-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 151
HIGHLICHi
Water Objectives
and Progress
The first of the three water-
related objectives calls for a reduc-
tion in the number of outbreaks of
waterborne diseases from infectious
agents and chemical poisonings in
drinking water to no more than 11
per year by the year 2000. The
numbers of these rare events have
fluctuated considerably since 1988
when 16 outbreaks were reported
(see Figure 1). While public health
officials work to maintain and
improve the quality of drinking
water, variations in physicians'
reports to State Health Departments
and the availability of resources to
confirm the outbreak as waterborne
hamper the monitoring of these
outbreaks.
The second objective calls for
an increase in the percentage of the
population whose drinking water
supply meets the Safe Drinking
Water Act regulations. The data
source for this objective is EPA's
Federal Reporting Data System
(FRDS). The proportions reported
since the 1988 baseline appear to
have changed little, but as Figure 2
indicates, the quantity and
stringency of testing standards have
continued to increase.
Third, Healthy People 2000
monitors the quality of surface
water using EPA's National Water
Quality Inventory. As originally
HT HIGHLIGHT
„, .y
JL,,*,
80
I
I
40
E
I
"S 20
4->
I
s.
1
100
80
60 •;
40 2
o3
E
20 Z
1988
1990
1992
Compliant Community Water Systems
MVLs
Source: U.S. EPA, Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
Figure 2. Compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act
Regulations, 1988-93.
-------
152 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
HIGHLIGH
IF*' rflffW'i
HT HIGHLIGHT
50
40
~ 30
§
& 20
10
Rivers
written, this objective called for
a decrease in the proportion of
impaired surface water (specifically,
rivers, lakes, and estuaries). The data
available to date are shown in
Figure 3; however, there were
several limitations on accurately
monitoring this objective. In consul-
tation with EPA, this objective has
been revised and will focus on
increases in the proportion of waters
that meet the specific designated
uses of fish consumption and swim-
ming.
•• 1988
II 1990
1992
2000 Target
Lakes
Estuaries
Figure 3. Proportion of Assessed Waters that Do Not Support
Beneficial Uses, 1988-1992.
Data and Monitoring
Responsibility for aggregating the
data for the 16 objectives is shared
by the National Center for Environ-
mental Health, the Agency for Toxic
Disease Registry, and the National
Center for Health Statistics, all of the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. The National Institute of
Health's National Institute of Envi-
ronmental Health Sciences also
shares the responsibility of monitor-
ing these objectives. There has been
extensive cooperation and data
sharing with EPA on the beneficial
use objective, which relies on data
from the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions. EPA and PHS are cur-
rently coordinating the develop-
ment of EPA's National Environmen-
tal Goals and revising the Healthy
People 2000 Environmental Health
objectives. The status of the Healthy
People 2000 objectives is reported
annually in the Healthy People 2000
Review, environmental objectives are
monitored using data from the;
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, EPA, and other sources.
For further information:
Fred Seitz
National Center for Health Statistics
6525 Belcrest Road
Hyattsville, MD 20782
(301)436-3548
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 153
-
•;
<
i
• -v ;./-,,' ' :*^; •
Mercury Contamination
in Maine Lakes
EPA's Region 1 and the Maine Environmental Protection has been
Department of Environmental Pro- able to conduct a statewide assess-
tection have established a Regional ment of contaminated fish in Maine
Environmental Monitoring and lakes. The project design and tech-
Assessment Program (R-EMAP) niques adopted from EMAP are
tion in Maine lakes. The Maine conduct statistical analyses of the
Department of Environmental Pro- relationships of such intrinsic factors
tection has found various popula- as age, size, and species of fish;
tions of fish contaminated with limnological factors; and extrinsic
heavy metals, PCBs, dioxin, and factors (for example, land use or
other chlorinated organic com- atmospheric deposition). The analy-
pounds, as stated in the EPA report ses are needed to issue more
R-EMAP Regional Environmental Moni- specific advisories identifying, in
taring and Assessment Program. Most particular, high-risk lakes, species,
of the contaminants have been asso- and size classes. Also, this informa-
ciated with specific point source tion is expected to be helpful in
discharges. In addition, elevated identifying future management
levels of toxic contaminants (espe- needs to reduce mercury levels in
daily mercury) have been found in the Maine lacustrine environment.
some lake biota at locations where
there are no known discharges of For further information:
toxic contaminants. Maine has
issued a statewide advisory on the David L. Courtemanch, Ph.D.
consumption of fish from any lake in Maine Department of Environmental
the State. This and prior advisories Protection
have been very general and Director, Division of Environmental
conservative. Assessment
Through the Regional Environ- Bureau of Land and Water Quality
mental Monitoring and Assessment State House Station 1 7
Program, which uses the Environ- Augusta, Maine 04333-001 7
mental Monitoring and Assessment (207) 287-7789
Program (EMAP) probability-based
sampling grid and methodologies,
the Maine Department of
, ,|-*1'v*-f *» ** 4* i •* * i-< i* -*&•*, ^ E
* t -~ »r* v--1* % i*£& pi^1 »* +$*$• £ *eA* s j i ! 3 a*-* &S ^ & tf ^t
HIGHLlGH/f H |)jGHT HIGHLIGHT I
^^gj***"^*^*1^^^
^afi^d^i *-j*~~
2*^j^*r_±, " " i
,
'"^JS^^''~ ''
I
\
]
"
1
~* ^
-
±™rr-.
. 1
~ 1^-^^^^^ - - i
— i
-------
-------
Part III
Individual Section 305(b)
Report Summaries and
Recommendations
-------
-------
State and Tribal
Recommendations
In their 1994 Section 305(b)
reports, 40 States, Territories, and
Tribes made recommendations for
improving water quality manage-
ment programs in order to achieve
the goals of the CWA. The recom-
mendations encompass a range of
actions at the Congressional, Fed-
eral, State, Tribal, Territorial, and
local levels and are often expressed
in terms of State, Tribal, and Territo-
rial objectives or continuing needs.
It should be emphasized that the
States, Tribes, and Territories
reported the following recommen-
dations and that this discussion does
not attempt to assess the merits of
their recommendations. Nor should
this discussion be construed as an
EPA or Administration endorsement
of any State, Tribal, or Territorial
recommendation. Many of the
recommendations do, however,
coincide with current EPA program
concerns and priorities.
The most frequently reported
recommendations address five major
concerns:
• Nonpoint source abatement
• Financial and technical support
from Federal agencies
• Interagency data sharing and
management
• Watershed initiatives
• Ground water management.
Other concerns less frequently
reported include toxic pollutants,
lake management, public education,
pollution prevention, waste man-
agement for animal and poultry
operations, water quantity impacts
on water quality, and multimedia
cycling of pollutants among air,
water, and soil. The following dis-
cussion summarizes the
recommendations most frequently
reported by the States, Tribes, and
Territories. These recommendations
are often linked and interdepen-
dent. For example, many States,
Tribes, and Territories recommend
that Federal agencies provide finan-
cial and technical support to imple-
ment watershed initiatives that pro-
vide a framework for monitoring
and managing nonpoint source
pollution. The following discussion
touches on the connections be-
tween State, Tribal, and Territorial
concerns and recommendations.
Nonpoint Source
Abatement and
Watershed Protection
Initiatives
Recommendations most often
cited by the States, Tribes, and Ter-
ritories concern the identification,
prevention, and control of nonpoint
sources (NPSs) of pollution, such as
agricultural runoff and runoff from
construction sites. The States and
other entities most frequently cite
The most frequently
reported recommendations
address five major
concerns:
• Nonpoint source
abatement
• Financial and technical
support from Federal
agencies
• Interagency data sharing
and management
• Watershed initiatives
• Ground water
management
-------
158 Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations
the need for additional funding for
the development of better monitor-
ing and assessment methods to
detect NPS impacts, identify specific
NPSs responsible for impacts, and
measure the effectiveness of NPS
controls. Many States reported that
new monitoring methods are
needed to distinguish point source
impacts from NPS impacts and to
identify specific nonpoint sources
responsible for water quality degra-
dation. For example, Rhode Island's
305(b) report states:
Decision makers at this time do
not have adequate instream and
site-specific water quality data.
NPS management plans are
currently based on generic
nonpoint pollution source
"types" (e.g., agriculture, urban
stormwater, etc.) and cannot
provide adequate prioritization
of BMP controls on a specific
watershed or subwatershed
level.
Rhode Island suggests that a
small percentage of CWA Section
319 NPS Federal funds be made
available for wet weather NPS moni-
toring. Rhode Island reports that
additional funding for NPS monitor-
ing is needed to update their assess-
ment of NPS impacts and determine
the effectiveness of implemented
BMPs.
Many States link nonpoint
source monitoring and abatement
to adoption of a watershed man-
agement approach. The States
report that a watershed protection
approach can be used to target
waterbodies for intensive NPS moni-
toring and to integrate local, State,
and Federal efforts to control NPS
impacts. The watershed approach
encourages local involvement and
enables States to maximize efficient
use of funds by coordinating point
source controls and NPS manage-
ment. For example, New Jersey's
305(b) report states:
A watershed approach can
require intensive site-specific
monitoring designed to assess
pollution sources and loading
and fill data gaps . . . Detailed
assessments of pollution
sources, both point and non-
point, on a local basis, would
allow management efforts to
institute pollution controls on a
finely detailed level. Working
with local governmental agen-
cies and environmental/citizen
groups can provide the Depart-
ment [of Environmental Protec-
tion] with enormous amounts of
information regarding local
activities, land uses, and point
sources that either can poten-
tially or are known to impair
local water quality. These same
agencies and groups can act to
change land uses, zoning regu-
lations, agricultural practices,
etc.
Nebraska's 305(b) report sug-
gests that States and other govern-
ing entities can use the watershed
approach to prioritize watersheds
for more efficient allocation of funds
to implement NPS projects:
The Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality should
continue with its systematic
assessment of watersheds
identified as either suspected or
unknown with regards to
nonpoint source pollution
impacts. These assessments
-------
Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations 159
should document the presence
and quantify the magnitude of
water quality impacts and bene-
ficial use impairment due to
nonpoint sources. Through the
Nebraska Nonpoint Source
Management Program, a listing
of priority watersheds should be
defined and action plans devel-
oped in order to expedite the
funding and implementation
process for nonpoint source
projects.
The States, Tribes, and Territo-
ries also recommend implementing
a watershed approach to address
other water quality issues (in addi-
tion to NPS pollution) within a
holistic strategy. Illinois' Section
305(b) report recommends that
Federal agencies grant flexibility to
the States so that they can incorpo-
rate numerous program elements
into a watershed approach:
As States' watershed planning
and management efforts con-
tinue to evolve, Federal over-
sight of various program activi-
ties will need to provide States
with flexibility needed to imple-
ment a watershed approach.
Resources and incentives will
need to be provided to assist
States in making further
progress, particularly in regard
to: data availability/coordina-
tion; incorporating ground
water resource issues; determi-
nation of those watersheds
needing to develop watershed
implementation plans based on
available resources; and coordi-
nation with other agencies and
the public.
Illinois' report also refers to the
links between the availability of
financial resources, implementation
of a watershed approach, and
management of NPS pollution:
In approaching water quality
from a watershed approach,
there is an immediate need for
assessment and planning related
to correction and prevention of
NPS pollution. This effort will
require both resources and time
to be accomplished correctly.
Although many States, Tribes,
and Territories report that imple-
menting a watershed approach may
require additional financial support,
several States recommend adopting
the watershed approach to maxi-
mize efficient use of their declining
budgets. Massachusetts' 305(b)
report states:
Steve Winward, age 8, Kings Park Elementary, Springfield, VA
-------
160 Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations
Better coordination and
exchange of information with
other agencies is needed
because of the Department [of
Environmental Protection]^
decreasing monitoring
resources. To help alleviate this
problem, the Commonwealth
has adopted a watershed
approach. This approach
ensures interagency and inter-
governmental coordination,
allowing limited resources to be
used to their fullest.
Many States and other govern-
ing entities report that shrinking
budgets are a widespread problem
that threatens existing water quality
monitoring and assessment pro-
grams in addition to new initiatives.
Financial and
Technical Support
Most States, Tribes, and Territo-
ries expressed a common concern
that they will not be able to main-
tain current water quality monitor-
ing and assessment activities if Fed-
eral funding shrinks. Rhode Island's
1994 305(b) report states:
Federal funding for monitoring
work is rapidly decreasing on an
annual basis. At the same time,
States are under severe fiscal
constraints in their annual bud-
get projections. Present funding
does not provide for a long-
term commitment to continue
sampling such new water qual-
ity stations. There is no easy
solution currently available to
solve this fiscal dilemma. Citi-
zens' monitoring groups will
most likely become an
important resource in the
State's efforts to follow present
water quality conditions over
future years, but such efforts
cannot replace State mandates
to monitor trends and present
water quality conditions.
Wisconsin's 305(b) report
expresses the views reported by
numerous States, Tribes, and Terri-
tories:
With the shift in attention to
problems more diverse and
complex, it is essential that
more and better uniform data
collection and analysis
procedures be established to
accurately determine the condi-
tion of the Nation's waters
and identify trends in water
quality degradation and track
progress . . . One problem with
many water quality programs is
there is no mechanism for fund-
ing the monitoring needed for
good science.
New Mexico recommends full
funding for all research programs
related to water quality:
The U.S. Congress should pro-
vide adequate funding to EPA,
the USGS, and other appropri-
ate Federal agencies to support
basic ecological, hydrolpgic,
medical, public health, and
other research relevant to water
quality protection and to sup-
port technical assistance and
technology transfer to the:
States.
The States and other entities are
also concerned about funding for
water quality management
-------
Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations 161
programs in general. Many States
specifically request that Congress
maintain funding for the CWA Sec-
tion 314 Clean Lakes Program. In
most States, lake monitoring lags
behind monitoring of rivers and
streams. Without Section 314
grants, many States could not sup-
port lake monitoring and assess-
ment activities or restoration
projects. Resources and incentives
are also needed to address: data
availability and coordination,
ground water resource issues, wet-
lands issues, fish contamination,
interagency coordination, public
education, regulatory enforcement
and compliance, biological criteria
development, pollution prevention
and source reduction, land manage-
ment practices, and developing
technologies.
Both Tribes and States recom-
mend that Congress change fund-
ing allocation rules in the CWA that
limit funds for Tribal water quality
management programs. The
Campo Indian Reservation's 305(b)
report recommends that Congress
revise CWA Section 518 to remove
the cap on Federal funding for
Tribal water programs:
Although the CWA was
amended in 1987 to treat
Indian Tribes as States under
certain CWA sections, funding
available to Tribes has not fol-
lowed the designation. A con-
cern of paramount importance
to the success of water quality
management programs for the
Campo Indian Reservation, and
all other Indian Reservations
pursuing authority under
sections of the CWA, is the
adequate amount of CWA (e.g.,
Sections 106 and 319) funding
available for Indian Tribes.
Under Section 518 of the CWA,
a maximum budget for Indian
Tribes has been set at less than
1% of the U.S. EPA's CWA Sec-
tion budget. Considering that
there are 345 Reservations in
the U.S., the allocated funding
falls far short of treating Indian
Tribes as States for funding
under CWA Sections. A more
reasonable allocation for fund-
ing Indian Tribes under the
CWA would be to replace the
less than 1 % maximum with
minimum funding amounts.
New Mexico's 305(b) report
also recommends expanding fund-
ing for Tribal water quality
programs while maintaining State
funding:
The funding set aside for Indian
Tribes in the CWA puts Tribes in
direct competition with States
was*
Kings Park Elementary, 3rd grade, Springfield, VA
-------
162 Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations
p
:i'!!i! (Ifjil
I I
i,'»i;
SI
I iii
ISsaJ
for the limited available Federal
funding. The funding provided
to Tribes is inadequate to
develop or implement effective
water quality programs. The
U.S. Congress should provide
sufficient dedicated funds to
Indian Tribes so that they can
develop and implement effec-
tive water quality programs.
These funds should be in addi-
tion to, not in place of, monies
allocated to the States.
Many States, Territories, and the
District of Columbia stressed the
need for continued appropriations
to maintain or expand their Revolv-
ing Fund programs for wastewater
treatment plant construction. The
States and other governing entities
are also concerned about the high
cost of abating combined sewer
overflows (CSOs). Michigan states
that municipalities need funds to
implement State CSO control strate-
gies. Rhode Island suggests that EPA
and Congress allocate special fund-
ing for implementing CSO mitiga-
tion measures that would be admin-
istered through the Revolving Loan
programs.
The States, Tribes, and Territo-
ries also request that EPA continue
to provide technical support and
guidance on issues of national con-
cern. Specifically, their recommen-
dations include the following:
• Develop technical guidance for
evaluating sources of runoff pollu-
tion
• Provide additional guidance for
assessing waterbodies with biologi-
cal and chemical data and establish-
ing biological standards
• Provide guidance on stormwater
and CSO permitting
• Finalize sediment contamination
criteria
• Improve consistency in the imple-
mentation of whole effluent toxicity
limits in the National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NF'DES)
program
• Continue to sponsor professional
training courses for the States and
other governing entities on this
subjects of permit writing, compli-
ance inspections and sampling, and
enforcement
• Provide resources and technical
support for geographic information
systems.
In addition, the States and other
governing entities look to EPA to
improve coordination among water
quality programs.
Interagency Data
Sharing and
Management
The need for better coordina-
tion among State, Tribal, Territorial,
and Federal water quality programs
is an underlying theme of many of
the Section 305(b) reports. Coordi-
nation is needed among agencies as
well as across programs in all areas
of water quality concerns. Better
coordination can eliminate duplica-
tive monitoring activities (thereby
stretching limited funds) and ensure
that generated data are of adequate
quality to be shared among
programs. Improved coordination
and data sharing are also essential
elements of a watershed approach.
-------
Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations 163
Twenty-one States, Tribes, and
Territories expressed concern that
data sharing is restricted by the lack
of common protocols for data col-
lection, analysis, and storage.
Arizona's 305(b) report states:
Water quality information is
collected and disseminated by
numerous Federal, State, and
local governments throughout
Arizona. The ability of different
agencies to use this vast data-
base is hampered by many
issues, including data collection
approaches, comparable meth-
ods, translation of databases,
and policies on data and infor-
mation sharing.
Several States reference the
work of the Intergovernmental Task
Force on Monitoring (ITFM) as a
positive approach for addressing
data comparability and sharing
issues. In addition to ITFM participa-
tion, the States and other entities
suggest that EPA work with them to
develop national monitoring and
assessment strategies. Wisconsin
suggests that
• U.S. EPA should develop a
national monitoring strategy for the
assessment of the Nation's waters,
including provisions for making
funding of monitoring part of each
program and accommodating State
priorities for data collection and
waterbody evaluation.
• U.S. EPA's monitoring programs
should support ecosystem manage-
ment by using certain flora and
fauna from the ecosystem being
evaluated as "ecosystem indicators"
to set a standard for when a water-
body is in good health.
Data sharing is of special inter-
est to Tribes because Tribal water
quality is usually dependent upon
water quality and watershed activi-
ties outside the jurisdiction of the
Tribe. The Tribes need data from
outside of their jurisdictions to iden-
tify sources of water quality degra-
dation and to negotiate solutions
with non-Tribal parties. The Soboba
Band of Mission Indians' 305(b)
report states:
Negotiations are presently
beginning with major off-Reser-
vation water users, with the aim
of fairly and finally apportioning
the waters of the basin. Non-
degradation of water quality will
be the basic element of the
Band's position in these nego-
tiations. As part of these nego-
tiations, sharing and cooperative
analysis of data on the hydrol-
ogy and water quality of the
San Jacinto watershed will be
necessary. It is the Band's hope
and intent that this affirmative
approach to water management
should lead to a systematic,
integrated water quality moni-
toring program for the basin
that will be of lasting benefit to
all water users.
Ground Water
Concerns
Many of the States and other
governing entities recommend that
EPA develop a comprehensive
framework for coordinating pro-
grams and eliminating inconsisten-
cies among Federal programs that
address ground water. However, the
States also suggest that they should
continue to play the primary role in
-------
164 Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations
managing and implementing
ground water protection programs.
For example, New Mexico's 305(b)
report states:
Existing Federal statutes includ-
ing the CWA, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act, the
Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act, and the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (Super-
fund) establish differing criteria
and procedures to control
ground water quality . . . These
programs have not addressed
ground water in a coordinated
manner and have created
administrative and statutory
inconsistencies which may be
obstacles to effective ground
water quality management.
Inconsistencies between Federal
laws relating to ground water
quality should be removed . . .
The U.S. Congress should adopt
legislation providing that once a
State adopts ground water qual-
ity standards satisfying national
minimum criteria, then those
State standards become the
basis for cleanup or control of
any and all Federal programs
relating to protection of ground
water in the State.
Other States concur that EPA
should coordinate ground water
management and provide technical
support to States and other jurisdic-
tions implementing specific ground
water protection and restoration
measures at the local level. Wiscon-
sin's 305(b) report states:
U.S. EPA should develop a coor-
dinated ground water manage-
ment strategy in conjunction
with other appropriate Federal
agencies that includes a
drought strategy and allocation
scheme. U.S. EPA should serve
as a resource agency that pro-
vides technical assistance for
ground water quality issues as
opposed to mandating a pro-
cess and administrative over-
sight. U.S. EPA needs to provide
guidance and regional consis-
tency on the use of nitrogen
fertilizers due to increasing con-
centrations of harmful nitrate-
nitrogen in ground water
nationwide.
Michigan's 305(b) report
states:
The State is restricted in some
areas of ground water program
development by a lack of action
at the Federal level. To avoid
preemption problems, the State
relies on the Federal govern-
ment to set certain standards
that are later incorporated into
State programs. The State is
also relying on the Federal gov-
ernment for basic scientific data
relating to the health impacts of
the synergistic effects of the
chemical combinations most
often found in contaminated
water supplies.
-------
Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations 165
A number of States, Tribes, and
Territories expressed concerns about
the continued ability to fund State
and Federal ground water research
and protection programs. Tribes
express numerous concerns about
ground water quality because many
Tribal lands lack reliable surface
water supplies due to upstream
withdrawals, arid climates, or a lack
of surface waters within Tribal
boundaries. Even Tribes in non-arid
climates rely on ground water to
supply large portions of their
domestic water supply. The Tribes
recommend that ground water
monitoring be enhanced on Tribal
lands and development of wellhead
protection programs move forward.
Conclusions
In general, the States, Tribes,
and Territories recommend that EPA
continue to provide general guid-
ance for establishing minimum pro-
gram elements while allowing the
States flexibility for developing and
implementing specific programs
tailored to their individual condi-
tions and needs. The States and
other governing entities also recom-
mend that Congress continue to
fund the development and distribu-
tion of technical support by EPA
and other Federal agencies, includ-
ing the USGS. Many States, Tribes,
and Territories reported that fund-
ing for water quality monitoring
should be maintained, if not
increased, because monitoring plays
a critical role in defining water
quality issues and measuring the
effectiveness of water quality
management programs.
The States and other entities
also recommend that EPA continue
to advocate the watershed
approach for integrating monitoring
activities, data sharing, ground and
surface water management, wet-
lands management, interagency
activities, and point and nonpoint
source management. However, the
States and other entities suggest
that they should maintain control
over the development and imple-
mentation of the watershed
approach within their jurisdictions.
Chris Inghram, age 8, Bruner Elementary, North Las Vegas, NV
-------
-------
Individual State and Territorial
Summaries
This section provides individual
summaries of the water quality
survey data reported by the States
and Territories in their 1994 Section
305(b) reports. The summaries
provide a general overview of water
quality conditions and the most
frequently identified water quality
problems in each State and Terri-
tory. However, the use support data
contained in these summaries are
not comparable because the States
and Territories do not use compa-
rable criteria and monitoring strate-
gies to measure their water quality.
States and Territories with strict
criteria for defining healthy waters
are more likely to report that a high
percentage of their waters are in
poor condition. Similarly, States
with progressive monitoring pro-
grams are more likely to identify
water quality problems and to re-
port that a high percentage of their
waters do not fully support desig-
nated uses. As a result, one cannot
assume that water quality is worse
in those States and Territories that
report a high percentage of im-
pacted waters in the following
summaries.
-------
168 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Alabama
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Alabama 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Michael J. Rief
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
Water Quality Branch
P.O. Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
(334) 271-7829
Surface Water Quality
Since enactment of the Clean
Water Act of 1972, water quality
has substantially improved near
industrial and municipal facilities.
However, pollution still prevents
about 29% of the surveyed stream
miles, 15% of the surveyed lake
acres, and 20% of the surveyed
estuaries from fully supporting
aquatic life use. Oxygen-depleting
wastes and nutrients are the most
common pollutants impacting rivers
and coastal waters. The leading
sources of river pollution include
agriculture, municipal wastewater
treatment plants, and resource;
extraction. In coastal waters, the
leading sources of pollution are
urban runoff and storm sewers,
municipal sewage treatment plants,
and combined sewer overflows.
Toxic priority organic chemicals
impact the most lake acres, usually
in the form of a fish consumption
advisory. These pollutants ma)'
accumulate in fish tissue at a
concentration that greatly exceeds
the concentration in the surround-
ing water. Unknown sources and
industrial dischargers are responsible
for the greatest acreage of impaired
lake waters.
Special State concerns include
impacts from the poultry broiler
industry, forestry activities, animal
waste runoff, and hydroelectric
generating facilities.
Ground Water Quality
The Geological Survey of
Alabama monitoring well network
indicates relatively good ground
water quality. However, the number
of ground water contamination
incidents has increased significantly
in the past few years due to better
reporting under the Underground
Storage Tank Program and
increased public awareness of
ground water issues. Alabama has
established pesticide monitoring
and a Wellhead Protection Program
to identify nonpoint sources of
ground water contamination and
further protect public water
supplies.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 169
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1992, the Alabama Depart-
ment of Environmental Manage-
ment (ADEM) initiated the Flint
Creek watershed project to
simultaneously manage the many
sources degrading Flint Creek,
including intensive livestock and
poultry operations, crop production,
municipal dischargers, household
septic systems, widespread littering,
and urban runoff. Numerous Fed-
eral, State, and local agencies play a
role in the watershed project, which
includes data collection activities,
public education and outreach, and
development of a total maximum
daily load (TMDL) model for the
watershed. The model output will
show the mix of point and
nonpoint loadings that can be
permitted without violating instream
water quality standards. ADEM
expects to increase use of the
watershed protection approach.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Alabama's surface water moni-
toring program includes a fixed
station ambient network, reservoir
sampling, fish tissue sampling,
intensive wasteload allocation
surveys, water quality demonstration
surveys, and compliance monitoring
of point source discharges. As a first
step in establishing biological crite-
ria, ADEM is assessing the habitats
and corresponding resident biota at
several candidate reference streams.
aA subset of Alabama's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Alabama
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total iyiiies = 77^
Total Miles 70
Surveyed
S (Total Acres a 490,472)
Stuaries (Total Square Miles = 610)
-------
170 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Alaska
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For information about water quality
in Alaska, contact:
Eric Decker
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
410 Willoughby Street - Suite 105
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
(907) 465-5328
The State of Alaska did not
submit a 305(b) report to EPA in
1994.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 171
Overall3 Use Support in Alaska (1992)
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
jiiilJatreamis (Totaj
Total Miles
Surveyed
2,889
=: 12,787,200)
Total Acres
.Surveyed
f .,
uairies (Total Square Miles =Unknown)
Total Square
Miles Surveyed
a Overall use support data from 1992 are presented because Alaska did not submit a 305(b)
report to EPA in 1994.
-------
172 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Arizona
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Arizona 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Diana Marsh
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 207-4545
Surface Water Quality
Good water quality fully
supports swimming uses in 59% of
Arizona's surveyed river miles and
94% of their surveyed lake acres.
However, Arizona reported that 51 %
of their surveyed stream miles and
28% of their surveyed lake acres do
not fully support aquatic life uses.
Arizona reported that metals, turbid-
ity, salinity, and suspended solids
were the stressors most frequently
identified in streams. The leading
stressors in lakes were salinity,
metals, inorganics, and low dissolved
oxygen. Natural sources, agriculture,
and hydrologic modification (stream
bank destabilization, channelization,
dam construction, flow regulation,
and removal of shoreline vegeta-
tion) were the most common
sources of stressors in both streams
and lakes, followed by resource
extraction (mining) in streams and
urban runoff in lakes. Nonpoirit
sources played a role in degrading
96% of the impaired river miles and
93% of the impaired lake acres.
Ground Water Quality
Arizona is gradually establishing
a network of water quality index
wells in principal aquifers to
measure ground water quality
conditions and document future
trends. Existing data indicate that
ground water generally supports
drinking water uses, but nitrates,
petroleum products, volatile organic
chemicals, heavy metals, pesticides,
radioactive elements, and bacteria
cause localized contamination in
Arizona. Both natural sources and
human sources (including agricul-
ture, leaking underground storage
tanks, and septic tanks) generate
these contaminants.
The State has established 50
ground water basin boundaries, four
of which are designated Active
Management Areas because they
encompass the largest population
centers with the greatest ground
water demands. A Comprehensive
State Groundwater Protection
Program has been initiated as a
demonstration project in Tucson.
Under this program, the State will
work with all interested parties to
set priorities for ground water
management and mitigate existing
water quality problems.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 173
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Arizona's nonpoint source con-
trol program integrates regulatory
controls with nonregulatory educa-
tion and demonstration projects.
Regulatory programs include the
Aquifer Protection Permit Program,
the Pesticide Contamination
Program, and best management
requirements for controlling nitro-
gen at concentrated animal feeding
operations. The State is also devel-
oping best management practices
for timber activities, grazing activi-
ties, urban runoff, and sand and
gravel operations. Arizona's point
source control program encom-
passes planning, facility construction
loans, permits, pretreatment,
inspections, permit compliance,
and enforcement.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Recently, Federal and State
agencies increased efforts to coordi-
nate monitoring, provide more
consistent monitoring protocols,
and provide mechanisms to share
data, spurred by tightened budgets.
Monitoring programs in Arizona
include a fixed station network,
complaint investigations and special
studies, priority pollutant monitor-
ing, and monitoring to support
biocriteria development. ADEQ will
develop narrative biological criteria
with biological, physical, and chemi-
cal data collected at over 100
biological reference sites in 1992,
1993, and 1994.
Individual Use Support in Arizona
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
ers and Streams (Total Miles = I04,200)b
26
25
es (Total Acres = 302,000)
aA subset of Arizona's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
174 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Arkansas
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Arkansas 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Bill Keith
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
P.O. Box8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
(501)562-7444
Surface Water Quality
The Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology
(DPCE) reported that 56% of their
surveyed rivers and streams and
100% of their surveyed lake acres
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses. Good
water quality also fully supports
swimming use in 81 % of the
surveyed river miles and 100% of
the surveyed lake acres. Siltation and
turbidity are the most frequently
identified pollutants impairing
Arkansas' rivers and streams, fol-
lowed by bacteria and nutrients.
Agriculture is the leading source of
pollution in the State's rivers and
streams and has been identified as a
source of pollution in four lakeis.
Municipal wastewater treatment
plants, mining, and forestry also
impact rivers and streams. Arkansas
has limited data on the extent of
pollution in lakes.
Special State concerns include
the protection of natural wetlands
by mechanisms other than dis-
charge permits and the develop-
ment of more effective methods to
identify nonpoint source impacts.
Arkansas is also concerned about
impacts from the expansion of con-
fined animal production operations
and major sources of turbidity and
silt including road construction,
road maintenance, riparian land
clearing, streambed gravel removal,
and urban construction.
Ground Water Quality
Nitrate contamination was
detected in some domestic wells
sampled in portions of the State
undergoing rapid expansion of
poultry and livestock operations,
including northwest Arkansas, the
Arkansas River Valley, and southwest
Arkansas. In northwest Arkansas,
nitrate contamination was docu-
mented in 5% to 7% of the domes-
tic wells sampled. Wells sampled in
pristine areas of northwest Arkansas
were not contaminated.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 175
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Arkansas has focused nonpoint
source management efforts on con-
trolling waste from confined animal
production operations. Arkansas
utilizes education, technical
assistance, financial assistance, and
voluntary and regulatory activities to
control nonpoint source pollution
from poultry, swine, and dairy
operations. Liquid waste systems are
regulated by permit and dry waste
systems are controlled by voluntary
implementation of BMPs in targeted
watersheds. Water quality is moni-
tored during watershed projects to
evaluate the effectiveness of the
BMPs.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Arkansas classifies its water
resources by ecoregion with similar
physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics. There are seven
ecoregions including the Delta, Gulf
Coastal, Ouchita Mountain, Arkan-
sas River Valley, Boston Mountain,
and Ozark Mountain Regions. By
classifying water resources in this
manner, Arkansas can identify the
most common land uses within
each region and address the issues
that threaten the water quality.
The State has increased surface
water and ground water monitoring
to determine the fate of animal
waste applied to pastures. Arkansas
also conducted 10 water quality
surveys in watersheds throughout
the State to determine point and
nonpoint sources of pollution
impacting water quality.
Individual Use Support in Arkansas
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
ftivers and Streams (Total Miles » 87,6i7)b
32
12
kes (Total Acres = 514,245)
aA subset of Arkansas' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
176 Chapter Nine State Summaries
California
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!git Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the California 1994
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
Surface Water Quality
Siltation, pesticides, nutrients,
and bacteria impair the most river
miles in California. The leading
sources of degradation in
California's rivers and streams are
agriculture, unspecified nonpoint
sources, forestry activities, urban
runoff and storm sewers, and re-
source extraction. In lakes, siltation,
metals, and nutrients are the most
common pollutants. Construction
and land development pose the
greatest threat to lake water quality,
followed by urban runoff and storm
sewers, forestry, and land disposal
of wastes.
Metals, pesticides, trace ele-
ments, and unknown toxic contami-
nants are the most frequently identi-
fied pollutants in estuaries, harbors,
and bays. Urban runoff and storm
sewers are the leading source of
pollution in California's coastal
waters, followed by municipal sew-
age treatment plants, agriculture,
hydrologic and habitat modifica-
tions, resource extraction, and
industrial dischargers. Oceans and
open bays are degraded by urban
runoff and storm sewers, agricul-
ture, and atmospheric deposition.
Ground Water Qualify
California assigns beneficial uses
to its ground water. Salinity, total
dissolved solids, and chlorides are
the most frequently identified pol-
lutants impairing use of ground
water in California. The State also
reports that trace inorganic ele-
ments, flow alterations, and nitrates
degrade over 1,000 square miles of
ground water aquifers.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 177
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
No information was provided in
the 1994 305(b) report.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
No information was provided in
the 1994 305(b) report.
aA subset of California's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in California
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Ipvefs and Streams (Total Miles = 2H,5i3)b
Total Miles
Assessed
70
Lakes (Total Acres = 1,672;684)
(Total Square Miles = 731.1)
-------
178 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Colorado
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Colorado 1994
305(b) report, contact:
John Farrow
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-3575
Surface Water Quality
Colorado reports that 89% of its
surveyed river miles and 91 % of its
surveyed lake acres have good water
quality that fully supports designated
uses. Metals are the most frequently
identified pollutant in rivers and
lakes. High nutrient concentrations
also degrade many lake acres. Agri-
culture and mining are the leading
sources of pollution in rivers.
Agriculture, construction, urban
runoff, and municipal sewage treat-
ment plants are the leading sources
of pollution in lakes.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality in Colo-
rado ranges from excellent in
mountain areas where snow fall is
heavy, to poor in alluvial aquifers of
major rivers. Naturally occurring
soluble minerals along with human
activities are responsible for signifi-
cant degradation of some aquifers.
Nitrates and salts from agricultural
activities have contaminated many
of Colorado's shallow aquifers, In
mining areas, acidic water and
metals contaminate aquifers. Colo-
rado protects ground water quality
with statewide numeric criteria for
organic chemicals, a narrative stan-
dard to maintain ambient condi-
tions or Maximum Contaminant
Levels of inorganic chemicals and
metals, and specific use classifica-
tions and standards for ground
water areas. Colorado also regulates
discharges to ground water from
wastewater treatment impound-
ments and land application systems
with a permit system.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Colorado's nonpoint source
program supports a wide range of
projects. Ten projects were funded
to identify appropriate treatment
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 179
options for waters polluted by aban-
doned mines. Several projects iden-
tified and funded implementation of
good management practices for
riparian (streamside) areas. Under
another project, Colorado devel-
oped agreements with the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management and
the U.S. Forest Service to ensure
that these agencies apply effective
best management practices to con-
trol nonpoint runoff from grazing,
timber harvesting, and road
construction activities on Federal
lands.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
During the 1994 305(b) report-
ing cycle, Colorado switched over
from a statewide monitoring pro-
gram to a basinwide monitoring
strategy. The basinwide monitoring
strategy allows that State to inten-
sify monitoring in one basin per
year, rather than perform infrequent
sampling statewide. Colorado
retained some of the old fixed-
station sampling sites to monitor
statewide trends in water quality
conditions.
Overall3 Use Support in Colorado
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
jartd; Streams (^ar Miles »105,581 r
®S (Total Acres = 143,019)
<1
- Not reported.
a Overall use support is presented because Colorado did not report individual use support in
their 1994 Section 305(b) report.
-------
180 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Connecticut
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dig!t Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Connecticut 1994
30S(b) report, contact:
Donald Gonyea
Bureau of Water Management, PERD
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(860) 424-3827 or (860) 424-3020
Surface Water Quality
Connecticut has restored over
300 miles of large rivers since enact-
ment of Connecticut's State Clean
Water Act in 1967. Back in 1967,
about 663 river miles (or 74% of
the State's 893 miles of large rivers
and streams) were unfit for fishing
and swimming. In 1994, Connecti-
cut reported that 222 river miles
(25%) do not fully support aquatic
life uses and 248 miles (28%) do
not support swimming due to
bacteria, PCBs, metals, oxygen-
demanding wastes, ammonia,
nutrients, and habitat alteration.
Sources of these pollutants include
urban runoff and storm sewers,
industrial dischargers, municipal
sewage treatment plants, and in-
place contaminants. Threats to
Connecticut's reservoir and lake
quality include failing septic systems,
erosion and sedimentation from
construction and agriculture, agri-
cultural wastes, fertilizers, and
stormwater runoff.
Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen)
is the most widespread probk'm in
Connecticut's estuarine waten; in
Long Island Sound. Bacteria also
prevent shellfish harvesting and an
advisory restricts consumption of
bluefish and striped bass contami-
nated with PCBs. Connecticut's
estuarine waters are impacted by
municipal sewage treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows, indus-
trial discharges and runoff, failing
septic systems, urban runoff, cind
atmospheric deposition. Historic
waste disposal practices also con-
taminated sediments in Connecti-
cut's harbors and bays.
Ground Water Quality
The State and USGS have iden-
tified about 1,600 contaminated
public and private wells since the
Connecticut Department of Environ-
mental Protection (DEP) began
keeping records in 1980. Connecti-
cut's Wellhead Protection Program
incorporates water supply planning,
discharge permitting, water diver-
sion, site remediation, prohibited
activities, and numerous nonpoint
source controls.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 181
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Ensuring that all citizens can
share in the benefits of clean water
will require continued permit
enforcement, additional advanced
wastewater treatment, combined
sewer separation, continued aquatic
toxicity control, and resolution of
nonpoint source issues. To date,
14 sewage treatment facilities have
installed advanced treatment to
remove nutrients. Nonpoint source
management includes education
projects and a permitting program
for land application of sewage, agri-
cultural sources, and solid waste
management facilities.
Wetlands are protected by the
State's Clean Water Act and Stan-
dards of Water Quality. Each
municipality has an Inland Wetlands
Agency that regulates filling and
establishes regulated buffer areas
with DEP training and oversight.
Connecticut's courts have strongly
upheld enforcement of the wetlands
acts and supported regulation of
buffer areas to protect wetlands.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Connecticut samples physical
and chemical parameters at 27 fixed
stream sites and biological param-
eters at 47 stream sites. Other
activities include intensive biological
surveys, toxicity testing, and fish
and shellfish tissue sampling for
accumulation of toxic chemicals.
- Not reported
aA subset of Connecticut's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Connecticut
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
s and Streams (Total Miles = 5,830)b
69
22
Lakes (Total Acres =: 64,973)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 600)
-------
182 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Delaware
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Delaware 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Brad Smith
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
Division of Water Resources
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 739-4590
Surface Water Quality
Delaware's rivers and streams
generally meet standards for aquatic
life uses, but 93% of the surveyed
stream miles and 76% of the sur-
veyed lake acres do not meet bacte-
ria criteria for swimming. Bacteria
are the most widespread contami-
nant in Delaware's surface waters,
but nutrients and toxics pose the
most serious threats to aquatic life
and human health. Excessive nutri-
ents stimulate algal blooms and
growth of aquatic weeds. Toxics
result in six fish consumption restric-
tions in three basins, including Red
Clay Creek, Red Lion Creek, the St.
Jones River, and the Delaware Estu-
ary. Agricultural runoff, septic sys-
tems, urban runoff, municipal sew-
age treatment plants, and industrial
dischargers are the primary sources
of nutrients and toxics in Delaware's
surface waters.
Ground Water Quality
High-quality ground wate:r
provides two-thirds of Delaware's
domestic water supply. However,
nitrates, synthetic organic chemicals,
saltwater, and iron contamincite
isolated wells in some areas. In the
agricultural areas of Kent and Sussex
counties, nitrates in ground water
are a potential health concern and
a potential source of nutrient
contamination in surface waters.
Synthetic organic chemicals have
entered some ground waters from
leaking industrial underground
storage tanks, landfills, abandoned
hazardous waste sites, chemical
spills and leaks, septic system;;, and
agricultural activities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Con-
trol (DNREC) adopted a watershed
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 183
approach to determine the most
effective and efficient methods for
protecting water quality or abating
existing problems. Under the water-
shed approach, DNREC will evaluate
all sources of pollution that may
impact a waterway and target the
most significant sources for manage-
ment. The Appoquinimink River
subbasin, the Nanticoke River
subbasin, the Delaware's Inland Bays
subbasin, and the Christina River
subbasin are priority watersheds
targeted for development of inte-
grated pollution control strategies.
Delaware's Wellhead Protection
Program establishes cooperative
arrangements with local govern-
ments to manage sources of ground
water contamination. The State may
assist local governments in enacting
zoning ordinances, site plan reviews,
operating standards, source prohibi-
tions, public education, and ground
water monitoring.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Delaware's Ambient Surface
Water Quality Program includes
fixed-station monitoring and bio-
logical surveys employing rapid
bioassessment protocols. Delaware is
developing and testing new proto-
cols for sampling biological data in
order to determine whether specific
biological criteria can be developed
to determine support of designated
uses.
- Not reported.
aA subset of Delaware's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Excludes waters under jurisdiction of the
Delaware River Basin Commission.
Individual Use Support in Delaware
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
ers and Streams (Total Miles = 3,i§8)6
.Lakes (Total Apres = 4,499)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 29)
-------
184 Chapter Nine State Summaries
District of Columbia
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the District of
Columbia 1994 305(b) report,
contact:
Dr. Hamid Karimi
Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs
Environmental Regulation
Administration
Water Quality Monitoring Branch
2100 Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20020
(202) 645-6601
Surface Water Quality
Poor water quality still character-
izes the District's surface waters, but
water quality has stabilized and is
improving in some areas. The recov-
ery of submerged aquatic vegetation
and fish communities in the Anacos-
tia and Potomac Rivers provides
qualitative evidence that water qual-
ity is improving. However, a fish
consumption advisory and a
swimming ban remain in effect for
all District surface waters, and sedi-
ment contamination degrades
aquatic life on the Anacostia River.
Combined sewer overflows are the
main source of bacterial pollution
that causes unsafe swimming condi-
tions. Urban runoff may be the
source of high concentrations of
cadmium, mercury, lead, PCB:>,
PAHs, and DDT found in sediment
samples.
Ground Water Quality
During the 1994 305(b) assess-
ment period, the District initiated
ground water monitoring. The first
round of sampling revealed that the
ground water is potable. Some
pollutants were detected at low
concentrations in isolated cases.
Ground water is not a public drink-
ing water source in the District, but
the District has a comprehensive
State ground water protection
program to assess and manage the
resource. The program includes an
ambient ground water sampling
network, ground water quality regu-
lations (including numerical arid
narrative criteria), and guidelines for
preventing and remediating ground
water quality degradation.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 185
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The District is implementing
innovative stormwater runoff con-
trols for urban areas and promoting
the watershed protection approach
to clean up waterbodies that cross
political boundaries, such as the
Anacostia River. The District needs
Maryland's cooperation to control
pollution entering upstream tributar-
ies located in Maryland. Additional
funds will be needed to implement
urban stormwater retrofits, CSO
controls, and revegetation projects
in both the District and Maryland
to improve water quality in the
Anacostia River.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The District performs monthly
physical and chemical sampling at
80 fixed stations on the Potomac
River, the Anacostia River, and their
tributaries. The District samples
phytoplankton (microscopic plants)
monthly at 15 stations and zoo-
plankton at 3 stations. The District
samples metals in the water column
four times a year and analyzes toxic
pollutants in fish tissue once a year.
In 1992 and 1993, the District
conducted rapid bioassessments on
29 waterbodies.
Individual Use Support in District of Columbia
aA subset of District of Columbia's desig-
nated uses appear in this figure. Refer to
the District's 305(b) report for a full
description of the District's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
spa
vfis an
62
|.ajces (Total Acres = 251)
Total Square 86
Miles Surveyed
-------
186 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Florida
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Oigit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Florida 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Joe Hand
Florida Dept. of Environmental
Regulation
Twin Towers Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904) 921-9926
Surface Water Quality
Overall, the majority of Florida's
surface waters are of good quality,
but problems exist around densely
populated urban areas, primarily in
central and southern Florida. In
rivers, nutrient enrichment, low
dissolved oxygen, high bacteria
counts, turbidity, and suspended
solids degrade water quality. In
lakes, the leading problems include
algal blooms, turbidity, and nutrient
enrichment. In estuaries, algal
blooms, nutrient enrichment, low
dissolved oxygen, and turbidity
degrade quality. Urban stormwater,
agricultural runoff, domestic waste-
water, industrial wastewater, and
hydrologic modifications are the
major sources of water pollution in
Florida.
Special State concerns include
massive fish kills (as much as 20
tons of fish) in the Pensacola Bay
system, widespread toxic contami-
nation in sediments, widespread
mercury contamination in fish,
bacterial contamination in the
Miami River, and algal blooms and
extensive die-off of mangroves and
seagrasses in Florida Bay.
Ground Water Quality
Data from 1,919 wells in
Florida's ambient monitoring
network indicate generally good
water quality, but local ground
water contamination problems exist.
Agricultural chemicals, including
aldicarb, alachlor, bromacil,
simazine, and ethylene dibromide
(EDB) have caused local and
regional (in the case of EDB) prob-
lems. Other threats include petro-
leum products from leaking under-
ground storage tanks, nitrates from
dairy and other livestock operations,
fertilizers and pesticides in storm-
water runoff, and toxic chemicals in
leachate from hazardous waste sites.
The State requires periodic testing
of all community water systems for
118 toxic organic chemicals.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Florida controls point source
pollution with its own discharge
permitting process similar to the
Nf'DES program. The State permits
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 187
about 4,600 ground water and
surface water discharge facilities.
The State also encourages reuse of
treated wastewater (primarily for
irrigation) and discharge into
constructed wetlands as an alterna-
tive to direct discharge into natural
surface waters and ground water.
Florida's Stormwater Rule and
implementing regulations are the
core of the State's nonpoint source
program. These regulations require
all new developments to retain the
first inch of runoff water in ponds
to settle out sediment and other
pollutants. Ongoing contracts focus
on best management practices for
other nonpoint sources, including
agriculture, septic tanks, landfills,
mining, and hydrologic modifica-
tion.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Florida's Surface Water Assess-
ment Program (SWAMP) will iden-
tify ecoregion subregions and
develop community bioassessment
protocols; develop and implement a
sampling network to monitor water
quality trends and determine
current conditions; and perform
special water quality assessments if
funds are available. The State
defined 13 ecological subregions for
the State and has established 66
reference stream sites for developing
bioassessment protocols.
- Florida does not designate waterbodies for
this use.
aA subset of Florida's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Florida
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Bivers and Streams (Total Miles = 51,858)b
Total Miles
Assessed 45
es (Total Acres = 2,085,120)
fe» f.~ « ' " * <•!«**•« ,^_jjl »„., f, I
JEstUaroes (Total Square Miles = 4,298)
Total Square
Miles Assessed 52
-------
188 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Georgia
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Georgia 1994
305(b) report, contact:
W.M. Winn, II!
Georgia Environmental Protection
Division
Water Quality Management Program
Floyd Towers, East
205 Butler Street, SE
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-4905
Surface Water Quality
Improvements in wastewater
treatment by industries and munici-
palities have made it possible for
Georgians to fish and swim in areas
where water quality conditions were
unacceptable for decades. Water
quality in Georgia streams, lakes,
and estuaries during 1992 and 1993
was good, but the number of
stream miles and lake acres not fully
supporting designated uses
increased. The number of fish advi-
sories also grew from four to nine
during 1992-1994. However, this is
a result of more stringent stream
standards, increased sampling, and
access to additional data. Persistent
problems include mud, litter, bacte-
ria, pesticides, fertilizers, metals, oils,
suds, and other pollutants washed
into rivers and lakes by stormwater.
Ground Water Quality
Georgia's ambient Ground
Water Monitoring Network consists
of 150 wells sampled periodically.
To date, increasing nitrate concen-
trations in the Coastal Plain are the
only adverse trend detected by the
monitoring network, but nitrate
concentrations are still well below
harmful levels in most wells. Addi-
tional nitrate sampling in 500 wells
revealed that nitrate concentrations
exceeded EPA's Maximum Contami-
nant Level (MCL) in less than 1 % of
the tested wells. Pesticide monitor-
ing indicates that pesticides do not
threaten Georgia's drinking water
aquifers at this time.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Comprehensive river basin
management planning will provide
a basis for integrating point and
nonpoint source water protection
efforts within the State and with
neighboring States. In 1992, the
Georgia General Assembly passed
Senate Bill 637, which requires the
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 189
Department of Natural Resources to
develop management plans for each
river basin in the State. The State
began developing comprehensive
plans for the Chattahoochee and
Flint River Basins in 1992 and the
Oconee and Coosa River Basins in
1993. Georgia is also participating
in a Tri-State Comprehensive Study
with the Corps of Engineers,
Alabama, and Florida to develop
interstate agreements for maintain-
ing flow and allocating assimilative
capacity. Other interstate basin
projects include the Savannah
Watershed Project with South Caro-
lina and the Suwannee River Basin
Planning Project with the Georgia
and Florida Soil Conservation
Services.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Georgia continued sampling at
145 fixed monitoring stations, con-
ducted 14 intensive surveys, and
performed over 600 compliance
sampling inspections during 1992
and 1993. Georgia also sampled
toxic substances in effluent from
point source dischargers, streams,
sediment, and fish tissues at
selected sites throughout the State.
The State assessed the overall toxic-
ity in wastewater effluent with both
acute and chronic aquatic toxicity
tests.
Individual Use Support in Georgia
Percent
- Not reported.
aA subset of Georgia's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Designated Usea
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Streams (Total wiles = 70,i50)b
Ikes (Total Acres = 425,382)
tuanes (Total Square Miles = 854)
-------
190 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Hawaii
Kauai
Oahu
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Hawaii 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Eugene Akazawa, Monitoring
Supervisor
Hawaii Department of Health
Clean Water Branch
919 Ala Moana Blvd.
Honolulu, HI 96814
(808) 586-4309
Molokai
Maui
Hawaii
Surface Water Quality
Most of Hawaii's waterbodies
have variable water quality due to
stormwater runoff. During dry
weather, most streams and estuaries
have good water quality that fully
supports beneficial uses, but the
quality declines when stormwater
runoff carries pollutants into surface
waters. The most significant pollu-
tion problems in Hawaii are siltation
and turbidity, nutrients, fertilizers,
toxics, pathogens, and pH from
nonpoint-sources, including agricul-
ture and urban runoff. Very few
point sources discharge into
Hawaii's streams; most industrial
facilities and wastewater treatment
plants discharge into coastal waters.
Other concerns include explosive
algae growth in West Maui and
Kahului Bay, a fish consumption
advisory for lead in talipia caught in
Manoa Stream, and sediment
contamination from discontinued
wastewater discharges at Wailoa
Pond and Hilo Bay.
Ground Water Quality
Compared to mainland States,
Hawaii has very few ground water
problems due to a long history of
land use controls for ground water
protection. Prior to 1961, the State
designated watershed reserves to
protect the purity of rainfall recharg-
ing ground water. The Under-
ground Injection Control Program
also prohibits wastewater injection
in areas surrounded by "no-pass"
lines. However, aquifers outside of
reserves and no-pass lines may be
impacted by injection wells, house-
hold wastewater disposal systems,
such as seepage pits and cesspools,
landfills, leaking underground
storage tanks, and agricultural
return flows.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
County governments are
required to set erosion control stan-
dards for various types of soil and
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 191
land uses. These standards include
criteria, techniques, and methods
for controlling sediment erosion
from land-disturbing activities. The
State would like to enact ordinances
that require the rating of pesticides
on their potential to migrate
through soil into ground water. The
State would regulate the use of
pesticides that pose a threat to
ground water. Until more stringent
ordinances can be enacted, the
State recommends using alternatives
to pesticides, such as natural preda-
tors and other biological controls.
The State also encourages the use
of low-toxicity, degradable chemi-
cals for home gardens, landscaping,
and golf courses.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Hawaii has scaled back its water
quality monitoring program because
of budgetary constraints. The State
has halted toxics monitoring, fish
tissue contamination monitoring,
and biological monitoring and elimi-
nated sampling at numerous fixed
monitoring stations. The State also
reduced the frequency of bacterial
monitoring at coastal beaches. The
State does not expect conditions to
change in the near future.
Overall3 Use Support in Hawaii
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
{Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Surveyed
69
25
ri.es (Total Square Miles = 380)
Total Square
Miles Surveyed
30
33
(Total Miles - 1,053)
Total Shoreline
Miles Surveyed
943
<1
- Not reported.
a Overall use support is presented because Hawaii did not report individual use support in their
1994 Section 305(b) report.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
192 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Idaho
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-D!glt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Idaho 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Don Zaroban
Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Statehouse Mall
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 334-5860
Surface Water Quality
Idaho omitted its water quality
assessment for surface waters in
their 1994 305(b) report because
the State is in the middle of a major
overhaul of its water quality man-
agement program. Idaho is restruc-
turing its program around the
watershed protection approach.
As a first step, Idaho is redesignating
its waterbodies and expanding its
assessment database to include
smaller streams that previously were
not assessed. The State postponed
its water quality assessment until all
surface waters are designated and
classified under a consistent system.
Idaho's Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ) identified
several waterbodies with significant
problems. Heavy metals and nutri-
ents impact the Coeur d'Alene River
drainage, while nutrients and sedi-
ment impact Henry's Fork. The
middle Snake River exhibits severe
eutrophication from nutrient enrich-
ment. Mercury contaminates fish
tissue in Brownlee Reservoir, and the
Cascade Reservoir does not support
agricultural uses due to overenrich-
ment with nutrients.
Ground Water Quality
The Idaho Statewide Monitoring
Program for Ground Water samples
over 800 wells. This program and
other specific projects have indi-
cated that nitrates, petroleum
products, solvents, and pesticides
are the most prevalent pollutants in
ground water. The Idaho Legislature
adopted the Ground Water Quality
Plan in 1992. This plan sets four
priority issues: (1) evaluation of
existing ground water programs,
(2) development of State ground
water standards, (3) development
of a State wellhead protection
program, and (4) classification of
Idaho's aquifers. Ground water qual-
ity protection programs in Idaho
include underground injection
control, ground water vulnerability
mapping, and management for
animal waste, landfills, pesticides
application, underground storage
tanks, and sewage disposal.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 193
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
EPA has primary responsibility
for issuing NPDES permits in Idaho.
Idaho's DEQ is concerned that EPA
is not issuing permits for minor
point source dischargers, and
inspections of permitted and
unpermitted dischargers are rare.
Neither DEQ or EPA have sufficient
staff to conduct compliance inspec-
tions. Without oversight, there are
no assurances that these facilities are
being properly operated and meet
water quality standards.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DEQ operates a water quality
monitoring program that measures
biological, physical, and chemical
parameters. Data collection varies in
intensity, from desktop reviews of
existing data (Basic or Level I),
through qualitative surveys and
inventories that cannot be repeated
with confidence (Reconnaissance or
Level II), to quantitative measure-
ments that can be repeated and
yield data suitable for statistical
analysis (Intensive or Level III).
Individual Use Support in Idaho
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
reams .(Total Miles = 115,595)b
Total Miles
Surveyed
(Total Acres = 700,000)
^^
Total Acres
Surveyed
- Not reported.
aA subset of Idaho's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for
a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
194 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Illinois
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Illinois 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Mike Branham
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-3362
Surface Water Quality
Overall water quality has
steadily improved over the past 24
years since enactment of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
Trend analysis generally indicates
stable or improving trends in stream
concentrations of dissolved oxygen,
oxygen-depleting wastes, and am-
monia consistent with the contin-
ued decline in point source impacts.
However, dissolved oxygen deple-
tion and ammonia still impair
streams, as do nutrients, siltation,
habitat/flow alterations, metals, and
suspended solids. The State is also
concerned about upward trends in
nutrient concentrations detected in
several basins that probably result
from nonpoint sources. Other ma-
jor sources of river pollution include
persistent point sources, hydrologic/
habitat modification, urban runoff,
and resource extraction.
Trend analysis also indicates
improving water quality in lakes.
The most prevalent causes of re-
maining pollution in lakes include
nutrients, suspended solids, and
siltation. The most prevalent sources
of pollution in lakes include con-
taminated sediments, agriculture,
and hydrologic/habitat alterations.
Water quality also continues to
improve in the Illinois portion of
Lake Michigan. Trophic status im-
proved from mesotrophic/eutrophic
conditions in the 1970s to oligo-
trophic conditions today.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality is gener-
ally good, but past and present
activities contaminate ground water
in isolated areas. Ground water is
contaminated around leaking under-
ground gasoline storage tanks, large
aboveground petroleum storage
facilities, agricultural chemical opera-
tions, salt piles, landfills, and waste
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Illinois Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (IEPA), Bureau of
Water, is committed to implement-
ing a Targeted Watershed Approach
in which high-risk watersheds are
identified, prioritized, and selected
for integrated and cooperative
assessment and protection. This
approach represents an expansion
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 195
and evolution of their previous
efforts in geographic targeting.
Current nonpoint source program
activities focus on improving public
awareness and adding land use data
to the nonpoint source database
available statewide.
Illinois established a Great Lakes
Program Office in FY93 to oversee
all Lake Michigan programs on a
multimedia basis. Activities include
promotion of pollution prevention
for all sources of toxics in all media
(such as air and water).
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Division of Water Pollution
Control spent $5.5 million on a
diverse set of monitoring programs
during 1992 and 1993. These pro-
grams include ambient and toxicity
monitoring, pesticide monitoring,
intensive river basin surveys, fish
contaminant monitoring, and volun-
teer lake monitoring. These pro-
grams generate a rich inventory of
monitoring data for assessing water
quality conditions across the State.
IEPA based their 1994 assessments
on data from nearly 3,500 stations.
Individual Use Support in Illinois
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) Threatened Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
|ljvers arid Streams (Total Mites = 32,i96)b
Total Miles
Surveyed 47
50
Lakes (Total Acres = 309,340)
Great Lakes (Total Shore Miles = 63)
a A subset of Illinois' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for
a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
196 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Indiana
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydralogic Unit)
For a copy of the Indiana 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Dennis Clark
Indiana Department of Environ-
mental Management
Office of Water Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317)243-5037
Surface Water Quality
Over 99% of the surveyed lake
acres and 79% of the surveyed river
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life. However,
only 18% of the surveyed river miles
support swimming due to high
bacteria concentrations. A fish con-
sumption advisory impairs all of
Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline.
The pollutants most frequently iden-
tified in Indiana waters include
bacteria, priority organic
compounds, oxygen-depleting
wastes, pesticides, metals, cyanide,
and ammonia. The sources of these
pollutants include industrial facilities,
municipal/semipublic wastewater
systems, combined sewer overflows,
and agricultural nonpoint sources.
Indiana identified elevated
concentrations of toxic substances
in about 8% of the river miles
monitored for toxics. High concen-
trations of PCBs, pesticides, and
metals were most common in sedi-
ment samples and in fish tissue
samples. Less than 1% of the sur-
veyed lake acres contained elevated
concentrations of toxic substances
in their sediment.
Ground Water Qualify
Indiana has a plentiful ground
water resource serving 60% of its
population for drinking water and
filling many of the water needs of
business, industry, and agriculture.
Although most of Indiana's ground
water has not been shown to be
adversely impacted by human activi-
ties, the State has documented over
863 sites of ground water contami-
nation. Nitrates are the most com-
mon pollutant detected in wells,
followed by volatile organic chemi-
cals and heavy metals. In agricul-
tural regions, data indicate that
7% to 10% of the rural drinking
water wells contain unacceptable
nitrate concentrations and some
detectable quantity of pesticides.
Heavy metal contamination is asso-
ciated with waste disposal sites.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 197
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Since 1972, Indiana has spent
over $1.4 billion in Federal construc-
tion grants, $207 million in State
funds, and $190 million in match-
ing local funds to construct or
upgrade sewage treatment facilities.
As a result of these expenditures,
53% of Indiana's population is now
served by advanced sewage treat-
ment. The State issues NPDES per-
mits to ensure that these new and
improved facilities control pollution.
Indiana is increasing enforcement
activities to ensure compliance with
permit requirements.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Indiana initiated a 5-year
baseline biological sampling pro-
gram in 1989. As of 1994, the State
had collected 2,000 aquatic insect
samples at 439 sites representing
81 % of the State's geographical
area. In the future, the State will be
able to detect deviations from the
baseline dataset. Indiana and EPA
Region 5 are also developing fish
community measurements for evalu-
ating biological integrity in Indiana's
rivers and streams.
Individual Use Support in Indiana
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
and J|tj^ms (Total Miles =35,673)^
Total Miles 71
Surveyed
16
otat Acreg = 142871)
Great Lakes (Total Miles = 43)
Total Miles
Surveyed
43 0
100
0 ^| 0
0
43
43
100
100
aA subset of Indiana's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
198 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Iowa
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Iowa 1994 305(b)
report, contact
John Olson
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Water Resources Section
900 East Grand Avenue
Wallace State Office Building
DesMoines, IA 50319
(515) 281-8905
Surface Water Quality
Sediment and plant nutrients
from agricultural sources, modifica-
tions to stream habitat and hydrol-
ogy, and natural conditions (such as
shallowness in lakes) impair aquatic
life uses in 48% of the surveyed
rivers, 35% of the surveyed lakes,
and 33% of the surveyed flood
control reservoirs. Swimming use is
impaired in 92% of the 556 sur-
veyed river miles and 27% of the
surveyed lakes, ponds, and reser-
voirs. Saylorville, Coralville, and
Rathburn Reservoirs have good
water quality that fully supports all
designated uses, but siltation
severely impacts Red Rock Reservoir.
Point sources still pollute about 5%
of the surveyed stream miles and
one lake.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies about
80% of all Iowa's drinking water.
Agricultural chemicals, underground
storage tanks, agricultural drainage
wells, livestock wastes, and
improper management of hazardous
substances all contribute to some
degree to ground water contamina-
tion in Iowa. Nitrate concentrations
exceed the EPA's Maximum Con-
taminant Level in 10 of the State's
1,140 public ground water supplies.
Several studies have detected low
levels of common agricultural pesti-
cides and synthetic organic com-
pounds, such as solvents and
degreasers, in both untreated and
treated ground water. In most
cases, the contaminants appear in
small concentrations thought to
pose no immediate threat to public
health, but little is known about the
health effects of long-term exposure
to low concentrations of these
chemicals.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1979, Iowa began imple-
menting its agricultural nonpoint
control strategy with education
projects and cost-share programs to
control sediment, the greatest
pollutant, by volume, in the State.
Later, Iowa adopted rules that
require that land disposal of animal
wastes not contaminate surface and
ground waters. Landfill rules estab-
lish specific siting, design, operation,
and monitoring criteria, and require
annual inspections and permit
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 199
renewals every 3 years. Iowa also
regulates construction in floodplains
to limit soil erosion and impacts on
aquatic life.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Iowa's DNR maintains a fixed
sampling network and conducts
special intensive studies at selected
sites. The State routinely monitors
metals, ammonia, and residual chlo-
rine at the fixed sampling sites, but
not pesticides. However, pesticides
were monitored for special studies
examining the fate of pesticides in
Iowa rivers and levels of pesticides
in water supply reservoirs. Limited
monitoring for toxics in sediment
was conducted as part of a special
study in 1992 and 1993. Routine
sampling has not included biological
sampling in the past, but the role of
biological sampling continues to
grow. In 1994, Iowa initiated a pilot
study to establish biologically based
water quality criteria for wadeable
streams in each ecoregion.
Individual Use Support in Iowa
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and
Mi|es = 7l,665)^
52
47
es (Total Acres = 129,666)
ontrol Reservoirs (Total Acres = 31,700)
aA subset of Iowa's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for
a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
c Excludes flood control reservoirs.
-------
200 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Kansas
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dig!t Hydrologlc Unit)
I
For a copy of the Kansas 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Mike Butler
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Office of Science and Support
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913)296-5580
Surface Water Quality
Suspended solids and dissolved
solids impair aquatic life uses in
93% of Kansas' surveyed streams.
Bacteria also prevent 95% of the
surveyed streams from fully support-
ing swimming uses. Runoff from
feedlots, animal holding areas, and
pastureland introduce pathogen
bacteria into rivers and streams.
Discharges of undertreated or
untreated wastewater from sewage
treatment plants also elevate patho-
gen bacteria levels in Kansas waters.
Erosion of farmland soils and urban
runoff are the principal sources of
suspended solids. Irrigation return
flows, oil and natural gas extraction
activities, and natural sources intro-
duce dissolved solids.
Cultural eutrophication is
responsible for 34% of poor water
quality conditions in Kansas' sur-
veyed lakes, and pesticides impair
an additional 23% of the surveyed
lakes. Overall, agricultural activities
are responsible for almost half of the
pollution in the State's lakes. Agri-
cultural activities and hydromodifi-
cation are the major sources of
impacts in wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
The Kansas Department of
Health and Environment (DHE) has
documented ground water contami-
nation from human activities at
nearly 350 sites in the State. Under-
ground storage tanks, oil and natu-
ral gas operations, and agriculture
are the most significant sources of
ground water contamination in
Kansas. Kansas maintains a ground
water monitoring network of 242
wells. During 1990-1993, nitrate
concentrations exceeded EPA's
Maximum Contaminant Level in
11% of 618 ground water samples.
A State Wellhead Protection Pro-
gram is still under development,
and several Kansas communities are
developing local plans.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 201
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Kansas requires permits for live-
stock operations that utilize waste-
water control facilities (such as
manure pits, ponds, or lagoons);
confine 300 or more head of cattle,
hogs, sheep, or a combination of all
three; or house a commercial
poultry flock of 1,000 or more birds.
DHE may also require permits for
other livestock operations that have
the potential to create pollution
problems, such as open lots located
adjacent to creeks or operations
with a history of improper waste-
water disposal practices. The major
elements of the Kansas Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program
include interagency coordination,
information and education, techni-
cal assistance, enforcement, and
water quality certification.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Every year, DHE collects and
analyzes about 1,500 surface water
samples, 50 aquatic insect samples,
and 40 composite fish tissue
samples from stations located
throughout the State. Wastewater
samples are collected at about 50
municipal sewage treatment plants,
20 industrial facilities, and 3 Federal
facilities to evaluate compliance with
discharge permit requirements. DHE
also conducts special studies and
prepares about 100 site-specific
water quality summaries at the
request of private citizens or other
interested parties.
Individual Use Support in Kansas
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
fivers and Streams (Total Miles = i34,338)b
akes (Total Acres = 173,801)
- Not reported.
aA subset of Kansas' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
202 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Kentucky
> Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Kentucky 1994
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
Surface Water Quality
About 83% of Kentucky's
surveyed rivers (including the Ohio
River) and 95% of surveyed lake
acres have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life. Swim-
ming use is fully supported in 100%
of the surveyed lake acres, but 52%
of the surveyed river miles do not
fully support swimming due to ele-
vated bacteria levels. Fecal coliform
bacteria, siltation, and oxygen-
depleting substances are the most
common pollutants in Kentucky
rivers. Sewage treatment facilities
are still a leading source of fecal
coliform bacteria and oxygen-
depleting substances, followed by
agricultural runoff, septic tanks, and
straight pipe discharges. Surface
mining and agriculture are the ma-
jor sources of siltation. Nutrients
from agricultural runoff and septic
tanks have the most widespread
impacts on lakes.
Declining trends in chloride
concentrations and nutrients pro-
vide evidence of improving water
quality in Kentucky's rivers and
streams. The State also lifted a
swimming advisory on 76 miles of
the North Fork Kentucky River,
although the advisory remains in
effect on 86 miles. Fish consump-
tion advisories remain posted on
three creeks for PCBs and on the
Ohio River for PCBs and chlordane.
The State issued new advisories for
the Green River Lake because of
PCB spills from a gas pipeline com-
pressor station and for five ponds
on the West Kentucky Wildlife Man-
agement Area because of mercury
contamination from unknown
sources.
Ground Water Quality
Underground storage tanks,
septic tanks, abandoned hazardous
waste sites, agricultural activities,
and landfills are estimated to be the
top five sources of ground water
contamination in Kentucky. Bacteria
is the major pollutant in ground
water. The State is concerned about
the lack of ground water data,
absence of ground water regula-
tions, and the potential for ground
water pollution in karst regions of
the State.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 203
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Kentucky's revolving fund pro-
gram supported 26 wastewater
treatment projects completed in
1992-93 and another 25 ongoing
projects. These projects either
replaced outdated or inadequate
treatment facilities or provided cen-
tralized treatment for the first time.
Kentucky requires toxicity testing of
point source discharges and permits
for stormwater outfalls and
combined sewer overflows. The
nonpoint source program oversees
projects addressing watershed
remediation, education, training,
technical assistance, and evaluation
of best management practices.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Kentucky sampled 44 ambient
monitoring stations characterizing
about 1,432 stream miles during
the reporting period. The State
performed biological sampling at
24 of these stations. Seven lakes
were sampled to detect eutrophica-
tion trends and 2 lakes were
sampled to analyze the impact of
suspended solids on recreational
activities. The State also performed
five intensive studies to evaluate
point source and nonpoint source
impacts, establish baseline water
quality measurements, and reevalu-
ate water quality in several streams.
Individual Use Support in Kentucky
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
[verstand Streams (Total wines = 89,43i)b
kes (Total Acres = 228,385)
aA subset of Kentucty's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
204 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Louisiana
I
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Otgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Louisiana 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Albert E. Hindrichs
Louisiana Department of Environ-
mental Quality
Office of Water Resources
Water Quality Management Division
P.O. Box82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
(504)765-0511
Surface Water Quality
About 49% of the surveyed
stream miles, 40% of the surveyed
lake acres, and 70% of the surveyed
estuarine waters have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life. Fecal coliform bacteria continue
to be the most common pollutant
in Louisiana's rivers and streams,
followed by low dissolved oxygen
concentrations and nutrients. As a
result of violation of fecal coliform
bacteria standards, 55% of the sur-
veyed river miles do not fully sup-
port swimming and other contact
recreational activities. Thirty-six per-
cent of the surveyed lake acres and
28% of the surveyed estuarine
waters also do not fully support
swimming. Sources of bacterha
include sewage discharges from
municipal treatment plants, subdivi-
sions, trailer parks, and apartment
complexes. Septic tanks, sewage/
stormwater overflows, pastures, and
rangeland also generate bacterial
pollution. Agricultural runoff gener-
ates oxygen-depleting substances
and nutrients.
In lakes, noxious aquatic plants
(which result from high nutrient
loads) are the most common prob-
lem, followed by bacteria, low
dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and oil
and grease. Upstream sources of
pollutants impact the most lake
acres (primarily in Lake Pontchar-
train), followed by municipal point
sources, industrial point sources,
and petroleum extraction activities.
In estuaries, oil and grease, nutri-
ents, and bacteria are the most
common pollutants. Upstream
sources of contamination, petroleum
extraction activities, municipal dis-
charges, sewer/stormwater overflow,
and septic tanks are the leading
sources of pollution in estuaries.
Hydrologic modification impacts
one surveyed wetland.
Ground Water Quality
The quality of water in the
State's major aquifer systems
remains excellent. Of special con-
cern, however, are the shallow/ aqui-
fers and the water-bearing zones
that are not used as major sources
of water. These strata contribute
significantly to the water balance of
the deeper aquifers, but the shallow
aquifers are increasingly threatened.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 205
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Currently, most reductions in
nonpoint source pollution result
from cooperative demonstration
projects due to a lack of regulatory
authority in Louisiana to control
nonpoint source pollution. These
projects have demonstrated alterna-
tive rice farming management prac-
tices to reduce sediment and nutri-
ents in the Mermentau River Basin,
advocated lawn care management
to reduce erosion and runoff in the
Bayou Vermilion watershed, and
reduced fecal coliform concentra-
tions in the Tangipahoa River by
implementing septic tank and dairy
waste lagoon education programs
and upgrading municipal waste-
water treatment systems.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The surface water monitoring
program consists of a fixed-station
monitoring network, intensive
surveys, special studies, and waste-
water discharge compliance sam-
pling. The fixed network includes at
least one long-term trend analysis
station on the major stream in each
basin of the State. The State posi-
tioned other fixed sampling sites to
monitor targeted sources of pollu-
tion or waterbodies. Louisiana does
not maintain a regular fish tissue
sampling program.
- Not reported.
aA subset of Louisiana's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Louisiana
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Bivers and
Total Miles
Assessed
29
22
Estlianes (Total Square Miles = 7,656)
-------
206 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Maine
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Maine 1994
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
Surface Water Quality
Maine's water quality has sig-
nificantly improved since enactment
of the Clean Water Act in 1972.
Atlantic salmon and other fish now
return to Maine's rivers, and waters
that were once open sewers are
now clean enough to swim in.
Ninety-nine percent of the State's
river miles, 81 % of the lake acres,
and 90% of the estuarine waters
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses. Dioxin in
fish tissue is the most significant
problem in major rivers. Oxygen-
depleting substances from nonpoint
sources and bacteria from inade-
quate sewage treatment are the
most significant problem in smaller
rivers and streams. Lakes are
impacted by oxygen-depleting
substances from nonpoint sources,
including urban runoff, agriculture,
and forestry activities. Bacteria from
municipal treatment plants and
small dischargers contaminate shell-
fish beds in estuarine waters.
Ground Water Quality
The most significant ground
water impacts include petroleum
compounds from leaking under-
ground and aboveground storage
tanks, other organic chemicals from
leaking storage facilities or disposal
practices, and bacteria from surface
disposal systems or other sources.
Maine requires that all underground
tanks be registered and that inad-
equate tanks be removed. About
23,000 tanks have been removed
since 1986. Maine also regulates
installation of underground storage
tanks and closure of landfills to
protect ground water resources
from future leaks.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Maine restored designated uses
in 20 miles of rivers by working
with Kraft pulp and paper mill!; to
reduce the levels of dioxin in their
discharges. Construction of small
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 207
wastewater treatment systems also
eliminated some bacteria problems
and dissolved oxygen problems on
small streams. However, as the State
makes progress in restoring waters
impacted by point sources, new
water quality problems emerge
from nonpoint sources. Therefore,
the most important water quality
initiatives for the future include
implementing pollution prevention,
nonpoint source management,
watershed-based planning, coordi-
nated land use management, and
water quality monitoring. The State
is linking pollution prevention with
the watershed protection approach
in a pilot project within the Andro-
scoggin River basin. The State is
providing local officials and citizen
groups with technical assistance to
identify problem areas and develop
local solutions for reducing pollution
generation throughout the water-
shed.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Maine's surface water monitor-
ing program includes ambient water
quality monitoring, assimilative
capacity and wasteload allocation
studies, diagnostic studies, treat-
ment plant compliance monitoring,
and special investigations. Due to
budgetary constraints, some of
these activities are much more
limited in scope than is desirable for
accurately characterizing water
quality conditions in Maine.
- Not reported.
aA subset of Maine's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Maine
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
^vefsand
(Total Miles = 31,672)'
Lakes (Total Acres = 986,776)
Total Acres 75
Surveyed
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 1,633)
Total Square
Mile Surveyed
-------
208 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Maryland
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Maryland 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Sherm Garrison
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
Chesapeake Bay and Watershed
Program
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)974-2951
Surface Water Quality
Overall, Maryland's surface
waters have good quality, but excess
nutrients, suspended sediments,
bacteria, toxic materials, or stream
acidity impact some waters. The
most serious water quality problem
in Maryland is the continuing accu-
mulation of nutrients in estuaries
and lakes from agricultural runoff,
urban runoff, natural nonpoint
source runoff, and point source dis-
charges. Excess nutrients stimulate
algal blooms and low dissolved oxy-
gen levels that adversely impact
water supplies and aquatic life.
Sources of sediment include
agricultural runoff, urban runoff,
construction activities, natural ero-
sion, dredging, forestry, and mining
operations. In western Maryland,
abandoned coal mines release acidic
waters that severely impact some
streams. Agricultural runoff, urban
runoff, natural runoff, and failing
septic systems elevate bacteria con-
centrations and cause continuous
shellfish harvesting restrictions in
about 104 square miles of estuarine
waters and cause temporary restric-
tions in another 72.3 square miles
after major rainstorms.
Ground Water Quality
Maryland's ground water
resource is of generally good
quality. Localized problems include
excess nutrients (nitrates) from fertil-
izers and septic systems; bacteria
from septic systems and surface
contamination; saline water intru-
sion aggravated by ground water
withdrawals in the coastal plain;
toxic compounds from septic tainks,
landfills, and spills; petroleum prod-
ucts from leaking storage facilities;
and acidic conditions and metals
from abandoned coal mine drainage
in western Maryland. Control efforts
are limited to implementing agricul-
tural best management practices
and enforcing regulations for septic
tanks, underground storage tanks,
land disposal practices, and well
construction.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Maryland manages nonpoint
sources with individual programs for
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 209
each individual nonpoint source
category. Urban runoff is addressed
through stormwater and sediment
control laws that require develop-
ment projects to maintain predevel-
opment runoff patterns through
implementation of best manage-
ment practices (BMPs), such as
detention ponds or vegetated
swales. The Agricultural Water Qual-
ity Management Program supports
many approaches, including Soil
Conservation and Water Quality
Plans, implementation of BMPs, and
education. The Agricultural Cost
Share Program has provided State,
and some Federal, funds to help
offset the costs of implementing
almost 8,000 agricultural BMPs
since 1983. An Animal Waste Permit
Program requires discharge permits
for facilities that will have a defin-
able discharge to waters of the
State.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Maryland's monitoring program
includes a fixed-station network,
compliance sampling at point
source discharges, bioassay tests of
effluent toxicity, special intensive
sampling programs on the Potomac
and Patuxent Rivers, acid deposition
monitoring, fish tissue and shellstock
sampling, bacterial sampling in
shellfish waters, phytoplankton
sampling, biological monitoring,
and habitat assessments.
aA subset of Maryland's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Maryland
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
RJvers and Streams (Total Miies = i7,ooo)b
Total Miles
69
29
Lakes (Total Acres -4 77,965)
Total Acres 83
Surveyed
anes (Total Square Miles = 2,522)
Total Square
Miles Surveyed
-------
210 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Massachusetts
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Massachusetts
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Warren Kimball
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Office of Watershed Management
40 Institute Road
North Grafton, MA 01536
(508) 792-7470
Surface Water Quality
The 1994 report does not reflect
the progress made in cleaning up
Massachusetts' rivers and lakes
because reporting total miles free of
all contaminants obscures progress
in removing some contaminants
from many waters. The method of
reporting survey results obscures the
statewide reduction in oxygen-
depleting wastes because bacteria,
nutrients, toxic pollutants, ammonia,
and acidity still impact about half of
the surveyed river miles, lake acres,
and estuarine waters in the State.
The leading sources of contamina-
tion in Massachusetts' surface waters
are stormwater runoff, combined
sewer overflows, and municipal
sewage treatment plants.
Quabbin Reservoir's 25,000
acres support swimming and
aquatic life, but high levels of
mercury in sport fish restrict fish
consumption. Unlike other wciter-
body types, coastal water bacterial
quality has deteriorated over the
past 10 years, especially in areas
such as Cape Cod where nonpoint
source pollution has resulted in a
tenfold increase in shellfish bed
closures.
Ground Water Quality
Contaminants have been
detected in at least 206 ground
water suppy wells in 87 municipali-
ties. Organic chemicals (especially
TCE) contaminate 60% of these
wells. Other contaminants include
metals, chlorides, bacteria, inorganic
chemicals, radiation, nutrients, tur-
bidity, and pesticides. Since 1983,
Massachusetts has required permits
for all industrial discharges into
ground waters and sanitary waste-
water discharges of 15,000 gallons
or more per day. The permits
require varying degrees of waste-
water treatment based on the qual-
ity and use of the receiving ground
water. Additional controls are
needed to eliminate contamination
from septic systems and sludge
disposal.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 211
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Wastewater treatment plant
construction has resulted in signifi-
cant improvements in water quality,
but $7 billion of unfunded waste-
water needs remain. The Nonpoint
Source Control Program has imple-
mented 35 projects to provide tech-
nical assistance, implement best
management practices, and educate
the public. The State has also
adopted a combined sewer overflow
policy that provides engineering
targets for cleanup and is presently
addressing several CSO abatement
projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Department of Environ-
mental Protection (DEP) adopted a
watershed planning approach to
coordinate stream monitoring with
wastewater discharge permitting,
water withdrawal permitting, and
nonpoint source control on a 5-year
rotating schedule. The DEP is also
adapting its monitoring strategies to
provide information on nonpoint
source pollution. For example, DEP
will focus more on wet-weather
sampling and biological monitoring
and less on chemical monitoring
during dry periods in order to gain
a more complete understanding of
the integrity of water resources.
aA subset of Massachusetts^ designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Excluding Quabbin Reservoir.
Individual Use Support in Massachusetts
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Sti^arhs:-';(TotaI; Mites = 8,229)b •.
"- ' ••"•'• - -:- •'
Total Miles
60
16
Lakes (Total Acres = 151,173)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 223)
Total Square
Miles Surveyed 54
-------
212 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Michigan
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-DIgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Michigan 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Greg Coudy
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909-7528
(517)335-3310
Surface Water Quality
Ninety-eight percent of
Michigan's surveyed river miles and
99% of Michigan's surveyed lake
acres fully support aquatic life uses.
Swimming use is also fully supported
in 98% of the surveyed rivers and all
of the surveyed lake acres. Priority
organic chemicals (in fish) are the
major cause of nonsupport in more
river miles than any other pollutant,
followed by siltation and sedimenta-
tion, metals, and bacteria. Leading
sources of pollution in Michigan
include unspecified nonpoint
sources, agriculture, municipal and
industrial discharges, combined
sewers, and atmospheric deposition.
Very few lakes in Michigan
completely fail to support fishing
and swimming, but there is no
doubt that both point and nonpoint
sources have increased the rate of
eutrophication (overenrichment),
altered biological communities, and
degraded the overall aesthetic and
recreational quality of a great
number of Michigan's fragile lake
resources. Many more lakes are
threatened by long-term, cumula-
tive pollutant loads, especially in the
rapidly growing communities on
northern lower Michigan.
Four of the five Great Lakes
border Michigan. The open waters
of Lakes Superior, Michigan, and
Huron have good quality. Poor
water quality is restricted to a few
degraded locations near shore. Lake
Erie's water quality has improved
dramatically in the last two decades.
Once declared dead, Lake Erie now
supports the largest walleye sport
fishery on the Great Lakes. The dra-
matic improvements are due prima-
rily to nutrient controls applied to
sewage treatment plants, particu-
larly in the Detroit area.
Ground Water Quality
Most of the ground water
resource is of excellent quality, but
certain aquifers have been contami-
nated with toxic materials leaking
from waste disposal sites, busi-
nesses, or government facilities. The
Michigan Ground Water Protection
Strategy and Implementation Plan
identifies specific program initiatives,
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 213
schedules, and agency responsibili-
ties for protecting the State's
ground water resources.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Major point source reductions
in phosphorus and organic material
loads have reduced or eliminated
water quality problems in many
Michigan waters. However,
expanded efforts are needed to
control nonpoint source pollution,
eliminate combined sewer over-
flows, and reduce toxic contamina-
tion. Michigan has implemented an
industrial pretreatment program,
promulgated rules on the discharge
of toxic substances, and regulated
hazardous waste disposal facilities,
but many toxicity problems are due
to past activities that contaminated
sediments.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Between 1989 and 1993, the
Department of Natural Resources
devoted a significant amount of
staff time to documenting water
quality impacts from nonpoint
sources of pollution and verifying
information in the Michigan
Nonpoint Source Assessment.
Chemical, biological, and physical
surveys were conducted to identify
water quality standards violations
and degraded biological communi-
ties in numerous watersheds.
aA subset of Michigan's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Michigan
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
and Streams (Total Miles ;= si ,438)?
^p^
Total Miles
Surveyed
20,575
98
2 0
SS (Total Acres = 887,019)
yj|§a|Jlakgs (Total Miles = 3,288)
-------
214 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Minnesota
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Diglt Hydrologk Unit)
For a copy of the Minnesota 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Elizabeth Brinsmade
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Water Quality Division
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612)296-8861
Surface Water Quality
About 73% of the surveyed river
miles have good quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses and 39%
of the surveyed rivers fully support
swimming. Seventy-nine percent of
the surveyed lake acres fully support
swimming. The most common pol-
lutants identified in rivers were bac-
teria, oxygen-depleting substances,
pH (acidity), salinity/total dissolved
solids/chlorides, and metals. Non-
point sources generate most of the
pollution in rivers. Minnesota's 272
miles of Lake Superior shoreline have
fish consumption advisories. These
advisories recommend some limits
on fish meals consumed for certain
species and size classes. Most of the
pollution originated from point
sources has been controlled, but
runoff (especially in agricultural
regions) still degrades water quality.
Ground Water Quality
The State maintains a Ground
Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program to evaluate the quality of
ground waters that supply domestic
water to 70% of Minnesota's popu-
lation. The Program sampled 368
wells in the southeastern and south-
western regions of the State during
1992 and 1993. The samples were
analyzed for 43 inorganic param-
eters and 68 volatile organic
compounds. Monitoring detected
nitrates in 62% of the wells and low
levels of VOCs in 41 wells. Seven
percent of the sampled wells
contained nitrate concentrations
exceeding EPA's Maximum Con-
taminant Level. Natural sources of
manganese, iron, and arsenic also
interfere with uses of ground water.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
During the 1994 reporting
cycle, Minnesota revised its
Nonpoint Source (NPS) Manage-
ment Program with new strategies
for addressing agricultural sources,
forestry, urban runoff, contaminated
sediments, feedlots, mining, and
septic systems. The State also
revised strategies for monitoring and
assessing NPS impacts, educating
the public, implementing BMP';, and
applying the watershed protection
approach to NPS management.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 215
Minnesota adopted rules to
implement the State's Wetlands
Conservation Act and developed
wetlands water quality standards
during 1992 and 1993. The Wet-
land Conservation Act rules require
that local governments regulate
drain and fill activities in wetlands
that are not designated public
waters wetlands, which are listed on
the Protected Waters Inventory. The
rules allow the local governments to
grant one or more of 25 exemp-
tions for proposed activities on
smaller wetlands with less inunda-
tion.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Minnesota maintains an Ambi-
ent Stream Monitoring Program
with 78 sampling stations. The State
also performs fish tissue sampling,
sediment monitoring, intensive sur-
veys, biological surveys, and lake
assessments and supports a citizen
lake monitoring program.. In 1994,
the State completed the Minnesota
River Assessment Project, a compre-
hensive study involving over 30
Federal, State, and local agencies.
The project incorporated intensive
biological monitoring and habitat
assessments with traditional chemi-
cal monitoring to identify multiple
sources and their impacts. A pilot
use support methodology was used
for rivers in the Minnesota River
basin that reflected this comprehen-
sive monitoring.
-Not reported.
aA subset of Minnesota's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Minnesota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
•JvrHSs^'-JO ==*ffiv.
iRlyers ;and Streams (Total Mites;= 9'ij944)b
Total Miles
Surveyed
3,440
17
2,745
(Total Acres = 3,290,101)
4
Total Acres
Surveyed
12
(Total Mn
-------
216 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Mississippi
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Mississippi 1994
305 (b) report, contact:
Randy Reed
Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Boxl0385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601)961-5158
Surface Water Quality
Mississippi reported that 81 % of
its surveyed rivers have fair water
quality that periodically does not
support aquatic life uses and
another 5% have poor water quality
that does not support aquatic life
uses. About 35% of the surveyed
rivers do not fully support swim-
ming. The most common pollutants
identified in Mississippi's rivers
include nutrients, pesticides, silta-
tion, oxygen-depleting substances,
and bacteria. Agriculture is the most
common source of pollution in
rivers, followed by municipal
sewage treatment plants.
About 65% of the surveyed lake
acres have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses and
97% of the surveyed lake acres fully
support swimming. Nutrients, silt-
ation, pesticides, and oxygen-
depleting substances are the most
common pollutants in Mississippi
lakes. Agriculture is also the domi-
nant source of pollution in
Mississippi's lakes.
In estuaries, 74% of the sur-
veyed waters have good quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses, but
shellfishing activities are impaired in
all of the surveyed estuarine waters.
Bacteria and metals cause most of
the impacts observed in estuaries.
High bacteria levels are associated
with shellfish harvesting restrictions.
The State attributes impacts in
estuarine waters to urban runoff/
storm sewers, septic systems, and
land disposal activities.
The State has posted six fish
consumption advisories, including
three commercial fishing bans due
to elevated concentrations of PCBs,
PCP, and dioxins detected in fish
tissues.
Ground Water Quality
Extensive contamination of
drinking water aquifers and public
water supplies remains uncommon
in Mississippi although localized
ground water contamination has
been detected at various facilities
across the State. The most fre-
quently identified sources of con-
tamination are leaky underground
storage tanks and faulty septic: sys-
tems. Brine contamination is also a
problem near oil fields. Little ciata
exist for domestic wells that are
seldom sampled. Ground water
protection programs include the
Pesticide Container Recycling Pro-
gram, the Underground Storage
Tank Program, the Underground
Injection Control Program, the
Agrichemical Ground Water
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 217
Monitoring Program, and the Well-
head Protection Program (approved
by EPA in 1993).
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
During 1993 and 1994, Missis-
sippi developed regulations for con-
ducting Section 401 Water Quality
Certifications. The regulations
enable the State to review Federal
licenses and permits for compliance
with State water quality standards.
The comprehensive regulations
went through public review and
were adopted in February 1994.
Mississippi also expanded its defini-
tion of waters of the State to
include wetlands and ground
waters.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Each year, the State samples
about 25 of their 57 historical fixed
monitoring stations on a rotating
schedule. The State monitors physi-
cal and chemical parameters
bimonthly, metals in the water col-
umn twice a year, and biological
parameters once a year. The devel-
opment and implementation of a
rapid bioassessment methodology
has significantly increased coverage
of State waters beyond the historic
fixed stations. Several stations are
also sampled annually for metals
and pesticides in fish tissues. The
State monitoring program is supple-
mented by a network of 27 stations
operated by the USGS.
- Not reported.
aA subset of Mississippi's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Mississippi
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 84,003)'
\b
Lakes (Total Acres = 500,000)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 133)
-------
218 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Missouri
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Oigit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Missouri 1994
30S(b) report, contact:
John Ford
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
(314) 751-7024
Surface Water Quality
Almost half of Missouri's rivers
and streams have impaired aquatic
habitat due to a combination of
factors, including natural geology,
climate, and agricultural land use.
As a result of these factors, many
streams suffer from low water
volume, low dissolved oxygen
concentrations, high water
temperatures, and excessive silt-
ation. In lakes, low dissolved oxygen
from upstream dam releases, taste
and odor problems, and pesticides
are the most common ailments.
Agriculture, urban runoff, and reser-
voir releases are the leading sources
of lake degradation.
The Missouri Department of
Health advises that the public
restrict consumption of bottom-
feeding fish (such as catfish, carp,
and suckers) from non-Ozark
streams or lakes to 1 pound per
week due to high concentrations of
chlordane, PCBs, and other con-
taminants in these fish.
Ground Water Quality
In general, ground water quan-
tity and quality increases from north
to south and west to east. Deep
ground water aquifers in northern
and western Missouri are not
suitable for drinking water due to
high concentrations of natural min-
erals. Nitrates and, to a much lesser
extent, pesticides also contaminate
wells in this region. About one-third
of the private wells exceed drinking
water standards for nitrates, and
about 2% of private wells exceed
drinking water standards for either
atrazine or alachlor. Statewide, the
highest priority concerns include
ground water contamination from
septic tanks, feedlots and pasture-
land, and underground storage
tanks.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 219
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Sewage treatment plant con-
struction has restored many surface
waters in Missouri, but overloaded
older facilities still impact about
62 stream miles. Nonpoint source
efforts have been less successful at
restoring water quality. To date, the
most successful activity has been the
reclamation of abandoned coal
mine lands, which is funded by a
tax on coal that generates $1 mil-
lion to $2 million annually. Stream
miles impacted by abandoned coal
mines fell from 100 miles to 42
miles as a result of reclamation
projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Missouri's water quality moni-
toring strategy features fixed-station
chemical sampling, short-term
intensive chemical surveys, rapid
visual/bioassessments, and detailed
biological monitoring to advance
the development of biological crite-
ria. The State also conducts toxicity
testing and samples fish tissues for
toxic chemicals. During 1992-94,
four watershed projects featured
concentrated monitoring activities
designed to answer specific ques-
tions about animal waste manage-
ment and farm chemical reduction
options.
Individual Use Support in Missouri
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Designated Use9 Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Streams (Total
-^^^-'^,:^^ .rajff^ft^'A;-->..i.'-;^i^--, •
= 51 jrisf
--.;.;-:. • ••':.i',.. :•- '•':-.- . :
Total Miles
Surveyed 53
46
<1
Lakes (Total Acres = 288,315)
aA subset of Missouri's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
220 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Montana
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Oigit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Montana 1994
305(b) report, contact
Christian J. Levine
Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Science
Water Quality Bureau
Cogswell Building
1400 Broadway
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-5342
Surface Water Quality
Most of Montana's rivers and
streams (74%) have fair water qual-
ity that periodically fails to support
aquatic life uses. Another 5% have
poor water quality that consistently
fails to support aquatic life uses.
About 14% of the surveyed lake
acres have good water quality that
fully supports fish and aquatic life,
57% fully support swimming, and
62% fully support drinking water
use. Agriculture (especially irrigated
crop production and rangeland)
impairs 60% of the surveyed stream
miles and 45% of the surveyed lake
acres. In general, nonpoint sources
are a factor in 90% of the impaired
rivers and 80% of the impaired
lakes. Resource extraction, forestry,
and municipal sewage treatment
plants have less widespread impacts
on water quality.
Ground Water Quality
More than 50% of Montanans
get their domestic water supply
from ground water sources. Ground
water is plentiful and the quality is
generally excellent, but Monteina's
aquifers are very vulnerable to pollu-
tion from human activities that will
expand as the population expands
throughout the river valleys. The
Department of Health and Environ-
mental Sciences and the Depairt-
ment of Natural Resources and
Conservation are jointly preparing a
Comprehensive Ground Water
Protection Plan to protect ground
water quality and quantity.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Montana is actively pursuing
interagency/interdisciplinary water-
shed planning and management.
Currently, five large watershed
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 221
projects are under way in Montana:
the Flathead Lake Watershed Man-
agement Plan, the Blackfoot River
Watershed Management Project, the
Grassroots Planning Process for the
Upper Clark Fork Basin, the Tri-State
Clark Fork Pend Oreille Watershed
Management Plan, and the
Kootenai River Basin Program. Each
program advocates collaboration
by all interested parties to devise
comprehensive management
options that simultaneously address
all major factors threatening or
degrading water quality.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Montana will need to expand
its monitoring and assessment pro-
gram to adequately measure the
effectiveness of the State's nonpoint
source control program and other
watershed management programs.
To date, only 10% of the State's
stream miles and 2% of the lakes
have been assessed. Fixed-station
monitoring is limited to three of the
State's 16 river basins: the Flathead
and upper and lower Clark Fork
basins. The Department will ask the
State Legislature to fund additional
staff and operating expenses to
expand ambient monitoring in the
State. The State is also concerned
that the U.S. Geological Survey may
discontinue trend monitoring in
Montana.
Individual Use Support in Montana
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Mites = i76,750)b
74
LaKes (Total Acres = 844,802)
- Not reported.
aA subset of Montana's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
222 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Nebraska
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Oigit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Nebraska 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Steven Walker
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division,
Surface Water Section
P.O. Box 98922, State House Station
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402)471-2875
Surface Water Quality
Agriculture is the most wide-
spread source of water quality prob-
lems in Nebraska, but urban runoff
also impacts the State's rivers and
streams. Agricultural runoff intro-
duces excess silt, bacteria, sus-
pended solids, pesticides, and nutri-
ents into surface waters. Municipal
and industrial facilities may contrib-
ute ammonia, bacteria, and metals.
Channelization and hydrologic
modifications have impacted aquatic
life in Nebraska streams by reducing
the diversity and availability of habi-
tat.
Elevated concentrations of
metals, primarily arsenic, were the
most common water quality prob-
lem identified in lakes, followed by
siltation, low dissolved oxygen, and
nutrients. Pesticides, primarily
atrazine, also degraded 18 lakes.
Nebraska applies more atrazine to
crops than any other State in the
United States. Sources of pollution
in lakes include municipal sewage
treatment plants, agriculture, con-
struction, urban runoff, and hydro-
logic habitat modifications.
Ground Water Quality
Although natural ground water
quality in Nebraska is good, hun-
dreds of individual cases of ground
water contamination have been
documented in Nebraska and the
number of contaminated well:;
increases every year. Major sources
of ground water contamination
include agricultural activities, indus-
trial facilities, leaking underground
storage tanks, oil or hazardous sub-
stance spills, solid waste landfills,
wastewater lagoons, brine disposal
pits, and septic systems.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality .
Until recently, Nebraska's
Nonpoint Source (NPS) Manage-
ment Program concentrated on
protecting ground water resources.
Surface water protection efforts
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 223
consisted primarily of two federally
funded demonstration projects on
Long Pine Creek and Maple Creek.
Now, Nebraska is evaluating the
role of NPS pollution statewide. In
1994, Nebraska supported 35 NPS
projects throughout the State.
Nebraska recently revised
wetlands water quality standards to
protect beneficial uses of aquatic
life, aesthetics, wildlife, and agricul-
tural water supply. The State also
protects wetlands with the water
quality certification program, permit
requirements for underground injec-
tion activities and mineral explora-
tion, and water quality monitoring.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The State's Nonpoint Source
Management Program cannot be
effective without monitoring infor-
mation to identify and prioritize
waters impacted by NPS, develop
NPS control plans, and evaluate the
effectiveness of implemented best
management practices. In response
to this need, Nebraska developed
an NPS surface water quality moni-
toring strategy to guide NPS moni-
toring projects. During 1992 and
1993, the State conducted 100 NPS
screening assessments; 2 followup
intensive NPS watershed assess-
ments; BMP effectiveness studies in
10 watersheds; and a pesticide
reconnaissance survey in the Big
and Little Blue River Basin.
Individual Use Support in Nebraska
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Sti^9i^s;;..i(tbter'iuines^.8.i,573)b
55
(Total Acres= 280,000)
aA subset of Nebraska's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
224 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Nevada
I
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Nevada 1994
30S(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
Surface Water Quality
Only 10% (about 15,000 miles)
of Nevada's rivers and streams flow
year round, and most of these
waters are inaccessible. For this
reporting period, Nevada surveyed
1,440 miles of the 3,000 miles of
accessible perennial streams with
designated beneficial uses. Thirty
percent of the surveyed stream
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses; 18%
have fair water quality that some-
times does not support aquatic life
uses; and 52% have poor water
quality that does not support
aquatic life uses. Thirty-eight per-
cent of the surveyed streams fully
support swimming and 62% do not
fully support swimming. In lakes,
29% of the surveyed acres fully
support aquatic life and swimming,
and 71 % partially support these
uses.
Agricultural practices (irrigation,
grazing, and flow regulation) have
the greatest impact'on Nevada's
water resources. Agricultural sources
generate large sediment and nutri-
ent loads. Urban drainage systems
contribute nutrients, heavy metals,
and organic substances that deplete
oxygen. Flow reductions also have a
great impact on streams, limiting
dilution of salts, minerals, and
pollutants.
Ground Water Quality
Nevada lacks comprehensive
ground water protection legislation,
but the State does have statutes
that control individual sources of
contamination, including mining,
underground storage tanks, septic
systems, handling of hazardous
materials and waste, solid waste
disposal, underground injection
wells, agricultural practices, and
wastewater disposal. Land use
statutes also enable local authorities
to implement Wellhead Protection
Plans by adopting zoning ordi-
nances, subdivision regulations, and
site plan review procedures. Local
authorities can implement certain
source control programs at the local
level.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 225
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Nevada's Nonpoint Source
Management Plan aims to reduce
NFS pollution with interagency
coordination, education programs,
and incentives that encourage vol-
untary installation of best manage-
ment practices. During 1992-1994,
the State continued updating the
Handbook of Best Management Prac-
tices and supported NPS assessment
activities in each of the State's six
major river basins. The State also
completed a Wellhead Protection
Plan for the State and began devel-
oping a State Ground Water Protec-
tion Policy.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Several State, Federal, and local
agencies regularly sample chemical
and physical parameters at over
100 sites in the 14 hydrologic
regions of the State. Nevada hopes
to add biological monitoring at
several routine sampling sites after
the State adapts rapid bioassess-
ment protocols to the arid condi-
tions in Nevada. The State also
coordinates intensive field studies on
Nevada's major river systems, the
Truckee River Basin, Carson River
Basin, Walker River Basin, and the
Humboldt River Basin. The State
also monitors a number of lakes and
reservoirs in conjunction with the
Section 314 Clean Lakes Program.
Individual Use Support in Nevada
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
vers and
'M»gS;gj^3,579)1
47
Lakes (Total Acres = 533,239)
- Not reported.
aA subset of Nevada's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
b!ncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
226 Chapter Nine State Summaries
New Hampshire
1
I v
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Diglt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the New Hampshire
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Gregg Comstock
State of New Hampshire
Department of Environmental
Services
Water Supply & Pollution Control
Division
64 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-2457
Surface Water Quality
Overall, the quality of New
Hampshire's surface waters is excel-
lent. Over 99% of the State's river
miles and 95% of the lake acres
have excellent or good water quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses
and swimming. Poor water quality
conditions are more widespread in
estuaries; high bacterial levels inter-
fere with shellfish harvesting in 66%
of the estuarine waters. Bacteria is
also the leading cause of impair-
ment in rivers where high bacteria
levels indicate unsafe swimming
conditions. Nutrients are the major
cause of impairment in lakes and
ponds. The State suspects that
nonpoint sources are responsible for
most of the pollution entering the
State's waters.
New Hampshire advises the
public to restrict consumption of
fish caught in the Androscoggin
River below Berlin, the Connecticut
River, Horseshoe Pond, and the:
Great Bay Estuary. One fish con-
sumption advisory is posted on the
Androscoggin River below Berlin
due to elevated concentrations of
dioxins in fish tissue. The James
River Corporation paper mill in Ber-
lin is the suspected source of the
dioxins.
Ground Water Quality
New Hampshire's overall
ground water quality is very good.
In some localized areas, naturally
occurring arsenic, fluoride, and
radionuclides (principally radon)
exceed drinking water standards.
Releases from petroleum facilities,
industrial operations, and landfills
have contaminated isolated areas
with petroleum or volatile organic
compounds. Sodium is the only
contaminant that has exhibited an
increasing presence in ground water
due to the widespread application
of road salts in winter. New Hamp-
shire is developing a Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Pro-
gram to coordinate their various
ground water assessment, preven-
tion, and restoration programs.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 227
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Over the past 20 years, New
Hampshire has eliminated or abated
all significant untreated municipal
and industrial wastewater discharges
in State waters. Recently, the
Department of Environmental Ser-
vices (DES) initiated a watershed
protection approach to identify and
resolve remaining pollution prob-
lems. DES will compile watershed
maps and land use data, identify
major sources of pollution, model
total maximum daily loads for pol-
lutants, and revise discharge permits
as needed in the State's five basins.
DES estimates that each basin
assessment will require 2 years to
complete at current funding levels.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DES implemented a rotating
watershed monitoring program in
1989. In 1993, the rotation was
temporarily halted so that the State
could intensify monitoring at sites
violating standards. During 1994
and 1995, DES will investigate
sources of violations confirmed by
the 1993 data.
Individual Use Support in New Hampshire
- Not reported.
aA subset of New Hampshire's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
State's 305(b) report for a full description of
the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Iflvers and Streams (Total Miles = iQ,88i)b
f^- ^,,-,; : ,f Total Miles
'gt ^S^^LJ^'- Surveyed
••'''•' 7>Y?7i;; ;'::-\ 10,881
99
i
<1 0
100
yLakes (Total Acres -163,012)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 28)
-------
228 Chapter Nine State Summaries
New Jersey
: I ']
iiJi
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the New jersey 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Kevin Berry
Nj DEP
Office of Environmental Planning
401 East State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609)633-1179
Surface Water Quality
Sixty-eight percent of the 1,617
surveyed stream miles have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life, but New jersey's high
population density threatens these
waters. Bacteria (which indicates
unsafe swimming conditions) and
nutrients are the most common
pollutants in rivers and streams. All
of the State's lakes are believed to
be threatened or actively deteriorat-
ing. Bacterial contamination is the
most widespread problem in estuar-
ies, impairing both shellfish harvest-
ing and swimming. Other problems
include nutrients, low dissolved
oxygen concentrations, pesticides,
and priority organic chemicals. Ma-
jor sources impacting New Jersey's
waters include municipal treatment
plants, industrial facilities, combined
sewers, urban runoff, construction,
agriculture, and land disposal of
wastes (including septic tanks).
Ground Water Quality
There are currently over 6,000
ground water pollution investiga-
tions under way in New Jersey. The
most common pollutants found in
ground water are volatile organic
compounds, metals, base neutral
chemicals, acid-extractable chemi-
cals, PCBs, and pesticides. Under-
ground storage tanks are the most
common source of ground water
contamination, followed by landfills,
surface spills, and industrial/com-
mercial septic systems. New Jersey
adopted new ground water quality
standards in 1993 that revise the
ground water classification system
and establish numerical criteria for
many pollutants. The standards also
protect good ground water quality
from degradation by future
activities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
New Jersey's Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) is
adopting a watershed approach to
water quality and quantity manage-
ment. The watershed approach
coordinates monitoring, modeling,
planning, permitting, and
enforcement activities within a
geographic area that drains into a
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 229
major river, lake, or estuary. The
watershed approach allows all inter-
ested parties to participate in the
development of consensus-based
management options. DEP is
currently conducting a watershed
protection pilot project in the
Whippany River watershed with
local governments, permittees,
regional interest groups, and private
citizens.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DEP's current monitoring pro-
gram is centered around physical
and chemical sampling at fixed
stations designed to monitor long-
term trends. Unfortunately, the
fixed-station network cannot pro-
vide data to address other manage-
ment needs, such as identifying
specific sources of pollution and
measuring the effectiveness of spe-
cific pollution control actions. There-
fore, DEP recommends supplement-
ing the fixed-station monitoring
program with intensive watershed
surveys to support watershed pro-
tection management projects. Inten-
sive surveys would collect data to
profile water quality over 24-hour
periods, identify pollution sources,
quantify pollution impacts, compare
water quality data to flow condi-
tions, model wasteload allocations,
and determine assimilative capacity
of waterbodies.
aA subset of New Jersey's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Includes tidal portions of coastal rivers.
Individual Use Support in New Jersey
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
.Rivers and Steams (Total Miles ==6,450)'
•ub
Total Miles
Surveyed
1,617
13
525
15
JLgkes JTotal Acres =. 24,000)
t§s*j
Total Acres
Surveyed
.Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 420)
Total Square 79
Miles Surveyed
-------
230 Chapter Nine State Summaries
New Mexico
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Olgft Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the New Mexico 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Erik Galloway
New Mexico Environment
Department
Surface Water Quality Bureau
Evaluation and Planning Section
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110
(505) 827-2923
Surface Water Qualify
About 93% of New Mexico's
surveyed stream miles have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life uses. Ninety-nine percent
of the surveyed river miles fully sup-
port swimming. The leading prob-
lems in streams include habitat alter-
ations (such as removal of stream-
side vegetation), siltation, metals,
and nutrients. Nonpoint sources are
responsible for over 93% of the
degradation in New Mexico's 3,255
impaired stream miles. Municipal
wastewater treatment plants impair
about 4% of the degraded waters
(124 stream miles).
Agriculture and recreational
activities are the primary sources of
nutrients, siltation, reduced shore-
line vegetation, and bank destabili-
zation that impairs aquatic life use
in 91% of New Mexico's surveyed
lake acres. Mercury contamination
from unknown sources appears in
fish caught at 22 reservoirs. How-
ever, water and sediment samples
from surveyed lakes and reservoirs
have not detected high concentra-
tions of mercury. Fish may contain
high concentrations of mercury in
waters with minute quantities of
mercury because the process of
biomagnification concentrates
mercury in fish tissue.
Ground Water Quality
About 88% of the population of
New Mexico depends on ground;
water for drinking water. The Envi-
ronment Department has identified
at least 1,745 cases of ground water
contamination since 1927. The
most common source of ground
water contamination is small house-
hold septic tanks and cesspools.
Leaking underground storage tanks,
injection wells, landfills, surface
impoundments, oil and gas produc-
tion, mining and milling, dairies, .
and miscellaneous industrial sources
also contaminate ground water in
New Mexico. New Mexico operates
a ground water discharger permit
program that includes ground water
standards for intentional discharges
and a spill cleanup provision for
other discharges.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 231
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
New Mexico's Nonpoint Source
Management Program contains a
series of implementation milestones
that were designed to establish
goals while providing a method to
measure progress and success of the
program. Implementation consists
of the coordination of efforts among
NPS management agencies, promo-
tion and implementation of best
management practices, coordination
of watershed projects, inspection
and enforcement activities, consis-
tency reviews, and education and
outreach activities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
New Mexico relies heavily on
chemical and physical data to assess
water quality. Fish tissue data
became available in 1991, and data
from biological surveys and bioassay
tests were incorporated into the
1994 assessments where possible.
The State also conducts extensive
monitoring to determine the
effectiveness of best management
practices implemented under the
Nonpoint Source Management
Program. During the current 305(b)
reporting cycle, New Mexico com-
pleted two special water quality
surveys along the Rio Hondo and
the Red River in Taos County.
Individual Use Support in New Mexico
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
livers and Streams (Total miles = no,74i)b
§S .(Tbjal Acre? •* 151,320)
aA subset of New Mexico's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
232 Chapter Nine State Summaries
New York
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Oiglt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the New York 1994
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
Surface Water Quality
Ninety-one percent of New
York's rivers and streams, 74% of
the State's lake acres, 97% of the
State's Great Lakes shoreline, and
99% of the bays and tidal waters
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses. Swimming
is fully supported in 99% of the
surveyed rivers, 78% of the surveyed
lakes, 80% of the Great Lakes shore-
line, and 93% of the surveyed estua-
rine waters. Eighty-five percent of
New York's Great Lake's shoreline
does not fully support fish con-
sumption use because of a fish
consumption advisory.
Agriculture is a major source of
nutrients and silt that impair New
York's rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
Hydrologic modification and habitat
modification are also a major source
of water quality impairment in rivers
and lakes. Urban runoff is a major
source of pollution in the State's
estuaries. Bacteria from urban runoff
and other sources close about
200,000 acres (16%) of potential
shellfishing beds.
Contaminated sediments are
the primary source of 7% of the
impaired rivers and lakes, 76% of
the impaired Great Lake's shoreline,
and 27% of the impaired estuarine
waters in New York State. Sedi-
ments are contaminated with PCBs,
chlorinated organic pesticides, mer-
cury, cadmium, mirex, and dioxins
that bioconcentrate in the food
chain and result in fish consumption
advisories.
Sewage treatment plant con-
struction and upgrades have had a
significant impact on water quality.
Since 1972, the size of rivers
impacted by municipal sewage
treatment facilities has declined
from about 2,000 miles to 300
miles.
Ground Water Quality
About 3% of the State's public
water supply system wells (160
wells) are closed or abandoned due
to contamination from organic
chemicals. The most common
contaminants are synthetic solvents
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 233
and degreasers, gasoline and other
petroleum products, and agricultural
pesticides and herbicides (primarily
aldicarb and carbofuran). The most
common sources of organic solvents
in ground water are spills, leaks, and
improper handling at industrial and
commercial facilities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Virtually every county of the
State has a county water quality
coordinating committee composed
of local agencies (such as Cornell
Cooperative Extension and soil and
water conservation districts), local
representatives from State and
Federal agencies, and public interest
groups. The county committees
meet regularly to discuss local priori-
ties and fashion local strategies to
address nonpoint source pollution.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1987, New York State imple-
mented the Rotating Intensive Basin
Studies (RIBS), an ambient monitor-
ing program that concentrates
monitoring activities on one-third
of the State's hydrologic basins for
2-year periods. The DEC monitors
the entire State every 6 years.
Intensive monitoring clarifies cause-
and-effect relationships between
pollutants and water quality,
measures the effectiveness of imple-
mented pollution controls, and
supports regulatory decisions.
aA subset of New York's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in New York
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
: Streams ;(Total Miles = 52,337)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 790,782)
Great Lakes (Total Miles = 577)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 1,530)
-------
234 Chapter Nine State Summaries
North Carolina
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the North Carolina
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Carol Metz
NC DEHNR
Division of Environmental
Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
(919) 733-5083
Surface Water Quality
About 70% of the State's sur-
veyed freshwater rivers and streams
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses, 25% have
fair water quality that partially sup-
ports aquatic life uses, and 5% have
poor water quality that does not
support aquatic life uses. Eighteen
percent of the surveyed rivers do
not fully support swimming. The
major sources of impairment are
agriculture (responsible for 56% of
the impaired river miles), urban
runoff (responsible for 13%), point
sources (responsible for 12%), and
construction (responsible for 11 %).
These sources generate siltation,
bacteria, and organic wastes that
deplete dissolved oxygen.
Only 3% of the surveyed lakes
in North Carolina are impaired for
swimming and aquatic life uses. A
few lakes are impacted by dioxin,
metals, and excessive nutrient
enrichment. The Champion Paper
mill on the Pigeon River is the
source of dioxin contamination in
Waterville Lake. The State and the
mill implemented a dioxin minimi-
zation program in the mid-1980s
and completed a modernization
program in 1993 that will reduce
water usage and discharges.
About 93% of the estuaries and
sounds in North Carolina fully sup-
port designated uses. Agriculture,
urban runoff, septic tanks, and point
source discharges are the leading
sources of nutrients, bacteria, and
low dissolved oxygen that degrade
estuaries.
Ground Water Quality
About half of the people in
North Carolina use ground water as
their primary supply of drinking
water. Ground water quality is
generally good, but new cases of
ground water contamination
affected 276 public water supplies
during 1992-1993. The leading
source of ground water contamina-
tion is leaking underground storage
tanks, which contaminate ground
water with gasoline, diesel fuel, and
heating oil. During 1992 and 1993,
North Carolina adopted new regula-
tions for administering Leaking
Underground Storage Tank funds
and amended ground water
standards.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 235
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1992-1993, North Carolina
continued its aggressive program to
control nonpoint source pollution.
North Carolina adopted a
nondischarge rule for animal waste
management, implemented an
innovative nutrient trading program
between point and nonpoint
sources in the Tar-Pamlico river
basin, signed 2,500 new contracts
under the Agricultural Cost Share
Program to implement best man-
agement practices, and reclassified
about 200 water supply watersheds
for special protection.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Surface water quality in North
Carolina was primarily evaluated
using physical and chemical data
collected by the Division of Environ-
mental Management (DEM) from a
statewide fixed-station network and
biological assessments. These
include macroinvertebrate (aquatic
insect) community surveys, fish
community structure analyses,
phytoplankton analyses, bioassays,
and limnological review of lakes and
watersheds. Other sources of infor-
mation were point source monitor-
ing data, shellfish closure reports,
lake trophic state studies, and
reports prepared by other local,
State, and Federal agencies.
aA subset of North Carolina's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
State's 305(b) report for a full description of
the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in North Carolina
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
rs_and Streams :
Total Miles
Surveyed
33
25
-------
236 Chapter Nine State Summaries
North Dakota
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Oigit Hydralogic Unit)
For a copy of the North Dakota
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Michael Ell
North Dakota Department of Health
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 5520
Bismark, ND 58502
(701)328-5210
Surface Water Quality
North Dakota reports that 78%
of its surveyed rivers and streams
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses now, but
good conditions are threatened in
most of these streams. Eighty-nine
percent of the surveyed streams
fully support swimming. Elevated
siltation, nutrients, ammonia, patho-
gens, oxygen-depleting wastes, and
habitat alterations impair aquatic life
use support in 22% of the surveyed
rivers and impair swimming in 11 %
of the surveyed rivers. The leading
sources of contamination are agri-
culture, removal of streamside veg-
etation, municipal sewage treatment
plants, and other habitat alterations.
Natural conditions, such as low
flows, also contribute to violations
of standards.
In lakes, 95% of the surveyed
acres have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses, and
98% of the surveyed acres fully
support swimming. Siltation, nutri-
ents, oxygen-depleting substances,
and suspended solids are the most
widespread pollutants in North
Dakota's lakes. The leading sources
of pollution in lakes are agricultural
activities (including nonirrigated
crop production, pasture land, irri-
gated crop production, and feed-
lots), municipal sewage treatment
plants, and urban runoff/storm sew-
ers. Natural conditions also prevent
some waters from fully supporting
designated uses.
Ground Water Quality
North Dakota has not identified
widespread ground water contami-
nation, although some naturally
occurring compounds may make
the quality of ground water undesir-
able in a few aquifers. Where
human-induced ground water con-
tamination has occurred, the
impacts have been attributed prima-
rily to petroleum storage facilities,
agricultural storage facilities,
feedlots, poorly designed wells,
abandoned wells, wastewater
treatment lagoons, landfills, septic
systems, and the underground
injection of waste. Assessment and
protection of ground water
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 237
continue through ambient ground
water quality monitoring activities,
the implementation of wellhead
protection projects, the Compre-
hensive Ground Water Protection
Program, and the development of a
State Management Plan for Pesti-
cides.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
North Dakota's Nonpoint
Source Pollution Management Pro-
gram has provided financial support
to 26 projects over the past 4 years.
Although the size, type, and target
audience of these projects vary, the
projects share the same basic goals:
(1) increase public awareness
of nonpoint source pollution,
(2) reduce or prevent the delivery
of NPS pollutants to waters of the
State, and (3) disseminate informa-
tion on effective solutions to NPS
pollution.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The North Dakota Department
of Health monitors physical and
chemical parameters (such as dis-
solved oxygen, pH, total dissolved
solids, and nutrients), toxic contami-
nants in fish, whole effluent toxicity,
and fish community structure.
North Dakota's ambient water qual-
ity monitoring network consists of
61 sampling sites on 31 rivers and
streams.
Individual Use Support in North Dakota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
.Rivers and Streams (Total Milies = 11,868)b
Total Miles
75
(Total Acres -632,016)
aA subset of North Dakota's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
238 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Ohio
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Ohio 1994 305(b)
report, contact:
Ed Rankin
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Surface Water
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614) 728-3385
Surface Water Quality
Ohio based their 1994 assess-
ments on data collected between
1988 and 1994. Ohio's assessment
methods compare observed eco-
logical characteristics (including
data on aquatic insects, fish species,
habitat, and streamside vegetation)
with background conditions found
at least-impacted reference sites for
a given ecoregion and stream type.
Ohio identified ecological
impacts from organic enrichment
and low dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, siltation, habitat modifica-
tion, metals, ammonia, and flow
alterations. Fecal coliform bacteria
indicate impaired swimming condi-
tions in 9% of the surveyed river
miles. These impacts stem from
municipal discharges, runoff from
agriculture, hydromodification,
industrial discharges, mining, urban
runoff, and combined sewer over-
flows.
Ohio estimates that wastewater
treatment plant construction and
upgrades have restored aquatic life
to about 1,000 river miles since the
1970s. Since 1988, the percentage
of surveyed river miles fully fit for
swimming also grew from 49% to
60%. However, increasing threats
from nonpoint sources could erode
gains made with point source
controls and slow the rate of
restoration.
The most common impacts on
Ohio lakes include nutrients, volume
loss due to sedimentation, organic
enrichment, and habitat alterations.
Nonpoint sources, including agricul-
ture, urban runoff, and septic
systems, generate most of these
impacts. However, municipal point
sources still affect 63% of the sur-
veyed lake acres.
Most of the Lake Erie shoreline
is fit for recreational use, but a fish
consumption advisory for channel
catfish and carp remains in effect
along the entire shoreline. Ohio also
issued fish consumption advisories
for all species of fish caught on 137
river miles and documented
elevated levels of PCBs in fish
caught at two small lakes.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 239
Ground Water Quality
About 4.5 million Ohio residents
depend upon wells for domestic
water. Waste disposal activities,
underground storage tank leaks,
and spills are the dominant sources
of ground water contamination in
Ohio.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
To fully restore water quality,
Ohio EPA advocates an ecosystem
approach that confronts degrada-
tion on shore as well as in the
water. Ohio's programs aim to cor-
rect nonchemical impacts, such as
channel modification and the
destruction of shoreline vegetation.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Ohio pioneered the integration
of biosurvey data, physical habitat
data, and bioassays with water
chemistry data to measure the over-
all integrity of water resources. Bio-
logical monitoring provides the
foundation of Ohio's water pro-
'grams because traditional chemical
monitoring alone may not detect
episodic pollution events or non-
chemical impacts. Ohio EPA found
that biosurvey data can increase the
detection of aquatic life use impair-
ment by about 35% to 50%.
Individual Use Support in Ohio
aA subset of Ohio's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
[fiivers,and Streams (Total Miles = 55^59)"
37
s (Total Acres i= 240,378)
ireat Lakes (Total Miles = 236)
-------
240 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Oklahoma
pin
I" :"'! :
I ! | • i
I ; f
I ii
Elilni! I I
be
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Oklahoma 1994
305(b) report, contact:
John Dyer
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
1000 NETOth Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
(405) 271-5205
Surface Water Quality
Fifty-eight percent of the sur-
veyed river miles have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life uses and 65% fully support
swimming. The most common pol-
lutants found in Oklahoma rivers are
siltation, pesticides, nutrients, and
suspended solids. Agriculture is the
leading source of pollution in the
State's rivers and streams, followed
by petroleum extraction and hydro-
logic/habitat modifications.
Fifty-seven percent of the
surveyed lake acres fully support
aquatic life uses and 60% fully sup-
port swimming. The most wide-
spread pollutants in Oklahoma's
lakes are siltation, nutrients, sus-
pended solids, and oxygen-deplet-
ing substances. Agriculture is also
the most common source of pollu-
tion in lakes, followed by contami-
nated sediments and flow regula-
tion. Several lakes are impacted by
acid mine drainage, including the
Gaines Creek arm of Lake Eufaula
and the Lake O' the Cherokees.
Ground Water Quality
Ambient ground water monitor-
ing has detected elevated nitrate
concentrations in monitoring wells
scattered across the State. Monitor-
ing has also detected isolated -cases
of hydrocarbon contamination,
elevated selenium and fluoride con-
centrations (probably due to natural
sources), chloride contamination
from discontinued oil field activities,
metals from past mining operations,
and gross alpha activity above maxi-
mum allowable limits. Industrial
solvents contaminate a few sites
near landfills, storage pits, and
Tinker Air Force Base. The State
rates agriculture, injection wells,
septic tanks, surface impoundments,
and industrial spills as the highest
priority sources of ground water
contamination.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 241
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Oklahoma's nonpoint source
control program is a cooperative
effort of State, Federal, and local
agencies that sponsors demonstra-
tion projects. The demonstration
projects feature implementation of
agricultural best management prac-
tices, water quality monitoring
before and after BMP implementa-
tion, technical assistance, education,
and development of comprehensive
watershed management plans. Cur-
rently, Oklahoma is conducting five
NFS projects in Comanche County,
Greer and Beckham Counties,
Custer County, Tillman County,
and the Illinois River Basin.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Oklahoma's Conservation Com-
mission is conducting five large
watershed studies in the Illinois River
Basin, the Little River Basin, the
Neosho (Grand) River Basin, the
Southeast Oklahoma Multiple Basin,
and the Poteau River/Wister Lake
Project (a cooperative effort with
the LeFlore Conservation District,
the Water Board, and the USGS). All
together, 385 sites will be sampled
for chemical parameters and one-
third of these sites will also be
sampled for biological integrity.
Individual Use Support in Oklahoma
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
and Streams (Total Miles = ?8,778)b
49
32
OS (Total Acres = 1,041,884)
-Not reported.
aA subset of Oklahoma's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
242 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Oregon
<
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Oregon 1994
30S(b) report, contact:
Robert Baumgartner
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-6962
Surface Water Quality
Forty-three percent of Oregon's
surveyed rivers have good water
quality that fully supports desig-
nated uses, 30% have fair water
quality that partially supports uses,
and 27% have poor water quality
that does not support uses. The
most widespread problems in
Oregon's streams are habitat alter-
ations, high temperatures, and silt-
ation from grazing, other agricul-
tural activities, forestry, and recre-
ation.
In lakes, 74% of the surveyed
acres fully support uses, 12%
partially support uses, and 14% do
not support uses. The most com-
mon problems in Oregon's lakes are
excess nutrients, pH (acidity), and
low dissolved oxygen. DEQ suspects
that agriculture and natural condi-
tions (including shallow depth and
high evaporation rates) are the most
significant sources of lake problems.
Six percent of Oregon's estua-
rine waters have good quality and
94% have fair water quality due to
periodic violations of bacteria stan-
dards. High concentrations of fecal
bacteria usually result from bypasses
at municipal wastewater treatment
plants during rainfall events or
improper management of animal
wastes.
Ground Water Quality
Monitoring has detected
nitrates, benzene, other volatile
organic compounds, bacteria, herbi-
cides, and pesticides in ground
water. Suspected sources include
septic systems, agriculture, highway
maintenance, industry, and com-
merce. During 1992 and 1993,
DEQ conducted statewide ground
water monitoring, developed a
ground water data management
system, and issued 16 grants for
research and education projects
designed to protect ground water
from nonpoint sources of pollution.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Oregon recently initiated a
Watershed Health Program to
encourage public/private partner-
ships for managing water qucility
and ecosystem enhancement. Under
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries - 243
the Watershed Health Program,
field-based technical teams work
closely with watershed councils
composed of local residents and
stakeholders to set priorities and
fund projects. DEQ and other State
agencies targeted the Grand Ronde
Basin and the combined South
Coast and Rogue Basins to begin
implementing the Watershed Health
Program with $10 million in State
funds for 1994 and 1995. These
basins were selected because of
existing Total Maximum Daily Load
programs.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DEQ routinely monitors about
3,500 miles of streams in its ambi-
ent river monitoring program. These
streams receive about 90% of the
wastewater discharged by point
sources throughout the State. Dur-
ing 1992 and 1993, DEQ increased
the number of ambient river moni-
toring stations and expanded other
monitoring programs, including
ground water studies, continuous
monitoring, mixing zone studies,
and bioassessments. Recently,
Oregon also initiated the Coos Bay
toxics study, the Tillamook Bay
National Estuary Program, and the
Lower Columbia River Bi-State Pro-
gram to provide more information
on estuarine water quality.
Overall3 Use Support in Oregon
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
livers and &ream^(ifotai Mile? = Ii4,823)b
Total Miles
Surveyed
(total Acres a 618,934)
14
JTotal Square Miles = 206)
- Not reported.
a Overall use support is presented in this figure because Oregon did not report individual use
support in their 1994 Section 305(b) report.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
244 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Pennsylvania
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Pennsylvania 1994
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
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
(717)783-3638
Surface Water Quality
Over 81 % of the surveyed river
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses and
swimming. About 8% have fair
water quality that partially supports
these uses, and 11 % have poor
water quality that does not support
aquatic life uses and swimming. The
most widespread pollutants are
metals, which impact over 2,092
miles. Pollutants identified less
frequently include suspended solids
(impacting 603 miles), nutrients
(impacting 586 miles), and pH
(impacting 273 miles).
Abandoned mine drainage is
the most significant source of
surface water quality degradation in
Pennsylvania. Drainage from mining
sites pollutes at least 2,404 miles of
streams representing 52% of all
degraded streams in the Common-
wealth. Other sources of degrada-
tion include agriculture (impacting
694 miles), municipal sewage treat-
ment plants (impacting 241 miles),
and industrial point sources (impact-
ing 206 miles).
. Pennsylvania has issued fish
consumption advisories on 23
waterbodies. Most of the advisories
are due to elevated concentrations
of PCBs and chlordane in fish tissue,
but a few advisories have been
issued for mirex and mercury. In
1994, the State deactivated two
advisories for dioxins on Codurus
Creek and the South Branch of
Codurus Creek as well as one advis-
ory for chlordane on the Delaware
River.
Ground Water Quality
Major sources of ground water
contamination in Pennsylvania
include leaking underground stor-
age tanks, containers from hazard-
ous materials facilities, and improper
handling or overuse of fertilizer.
Petroleum and petroleum byprod-
ucts are the most common pollut-
ants in ground water. Coal mining
and oil and gas production have
also elevated concentrations of sev-
eral elements (including chlorides,
iron, barium, and strontium) in
some regions of the Common-
wealth. A Ground Water Quality
Protection Strategy was adopted
and released to the public in Febru-
ary 1992, and an Implementation
Task Force was formed in August
1992. The Task Force reviewed all
program regulations and scheduled
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 245
revisions that will advance the Strat-
egy goal of nondegradation of
ground water quality.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Eliminating acid mine drainage
from abandoned mines will require
up to $5 billion. The cost, difficulty,
magnitude, and extent of the prob-
lem have hampered progress. To
date, the Commonwealth has
funded studies to determine the
effectiveness of alternative tech-
niques for treating mine drainage
and preventing contamination. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service's Rural Abandoned
Mines Program also reconstructs
abandoned mine sites in Pennsyl-
vania.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Water Quality Network
monitors chemical and physical
parameters almost monthly and
biological parameters annually at
168 fixed stations on rivers, streams,
and Lake Erie. In 1991, Pennsylvania
began annual sampling at 15 to 20
lakes for 5 years. After 5 years,
another set of lakes will be sampled
annually for 5 years until 90 lakes
have been monitored. The Com-
monwealth also conducts ambient
ground water monitoring at 537
monitoring sites.
Individual Use Support in Pennsylvania
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
„,. „_ , ,
Streams (Total Miles a 53,962)°
Total Miles 81
Surveyed
11
es (Total Acres = 161,445)
- Not reported.
aA subset of Pennsylvania's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
246 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Puerto Rico
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS frDiglt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Puerto Rico 1994
305 (b) report, contact:
Eric H. Morales
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board
Water Quality Area
Boxl1488
Santurce, PR 00910
(809) 751-5548
Surface Water Quality
In rivers and streams, 17% of
the surveyed miles have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic life
uses, 32% partially support aquatic
life uses, and 51% do not support
aquatic life uses. Swimming is
impaired in 79% of the surveyed
rivers and streams. Low dissolved
oxygen, pesticides, flow alteration,
bacteria, and nutrients are the most
widespread problems in rivers and
streams. In lakes, 30% of the sur-
veyed acres fully support aquatic life
uses, 19% partially support these
uses, and 51% do not support
aquatic life uses. Swimming is
impaired in 55% of the surveyed
lake acres. Uses are impaired by
inorganic chemicals, low dissolved
oxygen concentrations, bacteria,
priority organic chemicals, metals,
and pesticides.
Only 16% of the assessed estua-
rine waters fully support aquatic life
uses and only 17% fully support
swimming due to oxygen-depleting
organic substances, bacteria, and
habitat alterations. Land disposal of
wastes, urban runoff, agriculture,
municipal sewage treatment plants,
and natural conditions are the most
common sources of water quality
degradation in rivers, lakes, and
estuaries. Industrial and municipal
discharges also pollute beaches.
Ground Water Quality
Organic compounds, including
dichloromethane, 1,1,2-trichloro-
ethane, and toluene were detected
below maximum contaminant levels
in several wells. Four wells were
closed due to bacterial contamina-
tion and high turbidity and two
wells were shut down due to con-
tamination from volatile organic
compounds. The major sources of
ground water contamination eire
septic tanks, livestock operations,
agriculture, storage tanks, and land-
fills. Puerto Rico adopted ground
water use classifications and water
quality standards in 1990. In 1993,
the Environmental Quality Board
completed the ground water prior-
ity list that ranks critical areas for
remediation and protection
activities.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 247
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Puerto Rico requires permits or
certificates for ground water and
surface water discharges, under-
ground storage tanks, and livestock
operations. Certificates require live-
stock operations to implement ani-
mal waste management systems
and other best management prac-
tices. During the 1992-1993 report-
ing period, Puerto Rico issued 194
certificates for livestock operations;
inspected 427 livestock operations;
implemented 77 BMPs in priority
watersheds; offered 15 conferences
to educate the public about
nonpoint source pollution and con-
trols; and monitored the effective-
ness of BMPs implemented at poul-
try, dairy, and hog farms.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Under a cooperative agreement
with the government of Puerto Rico,
the USGS collects bimonthly
samples at 57 fixed surface water
monitoring stations. The samples
are analyzed for dissolved oxygen,
nutrients, bacteria, and conventional
parameters. Twice a year, the
samples are analyzed for metals and
several toxic substances. Puerto Rico
also maintains a Permanent Coastal
Water Quality Network of 88 sta-
tions and the San Juan Beachfront
Special Monitoring Network of 22
stations sampled monthly for bacte-
rial contamination.
-Not reported.
aA subset of Puerto Rico's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the
Commonwealth's 305(b) report for a full
description of the Commonwealth's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Puerto Rico
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Slivers and Streams x(Toiai iiles = 5;
if3i&iE3feM3a^35riE^.^--vv.ii ...•.;•.-' '•_' •?"•'_ ?r- "•*.-•>'.-.-', .i..;a.:> .- '.. y. • '-.- :~ fJ •••^ALLL^-^.'l^.L.
Total Miles
Surveyed
Estuanes (Total Miles = 175)
20
13
13
-------
248 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Rhode Island
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Rhode Island 1994
30S(b) report, contact
Connie Carey
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade St.
Providence, Rl 02908-5767
(401)277-6519
Surface Water Quality
Eighty-four percent of Rhode
Island's rivers, 81 % of lakes, and
96% of estuarine waters support
aquatic life uses. However, many of
these waters are considered threat-
ened. About 80% of rivers, 94% of
lakes, and 93% 6f estuaries fully
support swimming. The most signifi-
cant pollutants in Rhode Island's
waters are heavy metals (especially
copper and lead), priority organic
chemicals (PCBs), bacteria, low dis-
solved oxygen, excess nutrients, and
low pH/low buffering capacity.
Recurring algae blooms, high nutri-
ents, and high turbidity threaten the
use of several surface waters for
drinking water supplies.
Rivers and estuaries are
impacted by industrial and munici-
pal discharges, combined sewer
overflows, urban runoff, highway
runoff, failed septic systems, and
contaminated sediments. Lakes are
primarily impacted by nonpoint
sources, including septic systems,
atmospheric deposition, and land
and road runoff.
Ground Water Quality
About 24% of the State's popu-
lation is supplied with drinking
water from public and private wells.
Overall, Rhode Island's ground
water has good to excellent quality,
but over 100 contaminants have
been detected in localized areas.
Twenty-one community and eight
noncommunity wells have been
closed and 400 private wells have
required treatment due to contami-
nation. The most common pollut-
ants are petroleum products, certain
organic solvents, and nitrates. Sig-
nificant pollution sources include
leaking underground storage tanks,
hazardous and industrial waste dis-
posal sites, illegal or improper waste
disposal, chemical and oil spills,
landfills, septic systems, road salt
storage and application, and fertil-
izer application.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Rhode Island's Nonpoint Source
Management Program sponsored
the following activities during 1992-
1993: (1) preparation of NPS man-
agement plans for 10 surface water
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 249
supply watersheds; (2) development
of a Community NPS Management
Guide; (3) development of a
Stormwater Design and Installation
Manual; (4) preparation of a manual
for selecting best management
practices for marinas; (5) develop-
ment of a Community Wastewater
Management Guidance Manual;
(6) mitigation projects at Greenwich
Bay, including septic system inspec-
tions and replacements; (7) techni-
cal assistance to communities devel-
oping zoning or NPS control ordi-
nances; and (8) revising and updat-
ing the Rhode Island NPS Manage-
ment Plan.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Rhode Island's monitoring
program consists of: (1) discharge
effluent monitoring, (2) the Beach
Monitoring Program, (3) the Shell-
fish Growing Area Monitoring
Program, (4) USGS Water Quality
Trend Monitoring Fixed Stations,
(5) supplemental monitoring sta-
tions 'sampled by the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Man-
agerrjent, (6) biological monitoring,
and (7) limited expansion of ambi-
ent Water quality stream biological
and chemical monitoring. During
the 1992-1993 reporting cycle,
Rhode Island added 25 toxics moni-
toring stations to previously
unmonitored streams.
-Not reported.
aA subset of Rhode Island's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Includes ocean waters.
individual Use Support in Rhode Island
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = ivib6)b
37
Lakes (Total Acres = 17,328)
Stuanes (Total Square Miles = 139)
-------
250 Chapter Nine State Summaries
South Carolina
> Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Di9lt Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the South Carolina
1994 305(b) report, contact:
GIna Lowman
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-5153
Surface Water Quality
Ninety-one percent of surveyed
rivers, 99% of surveyed lakes, and
75% of estuaries have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life uses. Sixty-three percent of
rivers, 99% of lakes, and 86% of
estuaries fully support swimming.
Unsuitable water quality is respon-
sible for shellfish harvesting prohibi-
tions in only 2% of the State's
coastal shellfish waters. Another
11 % of shellfish waters are closed as
a precaution due to potential pollu-
tion from nearby marinas or point
source discharges.
Bacteria are the most frequent
cause of impairment (i.e., partial or
nonsupport of designated uses) in
rivers and streams; metals are the
most frequent cause of impairment
in lakes, but only 1% of lakes do
not fully support uses; and low dis-
solved oxygen is the most frequent
cause of impairment in estuaries.
Toxic contaminants do not appear
to be a widespread problem in
South Carolina surface waters. Of all
waters assessed, only 5% had ele-
vated levels of metals and only 3%
had concentrations of PCBs, pesti-
cides, and organics above the
assessment criteria.
Ground Water Quality
Overall ground water quality
remains excellent, although the
number of reported ground water
contamination cases rose from 60
cases in 1980 to 2,207 cases in
1993. The.increase in the number
of contaminated sites is primarily
due to expanded monitoring at
underground storage tank sites.
Leaking underground storage tanks
are the most common source of
contamination, impacting 1,741
sites, followed by leaking pits,
ponds, and lagoons.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Con-
trol (DHEC) initiated a Watershed
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 251
Water Quality Management Strat-
egy (WWQMS) to integrate moni-
toring, assessment, problem identifi-
cation and prioritization, water qual-
ity modeling, planning, permitting,
and other management activities by
river drainage basins. DHEC has
delineated five major drainage
basins encompassing 280 minor
watersheds. Every year, DHEC will
develop or revise a management
plan and implementation strategy
for one basin. It will take 5 years to
assess all basins in the State. The
basin strategies will refocus water
quality protection and restoration
priorities for allocation of limited
resources.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Year round, DHEC samples
chemical and physical parameters
monthly at fixed primary stations
located in or near high-use waters.
DHEC samples secondary stations
(near discharges and areas with a
history of water quality problems)
monthly from May through October
for fewer parameters. Each year,
DHEC adds new watershed stations
within the specific basin under
investigation. Watershed stations are
sampled monthly for 1 year
corresponding with the WWQMS
schedule.
Individual Use Support in South Carolina
Percent
- Not reported.
aA subset of South Carolina's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) [Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
"Rivers and Streams (Total Miles*35,461 )b
Lakes (Total Acres = 525,000)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 945)
Total Square 75
Miles Surveyed
-------
252 Chapter Nine State Summaries
South Dakota
I '?,
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit modified by South Dakota)
For a copy of the South Dakota
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Andrew Repsys
South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Division of Water Resources
Management
523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-3882
Surface Water Quality
Seventeen percent of South
Dakota's surveyed rivers and streams
fully support aquatic life uses and
83% do not fully support aquatic
life uses. Thirty-five percent of the
surveyed rivers also support swim-
ming, and 65% of the surveyed
rivers do not fully support swim-
ming. The most common pollutants
impacting South Dakota streams are
suspended solids due to water ero-
sion from croplands, gully erosion
from rangelands, streambank
erosion, and other natural forms of
erosion. Ninety-eight percent of
South Dakota's surveyed lake acres
fully support aquatic life uses now,
but the quality of these lakes is
threatened. Similarly, 100% of the
surveyed lake acres fully support
swimming, but these waters are
threatened. The most common
pollutants in lakes are nutrients and
sediments from agricultural runoff.
The high water conditions that
prevailed in South Dakota for most
of this reporting period greatly
increased watershed erosion and
sedimentation in lakes and streams.
Suspended solids criteria were
severely violated in many rivers and
streams, and there was an increase
in the incidence of fecal coliform
bacteria in swimming areas at lakes.
However, water quality improved in
some lakes that experienced low
water levels during the late 1980s,
and high flows diluted bacteria in
rivers and streams.
Ground Water Quality
Nitrates exceed EPA Maximum
Contaminant Levels in more wells
than any other pollutant. About
15% of the samples collected at
three eastern State aquifers during
1988-1993 had nitrate concentra-
tions that exceeded the State crite-
ria of 10 mg/L. More than 7% of
the samples collected from the Big
Sioux aquifer consistently exceeded
the nitrate standard. Potential
sources of nitrate include commer-
cial fertilizer use and manure appli-
cations. There were no violations of
drinking water standards for
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 253
petroleum products reported during
1992-1993, but petroleum products
were involved in 81 % of the spills
reported during the period.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Compliance with municipal
wastewater discharge permit
requirements has steadily risen from
37% in 1979 to 75% statewide in
1993 following construction of 162
wastewater treatment facilities.
Compliance is even higher (97%)
among the plants completed with
EPA Construction Grants. South
Dakota relies primarily on voluntary
implementation of best manage-
ment practices to control pollution
from nonpoint sources, such as
agricultural activities, forestry opera-
tions, and mining. The State has
initiated over 50 BMP development
and implementation projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
South Dakota conducts ambient
water quality monitoring at estab-
lished stations, special intensive
surveys, intensive fish surveys,
wasteload allocation surveys, and
individual nonpoint source projects.
The USGS, Corps of Engineers, and
U.S. Forest Service also conduct
routine monitoring throughout the
State. Water samples are analyzed
for chemical, physical, biological,
and bacteriological parameters.
Individual Use Support in South Dakota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
'Rivers and Stream^ (Total Mites =$,Q37)
69
akes (Total Acres = 750,000)
- Not reported.
aA subset of South Dakota's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
-------
254 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Tennessee
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Tennessee 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Greg Denton
Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation
Division of Water Pollution Control
401 Church Street, L&C Annex
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
(615) 532-0699
Surface Water Quality
Sixty-five percent of surveyed
rivers and streams fully support
aquatic life uses, 25% partially sup-
port these uses, and 10% are not
supporting aquatic life uses due to
severe pollution. Conventional pol-
lutants (such as siltation, suspended
solids, nutrients, and oxygen-deplet-
ing substances) affect the most river
miles. Toxic materials, bacteria, and
flow alterations impact rivers to a
lesser extent. Major sources of
pollutants include agriculture,
hydromodification, and municipal
point sources. Intense impacts from
mining occur in the Cumberland
Plateau region, and poor quality
water discharged from dams
impacts streams in east and middle
Tennessee.
In lakes, 421,407 acres (78%)
fully support aquatic life uses, 2,668
acres (less than 1 %) are threatened,
27,987 acres (5%) partially support
aquatic life uses, and 87,126 acres
(16%) do not support these uses
due to severe pollution. The nnost
widespread problems in lakes in-
clude nutrients, low dissolved oxy-
gen, siltation, and priority organics.
Major sources of these pollutants
are agriculture, municipal waste-
water treatment plants, stream im-
poundments, hydrologic modifica-
tion, mining, and nutrient addition.
Fish consumption advisories are
posted on 142 miles of rivers and
streams and over 84,000 acres of
lakes due to elevated concentrations
of chlordane, PCBs, dioxins, mer-
cury, and other toxics in fish tissue
samples. Swimming and wading are
restricted in Chattanooga Creek and
East Fork Poplar Creek due to toxic
contamination from discontinued
waste disposal practices.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality is gener-
ally good, but pollutants contami-
nate (or are thought to contami-
nate) the resource in localized areas.
These pollutants include, but are
not limited to, volatile and
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 255
semivolatile organic chemicals, bac-
teria, metals, petroleum products,
pesticides, and radioactive materials.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Tennessee is considering issuing
discharge permits on a rotating
basis for each of the State's major
river basins and is studying region-
alized standards that take into
account natural background condi-
tions. The permits in each basin
would be evaluated and reissued
together on a 5-year cycle. Tennes-
see is also conducting several Total
Maximum Daily Load studies that
use a watershed approach to allo-
cate maximum pollutant loading
among all the point sources dis-
charging into a stream or its tribu-
taries.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Tennessee's ambient monitoring
network consists of 156 active sta-
tions sampled quarterly for conven-
tional pollutants (such as dissolved
oxygen, bacteria, and suspended
solids), nutrients, and selected met-
als. The State also performs inten-
sive surveys at streams where State
personnel suspect that human
activities are degrading stream qual-
ity. Intensive surveys often include
biological monitoring. The State
samples toxic chemicals in fish and
sediment at sites with suspected
toxicity problems.
Individual Use Support in Tennessee
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
livers and Streams (Total Miles = I9,i24)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 539,188)
Total Acres 73
Surveyed
aA subset of Tennessee's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
bincludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
256 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Texas
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!git Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Texas 1994 305(b)
report, contact:
Steve Twidwell
Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission
P.O. Boxl3087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512)239-1000
Surface Water Quality
About 89% of the surveyed
stream miles fully support aquatic
life uses, 4% partially support these
uses, and 6% do not support
aquatic life uses. Swimming is
impaired in 27% of the surveyed
rivers and streams. The most com-
mon pollutants degrading rivers and
streams are bacteria, metals, and
oxygen-depleting substances. Major
sources of pollution include munici-
pal sewage treatment plants,
unknown sources, pasture land
runoff, and urban runoff.
In reservoirs, 98% of the sun-
veyed surface acres fully support
aquatic life uses and 2% partially
support these uses. Less than 1 % do
not support aquatic life uses.
Ninety-nine percent of the surveyed
lake acres fully support swimming.
The most common problems in
reservoirs are low dissolved oxygen
and elevated bacteria concentra-
tions. Major sources that contrib-
uted to nonsupport of uses include
unknown sources, natural sources
(such as high temperature and shal-
low conditions), municipal sewage
treatment plants, and industrial
point sources.
The leading problem in estuar-
ies is bacteria from unknown
sources that contaminate shellfish
beds. Fifty-nine percent of the sur-
veyed estuarine waters fully support
shellfishing use, 8% partially support
this use, and 33% do not support
shellfishing.
Ground Water Quality
About 44% of the municipal
water is obtained from ground
water in Texas. Natural contamina-
tion affects the quality of more
ground water in the State than all
other sources of contamination
combined. Natural leaching from
the aquifer matrix can elevate min-
erals, metals, and radioactive sub-
stances in ground water. The most
common ground water contami-
nants from human activities are
gasoline, diesel, and other petro-
leum products. Less common con-
taminants include volatile organic
compounds and pesticides.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 257
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC)
launched a basin approach to water
resource management with the
Clean Rivers Program (CRP). The
CRP is a first step in the develop-
ment of a long-term, comprehen-
sive and integrated geographic
management approach aimed at
improving coordination of natural
resource functions in the agency.
The basin approach will provide a
framework for identifying problems,
involving stakeholders, and integrat-
ing actions. The basin approach also
allows for the use of risk-based tar-
geting to prioritize issues and better
allocate finite public resources.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The TNRCC samples about 700
fixed stations as part of its Surface
Water Quality Monitoring Program
(SWQMP). The TNRCC samples
different parameters and varies the
frequency of sampling at each site
to satisfy different needs. The
TNRCC also conducts intensive
surveys to evaluate potential
impacts from point source discharg-
ers during low flow conditions andi
special studies to investigate specific
sources and pollutants. About 3,00y
citizens also perform volunteer envi-
ronmental monitoring in the Texas
Watch Program.
aA subset of Texas' designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Texas
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
<1
Lakes /Total Acres =3*065,600)
<1
Estuar ies (Total Square Miles = 1 ,991 )
'I^|
98
Total Square ^^^B
Miles Surveyed JHH
1,991 ^B 0
2 <1 0
-------
258 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Utah
i. in
! ' ' ,
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIgit Hydrotoglc Unit)
For a copy of the Utah 1994 305(b)
report, contact:
Thomas W. Toole
Utah Department of Environmental
Quality
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801) 538-6859
Surface Water Quality
Of the 5,726 river miles sur-
veyed, 75% fully support aquatic life
uses, 20% partially support these
uses, and 5% are not supporting
aquatic life uses. The most common
pollutants impacting rivers and
streams are siltation and sediments,
total dissolved solids, nutrients, and
metals. Agricultural practices, such
as grazing and irrigation, elevate
nutrient and sediment loading into
streams. Point sources also contrib-
ute to nutrient loads, while natural
conditions introduce metals and
sediments to streams in some areas.
Resource extraction and associated
activities, such as road construction,
also impact Utah's rivers and
streams.
About 61% of the surveyed lake
acres fully support aquatic life uses,
32% partially support these uses,
and 7% do not support aquatic life
uses. The leading problems in lakes
include nutrients, siltation, low dis-
solved oxygen, suspended solids,
organic enrichment, noxious aquatic
plants, and violations of pH criteria.
The major sources of pollutants are
grazing and irrigation, industrial and
municipal point sources, drawdown
of reservoirs, and natural conditions.
Fish and wildlife consumption
advisories are posted on the lower
portion of Ashley Creek drainage
and Stewart Lake in Uintah County
due to elevated levels of selenium
found in fish, ducks, and American
coots.
Ground Water Quality
In general, the quality of
ground water in Utah has remained
relatively good throughout the
State, although some ground water
degradation occurs in south central
Utah in the metropolitan area of
Salt Lake City and along the
Wasatch Front area from Payson
north to Brigham City. Sources of
ground water degradation include
irrigation, urbanization, landfills,
mining and mine tailings, and draw-
down. In 1994, new ground water
regulations went into effect.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 259
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The State's Nonpoint Source
Task Force is responsible for coordi-
nating nonpoint source programs in
Utah. The Task Force is a broad-
based group with representatives
from Federal, State, and local agen-
cies; local governments; agricultural
groups; conservation organizations;
and wildlife advocates. The Task
Force helped State water quality
and agricultural agencies prioritize
watersheds in need of NPS pollution
controls. As best management prac-
tices are implemented, the Task
Force will update and revise the
priority list.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1993, Utah adopted a
basinwide water quality monitoring
approach. Utah initiated basinwide
intensive studies in the Weber River
Basin in 1993 and the Utah Lake-
Jordan River Basin in 1994. A fixed-
station network was also developed
to evaluate general, water quality
across the State. Utah's surface
water quality monitoring program
consists of about 200 ambient sta-
tions, 7 salinity monitoring stations,
and 30 biological monitoring sites.
In addition, 135 industrial and
municipal sites were monitored.
Individual Use Support in Utah
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Miles=§s
Total Miles
75
OS (Total Acres = 481,638)
aA subset of Utah's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for
a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
260 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Vermont
j ' i !! !!
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dig!t Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Vermont 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Jerome J. McArdle
Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Water Quality Division
103 South Main Street,
Building 10 North
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
(802) 244-6951
Surface Water Quality
Of the 5,264 miles of surveyed
rivers and streams, 81 % fully sup-
port aquatic life uses, 15% partially
support these uses, and 4% do not
support aquatic life uses. Ten per-
cent of the surveyed rivers and
streams do not fully support swim-
ming. The most widespread impacts
include siltation, thermal modifica-
tions, organic enrichment and low
dissolved oxygen, nutrients, patho-
gens, and other habitat alterations.
The principal sources of impacts are
agricultural runoff, streambank
destabilization and erosion, removal
of streamside vegetation, upstream
impoundments, flow regulation, and
land development.
Sixty-four percent of the sur-
veyed lake acres (excluding Lake
Champlain) fully support aquatic life
uses, 27% partially support these
uses, and 9% do not support
aquatic life uses. The most common
problems in lakes include fluctuating
water levels, nutrient enrichment,
algal blooms, organic enrichment
and low dissolved oxygen, siltation,
and aquatic weeds. Eurasian
watermilfoil, an aquatic weed,,
infests 13% of the State's lakes that
are 20 acres or larger. Runoff from
agricultural lands, roads, and
streambank erosion are the most
frequently identified sources of lake
problems.
In Lake Champlain, nutrients are
the major cause of impairment,
followed by fish consumption advi-
sories posted for trout contaminated
with PCBs and walleye contami-
nated with mercury. Discover/ of
the zebra mussel in 1993 threatens
all uses.
Ground Water Quality
The quality of Vermont's
ground waters is not well under-
stood due to a lack of resources
required to gather and assess
ground water data. Ground water
contamination has been detected at
hazardous waste sites. Other sources
of concern include failing septic
systems, old solid waste disposal
sites, agriculture, road salt, leaking
underground storage tanks, and
landfills. The State needs to imple-
ment a Comprehensive Ground
Water Protection Program, but lacks
the financial and technical resources
to do so.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 261
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
During the reporting period,
Vermont implemented dechlorina-
tion at 18 publicly owned sewage
treatment plants, which improved
water quality in about 47 miles of
rivers and streams. The State also
completed construction of the last
two planned sewage treatment
plants and upgraded four other
plants. To prevent habitat modifica-
tions, the State used the Section
401 water quality certification pro-
cess to require minimum stream
flows at four hydroelectric facilities.
The stream flow requirements
should improve water quality on
11 miles of streams.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Vermont's monitoring activities
balance short-term intensive and
long-term trend monitoring.
Notable monitoring activities
include fixed-station monitoring on
lakes and ponds, citizen monitoring,
long-term acid rain lake monitoring,
compliance monitoring for permit-
ted dischargers, toxic discharge
monitoring, fish contamination
monitoring, and ambient biomoni-
toring of aquatic insects and fish.
Individual Use Support in Vermont
aA subset of Vermont's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes perennial streams only.
c Excluding Lake Champlain.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
b
Total Miles
59
Lakes (Total Acres = 54,208)
Total Acres = 174,175)
-------
262 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Virginia
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dig!t Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Virginia 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Carrie Gorsuch
Department of Environmental
Quality
Water Division
Office of Water Resources
Management
P.O. Boxl0009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
(804) 762-4290
Surface Water Quality
Of the 34,575 river miles sur-
veyed, 90% fully support aquatic life
use, another 5% fully support this
use now but are threatened, and
5% do not fully support this use. As
in past years, fecal coliform bacteria
are the most widespread problem in
rivers and streams. Agriculture and
pasture land contribute much of the
fecal coliform bacteria in Virginia's
waters. Urban runoff also is a signifi-
cant source of impacts in both rivers
and estuaries.
Ninety-nine percent of Virginia's
publicly owned lakes fully support
their designated uses, and about
1 % do not fully support uses. The
most common problems in lakes
include dissolved oxygen depletion,
coliform bacteria, pH, and tempera-
ture, primarily from nonpoint
sources.
In estuaries, 31 % of the sur-
veyed waters fully support aquatic
life use, 64% support this use but
are threatened, and 5% partially
support this use. Nutrients are the
most common problem in Virginia's
estuarine waters, followed by or-
ganic enrichment and low dissolved
oxygen concentrations. All of
Virginia's Atlantic Ocean shoreline
fully supports designated uses.
Six advisories limit fish con-
sumption on 369 miles of Virginia's
rivers and an undetermined number
of miles of tidal tributaries to the
James River. The Commonwealth
lifted one advisory that had
restricted fish consumption on the
Jackson River and the Upper James
River.
Ground Water Quality
Sampling by the Virginia
Department of Health detected
bacterial concentrations exceeding
Maximum Contaminant Levels at
133 ground-water-based commu-
nity public water systems in 1993.
Nitrates and pesticides were also
detected in a small percentage of
the private wells sampled in a pilot
study in Northampton County. Vir-
ginia revised ground water protec-
tion rules with the Ground Water
Management Act of 1992.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 263
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Virginia's Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality recommends
control measures for water quality
problems identified in the 305(b)
report in their Water Quality Man-
agement Plans (WQMPs). WQMPs
establish a strategy for bringing
impaired waters up to water quality
standards and preventing the degra-
dation of high-quality waters. Con-
trol measures are implemented
through Virginia's point source per-
mit program and application of best
management practices for nonpoint
sources.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Ambient Water Quality
Monitoring Program grew to 896
monitoring stations, a 26% increase
since the previous reporting period.
These stations are sampled for
chemical and physical parameters
on a variable schedule. The Core
Monitoring Program consists of a
subset of 51 stations that are
sampled for pesticides, metals, and
organic chemicals in fish and sedi-
ment on a 3-year cycle. About
150 biological stations were also
sampled during the 1992-1993
reporting cycle.
-Not reported.
a A subset of Virginia's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Size of significant publicly owned lakes,
a subset of all lakes in Virginia.
Individual Use Support in Virginia
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
ivers and Streams (Total ri/iiies = 44,852)b
kS* J^ •>.••??**,-*-.?.;.- s;.>>r-^-.£.£i-V'0-:- ^-j ' _; .'.-.. t ,
Lakes (Total Acres = 161,888)°
Stuanes (Total Square Miles = 2,500)
-------
264 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Virgin Islands
St. Thomas St. John
St. Croix
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!g!t Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Virgin Islands 1994
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
Surface Water Quality
The U.S. Virgin Islands consist
of three main islands (St. Croix, St.
Thomas, and St. John) and over 50
smaller islands and cays located in
the Caribbean Sea. The islands lack
perennial streams or large fresh-
water lakes or ponds. Water quality
in the U.S. Virgin Islands is generally
good but declining due to an
increase in point source discharges
and nonpoint source pollution
entering the marine environment.
The Virgin Islands municipal
sewage treatment plants, operated
by the Virgin Islands Department of
Public Works, are the .major source
of water quality violations in the
Territory. Neglect, combined with a
lack of qualified operators and
maintenance staff, results in fre-
quent breakdowns of lift stations,
pump stations, and pipelines.
Clogged and collapsed lines fre-
quently cause unpermitted dis-
charges into surface waters. Storm-
water also overwhelms sewage
treatment facilities and results in
bypasses of raw or undertreated
sewage into bays and lagoons.
Other water quality problems
result from unpermitted discharges,
permit violations by private indus-
trial dischargers, oil spills, and
unpermitted filling activities in man-
grove swamps. Nonpoint sources of
concern include failing septic sys-
tems, erosion from development,
urban runoff, waste disposal from
vessels, and spills.
Ground Water Quality
The Virgin Islands' ground water
is contaminated with bacteria, salt-
water, and volatile organic corn-
pounds. Septic tanks, leaking
municipal sewer lines, and sewage
bypasses contaminate ground water
with bacteria. Overpumping of aqui-
fers causes saltwater intrusion. VOC
contamination is due to under-
ground storage tanks and indis-
criminate discharges of waste oil.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 265
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Territorial Pollution Dis-
charge Elimination System (TPDES)
requires permits for all point source
discharges, but not all permitted
facilities are in compliance with their
permit requirements. During the
1992-1993 reporting period, the
Division of Environmental Protection
brought four major violators into
compliance. The Virgin Islands is
also developing new regulations for
citing and constructing onsite
sewage disposal systems and advo-
cating best management practices
in the Revised Handbook for
Homebuilders and Developers.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Ambient Monitoring Pro-
gram performs quarterly sampling
at 64 fixed stations around St.
Croix, 57 stations around St. Tho-
mas, and 19 stations around St.
John. Samples are analyzed for fecal
coliforms, turbidity, dissolved oxy-
gen, and temperature. Twenty sta-
tions on St. Croix were also sampled
for phosphorus, nitrogen, and sus-
pended solids. Intensive studies,
which include biological sampling,
are conducted at selected sites that
may be affected by coastal develop-
ment. The Virgin Islands does not
monitor bacteria in shellfish waters
or toxics in fish, water, or sediment.
Overall3 Use Support in Virgin Islands
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Estuaries': (total Square Miles = 5.9)
§&&M3m^i-^ciZ<~*-*:^\"-*~-~<™"----Ti ;;v-.-. •. • . .. • f •
Total Square
62
10 11
;ean Shoreline (Total Miles = 173)
Total Miles
Surveyed
13
a Overall use support is presented in this figure because the Virgin Islands did not report indi-
vidual use support in their 1994 Section 305(b) report.
Note: The Virgin Islands report that there are no perennial streams or significant lakes under
their jurisdiction.
-------
266 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Washington
s
T ii-jfl :
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Washington 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Steve Butkus
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
OIympia,WA 98504-7600
(360) 407-6482
Surface Water Quality
Washington reports that 18% of
their surveyed river miles fully sup-
port aquatic life uses, 22% partially
support these uses, and 60% do not
support aquatic life uses. In lakes,
35% of the surveyed acres fully
support aquatic life uses, and 65%
do not support aquatic life uses.
Thirty-two percent of the surveyed
estuarine waters fully support
aquatic life uses, 24% partially sup-
port these uses, and 44% do not
support aquatic life uses.
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-
ment 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,
and ammonia.
Ground Water Quality
The highest priority ground
water issues in Washington are
nitrates, pesticides, and other agri-
cultural chemicals from fertilizer
applications, pesticide applications,
and septic tanks.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 267
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Washington provides financial
incentives to encourage compliance
with permit requirements, the prin-
cipal vehicle for regulating point
source discharges. The State also
has extensive experience 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
for forest practices, dairy waste,
irrigated agriculture, dryland agricul-
ture, and urban stormwater. The
State is now focusing attention on
watershed planning. Efforts are cur-
rently geared toward prioritizing
watersheds and developing compre-
hensive plans for the priority water-
sheds.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Washington implements an
aggressive program to monitor the
quality of lakes, estuaries, and rivers
and streams. The program makes
use of fixed-station monitoring to
track spatial and temporal water
quality changes so as to ascertain
the effectiveness of various water
quality programs and be able to
identify desirable adjustments to the
programs.
Individual Use Support in Washington
aA subset of Washington's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
73,806)::
-•- — • •• • •
60
(Total Acres = 466,296)
JEstuai'ies (Total Square Miles = 2,943)
-------
268 Chapter Nine State Summaries
West Virginia
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!gIt Hydrologlc Unit)
For information about water quality
in West Virginia, contact:
Mike Arcuri
West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection
Office of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304)558-2108
Surface Water Quality
West Virginia reported that 42%
of their surveyed river and stream
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses, and
75% fully support swimming. In
lakes, 32% of the surveyed acres
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses and 100%
fully support swimming.
Metals and siltation are the
most common water quality
problems in West Virginia's rivers
and lakes. Fecal coliforms and acid-
ity also impair a large number of
river miles. In lakes, oxygen-
depleting substances, acidity, nutri-
ents, and algal blooms also impair a
significant number of acres. Coal
mining impaired the most stream
miles, followed by municipal point
sources and agriculture. Coal min-
ing was also the leading source of
degraded water quality in lakes,
followed by forestry and agriculture.
West Virginia reported that fish
consumption advisories are posted
for the Kanawha River, Pocatalico
River, Armour Creek, Ohio River,
Shenandoah River, North Branch of
the Potomac River, the Potomac
River, and Flat Fork Creek. Five of
the advisories were issued because
of elevated dioxin concentrations in
bottom feeders. The other advisories
address PCBs and chlordane in suck-
ers, carp, and channel catfish.
Ground Water Quality
West Virginia ranked mining
and mine drainage as the highest
priority source of ground water
contamination in the State, followed
by municipal landfills, surface water
impoundments (including oil and
gas brine pits), abandoned hazard-
ous waste sites, and industrial land-
fills. West Virginia has documented
or suspects that ground water has
been contaminated by pesticides,
petroleum compounds, other or-
ganic chemicals, bacteria, nitrates,
brine/salinity, arsenic, and other
metals.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 269
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
No information was available
from the State.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
No information was available
from the State.
Individual Use Support in West Virginia
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor . Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Streams (Total Miles = 32^278)
49
akes (Total Acres -21,523)
aA subset of West Virginia's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
270 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Wisconsin
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Oigit Hydrologtc Unit)
For a copy of the Wisconsin 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Meg Turville-Heitz
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
(608) 266-0152
Surface Water Quality
The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) found
that 78% of the surveyed river miles
fully support aquatic life uses, 2%
support these uses now but are
threatened, 14% partially support
aquatic life uses, and 6% do not
support aquatic life uses. WDNR
believes that the survey process
underestimated the number of
threatened river miles. The most
prevalent problems in rivers are
habitat and flow alterations,
siltation, excessive nutrients, and
oxygen-depleting substances. The
sources of these problems are often
polluted runoff, especially in agricul-
tural areas, and river modifications,
such as ditching, straightening, and
the loss of wetlands alongside
streams. Wastewater discharges also
moderately impair more than 1,000
miles of streams.
About 57% of the surveyed lake
acres fully support aquatic life uses,
3% support these uses but are
threatened, 15% partially support
these uses, and 25% do not support
aquatic life uses. The primary source
of lake degradation is deposition of
airborne pollutants, especially mer-
cury, and polluted runoff. All of
Wisconsin's Great Lakes' shoreline
partially supports fish consumption
use due to fish consumption adviso-
ries posted throughout the Great
Lakes. Bacteria from urban runoff
also impair swimming along 60
miles of shoreline.
Ground Water Quality
The primary sources of ground
water contamination in Wisconsin
are agricultural activities, municipal
landfills, leaking underground stor-
age tanks, abandoned hazardous
waste sites, and spills. Other sources
include septic tanks and land Eippli-
cation of wastewater. Nitrate-
nitrogen is the most common
ground water contaminant. Nitrates
come from fertilizers, animal waste
storage sites and feedlots, municipal
and industrial wastewater and
sludge disposal, refuse disposal
areas, and leaking septic systems.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 271
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
WDNR is integrating multiple
agencies, programs, interests, and
jurisdictions in an "ecosystem
approach" that looks at all parts of
the ecosystem when addressing
water quality—the land that drains
to the waterbody, the air above it,
the plants, animals, and people
using it. Since the 1970s, WDNR
has prepared water quality manage-
ment plans for each of the State's
river basins that summarize the
condition of waters in each basin,
identify improvements and needs,
and make recommendations for
cleanup or protection. WDNR up-
dates the plans every 5 years and
uses the plans to rank watersheds
for priority projects under the Wis-
consin Nonpoint Source Water Pol-
lution Abatement Program and to
address wastewater discharge con-
cerns.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1992, Wisconsin imple-
mented a surface water monitoring
strategy to support river basin plan-
ning. The strategy integrates moni-
toring and management activities in
each of the State's river basins on
the 5-year basin planning schedule.
In recent years, Wisconsin has
placed more emphasis on monitor-
ing polluted runoff and toxic sub-
stances in bottom sediments and
tissues of fish and wildlife.
Individual Use Support in Wisconsin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Streams (Total Miles = 57,698)b
Total Miles 78
Surveyed
<1
6S (Total Acres ==982,163)
•Great Lakes (Total Miles = 1,017)
NA = Not applicable because use is not designated in State standards.
aA subset of Wisconsin's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
272 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Wyoming
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Dlgit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Wyoming 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Beth Pratt
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7079
Surface Water Quality
Of the 6,091 river miles sur-
veyed, 13% fully support aquatic life
uses, 22% fully support these uses
now but are threatened, 63% par-
tially support aquatic life uses, and
2% do not support aquatic life uses.
The most widespread problems in
rivers and streams are siltation and
sediment, nutrients, total dissolved
solids and salinity, flow alterations,
and habitat alterations. The most
prevalent sources of water quality
problems in rivers and streams are
rangeland, natural sources, irrigated
cropland, pasture land, and con-
struction of highways, roads, and
bridges.
In lakes, 31% of the surveyed
acres fully support aquatic life uses,
47% partially support these uses,
and 22% do not support aquatic life
uses. The leading problems in lakes
are low dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions and organic enrichment, nutri-
ents, sediment and siltation, other
inorganic substances, and metals.
The most prevalent sources of water
quality problems in lakes are natural
sources, rangeland, irrigated crop-
land, flow regulation, and municipal
sewage treatment plants.
The State's water quality survey
is designed to identify water quality
problems, so it is reasonable to
assume that most of the unassessed
waters are not impacted. However,
the State lacks definitive information
to that effect.
Ground Water Quality
Some aquifers in Wyoming have
naturally high levels of fluoride,
selenium, and radionuclides. Petro-
leum products and nitrates are the
most common pollutants in Wyo-
ming's ground water, and leaking
underground storage tanks are; the
most numerous source of contami-
nation. Other sources include
uranium and trona mineral mining,
agricultural activities, mill tailings,
spills, landfills, commercial and
industrial sumps, septic tank
leachfields, wastewater disposal
ponds at coal-fired power plants
and other industrial sites, and com-
mercial oilfield disposal pits.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 273
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Wyoming requires discharger
permits and construction permits for
all wastewater treatment facilities.
The Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) reviews proposed
plans and specifications to ensure
that plants meet minimum design
criteria. Wyoming's nonpoint source
program is a nonregulatory pro-
gram that promotes better manage-
ment practices for all land use activi-
ties, including grazing, timber har-
vesting, and hydrologic modifica-
tions.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Wyoming is currently monitor-
ing reference stream sites around
the State in order to define charac-
teristics of relatively undisturbed
streams in each ecoregion. The
State is sampling chemical and bio-
logical parameters, such as dissolved
oxygen, nutrients, aquatic insect
species composition, species abun-
dance, and habitat conditions at the
candidate reference stream sites.
Once established, the reference site
conditions will serve as the basis for
assessing other streams in the same
ecoregion or subecoregion.
Wyoming will use the reference
conditions to establish a volunteer-
biological monitoring program.
Individual Use Support in Wyoming
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
^^rn4u^a^Mlles = 1l3;4^2)b
63
Lakes (Total Acres = 372,309)
- Not reported.
aA subset of Wyoming's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
P! iii i!
I
I ! :i
-------
Tribal Summaries
This chapter provides individual
summaries of the water quality sur-
vey data reported by six American
Indian Tribes in their 1994 Section
305(b) reports. Tribal participation
in the Section 305(b) process grew
from two Tribes in 1992 to six
Tribes during the 1994 reporting
cycle, but Tribal water quality re-
mains unrepresented in this report
for the hundreds of other Tribes
established throughout the country.
Many of the other Tribes are in the
process of developing water quality
programs and standards but have
not yet submitted a Section 305(b)
report. As Tribal water quality
programs become established, EPA
expects Tribal participation in the
Section 305(b) process to increase
rapidly. To encourage Tribal partici-
pation, EPA has sponsored water
quality monitoring and assessment
training sessions at Tribal locations,
prepared streamlined 305(b) report-
ing guidelines for Tribes that wish
to participate in the process, and
published a brochure, Knowing Our
Waters: Tribal Reporting Under Sec-
tion 305(b). EPA hopes that subse-
quent reports to Congress will con-
tain more information about water
quality on Tribal lands.
-------
276 Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries
Campo Indian Reservation
Location of Reservation
For a copy of the Campo Indian
Reservation 1994 305(b) report,
contact:
Stephen W. Johnson
Michael L. Connolly
Campo Environmental Protection
Agency
36190 Church Road, Suite #4
Campo, CA 91906
(619)478-9369
Surface Water Quality
The Campo Indian Reservation
covers 24.2 square miles in south-
eastern San Diego County, Califor-
nia. The Campo Indian Reservation
has 31 miles of intermittent streams,
80 acres of freshwater wetlands, and
10 lakes with a combined surface
area of 3.5 acres.
The natural water quality of
Tribal streams, lakes, and wetlands
ranges from good to excellent.
There are no point source discharges
within or upstream of the Reserva-
tion, but grazing livestock have
degraded streams, lakes, and
wetlands with manure containing
fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients,
and organic wastes. Livestock also
trample streambeds and riparian
habitats. Septic tanks and construc-
tion also threaten water quality.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies 100%
of the domestic water consumed on
the Campo Indian Reservation.
Nitrate and bacteria from nonpoint
sources occasionally exceed drinking
water standards in some domestic
wells. The proximity of individual
septic systems to drinking water
wells poses a human health risk
because Reservation soils do not
have good purification properties.
Elevated iron and manganese levels
may be due to natural weathering
of geologic materials.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Campo Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (CEPA) has authority
to administer three Clean Water Act
programs. The Section 106 Water
Pollution Control Program supports
infrastructure, the 305(b) assess-
ment process, and development of
a Water Quality Management Plan.
The Tribe is inventorying its wet-
lands with funding from the Section
104(b)(3) State Wetlands Protection
Program. The Tribe has used fund-
ing from the Section 319 Nonpoint
-------
Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries 277
Source Program to stabilize stream
banks, construct sediment retention
structures, and fence streams and
riparian zones to exclude livestock.
CEPA will promulgate water quality
standards in 1995 that will establish
beneficial uses, water quality criteria,
and antidegradation provisions for
all Tribal waters.
In 1994, the General Council
passed a resolution to suspend
cattle grazing on the Reservation for
at least 2 years and to concurrently
restore degraded recreational water
resources by creating fishing and
swimming ponds for Tribal use.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Streams, wetlands, and lakes on
Tribal lands were not monitored
until CEPA initiated its Water
Pollution Control Program in 1992.
Following EPA approval of CEPA's
Quality Assurance Project Plan in
May 1993, CEPA conducted short-
term intensive surveys to meet the
information needs of the 305(b)
assessment process. Based on the
results of the 1994 305(b) assess-
ment, CEPA will develop a long-
term surface water monitoring pro-
gram for implementation in 1995.
CEPA will consider including biologi-
cal monitoring, physical and chemi-
cal monitoring, monthly bacterial
monitoring in lakes, toxicity testing,
and fish tissue monitoring in its
monitoring program.
Individual Use Support in Campo Indian Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
fivers "and Streams (Total Miles = 3i)b
Total Miles
Assessed
100
Lakes (Total Acres = 3.5)
sBBH^gg ^.Bfr.gA ^ • • • -"-• --'••• •'*-:•
aA subset of Campo Indian Reservation's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
278 Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries
Coyote Valley Reservation
Location of
Reservation
Not Assessed
Not Supporting
Partially Supporting
Supporting
For a copy of the Coyote Valley
Reservation 1994 305(b) report,
contact:
Jean Hunt or Eddie Knight
The Coyote Valley Reservation
P.O. Box 39
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
Surface Water Quality
The Coyote Valley Band of the
Pomo Indians is a federally recog-
nized Indian Tribe, living on a
57-acre parcel of land in Mendocino
County, California. Segments of the
Russian River and Forsythe Creek
flow past the Reservation, although
flow diminishes in the summer and
fall. Fishing, recreation, and religion
are important uses for surface waters
within the Reservation.
Currently, the Tribe is con-
cerned about bacteria contamina-
tion in the Russian River, potential
contamination of Forsythe Creek
from a malfunctioning septic system
leachfield, and habitat modifications
in both streams that impact aquatic
life. Past gravel mining operations
removed gravel spawning beds,
altered flow, and created very steep
banks. In the past, upstream mining
also elevated turbidity in Forsythe
Creek. The Tribe is also concerned
about a potential trend of increasing
pH values and high water tempera-
tures in Forsythe Creek during the
summer.
Ground Water Quality
The Coyote Valley Reservation
contains three known wells, but
only two wells are operable, and
only one well is in use. The old
shallow irrigation well (Well A) was
abandoned because it went dry
after the gravel mining operation on
Forsythe Creek lowered the water
table. Well B, located adjacent to
Forsythe Creek, is used to irrigate a
walnut orchard. Well C, located on
a ridge next to the Reservation's
housing units, is not in use due to
severe iron and taste problems.
Sampling also detected high levels
of barium, total dissolved solids,
manganese, and conductivity in
Wells B and C. However, samples
from Well B did not contain organic
chemicals, pesticides, or nitrate in
detectable amounts. Human waste
-------
Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries 279
contamination from septic systems
may pose the greatest threat to
ground water quality.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Codes and ordinances for the
Reservation will be established to
create a Water Quality and Manage-
ment Program for the Reservation.
With codes in place, the Coyote
Valley Tribal Council will gain the
authority to restrain the discharge of
pollutants that could endanger the
Reservation water supply and affect
the health and welfare of its people,
as well as people in the adjacent
communities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Tribal Water Quality
Manager will design a monitoring
system with assistance from environ-
mental consultants. The Water Qual-
ity Manager will sample a tempo-
rary monitoring station on Forsythe
Creek and a proposed sampling
station on the Russian River every
month. A fisheries biologist will
survey habitat on the rivers every
other year, as funding permits.
Individual Use Support in Coyote Valley Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
brers artel Streams (Total Miles= 0^
Total Miles
Assessed
0.52 0_
0.52 0
77
0.52
23
23
aA subset of Coyote Valley Reservation's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the Tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
280 Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries
Gila River Indian Community
— Basin Boundaries
Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams
— Irrigation Canals
For a copy of the Gila River Indian
Community 1994 305(b) report,
contact:
Errol Blackwater
Gila River Indian Community
Water Quality Planning Office
Comer of Pima and Main Streets
Sacaton,AZ 85247
(602) 562-3203
Surface Water Quality
The Gila River Indian Commu-
nity occupies 580 square miles in
Central Arizona adjacent to the
metropolitan Phoenix area. About
8,500 members of the Pima and
Maricopa Tribes live in 22 small
villages inside the Community. The
Gila River is the major surface water
feature in the Community, but its
flow is interrupted by upstream
diversions outside of the Commu-
nity. Arid conditions and little
vegetative cover cause sudden runoff
with high suspended sediment
loads.
Surface water was evaluated
with qualitative information due to
the lack of monitoring data. Most of
the Community's surface waters
have fair water quality that partially
supports designated uses because of
turbidity, siltation, salinity, and
metals loading from rangeland,
agriculture, irrigation return flows,
and upstream mining. Information
was not available for assessing
effects of toxic contaminants and
acid rain. There is no information
about water quality conditions in
wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Community ground water qual-
ity generally complies with EPA's
Maximum Contaminant Levels, but
concentrations of total dissolved
solids often exceed recommended
concentrations. However, members
of the Community have either
adjusted to the aesthetic problem of
high dissolved solids or begun pur-
chasing bottled water, as have other
ground water users in the metro-
politan Phoenix area. Occasionally,
concentrations of coliform bacteria,
nitrates, and fluoride exceed recom-
mended criteria in isolated wells.
Pathogens from onsite sewage dis-
posal systems have been detected in
ground water and pose the primary
public health concern. Other con-
cerns include salinity and pesticides
from large-scale agriculture and
potential fuel or solvent leaks.
-------
Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries 281
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Gila River Indian Commu-
nity needs a comprehensive water-
quality protection program, espe-
cially as nearby urban growth and
agricultural expansion create addi-
tional pollution and place new
demands on aquatic resources. As a
first step, the Community's Water
Quality Planning Office intends to
address point sources of pollution
through a Ground Water Protection
Strategy. The Strategy will seek to
eliminate all discharges that could
reach ground water or require rapid
mitigation if a discharge cannot be
avoided. Principles of Arizona's
Aquifer Protection Permit Program
may serve as a basis for the
Community's Strategy, but the
Strategy will be streamlined and
simple to implement. The Strategy
may include technology-based or
standards-based protocols for facili-
ties and conditions for land use
permits.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Community needs monitor-
ing programs for ground water,
surface water, and wetlands in order
to assess use support and to
support a water pollution control
program.
Individual Use Support in Gila River Indian Community
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
iyei's and Streams (Total Miles = I96)b
Total Miles
Assessed
196
akes (Total Acres = 153)
31
31
18
153
153
- Not reported.
aA subset of Gila River Indian Community's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
Community's 305(b) report for a full description of the Community's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
282 Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries
Hoopa Valley Indian
Reservation
Location of
Reservation
Not Assessed
Not Supporting
Partially Supporting
Supporting
For a copy of the Hoopa Valley
Indian Reservation 1994 305(b)
report, contact:
Colleen Goff
P.O. Boxl314
Hoopa, CA 95546
(916)625-4275
Surface Water Quality
The Hoopa Valley Indian Reser-
vation covers almost 139 square
miles in Humboldt County in north-
ern California. The Reservation con-
tains 133 miles of rivers and streams,
including a section of the Trinity
River, and 3,200 acres of wetlands.
The Reservation does not contain
any lakes.
Surface waters on the Reserva-
tion appear to be free of toxic:
organic chemicals, but poor forest
management practices and mining
operations, both on and off the
Reservation, have caused significant
siltation that has destroyed gravel
spawning beds. Water diversions,
including the damming of the
Trinity River above the Reservation,
have also stressed the fishery by
lowering stream volume and flow
velocity. Low flows raise water
temperatures and reduce flushing of
accumulated silt in the gravel beds.
Upstream dams also stop gravel
from moving downstream to
replace excavated gravel. Elevated
fecal coliform concentrations also
impair drinking water use on the
Reservation.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water sampling
revealed elevated concentrations of
lead, cadmium, manganese, iron,
and fecal coliforms in some wells.
The Tribe is concerned about poten-
tial contamination of ground water
from leaking underground storage
tanks, septic system leachfields, and
abandoned hazardous waste sites
with documented soil contamina-
tion. These sites contain dioxins,
herbicides, nitrates, PCBs, metals,
and other toxic organic chemicals.
The Tribe's environmental consult-
ants are designing a ground v/ater
sampling program to monitor
potential threats to ground water.
-------
Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries 283
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1990, EPA approved the
Hoopa Valley Tribe's application for
treatment as a State under the
Section 106 Water Pollution Control
Program of the Clean Water Act.
Following approval, the Tribe
received Section 106 funding to
conduct a Water Quality Planning
and Management Program on the
Reservation. The Tribal Water Qual-
ity Manager is developing water
quality criteria for the Reservation,
with the help of environmental con-
sultants. The proposed criteria will
be reviewed by the Hoopa Valley
Planning Department and the Tribal
Council.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In June of 1992, the Tribal Plan-
ning Office and its hired consultants
sampled eight surface water sites
and six ground water sites. The
Tribe measured different pollutants
at each site, depending on the sur-
rounding land use activities, includ-
ing conventional pollutants, toxic
organic pollutants, metals, and fecal
coliforms. The Tribe plans to estab-
lish fixed monitoring sites in the
near future, which will complement
ongoing biological monitoring con-
ducted by the Hoopa Valley Fisher-
ies Department on the Trinity River.
individual Use Support in Hoopa Valley
Indian Reservation
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = i33)b
Wetjands (Total Acres = 3,200)
- Not reported.
aA subset of Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to
the Tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
284 Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries
Hopi Tribe
For a copy of the Hopi Tribe's
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Phillip Tuwaletstiwa
The Hopi Tribe
Water Resources Program
Box 123
Kykotsmobi, AZ 86039
(520) 734-9307
Surface Water Quality
The 2,439-square-mile Hopi
Reservation, located in northeastern
Arizona, is bounded on all sides by
the Navajo Reservation. Surface
water on the Hopi Reservation con-
sists primarily of intermittent or
ephemeral streams. Only limited
data regarding stream quality are
available. The limited data indicate
that some stream reaches may be
deficient in oxygen, although this
conclusion has not been verified by
repeat monitoring.
In addition to the intermittent
and ephemeral washes and streams,
surface water on the Hopi Reserva-
tion occurs as springs where ground
water discharges as seeps along
washes or through fractures and
joints within sandstone formations.
The Hopi Tribe assessed 18 springs
in 1992 and 1993. The assessment
revealed that several springs had
one or more exceedances of nitrate,
selenium, total coliform, or fecal
coliform. The primary potential
sources of surface water contamina-
tion on the Hopi Reservation include
mining activities outside of the Res-
ervation, livestock grazing, domestic
refuse, and wastewater lagoons.
Ground Water Quality
In general, ground water quality
on the Hopi Reservation is good.
Ground water from the N-aquifer
provides drinking water of excellent
quality to most of the Hopi villages.
The D-aquifer, sandstones of the
Mesaverde Group, and alluvium also
provide ground water to shallow
stock and domestic wells, but the
quality of the water from these
sources is generally of poorer quality
than the water supplied by the
N-aquifer.
Mining activities outside of the
Reservation are the most significant
threat to the N-aquifer. Extensive
pumping at the Peabody Coal Com-
pany Black Mesa mine may induce
leakage of poorer quality D-aquifer
water.into the N-aquifer. This
potential problem is being investi-
gated under an ongoing monitoring
program conducted by the U.S.
Geological Survey. In addition, the
U.S. Department of Energy is
-------
Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries 285
investigating ground water impacts
from abandoned uranium tailings at
Tuba City. Other potential sources
of contamination in shallow wells
include domestic refuse, under-
ground storage tanks, livestock graz-
ing, wastewater lagoons, and septic
tanks.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Draft water quality standards
(including an antidegradation
policy) were prepared for the Tribe
in 1993. The Tribe is also reviewing
a proposed general maintenance
program to control sewage lagoons.
The Tribe has repeatedly applied for
EPA grants to investigate nonpoint
source pollution on the Reservation,
but the applications were denied.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Tribe focused on monitor-
ing springs and ground water dur-
ing the 1994 reporting cycle. Future
surface water monitoring will assess
aquatic life in springs, lakes, and
streams; baseflow and storm flow in
streams; and biological, sediment,
and chemical content of streams
and springs.
Individual Use Support
in Hop! Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
StreaitliS(Tbtal Miles = 280)
Total Miles
Assessed
- Not reported.
aA subset of the Hop! Tribe's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Tribe's 305(b)
report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
286 Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries
Soboba Band of Mission
Indians
< Reservation Boundaries
For a copy of the Soboba Band of
Mission Indians 1994 305(b) report,
contact:
Jamie S. Megee
Soboba Band of Mission Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
(909) 654-2765
Surface Water Quality
The Soboba Reservation encom-
passes about 9.2 square miles in
southern California about 80 miles
east of Los Angeles. The San Jacinto
River is the major surface water fea-
ture on the Reservation. At one time,
the San Jacinto River flowed year
round, but upstream diversions and
ground water withdrawals outside
of the Reservation have reduced the
flow to intermittent status for many
years.
The chemical quality of surface
water on the Soboba Reservation is
excellent and remains unimpaired to
date, based on very limited data.
The quality of surface water, to the
extent it is available, fully supports
the existing uses of ground water
recharge, wildlife habitat, and recre-
ation. Overall, the greatest threat to
water quality on the Soboba Reser-
vation is the reduction of surface
flows and ground water storage by
off-Reservation diversions and
pumping.
Ground Water Quality
Three major water supply wells
extract water from two aquifers on
the Soboba Reservation. Ground
water overdraft outside the Reserva-
tion has seriously reduced the with-
drawal capacity of the Reservation's
wells and aquifers. The chemical
quality of ground water on the
Soboba Reservation is excellent and
remains unimpaired to date. The
single most critical threat to water
quality is a proposal by the Eastern
Municipal Water District to routinely
recharge treated effluent at a site
within 600 feet of an existing
Soboba well.
-------
Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries 287
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
There are no formal water pol-
lution control programs in place on
the Reservation. However, the Band
has achieved compliance with EPA
monitoring and treatment require-
ments for its domestic ground water
supply system and the Band is con-
sidering development of a wellhead
protection program. In addition, the
Band is seeking assistance from EPA
under the Indian Environmental
General Assistance Program to edu-
cate the Band about water quality
issues, establish water resource pro-
tection ordinances, and undertake
other water protection initiatives.
The Soboba Band is continuing
its struggle to assert and defend its
water rights. The Soboba Band has
started negotiating with the major
water users outside of the Reserva-
tion to fairly apportion the waters of
the basin. Nondegradation of water
quality will be a basic element of
the Band's position in these negotia-
tions.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Band advocates sharing and
cooperative analysis of data on the
hydrology and water quality of the
San Jacinto watershed to facilitate
water rights negotiations. This affir-
mative approach to water resource
management should lead to a sys-
tematic, integrated water quality
monitoring program for the basin
that will benefit all users.
Individual Use Support in Soboba Band
of Mission Indians
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair
(Fully GOOD (Partially
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting)
Poor Poor
(Not (Not
Supporting) Attainable)
|fryerscanfl|
(Total
= ?.4)b
Total Miles
Assessed
2.9
2.9
7.4
100
100
100
aA subset of Soboba Band of Mission Indians' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to
the Band's 305(b) report for a full description of the Band's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
-------
Interstate Commission
Summaries
Interstate Commissions provide
a forum for joint administration of
large waterbodies that flow through
or border multiple States and other
jurisdictions, such as the Ohio River
and the Delaware River and Estua-
rine System. Each Commission has
its own set of objectives and proto-
cols, but the Commissions share a
cooperative framework that embod-
ies many of the principles advocated
by EPA's watershed management
approach. For example, Interstate
Commissions can examine and
address factors throughout the basin
that contribute to water quality
problems without facing obstacles
imposed by political boundaries.
The information presented here
summarizes the data submitted by
four Interstate Commissions in their
1994 Section 305(b) reports.
-------
290 Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries
Delaware River Basin
Commission
/
,• Washington, D.C.
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrdogic Unit)
For a copy of the Delaware River
Basin Commission 1994 305(b)
report, contact:
Robert Kausch
Delaware River Basin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, Nj 08628-0360
(609) 883-9500, ext. 252
Surface Water Quality
The Delaware River Basin covers
portions of Delaware, New Jersey,
New York, and Pennsylvania. The
Delaware River system consists of a
207-mile freshwater segment, an
85-mile tidal reach, and the Dela-
ware Bay. Nearly 8 million people
reside in the Basin, which is also the
home of numerous industrial
facilities and the port facilities of
Philadelphia, Camden, and
Wilmington.
All of the riverine waters and
94% of the estuarine waters in the
Basin have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses.
Three percent of the riverine waters
do not support fish consumption
and 2% have fair quality that par-
tially supports swimming. In estua-
rine waters, poor water quality im-
pairs shellfishing in 29% of the sur-
veyed waters. Low dissolved oxygen
concentrations and toxic contami-
nants in sediment degrade portions
of the lower tidal river and estuary.
Fecal coliform bacteria and high pH
values impair a few miles of the
Delaware River. As of April 1994,
fish consumption advisories were
posted on about 6 miles of the
Delaware River and 22 square miles
of the tidal river, cautioning the
public to restrict consumption of
channel catfish, white perch, and
american eels contaminated with
PCBs and chlordane.
In general, water quality has
improved since the 1992 305(b)
assessment period. Tidal river oxy-
gen levels were higher during the
critical summer period, residues of
toxic chemicals in fish and shellfish
declined, and populations of impor-
tant fish species (such as striped
bass and American shad) increased
during the 1994 assessment period.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
For many years, the Delaware
River Basin Commission and the
surrounding States have imple-
mented an aggressive program to
-------
Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries 291
reduce point source discharges of
oxygen-depleting wastes and other
pollutants. These programs will
continue, in addition to new efforts
to determine the role of stormwater
runoff. The Commission also
adopted new Special Protection
Waters regulations to protect exist-
ing high water quality in the upper
reaches of the nontidal river from
the effects of future population
growth and development. The-
Commission also promotes a
comprehensive watershed manage-
ment approach to coordinate
several layers of governmental
regulatory programs impacting the
Delaware River Basin.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Commission conducts an
intensive monitoring program along
the entire length of the Delaware
River and Estuary. At least a dozen
parameters are sampled at most
stations, located about 7 miles
apart. The new Special Protection
Waters regulations require even
more sophisticated monitoring and
modeling, such as biological moni-
toring and continuous water quality
monitoring. The Combined Sewer
Overflow Study and the Toxics
Study will both require additional
specialized water quality analyses in
order to understand how and why
water quality is affected. New
management programs will very
likely require customized monitoring
programs.
Individual Use Support in the Delaware River Basin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
ers and Streams (Total Miles = 206)
S3=S»ft*- **» «*• * * * ! *•-, *
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 866)
Total Square 86
Miles Assessed
aA subset of the Delaware River Basin Commission's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the Commission's 305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
-------
292 Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries
Interstate Sanitation
Commission
< Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIglt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Interstate Sanita-
tion Commission 1994 305(b)
report, contact
Howard Golub
Interstate Sanitation Commission
311 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
(212)582-0380
Surface Water Quality
Established in 1936 by Federal
mandate, the Interstate Sanitation
Commission (ISC) is a tristate envi-
ronmental agency of the States of
New Jersey, New York, and Con-
necticut. The Interstate Sanitation
District encompasses approximately
797 square miles of estuarine waters
in the Metropolitan Area shared by
the States, including the Arthur Kill/
Kill Van Kull, Lower Hudson River,
Newark Bay, Raritan Bay, Sandy
Hook Bay, and Upper New York
Bay.
In general, water quality in the
District waters improved during the
1992-1993 reporting cycle. Dis-
solved oxygen concentrations
increased and bacteria densities
decreased. The reduction in bacteria
is due to the Commission's year-
round disinfection regulations
(which took effect in 1986), and the
elimination of discharges receiving
only primary treatment at Middlesex
and Hudson Counties.
Topics of concern to the ISC
include compliance with ISC regula-
tions, toxic contamination in District
waters, pollution from combined
sewer overflows, closed shellfish
waters, and wastewater treatment
capacity to handle growing flows
from major building projects.
Ground Water Quality
The ISC's primary focus is on
surface waters shared by the States
of New Jersey, New York, and Con-
necticut.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The ISC actively participates in
the Long Island Sound Study, the
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estu-
ary Program (HEP), the New York
Bight Restoration Plan, and the
Dredged Material Management Plan
for the Port of New York and New
Jersey. The ISC has representatives
on the Management Committees
and various workgroups for each
program. For the HEP, the ISC orga-
nized a meeting entitled "Current
Beach Closure Practices in New
York, New Jersey, and Connecticut:
Review and Recommendations" in
-------
Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries . 293
November 1993. Representatives of
State, county, and municipal health
departments and environmental
agencies were invited to discuss
bathing beach monitoring and clo-
sure policies. The public and envi-
ronmental advocacy groups were
also invited. The ISC reported the
results to the HEP Pathogens Work
Group.
During 1993, the ISC inspected
71 CSO outfalls in an effort to iden-
tify and eliminate all dry weather
discharges. The ISC notified the
States of dry weather discharges
detected during field investigations
and worked with the States to elimi-
nate dry weather discharges.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The ISC performs intensive
ambient water quality surveys and
samples effluent discharged by pub-
licly owned and private wastewater
treatment facilities and industrial
facilities into District waterways. By
agreement, the ISC's effluent
requirements are incorporated into
the individual discharge permits
issued by the participating States.
Individual Use Support in Interstate
Sanitation Commission Waters
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 72)
1^1
Total Miles
Assessed
aA subset of the Interstate Sanitation Commission's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer
to the Commission's 305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
Note: All waters under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Sanitation Commission are estuarine.
-------
294 Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries
Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission
(ORSANCO)
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the ORSANCO 1994
305(b) report, contact
Jason Heath
ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45228-1112
(513)231-7719
Surface Water Quality
The Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
was established in 1948 by the
signing of the Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Compact by
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and West Virginia. ORSANCO is an
interstate agency with multiple
responsibilities that include detect-
ing interstate spills, developing
waste treatment standards, and
monitoring and assessing the Ohio
River mainstem. The mainstern runs
981 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania, to Cairo, Illinois.
The most common problems in
the Ohio River are PCB and chlor-
dane contamination in fish and
bacteria, pesticides, and metals in
the water column. The States have
issued fish consumption advisories
along the entire length of the Ohio
River based on ORSANCO data.
ORSANCO also suspects that com-
munity combined sewer overflows
along the entire length of the river
elevate bacteria levels and impair
swimming. ORSANCO detected
bacteria contamination at all seven
monitoring stations downstream of
major urban areas with a large
number of CSOs.
Copper, lead, and zinc
exceeded criteria for protecting
warm water aquatic life in waters
near the Gallipolis-Huntington area,
Cincinnati, Louisville, and the Padu-
cah area. Acid mine drainage is a
suspected source of some metals in
the Ohio River.
Public water supply use of the
Ohio River is impaired by 1,2-
dichloroethane near Paducah and
by atrazine near Louisville and the
mouth of the River at Grand Chain,
Illinois. The extent of atrazine
contamination is unknown because
few sites are monitored for atrazine.
NOTE- A more detailed account of water quality throughout the entire Ohio River Basin is presented in Chapter 12.
-------
Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries 295
Ground Water Quality
ORSANCO does not have juris-
diction over ground water in the
Ohio River Basin.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1992, an interagency
workgroup developed a CSO
program for the Ohio River Basin
with general recommendations to
improve coordination of State CSO
strategies. In 1993, ORSANCO
added requirements for CSOs to the
Pollution Control Standards for the
Ohio River and the Commissioners
adopted a strategy for monitoring
CSO impacts on Ohio River quality.
The Commission also established a
Nonpoint Source Pollution Abate-
ment Task Force composed of
ORSANCO Commissioners, repre-
sentatives from State NPS control
agencies, and representatives from
industries that generate NPS pollu-
tion.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
ORSANCO operates several
monitoring programs on the Ohio
River mainstem and several major
tributaries, including fixed-station
chemical sampling, daily sampling
of volatile organic chemicals at
water supply intakes, bacterial moni-
toring, fish tissue sampling, and fish
community monitoring. ORSANCO
uses the Modified Index of Well
Being (Mlwb) to assess fish commu-
nity characteristics, such as total
biomass and species diversity.
Individual Use Support in the Ohio River Valley Basin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streariis (Total Miles = 37,600)?
aA subset of ORSANCO's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Commission's
305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
296 Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries
Susquehanna River Basin
Commission
v& Location of Commission
Jurisdiction
• Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Susquehanna River
Basin Commission 1994 305(b)
report, contact:
Robert E. Edwards
Susquehanna River Basin
Commission
Resource Quality Management
and Protection
1721 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102-0423
(717)238-0423
Surface Water Qualify
The Susquehanna River drains
27,510 square miles from parts of
New York, Pennsylvania, and Mary-
land, and delivers over half of the
fresh water entering the Chesapeake
Bay. The Susquehanna River Basin
Commission (SRBC) surveyed
17,464 miles of the 31,193 miles of
rivers and streams in the Susque-
hanna River Basin. Over 90% of the
surveyed river miles fully support
designated uses, 4% partially
support uses, and 6% do not sup-
port one or more designated uses.
Metals, low pH, and nutrients are
the primary causes of stream
impacts in the Basin. Coal mine
drainage is the source of most of
the metals and pH problems
degrading streams. Sources of nutri-
ents include municipal and domes-
tic wastewater discharges, agricul-
tural runoff, and ground water
inflow from agricultural areas.
During past reporting cycles,
SRBC did not conduct any lake or
reservoir assessments. However, a
2-year project funded by EPA and
Pennsylvania should provide a foun-
dation of lake data upon which
SRBC can launch its lake assessment
program.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water in the Basin is
generally of adequate quality for
most uses. Many of the ground
water quality problems in the Basin
are related to naturally dissolved
constituents (such as iron, sulfate,
and dissolved solids) from the geo-
logic unit from which the water
originates. The SRBC is concerned
about ground water contamination
from septic systems and agricultural
activities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Susquehanna River Basin
Compact assigns primary responsi-
bility for water quality management
and control to the signatory States.
-------
Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries 297
The SRBC's role is to provide a
regional perspective for coordinating
local, State, and Federal water
quality management efforts. For
example, the SRBC reviews pro-
posed discharge permits (issued by
the States) and evaluates potential
interstate and regional impacts. The
SRBC also recommends modifica-
tions to State water quality stan-
dards to improve consistency
among the States.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The SRBC's role in interstate
and regional issues shaped the
Commission's monitoring program.
The SRBC's fixed-station monitoring
network collects base flow data and
seasonal-storm nutrient data on the
Susquehanna mainstem and major
tributaries to assist the Chesapeake
Bay Program in evaluating nutrient
reduction projects. The SRBC also
established an interstate stream
water quality network to evaluate
streams crossing State boundaries
for compliance with State water
quality standards. Biological moni-
toring is conducted annually at 29
sites. The SRBC also conducts inten-
sive subregional surveys to analyze
regional water quality and biological
conditions.
Overall3 Use Support in the Susquehanna River Basin
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
vers and Streams
-------
-------
Part IV
Water Quality
Management Programs
-------
-------
The Watershed Protection
Approach and Place-based
Management Programs
Watershed
Protection
Approach
Introduction
The Nation's aquatic resources
are among its most valuable assets.
Although significant strides have
been made in reducing the impacts
of discrete pollutant sources, our
aquatic resources remain at risk
from a combination of point sources
and complex nonpoint sources,
including air pollution. Since 1991,
the EPA has promoted the water-
shed protection approach as a holis-
tic framework for addressing com-
plex pollution problems.
The watershed protection
approach is a place-based strategy
that integrates water quality man-
agement activities within hydrologi-
cally defined drainage basins-
watersheds-rather than areas
defined by political boundaries.
Thus, for a given watershed, the
approach encompasses not only the
water resource (such as a stream,
lake, estuary, or ground water aqui-
fer), but all the land from which
water drains to the resource
(Figure 12-1). To protect water
resources, it is increasingly impor-
tant to address the condition of,
land areas within the watershed
because water carries the effects of
human activities throughout the
watershed as it drains off the land
into surface waters or leaches into
the ground water.
Figure 12-p
Watershed Management Units
in the Great Lakes Basin
Superior
Michigan
Erie
Kalamazoo
River
The watershed protection approach may be applied to watersheds of all sizes. Watershed size
varies, depending on the objectives and scope of a watershed initiative. For example, part-
nerships are developing comprehensive management strategies for the entire Great Lakes
Basin, the watershed draining into each Great Lake, and the watersheds draining into indi-
vidual areas of concern on the Great Lakes, such as the Kalamazoo River watershed. Each
level of detail provides additional insight about the factors contributing to complex water
quality problems.
-------
302 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Several key principles guide the
watershed protection approach:
• Place-based focus - Resource
management activities are directed
within specific geographical areas,
usually defined by watershed boun-
daries, areas overlying or recharging
ground water, or a combination of
both.
• Stakeholder involvement and
partnerships - Watershed initiatives
involve the people most likely to be
affected by management decisions
in the decision making process.
Stakeholder participation ensures
that the objectives of the watershed
initiative will include economic
stability and that the people who
depend on the water resources in
the watershed will participate in
planning and implementation activi-
ties. Watershed initiatives also estab-
lish partnerships between Federal,
State, and local agencies and non-
governmental organizations with
interests in the watershed.
• Environmental objectives - The
stakeholders and partners identify
environmental objectives (such as
"populations of striped bass will
stabilize or increase") rather than
programmatic objectives (such as
"the State will eliminate the backlog
of discharge permit renewals") to
measure success of the watershed
initiative. The environmental objec-
tives are based on the condition of
the ecological resource and the
needs of people in the watershed.
• Problem identification and
prioritization - The stakeholders
and partners use sound scientific
data and methods to identify and
prioritize the primary threats to
human and ecosystem health within
the watershed. Consistent with the
Agency's mission, EPA views ecosys-
tems as the interactions of complex
communities that include people;
thus, healthy ecosystems provide for
the health and welfare of humans as
well as other living things.
• Integrated actions - The stake-
holders and partners take corrective
actions in a comprehensive arid
integrated manner, evaluate success,
and refine actions if necessary. The
watershed protection approach
coordinates activities conducted by
numerous government agencies and
nongovernmental organizations to
maximize efficient use of limited
resources.
EPA's Office of Water envisions
the watershed protection approach
as the primary mechanism for
achieving clean water and healthy,
sustainable ecosystems throughout
the Nation. The watershed protec-
tion approach enables stakeholders
to take a comprehensive look at
ecosystem issues and tailor correc-
tive actions to local concerns within
the coordinated framework of a
national water program. The
emphasis on public participation
also provides an opportunity to
incorporate environmental justice
issues into watershed restoration
and protection solutions.
In May of 1994, the EPA Assis-
tant Administrator for Water, Robert
Perciasepe, created the Watershed
Management Policy Committee to
coordinate the EPA water program's
support of the watershed protection
approach. During 1995, EPA's water
program managers, under the direc-
tion of the Watershed Policy Com-
mittee, evaluated their programs
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 303
and identified additional activities
needed to support the watershed
protection approach in an action
plan. The action plans address
several broad directions:
• Enhance interagency coordina-
tion at the Federal, State, and local
levels.
• Build State, Tribal, and Territorial
watershed protection capabilities by
encouraging States and Tribes to
integrate existing programs (such as
NPDES Permitting Programs, Section
319 Nonpoint Source Programs,
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs, and State Wet-
lands Conservation Plans) using
comprehensive State, Tribal, and
Territorial watershed approaches.
• Develop tools (such as methods,
models, criteria, indicators, data
management, and monitoring tech-
niques) for implementing the water-
shed protection approach.
• Provide training on watershed
approach concepts and tools.
• Improve coordination within EPA,
and streamline program require-
ments (such as allowing multipur-
pose planning, funding, and report-
ing for watershed efforts).
• Reach out to watershed stake-
holders by publicizing accomplish-
ments at meetings and conferences
and in newsletters and publications.
EPA's Office of Water will con-
tinue to promote and support the
watershed protection approach. This
approach relies on active participa-
tion by local governments and
citizens who have the most direct
knowledge of local problems and
opportunities in their watersheds.
However, the Office of Water will
look to the States, Tribes, and Terri-
tories to create the framework for
supporting local efforts because
most EPA programs are imple-
mented by the States, Tribes, and
Territories.
EPA's Office of Water has
already taken steps to reorient and
coordinate its programs to support
the comprehensive watershed pro-
tection approach (see the highlight
on the NPDES Watershed Strategy).
In addition, EPA is supporting water-
shed management projects across
the Nation that coordinate numer-
ous agencies to simultaneously
achieve multiple objectives. These
projects are implemented by the
States with EPA support channeled
through various Office of Water
programs, including the Section 319
Nonpoint Source Program, the
Section 320 National Estuary Pro-
gram, the Wetlands Grant Program,
and the Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Program
(see highlight on the Bear River
Project).
The Office of Water will con-
tinue to build upon its experience
with established place-based pro-
grams, such as the Chesapeake Bay
Program and the Great Lakes
National Program, to eliminate bar-
riers to the watershed protection
approach. These integrated pro-
grams (described later in this chap-
ter) laid the foundation for the
Agency's shift toward comprehen-
sive watershed management and
continue to provide models for
implementing the "place-based
approach" to environmental
problem solving.
-------
304 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
HIGHLJG
HT HIGHLIGHT
Ill
id ( K 1
in in ii in
99
n
The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
Watershed Strategy
On March 21, 1994, EPA issued
the NPDES Watershed Strategy to
fully integrate the NPDES permit
program into the watershed protec-
tion approach. Over the past 20
years, the NPDES program has
employed permitting requirements
to achieve significant reductions in
pollutant discharges to surface
waters from industrial and municipal
facilities (see Chapter 10 for a full
description of the Point Source Con-
trol Program). In most cases, the
States have assumed responsibility
for implementing the NPDES permit
program. In recent years, the NPDES
program expanded to address
remaining sources of pollutant dis-
charges, including combined sewer
overflows and storm water dis-
charges. The NPDES Watershed
Strategy provides a cost-effective
mechanism for addressing the
remaining point sources of environ-
mental impacts while maintaining
successful control of traditional
discharges.
The NPDES Strategy outlines
national objectives and implementa-
tion activities to (1) integrate NPDES
program functions into the broader
watershed protection approach,
and (2) support development of
statewide watershed or basin
approaches. The Strategy identifies
six essential items that EPA
Headquarters and the Regions must
support:
• Statewide coordination -
promote development of watershed
or basin management frameworks
that identify the roles and responsi-
bilities of participating programs,
long-term programmatic and envi-
ronmental goals, geographically
delineated basins, and a schedule
for periodically evaluating the envi-
ronmental conditions in each basin.
• NPDES permits - encourage
States to develop basin manage-
ment plans that synchronize permit
issuance within basins.
• Monitoring and assessment -
encourage the States to develop
statewide monitoring strategies that
coordinate collection and analysis of
data with NPDES permit issuance
and other management activities
within basins.
• Programmatic measures and
environmental indicators - revise
national accountability measures to
facilitate implementation of water-
shed protection activities and
establish new measures of success
that reflect progress toward
"-"•• ' • •'-'
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 305
Ji * * **% j
"* *~ * * V * ^f
achieving watershed protection
goals.
• Public participation - promote
long-term public support for basin
management activities by providing
opportunities for the public to
participate in goal development,
priority setting, strategy develop-
ment, and implementation.
• Enforcement - coordinate com-
pliance and enforcement programs
and activities at the Federal, State,
Territorial, and Tribal levels to focus
resources on priority point sources
within identified basins.
The NPDES Watershed Strategy
is intended to support ongoing
State and Tribal initiatives and
supplement the efforts of other
environmental programs by identify-
ing areas where the NPDES pro-
gram can contribute. The Strategy
recognizes that the NPDES program
may play a central role in a number
of watersheds, but point sources will
not represent the primary stressors
in many watersheds. In such cases,
the NPDES program can support
and facilitate activities for meeting
environmental objectives, such as
monitoring and public participation.
: % < * ^'^^'jiSffirt"2 — <
^ * ';£> - HldHUG\£lll®:r HIGHLIGHT
.
Several State and EPA Regions
have taken significant steps toward
integrating NPDES program activi-
ties into the broader watershed
protection approach, but the
NPDES Watershed Strategy remains
largely untapped. To promote
implementation at the national
level, each EPA Regional Office
completed the following action
items during FY95:
• Regional State-by-State Assess-
ments and Action Plans - assess
current -watershed protection activi-
ties in each State and develop
Regional action plans that identify
how the Region will support and
facilitate each State's movement
toward the watershed protection
approach.
• State/EPA Workplan Agreements
- include specific activities within
workplans that will promote the
central components of the NPDES
Watershed Strategy.
• Internal Coordination - develop
Regional strategies that describe the
Regional decision making processes,
oversight role, and internal coordi-
nation efforts necessary to ensure
support for the watershed protec-
tion approach.
jw*-4*j^. 'r^pvr"^.
i|k±S*3»'^ ;^^ ^Sk
SH wiiMpIliKif **"* *~
i
1
'
^^^^•^^^^#^^ $* •$" v*** % f%* fr
fc^^fel^S*^**^*'1^*^**. «*< *$B^W*«
Pwt^-*3^ -«•"••*
'L
l^t,™,™^* ^
""„>• ^»5x» * «-
r* ~
l^mffij^Mii'*-^ „ „„
^LaL^^tx^eJr*****' "°
-
V —J „," *"
i
•jjg*^ «••*""
^5*^**^" '•"""
.^ '
IT^*"^,
^.^,-I^^Cii!:" -
^^1, r _ ~
|^^|^7^%_.|.
£5*.-"*''^'*
**'*;• ~
Zi •";**„
~**"J'^T^t2"~*-
r~
~ ~ ~
3j r
-v* "
«, ^ „ c_;i
"
^*^i^~_~
c_ _
', .-^T-^-T-- ~-
r
.". «-i:r^3LxJ^'.^ " '•!; ^iff^ ..: !
-------
306 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Implementing the Watershed
Protection Approach on the
Bear River, Utah
The Bear River has a 7,600-
square mile watershed located in
Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho. The
Utah Division of Water Resources
initiated the project in an effort to
resolve major environmental prob-
lems:
• Soil erosion, increased sediment
loadings, coliforms, and high
nutrient loadings due to animal
feeding operations, dairies, urban
development, roads, oil and gas
exploration, and silviculture
• Riparian vegetation removal
• Stream channelization
• Degraded stream channels and
streambanks.
Interest in increasing the use of
the river as a drinking water source
for the growing urban population in
the lower basin and along the
Wasatch Front prompted the Utah
Legislature to enact the Bear River
Development Act and fund a Bear
River water development and man-
agement plan. The effort is to
address both water development
and water quality issues, with a
water quality plan that includes a
broad-reaching analysis of pollutant
loading to the river as well as
chemical, biological, and physical
habitat assessments. Because the
Bear River encompasses Utah,
Wyoming, and Idaho, a regional
planning effort has been initiated.
The purpose of the regional effort is
to share information, coordinate
planning efforts, and involve
"grassroots" direction and participa-
tion. An array of water projects in
the Bear River Basin initiated by
different organizations and groups
are being coordinated through the
Bear River Watershed Water Quality
Coordination Committee.
For example, the State of Utah,
EPA, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) initiated a
watershed restoration project on the
Little Bear River (one of the major
tributaries in the basin) using funds
from USDA and EPA. The project
includes stream channel and ripar-
ian habitat restoration, land man-
agement, and animal waste treat-
ment actions. Several additional
nonpoint source projects are now
under way in Wyoming that are
aimed at restoring tributary streams
that have been impacted by
channelization, streambank modifi-
cation, and riparian habitat loss.
iMiiijiiiiijSJi
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 307
> , - - '.-'-. HlQHLIGrf
These "on-the-ground" demon-
stration projects are helping to gen-
erate enthusiasm for more coopera-
tive efforts.
Stakeholders:
• Bear Lake Regional Commission
• Bear River Resource Conservation
and Development Council
• Idaho Division of Environmental
Quality
• Idaho Fish and Game
Department
• Local citizen groups
• Soil Conservation Service
• U.S. Bureau of Land
Management
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
• U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
n ' . - , *
i^ ? ^ * 1~! *
• U.S. Forest Service
• Utah Department of Agriculture
• Utah Department of
Environmental Quality
• Utah Division of Water Resources
• Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources
• Utah Power and Light
• Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
• Wyoming Game and Fish
Department
For further information, contact:
Barbara Russell
Bear River Resource Conservation
and Development Council
1260 N. 200 East, Suite 4
Logan, UT 84321
(801) 753-3871
FAX: (801) 753-4037
r - ~ ^*~ - - ]
---
-- '
-
^^^SKS&KF^
ity^Sfiuau.t^ji.jii.u. ^ *^™,^ ^ _ :
^sfis^Mmi^-ww t -=,,-« ^
------ i
:
Sfric
B^^^fe^^T"^ - ~
"y~ * si* * *
^*if ^f M-ii^ * ^ S>t.t^~%M^ 1 •""•>* ^ J- * •>• f
^ n$i£"^ti-5 "* „"• -^*'VH^[^ l^t,^^- icfi ) 3 "*
-------
308 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Place-based
Management
Programs
Introduction
The programs described in this
section (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 place-
based ecosystem approach to solv-
ing water quality problems. The
ecosystem approach recognizes that
all components of the environment
are interconnected and that pollu-
tion 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 unit; 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 any
other in the Nation. 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
Mississippi 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 a mcijority
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 309
of U.S. migratory waterfowl. Its
commercial fisheries produced 1.7
billion pounds of fish, oysters,
shrimp, and crabs in 1993, and
almost 90% of U.S. offshore oil and
gas comes from Gulf waters. Seven
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 upstream tributaries in
the watershed and the growing
demand upon its resources and in
part by the accumulation of years of
careless depletion, abuse, and ne-
glect of its environment. These
problems in the Gulf have reduced
its ability to regenerate naturally.
The result has been alarming dam-
age and destruction of the Gulfs
ecosystem and habitats, particularly
wetlands and seagrasses. An esti-
mated 50 square miles of Gulf wet-
lands were lost each year between
the mid-1950s and the 1970s.
These losses stem from: marine
debris, toxic substances and pesti-
cides, coastal and shoreline erosion,
nutrient enrichment, alterations in
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.
In response to signs of serious
long-term environmental damage
throughout the Gulfs coastal and
marine ecosystem, the Gulf of
Mexico Program (CMP) 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
CMP 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.
Because of the immense geo-
graphical expanse of the Gulf, as
well as the numerous, and diverse
nature of, environmental threats to
it, no one agency has the expertise
and authority needed to deal effec-
tively with the vast array of prob-
lems that threaten the Gulf. In
response to this, the CMP office at
Stennis Space Center has evolved
into a multiagency organization
with staff from the Natural
Resources Conservation Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/National Marine
Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Food and Drug Administra-
tion, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Mississippi
Cooperative Extension Service, and
Mississippi Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Districts. This multi-agency staff
assists in directing the organizational
and operational strategy of the pro-
gram on a day-to-day basis to more
effectively deal with Gulf issues. In
-------
310 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
77/e goals of the Gulf of
Mexico Program are to
• Protect, restore^ and
enhance the coastal and
marine waters of the Gulf
and its natural coastal
habitats
• Sustain living resources
• Protect human health and
tfie food supply
• Ensure recreational use of
Gulf shores, beaches, and
waters in ways consistent
with the economic well-
being of the region.
addition, advantages of this staff
include a broad-based in-house
expertise and a far-reaching net-
working capability.
The CMP mobilizes Federal,
State, and local government; busi-
ness and industry; academia; and
the community at large through
programs of public awareness, infor-
mation dissemination, forum discus-
sions, citizen committees, and tech-
nology application. A Policy Review
Board and the Management Com-
mittee determine the scope and
focus of GMP activities. The pro-
gram also receives input from a
Technical Advisory Committee and
a Citizen's Advisory Committee. The
GMP Office, eight technical issue
committees, and the operations and
support committees coordinate the
collection, integration, and report-
ing of pertinent data and informa-
tion.
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
ongoing 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 Com-
mittee; 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 part-
nership 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 wa-
ters of the Gulf of Mexico and its
natural coastal habitats, to sustain
living resources, to protect human
health and the food supply, and to
ensure the recreational use of Gulf
shores, beaches, and waters in ways
consistent with the economic well-
being of the region.
The 10 environmental challenges
commit the signatory agencies to
pledge their efforts, over the next
5 years, to obtain the knowledge
and resources to
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 311
• 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 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
• 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
• Reduce critical coastal and shore-
line erosion.
The GMP structure has been
streamlined to better meet the
needs of the new 5-year environ-
mental challenges. In addition, EPA
has restructured its management
scheme for the GMP to increase
Regional involvement in the pro-
gram as it moves to implement
environmental protection and resto-
ration activities.
The Gulf waters are impacted
not only by the United States, but
by Mexico and, to a lesser extent,
by islands in the Caribbean Sea. The
GMP has expanded its activities to
provide support to this international
community. By promoting Special
Area Designation under MARPOL
Annex V, the Program has advanced
the emplacement of regulations to
reduce the discharge of ship-gener-
ated waste in the Gulf and Carib-
bean; the discharge of any plastics is
prohibited under Annex V. Addi-
tional assistance to Caribbean coun-
tries is provided through participa-
tion in the United Nations Environ-
mental Programme via their Carib-
bean Environment Program
(CEPPOL) and the Intergovernmen-
tal Oceanographic Commission,
which focus on addressing land-
based sources of pollution for the
Caribbean.
The GMP is also advancing
technology transfer with Mexico.
The Program of Ecology, Fisheries
and Oceanography of the Gulf of
Mexico (EPOMEX) participates in
the GMP's Living Aquatic Resources
committee and in other Program
activities. EPOMEX is an agency that
coordinates the scientific research of
institutions of higher education in
the areas of the coastal zone and its
biological resources and the conser-
vation of the marine environment,
coupling science with resource man-
agers and policy makers in the Gulf
of Mexico.
Take-Action Projects
During 1992, the GMP
launched important environmental
projects in each of the five Gulf
States to demonstrate that GMP
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 envi-
ronment.
-------
312 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
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 Gulfs 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
material 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
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 GMP
Take-Action Project called Gulf Eco-
logical Management Sites (GEMS),
seeks innovative approaches to pro-
tect 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 monitored and
managed to maintain their vitality
as wildlife and marine life habitat
while being used for hunting,, fish-
ing, resource extraction, recreation,
or other development. Ideally, these
tracts would be under the manage-
ment and protection of a govern-
ment agency or established environ-
mental organization.
To promote the concept Gulf-
wide, the GMP sponsored a GEMS
Workshop in New Orleans to share
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 313
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, Mississippi
established a Coastal Preserves Pro-
gram and set aside a donated por-
tion of the Graveline Bayou Estuary.
This area has been placed under the
protection and management of the
State's Department of Marine Re-
sources.
• 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 Gulf ecosys-
tem. Restoration of these habitats is
the focus of numerous CMP Take-
Action Projects throughout the Gulf
Region. Wetlands, reefs, seagrasses,
and the quality of the water in these
habitats are among the most signifi-
cant concerns receiving immediate
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.
Salt Marsh Wetlands
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
museum intended to educate the
-------
314 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Great Lakes Shoreline Miles Surveyed
by States and Tribes
1994 • 5,224 miles = 94% surveyed
ffl Total shoreline miles: 5,559a
94% Surveyed
6% Not Surveyed
1992 • 5,319 miles: 99% surveyed
• Total shoreline miles: 5,382b
1990 • 4,857 miles « 94% surveyed
• Total shoreline miles: 5,169C
Of the surveyed Great Lakes shoreline
waters:
• 82% were monitored
• 14% were evaluated
• 5% were not specified
Overall Surveyed Water Quality
97% Impaired
3% Good
* Source: 1994 State Section 305(b) reports.
b Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
c Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
public about the marine flora and
fauna found in the surrounding
area.
Oyster Beds
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 num-
ber one producer of oysters, a take-
action project in cooperation with
the National Estuary Program tar-
gets 240,000 acres of the Barataria-
Terrebonne Estuary that contain
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
Great Lakes water quality is
classically divided into two issues:
nutrients and toxicants. Together
with the Great Lakes States and the
Province of Ontario, the United
States and Canada have worked to
implement a broad strategy to
reduce loadings in both categories.
In addition, the two countries have
acted in acknowledgment of the
interrelationship among water qual-
ity and many other elements of the
ecosystem, including habitat and
community structure, and the
dynamics of exchange with the
atmosphere and sediments.
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 phos-
phorus load into the Great Lakes in
half.
The decline in phosphorus load-
ings is most evident in Lake Erie,
which receives more effluent from
sewage treatment plants and sedi-
ment from agricultural lands than
the other Great Lakes. Lake Erie also
experienced a concurrent decline in
phytoplankton biomass, an indicator
of trophic condition and nutrient
enrichment. This decline in
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 315
phytoplankton biomass, accompa-
nied by dramatic improvements in
water clarity and greatly reduced
occurrences of anoxia in the Lake's
eastern basin, provides evidence that
the phosphorus controls imple-
mented in the 1970s and 1980s
have reversed Lake Erie's severe nu-
trient enrichment problems of the
1960s.
This picture is complicated by
the recent invasion by, and profu-
sion of, the zebra mussel, an exotic,
or nonnative, species. Its impact is
not yet well quantified but is
believed to be substantial. The zebra
mussel is a very effective filter feeder
and is generally thought to have
had a profound effect on plankton
community structures in Lake Erie
and elsewhere in the Great Lakes
with concomitant changes in the
food chain as energy is rerouted into
the benthic (or bottom-dweller)
community. Recent invasions of
other exotic species, such as the
spring water flea (bythotrephes) and
two species of gobey, combined
with introductions of Pacific salmon
and the rusty crayfish, have dramati-
cally altered the structure of the
Great Lakes' communities.
Despite dramatic declines in the
occurrence of algal blooms, fish kills,
and localized "dead" zones depleted
of oxygen, 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
consumption of fish caught along
their entire shorelines. Depending
upon location, mercury, RGBs, pesti-
cides, or dioxins are variously found
in fish tissues at levels that exceed
standards set to protect human
health. As a result, virtually all of the
waters along the Great Lakes shore-
line fail to fully support fish con-
sumption and therefore fail to fully
support overall designated uses
(Figure 12-2). The levels of most
organochlorine contaminants have
declined dramatically since control
measures began in the mid-1970s.
As a result, although the trend
seems to be leveling off, concentra-
tions of these contaminants in fish
tissue have declined. Toxaphene (or
toxaphene-like compounds), how-
ever, appears to be running counter
to this trend in Lakes Superior and
Michigan, where fewer declines and
even some increases have appeared.
It is not clear, however, whether or
not this increase can be attributed
to historical use of the pesticide,
toxaphene, or if the increase is due
to the introduction of a similar com-
pound from an unidentified source.
Figure 1fe-2
Overall Use Support
in Surveyed Great Lakes Shorelin
Fair
(Partfally
Supporting)
Good 34%
(Threatened)
1%
Poor
Supporting)
63%
Poor
(Not
Attainable)
0%
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-2.
-------
316 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
G<>od water
97o/ / recr<=«cion i
i,?fth^"orelin
:•:'": ....... •' ......... m ..... ;"' ..... "" ..... >"; ..... wm^ ...... "
...
ort in the Great Lakes
Individual
"Fafir " Poor "Poor
'Co'oH (Partially (Not " "(Not"
SI5"" ...
"" ' Surveyetf ' Supporting)" ''(Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
"inllZl injil .1^^^ LiiiiuJi^ljy^ IK, lii ,||7I,M I' ilftn^iX^
i !•'•"I:: i:;:.:.1-',.!;--;,;. ii, • 7-Hj.,"'rTT &;". VJF 'Vj*'.'! ' I ,' :f,;\,:' f:'t. •' ":! :: "V!" ' " :.*-•. T'Y--'I 5; ,1: '•: «•' ',4
Efforts are under way by the U.S.
EPA and Canada to determine the
source of the toxaphene and
toxaphene-like compounds. Fish
consumption advisories have been
issued for the Great Lakes due to
apparent "toxaphene."
Although fish consumption use
is impaired throughout the Lakes,
more than 96% of the Great Lakes
shoreline fully supports recreational
uses and drinking water supply use
(Figure 12-3). However, in the well-
publicized outbreak of Cryptospor-
idiosis in 1993, storm flows carried
pathogens from the Milwaukee
River uplands well into Lake
Michigan, where the pathogens
entered the Milwaukee municipal
drinking water intake, resulting in
over 100 deaths and thousands of
illnesses.
The individual use support data
submitted 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 de-
pleted fish populations and repro-
duction problems in pisciverous
(fish-eating) birds (Table 12-1 and
box). Aquatic life impacts result
from persistent toxic pollutant bur-
dens 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 (primarily PCBs)
are the most prevalent cause of
impairment in their Great Lakes
waters (Figure 12-4). These toxic
chemicals persist in fish tissues, wild-
life tissues, and sediment. The States
reported much lower incidences of
metal contamination, depressed
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-3.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 317
Trends in PCB C^titaminatipn in the Great Lakes
Research conducted by the United States and Canada in the Great lakes indicates that PCB concen-
trations in wildlife have declined dramatically since :the EPA banned most uses of PCBs in 1976; However,
the PCB concentrations in fish persist well above concentrations set to protect public health> and the /
persistent PCB burdens in some fish,, mammals, and birds still may impair reproductive success. For /
example, concentrations of PCBs in Lake Michigan lake trout declined by-about 90% since 1970, but
remain at about 180 times the target goal of 0;014 parts per million. Similarly, body burdens ;of PCBs in
a colony of Forster's terns near Green Bay, Wisconsin, declined by 66% while hatching success tripled
between 1983 and 1988. However/the terns': offspring continued to suffer "wasting" and other fatal
health problems, which may have: resulted from the contaminant burdens in the adult birds. For addi-
tional information, see D. De Vault, D.tyl. Whittle, and S. Rang, Tox/c Contaminants in the Great Lakes, ;
SOLEC Working Paper presented at; State of/the Lakes Ecosystem Conference,: Chicago, IL :(EPA 905-D-94-
001 a, October 1994). .::;-:.:;:'::-: :'-'-^'. . -•••" ' • ::V;,;-•.'.'. -/•': v'.;::.-'.'::V.O !v :•;-;•.-','.':;:'.. ' :-'.
| - ' ! 'I : 1 •'.-• '-:-'- 1 •••--.-
Table 1-2-1 . Effects of Toxic Contamination on Fish and Wildlife in the Great Lakes'
; : -" ' ' - - i: -i i -. . • 1 " :-! - ;- 1 i - •" - -
Species
Mink
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
?
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.
-------
318 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Figure 12-4
SURVEYED Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources
Not Surveyed
6%
Total shoreline = 5,559 miles
Impaired
Surveyed 94%
Total surveyed = 5,224 miles
Leading Pollutants
Surveyed %
Priority Toxic Organic
Chemicals
Pesticides
Nonpriority Organic
Chemicals
Nutrients
Metals
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
• Major
H Moderate/Minor
Q Not Specified
I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I
95
21
19
6
6
6
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200,
Percent of Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline
Leading Sources
Surveyed %
Air Pollution
Discontinued Discharges
from Pipes
Contaminated Sediment
Land Disposal of Wastes
Unspecified NPS
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/Storm
Sewers
Major
Moderate/Minor
El Not Specified
I
I
I
I
I
I
20
19
14
9
6
4
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Percent of Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Tables F-4 and F-5.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a segment of shoreline.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 319
Figure 12-5
IMPAIRED Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources
Not
Surveyed
6%
Total shoreline = 5,559 miles
Total impaired = 5,077 miles
Leading Pollutants
Impaired %
Priority Toxic Organic
Chemicals
Pesticides
Nonpriority Organic
Chemicals
Nutrients
Metals
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
_L
_L
98
21
20
6
0 20 40
Percent of Impaired
60 80 100
Great Lakes Shoreline
Leading Sources
Air Pollution
Discontinued Discharges
Contaminated Sediment
Land Disposal of Wastes
Unspecified NPS
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/Storm Sew.
Impaired0/^
Major
ill Moderate/Minor
H Not Specified
_L
_L
J_
21
20
15
9
6
4
4
0 5 10
Percent of Impaired
15 20 25
Great Lakes Shoreline
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Tables F-4 and F-5.
PRIORITY TOXIC ORGANIC
CHEMICALS are the most
common pollutants affecting
surveyed Great Lakes shoreline
waters. Water quality problems
from these toxic chemicals
• are found in 95% of all
Great Lakes shoreline
waters, and
• constitute 98% of all
water quality problems.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100%
because more than one pollutant
or source may impair a segment
of shoreline.
-------
320 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
oxygen conditions, and nutrient
pollution.
Only four of the eight Great
Lakes States measured the size of
their Great Lakes shoreline polluted
by specific sources. These States
have jurisdiction over one-third of
the Great Lakes shoreline, so their
findings do not necessarily reflect
conditions throughout the Great
Lakes Basin (Figure 12-5).
• Wisconsin identified air pollution
and discontinued discharges as
sources of pollutants contaminating
all 1,017 of their surveyed shoreline
miles. Wisconsin also identified
smaller areas impacted by contami-
nated sediments, nonpoint sources,
industrial and municipal discharges,
agriculture, .urban runoff and storm
sewers, combined sewer overflows,
and land disposal of waste.
• Indiana attributed all of the
pollution along its entire 43-mile
shoreline to air pollution, agricul-
ture, and industrial and municipal
discharges.
• Ohio reported that nonpoint
sources pollute 86 miles of its 236
miles of shoreline, in-place contami-
nants impact 33 miles, and land
disposal of waste impacts 24 miles of
shoreline.
• New York identified many sources
of pollutants in their Great Lakes
waters, but the State attributes the
most miles of degradation to
contaminated sediments (439 miles)
and land disposal of waste (374
miles).
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 as well as other coun-
tries, and pollutants enter the Lakes
via multiple media (i.e., air, ground
water, and surface water). The Inter-
national Joint Commission (IjC),
established by the 1909 Boundary
Waters Treaty, lays the foundation
of the institutional framework for
managing the Great Lakes. Under
the auspices of that Treaty, the
United States and Canada signed
the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement in 1978 (see further
discussion on page 322). Represen-
tatives from the Government; of the
United States and Canada, the Prov-
ince of Ontario, and the eight States
bordering the Lakes sit on the IJC's
Water Quality Board.
The IJC Water Quality Board
makes recommendations to the
United States and Canada regarding
actions needed to maintain the
integrity of the Great Lakes ecosys-
tem. It provides various platforms
for addressing Great Lakes issues.
The Board also monitors and reports
upon the progress of the two
nations in meeting their commit-
ments under the Agreement and
evaluates and comments upon their
environmental policies and actions.
The EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) coordi-
nates activities within the United
States at all government levels,
working with nongovernment
organizations to protect and restore
the Lakes. One vehicle for this coor-
dination is the joint Federal/State
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 321
5-Year Strategy (1992-97) for Protect-
ing the Great Lakes. GLNPO provides
additional leadership through its
annual Great Lakes Program Priorities
and Funding Guidance. It also serves
as a liaison and provides information
to the Canadian members of the IjC
and the Canadian counterparts to
the EPA. GLNPO is responsible for
direct negotiations and cooperation
with Canadian Federal agencies
through the Binational Executive
Committee.
The Great Lakes States and the
Federal agencies work together to
provide a broad range of routine
monitoring of the Lakes and their
basin. The States and U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey perform most tributary
monitoring, and State agencies and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
together with the National Biologi-
cal Service, collect tributary and
open Lakes fish for contaminant
monitoring. GLNPO conducts
essentially all the United States'
open Lakes water quality and sedi-
ment monitoring and carries out
contaminant analyses on fish
sampled by other agencies. It also
carries out, and is the primary fund-
ing source for, major special studies,
such as those for mass balance of
Lake Michigan and Green Bay.
The Great Lakes governors have
worked together on a number of
common issues over the years. For
example, the Great Lakes Protection
Fund was formed by the Great
Lakes Governors in 1989. The mis-
sion of the Fund is to identify, dem-
onstrate, and promote regional
action to enhance the health of the
Great Lakes ecosystem. It is the
Nation's first multistate environmen-
tal 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, shipping
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
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. Other Great
Lakes environmental organizations
have a specific geographic focus,
such as the Lake Michigan Federa-
tion, or concentrate on a narrower
topical area, such as the Tip of the
Mitt Watershed Council, which
primarily addresses land use issues
(especially wetlands issues).
The Great Lakes Commission is
a binationally chartered indepen-
dent organization that integrates
environmental concerns with
economic development concerns.
The Commission's members are
appointed by the States, Canadian
Provinces, and both Federal govern-
ments. The members issue reports
on subjects such as the environmen-
tal impacts of transportation options
in the Great Lakes Region. The
reports provide data for decision-
making by the government bodies
with authority to manage the Lakes.
The Commission is working under a
-------
322 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Ir-rv
I
I !: >!
cooperative agreement with GLNPO
to operate the Great Lakes Informa-
tion Network (GLIN), an Internet
Server. The GLIN provides a major
outlet and source for Great Lakes
environmental information.
Private conservation groups are
also working with government
agencies to protect natural areas in
the Great Lakes Basin. GLNPO is
funding 69 restoration and protec-
tion projects based, in part, on find-
ings of the Great Legacy Project.
The Great Legacy Project, sponsored
to a considerable extent by GLNPO,
includes efforts by the Nature Con-
servancy 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. Since 1992, GLNPO has insti-
tuted and formalized a competitive
process to select high-priority on-
the-ground habitat protection, res-
toration, and remediation projects.
In 1994, GLNPO completed a
statutory 6-year mandate, the
Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments (ARCS)
Program, working with academic,
commercial, State, and local experts
to develop and test new sediment
remediation technologies. In both
the habitat and sediment remedia-
tion arenas, it has organized signifi-
cant training events and confer-
ences to benefit both the public
and private sectors.
In the fall of 1994, GLNPO and
its Canadian counterpart in
Environment Canada, together with
the eight Great Lakes States, the
Council of Great Lakes Industries,
environmental groups, and the
Province of Ontario, convened a
partnered endeavor to provide all
sectors of the Great Lakes commu-
nity with a synopsis of the state of
knowledge on the Great Lakes eco-
system. This effort took two forms:
the State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference, a major conference for
senior environmental managers, and
a set of six peer-reviewed draft topi-
cal papers and an integration paper.
The papers were presented at the
conference and designed to provide
a comprehensive snapshot of the
condition of the Lakes' ecosystems.
They provided a starting point
for a series of topical and Lake-by-
Lake discussions that became a
framework for interaction and com-
munication among disparate and
sometimes traditionally opposed
sectors.
The draft papers are posted on
the Internet GLIN server for public
access and comment. Comments
from attendees and the Great Lakes
community provided a final level of
review prior to publication in mid-
1995. The conveners of the State of
the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
worked with the authors to incorpo-
rate discussion and commentary
into the final papers.
The Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement
The 1978 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA), as
amended in 1987, established 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 elimi-
nation of persistent toxic
substances. The Agreement set a
limited number of ecosystem-based
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 323
objectives for water quality, biota,
habitat, and beneficial uses of the
Lakes. The Agreement also institu-
tionalized the Areas of Concern
concept as well as commitments to
develop Remedial Action Plans and
Lakewide Management Plans to
address Great Lakes problems.
Although there has been con-
siderable progress in addressing
impacts from point and nonpoint
loadings of conventional pollutants
under the GLWQA, the Great Lakes
are still highly vulnerable to toxic
pollutants. The IJC released a set of
recommendations identifying 11
"critical pollutants" for which man-
agement scrutiny is warranted
throughout the Basin. These chemi-
cals and possible sources are
presented in Table 12-2.
The Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative
The Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative (GLWQI) is a key element
of the environmental protection
efforts undertaken by the United
States in the Great Lakes Basin. The
purpose of the Initiative is to pro-
vide a consistent level of protection
in the Basin from the effects of toxic
pollutants. This will further the
national goal to restore, maintain,
and protect the waters of this
particularly valuable and sensitive
ecosystem.
On March 23, 1995, EPA pub-
lished Water Quality Guidance for the
Great Lakes System in the Federal
Register (60 CFR 15366). EPA issued
the Guidance under the terms of
the Great Lakes Critical Programs
Act of 1990. Now that the Guid-
ance is available, the next step is for
the States and Tribes to incorporate
provisions consistent with the
Guidance into their laws and regula-
tions within 2 years.
Foundations
The GLWQI was organized by
EPA at the request of the Great
Lakes States in 1989. State gover-
nors had signed an agreement in
1986 to promote consistency in
their environmental programs for
the Great Lakes Basin. At the same
time, the governors had requested
that EPA facilitate these efforts to
promote consistency, and, in 1989,
the Council of Great Lakes Gover-
nors unanimously reaffirmed their
participation in the GLWQI, with
U.S. EPA Region 5 (Chicago, IL)
taking the lead role.
The Initiative provided a forum
for a regional dialogue to establish
minimum requirements that would
reduce disparities between State
water quality controls in the Great
Lakes Basin. The scope of the Initia-
tive included development of pro-
posed Great Lakes water quality
guidance for Great Lakes-specific
water quality criteria and method-
ologies to protect aquatic life, wild-
life, and human health; procedures
to implement water quality criteria;
and an antidegradation policy.
Organization and Process
The open dialogue used in the
Initiative was exemplary and is a
model for the future. Three commit-
tees were formed to carry out the
Initiative:
• A Steering Committee (com-
posed of directors of water pro-
grams in the Great Lakes States'
environmental agencies and EPA's
National and Regional Offices)
-------
324 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
|"
•
1
.0 S
•3 ^£
o-o
£ ro
L*J •
]
H -
•H^l r*
U u
"o £-°°.
d forest management Also produced as a byprodui
ough production of pentachlorophenol (PCP) and [
ost toxic of 75 congeners (forms) of dioxin, and 2,3
Contaminant in herbicides used in agriculture, range, an
combustion of fossil fuels and waste incineration and thr
and paper production processes. 2,3,7,8-TCDD is the m
TCDF is the most toxic of 1 35 congeners of furan.
To
c
•B
c
OJ
g
.§
•o
c
*(•;*
"x c
8 Q
SV
Q O
U U
IT "T
rCrC
rn'ro'
o-f r-f
j_.
od, including forest fires, grills (charcoal broiling), a
: polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Product of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and wo
exhaust, and waste incineration. One of a large family of
nj
|
OJ
c
'c
-=>
,_.
J3?
.^*.
.a
(U
1
£
g
s
g
ca
£
s
areas. Banned for use in the U.S. and Canada with :
ly in North America and worldwide.
Insecticide; used heavily for mosquito control in tropical
exceptions for gypsy moth control. Once used extensive
-°_
ro
C
o
c
OJ
•§
•u
Q
Q.
C
g
T3
ra
T3 en
c c
£1
Q c
Q^
Insecticide used extensively at one time, especially on fn.
•o
C
o
•fl
c
jc
?E
,—
Q
i and of manufacturing processes using chlorine.
Byproduct of combustion of fuels and waste incineration
Found as a contaminant in chlorinated pesticides.
ro
1
c
S
.c
3
^x
U
i~.
OJ
c
1
1
o
'c~
u
X
cu
X
S.
Ic
o
'ro
Q.
T3
C
(O
c
8f
Q.
'o.
1
"D
C
(U
Used as a fuel additive and in solder, pipes, and paint.
Released through combustion of fuel, waste, and cigaret
1 1
0 C
g .E
= B
_s
T3
^
-^*
<
•s
down to more toxic form, photomirex, in presence
pills, and land disposal.
Fire retardant; pesticide used to control fire ants. Breaks
sunlight.
Present sources are residuals from manufacturing sites, s
rc
•D c
"ro .9
C •*-•
o ci
1 1
%
;=
^
c
tO
witches, and disinfectants.
cal equipment manufacturing processes. Also occur
c environment may be accelerated by sulfate depos
Used in metallurgy, batteries, thermometers, electrical s\
Byproduct of chlor-alkali, gold mining, paint, and electri
naturally in soils and sediments. Releases into the aquatii
(i.e., acid rain) and leaching from landfills.
(0
1 1
o c:
•j= £i
g .£
J= B
^
|
-J P3
^ ^5 C O CIJ
— S^ ro "5 *^>
1 = | ||
•r- «S "H '- *H
« -a ^ ,-y z>
e g | .e _g
CL) C Jn
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 325
discussed policy and scientific and
technical issues, directed the work
of the Technical Work Group, and
ratified final proposals.
• The Technical Work Group (con-
sisting of technical staff from the
Great Lakes States' environmental
agencies, EPA, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the National
Park Service) prepared proposals on
elements of the Guidance for con-
sideration by the Steering Commit-
tee.
• The Public Participation Group
(consisting of representatives from
environmental groups, municipali-
ties, industry, and academia)
observed the deliberations of the
other two committees, advised
them of the public's concerns, and
kept its various constituencies
apprised of ongoing activities and
issues.
From the start, one of the Com-
mittees' goals was to develop the
Guidance elements in an open pub-
lic forum, drawing upon the exten-
sive expertise and interest of indi-
viduals and groups within the Great
Lakes community.
Great Lakes Critical
Programs Act
The Initiative efforts were well
under way when Congress enacted
the Great Lakes Critical Programs
Act of 1990 to amend the Clean '
Water Act. The general purpose of
these amendments was to improve
the effectiveness of EPA's existing
programs in the Great Lakes. The
Act required EPA to publish pro-
posed and final water quality
guidance that specifies minimum
requirements for waters in the
Great Lakes System in three areas:
(1) water quality standards (includ-
ing numerical limits on pollutants in
ambient Great Lakes waters to pro-
tect human health, aquatic life, and
wildlife; (2) antidegradation policies;
and (3) implementation procedures.
The Act also requires the Great
Lakes States to adopt provisions in
their programs that are consistent
with the final Guidance within
2 years of EPA's publication. In the
absence of such action, EPA is
required to promulgate any neces-
sary requirements within that 2-year
period. In addition, Indian Tribes
authorized to administer an NPDES
program or water quality standards
program in the Great Lakes Basin
will also need to adopt provisions
consistent with the final Guidance
into their water programs.
To carry out the Act, EPA pro-
posed regulations for implementing
the Guidance on April 16, 1993,
and invited comment from the pub-
lic. States and EPA conducted public
meetings in all the Great Lakes
States during the comment period,
including two EPA public meetings.
As a result, EPA received over
26,500 pages of comments from
over 6,000 commenters. EPA
reviewed all of this information in
developing the final Guidance that
was published in March of 1995.
Conclusion
The final Guidance represents a
milestone in efforts by Great Lakes
stakeholders to define and apply
innovative and comprehensive envi-
ronmental programs for protecting
and restoring the Great Lakes. In
particular, the publication of the
final Guidance culminates 6 years of
-------
326 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
intensive cooperative effort that
included participation by the eight
Great Lakes States, the environmen-
tal community, academia, industry,
municipalities, and EPA regional and
national Offices.
The final Guidance will help
establish consistent, enforceable,
long-term protection with respect to
all types of pollutants, but will place
short-term emphasis on the types of
long-lasting pollutants that accumu-
late in the food web and pose a
threat to the Great Lakes System.
The Initiative Committees devoted
considerable effort to identifying
such chemicals—persistent bioaccu-
mulative pollutants termed "bio-
accumulative chemicals of concern"
(BCCs)—and developing the most
appropriate criteria, methodologies,
policies, and procedures to address
them. The special provisions for
BCCs, initially developed by the
Initiative Committees and incorpo-
rated into the final Guidance,
include antidegradation procedures
to minimize future problems; gen-
eral phaseout and elimination of
mixing zones for BCCs (except in
limited circumstances) to reduce
their overall loadings to the Lakes;
more extensive data generation
requirements to ensure that BCCs
are not underregulated for lack of
data; and development of water
quality criteria that will protect wild-
life that feed on aquatic prey.
The GLWQI also supports more
comprehensive management plans
for the Great Lakes envisaged by
the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1987 between the
United States and Canada. Lakewide
Management Plans (LaMPs) for each
Great Lake and Remedial Action
Plans (RAPs) for each of 42 Great
Lakes "Areas of Concern" are under
development by EPA, the States,
local governments, and Canada.
The GLWQI contributes to the
implementation of all of these
efforts because it defines levels of
protection needed for any pollutant
that might threaten the Great Lakes.
The GLWQI represents a part-
nership between the States and
Federal government to protect this
unique national resource. EPA is
currently providing technical assis-
tance to the States. Over the past
20 years great progress has been
made to improve the quality of
water in the Great Lakes, and the
GLWQI represents a further step in
ensuring the health and quality of
the Great Lakes in the future.
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 initially identified 42 Areas of
Concern (AOCs) located primarily
along river mouths or harbors
where beneficial uses were
impaired. Altogether, the IJC identi-
fied 14 types of use impairment
ranging from limitations on use of
water for commerce to fish con-
sumption restrictions, reproductive
problems among wildlife, and
restrictions on disposal of dredged
sediments.
The United States later desig-
nated Presque Isle Bay (in Pennsyl-
vania) as the 43rd AOC, but Canada
delisted Collingwood Harbor (in
Ontario), returning the total number
of AOCs to 42. The United States
and Canada designated all 42 as
AOCs, all of which face major toxics
concerns. Thirty-five of the 42 AOCs
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 327
report toxics concerns in ambient.
water, 41 of 42 report toxics in
sediments, and 38 of 42 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 for each AOC. In
1987, the United States and
Canadian Federal Governments
incorporated the commitment to
develop RAPs into the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. A com-
plete RAP encompasses the follow-
ing stages and has a planning docu-
ment associated with each mile-
stone:
STAGE 1 - Identifies the nature of
the problem(s) and summarizes
available information.
STAGE 2 - Specifies remedial and
regulatory measures needed to
restore beneficial uses.
STAGE 3 - Measures and summa-
rizes results as progress is achieved
in implementing management
plans.
Of the 32 U.S. RAPs, 5 had
been completed through Stage 2
and 19 others had been completed
or nearly completed through Stage
1 by the end of 1994.
One of the RAPs, Fox River/
Green Bay, faced particular difficul-
ties in identifying the comparative
significance of various sources of
certain contaminants, especially
PCBs. In an unprecedented partner-
ship, GLNPO joined with the Office
of Research and Development,
several State agencies in Wisconsin
and Michigan, other Federal agen-
cies, and several academic institu-
tions, to sponsor the Fox River/
Green Bay Mass Balance Study from
1987 through 1994. This study
demonstrated the feasibility of the
mass balance approach for identify-
ing the relative contributions to
toxicant-induced environmental
problems, and it provided the RAP
committee and the State of Wiscon-
sin with a unique tool to forecast
the effects of proposed environmen-
tal management decisions.
Lakewide Management Plans
Lakewide Management Plans
are the next level of geographic
integration envisioned in the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
These plans are whole lake planning
efforts. Under the Agreement,
LaMPs are to employ an ecosystem
approach founded on the same use
impairments forming the basis of
the RAP process. While focusing
primarily on the effects of toxics,
the LaMPs will also address habitat
and nutrient concerns. Public
involvement is a critical element in
LaMP development.
The first effort at lakewide man-
agement was the Lake Ontario
Toxics Management Plan (LOTMP),
undertaken via a 1987 Declaration
of Intent (known as the "Four-Party
Agreement") among the U.S. EPA,
Environment Canada, New York
State Department of Environmental
Conservation, and the Province of
Ontario. This Agreement antici-
pated, in many respects, the LaMP
concept expressed in the 1987 revi-
sions to the GLWQA. The LOTMP
effort is chaired by EPA Region 2.
The Plan first developed a list of
critical pollutants for Lake Ontario in
-------
328 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
1989. The "Four Parties" agreed at
that time to undertake revisions that
would permit the LOTMP to
become the LaMP for Lake Ontario.
Since then, there have been two
major revisions of the LOTMP and,
in August 1994, GLNPO and Region
2 cooperatively undertook an inten-
sive month-long special study moni-
toring organic contaminants in the
water and sediments of Lake
Ontario. Public hearings on the first
draft of the Plan as a Stage 1 LaMP
are under way.
The United States has prepared
the LaMP for the Lake Michigan
Basin, which is contained entirely in
this country. The effort is headed
up by EPA Region 5 and involves all
of the Lake Michigan States: Wis-
consin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michi-
gan. Although impacts from nutri-
ents and un-ionized ammonia toxic-
ity persist, most of the problems in
Lake Michigan stem from toxic
contaminants already in the Lake
system and ongoing toxic loadings
from point and nonpoint sources.
Future iterations of the LaMP will
address all 14 beneficial use impair-
ments.
Building on work in progress at
the various AOCs, the Lake
Michigan LaMP will look at the lake
ecosystem as a whole and identify a
set of critical pollutants. In some
cases, this is 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.
The LaMP will propose a tiered
concept for developing manage-
ment actions.
Currently, there is a major effort
under way on the part of GLNPO
with the assistance of the Office of
Research and Development Environ-
mental Research Laboratory-Duluth,
Region 5, and the Lake Michigan
States (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana,
and Michigan) to carry out a full-
scale mass balance study of Lake
Michigan. This Study, begun in the
spring of 1994, is an effort to pro-
vide the LaMP with a more defini-
tive understanding of loadings and
fates of four toxic substances (PCB
congeners, trans-nonachlor, atra-
zine, and mercury). It will project
the effects of various management
scenarios selected by the LaMP
Management Committee. The Stage
1 Lake Michigan LaMP first draft
was published in January 1992 and
revised in September 1993. A final
version is anticipated by the end of
1995.
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 Fall of 1991, the United
States, Canada, and the States of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michi-
gan and the Province of Ontario
formally agreed on a new regional
agreement to protect Lake Superior
from toxic pollution. The Binational
Program seeks to encourage
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 329
pollution prevention and expand
authorities (where appropriate) to
implement a goal of zero pollutant
discharge and emission of nine per-
sistent bioaccumulative toxic sub-
stances. 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 issued a draft Stage 1 LaMP
for Lake Superior in February 1994
and expect to transmit a Stage 1
version incorporating public com-
ments to the IJC in the near future.
A draft Stage 2 LaMP is expected to
be made available to the public by
the time of the IjC's biennial meet-
ing in September 1995.
The LaMP for Lake Erie is now
in the early stages of development
with a binational Management
Committee and Workgroup in
place. The Workgroup, under the
direction of the Management Com-
mittee, has begun developing eco-
system objectives and assessing the
status of beneficial uses for Lake
Erie. The Workgroup has also initi-
ated a variety of public involvement
activities, including developing a
Lake Erie Forum and requesting
comments on a concept paper
outlining the LaMP framework.
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 elimi-
nating discharges of persistent toxic
substances in the Great Lakes. In
1991, EPA and the States developed
the Great Lakes Pollution Prevention
Action Plan to highlight how EPA
and the States will minimize the
use, production, and release of toxic
substances at the source. The Ac-
tion Plan targets persistent
bioaccumulative toxic substances for
reduction or elimination.
The GLNPO has allocated sig-
nificant funding and developed a
formal process for funding numer-
ous pollution prevention grants
throughout the Great Lakes Basin
for the past 3 years. The three
Great Lakes Regions of EPA are us-
ing the pollution prevention ap-
proach to prioritize solutions. The
Regions view pollution prevention
as a voluntary program that falls
back on regulation as needed. The
1992 program goal was surpassed
by over 100 million pounds in re-
duced contaminant releases into the
environment.
The EPA Regions and Great
Lakes States are implementing the
National 38/50 Program in the
Great Lakes Basin. Under this pro-
gram, EPA has received voluntary
commitments frpm industry to
reduce the emission of 17 priority
pollutants by 50% by the end of
1995. This goal is expected to be
achieved ahead of schedule. As part
of the Binational Program to Protect
Lake Superior, EPA and the States
are also cooperating with Canada
to undertake a virtual elimination
initiative for Lake Superior that seeks
first to eliminate new contributions
of Great Lakes critical pollutants,
with special emphasis on mercury.
The EPA is also working with utilities
located within the Great Lakes Basin
to accelerate the phaseout of trans-
formers containing PCBs.
-------
330 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
The Chesapeake Bay
Program
Background
Now in its twelfth year, the EPA
Chesapeake Bay Program is a
regional partnership of Federal,
State, and local participants that has
directed and coordinated Chesa-
peake Bay restoration since 1983
when the historic Chesapeake Bay
Agreement was signed. The partners
in this agreement are the State of
Maryland, the Commonwealths of
Pennsylvania and Virginia, the Dis-
trict of Columbia, the Chesapeake
Bay Commission, and the EPA, rep-
resenting the Federal Government,
as well as participating advisory
groups.
Figure 12-6
Chesapeake Bay Watershed with Its
10 Subwatersheds
Western Shore MD
Patuxent
Eastern Shore MD
Eastern Shore VA
Western Shore VA
Considered a national and inter-
national model for estuarine restora-
tion and protection, the Chesapeake
Bay Program is still a "work in
progress." Since 1983, milestones in
the evolution of the program
include the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement, which set a goal of a
40% reduction of nutrients entering
the Bay by the year 2000. In the
1992 amendments to the Agree-
ment, the partners reaffirmed the
40% nutrient reduction goal,
agreed to cap nutrient loadings
beyond the year 2000, and agreed
to attack nutrients at their source by
applying the 40% goal to the 10
major tributaries of the Bay. The
agreements have also stressed
management of the Bay as a whole
ecosystem, using the restoration of
both habitat and living resources as
measures of progress.
Federal agencies also play a
significant role in the Chesapeake
Bay Program. The Federal Govern-
ment owns 1.6 million acres of land
in the Bay watershed. In 1994,
officials from 25 Federal agencies
and departments signed the Agree-
ment of Federal Agencies on Ecosys-
tem Management in the Chesa-
peake Bay. This Agreement set out a
number of specific goals and com-
mitments for Federal agencies on
their lands throughout the water-
shed, as well as new cooperative
efforts by Federal agencies else-
where.
The Chesapeake Bay is an enor-
mously complex and dynamic sys-
tem of fishes, waterfowl, and veg-
etation in an estuary where salt
water from the Atlantic Ocean and
fresh water from the many tributar-
ies of the Bay come together (Figure
12-6). A host of complicated inter-
actions having physical, chemical,
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 331
and biological dimensions present
formidable challenges to the under-
standing and management of this
great estuary (Figure 12-7).
If we liken the Chesapeake Bay
to a patient in the hospital under-
going treatment for a life-threaten-
ing illness, we can now report that
the patient's vital signs, such as
living resources, habitat, and water
quality are stabilized and the patient
is out of intensive care. Some vital
signs, such as striped bass and Bay
grasses have improved dramatically,
others, such as oysters, are still in
danger, with still other vital signs
mixed but stable. Nutrient levels
continue on their downward slope,
with phosphorus reduction outstrip-
ping that of nitrogen. Dissolved
oxygen remains unchanged but has
stopped declining. In the following
sections, these findings are exam-
ined in more detail.
Figure 12-7
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
Poor Water Clarity
Aquatic Plant Habitat
Flourishes
Aquatic Plant
Growth Inhibited
Bottom Habitat
Healthy
Fish, Shellfish and Other
Organisms Stressed
Source: Redrawn from Alice \. Lipson. In: Maryland Tributary Strategies—Restoring the Chesapeake. Overview. 1993. Maryland Department of the
Environment, Baltimore, MD.
-------
332 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Stresses on the Ecosystem
Land Use
The Chesapeake Bay's water-
shed, radically changed by Euro-
pean settlement three centuries ago,
continues to undergo changes that
reflect how we use the land in this
64,000-square-mile expanse. Urban,
suburban, and agricultural lands all
leach more pollutants into the Bay
than do natural forests and wet-
lands. About 40% of the land is no
longer in its natural state and we
are losing wetlands at a rate of
8 acres per day.
Data from 1990 show that for-
est is the dominant land use within
the Bay watershed, constituting
about 59% of the land, mostly in
areas far removed from the Bay's
shoreline. Agricultural land, includ-
ing pasture and cropland, consti-
tutes about 33% of the watershed.
Urban and suburban lands are gen-
erally close to the Bay and its tidal
tributaries and cover about 7% of
the watershed. Wetlands, critical
habitat environments, represent
about 1 %. Nutrient and sediment
loads from forest land are low com-
pared to urban and agricultural land.
uses.
Based on projections of a
steadily increasing population, the
largest change in land use will be
from forest and agriculture to urban
and suburban. In 1985, about 4.0
million acres of the watershed were
urban or suburban. This number is
projected to increase to about 5.4
million acres by the year 2000, an
increase of 35% over the 1985 acre-
age. Between 1982 and 1989,
20,000 acres, about 2.5% of wet-
lands, were lost primarily through
filling, draining, or conversion to
open water. This represents a loss of
about 8 acres per day.
Population
Population growth is the single
most important factor underlying
the various stresses on the Bay eco-
system. In 1950, the Bay's water-
shed contained 8.4 million resi-
dents. By 1990, this figure had
grown to 14.2 million and, by
2020, there will be an estimated
17.4 million people living in the
watershed. An expanding
population relies on highways and
automobiles, increasing both the
number of cars on the road and the
miles driven. The growing popula-
tion also requires land for homes,
transportation, shops, jobs, and
recreation. Forests and other lands
of environmental significance are
often converted to meet these
needs.
An ever-increasing population
has resulted in higher wastewater
flows to the Chesapeake Bay (Figure
12-8). As a result of improved
wastewater treatment and bans on
detergents containing phosphorus,
point source loads of phosphorus
have been reduced by 70% since a
peak in the 1970s, despite a 40%
increase in total flow. Nitrogen con-
trols, just recently implemented, are
already starting to reduce the levels
of this pollutant entering the Bay
from point sources such as industry
and municipal sewage treatment
plants.
Along with changes in land use,
population growth also results in
higher flows from wastewater treat-
ment plants. This wastewater con-
tains the nutrients phosphorus and
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 333
nitrogen, excessive quantities of
which are the primary pollution
threats facing Bay waters. The Fed-
eral Construction Grants Program
provided improved treatment at
municipal plants to remove phos-
phorus, resulting in a sharp decline
in phosphorus discharges between
1970 and 1980. These reductions
have continued since 1980 with
additional treatment plant upgrades
and the implementation of phos-
phorus bans that prohibit the use of
this nutrient in household deter-
gents. Overall, phosphorus loads
have declined by about 70% since
the 1970s. Nitrogen discharges
increased steadily between 1950
and 1985. Improved treatment at
both industrial and municipal waste-
water facilities is responsible for
reductions in nitrogen discharges
since 1985. Innovative technologies,
such as biological nutrient removal
(BNR) provide better management
of the sewage treatment process,
resulting in lower nitrogen and
phosphorus levels.
The signatories of the Chesa-
peake Bay Agreement have commit-
ted to develop and implement nu-
trient reduction strategies—the
Tributary Strategies—that will
reduce the 1985 combined point
and nonpoint source loads by 40%
by the year 2000. Great strides have
been made in reducing point source
phosphorus loads. Continued reduc-
tions are needed, especially in nitro-
gen, however, to offset flow
increases in areas of rapid popula-
tion growth.
Impacts on the Ecosystem
Rivers - Nutrient and sediment
pollution from the Susquehanna
and Potomac Rivers, the two largest
freshwater tributaries feeding the
Bay, show encouraging signs. After
many years of increasing nitrogen
concentrations, most of the Bay's
tributaries are showing a leveling off
of this trend and some are actually
showing a decline (Figure 12-9).
Such results demonstrate that point
and nonpoint source abatement
programs instituted over the past
10 years are producing the desired
results.
The quality of fresh water enter-
ing the Chesapeake Bay from the
surrounding nontidal tributaries is
an important factor in the water
Figure 12J8
Watershed Population and Waste water Flow
25 , , 3
c
o
_g
*4-J
JS
Q.
O
Q.
I
20
15
10
Wastewater
Population
I
I
I
1950 1960 1970
1980
Year
1990 2000 V2020
,f\ T on*),
25 I
^•J 15
Dl
O
s,
1.5 I
-------
334 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
and habitat quality of the estuary.
When taken as a whole, results from
cooperative monitoring of input
from the Bay's rivers generally show
very encouraging signs.
Historical data from the 1970s
and more recent data for 1984-
1993 show that the concentrations
of several important pollutants are
either declining or leveling off after
previously increasing trends. Point
and nonpoint source controls
appear to be having an impact on
the total phosphorus concentrations
for a number of the rivers. The
phosphate detergent bans enacted
in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania,
and the District of Columbia during
Figure 12-9
Pollutant Trends in the Bay's Rivers
N Nitrogen
P Phosphorus
S Sediment
O Decreasing trend
iSr Increasing trend
<= No trend
* Insufficient data
A Sampling station
the mid-1980s have clearly contrib-
uted to the lowering of phosphorus
inputs from the rivers. Even nitro-
gen, which has only recently been
targeted for load reductions is
showing declines in parts of the
Susquehanna and Patuxent Rivers.
Estuaries - Nutrient levels in the
tidal saline waters of the Chesa-
peake Bay and its tributaries are
responding to the trends seen in
the inputs of nutrients from the
nontidal rivers (Figure 12-10). Many
regions are showing declines in
phosphorus levels. Nitrogen flowing
into the Bay has stopped increasing
in most areas. Despite these
promising trends, dissolved oxygen
levels are still low enough to cause
severe impacts and stressful condi-
tions in the mainstem of the Bay
and several of the larger tributaries
(Figure 12-11).
The main causes of the Bay's
poor water quality and aquatic habi-
tat loss are elevated levels of the
nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus.
Both are natural fertilizers found in
animal waste, soil, and even the
atmosphere. In excessive amounts,
these nutrients cause an excessive
growth of algae, which clouds the
water and blocks the sunlight that is
essential for submerged aquatic
grasses. When the algae die, they
sink and decompose, using up the
dissolved oxygen in the water. Low
oxygen conditions may cause the
eggs and larvae of fish to die. The
growth and reproduction of oysters,
clams, and other bottom-dwelling
animals are impaired. Adult fish find
their habitat reduced and their feed-
ing inhibited. Animals that cannot
move may die.
Nitrogen concentrations in the
water appear to be declining in
some areas, especially Maryland's
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 335
upper western shore, the Patuxent
River, and the James River in
Virginia. In all areas of the Bay and
its tributaries, phosphorus concen-
trations are either declining or have
remained stable since 1984.
Changes in dissolved oxygen condi-
tions are few and do not show any
consistent pattern. The observed
changes are primarily due to
improved treatment at industrial
and municipal point sources located
in the major metropolitan areas that
surround the upper tidal tributaries.
Sediment - Potentially toxic con-
taminants stored in the Bay's bot-
tom sediments from years of
Figure 12-10
Nutrient Status and Trends
Total Phosphorus
Elk Run
Total Nitrogen
Bush
Gunpowder
Back
Patapsco
Bohemia
Sassafras
Eastern Bay
1
Choptank
Potomac
Rappahannock
Bush
Gunpowder
Back
Patapsco
Elk Run
i
Bohemia
Sassafras
Eastern Bay
/
Choptank
Nanticoke
Wicomico
Pocomoke
Potomac
Rappahannock
Trend Key
James
© Improving
• Degrading
Status Key
• Severely Impacted
• Poor
m Stressed
ffl Fair
D Good
Nanticoke
Wicomico .
Pocomoke
NOTE: Nutrient and chlorophyll status shadings are based on relative levels compared to similar salinity regions elsewhere in the Bay and its
tributaries. If the nutrient levels were shown as absolute levels, the upper tributaries would have the highest nutrient levels.
-------
336 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
pollution reach levels of concern
only in a few localized areas that
have intensive industrial activity and
high population densities. The
inputs of many of these pollutants
have already been reduced but
additional measures are being stud-
ied to mitigate any possible toxic
impacts.
Many types of contaminants,
including trace metals, organic
Figure 12-11
compounds (such as PAHs and
PCBs), and pesticides (such as DDT,
chlordane, and atrazine), pose a
threat to Bay waters. Most of these
contaminants cling to particles sus-
pended in the water and settle to
the bottom; therefore, their concen-
trations in sediments are typically
much higher than in the water.
Monitoring toxic substances in the
sediment is an efficient method of
Algae and Dissolved Oxygen Status
Chlorophyll
Bush
Gunpowder
Back
Patapsco
Elk Run
i
Bohemia
Sassafras
Eastern Bay
t
Choptank
Potomac
Rappahannock
Bottom Dissolved Oxygen
Elk Run
Bush
Gunpowder
Back
Patapsco
Bohemia
Sassafras
Nanticoke
Wicomico
Pocomoke
Potomac
Rappahannock
James
Status Key
• Severely Impacted James
• Poor
• Stressed
3 Fair
D Good
Pocomoke
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 337
determining contamination levels in
the Bay and identifying areas that
may require further evaluation of
potential contaminant problems.
Living Resource Response
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation -
Submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV), a critical habitat for fish,
crabs, and waterfowl, has increased
75% since 1978 in response to
improving water quality (Figure 12-
12). These increases achieve about
64% of the initial restoration goal.
Survey results for 1994 show a 10%
decrease in the acreage of SAV due
largely to record freshwater flows in
spring that transported increased
nutrient and sediment loads into the
Bay. Additional improvements in
water quality will be needed to
sustain the resurgence in SAV.
The strong link between water
quality and SAV distribution and
abundance makes SAV plant com-
munities good barometers of the
Chesapeake Bay's health. SAV his-
torically covered vast areas of the
Bay's shallow waters and nurtured a
rich variety of Bay life. During the
late 1960s and early 1970s, how-
ever, Bay SAV populations experi-
enced a dramatic decline due to
increased nutrient and sediment
pollution from development within
the watershed.
Significant progress has been
made in defining water quality
requirements for SAV in the Bay.
Those requirements emphasize
good water clarity and low levels of
suspended sediment, nutrients, and
algae. The Chesapeake Executive
Council used this new information
about SAV in 1993 to establish an
SAV restoration goal of 114,000
acres Bay-wide.
Figure ,12-12
Trends in Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Upper Bay
Middle Bay
120,000
GOAL 114,000
78 '84 '85 '86 '87 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93
Year
NOTE: The Chesapeake Executive Council established an SAV restoration goal of 114,000
acres in 1993.
-------
338 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Recent changes in Chesapeake
Bay SAV populations suggest that
most of these populations can
rebound rapidly if water quality
conditions are improved and main-
tained. Some areas may not
become revegetated even after the
return of suitable water quality con-
ditions, however, due to a lack of
SAV propagules either within or
close to these areas.
Biological Communities - Impor-
tant biological communities in the
Bay, such as plankton and benthos,
reveal underlying concerns in the
food web that sustain some of the
more visible Bay species. Zooplank-
ton describes the community of
floating, often microscopic animals
that inhabit aquatic environments.
Zooplankton are the most plentiful
animals in the Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries. The most common
zooplankton are the Crustacea,
which include animals such as crab
and barnacle larvae.
Zooplankton are proving to be
good indicators of water quality
conditions, habitat quality for living
resources, and the effects of toxic
contamination in the Bay. Several
studies have indicated that sufficient
numbers of zooplankton during the
critical life stages of larval striped
bass are vitally important to their
growth and survival. Zooplankton
act as a critical link between water
quality and living resources, and
zooplankton environmental indica-
tors are currently under develop-
ment for use in assessing the health
of the Chesapeake Bay.
Phytoplankton refers to the
community of floating, mostly
microscopic plants or algae that
inhabit aquatic environments. They
are a critical component of the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and
represent the first biological
response to the Bay's nutrient
enrichment problem. Phytoplank-
ton are particularly important to the
Bay ecosystem because they are
primary producers, converting
energy from sunlight into food for
animals such as zooplankton, oys-
ters, and fish. Although phytoplank-
ton form the foundation of the food
chain in the Bay, problems can
occur if this community grows out
of control due to excess nutrients.
"Benthos" describes an inverte-
brate community of organisms that
live on or in the bottom sediments.
This community includes a wide
variety of organisms such as clams,
oysters, and small crustaceans, in
addition to the blood and clam
worms commonly used as bait.
Because most benthic inverte-
brates have limited mobility and
cannot avoid changes in habitat
quality, they are often used as
reliable and sensitive environmental
indicators. Some benthic organisms
are commercially important and all
have important functions in the Bay
ecosystem. They act as nutrient
recyclers and important links in the
Bay's food chain, feeding on micro-
scopic plankton and serving as food
for the bottom-feeding blue crab
and fish such as spot and croaker.
Most of the areas with severely
or moderately degraded benthic
communities are located in deeper
tributary channels and the deep
trench of the Bay and experience
stress from low concentrations of
dissolved oxygen. Sediment concen-
trations of toxic substances appear
to have a secondary, but significant,
influence on benthic community
condition, primarily in industrialized
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 339
areas such as the Elizabeth,
Anacostia, and Patapsco Rivers.
Results indicate that implemen-
tation of the 1972 Clean Water Act
resulted in large reductions in the
quantity of contaminants discharged
through industrial wastewater
outfalls or sent to municipal waste-
water plants and ultimately to
Chesapeake Bay. Generally, con-
taminant concentrations in the sedi-
ment have been substantially
reduced in the past two decades.
Subsequent revisions of the Clean
Water Act and the Clean Air Act
required additional measures to
reduce the discharge of trace metal
and organic contaminants and pre-
vent toxic impacts.
The Chesapeake Bay Program
recently completed evaluating its
toxic substances reduction strategy
to better define the nature, extent,
and magnitude of toxics problems
in the Chesapeake Bay.
Striped Bass - Due to improved
reproduction and better control of
the harvest, striped bass, also
known as rockfish, have made a
remarkable recovery over the past
decade. The increasing numbers of
striped bass (Morone saxatilis) seen
darting through Bay waters are a
tribute to interagency cooperation
in the management of an important
Bay resource. Monitoring data show
that significant progress has been
made in rebuilding the population
from the all-time lows of the 1980s
(Figure 12-13). Striped bass spend
most of their adult life in the ocean,
returning each spring to spawn in
tidal fresh or brackish waters found
along the Atlantic coast, with the
principal spawning and nursery
areas found in the Chesapeake Bay.
The increased abundance of striped
bass is due largely to the implemen-
tation of coastwide fishing
restrictions, including a fishing ban
in Chesapeake Bay, allowing more
fish to reach sexual maturity.
Shad - American shad, which
spawn in the Bay's tributaries, have
suffered population declines over
the past century from overharvest-
ing, dam construction that blocks
migration routes, and habitat degra-
dation. Once one of the most com-
mercially valuable species in the
Chesapeake Bay, American shad
(Alosa sapidissimd) populations have
declined to a shadow of their
former abundance. Historical over-
harvesting and habitat degradation,
combined with stream impediments
blocking miles of spawning and
nursery grounds, have been cited as
the main causes for this reduction.
Due to declining stocks, Mary-
land placed a moratorium on shad
Figure 12-13
Bay wide Striped Bass Juvenile Index
1969
1973
1977 1981
Year
1985
1989 1993
-------
340 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
in 1980, prohibiting the sale,
capture, or possession of shad
caught in Maryland waters of the
Chesapeake Bay. The District of
Columbia also placed a moratorium
on American and hickory shad in
1989 and Virginia imposed a mora-
torium in 1994. None of these man-
agement decisions affect the coastal
"intercept" fishery, which continues
to harvest the species all along the
Atlantic coast, although Maryland
has proposed to end the coastal
fishery in 1995.
In 1989, the Chesapeake Bay
Program established an Alosid Fish-
eries Management Plan to protect,
restore, and enhance Bay-wide
stocks of American shad, hickory
shad, blueback herring, and alewife.
Efforts have focused on habitat res-
toration, restocking, reduction of
fishing effort, and stock assessment
survey improvement. Through these
efforts, managers and researcheis
hope to restore a once valuable
species to its former abundance in
the Bay.
An integral component of the
shad's long-term success is its ability
to return to its upstream spawning
habitat. The removal of blockages
and construction of denil fishways
and fish elevators to create fish pas-
sages has reopened 175 miles of
river to anadromous fish throughout
the Bay watershed. Many new
projects are under way. The Bay
Program has committed to reopen-
ing 582 miles of stream habitat by
1998 and 1,356 miles by 2003.
Blue Crab - The blue crab is cur-
rently the most important commer-
cial and recreational fishery in the
Bay. With increasing fishing pres-
sures and relatively low harvests in
recent years, there is growing
concern for the health of the stocks.
Both Maryland and Virginia have
recently implemented new regula-
tions on commercial and recre-
ational crabbers to protect this
important resource.
With the decline of other spe-
cies in the Bay and the resultant
increase in crab harvesting pressure,
concern about the future of this
great resource is mounting.
A priority for improving man-
agement of the blue crab fishery is
to enhance our understanding of
crab population dynamics. Knowl-
edge of both environmental and
anthropogenic factors contributing
to annual fluctuations in reproduc-
tive success and population levels is
essential for effective fishery man-
agement.
As with other Chesapeake Bay
fisheries, a comprehensive approach
to managing the blue crab is
needed because biological, physical,
economic, and social aspects of the
fishery are shared among the Bay's
jurisdictions. To provide such an
approach, a Bay-wide blue crab
fishery management plan was devel-
oped in 1989 to sustain the ecologi-
cal and economic value of the blue
crab stock. The plan has already
resulted in the implementation of
better fishery practices and more
effective monitoring of the blue
crab stock, as mentioned previously.
A revised plan based on more
accurate data and requiring further
conservation measures will be
completed in 1995.
Oysters - Prospects for the Bay's
oyster population remain poor.
Overharvesting, habitat loss, and
disease have all conspired over the
years to deplete the stocks severely.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 341
New management efforts have been
developed to improve this situation.
Oyster harvesting has been an
integral part of the Bay region's
economic development and cultural
heritage. The filtering capabilities of
the oyster enable it to remove large
quantities of algae and sediment
from the water column, while its
shells provide habitat for a variety of
benthic organisms and fish species.
Some scientists feel that the restora-
tion of this creature is an important
key to improving water quality and
the overall health of the Bay.
In 1989 the Chesapeake Bay
Program established an oyster man-
agement plan with the goal of con-
serving oyster stocks while maintain-
ing a viable fishery. In the latest
effort to restore oyster stocks in
Maryland, 40 representatives includ-
ing watermen, academics, State
officials, environmentalists, and
aquaculturists joined in an Oyster
Roundtable to address the oyster's
dilemma. These discussions led to
the signing of an "action plan" with
several recommendations for aqua-
culture, research, and the designa-
tion of special "recovery areas."
This management plan is the first of
its kind to recognize the ecological
importance of the oyster in addition
to its commercial value.
Waterfowl - The Bay's waterfowl
consist of several species, not all of
which are indigenous. A long-term
decline in the abundance of the
native waterfowl is of great concern.
The necessary corrective action to
reverse this trend is habitat improve-
ment and resurgence of SAV.
Historically, waterfowl were so
abundant they seemed to blanket
areas of the Bay. Today, their
numbers are greatly reduced.
Widespread deterioration of shallow
water habitats and wetlands,
coupled with increasing human
disturbance, have reduced the abil-
ity of many Bay areas to support
waterfowl. Overall, waterfowl are
declining in the Bay, with the larg-
est declines occurring in the Canada
goose population. The black duck
continues its gradual decline, as do
scooters, oldsquaw, and goldeneye.
Merganser, bufflehead, mallard, and
the nonindigenous mute swan
populations are increasing.
Conclusions
The connection between
human activities on land and
Chesapeake Bay degradation is
clear. Overharvesting also contrib-
utes to declines in the Bay's living
resources. While the findings in this
report allow for much optimism,
they also warn that we are far from
declaring victory in our fight to save
the Chesapeake Bay. The results
show that the Chesapeake Bay is an
interconnected system and that
activities on the land and misman-
agement of the resources can set off
a chain of events that ultimately
yields degraded conditions in the
water and loss of living resources.
The results also show that these
conditions, which have resulted
from almost 300 years of abuse, are
reversible.
Overall, the Chesapeake Bay still
shows symptoms related to stress
from an expanding population and
the changes such growth brings
about in land use. However, the
concentrated restoration and man-
agement effort begun 12 years ago
has produced tangible results—a
state of the Chesapeake Bay that is
better today than it was when we
-------
342 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
\
, "i,.'1!;"«; n
started—and promises the future
will be even brighter.
We cannot return the Chesa-
peake Bay to its pristine, or original,
state, nor will we ever have the
uninhabited expanses that our par-
ents and grandparents knew. We
will probably never go back to the
days when we could harvest oysters
by the tens of millions of bushels
nor to the days when we could
catch as many 40-pound rockfish as
our boat could hold. Those days are
gone forever. But, we can have
relatively clean water and large,
protected areas of marsh and shore-
line. We can have viable fish and
bird populations, although never
the "limitless" stocks of fish for all to
harvest. The lessons we learn from
these experiences, and our willing-
ness to act on them, will determine
the state of the Chesapeake Bay
that we leave to future generations.
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,
basinwide approach to environmen-
tal management. A State governor
nominates an estuary in his o>r her
State for participation in the pro-
gram. The State must demonstrate
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.
With the addition of seven estu-
ary programs in July 1995, the NEP
currently supports 28 estuary
projects (Figure 12-14):
• Puget Sound in Washington State
• Columbia River in Oregon and
Washington
• Tillamook Bay in Oregon
•, San Francisco Bay Estuary in
California
• Morro Bay in California
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 343
• Santa Monica Bay in California
• Corpus Christi Bay in Texas
• Galveston Bay in Texas
• Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine
Complex in Louisiana
• Mobile Bay in Alabama
• Tampa Bay in Florida
• Sarasota Bay in Florida
• Charlotte Bay in Florida
• Indian River Lagoon in Florida
• San Juan Bay in Puerto Rico
• Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds in
North Carolina
• Maryland Coastal Bays in
Maryland
• Delaware Inland Bays in Delaware
• Delaware Estuary in New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Delaware
• Barnegat Bay in New Jersey
• New York-New Jersey Harbor
in New York and New Jersey
• Long Island Sound in Connecti-
cut and New York
• Peconic Bay in New York
• Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island
• Buzzards Bay in Massachusetts
• Massachusetts Bay in Massachu-
setts
• New Hampshire Estuaries in New
Hampshire
• Casco Bay in Maine.
These 28 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
estuaries 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 C, Table C-10, lists
physical and economic characteris-
tics of the 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
survey of nutrient enrichment in
estuaries, sponsored jointly by EPA
and NOAA.
Estuarine Problems
Each of the 28 estuaries in the
NEP is unique, yet the estuaries
share common threats and stressors.
Each estuary faces expanding
human activity near its shores that
Figure 12-14
Locations of National Estuary Program Sites
-------
344 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
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 C-11, C-12, and C-13 in
Appendix C list the problems stress-
ing the 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 oxy-
gen.
• The Long Island Sound Study
Management Conference (which
includes representatives from NOAA,
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 dis-
charges from sewage treatment
plants and runoff are the leading
controllable sources of nitrogen
loadings to the estuary.
• The Delaware Inland Bays Man-
agement Conference is focusing on
the Inland Bays' capacity to assimi-
late nutrients. First, the study identi-
fied critical information gaps and
planned research projects to fill the
gaps. Ongoing research projects
target four goals: (1) determine
ground water contributions of nutri-
ents, (2) develop a mass balance
model of nutrient cycling between
ground water and the Inland Bays,
(3) define nutrient transport pro-
cesses in the Inland Bays' basin, and
(4) develop a strategy for using
living resources as indicators of
water quality. The project coordi-
nates public input and research
conducted by Federal, State, aca-
demic, and private scientists in an
attempt to characterize the estuary
and develop a Comprehensive Con-
servation and Management Plan.
Toxic Substances
• Metals in Massachusetts Bay illus-
trate the impact from sewage treat-
ment 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.
• 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.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 345
• 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
concentrations 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
habitats have led to a decline of
valuable species, an increase in
populations of less desirable species,
and a decrease in the diversity of
living resources in estuaries. Land
development in upland areas in-
creases sedimentation in waterways;
construction in wetlands destroys
this valuable filter system and habi-
tat for juvenile fish; bulkheading
interferes with natural plant and
animal shoreline interactions; and
dredge and fill activities create tur-
bid 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
fish species. The State will enter the
results of this research into a data-
base for predicting the effects of
future habitat modifications.
-------
346 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
• 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
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.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 347
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; yet
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
communicated 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
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.
-------
348 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
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 21 st 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.
Nonpoint Source Control
Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act provides funding for some
nonpoint source control projects in
estuarine waters (see Chapter 11 for
a full discussion of the Section 319
Nonpoint Source Program). States
employ both voluntary and regula-
tory controls to encourage imple-
mentation of best management
practices to minimize nonpoint
source pollution generated by agri-
culture, construction, 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.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 349
In January 1993, EPA issued
Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters and
NOAA and EPA jointly issued Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:
Program Development and Approval
Guidance. Please turn to Chapter 15
for additional information about the
Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program.
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
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
blocking fish migrations and elimi-
nating freshwater diversions.
Steps in the Right Direction
The NEP recognizes that it may
take decades to fulfill 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.
The Great Waters
Program
Introduction
Section 112(m) of the 1990
Amendments to the Clean Air Act
directs EPA, in cooperation with
NOAA, to assess the atmospheric
deposition of hazardous air
-------
350 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
pollutants (HAPs) to the Great
Lakes, Lake Champlain (bordering
Vermont and New York), Chesa-
peake Bay, and coastal waters in the
National Estuary Program and the
.National Estuarine Reserve System
(Figure 12-15). The main objective
of this assessment is to provide a
biennial report to Congress on the
issue of atmospheric deposition to
the Great Waters. The essential goal
of the Great Waters Program is to
evaluate whether the problem of
atmospheric deposition to these
aquatic ecosystems is a significant
one, and, if so, what should be
done to prevent adverse effects on
Figure 12-15
Locations of Designated Great Waters
Lake
Superior
Lake
Lake Huron Champlain
Lake
Chesapeake
Bay
+ Great Waters designated by name
• EPA National Estuary Program (NEP) Sites
• NOAA NERRS Designated Sites*
D Existing EPA and NOAA NERRS Designated Sites
D Existing EPA and NOAA NERRS Proposed Sites
'MOM
NERRS
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Estuarine Research Reserve System
human health and the environment.
Specifically, Section 112(m)
requires that EPA establish deposi-
tion monitoring networks in the
Great Waters, as well as conduct
additional study, such as assessing
sources and deposition rates, evalu-
ating adverse effects, research on
monitoring methods, and biotic
sampling. The reports to Congress
address three main issues: (1) the
contribution of atmospheric deposi-
tion to total pollutant loading to the
Great Waters; (2) the adverse effects
on human health and the environ-
ment; and (3) sources of the pollut-
ants. In addition, EPA must deter-
mine whether the other regulatory
programs under Section 112 are
"adequate to prevent serious
adverse effects to public health and
serious or widespread environmental
effects, including those effects
resulting from indirect exposure
pathways." EPA must then promul-
gate such changes under Section
112 that may be necessary to pre-
vent adverse effects and make rec-
ommendations regarding any regu-
latory changes under any other
applicable Federal legislation neces-
sary to ensure protection of human
health and the environment.
Progress Under
Section 112(m)
EPA has made progress imple-
menting the specific monitoring
requirements of Section 112(m). In'
1992, EPA established five master
(regional background) stations to
collect wet and dry toxics deposi-
tion samples at each of the Great
Lakes as part of the Integrated
Atmospheric Deposition Network, a
joint effort between the United
States and Canada. EPA and the
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 351
Chesapeake Bay States began col-
lecting toxics samples at three
stations on the Bay in 1990. EPA is
also involved in mercury deposition
monitoring on Lake Champlain and
interacts with a State-run toxics
deposition program for the Lake.
EPA has implemented many
other activities to expand our
understanding of atmospheric
deposition of HAPs and related risks
to human health and the environ-
ment:
• Conducted an extensive literature
review and supported the develop-
ment of three background docu-
ments leading up to preparation
and release of the first Great Waters
Program Report to Congress in May
1994
• Assessed the 1990 Amendments'
list of 189 HAPs to determine which
HAPs are most likely to be problem-
atic when deposited in aquatic sys-
tems
• Preparing a national screening
level emission inventory for specific
pollutants in Section 112(c)(6), as
well as assisting the Great Lakes
States in developing a comprehen-
sive toxics emission inventory and
database system
• Developing prototype long-range
mercury transport models and indi-
rect mercury exposure models
• Conducting sampling to evaluate
deposition to Galveston Bay and
Tampa Bay with methods that will
cpmplement other Great Waters
work
• Analyzing existing ambient air
metals samples for the Gulf of
Mexico States
• Conducting a scoping level mass-
balance for nitrogen in the Gulf of
Mexico
• Assessing the urban contribution
to atmospheric loading, as well as
evaluating other processes and pa-
rameters through field measure-
ments for use in modeling
• Evaluating chemical exposure and
health effects from consumption of
Great Lakes fish with the Center for
Disease Control's Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR)
• Monitoring air toxics with EPA
Region 5, the Southeast Chicago
initiative, and ATSDR
• Participating in development of a
Lake Michigan Mass Balance for four
high-priority chemicals.
Many of these activities are
performed with cooperating Federal,
State, and local agencies. EPA also
leverages relevant activities per-
formed by other agencies, including
the Lake Michigan Urban Air Toxics
Study, metals and NOX monitoring
in Chesapeake Bay, sample analysis
for the Integrated Atmospheric
Deposition Study, the Great Lakes
regional toxics emission inventory,
and the compilation of available
emissions inventory data on a
national scale.
The Great Waters Report
to Congress
In May of 1994, EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards
submitted the first Great Waters
Program Report to Congress,
Deposition of Air Pollutants to the
-------
352 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Great Waters. This first Report to
Congress summarizes the current
understanding of atmospheric depo-
sition of toxic chemicals to the
Great Waters and identifies key
regulatory and research needs.
EPA and NOAA relied heavily on
participation by independent scien-
tists to help prepare Deposition of Air
Pollutants to the Great Waters. As a
first step, EPA sponsored a literature
search on the topic of atmospheric
deposition of chemicals to surface
waters, identifying more than 1,100
scientific publications. EPA then
convened three committees of lead-
ing independent scientists and
charged them with evaluating and
summarizing the literature in the
three areas identified in Section
• Adverse human health and envi-
ronmental effects of atmospheric
deposition to the Great Waters
• Relative atmospheric loadings to
the Great Waters
• Sources contributing to atmos-
pheric deposition in the Great
Waters.
Each committee prepared a
draft paper that was the topic of
discussion at a workshop sponsored
by EPA in the fall of 1 992. Attend-
ees of the workshop included com-
mittee members, other independent
scientists, EPA scientists, EPA pro-
gram representatives, and represen-
tatives from groups such as NOAA,
State agencies, industry, and envi-
ronmental groups. Following the
workshop, the committees prepared
final background documents that
became the foundation for the
Report to Congress. The contents of
the Report to Congress are summa-
rized below.
Exposure and Effects of
Atmospheric Deposition
Over the past three decades,
scientists have collected a large and
convincing body of evidence show-
ing that toxic chemicals released to
air can travel long distances and be
deposited on land or water at loca-
tions far from their original sources.
Perhaps most notably, it appears
that PCBs and some other pollut-
ants that are persistent in the envi-
ronment (including several pesti-
cides that have not been used in
significant amounts in the United
States since the 1970s) have
become widely distributed in the
environment. These toxic chemicals
remain in our environment and
continue to cycle between air,
water, soil, and biota (living organ-
isms) even after their manufacture,
use, or release has stopped. Their
persistence increases the potential
for exposure to these toxic chemi-
cals.
Pollutants of concern (see
sidebar) also accumulate in body
tissues and magnify up the food
web, with each level accumulating
the toxics from its diet and passing
the burden along to the animal in
the next level of the food web. Top
consumers in the food web, usually
consumers of large fish, may accu-
mulate chemical concentrations
many millions of times greater than
the concentrations present in the
water. Fish consumption advisories
have been issued in hundreds of
waterbodies nationwide, including
the Great Lakes, as a result of unsafe
concentrations of chemicals in fish
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 353
due to biomagnification (see Chap-
ter 7 for more information about
fish consumption advisories).
Significant adverse effects on
human health and wildlife have
been observed due to exposure
(especially through fish consump-
tion) to persistent pollutants that
bioaccumulate. Adverse effects
range from immune system disease
and reproductive problems in wild-
life to subtle developmental and
neurological impacts on children
and fetuses. Although most of the
chemicals of concern are probable
human carcinogens, many are also
developmental toxicants capable of
altering the formation and function
of critical body systems and organs.
Therefore, developing embryos,
fetuses, and breast-fed infants are
particularly sensitive to these chemi-
cals through exposure of the
mother.
Ecological effects attributable to
pollutants of concern are significant
and can be subtle or delayed in
onset, such as immune function
Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern
Potential Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern
Aldrin
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Chlordane
4,4-DDD; p,p-DDD; 4,4-TDE; p,p-TDE
4,4-DDE; p,p-DDE
4,4-DDT; p,p-DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene; hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane; BHC
a-Hexachlorocydohexane; «-BHC
b-HexachlorocycIohexane; [3-BHC
d-Hexachlorocyc!ohexane; 8-BHC
Lindane; y-BHC; y-hexachlorocyclohexane
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Mirex; dechlorane
Octachlorostyrene
PCBs; polychlorinated biphenyls
Pentachlorobenzene
Photbmirex
2,3,7,8-TCDD; dioxin
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Toxaphene
Benzo[o]pyrene; 3,4-benzopyrene
3,4-Benzofluoranthene; benzo[b]fluoranthene
11,12-Benzofluoranthene; benzo[#jfluoranthene
1,12-Benzoperylene; benzofpft/Jperylene
4-ChIorophenyl phenyl ether
1,2:5,6-Dibenzanthracene; dibenzfoftjanthracene
Dibutyl phthalate; di-n-butyl phthalate
lndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene; 2,3-o-phenylene pyrene
Phenol
Toluene; methylbenzene
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed water qualify guidance for the Great Lakes system: Proposed rule and correction Federal
Register 58:20802-21047, April 16, 1993.
-------
354 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
impairment, reproductive problems,
or neurological changes—all of
which can affect population sur-
vival. Other adverse ecological ef-
fects are caused by nitrogen com-
pounds. Atmospheric sources of
nitrogen exacerbate nutrient enrich-
ment (or eutrophication) of coastal
waterbodies, which results in
impacts that range from nuisance
algal blooms to the depletion of
oxygen and resultant fish kills.
Relative Pollutant Loadings
from Atmospheric
Deposition
Studies show that significant
portions of loadings to the Great
Waters of the pollutants of concern
are coming from the atmosphere.
For example, 76% to 89% of the
loadings of PCBs to Lake Superior
and up to 40% of the loadings of
nitrogen into the Chesapeake Bay
are estimated to come from air
pollution. However, insufficient data
are available to quantify the overall
relative atmospheric loadings for all
of the HAPs entering all of the
Great Waters. Therefore, relative
loadings estimates are, and will
continue to be, chemical-specific
and waterbody-specific. The abso-
lute quantity of atmospheric load-
ings also warrants attention because
even small loadings of pollutants
that bioaccumulate can result in
significant pollutant burdens in fish
and, ultimately, in humans.
Sources of Atmospheric
Pollutant Loadings
Pollutants of concern in the
Great Waters originate from both
local and distant sources. Many
sources of atmospheric pollutants
that enter the Great Waters have
been identified, including waste
incinerators at industrial and munici-
pal facilities, power plants, petro-
leum refineries, motor vehicles, vari-
ous manufacturing processes, and
residential combustion of fossil fuels.
However, determining the particular
sources responsible for deposited
pollutants is quite difficult because a
combination of sources generate the
atmospheric loadings entering any
particular waterbody, and transport
distances vary depending on the
characteristics of the chemicals,
emissions, and weather conditions.
Additional data are needed to iden-
tify and characterize the specific
sources responsible for pollutants
that are deposited to the Great
Waters.
Recommendations and
Actions
EPA considered the implications
of action and inaction, while also
recognizing that Section 112(m)
mandates that EPA should act to
"prevent" adverse effects and to
"assure protection of human health
and the environment." EPA recom-
mends that reasonable actions are
justified by the available scientific
information and should be imple-
mented now while research contin-
ues. Although there are significant
uncertainties in the available infor-
mation, there is enough convincing
evidence to prompt action. Adverse
effects of the chemicals of concern
are evident and studies of selected
waters show that significant propor-
tions of toxic pollution come from
the atmosphere. EPA believes that
the characteristics of toxicity, persis-
tence, and tendency to bioaccumu-
late warrant special treatment of the
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 355
Great Waters pollutants of concern.
However, the actions recommended
by EPA focus on chemicals of con-
cern rather than specific sources
because the linkage between spe-
cific sources and subsequent deposi-
tion and effects has yet to be dem-
onstrated. NOAA concurs with the
principles of this policy.
EPA's recommendations for
action fall into three strategic
themes. First, EPA will continue
ongoing efforts to implement Sec-
tion 112 and other sections of the
Clean Air Act and use the results of
the Report to Congress in the devel-
opment of policy that will reduce
emissions of Great Waters pollutants
of concern. Under this theme, EPA
will take actions that include: pub-
lishing emission standards affecting
important chemicals of concern
ahead of schedule, where possible;
evaluating the adequacy of control
technologies for important pollut-
ants; publishing an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for
establishment of lesser-quantity
emission rates (LQERs) to define
smaller sources to be regulated as
major sources and evaluating which
Great Waters pollutants warrant
establishment of an LQER; evaluat-
ing which area sources should be
regulated with maximum achievable
control technology (MACT); and
considering appropriate emission
levels requiring regulation when
sources are modified.
Second, EPA recognizes the
need for an integrated multimedia
approach to the problems of the
Great Waters and, therefore, will
utilize authorities beyond the Clean
Air Act to reduce human and envi-
ronmental exposure to pollutants of
concern. Under this theme, EPA will
take actions that include using the
Great Waters Core Project Manage-
ment Group as a coordinating body
to communicate with other offices
and agencies. The objectives will be
to coordinate work and especially to
identify lead offices to implement
recommendations; support changes
to the Clean Water Act that address
nonwaterborne sources of water
pollution; address the exportation of
banned pesticides; emphasize pollu-
tion prevention efforts to reduce
environmental loadings of pollutants
of concern; and facilitate informa-
tion sharing between EPA and other
agencies.
Third, EPA will continue to
support research activities and will
develop and implement a program
strategy to define further necessary
research. Under this theme, EPA will
take actions that include focusing
research planning on a mass-
balance approach to determine
relative loadings; using an appropri-
ate mix of monitoring, modeling,
and emission inventory tasks in con-
ducting mass-balance work; assess-
ing the need for tools to be devel- -
oped for risk assessment for total
exposure to pollutants of concern
and for regulatory benefits assess-
ment; and continuing to support
ongoing research efforts.
Copies of the first Great Waters
Program Report to Congress,
Deposition of Air Pollutants to the
Great Waters, can be obtained,
as supplies permit, from the
Library Services Offices (MD-
35), U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, or,
for a nominal fee, from the
National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia
22161, phone: 1-800-553-NTIS
or 703-487-4650. The NTIS
number for the Report to Con-
gress is PB94-203 320. The
following technical support
documents may also be ob-
tained from NTIS: the Effects
Support Document (PB95-166
997), the Relative Loading Sup-
port "Document (PB95-166
963), and the Sources Support
Document (PB95-155 040),
-------
3S6 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
nil 111 111!
P'nrTj 1 J'll'1,'1 '
HT HIGHLIGHT
Waters of the Ohio River
and Tennessee River Basin
A Vital Natural Resource
'!;.•; yt Tini*; iii^^
j!":f • .Mini,: in!£',:"; : ;ii' *• I ^ivilnLW livlliiliiiiiillli1:
ji,"!,: ",'„:::„
|j i ; • , i, v: v '«.'i i i||i'i'iiii lliilllF'illliMillilllll
About This Highlight...
You may notice that this highlight is a little different from the rest of this
report. It covers an entire river basin rather than a single State, it summarizes
information on use support by hydrologic unit, and the style and format are
(hopefully) easier for general audiences to understand.
These features are the result of recommendations on how to improve com-
munication of environmental information to the public that were developed by
the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring, a group working to improve
water quality monitoring nationwide. The chapter also incorporates similar sug-
gestions from an EPA working group. If these changes are well received, we will
incorporate them more extensively in the next National Water Quality Inventory
and in other related publications.
From trout streams in the moun-
tains of western Pennsylvania to
industrial ports along the Ohio and
Tennessee Rivers, waters of the Ohio
River and Tennessee River basin play a
vital role in the economy and quality of
life in a part of the United States
roughly the size of France. Covering
parts of 14 States, the Ohio and Ten-
nessee River basin provides a place to
live and work for over 26 million
people.
Water Uses
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville,
Columbus, Indianapolis, Chattanooga,
Nashville, and hundreds of other towns
depend on the basin's rivers to provide
water for their residents and industries.
Shippers rely on the nearly 2,600 miles
of navigable waterways for reliable,
cost-effective transportation of raw
materials and other commodities.
Power plants in the Ohio and Ten-
nessee River basin produce about 10%
of the Nation's electricity and are
strategically located along waterways so
they will have adequate supplies of
cooling water for operation. Farmers
irrigate their crops with water from
these streams and lakes to help feed
their families and the Nation.
Boaters, skiers, swimmers, anglers,
kayakers, and other water sports
enthusiasts use the basin's many lakes
and streams to satisfy their recreational
interests, pumping millions of dollars
into local economies. And the thou-
sands of species of fish, mussels, insects,
birds, and other wildlife that spend at
least part of their lives in the basin's
lakes and streams are the food web that
supports recreational and commercial
fishing, waterfowl hunting, and many
other commercial enterprises.
Water Use Designation
and Criteria
To help ensure that the Ohio and
Tennessee River basin's waters are clean
enough to support these varied uses,
each State specifies the uses each of the
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 357
HIGHLiGH,
waters in its borders should support. For
each designated use, the States and EPA
have developed a set of water quality
criteria that the waterbodies must meet.
These criteria include limits on
chemical contaminants, and many
States now include standards for the
integrity of aquatic biological communi-
ties, particularly for those waters classi-
fied for supporting aquatic life uses.
How Clean Are the Waters
of the Ohio River and
Tennessee River Basin?
Good News for Aquatic Life
About 75% of the streams and river
miles surveyed in the Ohio and Tennes-
see River basin fully support aquatic life
uses, and another 15% partially support
those uses. For 5% of the fully support-
ing category, there is some threat to
that status. Only 10% of surveyed
stream miles are judged as not support-
ing aquatic life uses, based on evalua-
tion guidelines recommended by EPA.
... And for Recreation
For water contact recreation such
as swimming, wading, and skiing, 78%
of surveyed miles fully support those
uses, with about 5% of that category
also threatened. For 14% of the sur-
veyed miles, water quality is not good
enough to support contact recreation.
How About Drinking Water?
Only about 2% of the basin's
waters were evaluated for their suitabil-
ity as sources of drinking water supplies.
Most of the surveyed reaches (78%)
fully support this use, with that support
threatened for about 5%. For only 7%
is water quality so poor that, based on
EPA guidelines, they do not support this
use.
What's the Big Picture
for the Ohio River and
Tennessee River Basin?
Although it's reassuring that most
of the streams surveyed in the Ohio and
Tennessee River basin fully support a
variety of uses, most of us want to
know how our area compares with
others, and whether any of the problem
streams are nearby.
Figure 1 summarizes information
on aquatic life use support for the
whole Ohio and Tennessee River basin.
Each area in the map represents land
that drains into one moderate-sized
stream or stream segment. Each area is
shaded with one of five patterns based
on the relative amount of stream miles
that fully support aquatic life uses versus
the amount that does not support
aquatic life uses, according to EPA
guidance.
HT HIGHLIGHT
I I Best Water Quality
Worst Water Quality
Figure 1. Aquatic life use support: Ohio River
and Tennessee River subbasins.
J—rwi^'-H-
-------
358 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
HIGHLIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
fli
•riff;
!'!"*'i
isii
""i"111!1!1!:!:1*1
;1 ' f:":j'i"!l"
The map points out some
important facts about comparing
information across broad areas. How
well you can evaluate use support
throughout a large basin depends on
the availability of enough of the right
information and on States using compa-
rable assessment techniques and inter-
pretations. For example, there is a dis-
tinct boundary along the Ohio-Indiana
border between relatively good condi-
tions for aquatic life use support in
Indiana and relatively poor conditions in
Ohio. In reality, there probably isn't
much difference in stream quality, but
Ohio has much more information >avail-
able, and depends heavily on biological
data to evaluate aquatic life use sup-
port. Similar use support boundaries are
apparent along several other State lines
in this map.
Other
25%
Siltation
25%
Pathogens
3%
Altered Habitat
4%
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
14%
Nutrients
Metals
13%
Figure 2. Pollutants and processes impairing aquatic life
use in the Ohio River and Tennessee Rivpr Basin.
What Are the Main
Pollutants? And Where Do
They Come From?
Pollutants
As Figure 2 illustrates, Ohio and
Tennessee River basin States report that
siltation impairs aquatic life in more
stream miles than any other pollutant.
Organic enrichment, such as inade-
quately treated wastes, runoff from
confined animal production operations,
and some types of industrial wastes, is
the second largest category of pollutant
impairing aquatic life uses.
The States report that bacterial
contamination is the main reason some
streams are not suitable for swimming
and other contact recreation uses. Only
two States reported on causes of non-
support for drinking water supply uses,
citing pesticides and other toxic organic
chemicals as the main problem.
The most common contaminants
that cause Sates to issue advisories
about limiting or avoiding consumption
of certain fish are PCBs, chlordane, and
mercury.
Sources
Mining and other types of resource
extraction, including petroleum extrac-
tion and processing, are the most com-
mon source of pollutants in the Ohio
and Tennessee River basin (see Figure
3). Without proper controls, these types
of activities are sources of siltation,
acidity, and metals contamination of
streams.
Agricultural sources are the second
largest source category, contributing
silt, nutrients, bacteria, and organic
enrichment to streams. Within this
category, cropland and pastureland are
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 359
: - - f > ty'i&gsi ,-..*,?*
*' I, • • ~ ''^^i:l^^^7^^.- :
.^^ymm
f, HIGHUGHflTHI)
the largest sources, followed by animal responsibility for how their actions affect
holding and management areas and water quality. All of us — farmers,
feedlots. homeowners, contractors, students,
motorists — have to recognize our contri-
But Isn't Sewaae butions to the problem and change the
n -i i c. * H *. way we do things!
Responsible for Most '
Pollution?
The third largest category of pollut-
ant sources is all types of urban activi-
ties. Together, urban runoff and waste-
water treatment plant discharges
account for almost as many impaired
stream miles as do agricultural sources.
So, What's the
Bottom Line?
The most important message from
this summary of conditions throughout
the Ohio and Tennessee River basin is
•A**-. '^^^€
; •
~-~
"
^^ _ j
GHT HIGHLIGHT \
__ _^_^>MWSt— j
;
-.
_~ ~z.^~ - _ ;
Where Did the Data Come From?
How Complete Are They?
The information in this chapter is based on assessments
reported by j
the 14 Ohio River and Tennessee River basin States. Of the basin's 255,000 i
miles of streams, they
collectively reported on 83,000 miles (33%) for
aquatic life use support, 44,000 miles (17%) for contact recreation, and <
6,200 miles (2%) for drinking water. No information on lakes, wetlands, or ".,
ground water is included in this highlight, simply because it wasn't practi- ~- i
cal to try to evaluate that information for the whole Ohio and Tennessee
River basin with the time and resources available. i
that our Nation's water pollution con-
trol programs are working. Most of the
region's streams are suitable for people
to use for fishing, swimming, and
obtaining water to be treated and
distributed to their homes.
In addition, the basin's streams and
rivers support a productive economy,
providing habitat for fish, cooling and
process waters for industries, navigation
for raw materials, and a place for the
public to recreate.
Perhaps the second most important
message is that the work of protecting
and improving water quality is never
done, and it is everyone's business. As
control of wastewater discharges
improves, runoff from city streets, home
lawns, pastures and croplands, and
other land disturbances become a
bigger part of the equation.
But these "nonpoint" sources are
much more difficult to control. Effective
reduction of pollution from these
sources requires individuals to accept
Other Sources
13% ^—r-
^^i^^HHi
-jlftJJTESiiiSStH;™
Land
6% ^^•JBSiSiliSf-:
Industrial Point
Sources
7%
Construction
8%
^^^•n
^^•^•HHI^/ 1
^Bm^^^/ •
W^
\ AaamtM
1
— —»^^
^\. Resource Extraction
X 22%
\
J
SB&iiJ
I^^BHBBv
^^•HHBBr Agriculture
^BHHr 18%
Hydrologic and Habitat \. JsilSp^^^^^B^
Modifications ^tBliSB^^^
8%
^+^i^&ar&«3t.j -^m
Urban Runoff
and Storm Sewers
OO/i
u /u
^^^
Municipal Point
Sources
10%
Figure 3. Sources of pollutants and processes impairing
aquatic life use in the Ohio River and Tennessee River Basin.
1 """A v, . « Vt !»f^««S&»^s*«**ti«H *f ",,i7 *•
25^~-
-------
-------
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, Tribal,
State, and local agencies and pri-
vate sector organizations currently
collect water quality information for
a wide range of purposes that can
generally be divided into five
categories: (1) status and trends,
(2) detection of existing and emerg-
ing problems and setting priorities
among them, (3) designing and
implementing programs, (4) evalu-
ating program or project success,
and (5) emergency response moni- .
toring.
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,
interstate, State, local, and Tribal
agencies, as well as public, private,
and volunteer organizations. A
recent study undertaken by the
Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring 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, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Forest Service, the Bureau of Recla-
mation, the National Park Service,
EPA, National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, the Tennes-
see Valley Authority, the Bonneville
Power Administration, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
and various other organizations
within the Departments of Agricul-
ture (USDA), Energy, Defense
(DOE), 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
project scales, usually for limited
periods of time.
Results from Federal monitoring
programs have provided important
information at the national and
In addition to monitor-
ing performed by
States, Tribes, and
Territories,
18 FEDERAL
AGENCIES
conduct 141 monitoring
programs across the
country.
-------
362 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
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 com-
pounds has occurred at many loca-
tions in our rivers, estuaries, and
near-coastal areas. And data from
EPA monitoring indicate substantial
improvement in the phosphorous
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 regula-
tory programs. A growing number
of Tribes are also monitoring their
water resources. Contributing to the
picture are the monitoring pro-
grams run by industrial and munici-
pal dischargers, by private groups,
and by volunteer monitoring organi-
zations.
This wealth of information from
individual agencies, however, can-
not be easily aggregated to provide
an overview of national water qual-
ity conditions because of inconsis-
tencies among the various agencies
in monitoring purpose and design
as well as data collection methods
and assessment procedures. In addi-
tion, 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 Water 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.
Intergovernmental
Task Force on
Monitoring Water
Quality
In January of 1992, representa-
tives from EPA, USGS, NOAA, FWS,
COE, USDA, DOE, Office of Man-
agement and Budget (OMB), and
seven State agencies and one
interstate agency formed a 3-year
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 363
Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) to
prepare a strategy for improving
water quality monitoring nation-
wide. The Tennessee Valley Author-
ity, National Park Service, one State,
and one American Indian Tribe,
have since been added. The ITFM is
part of the implementation of OMB
memorandum 92-01 to strengthen
coordination of water information
across the country. The USGS has
lead responsibility for this under its
Water Information Coordination
Program.
The ITFM is chaired by the U.S.
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 six task
groups:
• Institutional Framework
• Environmental Indicators
• Methods
• Data Management Sharing
• Assessment and Reporting
• 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
and Tribal water quality standards.
Monitoring activities include
gathering data on physical, chemi-
cal/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 pre-.
sentation of water quality data and
to improve the availability of exist-
ing information for dedsionmaking
at all levels of government. To
accomplish this, the ITFM has
recommended and will facilitate
implementation of an integrated
nationwide voluntary strategy that
will meet the nationwide objectives
of various monitoring programs,
make more efficient use of available
resources, distribute information
more effectively, and provide com-
parable data and consistent report-
ing of water quality status and
trends.
A permanent National Monitor-
ing Council will provide guidelines
and support for comparable field
and laboratory methods, quality
assurance/quality control, environ-
mental indicators, data manage-
ment 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 and its successor, the
National Monitoring Council, are
also producing products that can be
used by monitoring 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 and
Tribal designated uses.
-------
364 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
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 indica-
tors, 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
Waters, 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
concern 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
regulatory decisions on acidic
deposition. The areas of investiga-
tion addressed by NAPAP Task
Groups are Emissions and Controls,
Atmospheric Processes, Atmospheric
Transport and Modeling, Atmos-
pheric Deposition and Air Quality
Monitoring, Terrestrial Effects,
Aquatic Effects, and Effects on Mate-
rials and Cultural Resources. NAPAP
has also developed Assessment
Work Groups in the areas of Atmo-
spheric Visibility, 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
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,
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 365
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. Army Corps of Engineers
Water Resource Monitoring
The COE routinely monitors physical
and chemical water quality param-
eters at most of its 541 reservoir
projects. The Corps monitors to aid
in day-to-day operational decision-
making, determine status and
trends, identify and solve problems,
evaluate project performance, and
respond to emergencies. In addi-
tion, the Corps collects and evalu-
ates water quality data for its haz-
ardous and toxic waste site cleanup
program, for special studies such as
the Chesapeake Bay Program, and
for many other Corps mission
responsibilities. Many of these
project data sets are temporary and
spatially quite extensive, often cov-
ering much of a project's watershed
and tailwater. There has been a
gradual trend toward increasing
biological monitoring to evaluate
project performance. All data are
maintained at local Corps offices.
• 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.
-------
366 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
I Hi
in iiiiiiiiiii
I !
I i
The National
Biological Service
Secretary of the Interior, Bruce
Babbitt, proposed the creation
of an independent, non-
adwcacy biological science
bureau within the Department
of the Interior. TlreNational
Biological Service (NBSJpfo~-
vides infonnationandtechm-
cal assistance. Tfie NBS W«5
created by incorporating
elements from eight bureaus
within the Department The
NBS has tiiree major fimctions:
• biological and ecological
research
: ,',
• iinvntory and monitoring
of the Nation's biological
resources
m information transfer
activities.
77w? MBS became operational
on November 11, 1993.
• 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-
mary information in a timely man-
ner to decisionmakers and the
public. The BEST Program has two
major components: FWS lands and
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.
B 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, 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, National
Estuarine Research Reserves
The National Estuarine Research
Reserve System was created to
protect representative areas of the
estuarine environment and to
provide a system of protected sites
for long-term monitoring and
research. It is a State-Federal part-
nership 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 Secre-
tary of Commerce. Since 1972,
NOAA has kept this partnership,
and the evolving statutory mission
of the program, by providing
resources and guidance to the
States, by developing national pro-
grams, and by shaping the legisla-
tion into an operating program.
Twenty-one reserves have been
designated including sites in Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, the Great Lakes, the
Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Coast,
and the West Coast.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 367
• Tennessee Valley Authority,
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
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
Mandated by the Resource Conser-
vation Act (RCA) of 1977, the USDA
is "to provide for furthering the
conservation, protection, and
enhancement of the Nation's soil,
water, and related resources for
sustained use." In recognition of the
importance of, and need for,
obtaining and maintaining informa-
tion 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
pollution including waterborne dis-
ease outbreaks; and (4) a listing of
programs established to preserve,
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.
-------
368 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
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 indicators to accurately
characterize the health of national
water resources and measure how
well the waters meet their desig-
nated uses. This effort has identified
data sources to track the indicators.
Future indicator development
activities include developing compa-
rable monitoring and reporting
mechanisms by working with other
agencies and national trends pro-
grams, 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
programs, including monitoring
activities. EPA, working with States
and the ITFM, has developed an
outline for a recommended moni-
toring program. A comprehensive
monitoring program would include
both ambient monitoring and moni-
toring to determine the effectiveness
of individual projects and individual
programs designed to protect
waterbodies or control sources of
pollution. Recommended elements
of a monitoring program include
monitoring program objectives; a
monitoring design description; writ-
ten protocols that are comparable
with others; analytical laboratory
support; quality assurance and qual-
ity control procedures; data storage,
management, and sharing; water
resource assessment and reporting;
training; and integration of work
with partners, including volunteer
monitoring groups.
305(b) Consistency
Workgroup
The 305(b) Consistency Work-
group, convened in 1990, was
expanded in 1992 and 1994 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
representatives of 23 States, 3
Tribes, 1 Territory, 1 Interstate Com-
mission, 6 Federal agencies, the 10
EPA Regions, and EPA Headquarters.
This standing workgroup, which will
develop future 305(b) guidance,
makes recommendations to improve
each iteration of guidance to the
States. Recent recommendations
have included refining total State
waters estimates and providing
more detailed guidance for aquatic
life use support assessments, includ-
ing appropriate methods for using
biological data along with physical
and chemical data.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 369
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 (4503F), 401 M St.
SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Biological Monitoring
The Biological Criteria
Program
Priorities established since 1987
(initiated jointly by the States and
EPA) encourage the States to first
develop, and then adopt as appro-
priate, narrative and quantitative
biological criteria (biocriteria) into
their water quality standards and
assessment programs. This success-
ful approach has resulted in about
30 States developing quantitative
biocriteria, including three States
that formally adopted quantitative
biocriteria into their water quality
standards. For the status of specific
State programs, please refer to
Appendix G.
To support this priority, the
Agency has provided guidance for
development and implementation
of biocriteria (see sidebar). Several
future guidance documents will
provide additional technical infor-
mation to facilitate activities directed
toward that implementation. When
fully implemented, biocriteria will
expand and improve water quality
standards programs, help to quan-
tify impairment of beneficial uses,
and aid States and Tribes in setting
program priorities. These criteria will
be useful because they provide for
EPA Publications About Developing and
Implementing Biocriteria
USEPA. 1993. EPA Region 10 In-Stream Biological Monitoring Handbook (for
Wadeable Streams in the Pacific Northwest). G,A. Hayslip (ed.). EPA-910-9-92-
013. Region 10, Environmental Services Division, Seattle, Washington.
USEPA. 1992. Procedures for Initiating Narrative Biological Criteria. EPA 822-B-
92-002. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Biological Criteria: State Development and Implementation Efforts.
EPA-440-5-91 -003. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Biological Criteria: Guide to Technical Literature. EPA-440-5-91 -
004. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation. Proceedings of a
Symposium, EPA-440-5-91-005. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the
Water Quality Program, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control. EPA 505-2-90-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC,
USEPA. 1990. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters.
EPA 440-5-90-004, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington,
DC. |
USEPA. 1990. Proceedings of the 1990 Midwest Pollution Control Biologists
Meeting. W.S. Davis (ed.). EPA-909-9-90-005. Region 5, Environmental
Sciences Division, Chicago, Illinois.
USEPA. 1987. Report to the National Workshop on Instream Biological Monitor-
ing and Criteria. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Instream Biologi-
cal Criteria Committee, Region 5, and Environmental Research Laboratory-
Corvallis, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1987. Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change. Office of
Water and Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, DC.
-------
370 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
direct measurement of the condition
of the living resource at risk, detect
problems that other methods may
miss or underestimate, and provide
a systematic 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.
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 or condi-
tion. On the basis of this compari-
son, a water resource quality assess-
ment can be made. EPA has pro-
vided technical support and training
to States to encourage the imple-
mentation of the RBPs and biologi-
cal criteria. Currently, over 30 States
have active RBP-based water
resource monitoring programs for
streams, another three are under
development, and three States go
beyond the guidelines. Updated RBP
guidance is being developed to aid
States in adapting the original pro-
tocol framework to go beyond a
single reference site approach to
including ecbregional reference
conditions that fit a variety of eco-
logical regions. Over 30 States
either have, Or are developing,
ecoregional reference conditions.
Modified RBPs are also being pre-
pared for other water resource types
including lakes/reservoirs and estuar-
ies. Work is also under way to evalu-
ate the effectiveness of RBPs for
assessing combined sewer over-
flows. In addition, a generic quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
guidance will be available in the Fall
of 1995. For a copy, please contact
the EPA Monitoring Branch at 202-
260-7046.
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.
Fish Advisory Guidance
and Databases
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 national guid-
ance documents. This guidance,
developed in cooperation with
States, Tribes, and others, is pre-
sented in a four-volume set of docu-
ments titled Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant Data for Use
in Fish Advisories, Volume I: Fish Sam-
pling and Analysis (September
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 371
1993); Volume II: Risk Assessment
and Fish Consumption Limits (June
1994); Volume III: Risk Management
(FY95); and Volume IV: Risk Commu-
nication (FY95).
In addition to this guidance,
OST has developed two databases,
one for States to report fish advisory
information and another that con-
tains 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 annu-
ally and can be obtained by con-
tacting the EPA Fish Contaminants
Section at the following address or
by calling (202) 260-1305:
Fish Advisory Database
Coordinator
U.S. EPA (4305)
Office of Science and
Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
OST established the National
Fish Tissue Data Repository (NFTDR)
to (1) simplify data exchange by
improving the comparability and
integrity of fish tissue data;
(2) encourage greater regional and
interstate cooperation; and (3) assist
States and Tribes in their data col-
lection efforts by providing ongoing
technical assistance. Currently, the
NFTDR is part of EPA's Ocean Dis-
charge Evaluation System (ODES)
Database and there is relatively little
fish tissue data in the NFTDR. To
make the NFTDR more accessible,
EPA intends to modify the NFTDR
and incorporate it as a major proto-
type during the modernization
(Phase III) of EPA's STORET
(STOrage and RETrieval) Database
(see page 374 for more information
about STORET and ODES). The use
of real fish tissue data during proto-
type development should help EPA
identify needed data fields and test
the data structure.
During 1996, EPA intends to
completely convert the NFTDR to a
STORET-based fish tissue database.
The primary benefit of including the
NFTDR as a subset of STORET is
that one "platform" will be able to
store both water quality data and
biological data, such as fish tissue
information. Existing data sets
would be able to easily migrate to
the new STORET system when it is
completed in 1997. Additional infor-
mation may be obtained by writing
to the following address:
NFTDR
U.S. EPA (4305)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
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.
For further information about
databases and information
systems, see the Office of
Water Environmental and
Program Information Systems
Compendium available from
the EPA Office of Water at
(202) 260-5684.
-------
372 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
Kings Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA
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.
Nonpoint Source
National Monitoring
Program
EPA developed the Section 319
National Monitoring Program to
improve our understanding of
nonpoint source (NPS) pollution
and to scientifically evaluate the
effectiveness of NPS pollution con-
trol activities. Under this program,
EPA's Regional Offices nominate
projects by forwarding State propos-
als to EPA Headquarters for review
and concurrence. Projects are
selected on a competitive basis from
within each of the EPA Regions. EPA
works with project sponsors to de-
velop approvable 6- to 10-year
projects. The project sponsors then
work through the State/EPA Section
319 process to obtain approval
and funding. As of June 1995,
11 projects have been approved.
More information about the Section
319 National Monitoring Program is
provided in Chapter 15.
Wetlands Monitoring
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 15 for
further information about EPA and
State wetlands monitoring and
protection 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
EPA's Office of Water encour-
ages all citizens to learn about their
water resources and supports volun-
teer monitoring because of its many
benefits. Volunteer monitors
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 373
• build awareness of pollution
problems
• become trained in pollution
prevention
• help clean up problem sites
• provide data for waters that may
otherwise be unassessed, with
accompanying data on the methods
used to collect the data
• increase the amount of water
quality information available to
decisionmakers at all levels of
government.
Among the uses of volunteer
data are delineating and characteriz-
ing watersheds, screening for water
quality problems, and measuring
baseline conditions and trends.
EPA supports volunteer monitor-
ing by providing technical guidance
and forums for exchanging volun-
teer information. For example, EPA
sponsors biennial national confer-
ences that bring together volunteer
organizers, State and local agencies,
environmental groups, school
groups, and the business sector. EPA
also maintains an electronic bulletin
board forum for volunteer monitors,
distributes a national newsletter for
volunteers, and maintains a direc-
tory of volunteer monitoring pro-
grams across the Nation. EPA has
released guidance for planning and
implementing volunteer monitoring
programs as well as guidance cover-
ing volunteer monitoring methods.
Many of EPA's 10 Regional
Offices are actively involved in vol-
unteer monitoring. Their support
activities include providing technical
assistance related to quality assur-
ance and quality control, serving as
contacts for volunteer programs in
the Region, managing grants to
State agencies that include provi-
sions for volunteer water monitoring
and public participation, and
providing information exchange
EPA Volunteer Monitoring Materials
EPA's Volunteer Monitoring Program. EPA-841F-95-001. February 1995. Con-
tains a general description of EPA activities to promote volunteer monitoring.
Volunteer Monitoring. EPA-800-F-93-008.: September 1993. A brief fact sheet
about volunteer monitoring, including examples of how volunteers have
improvedI the environment. ;
Starting Out in Volunteer Water Mon/toring. EPA-841-B-92-002. August1992.
A brief fact sheet about how to: become involved in volunteer monitoring.
National Directory of Citizen Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs,
Fourth Edition. EPA-841 -B-94-001 .January 1994. Contains information about
519 volunteer monitoring programs across the Nation.
Proceedings of the Fourth National Citizen's Volunteer Water Monitoring Confer-
ence. EPA-841 -R-94-003. February 1995. Presents proceedings from the fourth
national conference held in Portland, Oregon, in 1994.
Proceedings of the Third National Citizen's Volunteer Water Moniton'ng Confer-
ence. EPA-841 /R-92-004; September 1992. Presents proceedings from the
third national conference held in Annapolis, Maryland, in 1992. ',.' .
Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA-841-D-95-Q01. 1995.
Presents information and methods for volunteer monitoring of streams.
Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA-842-B-9 3-004. Decem-
ber 1993. Presents information and methods for volunteer monitoring of
estuarine waters.
Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA-440/4-91 -002. December
1991 .Discusses lake water quality issues and methods for volunteer monitor-
ing of lakes. '•.. . :.. ••.'.••:'• ..•:'•'•' ....'•••:„ .'•••'•• '. .'.-. ~': ': •"•.' •. . • ;; •"' ;•"...• . '•'••.- •
Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers, EPA-440/4-90-010.
August 1990, Discusses the importance of volunteer monitoring, quality as-
surance considerations, and how to plan and implement a volunteer
program.^. ;.'. ..:•.'•, : •::;';,- -.: ''. ' •.:/.;.. ... :. '•••:, ; : .' :- '. '••'.'':'."• ••• • '
The Volunteer Monitor. A national newsletter, published twice yearly, that
provides information for the volunteer monitoring movement. Produced
through an EPA grant. ;• . : ;; :
The Water Monitor. A monthly newsletter published by EPA to exchange sur-
face water assessment information among States and other interested parties.
Volunteer Monitoring on the Nonpoint Source Electronic Bulletin Board System.
A: 2-page fact sheet on EPA's electronic forum for volunteer monitors.
-------
374 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
services for volunteers. Some offices
hold Regional workshops to bring
volunteers together and build part-
nerships.
in the coming years, EPA plans
to continue developing technical
tools for volunteers, including guid-
ance on assuring quality data collec-
tion. EPA will also continue encour-
aging cooperation and information
exchange among volunteer pro-
grams and between volunteers and
State, local, Tribal, and Federal
agencies. A common theme of all of
these activities will be a commit-
ment to increase the diversity of the
volunteer monitoring community
nationwide.
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 is maintained by
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, with biological sampling and
site information stored in the associ-
ated BIOS (Biological System) Data-
base, another major component.
ODES (Ocean Data Evaluation Sys-
tem) is a separately maintained and
linked information system specifi-
cally for water quality and biological
data for marine, estuarine, and
freshwater environments. ODES
users can access STORET informa-
tion 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
full prototype in late 1995. This
effort will result in a more flexible,
efficient, and usable state-of-the-art
information system, which, in turn,
will provide improved tools for
ground and surface water quality
decisionmaking.
For more information on
STORET modernization and the
prototype now available for testing,
contact:
Phil Lindenstruth
U.S. EPA (4503F)
Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-6549
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
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 375
Section 305(b), the WBS is used by
many States to track results of all
their ambient water quality assess-
ments. During the 1994 reporting
cycle, 27 States, Territories, and
Interstate Water Commissions
submitted WBS data files.
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.
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
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 poten-
tial threat to human health or the
environment. Only major facilities
must provide complete records to
PCS, currently numbered at around
7,100; however, States and Regions
do submit information for approxi-
mately 56,300 minor facilities. 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.
The Toxics Release
Inventory
The Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) of 1986 established the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), a
public database that contains infor-
mation about toxic chemical
releases to water, air, and land from
manufacturing facilities. The TRI
contains data submitted annually by
individual manufacturing facilities
subject to the EPCRA reporting
requirements. The EPCRA reporting
requirements apply to manufactur-
ing facilities that
• Employ 10 or more full-time
employees
• Manufacture or process over
25,000 pounds of any chemical or
chemical category listed in the
EPCRA, or use more than 10,000
pounds of any chemical or chemical
category listed in the EPCRA
-------
376 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
ll
I ji • !!ji;
I Illlllillll
ill
I i i
'!--"-!"":
'"'.ir ;!!:•:;
f Standard Industrial Codes
(SICs)
SIC Industry Group
20 Food
21 Tobacco
22 Textiles
23 Apparel
24 Lumber and Wood
25 Furniture
26 Paper
27 Printing and Publishing
28 Chemicals
29 Petroleum and Coal
30 Rubber and Plastics
31 Leather
32 Stone, Clay, and Glass
33 Primary Metals
34 Fabricated Metals
35 Machinery
(excluding electrical)
36 Electrical and Electronic
Equipment
37 Transportation Equipment
38 Instruments
39 Miscellaneous
Manufacturing
• Conduct selected manufacturing
operations in the industry groups
specified in the U.S. Government
Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) Codes 20 through 39, includ-
ing chemicals, petroleum refining,
primary metals, fabricated metals,
paper, plastics, and transportation
equipment (see sidebar).
The EPCRA regulations require
that eligible manufacturing facilities
identify the toxic chemicals they
released (from a list of more than
300 individual chemicals and 20
chemical categories); the quantity of
each chemical released to the air,
water, and land; and the quantity of
each chemical transferred off site for
treatment, disposal, or recycling. In
response to the Pollution Prevention
Act of 1991, facilities are also
required to report additional infor-
mation about waste management
and source reduction activities. The
reported data are stored in the TRI
and in State files available to the
public.
The TRI database provides the
public with direct access to toxic
chemical release and transfer data at
the local, State, regional, or national
level. The public can use the TRI
data to identify potential concerns
in local waterbodies or throughout
the Nation. With TRI data, the pub-
lic can work with industry and gov-
ernment to reduce toxic chemical
releases and the risks associated
with them.
Industry can use the TRI data to
obtain an overview of use and
release of toxic chemicals, to iden-
tify and reduce costs associated with
toxic waste, to identify promising
areas of pollution prevention, to
establish reduction targets, and to
measure and document progress
toward chemical release reduction
goals. The public access of the TRI
data has prompted many facilities
to work with their communities to
develop effective strategies for
reducing environmental and human
health risks posed by toxic chemical
releases.
Federal, State, and local govern-
ments can use the TRI data to iden-
tify hot spots, compare facilities or
geographic areas, evaluate pollution
control and prevention programs,
and track progress in reducing
waste. The Office of Water has used
TRI data with other pertinent
exposure and toxicity data to iden-
tify and prioritize contaminants in
drinking water, to identify and
quantify inputs of toxic chemicals
into the Gulf of Mexico, and to
compile data on toxic releases into
municipal treatment plants.
The TRI database has some
limitations. TRI captures only a por-
tion of all toxic chemical releases
nationwide because nonindustrial
sources, such as dry cleaners and
auto service stations, are not
required to submit TRI data. In ad-
dition, the TRI data alone are not
sufficient to calculate potential
adverse effects on human health
from toxic chemicals because TRI
does not track exposure of the
public to released chemicals.
The TRI data are available to
the public online through the Na-
tional Library of Medicine's TOXNET
system and through the Right-to-
Know Network (RTK NET), which is
sponsored by the Unison Institute, a
nonprofit organization. TRI data are
also available on CD-ROM and on
individual State diskettes. For infor-
mation about obtaining TRI data,
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 377
the public can call the TRI User
Support Service (202-260-1531) or
the EPCRA Information Hotline
(1-800-535-0202).
TRI users can obtain additional
information about health effects and
ecotoxicity of chemicals in the TRI
database from PC-TRI FACTS, an
auxiliary software package devel-
oped by EPA.
Contaminated Sediment
Strategy
In early 1993, EPA issued its
Contaminated Sediment Manage-
ment Strategy: A Proposal for Dis-
cussion. Then, in August 1994, the
Strategy Document, EPA's Contami-
nated Sediment Management Strat-
egy, was announced in the Federal
Register. One of its main objectives
is to describe EPA's current under-
standing of the extent and severity
of sediment contamination. EPA's
Contaminated Sediment Manage-
ment Strategy describes actions that
the Agency will take to accomplish
the following four strategic goals:
(1) prevent further sediment
contamination that may cause unac-
ceptable ecological or human health
risks; (2) when practical, clean up
existing sediment contamination
that adversely affects the Nation's
waterbodies or their uses, or that
causes other significant effects on
human health or the environment;
(3) ensure that sediment dredging
and dredged material disposal con-
tinue to be managed in an environ-
mentally sound manner; and (4)
develop and consistently apply
methodologies for analyzing con-
taminated sediments. To accomplish
these goals, EPA will continue to
develop and improve methods for
identifying contaminated sediments,
to provide a basis for assessment of
sediment contamination, to outline
steps to reduce risk supported by
sound science, and to outline a
strategy for assessing the extent and
severity of sediment 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 national inventories of con-
taminated sediment sites and pollut-
ant sources (point and nonpoint).
During the past 3 years, EPA's Office
of Science and Technology has
compiled the National Sediment
Inventory (NSI), an extensive
geographically referenced database
of sediment quality monitoring and
pollutant source information for the
Nation's freshwater and estuarine
ecosystems. The Site Inventory com-
ponent of the NSI contains detailed
monitoring data on sediment chem-
istry and biological effects collected
by Federal and State agencies
beginning in 1980. The Point
Source Inventory component of the
NSI contains over 22,000 individual
records of point source discharges
of 118 different chemicals from
municipal, Federal, and industrial
facilities in 1992. The NSI database
will be continually updated and
improved. Based on an evaluation
of current data, OST will produce
an assessment of the national extent
and severity of sediment contamina-
tion across the country and present
the results in a Report to Congress
in early 1996.
For more information about the
NSI, contact the OST Standards and
Applied Science Division:
THE
^ATI°HAL
,?EDIMENr
INV^TO^
ext^**
causes
c°nfc*m/i
:^the
-------
378 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
National Sediment Inventory
U.S. EPA (4305)
Office of Science and
Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
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 pollution,
(2) NPS management techniques
and methods, and (3) institutional
arrangements for the planning and
implementation of NPS manage-
ment including financial arrange-
ments.
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,
environmental 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, Coastal
Nonpoint Source Pollution, 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.
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 the development
of a system to enable technical staff
to access, display, analyze, and
present Great Lakes multimedia and
geographic information from their
desk top, providing environmental
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 379
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 CLEF 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, TRIS, 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, and the
Office of Science and Technology's
Resource Center.
. * H
Nickolas Lantz, age 8, Bruner Elementary, North Las Vegas, NV
-------
380 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
r=
:": ;'::':;:Hi^^^^^^^^
. • ,v;. '/'•;<;<'*'),;:;, f
". -„ .'f/'.-L, Alii*,! Jii'i,.,,! ,fii,*ii:Lli1j"h,iaSiidJii
b> • • 'v:1'"' •'•••\^ Ji;*«^Wf!'f«iif«
^.^^^^s^jsj^EsJaama
EPA's Water Channel
The Office of Water's Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
has established the Water Channel
on EPA's Internet site. The Water
Channel broadcasts water informa-
tion and tools for communities and
American citizens to understand
and use in managing their own
environmental resources. It is a
means to promote and strengthen
partnerships to manage, protect,
and restore America's water
resources. Information is meant to
flow from those who have it to
those who need it.
You can get to know EPA's
water programs and people. You
can browse newsletters, fact sheets,
brochures, publications, regulations,
press releases, and congressional
testimony. You can learn about the
quality of our Nation's water
resources and our environmental
goals. You will get ideas about how
you can get involved, like volunteer
monitoring. You can choose from
an array of opportunities to learn
more by using the Wetlands and
Drinking Water hotlines or ordering
publications on-line. Those looking
for technical assistance and data will
find water quality monitoring meth-
ods, tools, and access to STORET
water quality data. You can connect
to countless other sources of envi-
ronmental information at other
Internet sites. You can send EPA
comments, suggestions, or requests
for information not yet available on
the Water Channel.
The Water Channel offerings
will continue to grow. Watch for
new information, links to partners,
homepages, and services. Visit fre-
quently and stay in touch with EPA
water programs at work across the
Nation to help you manage and
protect the environment.
The Water Channel utilizes ,
EPA's public access servers with
Internet connectivity. It can be
accessed over the World Wide Web
or Gopher. Enter the Universal
Resource Locator (URL) for the EPA
homepage (http://www.epa.gov)
and go to EPA Offices and Regions
and then to Office of Water or enter
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW for
direct access. Users need an Internet
provider with an Internet Protocol
(IP) address, at least a 386 or com-
parable personal computer, 4 mega-
bytes of RAM, and tools for viewing
the graphics on the World Wide
Web.
For more information on the
Water Channel, call Karen Klima at
202/260-7087 or send an e-mail to
OW-OWOW-I nternet-Com merits®
EPAMA1L.EPA.GOV. If you encounter
problems with EPA's public access
server, contact EPA via e-mail at
internet_support@unixmail.rtpnc.
epa.gov.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 381
HIGHLiGH
Of
EPA Pro-grams W«-kintg in Partnerships to Protect aad Restore America's Water Resources
Wetlands Science and Waste* ater Gromuhvater Region* \mcriean Indian
Oceans and Technotafj Management - . ,,dnj«. ~ EnvinjonienUl
Watersheds * DnnLing%\dter Oflicc
CkiMr^t, of& e»t**r« t»m in a water-rich environment, we hetve n,tv«r ntetity teamed kew an-pertant w^sier tr
i» us. We understand i£ b&t we do not r«y««* &
WILLIMi ASHWORTH, NOT Aay Drop to Eirinl^ 19S2
Tteceis ako atgM. vasi
-------
382 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
IGHT HIGHLIGHT
Nutrients in Ground Water and
Surface Water of the United
States—An Analysis of Data
through 1992 by the U.S.
Geological Survey
Historical data on nutrient
(nitrogen and phosphorus) concen-
trations in ground and surface water
samples were compiled from 20
study units of the U.S. Geological
Survey's National Water-Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) Program and
five supplemental study areas. The
resultant data sets contain analyses
Nitrate concentrations significantly higher than beneath undeveloped areas
Nitrate concentrations not higher than undeveloped areas
| I Insufficient information to compare
Figure 1. Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water Beneath
Agricultural Areas in NAWQA Study Units.
of about 12,000 ground water and
more than 22,000 surface water
samples. These data were inter-
preted on regional and national
scales by relating the distributions of
nutrient concentrations to ancillary
data, such as land use, soil
characteristics, and hydrogeology.
Nitrate was the nutrient of
greatest concern in ground water. It
is the only nutrient that is regulated
by a national drinking water stan-
dard. Nitrate concentrations in
ground water were elevated prima-
rily in agricultural areas (see Figure
1). Concentrations in about 16% of
the samples collected in agricultural
areas exceeded the drinking water
standard. Concentrations were high-
est in shallow ground water, less
than 100 feet below land surface.
The standard was exceeded in only
about 1 % of samples collected from
public supply wells.
A variety of factors influenced
nitrate concentrations in ground
water beneath agricultural areas.
Concentrations were higher in areas
where soil and geologic characteris-
tics promoted rapid movement of
water to the aquifer. Elevated
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 383
HT HIGHLIGHT
concentrations commonly occurred
in areas underlain by permeable
materials, such as carbonate bed-
rock or unconsolidated sand and
gravel, and where soils are generally
well drained.
In areas where water movement
was impeded, denitrification might
lead to low concentrations of nitrate
in the ground water. Low concen-
trations were also related to inter-
spersion of pasture and woodland
with cropland in agricultural areas.
Elevated nitrate concentrations in
areas of more homogeneous crop-
land probably were a result of inten-
sive nitrogen fertilizer application on
large tracts of land. Because of the
time involved for ground water to
move vertically in some areas, the
full effect of current nitrogen
fertilizer applications might not be
noted in some aquifers for many
years. Likewise, the effects of imple-
menting management practices to
improve water quality might not be
evident for many years.
Certain regions of the United
States seemed more vulnerable to
nitrate contamination of ground
water in agricultural areas. Regions
of greater vulnerability included
parts of the Northeast, Midwest,
and West Coast. The well-drained
soils typical in these regions have
little capacity to hold water and
nutrients; therefore, these soils
receive some of the largest applica-
tions of fertilizer and irrigation in
the Nation. The agricultural land is
intensively cultivated for row crops,
with little interspersion of pasture
and woodland. Regional patterns
and the distribution of local charac-
teristics could be useful in identify-
ing areas of potential nitrate
problems.
Nutrient concentrations in
surface water also were generally
related to land use. Nitrate concen-
trations were highest in samples
from sites downstream from agricul-
tural or urban areas (see Figure 2).
However, concentrations were not
as high as in ground water and
rarely exceeded the drinking water
standard. Elevated concentrations of
nitrate in surface water of the north-
eastern United States might be
related to large amounts of atmos-
pheric deposition (acid rain). High
concentrations in parts of the Mid-
west might be related to tile drain-
age of agricultural fields.
Nitrate concentrations significantly higher than downstream from undeveloped areas
Nitrate concentrations not higher than downstream from undeveloped areas
Hi Insufficient information to compare
Figure 2. Nitrate Concentrations in Surface Water Downstream
from Agricultural Areas in NAWQA Study Units.
^ |t~ -? A"*^^tes+*htt, ^^ „ ^""
-------
384 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
Ammonia and phosphorus con-
centrations were highest down-
stream from urban areas. These
concentrations generally were high
enough to warrant concerns about
toxicity to fish and accelerated
eutrophication. Recent improve-
ments in wastewater treatment have
decreased ammonia concentrations
downstream from some urban
areas, but the result has been an
increase in nitrate concentrations.
This condition limits the direct
threat of toxicity but does not
change the potential for eutrophica-
tion.
Information on environmental
factors that affect water quality is
useful to identify drainage basins
throughout the Nation with the
greatest vulnerability for nutrient
contamination and to delineate
areas where ground water or sur-
face water contamination is most
likely to occur. The results presented
in this report suggest that the best
management strategies will differ
among regional areas of the Nation.
Understanding the regional patterns
and environmental factors that
affect nutrient concentrations in
ground water and surface water is
critical for designing programs to
manage and protect water
resources.
Results from this study are sum-
marized in the following report:
David K. Mueller et al., 1995,
Nutrients in Ground Water and Sur-
face Water of the United States—An
Analysis of Data through 1992, U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigation Report 95-4031, 74
pp. The report can be ordered from
USGS Map Distribution, Box 25286,
Bldg. 810, Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80025, phone 303-
236-7477; FAX 303-236-1972.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 385
WA "Vital Signs" Monitoring
About 10 years ago, the Tennes-
see Valley Authority (TVA) began a
thorough review of its traditional
water quality monitoring efforts.
Familiar issues—budget pressures
and the "data-rich, information-
poor" syndrome—were the motivat-
ing factors. From that initial review
and subsequent critical scrutiny, TVA
has developed a "vital signs" moni-
toring program that reports to the
public each spring on the fishability,
swimmability, and ecological health
of 30 TVA reservoirs and major
tributaries.
The annual report is a user-
friendly magazine, RiverPulse, that is
mailed to about 13,000 individuals
who have called to request it and is
distributed through marinas, parks,
TVA visitor centers, and other public
outlets. Feedback from readers indi-
cates that this annual report is well
received and very effectively com-
municates technical information to
nontechnical audiences. Many of its
features are being adopted by other
organizations that report to the
public on environmental conditions.
RiverPulse summarizes monitor-
ing information collected during the
previous spring, summer, and fall.
Informal technical reports document
monitoring methods, analyses, and
results. The monitoring program
integrates physical and chemical
monitoring of streams and reservoir
waters with quantitative evaluations
of benthic invertebrate and fish
communities to develop an ecologi-
cal health rating for each lake. A
sediment chemistry and toxicity
component of the rating was elimi-
nated in 1995 as a result of budget
constraints. Fish tissue contamina-
tion monitoring and associated
State-promulgated fish consumption
advisories provide information on
fishability, and results of bacterio-
logical sampling at beaches and
informal recreation areas are the
basis for the swimmability ratings.
Copies of RiverPulse can be
obtained by calling (615) 751-2333.
More information on TVA's monitor-
ing program can be obtained by
leaving a message at this number,
by calling Dr. Neil Carriker at
(615) 751-7330, or by sending an
e-mail message to ncarrik@mhs-
tva.attmail.com.
-------
-------
Point Source
Control Program
Treating Municipal
Wastewater
Municipal treatment facilities
receive wastewater from residential
sources as well as from industry and
storm water runoff. The array of
pollutants that may be associated
with these sources includes sus-
pended solids, organics, pesticides,
heavy metals, nutrients, acids,
viruses, and bacteria.
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 serious threat to
aquatic life, commercial and recre-
ational opportunities, surface water
drinking supplies, ground water
drinking supplies, and the general
health and stability 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.
Since 1972, EPA, through the
Construction Grants Program, has
provided approximately $54 billion
to municipalities to construct or
improve their wastewater treatment
systems.
In the 1987 Amendments to
the Clean Water Act, Congress and
the President agreed to phase out
the Construction Grants Program. In
its place, the State Revolving Fund
(SRF) was created and has resulted
in the creation of revolving loan
funds in each State and Puerto Rico.
The goal of the SRF program is to
establish independent and perma-
nent sources of funding in each
State. Capitalization of these funds
is provided by the Federal (80%)
and State (20%) governments.
Congress appropriated more than
$10.3 billion through fiscal year
1995 for State Revolving Funds. In
addition to providing loans for con-
struction of wastewater treatment
facilities, SRFs allow funding for
many activities not previously
eligible under the Construction
Grants Program, including control
of nonpoint source runoff and
estuary protection projects.
-------
388 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
st/^ts
finance n< ^
I'-s'JSfc&L
The Amendments of 1987 also
included new water quality require-
ments. The primary programs with
new enforceable requirements are
those dealing with storm water,
toxic discharges, and sludge use
and disposal. The SRF loan program
provides States with more discretion
than ever before in selecting
projects for funding. States are now
able to finance projects they may
consider to be of higher priority,
such as nonpoint source, estuarine,
combined sewer overflow, or storm
water control projects. All States and
Puerto Rico had approved SRF
programs in place as of September
1990.
EPA has awarded over $11.1
billion to States to capitalize SRF
programs since 1988. States have
contributed about $2.2 billion to
meet the 20% match requirement.
In addition, 21 States have issued
about $5.4 billion in leverage bonds
to further capitalize their SRF
programs. From these and other
sources, capitalization of SRF
programs totals about $19 billion
through fiscal year 1995.
The Administration remains
committed to the State Revolving
Fund Program to continue capitali-
zation of the program to a level
such that 51 State programs are
able to issue in excess of $2 billion
in loans annually for the foreseeable
future.
Funding Needs
for Wastewater
Treatment
The Needs Survey, a biennial
report to Congress, is the primary
mechanism for assessing municipal
wastewater treatment needs
nationwide. 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. Models were also used to
develop preliminary urban storm
water and agricultural and silvicul-
tural nonpoint source 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
established by EPA. The capital
investment necessary to satisfy all
categories of need is presented in
Table 14-1. Costs for operation and
maintenance are not eligible for SRF
funding and therefore are not
included. Additional nonconstruc-
tion estimates are included for pro-
gram development costs associated
with storm water and NPS control.
The 1992 total documented and
modeled 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
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 389
and silviculture NPS pollution
control 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
guidelines for approximately
!• . . 1 . . . i
Table 14-1. Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment i
Facilities and Other Eligibilities (January 1992 ;
Dollars in Billions) \- \ •
Needs Category
Title II Eligibilities
1 Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
I1IA 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 .2 a
0.1 a
127.1
8.8 a
1.2
137.1
a 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.
-------
390 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
Table 14-2. 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.
NOTE: A major permit is for a major facility
or activity classified as such by the
EPA Regional Administrator, or in
the case of approved State
Programs, the Regional Administra-
tor in conjunction with the State
Director. Others are classified as
minor permits.
15 additional secondary industries
that represent Best Practicable Con-
trol 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 rec-
ommend using overall toxicity as a
measure of adverse water quality
impact and as a regulatory
parameter. In 1989, EPA amended
its NPDES regulations to clarify the
use of effluent discharge limitations
for whole-effluent toxicity in addi-
tion to specific toxic chemicals. The
use of whole-effluent toxicity as a
regulatory tool coupled with con-
trols for specific chemicals provides
a powerful means of detecting and
controlling 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, especially for major permits.
Table 14-2 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
industrial facilities comply with the
terms of their discharge permits.
Currently, 40 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 14-1 illustrates rates of
significant noncompliance based on
statistics maintained by EPA from
March 1988 through December
1994. Significant noncompliance is
based upon violations of a permit,
administrative order, and judicial,
order requirements. Examples of
violations for permits include
exceedances of monthly average
effluent limits at least twice during a
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 391
6-month period or any exceedance
of limits set by an administrative
order. Discharge monitoring reports
or pretreatment schedules more
than 30 days late are also consid-
ered in significant noncompliance.
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, the system will automati-
cally determine that the facility is
Figure 14-1
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.
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
Percentage of Facilities in Significant Noncompliance
with NPDES Permit Requirements
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
have a higher rate of
compliance with
discharge permits than
do municipal facilities.
20
18
16
i*
s" 14
c
(O
1. 12
I
o
.£ 8
ffl
I 6
10
2
0
I I I I I I L
_L
I I I
I I I i I I I
I I I
I I I
1988
1989 1990 1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Nonmunicipals
Municipals
Date
Source: USEPA Permit Compliance System, Summer 1995.
-------
392 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
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,
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
available for treatment plant
construction.
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
Section 301(b)(1)(B) of the CWA or
with more stringent limitations
established to meet State water
quality standards. Of the total
universe 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
had achieved compliance with the
requirements. Since the 1988 dead-
line, 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
meeting the requirements of the
CWA.
In the 1987 Water Quality Act
amendments to the CWA, EPA was
given authority to seek administra-
tive penalties from 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
orders have been an effective tool in
expeditiously addressing violations
of the CWA and represent an inte-
gral component of EPA's overall
enforcement strategy.
Controlling Toxicants
The 1987 amendments to the
Clean Water Act reinforced both the
water-quality-based and technology-
based approaches to point source
control, requiring EPA to develop
and update technology-based stan-
dards and adding specific direction
as to how water-quality-based limits
should be used to achieve addi-
tional 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
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 393
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 678
facilities in the United States that
were required to have individual
control strategies. ICSs have been
established for 593 of these facilities.
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
Through the 304(1) effort, 529
waterbodies were identified as being
impaired entirely or substantially by
point source discharges of Section
307(a) toxic pollutants. In addition,
678 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. Cur-
rently, approximately 87% of the
ICSs required are in place as EPA-
approved or drafted NPDES permits.
The long list will be used for
long-term planning and setting of
priorities for activities such as moni-
toring, total maximum daily load
development, nonpoint source
controls, and permit revisions.
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 sur-
face waters for priority toxic pollut-
ants. EPA will continue identifying
impaired waters and controlling the
discharge of toxic and other
pollutants through existing report-
ing, standards setting, and permit-
ting programs.
Toxicity Testing
On March 9, 1984, EPA issued
a policy designed to reduce or
eliminate toxics discharge and help
achieve the objectives of the Clean
Water Act. The "Policy for the
Development of Water Quality-
Based Permit Limitations for Toxic
Pollutants" (49 FR 9016) described
EPA's integrated toxics control pro-
gram. The integrated program con-
sisted of the application of both
chemical-specific and biological
methods 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 revis-
ing the TSD in 1991 and by includ-
ing 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
-------
394 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
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 con-
ducting TREs are described in sev-
eral EPA guidance documents and
referenced in the TSD.
In December 1994, EPA con-
ducted a survey of 50 States, 7 Ter-
ritories, and 3 Tribes to determine
the extent of implementation of
whole effluent toxicity (WET) con-
trols for industrial and municipal
point sources. Fifty-one jurisdictions
incorporate WET limits in discharge
permits based on numeric criteria or
narrative criteria for toxics. Fifteen
jurisdictions have numeric WET cri-
teria (acute and/or chronic criteria)
in their standards.
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
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
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 395
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 efflu-
ent limitations developed by POTWs
on a case-by-case basis to reflect
site-specific concerns and imple-
ment the Federal general and spe-
cific prohibited discharge standards
as well as State and local regula-
tions.
To ensure the success of the
pretreatment program, EPA also
issues guidance documents and has
conducted scores of training semi-
nars to assist POTWs in developing,
implementing, and enforcing effec-
tive 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 pretreat-
ment programs. At present, 28 '
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,
1,481 local programs have been
approved by either EPA or approved
States, and another 50 programs
are under development. The pre-
treatment program currently regu-
lates approximately 30,500 signifi-
cant industrial users (SlUs).
On July 24, 1990, the EPA pro-
mulgated the Domestic Sewage
Study (DSS) final rule, which imple-
ments the recommendations made
in the DSS. Specifically, the rule is
designed to improve the control of
hazardous wastes discharged to
POTWs as well as strengthen the
enforcement of pretreatment
program requirements. In addition,
the rule requires that POTWs con-
duct toxicity testing of their efflu-
ents. A continuing task will be to
integrate the implementation of
these requirements into the normal
operations of the POTWs' pretreat-
ment 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 pro-
grams.
The compliance status of indus-
trial users and POTWs is an indicator
of the programmatic success of
pretreatment implementation. Based
£PA
Jhat
i
Wwl??''"tont
**>*&£ POTV*
"Pto/lo/^rfby
_—, -™_™™_^™,^ ^QTl^fTif-
^7 » ^*
-------
396 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
on data reported by POTWs or
States, approximately 54% of signifi-
cant industrial users of sewage treat-
ment plants are in significant non-
compliance with discharge stand-
ards and/or reporting and self-moni-
toring requirements. This compares
with a rate of 6% significant non-
compliance for the major industries
in the NPDES program, which dis-
charge 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 programs.
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
report 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
direction 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
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
ensure that sludge would be used
or disposed of in a consistent or
environmentally acceptable manner.
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.
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 397
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 is the permitting authority
for sewage sludge since there are
currently no approved State pro-
grams. Initially, EPA is relying
strongly on the self-implementing
nature of the technical regulations.
In February 1993, EPA amended the
permitting regulations to establish a
tiered permit application schedule.
EPA is focusing 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 is
also focusing on approving State
programs and educating the general
public and the regulated commu-
nity.
On February 19, 1993, EPA
published the Standards for the Use
or Disposal of Sewage Sludge. This
regulation pertains to land applica-
tion, incineration, landfilling, and
surface disposal of sewage sludge.
The standards for each use or dis-
posal practice consist of general
requirements, pollutant limits,
management practices, and opera-
tional standards. 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 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 midwest,
and along the west coast. Com-
bined sewer overflows 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
-------
398 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
the ecology of receiving waters, and
impair the designated use of water
resources.
EPA published the first National
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Strategy in the Federal Register on
September 8, 1989, at 54 FR
37370. Although implementation of
the 1989 strategy resulted in some
progress toward controlling CSOs,
EPA determined, in August 1991,
that implementation of the 1989
strategy was not proceeding rapidly
enough.
During the summer of 1992,
EPA conducted a negotiated policy
dialogue with key stakeholders.
Based on the negotiated policy dia-
logue and subsequent negotiations
between municipal and environ-
mental groups and States, a CSO
i
Megan Daly, age 9, Iowa City, Iowa
Framework Document was submit-
ted to EPA's Office of Water for
consideration as part of the devel-
opment 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.
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. The final CSO
Control Policy was published in the
Federal Register on April 19, 1994
(59 FR 18688).
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.
The CSO Policy represents a
comprehensive national strategy to
ensure that municipalities, NPDES
permitting authorities, water quality
standards authorities, and the public
engage in a comprehensive and
coordinated planning effort to
achieve cost-effective CSO controls
that ultimately meet appropriate
health and environmental objec-
tives, including compliance with
water quality standards. The Policy
recognizes the site-specific nature of
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 399
CSOs and their impacts and pro-
vides the flexibility necessary to
tailor controls to local situations.
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 capital 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 is preparing a number of
guidance documents to assist in the
implementation of the final policy.
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
discharges, and receiving water
impacts; preparing 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 Stormwater
Controls
Since 1972, State and EPA
efforts under the NPDES program
have traditionally focused on
controlling pollutant discharges
from POTWs and industrial process
wastewaters. As these sources of
pollution came increasingly under
control, the need for controlling
pollutants in stormwater point
source discharges became more
critical to efforts to achieve the
goals of the CWA. As reflected in
this report, stormwater discharges
from a variety of sources, including
storm sewers discharging urban
runoff, construction site runoff, run-
off from resource extraction activi-
ties, 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 stormwater discharges
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
stormwater discharges associated
with industrial activity including:
• Manufacturing facilities
• Construction operations or
activities disturbing 5 or more acres
• Hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities
M Landfills
• POTWs with approved pretreat-
ment programs and/or discharging
over 1 million gallons per day
-------
400 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
fes^St^v** ,
Ep«*!Sfl*^
-&JP&-*
• Recycling facilities
• Power plants
• Mining operations
• Some oil and gas operations
• Airport facilities
• Certain transportation facilities
(such as vehicle maintenance areas).
Permits were required to be
issued for these sources, for the
most part, by October 1, 1993.
For the second phase, EPA
prepared a study that identified
potential stormwater discharges,
not regulated under Phase I, to be
controlled to protect water quality.
The study, entitled "Storm Water
Discharges Potentially Addressed by
Phase II of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Storm
Water Program," was submitted to
Congress in March 1995. The study
identifies the nature and extent of
pollutants in these discharges and
proposes one possible option for
controlling these discharges.
To explore additional options
for a Phase II stormwater program,
EPA convened a Federal Advisory
Committee subcommittee com-
prised of a broad spectrum of stake-
holders. The subcommittee will
provide EPA with recommendations
for a Phase II stormwater program
by December 1996. EPA is required
under a consent decree to propose
regulations by September 1, 1997,
and finalize regulations by March 1,
1999.
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 sub-
committee comprising representa-
tives from EPA Headquarters and
Regions has been formed to
develop an Agency-wide training
strategy to ensure that pollution
prevention concepts are integrated
into all Agency activities.
In terms of the point source
control program, the Agency's draft
pollution prevention strategy recog-
nizes the importance of permitting
and enforcement activities and will
continue support for a strong
program in these areas. Training is
being provided to familiarize NPDES
permit writers with pollution
prevention opportunities, how their
permit decisions can affect other
media, and how to effectively
communicate the concept of
pollution prevention to industrial
managers.
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 401
-------
-------
Nonpoint Source
Control Program
Background
Nonpoint source pollution
generally results from land runoff,
atmospheric deposition, drainage,
or seepage of contaminants. Major
sources of nonpoint pollution
include agricultural runoff, runoff
from urban areas, and runoff from
silvicultural operations, Siltation and
nutrients are the pollutants 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 implemented by the States with
Federal approval and assistance.
States were to address nonpoint
source pollution by (1) developing
nonpoint source assessment reports,
(2) adopting nonpoint source man-
agement programs, and (3) imple-
menting the management programs
over a multiyear timeframe.
All States and Territories now
have EPA-approved nonpoint source
assessments. EPA has also fully
approved 55 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
EPA-approved programs. From FY90
through FY95, Congress appropri-
ated approximately $372 million for
Section 319 assistance. EPA first
-------
404 Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
t
issued guidance on the award and
management of Section 319 funds
in February 1991 following exten-
sive public comment. In June 1993
the guidance was updated to incor-
porate suggestions from EPA
Regions and a workgroup of State
program managers and lessons
learned during 3 years of awarding
and managing Section 319 grants.
The guidance encourages States to
focus Section 319 funds on high-
priority activities including:
• Controlling particularly difficult
or serious nonpoint source prob-
lems, including, but not limited to,
problems resulting from mining
activities
• Implementing innovative
methods or practices for controlling
nonpoint sources of pollution,
including regulatory (e.g., enforce-
ment) programs
• Controlling interstate nonpoint
source pollution problems
• Carrying out ground water qual-
ity protection activities that are part
of a comprehensive nonpoint source
pollution control program
• Addressing nationally significant,
high-risk nonpoint source problems
and focusing implementation
activities in priority watershed
or ground water areas
• Comprehensively integrating
existing programs to control
nonpoint source pollution
• Providing for monitoring and
evaluation of program effectiveness,
including using water quality moni-
toring protocols
• Demonstrating a long-term
commitment to building the
institutions necessary for effective
nonpoint source management
• Emphasizing pollution prevention
mechanisms
• Protecting particularly sensitive
and ecologically significant waters
(e.g., wetlands, estuaries, wild and
scenic rivers, exceptional fisheries)
• Promoting comprehensive
watershed management
• Providing for the use of
antidegradation provisions and
other measures necessary to ensure
that population growth, new devel-
opment, and new or expanded
economic activity do not result in
impairment of high-quality waters
and waters currently meeting water
quality standards
• Addressing urban storm water
that is not subject to NPDES permit
requirements
• Promoting implementation of
coastal nonpoint source manage-
ment measures developed pursuant
to Section 6217(g) of the Coastal
Zone Act Reauthorization Amend-
ments of 1990.
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.
EPA and the States have
recently begun a process to exam-
ine and improve national and State
-------
Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 405
nonpoint source programs to
enhance program processes as well
as substantially improve water qual-
ity. As a first step, EPA, in close
cooperation with the States, devel-
oped additional guidance in April
1995 that provides greater flexibility
to the States for strengthening ancl
implementing their nonpoint source
management programs.
Funding under Section 319 is
also available to American Indian
Tribes with approved nonpoint
source assessment and management
programs. In September 1994, EPA
issued A Tribal Guide to the Section
319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant Pro-
gram to provide Tribes with an
overview of the Section 319(h)
grant process and to assist Tribes in
working with EPA Regions to meet
the basic requirements for grant
eligibility.
Section 319 National
Monitoring Program
EPA developed the Section 319
National Monitoring Program to
improve technical understanding of
nonpoint pollution and the effec-
tiveness of various nonpoint source
control technologies. This program
selects watershed projects that con-
sistently monitor water quality and
land management with standard-
ized protocols for 6 to 10 years. As
of June 1995, EPA had approved
and funded 11 projects in the States
of Vermont, Wisconsin, Pennsyl-
vania, North Carolina, Michigan,
Iowa, Nebraska, Arizona, Illinois,
Washington, and California. EPA has
also funded a pilot ground water
demonstration project in Idaho.
Several of these projects are summa-
rized here.
The Lake Champlain, Vermont,
project is a paired watershed study
that will be carried out coopera-
tively by the University of Vermont
and the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation. The
study is designed to examine the
effectiveness of best management
practices installed in two treatment
watersheds to control sediment,
nutrients, and bacteria contributions
from livestock. The study calls for
2 years of pretreatment data collec-
tion, 1 year of monitoring during
implementation of nonpoint con-
trols, and 3 years of postimplemen-
tation monitoring. Data will be col-
lected on a number of parameters,
including total suspended solids,
total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, fecal coliform, water tem-
perature, dissolved oxygen, conduc-
tivity, fish, and macroirivertebrates.
Land use and agricultural activity
will also be monitored intensively in
each watershed.
Otter Creek, Wisconsin, is a
low-gradient warm water stream in
the Sheboygan River watershed,
which drains to Lake Michigan.
Land use in the watershed is pri-
marily agricultural. Data collected in
1992 indicated that the stream is
highly degraded, impacted by
nonpoint sources from barnyards,
upland erosion, manure spreading,
streambank erosion, and pastures
along the creek. Habitat degrada-
tion—e.g., lack of cover, disturbed
banks, and an absence of pools—
also contributes to the stream's
problems. The project, which
includes a paired watershed and
upstream-downstream studies, will
encompass the monitoring of
chemical, physical, and biological
parameters and the implementation
of nonpoint source controls. A
-------
406 Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
number of State and Federal agen-
cies are cooperating on this project.
The Wisconsin Department of Natu-
ral Resources is providing technical
assistance and has administrative
and monitoring responsibilities; the
USGS is carrying out chemical and
physical monitoring; Sheboygan
County is providing cost-share assis-
tance and designing nonpoint
source controls; and U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture Soil Conser-
vation Service (USDA-SCS), Univer-
sity of Wisconsin Extension, and
USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS) will
also assist in implementation of the
project.
The Sny Magill watershed
project in Iowa incorporates paired
watershed and upstream-down-
stream studies to monitor and assess
improvements in water quality
resulting from the implementation
of nonpoint source controls. Land
use in the Sny Magill watershed, the
study site in the paired watershed
study, is entirely agricultural with no
industrial or urban areas. Land use
consists predominantly of cropland
(corn, oats, and alfalfa), pasture,
and forest. Sediment is the major
pollutant but nutrients, pesticides,
and animal waste are also of con-
cern. The USDA will provide techni-
cal assistance, cost sharing, and
educational programs to assist agri-
cultural producers in implementing
nonpoint source control measures
such as sediment control, stream
corridor management improve-
ments, and animal waste manage-
ment systems. Land treatment appli-
cation 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, or
control site. Primary monitoring sites
were established on both water-
sheds to measure discharge and
suspended sediment. 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 biomonitoring of macro-
invertebrates 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. Pro-
posed nonpoint controls include
implementing the land use restric-
tions of the State watershed protec-
tion law for areas above the water
supply intake, erosion and sediment
controls, animal waste manage-
ment, and livestock exclusion. Water
quality monitoring will include a
single station before and after
improved erosion control near the
water intake, an upstream/down-
stream design on the Creek above
and below the dairy farm, and a
paired watershed design at a crop-
land runoff site on the dairy. Con-
tinuous and grab samples will be
collected at various sites to provide
the data needed to assess the effec-
tiveness of the nonpoint controls.
-------
Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 407
The Morro Bay watershed,
located on the central coast of
California, is an important biological
and economic resource. Morro Bay
estuary is considered to be one of
the least altered estuaries on the
California coast However, heavy
development activities have resulted
in an increase of nonpoint source
pollutants entering the watershed.
The nonpoint source pollutants of
primary concern include sediment,
bacteria, metals, nutrients, and or-
ganic chemicals. At present rates of
sedimentation, Morro Bay could be
lost as an open water estuary within
300 years. Not only has the acceler-
ated sedimentation rate negatively
impacted fish and macroinverte-
brate species, it has also resulted in
significant economic losses to the
oyster industry. This project was
developed to characterize the sedi-
mentation rate and other water
quality conditions in one of the
Bay's tributaries, evaluate the effec-
tiveness of several best management
practices in improving water and
habitat quality, and evaluate the
overall water quality at selected sites
within the watershed.
Reports on Section
319 Activities
As required by Congress, EPA
published a report about Section
319, Managing Nonpoint Source
Pollution, in 1992. This report
described the Section 319 Program,
summarized the State nonpoint
source assessment reports submitted
to EPA, and described Regional and
State activities implemented to con-
trol nonpoint source pollution. In
1994, EPA published Section 3T9(h)
Success Stories, which provided
examples of successful solutions to
nonpoint source pollution problems
from States, Territories, and Tribes.
The described projects include infor-
mation and education programs,
streambank stabilization projects,
animal waste management projects,
and urban runoff projects.
Nonpoint Source
Management
Programs and
Implementation
The States, local governments,
community groups, and EPA
Regions have initiated many innova-
tive projects across the Nation to
manage nonpoint source pollution
problems. The projects described in
this section exemplify the diversity
of approaches that have been
applied to NPS pollution prevention
and control. In some cases, preven-
tion or control is only beginning. In
other situations, prevention and/or
control measures have been in place
long enough to show significant
results. For additional information
about the following projects, please
contact Steve Dressing at (202)
260-7110.
North and South
Rivers Watershed,
Massachusetts
The closing of shellfish beds
contaminated from bacterial pollu-
tion concerned many citizens in the
North and South Rivers watershed,
located south of Boston above Ply-
mouth. This concern propelled the
North and South Rivers Watershed
Association into action, assembling
-------
408 Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
volunteers to sample water quality
before, during, and after rainstorms
to determine the extent and sources
of bacterial contamination. The
volunteer monitors found that bac-
terial pollution, which was particu-
larly widespread after rainfalls, was
caused primarily by failing septic
systems, stormwater discharges,
illegal septic tie-ins, and roosting
birds.
Funding for the monitoring was
provided by a Section 319 grant of
approximately $35,000 and other
private funding sources. As part of
their project, the group worked
with individual polluters to correct
situations and with the local boards
of health to enforce local ordi-
nances. As a result, the volunteers
made great progress in cleaning up
both the North and South Rivers. In
addition, the data gathered
throughout the project will supple-
ment that of the Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries, the
agency that determines the sched-
ule for additional shellfish harvesting
days.
Statewide Stormwater
Runoff Control,
New York
Although many waterbodies in
New York suffer from stormwater
runoff in developed areas, New York
chose to focus on preventing new
development from causing further
problems. With approximately
$285,000 in Section 319 funds over
several years, the State has estab-
lished an extensive information and
education program to address
stormwater runoff from new devel-
opment.
The 319 grants have provided
funding for a number of projects.
These projects include reprinting an
urban erosion and sediment control
manual, which contains standards
and specifications for erosion and
sediment control measures common
to construction sites; production of
a State Department of Environmen-
tal Conservation document on re-
ducing the impacts of stormwater
runoff from new development; en-
abling Department of Conservation
staff to work directly with local gov-
ernments and assisting them in
developing local ordinances; con-
ducting a variety of training courses
on erosion and sediment control;
development of a cooperative
agreement that created the Sea
Grant Extension storm drain stencil-
ing program; and development of a
video entitled Luck Isn't Enough: The
Fight for Clean Water.
Mammoth Cave
National Park, Kentucky
The Mammoth Cave National
Park is a major tourist site, attracting
over 2 million visitors annually.
However, the unusual geology that
attracts visitors to the park also
makes it particularly vulnerable to
poor water quality. Instead of flow-
ing into surface streams, rain falling
within the karst (limestone forma-
tion) sinkhole plain in and around
the park flows into some 15,000
active sinkholes. The water travels
through underground streams and
caves, including Mammoth Cave,
before emerging as spring water in
the Green River. In the past several
years, the State has become :
concerned that water quality
degradation from intensive agricul-
ture (due to excessive nutrients and
bacterial contamination) could seri-
ously affect the area.
-------
Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 409
The Mammoth Cave/Karst Area
Water Quality Project was designed
to reduce pollution in the park area
and the surrounding karst sinkhole
plain. The Kentucky Division of
Water used part of its Section 319
grant to support the project's water
quality monitoring, technical assis-
tance, and installation of nonpoint
source controls on demonstration
farms in fiscal years 1991 through
1993. Activities were coordinated by
a technical advisory committee
formed with representatives from a
number of State government agen-
cies, citizens, and land users. Other
agencies involved with the project
include ASCS, SCS, National Park
Service, and Tennessee Valley
Authority.
Nolichucky River
Watershed, Tennessee
Concern over nonpoint source
water pollution from livestock pro-
duction prompted Tennessee to
target five subwatersheds in the
Nolichucky River watershed. Animal
waste systems were installed to
store animal wastes and manure,
which farmers later use to fertilize
crops. A Section 319 grant of
$58,000 provided assistance for
installing best management prac-
tices in the watershed and also
allowed project staff to monitor the
water quality to measure the effec-
tiveness of management practices.
A year after installation, the Tennes-
see Department of Health found
statistically valid improvements in
benthic habitat in two watersheds,
Nanticoke Watershed,
Delaware
Trap Pond in the Nanticoke
watershed is the recreational focus
for Trap Pond State Park. Increasing
bacterial contamination and symp-
toms of accelerated eutrophication
and algal blooms were evident as
water quality in the lake became
degraded. Two probable causes
were identified: a direct discharge
from an underground septic system
and livestock with direct access to
the stream. The problem with the
leaking septic system was corrected
and a Section 319 grant of $84,000
was awarded to implement animal
waste management systems and
nutrient management plans on
farms throughout the watershed. All
of the producers fenced livestock
out of streams and some 98% of
the producers installed manure stor-
age facilities, buffer strips, and other
best management practices.
West Lake Reservoir,
Iowa
West Lake is the surface reser-
voir for Osceola and Woodburn,
cities located in south-central Iowa.
The lake was impaired by sediment,
pesticides, and nutrients primarily
from row crop agriculture. A Section
319 grant of nearly $170,000 was
awarded for program staffing and
implementing best management
practices. Best management prac-
tices such as no-till and integrated
crop management reduced sedi-
ment delivery and herbicide levels
to the lake. In addition, a voluntary
atrazine ban assisted in the lake's
recovery.
-------
410 Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
Big Sioux Aquifer,
South Dakota
The Big Sioux Aquifer and other
smaller surface aquifers lie under
approximately 1,000 square miles of
eastern South Dakota. The aquifers
supply drinking water to about one-
third of the State's population.
Although no widespread pollution
problem existed, studies had uncov-
ered isolated cases of nitrate con-
tamination in the aquifer. With a
grant from Section 319 funds and
contributions from citizens and
other organizations, the East Dakota
Water Development District
(EDWDD) began the Big Sioux
Aquifer Protection Project. The goal
of the project was to protect the Big
Sioux Aquifer and other sensitive
aquifers from contamination
through information and education
efforts and the development of local
zoning ordinances.
As part of the project, the
EDWDD also identified shallow aqui-
fers vulnerable to contamination/-
located 30 public water supply wells
within the project area; gathered
information about the public water
supply wells to help delineate a
wellhead protection area for each
one; installed 48 monitoring wells
within nine wellhead protection
areas to provide an early detection
system; and used the Farm*A*Syst
Program to inform landowners in
rural areas about threats to their
domestic wells. The group also
developed a model ground water
protection ordinance; as of August
1993, two cities and nine counties
had adopted similar ordinances.
Pearl Harbor Bay
Watershed, Hawaii
Soil erosion and heavy siltation
in the East Loch of Pearl Harbor
prompted the U.S. Navy to request
that the South Oahu Soil and Water
Conservation District hold an inter-
agency meeting to explore ways to
prevent soil erosion from all land
uses in Hawaii. As a result of the
meeting, the Pearl Harbor Estuary
Program Interagency Committee
(PHEPIC) was formed; its member-
ship consisted of 17 agencies and
groups.
Through the use of Section 319
funds in concert with other monies,
PHEPIC began a public education
and information campaign. As part
of these efforts, a storm drain sten-
ciling project was undertaken to
raise public awareness about how
storm drains are connected directly
to streams and the ocean. Section
319 funds were also used in coop-
eration with Hawaii's Department of
Transportation and Department of
Highways in a demonstration
project to restore a severely eroded
site adjacent to the Pearl Country
Club. This project involved revegeta-
tion of eroding roadside cuts with
drought-tolerant, low-maintenance
vegetation.
Funding for Nonpoint
Source Control
In addition to Section 319
funds, several States have taken
advantage of State Revolving Funds
to provide loans to finance
nonpoint source and other water
pollution control programs. SRFs
-------
Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 411
were originally established to assist
States in upgrading their sewage
treatment 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 par-
ticularly suitable for funding struc-
tural BMP construction, such as
stormwater detention ponds and
manure storage structures.
Numerous States, including
Washington, California, Delaware,
and Ohio, are using SRF loans to
fund a wide variety of nonpoint
programs. Approved projects will
retrofit failed septic tanks, construct
stormwater management structures,
remediate leaking underground
storage tanks, and build poultry
composting facilities. As States meet
sewage treatment system upgrade
requirements, SRF funds will
become increasingly available to
address nonpoint source problems.
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program
As this report shows, serious
water quality problems associated
with nonpoint pollution still remain.
The shift in population toward the
coasts and associated development
pressures moved Congress to pro-
vide States with new information
and tools to achieve more effective
protection of coastal waters from
nonpoint pollutants. Congress
enacted the Coastal Zone Act Reau-
thorization Amendments (CZARA) of
1990, which established under Sec-
tion 6217 a new coastal nonpoint
source pollution control program to
be incorporated into both State
Section 319 (CWA) programs and
State Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA) programs. NOAA
administers the CZMA and EPA
administers Section 319, and the
two agencies have worked coopera-
tively toward implementing Section
6217.
Section 6217 requires that
States with federally approved
coastal zone management programs
develop and implement Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control
Programs to ensure protection and
restoration of coastal waters.
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
/*j -
• <€
Kings Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA
-------
412 Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
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 titled Guidance
Specifying Management Measures for
Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in
Coastal Waters. This guidance speci-
fies management measures for five
major categories of nonpoint pollu-
tion: agricultural runoff, urban run-
off, silvicultural runoff, hydromodi-
fication, and marinas and recrea-
tional 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. In
addition, NOAA and EPA have
recently taken steps to provide
States and Territories significant
additional time and flexibility in
developing and implementing their
coastal nonpoint programs. The
States must submit coastal nonpoint
control programs to NOAA and EPA
within 30 months of issuance of the
management measures guidelines
Ouly 1995). NOAA and EPA then
have 6 months to complete their
review of the coastal nonpoint
programs.
Between November 1993 and
June 1995, NOAA and EPA met
with over 20 coastal States and
Territories to review their progress in
developing coastal nonpoint pro-
grams. These "threshold reviews"
have assisted States in identifying
where additional work may be
necessary for meeting the require-
ments of Section 6217 and have
enhanced NOAA's and EPA's under-
standing of the variety of State pro-
grams and approaches for control-
ling nonpoint pollution.
-------
Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 413
-------
IJjiii
-------
Protecting Lakes
Background
Since the early 1980s, and espe-
cially with the 1987 CWA reauthori-
zation, nonpoint source impacts and
multimedia issues such as acid rain
have received increased attention in
Federal regulations. Addressing
these more holistic concerns has led
to lake programs and projects that
are closely coordinated with other
Federal, State, Tribal, or local initia-
tives.
EPA encouraged States to
develop and implement lake
projects on a watershed basis. This
ensures that restoration activities are
long term and comprehensive.
Under this approach, nonpoint
source control, ground water pro-
tection, water quality permitting,
estuarine protection and cleanup,
and wetlands protection issues can
be addressed in a holistic manner.
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 fashipn
analogous to other State water qual-
ity assessments and reported bien-
nially following the same timelines
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 Man-
agement Program (FRL-3979-8,
Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 143,
Friday, July 24, 1992) now clearly
specify that lake assessment mate-
rials should be part of the 305(b)
report submittals.
Publicly Owned Lakes
Section 314 requires that
States report on their "significant
publicly owned lakes"-leaving the
definition of "significant" up to the
individual State. States have defined
significant publicly owned lakes with
varied physical and legal criteria, but
most States have included minimum
size criteria and recreational use
caveats in their definitions. For
example, New Hampshire's defini-
tion of significant publicly owned
lakes is "any freshwater lake or
pond that has a surface area of 10
or more acres, is not private, and
does not prohibit recreational activ-
ity." As a general rule of thumb,
most States settle on a set of
significant lakes ranging in number
from less than a hundred (for
smaller States) to a few hundred
lakes in larger western or midwest-
ern States. However, some States
classify all of their lakes as significant
publicly owned lakes.
The States typically focus on
highly utilized lakes because local
-------
416 Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes
Cholakam Pungviriyarat, age 8, Bruner Elementary,
North las Vegas, NV
citizens and governments are more
likely to assist in control and restora-
tion 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 lake projects.
Lake Beneficial
Use Impairments
and Trends
The 1987 CWA Amendments
contain many provisions encourag-
ing a water-quality-based approach
to pollution assessment, planning,
and management activities. Biennial
lake assessments are now expected
to make use of available 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. Many States use EPA's
Waterbody System to produce sum-
mary tables that categorize lake
acreages by use attainment (e.g.,
fully supporting, threatened, par-
tially 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 standards specific to
lakes, thereby complicating the
process of lake water quality assess-
ment.
Under the 305(b) reporting
process of the Clean Water Act,
States are encouraged to provide
waterbody-specific summaries of
various public health and aquatic
life concerns. This can include infor-
mation on fishing advisories, fish
kills, sites with sediment contamina-
tion, restrictions on surface water
drinking supplies, bathing area
restrictions, and incidents of
waterborne diseases. This informa-
tion 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 consump-
tion warnings or advisories.
Although this information is cer-
tainly valuable, many States have
difficulty relating fish consumption
advisory data 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.
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 trophic status
information as the foundation for
protecting lakes.
Trophic condition is a character-
ization of a lake's biological produc-
tivity based on the availability of
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes 417
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 of productivity.
For national reporting purposes, the
following categories are recom-
mended: oligotrophic, mesotrophic,
eutrophic, and hypereutrophic. For
those lakes showing exceptionally
high levels of organic materials and
associated reduced pH levels, humic
substances, and natural color, the
term dystrophic is used.
Both natural lakes and
manmade reservoirs usually show
shifts in their trophic condition over
time (Figure 16-1). It is important,
however, to distinguish between
natural eutrophication, the process
by which lakes gradually evolve and
age, and cultural eutrophication,
which can be defined as the cultur-
ally induced rapid acceleration of
the natural eutrophication process.
The natural eutrophication process
ordinarily may take centuries, as
lakes naturally shift from an olig-
otrophic to a more eutrophic status.
Sedimentation processes will eventu-
ally lead to trophic shifts in
manmade impoundments, generally
in a much shorter time period than
for natural lakes. Reservoirs, there-
fore, have effective lives ranging
from a few decades to perhaps a
few hundred years. Newly
impounded reservoirs may initially
be characterized 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. The cul-
tural eutrophication process, for
either natural lakes or reservoirs,
involves the rapid (over a matter of
Figurb 16^1
The Progression of Eutrophication
Natural Eutrophication
Cultural (Human-Induced)
Eutrophication
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) 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.
-------
418 Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes
years or a few decades) eutrophying
of the waterbody because of
human-induced external nutrient
and sediment inputs.
Because there is an inherent
dynamic aspect to the trophic bal-
ances in lakes, caution must be
exercised in characterizing any-
thing other than an oligotrophic
condition as undesirable. On the
other hand, many types of an-
thropogenic stresses may result
in rapid trophic status shifts. If
a lake shows rapid progression
toward a state exhibiting
excessive algae growth, rapid
organic and inorganic sedimenta-
tion, and seasonal or diurnal dis-
solved oxygen deficiencies leading
to obnoxious odors, fish kills, or a
shift in the composition of aquatic
life forms to less desirable forms,
then an advanced stage of cultural
eutrophication is very likely. Most
commonly, large external inputs of
nutrients from point and/or
nonpoint sources leads to an unde-
sirable stage of cultural eutrophica-
tion. Restoring a lake to a more
desirable trophic condition will then
require reductions in the external
nutrient loading and possibly in-lake
restoration activities to mitigate the
impacts of previous pollution inputs.
When evidence suggests that
pollution factors are driving the lake
to a more eutrophic state, a State
will likely rate that waterbody as a
relatively high priority candidate for
management attention. Other types
of information are helpful in priori-
tizing 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 still
the backbone of the classification
systems used in most States.
At least half the States make use
of a trophic classification methodol-
ogy 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 trans-
formations of monitoring records
based on total phosphorus, chloro-
phyll a, and Secchi depth. For many
lakes, these parameters provide a
measure of the principal cause of
cultural eutrophication (the nutrient
phosphorus), a reasonable indicator
of the standing crop of algae associ-
ated with nutrients (chlorophyll o is
the major photosynthetic pigment
in algal phytoplankton), and a mea-
sure of unwanted reduction in water
transparency due to elevated levels
of algal biomass.
The formulas for these trophic
status indexes (TSIs) 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 meso-
trophic). For many lakes studied by
Carlson, there was a strong correla-
tion among the predictions pro-
vided by the TSIs. Because it is gen-
erally much less expensive to gather
total phosphorus data than chloro-
phyll 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 TSIs or
indices very similar to Carlson's. For
the 1994 305(b) reporting cycle,
there is a noticeable tendency on
the part of the States to use greater
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes 419
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 sus-
pended inorganic particles than to
blooms of algae or due to location
of the sampling site or other factors,
a Secchi measurement may give
false signals as to the degree of
biological productivity.
States are increasingly using
TSIs based on phosphorus or, where
possible, chlorophyll a measure-
ments. However, light transparency
data may still be useful, especially
when correlated with visual observa-
tions of color. Even if loss of trans-
parency is due more to turbidity
and suspended solids than to algae,
it may indicate unwanted sedimen-.
tation 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 readings, often collected by
volunteer monitoring groups, can
therefore still play an important role
in a State's lake monitoring pro-
grams; but, for the highest quality
characterization of lake trophic
status, measurements more closely
related to biological process and
food chain dynamics are preferred.
Many States are evaluating dif-
ferent ways to supplement methods
such as Carlson TSIs to make cost-
effective characterizations of trophic
status. For instance, using a broader
range of parameters, there are other
standard indexes that may prove
helpful; many of these indexes were
originally developed in the 1970s as
part of EPA's pioneering National
Eutrophication 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 devel-
oped regional indices, and Oregon,
Minnesota, and Arkansas have
applied ecoregion concepts in inter-
preting their lake monitoring data.
Oklahoma and Texas are also evalu-
ating different methods to assess
trophic status in reservoirs.
Many States are now exploring
ways to develop biologically based
(bioassessment) techniques. For
instance, the presence or absence of
certain types of zooplankton is often
strongly correlated 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
app'reciable nutrient inputs. Shifts in
the populations of game fish or
plankton-eating forage fish can
sometimes lead to a decimation 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 imbal-
ances. 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 1994, 41 States reported
that 18% of the 9,735 lakes
they assessed for trophic status
were oligotrophic, 37% were
-------
•420 Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes
Figure 16«2
Trophic Status
of Assessed Lakes
Dystrophic —,
(3%)
Hypereutrophic
(6%)
Eutrophic
(36%)
Oligotrophic
(18%)
Mesotrophic
(37%)
Based on data contained in Appendix H,
Table H-1.
mesotrophic, 36% were eutrophic,
6% were hypereutrophic, and 3%
were dystrophic (Figure 16-2). This
information may be somewhat
biased, as 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.
Lake Acidity Impacts
During the 1980s, considerable
national attention focused on how
pollution can lower the pH of
receiving waters, especially lakes.
Acidity can pose a direct threat to
aquatic life and lake recreational
amenities. Major potential sources
include atmospheric deposition and
acid mine drainage. EPA coordi-
nated a major multi-agency study
called the National Acid Precipita-
tion Assessment Program (NAPAP)
to study acid deposition. A wealth
of data were collected on many
lakes and stream systems under
NAPAP. NAPAP also provided
insights into promising monitoring
designs to document receiving
waters with actual acidity problems
or sensitivities to potential acid
impacts.
NAPAP concluded that the inci-
dence of serious acidification prob-
lems 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 significant publicly
owned lakes, the Adirondack^ area
of New York emerges as the only
region showing appreciable num-
bers of public lakes with significant
acidification damage.
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
accentuate the impacts on aquatic
organisms 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.
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 16-1 summarizes some of
the common biological effects at
progressively lower pH ranges.
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-gradi-
ent trout streams. Where the acidity
concerns affect whole watersheds,
this encourages a search for
mitigation techniques that could
benefit both lakes and streams. New
York has undertaken some innova-
tive demonstration projects aimed
at liming whole watershed areas
instead of the more traditional
strategy of liming just the lakes.
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes 421
States have documented areas
where local geological and soil fac-
tors may render lakes deficient in
natural buffering capacity and there-
fore vulnerable to acidity 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 snowpack
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.
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
State, Oklahoma, is undertaking a
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.
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 in the 1987
CWA reauthorization. If such issues
are related to actual impairments or
pose real degradation threats, States
are encouraged to document meth-
ods and procedures that could
mitigate the harmful effects of high
acidity or toxic metals and other
toxic substances.
In 1994, 26 States reported
that, of the 5,933 lakes assessed for
acidity, 9% exhibited acidity and
16% were threatened by acidity.
Over half of
these lakes
exhibiting acid-
ity and roughly
one-quarter of
the lakes threat-
ened by acidity
were in New
York. Very little
information was
provided by
States regarding
the sources of acidity to impacted
or threatened lakes.
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. As discussed
above, evidence submitted by the
States and from the Federal NAPAP
investigations suggests that lake
acidity problems are much rarer
than anticipated. Toxics concerns
States have submitted,, therefore,
are generally not related to
depressed pH levels.
Many States do report serious
toxics concerns, with the most com-
mon centering on fish consumption
advisories. Most States maintain
programs to sample fish tissues from
their major public lakes. These
collections also generally involve
sampling of ambient water and
sediments. Rarely do ambient water
levels exceed detection limits for
heavy metals or common pesticides.
For sediments and fish flesh, how-
ever, virtually all States have at least
one public lake at which elevated
levels of some toxicant have been
documented. Any exceedances of
Tajble 16-1. Ejects 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
-------
422 Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes
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 concern 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 stan-
dards or expanded standards' provi-
sions 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, reflect-
ing pollution processes on a hemi-
spheric or global scale. Faced with
these uncertainties, most States are
continuing to gather monitoring
data and are adopting risk manage-
ment strategies.
In 1994, 39 States and Territo-
ries reported that they found ele-
vated concentrations of toxic con-
taminants in fish, sediment, or water
column samples representing over
2 million lake acres. These States
surveyed more than 7.5 million lake
acres for toxic contaminants, many
of which had known or suspected
toxicity problems. This information is
difficult to interpret because States
do concentrate their monitoring
efforts on lakes with problems, and
each State uses its own criteria for
defining "elevated" concentrations
of contaminants.
Trends in Significant
Public Lakes
A final provision in the 1987
CWA reauthorization encourages
States to make use of available
information to identify trends in
water quality for public lakes. With
the possible exception of bog-like
dystrophic lakes, lakes do naturally
display shifts in trophic status over
time, as well as pollution-induced
trends. Trend analysis can therefore
be extremely valuable in document-
ing the eutrophication rate. Where
possible, trend assessments should
look not only at shifts in trophic
status but at all water quality issues,
including trends involving toxic con-
taminants.
The majority of States do
attempt some sort of trend determi-
nation. Frequently, determinations
are made based on best professional
judgment (BPJ) rather than more
quantitative tests. Virtually every
State that presents such BPJ trends
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes 423
assessments notes that confidence
limits or other measures of reliability
or precision are not available.
While the desirability of trend
assessments is widely recognized,
States still face challenges in gather-
ing adequate information to statisti-
cally document trend signals.
Although States continue to explore
ways to detect empirically significant
trends, virtually every State
expressed the need to acquire addi-
tional data, a common estimate
being that at least 10 years of
observations would be needed to
apply more rigorous statistical meth-
ods. Another common theme is that
the patterns displayed in many lakes
do not seem to be linear. Most
available statistical tests are geared
to spotting simple, linear trends.
Where the underlying physical
patterns are nonlinear or cyclical,
more complex analyses are needed.
Some States do apply quantita-
tive analysis techniques for lake
assessments. Illinois used linear
regressions combined with examina-
tion of scatter plots of the raw data
and residuals. From 213 lakes, over
half (56%) of the lakes had compli-
cated fluctuating patterns suggest-
ing cyclical or nonlinear patterns,
perhaps related to weather variabil-
ity. Illinois, therefore, felt that
additional data and further analysis
would be worthwhile. Wisconsin
and Minnesota used the Seasonal
Kendall tau test to look at trends in
water clarity. This is a nonparamet-
ric test considered by many to be
generally preferable to parametric
tests for use with water quality data.
Wisconsin looked at 40 lakes, with
the test suggesting increasing trends
(clearer water) for 16 lakes and
decreasing trends for 6 lakes.
Minnesota reported trends in Secchi
transparency for the 16 lakes with
8 or more years of data. At a 10%
detection level, 13 lakes were con-
sidered to have a significant decline
in transparency and 44 lakes were
considered to have a significant
increase in transparency.
In 1994, 24 States reported that
of the 1,828 lakes assessed for
trends, 14% were improving, 68%
were stable, and 18% were degrad-
ing. This information may be some-
what biased, as States often assess
trends in lakes that are part of a
management study or because of
their easy accessibility. It is likely
that more remote lakes are under-
represented in these assessments.
Pollution Control
and Restoration
Techniques
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
Case Kepner, age 8, Bruner Elementary,
North Las Vegas, NV
-------
424 Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes
to reduce nonpoint sources of pol-
lutants. 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. Regulatory
measures include point source dis-
charge prohibitions and phosphate
detergent bans.
States are asked to provide
materials on their lake restoration
techniques. 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.
During the 1980s, most States
implemented chemical and
mechanical in-lake restoration mea-
sures to control aquatic weeds and
algae. In 1994, the States reported
that they still implement in-lake
treatments, but they most fre-
quently implement best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) to control
nonpoint sources of nutrients and
siltation (Figure 16-3). Twenty-two
States reported that they imple-
mented BMPs to control NPS
pollution entering more than 171
lakes. The States reported that they
implemented agricultural practices
to reduce soil erosion, managed
animal waste, constructed retention
and detention basins to cleanse
Figure 16-3
Lake Restoration and Pollution Control Measures
Implemented by States
i
Lake Restoration and Pollution
Control Measures
Implement NPS Controls (total)3
Dredging
Modified Discharge Permits
Shoreline Stabilization/Rip Rap
Lake Drawdown
Chemical Weed and Algae Controls
Mechanical Weed Harvesting
Biological Weed Control
Local Ordinances and Zoning
5 10 15 20
Number of States Reporting
Total
25
Includes best management practices, such as conservation tillage, sediment detention basins, vegetated buffers,
and animal waste management.
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes 425
urban stormwater, revegetated
shorelines, and constructed or
restored wetlands to remove pollut-
ants before they entered lake
waters.
Clean Lakes
Demonstrations
The 1987 amendments to
Clean Water Act Section 314 estab-
lished the Demonstration Program
for lakes. The Act requires that the
EPA Administrator give priority
consideration to the following 10
lakes for inclusion in the Demonstra-
tion Program: Lake Worth, Texas;
Lake Houston, Texas; Beaver Lake,
Arkansas; Greenwood Lake, New
Jersey; Deal Lake, New Jersey;
Alcyon Lake, New Jersey; Gorton's
Pond, Rhode Island; Lake Washing-
ton, Rhode Island; Lake Bomoseen,
Vermont; and Sauk Lake, Minne-
sota.
These 10 lakes have water qual-
ity problems common to many
lakes throughout the United States.
Most of the water quality problems
fall into two categories: (1) exces-
sive siltation and sediment influx
and (2) high levels of nutrient
loading.
These water quality problems
have many sources, but most can
be linked to the development of the
lakes' watersheds. Urbanization can
increase runoff from lawns, high-
ways, stormwater outfalls, and other
surfaces. Shoreline development can
result in increased nutrient loading
from inadequate septic systems and
the use of fertilizers on lawns. Rural
development can lead to water
quality problems as well. Farms and
animal production facilities on or
near lakes use and generate large
quantities of nitrogen and phospho-
rus from animal feed, fertilizers,
pesticides, and animal waste. Runoff
from these facilities or fields can
significantly increase the nutrient
load to a lake. Soil erosion that
occurs during construction or from
poorly maintained commercial,
residential, or agricultural lands can
cause a significant influx of silt and
sediment to a lake.
Demonstration Lakes
Lake Worth. Lake Worth is the
primary source of drinking water for
the City of Fort Worth, Texas. It is
also a major recreational resource
and is surrounded by almost 4,000
acres of public parks. In recent
years, however, uses of the lake
have been impaired by siltation and
the unchecked growth of aquatic
plants in the shallow areas of the
lake.- Studies conducted over the
past 30 years have given project
principals a clear understanding of
the history and present condition of
the lake and its watershed as well as
a coherent restoration plan. This
project enjoys very active public
participation, cooperation with the
U.S. Arrny Corps of Engineers, and
coordination through an inter-
agency planning committee com-
posed of Federal, State, and local
entities. With the workplan
approved and engineering designs
prepared, the restoration project is
well under way and active. The
project involves installation of an
-------
426 Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes
innovative pressurized wastewater
collection system, enhancement of
existing wetlands for nutrient
uptake, dam operation adjustments
to raise the water level, and
removal of stumps and abandoned
dock pilings.
Lake Houston. This 12,350-
acre impoundment serves as a
water supply and recreational lake
for the City of Houston, Texas.
Originally, the lake had a storage
capacity of more than 160,000
acre-feet, but over the years the
capacity of the lake has decreased
by more than 18%. Studies indicate
that the diminished capacity results
from constant sedimentation and
that uses of the lake are impaired
by the excessive growth of aquatic
plants. The current water quality
problems are caused by runoff,
primarily from urbanized areas
around the lake, and point source
discharges. Feasibility studies are
under way to examine several resto-
ration and pollution prevention
methods for the lake, and the City
of Houston is independently con-
ducting a comprehensive lake and
watershed study.
Beaver Lake. Located near
Fayetteville, Arkansas, Beaver Lake is
a 28,190-acre reservoir that serves
as a drinking water supply and rec-
reational facility for the surrounding
population of more than 200,000
people. Although the lake has
escaped any significant impairment
to date, the State of Arkansas is
concerned that rapid commercial,
agricultural, and residential develop-
ment threatens the water quality of
the lake. Over the years, the Beaver
Lake watershed has been studied
extensively through the cooperative
efforts of several Federal agencies.
All recognize that runoff from the
growing number of chicken and
swine farms in the watershed could
eventually affect the quality of the
drinking water supply. Studies indi-
cate that water clarity in the upper
reservoir has been decreasing as a
result of siltation and algal blooms.
The source of the silt and nutrients
is believed to be the increased num-
ber of confined animal production
facilities and the spreading of the
waste from the facilities on nearby
pastures. EPA and the State of
Arkansas are encouraging farmers to
use best management practices
voluntarily to reduce the potential
for nutrient loading to the lake. The
Army Corps of Engineers undertook
an extensive effort to characterize
the water quality of the lake and to
determine the impacts of the sur-
rounding watershed. Monitoring
data indicate that the trophic status
of the lake has not changed signifi-
cantly since 1970. Although point
sources of pollution to the lake have
decreased, nonpoint sources have
increased, resulting in no net
change in nutrient input. No spe-
cific restoration measures have been
recommended.
Greenwood Lake. Historic
Greenwood Lake is unique among
the Demonstration Program lakes
because it is located in two States,
New Jersey and New York. The lake,
divided almost in half by the New
York/New Jersey State line, is part of
the headwaters for the Wanaque
Reservoir, which is a major water
source for northern New jersey and
a popular recreational area.
Although Greenwood Lake is still a
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes 427
thriving water resource, it shows
signs of water quality degradation:
adverse changes in fishery popula-
tions, excessive growth of aquatic:
plants, and unpleasant odors and
taste. This degradation is caused by
increased nutrient and sediment
loadings, which are the result of
development in the watershed,
stormwater runoff, septic discharges,
and point source discharges into
tributaries of the lake. Sources of
lake pollution have been identified
and a 10-part restoration plan was
developed in the 1980s. Some por-
tions of the plan—specifically lake
drawdown and aquatic plant har-
vesting—were implemented as early
as 1985. In addition, sewage treat-
ment facilities have been upgraded,
stormwater control measures have
been implemented for new develop-
ments, and runoff conveyances have
been maintained. Ongoing efforts
include lake level drawdown, weed
harvesting, development of a
stormwater management plan
prioritizing sites, construction of
stormwater detention basins, and a
public education program. Prelimi-
nary results indicate that the recur-
rence of excessive aquatic plants has
decreased. In addition to the efforts
of the States and EPA, the COE has
developed a dredging plan for the
lake.
Deal Lake. Deal Lake is the
largest freshwater body in
Monmouth County, New Jersey. By
1950, sedimentation, algal blooms,
and bacteria concentrations had
become so excessive that recre-
ational uses were impeded or
prohibited. State and local interest
in restoring the lake culminated in
1983 in a State-sponsored
comprehensive diagnostic/feasibility
study. This study determined the
primary source of sediment to be an
old landfill located upstream of the
lake. The source of nutrients and
bacteria appears to be excrement
from the abundant waterfowl that
inhabit the lake. This study also
defined a remediation plan that
included in-lake work such as
dredging and drawdown, as well as
watershed management elements
such as stabilization of the upstream
landfill, stormwater management,
erosion control, and the protection
of sensitive habitats. The remedia-
tion plan was initiated in 1988 with
$1 million of State funds. After the
landfill was stabilized, a heavily
sedimented portion of the lake was
restored by dredging, construction
of a sediment trap, wetland
enhancement, and reclamation of
Megan Daly, age 9, Iowa City, IA
-------
428 Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes
surface water habitat. Further activi-
ties completed or ongoing include
(1) construction of stormwater
detention basins, (2) dredging to
create a new retention site, (3)
development of watershed and
"sensitive lands" management
plans, and (4) public education and
consultation with area schools.
Alcyon Lake. Alcyon Lake is a
small manmade lake located in
Pitman, New Jersey. The lake has
been a center of community activity
since the 1890s when Alcyon Park
was built on the lakeshore. In 1951,
Alcyon Park was sold and essentially
abandoned. By 1980, three sources
of pollution had been identified:
(1) the LiPari Landfill, an abandoned
chemical waste dump; (2) urban
stormwater runoff; and (3) agricul-
tural runoff. This pollution had been
ongoing for over 20 years. In 1980,
it was determined that the major
problem at the lake was the dis-
charge of approximately 150,000
gallons of chemical waste from the
LiPari Landfill. The LiPari Landfill was
designated as a Superfund project
and the landfill is now contained.
The Superfund Program is now
dredging contaminated sediments
from the lake and area streams and
wetlands. Under the Clean Water
Act, the Lake Demonstration Pro-
grams focused on the urban and
agricultural sources of pollution to
the lake. This effort is in progress
and includes (1) examination of the
stormwater drainage system to
identify problem areas, (2) a volun-
teer monitoring program, (3) public
participation meetings and an edu-
cation program, (4) streambank
stabilization, and (5) a joint effort
with the Soil Conservation Service
(recently renamed the Natural
Resources Conservation Service) to
implement watershed erosion
control measures.
Gorton's Pond. Located near
Warwick, Gorton's Pond is in a
heavily urbanized area of Rhode
Island. Consequently, it has many of
the pollution problems associated
with residential and commercial
development. These include surface
runoff that contains oil, grease,
bacteria, fertilizers (nutrients), and
sediment. Resulting problems are
algal blooms, overgrowth of aquatic
vegetation, and a decline in the
fishery. Recommendations from an
initial study stressed that the resto-
ration plan must deal with the
causes of the water pollution—land
use practices in the watershed—
as well as in-lake work. Land use
management recommendations
included erosion and sediment
control, particularly during construc-
tion and at stormwater outfalls;
stormwater treatment and/or diver-
sion; and elimination of point and
nonpoint source discharges such as
onsite sewage disposal systems.
In-lake methods proposed included
limited dredging, nutrient inactiva-
tion, and aquatic plant harvesting.
The design phase of a stormwater
infiltration basin has been com-
pleted but the basin has not been
constructed.
Lake Washington. Located in
upper northwestern Rhode Island,
Lake Washington is a shallow basin
constructed more than 80 years
ago. In recent years, excessive
growth of aquatic vegetation,
algal blooms, and increased sedi-
mentation have occurred. The
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes 429
decomposition of the aquatic plants
and algae has decreased the dis-
solved oxygen content in the water,
threatening the survival of the fish
population. Part of the water quality
problems stem from the fact that
the lake has a naturally low inflow
of water, primarily ground water,
and consequently has poor flushing.
In addition, many lakeshore resi-
dents are on septic systems that
have exceeded their useful life. A
further source of pollution is runoff
from a highway that abuts the
lakeshore. Failing septic systems
have been identified as the primaiy
source of nutrients to the lake, and
a centralized wastewater treatment
system has been recommended.
In-lake work such as drawdown,
harvesting, and algicides may also
be needed, as well as watershed
management activities such as revi-
sion of local land ordinances, rip rap
and vegetative swells, land acquisi-
tion, and better maintenance of
stormwater drainage systems.
Lake Bomoseen. Lake
Bomoseen is the largest lake located
entirely within Vermont. It covers
2,364 acres and has an average
depth of 27 feet. As a result, the
lake is a major recreational resource
and contributes to the economy of
the region. Since 1982, the aquatic
plant Eurasian water milfoil has
spread rapidly in some areas of the
lake. It is estimated that the plant.
occupies more than 600 acres of
the lake out to a depth of 20 feet.
The Eurasian milfoil coverage is very
dense and has severely restricted
use of the lake. In the 1980s
mechanical harvesters were used to
remove the plants from the lake's
surface, but this method proved to
be ineffective and uneconomical in
controlling the plant growth. In
1989, staff of the Vermont Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) discovered a dramatic decline
in milfoil growth in Brownington
Pond in northeastern Vermont. The
decline appeared to be associated
with the presence of a particular
native herbivorous (plant-eating)
aquatic weevil that feeds on Eur-
asian milfoil. In 1990, DEC began a
5-year research project on the use
of the native insect as a biological
control for milfoil in Lake Bomoseen
as well as the other 2.5 lakes in Ver-
mont that have a milfoil problem.
The goal of the project is to deter-
mine the extent to which the
aquatic weevil might contribute to
milfoil reduction and the suitability
of Lake Bomoseen and other lakes
for weevil introduction. The project
has involved determining the distri-
bution and abundance of the native
weevil in Vermont lakes, field collec-
tion of adult weevils for rearing
stock, weevil rearing in a laboratory
greenhouse, introduction of weevils
into specific lake sites, and monitor-
ing to determine survival of the
weevils and feeding damage to
milfoil plants. Results from the
quantitative sampling effort done at
the three weevil introduction sites
on Lake Bomoseen are not yet avail-
able. However, visual observations
indicate that the weevils have
damaged the milfoil at all three sites
and that some milfoil populations in
shallow water are starting to col-
lapse. Norton Brook Reservoir also
received weevil introductions; how-
ever, introductions at this site were
discontinued due to a lack of posi-
tive results. Unlike the observations
at Bomoseen, little evidence of
-------
430 Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes
surviving weevils and weevil feeding
damage was seen at this site. There-
fore, at this point it is difficult to
predict how successful the weevils
will be at reducing Eurasian milfoil.
Sauk Lake. Sauk Lake covers
2,111 acres in central Minnesota
and has a predominantly agricul-
tural watershed encompassing
5 counties, 49 townships, and
28 cities. The overgrowth of aquatic
plants and algae has severely
curtailed or entirely discontinued
the recreational uses of the lake.
The sources of nutrient and sedi-
ment pollution are agricultural and
urban runoff within the watershed
and upstream of Sauk Lake. The
State has -begun to control these
sources and prevent pollution in the
upstream Lake Osakis watershed
area. Measures include agricultural
best management practices such as
no-till farming and feedlot runoff
diversion, streambank and shoreline
erosion control, urban stormwater
diversion, and a community educa-
tion program. Meanwhile, the Army
Corps of Engineers has been imple-
menting a harvesting effort to re-
duce the aquatic plants in Sauk
Lake.
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting Lakes 431
-------
-------
Wetlands Protection Programs
A variety of public and private
programs protect wetlands. The
Conservation Foundation organized
the bipartisan National Wetlands
Policy Forum in 1987 to coordinate
these disparate efforts and develop
a national, coordinated vision for
wetlands protection. The Forum
issued a report in November 1988
containing over 100 recommended
actions for all levels of government
and the private sector. It established
an interim goal to achieve no over-
all 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.
Shortly after coming into office, the
Clinton Administration convened an
interagency working group to
address concerns with Federal wet-
lands policy. After hearing from
States, developers, farmers, environ-
mental interests, members of Con-
gress, and scientists, the working
group developed a comprehensive
40-point plan for wetlands protec-
tion to make wetlands programs
more fair, flexible, and effective.
This plan was issued on August 24,
1993.
Section 404
Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act continues to provide the pri-
mary Federal vehicle for regulating
certain activities in wetlands. Section
404 establishes a permit program
for discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United
States, including wetlands.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers and EPA jointly implement the
Section 404 program. The COE is
responsible for reviewing permit
applications and making permit
decisions. EPA establishes the envi-
ronmental criteria for making permit
decisions and has the authority to
review and veto Section 404 per-
mits proposed for issuance by the
COE. EPA is also responsible for
determining geographic jurisdiction
of the Section 404 permit program,
interpreting statutory exemptions,
and overseeing Section 404 permit
programs assumed by individual
States. To date, only two States
(Michigan and New Jersey) have
assumed the Section 404 permit
program from the COE. The COE
and EPA share responsibility for
enforcing Section 404 requirements.
The COE issues individual Sec-
tion 404 permits for specific projects
or general permits (Table 17-1).
Applications for individual permits
go through a review process that
includes opportunities for EPA, other
Federal agencies (such as the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service),
State agencies, and the public to
comment. However, the vast major-
ity of activities proposed in wetlands
are covered by Section 404 general
permits. For example, in FY94, over
48,000 people applied to the COE
for a Section 404 permit. Eighty-two
percent of these applications were
covered by general permits and
were processed in an average of 16
days. It is estimated that another
50,000 activities are covered by
The Administration's
Wetlands Plan emphasizes
improving Federal wetlands
policy by
• Streamlining wetlands
permitting programs
• Increasing cooperation
with private landowners
to protect and restore
wetlands
• Basing wetlands protec-
tion on good science and
sound judgment
• Increasing participation
by States, Tribes, local
governments, and the
public in wetlands
protection
-------
434 Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs
general permits that do not require
notification of the COE at all.
General permits allow the COE
to permit certain activities without
performing a separate individual
permit review. Some general
permits require notification of the
COE before an activity begins. There
are three types of general permits:
• Nationwide permits (NWPs)
authorize specific activities across
the entire Nation. NWPs cover
categories of activities that the COE
determines will have only minimal
individual and cumulative impacts
on the environment. Currently, 36
NWPs authorize activities including
construction of minor road crossings
and farm buildings, bank stabiliza-
tion activities, some cranberry
operations, and the filling of up to
10 acres of isolated or headwater
wetlands.
• Regional permits authorize types
of activities within a geographic
area defined by a COE District
Office. Regional permits may
authorize activities in a specific
waterbody, a county, a State, a COE
district, or multiple States within a
COE district.
• Programmatic general permits
are issued to an entity that the COE
determines may regulate activities
within its jurisdictional wetlands.
Under a programmatic general per-
mit, the COE defers its permit deci-
sion to the regulating entity but
reserves its authority to require an
individual permit. Under State pro-
grammatic general permits (SPGPs),
the COE defers permit decisions to
a State program for specific activi-
ties throughout the State or in a
significant portion of the State.
Currently, the COE and EPA are
promoting the development of
SPGPs to increase State involvement
in wetlands protection and minimize
duplicative State and Federal review
of activities proposed in wetlands.
Each SPGP is a unique arrangement
developed by a State and the COE
to take advantage of the strengths
of the individual State wetlands
program. SPGPs may cover all
Table 17-1. Federal Section 404 Permits ; ; i ' 1
Nationwide
Permits
• Cover 36 types of
activities that the
COE determines
to have minimal
adverse Impacts
on the environment
General Permits
(streamlined permit review procedures)
Regional
Permits
• Developed by COE
District Offices to
cover activities in a
specified region
Programmatic
Permits
State ,,',,,'",,,
1 "Programmatic
Permits
• COE defers permit
decisions to State
agency while
reserving authority
to require an
individual permit
Others
• Special Management
Agencies
• Watershed Planning
Commissions
Individual
Permits
• Required for major projects
that have the potential to
cause significant adverse
impacts
• Project must undergo
interagency review
• Opportunity for public
comment
• Opportunity for 401
certification review
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs 435
regulated activities in a State or a
select set of activities in a portion of
the State. Several States have
adopted comprehensive SPGPs that
replace many or all COE-issued na-
tionwide general permits (see high-
light on page 442).
SPGPs simplify the regulatory
process and increase State control
over their wetlands resources. Care-
fully developed SPGPs can improve
wetlands protection while reducing
regulatory demands on landowners.
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 17-1 indi-
cates the State's progress in devel-
oping these standards (see Appen-
dix D, Table D-5, for individual
State data).
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
protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and for recre-
ation in and on the water. States
may choose to designate additional
uses for their wetlands, such as
flood water attenuation or ground
water recharge where appropriate.
Once uses are designated, States are
required to adopt criteria sufficient
to protect their designated uses.
Criteria are general narrative state-
ments or specific numerical values
such as concentrations of contami-
nants and water quality characteris-
tics. Narrative criteria can be par-
ticularly appropriate for wetlands
when quantitative data do not exist.
An example of a narrative criterion
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
Sections 402 and 404, water quality
certification under Section 401, and
the control of nonpoint source
pollution under Section 319.
Figure;. 17-1"
Development of State Water Quality
Standards for Wetlands
Antidegradation
Use Classification
Narrative Biocriteria
Numeric Biocriteria
25 States and Tribes Total Reporting
C3 Propose^!
H Under Development
• In Place
I
J_
5 10 15
Number of States Reporting
20
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-5.
-------
436 Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs
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.
Section 401 certification can be a
powerful tool for protecting wet-
lands from unacceptable degrada-
tion or destruction, especially when
implemented in conjunction with
wetlands-specific water quality stan-
dards. Section 401 grants States and
Tribes the authority to deny certifi-
cation or require conditions for
certification if the State or Tribe
determines that an applicant has
failed to demonstrate that a project
will comply with State or Tribal
water quality standards. If a State or
eligible Tribe denies Section 401
certification, the Federal permitting
or licensing agency cannot issue the
permit or license.
Most States now use their
Section 401 certification programs
to review activities requiring both
Section 404 individual permits and
selected general permits. Until
recently, many States waived their
right to review and certify individual
and general Section 404 permits
because these States had not
defined water quality standards for
wetlands or codified regulations for
implementing their 401 certification
program into State law. Now, most
States report that they use the
Section 401 certification process to
review Section 404 projects and to
require mitigation if there is no
alternative to degradation of
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
permits, such as some ground water
withdrawals, are not covered.
State Wetlands
Conservation Plans
State Wetlands Conservation
Plans (SWCPs) are strategies that
integrate regulatory and cooperative
approaches to achieve State wet-
lands management goals, such as
no overall net loss of wetlands.
SWCPs are not meant to create a
new level of bureaucracy. Instead,
SWCPs improve government and
private-sector effectiveness and
efficiency by identifying gaps in
wetlands protection programs and
identifying opportunities to improve
wetlands programs.
A large number of land- and
water-based activities impact
wetlands. These activities are not
addressed by a single Federal, State,
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs 437
or local agency program. Although
many public and private programs
and activities protect wetlands,
these programs are often limited in
scope and are not well coordinated.
Also, these programs often do not
address all of the problems affecting
wetlands.
States, Territories, and Tribes are
well positioned between Federal
and local government to take the
lead in integrating and expanding
wetlands protection and manage-
ment programs. They are experi-
enced in managing federally man-
dated environmental programs
under the Clean Water Act and the
Coastal Zone Management Act.
They are uniquely equipped to help
resolve local and regional conflicts
and identify the local economic and
geographic factors that may influ-
ence wetlands protection.
• Texas' SWCP will focus on
nonregulatory and voluntary
approaches to wetlands protection
to complement its regulatory
program. The plan will encourage
development of economic incentives
for private landowners to protect
wetlands and educational outreach
for State and local officials.
• Tennessee's plan focuses on a
strategy to collect wetlands informa-
tion for outreach and education to
private owners of wetlands as well
as to regional and local decision-
makers. Current implementation
efforts include identification of criti-
cal functions of major wetlands
types, priority sites for acquisition
and/or restoration, as well as main-
tenance and restoration of natural
floodplain hydrology through digiti-
zation and use of remote sensing.
• Maine's SWCP will focus on ways
to establish better coordination
between State and Federal regula-
tory programs as well as new
nonregulatory mechanisms to foster
voluntary stewardship. In addition,
the State expects to use an ecosys-
tem framework to guide the priori-
tization of wetlands for comprehen-
sive protection and to review and
improve compensator)' mitigation
policies.
Wetlands Monitoring/
Biocriteria Programs
Historically, wetlands protection
efforts have concentrated on regu-
lating the widespread destruction of
wetlands due to the discharge of
dredged and fill material and on
conservation of wetlands to maxi-
mize tangible benefits such as hunt-
ing and fishing. States have only
recently begun to take steps toward
control of other disturbances that
can result in the degradation of
wetlands. Such disturbances include
hydrologic alteration, vegetation
clearing, introduction of alien spe-
cies, habitat fragmentation, chemi-
cal pollutants, sedimentation, and
changes in pH, dissolved oxygen,
and temperature. The use of water
quality standards is an important
tool for States to use to address
these causes of wetlands degrada-
tion.
Assessment of the biological
integrity of a wetland is crucial to
characterizing water quality because
aquatic life tends to reflect the
ecological health of a waterbody
(including physical ancl chemical
conditions) and will reflect a range
of diverse degrading impacts on a
For more information:
• See the Statewide
Wetlands Strategies
guidebook, which is
available from Island
Press (1-800-828-1302).
• Ask for copies of the
SWCP brochure "Why
Develop a State Wet-
land Conservation
Plan?" from the EPA
Wetlands Information
Hotline (1-800-832-
7828) (contractor
operated).
-------
438 Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs
system. Measuring and tracking
biological integrity is the best way
to ensure that numerous degrading
impacts, however subtle or long
term, are detected and monitored.
A biocriteria program seeks to
characterize the biological integrity
of relatively undegraded wetlands or
"reference" wetlands and uses this
information to set reasonable goals
for wetlands within a given eco-
region or area. These goals, or
beneficial uses, when written as
aquatic life use designations
(ALUDs) and codified in a State's
water quality standards, guide the
restoration of degraded wetlands
and maintenance of biological
integrity in all wetlands.
Supporting biocriteria are devel-
oped for each aquatic life use to
define biological and ecological
characteristics that wetlands must
possess to attain an ALUD. Biocri-
teria generally begin as narrative
statements and are assigned
numeric values as more data are
gathered. It is through this system
of biological goal-setting, monitor-
ing, assessment, and updating of
biocriteria and ALUDs that the water
quality improvement and protection
goals of the CWA are achieved.
The extent and importance of
impacts to wetlands will become
clear only with systematic biomoni-
toring of reference sites, comparison
with degraded wetlands, and
research on the links between the
type of disturbance and the ecologi-
cal integrity of wetlands. Without
these data, and programs to protect
the quality as well as quantity of
wetlands resources, wetlands losses
will continue.
Although State progress toward
development of biocriteria programs
is limited and varied, several States
have begun systematic long-term
regional monitoring and monitoring
of reference sites necessary to sup-
port a wetlands biocriteria program.
Currently, Kentucky, Minnesota,
Montana, and New Mexico are
developing such programs. Other
States have initated projects, often
limited to a specific region, wet-
lands type, or monitoring method,
that will help them gain experience
and acquire data needed for launch-
ing a statewide wetlands biomoni-
toring program.
Swampbuster
The Swampbuster provisions of
the 1985 Food Security Act and the
1990 Food, Agriculture, Conserva-
tion and Trade Act ("Farm Bills")
deny crop subsidy payments and all
other agricultural benefits to farm
operators who convert wetlands to
cropland after December 23, 1985,
or who modify wetlands to make
cropping possible after November
28, 1990. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resources Con-
servation Service (formerly the Soil
Conservation Service) is responsible
for determining compliance with
Swampbuster provisions and for
determining whether agricultural
lands fall under the jurisdiction of
Federal wetlands laws, including
both the Swampbuster provisions
and Clean Water Act Section 404.
State Programs to
Protect Wetlands
States protect their wetlands
with a variety of approaches, includ-
ing use of CWA authorities (such as
Sections 401 arid 303), permitting
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs 439
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:
• Most States have defined wet-
lands as waters of the State, which
offers general protection through
antidegradation clauses and desig-
nated uses that apply to all waters
of a State. However, most States
have not developed specific wet-
lands water quality standards and
designated uses that protect wet-
lands' unique functions, such as
flood attenuation and filtration.
• Without specific wetlands uses
and standards, the Section 401
certification process relies heavily on
antidegradation clauses to prevent
significant degradation of wetlands.
• In many cases, the States use the
Section 401 certification process to
add conditions to Section 404
permits that minimize the size of
wetlands destroyed or degraded by
proposed activities to the extent
practicable.
States often add conditions that
require compensatory mitigation for
destroyed wetlands, but the States
do not have the resources to
perform enforcement inspections or
followup monitoring to ensure that
the constructed wetlands are func-
tioning properly.
• More States are monitoring
selected, largely unimpacted
wetlands to establish baseline condi-
tions in healthy wetlands. The States
will use this information to monitor
the relative performance of con-
structed wetlands and to help estab-
lish biocriteria and water quality
standards for wetlands.
Some highlights from individual
State reports are as follows:
• The District of Columbia adopted
narrative criteria for wetlands in
their 1994 water quality standards.
Wetlands are now classified for des-
ignated use categories of Class C
(the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife) and Class
D (the protection of human health
related to consumption of fish and
shellfish). Wetlands are now pro-
tected from significant adverse
hydrologic modifications, excessive
sedimentation, deposition of toxic
substances in toxic amounts, nutri-
ent imbalances, and other adverse
impacts from human activities.
• Massachusetts made significant
progress in establishing wetlands-
specific criteria. The State defined
wetlands as waters of the State,
designated uses for wetlands,
adopted aesthetic narrative criteria
and very general numeric criteria for
wetlands, and drafted an antidegra-
dation policy. The State intends to
complete and implement the
antidegradation policy; draft narra-
tive biological criteria; develop
specific numeric criteria for appro-
priate parameters; develop criteria
-------
440 Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs
for designating wetlands and Out-
standing Resource Waters; and in-
corporate these standards and crite-
ria into the State 401 Water Quality
Certification Program. The State also
drafted regulations for implement-
ing the 401 program during the
1994 reporting cycle.
• During 1992 and 1993, Minne-
sota completed rules to implement
the 1991 Minnesota Wetlands
Conservation Act. These rules
require local governments to regu-
late the draining and filling of
wetlands not classified as "public
waters wetlands." Twenty-five
exemptions are included in the Wet-
lands Conservation Act and Rules.
Minnesota also began comprehen-
sive wetlands conservation planning
in 1993. An interagency task force
staffed through the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
will develop statewide wetlands
goals and guidance for coordinating
local, State, and Federal wetlands
programs.
Minnesota added specific definitions
of wetlands to their water quality
standards, assigned water use classi-
fications to wetlands, adopted nar-
rative nondegradation standards to
protect wetlands, and implemented
a wetlands mitigation process. The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
began surveying reference wetlands
sites to develop biological and
chemical criteria for the wetlands
use classifications and to assess the
biological and chemical health of
wetlands throughout the State.
• Nebraska adopted specific wet-
lands water quality standards in
November 1993. The standards
classify wetlands into two catego-
ries: isolated wetlands and surface
water overflow wetlands that are
adjacent to lakes or streams. The
beneficial uses of aquatic life, wild-
life habitat, agricultural use, and
aesthetics are assigned to all wet-
lands. In addition, surface water
overflow wetlands are protected for
the assigned beneficial uses of the
adjacent lake or stream. The State
assigned narrative water quality
criteria to protect the beneficial uses
and numeric criteria to protect uses
from toxic pollutants.
• Ohio is in the process of drafting
standards to protect the functional
values of wetlands, including desig-
nated uses, narrative criteria, and an
antidegradation policy specifically
for wetlands. The State is also devel-
oping performance goals for wet-
lands mitigation projects and
designing a monitoring program to
support both wetlands water quality
standards and the mitigation perfor-
mance goals.
• Wisconsin Administrative Code
NR 103 established wetlands water
quality standards in 1991 that
include narrative criteria to protect
specific wetlands values and
functions, such as storm and flood
water storage, water cycle functions,
filtration of pollutants, shoreline
protection, wildlife habitat, and
recreational and scientific values.
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs 441
The standards have greatly
enhanced the effectiveness of
Wisconsin's Section 401 Water
Quality Certification Program by
providing legal criteria for denying
or adding conditions to proposed
activities that will have a significant
adverse impact on wetlands values
and functions. The standards have
controlled impacts to wetlands with-
out halting all activities in wet-
lands—the State granted 401 Certi-
fication to more than half of the
wetlands permit applications re-
viewed between 1991 and 1994.
Summary
There are a variety of public
and private programs to protect
wetlands. A forum was held in 1987
to coordinate these and provide
national direction in the area of
wetlands. Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act is the major Federal pro-
gram for regulating activities in
wetlands. Other important tools to
protect wetlands include voluntary
stewardship, wetlands water quality
standards, State water quality certifi-
cation, State wetlands conservation
plans, emergency wetlands reserve
and conservation reserve programs,
and Swampbuster provisions of the
Farm bills, as well as incorporating
wetlands considerations into other
programs such as the Section 319
Nonpoint Source Program.
States reported that they are
making progress in developing their
programs to protect wetlands,
especially in the areas of application
of 401 certification, development of
water quality standards for wet-
lands, State programmatic general
permits, and formation of more
efficient 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.
Jvfore information on wetlands
5jn_be obtained from EPA's
.Wetlands Hotline at
«l-800-832-7828 (9 a.m. to
5 p.m., eastern standard time).
-------
442 Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs
1 f ii^
s «;? ^
lllllllllllll
Hi i i II I 11 ill II nil nil nil in lllllllllllll I iiiiiiH lllllllllllll
The New Hampshire State
Programmatic General Permit
On June 1, 1992, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a
New Hampshire State Programmatic
General Permit (NHSPGP) and simul-
taneously revoked most nationwide
permits for use in the State of New
Hampshire. These actions stream-
lined the wetlands permitting pro-
cess by consolidating the Federal
Section 404 permit review process
with New Hampshire's own compre-
hensive permitting process for activi-
ties proposed in wetlands. The
actions also eliminated much of the
confusion surrounding nationwide
general permits.
Under the NHSPGP, the New
Hampshire Department of Environ-
mental Services (DES) Wetlands
Bureau and the New Hampshire
Wetlands Board perform the initial
review of all projects proposed in
the State's wetlands. The Wetlands
Board makes the initial permit deci-
sions, based on information and
recommendations provided by DES.
The New Hampshire Wetlands Laws
of 1967 and 1969 require permits
from the Wetlands Board for all
projects proposed in the State's
wetlands, regardless of project size.
There are no exemptions for agricul-
tural or silvicultural activities or
activities proposed by Federal, State,
or local agencies. The Wetlands
Board consists of representatives
from eight State agencies and four
members of the public.
The Wetlands Board issues three
types of permits for activities pro-
posed in wetlands:
• Minimum impact permits for
projects that impact less than 3,000
square feet
• Minorjmpact permits for projects
that impact less than 20,000 square
feet (about half an acre)
• Major impact permits for projects
that impact more than 20,000
square feet.
The NHSPGP establishes the
following procedures for processing
each of the New Hampshire
permits.
,, i^teia^i$4i^^wMii^^^
iujigi niuii'JMiiijtL liihiiuiThiiiiiihp.ii1,*,.1 iniiiiJpihSsiiiiiia'Yil'at' • -""l- -1"1'':
niiiiiilii! siiji iiiii^ jiiliili^^ i S'niij'H |>'ii i tV'S:|SiiiiiiiiBiii*i«iy :i»iiiiii«ijiiii iiiiiijiifii i ffilj i^riiiJiSiSi^lpiifili lii^iiiillii
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs 443
• All projects that receive a mini-
mum impact permit from the Wet-
lands Board automatically fall under
the NHSPGP, with no COE action
required. The Wetlands Board noti-
fies permit applicants that the per-
mitted project may commence
without COE action.
• The COE and other Federal
agencies screen projects that receive
a minor impact permit from the
Wetlands Board to determine if the
project meets conditions of the
NHSPGP or requires an individual
Section 404 permit. The COE noti-
fies the applicant within 30 days if
an individual Section 404 permit is
required. Projects with minor impact
permits are approved automatically
if the COE does not intervene in 30
days and the project meets the
conditions of the NHSPGP.
• The COE and other Federal agen-
cies screen projects that receive a
major impact permit from the Wet-
lands Board to determine if the
project meets conditions of the
NHSPGP or requires an individual
Section 404 permit. The COE
should notify the applicant within
30 days if an individual Section 404
permit is required, but lack of notifi-
cation does not provide automatic
approval for major projects. The
applicant must receive affirmative
notification before they initiate
projects with major impact permits.
The following categories of
projects and activities are excluded
from the NHSPGP and automatically
require an individual Federal Section
404 permit:
• Projects that will fill more than
3 acres of wetlands or other U.S.
waters
• New boating facilities, including
marinas, yacht clubs, boat clubs,
and public docks
• Projects within the limits of a
COE navigation project
• Discharge of spoils in the ocean
—~, „
" "* - - —£"t -=- V""""-
yqUi'ms*.-*?*-*- —
-------
444 Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs
•••^^•••l
iiB33i^^
iBBii!BH^«li^^HBI
HIGHLIGHT
• Improvement dredging in the
lower Merrimack River, the
Connecticut River, Lake Umbagog,
and tidal waters
• Breakwaters extending more than
50 feet from the shoreline
• Projects adversely affecting a
National Park, National Forest,
National Wildlife Refuge, endan-
gered species, or a National Wild
and Scenic River
• Any project likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of threat-
ened or endangered species
• Projects of national concern
(such as significant fill of wetlands
or projects that could affect archeo-
logical sites).
During the first year of NHSPGP
implementation, New Hampshire
reported a 76% reduction in the
number of Section 404 individual
permits issued and a sevenfold in-
crease in the number of projects
receiving documented Federal com-
pliance with Section 404. The
NHSPGP process appears to benefit
everyone. The NHSPGP relieves
permit applicants of time-consum-
ing parallel State and Federal per-
mitting procedures, reduces the
COE's average review period for
general permits, and frees up lim-
ited Federal and State staff to review
major projects.
The NHSPGP also eliminates
confusion over nationwide general
permits. Prior to implementation of
the NHSPGP, permit applicants who
received nationwide permits often
did not realize that they also
needed a State permit. Conversely,
applicants who received State per-
mits often assumed that they quali-
fied for a nationwide general permit
and failed to apply for a required
Section 404 individual permit.
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs 445
-------
446 Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs
]HT HIGHLIGHT
'>•$••*? i"ijllj
mi
', T '""ill;1!"1;
-' » <;" ";,!,
iJiil .i1".;:';!1
*--: =J tl
The Administration's
Wetlands Plan
Shortly after coming into office,
the Clinton Administration convened
an interagency working group to
address legitimate concerns with
Federal wetlands policy. After hear-
ing from States, developers, farmers,
environmental interests, members of
Congress, and scientists, the work-
ing group developed a comprehen-
sive 40-point plan to enhance wet-
lands protection while making wet-
lands regulations more fair, flexible,
and effective. The plan was issued
on August 24, 1993.
The Administration Wetlands
Plan emphasizes improving Federal
wetlands policy by streamlining
wetlands permitting programs;
increasing cooperation with private
landowners to protect and restore
wetlands; basing wetlands protec-
tion on good science and sound
judgment; and increasing participa-
tion by States, Tribes, local govern-
ments, and the public in wetlands
protection. The Administration has
already taken a number of actions
to implement the Wetlands Plan,
including the following steps:
• Proposed a nationwide general
permit and created an administra-
tive process to minimize the regula-
tory burden on small landowners for
small projects on their land
• Clarified, by regulation, that prior
converted croplands are not wet-
lands under both the Swampbuster
and CWA programs
• Gave the U.S. Department of
Agriculture the responsibility for
identifying wetlands on agricultural
lands for both Swampbuster and
CWA programs
• Issued policies that have
increased flexibility in wetlands
permitting and reduced burdens on
permit applicants
• Allowed for greater flexibility in
permitting requirements in Alaska,
due to the unique circumstances in
that State
• Made it easier for permit appli-
cants to use mitigation "banks"
• Requested increased funding for
the Wetlands Reserve Program to
assist farmers who want to restore
wetlands
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs 447
• Increased funding to States,
Tribes, and local governments for
wetlands programs.
These efforts are only the first
steps that the Administration is tak-
ing to reduce the burden of Federal
wetlands regulations. Activities cur-
rently under development include
• Clarifying exemptions of man-
made wetlands from Federal juris-
diction
• Establishing clear and firm dead-
lines for COE permit decisions
• Allowing administrative appeals
of permit denials and wetlands juris-
dictional determinations as an alter-
native to expensive and time-
consuming litigation
• Establishing a wetlands delineator
certification program to expedite
regulatory decisions and improve
the quality and consistency of
wetlands delineations performed by
private consultants
• Improving wetlands assessment
techniques so that permit decisions
better reflect the fact that all
wetlands do not function in the
same manner
• Developing guidance to promote
the use of Section 404 program-
matic general permits that reduce
overlap between State and Federal
wetlands permitting procedures and
provide additional flexibility to State
and local governments
• Expanding the Wetlands Reserve
Program to all 50 States and allow-
ing more types of land to qualify for
the program.
Most of these actions ease the
Federal wetlands permitting burden
on small landowners and farmers.
The Administration is committed to
meeting our Nation's wetlands pro-
tection objectives without imposing
unnecessary burdens on America's
farmers and individuals who own
property that happens to include
wetlands.
•» " */*
HIGHLIG
i*sias«K£»- •
HT HIGHLIGHT
•t^'-a" •.
-~
•*>-,&
-------
448 Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs
EPA Wetlands Advance
Identification (ADID)
This highlight describes the
advance identification of disposal
areas (ADID), a planning process used
to identify wetlands and other waters
that are generally suitable or unsuit-
able for the discharge of dredged and
fill material. It highlights how the
ADID process works and the status of
ongoing projects.
1
Status of EPA Wetlands
ADID Projects-1993
Status
Ongoing
Complete
Size (sq. mi.)
• • <100
• • 100-1,000
>1,000
How the ADID Process
Works
The ADID process involves col-
lecting and distributing information
on the values and functions of wet-
lands areas. EPA conducts the pro-
cess in cooperation with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and in
consultation with States or Tribes
and local interests. Local communi-
ties can use this information to help
them better understand the values
and functions of wetlands in their
areas. It also serves as a preliminary
indication of factors likely to be
considered during review of a
Section 404 permit application.
The ADID process is intended to
add predictability to the wetlands
permitting process as well as better
account for the impacts of losses
from multiple projects within a
geographic area.
Although an ADID study gener-
ally classifies wetland areas as suit-
able or unsuitable for the discharge
of dredged or fill material, the classi-
fication does not constitute either a
permit approval or denial and
should be used only as a guide by
community planners, landowners,
J!mW'iWl«^Bii|!fci!#Mset*-MSsi-j*)i>t!iii1.
iilSIlHlilSiiiSiSB
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs 449
HT HIGHLIGHT
and project proponents in planning
future activities. The classification is
strictly advisory.
Status of ADID Projects
As of February 1993, 38 ADID
projects had been completed and
33 were ongoing. The projects
range in size from less than 100
acres to more than 4,000 square
miles and are located from Alaska to
Florida, as shown in the map. ADID
projects can be resource-intensive
activities, although some have been
completed in as little as 6 months.
Regional EPA experience indi-
cates that the smaller or more local
the ADID project boundaries, the
more complete and effective the
analysis and results. For example,
ADID projects have been initiated
by local entities to facilitate plan-
ning efforts such as the one under-
taken in West Eugene, Oregon. In
this particular study, local ADID
efforts led to an abbreviated Section
404 permit process. Because the
ADID was incorporated into the City
of Eugene's general comprehensive
plan and because Oregon land-use
policies have the effect of local
land-use law, the ADID effort
streamlined the regulatory process.
These local efforts have proven to
be one of the more successful ways
of generating support for wetlands
protection. Local cooperation and
support, are vital to the success of
ADID projects.
The number of ADID projects
has increased over time/and EPA
expects more States, Tribes, locali-
ties, and private organizations to
become involved in providing funds
and otherwise supporting ADID or
other comprehensive planning
efforts. Because ADID efforts are
usually based on watershed plan-
ning, they are extremely compatible
with geographic and ecosystem
initiatives such as EPA's Watershed
Protection Approach.
-—~ rf "<23^*"Fr£.~
-
•^X^r^1-^2Z *• -s™- * ^»-t=*-»-_
-------
450 Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs
iHIIEilB
Wetlands Mitigation Banking
Mitigation banking has the
potential to play a significant role in
the Section 404 regulatory program
by reducing uncertainty and delays as
well as improving the success of wet-
lands mitigation efforts. Landowners
needing to mitigate or compensate for
authorized impacts to wetlands associ-
ated with development activities may
have the option of purchasing credits
from an approved mitigation bank
rather than restoring or creating wet-
lands on or near the development site.
A wetlands mitigation bank is a
wetlands area that has been
restored, created, enhanced, or (in
exceptional circumstances) pre-
served, which is then set aside to
compensate for future conversions
of wetlands for development activi-
ties. A wetlands bank may be cre-
ated when a government agency, a
corporation, or a nonprofit organiza-
tion undertakes such activities under
a formal agreement with a regula-
tory agency. The value of a bank is
determined by quantifying the wet-
lands values restored or created in
terms of "credits."
Benefits of Mitigation
Banking
• Banking can provide more cost-
effective mitigation and reduce
uncertainty and delays for qualified
projects, especially when the project
is associated with a comprehensive
planning effort.
• Opportunities for successful miti-
gation are increased since the wet-
lands can be functional in advance
of project impacts.
• Banking can eliminate or reduce
the temporal losses of wetlands
values that typically occur when
mitigation is initiated during or after
the development impacts occur.
• Consolidation of numerous small,
isolated, or fragmented mitigation
projects into a single large parcel
may result in increased ecological
benefits.
• A mitigation bank can bring sci-
entific and planning expertise and
financial resources together, thereby
increasing the likelihood of success
in a way not practical for individual
mitigation efforts.
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetland Protection Programs 451
Status
The Administration supports
mitigation banking and is develop-
ing interagency guidance for the
establishment, and use of mitigation
banks. Approximately 100 mitiga-
tion banks are in operation or are
proposed for construction in 34
States across the country, including
the first private entrepreneurial
banks.
, HfGHLIGHi
i * - I
-------
-------
Ground Water
Protection Programs
Fifty-one percent of the Nation's
population depended upon ground
water as a source of drinking water
in 1990 (U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1081, 1993). In addition to
providing much of our Nation with
drinking water, ground water is
used for agricultural, industrial,
commercial, and mining purposes.
The importance of our Nation's
ground water resources is evident.
Unfortunately, ground water is vul-
nerable to human contamination,
and, in the 1994 305(b) reports,
States identified 66 contaminant
sources that threaten the integrity of
ground water resources. Because it
is expensive and technologically
complex to remediate ground water
resources that have been adversely
impacted by human activities,
ground water protection has
become the focus of numerous
State and Federal programs.
This chapter presents an over-
view of ground water protection
programs and activities that have
been described by the States in
their 1994 305(b) reports and the
laws and programs instituted by the
Federal Government to provide a
framework for ground water protec-
tion for the States.
State Programs
In their 1994 State 305(b)
reports, States provided narratives
detailing legislation, statutes, rules,
and/or regulations dedicated to
ground water protection that are in
place, pending, or under develop-
ment. The narratives also high-
lighted major studies undertaken by
the States in the interest of ground
water protection, issues related to
ground water quality that are cur-
rently of concern or may be in the
'future, and progress in developing
and implementing ground water
protection programs. The purpose
of these narratives was to provide
an indication of the comprehensive
nature of ground water protection
activities among the States.
Clearly, States are committed to
a number of activities to address
existing ground water contamina-
tion problems and to prevent future
impairments of the resource. These
activities include enacting legislation
aimed at the development of com-
prehensive ground water protection
programs and promulgating protec-
tion regulations; adopting and
implementing ground water protec-
tion strategies; adopting ground
water classification and mapping
programs; and establishing
-------
454 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
Wellhead Protection (WHP) Pro-
grams. Figure 18-1 presents the
percentage of States, Territories, and
Tribes reporting on each of these
activities. As shown, States are mak-
ing excellent progress in developing
and implementing programs related
to ground water protection.
Ground Water
Protection Legislation
Forty-six of the 58 responding
States, Territories, and Tribes report
some form of current or pending
legislation geared specifically to
ground water protection. Generally,
legislation focuses on the need for
program development, increased
data collection, and public
education activities. In many States
and Tribes, legislation also mandates
strict technical controls such as
Figure 18-1
Percentage of Reporting States Having
Implemented Programs or Activities
Program/Activity
Legislation
Regulations
Protection Plans
Standards
Classification
Wellhead Protection
Coordination
Ground Water
Monitoring
I
I
_L
I
I
I
I
I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage
discharge permits, underground
storage tank registrations, and
protection standards. Additionally,
some States and Tribes have
enacted legislation establishing a
policy to restore and maintain
ground water quality and remediate
pollution that has occurred.
Minnesota passed the Ground
Water Protection Act (GWPA) of
1989 and continues to fund projects
such as ground water monitoring
and data management, increased
control of pesticides and fertilizers,
agricultural chemical cleanups, and
local water plans. The law also
states that ground water quality
should be maintained so that it is
continually free of human-induced
pollutants.
The Michigan Legislature
enacted the Environmental
Response Act to identify, prioritize,
and fund the cleanup of environ-
mentally contaminated sites in cases
where responsible parties do not
provide relief. The Michigan Depart-
ment of Natural Resources coordi-
nates the State program with the
Federal Superfund program. The
two programs are complementary
in their goals and objectives.
The primary legislation for
Illinois ground water protection, the
Illinois Groundwater Protection Act
(IGPA), was enacted in 1987. The
Act establishes the policy of the
State to "restore, protect and
enhance the ground waters of the
State, as a natural and public
resource."
Discovery of extensive contami-
nation in the State's ground water
prompted Arizona to develop strong
and comprehensive ground water
legislation. The 1980 Ground Water
Management Act promotes a
Source: Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, and Territories.
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 455
strategy of preserving, enhancing,
and protecting current water qual-
ity; remediating, minimizing, and
preventing past, present, and future
discharges to aquifers; and prohibit-
ing discharges of toxic pollutants to
aquifers. This Act defines several
geographic areas in which ground
water supplies are threatened. The
State has designated these areas as
Active Management Areas (AMAs).
Figure 18-2 illustrates one AMA.
Areas in which there is a possible or
known threat to ground water
resources are marked with the
appropriate symbol. Management
plans in these areas address the
threats of both overdrafts and
contaminants.
In Hawaii, problems with the
quality and reliability of surface
water supplies have led to concern
over the protection of the State's
ground water. The 1987 State
Water Code protects ground water
by authorizing the prohibition,
control, and regulation of activities
in areas vulnerable to ground water
contamination. The State has
adopted a policy of antidegradation
and uses the authority established
by this legislation to require proof
that proposed activities will not
degrade ground water before
issuing a permit.
The Rhode Island legislature
passed the Ground-Water Protection
Act in 1985, establishing a
Figure 18-2
Ground Water Contamination in the Phoenix Active
Management Area
— Streams
= Interstate Highways
C* Radiological
A VOCs
© Major Cations & Anions
26 Metals
M Nitrate
O Pesticides (DSCP & EDB)
-® Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Source: Arizona Water Quality Assessment 1994, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
-------
456 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
l III (
I in in 11
comprehensive ground water pro-
tection policy. Reenacted in 1991, it
emphasized restoring, enhancing,
and maintaining the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of
Rhode Island's ground water. The
legislature passed this law based on
the belief that ground water is a
critical renewable resource that
must be protected to ensure the
availability of drinking water.
Ground Water
Regulations
Of the 58 responding States,
Territories, and Tribes, 41 report
that they have established regula-
tions specifically geared toward
protection of ground water quality.
In general, State and Tribal ground
water protection regulations stipu-
late controls for the management of
specific sources of contamination
and standards for ground water
quality protection. These standards
may be used to apply limits on the
allowable discharges from contami-
nant sources and/or to set contami-
nant concentration targets or
threshold levels for ground water
cleanup.
Nevada has adopted statutory
authority and promulgated associ-
ated regulations to implement a
mining strategy that is widely con-
sidered to be a model for western
States in terms of both controls
placed upon the mining industry
and the explicit considerations of
impacts on ground water quality.
Regulations include several
requirements for the purpose of
protecting ground water by
minimizing or preventing discharges
from mining facilities.
The Florida Department of Envi-
ronmental Regulation (DER) has
established both general and spe-
cific permitting provisions for per-
mitting discharges to ground water.
The regulations require that all dis-
charges to ground water meet cer-
tain water quality conditions, such
as Florida's water quality standards.
South Carolina's ground water
regulations establish a ground water
classification system to protect pub-
lic health and maintain and enhance
ground water quality. They include
general rules and specific water
quality criteria to protect classified
and existing water uses. The regula-
tions also set forth narrative stan-
dards for classification and specific
numeric water quality standards for
ground water that is classified as a
source of drinking water.
Ground Water Protection
Plans
Fifty-five of the 58 responding
States, Territories, and Tribes have
adopted, or are in the process of
developing, ground water protec-
tion plans. The general content of
these plans includes: selection of
goals and objectives for ground
water problems identified in the
jurisdiction; development of a
ground water classification system;
program coordination mechanisms
for local, State, and Federal ground
water protection activities; public
education and/or involvement;
development of an interagency
ground water data collection sys-
tem; legislative recommendations
pertaining to the regulation of
contaminating sources; develop-
ment of a ground water monitoring
system; establishment of a WHP
Program; improvement of existing
ground water protection programs;
and development of statewide
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 457
standards for ground water quality.
These plans provide the basis for
their Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs
(CSGWPPs).
Texas outlines goals, needs, and
recommendations in six important
areas in its Ground Water Protection
Plan: interagency coordination, haz-
ardous and nonhazardous materials
management, public water supply,
rural water supply, research, and
legislation. Within these areas, each
of the following plan elements are
discussed: status of existing pro-
grams, gaps or inadequacies in
these programs, areas of currently
unaddressed ground water issues,
recommendations for changes or
improvements in existing programs,
and institution of new programs
where needed.
The Indiana Plan is an agenda
for State action to prevent, detect,
and correct contamination and
depletion of ground water
resources. The implementation plan
identifies key steps, schedules,
responsibilities, resources, outputs,
and contingencies to accomplish
the objectives of the plan. This plan
is to be adaptable to new Federal
requirements, responsive to emerg-
ing issues and proprieties, and sub-
ject to revision based on experience.
As of January 1994, 8 of the 23
Nebraska Natural Resource Districts
had developed local Ground Water
Protection plans, including
• Stated goal to maintain ground
water levels and quality at
predevelopment levels forever
• Development of Ground Water
Control areas with mandated
permitting, spacing, and reporting
requirements
• Development of Special Protec-
tion areas with required education,
monitoring, and regulatory pro-
grams to reduce nonpoint source
contamination
• Development of Ground Water
Management Plans
• Development of Ground Water
Quality Management Areas to man-
age nitrogen fertilizer application
and irrigation practices.
Ground Water Protection
Standards
Although many States and
Tribes use Federal drinking water
standards to direct their ground
water protection activities, a
number have tailored the standards
to meet their specific conditions.
State and Tribal ground water
protection standards may be either
narrative or numeric. Numeric
standards set health-based maxi-
mum contaminant levels (MCLs) for
specific compounds in ground
water. Narrative standards-are
adopted for contaminants for which
numeric standards have not been
adopted. Forty-one States, Territo-
ries, and Tribes reported the devel-
opment or implementation of
ground water protection standards.
All ground water in South Caro-
lina is classified as Class GB, which is
ground water that meets the defini-
tion of an underground source of
drinking water (USDW). All USDW
supplies must have contaminant
levels that are below MCLs set forth
in the South Carolina Primary Drink-
ing Water Regulations. Compounds
for which standards or proposed
MCLs do not exist are evaluated
individually.
-------
458 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
Arizona's Aquifer Water Quality
Standards are the cornerstone of the
State's ground water protection
program. All aquifers were initially
classified and protected for drinking
water use, and none has been re-
classified. Numeric Aquifer Water
Quality Standards were developed
and adopted by Arizona as enforce-
able standards for the maximum
permissible level of a parameter in a
public water system. The Arizona
Department of Environmental Qual-
ity has also adopted narrative
aquifer water quality standards that
allow regulation of pollutant dis-
charges for which no numeric stan-
dards have been adopted.
Standards for ground water
quality in Nebraska are intended to
be the foundation for ground water
point source programs in the State.
Narrative standards deal primarily
with beneficial uses of ground
water. Beneficial uses of ground
water, hydrologically connected
ground waters, and surface waters
are all protected. Numeric standards
in the form of MCLs for various
parameters are also provided. Some
parameters listed are assigned
"reserved status." This means that
ground water standards have not
been adopted for these parameters
but will be in the future.
Ground Water
Classification/Mapping
Programs
Forty-two States, Territories, and
Tribes have developed or are devel-
oping ground water classification
systems to aid in the protection and
management of their aquifers.
Classification systems can be used as
a basis for the maintenance and
restoration of ground water quality,
the development of ground water
quality standards, and land use and
pollution source management and
regulation. Most ground water clas-
sification systems are based on the
understanding that some human
activities have the potential to
degrade ground water. The systems
are designed to restrict such activi-
ties to areas overlying aquifers con-
taining lower quality waters while
protecting the most vulnerable and
ecologically important ground water
systems. Most States and Tribes that
have classification systems apply
them to the permitting of dis-
charges or potential discharges to
ground water and the remediation
of contaminated ground water.
Some States may also use their
systems to guide the development
of new water supplies or to site
certain types of industries.
The first tiers of a State's classifi-
cation system are typically designed
to identify and protect water that is
currently used or has the potential
to be used as a source of drinking
water. The potential for drinking
water use is generally based on
water quality indicators, such as
salinity and total dissolved solids,
and potential yield. Some States
and Tribes also place ecologically
sensitive aquifers in the highest tiers
of their classification systems.
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 459
Aquifers that do not meet these
requirements or that are unsuitable
for use because of poor ambient
water quality or because of past
contamination are generally classi-
fied for other types of uses, such as
industrial processes or, in some
cases, waste disposal.
The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and
Energy has classified the State's
ground water on a regional basis
according to its hydrogeologic char-
acteristics and designated uses. The
State has applied a nondegradation
policy to the most sensitive ecologi-
cal area but allows minimal degra-
dation in some other areas, recog-
nizing that some human activities
will adversely affect ground water.
In 1992, Michigan State Univer-
sity Center for Remote Sensing
mapped aquifer vulnerability to
surface contamination for use in
siting facilities or activities with a
potential for ground water contami-
nation. The most vulnerable areas
constitute 31 % of the State's land
area and are composed of highly
permeable soils over highly sensitive
glacial drift, principally composed of
sand and gravel (Figure 18-3). The
moderately and least vulnerable
areas make up 44% and 25% of the
State, respectively.
As part of the development of
a ground water classification system,
the recharge areas for major aqui-
fers in Rhode Island as well as
approximately 450 sources of
known and potential sources of
ground water contamination have
been mapped. The Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Man-
agement (DEM) has made extensive
use of the Rhode Island Geographic
Information System (CIS) in this
mapping. Maps can be produced
with the CIS at different scales, in
various formats, and with different
layers of information. DEM encour-
ages the use of these maps in local
ground water protection efforts.
The lack of a classification
system does not indicate a lower
priority for ground water protection.
Figure jl 8j3
Aquifer Vulnerability to Surface Contamination
in Michigan
Most Vulnerable
Moderately Vulnerable
I I Least Vulnerable
Source: Water Quality and Pollution Control, Michigan 305(b) Report: Volume 13, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources.
-------
460 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
I ! '
The majority of States, Territories,
and Tribes that do not have explicit
classification systems apply the same
level of protection to all aquifers,
with either a statewide antidegra-
dation policy or the preservation of
all ground water for drinking water
use. For example, Minnesota does
not employ a classification system.
However, the State supports a
nondegradation policy, promoting
preventive measures to protect all
ground water from degradation by
human activities.
Wellhead Protection
Programs
The 1986 Amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
established the WHP Program.
Under SDWA Section 1428, each
State must prepare a WHP Plan and
submit it to EPA for approval. By the
end of April 1995, a total of 39
States had EPA-approved WHP
Programs in place.
Six cases of benzene contamina-
tion were detected in public water
supplies in Louisiana in 1992.
Louisiana's WHP Program aided the
communities in locating the sources
of contamination and in the siting
of new wells. Case studies of these
communities prompted a coordi-
nated effort between the WHP Pro-
gram and the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality
Underground Storage Tank (UST)
Division to see that all unregistered
USTs are registered and all aban-
doned USTs within a 1,000-foot
radius of public water supply wells
are closed. This restrictive radius will
increase with time.
Coordination of
Protection Programs
Among State Agencies
Historically, ground water pro-
tection programs have been over-
seen by many different agencies
within the States, Territories, and
Tribes, making coordination difficult
for those programs. Coordinating
the activities of these agencies to
ensure an efficient ground water
protection program has become a
top priority in many jurisdictions.
Fifty-one States, Territories, and
Tribes report having developed a
plan to coordinate ground water
protection programs among their
agencies.
The Illinois Ground Water Pro-
tection Act (IGPA) created the
Interagency Coordinating Commit-
tee on Groundwater (ICCG) to
direct efforts of State agencies and
expedite implementation of ground
water protection efforts. Ten State
agencies actively participate in the
ICCG. In order to direct overall
comprehensive ground water pro-
tection efforts, the ICCG established
the Governor-Appointed Ground-
water Advisory Council (GAC),
which is comprised of various inter-
est groups, including business,
industry, agriculture, regional plan-
ning, environmental, municipalities,
water well drillers, and public water
supplies.
Ground water protection in
Colorado is a shared responsibility
of many agencies at all levels of
government. Colorado authorized
four "implementing" agencies as
partners in ground water protection:
Mined Land Reclamation Board, The
Oil and Gas Commission, the State
Engineer (Division of Water
Resources), and the Hazardous
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 461
Materials and Waste Management
Division of the Health Department.
Each of the implementing agencies
has developed regulations to protect
ground water within the area of
authority with which each agency is
charged, and they annually report
their progress to the Water Quality
Control Division, the agency with
final authority for protecting the
resource.
Ground Water
Monitoring Programs
Two types of ground water
monitoring programs are used by
States to collect data on ground
water quality: ambient monitoring
and compliance monitoring. Ambi-
ent monitoring programs measure
background or existing water qual-
ity and are used to track long-term
trends in contaminant concentra-
tions. Compliance monitoring pro-
grams are required by Federal or
State regulations (e.g., ground
water monitoring at site cleanups
under CERCLA, detection monitor-
ing under RCRA, or community
water supply monitoring under
SDWA). Compliance monitoring
activities measure for specific con-
stituents to ensure that their con-
centrations in ground water are
below regulated levels. In addition
to ambient and compliance moni-
toring, States may also rely on
monitoring data collected by
Federal agencies, such as the USGS
National Water Quality Assessment
program, to assess basin ground
water quality.
Chemical or constituent-based
indicators are generally used as part
of a monitoring program to define
trends in ground water quality. The
constituent-based indicators used in
each State are typically selected
based on local or regional water
quality, contaminant use characteris-
tics, or previously observed contami-
nation patterns. By identifying
changes in the concentrations of
these constituents in ground water,
land uses affecting vulnerable aqui-
fers can be identified and corrected.
Administrative indicators are
another form of indicator parameter
that may be used by States. Admin-
istrative indicators assess the status
of potential sources of contamina-
tion, such as the number of hazard-
ous waste sites, the amount of
leachable pesticides applied to land,
the amount of toxic chemicals
released annually, the number of
abandoned water wells, or other
changes in regional land use prac-
tices. These administrative indicators
allow States to target their ground
water protection and monitoring
activities.
Table 18-1 summarizes the
types of indicators and monitoring
programs that States and Territories
currently use to measure ground
water quality. Appendix I, Table 1-2,
presents this information in greater
detail. Data were obtained from
review of 305(b) reports, monitor-
ing program documentation, and
contact with State officials. For con-
flicting sources, the most recent
information is presented and the
source is cited.
Virtually all of these States
engage in some type of ground
water quality monitoring program.
Specifically, 23 States report active
ambient monitoring programs. In
addition, Colorado and Nevada
have proposed ambient monitoring
programs. Sixteen of these States
-------
462 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
Table IS-I. Summary of Current State Ground Water Monitoring Programs , . i 1 1
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida15
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Constituent-Based
Indicators
Not applicable
Not applicable
(pesticides, VOCs,
ions, metals,
hydrocarbons,
radionuclides,
bacteria)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
(pH, nitrate,
specific conductivity,
inorganics)
(organics, chlorides)
(radionuclides, pesticides,
ions, bacteria, VOCs)
Not applicable
(bacteria)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
(pH, alkalinity,
ion-specific conductance)
(specific conductance,
TOC, COD, ionic balance)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative
Indicators
Not applicable
Administrative3
Not applicable
Administrative3
(pesticide residues)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
(pesticides, VOCs,
metals, nitrates,
trihalomethanes)
(land use)
Not applicable
Administrative3
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative3
Administrative3
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative3
Administrative3
Not applicable
Monitoring
Compliance; Ambient
Compliance
Ambient; Federal
Compliance; Ambient; Federal
Compliance; background monitoring for pesticides
Compliance; Ambient proposed
Compliance; past monitoring for pesticides
Compliance; periodic ambient studies; Federal
Compliance; Ambient; Federal
Ambient
Not applicable; Federal
Ambient
Ambient
Not applicable; periodic ambient studies
Compliance; Federal
Ambient
Compliance
Compliance; Federal
Not applicable
Ambient; Federal
Compliance
Compliance
Ambient; Federal; Compliance
Compliance; Federal
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 463
: i 1 11: ' ' I
Table 18-1. Summary of Current State Ground Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas'5
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Constituent-Based
Indicators
(nitrate)
Not applicable
(pesticides, nitrate)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
(alpha particle activity)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Constituent
(bacteria)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
(many)
Not applicable
(specific conductivity,
gross alpha,
nitrate, pesticides)
(many)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative
Indicators
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative3
Not applicable
(public supply
vulnerability)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
(maximum allowable
limit [MAL] violations)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative3
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative3
Administrative3
Administrative3
Not applicable
Administrative3
Not applicable
Monitoring
Not applicable; Federal
Compliance
Compliance; periodic ambient studies; Federal
Not applicable; proposed Ambient
Not applicable
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance; Federal
Compliance
Ambient
Ambient
Compliance; Ambient
Compliance
Ambient
Compliance; Federal
Compliance; Ambient
Compliance; Federal
Not applicable; Federal
Compliance; Ambient
Compliance
Compliance
Ambient
Compliance; periodic ambient studies
for agricultural chemicals;
Federal; proposed Ambient
Ambient; Federal
Compliance; Ambient
Compliance
3 Indicators suggested by EPA in the guidance document for the 305(b) report.
b State relies on programs below State level for ground water data.
NOTE: Although all States have federally mandated compliance monitoring programs, this table reports those States that use their
compliance monitoring data to evaluate ground water quality.
-------
464 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
report using specific constituent-
based indicators to track trends in
ground water quality statewide.
Florida has focused the set of
parameters monitored under their
ambient program based on their
understanding of local water quality
patterns and contaminant sources.
In regions of high agricultural land
use, Florida focuses on nitrate and
chloride levels in ground water.
Similarly, Florida analyzes for certain
trace metals (e.g., arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, copper,
mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc) in
regions of industrial land use. South
Carolina has established a network
of 114 public and private water
supply wells that draw water from a
single aquifer and are known not to
be impacted by contaminants in
order to assess ambient ground
water quality statewide. South
Carolina tests for 39 individual
parameters once every 5 years on a
rotating basis. Several States are also
pursuing the use of indicators to
screen for certain sets of water qual-
ity parameters in their monitoring
programs. For example, Idaho is
developing the use of immunoas-
says to assess the presence of pesti-
cides in ground water. Idaho uses
the immunoassay methods to ana-
lyze specifically for 2,4-D, alachlor,
carbamate, carbofuran, cyanazine,
metalachlor, and triazines.
In addition to ambient monitor-
ing, 31 States report that they also
use data from compliance monitor-
ing activities to assess trends in
ground water quality, and 18 use
Federal monitoring data.
A total of 18 States use adminis-
trative indicators to track potential
sources of contamination. Of these
18 States, 13 use indicators that
were suggested by EPA in its
guidance document for the 305(b)
Water Quality Report to Congress.
These indicators include MCL viola-
tions, point sources of pollution
(e.g., underground storage tanks,
military bases, RCRA, CERCLA, and
other hazardous waste sites), nitrate
contamination, and pesticide use.
Federal Programs
The Federal Government has
instituted laws and programs to
provide a framework to States, Terri-
tories, and Tribes for protection of
our Nation's ground water
resources. These include Federal
statutes that mandate certain
ground water protection activities
and EPA programs that deal
specifically with the control of con-
taminant source activities conducted
under the authority of Federal stat-
utes. Federal statutes include the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean
Water Act, the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act, the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, the
Toxic Substances Control Act, the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rotenticide Act, and the Pollution
Prevention Act.
Under these Acts, the EPA is
responsible for 20 programs related
to ground water protection. Most of
these are regulatory programs that
restrict or prevent specific activities
from introducing contaminants onto
the land, into the subsurface, or
into ground water resources. The
rest are nonregulatory and provide
national guidance and technical
assistance to jurisdictions to identify
and protect their vulnerable ground
water resources and integrate exist-
ing ground water protection
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 465
programs. Both types of programs
are key components of EPA's suc-
cessful ground water protection
strategy when building partnerships
with other EPA programs, Federal
agencies, State and local govern-
ments, industry, environmental
groups, and the regulated commu-
nity. Several concepts fundamental
to this approach to ground water
protection are based on EPA's guid-
ing principles: ecosystem protection,
environmental justice, pollution
prevention, strong science and data,
partnerships, and compliance. They
are:
• Review regulations for opportuni-
ties to get better environmental
results at less cost; improve new
rules through increased coordina-
tion.
• Actively promote pollution pre-
vention as a standard business prac-
tice and a central ethic of environ-
mental protection.
• Make it easier to provide, use,
and publicly disseminate relevant
pollution and environmental infor-
mation.
• Assist companies that seek to
obey but exceed legal requirements
and consistently enforce the law
against those that do not.
• Change permitting so that it
works more efficiently, encourages
innovation, and creates more op-
portunities for public participation.
• Give industry the incentives and
flexibility to develop innovative
technologies that meet and exceed
environmental standards while cut-
ting costs.
Highlights of a number of Fed-
eral ground water protection pro-
grams are presented according to
the following protection categories:
resource protection, pollutant source
control, and pollution prevention.
Resource Protection
The protection of the Nation's
ground water resources is addressed
under the Clean Water Act and the
Safe Drinking Water Act. The CWA
encourages ground water protec-
tion, recognizing that ground water
provides a significant proportion of
the base flow to streams and lakes.
Ground water protection afforded
by the SDWA is focused on waters
that supply public water systems
(PWSs), and through implementa-
tion of the Wellhead Protection and
Underground Injection Control
Programs.
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 in
Section 102, providing for the de-
velopment of Federal, State, and
local comprehensive programs for
reduction, elimination, and
prevention of ground water
contamination.
As part of the CWA, a process is
established that allows for the gen-
eration of information concerning
the quality of our Nation's ground
water resources and the reporting of
this information to EPA and the U.S.
Congress. The requirements for this
process are found in Sections 106(e)
-------
466 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
and 305(b) of the CWA. Section
305(b) mandates that States
develop a program to monitor the
quality of their waters and report
the status in this biennial National
Water Quality Inventory Report to
Congress. This process, referred to
as the 305(b) process, is the princi-
pal means by which the EPA, Con-
gress, and the public evaluate water
quality, the progress made in main-
taining and restoring water quality,
and the extent to which problems
remain.
Unfortunately, information
reported on the quality of our
Nation's ground water resources has
not always provided a complete and
accurate picture of overall ground
water quality. This is due, in part, to
the expense involved in collecting
ground water monitoring data, the
complex spatial variations of aquifer
systems across the Nation, and the
differing levels of sophistication
among State programs. Recognizing
this problem, EPA worked with
States to develop guidelines for the
comprehensive evaluation and
reporting of ground water quality.
Appreciating that data collec-
tion and organization vary among
the States and that a single data
source for evaluating ground water
quality does not exist, EPA
suggested several different sources
of data that may be used by States
to evaluate their ground water qual-
ity. EPA then encouraged States to
use available data that they believe
reflects the quality of the resource.
EPA also focused on allowing States
to report information for aquifers or
hydrogeologic settings that are a
State priority due to high ground
water demand or vulnerability.
Using these guidelines, States will be
able to provide a more meaningful
interpretation of ground water qual-
ity-
Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Program
Under the authority of the CWA
Section 102, many States are devel-
oping Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs tailored
to their goals and priorities for the
ground water resource. CSGWPPs
will guide the future implementa-
tion of all State and Federal ground
water programs and provide a
framework for States to coordinate
and set priorities for all ground-
water-related activities. Each
CSGWPP consists of six strategic
components: a goal, a priority-
setting mechanism, roles and
responsibilities, management
measures, information collection
and management, and public
participation.
The EPA is committed to work-
ing with States in developing and
carrying out the CSGWPP approach.
A State with an EPA-endorsed
CSGWPP works in partnership with
the EPA to further improve State
ground water protection activities,
develop a vision of integrated,
resource-focused ground water
protection, and identify ways that
the Federal Government can
support State ground water protec-
tion efforts.
Figure 18-4 shows the progress
in implementing the CSGWPP
approach. As of 1994, the EPA had
approved four State CSGWPPs, and
EPA endorsement is anticipated for
an additional six States in 1995.
Another 29 States are expected to
submit CSGWPPs for EPA approval
by the end of fiscal year 1996.
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 467
Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA was passed by
Congress in 1974 and amended in
1986. Under this Act, EPA sets
national limits on contaminant levels
in drinking water to ensure that the
water is safe for human consump-
tion. The principal ground water
protection afforded by the SDWA
comes through the enforcement of
these limits through State and
Federal supervision of public water
systems. The SDWA also contains
programs to implement the Well-
head Protection Program, the Sole
Source Aquifer (SSA) Program, and
the Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program, described below.
Approximately 93% of all PWSs
(177,589 systems serving nearly 114
million people) obtain their water
from a ground water source. These
include systems that supply year-
round water to households (46,880
Community Water Systems); sys-
tems that provide water to places
such as schools, factories, and hos-
pitals (23,221 Nontransient
Noncommunity Water Systems);
and systems that supply water to
transitory customers such as camp-
grounds, motels, and gas stations
(107,488 Transient Noncommunity
Water Systems). Private, domestic
wells are not regulated under the
SDWA.
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: (1) protecting drinking
water at the tap, and (2) preventing
contamination of ground water
sources of drinking water supplies.
The 1986 Amendments to the
SDWA provided for an expanded
Federal role in protecting drinking
water, mandating changes in
nationwide safeguards, and new
responsibilities to enforce them in
the event of State inaction.
EPA has also focused on the
prevention of contamination of
Figure ll8i-4
Progress in Implementing the Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Program
Approach
DC
Guam
American Samoa
Northern Mariana Islands
Palau
PR
iVI
Endorsed Core CSGWPP
Endorsement Expected FY'95
Submittal Expected in FY'95
Submittal Expected in FY'96
-------
468 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
vulnerable ground water resources
by assisting States in the develop-
ment and implementation of com-
prehensive ground water protection
plans. These plans address both the
full range of actual and potential
sources of ground water contami-
nation and provide for local well-
head protection programs in the
areas around public water wells. In
addition, EPA has targeted specific
activities to protect drinking water
sources from the harmful effects of
injection of wastes and other fluids.
Utilizing authorities provided by the
DIG, EPA is increasing emphasis on
the vast number of diverse shallow
(Class V) injection wells by develop-
Figure 18-5
Status of Wellhead Protection Programs
Across the U.S. and Territories
DC
•S PR
dVI
o
d American Samoa
•^ Guam
WHP Programs Approved
ing technical industry guidance. EPA
is also reviewing the permitting
requirements for Class I hazardous
waste wells and the imposition of
more restrictive standards for all
Class II oil and gas injection wells.
Wellhead Protection Program
The 1986 Amendments to the
SDWA established the WHP Pro-
gram. Under SDWA Section 1428,
each State must prepare a WHP
Plan and submit it to EPA for ap-
proval. The objective of this pro-
gram is to protect public health
through local action to prevent
ground water contamination from
reaching public wells by (1) identify-
ing the areas around public water
supply wells that contribute ground
water to the well, and (2) managing
potential sources of contamination
in these areas to reduce threats to
the resource.
By the end of April 1995, a
total of 39 States and Territories had
EPA-approved WHP Programs in
place. Figure 18-5 illustrates the
States and Territories having regula-
tory authority to implement WHP
programs. EPA is working with the
remaining States, Tribes, and Terri-
tories to help them develop WHP
Programs. EPA's Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water is sup-
porting the development and imple-
mentation of WHP at the local level
through many efforts. For example,
EPA-funded support is provided
through the National Rural Water
Association (NRWA) Ground Water/
Wellhead Protection programs.
These programs are currently being
implemented voluntarily in 31
States. These States work to inte-
grate their local programs with the
WHP Program to meet State
requirements. Figure 18-6 presents
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 469
the States with active and pending
NRWA Wellhead Protection
programs.
EPA is also funding Wellhead
Protection workshops for local deci-
sionmakers. Eighty-eight of these
workshops were held in 26 States.
These workshops were attended by
approximately 4,400 people.
In 1991, EPA funded a 2-year
cooperative agreement with NRWA
to promote ground water protec-
tion. This agreement was extended
for an additional 2 years. At the
conclusion of the first 4 years, over
2,000 communities in 26 States
were actively involved in protecting
their water supplies by implement-
ing wellhead protection programs.
These 2,000 communities represent
3,985,000 people in the rural areas
of the United States who will have
better-protected water supplies.
EPA also funded a 3-year
cooperative agreement with the
League of Woman Voters (LWV) to
develop and test models of commu-
nity outreach in 18 communities.
Based on the experience in those
communities, a guidebook entitled
Protect Your Groundwater: Educating
for Action was developed. The
popularity of this guidebook led to
a national videoconference of the
same name. Broadcast in April 1994
to over 150 sites, the video-
conference directly reached approxi-
mately 3,000 persons. Videotapes
were made of the conference and
distributed to LWV chapters across
the country. The success of this
videoconference has led to further
cooperation with LWV to bring
WHP to even more communities.
According to State 305(b)
reports, WHP Programs have taken
varying forms in the different States.
Among the stages of WHP Program
development reported by States are
• Grants to communities to explore
and tailor WHP approaches to their
needs
• 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.
FigureBl$-6'
States with National Rural Water Association
Wellhead Protection Programs
m DC
'dPR
•a VI
•Q American Samoa
•Ci Guam
Currently Implemented Programs
-------
470 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
Sole Source Aquifer Program
The Sole Source Aquifer protec-
tion program was established under
Section 1424(e) of the SDWA of
1974. The program allows commu-
nities, individuals, and organizations
to petition EPA to designate aquifers
as the "sole or principal" source of
drinking water for an area. Since
the first SSA designation in 1975—
the Edwards Aquifer in the area
around San Antonio, Texas—64
designations have been made
nationwide. Seven petitions were
evaluated for possible designation at
the end of 1994.
If the sole-source designation is
approved for an aquifer, EPA is then
authorized to review all Federal
financially assisted projects to deter-
mine if, as a result of the project,
the potential exists for adverse
impacts to public health due to
aquifer contamination. If the Federal
financially assisted project is
approved by EPA, the project may
be implemented as planned with
commitment of Federal financial
assistance; however, if the potential
exists for aquifer contamination,
modifications to the project may be
necessary prior to commitment of
Federal financial assistance. Federal
funds may be used to make these
modifications to ensure that
projects will not contaminate the
aquifer.
Federal financially assisted
projects undertaken in SSA areas
may include a variety of activities
involving several agencies. For
instance, approximately 50% of the
reported activities were initiated by
Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) through Community Devel-
opment Block Grants. These include
the construction of nursing homes,
repair and construction of firehouses
to avoid hydrocarbon runoff from
equipment from entering the
ground water, and installation of
septic systems using proper non-
polluting drainage construction. The
Department of Agriculture Farmers
Home Administration has invested
in construction and preplanned
siting programs for residential areas
and ancillary facilities on a large
scale.
The Department of Transporta-
tion assists in funding construction
of roads, highways, mass transit,
and certain railroad and airport
facilities. This type of construction
requires that the proper disposal of
surface water runoff be dispersed
rather than concentrated on the
ground surface and avoid the flood-
ing of local aquifers by runoff from
salting stations, hydrocarbons from
highway spills and general traffic
use, including airports and hangar
areas.
Designation helps project spon-
sors by providing a set of guidelines
for aquifer quality review and
ground water protection techniques.
It also allows individuals, agencies,
and States and Tribes the opportu-
nity to develop strategies beyond
the SSA program to protect drinking
water aquifers, such as adopting
Wellhead Protection Programs.
Figure 18-7 illustrates the num-
ber of projects reviewed, approved,
and modifed for fiscal years 1990
through 1994. Only five projects
were not approved during this same
period: four projects in 1991 and
one in 1992. There were no other
unapproved projects after 1992.
This curtailment is an indication that
SSA project sponsors have adjusted
to the ongoing SSA ground water
protection program objectives.
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 471
Review of Figure 18-7 indicates
the following:
• A total of 1,039 projects were
reviewed over the 5-year period.
Of these, 838 were approved and
74 were modified.
• Review of project modifications
indicates that ground water protec-
tion was achieved through changes
in drainage and spill containment,
clear identification of SSA bound-
aries, more focused pre- and
postconstruction activity monitoring,
and review of initial project designs.
• For fiscal years 1992, 1993, and
1994, project modifications
decreased by approximately 64%
over previous years. This decrease
reflects the maturing of the SSA
program as a community ground
water protection tool. Project spon-
sors and designers acknowledge
that proper aquifer protection is
required up front in the design
phase and that incorporation of
proper aquifer protection will expe-
dite designations.
Pollutant Source Control
Four principal programs control
pollutant sources under four differ-
ent laws: underground storage
tanks and solid and hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal are
regulated under RGRA; underground
injection of waste fluids is regulated
under SDWA; abandoned waste is
regulated under CERCLA; and
nonpoint sources are controlled
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 hazardous
waste generated nationwide each
year. This Act authorizes a regula-
tory program to identify and man-
age wastes that pose a substantial
hazard to human health or the envi-
ronment. RCRA is a part of EPA's
comprehensive program to protect
ground water resources. Protection
is achieved through the develop-
ment of regulations and methods
for handling, storing, and disposing
of hazardous material and through
the regulation of underground stor-
age tanks.
Poorly managed or poorly
located municipal landfills rank high
Figurellg;-?
300
Project Reviews
1200
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
• Projects Reviewed
H Projects Approved
D Projects Modified
Projects Reviewed (cumulative)
Projects Approved (cumulative)
-------
472 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
Kings Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA
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.
As of September 1994, there
were 418 land disposal facilities
subject to ground water monitoring
requirements under RCRA. Approxi-
mately 221 of these facilities are
conducting detection monitoring,
42 are conducting compliance
monitoring, and 155 are undertak-
ing corrective action.
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-
regulated community. On Novem-
ber 8, 1984, Congress passed the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amend-
ments (HSWA) to RCRA, thereby
greatly expanding the nature and
complexity of activities covered
under RCRA.
The goals of RCRA, as set forth
by Congress, are
• To protect human health and the
environment
• 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
evaluation of tests and procedures
for conducting risk assessments.
Health and Environmental Effects
Documents, Reference Doses, and
technical evaluations are provided
to support the RCRA waste listing,
permitting, and land disposal restric-
tion 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 pro-
gram. 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 Tank
Program
One of the primary goals of this
program is to protect the Nation's
ground water resources from
releases by underground storage
tanks containing petroleum or cer-
tain hazardous substances. The EPA
works with State and local govern-
ments to implement Federal require-
ments for proper management of
USTs. The EPA estimates that about
1.2 million federally regulated USTs
are buried at over 500,000 sites
• nationwide. Nearly all USTs contain
petroleum; about 30,000 USTs hold
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 473
hazardous substances covered by
the Federal regulations.
In 1988, EPA issued regulations
setting minimum standards for new
tanks (those installed after Decem-
ber 22, 1988) and existing tanks
(those installed before December
22, 1988). By December 1998,
existing USTs must be upgraded to
meet minimum standards or be
replaced with new tanks or be
closed properly. Since 1988, more
than 900,000 old USTs have been
closed, thus eliminating a significant
number of potential sources of
ground water contamination. Of the
remaining 1.2 million USTs, about
400,000 have already been
upgraded or replaced.
New and existing USTs comply-
ing with EPA's standards can pre-
vent leaks caused by spills, overfills,
corrosion, and faulty installation.
USTs complying with the leak
detection requirements can identify
releases quickly, before contamina-
tion spreads. Corrective action
requirements secure responsible and
timely cleanup of contaminated
sites.
As of January 1995, more than
278,000 UST releases had been
confirmed. The EPA estimates that
about half of these releases have
reached ground water. Over
110,000 contaminated sites have
been cleaned up, and cleanups are
under way at 100,000 more sites.
EPA estimates that the total number
of confirmed releases could reach
400,000 in the next several years,
primarily due to releases discovered
during the closure or replacement
of old USTs. After this peak, EPA
expects fewer releases as USTs
comply with leak prevention re-
quirements.
Congress created the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Trust Fund in 1986 to provide
money for overseeing corrective
action taken by a responsible party
and to provide money for cleanups
at UST sites where the owner or
operator is unknown, unwilling, or
unable to respond or that require
emergency action. Since 1986,
$469 million has been dispersed to
State UST programs for State
officials to use for administration,
oversight, and cleanup work.
UST owners and operators must
also meet financial responsibility
requirements that ensure they will
have the resources to pay for costs
associated with cleaning up releases
and compensating third parties. The
amount of coverage required ranges
from $500,000 to $1 million,
according to the type and size of
the UST business. Many States have
provided financial assurance funds
to help their UST owners meet the
financial responsibility requirements.
These State funds raise over $1 bil-
lion annually for use on UST
cleanups.
The Agency recognizes that,
because of the large size and great
diversity of the regulated commu-
nity, State and local governments
are in the best position to oversee
USTs. EPA encourages States to seek
State program approval so they may
operate in lieu of the Federal
program. To date, 20 States have
received State Program Approval. All
States have UST regulations and
programs in place. The Agency also
has developed a data management
system that many States use to
track the status of UST facilities,
including their impact on ground
water resources. EPA also has nego-
tiated UST grants with all States and
provided technical assistance and
guidance for implementation and
enforcement of UST regulations.
-------
474 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
Safe Drinking Water Act
Pollutant source control is
addressed under the SDWA through
the UIC program.
Underground Injection Control
Program
EPA's UIC program was devel-
oped to regulate underground injec-
tion wells and thereby ensure that
underground sources of drinking
water are protected. Injection wells
are classified as follows:
• Class I: Wells used to inject haz-
ardous substances or industrial and
municipal waste beneath the lower-
most formation containing a source
of drinking water. There are 159
hazardous waste wells at 61 facilities
and 350 nonhazardous waste wells
at 197 facilities controlled by strin-
gent design, construction, and oper-
ating requirements. The hazardous
waste management facilities inject 9
billion gallons of fluids each year.
This volume represents 89% of all
Wells as Conduits of Contamination
Although anecdotal cases abound of wells serving as conduits that
allow contaminants to enter an aquifer, few occurrences are docu-
mented. However, the publication Drinking Water: Safeguards Are Not
Preventing Contamination From Injected Oil and Cos Wastes (GAO, 1989)
provides a table of 23 documented cases of contamination of an
underground source of drinking water via Class II oil and gas injection
wells. Fourteen of these cases resulted from wells that were improperly
plugged or constructed and/or had leaky casings. Nine other cases
were the result of deliberate injection into an aquifer before its designa-
tion as an underground source of drinking water. What is particularly
noteworthy in these cases is the enormous cost of cleanup. In one of
the'cases, the State (Kansas) authorized $300 million to begin cleanup
because the contamination threatened a major municipal well field. In
18 of the other cases, no cleanup is intended because it is either
impractical or too costly.
hazardous waste that is land
disposed.
• Class II: Wells used to inject
fluids in the process of oil or natural
gas production. More than 160,000
disposal and enhanced recovery
wells inject brines into geologic
formations. These wells inject
approximately 3 billion gallons of
produced brine and enhanced
recovery fluids every day.
Together Class I and II injection
wells dispose of a larger volume of
hazardous waste into deep bedrock
formation than all the other RCRA
hazardous waste disposal facilities by
a factor of eight.
• 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: Class V injection wells
are generally shallow wastewater
disposal wells, stormwater, and agri-
culture drainage systems or other
devices that can release nutrient and
toxic fluids into the ground and
eventually into water table aquifers.
EPA estimates that more than 1
million Class V wells currently exist
in the United States. A majority of
Class V wells may pose little or no
risk to human health. Others, how-
ever, may inject fluids containing
bacteria, viruses, nitrate-nitrogen,
and toxic chemicals that can con-
taminate the habitat and food sup-
ply of fish and wildlife species, the
base flow for surface waterbodies,
and the public drinking water sup-
ply. These wells include more than
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 475
100,000 shallow injection wells such
as those used to dispose of waste
from automotive service bays.
Currently, all shallow injection
wells that do not endanger under-
ground sources of drinking water
are allowed; however, because of
the diversity in the risks posed by
Class V wells and the size and
nature of the regulated community,
EPA encourages a nontraditional
regulatory approach to addressing
these wells. A large proportion of
the Class V wells are owned by
small businesses. To effectively
address the unique challenges
posed by the Class V universe, EPA
is implementing a comprehensive
strategy for the management of
Class V injection wells. The strategy
involves a carefully tailored combi-
nation of guidance, education, and
outreach and enhancing the use of
existing regulatory authorities
through some minor changes to the
UIC regulations. The goal of the
strategy will be to speed up the
closure of potentially endangering
Class V wells using current authori-
ties and to promote the use of best
management practices to ensure
that other Class V wells do not
endanger USDWs.
Grants allotted under Sections
1443(b) and 1451 of the SDWA
may be used to support UIC activi-
ties to protect ground water
resources. State and Federal UIC
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 that
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 a State's UIC
program for Class II brine disposal
wells.
EPA and States currently admin-
ister 57 UIC programs to maintain
regulatory coverage of the almost
one-half million underground injec-
tion wells. The majority of these
programs are State-administered, as
depicted in Figure 18-8. 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 1992 and 1993, 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
injection wells. The Class V rule has
significant implications for the dis-
posal of industrial wastes. EPA also
plans to propose "area of review"
requirements for all Class II wells.
EPA Regional office:; administer-
ing UIC programs in nonprimacy
States continue to review permit
applications for injection wells and
continue oversight of State primacy
programs to ensure that UIC per-
mits issued meet program require-
ments. Regional offices also
continue to review petitions from
operators of hazardous waste
injection wells seeking exemptions
from the injection well ban.
-------
476 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act
The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act and the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 created several
programs operated by EPA, States,
Territories, and Tribes that act to
protect and restore contaminated
ground water. Restoration of con-
taminated ground water is one of
the primary goals of the Superfund
program. As stated in the National
Contingency Plan, EPA expects to
return usable ground waters to their
Figure 18-8
Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program
State Program
EPA
Split EPA/State Program
Guam and Northern
Mariana Islands
American Samoa, Palau,
and Virgin Islands
beneficial uses, wherever possible,
within a time frame that is reason-
able given the particular circum-
stances of the site. Following are
statistics related to Superfund resto-
rations:
• In the absence of Superfund,
11.9 million people could be
exposed to carcinogenic risk greater
than 1 in a million, and 9.9 million
people could be exposed to noncar-
cinogenic effects above health-based
standards at National Priority List
(NPL) sites.
• At 94% of NPL sites where
ground waters were classified (426
of 453), the ground water is cur-
rently used or potentially usable as
a source of drinking water. This
suggests that only 6% of NPL sites
involving ground water contamina-
tion are classified as nonusable aqui-
fers (e.g., saline or nonpotable).
• Of the 622 NPL sites reporting
ground water contamination near
the site, the ground water is cur-
rently used for private water sup-
plies at 42% of the sites and for
public supplies at 27% of the sites.
• At the 67% of NPL sites where
ground water is currently used for
drinking water purposes, the
ground water is potentially threat-
ened by a migrating contaminant
plume.
• Organic compounds are the pre-
dominant ground water contami-
nants for 89% of the sites for which
remedies for ground water contami-
nation have been selected. Table
18-2 lists the most frequently de-
tected organic and inorganic con-
stituents reported at NPL sites.
• Ground water contamination is
associated with 63% of the sites for
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 477
which remedies have been selected
(702 of 1,121).
• Generally, ground waters that are
currently used or are potentially
usable for drinking water supply are
being cleaned to MCLs authorized
under the SWDA. However, in some
cases, more stringent State stan-
dards are used. At least 12 States
have promulgated cleanup stan-
dards for ground water, including
Massachusetts, West Virginia, Illinois,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico,
Texas, Iowa, Nevada, South Dakota,
Wyoming, and Washington.
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 U.S. Department of Agriculture
Cooperative State Research Service
have worked cooperatively to lead
the Nation in the development of
environmentally sound agricultural
policies. The Agriculture in Concert
with the Environment Program
promotes the use of sustainable
agriculture and the integrated man-
agement 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, demonstration,
and training in sustainable 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.
Table 1J8-2'.. Contaminants Most Frequently Reported in
; I Ground VJVater at CE^CLA National Priority
. :•
Rank
Organic
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
List Sites j
Contaminants Number of Sites
Compounds
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethylene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethene
Benzene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
1,1-DichIoroethane
1,1-DichIoroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Phenol
Methylene chloride
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Pentachlorophenol
Chlorobenzene
DDT
336
167
167
163
160
155
138
107
103
94
81
76
69
68
61
58
56
52
46
35
Inorganic Constituents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Lead
Chromium ion and related species
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper ion and related species
Mercury
Zinc ion and related species
Nickel ion and related species
Barium
Cyanides and associated salts
306
213
149
126
83
81
75
45
41
38
-------
478 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
HT HIGHLIGHT
Grass Roots
Ground Water Protection
As the impacts of ground water
contamination become more widely
known, volunteers and grass roots
ground water protection initiatives
are becoming common in commu-
nities across America. The programs
range from volunteer-driven efforts
to protect vital drinking water sup-
plies through Wellhead Protection
Programs, to volunteer-sponsored
well water quality testing and public
education on the sources of our
drinking water.
The El Paso
Experience
In late 1989, the Texas Water
Commission targeted the city of El
Paso, Texas, for a pilot project to
protect the city's ground water. This
pilot project marked the beginning
of an innovative, volunteer-driven
Wellhead Protection Program. A
team of dedicated volunteers was
coordinated through the El Paso
Retired Senior Volunteer Program.
Over a 3V2-day period, the
23 senior citizen volunteers surveyed
possible sources of ground water
contamination around all 138 public
water wells that provide drinking
water to the city of El Paso. They
reviewed historical records, inter-
viewed area residents, and
conducted door-to-door surveys to
catalog potential threats to their
drinking water. The State estimated
that the volunteer effort saved
approximately $35,000, and
resulted in the identification of
approximately 20,000 potential
sources of pollutants near the water
wells.
The El Paso pollution source
inventory formed the backbone of
the El Paso Wellhead Protection
Program and resulted in a city ordi-
nance concerning the storage of
hazardous materials within the vicin-
ity of the public water wells. The
effort has recently been expanded
into Mexico, since the residents of
the adjacent Mexican city of Ciudad
Juarez also rely on drinking water
from the same aquifers.
Oregon's Volunteer
Well Water Nitrate
Testing Project
The Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality sponsored a
project to encourage residents to
test their well water for nitrate
levels. The project was conducted
from 1991 to 1993 and resulted in
volunteers testing a total of 1,600
wells. The Oregon Ground Water
Community Involvement Program
was initiated to continue the nitrate
testing program. The Program
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 479
, , -" *4Afei r. :.,.!! «: r -" ....HJGHLIGH(rH|l)G-HTH|GHLIGHT
' .•'""•". ft.,*" *" , - VST JA
provides volunteer training, resource
materials and nitrate test kits and
promotes public education through
nitrate testing events and ground
water forums.
League of Women
Voters Ground Water
Education Programs
The League of Women Voters
(LVW) has sponsored a number of
volunteer-led ground water educa-
tion programs. The LVW in Rock-
ford, Illinois, surveyed residents con-
cerning their knowledge of water
supply and ground water contami-
nation concerns. Similar surveys
were conducted by the LVW in Red
Wing, Minnesota, and Salt Lake
City, Utah. The LWV of Enid, Okla-
homa, organized volunteers to con-
duct pollution source inventories
around the city's five water well
fields. Other LVW chapters have
developed videos, brochures, and
other educational materials concern-
ing ground water protection and
potential threats to ground water
quality.
'
*- ' f.~,,- TT tiTi-im ^»4?*-^T'™i;t-»»^»r-»~~~^»t«»ia^-»^ •*»•
-
i JL* "Tr4" <
,).*"ssu~
It? ;
=5**=^ „
ilpBa* — _
£^T~I -,
-„ '
fej?
-BW6 1 -t.
-- —
"****w~i*""
t^rjS: --- - - \
~~s*^^
S^iSask™
g^jirf- — ~ 't
^L"™_ . _
'"^SS:^ ,
i*pHj^^te*t~ •=>""' ~~^~"
-^T.iJSh- *• -~^=- —
* B «
*^^*J_ ^
Jll J —
"^r^rrr "*- ~
_
-
•^"^"LJ*
^""S&-- ^
T^,-,*_ *i-,""" •
*" * ^
— _
SiSf. j~=«. . ,
-„
Sfflfe^AJ *" -~* -y;,, ..„. *
gsy^J^^^iJf ;*•"-
s
-------
480 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
HIGHLIG
Protecting Our Drinking Water:
The EPA's Source Water
Protection Initiative
Americans have long enjoyed
the luxury of safe, affordable drink-
ing water. A rising awareness of
water pollution incidents, however,
has caused people to be concerned
about drinking water quality. Many
communities have recognized that
preventing the pollution of lakes,
rivers, streams, and ground water is
the key to ensuring the long-term
safety of drinking water. This com-
mon sense approach is known as
source water protection.
The Safe Drinking Water Act
emphasizes monitoring and treat-
ment to protect drinking water
safety. However, protection based
on monitoring and treatment alone
is not sufficient. Nearly all groups
interested in drinking water safety
see a need for stronger efforts to
prevent pollution from entering
drinking water sources rather than
relying solely on water treatment to
reduce health threats.
The EPA encourages this preven-
tion-oriented approach and is
actively promoting the development
of grass roots source water protec-
tion activities. As part of the Source
Water Protection Initiative, the EPA
hopes to
• Restore the public's rights and
responsibilities to protect their
drinking water
• Raise public confidence in the
safety and quality of their drinking
water supply
• Reduce the cos1x_of_ providing
safe drinking water.
Wellhead Protection
Programs
Many States and communities
are currently promoting source
water protection, in Wellhead Pro-
tection (WHP) programs. The 1986
Amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act established the Wellhead
Protection Program to aid commu-
nities in protecting their drinking
water quality. Through wellhead
protection, communities identify the
land areas that contribute ground
water to public water supply wells.
They then develop plans to manage
the potential sources of contamina-
tion in those vulnerable areas,
thereby reducing the likelihood of
polluting the drinking water source.
•.,-!• ir. ;.'i:i!i
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 481
By the end of December 1 994,
a total of 37 States and Territories
had EPA-approved WHP Programs
in place. In addition, thousands of
local WHP initiatives have been
undertaken in communities across
the Nation. As of 1 993, approxi-
mately 3,800 communities that are
dependent on ground water for
drinking water had complete WHP
programs.
Expanded Source
Water Protection
Goals
The idea of wellhead protection
can apply to surface water supplies
as well. The EPA is encouraging
stronger watershed protection pro-
grams, through approaches avail-
able under the Federal Clean Water
Act, to protect surface waters used
for drinking water supplies. Source
water protection, for both ground
water and surface water, may offer
significant advantages to both drink-
ing water purveyors and consumers.
The EPA is planning a National
Source Water Protection Workshop
~
in 1 996. This workshop will provide
communities with the tools and
*
information needed to establish
source water protection programs.
The workshop will be televised and
will target communities that have
delineated their source water pro-
tection arpas and rarripH nut cnnrro
identification. The workshop will
also assist communities in moving
toward source management.
The EPA has also set the follow-
ing source water protection goals:
• By 1 997, establish a core network
of 10,000 communities with active
and comprehensive local WHP
programs in place.
• By 1 997, incorporate source
water protection and source
management as priority objectives
in projects requiring financial assis-
tance from other Federal programs.
• By 1 997, begin to expand source
water protection approaches to
communities reliant on surface
water for drinking water.
• By 2005, have 50% of all
community water supplies covered
by active and comprehensive local
source water protection programs.
"*
HIGHUCHfCHJ))cHt HIGHLIGHT ]
f 1
*"*?*, "*1"-^- .j^ ~
^^•Ss,
^•Wteri - ,—
7 -
«S%*S%1*
e-l^r^L ~~
&&>?*"' -"" ~~
|E:
m*» **-"'«->*
*, „
- - —
SHJrt,
~~~-
^2j»~.~-*- - -
%sJ -
Esr±l*=»^ -
*^ ...J^
•% \."rr--i-
«_ „
a^"*7-^'-»g
^J~^~, *
$m** *— ~
-------
482 .Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
HT HIGHLIGHT
•!,: '•;' •, i".: ; in.. Will Bfl!l<1|l!li:; >!fl!W^
Costs of Not Preventing
Contamination of the Ground
Water Resource
The sage adage that "An ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of
cure" is being borne out in the field
of ground water protection. Three
separate efforts to look at the cost
of prevention versus remediation
have found that there can be real
cost advantages to promoting
prevention of ground water con-
tamination in the public and private
sectors.
The analysis of prevention in
Maine found that, for six large
municipal water systems with con-
tamination from salt storage, gaso-
line, landfill leachate, and industrial
solvents, costs for well replacement,
emergency supplies, water treat-
ment, and/or remediation ranged
from $500,000 to $1,500,000. Of
the 2,000 small water systems in the
State, perhaps as many as 70 are
contaminated. For six small systems,
remedial costs ranged from $6,000
to $155,000. Costs for preventing
contamination in these cases were
estimated to be 1/1 Oth to 1/100th
of the costs of remediation for the
large systems and 1/5th to 1/1 Oth
for the small systems. Although
remediation is thus more costly than
prevention, whether prevention is
more cost-effective in any particular
instance depends on the risk that a
water system without a particular
type of preventive measure would
need remediation and when any
costs of remediation would be
incurred.
The State of Washington's Well-
head Protection Program found
that, in a sample of small communi-
ties ranging in size from 300 to
5,000 people affected by such
contaminants as ethylene dibromide
(an agricultural fumigant), gasoline,
and trichloroethylene (TCE, a sol-
vent), costs for cleanup and/or a
new water supply ranged from
$40,000 to $1,800,000, with costs
continuing to be incurred. For a
larger city—Tacoma—where TCE
and other contaminants were found
in a wellfield in concentrations more
than 10 times the health standard,
costs over the expected 18-year
cleanup period are estimated to be
$25 million.
Washington's Wellhead Protec-
tion Program catalogued the types
of costs associated with contami-
nated public water supplies and
found that they included
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 483
if; ;
' HIGHLIGr/f |-f MJCHT HIGHLIGHT
*
• Provision of emergency water
supplies
• Construction and operation of
water treatment facilities at the
wellhead
• Well replacement
• Transmission line construction
• Hydrogeologic studies
• Remedial measures at or near the
contamination source including soil
removal, soil capping, and the
installation and operation of "pump
and treat" systems
• Additional administrative costs
• Public information and education
• Legal proceedings.
Intangible costs included
• Increased health risks
• Decreased ability to provide
adequate volumes of water, espe-
cially in emergencies, such as fires
• Reduced consumer confidence
• Economic impairment
• Lost opportunity costs in spend-
ing funds for cleanup rather than
other community needs
• Consumer hysteria and over-
reaction
• Disposal of wastewater from
pump and treat facilities.
*
The Freshwater Foundation
report, Economic Implications of
Groundwater Contamination to
Companies and Cities (1991), indi-
cates that costs to 1 7 Minnesota
cities for remediating ground water
contamination was over $30 million,
with seven cities reporting costs
over $1 million and two reporting
impacts in the $1 0 to $20 million
range. Fourteen cases of ground
water contamination involving cor-
porations found that most busi-
nesses spent over $1 million, with
five spending from $5 million to
nearly $1 0 million. In addition to
the technical and engineering reme-
dial costs, a major corporate cost
was legal fees.
•Wt. »- *— »«« ^3^.
^^L.
^S^^S^ittas—
m
^^•^^r^^^^^^^i. -^- —
**
F^r* __ "-":t: i "^ ~^
' *-— — - '
j.
jjgglSi ., - • „, , — ^- .*-
SBSter-'* ^T~ ^.IZi:- ' ~
-
||K' / ;-.._
-------
-------
PartV
Cost 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. None of the States,
Territories, and Tribes reporting on
their water quality programs
attempted to describe the full
extent of the economic costs and
benefits associated with water qual-
ity improvement. Thus, the costs
shown in this chapter are from the
U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Census, Pollution Abate-
ment Costs and Expenditures, 1992.
Pennsylvania and the District of
Columbia submitted expenditure
information on municipal waste-
water treatment, which is included
in this report as well.
. The benefits described in this
chapter are from many sources.
Information from the Sport Fishing
Institute, State reports, and EPA and
other Federal sources was used to
help measure environmental bene-
fits achieved. It is important to
understand the impossibility of
measuring the total environmental
benefits of water quality improve-
ment. First, benefits are local and to
measure the benefits of cleaner
water in each locality would be
impossible. Second, the methodol-
ogy does not exist to measure the
value of biodiversity or the value of
the oxygen produced by a healthy
ecosystem. Although these intrinsic
values are very important, they are
not measurable quantitatively or
monetarily. This chapter provides
some insight into the benefits of
water quality improvement found
throughout our Nation. When
economic benefits data are not
available, biological indicators are
used to show stream improvement.
The assumption is that, if the insect
life in the stream is improving,
eventually the fish will return and so
will recreation, which has an eco-
nomic value.
Costs of Water
Quality Improvement
Estimates of the costs and bene-
fits of water pollution control are
shown in Table 19-1 derived from
President Clinton's Clean Water Act
Initiative: Analysis of Costs and Bene-
fits published in 1994. This table
shows the current and planned
expenditures associated with the
current implementation of the Clean
Water Act requirements. Private
sources are estimated to spend
roughly $30 billion per year on
water pollution control, municipali-
ties spend about $23 billion per
-------
488 Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
year, agriculture spends approxi-
mately $500 million per year, State
water programs spend $500 million
per year, and Federal agencies
spend approximately $10 billion per
year. These total to a range of $63
billion to $65 billion per year spent
on water pollution control.
Since 1972, EPA has invested
over $64 billion in municipal waste-
water treatment. State and local
governments have contributed
many more dollars. In 1972, only
42% of the population was served
by secondary or better municipal
wastewater treatment facilities. By
1992, this number had increased to
more than 62% of the population.
This achievement is impressive con-
sidering that, during this time, both
the Nation's population and the
volume of pollution flowing through
our sewer systems increased by
nearly 30%.
EPA has invested appproxi-
mately $1.4 billion since 1972 in
maintaining State water quality
programs through grants funded
under Section 106 of the Clean
Water Act. The goals of the Section
106 program are to assist States,
Territories, and Tribes in establishing
and maintaining adequate measures
for preventing and controlling
surface and ground water pollution.
Other Federal agencies such as the
Corps of Engineers, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, and
the Fish and Wildlife Service have
contributed substantially to the
water pollution control efforts in this
country.
Pennsylvania provided the most
complete set of data. Pennsylvania
reported that, during the past 5
years, new grants totaling more
than $118.5 million in Federal
funds were offered to Pennsylvania
municipalities for construction of
sewage treatment facilities. Actual
dollar expenditures under this Fed-
eral grant program during this pe-
riod amounted to $261.3 million,
Table 19-1. Summary of Current and Planned Spending under the Existing ' CWAX™l!.ip.r!,,$/year)^. ' |. >
Pre-1 987 Act
Nonpoint
Source Controls/
Watershed
Storm Water:
Phase I
CSOs
Other Costs
Total
Private
Sources
$25,286
$3,990
$943 - $1,073
$30,21 9 -$30,349
Munici-
palities
$17,190
$389 - $591
$1,650 - $2,555
$3,450
$88
$22,767 - $23,874
Agri-
culture
$191
$240 - $389
$431 - $580
State Water
Programs3
$373
$125
$498
Federal
Agencies
$9,564
$234
$9,798
Total
(Quantified)
$52,604
$988 -$1,339
$5,640 - $6,545
$3,450
$1,031 - $1,161
$63,71 3 - $65,099
a Pre-1987 expenditures, estimated to be about $2.7 billion per year for administration and compliance, are not shown here because
the cost of complying with the current and future water quality standards could not be estimated. The values shown here are only
for administering the program.
Source: U.S. EPA. 1994. President Clinton's Clean Water Act Initiative: Analysis of Costs and Benefits. EPA 800-S-94-001. Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
-------
Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 489
which includes expenditures from
grants made during prior years.
Funding from other Federal agen-
cies, including the Farmer's Home
Administration and the Department
of Commerce, has provided munici-
palities an additional $63.1 million
for facilities planning and adminis-
tration. State funds and grants
issued by the Department of Envi-
ronmental Resources (DER) and the
Pennsylvania Department of Com-
merce have provided municipalities
another $140.1 million for waste-
water treatment facilities in the
same 5-year period (Table 19-2).
These facilities, as they begin opera-
tion, represent a significant effort in
the cleanup of Pennsylvania's
waters.
The District of Columbia esti-
mates the capital cost for the Blue
Plains wastewater treatment plant at
about $600 million and operation
and maintenance costs at about
$110 million per year.
Benefits of Water
Quality Improvement
Improvements in water quality
are valuable to all Americans. Mil-
lions of people enjoy recreational
activities like fishing, swimming, and
boating on waters where these pur-
suits might not be possible without
the control measures undertaken
under the Clean Water Act. Cleaner
water has reduced health risks to
people who swim and fish. Cleaner
water has contributed to more pro-
ductive commercial and recreational
fisheries in many parts, of the coun-
try. It has lowered costs to agricul-
ture and to industries that would
otherwise have to treat contami-
nated water before using it. It has
also lowered costs to drinking water
systems that might otherwise have
to install additional treatment tech-
nologies. Finally, cleaner water has
Table 19-2. State and Federal Expenditures fof Water Pollution Control in Pennsylvania, 1989-1993 ' <
(thousands of dollars) '.]'"'•- • :
i r i - 1 i * y _- >,
-------
490 Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
provided important aesthetic bene-
fits to Americans who derive value
from knowing that waters are
cleaner, even when they are unable
to visit them.
Notwithstanding these impor-
tant and substantial benefits of
clean water, EPA has not quantified
systematically all of the extra-
ordinarily diverse improvements in
water quality that have occurred
since the Clean Water Act was
passed, or that may be attributable
to the Act. Moreover, such quantifi-
cation must typically precede the
valuation of improvements in dollar
terms. Thus, the total magnitude of
environmental, economic, and
health-related benefits that result
from improvements to water quality
are not measurable given existing
data and analytic methods. The
following discussion describes,
nonetheless, some of the benefits
associated with water quality im-
provements.
Recreation
Outdoor recreation is a lucrative
business in the United States. Much
of our outdoor recreation activities
depend on clean water. Sport
fishing alone accounts for 1.3 mil-
lion jobs and $19 billion in wages.*
The Sport Fishing Institute (1994)
estimates more than 50 million
anglers spent more than $24 billion
on fishing trips and equipment in
1991. The Institute claims that
freshwater fishing "generates nearly
60% of the economic impacts
within the sport fishing industry."
Expenditures of this magnitude
generated approximately $1 billion
in State sales taxes and more than
$2 billion in Federal income taxes.
The sport fishing industry is
increasingly vocal about the need
for clean water programs. Fifty mil-
lion anglers, representing a signifi-
cant portion of the U.S. population,
receive direct benefits of improved
water quality.
Eighty million Americans partici-
pate in outdoor (non-pool) swim-
ming. Local and State economies
are dependent on beach-related
recreating, whether at ocean or lake
beaches. In 1988, $1.3 to $5.4
billion was lost in the New York-
New Jersey area due to beach clos-
ings resulting from water quality
health standard violations.
Commercial Fishing
The value of U.S. commercial
fish landings is about $3.5 billion
annually and the industry's total
contribution to the GNP is about
$16.5 billion. Shellfish landings
represent 45% of this total. Nearly
87% of the value of U.S. finfish
landings are species-dependent on
near-coastal waters for breeding and
spawning.'
Good Water Quality
Benefits the Economy
Good water quality is important
for economic development. Compa-
nies that want to attract the best
workers often locate in areas that
are replete with parks and open
spaces, where air and water quality
* Sport Fishing Institute. Economic Impact of Sport Fishing in the United States. Washington, DC:
April! 994.
t U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Financing Clean Water Background Materials for Hearing with House
Marine and Fisheries Committee, Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources. Washing-
ton, DC: February 1993.
-------
Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 491
are good, and where recreational
opportunities are abundant. These
amenities are essential for the qual-
ity of life required by today's
workforce.
The Institute for Southern Stud-
ies published a study in October
1994 illustrating the relationship
between State economic growth
and environmental quality. What
this study shows is summed in a
quote from Dr. Stephen Meyer of
the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology. Dr. Meyer concluded:
"States with stronger environmental
standards tended to have the higher
growth in their gross state products,
total employment, construction
employment, and labor productivity
than states that ranked lower envi-
ronmentally." The study ranked
Louisiana last for jobs and environ-
mental quality. Eight other southern
States (along with Indiana, Ohio,
and Oklahoma) ranked among the
14 worst States in both categories.
Hawaii, Vermont, and New Hamp-
shire ranked among the top six
States for both jobs and environ-
mental quality. Six States ranked
among the top 12 in both catego-
ries: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colo-
rado, Oregon, Massachusetts, and
Maryland.*
There are industries that are
dependent on a healthy, clean
water supply. These industries range
from the soft drink to the computer
chip industry. For these industries,
clean water is a valued economic
input. The cleaner the source water,
the less treatment the intake water
requires. These savings are then
passed on to their consumers.
The following discussion illus-
trates how various States and the
District of Columbia benefit from
improved water quality and
describes some of the actions they
are taking to rebuild the benefits
lost two and three decades ago.
Water Quality Benefits
Identified by States
Pennsylvania
Improved water quality condi-
tions have enabled programs to be
undertaken to reintroduce breeding
populations of bald eagle, osprey,
and river otter in Pennsylvania. The
Pennsylvania Came Commission's
Bald Eagle Recovery Project was
carried out from 1983 to 1989.
A total of 88 young eagles were
released from hatching sites in the
upper Delaware and lower Susque-
hanna River basins. In addition,
eaglets were introduced to active
nests in northwestern Pennsylvania
to supplement populations in that
area. As a result of this program,
13 bald eagle nests were found in
1992. All together, the nests pro-
duced 21 hatchlings. In 1993, a
record 16 pairs of bald eagles
attempted to nest in the Common-
wealth. Even though some nests
were abandoned due to the March
blizzard, 15 eaglets were produced.
Through cooperative projects,
over 100 osprey (fish hawks) were
hatched in northeastern Pennsyl-
vania in the early 1980s to form the
nucleus of what has become a
viable breeding population in the
Poconos. In 1989, a hatching tower
was constructed, on the Hammond
Dam in Tioga County, which can
accommodate up to 16 ospreys.
This project was initiated in 1990
"Hall, Bob. Green and Gold. Institute for Southern Studies: October 1994.
-------
492 Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
with nine ospreys, the first of
approximately 70 to be released
over 5 years. Cooperating parties
have included the Game Commis-
sion, the Fish and Boat Commission,
the National Audubon Society, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
researchers from East Stroudsburg
University and the Dubois Campus
of Penn State University. In 1992, as
many as 14 active osprey nests were
located in the State. Nine were in
the Poconos, three were in
Lancaster County, and one each
was in York and Somerset Counties.
River otter reintroductions
began in 1982. From 1982 through
1989, 39 otters were released in the
Kettle, Pine, and Loyalsock Creek
basins in north central Pennsylvania.
These otters have expanded their
range and reproduced. Otter rein-
troductions in northwestern Pennsyl-
vania began with the release of four
otters in the Tionesta Creek basin in
1990. More otters were scheduled
to be released in this basin during
1991. An April 1992 otter release in
the Youghiogheny River brought
them back to the drainage for the
first time in more than 100 years.
Five otters were released near
Confluence as part of a cooperative
program. Additional releases are
planned. In addition, Maryland
stocked 18 otters on the Youghio-
gheny near Oakland in 1989 and
1990. The success of these
programs is due, in part, to
improved water quality and result-
ing improved fisheries.
The following are estimates
of the economic value of fishing
and boating to the Pennsylvania
economy. In 1992, a total of
1,081,163 fishing licenses were sold
in the State. In addition, 735,237
Trout Stamps were sold. These sales
provided $17 million in revenue to
the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission. Over 2 million people
participated in fishing (anglers
under age 16 do not need a
license) and spent between $750
and $800 million in direct trip and
equipment expenditures. This trans-
lates to an average of $750 to $800
per angler per year. This is a signifi-
cant contribution to the economy.
In addition, there are 311,893
registered boats in Pennsylvania that
generated $4.2 million in fees for
the Fish and Boat Commission in
1992. An estimated 3 million Penn-
sylvanians participated in boating
activities and contributed $3.056
billion to the economy for equip-
ment, supplies, food, lodging, fuel,
etc.
Connecticut
Entire industries are based
wholly, or in part, on having clean
water resources. These include fish-
ing, boating, swimming, and a vari-
ety of recreation or tourism-related
industries. An extensive survey was
conducted by the University of Con-
necticut College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources for EPA Region 1.
The final report titled, The Economic
Importance of Long Island Sound's
Water Quality Dependent Activities,
released in January 1992, was based
on survey data collected between
June 29 and November 29, 1990.
The study estimates that the
value of Long Island Sound to the
economies of New York and Con-
necticut for water-quality-dependent
activities was $5.5 billion in 1990.
Three billion dollars of this was
attributed to Connecticut's
economy. The following discussion
briefly summarizes use valuations for
-------
Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 493
Connecticut's portion of Long Island
Sound.
Commercial finfish and shellfish
landings were estimated to be $53
million. Specific associated industries
directly related to harvesting
increases this value to $148.4 mil-
lion. Additional industries relating to
the processing, wholesaling, and
retailing of fish and shellfish were
not considered. Thus, the value this
industry adds to the Connecticut
economy is understated.
An estimated 7.5 million per-
sons visited Connecticut's beaches
in 1990. Studies conducted in
Rhode Island and Florida indicate
that this translates directly into
$159.1 million for Connecticut's
economy (on average, $21 per per-
son per year). Related contributions
to the State's tourism industry
increase this estimate to $361.45
million.
Sportfishing constitutes another
important industry in Long Island
Sound. Roughly 330,000 people
participated in the sport in 1991.
Direct expenditures associated with
sport fishing is estimated at $258.5
million (on average, $780 per
angler per year). Related activities
increase this estimate to $624.6
million contributed to Connecticut's
economy (on average, $1,890 per
angler per year).
Recreational boating represents
the largest industry that depends on
maintaining water quality. Direct
expenditures for equipment and
services were estimated at $836
million. This increased to $1.84
billion with the inclusion of related
activities.
Finally, an attempt was made to
estimate the value of salt marshes as
a resource unto themselves and not
as developable land. Many values,
such as flood control and erosion
buffers, were not assigned dollar
values. A conservative estimate of
the value of the marshes as spawn-
ing grounds and feeding areas for
commercial and recreational fishes
was calculated at $93.75 million.
This value was equally divided
between New York and Connecti-
cut.
Connecticut's shellfish industry
has grown from a han/est of 30,000
bushels in 1972 to 900,000 bushels
in 1992 with a value exceeding $46
million. The shellfish industry
contributes approximately $500,000
in goods and in-kind services to the
Connecticut Department of Agricul-
ture, which oversees the State's
shellfish industry.
An estimated 392,419 acres are
available for growing shellfish; of
these, over 46,500 are currently
cultivated. Eighty percent of all acre-
age available for shellfishing is cur-
rently approved or conditionally
approved. The remaining 20%
(78,009 acres) is closed. Four million
bushels of oyster shells have been
planted in an attempt to restore
State public oyster beds. Manage-
ment efforts of local shellfish com-
missions are increasing, and several
towns, including Stamford, Norwalk,
Guilford, and Madison, have begun
"relay" programs to enhance recre-
ational shellfishing.
Other fisheries, including lob-
sters, finfish, squid, hard clams,
scallops, and conch, contribute sig-
nificantly to Connecticut's fishery
harvest. This harvest amounted to
19,200,000 pounds in 1992, com-
bining live weight of fish, lobsters,
and squid plus the meat of oysters,
clams, scallops, and conch. At an
off-vessel value of nearly $60 mil-
lion, this makes Connecticut the
-------
494 Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
largest aquaculture-producing State
in the region.
District of Columbia
The stench of the Potomac
River in the 1960s made recreation
on or near the river undesirable.
The change in the water quality
today is readily discernible. Today
residents and visitors recreate along
its banks as well as partake in vari-
ous boating activities on the river.
Water sports such as rowing, wind
surfing, and annual water vehicle
competitions have become part of
the Potomac River culture in the
District. Increased development
along the Georgetown and
Alexandria water fronts are another
symbol of the river's resurgence.
There has been a return of rec-
reational fishing to District waters.
Surveys conducted by fisheries man-
agement programs have clearly
shown that fishing and the number
of anglers have increased greatly.
The sale of fishing licenses in the
District provided the support for
these surveys. The number of fish-
ing licenses sold in 1993 (12,916) is
more than two and one-half times
the number sold in 1988 (4,900
licenses)—the first year fishing
licenses were sold.
These benefits are real and it is
important to note that they would
not have been feasible without the
leadership of the Federal Govern-
ment, State government, local gov-
ernment, citizen groups, and indus-
try all working together.
New York
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation pub-
lished 20 Year Trends in Water
Quality of Rivers and Streams in New
York State in 1993. The study re-
ports trends in macroinvertebrates
from 1972 to 1992. The increase in
macroinvertebrates such as mayflies,
caddisflies and stoneflies is a signifi-
cant indicator of the improving
health of a waterbody. The follow-
ing describes 10 of New York's
greatest success stories:
Canandaigua Outlet below
Canandaigua - The stream in 1972
had 3 to 4 inches of black organic
sludge downstream of the sewage
discharge. Following the 1980
upgrading of the Canandaigua
Sewage Treatment Plant, mayflies
and caddisflies are now found at the
downstream site.
Cattaraugus Creek, Gowanda -
Water quality is now considered
excellent in Cattaraugus Creek; the
benthic fauna is dominated by intol-
erant species. Moderate to severe
pollution from tannery and glue
processing discharges was well
documented in 1976. These dis-
charges have since been eliminated.
Cayadutta Creek below
Johnstown - Severe pollution was
well documented at all sites down-
stream of the Gloversville-Johnstown
wastewater treatment facility. Fol-
lowing the 1991 upgrade of the
plant, species richness indicators
increased from 8 to 23, and may-
flies, stoneflies, and caddisflies were
found, similar to the upstream site.
Lower Hudson River below
Albany - All biological indices have
improved below Albany since 1972
and may be attributed to many
improvements in municipal and
-------
Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 495
industrial sewage treatment. Several
blue crabs were collected in this
reach in 1992.
Mohawk River below Rome -
From 1972 to 1989, species rich-
ness rose from 8 to 24 species, and
mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies
appeared. The change is attributed
to improved treatment of both
industrial and municipal wastes.
Mohawk River below Utica -
Following the construction and
upgrade of sewage treatment facili-
ties, the macroinvertebrate fauna
changed from a tolerant worm and
midge fauna to a diverse fauna
containing mayflies and caddisflies.
Oneida Creek below Oneida - The
1982 upgrade of the Oneida Sew-
age Treatment Plant changed the
fauna from a severely impacted
community of worms and midges
to a diverse community of mayflies,
stoneflies, and caddisflies.
Skaneateles Creek, entire length -
Most sites were found to be severely
impacted in 1972. In 1992, follow-
ing improved treatment of most
discharges, diverse communities
were found, with numerous mayflies
and caddisflies.
Tonawanda Creek below Batavia -
The former fauna below the sewage
discharge was a classic worm and
midge sewage fauna. Following the
1990 completion of the new Batavia
wastewater treatment facility, this
formerly severely impacted site now
harbors many mayflies and
caddisflies.
Upper Hudson River below Glens
Falls - Mayfly/caddisfly species
increased from 1 to 7 from 1972 to
1986, following numerous improve-
ments in treatment of municipal
and industrial wastes. Biological
changes were accompanied by
improvements in water clarity.
Water Quality Benefits in the
Nation's Waterbodies
Iowa's Swan Lake
In the early 1980s, Iowa's Swan
Lake suffered from turbidity,
sedimentation, nuisance algal
blooms, and frequent fishkills. By
1990 conditions had changed:*
• In 1990, visits to Swan Lake State
Park were up 170% from 1986
levels, and camping in the park
more than doubled during the same
period.
• Between 1982 and 1989, the
number of anglers at the lake
increased more than sevenfold.
• From 1987 through 1990, the
value of fishing at Swan Lake
exceeded $1.75 million.
• Between 1986 and 1990, conces-
sion income at the park quadrupled.
• Camping receipts in 1990 were
2.5 times higher than those of
1986.
Chesapeake Bay
A 1987 study estimated the
value of the Chesapeake Bay to the
commercial fishing industry, port
"U.S. EPA, Clean Lakes Program Review. 1992.
-------
496 Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
and shipbuilding activities, and Bay-
related tourism at $31.6 billion.
Recreational activities, such as boat-
ing, fishing, hunting, sightseeing,
and dining on the regional cuisine
accounted for $8.4 billion per year.*
Gulf of Mexico^"
There are almost 2 million regis-
tered motor boats in the five Gulf
States and an estimated 4 million
recreational anglers. In 1991 the
National Marine Fisheries Service
estimated there were 15.5 million
marine recreational fishing trips in
the Gulf of Mexico region. Private
and rental boat anglers accounted
for the highest percentage of the
fishing effort.
The Gulf of Mexico is especially
rich in fish and shellfish species.
Three of the top 10 U.S. ports in
terms of the value of fish landings
are located in the Gulf States. Also,
the Gulf had three of the top five
States in terms of value in 1990:
Louisiana, Texas, and Florida. Sev-
enty percent of the 346 million
pounds of shrimp landed in the U.S.
in 1990 came from the Gulf States
(250 million pounds) valued at
$420 million. Other important
shellfish include blue crabs and oys-
ters. In 1989, Texas and Louisiana
landed 11.7 million pounds of tuna
valued at $22.5 million. The Gulf
also accounted for 11.5 million
pounds of shark valued at $7.9
million.
Great Lakes*
The Great Lakes provide
tremendous economic and ecologi-
cal benefits to the area. One quarter
of all U.S. industry and more than
70% of U.S. and 60% of Canadian
steel mills are in the Great Lakes
Basin. Over 23 million people
depend on the Great Lakes for
drinking water. The area affords
habitat for a vast array of plant and
animal species, many of which are
native to the Great Lakes Basin.
Recreational benefits are also
significant. Data from the mid-
1980s indicate that recreational
boating marinas employed almost
20,000 people. Boat sales and other
boater spending (marina fees,
licenses, repairs, etc.) amounted to
almost $4 billion per year. Recre-
ational fishing adds another $3 bil-
lion to $7 billion per year.
Water quality in the Great Lakes
has improved significantly since the
passage of the Clean Water Act in
1972. Although discharges from
wastewater treatment plants have
increased due to population growth
and development pressures, levels of
dissolved oxygen have steadily
improved. Reductions in organic
material, solids, and phosphorus are
noteworthy as well. Phosphorus
loadings to Green Bay from the Fox
River decreased by 3.6 million
pounds by 1982. Fish have returned
to some harbors from which they
had disappeared.
* U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program, A Work in Progress, A Retrospective on the First Decade of
the Chesapeake Bay Restoration. Washington, DC: September 1993.
tThe Center for Marine Conservation and U.S. EPA. Environmental Quality in the Gulf of Mexico:
A Citizen's Guide. 2nd Ed. Washington, D.C.: June 1992.
* U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Clean Water: A Memorial Day Perspective. Washington, DC: May
1994.
-------
Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 497
The number of double-crested
cormorants, a water bird that all but
vanished in the Great Lakes in the
1970s, has climbed to 12,000 nest-
ing pairs. The number of bald
eagles is nearing the highest level
ever measured in Michigan.
Improvements in Great Lakes
water quality have had a positive
economic impact on the recre-
ational fishing industry. Fishing
licenses purchased in the county of
Green Bay, Wisconsin, increased
from 19,000 in 1970 to 51,000 in
1989. Boat registration more than
doubled during the same period,
leading to an increased demand for
launch ramps and other boating
facilities in the Green Bay area. The
revitalization of the fishery resources
in Lake Ontario has spurred the
development of the charter boat
fishing industry, boater and angler
access sites, fishing derbies, and
additional employment oppor-
tunities.
Water quality improvements
and increased lakeside development
have caused people to return to the
shore of Lake Erie to enjoy boating,
fishing, swimming, and other water-
based activities. Algal blooms and
bacteria counts in Ohio beach areas
along Lake Erie have dropped more
than 90% from 1968 to 1991. As a
result, Ohio's waterfront has seen an
increased number of boating, camp-
ing, and vacation resort facilities
being constructed. From 1986 to
1993, there was a 30% increase in
the number of marinas in the Lake
Erie Basin. Ohio's Lake Erie tourism
industry is now an $8.5 billion per
'year industry.
Lakeshore cities, such as Cleve-
land, Ohio, have begun to restore
their shorelines, which were consid-
ered "dead" 25 years ago. A new
harbor and festival park have
already been completed. Several
museums are completed or are
under construction and an
aquarium is planned.
Krista Rose, age 8, Bruner Elementary, North Las Vegas, NV
-------
OU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFF1CE1996-410-018/S0277
-------
OMB Control No. 2090-0019
Expires on 10/31/97
What Do You Think About This Report?
EPA constantly seeks to improve the content and presentation of information in the National Water
Quality Inventory Report to Congress. Your response to the following questions will help EPA tailor the
content and presentation of future reports to address your needs. Please pull out this page and return
your comments to the address on the reverse. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
1. Are there additional topics that you would like to see covered
in this document?
Please list topics:
YES
D
NO
2. Are there topics that should be removed from this document?
Please list topics:
D
3. Was the organization of the report adequate?
How could the organization be improved?
4. In general, were the figures and graphics easy to understand?
Which figures were most effective at conveying information to you?
5. Were there any figures that were difficult to understand?
Please list figures:
6. Do you have any other suggestions for improving the content
and presentation of information in this Report to Congress?
D
D
-------
. — second fold —
Barry Burgan
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
first fold
Public reporting burden is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, gathering
information, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to: Director, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St., S.W., Washington, DC 20460. Include the OMB control number in
any correspondence. Do not send the completed questionnaire to this address.
-------
, Order Form
Additional copies of this report and related water quality assessment documents can be ordered from the
National Center for Environmental Publication and Information (NCEPI) or accessed electronically on the
Internet through EPA's Water Information Network (see page 380 for instructions). To order hard copies, please
check the boxes beside the documents that you would like to order and return this form to the address on the
reverse, or fax this form to NCEPI at (513) 891 -6685. Due to limited supply, we can send.you only one copy of
each publication. Allow 2 to 3 weeks for delivery.
r~J The National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. EPA841 -R-95-005. December 1995.
The complete report containing discussions of water quality information submitted by States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions as well as full descriptions of EPA programs to maintain and restore water quality.
(572 pages)
Q The National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress - Appendixes. EPA841 -R-95-006.
December 1995. This document contains the data tables used to generate the information presented in
the 1994 Report to Congress.
(216 pages)
Q The Quality of Our Nation's Water: 1994, Executive Summary of the National Water Qualify
Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. EPA841 -S-95-004. December 1995. A summary of the complete
Report to Congress, including individual summaries of the Section 305(b) reports submitted by the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions.
(200 pages)
Q Fact Sheet: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. EPA841-F-95-011. December
1995. Brief synopsis of the water quality data submitted by the States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions in
their 1994 Section 305(b) reports.
(12 pages)
QJ Water Quality Conditions in the United States. EPA841 -F-95-010. December 1995. A short profile of the
National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress.
(2 pages)
I I Guidelines for Preparation of the 1994 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports).
"—' EPA841 -B-93-004. May 1993.
(300 pages)
I I Guidelines for Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports).
EPA841-B-95-001. May 1995.
(350 pages)
I 1 Knowing Our Waters: Tribal Reporting Under Section 305(b). EPA841 -B-95-003. May 1995.
"—' (17 pages)
Ship to:.
Address:..
City, State, ZIP:.
Daytime Phone:.
(Please include area code)
-------
•fold
NCEPI
11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5
Cincinnati, OH 45242
•fold
-------
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
Jane Leu
EPA Region 2 (SWQB)
290 Broadway, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212)637-3741
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Margaret Passmore
EPA Region 3 (3ES11)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-6149
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, District of
Columbia
David Melgaard
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 (6W-QT)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)665-6646
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
Robert Steiert
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7433
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Phil Johnson
EPA Region 8 (8WM-WQ)
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)312-6275
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Janet Hashimoto
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1933
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam
Curry Jones
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-6912
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
U.S. EPA Regions
•y I H Virgin Islands
r I Puerto Rico
For additional information about water quality in your State or other jurisdiction,
please contact your Section 305(b) Coordinator listed'in Chapters 9,10 and 11.
-------
-03 "'
'IT • irf •*< T
'Q /K ** J»
=f>-..|>S
-------