-------
This report was prepared pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, which states:
"(b)(1) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1,1975, and shall
bring up to date by April 1,1976, and biennially thereafter, a report which shall include
"(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State during the
preceding year, with appropriate supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take
into account seasonal, tidal, and other variations, correlated with the quality of water
required by the objective of this Act (as identified by the Administrator pursuant to
criteria published under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water quality described in
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;
"(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such State provide for the
protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and
allow recreational activities in and on the water;
"(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and
a level of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the
water, have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this Act, together with
recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for
what waters such additional action is necessary;
"(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic and social costs
necessary to achieve the objective of this Act in such State, (iii) the economic and social
benefits of such achievement; and (iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and
"(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and
recommendations as to the programs which must be undertaken to control each category
of such sources, including an estimate of the costs of implementing such programs.
"(2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together with an analysis thereof,
to Congress on or before October 1,1975, and October 1,1976, and biennially thereafter."
Cover photo of Lake Mead by Patricia Cunningham
-------
\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Albert Gore
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. President:
As required by Section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, I am transmitting to the
Congress the 1992 National Water Quality Inventory Report. This biennial report is the ninth in a series
of national water quality assessments first published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
in 1975 and biennially since 1976.
While this report indicates that most of the Nation's waters are of good quality, it also indicates that
the remaining waters are impaired to varying degrees. Of assessed waters, a majority are reported to be
supporting the beneficial uses for which they have been designated by the States, but a significant number
are not. States reported that these uses, such as drinking water supply, swimming, and the propagation
of aquatic life were supported in 62 percent of assessed river miles, 56 percent of assessed lake acres, and
68 percent of assessed estuarine square miles. However, States report that they consider some of these
waters threatened because they could become impaired if pollution control actions are not taken.
According to the States, the most commonly reported problems in impaired waters are from nonpoint
sources (such as runoff from agricultural lands). Pollutants include nutrients, siltation, pathogens, and
metals. Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in rivers and lakes, and ranks in the top three sources
in estuaries.
We as a Nation have made important strides toward cleaning up America's waterways, yet 40 percent
of our rivers, lakes, and estuaries are still not suitable for fishing and swimming. The Administration has a
proposal for fundamental changes to the Clean Water Act that will address the last remaining sources of
pollution at a reduced cost to the Nation. The proposed reform would cost $30 billion less per year than
the current law. In addition, it would allow more flexibility in controlling pollution in ways that work best
for each locality. We look forward to working with Congress to adopt the Administration's proposal.
Sincerely,
Carol M. Browner
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Thomas S. Foley
Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
As required by Section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, I am transmitting to the
Congress the 1992 National Water Quality Inventory Report. This biennial report is the ninth in a series
of national water quality assessments first published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
in 1975 and biennially since 1976.
While this report indicates that most of the Nation's waters are of good quality, it also indicates that
the remaining waters are impaired to varying degrees. Of assessed waters, a majority are reported to be
supporting the beneficial uses for which they have been designated by the States, but a significant number
are not. States reported that these uses, such as drinking water supply, swimming, and the propagation
of aquatic life were supported in 62 percent of assessed river miles, 56 percent of assessed lake acres, and
68 percent of assessed estuarine square miles. However, States report that they consider some of these
waters threatened because they could become impaired if pollution control actions are not taken.
According to the States, the most commonly reported problems in impaired waters are from nonpoint
sources (such as runoff from agricultural lands). Pollutants include nutrients, siltation, pathogens, and
metals. Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in rivers and lakes, and ranks in the top three sources
in estuaries.
We as a Nation have made important strides toward cleaning up America's waterways, yet 40 percent
of our rivers, lakes, and estuaries are still not suitable for fishing and swimming. The Administration has a
proposal for fundamental changes to the Clean Water Act that will address the last remaining sources of
pollution at a reduced cost to the Nation. The proposed reform would cost $30 billion less per year than
the current law. In addition, it would allow more flexibility in controlling pollution in ways that work best
for each locality. We look forward to working with Congress to adopt the Administration's proposal.
Sincerely,
Carol M. Browner
-------
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 ten
EPA Regions who work with the States.
The project manager and editor of this document was Barry Burgan of the Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Key contributions were
also made by the following individuals in other EPA program offices: Richard McDermott, Ground
Water Protection Division; Rob Wood, Permits Division; Benjy Picks, Wetlands Division; Ann Beier,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch; Kevin Perry, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division; Brett Snyder,
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation; Kevin Summers and Steve Paulsen, Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program; Joseph Macknis, Chesapeake Bay Program; Susan MacMullin,
Gulf of Mexico Program; and Alice Mayio, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division. Additional
information was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Contractor support was provided under Contracts 68-C3-0303 and 68-C9-0013 with Tetra Tech,
Inc. Subcontractor Research Triangle Institute (RTI) provided data analysis, additional technical
assistance, editorial support, design, typesetting, and graphics. Additional graphic design concepts
were provided by David Stolar and JT&A, Inc., under Contract No. 68-C3-0303.
Photo Credits
Executive Summary: Paul Coetz
Chapters 1, 5, 6, 7, and 18: David Small
Chapters 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 16: Pat Cunningham
Chapters 4 and 13: Steve Minnich
Chapter 11: Michigan Sea Grant
Chapter 14: Julie Fountain
Chapters 15 and 17: Georgia Minnich
-------
For more information about the National Water Quality Inventory
Report or for additional copies of this report or the companion
!''t'' sditimar^document, contact: '" ^ """""' '""";"""" " '""'""" ""'
iBi1",; I*;;1 <
Barry Burgan
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
'.' (262) 260-7060 '""
(202) 260-1977 (fax)
-------
Contents
Page
Figures vii
Tables x
Executive Summary ES-1
Introduction ES-1
Why Is It Important to Learn About Water Pollution ES-1
Measuring Water Quality ES-2
How Many of Our Waters Were Assessed for 1992? ES-4
Pollutants That Degrade Water Quality ES-6
Sources of Water Pollution ES-8
Rivers and Streams ES-10
Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs ES-13
The Great Lakes ES-15
Estuaries ES-16
Ocean Coastal Waters ES-18
Wetlands ES-19
Ground Water ES-22
Water Quality Protection Programs ES-24
What You Can Do ES-35
Highlight: Fish Consumption Advisories ES-38
Parti: Introduction
Chapter 1
Introduction 3
The Clean Water Act 3
Assessment Methodology 5
Overall Use Support 6
Total Assessed Waters 6
Causes and Sources of Impairment 7
Changes in Reporting Methodology 8
Highlight: The Waterbody System: A Database of Water
Quality Assessments 10
Part II: Water Quality Assessments
Chapter 2
Rivers and Streams : 15
Overall Use Support 16'
Individual Use Support 17
Causes of Impairment 18
Sources of Impairment 19
Highlight: Nutrient Loads in Four Major River Basins 22
-------
Chapter 3 Page
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 27
Overall Use Support 27
Individual Use Support 28
Causes of Impairment 29
Sources of Impairment 32
Highlight: EMAP-Surface Waters: Northeast Lakes Pilot 34
Chapter 4
Estuaries and Ocean Coastal Waters 37
Estuaries 38
Overall Use Support 38
Individual Use Support 39
Causes of Impairment 39
Sources of Impairment 41
Highlight: A Regional Assessment of the Ecological Condition
of Estuaries 42
Highlight: Chemical Contamination in Coastal Sediments 48
Ocean Coastal Waters 50
Overall Use Support 50
Individual Use Support 50
Causes and Sources of Impairment 51
Chapter 5
Wetlands 55
Introduction 55
Values and Functions of Wetlands 56
Consequences of Wetlands Loss and Degradation 57
Extent of the Resource 58
Integrity of the Resource 61
Designated Use Support in Wetlands 62
Summary 64
-------
Chapter 6 Page
Ground Water Quality 67
Introduction 67
Ground Water Use . 67
Ground Water Quality 70
Highlight: Are Pesticides Affecting Ground Water Quality?
Case Study of the Delmarva Peninsula 74
Highlight: Are Pesticides Affecting Ground Water Quality? Findings of
the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells ...... 78
Chapter 7
Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 83
Public Health Concerns 83
Toxic Pollutants 83
Highlight: The National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (NSCRF) 86
Bacterial and Viral Contamination 90
Aquatic Ecosystem Concerns .. 92
Toxic Pollutants 92
Physical and Chemical Conditions 93
Fish Kills Caused by Pollution 93
Sediment Contamination 95
Total Waters Affected by Toxic Pollutants 97
Chapter 8
Individual State Summaries 101
Chapter 9
State Recommendations 161
Nonpoint Source Abatement 162
Identification and Control of Toxic Substances 162
Water Quality Monitoring 163
Future Ground Water Concerns 163
Wetlands Protection 164
Pollutant Source Discharge Permitting 165
Municipal Facilities 165
Water Quality Criteria and Standards 166
in
-------
Part III: Water Quality Management Programs
Chapter 10 Page
The Watershed Protection Approach 169
Background 169
Implementation 170
Highlight: The Anacostia River Restoration Project 172
Highlight: Puget Sound Watershed Planning 174
Chapter 11
Geographically Targeted Programs 179
Introduction 179
The Great Waterbodies Program 179
Background 179
The Gulf of Mexico 179
The Great Lakes Basin 184
The Chesapeake Bay Program 194
The Great Waters Program 200
The National Estuary Program 201
Chapter 12
Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 211
Introduction 211
Overview of National Monitoring Activity 211
Effects of Changes in Water Programs 212
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality 213
Major Nationwide Monitoring Programs 214
Office of Water Programs to Support Monitoring 217
Specific Water Program Monitoring 220
EPA Data and Information Systems 223
Highlight: Volunteer Monitoring 224
Chapter 13
Point Source Control Program 231
Treating Municipal Wastewater . 231
Funding Needs for Wastewater Treatment 232
Treating Industrial Wastewater 233
Permitting, Compliance, and Enforcement 234
National Municipal Policy 235
Controlling Toxicants 236
The National Pretreatment Program ; 238
Managing Sewage Sludge 240
New Initiatives in Point Source Control 242
fv
-------
Chapter 14 Page
Nonpoint Source Control Program 247
Background 247
The National Section 319 Program 247
Reports on Section 319 Activities 249
National NPS Strategic Plan 250
Nonpoint Source Management Programs and Implementation 251
Funding for Nonpoint Source Control 256
Chapter 15
The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 261
Introduction 261
Program Goals and Objectives 262
Publicly Owned Lakes 263
Clean Lake Program Implementation Grants 264
Section 314 Reporting Requirements 266
Highlight: The Red Lake Chippewa Lake Assessment Grant 268
Trophic Status 270
Acid Effects on Lakes 274
Toxic Effects on Lakes 275
Trends in Significant Public Lakes 276
Lake Restoration and Pollution Control Measures 277
Chapter 16
Wetlands Protection Programs 281
Section 404 281
Wetlands Water Quality Standards 282
Water Quality Certification of Federal Permits and Licenses 283
State Wetlands Conservation Plans 283
State Wetlands Protection Grants 284
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 284
Nonpoint Source Pollution and Wetlands 284
Swampbuster 285
State Programs to Protect Wetlands 285
Highlight: Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Program 288
Opportunities and Recommendations from States 290
Summary 292
-------
Chapter 17 Page
Ground Water Protection Programs 295
Resource Protection 295
Pollutant Source Control 306
Chemical Product Controls 311
Pollution Prevention 313
EPA Management of Ground Water Data 314
USGS Ground Water Quality Investigations 316
Part IV: Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
Chapter 18
Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 321
Introduction 321
Costs 321
Benefits 325
The Greater Benefits of Water Quality Programs 327
Appendixes
Appendix A: Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-1
Appendix B: Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-1
Appendix C: Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-1
Appendix D: Individual State Data - Wetlands D-1
Appendix E: Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic
Life Concerns E-1
Appendix F: Individual State Data - Great Lakes F-1
Appendix G: Individual State Data - Section 314 Clean Lakes G-1
VI
-------
Figures
No. Page
ES-1 Percent of Total Waters Assessed for the 1992 Report . . ES-5
ES-2 Levels of Overall Use Support - Rivers and Streams ES-10
ES-3 Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired by Pollutants ES-10
ES-4 Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired by Sources
of Pollution ES-11
ES-5 Levels of Overall Use Support - Lakes ES-12
ES-6 Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired by Pollutants ES-13
ES-7 Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired by Sources
of Pollution ES-14
ES-8 Levels of Overall Use Support-Great Lakes ES-15
ES-9 Percent of Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles Impaired
by Pollutants ES-15
ES-10 Percent of Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles Impaired by
Sources of Pollution ES-16
ES-11 Levels of Overall Use Support - Estuaries ES-17
ES-12 Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles Impaired
by Pollutants ES-17
ES-13 Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles Impaired by Sources
of Pollution ES-18
ES-14 Levels of Overall Use Support - Ocean Coastal Waters ES-19
ES-15 Levels of Overall Use Support - Wetlands ES-20
ES-16 Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity ES-21
ES-17 Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity . . .". ES-21
ES-18 In-Lake Treatment Techniques Implemented by the States.... ES-28
ES-19 Management Options for Lake Restoration and Pollution
Control ES-28
ES-20 Locations of National Estuary Program Sites ES-29
1 -1 Percentage of Total Waters Assessed for the 1992 Report 7
2-1 The States Assessed 642,881 Miles of Rivers and Streams
in 1992 15
2-2 Overall Use Support in Assessed Rivers and Streams 16
2-3 Individual Use Support in Rivers and Streams 17
2-4 The Effects of Siltation in Rivers and Streams 18
2-5 Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired by Pollutants 19
2-6 Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired by Sources
of Pollution 20
2-7 Distribution of Agricultural Impacts on Rivers and Streams 21
3-1 The States Assessed Almost Half of the Nation's Lake Waters
Excluding the Great Lakes in 1992 27
3-2 Overall Use Support in Assessed Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds. . . 28
3-3 Individual Use Support in Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 29
3-4 Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired by Pollutants 30
3-5 Distribution of Lake Acres Impaired by Nutrients 31
3-6 Lake Impaired by Excessive Nutrients/Healthy Lake Ecosystem .. 32
3-7 Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired by Sources of Pollution 33
VII
-------
Page
4-1 The States Assessed 27,227 Square Miles of Estuarine Waters
in 1992 37
4-2 Overall Use Support in Assessed Estuaries 38
4-3 Individual Use Support in Estuaries 39
4-4 Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles Impaired
by Pollutants 40
4-5 Pathogen Indicators 40
4-6 Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles Impaired by Sources
of Pollution 41
4-7 Overall Use Support in Assessed Ocean Coastal Waters 50
4-8 Individual Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters 51
4-9 Percent of Assessed Ocean Shore Miles Impaired by Pollutants. . 52
4-10 Percent of Assessed Ocean Shore Miles Impaired by Sources
of Pollution 52
5-1 Depiction of Wetland Adjacent to Waterbody 55
5-2 Formation of Detritus in a Tidal Salt Marsh 56
5-3 States with More Than 50% Wetlands Loss 58
5-4 Sources of Current Wetlands Losses 59
5-5 Designated Use Support in Wetlands 63
5-6 Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity 63
5-7 Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity 64
6-1 National Ground Water Withdrawals by Water Use Category... 68
6-2 Total Fresh Ground Water Withdrawals by State 68
6-3 Fresh Ground Water Withdrawals by Water Use Category 69
6-4 Overall Ground Water Quality 70
6-5 Sources of Contamination 71
6-6 Highest Priority Contamination Sources 72
6-7 Substances Contaminating Ground Water 73
7-1 Fish Consumption Advisories in the United States 84
7-2 Pollutants Causing Fish Consumption Advisories 85
7-3 Sources of Contaminants Causing Fishing Advisories 89
7-4 Sources Associated with Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions 91
7-5 Pollutants Causing Recreational Restrictions 92
7-6 Number of Fish Kills Nationwide 94
7-7 Pollutants Associated with Fish Kills , 95
7-8 Sources Associated with Fish Kills 96
7-9 Waters Monitored for Toxic Contamination 97
7-10 Percent of Monitored Waters with Toxic Contamination 98
viii
-------
Page
10-1 Neuse River Basin 171
11 -1 Overall Use Support in the Great Lakes Shoreline 185
11-2 Individual Use Support: in the Great Lakes 186
11 -3 Percent of Great Lakes Shore Miles Impaired by Pollutants 188
11-4 Percent of Great Lakes Shore Miles Impaired by Sources
of Pollution 188
11-5 Present State and Desired Future State of the Lower
Green Bay Ecosystem 191
11 -6 Status of Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Development for
Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes 192
11 -7 Effects of Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay 195
11-8 1985 Total Nitrogen Base Load Distribution in
Chesapeake Bay 196
11-9 1985 Total Phosphorus Base Load Distribution in
Chesapeake Bay 196
11-10 Point Source Phosphorus Reduction Progress 198
13-1 Percent of Facilities in Significant Noncompliance with NPDES
Permit Requirements 235
15-1 Activities Conducted with Clean Lakes Program Grants 262
15-2 The Progression of Eutrophication 271
16-1 Development of State Water Quality Standards for Wetlands ... 282
16-2 Funding for Wetlands Protection Projects 284
17-1 States with EPA-Approved Wellhead Protection Programs 298
17-2 States with National Rural Water Association Wellhead
Protection Programs 299
17-3 Types of State Ground Water Protection Wellhead Protection
Programs 301
17-4 Ongoing Ground Water Protection Programs of States
and Territories Reporting 303
17-5 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Programs 309
IX
-------
Tables
No. Page
ES-1 Levels of Use Support ES-3
ES-2 Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment ES-6
ES-3 Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report ES-8
ES-4 Five Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment ES-9
1 -1 Levels of Use Support 5
1 -2 Comparison of Waters Assessed in 1990 and 1992 9
7-1 Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions Reported by the States 90
11-1 Effects of Toxic Contamination on Fish and Wildlife
in the Great Lakes 187
11-2 Toxic Chemicals of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin:
11 Critical Pollutants Identified by the IJC's Water
Quality Board 190
11-3 Nitrogen Loading to Chesapeake Bay -1985 Base Load
and Controllable Fraction 197
11 -4 Phosphorus Loading to Chesapeake Bay -1985 Base Load
and Controllable Fraction 197
11 -5 Results of Phosphorus Detergent Bans in the Chesapeake
Bay System 198
13-1 Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
and Other Eligibilities 232
13-2 Status of Permit Issuance 234
15-1 Effects of pH on Aquatic Life 274
15-2 Number of States Reporting Use of In-Lake Restoration
Measures 278
15-3 Number of States Reporting Control Measures 278
17-1 Status of Federal Financially Assisted Projects Reviewed
by EPA Under the Sole Source Aquifer Program 300
17-2 Summary of State Ground Water Protection Programs 304
18-1 Total Annualized Costs of Water Pollution Control for the
United States 322
18-2 Total Annualized Costs of Environmental Protection in the
United States 322
18-3 State and Federal Expenditures for Water Pollution Control
in Pennsylvania, 1987-1991 323
18-4 Washington State Expenditures for Water Pollution Control 324
18-5 Wastewater Treatment System Expenditures and Ohio River
Water Quality Improvements 324
-------
-------
-------
Executive Summary
Introduction
The 1992 Report to Congress
describes the geographic extent of
water pollution across the country
and identifies specific pollutants and
sources of pollutants contaminating
our waters. This national snapshot
of water quality conditions summa-
rizes information submitted by the
States, the District of Columbia,
Territories, Interstate Water Basin
Commissions, and one American
Indian Tribe in their 1992 water
quality assessment reports (required
under Clean Water Act Section
305(b)). The 1992 Section 305(b)
reports contain assessments of each
State's water quality during 1990
and 1991.
This report displays and summa-
rizes data provided by the States to
EPA. EPA has not determined the
accuracy of these data. It is impor-
tant to note that these State-
reported data are intended to
provide a snapshot of the quality of
the waters they assessed and cannot
be used to determine trends in our
Nation's water resources. These
limitations are due to major differ-
ences from year to year in assess-
ment methods within and between
States as well as differences in the
waters assessed in each 2-year
period. In addition, not all States
follow EPA's guidance on proce-
dures for determining whether
waters are supporting the uses des-
ignated in their water quality stan-
dards. EPA and the States are taking
many steps toward transforming
the 305(b) process into one that
provides comparable data with
known accuracy. These steps
include implementing the recom-
mendations of the National 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup and the
Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality, as well
as improving the Section 305(b)
guidelines and implementing the
Office of Water's Monitoring Strat-
egy. These efforts will foster consis-
tency and accuracy among the
States and allow better sharing of
data for watershed protection and
across political boundaries.
Why Is It Important
To Learn About Water
Pollution?
The EPA encourages each citi-
zen to become a steward of our
precious natural resources. Complex
environmental threats and diminish-
ing funds for pollution control force
us to jointly solve the pollution
problems that foul our beaches and
lakes or close our favorite fishing
sites. We need to understand these
problems and become a part of
their solution. Once we understand
these pollution problems and what
is needed to combat them, we will
be better able to prioritize our
efforts, devise sound solutions, take
appropriate action, monitor
progress after solutions are imple-
mented, and modify behavior that
contributes to the problems.
-------
ES-2 Executive Summary
This document provides
fundamental water quality informa-
tion needed to resolve our persistent
water pollution problems. This
Report to Congress
Defines key water quality
concepts
Discusses the leading pollution
problems in rivers and streams,
lakes, estuaries, coastal waters,
wetlands, and ground water as
reported to EPA by the States
Briefly describes major State and
Federal activities to control water
pollution
Offers several water quality
protection actions for every citizen
to adopt.
Measuring Water
Quality
The States assess the quality of
their waters by determining if their
waters attain State water quality
standards. Water quality standards
consist of beneficial uses, numeric
and narrative criteria for supporting
each use, and an antidegradation
statement:
Designated beneficial uses are
the desirable uses that water quality
should support. Examples are drink-
ing water supply, primary contact
recreation (such as swimming), and
aquatic life support. Each desig-
nated use has a unique set of water
quality requirements or criteria that
must be met for the use to be real-
ized. States may designate an indi-
vidual waterbody for multiple
beneficial uses.
Numeric water quality criteria
establish the minimum physical,
chemical, and biological parameters
required to support a beneficial use.
Physical and chemical numeric
criteria may set maximum concen-
trations of pollutants, acceptable
ranges of physical parameters, and
minimum concentrations of desir-
able parameters, such as dissolved
oxygen. Numeric biological criteria
describe the expected attainable
community attributes and establish
values based on measures such as
species richness, presence or
absence of indicator taxa, and distri-
bution of classes of organisms.
Narrative water quality criteria
define, rather than quantify, condi-
tions and attainable goals that must
be maintained to support a desig-
nated use. Narrative biological cri-
teria establish a positive statement
about aquatic community character-
istics expected to occur within a
waterbody; for example, "Ambient
water quality shall be sufficient to
support life stages of all indigenous
aquatic species." Narrative criteria
may also describe conditions that
are desired in a waterbody, such as,
"Waters must be free of substances
that are toxic to humans, aquatic
life, and wildlife."
Antidegradation statements
protect existing designated uses and
prevent high-quality waterbodies
from deteriorating below the water
quality necessary to maintain exist-
ing or anticipated designated bene-
ficial uses.
The Clean Water Act provides
primary authority to States to set
their own standards but requires
that all State beneficial uses and
their criteria comply with the
-------
Executive Summary ES-3
"fishable and swimmable" goals of
the Act. At a minimum, State bene-
ficial uses must support aquatic life
and recreational use. In effect, States
cannot designate "waste assimila-
tion" as a beneficial use, as some
States did prior to 1972.
The EPA recommends that
States assess support of the follow-
ing individual beneficial uses:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody pro-
vides suitable habitat for survival
and reproduction of desirable fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic organ-
isms.
Fish Consumption
The waterbody sup-
ports a population
of fish free from contamination that
could pose a human health risk to
consumers.
Shellfish Harvesting
The waterbody sup-
ports a population
of shellfish free from toxicants and
pathogens that could pose a human
health risk to consumers.
Drinking Water
Supply
The waterbody can
supply safe drinking water with
conventional treatment.
Primary Contact
Recreation -
Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
waterborne diseases from raw
sewage contamination).
Secondary Contact
Recreation
People can perform
activities on the water (such as
canoeing) without risk of adverse
human health effects from occa-
sional contact with the water.
The water quality is
suitable for irrigating
fields or watering livestock.
EPA recognizes five levels of use
support (Table ES-1). If possible, the
States determine the level of use
support by comparing monitoring
data with numeric criteria for each
use designated for a particular
waterbody. If monitoring data are
not available, the State may deter-
mine the level of use support with
qualitative information. Valid quali-
tative information includes land use
data, fish and game surveys, and
predictive model results. Monitored
assessments are based on monitor-
ing data. Evaluated assessments
are based on qualitative information
or monitored data more than 5
years old.
After the States determine the
level of use support for each indi-
vidual designated use in each
waterbody, the States consolidate
Table ES-1. Levels of Use Support
Symbol
Jbฐ
&
LniL^M
f
Lk
H
Use Support Level
Fully Supporting
Threatened
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
Not Attainable
Water Quality
Condition
Good
Good
Fair
(Impaired)
Poor
(Impaired)
Poor
Definition
Water quality meets
designated use criteria.
Water quality supports
designated uses now
but may not in the future
unless action is taken.
Water quality fails to meet
designated use criteria at times.
Water quality frequently fails
to meet designated use criteria.
The State has performed a use-
attainability study and docu-
mented that use support is not
achievable due to natural
conditions or human activity
that cannot be reversed
without imposing widespread
economic and social impacts.
-------
ES-4 Executive Summary
Overall use support is a
general description of water
quality conditions in a
waterbody based on eval-
uation of individual use
support. Overall use
support determinations
-summarize multiple indi-
vidual use determinations
ilnto a single measure of
quality conditions.
individual use support assessments
to determine the level of overall use
support for each waterbody.
Fully Supporting Overall Use -
All designated beneficial uses are
fully supported.
Threatened Overall Use - One
or more designated beneficial uses
are threatened and the remaining
uses are fully supported.
Partially Supporting Overall
Use - One or more designated
111 i:,n> villiU ilillllir ,1,1 1
I'ssfi ; "fit' ;J
Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality monitoring consists of data collection and sample
licialysis performed according to quality control protocols. Monitoring
also includes subsequent analysis of the body of data to support
decisionmaking. Federal, Interstate, State, Territorial, Tribal, Regional,
and local agencies, industry, and volunteer groups with approved qual-
I * Ity assurance programs monitor a combination of chemical, physical,
^^^{plpgicai water quality parameters throughout the country.
1 data often measure concentrations of pollutants and other
conditions that influence aquatic life, such as pH (i.e., acidity)
1 oxygen concentrations. The chemical data may be
in water samples, fish tissue samples, or sediment samples.
OJ jpfiysical data include measurements of temperature, turbidity (i.e.,
light penetration through the water column), and solids in the water
"" column.
Biological data measure the health of aquatic communities.
Biological data include counts of aquatic species that indicate healthy
ecological conditions.
Monitoring agencies vary parameters, sampling frequency, and
Sampling site selection to meet program objectives and funding con-
(:';:s|rairits. Sampling may occur at regular intervals (such as monthly,
rly, or annually), irregular intervals, or during one-time intensive
s. Sampling may be conducted at fixed sampling stations,
P1(_3.inry selected stations, stations near suspected water quality
problems," or stations in pristine waters.
beneficial uses are partially sup-
ported and the remaining uses are
fully supported.
Not Supporting Overall Use -
One or more designated beneficial
uses are not supported.
Not Attainable - The State has
performed a use-attainability study
and documented that use support
of one or more designated bene-
ficial uses is not achievable due to
natural conditions or human activity
that cannot be reversed without
imposing widespread economic and
social impacts.
Impaired Waters - The sum of
waterbodies partially supporting
uses and not supporting uses.
The EPA then aggregates the
State use support information into a
national assessment of the Nation's
water quality.
How Many of Our
Waters Were Assessed
for 1992?
National estimates of the total
waters of our country provide the
foundation for determining the per-
centage of waters assessed by the
States and the portion impaired by
pollution. In 1992, EPA calculated
national estimates of total rivers and
streams, lakes, estuaries, and coastal
shoreline by summing State esti-
mates of their total waters reported
in their 1992 305(b) reports. Based
on State-reported data, the estimate
of total river and stream miles in-
creased in 1992 in large part
because the States included
nonperennial streams, canals, and
-------
Executive Summary ES-5
ditches that were previously
excluded from estimates of total
stream miles.
Current estimates indicate that
the United States has
More than 3.5 million miles of
rivers and streams, which range in
size from the Mississippi River to
small streams that flow only when
wet weather conditions exist (i.e.,
intermittent streams)
Approximately 40 million acres
of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs
About 37,000 square miles of
estuaries (excluding Alaska)
More than 56,000 miles of ocean
shoreline, including 36,000 miles in
Alaska
5,382 miles of Great Lakes shore-
line
More than 277 million acres of
wetlands such as marshes, swamps,
bogs, and fens in the continental
States including 170 million acres of
wetlands in Alaska.
Due to factors such as funding
limitations, most States assess a
subset of their total water resources
during each 2-year reporting cycle
required under Clean Water Act
Section 305(b). States are more
capable of assessing all of their
waters over a 5- to 10-year period.
Figure ES-1 presents the percentage
of total waters assessed by the
States for the 1992 report. It should
be noted that the percentage of
perennial rivers and streams
assessed is much greater than the
percentage of total rivers and
streams assessed.
Figure ES-1
Percent of Total Waters Assessed
for the 1992 Report
Rivers and Streams
Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs
Estuaries
Ocean Coastal
Waters
Great Lakes
Shoreline
Wetlands
642,881 -18% assessed
Total miles: 3,551,247a
18,300,000 - 46% assessed
Total acres: 39,920,000"
27,227 - 74% assessed
Total square miles: 36,890C
3,398 - 6% assessed (including Alaska)
Total miles: 56,121 miles, including Alaska's
36,000 miles of shorelined
5,319 -99% assessed
Total miles: 5,382
10.5 million - 4% assessed (including Alaska)
Total acres: 277 million acres, including Alaska's
170 million acres of wetlands
Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
NOTE: These figures were reported by the States. See explanation of changes in total
water estimates on page ES-4.
a Does not include river miles in American Samoa and Guam, which did not report total
river miles.
b Does not include lake acreages in American Samoa, Guam, Kentucky, and the Virgin
Islands, which did not report total lake acreages.
c Does not include estuarine areas in Alaska, American Samoa, and Guam.
d Does not include shoreline miles in American Samoa and Guam.
-------
ES-6 Executive Summary
The summary information based
on assessed waters may not repre-
sent overall conditions in the
Nation's total waters because States
often focus on monitoring and
assessing major perennial rivers,
estuaries, and public lakes with sus-
pected pollution problems. Many
States lack the resources to collect
use support information for inter-
mittent streams, small tributaries,
and private ponds. EPA cannot pre-
dict the health of these unassessed
waters.
Pollutants That
Degrade Water
Quality
Where possible, States identify
the pollutants or processes that
degrade water quality and indicators
that document impacts of water
quality degradation (see Table ES-2).
Pollutants include sediment, nutri-
ents, and chemical contaminants
(such as dioxin and metals). Proc-
esses that degrade waters include
habitat modification (such as de-
struction of streamside vegetation)
Table ES-2. Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment
h "] ;
Rank
1
2
3
A
S
Rivers
Siltation
Nutrients
Pathogens
Pesticides
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO
Lakes
Metals
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO
Siltation
Priority Organic
Chemicals
Estuaries
Nutrients
Pathogens
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO
Siltation
Suspended Solids
Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
and hydrologic modification (such
as flow reduction). Indicators of
water quality degradation include
physical, chemical, and biological
parameters. Examples of biological
parameters include species diversity
and abundance. Examples of physi-
cal and chemical parameters include
pH, turbidity, and temperature.
Following are descriptions of the
effects of the pollutants and proc-
esses most commonly identified
in rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal
waters, wetlands, and ground
water.
Nutrients include nitrates found
in sewage and fertilizers and
phosphates found in detergents
and fertilizers. In excess levels,
nutrients overstimulate the
growth of aquatic plants and
algae. Excessive growth of these
organisms, in turn, can clog
navigable waters, use up dis-
solved oxygen as they decom-
pose, and block light to deeper
waters. This seriously affects the
respiration of fish and aquatic
invertebrates, leads to a
decrease in animal and plant
diversity, and affects our use of
the water for fishing, swim-
ming, and boating. In ground
water, fertilizers and nitrates are
among the principal contami-
nants that can lead to drinking
water well closures.
Silt and other suspended
solids wash off plowed fields,
construction and logging sites,
urban areas, strip-mined land,
and eroded stream banks when
it rains. As these sediments
enter rivers, lakes, coastal
waters, and wetlands, fish respi-
ration is impaired, plant produc-
tivity and water depth are
-------
Executive Summary ES-7
reduced, aquatic organisms and
their habitats are smothered,
and our aesthetic enjoyment of
the water is reduced.
Pathogens (certain waterborne
bacteria, viruses, and protozo-
ans) can cause human illnesses
that range from typhoid and
dysentery to minor respiratory
and skin diseases. These organ-
isms can enter waterways
through a number of routes,
including inadequately treated
sewage, storm water drains,
septic systems, runoff from
livestock pens, and boats that
dump sewage. Because it is
impossible to test water for
every type of disease-causing
organism, States usually mea-
sure indicator bacteria such as
fecal coliforms that suggest the
water may be contaminated
with untreated sewage and that
other, more dangerous, organ-
isms may be present.
Organic material may enter
waterways in many different
forms-as sewage, as leaves and
grass clippings, or as runoff
from livestock feedlots and pas-
tures. When natural bacteria
and protozoa in the water break
down this organic material, they
begin to use up the oxygen
dissolved in the water. Many
types of fish and bottom-
dwelling animals cannot survive
when levels of dissolved oxygen
drop below 2 to 5 parts per
million.
Metals (such as mercury, lead,
and cadmium) and toxic
organic chemicals (such as
PCBs and dioxin) may originate
in industrial discharges, runoff
from city streets, mining activi-
ties, leachate from landfills, and
a variety of other sources. These
toxic chemicals, which are gen-
erally persistent in the environ-
ment, can cause death or repro-
ductive failure in fish, shellfish,
and wildlife. In addition, they
can accumulate in animal and
fish tissue, be absorbed in sedi-
ments, or find their way into
drinking water supplies, posing
long-term health risks to
humans.
Pesticides and herbicides used
on croplands, lawns, and in
termite control can be washed
into ground and surface waters
by rainfall, snowmelt, and
Fish Kills
Fish kill reporting is a voluntary process; States are not required to
report on how many fish kills occur, or what might have caused them.
In many cases it is the public-fishermen and hunters, recreational boat-
ers, or hikers-who first notice fish kills and report them to game war-
dens or other State officials. Many fish kills go undetected or unre-
, ported, and others may_be^difficult to investigate, especially if they
?r occur in remote areas. This is because dead fish may be carried quickly
ซt, downstream, or may be difficult to count because of turbid conditions.
,, It is therefore likely that the statistics presented by the States underesti-
mate the total number of fish kills that occurred nationwide between
,,,,1990 and 1992.
Despite these problems, fish kills are an important consideration
in water quality assessments, and State reporting on the number and
*, causes of kills is improving. In 1992, 43 States reported a total of
1,620 fish kill incidents. These States attributed 930 of the fish kilfs to
- pollution, 369 to unknown causes, and 586 to natural conditions, such
as low flow and high temperatures. Pollutants most often cited as the
1 cause of kills included biochemical oxygen-demanding substances,
- pesticides, manure and silage, oil and gas, chlorine, and ammonia.
Leading sources of fish kills include agricultural activities, industrial
discharges, municipal sewage treatment plant discharges, spills, and
~ pesticide applications.
-------
ES-8 Executive Summary
irrigation practices. These con-
taminants are generally very
persistent in the environment
and may accumulate in fish,
shellfish, and wildlife to levels
that pose a risk to human
health and the environment.
Pesticides are among the princi-
pal contaminants causing drink-
ing water well closures in the
southern and western regions of
the country.
Habitat modification results
from activities such as grazing,
farming, channelization, dam
construction, and dredging.
Typical examples of the effects
of hydrologic modification
include loss of streamside vege-
tation, siltation, smothering of
Table ES-3. Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report
Category
Industrial
Municipal
Combined
Sewers
Storm Sewers/
Urban Runoff
Agricultural
Sitvtcultural
Construction
Resource
Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydrologic
Modification
Examples
Pulp and paper mills, chemical manufacturers, steel plants,
textile manufacturers, food processing plants
Publicly owned sewage treatment plants that may receive
indirect discharges from industrial facilities or businesses
Single facilities that treat both stormwater and sanitary sewage,
which may become overloaded during storm events and
discharge untreated wastes into surface waters.
Runoff from impervious surfaces including streets, buildings,
lawns, and other paved areas that enters a sewer, pipe, or ditch
before discharge into surface waters
Crop production, pastures, rangeland, feedlots, other animal
holding areas
Forest management, tree harvesting, logging road construction
Land development, road construction
Mining, petroleum drilling, runoff from mine tailing sites
Leachate or discharge from septic tanks, landfills, and
hazardous waste sites
Channelization, dredging, dam construction, streambank
modification
bottom-dwelling organisms, and
increased water temperatures.
Other pollutants include salts,
acidic contaminants, and oil
and grease. Fresh waters may
become unfit for aquatic life
and some human uses when
they become contaminated by
salts. Sources of salinity include
irrigation runoff, brine used in
oil extraction, road deicing
operations, and the intrusion
of sea water into ground and
surface waters in coastal areas.
Acidity problems are of concern
in areas with many abandoned
mines (acid mine drainage) and
areas susceptible to acid rain.
Changes in acidity (measured as
pH) can alter the toxicity of
other chemicals in water and
can render lakes and streams
unfit for aquatic life.
Other pollutants of concern
include crude oil and processed
petroleum products spilled dur-
ing extraction, processing, or
transport or leaked from under-
ground storage tanks; noxious
aquatic plants, particularly intro-
duced species that compete
against native plants; and
increased water temperatures
resulting from industrial cooling
processes or habitat modifica-
tion.
Sources of
Water Pollution
Often we associate water pollu-
tion with images of oil spills or raw
sewage and toxic chemicals spew-
ing from pipes at industrial facilities
and sewage treatment plants.
Although point source discharges
-------
Executive Summary ES-9
still produce some pollution, most
are controlled with specific permit
conditions that they usually meet.
Currently, less visible nonpoint
sources of pollution are more wide-
spread and introduce vast quantities
of pollutants into our surface and
ground waters. Nonpoint sources
deliver pollutants to waterbodies in
a dispersed manner rather than
from a discrete pipe or other con-
veyance. Nonpoint sources include
atmospheric deposition, contami-
nated sediments, and land use
activities that generate polluted
runoff, such as construction, agricul-
ture, logging, mining, and onsite
sewage disposal.
In contrast, point sources dis-
charge wastes into waterbodies
from a discrete point that is easily
identified. The most common point
sources are industrial facilities,
municipal treatment plants, and
combined sewers. Although diffuse
runoff is generally treated as a
nonpoint source, runoff is a point
source if it enters and is discharged
from a conveyance such as those
described in CWA Section 502(14)
(such as pipes, ditches, and canals).
Table ES-3 defines the point and
nonpoint categories of pollution
sources most frequently cited in this
document. Table ES-4 lists the lead-
ing sources of impairment reported
by States for their rivers, lakes, and
estuaries.
Other sources cited less fre-
quently include atmospheric deposi-
tion, in-place contaminants, and
natural sources. Atmospheric deposi-
tion refers to contaminants entering
waters from polluted air. In-place
contaminants were generated by
past activities, such as discontinued
industrial discharges, logging, or
one-time spills. In-place contami-
nants often reside in sediments but
continue to release pollutants back
into the water column. Natural
sources refer to an assortment of
water quality problems:
Natural deposits of salts, gypsum,
nutrients, and metals in soils that
leach into surface and ground
waters
Warm weather and dry condi-
tions that raise water temperatures,
depress dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, and dry up shallow
waterbodies
Low-flow conditions and tannic
acids from decaying leaves that
lower pH and dissolved oxygen
concentrations in swamps draining
into streams.
With so many potential sources
of pollution, it is difficult and expen-
sive for States to identify specific
sources responsible for water quality
impairments. Many States lack fund-
ing for monitoring to identify all but
the most apparent sources degrad-
ing waterbodies. State management
priorities may focus monitoring
"The term 'point source'
means any discernible, con-
fined, and discrete convey-
ance, including but not lim-
ited to any pipe, ditch, chan-
nel, tunnel, conduit, well,
discrete fissure, container,
rolling stock, concentrated
animal feeding operation, or
vessel or other floating craft,
from which pollutants are or
may be discharged. This term
does not Include agricultural
storm water discharges and
return flows from Irrigated
agriculture."
Clean Water Act Section 502(14)
Table ES-4. Five Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rivers
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Industrial Point Sources
Lakes
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Municipal Point Sources
Onsite Wastewater
Disposal
Estuaries
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Resource Extraction
Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
ES-10 Executive Summary
Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
Total assessed = 642,881 miles
18% Assessed
82% Unassessed
Figure ES 2
Levels of Overall Use Support
Rivers and Streams
Fully Supporting
56%
Threatened
6%
Partially Supporting
25%
Not Supporting
13%
Not Attainable
Based on data contained in Appendix A,
Table A-1.
budgets on other water quality
issues, such as identification of con-
taminated fish populations that pose
a human health risk. Management
priorities may also direct monitoring
efforts on larger waterbodies and
overlook sources impairing smaller
waterbodies. As a result, the States
do not associate every impacted
waterbody with a source of impair-
ment in their 305(b) reports, and
the summary information presented
in this report applies exclusively to a
subset of the Nation's impaired
waters.
Rivers and Streams
Pollutants discharged upstream
often become the problem of some-
one who lives downstream (or of
the aquatic life that exists instreani),
and all of the activities that take
place in a watershed can have a
water quality impact elsewhere in
the watershed. The term watershed
Figure ES-3
simply refers to a geographic area in
which water, sediments, and dis-
solved materials (contaminants)
drain to a common outlet such as a
point on a larger river, lake, ground
water aquifer, or ocean. It is there-
fore important to remember that
rivers and streams are connected-
by hydrology, ecology, geology,
and social and economic consider-
ations-to the lakes, wetlands, and
coastal and ground waters we dis-
cuss later in this document.
Do Our Rivers and
Streams Support Uses?
For the 1992 Report, 54 States,
Territories, Tribes, Commissions, and
the District of Columbia (hereafter
referred to as "States") assessed
642,881 miles (18%) of the Nation's
total 3.5 million miles of rivers and
streams (see Appendix A, Table A-1,
for individual State information).
The States assessed about 4,000
fewer river miles in 1992 than in
Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired
by Pollutants
(222,370 assessed river miles impaired)
Pollutants
Siltation
Nutrients
Pathogen Indicators
Pesticides
Organic Enrichment/DO
0
10
20
Percent
30
40
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-3.
-------
Executive Summary ES-11
1990. EPA expected the percentage
and amount of waters assessed to
decline in 1992 because EPA
advised the States to no longer
include waters in the assessed cat-
egories for which the State lacked
specific information. The percentage
of waters assessed dropped because
the baseline estimate of total waters
increased.
Conditions in unassessed rivers
cannot be estimated with summary
information based on assessed
waters because unassessed rivers
include an unknown combination
of pristine and impaired rivers.
Therefore, the following discussion
applies exclusively to assessed
waters and cannot be extrapolated
to describe conditions in the
Nation's rivers as a whole. EPA is
working with the States to expand
assessment coverage of the Nation's
waters and expects future assess-
ment information to cover a greater
portion of the Nation's rivers and
streams (see Chapter 12).
Of the Nation's 642,881
assessed river miles, the States
found that 56% fully support their
designated uses, and an additional
6% support uses but are threatened
and may become impaired if pollu-
tion control actions are not taken.
The States reported that 25% of the
assessed river miles partially support
uses, and 13% of the assessed river
miles do not support designated
uses. Only 125 miles (less than one-
tenth of 1 %) of the assessed waters
could not attain designated uses
(see Figure ES-2).
What Is Polluting Our
Rivers and Streams?
The States reported that silt-
ation and nutrients impair more
miles of rivers and streams than any
other pollutants, affecting 45% and
37% of impaired stream miles in
the States reporting causes, respec-
tively (see Appendix A, Table A-3,
for individual State information).
Other leading causes of impairment
include indicators of pathogens,
affecting 27%; pesticides, affecting
26%; and organic enrichment and
resultant low levels of dissolved
oxygen, affecting 24% of impaired
stream miles (see Figure ES-3).
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Forty-eight States identified
sources contributing to the impair-
ment of 221,877 miles of their riv-
ers and streams not fully supporting
designated uses (see Appendix A,
Table A-4, for individual State infor-
mation). These States reported that
agricultural runoff is the leading
source of pollutants in rivers and
streams (see Figure ES-4). Forty-five
States identified almost 160,000
river miles impaired by agricultural
sources, including nonirrigated crop
production, irrigated crop produc-
tion, rangeland, and animal holding
Figure ES-4
Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired
by Sources of Pollution
(221,877 assessed river miles impaired)
Pollution Sources
Agriculture
Municipal Point
Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Industrial Point
Sources
Silviculture
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
_L
_L
_L
_L
J
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percent
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-4.
-------
ES-12 Executive Summary
OHgotrophic
Mesotrophic
Eutrophic
Hypereutrophlc
Dystrophic
areas. These States found that agri-
cultural activities contribute to the
impairment of 72% of the impaired
stream miles in the 48 States report-
ing sources. The States identified
other sources of impairment less
frequently, such as municipal point
sources, affecting 15%, urban runoff
and storm sewers, affecting 11 %,
and resource extraction, affecting
11 % of the impaired waters.
Although this summary provides
the best picture of national impacts
from sources available to EPA at this
time, it has limitations. The informa-
tion provided applies to only a small
Trophic States
Clear waters with little organic matter or sediment
and minimum biological activity.
Waters with more nutrients and, therefore, more
biological productivity.
Waters extremely rich in nutrients, with high biological
productivity. Some species may be choked out.
Murky, highly productive waters, closest to the wetlands
status. Many clearwater species cannot survive.
Low in nutrients, highly colored with dissolved humic
organic matter. (Not necessarily a part of the natural
trophic progression.)
The Eutrpphication Process
Eutrophication is a natural process, but human activities can accel-
erate eutrophication by increasing the rate at which nutrients and
organic substances enter lakes from their surrounding watersheds. Agri-
cultural runoff, urban runoff, leaking septic systems, sewage discharges,
eroded streambanks, and similar sources can enhance the flow of nutri-
ents and organic substances into lakes. These substances can over-
stimulate the growth of algae and aquatic plants, creating conditions
that interfere with the recreational use of lakes and the health and
diversity of indigenous fish, plant, and animal populations. Enhanced
eutrophication from nutrient enrichment due to human activities is one
of the leading problems facing our Nation's lakes and reservoirs.
portion of our Nation's total rivers
and streams because the States
cannot assess all their waters in a
2-year period and they cannot
specify the source of pollution
impairing each waterbody assessed.
In addition, national summary infor-
mation can obscure sources with
regional or State significance. For
example, Oregon reports that silvi-
culture (forestry activity) contributes
to the impairment of 46% of their
rivers and streams that do not fully
support designated uses. Nationally,
silviculture impacts only 7% of the
impaired rivers and streams.
Therefore, it is important to refer to
the individual State data presented
in Appendix A for a more specific
description of sources impairing
rivers and streams.
Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs
Lakes are sensitive to pollution
inputs because lakes flush out their
contents relatively slowly. Even
under natural conditions, lakes
undergo eutrophication, an aging
process that slowly fills in the lake
with sediment and organic matter
(see sidebar on p. ES-12). The
eutrophication process alters basic
lake characteristics such as depth,
biological productivity, oxygen
levels, and water clarity. The
eutrophication process is commonly
defined by a series of trophic states
as described in the sidebar.
-------
Executive Summary ES-13
Do Our Lakes and
Reservoirs Support Uses?
Forty-nine States assessed over-
all use support in more than 18
million lake acres representing 46%
of the approximately 40 million
total acres of lakes, reservoirs, and
ponds in the Nation (see Appendix
B, Table B-1, for individual State
information). For 1992, the States
assessed about 180,000 fewer lake
acres than in 1990. Overall, 43% of
the assessed lake acres fully support
designated uses such as swimming,
fishing, and drinking water supply
(see Figure ES-5). An additional 13%
were identified as threatened and
could soon become impaired if
pollution control actions are not
taken. The States reported that 35%
of assessed lake acres partially
support designated uses, 9% do not
support uses, and less than 1 %
cannot attain uses.
Figure ES-6
What Is Polluting
Our Lakes, Reservoirs,
and Ponds?
Forty-seven States reported
causes of impairment in their lakes
(Appendix B, Table B-3, contains
individual State data). Overall, these
States reported that metals and
nutrients are the most common
causes of nonsupport in assessed
lakes, affecting 47% and 40% of
impaired lake acres, respectively (see
Figure ES-6). However, impairments
due to metals were concentrated in
several States with large numbers of
lakes (primarily Minnesota), while
nutrient problems were widely
reported by 41 States. Other lead-
ing causes of lake impairment were
organic enrichment, affecting 24%
of impaired lake acres; siltation,
affecting 22%; and priority organics,
affecting 20% of impaired lake
acres.
Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired
by Pollutants
(7,958,064 assessed lake acres impaired)
Pollutants
Metals
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/DO
Siltation
Priority Organic
Chemicals
20 30
Percent
Total lakes = 39,920,000 acres
Total assessed = 18,300,000 acres
46% Assessed
54% Unassessed
Figure ES-5
Levels of Overall Use Support
Lakes
Fully Supporting
43%
Threatened
13%
Partially Supporting
35%
Not Supporting
9%
Not Attainable
Based on data contained in Appendix B,
Table B-1.
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-3.
-------
ES-14 Executive Summary
Forty-one States also assessed
trophic status, which is associated
with nutrient enrichment, in 11,477
of their lakes. Nutrient enrichment
tends to increase the proportion of
lakes in the eutrophic and hyper-
eutrophic categories. These States
reported that 17% of the lakes they
Acid Effects on Lakes
Increases in lake acidity can radically alter the community of fish
and plant species in lakes and can increase the solubility of toxic sub-
stances and magnify their adverse effects. Twenty-four States reported
the results of lake acidification assessments. These States assessed pH
(a measure of acidity) at more than 6,800 lakes and detected a threat
! of acidic conditions in 1,038 lakes (15% of the assessed lakes). Most of
the States that assessed acidic conditions are located in the Northeast,
Upper Midwest, and the South.
Only 11 States identified sources of acidic conditions. States in the
Northeast attributed most of their acid lake conditions to acid deposi-
tion from acidic rain, fog, or dry deposition in conjunction with natural
conditions that limit a lake's capacity to neutralize acids. Only two
States, Tennessee and Alabama, reported that acid mine drainage
resulted in acidic lake conditions.
Figure ES-7
Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired
by Sources of Pollution
(5,543,987 assessed lake acres impaired)
Pollutants Sources
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Municipal Point Sources
Onsite Wastewater
Disposal
Total
56
24
23
21
16
10
20
30 40
Percent
50
60
assessed for trophic status were
oligotrophic, 35% were mesotro-
phic, 32% were eutrophic, 7.5%
were hypereutrophic, and 8.5%
were dystrophic. This information
may not be representative of na-
tional lake conditions because States
often assess lakes in response to a
problem or public complaint or
because of their easy accessibility. It
is likely that more remote lakes -
which are probably less impaired -
are underrepresented in these
assessments.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Forty-five States identified indi-
vidual sources degrading some of
their 5.5 million impaired lake acres
(Appendix B, Table B-4, contains
individual State data). These States
reported that agriculture impairs
more lake acres than any other
source. Thirty-eight States found
that agriculture contributes to the
impairment of 3 million lake acres,
or 56% of the impaired lake acres in
the 45 States reporting sources of
pollution in lakes (see Figure ES-7).
The States also reported that
urban runoff and storm sewers con-
tribute to impairments in 24% of
their impaired lake acres, hydrologic
modifications and habitat modifica-
tions affect 23%, municipal point
sources affect 21 %, and onsite
wastewater disposal (such as septic
systems) affect 16% of the impaired
lake acres.
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-4.
-------
Executive Summary ES-15
The Great Lakes
The Great Lakes contain one-
fifth of the world's fresh surface
water and are stressed by a wide
range of pollution sources associ-
ated with the large urban centers
located on their shores. Many of
the pollutants that reach the Great
Lakes remain in the system indefi-
nitely because the Great Lakes are a
relatively closed water system.
Do the Great Lakes
Support Uses?
The States assessed 99% of the
Great Lakes shoreline miles in 1992.
Less than 3% of the assessed shore-
line miles fully support uses due to
conditions that generate fish con-
sumption advisories issued by the
Great Lakes States and the Province
of Ontario for the nearshore waters
of the Great Lakes (see Figure ES-8).
Thirty percent of assessed shoreline
miles partially support uses, and the
remaining 67% do not support
uses. These figures do not address
water quality conditions in the
deeper, cleaner, central waters of
the Lakes.
Total Great Lakes = 5,382 miles
Total assessed = 5,319 miles
99% Assessed
1% Unassessed
What Is Polluting
the Great Lakes?
Most of the Great Lakes shore-
line is polluted by toxic organic
chemicals-primarily PCBs and
DDT-that are often found in fish
tissue samples. The Great Lakes
States reported that toxic organic
chemicals impact 99% of the im-
paired Great Lakes shoreline miles.
Other leading causes of impairment
include metals, affecting 11%, or-
ganic enrichment and low dissolved
oxygen, affecting 7%; nutrients,
affecting 5%; and siltation, affecting
3% (see Figure ES-9).
Figure ES-9
Figure ES-8
Levels of Overall Use Support
Great Lakes
Fully Supporting
2%
Threatened
1%
Partially Supporting
30%
Not Supporting
67%
Not Attainable
0%
Based on data contained in Appendix F,
Table F-1.
Percent of Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles
Impaired by Pollutants
(5,171 assessed Great Lakes shore miles impaired)
Pollutants
Priority Organics
Metals
Organic Enrichment/DO
Nutrients
Siltation
Total
99
11
7
5
3
L
J_
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-3.
-------
ES-16 Executive Summary
Figure ES-10
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Although information on
sources of pollution in the Great
Lakes is sketchy, the reported infor-
mation suggests that atmospheric
deposition and contaminated sedi-
ments are the leading sources im-
pairing Great Lakes waters. Sedi-
ment contamination is a major
problem in nearshore waters and
harbors. Other sources cited by the
States include landfills, urban runoff,
and combined sewer overflows (see
Figure ES-10).
Estuaries
Percent of Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles
Impaired by Sources of Pollution
(1,884 assessed Great Lakes shore miles impaired)
Pollution Sources
Atmospheric Deposition
Contaminated Sediments
Land Disposal
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
10
20 30
Percent
40
50
Estuaries are areas partially sur-
rounded by land where rivers meet
the sea. They are characterized by
varying degrees of salinity, complex
water movements affected by ocean
tides and river currents, and high
turbidity levels. They are also highly
productive ecosystems with a range
of habitats for many different spe-
cies of plants, shellfish, fish, and
animals.
Many species permanently
inhabit the estuarine ecosystem;
others, such as shrimp, use the
nutrient-rich estuarine waters as
nurseries before traveling to the sea.
Estuaries are stressed by the
particularly wide range of activities
located within their watersheds.
They receive pollutants carried by
rivers from agricultural lands and
cities; they often support marinas,
harbors, and commercial fishing
fleets; and their surrounding lands
are highly prized for development.
These stresses pose a continuing
threat to the survival of these boun-
tiful waters.
Total estuaries = 36,890 square miles
Total assessed = 27,227 square miles
Assessed 74%
Unassessed 26%
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-4.
-------
Executive Summary ES-17
Do Our Estuaries
Support Uses?
Twenty-five coastal States as-
sessed roughly three-quarters of the
Nation's total estuarine waters in
1992. Of these, 56% were found to
fully support designated uses. An
additional 12% are fully supporting
uses but are threatened and could
become impaired if pollution con-
trol actions are not taken. Twenty-
three percent of assessed estuarine
square miles partially support uses,
and the remaining 9% do not sup-
port uses (see Figure ES-11).
What Is Polluting
Our Estuaries?
States report that the most
common causes of nonsupport of
designated uses in our Nation's
estuaries are nutrients, affecting
55% of the 8,572 impaired square
miles; followed by pathogens, af-
fecting 42%; organic enrichment
and resulting low levels of dissolved
oxygen, affecting 34%; and silt-
ation, affecting 12% (see Figure ES-
12). Pathogen contamination is
responsible for the closure of
shellfishing beds in many areas of
the country.
Figure ES-11
Levels of Overall Use Support
Estuaries
Fully Supporting
56%
Threatened
12%
Partially Supporting
23%
Not Supporting
9%
^j^^PS^ffig
Not Attainable
0%
Based on data contained in Appendix C,
Table C-1.
Figure ES-12
Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles
Impaired by Pollutants
(8,572 assessed estuarine square miles impaired)
Pollutants
Nutrients
Pathogen Indicators
Organic Enrichment/DO
Siltation
Suspended Solids
20 30
Percent
50
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-3.
-------
ES-18 Executive Summary
Figure ES-13
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
States report that municipal
sewage treatment plants, urban
runoff/storm sewers, and agriculture
are the leading sources of pollution
in their estuarine waters, affecting
53%, 43%, and 43% of impaired
estuarine square miles, respectively
(see Figure ES-13). Other leading
sources cited by the States include
industrial point sources, affecting
23%, and resource extraction,
affecting 12%. Point sources con-
tinue to have a significant impact
on estuarine water quality because
concentrated population centers
and industrial operations are located
adjacent to major estuarine systems.
in contrast, rivers and lakes are
more dispersed in rural and urban
areas throughout the country and
tend to support more diverse land
uses that generate nonpoint source
pollution.
Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles
Impaired by Sources of Pollution
(8,303 assessed estuarine square miles impaired)
Pollution Sources
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Resource Extraction
Total
53
43
43
23
12
10
20 30
Percent
40
50
60
Ocean Coastal Waters
We know less about the condi-
tion of our ocean coastal waters
than we do about our estuarine or
inland waters. In part, this may be
because we tend to think that only
oil spills or similar disastrous events
could possibly affect a resource as
vast as an ocean.
In fact, we are seeing evidence
that our ocean waters - particularly
the waters near our coasts - suffer
from the same pollution problems
that affect our inland waters. Beach
debris cleanups are cataloging tons
of trash carried into the oceans by
rivers, washed in from city storm
sewers, thrown in by beach visitors,
or dumped overboard by boaters.
Beaches are closed to swimming
every summer due to pathogens
from inadequately treated wastes.
Marine mammals are suffering from
pollution-related stresses. Fragile
coral reefs in Florida and Hawaii
show signs of pollution impacts.
Coastal development is increasing at
a rapid rate. Clearly we can no
longer assume that the oceans can
take care of themselves.
Total ocean shore = 56,121 miles
Total assessed = 3,398 miles
6% Assessed
94% Unassessed
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-4.
-------
Executive Summary ES-19
Do Ocean Shores
Support Uses?
Twelve of the 29 coastal States
assessed only 6% of the Nation's
estimated 56,121 miles of ocean
coastline. Of these, 80% were
found to fully support their desig-
nated uses, and 7% are supporting
uses but are threatened and likely
to become impaired if pollution
control actions are not taken. Nine
percent of assessed ocean shore
miles partially support designated
uses, and 5% do not support uses
(see Figure ES-14). These figures do
not necessarily represent water
quality conditions in the Nation's
ocean coastal waters as a whole
Figure ES-14
Levels of Overall Use Support
Ocean Coastal Waters
Fully Supporting
80%
Threatened
7%
Partially Supporting
9%
Not Supporting
5%
Not Attainable
0%
Based on data contained in Appendix C,
Table C-5.
because they apply to only 6% of
the Nation's coastline miles. Data on
pollutants and sources of pollution
are too sparse to be included in this
report.
Wetlands
Wetlands are areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface
water or ground water at a fre-
quency and duration sufficient to
support (and that under normal
circumstances do support) a preva-
lence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas.
Often in the past, wetlands
were considered wastelands-the
source of mosquitoes, flies, and
unpleasant odors-to be filled or
drained and put to "better use."
When European settlers first arrived
in America, over 200 million acres
of wetlands existed in the cotermi-
nous States. Today, half of our
Nation's wetlands have been de-
stroyed by filling, draining, pollut-
ing, channelizing, grazing, clearing,
and other modifications resulting
from human activity.
Wetlands are now recognized as
some of the most unique and
important natural areas on earth.
They vary in type according to dif-
ferences in local and regional
hydrology, vegetation, water chem-
istry, soils, topography, and climate.
Coastal wetlands include estuarine
marshes; mangrove swamps found
in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Florida;
and Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Inland wetlands, which may be
adjacent to a waterbody or isolated,
-------
ES-20 Executive Summary
Total wetlands = 277 million acres
Total assessed = 10,516,754 acres
4% Assessed
96% Unassessed
Figure ES-15
Levels of Overall Use Support
Wetlands
Fully Supporting
50%
Threatened
Partially Supporting
26%
Not Supporting
24%
Not Attainable
0%
Based on data contained in Appendix D,
Table D-2.
NOTE: The information on designated
use support represents data from only
eight States so national trends should not
be drawn from these data.
include marshes and wet meadows,
bottomland hardwood forests, Great
Plains prairie potholes, cypress-gum
swamps, and southwestern playa
lakes.
Wetlands provide food and
shelter to countless animal species
including many fishes, birds, rep-
tiles, and mammals. A high percent-
age of federally listed threatened or
endangered animals and plants
depend directly or indirectly on
wetlands for their survival. Wetlands
also provide spawning habitat and
nursery grounds for an estimated
71 % of commercially valuable fish
and shellfish consumed in this coun-
try. In addition, they also serve as
feeding areas along migration
routes for waterfowl and other
wildlife.
Wetlands soil and vegetation
help in flood control by acting as
natural sponges that attenuate
flooding water. Wetlands plants also
help control erosion in two ways:
their roots bind the soil and their
leaves slow the movement of water.
Wetlands help purify water by proc-
essing nutrients and other pollutants
and filtering suspended materials.
They also help regulate water quan-
tity by absorbing water in wet sea-
sons and releasing it through seeps,
springs, and open outlets during dry
seasons.
In addition, wetlands are widely
enjoyed by hikers, birdwatchers,
hunters, fishermen, photographers,
and boaters and play an important
role in our Nation's natural and
cultural heritage. Millions of people
spend nearly $10 billion each year
observing and photographing
wetlands-dependent wildlife.
Do Our Wetlands
Support Uses?
In 1992, most States could not
assess use support in wetlands
because they were still developing
wetlands water quality standards. As
a result, only eight States (California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas,
Nevada, North Carolina, and Okla-
homa) reported use support for
10.5 million acres of their wetlands.
These States assessed use support in
approximately 4% of the Nation's
277 million acres of wetlands. North
Carolina assessed 98% of the
assessed wetlands; therefore, the
summary information on use sup-
port describes conditions primarily
in North Carolina's wetlands rather
than the Nation's wetlands as a
whole (see Figure ES-15).
These States reported that 50%
of the assessed wetlands fully sup-
port designated uses, less than 1 %
are threatened, 26% partially sup-
port uses, and 24% do not support
designated uses (Appendix D, Table
D-2, contains individual State data).
However, this information does not
accurately reflect water quality con-
ditions in the Nation's wetlands due
to the skewed distribution of the
assessed wetlands. Despite limita-
tions in the data, the summary
information suggests that water
quality problems exist in our
remaining wetlands.
What is Polluting
Our Wetlands?
Of the eight States reporting
overall use support in wetlands, only
three States (Iowa, Kansas, and
Nevada) quantified the wetlands
acreage degraded by specific
-------
Executive Summary ES-21
pollutants or processes causing wet-
lands impairment. Although the
data submitted by these States are
not representative of national condi-
tions in wetlands, these States did
report that metals impair over
60,000 acres of wetlands, salinity
and chlorides impair over 42,000
acres of wetlands, and siltation
impairs almost 29,000 acres of wet-
lands. Fourteen States did not quan-
tify the acreage affected but did
identify pollutants and processes
that degrade some unknown quan-
tity of their wetlands. Most of these
States cited sediment and nutrients
as pollutants of concern in wetlands
(Figure ES-16). Fewer States
reported that water diversions, pesti-
cides, salinity, heavy metals, pond-
ing, weeds, low dissolved oxygen,
and pH impact their wetlands.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Iowa, Kansas, and Nevada also
reported that agriculture impairs
76,000 acres of wetlands, hydro-
logic habitat modification impairs
48,000 acres, and municipal point
sources impair over 11,000 acres of
wetlands. Fourteen States did not
quantify the acreage affected but
did identify sources of pollutants
that degrade some unknown quan-
tity of wetlands. Most of these
States reported that agriculture,
development, channelization, and
road construction degrade wetlands
integrity (see Figure ES-17). These
States also reported that urban run-
off, resource extraction, landfills,
natural conditions, industrial runoff,
onsite systems, irrigation, recreation,
point sources, and silviculture
impact wetlands.
Figure ES-16
Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity
(14 States Reporting)
Causes
Sediment ^^BIHHBHBHBIBBBi
Nutrients
Water Diversions
Pesticides
Salinity
Total
13
8
6
5
4
5 10
Number of States Reporting
15
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-3.
.Figure ES-17
Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity
(14 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture
Development
Channelization
Road Construction
Urban Runoff
I
5 10
Number of States Reporting
15
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-4.
-------
ES-22 Executive Summary
Wetlands Loss:
A Continuing Problem
Despite what we have learned
about the value of our wetlands,
these national treasures continue to
be threatened by a variety of
human activities. A U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service study of wetlands
loss found that 2.6 million acres of
wetlands were lost over the 9-year
study period from the mid-1970s to
the mid-1980s, or 290,000 acres a
year. This is an improvement from
the 1950s to the 1970s when wet-
lands were lost at a rate of 458,000
acres per year. Serious conse-
quences have resulted nationwide
from the loss and degradation of
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs
A Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP) is
a prevention-first approach that will enable better coordination of Fed-
eral, State, Tribal, and local ground-water-related programs. This will
allow for better allocation of resources to the highest priority activities.
. I-"!"1! .J'.T ,:,"; "11! llinO: i"!? !'" J j-l'ilt'l '.VHill* '. !Si! Hi:'"I'llni: SI* ,,!!,!:," ~, .'" "' ? , , " . 1
Once the EPA endorses a CSGWPP, the Agency will seek to provide
more consistent deference to^ State priorities.
|; C
A CSGWPP is composed of six "strategic activities," which include
' ' .' Y"'':*:''',:!! ji!', ' " :" ' "' ' r ' .iMiij' '' " ',,:*!'''],:/'l!!/!^i"i,i,,ll'i!'':',''!," iii,"'!l|S
|s|3|jlishing "a prwentJoH^riented' goal
istaplis|i|rjg priorities, based on the characterization of the resource
iclentifica^on of .sources of,.contamination
Defining roles, responsibilities, resources, and coordinating
mechanisms
Implementing all necessary efforts to accomplish the State's ground
water protection goal
Coordinating information collection and management to measure
progress and reevaluate priorities
Improving public education and participation.
wetlands, including species decline
and extinction, water quality
decline, and increased incidences
of flooding.
In 1992, 27 States reported on
sources of current wetlands losses.
These include agriculture, commer-
cial development, residential devel-
opment, highway construction,
impoundments, resource extraction,
industry, and dredge disposal (see
Appendix D, Table D-1, for indi-
vidual State information).
Ground Water
Ninety-five percent of all fresh
water available on earth (exclusive
of icecaps) is ground water. Ground
water-water found in natural under-
ground rock formations called aqui-
fers-is a vital natural resource with
many uses. The extent of the
Nation's ground water resources is
enormous. At least 60% of the land
area in the conterminous United
States overlies aquifers. Usable
ground water exists in every State.
Aquifers can range in size from
thin surficial formations that yield
small quantities of ground water to
large systems such as the High
Plains aquifer that underlies eight
western States and provides water
to millions. Although most of the
Nation's ground water is considered
to be of good quality, an increasing
number of pollution events have
threatened the integrity of the
resource.
Ground Water Use
Nationally, 53% of the popu-
lation relies to some extent on
ground water as a source of drink-
ing water. This percentage is even
higher in rural areas where most
-------
Executive Summary ES-23
residents rely on potable or treat-
able ground water as an economical
source of drinking water. Eighty-one
percent of community water
systems are dependent on ground
water. Seventy-four percent of
community water systems are small
ground water systems serving 3,300
people or less. Ninety-five percent
of the approximately 200,000
noncommunity water systems (serv-
ing schools, parks, etc.) are ground
water systems.
Irrigation accounts for approxi-
mately 64% of national ground
water withdrawals. Public drinking
water supplies account for approxi-
mately 19% of the Nation's total
ground water withdrawals. Domes-
tic, commercial, livestock, industrial,
mining, and thermoelectric with-
drawals together account for
approximately 17% of national
ground water withdrawals.
Ground Water Quality
Although the 1992 Section
305(b) State Water Quality Reports
indicate that, overall, the Nation's
ground water quality is good to
excellent, many local areas have
experienced significant ground
water contamination. Although the
sources and types of ground water
contamination vary depending upon
the region of the country, those
most frequently reported by States
include:
Leaking underground storage
tanks. About 400,000 of an esti-
mated 5 to 6 million underground
storage tanks in the United States
are thought to be leaking. About
30% of all tanks store petroleum or
hazardous materials.
Septic tanks. Approximately 23
million domestic septic systems are
in operation in the United States.
About half a million new systems
are installed each year.
Municipal landfills. Of the quar-
ter million solid waste disposal facili-
ties in the United States, about
6,000 are municipal solid waste
facilities. Approximately 25%
of these municipal facilities have
ground water monitoring capabili-
ties.
Agricultural activities. Seventy-
seven percent of the 1.1 billion
pounds of pesticides produced
annually in the United States is
applied to land in agricultural
production, which often overlies
aquifers.
Abandoned hazardous waste
sites. Approximately 33,000 sites
have been identified as abandoned
hazardous waste sites, of which
42% involve ground water contami-
nation.
The most common contami-
nants associated with these sources
include nitrates, metals, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and
pesticides.
EPA has been working with
States to develop a set of ground
water quality indicators. These indi-
cators will allow the characterization
of trends in ground water quality
over space and time. Examples of
preliminary indicators include the
number of maximum contaminant
level violations in public water sys-
tems, detections of VOCs in ground
water, and the extent of leachable
agricultural pesticide use. EPA will
IRRIGATION
accounted for more
than 64% of
ground water use
National Ground Water Withdrawls
by Water Use Category
Irrigation 64.2%
Thermoelectric 0.7%
Commercial 1.15
Mining 2.5%
Livestock 3.4%
Domestic 4.1 % ,
Industrial 5.0%
Public Supply 19.0%
-------
ES-24 Executive Summary
continue to work with the States to
refine these ground water quality
indicators.
Additional ground water moni-
toring initiatives have been under-
taken in numerous States. These
initiatives are aimed at characteriz-
ing the overall quality of ground
water resources and typically
include the establishment of ambi-
ent monitoring networks, regional
monitoring networks that focus on
sensitive aquifers, or site-specific
monitoring efforts that focus on
known or suspected contamination
sources.
The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA)
Several key features characterize the WPA:
The WPA encourages managers to examine all the factors contribut-
ing to water quality problems in a watershed and apply a coordinated,
holistic approach to resolving the problems.
The WPA advocates restoring and protecting ecological integrity
!n addition to protecting human health and meeting water quality
standards.
The WPA fosters a high level of interprogram coordination.
A State that is using the WPA
Targets those watersheds where pollution poses the greatest risk to
human health, ecological resources, or desirable uses of the water
Involves all parties with a stake in the watershed in the analysis of
problems and the implementation of solutions
Draws on the full range of methods and tools available, integrating
them into a coordinated, multiorganizational attack on the problems.
Water Quality
Protection Programs
The EPA works in partnership
with State and local governments to
improve and protect water quality.
Since the 1990 Report to Congress,
EPA and many States have moved
toward a more geographically
oriented approach to water quality
management. They share a growing
consensus that the Nation's remain-
ing water quality problems can be
solved most effectively at the basin
or watershed level.
In 1991, EPA highlighted the
Watershed Protection Approach
(WPA), a framework for focusing
and integrating water quality moni-
toring and management activities
in a watershed of concern. The WPA
is not a new government program,
but rather a means of pulling
together the resources and expertise
of existing programs at all levels,
from Federal to State and local
levels.
The EPA, other Federal agencies,
State pollution control agencies, and
local governments are applying the
WPA to existing monitoring and
assessment programs as well as
water quality protection programs
(see sidebar). A number of laws
provide the authority to develop
and implement pollution control
programs. The primary statute pro-
viding for water quality protection
in the Nation's rivers, lakes, wet-
lands, estuaries, and coastal waters
is the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act of 1972, commonly known
as the Clean Water Act (CWA).
-------
Executive Summary ES-25
The Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act of 1972
and its amendments are the driving
force behind many of the water
quality improvements we have wit-
nessed in recent years. Key provi-
sions of the Clean Water Act pro-
vide the following pollution control
programs.
Water quality standards and
criteria - States adopt EPA-
approved standards for their
waters that define water quality
goals for individual waterbodies.
Standards consist of designated
beneficial uses to be made of
the water, criteria to protect
those uses, and antidegradation
provisions to protect existing
water quality (see page ES-2).
Effluent guidelines - The EPA
develops nationally consistent
guidelines limiting pollutants in
discharges from industrial facili-
ties and municipal sewage treat-
ment plants. These guidelines
are then used in permits issued
to dischargers under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Additional controls
may be required if receiving
waters are still affected by water
quality problems after permit
limits are met.
Total Maximum Daily Loads-
The development of Total Maxi-
mum Daily Loads, or TMDLs,
establishes the link between
water quality standards and
point/nonpoint source pollution
control actions such as permits
or Best Management Practices
(BMPs). A TMDL calculates
allowable loadings from the
contributing point and
nonpoint sources to a given
waterbody and provides the
quantitative basis for pollution
reduction necessary to meet
water quality standards. States
develop and implement TMDLs
for high-priority impaired or
threatened waterbodies.
Permits and enforcement - All
industrial and municipal facilities
that discharge wastewater must
have an NPDES permit and are
responsible for monitoring and
reporting levels of pollutants in
their discharges. EPA issues
these permits or can delegate
that permitting authority to
qualifying States. The States and
EPA inspect facilities to deter-
mine if their discharges comply
with permit limits. If dischargers
are not in compliance, enforce-
ment action is taken.
In 1990, EPA promulgated per-
mit application requirements for
municipal sewers that carry
storm water separately from
other wastes and serve popula-
tions of 100,000 or more and
for storm water discharges asso-
ciated with some industrial
activities. The EPA is developing
regulations to establish a com-
prehensive program to regulate
storm sewers, including require-
ments for State storm water
management programs.
Grants - The EPA provides
States with financial assistance
to help support many of their
pollution control programs.
These programs include the
State Revolving Fund program
Under the Watershed
Protection Approach
(WPA), a "watershed"
is a hydrogeologic area
defined for addressing
water quality problems.
For example, a WPA
watershed may be a river
basin, a county-sized
watershed, or a small
drinking water supply
watershed.
-------
ES-26 Executive Summary
for construction and upgrading
of municipal sewage treatment
plants; water quality monitor-
ing, permitting, and enforce-
ment; and developing and
implementing nonpoint source
pollution controls, combined
sewer and storm water controls,
ground water strategies, lake
assessment, protection, and
restoration activities, estuary
and near coastal management
programs, and wetlands protec-
tion activities.
Nonpoint source control - The
EPA provides program guid-
ance, technical support, and
funding to help the States con-
trol nonpoint source pollution.
The States are responsible for
analyzing the extent and sever-
ity of their nonpoint source
pollution problems and devel-
oping and implementing
needed water quality manage-
ment actions.
Control of combined sewer
overflows - Under the National
Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Strategy of 1989, States
develop and implement mea-
sures to reduce pollution dis-
charges from combined storm
and sanitary sewers. The EPA
works with the States to imple-
ment the national strategy.
The CWA also established pollu-
tion control and prevention pro-
grams for specific waterbody
categories, such as the Clean Lakes
Program, discussed in more detail
on the next page. Other statutes
that also guide the development of
water quality protection programs
include
The Safe Drinking Water Act,
under which States establish
standards for drinking water
quality, monitor wells and local
water supply systems, imple-
ment drinking water protection
programs, and implement
Underground Injection Control
(UIC) programs.
The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act establishes
State and EPA programs for
ground water and surface water
protection and cleanup and
emphasizes prevention of
releases through management
standards in addition to other
waste management activities.
The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act (Super-
fund Program), which provides
EPA with the authority to clean
up contaminated waters during
remediation at contaminated
sites.
The Pollution Prevention Act
of 1990 requires EPA to pro-
mote pollutant source reduction
rather than focus on controlling
pollutants after they enter the
environment.
-------
Executive Summary ES-27
The Clean Lakes Program
EPA's Clean Lakes Program pro-
vides Federal funds to help States
carry out diagnostic studies of lake
problems, determine necessary pro-
tection and restoration measures,
implement those measures, and
monitor the long-term impacts and
effectiveness of those measures.
The Clean Lakes Program provides
grants for four types of cooperative
agreements:
Lake Water Quality Assess-
ments strengthen State lake
management programs and
improve water quality informa-
tion.
Phase I Diagnostic/Feasibility
Studies investigate the causes
of water quality decline in a
publicly owned lake and deter-
mine the most feasible proce-
dures for controlling pollutants
and restoring the lake.
Phase II Projects implement
the restoration and pollution
control methods identified in a
Phase I study.
Phase III Postrestoration
Monitoring Projects sponsor
long-term monitoring to verify
the longevity and effectiveness
of restoration and control mea-
sures implemented during a
Phase II project.
Managing lake quality often
requires a combination of in-lake
restoration measures and pollution
controls, including watershed man-
agement measures:
Restoration measures are
implemented to reduce existing
pollution problems. Examples of
in-lake restoration measures
include harvesting aquatic
weeds, dredging sediment, and
adding chemicals to precipitate
nutrients out of the water
column. Restoration measures
focus on restoring uses of a lake
and may not address the source
of the pollution.
Pollution control measures
deal with the sources of pollut-
ants degrading lake water qual-
ity or threatening to impair lake
water quality. Control measures
include planning activities, regu-
latory actions, and implementa-
tion of BMPs to reduce non-
point sources of pollutants.
During the 1980s, most States
implemented chemical and
mechanical in-lake restoration mea-
sures to control aquatic weeds and .
algae. In their 1992 Section 305(b)
reports, the States report a shift
toward watershed planning tech-
niques and nonpoint source controls
to reduce pollutant loads respon-
sible for aquatic weed growth and
algal blooms. Watershed manage-
ment plans simultaneously address
multiple sources of pollutants, such
as runoff from urbanized areas, agri-
cultural activities, and failing septic
systems along the lake shore.
Although the States reported that
they still use in-lake treatments
(Figure ES-18), the States recognize
that source controls are needed in
addition to in-lake treatments to
restore lake water quality.
-------
ES-28 Executive Summary
Figure ES-18
In-Lake Treatment Techniques Implemented
by the States
(22 States Reporting)
Techniques
Dredging
Lake Drawdown
Chemical Weed and
Algae Controls
Mechanical Weed Control
Biological Weed Control
Circulation/Hypolimnetic
Aeration
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of States Reporting
Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure ES-19
Management Options for Lake Restoration
and Pollution Control
(35 States Reporting)
Options
Modified NPDES
Permits
Rely on 319 Nonpoint
Source Program
State Lake Water
Quality Standards
Watershed
Management Plans
Phosphate Detergent
Restrictions
5 10 15 20
Number of States Reporting
25
Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
The States reported that they
most frequently rely on their NPDES
permit programs and their Section
319 nonpoint source (NPS) man-
agement programs to control pol-
lutants entering lakes (Figure ES-19).
Through the State NPDES permit
programs, States often impose
stricter nutrient limits for effluents
discharged into lakes than into rivers
and streams. Seven States reported
that phosphorus detergent restric-
tions enhanced sewage treatment
plant compliance with NPDES nutri-
ent limits. Twenty-two States
reported that they use their Section
319 NPS programs to implement
BMPs in watersheds surrounding
impaired or threatened lakes.
Successful lake programs require
strong commitment from local citi-
zens and cooperation from natural
resource agencies at the local, State,
and Federal levels. Forty-nine States,
Puerto Rico, and 18 American
Indian Tribes have established coop-
erative frameworks for managing
lakes under the Clean Lakes
Program.
The National Estuary
Program
Section 320 of the Clean Water
Act (as amended by the Water
Quality Act of 1987) established the
National Estuary Program (NEP) to
protect and restore water quality
and living resources in estuaries. The
NEP adopts a geographic or water-
shed approach by planning and
implementing pollution abatement
activities for the estuary and its
surrounding land area as a whole.
Through the NEP, States nomi-
nate estuaries of national signifi-
cance that are threatened or im-
paired by pollution, development,
-------
Executive Summary ES-29
or overuse. EPA evaluates the
nominations and selects those that
show evidence of a committed citi-
zenry, political support, a range of
government involvement (State,
Federal, regional, and local), and
available scientific and technical
expertise to tackle the problem. The
EPA convenes management confer-
ences with representatives from all
interested groups (e.g., industry,
agriculture, conservation organiza-
tions, and State agencies) to more
fully characterize the problems and
seek solutions.
The NEP is also a national dem-
onstration program. There are more
than 150 estuaries in the United
States and only a small fraction can
be targeted for action through the
NEP. It is therefore important that
the lessons learned through the NEP
be communicated to estuarine wa-
ter quality managers throughout the
country. As of June 1993, 21 estuar-
ies are included in the NEP (see
Figure ES-20).
Protecting Wetlands
Section 404 of the CWA
remains the primary Federal vehicle
for protecting wetlands. Section 404
regulates the discharge of dredged
or fill material into waters of the
United States, including wetlands.
EPA continues to promote other
mechanisms to protect wetlands
including
Incorporating wetlands consider-
ations into traditional water pro-
grams and other EPA programs
Working with other Federal
agencies
Helping to build State and local
government programs to protect
wetlands
Improving wetlands science
Promoting outreach and
education
Developing voluntary partner-
ships with landowners
Coordinating international wet-
lands protection.
Figure ES-2Q
Locations of National Estuary Program Sites
a VI
Source: U.S. EPA National Estuary Program.
-------
ES-30 Executive Summary
:MoKinfonnation on wetlands
can be obtained from tfie
EPA Wetlands Hotline at
il < 'i "j fjii'igi'''! 11*1 ' :.ปi is.i'lin 'I'.i.iM. i ill!"iili1" lit ' ' "ป i ii 'i i, 'in
"1-800-832-7828.
In addition, EPA has awarded
wetlands grants since 1990 to sup-
port the development of State and
Tribal wetlands protection pro-
grams. States and Tribes have used
these grants to develop water qual-
ity standards, monitor trends in
wetlands loss, coordinate State and
local planning agencies, and dis-
seminate educational materials on
wetlands.
Overall, States reported that
they are making considerable
progress in protecting the quantity
and quality of their wetlands
through regulatory and nonregula-
tory approaches. States were asked
to report on several key areas, in-
cluding the application of Section
401 certification authority to protect
wetlands, their progress in develop-
ing water quality standards for wet-
lands, and efforts to incorporate
wetlands considerations into other
programs (see Appendix D, Table
D-5). In addition, 18 States and one
Territory reported on efforts to
inventory the physical acreage of
their wetlands.
According to State-reported
information, no State is currently
operating a statewide wetlands
monitoring program. However, five
States did describe water quality
and habitat monitoring efforts for
some portion of their wetlands.
EPA recognizes that the devel-
opment of biological monitoring
and assessment methods for wet-
lands is a critical need for State wet-
lands managers so that they can
begin to monitor their wetlands. To
this end, EPA is developing assess-
ment protocols for freshwater emer-
gent wetlands as part of its 5-year
research plan. However, more
research on other wetlands systems
is needed on both the Federal and
State levels.
State monitoring programs are
critical for determining whether
wetlands are meeting their desig-
nated and existing uses as well as
for prioritizing restoration once
impairment is identified. Wetlands
monitoring information is also
important for making Section 401
certification decisions, determining
mitigation success for Section 404,
and supporting other management
decisions.
Protecting the
Great Lakes
The Great Lakes are coopera-
tively managed by the United States
and Canada under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1978
(as amended in 1987). The Interna-
tional Joint Commission, established
by the 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty, is responsible for identifying
actions to protect the Great Lakes.
Representatives from State and Fed-
eral agencies and universities work
together on the Commission's two
boards to identify problem areas,
plan programs to reduce pollution,
and publish findings and issue
papers.
Since 1973, 43 Areas of Con-
cern have been identified in the
Great Lakes basin where environ-
mental quality is substantially
degraded. Most Areas of Concern
are harbors, bays, and river mouths.
Remedial Action Plans are being
developed for each Area of Con-
cern. These plans identify impaired
uses and examine management
options to restore the areas.
In 1989, the EPA launched the
Great Lakes Initiative to provide a
framework for Federal assistance in
pursuing the goal of whole-system
restoration based on an ecosystem
-------
Executive Summary ES-31
perspective. The Initiative empha-
sizes areas in which EPA can provide
State governments and other stake-
holders with technical support. The
Initiative envisions EPA making the
following technical contributions:
Develop guidance for identifying
toxic hot spots
Develop guidance for tracking
the relative contributions of toxic
and acidic pollutants from surface
water and atmospheric sources
Develop guidance for determin-
ing the relative roles of point and
nonpoint source contributions to
conventional and toxic pollutant
burdens
Suggest innovative approaches
for the protection of critical habitat
areas
Support the development of
special wildlife standards.
To help implement the goals
of the Great Lakes Initiative, EPA
Region 5 and the EPA Great Lakes
National Program Office coordinate
a Steering Committee, Technical
Workgroup, and Public Participation
Group. The States have played an
active role in the development of
draft criteria and policies.
By late 1992, EPA had reviewed
a draft of the Great Lakes Initiative
Guidance. When issued in final
form, this major guidance docu-
ment will assist in updating the
Great Lakes Strategy, which pro-
vides the framework for implement-
ing the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. Specific policies under
the Great Lakes Initiative will help
integrate the development of
Remedial Action Plans for desig-
nated Areas of Concern with the
more holistic goals of Lakewide
Management Plans and pollution
prevention strategies for the Great
Lakes as a whole.
The Chesapeake Bay
Program
In 1975, the Chesapeake Bay
became the Nation's first estuary
targeted for protection and restora-
tion when Congress directed EPA to
study the causes of environmental
declines in the Bay. Section 117(a)
of the 1987 CWA amendments
required that the EPA Administrator
continue the Chesapeake Bay
Program to
Collect and distribute information
about the Bay's environmental
quality
Coordinate Federal and State
efforts to improve the Bay's water
quality
Determine impacts from environ-
mental changes such as inputs of
nutrients, chlorine, oxygen demand-
ing substances, toxic pollutants, and
acid precipitation.
A system of committees, sub-
committees, work groups, and task
forces have evolved under the
Chesapeake Executive Council,
which consists of the Governors of
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylva-
nia, the Administrator of EPA, the
Mayor of the District of Columbia,
and the Chairman of the Chesa-
peake Bay Commission. The Coun-
cil coordinates program implemen-
tation, establishes policy directions,
-------
ES-32 Executive Summary
and provides oversite for the
restoration and protection of the
Bay and its living resources. On
August 6, 1991, the Chesapeake
Executive Council adopted four
action steps, building on the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement to
reduce nitrogen and phosphorus
loads entering the Bay by 40%.
The four action steps commit the
Council to
Reevaluating and accelerating the
nutrient reduction program
Adopting pollution prevention
Restoring and enhancing living
resources and their habitats, such as
submerged aquatic vegetation beds
Broadening participation in the
Bay Program.
The Chesapeake Bay Program
has implemented programs to
reduce impacts from nutrients,
oxygen-demanding substances, and
pathogens. To date, three elements
of the Chesapeake Bay Program's
point source control strategy are
responsible for reductions in nutri-
ent loadings:
Ugrading wastewater treatment
plants
Improving compliance with dis-
charge and pretreatment permits
Pollution prevention actions such
as prohibiting the sale of detergents
containing phosphorus.
As a result of these measures,
annual discharges of phosphorus
into the Bay dropped by 40% (4.7
million pounds) between 1985 and
1991.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's
nonpoint source program empha-
sizes controls for runoff generated
by agricultural activities, paved sur-
faces, and construction in urban
areas. The program includes nutri-
ent management for applying ani-
mal wastes and fertilizers to crop-
land in amounts calculated to meet
crop requirements without contami-
nating ground and surface waters.
The Chesapeake Bay Program
developed a model to estimate
nutrient load reductions from
nonpoint sources because it is not
possible to monitor every nonpoint
source in the Bay's watershed. The
model estimates that implementa-
tion of nonpoint source controls has
resulted in a 12% and 8% reduction
in controllable nonpoint source
nitrogen and phosphorus, respec-
tively.
Overall, water quality monitor-
ing data confirm significant progress
in reducing phosphorus loads into
Chesapeake Bay. Total phosphorus
concentrations in the Bay decreased
by 16% between 1984 and 1992.
However, total nitrogen concentra-
tions have remained stable in the
mainstem of the Bay and increased
in some tributaries, indicating a
need for additional progress in
reducing nitrogen loadings.
The Gulf of Mexico
Program
In 1988, the Gulf of Mexico
Program (GMP) was established
with EPA as the lead Federal agency
to develop and help implement a
strategy to protect, restore, and
maintain the health and productivity
of the Gulf. The GMP is a grass
roots program that serves as a
catalyst to promote sharing of
information, pooling of resources,
-------
Executive Summary ES-33
and coordination of efforts to
restore and reclaim wetlands and
wildlife habitat, clean up existing
pollution, and prevent future con-
tamination and destruction of the
Gulf. The CMP mobilizes State,
Federal, and local government; busi-
ness and industry; academia; and
the community at large through
public awareness and information
dissemination programs, forum dis-
cussions, citizen committees, and
technology applications.
A Policy Review Board and a
newly formed Management Com-
mittee determine the scope and
focus of CMP activities. The pro-
gram also receives input from a
Technical Advisory Committee and
a Citizen's Advisory Committee.
The GMP Office and TO Issue Com-
mittees coordinate the collection,
integration, and reporting of perti-
nent data and information. The
Issue Committees are responsible for
documenting environmental prob-
lems and management goals, avail-
able resources, and potential solu-
tions for a broad range of issues,
including habitat degradation, pub-
lic health, freshwater inflow, marine
debris, shoreline erosion, nutrients,
toxic pollutants, and living aquatic
resources. The Issue Committees
publish their findings in Action
Agendas. Two additional commit-
tees provide operational support
and information transfer activities
for the entire GMP.
On December 10, 1992, the
Governors of Alabama, Florida, Loui-
siana, Mississippi, and Texas; EPA;
the Chair of the Citizen's Advisory
Committee; and representatives of
10 other Federal agencies signed
the Gulf of Mexico Program Partner-
ship for Action agreement for
protecting, restoring, and enhanc-
ing the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent
lands. The agreement commits the
signatory agencies to pledge their
efforts, over the next 5 years, to '
obtain the knowledge and resources
to
Significantly reduce the rate of
loss of coastal wetlands
Achieve an increase in Gulf Coast
seagrass beds
Enhance the sustainability of Gulf
commercial and recreational fisher-
ies
Protect human health and food
supply by reducing input of nutri-
ents, toxic substances, and patho-
gens to the Gulf
Increase Gulf shellfish beds avail-
able for safe harvesting by 10%
Ensure that all Gulf beaches are
safe for swimming and recreational
uses
Reduce by at least 10% the
amount of trash on beaches
Improve and expand coastal
habitats that support migratory
birds, fish, and other living resources
Expand public education/out-
reach tailored for each Gulf Coast
county or parish.
During 1992, the GMP also
launched Take-Action Projects in
each of the five Gulf States to dem-
onstrate that program strategies and
methods could achieve rapid results.
The Take-Action Projects primarily
address inadequate sewage treat-
ment, pollution prevention, and
habitat protection and restoration.
Several projects aim to demonstrate
-------
ES-34 Executive Summary
the effectiveness of innovative
sewage treatment technologies to
control pathogenic contamination
of shellfish harvesting areas. Other
projects aim to restore wetlands, sea
grass beds, and oyster reefs. The
Take-Action Projects are designed to
have Gulf-wide application.
Ground Water
Protection Programs
Protection of ground water
resources is addressed under the
Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the
Toxic Substances Control Act, the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the
Pollution Prevention Act. The Com-
prehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs (CSGWPP) are
an approach to ground water pro-
tection that embraces all the above-
mentioned ground water protection
activities, with emphasis placed on
preventing contamination. A
CSGWPP is also intended to act as a
catalyst for fundamental changes in
the development and implementa-
tion of ground water protection
programs at the Federal, State, and
local levels.
Several principal or important
ground water protection programs
control pollutant sources: solid and
hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal and underground stor-
age tanks are regulated under
RCRA; subsurface injection of fluids
is regulated under SDWA; aban-
doned waste is regulated under
CERCLA; and pesticides are con-
trolled under FIFRA. These programs
enable States to regulate and moni-
tor pollutant sources more effec-
tively.
Funds allotted under Sections
319(h) and (i) and 518 of the Clean
Water Act are intended to assist
States in implementing EPA-
approved nonpoint source manage-
ment programs and ground water
protection activities. In addition, a
number of States have developed
nonpoint source control programs
that focus on contamination result-
ing from agriculture and septic
tanks.
The Toxic Substances Control
Act and the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act con-
trol the use and disposal of com-
mercial chemical products thereby
minimizing the risks to public health
and the environment. EPA's Pesti-
cides and Ground Water Strategy
emphasizes prevention and protec-
tion of the Nation's ground water
resources and provides a flexible
framework for tailoring programs to
the needs of each State. In addition,
EPA has established a Restricted Use
classification for pesticides, which is
intended to reduce both the risks of
point source causes of ground water
contamination and nonpoint source
causes of contamination.
The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 was enacted by Congress to
promote pollution prevention and
environmental protection goals. The
Act allows for grants to be allotted
to fund research projects involving
education, demonstration, and
training in sustainable agriculture
and other agricultural practices that
emphasize ground water protection
and reducing the excessive use of
nutrients and pesticides.
A number of mechanisms have
been developed to manage the
-------
Executive Summary ES-35
ever-growing volume of information
on the Nation's ground water
resources. These include the devel-
opment of a standard format for
reporting ground water data called
the Minimum Set of Data Elements
(MSDE) for Ground Water Quality.
The MSDE is intended to improve
access to ground water data and to
increase information sharing capa-
bilities by standardizing the ele-
ments used in ground water data-
bases. Additional mechanisms
include the development of a geo-
graphic information system (CIS) to
integrate ground water data that
have been collected under different
programs, the development and
management of two databases
concerning pesticides and ground
water, and inclusion of ground
water data in a modernized STORET
(EPA's water database).
What You Can Do
Federal and State programs
have helped clean up many waters
and slow the degradation of others.
But government alone cannot solve
the entire problem, and water qual-
ity concerns persist. Nonpoint
source pollution, in particular, is
everybody's problem, and every-
body needs to solve it.
Examine your everyday activities
and think about how you are con-
tributing to the pollution problem.
Here are some suggestions on how
you can make a difference.
Be Informed
You should learn about water
quality issues that affect the com-
munities in which you live and
work. Become familiar with your
local water resources. Where does
your drinking water come from?
What activities in your area might
affect the water you drink or the
rivers, lakes, beaches, or wetlands
you use for recreation?
Learn about procedures for
disposing of harmful household
wastes so they do not end up in
sewage treatment plants that can-
not handle them or in landfills not
designed to receive hazardous ma-
terials.
Be Responsible
In your yard, determine
whether additional nutrients are
needed before you apply fertilizers,
and look for alternatives where fer-
tilizers might run off into surface
waters. Consider selecting plants
and grasses that have low mainte-
nance requirements. Water your
lawn conservatively. Preserve exist-
ing trees and plant new trees and
shrubs to help prevent erosion and
promote infiltration of water into
the soil. Restore bare patches in
your lawn to prevent erosion. If you
own or manage land through which
a stream flows, you may wish to
consult your local county extension
office about methods of restoring
stream banks in your area by plant-
ing buffer strips of native vegeta-
tion.
Around your house, keep litter,
pet waste, leaves, and grass clip-
pings out of gutters and storm
drains. Use the minimum amount of
water needed when you wash your
car. Never dispose of any house-
hold, automotive, or gardening
wastes in a storm drain. Keep your
septic tank in good working order.
Within your home, fix any drip-
ping faucets or leaky pipes and in-
stall water-saving devices in shower
heads and toilets. Always follow
-------
ES-36 Executive Summary
directions on labels for use and
disposal of household chemicals.
Take used motor oil, paints, and
other hazardous household materi-
als to proper disposal sites such as
approved service stations or desig-
nated landfills.
Be Involved
As a citizen and a voter there is
much you can do at the community
level to help preserve and protect
our Nation's water resources. Look
around. Is soil erosion being con-
trolled at construction sites? Is the
community sewage plant being
operated efficiently and correctly?
Is the community trash dump in or
along a stream? Is road deicing salt
being stored properly?
Become involved in your com-
munity election processes. Listen
and respond to candidates' views
on water quality and environmental
issues. Many communities have
recycling programs; find out about
them, learn how to recycle, and
volunteer to help out if you can.
One of the most important things
you can do is find out how your
community protects water quality,
and speak out if you see problems.
Volunteer Monitoring:
You Can Become Part
of the Solution
In many areas of the country,
citizens are becoming personally
involved in monitoring the quality
of our Nation's water. As a volun-
teer monitor, you might be involved
in taking ongoing water quality
measurements, tracking the
progress of protection and restora-
tion projects, or reporting special
events, such as fish kills and storm
damage.
Volunteer monitoring can be of
great benefit to State and local gov-
ernments. Some States stretch their
monitoring budgets by using data
collected by volunteers, particularly
in remote areas that otherwise
might not be monitored at all.
Because you are familiar with the
water resources in your own neigh-
borhood, you are also more likely to
spot unusual occurrences such as
fish kills.
The benefits to you of becom-
ing a volunteer are also great. You
will learn about your local water
resources and have the opportunity
to become personally involved in a
nationwide campaign to protect a
vital, and mutually shared, resource.
If you would like to find out more
about organizing or joining volun-
teer monitoring programs in your
State, contact your State depart-
ment of environmental quality, or
write to
Alice Mayio
U.S. EPA
Volunteer Monitoring (4503F)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7018
For further information on water
quality in your State, write to your
State department of environmental
quality (see Chapter 8). Additional
water quality information may be
obtained from the following
Regional offices of the U.S. EPA:
Diane Switzer
EPA Region 1 (EMS-LEX)
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
(617) 860-4377
Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Maine, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
-------
Executive Summary ES-37
Xuan-Mai T. Iran
EPA Region 2 (SWQB)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-3188
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Charles A. Kanetsky
EPA Region 3 (3ES11)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-8176
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsyl-
vania, Virginia, West Virginia,
District of Columbia
Larinda Tervelt
EPA Region 4
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-2126
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
Dave Stoltenberg
EPA Region 5 (SQ-14J)
77 West Jackson Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-5784
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Russell Nelson
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 655-6646
Arkansas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
John Houlihan
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7432
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska
Phil Johnson
EPA Region 8 (8WM-WQ)
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)293-1581
Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming
Edwin H. Liu
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-2012
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa,
Guam
Alan Henning
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-8293
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington
For Further Reading
U.S. EPA. 1988. America's Wetlands:
Our Vital Link Between Land and
Water. Office of Water. EPA 87-016.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Environmental
Backgrounder: Wetlands. Office of
Water.
U.S. EPA. 1989. EPA Journal: Can
Our Coasts Survive More Growth?
Volume 15, Number 5.
U.S. EPA. 1991. EPA Journal: Non-
point Source Pollution: Runoff of
Rain and Snowmelt, Our Biggest
Water Quality Problem. Volume 17,
Number 5.
U.S. EPA. 1992. National Water
Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to
Congress. Office of Water. EPA
503/99-92-006.
-------
HIGHUGHi
HT HIGHLIGHT
I
III II II I III I 111 llllll 111 I llllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllll 1111
III III llilllilHl 11111 (I 11 ill I11 III III llllll lllliil II IlIlNii
II Illllll ( ill
ii I
Fish Consumption Advisories
States issue fish consumption
advisories to protect the public from
ingesting harmful quantities of toxic
pollutants in contaminated fish and
shellfish. Fish may accumulate dan-
gerous quantities of pollutants in
their tissues by ingesting many
smaller organisms, each contami-
nated with a small quantity of pol-
lutant. This process is called
bioaccumulation or biomagnifica-
tion. Pollutants also enter fish and
shellfish tissues through the gills or
skin.
Fish consumption advisories
recommend that the public limit the
quantity and frequency of fish con-
sumption from specific waterbodies.
The States tailor individual advisories
to minimize health risks based on
contaminant data collected in their
fish tissue sampling programs. Advi-
sories may completely ban fish con-
sumption in severely polluted waters
or limit fish consumption to several
meals per month or year in cases of
less severe contamination. Advisories
may target a subpopulation at risk
(such as children, pregnant women,
and nursing mothers), specific fish
species, or larger fish that may have
accumulated high concentrations of
a pollutant over a longer lifetime
than a smaller, younger fish.
The EPA fish consumption advi-
sory database tracks advisories
issued by each State. For 1993, the
database listed 1,279 fish consump-
tion advisories in effect in 47 States.
Fish consumption advisories are
unevenly distributed among the
States because the States use their
own criteria to determine if fish
tissue concentrations of toxics pose
a health risk that justifies an advi-
sory. States also vary the amount of
fish tissue monitoring they conduct
and the number of pollutants ana-
lyzed. States that conduct more
monitoring and use strict criteria will
issue more advisories than States
that conduct less monitoring and
use weaker criteria. For example,
66% of the advisories active in 1993
were issued by the States surround-
ing the Great Lakes, which support
i n lilt
i Ji
III Ii 1 I 1 || [(1 t -t| hi IIHI i j|(Ht,s UซI*M tซi$!ซtp |itji
I II "'l *' ' till I'ffi* 1*1* ifclljjjji
ซ i\l i I l|M ซ 0 II) I 1" (Ji Jrjnt 'll).
wu, *i v w*pi'i"
11 ; i ij.j r
-------
HIGHLIGH,
extensive fish sampling programs
and follow strict criteria for issuing
advisories.
Most of the fish consumption
advisories are due to mercury, poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlor-
dane, dioxins, and DDT (with its
byproducts). The States report that
the leading sources of these pollut-
ants are industrial discharges and
polluted wet weather runoff from
agricultural lands, urban areas, and
storm sewers.
Many coastal States report
restrictions on shellfish harvesting in
estuarine waters. Shellfish-particu-
larly oysters, clams, and mussels-
are filter-feeders that extract their
food from water. Waterborne bacte-
ria and viruses may also accumulate
on their gills and mantles and in
their digestive systems. Shellfish
contaminated by these microorgan-
isms are a serious human health
concern, particularly if consumed
raw.
States currently sample water
from shellfish harvesting areas to
measure indicator bacteria, such as
total coliform and fecal coliform
bacteria. These bacteria serve as
indicators of the presence of poten-
tially pathogenic microorganisms
associated with untreated or under-
treated sewage. States restrict shell-
fish harvesting to areas that main-
tain these bacteria at concentrations
in sea water below established
health limits.
In 1992, 18 States reported that
shellfish harvesting restrictions were
in effect for more than 3,455 square
miles of estuarine and coastal waters
during the 1990-1992 reporting
period. Nine States reported that
urban runoff and storm sewers,
municipal wastewater treatment
facilities, marinas, and industrial
discharges restricted shellfish
harvesting.
'
gs^-^s^^riJSZiC^*^"
%gjgi%gl?*etK<ปsK**yซ < - - >
, jgrf ^^ ^JH^, ** V=|
-------
-------
Parti
Introduction
-------
-------
Introduction
This document describes the
overall quality of our Nation's
assessed surface and ground waters
during 1990 and 1991. The con-
tents discuss the geographic extent
of water pollution across the coun-
try and identify specific pollutants
and sources of pollutants contami-
nating our waters. This document
also highlights programs initiated by
State and local governments, the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and other Federal
agencies to improve water quality.
To prepare this document, EPA
summarized information submitted
by States, Territories, Interstate
Water Basin Commissions, the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and the Gila River
Indian Community in their 1992
water quality assessment reports
(the "305 (b) reports" required
under Clean Water Act Section
305(b)). Individual State summaries
are provided in Chapter 8.
This report displays and summa-
rizes data provided by the States to
EPA. EPA has not determined the
accuracy of these data. It is impor-
tant to note that these State-
reported data are intended to pro-
vide a snapshot of the quality of the
waters they assessed and cannot be
used to determine trends in our
Nation's water resources. These
limitations are due to major differ-
ences from year to year in assess-
ment methods within and between
States as well as differences in the
waters assessed in each 2-year
period. In addition, not all States
follow EPA's guidance on proce-
dures for determining whether
waters are supporting the uses des-
ignated in their water quality stan-
dards. EPA and the States are taking
many steps toward transforming
the 305(b) process into one that
provides comparable data with
known accuracy. These steps
include implementing the recom-
mendations of the National 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup and the
Intergovernmental Task Force for
Monitoring Water Quality, as well
as improving the Section 305(b)
guidelines and stipulating adherence
to those guidelines in proposed
State Section 106 grant guidelines.
These efforts will foster consistency
and accuracy among the States and
allow better sharing of data across
political boundaries for watershed
protection.
The Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) still
guides Federal and State water pol-
lution control programs 20 years
after it was enacted by Congress. In
1972, the CWA launched a national
objective to "restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biologi-
cal integrity of the Nation's waters."
The Act set two goals to achieve
this objective:
Eliminate the discharge of pollut-
ants into navigable waters by 1985,
and
The Clean Water Act of 1972
. . . it is the national goal
that, wherever attainable,
an interim goal of water
quality which provides for
the protection and propaga-
tion offish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the
water, be achieved by
July 1, 1983 . . .
-------
4 Chapter One Introduction
Achieve an interim water quality
level that protects and propagates
fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
supports recreation in and on the
water, where attainable.
As it became evident that
the Nation could not eliminate
pollutant discharges by 1985,
Congress amended the CWA
to stress achieving the interim
water quality levels, which came
to be known as "the fishable and
swimmable goals of the Act."
The EPA measures national
progress in achieving the CWA
interim water quality levels by sum-
marizing attainment of State water
quality standards. Water quality
standards consist of designated
beneficial uses, numeric and narra-
tive criteria sufficient to protect each
use, and an antidegradation
statement:
Designated beneficial uses are
the desirable uses that water quality
should support. Examples are drink-
ing water supply, primary contact
recreation (such as swimming), and
aquatic life support. Each desig-
nated use has a unique set of water
quality requirements or criteria that
must be met for the use to be real-
ized. States may designate an indi-
vidual waterbody for multiple ben-
eficial uses.
Numeric water quality criteria
establish the minimum physical,
chemical, and biological parameters
required to support a beneficial use.
Physical and chemical numeric
criteria may set maximum concen-
trations of pollutants, acceptable
ranges of physical parameters, and
minimum concentrations of desir-
able parameters, such as dissolved
oxygen. Numeric biological criteria
describe the expected attainable
community attributes and establish
values based on measures such as
species richness, presence or
absence of indicator taxa, and distri-
bution of classes of organisms.
Narrative water quality criteria
define, rather than quantify, condi-
tions and attainable goals that must
be maintained to support a desig-
nated use. Narrative biological cri-
teria establish a positive statement
about aquatic community character-
istics expected to occur within a
waterbody. For example, "Aquatic
life shall be as it naturally occurs,"
or "Ambient water quality shall be
sufficient to support life stages of all
indigenous aquatic species." Narra-
tive criteria may also describe condi-
tions that are desired in a water-
body, such as, "Waters must be free
of substances that are toxic to
humans, aquatic life, and wildlife."
Antidegradation statements
protect existing designated uses and
prevent high-quality waterbodies
from deteriorating below the water
quality necessary to maintain exist-
ing or anticipated designated bene-
ficial uses.
The CWA allows States to set
their own standards but requires
that all State beneficial uses and
their criteria comply with the goals
of the Act. At a minimum, State
beneficial uses must provide for "the
protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife" and provide
for "recreation in and on the water"
(i.e., the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Act), where attainable.
The Act prohibits States from desig-
nating waste transport or waste
assimilation as a beneficial use, as
some States did prior to 1972.
-------
Chapter One Introduction 5 ,
Assessment
Methodology
Section 305(b) of the CWA
requires that the States biennially
assess their water quality for attain-
ment of the fishable and swimrnable
goals of the Act and report the
results to EPA. The States measure
attainment of the CWA goals by
determining how well their waters
support their designated beneficial
uses. EPA encourages States to
assess support of the following indi-
vidual beneficial uses:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody pro-
vides suitable habitat for survival
and reproduction of desirable fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic organ-
isms.
Fish Consumption
The waterbody sup-
ports a population
of fish free from contamination that
could pose a human health risk to
consumers.
Shellfish Harvesting
The waterbody sup-
ports a population
of shellfish free from toxicants and
pathogens that could pose a human
health risk to consumers.
Drinking Water
Supply
The waterbody can
supply safe drinking water with
conventional treatment.
Primary Contact
Recreation -
Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
waterborne diseases from raw
sewage contamination).
Secondary Contact
Recreation
People can perform
activities on the water (such as
canoeing) without risk of adverse
human health effects from occa-
sional contact with the water.
Agriculture
The water quality is
suitable for irrigating
fields or watering livestock.
The States assign one of five
levels of use support categories to
each of their waterbodies (Table
1-1). If possible, the States
determine the level of use support
by comparing monitoring data with
numeric criteria for each use desig-
nated for a particular waterbody. If
monitoring data are not available,
the State may determine the level of
use support with qualitative infor-
mation. Valid qualitative information
Table 1-1. Levels of Use Support |
Symbol
ฃ?
41
t
Lk
ฃ^
Use Support Level
Fully Supporting
Threatened
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
Not Attainable
Water Quality
Condition
Good
Good
Fair
(Impaired)
Poor
(Impaired)
Poor
Definition
Water quality meets
designated use criteria.
Water quality supports
beneficial uses now
but may not in the future
unless action is taken.
Water quality fails to meet
designated use criteria at times.
Water quality frequently fails
to meet designated use criteria.
The State has performed a use-
attainability study and docu-
mented that use support is not
achievable due to a natural
condition or human activity
that cannot be reversed
without imposing widespread
economic and social impacts.
-------
6 Chapter One Introduction
includes land use data, fish and
game surveys, and predictive model
results. Monitored assessments are
based on monitoring data. Evalu-
ated assessments are based on
qualitative information or monitored
information more than 5 years old.
Overall Use Support
For waterbodies with more than
one designated use, the States
SAMPLE
Little River
Little River is designated for aquatic life use
and primary contact recreation. The State
examines dissolved oxygen data and notes
that 15% of the samples contained dissolved
oxygen concentrations below the aquatic life
use criterion of 5 parts per million (ppm).
Bacterial indicators did not exceed the contact recreation
criterion. Therefore, the waterbody partially supports aquatic
life use and fully supports contact recreation use. The water-
body partially supports overall uses based on monitored data.
SAMPLE
Turkey Lake
Turkey Lake is also designated for aquatic life use and
primary contact recreation. However, the State has
never sampled chemical and physical parameters, such
as dissolved oxygen, in the lake. The State
did perform a biological survey of the lake
and noted the presence of desirable fish spe-
cies and insect larvae. The survey also revealed a probable
source of sewage contamination upstream. The lake
appears to fully support aquatic life use but may only
partially support contact recreation use due to sewage
contamination. The waterbody partially supports overall
uses based on evaluated information (the suspected source
of sewage contamination).
consolidate the individual use sup-
port information into a single overall
use support determination:
Fully Supporting Overall Use -
All designated beneficial uses are
fully supported.
Threatened Overall Use - One
or more designated beneficial uses
are threatened and the remaining
uses are fully supported.
Partially Supporting Overall
Use - One or more designated
beneficial uses are partially
supported and the remaining uses
are fully supported.
Not Supporting Overall Use -
One or more designated beneficial
uses are not supported.
Not Attainable - The State has
performed a use-attainability study
and documented that use support
of one or more designated bene-
ficial uses is not achievable due to
natural conditions or human activity
that cannot be reversed without
imposing widespread economic and
social impacts.
Impaired Waters - The sum of
waterbodies partially supporting
uses and not supporting uses.
Total Assessed Waters
Most States do not assess all of
their waterbodies during the 2-year
reporting cycle required under
Section 305(b). Thus, the assessed
waters reported in Figure 1 -1 are a
subset of the Nation's total waters.
In addition, the summary informa-
tion based on assessed waters may
not represent overall conditions in
-------
Chapter One Introduction 7
the Nation's total waters because
States often focus on assessing
major perennial rivers, estuaries, and
public lakes with suspected pollu-
tion problems in order to direct
scarce resources to areas that could
pose the greatest risk. Many States
lack the resources to collect use
support information for intermittent
streams, small tributaries, and pri-
vate ponds. This report does not
predict the health of these
unassessed waters, which include an
unknown ratio of pristine waters
and waters impaired by point
sources and nonpoint sources.
Causes and Sources
of Impairment
Where possible, States identify
the pollutants causing water quality
impairments and the sources of
pollutants degrading their water-
bodies. Causes of impairment are
pollutants or processes that violate
numeric or narrative use support
criteria. Causes of impairment
include chemical contaminants
(such as polychlorinated biphenyls
[PCBs], dioxin, and metals), physical
parameters (such as temperature),
and biological parameters (such as
aquatic weeds).
Sources of impairment gener-
ate the pollutants that violate use
support criteria. Point sources dis-
charge pollutants directly into sur-
face waters from a conveyance.
Point sources include industrial facili-
ties, municipal sewage treatment
plants, and combined sewer over-
flows. Nonpoint sources deliver
pollutants to surface waters from
diffuse origins. Nonpoint sources
include urban runoff, agricultural
runoff, and atmospheric deposition
of contaminants in air pollution.
Figure 1-1
Percentage of Total Waters Assessed
for the 1992 Report
Rivers and Streams
Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs
Estuaries
Ocean Coastal
Waters
Great Lakes
Shoreline
Wetlands
642,881 -18% assessed
Total miles: 3,551,247a
18,300,000 - 46% assessed
Total acres: 39,920,000b
27,227 - 74% assessed
Total square miles: 36,890C
3,398 - 6% assessed (including Alaska)
Total miles: 56,121 miles, including Alaska's
36,000 miles of shorelined
5,319-99% assessed
Total miles: 5,382
10.5 million - 4% assessed (including Alaska)
Total acres: 277 million acres, including Alaska's
170 million acres of wetlands
Source: 1992 State 305(b) reports.
NOTE: These figures were reported by the States. See explanation of changes in total
water estimates on page 8.
a Does not include river miles in American Samoa and Guam, which did not report total
river miles.
b Does not include lake acreages in American Samoa, Guam, Kentucky, and the Virgin
Islands, which did not report total lake acreages.
c Does not include estuarine area in Alaska, American Samoa, and Guam.
d Does not include shoreline miles in American Samoa and Guam.
-------
8 Chapter One Introduction
Several States assess a
portion of their water-
sheds each year as part of
a rotating basin planning
program. Tliese States
assess all of their waters
in a 5-year period. The
2-year 305(b) snapshot
does not give these States
fiill credit for their wide
assessment coverage.
States that will assess all
ofttieir waters over a
longer time period include
North Carolina, Ohio,
South Carolina, and
Wisconsin,
Habitat alterations, such as hydro-
modification, dredging, and stream-
bank destabilization, can also
degrade water quality.
Throughout this document,
EPA rates the significance of causes
and sources of pollution by the
percentage of waters impaired by
each individual cause or source
(obtained from the States 305(b)
reports). Note that the cause and
source rankings do not describe the
condition of all waters in the United
States because the States identify
the causes and sources degrading a
subset of their impaired waters,
which are a small subset of assessed
waters, which are a subset of the
Nation's total waters. For example,
the States identified sources degrad-
ing some of the 241,407 impaired
river miles, which represent 38% of
the assessed river miles and only 7%
of the Nation's total stream miles.
Changes in Reporting
Methodology
Individual Use Support
and the CWA Goals
During previous 305(b) report
cycles, States reported overall use
support status and CWA fishable
and swimmable goal attainment for
their waters. CWA goal attainment
was reported separately from overall
use support status. For example, in
the past a State would report
The number of river miles fully
supporting, threatened, partially
supporting, and not supporting
designated uses
The number of river miles attain-
ing the fishable goal of the Act
The number of river miles attain-
ing the swimmable goal of the Act.
For the 1992 report cycle, the
305(b) Consistency Workgroup
(composed of State and EPA Re-
gional 305(b) coordinators as well
as EPA Headquarters staff) recom-
mended that States report individual
use support status instead of CWA
goal status. The Workgroup sug-
gested that data on individual use
support, such as fish consumption
use and aquatic life use support,
would distinguish which compo-
nents of the fishable and swim-
mable goals of the Act are impaired.
In the past, it was unclear whether
waters did not attain the fishable
goals of the Act because the water
quality failed to support a healthy
community of fish or because the
fish were contaminated and unfit for
human consumption, or both. Indi-
vidual use support information iden-
tifies specific water quality problems
contributing to lack of full attain-
ment of the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Act.
Total Waters
National estimates of total
waters provide the foundation for
determining the percentage of our
waters assessed by the States. In
1992, EPA provided the States with
national estimates of total waters
derived from the EPA Reach File, a
database containing traces of water-
bodies adapted from 1:100,000
scale maps prepared by the U.S.
Geological Survey. The States
modified these total water estimates
where necessary. Previously, EPA
had used estimates of total rivers
and stream miles and lake acres
reported in America's Clean Water:
The States' Nonpoint Source
-------
Chapter One Introduction 9
Assessment, prepared by the Asso-
ciation of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA) in 1985. Based on the
new Federal/State estimates of total
waters, the estimate of total river
and stream miles increased in 1992
because most States included inter-
mittent streams, canals, and ditches
in total water estimates for the first
time. As a result, the percentage of
river and stream miles assessed
appears much lower than in past
Reports to Congress (Table 1 -2).
The estimate of total Great
Lakes shoreline grew in 1992
because Wisconsin's Coastal Zone
Management Division updated its
measurements of Wisconsin's shore-
line mileage. Wisconsin's estimate of
total Great Lakes shoreline grew
from 650 miles (reported in 1990)
to 840 miles in 1992.
The States assessed nearly the
same area of lakes and estuarine
waters in 1992 and 1990, but the
States assessed fewer ocean shore-
line miles in 1992. EPA did not
change its method for calculating
total estuarine and ocean coastal
waters; both the 1990 and 1992
estimates are based on State esti-
mates of their total estuarine and
ocean coastal waters. However, the
national estimates of total estuarine
and ocean coastal waters increased
in 1992 because more States
reported the information. In particu-
lar, the estimate of total ocean
coastal waters more than doubled
with the addition of 36,000 shore-
line miles in Alaska.
Interpreting Toxic
Pollutant Data
In the guidelines for preparing
the 1992 State Section 305(b)
reports, EPA recommended that the
States implement stricter assessment
methods for determining aquatic life
use support with toxicant data.
According to the new assessment
method, one or more violations of
toxic pollutant criteria in a 3-year
period indicate that a waterbody
does not support aquatic life use. In
previous assessment cycles, States
might have classified waterbodies
with one toxic criteria violation as
partially supporting aquatic life use.
The new assessment method
increases the proportion of waters
not supporting designated uses
even if no actual change in water
quality occurred between 1990 and
1992.
Table 1-2. Comparison of Waters Assessed in 1990 arid 1992
Waterbody
Type
Rivers and
Streams
Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs
Estuaries
Ocean
Shoreline
Great Lakes
Shoreline
Year
1992
1990
1992
1990
1992
1990
1992
1990
1992
1990
Estimate of
Total Waters
' 3,551, 247 mia
,1,800,000 mi'
39,920,000 acb
39,400,000 ac
36,890 mi2c
35,624 mi2
56,121 mid
1 9,200 mie
5,382 mi
5,1 69 mi ,
Assessed
Waters
642,881 mi
647,066 mi
18, 300,000 ac
1 8,488,636 ac
27,227 mi2
26,693 mi2
3,398 mi
4,230 mi
5,31 9 mi
4,857 mi
Percent
Assessed
18
36
46
44
74
75
6
22
99
94
Sources: National Water Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to Congress and the
1992 State Section 305 (b) reports.
a Does not include river miles in American Samoa and Guam, which did not report
total river miles.
b Does not include lake acreages in American Samoa, Guam, Kentucky, and the
Virgin Islands, which did not report total lake acreages. Includes estimate of
Alaska's total lake acreage reported in the 1986 Report to Congress.
c Does not include estuarine area in Alaska, American Samoa, and Guam.
d Does not include shoreline miles in American Samoa and Guam.
e Does not include shoreline miles in Alaska.
NOTE: These figures were reported by the States. See explanation of changes in
total water estimates on page 8.
-------
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
The Waterbody System:
A Database of Water Quality Assessments
EPA designed the Waterbody
System (WBS) as a State and
national database for storing and
analyzing water quality assessment
information. The WBS tracks use
support information for water units
called waterbodies. States, Territo-
ries, American Indian Tribes, and
River Basin Commissions define their
own waterbodies to best serve their
management needs. An individual
waterbody may consist of a short
stretch of stream, an individual lake,
or the rivers and streams of an
entire watershed. Usually, water-
body boundaries correspond to
significant hydrologic or ecologic
features, such as watershed bound-
aries. The WBS recognizes rivers,
lakes, estuaries, tidal wetlands, fresh-
water wetlands, Great Lakes shore-
lines, and coastal shorelines as
different types of waterbodies.
The WBS provides a convenient
way for a State to track a wide
range of assessment information for
its designated waterbodies. Data
fields track information on desig-
nated use support including aquatic
life support, human health risks
related to fish and shellfish con-
sumption, and recreational use sup-
port. The WBS provides data fields
to document causes and sources of
pollution impairing full attainment
of State water quality standards in
each designated waterbody.
Once a State enters the data,
it can use the WBS to generate a
variety of summary reports and lists
that simplify preparation of its
305(b) water quality assessment
reports. EPA can then use all WBS
data to prepare the National Water
Quality Inventory Report to Con-
gress. Summary data from each
305(b) Report and the WBS are
found in the Appendices of this
report. Other WBS uses include
information management for the
Section 314 Clean Lakes Program,
the Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Management Program, and the new
nonpoint source management initia-
tives under the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments.
EPA originally designed the WBS
to facilitate analyses of water quality
information. The future design for
the WBS is to include geographic
analyses and visualization as pic-
tured on the next page. The WBS
and related software tools can be
used on a variety of computer
platforms, including personal
computers, the EPA National
Sis
SB
-------
3f^r-
HIGHLIG
WBS: Design for the Future
Prototype example shown: South Carolina
HT HlGHUCHf
WB Identification 1
WB Reach Indexing 2
Assessment Info 3
Assessment Codes 4
Use Support Matrix
Cause/Sources
Point Sources
Nonpoint Sources
Water-body identification
Waterbody Assessment Information
| WBID SC-03050103-010 R | Seg 00 Assess Date 9201 Cyde 92
Assessment category. . .M Toxics monitoring - V
Begin sampling (YVMMJ- . End sampling (YYMM)
Water o^fality limited ' Signif publicly owned fate
Nsw/Ravtsed TMDI needed Date of Latest TMDL. (YYMM) 3
Size Impacted by Priority Pollutanats, Ammonia or Chlorine
Size CWA 314 Impaired Size CWA 314 Threatened
Size CWA 319 Impaired Size CWA 319 Threatened
Size Impaired or Threatened by Acid Deposition
WBS REPORT SUMMARIZING
OVERALL USE SUPPORT STATEWIDE
| OPEN WINDOW | SOUTH CAROLINA |
Query condition: (WBSEGNO= 'OO') and (USE = '01')
Waterbody type: Rivers
Total Number of Rivers In Assessment File: 181
Total Number of Monitored Rivers: .181
Total Number of Evaluated Rivers: 0
OVERALL USE SUPPORT IN SOUTH CAROLINA RIVERS
Enoree River
Fulfy Supporting
Partially and Not
Supporting
NOTE: South Carolina assesses use
support for entire watersheds, rather
than individual stretches of streams.
HE
-------
Computing Center mainframe com-
puter, and Geographic Information
System workstation environments.
WBS data through the 1992 cycle
are available on the EPA mainframe
and from the States through the
305(b) coordinators (see Chapter
8). Those accessing the data on the
mainframe must have an account
and be authorized STORE! users. As
EPA moves to encourage
geographic targeting approaches,
access to databases with spatial
location elements becomes critical.
EPA's Watershed Protection Initiative
(see Chapter 10) and the total
maximum daily load (TMDL)
process provide additional uses for
spatially oriented water quality infor-
mation stored in the WBS.
i ;tL;;,i,i t li.i&l!Ka Si
-------
PartH
Water Quality Assessments
-------
-------
Rivers and Streams
Fifty-three States, Territories,
Jurisdictions, and Interstate River
Commissions, the District of Colum-
bia, and one American Indian Tribe
(hereafter collectively referred to as
States) rated the water quality in
642,881 miles of streams and rivers
in their 1992 Section 305(b)
reports. In the years 1990-1992,
these States assessed 18% of the
total 3,551,247 river and stream
miles reported by these States
(Figure 2-1). The States assessed
about 4,000 fewer river miles than
they assessed for 1990. EPA
expected the States to assess fewer
waters in 1992 because EPA issued
stricter guidance for defining
assessed waters in 1992. The per-
centage of rivers assessed in 1992
appears much smaller than the per-
centage assessed in 1990 because
the Nation shifted its baseline to the
more inclusive total waters estimates
described in Chapter 1 (page 8).
Fifty States reported overall use
support for rivers and streams.
Overall use support is the standard
measure of water quality required
by the Clean Water Act. States
determine overall use support by
summarizing how well each water-
body supports each designated use,
such as drinking water supply use,
18%
ASSESSED
in 1990-1992
It appears that the States
assessed a smaller percentage
of the Nation's rivers in 1992
than in 1990 due to an
increase in the estimate of
total waters in the United
States. For the first time, most
States used a nationally con-
sistent method for counting
their waters. By Ms method,
States included intermittent
streams, canals, and ditches
in estimates of total stream
miles, in 1992. As a result,
the national estimate of total
stream miles almost doubled
from 1.8 million miles in
1990 to more than 3.5
million miles in 1992.
River Miles Assessed by the States
1992 642,881 miles = 18% assessed
B Total miles: 3,551,247
1990 647,066 miles = 36% assessed
H Total miles: 1,800,000
1988 519,413 = 29% assessed
Total miles: 1,800,000
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-1.
-------
16 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
Total assessed = 642,881 miles
18% assessed
82% unassessed
Assessed 18%
Unassessed 82%
Of the assessed miles:
36% were monitored
60% were evaluated
4% were not specified
recreational use, or aquatic life use
(see Chapter 1 for a complete dis-
cussion of use support). Another
five States reported individual use
support for rivers and streams but
did not summarize overall use
support. In such cases, EPA
assumed that the status of aquatic
life support use represented overall
use support.
Overall Use
Support
Fifty-six percent of the 642,881
river miles assessed fully support
overall designated uses (Figure 2-2).
The percentage of river miles fully
supporting overall designated uses
fell slightly in 1992 due to changes
in the total river miles assessed, the
number of States reporting use
support, and the assessment
methods employed by each State.
An additional 6% of the
assessed river miles fully support
overall uses but are threatened by
potential sources of pollution. These
rivers may not support uses in the
near future if we fail to control
potential sources of pollution.
Twenty-five percent of the assessed
river miles partially support desig-
nated uses. One or more uses may
be temporarily restricted in these
rivers. For example, a stream may
fully support recreational use in dry
weather but not support recre-
ational use following a severe thun-
derstorm because heavy rainfall
might overload a combined sewer
system with a slug of runoff. The
resulting discharge of undertreated
sewage would restrict the public's
use of the river for swimming until
Figure 2-2
Overall Use Support
in Assessed Rivers and Streams
Fully Partially Not Not
Supporting Threatened Supporting Supporting Attainable
56% 6% 25% 13% <1%
Based on data contained in Appendix A /Table A-1.
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 17
the flow of runoff into the treat-
ment plant subsided.
Thirteen percent of the assessed
river miles do not support overall
designated uses and less than 1%
cannot attain designated uses due
to excessive degradation or natural
conditions such as low flow.
Individual Use
Support
The States assessed support of
six individual designated uses in
rivers: aquatic life support, fish
consumption, primary contact recre-
ation-swimming, secondary contact
recreation, public drinking water
supply, and agricultural supply (see
Chapter 1, page 3, for a description
of each individual use). The States
reported the status of aquatic life
support and swimming use support
most frequently (Figure 2-3). Fifteen
States failed to report individual use
support (see Appendix A, Table A-2,
for individual State information).
Rivers fully support aquatic life
in 60% of the 547,871 miles
assessed. Aquatic life support
accounts for most of the river miles
partially supporting their designated
uses. Of the 221,352 river miles
assessed for drinking water supply
use, 27% cannot attain drinking
water use standards. Natural physi-
cal characteristics, such as hardness
and color, as well as degradation
from human activities may prevent
rivers from attaining drinking water
standards.
individual Use Support in Rivers and Streams
Number
Percent
Designated of States Fully , Partially Not Not
Use Reporting Supporting Threatened Supporting Supporting Attainable
Aquatic Life Support
26
<1
10 9
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-2.
-------
18 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
Causes of
Impairment
Forty-nine States identified the
number of stream miles affected by
individual causes of nonsupport.
Causes of nonsupport are pollutants
or pollutant processes that impair
waterbodies, such as sediment,
metals, acidity, and hydromodifica-
tion. The total number of river miles
Figure 2-4
The Effects of Siltation in Rivers and Streams
Sediment
abrades gills
Sediment suffocates
fish eggs and bottom-
dwelling organisms
Sediment smothers cobbles
where fish lay eggs
Siltation is tJte leading pollution problem in the Nation's rivers and
streams. Over tlie long term, unchecked siltation can alter habitat
witli profound effects on aquatic life. In the short term, silt can kill
fish directly, destroy spa\vning beds, and increase water turbidity
resulting in depressed photosynthetic rates.
affected by a particular pollutant is
subdivided into whether the cause
is a major or moderate/minor con-
tributor to impairment. A major
contributor is solely responsible for
the impairment or predominates
over other causes. A moderate con-
tributor is one of multiple causes
responsible for less than full, support,
of which none predominate.
Any given stream mile can be
affected by multiple causes of
impairment. Therefore, States count
each stream mile under each cause
category contributing to its impair-
ment. As a result, States count a
single mile of river affected by mul-
tiple causes of impairment under
several cause categories. The values
reported are the total number of
river miles affected by a particular
cause of impairment according to
whether the cause is a major or
moderate/minor contributor to
impairment.
States report that siltation is the
most prevalent cause of impairment
in assessed rivers and streams
(Figure 2-4). Siltation affects 45% of
the 222,370 impaired stream miles
in the States reporting causes of
pollution (Figure 2-5). Nutrients, the
second most commonly reported
cause, affect 37% of the impaired
river miles and most often consist
of nitrogen and phosphorus com-
pounds typically found in agricul-
tural fertilizers, phosphate deter-
gents, and municipal sewage
treatment plant discharges.
Pathogen contamination affects
27% of the impaired stream miles.
Pathogens impair drinking water
supply uses and contact recreation
uses and commonly enter waters in
inadequately treated sewage or
runoff from pastures, feedlots, and
urban areas.
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 19
Forty-two States specified the
degree of impart (i.e., major or
moderate/minor) of the causes
affecting rivers and streams. These
States reported that all causes have
more moderate and minor impacts
than major impacts.
Sources of
Impairment
Forty-eight States reported
sources of some impairments in
their rivers and streams. Because it
is so difficult to detect and differen-
tiate sources of pollution, most
States identify sources for a subset
of their impaired rivers, which are a
portion of their assessed rivers;
which are, in turn, a fraction of the
Nation's total river miles. As a result,
the ranking of sources shown in
Figure 2-6 applies to only 6% of the
Nation's total river miles.
As with causes of impairment,
multiple sources may affect an indi-
vidual river mile. Therefore, States
count a single river mile under each
source category contributing to its
impairment. As a result,
States count a single mile of
river affected by multiple
sources of impairment under
several source categories. The
values reported are the total
number of river miles affected
by a particular source of impair-
ment according to whether the
source is a major or moderate/
minor contributor to impairment.
The States report that agricul-
ture is the most extensive source
of pollution in the Nation's assessed
rivers. The general category of agri-
culture, which includes irrigated
crop production, nonirrigated crop
Figure 2-5
Percent of ASSESSED River Miles Impaired
by Pollutants
(222,370 assessed river miles impaired)
Pollutants Total
Siltation ^ffMft&l^t '.fflijr '.'!' " } 1 45
Nutrients
Pathogen Indicators
Pesticides
Organic Enrichment/DO
Metals
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
20 30
Percent
Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
Total assessed = 642,881 miles
18% assessed
82% unassessed
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-3.
-------
20 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
Figure 2-6
Percent of ASSESSED River Miles Impaired
by Sources of Pollution
(221,877 assessed river miles impaired)
Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
Total assessed = 642,881 miles
18% assessed
82% unassessed
It is relatively easy to collect a
water sample and identify
pollutants causing impair-
ments, such as fecal coliform
bacteria indicating pathogen
contamination. However,
detecting and ranking sources
of pollutants can require
monitoring pollutant move-
ment from numerous potential
sources, such as failing septic
systems, agricultiiral fields,
urban runoff, municipal
se\vage treatment plants, and
local waterfowl populations.
Pollution Sources
Agriculture
Municipal Point
Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Total
72
15
11
11
-> Industrial Point Bf
Sources
Silviculture H~
HL
Hydrologic/Habitat K
Modification
1
1 Major Q
1 Moderate/Minor
Q Not Specified
i 7
]
1 7
i i i i i i i i
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percent
Based on data contained in Appendix A /Table A-4.
production, rangeland, and feed
lots, affects 72% of the 221,877
impaired river miles in the States
reporting sources of river impair-
ments. Reporting of agricultural
impacts is widespread (Figure 2-7).
Agricultural sources are responsible
for many pollutants such as sedi-
ment, nutrients, pesticides, patho-
gens, and organic enrichment.
Other specific sources of pollu-
tion that impair rivers include mu-
nicipal point sources (15%), urban
runoff and storm sewers (11%),
resource extraction (11%), industrial
point sources (7%), silviculture
(7%), and hydrologic and habitat
alterations (7%).
The States also report that
"other" sources impair significant
stretches of our rivers and streams.
"Other" sources include natural
sources, such as low-flow condi-
tions, leaf litter, and glacial debris
that may increase turbidity, acidity,
and water temperature in the
absence of human activity. For ex-
ample, Oregon reported that 4,232
river miles were impaired by natural
glacial debris elevating turbidity.
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 21
Figure 2-7
Distribution of Agricultural Impacts on Rivers and Streams
o
Percent of State's Impaired River Miles
Impacted by Agriculture
i 1 0%
1 -25%
26-50%
^ป 76-100%
NR = Not Reported
Based on data contained in Appendix A,Table A-4.
-------
HtGHLIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
Nutrient Loads in Four Major
River Basins*
Nutrient enrichment is one of
the most pervasive water quality
problems in the Nation's rivers and
streams. Excessive inputs of nutri-
ents (such as nitrogen and phos-
phorus) can overstimulate aquatic
plant growth and algal productivity,
Surface water pilot studies
startedinFY1986
Figure 1. U.S. Geological Survey National Water
Quality Assessment Program.
which, in turn, destabilizes dissolved
oxygen concentrations and pH
(acidity) in stream ecosystems. The
unstable conditions may force fish
and other aquatic organisms to seek
healthier habitat.
The U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) assessed total
phosphorus and total
nitrogen loads in four
river basins under the
National Water
Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) Program.
The USCS designed
the NAWQA Program
to describe status and
trends in the Nation's
water resources and
to improve under-
standing of the natu-
ral | and human i factors [
that affect the ''quality
of water resources.
The NAWQA program
assessed point and
nonpoint source nutri-
ent loads in the Ken-
tucky River Basin, the
Upper Illinois River
Basin, the Lower
The information contained in this highlight was extracted from Preliminary Esti-
mates of Phosphorus and Nitrogen Loads from Point and Nonpoint Sources in Four
Major River Basins in the United States, by }.V. Davis and W.G. Wilber of the U.S.
Geological Survey.
-------
, ^ , . '
Kansas River Basin, and the Yakima
River Basin in Washington (Figure
1).
The USGS estimated the mean
daily instream loads of total phos-
phorus and total nitrogen at USGS's
most downstream long-term moni-
toring site in each river basin. The
USGS used all available water qual-
ity data to develop equations relat-
ing instream flow to nutrient loads
and applied the equations to daily
streamflow records to estimate
mean annual nutrient loads in each
basin. The annual loads were
divided by 365 days to estimate the
mean daily instream load of nutri-
ents entering each basin. The USGS
also divided the mean daily nutrient
loads by the drainage area of each
basin to estimate the yield of nutri-
ents coming off an acre of land in
each basin.
The USGS calculated mean daily
loads from point sources (such as
sewage treatment plants and indus-
trial dischargers) with effluent flow
rate data and nutrient concentration
data contained in EPA's Permit
Compliance System Database and
other databases managed by
,
wastewater treatment plant opera-
tors. The USGS estimated nonpoint
source nutrient loads by subtracting
the total point source load in a
basin from the total instream basin
load at the most downstream moni-
toring station. The resulting esti-
mate of nonpoint source nutrient
load is conservative because it does
not take into account nutrient losses
due to physical, biological, and
chemical processes.
Of the four basins studied, the
Upper Illinois River basin had the
highest estimates of instream nutri-
ent loads and yields (Figure 2). The
Upper Illinois River basin also has
the largest percentage of land
devoted to cultivated row crops
(75%), the highest nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilizer application
rates, and the largest wastewater
effluent loadings of nitrogen and
phosphorus due to the large popu-
lation in the basin (about 7.6 mil-
lion people).
In contrast, nitrogen and phos-
phorus loads were smallest in the
Yakima River basin, which has a
small population and land use
dominated by forests, grazing lands,
> f "" - f
HlGHUGH^'HlJcHf HIGHLIGHT
Jp'.J",M<ซป , J
(ป6JซI1ป^!>ป .r. i
!?iJSISjt'f *,i.*~ ">"'" " s
'"jf^V "" :
fjH
-J^, J," _" _
?V7 _
<
*ฃ,&" (+ s
\>r&^:l^ v
ง4^ #"***"""-'* -"
Tr-fp^;-;* ' "
""^.v *
&bW i-5v '
ฃ*- ซ ^ i
^i^t, *%
g-:. *t-gg~~ * ^
ป^ซr",
?iu -
k=3
-------
illiiitiii
In
HT HIGHLIGHT
tiii'ij;>,:,!l liln'i,.\ t'i;:!'.
y.Vi !""|:.lll,l"! t.', '
liiriJ iiiiiii'ijiHiii; !;,i.;< "i:
i*
'?...*;' ; .;;. .ซ
Kentucky
River
Upper
Illinois River
Lower
Kansas River
Yakima River
Nonpoint Sources
C3 Point Sources
Figure 2. Mean daily total
phosphorus loads.
orchards, and crops that tend to be
more permanent and result in less
erosion.
Nonpoint sources generated
most of the nutrient loads in the
Lower Kansas River basin, the Ken-
tucky River
basin, and the
Yakima River
basin (Figure
2). Point
sources played
a greater role
in generating
nutrients in the
Upper Illinois
River basin than
in the other
basins because
the Upper
Illinois River
basin's large
population
generates more
sewage than do
populations in
the other
basins. Point
Mean Daily Total
Phosphorus Load
(1,000 Ib/day)
'if , ,;:, i finf1.',,./ ; .,"
vlt!r;i!i'.lป:il"i!i;'f!:,: "
sources
accounted for
57% of the mean annual load of
total phosphorus exported from the
Upper Illinois River basin compared
to 39% in the Lower Kansas River
basin, 27% in the Yakima River
basin, and 20% in the Kentucky
River basin.
In general, point source effluent
monitoring and ambient monitoring
programs still lack integration,
which limits our ability to determine
the relative magnitude of point
versus nonpoint sources of contami-
nation. For example, relatively few
wastewater treatment facilities
routinely monitor their effluent for
nutrients, metals, and other
constituents of interest in ambient
water assessments. Estimates of
point and nonpoint sources of
contamination would be improved
by the following:
Sampling the same pollutants
and constituents in point source
discharges and ambient waterbodies
Increasing the frequency of efflu-
ent monitoring at many locations
and using flow-weighted composite
samples for selected constituents
Developing and using a quality
assurance plan for effluent flow-rate
estimation.
Si'....':.;.;;
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 25
-------
-------
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Overall Use
Support
Forty-seven States and Terri-
tories, the District of Columbia, and
one American Indian Tribe (here-
after referred to as States) assessed
overall use support in more than
18 million acres of lakes, reservoirs,
and ponds (see Appendix B, Table
B-1, for individual State data). As
shown in Figure 3-1, these States
assessed almost half of the Nation's
40 million acres of lake waters
(excluding the Great Lakes, dis-
cussed in Chapter 11). The States
based 63% of their lake assessments
Figure 3-1
on monitored data, 22% of their
lake assessments on evalu-
ated information, and 14%
were not specified.
Forty-three percent of \
the assessed lake acres fully
support designated beneficial
uses (Figure 3-2). Another
13% of the assessed lake acres
fully support uses but are
threatened by potential sources
of pollutants. Thirty-five percent of
the assessed lake acres partially
support designated uses, and 9%
of the assessed lake acres do not
support designated uses.
46%
ASSESSED
in 1990-1992
Lake, Reservoir, and Pond Acres
Assessed by the States
1992 18,300,000 acres = 46%
assessed
H Total acres: 39,920,000
Unassessed 54%
1990 18,489,000 acres = 47%
assessed
H Total acres: 39,400,000
1988 16,314,000 acres = 41%
assessed
H Total acres: 39,400,000
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-1.
-------
28 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Lake data should not be compared
among States, which devote varying
resources to monitoring
water quality chemistry,
biological integrity, and
toxic pollutants in fish tis-
sues. These inconsistencies,
rather than actual differences
in water quality, often account
for the wide range in use sup-
port reported by individual
States.
Individual Use
Support
The States reported individual
use support for the first time in their
1992 Section 305(b) reports
(Appendix B, Table B-2, contains
individual State data). Forty States
described the status of aquatic life
use support in their lakes. The
criteria for supporting aquatic life
use are often more strict than the
criteria for supporting other uses
because aquatic organisms are sensi-
tive to numerous water quality
parameters. The States reported that
60% of the assessed lake acres fully
support aquatic life and 9% are
threatened (Figure 3-3). Aquatic
life support use is impaired (i.e.,
partially supporting or not support-
ing designated uses) in the remain-
ing 31% of the assessed lake acres.
Fish consumption use was also
highly impaired, primarily by
elevated contaminant concen-
trations in fish tissues that trigger
States to issue fish consumption
advisories. Fish consumption advi-
sories recommend that the public
restrict ingestion of contaminated
fish to minimize human exposure to
elevated toxic pollutants in fish tis-
sues. Water pollution also impairs
Total lakes = 39,920,000 acres
Total assessed = 18,300,000 acres
46% assessed
H 54% unassessed
Of the assessed acres:
63% were monitored
22% were evaluated
14% were not specified
Overall Use Support
in Assessed Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Fully Partially Not Not
Supporting Threatened Supporting Supporting Attainable
43% 13% 35% 9% <1%
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-1.
-------
Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 29
fish consumption use by degrading
the habitat of desirable sport fish
species.
Causes of
Impairment
Forty-seven States reported the
number of lake acres impaired by
individual causes of nonsupport (see
Appendix B, Table B-3, for indi-
vidual State data). Causes of non-
support are pollutants and processes
that impair water quality, such as
metals, nutrients, or sediment. Mul-
tiple pollutants may impair an indi-
vidual lake acre. Therefore, States
may count an individual lake acre
under several cause categories
although the lake acre was counted
only once as an impaired water-
body. The causes are designated as
either major or moderate/minor
contributors to waterbody impair-
ments.
The relative extent of each
cause is determined by dividing the
acreage impaired by each cause
category by the total impaired acres
in the States reporting causes of
nonsupport. In 1992, these States
reported that 7,958,064 lake acres
were impaired, which represents
43% of the assessed lake acres and
20% of the 40 million total lake
acres in the Nation.
The information reported by
the States indicates that metals,
nutrients, organic enrichment/
dissolved oxygen depletion, silt-
ation, and priority organic chemicals
are the five leading causes of lake
impairment (Figure 3-4). Although
metals impaired the most lake acres
overall, the effect of metals is con-
centrated in one State: Minnesota
Individual Use Support in Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
No. of
Percent
Designated States Fully Partially Not, Not
-- - use ' Reporting Supporting Threatened Supporting Supporting Attainable
Aquatic Life Support
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-2.
-------
30 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
reported more than 50% of all the
acres impaired by metals. The infor-
mation on metals contamination
may also be exaggerated by con-
taminated samples. The Workshop
on Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals,
held by EPA in January 1993, found
that most metals data have not
been collected using clean sam-
pling and analysis techniques.
Consequently, metal values may
be unreliable due to various types
of contamination.
More States reported problems
from nutrients than any other
single pollutant (Figure 3-5). Forty-
one States reported that nutrients
impair more than 3 million lake
acres. Nutrients cause nuisance
overgrowth of algae as well as
noxious aquatic plants, which leads
to oxygen depletion via plant
respiration and microbial decompo-
sition of plant matter (Figure 3-6).
Thirty States reported that silta-
tion impairs their lakes, ponds, and
reservoirs. Siltation can smother
aquatic organisms and their habi-
tats, damage gills in fish and other
aquatic organisms, and gradually fill
in reservoirs. As reservoirs fill, they
support fewer recreational activities
and cannot function as reliable
sources of drinking water.
Priority organic chemicals (such
as polychlorinated biphenyls-PCBs)
increased in relative importance
during the 1992 reporting cycle.
In 1990, priority organics ranked
eighth in the number of lake acres
impaired. In 1992, priority organics
ranked fifth, with Minnesota report-
ing 82% of the lake acreage
impacted by priority organics.
Figure 3-4
Total lakes = 39,920,000 acres
Total assessed = 18,300,000 acres
46% assessed
54% unassessed
Percent of ASSESSED Lake Acres Impaired by Pollutants
(7,958,064 assessed lake acres impaired)
Pollutants
Metals
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/DO
Siltation
Priority Organic
Chemicals
Suspended Solids
I Major i
H Moderate/Minor
D Not Specified
10
20 30
Percent
40
Total
47
40
24
22
20
16
50
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-3.
-------
Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 31
Figure 3-5
Distribution of Lake Acres Impaired by Nutrients
Percent of State's Impaired Lake
Acres Impaired by Nutrients
0%
1-25%
26-50%
51-75%
^^ 76-100%
NR = Not Reporting
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
32 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Sources of
Impairment
Forty-five States reported the
number of lake acres impaired'by
individual sources of pollutants (see
Appendix B, Table B-4). Multiple
sources may impair an individual
lake acre. In these cases, States
count the impaired acre under each
source category contributing to its
impairment. Therefore, States may
count an individual lake acre under
several source categories. The
sources are designated as either
major or moderate/minor contribu-
tors to waterbody impairments.
As with causes, the source cat-
egories are ranked by the percent-
age of impaired waters attributed to
each source category. The States
reported sources of lake impairment
for 5,543,987 impaired lake acres,
which represents 30% of the lake
acres assessed and 14% of the
40 million total lake acres in the
United States.
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 algal 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.
-------
Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 33
The State data portray agricul-
ture as the most extensive specific
source of pollution in the Nation's
lakes, followed by urban runoff and
storm sewers, hydrologic and habi-
tat modification, municipal point
sources, and onsite wastewater dis-
posal (Figure 3-7). Hydrologic modi-
fication includes dredging activities
and drawdown at reservoirs. Habitat
modification includes activities that
destroy shoreline vegetation that
buffers the aquatic system from
disturbances on shore. The States
also reported that "other" sources,
including natural sources, impair
lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. Natural
sources include drought conditions
and natural turbidity, which may
impair swimming use at a reservoir.
The summary information on
sources of impairment in lakes
should be interpreted with
care. Individual States with
large lake acreages can influence
source rankings. For example,
Florida alone reported 49%
(almost half) of all the lake acres
impaired by urban runoff and
storm sewers and 68% of the lake
acres impaired by onsite waste-
water disposal. As a result, the
source ratings can fluctuate drama-
tically depending on which States
report sources of impairment.
Figure 3-7
Percent of ASSESSED Lake Acres Impaired
by Sources of Pollution
(5,543,987 assessed lake acres impaired)
Pollutants Sources
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Municipal Point Sources
Onsite Wastewater
Disposal
Flow Modification
Major
H Moderate/Minor
H Not Specified
10
20
30 40
Percent
50
60
Total lakes = 39,920,000 acres
Total assessed = 18,300,000 acres
46% assessed
54% unassessed
Based on data contained in Appendix 8, Table B-4.
-------
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
iw,''r$i^-<'^'&"$Z^^tiปi$'&
EMAP - Surface Waters:
Northeast Lakes Pilot
Mesotrophic
42% ฑ 15
Eutrophic and
Hypereutrophic
21% ฑ12
Oligotrophic
38% ฑ 14
Figure 1. Lake Trophic State - 1991
EMAP data for the Northeastern
United States.
The EPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD) initiated the
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) to
evaluate the quantity and quality
of our Nation's ecological resources.
EMAP consists of seven integrated
units, each dedicated to evaluating
an individual ecological resource
area such as forests or surface waters
(lakes and streams). To address
EMAP's broad goals, ORD coordi-
nates planning and implementation
with numerous EPA program offices,
EPA Regions, and States, as well as
other Federal agencies, including the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and
the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
In 1991, ORD began piloting
the EMAP-Surface Waters program
with a study of northeastern lakes.
The EMAP-Surface Water team
selected indicators of biological
integrity, trophic condition, and
fishability to describe the
condition of the Nation's
lakes. The first year of the
pilot study focused on col-
lecting data on trophic status
from northeastern lakes with
a surface area between 1 and
2,000 hectares (or approxi-
mately 2.5 to 5,000 acres).
The pilot study also esti-
mated the number of lakes
in the northeastern United
States using updated versions
of the EPA Office of Water's
River Reach File (which produced the
estimates of total waters used in this
report).
Lake Water Quantity
The EPA Office of Water, using
Version 3.0 of the EPA River Reach
File (RF3), summarizes digitized
traces of waters from the USGS
1:100,000 scale map series to esti-
mate the number of lakes and total
lake acreage in each State. RF3 was
used by EMAP-Surface Waters to
select a stratified, random sample of
lakes across the northeastern States.
This statistical sampling approach
will allow EMAP, along with the
States and others, to submit correc-
tions to update the RF3 estimates of
stream miles, lakes, and lake acreage.
Lake Water Quality
During the first year of the lake
pilot study, EMAP-Surface Waters
sampled and analyzed chlorophyll a
and total phosphorus concentrations
in northeastern lakes (New England,
New York, and New Jersey). Chloro-
phyll a (a surrogate measure of algal
biomass) and total phosphorus con-
centrations indicate the degree of
nutrient enrichment in lakes. After
screening over 300 lakes, EMAP
teams visited 74 lakes to measure
various lake quality parameters.
EMAP-Surface Waters then applied
criteria developed by the North
American Lake Management Society
-------
HIGHLIGH
HT .HIGHLIGHT
to chlorophyll a and total phospho-
rus data to classify lakes according
to trophic category. Based on the
distribution of sampled lakes, EMAP-
Surface Waters estimated the total
number of lakes (including confi-
dence limits) in each trophic cate-
gory in the Northeast (Figure 1).
To demonstrate how the EMAP
approach might be used to evaluate
spatial patterns in lake quality, the
data were statistically aggregated
into three ecoregions (Figure 2):
the Adirondacks, the New England
Uplands, and the Coastal/Lowland/
Plateau regions. During this first
year's pilot, the sample sizes within
each of these regions were quite
small (all <30 lakes sampled) but
the statistical design still provides an
estimate of lake trophic condition
and a measure of the uncertainty in
the estimate (Figure 3). In future
years, the sample size will be larger
and greater confidence can be
placed in the estimates.
The results of the EMAP-
Surface Waters program
complement the State pro-
grams described elsewhere in
this report. The EMAP-Sur-
face Waters program applies
a consistent lake definition,
sampling protocols, and as-
sessment methods across an
entire region. EMAP-Surface
Waters looks at all lakes
rather than a subset of im-
pacted lakes or other high-
priority lakes. With data from
EMAP and from the assess-
ments of high- priority
waterbodies conducted by
the States, we will have a
much clearer picture of water
resource conditions upon which to
base management decisions. In
future years, EMAP-Surface Waters
will report on biological integrity in
lakes and will address the condition
of river and stream resources.
Coastal/Lowland/
Plateau
Figure 2. Three ecological regions on
which statistical summaries can be
based for routine reporting.
:*7W
Adirondacks
New England Upland
Eutrophic and
Hypereutrophic
6% + 9
Mesotrophic
43% + 20
Oligotrophic
51% ฑ 21
Eutrophic and
Hypereutrophic
2% + 2
Mesotrophic
55%+ 28
Oligotrophic
43%+ 19
Coastal/Lowland/Plateau
Oligotrophic
27% + 23
Eutrophic and
Hypereutrophic
51%+ 29
Mesotrophic
22% ฑ 12
Figure 3. Lake trophic states for northeast subregions.
-------
iiii^
! *
-------
Estuaries and Ocean
Coastal Waters
Estuaries are our richest aquatic
ecosystems and also the most
susceptible to cumulative contami-
nation. Estuaries are coastal waters
where tidal influence mixes oceanic
salt water with riverine fresh water
that carries pollutants from the
entire watershed. Estuarine waters
include bays and tidal rivers that
serve as nursery areas for most
commercial fisheries and shellfish
populations. Almost all of our fish
and shellfish industry relies upon
productive, healthy estuarine waters
and their adjacent wetlands.
Both local and distant pollution
sources threaten estuarine health.
Most of the pollutants that enter
rivers migrate toward the coast.
As rivers approach the coast, their
mouths broaden and flow
decreases. The low flow and
fluctuating tides, characteristic
of estuarine waters, reduce
flushing and trap nutrients as
well as pollutants within estua-
rine waters. The ability to trap
nutrients lays the foundation for
a rich estuarine ecosystem but
also makes estuaries vulnerable to
overloading.
Historic development patterns
have amplified natural trapping
functions and overloaded estuaries
from Boston Harbor to San
74%
ASSESSED
in 1990-1992
Estuaries Assessed by the States
1992 27,227 square miles = 74%
II Total square miles: 36,890
Assessed 74%
Unassessed 26%
1990 26,692 square miles = 75%
Total square miles: 35,624
1988 26,676 square miles = 76%
H Total square miles: 35,198
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-1.
-------
38 Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Francisco Bay. Historically, industrial
development clustered around
estuarine bays with access to
shipping and an adjacent
waterbody for waste disposal.
Population centers grew up
around the industrial sites and
added sewage to estuarine waters.
Now, many coastal cities must
develop alternative disposal systems
for their outdated combined sewer
systems.
Estuaries
Overall Use
Support
Twenty-three States (including
the Delaware River Basin Commis-
sion and Territories) reported overall
use support status for estuarine
waters (Appendix C, Table C-1,
contains individual State data). In
addition, California and New Jersey
reported individual use support in
estuarine waters but did not sum-
marize overall use support. The EPA
assumed that aquatic life use sup-
port status represented overall use
support status in these two States.
Altogether, the States assessed
27,227 square miles of estuarine
waters representing 74% of the
total estuarine waters in the lower
48 States (Figure 4-1). Fifty-six
percent of the assessed waters fully
support their designated beneficial
uses; an additional 12% fully sup-
port designated uses but are threat-
ened by pollution (Figure 4-2).
Impaired waters include 23% of the
estuarine waters partially supporting
their designated uses and 9% of the
waters not supporting their desig-
nated uses.
Total estuaries = 36,890 square miles
Total assessed = 27,227 square miles
74% assessed
26% unassessed
Of the assessed estuarine waters:
41% were monitored
33% were evaluated
26% were not specified
Figure 4-2
Overall Use Support
in Assessed Estuaries
Fully Partially Not Not
Supporting Threatened Supporting Supporting Attainable
56% 12% 23% 9% <1%
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-1.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters 39
Four of the 29 estuarine States
and Territories did not submit desig-
nated use assessments for their
estuarine waters. Four of the 25
States that did submit estuarine use
support information reported that
almost none of their estuarine
waters fully supported designated
uses (Delaware, the District of
Columbia, California, and Oregon).
These States may have focused
assessment and monitoring efforts
on estuaries with known or sus-
pected water quality problems.
Individual Use
Support
For the first time, 19 States
reported individual use support
status for estuarine waters (see
Appendix C, Table C-2). Data sug-
gest that shellfishing use is the most
impaired individual use (Figure 4-3).
Nineteen percent of the assessed
waters do not support shellfish
harvesting use and 11% partially
support shellfish harvesting use. In
addition, almost one-quarter of the
assessed estuaries do not fully
support aquatic life.
Causes of
Impairment
Twenty-three States reported
the extent of estuarine waters im-
paired by individual pollutants (see
Appendix C, Table C-3, for indi-
vidual State data). Several pollutants
may prevent a waterbody from fully
supporting its designated uses.
Therefore, States count a square
mile of an estuary impacted by mul-
tiple pollutants under several cause
categories (although the estuarine
area was counted only once as an
impaired waterbody). The relative
extent of each cause is represented
by the fraction of the total impaired
estuarine acreage (in the States
reporting causes of impairments in
Individual Use Support in Estuaries
Numbe!*,of, -
Percent
QesfgnatecJ, States - Fully Partially Not Not
Use Reporting Supporting Threatened Supporting Supporting Attainable
Aquatic Life Support
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-2.
-------
40 Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Figure 4-4
Percent of ASSESSED Estuary Square Miles
Impaired by Pollutants
Total Impaired = 8,572 Square Miles = 23% of the Nation's total estuarine area
Pollutants
K'^jL^j^*^ "ffilKIISfcBI
ti, "ifjffifflSiSiiTjlPl
Organic Enrichment/DO ^^| ' ; ; ~" s**ซ*'*j"|
Siltation | ]
Suspended Solids IBj^l
Oil and Grease ^^งE|
i i i i i
Total
iSiftriiSBiiiffiBBiiSiliil
55
42
34
12
11
10
t i
Major 0 10 20 30 40 50
Moderate/Minor Percent
D Not Specified
estuarine waters) attributed to each
cause category.
As with rivers and lakes, nutri-
ents, pathogen indicators, organic
enrichment and low dissolved oxy-
gen concentrations, and siltation
were among the top five causes of
water quality impairment (Figure
4-4). Nutrients affected 55% of the
8,572 square miles of impaired es-
tuarine waters in the States report-
ing causes of estuarine impairments.
Pathogen indicators (which indicate
sewage contamination and cause
shellfish harvesting restrictions) fol-
lowed nutrients, affecting 42% of
the impaired waters (Figure 4-5).
Organic enrichment and low dis-
solved oxygen concentrations im-
pacted 34% of the impaired estuar-
ies, and siltation affected 12%.
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-3.
Figure 4-5
Urban runoff and storm sewers are
the leading source of impairment
in estuarine waters
Pathogen Indicators
Failing septic systems
may release pathogen
indicators
Him H
nun
:::::: JM3
!!ป"
miiiiiimii
Overloaded or improperly functioning
sewage treatment plants may release
waste that contains pathogen indicators
Pathogen indicators, such as fecal coliform bacteria, provide evidence that an estuary is contaminated with fecal
material that may contain pathogenic bacteria and viruses harmful to people. Often, the pathogenic viruses and
bacteria do not adversely impact aquatic life, such as fish and shellfish. However, shellfish may accumulate bacteria
and viruses that cause human diseases when ingested. Therefore, officials restrict shellfish harvesting in contami-
nated waters to protect public health. Pathogen indicators also impair swimming uses because some pathogenic
bacteria and viruses can be transmitted by contact with contaminated water.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters 41
Sources of
Impairment
Twenty-two States reported the
extent of estuarine waters impaired
by individual sources of pollutants
(see Appendix C, Table C-4). States
counted any area impacted by mul-
tiple sources under each source
category, although the area was
counted only once as an impaired
waterbody. As with causes, the rela-
tive importance of each source was
determined by dividing the area
impaired by an individual source by
the total impaired estuarine area in
the States reporting sources of
estuarine impairments.
The States identified municipal
wastewater treatment plants as the
most pervasive source of pollution
in assessed estuarine waters (Figure
4-6). Municipal point sources im-
paired 53% of the impaired estua-
rine waters in the 22 States report-
ing source information. Urban
runoff and storm sewers impacted
43% of the impaired estuarine wa-
ters and agriculture also affected
43%. Industrial point sources
affected 23% of the impaired estua-
rine waters and resource extraction
affected 12%. In estuarine waters,
point sources contribute significantly
to water quality degradation
because population centers and
industrial centers are often located
adjacent to estuarine waters.
Figure 4-6
Percent of ASSESSED Estuary Square Miles
Impaired by Sources of Pollution
(8,303 assessed estuarine square miles impaired)
Pollution Sources
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Resource Extraction
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
0 10 20 30 40 50
Total estuaries = 36,890 square miles
Total assessed = 27,227 square miles
74% assessed
26% unassessed
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-4.
-------
r
H1GHLIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
,,,1!"" " , V 'I1 Hill'
!"!!': \' '.'.' 'i'li1'1::1'":1,.1.../K1!,1':11!1!11!1,!,111
i ,,(' , ,,'ii""^ \niiiV ,,'!;! j |i' i,'/';!,;:'"![
'.>>, , ,!, ml ,!'<' i'V, "i ;< ii,ซ,iiii; 1',!,'
A Regional Assessment of the
Ecological Condition of Estuaries
Millions of dollars are spent on
pollution control problems in the
United States and more than $133
billion is spent to monitor the
condition of the marine environ-
ment by Federal, State, and local
agencies; public utilities; and private
corporations.* Most of these pro-
grams address specific local pollu-
tion problems; however, it is difficult
to assess the effectiveness of these
programs for protecting the envi-
ronment at national and regional
scales and over extended periods of
time. The EPA considers it critical to
establish monitoring, research, and
assessment programs to determine
the effectiveness of pollution control
strategies and to substantiate the
science upon which these strategies
are based.
To address these issues, the
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) is
being developed as a national pro-
gram by EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD). EMAP is
an integrated Federal program
examining the condition of the
Nation's ecological resources. While
ORD is coordinating, planning, and
developing EMAP; other Federal
agencies (e.g., Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion) participate in the collection
and analysis of EMAP data and will
use them to guide their policy deci-
sions, as appropriate.
One component of EMAP is
designed to quantitatively assess the
condition of the Nation's estuarine
resources using ecological indica-
tors. During the period 1990-1993
(and continuing annually), NOAA,
EPA regions, State agencies, and
universities have assisted ORD in
planning and implementing EMAP
estuarine demonstration projects in
the Virginian Province (between
Cape Cod, MA, and the mouth of
Chesapeake Bay), the Louisianian
Province (between Tampa Bay, FL,
and the Mexican border), and the
Carolinian Province (between
Chesapeake Bay and Indian River
Lagoon, FL).
EMAP-Estuaries has been devel-
oped by EPA/ORD because an inte-
grated monitoring and assessment
program that samples estuarine
resources in a probability-based
manner offers considerable addi-
tional information to historical
monitoring approaches. The EMAP
approach provides improved defini-
tion of the extent and magnitude of
pollution problems at regional and
national scales. Simultaneous, prob-
ability-based sampling of pollution
exposure, environmental condition,
and biological resources is the
important central focus of
*Managing Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring.
National Research Council, 1990.
-------
HIGHLIG
EMAP-Estuaries. This approach
enables estimates to be made of the
uncertainly associated with assess-
ments and will improve our ability
to identify ecological responses to
pollution. EMAP-Estuaries (and even-
tually other resource groups within
EMAP, e.gv surface waters, forests)
will provide objective assessments of
the severity and extent of environ-
mental problems on an historical
and regional scale and the degree
to which degraded resources are
responding to efforts to protect or
restore them.
EMAP-Estuaries
In 1990-1993, EMAP-Estuaries
teams annually sampled about 150
sites in the Virginian Province and
about 165 sites in the Louisianian
Province, Beginning in 1994 about
100 sites will be sampled annually
in the Carolinian Province. The spe-
cific number of sites may vary in
any year by about 5% due to the
nature of the probability-based sam-
pling design. This design is used to
select sampling sites throughout the
regions being assessed in proportion
to the areal distribution of the
estuarine resources in the region.
The sampling teams measure indica-
tors that can be directly measured
in the field to represent biotic integ-
rity, ecosystem quality, and societal
values of estuarine resources. These
indicators represent key aspects of
the estuarine ecosystem such as
benthic and fish community param-
eters, health condition of fish, and
degree of eutrophication. In addi-
tion, several abiotic condition indi-
cators are measured to characterize
the environment associated with
these estuarine ecosystems, includ-
ing sediment contaminants and
toxicity, water quality, dissolved
oxygen, and habitat characteristics.
By measuring these two types of
indicators concurrently, EMAP-
Estuaries can determine the degree
that observed ecological degrada-
tion appears to be associated with
specific types of environmental
exposures.
Biotic Integrity
The presence of a healthy,
diverse, and sustainable biological
community reflects strong biotic
integrity. The EMAP-Estuaries teams
evaluated biotic integrity in the
Virginian and Louisianian Provinces
in 1991 by measuring species com-
position and abundance of bottom-
dwelling organisms and the condi-
tion of fish communities. Benthic
organisms are sensitive to pollution
and integrate responses to pollution
over a long period of time. Fish can
bioaccumulate contaminants and
-------
their health condition can deterio-
rate with continued exposure to
environmental stresses. Preliminary
data from 1991 indicate that de-
graded benthic communities popu-
late 19 ฑ 8% of the estuarine area in
the Virginian Province and 31 ฑ 9%
of the estuarine area in the Louisian-
ian Province (Figure 1).
Ecosystem Quality
Ecosystem quality refers to the
condition of the environment in
which organisms live. EMAP-
Estuaries measured dissolved oxygen
(DO) concentrations in the water
column and toxic contaminants
concentrations in sediments and
Degraded
Undegraded
69%
Degraded
19%
Undegraded
81%
Rgure 1. Benthic resources.
I
Louisianian
Virginian
Figure 2. Dissolved oxygen
concentrations.
tested sediment toxicity to evaluate
this second component of ecological
integrity in the two demonstration
provinces.
The EMAP-Estuaries teams com-
pared DO concentrations measured
in bottom waters to two threshold
values, 5 ppm and 2 ppm. Some
fish and benthic organisms cannot
tolerate DO concentrations below
5 ppm; therefore, many States set
minimum DO standards at 5 ppm
to support aquatic life. Many estua-
rine organisms are adversely affected
if DO concentrations fall below
2 ppm. Dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions fell below 5 ppm in bottom
waters in approximately 35 ฑ 10%
of the estuarine bottom waters of
the Virginian Province
and in 21 ฑ 9% of the
bottom waters of the
Louisianian Province (Fig-
ure 2). Bottom dissolved
oxygen concentrations
fell below 2 ppm in 6 ฑ
5% of the Virginian Prov-
ince and 12 ฑ 6% of the
Louisianian Province.
However, about half of
hypoxic waters in the
Louisianian Province were
below 2 ppm only in the
early morning hours
(2 a.m.-7 a.m.) repre-
senting cyclic conditions.
Under these cyclic condi-
tions, acceptable DO
concentrations exist most
of the time with poor
conditions occurring
about 20% to 30% of
the time.
The EMAP teams also
evaluated the potential
<2 ppm
12%
2-5 ppm
9%
> 5 ppm
79%
< 2 ppm
6%
2-5 ppm
29%
>5 ppm
65%
ill ill ill in in in ill i in ill ill ill
' I H "f
-------
for sublethal effects from sediment
contamination in estuaries. The
teams compared contaminant con-
centrations in sediment samples
collected at all sites to ER-L values.
ER-L values represent concentrations
at which biological effects (both
sublethal and lethal) were observed
in at least 10 percent of the con-
taminant exposure studies reviewed
in the literature.
Metals were the most prevalent
contaminants found at concentra-
tions exceeding ER-L values indicat-
ing biological concern. In the Virgin-
ian Province, 38 ฑ 7% of the estua-
rine sediments contained contami-
nant concentrations of biological
concern. Lead, nickel, and zinc most
frequently exceeded ER-L values.
Sampling detected organic contami-
nants at concentrations of biological
concern in 12 ฑ 7% of Virginian
Province sediments (Figure 3).
In the Louisianian Province,
33 ฑ 9% of the estuarine sediments
contained elevated concentrations
of metals, primarily mercury,
arsenic, and chromium. Pesticides
followed metals with 31 ฑ 8% of
the province sediments containing
concentrations that exceeded ER-L
values. Dieldrin, chlordane, and
DDT were the most widespread
pesticides observed in the Louisian-
ian Province.
Societal Values
The EMAP teams evaluated the
extent of marine debris, measured
water clarity, and measured con-
taminant levels in selected seafood
to determine how well estuarine
waters attain societal values. Marine
debris has multiple deleterious
effects on coastal economies and
public perceptions of coastal health.
Marine debris decreases the market
potential for fish, damages fishing
gear and vessels, and can reduce
tourism. The EMAP teams estimated
that trash was present in 17 ฑ 5%
of the Virginian and Louisianian
Provinces (Figure 4).
Society values clear waters,
which contribute to healthy, pro-
ductive aquatic communities. How-
ever, clarity varies greatly in estuar-
ies and should not necessarily be
compared between estuarine water
bodies. A healthy estuary may be
turbid due to local geomorphology
or natural inputs of
detritus. In other
estuaries, reduced
clarity may indicate
unhealthy conditions
resulting from pol-
lutant inputs of sedi-
ments and nutrients.
Although EMAP
cannot distinguish
between reduced
clarity caused by
pollution or natural
sources, the data
collected during the
pilot projects estab-
lishes a baseline
against which future
changes in water
clarity may be
assessed. The EMAP
teams found that 14
ฑ 6% of the Virgin-
ian Province had
clarity of less than 1
meter, the depth of
Metals
Pesticides
Tributyltin
Alkanes
PAHs
PCBs
HT HIGHLIGHT
ssr
i
10 20 30
Percent Area
40
Louisianian
Virginian
Figure 3. Sediment contamination
exceeding ER-L values.
-------
H1GHLIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
lfl4KV.il!1 .,
one's feet when wading in waist-
deep water. Waters in the Virginian
Province were characterized by a
visibility of no better than 0.3
meters (approximately 1 foot) in less
than 1% of its estuarine area. About
55 ฑ 11 % of the Louisianian Prov-
ince had water clarity of less than
1 meter, including 27 ฑ 10% of the
Province's waters with clarity less
than 0.3 meters deep (Figure 5).
Contaminants in the edible
portions of commercially and
recreationaily important fish and
shellfish are important social mea-
sures of acceptable estuarine condi-
tion. At present, the Food and Drug
Louisianian
V L
v_x
Present
17%
Not Present
83%
Virginian
Present
17%
Not Present
83%
Figure 4. Presence of marine
debris and trash.
Administration (FDA) provides
action limits for fish and shellfish
denoting safety for consumption.
While EMAP-Estuaries does not pro-
vide a comprehensive evaluation of
all fish and shellfish, selected target
species were examined. These target
species included weakfish, flounders,
white perch, and croakers in the
Virginian Province and Atlantic
croaker, catfish, and shrimp in the
Louisianian Province. Only fillet or
tailmeat materials were examined.
No fish taken from Virginian waters
were observed to exceed the FDA
limits while only 1% of the marine
catfish collected in the Louisianian
Louisianian
Virginian
> 1 m
45%
<0.3 m
27%
0.3-1 m
28%
<0.3 m
4%
0.3-1 m
10%
> 1 m
86%
Figure 5. Water clarity.
-------
HIGHLIGHT
Province exceeded the FDA limit for
mercury. A more complete risk
assessment associated with the con-
taminant levels observed in fish and
shellfish from the Virginian and
Louisianian Provinces is presently
under way.
Overall Estuarine
Condition
As the EMAP-Estuaries program
reaches full implementation, a single
index will be developed to summa-
rize the overall condition of estua-
rine resources within each province
and to accumulate province mea-
sures to create a national estimate
of estuarine condition. The index
may incorporate measures of
fishability, swimmability, and aes-
thetics with measures of biotic
integrity based on benthic commu-
nities and fish assemblages. For the
demonstration studies, overall con-
dition was estimated in each prov-
ince by integrating biotic integrity
indicators and societal value indica-
tors. The results indicate that 42 ฑ
7% of the Virginian Province and 53
ฑ 9% of the Louisianian Province
showed evidence of degraded bio-
logical resources or degraded ability
to support activities valued by soci-
ety (Figure 6) .
The Virginian and Louisianian
Provinces represent about 40% of
the estuarine resources in the
United States. At present, our best
estimate of estuarine condition in
the United States falls somewhere
between the assumption that the
remaining estuarine resources
(Southeast, West Coast) are in
acceptable condition and the estua-
rine resources in these areas are in
similar condition to those observed
along the mid-Atlantic and Gulf
coasts. These assumptions would
bound the overall national estimate
of estuarine condition between 23%
and 47% of the resource showing
evidence of degraded biological
resources or degraded ability to
support human activities.
y -r*~s*r~r~*t
HT HIGHLIGHT
Louisianian
Virginian
Undegraded
47%
Both
16%
Degraded
Biology
16%
Impaired Use
21%
Both
4%
Degraded
Biology
16%
Impaired Use
22%
Undegraded
58%
fet
Figure 6. Overall condition of
estuarine waters.
^Vป -'
Jf , i * J, , .,'
-------
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
1 'It ""!ป",!ป!! ,np,' ,,!ปi|i,,
Chemical Contamination
in Coastal Sediments*
Background
The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOM)
created the National Status and
Trends (NS&T) Program to monitor
trends of chemical contamination
in coastal waters and to determine
biological responses to contamina-
tion. Since 1984, NOM has ana-
lyzed seven trace metals and four
organic contaminants (see Table 1)
in sediments, bottom-feeding fish,
and mussels and oysters collected
from almost 300 NS&T sites around
the United States.
The NS&T Program was
designed to describe national distri-
butions of contamination; the pro-
gram was not designed to identify
the most contaminated sites in the
country. Therefore, NOM selected
monitoring sites that represent large
coastal areas and avoided sites in
small-scale patches of contamina-
tion, or "hot spots." In particular,
the Agency avoided sites that were
located near known wastewater
discharge points.
The selected sites were not
uniformly distributed. Almost half of
the sites were located in urban estu-
aries within 10 miles of population
centers in excess of 100,000 people.
The distribution is based on the
assumption that contamination is
more severe, more variable, and
more likely to cause biological
impacts in urban coastal areas than
in rural areas. The monitoring sites
are also more densely situated in
estuaries than in open shorelines.
Nationwide Distribution
of Contaminants
in Sediment
NOM detected low concentra-
tions of contaminants in the sedi-
ment samples collected at the vast
majority of sampling sites. The
Agency defined the upper 17% of
observed contaminant concentra-
tions as "high" concentrations of
contaminants. On the national scale,
high contaminant concentrations in
sediment were associated with
urbanized areas of the northeast
States, San Diego, Los Angeles, and
Seattle. High contaminant concen-
trations were relatively rare in most
of the Southeast and along the Gulf
of Mexico coast. This association of
higher sediment contamination with
*The information contained in this highlight was extracted from Coastal Environmen-
tal Qtiality in the United States, 1990 - Chemical Contamination in Sediment and
Tissues, published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Rockville, Maryland.
-------
-~. '-- x _ \rt\ '" .J,-; '.;,/ "-... - - ' -
highly populated areas is not a sur-
prising result. Nevertheless, it is
important to note that these results
come from sites that are considered
to be "representative" of conditions
throughout the U.S. coastal zone.
The high sediment contamina-
tion levels detected at NS&T sites
are generally lower than those
expected to cause sediment toxicity.
NOAA did not find many cases of
biological responses to high sedi-
ment contaminant concentrations,
such as liver tumors in fish. How-
ever, the NS&T program provides
an overall picture of sediment con-
tamination in the Nation's coastal
waters and does not
studies to complement the NS&T
Program and provide the detailed
information needed for local
decisionmaking.
NOAA is beginning to define
temporal trends in contaminant
levels at NS&T sites from annual
analyses of mussels and oysters.
Comparing data collected over a
10-year period or longer indicates
that concentrations of most con-
taminants measured in the NS&T
Program may be decreasing.
With the exception of copper, there
is little evidence that contaminant
concentrations are increasing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ffi^^H Table 1. Chemicals 'Measured in NOAA's National ^1
Studies of individual
** havP HPtPrrPd Trace Metals
higher concentra- Cadmium
tions of contami- chromium
nants in sediments
than were detected cฐPPer
at any of the NS&T Lead
sites. Therefore, it is
important for States, Mercury
universities, and Si|ver
local agencies to
conduct site-specific Zinc
Organic Compounds
Total DDT (DDT, DDE, and ODD)
Total PCBs (sum of 18 types of PCBs)
Total chlordane
Total polychlorinated aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs)
HIGHLIGH/f HI))091 HIGHLIGHT !
Hf^'V^r*-;; ~
,'> >' |
"?'"f~^ ' ,' ',
t<^-.* - , (
Ht" - - -~
A*i*. , , ,
WS>S2St* ^ " ' * " - " ^
S-^'-tS, " " -
% - T
^
*ป,*y, ~ ,- 5
&**"~ t * * " ** 1
V"+^._Xt^. * " "
w\* ,
'gff^tf^ ^^ Jtj. f. 1
, 4 ,
& ""ป"* "
^fr-1. T",^^ ^r-
^>Vซ
j * =. ff
-" ' l "
V "" '
"> -- ~^E
^V,tj^-^ "f ^-^ * " -
,^*M J- f
fflaftrZK * ,
$>%.*>*&ป V^s ' ^ .
^Vi^. " ;
g^^^^gC "f-
rti!ปปfป>^ |
ซ:>ฃ V -;
* ^ t * '
-------
r
SO Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Ocean Coastal Waters Assessed
by the States
Total ocean coastal waters (includ-
ing Alaska) = 56,121 miles
Including Alaska's Ocean Coastal Waters
3,398 miles = 6%
Total ocean shore miles: 56,121
0
^V^^^Uni
Assessed 6%
Unassessed 94%
Excluding Alaska's Ocean Coastal Waters
1992 3,398 miles * 17%
Total ocean shore miles: 20,121
Unassessed 83%
1990 4,230 miles = 22%
Total ocean shore miles: 19,200
1988 3,755 miles = 20%
H Total ocean shore miles: 19,200
Of the assessed ocean shore miles:
28% were monitored
47% were evaluated
25% were not specified
Ocean Coastal
Waters
Overall Use Support
Twelve of the 29 coastal States
and Territories assessed only 6% of
the 56,121 miles of ocean coastline
(including Alaska's 36,000 miles of
ocean coastline) or 17% of the
20,121 miles of national ocean
coastline (excluding Alaska) (see
Appendix C, Table C-5, for indi-
vidual State information). Most of
the assessed waters fully support
designated beneficial uses (80%)
(Figure 4-7). Another 7% fully
support uses but are threatened by
pollution. Nine percent of the
assessed shoreline miles partially
support designated uses and 5%
Figure 4-7
do not support designated uses.
Because only 12 States submitted
use support data, these figures do
not represent the extent of condi-
tions in ocean coastal waters
throughout the 29 coastal States.
Individual Use
Support
Ten of the 29 coastal States
reported attainment of aquatic life
use in ocean coastal waters (see
Appendix C, Table C-6, for indi-
vidual State data). Fewer States
reported support of other individual
uses. General conclusions cannot be
drawn from information represent-
ing such a small fraction of the
Nation's ocean coastal waters
(Figure ff4-8).
Overall Use Support
in Assessed Ocean Coastal Waters
Fully Partially Not Not
Supporting Threatened Supporting Supporting Attainable
80% 7% 9% 5% 0%
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-5.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters 51
Causes and Sources
of Impairment
Only 5 of the 29 coastal States
identified individual pollutants
responsible for less than full support
of designated uses in assessed ocean
coastal waters (Appendix C, Table
C-7). These States reported that
pathogen indicators, metals, priority
organics, and unknown toxicity
caused more impairments than any
other contaminants (Figure 4-9).
However, this information applies to
only 1% of the ocean shoreline
along the contiguous States, which
may explain why the data portray
toxic pollutants as a more pervasive
problem in ocean coastal waters
than in estuarine waters. States may
be targeting their limited ocean
coastal sampling in areas with
suspected toxicity problems.
Five States also listed sources of
pollutants preventing designated
use support in 1% of the Nation's
ocean shore miles (Appendix C,
Table C-8). These States identified
urban runoff and storm sewers as
the leading source of contamination
in ocean coastal waters, followed by
land disposal (including septic
tanks), municipal point sources, and
contaminated sediments (Figure
4-10).
Individual Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters
Number of.
Percent
, "Designated" States Fully Partially , Not Not
Use Reporting Supporting threatened Supporting Supporting Attainable
Aquatic Life Support
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-6.
-------
52 Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Total ocean shore miles = 20,121 miles
(excluding Alaska)
Total assessed = 3,398 miles
17% assessed
83% unassessed
Figure 4-9
Percent of ASSESSED Ocean Shore Miles
Impaired by Pollutants
(239 assessed ocean shore miles impaired)
Pollutants
Pathogen Indicators
Metals
Priority Organics
Unknown Toxicity
Nutrients
10
20
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
30 40
Percent
50 60
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-7.
ป*>
Figure 4-10
Percent of ASSESSED Ocean Shore Miles
Impaired by Sources of Pollution
(239 assessed ocean shore miles impaired)
Pollutants
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Land Disposal
Municipal Point Sources
Contaminated Sediments
Recreational Activities
Major
Moderate/Minor
111 Not Specified
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-8.
30 40
Percent
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters 53
-------
-
-------
Wetlands
Introduction
Wetlands are areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support (and
that under normal circumstances do
support) a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions (Figure 5-1). Wet-
lands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
This is the definition of wetlands as
it appears in the regulations jointly
issued by the Army Corps of Engi-
neers (COE) and the U.S. EPA (33
CFR Part 328.3(b), 40 CFR Part
232.2 (r), and 40 CFR Part
230.3(t)).
A wide variety of wetlands exist
across the country as a result of
regional and local differences in
hydrology, vegetation, water chem-
istry, soils, topography, climate,
and other factors. Wetlands type
is determined primarily by local
hydrology, the unique pattern of
water flow through an area. In
general, there are two broad
categories of wetlands: coastal and
inland wetlands.
With the exception of the Great
Lakes coastal wetlands, coastal wet-
lands are closely linked to estuaries,
where sea water mixes with fresh
water to form an environment of
varying salinity and fluctuating
water levels due to tidal action.
Coastal marshes dominated by
grasses and halophytic (salt-loving)
plants are particularly abundant
along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts
due to the gradual slope of the
land. Mangrove swamps, which are
dominated by halophytic shrubs
and trees, are common in Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and in southern Florida.
Inland wetlands are most com-
mon on floodplains along rivers and
streams, in isolated depressions sur-
rounded by dry land, and along the
margins of lakes and ponds. Inland
wetlands include marshes and wet
meadows dominated by grasses and
herbs, shrub swamps, and wooded
swamps dominated by trees, such
as hardwood forests along flood-
plains. Some regional wetlands
types include the pocosins of North
Figure 5-1
Depiction of Wetland Adjacent to Waterbody
Terrestrial
System
Productivity
Low to Medium
Wetland
: Intermittently >
to Permanently Flooded
Generally High
Aquatic
System
Fluctuating
Water Level
High Water
Low Water
- Permanently Flooded
Generally Low
Wetlands are often found at the interface between dry terrestrial eco-
systems, such as upland forests and grasslands, and permanently wet
aquatic ecosystems, such as lakes, rivers, and oceans.
Reprinted with modifications, by permission, from Mitsch/Gdsselink: Wetlands 1986, fig. 1 -4,
p. 10. ฉ1986, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
-------
56 Chapter Five Wetlands
States assessed only 4%
of their wetlands. Tliere-
fore, these me support
figures should not be
extrapolated to represent
national trends in wet-
lands integrity.
Figure 5-2
Carolina, bogs and fens of the
northeastern and north central
States and Alaska, inland saline and
alkaline marshes and riparian wet-
lands of the arid and semiarid West,
vernal pools of California, playa
lakes of the Southwest, cypress-gum
swamps of the South, wet tundra of
Alaska, the South Florida Everglades,
and prairie potholes of Minnesota,
Iowa, and the Dakotas.
Values and Functions
of Wetlands
In their natural condition,
wetlands provide many benefits,
including food and habitat for fish
and wildlife, flood protection,
shoreline erosion control, natural
products for human use, ground
water exchange, water quality
improvement, and opportunities for
recreation, education, and research.
Wetlands are critical to the sur-
vival of a wide variety of animals
Formation of Detritus in a Tidal Salt Marsh
Spartina -
(cord grass)
Detritus -
* Aquatic
Food Web
Decomposition processes in salt marshes fragment original detritus (e.g.,
dead Spartina leaves and stems) into smaller pieces. The smaller, bacte-
ria-rich detritus provides more nutrition for animals than live Spartina
tissue. Tlie enriched detritus is the principal food for many aquatic
invertebrates, shellfish, and forage fish.
and plants, including numerous rare
and endangered species. Wetlands
are also primary habitats for many
species, such as the wood duck,
muskrat, and swamp rose. For
others, wetlands provide important
seasonal habitats where food, water,
and cover are plentiful.
Wetlands are among the most
productive natural ecosystems in the
world. They produce great volumes
of food as leaves and stems break
down in the water to form detritus
(Figure 5-2). This enriched material
is the principal food for many
aquatic invertebrates, various shell-
fish, and forage fish that are food
for larger commercial and recre-
ational fish species such as bluefish
and striped bass.
Wetlands function like natural
basins, storing either floodwater that
overflows riverbanks or surface
water that collects in isolated
depressions. By doing so, wetlands
help protect adjacent and down-
stream property from flood damage.
Trees and other wetlands vegetation
help slow the speed of flood waters.
This action, combined with water
storage, can lower flood heights
and reduce the water's erosive
potential. In agricultural areas, wet-
lands can help reduce the likelihood
of flood damage to crops. Wetlands
within and upstream of urban areas
are especially valuable for flood
protection, since urban develop-
ment increases the rate and volume
of surface water runoff, thereby
increasing the risk of flood damage.
Wetlands are often located
between rivers and high ground
and are therefore able to store flood
waters and reduce channel erosion.
Wetlands bind soil, dampen wave
action, and reduce current velocity
through friction.
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 57
Wetlands produce a wealth of
natural products, including fish and
shellfish, timber, wildlife, and wild
rice. Much of the Nation's fishing
and shellfishing industry harvests
wetlands-dependent species. For
example, in the Southeast, 96% of
the commercial catch and over 50%
of the recreational harvest are fish
and shellfish that depend on the
estuary-coastal wetlands system.
Waterfowl hunters spend over $300
million annually to harvest wetlands-
dependent birds.
Wetlands help maintain and
improve water quality by intercept-
ing surface water runoff before it
reaches open water, removing or
retaining nutrients, processing
chemical and organic wastes, and
reducing sediment loads to receiv-
ing waters.
Wetlands provide considerable
opportunities for popular recre-
ational activities such as hiking, bird
watching, fishing, and boating. An
estimated 50 million people spend
nearly $10 billion each year observ-
ing and photographing wetlands-
dependent birds.
Consequences
of Wetlands Loss
and Degradation
The loss or degradation of wet-
lands can lead to serious conse-
quences, including increased flood-
ing; species decline, extinction, or
deformity; and decline in water
quality. The following are a few
examples of the consequences of
wetlands loss and degradation.
In Massachusetts, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers estimated that
over $17 million of annual flood
damage would result from the
destruction of 8,422 acres of wet-
lands in the Charles River Basin. The
Corps decided to preserve the wet-
lands rather than construct expen-
sive flood control facilities.
Wetlands in the Kesterson Wild-
life Refuge in California were
degraded after being continuously
flooded with agricultural irrigation
return flow waters that contained
high concentrations of selenium.
Largemouth bass, striped bass, and
catfish disappeared from Kesterson
National Wildlife Refuge in 1982.
In the spring of 1983, water-
fowl eggs hatched less fre-
quently and their embryos
suffered more deformities.
Cost estimates for the Refuge
cleanup and restoration of its
wetlands now exceed $5
billion.
The channelization of the
Kissimmee River in South Florida
in the 1960s disrupted the
ecological balance of the entire
region. Marshlands have disap-
peared because channelization
minimizes or prevents natural
spillover of water. Habitat loss has
caused wading bird populations to
drop by 90% and white-tailed deer
populations by 50%. Some argue
that the drainage of wetlands has
disrupted the normal rain cycle,
creating the potential for a long-
term drought in South Florida. The
dechannelization of the Kissimmee
River and the restoration of wet-
lands will cost an estimated $280
million.
Forested riparian wetlands play
an important role in reducing nutri-
ent loading into the Chesapeake
Bay. In one study, a riparian forest
in a predominantly agricultural
watershed was shown to remove
approximately 80% of the
SS AHD
"
-------
58 Chapter Rve Wetlands
phosphorus and 89% of the nitro-
gen from the water before entering
a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay.
Destruction of wetlands that reduce
the amount of nutrients entering
the Bay would lead to an increase in
undesirable weed growth and algae
blooms. When algae decomposes,
oxygen is used up, threatening fish
and other oxygen-dependent life
forms.
Figure 5-3
States with More Than 50% Wetlands Loss
50% to 80% Loss
>80% Loss
J\venty-t\vo States have lost at least 50% of their original wetlands.
Seven of these 22 (California, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Ken-
tucky, and Ohio) have lost more than 80% of their original wetlands.
Source: DaW, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Extent of the Resource
Wetlands Loss in the
United States
It is estimated that over 200
million acres of wetlands existed in
the lower 48 States at the time of
European settlement. Since then,
extensive wetlands acreage has been
lost, with many of the original wet-
lands drained and converted to
farmland and urban development.
Today, less than half of our original
wetlands remain. The losses amount
to an area equal to the size of Cali-
fornia (see Figure 5-3). According to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Wetlands Lpsses in the United States
1780's to 1980's,the three States
that have sustained the greatest
percentage of wetlands loss are
California (91%), Ohio (90%), and
Iowa (89%).
Massachusetts reported that it
continues to lose an estimated
1,000 acres per year. South Dakota
reported that, since enactment of
the Swampbuster provisions of the
Food Security Act, annual losses of
wetlands in the State due to drain-
age, excavation, and fill has de-
creased by 50%. Wisconsin tracks
individual Section 404 permits, and,
from 1982-1990, a total of 11,800
acres of wetlands were lost from
permitted discharges of dredged or
fill material. A study in southeast
Wisconsin showed that when losses
from impacts not related to the
Section 404 program were consid-
ered, the loss total tripled.
Detailed wetlands maps and
status and trends reports are used to
track the quantity of wetlands
nationally. Detailed maps provide
site-specific information on wetlands,
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 59
and status and trend information is
used to evaluate changes to the
resource in 10-year intervals based
on a subset of the Nation's wet-
lands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) has the statutory
mandate to conduct these efforts
and has completed inventory maps
for 67% of all States except Alaska
and has digitized 15% for the lower
States (as of the beginning of
1993). The FWS is the primary
source of inventory information for
States. Additionally, some States use
information from the Soil Conserva-
tion Service (SCS) or the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (NOAA). In some instances,
States map their own wetlands or
supplement national inventories
with State inventories.
According to the FWS status
and trends reports, the average
annual loss of wetlands has
decreased over the past 40 years.
The average annual loss from the .
mid-1950s to the mid-1970s was
458,000 acres, and from the mid-
1970s to mid-1980s it was 290,000
acres. Agriculture was responsible
for 87% of the loss from the mid-
1950s to the mid-1970s and 54%
of the loss from the mid-1970s to
the mid-1980s.
Twenty-seven States listed
sources of current wetlands loss in
their 1992 305(b) reports (Figure
5-4). Agriculture and commercial
development were cited as the lead-
ing sources of current losses (see
Appendix D, Table D-1, for indi-
vidual State information). Other
losses were due to residential devel-
opment, highway construction,
impoundments, and resource
extraction.
Eighteen States and one Terri-
tory reported on efforts to inventory
wetlands. Some of the programs are
designed to augment the FWS's
National Wetlands Inventory, while
others are designed to produce
status and trend information. Some
of the programs have already been
completed and others have been
authorized but not funded.
Massachusetts reported that the
National Wetlands Inventory'(NWI)
maps provide a good baseline
for wetlands resources, but
that considerable construction
activity and wetlands impacts
have occurred since the maps
were produced in the late
1970s. In addition, NWI maps at
a 1:24,000 scale do not show
many wetlands smaller than 1
acre in size. In response, the Mas-
sachusetts Division of Wetlands and
Waterways, through the Wetlands
Sources of Current Wetlands Losses
(27 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture
Commercial Development
Residential Development
Highway Construction
Impoundments
Resource Extraction
Industry
Dredge Disposal
Silviculture
Natural
Mosquito Control
Total
21
19
16
14
12
11
11
9
7
7
1
10 20
Number of States Reporting
30
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-1.
-------
60 Chapter Five Wetlands
Conservancy Program, has initiated
a project to develop more detailed,
larger-scale (1:5000) maps to
provide a baseline of wetlands
resources.
Massachusetts's inventory will be
conducted over the next 5 to 10
years and the Conservancy Program
will map and classify all wetlands in
Massachusetts greater than or equal
to 1/4 acre in size. This geographic
information will be entered into the
Massachusetts Geographic
Information System (CIS) and
will be used to compile and
automate highly accurate loca-
tion data for hazardous waste
sites and other regulated activities.
The information from the inven-
tory will be used in conjunction
with the permit tracking system to
quantify wetlands losses.
Delaware reported that it
updated the FWS maps from 1983
for its tidal waters and entered the
information into a database for
State and local agencies to use to
make land use decisions.
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources developed a digitized
land cover/wetlands database for
the entire State based on LANDSAT
satellite imagery taken in 1989-
1990.
Ohio reported that its Depart-
ment of Natural Resources is con-
ducting a statewide wetlands inven-
tory with the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service. The program reviews digital
LANDSAT data and compares them
with digitized soils data from the
SCS. The State completed classifying
the data in 1992 and is now con-
ducting field verification.
Oregon Division of State Lands,
the FWS, and the Portland Metro-
politan Service District completed
inventories and maps at a scale of
1:24,000.
Puerto Rico's Department of
Natural Resources published an
inventory of mangroves in 1989.
The Virgin Islands Department of
Planning and Natural Resources is
conducting an inventory of wet-
lands in their territory and, in the
interim, will rely on digitized NWI
data.
Pennsylvania reported that it has
been monitoring wetlands status
and trends yearly for its coastal zone
since 1986. Federal and State
enforcement agencies also docu-
ment wetlands losses with annual
helicopter overflights.
Arizona will inventory and classify
riparian areas throughout the State.
The State defines riparian areas as
aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems that
are associated with bodies of waters
or are dependent upon the exist-
ence of surface or subsurface water
drainage.
The Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources received a grant from EPA
to create a statewide wetlands
inventory using a CIS and to
develop a statewide classification
and ranking mode! specific to Utah.
Idaho reported that the main
work to determine the extent of its
wetlands is being done by the FWS,
which is currently mapping wet-
lands in Idaho. In addition, they
mentioned some local efforts scat-
tered throughout the State.
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 61
Washington's Department of
Ecology issued grants to 16 local
jurisdictions to perform field wet-
lands inventories. The Department
developed inventory guidance,
including specific inventory meth-
ods, a wetlands function and value
characterization, and a four-tier
rating system. It also initiated the
development of a State-wide
wetlands database.
Between 1981 and 1986, the
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources conducted a statewide
land cover/use inventory, including
wetlands. The State obtained data
from infrared aerial photographs,
digitized them, and entered them
into the computerized Michigan
Resource Inventory System. The
State classified wetlands into seven
categories, which do not corre-
spond to the Cowardin classification
system developed by the FWS.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department initiated a statewide
habitat mapping project. The
project used LANDSAT data and
produced vegetation cover maps
and detailed numerical inventory
data for coastal marshes, swamps,
bottomland hardwoods, and other
forested wetlands.
Florida completed a comprehen-
sive statewide wildlife habitat inven-
tory in 1990, which included several
wetlands types. However, the State
reported that it has not imple-
mented a wetlands inventory pro-
gram required in the Warren S.
Henderson Wetlands Protection Act
passed in 1984 because of funding
limitations. Florida legislation
requires reporting of wetlands acre-
age affected by permitting activities.
The State tracks wetlands conver-
sions and mitigation efforts autho-
rized under the dredge and fill pro-
gram. Many violations are reported
by the public.
New York requires regulatory
inventories of tidal wetlands on
Long Island, in New York City, and
in certain counties along the
Hudson River. State statutes also
require inventories of freshwater
wetlands protected by State
law.
South Carolina received a
fiscal year 1 991 State wetlands
grant to develop a statewide land
use/land cover inventory using
satellite imagery and Ecological
Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) classification.
Wetlands are a component of this
project.
Kentucky is currently digitizing all
NWI maps and Tennessee has
already digitized NWI maps in the
western part of the State where 85
percent of the State's wetlands are
located.
Integrity of the
Resource
Monitoring programs should
and could provide the data needed
to identify integrity degradation in
wetlands and sources of that degra-
dation, but specific wetlands moni-
toring programs are still in their
infancy. Five States described water
quality and habitat monitoring ef-
forts for wetlands. Three of these
States currently monitor some wet-
lands and two States have proposed
or are considering wetlands
-------
62 Chapter Five Wetlands
monitoring programs. No State is
currently operating a statewide wet-
lands monitoring program.
Massachusetts requested an EPA
wetlands grant to create a standard
operating procedure for collecting
wetlands data. An EPA-funded
project is currently under way to
develop a two-tiered approach for
functional assessment of wetlands.
The State requires project propo-
nents to monitor specific project
elements.
Montana's Water Quality Bureau
will monitor 20 water quality im-
paired wetlands and 40 minimally
impaired wetlands. The data will
establish baseline water quality and
biological conditions needed to
develop wetlands standards. The
Montana Department of Transporta-
tion will also develop a monitoring
program to judge the effectiveness
of existing wetlands mitigation
projects.
As part of its efforts to develop
water quality standards for wet-
lands, the Texas Water Commis-
sion currently monitors water
quality, associated biota, and
beneficial uses at selected mini-
mally impacted coastal wetlands.
The program will be expanded to
monitor other wetlands types as
personnel and funds become avail-
able.
Washington State does not have
an established monitoring program
for assessing use support of wet-
lands, but it has studied plant and
animal habitat diversity in addition
to chemical and physical water
quality parameters in wetlands.
Wisconsin is considering wetlands
initiatives that include monitoring
wetlands communities and habitats.
Designated Use
Support in Wetlands
Only eight States (California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas,
North Carolina, Nevada, and Okla-
homa) provided information on
overall use support in some portion
of their wetlands (see Appendix D,
Table D-2). Half of the 10,516,774
acres of assessed wetlands acreage
fully support their designated uses
(Figure 5-5), but this information
pertains to less than 4 percent of
the total wetlands in the United
States. Of the assessed acres, 98%
are in North Carolina. Therefore, the
use support figures should not be
extrapolated to represent national
trends in wetlands integrity.
More States will assess use sup-
port in wetlands as they develop
standards for wetlands. Many States
are still in the process of developing
wetlands water quality standards,
which provide the baseline for de-
termining beneficial use support
(see Chapter 16). Improved stan-
dards will also provide a firmer
foundation for assessing impair-
ments in wetlands in those States
already reporting use support in
wetlands. Hawaii, for example, re-
ports that it assessed 100% of its
wetlands but also reports that it is
still developing wetlands-specific use
classifications and that few of their
existing water quality standards can
be applied to wetlands. Wetlands-
specific water quality standards will
help eliminate some of these appar-
ent inconsistencies.
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 63
Figure 5-5
Designated Use Support
in Wetlands
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-2.
NOTE: This information on designated use support represents data from only eight States,
some of which do not have water quality standards for wetlands. In addition, 98%
of the assessed wetlands are in one State, so national trends should not be drawn from
these data.
Figure 5-6
Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity
(14 States Reporting)
Causes
Sediment BN^^^^BH^HJI^^^^Hl
Nutrients
Water Diversions
Pesticides
Salinity
Heavy Metals
Ponding
Weeds
Low Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Selenium
Total
13
8
6
5
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
5 10
Number of States Reporting
15
Total wetlands (including Alaska) =
277 million acres
Total assessed = 10,516,774 acres
Including Alaska's wetlands
4% Assessed
96% Unassessed
4% Assessed
96% Unassessed
Excluding Alaska's wetlands
10% Assessed
B 90% Unassessed
10% Assessed
90% Unassessed
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-3.
-------
64 Chapter Five Wetlands
More information on wetlands
[jean &e obtained from
JEPA'i Wetlands Hotline
af l^i6o-832-7828, ' " "
|K I1"!! I'"!":"ป'' iiH .."'Hi i"''.,,,. '* .-I .,''-,- '
'Jbetiveen 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.
The States have even fewer data
to quantify the extent of pollutants
degrading wetlands and the sources
of these pollutants. Although most
States cannot quantify wetlands area
impacted by individual pollutants
and sources, 14 States identified
pollutants and sources known to
degrade wetlands integrity to some
extent (Figures 5-6 and 5-7). These
States listed sediment as the most
pervasive pollutant impacting wet-
lands, followed by nutrients, water
diversions, and pesticides. Agricul-
ture topped the list of sources
degrading wetlands, followed
closely by development, channeliza-
tion, road construction, and urban
Figure S-7
Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity
(14 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture ^^^^^I^^^HBI
Development
Channelization
Road Construction
Urban Runoff
Resource Extraction
Landfills
Industrial Runoff
Onsite Systems
Irrigation
Recreation
Municipal Sewage
Silviculture
Industrial Sewage
Oil Extraction
Total
11
9
9
8
7
5
5
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
5 10
Number of States Reporting
15
runoff (see Appendix D, Tables D-3
and D-4, for individual State infor-
mation).
Summary
Currently, most States are not
equipped to report on the integrity
of their wetlands. Only eight States
reported attainment of designated
uses for wetlands in 1992. National
trends cannot be drawn from this
limited information. This is expected
to change, however, as States adopt
wetlands water quality standards
and enhance their existing monitor-
ing programs to more accurately
assess designated use support in
their wetlands. In addition, EPA's
EMAP for wetlands will provide indi-
cators and procedures that States
may eventually be able to adapt to
their own programs. The EMAP
indicators and procedures may also
provide consistent macroscale infor-
mation on wetlands conditions in
the future.
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-4.
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 65
-------
'ill
-------
Ground Water Quality
Introduction
The protection of our Nation's
ground water resources has received
widespread attention at all levels of
government. The need to protect
this vital resource to sustain the life
and health of citizens and the eco-
system is becoming increasingly
clear. Ground water is used for
domestic and municipal drinking
water supplies, irrigation and live-
stock, and industrial processes.
Ground water also supports the
health of related surface water eco-
systems, including lakes, rivers,
streams, wetlands, and estuaries. In
many parts of the Nation, ground
water serves as the only reliable
source of drinking or irrigation
water. However, the quality of this
vital resource is threatened by a
number of land-use activities.
As a result of the growing pub-
lic awareness of the importance of
our ground water resources, EPA
has issued guidance for Comprehen-
sive State Ground Water Protection
Programs. These programs will be
the focal point for long-term joint
commitments between the Federal
Government and the States and will
provide for a more coherent and
comprehensive approach to ground
water protection. The States have
identified a broad range of ground
water contaminants and contamina-
tion sources that threaten the integ-
rity of the resource. Controlling
these sources of contamination and
preventing further contamination of
the resource have become the focus
of a number of State and Federal
programs.
EPA compiled the information
reported in this chapter primarily
from 1992 305(b) State Water
Quality Reports required under the
Clean Water Act. EPA requested
that each State provide informa-
tion concerning its ground .water
quality and protection initiatives,
along with information on sources
of ground water contamination
and the principal contaminants of
concern. In addition to the data
reported in the State 305(b) reports,
this chapter provides information
obtained from the U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 92-63
entitled Preliminary Estimates of
Water Use in the United States,
1990 and information reported by
other Federal agencies.
This chapter consists of three
sections that summarize the follow-
ing ground water information: use,
quality, and indicators.
Ground Water Use
Ground water withdrawals in
1990 accounted for approximately
20% of the Nation's total water
withdrawals. Ground water with-
drawals increased significantly
between 1950 and 1980 from 34 '
billion gallons/day (gal/d) to 83
billion gal/d. The 1990 estimate of
total ground water withdrawals is
-------
68 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
Figure 6-1
IRRIGATION
accounted for more
than 64% of
ground water use
National Ground Water Withdrawals
by Water Use Category
Irrigation 64.2%
Thermoelectric 0.7%
Commercial 1.1%
Mining 2.5%
Livestock 3.4%
Domestic 4.1%
Industrial 5.0%
Public Supply 19.0%
Source: Open-File Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey.
Figure 6-2
Total Fresh Ground Water Withdrawals by State
(billion gal/d)
0-99
100-499
500 - 999
1,000-4,999
5,000-15,000
Source: Open-File Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey.
81 billion gal/d. This is consistent
with a general decrease in the rate
of increase in ground water with-
drawals from 1970 to 1980 and
with a decrease in total ground
water withdrawals from 1985 to
1990. While public, domestic, and
commercial water supply withdraw-
als and withdrawals for mining and
thermoelectric power continued to
increase between 1985 and 1990,
withdrawals for irrigation and indus-
trial supply declined.
Nationally, ground water pro-
vides drinking water for 53% of the
total population and nearly all of
the rural population. National
ground water withdrawals by water
use category are shown in Figure 6-
1. Irrigation accounts for the largest
percentage of ground water with-
drawals with approximately 51 bil-
lion gal/d or 64% of total withdraw-
als. Public water supplies account
for approximately 19% of the total
ground water withdrawals. Indus-
trial, domestic, livestock, mining,
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 69
commercial, and thermoelectric
withdrawals account for a total of
17% of withdrawals.
Figure 6-2 depicts the total
fresh ground water withdrawals by
State. Nine States accounted for
72% of the Nation's total ground
water use. In 1990-1991, California
withdrew a total of 14.6 billion gal/
d, approximately 10.7 billion gal/d
of which was used for irrigation.
Idaho and Texas withdrew 7.6 and
7.4 billion gal/d, with 6.6 and 5.6
billion gal/d, respectively, used for
irrigation. Ground water withdraw-
als from Arkansas, Colorado, Kan-
sas, and Nebraska were used prima
rily for irrigation accounting for
92% of the withdrawals. The
remaining two States were Florida
and Arizona; 72% of Arizona's
ground water was used for irriga-
tion. Irrigation and public water
supply combined account for 78%
of withdrawals in Florida.
Ground water is withdrawn for
a number of purposes, which vary
considerably depending on the
Figure 6-3
Fresh Ground Water Withdrawals by Water Use Category
o
Drinking Water Supply
Agricultural Supply
Industrial/Commercial Supply
Mining and Thermoelectric Supply
VI
Source: Open-File Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey.
-------
70 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
29
STATES
judged their ground
water quality to be
good or excellent
region. Fresh ground water
withdrawal with breakdowns of
water use categories is shown in
Figure 6-3. In the East and South,
withdrawals are used primarily for
industrial, domestic, commercial,
and public water supply purposes.
In the West, most ground water is
withdrawn for agricultural supply.
Ground Water Quality
For the 1992 Section 305(b)
State Water Quality Reports, EPA
requested that States use best pro-
fessional judgment to assess the
Figure 6-4
Overall Ground Water Quality
Excellent*
Good or Adequate*
tr i Variable or Poor*
I I Not Indicated
Source: 1992 State Section 30S(b) reports.
Based on 38 States reporting.
overall quality of their ground
water. Overall, the Nation's ground
water quality is good to excellent
(Figure 6-4). Thirty-eight States
made some judgment concerning
the quality of their ground water:
11 States judged their ground water
quality to be excellent, 18 States
judged their ground water quality
to be good, and 9 States reported
that their overall ground water qual-
ity was variable or poor. One prob-
lem in assessing national ground
water quality trends stems from the
lack of consistent and reliable
ground water quality indicators.
While the overall quality of the
Nation's ground water resource
appears to be good, local ground
water contamination problems are
widespread in every State.
In 1985, the National Gover-
nor's Association (NGA) began con-
ducting biennial surveys to identify
State restrictions imposed on con-
taminated or hazardous sites. In
1992, the NGA published a report
entitled Restrictions Imposed on Con-
taminated Sites: A Status of State
Actions, covering information
obtained during the 1991 survey.
This report cites 1,295 incidents of
ground water use restrictions
imposed at contaminated sites, an
increase of 37% from the number
reported in 1989 (948 incidents)
and nearly four times the number
reported in 1987 (331 incidents).
The imposed use restrictions include
restricted ground water use for
drinking, the need for treatment or
blending of contaminated ground
water to meet drinking water stan-
dards, restrictions on ground water
use for irrigation or food processing
purposes, and the issuance of
ground water use advisories.
The NGA also gathered infor-
mation on State well closings in an
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 71
effort to gain insight into ground
water quality around contaminated
sites. The 1992 report lists a total of
14,324 well closures and restric-
tions, based on State responses to a
survey question concerning restric-
tions imposed on contaminated
sites. The number of well closures
and restrictions represents a very
small percentage of the total num-
ber of wells supplying water for
irrigation, domestic use, industrial
use, and other uses across the coun-
try. The primary ground water con-
taminants that resulted in the re-
ported well closures include ben-
zene, trichloroethylene, tetrachloro-
ethylene, other volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), ethylene
dibromide, fertilizers, and nitrates.
Many States are undertaking
studies and programs to better
understand the quality of their
ground water, to identify potential
contamination sources, and to
determine ways to protect the
resource from further contamina-
tion. Twenty-six States reported that
they have conducted statewide
ground water monitoring studies
that focus on one or more contami-
nants, and an additional six States
reported on statewide programs
that are under development. The
contaminants assessed in these
large-scale monitoring efforts
include pesticides, nitrates, volatile
organic chemicals, radionuclides,
chloride, iron, and bacteria.
Eighteen States reported on
regional ground water studies con-
ducted in sensitive ground water
basins or other areas of concern.
Contaminants of concern in these
regional studies include pesticides,
nitrates, volatile organic chemicals,
bacteria, chloride, and radionuclides.
Reported underground chemical
storage or releases and waste
disposal sites in all States require
monitoring under a number of Fed-
eral statutes. In addition, 25 States
reported on site-specific monitoring
efforts surrounding contamination
point sources such as landfills,
underground fuel and chemical
storage facilities, hazardous waste
surface impoundments, mining
sites, and spray irrigation sites. The
principal contaminants of concern
at these monitoring sites are petro-
leum hydrocarbons, volatile organic
chemicals, acidic mine drainage,
metals, and nutrients.
26
STATES
reported that they
conducted statewide
ground water
monitoring studies
of one or more
contaminants.
Figure 6-5
Sources of Contamination
(Number of States Reporting)
Other Major
Sources (40)
Abandoned Hazardous
Waste Sites (37)
Surface
Impoundments (33)
Regulated
Hazardous Waste
Sites (32)
Injection Wells
(28)
Land Application/
Treatment (24)
Salt Water Intrusion
(24)
Oil & Gas
Brine Pits
(19)
Septic Tanks
(43)
Agricultural Activities
(44)
Underground
Storage Tanks
(50)
Other Landfills
(32)
Industrial Landfills
(38)
Municipal Landfills
Road ' (41)
Salting
(17) Aboveground
Storage Tanks
(12)
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
72 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
UNDER-
GROUND
STORAGE
TANKS
were cited by 39 States
as the most common
source of ground water
contamination.
Overview of
Gontamination Sources
EPA requested that the States
identify and rank the severity of
sources of ground water contami-
nation in their jurisdiction. The
ranking was based on the best
professional judgment of State
ground water experts and included
consideration of many factors such
as: findings of the State's ground
Figure 6-6
Highest Priority Contamination Sources
Sources
Underground Storage Tanks
Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites
Municipal Landfills
Agricultural Activities
Septic Tanks
Other Major Sources
Surface Impoundments
Other Landfills
Regulated Hazardous Waste Sites
Industrial Landfills
Aboveground Storage Tanks
Injection Wells
Oil & Gas Brine Pits
Land Application/Treatment
SaltWater Intrusion
water protection strategy or related
studies, evaluations of the popula-
tion at risk from contaminated
drinking water, the number or loca-
tion of contamination sources,
evaluations of the risk posed to
human health or the environment,
and the suitability of existing
controls.
Figure 6-5 summarizes the
major sources of contamination
listed by the 49 States reporting.
The most frequently cited sources of
Total
39
17
16
15
14
9
7
6
6
5
5
5
3
2
1
10
20
30
40
50
Number of States and Territories Reporting Sources
as one of Top 3 Priorities
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 73
contamination were underground
storage tanks, landfills, agricultural
activities, and septic tanks. Approxi-
mately two-thirds of the States listed
landfills, including municipal, indus-
trial, and other types of landfills, as
a significant source of ground water
contamination, and more than 75
percent of the States reported that
agricultural activities posed a signifi-
cant threat to ground water quality.
In addition to the sources high-
lighted in Figure 6-5, the States
noted contamination from hazard-
ous material spills, mining activities,
urban and stormwater runoff, aban-
doned or improperly constructed
water wells, and agricultural drain-
age wells.
Figure 6-6 depicts the highest
priority contamination sources as
ranked by the States. Underground
storage tanks continue to be the
most frequently ranked high-priority
contamination source. Abandoned
hazardous waste sites, municipal
landfills, agricultural activities, and
septic tanks were the next most
frequently reported sources. These
rankings were relatively unchanged
from the 1990 State reports. Surface
impoundments, landfills, and other
chemical or waste storage facilities
also continue to be sources of
concern in the States.
Overview of
Contaminants
EPA also requested that the
States identify the most prevalent
contaminants observed in their
ground water (see Figure 6-7).
Nitrates were identified as a princi-
pal ground water contaminant by
49 States, an increase of five States
from the 1990 reports. The next
most frequently reported contami-
nants were volatile organic sub-
stances, petroleum products, metals,
and pesticides. These contaminants
were also reported as most fre-
quently observed in ground water
in 1990. Fluoride was reported as a
principal contaminant by 21 States
in 1990, but was reported by only
20 States in 1992. Among the other
contaminants reported by States
were bacteria, radionuclides,
dissolved inorganics, septage and
sewage, and acids.
49
STATES
identified nitrates as
a principal ground
water contaminant.
Figure 6-7
Substances Contaminating Ground Water
(Number of States Reporting)
Other Substances
(26)
Radioactive Material
(23)
Nitrates
(49)
Synthetic Organic
Substances
(36)
Pesticides
(43)
Metals
(45)
Other Agricultural
Chemicals
(23)
Petroleum
Products
(46)
Brine/Salinity Arsenic
(37) (28)
Volatile
Organic
Substances
(48)
Other Inorganic
Substances
Fluoride (15)
(20)
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
1 (II I
HT HIGHLIGHT
w iiiwwtowiWri 'Si*!' i^mm ii;ii
ii' ,1! "i I/: 'W, i1, ','! < 'I'm! i a ' vs v." i is1 ;* >i c > ! iiS maiae
tfiiii'vJi,''
H itBE-iiiiijiiii M-.ififij'j ii
;,, i!.iltrti(l(;*l
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 75
Indicators of Ground
Water Quality
While vast amounts of ground
water quality data are being col-
lected at the community, regional,
State, and national levels, there
remains a growing need to stan-
dardize the collection of data on key
environmental indicators. These
data will allow the characterization
of trends in ground water quality
over space and time. The EPA Office
of Ground Water and Drinking
Water continues to work with States
and others in the ground water
community to refine a series of indi-
cators. Preliminary indicators that
have been developed to track
progress and trends in ground
water protection efforts at the State
and national levels are:
Maximum contaminant level
(MCL) violations in public drinking
water systems supplied by ground
water, and the population at risk
from these violations
Extent of ground water contami-
nation resulting from hazardous
waste sites, and the population at
risk from exposure to this contami-
nation
Detections and levels of VOCs in
ground water
Detections and levels of nitrates
in ground water
Extent of leachable agricultural
pesticide use.
In its guidelines for preparation
of the 1992 State 305(b) reports,
the EPA encouraged States to use
one or more of these indicators,
where data were available, as part
of their 305(b) reporting. Further
guidance on the reporting of
ground water indicators will be
available for the preparation of
1994 State 305(b) reports.
Thirty-five States provided infor-
mation on one or more of the
requested ground water indicators.
Twenty-eight of the States reporting
provided information on nitrates,
pesticides, or VOC detections from
regional or local ground water
monitoring studies. Other indicator
parameters reported by several
States included: salinity, bacteria,
inorganic constituents, and radioac-
tivity levels. The most in-depth indi-
cation of ground water quality was
provided through descriptions of
State monitoring programs. Some
of these programs are described in
the following section.
State Ground Water
Monitoring Programs
A number of States have under-
taken monitoring initiatives that are
aimed at characterizing the overall
quality of their ground water
resources. Statewide initiatives
commonly include the establish-
ment of ambient monitoring net-
works. Many of these networks
include private domestic and agri-
cultural wells, in addition to ground
water monitoring wells maintained
by USGS or the States. In addition,
concern over the effects of agricul-
tural land Use on ground water
resources has prompted a number
of States to monitor shallow and
alluvial aquifers for nitrates and pes-
ticides. Many States also maintain
regional monitoring networks
that focus on sensitive areas or
vulnerable aquifers. Site-specific
-------
76 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
monitoring efforts were reported by
most States. These studies typically
focus on known or suspected con-
tamination sources. The range of
ground water monitoring initiatives
reported by the States is demon-
strated by the following approaches.
Missouri
Missouri relies on several activi-
ties to assist in forming a statewide
characterization of ground water
quality. Public drinking water wells
serve about half the area of the
State and draw from four aquifers
(the confined and the unconfined
Ozark bedrock aquifers of southern
Missouri, and the unconsolidated
alluvial aquifers of Cretaceous and
Quaternary age in the Missouri
Bootheel aquifer). The wells are
sampled every 3 years for a large list
of water quality constituents and
will be tested more frequently as
cities begin meeting monitoring
requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
For many years, the State has
also provided free bacterial and
nitrate testing for many private wells
statewide. Since 1986, special stud-
ies by the USGS, the Missouri
Department of Health, and other
studies by the University of Missouri
and the Department of Natural
Resources have sampled several
hundred private wells for pesticides
and nitrates, giving an excellent
profile of farm chemical levels in
private wells in agricultural areas of
the State.
In addition to drinking water
wells, a number of monitoring wells,
usually associated with the cleanup
of surface or ground water contami-
nation sites, are used to define
and characterize ground water
problems.
New Jersey
The prevalence of naturally
occurring radionuclides in the rock
formations in several areas of New
Jersey has prompted a number of
regional studies of well water. In
1987, 389 wells tapping crystalline
rock aquifers in the Reading Prong
and Newark Basin areas were moni-
tored for radionuclides. In the Read-
ing Prong area, radon levels in well
water ranged from 36 to 24,000
picocuries per liter (pCi/L), and
approximately 5% of the wells
sampled were found to have radon
levels that exceeded 10,000 pCi/L.
In the Newark Basin area, radon
levels in well water ranged from
approximately 70 to 16,000 pCi/L,
with the highest concentrations of
radionuclides found in wells tapping
a narrow uranium-rich layer of the
aquifer. A 1990 study of the Kirk-
wood-Cohansey aquifer in the
southern New Jersey Coastal Plain
has also revealed the presence of
radionuclides in well water. Prelimi-
nary findings indicate that 26% of
the 82 wells sampled exceeded the
health standards for radium.
In a study to determine whether
agricultural chemicals have adversely
affected ground water quality, 120
domestic, irrigation, and public
water supply wells were sampled in
10 Coastal Plain counties. Residues
of 22 pesticides and 3 pesticide
metabolites were detected in these
wells, and dissolved nitrate concen-
trations were found to exceed
health standards in 24% of the wells
sampled. In another study, the
effects of heavy ground water
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 77
withdrawals from the New jersey
Coastal Plain aquifer system and a
buried valley aquifer system in the
Central Passaic River basin were
evaluated. Investigations have
revealed the increased potential for
saltwater intrusion in several areas of
the New Jersey Coastal Plain and
the decrease in the quantity of avail-
able potable ground water supplies.
A three-dimensional computer
model is being used to help predict
the response of the Central Passaic
River aquifer system to future
ground water withdrawals.
New Mexico
Ground water quality is of para-
mount concern in New Mexico,
since approximately 88% of the
population of the State relies on
ground water for their drinking
water supplies. The State maintains
a comprehensive monitoring pro-
gram for both community and non-
community water systems that rely
on ground water. The 495 noncom-
munity systems in New Mexico are
sampled every 4 years to monitor
the levels of nitrates. In addition,
the 596 community ground water
systems are sampled every 3 years
for nitrates, fluoride, and trace ele-
ments and every 4 years for radio-
logical parameters. Some systems
located in vulnerable areas are also
sampled every 3 to 5 years for a
suite of 59 potential contaminants.
New Mexico also sponsors an
outreach program to benefit private
well owners. The State organizes
water fairs where citizens may bring
samples from private wells for free
testing in a mobile laboratory. The
State maintains a database of test
results and conducts followup
testing of wells that exceed levels of
concern for detected contaminants.
In addition, the State maintains an
inventory of all known instances of
ground water contamination. The
inventory covers contamination
incidents dating from 1927 to the
present. A total of 177 public water
supply wells and 1,465 private wells
have been affected by the 1,745
incidents of contamination recorded
through early 1992. Most of the
affected public water supply wells
have been removed from use, and
some level of remediation has been
undertaken or is planned in 149 of
the other contamination incidents.
-------
; T it ill ,! !!m,!i,!!!: iiiliEilijii JKihullSin
I1:,! it ISiil'S 3MM UlflMHIFlM iilH^^
iWflJIlfilSf^ftV'l^^Witi
Hill Ill Ill: iff' i IK II I'M,! llflliit lil ill Illtilili Jllli-ilil II
Are Pesticides Affecting
Ground Water Quality?
Findings of the National Survey
of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells I
The National Survey of Pesti-
cides in Drinking Water Wells was a
joint project of EPA's Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water
(OGWDW) and Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP). It was the first
national study of pesticides, pesti-
cide degradates, and nitrates in
drinking water wells. Information on
the construction of rural domestic
and community supply wells was
also collected. The study was de-
signed with two principal objectives:
To determine the frequency of
occurrence and concentration of
pesticides and nitrates in drinking
water wells nationally
To relate the occurrence of
pesticides and nitrates in drinking
water wells to agronomic and
hydrogeologic factors.
It is estimated that approxi-
mately 10,500,000 rural domestic
wells (RDWs) and 94,600 commu-
nity water system (CWS) wells
supply drinking water in the United
States. Approximately 1 % of these
wells may exceed a health-based
limit for at least one pesticide.
EPA estimates that about 10%
of CWS wells contain detectable
levels of one or more pesticides,
and approximately 7% of these
wells may exceed an established
maximum contaminant level (MCL)
or health advisory for the detected
contaminant. In contrast, it was
. estimated that about 4% of RDWs
may contain detectable levels of one
or more pesticides, with approxi-
mately 28% of these wells exceed-
ing a health-based limit. Approxi-
mately 150,000 people obtain water
from RDWs that exceed health-
based levels for at least one pesti-
cide.
In the survey, the most
frequently detected pesticide was a
metabolite of dacthal, an herbicide
primarily used on turf. The dacthal
metabolite was generally detected
at concentrations below the health-
based action level. The only pesti-
cides detected at concentrations
that exceeded action levels were
alachlor, atrazine, 1,2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane (DBCP), ethylene
dibromide (EDB), and lindane. ,
Alachlor and atrazine are herbicides,
DBCP and EDB are nematocides,
and lindane is an insecticide.
EPA concluded that the overall
chance that a given drinking water
iiiiif11,,11'l'iii'iTUti,, ti''iiii1!,1'1!""ซ''',:;
-------
t C> -5
S f I .
HIGHLIG
well has exceeded a level of concern
for a pesticide is low. However, if
pesticide residues are present in
individual wells, they are likely to be
present at high levels that pose a
health risk. In contrast, it was esti-
mated that approximately 52% of
the RDWs and 57% of CWSs con-
tain detectable levels of nitrates,
with approximately 2% of RDWs
and 1 % of CWSs exceeding the
health-based limits for nitrates.
Among the major findings of
the survey were associations
between the occurrence of pesti-
cides and nitrates in drinking water
wells and individual agronomic and
hydrogeologic factors. These find-
ings include
Detections of 1,2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane (DBCP) acid metab-
olites were related to the rate of
DCPA use by urban applicators and
golf courses.
At the county level, the concen-
trations of nitrates in wells was posi-
tively correlated with the amount of
fertilizer sold in that county.
Detections of nitrates were less
likely in areas with high levels of
precipitation.
Shallow water wells were corre-
lated with more frequent detections
of pesticides and nitrates.
Older wells were correlated with
more frequent detections of pesti-
cides and nitrates.
In conclusion, EPA recommends
that well owners who know or
suspect that their well is affected by
pesticides or nitrates have the water
tested. Because of the many factors
that may influence the contamina-
tion of drinking water wells, EPA
recommends an approach that
focuses on pollution prevention.
Among the steps that should be
considered to protect the Nation's
ground water resources are appro-
priate applications of pesticides and
fertilizers, site-specific assessments to
accurately target vulnerable ground
water supplies/identification and
protection of ground water recharge
areas and wellhead areas, more
careful use of flood irrigation, and
continued efforts to identify prob-
lem pesticides.
*A r ,T3*w^tjr"i \j
"*ฃ$. t,
<, f. v,ซ
>' * ,. ^^ ^"f
^~*
'
-------
80 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
Oklahoma
In 1983, the State established a
ground water quality monitoring
network covering 21 major ground
water basins in Oklahoma. This net-
work provides information on ambi-
ent ground water quality in the
State. The monitoring network is
being used to characterize the cur-
rent status of the State's ground
water resources and to identify
changes in ground water quality
over time. The accuracy of well loca-
tion and completion information has
been evaluated for all wells included
in the monitoring network, and a
vulnerability assessment was com-
pleted for each network well in
1989. In 1990, an additional 224
domestic, irrigation, stock, and mu-
nicipal water wells were included in
the network. The ground water
quality monitoring network is
sampled annually.
Public drinking water wells are
routinely monitored for nitrates,
bacteria, VOCs, and other drinking
water parameters. The State main-
tains a database of MCL violations
for these wells that includes the
name and county of the water sup-
ply system, the aquifer tapped by
the contaminated well, and the
confirmation date for each violation.
In addition, the State performs
analyses of private water supplies at
the request of private citizens. The
State has also undertaken a 3-year
sampling project to identify private
drinking water wells at risk from
agricultural contamination. The
project is scheduled to be com-
pleted in 1994 and will address a
total of 200 sites.
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 81
-------
-------
Public Health and
Aquatic Life Concerns
Water pollution threatens public
health by contaminating seafood,
drinking water supplies, and recre-
ational waters with toxic substances
as well as pathogenic viruses and
bacteria, which cause disease.
Aquatic organisms tolerate most
bacteria and viruses pathogenic to
humans, but many aquatic organ-
isms are more sensitive to toxic
substances than humans are.
Aquatic organisms also suffer if
chemical and physical conditions
exceed an acceptable range. Impor-
tant chemical and physical condi-
tions include acidity, dissolved
oxygen concentration, and
temperature.
Public Health
Concerns
Toxic Pollutants
Health officials link waterborne
toxic pollutants, such as mercury,
dioxin, PCBs, and some pesticides
with human birth defects, cancer,
neurological disorders, and kidney
ailments. Once discharged to sur-
face waters, these toxicants persist
in the sediments and contaminate
the food chain and the overlying
water. Waterborne toxicants can
enter human systems via ingestion
of contaminated fish, shellfish, or
drinking water supplies. Swimmers
may also swallow toxic substances
or absorb toxic pollutants through
skin exposure in contaminated rec-
reational waters. Fish and shellfish
contamination usually poses a
greater human health risk than does
contaminated drinking water or
recreational waters because fish and
shellfish concentrate many toxic
substances in their tissues. As a
result, the concentration of toxicants
within fish and shellfish tissues may
be one million times the concentra-
tion of toxicants in the surrounding
waters.
Fish Consumption
Advisories
States issue fish consump-
tion advisories to protect the
public from ingesting harmful
quantities of toxic pollutants in
contaminated fish and shellfish.
In general, advisories recom-
mend that the public limit the
quantity and frequency of fish
consumption from specific
waterbodies. The States tailor
individual advisories to minimize
health risks based on contaminant
data collected in their fish tissue
sampling programs. Advisories may
completely ban fish consumption in
severely polluted waters or limit fish
consumption to several meals per
month or year in cases of less severe-
contamination. Advisories may tar-
get a subpopulation at risk (such as
children, pregnant women, or
NO
FISHING
-------
84 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Figure 7-1
Fish Consumption Advisories in the United States
"OPR
o
^=a American Samoa
Number of Advisories in Effect (1993)
0
1-10
11-25
26-50
51-100
>100
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.
Based on data contained in the EPA Fish Consumption Advisory Database as of September
1993 (see Appendix E, Table E-1, for individual State data).
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 85
nursing mothers), specific fish spe-
cies that concentrate toxic pollut-
ants 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 fish
and shellfish by counting the total
number of waterbodies with con-
sumption advisories in effect. For
this year's Report to Congress, EPA
used information from its new Fish
Consumption Advisory Database to
tabulate the number of State advi-
sories. EPA built the database to
centralize fish consumption advisory
information separately maintained in
various State agencies and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
The 1993 EPA Fish Consump-
tion Advisory Database listed 1,279
advisories in effect in 47 States (Fig-
ure 7-1). The database counts one
advisory per waterbody, regardless
of the number of species affected
and the number of toxic pollutants
detected at dangerous concentra-
tions in fish sampled within a
waterbody (see Appendix E, Table
E-1, for individual State data).
EPA cannot identify States with
a high proportion of toxic contami-
nation based solely on the number
of fish consumption advisories
issued by each State. National statis-
tics on advisories are difficult to
interpret because the intensity and
coverage of State monitoring pro-
grams vary widely from State to
State. Simply comparing the total
number of fish advisories in each
State unfairly penalizes States with
superior toxicants monitoring pro-
grams that often use strict criteria
for issuing consumption warnings.
The EPA has advocated consistent
criteria and methods for issuing fish
consumption advisories in several
publications released from 1991 to
1993 (see sidebar, page 89).
Mercury, PCBs, chlordane,
dioxins, and DDT (with its
byproducts) caused more than
93% of the fish consumption
advisories in 1993 (Figure 7-2).
EPA and the States have banned or
restricted the use of PCBs, chlor-
dane, and DDT for over a decade,
yet these organochlorine com-
pounds persist in the sediments and
still threaten public health.
Because some fish species
migrate considerable distances, it is
often difficult to identify sources of
pollutants causing fish consumption
advisories. Migratory fish may be
exposed to toxic pollutants in the
sediments and water column or
may ingest toxic contaminants con-
centrated in prey miles from the
sampling areas where they are col-
lected. In this reporting period, only
Figure 7-2
93%
of advisories were
caused by mercury,
PCBs, chlordane,
dioxins, and DDT
and its byproducts.
Pollutants Causing Fish Consumption Advisories
Pollutants
Mercury
f DDT/DDD/DDE I
_L
_L
Number of
Advisories
899
319
96
59
29
I
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Number of Advisories Issued for Each Pollutant
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-2.
-------
I11 It ll ;
I i H If
HT HIGHLIGHT
111 Illiil Id 1 11 IK ' Ill I I lil II Ill
iilHiW^ I! I
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
!
1111111 in inn in ilii i ii nil inn nun i n iiiiniliiiiiiiiiiiiiniinniiiiiiiiiiiiniiininn ilnn
|i|||||||liilllllllli 11 III VIM Illiil ill IVI III P IIP illllllllllllllllllWlill I Illlllll lilllil
!K
The National Study of Chemical
Residues in Rsh (NSCRF)
This study, formerly called the
National Bioaccumulation Study,
was a one-time screening study
undertaken by EPA to determine the
prevalence of selected bioaccumu-
lative pollutants in fish and identify
sources of these pollutants. The
NSCRF study began in 1986 as an
outgrowth of the EPA's National
Dioxin Study, a nationwide investi-
gation of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) contamina-
tion in soil, water, sediment, air, and
fish. Some of the highest concentra-
tions of 2,3,7,8-TCDD detected in
the National Dioxin Study were
found in fish tissue. EPA's concern
that there may be other toxic pollut-
ants bioaccumulating in fish that
may pose a risk to human health
was the primary reason for conduct-
ing the NSCRF. Additionally, this
study was conducted in response to
a petition from the Environmental
Defense Fund and the National
Wildlife Federation in which EPA
committed to conducting a fish
contaminant monitoring survey of
the occurrence of chlorinated
dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans.
Fish and other aquatic biota serve as
sentinels that indicate whether
substances are bioaccumulating and
that signal acutely toxic conditions
and stresses, such as sublethal
toxicity, particularly due to inter-
actions among chemicals.
Toxic pollutants were selected
for analysis in the NSCRF based
on their
potential to bioaccumulate in fish
potential for causing human
health effects
persistence in the environment
detectability in fish tissue.
An initial list of 403 pollutants
was screened, resulting in a final list
of 60 compounds. These com-
pounds included 15 dioxins and
furans, 10 polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), 21 pesticides/herbicides,
mercury, biphenyl, and 12 other
organic compounds.
Three to five adult fish of the
same species and of similar size
were collected at each site. At most
locations, both a composite sample
of a bottom-feeding fish species
(e.g., carp, channel catfish, white
sucker) and a composite sample of
a predatory gamefish (e.g., walleye,
largemouth bass, smallmouth bass)
were collected. Although 119
-------
~*
fit HIGHLIGHT
different finfish species were col-
lected, most of the fish belonged to
only 14 different species.
Fish were collected at a total of
388 unique sites throughout the
United States selected by EPA
Regional and State staff. The types
of sites sampled included 315
targeted sites near potential point
or nonpoint sources of pollution
where contamination of fish was
suspected, 34 back-
ground sites where
chemical contamination
was not anticipated,
and 39 sites that were
a subset of sites from
the United States Geo-
logic Survey NASQAN
network (see map).
Target sites were
selected based on
proximity to potential
sources. Fish and other
aquatic biota were
sampled near industrial
discharges, urban areas,
or areas receiving agri-
cultural runoff. The
number of sites was
not allocated equally
among types of
sources. Some of the
targeted sites were
selected based on
potential chlorinated dioxin and
furan contamination. These sites
included areas near pulp and paper
mills using chlorine to bleach pulp,
wood preservative facilities, users of
polychlorinated phenols and phe-
noxides, PCB dischargers, organic
chemical and pesticide manufactur-
ers, and combustion sources (sew-
age sludge and municipal refuse
&ivx?a< r
Location of Bioaccumulation Study
Sampling Sites
-------
incinerators). More sites with poten-
tial dioxin/furan contamination
were selected than any other
chemical groups to follow up on
results of the National Dioxin
Study.
Fish samples were analyzed at
the EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory (ERL) in Duluth, Minne-
sota. In general, the bottom-feed-
ing species were analyzed as
whole-body samples to determine
the occurrence of the study
chemicals and the gamefish were
analyzed as fillets to indicate the
potential risks to human health
from fish consumption.
The study revealed that seven
dioxins/furans/congeners were
detected in samples from more
than 50% of the sites surveyed.*
Pulp and paper mills using a
chlorine-bleaching process were
identified as the dominant source
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8,-
tetrachloro-dibenzofuran (2,3,7,8-
TCDF). Statistical correlation
analyses were less definitive for the
other dioxins/furans in that results
showed no dominant source for
any of these chemicals.
The study also showed that
six pesticides, PCBs, three other
industrial organic chemicals, and
mercury were detected at more
than 50% of the sites surveyed.
Results for the other 45 chemicals
studied showed no single domi-
nant source for any of these
chemicals. Although these com-
pounds showed no dominant
source, a number of observations
can be made from review of the
data. Two such observations
involve pesticides and PCBs. A
comparison of 15 agricultural and
20 background sites for 10 of the
pesticides evaluated showed no
significant differences between
these categories. This same com-
parison for four other pesticides
(DDE, nonachlor, chlordane, and
lindane) showed that fish contami-
nation levels were significantly
higher at sites near agricultural
sources. The median PCB concen-
tration for the 20 background sites
was below detection (1.25 to 6.25
parts per billion depending on the
degree of chlorination) compared
with values of 213 to 525 parts
per billion for industrial/urban
sites, paper mills using chlorine,
refinery/other industry sites,
nonchlorine paper mills, and
Superfund sites.
"The presence of pollutants alone does not mean that risk does or does not exist at
the site. EPA is currently reassessing the health effects associated with dioxins and
furans and, as a consequence, has not yet evaluated the relative health and environ-
mental risks associated with these pollutants.
gil
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 89
23 States identified specific sources
of toxicants causing less than 11 %
of the reported fish consumption
advisories (Figure 7-3). These States
attributed fishing restrictions to
industrial discharges, agriculture,
urban runoff, storm sewers, resource
extraction, natural conditions, and
atmospheric deposition (see Appen-
dix E, Table E-3, for individual State
data).
At this time, EPA cannot detect
trends in toxic contamination of fish
and shellfish because the States
have not established a baseline.
inventory of advisories and the con-
taminant levels that trigger adviso-
ries may vary from State to State.
The States inevitably issue new advi-
sories as they sample more sites and
identify toxic contamination that
previously went undetected.
Drinking Water
Restrictions
Four States reported cases of
surface drinking water supply
closures and advisories due to
priority pollutant chemicals, oil, and
cyanide (see Appendix E, Table E-4,
for individual State data). Chemical
plant spills, an oil spill at a power
plant, and priority pollutants from
hazardous waste disposal sites
caused the closures.
Recreational Restrictions
Three States listed contact
recreation restrictions (such as
beach closures) due to toxics.
Tennessee closed two sites where
toxicants were detected in the
sediment and water column. Ohio
restricted access to seven
recreational sites with elevated
concentrations of PCBs, dioxin,
EPA Publications About Fish Consumption Advisories
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Dyta for Use in Fish
Advisories. Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis. 1993. EPA 823/R-93-
002. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
Proceedings from National Workshop on PCBs in-Fish Tissue, May 11-12,
1993. In preparation, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Volume 1.1992. EPA 823/
R-92-008a. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Volume 2. ,1992. EPA 823/
R-92-008b. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
Consumption Surveys for Fish and Shellfish: A Review and Analysis of
Survey Methods. EPA 822/R-92-004. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Near Coastal
Program Laboratory Methods for Filleting and Compositing Fish for Organic
and Inorganic Contaminant Analyses. 1991, Draft. Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, Rl.
Figure 7-3
Sources of Contaminants Causing
Fishing Advisories
(23 States Reporting)*
Sources
Industrial
Discharges
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Resource
Extraction
Natural
Atmospheric
Deposition
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Advisories Attributed to Each Source
Number of
Advisories
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-3.
*Only 23 States reported sources of contaminants causing less than 11% of the 1,279 fish
consumption advisories reported nationwide.
-------
90 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
mirex, chlordane, and polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Louisiana reported that abandoned
hazardous waste sites impacted
recreational waters (see Appendix E,
Table E-5, for individual State data).
Bacterial and Viral
Contamination
Waterborne viral and bacterial
pollutants may also cause serious
1 Table 7-1. Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions Reported
by the States ;
State
Alabama
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Louisiana9
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Number of
Waterbodies
with Restrictions
4
0
17
17
2
1
6
258
33
11
67
8
48
86
25
69
652
Area Affected
. (sq. miles)
373
0
122
42
6
86
297
188
605
19
306
59
56
53
304
663
276
3,455
* Louisiana reports three permanent closures due to potential pollution
from industry, but does not report the number of waterbodies
periodically closed by other sources.
Source: 1992 State Section 305 (b) reports.
Not reported.
human illness and death. People
can contract infectious hepatitis,
gastroenteritis, dysentery, and
cholera from waters receiving inad-
equately treated sewage. Bacteria
and viruses may enter human sys-
tems through contact with contami-
nated swimming and bathing
waters or through ingestion of
contaminated drinking water or
shellfish.
Shellfish Contamination
Contaminated shellfish pose a
public health risk particularly to
those who consume raw shellfish.
Shellfish, such as oysters, clams, and
mussels, extract their food (plank-
ton) by filtering water over their
gills. In contaminated waters, shell-
fish accumulate bacteria and viruses
on their gills and mantle and within
their digestive systems. If shellfish
grown in contaminated waters are
not cooked properly, consumers
may ingest live bacteria and viruses.
To protect public health, coastal
States routinely monitor shellfish
harvesting areas for bacterial con-
tamination and restrict shellfish har-
vests in contaminated waters. Most
often, States measure concentrations
of fecal coliform bacteria such as
Enterococcus or Escherichia coll,
which are nonpathogenic bacteria
that populate human digestive sys-
tems and waste products. Their
presence in water samples is an
indicator of sewage contamination
that may pose a human health risk
from pathogenic viruses and bacte-
ria. Fecal coliforms, however, may
exceed criteria even when no
human sewage is present because
birds and nonhuman mammals also
excrete them.
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 91
States issue several types of
shellfish harvesting restrictions:
Prohibited Waters violate criteria
consistently; therefore, shellfish
cannot be harvested at any time.
Restricted Waters may be har-
vested if the shellfish are transferred
to clean waters to reduce concen-
trations of bacteria.
Conditionally Approved Waters
temporarily exceed bacteriological
criteria following predictable events
(such as a storm). Shellfish from .
these waters may be harvested
when criteria are met.
Nineteen of the 29 coastal
States and Territories provided infor-
mation on shellfish harvesting
restrictions in their 1992 Section
305(b) reports (Table 7-1). Eighteen
of these States prohibit, restrict, or
conditionally approve shellfish har-
vesting in more than 3,455 square
miles of estuarine waters. Maine and
Delaware reported 275 harvesting
restrictions but did not report the
size of their estuaries affected by the
restrictions.
Only nine States identified spe-
cific sources contaminating shellfish
waters with pathogens (Figure 7-4).
These States cited urban runoff and
storm sewers as the source of 143
shellfish harvesting restrictions (see
Appendix E, Table E-6, for individual
State information). Municipal dis-
charges caused bacterial contamina-
tion at 60 sites, marinas impacted
51 sites, and industrial discharges
affected 40 sites.
The ERA cannot draw firm
national conclusions from shellfish
restriction data because the States
issue shellfish harvesting restrictions
based on varying bacteriological
criteria. The quality of State shellfish
monitoring programs also, varies.
Therefore, States with strict bacterio-
logical criteria and progressive
monitoring programs appear to
have more polluted estuarine waters
than other States that may monitor
less vigorously or use less stringent
criteria.
Drinking Water
Restrictions <
Pathogens seldom cause com-
plete closures of drinking water
supplies because disinfection proce-
dures (such as chlorination or boil-
ing) usually eliminate pathogenic
contamination. In most cases of
bacterial contamination, water offi-
cials temporarily advise consumers
to boil or chemically treat their
drinking water rather than to stop
consumption.
Only six States and Puerto Rico
reported drinking water restrictions
Figure 7-4
States
cited urban runoff
and storm sewers as
the leading source of
shellfish restrictions
Sources Associated with Shellfish
Harvesting Restrictions
(9 States Reporting)
Pollution Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Discharges
Marinas
Industrial Discharges
Other Point Sources
Septic Tanks
CSOs
L
J_
_L
_L
_L
Total
143
60
51
40
38
24
, 6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Number of Restrictions
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-6.
-------
92 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
36 States
provided informa-
tion on recreation
restrictions.
caused by pathogens (see Appendix
E, Table E-4, for individual State
information). These States and
Puerto Rico blamed drinking water
treatment plant malfunctions and
raw sewage discharges for elevating
bacterial concentrations above safe
drinking water standards.
Recreational Restrictions
Pathogenic indicators cause
most contact recreation restrictions,
such as beach closures (Figure 7-5).
Thirty-six States provided informa-
tion on 371 recreation restrictions
(see Appendix E, Table E-5, for indi-
vidual State data). Twenty-five of
these States restricted recreational
activities in 294 cases because bac-
teria concentrations exceeded public
health criteria. Only three States
Figure 7-5
Pollutants Causing Recreational Restrictions
(36 States Reporting)
Pollutants
Pathogenic
Indicators and
Bacteria
Unspecified
Toxic
Contaminants
I
Total
294
66
10
Medical Waste
L
j_
I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Number of Restrictions Attributed to Each Pollutant
reported recreational restrictions due
to toxics and only one State (New
Mexico) reported a recreational
closure due to medical waste on the
shores of a reservoir. Six States
reported that they did not restrict
activities at any recreational sites
during the 1991 -1992 reporting
cycle.
Aquatic Ecosystem
Concerns
Toxic Pollutants
Many indigenous aquatic organ-
isms are more sensitive than hu-
mans to toxic pollutants. In severe
cases of contamination, toxicants
destroy the aquatic ecosystem; in
less severe cases, toxicants alter the
species composition in aquatic eco-
systems. The aquatic system deterio-
rates as toxic contaminants poison
aquatic organisms (including fish,
shellfish, benthic bottom-dwelling
organisms, and plants), increase
their susceptiblility to disease, inter-
fere with their reproduction, or
reduce the viability of their young.
Toxic pollutants also disrupt the
chemical and physical balance in an
aquatic ecosystem and indirectly
cause mortality.
Aquatic toxicants fall into four
broad categories:
Metals (such as copper, cad-
mium, and mercury)
Priority organic chemicals, includ-
ing pesticides and numerous sol-
vents (such as toluene and benzene)
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-5.
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 93
Other petrochemical hydrocar-
bons (such as oil and grease)
Nonconventional toxics (such as
ammonia and chlorine).
Physical and Chemical
Conditions
Mortality of aquatic life from
depleted oxygen concentrations,
excessive temperatures, or high
acidity can exceed the impact of
toxic pollutants in aquatic habitats.
Organic pollutants impose a biologi-
cal oxygen demand (BOD) on
receiving waters because bacteria
consume oxygen as they decom-
pose organic wastes. Nutrients also
may indirectly deplete oxygen con-
centrations by feeding algal blooms.
Acidity (the concentration of
hydrogen ions) drives many chemi-
cal reactions in living organisms.
The standard measure of acidity is
pH, and a pH value of 7 represents
a neutral condition. A low pH value
(less than 5) indicates acidic condi-
tions; a high pH value (greater than
9) indicates alkaline conditions.
Many biological processes (such as
reproduction) cannot function in
either acidic or alkaline waters. High
acidity also aggravates toxic
contamination problems because
sediments release toxicants in acidic
waters. Common sources of acidity
include mine drainage, runoff from
mine tailings, and atmospheric
deposition.
Fish Kills Caused
by Pollution
The number of fish kills provides
a limited picture of pollutant
impacts on aquatic life. In general,
fish kill data track sporadic pollution
events (such as chemical spills)
rather than chronic pollution prob-
lems. Data collection methods also
bias the data toward identifying kills
in populated areas because most
States acquire leads on fish kills
from the public (such as anglers,
hikers, and boaters). Fish kills in
remote areas may go undetected
and unreported.
Forty-three States reported that
pollution caused 930 fish kills during
1990 and 1991 (Figure 7-6). More
than 5 million fish died during these
events (see Appendix E, Table E-7,
Causes of Pollution-Related Fish Kills
(43 States Reporting)
Unknown or
Unspecified
39%
Habitat
Modifications
3%
Toxic Pollutants
26%
Conventional
Pollutants
32%
Based on data contained in Appendix E,
Table E-7.
pH
Neutral
i
3 4
- Acid -
10 11
- Alkaline
12 13 14
Most aquatic organisms cannot live outside
a pH range of 5-9.
-------
94 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
for individual State data). Toxic
pollutants (including ammonia and
chlorine) caused 26% of these fish
kills. Conventional pollutants (in-
cluding BOD, pH, suspended solids,
temperature, and oil and grease)
caused 32% of the reported fish
kills, and habitat modification
caused 3% of the reported fish kills.
The States could not determine the
cause of 39% of the fish kills. Fish
kill investigations often fail to iden-
tify causes and sources because
currents can carry dead fish down-
stream from the pollutant source
before the kill is observed.
In some cases, toxicants trigger
conventional pollutant impacts. For
example, Florida reported that her-
bicide applications, in conjunction
with high temperatures and heavy
rainfall, depressed oxygen concen-
trations and suffocated over 45,000
fish in Lake Rousseau. The toxic
herbicide caused heavy die-off of
aquatic weeds, and bacteria de-
pleted oxygen concentrations as
they decomposed the dead weeds.
Thirty-nine States identified
specific pollutants causing fish kills.
These States attributed most fish
kills to BOD and depressed oxygen
Figure 7-6
Number of Fish Kills Nationwide
0 or Not Reported
1-10
11-30
31-70
>70
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-7.
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 95
concentrations, pesticides, and a
combination of manure and silage
(Figure 7-7 and Appendix E, Table
E-8). Manure and silage contain
ammonia, which is lethal to fish,
and organic substances, which
increase biological oxygen demand.
Thirty-seven States listed
sources of pollutants causing fish
kills (Figure 7-8). Natural sources
(such as high temperatures) caused
the greatest number of fish kills,
followed by agriculture, industrial
discharges, municipal discharges,
other spills (such as trucks), and
pesticide applications (Appendix E,
Table E-9). Pesticide applications
include intentional algicide and
herbicide applications on lakes to
control algae and weeds.
Sediment
Contamination
Most waterborne toxic pollut-
ants settle to the bottom and bind
to sediments or organic material or
remain in solution in the interstitial
water between the sediment par-
ticles. Bacteria degrade some
toxicants in sediments, but many
toxic contaminants (such as metals)
persist in sediments for many years
after the original toxic source has
been eliminated. Contaminated
sediments may reintroduce toxi-
cants into the water column for
decades.
Dredging contaminated sedi-
ments may also reintroduce toxi-
cants into the water column and
food web. Due to these impacts,
sediment contamination can
obstruct maintenance dredging of
harbors and navigation channels.
Dredge spoil disposal methods
(such as open water dumping,
spreading on "reclaimed" lands,
and diked containment areas) may
also create new aquatic life threats.
Currently, no national criteria
are in effect that define harmful
concentrations of pollutants in sedi-
ment. However, EPA released draft
sediment criteria for five pollutants
(endrin, dieldrin, phenanthrene,
fluoranthene, and acenaphthene) in
January 1994 for public comment
and plans to publish final criteria for
the five toxicants in 1995 after
responding to final comments. EPA
also intends to publish additional
sediment criteria for two or three
pollutants each year beginning in
1994 and propose methods for
deriving sediment quality criteria for
metals in 1994.
In 1992, 27 States reported
incidents of sediment contamination
in their 305(b) reports (see Appen-
dix E, Table E-10, for individual
State data). Several States preferred
not to list contaminated sites until
EPA publishes national criteria for
screening sediment data. Other
Figure 7-7
39 States
identified specific
pollutants causing
fish kills
Pollutants Associated with Fish Kills
(39 States Reporting)
Pollutants
BOD/DO ^^^^^Jj^^^^H
Pesticides
Manure/Silage
Oil and Gas
Chlorine
Ammonia
Temperature IB1
Total
221
96
69
58
41
30
23
0 50 100 150
Number of Fish Kills
200
250
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-8.
-------
96 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
States lack the analytical tools and
resources to conduct extensive
sediment sampling and analysis.
Therefore, the following discussion
probably understates the extent of
sediment contamination in the
Nation's surface waters.
Twenty-seven States listed 770
separate sites with contaminated
sediments and identified pollutants
detected in sediments. These States
Figure 7-8
Sources Associated with Fish Kills
(37 States Reporting)
Pollution Sources
Natural Sources
Agriculture
Industrial Discharges
Municipal Discharges
Other Spills
Pesticide Applications
Hydromodification/
Low Flows
Total
188
157
102
69
45
32
31
50 100 150 200
Number of Fish Kills
250
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-9.
A 1989 National Academy of Sciences Report on contaminated marine
sediments concluded that the effects of sediment contamination are poten-
tially far-reaching. This reportfound that contamination of marine sedi-
ments poses a potential threat to marine resources and human health
(through consumption of seafood) in numerous sites around the country -
particularly near metropolitan areas.
Source: Contaminated Marine Sediments - Assessment and Remediation,
Committee on Contaminated Marine Sediments, Marine Board, Commis-
sion on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council,
National Academy Press, 1989.
most frequently listed metals (e.g.,
mercury, cadmium, and zinc), PCBs,
DDT (and its byproducts), chlor-
dane, and priority organics. These
States also identified industrial and
municipal discharges (past and
present), landfills, resource extrac-
tion, abandoned hazardous waste
disposal sites, and combined sewer
overflows as the primary sources of
sediment contamination.
EPA is developing the following
guidance and information sources
to provide States with better tools
for assessing and managing sedi-
ment contamination:
A compendium of sediment
assessment methods (Fall 1992)
Sediment criteria for toxicants
(beginning in 1993)
National Inventory of Sediment
Contaminant Sources (Spring 1993)
Sediment Remediation Methods
(Spring 1993)
EPA's Sediment Management
Strategy will focus the Agency's
resources on preventing, remediat-
ing, and managing disposal of
dredged contaminated sediments
(Spring 1993)
A testing manual for evaluating
sediment disposal in inland waters
under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (Fall 1993)
Guidance documents describing
methods for conducting acute toxic-
ity tests, chronic toxicity tests, and
bioaccumulation tests for sediments
(Fall 1993)
A national database of contami-
nated sediment sites (late 1993)
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 97
Methods for deriving sediment
quality criteria for heavy metals
(late 1993).
Total Waters Affected
by Toxic Pollutants
Responding to public concern
about toxic pollutants, EPA
requested that States track the over-
all extent of toxic contamination in
their surface waters. Forty-eight
States reported the size of waters
monitored for toxicants (either in
the water column, sediments, or
aquatic organisms) and the total
waters found to contain elevated
concentrations of toxic pollutants
(see Figure 7-9 and Appendix E,
Table E-l 1, for individual State
data).
Figure 7-9
Forty-six States reported that
they monitored toxicants (primarily
in the water column) in almost
600,000 miles of rivers and streams.
These States monitored 17% of the
Nation's 3.5 million river miles for
toxic contamination. The States
detected elevated concentrations of
toxicants in only 8% of the moni-
tored rivers and streams (Figure
7-10).
Forty-two States reported that
they sampled toxicants in almost 10
million acres of lakes, reservoirs, and
ponds. The monitored acres repre-
sent 25% of the Nation's 40 million
lake acres. The States found ele-
vated concentrations of toxicants in
43% of the sampled lake acres.
Eighteen coastal States sampled
toxicants in 20% of the Nation's
estuarine waters. These States de-
tected elevated toxic concentrations
Waters Monitored for Toxic Contamination
Rivers and
Streams
Lakes
Great Lakes
Estuaries
Ocean Shore3
Total
17
25
99
20
I
L
J_
_L
_L
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Total Waters Monitored for Toxic Contamination
The results do not
describe the extent of
toxic contamination in
all waters across the
'^Nation because most
', toxic pollutants are
>' found in the sediment
'; and food chain, not in
'** the water column.
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-11.
'Excluding the Alaska shoreline.
-------
98 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
River miles monitered: 600,000
Total river miles: 3.5 million
Lake acres monitored: 10 million
Total lake acres: 39,950,000
Estuarine waters monitored: 7,307
square miles
Total estuarine waters: 36,000 square
miles
Great Lakes miles monitored: 5,319
Total Great Lakes shore miles: 5,382
Ocean shore miles monitored: 506
Total ocean shore miles: 20,121
(excluding Alaska)
in 13% of the 7,307 square miles of
estuarine waters that they sampled.
Only six States reportedly moni-
tored toxicants in coastal waters.
These States found elevated concen-
trations of toxicants in 57% of the
sampled coastline, but this informa-
tion cannot be applied nationally
because the States monitored less
than 3% of the Nation's coastal
waters (excluding the Alaska
shoreline).
Figure 7-10
Seven States reported that they
monitored all of their Great Lakes'
shoreline for toxicants (primarily in
fish tissue samples) and detected
elevated toxicants in 98% of the
shoreline. Three States reported that
they monitored toxicants in
167,178 acres of wetlands (less than
one-tenth of 1 %) of the Nation's
wetlands. The States identified el-
evated concentrations of toxicants
in 63% of the monitored wetlands.
Percent of Monitored Waters
with Toxic Contamination
Rivers and
Streams
Lakes
Great Lakes
Estuaries
Ocean
Shore
Total
8
43
98
13
57
J_
I
J
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Monitored Waters with Toxic Contamination
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-l 1.
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 99
-------
jt 1 " \ -
1 fe V
-------
Individual State Summaries
This section provides individual
summaries of the data reported by
the States, Territories, Interstate
Water Basin Commissions, District of
Columbia, and Gila River Indian
Community in their 1992 Section
305 (b) water quality assessments.
Variation among States in how
these data are generated result from
differences in pollution problems,
monitoring priorities, and water
quality criteria. Each State does not
use the same method to measure
use support and, in many instances,
the standards against which use
support is measured are different.
Regional patterns of pollution also
affect the data generated. In addi-
tion, some States have the funds for
more sophisticated monitoring tech-
niques while other States must rely
on more conventional methods to
identify pollutants of concern.
However, progress is being
made in introducing consistency in
assessment approaches to the
305(b) reporting process. In addi-
tion, statistically valid information
on water quality status and trends
in the Nation's waters will be col-
lected in coming years by scientifi-
cally designed, broad-scale monitor-
ing programs such as EMAP (see
Chapter 10).
-------
102 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Alabama
For a copy of the Alabama 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Michael J. Rief
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
Water Quality Branch
1751 Congressman W. L Dickinson
Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205)271-7829
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Agricultural runoff, municipal
point sources, industrial point
sources, and resource extraction
impair rivers and streams with nutri-
ents, siltation, organic materials,
pathogen indicators, ammonia, pes-
ticides, and metals. Industrial point
sources impair more lake acres than
any other source with priority
organics and pathogen indicators.
Pathogen indicators, primarily from
storm sewers, urban runoff, and
septic tanks, cause all of the use
support violations in estuarine
waters.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
12,292 mi
392,474 ac
343 mi2
50 mi
Fully
Supporting
72%
49%
77%
100%
Threatened
2%
30%
Partially
Supporting
18%
20%
22%
Not
Supporting
8%
1%
1%
aTotals represent 16% of river miles, 84% of lake acres, 56% of estuary square miles, and 100%
of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Alabama reduced toxic loadings
into surface waters by 57 percent
between 1989 and 1990. Additional
reductions should result since
Alabama's Department of Environ-
mental Management (ADEM)
adopted numeric standards for a
broad range of toxic pollutants in
1991. All National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits issued since adoption of the
numeric standards limit toxicant
concentrations in wastewater
discharges. (Prior to 1991, NPDES
permits primarily regulated conven-
tional pollutants, such as pH, fecal
coliforms, and oxygen-demanding
substances.)
ADEM is also initiating water-
shed projects that simultaneously
address pollutants from multiple
sources. The Bayview Lake Water-
shed Project, for example, employs
artificial wetlands treatment technol-
ogy to address urban runoff, acid
mine drainage from coal mine tail-
ings, and pollution from an indus-
trial landfill.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
ADEM is assessing habitats and
resident biota at several candidate
streams in order to establish refer-
ence sites for future biological moni-
toring.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 103
Alaska
For a copy of the Alaska 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Earl Hubbard
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
410 Willoughby Street - Suite 105
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
(907) 465-2653
1992 Water Qualify Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Urban runoff is the major source
of impaired rivers and streams, fol-
lowed by placer mining, petroleum
products, and sources of sewage.
Urban development is also the major
source of pollution in 26 impaired
lakes, followed by fuel and chemical
leaks and spills, septic system fail-
ures, erosion, and agricultural
sources of pesticides, fertilizers, and
animal wastes. The State attributes
impairments at 34 estuaries to har-
bor activities, urban development,
oil and gas development, transporta-
tion, industrial sources, municipal
sewage treatment plants, and silvi-
cultural activities. Gas and oil devel-
opment on the Kenai Peninsula and
the North Slope have also impaired
wetlands.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
4,054 mi
Fully
Supporting
29%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
32%
Not
Supporting
39%
aTotals represent 1 % of river miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Alaska's Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) program will address
pulp mills, the seafood processing
industry, placer mining, timber har-
vesting, and urban runoff sources.
The Alaska Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (ADEC) re-
ceived $120,000 in FY92 to assess
and monitor activities in support of
the TMDL program. The State also
intends to revise its water quality
standards to include criteria for
numerous toxic pollutants.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The State operates intensive
monitoring programs to evaluate
water quality at sites on the State's
list of impaired waters (which in-
cludes waters suspected of degrada-
tion). The State also initiated inten-
sive monitoring programs to study
the effects of placer mining, the
Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Ketchikan
Pulp Mill, and heavy metal contami-
nation in Skagway Harbor. In 1991,
ADEC established the Alaska Volun-
teer Water Watch program, and the
new State Forest Practices program
includes intensive monitoring of the
effectiveness of best management
practices implemented to control
runoff from timber activities.
-------
104 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
American Samoa
For a copy of the American Samoa
1992 305(b) report, contact:
Pat Young
Project Officer for American Samoa
US. EPA Region 9 MC E-4
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1591
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
The waters of this Territory
suffer from numerous manmade
sources of pollution including dis-
charges from tuna canneries, erosion
and surface runoff, discharges of
domestic wastewater, direct dis-
charges from ocean-going vessels,
and careless disposal of solid wastes.
Visiting vessels and local inhabitants
frequently dispose of solid wastes
directly into the harbor where tides
transport the wastes upstream.
Many villages withdraw water for
domestic use from these streams,
which frequently do not meet safe
drinking water standards. The gov-
ernment water system relies prima-
rily on ground water, which is also
at risk of contamination from failing
sewage disposal systems and animal
wastes.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
Fully
Supporting
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
Not
Supporting
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In FY90, the Territory entered
into a consent agreement with the
two canneries discharging 95 per-
cent of the nutrient load into Pago
Pago Harbor. As a result of the
agreement, the canneries imple-
mented high-strength waste segre-
gation and began discharging high
nutrient wastes and sludge at an
ocean dump site instead of into the
Harbor. Since initiation of these
changes, monthly measurements of
total nitrogen and total phosphorus
in the Harbor have decreased by as
much as 50 percent. The Territory
also initiated the Nonpoint Source
Management Program that sponsors
demonstrations of best manage-
ment practices, a Well Head Protec-
tion Program, and public education
projects. Specific projects demon-
strate soil stabilization techniques,
swine production practices that
prevent manure from contaminating
waters, and ground water protec-
tion controls.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The Territory samples water
quality monthly at 12 of the Terri-
tories' 163 streams. Shortages of
trained personnel, supplies, and
equipment limit monitoring and
analysis.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 105
Arizona
For a copy of the Arizona 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Diana Marsh
Arizona Department of Environ-
mental Quality
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 207-4545
Causes and Sources
of Water Qualify Impairments
Agriculture is the predominant
source of turbidity, sediment, and
nutrients in rivers and streams. Habi-
tat and hydrologic modification (in-
cluding channelization, dredging,
and dam construction) is also wide-
spread in Arizona and impacts all
types of waterbodies. Ground water
pollution from inorganic compounds
(i.e., nitrates, sulfates, and total
dissolved solids), pesticides, and
radiochemicals results from agricul-
tural and mining activities, while
volatile organic chemicals, petro-
leum, and microorganism contami-
nation result from leaking under-
ground storage tanks, landfills, and
poor well construction.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
IWaterbody
;lVpe; ;:>.:;;
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
, Waters ':
1 Assessed*:' -:.:.
4,461 mi
121 ,058 ac
' Fully
Supporting
18%
4%
Threateried
7%
23%
;; : Partially
v Supporting ;:
36%
72%
Not "vy.
Supporting
38%
1%
aTotals represent 3% of river miles and 94% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
Arizona's Nonpoint Source
Water Quality Management Plan
integrates regulatory and voluntary
program components. Regulatory
programs include general permits
for nitrogen fertilizer applications
and concentrated animal feeding
operations, a Pesticide Contamina-
tion Prevention Program, draft Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for
grazing activities, and the Aquifer
Protection Permit system. The Aqui-
fer Protection Permit system requires
permits for most activities that may
impact ground water from point
and nonpoint sources, including
landfills, storage ponds, injection
wells, mine leaching practices, septic
tanks, recharge projects, and point
source discharges to rivers. Monitor-
ing is required by dischargers to
show no violation of Aquifer Water
Quality Standards. In addition, BMPs
are required for nitrogen fertilizer
applications.
Arizona's Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality (ADEQ) and the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
monitored ambient water quality at
62 sites in 1990-1991. Baseline
biological, chemical, and physical
monitoring will be conducted at
over 100 less impacted, perennial
stream sites for use in developing
biocriteria for future assessments.
-------
106 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Arkansas
For a copy of the Arkansas 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Bill Keith
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
(501) 562-7444
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Siltation and turbidity primarily
from agricultural sources cause the
majority of impairments in rivers and
streams. Contamination of shallow
domestic wells and springs by
human and animal wastes is the
most predominant ground water
problem in the State.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology listed
impacts from the expansion of con-
fined animal production as a special
State concern in their 1992 305(b)
report The Arkansas National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program regulates
liquid wastes from the confined ani-
mal industry in addition to industrial
point sources and municipal treat-
ment plants. Farms with liquid waste
handling and storage systems must
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed8
7,462 mi
355,063 ac
Fully
Supporting
49%
100%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
29%
Not
Supporting
22%
aTotals represent 8% of river miles and 67% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
obtain a State Water Permit. This
rule applies to most swine and poul-
try layer operations and some dairy
production facilities.
The Arkansas Nonpoint Source
Pollution Management Plan also
educates poultry, swine, and dairy
producers about best management
practices (BMPs) to prevent manure
from entering streams and ground
water. Under the program, the
University of Arkansas Agricultural
Extension Service provides soil test-
ing and analyzes proper land appli-
cation rates for animal wastes. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service prepares a
waste management plan for indi-
vidual facilities, and the Arkansas
Soil and Water Conservation Com-
mission and Districts provide finan-
cial assistance for animal producers
to voluntarily implement the waste
management plans.
Arkansas categorizes its waters
into geographically defined
ecoregions. Waterbodies within an
ecoregion share similar physical,
chemical, and biological features as
well as major pollution problems
arising from land use practices
common throughout an ecoregion.
The ecoregion approach enables the
State to identify the predominant
land use in each ecoregion that
threatens water quality.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 107
California
For a copy of the California 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Nancy Richard
California State Water Resources
Control Board, M&A
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 944213
Sacramento, CA 94244-2130
(916)657-0642
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
5,679 mi
307,981 ac
89 mi2
700 mi
60,858 ac
Fully
Supporting
13%
7%
'
90%
1%
Threatened
5%
1%
4%
Partially
Supporting
77%
92%
96%
9%
99%
Not
Supporting
5%
1%
aTotals represent 3% of river miles, 26% of lake acres, 12% of estuary square miles, 38% of ocean
miles, and 26% of wetlands acres.
None or not reported.
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Pesticides and metals are the
leading major cause of impairment
in rivers, lakes, estuaries, bays, and
harbors. Other causes of impairment
in lakes are nutrients, siltation, sus-
pended solids, and low dissolved
oxygen. Pathogens are a moderate
problem in many estuaries, and
salinity and dissolved solids cause
most ground water impairments.
Agriculture dominates the list of
major sources impairing rivers, estu-
aries, bays and harbors, and ground
water, and land development, urban
runoff, and habitat modifications are
the leading sources of lake degrada-
tion.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
As a result of toxicity test re-
sults, rice growers cooperated with
the California Department of Food
and Agriculture and modified rice
cultivation practices. Improved pesti-
cide 'management practices devel-
oped by the California Department
of Pesticide Regulation and overseen
by the Central Valley Regional Water
Board decreased rice pesticide con-
centrations in the City of Sacramen-
to's water supply by 99.5 percent.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Toxicity testing plays a central
role in California's three Water Qual-.
ity Control Plans, which establish
standards for all surface waters in
the State. The toxicity standards set
minimum survival rates for test
species exposed to test waters for
acute (short-term) and chronic
(long-term) periods. Currently, the
State and Regional Water Boards are
investigating toxicity testing proto-
cols for nonpoint sources of water
pollution in three major agricultural
regions: the Sacramento Valley, the
San Joaquin Valley, and the Imperial
Valley. The Sacramento Valley study
identified rice field pesticides as a
source of toxicity in agricultural
discharges to the Sacramento River
and Delta.
-------
108 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Colorado
For a copy of the Colorado 1992
305(b) report, contact:
John Farrow
Colorado Department of Health
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-3575
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Metals are the most common
pollutant identified in Colorado rivers
not supporting designated uses.
Agriculture and resource extraction
are the leading sources impacting
rivers. In lakes, nutrients and metals
cause most impairments and major
sources are agriculture, construction
runoff, industrial discharges, and
municipal discharges. Many of
Colorado's shallow, unconfined aqui-
fers are contaminated with nitrates
and salts resulting from agricultural
activities.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Water quality management in
Colorado has evolved from a tech-
nology-based program into a pro-
gram that relates specific control
actions to water quality problems.
Program goals focus on measurable
improvements or maintenance of
existing water quality. The State is
giving more attention to nonpoint
source pollution controls where it
can be shown that stream standards
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
27,1 95 mi
143,1 40 ac
60 ac
Fully
Supporting
84%
85%
100%
Threatened
3%
8%
Partially
Supporting
4%
7%
Not
Supporting
8%
<1%
will not be attained by additional
point source controls at reasonable
cost levels. Colorado's nonpoint
source program provides education
and supports watershed programs
to restore water quality and demon-
strate nonpoint source treatment
techniques.
In 1990, the Colorado Legisla-
ture passed an agricultural chemi-
cals ground water protection act
(Senate Bill 126). The Act will be
implemented by the Colorado
Department of Agriculture with fees
collected on fertilizer and agricul-
tural chemical sales. The Depart-
ment of Health will monitor ground
water and the Colorado Extension
Service will conduct education
programs. If monitoring reveals
ground water contamination, the
Commissioner of Agriculture may
designate an agricultural manage-
ment area and initiate a tiered
approach to solving the problem.
The first tier consists of voluntary
implementation of best manage-
ment practices (BMPs). If BMP
implementation fails to correct the
ground water problem, mandatory
rules and regulations may be
developed.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
In Colorado, 9,315 stream miles
have been, or are being, routinely
monitored. At least seven lakes have
long-term monitoring programs that
sample nutrients and other trophic
state indicators.
Currently, Colorado lacks com-
prehensive data on ground water
contamination. The Ground Water
Unit is addressing the problem by
developing a comprehensive ground
water quality database that will
contain data on organic and inor-
ganic chemical concentrations,
radionuclides, and agricultural
chemicals. The State is collecting
additional data on agricultural
chemicals in ground water under
several programs. In 1992, the State
sampled 100 wells in the South
Platte River Valley. Permanent wells
will be established where ground
water problems are identified, form-
ing a statewide network. A Section
319 nonpoint source (NPS) grant
supports additional ground water
monitoring in agricultural areas. The
program will provide background
data and identify aquifers vulnerable
to contamination by agricultural
chemicals.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 109
Connecticut
For a copy of the Connecticut 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Donald Gonyea
Bureau of Water Management PERD
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(203) 566-2588
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Estuarine waters are primarily
impacted by nutrients and indicator
bacteria, with lesser impacts from
conventional organic pollutants. The
dominant sources of pollutants are:
municipal sewage treatment plants,
urban runoff, CSOs, in-place con-
taminants and agricultural activities.
Rivers and streams are impacted by
a combination of conventional
organic and inorganic pollutants,
toxics, indicator bacteria, nutrients,
and associated dissolved oxygen
problems. The dominant sources of
pollutants are: municipal and indus-
trial point sources, CSOs, in-place
contaminants, and a variety of
nonpoint sources. Lake water quality
is primarily impacted by excessive
nutrient loads associated with nox-
ious plant growth and priority
organics. The dominant sources of
pollutants are: nonpoint sources,
in-place contaminants, and munici-
pal sewage treatment plants.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
893 mi
43,407 ac
600 mi2
Fully
" Supporting
41%
76%
60%
Threatened
20%
11%
<1%
Partially
Supporting
31%
13%
39%
Not
Supporting
8%
-
1%
'Totals represent 11 % of river miles, 52% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The State Clean Water Fund
was created to address the costs of
municipal sewage treatment plant
upgrading and CSO abatement. The
State NPDES program is streamlin-
ing and addressing discharge toxic-
ity issues in accordance with revi-
sions to State water quality stan-
dards. The State is designating
significant resources to and has
expanded the Clean Water Fund to
include nonpoint source pollution
control strategies.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Physical/chemical monitoring is
conducted both in cooperation with
the USGS ambient monitoring
program and with specific State
programs including: intensive sur-
veys, ambient toxicity monitoring,
and specific water quality surveys as
needed. Ambient biological moni-
toring is conducted to assess bio-
logical community viability, and
bioaccumulation monitoring is con-
ducted for a variety of pollutants.
The State participates in the Long
Island Sound Study monitoring
water quality trends and finfish
population. In addition, the State
compiles water quality data from
other State agencies, local authori-
ties, and water supply utilities.
-------
110 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Delaware
For a copy of the Delaware 1992
305(b) report contact:
Sergio Huerta
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 739-4590
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Bacteria, nutrients, and toxics
impact surface water quality in
Delaware. Bacteria concentrations
exceed swimming criteria at 93% of
assessed rivers, 63% of assessed lake
waters, and 70% of estuarine waters
(excluding the Delaware River and
Bay). Inadequately treated sewage
from onsite systems and municipal
treatment plants are of most con-
cern. Industrial point sources are the
major source of elevated zinc and
copper concentrations. Nutrient
contamination impairs 77% of rivers,
67% of lake waters, and 100% of
estuarine waters (excluding the Dela-
ware River and Bay). Primary sources
of nutrients include agricultural run-
off, municipal wastewater treatment
plants, food processing plant dis-
charges, and urban runoff.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
802 mi
2,805 ac
29 mi2
25 mi
Fully
Supporting
11%
22%
100%
Threatened
1%
8%
Partially
Supporting
6%
32%
Not
Supporting
82%
38%
100%
aTota!s represent 25% of river miles, 73% of lake acres, 35% of estuary square miles, and 100%
of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmen-
tal Control (DNREC) adopted a
watershed approach for assessing
and managing water quality. The
watershed approach enables the
DNREC to evaluate all pollutant
sources impacting a waterbody and
to determine the most effective and
efficient methods for protecting
water quality or abating existing
problems. In 1991, DNERC also
initiated the Sediment Control and
Stormwater Management Program
to prevent existing flooding and
water quality problems from wors-
ening. The four components of the
program are: ,
(1) sediment control and storm-
water management plan approval;
(2) inspections during construction;
(3) post-construction inspection of
permanent stormwater facilities; and
(4) education and training.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The DNREC will conduct inten-
sive surveys in the priority water-
sheds targeted for initial implemen-
tation of the watershed approach.
The surveys integrate water quality
sampling with hydrodynamic and
hydrologic studies to determine
pollutant mass loadings and trans-
port.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 111
Delaware River Basin Commission
For a copy of the Delaware River
Basin Commission 1992 305(b)
report, contact: ,
Warren Huff
Delaware River Basin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, Nj 08628-0360
(609) 883-9500
1992 Water Quality Assessment
' Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
206mi
NA
21 6 mi2
NA
Fully
Supporting
NA
NA
Threatened
100%
NA
100%
NA
Partially
Supporting
NA
NA
Not
Supporting
NA
NA
'
Totals represent 100% of river miles and 28% of estuary square miles.
NA = Not applicable.
None or not reported.
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Fish consumption use is not
supported on 5.6 miles of the Dela-
ware River and 22 square miles of
the Delaware Estuary due to a fish
advisory restricting consumption of
fish contaminated with chlordane
and PCBs. Forty-two square miles of
Delaware Bay do not support
shellfishing use because elevated
concentrations of pathogen indica-
tors restrict harvests. An area of
acute toxicity also extends from the
Bucks/Philadelphia County boundary
downstream to the mouth of the
Schuylkill River.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In 1991, the Commission initi-
ated a special study to develop a
comprehensive combined sewer
overflow (CSO) assessment and
control strategy for the Delaware
Estuary. Combined sewers remain
one of the last largely uncontrolled
sources of water pollutants in the
estuary. The 2^year study will deter-
mine critical flows, loadings, and
impacts from the four CSOs dis-
charging into the estuary. The study
will also evaluate and model CSO
functional designs and real-time
operations. Surrounding land use
patterns will be determined to esti-
mate nonpoint source wasteloads.
The study will estimate conventional
and nonconventional pollutant im-
pacts with several hydraulic and
surface water quality models. Upon
completion of the model studies,
the Commission will evaluate alter-
native control strategies.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The Commission and the coop-
erating States initiated the Delaware
Estuary Toxics Management Pro-
gram in 1989 to control toxic sub-
stances discharged from point
sources. During 1990, the coopera-
tors established a toxics database to
track the occurrence and magnitude
of toxic pollutants in wastewater
discharges, ambient waters, and
sediments. The cooperators will use
the database to establish water
quality criteria for toxics.
-------
112 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
District of Columbia
For a copy of the District of Colum-
bia 1992 305(b) report, contact:
Dr. Hamid Karimi
Water Quality Monitoring Branch
Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs
2100 Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20032
(202)404-1120
Causes and Sources
of Water Qualify Impairments
Elevated fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations impair contact recre-
ation uses in most district waters.
Metals are a concern, especially in
the District's smaller streams. Low
dissolved oxygen concentrations
resulting from organic enrichment
impair most of the Anacostia River.
Oil and grease, high pH, and priority
organics also degrade District
waters. The principal source of pol-
lutants is urban runoff from storm
sewers, combined sewer overflows,
and surface runoff. Wastewater treat-
ment plant effluent discharges are a
major source of nutrients in the
Potomac Estuary.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
39 mi
238 ac
6 mi2
Fully
Supporting
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
9%
Not
Supporting
91%
100%
100%
-
aTotals represent 21 % of river miles, 100% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The District contracted the Met-
ropolitan Washington Council of
Governments (MWCOG) to study
the feasibility of charging a fee
when developers obtain a storm-
water management waiver. Current
stormwater regulations require all
new development projects to con-
trol stormwater runoff with best
management practices (BMPs).
However, the District finds it difficult
to apply traditional BMPs to sites
undergoing development or rede-
velopment in the central city. Most
traditional BMPs require more land
than is available in the City. As a
result, the District waives storm-
water regulations at many sites un-
der development. The study will
investigate fees and recommend
stormwater retrofit projects the
District might implement with fees
collected in lieu of stormwater
management plans.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
During the 1990-1992 report-
ing period, the District performed a
small-scale rapid bioassessment of its
tributaries and a land use monitor-
ing project to assess nonpoint
source pollutant loadings. The Dis-
trict also performed field sampling
of toxics in sediments and planned
to monitor effects of urban best
management practices in 1992.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 113
Florida
For a copy of the Florida 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Joe Hand
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Twin Towers Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904)921-9926
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
7,933 mi
957,1 20 ac
2,730 mi2
902 mi
Fairy
Supporting
64%
31%
62%
95%
Threatened
3%
1%
1%
Partially
Supporting
23%
56%
32%
4%
Not
Supporting
10%
12%
6%
1%
aTotals represent 15% of river miles, 46% of lake acres, 64% of estuary square miles, and 11 %
of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Many of the problems in
Florida's surface waters can be attri-
buted to industrial discharges and
sources associated with residential
development. Other important
sources include agricultural runoff,
domestic wastewater, and hydro-
logic modifications (including dam
construction, channelization, dredg-
ing, and draining). Major sources of
ground water contamination are
underground storage tanks, agricul-
tural activities, landfills, and septic
tanks. Three agricultural chemicals
(aldicarb, alachlor, and ethylene
dibromide) have caused local and
regional contamination problems.
Other pollutants of concern include
nitrates, petroleum products, and
hazardous wastes.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In addition to controlling dis-
charges with standard permit pro-
grams, Florida is pursuing reuse of
wastewater discharges, primarily for
irrigation use, and the use of wet-
lands for advanced treatment of
wastewater plant discharges. Flor-
ida's Stormwater rule is the core of
Florida's nonpoint source program.
Regulations require all new develop-
ments to retain the first inch of
runoff water in ponds to remove,
theoretically, 80% to 90% of the
sediment carried in the runoff.
However, these rules are difficult to
monitor and enforce.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
During the reporting period,
Florida planned to revise its
biocriteria and initiated projects to
develop freshwater macroinverte-
brate sampling protocols and to
refine the delineation of ecoregions
in Florida. The State will conduct
biological and chemical sampling at
proposed ecoregion reference sites
during wet and dry periods to
determine the best quality inverte-
brate community present for the
representative habitat and water
chemistry.
-------
114 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Georgia
For a copy of the Georgia 1992
305(b) report, contact:
W. M. Winn, III
Georgia Environmental Protection
Division
Water Quality Management
Program
205 Butler Street, S.E.
Floyd Towers, East
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-4905
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Pathogens and metals are major
causes of impairments in rivers, lakes,
and estuaries. Pesticides and pH also
affect many lakes, and low concen-
trations of dissolved oxygen persist
in estuarine waters. Industrial and
municipal point sources, urban run-
off, storm sewers, and industrial
nonpoint sources generate most
pollutants.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
4,054 mi
394,802 ac
854 mi2
Fully
Supporting
29%
90%
53%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
32%
7%
Not
Supporting
39%
2%
47%
Totals represent 6% of river miles, 94% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) pays sig-
nificant attention to compliance and
enforcement activities. During the
reporting period, EPD issued 139
orders to municipalities for violations
of NPDES permit requirements,
collected $456,744 in related civil
penalties, and imposed sewer con-
nection bans on 42 municipalities.
During the same period, DER issued
65 legal orders to industries for
improperly treated discharges and
collected $412,440 in related penal-
ties. EPD issued 17 additional orders
to private discharges and assessed
their fines at $28,050. In addition,
EPD issued 12 orders to resolve
erosion and sedimentation problems
and fined violators $41,000.
Another 12 orders and fines of
$65,000 resulted from investigations
of hazardous spills.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
During the reporting period,
EPD added 16 sampling stations to
the fixed station trend monitoring
network, raising the number of sites
to 145 stations. EPD conducted 26
intensive surveys of rivers, lakes, and
estuaries and performed more than
600 compliance inspections of
wastewater plant discharges. The
State also performs aquatic toxicity
testing to identify discharges that
may require additional controls to
eliminate toxic effects.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 115
Gila River Indian Community
For a copy of the Gila River Indian
Community 1992 305(b) report,
contact:
Errol Blackwater
Gila River Indian Community
Water Quality Planning Office
Corner of Main and Pima Streets
Sacaton, AZ 85247
(602) 562-3203
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
The Water Quality Planning
Office suspects that rangeland man-
agement, agriculture, and upstream
mining are the source of turbidity
and siltation, salinity, and metals
loading in the Gila River. Pathogens
from onsite sewage disposal were
detected in ground water and are
the primary public health concern in
the community. Other concerns
include salinity and pesticides from
large-scale agriculture and the
limited potential for fuel and solvent
leaks.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
196 mi
153 ac
Fully
Supporting
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
31%
18%
Not
Supporting
69%
82%
-
aTotals represent 100% of river miles and 100% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Community's Water Quality
Planning Office initiated a water
quality control program by applying
for Federal funding of a Wellhead
Protection Strategy study. The pro-
posed Wellhead Protection Strategy
would identify the Community's
most vulnerable water supplies and
define a-point source control pro-
gram for wellhead protection areas.
Point source controls will eliminate
discharges that could reach ground
water or provide incentives for rapid
mitigation in cases where ground
water is contaminated. The commu-
nity needs funding to address exist-
ing pollution and potential degrada-
tion resulting from growth in the
adjacent Phoenix metropolitan area
and a planned large-scale expansion
of agricultural activity on Commu-
nity lands.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The Gila River Indian Commu-
nity currently participates in a
small-scale joint surface water moni-
toring effort with the Arizona De-
partment of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ). The program collects grab
samples during runoff events in the
Gila River to assess potential sulfate
impacts from upstream mining
operations. To assess overall water
quality, the Community needs to
establish quarterly sampling at sites
on the Gila River, Thawnc Lake, and
other ponds and ephemeral
streams. The Community's Water
Quality Planning Office has devel-
oped a ground water monitoring
program consisting of 35 wells.
Sampling from this program will
establish the first comprehensive
and reliable data set on ground
water quality for the Community.
-------
116 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Hawaii
For a copy of the Hawaii 1992
305 (b) report, contact:
Eugene Akazawa, Monitoring
Supervisor
Hawaii Department of Health
Clean Water Branch
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808) 586-4309
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Degradation of Hawaii's waters
occurs mainly in urban, populated
areas. Nonpoint sources such as
agricultural, industrial and urban
runoff generate the largest amount
of damage to the water quality of
streams, rivers, estuaries and coastal
waters. Impacts from nonpoint
sources are especially high during
the wet seasons when runoff
increases significantly. Pesticide
percolation is considered to be the
most important source of ground
water contamination.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
105 mi
874 mi2
773 mi
51,802ac
Fully
Supporting
52%
86%
81%
70%
Threatened
48%
12%
5%
30%
Partially
Supporting
<1%
3%
Not
Supporting
2%
10%
aTotals represent 42% of river miles, 100% of estuary square miles, 99% of ocean miles, and 100%
of wetlands acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In order to control soil erosion
and sediment, county governments
are required to enact ordinances
which set erosion control standards
for various types of soil and land
uses. These ordinances also include
criteria, techniques, and methods
for control of erosion and sediment
problems caused by land-disturbing
activities. The State would like to
enact ordinances that require the
rating of pesticides on their poten-
tial to migrate through soil and into
ground water. The use of pesticides
that pose a threat to ground water
quality would be prohibited. Until
more stringent ordinances can be
enacted, the State recommends
using alternatives to pesticides, such
as natural predators of pests or
other biological controls. Also en-
couraged is the use of low-toxicity,
degradable, nonpersistent chemicals
for home gardens, landscaping, and
golf courses.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The State and EPA jointly moni-
tor priority pollutants in water, sedi-
ment, fish, and shellfish samples
collected at sites with a high poten-
tial for toxic contamination as well
as at recreationally important areas.
The State is also concerned about
the uncertainty associated with
bacterial indicators of human fecal
contamination.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 117
Idaho
For a copy of the Idaho 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Don Zaroban
Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1.410 North Hilton
Statehouse Mall
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 334-5860
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Point sources impact only 7% of
Idaho's surface waters, but nonpoint
sources impair 57% of the State's
surface waters. Agriculture, including
grazing, has the greatest impact on
rivers and streams, followed by road
construction and maintenance,
forest practices, and mining. The
extent of impacts by these activities
varies by region. Urban runoff, land
disposal, and hydrologic modifica-
tion also impact lakes.
Fine sediments, channel alter-
ation, nutrients, elevated tempera-
tures, acid mine drainage, vegeta-
tion removal, streambank destabiliza-
tion, low dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, and organic loading impair
aquatic life in Idaho's waters. Recre-
ational uses are impaired by bacteria
and hydrologic modification. Bacte-
ria, radionuclides, inorganic com-
pounds, volatile organic compounds,
and turbidity impair drinking water
supply uses.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
12,987 mi
41 8,529 ac
Fully
Supporting
5%
"
Threatened
3%
57%
Partially
Supporting
66%
9%
Not
Supporting
26%
34%
aTotals represent 11 % of river miles and 81 % of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Idaho Forest Practices Act
contains approved best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) for control-
ling water quality impacts from
forest practices. These mandatory
BMPs are approved in the State
Water Quality Standards. New staff
positions recently increased forestry
BMP inspection, education, and
enforcement activities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The BMP Feedback Loop fea-
tures onsite and in-stream monitor-
ing to evaluate the effectiveness of
implemented agricultural BMPs. The
BMPs are modified through a public
participation process if monitoring
indicates that BMPs are not protect-
ing beneficial uses. The Forest Prac-
tices Water Quality Management
Plan also sponsors monitoring to
determine the effectiveness of
forestry BMPs.
-------
118 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Illinois
For a copy of the Illinois 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Mike Branham
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62704
(217)782-3362
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Nutrients, siltation, organic
enrichment and dissolved oxygen
deficiencies, habitat/flow alteration,
ammonia, metals, and suspended
solids cause most impairments in
Illinois. The sources of pollution
most impacting Illinois waters
include agriculture (primarily row
crop production), in-place contami-
nants deposited on sediments,
hydrologic/habitat modification,
resource extraction, urban runoff,
atmospheric depositions, and
municipal point sources.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
13,980 mi
206,081 ac
63 mi
Fully
Supporting
42%
1%
Threatened
2%
8%
100%
Partially
Supporting
54%
50%
Not
Supporting
1%
41%
.'.
aTota!s represent 40% of river miles, 67% of lake acres, and 100% of Great Lakes shore miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (I EPA) documents such as
Surface Water Monitoring Strategy,
Water Pollution Control Program
Plan - FY92, and the Illinois Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
detail the numerous surface water
pollution control and monitoring
programs of the agency for both
point and nonpoint source control
programs. Point source control pro-
gram activities include Monitoring,
Planning, Permitting, Financial Assis-
tance Administration, Compliance
Assurance, and Program Manage-
ment. Current nonpoint source
programs are built on the original
recommendations of the WQMP,
which includes, but is not limited
to, the State Nonpoint Source Man-
agement Program Report and the
State Nonpoint Source Assessment
Report.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The IEPA conducts a wide vari-
ety of surface water monitoring
programs that are designed to
assess water quality and program
effectiveness. Surface water monitor-
ing programs include a Toxicity
Testing Program, Ambient Water
Quality Monitoring Network
(streams), Pesticide Monitoring Sub-
network, Industrial Solvents Subnet-
work, Facility-Related Stream Survey
Program, Intensive River Basin Sur-
veys Program, Ambient Lake Moni-
toring Program, Volunteer Lake
Monitoring Program, Lake Water
Quality Assessment Grant Program,
Lake Michigan Survey Program, and
the Fish Contaminant Monitoring
Program.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 119
Indiana
For a copy of the Indiana 199.2
305(b) report, contact:
Dennis Clark
Indiana Department of Environ-
mental Management
Office of Water Management
5500 W'. Bradbury Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46241
(317) 243-5037
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
The major causes of use impair-
ment are bacteria, organic enrich-
ment, pesticides, priority organic
compounds, and ammonia. The
sources of substances most often
contributing to nonsupport of uses
are industrial and municipal point
sources, combined sewer overflows,
and agricultural nonpoint sources.
Impacts due to nonpoint sources are
considered major. Nitrates, volatile
organic chemicals, and heavy metals
are most commonly detected in
drinking water wells. The most com-
monly reported sources of ground
water contaminants include hazard-
ous material spills, underground
storage tanks, and waste disposal
activities.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
6,849 mi
1 02,096 ac
43 mi
.
Fully
Supporting
70%
100%
".
Threatened
6%
Partially
Supporting
5%
<1%
100%
Not
Supporting
19%
<1%
;
aTotals represent 19% of river miles, 71 % of lake acres, and 100% of Great Lakes shore miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Indiana's T-by-2000 program is
a State-funded initiative aimed at
reducing erosion on each acre of
land to its tolerable (T) limit (at
which crop productivity is not
impaired) and controlling all offsite
sedimentation using best practical
technology. The program sponsors
soil conservation education, agricul-
tural and urban erosion control
technical assistance, cropland
erosion control cost-sharing, and
lake enhancement projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Until EPA issues sediment crite-
ria, Indiana will continue to identify
areas of toxic concern by compar-
ing sediment data with maximum
background concentrations of toxic
pollutants. The State derived back-
ground concentrations of toxicants
from sediment samples collected at
86 background sites located
upstream of known point source
discharges. Toxicant concentrations
exceeding 100 times the back-
ground concentrations merit high
concern. A contaminant concentra-
tion of 10 to 100 times the back-
ground concentration merits
medium concern. During the
1990-1992 reporting cycle, pesti-
cides, PCBs, and metals in fish and
sediment were detected at medium
to high levels of concern in 35% of
the monitored stream miles. Only
3% of the monitored inland lakes
exhibited toxic levels of concern in
sediments.
-------
120 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Iowa
For a copy of the Iowa 1992 305(b)
report, contact:
John Olson
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Water Quality Section
900 East Grand Avenue
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515)281-8905
Causes and Sources
of Water Qualify Impairments
The failure of assessed water-
bodies of all types to fully support
their designated uses is attributed
primarily to sediment and nutrients
from nonpoint sources of pollution.
Point sources, however, impact
approximately 5% of the stream
miles assessed and toxics impair the
Red Rock Reservoir.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Iowa's Resources Enhancement
and Protection (REAP) Program rep-
resents a major new initiative to
protect and enhance Iowa's natural
resources. The REAP fund supports
various conservation activities,
including soil and water enhance-
ments. The Iowa Division of Soil
Conservation (DSQ and the County
Soil and Conservation Districts
implement the Water Protection
Program and the Water Protection
Practices Program with REAP fund-
ing. In 1991, the REAP Act provided
almost $2 million for Water Protec-
tion Program projects and Water
Protection Practices. The DSC
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
9,983 mi
48,730 ac
26,489 ac
Fully
Supporting
3%
4%
Threatened
5%
48%
31%
Partially
Supporting
91%
47%
52%
Not
Supporting
4%
2%
14%
aTotals represent 12% of river miles, 60% of lake acres, and 72% of wetlands acres.
None or not reported.
adopted rules for administering the
Water Protection Practices Program
in 1990, which include the follow-
ing provisions:
Districts must designate
high-priority watersheds or water
quality problems targeted for fund-
ing and the State Soil Conservation
Committee must approve the prior-
ity designations
Cost-share (up to 75%) will be
available for best management prac-
tices ignored by previous programs,
such as planting critical areas, grass
strips, field borders, filter strips, and
pasture and hay lands.
The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture
program is reversing the previous
trend of wetlands destruction in
Iowa. The program purchases and
restores wetlands with funds pro-
vided by State agencies, Federal
agencies, and county and private
organizations. During 1990 and
1991, the program purchased
almost 5,000 acres of wetlands and
surrounding uplands and restored
almost 1,300 acres of wetlands in
288 basins.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Since the 1970s, Iowa's Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (DNR)
has collected data from fixed-station
water quality monitoring sites
(sampled monthly or quarterly),
from DNR-sponsored special studies,
and from monitoring programs
conducted by other agencies. The
State's surface water monitoring
strategy was revised in 1990, but no
major changes were made in DNR's
monitoring network.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 121
Kansas
For a copy of the Kansas 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Mike Butler
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Bureau of Water Protection
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913) 296-5575
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairnnents
Pathogens, metals, salinity, and
suspended solids are the major
causes of use impairment in Kansas
streams. These contaminants enter
streams via agricultural runoff, sew-
age treatment plant discharges, and
other point sources. Agricultural
activities generate most of the pesti-
cides and nutrients degrading lake
water quality. Flow alterations result-
ing from agricultural activities and
hydromodifications are responsible
for impairments in assessed wet-
lands. The most significant sources
of ground water contamination are
underground storage tanks and oil
and gas operations (excluding injec-
tion wells).
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Kansas' Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Program assumes
that nonpoint source (NPS) pollution
threatens all of Kansas' water re-
sources and that NPS controls must
be implemented to reverse existing
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
17,1 03 mi
172,1 29 ac
34,256 ac
Fully
Supporting
3%
<1%
Threat-
ened
2%
'
(Partially
Supporting
2%
92%
100%
Not
Supporting
45%
5%
Not
Attainable
50%
aTotals represent 13% of river miles, 100% of lake acres, and 100% of wetlands acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
damage and prevent future water
quality degradation. The program
consists of four components. The
Certification Unit reviews and
certifies local NPS Pollution Manage-
ment Plans and Project Plans and
reviews Federal, State, and local
projects for consistency with State
water quality standards and the NPS
Pollution Control Program. The Local
Environmental Protection Unit
provides funding to local govern-
ments to prepare and implement
Local Environmental Protection Plans,
which include a subdivision and
wastewater management plan,
public water supply plan, and an
NPS control plan. The Technical
Assistance Unit develops and
administers demonstration projects,
helps local health departments and
conservation districts prepare plans,
and maintains a Catalog of NPS
Control Practices. The Information
and Education Unit produces
several newsletters, fact sheets, and
displays.
In 1990, the Kansas Department
of Health and Environment added
NPS assessment sites to the ambient
stream chemistry network. NPS
monitoring sites now constitute
58% of the 277 sampling stations in
the network.
-------
122 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Kentucky
For a copy of the Kentucky 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Tom VanArsdall
Department for Environmental
Protection
Division of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)564-3410
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Fecal coliforms cause most
impairments of swimming use in
rivers, while siltation and organic
enrichment impair aquatic life use
in rivers. The sources impairing the
largest number of stream miles
include municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants, agricultural activities,
and resource extraction. Nutrients,
primarily from agricultural runoff
and municipal discharges, were the
greatest cause of impairment in
lakes. Iron and manganese also
impaired domestic water supply use
in many lakes. The Commonwealth
considers underground storage
tanks, septic tanks, abandoned haz-
ardous waste sites, agricultural activi-
ties, and landfills to be the leading
sources of ground water contamina-
tion.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed"
9,737 mi
21 4,962 ac
Fully
Supporting
67%
47%
Threatened
1%
44%
Partially
Supporting
10%
6%
Not
Supporting
22%
3%
aTotals represent 11 % of river miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In 1988, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky integrated whole-effluent
toxicity (WET) limits with traditional
chemical limits in discharge permits
issued to industrial facilities and
municipal wastewater treatment
plants. The Commonwealth set WET
limits for both acute and chronic
toxicity based on case-by-case
evaluations of the discharge type
and volume, and the characteristics
of the receiving waterbody. By the
end of 1991, 77 municipal and 35
industrial discharge permits required
WET monitoring. Initially, these
facilities submit monthly WET test
results for 1 year after which tests
are performed quarterly. A facility
must undertake a toxicity reduction
evaluation following two consecu-
tive failures of a single concentration
"screen" test. As a result of the pro-
gram, five dischargers are changing
plant operations, five dischargers are
making plant improvements, and
four dischargers are constructing
new treatment plants to reduce
effluent toxicity.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Kentucky implemented several
long-term studies to determine
nonpoint source impacts and dem-
onstrate water quality improvements
from best management practices,
including a joint project with the
State of Tennessee to correct mine
drainage problems in the Bear Creek
watershed.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 123
Louisiana
For a copy of the Louisiana 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Emelise S. Cormier, Acting Program
Manager
Louisiana Department of Environ-
mental Quality
Office of Water Resources
Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
(504) 765-0511
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
The most frequently cited pollut-
ants causing impairments are patho-
gen indicators, nutrients, organic
enrichment and low dissolved oxy-
gen concentrations, and oil and
grease. Most estuaries are impaired
by high bacterial counts that force
the State to close oyster harvesting
areas. The most commonly cited
sources of pollutants impacting the
assessed waterbodies are agricultural
runoff, discharges and spills from
petroleum activities, urban runoff,
industrial point sources, and inad-
equately treated sewage discharges
from municipalities. Although the
quality of the State's major ground
water aquifer remains excellent, the
State is concerned about threats to
shallow aquifers and the water-
bearing zones that contribute signifi-
cantly to the deeper aquifers.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
9,089 mi
61 2,288 ac
4,943 mi2
Fully
Supporting
26%
42%
29%
Threat-
-ened
21%
7%
53%
Partially
Supporting
37%
51%
17%
Not
Supporting
16%
<1%
<1%
Not ;
Attainable:
<1%
aTotals represent 14% of river miles, 57% of lake acres, and 65% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
In 1989, the Louisiana State
Legislature created the Lake Pont-
chartrain Basin Foundation, a
nonprofit organization that brings
together scientists, citizens, and
politicians to reverse the shoreline
erosion, loss of marshes, and reduc-
tion in fisheries accelerated by urban
runoff and shell dredging. To date,
the Foundation has sponsored
educational projects with funding
from the Greater New Orleans
Expressway Commission and private
donations.
The State's water pollution con-
trol program relies heavily on strong
water quality standards. During
1989 and 1991, the State adopted
numerical criteria for toxic sub-
stances including several priority
organics and metals. Currently, the
State is revising its bacteriological
criteria and is considering biological
criteria for all waters.
-------
124 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Maine
For a copy of the Maine 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Phil Garwood
Maine Department of Environ-
mental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Control
State House Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-7695
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
In Maine, priority pollutants
(most notably dioxin) cause the
most significant nonattainment in
major rivers. In other riverine waters,
oxygen deficits due to organic en-
richment and bacteria are the most
significant causes of impairment.
Nonpoint sources generate most of
the organic enrichment while mu-
nicipal point sources, onsite waste-
water treatment, and untreated dis-
charges are the primary sources of
pathogenic indicators. The most
significant cause of nonattainment in
Maine lakes is organic enrichment
from nonpoint sources of pollution,
such as urban runoff, agriculture,
and silviculture. Pathogenic indica-
tors from municipal point sources
are the most significant cause of
nonattainment in estuarine and
coastal waters. The greatest threat to
Maine's ground water is leaking
underground storage tanks.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed"
31, 672 mi
958,389 ac
1,633 mi2
Fully
Supporting
98%
73%
90%
Threatened
6%
Partially
Supporting
1%
21%
2%
Not
Supporting
1%
8%
Totals represent 100% of river miles, 97% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square .miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The State issued fish consump-
tion advisories for major rivers due
to elevated concentrations of dioxin
detected in fish tissue samples.
Maine is working with the Kraft
pulp and paper mills to reduce
dioxin concentrations in their dis-
charges. As a result, Maine restored
the fully supporting status of 20
river miles that were previously
contaminated by dioxin.
The Maine Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection (DEP) is
concerned about possible mercury
contamination from nonpoint
sources. Occasionally, samples of
older lake trout caught in inland
waters lacking point sources exceed
FDA standards for mercury. The DEP
plans additional ambient fish tissue
sampling during the next 2 years.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 125
Maryland
For a copy of the Maryland 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Shermer Garrison
Maryland Department of the
Environment
Chesapeake Bay and Special Projects
Program
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410)631-3580
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Overall, Maryland's surface
waters are in good condition, but
recreational bathing, shellfish harvest-
ing, and consumption of certain fish
species are restricted or prohibited in
some areas. The most serious water
quality problem in Maryland is the
continuing accumulation of nutrients
in estuaries and lakes. Excess nutrients
from agricultural, urban, and natural
runoff, as well as point sources, result
in algal blooms and low dissolved
oxygen concentrations in lakes and
tidal embayments. The impacts affect
water supplies, recreational activities,
and limit habitat for aquatic plants
and animals.
Locally high sediment levels
affect all of the State's surface waters.
Sources of sediment include agricul-
tural and urban runoff, construction
activities, natural erosion, dredging,
forestry, and mining operations.
Other State concerns include high
bacteria levels found in all water
types, toxic contaminants in sedi-
ments and fish tissues in selected
urban areas, and acidic waters from
acid mine drainage in western
Maryland.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
, Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
1 7,000 mi
21,001 ac
2,522 mi2
Fully
Supporting
92%
77%
99%
Threatened
4%
4%
1%
Partially
Supporting
7%
19%
93%
Not
Supporting
<1%
<1%
3%
"Totals represent 100% of river miles, 27% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In 1989, the State issued a fish
consumption advisory in a portion
of the Potomac River in western
Maryland due to elevated concen-
trations of dioxin identified in sev-
eral fish species. The Kraft-process
paper mill identified as the source of
the dioxin changed its treatment
process, reductions in dioxin levels
in fish tissue samples were observed,
and this advisory was modified to
address only two fish species. A
Targeted Watershed Program was
implemented at several sites to
demonstrate how an interagency
approach can be used to identify
and solve water pollution problems.
Nonpoint source pollution control
programs affect most of the State's
citizens to some degree and range
from shoreline protection and devel-
opment regulations to implementa-
tion of agricultural and construction
BMPs to educational efforts. Efforts
to improve wastewater treatment
plant performance through capital
improvements and enhanced opera-
tor training have resulted in very
high levels of compliance (greater
than 95%) at major wastewater
facilities in Maryland during the past
2 years.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Maryland's diverse and exten-
sive water quality and aquatic
resource monitoring programs are
reviewed periodically and revised to
incorporate newer technologies and
sampling strategies. The Chesapeake
Bay Monitoring Program monitors
water quality, sediment, and aquatic
resources intensively to document
nutrient trends in the Bay and cal-
culate pollutant loads from signifi-
cant river systems. In 1990, the
State initiated a biological assess-
ment program using EPA-sanctioned
rapid bioassessment protocols at
almost 400 stream sites throughout
the State. The State also modified
its fish tissue and shellfish monitor-
ing programs to enhance efficiency
and respond to the analytical needs
of each program.
-------
126 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Massachusetts
For a copy of the Massachusetts
1992 305(b) report, contact:
Warren Kimball
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Division of Water Pollution Control
Technical Services Branch
1 Winter Street - 8th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617)292-5968
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Pathogens impair the most miles
of rivers and streams, followed by
priority organics, and nutrients.
Urban runoff/storm sewers are the
predominant source of contamina-
tion in rivers and streams, followed
by septic systems and in-place con-
taminants. Major causes of non-
attainment in lakes include excessive
aquatic plant growth, nutrients,
organic enrichment, and exotic spe-
cies. The major sources of lake water
quality impairments are unknown.
Stormwater runoff and combined
sewer overflows generate the patho-
genic contamination that impairs
most estuarine waters. Estuaries also
suffer from unionized ammonia and
low dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions. Organic pollutants appear
most often in contaminated public
ground water supplies.
Water-body
Type
Rivers
Lakesb
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
1,571 mi
21,247ac
223 mi2
Fully
Supporting
39%
38%
30%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
17%
55%
10%
Not
Supporting
44%
7%
60%
"Totals represent 18% of river miles, 14% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
bExcludes Quabbin Reservoir which covers 53% of the State's lake surface area. The entire
Quabbin Reservoir does not support its designated uses because of a fish consumption advisory
based on elevated mercury levels in fish tissues.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
Recent State legislation will
provide funds for a revolving loan
program to cities and towns for the
correction of combined sewer over-
flows and the construction of waste-
water treatment facilities. Local
sources of funding to repay the
loans and to finance nonfundable
projects will be increased through
higher use fees and other financial
arrangements. DEP has established
a Nonpoint Source Program. Cur-
rently, 14 demonstration projects
are being funded with Section 319
funds in the State. DEP is develop-
ing a watershed based planning
approach for regulation and moni-
toring of water quality.
DEP has ongoing surface water
. quality and assessment programs
including wastewater discharge
evaluations, river monitoring, lake
monitoring, and coastal monitoring.
In addition to water chemistry, there
is a biomonitoring program includ-
ing macroinvertebrate analysis,
bioaccumulation studies, and toxic-
ity testing. DEP has a joint surface
water discharge permit program
with EPA. The permits contain efflu-
ent limits for various parameters and
monitoring requirements necessary
to achieve compliance with water
quality standards.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 127
Michigan
For a copy of the Michigan 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Greg Goudy
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909
(517) 335-3310
1992 Water Quality Assessment
waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
22,590 mi
490,455 ac
3,288 mi
Fully
Supporting
94%
95%
Threatened6
Partially
Supporting1"
Not
Supporting
6%
5%
100%
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Priority organics caused impair-
ments in more river miles than any
other cause, followed by heavy met-
als and siltation/sedimentation. The
State identified agriculture-related
nonpoint sources as the most com-
mon source of river impairments.
Heavy metals, priority organics, and
dissolved oxygen depletion had the
greatest impact on inland lakes.
Point sources were the leading
source of impairment in lakes. All
Michigan waters in the Great Lakes
failed to support designated uses
because of elevated PCB concentra-
tions in water and fish tissue
samples. Sources of contamination
include atmospheric deposition and
in-place contamination (e.g., sedi-
ments contaminated by discontin-
ued industrial discharges). The larg-
est number of ground water con-
tamination incidents are associated
with underground storage tanks,
surface discharges, and landfills.
aTota!s represent 40% of river miles, 51% of lake acres, and 100% of Great Lakes shore miles.
bMichigan assesses its waters as either fully supporting their designated uses or not supporting
their designated uses. Michigan does not recognize threatened and partially supporting
categories of use support.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The Watershed Demonstration
Program is the major focus of
nonpoint source control efforts in
Michigan. The program facilitates
interagency cooperation to improve
water quality in specific watersheds
and ensures that limited resources
are directed to the highest priority
areas. Most of the funded water-
shed projects combine streambank
stabilization techniques with soil
erosion controls and animal waste
best management practices to
reduce sedimentation and nutrient
loading in waterbodies.
Michigan is pursuing a sedi-
ment assessment protocol that com-
bines biological field surveys with
chemical and physical analysis of
sediments and sediment toxicity
testing. The State will not incorpo-
rate sediment bioassay tests into an
assessment program until further
work validates toxicity test results in
the field and defines the relationship
between laboratory test results and
instream responses.
-------
128 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Minnesota
For a copy of the Minnesota 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Catherine Malave
MPCA, Division of Water Quality
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612)296-8861
Causes and Sources
of Water Qualify Impairments
Minnesota most frequently cites
metals, nutrients, and fecal material
from nonpoint sources as the causes
of impairment in rivers. Pollution in
lakes is primarily due to nutrients
from agricultural runoff and mercury
from atmospheric deposition. Por-
tions of Lake Superior suffer from
persistent toxic substances. Data
indicate that human activities have
introduced volatile organic com-
pounds, pesticides, and nitrate into
several important ground water
aquifers.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
4,634 mi
2,882,81 Sac
272 mi
Fully
Supporting
23%
11%
Threatened
6%
Partially
Supporting
25%
76%
Not
Supporting
52%
7%
100%
aTotals represent 5% of river miles, 88% of lake acres, and 100% of Great Lakes shore mjles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) is moving toward
integrating surface water monitor-
ing, planning, and management
on a watershed basis. Such an
approach will focus on interconnec-
tions throughout the whole water-
shed and deal with water pollution
problems in a comprehensive
manner. Minnesota also intends to
strengthen wetland preservation
through local implementation of the
Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.
The Act advocates "no net loss" in
the quantity, quality, and biological
diversity of Minnesota's existing
wetlands. The Act requires develop-
ers to avoid impacts where it is
prudent and feasible, or replace
wetland values where impacts can-
not be avoided. The Act also creates
a compensation program for perma-
nent easements on high-quality
wetlands and provides property tax
incentives to landowners enrolling
wetlands in preservation banks for 8
years. The State also plans to estab-
lish a cost-share program to create
and restore wetlands.
The State tries to locate the
source of fish tissue contamination
by monitoring sediments in areas
where fish tissue samples reveal
elevated toxic concentrations. The
State would like to pair sediment
sampling with routine monitoring
performed by dischargers where a
toxicity problem is detected. Cur-
rently, several municipal wastewater
dischargers monitor sediments for
pollutants that tend to bioaccumu-
late.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 129
Mississippi
For a copy of the Mississippi 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Randy Reed
Mississippi Department of Environ-
mental Quality
Office of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601)961-5158
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Nutrients, pathogens, pesticides,
and solids cause major impacts to
rivers and streams; pesticides and
nutrients cause major impacts on
assessed lakes; and metals cause the
only significant major impact on
estuaries. Agriculture impacts the
majority of impaired river miles,
followed by industrial and municipal
point sources. Major impacts on
lakes are also due to agricultural
nonpoint sources. Septic tanks con-
tribute to moderate impairments on
lakes. Industrial point sources cause
major impairments in estuaries.
Municipal point sources, urban run-
off, and septic tanks cause moderate
impairments in estuarine waters and
coastal waters.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
35,854 mi
326,844 ac
18 mi2
81 mi
Fully
Supporting
6%
47%
5%
Threatened
4%
18%
68%
12%
Partially
Supporting
88%
35%
26%
88%
Not
Supporting
2%
<1%
' -
aTotals represent 43% of river miles, 65% of lake acres, 14% of estuary square miles, and 100%
of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Currently, Mississippi is imple-
menting 10 nonpoint source (NPS)
control projects with funds from
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act.
The projects provide technical assis-
tance, public education, and
agrichemical monitoring and dem-
onstrate the effectiveness of slotted
board risers, animal waste spray
irrigation systems, constructed wet-
lands, and other best management
practices.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The Mississippi Office of Pollu-
tion Control (OPC) implements an
ambient biological integrity pro-
gram that features annual ambient
fish tissue sampling and macro-
invertebrate sampling in freshwater
and periphyton sampling in estua-
rine waters. The OPC collects three
fish species at selected primary
stations and analyzes composite
samples for the presence of 27
organic compounds and 7 heavy
metals. The OPC protocols include
habitat assessment and sampling of
every habitat that could be a home
for macroinvertebrates. Staff count
the number of individuals of each
macroinvertebrate species collected
to rate species richness and trophic
community structure at each site.
-------
130 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Missouri
For a copy of the Missouri 1992
305(b) report, contact:
John Ford
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-7024
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Siltation, habitat alteration, and
water loss cause most impairments
in rivers and streams. Channeliza-
tion has degraded aquatic life habi-
tat in 17 percent of Missouri's
streams and the State does not have
a program to prevent additional
projects to straighten streams. Agri-
culture is the predominant source of
river impairments. Pesticides from
agricultural activities cause most lake
impairments in the State. Urban
runoff and hydrologic/habitat alter-
ations also impair lakes.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
21 ,01 5 mi
287,543 ac
Fully
Supporting
53%
53%
Threatened
35%
Partially
Supporting
46%
2%
Not
Supporting
1%
10%
'Totals represent 18% of river miles and 100% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Nonpoint Source (NPS)
program staff were very active dur-
ing 1990 and 1991. The NPS staff
generated four new pieces of legis-
lation, participated in 11 public
information and education projects,
11 watershed implementation
projects, and 8 technical assistance
programs. The NPS program focus
areas include animal waste manage-
ment, dead bird composting, inven-
tory and water quality monitoring
of NPSs, and fertilizer and pesticide
management. The most successful
nonpoint source program to date
reclaims abandoned coal mine
lands. Reclamation projects reduced
the number of stream miles seri-
ously impaired by coal mine drain-
age from 100 miles to 42 miles by
October 1991.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) discontin-
ued ambient chemical monitoring
primarily for financial reasons. As a
result, some important streams with
long historical records are no longer
monitored. In contrast, the ambient
fish tissue monitoring network grew
in recent years. At present, the EPA
and Missouri DNR sample fish from
25 sites for a wide variety of toxi-
cants. The Missouri Department of
Conservation also analyzes a smaller
number of toxicants in approxi-
mately 170 fish collected at 60 sites.
The expansion of the ambient fish
sampling program enables the
Missouri Department of Health to
specify individual species and water-
body segments affected by fish
consumption advisories. Currently,
the State recommends limiting
consumption of fish caught in 19
waterbodies.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 131
Montana
For a copy of the Montana 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Christian j. Levine
Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Science
Water Quality Bureau
Cogswell Building, Room A206
1400 Broadway
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-5342
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Flow alteration, suspended sol-
ids, and siltation cause most impair-
ments in rivers and streams. Agricul-
tural sources (crop production and
rangeland), streambank destabiliza-
tion, silviculture, flow modification,
and construction impact the most
stream miles. Metals, flow alteration,
nutrients, suspended solids, noxious
aquatic plants, and organic enrich-
ment impair the most lake acres.
Agricultural activities and flow regu-
lation are the leading sources of lake
impairments. Natural arsenic con-
tamination in much of the State's
water remains a concern, and the
State is concerned about elevated
concentrations of selenium, salts,
and other trace elements and pesti-
cides entering wetlands from agricul-
tural and irrigation practices.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbbdy
''::TyP?.:V:;:v'V
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed?
64,677 mi
979,433 ac
.
Fully
Supporting
74%
38%
Threatened
5%
14%
Partially
Supporting
19%
46%
Not
Supporting
2%
2%
aTotals represent 36% of river miles and 100% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences,
Water Quality Bureau, received an
EPA grant for more than $433,000
to fund a Statewide interagency
wetlands program. The program's
six components will (1) collect exist-
ing interagency data and establish
a database; (2) monitor 20 water-
quality-limited wetlands and 40
least-impacted wetlands and devel-
op wetland biocriteria; (3) develop
wetland education programs;
(4) implement river corridor man-
agement projects; (5) revise the
Department of Transportation's
wetland protection and mitigation
program, develop a system to track
wetlands losses and mitigation
banking, and monitor mitigation
projects to determine effectiveness;
and (6) print a Statewide classifica-
tion and management document
for riparian and wetland sites.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Successful long-term trend
analysis has been limited to the
Clark Fork River Basin and Flathead
Lake. The Clark Fork River has
shown improvement during the last
several years. Copper concentrations
have declined in the headwater
reaches and phosphorus concentra-
tions have declined in the lower
reaches of the river. Unfortunately,
water quality in Flathead Lake has
declined as evidenced by increased
algal growth.
The State is implementing stud-
ies under the Clean Lakes Program
that will develop a nutrient balance
and determine primary productivity
status for Flathead Lake and Swan
Lake. A third study will investigate
methylmercury and PCBs in fish
tissue and sediments as well as
trophic status in 20 of the most
heavily fished lakes in Montana.
-------
132 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Nebraska
For a copy of the Nebraska 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Steven Walker, Section Supervisor
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402)471-2875
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Nebraska identified fecal bacte-
ria, pesticides, and flow alteration as
major causes of river impairments.
Organic enrichment, ammonia, and
rnetals cause moderate or minor
Impairments. Agriculture, natural
sources, and point sources affected
the most river miles. Metals, patho-
gens, suspended solids, and nutri-
ents were the leading cause of im-
pairment in lakes. Municipal point
sources and agriculture were the
leading sources of lake impairments.
Major sources of ground water con-
tamination included agricultural
activities, leaking underground stor-
age tanks, septic systems, waste
disposal, and industrial facilities.
Nitrate contamination, primarily
from overfertilization of irrigated
land, is the most widespread ground
water concern in the State.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
8,061 mi
1 32,948 ac
Fully
Supporting
26%
26%
Threatened
2%
2%
Partially
Supporting
49%
43%
Not
Supporting
23%
29%
"Totals represent 10% of river miles and 87% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The Special Protection Area
(SPA) Program authorizes local
Natural Resource Districts (NRDs) to
regulate activities that may generate
nonpoint source contamination in
designated ground waters. Desig-
nated SPA areas suffer from docu-
mented nonpoint source contami-
nation or face a threat from
nonpoint sources of pollution. The
Nebraska Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (NDEC) con-
ducts detailed studies of proposed
SPA sites. The predesignation studies
usually include ground water sam-
pling, coring of the vadose zone,
and collection of existing data on
geology, soils, and land use. At the
close of 1991, NDEC had examined
eight proposed SPA sites and desig-
nated two SPA sites encompassing
482 square miles.
The Nebraska Department of
Health annually monitors nitrate
concentrations in samples represent-
ing all 1,426 public ground water
supplies in the State.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 133
Nevada
For a copy of the Nevada 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Glen Gentry
Bureau of Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Protection
123 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 687-4670
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Agricultural practices (specifically
irrigation, grazing, and flow regula-
tion) generate the large sediment
and nutrient loads impacting the
waters of Nevada. Urban drainage
systems add nutrients, heavy metals,
and organic substances to the load.
The State is eliminating point
sources where possible and their
adverse effects on water quality have
been greatly reduced. However, the
Las Vegas wastewater treatment
plant and low flows resulting from
natural drought conditions also
impair waters in the State.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
1,427 mi
21 3,257 ac
36,1 69 ac
Fully
Supporting
23%
62%
Threat-
ened
Partially
Supporting
23%
12%
33%
Not
Supporting
50%
26%
67%
Not
Attainable
3%
"Totals represent 1 % of river miles, 38% of lake acres, and 26% of wetlands acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The Nevada Nonpoint Source
(NPS) Base Program (initiated in
1991) enhances the Nevada NPS
Program with new activities that
address technical transfer and tech-
nical outreach. The new Base
Program utilizes existing staff and
one new hire to administer new
projects.
In 1990, DEP issued two
stormwater discharge permits to
control runoff from two major
urban areas in the State. The first
permit was issued jointly to the
Cities of Reno and Sparks, Washoe
County, and the Nevada Depart- '
ment of Transportation (NDOT).
The second permit was issued to
the cities of Las Vegas, North Las
Vegas, and Henderson, the NDOT,
and the Clark County Regional
Flood Control District. The permits
require monitoring, land use plan-
ning, and zoning to address up-
stream stormwater issues. Wet
weather sampling began in 1991.
As a long-term goal, DEP rec-
ommends increased staffing and
funding to develop a ground water
monitoring network and database.
Current activities are fragmented,
sporadic, and site-specific. The State
would use the monitoring data to
assess existing water quality in
Nevada's aquifers and inventory
sources of known or potential
threats to ground water quality.
-------
134 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
New Hampshire
For a copy of the New Hampshire
1992 305(b) report, contact:
Greg Comstock
Water Quality Section
New Hampshire WSPCD/DES
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301-6528
(603)271-2457
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
10,841 mi
153,58030
28 mi2
18 mi
Fully
Supporting
98%
85%
34%
100%
Threatened
6%
Partially
Supporting
1%
6%
Not
Supporting
1%
3%
66%
Totals represent 100% of river miles, 100% of lake acres, 100% of estuary square miles, and 100%
of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Elevated bacteria levels, organic
enrichment and depressed oxygen
concentrations, nutrients, and silt-
ation cause occasional problems in
rivers and streams. The sources of
these contaminants are primarily
"unknown." Excessive noxious
aquatic plants and nutrients from
industrial and municipal discharges
and "unknown" sources are the
main cause of nonattainment of
designated uses in reservoirs.
Elevated bacteria levels from small
point sources and nonpoint sources
restrict shellfishing in the coastal
bays and estuaries. The major
sources of ground water contamina-
tion are leaky underground storage
tanks, uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites, and municipal landfills.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The State drafted a Clean Water
Strategy to address the remaining
water quality standard violations.
The plan proposes to confirm the
presence of violations with addi-
tional sampling and detect causes
and sources with field investigations.
The State will take compliance ac-
tions to eliminate the sources on a
priority basis. Plan implementation
relies on EPA funding.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
All point source discharge per-
mits require (or will require) effluent
testing for acute toxicity. Some
permits will also require chronic
toxicity testing depending on the
flow limitations of the receiving
waters. Some dischargers must also
sample surface water toxicity at
upstream sites. Approximately 80
percent of the industrial dischargers
and 90 percent of the municipal
dischargers have been screened for
acute toxicity. The State has not
detected evidence of in-stream
acute toxicity.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 135
New Jersey
For a copy of the New jersey 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Kevin Berry
New Jersey DEPE
Office of Land and Water Planning
401 East State Street, 4th Floor
Trenton, Nj 08625
(609) 633-1179
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Fecal coliform bacteria, nutri-
ents, depressed dissolved oxygen
concentrations, siltation, road salts,
and oil and grease cause most water
quality impairments in rivers and
streams. The most common pollu-
tion problems in lakes include nutri-
ents, siltation, depressed dissolved
oxygen concentrations, and excess
primary productivity. The State cites
nonpoint sources (such as storm-
water outfalls, construction, urban
and agricultural runoff) as the princi-
pal source of contaminants in
surface waters. However, very little
monitoring data exist to quantify the
effect of individual nonpoint sources.
The most common pollutants
detected during ground water pollu-
tion investigations include volatile
organic compounds, metals, base
neutrals, acid extractables, PCBs, and
pesticides. Underground storage
tanks are most often cited as the
source of ground water contamina-
tion, followed by landfills, surface
spills, and industrial/commercial
septic systems.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed"
1,51 5 mi
61 4 mi2
146 mi
FuJIy
Supporting
72%
73%
Threatened
73%
Partially
Supporting
15%
20%
Not
Supporting
12%
8%
27%
aTotals represent 23% of river miles, 100% of estuary square miles, and 100% of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection and
Energy (NJDEPE) developed the
Sewage Infrastructure Improvement
Act (SIIA) program to address
stormwater drainage and combined
sewer overflows in the coastal zone.
The program provides funds to
municipalities to inventory and map
their sewer lines, stormwater sys-
tems, cross-connections, and inter-
connections. The municipalities will
use the data to develop municipal
nonpoint source abatement
measures and plans.
The New Jersey Cooperative
Coastal Monitoring Program con-
cluded that 70% of New Jersey's
62 ocean beach closures between
1987 and 1991 could be prevented
through implementation of the SIIA
program.
-------
136 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
New Mexico
For a copy of the New Mexico 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Erik Galloway
Surface Water Quality Bureau
New Mexico Environment
Department
P.O. Box26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110
(505) 827-2923
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Siltation, metals, and habitat
alterations in the riparian zone cause
most impairments in rivers and
streams. Agricultural sources impair
more stream miles and lake acres
than any other identified source.
Hydrologic modification and recre-
ation impair rivers to a lesser extent.
Recreation, spills and silviculture
impair significant areas of lakes. The
leading causes of impairment in
lakes are mercury contamination in
fish tissues, siltation, metals, and
habitat alterations along shorelines.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
New Mexico's ground water
protection regulations consist of
(1) ground water quality standards
and (2) requirements for ground
water discharge plans. The ground
water discharge plans establish
baseline concentrations of contami-
nants that cannot be exceeded after
the discharger begins disposal prac-
tices. The dischargers prepare the
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterfaody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
3,589 mi
143,71 Sac
Fully
Supporting
9%
<1%
Threatened
1%
9%
Partially
Supporting
82%
91%
Not
Supporting
8%
<1%
"Totals represent 3% of river miles and 95% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
plans, which must be approved by
the New Mexico Environment De-
partment or the Oil Conservation
Division. The State approves most
plans for a 5-year period, after
which the discharger must renew
the plan. With enforceable numeric
standards, the State ground water
discharge plans function like a dis-
charge permit. As of 1991, New
Mexico had adopted numeric
ground water quality standards for
47 contaminants and narrative crite-
ria for 87 toxic pollutants in ground
waters that could serve a beneficial
use. The ground water rules apply
to wastewater discharges on the
surface of the ground as well as
subsurface discharges. In addition to
municipal sewage plants and indus-
trial facilities, ground water
discharge plans regulate dairies,
mineral extraction operations,
sludge and septage disposal sites,
hydrocarbon cleanup operations,
and large private sewage treatment
systems for trailer parks.
The ground water discharge
plans also specify monitoring sched-
ules to detect standard violations
or document compliance with
standards.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 137
New York
For a copy of the New York 1992
305(b) report, contact:
George K. Hansen, P.E.
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Monitoring and
Assessment
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518)457-8819
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Agriculture and hydrologic/
habitat modifications are major
sources of water quality impairment
in New York's rivers, lakes, and reser-
voirs. Agricultural sources contribute
nutrients and silt, which cause tur-
bidity and excessive weed and algae
growth. Hydrologic/habitat modifi-
cations include activities that alter
stream beds or shorelines, such as
dredging, filling, and impound-
ments. Urban runoff is the major
nonpoint source of impairment in
New York's bays and estuaries.
Urban runoff is a source of silt,
pathogen indicators, bacteria, petro-
leum products, heavy metals, and
oxygen-demanding substances.
Pathogen indicators from urban
runoff, point sources, boats, water
fowl, and onsite disposal systems
caused the State to close 200,000
acres (16 percent) of the shellfish
beds in the New York City-Long
Island region.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
51, 729 mi
730,387 ac
577 mi
1,530 mi2
120 mi
Fully
Supporting
93%
44%
15%
72%
50%
Threatened
3%
- 3%
<1%
Partially
Supporting
6%
53%
85%
11%
48%
Not
Supporting
<1%
3%
17%
2%
aTotals represent 100% of river miles, 100% of lake acres, 100% of Great Lakes shore miles, 100% of
estuary square miles, and 100% of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In 1991, New York revised its
surface water quality standards and
adopted methodologies for develop-
ing toxic standards for human
health and aquatic life. To date, the
State has adopted standards and/or
guidance values for nearly 250 toxic
substances or groups of toxic sub-
stances. These standards and guid-
ance values are the basis for setting
effluent limits for discharge permits.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
In 1990 and 1988, the NY State
Division of Environmental Conserva-
tion (NYSDEC) sampled PCB and
aroclor in Hudson River striped bass.
The data indicated a spatial decline
in average PCB concentrations with
increasing distance from the Albany-
Troy area. The study also found an
overall decline in fish tissue concen-
trations of total PCB, Aroclor 1254,
and Aroclor 1016 between 1980
and 1990.
-------
138 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
North Carolina
For a copy of the North Carolina
1992 305(b) report, contact:
Carol Metz
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
(919) 733-5083
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Siltation causes most use impair-
ment in rivers and streams. Agricul-
ture Is the leading source of water
quality degradation in rivers and
streams, followed by urban runoff/
storm sewers, and point sources.
Excessive nutrient enrichment is the
major cause of use impairment in
North Carolina lakes. Municipal
wastewater treatment plants are the
leading source of nutrients in lakes.
Gasoline and diesel fuel from leaking
underground tanks is the primary
cause of ground water contamina-
tion.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
North Carolina has a number of
strong programs to not only correct,
but also to prevent, water quality
impairments. Several of these
include
A newly initiated Basinwide Man-
agement Program that addresses
both point and nonpoint source
pollution on a watershed basis. This
program will cover every basin in
the State on a 5-year cycle.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
35,060 mi
304,542 ac
3,1 22 mi2
1 0,307,000 ac
Fully
Supporting
37%
70%
87%
51%
Threatened
34%
21%
4%
Partially
Supporting
24%
9%
9%
25%
Not
Supporting
5%
<1%
<1%
24%
"Totals represent 93% of river miles, 100% of lake acres, 100% of estuary square miles, and 100%
of wetlands acres.
None or not reported.
A Water Supply Protection Pro-
gram requiring development within
water supply watersheds to control
stormwater quantity and quality
through density restrictions or
stormwater treatment devices.
A substantial Agricultural Cost
Share Program ($8 million per year)
to reduce sediment, nutrients, pesti-
cides, etc., which contribute to
impairment of State waters.
Recently enacted Animal Waste
Management Rules, which mandate
Best Management Practices for new
and existing confined animal feed-
ing operations.
An innovative nutrient manage-
ment strategy involving nutrient
trading between point and
nonpoint sources in the nutrient-
sensitive waters of the Tar-Pamlico
River Basin. This strategy provides
point sources with the option of
meeting nutrient reduction goals
either through in-plant reductions or
through the funding of agricultural
BMPs within the basin.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
North Carolina integrates a
wide variety of information to
address multiple needs of the water
quality program. Data collected
from a statewide fixed station
chemical/physical monitoring net-
work (AMS) provides baseline long-
term information. Intensive water
quality characterization studies aug-
ment baseline data in predictive
modeling for assimilative capacity
and wasteload allocation. These
surveys include time of travel work,
physical/chemical collections, long-
term BOD analysis, and in situ sedi-
ment oxygen demand measure-
ments. Numerous assessment tools
are used in evaluating existing con-
ditions of water quality and biologi-
cal integrity in-stream. These include
macroinvertebrate surveys, fish com-
munity structure analyses, phyto-
plankton analyses, fish tissue analy-
ses, aquatic toxicity tests, and lim-
nological review of lakes and water-
sheds incorporating many of these
tools.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 139
North Dakota
For a copy of the North Dakota
1992 305(b) report, contact:
Mike Ell
North Dakota Department
of Health
Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
(701)221-5210
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Nutrients and siltation, primarily
from agricultural runoff, caused most
impairments in the State's surface
waters. Loss of streamside vegeta-
tion, wetlands drainage, and flow
regulation also impaired streams.
The recent drought, compounded
by water management policies for
the two mainstem Missouri River
reservoirs in the State, Lake
Sakakawea and Lake Oahe, impaired
approximately 36 percent of the
assessed lake acres. The policy
implemented during the drought
required the State to maintain
downstream Missouri River uses
(such as municipal water supply and
navigation uses) by releasing reser-
voir waters at the expense of lake
uses (such as fishing, recreation,
and wildlife habitat). Five percent of
the assessed lake acres partially
supported designated uses due to
periodic fish kills resulting from low
dissolved oxygen concentrations
caused by the decomposition of
organic matter. Major sources of
pollution to the State's lakes are
agricultural runoff and internal nutri-
ent cycling from sediments. Drain-
age continued to be the greatest
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
9, 172 mi
611 ,074 ac
Fully
Supporting
2%
2%
Threatened
73%
36%
Partially
Supporting
25%
26%
Not
Supporting
0%
36%
aTotals represent 77% of river miles and 99% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
threat to wetlands in the State.
However, nonpoint source pollution
problems, such as siltation and pes-
ticide contamination are a growing
concern as significant threats to
wetlands in the State. Chemical
spills from petroleum storage facili-
ties and agricultural chemical stor-
age facilities are the primary sources
of ground water contamination.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
During the past 3 years, the
State directed a majority of its Sec-
tion 319 funds to local projects
addressing NPS pollution from agri-
culture lands, the dominant land
use in North Dakota. Given the
complexity of the agricultural indus-
try, the Division of Water Quality
has to work closely with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA),
as well as with local project spon-
sors to secure sufficient funds to
adequately address agriculture-
related pollution at specific project
watersheds. Funded projects dem-
onstrate the effectiveness of reduced
cropland tillage, proper grazing use,
livestock waste management, low
energy precision application (LEPA)
irrigation, as well as nutrient and
pesticide management as effective
strategies for NPS pollution control
and abatement. Several projects also
provide funds to demonstrate
proper procedures for sealing aban-
doned wells.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
North Dakota's Division of
Water Quality administers a diverse
program to assess water quality.
Program monitoring and assessment
activities include the State's ambient
stream water quality monitoring
network, which includes 61 moni-
toring sites on 31 rivers and
streams, the lake water quality
assessment project, the ground
water monitoring program, moni-
toring in support of Section 319,
NPS pollution projects, and biologi-
cal monitoring including instream
bioassay and fish flesh analysis. In
March 1991, the State issued its first
fish consumption advisory for sec-
tions of the Missouri River, the Red
River, and 10 lakes. The advisory
affects 509 miles of rivers and
339,370 acres of lakes where fish
sampling revealed elevated concen-
trations of mercury in fish tissues.
-------
140 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Ohio
For a copy of the Ohio 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Ed Rankin
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Surface Water
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614) 777-6264
Causes and Sources
of Water Qualify Impairments
Organic enrichment affects 30
percent of the assessed river miles,
followed by sediment (affecting 9
percent), and habitat modification
(affecting 8 percent). Point sources
are the leading source of pollutants
impairing rivers, followed by habitat
modification, agriculture, and min-
ing. Agricultural runoff, discharges
from wastewater treatment plants
and industries, failing septic systems,
stormwater runoff, and habitat
modifications are the leading sources
depleting oxygen, elevating nutri-
ents, and causing siltation in Ohio's
lakes. The Great Lakes shoreline is
impaired by a fish consumption
advisory and exceedences of copper
and cadmium criteria in the water
column.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
7,903 mi
78,527 ac
236 mi
Fully
Supporting
33%
<1%
Threatened
7%
8%
Partially
Supporting
21%
85%
100%
Not
Supporting
39%
7%
aTota!s represent 27% of river miles, 66% of lake acres, and 100% of Great Lakes shore miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Ohio EPA is shifting from a
regulatory approach that controls
individual pollutants to an ecosys-
tem approach that tackles habitat
degradation on shore as well as in
the water. Long-term solutions
include land use setbacks and pres-
ervation of stream hydrology.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Ohio EPA adopted biocriteria
(direct measures of fish and macro-
invertebrate population and com-
munity characteristics) in February
1990. The State measures biological
community health by comparing
observed ecological characteristics
with the characteristics at least-
impacted reference sites for a given
ecoregion and stream type. Biologi-
cal monitoring enables the State to
detect aquatic life effects that would
not be revealed by measuring
chemical and physical parameters
alone. Trend analysis of comprehen-
sive data collected over the past 12
years indicates substantial improve-
ments in river quality, especially in
rivers where organic enrichment
loadings have declined and dis-
solved oxygen levels have increased.
The State attributes much of the
water quality improvements to
wastewater treatment plant
upgrades performed since 1972.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 141
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
For a copy of the ORSANCO 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Jason Heath
ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45230
(513)231-7719
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Priority organics, metals, pesti-
cides, siltation, and pathogens im-
pair the mainstem of the Ohio River.
Priority organics, such as benzene
and chloroform, exceed the 10-6
Cancer Risk Criteria Level in 10 to 90
percent of the daily samples. Urban
runoff, storm sewers, combined
sewer overflows, unknown sources,
agriculture, and industrial point
sources impair large stretches of the
river, and the relative contribution
of nonpoint sources appears to be
increasing.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed"
981 mi
NA
Fully
Supporting
0%
NA
Threatened
0%
NA
Partially
Supporting
51%
NA
Not
Supporting
49%
NA
"Totals represent 100% of river miles.
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Ohio River Valley Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO) relies on
its member States (Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia) to administer point
source permit programs. However,
the Commission reviews point
source permits drafted by the States
to ensure that Commission stan-
dards will not be violated. The
Commission's Pollution Control
Standards (adopted in 1990)
include criteria for human health
pollutants and industrial waste treat-
ment requirements. The Commis-
sion recently began to define its role
in controlling nonpoint source pol-
lution. The Commission went on
record advocating a technology-
based approach for controlling
nonpoint sources. The Commission
will prioritize the control of pollution
resulting from resource extraction
activities, followed by urban runoff.
However, the Commission's role in
managing nonpoint source pollution
remains undefined.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
ORSANCO's monitoring pro-
gram includes ambient sampling,
daily organics monitoring, fish tissue
analysis, fish population studies,
bacterial monitoring, and intensive
surveys. Following detections of
copper in samples collected from
intakes, the Monitoring Strategy
Subcommittee undertook a com-
plete review and assessment of the
ambient monitoring system. The
Subcommittee will review field
operations, sample handling and
analysis, data review and validation,
data uses, and reporting proce-
dures. The review should ensure
that valid data are generated and
distributed to decision makers.
-------
142 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Oklahoma
For a copy of the Oklahoma 1992
305(b) report, contact:
John Dyer
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
1000 Tenth Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
(405) 271-5205
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Turbidity, siltation, pesticides,
and nutrients, primarily from agricul-
tural sources, cause the most wide-
spread impairments in rivers,
streams, and lakes. Other significant
sources include domestic and indus-
trial wastewater discharges, construc-
tion runoff, urban runoff, and oil
field activities.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
7,045 mi
605,892 ac
120ac
Fully
Supporting
8%
16%
-
Threatened
50%
38%
100%
Partially
Supporting
31%
40%
Not
Supporting
11%
6%
Totals represent 8% of river miles, 58% of lake acres, and <1 % of wetlands acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In 1990, the Oklahoma Conser-
vation Commission (OCC) received
an EPA 319 grant to implement a
3-year demonstration project for
"Control of Erosion Related Pollution
from Mixed Agricultural Activities."
The OCC will implement the dem-
onstration project at three water-
sheds in western Oklahoma. Two of
the watersheds suffer from excessive
nutrient and sediment loads; the
third watershed is impaired by
bacteria, followed by sediment and
nutrients. Local conservation districts
and the OCC will select best man-
agement practices (BMPs) to rem-
edy the problems in each watershed
and recruit agricultural operators to
implement the BMPs. The OCC set
a project goal at 70 percent partici-
pation by local landowners. The
project also includes background
monitoring and post-implementa-
tion monitoring to assess BMP effec-
tiveness.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
In 1991, the State initiated a
3-year sampling program to identify
ground water wells potentially at
risk from agricultural impacts. The
State conducted background
surveys to identify areas most likely
to be contaminated by agricultural
impacts, such as animal Waste, fertil-
izer, and pesticides. In 1991, the
State sampled 67 wells and ana-
lyzed the samples for nitrate-
nitrogen and specific pesticides used
in the vicinity of each well. Four of
the samples contained nitrate-
nitrogen above the recommended
limit of 20 mg/L for noncommunity
water supplies. None of the samples
contained significant concentrations
of pesticides. Ultimately, the State
will sample 200 wells under the
program.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 143
Oregon
For a copy of the Oregon 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Elizabeth Thomson
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
811 SW. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5358
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Habitat alterations, flow alter-
ations, elevated temperatures, and
siltation affect the largest number of
stream miles. Rangeland, agriculture,
forestry, and recreational activities
impair the most stream miles. Nutri-
ents and pH affect lakes, and patho-
gens and toxics impair estuarine
waters.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed"
29,1 09 mi
504,928 ac
60 mi2
Fully
Supporting
43%
74%
7%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
30% .
12%
63%
Not
Supporting
27%
14%
31%
"Totals represent 32% of river miles, 82% of lake acres, and 30% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Groundwater Protection Act
requires statewide ground water
monitoring, domestic well testing,
public education activities, and
implementation of Best Manage- '
ment Practices (BMPs). The Oregon
Department of Environmental Qual-
ity (DEQ) implements the Ground-
water Quality Protection Rules
through existing programs such as
the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program for point sources and the
Environmental Cleanup Program.
The ground water rules minimize
wastewater discharges by requiring
facilities to adopt "highest and best
methods" that prevent pollutants
from entering ground water. The
rules also require that facilities de-
velop ground water management
plans and monitor ground water
quality. In addition, the DEQ
reviews new facility plans to ensure
that facility design, construction,
and operation will not degrade
ground water.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
In 1991, the State adopted new
narrative biocriteria and focused on
using biological monitoring to
detect the effects of nonpoint
sources. In 1991, the State moni-
tored rriacroinvertebrates at 45 sites
to determine the effects of grazing
and forest management practices
on water quality. The biological
monitoring program includes
macroinvertebrate assessments, fish
enzyme studies, fish tissue analysis
for toxic chemicals, fish health
observations, periphyton growth
studies, and toxicity testing.
-------
144 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Pennsylvania
For a copy of the Pennsylvania
1992 305(b) report, contact:
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Bureau of Water Quality
Management
Division of Assessment and
Standards
P.O. Box 8465, 10th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
(717)783-2959
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Abandoned mine drainage is the
leading source of surface water qual-
ity degradation. The pollutants
responsible for degradation due to
mining are low pH, metals, and
turbidity. Other sources of surface
water degradation include agricul-
ture and municipal and industrial
point sources. These sources gener-
ate nutrients, turbidity, and metals.
The major source of ground water
contamination is leaking under-
ground storage tanks. Other sources
of ground water contamination
include coal mining, bulk storage
tanks, chemical plants, and oil and
gas exploration. Contamination is
from both organic and inorganic
chemicals.
1992 Water Quality Assessment9
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed13
24,751 mi
Fully
Supporting
81%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
8%
Not
Supporting
11%
, .
a Source: 1993 305(b) Update.
bTotals represent 45% of river miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Current efforts to address
mining-related problems include:
requiring abatement or load reduc-
tion when sites are remined, recon-
struction of abandoned mines that
are a threat to public health, and
research programs. The Department
of Environmental Resources is also
pursuing legislative changes to pro-
vide incentives for remining and
reclamation. Agriculture problems
are addressed primarily through
individual conservation plans using
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
and education programs. Several of
the State's agencies are jointly de-
veloping a single, integrated docu-
ment that encompasses all the plan-
ning issues related to agriculture
such as erosion/sediment control,
manure management, and inte-
grated pest management. A permit-
ting program modifies land disposal
problems, and stormwater rules
require every county to prepare a
stormwater management plan that
identifies problems and suggests
BMPs to address the problems.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Currently there are 168
fixed-monitoring stations on rivers,
streams, and Lake Erie scheduled to
be visited monthly for stream dis-
charge and physical/chemical analy-
sis and annually for biological evalu-
ation of stream bottom life.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 145
Puerto Rico
For a copy of the Puerto Rico 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Eric H. Morales
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board
Water Quality Area
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
(809)751-5548
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterboity
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries'3
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
5,375 mi
1 0,587 ac
184 mi
428 mi
Fully
Supporting
5%
15%
5%
44%
Threatened
11%
22%
8%
42%
Partially
Supporting
18%
29%
18%
8%
Not
Supporting
66%
33%
69%
5%
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
The principal causes of impair-
ment in rivers are pathogen indica-
tors, nutrients, dissolved oxygen,
and metals primarily from land
disposal activities, agriculture, and
urban runoff. Impairment in lakes
and lagoons is caused by pathogen
indicators, nutrients, dissolved oxy-
gen, and other inorganics, the
sources of which include land dis-
posal, urban runoff, and agriculture.
In estuaries, urban runoff, storm
sewer discharges, and land disposal
are primary sources of impairment
caused by unknown toxicity, metals,
organic enrichment, and pathogen
indicators. Pathogen indicators are
the primary cause of impairment in
oceans with metals, chlorine, and
unknown toxicity also contributing.
Sources of ocean impairment include
land disposal and municipal point
sources.
'Totals represent 100% of river miles, 100% of lake acres, 100% of estuary square miles, and 100%
of ocean miles.
bPuerto Rico reports linear miles of estuaries supporting designated uses rather than square milesof
estuaries supporting designated uses.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
In addition to traditional point
source controls, Puerto Rico pro-
motes water quality through various
nonpoint source programs. Two of
the more prominent programs
attempt to control contamination
from livestock enterprises and ero-
sion from construction and mining
operations. Livestock enterprises are
required to implement animal fecal
waste management systems and
other Best Management Practices
(BMPs). Construction or extraction
activities that meet certain require-
ments are required to file a sedi-
ment and erosion control plan that
establishes the control measures
necessary to minimize erosion.
Monitoring of both surface and
ground waters was performed in
five priority watersheds to evaluate
the effectiveness of BMPs. Inspec-
tions of 200 livestock enterprises
were performed in five priority
watersheds. Inspections will also be
performed on cropland and agricul-
tural activities within the priority
watersheds to evaluate implementa-
tion of BMPs.
-------
146 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Rhode Island
For a copy of the Rhode Island
1992 305(b) report, contact:
Connie Carey
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908-5767
(401)277-6519
Causes and Sources
of Water Qualify Impairments
Metals, especially copper and
lead, are the most significant causes
of nonsupport in rivers and streams,
followed by priority organics, patho-
gen indicators, low dissolved oxygen
concentrations, and nutrients. Nutri-
ents, metals, eutrophication-related
low dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions, and pH impair lakes. In estuar-
ies and coastal waters, the major
causes of impairment include patho-
gen indicators, heavy metals, nutri-
ents, and eutrophication-related low
dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Major sources of pollutants in rivers
and estuaries include industrial dis-
charges, municipal discharges, com-
bined sewer overflows, urban runoff,
highway runoff, septic systems, and
contaminated sediments. In lakes,
septic systems and runoff are the
leading sources of impairment.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
664 mi
1 6,749 ac
193 mi2
Fully
Supporting
31%
8%
73%
'
Threatened
42%
71%
7%
Partially
Supporting
5%
18%
11%
Not
Supporting
22%
3%
9%
aTotals represent 86% of river miles, 100% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
Since 1990, the NFS manage-
ment program has documented
freshwater wetland water quality
problems, evaluated the State's
freshwater wetland regulations, and
proposed revisions to the regula-
tions. The NPS program also
reviewed the existing regulatory
framework for stormwater runoff
and developed Best Management
Practice (BMP) performance stan-
dards and applicability criteria for a
guidance manual issued to State
and municipal staff. The NPS pro-
gram also oversaw creation of the
Site Plan Review Program by the
Rhode Island Conservation Districts.
The program assists municipalities
reviewing site plans for compliance
with soil erosion and sediment
controls.
The Rhode Island Department
of Environmental Management and
the Narragansett Bay Project devel-
oped the Citizen's Volunteer Moni-
toring Program Coordination Project
to promote and coordinate all vol-
unteer monitoring groups at the
State level. The project supports a
Statewide Coordinator to educate
volunteers and ensure data quality.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 147
South Carolina
For a copy of the South Carolina
1992 305(b) report, contact:
Zach Corontzes
South Carolina DHEC
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-5300
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Organic enrichment, pathogens,
and pH cause most stream impair-
ments in South Carolina. Agriculture,
unknown sources, municipal point
sources, and urban runoff/storm
sewers are the leading sources of
impairments in rivers and streams.
Organic enrichment and low
dissolved oxygen concentrations are
the leading source of impairment in
lakes and estuaries. Unknown
sources generate most lake impair-
ments, followed by agriculture and
industrial point sources. Unknown
sources also generate most estuarine
impairments, followed by urban
runoff/storm sewers and industrial
point sources. Leaking underground
storage tanks account for most.
ground water contamination inci-
dents in the State.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
3,954 mi
382,028 ac
427 mi2
Fully
Supporting
72%
80%
73%
Threatened ,
Partially
Supporting '
16%
14%
24%
Not
Supporting
12%
6%
3%
Totals represent 40% of river miles, 73% of lake acres, and 20% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Con-
trol (DHEC) initiated the Watershed
Water Quality Management Strat-
egy to integrate protection activities
on a basin and watershed scale. The
Strategy integrates monitoring,
assessment, problem identification
and prioritization, water quality
modeling, permitting, and planning
activities to develop management
plans and implementation strategies
for entire watersheds. On a 5-year
rotation, DHEC will develop or
revise a water quality management
strategy for one of five delineated
hydrologic basins per year. Each
year, DHEC staff can focus monitor-
ing efforts on the targeted basin
rather than randomly selecting
monitoring sites throughout the
State. The watershed approach
encourages DHEC to evaluate both
point and nonpoint source impacts
and consolidate management solu-
tions.
Biological monitoring includes
identification and enumeration of
phytoplankton, aquatic macroinver-
tebrates, and fish. Biological sam-
pling stations are located in head-
water reaches of selected impound-
ments, in major waterbodies subject
to possible pollution, and critical
waters used for water supplies, rec-
reation, and fish and wildlife propa-
gation.
-------
148 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
South Dakota
For a copy of the South Dakota
1992 30S(b) report, contact-
Andrew Repsys
South Dakota Department of the
Environment and Natural
Resources
Division of Water Resource
Management
523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building,
Room 425
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-3696
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Agricultural nonpoint sources
and livestock operations are the pri-
mary sources of suspended solids
and pathogens causing impairments
fn rivers and streams. River impair-
ments also result from natural pollut-
ant sources, such as the erosive soils
naturally occurring in western South
Dakota. Elevated stream pH is
another important cause of impair-
ment, but the source could not be
identified. Runoff from agricultural
lands, carrying sediment and nutri-
ents, remains the major source of
lake pollution. Petroleum products,
fertilizers, and pesticides are the
most frequently identified contami-
nants in ground water.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
3,604 mi
683,458 ac
Fully
Supporting
17%
Threatened
81%
Partially
Supporting
26%
5%
Not
Supporting
57%
14%
Totals represent 36% of river miles and 98% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The land treatment phase of the
Oakwoods-Poinsett Rural Clean Wa-
ter Program (RCWP) implemented
best management practices (BMPs)
to reduce total nitrogen, pesticides,
animal wastes, and water- and
sediment-borne contaminants enter-
ing ground water and surface
waters. The project identified and
prioritized three critical areas for
BMP implementation based on
aquifer vulnerability and sediment
delivery. The RCWP contracted with
landowners to implement BMPs
(conservation tillage, fertilizer man-
agement, pesticide management,
and animal waste management) on
81 percent of the critical area with
highest priority and 60 percent of
all three critical areas. The RCWP
provided 75 percent cost share
assistance through the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation
Service.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The Comprehensive Monitoring
and Evaluation (CM&E) phase of
the Oakwoods-Poinsett RCWP moni-
tored the effects of BMP implemen-
tation on ground water and surface
water quality. The CM&E phase
included three monitoring studies:
(1) ground water monitoring,
(2) the Oakwood Lakes System
Study, and (3) the Agricultural
Chemical Leaching Study in the
vadose zone. Ground water moni-
toring was conducted at five farmed
fields with BMPs, one farmed field
without BMPs, and one unfarmed
site. Event-based sampling tech-
niques were developed for monitor-
ing ground water and the vadose
zone.
-------
Chapter Eight individual State Summaries 149
Tennessee
For a copy of the Tennessee 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Greg Denton
Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation
Division of Water Pollution Control
401 Church St., L&C Annex,
6th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
(615)532-0699
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
No single cause or source of
water quality impairment is domi-
nant, but siltation, organic enrich-
ment/dissolved oxygen, and sus-
pended solids affect many river
miles. Principal sources of river
impairment are agriculture, hydro-
modification, and land develop-
ment/construction. Although agricul-
ture impacts approximately
25 percent of the State's river miles,
it is not necessarily dominant.
Impairment of Tennessee's lakes is
from organic enrichment/dissolved
oxygen, priority organics, flow alter-
ation, and siltation. Sources of lake
impairment include in-place con-
taminants, upstream impoundments,
land development/construction, and
agriculture. The largest single source
of lake impacts is in-place contami-
nants, which has resulted in the
majority of the State's fish consump-
tion advisories.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
10,823 mi
539,326 ac
Fully
Supporting
47%
78%
Threatened
16%
1%
Partially
Supporting
27%
9%
Not
Supporting
9%
12%
"Totals represent 57% of river miles and 100% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
New regulatory and planning
tools such as Total Maximum Daily
Loading studies, updated water
quality standards, and the Storm-
water Program are being used to
adress pollution sources. Tennessee
has been very progressive in its use
of the Federal 401 Certification and
the State Aquatic Resource Altera-
tion Permit (ARAP) program to pro-
tect wetlands, regulate construction
runoff, and oversee activities such as
gravel dredging and channelization
of streams. Future tools envisioned
include watershed planning for
NPDES permitting activities, biocri-
teria, sediment criteria, and
increased ability to require BMPs for
nonpoint sources not currently
being regulated. Tennessee's ground
water criteria, wellhead protection
program, and an aquifer mapping
program are currently under devel-
opment.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Overall program effectiveness
will ultimately be gaged by streams
and lakes that are not currently fully
supporting designated uses being
brought into compliance with water
quality standards. The recent updat-
ing of the STORET system and the
newest Waterbody System (WBS)
will be used to track support of
designated uses and improved
water quality.
-------
ISO Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Texas
For a copy of the Texas 1992 305(b)
report, contact:
Steve Twidwell
Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512)908-1000
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Qualify Impairments
Use impairments in Texas
streams and rivers result primarily
from treated domestic wastewater
discharges that reduce dissolved
oxygen concentrations and elevate
fecal coliform densities. Use impair-
ments In reservoirs stem from natu-
ral sources and municipal waste-
water treatment plant discharges
resulting in elevated salinity, total
dissolved solids, and fecal coliform
densities. Industrial and municipal
point sources generate most of the
fecal coliform bacteria and toxic
contaminants causing use impair-
ments in bays. Most ground water
contamination incidents are related
to point source activities, such as
petroleum storage tanks and indus-
trial waste disposal.
Waterfaody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
14,1 07 mi
1, 504,539 ac
1,991 m2
Fully
Supporting
74%
89%
66%
Threat-
ened
Partially
Supporting
10%
<1%
8%
Not
Supporting
17%
11%
23%
Not
Attainable
3%
aTotals represent 7% of river miles, 49% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The Texas Water Commission
(TWC) wrote new rules that created
the Program for Assessment of
Water Quality by Watershed and
River Basin. The rules realign water
quality programs by regional river
authorities and require the TWC to
move toward simultaneously issuing
all wastewater discharge permits in
a basin. The watershed program
encourages public participation in
the development of regional assess-
ments.
The TWC, Texas Parks and Wild-
life Department, and EPA Region 6
are cooperatively conducting the
Texas Ecoregion Project. The project
will evaluate regional variability of
physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of Texas streams. The
project will determine the potential
for developing regional water qual-
ity standards and biological criteria,
verify Texas ecoregions, and refine
use assessment procedures.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 151
Utah
For a copy of the Utah 1992
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)538-6146
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Metals impair aquatic life sup-
port use and total dissolved solids
impair agricultural uses of streams
and rivers. The primary source of
these pollutants is nonpoint source
runoff. Agricultural practices such as
grazing and irrigation increase sedi-
ment and nutrient loading in
streams. Nutrient concentrations,
especially phosphorus, exceed State
indicator levels in most rivers,
streams, lakes, and reservoirs
sampled. However, the State does
not consider nutrient levels when
determining use support in rivers
and streams because the effects of
nutrients are difficult to assess with-
out concurrent biological sampling
or visual evaluations of aquatic plant
growth. The State does consider
nutrients the leading cause of
impairment in lakes, followed by low
dissolved oxygen and suspended
solids. The major sources of lake
pollutants are nonpoint sources,
agricultural practices, industrial and
municipal point sources, drawdown
of reservoirs, and natural background
level sources. Irrigation, urbanization,
and infiltration of leachate from
landfills, mine tailings, and mill
tailings degrade ground water.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
7,557 mi
450,078 ac
Fully,
Supporting
57%
61%
Threatened *
Partially
Supporting
16%
32%
Not
Supporting
27%
7%
aTotals represent 64% of river miles and 93% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
Utah's Watershed Program is
implementing NPS controls in five
priority watersheds, restoring stream
channels and wetlands, and identify-
ing sources of salts and sediments
entering the Colorado River. The
priority watershed projects will dem-
onstrate the water quality benefits
derived from NPS controls. The
State routinely relies on the Soil
Conservation Service to provide
technical expertise to cooperators in
priority watersheds. The Jordan River
Wetland Project will demonstrate
river restoration techniques in an
urban area. The Colorado River
project will focus on rangelands
loading salts and sediment into the
River.
Utah's interagency monitoring
program will undertake additional
habitat monitoring in addition to
chemical sampling to document
water quality improvements result-
ing from nonpoint source manage-
ment. Sampling will focus on water-
sheds implementing best manage-
ment practices.
-------
152 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Vermont
For a copy of the Vermont 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Jerome J. McArdle
Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Water Quality Division
103 South Main Street
Building 10 North
Waterbury,VT 05671-0408
(802) 244-6951
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
As in 1990, agriculture impairs
the greatest number of river miles,
primarily via nutrient runoff from
nonirrigated crop production, animal
management areas, and pasture
land. Siltation, nutrients, thermal
modification, and organic enrich-
ment cause the most extensive
impairments in rivers and streams.
Unspecified sources generate flow
alterations, nutrients, and algae, the
leading causes of impairments in
lakes and ponds (excluding Lake
Champlain). Flow regulation, stream-
bank destabilization, and agriculture
are tine most significant identified
nonpoint sources of pollution in
lakes. All of Vermont's portion of
Lake Champlain is impaired by phos-
phorus concentrations that exceed
the State's lake-specific criteria. Fish
consumption advisories for priority
organics, PCBs, and mercury also
threaten the entire lake. Leading
sources of ground water contamina-
tion include leaking underground
storage tanks and leachate from
landfills and hazardous waste sites.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes/Ponds
Lake Champlain
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed"
5,264 mi
52,851 ac
174,1 75 ac
Fully
Supporting
59%
37%
Threatened
22%
33%
'
Partially
Supporting
15%
20%
46%
Not
Supporting
4%
10%
54%
.
aTotals represent 100% of river miles and 99% of lake/pond acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In 1991, Vermont received EPA
Section 319 funding to implement
erosion controls in targeted water-
sheds, demonstrate agricultural
milkhouse waste treatment BMPs,
enforce domestic discharge rules,
and coordinate NPS projects with
other States.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Diagnostic studies on three
lakes suggested that watershed
monitoring programs are the only
reliable method for identifying
nonpoint sources impairing lakes.
The diagnostic studies identified
sources that contradicted profes-
sional evaluations made prior to
watershed monitoring. For example,
monitoring revealed that internal
phosphorus loading was the major
source of pollution in Lake Morey.
Prior to monitoring, the State sus-
pected that poorly sited septic sys-
tems were the primary source of
nutrients in the lake. Vermont will
expand lake monitoring with an EPA
Clean Lakes grant.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 153
Virginia
For a copy of the Virginia 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Carrie Gorsuch
Department of Environmental
Quality - Water Division
Office of Water Resources
Management
P.O. Box11143
Richmond, VA 23230-1143
(804) 762-4290
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Elevated densities of fecal colif-
orm bacteria, primarily from agricul-
tural runoff, are the most common
cause of impairment in Virginia's
rivers and streams, followed by met-
als. Nutrients and pH are the most
common causes of nonsupport in
lakes. The most prevalent sources of
lake impairments are agriculture,
silviculture, and urban runoff/storm
sewers. Nutrients are the dominant
cause of impairment in estuaries,
followed by Kepone and suspended
solids. Municipal and industrial point
sources, in-place contamination,
agriculture, runoff/storm sewers, and
atmospheric deposition affect the
most estuarine waters in Virginia.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
1 7,958 mi
90,762 ac
3,080 mi2
120 mi
Fully
Supporting
80%
93%
78%
100%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
14%
7%
20%
Not
Supporting
6%
<1%
2%
"Totals represent 33% of river miles, 56% of lake acres, 100% of estuary square miles, and 100%
of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Virginia Water Control
Board (now the Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality) encourages
wastewater treatment plants to
implement biological nutrient
removal (BNR), a new cost-effective
technology. The Hampton Roads
Sanitation District (HRSD)-York River
Sewage Treatment Plant conducted
a full-scale demonstration of the
BNR process during 1988 and 1989,
with a grant from the Water Control
Board. The HRSD was granted a
public domain patent for the BNR
process, ensuring that it will be
freely available to other municipali-
ties and industrial dischargers.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Virginia contracts the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey (USGS) and two uni-
versities to monitor the Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries. The USGS
samples nutrients at the fall lines of
five tributaries. The USGS increases
sampling frequency during storm
events to capture increased nutrient
and sediment loadings into the tidal
portion of the watershed. Virginia
will estimate nutrient loads to the
Bay with the nutrient data collected
by the USGS. The universities
sample chemical and biological
parameters at 27 stations in the
mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay.
The State will characterize spatial
and temporal patterns of nutrients,
organic materials, and plant pig-
ments in the Bay and its tributaries.
-------
154 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Virgin Islands
For a copy of the Virgin Islands 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Anne Hanley
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of
Planning and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 4340
St Thomas, VI 00801
(809) 773-0565
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Conventional pollutants pose
the greatest threat to marine and
estuarine environments. Sewage
discharges are frequent and result
from both mechanical breakdowns
and unpermitted discharges.
Nonpoint source contamination is
primarily from construction projects
and urban runoff from roads and
landfills. This runoff leads to
increased turbidity and nutrient
levels. Wastes from marine vessels
is another significant source of
impaired water quality. Water quality
standards for fecal coliform are often
exceeded and low dissolved oxygen
levels are found where there are
large numbers of live-aboard vessels
and low flushing rates of waters.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
6 mi2
Fully
Supporting
50%
Threatened
17%
Partially
Supporting
17%
Not
Supporting
16%
aTotals represent 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Discharge permits are the prin-
cipal regulatory tool for reducing
pollutant release into territorial
waters. Currently, a bill is pending
that would disallow any marine
vessel from discharging pollutants
into the territorial waters. Effective
nonpoint source control is, for all
purposes, nonexistent, but the Terri-
tory is developing programs to
combat soil erosion and urban run-
off. For example, new development
projects must provide for vegetated
buffers, wetlands, catch basins,
porous pavements, and similar sys-
tems for the detention, retention,
treatment, and percolation of run-
off. The Coastal Zone Management
Act also requires that the Territory
develop management plans for 18
of the most sensitive areas in the
Territory. Unfortunately many delays
have prevented development of
these plans.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Toxicity testing, stormwater
limits, and biological monitoring are
required by some permits. All point
sources must self-monitor and sub-
mit results to DPNR and EPA. DPNR
conducts compliance inspection on
all permittees and compliance moni-
toring on all major permittees.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 155
Washington
For a copy of the Washington 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Steve Butkus
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia,WA 98504-7600
(206) 407-6482
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Low levels of dissolved oxygen,
often naturally occurring, are the
major cause of impairment of desig-
nated uses in estuaries. Bacterial
contamination, primarily from agri-
cultural runoff, onsite wastewater
disposal, and municipal wastewater
treatment plants also causes impair-
ments in estuaries. Major causes of
impairment in lakes include nutri-
ents, pesticides, siltation, flow alter-
ation, and low dissolved oxygen.
Agricultural production is the pre-
dominant source of impairment in
lakes. Other sources include urban
runoff, land disposal, septic tanks,
and natural sources. In rivers and
streams agriculture is the major
source of water quality degradation,
followed by industrial point sources
and hydro-habitat modification.
Causes of water quality impairment
from these sources include thermal
modification, pathogen indicators,
metals, and priority organics.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
5,639 mi
80,696 ac
1,093 mi2
- -
Fully
Supporting
29%
46%
24%
Threatened
7%
5%
13%
Partially
Supporting
19%
22%
9%
Not
Supporting
46%
27%
54%
'Totals represent 14% of river miles, 13% of lake acres, and 37% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
Washington provides financial
incentives to encourage compliance
with permit requirements, the prin-
cipal vehicle for regulating point
source discharges. The State also
has extensive experience develop-
ing, funding, and implementing
nonpoint source pollution preven-
tion and control programs since the
early 1970s. The State has devel-
oped nonpoint source control plans
with Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for forest practices, dairy
waste, irrigated agriculture, dryland
agriculture, and urban stormwater.
The State is now focusing attention
is watershed planning. Efforts are
currently geared toward prioritizing
watersheds and developing compre-
hensive plans for the priority water-
sheds.
Washington implements an
aggressive program to monitor the
quality of lakes, estuaries, and rivers
and streams. The program makes
use of fixed-station monitoring to
track spatial and temporal water
quality changes so as to ascertain
the effectiveness of various water
quality programs and be able to
identify desirable adjustments to the
programs.
-------
156 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
West Virginia
For a copy of the West Virginia 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Michael A. Arcuri
West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection
Office of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304)558-2108
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Metals, siltation, and pH are the
leading causes of impairment in
rivers and lakes. Coal mining impairs
the most stream and river miles,
followed by pasture land and road
construction and maintenance. Coal
mining is the dominant source of
impairment in lakes, followed by
industrial point sources and agricul-
ture.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
5,287 mi
21,522ac
Fully
Supporting
14%
27%
Threatened
7%
8%
Partially
Supporting
63%
57%
Not
Supporting
16%
8%
aTotals represent 16% of river miles and 100% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 157
Wisconsin
For a copy of the Wisconsin 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Meg Turville-Heitz
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
(608)266-0152
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Siltation, habitat alterations, and
nutrients cause most impairments in
Wisconsin's rivers and streams.
Unspecified nonpoint sources, agri-
culture, and habitat modification are
the leading sources of river impair-
ments. Most lake impairments are
due to aquatic weeds, metals, and
nutrients. Fish contamination impairs
all 840 miles of Wisconsin's Great
Lakes shoreline. The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
blames historical point source dis-
charges for introducing most of the
priority organics, pesticides, and
metals currently detected in fish
samples. Other significant sources
include atmospheric deposition and
contaminated sediments.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed3
11,336 mi
211 ,734 ac
840 mi
Fully
Supporting
82%
21%
Threatened
1%
21%
Partially
Supporting
12%
25%
100%
Not
Supporting
5%
33%
aTotals represent 20% of river miles, 22% of lake acres, and 100% of Great Lakes shore miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The WDNR is currently develop-
ing a strategic plan, Water 2010, to
guide the State's water-related
activities for the next 20 years. River
basin water quality management
plans lay the foundation for the
Water 2010 strategic plan. The
basin plans, updated every 5 years,
identify planning goals, summarize
the condition of the waters in each
river basin, identify water quality
improvements and persistent pollu-
tion problems, and recommend
remedial or preventive actions
needed to protect water quality.
The river basin plans also contain
watershed rankings used to select
priority watershed projects for fund-
ing under the Wisconsin Nonpoint
Source Water Pollution Abatement
Program. The nonpoint source pro-
gram provides funds to individual
landowners and communities to
implement priority watershed
projects.
Under the Great Lakes Coastal
Sediment Study, WDNR is evaluat-
ing procedures for assessing sedi-
ment toxicity. The staff established
reference concentrations for toxics
measured in samples collected from
coastal streams and harbors above
contaminated areas. The study will
evaluate contaminant bioacumrnu-
lative potential of coastal sediments
by placing caged fathead minnows
over sediments previously sampled
for laboratory tests. Sediment
samples will be collected from the
cage sites for bulk chemistry analy-
sis.
-------
158 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Wyoming
For a copy of the Wyoming 1992
305(b) report, contact:
Robert Gumtow
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building - 4th Floor
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7098
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Sediment and siltation, nutrients,
total dissolved solids and salinity,
flow alteration, and low dissolved
oxygen concentrations are the top
five causes of water quality impair-
ment in Wyoming streams. The top
five sources, based on the number
of miles impacted, are rangeland,
natural sources, irrigated cropland,
pasture land, and highway, bridge,
and road construction. In lakes, low
dissolved oxygen concentrations,
nutrients, sediment and silt, other
inorganics, and metals cause the
most extensive impairments. The top
five sources of impairment in lakes
include natural sources, rangeland,
irrigated cropland, flow regulation,
and municipal discharges.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed"
6,01 3 mi
1 25,422 ac
Fully
Supporting
13%
26%
Threatened
20%
1%
Partially
Supporting
59%
50%
Not
Supporting
8%
23%
aTotals represent 26% of river miles and 43% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In 1991, the Governor ap-
pointed a citizen-based Nonpoint
Source Task Force to modify the
Wyoming Nonpoint Source Plan
and oversee nonpoint source project
funding and implementation. Since
its formation, all project proposals
undergo Task Force review. Cur-
rently funded projects will demon-
strate best management practices
for cropland production and road
construction, riparian restoration,
and education programs.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Nonpoint source assessment is a
high priority in Wyoming due to the
complexities of accounting for natu-
ral background levels of sedimenta-
tion. The State intends to incorpo-
rate volunteer monitoring and bio-
logical assessment in the routine
monitoring program to gather addi-
tional data needed to distinguish
natural sedimentation and nonpoint
source inputs. Currently, the State is
designating reference stream sites
representative of relatively undis-
turbed sites in specific ecoregions.
Biological parameters such as spe-
cies composition, species abun-
dance, and relative habitat condi-
tion will be examined at these can-
didate streams.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 159
-------
-------
State Recommendations
In their 1992 reports, 30 States
and Territories discussed recom-
mended program actions needed to
make additional progress toward
the Clean Water Act's goal of fish-
able and swimmable waters. These
recommendations encompass a
range of actions at the congres-
sional, Federal, State, and local
levels and are often expressed in
terms of State objectives or continu-
ing needs. It should be emphasized
that the recommendations discussed
here were reported by the States
themselves in 1992; this discussion
does not attempt to assess their
merits. Nor should this discussion
be construed as an EPA or Adminis-
tration endorsement of any State
recommendations. Many of the
State recommendations for action
do, however, coincide with current
EPA program concerns and priori-
ties.
A recurring theme in almost all
State recommendations is the need
for continued, and in many cases
additional, funding to implement
ever-expanding State water quality
protection responsibilities. For
example, Mississippi's 305(b) report
includes the following:
Additional resources are needed
to evaluate and regulate the
environmental risk from the
release of toxic chemicals, to
develop the storm water
permitting and regulatory
program, to implement a
statewide nonpoint control
program, to expand and
strengthen our wetlands protec-
tion efforts, to implement and
manage the State's Wellhead
Protection Program, to expand
the Ambient Surface Water
Monitoring Program, to develop
narrative and numeric biological
criteria, to expand our labora-
tory's analytical capability, to
develop Total Maximum Daily
Loads, and to develop and
implement a citizen volunteer
monitoring program. Without
additional funding and staffing,
most of these concerns cannot
be adequately addressed, if at
all.
In general, the most frequently
reported State recommendations fall
into eight major categories. These
areas of concern are
nonpoint source
abatement, toxic
identification and
control, water quality
monitoring, ground
water conservation,
wetlands protection,
pollutant source dis-
charge permitting,
municipal facilities, and
water quality criteria
and standards. Other
concerns less frequently
reported include data
management/coordina-
tion, sewer overflow treat-
ment, and education to increase
public awareness.
source
-------
162 Chapter Nine State Recommendations
$&&ฃ
Nonpoint Source
Abatement
Recommendations most often
cited by the States concern the
identification, prevention, and con-
trol of nonpoint sources (NPSs) of
pollution. Most commonly, States
cite the need for additional
funding for development of
better monitoring and assess-
ment methods to detect
nonpoint sources, assess their
impacts, and determine the effec-
tiveness of NFS controls. States
listed regulation of urban runoff
and increased monitoring as NPS
areas needing additional financial
support. (Note that much of urban
runoff is discharged in a conveyance
that is legally considered a point
source and is subject to National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem [NPDES] stormwater require-
ments.) Many States indicate that
increased monitoring will enhance
the ability to identify and eventually
control nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion. Montana's 305(b) states:
To adequately measure the
effectiveness of the state's
nonpoint source control pro-
gram and other water pollution
control programs would require
a greatly expanded monitoring
and assessment effort.
A number of States cite'
increased public education on the
nature of NPS pollution and NPS
controls as a mechanism for encour-
aging BMP implementation and
NPS program funding. Several
States suggest EPA should take spe-
cific actions with respect to NPS
programs ranging from issuing total
maximum daily loading limits for
NPS pollutants and recommending
adoption of more stringent nutrient
standards to developing numeric
criteria for NPS pollutants.
Identification
and Control of
Toxic Substances
The States strongly recommend
expanding efforts to gather data on
toxic pollutants and to develop or
implement State toxic control pro-
grams. Specific recommendations
for data collection on toxics empha-
size two areas: bioaccumulation of
toxics in fish and shellfish tissue and
sediment contamination. The States
cite a need for the Federal govern-
ment to provide national guidance
on bioaccumulation of toxics in fish
tissue. Several States requested
funding to initiate or expand their
current fish tissue monitoring pro-
grams. With respect to sediment
contamination, there were recom-
mendations for the EPA to actively
pursue development of a nation-
wide in-place pollutant program
designed to provide both technical
guidance and dedicated Federal
financial support for expansion of
sediment monitoring programs and
remediation efforts. In addition,
States cite the need for EPA to
refine and/or develop national sedi-
ment criteria for toxics, particularly
heavy metals.
-------
Chapter Nine State Recommendations 163
Water Quality
Monitoring
Beyond expressing a general
need to expand water quality moni-
toring activities and evaluate them
to be certain they are providing
needed data, a prominent theme of
State monitoring recommendations
is to increase the emphasis on
instream biological monitoring as an
indicator of pollution and pollution
abatement. Specifically, several
States recommend the expanded
use of volunteer monitoring pro-
grams in which volunteers are
trained to make observations of
aquatic and terrestrial conditions
and perform water quality sampling
and analysis. Other monitoring rec-
ommendations include seeking
increased EPA and State support to
expand fish tissue and sediment
toxics monitoring programs as well
as lake and NFS monitoring efforts.
Future Ground Walter
Concerns
A number of special or future
ground water concerns were men-
tioned by 33 States in their Section
305(b) reports. The most prevalent
issues were
Agricultural nonpoint source
discharges, including nitrate and
pesticide contamination and soil
erosion problems (17 States)
Funding and staff resources
(15 States)
Data management (12 States)
Development and implementa-
tion of State and Federal regula-
tions, including enforcement and
legislative support for State ground
water protection programs
(12 States)
Development and maintenance
of State monitoring systems
(11 States).
Nitrate and pesticide contami-
nation of ground water are of par-
ticular concern in many States
because of the extensive reliance on
ground water for rural drinking
water supplies. Poten-
tial adverse health
effects associated with
the consumption of
nitrate- or pesticide-
tainted water include
methemoglobinemia
(blue baby syndrome),
cardiovascular disorders,
hypertension, and cancer.
In response to these con-
cerns, one State suggested
that Federal pesticide regis-
tration criteria should be
developed to rate pesticides on their
potential to migrate through soils
and into ground water.
A number of States expressed
concerns with regard to the contin-
ued ability to fund State and Federal
ground water research and protec-
tion programs. The lack of a stable
long-term source of funding for
these programs and the Federal
emphasis on expanding the role of
State governments in ground water
protection programs were of con-
cern to many States. These States
applauded the Federal focus on
prevention of ground water
contamination as a more effective
-------
164 Chapter Nine State Recommendations
and economical approach than a
focus solely on remediation
programs. However, they also
expressed that, without adequate
Federal funding, the development
and implementation of these
programs cannot be accomplished.
Two States suggested better utiliza-
tion of volunteers in reaching
program goals. Also mentioned was
the establishment of a cleanup fund
financed by penalties or other
enforcement actions and fees.
Data management concerns for
many States included the lack of
computerized databases to accom-
modate the growing body of
ground water quality data.
Monitoring produces large
volumes of data, much of which
remains on manual files in various
State and local agencies where it is
not readily accessible. Incompatibil-
ity between computer systems and
lack of coordination between agen-
cies was also cited as a problem.
Many of the States recognized that
they must continue to expand their
monitoring efforts to include poten-
tial sources of contamination and to
evaluate the relationship between
surface water and ground water
quality.
Although ground water has
traditionally been considered a safe
source of drinking water, research
and monitoring have revealed prob-
lems in a number of States that may
threaten the integrity of their
ground water resources. Population
growth and residential development
compound the need for clean, safe
ground water supplies. Many States
see that the promotion of public
awareness campaigns and improved
ground water monitoring have
placed ground water protection in
the forefront of their environmental
agenda.
Wetlands Protection
Several States called for
increased Federal efforts in protect-
ing valuable wetlands resources.
Specific recommendations include
the need for additional Federal
appropriations to identify and quan-
tify wetlands acreage and to
strengthen existing State protection
efforts. In addition, a number of
States cited the need for additional
Federal guidance in developing
water quality standards and desig-
nated use classification for wetlands
or, in lieu of that, the need for
establishing national minimum
water quality standards for wetlands
to be incorporated into State
regulations.
-------
Chapter Nine State Recommendations 165
Pollutant Source
Discharge Permitting
Federal financial assistance has
been requested by the States for
increases in planning/review func-
tions necessary to enact a more
forceful and stricter NPDES permit
program as stipulated by the Fed-
eral Government. Because new
mandates require sludge manage-
ment, toxicity biomonitoring, and
storm water management to be
implemented through the NPDES
program, a heavier burden has been
placed on State programs to com-
ply with these revisions. Several
States indicated the need to incor-
porate NFS into the NPDES permit
program. The State of Oklahoma is
currently developing a Total Maxi-
mum Daily Load process to be used
in issuing NPS permits. Another
recommendation made was to
amend the Atomic Energy Act,
which exempts certain pollutants,
such as plutonium and enriched
uranium, from regulation under the
NPDES program. The EPA was spe-
cifically asked to change its NPDES
enforcement policy from focusing
on permit classification (dischargers
are currently graded on volume of
discharge) to uniform enforcement,
regardless of discharge volume. It
was suggested that enforcement
efforts be based on compliance
records, designated stream uses,
water quality standards violations,
and potential risk to environment or
public health.
Municipal Facilities
Continued funding for the
maintenance, upgrade, and con-
struction of municipal sewage treat-
ment facilities remains a leading
recommendation of the States. Sev-
eral States expressed concerns about
the State Revolving Fund Program,
which replaces the Construction
Grants Program terminated in 1990.
The State Revolving Fund Program
transfers funding responsibility for
wastewater treatment construction
from the Federal Government to the
States. Several States voiced con-
cerns that adequate money is not
available to provide a smooth transi-
tion from the Construction Grants
Program to the State Revolving
Fund Program. Several States
expressed concerns about acquiring
the matching funds required to
initiate State Revolving Fund ,
Programs in their States.
Two other municipal concerns
that were cited by many States
involved pretreatment and com-
bined sewer overflow (CSO) mitiga-
tion problems. States feel EPA
should put more pressure on
municipalities to implement and
enforce their approved pretreatment
programs. Federal funding is urged
to support inspections, audits of
industrial uses, enforcement, and
more research on the effectiveness
of pretreatment in reducing toxics
in effluent. Special appropriations
are also suggested for CSO mitiga-
tion projects, and, because of exces-
sive costs, States recommend Fed-
eral assistance be provided to imple-
ment the projects expeditiously.
-------
166 Chapter Nine State Recommendations
States' water quality
standards consist of:
Criteria for specific
pollutants established by
tfie States and approved
by EPA
Designated uses
Antidegradation policy
Water Quality Criteria
and Standards
The States' ability to assess
water quality conditions depends
heavily on criteria for specific pollut-
ants established by the States and
approved by the EPA. When these
criteria are violated, designated uses
may not be met. Together with an
antidegradation policy, the criteria
and the uses they protect form the
State's water quality standards.
A number of States recommend
updating their standards by taking
such actions as strengthening
numerical criteria for toxics (particu-
larly priority organics and heavy
metals), adopting new standards for
NFS pollutants and wetlands protec-
tion, or developing more specific
classifications such as nutrient-
sensitive or high-quality waters.
Federal leadership is urged in finaliz-
ing criteria for sediment contamina-
tion and continuing to refine and
develop criteria for substances caus-
ing risks to human health with spe-
cific emphasis on fish and shellfish
consumption advisories. EPA is also
encouraged to promote greater
interstate consistency in all water
quality standards.
-------
Part in
Water Quality
Management Programs
-------
-------
The Watershed Protection
Approach
Background
Since the 1990 Report to Con-
gress, EPA and many States have
moved toward a more geographi-
cally oriented approach to water
quality management. They share a
growing consensus that the
Nation's nonpoint source and habi-
tat degradation problems can be
solved best at the basin or water-
shed level.
In 1991, EPA highlighted the
Watershed Protection Approach
(WPA), a framework for focusing
efforts on carefully chosen water-
sheds. The WPA is not a new gov-
ernment program, but rather a
means of pulling together the
resources and expertise of existing
local, State, and Federal programs.
A State that is using the WPA
Targets those watersheds where
pollution poses the greatest risk to
human health, ecological resources,
or desirable uses of the water, and
where a successful outcome is likely
Involves all parties with a stake
in the watershed in the analysis of
problems and the implementation
of solutions
Draws on the full range of meth-
ods and tools available, integrating
them into a coordinated, multi-
organizational attack on the prob-
lems.
The WPA draws on existing EPA
authorities, as well as State and local
requirements, and voluntary actions
to resolve all significant water qual-
ity problems in a water-
shed. The WPA empha-
sizes the goal of moni-
toring or restoring eco-
logical integrity in water-
sheds in addition to the
more traditional goals of
protecting human health
and meeting water quality
standards. Restoring ecolog-
ical integrity means more
than controlling chemical
pollutants in the water col-
umn; other factors-flow, tem-
perature, bank and riparian
buffer condition, sedimenta-
tion, existence of riffles and
pools in the stream-must be
considered.
The Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) process, as established by
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water
Act, is a key element of the Water-
shed Protection Approach. TMDLs
provide a flexible tool to address
any stressor that precludes the at-
tainment of water quality standards.
A TMDL calculates allowable load-
ings from the contributing point
and nonpoint sources to a given
waterbody and provides a quantita-
tive target for the pollution reduc-
tion necessary to meet water quality
standards. States develop and
implement TMDLs for impaired or
threatened waterbodies.
Under the WPA, a
"watershed" is a hydro-
geologic area defined
for best management
purposes. A watershed
can be a river basin, a
county-sized watershed,
or a small supply
watershed.
-------
170 Chapter Ten The Watershed Protection Approach
EPA's recent efforts to fully
implement Section 303(d) revolve
around tackling more challenging
problems and moving toward inte-
grated water-quality-based controls
on point and nonpoint sources,
geographic targeting, and water-
shed-scale assessments and protec-
tion.
The WPA fosters a high level of
interprogram coordination within a
State. Historically, each individual
program deals with a particular
problem, and each sets its own
priorities. In a typical State, the Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) program issues
discharge permits for point sources,
the Section 319 program deals with
nonpoint source controls, the
ground water program protects
wellheads and aquifers, and the
fisheries program monitors fish
populations and contamination by
toxics. The WPA seeks to establish
common priorities so that all avail-
able resources and talent can be
brought to bear on targeted areas.
Implementation
WPA projects are being imple-
mented at three levels-State, local,
and regional. Some States, such as
North Carolina and South Carolina,
have incorporated elements of the
WPA by shifting program activities
to a basinwide planning approach.
These States concurrently conduct
most major program activities such
as NPDES permitting, nonpoint
source management, TMDL devel-
opment, and monitoring within a
basin (Figure 10-1). A management
plan is developed for each basin
every 5 years. Both of these States
made the switch to basinwide plan-
ning without major organizational
changes or increased resources.
Wisconsin's Priority Watershed
Program focuses on watersheds
rather than large basins. Wisconsin
targets several of the State's 330
-------
Chapter Ten The Watershed Protection Approach 171
watersheds each year and begins
nonpoint source planning, monitor-
ing, and other efforts; full imple-
mentation of a watershed plan takes
about 10 years.
On the local level, the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture and other
agencies have sponsored watershed
projects for many years. In other
cases, a local government agency
provides the impetus for a project
and a special management agency
may be formed. Successful projects
involve a high degree of local par-
ticipation through advisory commit-
tees, volunteer monitoring, and
other activities. The Anacostia River
Restoration Program is an example
of a progressive urban watershed
project (see highlight). The State of
Washington also provides technical
expertise to local committees for
preparation of watershed action
plans (see Puget Sound highlight).
At the regional level, large
watershed projects often involve
multiple States and Federal jurisdic-
tions. The Great Lakes and National
Estuary Programs (described in
Chapter 11) are examples of WPA-
type projects at the regional level. In
addition, the EPA Regions are imple-
menting a series of WPA projects in
their States.
Figure 10-1
Neuse River Basin
The Neuse River Basin, North Carolina, featuring the upper Contentnea
Creek watershed. The State will update the Neuse River Basin Plan,
conduct monitoring, and revise NPDES permits concurrently throughout
the basin every 5 years.
-------
'tin ill Wlf
HIGHLIGHT
SMilU !;K
i iwiiiii' iip'ui Jo: ii1 i. iaiiiiiii I"IK
iiiiiini'i'!, "a IIIIIIIIIIKV^^^ ::) 'viniiinii! IE'IPIIIH ii:T:'L IKP:
iSr'wH''!'*.Ti;'jiliii;Ji:1!!iJi.iit!aL'i
iiir i' iW;:
The Anacostia River
Restoration Project
This project illustrates many of
the principles being encouraged
under EPA's Watershed Protection
Approach.
Background
The Anacostia River is a tribu-
tary to the Potomac River and has
a watershed of about 150 square
miles. The watershed has a variety
of pollution and habitat modifica-
tion problems. Starting in the
1930s, construction projects along
the Capitol Mall and Washington's
central business district transferred
much of the surface drainage of the
Tiber River to the Anacostia. This
creates a substantial combined
sewer overflow (CSO) problem on
the lower, tidal portions of the
River. In addition, approximately
75% of the Anacostia watershed's
forest cover has been removed for
urban development and agriculture,
resulting in high stormwater flows
and pollutant loadings.
From an early date, the
Anacostia was targeted by Maryland
as a Critical Area under the Chesa-
peake Bay program. With impetus
from this program, the Anacostia
Restoration Agreement was signed
in 1987. The four principal signa-
tories are the State of Maryland,
Maryland's Montgomery and Prince
George's Counties, and the District
of Columbia.
Stakeholders
The Anacostia River Restoration
Committee consists of representa-
tives from the signatory agencies:
District of Columbia Department
of Public Works
District of Columbia Department
of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Prince George's County Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation
Montgomery County Depart-
ment of Environmental Programs
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
Maryland Department of the
Environment.
Other stakeholders and participants
include
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission
National Park Service
Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin
Metropolitan Council of Govern-
ments
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Izaac Walton League
Anacostia Watershed Society
Alliance for Chesapeake Bay.
-------
Subwatershed Action Plans
With more than 60 groups and
government programs involved, the
key to restoring the Anacostia River
is the creation of detailed Subwater-
shed Plans (SWAPs). SWAPs are
blueprints for restoration activities
within a portion of the Anacostia
Basin. SWAPs address high-priority
needs in each subwatershed while
targeting attention on goals that
will benefit the entire basin.
Each SWAP consists of eight
elements:
an analysis of existing water
quality information
specific goals to guide restoration
efforts
an inventory of stormwater
retrofit and stream restoration
opportunities
a priority ranking of restoration
projects based on feasibility, cost,
and ability to meet goals
long-term agreements to imple-
ment and monitor priority restora-
tion projects
plans to increase wetlands and
forest cover
lists of additional actions that
could protect the subwatershed
a long-term monitoring program
to assess progress in achieving water
quality and habitat improvements.
SWAPs have been defined for
nine subwatersheds and three more
SWAPs are under development.
Implementation of Controls
Implementation measures in the
Anacostia Basin generally fall into
two categories: stormwater retrofits
and stream restoration projects.
Stormwater retrofits usually control
storm surges with wet or dry deten-
tion structures. Promising restoration
measures include the establishment
of stream buffer zones, streambank
stabilization, wetlands reclamation,
riparian reforestation, and modifica-
tion of fish barriers. Coordination
with open space agencies, such as
the National Park Service and city
parks, helps target restoration efforts
to streamsides with the most poten-
tial to restore aquatic resources and
enhance natural processes that trap
pollutants.
SsE'jnsjgffilj^ .vw -^
**
-------
HT HIGHLIGHT
Puget Sound Watershed Planning'
Developing an Action
Plan
Local watershed management
committees form the backbone of
efforts to protect the State of
Washington's Puget Sound from
nonpoint sources. Local committees
seeking funding for watershed
projects in the Puget Sound basin
are required to prepare action plans
for control of nonpoint sources. The
Puget Sound Water Quality Author-
ity's Nonpoint Rule requires water-
shed management committees to
include, at a minimum, the follow-
ing elements in their action plans:
A watershed characterization,
including information such as water-
shed maps, geographic and biologi-
cal information, and sources of data
on the watershed
A water quality assessment iden-
tifying nonpoint sources of pollution
and evaluating water quality,
beneficial uses, and the biological
"health" of the watershed
A problem definition indicating
the extent of existing and potential
water quality problems and effects
on beneficial uses from nonpoint
sources in the watershed
Goals and objectives for preven-
tion and correction of these non-
point pollution concerns
Specific source control programs
to address the problems identified
and justification for the manage-
ment actions proposed in each of
these programs. Source control
programs can apply to stormwater,
erosion, agriculture, onsite sewage
disposal systems, forest practices,
boats and marinas, and other
nonpoint sources.
*Source: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1989.
-------
HIGHLIGH;
An implementation strategy
identifying specific actions required,
the responsibilities of each imple-
menting agency or entity, and
project milestones, costs, and fund-
ing sources.
Interagency Technical
Assistance Teams
The Washington Department
of Ecology (DOE) formed the Inter-
agency Technical Assistance Team
to support local watershed commit-
tees. The Interagency Technical
Assistance Team provides a central
pool of experts that local commit-
tees can utilize. The team consists of
representatives from over 20 State
agencies with expertise in
Forestry best management
practices
Technical transfer to the agri-
cultural community
Surface water quality monitoring
and assessment
Ground water protection
Stormwater management
Shellfish protection
Public involvement strategies
Wildlife management
Habitat protection.
In addition, a Puget Sound
Cooperative River Basin Study Team
was formed with representatives
from the Soil Conservation Service,
the Forest Service, the Washington
Department of Fisheries, and DOE.
This team helps evaluate land use
water quality problems within
watersheds through field and litera-
ture investigations, provides man-
agement alternatives, and produces
reports and maps based on water-
shed information.
-------
176 Chapter Ten The Watershed Protection Approach
Helpful Publications About Watershed Protection
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1990. The State of
Anacostia: 1989 Status Report. Washington, DC.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1992. Watershed
Restoration Sourcebook. Washington, DC.
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science,
Technology, and Public Policy. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1989. Managing Nonpoint Pollution:
An Action Plan Handbook for Puget Sound Watersheds. Seattle, Washington.
USEPA. 1993. Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples. EPA 841 /
B-93-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1993. The Watershed Protection Approach: Basinwide Water Quality
Management. Draft. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1992. Watershed Events: An EPA Bulletin on Integrated Aquatic
Ecosystems Protection. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. The Watershed Protection Approach: An Overview. EPA 503/
9-92-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Final Watershed Protection Framework Document. Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL
Process. EPA 440/4-91-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. A Review of Methods for Assessing Nonpoint Source Contami-
nated Ground-Water Discharge to Surface Water. EPA 570/9-91-010. Office
of Ground Water, Washington, DC.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Dane County Land Conser-
vation Department. 1989. A Plan for the Control of Nonpoint Sources and
Related Resource Management in the Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed
Plan. Madison, Wisconsin.
-------
Chapter Ten The Watershed Protection Approach 177
-------
-------
Geographically
Targeted Programs
Introduction
The programs described in this
chapter (the Great Waterbodies
Program, the Great Waters Program,
and the National Estuary Program)
embody a watershed protection
approach at different scales. The
Great Waterbodies Program and the
Great Waters Program target entire
drainage basins, such as the Gulf of
Mexico, which drains two-thirds of
the continental United States and a
large portion of Mexico. The
National Estuary Program (NEP)
targets clusters of watersheds that
drain into a specific estuary, such as
Galveston Bay. NEP sites may be
nested within a larger basin
targeted by the Great Waterbodies
or Great Waters Programs, such as
the Gulf of Mexico.
Although scales differ, these
programs share a common ecosys-
tem approach to solving water
quality problems. The ecosystem
approach recognizes that all compo-
nents of the environment are inter-
connected and that pollution
released in one area can cause
problems in another. This concept
requires all responsible parties to
recognize and reduce impacts.
Therefore, managing pollution on
the ecosystem level requires build-
ing institutional frameworks that
involve all affected parties, such as
agricultural interests, environmental
advocacy organizations, industry,
government agencies, and private
citizens. Consensus is a key to
managing pollution on the ecosys-
tem level.
The ecosystem approach also
encourages pollution prevention
and efforts to avoid actions that can
even indirectly lead to contamina-
tion of the waterbody. Although
such ecosystem perspectives are
hardly new, they are more often
applied to much smaller units such
as watersheds.
The Great
Waterbodies
Program
Background
The Great Waterbodies Program
manages water quality protection
in the three largest watersheds tar-
geted by EPA: the Gulf of Mexico,
the Great Lakes, and the Chesa-
peake Bay.
The Gulf of Mexico
Background
The Gulf of Mexico is fed by
rivers draining a vast area in five
countries. The Gulf's watershed,
which covers almost 2 million
square miles, is far larger than the
Chesapeake Bay or Great Lakes
-------
180 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
watersheds. It includes two-thirds of
the continental United States, one-
half of Mexico, and parts of
Canada, Guatemala, and
Cuba. Over 1.1 million
square miles of the Gulf's
watershed are in the Missis-
sippi River drainage system,
making the Mississippi the
single largest freshwater riverine
influence on the Gulf.
The Gulf of Mexico is enor-
mously productive and diverse.
Covering 600,000 square miles,
the Gulf provides habitat for over
75% of U.S. migratory waterfowl.
Its commercial fisheries annually
produce nearly 2 billion pounds of
fish, oysters, shrimp, and crabs, and
almost 90% of U.S. offshore oil and
gas comes from Gulf waters. Four of
our Nation's busiest ports border its
shores, and many nations of the
world fish its waters. As a recre-
ational resource, the Gulf and adja-
cent estuaries provide a playground
for sport fishing, diving, water ski-
ing, sailing, swimming, sunbathing,
beachcombing, or just plain relax-
ing.
However, the health and vitality
of the Gulf have been declining in
recent years, caused in part by
increasing populations along its
coast and the growing demand
upon its resources and in part by
the accumulation of years of careless
depletion, abuse, and neglect of its
environment. These problems in the
Gulf have reduced its ability to
regenerate naturally. The result has
been alarming damage and destruc-
tion of the Gulf's ecosystem and
habitats, particularly wetlands and
seagrasses. These losses stem from:
marine debris, toxic substances and
pesticides, coastal and shoreline
erosion, nutrient enrichment,
freshwater inflow, nonpoint source
runoff, and contaminants from inef-
ficient or nonexistent septic systems.
The effects are seen in decreasing
populations of waterfowl and
marine wildlife, increasing degrada-
tion and loss of wetlands and other
habitat, and growing threats to
human health from environmental
pollution.
The Gulf of Mexico
Program
In response to signs of serious
long-term environmental damage
throughout the Gulf's coastal and
marine ecosystem, the Gulf of
Mexico Program (GMP) was estab-
lished in August 1988 with EPA as
the lead Federal agency. The Pro-
gram Office is located at Stennis
Space Center in Mississippi. Its main
purpose is to develop and help
implement a strategy to protect,
restore, and maintain the health
and productivity of the Gulf. The
GMP is a grass roots program that
serves as a catalyst to promote shar-
ing of information, pooling of
resources, and coordination of
efforts to restore and reclaim wet-
lands and wildlife habitat, clean up
existing pollution, and prevent
future contamination and destruc-
tion of Gulf resources.
In addition to providing funds,
the GMP mobilizes Federal, State,
and local government; business and
industry; academia; and the com-
munity at large through programs
of public awareness, information
dissemination, forum discussions,
citizen committees, and technology
application. A Policy Review Board
and a newly formed Management
Committee determine the scope
and focus of GMP activities. The
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 181
program also receives input from a
Technical Advisory Committee and
a Citizen's Advisory Committee. The
GMP Office and 10 technical Issue
Committees coordinate the collec-
tion, integration, and reporting of
pertinent data and information.
The Issue Committees are
responsible for documenting envi-
ronmental problems and manage-
ment goals, available government
and private resources, and potential
solutions relating to specific issue
areas. The Issue Committees are
composed of individuals from Fed-
eral, State, and local agencies and
from industry, science, education,
business, citizen groups, and private
organizations. These committees
cover a broad range of issues,
including habitat degradation, pub-
lic health, freshwater inflow, marine
debris, coastal and shoreline ero-
sion, nutrient enrichment, toxics
and pesticides, and living aquatic
resources. They develop and present
their findings in GMP documents
called Action Agendas, which
describe strategies to build upon
programs already under way and to
develop new cooperative mecha-
nisms with other public and private
organizations. The Action Agendas
also provide strategies to monitor
and assess the effectiveness of ongo-
ing efforts and to communicate
information to individuals and agen-
cies that can best use it. Two addi-
tional committees provide opera-
tional support for public education
and outreach and data and informa-
tion transfer activities for the entire
GMP.
Partnership for Action
On December 10, 1992, EPA;
the Governors of Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas;
the Chair of the Citizens Advisory
Committee; and representatives of
10 other Federal agencies signed a
Gulf of Mexico Program Partnership
for Action agreement for protecting,
restoring, and enhancing the Gulf of
Mexico and adjacent lands. The
partnership document includes
vision and goal statements and nine
5-year challenges for the GMP. The
goals established for the Gulf of
Mexico Program are to protect,
restore, and enhance the coastal
and marine waters of the Gulf of
Mexico and its natural coastal habi-
tats, to sustain living resources, to
protect human health and the food
supply, and to ensure the recre-
ational use of Gulf shores, beaches,
and waters in ways consistent with
the economic well-being of the
region.
The nine environmental chal-
lenges commit the signatory agen-
cies to pledge their efforts, over the
next 5 years, to obtain the knowl-
edge and resources to
Significantly reduce the rate of
loss of coastal wetlands
Achieve an increase in Gulf Coast
seagrass beds
Enhance the sustainability of Gulf
commercial and recreational fisher-
ies
H Protect human health and the
food supply by reducing inputs of
nutrients, toxic substances, and
pathogens to the Gulf
Increase Gulf shellfish beds avail-
able for safe harvesting by 10%
Ensure that all Gulf beaches are
safe for swimming and recreational
uses
Reduce by at least 10% the
amount of trash on beaches
-------
182 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Improve and expand coastal
habitats that support migratory
birds, fish, and other living resources
Expand public education/out-
reach tailored for each Gulf Coast
county or parish.
The CMP structure has been
streamlined to better meet the
needs of the new 5-year environ-
mental challenges. In addition, EPA
is restructuring its management
scheme for the CMP to increase
Regional involvement in the pro-
gram as it moves to implement
environmental protection and resto-
ration activities.
Take-Action Projects
During 1992, the CMP
launched important environmental
projects in each of the five Gulf
States to demonstrate that CMP
strategies and methods could
achieve positive results quickly.
Called "Take-Action Projects,"
they primarily address habitat
protection and restoration and
public health. They are designed
for Gulf-wide application to help
restore the environment.
Water Quality
In Louisiana, Florida, and Ala-
bama, several Take-Action Projects
deal with pollution and contami-
nants from inadequate treatment of
human waste-a main cause of dam-
age to Gulf coastal ecosystems and
a major concern to public health
officials and to the tourism and
seafood industries.
An innovative wastewater treat-
ment system is being monitored in
a pilot project near the Port Four-
chon/Bay Marchand area of
Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. The
upwelling injection system filters
human wastewater through a sand/
soil bed to remove fecal coliforms
and enteric viruses-the primary
pollutants and contaminants in
human waste. The system uses inex-
pensive, easy to install equipment
that has potential use throughout
the Gulf's system of rivers and bay-
ous. Monitoring and mathematical
modeling will be used to evaluate
the improvement of environmental
conditions in nearby oyster beds.
A Take-Action Project is under
way in Florida's Suwannee Sound
and Appalachicola National Estua-
rine Research Reserve to upgrade
existing septic systems that pollute
coastal waters. Contamination from
fecal coliforms has required suspen-
sion of oyster harvesting and threat-
ened to close beaches. Health offi-
cials are monitoring improvements
to oyster habitat and recreational
uses of coastal waters.
The use of peat moss as a me-
dium for filtration and biological
treatment of household wastewater
is being demonstrated in Weeks
Bay, Alabama. Use of this raw mate-
rial and renewable resource as a
sewage treatment medium is
intended to reduce fecal coliforms
in nearby oyster-producing waters.
Pollution Prevention
The State of Mississippi has
developed a common sense publica-
tion entitled The Gulf of Mexico
Citizens Pollution Prevention Hand-
book. Written in nontechnical
language, the handbook describes
the Gulf of Mexico and explains
why it is a valuable resource to our
Nation's economy and quality of
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 183
life. This take-action guide provides
a detailed listing of contacts for
more information, and it explains
specific ways that everyone in the
Gulf region can be actively involved
in restoring and preserving the
environmental quality of the Gulf.
Habitat Protection
Based on a Texas program
called Coastal Preserves, a CMP
Take-Action Project called Eco-
reserves strives to protect coastal
tracts that have been identified as
important to the Gulf ecosystem. In
some cases, areas may be preserved
as wilderness. In others, they would
be conserved-that is, carefully moni-
tored and managed to maintain
their vitality as wildlife and marine
life habitat while being used for
hunting, fishing, resource extraction,
recreation, or other development.
Ideally, these tracts would be under
the management and protection of
a government agency or established
environmental organization.
To promote the concept Gulf-
wide, the GMP sponsored an Eco-
reserves Workshop in New Orleans
to share information about the need
to protect such areas; to discuss the
resources available to help manage,
preserve, or conserve them; and to
develop a strategy for generating
Gulf-wide support and funding for
protecting the most valuable of
these tracts.
Adopting this concept, Missis-
sippi set aside a donated portion of
the Graveline Bayou Estuary and
placed it under the protection and
management of the State's Bureau
of Marine Resources.
Protection of oyster habitat is the
goal of a Take-Action Project in
Alabama. Oyster beds and reef sys-
tems in the shallow waters of
Mobile Bay, often harmed uninten-
tionally by boaters and fishermen,
have been marked with buoys and
signs to help boaters and fishermen
avoid damaging them in the future.
Habitat Restoration
The degradation (and in many
cases, complete disappearance) of
wildlife and marine life habitats is
one of the most serious environ-
mental problems of the Gu)f ecosys-
tem. Restoration of these habitats is
the focus of numerous GMP Take-
Action Projects throughout the Gulf
Region. Wetlands, reefs, seagrasses,
and the quality of the water in
these habitats are among the most
significant concerns receiving imme-
diate attention.
Seagrass Beds
One of several Take-Action
Projects in Alabama's Mobile Bay is
an innovative program to restore
damaged or destroyed seagrass
beds - a major habitat for fish,
shrimp, and crabs. A new approach
being developed is less costly and
labor intensive than current meth-
ods of transplanting from existing
seagrass beds. Seagrasses are germi-
nated from the seeds of wild plants,
grown in the natural environment
within protected mesh-covered
trays, then planted in designated
areas where seagrass beds are in
decline or are known to have once
existed. Low in cost and requiring
very little equipment or technical
knowledge, this program lends itself
extremely well to hands-on partici-
pation by concerned citizens and
can be easily implemented
Gulf-wide.
-------
184 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Salt Marsh Wetland
Another Take-Action Project in
Alabama's Mobile Bay is the restora-
tion of a salt marsh wetland on an
abandoned site near the Dauphin
Island Sea Lab. A wildlife habitat
before the Civil War, this marsh
wetland was filled in and used for a
number of land uses including grave
sites and large septic tank reservoirs.
The objective of this project is to
accelerate the natural reclamation
process of tidal action and provide a
model for future manmade marsh
and wetlands areas. A team of sci-
entists is carefully monitoring the
marsh reconstruction (from initial
sloping of the land and planting of
marsh and wetlands flora, to
rebuilding of the adjacent dune
system) and will conduct a long-
term evaluation of the habitat's
health and development. This
"living marsh" will also serve as an
outdoor exhibit for the nearby
Estuarium - a marine sciences mu-
seum intended to educate the pub-
lic about the marine flora and fauna
found in the surrounding area.
Oyster Bed
In Louisiana, Florida, and Ala-
bama, the number of oyster reefs
that have been closed to harvesting
operations has steadily increased in
recent years due to bacterial
contamination from inadequately
treated human waste. The solution
is a series of Take-Action Projects to
install upgraded septic systems or
innovative sewage treatment sys-
tems in areas affecting the oyster
beds. In a few short years, these
low-cost, easy-to-install systems are
expected to revitalize oyster habitats
and help rebuild associated com-
mercial operations.
In Louisiana, the Nation's number
one producer of oysters, a take-
action project in cooperation with
the National Estuary Program targets
240,000 acres of the Barataria-
Terrebonne Estuary that contains
68% of the State's private oyster
leases-an area increasingly closed to
harvesting. Likewise, the oyster-
producing areas near Suwannee
Sound and Appalachicola Bay
(Florida) and Weeks Bay (Alabama)
will benefit from similar projects to
improve sewage treatment systems.
Another Take-Action Project in
Alabama's Mobile Bay aims to restore
and create oyster habitat with a
certain type of Mexican coral taken
from dead reef deposits found inland
and used to form new living reefs for
young oysters to grow on. This first-
of-its-kind application of such coral
will shorten the time it takes for
oyster reefs to form. If successful, it
could have far-reaching impacts in
reef restoration Gulf-wide.
The Great Lakes Basin
Background: Water
Quality in the Great Lakes
During the past two decades,
the United States and Canada have
corrected many of the nutrient
enrichment problems in the Great
Lakes region that attracted national
attention in the 1960s. Since 1970,
phosphorus detergent restrictions,
municipal sewage treatment plant
construction and upgrades, and
agricultural practices that reduce
runoff have cut the annual phospho-
rus load into the Great Lakes in half.
The decline in phosphorus loadings
is most evident in Lake Erie, which
receives more effluent from sewage
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 185
treatment plants and sediment from
agricultural lands than the other
Great Lakes. Lake Erie also experi-
enced a concurrent decline in phy-
toplankton biomass, an indicator of
trophic condition and nutrient
enrichment. The decline in phyto-
plankton biomass provides evidence
that the phosphorus controls imple-
mented in the early 1970s have
reversed Lake Erie's severe nutrient
enrichment problems of the 1960s.
Despite dramatic declines in the
occurrence of algal blooms, fish kills,
and "dead" zones depleted of oxy-
gen, less visible problems continue
to degrade water quality in the
Great Lakes. The States report that
toxic contamination is the most
prevalent and persistent water pollu-
tion problem in the Great Lakes.
The eight States bordering the Lakes
have issued advisories to restrict
Figure 11-1
Overall Use Support in
the Great Lakes Shoreline
consumption of fish caught along
their entire shorelines because con-
centrations of mercury, PCBs, pesti-
cides, and dioxins in fish tissues
exceed standards set to protect
human health. As a result, virtually
all of the waters along the Great
Lakes shoreline fail to fully support
fish consumption use, and therefore
fail to fully support overall desig-
nated uses (Figure 11-1).
Although fish consumption use
is impaired throughout the Lakes,
more than 96% of the Great Lakes
shoreline fully supports recreational
uses, drinking water supply use, and
agricultural use (Figure 11 -2). The
individual use support data submit-
ted by the States indicate that the
remaining problems on the Lakes
have the greatest impact on fishing
activities and aquatic life. Aquatic
life impacts include depleted fish
Great Lakes Shoreline Miles Assessed
by the States
1992 5,319 miles = 99% assessed
H Total shoreline miles: 5,382
99% Assessed
1990
1% Unassessed
I 4,857 miles = 94% assessed
1 Total shoreline miles: 5,169
1988 4,479 miles = 87% assessed
Total shoreline miles: 5,169
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-1.
-------
186 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
'ilill'l l'i iil|liii 'ilii ill 'ill11 lull'i1
individual Use Support in the Great Lakes
Number
Percent
{Designated of States Fully Partially Not tyot ,
Use Reporting Supporting Threatened Supportir>0 Supporting ^Attainable
S*eondซy Contact g, 1J77,* , ฃ 99
populations and reproduction prob-
lems in birds (Table 11 -1 and box).
Aquatic life impacts result from per-
sistent toxic pollutant burdens in
birds, habitat degradation and
destruction, and competition and
predation by nonnative species,
such as the zebra mussel and the
sea lamprey.
The States reported that priority
organic chemicals, such as PCBs and
dioxins, are the most prevalent
cause of impairment in their Great
Lakes waters (Figure 11-3). These
toxic chemicals persist in fish tissues,
wildlife tissues, and sediment. The
States reported much lower inci-
dences of metal contamination,
depressed oxygen conditions, nutri-
ent pollution, and siltation.
The States did not report exten-
sively on sources of contamination
in the Great Lakes (Figure 11 -4).
Therefore, the information on
sources applies to only one-third of
the Great Lakes shoreline. The States
reported that atmospheric deposi-
tion contributes to the impairment
of 50% of the impaired shoreline,
followed by contaminated sedi-
ments (affecting 40%), land disposal
(affecting 30%), and urban runoff
and storm sewers (affecting 10%).
Building Institutional
Frameworks for the
Great Lakes
Rehabilitating the Great Lakes
requires cooperation from numerous
organizations because pollutants
originate in both Canada and the
United States and pollutants enter
the Lakes via multiple media (i.e.,
air, ground water, and surface
water). The International Joint
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-2.
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 187
Table 11-1. Effects of Toxic Contamination oin Fish and Wildlife in the Great Lakes
Species
Mjnk
Otter
Double-crested
Cormorant
Black-crowned
Night Heron
Bald Eagle
Herring Gull
Ring-billed Gull
Caspian Tern
Common Tern
Forster's Tern
Snapping
Turtle
Lake Trout
Brown
Bullhead
White Sucker
Population
Decrease
X
X
X
X
X
NE
Effects on
Reproduction
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Eggshell
Thinning
NA
NA
X
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Birth
Defects
NE
NE
X
X
NE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Behavioral
Changes
NE
NE
X
NE
X
NE
Biochemical
Changes
NE
NE
X
X
NE
X
NE
NE
X
X
NE
X
X
X
X
Mortality
X
7
?
7
NE
X
X
NE
X = Effects documented.
NA = Not applicable.
NE = Not examined.
? = Suspected because population declined.
NOTE: Unpublished records of gross birth defects exist for the double-crested cormorant, great blue heron, and the Virginia
rail.
-------
188 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Commission (IJC), established by the
1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, lays
the foundation of the institutional
framework for managing the Great
Lakes. Representatives from the
Governments of the United States
and Canada, the Province of
Ontario, and the eight States bor-
dering the Lakes sit on the IJC.
The IJC is responsible for identifying
actions needed to maintain the
integrity of the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
The EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) serves as a
liaison and provides information to
the Canadian members of the IJC
and the Canadian counterparts to
the EPA. The GLNPO also coordi-
nates activities in the United States
aimed at protecting and restoring
the Lakes.
The Great Lakes Protection Fund
was formed by the Great Lakes Gov-
ernors in 1989. The mission of the
Fund is to identify, demonstrate,
and promote regional action to
enhance the health of the Great
Lakes ecosystem. It is the Nation's
first multi-State environmental
endowment. The Great Lakes States
have pledged $100 million to its
permanent endowment.
Public-private partnerships sup-
port the institutional framework for
managing the Great Lakes water
quality. Special boards, commis-
sions, and committees composed of
representatives from universities,
environmental organizations, agri-
cultural interests, industry, snipping
interests, and government play vital
roles in coordinating policy and
management decisions. Some of
these groups focus on local areas
and issues, while others represent
national organizations. To better
coordinate their activities on the
Figure 11-3
Percent of Great Lakes Shore Miles
Impaired by Pollutants
Total Impaired = 5,171 Miles = 97% of the total Great Lakes shoreline
Pollutants
Priority Organics
Metals
Organic Enrichment/DO
Nutrients
Siltation
Major
Moderate/Minor
Total
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-3.
Figure 11-4
Information on
sources applies to
ONLY 35%
of the Great Lakes
Shoreline.
Percent of Great Lakes Shore Miles
Impaired by Sources of Pollution
Total Impaired = 1,884 Miles = 35% of the total Great Lakes shoreline
Pollution Sources
Atmospheric Deposition
Contaminated Sediments
Land Disposal
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflow
| Major
H Moderate/Minor
Total
50
40
31
11
8
10
20 30
Percent
40
50
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-4.
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 189
Great Lakes Basin, groups have
begun to support umbrella organi-
zations, such as Great Lakes United.
Great Lakes United, started in 1982,
represents more than 180 affiliated
groups in the United States and
Canada. One of its goals is to facili-
tate citizen involvement in decision-
making processes.
The Great Lakes Commission
is an independent organization
binationally chartered that integrates
environmental concerns with
economic development concerns.
The Commission's members are
appointed by the States, Canadian
Provinces, and Federal governments.
The members issue reports on sub-
jects such as the environmental
impacts of transportation options in
the Great Lakes Region. The reports
provide data for decisionmaking by
the government bodies with author-
ity to manage the Lakes.
Private conservation groups are
also working with government
agencies to protect natural areas in
the Great Lakes Basin. The GLNPO
is funding 19 restoration and pro-
tection projects based, in part, on
findings of the Great Legacy Project.
The Great Legacy Project includes
efforts by the Nature Conservancy
of Canada and the United States
and other conservation groups to
pool natural heritage data from
several public agencies and land
trusts and to apply geographic
targeting approaches to identify
particularly high-quality resource
areas.
The Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement
The 1978 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA), as
amended in 1987, estab-
lished a commitment by
the United States and
Canada to restore and
protect the Great Lakes.
The Amendments to the
Agreement stress two
central concepts: (1) the
ecosystem approach, and
(2) the virtual elimination of
persistent toxic substances.
Although there has been
considerable progress in
addressing impacts from point
and nonpoint loadings of conven-
tional pollutants under the GLWQA,
the Great Lakes are still highly vul-
nerable to toxic pollutants. The IJC
released a set of recommendations
identifying 11 "critical pollutants"
for which management scrutiny is
warranted throughout the Basin.
These chemicals and possible
sources are presented in Table 11 -2.
The Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative
In June of 1989, EPA launched
the Great Lakes Water Quality Initia-
tive to provide a framework for
Federal assistance in pursuing the
goal of whole-system restoration
based on an ecosystem perspective.
The Initiative emphasizes areas in
which EPA can provide State gov-
ernments and other stakeholders
with technical support. The Initiative
envisions EPA making the following
technical contributions:
-------
190 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
r
^m
^H
I^^H
K*^|
?*^H
+m
1
1
ง
ง |
2"3
Ctl^
QQ
L_ Lฃ
oq^oo^
ro"nT*
cxW
o
3
ra
/TT1
C
:=
S *C
JD 3
~t5 o
Product of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and wood, including forest fires, grills (charco
exhaust, and waste incineration. One of a larqe family of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (\
IO
c
_o
B
c
'c
:D
^^^
^0.
!5|
"O
Q.
C
5
TJ
i^
OQ
.a a
~o o>
c c:
to ^
5 "^
oฃ
Insecticide used extensively at one time, especially on fruit.
to
C
O
Jj
c
re
c
-Q
"ai
Q
o3
c
I
r-
u
01
Byproduct of combustion of fuels and waste incineration, and of manufacturing processes usin
Found as a contaminant in chlorinated pesticides.
to
c
_g
1
c
'c
ฃ"
u
2
^ c
-a D-
"o W <ซ
QJ .ti a)
S. c. ฃ.
C ฑ3 =
ฃ c "
.c ~ c
T3 3 S
tj "~ ^
'S ra
- c c
.to to ^-~
13 CO .>
(8 ^3 U
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 191
Develop guidance for identifying
areas affected by toxics
Develop guidance for tracking
the relative contributions of toxic
and acidic pollutants from surface
water and atmospheric sources
Develop guidance for determin-
ing the relative roles of point and
nonpoint source contributions to
conventional and toxic pollutant
burdens
Suggest innovative approaches
for the protection of critical habitat
areas
Support the development of
special wildlife standards.
To help implement the goals
of the Great Lakes Initiative, EPA
Region 5 and the EPA GLNPO coor-
dinate a Steering Committee, Tech-
nical Workgroup, and Public Partici-
pation Group. The States have
played an active role in the develop-
ment of draft criteria and policies.
For example, Wisconsin took the
lead in developing water quality
standards criteria and wildlife crite-
ria. This is clearly one of the most
challenging aspects of the Great
Lakes Initiative, since it involves
attention to a variety of mammals,
waterfowl, and raptors that use
aquatic or wetlands habitats and are
especially vulnerable to toxicants in
their aquatic food supplies. Figure
11-5 illustrates the current status of
an impaired Great Lakes watershed
(the Lower Green Bay Ecosystem)
and the desired future status of the
ecosystem, which is the ultimate
goal of the Great Lakes Initiative.
By August 1993, EPA had held
public hearings on the Great Lakes
Figure lio
Present State and Desired Future State
of the Lower Green Bay Ecosystem
Present State
Desired Future State
-------
192 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Initiative Guidance published in the
Federal Register in the Spring of
1993. When issued in final form,
the GLNPO will use this major guid-
ance document to update the Great
Lakes Five Year Strategy. The Strat-
egy translates the general goals of
the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement into practical steps.
Remedial Action Plans
for Areas of Concern
Implementing control measures
for pollutants usually begins in
smaller drainages and waterbodies.
At the smallest geographic scale, the
IJC identified 43 Areas of Concerns
(AOCs), located primarily along river
mouths or harbors. The United
States and Canada designated all 43
AOCs, which face major toxics con-
cerns. Thirty-five of the 43 AOCs
report toxics concerns in ambient
FlgprlTW;"
Status of Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Development
for Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes
10 15 20 25
Number of RAPs Submitted
30
35
| Stage I RAP Submitted
I Stage II RAP Submitted
water, 41 of 43 report toxics in
sediments, and 38 of 43 AOCs
restrict consumption of fish har-
vested from local waters because of
elevated toxic concentrations in fish
tissues.
In 1985, the Great Lakes States
and the Canadian Provinces agreed
to develop and implement a Reme-
dial Action Plan (RAP) for each AOC.
A complete RAP encompasses the
following stages and has a planning
document associated with each
milestone:
STAGE 1 - Summarizes available
information and specifies the nature
of the problem(s).
STAGE 2 - Specifies remedial and
regulatory measures needed to
restore beneficial uses.
STAGE 3 - Summarizes results as
progress is achieved in implement-
ing management plans.
Figure 11-6 summarizes the
status of Stage 1 and Stage 2 RAP
submittals through 1992.
Lakewide
Management Plans
Lakewide Management Plans
(LaMPs) are the next level of geo-
graphic integration envisioned in
the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. The United States is
preparing the LaMP for the Lake
Michigan Basin, which is contained
entirely in this country. Although
impacts from nutrients and
unionized ammonia toxicity persist,
most of the problems in Lake Michi-
gan stem from toxic contaminants
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 193
already in the Lake system and
ongoing toxic loadings from point
and nonpoint sources.
Building on work in progress at
the various AOCs, the Lake Michi-
gan LaMP will look at the lake eco-
system as a whole and identify a set
of critical pollutants. In some cases,
this would be a subset of the range
of pollutants being addressed at
smaller geographic units such as the
AOCs. In other cases, pollutants
that are not of the highest concern
in localized areas but are deemed
critical to the entire Lake Michigan
ecosystem may warrant scrutiny.
As the set of critical pollutants is
refined, the LaMP will propose a
tiered concept for developing
management actions.
The LaMPs for each Great Lake
will also encourage pollution pre-
vention approaches. Lake Superior
provides perhaps the best opportu-
nity to implement pollution preven-
tion because it is the least impacted
of the Great Lakes. Lake Superior
has been spared much of the
extreme ecological disruptions asso-
ciated with industrial and municipal
discharges, introduction of exotic
species, and overharvesting of the
fisheries that have had devastating
impacts on the lower Great Lakes,
especially Lakes Ontario and Erie.
In the Spring of 1992, the
United States, Canada, and the
States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan formally agreed on a new
regional agreement to protect Lake
Superior from toxic pollution. The
Binational Agreement seeks to
expand authorities (where appropri-
ate) to implement a goal of zero
pollutant discharge of persistent
toxic substances. As a first step,
both the U.S. and the Canadian
governments will work to freeze
loadings of toxic discharges. The
United States and Canada plan to
issue a draft LaMP for Lake Superior
by the end of October 1993.
Pollution Prevention
Initiatives
The EPA GLNPO is working with
EPA Regions 2, 3, and 5, the States,
and their Canadian counterparts to
promote pollution prevention as the
most effective approach to achieve
the GLWQA goal of virtually elim-
inating discharges of persis-
tent toxic substances in the
Great Lakes. In 1991, EPA
and the States developed the
Great Lakes Pollution Preven-
tion Action Plan to highlight
how EPA and the States will
minimize the use, production,
and release of toxic substances
at the source. The Action Plan
targets persistent bioaccumula-
tive toxic substances for reduc-
tion or elimination.
At this time, the EPA is imple-
menting the National 35/50 Pro-
gram in the Great Lakes Basin.
Under this program, EPA has
received voluntary commitments
from industry to reduce the emis-
sion of 17 priority pollutants by
50% by the end of 1995. The EPA
is also working with utilities located
within the Great Lakes Basin to
accelerate the phaseout of trans-
formers containing PCBs.
-------
194 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
The Chesapeake Bay
Program .
In 1975, the Chesapeake Bay
became the Nation's first estuary to
be targeted for protection and res-
toration when Congress, through
the appropriations bill, directed
EPA's Office of Research and Devel-
opment to launch a study investi-
gating the causes of the environ-
mental declines experienced in the
Bay. Section 117(a) of the Clean
Water Act amendments of 1987
required the EPA Administrator to
continue the ongoing Chesapeake
Bay Program and maintain a Chesa-
peake Bay Program Office. This
program would continue to collect
and make available information
about the Bay's environmental qual-
ity; coordinate Federal and State
efforts to improve the Bay's water
quality; and determine the impact
of sediment deposition and natural
and man-induced environmental
changes in the Bay, especially nutri-
ents, chlorine, acid precipitation,
dissolved oxygen, and toxic pollut-
ants, with particular attention to the
impact on striped bass.
Building Institutional
Frameworks
A system of committees,
subcommittees, work groups, and
task forces have evolved under the
Chesapeake Executive Council,
which acts as the coordinating
body for implementation, estab-
lishes the policy direction, and pro-
vides oversight for the restoration
and protection of the Bay and its
living resources. On August 6,
1991, the Chesapeake Executive
Council adopted four action steps,
building on the original 1987 agree-
ment, which defined the future
priorities and direction of the Chesa-
peake Bay Program. These steps are:
(1) to reevaluate and accelerate
the nutrient reduction program;
(2) to adopt pollution prevention;
(3) to restore and enhance living
resources and their habitat; and
(4) to broaden participation in the
Bay Program.
Bay wide Nutrient
Reduction Strategy
In 1987, the parties to the origi-
nal Chesapeake Bay Agreement of
1983 signed a new Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. The 1987 agreement
set a specific goal-to achieve at
least a 40% reduction of nitrogen
and phosphorus entering the main-
stem Chesapeake Bay by the year
2000. The agreement also included
a provision that the goal be reevalu-
ated in 1991 to determine whether
it is, indeed, the reduction needed.
The Problem
Studies completed in the 1970s
substantiated that increases in agri-
cultural development, population
growth, and sewage treatment
plant flows were causing the Bay to
become nutrient enriched. High
levels of nutrients (primarily phos-
phorus and nitrogen) flow into the
Bay causing excessive algae growth
(see Figure 11-7). This condition
involves a chain reaction and has
two effects:
In shallow areas, the excess algae
shade underwater bay grasses,
blocking the light the grasses need
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 195
to grow. This degrades the habitat
and causes the eventual loss of grass
beds.
In deeper areas, when the algae
die and sink to the bottom, their
decomposition uses up available
oxygen in the water. During the
warm summer months, oxygen in
the bottom waters can only be
replenished slowly because little
mixing with the high oxygen sur-
face water occurs. Many bottom-
living animals such as oysters, clams,
and worms, which provide food for
fish and crabs, cannot survive this
prolonged period of low oxygen.
The Sources
Nutrients that enter the Chesa-
peake Bay originate from point
sources (e.g., municipal and indus-
trial wastewater), nonpoint sources
(e.g., cropland, animal wastes,
urban and suburban runoff), and
atmospheric deposition (airborne
contaminants). These sources span
Figure 11-7
Effects of Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay
Healthy System Nutrients Sediments
Toxicants
Human Health
Concerns
Low Dissolved
Oxygen
Water Column Habitat
Clear Water
Algal Growth Balanced
Oxygen Levels Adequate
Finfish Abundant
Food Chain
Effects
Poor Water Clarity
Aquatic Plant Habitat
Flourishes
Aquatic Plant
Growth Inhibited
Bottom Habitat
Healthy
Fish, Shellfish and Other
Organisms Stressed
-------
196 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Figure 11-8
1985 Total Nitrogen Base Load Distribution
in Chesapeake Bay
Atmospheric Deposition
26% (9% tidal waters:
17% Bay watershed)
Point Sources
23%
Nonpoint Sources
51%
Total Load = 376 Million Pounds
Source: 1991 Watershed Model, September 30,1992.
Figure 11-9
1985 Total Phosphorus Base Load Distribution
in Chesapeake Bay
Atmospheric Deposition
5%
Point Sources
34%
Nonpoint Sources
61%
Total Load = 27 Million Pounds
Source: 1991 Watershed Model, September 30, 1992.
so vast an area that it is difficult to
collect comprehensive data through-
out the watershed. Therefore, a
computer simulation of sources was
used as the common mechanism
for estimating both the 1985 base
load and the load reductions that
are necessary to improve dissolved
oxygen conditions in the deep
trench of the Bay.
To approximate long-term aver-
age conditions, the 1985 base load
was calculated as a 4-year average
to take into account the natural
variations in runoff and river flow.
Figure 11-8 shows that nonpoint
sources contribute 51% to the total
nitrogen load followed by atmos-
pheric deposition (26%), and point
sources (23%). Atmospheric loads of
total nitrogen include nitrogen loads
deposited on the tidal waters of the
Bay (9%) and total nitrogen loads
deposited on the watershed lands
surrounding the Bay that wash into
the Bay waters (17%). Figure 11-9
shows the same breakdown but for
phosphorus. The percentage of con-
tributions are 61 % for nonpoint
sources, 34% for point sources, and
5% for atmospheric deposition.
To calculate the controllable
loads of nutrients to the Bay, the
Program estimated the expected
load if there were 100% forest cover
and subtracted that from the 1985
base load (see Tables 11-3 and
11 -4). The controllable fraction of
nutrient loads is approximately 49%
for nitrogen and 77% for phospho-
rus.
Point Source Nutrient
Reduction
Municipal and industrial dis-
charges are major sources of nutri-
ent loads to the Bay system. Three
elements of the Chesapeake Bay
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 197
Program's point source control strat-
egy are responsible for reductions in
the nutrient loading:
Upgrading wastewater treatment
plants
Improving compliance with
permit requirements
Pollution prevention actions such
as prohibiting the sale of detergents
containing phosphorus.
Phosphorus detergent restric-
tions sharply reduced the quantity
of phosphorus entering municipal
sewage treatment plants at the
same time that population growth
increased the total volume of water
entering treatment facilities (Table
11 -5). Plant operators also use fewer
chemicals to remove phosphorus
from their effluent and produce less
sludge as a result of the phosphorus
detergent restrictions.
Phosphorus load reduction has
occurred at a faster pace than pre-
dicted. Annual discharges have
dropped about 4.7 million pounds
from 1985 to 1991, a reduction of
40% since 1985 (Figure 11-10).
Wastewater treatment plant up-
grades have also begun to have an
effect on nitrogen loads.
The Chesapeake Bay Program
has conducted pilot projects to
assess the cost and effectiveness of
an emerging technology known as
biological nutrient removal. That
technology is now used to reduce
nitrogen and phosphorus loads
from point sources in the Bay.
Furthermore, compliance has
improved with permitted discharge
limits. Since 1989 when the Chesa-
peake Executive Council made
compliance a priority, the rate of
Table 11-3. Nitrogen Loadjng to Chesapeake Bay - 1985 Base :
; ..'-;' Load and Controllable Fraction (milliqnlbVyr);"-^ ,7
Nutrient
Source3
Nonpoint
Point
Atmospheric
Deposition6
Total
1985 Base
Loadb
254.6
87.3
34.6
376.5
Forest
Background
Loadc
153.9
2.8
156.7
Controllable
Loadd
100.7
84.5
0
185.2
Reduction
(40%
Controllable)
40.3
33.8
0
74.1
a Nonpoint source loads include atmospheric deposition to the land (17%).
Point source loads are reported as delivered to tidal waters.
b The 1985 Base Load is 1984-1987 output from the Watershed Model plus point
source load discharged below the fall line.
c Forest Background Load simulated all land uses converted to forest. Includes
atmospheric deposition on the land, rivers, and lakes that may be possible to
control.
d Controllable Load equals Base Load minus Forest Background Load.
e Deposition to tidal waters only (9%). Deposition to land is included in nonpoint
source load. Technical studies indicate that a large majority of this load is attribut-
able to human activities, but that fraction is not estimated here.
Source: 1991 Watershed Model, September 30,1992.
Table 1 1-4. Phosphorus Loading to Chesapeake Bay - 1985 Base
Load.arid Controllable Fraction (million ~lb/yrj ''.':. '^7; >
Nutrient
Source3
Nonpoint
Point
Atmospheric
Deposition6
Total
1985 Base
Loadb
16.50
9.25
1.47
27.22
Forest
Background
Loadc
4.35
0.33
4.68
Controllable
Loadd
12.15
8.92
0
21.07
Reduction
(40%
Controllable)
4.86
3.57
0
8.43
a Nonpoint source loads include atmospheric deposition to the land. Point source
loads are reported as delivered to tidal waters.
b The 1985 Base Load is 1984-1987 output from the Watershed Model plus point
source load discharged below the fall line.
c Forest Background Load simulated all land uses converted to forest. Includes
atmospheric deposition on the land, rivers, and lakes that may be possible to
control.
d Controllable Load equals Base Load minus Forest Background Load.
6 Deposition to tidal waters only. Technical studies indicate that a large majority of
this load is attributable to human activities, but that fraction is not estimated here.
Source: 1991 Watershed Model, September 30,1992.
-------
198 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
significant noncompliance has
declined from a high of about 7%
in 1989 to less than 4% in 1992.
The percentage of significant non-
compliance nationally has decreased
from approximately 10% in 1989 to
9% in 1992.
Table 11-5. Results of Phosphorus Detergent Bans in the
Chesapeake Bay System
State
Maryland
District of
Columbia
Virginia
Pennsylvania
(Susquchanna
River Basin)
Date
Implemented
1985
1986
1988
1990
Reduction
in Influent
Phosphorus
30%
26%
34%
25-33%
Reduction
in Effluent
Phosphorus
16%
50%
Reduction
in Sludge
Production
28 dry
tons/day
14%
Not reported.
Figure 11-10
Point Source Phosphorus Reduction Progress
12
o
i* 10
_Q
C o
.Q ฐ
1 6
0
Nutrient
Reduction
Goal
4.65(1992)
85
88
91 94
Year
97 2000
Source: Progress of the Baywide Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation, February 1992.
Nonpoint Source Nutrient
Reduction
The Chesapeake Bay Program's
nonpoint source control program
emphasizes controls on agriculture,
paved surfaces, and construction in
urban areas. The most important
additional control measure is the
practice of nutrient management in
which animal wastes and fertilizers
are applied to farmland in amounts
carefully calculated to meet the
needs of the crops. This practice
reduces the runoff and leaching of
nutrients that result from overuse of
fertilizers.
Because it is not possible to
monitor every nonpoint source, a
model was developed to estimate
the reduction of nutrient loadings.
Implementation of nonpoint source
control programs has resulted in a
12% and 8% reduction in control-
lable nonpoint source nitrogen and
phosphorus, respectively. Portions of
these decreases are reductions in
nitrogen loads to ground water.
Because nitrogen in ground water is
released very slowly, the benefits to
Bay water quality may not be seen
for years.
Water Quality Trends and
Characterization
Bay water quality monitoring
data confirm the significant progress
made in reducing phosphorus from
nonpoint source and municipal
point source loads, as well as the
need for further progress toward
reducing nitrogen loadings. These
trends are as follows:
Phosphorus Trends
Total phosphorus levels in the
Chesapeake Bay decreased by 16%
between 1984 and 1992.
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 199
Significant downward trends in
phosphorus concentrations were
observed in the upper middle
mainstem (from the Susquehanna
Flats to the Bay Bridge) and the
lower mainstem (from the Rappa-
hannock River south to the mouth
of the Bay).
Phosphorus concentrations
declined in two upper tributaries
(Patuxent and James) and increased
in three tributaries (Gunpowder,
Nanticoke, and Choptank).
Nitrogen Trends
Total nitrogen levels in the
mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay
are essentially unchanged.
Nitrogen concentrations
increased in the upper reaches of
several tributaries (Potomac, Rappa-
hannock, York, James, Gunpowder,
Northeast, Sassafras, Chester, and
Choptank).
Nitrogen concentrations
increased significantly in Mobjack
Bay, located between the
Rappahannock and York Rivers).
Dissolved Oxygen Trends
The volume of anoxic/hypoxic
water in the mainstem has fluctu-
ated widely over the last four
decades, often reflecting patterns
of freshwater inflow.
The volume of anoxic waters has
increased since 1950, based on
available data.
Water Quality Characterization
Numerous areas in the Bay's
tributaries, as well as previously
identified areas in the mainstem
Bay, are impacted by low dissolved
oxygen. These tributaries include
the Patapsco, Magothy, Severn,
South, West, Rhode, Patuxent,
Potomac, Anacostia, Rappahannock,
Your, Chester, and Little Choptank
rivers, as well as Easter Bay.
Submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) is the best single indicator of
the health of the Bay. Although
water quality conditions in many
tributaries are not currently suitable
for survival and growth of SAV, the
amount of SAV in the Bay has
doubled during the past decade.
There is no one single limiting
nutrient in the Bay. Phosphorus
tends to stimulate algae growth in
freshwater areas of the Bay while
nitrogen stimulates phytoplankton
development in salt water areas.
Reduced phosphorus loads will
decrease algae growth in the tribu-
taries and upper portions of the
Bay, allowing for increased light
penetration to underwater grasses.
Reduced nitrogen loads will improve
dissolved oxygen conditions in the
upper and lower Bay by reducing
the amount of decomposing algae
available to settle to the saltier and
denser bottom water that circulates
back up the Bay.
Water Quality and Living
Resource Objectives
The Bay Program's highest pri-
ority is to restore the Bay's living
resources. One of the ways to do
this is to improve water quality
through nutrient reductions. These
reductions will increase dissolved
oxygen and improve water clarity.
Submerged aquatic vegetation
-------
200 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
provides critical habitat for many of
the Bay's organisms, but requires
relatively clear water to grow and
photosynthesize. The Chesapeake
Bay Executive Council, which con-
sists of the Governors of Maryland,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania, the
Administrator of the EPA, the Mayor
of the District of Columbia, and the
Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, set a goal to increase
the amount of SAV from 70,000
acres to 114,000 acres. At the cur-
rent rate of recovery, this acreage
will be achieved by the year 2005.
The Council also pledged to open
hundreds of miles of Bay tributaries
to spawning fish by removing some
dams and creating fish passages.
The Great Waters
Program
Section 112(m) of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 requires
that the EPA and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) jointly
conduct a program to identify
the extent of atmospheric
deposition of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) into the Great
Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Lake
Champlain, and selected coastal
waters. EPA developed the Great
Waters Program to comply with
Section 112(m).
The Great Waters Program
requires four monitoring networks:
A Great Lakes monitoring net-
work established one wet/dry collec-
tion facility for each of the five
Great Lakes. The facilities will collect
data to help identify and track
movement of HAPs into the Great
Lakes ecosystem and determine
overall HAP loadings from atmos-
pheric deposition. EPA will ensure
that the data collected are compat-
ible with related databases. The
information will support develop-
ment of Remedial Action Plans
(RAPs) for the 43 Areas of Concern
designated by the United States and
Canada and development of LaMPs.
A Chesapeake Bay monitoring
network has deposition monitoring
stations within the Bay watershed,
which extends into Virginia, Mary-
land, West Virginia, Delaware, and
Pennsylvania. The monitoring pro-
gram will help determine the rela-
tive contribution of atmospheric
HAP loadings to total pollutant load-
ings into the Bay, investigate
sources of HAPs, and evaluate the
environmental effects of deposited
HAPs on the Bay ecosystem based
on biological sampling within indi-
vidual watersheds.
A Lake Champlain monitoring
network should establish deposition
monitoring stations in the Lake
Champlain watershed straddling
Vermont and New York. The Lake
Champlain network will also investi-
gate the contribution air deposition
makes to overall pollutant loadings,
the sources of deposited HAPs, and
the environmental effects of atmos-
pheric deposition in the Lake
Champlain watershed.
A coastal waters monitoring net-
work should determine relative load-
ings of HAPs into National Estuary
Program waters designated by EPA
and National Estuarine Research
Reserves designated by NOAA. The
first step in this network is a screen-
ing study targeted for Galveston Bay
in 1993-94.
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 201
Beginning in 1993, Section 112
of the Clean Air Act Amendments
also requires EPA to report program
results to Congress biennially. The
Great Waters Report to Congress
should describe the relative contri-
bution of deposited HAPs to total
pollutant loadings, the environmen-
tal and human health effects of
HAPs, the sources of HAPs, and
water quality standards violations
due to HAP deposition in designated
Great Waters. Recommendations
should also be proposed for addi-
tional regulatory revisions under any
Federal laws needed to protect the
Great Waters from hazardous pollut-
ants, and EPA should promulgate
any needed revisions under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act.
EPA assembled three teams to
author scientific documents that will
support preparation of the Great
Waters Report to Congress. Each
team analyzed available information
on one of the following issues:
Loading of toxicants from air
relative to total loading from all
routes,,,
m Human and ecological exposure
and effects
Source identification.
Each team distributed a draft of
its support document, and EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) held a workshop
to critique, discuss, and supplement
their documents. Attendees included
invited experts and the Great Waters
Core Group, composed of represen-
tatives from EPA program offices,
EPA laboratories, NOAA, and States.
The teams recently incorporated
workshop comments into the final
drafts of their support documents.
Currently, EPA is synthesizing
the supporting information into the
Great Waters Report to Congress.
The Report will describe the extent
of our knowledge, the data needed
to fill gaps, and conclusions based
upon available information. EPA will
develop a long-term strategy for
future Great Waters work based on
the research needs described in the
support documents and policy
needs identified by program partici-
pants.
The National Estuary
Program
The National Estuary Program
embodies the ecosystem approach
by building coalitions, addressing
multiple sources of contamination,
pursuing habitat protection as a
pollution control mechanism, and
investigating cross-media transfer of
pollutants from air and soil into
estuarine waters.
Congress recognizes that estuar-
ies are unique and endangered eco-
systems and that traditional water
pollution control programs alone
cannot address the more complex
issues associated with estuaries.
These issues include protecting
living resources and their habitats,
controlling diffuse sources of pollut-
ants, and managing estuaries as
watershed ecosystems. Responding
to the unmet needs of estuarine
ecosystems, Congress established
the National Estuary Program in
1987 under Section 320 of the
Clean Water Act.
The NEP adopts a geographic,
basin-wide approach to environ-
mental management. A State gover-
nor nominates an estuary in the
-------
202 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
governor's State for participation in
the program. The State must dem-
onstrate a likelihood for success in
protecting candidate estuaries and
provide evidence of institutional,
financial, and political commitment
to solving estuarine problems.
If an estuary meets the NEP
guidelines, the EPA Administrator
convenes a management confer-
ence of representatives from inter-
ested Federal, Regional, State, and
local governments; affected indus-
tries; scientific and academic institu-
tions; and citizen organizations. The
management conference defines
program goals and objectives, iden-
tifies problems, and designs strate-
gies to prevent and control pollu-
tion and manage natural resources
in the estuarine basin. Each man-
agement conference develops and
initiates implementation of a
Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP)
to restore and protect its estuary.
The NEP currently supports
21 estuary projects, including four
sites added to the program in
1992:
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds in
North Carolina
Buzzards Bay in Massachusetts
Long Island Sound in Connecti-
cut and New York
Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island
Puget Sound in Washington
State
San Francisco Bay Estuary in
California
Santa Monica Bay in California
Delaware Estuary in New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Delaware
Delaware Inland Bays in
Delaware
Galveston Bay in Texas
New York-New Jersey Harbor
in New York and New Jersey
Sarasota Bay in Florida
Indian River Lagoon in Florida
Tampa Bay in Florida
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine
Complex in Louisiana
Casco Bay in Maine
Massachusetts Bay in Massachu-
setts
Corpus Christi Bay in Texas
Peconic Bay in New York
San Juan Bay in Puerto Rico
Tillamook Bay in Oregon.
These 21 estuaries are nationally
significant in their economic value
as well as in their ability to support
living resources. The project sites
also represent a broad range of
environmental conditions in estuar-
ies throughout the United States
and its Territories.
The NEP integrates science and
decisionmaking for the protection,
restoration, and maintenance of
estuaries. Through a characterization
process, scientists from Federal,
State, and local government agen-
cies, academic institutions, and the
private sector analyze an estuary's
problems and their causes and work
with estuary managers to suggest
remedies. Because the NEP is not a
research program, it relies heavily
on past and current research of
other agencies and institutions to
support its work.
Appendix F, Table F-5, lists
physical and economic characteris-
tics of 17 NEP estuarine basins. The
table also describes each estuary's
susceptibility to pollution in terms of
its ability to flush out and dilute
pollutants. This information is being
evaluated as part of a national sur-
vey of nutrient enrichment in estuar-
ies, sponsored jointly by EPA and
NOAA.
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 203
Estuarine Problems
Each of the 21 estuaries in the
NEP is unique, yet the estuaries
share common threats and stressors.
Each estuary faces expanding
human activity near its shores that
may degrade water quality and
habitat. Eutrophication, toxic
substances (including metals),
pathogens, and changes to living
resources and habitats top the list of
problems being addressed by the
NEP Management Conferences.
Tables F-6, F-7, and F-8 in Appendix
F, list the problems stressing 17 NEP
sites.
Eutrophication
Nutrients enter waterways
through sewage treatment plant
discharges, stormwater runoff from
lawns and agricultural lands, faulty
septic tanks, and even ground water
discharges. (For example, nitrates
are believed to leach into ground
water and discharge into the Dela-
ware Inland Bays.) Algae and bacte-
ria respond to elevated inputs of
nutrients by rapidly reproducing.
Decomposition of the algae con-
sumes oxygen and causes hypoxia-
low concentrations of dissolved
oxygen.
The Long Island Sound Study
Management Conference (which
includes representatives from MOAA,
State and County agencies in Con-
necticut and New York, and New
York City) is focusing on sources of
hypoxia in the basin surrounding
the Sound. During recent summers,
poor water circulation exacerbated
hypoxia problems in parts of the
Sound. The Long Island Sound
Study identified nitrogen as the
primary nutrient linked to hypoxia
in the Sound and concluded that
discharges from sewage treatment
plants and runoff are the
leading controllable
sources of nitrogen load-
ings to the estuary.
The Delaware Inland Bays
Management Conference is
focusing on the Inland Bays'
capacity to assimilate nutri-
ents. First, the study identified
critical information gaps and
planned research projects to fill
the gaps. Ongoing research
projects target four goals: (1) deter-
mine ground water contributions of
nutrients, (2) develop a mass bal-
ance model of nutrient cycling
between ground water and the
Inland Bays, (3) define nutrient
transport processes in the Inland
Bays' basin, and (4) develop a strat-
egy for using living resources as
indicators of water quality. The
project coordinates public input and
research conducted by Federal,
State, academic, and private scien-
tists in an attempt to characterize
the estuary and develop a Compre-
hensive Conservation and Manage-
ment Plan.
Toxic Substances
Metals in Massachusetts Bay
illustrate the impact from sewage
treatment plants, atmospheric
deposition, and polluted tributaries.
The Bay receives high metal loading
from the Merrimack River. The
Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan for the Bay will
have to address sources of metals
contaminating the Merrimack River
as well as sources discharging
metals directly into the Bay.
-------
204 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Sediment core samples collected
at Narragansett Bay revealed that
most metal concentrations peaked
during the 1950s and have declined
by an average of 60% since the
1950s. The study attributes declines
in metal concentrations to improve-
ments in sewage treatment.
The Casco Bay Estuary Project
focuses on the extent of toxic con-
tamination in Bay sediments. Heavy
metal concentrations in Casco Bay
sediments exceed concentrations in
most NEP estuaries. The Casco Bay
study detected heavy metals, PCBs,
PAHs, pesticides, dioxins, and other
organic compounds in the Casco
Bay sediments. NOAA's flounder
liver survey revealed heavy concen-
trations of lead, copper, zinc, silver,
and PCBs in fish captured in Casco
Bay.
Pathogens
Pathogens are bacteria and
viruses that cause diseases. To pro-
tect public health, State agencies
prohibit the harvest of shellfish in
waters contaminated with patho-
gens or pathogen indicators, such
as fecal coliforms. Waters contami-
nated with pathogens also pose a
health risk to swimmers, surfers, and
divers.
A growing network of shellfish
farms on the Indian River Lagoon
serves as a monitoring system to
alert scientists and managers to
water quality problems in the
Lagoon, including the presence of
pathogens.
Elevated counts of bacterial and
viral indicators in two Santa Monica
storm drains raised concern about
the safety of swimming near storm
drain outfalls. Additional sampling
confirmed elevated bacterial indica-
tor counts in the surf zone and in
storm drain runoff. However, the
data were inadequate to calculate
health risks. The study recom-
mended additional research to
determine the source of fecal organ-
isms and viruses in the storm drains
and the dispersion of runoff along
the shoreline.
Living Resources
and Their Habitat
Overharvesting and loss of habi-
tats have led to a decline of valu-
able species, an increase in popula-
tions of less desirable species, and a
decrease in the diversity of living
resources in estuaries. Land develop-
ment in upland areas increases sedi-
mentation in waterways; construc-
tion in wetlands destroys this valu-
able filter system and habitat for
juvenile fish; bulkheading interferes
with natural plant and animal shore-
line interactions; and dredge and fill
activities create turbid waters,
destroy habitat, and interfere with
circulation patterns. In Florida,
ongoing estuary projects study the
effects of habitat changes, rapid
growth and development, and
sewage treatment plant expansion
on living resources.
The Florida Marine Research Insti-
tute is conducting cooperative stud-
ies of fish-habitat relationships in
Tampa Bay with NOAA funding
channeled through the Florida
Department of Environmental Regu-
lation. These studies examine fish
community structure along the
salinity gradient, fish density in
seagrass beds and unvegetated
habitats, and the use of micro-
habitats by economically valuable
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 205
fish species. The State will enter the
results of this research into a data-
base for predicting the effects of
future habitat modifications.
In Sarasota Bay, water quality
trends indicate that nutrient and
salinity levels and the alkalinity/
acidity ratio have decreased over
time. The decrease reflects a shift
from agrarian to urban land use.
On the eastern shore, submerged
aquatic vegetation has declined,
particularly in an area within trans-
port range of a seawater treatment
plant outfall. Although the total
concentration of suspended solids is
elevated, researchers cannot link
increased biomass to decreased light
resulting from the sewage plant
discharges. Further studies are inves-
tigating another possible cause of
the vegetation losses: the formation
of insoluble calcium carbonate from
the soluble bicarbonate present in
the sewage plant effluent.
The Bay Study Group of the City
of Tampa has conducted extensive
monitoring in Tampa Bay. Moni-
toring at middle Tampa Bay and
Hillsborough Bay indicate waste-
water plant upgrades implemented
in 1979 reduced nitrogen and chlo-
rophyll concentrations and blue-
green algae levels in Hillsborough
Bay. Dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions and water transparency also
increased. At the same time, sea
grasses colonized shallow areas
around Hillsborough Bay, which had
been barren of attached vegetation
for several decades preceding the
sewage plant upgrades. The Bay
Study Group has documented a
fourfold increase in the quantity of
sea grasses since they began
monitoring sea grass in 1986.
Although historical information
and current investigations have
expanded our understanding of
estuarine problems, cooperative
scientific studies must continue to
evaluate management options for
correcting estuarine impairments.
Knowledge of estuarine systems lays
the foundation for successful
management plans.
Looking to the Future:
Trends and Needs
As we approach the end of this
century, it is encouraging to con-
sider the advances in pollution con-
trol achieved during the past two
decades. Under the Clean Water
Act, many regulatory controls
evolved to minimize point source
discharges (see Chapter 13 for a
discussion of point source controls).
New technologies have also
improved the effectiveness of waste-
water treatment processes. These
pollution controls have led to some
improvements in estuarine water
quality, particularly with respect to
reduced toxic discharges.
In spite of these advances, some
problems persist and challenge all of
us: pollution from the air, waste
sites, and ground water; runoff from
agricultural land and urban streets;
and the loss of wetlands and other
vital habitats. Alliances of Federal,
State, and local agencies with the
scientific community and the public
will accelerate our pursuit of these
challenges.
-------
206 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Closer Integration with EPA
Programs
There is growing concern about
impacts on estuaries from air depo-
sition, solid and hazardous waste
sites, and contaminated ground
water. Several NEP projects are
investigating cross-media pollutant
sources. The Long Island Sound
Study is investigating the role that
vehicle emissions play in polluting
the Sound. Work at Superfund sites
in Puget Sound and Buzzards Bay
has been coordinated with NEP
projects, but even closer ties
between remediation activities at
waste sites and estuary projects are
needed. Although the New York-
New Jersey Harbor estuarine pro-
gram addresses the problems
caused by solid waste, few projects
deal directly with trash by encour-
aging household recycling and
waste reduction. With cooperation
from the Rhode Island business
community, the Narragansett Bay
Project is performing hazardous
waste audits and encouraging
source reduction, recycling, and
safer chemical substitution.
Though much interaction
among EPA's base programs is
under way, more integration is
needed at EPA Regional Offices
and Headquarters.
A Scientific/Management/
Public Partnership
Using the scientific knowledge
gathered and interpreted during the
characterization phase ensures that
the public, elected officials, and
special interest groups-all part of
the Management Conference-
understand the problems of the
estuary and are prepared to support
the measures needed to correct the
problems.
This process is simple in theory
but complex in practice. Scientists
do not always agree on the causes
of a problem or the solutions. Fur-
thermore, scientists and managers
do not always communicate well
with each other. In the NEP, man-
agers operate on a 5-year plan;
scientists rarely operate on a fixed
5-year plan. Under the auspices of
the Management Conferences,
however, scientists are focusing their
research and applying their results
to project managers' needs and
time constraints. Managers are chal-
lenging scientists to direct their
studies to meet Management Con-
ference needs for short-term
answers. The Management Confer-
ence enhances communication
between scientists and managers
and results in better solutions to
management issues.
Members of the public often
express concerns about highly vis-
ible problems, yet these issues may
not be the most important prob-
lems for the Management Confer-
ence to consider. In fact, spending
resources on a highly visible but
relatively insignificant problem could
divert attention from a crucial mat-
ter. It is imperative, therefore, that
scientific findings be widely commu-
nicated and form the basis for
public education efforts.
Faced with diverse constituencies,
each with a different idea of what
constitutes a monitoring program
appropriate for Santa Monica Bay,
the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Program held a 2-day consensus-
building conference for scientists,
managers, dischargers, regulators,
and public interest group
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 207
representatives. The conference goal
was to outline monitoring objectives
that would guide the development
of detailed hypotheses and sam-
pling and analysis plans. Conference
participants were led through a set
of structured exercises that focused
on the overall concerns driving the
regulatory/monitoring system,
agreement on a monitoring philoso-
phy for the Bay, and determination
of which Bay resources were the
most highly valued. These exercises
were followed by a decisionmaking
process through which specific
monitoring objectives were devel-
oped. The selected objectives
reflected management goals,
scientific knowledge, and public
concerns.
Every estuary program in the
NEP has a public participation and
education component. Solutions to
pollution problems are grounded in
scientific information, but protection
of habitats and commitment to
action are dependent upon public
education. Through education and
participation, the public gains an
understanding of the estuary and its
problems, the will to act to solve
immediate problems, and the desire
to be stewards of the ecosystem for
the future.
Priority Concerns
The public, in partnership with
scientists and government manag-
ers, faces enormous challenges com-
pounded by the population growth
projected to continue in the coastal
zone well into the 21st century. We
will need to manage this growth
more effectively to protect our
coastal resources. Critical manage-
ment areas that must be addressed
include general growth and
development, nonpoint sources,
and natural habitat destruction.
Growth and Development
Coastal population growth and
development patterns disrupt natu-
ral processes in coastal ecosystems
and threaten both the ecologic and
economic values of estuaries. As we
approach the year 2000, we must
improve conventional pollution con-
trols and accelerate enforcement
actions. However, new strategies are
required to solve the more complex
problems brought about by increas-
ing pressure to develop rural areas
and sensitive pristine areas.
Shoreline development often
strips vegetation and eliminates
wetlands, which exposes the land to
erosion. Increased sedimentation in
shallow waters chokes underwater
grasses and threatens fish and shell-
fish habitats. Development near
shorelines also damages life-sustain-
ing habitats for shore birds and
animals.
As development replaces veg-
etation with less pervious surfaces
(such as buildings, parking lots, and
roads), rainwater cannot seep slowly
into the soil and replenish ground
water. Instead, storm water runs off
the impervious surfaces, collecting
pollutants deposited from the air,
and delivers the pollutants directly
into surface waters. Without wet-
lands and other vegetated areas, the
land cannot filter pollutants from
storm water runoff before it enters
estuarine waters. Looking ahead,
our major challenge is controlling
nonpoint sources resulting from
population growth and their
impacts on estuarine habitats.
-------
208 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
<3gปฐ'
nSoซ"-ces"e5ufrl?0"Pomt
BSSsSSfc
fc/fcS. ^a***
Nonpoint Source Control
Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act provides funding for some
nonpoint source control projects
in estuarine waters (see
Chapter 14 for a full dis-
cussion of the Section 319
Nonpoint Source Program).
States employ both volun-
tary and regulatory controls
to encourage implementa-
tion of best management
practices to minimize
nonpoint source pollution
generated by agriculture, con-
struction, silviculture, marinas,
and urbanization.
The 1990 amendments to the
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) require States with federally
approved coastal zone management
programs to develop nonpoint
source pollution control programs in
coastal areas. Each State's program
will consist of selected management
measures for source categories, such
as construction, marinas, and agri-
culture. The States will develop and
implement the coastal nonpoint
source programs through existing
State coastal zone management
programs administered by NOAA
under Section 306 of the CZMA
and State nonpoint source pro-
grams administered by EPA under
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act.
In May 1991, EPA, in consulta-
tion with NOAA, proposed manage-
ment measures to control nonpoint
sources in coastal waters. In Octo-
ber 1991, EPA and NOAA proposed
guidelines to help States develop
their coastal nonpoint source pollu-
tion control programs. EPA issued
final guidelines in 1992.
EPA also issued new stormwater
regulations in 1992 that will require
National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) permits for
urban storm drainage systems and
runoff discharges from various
industrial and commercial sites (see
Chapter 12 for a complete discus-
sion of storm water controls). The
rule applies to 173 cities, 47 urban-
ized counties with populations
exceeding 100,000 people, and
several smaller communities using
storm sewers in covered jurisdic-
tions. The rule applies to industries
that discharge into municipal storm
sewers or directly discharge storm
water into surface waters. The rule
stops illegal connections to storm
drains.
Habitat Protection
NEP projects are looking
beyond traditional pollution control
approaches toward strategies that
address total estuarine ecosystem
health. These strategies base habitat
protection plans on a scientific
understanding of how ecosystems
function. These long-term strategies
require further coordination of
research and monitoring activities
performed by EPA, NOAA, individual
NEP projects, marine academic insti-
tutions, and other Federal and State
agencies.
While long-term strategies are
being developed, management
conferences act locally to address
immediate threats to estuarine habi-
tats. For example, management
conferences limit fish harvesting,
replant seagrass beds, seek building
restrictions such as setback require-
ments, create land conservation
areas, and curb harmful uses of
waterways. Such efforts are not
implemented in all NEP sites but will
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 209
likely be more widespread in the
future.
Management conferences will
need to work even more closely
with agencies such as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to improve
our understanding of habitat prob-
lems and develop new technologies
to mitigate adverse impacts. Ex-
amples of new technologies include
stabilizing shorelines with vegetation
instead of bulkheads and techniques
for creating wetlands. EPA is work-
ing with Management Conferences
to increase habitat mitigation activi-
ties, such as removing dams block-
ing fish migrations and eliminating
freshwater diversions.
Steps in the Right Direction
The NEP recognizes that it may
take decades to fulfull Congress'
directive to restore and protect estu-
aries of national significance. In the
short term, however, progress con-
tinues. Each estuary project in the
NEP is focusing on the key environ-
mental problems in its estuary and
integrating protection efforts con-
ducted by Federal, State, and local
agencies. NEP projects are consider-
ing air and land pollution sources in
addition to controls for traditional
point source polluters. Finally, NEP
projects are developing restoration
and protection strategies based
upon an understanding of estuarine
ecosystem functions and encourag-
ing the public to care for estuarine
ecosystems.
-------
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
and Assessment Programs
Introduction
Water quality monitoring is
essential for an understanding of
the condition of water resources
and to provide a basis for effective
policies that promote wise use and
management of those resources.
A large number of Federal, State,
and local agencies and private sec-
tor organizations currently collect
water quality information for a wide
range of purposes that can gener-
ally be divided into five categories:
(1) status and trends, (2) detection
of existing and emerging problems
and setting priorities among them,
(3) designing and implementing
programs, (4) evaluating program
or project success, and (5) emer-
gency response monitoring.
Numerous public and private
groups conduct many and varied
monitoring programs to fulfill one
or more of these purposes. This
chapter discusses current conditions
of water resource quality monitor-
ing in the United States and efforts
to establish an integrated nation-
wide monitoring strategy.
Overview of National
Monitoring Activity
Water resource quality monitor-
ing is conducted by Federal, inter-
state, State, local, and Tribal agen-
cies, as well as public, private, and
volunteer organizations. A recent
survey undertaken by the Inter-
governmental Task Force on Moni-
toring Water Quality indicates that
18 Federal agencies conduct
approximately 141 separate moni-
toring programs across the country,
as do all States and Territories, local
governments, and an increasing
number of American Indian Tribes.
At the Federal level, ambient
water quality data are collected by
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), the U.S. Forest
Service, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the
National Park Service,
EPA, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA),
the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), the
Bonneville Power Admin-
istration, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Bureau of Land Man-
agement (BLM), and vari-
ous other organizations
within the Departments of
Agriculture, Energy, Defense,
and Interior. Of this group, the
USGS, FWS, EPA, NOAA, and TVA
have either long-term regional or
both regional and national pro-
grams for water quality monitoring.
The other agencies and organiza-
tions monitor ambient water qual-
ity primarily at site-specific or
18 FEDERAL
AGENCIES
conduct 141 monitoring
programs across the
country
-------
212 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
project scales, usually for limited
periods of time.
Results from Federal monitoring
programs have provided important
information at the national and
regional scales. For example, USGS
data indicate that fecal bacteria
counts and total phosphorus
concentrations have decreased at a
considerable number of stations
across the United States from the
late 1970s to the late 1980s. The
FWS and NOAA data show that
bioaccumulation of trace elements,
pesticides, and trace
industrial compounds
has occurred at many
locations in our rivers,
estuaries, and near-
coastal areas. And data
from EPA monitoring
indicate substantial im-
provement in the phos-
phorous concentrations
of the Chesapeake Bay
during the past 6 years.
Similarly, within each
State, both State and local
monitoring programs have
provided the data to characterize
State water resource quality and
assess the effectiveness of water
management and regulatory pro-
grams. Contributing to the picture
are the monitoring programs run by
industrial and municipal dischargers,
by private groups, and by volunteer
monitoring organizations.
This wealth of information from
individual agencies, however, can-
not be easily aggregated to provide
an overview of national water qual-
ity conditions. Individual reports,
such as this 305(b) report, aggre-
gate State information. Individual
agency reports, such as that of
USGS, give nationwide information
on particular constituents. Because
of inconsistencies among the various
agencies in monitoring purpose and
design as well as data collection
methods and assessment proce-
dures, data from the various sources
cannot be easily combined to give
an overall national water quality
picture. In addition, data are often
stored without accompanying
descriptors, thus other data users
cannot determine if they can use
the data for their own purposes.
Effects of Changes
in Waiter Programs
In addition to this multiplicity of
effort, water programs themselves
are changing, necessitating similar
changes in water monitoring activi-
ties. The country is moving beyond
single-media command-and-control
programs into more holistic man-
agement programs based on risk
assessment and reduction. New
emphases include watershed,
ecoregion, and geographically
based programs; a focus on biologi-
cal, ecological, and habitat integrity
and diversity; wet weather runoff
control programs such as those for
nonpoint sources, stormwater, and
combined sewer overflows; and
wetlands and sediment contamina-
tion programs. Traditional monitor-
ing programs must be expanded to
include assessment of biological and
ecological resources and new meth-
ods must be developed to identify
and control pollution from hard-to-
trace, diffuse sources of pollution
such as wet weather runoff and
sediment contamination.
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 213
Intergovernmental
Task Force on
Monitoring Water
Quality
In January of 1992, representa-
tives from EPA, USGS, NOAA, FWS,
COE, USDA, DOE, OMB, and seven
State agencies and one interstate
agency formed a 3-year Inter-
governmental Task Force on Moni-
toring Water Quality (ITFM) to pre-
pare a strategy for improving water
quality monitoring nationwide. The
Tennessee Valley Authority, National
Park Service, one State, and one
American Indian Tribe, have since
been added. The ITFM is part of the
implementation of Office of Man-
agement and Budget (OMB) memo-
randum 92-01 to strengthen coordi-
nation of water information across
the country. The USGS has lead
responsibility for this and has
designed its Water Information
Coordination Program for this
purpose.
The ITFM is chaired by the EPA
with the USGS as vice chair and
Executive Secretariat. To date, over
100 additional Federal, State, and
interstate agency representatives
have been involved in the delibera-
tions of the ITFM and its seven task
groups:
Institutional Framework
Environmental Indicators
Methods
Data Management Sharing
Assessment and Reporting
Financial Survey
Ground Water.
The ITFM is considering the
full range of nationwide water
resources, including surface and
ground waters, near-coastal waters,
associated aquatic communities and
habitat, wetlands, and sediment.
Water resource protection factors
include human and ecological
health and the uses designated for
the Nation's waters through State
water quality standards. Monitoring
activities include gathering data on
physical, chemical/toxicological, and
biological/ecological/habitat
parameters.
The mission of the ITFM is to
develop and implement a national
strategic plan to achieve effective
collection, interpretation,
and presentation of
water quality data and
to improve the availabil-
ity of existing informa-
tion for decisionmaking at
all levels of government.
To accomplish this, the
ITFM has recommended
and will develop an inte-
grated nationwide voluntary
strategy that will meet the
nationwide objectives of vari-
ous monitoring programs,
make more efficient use of
available resources, distribute infor-
mation more effectively, and pro-
vide comparable data and consis-
tent reporting of water quality
status and trends.
A standing national monitoring
committee is envisioned to provide
guidelines and support for compa-
rable field and laboratory methods,
quality assurance/quality control,
-------
214 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
environmental indicators, data man-
agement and sharing, ancillary data,
interpretation techniques, and train-
ing. Regional data collection under
the national guidelines would pro-
vide the needed information for
nationwide assessment of water
resource quality.
The ITFM is also producing
products that can be used by moni-
toring programs nationwide, such as
an outline for a recommended
monitoring program, environmental
indicator selection criteria, and a
matrix of indicators to support
assessment of State designated uses.
The ITFM will disband in favor
of full implementation overseen by
a permanent committee in January
1995.
Major Nationwide
Monitoring Programs
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP)
EPA's Office of Research and Devel-
opment initiated EMAP in 1990 to
provide information on the current
status and long-term trends in
the condition of the ecological
resources of the United States.
EMAP develops indicators to
measure ecological condition,
monitors for those indicators,
and presents analyses of data in
periodic reports. Site selection is
based on a random design within
natural resource areas so individual
results can be interpolated with
confidence to the condition of the
Nation as a whole. EMAP, in coop-
eration with NOAA and the FWS,
monitors seven resource groups:
Near Coastal Waters, Surface Wa-
ters, Wetlands, Forests, Arid Lands,
Agroecosystems, and Great Lakes.
National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (NAPAP)
During the 1970s, the effects of
acid rain on the environment and
human health became a major con-
cern for many scientists, public
policy officials, public interest
groups, the media, and the general
population. Reports were published
linking emissions from industry,
electric power plants, and automo-
biles with acid rain. Many believed
that acid rain damages crops,
forests, buildings, animals, fish, and
human health. Congress established
NAPAP under the Acid Precipitation
Act of 1980 to provide the informa-
tion needed for policy and regula-
tory decisions on acidic deposition.
The areas of investigation addressed
by NAPAP Task Groups are Emis-
sions and Controls, Atmospheric
Processes, Atmospheric Transport
and Modeling, Atmospheric Deposi-
tion and Air Quality Monitoring,
Terrestrial Effects, Aquatic Effects,
and Effects on Materials and Cul-
tural Resources. NAPAP has also
developed Assessment Work Groups
in the areas of Atmospheric Visibil-
ity, Human Health Effects, and
Economic Valuation.
U.S. Geological Survey, National
Water Quality Assessment Program
(NAWQA)
The USGS developed NAWQA to
provide a nationally consistent
description of current water quality
conditions for a large part of the
Nation's water resources; to define
long-term trends (or lack thereof)
in water quality; and to identify,
describe, and explain, to the extent
possible, the major factors that
affect observed water quality condi-
tions and trends. This program is
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 215
concerned with both ground and
surface water quality; ultimately, 60
drainage basins will be monitored
under this program.
U.S. Geological Survey, National
Stream Quality Accounting Network
(NASQAN)
This network is composed of 420
stations on large rivers, located at
the outlets of major drainage basins
to collectively measure a large frac-
tion of total runoff in the United
States. The stations reflect general
water quality conditions in the
country. Measurements at NASQAN
sites include inorganic constituents,
radionuclides, and bacteria, but
exclude routine analyses for organic
chemicals.
U.S. Geological Survey, the Hy-
drologic Benchmark Network (HBN)
Composed of 55 stations located in
relatively pristine headwater basins,
this network is designed to define
baseline water quality conditions
and the effects of atmospheric
deposition on water quality. The
Network measures inorganic con-
stituents, radionuclides, and bacte-
rial contamination, among other
parameters.
Both NASQAN and HBN achieve
their objectives but neither is
designed to provide a statistically
representative sample of basins
throughout the Nation, nor are
stations in NASQAN purposefully
located downstream from industry,
municipal, and urban runoff outfalls
to isolate and measure maximum
impacts. These network design
considerations are a component of
the NAWQA program.
U.S. Geological Survey, the
National Atmospheric Deposition
Program/National Trends Network
Composed of 200 sampling sites
within the interagency NAPAP, this
network is designed to determine
spatial patterns and temporal trends
in chemical wet-only deposition. It
supports research into impacts on
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Measurements are limited to inor-
ganic constituents only.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Contaminant Biomoni-
toring Program (NCBP)
This program, now being revised,
determines tissue residue levels in
fish and birds nationwide. The fish
tissue part of the program consists
of 110 stations at nonrandomly
selected points along the Nation's
major rivers and in the Great Lakes.
Fish tissues are analyzed for organic
contaminants (pesticides and indus-
trial chemicals) and seven elements.
Sampling has been conducted on a
2- to 4-year basis since the mid-
1960s.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biomonitoring of Environmental
Status and Trends (BEST) Program
This program, now under develop-
ment, has three major goals: (1) to
determine the status and trends of
contaminants and their effect on
natural resources; (2) to identify and
assess the major factors affecting
resources and provide current and
predictive information to alleviate
impacts; and (3) to provide sum-
maty information in a timely man-
ner to decisionmakers and the
public. The BEST Program has two
major components: FWS lands and
-------
216 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
The National
Biological Survey
Secretary of the Interior, Bruce
Babbitt, has proposed the cre-
ation of an independent, non-
advocacy biological science
bumm Mthin the Department
Of the Interior. The National
Biological Survey (MBS) will
provide information and tech-
Ymcat assistance. ...... TKe'NBSwtt!'
be "created by 'incorporating
elements from eight bureaus
within the Department The
NBS will have tiiree major
ftmctions:
.iS'WiVi ..... "V ,..',::< ......... Uifr'^.iW
biological and ecological
'" ;;'; research
inventory and monitoring
Of the Nation's biological
resources
m information transfer
activities,
I ,''!* 'M'i S'r! IB! ฃ ฅ
Tilt' NBS became, operational
on November 11, 1993.
FWS trust species and their habitats.
Activities include collection and
evaluation of existing data for site
characterization and bioassessment
data from four general categories-
ecological surveys, tissue residue,
organism health or biomarkers, and
toxicity tests/bioassays.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Program
This program determines status and
trends of U.S. wetlands to produce
comprehensive, statistically valid
acreage estimates of the Nation's
wetlands. This information is widely
distributed and mandated by the
Emergency Wetland Resource Act of
1986. To date, more than 32,000
detailed wetlands maps have been
completed covering 72% of the
coterminous United States, 22% of
Alaska, and all of Hawaii and Puerto
Rico.
National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration (NOAA),
National Status and Trends Program
(NS&T)
NOAA conducts the NS&T, which
includes the Benthic Surveillance
Program and the Mussel Watch
Program. Indicators for determining
the effects on marine biotas of con-
taminated sediments are currently
under development. Parameters that
are sampled for NS&T include accu-
mulated compounds in the tissues
and conditions of physical features
of selected biota as well as sediment
chemistry.
National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration (NOAA),
National Estuarine Research Reserves
The National Estuarine Research
Reserve System was created to"
protect representative areas of the
estuarine environment and to pro-
vide a system of protected sites for
long-term monitoring and research.
It is a State-Federal partnership
managed by NOAA under the
Coastal Zone Management Act. The
Act requires nomination of a reserve
site by the Governor of a State and
designation by the Secretary of
Commerce. Since 1972, NOAA has
kept this partnership, and the evolv-
ing statutory mission of the pro-
gram, by providing resources and
guidance to the States, by develop-
ing national programs, and by shap-
ing the legislation into an operating
program. Twenty-one reserves have
been designated including sites in
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Great
Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlan-
tic Coast, and the West Coast.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
Water Resource Monitoring
TVA conducts a regional water
resource monitoring program to
evaluate ecological health and suit-
ability for body-contact recreation of
reservoirs and major streams in the
Tennessee Valley and to evaluate
the suitability for human consump-
tion of fish in those waters. The
program includes systematic mea-
surement of physical, chemical, and
biological variables at strategic loca-
tions. Results are used to draw
attention to pollution problems, to
set cleanup goals, and to measure
the effectiveness of water quality
improvement efforts over time. TVA
also monitors aquatic plant and
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 217
mosquito populations around TVA
lakes to help target management
efforts. Monitoring of conditions in
tailwaters below several dams
focuses on prioritizing facilities for
reaeration of reservoir releases and
providing data to evaluate the
effectiveness of those efforts.
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Resource Conservation Act of 1977
(RCA)
Mandated by the Resource Conser-
vation Act (RCA) of 1977, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) is
"to provide for furthering the con-
servation, protection, and enhance-
ment of the Nation's soil, water,
and related resources for sustained
use." In recognition of the impor-
tance of, and need for, obtaining
and maintaining information on the
current status of soil, water, and
related resources, USDA makes a
continuing appraisal of the soil,
water, and related resources of the
Nation. The objective of the
appraisal currently under way is to
present information to assist policy
decisionmakers and program man-
agers to form better policies and
programs to address soil, water, and
other environmental concerns for
the next 2 decades.
RCA appraisals include data on: the
quality and quantity of soil, water,
and related resources, including fish
and wildlife habitats; the capability
and limitations of those resources
for meeting current and projected
demands on the resource base; the
changes that have occurred in the
status and condition of those
resources resulting from various past
uses, including the impact of farm-
ing technologies, techniques, and
practices; and the current Federal
and State laws, policies, programs,
rights, regulations, ownerships, and
their trends and other consider-
ations relating to the use, develop-
ment, and conservation of soil,
water, and related resources.
Developed by the Interagency
Work Group on Water Quality, the
Guide to Federal Water Quality Pro-
grams and Information is an attempt
to inventory all significant Federal
water quality programs and infor-
mation of national scope or interest.
The guide contains information on
(1) factors affecting water quality
including underlying demographic
pressures, use of the land, water,
and resources, and pollutant load-
ing; (2) ambient water quality infor-
mation, including biological, chemi-
.cal, and physical/ecological condi-
tions; (3) other effects of water pol-
lution including waterborne disease
outbreaks; and (4) a listing of
programs established to preserve,
protect, and restore water quality.
For a copy of the Guide, contact
EPA's Public Information Clearing-
house (PIC) at (202) 260-7751.
Office of Water
Programs to Support
Monitoring
Environmental
Indicators
The EPA Office of Water
(OW) is developing a strategic
plan that outlines its future
directions and articulates its goals.
To measure success toward these
goals, OW is establishing indica-
tors to accurately characterize the
health of national water resources
For a description of other
'Federal water quality
programs, see the Guide to
Federal Water Quality
Programs and Information,
available from EPA's Public
Information Clearinghouse at
* (202) 260-7751.
-------
218 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
and measure how well the waters
meet their designated uses. This
effort has identified data sources to
track the indicators. Future indicator
development activities include
developing comparable monitoring
and reporting mechanisms by
working with other agencies and
national trends programs, such as
EPA's EMAP and USGS' NAWQA,
through the ITFM.
Monitoring Program
Grant Guidance
EPA gives grants to States to
assist them in administering pollu-
tion prevention and control pro-
grams, including monitoring activi-
ties. In fact, the law states EPA
shall not give such grants unless
the State adequately monitors
surface and ground waters, com-
piles and analyzes the data, and
reports them in 305(b) reports.
EPA, working with States and the
ITFM, is developing an outline for a
recommended monitoring program.
A comprehensive monitoring pro-
gram would include both ambient
monitoring and monitoring to
determine the effectiveness of indi-
vidual projects and individual pro-
grams designed to protect water-
bodies or control sources of pollu-
tion. Recommended elements of a
monitoring program include moni-
toring program objectives; a moni-
toring design description; written
protocols; analytical laboratory sup-
port; quality assurance and quality
control procedures; data storage,
management, and sharing; water
resource assessment and reporting;
training; and volunteer monitoring
support.
305(b) Consistency
Workgroup
The 305(b) Consistency Work-
group, convened in 1990, was ".
expanded in 1992 to address issues
of consistency in water quality
reporting and to improve accuracy
and coverage of State assessments.
The 1994 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup consists of representa^
tives of 21 States, 6 Federal agen-
cies, the 10 EPA Regions, and EPA
Headquarters. This standing work-
group, which will develop future
305(b) guidance, makes recommen-
dations to improve each iteration of
guidance to the States. Recent rec-
ommendations have included refin-
ing total State waters estimates and
providing more detailed guidance
for aquatic life use support assess-
ments, including appropriate meth-
ods for using biological data along
with physical and chemical data.
Water Monitor
Newsletter
Since the early 1980s, EPA has
issued a regular status report on
monitoring activities at EPA and
among the States. Now known as
the Water Monitor, this report pro-
vides monthly updates on State,
EPA Regional, and EPA Headquarter
activities in areas such as biological
monitoring, total maximum daily
load development, biological criteria
and protocol development, volun-
teer monitoring, and the watershed
approach. New documents and
upcoming meetings are highlighted.
To obtain a copy or be placed on
the mailing list for the Water
Monitor, write to Editor, Water
Monitor, AWPD (WH-553), 401 M
St. SW, Washington, DC 20460.
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 219
Biological Monitoring
The Biological Criteria
Program
Priorities established in 1991 by
EPA call for States to adopt biologi-
cal criteria (biocriteria) into their
water quality standards. To support
this priority, the Agency has pro-
vided guidance for development
and implementation of biocriteria.
Several future guidance documents
will provide additional technical
information to facilitate activities
directed toward that implementa-
tion. When implemented, biocriteria
will expand and improve water
quality standards programs, help to
quantify impairment of beneficial
uses, and aid in setting program
priorities. These criteria will be use-
ful because they provide for direct
measurement of the condition of
the resource at risk, detect problems
that other methods may miss or
underestimate, and provide a sys-
tematic process for measuring
progress resulting from the imple-
mentation of water resource quality
programs. Biocriteria are intended
to supplement, rather than replace,
chemical and toxicological methods.
Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols
In 1989, EPA's Office of Water
issued rapid bioassessment protocols
(RBPs) for streams as a tool
intended to provide States with
biological monitoring methods to
supplement traditional instream
chemical analyses. The key concept
underlying these protocols is the
comparison of the structure and
function of the aquatic community
in the context of habitat quality at a
given stream study site to that of an
ecological reference site. On the
basis of this comparison, a water
resource quality assessment can be
made. EPA has provided technical
support and training to States to
encourage the implementation of
the RBPs. Currently (1993), 24
States have active RBP-based water
resource monitoring programs for
streams and another eight have RBP
programs under development.
Additional guidance is being
developed to aid States in adapting
the protocol framework to fit a vari-
ety of ecological regions in the
United States (lakes/reservoirs, estu-
aries, and others). Work is also
under way to evaluate the effective-
ness of RBPs for assessing combined
sewer overflows.
Quality Assurance/Quality
Control for Biological
Monitoring and Biological
Assessment
The U.S. EPA Office of Water
and Office of Research and Develop-
ment are assembling generic guid-
ance documents for production of
quality assurance project plans for
biological monitoring and assess-
ment. This work is currently under
way and involves review and input
from State and EPA regional moni-
toring personnel.
EPA Habitat Cluster
In ranking habitat degradation
and loss as one of the highest envi-
ronmental risk problems facing EPA
and other governmental agencies
today, the EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB) recommended in 1990
that EPA attach as much importance
to reducing ecological risks as to
reducing human health risk. EPA
-------
220 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
has since progressed toward a more
comprehensive approach to envi-
ronmental problems and their reme-
dies, and habitat is an integral part
of this perspective. In 1992, EPA
established the Habitat Cluster,
cochaired by OW and EPA's Office
of Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
which is developing a strategy for
the agency to deal comprehensively
with habitat issues.
Fish Advisory Guidance
and Information
In response to interest on the
part of States to have nationally
consistent methods for issuing fish
consumption advisories, EPA's Office
of Science and Technology (OST),
Standards and Applied Science Divi-
sion, is developing guidance docu-
ments for sampling and analysis of
contaminated fish tissues for
the purposes of issuing con-
sumption advisories. This
guidance became available in
October, 1993.
In addition to this guid-
ance, OST has developed two
databases, one for States to
report fish advisory information
and another that contains fish
tissue contaminant data. The Fish
Advisory Database contains fish
advisory information reported
nationwide by States including the
waterbody affected, the type of fish
species, the type of advisory, and a
contact person. It is updated regu-
larly and can be accessed through
the Fish Advisory Special Interest
Group on the Nonpoint Source
Bulletin Board. The National Fish
Tissue Contaminants Database can
be accessed through the Ocean
Data Evaluation System (ODES).
National Study of
Chemical Residues in Fish
In late 1992, EPA issued a
report on results of the EPA National
Study of Chemical Residues in Fish
(NSCRF), formerly called the
National Bioaccumulation Study.
This study is a followup to the EPA
National Dioxin Study and substan-
tially broadens that work with
regard to both the number of
chemicals analyzed and the number
of sites examined. The NSCRF was a
screening study designed to deter-
mine the extent to which water
pollutants are bioaccumulating in
fish and to identify correlations with
sources of the contamination within
a watershed/drainage basin (see the
highlight in Chapter 7 for further
information about the NSCRF).
Specific Water
Program Monitoring
National Estuary
Program Monitoring
Guidance
EPA is developing guidance on
the design, implementation, and
evaluation of estuary monitoring
programs required under Section
320 of the Clean Water Act. The
guidance document identifies the
major steps involved in developing
and implementing estuary monitor-
ing programs, documents existing
monitoring methods, and describes
their use in monitoring the effective-
ness of estuarine management
actions. Case studies of existing
programs are included.
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 221
Nonpoint Source
National Monitoring
Program
EPA is developing a national
monitoring database designed to
provide information on the success
of nonpoint source pollution control
activities. To be included in the
database, projects must have ambi-
ent monitoring of chemical, physi-
cal, and/or biological/habitat condi-
tions, and the monitoring must be
part of a rigorous nonpoint source
abatement program with well-
defined goals and objectives. Each
of the 10 EPA Regions is to allocate
a portion of the Section 319 grant
funds for these projects. Data
provided through this program will
document the effects of well-
developed nonpoint source pollu-
tion control efforts, provide better
understanding of management
programs and results, and provide a
model for adjusting best manage-
ment practices, where necessary, to
achieve better results.
Wetlands Monitoring
National estimates of wetlands
acreage have been available since
1975 from the FWS National Wet-
lands Inventory (see Chapter 16).
EPA's Wetlands Division is now
working closely with FWS and EPA's
EMAP-Wetlands Program to charac-
terize the ecological status and
trends of existing wetlands. Stan-
dardized protocols are being devel-
oped for measuring wetlands
conditions. See Chapter 16 for
further information about EPA and
State wetlands monitoring and
protection programs.
Contaminated Sediment
Strategy
In early 1993, EPA issued its
Contaminated Sediment Manage-
ment Strategy: A Proposal for Dis-
cussion. One of its main objectives
is to describe EPA's current under-
standing of the extent and severity
of sediment contamination. A major
principle outlined in the Strategy
describes EPA's commitment to
continue to develop and improve
methods for identifying contami-
nated sediments, to provide a basis
for assessment of sediment contami-
nation, to outline steps to reduce
risk supported by sound science,
and to outline a strategy for assess-
ing the extent and severity of sedi-
ment contamination.
One of the initial steps to imple-
ment not only this strategy but to
meet mandated statutory require-
ments to address and resolve con-
taminated sediment problems is to
develop a national inventory of con-
taminated sediment sites for which
a detailed monitoring database will
be developed entitled the National
Inventory of Contaminated Sedi-
ment Sites. Based on existing data,
the site inventory will provide a
near-term screening assessment of
the national extent and severity of
sediment contamination across the
country and will contain sampling
locational data, site characteristic
data, quality assurance and quality
control information, and sampling
parameters. It is expected to be
completed by December 1994.
-------
222 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
Ground Water
Monitoring
EPA's support for State Ground
Water Protection Programs has
expanded in line with the Ground
Water Task Force's recommenda-
tions in the report Protecting the
Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strat-
egy for the 1990's. This document
addresses the development of con-
sistent data collection protocols to
improve accessibility, quality, and
the usefulness of ground water qual-
ity data. To that end, the Ground
Water Minimum Set of Data Ele-
ments for Ground Water Quality
was finalized requiring their use for
EPA ground water monitoring.
Volunteer Monitoring
Programs
In recognition of the value of
volunteer water monitoring efforts
and to encourage the development
of carefully planned volunteer pro-
grams that work in conjunction with
State water quality agencies, EPA,
in 1990, developed a volunteer
water monitoring guide for State
EPA Publications About Volunteer Monitoring
Citizen Volunteers in Environmental Monitoring: Summary Proceedings
of UK Second National Workshop. New Orleans, Louisiana. EPA 503/9-90-009.
Office of Water, Washington, DC.
National Directory of Citizen Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs,
Tlilrd Edition. EPA 503/9-90-004. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Proceedings of Third National Citizen's Volunteer Water Monitoring
Conference - Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water. March 29-
April 2, 1992. EPA 841/R-92-004. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual. December 1991.
EPA 440/4-91-002. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Volunteer- Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers. August 1990.
EPA 440/4-90-010. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
managers (see sidebar). This guide
provides specific steps for planning,
implementing, and maintaining a
volunteer water monitoring
program, and includes sections on
quality assurance and quality
control, data management and
presentation, and funding.
EPA also developed a variety of
other documents in support of vol-
unteer monitoring, including a lake
monitoring methods manual for
volunteers, which provides step-by-
step instructions for common volun-
teer monitoring techniques of lakes,
a directory of volunteer monitoring
programs nationwide, and the pro-
ceedings of the third national con-
ference on volunteer monitoring.
EPA will continue to provide
technical support in the area of
volunteer monitoring by developing
additional methods manuals (one
for streams and one for estuaries are
under way) and guidance on prepa-
ration of quality assurance project
plans for volunteers. To help facili-
tate technical transfer and informa-
tion exchange, EPA is sponsoring
regular national and regional volun-
teer monitoring conferences, work-
ing to strengthen its own network
of volunteer monitoring coordina-
tors in the 10 EPA Regions, and
sponsoring technical transfer tools
such as the Volunteer Monitoring
newsletter and an electronic bulletin
board for volunteers. In addition,
many of the EPA Regions issue
Clean Water Act grants to the States
under the Nonpoint Source and
Clean Lakes programs that include
volunteer monitoring components.
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 223
EPA Data and
Information Systems
Storet Modernization
The STORET (STOrage and
RETrieval) Database of ambient
water quality data, first developed
in 1964, is one of the oldest and
largest water information systems
currently in use. It has been jointly
maintained by EPA's Office of Infor-
mation Resources Management and
the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds. STORET stores informa-
tion on ambient, intensive survey,
effluent, and biological water quality
monitoring and provides users with
an array of analytical tools and link-
ages to other data systems. STORET
primarily contains chemical and
physical water quality monitoring
data in the water quality system,
with biological sampling and site
information stored in the BIOS (Bio-
logical System) Database, another
major component. ODES (Ocean
Data Evaluation System) is a sepa-
rately maintained and linked infor-
mation system specifically for water
quality and biological data for
marine, estuarine, and freshwater
environments. ODES users can
access STORET information for
further manipulation using ODES
graphical and modeling tools.
EPA information systems are
being called upon to respond to
new program needs, including geo-
graphically oriented management
approaches, storage of ground
water quality and associated geo-
logic data and biological and habi-
tat assessment information, and to
enhance sharing of data (across
EPA, other Federal, State, and local
programs). STORET, BIOS, and
ODES are undergoing a major
modernization scheduled to be
complete in 1997 with interim
products throughout, including
a prototype in late 1993. This
effort will result in a more flex-
ible, efficient, and usable state-of-
the-art information system, which,
in turn, will provide improved
tools for ground and surface water
quality decisionmaking.
The Waterbody System
The Waterbody System (WBS) is
a data management tool used by
States to record assessments of
ambient water quality for surface
waters. Although originally designed
to facilitate the reporting under
Section 305(b), the WBS is used by
many States to track results of all
their ambient water quality assess-
ments. During the 1992 reporting
cycle, 30 States, Territories, and
Interstate Water Commissions
submitted WBS data files. Approxi-
mately 10 additional States used the
WBS in some capacity but did not
submit files compatible with the
1992 version of the WBS.
The Waterbody System contains
information that program managers
can access quickly on the water
quality status of a particular water-
body. Data elements include water-
body identification, water quality
status, assessment information,
designated use evaluations, causes
of impairment (nutrients, pesticides,
siltation, etc.), and sources of
impairment (municipal treatment
plants, agricultural runoff, etc.).
Enhanced twice since it was
originally developed in 1988, system
users communicate regularly with
each other and can receive user
information and support from the
Monitoring Branch at EPA Head-
quarters.
-------
Volunteer Monitoring
Across the country, people are
learning about water quality issues
and helping to assess and protect
our Nation's water resources by
monitoring waters in their commu-
nities. Volunteers commonly mea-
sure physical and chemical water
quality parameters, including dis-
solved oxygen concentrations, acid-
ity (pH), nutrient concentrations,
and temperature. Some volunteers
also evaluate the health of stream
habitats and aquatic biological
communities, inventory stream-side
conditions, and assess land uses that
may affect water quality. Other
volunteers collect and catalog beach
debris and restore degraded
habitats.
State and local agencies may
use volunteer data to screen for
water quality problems, establish
trends in waters that would other-
wise be unmonitored, or make plan-
ning decisions. Volunteers benefit by
learning more about their local
water resources, identifying condi-
tions and activities that might be
contributing to pollution problems,
and working with clubs, environ-
mental groups, and government
agencies to address problem areas.
What is EPA's Role in
Volunteer Monitoring?
The EPA supports volunteer
monitoring by providing technical
guidance, establishing formats for
information exchange, and offering
limited funding. EPA sponsors
national and regional conferences to
encourage information exchange
among volunteer groups, govern-
ment agencies, businesses, and
educators. EPA publishes sampling
method manuals for volunteers and
provides technical assistance
(primarily on quality control and
laboratory methods) through the
10 EPA regional offices. The EPA
Regions also manage grants to
States to support volunteer monitor-
ing in lakes and waters impacted by
nonpoint sources.
What is the State's Role
in Volunteer Monitoring?
Every year, citizens initiate new
volunteer monitoring programs.
Many of these volunteer monitoring
groups work with State agencies. In
1988, only 14 State agencies pro-
vided technical and/or organiza-
tional assistance to volunteer
-------
HIGHUGH
monitoring groups. In 1992, 32
States supported volunteer monitor-
ing programs and 6 additional
States were planning volunteer
monitoring programs.
Over 24,000 volunteers monitor
more than 985 streams, 4 major
estuaries, and 2,800 lakes, ponds,
and wetlands in State-supported
programs. Without volunteers, the
States could not monitor many of
these waterbodies.
Who Pays for
Volunteer Monitoring?
Volunteer monitoring programs
are funded through a variety of
private and public sources. In some
cases, public agencies sponsor vol-
unteer programs by providing staff
to train and organize volunteers,
equipment, and services, such as
data analysis. City, county, and
Tribal governments, State agencies,
and Federal agencies (such as the
U.S. Park Service, the U.S. Forest
Service, and the EPA) support volun-
teer monitoring programs financially
or with guidance and training.
Many volunteer programs also
receive private support from founda-
tions, corporate sponsors, universi-
ties, and other research centers.
This support may include funding
for full- or part-time organizers,
equipment, training workshops, and
data analysis. Many volunteers con-
tribute by purchasing their equip-
ment and hosting training sessions.
How Do Volunteer
Monitoring Programs
Improve Our
Environment?
The following examples demon-
strate the important contributions
volunteers have made to improving
the environment.
Snohomish County's Adopt-a-
Stream Program: Improving Fish
Resources in Washington State
Over 20 school groups and
16 parent groups currently main-
tain and monitor adopted streams
and tributaries in Snohomish
County, Washington. The groups
look for evidence of pollution,
erosion, and activities that might
disrupt fish spawning in their
adopted streams.
t, V,
HIGHLIGHT
-------
::: HIGHIIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
,'?.Ji ,.: ;>ซlii;Ill
i, vliiiil,ซv,;i!ฅ:lllซ
-I!'1'; #"! "|!!!:;t;>' 1
: ''i-ij" <'4iป '.jt'fltyft
,.": , iStlti'^SJ
l! , i ; jiiti
'"^.:*>'*L-KW:
wiiiiiin'iiLih
liPB
'' <,,ป, IL !|| || ill-Hi
Volunteers and county employees,
working together, completed over
105 stream restoration projects and
opened 30 miles of previously
restricted spawning and rearing
habitat for salmon and steelhead
trout.
Neighborhoods United: Protecting
the Cold Stream in Cedar Rapids,
Iowa
With only 13 members, Neigh-
borhoods United began protecting
the Cold Stream in Cedar Rapids,
Iowa, 3 years ago. The volunteers
accomplished the following tasks:
Identified a sewer overflow and
convinced the City to repair it by
presenting a video tape of the over-
flow to city officials.
Organized city-wide cleanup
days that dramatically reduced the
stream's solid waste content by
several commercial truckloads of
garbage.
Involved children and adults in
regular biological monitoring of the
stream.
Vermont Lay Monitoring
Program: Lake Champlain's
Steward
Hundreds of volunteers measure
Secchi disk transparency (a measure
of the water turbidity) and collect
water samples from 30 monitoring
stations on Lake Champlain. The
State analyzes chlorophyll and total
phosphorus concentrations in the
water samples collected by the vol-
unteers. Volunteers also conduct
user perception surveys. Volunteer
data helped the State establish
phosphorous standards for Lake
Champlain and obtain a Federal
grant to study phosphorus in Lake
Champlain. The volunteer data also
enabled the State to include infor-
mation on Lake Champlain in the
State's 305(b) report.
Volunteer Lake Monitoring
Program: Benefits in Illinois
Every year, 270 volunteers
donate 2,400 hours of their time to
monitor over 150 lakes in Illinois.
Volunteers collect data on water
transparency, nutrients, and sus-
pended solids. State agencies and
local lake associations perform the
following tasks with the data:
Plan and implement over 30
lake and watershed management
projects, such as a cost-sharing
project with farmers to implement
safe and effective use of agricultural
chemicals.
Determine water quality trends
and the effectiveness of lake and
watershed management projects.
Prepare the State's 305(b) report.
Trout Unlimited: Restoring
and Protecting Fish Habitat
Trout Unlimited is a nonprofit
cold water fisheries conservation
organization with 66,000 members
in 400 local chapters. Trout Unlim-
ited offers technical assistance to its
members who participate in dozens
of water monitoring and river resto-
ration projects each year. Trout
Unlimited members recently
completed the following projects:
-------
Constructed a barbed-wire fence
along California's Trout Creek in the
Shasta-Trinity National Forest to
prevent cows from damaging fish
habitat. Chevron Corporation
assisted.
Restored fish habitat on Spring
Creek in Missouri's Mark Twain
National Forest. Trout Unlimited
members planted 20,000 trees
along a 6-mile segment of the
creek, restored the creek banks,
and reclaimed the natural Ozark
vegetation.
The GREEN Project: Empowering
People to Improve Water Quality
Around the World
The Global Rivers Environmental
Network (GREEN) is affiliated with
the School of Natural Resources at
the University of Michigan in Ann
Arbor. GREEN provides a clearing-
house of scientific information and
ideas for people with an interest in
studying and improving local water
quality through hands-on monitor-
ing and problemsolving. Several
examples of student actions arising
from GREEN's water monitoring
programs include:
In Swaziland on the African con-
tinent, students reduced the cases
of schistosomiasis (a tropical disease
caused by parasitic worms) by locat-
ing an alternative river site for wash-
ing clothes and providing basins
and water pumps at the new site.
In Australia, students and teach-
ers identified partially treated
sewage near public beaches and
appeared on national television to
advise the public of the health risks.
In Detroit, Michigan, students
identified a malfunctioning munici-
pal sewage treatment station emp-
tying raw sewage into the Rouge
River. The city immediately repaired
the station's equipment.
For More Information
To learn more about volunteer
monitoring and how to participate,
contact:
Alice Mayio
Volunteer Monitoring
Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (4503)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7018
HIGHLIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
%*7 ^t$fc ,,
t& ta-KS?
,ซซ. "SiJHJjmHU
B ^B^W,$K^^0ปr '
.^ <$*&-**> 3: f-,
j>-ซitt *. *
!>ซซ*ป'- ^
Mป(PSSB*15ซ!1ปSS' s, ~*m *
-------
228 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
jFor ftuttier information 'about
databases ana1 information
systems, see the Office of
Water Environmental and
Program Information Systems "
Compendium available from
tiw $PA Office of Water at
(202) 260-5684.
The Permit Compliance
System
The Permit Compliance System
(PCS) is an information manage-
ment system maintained by the
Office of Wastewater Enforcement
and Compliance (OWEC) to track
the permit, compliance, and
enforcement status of facilities regu-
lated by the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program under the Clean
Water Act. PCS tracks information
about wastewater treatment and
industrial and Federal facilities
discharging into navigable rivers.
Tracked items include facility and
discharge characteristics, permit
conditions, inspections, enforcement
actions, and compliance schedules.
PCS distinguishes between major
and minor facilities based on the
potential threat to human health or
the environment. Only major facili-
ties must provide complete records
to PCS, currently numbered at
around 7,100; however, States and
Regions do submit information for
approximately 56,300 minor facili-
ties. PCS users are able to use
graphical and statistical tools to
analyze PCS data and can use a
PCS/STORET interface to link the
systems and support additional
analyses.
Nonpoint Source
Information Exchange
The Nonpoint Source Informa-
tion Exchange, housed at the
Assessment and Watershed Protec-
tion Division of EPA's Office of
Water, is designed to serve as a
national center for the exchange of
information concerning (1) the
nature of nonpoint source (NPS)
pollution, (2) NPS management
techniques and methods, and
(3) institutional arrangements for
the planning and implementation of
NPS management including finan-
cial arrangements.
The Exchange contains two
major activities: a technical bulletin,
the NPS News-Notes, published
approximately eight times per year,
and the NPS Electronic Bulletin
Board System (NPS BBS). The target
audience for the News-Notes is State
and local water quality managers
although, with a circulation of over
10,000, other interested parties
including public officials, environ-
mental groups, private industry,
citizens, and academics receive
News-Notes regularly.
The NPS BBS, first opened in
1991, provides timely and relevant
NPS and other information to a
similar audience. There are more
than 1,200 users of the NPS BBS
who, through the system, can
access several special interest areas:
Agricultural Issues, Fish Consump-
tion Advisories and Bans, Waterbody
System Users Group, NPS Research,
Watershed Restoration Network,
Total Maximum Daily Loads, and
Volunteer Monitoring. Also available
are on-line searchable databases
such as the Clean Lakes Clearing-
house, NPS News-Notes database,
the Fish Consumption Bans and
Advisories database, and the
National Registry of Watershed
Projects.
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 229
Great Lakes Envirofacts
The Great Lakes National Pro-
gram Office (GLNPO) is initiating a
computer system development pilot
effort called Great Lakes Envirofacts
(CLEF) to assist managers and tech-
nical staff in developing strategies to
reduce toxic chemical loadings. The
keystone goal of GLNPO's data inte-
gration program is developing a
system to enable technical staff to
access, display, analyze, and present
Great Lakes multimedia and geo-
graphic information from their desk
top, providing environmental
decisionmaking support for Great
Lakes Program managers. The CLEF
pilot project will explore both the
system requirements of Great Lakes
Program staff and the technical
means (hardware, software, and
telecommunications) to begin realiz-
ing its keystone goal.
The GLEF will build upon the
Envirofacts/Gateway system devel-
oped by EPA's Office of Information
Resources Management (OIRM)
Program Systems Division (PSD).
The Envirofacts database stores envi-
ronmental monitoring and program
(e.g., PCS, TR1S, FINDS) information
in a relational structure. Gateway is
a graphical user interface that pro-
vides spatially referenced access to
the Envirofacts database. The Great
Lakes Envirofacts project will be the
first implementation of the Gate-
way/Envirofacts concept, testing its
capability and utility for the Great
Lakes Program.
Other Information
Clearinghouses &
Electronic Bulletin Boards
Several other clearinghouses,
electronic bulletin boards, newslet-
ters, and information updates on
water quality activities have been
developed by EPA for use by State
and local governments, Federal
agencies, and the public. These
include COASTNET bulletin board
for coastal waters and estuary pro-
tection activities, the Clean Lakes
Clearinghouse, the Contaminated
Sediment News bulletin, the Water
Monitor (described on page 218),
and the Office of Science and
Technology's Resource Center.
-------
-------
Point Source
Control Program
Treating Municipal
Wastewater
Municipal treatment facilities
receive wastewater from residential
sources as well as from industry,
ground water infiltration, and storm
water runoff. The array of pollutants
that may be associated with these
sources includes suspended solids,
organics, pesticides, heavy metals,
nutrients, acids, viruses, and bacte-
ria.
Adequate treatment of munici-
pal wastewater is important for the
protection of the Nation's water
resources and public health. With-
out adequate treatment, this pollu-
tion poses a potentially serious
threat to aquatic life, commercial
and recreational opportunities, sur-
face water drinking supplies, ground
water drinking supplies, and the
general health and stability of many
of the Nation's stream, river, lake,
estuarine, and coastal ecosystems.
The Clean Water Act requires
municipalities to achieve treatment
levels based on technology perfor-
mance. The 1981 CWA amend-
ments extended the deadline for
eligible treatment plants to achieve
"secondary treatment" to July 1,
1988. Secondary treatment removes
at least 85% of several key conven-
tional pollutants. If secondary treat-
ment is not enough to meet water
quality standards, the Clean Water
Act mandates additional treatment
as necessary.
Historically, under the Clean
Water Act, EPA has been authorized
to help municipalities solve their
wastewater treatment problems
by providing grants for
construction. For this purpose,
$18 billion was originally appro-
priated to the construction
grants program. Funding has
continued since the initial appro-
priation in 1972, and the Federal
investment in municipal waste-
water treatment was $56 billion
through fiscal year 1992.
Through the 1987 amendments
to the Clean Water Act, the State
Revolving Fund (SRF) Program was
established to follow the phaseout
of the Construction Grants Program.
Under this program, the Agency
provides grants to States to fund
the establishment of State-run loan
programs. This is a major step in
restoring the responsibility for
financing wastewater treatment to
States and municipalities. Congress
appropriated more than $9 billion
through fiscal year 1994 for State
Revolving Funds. States must pro-
vide a 20% match as part of their
commitment toward establishing
their SRFs. In addition to providing
loans for construction of wastewater
treatment facilities, SRFs allow fund-
ing for activities not previously
eligible under the Construction
Grants Program. The amendments
-------
232 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
of 1987 expanded eligibilities and
also led to the promulgation of new
rules related to new enforceable
requirements. The major categories
of new eligibilities are nonpoint
source control and programs
for the protection of ground
water and estuaries. The primary
programs with new enforceable
requirements are those dealing
with storm water, toxic dis-
charges, and sludge use and
disposal. The SRF loan program
provides States with more discre-
tion than ever before in selecting
projects for funding. States are now
able to finance projects they may
consider to be of higher priority,
such as nonpoint source, estuarine,
Table 13-1. Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment
Facilities and Other Eligibilities (January 1992
Dollars in Billions)
Needs Category
Title II Eligibilities
1 Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
IIIA Infiltration/Inflow Correction
IIIB Replacement/Rehabilitation
IVA New Collector Sewers
IVB New Interceptor Sewers
V Combined Sewer Overflows
VI Storm Water (institutional source controls only)b
Total Categories I-VI
Other Eligibilities (Sections 319 and 320)
Nonpoint Source (agriculture and silviculture only)
Ground Water, Estuaries, Wetlands
GRAND TOTAL
Total
Needs
31.3
15.5
2.8
3.6
17.9
14.7
41.2a
0.1 a
127.1
8.8 a
1.2
137.1
"Modeled needs.
blncludes SRF-eligible costs to develop and implement storm water plans but not
eligible structural and construction costs.
NOTE: Costs for operation and maintenance are not eligible for SRF funding and
therefore are not included.
combined sewer overflow, or storm
water control projects. All States and
Puerto Rico had approved SRF
programs in place as of September
1990.
The States provided some
examples of water quality improve-
ments due to municipal construc-
tion and upgrading in their 1992
305(b) reports (see sidebar).
Funding Needs
for Wastewater
Treatment
The Needs Survey, a biennial
report to Congress, is the primary
mechanism for assessing municipal
Wastewater treatment needs nation-
wide. The 1992 Needs Survey
focuses on the expanded CWA
funding eligibilities under the SRF in
the 1987 Amendments to the Clean
Water Act. Models were used to
supplement documented needs
estimates for combined sewer over-
flows (CSOs). Models were also
used to develop preliminary urban
storm water and agricultural and
silvicultural nonpoint source (NFS)
pollution control implementation
costs since very little documentation
of specific projects or costs was
available from the States.
EPA's needs estimates include
those facilities and activities for
which a water quality or public
health problem could be docu-
mented using specific criteria estab^
lished by EPA. The capital invest-
ment necessary to satisfy all catego-
ries of need is presented in Table
13-1. Additional nonconstruction
estimates are included for program
development costs associated with
storm water and NPS control. The
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 233
1992 total documented and mod-
eled needs are $137.1 billion to
satisfy all categories of needs eligible
for SRF funding for the design year
(2012) population.
This amount included $50.1
billion in modeled needs for CSO,
storm water, and NPS pollution
control. For storm water and NPS,
the estimates exclude operation and
maintenance costs (O&M) since
O&M costs are ineligible for SRF
funding. However, O&M costs are
the major costs associated with
storm water and NPS program
implementation. Only agriculture
and silviculture NPS pollution con-
trol costs were estimated. Many
types of NPS pollution were not
addressed: abandoned mines, urban
areas, septic systems, contaminated
sediments, hydromodification, and
atmospheric deposition.
The needs estimate for the
Nation rose in constant dollars by
$53.4 billion (39%) from 1990 to
1992. The increase was due to a
variety of factors, primarily
improved documentation of SRF
eligibilities and the use of models to
capture full CSO, as well as partial
urban storm water and NPS costs.
Treating Industrial
Wastewater
The Clean Water Act required
EPA to establish uniform, nationally
consistent effluent limitation guide-
lines for industrial discharges. At this
time, EPA has established Best Avail-
able Technology Economically
Achievable (BATEA) and Best Con-
ventional Pollutant Control Technol-
ogy (BCT) guidelines for about 28
industrial categories. EPA has also
promulgated technology-based
Water Quality Improvements from
Treatment Plant Upgrades
Wisconsin reported that construction of new municipal treatment
plants restored large segments of,the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers.
These segments now fully support fishing use and aquatic life use.
As a result, sport and commercial fisheries have returned to some
river segments.
Vermont reported that a secondary treatment facility constructed in
Troy addressed untreated municipal discharges and corrected long-
term stream use impairments.
The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
detected statistically significant declines in total suspended solids and
total nitrogen in the Ohio River mainstem between 1977 and 1987.
These pollutants commonly occur in municipal wastewater discharges
and their decline suggests that treatment plant upgrades are reduc-
ing pollution in the Ohio River.
New Mexico attributed a sharp decline in the total loading of oxygen
demanding wastes,(BOD) into the State's surface waters between
1977 and 1991 to sewage jreatment plant construction. During the
same period, population growth spurred an increase in the total
volume of wastewater treated. However, the construction of more
efficient treatment plants outpaced the increase in wastewater load.
guidelines for approximately 15
additional secondary industries that
represent Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available
(BPT) levels. EPA is studying an
additional dozen industries for
future guidelines development.
In addition to these technology-
based requirements, EPA, in 1984,
issued a policy on the water-quality-
based control of toxic pollutants
discharged by point sources. In
1985, EPA issued the Technical Sup-
port Document for Water Quality-
Based Toxics Control to support the
national policy. EPA updated and
enhanced this document in 1991.
Both the policy and guidance
-------
234 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
Table 13-2. Status of Permit
Issuance
Total Facilities
Major
Permits
7,105
Minor
Permits
57,143
EPA-lssued Permits
Total
Expired
Percent
2,070
217
10.5%
7,243
4,055
56%
State-Issued Permits
Total
Expired
Percent
5,035
1,119
22.2%
49,900
18,518
37.1%
Source: Permit Compliance System,
February 1993.
recommend using overall toxicity
as a measure of adverse water
quality impact and as a regulatory
parameter. In 1989, EPA amended
its NPDES regulations to require
the use of effluent discharge limi-
tations for whole-effluent toxicity
in addition to specific toxic chemi-
cals. The use of whole-effluent
toxicity as a regulatory tool
coupled with controls for specific
chemicals provides a powerful
means of detecting and control-
ling toxic problems.
Permitting,
Compliance,
and Enforcement
EPA and the States use rigorous
permit conditions to control point
source discharges from industrial
and municipal wastewater treatment
facilities. During the early 1980s, the
rate of permit issuance fell behind
the rate of permit expiration, and
large backlogs of unissued permits
developed. Efforts to remedy these
backlogs have been largely success-
ful. Table 13-2 illustrates the status
of permit issuance as of February
1993.
Once the permit is established,
compliance with these conditions is
essential for achieving water quality
improvements. Despite examples of
water quality improvements associ-
ated with upgrading municipal
facilities, 10% of major municipal
treatment plants are in significant
noncompliance with applicable per-
mit conditions. Industrial permittees
have historically achieved a higher
rate of compliance; 7% of industrial
facilities are in significant noncom-
pliance with their permit conditions.
EPA and States with approved
NPDES programs are responsible for
ensuring that municipal and indus-
trial facilities comply with the terms
of their discharge permits. Cur-
rently, 39 States have approval from
EPA to administer their own NPDES
programs. This responsibility
includes issuing permits, conducting
compliance inspections and other
compliance monitoring activities,
and enforcing compliance. EPA has
the lead implementation responsibil-
ity in the remaining States. EPA and
the States evaluate compliance by
screening self-monitoring reports
submitted by the permitted facility.
Facilities that are determined to be
in noncompliance are subject to
Federal as well as State enforcement
action.
Figure 13-1 illustrates rates of
significant noncompliance based on
statistics maintained by EPA from
December 1983 through June 1992.
Significant noncompliance rates for
municipal and industrial facilities
jumped in FY90 primarily because,
for the first time, EPA calculated
noncompliance directly from its
automated database. Therefore, if
data are not entered into the Permit
Compliance System in a timely
manner (e.g., failure to enter the
receipt of a required report within
30 days), the system will automati-
cally determine that the facility is
not in compliance. EPA is continu-
ing to refine its tracking of compli-
ance with permit conditions to bet-
ter reflect instances of noncompli-
ance by the regulated community.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 235
National Municipal
Policy
Due to the generally poor
municipal compliance record, and
because of congressional concern
over the performance of treatment
works built primarily with Federal
funds, EPA developed the National
Municipal Policy (NMP) to address
the failure of publicly owned treat-
ment works (POTWs) to meet treat-
ment levels required for compliance
with the CWA. On January 23,
Figure 13-1
1984, the EPA Administrator signed
the NMP into effect. The NMP clari-
fied and emphasized EPA's resolve
to ensure that municipalities comply
with the Clean Water Act as quickly
as possible, regardless of whether
Federal grant assistance was avail-
able for treatment plant construc-
tion.
The deadline established for full
compliance with the Clean Water
Act was July 1, 1988. By this date,
all municipal treatment facilities
were to be in compliance with the
secondary treatment requirement of
Percent of Facilities in Significant Noncompliance
with NPDES Permit Requirements
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
have a higher rate of
compliance with
discharge permits than
do municipal facilities.
oowopooooooooopooooooooooooooooooooooooo\a\P^o\p\
Nonmunicipals
Municipals
Date
Source: USEPA Permit Compliance System, June 1992.
-------
236 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
Section 301(b)(1)(B) of the CWA or
with more stringent limitations
established to meet State water
quality standards. Of the total uni-
verse of 3,731 major municipal
facilities, 1,478 facilities were identi-
fied as requiring construction to
meet the 1988 deadline. By July 1,
1988, all but 423 municipal
facilities achieved compliance
with the requirements. Since the
1988 deadline, 188 facilities have
come into compliance, and, of
the remaining 235 facilities, all
but 50 have been placed on
enforceable compliance schedules.
EPA is continuing to track the
progress of these facilities in meet-
ing the requirements of the CWA.
In the 1987 Water Quality Act
amendments to the CWA, EPA was
given authority to seek administra-
tive penalties from permittees in
noncompliance with the Act's
requirements. EPA issued guidance
and delegated the authority for
issuing these orders to the regional
level in August 1987. The first
Administrative Penalty Order (APO)
was issued in September 1987.
Through October 1990, 396 APOs
have been issued assessing a total of
$7.5 million in penalties. These or-
ders have been an effective tool in
expeditiously addressing violations
of the CWA and represent an inte-
gral component of EPA's overall
enforcement strategy.
Controlling Toxicants
The 1987 amendments to the
Clean Water Act reinforced both the
water-quality-based and technology-
based approaches to point source
control, requiring EPA to develop
and update technology-based
standards and adding specific direc-
tion as to how water-quality-based
limits should be used to achieve
additional improvements. One of
the Act's primary emphases lay in
strengthening the Nation's toxics
control program.
Identifying Waters
Impaired by Toxicants
Section 304(1) of the CWA
required States to develop lists of
impaired waters, identify point
sources and the amounts of pollut-
ants they discharge that cause toxic
impacts, and develop an individual
control strategy (ICS) for each such
point source. These ICSs are NPDES
permits with new or more stringent
limits on the toxic pollutants of
concern. The individual control
strategies must be accompanied by
supporting documentation to show
that the permit limits are sufficient
to meet water quality standards as
soon as possible but no later than
3 years after establishment of the
ICS. The general effect of Section
304(1) was to immediately focus
national surface water quality pro-
tection programs on addressing
known water quality problems due
entirely or substantially to point
source discharges of Section 307(a)
toxic pollutants. Under Section
304(1), EPA and States identified 68
facilities in the United States that
were required to have individual
control strategies. ICSs have been
established for 58 of these facilities.
EPA implements control mea-
sures for all toxic pollutants as part
of its ongoing surface water pro-
gram. Section 304(1) emphasized
implementing point source controls
to protect particularly impaired
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 237
surface waters for priority toxic
pollutants. EPA will continue identi-
fying impaired waters and control-
ling the discharge of toxic and other
pollutants through existing report-
ing, standards setting, and permit-
ting programs.
In developing lists of impaired
waters under Section 304(1), States
used a variety of available data
sources (including State Section
305(b) reports). At a minimum,
dilution analyses were conducted
based on existing or readily avail-
able data. EPA asked States to
assemble data quickly to report
preliminary lists of waters, point
sources, and amounts of discharged
pollutants by April 1, 1988, in their
Section 305(b) reports. These lists
were then to be refined and
. expanded by the statutory deadline
of February 4, 1989.
Section 304(1) encourages the
States and EPA to address problems
identified through review of existing
and readily available data. The
States and EPA Regions will con-
tinue to collect new water quality
data to fill existing data gaps and
ensure that changes in water quality
are identified.
Status of 304(1)
Implementation
(as of August 1993)
As of August 1993, 529
waterbodies had been identified as
being impaired entirely or substan-
tially by point source discharges of
Section 307(a) toxic pollutants. In
addition, 687 point sources were
listed as being responsible for
impairing the quality of those
waters. There are also 18,770 waters
on the "long" list that includes all
waters impaired by any pollutant
from either point sources or
nonpoint sources. The long list will
be used for long-term planning and
setting of priorities for monitoring,
total maximum daily load develop-
ment, nonpoint source controls, and
permit revisions.
In a September 1990 decision
in NRDC v. EPA, the U.S. Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit, remanded
portions of EPA's regulations inter-
preting Section 304(1) of the Clean
Water Act. The Court said that EPA
erred when it required States to
identify only those point sources
discharging to waters listed by
States as impaired entirely or
substantially due to the point
source discharge of toxic pollut-
ants; there are 529 such waters.
Instead, the Court said that EPA
must require States to identify point
sources discharging toxic pollutants
to any water identified under
Section 304(1) as impaired for any
reason; there are 18,770 such
waters. The States are currently
listing the additional point sources
and EPA expects the new listings to
be finalized by November 1993.
In its 1990 decision in NRDC v.
EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit, recognized it might
be significantly changing the list of
point sources under Section 304(1).
So the Court required EPA to recon-
sider whether all point sources
under Section 304(1) should be
required to have individual control
strategies (EPA's regulations at issue
had required control strategies for
all point sources listed under Section
304(1)). EPA is currently considering
this question and has invited public
comment (see 57 FR 33051, July
24, 1992).
-------
238 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
EPA Regions and the States
continue to work on implementing
304(1) requirements. Approxi-
mately 80% of the ICSs required
are in place as EPA-approved draft
or final NPDES permits.
Toxicity Testing
On March 9, 1984, EPA issued
a policy designed to reduce or
eliminate toxics discharge and help
achieve the objectives of the Act.
The "Policy for the Development of
Water Quality-Based Permit Limita-
tions for Toxic Pollutants" (49 FR
9016) described EPA's integrated
toxics control program. The inte-
grated program consisted of the
application of both chemical-
specific and biological meth-
ods to address the discharge of
toxic pollutants. To support this
policy, EPA issued the Technical
Support Document for Water
Quality-Based Toxics Control
(TSD) guidance. EPA continued
the development of the toxics
control program by revising the
TSD in 1991 and by including
some aspects of the policy in
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
122.44(d)(1) in June 1989.
Toxicity reduction evaluations
(TREs) identify and implement what-
ever actions are needed to reduce
effluent toxicity to the levels speci-
fied in the permit. TREs combine
toxicity testing, chemical analyses,
source investigations, and treat-
ability studies to determine either
the actual causative agents of efflu-
ent toxicity or the control methods
that will reduce effluent toxicity.
EPA is currently documenting suc-
cessful TREs conducted by permit-
tees, States, and EPA researchers.
Methods and procedures for
conducting TREs are described in
several EPA guidance documents
and referenced in the TSD.
In October 1992, EPA con-
ducted a survey of the 50 States
and the District of Columbia to
determine the extent of implemen-
tation of whole effluent toxicity
(WET) controls for industrial and
municipal point sources. The District
of Columbia and 49 States are using
the whole effluent approach in per-
mitting as part of their water-qual-
ity-based toxics control program.
Thirty-five States and the District
required numeric WET limits in
NPDES permits for industrial and
municipal dischargers, while 14
States required monitoring. Forty
States and the District required both
acute and chronic testing.
The National
Pretreatment
Program
The primary goal of the
National Pretreatment Program is
to protect POTWs and the environ-
ment from the adverse impact that
may occur when toxic, hazardous,
and concentrated conventional
wastes are discharged into sewer
systems from industrial sources. To
achieve this goal, the EPA has pro-
mulgated national pretreatment
standards for pollutants that:
(1) interfere with the operation of a
POTW, including interference with
its use or disposal of municipal
sludge; or (2) pass through the
POTW and contaminate the receiv-
ing stream or are otherwise incom-
patible with the operation of the
treatment works. In addition, the
program is intended to improve
opportunities to recycle and reclaim
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 239
municipal and industrial waste-
waters and sludges. The prevention
of interference, the prevention of
pass-through, and the improvement
of opportunities to recycle waste-
water and sludge are the three
regulatory objectives of the National
Pretreatment Program. These objec-
tives are accomplished through a
pollution control strategy with two
elements:
National Categorical Stan-
dards: National technology-based
standards developed by EPA Head-
quarters reflecting best available
technology (BAT) in establishing
effluent limits for the 126 "priority
pollutants" as well as for conven-
tional and nonconventional pollut-
ants for specific industrial categories.
Prohibited Discharge
Standards:
General Prohibitions: National regu-
latory prohibitions established by
EPA against pollutant discharges
from any nondomestic user that
cause pass-through or interference
at the POTW.
Specific Prohibitions: National regu-
latory prohibitions established by
EPA against pollutant discharges
from any nondomestic user that
cause: (1) fire or explosive hazard,
(2) corrosive structural damage,
(3) interference due to obstruction,
(4) interference due to flow rate or
concentration, (5) interference due
to heat, (6) interference from petro-
leum-based oil, and (7) acute
worker health and safety problems
from toxic gases.
Local Limits: Enforceable local
effluent limitations developed by
POTWs on a case-by-case basis to
reflect site-specific concerns and
implement the Federal general
and specific prohibited
discharge standards as well as
State and local regulations.
To ensure the success of the
pretreatment program, EPA also
issues guidance documents and
has conducted scores of training
seminars to assist POTWs in
developing, implementing, and
enforcing effective pretreatment
programs.
The primary focus for pretreat-
ment implementation is at the local
level since the POTW is in the best
position to regulate its industrial
users. States may become involved
in pretreatment implementation
through a formal approval process
in which the Federal Government
transfers its oversight responsibilities
to the State. The Federal Govern-
ment, through the EPA, is involved
in pretreatment through standard
setting, policy development, and
oversight of program implementa-
tion by approved States and
POTWs in States without
approved pretreatment
programs. At present, 27 States
have received approval from EPA
to administer the pretreatment
program, including five States that
have chosen to directly regulate the
industrial community in their States
in lieu of local program approval
and implementation. In addition,
1,442 local programs have been
approved by either EPA or approved
States, and another 100 programs
are under development. The
pretreatment program currently
regulates approximately 30,000
significant industrial users (SlUs).
On July 24, 1990, the EPA pro-
mulgated the Domestic Sewage
-------
r
240 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
Study (DSS) final rule, which
implements the recommendations
made in the DSS. Specifically, the
rule is designed to improve the
control of hazardous wastes
discharged to POTWs as well as
strengthen the enforcement of pre-
treatment program requirements. In
addition, the rule requires that
POTWs conduct toxicity testing of
their effluents. A continuing task will
be to integrate the implementation
of these requirements into the
normal operations of the POTWs1
pretreatment programs.
The environmental accomplish-
ments of the National Pretreatment
Program have been significant.
Nationwide, EPA estimates that
toxic pollutant loadings to POTWs
have decreased by up to 75%
through pretreatment. In many
cases, the effects on surface water
and sludge have been dramatic.
Between 1975 and 1985, for
example, 15 POTWs discharging to
San Francisco Bay decreased their
overall metals loadings by 80%,
despite a 15% increase in POTW
flows. In Wisconsin, 14 of 24
POTWs reported marked decreases
in average total metals concentra-
tions in their sludge after approval
of their local pretreatment
programs.
The compliance status of indus-
trial users and POTWs is an indicator
of the programmatic success of
pretreatment implementation. Based
on data reported by POTWs or
States, approximately 54% of signifi-
cant industrial users of sewage treat-
ment plants are in significant
noncompliance with discharge stan-
dards and/or reporting and self-
monitoring requirements. This
compares with a rate of 7% signifi-
cant noncompliance for the major
industries in the NPDES program,
which discharge directly to
waterbodies. According to data in
EPA's national database, 39% of
POTWs are failing to implement at
least one significant component of
their approved pretreatment pro-
grams.
EPA has focused its oversight
and enforcement resources on
ensuring that local municipalities
properly implement their approved
programs. Toward that end, on
October 4, 1989, EPA announced
the National Pretreatment Enforce-
ment Initiative against cities for fail-
ure to adequately implement their
approved pretreatment programs. In
this action, EPA joined with several
States in bringing civil judicial suits
or administrative penalties against
61 cities. This effort was designed to
alert cities as to their requirements
under the pretreatment program
and to ensure adequate implemen-
tation of the program. A followup
announcement was made on May
1, 1991, containing 755 additional
actions against both POTWs and
significant industrial users.
In July 1991, EPA issued a re-
port to Congress on the effective-
ness of the pretreatment program
as required under Section 519 of
the CWA. This report analyzed the
major strengths and weaknesses of
the program and has provided di-
rection for improving the program.
Managing
Sewage Sludge
The need for effective sewage
sludge management is continuous
and growing. In the United States,
the quantity of municipal sewage
sludge produced annually has
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 241
almost doubled since 1972. Munici-
palities currently generate approxi-
mately 5.3 million dry metric tons
of wastewater sludge per year, or
approximately 47 pounds per
person per year (dry weight basis).
Improper sewage sludge manage-
ment could lead to significant envi-
ronmental degradation of water,
land, and air, as well as adverse
human health conditions.
Prior to the 1987 amendments
to the Clean Water Act, the authori-
ties and regulations related to the
use and disposal of sewage sludge
were fragmented and did not pro-
vide States and municipalities with
adequate guidelines on which to
base sludge management decisions.
There was no single legislative
approach or framework for integrat-
ing the various Federal laws to en-
sure that sludge would be used or
disposed of in a consistent or envi-
ronmentally acceptable manner.
Although the Clean Water Act, the
Clean Air Act, the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act, the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act, and the Toxic Substances Con-
trol Act all regulate some aspect of
sludge management, coverage is
uneven, and the requirements are
based on different methodologies
and approaches.
Section 406 of the Water Qual-
ity Act of 1987, which amends Sec-
tion 405 of the Clean Water Act, for
the first time sets forth a compre-
hensive program for reducing the
environmental risks and maximizing
the beneficial uses of sludge. The
program is based on the develop-
ment of technical requirements for
sludge use and disposal and the
implementation of such require-
ments directly through the rule and
through permits.
In May 1989, EPA promulgated
regulations for including sewage
sludge conditions in NPDES permits
and for issuing sludge-only permits.
These rules also outline the require-
ments for States to seek EPA
approval to implement the new
statutory requirements.
EPA will be the permitting
authority for sewage sludge since
there are currently no approved
State programs. Initially, EPA will
rely strongly on the self-implement-
ing nature of the technical regula-
tions. EPA will focus its initial
permitting efforts on
Sewage sludge incinerators
(which require site-specific pollutant
limits)
Facilities posing a threat to
human health and the environment
Facilities needing a permit to
promote beneficial use
Facilities with NPDES permits up
for renewal.
In implementing the new
sewage sludge requirements, EPA
will also focus on approving State
programs and educating the general
public and the regulated commu-
nity.
In addition, regulations that
address sewage sludge disposal in
municipal solid waste landfills were
proposed in August 1988 and are
scheduled to be promulgated on
October 9, 1993.
Pursuant to Section 405, EPA
has developed regulations for each
of the major use and disposal
options for sewage sludge. These
options include land application,
incineration, landfilling, and surface
-------
242 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
esซmates
cฐmmi
combjr
^em$'[
rffccharr
700
disposal. The standards for each
end use and disposal practice
consist of general requirements,
numerical limits on the pollutant
concentrations in sewage sludge,
management practices, and, in
some cases, operational require-
ments. The final rule also includes
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements.
Standards apply to publicly and
privately owned treatment works
that generate or treat domestic
sewage sludge, as well as to any
person who uses or disposes of
sewage sludge from such treatment
works. The rule requires compliance
with these standards as expedi-
tiously as possible but not later than
12 months after the date the rule is
published, or within 24 months of
publication if construction of new
pollution control facilities is required
to comply with the regulations.
New Initiatives in
Point Source Control
Combined Sewer
Overflow Control
Currently about 1,100 commu-
nities served by 1,303 CSO facilities
nationwide use combined sewer
systems, which are designed to
carry sanitary and industrial
wastewater and storm water.
These facilities are mainly located
in older cities in the Northeast, the
midcentral States, and along the
west coast. Combined sewer over-
flows occur when the capacity of
the combined sewer system is
exceeded during a storm event.
During these storm events, part
of the combined flow in the
collection system is discharged
untreated into receiving waters.
The overflows may contain high
levels of suspended solids,
floatables, heavy metals, nutrients,
bacteria, and other pollutants.
Pollution from CSOs can pose
health risks, degrade the ecology
of receiving waters, and impair the
beneficial use of water resources.
EPA published the National
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Strategy in the Federal Register on
September 8, 1989, at 54 FR
37370. Although implementation of
the 1989 strategy has resulted in
some progress toward controlling
CSOs, significant public health and
water quality risks remain.
In August 1991, EPA deter-
mined that implementation of the
1989 strategy was not proceeding
rapidly enough. EPA's Office of
Water (OW) initiated an Expedited
Plan to accelerate the implementa-
tion of the 1989 National CSO Con-
trol Strategy. At the recommenda-
tion of OW's Management Advisory
Group, a negotiated policy dialogue
with key stakeholders was also initi-
ated. The negotiations occurred
during the summer of 1992.
Based on the negotiated policy
dialogue and subsequent negotia-
tions between municipal and envi-
ronmental groups and States, a CSO
Framework Document - Recom-
mended Guidance to NPDES Permit
Writers, dated November 2, 1992,
was submitted to EPA's Office of
Water for consideration as part of
the development of a draft CSO
policy. Although the framework was
not the result of consensus among
the negotiating parties, significant
agreement was reached, allowing
OW to use the framework as the
basis to develop a draft CSO policy.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 243
On December 22, 1992, the
Assistant Administrator for Water
and the Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement issued a draft CSO
Control Policy (dated December 18,
1992) for comment. A notice of
availability was placed in the Federal
Register on January 19, 1993,
establishing a public comment
period until March 22, 1993, on
the draft policy (58 FR 4994).
The main purposes of the Policy
are to elaborate on the 1989
National CSO Control Strategy and
to expedite compliance with the
requirements of the Clean Water
Act.
The Policy is being developed
to provide guidance to permittees
with CSOs, NPDES authorities, and
State water quality standards
authorities on coordinating the
planning, selection, sizing, and con-
struction of CSO controls that meet
the requirements of the CWA and
to allow for public involvement
during the decisionmaking process.
Contained in the Policy are
provisions for developing appropri-
ate, site-specific NPDES permit
requirements for all combined sewer
systems that overflow as a result of
wet weather events and enforce-
ment initiatives to require the
immediate elimination of overflows
that occur during dry weather and
to ensure that the remaining CWA
requirements are complied with as
soon as practicable. The 1992
Needs Survey modeled the cost of
compliance with the draft 1992
CSO Policy. The Needs Survey esti-
mated that the national cost of CSO
corrections will be $41.2 billion. The
modeled estimate compares to the
State-documented costs of $22.4
billion for 375 of the approximately
1,300 CSOs needing correction.
EPA will finalize this policy in
the fall of 1993. As it finalizes the
draft policy, EPA is preparing a
number of guidance documents to
assist in the implementation of the
final policy when it is issued.
Specific programmatic areas that
this guidance will address are imple-
menting minimum CSO control
measures by all communities with
CSOs; monitoring and modeling of
combined sewer systems, CSO dis-
charges, and receiving water im-
pacts; preparation of long-term CSO
control plans by CSO communities;
and drafting NPDES permit require-
ments for CSO discharges by EPA
and State NPDES permit writers.
NPDES Storm Water
Controls
Since 1972, State and EPA
efforts under the NPDES program
have traditionally focused on con-
trolling pollutant discharges
from POTWs and industrial
process wastewaters. As
these sources of pollution
came increasingly under con-
trol, the need for controlling
pollutants in storm water point
source discharges became
more critical to efforts to
achieve the goals of the CWA.
As reflected in this report, storm
water discharges from a variety
of sources, including storm sew-
ers discharging urban runoff/con-
struction site runoff, runoff from
resource extraction activities, and
runoff from land disposal sites, are
major sources of use impairment.
Section 402(p) of the CWA
amendments of 1987 established a
timetable and framework for EPA to
address storm water discharges
-------
244 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
under the NPDES program. Section
402(p) required EPA to develop a
two-phase program to control point
source discharges of storm water.
On November 16, 1990, EPA
promulgated permit application
requirements for the first phase for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving popula-
tions of 100,000 or more and for
storm water discharges associated
with 11 industrial categories:
Manufacturing facilities
Construction operations or
activities disturbing 5 or more acres
Hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities
Landfills
POTWs with approved pretreat-
ment programs and/or discharging
over 1 million gallons per day
Recycling facilities
Power plants
Mining operations
Some oil and gas operations
Airport facilities
Certain transportation facilities
(such as vehicle maintenance areas).
Permits are required to be
issued for these sources, for the
most part, by October 1, 1993.
For the second phase, EPA is
required to develop two storm
water reports to Congress. The first
will identify storm water discharges
and determine, to the maximum
extent practicable, the nature and
extent of pollutants in such
discharges. The second study will
establish procedures and methods
to control storm water discharges to
the extent necessary to mitigate
impacts on water quality. Based on
these two studies and recommenda-
tions from experts, as well as public
input, Congress will direct EPA to
control additional sources under
Phase II.
Control of
Bioconcentratable
Contaminants
Bioconcentratable contaminants
can damage both human health
and aquatic life. In response, EPA
has developed draft guidance to
identify and, where necessary,
control bioconcentratable organic
compounds that may be present in
effluents, nonpoint source runoff,
receiving waters, sediments,
dredged material, and the tissues
of aquatic organisms.
The approach outlined in EPA's
draft guidance is designed to assist
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 245
regulatory authorities in identifying
and determining the concentration
of specific organic compounds in
complex mixtures and to make
more informed decisions concerning
control of these substances. EPA's
approach provides: a comprehensive
screen for organic chemicals that
are likely to bioconcentrate, proce-
dures for assessing and controlling
complex mixtures, a standardized
assessment methodology, and
triggers for regulatory action and
control development. EPA's draft
guidance focuses principally on the
development and implementation
of point source limitations on
bioconcentratable organic
compounds.
Pollution Prevention
EPA has established an Office of
Pollution Prevention that works with
other program offices to improve
pollution prevention activities within
the Agency. For example, an
Agency pollution prevention policy
has been developed, and a strategy
to address pollution prevention in
manufacturing and chemical use has
been drafted. Future strategies will
focus on the municipal water and
wastewater, agricultural, energy,
and transportation sectors.
A subcommittee comprising
representatives from EPA Headquar-
ters and Regions has been formed
to develop an Agency-wide training
strategy to ensure that pollution
prevention concepts are integrated
into all Agency activities.
In terms of the point source
control program, the Agency's
draft pollution prevention strategy
recognizes the importance of per-
mitting and enforcement activities
and will continue support for a
strong program in these areas.
Training is being provided to famil-
iarize NPDES permit writers with
pollution prevention opportunities,
how their permit decisions can
affect other media, and how to
effectively communicate the
concept of pollution prevention
to industrial managers.
-------
, *'. >
,"*i^.
^MBJBl^ii;
-------
Nonpoint Source
Control Program
Background
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollu-
tion generally results from land run-
off, atmospheric deposition, drain-
age, or seepage of contaminants.
Major sources of nonpoint pollution
include agricultural runoff, runoff
from urban areas, and runoff from
silvicultural operations. Siltation and
nutrients are the pollutants respon-
sible for most of the nonpoint
source impacts to the Nation's sur-
face waters. These diffuse sources
are often harder to identify, isolate,
and control than traditional point
sources. As a result, from 1972 to
1987, EPA and the States placed
primary focus on addressing the
obvious problems due to municipal
and industrial discharges: issuing
permits for point source discharges,
then inspecting, monitoring, and
enforcing those permits to ensure
that point sources met the Clean
Water Act requirements.
Sections 208 and 303(e) of the
Clean Water Act of 1972 established
the initial framework for addressing
nonpoint sources of pollution. States
and local planning agencies ana-
lyzed the extent of NPS pollution
and developed water quality
management programs to control it
with funds provided by EPA under
Section 208. Best management
practices were evaluated, assess-
ment models and methods were
developed, and other types of
technical assistance were made
available to State and local water
quality managers.
The National Section
319 Program
In 1987, Congress enacted
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act,
which established a national pro-
gram to control nonpoint sources of
water pollution. Section 319 created
a three-stage national
program to be imple-
mented by the States
with Federal approval and
assistance. States were to
address nonpoint source
pollution by (1) developing
nonpoint source assessment
reports, (2) adopting
nonpoint source manage-
ment programs, and (3)
implementing the manage-
ment programs over a
multiyear timeframe.
All States and Territories
now have EPA-approved nonpoint
source assessments. EPA has also
fully approved 51 State nonpoint
source management programs and
has approved the high-priority
portions of all remaining State
management programs.
Section 319 also authorizes EPA
to issue annual grants to States to
assist them in implementing their
-------
248 Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
EPA-approved programs. From FY90
through FY93, Congress appropri-
ated more than $191 million for
Section 319 assistance. EPA issued
final guidance on the award and
management of Section 319 funds
in February 1991 following exten-
sive public comment. The guidance
encourages States to focus Section
319 funds on high-priority activities
including:
Addressing nationally significant,
high-risk nonpoint source problems
and focusing implemen-
tation activities in
priority watershed or
ground water areas
Comprehensively
integrating existing
programs to control
nonpoint source pollu-
tion
Providing for monitor-
ing and evaluation of
program effectiveness
including using water
quality monitoring protocols
Emphasizing pollution prevention
mechanisms
Protecting particularly sensitive
and ecologically significant waters
(wetlands, estuaries, wild and scenic
rivers)
Promoting comprehensive water-
shed management.
Roughly half of each State's
annual award supports Statewide
program activity (staffing, public
education and outreach, technical
assistance) and half supports specific
projects to prevent or reduce
nonpoint source pollution at the
watershed level. ,.
Funding under Section 319 is
also available to American Indian
Tribes with approved nonpoint
source assessments and manage-
ment programs. To date, EPA has
awarded grants to the Poarch Band
Tribe (Alabama) and the Colville
Tribe (Washington). In addition, in
FY91, one-time funds were made
available by EPA for tribal develop-
ment of nonpoint source assess-
ments and management programs.
In the summer of 1993, EPA will
update the 319 grant guidance,
incorporating lessons learned during
3 years of awarding and managing
319 grants and consulting with the
States.
Section 319 National
Monitoring Program
To improve technical under-
standing of nonpoint pollution and
the effectiveness of various nonpoint
source control technologies, the
Section 319 grants guidance estab-
lishes requirements for a standard-
ized water quality monitoring pro-
gram for representative watersheds
across the country. The guidance
requires each of EPA's 10 Regional
offices to award a portion of each
year's funds to support more inten-
sive water quality monitoring of
selected watershed projects. To
date, EPA headquarters has ap-
proved three projects: Long Creek,
North Carolina, Sny Magill, Iowa,
and Elm Creek, Nebraska. A total of
approximately $1.4 million had
been obligated for these projects as
of July 1992. This national set-aside
totalled approximately $2.1 million
in FY91 and $2.3 million in FY92.
-------
Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 249
The Sny Magill watershed
involves an interagency effort to
monitor and assess improvements in
water quality resulting from the
implementation of nonpoint source
controls. The entire watershed is
agricultural with no industrial or
urban areas. Land use consists
predominantly of cropland (corn,
oats, and alfalfa), pasture, and for-
est. Sediment is the major pollutant
but nutrients, pesticides, and animal
waste are also of concern. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
will provide technical assistance,
cost sharing, and educational pro-
grams to assist agricultural produc-
ers in implementing nonpoint
source control measures such as
sediment control, stream corridor
management improvements, and
animal waste management systems.
Land treatment application will be
coordinated with water quality
monitoring.
The Bloody Run watershed (a
neighboring watershed of approxi-
mately the same size) serves as the
paired comparison watershed. Pri-
mary monitoring sites were estab-
lished on both watersheds to mea-
sure discharge and suspended sedi-
ment. Other sites on both creeks
will be sampled for chemical and
physical water quality variables on a
weekly to monthly basis. A habitat
assessment will be conducted along
stretches of both stream corridors
annually, fishing surveys will be
conducted annually, and biomoni-
toring of macroinvertebrates will be
performed bimonthly.
The Long Creek project is
located in south-central North Caro-
lina. The watershed contains mixed
agricultural and urban/industrial
land use. Long Creek serves as the
primary water supply for Bessemer
City (population 5,000). Sediment
from eroding cropland is the major
problem in the upper third of the
watershed (above the water supply
intake). Long Creek is impaired
mainly by bacteria and nutrients
from urban areas and animal hold-
ing facilities below the
intake. Proposed
nonpoint controls
involve implementing
the land use restrictions
of the State watershed
protection law for areas
above the water supply
intake and a comprehen-
sive nutrient management
system for a farm below
the intake. Water quality
monitoring will include a station
before and after the land treatment
design near the water intake, an
upstream/downstream design on
the Creek above and below the
dairy farm, and a paired watershed
design at a cropland runoff site on
the dairy. Continuous and grab
samples will be collected at various
sites to provide the data needed to
assess the effectiveness of the
nonpoint controls.
Reports on Section
319 Activities
The 1990 Report to Congress
on Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act, "Managing Nonpoint Source
Pollution," provides the most cur-
rent (as of October 1, 1990) and
comprehensive information on
nonpoint source programs at the
national, State, and local levels.
Included are findings of State
nonpoint source assessments; re-
lated activities of EPA, other Federal
agencies, and other entities; State
-------
250 Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
Five Themes for NFS Action
Public Awareness
Practical Solutions
Financial Incentives
Regulatory Capabilities
Tools
achievements to date in controlling
NPS pollution; and summaries of
the activities and views of other
private and public organizations
active in the NPS arena. EPA is cur-
rently preparing an update to the
1990 report that will include activi-
ties carried out with the FY91 and
FY92 grant awards. This update will
be available in the fall of 1993.
National NPS
Strategic Plan
In January 1989, EPA developed
the Nonpoint Source Agenda for the
Future. This Agenda was designed
to assist EPA in defining the goals of
the national NPS program and the
means to achieve those goals.
The stated goal of the Agenda
was to protect and restore the qual-
ity of U.S. waters through strong
national leadership and by helping
State and local governments over-
come barriers to the successful
implementation of NPS measures.
Among identified barriers were
(1) inadequate public awareness
of the nonpoint source problem,
(2) inadequate knowledge or inade-
quate transfer of knowledge about
successful solutions to nonpoint
source problems, and (3) inade-
quate incentives to correct nonpoint
source pollution.
EPA organized the goals of the
Agenda under five themes:
Raise public awareness of
nonpoint source pollution
Provide States and local govern-
ments with information on practical
nonpoint source solutions
Provide financial incentives that
encourage the public to install
pollution controls and change land
management practices.
Help States and localities im-
prove their regulatory capabilities
(e.g., by developing water quality
criteria and monitoring protocols
specifically designed to evaluate
control activities)
Develop tools needed by States
and localities to establish sound
water-quality-based nonpoint source
control programs.
EPA has made progress in all of
the theme areas. For example, EPA
(with assistance from the States and
other Federal agencies) developed
the first comprehensive nationally
recognized technical guidance on
nonpoint source management tech-
niques during 1991 and 1992. EPA
also initiated the first phase of its
public awareness program: a
nonpoint source brochure and
poster were distributed in early
1990, and EPA's Nonpoint Source
Newsnotes now serves as the pri-
mary vehicle for sharing State and
local success stories on nonpoint
control. EPA also began operating
an electronic bulletin board to sup-
port transfer of nonpoint pollution
information.
EPA believes that much of the
Agenda continues to be sound and
relevant. At the same time, 4 years
of Federal funding for State
nonpoint source implementation
and the experiences that has pro-
vided, initiation of a new coastal
nonpoint source program, and sig-
nificant increases in State's commit-
ment to address nonpoint source
pollution create new opportunities.
-------
Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 251
Therefore, EPA, with the involve-
ment of all parties who have a role
to play in preventing and reducing
nonpoint source pollution, will
conduct, during 1993 and 1994, a
broad and inclusive effort to
develop an updated strategic plan
for the national nonpoint source
program.
Nonpoint Source
Management
Programs and
Implementation
The States, local governments,
community groups, and EPA Re-
gions have initiated many innovative
projects across the Nation to man-
age nonpoint source pollution prob-
lems. The projects described in this
section exemplify the diversity of
approaches that have been applied
to NPS pollution prevention and
control. In some cases, prevention
or control is only beginning. In
other situations, prevention and/or
control measures have been in place
long enough to show significant
results.
Lake Whitney Reservoir,
Connecticut
The Lake Whitney Reservoir in
Hamden, Connecticut, has been a
public water supply for the city of
New Haven since 1862. The
reservoir's watershed area (36.4
square miles) is primarily impervious
due to residential, commercial, and
industrial development. More than
60 storm water outlets discharge
near or directly into Lake Whitney
or the nearby Mill River without
treatment. Main water quality prob-
lems are: sedimentation, accelerated
eutrophication, and anoxia, which is
largely the result of urban storm
water runoff.
In an effort to restore Lake
Whitney, a plan was developed to
capture and treat storm water prior
to discharge into Lake Whitney or
its tributaries as well as
to work with local
townships to adopt
storm water regula-
tions. The 2-year
project will demon-
strate how the con-
struction of a storm
water treatment system
can reduce the input of
contaminants associated
with urban runoff.
Postconstruction monitor-
ing of inflow and outflow
from the storm water treat-
ment basin will characterize
the quality of urban runoff and the
average pollutant removal efficiency.
The results of the project will be
applied to other subwatersheds that
contribute to Lake Whitney.
Middle Fork River,
West Virginia
In 1990, the American Fisheries
Society (AFS) initiated a meeting
with EPA and the Department of
Interior's (DOI) Office of Surface
Mining to discuss deteriorating
water quality conditions and dwin-
dling fisheries resources in eastern
streams caused by acid mine drain-
age from abandoned coal mines. In
response, the participants signed a
Memorandum of Understanding
agreeing to commit technical and
financial support to a project in the
Middle Fork River watershed.
The Middle Fork watershed
encompasses 151 square miles in
-------
252 Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
north central West Virginia. Acid
mine drainage has eradicated fish
from the lower 24 miles of the river.
The effort to date has focused on
inventorying all coal mine sites in
the watershed, developing baseline
water quality data, and designing
and installing abatement techniques
to remedy or reduce acid mine
impacts. Along with contributions
from the West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection and Divi-
sion of Natural Resources, the West
Virginia State Soil Conservation
Committee, USDA's Soil Conserva-
tion Service (SCS), and DOI's Office
of Surface Mining, EPA has provided
Section 319 funds to establish a
Geographic Information System to
analyze the resource data provided
by other agencies, to install an
anoxic limestone trench and engi-
neered wetlands to assimilate acid
mine drainage and prevent entrance
of acid waters into the river, and to
evaluate and implement abatement
technologies.
Indian Lake, Ohio
Indian Lake is a eutrophic lake
in a rural watershed. The primary
water quality problems
are sedimentation and,
to a lesser degree, nutri-
ent enrichment. The
project provides an
excellent example of the
use of a mix of EPA and
USDA programs to
address agricultural
nonpoint source problems.
First, EPA allocated Clean
Lakes Phase I funds for
evaluation of the lake's water quality
problems.
Currently, Phase II Clean Lakes
grants are funding implementation
efforts such as construction of
shoreline erosion controls and spot
dredging so that the lake can be
used for recreational purposes until
sediment source control is accom-
plished in the watershed. Section
319 money provides assistance to
farmers purchasing no-till planters
and supports technical assistance
and education costs throughout the
watershed. USDA's SCS provides
additional education and technical
assistance to farmers through the
Hydrologic Unit Program. Extra
USDA cost-share funds are also
being targeted to the watershed
through its designation as an Agri-
cultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Service's ACP Special Water
Quality Project Area.
West Lake Reservoir,
Iowa
West Lake is a reservoir owned
and operated by the City of
Osceola, which serves as a public
drinking supply for the cities of
Osceola, Woodburn, and several
hundred rural users. In a watershed
dominated by agricultural land use,
runoff from cropland impacts the
lake's water quality. Sediment, pesti-
cides, and nutrients are major pol-
lutants. Pesticides, such as atrazine,
are of particular concern. Samples of
treated drinking water often exceed
EPA's maximum contaminant level
of 3 parts per billion of atrazine
(determined on an annual basis by
averaging results of quarterly tests
of treated drinking water).
To protect the reservoir, a
comprehensive nonpoint pollution
control project has been developed.
The project emphasizes education
and voluntary adoption of best
management practices by farmers.
Section 319 funds have been
-------
Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 253
awarded to promote better farm
management including the use of
conservation tillage or no-till meth-
ods and integrated crop manage-
ment (nutrient and pesticide
management). To address the atra-
zine problem, more than 90% of
the watershed's farmers voluntarily
agreed to reduce or eliminate atra-
zine use during the 1992 cropping
season. Initial monitoring results
after the voluntary reductions found
only one sample with atrazine levels
greater than 3 ppb. Monitoring
over a longer period will be neces-
sary to determine if atrazine levels
will remain below the maximum
contaminant level.
Maskenthine Lake,
Nebraska
In 1989, the Nebraska Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality be-
gan one of its first Clean Lakes Pro-
gram projects monitoring Masken-
thine Lake in northeastern Nebraska
with a Phase I grant. Project imple-
mentation began with funding from
the Clean Lakes Program (Phase II),
Section 319, the Lower Elkhorn
Natural Resources District, and the
USDA. In addition, EPA's TMDL
"Swat Team" is assisting the State in
calculating a TMDL for the lake with
funding from a TMDL mini-grant.
The project will determine the
assimilative capacity of the lake for
targeted pollutants (atrazine, nutri-
ents, and sediment) and loading
targets for the lake inflow. The
TMDL process will evaluate various
watershed management scenarios
that include load allocations for
subwatersheds, uplands, and stream
channels. The State will use the
TMDL to refine and implement the
watershed management plan.
Godfrey Creek, Montana
The Godfrey Creek project
combines a Section 319 nonpoint
source pollution management
project with a USDA Hydrologic
Unit Area project. It addresses
severe dairy/animal waste related
water quality problems (i.e., high
nutrient and bacteria levels and
physical channel degradation) in
the creek and the surrounding
8,000-acre watershed. The project
strives to reduce nutrient and bacte-
ria levels in the creek by 80% and
to restore fisheries through on-farm
implementation of best manage-
ment practices over a 10-year pe-
riod (1991-2000).
The Gallatin County Conserva-
tion District is managing the
Godfrey Creek project
with assistance from
the SCS, the Extension
Service, and the Mon-
tana Water Quality
Bureau. Best manage-
ment practices (BMPs),
such as renovated and
expanded dairy waste
handling facilities, reloca-
tion of animal confine-
ment areas, off-stream
livestock watering, channel
shaping, revegetation,
improved grazing systems,
and improved irrigation manage-
ment are being implemented. Edu-
cation, peer pressure, and observa-
tion of the successes of BMP imple-
mentation by the initial cooperating
landowners have helped overcome
initial resistance to the project.
Although BMP implementation will
take several years to complete, great
progress has been made in securing
the cooperation of the watershed's
landowners.
'^yssls??
^sป&s***a*'-
-------
254 Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
Morro Bay, California
The State of California estab-
lished a cooperative agreement
between the State Water Resources
Control Board and the California
Coastal Commission in response to
the nonpoint source requirements
of Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone
Act Reauthorization Amendments of
1990. The agreement provides
resources for a nonpoint source
control project in the Morro Bay
watershed. Morro Bay is located in
San Luis Obispo County within the
central California coastal area. The
watershed supports a $16 million
agricultural industry. Limited grazing
and the presence of several aban-
doned mines on public lands con-
tribute sediment and heavy metals
to the Bay. Major impairments are
sediment, increased temperature,
and agricultural pollutants such as
nutrients. Cost-share funds are
being provided for implementation
of selected erosion control practices.
California, with support from EPA
Region 9, will support a long-term
monitoring effort in the watershed
and the project is being considered
for inclusion in the Section 319
national monitoring program.
Malheur Experiment
Station Best Manage-
ment Practices Research
and Development
Program
Oregon has used Section 319
funds to support multiple, interre-
lated ground water protection
projects in the Malheur Basin, an
irrigated area in the eastern part of
the State. Heavy fertilizer and
chemical applications have contami-
nated the shallow aquifer underlying
the Malheur Plains. Nitrate concen-
trations exceed EPA's maximum
contaminant level in many private
wells. Oregon's Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality has designated
the Malheur Basin as a ground
water management area under the
State's Groundwater Management
Act. This designation enables State
agencies to focus resources on
nonpoint source problems contrib-
uting to ground water contamina-
tion.
Oregon State University's Agri-
culture Experiment Station is leading
the research efforts to develop
modified fertilizer applications (rate
and timing) and new irrigation
practices that reduce nitrate
contamination of the ground water.
The Experiment Station shares its
results with local growers through
widely attended annual field days,
during which they take growers on
tours of various experiment sites
and explain the objectives and
results of each project.
-------
Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 255
Upper North Bosque
Watershed, Texas
The Upper North Bosque Water-
shed demonstration project, west of
Fort Worth, supports technical assis-
tance, water quality monitoring,
and technology transfer activities.
The Texas State Soil and Water
Conservation Board (TSWCB) pro-
vides an onsite coordinator to inte-
grate animal waste management
activities in the basin. The coordina-
tor assists area dairy operators in
understanding the technical require-
ments of the Texas Water Commis-
sion's animal waste rules. The
project also supports water quality
monitoring by the Texas Agriculture
Fjctension Services (TAEX) at the
edge of fields on two dairies that
land-apply their waste. Both farms
have established filter strips (of vary-
ing size and grass species) that are
instrumented with automatic sam-
plers to measure nitrogen, phospho-
rus and bacteria in the runoff water.
Monitoring for sediment, nutri-
ents, dissolved oxygen, bacteria,
and oxygen-demanding waste will
be conducted to assess best man-
agement practices at selected sites.
Biological monitoring of benthic
organisms will be performed on the
three tributaries and on the main
stem of the Bosque River to evaluate
the effectiveness of the project. The
USDA also has begun a Hydrologic
Unit Area project in the watershed
that will determine the cost of
shared lagoon installation and pro-
vide increased technical assistance
to dairy farmers.
The demonstration project,
working through the Tarleton Insti-
tute for Applied Environmental
Research (TIAER) at Tarleton State
University, coordinates the actions
and policies of private citizens, dairy
farmers, city and county govern-
ments and State agency personnel
to promote changes in waste han-
dling practices. Each member is to
transfer the technology and pro-
gram information back to his/her
respective group or agency and
work to implement the changes
agreed upon. Demonstration of new
technology on six sites will be part
of the TIAER education/outreach
program.
Bluewater Creek,
New Mexico
The Bluewater Creek watershed
is located 60 miles west of Grants,
New Mexico, in the Cibola National
Forest. In this project, the USDA
Forest Service and the USDA Soil
Conservation Service are implement-
ing best management practices
(BMPs) on Federal lands to prevent
further overgrazing in the water-
shed. Newer and innovative BMPs
include riparian fencing to exclude
cattle, people, and elk; rerouting of
roads and road closures; and
rechannelizing a stream away from
sloughing stream banks too steep
and unstable to repair. The Forest
Service also added improved live-
stock management requirements to
new grazing leases, such as rest/
rotation grazing systems.
These agencies and New
Mexico's Environment Department
are also monitoring BMP effective-
ness with instream grab samples
above and below each BMP site
during all seasons. The agencies
monitor physical, chemical, and
biological parameters, as well as
physical habitat. The data gathered
by New Mexico's Environment
Department on this project suggest
-------
256 Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
that some BMPs are truly more
effective than others and other
BMPs would be effective if their
design and installation location were
modified. The Forest Service has
used this information to modify
their BMP handbook and design
specifications.
Funding for Nonpoint
Source Control
In addition to Section 319
funds, several States have taken
advantage of State revolving funds
(SRFs) to provide loans to
finance nonpoint
source and other
water pollution control
programs. SRFs were
originally established to
assist States in upgrad-
ing their sewage treat-
ment systems, but the
1987 amendments to the
Clean Water Act provide
States with the opportu-
nity to use these funds for
nonpoint source control.
SRF loans are particularly
suitable for funding struc-
tural BMP construction, such as
storm water detention ponds and
manure storage structures.
At present, four States - Wash-
ington, California, Delaware, and
Wyoming - are using SRF loans to
fund a wide variety of nonpoint
programs. Approved projects will
retrofit failed septic tanks, construct
storm water management struc-
tures, remediate leaking under-
ground storage tanks, and build
poultry composting facilities. As
States meet sewage treatment
system upgrade requirements, SRF
funds will become increasingly avail-
able to address nonpoint source
problems.
New Initiatives in
NPS Control
The 1990 Farm Bill
The Food, Agriculture, Conser-
vation and Trade Act of 1990 (1990
Farm Bill), enacted by Congress on
October 25, 1990, contains strong
water quality provisions and offers
new opportunities to link USDA and
EPA water quality programs in the
States. The bill, hailed by many as
the most environmentally sound
agricultural legislation ever passed
by Congress, builds on existing
USDA and EPA efforts, broadens the
applicability of the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) to environ-
mentally sensitive areas and estab-
lishes a new Wetland Reserve Pro-
gram (WRP) and Water Quality
Incentives Program (WQIP).
-------
Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 257
The CRP, created by the 1985
Farm Bill, has paid producers to
remove highly erodible cropland
from production for a 10-year
period to protect and improve soil
and water resources. The 1990
Farm Bill expands the land eligibility
requirements to include not only
highly erodible land, but also other
cropland areas that are potential
threats to surface water quality and
ground water quality in wellhead
protection areas. The bid evaluation
process also provides higher priority
for producers who provide filter-
strips, sod waterways, shelterbelts,
and contour grass strips on their
property, which increase water qual-
ity benefits under the CRP.
The Act also established a
Wetland Reserve Program with an
enrollment goal of up to 1 million
acres. Land accepted into the WRP
would be removed from production
through easements.
The WQIP allows the USDA to
provide technical assistance and up
to $3,500 in incentive payments to
individual producers to develop and
implement farm-level water quality
plans. An additional $1,500 in cost-
share payments is available to indi-
vidual farmers to implement some
practices. Lands identified by States
under the Wellhead Protection Pro-
visions (Section 1428) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act and Section 319
of the Clean Water Act are explicitly
targeted under the WQIP. Other
areas targeted are endan-
gered or threatened
species habitat areas
and areas of karst
topography, which
are particularly vulner-
able to seepage of
contaminants.
In addition to the
WQIP and CRP, the
Farm Bill contains provi-
sions for greater flexibility
to allow crop rotations,
sustainable agriculture
research and education
programs, pesticide
recordkeeping for certified
applicators, and an organic food
certification program.
The Coastal Zone
Management
Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990
Congress also enacted the
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments (CZARA) of 1990,
which established under Section
6217 a new coastal nonpoint source
pollution control program that inte-
grates State Section 319 (CWA)
programs with State Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA)
programs. NOAA administers the
-------
258 Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
CZMA and EPA administers Section
319, and the two agencies have
worked cooperatively toward imple-
menting Section 6217.
Section 6217 requires that
States with federally approved
coastal zone management programs
develop and implement Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control
Programs to ensure protection and
restoration of coastal waters.
Twenty-nine States and Territories,
including several Great Lakes States,
currently have approved coastal
zone management programs.
Under CZARA, State Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control
Programs must provide for imple-
mentation of (1) management
measures specified by EPA in the
national technical guidance, and (2)
additional, more stringent measures
developed by each State as neces-
sary to attain and maintain water
quality standards where the baseline
measures do not accomplish this
objective. The CZARA further
provides that States' Coastal Zone
Management Programs must
contain enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementa-
tion of the baseline and additional
management measures.
EPA issued final technical guid-
ance in January 1993. This guidance
specifies management measures for
five major categories of nonpoint
pollution: agricultural runoff, urban
runoff, silvicultural runoff, hydro-
modification, and marinas and
recreational boating. The guidance
also describes specific practices that
may be used to achieve the level of
prevention or control specified in
the management measures.
EPA and NOAA have also issued
joint program guidance to assist the
States in developing coastal non-
point pollution control programs.
Final program guidance was issued
in January 1993. The program guid-
ance addresses issues related to
development by the States of
coastal nonpoint programs for joint
approval by NOAA and EPA. The
States must submit coastal nonpoint
control programs to NOAA and EPA
within 30 months of issuance of the
management measures guidelines
(July 1995).
-------
Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 259
-------
-------
The Section 314
Clean Lakes Program
Introduction
Background and New
Themes Since the 1987
CWA Reauthorization
The principal Federal program
dealing with restoration of degraded
lakes is EPA's Clean Lakes Program
(CLP), established by the Clean
Water Act (CWA) of 1972. Activities
under the CLP began in 1975 as
congressional appropriations were
used to develop a national program
to clean up publicly owned fresh-
water lakes. From 1975 to 1978,
research and development grants
were issued to identify restoration
techniques and conduct demonstra-
tion projects to restore specific lakes.
By 1980, formal regulations were
finalized governing the award of
Federal funds for Clean Lakes grants.
These regulations (40 CFR Part 35,
Appendix H) still provide the frame-
work for use of the Federal grants
and for States seeking to create
their own programs.
The CLP has always stressed the
need for skillful coordination with
other State or Federal programs.
During the 1970s and early 1980s,
a major goal of CLP grants was to
rehabilitate lakes that had experi-
enced excessive nutrient inputs from
point and nonpoint sources of pol-
lution. The CLP requires that all
point sources be treated or have
treatment planned under Sections
201 and 402 of the CWA before a
grant is awarded for in-lake restora-
tion activities.
In the course of the 1980s, and
especially with the 1987 CWA reau-
thorization, States were encouraged
to consider control measures for
nonpoint source impacts and even
for multimedia issues such as acid
rain. Programs that integrated sup-
port from CLP with assistance from
other Federal, State, or local ini-
tiatives were encouraged.
In particular, States were
encouraged to coordinate
their CLP activities with
their Section 319
Nonpoint Source Manage-
ment Programs. The CLP
helped pioneer a holistic
watershed approach to iden-
tifying lake pollution control
and restoration needs. This
watershed perspective is
prominent in Section 319 pro-
grams and is a major organizing
principle for the Section 303(d)
TMDL process and for such efforts
as EPA's new Watershed Protection
Approach (WPA). These integrated
management concepts are impor-
tant for projects carried out wholly
within the scope of a Federal CLP
grant. Such concepts become essen
tial when projects are designed to
address concerns that could easily
exceed the levels of support from a
conventional Section 314 project.
-------
262 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
Especially for larger lakes, or where
watershed control measures are vital
to successful lake protection or res-
toration, the Clean Lakes Program
becomes just one component in a
larger institutional framework.
Figure 15-1
Activities Conducted with Clean Lakes
Program Grants
Lake Water Quality
Assessments
Statewide screening level
assessments of lake quality
Public information/education
Priority setting
Water quality sampling
Data analysis
Determine longevity and
effectiveness of control
and restoration measures
Phase I. Diagnostic/
Feasibility
Studies
Water quality sampling
Data analysis
Recommend control and
restoration measures to
address water quality problems
In-lake treatments
- Mechanical weed control
- Artificial aeration
- Phosphorus precipitation
Watershed treatments
- Best management practices
- Zoning and planning ordinances
- Public education
Phase III. Postrestoration
Monitoring
Phase II. Implementation
Program Goals
and Objectives
The CLP encourages States to
develop active, ongoing monitoring
and assessment programs and has
supported these efforts with Lake
Water Quality Assessment Grants.
These activities should be sufficiently
broad to cover all important pub-
licly owned lakes in a State, with
general monitoring procedures
geared to those lakes with high-
priority protection or restoration
needs. For as many lakes as pos-
sible, and certainly for lakes with
serious water quality concerns, more
detailed investigations should be
conducted to outline the major
pollution problems (or threats) and
identify appropriate restoration or
control techniques. Where this sort
of background information is avail-
able, and where stakeholders can be
identified who are willing to assume
management or stewardship
responsibilities, the stage is set for
actual lake projects.
The first step is to carry out an
appropriate limnological study to
document baseline conditions and
to make a careful determination of
the most appropriate techniques for
pollution controls and in-lake or
watershed restoration measures. The
next step is to implement the rec-
ommended management measures,
making use of available CLP grants
but also leveraging support from
other local, State, and Federal
resources. The final step is to docu-
ment the success of the lake project,
gathering technically sound evi-
dence that water quality conditions
have improved.
The three steps described coin-
cide with CLP Phase I, Phase II, and
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 263
Phase ill grants (Figure 15-1). One
of the most difficult parts of the
Clean Lakes Program lies in putting
together enough information to
initiate a Phase I grant. After adop-
tion of the formal rules and regula-
tions in 1980, EPA provided funds
for States to carry out classification
surveys. These classification survey
grants provided States an opportu-
nity to evaluate existing information,
and collect new data where needed,
to provide an ample candidate pool
of publicly owned lakes. A typical
State would be able to assemble
good background information on
approximately 100 lakes. From the
classification information, a ranking
system could be developed to high-
light lakes with the more pressing
management concerns for award of
CLP project grants.
By the 1987 CWA reauthoriza-
tion, many States were using classifi-
cation and priority lists that did not
always reflect current conditions. In
addition, the original classification
surveys had focused almost exclu-
sively on adverse impacts from
excessive nutrient loadings, exces-
sive sedimentation, or other signs of
significant cultural eutrophication.
The 1987 reauthorization
encouraged States to adopt an even
broader water-quality-based per-
spective. Although there was still a
need for evaluating lakes according
to their trophic condition, States
were also asked to consider any
other major pollution problems. In
addition to conventional pollutants
(e.g., nutrients or sediment), States
were to pay attention to impacts
from toxics and acidity problems
resulting from acid mine drainage
or acid deposition.
Instead of a one-time classifica-
tion survey, lake monitoring and
assessment were to become part of
each State's continuing planning
process. Available information was
to be summarized biennially and
submitted as part of the biennial
305(b) reports. To help States insti-
tutionalize these enhanced lake
monitoring and assessment expecta-
tions, EPA has made available
special Lake Water Quality Assess-
ment grants. Most States, and other
groups such as American Indian
Tribes, have taken advantage of
these grants, and, with the 1992
National Inventory Report, many
States have completed the transition
from their older classification surveys
to more current information gener-
ated over the past 2 to 4 years.
Publicly Owned Lakes
The CLP requires participating
States to define "significant publicly
owned lakes" that are eligible for
CLP assistance. The CLP and
the States focus on highly
utilized lakes because local
citizens and governments
are more likely to assist in
control and restoration
projects and assume ongoing
stewardship for these lakes
and their watersheds. High-
value lakes attract a diverse
group of local stakeholders to
anchor the activities associated with
a Section 314 project.
States define significant publicly
owned lakes with varied physical
and legal criteria, but most States
include minimum size criteria and
recreational use caveats in their
definitions. For example, New
Hampshire's definition of significant
publicly owned lakes is "any fresh-
water lake or pond that has a
-------
264 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
surface area of 10 or more acres, is
not private, and does not prohibit
recreational activity."
Some States further refine
their definition of significant
publicly owned lakes with
quantitative criteria that
describe recreational use. In
another example, Iowa's screen-
ing criteria for significant publicly
owned lakes exclude shallow
marsh-like lakes, reservoirs used
solely for water supply, and flood
control impoundments constructed
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers.
As a general rule of thumb,
most States settle on a set of signifi-
cant lakes ranging in number from
less than a hundred (for a smaller
State like Rhode Island) to a few
hundred lakes in larger western or
midwestern States.
Clean Lake Program
Implementation
Grants
Based on the most current
monitoring and assessment informa-
tion for significant publicly owned
lakes, States prepare a classification
list and a ranking and prioritization
system to help target the lakes most
in need of restoration or pollution
control attention. High-priority
candidate lakes can be considered
for three types of cooperative agree-
ments under the Clean Lakes
Program:
Cooperative Agreements for
Phase I:
Diagnostic/Feasibility Studies: These
studies investigate the causes of the
decline in quality of a publicly
owned lake and determine the most
feasible procedure for protecting
and restoring the lake. The
maximum Federal contribution is
$100,000 with a 30% non-Federal
match required.
Cooperative Agreements for
Phase II Projects:
These projects implement the
recommended methods and proce-
dures for controlling pollution enter-
ing a lake and for restoring or
protecting a lake. Phase II agree-
ments follow Phase I studies or
equivalent investigations. There is a
50% non-Federal match for Phase II
awards. There is no absolute cap on
the size of the Federal share.
Cooperative Agreements for
Phase III Studies:
Postrestoration monitoring coopera-
tive agreements offer selected
projects the opportunity to conduct
long-term, postrestoration monitor-
ing studies to verify the longevity
and effectiveness of various restora-
tion techniques. The non-Federal
share is 30% with the maximum
Federal share set at $125,000.
In addition to these lake-specific
cooperative agreements, States can
be eligible for cooperative agree-
ments for Lake Water Quality Assess-
ments.
Cooperative Agreements for Lake
Water Quality Assessments:
These awards are intended to help
States compile a comprehensive
Statewide assessment of lake water
quality, to enhance overall State
lake management programs, and to
increase public awareness and
commitment to protecting lakes.
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 265
The Clean Lakes regulations
require that any lake project must
be consistent with the State Water
Quality Management Plan (40 CFR
Part 35). This is to ensure that EPA
and the States coordinate a variety
of programs under the Clean Water
Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and other laws adminis-
tered by EPA. The Clean Lakes
Program is conducive to integration
with other water quality manage-
ment programs because of the
natural linkages between lake
management and other environ-
mental efforts.
EPA has provided support to
help States develop ongoing lake
assessment efforts through special
Lake Water Quality Assessment
(LWQA) grants. In addition to
detailed monitoring work carried
out through State water quality
agencies, LWQA grants have been
used to provide technical assistance
to citizen or lake association moni-
toring groups. These local volunteer
groups typically use Secchi depth
measurements to monitor lake
transparency. Although many States
feel that additional measurements
are needed to provide an adequate
characterization of lake trophic
status, time series data collected by
volunteers can be valuable to docu-
ment trends in lake water quality.
This information can also be used to
develop relative ranking systems
based on an important aspect of a
lake's recreational appeal. Grass
roots involvement starting with
volunteer monitoring activities can
also help build the institutional
frameworks vital to undertaking a
successful lake restoration project.
These grants have very successfully
created and fostered strong working
relationships among EPA, States,
local governments, and citizens.
In addition to its work with the
States and such political entities
as the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico, the Clean
Lakes Program has made
substantial progress in
expanding its work with \ -t Q
American Indian Tribes. The
1987 CWA reauthorization
stressed enhanced partner-
ships in all programs in which
American Indian Tribes could
assume management or
stewardship responsibilities. In
addition to activities such as the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) permitting
program, American Indian Tribes are
also encouraged to develop moni-
toring and assessment programs
and to use this information to
address both point and nonpoint
source pollution control efforts.
Many American Indian Tribes are
interested in developing water-
shed-based approaches to improve
the management of lakes and
streams on tribal lands. The CLP has
proved a very attractive vehicle for
American Indian Tribes to develop
monitoring and resource steward-
ship capabilities. To become eligible
for CLP grants, Tribes must meet
several requirements in CWA Sec-
tion 518 that enable EPA to treat
Tribes as States. Since 1989, 18
American Indian Tribes in seven EPA
Regions have participated in LWQA
grants, and several American Indian
Tribes have proceeded with Phase I
or Phase II implementation grants.
As specified in the Clean Lakes
Program Guidance, Clean Lakes
projects must be developed and
implemented on a watershed basis.
This ensures that restoration
-------
266 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
activities funded by EPA are long
term and address symptoms of
water quality impairments as well as
immediate lake restoration. The
Guidance further states that this
geographic approach to
water quality manage-
ment has been identi-
fied as a key element of
success in nonpoint
source control, ground
water protection, water-
quality-based permitting,
estuarine protection and
cleanup, and wetlands
protection. In awarding
cooperative agreements
under the competitive
Clean Lakes Program, EPA
favors projects with a
watershed-based approach
to water quality management.
Starting with grant awards for
fiscal year 1990, the Clean Lakes
Program has recommended that
EPA Regional offices (which have
been delegated authority to enter
into Clean Lakes cooperative agree-
ments with the States) encourage
States to integrate their Clean Lakes
projects with other State and Fed-
eral programs. This memorandum
also encourages States to consider
technical and financial assistance
that may be available through Sec-
tion 319 State nonpoint source
programs for targeted watershed
demonstration projects. The memo
also mentions that USDA P.L 83-
566 projects (for small watershed
conservation assistance) promote
land treatment activities in water-
sheds significantly affected by agri-
cultural nonpoint source pollution.
Section 314 Reporting
Requirements
Biennial Lake Assessment
Under the 1987 CWA reauthori-
zation, several new provisions were
added to the original provisions
encouraging States to identify their
publicly owned lakes and classify
them according to their eutrophic
condition. Lake assessment informa-
tion was to be updated in a fashion
analogous to other State water qual-
ity assessments and reported bienni-
ally following the same time lines as
the Section 305(b) reports. Most
States now include their Section
314 lake assessments in their 305(b)
reports. Recent procedural changes
to the regulations governing the
Water Quality Planning and
Management Program (FRL-3979-8,
Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 143,
Friday, July 24, 1992) now clearly
specify that lake assessment materi-
als should be part of the 305(b)
report submittals.
Continued Importance
of Trophic Status
Classifications
Reporting on trophic conditions
is still a central feature under the
1987 CWA reauthorization, and
most States still use ranking systems
based primarily on this trophic
status information as the foundation
for their selection of candidates for
the Federal Clean Lakes Program
grants.
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 267
Pollution Control and
Restoration Techniques
-. The Clean Water Act encour-
ages reporting on in-lake restoration
techniques to improve lake water
quality and control techniques for
reducing pollutant loadings from
the surrounding watershed. Lake
pollution controls may include pro-
visions in point source permitting or
other regulatory programs. States
can describe lake quality standards
and monitoring programs related to
standards enforcement as a means
of controlling lake pollution. States
should also describe the relation of
their CLP to other State programs,
especially their Section 319
nonpoint source management
programs. Approaches working with
other State or Federal programs can
also .be included.
States should also provide mate-
rials on their lake restoration tech-
niques. For example, States may
provide specific restoration tech-
niques from which they will draw to
develop lake-specific management
plans. Where possible, States are
encouraged to document specific
techniques recommended for indi-
vidual publicly owned lakes. This
information could be drawn from
CLP projects completed or under
way as well as techniques antici-
pated to be promoted for specific
lakes.
Toxics and Acidity
Impacts or Threats
During the 1980s, considerable
national attention was focused on
how pollution factors can lower the
pH of receiving waters, especially
lakes. Acidity can pose a direct
threat to aquatic life and lake recre-
ational amenities. Major potential
sources would be atmospheric
deposition or acid mine drainage. In
addition to impacts from acidity
per se, low pH conditions can
accentuate impacts from a vari-
ety of toxicants. For instance,
many metals show increased
availability as the pH drops and,
where acid mine drainage is
involved, the pollutant source for
the acidity may also be a source of
toxicants. Acidity may also accentu-
ate the impacts on aquatic organ-
isms of a variety of toxics and may
often increase bioaccumulation or
biomagnification processes that
move toxicants into the tissues of
fish and thus into the food chain.
Toxic accumulations in sediment
also complicate the use of lake
restoration techniques such as
dredging.
In light of these concerns, Con-
gress added provisions for State lake
assessment reporting to document
known instances of acidity or toxics
impact to public lakes. If such issues
are related to actual impairments or
pose real degradation threats, States
are encouraged to document meth-
ods and procedures that could miti-
gate the harmful effects of high
acidity or toxic metals and other
toxic substances. These activities are
funded with LWQA grants.
-------
:n ;",;,;;;"," "";" """i;;,;;1";;:,,,:;:":;;;;;;;;;:::;;;;'':;;;: ':",:";;;,:":;";;;:::";,:; :;:;; :'",::":::;;:":',n :' i1,.:,1;"":,;":,',;,",.".;,'","'"; ,;7''^;vV'M'K''V'^ ;,i. '"';'
,;,,,-;"'il"j,!!,3 '.'"Jlin li:,:l!1ii!'::lii!'::!!!!il?'',i!!!'::!i T;''
The Red Lake Chippewa
Lake Assessment Grant
The 1987 Clean Water Act
reauthorization encouraged States,
and other groups with lake steward-
ship responsibilities, to develop
ongoing monitoring and assessment
programs. To help institutionalize
these assessment activities, the
national Clean Lakes Program
created special Lake Water Quality
Assessment (LWQA) Grants, which
became available starting in fiscal
year 1989. By the end of the 1992
305(b) reporting cycle, most States
had availed themselves of these
"modified" Clean Lakes Phase I
cooperative agreements. Section
518(e) of the CWA also encouraged
EPA to work with those American
Indian groups interested in assum-
ing responsibilities for programs or
grants. In addition to activities such
as the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit-
ting program, Tribes may apply for
a variety of water quality manage-
ment grants. Since 1989, the EPA
Clean Lakes program has awarded
Lake Water Quality Assessment
grants to 18 American Indian Tribes
in seven EPA Regions. These LWQA
grants can help equip American
Indian groups to organize their own
Clean Lakes programs.
There has been considerable
interest in these LWQA grants in
Region 5. States such as Wisconsin
and Minnesota are dotted with
natural lakes and have numerous
large tracts of American Indian
lands. A good example of an LWQA
grant is work being completed by
the Red Lake Chippewa Tribe. The
Chippewa, also known as the
Ojibway, are part of the Sioux
Indian Group that inhabitated an
area from the forests of the upper
Midwest out into the prairies. By
1919, the Chippewa people in
Minnesota had been assigned to a
number of scattered holdings and
two large reservations. The Red Lake
Chippewa have set up a so-called
"closed" reservation-they direct
their tribal government, have
control over their resource base and
livelihoods, and have preserved their
native language and customs.
The reservation covers an area
the size of Rhode Island and is the
home for around 4,000 people. The
tribal lands surround the 230,000
acres of the Upper and Lower Red
Lakes. These waterbodies represent
remnants of the mammoth Lake
Agassiz that covered most of the
-------
present drainage of the Red River of
the North during the Ice Ages. The
Red Lakes are perched above several
ancient shoreline terraces in a scenic
wooded landscape completely
different from the flat prairies on the
Red River's course along Minne-
sota's border with the Dakotas. The
Red Lakes are famous for their wall-
eye pike, perch, and whitefish. Since
1929, the Tribe has operated a
cooperative that harvests and pack-
ages fish for commercial markets as
far away as Minneapolis and
Chicago. The Tribe grows much of
its own food. There are commercial
timber operations as well as a
sawmill, a factory for cedar fencing
materials, and shops producing
other finished wood products. The
Tribe operates its own schools,
general stores, and other commer-
cial and social services.
These diversified economic
enterprises and land use activities
can pose threats to the integrity of
water resources on the reservation.
An LWQA Grant awarded with FY
1989 funds has enabled the Red
Lake Chippewa to gather baseline
data on the trophic condition of the
Upper and Lower Red Lakes and
inventory possible pollutant sources
in the lakeshore area and along
small tributaries.
The Tribe is especially eager to
identify critical erosion areas and
activities that could increase nutrient
loadings. Traditionally, the oligotro-
phic Red Lakes contain few nutri-
ents, but considerable natural inputs
of humic materials from marshes
and wetlands give the water a
brownish appearance. The natural
coloration of the water prevents the
Chippewa from detecting trophic
status with simple measurements
such as Secchi disk depth. There-
fore, they must perform detailed site
evaluations and chemical analyses to
detect nutrient and sediment
hotspots. To date, sampling per-
formed with the LQWA Grant has
documented nutrient inputs from a
malfunctioning lift station in a
community sewerage system. When
complete, the findings of this assess-
ment grant will help the Tribe
pursue an integrated approach to
implementing lake restoration or
watershed control measures.
/ I
sป^,.
ST.
-------
270 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
Lake Beneficial Use
Impairments and Trends
The 1987 CWA reauthorization
contained many provisions encour-
aging a water-quality-based
approach to pollution assessment,
planning, and management activi-
ties. Biennial lake assessments are
now expected to make use of avail-
able information to document
publicly owned lakes where uses are
known to be impaired as well as
lakes where there is evidence of
water quality deterioration. Most
States use EPA's Waterbody System
to produce summary tables that
categorize lake acreages by use
attainment (e.g., fully supporting,
threatened, partially supporting, or
not supporting). Summary tables
are also generally provided that
categorize the major causes and
sources of pollution. However, many
States still lack water quality stan-
dards for lakes. Without standards,
States cannot assess beneficial use
support and lake impairments in a
consistent manner.
Under the 305(b) reporting
process, States are encouraged to
provide waterbody-specific summa-
ries of various public health and
aquatic life concerns. This can
include information on fishing advi-
sories, fish kills, sites with sediment
contamination, restrictions on
surface water drinking supplies,
bathing area restrictions, and inci-
dents of waterborne diseases. This
information is reported for all
waterbody types, including lakes.
Perhaps the most common concern
reported is the contamination of fish
tissue by toxicants, leading to fish
consumption warnings or advisories.
Although valuable, many States
have difficulty relating this informa-
tion clearly to provisions in their
own water quality standards. For
instance, a public health agency
may declare a fish consumption
advisory for a lake based on trigger
values for some toxicant (for
instance, mercury) that are not tied
to numeric standards criteria for any
particular beneficial use. States are
making progress in achieving consis-
tency in their reporting of concerns
such as fish consumption advisories
in relation to their reporting State
beneficial use attainment status.
However, results for these two types
of assessment information may
require careful scrutiny to avoid
misinterpretation.
A final provision in the 1987
CWA reauthorization encourages
States to make use of available
information to identify apparent
trends in water quality for public
lakes. Where possible, such determi-
nations should look not only at
shifts in trophic status but at all
forms of point and nonpoint source
pollution. Attention to trends involv-
ing toxics is particularly recom-
mended.
Trophic Status
Trophic condition is a character-
ization of a lake's biological produc-
tivity based on the availability of
plant nutrients. Commonly accepted
systems for describing trophic status
recognize a range of conditions,
with oligotrophic indicating the
least biologically productive lakes
and eutrophic indicating signifi-
cantly higher levels. For national
reporting purposes, the following
categories are recommended: olig-
otrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic,
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 271
and hypereutrophic. For those lakes
showing exceptionally high levels
of organic materials and associated
reduced pH levels, humic sub-
stances, and natural color, the term
dystrophic is used.
Both natural lakes and
manmade reservoirs will usually
show shifts in their trophic condi-
tion over time (Figure 15-2). As
natural lakes fill in, a process that
ordinarily may take centuries, they
may naturally shift from an olig-
otrophic to a more eutrophic status.
Reservoirs have design lives ranging
from a few decades to perhaps a
few hundred years. Sedimentation
processes will eventually lead to
trophic shifts in manmade
impoundments, generally in a much
shorter time period than for natural
lakes. Similarly, newly impounded
reservoirs may initially be character-
ized as eutrophic because of the
decay of woody debris but may
shift to a less eutrophic status for
most of the impoundment's useful
life.
Because there is an inherent
dynamic aspect to the trophic
balances in lakes, caution must be
exercised in characterizing anything
other than an oligotrophic condition
as undesirable. On the other hand,
many types of anthropogenic
stresses may result in rapid trophic
status shifts. If a lake shows rapid
progression toward a state exhibit-
ing excessive algae growth (i.e.,
algal blooms), rapid organic and
inorganic sedimentation and
shallowing, and seasonal or diurnal
dissolved oxygen deficiencies lead-
ing to obnoxious odors, fish kills, or
a shift in the composition of aquatic
life forms to less desirable forms,
then cultural eutrophication is very
likely. Most commonly, large inputs
Figure (15-2
The Progression of Eutrophication
Natural Eutrophication
Man-induced Eutrophication
o
(/>
o
Eutrophy/
Hypereutrophy
Eutrophy/
Hypereutrophy
(left column) The progression of natural lake aging or eutrophication through nutri-
ent-poor (oligotrophy) to nutrient-rich (eutrophy) sites. Hypereutrophy represents
extreme productivity characterized by algal blooms or dense macrophyte populations
(or both) plus a high level of sedimentation. The diagram depicts the natural
process of gradual nutrient enrichment and basin filling over a long period of time
(e.g., thousands of years).
(right column) Man-induced or cultural eutrophication in which lake aging is greatly
accelerated (e.g., tens of years) by increased inputs of nutrients and sediments into a
lake, as a result of watershed disturbance by humans.
Source: NC Lake Assessment Report. NCDEHNR, DEM. Report No. 92-02. June 1992.
-------
272 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
of nutrients or nutrient-laden sedi-
ments associated with point or
nonpoint source pollution will lead
to cultural eutrophication. Restoring
a lake to a more desirable trophic
condition will then require
implementation of control
techniques to reduce the
nutrient loadings and possi-
bly in-lake restoration activi-
ties to mitigate the impacts
of previous pollution inputs.
Trophic classification
begins with an assessment of
conditions in a lake at a given
time. There are many aspects
of reservoirs that make it diffi-
cult to categorize them by tradi-
tional trophic status assessments.
When evidence suggests that pollu-
tion factors are driving the lake to a
more eutrophic state, a State's
Clean Lakes Program will likely rate
that waterbody as a relatively
higher priority candidate for man-
agement attention. Other types of
information are helpful in prioritiz-
ing a public lake's management
needs (e.g., documentation of
trends and consideration of factors
such as acidity or toxics), but
trophic status assessments are the
backbone of the classification
systems used in most States.
At least half the States make
use of a trophic classification meth-
odology developed by R.E. Carlson
in the 1970s. Carlson worked
primarily with natural lakes in the
Midwest. He developed a series of
indices involving simple logarithmic
transforms of monitoring records
based on total phosphorus, chloro-
phyll a, and Secchi depth. For many
lakes, these parameters provide a
measure of a principal cause of
cultural eutrophication (the nutrient
phosphorus), a reasonable indicator
of the standing crop of algae
associated with nutrients (chloro-
phyll a is the major photosynthetic
pigment in algal phytoplankton),
and a measure of unwanted reduc-
tion in water transparency due to
elevated levels of algal biomass.
The formulas for these trophic
status indexes (TSls) were calibrated
to conditions in the Midwest so that
an increase of 10 index units would
match a change in lake eutrophic
condition to the next highest status
(e.g., from oligotrophic to mesotro-
phic). For many lakes studied by
Carlson, there was a strong correla-
tion among the predictions
provided by the TSls. Because it is
generally much less expensive to
gather total phosphorus data than
chlorophyll a data and much easier
to measure a light transparency
from a Secchi disk than to develop
actual water chemistry data, there
has been a tendency to rely heavily
on Secchi disk measurements when
using a Carlson TSI to characterize
trophic state.
Well over half the States use
one or more of the Carlson TSls or
indices very similar to Carlson's. For
the 1992 305(b) reporting cycle,
there is a noticeable tendency on
the part of the States to use greater
discretion when the only measure-
ment for a TSI comes from Secchi
disk readings. Without other infor-
mation about a lake, and especially
reservoirs where reductions in trans-
parency may be due more to
suspended inorganic particles than
to blooms of algae or due to loca-
tion of the sampling site or other
factors, a Secchi measurement may
give false signals as to the degree of
biological productivity.
States are increasingly giving
greater precedence to TSls using
phosphorus or, where possible,
chlorophyll a measurements.
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 273
However, light transparency data
may still be useful, especially when
correlated with visual observations
of color. Even if loss of transparency
is due more to turbidity and sus-
pended solids than to algae, it may
indicate unwanted sedimentation
problems affecting trophic balances
and a lake's recreation value. When
available, long time series of Secchi
depth readings are often a good
tool for trend analysis. Secchi read-
ings, often collected by volunteer
monitoring groups, can therefore
still play an important role in a
State's lake monitoring programs;
but, for the highest quality charac-
terization of lake trophic status,
measurements more closely related
to biological process and food chain
dynamics are preferred.
With support from EPA Lake
Water Quality Assessment grants,
many States are evaluating different
ways to supplement methods such
as Carlson TSIs to make cost-effec-
tive characterizations of trophic
status. For instance, using a broader
range of parameters, there are other
standard indexes that may prove
helpful, many of these originally
developed in the 1970s as part of
EPA's pioneering National Eutrophi-
cation Survey. Whatever the general
form in a TSI formula, it is highly
desirable to regionalize the system
to conditions found in a specific
State or ecoregion. States such as
North Carolina have developed
regional indices, and Oregon,
Minnesota, and Arkansas have
applied ecoregion concepts in inter-
preting their lake monitoring data.
Oklahoma and Texas are evaluating
different methods to assess trophic
status in reservoirs.
Because a TSI is a simplified
analysis tool with a strong
correlation to basic aspects of the
biological structure for lakes in a
region, many States are exploring
ways to develop bioassessment
techniques. For instance, the pres-
ence or absence of certain types of
zooplankton is often strongly corre-
lated with a well-balanced biological
community. Diverse and healthy
populations of algae-consuming
zooplanktons such as Daphnia pulex
can help prevent the buildup of
objectionable algal biomass even in
lakes showing appreciable nutrient
inputs. Shifts in the populations of
game fish or plankton-eating forage
fish can sometimes lead to a deci-
mation of the zooplankton, allowing
algae to flourish. Biomanipulation
techniques aimed at increasing the
populations of top predator fishes or
reducing the populations of forage
fishes can often correct the trophic
imbalances. Bioassessments of the
plankton communities or the fish
populations can therefore indicate
overall trophic status. Other tech-
niques being explored look at
benthos or macrophytes in lake
littoral areas. These techniques can
be valuable supplements to the
more traditional Carlson TSIs that
focus on algal standing crop, nutri-
ents, or transparency parameters.
In 1992, 41 States reported that
17% of the 11,477 lakes they
assessed for trophic status were
oligotrophic, 35% were mesotro-
phic, 32% were eutrophic, 8% were
hypereutrophic, and 8% were dys-
trophic. This information may be
somewhat biased, as States often
assess lakes in response to a prob-
lem or public complaint or because
of their easy accessibility. It is likely
that more remote lakes-which are
probably less impaired-are under-
represented in these assessments.
-------
274 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
Table 15-1. Effects of pH on Aquatic Life :
pH Range
6.5 to 6.0
6.0 to 5.5
5.5 to 5.0
5.0 to 4.5
General Biological Effects
Some adverse effects for highly acid-sensitive species
Loss of sensitive minnows and forage fish;
decreased reproductive success for trout and walleye
Loss of many common sports fish and additional
nongame species
Loss of most sports fish; very few fishes able to survive
and reproduce where pH levels commonly below 4.5
Acid Effects on Lakes
Acidic lakes are generally found
in areas where watershed soils have
limited buffering capabilities. Acid
rain or acid mine drainage can then
depress a lake's pH levels to a point
at which many forms of aquatic life
are stressed or eliminated. Table
15-1 summarizes some of the
common biological effects at
progressively lower pH ranges.
Acid conditions can also aggra-
vate toxics impacts, especially for
heavy metals. During the 1980s
there was major public concern
over the impacts of lowered pHs to
lakes, primarily from atmospheric
deposition. EPA coordinated a major
multi-agency study called the
National Acid Precipitation Assess-
ment Program (NAPAP). NAPAP led
to actual data collection efforts on
many lakes and stream systems. It
also provided insights into promis-
ing monitoring designs to docu-
ment receiving waters with actual
acidity problems or sensitivities to
potential acid impacts.
NAPAP's conclusion was that
the incidence of serious acidification
problems was far more limited than
originally feared, and this Federal
hypothesis seems to be reflected in
evidence reported by the States in
their lake
water quality
assessments. At
least for signifi-
cant publicly
owned lakes,
the Adiron-
dacks area of
New York
emerges as the
only region
showing appreciable numbers of
public lakes with significant acidifi-
cation damage. States have docu-
mented areas where local geologi-
cal and soil factors may render lakes
deficient in natural buffering capac-
ity and therefore vulnerable to acid-
ity stress. Such sensitive areas seem
quite prevalent in high-altitude
glacial lakes in mountainous areas
in the Rockies and several western
States. A major concern here is low
pH water introduced from snow-
pack meltwater. Many of these
high-altitude lakes may show a
seasonal pulse of low pH inflows,
usually during the Spring. The
ecological consequences are not
entirely clear, and States such as
Colorado and Washington will
continue to study this episodic
phenomenon.
In the eastern United States,
such areas as southern New Jersey
have been shown to have limited
natural buffering capacity, making
many lakes potentially vulnerable to
acid deposition impacts. In addition
to lakes, some States are concerned
about acidity impacts on high-
gradient trout streams. Where the
acidity concerns affect whole water-
sheds, this encourages a search for
mitigation techniques that could
benefit both lakes and streams.
New York has undertaken some
innovative demonstration projects
aimed at liming whole watershed
areas instead of the more traditional
strategy of liming just the lakes.
Serious impacts from acid mine
drainage also seem relatively rare.
No State has found clear documen-
tation of acidity impacts related to
active mining activities. However,
there is some concern about aban-
doned mine workings. At least one
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 275
State, Oklahoma, is undertaking a
CLP Phase I study on a portion of
the Eufaula Reservoir that lies in a
region with a long history of
surface and hard rock coal mining
activities.
Toxic Effects on Lakes
In the 1987 CWA reauthoriza-
tion, there was an expectation that
if toxics concerns were encountered
in lakes, they might be tied to an
anticipated widespread incidence of
acidity problems. From evidence
submitted by the States and from
the Federal NAPAP investigations,
lake acidity problems are much
rarer than anticipated. Toxics
concerns States have submitted,
therefore, will generally not be
related to depressed pH levels.
Many States do report serious
toxic concerns, with the most
common centering on fish
consumption advisories. Most States
maintain programs to sample fish
tissues from their major public
lakes. These collections also gener-
ally involve sampling of ambient
water and sediments. Rarely do
ambient water levels exceed detec-
tion limits for heavy metals or
common pesticides. For sediments
and fish flesh, however, virtually all
States have at least one public lake
at which elevated levels of some
toxicant have been documented.
Any exceedances of FDA alert levels
or other Federal or State threshold
levels will be noted in the 305(b)
reporting process. Especially for
contaminants in fish flesh, State
health authorities will issue
consumption advisories so that the
public can make appropriate fish
consumption decisions.
If a State has established provi-
sions in its water quality standards
regarding these public health issues,
lakes may be reported as showing
beneficial use impairments. Where
such standards are not well-defined,
the information may show up only
in the 305(b) sections dealing with
public health/aquatic life concerns.
If it is carried over into the use
attainment portion of the
305(b) documents, States may
choose to characterize the con-
cern as a 305(b) "assessment"
issue. This is a rapidly evolving
field, with many States attempting
to add public health features to
their water quality standards or
expanded standards' provisions for
wildlife protection.
Because many of the toxicants
in question are persistent substances
(e.g., chlordane or PCBs), it is often
likely that there are no active pollut-
ant sources; rather the problems are
related to in-place contaminants.
This situation is compounded by the
fact that many of the organic or
heavy metal toxicants are multi-
media problems, with any ongoing
pollutant loading coming from
atmospheric deposition. The sources
for such "air pollution" inputs are
generally not well known; in
some cases the ultimate
sources may even lie
outside the United States,
reflecting pollution
processes on a hemispheric
or global scale. Faced with
these uncertainties, most
States are continuing to
gather monitoring data and
are adopting risk manage-
ment strategies.
-------
276 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
Trends in Significant
Public Lakes
Lakes are dynamic systems,
which means that they may natu-
rally display shifts in
trophic status over time.
The only exception might
be bog-like dystrophic lakes
that constitute a special
case in terms of the ordinary
evolution for lake water-
bodies. Without some time
series records of lake condi-
tions, it can be hard to inter-
pret the management implications
of a eutrophic classification based
solely on current conditions.
Trend analysis can be extremely
valuable in documenting rapid shifts
toward more eutrophic features.
Waterbodies in which changes can
be related to ongoing pollution
inputs are generally considered to
warrant higher priority in manage-
ment attention. Although the desir-
ability of trend assessments is widely
recognized, States still face chal-
lenges in gathering adequate infor-
mation to document a trend signal,
especially when they try to apply
sophisticated statistical methods to
document the significance of an
apparently empirical change.
The majority of States do
attempt some sort of trend determi-
nation when they have at least a
recent set of trophic classifications in
conjunction with other data, usually
from their original classification sur-
vey in the early 1980s. Determina-
tions made based on data from only
two points in time must rely heavily
on best professional judgment (BPJ).
Virtually every State that presents
such BPJ trends assessments notes
that confidence limits or other
measures of reliability or precision
are not available.
At least three States-Illinois,
Wisconsin, and Minnesota-did apply
statistical analysis techniques to
select lakes for which approximately
5 to 10 years of time series data
were available. Illinois used least
squares regressions (using a "para-
metric" statistical approach) com-
bined with examination of scatter
plots of the raw data and residuals.
From 212 lakes, about 50 results
suggested either alinear improve-
ment or a degradation trend. Nearly
60 percent of the lakes had
extremely complicated fluctuating
patterns suggesting cyclical or non-
linear patterns, perhaps related to
weather variability. Illinois therefore
felt that additional data and further
analysis would be worthwhile.
Wisconsin and Minnesota used
the Kendall tau test available with
the WQSTAT computer program
developed at Colorado State Univer-
sity. This is a nonparametric test
considered by many to be
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 277
preferable to parametric techniques
for use with water quality data.
Minnesota applied the test to 161
lakes; trends were suggested in 32.
Wisconsin looked at 49 lakes, with
the test suggesting trends for 25.
Wisconsin, in particular, expressed
some reservations. They felt the
main patterns in the raw data
reflected normal, short-term, cyclical
changes rather than genuine
long-term trends in water quality.
Although States continue to
explore ways to detect empirically
significant trends, virtually every
State expressed the need to acquire
additional data, a common estimate
being that at least 10 years of
observations would be needed to
apply rigorous statistical methods.
Another common theme is that the
patterns displayed in many lakes do
not seem linear. Most available sta-
tistical tests are geared to spotting
simple, linear trends. Where the
underlying physical patterns are
nonlinear or cyclical, more complex
analysis systems may be needed.
Lake Restoration and
Pollution Control
Measures
Managing lake quality often
requires a combination of in-lake
restoration measures and pollution
controls, including watershed
management measures:
Restoration measures are
implemented to reduce existing
pollution problems. Examples of
in-lake restoration measures include
harvesting aquatic weeds, dredging
sediment, and adding chemicals to
precipitate nutrients out of the
water column. Restoration measures
may not address the source of the
pollution.
Pollution controls deal with the
sources of pollutants degrading lake
water quality or threatening to
impair lake water quality. Control
measures include planning activities,
regulatory actions, and implementa-
tion of best management practices
to reduce nonpoint sources of
pollutants. Regulatory measures
include point source discharge
prohibitions and phosphate deter-
gent bans. Watershed management
plans and lake management plans
are examples of planning measures.
Watershed management plans
simultaneously address multiple
sources of pollutants, such as runoff
from urbanized areas, agricultural
activities, and failing septic systems
along the lake shore.
During the 1980s, most States
implemented chemical and
mechanical in-lake restoration
measures to control aquatic weeds
and algae. In their 1992 Section
305(b) reports, the States report a
shift toward watershed planning
-------
278 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
techniques and nonpoint source
(NFS) controls to reduce pollutant
loads responsible for aquatic weed
growth and algal blooms. Although
the States reported that they still
use in-lake treatments (Table 15-2),
the States recognize that source
controls are needed in addition to
in-lake treatments to restore lake
water quality.
The States reported that they
most frequently rely on their NPDES
permit programs and their Section
319 NPS management programs to
control pollutants entering lakes
1 Table 15-2. Number of States Reporting Use
of In-Lake Restoration Measures]
Control Measures
Dredging
Lake Drawdown
Chemical Weed and Algae Control
Mechanical Weed Harvesting
Biological Weed Control
Artificial Circulation/Hypolimnetic
Aeration
Chemical Nutrient Inactivation
In-Flow Diversion
Hypolimnetic Withdrawal
Number
of States
Reporting
16
14
13
12
9
9
7
6
5
(Table 15-3). Through the State
NPDES permit programs, States
often impose stricter nutrient limits
for effluents discharged into lakes
than into rivers and streams. Seven
States reported that they enhanced
sewage treatment plant compliance
with NPDES nutrient limits for lakes
by imposing phosphorus detergent
restrictions.
Twenty-two States reported that
they use their Section 319 NPS
programs to implement BMPs in
watersheds surrounding impaired or
threatened lakes. The States
reported that they implemented
agricultural practices to reduce soil
erosion, constructed retention and
detention basins to cleanse urban
storm water, revegetated shorelines,
and constructed or restored
wetlands to remove pollutants
before they entered lake waters.
1 Table 15-3. Number of States Reporting
Control Measures
Control Measures
Section 319 NPS Program
NPDES Permit Program
State Lake Water Quality Standards
Watershed Management Planning
Restrict Phosphate Detergents
Restrict Point Source Discharges
Regulate Shoreline Activities
Lake Management Planning
Number
of States
Reporting
22
22
15
12
7
6
5
4
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 279
-------
-------
Wetlands Protection Programs
A variety of public and private
programs protect wetlands. The
Conservation Foundation organized
the National Wetlands Policy Forum
in 1987 to coordinate these dispar-
ate efforts and develop a national,
coordinated vision for wetlands
protection. The forum included
three State governors and represen-
tatives from State and local govern-
ments; the oil, gas, agriculture, and
forestry industries; academic institu-
tions; environmental/conservation
groups; and EPA and other Federal
agencies. The group issued a report
in November 1988 containing over
100 recommended actions for all
levels of government and the
private sector.
The Forum established an
interim goal to achieve no overall
net loss of the Nation's wetlands
base and a long-term goal to
increase the quantity and quality of
the Nation's wetlands resource base.
The Clinton Administration has
adopted these goals and plans to
issue a Presidential Executive Order
to implement them. In addition, the
Administration has recommended
that Congress amend the Clean
Water Act to include them.
Section 404
The major Federal program for
regulating activities in wetlands is
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Section 404 establishes a permit
program for regulating discharges
of dredged and fill material to wet-
lands and other U.S. waters. The
EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) jointly implement
the Section 404 program. The COE
is responsible for administering the
permit program day-to-day, review-
ing permit applications, and issuing
or denying permits. The EPA is
responsible for reviewing COE
permit decisions, determining
geographic jurisdiction, overseeing
State programs, and enforcing with
the COE the Section 404 program.
The COE processes permit
applications under Section 404. EPA
reviews and evaluates applications
using its Section 404(b)(1) guide-
lines, which contain the environ-
mental criteria for Section 404
permit decisions. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service also influ-
ence the Section 404 permitting
process through their review of
applications. After receiving
comments from these agencies, the
States, and other interested parties,
the COE makes a permit decision.
Under Section 404(c), EPA has
the authority to veto a COE decision
to issue a permit or to otherwise
prohibit or restrict the discharge of
dredged or fill material to wetlands
or other waters of the United States.
EPA has the ultimate authority to
determine the geographic scope of
the CWA (i.e., whether an area is a
wetland or other U.S. water). Simi-
larly, EPA has the final word on the
applicability of Section 404(f), which
exempts certain discharges from
regulation. EPA and the COE share
authority for enforcing the require-
ments of Section 404. Also, EPA
The Administration's goals
are to
Achieve no overall net
loss of the Nation's
remaining wetlands base
Increase the quality and
quantity of the Nation's
wetlands resource base
-------
282 Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs
approves and oversees State as-
sumption of the Section 404 pro-
gram. To date, Michigan and New
Jersey are the only States to have
assumed this responsibility.
Wetlands Water
Quality Standards
Water quality standards for
wetlands ensure that the provisions
of CWA Section 303 that apply to
other surface waters are also applied
to wetlands. In July 1990, EPA
issued guidance to States for the
development of wetlands water
quality standards. Figure 16-1 indi-
cates the State's progress in devel-
oping these standards (see Appen-
dix D, Table D-5, for individual
State data).
Ffaure 16-1
Development of State Water Quality Standards
for Wetlands
Antidegradation
Use Classification
Narrative Biocriteria
Numeric Biocriteria
CD Proposed
E3 Under Development
In Place
10 15 20 25
Number of States Reporting
30
Water quality standards have
three major components: desig-
nated uses, criteria to protect those
uses, and an antidegradation policy.
States designate uses that must, at a
minimum, meet the goals of the
CWA by providing for the protec-
tion and propagation of fish, shell-
fish, and wildlife and for recreation
in and on the water. States may
choose to designate additional uses
for their wetlands, such as flood
water attenuation or ground water
recharge. Once uses are designated,
States are required to adopt criteria
sufficient to protect their designated
uses. Criteria are general narrative
statements or specific numerical
values such as concentrations of
contaminants and water quality
characteristics (e.g., dissolved
oxygen concentration = 5.0 mg/L).
Narrative criteria are particularly
appropriate to wetlands. An
example of a narrative criteria is
"natural hydrological conditions
necessary to support the biological
and physical characteristics naturally
present in wetlands shall be
protected."
Standards provide the founda-
tion for a broad range of water
quality management activities under
the CWA including, but not limited
to, monitoring for the Section
305(b) report, permitting under
Section 402 and 404, water quality
certification under Section 401, and
the control of nonpoint source pol-
lution under Section 319.
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-5.
-------
Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs 283
Water Quality
Certification of
Federal Permits
and Licenses
Section 401 of the CWA gives
States and eligible American Indian
Tribes the authority to grant, condi-
tion, or deny certification of feder-
ally permitted or licensed activities
that may result in a discharge to
U.S. waters, including wetlands.
Such activities include discharge of
dredged or fill material permits
under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, point source discharge
permits under Section 402 of the
Clean Water Act, and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's
hydropower licenses. States review
these permits to ensure that they
meet State water quality standards.
In 1989, EPA issued guidance to
States and American Indian Tribes
on how to use 401 certification
authority to protect wetlands.
Ideally, 401 certification should be
used to augment State programs
because it applies only to projects
requiring Federal permits or licenses.
Activities that do not require per-
mits, such as draining of wetlands,
are not covered.
State Wetlands
Conservation Plans
A new tool that States are using
to protect wetlands are State Wet-
lands Conservation Plans (SWCPs).
Essentially, these plans are strategies
for States to achieve their wetlands
management goals, such as no net
loss of wetlands, by integrating both
regulatory and cooperative
approaches to protecting wetlands.
Wetlands are impacted by a
large number of land- and water-
based activities not addressed by a
single Federal, State, or local agency
program. In addition, many public
and private programs and activities
exist to protect wetlands, but often
each program is limited in scope
and is not well coordinated with the
others. Also, these programs often
do not address all of the problems
affecting wetlands.
An SWCP can help to integrate
programs; avoid duplication of
effort; identify problems that need
to be addressed; maxi-
mize efficient use of
budgets, staff, and
expertise; and tap or
combine unused
resources. Twenty States
are currently involved in
different stages of devel-
oping an SWCP; 19 of
these States have received
financial assistance from
EPA. Michigan's SWCP will
focus on nonregulatory aspects of
wetlands management. New York
will work toward a no net loss/net
gain goal under its SWCP. California
plans to inventory its wetlands,
identify crucial wetlands, develop a
statewide strategy to plan wetlands
protection and restoration, and take
a crucial role in overall wetlands
regulation through its SWCP. Mis-
souri, Tennessee, Delaware, New
Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Okla-
homa, Oregon, Texas, Louisiana,
Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Mon-
tana, Nebraska, Vermont, and Mass-
achusetts are also pursuing SWCPs.
-------
284 Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs
Figure 16=2
State Wetlands
Protection Grants
In FY90, Congress first appropri-
ated funds to establish a grant
program specifically aimed at sup-
porting State wetlands protection
programs. This grant program has
provided and continues to provide
financial support to States and
federally recognized American
Indian Tribes to enhance existing
State wetlands programs or develop
new ones.
Grant funds are available to
State agencies administering or
developing wetlands protection
programs or to State agencies with
wetlands-related programs. Since
the program began in 1990, these
grants have been instrumental in
enhancing State expertise in the
following areas: Section 404
assumption, Section 401 water
quality certification, State Wetland
Conservation Plans, watershed
Funding for Wetlands Protection Projects
1990
Requested
1992
Granted
10
$ (million)
approach demonstration projects,
improved coordination, and
wetlands water quality standards
development.
Each year, more States and
American Indian Tribes participate in
the EPA Wetlands Protection Grants
Program and each year funding for
the program has grown (Figure
16-2).
Environmental
Monitoring and
Assessment Program
The wetlands component of
EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) aims to
assess and report the status and
trends of ecological conditions in
wetlands on regional and national
scales. In the short term, the
EMAP-Wetlands program will
provide standardized protocols
measuring and describing wetlands
conditions, provide estimates of
wetlands conditions in several
regions, and develop formats for
reporting program results.
Nonpoint Source
Pollution and
Wetlands
Section 319 of the 1987 CWA
amendments created a comprehen-
sive program to integrate Federal
and State programs aimed at con-
trolling nonpoint source (NPS)
water pollution. The physical loca-
tion of wetlands between water and
land links wetlands protection with
abatement of NPS runoff and water
quality improvements in adjacent
waters. In 1990, EPA published
-------
Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs 285
guidance on the coordination of
State and Federal NPS control
programs and wetlands protection
programs. The guidance discusses
the implementation of activities that
benefit both NPS and wetlands
programs.
Under the NPS control
program, Section 319(h) authorizes
Federal grants to States with
approved assessment reports and
management programs. These
grants assist the States in imple-
menting the NPS controls identified
in their management programs.
Thirty-two States received 319(h)
funds in fiscal years 1990 and 1991
for NPS control projects with a wet-
lands or riparian area component.
Nineteen of the projects involved
protection or restoration of wetlands
or riparian areas. Other projects
involved program development,
education and training materials
development, or wetlands construc-
tion.
Swampbuster
The swampbuster provisions of
the 1985 and 1990 Food Security
Acts ("Farm Bills") deny crop sub-
sidy payments and other agricultural
benefits to farm operators who con-
vert wetlands to cropland after
December 23, 1985the date the
1985 Farm Bill was signed into law.
The U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture's Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) is responsible for determining
compliance with swampbuster pro-
visions and for determining whether
agricultural wetlands sites fall under
the jurisdiction of the swampbuster
provisions. EPA and the COE have
sole authority to determine Section
404 jurisdiction.
State Programs to
Protect Wetlands
States protect their wetlands
with a variety of approaches, includ-
ing use of CWA authorities (such as
Section 401 and 303), permitting
programs, coastal management
programs, wetlands acquisition
programs, natural heritage
programs, and integration with
other programs. For this report,
States described particularly innova-
tive or effective approaches they use
to protect wetlands.
State-Reported
Information
The following trends emerged
from individual State reporting:
States are making progress in
developing wetlands water quality
standards.
States are beginning to incorpo-
rate wetlands considerations into
other programs.
States are working with the Army
Corps of Engineers and other State
and Federal agencies to coordinate
Section 404 permit reviews and
Section 401 certifications.
A large number of States
reported that they denied Section
401 certification of Section 404
nationwide permits.
The pressure to develop in wet-
lands areas remains high based on
the number of Section 404 permit
applications States are receiving.
-------
286 Chapter Sixteen Wetland^ Protection Programs
States continue to lose wetlands.
Some highlights from individual
State reports are as follow:
Alaska reported that it integrates
wetlands protection into existing
water quality programs such as
nonpoint source pollution con-
trol, ground water protection,
and wetlands monitoring through
land use planning and local
controls.
Arizona reported that it has inte-
grated wetlands protection into the
nonpoint source program. Arizona
reported an incident in which it
used Section 401 certification to
require changes to an original plan
to reduce wetlands loss from 20 to
3 acres.
Florida reported that it has in
place a joint Federal/State applica-
tion form for dredge and fill
projects. In addition to direct dredg-
ing and filling, the quantity and
quality of water delivered to
wetlands is extremely important to
wetlands integrity in Florida. The
most notable example is the Ever-
glades in southern Florida. Florida
also mentioned that degraded wet-
lands are used primarily for treat-
ment of storm water; in these cases,
restoration of the hydroperiod is an
important goal and extensive moni-
toring is sometimes required.
Wisconsin, which recently had its
wetlands water quality standards
approved by EPA, reported that
wetlands water quality standards
appear to be the most effective
mechanism for protecting wetlands.
Wisconsin's Department of Natural
Resources reported that it will be
making use of its 401 certification
authority now that standards are in
place. The State is also considering
implementing a wetlands monitor-
ing program.
Wisconsin also reported that stan-
dards may influence Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) dam
relicensing, Wisconsin Pollution Dis-
charge Elimination System permits
to discharge treated wastewater,
landfill siting and Superfund cleanup
activities, fish and wildlife manage-
ment decisions, construction and
operation of cranberry marshes,
park acquisitions, selection of best
management practices in priority
watersheds, and chemical applica-
tions for controlling aquatic weeds.
Louisiana reported that 401 certi-
fication in coastal areas is more
effective when done in conjunction
with coastal use permits. Louisiana is
sponsoring wetlands research to
find out how wetlands respond to
municipal wastewater and process-
ing wastewater. The State devel-
oped numeric biocriteria in the
Thibodaux swamp.
Rhode Island denied 401 certifi-
cation for most nationwide permits,
feeling that these projects should be
reviewed individually. It also
reported that the Department of
Environmental Management's Divi-
sion of Forest Environment and the
Freshwater Wetlands Division coor-
dinate on forest management plans.
South Dakota reported that it is
developing a comprehensive, inter-
agency, statewide wetlands protec-
tion program.
-------
Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs 287
Idaho reported that it used its
401 certification authority to
prevent the draining of significant
wetlands as part of a residential
development. Idaho is currently in
the process of developing 401 certi-
fication regulations; one objective of
these regulations is to include wet-
lands impacts in the 401 certifica-
tion process.
Indiana reported that largely
through placing conditions on 401
certification of permits, the State is
obtaining approximately 3 acres of
wetlands as mitigation for every
acre lost.
South Carolina denied certifica-
tion for nationwide permit 26
because it believes that protection
of isolated and headwater wetlands
is imperative for South Carolina to
achieve the goals of the CWA.
North Carolina has a State Gen-
eral Permits Program for 404 per-
mits and has developed a State
wetlands rating method currently
used in 401 certification evaluations.
The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (DER)
reported that it has adopted a joint
permit application with the COE
that enables applicants to enter
both State and Federal permit
review processes with one applica-
tion. An Environmental Review
Committee, consisting of represen-
tatives from the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service, Pennsylvania Game
Commission, Pennsylvania Fish and
Boat Commission, EPA, COE, and
DER, meets monthly to review
selected applications submitted
under Section 404.
The DER receives 1,500 applications
each year for water obstruction
permits under the Dam Safety and
Encroachments Act of 1978, which
establishes DER's jurisdiction for the
protection of wetlands. The DER
reported that there are 3,000 viola-
tions of the Act each year, 75% of
which involve wetlands resources.
Hawaii reported that it denied
401 certification for all nationwide
permits.
Virginia reported that it uses a
joint permitting process that allows
applicants to submit one application
to the Commission, which coordi-
nates review with appropriate agen-
cies whose comments are consid-
ered in development of or denial of
401 certification. Virginia
denied certification of
nationwide permit 26 for
areas greater than 1 acre.
It also denied three other
nationwide permits because
associated impacts would
not be addressed adequately
through other regulatory
processes (e.g., FERC licens-
ing procedures and storm
water management pond
construction).
Texas reported that it received
a wetlands protection grant to
improve its 401 certification
program.
Minnesota reported that it is
undertaking a permit simplification
program. It wants to produce a
combined permit application that
may serve as an application for a
404 permit and as notification to
Minnesota's Department of Natural
55*.
-------
HtGHLIGH
iis
HT HIGHLIGHT
11 n 111 linn n i n in ill n 1 111 i in n n i n in i inn in i in i in i in in inn in i in in nil ilnniinnnliiiiiinhn iiiiiiiiiiiini iiiiiiiiniinni n
11 i iliiiii i ill ill i in 11 ill i nil III in ill ill iiiiiii lull i iiiliilliiiiii iiiiilliiiiiiiM
111 111 n 111 I Illlllllll
llllliilllllllllllllll Illlllllll ill lllllll 111 II
llllliilllllliili lllllll^^
ii ill
liiiiiiiilinnnn iiiinniinni in 11 iiiiiiinnnnn 11111111111111111111111 iniiniiiiiiiiniiniinilinnnnn in nniiinniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinilniiiiniiniiiinininnlinili
llllliilllllliili 111 III III Illlllllll Illlllllll 111 llllliilllllliili IIIIIIIIH^^^^
Illlllllll IIIIIIH
(ill > Ii1!!!!1!1!1! II! rillllllll |il!l
lilllillliilllV
ill (I II I 111 'I ii I II "1 I liLi'ill lllllll ill I I I'll lillllllllliilB Hlllllilill )l
Louisiana Coastal Wetlands
Program
Coastal Louisiana is losing
marshes and swamps at a rate of
25 square miles per year. Yet, Loui-
siana's remaining 10,160 square
miles of coastal marshes account
for 40% of the Nation's marsh
resource, support 25% of the
Nation's fishing industry, support
the largest furbearing trade in North
America, and provide habitat for
more than two-thirds of the winter-
ing waterfowl on the Mississippi
flyway.
Historically, the Mississippi River
carried extremely large quantities of
sediment that formed most of Loui-
siana. Under natural conditions,
water would overflow onto sur-
rounding land via overbank deposi-
tion. This water would be dispersed
through an extensive network of
delta tributaries, depositing large
volumes of sediment in the sur-
rounding marshes and wetlands.
Through these deltaic building
processes, wetlands generation kept
pace with natural subsidence and
sea level rise.
In modern times, levees built
along the Mississippi River prevent
fresh water and sediment from over-
flowing into coastal wetlands during
floods. Without this replenishment
of sediment, wetlands and marshes
are gradually deteriorating to open
water. Exacerbating this problem
are the numerous navigation and oil
and gas pipelines and flood control
levees that speed the river's flow,
which prevents sediments from
settling out over the marshes. As a
result, sediments are not captured
and enter the deep waters of the
Gulf of Mexico. It is estimated that
Louisiana's land loss is directly
attributable to the marshes not
being able to capture sediment and
provide subsequent accretion. For
example, between 1954 and 1963,
subsidence rates were 1.32 centi-
meters per year, while backmarsh
accretion rates were approximately
0.72 centimeters per year. Coupled
with subsidence, sea level rise is
estimated to be 0.3 meters per
century, further endangering
wetlands resources.
To address this national
resource crisis, the U.S. Congress
passed the Coastal Wetlands Plan-
ning, Protection, and Restoration
Act (CWPPRA) (P.L. 106-646) in
1990. The CWPPRA authorizes
appropriations for up to approxi-
mately $70 million dollars a year,
depending on small gasoline tax
revenue collections, to develop pri-
ority restoration projects. Under the
Act, a list of priority projects is sent
to Congress each year for projects
-------
HiGHLICH
gSSfflfgpm* ***ฃ,,, ->
flT HIGHLIGHT
to be funded and implemented
during the coming fiscal year.
In addition, the CWPPRA man-
dates a plan to restore coastal Loui-
siana. Possible options will be
presented in the Comprehensive
Coastal Restoration Plan for decreas-
ing wetlands loss and restoring the
Mississippi Delta. The Plan, currently
under development, divides the
delta into nine distinct hydrologic
units or basins. The overall plan
selects alternatives to aggressively
approach the rebuilding and main-
tenance of the coast by initiating
growth of a new delta through
enhancement of natural processes,
except in areas where erosion is
severe. Other strategies include
enforcing the barrier island chain as
a primary defense to protect inland
wetlands, decrease the advance of
saltwater intrusion, and decrease the
wave energy of the Gulf in the
marshes and estuaries. The major
objectives of this plan will be to
determine the maximum use of the
flow of sediment of the Mississippi
River; to create and sustain wet-
lands; to possibly curtail wetlands
loss; and to restore the first line of
defense-the barrier island chain.
In addition to the restoration
efforts in Louisiana, resource protec-
tion of wetlands may benefit across
the country through information
gained from this large-scale restora-
tion effort:
New restoration strategies and
techniques, as well as coastal
erosion prevention techniques that
are being developed and demon-
strated through this effort, may
provide viable restoration options
for other areas of the country.
Methodologies will be developed
to evaluate the relative benefits of
these environmental projects.
Intensive monitoring will allow
detailed analysis to determine the
success of individual restoration
project techniques and document
these techniques as successful in a
summary Report to Congress.
The intensive planning process
will be documented and planning
techniques may be transferred to
other areas of the country where
dramatic wetlands loss is occurring
or where intensive resources are
targeted to address wetlands loss
and degradation.
-------
290 Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs
Resources (DNR), SCS, and local
governments. The Governor of
Minnesota issued an Executive
Order in January 1990 directing all
State departments and agencies to
follow "no net loss" of wetlands
policy and requiring them to
protect, enhance, and restore the
State's wetlands to the full extent of
their authority. Minnesota reported
that it will be expanding its
antidegradation policy to include a
sequencing review process, requir-
ing avoidance/minimization of
impacts before considering a project
for approval.
The Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection (MDEP)
reported that unreported or
unpermitted wetlands alterations
continue to present a highly signifi-
cant problem. In response, it is
undertaking a pilot project in
Merrimack River Watershed that
combines legal assistance to
municipalities with an in-
creased focus on enforcement
actions with multiple resource
interests. MDEP also reported
that it has spent considerable
effort in coordinating wetlands
considerations within its depart-
ment and with other State agen-
cies. One area mentioned is its
role in revising the hazardous
waste site cleanup program to
ensure maximum protection of
wetlands. Massachusetts said that
the pressure to develop in wetlands
areas and buffer zones remains high
throughout Massachusetts with an
estimated 5,300 applications
expected to be received during
FY92.
Ohio reported that it applies its
antidegradation policy to wetlands,
which are classified as State resource
waters. Ohio EPA has denied 401
certification for fill projects and
reduced the scope of proposed
activities in wetlands by issuing con-
ditional certification. Two examples
of the types of conditions it is
requiring are: an unmaintained
buffer area around mitigation wet-
lands and existing wetlands and
extensive monitoring of water qual-
ity, sediment, vegetation establish-
ment, and hydroperiod for 5 years.
Wyoming reported that the only
mechanism it has at present to
require preservation of any particu-
lar wetland is to show that the
destruction of that wetland will
result in an exceedence of an
ambient water quality standard.
Opportunities and
Recommendations
from States
Several States identified chal-
lenges and opportunities for the
future and came up with specific
recommendations on how to
improve wetlands protection.
Hawaii recommended that wet-
lands protection would improve if
"wetlands planning" and "regula-
tory administration" functions were
consolidated into a single State
agency.
-------
Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs 291
Oregon reported that it lacks the
capability for assessing and monitor-
ing ecological and water quality
functions of wetlands. This inhibits
its ability to establish definitive
wetlands-specific beneficial uses and
criteria to protect those uses.
Alabama recommended that
activities that impact wetlands such
as draining and logging operations
be regulated in addition to
discharges.
Arizona recommended that the
Army Corp of Engineers' area of
interest be expanded to include the
100-year floodplain. In addition, the
State recommended that the COE
definition of wetlands be revised to
better accommodate arid climates.
Rhode Island suggested that
jurisdiction extend to some activities
adjacent to wetlands. To illustrate
the need for such protection, it
offered as an example the clearing
of natural vegetation adjacent to
wetlands. This can result in
decreases in the natural filtering
capacities of wetlands and in
concomitant increases in runoff
velocities and pollutant loads.
Florida said that the quantity and
quality of water delivered to wet-
lands is an issue and cited as the
most notable example the Florida
Everglades in southern Florida.
Louisiana called for a permitting
system in which requests are consid-
ered on the basis of the whole
landscape.
Wisconsin reported that the all or
nothing delegation of the Section
404 permit program to the
States is inflexible. Wiscon-
sin expressed concern that
it will become swamped by
the 404 permit process due
to its denial of nationwide
permits. Specifically, the State
feels that changes in the
COE's approach to permitting
is resulting in case-by-case calls
under 401.
Pennsylvania reported that it
will not change criteria for
wetlands until EPA comes out
with aquatic life criteria specifically
for wetlands.
Massachusetts reported that
more attention and effort must be
provided for long-term project
monitoring, especially for wetlands
replication projects.
Delaware reported that certain
activities allowed in wetlands
through nationwide permits have an
adverse cumulative impact. It gave
as an example a house built on
pilings in wetlands that must then
be connected to underground
utilities.
-------
292 Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs
Summary
More information on wetlands
car) be obtained from EPA's
Wetlands Hotline at
1-800-832-7828 (9 a-m- to
5 p.m., eastern standard time).
There are a variety of public
and private programs to protect
wetlands. A forum was held in 1987
to coordinate these and pro-
vide national direction in the
area of wetlands. Section 404
of the Clean Water Act is the
major Federal program for regu-
lating activities in wetlands.
Other important tools to protect
wetlands include wetlands water
quality standards, State water
quality certification, State wetlands
conservation plans, swampbuster
provisions of the Farm bills, as well
as incorporating wetlands consider-
ations into other programs.
States reported that they are
making progress in developing their
programs to protect wetlands, espe-
cially in the areas of application of
401 certification, development of
water quality standards for wet-
lands, and formation of more effi-
cient joint application procedures
for permits. Despite these efforts,
States reported that they continue
to lose wetlands and the pressure to
develop in wetlands remains high.
In addition, there is little known
about the quality of the remaining
wetlands. States put forward a vari-
ety of recommendations on how to
improve protection of wetlands,
including consideration of wetlands
on a landscape or ecosystem basis,
development of scientific tools for
States to assess and monitor eco-
logical and water quality functions
of wetlands, greater sensitivity for
arid climates, and regulation of
additional activities that impact
wetlands.
-------
Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs 293
-------
' '''1' '
"'"' -111""' ''""" "1"1"':" ป" '"'" " ซ """|1!l1" ll"111'!"111 '!""''" I'""11"""11 '"' " '!!;ป"" !|!'! i ""'! 1|;j!1|;;lll!:lll!1"!!lll!|l,i ! I*!! i11!!!!!*"!1'111! Tfl S"1 !' ",*f^^ | IlliflWlI'lirjlilP; Sj|l|lj|!j^^ W\,
-------
Ground Water
Protection Programs
The EPA is responsible for 20
programs related to ground water
protection. EPA has issued National
Guidance to assist States in develop-
ing Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs
(CSGWPPs), which are a key
component of the Agency's Ground
Water Protection Strategy. Several
concepts are fundamental to this
new approach to ground water
protection:
1. States have the primary responsi-
bility for ground water protection
2. The CSGWPP approach is
resource-oriented, using resource
protection needs to guide priorities
across programs, focusing on the
highest priorities first
3. In partnership with States, EPA
will organize coordinated Federal
interagency approaches
4. in organizing a coordinated
Federal approach, EPA will stress
development of consistent Federal
policies and regulations.
Comprehensive State programs
will be the focal point for long-term
joint commitments between the
Federal government and the States.
These programs promote a more
coherent and comprehensive
approach to protecting the Nation's
ground water resources, with
emphasis placed on preventing
contamination. State activities will
center on
Ground water protection goals
Resource characterization and
priority setting
Coordination mechanisms
Roles and responsibilities
Implementation programs
Data management
Public participation.
Federal programs will support
CSGWPPs by offering programmatic
and funding flexibility and by
targeting Federal efforts to better
address the unique needs and
priorities of each State. Highlights
of a number of Federal and State
ground water protection programs
are presented according to the
following protection categories:
resource protection, pollutant source
control, nonpoint source control,
and chemical product control.
Resource Protection
Ground water protection activi-
ties are addressed under the Clean
Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking
-------
296 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
Water Act (SDWA), the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the
Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), and the Pollution Preven-
tion Act (PPA).
Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection
Program
The CSGWPP approach
embraces all the above-mentioned
ground water protection activities.
As an integral part of the CSGWPP
approach, EPA is committed to
identifying or developing new
opportunities for State flexibility
within the Agency's various
ground-water-related programs.
For instance, under EPA's
regulations on municipal landfills
under Subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act,
States may make site-specific
decisions on landfill design or
monitoring requirements based, in
part, on the relative vulnerability of
the ground water. Decisions related
to corrective action at municipal
landfills may be based on the
underlying ground water's use,
value, and vulnerability.
EPA expects that the Agency's
endorsement of States' CSGWPPs
will be key to eliciting the involve-
ment and support of other Federal
agencies, as well as EPA programs,
in the CSGWPP process. The U.S.
Geological Survey, for example,
could target mapping of aquifer
recharge areas, studies of ground
and surface water interactions, and
other similar activities to areas of
high-priority ground water as identi-
fied by the State. Other Federal
agency programs, such as the
Department of Agriculture's Soil
Conservation Service, Extension
Service, and Cooperative State
Research Service, could similarly
focus technical assistance, educa-
tion, and research activities related
to ground water on State priorities.
EPA intends the CSGWPP
approach to be the catalyst for
fundamental changes in the devel-
opment and implementation of
ground water protection programs
at the Federal, State, and local
levels. These changes will lead to
increased integration of all ground
water protection efforts, linked by a
comprehensive resource-based per-
spective and State-directed priori-
ties. As a result, EPA anticipates that
coordination will be significantly
enhanced and ground water
resources will be protected more
effectively.
Clean Water Act
In the CWA (Public Law 92-500)
of 1972 and in the CWA Amend-
ments of 1977 (Public Law 95-217),
Congress provided for the regula-
tion of discharges into all navigable
waters of the United States. Ground
water protection is addressed indi-
rectly by several components of this
Act, specifically with respect to areas
where surface water and ground
water are hydraulically connected.
Funds allotted under Section 106 of
the CWA are intended to assist
States in the prevention and abate-
ment of surface and ground water
pollution. Section 104(b)(3) allows
grants to support State programs
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 297
that focus on pollution prevention,
reduction, and elimination. Grants
to facilitate the development of
water quality management plans by
States and regional comprehensive
planning agencies are allotted under
Section 604(b).
Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA (Public Act 93-523)
was passed by Congress in 1974
and amended in 1986 in response
to accumulating evidence that
unsafe levels of contaminants in
public drinking water supplies,
including ground water, were pos-
ing a threat to the public health.
There are several major provisions to
the Act that impact ground water
quality. The Act provides protection
to ground water through the estab-
lishment of drinking water stan-
dards, sole source aquifer designa-
tion, and the establishment of the
Wellhead Protection Program and
the Underground Injection Control
Program. Standards known as maxi-
mum contaminant levels (MCLs)
were developed under the SDWA
and also may be used for enforce-
ment in ground water monitoring
programs.
Drinking Water Standards
EPA, under the SDWA, seeks to
ensure that public water supplies
are free of contaminants that may
cause health risks and to protect
ground water resources by prevent-
ing the endangerment of under-
ground sources of drinking water.
EPA has pursued a twofold
approach, protecting drinking water
at the tap and preventing contami-
nation of ground water sources of
drinking water supplies. The 1986
Amendments provided for an
expanded Federal role in protecting
drinking water, mandating sweep-
ing changes in nationwide safe-
guards, and new responsibilities to
enforce them in the event of State
inaction.
EPA's strategy has been to usher
in a comprehensive level of drinking
water protection by maximizing
voluntary compliance through a
balance of enhanced enforcement
presence, pollution prevention, State
capacity building, mobilization of
local government support and inno-
vative partnerships. EPA has estab-
lished its implementation priorities
according to the degree of human
health risk, focusing on four classes
of contaminants with the highest
health risks nationwide: microbio-
logical pathogens, lead, radionu-
clides and disinfection byproducts.
Similarly, enforcement priorities,
embodied in the definition of
Significant Non-Compliance (SNC)
of Public Water Systems (PWSs),
have been risk based.
EPA has also focused on the
prevention of contamination of vul-
nerable ground water resources by
assisting States in the development
and implementation of comprehen-
sive ground water protection strate-
gies. These strategies address both
the full range of actual and poten-
tial sources of ground water con-
tamination and provide for wellhead
protection activities in the areas
around public water systems. In
addition, EPA has targeted specific
activities to protect drinking water
sources from the harmful effects of
injection of wastes and other fluids.
In particular, EPA is increasing
emphasis on the vast number of
diverse shallow (Class V) injection
-------
298 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
27 States
had EPA-approved
WHP Programs in place
by the end of 1992.
wells by developing new regula-
tions, and reviewing the permitting
of Class I hazardous waste wells.
Wellhead Protection
Program
The 1986 Amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act established
the Wellhead Protection (WHP) Pro-
gram. Under SDWA Section 1428,
each State must prepare a WHP
Program and submit it to EPA for
approval. The objective of this pro-
gram is to protect ground water
quality by identifying the areas
Figure 17-1
States with EPA-Approved Wellhead
Protection Programs
PR
American Samoa, Guam,
Northern Mariana Islands,
Palau, and Virgin Islands
States and Territories with EPA
Approved Wellhead Protection
Programs
around public water supply wells
that contribute ground water to the
well and managing the potential
sources of contamination to reduce
threats to the resource in that area.
By the end of December 1992,
a total of 27 States and Territories
had EPA-approved WHP Programs
in place (Figure 17-1). EPA is cur-
rently working with the remaining
States and Territories to help them
develop WHP Programs. EPA's
Office of Ground Water and Drink-
ing Water is supporting the devel-
opment and implementation of
WHP Programs with Wellhead Pro-
tection Demonstration grants and a
cooperative agreement with the
League of Women Voters (LWV). An
additional form of EPA-funded sup-
port is provided through the
National Rural Water Association
(NRWA) Wellhead Protection pro-
grams as depicted in Figure 17-2.
In fiscal years 1990-1992, EPA
awarded $3,400,000 in WHP
demonstration grants for a total of
116 projects. Through these
projects, municipalities and Ameri-
can Indian Tribes design and test
ground water protection approaches
that may be applied statewide in
developing and implementing effec-
tive WHP programs. In 1991, EPA
funded a 2-year cooperative agree-
ment with NRWA to promote
ground water protection. At the
conclusion of the first 18 months of
the NRWA program, over 550 com-
munities in 14 States were actively
involved in developing their own
WHP programs. Also in 1991, EPA
funded the first year of a 3-year
cooperative agreement with the
LWV. One objective of the LWV
program is to develop and test
models of community outreach in
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 299
18 communities, which are
designed to stimulate development
of WHP programs or similar ground
water protection programs.
According to the States' 305(b)
reports, WHP programs have taken
varying forms in different States.
Among the stages of WHP program
development reported by States are
Grants to communities to explore
and tailor WHP approaches
Mapping of sensitive ground
water protection areas
Establishment of mandatory WHP
programs to protect public water-
supply wells
Establishment of public education
and outreach programs
Establishment of specific protec-
tion criteria for wells tapping con-
fined aquifers and more stringent
protection criteria for wells tapping
unconfined aquifers.
Sole Source Aquifer
Program
The Sole Source Aquifer (SSA)
program was established under
Section 1424(e) of the SDWA of
1974. The program allows individu-
als and organizations to petition the
EPA to designate aquifers as the
"sole or principal" source of drink-
ing water for an area. EPA has
approved 58 SSA designations
nationwide and 12 petitions are
currently being evaluated for pos-
sible designation. An SSA designa-
tion authorizes EPA to review plans
for Federal financially assisted
projects in the subject area to deter-
mine the potential for aquifer
contamination that would create
significant hazards to public health.
After designation, no commit-
ment of Federal financial assistance
may be made to a project that is
found through EPA review to have
the potential to contaminate the
aquifer and create hazards to public
health. Federal financially assisted
projects eligible for review under the
SSA program may include highway
construction projects, animal waste
disposal plans, airport construction
approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration, deep water dredg-
ing projects proposed by the Army
Figure il 7-2
15 States
had established
NRWA Programs by
the end of 1992.
States with National Rural Water
Association Wellhead Protection Programs
American Samoa, Guam,
Northern Mariana Islands,
Palau, and Virgin Islands
States and Territories with NRWA
Wellhead Protection Programs
-------
300 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
Corps of Engineers, and subway
construction projects.
Between fiscal year 1991 and
fiscal year 1992, the number of
Federal financially assisted projects
reviewed for potential impacts on
designated sole source aquifers
grew while the number of projects
found to have potential impacts
declined (Table 17-1). This decline
could be attributed to an increased
awareness of potential ground water
impacts. Petitioners for and agen-
cies offering Federal financial assis-
tance are designing projects to
minimize potential adverse effects
on ground water.
In fiscal year 1991, EPA required
modifications to 25 projects and
denied approval to four projects
because of their potential to con-
taminate the sole source aquifer
over which they were planned. In
contrast, EPA required modifications
in only six projects and denied
approval of only one project during
fiscal year 1992.
Project modifications due to SSA
concerns include
Highway storm water drainage
system construction
Installation of clay/synthetic liners
for wastewater ponds and lagoons
Table 17-1. Status of Federal Financially Assisted Projects
Reviewed by EPA Under the Sole Source
Aquifer Program \
Fiscal
Year
1990
1991
1992
Number
of Projects
Reviewed
159
152
214
Number of Projects
Modified to
Prevent Potential
Contamination of a
Sole Source Aquifer
20
25
6
Number of Projects
Not Recommended
Due to Potential
Contamination of a
Sole Source Aquifer
0
4
1
Rehabilitation of water wells
Alteration of highway bridge
construction design
Installation of pollution abate-
ment equipment.
EPA denied approval to projects,
based on SSA concerns, that
submitted insufficient information
regarding ground water protection
or insufficient project plans to
ensure ground water protection.
State Ground Water
Protection Programs
States are currently working in
conjunction with Federal and local
agencies to provide the necessary
educational, financial, and technical
assistance required to restore
impaired water resources, to prevent
future impairment, and to evaluate
the effects of these activities on
ground and surface water resources.
Many States have reported on a
variety of activities intended to
address ground water contamina-
tion and the sources of these
contaminants. These activities
include adopting and implementing
best management practices and
ground water protection strategies,
enacting legislation aimed at the
development of ground water pro-
tection programs and coordinating
the efforts of local, State, and
Federal agencies in meeting the
goals of ground water protection.
The ground water protection
activities reported in State 305(b)
reports provide only a partial picture
of State efforts to protect ground
water. As an initial step in imple-
menting CSGWPPs, EPA and States
are developing individual State
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 301
assessments during fiscal year 1993.
These assessments will better
document the full range of State
ground water protection activities.
The principal State programs
and strategies that address ground
water protection are depicted in
Figure 17-3. These include agricul-
tural programs, septic tank pro-
grams, certification programs for
well drillers or pesticide applicators,
storm water runoff and erosion con-
trol programs, underground injec-
tion control programs, aquifer classi-
fication systems, ground water
standards, and strategies aimed at
controlling contamination from
industrial landfills and ponds.
Figure 17-4 shows ongoing
State ground water protection pro-
grams reported in 1992. Compo-
nents of State ground water protec-
tion programs are summarized in
Table 17-2. The table identifies
Ground water protection legisla-
tion that has been adopted or is
under development by State
governing bodies.
Figure 17r3
Types of State Ground Water Protection Programs
Septic Tank
Programs
Storm Water Runoff
and Erosion Control
Programs
Agricultural
Programs
Industrial
Landfills
and Ponds
Wellhead
Protection
Programs
Industrial Disposal
Well (UlC-Class V)
Aquifer Classification Systems
and Ground Water Standards
Water-Supply
Well
-------
302 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
Wellhead Protection Programs
that have been submitted, reviewed,
or approved by EPA
Ground water strategies or Com-
prehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program initiatives that
have been adopted or are under
development
State-specific ground water
protection standards
Statewide ground water monitor-
ing programs or initiatives that con-
sist of a statewide network of wells
periodically sampled and analyzed
for specific ground water quality
parameters
Aquifer classification or mapping
programs to characterize ground
water resource regions
Special programs or methods
that address the control or
remediation of specific contamina-
tion sources
The existence of a plan, advisory
committee, or task force established
to facilitate or coordinate inter-
agency ground water protection
programs
Controls or measures established
to address nonpoint source
contamination.
State Ground Water
Standards
Although many States have
used Federal drinking water stan-
dards to direct their ground water
protection activities, a number of
States have tailored standards to
their specific conditions. State
ground water protection standards
can be either narrative or numeric.
Numeric standards set health-based
maximum contaminant levels.
Narrative standards are adopted for
pollutants for which no numeric
standards have been adopted.
Minnesota updated their stan-
dards in 1990, adding 53 toxic
pollutants and a detailed set of pro-
cedures to establish criteria for add-
ing toxic pollutants. That State has
also set Recommended Allowable
Limits (RALs) that may be enforced
at a later time. Arizona has drafted
Health-Based Guidance Levels for
230 chemicals, including pesticides,
organics, metals, and other
inorganics in drinking water. A total
of 35 States reported the develop-
ment or implementation of State
ground water protection standards.
State Aquifer
Classification Systems
Thirty-one States report the
existence or development of pro-
grams to classify or map vulnerable
ground water supplies. State pro-
grams are combining elements of
Federal guidelines along with ele-
ments aimed at meeting the indi-
vidual State's needs and problems.
Ground water is classified by factors
such as the intended ground water
use, current ground water quality,
and hydrology.
Massachusetts currently classifies
its ground water according to its
most sensitive use. The three
ground water classes in Massachu-
setts are
Class I: fresh ground water des-
ignated as a source of potable water
supply
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 303
Figure 17-4
Ongoing Ground Water Protection Programs
of States and Territories Reporting
Agricultural Programs
Septic Tank Programs
Underground Injection
Control Programs
Certification Programs
Underground Storage Tank
Program
Ground Water
Standards
Aquifer Classification
System
Programs under development
or not reported in 1992
Note: This map excludes Wellhead Protection Programs. Not shown are American Samoa,
Guam, and the Virgin Islands. Programs in those Territories either were not reported
or are under development.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
304 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
C 0,1;
ISS
C o C
0^,0
5>ง
c a
8,1
g=s
^3
IS!
*ซj
ilii
tin
u
ซi^t,
llsl
B c 'ฃ tt
511*
O
Ground
Water
Protection
Standards*
la*
S*J!
Wellhead
Protection
Program
Bjj|
= - <3
85."
^^l1
1
S
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
1 DDDป
A A A n
I OปD
1 nปn
.S ._ a
H .i o .1
QJ to ra .c ~o
(j I 2 = ฃ
D
III*
1 1 Dปซ
1 nnปซ
ฃ>*
ซ ง = :1 S
Ill.il
a
ซ
!
ODD
3
-a 3 c S '5.
c -n ซ o a.
J y ป a ซ
1" 1 "5 c 'ป
S i 1 1 1
DปปปD
lซn'
1 n
oซoป
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 305
ซ3s
0 o
0^0
91 n
5? c
2 =5
V ^
^3
ro
1
1!
i- .ฐ We
u *; .ฃ ฃ
a= g 5.2
-- Q. Ol
ili't,
ill!
' c c tj
luls
o ซ ซJ^
o^ g I
n
no
D
a
I25
g 5 g t t
Z Z Z Z Z
ซDซ
a
D
an*
a
DD
a*
a**
= 1
S^ (U
re re a;
(J Q K
r-
i -
a
a
no
n
D
a a
E E,E
2 2 2
^g'g1
it i: o:
o n:
Z
-------
306 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
Class II: saline ground water
designated as a source of potable
mineral waters or as a raw material
for the manufacture of such prod-
ucts as sodium chloride
Class III: fresh and saline ground
water designated for uses other
than potable water supply.
People may request by petition
a specific use for a local ground
water resource. Ground water for
which no petition is received is
automatically designated as Class I.
Ground water quality standards and
protection guidelines are strictest for
water classified as Class I.
Pollutant Source
Control
Four principal programs control
pollutant sources under four differ-
ent laws: solid and hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal and
underground storage tanks are
regulated under RCRA; underground
injection of waste fluids is regulated
under SDWA; abandoned waste is
regulated under CERCLA; and
nonpoint sources are regulated
under CWA.
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (Public Law 94-580)
was passed by Congress in October
1976, amending the 1965 Solid
Waste Disposal Act to address the
problem of safe disposal of the
huge volumes of solid and hazard-
ous waste generated nationwide
each year. This Act authorizes a
regulatory program to identify and
manage wastes that pose a substan-
tial hazard to human health or the
environment. RCRA is a part of
EPA's comprehensive program to
protect ground water resources.
Protection is achieved through the
development of regulations and
methods for handling, storing, and
disposing of hazardous material and
through the regulation of under-
ground storage tanks.
Poorly managed or poorly
located municipal landfills rank high
among State ground water con-
tamination concerns. Of the quarter
million solid waste disposal facilities
in the United States, about 6,000
are municipal solid waste facilities.
Approximately 25% of these
municipal facilities have ground
water monitoring capabilities.
Solid and
Hazardous Waste
RCRA has evolved from a rela-
tively limited program dealing with
nonhazardous solid waste to a far-
reaching program that also encom-
passes the handling, storage, and
disposal of hazardous waste. Haz-
ardous waste generators, transport-
ers, and owner/operators of treat-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDFs) constitute the RCRA-regu-
lated community. On November 8,
1984, Congress passed the Hazard-
ous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) to RCRA, thereby greatly
expanding the nature and complex-
ity of activities covered under RCRA.
The goals of RCRA, as set forth
by Congress, are
To protect human health and the
environment
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 307
To reduce waste and conserve
energy and natural resources
To reduce or eliminate the
generation of hazardous waste as
expeditiously as possible.
RCRA also requires the promul-
gation of standards related to
underground storage tank systems
for both chemicals and petroleum
products.
In 1990 and 1991, RCRA pro-
grams continued to emphasize the
preparation of risk assessment docu-
ments and development and evalu-
ation of tests and procedures for
conducting risk assessments. Health
and Environmental Effects Docu-
ments, Reference Doses, and techni-
cal evaluations are provided to sup-
port the RCRA waste listing, permit-
ting, and land disposal restriction
programs. The 1990 program
emphasized the development of
health and environmental effects
documents for the listing/delisting
programs and reference doses for
the land disposal restriction
program. In addition, techniques for
determining soil gas concentrations
and constituents and for determin-
ing ground water contamination
potential were evaluated under field
and laboratory conditions. Guide-
lines for monitoring ground water
around RCRA Subtitle D landfill
facilities are being developed.
Underground Storage
Tanks (UST) Program
The EPA is working with State
and local governments to develop
support for, and improve the effec-
tive management of, USTs. To facil-
itate compliance with UST
regulations, EPA is developing stan-
dard test procedures for leak detec-
tion equipment. These standards
will allow tank owners to choose
equipment that meets EPA require-
ments. In addition, a nationwide
marketing campaign is being con-
ducted to promote resource-efficient
methods for State monitoring of
owner/operator compliance. The
EPA continues to support the devel-
opment of State UST regulations
and encourages States to apply for
UST program approval. The Agency
also provides technical advice and
assistance in the development and
implementation of State UST data
management systems.
Under the UST Program, EPA
also assists municipalities by provid-
ing guarantees to local owner/
operators and by encouraging the
development of State assurance
programs and loan funds. Loan
programs may be used by tank
owners to upgrade or replace tanks,
thereby preventing many leaks from
ever occurring. These guarantees
and assurance programs help
owner/operators to meet their finan-
cial responsibility requirements.
In 1990 and 1991, EPA issued
final regulations on corrective
action, leak detection, and technical
performance standards for new and
existing tanks that contain petro-
leum products and hazardous sub-
stances. Final regulations concerning
financial responsibility requirements
were also issued. EPA also negoti-
ated UST grants with all States and
provided technical assistance and
guidance for implementation and
enforcement of UST regulations.
-------
308 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
State Underground
Storage Tank Programs
About 400,000 of an estimated
5 to 6 million USTs and associated
piping are thought to be leaking.
About 30% of all tanks store petro-
leum or hazardous materials. Each
State, under RCRA requirements, has
designated a State agency that reg-
isters new and existing USTs. Thirty-
three States have reported that they
have UST regulations in place or
under development that are no less
stringent than Federal regulations.
State agencies involved with UST
regulations vary, including fire, envi-
ronmental, public health, or labor
departments.
State-reported strategies include
annual registration, strict installation
requirements, and monitoring stan-
dards. They also include oversight of
owner and operator compliance
with Federal UST technical and
financial responsibility requirements.
Several States require permitting for
USTs. Pennsylvania requires all USTs
with a capacity greater than 110
gallons to be permitted. Permits are
given only to tank owners who
comply with State and Federal
siting, design, leak detection, and
operation requirements. They also
provide a guidance document for
tank owners and operators.
Several States, including Virginia
and Minnesota, maintain a UST
database. Minnesota's database of
USTs contains known and potential
sources of ground water contamina-
tion. Virginia's database tracks
upgrades, repairs, and closures of
USTs.
Safe Drinking Water Act
Pollutant source control is
addressed under the SDWA through
the Underground Injection Control
(UIC) program.
UIC Regulations
EPA's UIC program was devel-
oped to regulate underground injec-
tion wells and fluids and thereby
ensure that underground sources of
drinking water are protected. Injec-
tion wells are classified as follows:
Class I: Wells used to inject
hazardous substances or industrial
and municipal waste beneath the
lowermost formation containing a
source of drinking water. There are
approximately 80 hazardous waste
wells at 175 facilities controlled by
stringent design, construction, and
operating requirements.
Class II: Wells used to inject
fluids in the process of oil or natural
gas production. These more than
170,000 disposal and enhanced
recovery wells return brines back
down to deep formations.
Class III: Wells used to inject
fluids for the purpose of in situ
mineral extraction.
Class IV: Wells used to dispose of
hazardous or radioactive waste into
or above an underground drinking
water source. These wells are
banned.
Class V: Injection wells not
included in the above classifications.
These wells include more than
100,000 shallow injection wells such
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 309
as those used to dispose of waste
from automotive service bays.
Grants allotted under Sections
1443(b) and 1451 of the SDWA
may be used to support DIG activi-
ties to protect ground water
resources. State and Federal DIG
programs include permitting and
review of permits to ensure that
wells meet requirements for well
construction, operation, monitoring,
plugging and abandonment, and
financial responsibility to ensure
underground sources of drinking
water are not endangered. Section
1422 provides EPA with authority to
grant primary enforcement authority
(primacy) to States to administer a
UIC program in their States. Section
1425 allows an alternative test for
EPA to use to approve of a State's
UIC program for oil and brine (Class
II) wells.
UIC Programs
EPA and the States currently
administer 57 UIC programs to
maintain regulatory coverage of the
more than half million underground
injection wells. The majority of these
programs are State-administered, as
depicted in Figure 17-5. State agen-
cies with primary enforcement
authority respond to UIC violations.
If a response cannot be made in a
timely manner, EPA takes enforce-
ment action.
In 1990 and 1991, EPA contin-
ued to review "no-migration" peti-
tions for hazardous waste injection
wells to ensure conformance with
RCRA and UIC provisions. EPA has
targeted specific enforcement, out-
reach, and regulatory activities to
protect drinking water sources from
the harmful effects of injections of
wastes and other fluids through the
vast number of diverse Class V injec-
tion wells. EPA Regional offices
administering UIC programs in
nonprimacy States continue to
review permit applications for injec-
tion wells, and continue oversight of
State primacy programs to ensure
that UIC permits issued meet
program requirements. Regional
offices also continue to review peti-
tions from operators of hazardous
waste injection wells seeking
exemptions from the injection ban
under Part 148.
Figure;! 7-5
Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Programs
Guam and Northern
Mariana Islands
American Samoa, Palau,
and Virgin Islands
State Program
EPA
Split EPA/State Program
-------
310 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and
Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act, more popularly
known as "Superfund," was passed
by Congress in December 1980 to
deal with threats posed to the
public by abandoned waste sites.
Approximately 33,000 sites have
been identified as abandoned
hazardous waste sites, of which
42% involve ground water contami-
nation. With the Superfund Amend-
ments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986, CERCLA has
assumed a larger role in the cleanup
of hazardous waste sites. The main
objectives of CERCLA, as established
by Congress are
To develop a comprehensive
program to set priorities for clean-
ing up the worst existing hazardous
waste sites
To make responsible parties pay
for those cleanups whenever
possible
To set up a Hazardous Waste
Trust Fund for the twofold purpose
of performing remedial cleanups in
cases where responsible parties
could not be held accountable and
responding to emergency situations
involving hazardous substances
To advance scientific and techni-
cal capabilities in all aspects of
hazardous waste management,
treatment, and disposal.
Grants to States are allotted
under Section 104(b) of CERCLA.
These funds are intended to support
implementation, coordination,
enforcement, training, community
relations, site inventory and assess-
ment, administration of remedial
activities, and legal assistance relat-
ing to CERCLA implementation.
Nonpoint Source Control
Funds allotted under Sections
319(h) and (i) and 518 of the CWA
are intended to assist States in
implementing EPA-approved
nonpoint source management
programs and ground water protec-
tion activities. At least 10% of each
State's annual work under these
programs should be devoted to
priority ground water protection
activities. These activities include
assessing and characterizing ground
water resources, delineating well-
head protection areas, aquifer
recharge areas, and zones of signifi-
cant ground water surface water
interactions, establishing a basis for
priority protection needs, and
addressing ground water protection
priorities.
State Nonpoint Source
Control/Agricultural
Programs
As the need for American farm-
ers to increase their productivity
rises so does concern about agricul-
tural nonpoint source pollution. Of
the 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides
produced annually in the United
States, 77% is applied to land in
agricultural production. Twenty-
seven States have reported that they
have either full-scale agricultural
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 311
programs or best management
strategies in place. Most of these
programs focus on controls for
nitrate and pesticides.
Arizona, along with several
other States, regulates concentrated
feeding operations, nitrogen fertil-
izer application, and agricultural
applications of sludge. They also
review registered pesticides to deter-
mine if their applications have an
unreasonable adverse effect on the
environment. When pesticide resi-
dues are detected in drinking water
supplies in Hawaii, the Chairperson
of the Board of Agriculture and the
Director of Health must suspend,
cancel, or restrict the use of that
pesticide. Numerous States reported
current monitoring of ground water
near agricultural regions conducted
to determine the need for future
programs and strategies.
Educating the public on how
farming operations and other land
activities may cause pollution is a
key component of most State
ground water protection initiatives.
Kentucky implemented a program
that includes instructing farmers on
use of agricultural best management
practices. The program also affords
water-well users an opportunity to
have their water tested for nonpoint
source contaminants. New York
incorporates water quality in farm-
level planning, provides technical
assistance to farmers, and develops
educational programs that heighten
awareness of water quality problems
that can result from improper land
management.
Approximately 23 million
domestic septic systems are in
operation in the United States.
About half a million new systems
are installed each year. State septic
tank programs incorporate strategies
to protect ground water from
contamination. Strategies include
certification of septic tank installers,
construction, siting, operation, and
maintenance guidelines. A variety of
State agencies are responsible for
enforcing septic tank regu-
lations including fire
marshals, planning
boards, and local and
State health departments.
In New Jersey, septic
tank regulations are
enforced by the Local Plan-
ning Board. They must
approve construction plans
for individual sewage dis-
posal systems and regulate multiple
connections to a single septic
system. The Ohio Department of
Health (ODH) regulates the siting,
design, operation, and maintenance
of septic tanks. New Mexico
requires that each system include a
treatment unit and be situated in
conformance with local and State
siting standards. When necessary,
New Mexico officials modify the
State's standards on a case-by-case
basis.
Chemical Product
Controls
The Toxic Substances Control
Act and the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
control the use and disposal of
commercial products thereby mini-
mizing the risks to public health and
the environment.
-------
312 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
Toxic Substances Control
Act
The Toxic Substances Control
Act (Public Law 94-469), enacted
by Congress in 1976, brought sig-
nificant changes in the day-to-day
operation of the U.S. chemical
industry. With TSCA, EPA was given
the authority to identify and control
chemical products that pose an
unreasonable risk to human health
or the environment through their
manufacture, chemical distribution,
processing, use, or disposal. To
enable EPA to monitor the market-
ing of new chemicals, TSCA
requires manufacturers to sub-
mit premanufacture notices on
new chemical substances.
EPA is authorized to take a
variety of steps to protect against
threats to human health or the
environment by the introduction
or unrestricted use of new chemi-
cals. Such steps include publication
of the chemical inventory, informa-
tion-gathering authority, and
permitting access to manufacturing
data that could assist in the devel-
opment of source inventories for
ground water protection planning
and investigation.
The Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act
Under FIFRA, the EPA may deny
registration for a pesticide if its nor-
mal use will result in unreasonable
adverse effects on ground water
quality. A number of ground water
protection initiatives have been
undertaken in support of FIFRA. In
1991, EPA put forth a Pesticides
and Ground Water Strategy that
establishes the policy framework for
using the regulatory authorities
available under FIFRA to implement
ground water protection principles.
The practical objective of this Strat-
egy is the prevention of ground
water contamination by regulating
the normal use of certain pesticides.
Grants to States are available
under Section 23(a)(1) of FIFRA,
These funds are intended to
promote the enforcement of pesti-
cide compliance and ground water
protection programs.
Pesticides and Ground Water
Strategy
EPA's Pesticides and Ground
Water Strategy describes the
national policy framework for
addressing the risks of ground water
contamination by pesticides. The
Strategy discusses EPA's authority
under a number of statutes, but
focuses on the use of FIFRA author-
ity to achieve the Agency's goals for
the protection of ground water
from pesticide contamination.
This Strategy emphasizes
prevention and protection of the
Nation's ground water resources
and provides a flexible framework
for tailoring programs to the condi-
tions in different geographic areas.
The centerpiece of the Strategy is
the development of State Manage-
ment Plans for pesticides that may
pose environmental concerns. The
management plan approach affords
States the opportunity to manage
the use of pesticides so as to protect
the ground water resource.
EPA has worked with States to
develop a framework for the devel-
opment of comprehensive State
Management Plans that will focus
on the protection of ground water
resources. The management plan
approach will allow States the
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 313
flexibility to tailor pesticide use and
ground water protection programs
to local conditions. States have been
encouraged to develop this man-
agement framework in the form of
"generic" management plans. In
1993, EPA plans to release a list of
chemicals for which pesticide-
specific management plans will be
required. The Pesticide State Man-
agement Plans may subsequently be
integrated with State Comprehen-
sive Ground Water Protection
Programs.
Prevention of Ground Water
Contamination by Restricting
Pesticide Use
Classifying a pesticide for
Restricted Use limits its use to certi-
fied applicators or supervision by
certified applicators. Certification
depends upon completion of
required training concerning the
proper handling and application of
pesticides with the potential to con-
taminate ground water. Restricting
use to certified applicators has three
practical results for the reduction of
ground water contamination:
Reduction in the population of
pesticide users
Education of the certified users to
reduce the ground water contami-
nation risks
Training and experience in
proper mixing and loading of pesti-
cides to reduce the chances of spills
or other potential ground water
contamination hazards.
Therefore, Restricted Use classifi-
cation is intended to reduce both
the risks of some "point source"
causes of ground water
contamination as well as nonpoint
source causes of contamination.
Pollution Prevention
The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 was enacted by Congress to
promote pollution prevention and
environmental protection goals.
Under this Act, the EPA Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics and
the USDA Cooperative State
Research Service have worked coop-
eratively to lead the Nation in the
development of environmentally
sound agricultural policies. The Agri-
culture in Concert with the Environ-
ment Program promotes the use of
sustainable agriculture and the inte-
grated management of nutrients,
pesticides, resources, and wastes to
reduce the risks of environmental
pollution. Grants allotted under this
Act may be used to fund outreach
projects involving education, dem-
onstration, and training in sustain-
able agriculture and other agricul-
tural practices that emphasize
ground water protection and reduc-
ing the excessive use of nutrients
and pesticides.
Grants are also available under
this Act to support State and local
pollution prevention programs that
address the reduction of pollutants
across all environmental media: air,
land, surface water, ground water,
and wetlands. These grants may be
used to promote and coordinate
existing State pollution prevention
activities that focus on specific
media, to develop new multimedia
pollution prevention programs, to
develop mechanisms to measure
progress in multimedia pollution
prevention, and to conduct educa-
tion and outreach programs.
-------
314 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
EPA Management of
Ground Water Data
A number of mechanisms have
been developed to manage the
ever-growing volume of information
on the Nation's ground water
resources. These include the devel-
opment of a standard nomenclature
for reporting ground water data,
the development of geographic
information systems (GISs) to inte-
grate ground water data that have
been collected under different
programs, and the development
and management of two databases
concerning pesticides and ground
water.
Minimum Set
of Data Elements
In keeping with EPA's Ground
Water Protection Strategy for the
1990s, the Agency has identified
the need to improve the collection,
accessibility, transfer, and use of
information on the Nation's ground
water resources. Therefore, the
Agency has established a Minimum
Set of Data Elements (MSDE) for
Ground Water Quality. The MSDE
are intended to improve access to
ground water data and to increase
information sharing capabilities by
standardizing the elements used in
ground water database develop-
ment. The MSDE is implemented
when States, Federal agencies, or
other officials are creating or updat-
ing ground water quality databases.
The 21 data elements in the mini-
mum set are divided into four
categories:
General descriptors pertaining
to where the well information is
maintained
Geographic descriptors pertain-
ing to the location of the well in
relation to the earth's surface
Well descriptors pertaining to
construction details and other
features of the well
Sample descriptors pertaining to
aspects of sample collection, analy-
sis, and recording of the results of
ground water sampling.
These elements represent the
minimum data elements that States
and Federal agencies should include
during ground water information
collection and reporting activities. In
addition, formats and conventions
for reported data are presented as
examples to guide the development
of standardized databases and facili-
tate data sharing.
Cross-Program
Integration Approach
Using CIS
EPA recognizes that it is critical
for the Agency to integrate its
ground water protection programs
and provide assistance to the States
as they seek to build State and local
capacity. States have the responsibil-
ity to implement a number of Fed-
eral programs that may impact the
quality of surface-water and ground-
water resources. For this reason, a
project has been undertaken in the
EPA's Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water to integrate the
information obtained in a number
of Federal programs (Public Water
Supply, Underground Injection
Control, Wellhead Protection, and
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program) and to
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 315
demonstrate how these programs
complement and support each
other in protecting ground water
and drinking water.
The specific goals of the project
are to use CIS to investigate the
types of ground water data needed
to facilitate State, Regional, and
national programs and support the
development of Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection
Programs and to assess the applica-
tion of existing data to characterize
the contamination threats to the
Nation's water supplies. Information
on ground water and surface water
contaminants will also be used to
investigate perceived threats to
drinking water supplies and to
target critical geographic areas for
ground water protection activities.
The multiyear project will involve
the analysis of data from six study
sites that characterize a number of
potential ground water contamina-
tion threats and various hydrogeo-
logic regimes. It is further hoped
that the project will demonstrate an
approach for linkage to the USGS
NAWQA program and selected
State monitoring programs.
Pesticides in Ground
Water Database
The Pesticides in Ground Water
Database was created by the EPA's
Office of Pesticide Programs to pro-
vide a more complete picture of
ground water monitoring for pesti-
cides in the Nation. It is a collection
of ground water monitoring studies
conducted by Federal, State, and
local governments, universities, and
private institutions. The focus of
these studies must include the
analysis of samples for pesticide
residues. The Pesticides in Ground
Water Database consists of monitor-
ing data and auxiliary information in
both computerized and hard copy
form. The computerized portion of
the database consists of files describ-
ing the study, each monitoring well,
and information on ground water
samples. This portion of the data-
base is a part of the Pesticide Infor-
mation Network (PIN), a computer-
ized collection of files that contain
pesticide monitoring and regulatory
information in an electronic bulletin-
board format. The EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs is planning to
publish a summary report of the
data in the Pesticides in Ground
Water Database on approximately
a yearly basis.
Prevention of Ground
Water Contamination
from Pesticides:
Information Systems
for State Use
The development of State Man-
agement Plans to implement the
Pesticides and Ground Water Strat-
egy will require technical informa-
tion and tools to predict vulnerabil-
ity of ground water to pesticide use.
Some information and tools are
available, and others can be devel-
oped, to locate problem areas and
develop strategies for management
of pesticides on a State or local
level. These tools include models to
predict the leaching of pesticides to
ground water, data on soil proper-
ties and other relevant environmen-
tal factors, GISs for integrating infor-
mation spatially, and monitoring
strategies for detecting and tracking
pesticide movement in the
-------
316 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
subsurface. The EPA's Office of
Research and Development has
undertaken a set of projects to pro-
vide the technical tools that States
may use to develop and implement
locally meaningful pesticide
management plans. These projects
include:
Development of a user-friendly
model or screening system for locat-
ing vulnerable soils within a State
Identification of, and guidance
to, the access of useful national
databases
Development of guidance on
using CIS for pesticide management
Development of guidance on
monitoring strategies considering
temporal, spatial, and environmen-
tal factors affecting pesticide occur-
rence and transport
Enhancement of the PIN to
include additional databases and
sources of information useful to
States.
This work is based on the best
available knowledge and is being
coordinated with related projects
and research on the effects of agri-
cultural chemicals on water quality
at EPA and other Federal and State
agencies.
USGS Ground Water
Quality Investigations
The USGS initiated the Na-
tional Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) pilot program in 1986.
In 1991, the USGS began the tran-
sition from the pilot program to a
full-scale program. The NAWQA
program is designed to address
national and regional water quality
concerns through comparative stud-
ies in a variety of hydrologic
systems. Study-unit investigations of
60 areas that include most major
river basins and aquifer systems
have been initiated. Goals include
providing nationally consistent
water quality information to define
long-term water quality trends and
describing the primary factors affect-
ing the Nation's surface and ground
water quality. An ongoing goal of
the NAWQA program is to facilitate
data exchange, communication,
and coordination among the USGS,
water resource managers in agen-
cies at Federal, State, and local
levels, as well as other interested
scientists.
National issues being addressed
by the NAWQA Program focus on
the degradation of water quality
from nonpoint sources of pollution.
Specific issues being addressed in
many of the study-units focus on
pesticides, nutrients, and sediment.
Several specific questions related to
pesticides that will be addressed by
the program include:
What are the occurrences and
concentrations of pesticides in
selected river basins and aquifer
systems nationwide?
What is the relation of pesticide
concentrations in surface and
ground water to natural factors,
changes in hydrologic conditions,
pesticide use, chemical properties,
and land management practices?
What significance do key findings
have on current water quality moni-
toring, management, and regulatory
practices?
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 317
EPA Publications About Ground Water Protection'
USEPA. 1993. Guide for Cost-effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analysis of State and
Local Ground Water Protection Programs. EPA 813R/93-001. Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1992. Case Studies in Wellhead Protection: Ten Examples of Innovative
Wellhead Protection Programs. EPA 813R/92-002. Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1992. Final Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
Guidance. EPA 10OR/93-001. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Best Management Practices for Protecting Ground Water: Facilities
Using Storm Water Drainage Wells, Improved Sinkholes, and Industrial Drainage
Wells. EPA 570/9-91-036M. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Best Management Practices for Protecting Ground Water: Facilities
Using Special Drainage Wells. EPA 570/9-91-036N. Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Managing Ground Water Contamination Sources in Wellhead
Protection Areas: A Priority Setting Approach. EPA 570/9-91 -023. Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Protecting Local Ground Water Supplies Through Wellhead
Protection. EPA 570/9-91 -007. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Protecting the Nation's Ground Water; EPA's Strategy for
the 1990's: The Final Report of the EPA Ground Water Task Force. EPA 21Z-
1020. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990. Citizen's Guide to Ground Water Protection. EPA 440/6-90-004.
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990. Guide to Ground Water Supply Contingency Planning for Local
and State Governments. EPA 440/9-90-003. Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990. Progress in Ground Water Protection and Restoration. EPA440/
6-90-001. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1989. Wellhead Protection Programs: Tools for Local Governments. EPA
440/6-89-002. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1988. Developing a State Wellhead Protection Program: A User's Guide
to Assist State Agencies Under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA 440/6-88-003.
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1987. Guidelines for Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas. EPA
440/6-87-010. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1985. Protecting Our Ground Water. EPA 440/6-85-006. Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1984. Protecting Ground Water: The Hidden Resource. EPA 440/6-84-
001. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1975. Manual of Water Well Construction Practices. EPA 570/9-75-
001. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
-------
318 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
-------
Part W
Costs and Benefits of
Water Pollution Control
-------
-------
Costs and Benefits of
Water Pollution Control
Introduction
Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act calls for States to prepare
estimates of the economic and
social costs necessary to achieve the
objectives of the Act. States are also
requested to report on the eco-
nomic and social benefits of these
achievements. This section draws
upon the information submitted by
States and developed by EPA and
other Federal agencies concerning
the benefits and costs of water
pollution control.
None of the States and Territo-
ries reporting on their water quality
programs attempted to describe the
full extent of economic benefits and
costs associated with progress made
in improving and protecting water
quality conditions.
Instead, studies have been
undertaken on either a State, local,
or regional scale to generate benefit
and/or cost information for more
specific water quality issues. Most
studies of this type analyze a limited
number of beneficial outcomes asso-
ciated with water quality changes
occurring within a given watershed,
lake, or estuary. The results of these
studies are used to assess implemen-
tation options or to provide a
means of evaluating the effective-
ness of water quality control -
programs. EPA and the States and
Territories have had to rely upon
such studies in order to provide
information on the economic
benefits and costs of water quality
controls.
This chapter presents informa-
tion both prepared by EPA and
reported by the States in their
305(b) reports that pertains to the
economic costs and benefits of
water quality protection programs.
This information does not present a
comprehensive view of conditions
throughout the Nation but illus-
trates the types and magnitude of
benefits and costs that result from
water quality control programs in
specific situations.
EPA and the States are taking
many steps toward transforming the
305(b) process into one that pro-
vides comparable data with known
accuracy. These steps include imple-
menting the recommendations of
the National 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup and the Intergovern-
mental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality, as well as improving
the Section 305(b) guidelines and
implementing the Office of Water's
Monitoring Strategy. These efforts
will foster consistency and accuracy
among the States and allow for
better sharing of data for watershed
protection.
Costs
Estimates of the economic costs
of water quality programs include
public and private expenditures for
-------
322 Chapter Eighteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
personnel and equipment used to
reduce and treat discharges to
waterbodies and governmental
expenditures for developing, imple-
menting, and enforcing water qual-
ity regulations. Previous 305(b)
reports have included tables snow-
ing national cost estimates prepared
by the EPA and the U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce. These tables
Table 18-1. Total Annualized Costs of Water Pollution Control
for the United States (millions of 1986 dbllars)|
Program
Point Source
Nonpoint Source
Drinking Water
Total
1972
8,543
567
802
9,912
1980
20,726
647
1,982
23,355
1987
27,546
779
2,765
31,090
1990
36,075
823
3,591
40,489
1995
44,162
893
5,350
50,405
2000
52,537
959
6,563
60,059
Source: U.S. EPA, Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment -
A Summary, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, December 1990, Table 3-3,
page 3-3. Updated and revised based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Pollution
abatement and expenditures: 1972-1990, in Survey of Current Business, June 1992.
Table 18-2. Total Annualized Costs of Environmental Protection
in the United States (millions of 1986 dollars)
Program
Water
Land
Air and Radiation
Multimedia"
Chemicals
Total
Percent of GNPb
1972
9,912
8,412
7,826
107
92
26,349
0.87
1980
23,355
13,449
17,218
868
889
55,779
1.52
1987
31,090
15,716
22,562
687
773
70,828
1.70
1990
40,489
31,159
26,755
1,580
1,608
101,591
2.13
1995
50,405
40,973
35,187
2,122
2,466
131,153
2.53
2000
60,056
51,535
42,390
2,299
2,886
159,166
2.80
* Includes costs not attributable to individual media programs (e.g., EPA management
and support, Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, and undesignated
non-EPA Federal costs.
bGNP s Gross National Product using the GNP implicit price index.
Source: U.S. EPA, Emiromnental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment -
A Summary, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, December 1990, Table 3-3,
page 3-3. Updated and revised based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Pollution
abatement and expenditures: 1972-1990, in Survey of Current Business, June 1992.
are reproduced here with some
minor modifications to reflect
additional information and changes
in methodologies followed in cost
calculations conducted by the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
As displayed in Table 18-1, the
costs for water quality controls
(both point source programs and
nonpoint source programs) con-
tinue to constitute the largest por-
tion of water pollution control
expenditures (91% as of 1987).
Water quality costs are those associ-
ated with actions taken to meet the
Marine Protection, Sanctuaries, and
Research Act of 1972 and the Clean
Water Act as amended in 1987.
Nonpoint source expenditures
are those incurred to control pollu-
tion from sources such as land
runoff, precipitation, drainage, and
seepage, including agricultural
storm drainage and irrigation return
flows. As shown in the table, expen-
ditures for point source controls
account for the lion's share of the
expenditures for improving water
quality. Although the table includes
estimates of expenditures for
nonpoint source controls, there is
much uncertainty associated with
this estimate. Estimates of expendi-
tures for point source controls, on
the other hand, are much more
reliable.
Total annual water pollution
costs (including drinking water
protection expenditures) have
increased steadily over time, from
about $9.9 billion in 1972 to $40.5
billion in 1990 (in constant 1986
dollars). The majority of historical
point source control costs are for
sewerage services and wastewater
treatment and for control of indus-
trial effluents and the pretreatment
of wastewater discharges to
-------
Chapter Eighteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Contra] 323
municipal treatment facilities. Future
costs are projected to reach $60
billion by the year 2000. Much of
the projected increase is attributable
to additional drinking water regula-
tions and the need to construct
backlogged municipal wastewater
treatment facilities. Future cost
increases to control nonpoint
sources are also anticipated, but the
magnitude of this increase is highly
uncertain. Therefore, the forecasted
increase in nonpoint source controls
is based on increases associated
with recent trends for changes in
nonpoint source expenditures.
Several other environmental
statutes expressly recognize that
pollution sources regulated under
their protection programs can con-
tribute to changes in water quality
conditions. For example, the 1990
amendments to the Clean Air Act
contain sections that call for air
quality controls that will reduce the
effects of acidic deposition and the
delivery of other toxic materials to
affected waterbodies. Measures
taken to reduce runoff and leakage
from landfills .and underground
storage facilities under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act can
prevent the contamination of
surface and ground water supplies.
The regulation of toxic chemicals
and pesticides under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act and the Toxic Substances
Control Act can prevent the deterio-
ration of natural ecosystems and
enhance recreational and commer-
cial fisheries. Table 18-2, which
describes the costs of all pollution
control programs, gives some
perspective on the magnitude of
pollution control expenditures in the
United States. The relevant propor-
tion of these costs that can be
directly or otherwise related to
water quality improvements has not
been computed. But, as the esti-
mates in Table 18-2 indicate, water
Table 18-3. State and Federal Expenditures for Water Pollution Control in Pennsylvania, 1987-1991 :
(thousands of dollars) '';'- :
Year
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Total
EPA New
Grants
78,083
107,261
41,398
34,116
32,137
292,995
EPA Grant
Exp.
Expds.
109,973
1 35,225
69,691
83,987
51,473
450,349
FHA
Grant
Expds.
3,861
4,615
4,565
5,533
1 3,554
32,128
Federal
Dept. of
Comm.
Expds.
1,000
600
1,180
950
0
3,730
PADER
Act
443
Expds.
49
637
249
8
5
948
PADER
Act
339
Expds.
18,920
19,865
20,934
23,778
27,21 1
110,708
PADER
Act
537
Expds.
1,868
1,961
1,037
2,097
1,103
8,066
PA
ARC*
0
200
0
0
0
200
PA
Dept. of
Comm.
Expds.
4,314
6,558
0
5,146
935
16,953
PENN
VEST
Loan and
Grant
Obligat.
162,508
152,525
110,251
128,243
553,527
Source: 1992 Pennsylvania 305(b) report, Table 23, page 128.
* Appalachian Regional Development Act.
Note: EPA new grants column refers to EPA's delivery of grants to the State in that year. EPA grants expenditures column refers to the State's
actual use of grant funds during that period and prior years. Thus, the grants and expenditures in any one year will not necessarily be
equal.
-------
324 Chapter Eighteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
Table 18-4. Washington State Expenditures for Water Pollution Control (millions of dollars)
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Manufacturing Industries Water
Pollution Control Costs
Capital
Expend-
itures
16.4
No data
21.7
45.4
No data
No data
No data
No data
Operating
Costs
90.3
No data
113.8
112.2
No data
No data
No data
No data
Payments
for Public
Sewage
Services
13.0
No data
15.7
21.9
No data
No data
No data
No data
State and
Local
Govern-
ment
Sewerage
Expenses
286.6
441.5
433.4
346.0
369.4
No data
No data
No data
State and Federal Financial
Assistance Grants and Loans
Centennial"
Clean
Water
Fund
10.6
22.6
60.0
80.0
41.5
No data
" CWA
Construc-
ion
Grants
10.9
17.5
51.9
22.2
18.7
48.8
State
Revolving
Fund
16.0
20.0
41.5
No data
WA State
Depart-
ment of
Ecology
Annual
Funding
No data
No data
3.4
5.5
6.3
7.0
9.0 (est.)
9.0 (est.)
Source: 1992 Washington State 305(b) report, Tables V-5 to V-8, pp. 183-186.
Table 18-5. Wastewater Treatment System Expenditures and Ohio River
Water Quality Improvements
Ohio
River
Mile
Point
138.2
142.6
155.1
171.0
172.2
175.7
183.3
183.3
183.3
185.7
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
Sisterville
Friendly
St. Mary's
Marietta
Williamstown
Central Boaz
Ohio County
Parkersburg
Vienna
Belpre
State
WV
wv
WV
OH
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
OH
Dollars
Spent
2,221,000
2,859,598
787,668
7,114,580
2,523,700
3,131,600
4,928,806
19,951,500
960,867
2,069,974
Monitoring
Station
Mile
Point
161.8
203.9
Water
Quality
Trend
Improving
Improving
Biological
Indicator
NA
No trend
NA = Not available (insufficient data).
Source: Adapted from Table 20, pages 40-41,1992 Ohio Section 305(b) report, Ohio EPA, 1992.
-------
Chapter Eighteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 325
quality programs alone make up a
significant portion (35% to 40%) of
the total estimated expenditures for
all environmental programs in the
United States.
Given the scarcity of State infor-
mation, it is not possible to develop
comprehensive estimates of environ-
mental expenditures for all States.
However, several States produced
information on the costs of water
quality control programs. Two of
the more comprehensive presenta-
tions were supplied by Pennsyl-
vania's Department of Environmen-
tal Resources and Washington's
Department of Environmental Con-
servation (Tables 18-3 and 18-4).
The costs demonstrated in these
two tables are not necessarily repre-
sentative of expenditures in other
States, but illustrate the variety of
Federal, State, local, and privately
funded and administered activities
aimed at protecting water quality.
Benefits
Like previous State Section
305(b) reports, the 1992 submis-
sions do not fully describe the eco-
nomic and environmental benefits
associated with water quality
improvements in the States. States
continue to focus their reports on
measurable physical, chemical, and
biological changes in water quality
and estimated changes in physical
loadings from point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. Few States
have used this information in their
305(b) reports to estimate the
effects of changes in water quality
conditions on economic activities,
and fewer still attach values to these
economic activities in a manner that
allows for a comparison between
the economic costs and benefits.
Additional information on costs and
benefits related to the Clean Water
Act may be found in President
Clinton's Water Initiative: Analysis
of Benefits and Costs (EPA800-R-94-
002, March 1994).
Following are three examples
that demonstrate how States have
responded to requests for informa-
tion on the economic benefits of
their programs. They show the
spectrum in the use of information
and economic theory in the prepa-
ration of State benefit analyses.
The Ohio River Commission
examined long-term trends in moni-
toring data for total suspended
solids (TSS) and total Kjeldahl nitro-
gen (TKN) and their relationship
with wastewater treatment dollars
spent through the Construction
Grants Program. In Table 18-5, the
category of dollars spent refers to
monies allocated from 1977
through 1991 for publicly owned
treatment works discharging directly
into the Ohio River. The dollar
amount may include additional
State and local funds as well as
monies spent for project planning,
collection system improvements,
and other areas not directly result-
ing in improved effluent quality.
Further, some monies allocated
during this period may not have
been spent, while monies allocated
prior to 1977 are not reported but
may have been spent during the
report period. The trend data refer
to median decreases in TSS and
TKN concentrations measured using
the Commission's monitoring pro-
gram. These data illustrate the rela-
tionship between construction
expenditures for wastewater treat-
ment and water quality improve-
ments in the Ohio River.
-------
326 Chapter Eighteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
Arizona described a specific water
quality action for which the benefits
and costs of the decision were not
calculated in dollars but were
described in qualitative terms. This
action demonstrates some of the
issues that relate to the weighing of
benefits and costs associated with
water quality programs. In this
particular case, the circumstances
revolved around the reclassification
of a waterbody as a Unique Water
with the adoption of the new State
Surface Water Standards in January
1992. The Arizona report indicates
that the costs of the actions include,
but are not necessarily limited to,
the following:
public acquisition of private
land for the preserve
limitation of land use options
on adjoining properties to
the preserve
request to eliminate grazing
permits along the waterbody
cleanup of petroleum-tainted
soils in a railroad right-of-way
development of a mainte-
nance and emergency
response plan by the railroad
restoration of a contaminated
well
plans to develop and imple-
ment potential roadway spill
runoff from an adjacent
highway
chemical and biological
monitoring of surface and
ground water quality and
flow levels
State resources to develop
site-specific water quality
standards
revegetation of areas
damaged by construction,
mining, utility corridors, and
transportation rights-of-way.
The potential benefits to con-
sider measuring from this action
include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the following:
protection of one of two
remaining perennial streams
in the Tucson area
maintenance of an area used
for geological, ornithological,
and botanical research and
education
land management cost sav-
ings afforded by consolida-
tion of land holdings
reduced costs of flood
protection insurance
protection of a rare ecologi-
cal system and habitat for
local and migratory species
protection of high-quality
drinking water sources
provision of suitable habitat
for future reintroduction of
endangered native species.
The Arizona report notes that
some of the costs were inevitable. In
such cases, the benefits should not
be solely attributed to the process.
In such instances, some means must
be developed to correctly attribute
both benefits and costs to policy
decisions, or the information must
be caveated in such a way as to
make this known to policymakers
and the public.
Pennsylvania described the eco-
nomic value of fishing and boating
using information on the number of
fishing and boating permits and
studies performed by the Pennsylva-
nia State Data Center. In this study
an estimated 3,333,000 persons
participated in recreational fishing
with expenditures totaling $1.35
billion on equipment, supplies,
-------
Chapter Eighteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 327
food, lodging, fuel, and other
goods. In addition, some 2,981,000
State residents participated in boat-
ing activities and spent $2.878
billion in this activity.
While these expenditures
provide significant revenues and
income to the State economy, it
would be incorrect to argue that
the economic benefits of these
activities have been achieved only
by improving particular water-
bodies. In the absence of these local
recreational and boating opportuni-
ties, most of these individuals would
probably be engaged in some alter-
native activity or choose to recreate
elsewhere, which would also gener-
ate expenditures on their part. How-
ever, the fact that people choose
local waterbodies when they are
available reveals that such water-
bodies are valued by the citizens.
The Greater Benefits
of Water Quality
Programs
As the preceding discussion
makes clear, information on benefits
is rather sparse. Nevertheless, it is
also clear that protection of the
Nation's waters is important to indi-
vidual citizens and the economy as
a whole. This section provides some
perspectives on particular economic
sectors dependent on water pollu-
tion control efforts to maintain their
vitality.*
Recreational Fishing
An estimated 46 million Ameri-
cans participate in recreational fish-
ing. In 1985, they spent 976 million
days on the water. Most of these
days (84%) were spent freshwater
fishing, with saltwater fishing
accounting for 16%. Recreational
fishers spend about $32 billion
annually on tackle, gear, boats,
lodging, transportation, and related
expenses.
Clean water is essential to
preserving recreational fisheries and
local communities that depend on
them. An example is the Great
Lakes fishery. Sport fishing contrib-
utes about $4 billion annually to the
economies of the Great Lakes
States. However, fishing bans and
advisories have adversely affected
fishing along 4,808 of the 5,382
miles of Great Lakes shoreline.
Boating
In 1989, one out of three
Americans participated in boating,
and approximately 16 million boats
are registered in the United States.
Expenditures on boating were
approximately $13.7 billion in 1990.
The recreational boating industry
employs about 600,000 workers,
including 242,000 manufacturing
workers, 184,000 workers in marine
wholesaling and retailing operations,
and about 174,000 workers em-
ployed by marine service businesses.
* Information in this section is drawn from Clean Water and the Economy: An Overview, Office of Water, EPA, August 1992.
-------
328 Chapter Eighteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
Although high levels of water
quality are not absolutely necessary
for safe boating, poor water quality
may restrict access. Even where
poor water quality does not deter
boating, there is little doubt that
water pollution such as floatables,
odor, and algae growths detract
from the pleasures of boating.
Commercial Fishing
Approximately 274,000 Ameri-
cans are commercial fishers and
90,000 workers are employed in
seafood processing and related
activities. In 1990, the U.S. catch
was valued at $3.6 billion, and this
sector's total contribution to GNP
was approximately $16.5 billion.
Pollution of the Nation's rivers,
lakes, bays, and estuaries has direct
and indirect impacts on the com-
mercial fisheries. Short-term effects
include fish kills and advisories or
bans that limit access. Long-term
impacts include adverse impacts on
spawning grounds and nurseries.
Shellfish are extremely vulnerable to
water pollution, which has severely
affected much of the country's
prime shellfishing grounds. Of the
17 million acres of estuarine waters
monitored in 1990, 25% were pro-
hibited for shellfishing and another
12% were in restricted or condi-
tional status.
-------
Appendix A
Individual State Data
Rivers and Streams
-------
A-2 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
Table A-1. Overall Designated Use Support in Rivers and Streams (miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Amcffcan Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California"
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
CRa River Ind Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana1
towa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey*
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Onto"
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
%of Assessed Waters
Fully Supporting
Eval- MonI- Not
uated tored Specified
7,478 1,323
1,165
467 349
2,322 1,315
713
15,725 7,984
215 172
44 43
2,168 2,880
1,165
tfm ft]
rota!
8,801
t!5":
i;816 ,
asf
713
A70?,,
IS 387-
S? 87
1 5,048' '
|!i]65
2,370 3,568 Ef^sS
1,153 3,595 JJSIf8;,,,
228 670 iSS"8"9"8"
3,916 2,572 - KW
1,979 408 m&&7
20,620 10,580 p1,200
14,372 1,317 JJSSI*
200 188
21,299
99 989
1,958 191
7,398 3,642
46,732 804
458 1,660
128 204
2,073 8,541
35 278
43,978 3,094
8,682 4,242
180
1,368 1,244
537 37
12,330 322
12,790 7,351
285 3
206
2,842
66 548
3,432 1,666
10,381
2,582 1,711
2,808 305
2,266 12,155
605 1,016
126 587
7,818 1,516
15 747
ILOSS
few
31,040.
14,7,536
f 2,1 18
1*332.".
ifi,614
1=^ ;
in 3t3
!z,oi2
iP'924
| 180
(2,612
n__
KS71
I2-652
JSU41
pa.288
IT 206
2,842
p6l4
ซf
,4,293
f&,113
34,421
1*MT-_
..1,621
S713
-9,334
r-762
232,220 113,921 14,142 fe60,283,
64% 32% 4% PR56%
Threatened
Eval- Moni- Not fe^7
uated tored Specified jT.otal
!22 '89
182 138 ~~
90 82
5 247 Jts252'
48 2
179 175
273
281 96
108 386
69
1,885
113 120
1,021 550
2,620 615
40 104
1,022
_ 50
1,304 92
9,866 1,967
4,783 1,926
108 411
3,136 386
' 577 13
282
921 854
975 172
369
44 324
92 7
826 388
29,698 9,748 1,620
72% 24% 4% 1
-:.:,;,,50
E3S.4.
S273"
".377
TS191
fifg^
pSSj
iSSS7
Eป
|a
ง335"
mi,
tmfttffifht,
ml.1!1:,1!.!: "1
HI
HiSO"
fr396
11,833;
*6;709
!"; 519
P;522
f-'JSO.
1x282
E
ps?
jUHij,
PJ
frj- / ,.
i^e'
S3' 6%'
Partially Supporting
Eval- Moni- Not f
uated itored Specified (
923 1,320
251 1,040
1,061 569
1,366 826
4,367
1,173 193
30 238
2 46
3
669 1,152
251 1,040
61
7,066 1,570
2,400 5,1 73
154 189
8,609 443
62 644
226 762
116 3,260
58 153
349 911
80 183
476 679
30,002 1,573
5,930 3,705
9,144 3,397
590 3,375
334
_ 80
329
556 2,400
2,759 194
6,392 2,215
210 2,074
794 901
79 420
2,1 75
7,381 1,321
364 1,573
862 98
32
648
275 672
1,408 1,559
1,356
915 265
687 103
94 2,357
535 525
248 3,100
1,141 185
2,285 1,264
97,973 56,259 6,793
61% 35% 4%
E9*1 *'
frofal
[1,291
jt.l, ,...
&lSrfP>flซ
a,64s
gj92.
RW"
H 366
gV4s
rT,82T
Kwr
: 61
3fcsiM_
LS/636
ฃ573_
fe343
65-052.
fcป706.
ir988
3,376
4~211
W7260
263
F1.155
531,575
S635
8,2,531
11,965
a=334
SftffW
B/953
8,607
2,284
fl,695
S8,702
fa ,937
t960
r-32
L. 648
pSSI!'
- :
laawsseu,
Su.,M".
P;348
P",326,:
P/549, .
a,i,pa5
^ฎfe_:
'Entered aquatic life use support data in lieu of overall use support data.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-3
Table A-1. (continued)
Not Supporting
Not Attainable
Total Assessed
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not
tored Specified
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not
tored Specified
Eval-
uated
Moni-
tored
Not
Specified
384
168
1,070
971
653
1,430
625
662
8,907
419
2,780
4,659
3,385
3,635
1,681
2,803
1,703
5
236
417
58
423
283
18,601
341
285
5,679
8,594
552
518
206
248
168
35
564
1,430
135
3,090
419
137
38
4,843
3,635
59
2,698
73
60
22
666
123
1,244
414
77
90
10,295
4,843
1,648
8,739
15
2,693
9,137
5,124
1,243
77
7
319
755
11
21
15,492
1,874
686
250
31
297
4,461
4,735
20,689
14,742
16,806
5,277
4,354
10,983
2,259
270
152
396
125
25
418
1,139
1,994
434
315
663
152
971
33,106
13,353
909
22,438
3,662
2,748
7,662
1,004
108
87
5
361
1,726
629
142
45
59,500
1,196
215
2,078
164
5,177
6,865
1,212
8,763
1,515
5
288
1,032
1,910
265
20
664
1,167
596
48,329
25,972
4,993
4,180
2,993
3,400
9,088
4,180
3,723
40
7
4,926
173
2,605
442
768
2,829
2,500
932
145
119
3,680
24,637
13,327
4,329
376
862
3,366
4,472
11,424
1,046
289
110
342
891
173
1,932
643
464
2,370
1,193
42
451
6,103
4,388
4,643
3,954
3,152
4,722
14,107
3,169
622
21
551
280
391
1,065
2,036
577
187
488
2,381
2,060
698
9,442
3,126
15,577
3,577
4,588
1,895
2,887
24,836
31%
51,985
65%
3,561
1
1%
47
77
385,241
232,308 25,332
36% 4%
-------
A-4 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
Table A-2a. Aquatic Life Use Support in Rivers and Streams (miles)
state
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Onto
Onto River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
8,631
802
4,019
713
22,243
616
580
206
12
5,048
490
5,938
4,748
2,829
7,208
31,514
15,698
894
21,412
1,918
2,196
11,037
42,350
1,479
731
10,768
4,022
49,254
12,924
238
2,612
19,859
751
298
3,347
12,941
4,634
2,298
1,007
9,302
327,567
60%
Threatened
221
793
316
56
3
252
277
273
377
508
72
280
1,003
3,121
527
1,039
809
11,833
6,983
518
282
688
227
368
69
30,895
6%
Partially
Supporting
2,024
1,178
2,119
4,367
1,366
182
81
3
1,822
61
1,761
7,573
343
9,323
2,152
1,121
1,141
146
430
31,501
9,638
36,058
3,888
354
73
216
1,502
8,607
1,983
1,694
608
1,937
1,577
12
334
554
1,162
451
3,323
1,150
143,815
26%
Not
Supporting
939
1,584
764
283
2,166
38
138
23
811
135
147
196
1,304
141
12,122
780
158
161
209
1,178
1,160
435
340
3,377
317
357
164
251
164
1,696
3,077
373
2,673
2,359
128
309
579
1,761
276
592
875
44,540
8%
Not
Attainable
710
3
82
77
8
116
45
13
1,054
<1%
Total
Assessed
11,815
4,357
6,902
5,679
26,485
895
802
206
38
7,933
278
2,675
1 3,980
6,849
9,980
17,103
9,181
31,672
1 7,000
1,529
22,590
3,508
35,251
21,015
84,906
6,211
1,487
10,841
1,419
4,273
51,729
35,060
9,204
7,901
981
24,751
5,375
665
3,990
14,074
7,557
3,025
5,290
11,409
547,871
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305{b) reports.
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-5
Table A-2b. Fish Consumption Use Support in Rivers and Streams (miles) i
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
8,624
6,716
3,154
22,243
9
778
200
-
1,350
4,417
515
278
9,057
5,207
31,436
16,940
418
21,884
182
19,959
95
10,827
51,457
12,924
1,471
14,144
23
155
966
245,429
84%
Threatened
221
230
59
-
121
9
439
11,833
332
13,244
5%
Partially
Supporting
2,024
39
1,880
1,366
66
28
1,503
236
60
1,194
745
28
13
93
137
8,607
509
321
981
110
122
20,062
7%
Not
Supporting
952
147
68
2,166
2
24
6
467
331
77
20
125
2,380
300
706
485
312
135
1,696
231
894
389
68
11,981
4%
Not
Attainable
710
8
-
718
<1%
Total
Assessed
11,821
6,902
5,332
26,485
136
802
206
28
1,817
4,748
721
298
9,182,
9,090
31,672
17,000
727
22,590
1,861
21,016
562
10,840
93
51,729
35,060
509
2,124
981
14,375
917
654
1,156
291,434
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
A-6 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
Table A-2c. Swimming Use Support in Rivers and Streams (miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Onto
Onto River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
8,674
1,295
5,375
2,576
9,422
557
61
206
5,048
1,131
1,617
937
1,960
1,543
3,408
31,544
16,999
649
22,188
1,696
595
5,370
68,251
546
870
10,694
316
51,343
800
252
1,247
843
1,094
2,000
11,221
2,022
1,230
3,387
278,967
68%
Threatened
140
224
8
79
252
524
415
166
214
504
80
82
340
6,645
2,141
469
124
12,407
3%
Partially
Supporting
2,047
434
296
204
37
3
1,822
61
574
1,478
127
1,761
3,540
265
2,409
337
488
1,472
14,272
479
220
40
6
295
200
2,307
159
1,053
1,316
166
1,141
189
1,163
40,361
10%
Not
Supporting
943
399
783
60
50
615
35
811
135
89
560
3,246
293
11,306
1,697
3,273
128
2
365
402
1,324
126
1,773
1,338
331
147
405
9
30
2,145
587
2,496
120
1,668
12
624
463
38,790
10%
Not
Attainable
3
51
135
8,173
15,645
13,073
45
37,125
9%
Total
Assessed
11,804
2,352
6,158
2,940
9,422
893
764
206
38
7,933
331
2,318
3,655
4,310
10,642
16,806
3,505
9,090
31,672
17,001
1,517
22,590
3,508
2,407
21,015
84,800
15,436
1,466
10,841
525
322
51,729
1,370
9,204
3,551
4,624
5,375
2,286
14,030
2,034
2,043
5,137
407,650
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-7
Table A-2d. Secondary Contact Recreational llse Support in Rivers and Streams (miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
8,681
289
6,902
5,112
21,743
846
781
1
61
1,466
24
9,476
5,328
31,544
1,240
22,188
25,115
3,768
50,587
12,924
252
1,548
3,545
51
2,022
1,416
4
216,914
77%
Threatened
140
131
649
60
418
343
11,833
8,952
25
454
23,005
8%
Partially
Supporting
2,024
389
1
56
38
225
5,538
2,550
116
8,827
70
799
8,607
1,578
279
6
358
38
31,499
11%
Not
Supporting
939
639
3
13
27
24
1,791
1,212
128
107
402
870
14
1,696
1,796
109
12
315
10,097
4%
Not
Attainable
3
116
669
788
<1%
Total
Assessed
11,784
1,448
6,902
5,113
21,799
890
794
28
61
2,364
24
16,805
9,090
31,672
1,523
22,590
35,346
3,852
51,729
35,060
9,204
694
5,376
3,933
57
2,034
2,089
42
' 282,303
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
A-8 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
I i
Table A-2e. Drinking Water Supply Use Support in Rivers and Streams (miles) i
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
818
211
6,037
2,287
16,213
90
62
206
244
665
1
6,192
47
22,551
3,160
8,770
339
11
785
1,026
2,731
594
257
427
29,109
1,138
8,598
8,303
3,800
1,842
126,514
57%
Threatened
64
12
7
13
5
15
83
1,313
9
155
2,085
1,683
51
504
5,999
3%
Partially
Supporting
799
33
239
77
109
1
559
6,261
2
180
221
1,233
1,867
557
61
2,246
138
330
14,913
7%
Not
Supporting
139
832
1
2
4
196
2
10,054
12
39
742
33
2
13
159
167
53
1,486
237
11
237
14,421
7%
Not
Attainable
15,353
196
10,684
1 7,855
15,417
59,505
27%
Total
Assessed
818
1,213
6,902
2,538
31,566
98
77
206
325
392
774
10,693
16,805
74
22,590
83
21,015
17,086
15,756
44
789
1,228
376
6,208
4,144
981
592
29,109
5,374
8,598
8,678
3,811
2,409
221,352
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-9
Table A-2f. Agriculture Use Support in Rivers and Streams (miles) |
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
79
1,624
6,742
3,443
31,225
828
702
196
2,717
21,094
2,141
31,672
17,000
22,590
11,598
2,103
11
3,515
51,729
12,924
4,933
462
29,109
8,598
5,936
272,971
84%
Threatened
717
5
306
- --
351
11,833
3,592
89
16,893
5%
Partially
Supporting
146
557
40
2
6
35
1,900
4,729
538
8,607
679
73
114
1 7,426
5%
Not
Supporting
133
723
160
'
8
12,765
448
56
33
47
1,696
9
1,284
1 7,362
5%
Not
Attainable
15
710
1
726
<1%
Total
Assessed
373
3,621
6,902
3,483
31,935
836
702
6
196
3,066
21,094
16,806
31,672
17,000
22,590
17,126
2,159
44
4,100
51,729
35,060
9,204
633
29,109
8,598
7,334
'
325,378
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
A-10 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
| Table A-3. Leading Causes of Pollution in Assessed Rivers a|id Streams (miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Ctta River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
towa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Onto
OhtoRivcrValley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total River Mites Impaired
% of Impaired River Miles'
Affected by Each Cause
% of Assessed River Mites
Affected by Each Cause
% of Total River Miles
Alfected by Each Cause
Total Impaired Miles
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
3,280
2,889
3,325
3,825
4,650
3,486
331
707
38
2,633
2889
196
12000
7,769
1,647
9,488
16,205
3,181
4,817
472
1,312
951
1,291
3,545
32,134
9,975
13,906
5,799
1,050
227
493
3,226
3,261
10,303
2,284
4,772
981
2,950
16,457
4,610
4,497
177
1,112
2,989
3,952
3,726
3,264
1,005
3,537
3,647
4,205
1,904
4,037
19,037 222,370
Siitation (1)
Mod/ Not 1"" '"
Major Min Specified potal
382 1,036
2,277 117
327 1,671
35
1
181 6,598
40
8,364 1,121
810 109
97 771
139 831
EW8
*ft:i^-
2?394
mt
t,::S5
'tshsfn" 1
!=;ซ==
JJS^W"
Hi,1!!;! ,!]:!
S^f
flt*^
B35S
^f9
ft '40
K3&5"
6m*
mm
SSI
W7..Q.
169 37
340 29,085 RlS
4 7,225 ||gj2.9-
303 6,497 ESQJt
810 1,322 - tep3ฃ.
2'3^ v* 3,94T m
691 1,129 E'820
720 1,040 fXW
1,142 ง1,142
725 2,575 &360
1,260 mgBG
- - - pi
110 275 1
463 367 1
90 |
is
Bilte^
&-90"
37 435 K472
543 2,880 K323*'
493 2,662 pj;f55
3,225 |ง3,225
20,295 70,404 8,426 pD'25
9% 32% 4%
3% 11% 1%
1% 2% <1%
ฃ45%,
flM,
LS, ,,,.,,
is. 3%
Nutrients (2)
Mod/ Not 6 " '
Major Min Specified jirTotal
497 1,446 pftT"'
141 649
312 375 IpW""'
410 208
277 407 =
= = =
lifted
982 6,584 Jjpgg "
31 9,034
270 92 _ BgH
828 2,008
374 878 fJSsT"^
834 29^077 ff^fp"
104 5,628 KJ7-'Sf~.,,
553 2,230
759 1/118 ~~ BS?^--
147 2,530
I 1 ^ B
220 264
302 494
514 2,395
9,027 69,891 2,722 ESW
4% 31% 1% KES"
1% n%
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-11
Table A-3. (continued)
Pathogen Indicators (3)
Major
298
5
175
173
30
94
669
18
32
1,086
157
2,644
392
11,520
1,702
926
62
66
334
62
166
490
1,029
67
81
49
231
249
151
2,346
56
472
795
1,563
12
54
811
309
93
13%
5%
1%
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
377
219
157
1,529
25
32
37
249
723
183
648
1
49
2,374
64
956
370
26
1,819
8,880
1,600
78
240
1,082
608
218
200
1,359
27
243
796
790
345
1,325
1,395
70
405
656
885
155
126
29,477 29,505
1,822
13%
1%
5%
1%
Pesticides (4)
Major
Mod/
Not
Min Specified
128
243
145
2,040
124
11
78
245
161
66
116
8,292
2,808
172
1,785
472
101
32,479
572
606
3
36
37
132
811
65
66
418
271
368
492
2,614
380
71
63
366
5
56
10
277
99
130
169
273
8,769 48,826
486
4%
22%
1%
1%
Organic Enrich./ Low Dissolved O^gen (5)
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
522
46
796
382
66
76
3
45
69
82
10
52
80
5
338
72
14
557
110
149
653
16
1,430
45
59
2,981
588
530
117
124
56
2,216
106
106
36
84
81
157
22
225
25
1,231
23,774
37
47
45
8
11
932
790
86
34
27
131
10
2,374
80 -
888
- 507
219
781
128
611
915
485
17
639
300
10
16
679
361
125
119
345
319
196
14
149
458
589
399
1,158
603
184
516
11,803
40,865 1,810
5%
18%
1%
6%
1%
(continued)
-------
A-12 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
| Table A-3. (continued) ' ] j
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gfla River Indian Comm.
Guam
HawaH
Idaho
Illinots
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsyhania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total River Miles
Impaired
% of impaired River
Mites* Affected by
Each Cause
% of Assessed River
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
% of Total River
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
Metals (6)
Mod/ Not fT'.: .:
Major Min Specified petal"
37 382 I*"1 419
241 950
24
396 460
873 706
70 47
34 28
3 16
838 92
14 1,187
440 130
165
9,683
225 18
102 132
3 3
54 155
175 7
250 1,801
204 1,085
13 45
565 3,979
474
134
1 5
1
501 1,199
41 217
324
857
501 655
1,505
73 812
2,061
450 486
130 3
18
85
911 30
16 45
234 503
50 1,019
555 1,925
97 83
374
18,097 21,151 2,759
8% 10% 1%
3% 3% <1%
fell'1'
3*579"
|:32"
If=19
ill!
iilsTo"
ties
law;
SSii
115209; .
ง,182 .
5289
Ite474'
jwf-jj*
_!_,_ -t
fos
"324
-857
T,S05
lil-
C.I33
' 941
iJisi:
'USD,
: 374
tf!L;
iMiUA
! :
งปป;;;'
;;:;-;:
Suspended Solids (7)
Mod/ Not "
Major Min Specified Total
!_
113 529
74 jp 74
- 22 - It 22
EL*.
28
77 195 pฃ272"
t ;
66 715 [--781
53 180 ' งR*233
8,025 124 งง3'49
32 4 gfef 36
609 2,084 |IP53~
fcr""*
80 Z^gO
949 ฃฃ94ฐ
331 273 "SBW
338 6,747 &!?85
60 315 1T375
182 611
194 660 |-854
1 2 pU-3
703 1,651 &3S4
3 fr 3
1,087 772 f^859
32 43 iSr 75
36 |gซj6
201 vZffl
19 P*ป 19
13 40 ~~ fc~53
299 S^299
11,916 16,474 906 ง9,296
5% 7% <1% P^3^)
2% 3% <1% &$%
F
<ป ซ <ป p
Salinity/TDS/Chlorides (8)
Mod/ Not ^~ ":':.-:
Major Min Specified JJ 'Total
18 563
34 87
- - - I
_ _ _
106
13
8,619
178 20
301 1,585
15
1 6
10 653
13 1,324
431 5,449
31
135 106
98 250
26 429
176 495
22 13
41 8 880
28
3
7
391 855
280 63
1,194 124
4 1
49 I
13 1
881 1
3!ffi&
-
106"
8.619
1,13?
SSH"*' |("""
BTJ-C*
H?
3:2%
28
ffS>,
343"*"
^j tlT Q
il/3 I o
*
USSsSir
?ป 4
|l
12,371 13,154 909 ^,434^,
6% 6% <1% feซ|2?5 "
2% 2% <1%
:
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-13
Table A-3. (continued)
Habitat Alterations (9)'
How Alterations (10)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
101
29
61
227
70 1,500
143
211
449
212
1,197
35
177
28
655
98
320
24
305
83
516
4
476
4
78
3
31
4,497
102
10
2
50
314
66
5,264
103
552
635
6,686
204
45
603 1,584
639
716
38
207
402
537
89
272
313 277
1,480
18
15
773
154
10
1,355
211
199
222
199
112
56
88 405
1 62
517 2,482
485
298
24 19
266 1,231
694
4,098 19,112
2% 9%
1,965
4,067 11,338
2,051
1%
1%
3%
1%
1%
2%
-------
A-14 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
| Table A-4., Leading Sources of Pollution in Assessed Rivers ahd Streams (miles) 1
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Glla River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
% of Impaired River Miles1
Affected by Each Source
% of Assessed River Miles
Affected by Each Source
% of Total River Mites
Affected by Each Source
Total Impaired Miles
States Not States
Reporting Sources Reporting Sources
3,280
2,889
3,325
3,825
4,650
3,486
331
707
38
2,633
2,889
196
12,000
7,769
1,647
9,488
16,205
3,181
4,817
472
1,312
951
1,291
3,546
32,134
9,975
13,906
5,799
1,050
227
493
3,226
3,261
10,303
2,284
4,772
981
2,950
16,457
4,610
4,497
177
1,112
2,989
3952
3,726
3,264
1,005
- 3,537
3,647
4,205
1,904
4,037
19,530 221,877
Agriculture (general) (1)
Mod/ Not E_
Major Min Specified ฃ Total
300 1,018
1,563
2,509 204
2,472 2,568
585 1,503
46
20 662
162 1 518
_ _
1,827 5,202
512
8,689 773
18,742
1,214 563
2,602 2,794
72 63
362 669
4 32
148 74
27,492 1,827
7,142
8,108
4,346
822
1
2,550 367 1
1 264 938 1
5,777 I
1,518 3,468 I
630 1,312 ง
PC318"
f 1,563
fe,713
S7640
aogs
fen
1 680
i- i
|i
ป462
|f$
ฃ396
rife
JF 36
d22
|pl9
ฃ8,108
14,346
~ 822
nuwwwr
EPT>
tPฐ^
K777
14,986
"t 1,942
1,308 fff,M
4,015 L 4,01 5
9,305 fasOS
674 fSf674
408 601 pl,d09
36 I
395 213 I
1,356 1,745 I
151 |
184 974
446 766
432 452
214 1,838
257 692
831 2,548
2,478
1E.36
E.T1S58
P101
Sftn-'-j.
fc_151
mi
fei 884
-2,052
G%q
3379
*2,4"78
63,801 43,917 51,635 ^SJ,353
29% 20% 23% fT'72%
10% 7% 8% 1*^25%
ffi
2% 1% 1% PPf4%
Natural (2)
Mod/ Not JE-
Major Min Specified t Total
22 103
3 177
IPiso^
fK
- 10 - - |glfil,~
34
56 69
|3=34~
Wjm~
9,004 8 jlplT'l
215 836 IfiplrF"3
59 ^ =
8 3,145 jRTIII"*
__ ar-j^^,,
427 7,701 - E?|SL_.
- 1'isf - Easr
68 123 |
77 116
709 870
57
4,232
137
_ _ _
1,192 1,080
731 20
2,566 1,274 I
116 181
9 825 I
120 162 1
- 1,854 !
1191 _
tsฑf#!^&ป>^
!';""'"gU
Si"
^f^jl': ' "
iMS7~.
psT
!MI,
M^a^i^iT
I273TV
fc75Y:""
0E.
pip
^r
15,473 18,044 6,425 jjjffir^
7% 8% 3%
2% 3% 1%
<1% <1% <1%
fee"1:;
lii::- '
wiii, in.* (
re'-.-'/'HiB
'Includes onry impaired river miles in States reporting sources affecting rivers and streams
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305{b) reports.
Total Impaired River Miles in States Reporting Sources: 221,877 miles
Total Assessed River Mites: 642,881 miles
Estimate of Total River Miles in the Nation: 3,551,247 miles
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-15
Table A-4. (continued)
Municipal Point Sources (3)
Major
,321
126
80
113
1
32
448
378
292
177
3,962
1,287
501
14
1
49
55
383
231
20
46
38
235
37
1,704
190
14
166
1,086
53
107
19
129
242
2%
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
629
187
448
96
64
168
675
209
2,644
507
201
165
1,995
85
177
294
6
403
1,565
31
1,373
983
16
129
185
792
645
59
87
28
129
33
442
109
373
592
1,212
822
341
StlF
259
655
12,546 18,558
1,255
iisi
1%
3%
1%
Urban Ruhoff/Storrri Sewers (4)
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
84
249
126
591
151
132
380
24
1,681
382
1,242
1,409
2,852
73
1,364
27
366
463
82
628
530
83
48
209
2
607
32
636
1,352
408
408
483
56
218
52
267
133
256
150
110
100
269
521
338
128
103
8,647 14,070
1,690
6%
1%
1%
2%
Resource Extraction (5)
Major
Mod/ Not
Min Specified
107
932
245
519 -
24
282
271
340
1,012
23
431
20
4
1,153
123
952
190
97
51
2,617
59
1,098
34
66
671
110
33
582
304
151
189
510
270
38
14
777
275
2,280
2,579
30
62
76
491
1
24
18
742
86
2,674
44
4,918
12,799 5,980
2%
6%
3%
1%
2%
1%
K697
(continued)
-------
A-16 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
| Table A-4. (continued) i
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
Dtstrkt of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
GHa River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode bland
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total River Miles
Impaired
% of Impaired River
Mites' Affected by
Each Source
% of Assessed River
Miles Affected by
Each Source
% of Total River
Mites Affected by
Each Source
Industrial Point Sources (6)
Mod/ Not 1
Major Min Specified petal
18 433 T451
210 ?210
205 62 1267
30 297 K327
117 16 ~ IF
2 110 El12
12 I 3
98 430 ^528
61 47 ซ, 108
_ _ - _
- - - fcj,
25 846 1 871
90 27 p,117
81 f- 81
1,300 13,300
180 25 |, 205
685 1,875 B?560
102 169 C-271
57 31 ptSS
76 30 ซN06
349 1,821 El 70
10 1 f 11
339 r339
563 - jt-$g3
28 120 Jfl48
708 405 งฃll3
350 JtSSO
194 F 194
144 58 f=202
28 ft 28
44 87 B.131
95 12 PTl07
t, ___
10 23 P33
94 58 6 152
1ST
285 842 Ip27
359 449 ป808
119 707 R826
263 |8':263
5,384 10,288 667 M&9
2% s% t"7ir
I
1% 2% IT.3%1"
j.
Silviculture (7)
Mod/ Not fc
Major Min Specified |lTotal
25 193
154 '
36 157
25 1,428
43
_ _ _
154
_ _ _
34
130 1,037
5 18
1,528 523
2 1,387
p-21^
tfes^
^J-54
p.;f9'3
J74S3
ซ,?3
M&i
iiSS'Vj!.1.'
m
ซj -
P^
3"
i,*^*,,
BP1-:
SSfti-i^lB
1S||.
srt,- -,yt
J',1'^7
i,u,,,_^.
iiBU.jM.rt.,.,,,
t-23
pSf
p89
17 104 - . mir
61 156 ~~
126
7580
_ _ _.
2 9
_ _ _
102 473
129 262
mfr^,,
SIS'
R580
tws^ass""'-
JtlO, Id
itesr
Eu^.
g^
ฃ;,:,!,
Eff
SS5
iSTS"'
prr-
2,068 6,121 8,047 3&23L
1% 3% 4% |p' 7%
t-
<1% 1% 1% Bf3%
III 11,
p.
t
Hydro/Habitat Modification (8)
Mod/ Not |L_;-
Major Min Specified |_ Total
68 312
" " 1,563
206 209
16
20 834
9 12
31
159 282
83
110 69
543 1,932
2 1
138,0,
ฃS-es=-c
17553
fiBi^apK*
n
pฃ^=*_
iป.854
JBHSSSpiB;.
|8l|"'"J.
E
^^^ailjigffi;^
29
_ _ :pftfei~.
109 75 pl'8'4
jb-, ._......
35
140
44 58
144 523
1,188 888
354
685 926
44
\
1
tor"
631"""'
Sir*
SOTS
L354
^J]ฐviKRMi'i:y
SfJfcSLl
perX:;l
ggiiegtaa
JpW* . ,
181 irisr"
16 1,129
14 20
126 1,065
26
3,777 9,355 1,987
2% 4% 1%
1% 1%
Bii* ..
BP:
3&2'6" '
plSli
pSJS^;-^.
|m;
jfgfr.5^;..,,.
ปป
-------
Appendix B
Individual State Data
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
-------
B-2 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
1 Table B-1. Overall Designated Use Support in Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds (acres)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Ota River ind. Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts9
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
NcwMexko
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Onto River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rfco
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texts
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
% of Assessed Waters
Fully Supporting
Eval- Moni- Not
uated tored Specified
106,302 87,114
81 5,000
800 354,263
21,578
94,647 35,523
23,722 13,744
441 172
NA NA NA
111,104 183,552
1,788 355,374
367 1,406
27,818 74,089
1,353
200
100,454
238,136 17,651
190,436 511,583
16,072
726 2,050
1,551 462,639
124,495 206,784
12,230 140,599
12,750 152,802
312,593 58,968
34,401
95,912 36,812
58,045 72,605
85 62
57,778 222,309
213,903
13,031 96
259
NA NA NA
8,684 90,363
374,303
939 668
1,277
305,903
422,221
1,334,354
274,083
1,783 17,570
Total
tT93',4f6"
fe-5,081
355,063
t 21,578
F(30,170
1 37,466
i 613
, ; 'NA
'294,656
357,162
r, 1,773
ElO.1,907
Ii1,3S3
P ' 200
tldO,454
-255,787
ฃ02,019
1". 16,072
;464,190
331,279
152,829
165,552
=3,71,561
f 34,401
jggff'47
&80,087
! 21 3,903
513,127
(-" "259
IITNA '
1-99,047
'374,303
f*277
305,903
L422(221
,334,354
.274,083
M 9,353
84,392 fe 84,392
NA NA NA i NA
9,983 27,391 fe 37,374
3 5,729 L 5,732
30,592 14,914 fc;45f506
2,202,633 3,825,669 1,877,274 i
28% 48% 24% 1
ฃ,905,576
h. 43%
Threatened
Eval- Moni- Not F
uated tored Specified f Total
116,510 1.116,510
26,962 1,027 a^27,989
2,970 f " 2,970
882 1,916 EE^2,798
62 157 pfi, 21 9
NA NA NA ^ NA
is
piHBHffl i
3 264 6 592 ~~9 856
ซ::ป "H' '
79,429 158,217 |tf37,646
4,031 13,173 PซI7204
21,904 1,333 g|23,237"
852 2,684 fe^SSe
94,839 ^4,839
42,119 Ej2,119
10,293 43,600 fe53,893
917 ||r 917
1,986 3,211 Jป5,197
63,474 100,148 S<>3*,622
469 58,764 PW?,233
7,663 81,326 Pt?8,989
8,270 129,357 ฃ137,627
2,608 26 pl-3,634
5,779 3,800 lgf97S79
45 13,390 1^1 3,435
5,394 20,756 EgfrljSO
63,947 fc 63,947
2,306 217,219 tt219^25
6,265 Jplp 6,2ft 5
NA NA NA fe* NA
33,587 197,276 HSo^eS
1,382 967 p^2,349"
11,896 1^11,896
6 555,987 ฃ555,993
3,909 f~ 3,909
1,157 16,396 - ! ง372553
NA NA NA |;;;:s:NA
3,220 591 lfiB3,gll
1,775 jpi5ij,775
14,774 30,049 fijjpUJKST
344,244 1,874,999 85,078 K"3TJ4;321
15% 81% 4% tbZYSW
Partially Supporting
Eval- Moni- Not j^~":;"
uated Stored Specified fSfofal
12,900 65,168
58,688 27,874
283,433
12,930
3,143
212 693
NA NA NA
37632 502912
201 29,134 j
9,073 28,688
49,708 53,662 1
88 I
22,349 491 i
2,075 156,862 !
12,931 !
97,529 214,400 i
202,477
3,906 |
4,744 6,902 J
178,271 2,017,746 j
8,232 106,422 j
- 4,366 - I
98,352 357,242 ]
57,390
12,228 12,500
5,516 3,195
40,273 89,839 j
83,287 320,463
25,861
4,144 152,544
66,835 j
NA NA NA i
25,120 216,522
43,902 15,016
2,110 1,000 !
" - - 3,020. j
54,725 j
15,090 16,871
_ 48,540
9,411
142,417 I
167 89,865 f
6,318 f
NA NA NA j
452 17,601 I
2 12,283 I
10,729 41,761 1
29,538 33,822 . J
H
1283,433, ,.
1*12,930;:.
&#<&'.
pi^!iJ3i5. .- '-
Piiiis*
BaiM^
btfei^sJ *Ui:.J '
tra::
irar11
Pf2,"93r
felZW -
f2B2,4ป
PBJ9W"
EB'SSiiJ^'FiiiiiC"?^
ifflisSi
ffiwafe'i ii'ซ 'i"ปSป'ซ' '' i
!;2s''86Y
11::::
;;
Igf'iff"-
gpjf-
Hg:;:
lHH"::'
998,935 4,939,573 443,313 jpj'T.SSf
16% 77% 7% pKtlS'sW-.1
'Does not Include Quabbin Reservoir.
None or not reported.
NA-Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-3
Table B-1. (continued)
Not Supporting
Not Attainable
Total Assessed
Eval-
uated
Moni-
tored
Not
Specified 1
Eval-
uated
Moni-
tored
Not
Specified
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not
tored Specified
722
4,480
704
SCI
119,202 273,272
19,2,474
86,453
800
34,605
354,263
40
81
NA
987
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
307,981 j*JL307,981
48,453 Lfc|ฃ3,140
18,803 jir43,407
2,009 Ifci&aOS.
NA NA
238
27,704 87,360
8,305
125
238
176,704 780,416
1,989 392,813
153
142,212
62,977
101
1,300
910
20,757
230,714
117,083
28,007
46,906
187,815
88,998
74,089
1,824
- Rr 48,730
337
60
106
9,119
6,738
2,393
3,264
380,237
200,729
21,001
168,865
214,962
232,051
757,660
1,137
931
86,138
46
70
475
25,334
105,762
82
28,566
14
8,595
2,482
452,378
20,977
20,483
12,652
487,973
2,430,440
305,867
267,060
1,247
0,455
882,818"
~
5,251
39,800
4,176
9,400
38,523
16,005
464
424,466 554,967
2,608 130,340
147,940 65,317
73,516 80,064
5
4,208
101,666
19
16,192
831
120,068
5,168
40,408
150,667
121,146
103,310
579,720
304,542
489,927
78,527
NA
9,679
NA
34,340
62,028
3,521
NA
556
NA
NA
NA
NA NA
67,391 538,501
427,884 77,044
NA
4,431
6,156
16,749
24,791
33,578
81
21,400
70,713
64,656
160,774
100,007
382,028
39,887 643,571 |p83,458
539,326 fe39,326
1,504,539 K504,539
450,078 pป45"0,078
3,188 223,838 ซ227,026
NA
864
10,884
52
NA
20,594
1,730
58,031
28,480
NA
NA
NA
NA
90,762
NA
66,177
21,517
144,755
94,475
NA
555,945
33%
944,640 188,854
56% 11%
2,395
99%
14
1%
4,104,305 11,584,895 2,594,366
22% 63% 14%
-------
B-4 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Table B-2a. Aquatic Life Use Support in Lakes (acres) \ ]
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gita River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
low,i
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohfo
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
213,492
7,152
355,063
21,578
130,170
23,500
2,314
NA
136
294,656
1,773
78,818
1,484
200
156,974
702,095
19,619
9,722
464,190
152,829
175,275
325,920
83,215
132,674
141,243
674
657,687
230,183
101,199
259
NA
468,652
2,607
8,448
318,083
1,504,539
274,083
NA
30,582
7,774
107,920
7,206,782
60%
Threatened
131,902
40,413
2,970
276
NA
9,856
249,951
17,204
23,237
28,914
49,239
80,966
6,869
59,233
110,239
4,567
8,025
12,909
1,600
54,997
131,453
6,265
NA
2,349
4,944
NA
591
1,775
38,685
1,079,429
9%
Partially
Supporting
1,620
72,117
283,433
975
125
NA
540,544
28
38,458
103,370
88
23,276
142,639
2,469
175,328
1,276
3,884
114,654
1,959
621,353
9,725
40,733
3,743
130,112
57,250
18,531
1,896
66,835
NA
39,765
2,110
2,795
42,525
142,417
NA
1,907
10,244
7,993
2,706,177
22%
Not
Supporting
1,376
40
166
NA
103
112,064
125
129,732
83,734
101
730
376
6,280
106
477
26,265
128
70
26,505
35,972
39,050
570
23
1 3,850
831
376,526
5,168
NA
76,041
3,521
562
21,400
33,578
NA
953
1,730
55,354
1,053,507
9%
Not
Attainable
80
NA
3
_
__
NA
NA
83
<1%
Total
Assessed
347,014
121,058
355,063
307,981
130,290
24,751
2,605
NA
239
957,120
153
418,141
206,081
79,007
48,730
172,129
214,962
958,389
21,001
20,952
490,455
326,844
287,543
973,778
133,479
212,457
153,581
143,718
730,387
304,542
611,074
78,527
NA
584,458
10,587
16,749
382,008
1,504,539
450,078
NA
34,033
21,523
209,952
12,045,978
None or not reported.
NA-Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-5
r . . ' : ; ' '
Table B-2b. Fish Consumption Use Support in Lakes (acres)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
35,200
355,063
177,785
117,240
21,195
2,447
NA
123,264
491
214,962
290,597
958,389
20,901
1,949
467,705
46,671
254,089
118,120
596,137
280,672
14,337
NA
485,646
1,504,539
NA
25,167
91
1 1 7,042
6,229,699
63%
Threatened
93,100
2,970
33
NA
941
722
8,551
268
1,132
300
NA
NA
22,930
1 30,947
1%
Partially
Supporting
56,698
127,046
2,875
NA
238
6,965
210,886
2,168,357
119
119,391
131,300
23,530
339,307
180
NA
14,858
NA
64,945
3,266,695
33%
Not
Supporting
4,480
12,930
158
NA
153
16,524
12
108,412
100
670
22,750
6,869
33,335
2,950
340
NA
4,424
500
279
NA
6,820
221,706
2%
Not
Attainable
NA
3
-
NA
NA
3
<]%
Total
Assessed
189,478
355,063
307,801
1 30,1 70
24,103
2,605
NA
238
153
147,694
12
1,216
8,551
214,962.
609,895
958,389
21,001
2,887
490,455
2,223,029
287,543
118,420
119,391
730,387
304,542
339,307
14,517
NA
504,928
1,505,039
279
NA
25,167
91
211,737
9,849,050
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
B-6 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Table B-2c. Swimming Use Support in Lakes (acres)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gita River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
towa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexko
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Onto River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
200,100
90,832
355,063
117,616
113,133
15,592
964
NA
294,656
49,453
97,372
6,743
200
214,743
320,210
702,019
21,001
8,1.18
490,455
1,167,640
186,372
163,200
486,238
88,339
133,602
141,815
607,587
264,604
2,134
NA
49,587
491,649
2,940
369,083
1,486,728
NA
61,851
21,523
8,823,162
64%
Threatened
80,132
23,905
24
8,890
NA
9,856
377,115
17,346
143,713
207,110
2,368
301,814
58,500
97,1 78
3,217
1,554
1,400
218,294
NA
275,070
2,016
NA
1,829,502
13%
Partially
Supporting
18,280
4,428
70,161
268
739
NA
540,544
28
31,711
88,234
88
21,683
24,722
219
273,569
49,260
9,522
74,361
5,237
5
465,238
39,833
-39,905
5,421
116,650
14,821
NA
192,351
13,218
3,680
11,425
9,411
NA
1,619
2,126,631
16%
Not
Supporting
1,086
40
902
NA
238
112,064
125
7
68,394
89
686
373
16,116
928
185,542
72
22,302
1,034
39,750
4,072
4,750
62
375,501
NA
30,990
61
1,951
8,400
. 1,000
NA
112
876,647
6%
Not
Attainable
NA
2,371
27,088
NA
NA
29,459
<1%
Total
Assessed
298,512
120,251
355,063
187,801
113,173
24,750
2,605
NA
238
957,120
153
408,833
206,081
97,549
48,829
169,008
214,962
609,895
958,389
21,001
20,936
490,455
1,729,357
250,109
287,543
973,778
132,423
21 3,257
152,862
730,387
264,666
610,750
NA
547,998
504,928
10,587
380,508
1,504,539
1,000
NA
63,582
21,523
13,685,401
None or not reported.
NAป Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-7
Table B-2d. Secondary Contact Recreational Use Support in Lakes (acres) i
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
200,100
105
355,063
307,801
32,071
16,227
1,307
NA
27
291,904 .
200
109,830
317,695
958,389
10,880
490,455
31 7,881
140,080
683,537
230,183
2,134
NA
4,906
381,228
NA
20,837
4,872,840
64%
Threatened
80,132
7,353
245
NA
9,856
153
377,1 76
144,878
93,700
3,851
1,594
129,382
171
2,050
54,997
233,115
NA
335
NA
1,138,988
15%
Partially
Supporting
18,280
474
120,000
1,170
811
. NA
196,736
31,655
26,625
5,659
288,569
6,070
7,323
332,619
137
43,000
18,531
NA
3,949
800
NA
686
1,103,094
14%
Not
Supporting
227
242
NA
211
112,064
2
334
60
134
46
11,151
13
1,800
831
375,501
NA
1,397
1,000
NA
8
505,021
7%
Not
Attainable
NA
NA
NA
Total
Assessed
298,512
806
355,063
427,801
32,071
24,750
2,605
NA
238
610,560
153
408,833
1 72,037
209,189
606,324
958,389
20,935
490,455
326,844
613,232
321
730,387
304,542
610,750
NA
10,587
382,028
1,000
NA
8
21,523
7,619,943
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
B-8 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Table B-2e. Drinking Water Supply Use Support in Lakes (ajcres) . t
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cite River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
towa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
28,834 .
75,843
137,278
109,474
296
NA
2,752
61,599
32,000
5,914
200
80,623
958,313
19,324
490,455
84,200
27,834
291,650
90,000
342,107
158,177
128
NA
56,330
504,838
2,466
381,228
1,332,646
450,078
NA
5,037
5,729,624
69%
Threatened
40,266
13,268
118,000
NA
393,120
5,519
47,619
69,203
20,930
363,880
9,389
NA
6,306
682
NA
1,750
1,089,932
13%
Partially
Supporting
8,300
18,898
4,510
NA
343,808
44,534
7,917
93,941
5,826
1,478
314,041
54,950
1,191
60,748
NA
8,800
90
3,262
NA
972,294
12%
Not
Supporting
65
NA
153
140
570
9,040
458
76
288
12,900
140
116,851
9,679
NA
268
151,874
NA
302,502
4%
Not
Attainable
NA
27,986
188,740
NA
NA
216,726
3%
Total
Assessed
77,400
108,074
259,788
109,474
296
NA
346,560
153
393,260
106,133
32,000
47,906
150,800
86,907
958,389
19,324
490,455
84,200
287,543
618,591
90,000
417,987
158,317
481,922
79,944
NA
71,436
504,928
6,678
381,228
1,484,520
450,078
NA
6,787
8,311,078
None or not reported.
NA-Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305{b) reports.
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-9
1 " - - : - ' ' ' - - 1
Table B-2f. Agriculture Use Support in Lakes (acres) .'-'.- ;
state
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
98,825
148,175
148,943
2,605
NA
28
106,203
958,389
21,001
490,455
600,297
89,296
730,387
230,183
NA
57,347
504,928
381,228
450,078
NA
5,01 8,368
79%
Threatened
15,684
NA
401,698
132,032
54,997
365,071
NA
236
NA
969,718
15%
Partially
Supporting
350
NA
388
15,003
5,394
41,586
11,400
18,531
NA
NA
92,652
1%
Not
Supporting
440
667
NA
129,722
-
12,900
831
116,851
NA
NA
261,411
4%
Not
Attainable
440
NA
125
NA
NA
565
<1%
Total
Assessed
440
115,526
148,175
148,943
2,605
NA
153
531,808
106,203
147,035
958,389
21,001
490,455
618,591
1 30,882
11,400
730,387
304,542
481,922
NA
57,583
504,928
381,228
450,078
NA
6,342,714
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
B-10 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Table B-3. Leading Causes of Impairment in Lakes (acres) j |
state
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut"
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
MonUna
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Wat Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total lake Acres Impaired
% o( Impaired Lake Acres'1
Affected by Each Cause
% of Assessed Lake Acres
Affected by Each Cause
% of Total Lake Acres
Affected by Each Cause
Total Impaired Acres
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
82,548
87,988
283,433
12,970
3,143
1,973
NA NA
238
652,608
37,640
153
180,883
187,104
189
24,140
168,393
19,669
311,989
202,477
4,012
13,258
26,265
2,387,917
114,782
33,002
470,245
95,913
80,533
13,351
130,136
424,150
26,692
378,422
72,003
NA NA
275,982
6,631
3,576
76,125
127,465
113,196
170,185
175,995
190,120
6,370
NA NA
39,511
14,015
121,405
91,840
113,196 7,958,064
Metals (1)
Mod/ Not E&TKs
Major Min Specified^ Total
15,271
214,200 34,936
102 9,424
189 56
NA NA NA
103
7,655 650
811
4,300 21,553
45
5 1 36,701
5,314
60
572
10,972 3,565
834,107 1,332,235
200
16,449 302,175
4,626 74,680
14,800 11,400
65,700
6,500 8,600
9,680
339,307
307 4,767
NA NA NA
5,813 90,843
84 125
441 371
4,909
2,499
558
NA NA NA
104
3,757 2,996
71,765
25,730
1,211,698 2,464,584 25,730
15% 31% <1%
7% 13% <1%
3% 6% <1%
feiirrrHi'in
T-"
WA271
t'B! 'lltl'v^-
Hฎ,136
SfcsM26
|i:245
ll**M*l|i||*lilvB,S\
ปSsio3
ISios,
IBISIB'PL
MMKtf-l
ง5*545
afflsair^r^v;.
ftssSfSS"
H
ji-T~"'hn
HK:572
a*537
,166,342
S-200
JSU&624
ฃ79,306
S6,200
Sy!*nii.Bi.i..rBT'
PWOO
ElSJPP
Up?7
pfe.656
Illli lull .nil 11
|if*;,8,i?
S I!"!'"
i^ซ; '!7
fc4,9Q9
86*3^99
SฑaS58
|: : NA
~ 104
1576,753
pt,,765
1752,012
Sij^i i H, '
rft ;,\ 20%
iiMMiiMii;
if!*-* :...,, -, . .- -
pi'feป
T"
P5'!"!'!*!'l! !"!'! '
Nutrients (2)
Mod/ Not feriSH'S,
Major Min Specifiedl~_ Total
- - -
50 65,391 -
^^SU*- '
145,800 5,570 Bt5J,370
14 7,952 1SS&&66
3,856 2,095 IpSMl! ...
580 1,286 SEJ/B"6'6"
NA NA NA ggjlJMA.'.;.:
_ _ _ Ei^__ซ^.
27,392 116,608 B|44,0,QO,:,:
31,644 146,430 Kz&w41'**'.'
46,044 149,064 EgJIL,,"
8,338 15,751
4,077 159,924 BM,flO] ,.
9,520 Ijlpao,,, ./
22,932 63,410 - ':. .
2,463 61,165
265 2,921 JBiialg,,,,",,.
5,424 5,025 ||pg,44.9 j ,
212,691 47,212 Ilt|J>Qi."i;
7,064 166,905 El^.i
1,155 178 ง3p,'3|;l;,;;
319,316 11^,316,,,
21,200 ' pJBfofio""
4,728 12 fej|4Q_iri
ftSSaBi'inif i wttiWtf
24 44,702 ^BS,72,6
163,900 103,100 3B76b6"'"'
18,020 90 EOlPll;
7,374 6,294 Ep6.8...,
7,408 25,699 $ง$$$ฃ*
NA NA NA :
26,799 229,382 i^DSI
1 1 5 965 BtT5'9S5
852 1,331.
80 1,184 Ipgtgii
103,468 9,093 ESSs!,"^
83,163 73,461 EJ5,6,.624 ...'
121,420 58,785 BHO^OS
5,810 pEBJSltT
NA NA NA (|ivSNA
635 8,577 Bji8sฃ!i?.!
1,089,477 1,918,736 214,448 1422,661,
14% , 24% 3% ggiK::':
i*ir '.',-:
6% 10% 1% PffH8%
SSESIn'f'
3% 5% 1% ;;
connecucutassessed some lakes as impaired by nutrients even tnougn tne laKes Tota| , -red ukes Acres . statfis Reporting Q,^. 7,958,064 acres
dW not meet the Section 319 definition of impaired. Total Assessed Lake Acres: 18,283,566 acres
"Includes only impaired lake acres in States reporting causes affecting lakes. Estimate of Total Lake Acres in the Nation: 39,922,437 acres
None or not reported.
NAซ Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 30S(b) reports.
-------
Appendix. B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-11
Table B-3. (continued);
Organic Enrich./Low Dissolved Oxygen (3)
Siltatkm (4)
Priority Organics (S)
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
Major
Mod/ Not
Min Specified
270
11,173
61,178
170
13,140
160
475
86
NA
2,600
3,510
145
NA
NA 1
120,110 18,080
326
215
NA
2,870
42
NA
NA
2,875
158
NA
NA
NA
103
79,296
103
103
2,145
73,704
59
2,387
63,020
115,793
63
4,800
67,579
12,706
125,693
6,242
2,041
12
2,786
187
29,716
135,312
6
10,292
55,792
2,405
3,855
2,112
100
54,885
16,307
66,712
3,860
-
2,236
44,824
233
2,200
1,730
7,626
163,126
8
22
70
96
172,086
8,562
7,096
46
1,293,440
50,300
1,025
259,702
7,994
950
14
1,526
81,822
6,276
5,350
100
1,608
50,589
506
85,350
29,032
2,982
5
22,800
636
1,970
3,378
84,865
1 1 3,300
540
158
19,577
102,100
340
1,240
20,450
2,076
NA
29,300
58
NA NA
156,514
69,147
NA
74,729
NA
31 3,783
NA
NA
11,805
NA
22,468
600
63,925
477
1,404
109
75,818
284
65,300
337
156,859
2,442
8,728
11,882
736
NA NA
NA
119,450
1,651
NA
NA
NA
NA
836
30
2,036
32
55,286
55,259
370
4,630
5,480
104
- 33,743
624,955 1,077,498 179,692
509,545 1,201,031 33,743
198,619 1,388,021
14%
15%
17%
3%
1%
3%
7%
1%
2%
3%
1%
3%
3%
(continued)
-------
B-12 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Table B-3. (continued) ' ; |
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total River Miles
Impaired
% of Impaired River
Miles' Affected by
Each Cause
% of Assessed River
Mites Affected by
Each Cause
% of Total River
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
Suspended Solids (6)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
824
86
NA NA NA
103
216,704
Total
:r82i
i miMi.i ^
lllimuNA.,
~" 103"
'216,704
I'm
1,319 139,620 lil"40?39
73,058 121,206 f-l 94,264
~ ~ - f Z
4,517 1
6,912 - -
K-T. 5.
Iff 4,51 7
Ip 6,91 2
^>u>-^-1
187 106 HF'29^,"'
22 HE.-22 "
310,844
16,123
_ _ _
2,429
1,350
NA NA NA
68,874 183,418
15,594
359 29,133
97,232 21
NA NA NA
30
252,571 1,021,911 15,594
3% 13% <1%
^310,844
16,123
:_,z
*, 2,429
. 1 35Q
1^52 292
1 15,594
1 29,492
i 97,253
,-r . ^
, 30
"'
1,290,076
fc .16%
1 0f. ฃQฃ> **! Q& Bf lf 7CW.
1 vD O YU ^ 1 vo mg jiil f fQ
I
1% 3% <1% ji"" "396
11
Noxious Aquatic Plants (7)
Mod/ Not f[ "
Major Min Specified. Total
213 1,037
45,000 2,970
3,430 622
781 868
NA NA NA
573
29,129 105,066
40
9,044 40,333
408
5,119 8,739
306,019
250 -
1/1 ftnn
5,001 440
41 11,959
1,650 58,300
1,416 600
2,247
NA NA NA
5,680 18,002
133 3,822
102,468 5,483
2,826 100,154
21,639 8,444
NA NA NA
2,41 3
49
86,545
__,!,
W t
1,250
T 47,970
$*^H!ffl3*^ ,
|^649
a NA
573
S&^~- !
SF3*-^1 "
fBtW11'''!1
liTsT?
^408
ihrnmnnniniilnipinh i
,_ 250
s.14,800 !
E&-441
spi 2,000
39.950
ซHnrii-Ji
SrW
= NA
i*3f955
^,ง80
lliyftli'1.:.- '
fa 2,413
ft- 49
248,709 678,757 86,545 ง,014,011
3% 9% 1% I 13%
1% 4% <1% E 6%
1% 2% <1% LM,, 3%
Flow Alteration (8)
Mod/ Not f"
Major Min Specified fc Total
950
NA NA NA
1,000 7,740
10 67
3,792 7,788
2,112 3,864
30
_ _ _ I
363,221
fcjJT
fe
JJ/jSlsy
i^Bw^l '
47,200 9,400
NA NA ' NA IiMA~r
40,117 42,063 SI1I3I0.,-!
1 ri ! ft
7,482 441
NA NA NA
2,858
9420
323,281 455,107 9,420
10SI
pZBOir:
.,
4% 6% <1% felQ%,, .
2% 2%
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-13
Table B-3. (continued)
Pesticides (9)
Pathogen Indicators (10)
Major
Mod/ Not
Min Specified
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
170
18,280
50
100
210
NA
50
NA
103
24,911
1,280
1,212
NA
6,790
462
NA
NA
211
4,288
27
448
650
7,579
13,395 598
12
336 19,693
79 36,181
1,800 4,651
45 77
248
52,065 57,941
25,844
100
9,556
9,248 257,263
6 366
5,961 165,815
33,622
266
1
7,569
2 70
3,365
1,399
104
13,312
38,733
79
326
25,650 43,350
604
8,734
14,550 151,400
2,022
NA NA
215,663
738
NA B
NA NA
1,820
1,325
1,494
290
12,200
581
25
16,230 1,581
210
NA NA
NA
1,000
844
52
NA
10
286
NA
NA
6,621
41
1,818
142,111 573,555
94,341 528,081
13,248
3%
3%
1%
-------
B-14 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Table B-4. Leading Sources of Impairment in Assessed Lakes (acres)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
GBa River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohto
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total Uke Acres Impaired
% of Impaired Uke Acres1
Affected by Each Source
% of Assessed Uke Acres
Affected by Each Source
% of Total Uke Acres
Affected by Each Source
Total Impaired Acres
States Not States
Reporting Sources Reporting Sources
82,548
87,988
283,433
12,970
3,143
1,973
NA NA
238
652,608
37,640
153
180,883
187,104
189
24,140
168,393
19,669
311,989
202,477
4,012
13,258
26,265
2,102,552 285,365
114,782
33,002
470,245
95,913
80,533
13,351
424,150
26,692
378,422
72,003
NA NA
275,982
130,625
6,631
3,576
76,125
127,465
113,196
170,185
175,995
190,120
6,370
NA NA
39,511
14,015
121,405
91,840
2,527,273 5,543,987
Agriculture (general) (1)
Mod/
Major Min
620 4,000
Not
Specified
assli.:!^, ;,
Total
31,876 Hffi.,876
sts
25,1 1 1 1
1,503 13,976
2,168
NA NA
NA || NA
1,920 630,912
_ _ _
5,008 118,243
141,887 46,057
12
15,612 7,811
44,335 101,545
8,093
43,213 25,326
1,402 66,805
271 4,647
55 537
171,758 1,300
33,730
12,900 302,233
3,380 6,278
14,800 108,000
124 45
5 101,387
71,600 74,600
1,149 340
4,354 12,810
2,956 33,879
NA NA
45,698 343,104
1,125
562
11,400
11,573 29,557
2,875
NA NA
350 16,259
40 2,094
674,859 2,058,476
12% 37%
4% 11%
2% 5%
Includes only Impaired lake acres In States reporting sources affecting lakes.
None or not reported.
NA - Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
NA
98,145
332,832
|" -
L~"
123,251
11423
J4"5,880
ifiฐ8
B
E-''l,69
pipe,
ijyoo
iiily,6.!
tl , NA
ง8,8,802
3/125
IB
"i m
63,229
358,250 Jgg|S8|
6%
2%
1% ]
pllli
uivwa'iww
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers (2)
Mod/ Not |
Major Min Specified J
f
416
120,640 2,781
900 8,552
_ 1,444 _ |
NA NA NA j
211 27
646,528
25,561
JfcTotal .
81
,h"i,"""i"! iir.TFK-,
yi'2.3 421
fi': ' 238
890 j
2,986 83,669 j
35 22 |
5,194 2,209 j
8,042 7,495 I
20,608 23,416 |
32,805 89,608 j
110 384 I
1,660 1,019 1
2,245
22 1,400 j
3,535 j
llof
fell!
s*$j$ffi$P$f~
!p2,67?-
:
ilfl, 422 .
546 pSซ=;.546
100 400 fafciigsnn
1,260 12 1
5 i
19,400 24,400
715 90
22
3,306 10,596 j
telE
Ear
NA NA NA ipitiSI,,;:
- 81,555
- 10,866
73 -
1,057 296 1
25 - -
90
46,953 - - |
21 1,152 1
NA NA NA j
160 11,724
12
_ _ 1,434
272,209 1,025,871 12,716
5% 19% <1%
^p^iJj[[l|~''' :..''
IP1S4,
fel,884 -
SlO'li
,
3->- '. '..-; !'
1% 6% <1%
1% 3% <1%
I
|i;f||;;.
Total Impaired Uke Acres in States Reporting Sources: 5,543,987 acres
Total Assessed Lake Acres: 1 8,283,566 acres
Estimate of Total Uke Acres in the Nation: 39,922,437 acres
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-15
Table B-4. (continued)
Hydro-Habitat Modification (3)
/Natural (4)
Municipal Point Sources (5)
Major
Mod/
Min
Major
Mod/
Not
Min Specified * ''"total
' ^>:&sit;J:iฃs^;s*
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
Total
81,278
4,000
559
120,000
975
NA
640
NA
NA
PIP
189
NA
395
NA
7,172
268
93
NA NA
NA
103
454,400
27
1,216 250,560
3,774
1,220 7,691
29,237 144,004
40
220 156
3,595
4,081
5,831
232
4,925
59
12
811
90,120
63
3,458
5,824
61,632 30,298
8,057
18,939
6,474
140,598
20,785
6,445
23,968
76
119,813
455
15,819
4,845
1398
1,270
1,730
208
131
1,008
906
285,365
231
66
784
108,000
25
22,049 322,945
828
575
950
452
6,400
3,632
5,100
30,000
196
60,300 26,700
12,466
429
334
222,917
24,847
13,900
15,850
63,600
1,090
2,701
13,149
NA
NA
36
NA
NA
12,055
NA
NA NA
485
1,339
7,868
1,463
11,674
35,366
215
406
114,208
233
1,870
16,230
98,699
NA
3,530
NA
100,326 14,500
NA
NA
NA
97,584
10
NA
21
448
NA
NA
3,407
10,668
61
64,515
3,069
4
30,809
488,889 705,416
214,136 870,486 175,746
500,248 617,505 31,853
9%
13%
4%
16%
11%
1%
3%
4%
1%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
2%
(continued)
-------
B-16 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Table B-4. (continued) [
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Aifcansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
GHa River Indian Comm.
Guam
^ta^a!i
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Onto
Onto River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rko
Rhode bland
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Vhginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total Lake Acres
Impaired
% of Impaired Lake
Acres" Affected by
Each Cause
% of Assessed Lake
Acres Affected by
Each Cause
% of Total River
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
On site Wastewater Disposal (6)
Mod/ Not t; ,
Major Min Specified I Total
92
25,640 820
1,267
NA NA NA
591,488
_ _ _
3,109 317
376 984
3,422 100
9,708
57,300 96,850
1,995 18,140
NA NA NA
35,739
13,129
532
4,554
NA NA NA
8,703
91,842 769,202 13,221
2% 14% <1%
1% 4% <1%
=
-
" * '' ' \
ijsi-i i
26,460
t - 0
^1,267
NA
#1,488
|L_,_
T" '
^ ,
s Q
. .0
,-3,426
r -0
( 0
H" 1,360
V - ^
^3",522~
i.,9,708
^
4 0
*ป i
t*_^ _,
054,150
^__0-
r.,.,-0 ..
,2,0,135
i ,NA
iV3?
^12i,
i,1-.ro~
FSS33T
1,,,^,.. j.
an
7ฐA554
+!!!!!lT-
. .NA
E'5'763
mmfmm Q
8Z4,265_
t
ill. 16%
L
--' 5%
I
r*
<1% 2%
17,628 105,751
i
(WlWRm^i
ffrf'^-'s*?-"
^^^ .
PT5*Er
ง|SI
Esi5i-
K
KMS:;;
^3^660,
iSF^nT'TSpS?-
^S^aSSissi; -
^11 1'!'^ IjnM'jMji'
5^Lii1i'.!|*fj3frsf|!lh
pH':;
JSSn*m*"'
fessiSiasi
itsoo :
H480 ,
f&m:.
prpJA' '
ฃ3,379'
Igfpr-^,
fifef="--
asfcy^ww
isd^i^^li,'
KlW"ft'*Mli:w-r '
NA NA NA ffllM,,,;
790 pi-i>0;.
114,014 294,298 668,312.
2% 5%
1% 2%
1% -
;*- - - :
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-17
| Table B-4. (continued) j { l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l
industrial Point Sources (9)
Major
56,698
170
262
NA
650
2,631
46,976
4,877
3,961
43,400
340
NA
895
112
Mod/ Not
Min Specified
35
NA NA
62,720
1,223
811
14,500
13,088
4,288
200
3,300
16,356
NA NA
122
* 4Ljjpฃ!;"V
s
If
B
is
B
B
= ~- ~~ P
96,900
NA
12,000
270,672
21
448
NA NA
117,112
5% 2% -
1%
1% .
iA.
1% <1%
Resource Extraction (10)
Major
2,832
69,200
NA
3
155
30
190
4,871
44,800
1,200
Mod/
Min
32,816
NA
31,872
811
41,777
50
42,643
952
Not ฃ^^^.T ft#
Specified * Total
tjfz&lZ1
T02,016"
NA 5> NA ,
-ff",
-
'
161240
- jte,87f~
Jt 952*"
= : =" ' z
500
212
NA
4,556
NA
49,679
E!^_
NA C**NA '
|49,679
to* _
2,815
NA
3,911
130,719
NA
8,040
213,196
NA <% NA
pi,551~
*43,915~
2% 4%
.1%
<1%
1%
1%
"^
-- | loj
1 *
-------
-------
Appendix C
Individual State Data
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
-------
C-2 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-1. Overall Designated Use Support in Estuaries (scjuare miles)
State
Alabama
Atasto
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Colombia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico4
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
% of Assessed Waters
Fully Supporting
Eval- Moni- Not
uated tored Specified
12 253
361
730 953
443 10
718 32
851 594
1,423 50
65 2
1
10
440
1,106
2,721
4
141
310
1,318
267 2,130
3
17 243
Total
w-265
Er1
0L36.1
If
,1,683
,453
K?5Q
(1445
l1,473
rl 67
III 1
fc^lO
'' 440
^,106
"2,721
!. 4
p
,310
: 1,31 8
J-2397
i 3
IP260
4,526 5,384 5,298 115,208
30% 35% 35% p| 56%
Threatened
Eval- Moni- Not ฃ7,
uated tored Specified Total
p^-;
%Hwh^l
4 I&H"
ffi^A !'
Mil
88 13 pfSl
2,614 p6J4
87 6
13 JM3
fSi';i>vi
|ซefei:
14 I:;;i4;
r
III EH
2,789 415 149 RSS3
83% 12% 4%
PartiaUy Supporting
Eval- Moni- Not felBlfl
uated itored Specified f Total "
E i E -6
I - 235
97 773 Bll"'
197 2,153 -
= 1 1 1^
E E ] p
T ^ 3 'H
1,212 3,899 1,021 E2_.
20% 64% 17%
a Puerto Rico reported linear miles of estuarine impairments rather than square miles (see Chapter 8, Individual State Summaries, for more information).
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305{b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-3
Table C-1. (continued)
Not Supporting
Not Attainable
Total Assessed
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not
tored Specified
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not
tored Specified
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not
tored Specified
Total
12
331
89
600
5
237
29
6
147
164
832
680
29
216
6
1,898
174
20
7
20
118
71
806
4,349
1,430
292
68
594
204
2,230
-**-
42
5
92
14
258
112
5
53
112
19
24
614
1,531
19
17
15
3,121
61
193
426
60
585
453
1
71
322
21
1,992
2,757
5
1,072
334
14%
1,567
64%
562
23%
100%
8,861
33%
11,265
41%
7,101
26%
-------
C-4 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-2a. Aquatic Life Use Support in Estuaries (square njiiles)
state
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
328
375
132
1,683
4,673
1,475
114
1
28
1,513
2,721
178
341
1,991
490
16,043
76%
Threatened
4
59
25
93
1
13
131
8
334
2%
Partially
Supporting
85
223
17
25
1
870
269
36
2,350
31
5
16
269
97
13
4,307
20%
Not
Supporting
3
2
12
4
152
122
79
51
1
7
11
32
476
2%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
331
89
600
29
216
5
2,730
4,942
1,633
2,522
197
19
28
1,530
3,121
193
449
1,991
535
21,160
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-5
Table C-2b. Fish Consumption Use Support in Estuaries (square miles)
1 i
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
328
7
600
29
191
2,502
9
28
1,415
2,721
1,947
9,777
93%
Threatened
2
131
23
156
1%
Partially
Supporting
80
6
115
269
470
4%
Not
Supporting
3
25
21
46
44
139
1%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
331
89
600
29
216
6
2,523
55
28
1,530
3,121
1,991
23
10,542
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
C-6 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-2c. Shellfishing Use Support in Estuaries (square miles)
state
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rko
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
196
7
483
878
281
1,646
77
10
440
1,344
4
1,308
208
6,882
67%
Threatened
2
25
6
1
139
173
2%
Partially
Supporting
75
3
10
472
3
97
14
5
121
4
59
38
139
88
1,128
11%
Not
Supporting
3
117
42
74
139
90
132
4
19
53
182
19
453
620
1,947
19%
Not
Attainable
11
71
82
1%
Total
Assessed
274
12
600
10
42
1,449
434
1,839
223
9
29
614
1,531
59
61
1,971
1,055
10,212
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-7
Table C-2d. Swimming Use Support in Estuaries (square miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
327
9
538
9
205
1,683
3,299
1,631
2,520
99
28
1,456
353
1,977
482
14,616
83%
Threatened
1
1
25
8
35
<1%
Partially
Supporting
3
59
17
870
1,063
59
1
35
10
15
2,132
12%
Not
Supporting
3
3
5
152
580
3
2
48
73
12
34
915
5%
^H
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
327
13
601
29
205
5
2,730
4,942
1,634
2,522
214
28
1,530
400
1,987
531
1 7,698
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
C-8 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-2e. Secondary Contact Recreational Use Support in Estuaries (square miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
PucrtoRSco
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
328
89
538
29
11
3,689
192
6
1,519
2,721
420
4
487
10,033
85%
Threatened
1
5
131
137
1%
Partially
Supporting
59
5
1,233
11
7
11
269
15
32
1,642
14%
Not
Supporting
3
3
1
20
2
13
42
<1%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
331
89
601
29
11
6
4,942
205
18
1,530
3,121
435
4
532
11,854
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-9
-------
C-10 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
| Table C-3. Leading Causes of Estuarine Impairments (square miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
HawaN
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total Estuarine Area Impaired
% of Impaired Estuarine
Areab Affected by Each Cause
% of Assessed Estuarine
Area Affected by Each Cause
% of Total Estuarine
Area Affected by Each Cause
Total Impaired Waters
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
78
239
29
6
1,022
401
23
884
161
2,429
156
5
19
174
424
269
57
38
116
603
682
2
693
23 8,572
Nutrients (1)
Mod/ Not f
Major Min Specified Total
S"
- err
2 1 H**iL3
236 15 - F25f
26 3 IS" 2$
_ _ _ &___
1 nฃ^i
95 300 p395
55 808 pSoT
404 2,102 jgS'tfS
21 jC"2Y
14 htH
*w^=P
70 |^70
1 108
113 &113
_. g^,.
- - ~
236 127
ill jEJ
1,125 3,514 113 11752
13% 41% 1%
4% 13% - i'i'7%'
fe
3% 10% - JST3*C
Pathogen Indicators (2)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified potaf
78
- - _
2
13 125 ฃT38 "
" I! i Eg:
^ *j i :
59 638 "-
= =
28 9 I
174 362
45 301 -
1,088 2,396 115 jfpJslJf'"
13% 28% 1%
4% 9%
3% &% iBsr'
^^rffKIT':
'Puerto Rico reported linear miles of estuarine Impairments rather than square miles (see Chapter 8, Individual State Summaries, for more information).
"Includes onry impaired estuarine waters In States reporting causes of estuarine impairments.
None or not reported,
Source: 1992 State Section 30S(b) reports.
Tolal Impaired Estuarine MHes in States Reporting Causes: 8,572 square miles
Total Assessed Estuarfne Miles; 27,227 square miles
BitNutte of Total Estuarine Miles in the Nation: 36,890 square miles
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-11
Table C-3. (continued)
Organic Enrich./Low Dissolved Oxygen (3)
SHtatlon (4)
Suspended Solids (5)
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
Major
Mod/ Not T v
Min Specified fjotal
19
13
1
3
29
102
1
111
12
323
1
293
746
616
14
187
670
187
10
48
2
114
140
1
26
15
30
86
32
133
68
63
514
229
616 2,263
32
157
887
356
554
7%
26%
2% 10%
4%
2%
1%
3%
1%
2%
6%
1%
(continued)
-------
C-12 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
| Table C-3. (continued) [
Slate
Alabama
Ataska
Amerkan Samoa
CaWomt*
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
fkxkiji
Georgia
Guam
H4W.IJ!
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rfco4
Rhode (stand
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total Estuarine Area
Impaired
% of Impaired Estuarine
Afeปb Affected by
Each Cause
% of Assessed Estuarine
Area Affected by
Each Cause
% of Total Estuarine
Area Affected by
Each Cause
Oil and Crease (6)
Mod/ Not JL
Major Min Specified ffotal
1
_ 1 _
262 560
2
22
*""" ~"~* ~~*
21
5
in
1
r. 1
i822
htw2
1 1
^22Z
J{ , ,1
u^
j "<
j .^^m
fi
)- 5
263 611 pM"'
3% 7% -ESS"
1% 2%
1% 2%
fป3%, ,
ill
fl' '
i!
Pesticides (7)
Mod/ Not !'
Major Min Specified .jTptal
76 1
_ _
1
1
187
27
rt u
l^s^.
PH.
IKW
H-
HMซ
S- 1
Pi
l=-
ina
ETff
pp*
_ . ^ __ ___
70 - -- fjjtfO
- - - Hr^
_ _ _
158 94
331 284
S^r
Pฃ.
Ifc
K
fes2
L^
r
1^5
ซHr*W
' 4% 3% P>%
1% 1% _ fpi
1% 1% |P^'
L
Salini^/TDS/Chlorides (8)
Mod/ Not ft^Sv:
Major Min Specified pctfaL
' Stftsst
- 137.^53!!"
Ku.'I'dlnuUb
- jQJi
- - aa5Bb"aab^^ :
20 560 งd
_ _ _
! iSSฅ;i"
= - -
= .-
Issi iซ'
~ ~ ~ B
" 2* ~ E
* ~ B
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-13
Table C-3. (continued)
Priority Organics (9)
Metals (10)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
20
77
1
18
16
1
4
68
20
1
1
70
120
30
32
65
24
6
31
44
14
197
140
65
104
201
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
-------
C-14 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
| Table C-4. Leading Sources of Estuarine Impairments (squaj-e miles)
state
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hi-Mil
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total Estuarine Area Impaired
% of Impaired Estuarine
Areab Affected by Each Source
% of Assessed Estuarine
Area Affected by Each Source
% of Total Estuarine
Area Affected by Each Source
Total Impaired Waters
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
78
85
239
29
6
1,022
401
23
884
161
2,429
156
5
19
174
424
269
57
38
116
603
682
2
693
292 8,303
Municipal Point Sources (1)
Mod/ Not fcฃL
Major Min Specified y Total
1 ~ ~ 11
75 f-75
263 182 r 445
25 jp_25
_ _ _ _
744 _ 1 744
4 107 jH 111
809 If-'SdSt
117 6 IP 123
389 341 pb?30
10 81
y f&mv^fy
5 tป 5
140 ^140
57 210 - Jt267
_ _ _ SE,^
- - 53 jflFSS
jfaliglLlllliii, i',.
"""" IflfHwIii'i rr
30
_ 12 _ fef'S
134 92 gS-2-26
236 110 ^Jk346
SsSSKsa-
139 - pl39"
1,433 2,897 53 l^M
17% 35% 1% IS53S"
?'
5% 11% 1316%
fer-
4% 8% ftf'W
g';:;;; '"';,;;
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers (2)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
75
.78 3
340
29
1 2
3 944
5
621
188 238
10 105
18
280
124 69
: ป: ,
17
7 26
29
ffotal
(Sii::
mr""
fcii5r-
Ip^Siti
p"*"
iilTS"""'
^'jEfrtff^ :.
^SflWW
li^l"ซ
P^SIS^J
wr*
^~r.^pj;^
*i3b
I !M 'I
729 2,841 17 gUSST""
9% 34% -
3% 10% - |plฃ,m
8% - pC.
"Puerto Rico reported linear miles of estuarine impairments rather than square miles (see Chapter 8, Individual State Summaries, for more information).
"Includes only impaired estuarine waters in States reporting sources of estuarine impairments.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 30S(b) reports.
Total Impปired Estuarine Mites in States Reporting Sources: 8,303 sq. mi.
Total Assessed Estuarine Miles: 27,227 sq. mi.
Estimate ofTotal Estuarine Miles in the Nation: 36,890 sq. mi.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-15
Table C-4. (continued)
Agriculture (general) (3)
.'; Industrial RqihtSources (4)
Natural (5)
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
79
1
247
1
49
231
13
16
552
15
34
280
130
374
643
1,046
20
747
9
253 212
70
11
13
19
53
42
14
16
11
236
4
19
178
24
283
102
61
183
264
1,419
2,067
53
175
1,685
42
314
905
tJ-219
17%
25%
1%
2%
20%
1%
11%
5%
1%
6%
5%
1%
2%
(continued)
-------
C-16 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-4. (continued) j
State
Alabama
A!ซka
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
Disttfct of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rko"
Rhode Wand
South CaroRna
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total Estuarine Area
Impaired
% of Impaired Estuarine
Areab Affected by
Each Source
% of Assessed Estuarine
Area Affected by
Each Source
% of Total Estuarine
Area Affected by
Each Source
Resource Extraction (6)
Mod/ Not t*
Major Min Specified (Total
75
1
90
_ _ _ i
207 615
_ 6
4
75
a
HUH!
EL
S-822
|-r
w.
: 6"
IT-
i ,
ซ
III. ,
*-
p-
* 4 ,
283 715 Ifc998
3% 9% Bl2%
1
1% 3%
1% 2%
^4%
f-394
*
Construction (7)
Mod/ Not ft
Major Min Specified 0"otal
- ~ - fz
i **.
~ - ~ r
It
1 482 ^&B2.
M [ 1
140 K40
= = .= p
i i i pฃ
= !! I E
27 f-2~
140 524 ~ E^64
2% 6% 1|J%
1% 2% lips
1% |p%
Contaminated Sediments (8)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified B*'**siปr
1 49
22
fee:
sfe^t^r
?-'-
BBSS
34
120 36
7
158 94
35
279 255
3% 3%
1% 1%
1% 1%
^i^-^-
SsSIi
iijti
Ei
wfcaSiatS'
iSi
B^J^'I;!;I
SSsfX
ffliif
S3SS5B
^rifri^-.'
jjppmw)
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-17
Table C-4. (continued)
Atmospheric Deposition (9)
Hydrologic/Habitat Modification (10)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
Major
Mod/ Not
Min Specified
230
228
228 238
3% 3%
1% 1%
75
71
1
202
20
82
75 382
1% 5%
1%
1%
-------
C-18 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-5. Overall Designated Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters (shore miles)
Partially Supporting
Eva!- Moni- Not
uated tored Specified
Moni- Not
itored Specified
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Dcuware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rko
Rhode Wand
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
% of Assessed Waters
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 30S(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-19
Table C-5. (continued)
Not Supporting
Not Attainable
Total Assessed
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not
tored Specified
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not
tored Specified
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not |,
tored Specified "*Tqtal_
10
SO
700
700
12
25
640
262
b
80
494
280
32
39
81
18
146
120
18
23
257
173
120
fr 120
tfjUfi^
12 106 49
7% 63% 29%
1,586
47%
966 846
28% 25%
3^398
tl7%
-------
C-20 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-6a. Aquatic Life Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters (shore miles) ,
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
SO
25
846
32
10
18
128
120
346
624
2,199
92%
Threatened
55
55
2%
Partially
Supporting
35
71
18
124
5%
Not
Supporting
12
9
21
1%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
50
25
893
32
81
18
128
120
428
624
2,399
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-21
Table C-6b. Fish Consumption Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters (shore miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
50
25
32
18
70
60
624
879
89%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
50
60
110
11%
Not
Supporting.
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
50
25
32
18
120
120
624
989
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
C-22 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-6c. Shellfishing Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters (shore miles) ;
state
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Ncwtcfscy
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rko
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
50
70
32
18
107
117
624
1,018
91%
Threatened
<1
<1
Partially
Supporting
60
60
5%
Not
Supporting
39
3
42
4%
Not
Attainable
-
Total
Assessed
50 '
70
32
60
18
146
120
624
1,120
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-23
Table C-6d. Swimming Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters (shore miles) ;
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
50
25
32
18
128
120
286
624
1,283
85%
Threatened
10
97
107
7%
Partially
Supporting
71
25
96
6%
Not
Supporting
20
20
1%
Not
Attainable
-
Total
Assessed
50
25
32
81
18
128
120
428
624
1,506
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
C-24 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-6e. Secondary Contact Recreational Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters (shore miles) 1
State
Abba ma
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
50
25
10
18
120
372
595
82%
Threatened
45
45
6%
Partially
Supporting
71
71
10%
Not
Supporting
11
11
2%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
50
25
81
18
120
428
722
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-25
-------
C-26 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-7. Leading Causes of Ocean Coastal Water Impairments (shore miles) |
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South CaroRna
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Wands
Washington
Total ShorcSine Miles Impaired
% of Impaked Shoreline
Mifes Affected by Each Cause
% of Assessed Shoreline
Mites Affected by Each Cause
% of Total Shoreline Miles
Affected by Each Cause
Total Impaired Waters
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
72
48
107
71
39
60
60
218 239
Pathogen Indicators (1)
Mod/ Not L
Major Min Specified |Xotal
25
41 40 I
3 -
25 21
s',,j^
JB-HS?
^,
fe*.
iWi!il,i,!,lir, !
ffisj
iป^25
fSjSfsMFT1
Swpssrr
p=.
iiffij1
ifisr'w^
: si
Wflr*-*-
Sptk ซi
5:46
ซSSB^
* -
_ _ _ %
f^ n
^fcrtfc!^-*
69 86 0*155
29% 36%
frfn
2% 3% -
It
f" 1%
Metals (2)
Mod/ Not Ijijpfc,,
Major Min Specified Etofil" '
SRfii-ASi! hr ,
~ ~ ~ Illiiai
: SlSpfSSfp-:
f^.,1,., ,^1,
"" ~ ~~~ ~~ ^WWiffl:rJffff
~~ ~~~ Pf! W'iflw^r
M !:R
Jffijljw.;-
30 51 pPlCv..
~ ~ - - SSE;1
, &rpp&-nAi>t>,,;:
- - - -iigs.
^ W?:,Ji,,',^
~ SftWBfljSssSjtov
^sJffi-^^"''
jj4*^r:"
III
34 54 -
14% 23% lilZfe,
tmm$i
1% 2% Blฃ%
_ _ _ jai^ปuli
^,,
'Does not include the Alaska coastline.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Total Impaired Coastal Shoreline Miles in States Reporting Causes: 239 miles
Total Assessed Coastal Shoreline Miles: 3,366 miles
EMIrrwle of Total Coastal Shoreline Miles in the Nation: 20,121 mites*
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-27
Table C-7. (continued)
Priority Organics (3)
Unknown Toxiclty (4)
Nutrients (5)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
Major
Mod/ Not
Min Specified
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
17
feW^i-^
ft""
17
fv
11
57 3
40
1
57
15
41
17
tew?
24% 6%
2% 17%
7%
1%
1%
(continued)
-------
C-28 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-7. (continued) ,
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Debwacc River Basin
Dtslrkt o( Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New|erscy
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rfeo
Rhode bland
South Carolina
Texas
VkgWa
Vhgin Wands
Washington
Total Shotc'ine Miles
Impaked
% of Impaired Shoreline
MBes Affected by
Each Cause
% of Assessed Shoreline
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
% of Total Shoreline
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
Chlorine (6)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
3 2
_ _ _
3 2
1% 1%
"Total
1^ irp
pซU 1 )
p. ^
fr*
r
K^
L* ! 1
III III 111 III
fcฃ
H^t
pf '
mil h~ S-nn
|*^S
^2%
ihr
II1
II III III 111
I
Oil and Grease (7)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
Total
jr
8'
^
1 ;
~ ~ ~ T-
\ M I
[ I ] I
3
1%
^_^-
fel^?
^3
rT1%
1
^^
r
Thermal Modification (8)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
_ _ _
_ _ _
1 2
,
1 2
1%
Total
ฃOU-
ปfif&~
*T-,ฃT
Lp~
BIBf j_
W%ฃป
BiflT'
MSKr
SI11!1*1'"*1
-rป-
P|L
tJm
r>a
^^^
lฅe''iU"r4i__
tfeS-f
isr^-
^SSW-H-w
^.3
fcl%
f^r ~
ft*^_
ItiSSU1
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-29
Table C-7. (continued)
Other Inorganics (9)
pH (10)
Major
Mod/
Mm
Not
Specified
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified JTotal
yซnjfc-
1%
-------
C-30 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-8. The Leading Sources of Ocean Coastal Water Impairments (shore miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode bland
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total Shoreline Miles Impaired
% of Impaired Shoreline
Miles Affected by Each Source
% of Assessed Shoreline
M3cs Affected by Each Source
% of Total Shoreline Miles
Affected by Each Source
Total Impaired Waters
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
72
48
107
71
39
60
60
218 239
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers (1)
Mod/ Not ฃ
Major Min Specified fjotal
_ _ _
25
28
_ _ _
81
1 6
1 140
59%
4%
E-
p%M
a^ ;
|*5
EL
j*28
f.
t
jiซr-
Sr81
fefc.i i
fr~
par-
fega
frr
ITM1
IP
M%
1
1% its1%
fLf ""
pซfc-
Land Disposal (2)
Mod/ Not Ife.- -.,,
Major Min Specified j; Total
- - lfefงT:
: ซsfeSSaSiSS i
jp|rtwiffiipmir
!
fes?-'''1""" ";
*~~* ' ' ^BAJ^SFS*^
ferL:^, ,
I
15 3 - |ง1,8
sp?h&g.
e**-!?-
**ซ^^
15 86 mfiL
6% 36% ffPJk
Sfc~^
- ' 3% - fe^w-
sra
- - |4fr-
J0ocs not include the Alaska coastline.
None or not reported.
Source; 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Total Impaired Coastal Shoreline Miles in States Reporting Sources: 239 miles
Total Assessed Coastal Shoreline Mites: 3,366 miles
Estimate of Total Coastal Shoreline Miles in the Nation: 20,121 miles'
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-31
Table C-8. (continued)
Municipal Point Sources (3)
Contaminated pediments (4)
Recreational Activities (5)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
Major
Mod/
Min
. . . l*F^-~- vft'-^^~
Not lygisi
Specified Kfbtal
~ sius^-.z.ISZZZ
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
Wm.
25
25
21
3
57
30
12
12
57
57
55
5%
24%
24%
1%
23%
2%
---
a:
(continued)
-------
C-32 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-8. (continued)
State
Agricultural (general) (6)
Major
Mod/ Not
Min Specified
Hydrologfcal Habitat Modification (7)
Major
Mod/ Not ||S::;'
Min Specified TOta'I
Industrial Point Sources (8)
Major
Mod/ Not
Min Specified
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
47
47
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Newfersey
NcwYork
21
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rko
Rhode Island
South Carolina
ID'I,
Texas
Virginia
Wgin Islands
Washington
is*
Toul Shoreline Miles
Impaired
SO
47
23
%
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-33
Table C-8. (continued)
Drainage/Filling (9)
Construction. (10)
Major
Mod/
Min
Not ferj-
Specified fTotaf
s ซซf
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
17
30
30
17
13%
1%
-------
C-34 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
t)u-
c o
C.S2
T7^
u> c g_
S o ^*D
aS'
ฐ I
Ills
i
t
$ oi
.2 ON
U OV
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-35
Table C-10. Point Source Problems at National Estuary Program Sites
Cause
Toxicants
Pathogens
Eutrophication
Habitat Loss/
Modification
Changes
in Living
Resources
Industrial
Discharges -
Direct
AP, C, D,
G, US, M,
N, NY, PS,
SF, SMB
AP,T
AP, G, M,
SF,T
AP, C, D,
LIS, M, N,
NY, PS,
SF,T
Industrial
Discharges -
Indirect
BT, C, D,
G, US, M,
N, NY, PS,
SF, SMB
T
G, SF, T
D, LIS, M,
N, NY, PS,
SF,T
Sewage
Treatment
Plants
G, M, N,
PS, SF
B, D, G,
LIS, M, N,
PS, SMB
AP, BT,
C, G, 1,
LIS, M,
NY, PS,
S, SMB
AP, G, 1,
M, SF
AP, D, G,
1, LIS, M,
N, NY,
SMB
Combined
Sewer
Overflows
B, D, LIS,
N, NY,
PS, SF
AP, C, D,
LIS, M, N,
NY, PS, S
LIS, M, N,
NY, S
AP, M, SF
D, LIS, M,
N,NY,
PS, SF
Stormwater
C, D, G, N,
PS, SF,
SMB
AP, B, C, D,
DIB, 1, LIS,
M, N, PS,
SMB
BT, DIB, 1, T
AP, G, 1, SF,
T
D, DIB, G, 1,
M, PS, S,
SF,T
Animal
Feedlots
AP
AP, DIB,
G,PS
DIB
DIB
AP = Albemarle-Pamlico Sound
B = Buzzards Bay
BT = Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary
C = Casco Bay
D = Delaware Estuary
DIB = Delaware Inland Bays
G = Galveston Bay
I = Indian River Lagoon
LIS = Long Island Sound
M = Massachusetts Bay
N = Narragansett Bay
NY = New York-New Jersey Harbor
PS = Puget Sound
S = Sarasota Bay
SF = San Francisco Bay
SMB = Santa Monica Bay
T = Tampa Bay
Source: NOAA, Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. A Special 20th Anniversary
Report. U.S. Department of Commerce. October 1990.
-------
C-36 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
C
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-37
Table C-12. Oth|er Sources of Problems at National Estuary Program Sites 1
= i
Cause
Toxicants
Pathogens
Eutrophication
Habitat Loss/
Modification
Changes
in Living
Resources
Shipping
Marinas
C,D,
DIB, G, 1,
M,PS,
SMB,T
C, DIB,
G, LIS, M
C, DIB, G
BT, C, G,
1, M, PS,
S,T
C,D,
DIB, 1,
SF,T
Dredging
G,M,
NY, SF
G,T
AP,Q
DIB,G, 1,
M, PS
S, SF, T
AP, DIB,
G, M, S,
SF,T
Shoreline
Development
B, DIB,
M, S
DIB, M,
N
AP, B, C,
D, DIB,
G, 1, N,
NY, LIS,
M, S, SF,
PS,T
B,D,
DIB, G, 1,
N, LIS,
M, S, SF,
T
Freshwater
Inflow
BT, M, SF
1
AP, BT, G,
1, SF, T
BT, G, SF,
T
Sealevel
Rise
Other
SMB-
ocean
dump
site
SMB-
301
AP = Albemarle-Pamlico Sound
B = Buzzards Bay
BT = Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary
C = Casco Bay
D = Delaware Estuary
DIB = Delaware Inland Bays
G = Galveston Bay
I = Indian River Lagoon
LIS = Long Island Sound
M = Massachusetts Bay
N = Narragansett Bay
NY = New York-New Jersey Harbor
PS = Puget Sound
S = Sarasota Bay
SF = San Francisco Bay
SMB = Santa Monica Bay
T = Tampa Bay
Source: NOAA, Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. A Special 20th
Anniversary Report. U.S. Department of Commerce. October 1990.
-------
-------
Appendix D
Individual State Data
Wetlands
-------
D-2 Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands
1 Table D-1 . Current Sources of Direct Wetlands Losses
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total Number of States
Agriculture
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
Commercial
Development
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
19
Residential
Development
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
Highway
Construction
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
Impound-
ments
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
Resource
Extraction
1
1
:
i
1
1
i
i
1
1
i
i
11
The State reported that the source caused current wetlands losses.
None or not reported.
Source; 1992 State Section 305(b) Reports.
-------
Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands D-3
Table D-1 . (continued) j
Industry
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.1.
Dredged Material
Disposal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
Silviculture
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Natural
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Mosquito
Control
1
1
-------
D-4 Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands
Table D-2. Overall Designated Use Support in Wetlands (aires)
State
Fully Supporting
Eval- Monl- Not ง"~"
uated tored Specified J Total
Threatened
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not
tored Specified
Partially Supporting
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not
itored Specified
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
80
780
60,078
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cto River Irtd. Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
36,328
969
15,474
8,215
,474
13,665
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
34,256
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
p!fi
12,000
i*ป
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
5,256,000
6,000
83
2,577,000
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
120
31
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
teggggggag.
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
ii,-
% of Assessed Waters
1%
99%
:So%"
100%
|fc
<1%
25,665 34,256 2,637,078
1% 1% 98%
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands D-5
Table D-2. (continued)
; Not Supporting
Not Attainable
Total Assessed
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not
tored Specified KB
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not
tored Specified
otal
Eval- Moni- Not
uated tored Specified
60,858
80
<8R?"
3,640
51,802
26,489
34,256
24,169
36,169
2,474,000 g|7S/P|0
10,307,000
120
27,809
1%
2,474,000
99%
114,660 34,256 10,367,858
1% <1% 99%
-------
D-6 Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands
1 Table D-3. Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Afiseonstn
Wyoming
Total Number of States
Sediment
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
Nutrients
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
Water
Diversions
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Pesticides
1
1
1
1
1
5
Salinity
1
1
1
1
|
4
Heavy
Metals
1
1
1
3
Ponding
.
1
1
1
3
Weeds
1
'
1
1
3
1 m The State reported that the pollutant or process degrades wetlands integrity.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) Reports.
-------
Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands D-7
Table D-3. (continued) 1
Low DO
1
'
1
2
PH
1
1
2
Selenium
1
1
-------
D-8 Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands
| Table D-4. Sources of Integrity Degradation in Wetlands 1
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware River Basin
Dislrkt of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
flJW.il!
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Ntew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
NewYork
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
'cnnsyfvanto
>uerto Rko
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total Number of States
Agriculture
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
Development
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
Channelization
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
Road
Construction
1
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
8
Urban
Runoff
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Resource
Extraction
-
1
1
1
1
1
5
Landfills
1
1
1
1
1
5
Natural
E
i
1
,
1
1
i
5
1 ป The State reported that the source degrades wetlands integrity.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) Reports.
-------
Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands D-9
Table D-4. (continued) i ;
Industrial
Runoff
1
1
1
1
4
Onsite
Systems
1
1
1
3
Irrigation
1
1
1
3
Recreation
1
1
1
3
Municipal
Sewage
1
1
2
Silviculture
1
1
2
Industrial
Sewage
-
1
1
2
Oil
Extraction
1
1
-------
D-10 Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands
1 Table D-5. Development of State Wetland Water Quality Standards
State
Alabama
Alaska
Amcrkjn Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rko
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
In Place
Use
Classification
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
Narrative
Biocriteria
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
Numeric
Biocritieria
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Anti-
degradation
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
27
Under Development
Use
Classification
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
Narrative
Biocriteria
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
Numeric
Biocriteria
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
Anti-
degradation
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1 "The State reported program status.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) Reports.
-------
Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands D-11
1
Table D-5. . (continued) 1 :
Proposed
Use
Classification
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
_
1
1
1
- - -
9
Narrative
Biocriteria
1
I
, ,
1
1
1
_
1
__
5
Numeric
Biocriteria
1
1
1
1
4
Anti-
degradation
I
1
.
1
1
:
1
1
5
Implementation Process
Riparian areas
Regional Water Boards
Municipal jurisdiction for Inland Waters
Limited
In place for Thibodaux Swamp
Limited
401, Coastal Area Management Act
Clean Stream Laws
Water Quality Standards
401
Regulations
Limited
401
Wetlands Standards
NR 1 03 (Wetlands Standards)
-------
-------
Appendix E
Individual State Data
Public Health and Aquatic Life
Concerns
-------
E-2 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-1. Number and Extent of Fishing Restrictions Reported by the States
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
HawaH
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohfo River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
WestWginla
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Rivers and Streams
Number of
Restrictions
3
3
3
6
2
3
1
27
S
6
19
2
1
3
3
3
1
12
35
55
5
1
1
3
1
1
8
3
24
6
3
15
1
2
24
1
7
6
1
1
8
1
7
71
394
Total Miles
Affected
246
107
119
39
6
583
467
331
77
10
789
51
236
60
1,076
28
509
635
133
254
7
458
440
6,661
Lakes and Reservoirs
Number of
Restrictions
3
1
1
10
8
1
36
1
10
1
1
3
1
7
19
432
2
1
5
24
25
6
10
3
2
1
2
2
11
5
1
1
1
170
807
Total Acres
Affected
10
45
24,911
23,489
12
150
107
100
33,334
339,306
103,628
500
525,592
Great Lakes Shore
Number of
Restrictions
2 '
1
8
1
1
1
1
3
18
Total Miles
Affected
63
43
3,288
272
492
4,158
Estuaries
Number of
Restrictions
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
2
1
1
2
21
Square Miles
Affected
600
58
658
None or not reported.
Source: USEPA Fish Consumption Advisory Database, September 1993.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-3
Table E-1. (continued) i
:\ Ocean Shore : :
Number of
Restrictions
12
^~*
1
1
2
16
Total Miles
Affected
. .
_
-
iMultiple Waters Affected
Number of
Restrictions
. .
1
13
1
1
1
3
1
. .
_
1
1
.
23
Total Acres
Affected
-
-
_
Total Number
of Restrictions:
6
1
4
5
29
4
3
1
77
6
18
21
3
1
4
8
3
4
22
62
489
7
4
1
3
2
1
21
27
54
13
13
19
. 3
3
28
1
3
19
13
2
2
8
2
7
244
1,279
-------
r
E-4 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-2. Number of Fishing Restrictions Caused by Individual Pollutants
state
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
NewYork
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohto River VaNey
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rko
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percentage*
Mercury
1
1
3
11
3
1
77
3
1
3
27
479
1
2
27
9
6
13
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
219
899
70%
PCBs
1
1
1
10
3
2
1
1
7
18
2
4
5
10
34
74
5
1
14
38
15
1
19
1
2
12
4
2
3
3
25
319
25%
Chlordane
3
3
1
1
2
10
3
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
2
8
7
4
1
21
6
3
1
7
96
8%
Dioxin
4
3
1
1
3
1
4
4
3
3
1
6
7
5
2
1
3
1
1
4
1
59
5%
DDT
1
1
4
11
1
3
3
3
1
1
29
2%
* Percentage of 1,279 advisories.
None or not reported.
Source: USEPA Rsh Consumption Advisory Database, September 1993.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-5
Table E-3. Sources of Pollutants Causing Fishing Restrictions 1
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut3
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Industrial
Discharges
4
2
1
1
2
3
6
3
1
6
1
1
19
11
2
6
3
5
2
79
Unknown
3
3
5
1
3
24
12
5
3
1
1
1
3
4
69
Agriculture
3
4
2
16
25
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
1
2
1
1
15
-
2
22
Resource
Extraction
4
1
5
Natural
3
3
Atmospheric
Deposition
-
1
1
a Advisories based on historic discharges and activities that have resulted in residual sediment contamination and/or fish tissue
contamination.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
E-6 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-4. Drinking Water Restrictions Reported by the States ; |
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gib River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Onto River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
WestVkgWa
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Number of
Closures
3
1
9
3
5
12
33
Number of
Advisories
3
2
2
14
21
Reasons for Closures and Advisories
Color, odor, turbidity, sediment, algae, giardia, construction
Nitrate
TRIS
Chemical plant spills, oil spill from power plant
Giardia, bacteria
Giardia
Oil spill, toluene spill, raw sewage discharge, cyanide spill
Trihalomethane
Drinking plant failures
Boil water notice
Turbidity, diesel, fuel oil, raw sewage
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-7
Table E-5. Contact Recreatior} Restrictions Reported by the States :
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan3
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Number of Contact
Recreation Restrictions
5
2
3
1
52
7
1
22
1
1
1
7
2
2
59
20
1
1
91
7
2
1
1
5
44
'5
20
1
4
2
371
Reasons for Restrictions
Fecal coliforms
Fecal coliforms
Fecal coliforms from runoff
Fecal coliforms
Bacteria from CSOs, rainfall, and sewer line rupture
Pathogens
Bacterial pollution from CSOs in all district waters
Leaking septic tanks, WWTP discharges, sewage spills, heavy rains
Fecal coliform bacteria attributed to water fowl
Fecal coliforms
Industrial runoff, septic tanks, animal discharges, abandoned hazardous waste sites,
industrial and municipal discharges, farm runoff
CSOs, raw sewage
Fecal coliform bacteria
Fecal coliforms from CSOs, sewer pipeline break, agriculture, domestic sewage, industry
Fecal bacteria
Medical waste
Bacteria, algae, and turbidity from storm runoff and sewage bypass
PCBs, dioxin, PAHs, mirex, chlordane
Bacteria from CSOs, urban runoff, municipal discharges
Bacteria
Bacteria, shigella outbreak from septic tanks and other NPS
Fecal coliforms
Bacteria (42); toxics in water or sediment (2)
Bacteria
Coliform, CSO
Bacterial contamination
High bacteria content from sewage
Bacteria and clarity possibly related to CSOs
a Michigan reported 8 specific incidents of waterborne disease (Swimmer's Itch and Giardia).
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
E-8 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-6. Sources Associated with Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions |
State
Alabama
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
a
4
1
62
1
28
47
143
Marinas
4
38
9
51
Municipal
Discharges
13
2
1
2
5
17
20
60
Industrial
Discharges
1
2
3
4
9
21
E
40
Other Point
Sources
4
34
38
Septic
Tanks
9
1
5
9
E
24
CSOs
a
1
5
E
6
Hydro-
modification
'
4
4
* Precautionary closures are imposed at all conditional shellfish beds during and 48 hours following rain events.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 30S(b) reports.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-9
-------
E-10 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-7. Fish Kills Caused by Pollution |
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Horfda
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
IWnois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percentages
Caused by Pollutants
and Natural Causes
28
2
IS
21
4
26
19
1
275
40
7
19
72
35
56
33
106
2
116
97
8
31
37
:
7
60
12
10
20
54
35
17
42
11
11
88
9
48
15
10
2
96
6
17
1,620
Caused by
Pollution
Total No.
Fish Kills
7
2
15
21
4
9
17
1
20
40
7
19
20
19
56
30
64
2
15
70
8
12
26
'
7
32
11
9
20
54
35
17
42
11
1
21
2
43
15
9
2
94
6
15
930
57%
Total No.
Fish Killed
120
162,690
1,000
16,000
1,066,272
186,304
451,300
200,407
7,719
249,104
1,100,122
127,208
400,000
850
I
350,61 0
60,660
13,585
29,592
111,525
41,318
34,404
110,600
128,113
8
18,373
50
215,684
4,541
2,000
5,500
11,000
5,106,659
Kills Caused by
Toxic Pollutants
Number of
Fish Kills
1
2
5
16
2
9
2
7
16
4
1
5
8
4
25
2
10
10
2
4
2
'
3
3
2
8
9
3
4
10
2
1
21
1
19
11
3
11
248
26%
Number of
Fish Killed
120
9,240
1 6,000
1,058,827
63,952
331,300
700
216,347
4,194
40,369
400,000
850
22,730
150
'
-
236
~~
54,710
2,694
1,557
6,300
25,720
8
18,373
50
1 35,867
1,164
~
2,411,458
Kills Caused by
Conventional Pollutants
Number of
Fish Kills
5
~~
8
5
1
2
~~
1
7
21
~
1
2
10
46
16
5
20
6
4
8
2
11
9
28
17
6
11
13
2
1
20
4
11
308
32%
Number of
Fish Killed
25,700
3,825
114,553
10,000
32,463
95,928
73,595
350,610
37,827
2,327
~
163
~~"
61,715
34,257
22,420
100,046
1 7,303
~
79,036
57
~
5,500
7,000
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-11
1 Table E-7. (continued)
-..- Kills Caused by
Habitat Modification
Number of
Fish Kills
I
1
1
2
__
2
__
3
4
3
4
I
.
5
2
1
28
3%
Number of
Fish Killed
1,000
1,570
E
110,000
6,500
28,040
E
3,764
320
2,000
153,194
Kills Caused by
Unspecified/Unknoyw Pollutants
Number of
Fish Kills
1
2
1
7
13
I
3
17
4
2
39
47
38
4
13
2
14
8
1
3
17
15
2
21
6
1
13
4
2
63
2
4
369
39%
Number of
Fish Killed
127,750
1,000
1,000
7,799
7,019
294
1,000,000
_
103
4,608
1,153
5,100
10,427
490
85,090
781
3,000
4,000
1,259,614
Kills Due to
Natural Causes
Number of
Fish Kills
21
8
2
255
.
9
11
3
42
54
27
19
11
28
1
1
.
10
67
7
5
1
2
2
586
Number of
Fish Killed
3,000
3,800,000
4,979
10,184
7,000
60,051
9,080
12,396
19,000
,
121,608
700
E
4,047,998
-------
E-12 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-8. Pollutants Causing Fish Kills j
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Giia River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
OhtaRrvefVaHcy
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Wand
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
BOD/DO
4
1
3
1
3
5
15
2
9
41
3
25
15
1
14
26
5
4
4
6
1
2
5
8
1
7
10
221
Pesticides
1
1
1
2
1
5
4
2
1
2
7
1
25
2
3
6
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
12
1
2
1
4
96
Manure/
Silage
1
1
2
17
6
4
1
8
4
11
5
4
3
1
1
69
Oil and
Gas
1
1
1
2
5
5
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
8
6
3
4
1
8
1
2
58
Chlorine
1
1
1
4
1
1
5
1
1
2
3
1
8
1
1
3
1
2
3
41
Ammonia
1
2
1
3
1
9
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
30
Temp-
erature
1
1
2
1
9
1
1
3
3
1
23
Acidity
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
5
19
Nutrients
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
14
BOD/DO ซ Biological oxygen demand/dissolved oxygen.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-13
Table E-8. (continued) |
Unspecified
Organics
2
1
1
1
2
4
11
Siltation/
Sediment
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
10
Metals
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
9
Priority
Organics
3
1
4
-------
E-14 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-9, Sources erf Pollutants Causing Fish Kills ; ; |
State
Alabama
Alaska
Amctic.m Samoa
Afteona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Horkla
Georgia
GRa River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
town
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
OMo River VaKey
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rko
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Natural
8
3
11
16
2
42
54
11
23
1
7
5
1
4
188
Agriculture
2
2
1
3
8
2
3
14
20
6
25
5
4
3
1
10
4
19
6
6
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
2
157
Industrial
Discharges
3
4
1
5
10
3
5
3
16
1
2
2
1
2
4
1
3
14
7
10
5
102
Municipal
Discharges
4
1
1
1
9
2
2
2
10
3
3
3
4
6
5
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
3
69
Other
Spills
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
3
11
3
3
8
3
1
45
Pesticide
Application
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
12
1
2
1
32
Hydro-
modification
2
1
1
4
5
1
14
Low
Flows
4
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
17
Drinking Supply
Discharges
1
.
1
1
1
3
1
1
9
None or not reported.
Source; 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-15
Table E-9. (continued) \ \
Resource
Extraction
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
Swimming
Pools
1
-
5
6
Construction
1
1
--
1
2
5
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
1
1
1
3
-------
E-16 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
So
resource extracti
ral runoff, irrigati
pills,
s
i
Ag
ฃ
Q-
8
E
O
ro
U
Point sources and urban runoff
multiple
Unkno
Indust
spi
off, and industri
discharges, indu
Ind
g >r ฃ
S;ง ฐ:
ป u
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-17
_O
O
43 ^
O
CB
Il
-re
"ง g
|D "Q.
rt3 "^
.Q-S
i/ป* "O
II
> 5
? 8
a!
T3
1
I
I
O.
Q.
E
"R
E
o
,
.9-
-ฐ
c
(U
1 8-
Q
I
a>
c
ซ
o
Q.
a
" II II
8 1 B
-
O '=
S 1
-------
E-18 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-11. Size of Waters Affected by Toxic Substances
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
HawaK
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percentages
Rivers and Streams
Monitored
for Toxics
886
2,690
355
5,339
9,315
573
231
120
38
1,072
18
1,225
8,181
5,335
1,669
16,006
307
865
6,098
3,662
2,330
3,432
43,674
1,602
1,487
8,763
3,400
a
5,826
7,901
954
400,472
7,284
1,047
256
3,739
3,080
10,834
3,802
4,994
10,633
2,040
2,169
1,234
2,113
597,051
17%
Elevated
Toxics
281
2,441
84
3,152
1,265
158
99
6
14
678
1,225
1,929
1,845
218
706
59
237
746
1,652
758
761
4,502
587
134
13
3,618
538
a
764
2,127
954
1,844
741
2,305
1,017
123
30
163
883
309
780
935
1,116
1,895
508
595
44,795
8%
Lakes and Reservoirs
Monitored
for Toxics
61,178
61,509
155,344
329,174
51,606
11,268
620
238
142,720
32,000
147,800
23,500
5,638
172,129
38,106
290,633
2,223,029
60,235
236,873
615,935
92,585
227,427
5,635
668,000
294,107
437,671
98,445
569,038
19,282
3,616
647
509,438
548,000
501,427
157,236
450,078
58,994
16,186
601,594
70,069
9,989,009
25%
Elevated
Toxics
61,178
32,941
22,666
228,174
12,930
2,875
403
103
74,880
32,000
36,222
815
320
9,118
400
23,090
2,1 75,226
6,007
7,824
270,847
46,885
77,550
137
122,338
135,000
10,020
339,307
1 3,941
201,265
19,282
1,981
441
75,067
500
4,909
2,535
8,464
214,164
2,750
4,274,554
43%
Estuaries
Monitored
for Toxics
91
558
14
53
6
481
100
10
18
1,530
21
1
23
694
919
1,384
3
1,402
7,307
20%
Elevated
Toxics
86
49
1
25
3
235
10
10
120
21
1
7
<1
58
228
1
94
948
13%
Oceans
Monitored
for Toxics
25
99
10
81
120
171
506
3%b
Elevated
Toxics
.
99
81
60
50
290
57%
4 North Carolina monitors toxics at 350 ambient monitoring sites, but the State does not relate the data to waterbodies.
Excluding the Alaska shoreline.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-19
Table E-11. (continued) }
: '" -:.'-:- Great Lakes : ::v
Monitored
for Toxics
63
43
3,288
272
577
236
840
5,319
99%
Elevated
Toxics
63
43
-
3,288
272
492
236
. .
840
5,234
98%
: : v.!-: -, Total Wetlands, \[;\ ; Y: ;' '
Monitored
for Toxics
106,753
34,256
26,169
167,178
<1%
Elevated
Toxics
79,041
26,169
105,210
63%
-------
-------
Appendix F
Individual State Data
Great Lakes
-------
F-2 Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes
Table F-1. Overall Designated Use Support in the Great Lales (shore miles)
State
Fully Supporting
Eva!-
uated
Moni- Not
tored Specified
Threatened
Eval-
uated
Moni- Not
tored Specified Ttital
Partially Supporting
Eval-
uated
Moni-
itored
Not
Specified
Wools
Indiana9
Michigan6
Minnesota
63
New York
Ohio
Fcnnsytvvmia
Wisconsin
tr-i
630
Totals
% of Assessed Waters
0%
100%
63
0% 100%
630
39%
981
61%
* Entered aquatic life support data in lieu of overall use support data.
^Michigan classifies all of its waters as either fully supporting or not supporting designated uses.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 30S(b) reports.
-------
Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes F-3
Table F-1 . (continued) i -; ' ' '
Not Supporting
Eval- Moni- Not Csss*.
uated tored Specified Optal
1 tjfsjgjงt^p3$$g.~
E iij E g
E E E . |
3,560 -
0% 100%
Not Attainable
Eval- Moni- Not 6|B|S
uated tored Specified
E E I 1
E E = 1
0% 0%
Total Assessed
Eval- Moni- Not fcs . _
uated tored Specified iJS*a'
63 ^63
- 577 - &j$72
.236 fe2"36
630 210
630 4,689 l| 31 9
12% 88% p9|%,
-------
F-4 Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes
Table F-2a. Aquatic Life Use Support in the Great Lakes (shore miles)
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
577
577
11%
Threatened
63
720
783
15%
Partially
Supporting
43
236
120
399
8%
Not
Supporting
3,288
23
3,311
65%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
63
43
3,288.
23
577
236
840
5,070
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 30S(b) reports.
Table F-2b. Fish Consumption Use Support in the Great Lakes (shore miles)
State
URnois
Indian*
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
85
85
2%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
492
236
840
1,568
29%
Not
Supporting
63
43
3,288
272
3,666
69%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
63
43
3,288
272
577
236
840
5,319
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table F-2c. Swimming Use Support in the Great Lakes (shore miles)
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
NซwYork
Onto
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
62
43
3,287
23
483
780
4,678
96%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
1
43
94
40
178
4%
Not
Supporting
1
20
21
<1%
Not
Attainable
r
Total
Assessed
63
86
3,288
23
577
840
4,877
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes F-5
Table F-2d. Secondary Contact Use Support irrthe Great Lakes (shore miles) !
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
3,288
572
780
4,640
99%
Threatened
-
.
Partially
Supporting
5
60
65
1%
Not
Supporting
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
3,288
577
840
4,705
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table F-2e. Drinking Water sJpply Use Support in the Great Lakes (shore miles) ; >
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
63
43
3,208
576
820
4,710
98%
Threatened
'
Partially
Supporting
1
20
21
<1%
Not
Supporting
80
80
2%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
63
43
3,288
577
840
4,811 _
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table F-2f. Agriculture Use Support in the Great Lakes (shore miles) ;
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
43
3,288
577
800
4,708
99%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
40
40
1%
Not
Supporting
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
43
3,288
577
840
4,748
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
f-6 Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes
Table F-3. Leading Causes of Great Lakes Impairments (sho're miles)
State
(Knots
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total Shore Miles Impaired
% of Impaired Shore Miles9
Affected by Each Cause
% of Assessed Shore Miles
Affected by Each Cause
%o( Total Shore Miles
Affected by Each Cause
Total Impaired Waters
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
43
3,288
272
492
236
840
5,171
Priority Organics (1)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
63
3,288
272
388 104
4 186
840
Si
fm
FT90'
life !;-,, .
sSSb
4,583 562 - p'T^'S
89% 11% pi$p
86% 11% ||K$ป
85% 10% pSฎ
Metals (2)
Mod/ Not Jtซ^_
Major Min Specified t Total
= j = j|
86 129 fe21^
86 501 S^SSf
2% 9% Ifim"""
2% 9% pTT%
i
2% 9% Hn%
" Includes only impaired shore miles in States reporting causes affecting the Great Lakes.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305
-------
Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes F-7
Table F-3. (continued) j ' ,
Organic Enrich./Low Dissolved Oxygen (3)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified TqtjiF
44 (Sli44
ซ ซ - tfST
75 100
150 190 fpง0
3% 4%
3% 4%
3% 3%
Nutrients (4)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
WfA'J*
JEW.
77 21
75 100
HMH^
152 121
3% 2%
3% 2%
3% 2%
w
K
iSiltation (5)
Mod/ Not Si-
Major Min Specified ijirtaj
te"ป"^3-^
&~??K
6 63 -
75 *Sซฃ75
6 138 IH44
<1% 3%
<1% 3% lO*
<1% 3%
(continued)
-------
F-8 Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes
Table F-3. (continued) ' ;
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total Shore Miles
Impaired
% of Impaired Shore
Mite1 Affected by
Each Cause
% of Assessed Shore
Mite Affected by
Each Cause
% of Total Shore MSes
Affected by Each Cause
Pathogen Indicators (6)
Mod/ Not ||": '
Major Min Specified [Total
E E E H
21 23 i
!:44
- so - PIT
21 103 IB24" ""
<1% 2% "
<1% 2%
<1% 2%
it,1. i""1' "':
i
Bss ;
Noxious Aquatic Weeds (7)
Mod/ Not f,
Major Min Specified fota'
23
75 I I !
EH
i-75
75 23 11=98
i%
-------
Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes F-9
Table F-3., (continued)
Ammonia (9)
Chlorine (10)
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
20
20
20
20
0%
0%
0%
-------
F-10 Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes
Table F-4. Leading Sources of Great Lakes Impairments (snore miles)
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total Shore Mites Impaired
% of Impaired Shore Mites3
Affected by Each Source
% of Assessed Shore Miles
Affected by Each Source
% of Total Shore Miles
Affected by Each Source
Total Impaired Waters
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
43
3,287 1
272
492
236
840
3,287 1,884
Atmospheric Deposition (1)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified
63
43
840
63 883
3% 47%
1% 17%
1% 16%
Total
fefe
jg,U_
-Si u
*TL
m
mn
^fe"-
58%
17%
Contaminated Sediments (2)
Mod/ Not IftSBSf"*
Major Min Specified JrTotal
-- = = :E
388 ss ~~
702 58 |Wฎ*~"
* Includes only impaired shore miles in States reporting sources affecting the Great Lakes.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Total Impaired Great Lakes Shore Miles in States Reporting Sources: 1,884 shore miles
Total Assessed Great lakes Shore Miles: 5,319 shore miles
Eitfmate of Total Great Lakes Shore Miles In the Nation: 5,382 shore miles
-------
Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes F-11
Table F-4. (continued)
Land Disposal (3)
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers (4)
Combined Sewer Overflow (5)
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
v&t
Total
Major
Mod/
Min
Not
Specified
63
10
43
20
492
4
60
14
21
100
21
14
60
20
556
14
184
22
127
1%
30%
10%
1%
a..*5*
fffj
10%
2%
10%
3%
2%
(continued)
-------
F-12 Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes
Table F-4. (continued)
State
Construction (6)
Major
Mod/ Not
Mln Specified
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total Shore Miles
Impaired
35
% of Impaired Shore
Mites* Affected by
Each Source
2%
% of Assessed Shore
Mites Affected by
Each Source
% of Total Shore Mttes
Affected by Each Source
-------
Appendix G
Individual State Data
Section 314 Clean Lakes Data
-------
r
G-2 Appendix G Individual State Data - Section 314 Clean Lakes Data
Table G-1. Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes :
state
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Ariama'
Arkansas'*
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Ftorfdae
Georgia
Cila River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
lOWl
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada .
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Wet Virginia"1
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percentages
Total
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Public Lakes
43 469,653
235 128,436
77 355,063
176 149,023
105 24,941
47 2,973
NA NA
1 103
145 968,320
27
2,557 515,510
298 155,433
115 42,974
238 172,129
75 699,722
2,312 958,499
62 21,001
704 489,407
11,842 3,290,101
127 313,538
830 161,090
174 151,320
7,648 730,387
145 304,542
216 619,088
NA NA
125
18
58 7,035
43 476,001
123 539,326
108
139 450,078
248 161,554
NA NA
93 21,522
14,973
44,127 12,378,769
Assessed
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Public Lakes
22 392,474
2
10
87 102,623
105 24,941
NA NA
1 103
106
38 397,147
298 155,433
186 74,144
115 42,974
220 171,857
102 214,962
30 455,476
1,732 926,593
62 21,001
320 54,846
704 489,407
1,738
34 298,652
108 262,028
1,378 643,146
64 127,517
12
507 152,862
66 145,042
1,896 349,842
145 304,542
149 604,292
NA NA
149
202
54
18
58 7,035
40 474,651
120
123 539,326
139 450,078
215,469
62 90,763
NA NA
148
127
11,477 8,189,226
Oligotrophic
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Public Lakes
1
1 1 8,223
7 1,549
NA NA
58
7 1 73,801
3 75
59 38,773
11 63,513
143 103,841
3 1,339
9 25,549
111 1 74,068
236
3 293
452 254,692
3
161 110,586
12 10,027
398 62,150
38 73,395
NA NA
22 . .
59
1
1
5 388
20 97,044
23 76,323
9,306
3 5,348
NA NA
25
30
1,915 1,290,283
17% 16%
Mesotrophic
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Public Lakes
7 82,762
2
30 42,454
61 16,165
NA NA
25
7 29,932
23 6,185
106 30,598
46 80,883
30 42,444
1,017 667,387
14 6,559
84 10,662
364 176,715
598
34 84,082
428 348,522
4 37,970
7
223 34,030
19 70,108
375 208,360
32 106,081
12 369,339
NA NA
66
72
41
6
42 5,810
6 28,807
8
36 115,862
72 225,222
178,985
20 4,285
NA NA
81
48
4,046 3,010,209
35% 37%
* Arizona's significant public lakes do not include lakes under the jurisdiction of American Indian Tribes.
''Arkansas calculated and ranked all 77 significant public lakes by a trophic index, but did not assign a trophic class to each index.
* Florida reports the number of lake reaches in each trophic category. The State has 101 significant public lakes comprised of 145 lake reaches.
d West Virginia reports total number of publicly owned lakes, some of which may not be "significant."
None or not reported.
NA-Not applicable.
Sources 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix G Individual State Data - Section 314 Clean Lakes Data G-3
Table G-1. (continued): | .
'..' : Eutrophk ; .
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Public Lakes
15 309,712
2
7
39 46,900
21 5,901
1 103
23
24 193,414
141 60,453
21 4,773
115 42,974
101 80,486
58 108,877
30 455,476
572 155,365
45 13,103
169 15,428
229 138,624
586
34 298,652
66 1 76,949
371 39,262
46 81,086
2
123 8,246
34 64,902
282 54,195
57 . 108,340
58 150,298
28
61
12
11
10 817
34 445,844
27
48 309,443
40 44,104
26,810
39 81,130
41
47
3,670 3,521,667
32% 43%
Hypereutrqphic
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Public Lakes
7 5,046
16 1,326
131 88,720
73 10,488
3 128
57 3,1 70
318
5 704
14 8,461
8 1,470
79 84,654
33
10
85
19 16,977
4 104,429
1
2
865 325,573
8% 4%
'.V';:. ' : Dystropriic ; :
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Public Lakes
1 37
127 670
1 5
841 25,137
10 15,256
.
1 20
- - 368
---
981 41,493
8% 0.5%
:':-'..:.:,.;:;. .Unknown:; -,'. ,'.-]'.'/,
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Public Lakes
21 77,1 79
25 21,382
18 272
6 110
2,547 96,327
249 25,515
502 20,21 7
11
5,692 270,692
7
12-914
511 .
9,589 524,608
84% 6%
-------
G-4 Appendix G Individual State Data - Section 314 Clean Lakes Data
Table G-2. Acidity in Significant Publicly Owned Lakes
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gfto River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawat!
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rko
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virqin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percentages
Number of
Lakes Assessed
for Acidity
77
105
30
NA
7
9
8
1,004
62
704
1,153
107
549
1,526
145
192
NA
58
123
4
200
62
NA
698
6,823
Acreage of
Lakes Assessed
for Acidity
24,941
NA
2,445
168,877
43,465
713,387
21,001
489,407
263,124
153,581
97,825
304,542
611,074
NA
7,035
539,326
90,762
NA
211,735
3,742,527
Number of
Lakes Exhibiting
High Acidity3
1
8
12
8
NA
4
8
59
12
218
40
642
NA
10
3
7
NA
6
1,038
15%
Acreage of
Lakes Exhibiting
High Acidity3
1,850
1,828
NA
43,465
697
3,277
23,462
NA
1,097
2,864
114
NA
78,654
2%
* Includes lakes threatened by high acidity {i.e., low pH) due to natural causes.
None or not reported.
NAซ Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix G Individual State Data - Section 314 Clean Lakes Data G-5
| Table G-3. Sources of High Acidity in Lakes
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Acid Deposition
Number Acreage
of Lakes Lakes
Impacted Impacted
NA NA
' .
41
19 1,681
397 17,550
NA NA
10 1,097
7 114
NA NA
-
474 20,442
Acid Mine Drainage
Number of Acreage
Lakes Lakes
Impacted Impacted
1 1,850
NA NA
NA NA
3 2,864
NA NA
4 4,714
Natural Sources
Number Acreage
of Lakes Lakes
Impacted Impacted
8
12 1,828
8
NA NA
8 43,465
24
21 1,596
NA NA
10 1,097
NA NA
91 47,986
Other
Number of Acreage
Lakes Lakes
Impacted Impacted
NA NA
"
-
NA NA
NA NA
- -' -
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
r
G-6 Appendix G Individual State Data - Section 314 Clean Lakes Data
Table G-4. Trends in Significant Publicly Owned Lakes |
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
NcwYork
North Carolina"
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percentages
Total
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Public Lakes
43 469,653
235 128,436
77 355,063
176 149,023
105 24,941
47 2,973
NA NA
1 103
145 968,320
27
2,557 515,510
298 155,433
115 42,974
238 172,129
75 699,722
2,312 958,499
62 21,001
704 489,407
11,842 3,290,101
127 313,538
830 161,090
174 151,320
7,648 730,387
145 304,542
216 619,088
NA NA
125
18
58 7,035
43 476,001
123 539,326
108
139 450,078
248 161,554
NA NA
93 21,522
14,973
44,127 12,378,769
Assessed
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Public Lakes
43 469,653
11 167,550
7 8,553
105 24,940
NA NA
56 914
13 159,959
98
186
114 42,939
123 164,288
91 214,962
223
210 299,942
161
1 122,535
12 34,499
61
316 128,377
94 286,065
189 487,858
NA NA
40 474,651
97 657,289
123 539,326
89 165,056
62 90,862
NA NA
104
49 48,880
2,678 4,588,568
Improving
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Public Lakes
1 440
1
10 10,519
NA NA
15 173
6 7,457
25
59
5 1,793
5 19,042
3 294
12
40 58,283
26
1 208
1
134 45,935
16 54,307
1 412
NA NA
8 161,975
24 37,245
6 6,643
27 9,087
5 20,21 7
NA NA
20
20 22,287
471 456,317
18% 10%
Stable
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Public Lakes
42 469,21 3
10
7 8,553
89 1 3,609
NA NA
36 707
5 57,897
27
106
90 38,319
93 121,482
80 211,993
190
143 205,801
129
9 33,491
54
14 765
65 212,156
162 64,099
NA NA
30 260,796
46 58,668
87 522,699
44 149,360
55 70,389
NA NA
70
24 23,150
1,707 2,523,146
64% 55%
4 North Carolina counted High Rock Lake as both improving and degrading because fish consumption use improved on 1,900 acres but 13,850 acres became more degraded
by cutrophtcation.
None or not reported.
NA-Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix G Individual State Data - Section 314 Clean Lakes Data C-7
Table G-4. (continued)
Degrading
Number of
Significant
Public Lakes
Acreage of
Significant
Public Lakes
6
NA
5
2
46
21
19
25
8
21
27
6
1
2
6
168
13
26
NA
2
27
30
18
2
NA
14
5
500
19%
812
NA
34
94,605
2,827
23,764
2,145
I
35,858
122,535
800
81,677
19,602
422,827
NA
51,880
561,376
9,984
6,609
257
NA
3,443
1,441,034
31%
-------
G-8 Appendix G Individual State Data - Section 314 Clean Lakes Data
Table G-5. Clean-Lakes Program Projects |
state
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Fkxlda
Georgia
GJIa River Indian Community
Guam
Hawai
tdaho
ItSnois
Indiana
lOWil
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rfco
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Phase 1 Projects
Number Number
of Projects of Projects
Initiated Completed
2
3
1
7 7
4
NA NA
2 1
6
3 4
18 11
3
2 5
6
1 1
1
3 1
6
21
3
4 4
4 2
9 7
2
1
3 10
2
2 2
NA NA
17
1
S
1 2
3 1
8 8
5 2
3 1
3 6
1
NA NA
4
3 1
161 88
Phase 2 Projects
Number Number
of Projects of Projects
Initiated Completed
1
3 3
1
NA NA
j
3
8 5
4 5
1 1
2 2
7 3
2
13
1 3
1 1
1 1
5 3
3 7
2 2
NA NA
4
2
1 1
1 1
1
3 1
1 2
NA NA
14 14
1
86 56
Phase 3 Projects
Number Number
of Projects of Projects
Initiated Completed
NA NA
2
1
1
1
1
1
NA NA
1
1
NA NA
several
9
None or not reported.
NAซ Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 30S(b) reports.
* U.S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFF1C&1994-520-066/81054
-------
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 (EMS-LEX)
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
(617) 860-4377
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
Xuan-Mai T. Iran
EPA Region 2 (SWQB)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-3188
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Charles A. Kanetsky
EPA Region 3 (3ES11)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-8176
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, District of
Columbia
Larinda Tervelt
EPA Region 4
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)347-2126
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
James Stoltenberg
EPA Region 5 (SQ-14J)
77 West Jackson Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-5784
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Russell Nelson
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)655-6646
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
For additional information about water quality in your State, please contact your
State Section 305(b) Coordinator listed in Chapter 8.
For a copy of the companion summary document The Quality of Our
Nation's Water: 1992 Report to Congress (EPA841-S-94-002), return this
form to:
NCEPI
11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Fax (513) 891-6685
Due to limited supply, we can send you only one copy of each publica-
tion. Please print cearly. Allow 2-3 weeks for delivery.
Ship to:
Title:
Organization:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Daytime Phone:
(Please include area code)
John Houlihan
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7432
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Phil Johnson
EPA Region 8 (8WM-WQ)
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)293-1581
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Edwin H. Liu
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-2012
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam
Alan Henning
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-8293
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
-------
------- |