seventy-five percent of the
assessed estuarine waters fully support
shellfish consumption. The impacts
on estuaries are due to bacteria, nutri-
ents, and low dissolved oxygen from
combined sewer overflows, urban
runoff, and municipal discharges. :
All 79 miles of ocean shoreline were
found to supportiaquatic life, swim-
ming, and shellfish consumption.
Rhode Island did not report on the
condition of its wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
About 26% of Rhode Island's
population uses ground water as a
source of drinking water. Although
ground water quality is generally good
to excellent, over :100 contaminants
have been detected in localized areas.
The most common pollutants are
petroleum products, organic solvents,
and nitrates. Although volatile organic
compounds were idetected in 15-30%
of the wells tested, only two had con-
centrations above a drinking water
standard. Significant pollution sources
include leaking underground storage
tanks, hazardous and industrial waste
disposal sites, illegal or improper
waste disposal, chemical and oil spills,
landfills, septic systems, road salt
storage and application, and fertilizer
application. \ '
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Department of Environmen-
tal Management (DEM) is develop-
ing management plans for the South
County and Woonasquatucket River
watersheds. The Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) program is
working on 26 projects a.cross the
state. The Rhode'Island Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(RIPDES) program is issuing permits
with nitrogen removal requirements
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 161
and is implementing Phase II
stormwater regulations. The DEM
is promoting the use of nitrogen-
reducing septic system technologies
and is developing rules to mandate
these technologies in areas near
sensitive or critical waters.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The surface water monitoring
program consists of fixed station
sites, intensive surveys, special studies,
and volunteer monitoring programs.
Water quality data for licensed
beaches are collected by the Depart-
ment of Health. The DEM conducts
intensive bacteriological monitoring
of shellfishable waters. The DEM has
also contracted the USGS to conduct
monitoring at seven river stations in
Rhode Island. Biological monitoring
is conducted at six river stations in
close proximity to the USGS fixed
river stations. The EPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols are followed
for macroinvertebrate sampling at
45 stream sites around the state. The
University of Rhode Island (URI)
monitors 25 of these 45 stations for
various conventional and toxic pollut-
ants. Baseline monitoring of over
60 lakes is accomplished by volunteers
coordinated through URI. With the
assistance of EPA Region 1, the
DEM has recently initiated a proba-
bility-based monitoring program by
randomly selecting 50 sites across the
state where habitat, biological, and
chemical data are collected. Surface
water monitoring activities are also
conducted by many citizen monitor-
ing groups who supply the RIDEM
with supplemental water quality data
for numerous rivers, lakes, ponds, and
estuarine waters of the state.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
52% 30%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
15% 3%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
50% 13%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
33% 4%
a A subset of Rhode Island's
designated uses appear in this
figure. Refer to the state's
30S(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 Rhode Island
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
jjjvers and Streams (Total Miles'== i,383)b
Total Miles
Assessed
73
Lakes (Total Acres = 21,796)
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 151)
Total Square 73
Miles Assessed
27
)cean Shoreline (Total shore Miles = 79)
100
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
162 Chapter Jen State and Territory Summaries
South Carolina
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the South Carolina
2000 305(b) report, contact:
Gina Kirkland
Bureau of Water
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 898-4250
e-mail: kirklagl@columb32.dhec.
state.sc.us
A copy of the report may be down-
loaded from: http://ww\v.scdhec.
net/eqc/admin/html/eqcpubs.
htmI#Water
Surface Water Quality
The majority of assessed river
and stream miles support aquatic life
(77%) and swimming (52%). The
principal problems in rivers are
oxygen-depleting substances and
elevated levels of fecal coliform bac-
teria and metals. These contaminants
enter the waterways from urban
runoff, agriculture, and municipal
discharges.
Of the assessed lake acres, 67%
support aquatic life and 99% support
swimming. Most of the impaired
acres result from metal, nutrient, and
fecal coliform bacteria contamination.
Industrial point sources and contami-
nated sediments are significant
sources of pollution, although an
overwhelming majority of the sources
remain unidentified.
There are 55 fish consumption
advisories in effect in South Carolina,
and 32 are due to; mercury contamina-
tion, including an advisory for king
mackerel in all coastal waters.
Most of the assessed, bays and
estuaries support aquatic life (66%) :
and swimming (92%). Low dissolved
oxygen concentrations caused by
unknown sources iand urban runoff are
responsible for most of the impaired
waterways. About 30% of the estua-
rine and river areas designated for
shellfish harvesting are restricted or
prohibited. '
South Carolina did not report on
the condition of its wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Approximately 40% of the state's
population utilizes ground water for
drinking water. Overall ground water
quality remains good. When contami-
nation does occur, it typically consists
of petroleum compounds, halogenated
solvents, and metals that leak into ;
aquifers from underground storage
tanks. Other sources of pollution
include spills, landfills, hazardous
waste sites, and land application of
waste. The state's ambient monitoring
program samples each aquifer to ;
determine its baseline quality. The
Drinking Water Program, is responsi- :
ble for determining if wells have been
influenced by surface water. Thus far,
this type of contamination has not
been observed.
i
Programs To Restore
Water Quality ;
South Carolina's Noiipoint
Source Management Program was
updated in 1999. The primary focus
of the program is reduction of non-
point source pollution through regu- •
latory and voluntary actions. The
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC) issue? state permits for
facilities that discharge directly to land
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 163
through spray irrigation. They also
regulate stormwater discharges asso-
ciated with industrial activities. The
SCDHEC plans to revise its NPDES
program so that permit renewals are
completed every 5 years on a water-
shed basis.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The SCDHEC employs a
strategy to integrate monitoring,
water quality modeling, planning,
permitting, and other management
activities by river drainage basins. The
SCDHEC aggregated 280 minor
watersheds into five monitoring and
permitting areas. One area is targeted
each year for development or revision
of its management plan and monthly
water quality monitoring to supple-
ment the statewide network
A statewide ambient monitoring
network is maintained every year.
Primary monitoring stations are
located in high-use water areas and
are sampled monthly every year.
Secondary monitoring stations are
located near point source discharges
and are sampled monthly from May
to October. Chemical and physical
parameters are measured at each type
of station.
The Clean Lakes Program is
aimed at defining the extent and
source of lake pollution, implementing
control strategies, and restoring lakes
to their beneficial uses. Lake restora-
tion techniques used include applica-
tion of aquatic plant herbicides,
biological control, point source
control, and hypolimnetic aeration.
There is no legislation in South
Carolina that provides specifically
for a program to monitor wetlands.
However, the SCDHEC was able to
develop a Classification and Standards
System for Wetlands with funding
from the EPA.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
62% 23%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
12% 3%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
24% 76%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Individual Use Support
in South Carolina
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
ifiivers and Streams (total Miles = 29,794)"
77
23
Lakes (Total Acres = 407,505)
JEstliarieS and Bays (Total Square Miles = 401)
•A subset of South Carolina's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the state's 30S(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.
-------
164 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
South Dakota
I i i
Aquatic Life Use Support
— Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
— Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the South Dakota 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Andrew Repsys
South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Division of Financial and Technical
Assistance
Water Resources Assistance Program
523 East Capitol Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-4046
e-mail: Andrew.Repsys@state.sd.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.state.sd.us/
denr/Documents/SD_2000_305b.
pdf
Surface Water Quality
Forty-eight percent of South
Dakota's assessed river and stream
miles fully support aquatic life uses
and 33% of the assessed miles also
support swimming. The most com-
mon pollutants impacting South
Dakota rivers and streams are sus-
pended solids due to water erosion
from croplands, gully erosion from
rangelands, and natural forms of
erosion. The second most important
cause of stream impairment is fecal
coliform bacteria. High fecal coliform
concentrations are primarily found in
the lower reaches of the Cheyenne
and Big Sioux Rivers.
Eighty percent of South Dakota's
assessed lake acres do not fully
support aquatic life uses. All of the
assessed lake acres fully support
swimming. The most common pollut-
ants are nutrients ,and siltation from
agricultural runoff and other nonpoint
sources that produce dense algal
blooms in many of the state's lakes.
South Dakota did not report on
the condition of wetlands.
i •
Ground Water Quality
More than three-quarters of !
South Dakota's population uses ;
ground water for domestic needs.
General ground water quality is highly
variable. Deeper aquifers generally
have poorer water, quality than shallow
aquifers (due to higher concentrations
of dissolved salts) but are also gen-
erally less susceptible to pollution. The
most significant ground water quality :
problems in the state are caused by
nitrate and petroleum contamination
through accidental releases, poor man-
agement practices, improper locating
of pollutant-producing facilities, and
contamination of shallow wells due to .
poor construction or location adjacent
to pollutant sources.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
South Dakota regulates point
sources through the National Pollut- :
ant Discharge Elimination System.
The state also uses the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund to address non-
point source (NFS) pollution, waste-
water, and stormwater. As of April 1,
2000, the prograrri had made 106
loans totaling $93.4 million to 56
entities. South Dakota relies primarily '.
on voluntary implementation of best
management practices to control NPS
pollution. However, the state acknow-
ledges that the technical and financial
assistance currently available is not
sufficient to solve all the NPS prob- •
lems in the state. '' :
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 165
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
South Dakota conducts ambient
water quality monitoring at estab-
lished stations, special intensive
surveys, intensive fish surveys, total
maximum daily load (TMDL) waste-
load allocation surveys, and individual
NFS projects. Biological sampling
is also conducted for special studies
and diagnostic/feasibility studies.
The U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Army 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.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
50% 50%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
16% 84%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Individual Use Support
in South Dakota
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Bivers and Streams (Total wines = 9,937)"
52
Lakes (Total Acres = 750,000)
a A subset of South Dakota's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the state's 30S(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.
-------
166 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Tennessee
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
— Impaired
— Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Tennessee 2000
305(b) report, contact:
GregDenton
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,
72% fully support aquatic life uses.
The primary causes of stream impair-
ment are siltation, habitat alteration,
nutrients, oxygen-depleting sub-
stances, and pathogens. Major sources
of pollutants include agriculture,
hydrologic modification, and urban
runoff. 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, 96% fully
support aquatic life uses. The most
widespread problems in lakes include
PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, nutrients,
low dissolved oxygen, mercury, and
siltation. Major sources of these
pollutants are contaminated sedi-
ments, agriculture, construction of
roads and bridges, land development,
and internal nutrient recycling.
Tennessee identified 54,811 acres
of impacted wetlands (approximately
7% of existing wetlands). Major
threats include siltation from con-
struction and residential development
and loss of function due to channel-
ization and levees.
The Department of Environment
and Conservation (TDEC) maintains
a monitoring program to identify
public health threats. Swimming advi-,.
series were issued for 48 waterbodies :
due to elevated bacteria levels. Eight
lakes and portions! of seven rivers have
fishing advisories due to fish tissue '.
contamination. Sediment contamina-
tion due to chemicals released in the ;
past remains a problem in some lakes
and streams. - ;
Ground Water Quality
Ground waterj quality is generally
good, but pollutants contaminate (or
are thought to contaminate) the j
resource in localized areas. These ;
pollutants include ivolatile and semi-
volatile organic chemicals, bacteria,
metals, petroleum products, pesticides, ;
and radioactive materials.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Division of Water Pollution
Control adopted a: watershed
approach to improving water quality
and encouraging coordination with
the public and other agencies. Each ;
of the state's 54 watersheds is man- I
aged on a 5-year cycle coinciding with
the duration of discharge permits.
Tennessee is also conducting several ;
total maximum daily load (TMDL)
studies to allocate pollutant loading
among all the point and nonpoint •
sources discharging into a stream or
its tributaries. ! :
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 167
The division is actively identify-
ing strategies to reduce pollutant load-
ings at streams not currently meeting
water quality standards. The TDEC,
in partnership agreement with other
agencies, has established a goal to
implement 100 control strategies on
TMDL-listed streams by 2003.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Tennessee's ambient monitoring
network consists of 156 active stations
sampled quarterly for conventional
pollutants, nutrients, and selected
metals. The state also performs inten-
sive 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 has delineated 25 ecological
subregions and is characterizing water
quality at 98 carefully selected refer-
ence streams to help set clean water
goals on a regional, rather than
statewide, basis.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
62% 26%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
7% 5%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
77% 22%
Evaluated-
Impaired
Evaluated-
Good
1%
Individual Use Support
in Tennessee
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
pivers and Streams (Total wines = 61,075)"
72
Total Miles
Assessed
28
6S (Total Acres = 538,060)
a A subset of Tennessee's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer
to the state's 30S(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.
-------
168 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Texas
• Rivers
> State Border
•. ; kin:
For a copy of the Texas 2000 305(b)
report, contact:
Steve TVvidweU
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 87% of assessed river
and stream miles fully support aquatic
life uses. Swimming is impaired in
about 26% of the assessed rivers and
streams. The most common pollutants
degrading rivers and streams are bac-
teria, oxygen-depleting substances,
salinity, and sulfates. Major sources of
pollution include municipal sewage
treatment plants, agricultural runoff,
and urban runoff.
In lakes and reservoirs, 84% of
the assessed surface acres fully support
aquatic life uses. Of the assessed lakes
and reservoirs, aU assessed acres fully
support swimming. The most com-
mon problems in lakes and reservoirs
are salinity, metals (including mercu-
ry), and low dissolved oxygen. Major
sources that contribute to nonsupport
of uses include atmospheric deposi- :
tion, unspecified point and nonpoint
sources, and agriculture. ;
Sixty-four percent of the surveyed
estuarine waters fully support shell-
fishing use. All assessed estuary waters,
support swimming uses. The leading
problem in estuaries is bacteria that
contaminate shellfish beds. Another
major cause of impairment was
organic enrichment. Impairment
comes mainly from unspecified point
and nonpoint sources and natural
sources. :
Texas also assessed 3,879 square
miles of ocean waters that did not
support fish consumption uses. The
leading cause of irnpairment was
mercury from atmospheric deposition.
Texas did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Waiter Quality
About 41% of municipal water in
Texas is obtained from ground water
sources. Identified ground water
contaminant sources include storage
tanks, surface impoundments, land-
fills, septic systems, and natural
sources. The most: commonly reported
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 is also a major concern. •
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). This cooper- !
ative program uses a long-term,
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
comprehensive, and integrated
approach aimed at improving coordi-
nation of natural resource functions
•within the agency.
Implementation of coordinated
basin monitoring is one of the prior-
ities 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, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, etc.). At the
meetings, schedules are cooperatively
developed for fixed-station and special
study monitoring to reduce duplica-
tion of effort, consolidate sampling
and analysis protocols, and improve
spatial coverage of monitoring sites.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The TNRCC and CRP samples
about 1,450 fixed stations as part of
the Surface Water Quality Monitor-
ing Program (SWQMP). Sampling
parameters and the frequency of sam-
pling at each site are selected to satisfy
different needs. The TNRCC also
conducts intensive surveys to evaluate
potential impacts from point source
dischargers during low flow condi-
tions and special studies to investigate
specific sources and pollutants. About
2,000 citizens also perform volunteer
environmental monitoring in the
Texas Watch Program.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
70% 30%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
62% 38%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
1A subset of Texas's designated
uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the state's 30S(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 Texas
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or'Threatened) or Not Supporting)
"Rivers and Streams (Total n/mes = 191,228)"
13
Lakes (Total Acres = 3,065,600)
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 1,991)
Total Square 83
Miles Assessed
17
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
170 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Utah
I
• Rivers
1 Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Dtgit Hydrologic Unit)
1 State Border
For a copy of the Utah 2000 305(b)
report, contact:
Thomas W. Toole
Utah Department of Environmental
Quality
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801) 538-6859
e-mail: ttoole@deq.state.ut.us
A summary of Utah's 2000 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the
Internet at: http://www.deq.state.
ut.us/eqwq/2000_305b_fact.pdf
Surface Water Quality
Of the 10,465 river and stream
miles assessed, 84% fully support
aquatic life use. Approximately 74%
of all river and stream miles assessed
support all of their beneficial uses
(e.g., drinking water, aquatic life, and
agriculture). The most common
pollutants impacting rivers and
streams are total dissolved solids,
habitat alterations, and nutrients.
Agricultural practices, such as grazing,
improper manure management, and
irrigation, increase nutrient and sedi-
ment loads in streams. Point sources
also contribute to nutrient loads, while
natural conditions and stream channel
modifications also result in impair-
ment. The loss of riparian habitat
impacts the fisheries on many streams.
About 70% of the assessed lake
acres fully support; aquatic life uses.
The leading problems in lakes include
nutrients, salinity, low dissolved
oxygen, and thermal modifications.
The major sources of pollutants are ;
agricultural practices, urban runoff,
and silviculture. | :
Fish and wildlife consumption
advisories are posted on the lower '
portion of the Ashley Creek drainage
area and Stewart Lake due to elevated
levels of selenium found in fish, ducks,
and American coots.
Utah did not report on the condi-
tion of wetlands. :
Ground Water Quality
In general, the quality of ground
water in Utah has:remained relatively ;
good throughout the state. Sources
that present a risk for ground water
contamination include agricultural
chemical facilities, animal feedlots, :
storage tanks, surface impoundments,
waste tailings, septic systems, road salt
storage areas, spills, and urban runoff. '
The increase in corporate hog farming
operations may impact ground water
quality.
*
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The state's Nonpoint Source
(NFS) Task Force: is responsible for
coordinating NFS programs in Utah.
The task force is a broad-based group
with representatives from, federal, i
state, and local agencies, local govern- ,.
ments, agricultural groups, conserva- ,
tion organizations, and wildlife
advocates. The task force helped state
water quality and agricultural agencies
prioritize watersheds in need of NFS ,
pollution controls. As best manage-
ment practices are implemented, the '•
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 171
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. For this reporting cycle,
intensive surveys were completed on
the West Colorado River, Southeast
Colorado River, Bear River, and
Weber River watershed management
units. This completes the first 5-year
monitoring cycle. The second cycle
began with the Bear and Weber River
assessments. In addition, Utah has
developed a network of 63 fixed
stations to evaluate water qualify
trends throughout the state. Under
the Division of Water Quality's lake
assessment program, 130 lakes are
monitored on a regular basis. Sam-
pling is staggered so that half of the
lakes are monitored during even-
numbered years. The remaining lakes
are monitored during odd-numbered
years. Monitoring is conducted for
Total Maximum Daily Load determi-
nations, industrial and municipal facil-
ity compliance, and nonpoint source
projects. Benthic macroinvertebrates
are sampled at 18 stations.
Utah has an extensive cooperative
monitoring program with the U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. National Park
Service, Salt Lake City, Jordanelle
Technical Advisory Committee, and
several smaller entities. These pro-
grams are oriented primarily towards
monitoring river water quality.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
35% 30%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
35% 0%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
35% 30%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
35% 0%
Individual Use Support
in Utah
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
[Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 85,9i6)b
16
(Total Acres = 481,638)
70
30
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.
-------
172 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Vermont
III | si
Illl ill I
' !f' !"'
Rivers
1 State Border
For a copy of the Vermont 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Rick Hopkins
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: rickh@dec.anr.state.vt.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.anr.state.
vt.us/dec/waterq/Planning/
Assessment2000.pdf
Surface Water Quality
Eighty-one percent of Vermont's
assessed river and stream miles fully
support aquatic life and 90% fully
support swimming. For assessed lakes
acres, 66% fully support aquatic life
and 85% of assessed acres fully sup-
port swimming. Lakes and rivers are
impacted by advisories that restrict
fish consumption due to mercury con-
tamination; however, the state's 305(b)
assessments do not take into account
the statewide advisory for all rivers
and lakes.
Common pollutants found in
the assessed waterbodies include silt,
pathogens, and nutrients, which come
from eroding banks, urban areas, and
agricultural lands. Additional causes
of pollution include thermal modifi-
cations, flow modifications, metals,
priority organic contaminants, algae,
pathogens, and loyv dissolved oxygen
resulting from atmospheric deposi- :
tion, natural sources, industrial and ;
municipal point sources, flow regula- '
tion, and habitat alterations.
Vermont did hot report on the
condition of its wetlands. :
Ground Water Quality
The majority: of Vermont's
citizens depend oft ground water for
drinking water and other uses. Gen-
erally, the quality of ground water
in Vermont is considered excellent
although no comprehensive studies
have been completed due to a lack '
of funds. Contamination in a small
number of drinking water supplies has
been detected. Over 75% of the con-
tamination can be attributed to leak-
ing aboveground and belowground
storage tanks. Each year, $5-10 mil-
lion is spent on remediation activities.;
Population growth and industrializa-
tion may further threaten ground
water sources in the future.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Vermont has a Point Source
Control Program that finances waste-
water treatment facility upgrades,
combined sewer overflow corrections,
sewer line extensions, and other sys-
tem improvements. The Nonpoint
Source Control Program develops
activities to correct nonpoint source
pollution in priority waterbodies. The
program encourages the development
of best management practices (BMPs)
by farmers, developers, municipalities,;
lakeshore residents, and landowners
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 173
to reduce or prevent polluted runoff.
The Lake Champlain Basin Water-
shed Nation Monitoring Program
evaluates the effectiveness of improved
livestock grazing. The Vermont Better
Backroads Program provides 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 moni-
toring of lakes and ponds, citizen
monitoring, long-term acid rain
monitoring of lakes, compliance
monitoring for permitted dischargers,
toxic discharge monitoring, fish con-
tamination monitoring, and ambient
biological monitoring of aquatic
insects and fish. Volunteer associations
provide supplemental monitoring data
for 26 rivers and 32 lakes.
In 1997, Vermont began using
rotating watershed assessments to
monitor surface water quality. This
approach is used to monitor the state's
17 major river basins over a 5-year
period. Two rounds of assessment
have been completed and a third
round is currently underway. New
monitoring activities include an effort
to evaluate the use of biocriteria in
certain wetlands such as venal pools
and white cedar swamps. The Lake
Bioassessment Program is still under-
way as is the Assessment of Mercury
in Hypolimnetic Sediments in both
Vermont and New Hampshire.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
19% 8%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
60% 13%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
9% 90%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
1%
0%
Individual Use Support
in Vermont
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 7,099)"
19
(Total Acres = 228,915)c
34
1A 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 Excludes Lake Champlain.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
174 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Virginia
• Rivers
' State Border
For a copy of the Virginia 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Harry H. Augustine, III
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
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.deq.state.
va.us/water/SOSb.html
Surface Water Quality
The majority of assessed river
and stream miles in Virginia support
aquatic life (77%), swimming (53%),
and fish consumption (96%). As in
past years, fecal coliform bacteria are
by far the most commonly cited prob-
lem in rivers and streams. Agriculture
and grazing-related sources contribute
much of the bacteria. Other causes
of impairment include organic enrich-
ment and acidity. Urban runoff
significantly impacts all surface water
quality in Virginia.
All assessed publicly owned lakes
support fish consumption and swim-
ming uses. Over 97% of the assessed
lake acres also support aquatic life use.
Acidity, siltation, and pathogens from
nonpoint sources threaten approxi-
mately 4,000 acres. :
Water quality in assessed estuaries
is generally good. Of the estuarine
area assessed, 83% support aquatic life
and 98% support Swimming. All •
assessed estuarine: waters support fish
consumption use and 95% fully
support shellfish harvesting. Exceed-
ing water quality standards based on
benthic macroinvertebrates is the
leading cause of impairment in estuar-
ies. Organic enrichment, pathogens, !
and nutrients are also commonly cited
problems. Identified sources of ;
impairment include natural sources ;
as well as industrial and municipal
point sources. All .coastal waters are
evaluated to be fully supporting their
fishable and swimmable goals.
Currently, the Virginia Depart-
ment of Health (VDH) Division
of Health Hazard Controls has six :
health advisories in effect to restrict
and one advisory to prohibit 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, mining,
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 protec- '
tion initiatives. ;
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 175
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Virginia's Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality (DEQ) recom-
mends control measures for water
quality problems identified in the
305(b) report in their Water Quality
Management 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 (BMPs) for
nonpoint sources.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The Ambient Water Quality
Monitoring Program includes
approximately 1,400 DEQjnonitor-
ing stations. An estimated 1,400
additional stations from other federal,
state, and citizen monitoring pro-
grams provide sampling information
during the 5-year monitoring cycle.
Stations are located to gather infor-
mation from industrial, urban, rural,
and undeveloped areas of the state.
Virginia's 305(b) assessments also
utilize information from fish tissue
and benthic macroinvertebrates.
Data Quality3
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
51% 49%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
97% 3%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
a Only monitored data are
presented in this summary.
Please refer to Virginia's
305(b) report for information
on evaluated data.
b A subset of Virginia's desig-
nated uses appear in this
figure. Refer to the state's
30S(b) report for a full
description of the state's uses.
c Includes nonperennial
streams that dry up and do
not flow all year.
d Size of significant publicly
owned lakes, a subset of all
lakes in Virginia.
Individual Use Support
in Virginia3
Percent
Designated Use0
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total wines = 49,460)°
77
23
Lakes (Total Acres = 149,982)
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 2,500)
83
Total Square
Miles Assessed
17
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
176 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
U.S. Virgin Islands
St.
Thomas
\ G
Water Island
St. John
St. Croix
Rivers
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Oigit Hydrologic Unit)
1 State Border
For a copy of the Virgin Island's 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Hector A. Squiabro
U.S. Virgin Islands Department
of Planning and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Protection
Cyril E. King Airport Terminal
Building, Second Floor
St. Thomas, VI 00802
(340) 774-3320, ext. 5177
e-mail: envprotj@viaccess.net
Surface Water Quality
The U.S. Virgin Islands consists
of four main islands (St. Croix, St.
Thomas, St. John, and Water Island)
in addition to over 50 smaller islands
and cays located in the Caribbean Sea.
The islands lack perennial streams and
large freshwater lakes or ponds.
Because of the absence of perennial
streams, there are no definitive estuar-
ies in the Virgin Islands. There are a
few square miles of estuary-like area,
and those areas are included in the
ocean shoreline assessments. Water
quality in the Virgin Islands is gen-
erally good but declining due to
increased point source and nonpoint
source discharges into the marine
environment. Approximately 85% of
the surveyed ocean shoreline miles
support swimming, and 73% of
surveyed miles support aquatic
life use. Low dissolved oxygen and
organic enrichment were the causes of
impairment to most shoreline miles,
in addition to turbidity, pH, and
pathogens. The source impairing the
greatest number of coastal miles was
recreational and tourism activities,
although urban runoff, marinas, acci- •
dental spills, municipal point sources, [
and combined sewer overflows also :
contribute to coastal water quality
impairment.
The Virgin Islands' municipal
sewage treatment iplants, operated by
the Virgin Islands Department of
Public Works (DPW), are a major
source of water quality violations in
the territory. Poor preventive mainte-
nance practices attributed to the ;
lack of funding within the DPW
and negligence result in numerous
bypasses due to frequent breakdowns ,
at pump stations, as well as clogged
and collapsed pipelines that frequently
cause discharges into surface waters.
Furthermore, stormwater runoff over-
whelms the sewage treatment plant,
resulting in numerous bypasses of raw'
or undertreated sqwage into bays and
lagoons. Other water quality problems
result from unpermitted discharges,
permit violations by private industrial
dischargers, oil spills, and unpermitted
filling or dredging activities in man-
grove 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 Walter Quality
The Virgin Islands' ground water .
is routinely contaminated with bac-
teria, saltwater, and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Leaking septic
tanks, municipal sfewer lines, and
sewage bypasses contaminate ground
water with pathogenic bacteria. :
The overpumping of aquifers causes ;
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 177
saltwater intrusion of 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 to dis-
charge low concentrations of pollut-
ants into waters. The Division of
Environmental Protection (DEP)
performs quarterly compliance inspec-
tions. The Virgin Islands is strength-
ening its Local Water PoEution
Control Act and Water Quality
Standards, developing new regulations
for urban stormwater runoff and for
siting and constructing onsite sewage
disposal systems, and advocating best
management practices. The territory
will also be developing Total Daily
Maximum Loads for various water-
bodies identified in the 1998 303(d)
listing.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The Ambient Monitoring
Program performs quarterly sampling
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 fecal coliform
bacteria, turbidity, dissolved oxygen,
temperature, 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 do not monitor
bacteria in shellfish or toxins in fish,
water, or sediment.
Individual Use Support
in the Virgin Islands3
Designated Useb
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Ocean Shoreline (Total shore Miles = 209)
Total Shore 73
Miles Assessed
27
aThe Virgin Islands do not assess estuarine area. The islands do not
have waterbodies that are true estuaries.
b A subset of the Virgin Islands' designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the territory's 305(b) report for a full description of the
state's uses.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
178 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Washington
ii
11
11 n n i
n n i
I!1 nil
• Rivers
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIgit Hydrologic Unit)
> State Border
For a copy of the Washington 2000
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
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/
programs/wq/303d/305b%20reporl/
2000_305b.html
Surface Water Quality
Washington reports that 46% of
their assessed river and stream miles
folly support all assessed uses. Sixty-
two percent of Washington's lakes
folly support state-defined "overall"
use. Twenty-one percent of the sur-
veyed estuarine waters folly support all
assessed uses.
In rivers and streams, agriculture
is the major source of water quality
degradation, followed by hydrologic :
habitat modification, natural sources,
and septic tanks. Causes of water
quality impairment from these sources',
include thermal modification, patho-
gens, pH, metals, and low dissolved
oxygen. Major causes of impairment
in lakes include nutrients and noxious •
aquatic plants. Agriculture, nonpoint
source pollution, and natural condi- '
tions are the predominant sources of
impairment in lakes. Other sources i
include urban runbff, municipal point
sources, septic tanks, and hydrologic ;
modification. Agricultural runoff,
municipal point sources, industrial
point sources, and combined sewer
overflows are the major sources of
impairment in estuaries. Low levels
of dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH,
and fecal coliform; bacteria are the
major causes of impairment of desig-
nated uses in estuaries.
Washington did not report on the
condition of wedaiids.
Ground Water Quality
Washington reports ground
water contamination by metals, trace
elements, nitrates, jpesticides, petro-
leum, and synthetic organic chemicals.
Sources include industrial activities,
agriculture, municipal wastewaters,
mining, and onsite sewage systems. ;
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 179
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
Washington provides financial
incentives to encourage compliance
with permit requirements, the princi-
pal vehicle for regulating point source
discharges. The state also has exten-
sive experience developing, funding,
and implementing nonpoint source
pollution prevention and control pro-
grams since the early 1970s. The state
has developed nonpoint source control
plans with best management practices
for forest practices, dairy waste, irri-
gated agriculture, dryland agriculture,
and urban stormwater. The state is
now focusing attention on watershed
planning. The watershed approach is
designed to synchronize water quality
monitoring, inspections, permitting,
nonpoint activities, and funding.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Washington carries out an aggres-
sive program to monitor the quality of
lakes, estuaries, and rivers and streams.
The program uses fixed-station moni-
toring to track spatial and temporal
water quality changes to ascertain the
effectiveness of various water quality
programs and be able to identify
desirable adjustments to the programs.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
46% 54%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
62% 38%
Individual Use Support
in Washington
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
fiivers and Streams (Total wines = 70,439)"
Total Miles
Assessed 60
40
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 2,904)
Total Square
Miles Assessed
Summary of Use Support
in Washington0
Percent
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
'Lakes (Total Acres = 249,277)
Total Acres
Assessed
243,749
38
a A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
c A summary of use support data is presented because Washington did
not report individual use support for lakes in their 2000 Section
305(b) report.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
180 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
West Virginia
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
— Impaired
—~ Indeterminate
—— Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the West Virginia 2000
305(b) report, contact:
MikeArcuri
West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection
Division 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://ww\v.dep.state.
wv.us/Docs/453305b2000.pdf
Surface Water Quality
West Virginia reports that 58%
of assessed river and stream miles have
good water quality that fully supports
aquatic life uses, and 82% fully sup-
port swimming. In lakes, 41% of the
assessed acres have good water quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses
and 100% fully support swimming.
Habitat alteration and siltation
are the most common water quality
problems in West Virginias rivers.
Nutrients, turbidity, and oxygen-
depleting substances also impair a
large number of river miles. In lakes,
siltation, metals, low dissolved oxygen
content, and algal growth impair the
greatest number of acres. Resource
extraction, primarily abandoned min-
ing operations, impaired the most
stream miles, followed by agriculture,
forestry, and land disposal. Resource :
extraction was thd leading source
of degraded wateri quality in lakes,
followed by petroleum activities,
forestry, and agriculture.
West Virginia reported that fish
consumption advisories are posted for ,
the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River,
Armour Creek, Ohio River, Shenan-
doah River, North Branch of the !
Potomac River, 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, chlprdane, 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 hazardous waste sites, and
industrial landfills) West Virginia has ;
documented or suspects that ground
water has been contaminated by pesti-
cides, petroleum compounds, other
organic chemicals,; bacteria, nitrates, |
brine/salinity, arsenic, and other
metals. ; :
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Division ;of Water Resources ',
(DWR) is the lead agency for West
Virginia's nonpoint source program.
The DWR works !with other state ;
agencies in assessing nonpoint source r
impacts and implementing projects ;
to reduce pollutant loads from agricul-:
tural, forestry, resource extraction,
urban runoff, hydrblogic modification,
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 181
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 compli-
ance inspections, intensive site-specific
surveys, ambient water quality moni-
toring, monitoring of contaminant
levels in aquatic organisms, benthic
and toxicity monitoring to assess
perturbations, and special surveys and
investigations. The state's Watershed
Assessment Program (WAP) is
charged with evaluating the health
of West Virginia's watersheds. The
WAP assesses the health of a water-
shed by evaluating as many streams as
possible, as close to their mouths as
possible. The program collects and
interprets water quality, biological,
and habitat information on water-
sheds on a 5-year rotating cycle. The
WAP began evaluating random sites
in each watershed beginning in 1997.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
54% 46%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
41% 59%
Individual Use Support
in West Virginia
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total miles = 32,278)"
42
Lakes (Total Acres = 22,373)
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
a A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
182 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Wisconsin
(S: I
tar
• Rivers
• State Border
For a copy of the Wisconsin 2000
305(b) report, contact:
LisaHelmuth
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 266-7768
e-mail: HelmuL@mail01.dnr.state.
\vi.us
A copy of the report may be down-
loaded from: http://www.dnr.state.
TO.us/orgAvatet/wm/summary.html
Surface Water Quality
The majority of assessed rivers in
Wisconsin support aquatic life (56%)
and fish consumption (67%). The
primary causes of contamination
include habitat alterations, excessive
siltation and sedimentation, and nutri-
ent enrichment. Rivers continue to be
affected by nonpoint sources such as
agriculture and grazing, hydrologic
modification, and habitat degradation.
Of the lake acres assessed, about 70%
support aquatic life and fish consump-
tion. Only 16% support swimming.
Noxious aquatic plants, nutrients,
mercury, and other metals are signifi-
cant causes of lake impairment. Lakes
are degraded by urban runoff, con-
struction, and land development. The
Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) identifies dams, mercury, exot-
ic species, and cranberry operations as
special concerns that threaten water
quality. Wisconsin
did not report on the condition of ;
wetlands. ;
All 1,017 miles of Great Lakes
shoreline have been assessed. Over
79% of the miles support aquatic life.
All miles are impaired for fish
consumption. i
Ground Water Quality
Ground watei: is used by 70%
of the state's population for drinking
water. There is a growing concern
about the overall availability of ground
water with adequate flow and quality.
Radionuclides, arsenic, nitrate, atra-
zine, and volatile Organic compounds
(VOCs) have been detected in ground
water samples. Nitrate comes from
agricultural sources (90%), septic sys-
tems (9%), and other sources (1%). '
Atrazine use has been restricted in
Wisconsin and is prohibited in areas
where contamination exceeds enforce-
ment standards. VOCs originate from ;
landfills and leaking underground
storage tanks.
r ^
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Nonpoint Source (NFS) [
Program administers financial assis- ;
tance, stormwater management, and
animal waste programs. Livestock
operations are regijdated if they signifi-
cantly impact water quality or have
at least 1,000 animal units. Other
programs address erosion, agricultural
runoff, and urban jSIPSs.
The Wisconsin Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(WPDES) program oversees waste- •
water discharge permits. Industrial
facilities are required to treat their ,
waste prior to discharging to a munic- ;
ipal facility. All plans for new or I
upgraded municipal facilities must be
submitted for approval by the DNR.
Several grant programs are aimed [
at lake restoration and protection. The
Aquatic Plant Management Program :
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
identifies lakes that need protection
and, in extreme cases, administers per-
mits for chemical treatment to allevi-
ate severe problems.
The DNR helped to develop
Lakewide Management Plans for
Lakes Michigan and Superior.
Wisconsin also participates in the
Lake Superior Binational Program,
which aims to reduce toxic discharges.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
In 1999, the DNR initiated an
ambient monitoring program that
standardized techniques for assessing
aquatic habitat, macroinvertebrates,
and fish. Monitoring sites are selected
by stratified random sampling. The
DNR also supports a USGS network
of continuous flow monitoring sta-
tions and operates a fish tissue moni-
toring program. Over 400 aquatic
invertebrate samples and 930 fish
tissue samples are collected each year.
Additional monitoring targets the
Mississippi and Wisconsin Rivers.
Over 1,000 volunteers supplement
this monitoring data.
Ground water levels are measured
at 140 wells. In 1994, EPA approved
Wisconsin's Comprehensive Ground
Water Protection Plan, which estab-
lishes protection strategies and policies
on pesticides. The Groundwater
Coordinating Council assists in the
exchange of information between
agencies with jurisdiction over ground
water.
Mercury is measured under
several programs. The Environmental
Contaminants Section monitors total
and methylmercury in tributaries to
Lake Superior. A second project uses
the common loon to model the physi-
ological impact of consuming fish
containing mercury. A third project
measures mercury in the atmosphere,
lakes and bogs, and fish tissue.
Data Quality
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
15% 17%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
43% 25%
Lakes
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
23% 40%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
19% 18%
Individual Use Support
in Wisconsin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 55,000)"
44
Lakes (Total Acres = 944,000)
Great Lakes (Total Shore Miles = 1,017)
Total Shore 79
Miles Assessed
1,017
21
100
1,017
1A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
184 Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries
Wyoming
SB
ill"
Aquatic Life Use Support
Good
— Impaired
—• Indeterminate
Not Assessed
— State Border
For a copy of the Wyoming 2000
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@state.wy.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at: http://deq.state.wy.us/
wqd/watershed/01452-doc.pdf
Surface Water Quality
Historic land and water manage-
ment activities, compounded by
climatological events, led to acceler-
ated loss of streamside vegetation in
many parts of Wyoming during the
early part of this century. Imple-
menting changes in land and water
management, along with improved
treatment of discharges, has improved
the water quality in Wyoming over
the last several decades.
Overall, the water quality is
excellent to good in most of the state.
Currently, the leading causes of stream
contamination are pathogens and
metals (including selenium, arsenic,
and cadmium). Sources of stream
contamination include unknown
sources, agriculture, and natural
sources. Causes of lake and reservoir
contamination include nutrients
(including phosphorus) and siltation.
Lake contamination is attributed to
unspecified nonpoint sources.
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 contamination
include leaking above- and under-
ground storage tanks, fertilizer and
pesticide application, spills, landfills,
pipelines, and sewer lines. Natural
contaminants are also found in Wyo-
ming'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 Envi-
ronmental Quality! (DEQ) oversees
the NPDES program in Wyoming.
The DEQjreviews! industrial and
municipal permit applications and
ensures that propef design criteria are
implemented. Wyoming's nonpoint
source (NFS) control program is
nonregulatory and|relies on voluntary
cooperative efforts !to control NFS
pollution. Program efforts focus on
-------
Chapter Ten State and Territory Summaries 185
providing information and education
to the public; demonstrating, imple-
menting, and cost-sharing best man-
agement practices; and coordinating
with local, state, and federal agencies.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
In the past, Wyoming relied pri-
marily on information from other
agencies to determine which water-
bodies had water quality impairments
and should be listed on the 303(d) list.
In the 1999 Legislative Session of the
State of Wyoming, Enrolled Act #47
(Credible Data Law) was enacted.
The law requires chemical, physical,
and biological monitoring to be con-
ducted prior to decisions concerning
designated use support. Prior data that
do not meet this standard are not
discussed in the 2000 305(b) report.
In 1998, Wyoming tripled the
size of its monitoring staff to better
conduct comprehensive (biological,
chemical, and physical) water quality
assessments on those waterbodies on
the 1996 303(d) list that lacked con-
clusive and valid data. Wyoming has
committed to monitoring all those
waterbodies by the year 2002 and
developing total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs) on those waterbodies that
need them by the year 2007. In addi-
tion, many conservation districts have
begun training to conduct credible
and comprehensive water quality
assessments to provide data needed
for locally led water quality improve-
ment programs.
Data Quality*
States report whether
their assessments are
based on recent monitor-
ing data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
These pie charts show
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
85% 15%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Lakes?
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
100% <1%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
* A new state law in Wyoming
prohibits the use'of evaluated
data for water quality assess-
ments.
t Represents Aquatic Life Use
Support.
Individual Use Support
in Wyoming
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total wines = ios,767)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 325,048)
a A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
-------
Tribal Summaries
This chapter provides individual
summaries of the water quality assess-
ment data reported by five American
Indian tribes in their 2000 Section
305(b) reports. Tribal participation 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 unrepre-
sented in this report for the hundreds
of other tribes throughout the coun-
try. 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
programs become established, EPA
expects tribal participation in the
Section 305(b) process to increase
rapidly. To encourage tribal participa-
tion, EPA has sponsored water quality
monitoring and assessment training
sessions at tribal locations, prepared
streamlined 305(b) reporting guide-
lines 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 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 swimmable
goals of the Act and report the results
to EPA. The states, participating
tribes, and other jurisdictions measure
attainment of the CWA goals by
determining how well their waters
support their designated beneficial
uses. EPA encourages states, tribes,
and other jurisdictions to assess
waterbodies for support of the follow-
ing 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 consumers.
Shellfish
Harvesting
The waterbody
supports a population of shellfish free
from toxicants and pathogens that
could pose a human health risk to
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 contamina-
tion).
-------
188 Chapter Eleven Tribal Summaries
Big Sandy Rancheria
Location of Reservation
For a copy of the Big Sandy Rancheria
2000 305(b) report, contact:
Big Sandy Rancheria
Environmental Programs Office
P.O. Box 337
Auberry.CA 93602
Surface Water Quality
The Big Sandy Rancheria covers
approximately 264 acres of land in
Fresno County, California. Approxi-
mately 100 tribal members live on the
reservation. The majority of residents
are of Western Mono descent. The
Rancheria consists of 30 households,
a Head Start school, and a casino. In
the next year, a new gaming facility
and hotel will put additional demands
on the water supply and wastewater
treatment system.:
The Rancheria's drainage area
is approximately 1.75 square miles.
Surface waters include the headwaters
of Backbone Creek and three
unnamed tributaries. The tribe did
not report on the quality of their
surface waters. !
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is used as the
drinking water source for the
Rancheria. Water:is provided by five ;
community wells,' eight domestic
wells, and one open well. These wells :
produce water from near-surface allu-
vium and deeper fractured bedrock.
Three of the community wells are
used for drinking water, and one is
reserved for landscaping and fire
protection. The total community well
production is 70 gallons per minute.
Each household consumes approxi-
mately 277 gallons of water per day.
The primary source of ground
water contamination is coliform
bacteria that leach from septic tanks.
The community water supply is
chlorinated to alleviate this problem. •
There does not appear to be any ;
chemical contamination in the ground
water supply.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The Tribal Council has passed
an ordinance to prohibit discharge of ;
any pollutants to Reservation waters.
Infractions are puhishable by civil
fines up to $5,000- The Environmen-
tal Programs Office (EPO) also par- :
ticipates in the CALFED Bay-Delta I
Program, which aims to restore
ecological health and improve water !
management of the Bay-Delta system.
-------
Chapter Eleven Tribal Summaries 189
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The surface water quality assess-
ment was detained due to funding
constraints. However, the tribe has
received a Clean Water Act Section
106 grant to resume the assessment.
The EPO staff members collect all
water samples with technical assis-
tance from a consulting engineer. The
surface water samples collected thus
far were taken from springs located
within the Rancheria boundaries and
were analyzed by an outside labora-
tory.
The tribe is currently establishing
water quality standards for the Ranch-
eria using funds from the General
Assistance Plan and Clean Water Act
Section 106 Program.
-------
19O Chapter Eleven Tribal Summaries
Hoopa Valley Tribe
Location of Reservation
111 111 I
For a copy of the Hoopa Valley Tribe
2000 305(b) report, contact:
Kevin McKernan or Ken Norton
Hoopa Valley Tribal EPA
Hoopa, CA 95546
(530) 625-5515
e-mail: kevinmck@pcweb.net or
kentepa@pcweb.net
Surface Water Quality
The Hoopa Valley Indian Reser-
vation in northwestern California is
home to more than 3,000 people. The
reservation contains 320 miles of
rivers and streams, including a portion
of the Trinity River, and 3,200 acres of
wetlands. It does not contain any
lakes.
In the 1950s and 1960s, lumber
mills that operated on the reservation
resulted in degraded water quality
and impaired salmon and steelhead
fisheries. Areas that were prone to
landslide were logged and roads were
constructed within riparian zones.
These practices led to significant
contamination by sediments. Water
diversions, such as a dam on the
Trinity River above the reservation,
also stressed fisheries by lowering
stream volume and flow velocity.
Low flow rates reduced flushing
and further contributed to the
accumulation of sediment. Currently,
16% of assessed river miles support
aquatic life, and 100% support swim- :
ming and fish consumption.
Ground Wa£er Quality
In the past 4 years, domestic
wells, soil, and ground water pools :
have been sampled to assess ground
water contamination. Sampling ;
revealed elevated levels of metals, toxic
pollutants, and fecal coliform bacteria
in some wells. Leaking underground
storage tanks, septic systems, and
abandoned hazardous waste sites
contribute to ground water contami- '
nation. At Masonite Mill Creek, an
underground storage tank may have .
leaked as much as; 10,000 gallons of
petroleum products. Fecal coliform
bacteria from septic tanks is an ;
increasing threat tb ground water as i
population grows, 'indicating an
increased need for;wastewater treat-
ment facilities. As: contamination
increases, it becomes more difficult to :
utilize ground water as a source of I
drinking water. |
The Hoopa Valley Tribe is [
addressing ground water contami- >
nation in several ways. Some abari- ;
doned wells have been capped and
underground storage tanks removed. '
Serious efforts have been concentrated
,! . '
on removing or cleaning contami-
nated sediments. At Masonite Mill ;
Creek, no petroleum products were [
measured in soil and ground water ;
samples after contaminated sediments '.
were removed. Also, bioremediation
of sediments has been implemented. !'
This process encourages microbial ;
activity that breaks down organic !
materials by aerating soil that has
been mixed with wood chips.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
In 1994, a forest management ;
plan was adopted and certified as '
-------
Chapter Eleven Tribal Summaries 191
ecologically sustainable. Key points of
the plan include reduction of timber
sales and inactivation of 35 miles of
abandoned or failing log roads. In
1997, the Tribal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) established
a water quality control plan that
included beneficial uses, criteria and
standards, and antidegradation poli-
cies. The tribe received a Nonpoint
Source Program grant to remove
contaminated soils from Supply Creek
and Trinity River. The tribe is cur-
rently developing a Total Maximum
Daily Load Standard for sediments in
the Supply Creek watershed.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
In 1998, the tribe completed its
Unified Watershed Assessment.
Geographic information systems
enable comprehensive analysis of
watershed characteristics and impacts
from land use. The Tribal Public
Utilities District monitors surface
and ground water quality at domestic
intake locations and some posttreat-
ment locations. The Tribal EPA
monitors physical, chemical, and
biological parameters in surface and
ground waters. Through Clean Water
Act funds, the current network of
monitoring stations gives nearly com-
plete coverage of reservation waters.
In 1999, the Tribal EPA and
Humboldt University collaborated
on a 1-year project funded by the
U.S. EPA to locate wetlands with
geographic information systems and
aerial photographs. A continuing
wetlands program will depend upon
procurement of additional funding.
The Tribal EPA is using Indian
Environmental General Assistance
Program funds to monitor the
integrity of its wetlands and develop
a Wetlands Conservation Plan.
Individual Use Support
for the Hoopa Valley Tribe
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 320)b
a A subset of Hoopa Valley Tribe'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.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
192 Chapter Eleven Tribal Summaries
La Posta Band of Mission
Indians
Location of Reservation
For a copy of La Posta Band's 2000
30S(b) report, contact:
Gwendolyn Parada
Environmental Protection Office
La Posta Band of Mission Indians
P.O. Box 1048
Boulevard, CA 91905
(619) 478-2113
Surface Water Quality
La Posta Reservation is located
in San Diego County in southern
California. It consists of two distinct
land parcels: La Posta (3,500 acres)
and Little La Posta (200 acres). Nine-
teen of 23 tribal members reside on
the reservation. La Posta contains
11.3 miles of streams, a 2-acre lake
that is manmade, and 1.5 acres of
wetlands. The only surface water
feature in Little La Posta consists of
1 mile of intermittent stream. Springs
and seeps (ground water pools) with
sustained seasonal flows have been
documented within the reservation.
No surface water is used for drinking.
In 1994, surface water samples
were collected from two springs and
La Posta Creek. Radium, metals, and
manganese were detected at elevated ;
levels. In 1998, tvtfo samples were j
collected from La Posta Lake. Iron
and manganese concentrations were
measured at concentrations that
exceed the U.S. EPA's maximum
contaminant levels. Coliform bacteria
were also measured in the water.
Reservation soils are prone to
erosion during periods of heavy
precipitation. Other sources of erosion
include uncontrolled grazing in ;
riparian habitats and watersheds
and inadequate maintenance. The :
movements of nontribal cattle across ;
reservation lands may need to be
monitored. Nonpoint sources of
contamination include runoff. Runoff
that comes from Interstates 8 and 80
is considered a point source of
pollution because it is discharged
through a drain system. This con- ;
tributes petroleum compounds and ;
debris. The other potential source of I
pollution is an adjacent landowner ;
who repairs and maintains automo- :
biles. This may contribute contamina- ;
tion from metals, hydrocarbons, and
chlorinated organics.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is used as the
source of drinking water. Five wells '
supply drinking water, three wells are
used for monitoring, and four wells
have been abandohed. Wells yield 5 to,
25 gallons per minute and are located
in shallow alluvium and underlying |
bedrock. Iron and manganese were ;
detected in some ground water i
samples. Although no bacteria were
detected, localized problems may
occur from septic systems. :
-------
Chapter Eleven Tribal Summaries 193
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
There are no formal pollution
control measures for surface or ground
water on La Posta Reservation.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
Currently, waters of the reserva-
tion are subject only to federal water
quality criteria. In the next 2 or
3 years, the tribe may choose to adopt
these or other criteria. Until tribal
standards and beneficial use designa-
tions have been adopted, the tribe will
use the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board's Basin Plan
as a guide for water quality testing,
analyses, and assessment. The La
Posta Environmental Protection
Agency would like to establish regular
surface and ground water monitoring
programs.
-------
194 Chapter Eleven Tribal Summaries
Pauma Band of Mission Indians
£7
O
Location of Reservation
I"! "'
IIIliKi
For a copy of the Pauma Band 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Chris Devers
Pauma Band of Mission Indians
P.O. Box 369
Pauma Valley, CA 92061
Surface Water Quality
The Pauma Band of Mission
Indians resides in southern California.
The tribal lands consist of four dis-
tinct parcels: the Pauma Reservation
(230 acres), the Mission Reserve
(5,711 acres), and the North and
South Yuima Tracts (12 acres each).
Approximately 170 people of Luiseno
heritage live on these lands. The reser-
vation supports an agricultural busi-
ness that grows citrus and avocados.
Surface water resources consist
of 23 miles of rivers and an indetermi-
nate amount of wetlands. Twenty of
the stream miles are intermittent.
Pauma Creek is used as the primary
source of irrigation water. Although
not used as a drinking water source, it
is hydraulically linked to the aquifer
that supplies drinking water. This
means water quality problems in
Pauma Creek could translate into
problems with drinking water quality.
Nearly all of the river and stream ,
miles assessed support aquatic life, \
swimming, and fish consumption.
Less than 1 mile of stream was
threatened for aquatic life support
due to elevated levels of nitrate and
sulfate. Most of the surface waters are
impacted by nonpoint sources of ;
pollution, including a closed landfill,
storage tanks, orchard heaters with
fuel tanks, septic systems, and fertiliz-
ers and pesticides tiiat are applied for
agriculture. The tribal lands are also
extremely susceptible to erosion, and
sedimentation has' been the most
significant problem in surface waters.
Ground Water Quality
There are four distinct aquifers
that supply ground water. Three wells
that are used to supply domestic
water have elevated levels of nitrate,
although none of the concentrations
exceeded Safe Drinking Water Act
regulations. The most significant i
threats to ground water quality are
nitrate and bacteria from individual
sewage disposal systems and chemicals
used in agriculture. Elevated levels of
iron and turbidity ipresent aesthetic
problems. \
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The tribe supports several water ,
pollution control programs, including
a Water Quality Management
Program, the Wellhead Protection
Plan, the Nonpoint Source Manage-
ment Plan, and the Multi-Media
Environmental Assessment. The
Wetlands Management Plan provides ;
a framework for protecting wetland '
and riparian resources. The Agribusi- ;
ness Environmental Management
Plan recommends Best Management
Practices to minimize the impact of
agricultural activities on water
resources and the environment. The
Air Quality Management Plan
-------
Chapter Eleven Tribal Summaries 195
addresses air quality issues that are
related to deposition and recycling of
pollutants between the atmosphere,
water, and land. The tribe is attempt-
ing to establish a Tribal Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The surface water monitoring
program has been active since 1996
due to a Section 106 grant under the
Clean Water Act. Most of the moni-
toring has focused on Pauma Creek,
as it is used for agriculture and also
impacts the aquifer that supplies
drinking water. Monthly sampling
was conducted at one location
upstream of the reservation. Some
monitoring has also been conducted
at other streams and springs. Tribal
personnel have been largely responsi-
ble for sampling and testing the water
as well as maintaining a database. A
consulting firm provided assistance
and managed the final database that
was used to generate the 2000 305(b)
report. Five wells are sampled as part
of the ground water monitoring effort.
The tribe is currently developing
water quality standards. This process
will include the establishment of des-
ignated beneficial uses or the adoption
of California water quality standards.
Additional surface water, soil,
and ground water monitoring was
conducted under the General Assis-
tance Program. Under this program,
an EPA-approved laboratory con-
ducted analyses for metals and other
inorganic compounds.
Wetlands were mapped using the
National Wetland Inventory database,
although sufficient detail was not
included to delineate the total area
of wetiands in the tribal lands. Full
implementation of wetland protection
activities depends upon procurement
of additional funds.
Individual Use Support for
the Pauma Band of Mission Indians
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 23>b
100
a A subset of Pauma Band of Mission Indians' designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the tribe's 30S(b) report for a full description
of the tribe'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.
-------
196 Chapter Eleven Tribal Summaries
Round Valley Indian Tribes
Location of Reservation
For a copy of the Round Valley Indian
Tribes'2000 30S(b) report, contact:
Steven Casebier, Director
Tribal Environmental Protection
Agency
Round Valley Indian Tribes
P.O. Box 448
Covdo,CA 95428
(707) 983-8478
Surface Water Quality
The Round Valley Indian Tribes
consist of seven tribes (Yuki, Pit
River, Achomawi, Pomo-Concow,
Wailaki, Nomelaki, and Wintun).
Approximately 800 people live on the
Round Valley Indian Reservation,
which is located in northern Califor-
nia. The reservation consists of
45 square miles of land that support
rural housing, ranching, and farming.
The surface water consists of 424
miles of river, 1.5 acres of reservoir,
and an indeterminate amount of wet-
lands. The Eel River forms the west-
ern boundary of the reservation and is
the principal drainage for the region.
The State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) has not
designated beneficial uses for the
stream reaches within the reservation.
Surface waters are currently used for
ground-water recharge, wildlife
habitat, and recreation. Flow through
the reservation has decreased greatly
as a result of upstream diversions by [
industrial facilities. Low flows may j
result in high water temperature and
low dissolved oxygen conditions that
impair fish populations. However, the
Eel River and its tributaries support
their existing uses.The primary
sources of contamination are agricul-
ture, grazing, timber operations,
resource extraction, and hydrologic :
and habitat modification. High levels
of iron have been detected.
The tribes did not report on the
condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is the primary
source of water supporting the reser-
vation. Approximately 230 wells sup- >
ply irrigation, stock, and drinking ;
water. Increased ground water with-
drawals outside of the reservation have
lowered the ground water table and [
caused some wells ito dry up intermit-
tently. High levels ;of turbidity, iron,
manganese, and sulfur have been
measured in the ground water. There !
are no known occurrences of ground
water contamination on the reserva-
tion. However, the' potential does exist :
from storage tanks, unregulated
dumping, septic tanks, mine drainage,
biocide and fertilizfer use, and sewage
lagoons. Leachate from a community
dump that receives solid wastes and
sludge from the Cbvelo sewage treat-
ment plant may enter the ground
water system and appear in wells.
The levels of iron and manganese j
detected in surface: and ground water
can be removed through treatment ;
and do not necessarily preclude the :
water from being used. '
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The tribes lack any pollution
prevention or control programs. Only
six regulated point [source discharges
-------
Chapter Eleven Tribal Summaries 197
occur within the reservation. The
Regional Board oversees monitoring
and remediation at one of these sites.
The tribe is seeking Section 106
Authority from the EPA, which
will permit them to adopt water
quality standards and regulate waste
discharges to waters within their juris-
diction. Until then, the tribes will
continue to use water quality stand-
ards from the EPA and SWRCB for
domestic use, irrigation, industrial use,
and fishing.
The tribes received a Set-Aside
Grant from the Indian Health
Services to upgrade their sewage
treatment systems. They also used
General Assistance Program (GAP)
funds to certify tribal members as
water treatment plant operators. In
the future, they will be using GAP
funding to develop a tribal Sewage
Treatment Plant.
Soil excavation and removal alle-
viated contamination occurring from
an old sawmill. Soils in this area were
contaminated with petroleum hydro-
carbons, pentachlorophenol (a known
carcinogen), and tetrachlorophenol.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
A monitoring program began in
1997 and is highly dependent on
continued funding for implementation
as a permanent program. The data
contained in this report were coEected
from 10 surface water sites and
10 wells. The samples were analyzed
for physical and chemical parameters,
including boron, iron, and manganese.
All ground water monitoring sites are
sampled quarterly. In the future, the
tribes would like to incorporate total
and fecal coliform bacteria testing for
drinking water wells and areas of sus-
pected septic system failure.
-------
-------
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 Estuarine
System. Each Commission has its
own set of objectives and protocols,
but the Commissions share a cooper-
ative framework that embodies many
of the principles advocated by EPA's
watershed management approach.
For example, Interstate Commissions
can examine and address factors
throughout the basin that contribute
to water quality problems without
facing obstacles imposed by political
boundaries. The information pre-
sented here summarizes the data •
submitted by four Interstate Commis-
sions in their 2000 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 swimmable
goals of the Act and report the results
to EPA. The states, participating
tribes, and other jurisdictions measure
attainment of the CWA goals by
determining how well their waters
support their designated beneficial
uses. EPA encourages states, tribes,
and other jurisdictions 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 consumers.
Shellfish
Harvesting
The waterbody
supports a population of shellfish free
from toxicants and pathogens that
could pose a human health risk to
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 contamina-
tion).
-------
20O Chapter Twelve Commission Summaries
Delaware River Basin
Commission
— Good
Impaired
— Not Assessed
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgtt Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic lire use support status.
For a copy of the DRBC 2000 305(b)
report, contact:
Jonathan Zangwill
DRBC
25 State Police Road
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, NJ" 08628
(609) 883-9500
e-mail: zangwill@drbc.state.nj.us
Surface Water Quality
The Delaware River Basin covers
portions of Delaware, New Jersey,
New York, and Pennsylvania. For the
purposes of the 305(b) report, the
Delaware River Basin Commission
(DRBC) has jurisdiction over this
area, which consists of a 206-mile
freshwater segment, a 25-square mile
tidal freshwater reach, and the 841-
square mile Delaware Estuary/Bay.
Nearly 8 million people live in the
basin, which is also home to industrial
facilities and the port facilities of
Philadelphia, Camden, and Wilming-
ton.
Rivers within the Delaware River
Basin are generally of good quality.
Almost all fully support aquatic life
and swimming. Most of the assessed
estuarine area also supports aquatic
life (91%) and swimming (100%).
All surface water is impaired for fish
consumption due to statewide advi-
sories issued by New York and New
Jersey. The New Jersey advisory calls
for limited consumption of American
eel and striped bass. The New York r
advisory covers all:sport fish in the
states freshwaters. This is the first
year the states' fish consumption advi-
sories were considered, causing results
that differ significantly from those
reported in previous years. Fish
samples taken from the estuary often
contain PCBs. Eighty-five percent
of the assessed estuarine area supports ,
shellfish consumption.
i
Ground Water Quality
The DRBC did not report on the
quality of ground water.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The DRBC and the states have :
successfully reduced point sources
of oxygen-demanding materials and
other pollutants. Water quality has
improved due to the reduction of
conventional pollutants. However,
the levels of toxic pollutants in water,
sediment, and fishi continue to be :
high, particularly in the tidal portion.
The DRBC is developing a model
to evaluate the impacts of point and
nonpoint sources of pollutants on
dissolved oxygen concentrations.
The first phase of the Estuary
Toxics Management Program was
completed in January 2000. The
results of this study showed that the
assimilative capacity of the estuary
for dichloroethane, tetrachloroethane,
and chronic and acute toxicity has
been exceeded. Wa!ste-load allocations
for these parameters will be used by
NPDES permitting agencies for !
establishing efHueiit limitations. In
the next phase, Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) will be developed
for PCBs, pesticides, and metals. '
-------
Chapter Twelve Commission Summaries ZO1
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The Lower Delaware Monitoring
Program collects chemical and biolog-
ical data at 20 fixed river locations and
22 tributaries. During the summer of
1999, the freshwater portion of die
lower Delaware was sampled several
times at 22 stations for conventional
parameters. The DRBC may revise
the monitoring program in an eflbrt
to have the lower Delaware River
designated as a "National Wild aid
Scenic and Recreational" river. A 1999
report recommended that fecal coli-
form and enterococcus be added to
the monitoring effort. The DRBC is
also developing an index of biotic
integrity, assessing the impact of
aquatic vegetation on water quality,
and developing a list of invasive
species along the river corridor.
The Comprehensive Conserva-
tion and Management Plan for tie
Delaware Estuary includes a sampling
program that involves 18 stations.
These stations are sampled 12 times
each year for bacteria, heavy met, Is,
nutrients, and conventional pollutants.
Four additional sites have been added
since 1999 and are sampled seven
times per year. Since 1999, toxiciry
samples have been taken annually
at 12 stations. Bacteriological data
collected by New Jersey's Shellfish
Program were used to assess swim-
ming support on the New Jersey side
of the bay. More than 1,000 samples
were collected at 142 stations to
monitor the shellfish beds.
The DRBC may revise its water
quality standards for the freshwa'rer
zone. Enterococcus may replace lecal
coliform because it is a more sensitive
measure of bacterial water quality. The
pH standard may also be increased
from 8.5 to 9.0 to be consistent "vrith
federal and state regulations. A stand-
ard of 9.0 pH units was applied for
this assessment.
Data Quality
Commissions report
whether their assessments
are based on recent moni-
toring data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
This pie chart shows
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
0% 100%
Evaluated- Evaluated-
Good Impaired
0% 0%
Individual Use Support
in the Delaware River Basin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
{Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 206)
Total Miles
Assessed
206
99
100
206
100
206
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 866)
a 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.
-------
202 Chapter Twelve Commission Summaries
Interstate Environmental
Commission
• Rivers
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
' State Border
1! '
For a copy of the Interstate
Environmental Commission 2000
305(b) report, contact:
Peter L.Satder
Principal Environmental Planner
Interstate Environmental Commission
311 West 43rd Street - Suite 201
New York, New York 10036
(212) 582-0380
e-mail: psattler@iec-nynjct.org
Surface Water Quality
The Interstate Environmental
Commission (IEC; formerly the
Interstate Sanitation Commission) is a
joint agency between New York, New
Jersey, and Connecticut. It serves as
a regulatory and enforcement agency
for 798 square miles of estuarine
waters shared by the three states. The
majority of assessed estuarine area
supports aquatic life (85%) and swim-
ming (76%). Eight percent of the
assessed estuaries cannot attain their
designated use of swimming. Organic
compounds, nutrients, and pathogens
are commonly cited pollutants. Some
of the waters are severely oxygen
depleted as a result of nutrient and
organic enrichment. Other issues that
threaten water quality include toxic
contamination of sediments and
pollution from combined sewer
overflow (CSOs).
A majority of the assessed estuar-
ies are impaired for fish consumption
(83%) and shellfish consumption
(63%). All three states have promul-
gated seasonal closures and restrictions
on size and number for several finfish
species. Habitat loss, chemical con-
tamination, oxygen depletion, and
excessive fishing contributed to these
restrictions. Specific contaminants
include pathogens,; metals, pesticides,
and inorganic compounds. In 1986,
the IEC established a disinfection
requirement for discharges to district
waters. This reduced bacterial con-
tamination and opened thousands of
acres of shellfish beds for harvest on a
year-round basis. ;
In 2000, there-were 209 beach
closures at 84 public bathing beaches.
Rain, urban runoff CSOs, and
washed-up debris caused elevated
levels of bacteria that led to the beach
closings. ;
Ground Water Quality
The IEC does not have jurisdic-
tion over ground water.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The IEC enforces water quality
regulations through sampling, analy-
ses, research, legal activities, and coor-
dination with the states arid EPA. The
IEC also provides technical assistance
and support to its member states and
disseminates information to the public
and legislative bodies.
The IEC has established more
stringent permit requirements to
control and prevent pollutants from
emptying into tri-state waterways.
It also was instrumental in. obtaining
improved operational procedures at
the Fresh Kills Landfill to prevent
garbage from washing up along
shorelines. •
-------
Chapter Twelve Commission Summaries 2O3
In 1999, there were 94 releases
of raw or partially treated wastewater.
The IEC chairs the Regional Bypass
Work Group that developed a model
to identify areas affected by unplanned
bypasses of inadequately treated dis-
charges. This group also developed
regional notification and tracking
procedures to protect bathers and
shellfisheries. A 1997 regulation
amended to the IEC Water Quality
Regulations requires that IEC receive
advance notification of all planned
sewage bypasses.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The IEC, in conjunction with
other agencies, participates in several
ambient water quality surveys. Each
summer, the Long Island Sound
Study monitors dissolved oxygen,
temperature, salinity, and chlorophyll
a. Since 1998, water samples have
been collected and delivered to Nassau
County Health Department for iden-
tification of phytoplankton species.
Since 1999, additional samples have
been collected to determine the pres-
ence of a toxic dinoflagellate, Pfiesteria
piscicida. The IEC also conducts
surveys of shellfish-harvesting waters
in the New Jersey portion of western
Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays to
assess these waters under worst-case
conditions.
The IEC coordinates its compli-
ance monitoring with EPA and the
states' environmental departments.
The IEC regularly samples discharges
from municipal and industrial facilities
that are permitted under the NPDES
program and are subject to IEC
Water Quality Regulations. Effluent
surveys are conducted at approxi-
mately 72 municipal treatment
facilities several times a year. Five
investigations are conducted each year
at industrial facilities.
Individual Use Support for the Interstate
Environmental Commission
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired Not
(Fully Supporting {Partially Supporting Attainable
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Estuaries and Bays (Total Square Miles = 798)
a A subset of the Interstate Environmental Commission's designated uses appear in this
figure. Refer to the commission's 305(b) report for a full description of the commis-
sion's uses.
Note: All waters under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Environmental Commission
are esruarine.
-------
204 Chapter Twelve Commission Summaries
Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission
(ORSANCO)
Rivers
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!git Hydrologic Unit)
' State Border ;
For a copy of the ORSANCO 2000
30S(b) report, contact:
Public Information Department
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45228-1112
Surface Water Quality
The Ohio River provides drink-
ing water to nearly 3 million people.
It also serves as a transportation route,
recreational water body, habitat for
aquatic life, and water source for
manufacturing and power generation.
More than 25 million people reside in
its river basin. The Ohio River flows
through Pennsylvania and forms part
of the state boundaries for Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, West Virginia, and
Kentucky. The Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission
(ORSANCO) is an interstate agency
responsible for abating existing poEu-
tion and preventing further degrada-
tion in the Ohio River basin.
The majority of assessed river
miles support aquatic life (94%). The
most common contaminants cited for
impairing rivers include PCBs, prior-
ity organics, and mercury. Sources of
contamination include agriculture :
and industrial and municipal point
sources. Approximately 95% of the
assessed miles are impaired for swim-
ming. This estimate may be biased
as contaminated areas are emphasized
when monitoring for swimming
support. In addition to the sources j
mentioned above, : there are also :
49 combined sewer systems located
along the Ohio River that contribute
significant amounts of bacteria.
ORSANCO estimated 1,000 com-
bined sewer overflows (CSOs) on ,
the Ohio River, which is 10% of the :
national total. '• ;
Fish consumption use was based ,
primarily on the states' issuance offish
consumption advisories. The entire
Ohio River is covered by at least one
restricted fish consumption advisory .
due to PCBs, mercury, or chlordane.
During 1999, there were several
reports offish kills that are most likely
a result of point source discharge.
Ground Water Quality
ORSANCO |does not have juris-
diction over ground water in the Ohio
River basin. '
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
In 1992, an ihteragency group
developed a CSO program to coordi-
nate the states' strategies. In 1993, ;
ORSANCO added CSO require- '.
ments to the Pollution Control Stand-
ards for the Ohio iRiver and adopted ai
strategy for monitoring impacts of
CSOs on water quality. ORSANCO ;
has several wet weather studies aimed
at quantifying CSO and nonpoint
sources of pollution. These projects ;
also quantify improvements in water
quality from CSO controls.
The Ohio River Watershed
Pollutant Reduction Program I
addresses pollutants, such as PCBs
-------
Chapter Twelve Commission Summaries 205
and chlordane, on a watershed basis.
The objectives of the program are to
assess the extent of impairment, iden-
tify sources and their relative impacts,
and recommend abatement strategies.
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
ORSANCO conducts several
monitoring programs on behalf of
the states. The Bimonthly Sampling
Program analyzes grab samples from
17 stations every 2 months. In addi-
tion, quarterly samples are analyzed
for metals and selenium. The Dis-
solved Metals Sampling Program
analyzes total and dissolved metal
concentrations from five stations every
2 months. The Contact Recreation
Season Monitoring Program samples
monthly at six stations for fecal col-
iform and E. coli bacteria. In addition,
ORSANCO receives bacteria moni-
toring data from seven public water
utilities. The Ohio River Watershed
Pollutant Reduction Program analyzes
samples for dioxin. The Organics
Detection System includes twelve
stations at public water supply intakes.
Water samples are collected daily and
are analyzed for volatile organic com-
pounds. Three of the stations give
concentration data, and nine report
whether the compounds are detected
or not. This network is used primarily
for detecting spills.
Biological monitoring includes
fish population surveys and fish tissue
analyses. ORSANCO is using the
Modified Index of Well Being
(MIWB) to assess fish population
data until they develop a more suitable
index based on the Index of Biotic
Integrity. The MIWB incorporates
species diversity, biomass, and total
fish counts. Fish tissue is analyzed for
some metals, PCBs, dioxins, and pes-
ticides. ORSANCO is also working
to develop a macroinvertebrate index.
Individual Use Support
in the Ohio River Valley Basin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total wines = gsi)b
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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
206 Chapter Twelve Commission Summaries
Susquehanna River Basin
Commission
Location of Commission
Jurisdiction
• Rivers
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
1 State Border
For a copy of the SRBC 2000 305(b)
report, contact:
Jen Hoffinan
Susquehanna River Basin
Commission
1721 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 238-0425
e-mail: Jhoflfman@srbc.net
Surface Water Quality
The Susquehanna River drains
27,510 square miles from portions of
New York, Pennsylvania, and Mary-
land. It contributes over half of the
freshwater inflow to the Chesapeake
Bay. The surface water in the river
basin consists of 31,193 miles of rivers
and 79,687 acres of lakes. The Sus-
quehanna River Basin Commission
(SRBC) assessed over 400 miles of
rivers and streams for the 2000 305(b)
report. The SRBC did not assess lake
quality during this cycle.
The majority of assessed river
miles support aquatic life (71%) and
swimming (100%). Major causes of
impairment include metal and nutri-
ent enrichment, siltation, and habitat
alteration. These impairments arise
from a variety of sources, including
agriculture, acid mine drainage, hydro-
logic modification, municipal point
sources, and urban runoff.
Ground Water Quality
Studies have shown that man-
made problems affecting ground water
quality are generally confined to a
small number of wells. Many of the ;
ground water contaminants occur
naturally (e.g., dissolved solids).
Contamination occurs from various
metals and inorganic compounds,
including chromium, iron, lead,
manganese, sulfate, and nitrate.
Programs To Restore
Water Quality
The SRBC coordinates all activi-
ties in the Susquehanna River basin
that relate to water quality manage-
ment and compliance. The point
source program is focused on upgrad-
ing and developing public and private :
waste treatment facilities. The SRBC .
also reviews discharge permits and
provides comments to agencies on
matters within their jurisdiction. The
nonpoint source program focuses on :
controlling stormwater runoff and ;
pollution by fulfilling the objectives !
of the Chesapeake Bay Program. :
Programs To Assess
Water Quality
The data contained in this report '
originate from the 1999 Interstate ;
Streams Water Quality Network sur- i
vey and from pastjsubbasin surveys. i
The SRBC coordinates water quality :
standards among states to avoid
conflicts over interstate streams. The
Interstate Water Quality Monitoring
Network monitors the interstate
-------
Chapter Twelve Commission Summaries 2O7
streams for chemical and biological
parameters. Benthic macroinvertebrate
populations are used to assess biologi-
cal conditions. Thirty-one streams are
monitored as part of this program.
Depth-integrated samples are col-
lected quarterly or annually depending
on the stream's potential for degrada-
tion.
There are six major subbasins in
the Susquehanna River basin. Each
sampling cycle lasts 12 years, with
2 years of sampling per subbasin.
During the first year, the subbasin
is sampled intensively for 3 weeks
between midsummer and early fall.
Grab samples are usually collected,
but depth-integrated samples can be
taken from bridges on larger streams.
Each site is given a habitat assessment
score based on several physical and
chemical parameters. The results from
the first year of monitoring are used to
select watersheds that will be targeted
during the second year.
The SRBC obtains ground water
quality data from withdrawal permits,
investigations, cooperative studies,
and ambient monitoring programs.
Anyone who proposes to withdraw
more than 100,000 gallons per day for
any consecutive 30-day period must
obtain approval to do so. As part of
the approval process, the applicant is
obligated to sample the ground water
and report on its quality every 3 years.
Data Quality*
Commissions report
whether their assessments
are based on recent moni-
toring data or older, more
qualitative evaluated data.
This pie chart shows
the proportions of waters
assessed for Summary
of Use Support that
were based on each
type of data.
Rivers
Monitored- Monitored-
Good Impaired
62% 28%
Evaluated-
Impaired
1%
Evaluated-
Good
9%
* Data represent aquatic life
use support.
Individual Use Support
in the Susquehanna River Basin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Impaired
(Fully Supporting (Partially Supporting
or Threatened) or Not Supporting)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 3i,i93)b
Total Miles
71
29
a A subset of the SRBC's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the commission's 30S(b) report for a full description of the
commission's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices
For additional information about water quality in your region, please contact your
EPA Regional Section 305(b) Coordinator listed below:
Diane Switzer
EPA Region 1
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02421
(781) 860-4377
switzer.diane@epa.gov
Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Maine, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
Heather Barnhart
EPA Region 2
DEPP-CEPB 24th Floor
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
barnhart.heather@epa.gov
(202) 637-3793
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Mark Barath
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
barath.mark@epa.gov
(215) 814-2759
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Vir-
ginia, West Virginia, District of Colum-
bia
David Melgaard
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-9265
melgaard.david@epa.gov
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
Dave Stoltenberg
EPA Region 5
Water Division (WT-15J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
(312) 353-5784
stoltenberg.david@epa.gov
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Paul Koska
EPA Region 6 (6WQzEW)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-8357
koska.paul@epa.gov
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Okla-
homa, Texas
Robert Steiert
EPA Region 7
901 North Fifth Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7433
steiert.robert@epa.gov
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Tina Laidlaw
EPA Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2450
(303) 312-6880
laidlaw.tina@epa.gov
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Janet Hashimoto
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1933
hashimoto.janet@epa.gov
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam
Theresa Pimentel
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-0257
pimentel.theresa@epa.gov
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
U.S. EPA Regions
I ^ Virgin Islands
Puerto Rico
For additional information about water quality in your state or other jurisdiction,
please contact your Section 305(b) Coordinator listed in Chapters 10,11, or 12.
-------
§§
O JU
^
. 31
TI
I
$
£B.
CD
co.
CD
co
CO
^r o CD CD
i-oa °-
fli'g
D^t"
O < CD __
C5) ^
O CD
cn
o
m
------- |