United States,
Environmental Protection^
Agency,
Office of Water
>.Washington DC 20460
National Water Quality
-- -~ N XN "
Inventory
1996 Report to Congress
-^ >- f^:Ar5*'
\v^ v „/*" s -.^1,^ ««w*-* •* * " >xl
» %•*" ^*» -~^»i *"^^.f *,•* -*\
l*»«*k <-V - .r\-^'>v 'i <,•
rfU**
v*** % '£'•
*^ »*t« ^^ "'•*&
^^xifa.tf, j^^^ifp" N'*»-:x ,,^ **.; ,.,-, ^3v v^ ., Vx
'^ f ^^^''VaVfiBr*^ -mr »•: e*'v- -sv\c*.' ,*-M>^^v~/f*i
it. '^Aifi!Him3fc*>* ?i -. -. fc ^Wjfeh£*\ kx.^>V **\
'*ft£ p^'^fe'iu*
^>m?y
-------
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
This report was prepared pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, which states:
(b)(1) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1, 1975,
and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter, a
report which shall include—
(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State
during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental descriptions
as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal, and other varia-
tions, correlated with the quality of water required by the objective of
this Act (as identified by the Administrator pursuant to criteria published
under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water quality described in
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;
(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such State
provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population
of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in and on
the water;
(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of
pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for the protection
and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, ancl wildlife
and allows recreational activities in and on the water, have been or will
be achieved by the requirements of this Act, together with recommenda-
tions as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for
what waters such additional action is necessary;
(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic and social
costs necessary to achieve the objective of this Act in such State, (iii) the
economic and social benefits of such achievement; and (iv) an estimate
of the date of such achievement; and
(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants,
and recommendations as to the programs which must be undertaken to
control each category of such sources, including an estimate of the costs
of implementing such programs.
(2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together with an analysis
thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975, and October 1, 1976,
arid biennially thereafter.
Cover photo by Cliff Haac, Chapel Hill, NC
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
As required by Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), I am transmitting to the Congress the 1996
National Water Quality Inventory Report. This biennial report is the eleventh in a series of national water quality
assessments published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1975.
While this report indicates that the majority of the waters surveyed by the states are of good quality, it also
indicates about 40 percent of the surveyed rivers, lakes and estuaries are too polluted for basic uses such as fishing or
swimming. These results are consistent with those reported in 1994 and show that, on the whole, we have managed
to 'hold the line' or prevent further degradation of water resources, despite continued population growth and growth
in economic activity. This information from the states indicates that serious water pollution problems persist through-
out the country and emphasizes how important it is to aggressively implement the recently released Clean Water
Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's Waters.
States reported that at least one of the beneficial uses for which waters are designated in their water quality
standards, such as drinking water supply, swimming, and the propagation of aquatic life, was impaired in:
• 36 percent of surveyed river miles,
• 39 percent of surveyed lake acres, and
• 38 percent of surveyed estuarine square miles.
In addition, states report that they consider some of their good quality waters threatened because they could
become impaired if pollution prevention or control actions are not taken.
According to the states, the most commonly reported pollutants in impaired waters are nutrients, siltation,
metals, and bacteria. Runoff from agricultural lands is the biggest source of pollution in rivers and lakes. Industrial
discharges of waste are the leading source of pollution in estuaries.
It is essential that we continue the progress we have made toward cleaner water and address the serious water
pollution problems that remain. The Clean Water Action Plan, released by President Clinton in February, provides the
blueprint for expanding our efforts to restore and protect water quality. We look forward to working with Congress
in this important effort.
Sincerely,
Carol M. Browner
Enclosure
-------
-------
\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
As required by Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), I am transmitting to the Congress the 1996
National Water Quality Inventory Report. This biennial report is the eleventh in a series of national water quality
assessments published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1975.
While this report indicates that the majority of the waters surveyed by the states are of good quality, it also
indicates about 40 percent of the surveyed rivers, lakes and estuaries are too polluted for basic uses such as fishing or
swimming. These results are consistent with those reported in 1994 and show that, on the whole, we have managed
to 'hold the line' or prevent further degradation of water resources, despite continued population growth and growth
in economic activity. This information from the states indicates that serious water pollution problems persist through-
out the country and emphasizes how important it is to aggressively implement the recently released Clean Water
Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's Waters.
States reported that at least one of the beneficial uses for which waters are designated in their water quality
standards, such as drinking water supply, swimming, and the propagation of aquatic life, was impaired in:
• 36 percent of surveyed river miles,
• 39 percent of surveyed lake acres, and
• 38 percent of surveyed estuarine square miles.
In addition, states report that they consider some of their good quality waters threatened because they could
become impaired if pollution prevention or control actions are not taken.
According to the states, the most commonly reported pollutants in impaired waters are nutrients, siltation,
metals, and bacteria. Runoff from agricultural lands is the biggest source of pollution in rivers and lakes. Industrial
discharges of waste are the leading source of pollution in estuaries.
It is essential that we continue the progress we have made toward cleaner water and address the serious water
pollution problems that remain. The Clean Water Action Plan, released by President Clinton in February, provides the
blueprint for expanding our efforts to restore and protect water quality. We look forward to working with Congress
in this important effort.
Sincerely,
Carol M. Browner
Enclosure
-------
-------
Acknowledgments
This report is based primarily on water quality assessments submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by the States, Territories, American Indian Tribes, the District of Columbia, and
Interstate Commissions of the United States. The EPA wishes to thank the authors of these
assessments for the time and effort spent in preparing these reports and reviewing the draft of this
national assessment. Additional thanks go to the water quality assessment coordinators from all
10 EPA Regions who work with the States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions.
The project manager and editor of this document was Barry Burgan of the Monitoring Branch,
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Key
contributions were also made by the following individuals in other EPA program offices: Roger
Anzzolin, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; Dan Weese, Mike Mundell, and David
Sprague, Permits Division; Tom Danielson, Wetlands Division; Jim Keating, Office of Science and
Technology; John Kosko, Nonpoint Source Control Branch; Joe Hall, Oceans and Coastal
Protection Division; Anne Weinberg, Watershed Branch; Wayne Davis, Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation; Kevin Summers, Steve Paulsen, and Phil Larsen, Ecological Monitoring and
Assessment Program; Joseph Macknis, Chesapeake Bay Program; Drew Puffer, Gulf of Mexico
Program; Duane Heaton, the Great Lakes National Program Office; John Ackerman and Dianne
Byrne, the Great Waters Program; Marlene Regelski, American Indian Environmental Office; Dhol
Herzi and Ginny Kibler, Office of Water; Janet Pawlukiewicz, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds; and Alice Mayio, Chris Faulkner, and Elizabeth Fellows, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division. Additional information was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, the
Tennessee Valley Authority, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the
National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
EPA would also like to thank all of the artists and photographers who contributed their work for
inclusion in this document. We regret that we were unable to include all of their fine work in this
document.
Contractor support was provided under Contracts 68-C3-0303 and 68-C7-0014 with Tetra
Tech, Inc. Subcontractor Research Triangle Institute (RTI) provided data analysis, technical assis-
tance, editorial support, design, typesetting, and graphics.
-------
For more .information about the National Water Quality Inventory
Report, the companion summary document, or their content and
presentation, contact:
!r '; 'i ' ' '
Barry Burgan
National 305(b) Coordinator , '
D.S. Environmental Protection Agency (45.03F) '
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Burgan.Barry@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW
^262)260-7060
(202) 260-1977 (fax)
For additional copies of this report, the appendixes, the compan-
ion summary document, or other water quality assessment
materials, please see the order form at the back of this report.
-------
Contents
Page
Acknowledgments i
Figures xi
Tables , xiv
Executive Summary ES-1
Part I: Introduction
Chapter 1
Introduction 3
Purpose 3
Highlight: Relationship of Index of Watershed Indicators
to the National Water Quality Inventory 4
Highlight: The Water Cycle - 5
Background 6
Rivers and Streams 6
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 7
The Great Lakes 7
Estuaries 8
Wetlands 8
Ocean Shoreline Waters 9
Ground Water 9
The Clean Water Act ,. 10
Survey Methodology 11
Summary of Use Support 13
Total Surveyed Waters 14
Pollutants that Degrade Water Quality and Sources of Impairment ... 14
Highlight: Pollutants and Processes That Damage Water Quality 16
Highlight: Tribal Water Quality 22
Part II: Water Quality Assessments
Chapter 2
Rivers and Streams 27
Summary of Use Support 29
Individual Use Support 30
Water Quality Problems Identified in Rivers and Streams 31
Pollutants and Stressors Impacting Rivers and Streams -. 34
Sources of Pollutants Impacting Rivers and Streams 36
Highlight: Maryland Biological Stream Survey 40
HI
-------
Page
Chapter 3
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 45
Summary of Use Support 46
Individual Use Support 48
Water Quality Problems Identified in Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds ... 48
Pollutants Impacting Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 49
Sources of Pollutants Impacting Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds .... 53
Chapter 4
Tidal Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 57
Estuaries 57
Summary of Use Support 58
Individual Use Support 59
Water Quality Problems Identified in Estuaries 61
Highlight: Key Management Issues for the National Estuary Programs ... 66
Highlight: State and Federal Partners in Integrated Estuarine
Monitoring in the Mid-Atlantic (1997 & 1998) 70
Ocean Shoreline Waters 76
Individual Use Support 77
Water Quality Problems Identified in Ocean Shoreline Waters ... 77
Chapter 5
Wetlands 83
Introduction 83
Functions and Values of Wetlands 84
Consequences of Wetlands Loss and Degradation 86
Extent of the Resource 88
Wetlands Loss in the United States 88
Monitoring Wetlands Functions and Values 90
Designated Use Support in Wetlands 92
Summary 95
Chapter 6
Ground Water Quality 97
Ground Water Use in the United States 98
Highlight: Ground Water Use 100
Ground Water Quality 103
Highlight: Ground Water/Surface Water Interactions 104
Highlight: Ground Water Along Our Nation's Coasts 108
iv
-------
Page
Ground Water Contaminant Sources 109
Underground Storage Tanks Ill
Highlight: Frequently Considered Factors 112
Landfills 115
Septic Systems 117
State Overview of Contaminant Sources 119
Ground Water Assessments 120
Diversity of Reporting Units 121
Extent of Coverage 127
Ground Water Quality Data Sources 127
Parameter Groups/Analytes 128
Ground Water Quality Data 129
Conclusion 136
Chapter 7
Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 139
Public Health Concerns 139
Toxic Pollutants 139
Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories 139
Bacterial and Viral Contamination 143
Shellfish Contamination 143
Drinking Water Concerns 147
Drinking Water Challenges 148
Source Water Assessment Program 151
Recreational Restrictions 152
Aquatic Ecosystem Concerns 153
Fish Kills Caused by Pollution 154
Sediment Contamination 154
Highlight: The National Sediment Quality Survey 158
Part III: Individual Section 305(b) Report
Summaries and Recommendations
Chapters
State and Tribal Recommendations 163
Financial and Technical Support from Federal Agencies 163
Nonpoint Source Abatement and Watershed Protection Initiatives .. 165
Interagency Data Sharing and Management 166
Ground Water Management 167
Conclusions 168
-------
Page
Chapter 9
Individual State and Territorial Summaries 171
Chapter 10
Tribal Summaries 279
Chapter 11
Interstate Commission Summaries 293
Part IV: Water Quality Management Programs
Chapter 12
The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based
Management Programs 303
Watershed Protection Approach 303
Place-based Management Programs 305
Introduction 305
The Great Waterbodies Program 306
Background 306
The Gulf,,of Mexico 306
Highlight: Gulf of Mexico Program: 5 Case Studies 310
The Great Lakes Basin 312
The Chesapeake Bay Program 332
Background 332
Stresses on the Ecosystem 333
Conclusions 342
The National Estuary Program 343
Estuarine Problems 345
Coastal Concerns 352
The Great Waters Program 352
Introduction 352
Progress under Section 112(m) Implementation
Activities and Relevant EPA Programs 353
The Great Waters Reports to Congress 355
Highlight: Savannah River Basin Watershed Project : 360
Chapter 13
Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 365
Introduction 365
Overview of National Monitoring Activity 365
Effects of Changes in Water Programs 366
vi
-------
Page
National Water Quality Monitoring Council 366
Major Nationwide Monitoring Programs 368
Office of Water Programs to Support Monitoring 372
Environmental Indicators 372
Index of Watershed Indicators 372
Surf Your Watershed 374
Monitoring Program Grant Guidance 374
305(b) Consistency Workgroup 374
Water Monitor Newsletter 375
Biological Monitoring 375
Fish Advisory Guidance and Databases 376
National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish 378
Specific Water Program Monitoring 378
National Estuary Program Monitoring Guidance 378
Nonpoint Source National Monitoring Program ... 378
Wetlands Monitoring 378
Ground Water Monitoring 379
Volunteer Monitoring Programs 380
EPA Data and Information Systems 381
STORE! Modernization 381
The Waterbody System 382
The Permit Compliance System 382
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) 383
The Toxics Release Inventory 384
Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy
and National Inventory 385
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange 386
Great Lakes Envirofacts 387
Other Information Clearinghouses & Electronic Bulletin Boards . 387
Highlight: Volunteer Monitoring and the 305(b) Process 388
Highlight: Volunteer Monitoring at Work 390
Highlight: Index of Watershed Indicators 392
Chapter 14
Point Source Control Programs 401
Water Quality Financing: The State Revolving Fund Program ...:.. 401
Wastewater Treatment 403
Treating Industrial Wastewater 404
Permitting, Compliance, and Enforcement 405
VII
-------
Page
National Municipal Policy 406
Controlling Toxicants 407
Identifying Waters Impaired by Toxicants 407
Toxicity Testing 408
The National Pretreatment Program 409
Biosolids (Sewage Sludge) Management 411
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy 412
NPDES Stormwater Controls 413
Pollution Prevention 414
Highlight: Watershed-based Trading 416
Chapter 15
Nonpoint Source Control Program 421
Background 421
The National Section 319 Program 421
Section 319 National Monitoring Program 423
Reports on Section 319 Activities 426
Nonpoint Source Management Programs and Implementation .... 426
Treating High Metal Load Acid Mine Drainage,
Rock Creek Watershed, Kentucky 426
Lake Jackson Revitalized, Florida 427
Shellfish Beds Upgraded, Navesink River, New Jersey 427
Crystal Lake Preservation Association Tackles Urban
Runoff, New Hampshire 428
Funding for Nonpoint Source Control 429
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program 429
Highlight: Citizen's Group Works with Officials to Restore an
Urban Watershed—Salmon Return to Pipers Creek
in Washington State 432
Chapter 16
Protecting and Restoring Lakes 437
Background 437
Assessments for Publicly Owned Lakes 437
Beneficial Use Impairments and Trends 437
Importance of Trophic Status Classifications 438
Lake Acidity and Toxics Impacts 440
Pollution Control and Restoration Techniques 440
Funding Sources for State Lake Protection and Restoration Efforts .. 441
viii
-------
Page
Opportunities Through EPA Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking
Water Act Programs 441
Highlight: Illinois Implements a New Comprehensive State Lake
Program 442
Demonstration Lakes . . 444
Highlight: Lake Bomoseen, Vermont: A Biological Control
Demonstration Project 445
Lake Champlain: Geographic and Multimedia Approaches
for a Great Waterbody 451
Highlight: Sources of EPA Support for State Lake Protection
and Restoration Projects 453
Highlight: Great American Secchi Dip-In 456
Chapter 17
Wetlands Protection Programs 459
Section 404 459
Highlight: The 1993 Wetlands Plan 460
Wetlands Water Quality Standards 463
Wetlands Monitoring/Biocriteria Programs 464
Water Quality Certification of Federal Permits and Licenses 465
State/Tribal Wetland Conservation Plans 466
Swampbuster 467
Highlight: State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Program 468
State Programs to Protect Wetlands 470
State-Reported Information 470
Summary 472
Highlight: The Tennessee State Wetlands Conservation Strategy 474
Highlight: The Nationwide Permit Program 476
Highlight: Wetlands and Watersheds 478
Chapter 18
Ground Water Protection Programs 481
Primary Drinking Water Protection Programs 481
Clean Water Act 482
Highlight: Alabama's Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program • 484
Safe Drinking Water Act 487
Highlight: Illinois' Source Water Protection Program 488
Highlight: Costs of Remediation versus Prevention 492
Highlight: Senior Volunteers and Ground Water Protection 494
ix
-------
Page
Other Control Programs and Activities 501
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 502
Underground Storage Tank Program 503
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act 505
Conclusion 507
Chapter 19
Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 509
Introduction 509
Costs of Water Quality Improvement 509
Benefits of Water Quality Improvement 511
Recreation 512
Commercial Fishing 512
Good Water Quality Benefits the Economy 513
Water Quality Benefits Identified by States 513
Water Quality Benefits in the Nation's Waterbodies 517
-------
Figures
No. Page
1-1 Ground Water 9
1 -2 Percentage of Total Waters Surveyed for the 1996 Report 15
2-1 States and Tribes Surveyed 693,905 Miles of Rivers
and Streams for the 1996 Report 27
2-2 Summary of Use Support in Surveyed Rivers and Streams 30
2-3 Individual Use Support in Rivers and Streams 31
2-4 Surveyed River Miles: Pollutants and Sources 32
2-5 Impaired River Miles: Pollutants and Sources 33
2-6 The Effects of Siltation in Rivers and Streams 34
2-7 Agricultural Impairment: Rivers and Streams 37
3-1 States and Tribes Surveyed 17 Million Acres of the Nation's
Lake Waters Excluding the Great Lakes for the 1996 Report .... 45
3-2 Summary of Use Support in Surveyed Lakes, Reservoirs,
and Ponds 47
3-3 Individual Use Support in Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 49
3-4 Surveyed Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources 50
3-5 Impaired Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources 51
3-6 Lake Impaired by Excessive Nutrients/Healthy Lake Ecosystem . . 52
4-1 States Surveyed 28,819 Square Miles of Estuarine Waters
for the 1996 Report 57
4-2 Summary of Use Support in Surveyed Estuaries 59
4-3 Individual Use Support in Estuaries 60
4-4 Surveyed Estuaries: Pollutants and Sources 62
4-5 Impaired Estuaries: Pollutants and Sources 63
4-6 Bacteria 64
4-7 Summary of Use Support in Surveyed Ocean Shoreline Waters .. 76
4-8 Individual Use Support in Ocean Shoreline Waters 77
4-9 Surveyed Ocean Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources 78
4-10 Impaired Ocean Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources 79
5-1 Depiction of Wetlands Adjacent to Waterbody 83
5-2 Coastal Wetlands Produce Detritus that Support Fish
and Shellfish 84
5-3 Water Quality Improvement Functions in Wetlands 85
5-4 Flood Protection Functions in Wetlands 85
5-5 Shoreline Stabilization Functions in Wetlands 85
5-6 Ground Water Recharge Functions in Wetlands 86
5-7 Streamflow Maintenance Functions in Wetlands 86
5-8 Percentage of Wetlands Acreage Lost, 1780s-1980s 88
5-9 Sources of Recent Wetlands Losses 89
5-10 Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity 93
5-11 Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity 94
xi
-------
Page
6-1 Distribution of Water on Earth's Surface 98
6-2 National Ground Water Use as a Percentage of Total
Withdrawals 98
6-3 Withdrawal and Discharge of Ground Water as a Percentage
of Contribution 103
6-4 Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Petroleum
Spillage 106
6-5 Sources of Ground Water Contamination 107
6-6 Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination 110
6-7 Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks 111
6-8 Number of Private Drinking Water Supply Wells Contaminated
by Leaking Underground Petroleum Storage Facilities
(1986-1993) 115
6-9 Changes in the Makeup of the Maine UST Population 115
6-10 Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Unlined
Landfill Disposal 116
6-11 Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Commercial
Septic Systems 118
6-12 Summary of How Ground Water Data Were Reported 122
6-13 Locations and Descriptions of Very Intense Study Areas
(VISA) in Florida 123
6-14 Arkansas Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program 123
6-15 Idaho's Hydrogeologic Subareas 124
6-16 Arizona Watersheds 125
6-17 Alabama Physiographic Provinces 126
6-18 Sources of Ground Water Data 127
6-19 Aquifer Monitoring Data 128
7-1 Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories in the
United States 141
7-2 Pollutants Causing Fish and Wildlife Consumption
Advisories 142
7-3 Sources Associated with Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions 146
7-4 Compliance of Community Drinking Water Systems
with Health Requirements in 1994 147
7-5 Waterborne Outbreaks in the United States by Year
and Type 148
12-1 Watershed Management Units in the Great Lakes Basin 303
12-2 Timeline 312
12-3 Summary of Use Support in Surveyed Great Lakes
Shoreline Waters 315
12-4 Individual Use Support in the Great Lakes 316
12-5 Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources 318
xii
-------
Page
12-6 Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources 319
12-7 Status of U.S. Great Lakes Bathing Beaches, 1981 -94 320
12-8 Primary Ecosystem Effects, Stressors, and Sources 321
12-9 Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin 327
12-10 Areas of Bay Grasses 336
12-11 Trends in Striped Bass: Maryland Juvenile Index 339
12-12 Trends in Striped Bass: Virginia Juvenile Index 339
12-13 Blue Crab Commercial Harvest 340
12-14 Commercial Harvest of Oysters: Maryland and Virginia 341
12-15 Locations of National Estuary Program Sites 344
12-16 Locations of Designated Great Waters 353
13-1 Water Quality Objectives and the 18 National Indicators 372
13-2 Assessed Rivers Meeting All Designated Uses Set in
State/Tribal Water Standards 1994/1996 373
14-1 How the SRF Program Works 402
14-2 Percentage of Facilities in Significant Noncompliance
with NPDES Permit Requirements 406
16-1 The Progression of Eutrophication 439
16-2 Trophic Status of Assessed Lakes 440
17-1 Development of State Water Quality Standards for Wetlands . . 463
18-1 States with Core CSGWPP 483
18-2 What Actions Are Needed to Complete a Local Source
Water Assessment? 490
18-3 WHP Approval Status as of May 1/1997 491
18-4 Project Reviews 497
18-5 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 498
18-6 Injection Well Relationship to Underground Sources
of Drinking Water 499
18-7 Growing Number of Cleanups 504
18-8 CERCLA Process 505
XIII
-------
Tables
No. Page
1-1 Levels of Summary Use Support 13
1 -2 Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report 15
6-1 Summary of Contaminant Source Type and Number 120
6-2 Summary of Parameter Groups/Constituents Reported
by States in 1996 129
6-3 Nitrates 130
6-4 VOCs 131
6-5 SVOCs 132
6-6 Pesticides 133
6-7 Metals 134
6-8 Bacteria 135
7-1 Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions Reported by the States 145
12-1 Effects of Toxic Contamination on Fish and Wildlife
in the Great Lakes .314
12-2 Toxic Chemicals of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin:
11 Critical Pollutants Identified by IJC's Water Quality Board ... 324
12-3 Great Lakes Areas of Concern: Impairment of Beneficial Uses .. 328
12-4 Estimates of Atmospheric Nitrogen Loadings to Selected
Coastal Waters 347
14-1 Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
and Other Eligibilities 403
14-2 Facilities Covered by NPDES Permit, Pretreatment,
and Sludge Programs 404
16-1 Effects of pH on Aquatic Life 441
17-1 Federal Section 404 Permits 462
18-1 Nevada's Draft Minimum Sets of Data Elements 487
18-2 Summary-Fiscal Year Post Designation Project Reviews 497
18-3 Cases of Contamination Resulting from Onsite Wastewater
Disposal Systems 501
18-4 Contaminants Most Frequently Reported in Ground Water
at CERCLA National Priority List Sites 507
19-1 Summary of Current and Planned Spending under the
Existing CWA 510
19-2 State and Federal Expenditures for Water Pollution Control
in Pennsylvania 511
XIV
-------
Executive Summary
-------
The Quality of Our Nation's Water
Introduction
The National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress is the
primary vehicle for informing Con-
gress and the public about general
water quality conditions in the
United States. This document char-
acterizes our water quality, identifies
widespread water quality problems
of national significance, and
describes various programs imple-
mented to restore and protect our
waters.
The National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress summa-
rizes the water quality information
submitted by 58 States, American
Indian Tribes, Territories, Interstate
Water Commissions, and the District
of Columbia (hereafter referred to
as States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions) in their 1996 water quality
assessment reports. As such, the
report identifies water quality issues
of concern to the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions, not just the
issues of concern to the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) requires that the States
and other participating jurisdictions
submit water quality assessment
reports every 2 years. Most of the
survey information in the 1996
Section 305(b) reports is based on
water quality information collected
and evaluated by the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions during 1994
and 1995.
It is important to note that this
report is based on information sub-
mitted by States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions that do not use identical
survey methods and criteria to rate
their water quality. The States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions favor
flexibility in the 305(b) process to
accommodate natural variability in
their waters, but there is a trade-off
between flexibility and consistency.
Without known and consistent sur-
vey methods in place, EPA must use
caution in comparing data or deter-
mining the accuracy of data submit-
ted by different States and jurisdic-
tions. Also, EPA must use caution
when comparing water quality
information submitted during differ-
ent 305(b) reporting periods
because States and other jurisdic-
tions may modify their criteria or
survey different waterbodies every
2 years.
For over 10 years, EPA has pur-
sued a balance between flexibility
and consistency in the Section
305(b) process. Recent actions by
EPA, the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions include implementing
the recommendations of the
National 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup and the National Water
Quality Monitoring Council. These
actions will enable States and other
jurisdictions to share data across
political boundaries as they develop
watershed protection strategies.
EPA recognizes that national
initiatives alone cannot clean up our
waters; water quality protection and
restoration must happen at the local
watershed level, in conjunction with
State, Tribal, and Federal activities.
Similarly, this document alone can-
not provide the detailed information
needed to manage water quality at
all levels. This document should be
used together with the individual
Section 305(b) reports (see the
inside back cover for information on
obtaining the State and Tribal
Section 305(b) reports), watershed
management plans, and other local
documents to develop integrated
water quality management options.
ES-2
-------
Index of Watershed Indicators
*||-|:||-i|,|*lj fi^
-lilt tS-t 1 1 fil
The Index of Watershed Indi-
cators is a compilation of informa-
tion on the condition of aquatic
resources in the United States.
Using data from many sources, IWI
maps 15 indicators on a watershed
basis. Together these indicators
point to whether these watersheds
are "healthy" and whether activities
on the surrounding lands are mak-
ing these waters more vulnerable to
pollution (see map).
While this new assessment tool
is broader and more inclusive than
the National Water Quality Inven-
tory, State 305 (b) assessment infor-
mation is the most important data
source in the IWI.
State 305(b) information is
included as one of the 15 indicator
maps in IWI as: Assessed Rivers
Meeting All Designated Uses Set in
State/Tribal Water Quality Stand-
ards. The IWI uses data compiled
on a watershed basis from a
number of national assessment
programs from several EPA
programs, from USDA, NCAA,
USGS, the Corps of Engineers, and
the Nature Conservancy, and from
the States, Tribes and other jurisdic-
tions. Six other indicator maps
show EPA's rating of the condition
of watersheds; eight additional indi-
cator maps show EPA's rating of the
vulnerability of watersheds. Vulner-
ability factors include, for example,
the rate of population growth, the
potential of various forms of non-
point source pollution, and compli-
ance facility permits. Using this
approach, the IWI characterizes
nearly three-quarters of the 2,111
watersheds in the 48 contiguous
States.
The IWI was released in
October 1997 and is updated peri-
odically. In October 1997, 16% of
the watersheds had good water
quality, 36% had moderate water
quality, 21 % had more serious
problems, and sufficient data were
lacking to fully characterize the
remaining 27%. In addition, 1 in
14 watersheds in all areas was vul-
nerable to further degradation from
pollution, primarily from urban and
rural runoff.
The IWI enables managers and
community residents to understand
and help protect the watershed
where they live. The information is
easily available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/surf/iwi.
National Watershed Characterization
Analysis of Alaska and
Hawaii reserved for Phase 2.
Watershed Classificatio'n , t
I f Better Water Quality - Low Vulnerability,"
Q Better Water Quality - High Vulnerability
_, I j' i Less Serious Water Quality Problems - Low Vulnerability
* BQ Less Serious Water Qualify Problerns - High Vulnerability'
'OH More Serious Water Quality Problerns - Low Vulnerability
•f More Serious Water Quality Problems - High Vulnerability
C3 Data Sufficiency ^Threshold Not Met
Index' of Watershed
Indicators
http//www epa govsurf
ES-3
-------
Key Concepts
Measuring Water
Quality
The States, participating Tribes,
and other jurisdictions survey the
quality of their waters by determin-
ing if their waters attain the water
quality standards they established.
Water quality standards consist of
beneficial uses, numeric and narra-
tive criteria for supporting each use,
and an antidegradation statement:
• Designated beneficial uses are
the desirable uses that water quality
should support. Examples are drink-
ing water supply, primary contact
recreation (such as swimming), and
aquatic life support. Each designated
use has a unique set of water quality
requirements or criteria that must
be met for the use to be realized.
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
may designate an individual water-
body for multiple beneficial uses.
• Numeric water quality criteria
establish the minimum physical,
chemical, and biological parameters
required to support a beneficial use.
Physical and chemical numeric
criteria may set maximum concen-
trations of pollutants, acceptable
ranges of physical parameters such
as flow, and minimum concentra-
tions of desirable parameters such as
dissolved oxygen. Numeric biologi-
cal criteria describe the expected
attainable community attributes and
establish values based on measures
such as species richness, presence
or absence of indicator taxa, and
distribution of classes of organisms.
• Narrative water qualify criteria
define, rather than quantify, condi-
tions and attainable goals that must
be maintained to support a desig-
nated use. Narrative biological crite-
ria establish a positive statement
about aquatic community character-
istics expected to occur within a
waterbody. For example, "Aquatic
life shall be as it naturally occurs,"
or "Ambient water quality shall be
sufficient to support life stages of
all indigenous aquatic species."
Narrative criteria may also describe
conditions that are desired in a
waterbody, such as, "Waters must
be free of substances that are toxic
to humans, aquatic life, and
wildlife."
• Antidegradation statements,
where possible, protect existing uses
and prevent waterbodies from dete-
riorating even if their water quality is
better than the fishable and swim-
mable goals of the Act.
The CWA allows States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions to set their
own standards but requires that all
beneficial uses and their criteria com-
ply with the goals of the Act. At a
minimum, beneficial uses must pro-
vide for "the protection and propa-
gation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife"
and provide for "recreation in and
on the water" (i.e., the fishable and
swimmable goals of the Act), where
attainable. The Act prohibits States
and other jurisdictions from desig-
nating waste transport or waste
assimilation as a beneficial use, as
some States did prior to 1972.
Section 305(b) of the CWA
requires that the States biennially
survey their water quality for attain-
ment of the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Act and report the
results to EPA. The States, participat-
ing Tribes, and other jurisdictions
measure attainment of the CWA
goals by determining how well their
waters support their designated
beneficial uses. EPA encourages
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
to survey waterbodies for support of
the following individual beneficial
uses:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody pro-
vides suitable habitat for protection
and propagation of desirable fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic organ-
isms.
Fish Consumption
The waterbody sup-
ports fish free from
contamination that could pose a
human health risk to consumers.
ES-4
-------
flfl
Shellfish
Harvesting
The waterbody sup-
ports a population of shellfish free
from toxicants and pathogens that
could pose a human health risk to
Drinking Water
Supply
The waterbody
can supply safe drinking water with
conventional treatment.
Primary Contact
Recreation -
Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
waterborne diseases from raw
sewage contamination).
Secondary Contact
Recreation
People can perform
activities on the water (such as
boating) without risk of adverse
human health effects from ingestion
or contact with the water.
The water quality is
suitable for irrigat-
ing fields or watering livestock.
States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions may also define their own
individual uses to address special
concerns. For example, many Tribes
and States designate their waters for
the following beneficial uses:
Ground Water
Recharge
The surface
waterbody plays a significant role
in replenishing ground water, and
surface water supply and quality
are adequate to protect existing or
potential uses of ground water.
Wildlife Habitat
Water quality sup-
ports the water-
body's role in providing habitat and
resources for land-based wildlife as
well as aquatic life.
Tribes may designate their
waters for special cultural and
ceremonial uses:
> r Water Quality Monitoring
"< * -- ~ s - Watet quality rj1onitoHn§" consists 'of data collection ancUample : = ,
analysts" performed using accepted protocols and quality control pjroces/
clures. Monitoring alsq includes subsequent analysis of the body of data '
v tcusupport decisionmaking. Federal,,, Interstate/State, Territorial, Tribal, - - *
'Regional, and tocaf agencies; industry,- and volunteer- groups with , • , -
approved quality assurance programs 'monitor 'a combination o'fxzhemi^
cat physftal^and brological water quality -parameters throughoufthe _
" *
• Chemical -data, often measure concentrations of pollutants and other ' -'
- 'che'rhicaf conditions, that Influence aquatic life, such as^pH'(i»ev acidity)'
' and "dissolved .oxygen' concentrations, the chemicaf dajta.may be
- , analyzed" in water.saniples', fish tissue-samples, or 'sediment'sampjes; - ^
it Physical data include" measurements of temperature, turbidity ' '*',
. ' -(i;ev li : , ^ .'"-'.
< - -* " x " > " '« T •- " - - , ' - -t ,' •
•4 Biologica^data-rheasure the health of aquatic Communities. % - ^% /
1 , BiologfcaTdata include counts of aquatic species that indicate, ^ i ,
..healthy ecological cbnditions. -'_<<• '; -:,',,
-m , HaBitat and ancillary data (such as land use data) help Interpret the . '
- above monitoring information. • - s -^ •" *„ , • -- (
*• * Monitoring agencies vary parameters, sampling frequency, and , -
sargpling site selection to meet program objectives arid Ifunding , ' ' / ; , '
' co'nstrainfe.' Sampling may. occur, at regular- in'feryajs (such as monthly, ~
quarterly, br^anrtually), Irregular intervals; or during one-time intensive
-surveys. -Sampling may £>e conducted at ffxed sampling -stati'ons, ' ' - '
-ranclornly setected stations, stations near .suspected water quality '" v '
probienis,-prstatiOns1n pristine waters^" *- v % ' ' ' - -
ES-5
-------
Culture
Water quality sup-
ports the water-
body's role in Tribal culture and pre-
serves the waterbody's religious, cer-
emonial, or subsistence significance.
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions assign one of five levels
of use support categories to each of
their waterbodies (Table ES-1). If
possible, the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions determine the
level of use support by comparing
monitoring data with numeric crite-
ria for each use designated for a par-
ticular waterbody. If monitoring data
are not available, the State, Tribe, or
other jurisdiction may determine the
level of use support with qualitative
information. Valid qualitative infor-
mation includes land use data, fish
and game surveys, and predictive
model results. Monitored assess-
ments are based on recent monitor-
ing data collected during the past
5 years. Evaluated assessments are
based on qualitative information or
monitored information more than
5 years old.
For waterbodies with more than
one designated use, the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions con-
solidate the individual use support
information into a summary use
support determination:
Good/Fully Supporting
All Uses - All designated
beneficial uses are fully
supported.
Good/Threatened for
One or More Uses - One
or more designated bene-
ficial uses are threatened
and the remaining uses are fully
supported.
Impaired for One or
More Uses - One or
more designated bene-
ficial uses are partially or
not supported and the remaining
uses are fully supported or threat-
ened. These waterbodies are consid-
ered impaired.
Not Attainable - The
State, Tribe, or other
jurisdiction has per-
formed a use-attainability
analysis and demonstrated that use
support of one or more designated
beneficial uses is not attainable due
to one of six biological, chemical,
physical, or economic/social condi-
tions specified in the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR Section 131.10).
These conditions include naturally
high concentrations of pollutants
(such as metals); other natural physi-
cal features that create unsuitable
Table ES-1. Levels of Summary Use Support !
Symbol
£?
&
%
^
•B
Use Support Level
Fully Supporting
All Uses
Threatened for One
or More Uses
Impaired for One
or More Uses
Not Attainable
Water Quality
Condition
Good
Good
Impaired
Definition
Water quality meets
designated use criteria.
Water quality supports
beneficial uses now
but may not in the future
unless action is taken.
Water quality fails to meet
designated use criteria at times.
The State, Tribe, or other
jurisdiction has performed a
use-attainability analysis and
demonstrated that use support
is not attainable due to one of
six biological, chemical, physical,
or economic/social conditions
specified in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
ES-6
-------
ffifl
aquatic life habitat (such as inade-
quate substrate, riffles, or pools);
low flows or water levels; dams and
other hydrologic modifications that
permanently alter waterbody char-
acteristics; poor water quality result-
ing from human activities that
cannot be reversed without causing
further environmental degradation;
and poor water quality that cannot
be improved without imposing
more stringent controls than those
required in the CWA, which would
result in widespread economic and
social impacts.
• Impaired Waters - Waterbodies
either partially supporting uses or
not supporting uses.
The EPA then aggregates the
use support information submitted
by the States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions into a national assessment
of the Nation's water quality.
How Many of Our
Waters Were
Surveyed for 1996?
National estimates of the total
waters of our country provide the
foundation for determining the per-
centage of waters surveyed by the
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
and the portion impaired by pollu-
tion. For the 1992 reporting period,
EPA provided the States with esti-
mates of total river miles and lake
acres derived from the EPA Reach
File, a database containing traces of
waterbodies adapted from
1:100,000 scale maps prepared by
the U.S. Geological Survey. The
States modified these total water
estimates where necessary. Based on
the 1992 EPA/State figures, the
national estimate of total river miles
doubled in large part because the
EPA/State estimates included
nonperennial streams, canals, and
ditches that were previously
excluded from estimates of total
stream miles.
Estimates for the 1996 reporting
cycle are a minor refinement of the
1992 figures and indicate that the
United States has:
• More than 3.6 million miles of
rivers and streams, which range in
size from the Mississippi River to
small streams that flow only when
wet weather conditions exist
(i.e., nonperennial streams)
• Approximately 41.7 million acres
of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs
• About 39,839 square miles of
estuaries (excluding Alaska)
Figure BS-1. Percentage of Total Waters Surveyed for the 1996 Report
Rivers and Streams
693,905 - 1 9% surveyed (53% of perennial miles)
Total perennial miles: 1,306,121
Total miles: 3,634,152
^fltFf'J;^
Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs
Estuaries
16,819,769 - 40% surveyed
Total acres: 41,684,902
„.<•*»••»*
28,819 - 72% surveyed
Total square miles: 39,839a
Ocean Shoreline
Waters
3,651 - 6% surveyed
Total miles: 58,585 miles, including Alaska's
36,000 miles of shoreline
Great Lakes
Shoreline
5,186-94% surveyed
Total miles: 5,521
Source: 1996 Section 305(b) reports submitted by the States, Tribes, Territories, and
Commissions.
"Excluding estuarine waters in Alaska because no estimate was available.
ES-7
-------
• More than 58,000 miles of ocean
shoreline, including 36,000 miles in
Alaska
• 5,521 miles of Great Lakes
shoreline
• More than 277 million acres of
wetlands such as marshes, swamps,
bogs, and fens, including 170
million acres of wetlands in Alaska.
Most States do not survey all of
their waterbodies during the 2-year
reporting cycle required under CWA
Section 305(b). Thus, the surveyed
waters reported in Figure ES-1 are a
subset of the Nation's total waters.
In addition, the summary informa-
tion based on surveyed waters may
not represent general conditions in
the Nation's total waters because
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
The National i/Vpter Quality
•{MonitoringCouncil :
In 1992, the Intergovernmental task Force'on'Monitoring Water
Quality (ITFM) convened to prepare a strategy for improving water
quality monitoring "nati6hwIde.~TfieTTPfvt was a Federal/State partner-
ship of 10 Federal agencies, 9 State and Interstate agencies, arid 1
Aqierican Indian Tribe. The ERA chaired the JTFM with the USGS as.
vice chair and Executive Secretariat as"part of their Water Informatfpn
Coordination Program pursuant to OMB memo 92-01.
The mission of the ITFM was to develop and aid implementation
of a national strategic plan to achieve effective collection, interpreta-
tion, and presentation of water quality data and to improve the avail-
ability of existing information for decisionmaking at all levels of gov-
ernment and the private sector. A permanent successor to the ITFM,
the National Monitoring• "Council provides guidelines and support for
institutional collaboration, comparable field and laboratory methods,
quality assurance/quality control, environmental indicators, data
management and sharing, ancillary data, interpretation and
techniques, and training.
i iii i ii i, > , »**„* i - i ' * 'f r ty»'
• The National Monitoring Council is also producing products that
can be used by monitoring programs nationwide, such as an outline
fora recommende^ monitoring program, erivifohmerifal indicator'
selection criteria,, and a'matrix of indicators to^support assessment ,
of State and Tribal designated uses.
For a copy of the first, second, and final ITF^M reports, contact:
1 I I I If' 5, «fi , < I x * t «
Th? U.S. Geological Survey
417 National Center " , -
Restori/'VA" 22692 ' " ' " " "
1-800-426-9000
often focus on surveying major
perennial rivers, estuaries, and public
lakes with suspected pollution
problems in order to direct scarce
resources to areas that could pose
the greatest risk. Many States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions lack
the resources to collect use support
information for nonperennial
streams, small tributaries, and
private ponds. This report does
not predict the health of these
unassessed waters, which include an
unknown ratio of pristine waters to
polluted waters.
Pollutants and
Processes That
Degrade Water
Quality
Where possible, States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions identify the
pollutants or processes that degrade
water quality and indicators that
document impacts of water quality
degradation. The most widespread
pollutants and processes identified
in rivers, lakes, and estuaries are pre-
sented in Table ES-2. Pollutants
include sediment, nutrients, and
chemical contaminants (such as
dioxins and metals). Processes that
degrade waters include habitat
modification (such as destruction of
streamside vegetation) and hydro-
logic modification (such as flow
reduction). Indicators of water quali-
ty degradation include physical,
chemical, and biological parameters.
Examples of biological parameters
include species diversity and abun-
dance. Examples of physical and
chemical parameters include pH,
turbidity, and temperature.
ES-8
-------
- '. :- , v '-*. - -'- ^ ' - \- -^ , .- .<.-:
Following are descriptions of the
effects of the pollutants and process-
es most commonly identified in
rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal
waters, wetlands, and ground water.
depletion usually results from
involve bacteria. Some pollutants
human activities that introduce large trigger chemical reactions that place
quantities of biodegradable organic a chemical oxygen demand on
materials into surface waters.
Biodegradable organic materials
receiving waters.
Other factors (such as tempera-
contain plant, fish, or animal matter. ture and salinity) influence the
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is a basic
requirement for a healthy aquatic
ecosystem. Most fish and beneficial
aquatic insects "breathe" oxygen
dissolved in the water column.
Some fish and aquatic organisms
(such as carp and sludge worms) are
adapted to low oxygen conditions,
but most desirable fish species (such
as trout and salmon) suffer if dis-
solved oxygen concentrations fall
below 3 to 4 mg/L (3 to 4 milli-
grams of oxygen dissolved in 1 liter
of water, or 3 to 4 parts of oxygen
per million parts of water). Larvae
and juvenile fish are more sensitive
and require even higher concentra-
tions of dissolved oxygen.
Many fish and other aquatic
organisms can recover from short
periods of low dissolved oxygen
availability. However, prolonged
episodes of depressed dissolved
Leaves, lawn clippings, sewage,
amount of oxygen dissolved in
manure, shellfish processing waste, water. Prolonged hot weather will
milk solids, and other food process- depress oxygen concentrations and
ing wastes are examples of oxygen- may cause fish kills even in clean
depleting organic materials that waters because warm water cannot
enter our surface waters. hold as much oxygen as cold water.
In both pristine and polluted Warm conditions further aggravate
waters, beneficial bacteria use oxy- ' oxygen depletion by stimulating
gen to break apart (or decompose) bacterial activity and respiration in
organic materials. Pollution-contain- fish, which consume oxygen.
ing organic wastes provide a contin- Removal of streamside vegetation
uous glut of food for the bacteria, eliminates shade, thereby raising
which accelerates bacterial activity water temperatures, and accelerates
and population growth. In polluted runoff of organic debris. Under such
waters, bacterial consumption of conditions, minor additions of
oxygen can rapidly outpace oxygen pollution-containing organic materi-
replenishment from the atmosphere als can severely deplete oxygen.
and photosynthesis performed by
algae and aquatic plants. The result Nutrients
is a net decline in oxygen concen-
trations in the water. Nutrients
are essential building
Toxic pollutants can indirectly blocks for healthy aa-uatic «>mmuni-
lower oxygen concentrations by ties' but excess nutrients (especially
killing algae, aquatic weeds, or fish, nitr°9en and Phosphorus com-
whirh nmviri^ an ah, .ndanro of pounds) overstimulate the growth
oxygen concentrations of 2 mg/L food £ oxygen.consumJngTacte- of aa-uatic weeds and al9ae- Exces'
or less can result in dead"water- rjg Oxygen depletion can also result slve 9rowth of these organisms, in
bodies. Prolonged exposure to low from c^mjca| ^.^ ^ do nof turn, can clog navigable waters,
dissolved oxygen conditions can
suffocate adult fish or reduce their
reproductive survival by suffocating
sensitive eggs and larvae or can
starve fish by killing aquatic insect
larvae and other prey. Low dissolved
oxygen concentrations also favor
anaerobic bacterial activity that pro-
duces noxious gases or foul odors
often associated with polluted
waterbodies.
Oxygen concentrations in the
TableJES-2. Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment HI
*
, Rank \
1
2
3
4
5
-«• *- ' <,
, Rivers ' _ ', •*> , "
Siltation
Nutrients
Bacteria
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Pesticides
ral conditions, but severe oxygen Source: Based on 1 "6 Section 305
, ' - ••>' *,>-.<.
Lakes- •<• :;>'%;-
Nutrients
Metals
Siltation
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Noxious Aquatic Plants
MM^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^V
, Estuaries • ; " ^ , , ;
Nutrients
Bacteria
Priority Toxic
Organic Chemicals
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Oil and Crease
reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
ES-9
-------
interfere with swimming and boat-
ing, outcompete native submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV), and, with
excessive decomposition, lead to
oxygen depletion. Oxygen concen-
trations can fluctuate daily during
algal blooms, rising during the day
as algae perform photosynthesis,
and falling at night as algae contin-
ue to respire, which consumes
oxygen. Beneficial bacteria also con-
sume oxygen as they decompose
the abundant organic food supply in
dying algae cells.
Lawn and crop fertilizers,
sewage, manure, and detergents
contain nitrogen and phosphorus,
the nutrients most often responsible
for water quality degradation. Rural
areas are vulnerable to ground
water contamination from nitrates
(a compound containing nitrogen)
found in fertilizer and manure.
Very high concentrations of nitrate
(>10 mg/L) in drinking water cause
methemoglobinemia, or blue baby
syndrome, an inability to fix oxygen
in the blood.
Nutrients are difficult to control
because lake and estuarine ecosys-
tems recycle nutrients. Rather than
leaving the ecosystem, the nutrients
cycle among the water column,
algae and plant tissues, and the bot-
tom sediments. For example, algae
may temporarily remove all the
nitrogen from the water column,
but the nutrients will return to the
water column when the algae die
and are decomposed by bacteria.
Therefore, gradual inputs of nutri-
ents tend to accumulate over time
rather than leave the system.
t< f»')H) AHKA
OXI.AttHJI 10 TAKh
Mttll I- I'»M
Sedimentation and Siltation
In a water quality context, sedi-
mentation usually refers to soil
particles that enter the water col-
umn from eroding land, Sediment
consists of particles of all sizes,
including fine clay particles, silt,
sand, and gravel. Water quality
managers use the term "siltation" to
describe the suspension and deposi-
tion of small sediment particles in
waterbodies.
Sedimentation and siltation can
severely alter aquatic communities.
Sediment may clog and abrade fish
gills, suffocate eggs and aquatic
insect larvae on the bottom, and fill
in the pore space between bottom
cobbles where fish lay eggs. Sus-
pended silt and sediment interfere
with recreational activities and aes-
thetic enjoyment at waterbodies by
reducing water clarity and filling in
waterbodies. Sediment may also
carry other pollutants into water-
bodies. Nutrients and toxic
chemicals may attach to sediment
particles on land and ride the parti-
cles into surface waters where the
pollutants may settle with the sedi-
ment or detach and become soluble
in the water column.
Rain washes silt and other soil
particles off of plowed fields, con-
struction sites, logging sites, urban
areas, and strip-mined lands into
waterbodies. Eroding stream banks
also deposit silt and sediment in
waterbodies. Removal of vegetation
on shore can accelerate streambank
erosion.
Bacteria and Pathogens
Some waterborne bacteria,
viruses, and protozoa cause human
illnesses that range from typhoid
and dysentery to minor respiratory
and skin diseases. These organisms
may enter waters through a number
of routes, including inadequately
treated sewage, stormwater drains,
septic systems, runoff from livestock
ES-10
-------
pens, and sewage dumped over-
board from recreational boats.
Because it is impossible to test
waters for every possible disease-
causing organism, States and other
jurisdictions usually measure indica-
tor bacteria that are found in great
numbers in the stomachs and
intestines of warm-blooded animals
and people. The presence of indica-
tor bacteria suggests that the water-
body may be contaminated with
untreated sewage and that other,
more dangerous organisms may be
present. The States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions use bacterial
criteria to determine if waters are
safe for recreation and shellfish
harvesting.
Toxic Organic Chemicals
and Metals
Toxic organic chemicals are
synthetic compounds that contain
carbon, such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and the
pesticide DDT. These synthesized
compounds often persist and
accumulate in the environment
because they do not readily break
down in natural ecosystems. Many
of these compounds cause cancer in
people and birth defects in other
predators near the top of the food
chain, such as birds and fish.
Metals occur naturally in the
environment, but human activities
(such as industrial processes and
mining) have altered the distribution
of metals in the environment. In
most reported cases of metals con-
tamination, high concentrations of
metals appear in fish tissues rather
than the water column because the
metals accumulate in greater
concentrations in predators near the
top of the food chain.
PH
Acidity, the concentration of
hydrogen ions, drives many chemi-
cal reactions in living organisms. The
standard measure of acidity is pH,
and a pH value of 7 represents a
neutral condition. A low pH value
(less than 5) indicates acidic condi-
tions; a high pH (greater than 9)
indicates alkaline conditions. Many
biological processes, such as
reproduction, cannot function in
acidic or alkaline waters. Acidic
conditions also aggravate toxic
contamination problems because
sediments release toxicants in acidic
waters. Common sources of acidity
include mine drainage, runoff from
mine tailings, and atmospheric
deposition.
Habitat Modification/
Hydrologic Modification
Habitat modifications include
activities in the landscape, on shore,
and in waterbodies that alter the
physical structure of aquatic ecosys-
tems and have adverse impacts on
aquatic life. Examples of habitat
modifications to streams include:
• Removal of streamside vegetation
that stabilizes the shoreline and
provides shade, which moderates
instream temperatures
• Excavation of cobbles from a
stream bed that provide nesting
habitat for fish
• Stream burial
• Excessive suburban sprawl that
alters the natural drainage patterns
by increasing the intensity, magni-
tude, and energy of runoff waters.
Hydrologic modifications alter
the flow of water. Examples of
hydrologic modifications include
channelization, dewatering,
damming, and dredging.
E&-U
-------
Other pollutants include salts
and oil and grease. Fresh waters
may become unfit for aquatic life
and some human uses when they
become contaminated by salts.
Sources of salinity include irrigation
runoff, brine used in oil extraction,
road deicing operations, and the
intrusion of sea water into ground
and surface waters in coastal areas.
Crude oil and processed petroleum
products may be spilled during
extraction, processing, or transport
or leaked from underground storage
tanks.
Sources of
Water Pollution
Sources of impairment gener-
ate the pollutants that violate use
support criteria (Table ES-3). Point
sources discharge pollutants directly
into surface waters from a convey-
ance. Point sources include indus-
trial facilities, municipal sewage
treatment plants, and combined
sewer overflows. Nonpoint sources
deliver pollutants to surface waters
from diffuse origins. Nonpoint
sources include urban runoff, agri-
cultural runoff, and atmospheric
deposition of contaminants in air
pollution. Habitat alterations, such
as hydromodification, dredging,
Table ES-3. Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report '
Category
Industrial
Municipal
Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSOs)
Storm Sewers/
Urban Runoff
Agricultural
Sllvicultural
Construction
Resource
Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydrologlc
Modification
Habitat
Modification
Examples
Pulp and paper mills, chemical manufacturers, steel plants,
metal process and product manufacturers, textile manufacturers,
food processing plants
Publicly owned sewage treatment plants that may receive
indirect discharges from industrial facilities or businesses
Single facilities that treat both storm water and sanitary sewage,
which may become overloaded during storm events and
discharge untreated wastes into surface waters.
Runoff from impervious surfaces including streets, parking
lots, buildings, and other paved areas.
Crop production, pastures, rangeland, feedlots, animal
operations
Forest management, tree harvesting, logging road construction
Land development, road construction
Mining, petroleum drilling, runoff from mine tailing sites
Leachate or discharge from septic tanks, landfills, and
hazardous waste sites
Channelization, dredging, dam construction, flow regulation
Removal of riparian vegetation, streambank modification,
drainage/filling of wetlands
and streambank destabilization, can
also degrade water quality.
Throughout this document, EPA
rates the significance of causes and
sources of pollution by the percent-
age of impaired waters impacted
by each individual cause or source
(obtained from the Section 305(b)
reports submitted by the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions). Note
that the cause and source rankings
do not describe the condition of all
waters in the United States because
the States identify the causes and
sources degrading some of their
impaired waters, which are a small
subset of surveyed waters, which
are a subset of the Nation's total
waters. For example, the States
identified sources degrading some
of the 248,028 impaired river miles,
which represent 36% of the sur-
veyed river miles and only 7% of
the Nation's total stream miles.
"The term 'point source'
means any discernible,
confined, and discrete
conveyance, including but not
limited to any pipe, ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, well,
discrete fissure, container,
rolling stock, concentrated
animal feeding operation, or
vessel or other floating craft,
from which pollutants are or
may be discharged. This term
does not include agricultural
storm water discharges
and return flows from
irrigated agriculture."
Clean Water Act, Section 502(14)
ES-12
-------
Table ES-4 lists the leading
sources of impairment related to
human activities as reported by
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
for their rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
Other sources cited include removal
of riparian vegetation, forestry activ-
ities, land disposal, petroleum
extraction and processing activities,
and construction. In addition to
human activities, the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions also reported
impairments from natural sources.
Natural sources refer to an assort-
ment of water quality problems:
• Natural deposits of salts, gypsum,
nutrients, and metals in soils that
leach into surface and ground
waters
• Warm weather and dry condi-
tions that raise water temperatures,
depress dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, and dry up shallow water-
bodies
• Low-flow conditions and tannic
acids from decaying leaves that
lower pH and dissolved oxygen
concentrations in swamps draining
into streams.
With so many potential sources
of pollution, it is difficult and expen-
sive for States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions to identify specific
sources responsible for water quality
impairments. Many States and other
jurisdictions lack funding for moni-
toring to identify all but the most
apparent sources degrading water-
bodies. Local management priorities
may focus monitoring budgets on
other water quality issues, such as
identification of contaminated fish
populations that pose a human
health risk. Management priorities
may also direct monitoring efforts
to larger waterbodies and overlook
sources impairing smaller waterbod-
ies. As a result, the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions do not asso-
ciate every impacted waterbody
with a source of impairment in their
305(b) reports, and the summary
cause and source information pre-
sented in this report applies exclu-
sively to a subset of the Nation's
impaired waters.
Table ES-4. Five Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment Related to Human
! Activities 0
1
2
3
4
5
Agriculture
Municipal Point
Sources
Hydrologic
Modification
Habitat
Modification
Resource
Extraction
jtaftesi'lsi'|
Agriculture
Unspecified
Nonpoint Sources
Atmospheric
Deposition
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Municipal Point
Sources
Industrial Discharges
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Municipal Point
Sources
Upstream Sources
Agriculture
Source: Based on 1996 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
ES-13
-------
Rivers and Streams
Rivers and streams are charac-
terized by flow. Perennial rivers and
streams flow continuously, all year
round. Nonperennial rivers and
streams stop flowing for some peri-
od of time, usually due to dry
conditions or upstream withdrawals.
Many rivers and streams originate in
nonperennial headwaters that flow
only during snowmelt or heavy
showers. Nonperennial streams
provide critical habitats for nonfish
species, such as amphibians and
dragonflies, as well as safe havens
for juvenile fish to escape from
predation by larger fish.
The health of rivers and streams
is directly linked to habitat integrity
on shore and in adjacent wetlands.
Stream quality will deteriorate if
activities damage shoreline (i.e.,
riparian) vegetation and wetlands,
which filter pollutants from runoff
and bind soils. Removal of vegeta-
tion also eliminates shade that
moderates stream temperature as
well as the land temperature that
can warm runoff entering surface
waters. Stream temperature, in turn,
affects the availability of dissolved
oxygen in the water column for fish
and other aquatic organisms.
Overall Water Quality
For the 1996 Report, 54 States,
Territories, Tribes, Commissions, and
the District of Columbia surveyed
693,905 miles (19%) of the
Nation's total 3.6 million miles of
rivers and streams (Figure ES-2). The
surveyed rivers and streams repre-
sent 53% of the 1.3 million miles of
perennial rivers and streams that
flow year round in the lower 48
States.
Altogether, the States and Tribes
surveyed 78,099 more river miles in
1996 than in 1994. Although most
States surveyed about the same
number of river miles in both
reporting cycles, Illinois, Maryland,
North Dakota, and Tennessee col-
lectively account for an increase of
over 75,000 surveyed river miles.
Since 1994, Illinois, North Dakota,
and Tennessee have refined their
stream estimates, increasing the
mileages associated with surveyed
streams.
The following discussion applies
exclusively to surveyed waters and
cannot be extrapolated to describe
conditions in the Nation's rivers as a
whole because the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions do not con-
sistently use statistical or probabilis-
tic survey methods to characterize
all their waters at this time. EPA is
working with the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions to expand survey
coverage of the Nation's waters and
expects future survey information to
cover a greater portion of the
Nation's rivers and streams.
Figure ES-2. River Miles Surveyed
Total rivers = 3.6 million miles
Total surveyed = 693,905 miles
19% Surveyed
81 % Not Surveyed
Figure ES-3. Levels of Overall Summary
Support - Rivers
Good
(Fully Supporting All Uses)
56%
Good
(Threatened for One
or More Uses)
Impaired
(Impaired for One
or More Uses)
36%
Not Attainable
Source: Based on 1996 State Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States, Tribes,
Territories, Commissions, and the
District of Columbia.
ES-14
-------
Of the Nation's 693,905
surveyed river miles, the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions found
that 64% have good water quality.
Of these waters, 56% fully support
their designated uses, and an addi-
tional 8% support uses but are
threatened and may become
impaired if pollution control actions
are not taken (Figure ES-3). Some
form of pollution or habitat degra-
dation prevents the remaining 36%
(248,028 miles) of the surveyed
river miles from fully supporting a
healthy aquatic community or
human activities all year round.
What Is Polluting Our
Rivers and Streams?
The States and Tribes report
that siltation, composed of tiny soil
particles, remains one of the most
widespread pollutants impacting
rivers and streams, impairing
126,763 river miles (18% of
surveyed river miles (Figure ES-4).
Siltation is the
most widespread
pollutant in rivers and
streams, affecting 18% of
the surveyed river miles.
Siltation alters aquatic habitat and
suffocates fish eggs and bottom-
dwelling organisms. Excessive silta-
tion can also interfere with drinking
water treatment processes and
recreational use of a river.
In addition to siltation, the
States and Tribes also reported that
nutrients, bacteria, oxygen-deplet-
ing substances, habitat alterations,
and metals impact more miles of
rivers and streams than other pollut-
ants and processes. Often, several
pollutants and processes impact a
single river segment. For example, a
process, such as removal of shore-
line vegetation, may accelerate
erosion of sediment and nutrients
into a stream.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
The States and Tribes reported
that agriculture is the most wide-
spread source of pollution in the
Nation's surveyed rivers (Figure
ES-4). Agriculture generates pollu-
tants that degrade aquatic life or
interfere with public use of 173,629
river miles (25% of the surveyed
river miles) in 50 States and Tribes.
Twenty-four States reported the
size of rivers impacted by specific
types of agricultural activities:
• Nonirrigated Crop Production -
crop production that relies on rain
as the sole source of water.
• Irrigated Crop Production - crop
production that uses irrigation sys-
tems to supplement rainwater.
• Rangeland - land grazed by ani-
mals that is seldom enhanced by the
application of fertilizers or pesticides,
although managers sometimes
modify plant species to a limited
extent.
• Pastureland - land upon which
a crop (such as alfalfa) is raised to
feed animals, either by grazing
the animals among the crops or
harvesting the crops.
• Feedlots - facilities where animals
are fattened and confined at high
densities.
• Animal Operations - generally
livestock facilities other than large
cattle feedlot operations.
• Animal Holding Areas - facilities
where animals are confined briefly
before slaughter.
The States reported that non-
irrigated crop production impaired
the most river miles, followed by
irrigated crop production, range-
land, feedlots, pastureland, and
animal operations.
Many States reported declines
in pollution from sewage treatment
Agriculture is the leading
source of impairment
in the Nation's rivers,
contributing to impairment
of 25% of the surveyed
river miles.
plants and industrial discharges as a
result of sewage treatment plant
construction and upgrades and
permit controls on industrial dis-
charges. Despite the improvements,
municipal sewage treatment plants
remain the second most common
source of pollution in rivers (impair-
ing 35,087 miles) because popula-
tion growth increases the burden
on our municipal facilities.
ES-15
-------
Hydrologic modifications and
habitat alterations are a growing
concern to the States. Hydrologic
modifications include activities that
alter the flow of water in a stream,
such as channelization, dewatering,
and damming of streams. Habitat
alterations include removal of
streamside vegetation that protects
the stream from high temperatures
and scouring of stream bottoms.
Additional gains in water quality
conditions will be more subtle and
require innovative management
strategies that go beyond point
source controls.
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions also reported that
resource extraction impairs 33,051
river miles (5% of the surveyed
rivers), and urban runoff and storm
sewers impair 32,637 river miles
(5% of the surveyed rivers).
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions also report that
"natural" sources impair significant
stretches of rivers and streams.
"Natural" sources, such as low flow
and soils with arsenic deposits, can
prevent waters from supporting
uses in the absence of human
activities.
Figure ES-4. Surveyed River Miles: Pollutants and Sources
Total rivers = 3.6 million miles
Total surveyed = 693,905 miles
Good Impaired
(12%) (7%)
Surveyed 19%
Leading Pollutarits/Stressors
Surveyed %
Siltation
Nutrients
Bacteria
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Pesticides
Habitat Alterations
Suspended Solids
Metals
I
I
18
14
12
10
7
7
7
5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed River Miles
25
Leading Sources
Surveyed %
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Hydromodification
Habitat Modification
Resource Extraction
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Removal of Streamside Veg.
Industrial Point Sources
5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed River Miles
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Tables A-4 and A-5.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a river segment.
ES-16
-------
Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs
Lakes are sensitive to pollution
inputs because lakes flush out their
contents relatively slowly. Even
under natural conditions, lakes
undergo eutrophication, an aging
process that slowly fills in the lake
with sediment and organic matter
(see sidebar on next page). The
eutrophication process alters basic
lake characteristics such as depth,
biological productivity, oxygen lev-
els, and water clarity. Eutrophication
is commonly defined by a series of
trophic states as described in the
sidebar.
Overall Water Quality
Forty-five States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions surveyed overall
use support in more than 16.8 mil-
lion lake acres representing 40% of
the approximately 41.7 million total
acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs
in the Nation (Figure ES-5). For
1996, the States surveyed about
300,000 fewer lake acres than in
1994.
The number of surveyed lake
acres declined because several
States faced funding constraints
that limited the number of lakes
sampled.
The States and Tribes reported
that 61 % of their surveyed 16.8
million lake acres have good water
quality. Waters with good quality
include 51% of the surveyed lake
acres fully supporting uses and 10%
of the surveyed lake acres that are
threatened and might deteriorate if
we fail to manage potential sources
of pollution (Figure ES-6). Some
form of pollution or habitat degra-
dation impairs the remaining 39%
of the surveyed lake acres.
What Is Polluting
Our Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs?
Forty-one States, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported
the number of lake acres impacted
by individual pollutants and
processes.
The States and Puerto Rico
identified more lake acres polluted
by nutrients and metals than other
pollutants or processes (Figure
ES-7). The States and Puerto Rico
reported that metals and extra nutri-
ents pollute 3.3 million lake acres
(51 % of the impaired lake acres).
Healthy lake ecosystems contain
nutrients in small quantities, but
extra inputs of nutrients from
human activities unbalance lake
ecosystems. States consistently
report metals as a major cause of
impairment to lakes. This is mainly
due to the widespread detection of
Figure ES-5. Lake Acres Surveyed
Total lakes = 41.7 million acres
Total surveyed = 16.8 million acres
40% Surveyed
60% Not Surveyed
Figure ES-6. Levels of Summary Use
Support - Lakes
Good
(Fully Supporting All Uses)
51%
Good
(Threatened for One
or More Uses)
10%
Impaired
(Impaired for One
or More Uses)
39%
Not Attainable
Source: Based on 1996 State Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States, Tribes,
Territories, Commissions, and the
District of Columbia.
ES-17
-------
F
mercury in fish tissue samples.
States are actively studying the
extent of the mercury problem,
which is complex because it involves
transport from power-generating
facilities and other sources.
In addition to nutrients and
metals, the States, Puerto Rico, and
the District of Columbia report that
siltation pollutes 1.6 million lake
acres (10% of the surveyed lake
acres), enrichment by organic
wastes that deplete oxygen impacts
1.4 million lake acres (8% of the
surveyed lake acres), and noxious
aquatic plants impact 1.0 million
acres (6% of the surveyed lake
acres).
States reported more
impairments due to
metals and nutrients
than other pollutants.
Trophic States
Oligotrophic
Mesotropnic
in i
Eutrophic
Dystrophic
i .i wpii.il!
Nil I,1! Ill* I Illl Ill 111! Ill II
'" ' J™' « ...... I *
Clear waters with Tittle organic matter or sediment
and rninimum biological activity.
Waters with more nutrients and, therefore, more
biological productivity.
Ill 111 III l» 'l IIU i ftf 'wl '* &< ^ ** * s ^ \ *
Waters extremely rich in nutrients, with high biototjical
p , productivity. Some species may be choked out.
Hypereutrophic Murky, highly productive waters, closest to the wetlands
status.'Many clearwater species cannot s'urvive,
in, i" mm 11 in H f ,, * e, * ft fo WM - >
ft I IHllliil IIIII IT I HI Illlll I I II I irt ifi W S"° * ^ 'H & ^ i sj S 3» ^ *
Low in nutrients, highly colored with dissolved humk
'fin! {''orgaTiic matter. "(Klof necess*arfy*a"part of tfie natural
IJIIJI1 •fill.'3 j V '.- • - I-- <•<*• -r- , " ,
iii IDI trophic progression.)
* i.
The Eiitrophication Process
Eutrophication is a natural process, but human activities can acceler-
ate ejj^rophication by increasing the rate at which nutrients and organic
subs^nces enter lakes'from their_surroundingmv\atershedsj Agricultural
'^Inojf^ urban runoff, leaking septic systems, sewage discharges, eroded ,
™d '.
anic substances into lakes. These substances can overstimulate the
growth of algae and aquatic plants, creating conditions that interfere with
Se recreational J^^^fJa^^^J^li^gJih^ajp^.^^^ °f na*lYeJ?n'
ant, and animal populations. Enhanced eutrophication from nutrient
our Nation s lakes and reservoirs.
Thirty-seven States also sur-
veyed trophic status, which is asso-
ciated with nutrient enrichment, in
8,951 of their lakes. Nutrient enrich-
ment tends to increase the propor-
tion of lakes in the eutrophic and
hypereutrophic categories. These
States reported that 16% of the
lakes they surveyed for trophic
status were oligotrophic, 38% were
I Effects on Lakes
i >_*^^-' ^ / ^ r "*
^'^to^^S5 ^ '^'ay Kans^s> Mary-
- land, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and
West Virginia reported thatsacid
.Inline drainagesresulted'tn acidic
, lake conditions or threatened ,
lakesjwjth the potentiaf to
generate acidic conditions.
ES-18
-------
mesotrophic, 36% were eutrophic,
9% were hypereutrophic, and less
than 1 % were dystrophic. This
information may not be representa-
tive of national lake conditions
because States often assess lakes in
response to a problem or public
complaint or because of their easy
accessibility. It is likely that more
remote lakes—which are probably
less impaired—are underrepresented
in these assessments.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Forty-one States and Puerto
Rico reported sources of pollution in
some of their impacted lakes,
ponds, and reservoirs. These States
and Puerto Rico reported that agri-
culture is the most widespread
source of pollution in the Nation's
surveyed lakes (Figure ES-7). Agri-
culture generates pollutants that
degrade aquatic life or interfere with
public use of 3.2 million lake acres
(19% of the surveyed lake acres).
Agriculture is the leading
source of impairment in
lakes, affecting 19%
of surveyed lake acres.
The States and Puerto Rico also
reported that unspecified nonpoint
sources pollute 1.6 million lake acres
(9% of the surveyed lake acres),
atmospheric deposition of pollutants
impairs 1.4 million lake acres (8%
of the surveyed lake acres), urban
runoff and storm sewers pollute
1.4 million lake acres (8% of the
surveyed lake acres), municipal
Figure [}S-7. Surveyed Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources0
Total lakes = 41.7 million acres
Total surveyed = 16.8 million
acres
Good
(61%)
Surveyed 40%
Impaired
(39%)
ill!
Nutrients
Metals
Siltation
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Noxious Aquatic Plants
Suspended Solids
Total Toxics
J_
J_
20
20
10
8
6
5
5
0 5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed Lake Acres
25
Agriculture
Unspecified Nonpoint Sources
Atmospheric Deposition
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Point Sources
Hydrpmodification
Construction
Land Disposal
I
19
9
8
8
7
5
4
4
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percent of Surveyed Lake Acres
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Tables B-4 and B-5.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a lake.
ES-19
-------
sewage treatment plants pollute
1.2 million lake acres (7% of the
surveyed lake acres), and hydrologic
modifications degrade 924,000 lake
acres (5% of the surveyed lake
acres). Many more States reported
lake degradation from atmospheric
deposition in 1996 than in past
reporting cycles. This is due, in part,
to a growing awareness of the -
magnitude of the atmospheric
deposition problem.
The States and Puerto Rico list-
ed numerous sources that impact
several hundred thousand lake
acres, including land disposal of
wastes, construction, industrial point
sources, onsite wastewater systems
(including septic tanks), forestry
activities, habitat modification, flow
regulation, contaminated sedi-
ments, highway maintenance and
runoff, resource extraction, and
combined sewer overflows.
Sam Baskir, 1st grade, Estes Hills Elementary, Chapel Hill, NC
ES-20
-------
The Great Lakes
The Great Lakes contain one-
fifth of the world's fresh surface
water and are stressed by a wide
range of pollution sources, including
air pollution. Many of the pollutants
that reach the Great Lakes remain in
the system indefinitely because the
Great Lakes are a relatively closed
water system with few natural out-
lets. Despite dramatic declines in
the occurrence of algal blooms, fish
kills, and localized "dead" zones
depleted of oxygen, less visible
problems continue to degrade the
Great Lakes.
Overall Water Quality
The States surveyed 94% of the
Great Lakes shoreline miles for 1996
and reported that fish consumption
advisories and aquatic life concerns
are the dominant water quality
problems, overall, in the Great Lakes
(Figure ES-8). The States reported
that most of the Great Lakes near-
shore waters are safe for swimming
and other recreational activities and
can be used as a source of drinking
water with normal treatment.
However, only 2% of the surveyed
nearshore waters fully support
designated uses, and 1% support all
uses but are threatened for one or
more uses (Figure ES-9). About 97%
of the surveyed waters do not fully
support designated uses because
fish consumption advisories are
posted throughout the nearshore
waters of the Great Lakes and water
quality conditions are unfavorable
for supporting aquatic life in many
cases. Aquatic life impacts result
from persistent toxic pollutant bur-
dens in birds, habitat degradation
and destruction, and competition
C- /
Figure ES-8. Great Lakes Shore Miles
I ; Surveyed
Total Great Lakes = 5,521 miles
Total surveyed = 5,186 miles
94% Surveyed
Figure ES-9. Levels of Summary Use
Support - Great Lakes
6% Not Surveyed
Good
(Fully Supporting All Uses)
2%
Good
(Threatened for One
or More Uses)
1%
I
Impaired
(Impaired for One
or More Uses)
97%
Not Attainable
Source: Based on 1996 State Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States, Tribes,
Territories, Commissions, and the
District of Columbia.
ES-21
-------
and predation by nonnative species
such as the zebra mussel and the
sea lamprey.
Considerable progress has
been made in controlling
conventional pollutants,
but the Great Lakes are
still subject to the effects
of toxic pollutants.
These figures do not address
water quality conditions in the
deeper, cleaner, central waters of
the Lakes.
What Is Polluting
the Great Lakes?
The States reported that most
of the Great Lakes shoreline is
polluted by toxic organic chemi-
cals—primarily PCBs—that are often
found in fish tissue samples. The
Great Lakes States reported that
toxic organic chemicals impact 32%
of the surveyed Great Lakes shore-
line miles. Other leading causes of
impairment include pesticides,
affecting 21 %; nonpriority organic
chemicals, affecting 20%; nutrients,
affecting 7%; metals, affecting 6%;
and oxygen-depleting substances,
affecting 6% (Figure ES-10).
Figure ES-10. .Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources
Not Surveyed
6%
Total shoreline = 5,521 miles
Impaired
Surveyed 94%
Total surveyed = 5,186 miles
Leading Pollutants
Priority Toxic Organic
Chemicals
Pesticides
Nonpriority Organic
Chemicals
Nutrients
Metals
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Surveyed %
31
20
20
6
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percent of Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline
Leading Sources
Atmospheric Deposition
Discontinued Discharges
from Pipes*
Contaminated Sediment
Land Disposal of Wastes
Unspecified NPS
Other Point Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm
Sewers
Surveyed %
0 5 10 15 20
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.
*These discharges resulted in sediment contamination that remains today.
ES-22
-------
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Only three 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.
• Wisconsin identifies atmospheric
deposition and discontinued dis-
charges as a source of pollutants
contaminating all 1,017 of their
surveyed shoreline miles. Wisconsin
also identified smaller areas
impacted by contaminated sedi-
ments, nonpoint sources, industrial
and municipal discharges, agricul-
ture, urban runoff and storm
sewers, combined sewer overflows,
and land disposal of waste.
• Ohio reports that nonpoint
sources pollute 86 miles of its 236
miles of shoreline, contaminated
sediment impacts 33 miles, and
land disposal of waste impacts
24 miles of shoreline.
• New York identifies 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).
ES-23
-------
Estuaries
Estuaries are areas partially sur-
rounded by land where rivers meet
the sea. They are characterized by
varying degrees of salinity, complex
water movements affected by ocean
tides and river currents, and high
turbidity levels. They are also highly
productive ecosystems with a range
of habitats for many different
species of plants, shellfish, fish, and
animals.
Many species permanently
inhabit the estuarine ecosystem;
others, such as shrimp, use the
nutrient-rich estuarine waters as
nurseries before traveling to the sea.
Estuaries are stressed by the par-
ticularly wide range of activities
located within their watersheds.
They receive pollutants carried by
rivers from agricultural lands and
cities; they often support marinas,
harbors, and commercial fishing
fleets; and their surrounding lands
are highly prized for development.
These stresses pose a continuing
threat to the survival of these boun-
tiful waters.
Overall Water Quality
Twenty-three coastal States and
jurisdictions surveyed 72% of the
Nation's total estuarine waters in
1996 (Figure ES-11). The States
and other jurisdictions reported that
62% of the surveyed estuarine
waters have good water quality that
fully supports designated uses
(Figure ES-12). Of these waters,
4% are threatened and might dete-
riorate if we fail to manage potential
sources of pollution. Some form of
pollution or habitat degradation
impairs the remaining 38% of the
surveyed estuarine waters.
What Is Polluting
Our Estuaries?
The States identified more
square miles of estuarine waters pol-
luted by nutrients than any other
pollutant or process (Figure ES-13).
Eleven States reported that extra
nutrients pollute 6,254 square miles
of estuarine waters (57% of the
impaired estuarine waters). As in
lakes, extra inputs of nutrients from
human activities destabilize estuar-
ine ecosystems.
Twenty-one States reported that
bacteria pollute 4,634 square miles
of estuarine waters (22% of the
impaired estuarine waters). Bacteria
provide evidence that an estuary is
contaminated with sewage that may
contain numerous viruses and bacte-
ria that cause illness in people.
Figure ES-11. Estuary Square Miles
Surveyed
Total estuaries = 39,839 square miles
Total surveyed = 28,819 square miles
72% Surveyed
28% Not Surveyed
Figure ES-12. Levels of Surrimary Use
Support - Estuaries
Good
(Fully Supporting All Uses)
58%
Goo'd
(Threatened for One
or More Uses)
4%
Impaired
(Impaired for One
or More Uses)
38%
Not Attainable
Source: Based on 1996 State.Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States, Tribes, .
Territories, Commissions, and the
District of Columbia.
ES-24
-------
Figure ES-13. Surveyed Estuaries: Pollutants and Sources
Not Surveyed
28%
Total estuaries = 39,839 square
miles
Good Impaired
(45%) (28%)
Surveyed 72%
Total surveyed = 28,819 square miles
Leading Pollutants/Stressors
Surveyed %,
Nutrients
Bacteria
Priority Toxic Organic Chemicals
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Oil and Grease
Salinity
Habitat Alterations
5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed Estuarine
Square Miles
25
Leading Sources
Surveyed %
Industrial Discharges
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Point Sources
Upstream Sources
Agriculture
Combined Sewer Overflows
Land Disposal of Wastes
5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed Estuarine
Square Miles
25
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Tables C-4 and C-5.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair an estuary.
The States also report that prior-
ity organic toxic chemicals pollute
4,398 square miles (15% of the sur-
veyed estuarine waters); oxygen
depletion from organic wastes
impacts 3,586 square miles (12%
of the surveyed estuarine waters);
oil and grease pollute 2,170 square
miles (8% of the surveyed estuarine
waters); salinity, total dissolved
solids, and/or chlorine impact 1,944
square miles (7% of the surveyed
estuarine waters); and habitat alter-
ations degrade 1,586 square miles
(6% of the surveyed estuarine
waters).
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Twenty-one States reported that
industrial discharges are the most
widespread source of pollution in
the Nation's surveyed estuarine
waters. Pollutants in industrial
discharge degrade aquatic life or
interfere with public use of 6,145
square miles of estuarine waters
(21 % of the surveyed estuarine
waters) (Figure ES-13).
Sydney Locker, Quaker Ridge School, Scarsdale, NY
ES-25
-------
The States also reported that
urban runoff and storm sewers
pollute 5,099 square miles of estuar-
ine waters (18% of the surveyed
estuarine waters), municipal
discharges pollute 4,874 square
miles of estuarine waters (17% of
the surveyed estuarine waters), and
upstream sources pollute 3,295
square miles (11 % of the surveyed
estuarine waters). Urban sources
contribute more to the degradation
of estuarine waters than agriculture
because urban centers are located
adjacent to most major estuaries.
Dana Soady, 4th Grade, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC
ES-26
-------
Ocean Shoreline Waters
ill
Although the oceans are expan-
sive, they are vulnerable to pollution
from numerous sources, including
city storm sewers, ocean outfalls
from sewage treatment plants,
overboard disposal of debris and
sewage, oil spills, and bilge dis-
charges that contain oil and grease.
Nearshore ocean waters, in particu-
lar, suffer from the same pollution
problems that degrade our inland
waters.
Overall Water Quality
Ten of the 27 coastal States and
Territories surveyed only 6% of the
Nation's estimated 58,585 miles of
ocean coastline (Figure ES-14). Most
of the surveyed waters (3,085 miles,
or 87%) have good quality that
supports a healthy aquatic commu-
nity and public activities (Figure
ES-15). Of these waters, 315 miles
(9% of the surveyed shoreline) are
threatened and may deteriorate in
the future. Some form of pollution
or habitat degradation impairs the
remaining 13% of the surveyed
shoreline (467 miles).
Only six of the 27 coastal States
identified pollutants and sources of
pollutants degrading ocean shore-
line waters. General conclusions
cannot be drawn from this limited
source of information. The six States
identified impacts in their ocean
shoreline waters from bacteria,
turbidity, nutrients, oxygen-
depleting substances, suspended
solids, acidity (pH), oil and grease,
and metals. The six States reported
that urban runoff and storm sewers,
land disposal of wastes, septic sys-
tems, municipal sewer discharges,
industrial discharges, recreational
marinas, and spillls and illegal
dumping pollute their coastal
shoreline waters.
Figure ES-14. Ocean Shoreline Waters
Surveyed
Total ocean shore = 58,585 miles
including Alaska's shoreline
Total surveyed = 3,651 miles
6% Surveyed
94% Not Surveyed
Figure ES-15. Levels of Summary Use
Support - Ocean Shoreline
Waters
Good
(Fully Supporting All Uses)
79%
Good
(Threatened for One
or More Uses)
9%
Impaired
(Impaired for One
or More Uses)
13%
Not Attainable
0%
Source: Based on 1996 State Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States, Tribes,
Territories, Commissions, and the
District of Columbia.
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100%
due to rounding.
ES-27
-------
Wetlands
Wetlands are areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface
water or ground water at a fre-
quency and duration sufficient to
support (and that under normal
circumstances do support) a
prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands, which are
found throughout the United States,
generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas.
Wetlands are now recognized as
some of the most unique and
important natural areas on earth.
They vary in type according to
differences in local and regional
hydrology, vegetation, water chem-
istry, soils, topography, and climate.
Coastal wetlands include estuarine
marshes; mangrove swamps found
in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Louisiana,
and Florida; and Great Lakes coastal
wetlands. Inland wetlands, which
may be adjacent to a waterbody or
isolated, include marshes and wet
meadows, bottomland hardwood
forests, Great Plains prairie potholes,
cypress-gum swamps, and south-
western playa lakes.
In their natural condition,
wetlands provide many benefits,
including food and habitat for fish
and wildlife, water quality improve-
ment, flood protection, shoreline
erosion control, ground water
exchange, as well as natural prod-
ucts for human use and opportuni-
ties for recreation, education, and
research.
Wetlands help maintain and
improve water quality by intercept-
ing surface water runoff before it
reaches open water, removing or
retaining nutrients, processing
chemical and organic wastes,
and reducing sediment loads to
receiving waters. As water moves
through a wetland, plants slow the
water, allowing sediment and
pollutants to settle out. Plant roots
trap sediment and are then able to
metabolize and detoxify pollutants
and remove nutrients such as nitro-
gen and phosphorus.
Wetlands function like natural
basins, storing either floodwater
that overflows riverbanks or surface
water that collects in isolated
depressions. By doing so, wetlands
help protect adjacent and down-
stream property from flood dam-
age. Trees and other wetlands vege-
tation help slow the speed of flood
waters. This action, combined with
water storage, can lower flood
heights and reduce the water's
erosive potential. In agricultural
v areas, wetlands can help reduce the
likelihood of flood damage to crops.
Wetlands within and upstream of
urban areas are especially valuable
for flood protection because urban
development increases the rate and
volume of surface water runoff,
thereby increasing the risk of flood
damage.
Wetlands produce a wealth of
natural products, including fish and
shellfish, timber, wildlife, and wild
rice. Much of the Nation's fishing
and shellfishing industry harvests
wetlands-dependent species. A
national survey conducted by the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in
1991 illustrates the economic value
of some of the wetlands-dependent
products. Over 9 billion pounds of
fish and shellfish landed in the
United States in 1991 had a direct,
dockside value of $3.3 billion. This
served as the basis of a seafood
processing and sales industry that
generated total expenditures of
$26.8 billion. In addition, 35.6
million anglers spent $24 billion on
ES-28
-------
freshwater and saltwater fishing. It is
estimated that 71 % of commercially
valuable fish and shellfish depend
directly or indirectly on coastal
wetlands.
Overall Water Quality
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions are making progress in
developing specific designated uses
and water quality standards for wet-
lands, but many States and Tribes
still lack specific water quality crite-
ria and monitoring programs for
wetlands. Without criteria and mon-
itoring data, most States and Tribes
cannot evaluate use support. To
date, only nine States and Tribes
reported the designated use support
status for some of their wetlands.
Only Kansas used quantitative data
as a basis for the use support
decisions.
EPA cannot derive national con-
clusions about water quality condi-
tions in all wetlands because the
States used different methodologies
to survey only 3% of the total wet-
lands in the Nation. Summarizing
State wetlands data would also
produce misleading results because
two States (North Carolina and
Louisiana) contain 91 % of the
surveyed wetlands acreage.
What Is Polluting
Our Wetlands and
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
The States have even fewer data
to quantify the extent of pollutants
degrading wetlands and the sources
of these pollutants. Although most
States cannot quantify wetlands
area impacted by individual causes
and sources of degradation, nine
States identified causes and sources
known to degrade wetlands integ-
rity to some extent. These States
listed sediment and nutrients as the
most widespread causes of degrada-
tion impacting wetlands, followed
by draining and pesticides (Figure
ES-16). Agriculture and hydrologic
modifications topped the list of
sources degrading wetlands, fol-
lowed by urban runoff, draining,
and construction (Figure ES-17).
Wetlands Loss:
A Continuing Problem
It is estimated that over 200
million acres of wetlands existed in
the lower 48 States at the time of
European settlement. Since then,
extensive wetlands acreage has
been lost, with many of the original
wetlands drained and converted to
farmland and urban development.
Today, less than half of our original
wetlands remain. The losses amount
to an area equal to the size of
California. According to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Wetlands
Losses in the United States 1780's to
1980's, the three States that have
sustained the greatest percentage of
wetlands loss are California (91 %),
Ohio (90%), and Iowa (89%).
According to FWS status and
trends reports, the average annual
loss of wetlands has decreased over
the past 40 years. The average
annual loss from the mid-1950s to
the mid-1970s was 458,000 acres,
and from the mid-1970s to the
mid-1980s it was 290,000 acres.
Agriculture was responsible for 87%
of the loss from the mid-1950s to
the mid-1970s and 54% of the loss
from the mid-1970s to the mid-
1980s.
Figurd ES-16 Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity (10 States Reporting)
r»iiliI If ilill
Sedimentation/Siltation
Nutrients
Filling and Draining
Pesticides
Flow Alterations
Habitat Alterations
Metals
Salinity/TSS/Chlorides
ill
_L
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
2468
Number of States Reporting
10
Source: Based on 1996 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
ES-29
-------
A more recent estimate of wet-
lands losses from the National
Resources Inventory (NRI), conduct-
ed by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), indi-
cates that 792,000 acres of wetlands
were lost on non-Federal lands
between 1982 and 1992 for a yearly
loss estimate of 70,000 to 90,000
acres. This net loss is the result of
gross losses of 1,561,300 acres of
wetlands and gross gains of
768,700 acres of wetlands over the
10-year period. The NRI estimates
are consistent with the trend of
declining wetlands losses reported
by FWS. Although losses have
decreased, we still have to make
progress toward our interim goal of
no overall net loss of the Nation's
remaining wetlands and the long-
term goal of increasing the quantity
and quality of the Nation's wetlands
resource base.
The decline in wetlands losses is
a result of the combined effect of
several trends: (1) the decline in
profitability in converting wetlands
for agricultural production;
(2) passage of Swampbuster provi-
sions in the 1985, 1990, and 1996
Farm Bills that denied crop subsidy
benefits to farm operators who con-
verted wetlands to cropland after
1985; (3) presence of the CWA
Section 404 permit programs as
well as development of State
management programs; (4) greater
public interest and support for wet-
lands protection; and (5) implemen-
tation of wetlands restoration pro-
grams at the Federal, State, and
local level.
Twelve States listed sources of
recent wetlands losses in their 1996
305(b) reports. Residential develop-
ment and urban growth was cited
as the leading source of current
losses. Other losses were due to
agriculture; construction of roads,
highways, and bridges; hydrologic
modifications; channelization; and
industrial development. In addition
to human activities, a few States
also reported that natural sources,
such as rising lake levels, resulted in
wetlands losses and degradation.
Figure ES-17. Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity (9 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture
Hydrologic Modification
Urban Runoff
Filling and Draining
Construction
Natural
Dredging
Resource Extraction
Livestock Grazing
Number of States Reporting
Total!
Source: Based on 1996 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
Dorothy Scott, 4th Grade, Burton GeoWorld,
Durham, NC
More information on wetlands
can be obtained from the
EPA Wetlands Hotline at
1-800-832-7828.
ES-30
-------
Ground Water
Although 75% percent of the
earth's surface is covered by water,
only 3% is fresh water available for
our use. It has been estimated that
more than 90% of the world's fresh
water reserve is stored in the earth
as ground water. Ground water—
water found in natural underground
rock formations called aquifers—is a
vital national resource that is used
for myriad purposes. Unfortunately,
this resource is vulnerable to
contamination, and ground water
contaminant problems are being
reported throughout the country.
To ascertain the extent to which
our Nation's ground water resources
have been impacted by human
activities, Section 106(e) of the
Clean Water Act requests that each
State monitor ground water quality
and report the findings to Congress
in their 305(b) State Water Quality
Reports. Recognizing that an accu-
rate representation of our Nation's
ambient ground water quality con-
ditions required developing guide-
lines that would ultimately yield
quantitative data, EPA, in partner-
ship with interested States, devel-
oped new guidelines for assessing
ground water quality. It was these
guidelines that were used by States
for reporting the 1996 305(b)
ground water data.
Despite variations in reporting
style, the 1996 305(b) State Water
Quality Reports represent a first step
in improving the assessment of
State ambient ground water quality.
Forty States, one Territory, and two
Tribes used the new guidelines to
assess and report ground water
quality data. For the first time,
States provided quantitative data
describing ground water quality.
Furthermore, States provided quan-
titative information pertaining to
contamination sources that have
impacted ground water quality.
Ground Water
Contamination
Not too long ago, it was
thought that soil provided a protec-
tive "filter" or "barrier" that immobi-
lized the downward migration of
Ground water provides
drinking water for 51%
of the population.
contaminants released on the land
surface and prevented ground
water resources from being adverse-
ly impacted or contaminated. The
discovery of pesticides and other
contaminants in ground water
demonstrated that ground water
resources were indeed vulnerable
to contamination resulting from
human activities. The potential for a
contaminant to affect ground water
quality is dependent upon its being
introduced to the environment and
its ability to migrate through the
overlying soils to the underlying
ground water resource.
Ground water contamination
can occur as relatively well defined
plumes emanating from specific
sources such as spills, landfills, waste
lagoons, and/or industrial facilities.
Contamination can also occur as a
general deterioration of ground
water quality over a wide area due
to diffuse nonpoint sources such as
agricultural fertilizer and pesticide
applications, septic systems, urban
runoff, leaking sewer networks,
application of lawn chemicals, high-
way deicing materials, animal feed-
lots, salvage yards, and mining
activities. Ground water quality
degradation from diffuse nonpoint
sources affects large areas, making it
difficult to specify the exact source
of the contamination.
Ground water contamination is
most common in highly developed
areas, agricultural areas, and indus-
trial complexes. Frequently ground
water contamination is discovered
long after it has occurred. One
reason for this is the slow move-
ment of ground water through
aquifers, sometimes on the order of
less than an inch per day. Contam-
inants in the ground water do not
mix or spread quickly, but remain
concentrated in slow-moving
plumes that may persist for many
years. This often results in a delay in
the detection of ground water
contamination. In some cases,
contaminants introduced into the
ES-31
-------
subsurface more than 10 years ago
are only now being discovered.
Ground Water
Contaminant Sources
As reported by States, it is evi-
dent that ground water quality may
be adversely impacted by a variety
of potential contaminant sources. In
1996, EPA requested each State to
indicate the 10 top sources that
potentially threaten their ground
water resources. The list was not
considered comprehensive and
States added sources as was neces-
sary based on State-specific con-
cerns. Factors that were considered
by States in their selection included
the number of each type of source
in the State, the location of the
various sources relative to ground
water used for drinking water
purposes, the size of the population
at risk from contaminated drinking
water, the risk posed to human
health and/or the environment from
releases, hydrogeologic sensitivity
(the ease with which contaminants
enter and travel through soil and
reach aquifers), and the findings of
the State's ground water protection
strategy and/or related studies.
Thirty-seven States provided
information related to contaminant
sources. Those most frequently
reported by States include:
• Leaking underground storage
tanks. Leaking underground storage
tanks (USTs) were cited as the high-
est priority contaminant source of
concern to States. The primary caus-
es of leakage in USTs are faulty
installation and corrosion of tanks
and pipelines. As of March 1996,
more than 300,000 releases from
USTs had been confirmed. EPA
estimates that nationally 60% of
these leaks have impacted ground
water quality, and, in some States,
the percentage is as high as 90%.
• Landfills. Landfills were cited by
States as the second highest
contaminant source of concern.
Landfills are used to dispose of sani-
tary (municipal) and industrial
wastes. Municipal wastes, some
industrial wastes, and relatively inert
substances such as plastics are dis-
posed of in sanitary landfills. Com-
mon materials that may be disposed
of in industrial landfills include plas-
tics, metals, fly ash, sludges, coke,
tailings, waste pigment particles,
low-level radioactive wastes, poly-
propylene, wood, brick, cellulose,
ceramics, synthetics, and other simi-
lar substances. States indicated that
the most common contaminants
associated with landfills were metals,
halogenated solvents, and petrole-
um compounds. To a lesser extent,
organic and inorganic pesticides
were also cited as a contaminant of
concern.
• Septic systems. Septic systems
were cited by 29 out of 37 States as
a potential source of ground water
contamination. Ground water may
be contaminated by releases from
septic systems when the systems are
poorly designed (tanks are installed
in areas with inadequate soils or
shallow depth to ground water),
poorly constructed; have poor well
seals; are improperly used, located,
or maintained; or are abandoned.
Typical contaminants from domestic
septic systems include bacteria,
nitrates, viruses, phosphates from
detergents, and other chemicals that
might originate from household
cleaners.
Ground Water
Quality Assessments
Thirty-three States reported data
summarizing ground water quality.
In total, data were reported for 162
specific aquifers and other hydro-
geologic settings. States used data
from ambient monitoring networks,
public water supply systems (PWSs),
private and unregulated wells, and
special studies. Nationally, more
States reported data for nitrates,
metals, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs) than any other
parameter grouping. Nitrates,
metals, SVOCs, and VOCs generally
represent instances of ground water
degradation resulting from human
activities.
Due to the importance of
ground water as a drinking water
resource, many of the aquifers that
were evaluated for 1996 are used to
supply water for public and private
consumption. The aquifers are also
used for irrigation, commercial, live-
stock, and industrial purposes. In
general, water quality problems
affected irrigation, commercial, live-
stock, and industry uses less fre-
quently than drinking water. This
may reflect the high water quality
standards set for drinking water.
ES-32
-------
Water Quality Protection Programs
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,
EPA has promoted the watershed
protection approach as a holistic
framework for addressing complex
pollution problems.
The watershed protection
approach is a place-based strategy
that integrates water quality man-
agement activities within hydrologi-
cally defined drainage basins-water-
sheds-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 aquifer),
but all the land from which water
drains to the resource. To protect
Under the Watershed
Protection Approach
(WPA), a "watershed"
is a hydrogeologic area
defined for addressing
water quality problems.
For example, a WPA
watershed may be a river
basin, a county-sized
watershed, or a small
drinking water supply
watershed.
water resources, it is increasingly
important 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.
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. Since then, EPA's water
program managers, under the direc-
tion of the Watershed Management
Policy Committee, evaluated their
programs and identified additional
activities needed to support the
watershed protection approach in
an action plan.
EPA's Office of Water will con-
tinue to promote and support the
watershed protection approach and
build upon its experience with
established place-based programs,
such as the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram and the Great Lakes National
Program to eliminate barriers to the
approach. These integrated pro-
grams laid the foundation for the
Agency's shift toward comprehen-
sive watershed management and
continue to provide models for
implementing the "place-based"
ES-33
-------
approach to environmental
problem-solving.
The Clean Water Act
A number of laws provide the
authority to develop and implement
pollution control programs. The
primary statute providing for water
quality protection in the Nation's
rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and
coastal waters is the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, com-
monly known as the Clean Water
Act.
The CWA and its amendments
are the driving force behind many
of the water quality improvements
we have witnessed in recent years.
Key provisions of the CWA provide
the following pollution control
programs.
Water quality standards and
criteria - States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions adopt EPA-
approved standards for their
waters that define water quality
goals for individual waterbodies.
Standards consist of designated
beneficial uses to be made of
the water, criteria to protect
those uses, and antidegradation
provisions to protect existing
water quality.
Effluent guidelines - EPA
develops nationally consistent
guidelines limiting pollutants in
discharges from industrial facili-
ties and municipal sewage treat-
ment plants. These guidelines
are then used in permits issued
to dischargers under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Additional controls
may be required if receiving
The Watershed Protection Approach
^Several key principles guide the watershed protection approach':
-• ' It* <,*,IN * (n jjn, ™«, * - ~ " ft) * ,~ .. <• ^ \ " * ^ s * * , , *•'
Place-based focus *~ Resource management activities are directed
within specific geographic areas, usually defined By,watershed .bound-
aries, 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 thaj;tne people who depend on the water resources,in the water-
shed will participate in planning and implementation activities. Water-
shed initiatives also establish partnerships between Federal, State,xand
local agencies and nongovernment 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 the success of the watershedjnitiative. the environmental
objectives are' based on the condition of the ecological resource and the
heeds of people in the watershed. '
Problem identification and pripritfzafion - The stakeholders and
- partners use sound scientific^data and methods to Identify and prioritize
the primary threats to human and ecosystem, health within the water-
shed. Consistent with the Agency's mission, EPA views ecosystems as the
interactions of complex communities that include peopte;Jthus, healthy
ecosystems provide for the health and welfare of hurnaris as,wel) as ,
otherJiylng things. , ^ ' / '
e"*? V 'I*. 1 "$. ' ^ s >ii ^ ^ ^ f < w '
;jp. Integrated actions - The stakeholders and partners take corrective'
actions in a comprehensive and integrated mahher,,evaluate-suqcess,
and refine actions if necessary. Jhe watershed protection'approach ' '. ~
coordinates activities conducted by numerous government Agencies' .; -
and nongovernment organizations to maximize efficient use of (
limited resources. , ~ , ' '''"'*,','-• • -.' ' •
ES-34
-------
i
1II; II 1
&.'i.i[ 'l.i. 't'.^.l .11. § 1.1.1.1. ItI
1 1 Si l
1 1 1 1
waters are still affected by water
quality problems after permit
limits are met.
Total Maximum Daily Loads -
The development of Total Maxi-
mum Daily Loads, or TMDLs,
establishes the link between
water quality standards and
point/nonpoint source pollution
control actions such as permits
or Best Management Practices
(BMPs). A TMDL calculates
allowable loadings from the
contributing point and non-
point sources to a given water-
body and provides the quantita-
tive basis for pollution reduction
necessary to meet water quality
standards. States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions develop and
implement TMDLs for high-
priority impaired or threatened
waterbodies.
Permits and enforcement - All
industrial and municipal facilities
that discharge wastewater must
have an NPDES permit and are
responsible for monitoring and
reporting levels of pollutants in
their discharges. EPA issues
these permits or can delegate
that permitting authority to
qualifying States or other juris-
dictions. The States, other quali-
fied jurisdictions, and EPA
inspect facilities to determine if
their discharges comply with
permit limits. If dischargers are
not in compliance, enforcement
action is taken.
Loans - The Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CW-SRF) is an
innovative water quality financ-
ing program that is designed to
provide low-cost project financ-
ing to solve important water
quality problems. The SRF pro-
gram is made up of 51 state-
level infrastructure funds (Puerto
Rico has one, too) that operate
much like banks. These funds
were created by the 1987
Amendments to the Clean
Water Act and are intended to
provide permanent and inde-
pendent sources of funding for
municipal sewage treatment,
nonpoint source, and estuary
projects. EPA and the States are
capitalizing or providing "seed
money" to establish these
revolving funds. The goal is to
capitalize the 51 programs so
that they can provide in excess
of $2 billion in loans for water
quality projects each year for
the foreseeable future. The CW-
SRF is, by far, the most powerful
financial tool available to the
water quality program.
The 1996 Amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) created the new
Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DW-SRF) program. The
primary purpose of this pro-
gram is to upgrade drinking
water infrastructure to facilitate
compliance with the SDWA.
Congress has appropriated
$2 billion to begin the capital-
ization of this program. The
long-term strategy is to contin-
ue capitalization of this pro-
gram so that the SRFs will be
able to provide in excess of
$500 million each year in assis-
tance for priority drinking water
projects. In January 1997, EPA
released the first Drinking
Water Needs Survey, which
identified $138.4 billion in
needs over the next 20 years.
EPA is currently working with
the States to set up their drink-
ing water SRFs.
Grants - EPA provides States
with financial assistance to help
support many of their pollution
control programs. The pro-
grams funded include water
quality monitoring, permitting,
and enforcement; nonpoint
source; ground water; National
Estuary Program; and wetlands.
Nonpoint source control -
EPA provides program guid-
ance, technical support, and
funding to help the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions
control nonpoint source pollu-
tion. The States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions are responsi-
ble for analyzing the extent
and severity of their nonpoint
source pollution problems and
developing and implementing
needed water quality manage-
ment actions.
The CWA also established
pollution control and prevention
programs for specific waterbody
categories, such as the Clean Lakes
Program. Other statutes that also
guide the development of water
quality protection programs include:
• The Safe Drinking Water Act,
under which States establish
standards for drinking water quality,
monitor wells and local water
supply systems, implement drinking
water protection programs, and
implement Underground Injection
Control (UIC) programs.
ES-35
-------
TIP
• The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, which establishes
State and EPA programs for ground
water and surface water protection
and cleanup and emphasizes pre-
vention of releases through manage-
ment standards in addition to other
waste management activities.
• The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (Superfund
Program), which provides EPA with
the authority to clean up contami-
nated waters during remediation at
contaminated sites.
• The Pollution Prevention Act
of 1990, which requires EPA to
promote pollutant source reduction
rather than focus on controlling
pollutants after they enter the
environment.
Protecting and
Restoring Lakes
Since the 1980s, EPA has
encouraged States to develop lake
projects with a watershed perspec-
tive. This ensures that protection
and restoration activities are long
term and comprehensive. EPA offers
sources of funding assistance for lake
projects and also encourages States
to develop their own independent
mechanisms to provide resources for
their lake management programs.
A good example of a State-
based lakes initiative is the Illinois
Conservation 2000 Clean Lakes pro-
gram. Illinois' system adopted major
features of the Federal Clean Lakes
program. The process leading to the
Conservation 2000 program can be
traced back to legislative actions in
the late 1980s that set up the basic
framework and identified agency
roles and responsibilities. The pro-
gram now has assured ongoing
funding to support lake restoration
projects and to underwrite a variety
of technical support and educational
activities.
At the Federal level, EPA offers
support for watershed-oriented lake
projects through Nonpoint Source
319(h) grants included under State
Nonpoint Source Management
Programs. Other EPA resources may
be available under provisions of the
reauthorized Safe Drinking Water
Act, with its emphasis on source
water protection.
Successful lake programs require
local stakeholder support and an
awareness on the part of stake-
holders of how to identify pollution
concerns as well as knowledge of
appropriate lake protection and
restoration management measures.
EPA provides support for a variety of
local stakeholder outreach and edu-
cation initiatives. A good example is
the Great American Secchi Dip-In,
an event held for the past 4 years, in
which volunteer lake and reservoir
monitoring programs from across
the country take a Secchi disk
measurement on one day in a peri-
od surrounding July 4th. Secchi
disks (pictured below) are typically
flat, black and white disks that are
used to measure the transparency of
water. Transparency is one indicator
of the impact of human activity on
lake water quality.
ES-36
-------
Figure ES-18. Locations of National Estuary Program Sites
The National Estuary
Program
Section 320 of the Clean Water
Act (as amended by the Water
Quality Act of 1987) established the
National Estuary Program (NEP) to
protect and restore water quality
and living resources in estuaries. The
NEP adopts a geographic or water-
shed approach by planning and
implementing pollution abatement
activities for the estuary and its
surrounding land area as a-whole.
The NEP embodies the ecosys-
tem approach by building coali-
tions, 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 specific estuarine
waters. Under the'NEP, a State gov-
ernor nominates an estuary in his or
•a VI
her State for participation in the
program. The State must demon-
strate a likelihood of success in pro-
tecting candidate estuaries and pro-
vide evidence of institutional, finan-
cial, 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 control pollution and
manage natural resources in the
estuarine basin. Each management
conference develops and initiates
implementation' 'of a Comprehen-
sive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP) to restore and protect
the estuary.
The NEP currently supports
28 estuary projects.
The NEP integrates science and
policy by bringing water quality
managers, elected officials, and
stakeholders together with scientists
from government agencies, aca-
demic institutions, and the private
sector. Because the NEP is not a
research program, it relies heavily
on past and ongoing research of
other agencies and institutions to
support development of CCMPs.
With the addition of seven
estuary sites in July of 1995, the
NEP currently supports 28 estuary
projects (see Figure ES-18). 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 environ-
mental conditions in estuaries
throughout the United States and
its Territories so that the lessons
learned through the NEP can be
applied to other estuaries.
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
may degrade water quality and
habitat. Eutrophication, toxic sub-
stances (including metals), patho-
gens, and changes to living
resources and habitats top the list of
problems being addressed by NEP
Management Conferences.
ES-37
-------
Shortly after conning into
i office, the .Clinton. AdnifalstrMion „
cdnvehed an interagency working
group to address concerns with
Federal wetlands policy. After hear-
ing from States, developers, farm-
ers, environmental interests, mem-
bers of Congress, and scientists,
the working group developed a
comprehensive 40-point plan for
wetlands protection to make wet-
lands programs more fair, flexible,
and effective. This plan was issued
on August 24, 1993.
The Administration's Wetlands
, , ' , • , j,,,,!,!;1.;,!;! „ • „, , „ j,.'
Plan emphasizes improving
Federal wetlands policy by
• Streamlining wetlands permit-
ting programs
• Increasing cooperation with
private landowners to protect
and restore wetlands
'• 'is1!1'; r: , •>••: • I:",:;;;".'.: Bin i>: :; :•; •'"*::;;,',
m Basing wetlands protection on
good science and sound
judgment
nr.1 : \ n i
• |nc;r|as)ng, participation by
States, Tribes, local goverri-
rnents, and the public in
wetlands protection.
Protecting Wetlands
A variety of public and private
programs protect wetlands. Section
404 of the CWA continues to
provide the primary 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
Engineers (COE) and EPA jointly
implement the Section 404 pro-
gram. The COE is responsible for
reviewing permit applications and
making permit decisions. EPA estab-
lishes the environmental criteria for
making permit decisions and has
the authority to review and veto
Section 404 permits proposed for
issuance by the COE. EPA is also
responsible for determining geo-
graphic jurisdiction of the Section
404 permit program, interpreting
statutory exemptions, and over-
seeing 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
Section 404 permits for specific
projects or general permits (Table
ES-5). 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 majority of activities proposed
in wetlands are covered by Section
404 general permits. For example,
in FY96, over 64,000 people applied
to the COE for a Section 404 per-
mit. Eighty-five percent of these
applications were covered by gener-
al permits and were processed in an
average of 14 days. It is estimated
that another 90,000 activities are
covered by 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
Table ES-5. Federal Section 404 Permits . ' ' -
General Permits ' , ,,',')'
(streamlined permit review procedures) \ ; ' <
Nationwide
Permits
• Cover 39 types of
activities that the
COE determines
to have minimal
adverse impacts
on the environment
Regional
Permits
• Developed by COE
District Offices to
cover activities in'
a specified region
Programmatic
Permits
State
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 ,
^ ,,Pertnits '- ,--
• 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
ES-38
-------
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 that the COE
determines will have only minimal
individual and cumulative impacts
on the environment, including con-
struction of minor road crossings
and farm buildings, bank stabiliza-
tion activities, and the filling of up
to 1 0 acres of isolated or headwater
wetlands.
• Regional permits authorize types
of activities within a geographic
area defined by a COE District
Office.
• Programmatic general permits
are issued to an entity that the COE
determines may regulate activities
within its jurisdictional wetlands.
Under a programmatic general
permit, the COE defers its permit
decision to the regulating entity but
reserves its authority to require an
individual permit.
Currently, the COE and EPA are
promoting the development of
State programmatic general permits
(SPGPs) to increase State involve-
ment 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. Several States
have adopted comprehensive SPGPs
that replace many or all COE-issued
nationwide general permits. SPGPs
'•-
simplify the regulatory process and
increase State control over their
wetlands resources. Carefully devel-
oped SPGPs can improve wetlands
protection while reducing regulato-
ry demands on landowners.
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 develop-
ment of wetlands water quality
standards. Water quality standards
consist of designated beneficial uses,
numeric criteria, narrative criteria,
and antidegradation statements.
Figure ES-1 9 indicates the State's
progress in developing these
standards.
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.
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, and
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.
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 permitted
under CWA Section 404, point
source discharges permitted under
CWA Section 402, and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's
Figur4 ES-19. Development of State Water Quality Standards for Wetlands ' ''. r'$ "V f ?' II
' ;/ " ",\ '-\ > '<• 'V '' - 30
•States and Tribes Reporting
_ ,j
Antidearadation yww^^^
__ — _
Use classification
\ " t 'J
Narrative Biocntena y|MgaBg|ftga
DHJU ILL I lu kj&j^jf' ^'^'^'^'^'^j^%^:$:,-!
I I
ifi^ ffl Proposed
H Under Development
UJV-^Jgl ^1 |n nlnrn
1 1 1
0 5 10 15 20
Number of States Reporting
ES-39
-------
hydropower licenses. States review
these permits to ensure that they
meet State water quality standards.
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 ,
standards. If a State or an eligible
Tribe denies Section 401 certifica-
tion, the Federal permitting or
licensing agency cannot issue the
permit or license.
Until recently, many States
waived their right to review and
certify Section 404 permits because
these States had not defined water
quality standards for wetlands or
codified regulations for implement-
ing 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
activities that do not require Federal
permits or licenses, such as some
ground water withdrawals, are not
covered.
State/Tribal Wetlands Conserva-
tion Plans (SWCPs) are strategies
that integrate regulatory and coop-
erative approaches to achieve State
wetlands 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.
States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions protect their wetlands with
a variety of other approaches,
including permitting programs,
coastal management programs,
wetlands acquisition programs,
natural heritage programs, and inte-
gration with other programs. The
following trends emerged from
individual State and Tribal 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 condi-
tions 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 wetlands are
constructed and functioning
properly.
• More States are monitoring
selected, largely unimpacted
wetlands to establish baseline
conditions in healthy wetlands. The
States will use this information to
monitor the relative performance of
constructed wetlands and to help
establish biocriteria and water
quality standards for wetlands.
Although the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions report that they
are making progress in protecting
wetlands, they also report that the
pressure to develop or destroy wet-
lands remains high. EPA and the
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
will continue to pursue new mecha-
nisms for protecting wetlands that
rely less on regulatory tools.
Protecting the
Great Lakes
Restoring and protecting the
Great Lakes requires cooperation
from numerous organizations
because the pollutants that enter
the Great Lakes originate in both
the United States and Canada, as
well as in other countries, and
pollutants enter the lakes via multi-
ple media (i.e., air, ground water,
and surface water). The Interna-
tional joint Commission (IJC), estab-
lished by the 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty, provides a framework for the
cooperative management of the
Great Lakes. Representatives from
the United States and Canada, the
Province of Ontario, and the eight
States bordering the Lakes sit on the
IJC's Water Quality Board. The Water
Quality Board recommends actions
for protecting and restoring the
Great Lakes and evaluates the envi-
ronmental policies and actions
implemented by the United States
and Canada.
ES-40
-------
The EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) coordi-
nates activities within the United
States at all government levels and
works with academia, industry, and
nongovernment organizations to
protect and restore the lakes. The
GLNPO provides leadership through
its annual Great Lakes Program
Priorities and Funding Guidance.
The GLNPO also serves as a liaison
to the Canadian members of the IJC
and the Canadian environmental
agencies.
The 1978 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (as amended in
1987) lay the foundation for on-
going efforts to restore and protect
the Great Lakes. The Agreement
committed the United States and
Canada to developing Remedial
Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of
Concern and Lakewide Manage-
ment Plans (LaMPs) for each lake.
Areas of Concern are specially desig-
nated waterbodies around the Great
Lakes that show symptoms of seri-
ous water quality degradation. Most
of the 42 Areas of Concern are
located in harbors, bays, or river
mouths entering the Great Lakes.
RAPs identify impaired uses and
examine management options for
addressing degradation in an Area
of Concern. LaMPs use an ecosys-
tem approach to examine water
quality issues that have more wide-
spread impacts within each Great
Lake. Public involvement is a critical
component of both LaMP develop-
ment and RAP development.
EPA advocates pollution preven-
tion as the most effective approach
for achieving the virtual elimination
of persistent toxic discharges into
the Great Lakes. The GLNPO has
funded numerous pollution preven-
tion grants throughout the Great
Lakes Basin since FY93. The GLNPO
is targeting its grant dollars to sup-
port projects that further the goal of
virtual elimination of persistent toxic
substances. As part of the efforts to
protect Lake Superior, EPA, the
States, and Canada are implement-
ing a virtual elimination initiative for
Lake Superior that seeks to eliminate
new contributions of critical pollut-
ants, especially mercury.
The Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative 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 provide a con-
sistent level of protection in the
Basin from the effects of toxic
pollutants. In 1989, the Initiative
was organized by EPA at the request
of the Great Lakes States to promote
consistency in their environmental
programs in the Great Lakes Basin
with minimum requirements.
Initiative efforts were well under
way when Congress enacted the
Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of
1990. The Act requires EPA to pub-
lish proposed and final water quality
guidance that specifies minimum
water quality criteria for the Great
Lakes System. The Act also requires
the Great Lakes States to adopt pro-
visions that are consistent with the
EPA final guidance within 2 years of
EPA's publication. In addition, Indian
Tribes authorized to administer an
NPDES program in the Great Lakes
Basin must also adopt provisions
consistent with EPA's final guidance.
To carry out the Act, EPA pro-
posed regulations for implementing
the guidance on April 16, 1993,
and invited the public to comment.
The States and EPA conducted pub-
lic meetings in all of the Great Lakes
States during the comment period.
As a result, EPA received over
26,500 pages of comments from
over 6,000 commenters. EPA
reviewed all of the comments and
published the final guidance in
March of 1995.
The final guidance prioritizes
control of long-lasting pollutants
that accumulate in the food web—
bioaccumulative chemicals of con-
cern (BCCs). The final guidance
includes provisions to phase out
mixing zones for BCCs (except in
limited circumstances), more exten-
sive data requirements to ensure
that BCCs are not underregulated
due to a lack of data, and water
quality criteria to protect wildlife
that feed on aquatic prey. Publica-
tion of the final guidance was a
milestone in EPA's move toward
-------
increasing stakeholder participation
in the development of innovative
and comprehensive programs for
protecting and restoring our natural
resources.
The Chesapeake Bay
Program
The Chesapeake Bay is an enor-
mously complex and dynamic sys-
tem of fish, waterfowl, and vegeta-
tion in an estuary where salt water
from the Atlantic Ocean and fresh
water from its many tributaries in
the 64,000-square-miIe watershed
come together. The extremely shal-
low and productive Bay presents
formidable challenges to the under-
standing and management of this
great estuary. In many areas of the
Bay, water quality is not sufficient to
support living resources year round.
In the warmer months, large por-
tions of the Bay contain little or no
dissolved oxygen, which may cause
fish eggs and larvae to die. The
growth and reproduction of oysters,
clams, and other bottom-dwelling
animals are impaired. Adult fish find
their habitat reduced and their
feeding inhibited.
Many areas of the Bay also have
cloudy water from excess sediment
in the water or an overgrowth of
algae (stimulated by excessive nutri-
ents in the water). Turbid waters
block the sunlight needed to sup-
port the growth and survival of Bay
grasses, also known as submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV). Without
SAV, critical habitat for fish and
crabs is lost. Although there has
been a recent resurgence of SAV in
some areas of the Bay, most areas
still do not support abundant popu-
lations as they once did.
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 wastes, soil, and even the
atmosphere. These nutrients have
always existed in the Bay, but not at
the present elevated concentrations.
When the Bay was surrounded
primarily by forests and wetlands,
very little nitrogen and phosphorus
ran off the land into the water. Most
of it was absorbed or held in place
by the natural vegetation. As the
use of the land has changed and
the watershed's population has
grown, the amount of nutrients
entering the Bay has increased
tremendously.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is
a unique regional partnership lead-
ing and directing the restoration of
Chesapeake Bay since 1983. The
Chesapeake Bay Program partners
include the States of Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the
District of Columbia; the Chesa-
peake Bay Commission; and EPA.
The Chesapeake Executive Council,
made up of the governors of Mary-
land, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the
mayor of the District of Columbia;
the EPA administrator; and the chair
of the Chesapeake Bay Commission,
provides leadership for the Bay
Program and establishes program
policies to restore and protect the
Bay and its living resources.
The Bay Program has set itself
apart by adopting strong numerical
goals and commitments with dead-
lines, and tracking progress with an
extensive array of environmental
indicators. In the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement, Chesapeake Bay
Program partners set a goal to
reduce the nutrients nitrogen and
phosphorus entering the Bay by
40% by the year 2000. In the 1992
amendments to the Agreement,
partners agreed to maintain the
40% goal beyond the year 2000
and to attack nutrients at their
source—upstream in the tributaries.
Recent agreements have outlined a
regional focus to address toxic
problem areas, set specific goals and
commitments for federally owned
lands throughout the watershed,
involved the 1,650 local govern-
ments in the Bay restoration effort,
and addressed land use manage-
ment in the watershed, including a
riparian buffer initiative.
Since its inception, the Chesa-
peake Bay Program's highest priority
has been the restoration of the Bay's
living resources—its finfish, shellfish,
Bay grasses, and other aquatic life
and wildlife. Now, the Chesapeake is
clearly on the upswing. Bay grasses
have increased by 70% since 1984,
with recent population changes sug-
gesting that many of these popula-
tions may rebound if water quality
conditions are improved and main-
tained. Striped bass populations
have reached historically high levels
and wild shad are increasing in
numbers as hatchery-reared shad
successfully reproduce and their
offspring make their runs back up
into tributaries. Bald eagles are also
returning to the Chesapeake Bay,
with over 500 young produced in
1996, up from only 63 young in
1977.
Other improvements have also
been observed in the Bay. The Bay
Program, through 1996, has
reopened 272 miles of fish spawn-
ing habitat through its fish passage
initiative. According to the Toxics
ES-42
-------
Release Inventory, chemical releases
in the Bay watershed have shown
a 55% drop between 1988 and
1994, and Toxics of Concern have
declined by 62% during the same
period.
In spite of near record-high
flows in 3 of the past 4 years, most
of the Bay's major rivers are running
cleaner than they were 10 years
ago. Phosphorus concentrations
have shown significant reductions
throughout most of the Bay, and
nitrogen levels have remained
steady in spite of the high flows and
population increases. Overall, these
nutrient trends indicate that water
quality conditions in this important
tributary are improving basinwide.
Despite these promising trends
in nutrients, dissolved oxygen levels
are still low enough to cause severe
impacts and stressful conditions in
the mainstem of the Bay and several
of the larger tributaries. A long-term
decline in the abundance of the
native waterfowl is also of great
concern. The necessary corrective
action to reverse this trend is habitat
improvement and resurgence of
SAV.
The blue crab is currently the
most important commercial and
recreational fishery in the Bay. With
increasing fishing pressures and rela-
tively low harvests in recent years,
there is growing concern for the
health of the stocks. While scientists
agree that neither the crab popula-
tion nor the fishery are on the verge
of collapse, they concur that the
stock is fully exploited. The 1997
Blue Crab Fisheries Management
Plan contains recommendations to
maintain regulations, limit access to
the fishery, prevent exploitation and
improve research and monitoring
-f°w^/r*
•V «. V*'*j»'»Vi « 9 — t. —* » \^_ *
t \ x*-- -£ »«•! fi* *• S.."" *
ft - x r <^-~ •£ t ' -ft-*^11*, •*---* ^-i,
« V~ -ff "*"3&S* ItSi-* ^<*- * * 1 aw ^cijj^ t
- * v^*™ ^^riS^v-^^ - >"^lfe'4r;fl?(0vy
/^ . ..MM «
^«>^%J;\
_Tr\
' *** v yf? * s*% a* J'K *** *> *, ^^-s,. .^^iii^Ct^^^^
• L> *f»'l,it1» '"t ^^V-T1** r-e**'"^--^-*- ^55^- j-*vt - • -^f4\T*«- «•
^/i ^\LS^? C 4*.-^' ^4V
!«•«*~«»^, ^jr" «f-ii •v.'- ,J!, »&; i ii'*tT*
A^^^.J^^l
'
Sam Mohar, 4th Grade, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC
and incorporates an enhanced habi-
tat section recommending protec-
tion and restoration of Bay grasses
and water quality.
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. When
taken as a whole, results from coop-
erative monitoring of input from the
Bay's rivers generally show very
encouraging signs.
The Gulf of Mexico
Program
The Gulf of Mexico Program
(GMP) was established in August
1988 as a partnership to provide a
broad geographic focus on the
major environmental issues in the
Gulf before they become irreversible
or too costly to correct. Its main
purpose is to develop and imple-
ment strategies for protecting,
restoring, and maintaining the
health and productivity of the Gulf
of Mexico in ways consistent with
the economic well being of the
Region. This partnership also
includes representatives from State
and local government, Federal
agencies, and the citizenry in each
of the five Gulf States, the private
sector (business, industry, and agri-
culture), and the academic commu-
nity. The partnership provides:
• A mechanism for addressing
complex problems that cross
Federal, State, and international
jurisdictional lines
• Better coordination among
Federal, State, and local programs,
increasing the effectiveness and
efficiency of the long-term commit-
ment to manage and protect Gulf
resources
ES-43.
-------
• A regional perspective to access
and provide the information and
address research needs required for
effective management decisions
• A forum for affected groups using
the Gulf, for public and private
educational institutions, and for the
general public to participate in the
solution process.
Through its partnerships, the
CMP is working with the scientific
community, policy makers at the
Federal, State and local levels, and
the public to help preserve and
protect America's abundant sea. It
has made significant progress iden-
tifying the environmental issues in
the Gulf Ecosystem and organizing
a program to address those issues.
Eight issue areas were initially iden-
tified as Program concerns:
• Habitat degradation in such areas
as coastal wetlands, seagrass beds,
and sand dunes
• Freshwater inflow changes in the
volume and timing of flow resulting
from reservoir construction; diver-
sions for municipal, industrial, and
agricultural purposes; and modifica-
tions to watersheds with concomi-
tant alteration of runoff patterns
• Nutrient enrichment resulting
from such sources as municipal
wastewater treatment plants, storm
water, industries, and agriculture
• Toxic substances and pesticides
contamination originating from
industrial, urban, and agricultural
sources
• Coastal and shoreline erosion
caused by natural and human-
related activities
• Public health threats from swim-
ming in, and eating seafood prod-
ucts coming from, contaminated
water
• Marine debris from land-based
and marine recreational and
commercial sources
• Sustainability of the living aquatic
resources of the Gulf of Mexico
ecosystem.
The current focus of
the CMP is on nutrient
enrichment, shellfish
restoration, critical habitat,
and introduction of
exotic species.
The CMP is now focusing its
limited resources on implementa-
tion of actions to address specific
problems that emerged as the
Program concerns were character-
ized. The current focus is on nutri-
ent enrichment, shellfish restoration,
critical habitat, and introduction of
exotic species. Other operational
efforts provide public education and
outreach and data and information
transfer.
Since its formation in 1988, the
CMP has been committed to spon-
soring projects that will benefit the
environmental health of the region.
These projects, numbering over
200, vary immensely, from "shovel-
in-the-ground" demonstration
projects to scientific research to
public education. Examples include
a wetlands restoration project in
Texas' Galveston Bay System, a Bay
Rambo Artificial Oyster Reef project
in Louisiana, a Shellfish Growing
Water Restoration project in
Mississippi, a demonstration project
in sewage management in Alabama,
and a health professional education
program in Florida.
Ground Water
Protection Programs
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. Studies
evaluating the cost of prevention
versus the cost of cleaning up con-
taminated ground water have found
that there are real cost advantages
to promoting protection of our
Nation's ground water resources.
Numerous laws, regulations,
and programs play a vital role in
protecting ground water. The fol-
lowing Federal laws and programs
enable, or provide incentives for,
EPA and/or States to regulate or
voluntarily manage and monitor
sources of ground water pollution:
• The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) authorizes EPA to ensure
that water is safe for human con-
sumption. One of the most funda-
mental ways to ensure consistently
safe drinking water is to protect the
source of that water (i.e., ground
water). Source water protection is
achieved through three SDWA
programs: the Wellhead Protection
Program, the Sole Source Aquifer
ES-44
-------
Program, and the Underground
Injection Control Program. The
1996 Amendments to the SDWA
also created the Source Water
Assessment Program to ensure that
States conduct assessments to
determine the vulnerability of drink-
ing water to contamination.
• The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) addresses the
problem of safe disposal of the huge
volumes of solid and hazardous
waste generated nationwide each
year. RCRA is part of EPA's compre-
hensive program to protect ground
water resources through the devel-
opment of regulations and methods
for handling, storing, and disposing
of hazardous material and through
the regulation of underground
storage tanks—the most frequently
cited source of ground water
contamination.
• The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the
Superfund Amendments and Reau-
thorization Act of 1986 created
several programs operated by EPA,
States, Territories, and Tribes that
act to protect and restore contami-
nated ground water. Restoration of
contaminated ground water is one
of the primary goals of the Super-
fund program. As stated in the
National Contingency Plan, EPA
expects to return usable ground
waters to their beneficial uses, wher-
ever possible, within a time frame
that is reasonable given the particu-
lar circumstances of the site.
• Clean Water Act Sections 319(h)
and (i) and 518 provide funds to
State agencies and Indian Tribes to
implement EPA-approved nonpoint
source management programs and
ground water protection activities.
Such activities include assessing
and characterizing ground water
resources; delineating wellhead
protection areas; and addressing
ground water protection priorities.
• Section 102 of the Clean Water
Act grants States the authority to
develop Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Programs
(CSGWPPs) tailored to their goals
and priorities for the protection of
, ground water resources. CSGWPPs
attempt to combine all of the above
efforts and emphasize contamina-
tion prevention. The programs pro-
vide a framework for EPA to give
greater flexibility to a State for man-
agement and protection of its
ground water resources. CSGWPPs
guide the future implementation of
all State and Federal ground water
programs and provide a framework
* '- Comprehensive^ Stite Grbiind Water
,'-,,>»'.>-"• \ '• .' Protection Programs ^-, - ;-r' ,'~-\ :
* "•" ' ^ ^ '^ * "*• " 3 " " -">. * ^' T ""'/ > * ' t "•
"A Comprehensive State-Ground WajtepProtection program XCSGWPP) ,'_,,-'
;iscomposed -of- six "strategic activities." They are: ' ' -;" . V -~~'\~'.
• •Establishing-a preven,tfon;orierttecf goal , - '-'< - %-
",'"•• ." " '--, • '- :"" .<, \-* ' .-'---« .- :.'< ..,'• ,- > ?
, *•, Establishing priorities,-based on, the, charactepizgtion, of-the resource *^' <•
- ahd identification of sburceiof CQnta'rnination5 -'-/~:'l'- /'• • v-\ , 1-? '- • -' '. - -/-,' ,""-- -' , ~"\ ' - ' ,•"'-' -"
, • Defining rofes/resporisibilities, resources; a,nd cporplhatipg mechanisrns, :
-"• implefjienting HI n'ecessary efforts;to>aceompEh the-Statel's grpund,, - ^ >:
; ^ater^projrectlongoal %; •''.'•>'• ^ •' '-',*. -* /--"-."'- ^- ' ,.
^•-Coor^jnffihg Fnformption.collection,and management,tojfieaisu,re",. -'s
^-"'p_rogr,ess.andreevaFi|ate\prJorrties i <-"\- --. ^'' - • ''';-, :^,--]' -, -,,
-• Imprdvjhgpublic^ducafibna'rid'p,articipatipn;.i ,< . -, ''","'
ES-45
-------
for States to coordinate and set
priorities for all ground-water-related
activities.
Another means of protecting
our Nation's ground water resources
is through the implementation of
Wellhead Protection Plans (WHPs).
EPA's Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water is supporting the
development and implementation
of WHP Programs 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. As
of December 31,1996, over 2,600
communities had become involved
in developing local WHP plans.
Comprehensive State
ground water protection
programs support State-
directed priorities in
resource protection.
These 2,600 communities represent
over 6 million people. Over 1,600 of
these communities have completed
their plans and are managing their
wellhead protection areas to ensure
the community that their water sup-
plies are protected.
As a result of the 1996 Amend-
ments to the SDWA, source water
protection has become a national
priority. Accordingly, EPA included a
source water protection goal in a
draft of Environmental Goals for
America With Milestones for 2005,
which was released in January 1996.
The draft goal states that "by the
year 2005, 60% of the population
served by community water systems
will receive their water from systems
with source water protection pro-
grams in place." This goal will be
achieved using a three-phased
approach, which builds upon key
accomplishments and foundations,
such as the WHP Program, and
maximizes the use of new tools and
resources provided for under the
1996 Amendments. The new
emphasis on public involvement
and new State Source Water Assess-
ment Programs should lead to State
Source Water Protection Programs.
Also, the Amendments provide
States an unprecedented opportuni-
ty for source water assessment and
protection programs to use new
funds from the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DW-SRF) program
for eligible set-aside activities.
ES-46
-------
What You Can Do
Federal and State programs
have helped clean up many waters
and slow the degradation of others.
But government alone cannot solve
the entire problem, and water
quality concerns persist. Nonpoint
source pollution, in particular, is
everybody's problem, and every-
body needs to solve it.
Examine your everyday activities
and think about how you are con-
tributing to the pollution problem.
Here are some suggestions on how
you can make a difference.
Be Informed
You should learn about water
quality issues that affect the com-
munities in which you live and
work. Become familiar with your
local water resources. Where does
your drinking water come from?
What activities in your area might
affect the water you drink or the
rivers, lakes, beaches, or wetlands
you use for recreation?
Learn about procedures for
disposing of harmful household
wastes so they do not end up in
sewage treatment plants that
cannot handle them or in landfills
not designed to receive hazardous
materials.
Be Responsible
In your yard, determine
whether additional nutrients are
needed before you apply fertilizers,
and look for alternatives where
fertilizers might run off into surface
waters. Consider selecting plants
and grasses that have low mainte-
nance requirements. Water your
lawn conservatively. Preserve exist-
ing trees and plant new trees and
shrubs to help prevent erosion and
promote infiltration of water into
the soil. Restore bare patches in
your lawn to prevent erosion. If you
own or manage land through
which a stream flows, you may
wish to consult your local county
extension office about methods of
restoring stream banks in your area
by planting buffer strips of native
vegetation.
Around your house, keep litter,
pet waste, leaves, and grass clip-
pings out of gutters and storm
drains. Use the minimum amount
of water needed when you wash
your car. Never dispose of any
household, automotive, or garden-
ing wastes in a storm drain. Keep
your septic tank in good working
order.
Within your home, fix any
dripping faucets or leaky pipes and
install water-saving devices in
shower heads and toilets. Always
follow directions on labels for use
and disposal of household chemi-
cals. Take used motor oil, paints,
and other hazardous household
materials to proper disposal sites
such as approved service stations
or designated landfills.
Be Involved
As a citizen and a voter there is
much you can do at the community
level to help preserve and protect
our Nation's water resources. Look
around. Is soil erosion being con-
trolled at construction sites? Is the
community sewage plant being
operated efficiently and correctly?
Is the community trash dump in or
along a stream? Is road deicing salt
being stored properly?
Become involved in your com-
munity election processes. Listen
and respond to candidates' views
on water quality and environmental
issues. Many communities have
recycling programs; find out about
them, learn how to recycle, and vol-
unteer to help out if you can. One
of the most important things you
can do is find out how your
ES-47
-------
community protects water quality,
and speak out if you see problems.
Volunteer Monitoring:
You Can Become Part
of the Solution
In many areas of the country,
citizens are becoming personally -
involved in monitoring the quality
of our Nation's water. As a volunteer
monitor, you might be involved in
taking ongoing water quality mea-
surements, tracking the progress of
protection and restoration projects,
• or reporting special events, such as
fish kills and storm damage.
Volunteer monitoring can be of
great benefit to State and local gov-
ernments. Some States stretch their
monitoring budgets by using data
collected by volunteers, particularly
in remote areas that otherwise
might not be monitored at all.
Because you are familiar with the
water resources in your own
neighborhood, you are also more
likely to spot unusual occurrences
such as fish kills.
The benefits to you of becom-
ing a volunteer are also great. You
will learn about your local water
resources and have the opportunity
to become personally involved in a
nationwide campaign to protect a
vital, and mutually shared, resource.
If you would like to find out more
about organizing or joining
volunteer monitoring programs in
your State, contact your State
department of environmental
quality, or write to:
Alice Mayio
Volunteer Monitoring
Coordinator
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7018
For further information on
water quality in your State or other
jurisdiction, contact your Section
305(b) coordinator listed at the back
of this document. Additional water
quality information may be obtained
from the Regional offices of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(see inside back cover).
For Further Reading
EPA's Volunteer Monitoring Program.
EPA-841-F-95-001. February 1995.
Contains a brief description of EPA
activities to promote volunteer
monitoring.
Volunteer Monitoring. EPA-800-F-
93-008. September 1993. A brief
fact sheet about volunteer moni-
toring, including examples of how
volunteers have improved the
environment.
National Directory of Citizen Volun-
teer Environmental Monitoring
Programs, Fourth Edition. EPA-841 -
B-94-001. January 1994. Contains
information about 519 volunteer
monitoring programs across the
Nation.
Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A
Methods Manual. EPA-841-D-95-
001. 1995. Presents information
and methods for volunteer moni-
toring of streams.
Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A
Methods Manual. EPA-842-B-93-
004. December 1993. Presents
information and methods for vol-
unteer 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 monitoring
of lakes.
Many of these publications can
also be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/volunteer/
epasvmp.html.
ES-48
-------
Fish Consumption Advisories
• Statesjssue fish consumption
advisories to"protect the public- ,
from Ingesting harmful-quantities
of toxic pollutants in contaminated
fish and shellfish. Fish may accumu-
' late, dan,gerous quantities of ,pollut -
ants in their tissues by ingesting .
•many smaller organisms/each,con;,
taminated with a small quantity of
, pollutarjt; This process is called, -
bioaccumulation or bjomagnifica-
tion.. Pollutants also enter fish and.
shellfish tissues through the,gills of '
skin., " - '; < ' s \, -
- Fish consumption advisories - '
- recommend that the,public limit ,
the quantity and frequency of con- ;'
sumption of fish caught in specific •
Waterbodies. The States tailor irrdK -
vidual advisories to minimize health t
risks based on contaminant data~ ,s
collected in their fish tissue sam- -
plirig programs.' Advisories' may
- completely ban,fish consumptioruri
severely polluted waters, or limit >'
- fish consumption to several meals-
per month or year in 'cases of less ,
. seyere contamination. -Advisories ,
-- -may target-a subpopulation at risk' ^
••~- (such as children, pregriant women/
: and nursing mothers), specific fish-
species, or larger fish that may have
accumulated high concentrations-of
a pollutant over a longer lifetime
, than a,smaller, younger fish. - '
The EPA fish consumption'
advisory database tracks advisories"
< issued by States-^nd Tribes, For -"
1996, the database listed ,2;T96 fjsh'
consumption advisories in effect in
"47 States, the District of Colufnbia,
, and American Samoa: Fishxon- :'.
- gumption advisories are'unevenly -
't distributed among the States -
/ because'the States,use their owr)
< • criteria to determine If fish tissue,' ,.
- concentrations of toxics-pbse^a , /
health rislcthat justifies art .advisory^
- - States also vary the' arnount of.fisrj :
"" tissue monitoring they, cpnduct and
the number of pollutants analyzed.
• State's that conduct rnore'monitor-
•' irtg andiuse,strict criteria will>issue\
-7rnore advisories'than States'that - -.'
conduct less monitoring and use -'
weaker criteria>"Fof example,, 70% ,
-, of the advisories active -in 1996: '
, werelssued by the States surround- ^
ing the.Great Lakes, which support T
s extensive fish sampling programs>
* ; andt'follow" strict criteria forissuing
advisories.'. < -- " - >'
-- s Most of thexfish"consumption
, ' advisoriess(76%) ares due to. met-, -
, cury. The other pollutants mpst
commonly defected in elevated
concentrations in ffeh tissue samples '
a"re pbtychlopnaited biphenyls ' > '
.(PCBs), cnlordaqe, "dioxins, and
DDT '(with its. byproducts). -" - ^ I /"
'""',Many-coastal States repqrt'
restrictions'on shellfish harvestingJn.
estuarineswaters: Shellfish-particu- /
jarlyoysters,,cla~rns;"and:mussels-, li
are" filter-feeders that extract their <
food from water..Waterborne bacte-
ria and vjruses rhay also accumiflate -
on their gills and mantles,and in , -
their, digestive systems, -Shellfish
contaminated by these tnkroorga-
nisms'are a serious' human health ' •
concern,'particularly if consumed %
raw.*"•,"'• -~ \-^\y~~ -I, -, .
" - States eurrently,sample water '"'
•from shellfish harvesting areas,to ',-
measure indicator bacteria, such as0
total rolifbrrn and fe'cal coliform
bacteria." Th -
'waters during" the 1994-1996' * /
reporting'period. Fjve States
reported that nonpoint sources;
point sources,, urban runoff and
storm sewers,? municipal wastewater
treatme'nt facilities, marinas, septic-
tartks, and Industrial discharges.
. restricted shellfish harvesting. « -
ES-49
-------
-------
Parti
Introduction
-------
-------
Introduction
Purpose
The National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress is
the primary vehicle for informing
Congress and the public about
general water quality conditions in
the United States. This document
characterizes waters by their capac-
ity to meet water quality standards,
identifies widespread water quality
problems of national significance,
and describes various programs
implemented to restore and protect
our waters.
This document, the eleventh
in a series published since 1975,
satisfies reporting requirements in
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA), formally known as the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (Public Law
92-500). Section 305(b) requires
that States and other jurisdictions
survey the health of their surface
waters every 2 years and submit
biennial reports describing their
water quality conditions to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Section 305(b) also requires
that EPA summarize the reports
submitted by the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions and convey the
information to Congress biennially.
The National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress is a
compilation of information reported
by States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions. As such, this report identifies
water quality issues of concern
to the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions, not just the issues of
concern to EPA. This report summa-
rizes the water quality assessment
information submitted by 58 States,
American Indian Tribes,.Territories,
Interstate Water Commissions, and
the District of Columbia in their
1996 Section 305(b) reports. Most
of the survey information in the
1996 Section 305(b) reports is
based on water quality information
collected and evaluated during
1994 and 1995.
It is important to note that the
States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions do not use identical survey
methods and criteria to rate their
water quality. They favor flexibility
in the 305(b) process to accommo-
date natural variability in their
waters, but there is a trade-off
between flexibility and consistency.
Without consistent survey methods
in place, EPA cannot compare data
submitted by different States and
jurisdictions or determine the qual-
ity and accuracy of their data. Also,
EPA must use caution when com-
paring water quality information
submitted during different 305(b)
reporting periods because States
and other jurisdictions may modify
their criteria or survey different
waterbodies from one reporting
period to the next.
For more than 10 years, EPA
has pursued a balance between
flexibility and consistency in the
Section 305(b) process that could
generate data of known quality and
accuracy. Recent joint actions by
EPA, the States, Tribes, and other
-------
4 Chapter One Introduction
HIGB1IGH,
HT HIGHLIGHT
Relationship of Index
of Watershed Indicators
to the National Water
Quality Inventory
National Watershed Characterization
Watcnhcd Ctoisiffcatkm
C3 IctUfWitefQiality-lowVUnenbntty
•I IkltCfWV.Cf Quality-HighVjlncnb«ily
• UuScrfouiWWw Quality Problems -low Vulnerability
Ml leu SwtouiWltw Quality Probteros- High Vulnerability
mm Mere SBfotMWHH-Quality Probkmi- Low Vulnerability
•I Mort Stftoui V/jtcf Quality Probterra- High Vulnerability
O Dtii Sufficiency Threshold Not Met
The Index of Watershed Indi-
cators is a compilation of informa-
tion on the condition of aquatic
resources in the United States. Using
data from many sources, IWI maps
15 indicators on a watershed basis.
Together these indicators point to
whether these watersheds are
"healthy" and whether activities on
the surrounding lands are making
these waters more vulnerable to
pollution (see figure).
While this new assessment tool
is broader and more inclusive than
the National Water Quality Inven-
tory, State 305(b) assessment infor-
mation is the most important data
source in the IWI.
State
305(b) infor-
mation is
included as
one of the 15
indicator maps
in IWI as:
Assessed Rivers
Meeting All
Designated
Uses Set in
State/Tribal
Water Quality
Standards. The
IWI uses data
compiled on a
watershed
basis from a
number of
national
Index of Watershed
Indicators
http://www.epa.gov.suif
_
assessment programs from several
EPA programs, from USDA, NCAA,
USGS, the Corps of Engineers, and
the Nature Conservancy, and from
the States, Tribes and other jurisdic-
tions. Six other indicator maps show
EPA's rating of the condition of
watersheds; eight additional indica-
tor maps show EPA's rating of the
vulnerability of watersheds. Vulner-
ability factors include, for example,
the rate of population growth, the
potential of various forms of non-
point source pollution, and compli-
ance facility permits. Using this
approach, the IWI characterizes
nearly three-quarters of the 2,111
watersheds in the 48 contiguous
States.
The IWI was released in October
1997 and is updated periodically. In
October 1997, 16% of the water-
sheds had good water quality, 36%
had moderate water quality, 21 %
had more serious problems, and
sufficient data were lacking to fully
characterize the remaining 27%. In
addition, one in 14 watersheds in all
areas was vulnerable to further
degradation from pollution, primar-
ily from urban and rural runoff.
The IWI enables managers and
community residents to understand
and help protect the watershed
where they live. The information is
easily available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/surf/iwi.
-------
Chapter One Introduction 5
HiCHtlGH
The Water Cycle
The water cycle describes how
water moves through the environ-
ment and identifies the links
between ground water, surface
water, and the atmosphere (see
figure). For convenience, discussions
of the water cycle usually begin and
end in the atmosphere. Water in
the atmosphere condenses and falls
onto the earth in the form of rain or
snow. The rain or snow can contain
contaminants from air pollution.
The rain and snow may fall directly
onto surface waters, be intercepted
by plants or structures, or fall onto
the ground. Intercepted water
evaporates directly back into the
atmosphere or drips onto the
ground.
On the ground, rainfall and
melting snow percolate deeper into
the ground, saturating the soil and
recharging ground water aquifers.
Trees and other, plants take up
water in the upper soil zone
through their roots and return the
water to the atmosphere in a
process called transpiration. Ground
water below the root zone may
migrate many miles and emerge
(or discharge) into a distant surface
water.
When rainfall or melting snow
saturates soils, water runs off the
ground into surface waterbodies
(such as lakes, streams, wetlands,
and coastal waters). Runoff may
dislodge soil particles and pollutants
and carry them into surface water-
bodies. Surface waters may evapo-
rate back into the atmosphere,
percolate into the underlying
ground water, or flow into other
surface waters until reaching the
ocean. From the ocean, water
evaporates back into the atmos-
phere, completing the cycle.
/ Nonperennial ~
^_ Headwaters
-------
6 Chapter One Introduction
jurisdictions include implementing
the recommendations of the
National 305(b) Consistency Work-
group and the National Water
Quality Monitoring Council, revis-
ing EPA's Guidelines for Preparation
of the 305(b) Reports, and begin-
ning to implement monitoring rec-
ommendations in EPA's Section 106
604(b) Guidelines for States.
The 305(b) guidelines recom-
mend moving toward a goal of
comprehensively characterizing
waters of every State using a variety
of monitoring techniques targeted
to the condition of, and goals for,
the water. These actions will
improve coverage, consistency, and
accuracy in the Section 305(b)
data, which will enable States and
other jurisdictions to share data
across political boundaries as they
develop watershed protection
strategies. Also, States are asked to
transmit their waterbody-level
assessment data electronically to
EPA annually. States that choose to
report electronically will have the
option of preparing abbreviated
biennial hardcopy 305(b) reports.
EPA will use the annual electronic
updates and the hardcopy reports
to prepare the biennial National
Water Quality Inventory Report to
Congress.
The Section 305(b) informa-
tion, which focuses on attainment
of water quality standards adopted
by States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions, complements the water
quality data contained in the
National Water Summary 1990-91
— Hydrologic Events and Stream
Water Quality, in which the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) applied
statistical analysis methods to a
nationally consistent water data-
base. Congress, EPA, and the public
can use the summary information
in this report and the National
Water Summary to develop nation-
al goals and strategies for restoring
and protecting our waters.
EPA recognizes that national
initiatives alone cannot clean up
our waters; water quality protection
and restoration must happen at the
local watershed level, in conjunc-
tion with State and Federal activi-
ties. Similarly, this document alone
cannot provide the detailed infor-
mation needed to manage water
quality at all levels. This document
should be used together with the
individual State Section 305(b)
reports (see the inside back cover
for information on obtaining these
reports), watershed management
plans, and other local documents
to develop integrated water quality
management options.
Background
Integrated water quality man-
agement begins with a basic under-
standing of how water moves
through the environment, comes
into contact with pollutants, and
transports and deposits pollutants.
The water cycle depicted on page 5
illustrates the general links between
the atmosphere, soil, surface
waters, ground waters, and plants.
Additional links between surface
waters and ground waters are
described below.
Rivers and
Streams
Rivers and streams
are characterized by flow. Perennial
rivers and streams flow continuous-
ly, all year round. Nonperennial
-------
Chapter One Introduction 7
or ephemeral rivers and streams
stop flowing for some period of
time, usually due to dry conditions
or upstream withdrawals. Many
rivers and streams originate in
nonperennial headwaters that flow
only during snowmelt or heavy
showers. Nonperennial streams
provide critical habitats for nonfish
species, such as amphibians and
dragonflies, as well as safe havens
for juvenile fish to escape from pre-
dation by larger fish. (See note on
page 27 regarding the national esti-
mate of total stream miles almost
doubling from 1.8 million miles in
1990 to more than 3.6 million
miles in 1994.)
The health of rivers and streams
is directly linked to habitat integrity
on shore and in adjacent wetlands.
Stream quality will deteriorate if
activities damage shoreline (i.e.,
riparian) and wetlands vegetation,
which filters pollutants from runoff
and binds soils. Removal of vegeta-
tion also eliminates shade that
moderates stream temperature as
well as the land temperature that
can warm runoff entering surface
waters. Stream temperature, in
turn, affects the availability of dis-
solved oxygen in the water column
for fish and other aquatic organ-
isms.
Lakes,
Reservoirs,
and Ponds
Lakes, reservoirs, and ponds are
depressions that hold water for
extended periods of time. These
waterbodies may receive water
carrying pollutants from rivers and
streams, melting snow, runoff, or
ground water discharge areas.
Lakes may also receive pollution
directly from the air.
Pollutants become trapped in
lakes, reservoirs, and ponds because
water exits these waterbodies at a
slow rate. Therefore, they are
especially vulnerable to additional
inputs of pollutants from human
activities in lake watersheds. Even
under natural conditions, sediment,
nutrients, and organic materials
accumulate in lakes and ponds as
part of a natural aging process
called eutrophication. Unnatural
sources of nutrients (such as point
source discharges and agricultural
runoff) overload lake systems and
accelerate eutrophication. Algae
blooms, depressed oxygen concen-
trations, and aquatic weeds are
symptoms of cultural eutrophica-
tion from unnatural sources of
nutrients.
The Great
Lakes
The Great Lakes -
Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie,
and Ontario - are the largest sys-
tem of fresh surface water on earth,
by area. They contain approximate-
ly 18% of the world's fresh water
supply. The Great Lakes basin is
currently home to one-tenth of the
population in the United States and
one-quarter of the population of
Canada.
Despite their large size, the
Great Lakes are sensitive to the
effects of a broad range of contam-
inants that enter the Lakes from
polluted air, ground water, surface
water, and overland runoff. Even
dilute quantities of toxic chemicals
can have adverse effects on water
quality in the Great Lakes because
many toxic chemicals persist in the
-------
8 Chapter One Introduction
environment and concentrate in
organisms, including fish.
Overall, scientists estimate that
atmospheric deposition contributes
35% to 50% of current annual
inputs of a variety of chemicals
entering the Great Lakes. In wet
deposition, precipitation events
(such as rain or snow) remove pol-
lutants from the atmosphere. Dry
deposition occurs when particles
settle out of the air directly on a
lake surface or within the extensive
land basin draining into a lake. It is
difficult to manage atmospheric
sources of pollutants entering the
Great Lakes because these pollut-
ants may originate in the Great
Lakes basin or hundreds of miles
away.
For Lake Superior, the largest of
the Great Lakes, available data indi-
cate that volatilization (i.e., evapo-
ration) and other processes remove
far greater quantities of polychlori-
nated biphenyls (RGBs) than are
introduced to it from atmospheric
deposition and river inflow com-
bined. Atmospheric deposition,
nevertheless, is the largest source of
new RGBs to the lake system and
serves to significantly retard the
RGB stripping process. Meanwhile,
contributions from the reservoir of
already contaminated sediments
remains the overwhelming source
of total RGBs to the water column
and biota.
Estuaries
Rivers meet the
oceans in coastal
waters .called estuaries. Estuarine
waters include bays and tidal rivers
that serve as nursery areas for many
commercial fish and most shellfish
populations, including shrimp,
oysters, crabs, and scallops. Most
of our Nation's fish and shellfish
industry relies on productive estuar-
ine waters and their adjacent wet-
lands to provide healthy habitat for
some stage of fish and shellfish
development. Recreational anglers
also enjoy harvesting fish that
reproduce or feed in estuaries, such
as striped bass and flounder.
Pollutants from both local and
distant sources tend to accumulate
in estuaries. Most pollutants that
enter rivers migrate toward the
coast. As rivers approach the coast,
their mouths broaden and flow
decreases. The low flow and fluctu-
ating tides, typical of estuarine
waters, reduce flushing and trap
nutrients and pollutants in estuarine
waters. This natural trapping
process lays the foundation for rich
estuarine ecosystems but also
makes estuaries vulnerable to over-
loading of nutrients and pollutants.
Historic development patterns
have amplified natural trapping
functions and overloaded estuaries
on all our coasts. Historically, indus-
trial development and population
centers have clustered around estu-
arine bays with access to shipping
and an adjacent waterbody for
waste disposal. Now, many coastal
cities must address contaminated
sediments and develop alternative
disposal systems for their outdated
combined sewer systems.
Wetlands
In general, wet-
lands are a transi-
tion zone between land and water
where the soil is occasionally or
permanently saturated with water.
Wetlands are populated by plants
that are specially adapted to grow
in standing water or saturated soils.
There are many different types of
wetlands, including marshes, bogs,
_
-------
Chapter One Introduction 9
fens, swamps, mangroves, prairie
potholes, and bottomland hard-
wood forests. Wetlands may not
always appear to be wet. Many
wetlands dry out for extended
periods of time. Other wetlands
may appear dry on the surface but
may be saturated underneath.
Saltwater wetlands fringe estu-
aries; freshwater wetlands border
rivers, lakes, and the Great Lakes or
occur in isolation. In general, wet-
lands improve water quality, pro-
vide critical habitat for a wide vari-
ety of fish and wildlife, provide stor-
age for flood waters, and stabilize
shorelines. Wetlands filter sediment
and nutrients (from both natural
and unnatural sources) out of the
water before they enter adjacent
waterbodies and underlying ground
water aquifers. Wetlands also pro-
vide storage for floodwaters and
reduce the velocity of overland
runoff. Reduced velocity translates
into less damage from flood waters.
Wetlands can be physically
destroyed by filling, draining, and
dewatering, or wetlands can be
damaged by the same pollutants
that degrade other waterbodies,
such as toxic chemicals and
oxygen-demanding substances.
Ocean
Shoreline
Waters
Our ocean shoreline waters
provide critical habitat for various
life stages of commercial fish and
shellfish (such as shrimp), provide
habitat for endangered species
(such as sea turtles), and support
popular recreational activities,
including sport fishing and swim-
ming. Despite their vast size and
volume, oceans are vulnerable to
impacts from pollutants, especially
in nearshore waters that receive
inputs from adjoining waterbodies,
ground water seeps, and land
surfaces. Beach closures due to ele-
vated bacterial concentrations are
one of the most visible symptoms
of water quality degradation in
ocean shoreline waters resulting
from activities onshore. Wastes dis-
posed of offshore may also impact
nearshore waters. Oil spills from
tankers or offshore extraction facili-
ties can generate persistent adverse
impacts on ocean shoreline waters.
Ground
Water
Beneath the land's
surface, water resides in two gen-
eral zones, the saturated zone and
the unsaturated zone (Figure 1-1).
The unsaturated zone lies directly
beneath the land surface, where air
and water fill in the pore spaces
between soil and rock particles.
Water saturates the pore spaces in
the saturated zone beneath the
unsaturated zone in most cases.
Figure 1-1
Ground Water
-------
10 Chapter One Introduction
The Clean Water Act of 1972
... it is the national goal
that, wherever attainable,
an interim goal of water
quality which provides for
the protection and propaga-
tion offish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the
water...
The term "ground water" applies to
water in the saturated zone. This
water is an important natural
resource and is used for myriad
purposes including drinking water,
irrigation, and livestock uses.
Surface water replenishes (or
recharges) ground water by perco-
lating through the unsaturated
zone. Therefore, the unsaturated
zone plays an important role in
ground water hydrology and may
act as a pathway for ground water
contamination.
Ground water can move lateral-
ly and emerge at discharge sites,
such as springs on hillsides or seeps
in the bottoms of streams, lakes,
wetlands, and oceans. Therefore,
ground water affects surface water
quantity and quality because pol-
luted ground water can contami-
nate surface waters. Conversely,
some surface waters, such as wet-
lands, contain flood waters and
replenish ground waters. Loss of
wetlands reduces ground water
recharge.
The Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) still
guides Federal, State, and some
Tribal water pollution control pro-
grams 25 years after its enactment
by Congress. In 1972, the CWA
launched a national objective to
"restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of
the Nation's waters." The Act set
two goals to achieve this objective:
• Eliminate the discharge of pollut-
ants into navigable waters by 1985
• Achieve an interim water quality
level that protects and propagates
fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
supports recreation in and on the
water, where attainable.
As it became evident that the
Nation could not eliminate pollut-
ant discharges by 1985, Congress
amended the CWA to stress achiev-
ing the interim water quality levels,
which came to be known as "the
fishable and swimmable goals of
the Act."
EPA measures national progress
in achieving the CWA interim water
quality levels by summarizing
attainment of State and Tribal water
quality standards. Water quality
standards consist of designated
beneficial uses, numeric and narra-
tive criteria sufficient to protect
each use, and an antidegradation
statement:
• Designated beneficial uses are
the desirable uses that water quality
should support. Examples are drink-
ing water supply, primary contact
recreation (such as swimming), and
aquatic life support. Each desig-
nated use has a unique set of water
quality requirements or criteria that
must be met for the use to be real-
ized. States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions may designate an individ-
ual waterbody for multiple benefi-
cial uses.
• Numeric water quality criteria
establish the minimum physical,
chemical, and biological parameters
required to support a beneficial use.
Physical and chemical numeric
criteria may set maximum concen-
trations of pollutants, acceptable
ranges of physical parameters
such as flow, and minimum con-
centrations of desirable parameters
such as dissolved oxygen. Numeric
biological criteria describe the
expected attainable community
attributes and establish values
-------
Chapter One Introduction 11
based on measures such as species
richness, presence or absence of
indicator taxa, and distribution of
classes of organisms.
• Narrative water quality criteria
define, rather than quantify, condi-
tions and attainable goals that must
be maintained to support a desig-
nated use. Narrative biological crite-
ria establish a positive statement
about aquatic community charac-
teristics expected to occur within a
waterbody. For example, "Aquatic
life shall be as it naturally occurs,"
or "Ambient water quality shall be
sufficient to support life stages of all
indigenous aquatic species."
Narrative criteria may also describe
conditions that are desired in a
waterbody, such as, "Waters must
be free of substances that are toxic
to humans, aquatic life, and
wildlife."
• Antidegradation statements,
where possible, protect existing
uses and prevent waterbodies from
deteriorating even if their water
quality is better than the fishable
and swimmable goals of the Act.
The CWA allows States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions to set their
own standards but requires that all
beneficial uses and their criteria
comply with the goals of the Act.
At a minimum, beneficial uses must
provide for "the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife" and provide for "recreation
in and on the water" (i.e., the fish-
able and swimmable goals of the
Act), where attainable. The Act pro-
hibits States and other jurisdictions
from designating waste transport or
waste assimilation as a beneficial
use, as some States did prior to
1972.
Survey
Methodology
Section 305(b) of the CWA
requires that the States biennially
survey their water quality for attain-
ment of the fishable and swimma-
ble goals of the Act and report the
results to EPA. The States, partic-
ipating Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions measure attainment of the
CWA goals by determining how
well their waters support their des-
ignated beneficial uses. EPA encour-
ages States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions to survey waterbodies for
support of the following individual
beneficial uses:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody
provides suitable habitat for protec-
tion and propagation of desirable
fish, shellfish, and other aquatic
organisms.
Fish Consumption
The waterbody
supports fish free
from contamination that could
pose a human health risk to
Shellfish
Harvesting
The waterbody
supports a population of shellfish
free from toxicants and pathogens
that could pose a human health risk
to consumers.
Water quality standards
consist of:
• Designated beneficial uses
• Numeric criteria for
biological, chemical, and
physical parameters
• Narrative criteria for
biological, chemical, and
physical parameters
• Antidegradation policy
-------
12 Chapter One Introduction
Drinking Water
Supply
can supply safe drinking water with
conventional treatment.
Primary Contact
Recreation -
Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
waterborne diseases from raw
sewage contamination).
SAMPLE
Little River
Little River is designated for aquatic life use
and primary contact recreation. The State
examines dissolved oxygen data and notes
that 15% of the samples contain dissolved
oxygen concentrations below the aquatic life
use criterion of 5 parts per million (ppm).
Bacterial indicators do not exceed the contact recreation
criterion. Therefore, the waterbody partially supports aquatic
life use and fully supports contact recreation use. The water-
body is impaired for summary use support.
SAMPLE
Turkey Lake
Turkey Lake is also designated for aquatic life use and
primary contact recreation. However, the State has
never sampled chemical and physical parameters, such
as dissolved oxygen, in the lake. The State
did perform a biological survey of the lake
and noted the presence of desirable fish spe-
cfes and insect larvae. The survey also revealed a probable
source of sewage contamination upstream. The lake
appears to fully support aquatic life use but may only
partially support contact recreation use due to sewage
contamination. The waterbody is impaired for summary use
support.
Secondary
Contact
Recreation
People can perform activities on the
water (such as boating) without risk
of adverse human health effects
from ingestion or contact with the
The water quality is
suitable for irrigat-
ing fields or watering livestock.
States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions may also define their own
individual uses to address special
concerns. For example, many Tribes
and States designate their waters
for the following beneficial uses:
Ground Water
Recharge
The surface water-
body plays a significant role in
replenishing ground water, and sur
face water supply and quality are
adequate to protect existing or
potential uses of ground water.
Wildlife Habitat
Water quality sup-
ports the water-
body's role in providing habitat and
resources for land-based wildlife as
well as aquatic life.
Tribes may designate their
waters for special cultural and cere-
monial uses:
-------
Chapter One Introduction 13
Culture
Water quality sup-
ports the waterbody's role in Tribal
culture and preserves the water-
body's religious, ceremonial, or sub-
sistence significance (see highlight).
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions assign levels of use
support to each of their water-
bodies (Table 1-1). If possible, the
States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions determine the level of use
support by comparing monitoring
data with numeric criteria for each
use designated for a particular
waterbody. If monitoring data are
not available, the State, Tribe, or
other jurisdiction may determine
the level of use support with quali-
tative information. Valid qualitative
information includes land use data,
fish and game surveys, and predic-
tive model results. Monitored
assessments are based on recent
monitoring data collected during
the past 5 years. Evaluated assess-
ments are based on qualitative
information or monitored informa-
tion more than 5 years old.
Summary of Use
Support
For waterbodies with more
than one designated use, the
States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions consolidate the individual use
support information into a sum-
mary use support determination:
Good/Fully Supporting
All Uses - All designated
beneficial uses are fully
supported.
Good/Threatened for
One or More Uses -
One or more designated
beneficial uses are
threatened and the remaining uses
are fully supported.
Impaired for One or
More Uses - One or
more designated bene-
ficial uses are impaired
and the remaining uses are fully
supported or threatened.
Not Attainable - The
State, Tribe, or other
jurisdiction has per-
formed a use-attainabil-
ity analysis and demonstrated that
use support of one or more desig-
nated beneficial uses is not attain-
able due to one of six biological,
chemical, physical, or economic/
Tabli 1-1. Levels of. Summary Use Support
Symbol
£?
^
fi
u
Use Support Level
Fully Supporting
All Uses
Threatened for One
or More Uses
Impaired for One
or More Uses
Not Attainable
Water Qualify
Condition
Good
Good
Impaired
Definition
Water quality meets
designated use criteria.
Water quality supports
beneficial uses now
but may not in the future
unless action is taken.
Water quality fails to meet
designated use criteria at times.
The State, Tribe, or other
jurisdiction has performed a
use-attainability analysis and
demonstrated that use support
is not attainable due to one of
six biological, chemical, physical,
or economic/social conditions
specified in the Code of federal
Regulations.
-------
14 Chapter One Introduction
social conditions specified in the
Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR
Section 131.10). These conditions
include naturally high concentra-
tions of pollutants (such as metals);
other natural physical features that
create unsuitable aquatic life habitat
(such as inadequate substrate,
riffles, or pools); low flows or water
levels; dams and other hydrologic
modifications that permanently
alter waterbody characteristics;
poor water quality resulting from
human activities that cannot be
reversed without causing further
environmental degradation; and
poor water quality that cannot be
improved without imposing more
stringent controls than those
required in the CWA that would
result in widespread economic and
social impacts.
• Impaired Waters - Waterbodies
either partially supporting uses or
not supporting uses.
Total Surveyed
Waters
Most States do not assess all of
their waterbodies during the 2-year
reporting cycle required under
CWA Section 305(b). Thus, the sur-
veyed waters reported in Figure 1 -2
are a subset of the Nation's total
waters. In addition, the summary
information based on surveyed
waters may not represent general
conditions in the Nation's total
waters because States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions often focus on
surveying major perennial rivers,
estuaries, and public lakes with
suspected pollution problems in
order to direct scarce resources to
areas that could pose the greatest
risk. Many States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions lack the resources to
collect use support information for
nonperennial streams, small tribu-
taries, and private ponds. This
report does not predict the health
of these unassessed waters, which
include an unknown ratio of waters
meeting standards to polluted
waters.
Pollutants That
Degrade Water
Quality and Sources
of Impairment
Where possible, States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions identify the
pollutants causing water quality
impairments and the sources of
pollutants degrading their water-
bodies. Causes of impairment are
pollutants or processes that violate
numeric or narrative use support
criteria. Causes of impairment
include chemical contaminants
(such as PCBs, dioxins, and metals),
physical parameters (such as tem-
perature), and biological param-
eters (such as aquatic weeds) (see
highlight on page 16).
Sources of impairment generate
the pollutants that violate use
support criteria (Table 1 -2). Point
sources discharge pollutants directly
into surface waters from a convey-
ance. Point sources include industri-
al facilities, municipal sewage treat-
ment plants, and combined sewer
overflows. Nonpoint sources deliver
pollutants to surface waters from
diffuse origins. Nonpoint sources
include urban runoff, agricultural
runoff, and atmospheric deposition
-------
Chapter One Introduction 15
of contaminants in air pollution.
Habitat alterations, such as hydro-
modification, dredging, and
streambank destabilization, can also
degrade water quality.
Throughout this document, EPA
rates the significance of causes and
sources of pollution by the percent-
age of surveyed waters impaired by
each individual cause or source
(obtained from the Section 305(b)
reports submitted by the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions).
Note that the cause and source
rankings do not describe the condi-
tion of all waters in the United
States because the States identify
the causes and sources degrading
some of their impaired waters,
which are a small subset of
surveyed waters, which, in turn, are
a subset of the Nation's total
waters. For example, the States
identified sources degrading some
of the 248,028 impaired river miles,
which represent 36% of the sur-
veyed river miles and only 7% of
the Nation's total stream miles.
Source: 1996 Section 305(b) reports
submitted by the States, Tribes,
Territories, and Commissions.
a Excluding estuarine waters in Alaska
because no estimate was available.
Table 1-2. Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report ';£ ,^,1*1,:^ Ii.^^^ ..-•', " 1
Category
Industrial
Municipal
Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSOs)
Storm Sewers/
Urban Runoff
Agricultural
Silvicultural
Construction
Resource
Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydrologic
Modification
Habitat
Modification
Examples
Pulp and paper mills, chemical manufacturers, steel plants, metal process
and product manufacturers, textile manufacturers, food processing plants
Publicly owned sewage treatment plants that may receive indirect
discharges from industrial facilities or businesses
Single facilities that treat both storm water and sanitary sewage, which
may become overloaded during storm events and discharge untreated
wastes into surface waters.
Runoff from impervious surfaces including streets, parking lots, buildings,
and other paved areas.
Crop production, pastures, rangeland, feedlots, animal operations
Forest management, tree harvesting, logging road construction
Land development, road construction
Mining, petroleum drilling, runoff from mine tailing sites
Leachate or discharge from septic tanks, landfills, and hazardous waste
sites
Channelization, dredging, dam construction, flow regulation
Removal of riparian vegetation, streambank modification, drainage/
filling of wetlands
Figure 1-2
Percentage of Total Waters Surveyed
for the 1996 Report
Rivers and Streams
Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs
Estuaries
Ocean Shoreline
Waters
Great Lakes
Shoreline
• 693,905 -19% surveyed (53% of perennial miles)
3 Total perennial miles: 1,306,121
• Total miles: 3,634,152
16,819,769 - 40% surveyed
Total acres: 41,684,902
28,819-72% surveyed
Total square miles: 39,839a
3,651 - 6% surveyed
Total miles: 58,585 miles, including Alaska's
36,000 miles of shoreline
5,186 - 94% surveyed
Total miles: 5,521
-------
16 Chapter One Introduction
!: i
H1GHL|G
HT HIGHLIGHT
Pollutants and Processes
That Damage Water Quality
This highlight describes indi-
vidual pollutants and processes
separately. In reality, water quality
usually suffers from the combined
effects of several pollutants and
processes. EPA encourages water
quality managers and the public to
use a holistic approach to managing
our integrated water quality prob-
lems.
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Dissolved oxygen is a basic
requirement for a healthy aquatic
ecosystem. Most fish and beneficial
aquatic insects "breathe" oxygen
dissolved in the water column.
Some fish and aquatic organisms
(such as carp and sludge worms)
are adapted to low oxygen condi-
tions, but most desirable fish species
(such as trout and salmon) suffer if
dissolved oxygen concentrations fall
below 3 to 4 mg/L (3 to 4 milli-
grams of oxygen dissolved in 1 liter
of water, or 3 to 4 parts of oxygen
per million parts of water). Larvae
and juvenile fish are more sensitive
and require even higher concentra-
tions of dissolved oxygen, ranging
from 5 to 8 mg/L.
Many fish and other aquatic
organisms can recover from short
periods of low dissolved oxygen
availability. However, prolonged
episodes of depressed dissolved
oxygen concentrations of 2 mg/L
or less can result in "dead" water-
bodies. Prolonged exposure to low
dissolved oxygen conditions can
suffocate adult fish or reduce their
reproductive survival by suffocating
sensitive eggs and larvae or can
starve fish by killing aquatic insect
larvae and other prey. Low dissolved
oxygen concentrations also favor
anaerobic bacterial activity that
produces noxious gases or foul
odors often associated with polluted
waterbodies.
Oxygen concentrations in the
water column fluctuate under natu-
ral conditions, but severe oxygen
depletion usually results from
human activities that introduce
large quantities of biodegradable
organic materials into surface
waters. Biodegradable organic
materials contain plant, fish, or
animal matter. Leaves, lawn clip-
pings, sewage, manure, shellfish
processing waste, milk solids, and
other food processing wastes are
examples of biodegradable organic
materials that enter our surface
waters.
In both pristine and polluted
waters, beneficial bacteria use oxy-
gen to break apart (or decompose)
organic materials. Pollution-contain-
ing organic wastes provide a contin-
uous glut of food for the bacteria,
which accelerates bacterial activity
and population growth. In polluted
waters, bacterial consumption of
oxygen can rapidly outpace oxygen
-------
Chapter One Introduction 17
- 'c -.-, "'-" ' '*"**• .', 7~~ •>'"'' s"; '-," -~°"
!>; C^V^:"V.v:"-:S':
replenishment from the atmosphere
and photosynthesis performed by
algae and aquatic plants. The result
is a net decline in oxygen concen-
trations in the water.
Often, water quality managers
measure the biochemical oxygen
demand (or BOD) of pollution or
natural organic materials in water.
BOD is a measure of how much
oxygen is consumed during the
degradation of organic matter and
the oxidation of some inorganic
matter. Toxic pollutants can indi-
rectly elevate BOD by killing algae,
aquatic weeds, or fish, which
provides an abundance of food for
oxygen-consuming bacteria.
Oxygen depletion can also result
from chemical reactions that do not
involve bacteria. Some pollutants
trigger chemical reactions that place
a chemical oxygen demand on
receiving waters.
Other factors, such as tempera-
ture and salinity, influence the
amount of oxygen dissolved in
water. Prolonged hot weather will
depress oxygen concentrations and
may cause fish kills even in clean
waters because warm water cannot
hold as much oxygen as cold water.
Warm conditions further aggravate
oxygen depletion by stimulating
bacterial activity and respiration in
fish, which consumes oxygen.
Removal of streamside vegetation
eliminates shade, thereby raising
water temperatures, and accelerates
runoff of organic debris. Under such
conditions, minor additions of pollu-
tion-containing organic materials
can severely deplete oxygen.
Nutrients
Nutrients are essential building
blocks for healthy aquatic communi-
ties, but excess nutrients (especially
nitrogen and phosphorus com-
pounds) overstimulate the growth
of aquatic weeds and algae. Exces-
sive growth of these organisms, in
turn, can clog navigable waters,
interfere with swimming and boat-
ing, outcompete native submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV), and, with
excessive decomposition, lead to
oxygen depletion. Oxygen concen-
trations can fluctuate daily during
algae blooms, rising during the day
as algae perform photosynthesis,
and falling at night as algae contin-
ue to respire, which consumes
oxygen. Beneficial bacteria also
consume oxygen as they decom-
pose the abundant organic food
supply in dying algae cells.
Lawn and crop fertilizers,
sewage, manure, and detergents
contain nitrogen and phosphorus,
the nutrients most often responsible
for water quality degradation. Rural
areas are vulnerable to ground
water contamination from nitrates
(a compound containing nitrogen)
found in fertilizer and manure.
Very high concentrations of nitrate
.',""'' '"• , * ,, f^ ' ',, J
"G" ";^ *-'•>' /'""- ^1\(:'-
"- > - '- - * , '-',T''2'~/ , "
!~ ^A'X;'/^ ,/ V;**': 'fi ,
:%X~V--::--/:/^"'A':
-\: - \r :; -;:'-: -. C V1::
' f s /"<. "* ^ V{ *fc ' 0* '
-: ' " e ~ , •' - ' . , j I ,
\'^:\'^\''^\]^- :^^";/
' /'"^ • :>^.''- /" / ,'%
-------
18 Chapter One Introduction
HIGHLIGHff |-| |]JGHT HIGHLIGHT , <••*•*<•'', *•'"• ,€
,
(>1 0 mg/L) in drinking water cause
methemoglobinemia, or blue baby
syndrome, an inability to fix oxygen
in the blood.
Nutrients are difficult to control
because lake and estuarine ecosys-
tems recycle nutrients. Rather than
leaving the ecosystem, the nutrients
cycle among the water column,
algae and plant tissues, and the
bottom sediments. For example,
algae may temporarily remove all
the nitrogen from the water col-
umn, but the nutrients will return to
the water column when the algae
die and are decomposed by bacte-
ria. Therefore, gradual inputs of
nutrients tend to accumulate over
time rather than leave the system.
Sedimentation
and Siltation
In a water quality context, sedi-
i J '
ment usually refers to soil particles
that enter the water column from
eroding land. Sediment consists of
particles of all sizes, including fine
clay particles, silt, sand, and gravel.
Water quality managers use the
term "siltation" to describe the
suspension and deposition of small
sediment particles in waterbodies.
i
Sedimentation and siltation can
severely alter aquatic communities.
Sedimentation may clog and abrade
J ^
fish gills, suffocate eggs and aquatic
insect larvae on the bottom, and fill
in the pore space between bottom
i i
cobbles where fish lay eggs.
J ~J~.J
Suspended silt and sediment inter-
~
fere with recreational activities and
aesthetic enjoyment at waterbodies
by reducing water clarity and filling
in waterbodies. Sediment may also
carry other pollutants into water-
bodies. Nutrients and toxic chemi-
cals may attach to sediment parti-
cles on land and ride the particles
into surface waters where the
pollutants may settle with the
sediment or detach and become
soluble in the water column.
Rain washes silt and other soil
particles off of plowed fields, con-
struction sites, logging sites, urban
areas, and strip-mined lands into
waterbodies. Eroding streambanks
also deposit silt and sediment in
waterbodies. Removal of vegetation
on shore can accelerate streambank
erosion.
Bacteria and Pathogens
•m^
Some waterborne bacteria,
viruses, and protozoa cause human
illnesses that range from typhoid
and dysentery to minor respiratory
and skin diseases. These organisms
may enter waters through a number
of routes, including inadequately
treated sewage, storm water drains,
septic systems, runoff from livestock
pens, and sewage dumped over-
board from recreational boats.
Because it is impossible to test
waters for every possible disease-
causing organism, States and other
jurisdictions usually measure indica-
tor bacteria that are found in great
numbers in the stomachs and
intestines of warm-blooded animals
and people. The presence of indica-
tor bacteria suggests that the water-
body may be contaminated with
untreated sewage and that other,
more dangerous, organisms may be
" ! *^'"'' ' ',"'»'„ ' i'*** ~ < } ^S>'G '
-------
Chapter One Introduction 19
f *^~«^~.™f
- . ' ' ._<•' V ' '\ •' '- '"*/ '-
present. The States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions use bacterial
criteria to determine if waters are
safe for recreation and shellfish
harvesting.
Toxic Organic Chemicals
and Metals
Toxic organic chemicals are
synthetic compounds that contain
carbon, such as PCBs, dioxins, and
DDT. These synthesized compounds
often persist and accumulate in the
environment because they do not
readily break down in natural eco-
systems. Many of these compounds
cause cancer in people and birth
defects in other predators near the
top of the food chain, such as birds
and fish.
Metals occur naturally in the
environment, but human activities
(such as industrial processes and
mining) have altered the distribu-
tion of metals in the environment.
In most reported cases of metals
contamination, high concentrations
of metals appear in fish tissues
rather than the water column
because the metals accumulate in
greater concentrations in predators
near the top of the food chain.
PH
Acidity, the concentration of
hydrogen ions, drives many chemi-
cal reactions in living organisms.
The standard measure of acidity is
pH, and a pH value of 7 represents
a neutral condition. A low pH value
(less than 5) indicates acidic condi-
tions; a high pH (greater than 9)
* "^ > < ' ' ,
<- ' ' ; < ' ,^ ^ " ,
~ ' •* ^ ' ^ t ^ *',. 1 u ~' * '
\- O \ '
indicates alkaline conditions. Many
biological processes, such as repro-
duction, cannot function in acidic or
alkaline waters. Acidic conditions
also aggravate toxic contamination
problems because sediments release
toxicants in acidic waters. Common
sources of acidity include mine
drainage, runoff from mine tailings,
and atmospheric deposition.
Habitat Modification/
Hydrologic Modification
Habitat modifications include
activities in the landscape, on shore,
and in waterbodies that alter the
physical structure of aquatic ecosys-
tems and have adverse impacts on
aquatic life. Examples of habitat
modifications to streams include:
• Removal of streamside vegetation
that stabilizes the shoreline and
provides shade, which moderates
instream temperatures
• Excavation of cobbles from a
stream bed that provide nesting
habitat for fish
• Burying streams
• Excessive development sprawl
that alters the natural drainage pat-
terns by increasing the intensity,
magnitude, and energy of runoff
waters.
Hydrologic modifications alter
the flow of water. Examples of
hydrologic modifications include
channelization, dewatering,
damming, and dredging.
*- ^ - ' ^ ' * <
" •• '^ *
tilGj-jLIGH/ I— 1 11 GHT HIGHLIGHT
s>'''-S''Vv' *7J-: ~~ ' s **
"- - ^<^^V ' ':; : -
,. " f " f
~ , * " ' i
f ^ t N «
v ^ ^ „ 4 1
' "~ ^ $ 1 ' 4 ~
S^ v, ^ / * ' * ^
" •" "^ ' "
""• ^ f " < ^ ^ '
J ' > > *
: '- ,-'"'>••
" ",. -'/ -. • ' " "•" ~ " ' ""
s ' ^ -'<'-'' .' "?s , >
, . - . , , • '- f - / ' ^ _:
' / , ' " ' • < '•
'< , ' •.' : '~i ' .
' " f " < " ^ ^ ?
'*~ --, <^ j , N '
f> ' ' f *
,, „ \<:'/;-' . ' .', ,' ..; .1 '
, ^ ' (
'„ A, iCv "ifeX ™ < „ ' ' f '
^ \ " j ,. ~ ' *
' - J ' _,
< - '' , - ' >
<" S " ' -^ ~ s ' ' <
f -^ ? ' ^
^<. ^v" " f \N ' f
',*'-,< ' ''* '-
^»r ' if ~~ ^ t "*• " ' '
^ , 1 \ < N ' "
' . } " •
•> ] ^' , - <. ^ -f
''')'' ^ t ^ /
' ^ * *•
- " - \ : * s . "
111
-------
20 Chapter One Introduction
HIGHPGHffU IjteHT HIGHLIGHT
! ^ ,,
• ' " "I..,,:, , ,'
'",''
1 * ' ' '"'
,;,; h
,;;;;";";::, , , ,; ,
„ „ , ^
Ii ill ' ' .1 v ." ill!,'!!! |l , , >',, • ' . nlfliMliiniil'1 :• . '• :..i|||ir ''iii'1*'!!' "i HI Hi' n II I1
IPP 1 *
II I 11 i i I ii in I mill ill ! ii IIP ni II !| II .•
1 1 ll i 1 III 1 if 1 II III li 1 III Mill 1 IlllllllllllWJ
ill1!1 lull i i In1 '1 i i ' 'tifl WMV My
| ll I 1 9 l| I [ PIT If
,1
1 , , , 1
1
,
n M I 1 h|
1 H * !
i , , ;
i i HI 11 i i i ii n 1 1 n nil nun i n ill i n 1 1 in 11 nn
lf ' V" * 'V
ii ii i i mi. I i l * " *"
m mi T||
U 1 II
1 T w
Suspended Solids
and Turbidity
Suspended solids are a measure
of the weight of relatively insoluble
materials in the ambient water.
These materials enter the water
column as soil particles from land
surfaces or sand, silt, and clay from
stream bank erosion or channel
scour. Suspended solids can include
both organic (detritus and biosolids)
and inorganic (sand or finer col-
loids) constituents. Under low flow
conditions, excessively high sus-
pended solids can become siltation
problems as the materials settle out
and impact the substrate on rivers
or fill in reservoirs or the upper ends
of estuaries.
Turbidity is an optical property
of very small particles that scatter
light and reduce clarity in waterbod-
ies. While algal blooms can make
waters turbid, turbidity is usually
related to the smaller inorganic
components of the suspended solids
burden, primarily the clay particles.
In addition to creating aesthetically
undesirable conditions, turbidity
helps trap heat. This can become a
problem in cold water trout streams
where fish are adapted to a particu-
lar range of temperatures.
Definitions of
Other Terms
Pesticides are chemicals applied
to control or eliminate insect,
fungal, or other organisms that may
seriously reduce the yields of crops
or impact the health of livestock.
When pesticides run off the land
*•',*' '.' ,' "'-^ \ '. " ,','^ - .'
and enter waterbodies, they may
become toxic to aquatic life. While
some newer pesticide agents
decompose rapidly after application,
many older types are more persis-
tent. These longer-lived agents can
pollutant larger areas and many
forms (e.g., DDT or chlordane) can
build up in sediments or bioaccu-
mulate in food chains, posing
potential health risks to wildlife or
humans.
"Total toxics" is a term used by
a number of States to describe vari-
ous combinations of toxic pollutants
identified in waterbodies. These may
include pesticides, toxic organic
chemicals, metals, unionized ammo-
nia, and chlorine. In some instances,
laboratory tests with plankton, min-
nows, or other target species may
show the presence of toxicity, but
more work may be required to iden-
tify the specific toxicants. These
impacts from unknown toxicity
may also be summarized under the
concept of total toxics.
Noxious aquatic plants refer to
species of rapidly growing macro-
phytes (vascular plants as opposed
to algae) that may lead to unwant-
ed alterations in the ecological bal-
ances of lakes, rivers, or other water-
bodies and that can also interfere
with human recreational activities.
In most cases, the nuisance plants
are nonnative introductions such as
the Eurasian milfoil or hydrilla.
Oil and grease can be docu-
mented quantitatively from chemi-
cal tests or from qualitative observa-
tions of surface films with distinctive
oily sheens. Oil and grease problems
are usually related to spills or other
, *,, _ , _*;;£ : jj ,»"_>" 1 *'i ' 1 O//^ ''"-'•* " ' " '' ' ' " '\
-------
Chapter One Introduction 21
releases of petroleum products. The
most dramatic cases are associated
with accidents involving oil tankers
(e.g., the Exxon Valdez) or major
pipeline breaks. Minor oil and
grease problems can result from wet
weather runoff from highways or
the improper disposal in storm
drains of motor oil. Large amounts
of oil can be toxic to fish and
wildlife, but even persistent surface
films may decrease reaeration rates
and cause damage to the gills or
other exposed surface membranes
of fishes.
Salinity and mineralization are
measures of the concentrations of
various salts or other minerals
dissolved in water. In near-coastal
areas, these dissolved materials
will include appreciable levels of
sodium, which is a natural compo-
nent of seawater. In estuaries where
the natural inputs of fresh water
have been reduced from upstream
dams or diversions, evaporation
may increase the salinity levels to
very high levels that can stress fish
or shellfish. For inland areas, the
concerns commonly focus on such
chemicals as dissolved chlorides or
sulfates that can lead to high levels
of mineralization. Areas with under-
lying gypsum deposits will often
show high levels of mineralization as
reflected in tests for total dissolved
solids. Some reservoirs and river sys-
tems in arid regions may experience
increases in mineralization levels
that may make the water hard to
use for drinking water or even irriga-
tion purposes.
Dana Soady, 4th grade, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC
HICHUGHKT-jI HCHT'fHCHUCHT
: Ik 1:11//
-------
22 Chapter One Introduction
I! f I
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Tribal Water Quality
Tribal lands span the United
States and are diverse in climate,
habitat, and water usage. Water
quality is one of the top environ-
mental priorities for the majority
of Tribes throughout the United
States. Over the past 7 years,
approximately 100 Tribes have
developed or have begun develop-
ing water quality programs, includ-
ing water quality criteria and
standards, through grants from
Section 106 of the Clean Water
Act. This number represents close
to 30% of all Tribes in the
*- i '
'Ft - * * • 5*1 I "f - , 5 • ,
t
*
contiguous United States that are
eligible for Section 106 grants, a
number that reflects the impor-
tance of this effort by Tribes. Tribes
are also establishing water quality
programs with General Assistance
Program (GAP) grants, which can
be used to develop general multi-
media environmental programs on
reservations.
As Tribes expand their interest
in administering water quality
programs on Tribal lands, their
technical capabilities and desire to
monitor those waters over which
they have jurisdiction also grows.
Some Tribes have special concerns
about water quality because they
acquire a large portion of their
food or income from water
resources and/or water plays a
significant role in their traditional
ceremonies and cultural heritage.
Many Tribes are interested in
developing water quality manage-
ment options and assessments in
all of the areas described in this
report. Some Tribes are conducting
water quality monitoring programs
for surface and ground waters and
assembling databases of biological,
chemical, physical, and bacterio-
logical analyses. Others are work-
ing toward adopting standards
involving biological criteria and
ecosystem preservation. Still others
are developing nonpoint source
assessment and management pro-
grams and establishing their own
laboratory capability for monitoring
-------
Chapter One Introduction 23
,v . .,>%., ••;, '- ;;-..'/' :> , VO - /^'- ^^«^^,; -
*• " - % i - "'- <*- ."-" *~ - - ,' . '"- \ - '- "' HIGHUGHjf i-l ( yjGHT HIGHLlGHt
' •" *- ~ / • * *' ; '' -- : '-„ ,"'""'. -- r s* , ", * V?L _M^ ' ' ' ~
waters and training staff to perform actions to EPA to protect Tribal
monitoring, joint Tribal consortia, waterbodies and achieve the objec-
intertribal councils, and other col- tives of the Clean Water Act. EPA
laborative efforts have been estab- encourages Tribes to use the
lished to examine entire water- 305(b) process as a mechanism for
sheds. All of these efforts reiterate sharing their ideas, concerns, and
the common goal shared by com- information with State and Federal
munities throughout the country water quality managers.
to acquire the data needed to pre-
serve and restore water quality for
generations to come. Tribes will
continue to make water quality a
priority as they develop and
expand their capacity to contribute
information to the National Water
Quality Inventory Report to Congress.
EPA's Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW),
in conjunction with the Section
305(b) Consistency Workgroup
(which includes 1 1 Tribal mem-
bers), developed flexible guidance
to assist Tribes in reporting water
quality information for inclusion in
the 1 998 National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress. This
guidance describes a level of
reporting that may be appropriate
for most Tribes' first 305(b) reports. M
In 1 995, OWOW also produced i
a booklet, Knowing Our Waters: jf
Tribal Reporting Under Section g"
305(b), to encourage all Tribes to ^
monitor, assess, and report on their ^
water quality. The goal of Tribal §
reporting is to document the status &
of water quality and identify water I
'".",'' , ^
'•.''''
* " ' ' , J '^ "
'
*• . *.t , ' f ^
'-,<,'<
~ f " " ^ ^^ ,, y ~ •
^ ^ •< ,
^
'
^ ' " <
" ~ ' l' ' "'/-,'
. t 4"^* ,- ™
r^sr1* ^'"' =$"*^-'— -.'fi * *, j^' ", j,
*%%^k s . ^"^f^-^ %X^^j^P^^
^'i^L"* Af£ Sp^c' '^<;«. ^^r'-fe-^'Xy^A^
t: ^ -'-^ ' x*' "w'< "*.»*«'-^c^- ~; ^
^ ^« ' ~"$ * ^' }£•'• "' " " '•>"*•• '" ' '" ^'- ^ 4"
',' -»"-•''
^' ^ "if " ; -" * ' ^
''**' '"*""5"!' " *'**" '^ W*^ ""'^"i.*- Vs/
-"" - jL;\'" !""/*< 1* -.-"' ? '
^ •""" ' Hit "Jfefc""- " ' '' 1 ^- *'**'*'
s-j "_ 'Jpp, '""" Jr^"i^ '' * ~~3&- ",,
* *- ^ - .% C x * fCi*-. ~~?$£* , £
§. . Je* „ -
-\ " " ~
-"
' ' ' '*
, % % "" ' <-. >
.'--'" \ i - ^ ",%^
""--.'- > * -^ \
'-' , , ' - *s' (<
^ "• f ~-~ > '
-"'*%." •»
,,"- ^ .x -" *
quality improvements needed on
Tribal lands. The 305(b) report is a
good vehicle for recommending
f ^ *
" - * ^
.
, -<•'
< s '
•* ' -
x ^
, "X '
- '
X * '
^
-
' ' " ' ' "
'•• ' ; , *
- ^ >
-„',-'
>
-
,s "^ ^ * "*
^ < '
- '
4 >
"<
- ," ' "
• ' ' ' ,
- ' ':"''''
- ''-,.-*- >"'. . ' _ - - - , „ '- !
-------
-------
Part II
Water Quality Assessments
-------
-------
Rivers and Streams
Forty-seven States, two Inter-
state River Commissions, one
Territory, the District of Columbia
(hereafter collectively referred to as
States), and three American Indian
Tribes rated river water quality in
their 1996 Section 305(b) reports
(see Appendix A, Table A-1, for
individual State and Tribal informa-
tion). These States and Tribes sur-
veyed conditions in 693,905 miles
of rivers and streams; most of the
surveyed rivers and streams are
perennial waterbodies that flow all
year. The surveyed rivers and
streams represent 53% of the
1.3 million miles of perennial
rivers and streams in the lower
48 States, or 19% of the esti-
mated 3.6 million miles of all
rivers and streams in the country,
including nonperennial streams that
flow only during wet periods
(Figure 2-1).
Altogether, the States and
Tribes surveyed 78,099 more river
miles in 1996 than in 1994. While
most States surveyed about the
same number of river miles in both
reporting cycles, Illinois, Maryland,
North Dakota, and Tennessee col-
lectively account for an increase of
over 75,000 surveyed river miles.
Since 1994, Illinois, North Dakota,
Figure 2-1
• t .' •
States and Tribes
SURVEYED
19%
of their total river miles9
(53% of their perennial
miles) for the 1996 report
:; **
States and Tribes SURVEYED
693,905 Miles of Rivers and Streams |3
for the 1996 Report
Miles
Surveyed
Total Number of Miles:
3.6 Million
~ .
Total Number of
Perennial River Miles:
1.3 Million
_ JM * n i* >'i
/Jfj-f fi^t^K'-i
MfHfHi»i
3 f £ $.f f£ ^^-l 4 &
Itrtttt** (,*•*•?
~\
River Miles Surveyed by States
and Tribes
1996 • 693,905 miles =19% surveyed
m Total miles: 3,634,152a
^^x
81% Not Surveyed
1994 • 615,806 miles = 1 7% surveyed
B Total miles: 3,548,738b
1992 • 642,881 miles = 18% surveyed
m Total miles: 3,551,247C
1990 • 647,066 miles = 36% surveyed
m Total miles: 1,800,000d
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-1.
aSource: 1996 State and Tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
bSource: 1994 State and Tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
cSource: 1992 State and Tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
^Source: National Water Quality Inventory:
1990 Report to Congress, U.S. EPA,
1992.
Note: In comparison with 1990, it appears that
the States and Tribes assessed a smaller
percentage of the Nation's rivers in
1996. However, in 1996, most States
and Tribes included intermittent streams,
canals, and ditches that were excluded
from the 1990 estimates of total stream
miles. As a result, the national estimate
of total stream miles almost doubled
from 1.8 million miles in 1990 to more
than 3.6 million miles in 1996.
-------
28 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
Tlie EPA Reach File Version 3
(RF3) is a database containing
the geographic locations of over
3 million stream, lake, and
estuary reaches in tlie conti-
nental U.S. and Hawaii. A
reach is a stretch of stream
between confluences or a seg-
ment of lake or estuary shore-
line. RF3 provides unique iden-
tification numbers for points
on these surface waters and
built-in river mileages. With
RF3, users can prepare comput-
erized maps ofhealtiiy and
impaired waters, monitoring
sites, drinking water intakes,
pollution sources, and many
other features. RF3 also allows
computer modeling of the
'• movement of pollutants
through its hydrologicatly
connected network of waters.
and Tennessee have indexed all of
their streams to the Reach File 3
(RF3) level in order to perform
1:100,000 scale geographic analy-
ses (see sidebar for a description of
RF3). The refined stream estimates
have increased the mileage associ-
ated with surveyed streams. These
States have also initiated new moni-
toring projects since 1994. Illinois
now assesses all RF3 streams except
for unnamed tributaries. North
Dakota has initiated a new biolog-
ical monitoring program in the Red
River basin. Tennessee has also
expanded its biological monitoring
thanks to the Division of Water
Pollution Control's ecoregion
project and the Tennessee Valley
Authority's River Action Teams.
Maryland reported on all waters
of the State for their 1996 305(b)
report, of which approximately
11,000 river miles were not moni-
tored or evaluated but were pre-
sumed to be of good water quality.
The summary information
presented in this chapter applies
strictly to the portion of the
Nation's rivers surveyed by the
States and Tribes. EPA cannot make
generalizations about the health of
all of our Nation's rivers based on
data extracted from the 305(b)
reports because most States and
Tribes rate their waters with infor-
mation obtained from water moni-
toring programs designed to detect
degraded waterbodies. Very few
States or Tribes select water sam-
pling sites with a statistical design
to represent a cross section of
water quality conditions in their
jurisdictions. Instead, many States
and Tribes direct their limited
monitoring resources toward waters
with suspected problems. As a
result, the surveyed rivers reflect
conditions of targeted waters rather
than a representative sampling of
all waters.
In the future, increased use
of statistically based monitoring
programs will enable EPA and the
States and Tribes to report more
comprehensively on the general
health of the Nation's waters.
Examples of statistically based
programs include probability
designs implemented by Delaware,
Maryland, and Indiana; EPA's
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP); and
EPA's Regional Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment
Program (R-EMAP). EMAP is a long-
term monitoring program with a
unique approach that combines a
probability-based sampling strategy
with ecological indicators (quanti-
fiable expressions of an environ-
mental value) to assess the overall
condition of ecological resources.
R-EMAP applies the concepts,
methods, and approach developed
by EMAP to resolve specific environ-
mental issues of importance to the
EPA Regions and the States. (See
highlight)
National data from other
Federal agencies, such as the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and private
organizations, such as The Nature
Conservancy, will also clarify nation-
al water quality trends. (See Chap-
ter 13 for additional information
about monitoring and assessment
programs.)
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 29
Summary of Use
Support
The States and Tribes rate
whether their water quality is good
enough to fully support a healthy
community of aquatic organisms as
well as human activities, such as
swimming, fishing, and drinking.
The States designate specific activ-
ities for their rivers and streams,
termed "individual designated
uses." EPA and the States use the
following terminology to rate their
water quality:
• Good/Fully Supporting: Good
water quality supports a diverse
community of fish, plants, and
aquatic insects, as well as the array
of human activities assigned to a
river by the State.
H Good/Threatened: Good water
quality currently supports aquatic
life and human activities in and on
the river, but changes when factors
such as land use threaten water
quality or data indicate a trend of
increasing pollution in the river.
• Fair/Partially Supporting: Fair
water quality supports aquatic
communities with fewer species of
fish, plants, and aquatic insects,
and/or occasional pollution inter-
feres with human activities. For
example, occasional siltation prob-
lems may reduce the population
of some aquatic species in a river,
while other species are not affected.
B Poor/Not Supporting: Poor
water quality does not support a
healthy aquatic community and/or
prevents some human activities on
the river. For example, persistent
PCB contamination in river sedi-
ments (originating from discontin-
ued industrial discharges) may con-
taminate fish and make the fish
inedible for years.
B Not Attainable: The State has
performed a use-attainability analy-
sis and demonstrated that use sup-
port of one or more designated
uses is not attainable due to one
of six specific biological, chemical,
physical, or economic/social condi-
tions (see Chapter 1 for additional
information).
Most States and Tribes rate
how well a river supports individual
uses (such as swimming and aquat-
ic life habitat) and then consolidate
individual use ratings into a table
of summary use support data. This
table divides rivers into those miles
fully supporting all of their uses,
those fully supporting all uses but
threatened for one or more uses,
and those impaired for one or more
uses. Impaired waters are the sum
of partially and not supporting
waters (see Chapter 1 for a com-
plete discussion of use support).
Forty-three States, three Tribes,
two Interstate Commissions, Puerto
Rico, and the District of Columbia
reported summary use support
status for rivers and streams in their
1996 Section 305(b) reports (see
Appendix A, Table A-2, for individ-
ual State and Tribal information).
Another four States reported indi-
vidual use support status but did
not report summary use support
status. In such cases, EPA used
aquatic life use support status to
represent summary water quality
conditions in the State's rivers and
streams.
-------
30 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
Surveyed Waters
Total rivers = 3.6 million miles9
Total surveyed = 693,905 milesb
• 19% surveyed
• 81% not surveyed
Of the surveyed miles:
• 51% were monitored
• 41 % were evaluated
• 8% were not specified
Surveyed Water Quality
36%'Impaired for
one or more
uses
64% Good
"Source: 1996 State and Tribal Section 305(b)
reports.
''Does not include miles assessed as not
attainable (<0.5% of total rivers).
Figure 2-2
Summary of Use Support
in Surveyed Rivers and Streams
Altogether, States and Tribes
reported that 64% of 693,905
surveyed river miles fully support all
of their uses. Of these waters, 56%
fully support designated uses and
8% have good water quality that
fully supports all uses but is
threatened for one or more uses.
These threatened waters may
deteriorate if we fail to manage
potential sources of pollution
(Figure 2-2). Some form of pollu-
tion or habitat degradation impairs
the remaining 36% of the surveyed
river miles.
Individual Use
Support
Individual use support infor-
mation provides additional detail
about water quality problems in our
Nation's surface waters. The States
are responsible for designating their
rivers and streams for State-specific
Good
(Threatened for One
or More Uses)
8%
uses, but EPA requests that the
States rate how well their rivers
support six standard uses so that
EPA can summarize the State data.
• Aquatic life support - Is water
quality good enough to support a
healthy, balanced community of
aquatic organisms, including fish,
plants, insects, and algae?
• Fish consumption - Can people
safely eat fish caught in the river or
stream?
• Primary contact recreation
(swimming) - Can people make full
body contact with the water with-
out risking their health?
• Secondary contact recreation -
Is there a risk to public health from
recreational activities on the water,
such as boating, that expose the
public to minor contact with the
water?
• Drinking water supply - Can the
river or stream provide a safe water
supply with standard treatment?
• Agricultural uses - Can the
water be used for irrigating fields
and watering livestock?
Only six States did not report
individual use support status of
their rivers and streams (see Appen-
dix A, Table A-3, for individual State
and Tribal information). The report-
ing States and Tribes surveyed the
status of aquatic life and swimming
uses most frequently and identified
more impacts on aquatic life and
swimming uses than on the other
individual uses (Figure 2-3). These
States and Tribes reported that fair
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-2.
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 31
or poor water quality impacts
aquatic life in 201,558 stream miles
(31 % of the 641,611 miles sur-
veyed for aquatic life support). Fair
or poor water quality conditions
also impair swimming activities in
86,710 miles (20% of the 434,421
miles surveyed for swimming use
support).
Many States and Tribes did not
rate fish consumption use support
because they have not codified fish
consumption as a use in their
standards. Some of these States
consider fishing use as a compo-
nent of aquatic life use, i.e., that
rivers and streams can provide a
healthy habitat to support fishing
activities even though anglers may
not be able to eat their catch in
these States. EPA encourages the
States to designate fish consump-
tion as a use in their waterbodies
to promote consistency in future
reporting. Most States report infor-
mation on fish consumption advi-
sories (species and size of fish that
should not be eaten) to EPA (see
Chapter 7).
Water Quality
Problems Identified
in Rivers and Streams
Figures 2-4 and 2-5 identify the
pollutants and sources of pollutants
that impair the most river miles
(i.e., prevent them from fully
supporting designated uses), as
reported by the States and Tribes.
The two figures are based on the
same data (contained in Appendix
A, Tables A-4 and A-5), but each
figure provides a different perspec-
tive on the extent of impairment
attributed to individual pollutants
and sources. Figure 2-4 compares
the impacts of the leading pollut-
ants and sources in all surveyed
rivers. Figure 2-5 presents the rela-
tive impact of the leading pollut-
ants and sources in impaired rivers,
the subset of surveyed rivers with
identified water quality problems.
The following sections
describe the leading pollutants
Individual Use Support in Rivers and
*'.*•* '*/' * ~f . •>. &
* - cPercent
i
Designate* ;; ,t"' "Good \ -, * Fair ^' POOP Not ,
, Use ~ „ Miles', (f-ully . "Good ' (Partially, ,. -(Not 'Attainable \
>,,. "«.;~ , ~~ Surveyed " Supporting); (Threatened), Supporting)" Supporting) '*"";
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-3.
-------
32 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
Figure 2-4
The pollutants/processes
and sources shown here
may not correspond direct-
ly to one another (i.e., the
leading pollutant may not
originate from the leading
source). This may occur for
a number of reasons, such
as a major pollutant may
be released from many
minor sources or States
may not have the infor-
mation to determine all
the sources of a particular
pollutant/stressor.
AGRICULTURE is the leading
source of pollution in surveyed
rivers and streams. According
to the States, agricultural
pollution problems
• affect 25% of all rivers
and streams surveyed,
and
• contribute to 70% of all
water quality problems
identified in rivers and
streams (see Figure 2-5).
SURVEYED River Miles: Pollutants and Sources
Total rivers = 3.6 million miles
Total surveyed = 693,905 miles
Good Impaired
(12%) (7%)
Surveyed 19%
Leading Pollutants/Stressors Surveyed %
Siltation
Nutrients
Bacteria
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Pesticides
Habitat Alterations
Suspended Solids
Metals
^^B . j_, ',i ~^. >^ / V \ J
• ".-. -. -< . -J
^1 ^ ^ ^ • ||
• it •
_ j, Major
H Moderate/Minor
~ "-— "• IB Not Specified
1 1 1 1 1
18
14
12
10
7
7
7
6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percent of Surveyed River Miles
Leading Sources Surveyed %
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Hydromodification
Habitat Modification
Resource Extraction
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Removal of Streamside Veg.
Industrial Point Sources
HBH^^^B - " 1
H- '" '" • ;jll
^EZZZj] H Major
•TT5~T| BI Moderate/Minor
^^,_^ E3 Not Specified
1 1 1 1 1
25
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percent of Surveyed River Miles
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Tables A-4 and A-5.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a river segment.
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 33
Figure 2-5
IMPAIRED River Miles: Pollutants and Sources
Not f \
Surveyed / \
81% ' " '
Total rivers = 3.6 million miles
Total surveyed = 693,905 miles
Total impaired = 248,028 miles
Leading Pollutants/Stressbrs
Impaired %
Siltation
Nutrients
Bacteria
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Pesticides
Habitat Alterations
Suspended Solids
Metals
JJ
• Major
IB Moderate/Minor
0 Not Specified
i
_L
_L
_L
_L
51
40
32
29
21
19
18
16
10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Impaired River Miles
70
eaHing Sources
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Hydromodification
Habitat Modification
Resource Extraction
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Removal of Streamside Veg.
Industrial Point Sources
impaired %
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
_L
_L
_L
14
14
14
1 3
g
9
10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Impaired River Miles
70
!;s Ihemdk com- ^ ;
rrjph .pollutant, affecting, sutv ,
yeyfed-riyers'arvd streams^ -^ •
''- ' ~ ' ' " '
•: is fauna, fn; 1 §°/o pF J '' '! -< -,
' i all ,rivery,a)id streams '"','•'
' -- surveyed (see figure 2-4)>*
' '*
_
il-tontributes to 5T%'of , j <
- alt the, water Duality \ . . /
< 'problems. '- ,; •'.;'/,"
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Tables A-4 and A-5.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100%
because more than one pollutant
or source may impair a river segment.
-------
34 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
and sources of impairment identi-
fied in rivers. It is important to note
that the information about pollut-
ants and sources is incomplete
because the States do not identify
the pollutant or source of pollutants
responsible for every impaired river
segment.
In some cases, a State may rec-
ognize that water quality does not
fully support a designated use, but
the State may not have adequate
data to document that a specific
pollutant or process is responsible
for the impairment. Sources of
impairment are even more difficult
Figure 2-6
The Effects of Siltation in Rivers and Streams
Sediment
abrades gills
Sediment suffocates
fish eggs and bottom-
dwelling organisms
Sediment smothers cobbles
where fish lay eggs
Siltation is one of the leading pollution problems in the Nation's rivers
and streams. Over the long term, unchecked siltation can alter habitat
with profound adverse effects on aquatic life. In the short term, silt
can kill fish directly, destroy spawning beds, and increase water turbid-
ity resulting in depressed photosynthetic rates.
to identify than pollutants and
processes.
Pollutants and Stressors
Impacting Rivers and
Streams
Fifty-one States and Tribes
reported the number of river miles
impacted by individual pollutants
and stressors, such as invasion by
exotic species (see Appendix A,
Table A-4, for individual State and
Tribal information). EPA ranks the
pollutants and stressors by the
geographic extent of their impacts
on aquatic life and human activities
(i.e., the number of river miles
impaired by each pollutant or
stressor) rather than actual pollut-
ant loads in rivers and streams. This
approach targets the pollutants and
stressors causing the most harm to
aquatic life and public use of our
waters, rather than the most abun-
dant pollutants in our rivers and
streams.
The States and Tribes report
that siltation, composed of tiny soil
particles, remains one of the most
widespread pollutants impacting
rivers and streams, impairing
126,763 river miles (18% of the
surveyed river miles). Siltation alters
aquatic habitat and suffocates fish
eggs and bottom-dwelling organ-
isms (see Figure 2-6). Aquatic
insects live in the spaces between
cobbles, but their habitat is
destroyed when silt fills in these
spaces. The loss of aquatic insects
adversely impacts fish and other
wildlife that eat these insects.
Excessive siltation can also interfere
with drinking water treatment
processes and recreational use of a
river. Sources of siltation include
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 35
agriculture, urban runoff, construc-
tion, and forestry.
Nutrient pollution emerges as
a significant cause of water quality
impairment in the 1996 305(b)
reports, with States and Tribes
reporting impacts to 98,040 river
miles (14% of the surveyed river
miles). While nutrient pollution has
commonly been a problem in the
Nation's lakes and ponds (see
Chapter 3), water quality managers
have given significant attention to
its effects on rivers and streams,
particularly those that flow to sensi-
tive estuarine and coastal waters
(see Chapter 4). Excessive levels of
nitrogen and phosphorus may
accelerate growth of algae and
underwater plants, depleting the
water column of dissolved oxygen
necessary to maintain populations
of fish and desirable plant species.
Nutrients may enter surface waters
from municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment discharges
and runoff from agricultural lands,
forestry operations, and urban
areas.
The States and Tribes also
report that bacteria (pathogens)
pollute 79,820 river miles (12% of
the surveyed river miles). Bacteria
provide evidence of possible fecal
contamination that may cause ill-
ness if the public ingests the water.
States use bacterial indicators to
determine if rivers are safe for
swimming and drinking. Bacteria
commonly enter surface waters in
inadequately treated sewage, fecal
material from wildlife, and runoff
from pastures, feedlots, and urban
areas.
In addition to siltation, nutri-
ents, and bacteria, the States and
Tribes also reported that oxygen-
depleting substances, pesticides,
habitat alterations, suspended
solids, and metals impact more
miles of rivers and streams than
other pollutants and stressors.
Often, several pollutants and
processes impact a single river
segment. For example, a process
such as removal of shoreline vegeta-
tion may accelerate erosion of sedi-
ment and nutrients into a stream. In
such cases, the States and Tribes
count a single mile of river under
each pollutant and process category
that impacts the river mile.
Therefore, the river miles impaired
by each pollutant or process do not
add up to 100% in Figures 2-4 and
2-5.
Most States and Tribes also rate
pollutants and processes as major or
moderate/minor contributors to
impairment. A major pollutant or
process is solely responsible for an
impact or predominates over other
pollutants and processes. A moder-
ate/minor pollutant or process is
one of multiple pollutants and proc-
esses that degrade aquatic life or
interfere with human use of a river.
Currently, EPA ranks pollutants
and processes by the geographic
extent of their impacts (i.e., the
number of miles impaired by each
pollutant or process). However, less
abundant pollutants or processes
may have more severe impacts on
short stream reaches. For example,
a toxic chemical spill can eliminate
aquatic life in a short stream while
widely distributed bacteria do not
affect aquatic life but occasionally
indicate a potential human health
hazard from swimming. The individ-
ual State and Tribal 305(b) reports
provide more detailed information
about the severity of pollution in
specific locations.
It is relatively easy to collect a
water sample and identify pol-
lutants causing impairments,
such as fecal coliform bacteria
indicating pathogen contami-
nation. However, detecting and
ranking sources of pollutants
can require monitoring pollut-
ant movement from'numerous
potential sources, such as fail- ^
ing septic systems, agricultural,
fields, urban runoff, municipal
sewage treatment plants, and
local waterfowl populations*
Often', States are not able to •
determine^ the particular source
responsible for impairment. In
these cases, many States report -
the source,of impairment as'
^unknown."
-------
36 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
Sources of Pollutants
Impacting Rivers
and Streams
Fifty-one States and Tribes
reported sources of pollution relat-
ed to human activities that impact
some of their rivers and streams
(see Appendix A, Table A-5, for
individual State and Tribal informa-
tion). These States and Tribes
reported that agriculture is the
most widespread source of pollu-
tion in the Nation's surveyed rivers.
Agriculture generates pollutants
that degrade aquatic life or interfere
with public use of 173,629 river
miles (which equals 25% of the sur-
veyed river miles) in 50 States and
Tribes (Figures 2-4 and 2-5).
Twenty-two States reported the
size of rivers impacted by specific
types of agricultural activities:
• Nonirrigated Crop Production -
crop production that relies on rain
as the sole source of water.
• Irrigated Crop Production - crop
production that uses irrigation
systems to supplement rainwater.
• Rangeland - land grazed by ani-
mals that is seldom enhanced by
the application of fertilizers or pesti-
cides, although land managers
sometimes modify plant species
to a limited extent.
• Pastureland - land upon which a
crop (such as alfalfa) is raised to
feed animals, either by grazing the
animals among the crops or har-
vesting the crops. Pastureland is
actively managed to encourage
selected plant species to grow, and
fertilizers or pesticides may be
applied more often on pastureland
than rangeland.
• Feedlots - generally facilities
where animals are fattened. By
EPA's definition, feedlots are large
sites where many animals are con-
fined at high densities for market.
These facilities are often located
near packing plants or railroad
access points.
• Animal Holding Areas - facilities
for confining animals briefly before
slaughter. By EPA's definition, ani-
mal holding areas confine fewer
animals than feedlots.
• Animal Operations - generally
livestock facilities other than large
cattle feedlot operations. They may
contain facilities for supplemental
feeding or rearing animals, primar-
ily poultry or swine.
Nonirrigated crop production
leads the list of agricultural activities
impacting rivers and streams, fol-
lowed by irrigated crop production,
rangeland, pastureland, feedlots,
animal operations, animal holding
areas, and riparian grazing (Figure
2-7). Runoff from irrigated and
nonirrigated cropland may intro-
duce commercial fertilizers (that
contain nitrogen and phosphorus),
pesticides, and soil particles into
rivers and streams. Manure applied
to cropland as a fertilizer may also
wash off of irrigated and nonirri-
gated fields and prevent rivers and
streams from fully supporting desig-
nated uses.
Sources of pollution from
intensive animal operations include
feedlots, animal operations, and
animal holding areas. Animal waste
runoff from these operations can
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 37
introduce pathogens, nutrients
(including phosphorus and nitro-
gen), and organic material to near-
by rivers and streams. Rangeland
may generate both soil erosion and
animal waste runoff. Pastureland
usually has good ground cover that
protects the soil from eroding, but
pastureland can become a source
of animal waste runoff if animals
graze on impermeable frozen
pastureland during winter. Riparian
grazing may generate streambank
erosion and animal waste runoff
and result in modification of
streamside habitat.
The States and Tribes also
report that municipal sewage treat-
ment plants pollute 35,087 river
miles (5% of the surveyed river
miles), hydrologic modifications
degrade 34,190 river miles (5% of
the surveyed river miles), habitat
modifications degrade 34,127 river
miles (5% of the surveyed river
miles), resource extraction (e.g.,
mining and oil production) pollutes
33,051 river miles (5% of the sur-
veyed river miles), urban runoff and
storm sewers pollute 32,637 river
miles (5% of the surveyed river
miles), and removal of streamside
vegetation pollutes 23,349 river
miles (3% of the surveyed river
miles).
The States and Tribes also
report that "natural" sources impair
many miles of rivers and streams in
the absence of human activities.
Natural sources include soils with
natural deposits of arsenic or salts
that leach into waterbodies, water-
fowl (a source of nutrients), and
low-flow conditions and elevated
water temperatures caused by
drought. The total size of rivers
impaired by natural sources is
probably exaggerated because
some States may automatically
attribute water quality impairments
to natural sources if the State
cannot identify a human activity
responsible for a water quality
problem.
Sources such as mining and
forestry activities can play a more
Sltp|S£i^:8i%
SUBtatf.fcrtaiib.JkM. :..i-i ;/,^:..'m.^ygjUi/;l«.:,AHfcviaIat-tj-TJ^fe-^.^.^«feiLfejfcaW&r.a
Agricultural Impairment: Rivers and Streams
(22 States Reporting Subcategories of Agricultural Sources)
Not Surveyed
81%
Impaired by Agriculture
173,629 Miles
teadiriti Agricultural! Sources '• • ,:- - - .• '•"(': •. ; ? ; \-<. - -?. : ' '• i, \i:- i^ / j [cl] -• %H
1 -. -• - -- *•* - •:-*"' ' . • • " • t •-•'.:• -- - , .- :,-:-.; - • .'. '.- - A • '::,'• ; - '; '' " '.'.-••*' '-. •-••.- ••,;':
Nonirrigated Crop Prod.
Irrigated Crop Prod.
Rangeland
Pastureland
Feedlots
Animal Operations
Animal Holding Areas
HSllllill < r • * > ' s 1
mn • * -ji
• : < .11
i 11
§§ Major Impact
^mH-'^M EH Moderate/Minor
»4.:^| H Not Specified
1 I 1 ! 1 1 I 1
36
22
12
11
8
7
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Percent of River Miles Impacted
by Agriculture in General
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-6.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a river segment.
-------
38 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
significant role in degrading water
quality at a regional or local level
than at the national level. For
example, resource extraction
(including acid mine drainage)
contributes to the degradation of
36% of the impaired river miles in
the coal belt States of Kentucky,
Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia. These States report
that resource extraction impairs
about 6,550 miles of rivers and
streams. Yet, at the national level,
resource extraction contributes to
the degradation of only 13% of all
the impaired river miles in the
Nation. At the local level, streams
impacted by acid mine drainage
are devoid of fish and other aquatic
life due to low pH levels and the
smothering effects of iron and
other metals deposited on stream
beds. The primary sources of acid
mine drainage are abandoned coal
refuse disposal sites and surface and
underground mines.
In the Pacific Northwest State
of Washington, water quality man-
agers identify forestry activities as
responsible for almost a third (32%)
of the impaired river miles, but, at
the national level, States report that
forestry activities contribute to the
degradation of only 7% of the
Nation's total impaired river miles.
Forestry activities include harvesting
timber, constructing logging roads,
and stand maintenance. California,
Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Montana, and West Virginia also
report that forestry activities
degrade over 1,000 miles of
streams in each State.
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 39
Many States reported declines
in pollution from sewage treatment
plants and industrial discharges
since enactment of the Clean Water
Act in 1972. The States attributed
improvements in water quality con-
ditions to sewage treatment plant
construction and upgrades and
permit controls on industrial dis-
charges. Despite the improvements,
municipal sewage treatment plants
remain the second most common
source of pollution in rivers because
population growth increases the
burden on our municipal facilities.
Several States reported that
they detected more subtle impacts
from nonpoint sources, hydrologic
modifications, and habitat
alterations as they reduced conspic-
uous pollution from point sources.
Hydrologic modifications and habi-
tat alterations are a growing con-
cern to the States. Hydrologic mod-
ifications include activities that alter
the flow of water in a stream, such
as channelization, dewatering, and
damming of streams. Habitat alter-
ations include removal of stream-
side vegetation that protects the
stream from high temperatures
and scouring of stream bottoms.
Additional gains in water quality
conditions that address these
concerns will be more subtle and
require innovative management
strategies that go beyond point
source controls.
-------
40 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
I
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Maryland Biological
Stream Survey
The Maryland Biological Stream
Survey (MBSS), initiated by the
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources in 1993, is one of the first
statewide probability-based moni-
toring networks in the United
States. The MBSS is intended to
provide environmental decision-
makers with the information they
need to most effectively design
To meet its objectives, the MBSS has established a list of questions
of interest to environmental decisionmakers. The survey is designed
to answer these questions. Examples include:
Fishability
• What is the size range of smallmouth bass in third-order streams in
the Patuxent basin? How many legal size smallmouth per mile of
stream are there?
• 'What percentage of first- and second-order streams in the
Patapsco basin support natural reproduction of brown trout?
Biological Integrity
• Does the percentage of streams with nonsupporting or partially
supporting habitat differ among basins in the State?
• Rare or endangered fish or amphibian species are most likely to
occur in what size of stream and in what basins of the State?
What is the "best" basin for nongame species? The worst?
Holistic
• Based on their observed impacts, which anthropogenic stressors
need to receive intensified management and enforcement
activities?
• What types of land use are compatible with preventing the
deterioration of water quality and stream resources?
policies to protect and restore
Maryland's rivers and streams.
The MBSS is different from most
other stream monitoring surveys in
Maryland for three reasons. First,
the probability-based sampling
design allows accurate estimates
of variables, such as the number
of miles of stream with degraded
habitat, that can be extrapolated to
the watershed, drainage basin, or
statewide level. The design also per-
mits reliable estimation of sampling
variance, so that estimates of status
can be made with quantifiable con-
fidence. Second, MBSS monitoring
and assessments focus on biological
indicators of response to stress;
measures of pollutant stress and
habitat condition are taken simulta-
neously to provide a context for
interpreting biological response.
MBSS fish abundance estimates
allow the State to track the popula-
tion of a living resource. Third, the
scale of MBSS is basinwide and
statewide, rather than site-specific.
Objectives
and Questions
The primary objectives of the
MBSS are to assess the current
status of biological resources in
Maryland's nontidal streams and
establish a benchmark for long-term
monitoring of trends. The secondary
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 41
'• HJCHLICrt
objectives of the survey are to
quantify the extent to which acidic
deposition has affected or may be
affecting critical biological resources
in the State; examine which other
water quality, physical habitat, and
land use factors are important in
explaining the current status of
biological resources in streams;
and focus habitat protection and
restoration activities.
Sampling Design
One common problem to many
monitoring projects is that there is
often no scientifically rigorous basis
for extrapolating monitoring results
beyond individual sampling sites.
MBSS employs a special probability-
based design called lattice sampling
to schedule sampling of basins over
a 3-year period. This design opti-
mizes the efficiency of field efforts
by minimizing the travel time
between sampling locations.
The MBSS study area is divided
into three geographic regions with
five to seven basins each: western,
central, and eastern. Each basin is
sampled at least once during a
given 3-year cycle, and all basins
have some probability of being
resampled.
The MBSS survey design is
based on random selections from all
streams in the State that can be
physically sampled. Sampling within
each basin is restricted to nontidal,
first-, second-, and third-order
stream reaches (i.e., headwater
streams), excluding unwadeable
or otherwise unsampleable areas.
Stream reaches are further divided
into nonoverlapping 75-meter
segments for sampling.
About 300 stream segments are
selected for sampling each year. An
approximately equal number of
segments are selected from each
of the three stream orders across
basins. Within each basin, segments
Each basin consists of many watersheds with varying degrees
of complexity. The smallest permanent flowing stream in a
watershed is termed first-order, and the union of two first-
order streams creates a second-order stream. A third-order is
formed where two second-order streams join.
First
First
First
ill!
-------
42 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
VI f
are randomly selected from the
three stream orders, with the
number of segments selected for
a particular stream order approxi-
mately proportional to the number
of stream miles in the basin. For
example, if Basin A has 200 miles
of first-order streams, and Basin B
has 100 miles of first-order streams,
twice as many first-order segments
are randomly selected from Basin A
as from Basin B.
This type of study design, often
referred to as subsampling with
units of unequal size, allows the
estimation of summary statistics
(e.g., means and proportions) for
the entire basin, or for subpopula-
tions of special interest.
Data Collection
and Measurement
The MBSS field studies involve
collecting biological, physical
habitat, and water quality data.
Biological measurements include
abundance, size, and health of fish;
taxa composition of benthic inverte-
brates; and presence of herpetofau-
na (reptiles and amphibians). Water
chemistry samples include pH, acid-
neutralizing capacity (ANC), sulfate,
nitrate, conductivity, and dissolved
organic carbon (DOC). Physical
habitat measurements include
stream gradient, maximum depth,
wetted width, streamflow (dis-
charge), embeddedness, in-stream
habitat structure, pool and riffle
quality, bank stability, shading, and
riparian vegetation. Other qualita-
tive habitat parameters include
aesthetic value, remoteness, and
land use, based on the surrounding
area immediately visible from the
segment.
Results
The major findings of MBSS
projects to date include:
• Low pH and low ANC streams
were primarily limited to the
eastern shore and to the
mountainous western portion
of the State.
• Moderate sulfate and relatively
low DOC values throughout the
State suggest that acidic deposi-
tion is far more prevalent as a
source of low ANC than is acid
mine drainage.
• The abundance and diversity of
fish was positively related to ANC.
• Fish surveys detected a wider
distribution of several fish
species than have been reported
previously, and two species
thought to be extirpated were
collected.
• In four of the six basins sampled
during 1995, more than 40% of
stream miles were acidic or acid-
sensitive (ANC < 200 peq/L).
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 43
In four of the six basins sampled
during 1995, more than 50%
of stream miles had in-stream
habitat structure in poor to
marginal condition.
A large percentage of streams
sampled had impaired physical
habitat.
For Further Information
Paul F. Kazyak
Ecological Assessment Program
Monitoring and Non-Tidal
Assessment Division
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
Tawes State Office Building, C-2
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
(410)974-3361
pkazyak@dnr.state.md.us
HiCHLIp
-------
-------
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Forty-five States, Puerto Rico,
and the District of Columbia (here-
after collectively referred to as
States), and one Tribe rated lake
water quality in their 1996 Section
305(b) reports (see Appendix B,
Table B-1, for individual State and
Tribal data). These States and Tribes
surveyed over 16.8 million acres of
lakes, reservoirs, and ponds, which
equals 40% of the 41.7 million
acres of lakes in the Nation (Figure
3-1). The States and Tribes based
74% of their survey on monitored
data and evaluated 20% of the
surveyed lake acres with qualitative
information (including best profes-
sional judgment by water quality
managers). The States did not
specify whether the remaining 7%
of the surveyed lake acres were
monitored or evaluated.3
The number of surveyed lake
acres declined from 17.1 million
acres to 16.8 million acres between
1994 and 1996. Although Califor-
nia surveyed almost 300,000 addi-
tional lake acres in 1996 due to
refined lake size estimates and new
monitoring, a number of States,
including Nevada, Washington, and
Wisconsin, surveyed significantly
fewer lakes. Funding issues forced
Nevada to limit lake sampling to
States and Tribes
SURVEYED
40%
of their total lake acres3
for the 1996 report
States and Tribes SURVEYED
17 Million Acres of the Nation's Lake
Waters Excluding the Great Lakes
for the 1996 Report
Acres
Surveyed
Total Acres:
41,684,902
Lake, Reservoir, and Pond Acres
Surveyed by the States and Tribes
1996 • 16,819,769 acres = 40% surveyed
m Total acres: 41,684,902a
60% Not Surveyed
1994 • 17,134,153 acres = 42% surveyed
m Total acres: 40,826,064b
1992 • 18,300,000 acres = 46% surveyed
M Total acres: 39,920,000°
1990 • 18,489,000 acres = 47% surveyed
m Total acres: 39,400,000d
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-1.
aSource: 1996 State and Tribal Section
305(b) reports.
bSource: 1994 State and Tribal Section
305(b) reports.
°Source: 1992 State and Tribal Section
305(b) reports.
dSource: National Water Quality Inventory:
1990 Report to Congress, U.S. EPA,
1992.
Note: Figures do not add to 100% due to
the rounding of individual numbers.
-------
46 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
only those lakes near routine sam-
pling locations on rivers and
streams. Due to staffing concerns,
Washington State was only able to
use water quality data collected
internally at the Department of
Ecology. In previous years the State
incorporated data from other agen-
cies into their 305(b) reports.
Wisconsin now surveys its lakes
as part of the State's 5-year basin
planning cycle. Although the num-
ber of lakes assessed varies from
year to year, Wisconsin surveys
almost all the lakes in its monitoring
program over the 5-year cycle.
Differences in State survey
methods undermine comparisons
of lake information submitted by
individual States. Lake data should
not be compared among States,
which devote varying resources to
monitoring biological integrity,
water chemistry, and toxic pollut-
ants in fish tissues. The discrepan-
cies in State monitoring and survey
methods, rather than actual differ-
ences in water quality, often
account for the wide range in water
quality ratings reported by the
States.
The summary information pre-
sented in this chapter applies strict-
ly to the portion of the Nation's
lakes surveyed by the States and
Tribes. EPA cannot make generali-
zations about the health of all of
our Nation's lakes based on data
extracted from the 305(b) reports
because most States and Tribes rate
their waters with information
obtained from water monitoring
programs designed to detect
degraded waterbodies. Very few
States or Tribes randomly select
water sampling sites to represent
a cross section of water quality
conditions in their jurisdiction.
Instead, many States and Tribes
direct their limited monitoring
resources toward waters with sus-
pected problems. As a result, the
surveyed lakes probably contain
a higher percentage of polluted
waters than all of the Nation's lakes.
Summary of Use
Support
The States and Tribes rate
whether their water quality is good
enough to fully support a healthy
community of aquatic organisms
and human activities, such as swim-
ming, fishing, and drinking water
use. The States and Tribes designate
individual lakes for specific activi-
ties, termed "individual designated
uses." EPA and the States use the
following terminology to rate their
water quality:
• Good/Fully Supporting: Good
water quality supports a diverse
community of fish, plants, and
aquatic insects, as well as the array
of human activities assigned to a
lake by the State.
• Good/Threatened: Good water
quality currently supports aquatic
life and human activities in and on
the lake, but changes in such
factors as land use threaten water
quality, or data indicate a trend of
increasing pollution in the lake.
• Fair/Partially Supporting: Fair
water quality supports aquatic
communities with fewer species of
fish, plants, and aquatic insects,
and/or occasional pollution inter-
feres with human activities. For
example, runoff during severe
thunderstorms may temporarily ele-
vate fecal coliform bacteria densities
and indicate that swimming is not
-------
Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 47
safe immediately following summer
storms.
• Poor/Not Supporting: Poor
water quality does not support a
healthy aquatic community and/or
prevents some human activities on
the lake. For example, lake waters
may be devoid of fish for more
than a month each summer
because excessive nutrients from
runoff initiate algal blooms that
deplete oxygen concentrations.
• Not Attainable: The State has
performed a use-attainability analy-
sis and demonstrated that use
support of one or more designated
beneficial uses is not attainable due
to one of six specific biological,
chemical, physical, or economic/
social conditions (see Chapter 1 for
additional information).
Most States and Tribes rate
how well a lake supports individual
uses (such as swimming and aquat-
ic life) and then consolidate individ-
ual use ratings into a summary
table. This table divides lake acres
into those fully supporting all of
their uses, those fully supporting all
uses but threatened for one or
more uses, and those impaired for
one or more uses (see Chapter 1
for a complete discussion of use
support).
Forty-two States, one Tribe,
Puerto Rico, and the District of
Columbia reported summary use
support status for lakes in their
1996 Section 305(b) reports (see
Appendix B, Table B-2, for individ-
ual State and Tribal information).
Another four States reported
individual use support status but
did not report summary use sup-
port status. In such cases, EPA used
aquatic life use support status or
swimming use support status to
represent general water quality
conditions in the State's lakes.
It is important to note that four
States did not include the effects of
statewide fish consumption advi-
sories for mercury when calculating
their summary use support status.
New Hampshire, Michigan, South
Carolina, and Vermont excluded
the impairment associated with
statewide mercury advisories in
order to convey information that
would have been otherwise masked
by the fish consumption advisories.
If these advisories had been
included, all of the States' waters
would receive an impaired rating.
(See discussion of mercury in "Pol-
lutants Impacting Lakes, Reservoirs,
and Ponds" on page 55.)
The States and Tribes reported
that 61 % of their surveyed 16.8
million lake acres have good water
quality (Figure 3-2). Waters with
Figure, 3-2
Surveyed Waters
Total lakes = 41,684,902 acres3
Total surveyed = 16,819,769 acresb
• 40% surveyed
B 60% not surveyed
Of the surveyed acres:c
• 20% were monitored
• 74% were evaluated
• 7% were not specified
Surveyed Water Quality
39% Impaired for one
or more uses
61% Good
aSource: 1996 State and Tribal Section
305(b) reports.
''Does not include acres assessed as not
attainable (<0.01% of total lakes).
c Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Summary of Use Support
in Surveyed Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
v;\^t;?;„--,Good- * ' ~ ~ " -~V
l Uses)
- 51% . Good ,
(Threatened for One
or More Uses)
10%
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-2.
-------
50 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Figure 3-4
The pollutants/processes
and sources shown here
may not correspond direct-
ty to one another (i.e., the
leading pollutant may not
originate from the leading
source). This may occur for
a number of reasons, such
as a major pollutant may
be released from many
minor sources or States
may not have the infor-
mation to determine all
the sources of a particular
pollutant/stressor.
AGRICULTURE is the leading
source of pollution in surveyed
lakes. According to the States,
agricultural pollution problems
• affect 19% of all lakes
surveyed, and
• contribute to 49% of all
water quality problems
identified (see Figure 3-5).
SURVEYED Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources
Total lakes = 41.7 million acres
Total surveyed = 16.8 million
acres
Impaired
(39%)
Good
(61%)
Surveyed 40%
Leading PolIutants^Stressors
Surveyed
Nutrients
Metals
Siltation
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Noxious Aquatic Plants
Suspended Solids
Total Toxics
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
_L
_L
20
20
10
8
6
5
5
0 5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed Lake Acres
25
Leading Sources
Surveyed %
Agriculture
Unspecified Nonpoint Sources
Atmospheric Deposition
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Point Sources
Hydromodification
Construction
Land Disposal
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
I
19
9
8
8
7
5
4
4
0 5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed Lake Acres
25
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Tables B-4 and B-5.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a lake.
-------
Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 51
Figure 3-5
IMPAIRED Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources
Not f \
Surveyed / ]
60% U=3=gf?$?3J
Total lakes = 41.7 million acres
Total surveyed = 16.8 million
acres
Total impaired = 6.5 million acres
Leading Pollutants/Stressors
Impaired %
Nutrients
Metals
Siltation
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Noxious Aquatic Plants
Suspended Solids
Total Toxics
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
51
51
25
21
16
14
13
10 20 30
Percent of Impaired
40 50
Lake Acres
60
Leading Sources,
Impaired %
Agriculture
Unspecified Nonpoint Sources
Atmospheric Deposition
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Point Sources
Hydromodification
Construction
Land Disposal
J_
Major
Moder;
Not Specified
J I
49
24
21
21
18
14
11
11
10 20 30
Percent of Impaired
40 50
Lake Acres
60
are
the most common pollutants
affecting surveyed fakes., - ,
Nutrients and metals
y , • -are found tri,20% of,
'- -all lakes surveyed^ - ,
(see Figure 3-4), and <
, ' • contribute to 61 0/q of ^ * -
- all the water quality < - -
problems' identified jn ~
lakes. - '',>-=/" "'
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Tables B-4 and B-5.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100%
because more than one pollutant
or source may impair a lake.
-------
52 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
reported that metals and excess
nutrients pollute 3.3 million lake
acres (which equals 20% of the sur-
veyed lake acres and 51 % of the
impaired lake acres).
Healthy lake ecosystems con-
tain nutrients in small quantities
from natural sources, but extra
inputs of nutrients (primarily nitro-
gen and phosphorus) unbalance
lake ecosystems (Figure 3-6). When
temperature and light conditions
are favorable, excessive nutrients
stimulate population explosions of
undesirable algae and aquatic
weeds. The algae sink to the lake
bottom after they die, where bacte-
ria consume the available dissolved
oxygen as the bacteria decompose
the algae. Fish kills and foul odors
may result if dissolved oxygen is
depleted.
States consistently report
metals as a major cause of impair-
ment to lakes. This is mainly due to
the widespread detection of mer-
cury in fish tissue samples. It is diffi-
cult to measure mercury in ambient
water so most States rely on fish
samples to indicate mercury
contamination, since mercury
bioaccumulates in tissue. States are
Figure 3-6
Lake Impaired by Excessive Nutrients
Healthy Lake Ecosystem
Algal blooms form mats
on surface. Odor and
taste problems result.
Noxious aquatic plants
clog shoreline and reduce
access to lake
Fish suffocate
Dead algae sink
to bottom
Bacteria deplete oxygen as
they decompose dead algae
Nutrients cause nuisance overgrowth of algae as well as noxious aquatic plants, which leads to oxygen
depletion via plant respiration and microbial decomposition of plant matter. If not properly managed and
controlled, sources such as agriculture, industrial activities, municipal sewage, and atmospheric deposition
can contribute to excessive nutrients in lakes.
-------
Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 53
actively studying the extent of the
mercury problem, which is complex
because it involves atmospheric
transport from power-generating
facilities and other sources.
In addition to nutrients and
metals, the States, Puerto Rico, and
the District of Columbia report that
siltation pollutes 1.6 million lake
acres (10% of the surveyed lake
acres), enrichment by organic
wastes that deplete oxygen impacts
1.4 million lake acres (8% of the
surveyed lake acres), and noxious
aquatic plants impact 1.0 million
acres (6% of the surveyed lake
acres).
Often, several pollutants and
processes impact a single lake. For
example, a process such as removal
of shoreline vegetation may acceler-
ate erosion of sediment and nutri-
ents into a lake. In such cases, the
States and Tribes count a single lake
acre under each pollutant and
process category that impacts the
lake acre. Therefore, the lake acres
impaired by each pollutant and
process do not add up to 100% in
Figures 3-4 and 3-5.
Most States and Tribes also rate
pollutants and processes as major
or moderate/minor contributors to
impairment. A major pollutant or
process is solely responsible for an
impact or predominates over other
pollutants and stressors. A moder-
ate/minor pollutant or stressor is
one of multiple pollutants and stres-
sors that degrade aquatic life or
interfere with human use of a lake.
The States report that metals are
the most widespread major cause
of impairment in lakes.
Currently, EPA ranks pollutants
and stressors by the geographic
extent of their impacts (i.e., the
number of lake acres impaired by
each pollutant or process). How-
ever, less abundant pollutants or
processes may have more severe
impacts than the leading pollutants
listed above. For example, extreme
acidity (also known as low pH) can
eliminate fish in isolated lakes, but
acid impacts on lakes are concen-
trated in northeastern lakes and
mining States and are not wide-
spread across the country as a
whole. The individual State 305(b)
reports provide more detailed infor-
mation about the severity of pollu-
tion in specific locations.
Sources of Pollutants
Impacting Lakes,
Reservoirs, and Ponds
Forty-one States, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported
sources of pollution related to
human activities that impact some
of their lakes, reservoirs, and ponds
(see Appendix B, Table B-5, for indi-
vidual State information). These
States and Puerto Rico reported
that agriculture is the most wide-
spread source of pollution in the
Nation's surveyed lakes (Figures 3-4
and 3-5). Agriculture generates
pollutants that degrade aquatic life
or interfere with public use of 3.2
million lake acres (19% of the
surveyed lake acres).
The States and Puerto Rico also
reported that unspecified nonpoint
sources pollute 1.6 million lake
acres (9% of the surveyed lake
acres), atmospheric deposition of
pollutants impairs 1.4 million lake
acres (8% of the surveyed lake
acres), urban runoff and storm
sewers pollute 1.4 million lake acres
(8% of the surveyed lake acres),
municipal sewage treatment plants
pollute 1.2 million lake acres
-------
54 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
(7% of the surveyed lake acres),
and hydrologic modifications
degrade 924,000 lake acres (6% of
the surveyed lake acres). Many
more States reported lake degrada-
tion from atmospheric deposition in
1996 than in past reporting cycles.
This is due, in part, to a growing
awareness of the magnitude of the
atmospheric deposition problem.
Researchers have found significant
impacts to ecosystem and human
health from atmospherically deliv-
ered pollutants. See the "Great
Waters Program" section of
Chapter 12 for additional informa-
tion on atmospheric deposition.
The States, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico listed
numerous sources that impact
several hundred thousand lake
acres, including construction, land
disposal of wastes, industrial point
sources, onsite wastewater systems
(including septic tanks), forestry
activities, habitat modification, flow
regulation, contaminated sedi-
ments, highway maintenance and
runoff, resource extraction, and
combined sewer overflows.
,
*"**h* *^«"l*'is- • ni"iT,'*8w-»i-i.- -^'ty- -T, ^^ •™^^^t~i^^^%te"-s^ai'fc'=-i« v-
i^S^I?0^^^^^^^1''^^^.^^^
Sam Mohar, 4th Grade, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC
-------
Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 55
-------
%j&ymv«Sw>" * * V1 - *
...-->v;
-------
Tidal Estuaries and
Ocean Shoreline Waters
Rivers meet the oceans, Gulf
of Mexico, and the Great Lakes in
coastal waters called estuaries.
This chapter describes conditions
in tidal estuaries, where tides mix
fresh water from rivers with saline
water from the oceans and the
Gulf of Mexico. Fresh water estua-
ries around the Great Lakes are
discussed in Chapter 12.
Estuarine waters include bays
and tidal rivers that serve as nursery
areas for many commercial fish and
most shellfish populations, includ-
ing shrimp, oysters, crabs, and
scallops. Most of our Nation's fish
and shellfish industry relies on
productive estuarine waters and
their adjacent wetlands to provide
healthy habitat for some stage of
fish and shellfish development.
Recreational anglers also enjoy har-
vesting fish that reproduce or feed
in estuaries, such as striped bass
and flounder.
Estuaries
Twenty-three of the 27 coastal
States and other government enti-
ties (hereafter collectively referred
to as States) rated general water
quality conditions in some of their
estuarine waters (Appendix C, Table
States
SURVEYED
72%
of their total estuarine
waters21 for the 1996 report
States SURVEYED
28,819 Square Miles of Estuarine
Waters for the 1996 Report
Estuaries Surveyed by States
and Territories
1996 • 28,819 square miles = 72%
surveyed
H Total square miles: 39,839a
28% Not Surveyed
1994
1992
1990
26,847 square miles = 78%
surveyed
Total square miles: 34,388a
27,227 square miles = 74%
surveyed
Total square miles: 36,890b
26,692 square miles = 75%
surveyed
Total square miles: 35,624C
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-1.
aSource: 1996 State Section 305(b) reports.
bSource: 1994 State Section 305(b) reports.
cSource: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
"Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
58 Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters
C-2, contains individual State data).
In addition, Delaware reported indi-
vidual use support status in estuar-
ine waters but did not summarize
general water quality conditions.
The EPA used aquatic life use sup-
port status to represent general
water quality conditions in Dela-
ware's estuarine waters.
Altogether, these States sur-
veyed 28,819 square miles of estua-
rine waters, which equals 72% of
the 39,839 square miles of estuar-
ine waters in the Nation (Figure
4-1). The States based 49% of their
survey on monitored data and eval-
uated 35% of the surveyed estua-
rine waters with qualitative informa-
tion (including best professional
judgment by water quality man-
agers). The States did not specify
whether 16% of the surveyed
estuarine waters were monitored
or evaluated.
The States constantly revise
their survey methods in an effort to
improve their accuracy and preci-
sion. These changes limit the
comparability of summary data
presented herein and summary
data presented in previous Reports
to Congress. Similarly, discrepancies
in State survey methods undermine
comparisons of estuarine informa-
tion submitted by individual States.
Estuarine data should not be com-
pared among States, which devote
varying resources to monitoring
biological integrity, water chemistry,
and toxic pollutants in fish tissues.
The discrepancies in State monitor-
ing and survey methods, rather
than actual differences in water
quality, often account for the wide
range in water quality ratings
reported by individual States.
Summary of Use
Support _____
EPA directs the States to rate
whether their water quality is good
enough to fully support a healthy
community of aquatic organisms
and human activities such as swim-
ming, fishing, and drinking. The
States designate individual estuaries
for specific activities, termed "indi-
vidual designated uses." EPA and
the States use the following termi-
nology to rate their water quality:
• Good/Fully Supporting: Good
water quality supports a diverse
community of fish, plants, and
aquatic insects, as well as the array
of human activities assigned to an
estuary by the State.
• Good/Threatened: Good water
quality currently supports aquatic
life and human activities on the
estuary, but changes in such fea-
tures as land use threaten water
quality, or data indicate a trend of
increasing pollution in the estuary.
• Fair/Partially Supporting: Fair
water quality supports aquatic com-
munities with fewer species of fish,
plants, and aquatic insects, and/or
occasional pollution interferes with
human activities. For example,
runoff during severe thunderstorms
may temporarily elevate fecal coli-
form bacteria densities and indicate
that shellfish are not safe to harvest
and eat immediately after summer
storms.
• Poor/Not Supporting: Poor
water quality does not support a
healthy aquatic community and/or
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 59
prevents some human activities on
the estuary. For example, estuarine
waters may be devoid of fish for
short periods each summer because
excessive nutrients from runoff
initiate algal blooms that deplete
oxygen concentrations.
• Not Attainable: The State has
performed a use-attainability analy-
sis and demonstrated that use
support of one or more designated
beneficial uses is not attainable due
to one of six specific biological,
chemical, physical, or economic/
social conditions (see Chapter 1
for additional information).
Most States rate how well an
estuary supports individual uses
(such as swimming and aquatic life)
and then consolidate individual use
ratings into a summary water qual-
ity rating. This table divides estua-
ries into those fully supporting all of
their uses, those fully supporting all
uses but threatened for one or
more uses, and those impaired for
one or more uses (see Chapter 1
for a complete discussion of use
support).
The States reported that 62%
of the surveyed estuarine waters
have good water quality that fully
supports designated uses (Figure
4-2). Of these waters, 4% are
threatened and might deteriorate if
we fail to manage potential sources
of pollution. Some form of pollu-
tion or habitat degradation impairs
the remaining 38% of the surveyed
estuarine waters.
Individual Use
Support
Individual use support informa-
tion provides additional detail
about water quality problems in our
Surveyed Waters
Total estuaries = 39,839 square miles3
Total surveyed = 28,819 square milest
• 72% surveyed
H 28% not surveyed
Summary of Use Support
in Surveyed Estuaries
X
>.*•:-
^3T ^™JD <~-~ j?:-* «*• ^ ^*«wv» (S,
J^rrr. iFMflvlupp'ortlrtg All Uses)"
** f - -
Good
(Threatened for,One
or More Uses)
4% ~
• .,- •' _«r.
-<** Impaired
|For One or Wore Uses*
" -
4'*.
Of the surveyed estuarine waters:
• 49% were monitored
• 35% were evaluated
• 16% were not specified
Surveyed Water Quality
38% Impaired
62% Good
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-2.
aSource: 1996 State Section 305(b) reports.
"Does not include square miles assessed
as not attainable (<0.1% total estuaries).
-------
60 Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters
111!!'!:'" IK ! JliS !" li! llllill.
|p^«xl<|ual,,Use .Support in Estuaries
Percent
mated
M1le$ (Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Surveyed Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Nation's surface waters. The States
are responsible for designating their
estuaries for State-specific uses, but
EPA requests that the States rate
how well their estuaries support five
standard uses so that EPA can sum-
marize the State data. The standard
uses are aquatic life support, fish
consumption, shellfish harvesting,
primary contact recreation (such
as swimming and diving), and
secondary contact recreation (such
as boating) (see Chapter 1 for a
description of each individual use).
Few States designate saline estua-
rine waters for drinking water sup-
ply use and agricultural use because
of high treatment costs.
Nineteen States reported the
individual use support status of
their estuarine waters (see Appen-
dix C, Table C-3, for individual
State information). Most often,
these States examined aquatic life
conditions and swimming use in
their estuarine waters (Figure 4-3).
The States reported that pollutants
impact aquatic life in 7,358 square
miles of estuarine waters (31 % of
the 23,920 square miles surveyed
for aquatic life support) and violate
shellfish harvesting criteria in 4,509
square miles of estuarine waters
(27% of the 15,794 square miles
surveyed for shellfishing use
support). Pollutants also violate
swimming criteria in 3,839 square
miles of estuarine waters (16% of
the 24,087 square miles surveyed
for swimming use support).
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-3.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 61
Water Quality
Problems Identified
in Estuaries
Figures 4-4 and 4-5 identify the
pollutants and sources of pollutants
that impair (i.e., prevent from fully
supporting designated uses) the
most square miles of estuarine
waters, as reported by the States.
The two figures are based on the
same data (contained in Appendix
C, Tables C-4 and C-5), but each
figure provides a different perspec-
tive on the extent of impairment
attributed to individual pollutants
and sources. Figure 4-4 shows the
relative impact of the leading
pollutants and sources in surveyed
estuarine waters. Figure 4-5 pre-
sents the relative impact of the
leading pollutants and sources in
estuaries with identified problems
(i.e., impaired estuaries), a subset of
surveyed estuarine waters.
The following sections describe
the leading pollutants and sources
of impairment identified in estua-
ries. It is important to note that the
information about pollutants and
sources is incomplete because the
States cannot identify the pollutant
or source of pollutants impairing
every estuarine waterbody. In some
cases, a State may recognize that
water quality does not fully support
a designated use, but the State may
not have adequate data to docu-
ment that a specific pollutant or
stressor is responsible for the
impairment. Sources of impairment
are even more difficult to identify
than pollutants and stressors.
Pollutants and Processes
Impacting Estuaries
Twenty-one States reported
the number of estuarine waters
impacted by individual pollutants
and stressors such as habitat alter-
ations (see Appendix C, Table C-4,
for individual State information).
EPA ranks the pollutants and stres-
sors by the geographic extent of
their impacts on aquatic life and
human activities (measured as
estuarine square miles impaired by
each pollutant or process) rather
than actual pollutant loads entering
estuaries. This approach targets the
pollutants and stressors causing the
most harm to aquatic life and pub-
lic use of our waters, rather than
the most abundant pollutants in
our estuaries.
Often, more than one pollutant
or stressor impacts a single estua-
rine waterbody. In such cases, the
States and other jurisdictions count
a single square mile of estuary
under each pollutant or stressor
category that impacts the estuary.
Therefore, the percentages of estua-
rine waters impaired by all the pol-
lutant and process categories do
not add up to 100% in Figures 4-4
and 4-5.
The States identified more
square miles of estuarine waters
polluted by nutrients than any
other pollutant or stressor (Figures
4-4 and 4-5). Eleven States report-
ed that extra nutrients pollute
6,254 square miles of estuarine
waters (22% of the surveyed estua-
rine waters). As in lakes, extra
inputs of nutrients destabilize
-------
62 Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters
Figure 4-4
The pollutants/processes
and sources shown here
may not correspond direct-
ly to one another (i.e., the
leading pollutant may not
originate from the leading
source). This may occur for
a number of reasons, such
as a major pollutant may
be released from many
minor sources or States
may not have the infor-
mation to determine all
the sources of a particular
pollutant/stressor.
NUTRIENTS are the most
common pollutants affecting
surveyed estuaries. Nutrients
• are found in 22% of
all estuaries surveyed,
and
• contribute to 57% of
all the water quality
problems (see Figure 4-5).
SURVEYED Estuaries: Pollutants and Sources
Not Surveyed
28%
Total estuaries = 39,839 square
miles
Good ^*i*^___^^' Impaired
(45%) (28%)
Surveyed 72%
Total surveyed = 28,819 square miles
Leading Pollutants/StHsssfprs
Surveyed %
Nutrients
Bacteria
Priority Toxic Organic Chemicals
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Oil and Grease
Salinity
Habitat Alterations
• Major
H Moderate/Minor
D Not Specified
J I
J_
22
16
15
12
8
7
6
0 5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed Estuarine
Square Miles
25
Leading Sources
Surveyed %
Industrial Discharges
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Point Sources
Upstream Sources
Agriculture
Combined Sewer Overflows
Land Disposal of Wastes
• Major
H Moderate/Minor
D Not Specified
I I
21
18
17
11
10
8
7
5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed Estuarine
Square Miles
25
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Tables C-4 and C-5.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair an estuary.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 63
Figure 4-5
IMPAIRED Estuaries: Pollutants and Sources
Not
Surveyed
28%
Total estuaries = 39,839 square
miles
Total surveyed = 28,819 square
miles
Total impaired = 11,025 square miles
! Ptflfltanlsf Sllessors'
• ' •* • - ' ' * • - •-
Impaired %
Nutrients
Bacteria
Priority Toxic Organic
Chemicals
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Oil and Grease
Salinity
Habitat Alterations
_L
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
_L
I
I
I
57
42
40
33
20
18
14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles
>;eiu;rces
Impaired '$
Industrial Discharges
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Point Sources
Upstream Sources
Agriculture
Combined Sewer Overflows
Land Disposal of Wastes
I
• Major
• Moderate/Minor
H Not Specified
I 1 1
56
46
44
30
27
20
19
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
are the leading source oi pdl-
lUtipri'iji surveyed estuafies. '
According to tfj.e States, indus^
tri^ai discharges -\ , .-',
! • ^affect 2T%;of,a11 estuaries',
- J] ^ surveyed '{see. Figure 4-4),
'
, coiStribute4o,56% of •',
all
-------
64 Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters
estuarine ecosystems. When tem-
perature and light conditions are
favorable, excessive nutrients stimu-
late population explosions of unde-
sirable algae. Decomposition of
dead algae depletes oxygen, which
may trigger fish kills and foul odors.
Explosive growth of algal popula-
tions can reduce light penetration
and inhibit growth of beneficial
aquatic plants. Submerged aquatic
plants provide critical habitat for
desirable shellfish, such as scallops.
Twenty-one States reported
that bacteria pollute 4,634 square
miles of estuarine waters (16% of
the surveyed estuarine waters).
Most States monitor harmless
bacteria, such as Escherichia coll,
that inhabit the digestive tracts of
humans and other warm-blooded
animals and populate sewage in
high densities. Such bacteria
provide evidence that an estuary is
contaminated with sewage that
may contain numerous viruses and
bacteria that cause illness in people.
Most States monitor the indicator
bacteria rather than run multiple
tests to detect the numerous harm-
ful viruses and bacteria in sewage.
Pathogenic viruses and bacteria
seldom impact aquatic organisms
such as fish and shellfish. However,
shellfish can accumulate bacteria
and viruses from contaminated
water and cause illness when
ingested. Therefore, the Food and
Drug Administration and the States
restrict the harvest and sale of shell-
fish grown in waters polluted with
indicator bacteria. Bacteria also
interfere with recreational activities
because some pathogens can be
Figure 4-6
Bacteria
Urban runoff and storm sewers are
the leading source of impairment
in estuarine waters I
^^ Overloaded or improperly functioning
sewage treatment plants may release
waste that contains bacteria
Failing septic systems
may release bacteria
HUH
nun m
mm I H
!!!!!! imiijfi
nun mini i
linn mini i
iiiiiiliiimili
Some bacteria, such as fecal conforms, provide evidence that an estuary is contaminated with fecal material that may
contain pathogenic bacteria and viruses harmful to people. Often, the pathogenic viruses and bacteria do not adversely
impact aquatic life such as fish and shellfish. However, shellfish may accumulate bacteria and viruses that cause
human diseases when ingested. Therefore, officials restrict shellfish harvesting in contaminated waters to protect public
health. Bacteria also impair swimming uses because some pathogenic bacteria and viruses can be transmitted by contact
with contaminated water.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 65
transmitted by contact with
contaminated water or ingestion
during swimming (Figure 4-6).
The States also report that
priority organic toxic chemicals
pollute 4,398 square miles (15%
of the surveyed estuarine waters),
oxygen depletion from organic
wastes impacts 3,586 square miles
(12% of the surveyed estuarine
waters), oil and grease pollute
2,170 square miles (8% of the sur-
veyed estuarine waters), salinity,
total dissolved solids, and/or chlo-
rides impact 1,944 square miles
(7% of the surveyed estuarine
waters), and habitat alterations
degrade 1,586 square miles (6%
of the surveyed estuarine waters).
Priority organic toxic chemical
pollution and dissolved oxygen
depletion are widespread problems
reported by more than 15 States.
In contrast, only two States (Florida
and Louisiana) reported extensive
impacts from habitat alterations
and oil and grease.
Most States rate pollutants and
stressors as major or moderate/
minor contributors to impairment.
A major pollutant or stressor is
solely responsible for an impact or
predominates over other pollutants
and stressors. A moderate/minor
pollutant or stressor is one of multi-
ple pollutants and stressors that
degrade aquatic life or interfere
with human use of estuarine
waters.
The States report that nutrients
have a major impact on more
estuarine waters than any other
pollutant or stressor. The individual
State 305(b) reports provide more
detailed information about the
severity of pollution in specific
locations.
Sources of Pollutants
Impacting Estuaries
Twenty-one States reported
sources of pollution related to
human activities that impact some
of their estuarine waters (see
Appendix C, Table C-5, for individ-
ual State information). These States
reported that industrial discharges
are the most widespread source of
pollution in the Nation's surveyed
estuarine waters. Pollutants in
industrial discharges degrade
aquatic life or interfere with public
use of 6,144 square miles of estua-
rine waters (21 % of the surveyed
estuarine waters) (Figure 4-4).
The States also reported that
pollution from urban runoff and
storm sewers impacts 5,099 square
miles of estuarine waters (18% of
the surveyed estuarine waters),
municipal sewage treatment plants
pollute 4,874 square miles of estu-
arine waters (17% of the surveyed
estuarine waters), upstream sources
pollute 3,295 square miles of estua-
rine waters (11 % of the surveyed
estuarine waters), agriculture
pollutes 2,971 square miles of
Ufffl
-------
66 Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Key Management Issues for
the National Estuary Programs
ANEP is a newly orga-
nized not-for-profit
organization whose
purpose is to promote
responsible stewardship
and a common vision
for the preservation of
our Nation's bays and
estuaries.
What are the most common
problems facing the 28 estuaries in
the National Estuary
Program (NEP), and what
should the public and
decision-makers know
about those problems?
These questions were the
focus of the NEP Key
Management Issues
Workshop held in San
Francisco, California,
February 26-28, 1997.
Cosponsored by EPA
and the Association of
National Estuary Programs (ANEP),
the purpose of the workshop was to
begin a national dialogue to define
the key issues and identify themes
that should be conveyed in an
upcoming Citizens' Report to the
Nation.
The workshop employed an
interactive format, where over 125
representatives from the local NEPs
and EPA convened to exchange
ideas and experiences concerning
issues facing the NEPs. Attendees
included NEP directors, scientists,
outreach coordinators, citizens, busi-
ness representatives, local govern-
ment officials, and EPA Headquarters
and Regional managers and staff.
Common Management
Issues
Toxic Chemicals
Changing the normal balance
of chemical concentrations in an
ecosystem can jeopardize the health
and reproductive capacity of the
organisms in that ecosystem. In the
marine environment, toxics of the
greatest concern are polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
toxic metals, polychlorinated biphe-
nols (PCBs), and pesticides. Several
classes of toxic chemicals collect in
sediments, where bottom-dwelling
organisms can be exposed to them
and pass the toxicity on through the
food web.
NEPs from every region of the
United States identified chemicals as
an important water quality manage-
ment issue. A variety of manage-
ment approaches are being under-
taken by NEPs, including promotion
of best management practices
(BMPs), public education and out-
reach, wasteload allocations, numer-
ical criteria, and discharge permits.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 67
Alteration of Natural
Flow Regimes
Alteration of the natural flow
regimes in tributaries can have
significant effects on the water
quality and health and distribution
of living resources in the receiving
estuaries. Reduced inflow can
reduce the total productivity and
economic value of an estuary.
A number of NEPs identified
flow alterations as a highly signifi-
cant issue. The majority of these
NEPs were in the Southeast and
Gulf and Caribbean regions.
Management approaches being
undertaken include establishment
of minimum flows, promotion of
BMPs, wastewater reuse, and
promotion of more efficient use of
limited water supplies.
Declines in Fish and Wildlife
Populations
The, distribution and abundance
of fish and wildlife depend on fac-
tors such as light, turbidity, nutrient
availability, temperature, salinity,
habitat and food availability, as well
as natural and human-induced
events that disturb or change
environmental conditions.
Most of the NEPs from across
all regions identified declines in fish
and wildlife as either a high or
medium program
priority. Management
approaches to protect
living species include
the purchase of
ecologically valuable
lands, pollutant
reduction, habitat restoration,
and augmentation of existing
populations.
Pathogens
Pathogens commonly found
in marine waters include those
causing gastroenteritis, salmonel-
losis, and hepatitis A. Pathogen
contamination, as suspected from
indicator organisms, results in the
closure of shellfishing areas and
bathing beaches.
A majority of NEPs from every
region of the United States identi-
fied pathogens as a water quality
management issue. Management
approaches include stormwater
runoff and combined sewer over-
flow mitigation, land use controls
for new developments, BMP imple-
mentation, reduction of raw or
inadequately treated sewage dis-
charges, development of informa-
tion clearinghouses, septic tank
inspections, maintenance of sewer
lines, and establishment of "no
discharge" zones.
For more information,
see the NEP section in
Chapter 12.
-------
68 Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters
HT HIGHLIGHT
l:c!^^^
r. ! !i!! I is! S I i i i ! I«H ' m ilisi! mm Si*
I1"!'":;'" P! "'' ir I1 "ii "i , ,i 11' 'i ""'I I !'iii"";j|i'i ,11 |: j: \f ,i|liii|i| iHH't | | l||i|l,||i r"! I*"™ I1! 'I'l'"''»'! 'I
•: iiilijjiriwjtJ1;.:1:!1;;, jfij«'•', A f; win" ji*,.,; t^af^,: ^ \ ,|iginji |i fi iii'ijiiiiKi'iiMftiH! spa ^ii'aiviii ,;|;,,
Introduced Species
Intentional or accidental intro-
ductions of invasive species may
often result in unexpected ecologi-
cal, economic, and social impacts
to the marine environment. These
species may now constitute the
largest single threat to the biological
diversity of the world's coastal
waters.
Management approaches
include planting of native vegeta-
tion, development of regulatory
permitting processes for mariculture
operations, and public outreach
and education.
Nutrient Overloading
Although nutrients occur natu-
rally in animal wastes, soils, and
even the atmosphere, land use
practices and a growing population
have greatly increased the amount
of nutrients entering estuaries,
resulting in nuisance algal condi-
tions and low dissolved oxygen.
A large number of NEPs from
across the United States identified
the impacts of nutrient overloading
as either a high or medium priority.
Management approaches include
promotion of BMPs, land use con-
trols, local education and outreach,
dissolved oxygen targets, advanced
wastewater treatment standards,
septic tank replacement, point/non-
point source trading, and improving
riparian buffer areas.
Habitat Loss
and Degradation
The continued health and bio-
diversity of marine and estuarine
systems depends on the mainte-
nance of high-quality habitat. The
same areas that often attract human
development also provide essential
food, cover, migratory corridors,
and breeding and nursery areas for
a broad array of coastal and marine
organisms.
A majority of the NEPs in all
regions of the United States identi-
fied habitat loss and degradation,
including reduced or changed sub-
merged aquatic vegetation, habitat
alteration, and reduced or degraded
wetlands, as a high-priority manage-
ment issue. Management approach-
es include habitat restoration and
management, wetlands protection,
acquisition of ecologically valuable
habitat, management of future
growth, fisheries management
practices, and public education.
Natural Resource Valuation
An understanding of the eco-
nomic value of natural resources is
critical in gaining the support of
citizens, industry, and government
in the preservation of the natural
environment. Natural resource
valuation can help demonstrate to
local communities the benefits of
investments in management actions
to sustain or improve the health of
the ecosystem.
II t
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 69
'" < - * < , *% ' ' , ^
Many of the NEPs are begin-
ning to collect natural resource
valuation information. For example,
researchers have estimated that the
Tampa Bay estuary supports more
than $1 billion in economic benefits
to residents, local governments, and
businesses through recreational and
commercial fishing, boating, waste-
water disposal, enhanced property
values, savings in shipping costs,
and power plant cooling.
Looking to the Future
Although these challenges are
being dealt with locally, manage-
ment approaches have national
implications and applicability.
Collectively, the NEPs have a signifi-
cant knowledge base and wealth
of experience in dealing with the
serious problems that threaten the
< ' <' \" ] - > - >-s.~ ,; '! / >
t _ "* 7 "^-N^s'^,'"
'**'" " .-• C''-:^. ('-Vv;:>/^'':'
health of these nationally significant
estuaries.
The NEP workshop identified
not only solutions, but also some
of the obstacles to successful imple-
mentation of management actions.
The need for long-term commit-
ment, support, and coordination at
all levels of government, and strong
public participation was identified as
a critical component for NEP success
in developing and implementing
management actions.
For More Information
Darrell Brown, Chief
Coastal Management Branch,
EPA
(202) 260-6426
email: brown.darrell@epamail.
epa.gov
^«~ -,-v S * J,~ ^X % X^ %™ " „
•*. f S " ^ „ ^ S ^ S ^ ~ <
''-'•" '- ''"" * *''". SV"''/ ,'/"\ ^
' ™~ ' ^ " 1 - „ *
HieHUGHf^^^JGHf HICHLISHT "'
•;:^^\^ ^i
/,,;", '; w •/ <.7\- --'->^<\/ l
'> '• \- ^'" ^ : _ ' >s;~;. ^> ' ;
^>s""^ „";,'*' ^ "^ * ' " *
« ^^ s + \ f r *t
' " ^*F * /" / * + ^ c \ •* \ * '
*""'„"*"".> "s,. . / ' '" < '"^ S '
^-^ -'^ ? * *" ~\ ' " ," ^ ^
^ -v^s.-^-i-,"^?^^ r * ^ " -« " ' ^
\ " '" x ~ ^~ * - ^ < „ ^ <
-. ' - ^•.'^'"^"^''^ ;\ '~* ^f
r" j:" ^ x' * -"* s- ' x^> - .: ^"
<^ , , -s c " V" . ' ^ x ~ " 1
" ^^ * -,' " J *? •. ' rt »x * ~ ' f ^ /
^ -° / ' s " ' ' i ' , '*" ! '
* ^ ^ N xj ~ ^ * ' ' tN / * s
* ^ "j, * ^ " , "" ^ "'" x/ * ^ r'
- ""'" ™ ' " - ' "" " * ^
* X N'~ **,. S ' X ,_ ''^ k V<
"l-v ^ /'^C™""<'*I » ' "
- -'- " <•'' '•-'' r <' ,. '* • ,;"
Ms;.'::':
j~ * ,*. .. _ - , \
','-""'« - N "^ '=.">- -" " > "
' "- \ "•S"" .''-'- /","'-,/-
-------
70 Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters
i ill 11 ..... Hill W'iW
'i >i ,
HT HIGHLIGHT
JH I *' *, ««.
t 1 1
I If
I |
State and Federal Partners in
Integrated Estuarine Monitoring
in the Mid-Atlantic (1997 & 1998)
Background
The Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MAIA) began as a
partnership between EPA's Region 3
and the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) to develop and
respond to the best available infor-
mation on the condition of various
ecological resources and to adapt
environmental management over
time, based on careful monitoring
of environmental indicators and
related new information. Additional
partnerships have been developed
with other Federal and State envi-
ronmental organizations. MAIA has
implemented an Assessment Frame-
work that begins by defining
realistic environmental goals and
related environmental assessment
questions. MAIA then strives to
answer the assessment questions
and to characterize ecological
resource conditions based on expo-
sure and effect information.
MAIA is producing assessments
at four levels of integration: (1) sin-
gle resource assessments which
determine the status and trends in
the condition of individual eco-
logical resources (e.g., estuaries);
(2) within-resource associations for a
single resource group; (3) determin-
ing landscape condition and the
associations between resource
condition and landscapes; and
(4) determining relationships
among multiple resources at various
spatial scales.
Initial efforts are ongoing for
individual resources (e.g., estuaries,
surface waters, forests, and agricul-
ture) between the Region, EMAP,
other Federal agencies, and States.
The Condition of the Mid-Atlantic
Estuaries Report, written by
ORD/Atlantic Ecology Division has
been reviewed and is in final pro-
duction. This report responded to
specific assessment questions devel-
oped by the MAIA Estuaries Team,
which fall into the following broad
areas: (1) Is there a problem?
(2) Where is the problem located?
What is the magnitude, extent, and
distribution? (3) What is the cause
of the problem? (4) Are things
changing? (5) What does it mean to
the community? (6) What can we
do about it?
The data sources underlying this
report were the ORD's Environmen-
tal Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) and related moni-
toring efforts (e.g., Regional-EMAP
(REMAP) and other special ORD
monitoring efforts in the MAIA
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 71
•• / XN^.! * ^ ^ V
geographic area), State programs
on the coastal and estuarine
resource area, the Chesapeake Bay
Program (CBP) and National Estuary
Program (NEP) efforts.
Although the report answers
many of the assessment questions,
data gaps remained — either because
there has not been adequate moni-
toring in some geographic areas
(i.e., additional monitoring is
required) or because there are no
environmental indicators available
to adequately answer the question
(i.e., additional research is required).
Development of an
Integrated Monitoring
Program
In 1 997, MAIA began a coordi-
nated monitoring effort of the mid-
Atlantic estuaries to respond to the
data gaps identified during the
development of the Condition of the
Mid-Atlantic Estuaries Report.
The integrated monitoring pro-
gram built upon existing monitoring
activities conducted by the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the Chesa-
peake Bay Program (CBP), the
National Park Service (NPS), the
Delaware Estuary Program, and the
States, using a suite of common
core indicators or measurements.
Monitoring will be conducted in
large estuarine systems, large tidal
rivers, and small estuarine systems.
The goal of the integrated
estuarine monitoring in MAIA is to
assess the environmental condition
>, s 4 ^ \
, . •- ~~ -.,- , "j
•\, ' "" - . - ' -
of large estuarine systems in the
Mid-Atlantic such as the Chesapeake
Bay and the Delaware Bay including
specific attention to their large river
components such as the Susque-
hanna, Potomac, James, and
Delaware. The monitoring will
assess the condition of smaller estu-
arine systems as a whole with spe-
cific attention to 1 0 small systems
such as Virginia Coastal Bays,
Pocomoke River, and Salem River.
To reach this goal, existing monitor-
ing programs will be guided, inte-
grated, and leveraged to improve
spatial coverage and strengthen
their capabilities to assess environ-
mental condition through use of a
core list of indicators. Field valida-
tion will be conducted of new indi-
cators and the feasibility assessed of
merging alternative monitoring
designs such as probabilistic (EMAP)
and targeted (Chesapeake Bay
Program) monitoring programs.
MAIA partners participated fully
in the planning and execution of
the Integrated Estuarine Monitoring.
The partners are:
• EPA, Region 3
Office of Research and
Development, EMAP,
Atlantic Ecology Division
Office of Research and
Development, EMAP,
Gulf Ecology Division
• Chesapeake Bay Program
• National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration
• National Park Service -
Assateague Island
* " - .- * '-- f - ", > ' , " . " j -
~~~ x xJ^C^^M** Ik Ji »,»,>>,* *rt*.W">,»*>
HIGHLIGHjJrMljGHT HJCHLIGhJT- "
' ? V -
N* -" o " , * :
-" -" > •, •, :
^ - *'' v ', -** ."-'., - "-. ~j
'- , \ ' ' ^ - " "
; f '• • , ^- f ,'•<-.-', ,. "-
' ,-' \- ,_ ; ,- _ ,- C ,,"*/
' , - >" -• * > - ',-. ,.:
- ;: ' * /- *•
- ,- "- ' -' ^> -',„., -^ , -^ ,
r - < '<- •.'***"* * .
^, ' ^ *~ ' -. . ; "
:< ^, s s '" S,N '*<•:
- ^, ^ * ' - 1
-'£ ^=~ ^ - - <5 ^K^ <~T<-
' ^ * * ' t « f ' A '
' } *
"* , " ' * ' •> ' *
( ' ' ^ ' '*
~ f *-} s ' '
s- ' „, - '"<.'- ' * ' ,^}
' N ;t ' ,r -^ , . .
^ * , * , * { , !
< v , - - • " r \ - , < , *
' , < ^ • - '- ' < ,, _ <
• -'-/'.' / " , ,/' /- V' , '*
^ < N '
**^ - -< "< ^" ^\, ^' '
< ' „- j
* ™ S " ? ! "" ( ^ ' :
"-« ' f * ' " ' * l
4. - X ' ^ " ^.
-------
72 Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters
HIGHLIGH;
I iWi< ,'<
HT HIGHLIGHT
MPS
Figure 1. MAIA 1997 Chesapeake Bay
Sampling Stations
• Delaware River Basin Commission
• Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
• Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality
Process
The concept of using Integrated
Estuarine Monitoring was developed
by the joint EPA Region
3/ORD/EMAP Team. Representatives
of the various Federal and State
monitoring programs participated in
a series of work-
shops in Annapolis,
MD, to discuss how
to integrate estua-
rine monitoring
efforts. The pur-
pose of integrating
monitoring efforts
was to better char-
acterize estuaries
across the Region
and to design a
monitoring pro-
gram that also
responded to the
information needs
at all scales from
regional to smaller,
local scales. Other
issues addressed
include how the
EMAP design could
be linked to region-
al and intensive
sites and whether a
core set of indica-
tors can be identi-
fied that all groups
could agree on.
Sampling
Organization
ACBP
534
EPA_ORD 154
18
The programs agreed to
work together and to approach
integration through the assessment
process, not by comparing monitor-
ing designs. Using the draft Condi-
tion of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries
Report as a starting point, they were
able to identify assessment ques-
tions that would help characterize
the condition of the estuaries. In
addition, they identified questions
that could not be answered because
indicators had not yet been devel-
oped or field-verified.
The group agreed to develop a
set of core existing indicators that
would be monitored by all parties.
They determined the ideal set of
indicators would cover the food
chain, water quality, habitat quality,
eutrophication, and chemical
contamination.
The ORD Gulf Ecology Division
(GED), with input from the partners,
developed a comprehensive inte-
grated monitoring design that met
the various goals identified. The final
design consists of more than 700
stations throughout the mid-Atlantic
estuaries (see Figures 1, 2, and 3).
The partners agreed to provide
summary tables of water quality and
sediment monitoring, including
methods, maps, outlines, measure-
ments, and schedules and to pro-
vide recent summary reports of their
own monitoring activities. This
information will be compiled by
ORD/Atlantic Ecology Division (AED)
into a summary overview of the
MAIA integrated estuaries monitor-
ing program, which will be put on
the EMAP homepage.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 73
ORD/AED also provided a cen-
tral Information Management clear-
inghouse, which includes a directo-
ry, catalog, and summary data sets.
Formats and file specifications for
transmission of summary data,
including metadata requirements,
were provided to the collaborators
in the MAIA-Estuaries 1997 Data
Transfer and Format Manual.
Using a Core List
of Indicators
Selected parameters shown
to be key indicators of overall
environmental quality are mea-
sured by the various monitoring
programs. These indicators are
quantifiable and clearly related to
ecological condition.
The partners developed a list
of core indicators. Each partner
initially presented the suite of
indicators being used in their
monitoring program. Detailed
discussions about the choice of
indicators and the protocols for col-
lection followed. The ultimate result
of these discussions was a detailed
list of core indicators (see Figure 4)
for which all partners would moni-
tor. It was agreed that all partners
would monitor these core indicators
but could monitor additional indica-
tors as required by their individual
program. It was also agreed that,
when monitoring for these core
indicators, all partners would use
the same protocols.
Sampling
Organization
NOAA
Figure 2. MAIA 1997 Albermarle / Pamlico
Sound Sampling Stations
> i- si
-------
74 Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters
H1GHLICH
f t-
HT HIGHLIGHT
The partners will be collecting
the field data at over 700 sites
during July, August, and September
of 1997. Data and assessment
reports are scheduled to be avail-
able in 1998.
For Further Information
Pat Cant (410-5 73-2744)
Kevin Summers (904-934-9244)
Brian Melzian (401-782-3188)
Figure 3. MAIA 1997 Delaware
Bay Sampling Stations
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 75
'
-
- < --/ ' --,-'- , -, - - " . ' ' ?-. , '" , '-';-',',.."<'•
x ^ '- -' , -,- - " ' "".r.l " ,."" , , .-x .,,-.-;-_-' :--
'' '7 ,,.---; „ ,• ", * • -- - ' s - ' <> 4 - ', "\
, . ,% --: - , ' ,- < --- -.. " , v~> '- »; -, N „ ' j.
• Location (latitude and longitude)
• Time and Date of Sampling
• Depth of Water Column
• Water Column Measurements
- Physical measurements (at surface and bottom; water column
profiles at some stations): Temperature, Salinity, Dissolved oxygen,
pH, Conductivity
- Water Clarity (Secchi disk or turbidity) (measured once per station)
- Water Column Chemistry (Chesapeake Bay Program Protocol)
(surface and bottom): Dissolved silica (SI), Dissolved ammonia
(NH4), Dissolved nitrite and nitrate (NO23), Dissolved nitrite (NO2),
Particulate organic nitrogen (PON), Total dissolved nitrogen (TDN),
Total dissolved phosphorous (TOP), Dissolved orthophosphate
(PO4F), Total particulate phosphorous (PHOSP), Particulate organic
carbon (POC) Total suspended solids (TSS) Chlorophyll a (CHLA)
Pheaophytin (PHEA)
- Sediment Measurements
(1) Benthic macroinvertebrates: Species composition and
enumeration, Biomass, Silt-clay content (%silt/clay)
(2) Observational SAV (in conjunction with benthic gap)
(3) Sediment chemistry (first year only): NOAA NS&T
contaminants, acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and simultaneously
organic carbon
(4) Sediment bioassay (first year only): Pore Water
Concentrations of Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide, Microtox,
Ampelisca, On a subsample of stations (MD initiative)-
Leptocheirus plumulosis and Cyprinodon variegatus
- Fish Measurements (second year only)
Fish tissue contaminants
Fish community
External pathology
Macrophage aggregates
Figure 4. Core Indicators (EMAP Protocol
Unless Otherwise Specified)
, <<>. „' '- t \/ _ ; - _' . " ~J"J -^ "" ^"-- ' - ' '"'-'-
'>"' f
< ?
< *
j .<• - •- ^^^^^A'%4V^ * y * ST «~» *. «, «"*_ * *#,* « K ^
HiGHtlGHjf|L_| jljGHTHICHLfGHT ^
::v: '^r-^v^*' - ^*-
,:-;; \: •-: ,: ^?^;" * ~ ~ '- ' ~ * s ~
4 ' ^ -^/ "^^ >*xv^4
'**_'^ '^s ,IN^
iv^^A^i^ _ ' ^ 1 f '
'* '- * ' " <" ' '""'<,' s; ' ,
'*•, y' „ , * , ' ' '
/ f - - ' f?^ --_-<"<- /. -
/. '~ ^- '~ - - '"*',"', " , '',*,'
' -\^~\ ~" . ','•'•*,*.'*' . " , '"'
> -"' / -'^ ^ ~- ."%"/.';/'
•"= -' ,-" " *>." N , '> ; -• , -• ^
,.ij^*>s ' ^s s
' ^ _ » •» =i ^ s
'"'- ': ' 'V <-'"*N "'^ '"'-,' 'i*- •
^- ^~-' ,,* '~ /* * - ^''^ e "*• ' --- ''" ~
'''-'," ' < -
[ ^ „ " _iS S -- ' •• « "
^/ * -f < f " "*
\ ' %, ">", "! ' s' - ,^' , • <
x"'-, . " "$*„>•„
- ^ •• -. , ^.^, :.-
<. ' * . >• '-,
" - ' ' '' <\ '•* ,'s/r -,!-/ ' ' !
s * ., " ' ' ^ C«
• " 1 " , s ' N r ' ' " •" ' ! ^
St\.,'~ •! ^ "" * 1 f. ^ \
^ x * s ^ " *^» t " ' ^ "^ N '-,'
. ' . ^ „ "' "V *^ ^ ^ " *
/ ^-^ ^- x'~ „ ^ ^ ! t J " <. v s "
^ *, .'N»s'^'''1"'1 w ^
•^ ~ ., ^/"?
^^" ' > ,, _™ / ~ ^s>
-------
76 Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters
Ocean Shoreline Waters Surveyed
by States
Including Alaska's Ocean Shoreline
1996 • 3,651 miles = 6%
• Total ocean shoreline miles: 58,585a
94% Not Surveyed
Excluding Alaska's Ocean Shoreline
1996 • 3,651 miles = 16% surveyed
• Total ocean shoreline miles: 22,585a
84% Not Surveyed
Of the surveyed ocean shoreline miles:
• 54% were monitored
• 42% were evaluated
• 4% were not specified
1994
1992
1990
5,208 miles - 9%
Total ocean shoreline miles: 58,421 b
3,398 miles = 17% surveyed
Total ocean shoreline miles: 20,121c
4,230 miles = 22% surveyed
Total ocean shoreline miles: 19,200d
"Source: 1996 State Section 305(b) reports.
bSource: 1994 State Section 305(b) reports.
cSource: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
dSource: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
eNote: Figures may not add to 100% due
to rounding.
estuarine waters (10% of the sur-
veyed estuarine waters), pollution
from combined sewer overflows
impairs 2,163 square miles of estu-
arine waters (8% of the surveyed
estuarine waters), and land disposal
of wastes pollutes 2,093 square
miles (7% of the surveyed estuarine
waters). Urban sources contribute
more to the degradation of estua-
rine waters than does agriculture
"because urban centers are located
adjacent to most major estuaries.
Upstream sources of pollution are
sources across State lines or along a
river upstream of an estuary.
Ocean Shoreline
Waters
Ten of the 27 coastal States
and Territories rated general water
quality conditions in 3,651 miles
of ocean shoreline. The surveyed
Figure 4-7
Summary of Use Support6
in Surveyed Ocean Shoreline Waters
waters represent 6% of the Nation's
coastline (including Alaska's 36,000
miles of coastline), or 16% of the
22,585 miles of national coastline
excluding Alaska (see Appendix C,
Table C-6, for individual State infor-
mation). Most of the surveyed
waters (3,185 miles, or 87%) have
good quality that supports a
healthy aquatic community and
public activities (Figure 4-7). Of
these waters, 315 miles (9% of the
surveyed shoreline) are threatened
and may deteriorate in the future.
Some form of pollution or habitat
Surveyed Water Quality
13% Impaired
87% Good
pportfeg All Uses) *
H5-J-JS
Good
(Threatened for One
or More Uses)
9%
Impaired
(For One or More Uses)
13%
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-6.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 77
degradation impairs the remaining
13% of the surveyed shoreline
(467 miles).
Individual Use
Support
EPA requests that the States
rate how well their ocean shoreline
waters support five standard uses so
that EPA can summarize the State
data. The standard uses consist of
aquatic life support, fish consump-
tion, shellfish harvesting, primary
contact recreation (such as swim-
ming and diving), and secondary
contact recreation (such as boating)
(see Chapter 1 for a description of
each individual use). Few States
designate saline ocean waters for
drinking water supply use and agri-
cultural use because of high treat-
ment costs.
The States provided limited
information on individual use sup-
port in ocean shoreline waters
(Appendix C, Table C-7, contains
individual State information). Eight
States rated aquatic life support and
nine rated swimming use in their
ocean shoreline waters, but fewer
States rated their ocean waters for
support of shellfishing, fish con-
sumption, and secondary contact
recreation. General conclusions
cannot be drawn from information
representing such a small fraction
of the Nation's ocean shoreline
waters (Figure 4-8).
Water Quality
Problems Identified
in Ocean Shoreline
Waters
Only six of the 27 coastal States
identified pollutants and sources of
pollutants degrading ocean shore-
line waters (Appendix C, Tables C-8
and C-9, contain individual State
information). General conclusions
cannot be drawn from this limited
I
I
Use Support jnf Ocean ShorfeHrre Waters I :
^- ' ,,. • • . , percent; - ^-
'-*-"" '", .' ' \' ' -Good ,.'-;.,
Designated- "•. Mines' ,i -' ,(Frtljfi<< Goou ,;" {Partially'' - (Npt"" - *'(Hotx
".; illse;- 'T " SuiVeyddf Slippoftin^CrtireatiehM) Supporting),Supporting)!Attainable)
;- -,-s- '*' -84 > " •:
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-7.
-------
78 Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters
The pollutants/processes
and sources shown here
may not correspond direct-
ly to one another (i.e., the
leading pollutant may not
originate from the leading
source). This may occur for
a number of reasons, such
as a major pollutant may
be released from many
minor sources or States
may not have the infor-
mation to determine all
the sources of a particular
pollutant/stressor.
Figure 4-9
SURVEYED Ocean Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources
Not Surveyed^,
94%
Total ocean shoreline = 58,585
miles (including Alaska's
shoreline)
\-
Total surveyed = 3,551 miles
Good Impairec
(5%) (1%)
Surveyed 6%
Leading Pollutants/Stressors Surveyed %
Bacteria
Turbidity
Nutrients
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Suspended Solids
pH
Oil and Grease
Metals
^^Mi 41 IT! 1 i fl 1.1 l f 1 11
H Major
H Moderate/Minor
™"""* El Not Specified
B
i i i
12
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
0 5 10 15
Percent of Surveyed Shoreline Miles
Leading Sources surveyed^-
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Septic Systems
Municipal Sewer Discharges
Industrial Point Sources
Land Disposal of Wastes
Marinas
Recreational Activities
•'iwrorc'ti
55 MaJ°r
KJtTJ?S5S IJ Moderate/Minor
BlHJ>*a H Not Specified
BKIICKJH r
iii^iiiitiKm
pfi|i!RfiS3PElPf
1 1 1
7
5
4
4
3
3
3
0 5 10 15
Percent of Surveyed Shoreline Miles
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Tables C-8 and C-9.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a segment of ocean shoreline.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 79
Figure 4-10
IMPAIRED Ocean Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources
Not
Surveyed
94%
Surveyed
Total ocean shoreline = 58,585
miles (including Alaska's shoreline)
Total surveyed = 3,551 miles
Total impaired = 467 miles
Impaired
13%
Leading Pollutants/Stressors- . , - ' ; , 1 - "• impaired °/o ,
Bacteria
Turbidity
Nutrients
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Suspended 'Solids
PH
Oil and Grease
Metals
itfeadirigfSourcfes|||L *
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Septic Systems
Municipal Sewer Discharges
Industrial Point Sources
Land Disposal of Wastes
Marinas
Recreational Activities
IHBH . x ^ * * f , ' •? > * > s * > * ' x 1
i'x¥^TK? "J
• .A
_
-—— • Major
*%A *?$ H Moderate/Minor
•j-ki-'a H Not Specified
^t.x J^V.^ 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
95
22
19
18
13
12
11
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Impaired Shoreline Miles
- \ • ' * ; " * '' , ' '/ Impaired %
^•.'•^. v:'"-',v;f,,'"' Y.vlj-v^ -""--">^
K5*^* l| |***ir? *:^|j
W*.*V»M**'* &&,&•„«: **?-** *s >^ ™sl
1 >. ^ 7\ ^, ** ^-1
•• fL^-jj Q|-
™ Not Specified
1 1 1 1 1 1
55
36
33
29
27
25
21
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Impaired Shoreline Miles
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Tables C-8 and C-9.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100%
because more than one pollutant
or source may impair a segment of
ocean shoreline
-------
80 Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters
source of information. The six
States identified impacts in their
ocean shoreline waters from bacte-
ria, turbidity, nutrients, oxygen-
depleting substances, suspended
solids, acidity (pH), oil and grease,
and metals (Figures 4-9 and 4-10).
The six States reported that urban
runoff and storm sewers, septic sys-
tems, municipal sewer discharges,
industrial discharges, land disposal
of wastes, marinas, recreational
activities, and spills and illegal
dumping pollute their coastal
shoreline waters (Figures 4-9 and
4-10).
Gabriel Eng-Goet^, 5th Grade, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 81
-------
r
mill •ill i
liy in i win in 11 inn
(l«l""rtill
,)^?\ '
i"il i!ii|WMIH i ]i iiiiipi ii ii , i , i ,
Hiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiinlii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiijiiiii i inn iiiiiii in (4
• ii '
linl ill | ', III jtiilit 1111 ii ilk 11 ii
»' Hi It
^:^Bt:i>-4-'t.'
-------
Wetlands
Introduction
Wetlands are areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support (and
that under normal circumstances
do support) a prevalence of vegeta-
tion typically adapted for life in sat-
urated soil conditions (Figure 5-1).
Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
This is the definition of wetlands as
it appears in the regulations jointly
issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and the U.S. EPA
(33 CFR Part 328.3(b), 40 CFR
Part 232.2 (r), and 40 CFR Part
230.3(t)).
A wide variety of wetlands
exists across the country because
of regional and local differences in
hydrology, vegetation, water chem-
istry, soils, topography, climate,
and other factors. Wetlands type
is determined primarily by local
hydrology, the unique pattern of
water flow through an area. In
general, there are two broad cate-
gories of wetlands: coastal and
inland wetlands.
With the exception of the Great
Lakes coastal wetlands, coastal wet-
lands are closely linked to estuaries,
where sea water mixes with fresh
water to form an environment of
varying salinity and fluctuating
water levels due to tidal action.
Coastal marshes dominated by
grasses, sedges, and rushes and
halophytic (salt-tolerant) plants are
generally located along the Atlantic
and Gulf coasts due to the gradual
slope of the land. Mangrove
swamps, which are dominated by
halophytic shrubs and trees, are
common in Hawaii, Puerto Rico,
Louisiana, and southern Florida.
Inland wetlands are most com-
mon on floodplains along rivers
and streams, in isolated depressions
surrounded by dry land, and along
the margins of lakes and ponds.
Inland wetlands include marshes
and wet meadows dominated by
grasses, sedges, rushes, and herbs;
shrub swamps; and wooded
swamps dominated by trees,
such as hardwood forests along
Figure 5-1
Depiction of Wetlands Adjacent to Waterbody
Terrestrial
System
Wetland
6"'!r8' Intermittently-
-------
84 Chapter Five Wetlands
floodplains. Some regional wetlands
types include the pocosins of North
Carolina, bogs and fens of the
northeastern and north central
States and Alaska, inland saline and
alkaline marshes and riparian wet-
lands of the arid and semiarid West,
vernal pools of California, playa
lakes of the Southwest, cypress
gum swamps of the South, wet
tundra of Alaska, the South Florida
Everglades, and prairie potholes of
Minnesota, Iowa, and the Dakotas.
Functions and Values
of Wetlands
In their natural condition,
wetlands provide many benefits,
including food and habitat for fish
and wildlife, water quality improve-
ment, flood protection, shoreline
erosion control, ground water
exchange, as well as natural
Figure 5-2
Coastal Wetlands Produce Detritus that Support
Fish and Shellfish
Coastal Wetlands Plants
,1/li
products for human use and oppor-
tunities for recreation, education,
and research.
Wetlands are critical to the
survival of a wide variety of animals
and plants, including numerous
rare and endangered species.
Wetlands are also primary habitats
for many species, such as the wood
duck, muskrat, and swamp rose.
For others, wetlands provide impor-
tant seasonal habitats where food,
water, and cover are plentiful.
Wetlands are among the most
productive natural ecosystems in
the world. They produce great vol-
umes of food, such as leaves and
stems, that break down in the
water to form detritus (Figure 5-2).
This enriched material is the princi-
pal food for many aquatic inverte-
brates, various shellfish, and forage
fish that are food for larger com-
mercial and recreational fish species
such as bluefish and striped bass.
Wetlands help maintain and
improve water quality by intercept-
ing surface water runoff before it
reaches open water, removing or
retaining nutrients, processing
chemical and organic wastes, and
reducing sediment loads to receiv-
ing waters (Figure 5-3). As water
moves through a wetland, plants
slow the water, allowing sediment
and pollutants to settle out. Plant
roots trap sediment and are then
able to metabolize and detoxify
pollutants and remove nutrients
such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
Wetlands function like natural
basins, storing either floodwater
that overflows riverbanks or surface
water that collects in isolated
depressions. By doing so, wetlands
help protect adjacent and down-
stream property from flood dam-
age. Trees and other wetland
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 85
vegetation help slow the speed of
flood waters. This action, combined
with water storage, can lower flood
heights and reduce the water's ero-
sive potential (Figure 5-4). In agri-
cultural areas, wetlands can help
reduce the likelihood of flood dam-
age to crops. Wetlands within and
upstream of urban areas are espe-
cially valuable for flood protection,
since urban development increases
the rate and volume of surface
water runoff, thereby increasing the
risk of flood damage.
Wetlands are often located
between rivers and high ground
(called uplands) and are therefore
able to store flood waters and
reduce channel erosion. Wetlands
bind soil, dampen wave action, and
reduce current velocity through
friction. These properties are very
valuable for stabilizing shorelines
(Figure 5-5).
Wetlands water storage capac-
ity also allows recharge of ground
water, which may be used as
sources of water for drinking or
agricultural uses (Figure 5-6). Ele-
vated ground water tables and
water stored in wetlands are also
important for maintaining stream
base-flows. Water entering wetlands
during wet periods is released
slowly through ground water or as
runoff, moderating stream flow
volumes necessary for the survival
of fish, wildlife, and plants that rely
on the stream (Figure 5-7).
Figure 5-4
Figure 5-3
Water Quality Improvement Functions in Wetlands
Nutrient
Removal
Sediment
Trapping'3
Chemical
Detoxification
Flood Protection
Functions in Wetlands
Source: Washington State Department
of Ecology.
Figure 5-5
Shoreline Stabilization
Functions in Wetlands
Source: Washington State Department
of Ecology.
Source: Washington State Department of Ecology.
-------
86 Chapter Five Wetlands
Figure 5-6
Ground Water Recharge
Functions in Wetlands
Source: Washington State Department
of Ecology.
Figure 5-7
Streamflow Maintenance
Functions in Wetlands
Source: Washington State Department
of Ecology.
Wetlands produce a wealth of
natural products, including fish and
shellfish, timber, wildlife, and wild
rice. Much of the Nation's fishing
and shellfishing industry harvests
wetlands-dependent species. A
national survey conducted by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
in 1991 illustrates the economic
value of some of the wetlands-
dependent products. Over 9 billion
pounds of fish and shellfish landed
in the United States in 1991 had a
direct dockside value of $3.3 billion.
This served as the basis of a seafood
processing and sales industry that
generated total expenditures of
$26.8 billion. In addition, 35.6 mil-
lion anglers spent $24 billion on
freshwater and saltwater fishing.
It is estimated that 71 % of com-
mercially valuable fish and shellfish
depend directly or indirectly on
coastal wetlands.
The abundant wildlife in
wetlands also attracts outdoor
recreationists. Visits by outdoor
recreationists to national wildlife
refuges (NWR), which often protect
extensive wetlands, bring millions
of dollars and many jobs to adja-
cent communities. The FWS esti-
mated that in 1994, bird watchers
and other outdoor recreationists
spent $636,000 in the communities
around the Quivara NWR in Kansas,
$3.1 million around the Salton Sea
NWR in California, and over $14
million around the Santa Ana NWR
in Texas.
Consequences of
Wetlands Loss and
Degradation
The loss or degradation of wet-
lands can lead to serious conse-
quences, including increased flood-
ing; species decline, deformity, or
extinction; and declines in water
quality. The following discussion
describes several examples of the
consequences of wetlands loss and
degradation.
Floods continue to seriously
damage the property and liveli-
hoods of thousands of Americans
despite expenditures of billions of
local, State, and Federal dollars over
the years to reduce flooding. Loss
or degradation of wetlands intensi-
fies flooding by eliminating their
capacity to absorb peak flows and
gradually release flood waters.
• In Massachusetts, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers estimated that
over $17 million of annual flood
damage would result from the
destruction of 8,422 acres of
wetlands in the Charles River Basin.
For this reason, the COE decided to
preserve wetlands rather than con-
struct extensive flood control facili-
ties along a stretch of the Charles
River near Boston. Annual benefits
of the preservation project average
$2.1 million while annual costs
average $617,000.
• The Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources estimated that it
costs the public $300 to replace the
water storage capacity lost by
development of 1 acre of wetlands
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 87
that holds 12 inches of water. The
cost of replacing 5,000 acres of
wetlands would be $1.5 million,
which exceeds the State's annual
appropriation for flood control.
• In 1988, DuPage County, Illinois,
found that 80% of all flood damage
reports came from owners whose
houses were built in converted wet-
lands. The county spends $0.5 to
$1.0 million annually to correct the
problem.
Another consequence of wet-
lands loss or degradation is decline,
deformity from toxic contamina-
tion, or extinction of wildlife and
plant species. Forty-five percent
of the threatened and endangered
species listed by the Fish and
Wildlife Service rely directly or indi-
rectly on wetlands for their survival.
The Nature Conservancy estimates
that two-thirds of freshwater mus-
sels and crayfishes are rare or
imperiled and more than one-third
of freshwater fishes and amphibians
dependent on aquatic and wet-
lands habitats are at risk.
• The destruction of wetlands
around Merritt Island and St. John's
Island in Florida has been identified
as a major contributor to the
extinction of the Dusky Seaside
Sparrow. The sparrow's habitat was
diked and flooded in an attempt
to control mosquitos, then drained
and burned to promote ranching.
The last Dusky Seaside Sparrow
died in captivity on June 16, 1987.
• Overlogging,of mature bottom-
land hardwood forests is believed
to have caused the extinction of the
Ivory Billed Woodpecker in the
United States. The clearing of bot-
tomland hardwood forests has also
affected the Louisiana Black Bear,
or swamp bear, by destroying the
bear's habitat. With its population
plummeting from the thousands
to several hundred, the Fish and
Wildlife Service recently listed the
Louisiana Black Bear as "threat-
ened" under the Endangered
Species Act.
• Populations of Mallard Ducks
and Northern Pintail Ducks in
North America declined continually
between 1955 and the early 1990s.
In 1990, the number of Mallard
Ducks in the prairies of the United
States declined 60% from the num-
ber counted in 1989 to the lowest
population figures on record. The
well-being of waterfowl populations
is tied to the status and abundance
of wetlands. As waterfowl popula-
tions are squeezed into the remain-
ing wetlands, confined conditions
favor outbreaks of avian cholera
and other contagious diseases in
waterfowl. In 1996, breeding duck
populations reached their highest
levels since 1979 because of con-
secutive years of abundant precipi-
tation and continued public and
private efforts to maintain and
restore wetlands habitats.
• The Arizona Game and Fish
Department estimates that 75%
or more of all of Arizona's native
wildlife species depend on healthy
riparian systems during some
portion of their life cycle.
Wetlands loss and degradation
also reduce water quality purifica-
tion functions performed by
wetlands.
-------
88 Chapter Five Wetlands
• The Congaree Bottomland
Hardwood Swamp in South
Carolina provides valuable water
quality services, such as removing
and stabilizing sediment, nutrients,
and toxic contaminants. The total
cost of constructing, operating, and
maintaining a tertiary treatment
plant to perform the same func-
tions would be $5 million.
• Forested riparian wetlands play
an important role in reducing nutri-
ent loads entering the Chesapeake
Bay. In one study, a riparian forest
in a predominantly agricultural
watershed removed about 80% of
the phosphorus and 89% of the
nitrogen from the runoff water
figure 5-8
Percentage of Wetlands Acreage Lost,
1780s-1980s
Twenty-two States have lost at least 50% of their original wetlands.
Seven of these 22 (California, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky,
and Ohio) have lost more than 80% of their original wetlands.
Source: Dahl, T.E., 1990, Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
before it entered a tributary to the
Bay. Destruction of such areas
adversely affects the water quality
of the Bay by increasing undesirable
weed growth and algae blooms.
• A study of two similar sites on the
Hackensack River in New jersey
demonstrated the increase in erosion
that results from the destruction of
marshlands. In the study, marsh veg-
etation was cut at one site and left
undisturbed at the other site. The
bank at the cut site eroded nearly
2 meters (more than 6 feet) in 1 year
while the uncut site exhibited negli-
gible bank erosion.
These examples illustrate the
integral role of wetlands in our
ecosystems and how wetlands
destruction and degradation can
have expensive and permanent con-
sequences. By preserving wetlands
and their functions, wetlands will
continue to provide many benefits
to people and the environment.
Extent of the Resource
Wetlands Loss
in the United States
It is estimated that over 200
million acres of wetlands existed in
the lower 48 States at the time of
European settlement. Since then,
extensive wetlands acreage has been
lost, with many of the original wet-
lands drained and converted to farm-
land and urban development. Today,
less than half of our original wetlands
remain. The losses amount to an
area equal to the size of California
(see Figure 5-8). According to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Wetlands Losses in the United States
1780's to 1980's, the three States
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 89
that have sustained the greatest
percentage of wetlands loss are
California (91%), Ohio (90%), and
Iowa (89%).
According to FWS status and
trends reports, the average annual
loss of wetlands has decreased over
the past 40 years. The average
annual loss from the mid-1950s to
the mid-1970s was 458,000 acres,
and from the mid-1970s to mid-
1980s it was 290,000 acres.
Agriculture was responsible for 87%
of the loss from the mid-1950s to
the mid-1970s and 54% of the loss
from the mid-1970s to the mid-
1980s. These estimates are based
on aerial photographs.
A more recent estimate of
wetlands losses from the National
Resources Inventory (NRI), con-
ducted by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), indi-
cates that 792,000 acres of wet-
lands were lost on non-Federal
lands between 1982 and 1992 for
a yearly loss estimate of 70,000 to
90,000 acres. This net loss is the
result of gross losses of 1,561,300
acres of wetlands and gross gains of
768,700 acres of wetlands over the
10-year period. The NRI estimates,
although they are based on hydric
soils, are consistent with the trend
of declining wetlands losses report-
ed by FWS. Although losses have
decreased, we still have to make
progress toward our interim goal of
no overall net loss of the Nation's
remaining wetlands and the long-
term goal of increasing the quantity
and quality of the Nation's wet-
lands resource base.
The decline in wetlands losses
is a result of the combined effect
of several trends: (1) the decline in
profitability in converting wetlands
for agricultural production; (2) pas-
sage of Swampbuster in the 1985,
1990, and 1996 Farm Bills; (3) pres-
ence of the CWA Section 404 per-
mit programs as well as develop-
ment of State management pro-
grams (see Chapter 17); (4) greater
public interest and support for wet-
lands protection; and (5) imple-
mentation of wetlands restoration
programs at the Federal, State, and
local level.
Twelve States listed sources of
recent wetlands loss in their 1996
305(b) reports (Figure 5-9). Resi-
dential development and urban
growth were cited as the leading
sources of current losses (see
Appendix D, Table D-1, for individ-
ual State information). Other losses
were due to agriculture; construc-
tion of roads, highways, and
bridges; hydrologic modifications;
filling and/or draining; channeliza-
tion; and industrial development.
Several States and the District
of Columbia reported on efforts to
Figure 5s9
Sources of Recent Wetlands Losses
(12 States Reporting)
v'Source's-"''",J„= f,*'",s*; •''••'i '-
Residential Development
and Urban Growth
Agriculture
Road/Highway/Bridge
Construction
Hydrologic Modification
Industrial Development
Filling and Draining
(Unspecified)
Channelization
;• Total
5 10
Number of States Reporting
15
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-4.
-------
90 Chapter Five Wetlands
States
ate
="£»,rf&
inventory wetlands. Some of the
programs are designed to augment
the FWS's National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI), while others are
designed to produce independent
status and trend information. Some
of the programs have already been
completed and others have been
authorized but not funded.
• Alabama is evaluating and map-
ping wetlands habitats in a portion
of the Lower Mobile-Tensaw River
Delta and Mobile Bay. With funding
from USEPA's Gulf of Mexico
Program, Alabama is digitizing
wetlands habitats based on aerial
photography from 1955, 1979, and
1988, using the NWI methodology.
• Delaware is currently mapping
wetlands area in the State based on
1992 aerial photography.
• In 1996, the District of Columbia
completed mapping of its wetlands
based on a 1994 estimate of total
wetlands acreage generated by
applying the Planogrid method to
aerial NWI maps. The finer detail
and resolution of the new method-
ology almost doubled previous esti-
mates of wetlands acreage.
• New Hampshire recently com-
pleted a wetlands mapping project
that translated LANDSAT digital
imagery into a geographic informa-
tion system (CIS) format. The proj-
ect included extensive field verifica-
tion and soils mapping in 7 of the
10 counties. The CIS mapping sys-
tem revealed many small wetlands
that were overlooked by previous
surveys. As a result, New
Hampshire's estimate of total
wetlands acreage climbed from
200,000 acres to between 400,000
and 600,000 acres of nontidal
wetlands and 7,500 acres of tidal
wetlands.
• In 1996, New York completed
county maps of fresh water wet-
lands for all counties outside of the
Adirondack Park. In addition, New
York has completed its tidal wet-
lands inventory that shows tidal
wetlands on Long Island, in New
York City, and in certain counties
along the southern reaches of the
Hudson River.
• In 1996, Georgia finished an
analysis of landcover based on
LANDSAT TM imagery. Georgia
reported acreage of 15 landcover
classes for each county. Based on
these data, Georgia estimates that
13% of its land area, nearly
5 million acres, is wetlands.
• The Ohio Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) is conducting a
statewide inventory of wetlands as
part of its Remote Sensing Program
with cooperation from numerous
agencies. The program utilizes
digital data from the LANDSAT
Thematic Mapper, digitized soils
data, low level aerial photographs,
and topographic maps to identify
and map different types of wet-
lands, including farmed wetlands.
DNR plans to update the maps
every 5 years.
Monitoring Wetlands
Functions and Values
Wetlands monitoring programs
are critical to the achievement of
important national goals, such as
no overall net loss of wetlands func-
tions and values. With States and
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 91
Tribes developing water quality
standards for their wetlands, State
and Tribal monitoring programs are
critical for determining if wetlands
are meeting their existing and des-
ignated uses. Monitoring programs
are also needed to prioritize wet-
lands for protection and restoration
and to develop performance stand-
ards for successful mitigation and
restoration efforts.
Monitoring programs can pro-
vide the data needed to identify
degradation of functions and values
in wetlands and sources of that
degradation, but specific wetlands
monitoring programs are still in
their infancy. Currently, no State is
operating a statewide wetlands
monitoring program, although
several States include some wet-
lands in their ambient monitoring
programs. A growing number of
States are implementing monitor-
ing projects at selected reference
wetlands that are relatively free
from impacts. These States will use
the data collected from reference
wetlands to define baseline condi-
tions in healthy wetlands and to
create standards to protect wet-
lands.
• Minnesota initiated the Reference
Wetlands Project in 1993 to devel-
op a basis for assessing the biolog-
ical and chemical integrity of
wetlands. This project included 32
relatively undisturbed wetlands and
three impacted wetlands to cali-
brate biological metrics. In 1995,
Minnesota began a second wet-
lands project in depressional wet-
lands. In the Impacted Wetland
Project, 20 known impacted
wetlands and six least-disturbed
wetlands were sampled. In the
Impacted Wetland Project the focus
was on calibrating biological
metrics across a gradient of disturb-
ance. The disturbance gradient was
represented by two primary stres-
sors, conventional agricultural prac-
tice and storm water discharges.
Both projects characterized the
invertebrate community, vegeta-
tion, amphibians, water, and sedi-
ment chemistry. This information
will provide the basis for determin-
ing use support status and evaluat-
ing depressional wetlands health in
Minnesota.
• Montana sampled 80 wetlands
throughout the State during 1993
and 1994 to develop bioassessment
protocols. Wetlands were sampled
for water column and sediment
chemistry, macroinvertebrates, and
diatoms. To partition natural varia-
bility between wetlands types,
Montana developed a classification
system to group reference wetlands
by ecoregion and hydrogeomor-
phology. Montana used a multi-
metric approach to develop a
macroinvertebrate index to assess
wetlands water quality. Preliminary
results indicate detection of impair-
ments caused by metals, nutrients,
salinity, sediment, and fluctuating
water levels.
• North Dakota initiated a, project
in 1995 to develop biocriteria and
water quality standards for wet-
lands. North Dakota began sam-
pling water chemistry, sediments,
macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton,
and vegetation in reference wet-
lands of the prairie pothole region.
Based on continued field sampling,
North Dakota plans to develop bio-
logical criteria for specific wetlands
classes.
Wetlands Acres Surveyed by
States and Tribes
Including Alaska's Wetlands
• 8,405,875 acres = 3% surveyed
• Total acres (including Alaska)
= 277 million9
97% Not Surveyed
Excluding Alaska's Wetlands
• 8,405,875 acres = 8% surveyed
• Total acres (excluding Alaska)
= 107 million
92% Not Surveyed
aFrom Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the
UnitedStates 1780'sto 1980's. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Source: 1996 Section 305(b) reports
submitted by States, Tribes,
Territories, and Commissions.
-------
92 Chapter Five Wetlands
• Ohio initiated a project in 1994
to develop biocriteria for wetlands.
Ohio is applying the same
approach to wetlands that it used
to develop its stream biocriteria
program. Methodologies to assess
vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and
amphibian assemblages are under
development. As with streams,
Ohio is defining the biological
integrity of wetlands based on a
framework of least-impacted refer-
ence sites. Ohio will use wetland
biocriteria to define the attainable
condition for a class of wetlands in
a given region.
• Every 3 years, Kansas collects
water quality samples from seven
wetlands (covering 25,069 acres)
owned by the State or the Federal
government. The State monitors
one station per wetland for nutri-
ents, minerals, heavy metals, clarity,
suspended solids, pesticides, bacte-
ria, algae, temperature, and dis-
solved oxygen.
• Kentucky added several wetlands
to its reference reach monitoring
program to characterize chemical
water quality, sediment quality, fish
tissue concentrations of contami-
nants, habitat conditions, and gen-
eral biotic conditions in each phys-
iographic region of the State. The
information will be used to develop
designated uses and biological cri-
teria for wetlands.
Designated Use
Support in Wetlands
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions are making progress in
developing specific designated uses
and water quality standards for
wetlands, but many States and
Tribes still lack specific water quality
criteria and monitoring programs
for wetlands. Without criteria and
monitoring data, most States and
Tribes cannot evaluate use support.
To date, only nine States and Tribes
reported the designated use sup-
port status for some of their wet-
lands (see Appendix D, Table D-1).
Only Kansas used quantitative data
as a basis for use support decisions.
• California reported that 12% of
the 124,178 acres of surveyed wet-
lands fully supports aquatic life use
and 88% of the acres are impaired
due to metals, nutrients, oxygen
depletion, and salinity. Sources
impacting wetlands include munici-
pal wastewater treatment plants,
urban runoff and storm sewers, and
hydrologic and habitat modifica-
tions.
• The Coyote Valley Band of Pomo
Indians in northern California classi-
fied all 1.6 acres of their wetlands
as partially supporting uses for
wildlife and use as a riparian buffer.
The use support analysis was based
on reconnaissance surveys rather
than monitoring in the wetlands.
The wetlands are impaired by
exotic species, filling and draining,
and other habitat alterations.
• The Hoopa Valley Tribe in north-
ern California reported that all of its
3,200 acres of surveyed wetlands
are impaired for aquatic life use,
religious use, wildlife habitat use,
and use as a riparian buffer. Filling
and draining, flow alterations, other
habitat alterations, and exotic
species impair the wetlands.
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 93
Agriculture, forestry, construction,
hydrologic modifications, and
unknown sources have degraded
wetlands on the Hoopa Valley
Reservation.
• Iowa used best professional judg-
ment to determine the use support
of 26,062 wetlands acres during
1994 and 1995. The State reported
that 35% of the assessed wetlands
fully supported designated uses, of
which 32% are threatened for one
or more uses. The nonsupporting
acres are impaired by pesticides,
ammonia, nutrients, siltation, and
habitat alterations. Sources of
impairment include agriculture,
urban runoff and storm sewers,
land disposal of wastes, and hydro-
modification.
• Kansas assessed and determined
the use support of 35,597 wetlands
acres during this reporting cycle. Of
the 35,597 acres, 10,458 acres
were of unknown use support. Of
the remaining 26,139 acres, 9%
fully support uses now but are
threatened and 91 % are impaired
and exceed chronic aquatic life sup-
port criteria. Kansas used monitor-
ing data to determine use support
in nine publicly owned wetlands
(covering 25,069 acres) and quali-
tative information to assess one
wetland (covering 70 acres).
• Louisiana assessed use support in
over 1 million acres of its 8.7 mil-
lion total acres of wetlands. The
State reported that 92% of the
assessed wetland acres fully support
uses and 8% are impaired because
of bacteria, siltation and suspended
solids, and hydrologic modifications.
Sources of impairment include
channelization, dredging, flow reg-
ulation, drainage and filling, recre-
ational activities, upstream sources,
and natural sources.
• Michigan assessed use support
for 10 acres of wetlands. All 10
acres are impaired and do not sup-
port designated uses because of
nickel contamination.
• Nevada surveyed use support in
19,326 acres (25%) of its 136,650
total acres of wetlands. Nevada
reported that all of the surveyed
wetlands fully supported designat-
ed uses.
• North Carolina used aerial
photographs and soil information
from a 1992-1993 survey to rate
use support by current land use.
North Carolina rated wetlands on
hydric soils with natural tree cover
as fully supporting uses. Partially
supporting wetlands have modified
Figure 5-ho
More information on wetlands
'can be obtained from
EPA's Wetlands Hbffine
at 1*800-832-7828,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Eastern-Standard Time.
Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity
(10 States Reporting)
Sedimentation/Siltation
Nutrients
Filling and Draining
Pesticides
Flow Alterations
Habitat Alterations
Metals
Salinity/TSS/Chlorides
2468
Number of States Reporting
10
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-2.
-------
94 Chapter Five Wetlands
Figure 5-11
cover and hydrology but still retain
wetlands status and support most
uses. For example, pine plantations
still retain value for wildlife habitat,
flood control, ground water
recharge, nutrient removal, and
aquatic habitat, although the modi-
fied wetlands support these uses
less effectively than undisturbed
wetlands. Wetlands converted to
agriculture or urban land use are
classified as not supporting original
wetlands uses. The State used this
methodology to survey use support
in over 7 million acres of wetlands.
The State reported that 66% of the
surveyed wetlands fully support
uses and 34% are impaired for one
or more uses.
EPA cannot draw national con-
clusions about water quality condi-
tions in all wetlands because the
States used different methodologies
Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity
(9 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture
Hydrologic Modification
Urban Runoff
Filling and Draining
Construction
Natural
Dredging
Resource Extraction
Livestock Grazing
Total
Number of States Reporting
to survey only 3% of the total wet-
lands in the Nation. Summarizing
State wetlands data would also
produce misleading results because
two States (North Carolina and
Louisiana) contain 98% of the
surveyed wetlands acreage. More
States and Tribes will assess use
support in wetlands as they develop
standards for wetlands. Many States
are still in the process of developing
wetlands water quality standards,
which provide the baseline for
determining beneficial use support
(see Chapter 13). Improved stand-
ards will also provide a firmer foun-
dation for assessing impairments in
wetlands in those States already
reporting use support in wetlands.
The States have even fewer
data to quantify the extent of
pollutants degrading wetlands and
the sources of these pollutants.
Although most States cannot quan-
tify wetlands area impacted by indi-
vidual causes and sources of degra-
dation, nine States identified causes
and sources known to degrade
wetlands integrity to some extent
(Figures 5-10 and 5-11). These
States listed sediment and habitat
alterations as the most widespread
causes of degradation impacting
wetlands, followed by draining and
nutrients. Agriculture and hydrolog-
ic modifications topped the list of
sources degrading wetlands, fol-
lowed by urban runoff, construc-
tion, and draining (see Appendix D,
Tables D-3 and D-4, for individual
State information).
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-3.
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 95
Summary
Currently, most States are not
equipped to report on the integrity
of their wetlands. Only six States
and Tribes reported attainment of
designated uses for wetlands in
1996. National trends cannot be
drawn from this limited informa-
tion. This is expected to change,
however, as States adopt wetlands
water quality standards and
enhance their existing monitoring
programs to more accurately assess
designated use support in their
wetlands.
-------
-------
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is a vital national
resource that is used for myriad
purposes. It is used for public and
domestic water supply systems, for
irrigation and livestock watering,
and for industrial, commercial,
mining, and thermoelectric power
production purposes. In many parts
of the Nation, ground water serves
as the only reliable source of drink-
ing and irrigation water. Unfortu-
nately, this vital resource is vulnera-
ble to contamination, and ground
water contaminant problems are
being reported throughout the
country.
To ascertain the extent to which
our Nation's ground water resources
have been impacted by human
activities, Section 106(e) of the
Clean Water Act requests that each
State monitor ground water quality
and report the findings to Congress
in their 305(b) State Water Quality
Reports. Evaluation of our Nation's
ground water quality is complex
and early efforts to provide a
National assessment of ground
water quality relied on generalized
overviews presented by the State
resource managers. These overviews
were most frequently based on
known or suspected contamination
sites and on finished water quality
data from public supply systems.
Unfortunately, these early assess-
ments did not always provide a
complete or accurate representation
of ambient ground water quality
conditions. Nor did they provide an
indication of the extent and severity
of ground water contamination
problems.
EPA recognized that an accurate
representation of our Nation's ambi-
ent ground water quality conditions
required developing a set of guide-
lines that would ultimately yield
quantitative data for specific hydro-
geologic units within a State. EPA, in
partnership with interested States,
developed guidelines for assessing
ground water quality that took into
account the complex spatial varia-
tions in aquifer systems, the differing
levels of sophistication among State
programs, and the expense of col-
lecting ambient ground water data.
It was these guidelines that were
used by States for reporting the
1996 305(b) ground water data.
The most significant change for
1996 was the request that States
provide ground water information
for selected aquifers or hydrogeo-
logic settings (e.g., watersheds)
within the State. The focus on
specific aquifers or hydrogeologic
settings provides for a more quanti-
tative assessment of ground water
quality than was possible in previous
reporting cycles.
State response to the revised
ground water guidelines was excel-
lent. Forty States, one Territory, and
two Tribes used the new guidelines
to assess and report ground water
quality data in 1996. Each of these
reporting entities (hereafter referred
to as States) used the data that was
available to them and, as a conse-
quence, there was wide variation
in reporting style. This variation
was anticipated by EPA and States
involved in developing the
guidelines as it is a direct reflection
-------
98 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
Figure 6-1
Distribution of Water on Earth's Surface
Fresh Water
Available for Use
0.52%
Ice Caps and Glaciers 1.97%
Other 0.01 %
Surface Water 4%
Figure 6-2
National Ground Water Use as a
Percentage of Total Withdrawals
Irrigation 63%
Thermoelectric 0.7%
Commercial 1%
Livestock Watering 3%
Domestic 4%
Mining 4%
Industrial 5%
Public Drinking
Water Supply 19%
Source: Open-File Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey.
of the administrative, technical, and
programmatic diversity among our
States. This variation is expected to
decrease in future 305(b) reporting
cycles as many States have indicated
they are developing plans to
improve their data management to
provide better coverage. Still other
States indicated that the 1996
Guidelines provided incentive to
modify their ground water programs
to enhance their ability to provide
more accurate and representative
information.
Despite variations in reporting
style, the 1996 305(b) State Water
Quality Reports represent a first step
in improving the assessment of State
ambient ground water quality. For
the first time, States provided quan-
titative data describing ground
water quality. Furthermore, States
provided quantitative information
pertaining to contamination sources
that have impacted ground water
quality. This chapter presents the
results of data submitted by States
in their 1996 305(b) Water Quality
Reports.
Ground Water Use
in the United States
Although 75% of the earth's
surface is covered by water, less
than 1 % is fresh water available for
our use. It has been estimated that
approximately 96% of the world's
available fresh water reserve is
stored in the earth as ground water.
Figure 6-1 helps put these numbers
into perspective.
In the United States, ground
water is used for agricultural,
domestic, industrial, and commercial
purposes. Ground water provides
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 99
water for drinking and bathing, irri-
gation of crop lands, livestock water-
ing, mining, industrial and commer-
cial uses, and thermoelectric cooling
applications. Figure 6-2 illustrates
how ground water is used among
these various categories. As shown,
irrigation (£3%) and public water
supply (19%) are the largest uses of
ground water withdrawls.
In 1990, the United States
Geological Survey reported that
ground water supplied 51 % of the
Nation's overall population with
drinking water. In rural areas of the
Nation, ground water supplied 95%
of the population with drinking
water. So our Nation's dependence
on this valuable resource is obvious.
In their 305(b) Water Quality
Reports, States emphasized the
importance of ground water as a
drinking water resource.
Idaho is one of the top
five States in the coun-
try for the volume of
ground water used.
Idahoans use an aver-
age of 9 billion gallons
per day of ground water. Sixty per-
cent of this water is used by agricul-
ture for crop irrigation and stock
animals. Thirty-six percent is used by
industry, and 3% to 4% is used for
drinking water. Even though the vol-
ume of ground water used for drink-
ing water is relatively small in com-
parison to total ground water use,
more than 90% of the population in
Idaho rely on ground water for their
drinking water supply. Currently,
approximately 70% of the State's
population is served by public
systems regulated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (see description
in Chapter 18); the remaining 30%
obtain their drinking water through
private systems typically represented
by private wells.
Approximately 95% of
the 11.5 million people in
Illinois rely on public
water supplies as a source
of drinking water. About
4.1 million people use
ground water as a source of public
water supply. Furthermore, an
estimated 400,000 residences in
Illinois are served by private wells.
Kansas relies on
ground water
resources for public,
rural-domestic,
industrial, irrigation, and livestock
water supplies. Over 90% of all
water used within Kansas is supplied
by ground water. Although irriga-
tion continues to be by far the
largest user of ground water,
ground water provides approxi-
mately 85% of the drinking water in
rural areas. A total of 637 communi-
ty public water supplies are depen-
dent on ground water, either solely
or in combination with surface
water sources. These supplies serve a
total of 1,717,464 people.
South Dakota is
heavily dependent
on ground water to
meet the needs of
its population. More than 75% of
the population use ground water for
domestic needs. Over 80% of the
State's public water supply systems
rely on ground water and virtually
everyone not supplied by the public
water supply systems is dependent
on ground water.
- In 1990, • the^ United States
jSeologicarSurvey reported that
^ ground -water supplied '
„ ,5X%" of the Nation '& overall
population with drinking
jttatef. In rural^ areas of the'
-,Natiot},, ground water supplied
95%'of the population with >
' drinking 'water; So^ our Nation's -
< ^dependence *ofn this valuable
r ^ •" •,,
; resource is obvious. In their <
*305j(b)f Wa^tef Quality Reports, *
' ^States emphasized the irhpor-
> tahce of'ground water as a/
^ driving water resource,,; ^ ;
-------
100 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Hill11
i:,"1!:!,,,,!!.!," ,,i!!",I;!1!!,!!1,1;!",!:,;,'! iulilllHy! rlQil,!,':,1"1 r'f,,:,!, i!!l
ils W
Ground Water Use
State
Alabama
Alaska
Uses of Ground Water
Specific to Drinking Water
Other Uses
40% of water is obtained
from ground water
85% of public drinking water
systems in the State use ground
water as their source
Ground water is the major
source of fresh water for public
and private drinking water
supply systems, industry,
and agricultural development
Arkansas 47.2% of total ground water
withdrawals are used for
drinking water
Between 1975 and 1980,
ground water use increased
from 2,596 to 4,056 million
gallons per day (a 56%
increase); it increased from
4,056 to 4,708 million gallons
per day between 1980 and
1990 (a 16% increase)
Colorado 59 of 63 counties use ground
water for drinking water; 29
of these counties rely solely
on ground water
Ground water supplies approx-
imately 18% of total water
withdrawals; 96% is used for
irrigation
Delaware 67% of the State's population
is dependent upon public and
private wells for domestic needs;
Kent and Sussex Counties rely
100% on ground water for
drinking water
Overall, ground water use
increased 13.31%, whereas
overall surface water use
decreased 18.87%
Georgia In 1990, ground water made up
24% of the public water supply
and 92% of rural drinking water
sources; for all practical purposes,
ground water is the dominant
source of drinking water for
areas outside the larger cities
of the Piedmont
In 1990, ground water made
up 60% of irrigation use and
51% of the industrial and
mining use
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 101
,' '.' .'- / /'s/'^ '* ! '; .V''-f::\>iJ'
Uses of Ground Water
State Specific to Drinking Water
Indiana Nearly 60% of the population
uses ground water for drinking
water and other household
purposes; approximately 50%
of the population served by
public water supplies depends
on ground water; over 0.5
million homes have private
wells
Kentucky Approximately 1 4% of the
population (500,000 people)
rely on private wells for drinking
water; there are 362 public water
supply systems using ground
water as principal, partial, or
supplemental supplies
Maine More than 60% of all households
draw their drinking water from
ground water supplied from
private or public wells; ground
water is the source of approxi-
mately 98% of all water used by
households with private supplies
Maryland Ground water supplied 450
public water supply systems in
1 995, serving a population of
960,000
Missouri Ground water is the main source
of drinking water in the Ozarks
and Southeast Lowlands for both
public and private supplies; the
cities of Independence, Columbia,
and St. Charles use ground water
adjacent to the Missouri River
' " ' • "- - ^-' "^'- <'*"<
~ -' " ••• : sj *" , * ".^'."-.~.
Other Uses
Industry withdraws an average
1 90 million gallons/day;
irrigation consumes 200 million
gallons/day during the crop
production season; and live-
stock depend on an average ~
of 45 million gallons/day
Large ground water with-
drawals (>1 0,000 gallons/day)
increased from 37.8 million
gallons/day in 1 980 to
320 million gallons/day
in 1995
Nearly 60% of water needed
for livestock is supplied by
ground water; ground water
also supplies more than 60%
of industrial needs
; - '/ ^ "'v T^'v--.'"
i-ii^di 'If**!-!// \ I 1 A i/*1* HIT* LJi/"*t-Ji i /*** LJT*V
TiivjnUvjtruf frl I IJUnj nlvjrtLiUni -i
^i^^f-C
•:l ''"' , '", ' \~ - '
s ';-,*• \ ' - - " , •.'
V *\ ( ^ »","'• , x \- ' > - ?:
v> ': , VJ !". -'i ' * ~ • ^ ,.* '/'•
t* 'C ' s- U ^ '
^ ^\ ' ^ ' t , ' *\ ^
J '^' "• ". r , "NN ' s ••* "'
/'''-'; :''t '-/*>; -- ' >*'•
•s m ^ N j '
' "" ™, j "^ *r ^ j * ^ '
m s. « ' •»
•x 1 , - s ' ',>• -- X v , s
-------
102 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
HIGHLICHff|-4|jJGHT HIGHLIGH
ni i ii i i i i i i i ,i i i i i
t
^ !' " , I ',,'' " i1,,!
< |i|l| N I i ii |l| J in II in i f" iin
r
4 1
1 1 1 1 III
1 'n i i I',!'!'1 ,
\ 1 1 1 111 Ill
'i '''.ii','! ».' 'S ,i • 'piiM fin :!• i n! ' ; ","(*' Mf 'i'f*" MB* i111!!1!11""!1":' i1!1 : "HiilPIIIIB! * iii;11!!!!*1!!11"1!!!™11!11!™111!1^ "IJ111!!!:1!*11:!^^^
• i'" ""iii "i •« '' ! ii 'iii'ii1'"!1 '- F« I" ; • • i1!' . 'i'" *i"ii i iinwiirlifii "iiiji; ftiiiiiii », i!|!ilii!:Jii| ifk//an tym ;,
•'•"'i :'T'j'l!ii;i!iiiiilS^
I p .1 : < Si ii*^m!-i^;Si.»<-*'*s*jj«s " *~ / ' \ , ' ^
1
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 103
Ground water is the
source of drinking
water for 60% to
70% of the popula-
tion of Washington State. In large
areas east of the Cascade Mountain
Range, 80% to 100% of available
drinking water is obtained from
ground water resources. As a whole,
over 95% of Washington's public
water supply systems use ground
water as their primary water source.
Ground water is also often
directly connected to rivers, streams,
lakes, and other surface waterbod-
ies, with water flowing back and
forth from one resource to the
other. In some areas of the country,
ground water contributes signifi-
cantly to the water in streams and
lakes.
The volume of ground water
that is discharged to surface water-
bodies, thereby maintaining stream-
flow during periods of low flow or
drought conditions, was previously
unrecognized and unquantified. This
volume, estimated at 492 billion
gallons per day, is measured using
special instruments or estimated
using stream gaging and hydraulic
gradient data. When ground water
contributing to stream baseflow
maintenance is included with the
other ground water uses, it becomes
evident just how important it can
be. As shown in Figure 6-3, stream
baseflow maintenance accounts for
54% of ground water discharges.
This baseflow contributes to main-
taining healthy aquatic habitats in
surface water.
With ground water playing such
an important part in maintaining
water flow in streams and lakes, the
quality of the ground water can
have an important effect on the
overall condition of the surface
water. Surface waters can become
contaminated if the ground water
serves as a means to transport con-
taminants to the surface water (and
vice versa). This could affect drink-
ing water supplies drawn from sur-
face water, fish and wildlife habitats,
swimming, boating, and fishing.
Thus, it is evident that ground
water is a very important natural
resource. Preserving the quality of
our ground water resources ensures
that our needs as a Nation will be
met now and into the future.
Ground Water
Quality
The evaluation of our Nation's ,
ground water quality is complex.
In evaluating ground water quality
Figure!6-3
Withdrawal and Discharge of Ground Water
as a Percentage of Contribution
Thermoelectric 0.3%
Commercial 0.5%
Livestock Watering 1.4%
Mining 1.9%
Domestic 1.9%
Industrial 2.3%
Public Drinking
Water Supply 8.7% "
Irrigation 29.0%
Stream Baseflow
Maintenance 54.0%
Source: Open-File Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey, and National Water Summary 1986,
Hydrologic Events and Ground-Water Quality, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply
Paper 2325.
-------
104 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
H1GHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
I it1 1
111'
Ground Water/Surface Water
Interactions
Nationwide, many water quality
problems may be caused by ground
water/surface water interactions.
Substantial evidence shows that it is
not uncommon for contaminated
ground water to discharge to and
contaminate surface water. In other
cases, contaminated surface water is
seeping into and contaminating
ground water. In their most recent
reports on water quality, several
states reported ground water/surface
water interactions leading to conta-
mination of one medium by the
other. A few examples follow:
• The Arkansas Department of
Health (ADH) is investigating cases
of ground water contaminated by
microscopic organisms normally
found in surface water. Because sur-
face water carries disease-causing
protozoa and other organisms resis-
tant to the chlorination used to dis-
infect most public wells, the ADH
must determine if public drinking
water wells are supplied by sources
of ground water under the direct
influence (GWUDI) to surface water.
The ADH has developed an objective
method to determine if a well is
supplied by GWUDI. Water quality
information is used to determine the
potential for contamination and
then possible pathways of contami-
nation are identified by evaluating
the well's conformance to estab-
lished construction standards. Two
primary defects in well construction
that provide possible pathways for
surface water contamination are:
(1) unsuitable below-ground con-
struction, particularly shallow casings
and insufficient grout; and (2) well
sites characterized by poor drainage,
high soil infiltration rate, and highly
permeable outcrops.
Arkansas has more than 1,700
public drinking water supply wells.
In the 3 years since the GWUDI
program began, the ADH has used
the above method to determine that
900 of these wells are not supplied
by sources of ground water under
the influence of surface water. For
many of the wells evaluated, the
ADH has recommended simple,
above-ground construction repairs
or site maintenance procedures that
effectively closed the pathways of
surface water contamination.
• In South Carolina, ground water
serves to recharge most of the
streams; thus, contaminated ground
water impacts surface waters more
often than surface waters impact
ground water. In the State's Ground
Water Contamination Inventory, 79
cases of contaminated ground water
discharging from surficial aquifers to
surface water have been noted.
11 i
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 105
- ,\ ",:—-', '","•< -/• V" ' -- '
»*»'•* v. -/•, •,' *" ^ t r f
•, .v ^ i •"' ^ ' '„ X t.
Detailed information on contami-
nant concentrations in both the
aquifer and surface water is not
available. However, in most of these
cases, dilution of the contaminated
ground water by uncontaminated
surface water reduces the contami-
nant concentrations in the surface
water to low or not detectable
levels.
• No single program addresses the
water quality concerns that arise
from ground water/surface water
interactions in Maine. However,
contamination, or potential contami-
nation, of surface water through
baseflow of contaminated ground
water is being evaluated at several
locations. At an egg production facil-
ity in Turner, Maine, past practices
that included excessive land spread-
ing of chicken manure, hen carcass
disposal, and septage disposal
resulted in nitrate contamination of
large areas of a sand and gravel
aquifer. The majority of the shallow
ground water at the site discharges
to streams on the east and west
sides of the property. Monitoring
^," ' -' '••-*., - ' ' ', < - i
' ^ , -';' - ', - "•' . ' r /?
],'-,: j ' v''\ -, ' - \- ,-:"
points have been established on
these streams to evaluate the effects
of past practices and current waste-
water disposal on surface water
quality. To date, surface waters with-
in the property and along the prop-
erty boundary show evidence of
nitrate contamination
• A similar situation occurs in
Delaware. Past land-use practices,
such as high septic system density
and poultry houses, have con-
tributed to nitrate contamination of
ground water. This nitrate-contami-
nated groundwater discharges into
the Rehoboth and Indian River bays
contributing to eutrophication and
algal bloom problems. In fact, it is
estimated that certain subbasins
within the Indian River Bay water-
shed contribute, through direct
ground water discharge, almost
50% of the total nitrogen load that
enters the bay. Furthermore, poultry-
producing subbasins were found to
be the source of greater nitrate load-
ing than non-poultry-producinq
basins.
."" {' ' '' ' s ' V '' <" " / * -^ '" " -
' ~ ^ -- ^^-~W'W« V r-k..U
HIGHLIGH/fi-|ll"GHTHiGHi'IGr1t '
- ", -" " l\l I tJJ - , • "/ :•
l^ffe,
• ' '- - •. - , \ . "
" ,- '- "-- V, " v*',- '--'-, !
<:~ ; "v '"< ::V^ : ;*f*
;>,, -"^, ;. ...j,: ':\: - ;_"-.
--;>; '/'^;s-;>;^
r^:^:t:^':~:V^
-------
106 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
under Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act, our goal is to assess if the
resource has been adversely impact-
ed or degraded as a result of human
activities.
Not too long ago, it was
thought that soil provided a protec-
tive "filter" or "barrier" that immobi-
lized the downward migration of
contaminants released on the land
surface and prevented ground water
resources from being adversely
impacted or contaminated. The dis-
covery of pesticides and other con-
taminants in ground water demon-
strated that ground water resources
were indeed vulnerable to contami-
nation resulting from human activi-
ties. The potential for a contaminant
to affect ground water quality is
dependent upon its being intro-
duced to the environment and its
Figure 6-4
Ground Water Contamination as a Result
of Petroleum Spillage
ability to migrate through the over-
lying soils to the underlying ground
water resource. Figure 6-4 illustrates
a petroleum spill onto the ground
surface and the subsequent migra-
tion of the petroleum through the
soils to the underlying ground
water.
Ground water contamination
can occur as relatively well defined,
localized plumes emanating from
specific sources such as leaking
underground storage tanks, spills,
landfills, waste lagoons, and/or
industrial facilities (Figure 6-5).
Contamination can also occur as a
general deterioration of ground
water quality over a wide area due
to diffuse nonpoint sources such as
agricultural fertilizer and pesticide
applications, septic systems, urban
runoff, leaking sewer networks,
application of lawn chemicals,
highway deicing materials, animal
feedlots, salvage yards, and mining
activities. Ground water quality
degradation from diffuse nonpoint
sources affects large areas, making it
difficult to specify the exact source
of the contamination.
Ground water contamination is
most common in highly developed
areas, agricultural areas, and indus-
trial complexes. Frequently, ground
water contamination is discovered
long after it has occurred. One
reason for this is the slow move-
ment of ground water through
aquifers, which, for finer-grained
aquifers may be less than 1 foot per
day. Contaminants in the ground
water do not mix or spread quickly,
but remain concentrated in slow-
moving, localized plumes that may
persist for many years. This often
results in a delay in the detection
of ground water contamination. In
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 107
some cases, contaminants intro-
duced into the subsurface more
than 10 years ago are only now
being discovered. This also means
that the practices of today may have
affects on water quality well into the
future.
Shallow, unconfined aquifers are
especially susceptible to contamina-
tion from surface activities. Ground
water contamination in the surficial
aquifers can also affect ground
water quality of the underlying con-
fined aquifers. Confined aquifers are
most frequently susceptible to cont-
amination when low-permeability
confining layers are thin or absent,
thus enabling the unretarded down-
ward migration of contaminants.
Recent studies in southern New
Castle County of Delaware have
demonstrated the long-term suscep-
tibility of the underlying aquifers to
contamination. In Delaware, stream
channels have cut down through
confining layers at periods of low
sea level. When sea level rose, the
stream channels were filled with
sand and gravel. These highly
permeable channels can act as
conduits for contaminant migration.
Ground water contaminant
problems are frequently serious and
can pose a threat to human health
and/or result in increased costs to
consumers. In the 1996 Guidelines,
States were asked to indicate the
major uses (e.g., public water sup-
ply, private water supply, irrigation,
industry, livestock watering) for
water withdrawn from aquifers or
hydrogeologic settings within the
State. States were also asked to
relate water use to uses that may
have been affected by ground water
contamination.
Although this information was
considered optional, 20 States
Figure 6-5
Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Ground Water Movement
Intentional Input
Unintentional Input
nj.rrf
•>fcl
Discharge -
ili Dump, r7:
-or Refuse Pile '
Confining Zone
"-3~^£.. \-g.l
Leakage
Aquifer, (fresh)
-------
108 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Ground Water Along
Our Nation's Coasts
Communities along the U.S.
coast have been attracting new resi-
dents and more industry at an ever-
rising rate during the past two or so
decades. This growth has been
beneficial for the economy and tax
base of these areas. However, now
we are seeing the beginning of what
could be unwelcome, even danger-
ous, effects on these communities
and the environment. In fact, coastal
communities may face critical water
supply issues within the decade if
ground water protection and
conservation are not aggressively
pursued.
EPA is forming a partnership
between its internal Offices of
Ground Water and Drinking Water
and Wetlands, Oceans, and Water-
sheds, the Ground Water Protection
Council, and the State of Florida to
begin a water supply study in
Florida. The results of this study will
form the basis of research to charac-
terize current national water quality
and quantity in coastal areas.
The problem will be framed in
terms of current drinking water
needs, human health, and economic
impact. EPA plans to share the
results of this research with coastal
communities through public out-
reach. Beginning with the most
affected localities and in partnership
with local and community organiza-
tions, EPA will inform coastal
communities about the possible
problems coming their way and
how to avoid them. EPA will develop
methods to help communities pro-
tect their source waters and drinking
water and provide assistance to
communities in putting these
methods in place.
The problems of protecting
coastal source water and drinking
water have been neglected for too
long—so long that real problems are
arising. EPA hopes this project will
significantly benefit ground water
and drinking water quality all along
the coast through improved charac-
terization of ground water in coastal
areas and better watershed manage-
ment. Public education about prob-
lems in the coastal environment and
how to solve them will encourage
public involvement. Better manage-
ment of resources—environmental,
financial, and human—will lead to
new and needed environmental
improvements.
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 109
responded with information for a
total of 66 aquifers or hydrogeologic
units. Of these, 43 units reportedly
supplied water for PWS, 45 units
supplied water for private use, and
32 units supplied water for irriga-
tion. Other important uses of the
water included commercial (12
units), livestock (19 units), and
industry (10 units).
When evaluating the different
uses for ground water that have
been affected by water quality prob-
lems, water supply for public and
private use were the most frequently
affected. Water supply to PWS was
affected in 19 units (almost 45%)
and water supply to private wells
was affected in 23 units (>50%).
Irrigation, commercial, livestock, and
industry uses were less frequently
affected. This may reflect lower
water quality standards for these
uses.
Ground Water
Contaminant Sources
Ground water quality may be
adversely impacted by a variety of
potential contaminant sources. EPA
developed a list of potential contam-
inant sources for the 1996 305(b)
Guidelines and requested each State
to indicate the 10 top sources that
potentially threaten their ground
water resources. The list Was not
considered comprehensive and
States added sources as was neces-
sary based on State-specific con-
cerns. Factors that were considered
by States in their selection include
the number of each type of source
in the State, the location of the vari-
ous sources relative to ground water
used for drinking water purposes,
the size of the population at risk
from contaminated drinking water,
the risk posed to human health
and/or the environment from
releases, hydrogeologic sensitivity
(the ease with which contaminants
enter and travel through soil and
reach aquifers), and the findings of
the State's ground water protection
strategy and/or related studies. For
each of the indicated contaminant
sources, States were also asked to
identify the contaminants impacting
ground water quality.
Thirty-seven States provided
information related to contaminant
sources. As requested in the 1996
Guidelines, most States indicated
the 10 top contaminant sources
threatening ground water quality. In
some cases, they not only specified
the 10 top sources, but provided
additional information on sources of
lesser, but still notable, importance.
In a few other cases, they provided
information on the majority of
sources threatening ground water
quality within the State.
Figure 6-6 illustrates the sources
most frequently cited by States as a
potential threat to ground water
quality. As shown, leaking under-
ground storage tanks (USTs) were
specified by 35 out of 37 States as
one of the top 10 potential sources
of ground water contamination.
Two other States noted that leaking
USTs were a source of ground water
contamination. Landfills, septic
systems, hazardous waste sites, and
surface impoundments were the
next most frequently cited sources
of concern.
-------
110 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
Figure 6-6
Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Sources
Storage Tanks (underground)
Landfills
Septic Systems
Hazardous Waste Sites
Surface Impoundments
Storage Tanks (above ground)
Industrial Facilities
Spills
Fertilizer Applications
Pesticide Applications
Pipelines and Sewer Lines
Agricultural Chemical Facilities
Shallow Injection Wells
Salt Water Intrusion
Animal Feedlots
Land Application
Mining
Urban Runoff
Hazardous Waste Generators
Salt Storage and Road Salting
Irrigation
Wastepiles
Historic
Waste Tailings
Agricultural Activities
Oil and Gas Activities
Abandoned Wells
Natural Sources
Deep Injection Wells
Material Transfer Operations
Material Stockpiles
Transportation of Materials
Federal or State Superfund
Manufacturing/Repair Shops
Injection Wells
Dry Cleaners
Illegal Dumping Sites
Land Applications
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent
^ 3
^••^^^^•Q
^•^••^•ZZ-ZD
^^•••^^•zzzzu
••I^MHKZZl
^^^^HHBH I
II^MBEJ
^^••BZZZZZl
^^•H
^^^m
••u
••^n
^^^^ • Number Reporting on Top Ten
^^^^^ Contaminant Sources
•r— —— j H Number Reporting on Contaminant
Sources in Addition to the Top Ten
•n
•
•
huP1,1: '"'"d
Biiuj.........a
n
a
D
n
i i i i i i i i
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Total
37
35
34
27
25
20
18
20
18
19
15
15
14
13
12
15
14
10
9
11
6
7
4
4
4
4
3
3
5
4
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Number of States, Tribes, and Territories Reporting
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 111
Underground Storage
Tanks
Leaking USTs were cited as the
highest priority contaminant source
of concern to States in 1996 (Figure
6-6). The high priority assigned to
leaking USTs in 1996 is consistent
with information reported by States
during previous 305(b) cycles.
Although USTs are found in all
populated areas, they are generally
most concentrated in the more
heavily developed urban and sub-
urban areas of a State. USTs are
primarily used to hold petroleum
products such as gasoline, diesel
fuel, and fuel oil. Because they are
buried underground, leakage can be
a significant source of ground water
contamination that can go
undetected for long periods of time
(Figure 6-7).
States report that the organic
chemicals associated with petroleum
products are one of the most com-
mon ground water contaminants.
Petroleum-related chemicals have
adversely affected ground water
quality in aquifers across the Nation.
The most significant affects generally
occur in the uppermost aquifer,
which is frequently shallow and
often used for domestic purposes.
Petroleum-related chemicals threat-
en the use of ground water for
human consumption because some
(e.g., benzene) are known to cause
cancer even at very low concentra-
tions.
The primary causes of leakage in
USTs are faulty installation and cor-
rosion of tanks and pipelines. As of
March 1996, more than 300,000
releases from USTs had been con-
firmed. EPA estimates that nationally
60% of these leaks have impacted
ground water quality and, in some
States, the percentage is as high as
90%.
In general, the threat from USTs
was determined primarily based on
the sheer number of leaking USTs.
• There were almost 61,000 facili-
ties containing 155,308 registered
USTs in Texas in 1994. During that
same year, 4,894 cases of ground
water contamination were docu-
mented as being under enforcement
by the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission. Fifty-two
percent of the contamination cases
are within the 10 most populous
Figure 6-7
Ground Water Contamination as a Result
of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
mi Dissolved Gasoline3I»
-------
112 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
HiGHUGH|fi-4 IjjpHT HIGHLIGH
,-. / 7- ••';,• , : : ;•'*•
'"! |. i" , •'' *
Hi f _ *'„ . ': 1 .'ii'i:,1 v " ,
1
Frequently Considered Factors |
When identifying a contaminant • Risk posed to human health •
source as a potential threat to and/or the environment from H
ground water quality, States may releases H
consider a number of different H
factors such as • Hydrogeologic sensitivity (the •
ease with which contaminants enter •
• Number of each type of source in and travel through soil and reach H
the State aquifers) •
• Location of various sources • Findings of the State's ground H
relative to ground water used for water protection strategy and/or H
drinking water purposes related studies. States were asked in •
the 1 996 Guidelines to specify the H
. Size of the population at risk from factors tney considered in reporting •
contaminated drinking water contaminant sources. •
^^^^H Number of States Reporting a Contaminant Grouping ^^^^^^H
Source
Petroleum
Compounds
Halogenated
Solvents
Organic
Pesticides
Metals
Nitrate
Bacteria
Inorganic
Pesticides
Protozoa
' Viruses
Leaking
USTs
31
9
5
3
Landfills
18
19
12
20
8
10
10
5
Septic
Systems
5
22
17
9
15
< * * * '* •. *
•
- / ;.'. -''.Vv>'>:'' ".' '•'•:••'< ~-r " 1
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 113
~ V-.-/;^: XX-o-V
'•: ---': , ^; .
Unquestionably, human health
and the environment, the number
and/or size of the contaminant
sources, and the location of a source
relative to a drinking water source
were the most important factors
considered. These three factors are
reflected in the high priority
assigned to leaking USTs, landfills,
and septic systems (see Figure 6-7 of
this report). Large numbers of each -
of these three contaminant sources
have been documented in the
States. Adverse impacts to drinking
water as a result of releases from
these three sources have also been
;, „ v^ * " '- ' ' f ' ~ >s
N f ( , t < •,
Jesse Xiong, 1 st grade, Estes Hills Elementary, Chap
, \J , ' •.';-••*__,_'
.- "" \ •'," ~ ' -' / " " ".
reported. Releases are frequently
known to be hazardous to human
health.
The table shows the contami-
nants that States specified in associa-
tion with leaking USTs, landfills, and
septic systems. As shown, petroleum
compounds were most frequently
associated with leaking USTs
Nitrate, bacteria, and protozoa were
most frequently cited in association
with septic systems. The variability in
contaminants associated with land-
fills reflects the diversity in disposed
materials.
SSMpj
ill
>el Hill, NC
*- .--""'•" '/ ', '",,"--. " i -'^-
t4l/*t'l-II lf*l~47/ 1- 1 I \1/"**UT i-jlY<**LJi'' l/**lJT'
t if vjct f IMIVJI^II r t^w I j |VJt 11 Ni Hvii lulvil i i
/|'^;;;,>:;
s~ ,-••' "" , * , '" , '•- ^ <., ~ ""
j" \ x* ,-',-*''•*", '-\ "',
i ' , . -' -- " <-"•,'-"
_<-- x >. , - , ' ,'; 1 -"."«"
;'>.', ^<
,J!-''N ;L ' •' ""'. '"'-•-.">:
. * " '• .';- '• .-' V" \ s"%" - '
;;::;.--:{:':.\v'';'V; :-;.•'''
< N '* ' •, * 1
-------
114 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
counties in Texas. Furthermore, leak-
age from storage tanks has been
documented in 223 of 254 counties
in the State and either has affected,
or has the potential to affect,
virtually every major and minor
aquifer in the State.
• As of August 1996, the State of
Arizona was tracking approximately
8,960 facilities having 30,000 USTs.
Of these 30,000 USTs, 5,935 have
reported leaks and 917 have or may
have contaminated ground water.
• In the State of Delaware, there
are over 9,000 regulated USTs
(3,516 of which are currently in use)
located at over 2,000 facilities. Over
the period 1994-1995, 586 sites had
confirmed releases with 80 having
confirmed ground water releases.
• As of December 31, 1995, a total
of 41,795 USTs have been registered
at approximately 14,000 facilities in
the State of Kentucky. Approxi-
mately 400 of these registered sites
have ground water contamination
at levels above the maximum conta-
minant levels for drinking water. On
average, about 20 new USTs per
year manifest ground water contam-
ination above allowable limits.
The "registered USTs" and
"facilities" described above repre-
sent tanks used for commercial and
industrial purposes. Hundreds of
thousands of household fuel oil USTs
are not included in the numbers
presented above. Many of these
household USTs, installed 20-to-30
years ago as suburban communities
were developed across the country,
have reached or surpassed their nor-
mal service lifespans. Some of these
tanks are undoubtedly leaking and
threatening ground water supplies.
Because household tanks are not
regulated as commercial facilities
are, however, it is not possible to
determine the extent to which
ground water quality is threatened
by them. In addition, since the cost
of replacing leaking USTs would be
borne by the homeowner, there is
little incentive for the homeowner to
investigate the soundness of his/her
home oil tank.
Recognizing the need to
address and control the leaking UST
situation, States across the Nation
have taken action. One excellent
example is Maine. In 1985, the
Maine Legislature passed a law to
regulate all underground petroleum
storage tanks. This law required that
all tanks be registered with the
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) by May 1, 1986,
regardless of size, use, or contents.
This law also established procedures
for abandonment of tanks and pro-
hibited the operation, maintenance,
or storage of petroleum in any stor-
age facility or tank that is not con-
structed of fiberglass, cathodically
protected steel, or other noncorro-
sive material.
To date, approximately 39,850
tanks have been registered, with
only an estimated 4,000 tanks pend-
ing registration. Since 1986, approx-
imately 27,750 inactive or old tanks
have been removed from the
ground. Figures 6-8 and 6-9
illustrate the effectiveness of this
program. In Figure 6-8, the number
of drinking water supply wells con-
taminated by leaking USTs has
dropped dramatically. At the same
time, as shown in Figure 6-9, the
number of nonconforming USTs has
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 115
decreased while the number of
protected replacement USTs has
increased. It is estimated by the
Maine DEP that $3 of cleanup and
third-party damage claim costs are
avoided for every $1 spent on
preventive measures.
Landfills
Landfills were cited by States as
the second highest contaminant
source of concern in 1996 (Figure
6-6). Landfills have consistently
been cited as a high-priority source
of contamination by the States.
Landfills may be used to dispose of
sanitary (municipal) and industrial
wastes.
Municipal wastes, some indus-
trial wastes, and relatively inert
substances such as plastics are dis-
posed of in sanitary landfills.
Resulting contamination may be in
the form of high dissolved solids,
chemical and biochemical oxygen
demand, and some volatile organic
compounds.
Industrial landfills are site spe-
cific as to the nature of the disposed
material. Common materials that
may be disposed of in industrial
landfills include plastics, metals, fly
ash, sludges, coke, tailings, waste
pigment particles, low-level radio-
active wastes, polypropylene, wood,
brick, cellulose, ceramics, synthetics,
and other similar substances. Con-
tamination from these landfills may
be in the form of heavy metals, high
sulfates, and volatile organic com-
pounds. States indicated in their
1996 305(b) Water Quality Reports
that the most common contami-
nants associated with landfills were
metals, halogenated solvents, and
petroleum compounds. To a lesser
extent, organic and inorganic
pesticides were also cited as a conta-
minant of concern.
Landfills of all types have long
been used to dispose of wastes. In
the past, little regard was given to
the potential for ground water con-
tamination in site selection. Landfills
were generally sited on land consid-
ered to have no other uses. Unlined
Figure 6^8
Number of Private Drinking Water Supply Wells
Contaminated by Leaking Underground Petroleum
Storage Facilities in Maine (1986-1993)
120 -i
^ i oo - ^H
z "iB.B.B,• • • • •
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
Year
Figure 6\9
Changes in the Makeup of the Maine
UST Population
Number of Protected
Replacement USTs
Number of Nonconforming
USTs Closed - Cumulative
Total Number of
Nonconforming USTs
94
-------
r
116 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
abandoned sand and gravel pits,
old strip mines, marshlands, and
sinkholes were often used. In many
instances the water table was at, or
very near the surface, and the
potential for ground water contami-
nation was high (Figure 6-10).
Although regulations involving the
siting, construction, and monitoring
of landfills have changed dramatic-
ally, past practices continue to cause
a threat to ground water quality.
For example, although there are
no currently active or operational
solid waste disposal sites in the
District of Columbia, historic records
indicate that about 80 sites within
the District of Columbia had been
used as either a landfill or an open
dump. Historic landfill sites continue
to be discovered during routine
environmental assessments and con-
struction excavations. The exact
location and materials disposed of
are frequently unknown. Landfill
sites that remain undiscovered have
the potential to continue affecting
Figure 6-10
Ground Water Contamination as a Result
of Unlined Landfill Disposal
Unlined Landfill
ground water quality. Past handling
and disposal practices cause concern
because soil properties in the District
of Columbia are unfavorable for use
as a landfill. Specifically, soils are
characterized by a relatively high
permeability. In addition, the
shallow depth to bedrock, high
seasonal ground water level, and
susceptibility to flooding make the
area even more unsuitable.
To better govern municipal
landfills, the State of Texas estab-
lished a regulatory program in 1969
and began permitting new sites in
1975. From 1977 to 1981, pre-
viously existing landfills were either
closed, permitted as grandfathered
sites, or considered illegal/unautho-
rized sites. Records indicate from
1981 until 1994, 1,343 previously
existing landfills (dumps), 1,810 per-
mitted and grandfathered landfills,
and 2,549 illegal/unauthorized sites
have been closed. As a rule, ground
water monitoring is not required at
these 5,702 sites. In 1994, there
were 360 active landfills operating
under the jurisdiction of the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation
Commission. Of these sites, 196
were conducting ground water
monitoring, 27 of which had docu-
mented ground water contamina-
tion.
A total of 391 municipal landfills
have been identified in the State
of Maine. As of December 1995,
206 landfills have been closed and
capped. Seventeen landfills are
partially closed with 168 yet to be
closed. Of these 168 landfills, 45 are
currently active sites and 123 are
inactive sites that are no longer
receiving solid waste. In all:
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 117
• 184 landfill sites are situated on
sand and gravel aquifers and
ground water contamination has
been documented at 46 of these
sites
• 60 other sites have contaminated
surface water and/or ground
water and are considered to be
substandard; 37 of these sites have
serious ground water contamina-
tion.
• Hazardous substances in the
ground water are confirmed or sus-
pected at 41 municipal landfills.
Public or private water supplies are
threatened at 13 of these sites.
Public water supplies appear to be
threatened by hazardous contami-
nants at three sites. Contaminants at
the remaining 10 sites appear to
threaten private water supplies.
Recognizing the problems asso-
ciated with old, inactive landfill sites,
States are taking action to ensure
that current and future landfills are
less of a threat. In the State of
Maine, active landfills are required
to be licensed by the Department of
Environmental Protection. Currently
57 landfills are licensed to operate in
Maine. Eight of these are licensed to
accept municipal solid waste only;
22 are licensed to accept special
wastes (nonhazardous waste gener-
ated by sources other than domestic
and typical commercial establish-
ments), and 27 are approved to
accept only construction and demo-
lition debris. The landfills licensed to
accept municipal solid waste and/or
special wastes are secure landfills
with leachate collection systems and
treatment, thereby greatly reducing
the risk of ground water contamina-
tion.
Septic Systems
As shown in Figure 6-6, septic
systems were cited by 29 out of 37
States as a potential source of
ground water contamination. States
based their decisions most heavily
on three factors, including the loca-
tion of septic systems relative to
sources of drinking water, the large
number of residential septic tank
systems, and human health. These
findings are consistent with previous
305(b) reporting cycles in which
septic systems were consistently
ranked among the top five sources
of ground water contamination.
Septic systems include buried
septic tanks with fluid distribution
systems or leachfields. Septic sys-
tems are designed to release fluids
or wastewaters into constructed
permeable leach beds, if present,
and then to the shallow soil. Waste-
waters are then expected to be
attacked by biological organisms in
the soil and/or degraded by other
natural processes over time. Ground
water may be contaminated by
releases from septic systems when
the systems are poorly designed
(tanks are installed in areas with
inadequate soils or shallow depth to
ground water); poorly constructed
or sealed; are improperly used,
located, or maintained; or are
abandoned.
A variety of wastewaters are
disposed of in septic systems and, as
a consequence, a variety of different
chemicals may be present in the
system. States stressed that one of
the more common uses is for dis-
posal of domestic sewage and liquid
household wastes. Typical contami-
nants from household septic systems
include bacteria, nitrates, viruses,
phosphates from detergents, and
-------
118 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
other chemicals that might originate
from household cleaners.
Septic systems are generally
found in rural areas of the Nation.
For example, Vermont is character-
ized by a large rural population. Due
to the rural setting, homes and
industries outside municipal service
areas lack access to sewers. Septic
systems are now and probably will
remain a significant nonpoint source
of contamination with approxi-
mately 220 indirect discharge sites.
These sites represent discharges to
the subsurface of over 6,500 gallons
of sewage per day.
American households dispose of
an estimated 3.5 billion gallons of
liquid waste into these systems each
day. Although the use of domestic
septic systems is difficult to control,
many States are initiating permitting
processes. In addition, the local sale
of products that pose a threat to
ground water quality may be dis-
couraged. Support of local collec-
tion programs may be encouraged
through the increase in public
awareness.
Although States most frequently
cited domestic septic systems as a
threat to ground water quality,
Figure 6-11
Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Commercial Septic Systems
Septic Tank
Drainfield
Source: U.S. EPA, 1997. Groundwater Bulletin.
Septic Tank
Cesspool
Dry Well
Storm Sewer
Storm Drain
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 119
similar systems are also used by
commercial and industrial facilities
to dispose of process wastewaters
(Figure 6-11). The most misused
septic systems are those used by the
automotive repair/service businesses
that dispose of engine fluids, fuels,
and cleaning solvents. As much as
4 million pounds of waste per year
are disposed of by commercial sites
into septic systems that have affect-
ed the drinking water of approxi-
mately 1.3 million Americans. The
costs needed to clean up the conta-
mination and supply new sources of
drinking water have ranged from
$30,000 to $3.8 million. States are
currently enforcing waste manage-
ment programs requiring businesses
to properly dispose of their chemical
waste.
State Overview of
Contaminant Sources
For the first time in 1996, States
were asked to provide information
on the types and numbers of con-
taminant sources within a specified
reporting area. Reporting contami-
nant source information for specific
areas within States is new and not
all States track this information in an
easily accessible format Of the
States that do, 29 provided this
information. The information is tab-
ulated on a nationwide basis in
Table 6-1.
Requesting this type of informa-
tion served two purposes. First, it
was possible to determine what
contaminant sources have the great-
est potential to impact ground
water quality based on the sheer
number of such sites in a given area.
Second, it was possible to determine
how many of these sites actually
impacted ground water quality.
As shown in Table 6-1, leaking
USTs represent the highest number
of potential sources. Over 100,000
leaking LIST sites have been identi-
fied in 80 different areas of the
Nation. Of these, over 17,000 have
confirmed releases of ground water
contamination. The next big cate-
gory of potential contaminant
sources are septic systems. States
reported the presence of 10,656
sources in a total of eight areas.
Of these, 10,594 have confirmed
releases. The next highest category
were State sites, with a total of
2,614 confirmed ground water
contamination incidents.
-------
120 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
Ground Water
Assessments
For the first time in 1996,
States were asked to report data
for aquifers or hydrogeologic set-
tings (e.g., watersheds) within the
State. Reporting data for specific
aquifers or hydrogeologic settings
within States is new. EPA recog-
nized that not every State would
be able to report ground water
data on an aquifer-specific basis.
EPA also anticipated that there
would be wide variation in report-
ing style. The information reported
by States in their 1996 State Water
Quality Reports reflects the diver-
sity of our Nation's individual
ground water management
programs.
Due to the diversity in
reported data, evaluation of
ground water quality on a national
basis for 1996 is not possible at
this time. However, the positive
Table 6-1. Summary of Contaminant Source Type and Number
Source Type
Leaking UST
UST Sites (no releases found)
Septic Systems
State Sites
Underground Injection
CERCLIS (non-NPL)
RCRA Corrective Action
MN Dept of Agriculture
DOD/DOE
Miscellaneous
Nonpoint Sources
NPL
Landfills
Wastewater Land Application
Units for
Which
Information
Was Reported
80
21
8
65
49
54
74
1
77
55
17
63
4
21
Sites
Repotted
Nationwide
100,921
2,210
10,656
7,017
5,006
2,399
2,114
600
404
229
171
167
149
116
Sites Listed
and/or with
Confirmed
Releases
Nationwide
40,363
—
10,594
5,751
1,077
1,332
283
164
234
905
190
250
78
—
^^m
Sites with
Confirmed
Ground Water
Contamination
Nationwide
17,827
—
—
2,614
911
645
289
50
166
514
62
204
74
24
^•i
Site
Investigations
Nationwide
22,362
—
—
5,348
116
1,154
54
119
115
72
32
57
136
24
••
Sites that are
Stabilized or
with Source
Removed
Nationwide
9,367
- —
-—
2,935
62
374
37
—
53
40
27
22
3
—
CERCLIS « Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
DOD/DOE = Department of Defense/Department of Energy
MN = Minnesota
NPL « National Priority List (or Superfund)
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
UST a Underground Storage Tank
— = Not available
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 121
response from States showed they
welcomed the changes made in
1996 and are developing and
implementing plans to report more
aquifer-specific information in the
future.
Diversity of Reporting
Units
Thirty-three States reported
data summarizing ground
water quality. In total, data were
reported for 162 specific aquifers
and other hydrogeologic settings.
States that were unable to report
ground water quality data for
specific aquifers assessed ground
water quality using a number of
different hydrogeologic settings
or "reporting units," including
statewide summaries, reporting
by county, watershed, basin, and
sites or areas chosen for specific
reasons such as potential vulner-
ability to contamination.
Sites with
Corrective
Action Plans
Nationwide
6,143
—
—
791
32
41
37
—
26
12
3
25
—
7
Sites with
Active
Remediation
Nationwide
6,301
—
—
1,216
28
21
79
—
22
5
21
38
—
5
Sites with
Cleanup
Completed
Nationwide
19,379
—
—
3,166
204
49
52
—
39
32
36
24
0
0
-------
122 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
Figure 6-12 presents an overview
of the States that were able to pro-
vide ground water quality data for
specific or "differentiated hydro-
geologic units" within the State. A
brief description of several ground
water assessment methods and
their rationale follows.
Florida - Very Intense
Study Area
Florida's Very Intense Study
Area (VISA) Network, consisting of
about 450 wells, began operating
in 1990. The VISA Network moni-
tors the effects of various land uses
on ground water quality in specific
aquifers in selected areas. The
major land uses represented are
Figure 6-12
Summary of How Ground Water
Data Were Reported
DC
> American Samoa
Puerto Rico
1996 305(b) Ground Water Report Not Provided
Differentiated Into Hydrogeologic Units Within the State
Not Differentiated, Reported on a Statewide Basis
Tabulated Ground Water Monitoring Data Not Provided
intensive agriculture, mixed urban/
suburban, industrial, and low
impact. The VISAs were chosen
based on their relative susceptibil-
ity to contamination. Currently,
Florida has data on 23 VISAs and is
in the process of analyzing the
results of the first two rounds of
sampling.
Wells in the VISA and Florida's
background networks are sampled
in the same year for various water
chemistry indicators and groups of
contaminants. By comparing VISA
and background results in the
same aquifer system, lists of con-
taminants commonly associated
with different kinds of land use can
be developed. This process helps
Florida to plan for and regulate
land uses that are a threat to
ground water quality.
For the 1996 report, Florida
chose to present information for
the North Lake Apopka VISA
(Figure 6-13), which consists of
36 square miles in the Lake Apopka
Basin. The vulnerability to contami-
nation of the surficial and Floridian
aquifers and Lake Apopka was an
important consideration in choos-
ing the study area. Because land
use in the Lake Apopka Basin is
over 50% agricultural, this VISA
helps Florida evaluate the impacts
of intensive agricultural growing,
processing, and packing on
ground water quality.
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 123
Arkansas - Ambient
Ground Water Monitoring
Program
The Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology ini-
tiated an Ambient Ground Water
Monitoring Program in 1986 in
order to gather background,
ground-water quality data from
various aquifers in the State.
Samples are collected every 3 years
and analyzed for general water
quality indicators, including metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, and
pesticides. Three rounds of
sampling and analysis have been
completed in some areas since
inception of this program.
For 1996, Arkansas presented
information for the nine currently
active monitoring areas (Figure
6-14). The areas are in different
counties covering the diverse geo-
logic, hydrologic, and economic
regimes within the State. Each area
was chosen for a particular reason
and with particular objectives in
mind. For example, one area is
characterized by the largest
community using ground water to
meet all of its needs and one
objective of the monitoring pro-
gram is to monitor water quality
within an area of the underlying
aquifer that is affected by public
and commercial well use.
Figure 6h13
Locations and Descriptions of Very Intense
Study Areas (VISA) in Florida
* Urban/Suburban Areas
• Industrial Areas
A Agricultural Areas
• Mixed Land Uses
Figure 6-14
Arkansas Ambient Ground Water
Monitoring Program
Existing Monitoring
Areas
Proposed Monitoring
Areas
Existing monitoring areas include Ouachita (1), Lonoke (2), Pine Bluff (3), Omaha (4),
El Dorado (5), Jonesboro (6), Brinkley (7), Chicot (8), and Buffalo River Watershed (9).
Expansion areas will include Hardy (10) and Athens Plateau (11).
-------
124 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
Wyoming - County
Summary
In 1992, the Wyoming Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality,
Water Resources Center and the
State Engineer's Office imple-
mented a prioritized approach for
assessing aquifer sensitivity and
ground water vulnerability at the
county level on a statewide basis.
Goshen County was selected as
a pilot project area based on
(1) the existence of recent studies
and reports on ground water
quality and aquifer characteristics;
(2) Federal, State, and local interest
in ground water and wellhead
protection programs; and (3) the
Figure 6-15
Idaho's Hydrogeologic Subareas
i i Subarea Boundaries
r°—i Major Aquifers
Hydrogeologic Subareas
1. North Idaho
2. Palouse
3. Clearwater
4. Long Valley/Meadows
5. Weiser
6. Payette
7. Boise Valley-Shallow
8. Boise Valley- Deep
9. Mountain Home
10. North Owyhee
11. Salmon
12. Central Valley
13. Snake River Plain Alluvium
14. Snake River Plain Basalt
15. Twin Falls
16. Cassia Power
17. Portneuf
18. Upper Snake
19. Bear River
20. Boise Mountains
21. Central Mountains
22. Southwestern Owyhee
Note: Boise Valley Shallow overlies Boise
Valley Deep. Snake River Plain Alluvium
(SRP) overlies SRP Basalt.
amount of related data and
information available to complete
sensitivity and vulnerability maps.
Goshen County also ranked fourth
out of 23 counties in overall vul-
nerability to contamination from
pesticides. For 1996, Wyoming
focused ground water assessment
on the North Platte River alluvial
aquifer located in Goshen County.
Indiana - Hydrogeologic
Setting
To avoid the evaluation of
ground water quality data across
similar political boundaries, Indiana
developed a system that allows for
data to be analyzed according to
similar surface and subsurface envi-
ronments. This was achieved by
first producing a document that
describes all the hydrogeologic
settings found in Indiana. These
hydrogeologic settings provide a
conceptual model to interpret the
sensitivity to contamination of
ground water in relation to the
surface and subsurface environ-
ments. For ground water quality
data for 1996, the State of Indiana
selected five hydrogeologic
settings considered to be highly
vulnerable to contamination (i.e.,
principally outwash deposits or
fans of glacial origin) and occur-
ring in largely populated areas
(i.e., areas of greatest water
demand).
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 125
Idaho - Hydrogeologic
Subareas
The State of Idaho is divided
into 22 hydrogeologic subareas
(Figure 6-15) for Statewide moni-
toring purposes. These subareas
represent geologically similar areas
and generally encompass one or
more of the 70 major ground
water flow systems identified
within the State. Each flow system
includes at least one major aquifer,
with some systems being com-
prised of several aquifers that may
be interconnected.
Idaho reported ground water
quality data for 20 of the 22
hydrogeologic subareas. Subareas
21 and 22 were not included in
1996 because the ground water in
these subareas is used by few
people and the aquifer systems are
isolated from other major aquifers.
Arizona - Watershed Zone
Arizona presented ground
water quality data for all 10
"watershed zones" within the State
(Figure 6-16). The watershed zones
are delineated along USGS Hydro-
logic Unit boundaries and corre-
spond to the State's 13 surface
water basins. A few surface water
basins were combined and one
was split to form the 10 watershed
zones. Each watershed zone is
characterized in terms of several
features, including size, population
base, hydrologic provinces, eco-
regions, ground water basins,
hydrology, and geology. Investi-
gations of potential ground water
contamination problems have led
to site remediation efforts through
various State and Federal
programs.
Figure 6H 6
Arizona Watersheds
-------
126 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
Alabama - Tuscumbia Fort
Payne Aquifer
Alabama provided ground
water quality data for the Tuscum-
bia Fort Payne Aquifer outcrop area
located in northern Alabama adja-
cent to the Tennessee River (Figure
6-17). This area is underlain by the
Tuscumbia Limestone and the Fort
Payne Chert geologic formations.
It is considered to be a unique
karst area that is highly susceptible
to contamination from surface
sources. Surface and ground water
interaction is fairly rapid due to
recharge through sinkholes and
other karst features. Because the
Figure 6-17
Alabama Physiographic Provinces
Tuscumbia Fort
Payne Aquifer Outcrop
— Appalachian
1 Plateaus
area is heavily farmed and pesti-
cides associated with farming are
used, the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management has
accumulated ground water moni-
toring data for this area.
Texas - Trinity and Dockum
Aquifers, Rio Grande
Alluvium, and Laredo
Formation
Ambient ground water quality
monitoring is conducted continu-
ously and extensively throughout
the State of Texas. As a conse-
quence, boundaries and various
characteristics of all the State's
major and minor aquifers have
been identified, including water
availability, recharge, and geologic
formation. In addition, major enti-
ties using ground water have been
identified within each river basin
and the aquifer(s) used, the quality
of water being developed, and the
quantity of water needed for a
50-year planning period.
For 1996, Texas selected the
Trinity and Dockum Aquifers, Rio
Grande Alluvium, and Laredo
Formation for assessment. These
selections represent one major, one
minor, and two undifferentiated/
local aquifers, respectively. The
main selection criterion was to
select a range of recently moni-
tored aquifers and to develop an
initial methodology for the assess-
ment of the aquifers. The refine-
ment of the assessment method-
ology for subsequent 305(b)
reporting cycles is of primary
importance.
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 127
Extent of Coverage ,
States were encouraged to
report ground water data for
selected aquifers or hydrogeologic
settings as part of the 1996 305(b)
reporting cycle. EPA recognized
that this was not always plausible
and as a consequence, recom-
mended that State ground water
resources be assessed incrementally
over time.
The extent of State coverage
will increase as individual States
develop and implement plans to
assess ground water quality on an
aquifer-specific basis. Greater
quantities of ground water moni-
toring data will also become avail-
able as States complete source
water delineations and source
inventory/susceptibility analyses for
public water supplies under the
Source Water Assessment Program
(see Chapter 18).
Ground Water Quality
Data Sources
EPA recognizes that data
collection and organization varies
among the States, and that a
single data source for assessing
ground water quality does not
exist for purposes of the 1996
Report to Congress. As a conse-
quence, EPA suggested several
types of data that could be used
for assessment purposes (e.g.,
ambient ground water monitoring
data, untreated water from private
or unregulated wells, untreated
water from public water supply
wells, and special studies).
States were encouraged to use
available data that they believe
best reflects the quality of the
resource. Depending upon data
availability and the judgment of
the State ground water profession-
als, one or multiple sources of data
were used in the assessments. The
majority of the States opted to use
multiple sources of data. As shown
in Figure 6-18, States used data
collected from ambient monitoring
networks, public water supply
systems, private and unregulated
Figure 6-iIS
Sources of Ground Water Data
..Hawaii
American Samoa
Puerto Rico
A Finished Water from PWS Wells
• Untreated Water from PWS Wells
• Ambient Monitoring Networks
«J» Other Ground Water Monitoring Data
+ Untreated Water from Private or Unregulated Wells
T*r Special Studies
T Facility Monitoring Wells
1996 305(b) Ground Water Report Not Provided
Tabulated Ground Water Monitoring Data Not Provided
-------
128 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
wells, facility monitoring wells, and
special studies.
Finished water quality data
from public water supply systems
were the most frequently used
source of data (Figure 6-19).
Ambient monitoring networks and
untreated water quality data from
private and unregulated wells were
the next frequently used sources of
data.
States used a variety of data
sources to report on ground water
quality. Although there was a
strong reliance on finished water
quality data from public water
supply systems, these data were
frequently reported in conjunction
with other sources of data to
provide a more meaningful assess-
ment of ground water quality than
was possible in previous reporting
cycles.
Parameter
Groups/Analytes
The primary basis for assessing
ground water quality is the com-
parison of chemical concentrations
measured in ground water to
water quality standards. For 1996,
EPA suggested that States consider
using maximum contaminant lev-
els (MCLs) defined under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. In general,
most States used the MCL concen-
trations for comparison purposes.
Exceptions occurred when State-
specific standards were available.
It was not possible for States to
sample and analyze ground water
for every known constituent. For
ease of reporting, EPA suggested
that the ground water quality data
be summarized into parameter
groups. Parameter groups
Figure 6-19
Aquifer Monitoring Data
, % Total j
Ambient Monitoring Network
Untreated Water from PWS
Untreated Water from Private
or Unregulated Wells
Finished Water Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Special Studies
Not Specified
_L
_L
_L
_L
10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of States
52
24
36
61
6
21
70
Note: Percentages based on a total of 33 States submitting data. Some States utilized multiple
data sources.
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 129
recommended in the 1996 Guide-
lines include volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs), semivolatile organ-
ic compounds (SVOC), and nitrate.
These three groups were recom-
mended because they are generally
indicative of contamination origi-
nating as a result of human activi-
ties. States were also encouraged
to report data for any other
constituents of interest.
Nationally, more States report-
ed data for VOCs, SVOCs, nitrates,
and metals than any other con-
stituent or group of constituents.
Parameter groups and individual
constituents identified by States in
their 1996 305(b) reports are
summarized in Table 6-2.
As shown, States reported data
for a wide variety of constituents.
Organic as well as inorganic and
microbial constituents were
included in the ground water
assessments depending upon State
interests and priorities. Although
the greatest quantity of data was
reported for nitrate and VOCs, it
was clear that States were also
concerned with SVOCs, pesticides,
metals, and bacteria.
Ground Water
Quality Data
Ground water quality data
reported by States in 1996 repre-
sent different sources, often with
different monitoring purposes.
As a consequence, national
comparisons are not appropriate.
Rather, ground water quality
assessments are performed using
comparable data groupings. Data
most closely approximating actual
ground water quality conditions
(e.g., untreated ground water) are
given special consideration in these
assessments. Specifically, this
report focuses on nitrate, VOCs,
SVOCs, pesticides, bacteria, and
metals. These parameter groups/
constituents were selected as they
are indicative of ground water
degradation as a result of human
activities.
Table 6-2. Summary of Parameter Groups/Constituents
Reported by States in 1996 I
Nitrate
VOC
SVOC
Bacteria
Pesticides
Radioactivity
Metals
Arsenic
Iron
Manganese
Barium
Selenium
Cadmium
Chromium
Inorganics
Chloride
Fluoride
IDS
Alkalinity
Calcium
Other
Nutrients
Lead
Antimony
Beryllium
Nickel
Thallium
Cobalt
Molybdenum
Magnesium
Potassium
Aluminum
Bromide
Lithium
Orthophosphorous
Mercury
Copper
Zinc
Strontium
Vanadium
Silver
Sodium
Boron
Hardness
Silica
Bicarbonate
Specific Conductivity
TOC
-------
130 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
Nitrate
States reported data for nitrate
more frequently than for any other
parameter or parameter group. It
was the second most frequently
cited ground water contaminant
after petroleum compounds.
Twelve States specifically refer-
enced nitrate as a widespread and
significant cause of ground water
contamination in their 1996 State
Water Quality Reports.
The focus on nitrate as a
ground water contaminant is justi-
fied. It is soluble in water, and
consequently, is easily transported
from the soil surface to the under-
lying ground water resource.
Extensive application of nitrate in
fertilizer to agricultural lands, resi-
dential lawns, and golf courses has
resulted in widespread degradation
of ground water resources. The
misuse of septic systems and
improper disposal of domestic
wastewater and sludge have also
caused ground water contamina-
tion. At exposures greater than 10
milligrams per liter, its presence in
water can lead to methemoglo-
binemia or "blue-baby syndrome"
(an inability to fix oxygen in the
blood). It is also an environmental
concern as a potential source of
nutrient enrichment in coastal
waters.
Table 6-3 presents ground
water quality information for
nitrate. As shown, 15 States report-
ed nitrate data for ambient moni-
toring networks. Nitrate was mea-
sured at concentrations exceeding
the MCL of 10 milligrams per liter
in 8 of the 15 States for a total of
26 units and 267 wells impacted
by nitrate. Thus, approximately
50% of the reporting States indi-
cated elevated levels of nitrate in
ground water collected from
Table 6-3. Nitrates
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Untreated
Water from
PWS
Untreated
Water from
Private/Unregu-
lated Wells
Finished Water
from PWS
Special
Studies
States
Reporting
15
7
10
18
2
States
Reporting
MCL
Exceedances
8
5
9
11
2
Units
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
26
5
10
18
4
Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
267
85
2,233
230
309
Highest
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
81
out of 681
38
out of 346
2,000
out of
250,000
101
out of 2,806
288
out of 9,000
Average
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
10
17
23
13
No
meaningful
average
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 131
ambient monitoring networks. This
percentage is even higher for
States reporting data for untreated
water from PWS and from pri-
vate/unregulated wells (i.e., nitrate
levels exceeding the MCL were
reported by five out of seven States
for untreated water from PWS
and by nine out of ten States for
untreated water from private/
unregulated wells).
VOC/SVOCs/Pesticides
VOCs and SVOCs (including
pesticides) were cited by States as
among the top five contaminants
of concern. This is np.t unexpected
given that the number of identified
man-made organic compounds
totaled near 2 million in 1977 and
was believed to be growing at a
rate of about 250,000 new formu-
lations annually.*
Organic compounds can be
released to the environment
through a number of different
avenues. Generally, organic com-
pounds are released to ground
water via pesticide applications,
disposal practices, and spills. As
reported in their 1996 State Water
Quality Reports, it was disposal
practices that generated the most
concern among States. Disposal
practices that were cited as having
the potential to adversely impact
ground water quality included
landfills, hazardous waste sites,
surface impoundments, and
shallow injection wells.
*Giger, W., and P.V. Roberts. 1977. Characterization of refractory organic carbon. In Water
Pollution Microbiology, Volume 2, Ralph Mitchell (ed). New York: Wiley-lnterscience.
Table 6-4. VOCs ; i
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Untreated
Water from
PWS
Untreated
Water from
Private/Unregu-
lated Wells
Finished Water
from PWS
Special
Studies
States
Reporting
10
6
3
17
1
States
Reporting
MCL
Exceedances
7
5
2
6
1
Units
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
16
5
5
13
2
Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
30
77
96
152
19
Highest
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
5
out of 1 1 3
51
out of 80
52
out of 80
114
out of 603
9
out of 720
^^^^^^^^^•••^^^
Average
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
2
15
20
12
5
-------
132 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
The organic compounds that
pose the greatest threat to ground
water quality are those that are
relatively soluble, not easily con-
verted to the vapor state, and not
subject to chemical or biological
degradation. Their presence in
ground water is becoming increas-
ingly pervasive and a cause for
national concern due to the car-
cinogenic effects of many of the
organic compounds.
Tables 6-4 through 6-6 present
data related to VOCs, SVOCs, and
pesticides. As shown, more States
reported information for VOCs
than for either SVOCs or pesti-
cides. This is consistent with the
fact that VOCs are the most fre-
quently detected class of organic
priority pollutants and they are the
most frequently detected individ-
ual compounds impacting ground
water quality at RCRA and CERCLA
sites.*
Based on the information
presented in Tables 6-4 through
6-6, it appears that ground water
contamination by VOCs is indeed
more prevalent than either SVOCs
or pesticides. Seventy percent of
the reporting States (i.e., 7 out of
10 States) indicated that VOCs
were measured at levels exceeding
MCL values in ground water col-
lected from ambient monitoring
networks as opposed to 43%
(3 out of 7 States) for SVOCs and
25% (2 out of 8 States) for pesti-
cides. Furthermore, VOCs were
'Plumb, R.H. 1985. Disposal site monitoring data: observations and strategy implications. In
Proceedings: Second Canadian/American Conference on Hydrogeology, Hazardous Wastes in Ground
Water: A Soluble Dilemma, June 25-29,1995, Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Table 6-5. SVOCs |
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Untreated
Water from
PWS
Untreated
Water from
Private/Unregu-
lated Wells
Finished Water
from PWS
Special
Studies
States
Reporting
7
4
3
14
0
States
Reporting
MCL
Exceedances
3
3
1
3
0
Units
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
3
3
2
3
0
Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
5
10
4
18
0
Highest
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
3
out of 27
7
out of 305
2
out of 27
14
out of 10,985
0
Average
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
2
3
2
6
0
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 133
measured at levels exceeding MCL
values in a total of 16 units and 30
wells. Again, this can be compared
to SVOCs impacting three units
and five wells and pesticides
impacting two units and five wells.
As was noted with nitrates,
elevated levels of VOCs were found
more frequently in untreated
ground water collected from PWS
and private/unregulated wells.
Although VOCs were measured at
levels exceeding MCL levels in
ground water collected from PWS
and private/unregulated wells in
only five and two States, respec-
tively, a total of 77 and 96 wells
were impacted (Table 6-4). The
same pattern was not observed for
SVOCs (Table 6-5). Although ele-
vated levels of pesticide were mea-
sured in untreated ground water
collected from private/unregulated
wells, these data include one area
known to have been heavily conta-
minated by pesticide usage (Table
6-6).
Metals
States identified metals as the
fourth highest contaminant of con-
cern with respect to ground water
degradation. As shown in Table
6-7, metals comprise a broad cate-
gory of individual constituents that
may be present in ground water
singularly or in combination,
depending on the contaminant
source. Although normal back-
ground ground water conditions
may be characterized by elevated
metal concentrations in some parts
of the Nation (e.g., southwestern
United States), metals are generally
considered an indicator of ground
Table 6-6. Pesticides
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Untreated
Water from
PWS
Untreated
Water from
Private/Unregu-
lated Wells
Finished Water
from PWS
Special
Studies
States
Reporting
8
2
5
1
1
States
Reporting
MCL
Exceedances
2
1
4
0
1
Units
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
2
1
4
0
1
Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
5
2
101
0
0
Highest
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
3
out of 26
2
out of 353
76
out of 330
0
1
out of 42
Average
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
3
2
25
0
1
-------
134 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
water contamination resulting from
human activities.
Metals are present in numer-
ous commercial and industrial
process and waste streams.
Depending on handling and dis-
posal practices, metals can be
released to the environment and
can impact ground water quality.
Because metals are not easily
broken down, they tend to be
persistent and can affect ground
water quality for long periods of
time.
Ground water contamination
by metals most frequently occurs
as a result of improper operation
and/or inappropriate design of
landfills, disposal of liquid or solid
mining wastes or tailings, or
ineffective containment of nuclear
wastes. States cited landfills,
hazardous waste sites, surface
impoundments, shallow injection
wells, land application, industrial
facilities, and mining as prime
sources of metal contamination in
ground water.
Table 6-7 presents the informa-
tion reported by States for metals.
Metals were most frequently tested
and detected in ground water
collected from ambient monitoring
networks. Eleven States reported
metal data for ambient monitoring
networks. Metals were measured at
concentrations exceeding MCL
values in 7 of the 11 States for a
total of 33 units and 195 wells
impacted by metal contamination.
Thus, approximately 65% of the
reporting States indicated elevated
levels of metals in ground water
collected from ambient monitoring
networks.
Table 6-7. Metals
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Untreated
Water from
PWS
Untreated
Water from
Private/Unregu-
lated Wells
Finished Water
from PWS
Special
Studies
States
Reporting
11
2
1
6
0
m^m
States
Reporting
MCL
Exceedances
7
2
1
4
0
^•H
Units
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
33
4
3
10
0
••
Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
195
100
13
175
0
Ml
Highest
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
42
out of 41 9
88
out of 272
7
out of 26
135
out of 706
0
^•H
Average
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
6
25
4
17
0
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 135
Metals were less frequently
tested in ground water collected
from either PWS or private/unregu-
lated wells. Still, a total of 100
wells were found to exceed MCL
values for metals in untreated
ground water collected from PWS
wells.
Bacteria
The sixth most common
ground water contaminant cited in
the 1996 State Water Quality
Reports was bacteria. One of the
most common sources of bacteria
in ground water is septic systems.
Other important sources include
landfills, animal feedlots, surface
impoundments, and pipelines and
sewers.
High concentrations of disease-
causing bacteria in ground water
may be a source of human health
problems. The most common dis-
eases spread by these pathogenic
bacteria are related to the con-
sumption of contaminated drink-
ing water (e.g., gastroenteritis,
campylobacteriosis, and hepatitis).
For purposes of their 1996
State Water Quality Reports, States
focused less on bacteria than on
other contaminant groupings. Still,
one out of the three States report-
ing data on bacteria indicated lev-
els that exceeded MCL values. As
shown in Table 6-8, ground water
was impacted by bacteria in 10
ambient monitoring wells. In a
special study conducted in the
Boise River Valley by the State of
Idaho, total coliform bacteria were
detected at levels exceeding MCL
values in 95 out of 720 samples.
Table 6-8. Bacteria ; i j
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Untreated
Water from
PWS
Untreated
Water from
Private/Unregu-
lated Wells
Finished Water
from PWS
Special
Studies
States
Reporting
3
1
1
3
1
States
Reporting
MCL
Exceedances
1
1
0
3
1
Units
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
1
1
0
3
2
Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
10
1
0
404
101
Highest
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
10
out of 27
1
out of 102
0
381
out of 3,854
95
out of 720
Average
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
10
1
0
Mean-
ingless
50
-------
136 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
This study focused on some of the
more densely populated areas in
Idaho and documented the threat
to shallow ground water resources
from historic and current land and
water use practices.
Conclusion
Assessing the quality of our
Nation's ground water resources is
no easy task. An accurate and rep-
resentative assessment of ambient
ground water conditions ideally
requires a well planned and well
executed monitoring plan. Such
plans are expensive and may not
be compatible with State adminis-
trative, technical, and program-
matic initiatives. As a consequence,
EPA and interested States devel-
oped guidelines for the assessment
of ground water quality that took
into account the complex spatial
variations in aquifer systems, the
differing levels of sophistication
among State programs, and the
expense of collecting ambient
ground water monitoring data.
The newly developed guidelines
incorporated the flexibility neces-
sary to accommodate differences
in State programs.
State response to the new
guidelines was excellent. Thirty-
three States reported ground water
quality data for 162 aquifers and
other hydrogeologic settings. From
this response, it was evident that
States welcomed the changes
made in 1996. It was also evident
that the flexibility purposely incor-
porated into the 1996 Ground
Water Assessment Guidelines
yielded a diversity in reported data.
This diversity presented a challenge
in assessing ground water quality.
Some of the more challenging
aspects were highlighted in this
report. Following are changes that
are expected to occur over time to
improve our picture of ground
water quality:
• State reporting styles varied
significantly in 1996. Although this
variability was expected, final data
interpretation was challenging
because data compilations required
the use of a single defined data
structure. When State data did not
exactly conform to this structure,
some interpretation on the part of
EPA was necessary. With more spe-
cific directions and definitions in
the Guidelines, States' ability to
respond in a more structured
reporting style will improve and
the need for outside interpretation
will lessen.
• As the direction and focus
of ground water assessments
becomes clearer, State response
will grow and more accurate
characterization of ground water
quality will be possible.
• Because ground water monitor-
ing is expensive, few States have
access to ambient ground water
quality data. EPA suggested a num-
ber of data sources that could be
used in the absence of ambient
ground water monitoring data.
Although finished water quality
data from PWS were one of those
sources, these data do not provide
the most accurate representation
of ground water quality. As States
continue to develop new sources
of ground water data, the reliance
on finished water quality data
will decrease. Furthermore, it is
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 137
expected that the variability in
data sources and types will decease
as States continue program devel-
opment.
As the direction and focus of
ground water assessment in the
305(b) program becomes clearer,
State response will grow and more
accurate characterization of
ground water quality will result.
The 1996 305(b) State Water
Quality Reports were the first step
toward that goal.
-------
-------
Public Health and
Aquatic Life Concerns
Water pollution threatens
public health by contaminating
seafood, drinking water supplies,
and recreational waters with toxic
substances as well as viruses and
bacteria, which cause disease.
Aquatic organisms tolerate most
bacteria and viruses harmful to
humans, but many aquatic organ-
isms are more sensitive to toxic
substances than humans are.
Aquatic organisms also suffer if
chemical and physical conditions
exceed an acceptable range.
Important chemical and physical
conditions include acidity (pH),
dissolved oxygen concentration,
and temperature.
Public Health
Concerns
Toxic Pollutants
Some persistant toxic pollutants
in water, such as mercury, PCBs,
and some pesticides have been
linked to human birth defects, can-
cer, neurological disorders, and kid-
ney ailments. Once discharged to
surface waters, persistant toxicants
can accumulate in sediments and
contaminate the food chain.
Humans can be exposed to water-
borne toxicants via ingestion of
contaminated fish, shellfish, or
drinking water supplies. Swimmers
in contaminated recreational waters
may also swallow toxic substances
or absorb toxic pollutants through
skin exposure. Edible fish and shell-
fish tissue contaminated with toxic
substances can sometimes pose a
greater human health risk than con-
taminated drinking water or recre-
ational waters (see sidebar, next
page). The concentration of toxi-
cants within fish and shellfish tissues
may be up to one million times the
concentration of toxicants in the
surrounding waters.
Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Advisories
States and Tribes issue fish and
wildlife consumption advisories to
protect the public from ingesting
harmful quantities of toxic pollut-
ants in contaminated noncommer-
cial fish and wildlife. In general,
advisories recommend that the
public limit the quantity and fre-
quency of consumption of fish and
wildlife harvested from contami-
nated waterbodies. The States tailor
individual advisories to minimize
health risks based on contaminant
data collected in their tissue sam-
pling programs. Advisories may
completely ban consumption in
severely polluted waters or limit
consumption to several meals per
month or year in cases of less
severe contamination. Advisories
may target a subpopulation at risk
(such as children, pregnant women,
or nursing mothers), specific fish
species that concentrate toxic
pollutants in their flesh, or larger
-------
140 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Humans
Bald Eagle
Cormorant
Lake Trout
Chinook Salmon
Bottom Feeders
Bacteria and Fungi
Bioaccumulation of Pollutants in the Food Chain
Certain organic pollutants (such as PCBs and DDT) have two prop-
erties that lead to high bioaccumulation rates. These pollutants are
hydrophobic (i.e., do not have an affinity to water) and thus attach to
the surface of particulates such as clay particles and small aquatic plants
called phytoplankton. These organic pollutants are also lipophilic (i.e.,
have an affinity to lipids or fatty tissues) and readily, dissolve in fatty
tissues of plants and animals. As a result, these pollutants biologically
accumulate (bipaccumulate) in phytoplankton at concentrations that
greatly exceed the pollutant concentrations in surrounding waters,
which may be so low that they cannot be measured even by very
sensitive methods.
Small fish and zooplankton (microscqpic grazers) consume vast
quantities of phytoplankton. In doing so, any toxic chemicals accumu-
lated by the phytoplankton are further concentrated in the fish, espe-
cially in their fatty tissues. These concentrations are increased at each
levelin the food chain. This process of increasing pollutant concentration
through .the food chain is called biomagnifica-
tion.
the top predators in a food chain, such as
lake trout, coho and chinook salmon, and fish-
eating gulls, herons, and bald eagles, may accu-
mulate concentrations of a toxic chemical high
enough to cause serious deformities or death or
to impair their ability to reproduce. The concen-
tration of some chemicals in the fatty tissues of
top predators can be millions of times higher ,
than the concentration in the surrounding water.
Eggs of fish-eating birds often contain some
of the highest concentrations of toxic chemicals.
Thus, the first apparent effects of a toxic chemi-
cal in a waterbody may be unhatched eggs or
dead or malformed chicks. Scientists monitor
colonies of gulls and other aquatic birds because
these effects can serve as early warning signs of a
growing toxic chemical problem.
Biomagnification of pollutants in the food
chain is also a significant concern for human
health. To protect their residents from these risks,
States issue fish consumption advisories or warn-
ings about eating certain types of fish or shellfish.
Plankton
Plants
and Animals
Source: Adapted from The EPA Great Waters Program; An Introduction to the Issues
and the Ecosystems, 1994, EPA-453/8-94/030, Office of Air Quality Standards,
Durham, North Carolina.
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 141
fish within a species that may have
accumulated higher concentrations
of a pollutant over a longer lifetime
than a smaller (i.e., younger) fish.
EPA evaluates the national
extent of toxic contamination in
noncommercial fish and shellfish
by counting the total number of
waterbodies with consumption
advisories in effect. EPA used its
database, the Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Advisories (LFWCA), to
tabulate the number of State advi-
sories. EPA built the database to
centralize the fish consumption
advisory information independently
maintained by various State and
Tribal agencies. The database was
updated by EPA in the fall of 1996.
The 1996 EPA Listing of Fish
and Wildlife Advisories listed 2,196
advisories in effect in 47 States, the
District of Columbia, and American
Samoa (Figure 7-1). An advisory
may represent one waterbody or
one tpye of waterbody within a
State's jurisdiction. Statewide advi-
sories are counted as one advisory
(see Appendix E, Table E-1, for indi-
vidual State data).
EPA cannot identify States with
a high proportion of toxic contami-
nation based solely on the number
of fish consumption advisories
issued by each State. National sta-
tistics on advisories are difficult to
interpret because the intensity and
coverage of State monitoring pro-
grams vary widely from State to
State and each State can set its
own criteria for issuing advisories.
Simply comparing the total number
of fish advisories in each State
unfairly penalizes States with
superior toxicants monitoring
programs and strict criteria for
issuing consumption warnings.
In addition, it fails to present an
equitable characterization of the
number of fisheries affected and the
severity of contamination problems.
The EPA has advocated consis-
tent criteria and methods for
issuing fish consumption advisories
Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories
in the United States
a 100 of these advisories were issued by tribal
agencies in Wisconsin.
b13 of these advisories were issued by tribal
agencies in Michigan.
Number of Advisories in Effect
(December 1996)
l i 0
11-20
21-30
31-50
BH 51-100
•• >100
Statewide Advisory
Note: States that perform routine fish tissue analysis (such as the Great Lakes States) will
detect more cases of fish contamination and issue more advisories than States with less
rigorous fish sampling programs. In many cases, the States with the most fish advisories
support the best monitoring programs for measuring toxic contamination in fish, and
their water quality may be no worse than the water quality in other States.
Based on data contained in the EPA Listing of Fish and Wilfelife Consumption Advisories
acquired from the States in December 1996 (see Appendix E, Table E-1, for individual State
data).
-------
142 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
MERCURY
is the most
common contami-
nant found in fish.
in several recent publications and
workshops (see sidebar, page 131).
However, it will be several years
before the States implement consis-
tent methods and criteria and
establish a baseline inventory of
advisories. EPA expects the States to
issue more advisories as they sam-
ple more sites and detect contami-
nation that previously went unde-
tected.
Mercury, PCBs, chlordane,
dioxins, and DDT (with its byprod-
ucts) caused 95% all of the fish
consumption advisories in effect in
1996 (Figure 7-2). EPA and the
States have banned or restricted the
use of PCBs, chlordane, and DDT
for over a decade, yet these chlori-
nated hydrocarbon compounds
persist in sediments and fish tissues
and still threaten public health.
During the 1990s, the States
began reporting widespread
mercury contamination in fish. As
Figure 7-2
Pollutants Causing Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Advisories
60
32
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
Number of Advisories Issued for Each Pollutant
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-2.
States expanded their tissue moni-
toring programs, they found ele-
vated concentrations of mercury in
fish inhabiting remote lakes that
were previously considered unpol-
luted. States from Wisconsin to
Florida reported widespread mer-
cury contamination in fish collected
primarily from lakes. The source of
the mercury contamination is diffi-
cult to identify because mercury
naturally occurs in soils and rock
formations. Na'tural processes, such
as weathering of mercury deposits,
release some mercury into surface
waters. However, resource man-
agers believe that human activities
have accelerated the rate at which
mercury accumulates in our waters
and enters the food web.
Air pollution may be the most
significant source of mercury conta-
mination in surface waters and fish.
According to EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory, almost all of the mercury
released by permitted polluters
enters the air; industries and waste
treatment plants discharge very
little mercury directly into surface
waters. Emissions from waste incin-
erators, coal-fired plants, smelters,
and mining operations may carry
mercury many miles to remote
watersheds (see sidebar). Other
potential sources of mercury
contamination include slag heaps
from metal mines and land-disturb-
ing activities that may mobilize
natural mercury deposits, such as
channelization, reservoir construc-
tion, and drainage projects.
Air emissions may further
aggravate mercury contamination
by generating acid precipitation
that increases acidity in lakes. The
accumulation of mercury in fish
appears to correlate with acidity
in a waterbody. Slightly acidic
conditions promote the chemical
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 143
conversion of mercury to a methy-
lated form that is more readily
available for uptake and accumula-
tion in fish. States, such as
Louisiana, are using this correlation
to target waterbodies with acidic
pH and low buffering capacity for
mercury sampling in fish.
EPA sponsored a symposium to
gather and exchange the available
information on mercury contamina-
tion in fish. The National Forum on
Mercury in Fish met in September
of 1994 to examine fate and trans-
port of mercury in the environment
and methods to assess the health
effects of mercury.
The EPA Fish and Wildlife
Advisory Database does not identify
sources of contamination in fish.
Sources of contamination are diffi-
cult to isolate because migratory
fish may be exposed to toxic pollu-
tants in the sediments and water
column or may ingest toxic conta-
minants concentrated in prey miles
from the sampling areas where they
are collected. Furthermore, migra-
tory or resident fish may be
exposed to toxic pollutants that
have been transported great dis-
tances from where they originated.
Bacterial and Viral
Contamination
Waterborne viral and bacterial
pollutants may also cause serious
human illness and death. People
can contract infectious hepatitis,
gastroenteritis, dysentery, and
cholera from waters receiving inad-
equately treated sewage. Bacteria
and viruses may enter human
systems through contact with
contaminated swimming and bath-
ing waters or through ingestion of
contaminated drinking water or
shellfish.
Shellfish Contamination
Contaminated shellfish pose a
public health risk particularly to
those who consume raw shellfish.
Shellfish, such as oysters, clams, and
mussels, extract their food (plank-
ton) by filtering water over their
gills. In contaminated waters, shell-
fish accumulate bacteria and viruses
on their gills and mantle and within
their digestive systems. If shellfish
grown in contaminated waters are
not cooked properly, consumers
may ingest live bacteria and viruses.
To protect public health, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
administers the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program (NSSP). The
NSSP establishes minimum moni-
toring requirements and criteria for
State shellfish programs that want
to participate in interstate com-
merce of shellfish. States cannot
sell shellfish outside of their State
boundaries unless their shellfish
sanitation program follows NSSP
protocols. Coastal States routinely
monitor shellfish harvesting areas
for bacterial contamination and
restrict shellfish harvests in contami-
nated waters. Most often, States
measure concentrations of fecal
coliform or total coliform bacteria,
which are bacteria that populate
human digestive systems and occur
in fecal wastes. Their presence in
water samples is an indicator of
sewage contamination that may
pose a human health risk from
pathogenic viruses and bacteria.
Fecal bacteria, however, may
exceed criteria even when no
human sewage is present because
birds and nonhuman mammals also
excrete them.
The NSSP recognizes three
types of shellfish harvesting
restrictions:
- V In 199Q, EPA began develop-
Jng technical _guidance to help
the States adoptconsistent criteria
and methddsfor issuing fish con-''
sumption advisories-. The guidance
;cons!sts of loirr-voiumes:
' / d Volume I: -fish -Sampling ' ,
• and Analysis recommends"
standard method/for: sampling '
and analyzing contaminants'in
-fish tissue/; „ „ ].,,:,
''"' • Volume II: Risk Assessment"
and Fish Consumption Limits -
suggestsiprotocols for selecting "-
criteria, for unsafe concentrations *
>£ contaminants in-fish. - , -
-^* • Volume Ilk, Risk Manage-
pient suggests protocols for deter-
„ mining if the, health risk justifies
issuing^an advisory.,
/ •. Volume IV:: Risk Com'muni-
"cdtion recommends methods for
informing the public about fish ' >
'consumption advisories.
EPA published the first edition,
of Volume I in 1993 and .released
a second edition in the" Fall of
: 1995. The'first'edition of-Votume
H was issued, in 1994 with, a
second edition released
-------
144 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Air Pollution Impacts on Water Quality
Pollutants are released into the air from man-made or natural sources.
Man-made sources include industrial stacks, municipal incinerators,
pesticide applications, and vehicle exhaust. Natural sources can be
volcanic eruptions, windblown gases and particles from forest fires,
windblown dust and soil particles, and sea spray.' , ,
Pollutants released to the air are carried by continental wind patterns
away from their areas of origin. Depending on weather conditions -
and the chemical and physical properties of the pollutants, they can
be carried varying distances from their sources and can undergo
physical and chemical changes as they travel. , -
Air pollutants are deposited to the earth or directly to waterbodies by
either wet or dry deposition. Wet deposition occurs when pollutants
are removed from the air by falling rain or snow. Dry deposition
occurs when particles settle out of the air by gravity or when gases
are transferred directly from the air into water. Air pollutants that
deposit on land can be carried into a waterbody by stormwater
runoff. ,
Gases ancl
;„._. Particular
.Matter
Air Masses
Particle >\ Air/Water Gas
epdsfaonif Bahang6
Source: Adapted from The EPA Great Waters Program: An Introduction to the Issues
and the Ecosystems, 1994, EPA-453/B-94/030, Office of Air, Quality Planning
and Standards, Durham, North Carolina. ' , ;
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 145
• Prohibited Waters violate criteria
consistently; therefore, shellfish
cannot be harvested at any time.
• Restricted Waters may be har-
vested if the shellfish are transferred
to clean waters to reduce concen-
trations of bacteria.
• Conditionally Approved Waters
temporarily exceed bacteriological
criteria following predictable events
(such as a storm). Shellfish from
these waters may be harvested
when criteria are met.
The size of waters with shellfish
harvesting restrictions does not
equate with the size of polluted
estuarine waters because States
sometimes restrict harvesting in
clean waters. The NSSP requires
that a State prohibit shellfishing in
clean waters if the State cannot
monitor a waterbody on a routine
schedule that ensures rapid detec-
tion of unsafe conditions. As a
result, funding for monitoring
activities can raise or lower the size
of waters classified as "prohibited"
even if water quality does not
change. Georgia, for example,
reported that funding for a new
laboratory position during 1992
and 1993 restored shellfishing to
clean waters previously classified as
"prohibited" due to a lack of moni-
toring.
As a preventive measure, the
States also automatically prohibit
the harvest of shellfish near marinas
and pipes that discharge waste-
water. These closures protect the
public from accidental releases of
contaminated wastewater due to
treatment plant malfunctions or
overflows during severe weather.
The preventive closures apply to
marinas because fecal bacteria
concentrations may increase during
high use periods, such as weekends.
The States prohibit shellfishing in
these waters even though these
waters may not contain harmful
concentrations of fecal bacteria
most of the time.
Despite these drawbacks, the
size of waters with shellfishing
restrictions is our most direct
measure of impacts on the shell-
fishing resource. However, only
10 of the 27 coastal States and
Territories reported the size of their
The .NSSP pnly..addresses^'--', - '
bacteriologicarconiaminatipp1 •
/ of mollusean (not conlstacean) -
' slrteltfish,. that are harvested for "-
' sale in; interstate commerce.-The
; JLF;WA.,only addresses chemical"
f "contamination of,shellfish,(all
;types), (that are harvested /of
sale" in ihterstate'commerce.' ,
Table 7-1 . Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions Reported .
; bythe;States ' i
State
Alabama
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia3
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode lslandb
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Number of
Waterbodies
with Restrictions
2
1
9
18
0
26
37
11
71
18
95
288
Area Affected
(sq. miles)
523.0
96.0
2,756.8
394.0
0
172.6
18.0
301.7
66.7
324.0
151.5
4,804.2
aThe District of Columbia prohibits commercial harvest of shellfish in
all of its waters.
bRhode Island includes waterbodies where shellfishing is not a desig-
nated use and restriction is in accordance with NSSP regulations.
Source: 1996 State Section 305(b) reports.
— Not reported in a numerical format.
-------
146 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Figure 7-3
estuarine waters affected by shellfish
harvesting restrictions (Table 7-1).
With so few States reporting numer-
ical data, EPA cannot summarize the
national scope of shellfish harvest-
ing conditions at this time. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration is developing a data-
base to track State restrictions that
should provide a more complete
profile of shellfishing conditions in
the future.
The reporting States prohibit,
restrict, or conditionally approve
shellfish harvesting in 4,804 square
miles of estuarine waters. About
one-quarter of these waters are
conditionally approved, so the pub-
lic can harvest shellfish from these
waters when the State lifts tempo-
rary closures. For comparison,
9 States reported that over 5,300
square miles of estuarine waters are
fully approved for harvesting shell-
fish at all times (Appendix E, Table
E-3, contains individual State data).
Only five States reported the
size of shellfish restrictions caused
by specific sources of pathogen
indicators (Figure 7-3). Other States
provided narrative information
about sources degrading shellfish
waters.
• Georgia reported that the State
prohibits shellfish harvesting in 668
square miles of its waters. Harvest-
ing is prohibited in 280 square
miles of potential shellfish waters
due to a lack of data. Most of
Georgia's other restricted areas are
closed because of their proximity
to industrial discharge pipes and
marinas.
• Louisiana reported that sewage
treatment plant upgrades improved
shellfish harvesting areas, but
environmental changes that are
causing negative impacts include
nonpoint source pollution, sewage
Sources Associated with Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions
Sources
5 States Reportlngs
Total
Nonpoint Sources (general)
Point Sources (general)
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Discharges
Marinas
Septic Tanks
Industrial Discharges
I
I
446
210
28
19
13
7
2
_L
_L
_L
_L
_L
_L
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Square Miles Impacted
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-4.
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 147
from camps, saltwater intrusion,
and marsh erosion.
• New Hampshire reports that
wastewater treatment facilities and
combined sewer overflows repre-
sent the major potential point
sources of bacteria to its estuaries.
The State has modified the waste-
water discharge permits of all major
discharges to reduce bacteria to
acceptable levels. The State hopes
the New Hampshire Estuaries
Project, begun in 1995 as part of
the National Estuaries Program,
will be a step toward reducing
nonpoint sources of bacteria.
Drinking Water
Concerns
Over 90% of people in the
United States get their drinking
water from public water supplies.
Although most public water supplies
meet drinking water standards, a
diverse range of contaminants can
affect drinking water quality. EPA's
Science Advisory Board concluded
that drinking water contamination is
one of the greatest environmental
risks to human health. This conclu-
sion is due, in part, to the variability
in quality of the source of water
supplying the drinking water and
the potential for contamination in
the delivery system as the water
travels from the treatment plant to
the consumer's tap.
In 1994, 81% of the population
served by community systems
received water that had no reported
health violations (Figure 7-4). This
also means that 19% of those
served by community water sys-
tems, or approximately 46 million
people, drank water that violated
health standards at least once
during the year.
The greatest risk from unsafe
drinking water is exposure to water-
borne pathogens,- which can cause
acute health problems requiring
medical treatment. As shown in
Figure 7-5, the majority of water-
borne outbreaks over the past two
decades have been acute gastro-
intestinal illnesses for which the
pathogen was unknown. However,
parasitic pathogens have recently
been noted to be the leading cause
of waterborne disease outbreaks.
For systems serving a large
population, a waterborne disease
outbreak can sharply impact a large
number of people. The 1993
Cryptosporidium outbreak in
Figure /f-4
Compliance of Community Drinking Water Systems
with Health Requirements in 1994
Population served
by drinking water
systems in 1994
= 243 million
Number of
community drinking
water systems
= 57,000
'.'• fty
-------
148 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Milwaukee, for example, affected
more than 400,000 people, the
largest waterborne disease outbreak
ever reported in the United States.
Fortunately, the number of public
water systems reporting disease
outbreaks has decreased since the
early 1980s.
Drinking Water
Challenges
Thanks to decades of effort by
public and private organizations
and the enactment of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), most
Americans can turn on their taps
without fear of receiving unsafe
water. Ensuring consistently safe
drinking water requires the cooper-
ation of Federal, State, Tribal, and
municipal governments to protect
the water as it moves through three
stages of the system—the raw
source water, the water treatment
plant, and the pipes that deliver
finished water to the tap:
Figure 7-5
Waterborne Outbreaks in the United
States by Year and Type
| AC I (Acute Gastro-
intestinal Illness of
Unknown Origin)
H Parasitic
D Bacterial
• Viral
H Chemical .
• Water supply source. Water
withdrawn from a ground water
aquifer, lake, reservoir, or stream
should be free of harmful contami-
nants. Polluted source waters
greatly increase the level and
expense of treatment needed to
provide finished water that meets
public health standards.
• Water treatment plant.
Treatment is required to protect
against the possibility of contamina-
tion, and to remove contaminants
from source water. Virtually all
plants that treat water use some
form of disinfection. Many also
employ a system of sediment basins
and filtration processes.
• Delivery system. The network of
pumps, tanks, and pipes that stores
and conveys the finished water to
homes, businesses, and other distri-
bution points must be designed
and maintained to resist infiltration
from sewage, runoff, and other
sources of pollution, including lead
solder in the piping system.
The passage of the SDWA
Amendments of 1996 brings sub-
stantial changes to the national
drinking water program for water
utilities, States, and EPA, as well as
greater protection and information
to the 240 million Americans served
by public water systems. The
Amendments increase State flexibil-
ity, provide for more efficient invest-
ments by water systems, give better
information to consumers, and
strengthen EPA's scientific work in
setting drinking water standards.
Four themes characterize these
efforts:
71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93
Year
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 149
1. New and stronger approaches
to prevent contamination
of drinking water.
2. Better information for
consumers, including the
"right to know."
3. Regulatory improvements,
including better science,
prioritization of effort,
and risk assessment.
4. New revolving loan funding
for States and communities
through a Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund.
New and Stronger
Prevention Approaches
As part of developing new and
stronger prevention approaches,
EPA is focusing its efforts on source
water protection, capacity building,
and operator certification.
• Source Water Protection. The
SDWA Amendments establish a
strong new emphasis on preventing
contamination problems through
source water protection and
enhanced water system manage-
ment. The States will be central in
creating and focusing prevention
programs and helping water sys-
tems improve their operations to
avoid contamination problems.
States will be assessing the suscepti-
bility to contamination of the
source waters supplying public
water systems. These assessments
will provide the information neces-
sary for States to develop tailored
monitoring programs and for water
systems to seek help from States in
protecting source water or initiating
local government efforts.
• Capacity Building. The Amend-
ments create a program for States
to develop and implement strate-
gies to assist public water systems
in strengthening the managerial,
technical, and financial capacity of
water systems to reliably deliver
safe drinking water. State programs
will have (1) the legal authority to
ensure that new water systems
have sufficient technical, manage-
rial, and financial capacity to meet
drinking water standards, and
(2) a strategy to identify and assist
existing water systems needing
improvements in these capacities or
aid to comply with standards.
Water systems in significant non-
compliance status will be identified
and States will report to EPA on the
success of capacity development
efforts. A national focus will be on
small systems.
• Operator Certification. One of
the most important, cost-effective
means to strengthen drinking water
safety is to improve the knowledge
and skills of public water systems
operators. The Amendments
require all States to implement a
program of operator certification to
ensure every water system has an
operator to perform certain key
compliance functions.
Better Consumer
Information/Right-to-Know
The consumer information pro-
visions of the SDWA Amendments
herald a new era of public involve-
ment in drinking water protection.
• Consumer Confidence Reports
and Other Consumer Informa-
tion. Community water systems
will send customers an annual
Drinking Water Standards
'-• ., ' \ '/;,•' *- '•<
","/c EPA sets national primary -
drinklng'water.standards through ',
the, establishment, of jfiaxiifium ' ,
f contaminant levels (M'CLs) and -
through treatment tecjiniqu^e ' ,
' requirements.- / - -, '-,
,' MCLs are the maximum' ,,'' '
'permissible leVelssdf contaminants-{
jn-'drinking-watenthat is'delivered c
, to /ny user of,a' public water ,* ''
system. The MCLs'prpyide,eriforce-
'able standards that protect trie '- .
- quality of the'-hiation's drinking " - '
water. "'',,'-„; '>,'>;• >
, ' ' : ' - <-',".'• -"^- ' -
-, - Treatment techniques are --•""/
rprocedures that public water ', - ^
systems must "follow 'to ensure ,• -
a contaminant is limited1 in'the
drinking water/supply. EPA is , -
Authorized to establish a, treat--, '
merit .technique when it js' not
economically-or technically
'feasible'to ascertaiirthe, level -'' - -
of a contaminant. " •-, -'-•>,,,
-------
150 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
report with information about the
source water and the level of
contaminants in the treated drink-
ing water. These reports aim to
inform and encourage people to
work with water suppliers and gov-
ernment drinking water programs.
States will also make available to
the public a statewide annual
report on violations of national pri-
mary drinking water regulations.
Additionally, every 3 years, States
will report to EPA and the public on
their efforts toward capacity build-
ing. Citizens will be encouraged to
comment on the annual priority list
of projects eligible for State
Revolving Fund (SRF) assistance.
Regulatory Improvements
Recognizing that responsible
flexibility, good science, and a
better prioritization of effort could
improve protection of public
health, the 1996 SDWA Amend-
ments establish a new process for
regulating drinking water contami-
nants.
• New risk-based contaminant
selection. Instead of developing
regulations on 25 contaminants
every 3 years as required by the
1986 SDWA, EPA now has the flexi-
bility to decide whether or not to
regulate a contaminant after com-
pleting a required review of at least
five contaminants every 5 years.
EPA will use three criteria for decid-
ing to regulate a contaminant: the
contaminant adversely affects
human health; it is known or sub-
stantially likely to occur in public
water systems with a frequency and
at levels of public health concern;
and regulation presents a meaning-
ful opportunity for health risk
reduction. By .making risk prioritiza-
tion dominant in the selection of
contaminants to regulate, this
approach departs dramatically from
the previous law.
• Occurrence Information. The
collection, organization, and ready
availability of contaminant occur-
rence data will take on unprece-
dented importance. Monitoring
requirements for unregulated con-
taminants will be developed and a
national database on occurrences
of regulated and unregulated con-
taminants will be established. The
database will be used in determin-
ing whether or not a contaminant
should be regulated, in designing
monitoring programs, and in imple-
menting source water protection
programs. Because information
must be available to the public in a
readily accessible form, it will also
improve people's understanding
and participation in drinking water
protection.
• Cost-Benefit Analysis and
Research for New Standards. In
developing all future drinking water
standards, EPA will conduct a thor-
ough cost-benefit analysis, provide
comprehensive and understandable
information to the public, and use
the best available peer-reviewed
science and supporting studies. To
ensure that adequate scientific
information is developed to support
the standard-setting process, $10
million annually is authorized for
top-priority health effects research.
Standard setting will also be more
flexible to ensure that the costs of
achieving the standard will be justi-
fied by the benefits. For example,
variances from a national standard
would be available to small systems
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 151
based on affordability grounds.
Flexibility is also built in by allowing
overall risk reduction in instances
where certain means of controlling
one contaminant may increase the
risk from another (risk-risk balanc-
ing).
• Arsenic, Radon, Disinfection
Byproduct/ Cryptosporidium,
and Sulfate. Under the new
Amendments, arsenic will be regu-
lated by January 2001. Sulfate is
slated to be among the first five
contaminants for EPA to determine
the need for regulating. Risk assess-
ment for radon and a study of risk
reduction benefits from various
mitigation measures will also be
undertaken with regulations forth-
coming. Disinfectant byproducts
and Cryptosporidium will be regu-
lated according to the schedule
published in 1994 with some
limited application of risk-risk
balancing authority to be applied in
later stages of regulatory develop-
ment of disinfectant byproducts.
A Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund for States
and Communities
The creation of a Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) to
assist communities in installing and
upgrading safe drinking water treat-
ment facilities is among the most
important changes in the Nation's
drinking water program.
Several States have already
applied for and received SRF fund-
ing. The law permits appropriation
in future years of any funds not
appropriated in prior years. With
States being authorized to use SRF
for new prevention programs, a
high priority and importance is
placed on prevention activities—
some of which are at the discretion
of States and water systems.
Source Water
Assessment Program
The SDWA Amendments will
bring substantial change to the
national drinking water program. In
particular, the Amendments estab-
lish a strong new emphasis on pre-
venting contamination problems
through source water protection
and enhanced water system man-
agement. As part of the source
water protection initiative, States
will develop programs for delineat-
ing source water areas for public
water systems and assessing the
susceptibility of the source waters
to contamination.
In August 1997, EPA published
guidance for States for the develop-
ment of State Source Water Assess-
ment Programs (SWAPs). State
SWAPs must (1) delineate the
boundaries of the areas providing
source waters for public water
systems, (2) identify, to the extent
practical, the origins of regulated
and certain unregulated contami-
nants in the delineated areas, and
(3) determine the susceptibility of
public water systems to such con-
taminants. Assessments must be
completed for all public water
systems within 2 years of EPA
approval of the State's programs.
Many localities have already begun
to delineate Source Water Protec-
tion Areas (SWPAs).
To emphasize its commitment
to source water protection, EPA
included a source water protection
goal in the draft of Environmental
Goals for America With Milestones for
2005, which was released in
-The new amendments offer a
unique" incentive for groups
devoted to watershed protection
* and water utilities" tos form -
partnerships and explore their
- common ground/After all, the; ~
' goals of one group often "affect
, the goals of the other. For
instance, water utilities generally"
strive to 'keep treatment: costs
, down; ,whije watershed groups
typically look for ways to address
sources" of contamination. ' *
identifying such common
^pursuits stands to benefit trxem
both and, ultimately, the future
-of the Nation's watersheds; - ,
-------
152 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
January 1996. The draft goal states
that "by the year 2005, 60% of the
population served by community
water systems will receive their
water from systems with source
water protection programs in
place."
This goal will be achieved using
a three-phased approach, compris-
ing:
• Building upon accomplishments
resulting from the 1986 amend-
ments (e.g., Wellhead Protection
Programs) and successes with
monitoring waivers and treatment
exemptions based on the source
water protection efforts.
• Building upon other key founda-
tions such as the Watershed
Approach, Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Programs,
the Toxic Release Inventory, pollu-
tion prevention and community-
based initiatives as well as those of
other Federal agencies such as the
Conservation Reserve Program from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
• Maximizing the use of new tools
and resources provided for under
the 1996 Amendments. The new
emphasis on public involvement
and new State SWAPs should lead
to State Source Water Protection
Programs. Also, the Amendments
provide States an unprecedented
opportunity for source water assess-
ment and protection programs to
use new funds from the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)
program for eligible set-aside
activities.
Source water assessment and
protection programs provided for
under the 1996 amendments to
the SDWA offer opportunities and
tools to protect drinking water at
the source. They offer a unique
opportunity to integrate not only
drinking water programs so that
they operate in a coordinated fash-
ion, but also to integrate drinking
water, clean water, coastal, solid
and hazardous waste, agricultural
and other environmental manage-
ment programs so that they work
together to better protect public
health and the environment while
reducing duplication of effort and
program costs.
Recreational Restrictions
State reporting on recreational
restrictions, such as beach closures,
is often incomplete because most
State agencies rely on local health
departments to voluntarily monitor
and report beach closures. Most
State agencies that prepare the
305(b) reports do not have access
to an inventory of beach closures.
The information .obtained varies in
quality because health departments
that monitor infrequently will
detect fewer bacteria violations
than health departments with rigor-
ous beach monitoring schedules.
Eight States reported that there
were no contact recreation restric-
tions reported to them during the
1996 reporting cycle. Thirteen
States identified 342 sites where
recreation was restricted at least
once during the reporting cycle
(Appendix E, Table E-6, contains
individual State data). Local health
departments closed many of these
sites more than once. Pathogen
indicator bacteria caused most of
the restrictions, but Louisiana
reported that advisories remain in
effect at four sites where sediments
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 153
are contaminated with toxic
chemicals from an industry, an
abandoned creosote factory, and
an abandoned hazardous waste
facility.
The States identified sewage
treatment plant bypasses, malfunc-
tions, and pipeline breaks as the
most common sources of elevated
bacteria concentrations in bathing
areas. The States also reported that
agricultural and urban runoff,
failing septic systems, combined
sewer overflows, and a fuel spill
restricted recreational activities.
Aquatic Ecosystem
Concerns
Many native aquatic organisms
are more sensitive than humans to
toxic pollutants. In severe cases of
contamination, toxic pollutants kill
all aquatic life; in less severe cases,
toxic pollutants eliminate some
species from the aquatic communi-
ty. The aquatic system deteriorates
as toxic contaminants poison
aquatic organisms (including fish,
shellfish, benthic organisms, and
plants), increase their susceptibility
to disease, interfere with their
reproduction, or reduce the viability
of their young. Toxic pollutants also
disrupt the chemical and physical
balance in an aquatic ecosystem
and indirectly cause mortality.
Chapter 1 provides additional
information about toxic pollutants.
Low oxygen concentrations,
excessive temperatures, or high or
low acidity can have more devastat-
ing impacts on aquatic communi-
ties than toxic pollutants. Organic
pollutants (such as sewage,
manure, food processing wastes,
and lawn clippings) impose a
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
on receiving waters because
bacteria consume oxygen as they
decompose organic wastes.
Nutrients also may indirectly
deplete oxygen concentrations by
feeding algal blooms (see Chapter
1 for a full discussion of dissolved
oxygen depletion).
Acidity (the concentration of
hydrogen ions measured as pH)
drives many chemical reactions in
living organisms. Many biological
processes (such as reproduction)
cannot function in either acidic
(low pH) or alkaline (high pH)
waters. Acidic conditions also
aggravate toxic contamination
problems because sediments
release toxicants in acidic waters.
Common sources of sulfuric acid,
and, to a lesser extent, nitric acid,
include mine drainage, runoff from
mine tailings, and atmospheric
deposition.
Alkaline conditions (high pH)
may result indirectly from inputs of
nutrients that induce excessive algal
activity. In order to fuel photosyn-
thesis, rapidly expanding algae
populations may break down
carbonate compounds after they
consume all of the carbon dioxide
available in the water column. As
the algae convert carbonates to
carbon dioxide, hydroxyl groups
(OH~ ions) are released into the
water column, raising the pH.
Alkaline conditions (high pH) harm
gill membranes on fish and other
aquatic organisms. The pH may
swing back down during the night
as the algae halt photosynthesis
and stop scavenging carbon diox-
ide from carbonates. At night, the
algae also continue to respire,
which returns carbon dioxide into
the water column that can bind up
-------
154 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
the hydroxyl groups and lower pH.
Such fluctuations in pH severely
stress aquatic organisms.
Human activities on shore can
aggravate physical and chemical
conditions in waterbodies. The
States report growing concern over
instream impacts from removal of
shoreline vegetation. Shoreline veg-
etation shades streams from exces-
sive heat and binds shoreline soils
together, which prevents sediment
from entering the water column.
Fish Kills Caused
by Pollution
The number of fish kills pro-
vides a limited indication of pollut-
ant impacts on aquatic life because
fish kills do not always result from
pollution. Both natural conditions
(such as drought, low flow, and
warm water temperatures) and pol-
lution can deplete dissolved oxygen
in a waterbody and suffocate fish.
Pollutants may also weaken fish
and make them more susceptible
to natural stressors, such as disease.
In many cases, investigators cannot
determine if pollution, natural
causes, or both caused a fish kill
because there is little evidence at
the site of the fish kill. The exact
location of the fish kill may be a
mystery because currents can carry
fish downstream from the source,
further complicating the investiga-
tion.
Because of the difficulties in
determining causes of kills and the
variety of methods States use to
track fish kills, EPA is no longer
aggregating national statistics on
fish kills. Readers are advised to
refer to individual State 305(b)
reports for additional information
on fish kills.
Sediment
Contamination
Certain types of chemicals in
water tend to settle and collect in
sediment. Chemicals in sediment
often persist longer than those in
water, in part because they tend to
resist natural degradation, and in
part because conditions might not
favor natural degradation. Bacteria
degrade some chemicals in
sediment, but many persist for
years after the original source has
been eliminated. Also, these conta-
minants accumulate at distinct loca-
tions in sediment but will disperse
in water.
When present at elevated
concentrations in sediment, conta-
minants can be released back to
water or accumulate in fish and
shellfish and move up the food
chain. In both cases, excessive lev-
els of chemicals in sediment might
become hazardous to aquatic life
and humans.
EPA and others determine con-
centration levels potentially causing
risk by examining the results of field
surveys, laboratory toxicity tests,
and studies of the chemical behav-
ior in the environment and in living
tissue. In 1993, EPA proposed sedi-
ment quality criteria for five non-
ionic organic pollutants (endrin,
dieldrin, phenanthrene, fluoran-
thene, and acenaphthene). EPA
plans to publish final criteria for
dieldrin and endrin in 1998.
The remaining proposed crite-
ria will be replaced by a sediment
quality criteria for polyaromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) mixtures. In
addition, an approach for assessing
metals contamination in sediment
was presented to EPA's Science
Advisory Board in January 1995,
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 155
and received a favorable review.
Draft versions of the total PAH and
metals criteria should be available
in Fall 1997, with final publication
anticipated in 1999.
In 1996, 18 States reported
incidents of sediment contamina-
tion in their 305(b) reports (see
Appendix E, Table E-10, for individ-
ual State data). Several States pre-
ferred not to list contaminated sites
until EPA publishes national criteria
for screening sediment data. Other
States lack the analytical tools and
resources to conduct extensive
sediment sampling and analysis.
Therefore, the following discussion
probably understates the extent of
sediment contamination in the
Nation's surface waters.
Fifteen States listed 685 sepa-
rate sites with contaminated sedi-
ments and identified pollutants
detected in sediments. These States
most frequently listed metals
(e.g., mercury, cadmium, and zinc),
PCBs, DDT (and its byproducts),
chlordane, polyaromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs), and other priority
organic toxic chemicals. These
States also identified industrial and
municipal discharges (past and
present), landfills, resource extrac-
tion, abandoned hazardous waste
disposal sites, and combined sewer
overflows as the primary sources of
sediment contamination.
EPA has developed guidance
and information sources to provide
States with better tools for assessing
and managing sediment contami-
nation, including
• Sediment Classification Methods
Compendium [for assessing sedi-
ment quality] (September 1992)
• Selecting Remediation
Techniques for Contaminated
Sediment (June 1993)
• Technical Basis for Establishing
Sediment Quality Criteria for Non-
ionic Organic Contaminants and
Guidelines for Deriving Site Specific
Sediment Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Benthic Organisms
(October 1993)
• Methods for Measuring the
Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of
Sediment-associated Contaminants
with Freshwater Invertebrates
Gune1994)
• Methods for Assessing the
Toxicity of Sediment-associated
Contaminants with Estuarine and
Marine Amphipods (June 1994)
• Evaluation of Dredged Material
Proposed for Discharge to Inland
Waters of the United States - [draft
testing manual for section 404 of
the Clean Water Act] (June 1994)
• The Incidence and Severity of
Sediment Contamination in Surface
Waters of the United States, a
Report to Congress (Fall 1997);
Volume 1: National Sediment
Quality Survey; Volume 2: Data
Summaries for Areas of Probable
Concern; Volume 3: Sediment
Contaminant Point Source
Inventory; Volume 4: Sediment
Contaminant Nonpoint Source
Inventory (under development)
• EPA's Contaminated Sediment
Management Strategy
-------
156 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Additional documents are
under development:
• Users Guide for Multi-Program
Implementation of Sediment
Quality Criteria
• Sediment Quality Criteria for
Dieldrin and Endrin
• Bioaccumulation Testing and
Interpretation of Sediment Quality
Assessment: Status and Needs
• Standard Methods for Assessing
Chronic Sediment Toxicity to
Benthic Organisms
• Technical Document: Models
for Sediment Quality-Based NPDES
Permitting
• Sediment Quality Criteria for PAH
Mixtures and Metals
Amanda Franczak, 1st grade, Estes Hills Elementary, Chapel Hill, NC
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 157
-------
158 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
HlGrklGHff W I IfcHT HIGHLIGHT
The National Sediment
Quality Survey
i IP I* » j Mqlij |,i. l| ,!! 4IHI1! I fll» ,
'1,1, 1 •..' 1 fB'l: ftiiri iai!-,:;,!!"'-!!.!:!;-*'',!!
This tiny creature, a
marine amphipod, is one
of the bottom-dwelling
species threatened by sedi-
ment contamination. Fish
eat creatures such as this,
and their survival and
abundance is important to the overall
health of aquatic ecosystems.
In response to the mandate of
the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992, EPA, in consultation
with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
and the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USCOE), has con-
ducted a comprehensive national
survey of data regarding sediment
quality. The National Sediment
Quality Survey provides a screening-
level national assessment of the inci-
dence and severity of contaminated
sediment based on the probability
of adverse effects to aquatic life and
human health.
The National Sediment Quality
Survey presents the results of EPA's
evaluation of data contained in the
National Sediment Inventory (NSI).
The NSI is EPA's largest compilation
of sediment chemistry and fish
tissue residue data, and it also
includes toxicity test results and
benthic abundance and
diversity, histopathology,
and fish abundance data.
The NSI contains approxi-
mately
2 million records —
collected over the past
15 years — for over
20,000 sampling stations.
EPA applies the best avail-
able assessment protocols
in a uniform fashion to
estimate the probability of adverse
effects occurring as a result of expo-
sure to sediment contaminants.
Bottom-dwelling aquatic organisms
can be threatened by direct expo-
sure to pollutants, whereas human
health risks may occur as a result of
consumption of fish and shellfish
that have accumulated contami-
nants in edible tissue. Greater
awareness of this problem has
resulted in a marked increase in
State-issued fish consumption advi-
sories over the past several years to
protect public health from exposure
to toxic chemical contaminants. The
source of these contaminants in fish
is typically sediment: the ultimate
sink for persistent and toxic chemi-
cals in the water environment.
In the National Sediment
Quality Survey, EPA classified sam-
pling stations into one of three cate-
gories indicating the "probability of
adverse effects":
• Tier 1: Associated adverse effects
are probable
• Tier 2: Associated adverse effects
are possible, but expected infre-
quently
• Tier 3: No indication of associated
adverse effects (data may be very
limited or quite extensive)
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 159
\HiGH_yd
EPA classified approximately
5,000 sampling stations as Tier 1,
and an additional 10,000 sampling
station as Tier 2. Tier 1 and Tier 2
sampling stations are located in all
regions of the United States, but
predominantly in areas that have
been extensively studied and are
known or suspected to have conta-
mination. Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), old organochlorine pesti-
cides (such as DDT and metabo-
lites), mercury, and polynuclear aro-
matic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were the
most frequent chemical indicators of
probable associated adverse effects.
EPA identified 96 watersheds
that contain "areas of probable
concern" (APC). An APC is defined
as a watershed that includes at least
10 Tier 1 stations, and for which at
least 75% of all sampling stations
were categorized as Tier 1 or Tier 2.
Five percent of all watersheds in the
country are classified as APCs. Areas
of probable concern are located on
the Atlantic, Gulf, Great Lakes, and
Pacific coasts — as well as in inland
waterways — in regions affected
by urban and agricultural runoff,
municipal and industrial waste dis-
charge, and many other pollution
sources that have long received the
attention of federal, state and local
authorities. EPA recommends that
resource managers fully examine the
risks to human health and the
environment in these watersheds
and take steps to ensure that major
pollution sources are effectively
controlled and plans to improve
sediment conditions necessary to
support long-term
health goals are in
place. The National
Sediment Quality
Survey also high-
lights the need for
weight-of-evidence
measures (including
measures of
bioavailablity) in
sediment monitor-
ing programs.
People who regularly eat fish
caught from areas where sedi-
ment is contaminated may
increase their risk of cancer or
other long-term adverse health
effects because of the toxic
chemicals that can accumu-
late in the edible portions.
Most states routinely issue
consumption warnings for
waters where fish are contami-
nated. Not all of the 96 areas
of concern are based on poten-
tial human health risk: many
are based solely on potential
risk to aquatic life.
3^ j ^Ot°^ •\ji&™s. s*jr a> * /"
GHT HIGHLIGHT
-------
-------
Part III
Individual Section 305(b)
Report Summaries and
Recommendations
-------
-------
State and Tribal
Recommendations
In their 1996 Section 305(b)
reports, 35 States, Territories, and
Tribes made recommendations for
improving water quality manage-
ment programs in order to achieve
the goals of the Clean Water Act.
The recommendations encompass
a range of actions at the Congres-
sional, Federal, State, Territorial,
Tribal, and local levels and are often
addressed in terms of State, Tribal,
and Territorial objectives or continu-
ing needs. It should be emphasized
that the States, Tribes, and Territo-
ries reported the following recom-
mendations and that this discussion
does not attempt to assess the
merits of their recommendations.
Nor should the discussion be con-
strued 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 the exotic species,
waste management for animal and
poultry operations, protection of
wetlands, lake management, water
quality impacts resulting from
increased recreational use and
development, and the 305(b)
reporting process. The following
discussion summarizes the recom-
mendations 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
provide a framework for monitoring
and managing nonpoint source
pollution. The following discussion
touches on the connections
between State, Tribal, and Territorial
concerns and recommendations.
Financial and
Technical Support
from Federal
Agencies
Recommendations most often
cited by the States, Tribes, and
Territories concern their ability to
maintain current water quality
monitoring and assessment activi-
ties if Federal funding shrinks.
South Carolina's 1996 305(b)
report describes the position of a
number of States:
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
-------
164 Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations
Either sufficient sources of funds
to implement existing federal
and state programs must be
secured or the [South Carolina
Department of Health and
Environmental Control] should
develop a strategic plan which
prioritizes accomplishment of
designated tasks. New federal
or State programs should not
be initiated without taking into
account necessary resources for
their implementation.
Hawaii notes that a substantial
lack of funding has resulted in a
drastic cutback of the State's moni-
toring program. Other States and
entities report similar difficulties.
A number of States expressed
concerns about their ability to
secure funds for the maintenance
and/or expansion of aging waste-
water treatment facilities. South
Carolina reports:
The current State estimate for
wastewater infrastructure needs
greatly exceed available
resources . . . Congress should
not fail to recognize that suffi-
cient management moneys
are necessary to continue [the
State Revolving Fund Program]
as well as other Federally-
mandated requirements.
The States and other entities
are also concerned about funding
for water quality management
programs in general. Many States
specifically request that Congress
maintain funding for the CWA
Section 314 Clean Lakes Program,
Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Control Program, and Section 106
Water Pollution Control Program.
Resources and incentives are also
needed to address: wetlands issues,
public education, CSO abatement,
fish tissue contamination, storm-
water management, and biological
monitoring.
The States, Territories, and
Tribes also request that EPA contin-
ue to provide technical support
and guidance on issues of national
concern. Wisconsin's 1996 305(b)
report recommends:
EPA should implement a
national monitoring strategy for
assessing the Nation's waters.
This strategy should include
provisions for funding monitor-
ing as part of each program,
and accommodating State
priorities for data collection
and waterbody evaluation.
Other recommendations
include the following:
• Develop technical guidance for
evaluating sources of runoff pollu-
tion
• More basic research on the
effects of toxicants and exposure
risks
• Develop a national strategy
to protect rivers and lakes from
nuisance aquatic species
• Enhancement and expansion
of EPA sediment criteria
• Provide additional guidance on
the use of biocriteria in State water
quality assessments
• Develop a uniform national pro-
tocol for controlling concentrations
-------
Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations 165
of pesticides and pesticide degrada-
tion products in surface and ground
waters
• Guidance on stormwater and
CSO permitting.
Nonpoint Source
Abatement and
Watershed
Protection Initiatives
Most States, Tribes, and
Territories expressed a common
concern for the identification, pre-
vention, and control of nonpoint
sources (NPSs) of pollution, such as
agricultural runoff and runoff from
urban areas. The States and other
entities most frequently cite the
need for additional funding for the
development of better monitoring
and assessment methods to detect
NPS impacts, identify specific NPSs
responsible for impacts, and
measure the effectiveness of NPS
controls. Mississippi recommends
additional studies to quantify the
impacts of NPSs and to develop
best management practices to
reduce NPS pollution.
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 monitoring and to
integrate local, State, and Federal
efforts to control NPS pollution.
Illinois' 305(b) report recommends:
EPA should support the
expanded funding of nonpoint
source monitoring and control
activities that are part of the
overall watershed program.
The States, Tribes, and Territo-
ries also recommend implementing
a watershed approach to address
specific water quality issues such as
nutrient overenrichment, sedimen-
tation, pesticide contamination,
and silvicultural impacts. Wisconsin
recommends EPA manage regional
"airsheds" to control the distribu-
tion of toxic substances carried by
air currents.
Although several States report
that implementing a watershed
approach will require additional
funding, other States recommend
adopting the approach to allocate
limited funds. South Carolina
writes:
Vovanti Jones, 4th grade, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC
-------
166 Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations
[The South Carolina Depart-
ment of Health and Environ-
mental Control] entered into
a Watershed Water Quality
Management Program which is
designed to maximize the use
of current and future resources,
equalize workloads on an
annual basis, and develop
strategies for water quality
maintenance or improvement
on a priority basis.
Many States and other entities
report that shrinking budgets are a
widespread problem that threatens
water quality monitoring and
assessment programs in addition
to new initiatives.
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 dupli-
cate 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.
Ten States, Tribes, and Terri-
tories expressed concern that data
sharing is restricted by the lack of
common protocols for data collec-
tion, analysis, and storage. Many
States suggest that EPA work with
them to develop national monitor-
ing and assessment strategies. For
example, New Hampshire's 305(b)
report states:
[The] Department of Environ-
mental Services encourages
EPA to immediately release the
report titled "Mercury Study
Report to Congress" so that the
most effective solution to mer-
cury contamination (particularly
in fish) can be identified and
implemented as soon as
possible.
Wisconsin recommends:
EPA should work as a partner
with the states to move forward
on the development of new
national guidance on setting
and implementing practical
goals and objectives for water
quality that account for the
significant water quality issues
resulting from polluted runoff.
The States and other entities
also identified other agencies
needed to participate in partnership
agreements to protect water qual-
ity. Arizona's 305(b) report discuss-
es the need for an interagency
effort to develop a probability-
based sampling program. The
District of Columbia reports that
cooperation with Federal agencies is
needed to control NPS pollution on
the District's federally owned lands.
Vermont notes that greater consis-
tency and cooperation between the
State's wetlands protection program
and the Federal Corps of Engineers
404 wetlands program is necessary
to reduce duplication.
-------
Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations 167
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 their jurisdictions to identify
sources of water quality degrada-
tion and to negotiate solutions with
non-Tribal parties. Idaho's 305(b)
report states:
North Central Idaho support
of fish populations and drinking
water will require a mutually
acceptable agreement between
State, EPA and Nez Perce Tribe.
Ground Water
Management
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. A number of
States concur that EPA should coor-
dinate ground water management
and provide technical and financial
support to States and other jurisdic-
tions implementing specific water
protection and restoration
measures. Illinois recommends:
Perhaps the time has come to
recognize the ineffectual nature
of large scale cleanups and
place heightened emphasis
on preventing contamination
before it can occur... A num-
ber of groups throughout the
country concur that, while
source water protection is
implemented at the local level,
state oversight and federal
guidelines are essential . . .
Illinois [Environmental Protec-
tion Agency] feels . . . that
strong objections should be
raised to decreased resource
commitment to the Compre-
hensive State Ground Water
Protection Program.
In their 305(b) reports, a
number of States discuss the need
to develop comprehensive data
management strategies that incor-
porate data from multiple sources.
Indiana's 305(b) report states:
One of the major components
of the comprehensive ground
water protection program is a
data management strategy.
This strategy should provide for
the coordination and collection
of ground water data among
all program areas and agencies
which have the responsibility
for protecting and remediating
ground water. This will allow
Dorothy Scott, 4th grade, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC
-------
168 Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations
the state to measure progress,
identify problems, and set
priorities.
Oklahoma's 305(b) report
states:
As a priority for the future, the
state realizes the need to work
closely with the municipalities
to carry out source inventory
surveys and assist with man-
agement and contingency
plans for their groundwater
based drinking water supplies.
A number of States and other
entities recommend the develop-
ment of ground water quality stan-
dards and monitoring networks.
Arkansas recommends the promul-
gation of ground water standards
that reflect existing water quality in
different aquifers and different
regions of the State. Kansas recom-
mends the State should consider
development of ambient ground
water quality standards and ground
water remediation standards, which
should be factored into the devel-
opment of basin water quality man-
agement plans. Missouri's 305(b)
report discusses the need for a
complete ground water protection
program that includes a ground
water monitoring network and
educational programs for those
involved in the application of farm
chemicals, transporters of hazard-
ous materials, and the general
public.
Conclusions
In general, the States, Tribes,
and Territories recommend that EPA
continue to provide general guid-
ance for establishing minimum
program elements while allowing
States flexibility for developing and
implementing specific programs
tailored to their individual condi-
tions and needs. The States and
other governing entities also rec-
ommend that Congress continue to
fund the development and distribu-
tion of technical support by EPA
and other Federal agencies. Many
States, Tribes, and Territories
reported that funding for water
quality monitoring should be main-
tained, 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 monitor-
ing activities, data sharing, ground
and surface water management,
wetlands management, interagency
activities, and point and nonpoint
source management. However, the
States and other entities suggest
that they should maintain control
over the prioritization of the most
critical problems in their water-
sheds.
-------
Chapter Eight State and Tribal Recommendations 169
-------
-------
Individual State and Territorial
Summaries
This section provides individual
summaries of the water quality
survey data reported by the States
and Territories in their 1996 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 programs
are more likely to identify water
quality problems and to report that
a high percentage of their waters do
not fully support designated uses.
As a result, one cannot assume that
water quality is worse in those
States and Territories that report a
high percentage of impacted waters
in the following summaries.
-------
172 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Alabama
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Alabama 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Michael ]. 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 and 17% of the surveyed lake
acres 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 and municipal point
sources.
Toxic priority organic chemicals
impact the most lake acres, usually
in the form of a fish consumption
advisory. These pollutants may
accumulate in fish tissue at a
concentration that greatly exceeds
the concentration in the surround-
ing water. Unknown sources and
industrial dischargers are responsible
for the greatest acreage of impaired
lake waters.
Special State concerns include
impacts from forest clearcutting and
lack of streamside management
zones. Animal waste runoff is
another special concern that is
being dealt with on a case-by-case
priority basis.
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 173
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1992, the Alabama Depart-
ment of Environmental Manage-
ment (ADEM) initiated the Flint
Creek watershed project to simul-
taneously manage the many sources
degrading Flint Creek, including
intensive livestock and poultry oper-
ations, crop production, municipal
dischargers, household septic sys-
tems, widespread littering, and
urban runoff. Ongoing activities in
the project include water quality
and biological sampling and moni-
toring and CIS spatial data layer
development. ADEM has increased
use of the watershed protection
approach with the initiation of the
5-year multistakeholder Chocco-
locco Creek Watershed Project
begun in 1996.
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 demonstra-
tion surveys, and compliance
monitoring of point source dis-
charges. As a first step in establish-
ing biological criteria, ADEM is
assessing the habitats and corre-
sponding resident biota at several
candidate reference streams.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A subset of Alabama's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes 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 (Net (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
70
Lakes (Total Acres = 490,472).
aries (Total Square Miles = 610)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
174 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Alaska
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Alaska 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Drew Grant
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
Division of Air and Water Quality
410 Willoughby Street - Suite 105
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
(907) 465-5304
e-mail: dgrant@environ.state.ak.us
Surface Water Quality
The vast majority of Alaska's
watersheds, while not being moni-
tored, are presumed to be in rela-
tively pristine condition due to
Alaska's size, sparse population,
and general remoteness. However,
Alaska has localized water pollution.
Surface water quality has been
found to be impaired or threatened
from sources such as urban runoff
(Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau),
mining operations in the Interior
and Northwest Alaska, seafood
processing facilities in the Aleutian
Islands, and forest products facilities
in southeast Alaska.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is one of Alaska's
least understood natural resources.
It is the major source of fresh water
for public and private drinking
water supply systems, industry, and
agricultural development. Although
ground water is presumed to be of
excellent quality in most areas of
the State, specific areas of generally
good ground water quality have
been degraded by human activities.
Ground water impairment has been
documented in various areas of the
State and has been linked predomi-
nantly to aboveground and subsur-
face petroleum storage facilities, as
well as operational and abandoned
military installations. Other sources,
such as failed septic systems, also
contribute to ground water contam-
ination.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
has developed the Watershed Man-
agement Section, within the Divi-
sion of Air and Water Quality, to
implement the watershed protec-
tion approach that has been used
successfully in other States. The pur-
pose of this approach is to cost-
effectively improve the water quality
of Alaska's polluted waterbodies and
to protect its healthy watersheds in
cooperation with other agencies,
industry, interest groups, and the
public. The process to be used to
advance the watershed protection
approach in Alaska is outlined in the
document, "Watershed Partnerships
in Alaska." A summary document is
currently available to the public,
with an expanded version
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 175
scheduled for completion in
November 1997.
ADEC also supports numerous
additional water quality projects and
programs statewide, including: pol-
lution prevention, leaking under-
ground storage tanks, contaminated
sites, industrial permitting, water-
body assessments and recovery
plans, water quality monitoring,
water quality technical services, and
public outreach and education from
statewide public service offices.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Alaska Watershed Moni-
toring and Assessment Project
(AWMAP) is a statewide water
quality monitoring project involving
local, State, and Federal agencies;
industry; schools; the University of
Alaska; and other entities conduct-
ing water quality monitoring. A
recent AWMAP report identified
areas of the State (by USGS hydro-
logic unit) where water quality
monitoring is either absent or insuf-
ficient to address the potential pol-
lution sources.
Other water quality monitoring
activities are conducted by ADEC,
other agencies, industry, and the
public. Applicant self-monitoring
of receiving waters is a common
permit requirement associated
with Alaska's major point source
dischargers. ADEC, in cooperation
with the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources (ADNR), has peri-
odically conducted water quality
monitoring related to placer mining.
Implementation of the State Ground
Water Quality Protection Strategy is
continuing, encouraging increased
ground water monitoring.
Summary of Use Support in Alaska
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers arid'Streams, {Total'Mites= 36§,odq)
'•$£*.'&.,.,. a
212 " .ftrt.. m — 2 ,..£. ,t..&.L...,— ._ ..^.-tuiS—.. unTEnff K TK J^ffiniiTr. — .ffi.m f « 1 * 1 1 1 1 —
Total Miles
Surveyed
ff, (Total Acres= 12,787^0)
Total Acres
Surveyed
StUarieS (Total Square Miles =Unknown)
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
-------
176 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Arizona
> Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Arizona 1996
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 aquatic life uses in 49% of
Arizona's assessed river miles and
53% of their surveyed lake acres.
However, Arizona reported that over
51 % of their assessed stream miles
and 47% of their assessed lake acres
do not fully support aquatic life
uses. Metals, turbidity, salinity, and
pathogens were the stressors most
frequently identified in streams. The
leading stressors in lakes were salin-
ity, metals, inorganics, and turbidity.
Natural sources, agriculture, and
hydrologic modification (stream
bank destabilization, channelization,
dam construction, flow regulation,
removal of shoreline vegetation),
and resource extraction were the
most common sources of stressors
in both streams and lakes. Nonpoint
sources were the primary source of
degradation of rivers and lakes.
Ground Water Quality
Arizona monitors a network of
ambient water quality index wells
and compiles data from other moni-
toring programs, which are primar-
ily targeted at areas of known or
suspected contamination. Existing
data indicate that ground water
generally supports drinking water
uses, but radiochemicals, primarily
from natural sources, exceed stan-
dards in 65% of ambient wells and
39% of targeted wells. Flouride and
metals also cause localized contami-
nation, some of it from natural
sources. At targeted monitoring
sites, volatile organic chemicals,
nitrates, and pesticides are found at
unnaturally high levels. These are
caused by human sources, including
agriculture, leaking storage tanks,
landfills, mine waste, and septic
tanks.
Five "Active Management
Areas" were designated in the
largest population centers and in
areas where ground water resources
are most imperiled by overdraft.
A Comprehensive State Ground-
water Protection Program has been
initiated as a demonstration project
in Tucson.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 177
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 Preven-
tion Program, and best manage-
ment requirements for controlling
nitrogen at concentrated animal
feeding operations. The State is also
developing best management prac-
tices for timber activities, grazing
activities, urban runoff, and sand
and gravel operations. Arizona's
point source control program
encompasses planning, facility
construction loans, permits,
pretreatment, inspections, permit
compliance, and enforcement.
Additionally, the State's Water
Protection Fund provides a source
of funding to restore rivers and
associated riparian habitats.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Recently, Federal and State
agencies increased efforts to coordi-
nate monitoring, provide more con-
sistent 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. Biological
criteria are being developed by
ADEQ, which will recognize normal
regional differences in biological
community structure and allow for
an assessment of the biological
integrity of Arizona's streams.
Individual Use Support in Arizona
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Lakes (Total Acres = 352,600)
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
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.
b Includes 2,531 miles of nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
cDoes not include waters on Tribal lands, which total 37,130 stream miles and 65,128 lake
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
178 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Arkansas
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Diglt Hydraloglc Unit)
For a copy of the Arkansas 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Tony Hill
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
P.O. Box8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
(501)682-0667
Surface Water Quality
The Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology
(DPCE) reported that 62% 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 80% 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,
followed 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 lakes.
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 179
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 assis-
tance, financial assistance, and
voluntary and regulatory activities to
control nonpoint source pollution
from poultry, swine, and dairy oper-
ations. 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 six eco-
regions including the Delta, Gulf
Coastal, Ouchita Mountain, Arkan-
sas River Valley, Boston Mountain,
and Ozark Mountain Regions. By
classifying water resources in this
manner, Arkansas can identify the
most common land uses within
each region and address the issues
that threaten the water quality.
The State 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)
fflyers.an%SJtre^.
Total Miles
Surveyed 62
28
10
<1
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
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.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
180 Chapter Nine State Summaries
California
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dig!t Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the California 1996
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, metals, 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
municipal point sources. In lakes, sil-
tation, metals, and nutrients are the
most common pollutants.
Hydrologic/habitat modifications
pose the greatest threat to lake
water quality, followed by urban
runofff/storm sewers, construction/
land development, and atmospheric
deposition.
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
sewage treatment plants, agricul-
ture, spills, resource extraction, and
industrial dischargers. Oceans and
open bays are degraded by indus-
trial and municipal point sources.
Ground Water Quality
Salinity, total dissolved solids,
and chlorides are the most
frequently identified pollutants
impairing use of ground water in
California, followed by nutrients and
pesticides. Leading sources are
septage disposal, agriculture, and
dairies. The State also reports that
trace inorganic elements, flow alter-
ations, and nitrates degrade over
1,000 square miles of ground water
aquifers.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 181
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
California's stormwater permit
program, which was the first in the
Nation, has matured into an aggres-
sive program to reduce pollution
associated with stormwater runoff.
The State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) is embark-
ing on a Watershed Management
Initiative in order to integrate point
and nonpoint pollution source
controls on a watershed basis.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Saltwater monitoring in 1994
and 1995 included shellfish tissue
analysis from coastal sites, sediment
chemistry and toxicity testing
(bioassays) in bays and estuaries, a
regional monitoring, pilot project
along the coast, and water column
monitoring for toxic pollutants in
San Francisco Bay.
Inland water monitoring
included toxicity testing and pesti-
cide analysis in some agricultural
areas, statewide fish tissue sampling,
biological monitoring in the Sacra-
mento-San Joaquin Delta, and
several nonpoint source pollution
studies in river basins around the
State.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of California's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due
to rounding.
Individual Use Support in California
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
66
Estuaries '{Total Square Miles = ?3f .1)
-------
182 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Colorado
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Colorado 1996
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 desig-
nated uses. Metals are the most
frequently identified pollutant in
rivers and lakes. High nutrient con-
centrations also degrade many lake
acres. Agriculture and mining are
the leading sources of pollution in
rivers. Agriculture, construction,
urban runoff, and municipal sewage
treatment 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.
Colorado protects ground water
quality with statewide numeric crite-
ria for organic chemicals, a narrative
standard to maintain ambient con-
ditions 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 183
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
control nonpoint runoff from graz-
ing, 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.
The basin chosen to be ana-
lyzed during this reporting period
(1994-1995) on a watershed
approach was the Arkansas Basin.
Summary of Use Supporta in Colorado
Percent
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired
(For One
or More Uses)
lffI8fl|||,581)b
80
11
/ (Total Acres = 144,281!)
Summary use support is presented because Colorado did not report individual use support
in its 1996 Section 305(b) report.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
184 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Connecticut
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Connecticut 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Donald Gonyea
Bureau of Water Management, PERD
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(860)424-3715
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 1996, Connecti-
cut reported that 165 river miles
(18%) 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 atmospheric deposi-
tion, upstream impoundments, and
municipal sewage treatment plants.
Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen)
is a widespread problem in
Connecticut's estuarine waters in
Long Island Sound. Bacteria also
prevent shellfish harvesting and an
advisory restricts consumption of
bluefish and striped bass contami-
nated with PCBs. Connecticut's
estuarine waters are impacted by
municipal sewage treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows, indus-
trial discharges and runoff, failing
septic systems, urban runoff, recre-
ational activities, and atmospheric
deposition. Historic waste disposal
practices also contaminated sedi-
ments in Connecticut's harbors and
bays.
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 185
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Ensuring that all citizens can
share in the benefits of clean water
will require continued permit
enforcement, additional advanced
wastewater treatment, combined
sewer separation, continued aquatic
toxicity control, and resolution of
nonpoint source issues. To date,
14 sewage treatment facilities have
installed advanced treatment to
remove nutrients. Nonpoint source
management includes education
projects and a permitting program
for land application of sewage,
agricultural sources, and solid waste
management facilities.
Wetlands are protected by
the State's Clean Water Act and
Standards of Water Quality. Each
municipality has an inland Wetlands
Agency that regulates filling and
establishes regulated buffer areas
with DEP training and oversight
Connecticut's courts have strongly
upheld enforcement of the wetlands
acts and supported regulation of
buffer areas to protect wetlands.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Connecticut samples physical
and chemical parameters at 27 fixed
stream sites and biological param-
eters at 47 stream sites. Other
activities include intensive biological
surveys, toxicity testing, and fish
and shellfish tissue sampling for
accumulation of toxic chemicals.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Connecticut's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Connecticut
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOCJ (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
fHyeiKajna Strepfl
<$ &<*£ *' ., -U-N » *, , fofe-;M-.jg.jSy
<1
^^W"^^y-g^l W^^-.^^W^^i^W^^: w$ »;*?"& \
Estuaries {Total Square Miles = 612)
Total Square
Surveyed 60
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
186 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Delaware
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Delaware 1996
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 84% 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 seven fish consumption
restrictions in three basins, including
Red Clay Creek, Red Lion Creek, the
St. Jones River, and the Delaware
Estuary. Agricultural runoff, non-
point sources, municipal sewage
treatment plants, and industrial
dischargers are the primary sources
of nutrients and toxics in Delaware's
surface waters.
Ground Water Quality
High-quality ground water
provides two-thirds of Delaware's
domestic water supply. However,
nitrates, synthetic organic chemi-
cals, saltwater, and iron contaminate
isolated wells in some areas. In the
agricultural areas of Kent and Sussex
counties, nitrates in ground water
are a potential health concern and
a potential source of nutrient
contamination in surface waters.
Synthetic organic chemicals have
entered some ground waters from
leaking industrial underground
storage tanks, landfills, abandoned
hazardous waste sites, chemical
spills and leaks, septic systems, and
agricultural activities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Con-
trol (DNREC) adopted a watershed
approach to determine the most
effective and efficient methods for
protecting water quality or abating
existing problems. Under the
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 187
watershed approach, DNREC will
evaluate all sources of pollution that
may impact a waterway and target
the most significant sources for
management. 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 biolog-
ical surveys employing rapid bio-
assessment protocols. Monitoring
within the Fixed Station Network
will be modified to provide quar-
terly sampling for 1 complete year
for each basin in Delaware. Dela-
ware is developing and testing new
protocols for sampling biological
data in order to determine whether
specific biological criteria can be
developed to determine support of
designated uses.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Delaware's designated uses
appear in 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 Does not include 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)
29
Estuaries, (Total Square Miles = 29)°
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
188 Chapter Nine State Summaries
District of Columbia
> Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-DIg!t Hydrologic Unit)
recreational fishing and the abun-
dance and diversity of the fishery
has improved.
As the focus of water quality
studies has shifted to toxic pollut-
ants and biological indicators,
waterbodies that were at least par-
tially supporting some of their des-
ignated uses in the past are now
not supporting those uses. Although
the results of these studies are not
favorable, better information and
management of these pollutants
and their effect is better for the
health of both the citizens and the
aquatic resources of the District of
Columbia. A fish consumption advi-
sory remains in effect for all District
surface waters, and sediment conta-
mination degrades aquatic life on
the Anacostia River. Urban runoff
may be the source of high concen-
trations of cadmium, mercury, lead,
PCBs, PAHs, and DDT found in sedi-
ment samples. Combined sewer
overflows are the main source of
bacterial pollution that causes
unsafe swimming conditions and a
consequent swimming ban.
For a copy of the District of
Columbia 1996 305(b) report,
contact:
Dr. Hamid Karimi
Department of Health
Environmental Regulation
Administration
Water Quality Monitoring Branch
2100 Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20020
(202)645-6611
Surface Water Quality Ground Water Quality
There has not been a drastic
change in the poor water quality of
the District of Columbia within the
past 2 years. However, until CSOs
are controlled in the District of
Columbia, major changes in the
quality of its waterbodies probably
will not be seen. The District of
Columbia sees some positive signs.
For example, submerged aquatic
vegetation (underwater grasses) is
now found in places where there
was little or none before. Also,
waters are increasingly used for
Ground water, though of
potable quality, is not the drinking
water source for the District of
Columbia. However, its quality is a
concern as it contributes to the
rivers' base flows. Sources of
contamination are diverse (above-
and underground storage tanks,
landfills, hazardous waste genera-
tors, and urban runoff) and numer-
ous in relative terms. Various activi-
ties are in place or under develop-
ment to protect and enhance the
quality of ground water.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 189
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 tribu-
taries located in Maryland. Addi-
tional funds will be needed to
implement urban stormwater retro-
fits, 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.
Individual Use Support in the District of Columbia
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of District of Columbia's desig
nated uses appear in this figure. Refer to
the District's 305(b) report for a full
description of the District's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Square 86
Miles Surveyed
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
190 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Florida
> Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Dlgit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Florida 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Joe Hand
Florida Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Mail Stop 3555
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904)921-9441
e-mail: handj@dep.state.fl.us
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, organic matter,
siltation, and habitat alteration
degrade water quality. In lakes, the
leading problems result from metals
and other toxics, ammonia, and
nutrients. In estuaries, nutrient
enrichment, habitat alteration,
and siltation degrade quality. Urban
stormwater, agricultural runoff,
domestic wastewater, industrial
wastewater, and hydrologic modifi-
cations are the major sources of
water pollution in Florida.
Special State concerns include
the decline of juvenile alligator pop-
ulations in Lake Apopka, widespread
toxic contamination 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 over 1,900 wells in
Florida's ambient monitoring
network indicate generally good
water quality, but local ground
water contamination problems
exist. Agricultural chemicals, includ-
ing aldicarb, alachlor, bromacil,
simazine, and ethylene dibromide
(EDB) have caused local and region-
al (in the case of EDB) problems.
Other threats include petroleum
products from leaking underground
storage tanks, nitrates from dairy
and other livestock operations, fertil-
izers and pesticides in stormwater
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
NPDES program. The State permits
about 5,111 ground water and
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 191
surface water discharge facilities.
The State also encourages reuse of
treated wastewater (primarily for
irrigation) and discharge into con-
structed wetlands as an alternative
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 Ambient
Monitoring Program's (SWAMP)
work on surface-water chemistry
was merged with the Ground Water
Ambient Monitoring Program, and
SWAMP's biocriteria and bioassess-
ment work was moved to a separate
section. SWAMP provides informa-
tion on the health of Florida's water-
bodies; assesses whether those
waterbodies meet standards and
criteria; and tracks changes in water
quality.
Individual Use Support in Florida
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.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
32
jJK|$s, (total Squttfe Mi'les = 4,298) -
Total Square
Miles Assessed 54
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
192 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Georgia
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!git Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Georgia 1996
305 (b) report, contact:
W.M. Winn, 111
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 1994 and 1995
was good, but the number of
stream miles and lake acres not
fully supporting designated uses
increased. Georgia Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) reassessed
all fish contamination mercury data
and added reduced consumption
guidelines in 1996 for a number of
lakes and streams that had no
restrictions in 1995. Persistent prob-
lems include mud, litter, bacteria,
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 133 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 over 5,000
wells since 1991 revealed that
nitrate concentrations exceeded
EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) in less than 1% of the tested
wells. Pesticide monitoring indicates
that pesticides do not threaten
Georgia's drinking water aquifers at
this time.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
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
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 193
Senate Bill 637, which requires the
Department of Natural Resources to
develop management plans for
each river basin in the State. The
law requires that the Chattahoochee
and Flint River Basin Plans be com-
pleted by December 1997, and the
Coosa and Oconee River Basin Plans
be completed by December 1998.
Georgia is also participating in a
Tri-State Comprehensive Study with
the Corps of Engineers, Alabama,
and Florida to develop interstate
agreements for maintaining flow
and allocating assimilative capacity.
Other interstate basin projects
include the Savannah Watershed
Project with South Carolina and the
Suwannee River Basin Planning
Project with the Georgia and Florida
Soil Conservation Services.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The number of fixed monitor-
ing stations statewide was reduced
in order to focus resources for sam-
pling and analysis in a particular
group of basins in any one year in
accordance with the basin planning
schedule. Georgia also sampled
toxic substances in effluent from
point source dischargers, streams,
sediment, and fish tissues at
selected sites throughout the State.
Individual Use Support in Georgia
Percent
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Georgia's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Designated Use3
Good Fair, Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Mot (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 854)
Total Square 96
Miles Surveyed
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
194 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Hawaii
Kauai
Oahu
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIgit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Hawaii 1996
305(b) report, contact
Eugene Akazawa, Monitoring
Supervisor
Hawaii Department of Health
Clean Water Branch
919AlaMoanaBlvd.
Honolulu, HI 96814
(808) 586-4309
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. Introduced
species and stream alteration are
other stressors of concern. 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
land uses. These standards include
criteria, techniques, and methods
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 195
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 alterna-
tives to pesticides, such as natural
predators and other biological
controls. The State also encourages
the use of low-toxicity, degradable
chemicals 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 monitor-
ing, fish tissue contamination moni-
toring, and biological monitoring
and eliminated sampling at numer-
ous fixed monitoring stations. The
State also reduced the frequency
of bacterial monitoring at coastal
beaches. In a proposed monitoring
strategy (in progress), the State will
revise its water quality monitoring
plan in order to utilize the limited
resources more efficiently and to
refocus on waterbody-specific
needs.
Summary of Use Support3 in Hawaii
Percent
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired
(For One
or More Uses)
"Bjyers'and |5;
100
Lakes (Total Acres * 2,168)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 380)'
Total Shoreline
Miles Surveyed
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a Summary use support data from 1994 are presented because Hawaii did not report these data
to EPA in 1996. The State reports there is no basis to believe that water quality has changed
substantially from 1994 to 1996.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
196 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Idaho
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For Information about water quality
in Idaho, contact:
Bill Clarke
Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Statehouse Mall
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 373-0263
Surface Water Quality
Idaho did not provide this
information for the 1996 report.
Ground Water Quality
The Idaho Statewide Ground
Water Quality Monitoring Program
samples about 800 wells every two
years. This program, along with
regional monitoring projects and
data from public drinking water
wells, indicated that nitrates, sol-
vents, and pesticides are the most
prevalent contaminants in ground
water. Major sources of ground
water contamination include land-
fills, fertilizer and pesticide applica-
tion, animal feedlots, underground
storage tanks, septic systems, and
industrial facilities.
The Idaho Legislature adopted
the Ground Water Quality Plan in
1992. The plan contains six major
policy areas directing State agencies
and entities in the protection of
ground water quality. These six
policy areas cover protection, pre-
vention, public education, govern-
ment interaction, monitoring, and
remediation. Ground water quality
protection programs in Idaho
address underground injection,
wastewater land application, under-
ground storage tanks, pesticide use,
mining, industrial facilities, remedia-
tion, sewage disposal, solid waste,
interagency coordination, ground
water quality monitoring, pollution
prevention, and wellhead protec-
tion.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 197
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 unper-
mitted dischargers are rare. Neither
DEQ or EPA have sufficient staff to
conduct compliance inspections.
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). The
program includes monitoring of
trends, beneficial uses, and BMP
effectiveness.
Individual Use Support in Idaho
Percent
Designated Use
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
'^SK
Total Miles
Surveyed
Total Acres
Surveyed
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
198 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Illinois
1 Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Diglt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Illinois 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Mike Branham
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-3362
e-mail: epal 110@epa.state.il.us
Surface Water Quality
Overall water quality has
steadily improved over the past 26
years since enactment of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
Trend analysis generally indicates
stable or improving trends in stream
concentrations of ammonia consis-
tent with the continued decline in
point source impacts. However,
dissolved oxygen depletion 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 major
sources of river pollution include
persistent point sources, hydrolog-
ic/habitat modification, urban
runoff, and resource extraction.
Trend analysis also indicates
improving water quality in lakes.
The most prevalent causes of
remaining pollution in lakes include
nutrients, suspended solids, and sil-
tation. The most prevalent sources
of pollution in lakes include contam-
inated sediments, agriculture, and
hydrologic/habitat alterations.
Trend analysis of lake water
quality showed that the quality of
many Illinois lakes is fluctuating or
declining. Those lakes that have
improved in water quality have
generally had special in-lake restora-
tion techniques or intensive water-
shed management projects imple-
mented.
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
underground gasoline storage tanks,
large aboveground petroleum stor-
age facilities, agricultural chemical
operations, salt piles, landfills, and
waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA), Bureau of
Water, is committed to implement-
ing a Targeted Watershed Approach
in which high-risk watersheds are
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 199
identified, prioritized, and selected
for integrated and cooperative
assessment and protection. This
approach represents an expansion
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
Ongoing monitoring programs
include ambient and toxicity moni-
toring, pesticide monitoring, inten-
sive river basin surveys, fish contam-
inant monitoring, and volunteer
lake monitoring. These programs
generate a rich inventory of moni-
toring data for assessing water
quality conditions across the State.
Individual Use Support in Illinois
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Illinois' designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the .State's
uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to
rounding.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully QOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) Threatened Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
45
takes (Tptal Aferes,= 309,340)
(T6tal Shore Wrtfeis =,63) ;
-------
200 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Indiana
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DigIt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Indiana 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Dennis Clark
Indiana Department of Environ-
mental Management
Office of Water Management
P.O. Box6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317)233-2482
Surface Water Quality
Over 99% of the surveyed lake
acres and 84% 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
consumption advisory impairs all of
Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline.
The pollutants most frequently
identified in Indiana waters include
bacteria, priority organic
compounds, oxygen-depleting
wastes, pesticides, and metals. The
sources of these pollutants include
industrial facilities, municipal/semi-
public wastewater systems,
combined sewer overflows, and
agricultural nonpoint sources.
Indiana identified elevated con-
centrations of toxic substances in
about 6% of the river miles moni-
tored for toxics. High concentra-
tions of RGBs, pesticides, and metals
were most common in sediment
samples and in fish tissue samples.
Less than 1 % of the surveyed lake
acres contained elevated concentra-
tions of toxic substances in their
sediment.
Ground Water Quality
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 activ-
ities, the State has documented
over 1,200 sites of ground water
contamination. Nitrates are the
most common pollutant detected in
wells, followed by volatile organic
chemicals and heavy metals. Some
trends identified in ground water
contamination site summaries were
that industrialized areas exhibited
the highest degree of contamina-
tion, and VOCs were the primary
class of contaminants in all hydro-
geologic settings. Heavy metal con-
tamination is associated with waste
disposal sites.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 201
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
Early in 1995 the Water Quality
Surveillance and Standards Branch
of the Office of Water Management
initiated a revision of the surface
water monitoring program of the
Indiana Department of Environ-
mental Management (IDEM).
The proposed strategy provides a
"proactive" assessment program
that is more ideally suited to meet-
ing the variety of data and informa-
tion needs for assessing Indiana
surface waters.
Individual Use Support in Indiana
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
77
Lakes (Total Acre¥ = 142,871)
Great Lakes, (Total Mifes = 43)
aA subset of Indiana's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
202 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Iowa
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!git Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Iowa 1996 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
Modifications to stream habitat
and hydrology, sediment and plant
nutrients, and natural conditions
(such as shallowness in lakes) impair
aquatic life uses in 34% of the
surveyed rivers and over 35% of the
surveyed lakes. Swimming use is
impaired in 76% of the 862 sur-
veyed river miles and 27% of the
surveyed lakes, ponds, and reser-
voirs. Saylorville, Coralville, and
Rathbun reservoirs have good water
quality that fully supports all desig-
nated uses, but siltation severely
impacts Red Rock Reservoir. Point
sources still pollute about 5% of
the surveyed stream miles and two
lakes.
Ground Water Quality
Groundwater supplies about
80% of all Iowa's drinking water.
Agricultural chemicals, underground
storage tanks, agricultural drainage
wells, livestock wastes, and improp-
er management of hazardous sub-
stances all contribute to some
degree of ground water contamina-
tion in Iowa. Several studies have
detected low levels of common
agricultural pesticides and synthetic
organic compounds, such as
solvents and degreasers, in both
untreated and treated ground
water. In most cases, the contami-
nants appear in small concentra-
tions thought to pose no immediate
threat to public health, but little is
known about the health effects of
long-term exposure to low concen-
trations of these chemicals.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1979, Iowa began imple-
menting its agricultural nonpoint
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 establish spe-
cific siting, design, operation, and
monitoring criteria and require
annual inspections and permit
renewals every 3 years. Iowa also
regulates construction in floodplains
to limit soil erosion and impacts on
aquatic life.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 203
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Iowa's DNR maintains a fixed
sampling network and conducts
special intensive surveys at selected
sites. The State routinely monitors
metals, ammonia, and residual
chlorine at the fixed sampling sites.
Limited sampling for agricultural
pesticides began as part of the fixed
network in October 1995. Pesticides
are also monitored for special stud-
ies 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 of PCB contamination in the
Mississippi River. Routine sampling
has not included biological sam-
pling in the past, but the role of
biological sampling continues to
grow. A program to develop biolog-
ically based water quality criteria for
sampling for wadeable streams in
each of Iowa's ecoregions began in
1994 and continues.
Individual Use Support in Iowa
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
66
34
Lakes (Total Acres = 129,666)
I (Toia! Acr,esX31,700):
a A subset of Iowa's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for
a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
c Excludes flood control reservoirs.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
204 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Kansas
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Oigit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Kansas 1996
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
Kansas reports that 74% of the
19,330 perennial stream miles
assessed from 1991 through 1995
did not support at least one of the
beneficial designated uses. Major
causes of nonsupport were sus-
pended solids, fecal coliform bacte-
ria, dissolved solids, oxidizable
organic wastes, and pesticides.
Impairment of streams was attrib-
uted to agriculture, habitat modifi-
cation, natural sources, resource
extraction, hydromodification, and
ground water withdrawal. Nonpoint
source effects were more wide-
spread than point source effects.
The majority (85%) of the 291
public lakes assessed during the
reporting period were impaired for
at least one use. The major causes
of impairment were pesticides,
suspended solids, eutrophication,
and turbidity. Sources of impair-
ment include agriculture, municipal
point sources, natural sources, and
hydromodification. The trophic sta-
tus of 70% of monitored lake acres
was found to be stable over time.
Of the public wetlands in
Kansas, 60% fully support but are
threatened for noncontact recre-
ational and food procurement use,
and 36% fully support but are
threatened for chronic aquatic life
use support. Trophic status studies
indicated that 58% of the wetlands
were stable over time.
Ground Water Quality
The primary ambient ground
water monitoring is conducted by
the Kansas Department of Health
and Environment's (KDHE) ground
water quality monitoring network
composed of 242 different types of
wells (e.g., public water supply,
irrigation, rural-domestic). Nitrate
contamination is of major concern.
From 1991 through 1995, nitrate
concentrations exceeded EPA's
Maximum Contaminant Level in
12% of 681 well samples. These
exceedances were attributed pri-
marily to human activities, natural
conditions, or both. Other concerns
of ground water contamination
included the presence of volatile
organic compounds, heavy metals,
petroleum products, and/or bacte-
ria. The major sources of contamina-
tion included industrial facilities,
spills, leaking or overflowing
lagoons, leaking storage tanks, min-
eral extraction activities, agricultural
operations, and, in some areas,
natural constituents.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 205
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
A Local Environmental Protec-
tion Program provides financial
assistance to 97 of the State's 105
counties to develop and implement
a comprehensive plan for protection
of the local environment.
The Point Source Pollution
Program regulates wastewater treat-
ment systems of municipal, Federal,
industrial, and commercial sewage
facilities, storm water, and certain
larger livestock operations. Smaller
livestock facilities and other diffuse
sources of pollutants are addressed
by the Non Point Source Control
Program. The Federal Construction
Grants Program, Kansas Water
Pollution Control Revolving Fund,
and Community Development Bloc
Grant Programs directed funds,
mainly to upgrade large wastewater
treatment facilities serving cities,
resulting in documented water
quality improvements in receiving
streams at several locations.
Several lake restoration/rehabili-
tation efforts were implemented
under the Clean Lakes Program.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Every year, KDHE collects and
analyzes about 1,500 surface water
samples, 50 aquatic macroinverte-
brate samples, and 40 composite
fish tissue samples from stations
located throughout the State.
Wastewater samples are collected
at about 50 municipal sewage treat-
ment plants, 20 industrial facilities,
and 3 Federal facilities to evaluate
compliance with discharge permit
requirements. KDHE also conducts
special studies and prepares about
100 site-specific water quality
summaries at the request of private
citizens or other interested parties.
Individual Use Support in Kansas
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully QOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Kansas' designated uses appears 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 Kansas designated uses do not address swimming beaches. Refer to the Kansas 305(b) report
on contact recreational use.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
206 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Kentucky
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
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
major 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 advisories for the
Green River Lake because of PCB
spills from a gas pipeline compres-
sor station and for five ponds on
the West Kentucky Wildlife Manage-
ment Area because of mercury con-
tamination from unknown sources.
For a copy of the Kentucky 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Tom VanArsdall
Department for Environmental
Protection
Division of Water
HReillyRoad
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)564-3410
Surface Water Quality Ground Water Quality
About 75% of Kentucky's sur-
veyed rivers (including the Ohio
River) and 97% 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 82%
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
Ambient ground water monitor-
ing at 70 sites statewide was begun
in 1995. 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 con-
cerned about the lack of ground
water data, absence of ground
water regulations, and the potential
for ground water pollution in karst
regions of the State.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 207
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Construction grants, State
revolving loan fund monies, and
other funding programs have
provided more than $53 million for
the construction of 23 wastewater
projects that came on line 1994 to
1995. These projects either replaced
outdated or inadequate treatment
facilities or provided centralized
treatment for the first time. Ken-
tucky requires toxicity testing of
point source discharges and permits
for stormwater outfalls and com-
bined sewer overflows. The non-
point source program oversees proj-
ects addressing watershed remedia-
tion, 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
25 of these stations. Thirteen lakes
were sampled to detect eutrophi-
cation trends. The State also per-
formed 17 intensive studies to eval-
uate point source and nonpoint
source impacts, establish baseline
water quality measurements, and
reevaluate 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)
(Total Miles = 89,431)b
10 14
Lakes (Total Acres = 228,385.)
III
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Kentucky's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
208 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Louisiana
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Louisiana 1996
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
e-mail: al_h@deq.state.Ia.us
Surface Water Quality
About 71 % of the surveyed
stream miles, 27% of the surveyed
lake acres, and 71% 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, 37% of the
surveyed river miles do not fully
support swimming and other
contact recreational activities.
Thirty-one percent of the surveyed
lake acres and 23% of the surveyed
estuarine waters also do not fully
support swimming. Sources of
bacteria include sewage discharges
from municipal treatment plants,
subdivisions, trailer parks, and apart-
ment complexes. Septic tanks,
sewage/stormwater overflows, pas-
tures, and rangeland also generate
bacterial pollution. Agricultural
runoff generates oxygen-depleting
substances and nutrients.
In lakes, bacteria are the most
common problem, followed by
noxious aquatic plants, metals,
dissolved oxygen, siltation, and
nutrients. Leading pollutant sources
include municipal point sources,
septic tanks, and inflow and infiltra-
tion. In estuaries, nutrients and
pathogen indicators replaced oil
and grease as the most common
pollutants. Nutrients and pathogens
can derive from a number of
sources including municipal point
sources, pastureland and septic
tanks, all of which ranked among
the leading suspected sources of
impairment.
Ground Water Quality
Water in the State's major
aquifer systems remains of good
quality. Of special concern, how-
ever, are the shallow aquifers 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 209
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 in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Louisiana's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes 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)
ff^~£ ?^s>fe%^a:3-ir xm$^jL%$~
-
nil
16
15,596
24
Total Acres
Assessed
661,027
(TotalfSquare Mjfes >
Total Square
Miles Assessed 71
4,944
28
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
210 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Maine
1 Bastn Boundaries
(USCS 6-DlgIt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Maine 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Jeanne DiFranco
Maine Department of Environ-
mental Protection
Bureau of Land and Water Quality
State House Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-7728
e-mail: jeanne.l.difranco®
state.me.us
Surface Water Quality
Maine's water quality has sig-
nificantly improved since enactment
of the Clean Water Act in 1972.
Atlantic salmon and other fish now
return to Maine's rivers, and waters
that were once open sewers are
now clean enough to swim in.
Ninety-nine percent of the State's
river miles, 81 % of the lake acres,
and 100% of the estuarine waters
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses. All lake
waters in Maine are impaired due to
a statewide fish consumption advi-
sory. Dioxin in fish tissue is the most
significant problem in major rivers.
Oxygen-depleting substances from
nonpoint sources and bacteria from
inadequate sewage treatment are
the most significant problem in
smaller rivers and streams. Lakes are
impacted by oxygen-depleting
substances and mercury from
atmospheric deposition and non-
point sources, including urban
runoff, agriculture, and forestry
activities. Bacteria from municipal
treatment plants and small discharg-
ers contaminate shellfish beds in
estuarine waters.
Ground Water Quality
The most significant ground
water impacts include petroleum
compounds from leaking under-
ground and aboveground storage
tanks, other organic chemicals from
leaking storage facilities or disposal
practices, and bacteria from surface
disposal systems or other sources.
Maine requires that all underground
tanks be registered and that inade-
quate tanks be removed. About
23,000 tanks have been removed
since 1986. Maine also regulates
installation of underground storage
tanks and closure of landfills to
protect ground water resources
from future leaks.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
As the State makes progress in
restoring waters impacted by point
sources, new water quality problems
emerge from nonpoint sources.
Therefore, the most important
water quality initiatives for the
future include implementing pollu-
tion prevention, nonpoint source
^management, watershed-based
planning, coordinated land use
management, and water quality
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 211
monitoring. The State is linking pol-
lution prevention with the water-
shed protection approach in a pilot
project within the Androscoggin
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 gen-
eration throughout the watershed.
The Maine Department of
Environmental Protection recently
completed a Strategic Plan that will
be used to guide future environ-
mental programs. The Strategic Plan
is linked with the State of Maine's
Performance Partnership Agreement
with EPA. This Agreement provides
an opportunity for greater dialogue
and targeting on State priorities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Maine's surface water monitor-
ing program includes ambient
water quality monitoring, assimila-
tive capacity and wasteload alloca-
tion studies, diagnostic studies,
treatment plant compliance moni-
toring, and special investigations.
Due to budgetary constraints, some
of these activities are much more
limited in scope than is desirable for
accurately characterizing water
quality conditions in Maine.
Individual Use Support in Maine
Percent
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Maine's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Maine includes coastal shoreline waters in
their assessment of estuarine waters.
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
(Total Acres = 986,776)
fflIlt«tillI*IISi*f:lff.Pllffl.l{fi:lj
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
212 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Maryland
' Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-D!git Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Maryland 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Sherm Garrison
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
Resource Assessment Service/TEA
Tawes State Office Building, D-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)260-8624
e-mail: sgarrison@dnr.state.md.us
Surface Water Quality
Overall, Maryland's surface
waters have good quality, but excess
nutrients, suspended sediments,
bacteria, toxic materials, or stream
acidity impact some waters. The
most serious water quality problem
in Maryland is the continuing accu-
mulation of nutrients in estuaries
and lakes from agricultural runoff,
urban runoff, natural nonpoint
source runoff, and point source dis-
charges. Excess nutrients stimulate
algal blooms and low dissolved
oxygen levels that adversely impact
water supplies and aquatic life.
Sources of sediment include
agricultural runoff, urban runoff,
construction activities, natural ero-
sion, dredging, forestry, and mining
operations. In western Maryland,
acidic waters from abandoned coal
mines 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 102 square miles of estuarine
waters and cause temporary restric-
tions in another 71.1 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 fertilizers
and septic systems; bacteria from
septic systems and surface contami-
nation; saline water intrusion aggra-
vated by ground water withdrawals
in the coastal plain; toxic com-
pounds from septic tanks, landfills,
and spills; petroleum products from
leaking storage facilities; and acidic
conditions and metals from aban-
doned coal mine drainage in west-
ern Maryland. Control efforts are
limited to implementing agricultural
best management practices and
enforcing regulations for septic
tanks, underground storage tanks,
land disposal practices, and well
construction.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 213
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Maryland manages nonpoint
sources with individual programs for
each individual nonpoint source
category. Urban runoff is addressed
through stormwater and sediment
control laws that require develop-
ment projects to maintain predevel-
opment runoff patterns through
implementation of best manage-
ment practices (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.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Maryland's monitoring pro-
grams include a combination of
water chemistry, compliance, aquat-
ic resource, and habitat monitoring
programs. In addition to traditional
monitoring, Maryland also conducts
an innovative randomized sampling
program in Chesapeake Bay waters
using a probabilistic approach to
sample analysis. Besides these pro-
grams, data from local governments
and volunteer groups are available
in some areas of the State.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Maryland's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Maryland
Percent
Designated Use3
Good ,~ -, Fair Poor Poor
(Fully (aOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
- 17,000)b;
Total Miles 34
Surveyed
21,010
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
214 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Massachusetts
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Massachusetts
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Warren Kimball
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Division of Watershed Management
627 Main Street, 2nd floor
Worcester, MA 01608
(508) 792-7470
Surface Water Quality
Nearly 70% of the 1,369 river
miles assessed by Massachusetts
now support aquatic life, swim-
ming, and boating uses, although
half of the swimmable miles still
experience intermittent problems.
Twenty-five years ago, swimming
and boating in most of these waters
would have been unthinkable. The
completion of river cleanup will
require targeting various sources of
pollution, primarily nonpoint source
pollution from stormwater runoff
and combined sewer overflows, and
toxic contamination in sediments
(largely historical).
Less than a quarter of the
assessed lake acreage supports all
beneficial uses. The causes of non-
support include introductions of
nonnative species, excessive growth
of aquatic plants, and excess metals.
The sources of these stressors are
largely unknown, although non-
point sources, including stormwater
runoff and onsite wastewater
systems, are largely suspected.
Massachusetts' marine waters
lag behind its rivers in improve-
ment. Only 27% of the assessed
waters fully support all their uses.
However, all the major urban areas
along the coast either have initiated
or are planning cleanup efforts.
Foremost among these is a massive
project to clean up Boston Harbor.
Ground Water Quality
Contaminants have been
detected in at least 206 ground
water suppy wells in 85 municipal-
ities. 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
quality and use of the receiving
ground water. Additional controls
are needed to eliminate contamina-
tion from septic systems and sludge
disposal.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 215
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 over-
flow policy that provides engineer-
ing 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.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Massachusetts^ designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
State's 305(b) report for a full description
of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Excluding Quabbin Reservoir.
Individual Use Support in Massachusetts
Percent
Designated Use3
Good ^ j Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
28
Total Square
Miles Surveyed
49
205
<1
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
216 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Michigan
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Michigan 1996
305(b) report, contact:
John Wuycheck
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909-7528
(517)335-3307
e-mail: wuycheck@state.mi.us
The report is also available on the
Internet at:
ftp://ftp.deq.state.mi.us/pub/swq/
305brepf.doc
Surface Water Quality
Ninety-eight percent of
Michigan's surveyed river miles and
95% of Michigan's surveyed lake
acres fully support aquatic life uses.
Swimming use is also fully support-
ed in 98% of the surveyed rivers
and 99% 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 bacteria, silta-
tion and sedimentation, and metals.
Leading sources of pollution in
Michigan include unspecified
nonpoint sources, agriculture,
contaminated sediments, 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
dramatic improvements are due
primarily to nutrient controls
applied to sewage treatment plants,
particularly 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, business-
es, or government facilities. The
Michigan Ground Water Protection
Strategy and Implementation Plan
identifies specific program initiatives,
schedules, and agency responsibil-
ities for protecting the State's
ground water resources.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 217
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 1990 and 1996, 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.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Michigan's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Michigan
Percent
Designated Use3
G°0d /•» .1 Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles 9S
Total Miles
Surveyed
3,250
100
100
3,250
>99
3,250
I
<1
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
218 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Minnesota
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 4-DIgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Minnesota 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Elizabeth Brinsmade
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Water Quality Division
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612)296-7312
Surface Water Quality
As part of its basin manage-
ment approach, Minnesota reported
on three basins for the State's 1996
305(b) report — the Minnesota
River, Red River, and Lake Superior
basins. More than 48% of the sur-
veyed river miles have good quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses
and 30% of the surveyed rivers fully
support swimming. Over 68% of
the surveyed lake acres fully support
swimming. The most common
pollutants identified in rivers were
toxics, turbidity, nutrients, siltation,
and bacteria. Nonpoint sources
generate most of the pollution in
rivers. Minnesota's 272 miles of Lake
Superior shoreline have fish con-
sumption advisories. These advi-
sories 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. For the 1996 305(b) report,
the State provided maps of poten-
tial ground water contamination
sources in the three basins analyzed
during the reporting cycle.
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, educat-
ing the public, implementing BMPs,
and applying the watershed protec-
tion approach to NPS management.
Minnesota adopted narrative
water quality standards for wetlands
in 1994. These rules identify
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 219
wetlands as "waters of the State,"
establish nondegradation standards,
designate wetlands use classes, and
adopt narrative language designed
to protect aquatic life. The State has
also developed recommended
hydroperiod standards.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Minnesota maintains an Ambi-
ent Stream Monitoring Program
with 82 sampling stations. Because
of the rotating basin approach,
approximately 40 sites are visited
each year. The State also performs
fish tissue sampling, sediment moni-
toring, intensive surveys, biological
surveys, and lake assessments and
supports a citizen lake monitoring
program. In 1994, the State com-
pleted the Minnesota River Assess-
ment Project, a comprehensive
study involving over 30 Federal,
State, and local agencies. The pro-
ject incorporated intensive biologi-
cal monitoring and habitat assess-
ments with traditional chemical
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 in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Minnesota's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Minnesota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good /•» ., Fair Poor Poor
(Fully CaOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
39
Lakes. {Total Acres ~ 3,290,101)
Great Lakes (Total li/ities = 272)
W>-
Total Miles
Surveyed
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
220 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Mississippi
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!git Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Mississippi 1996
305(b) report, contact
Randy Reed
Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601)961-5158
Surface Water Quality
Mississippi reported that 94%
of its surveyed rivers have fair water
quality that periodically does not
support aquatic life uses and
another 1 % have poor water quality
that does not support aquatic life
uses. About 91 % of the surveyed
rivers do not fully support swim-
ming. The most common pollutants
identified in Mississippi's rivers
include nutrients, pesticides, sus-
pended solids, and bacteria. Agricul-
ture is the most common source of
pollution in rivers, followed by
municipal sewage treatment plants.
About 95% of the surveyed lake
acres have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses and
99% of the surveyed lake acres fully
support swimming. Nutrients,
metals, siltation, pesticides, and
oxygen-depleting substances are
the most common pollutants in
Mississippi lakes. Agriculture is also
the dominant source of pollution
in Mississippi's lakes.
In estuaries, over 88% of the
surveyed waters have good quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses,
and shellfishing activities are
impaired in 60% of the surveyed
estuarine waters. Organic enrich-
ment, turbidity, and bacteria 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 and three
commercial fishing bans due to
elevated concentrations of PCBs,
PCP, dioxins, and mercury 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 frequent-
ly identified sources of contamina-
tion are leaky underground storage
tanks and faulty septic systems.
Brine contamination is also a prob-
lem near oil fields. Little data exist
for domestic wells that are seldom
sampled. Ground water protection
programs include the Pesticide
Container Recycling Program, the
Underground Storage Tank Pro-
gram, the Underground Injection
Control Program, the Agrichemical
Ground Water Monitoring Program,
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 221
and the Wellhead Protection Pro-
gram (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 defi-
nition 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 in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Mississippi's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's-uses.
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)
94
Estuaries (TotalSquare Miles = 760} -;'
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
222 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Missouri
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Diglt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Missouri 1996
305(b) report, contact:
John Ford
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
(573) 751-7024
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 vol-
ume, low dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, high water temperatures,
and excessive siltation. In lakes, low
dissolved oxygen from upstream
dam releases, taste and odor prob-
lems, and pesticides are the most
common ailments. Agriculture,
urban runoff, and reservoir 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 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 suit-
able for drinking water due to high
concentrations of minerals from
natural sources. Nitrates and, to a
much lesser extent, pesticides also
contaminate wells in this region.
About one-third of the private wells
exceed drinking water standards for
nitrates, and about 2% of private
wells exceed drinking water stan-
dards for either atrazine or alachlor.
Statewide, the highest priority con-
cerns include ground water contam-
ination from septic tanks, feedlots
and pastureland, and underground
storage tanks.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Sewage treatment plant con-
struction has restored many surface
waters in Missouri, but point sources
still impact about 40 classified
stream miles. Nonpoint source
control efforts have been greatly
expanded over the past few years.
With a focus on agriculture, approx-
imately $2 million annually is spent
for statewide informational pro-
grams, technical assistance and
demonstrations on a regional and
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 223
local basis, and BMP implementa-
tion in local watersheds. A dedicat-
ed State sales tax provides an addi-
tional $28 million annually for soil
erosion control and water quality
watershed projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Missouri's water quality moni-
toring strategy features approxi-
mately 40 fixed station chemical
ambient monitoring sites, short-
term intensive chemical monitoring
studies, a rapid visual/aquatic inver-
tebrate assessment program and
detailed biological sampling in sup-
port of development of biocriteria.
The State also reviews water quality
monitoring data and published
studies done by others.
Missouri requires toxicity testing
of effluents for all major dischargers
and has a fish tissue monitoring pro-
gram for selected metals, pesticides
and PCBs. Several nonpoint source
watershed projects related to
management of manure or farm
chemicals have their own monitor-
ing programs.
Individual Use Support in Missouri
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Missouri's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
224 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Montana
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Diglt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Montana 1996
305 (b) report, contact-
Christian ]. Levine
Montana Department
of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Phoenix Building
2209 Phoenix Avenue, Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901
(406) 444-5342
e-mail: clevine@mt.gov
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 17% of the surveyed lake
acres have good water quality that
fully supports fish and aquatic life,
46% fully support swimming, and
94% fully support drinking water
use. Agriculture (especially irrigated
crop production and rangeland)
impairs 63% of the surveyed stream
miles and 57% 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 Montana'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 Depart-
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 225
projects are under way in Montana:
the Flathead Lake Watershed
Management 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 simulta-
neously 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)
•/- * '', '"; -
74
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Montana's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
r
226 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Nebraska
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Nebraska 1996
305(b) report, contact
Mike Callam
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division,
Surface Water Section
P.O. Box 98922, State House Station
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402)471-4249
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 availabil-
ity of habitat.
Elevated concentrations of met-
als, primarily arsenic, were the most
common water quality problem
identified in lakes, followed by silta-
tion, suspended solids, and nutri-
ents. Reports have revealed that
current water quality criteria for
atrazine, a pesticide, are being
exceeded. Next to Illinois, Nebraska
applies more atrazine to crops than
any other State. Sources of pollution
in lakes include 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. 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
Originally, Nebraska's Nonpoint
Source (NFS) Management Program
concentrated on protecting ground
water resources. Now, surface water
protection efforts include watershed
assessments and implementation
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 227
projects. Assessments on the Willow
Creek and Yankee Hill watersheds
were initiated in 1994. An assess-
ment on the Holmes Lake water-
shed was initiated in 1995.
Currently, Nebraska has 35 NFS-
related projects.
Nebraska revised wetlands
water quality standards to protect
beneficial uses of aquatic life,
aesthetics, wildlife, and agricultural
water supply. The State also protects
wetlands with the water quality
certification program, permit
requirements for underground
injection activities and mineral
exploration, 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
NFS 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 1994 and
1995, the State conducted three
watershed assessments, diagnostic/
feasibility studies for three lakes, and
ongoing BMP effectiveness studies
in 10 watersheds.
Individual Use Support in Nebraska
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
55
12
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
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.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
228 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Nevada
• Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Nevada 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Glen Gentry
Bureau of Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Protection
123 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 687-4670
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
1,490 miles of the 3,000 miles of
accessible perennial streams with
designated beneficial uses. Twenty-
eight percent of the surveyed
stream miles fully supported all of
their designated uses, while the
remaining 72% were impaired for
one or more uses. In lakes, 57% of
the surveyed acres fully support all
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 229
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Nevada's Nonpoint Source
Management Plan aims to reduce
NPS pollution with interagency
coordination, education programs,
and incentives that encourage vol-
untary installation of best manage-
ment practices. In 1994, the State
updated the Handbook of Best
Management Practices and sup-
ported NPS assessment activities in
each of the State's six major river
basins. Nevada's Wellhead
Protection Program was finalized
during January of 1994.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Several State, Federal, and local
agencies regularly sample chemical
and physical parameters at over
100 sites in the 14 hydrologic
regions of the State. 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.
Summary Use Support in Nevada
Percent
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired
(For One
or More Uses)
Total Miles
Surveyed
72
Lakes (Total Acres = 533,239) ^"J;,;•":-.;Irc' l?^jf?
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Nevada's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
230 Chapter Nine State Summaries
New Hampshire
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Diglt Hydrotogic Unit)
For a copy of the New Hampshire
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Gregg Comstock
State of New Hampshire
Department of Environmental
Services
Water Division
64 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2457
Surface Water Quality
Since 1994, New Hampshire
has issued a statewide freshwater
consumption advisory due to mer-
cury levels found in fish tissue; the
primary source of which is believed
to be atmospheric deposition from
upwind States. When this advisory is
included in the assessment, all fresh
surface waters, by definition, are less
than fully supporting of all uses. If
this advisory is not included in the
assessment, however, the quality of
the State's surface waters is excel-
lent with over 99% of the river
miles and over 92% of the lake
acres fully supporting aquatic life
uses and swimming.
The State's estuaries fully sup-
port most uses with the primary
exception of shellfish consumption.
Over 61 % of the shellfish beds are
closed due to bacteria and a
consumption advisory for lobster
tomalley is in effect in 84% of the
estuaries due to PCB contamination.
Bacteria is the leading cause of
impairment in rivers. Dissolved oxy-
gen depletion, macrophytes and
nutrients are the major cause of
impairment in lakes. Most of these
impairments are naturally occurring.
Nonpoint sources are responsible
for most of the pollution entering
the State's waters.
Ground Water Quality
New Hampshire is highly
dependent on ground water for
drinking water. Natural ground
water quality from stratified drift
aquifers is generally good; however,
aesthetic concerns such as taste and
odor exist. Bedrock well water qual-
ity is also generally good although it
can be impacted by naturally occur-
ring contaminants including fluo-
ride, arsenic, mineral radioactivity
and radon gas.
In addition to naturally occur-
ring contaminants, there are many
areas of localized contamination
due primarily to releases of petrole-
um and volatile organic compounds
from petroleum facilities, commer-
cial and industrial operations, and
landfills. Due to widespread winter
application of road salt, sodium is
also a contaminant of concern.
In 1994, New Hampshire
received EPA's endorsement of its
Comprehensive State Groundwater
Protection Program (CSGWPP), an
acknowledgment that the State has
an array of local, State and Federal
ground water protection programs
that are sufficiently coordinated to
comprehensively protect ground
water. As part of the CSGWPP
development process, all of the
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 231
different parties interested in protec-
tion of ground water came together
and jointly developed a multiyear
work plan to enhance existing
efforts.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Over the past 25 years, New
Hampshire has eliminated or abated
all significant untreated municipal
and industrial wastewater discharges
in State waters. To resolve remaining
problems, the Department of Envi-
ronmental Services (DES) initiated a
basin protection approach in 1995.
As part of this approach, DES will
compile watershed maps and land
use data, identify major sources of
pollution, and establish local water-
shed advisory committees in each
basin to create and implement local
watershed plans.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DES implemented a 3-year
rotating watershed monitoring pro-
gram in 1989. From 1993 to 1996
the rotation was temporarily halted
to intensify monitoring at sites
exceeding standards. In 1997, DES
intends to resume the rotating
watershed monitoring program. To
assess the ecological health of rivers
and streams, DES initiated a biologi-
cal monitoring program in 1995.
DES also has several lake assessment
programs including a volunteer
monitoring program.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of New Hampshire's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
State's 305(b) report for a full description
of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Excluding the statewide freshwater fish
consumption advisory due to mercury.
Individual Use Support in New Hampshire
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
jFUvers and Streams. (Total Miles =ao,
(TotaAcres = I6,3r,033)^ ,
Total Acres 87
Surveyed
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 28)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
232 Chapter Nine State Summaries
New Jersey
1 Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the New jersey 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Kevin Berry
NJDEP
Office of Environmental Planning
401 East State St.
P.O. Box 418
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609)633-1179
Surface Water Quality
Thirty-five percent of the 3,815
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 either threatened or actively
deteriorating. Bacterial contamina-
tion is the most widespread prob-
lem in estuaries, impairing both
shellfish harvesting and swimming.
Other problems include nutrients,
pesticides, and priority organic
chemicals. Major sources impacting
New Jersey's waters include munici-
pal treatment plants, industrial facili-
ties, combined sewers, urban runoff,
construction, agriculture, and land
disposal of wastes (including septic
tanks).
Ground Water Quality
Available data suggest that, at
present, there is an ample supply of
good quality ground water in most
of the State of New Jersey. However,
ground water quantity (and quality)
problems are usually concentrated
in areas where the greatest volumes
of ground water are needed, such
as urban and agricultural areas.
Overpumping in these areas has
created hydraulic gradients that
sometimes result in the recharge of
aquifers from undesirable sources
such as seawater, polluted surface
waters, or severely contaminated
ground water.
The most widespread violations
of standards for naturally occurring
contaminants involve the State's
recommended secondary drinking
water regulations. These contami-
nants include iron, total dissolved
solids, sulfate, and hardness.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1996, New Jersey was one
of five States in the Nation to pilot a
mechanism to allow States greater
flexibility in addressing their priority
environmental problems while
reducing Federal oversight if and
where appropriate. This mechanism
is the National Environmental
Performance Partnership System
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 233
(NEPPS), which emphasizes environ-
mental management aimed toward
results using environmental goals
and indicators as measures of
progress. The NEPPS process places
greater emphasis on scientific
assessments of trends in environ-
mental quality and, through the
identification of key issues and the
setting of priorities, lays the founda-
tion for long-term environmental
planning.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Ambient chemical monitoring
in New jersey is now extensively
supplemented by biological assess-
ments of in-stream benthic macro-
invertebrates. From this, evaluations
regarding the overall health of
in-stream biota are estimated. These
biological assessments are useful in
directly assessing the aquatic life
support designated use, as well as
revealing the impact of toxic con-
taminants and detecting chronic
water quality conditions that may
be overlooked by ambient chemical
sampling. The bioassessments have
been performed for all the major
watersheds within the State—700
monitoring locations, all located in
nontidal portions of rivers and
streams.
New Jersey is revamping its
chemical monitoring to include
both broad-scale long-term contin-
uous monitoring and short-term
intensive site-specific assessments.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
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 Usea
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
52
12
.Estuaries (Total[SquareMiles=614)c
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
234 Chapter Nine State Summaries
New Mexico
1 Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Diglt Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the New Mexico 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Erik Galloway
New Mexico Environment
Department
Surface Water Quality Bureau
Evaluation and Planning Section
P.O. Box26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110
(505) 827-2923
Surface Water Quality
About 28% of New Mexico's
surveyed stream miles have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life uses. Eighty-three
percent of the surveyed river miles
fully support swimming. The lead-
ing problems in streams include
habitat alterations (such as removal
of streamside vegetation), siltation,
nutrients, and metals. Nonpoint
sources are responsible for over
96% of the degradation in New
Mexico's 3,438 impaired stream
miles. Municipal wastewater
treatment plants impair about 2%
of the degraded waters (54 stream
miles).
Agriculture and recreational
activities are the primary sources of
nutrients, siltation, reduced shore-
line vegetation, and bank destabi-
lization that impairs aquatic life use
in 89% 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 235
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, coordina-
tion of watershed projects, inspec-
tion and enforcement activities,
consistency 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
completed 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)
.
eams
'*'
66
Lakes (Total Acres = 997,467)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of New Mexico's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
236 Chapter Nine State Summaries
New York
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the New York 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Fred VanAIstyne
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Monitoring and
Assessment
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518)457-0893
e-mail: fevanals@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Surface Water Quality
Ninety-one percent of New
York's rivers and streams, over 73%
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. Swim-
ming is fully supported in 99% of
the surveyed rivers, 78% of the sur-
veyed lakes, 80% of the Great Lakes
shoreline, and more than 93% of
the surveyed estuarine waters.
Eighty-five percent of New York's
Great Lake's shoreline does not fully
support fish consumption use
because of a fish consumption
advisory.
Agriculture is a major source of
nutrients and silt that impair New
York's rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
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 18% of the
impaired rivers, 20% of the
impaired lakes, 89% of the impaired
Great Lake's shoreline, and 51% of
the impaired estuarine waters in
New York State. Sediments are con-
taminated with PCBs, chlorinated
organic pesticides, mercury, cad-
mium, 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
and degreasers, gasoline and other
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 237
petroleum products, and agricultur-
al pesticides and herbicides (primar-
ily 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 prior-
ities 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.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
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.
blncludes 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)
Rivers and Strj§n¥|jfa||i||^^|1f f I Iff ?f f||||
Lakes {TbtalAc4|s=^of82ifiiflf|l
Estuaries (Total Square Miles
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
238 Chapter Nine State Summaries
North Carolina
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!git Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the North Carolina
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Carol Metz
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
(919)733-5083
e-mail: carol@dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
Surface Water Quality
About 80% of the State's sur-
veyed freshwater rivers and streams
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses, 17% have
fair water quality that partially sup-
ports aquatic life uses, and 3% have
poor water quality that does not
support aquatic life uses. Ten per-
cent of the surveyed rivers do not
fully support swimming. The major
sources of impairment are agricul-
ture (responsible for 53% of the
impaired river miles), urban runoff
(responsible for 16%), and construc-
tion (responsible for 13%). These
sources generate siltation, bacteria,
and organic wastes that deplete
dissolved oxygen.
Only 6% of the surveyed lakes
in North Carolina are impaired for
swimming and 17% are impaired
for 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 contam-
ination in Waterville Lake. The State
and the mill implemented a dioxin
minimization program in the mid-
1980s and completed a moderniza-
tion program in 1993 that will
reduce water usage and discharges.
About 94% of the estuaries and
sounds in North Carolina fully sup-
port designated uses. Agriculture,
urban runoff, septic tanks, and point
source discharges are the leading
sources of nutrients, bacteria, and
low dissolved oxygen that degrade
estuaries.
Ground Water Quality
About half of the people in
North Carolina use ground water as
their primary supply of drinking
water. Ground water quality is
generally good. The leading source
of ground water contamination is
leaking underground storage tanks,
which contaminate ground water
with gasoline, diesel fuel, and heat-
ing oil. Comprehensive programs
are under way to assess potential
contamination sites and develop a
ground water protection strategy
for the State.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 239
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1993-1995, North Carolina
continued its aggressive program to
control nonpoint source pollution.
North Carolina established the NFS
Workgroup, implemented NPS
Teams for each of the 17 river
basins, published a guide for estab-
lishing a point/nonpoint source
pollution reduction trading system,
and introduced the Draft Interim
Plan of the Neuse River Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW) Manage-
ment Strategy.
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.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of North Carolina's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
State's 305(b) report for a full description
of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in North Carolina
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
and
- ' * •
*VM«»»g«*Mr^
Total Miles
Surveyed
33
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
240 Chapter Nine State Summaries
North Dakota
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Diglt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the North Dakota
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Michael El!
North Dakota Department of Health
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 5520
Bismark, ND 58502-5520
(701)328-5210
e-mail: ccmail.mell@ranch.
state.nd.us
Surface Water Quality
North Dakota reports that 71 %
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. Sixty-seven
percent of the surveyed streams
fully support swimming. Siltation,
nutrients, pathogens, oxygen-
depleting wastes, and habitat alter-
ations impair aquatic life use sup-
port in 29% of the surveyed rivers
and impair swimming in over 32%
of the surveyed rivers. The leading
sources of contamination are agri-
culture, drainage and filling of
wetlands, hydromodification, and
upstream impoundments. Natural
conditions, such as low flows caused
by water regulation, also contribute
to aquatic life use impairment.
In lakes, 96% of the surveyed
acres have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses, and
more than 84% of the surveyed
acres fully support swimming.
Siltation, nutrients, and oxygen-
depleting substances are the most
widespread pollutants in North
Dakota's lakes. The leading sources
of pollution in lakes are agricultural
activities (including nonirrigated
crop production, pasture land, and
confined animal operations), urban
runoff/storm sewers, and habitat
modification. Natural conditions
also prevent some waters from fully
supporting designated uses.
Ground Water Quality
North Dakota has not identified
widespread ground water contami-
nation, although some naturally
occurring compounds may make
the quality of ground water undesir-
able in a few aquifers. Where
human-induced ground water
contamination has occurred, the
impacts have been attributed
primarily to petroleum storage facil-
ities, agricultural storage facilities,
feedlots, poorly designed wells,
abandoned wells, wastewater treat-
ment lagoons, landfills, septic
systems, and the underground
injection of waste. Assessment and
protection of ground water contin-
ue through ambient ground water
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 241
quality monitoring activities, the
implementation of wellhead protec-
tion projects, the Comprehensive
Ground Water Protection Program,
and the development of a State
Management Plan for Pesticides.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
North Dakota's Nonpoint
Source Pollution Management 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, nutrients, and toxic metals),
toxic contaminants in fish, whole
effluent toxicity, and fish and
macroinvertebrate community
structure. North Dakota's ambient
water quality monitoring network
consists of 27 sampling sites on 15
rivers and streams. The Depart-
ment's biological assessment pro-
gram has grown since 1993.
Currently, biosurveys are conducted
at approximately 50 sites each year.
Individual Use Support in North Dakota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
62
altes (Total Acres = 650,3^0);
a A subset of North Dakota's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
242 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Ohio
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Ohio 1996 305(b)
report, contact:
Ed Rankin
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Surface Water
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614)728-3388
e-mail: ed_rankin@central.epa.
ohio.gov
Surface Water Quality
Ohio based their 1996 assess-
ments on monitoring data collected
between 1989 and 1994. Ohio's
assessment methods compare
observed ecological characteristics
(including data on aquatic insects,
fish species, habitat, and streamside
vegetation) with background condi-
tions found at least-impacted refer-
ence 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 Ohio's rivers and lakes.
These impacts stem from municipal
discharges, runoff from agriculture,
urban runoff, and combined sewer
overflows.
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
57%. 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, construction
activities, and septic systems, gener-
ate most of these impacts. However,
municipal point sources still affect
58% of the impaired 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 elevat-
ed levels of PCBs in fish caught at
two small lakes.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 243
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 correct
nonchemical impacts, such as
channel modification and the
destruction of shoreline vegetation.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Ohio pioneered the integration
of biosurvey data, physical habitat
data, and bioassays with water
chemistry data to measure the over-
all integrity of water resources.
Biological monitoring provides the
foundation of Ohio's water pro-
grams because traditional chemical
monitoring alone may not detect
episodic pollution events or non-
chemical impacts. Ohio EPA found
that biosurvey data can increase the
detection of aquatic life use impair-
ment by about 35% to 50%.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Ohio's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Ohio
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
,(Toti|UVcre£X188,46t)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
r
244 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Oklahoma
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Oklahoma 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Mark Derichsweiler
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
1000 NE 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
(405) 271-7440 ext. 105
e-mail: mark.derichsweiler
@oklaosf.state.ok.us
Surface Water Quality
Over 60% of the surveyed river
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses and
69% fully support swimming. The
most common pollutants found in
Oklahoma rivers are siltation,
pesticides, nutrients, and suspended
solids. Agriculture is the leading
source of pollution in the State's
rivers and streams, followed by
petroleum extraction and hydro-
logic/habitat modifications.
Sixty percent of the surveyed
lake acres fully support aquatic life
uses and more than 66% fully
support swimming. The most wide-
spread pollutants in Oklahoma's
lakes are siltation, nutrients,
suspended solids, pesticides, and
oxygen-depleting substances.
Agriculture is also the most
common source of pollution in
lakes, followed by contaminated
sediments and hydrologic/habitat
modifications. 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, ele-
vated selenium and fluoride concen-
trations (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 sol-
vents contaminate a few sites near
landfills, storage pits, and Tinker Air
Force Base. The State rates agricul-
ture, injection wells, septic tanks,
surface impoundments, and under-
ground storage tanks as the highest
priority sources of ground water
contamination.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 245
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.
Currently, 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
Commission 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
r* j P°°r Poor
(Fully UOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
= 78.77mb '
Total Miles
Surveyed
12
36
471,811
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Oklahoma's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
246 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Oregon
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For information about water quality
in Oregon, contact:
Robert Baumgartner
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5323
Surface Water Quality
The State of Oregon did not
submit a 305(b) report to EPA in
1996.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 247
Individual Use Support in Oregon
Percent
Designated Use
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
JUyjers and Streams (Totat Mites = H4,823Ja
Total Miles
Surveyed
Lakes (Total Acres = 618,934)
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
248 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Pennsylvania
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Pennsylvania 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of
F-nvironmental Resources
Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Division of Water Quality
Assessment and Standards
P.O Box 8555
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
(717)787-9637
e-mail: frey.robert@a1 .dep.
state.pa.us
Surface Water Quality
Over 81 % of the surveyed river
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses and
swimming. The most widespread
pollutants impairing the remaining
miles are metals, which impact over
2,107 miles. Other pollutants
include suspended solids, nutrients,
and acidity.
Abandoned mine drainage
is the most significant source of
surface water quality degradation.
Drainage from abandoned mining
sites pollutes at least 2,417 miles of
streams, 54% of all degraded
streams. Other sources of degrada-
tion include agriculture, industrial
point sources, and municipal
sewage treatment plants.
Pennsylvania has issued fish
consumption advisories on 21
waterbodies. Most of the advisories
are due to elevated concentrations
of PCBs and chlordane in fish tissue,
but two advisories have been issued
for mirex and one for mercury.
Zebra mussels are present in
Pennsylvania in Lake Erie and the
immediate vicinity, as well as the
lower Monongahela, lower
Allegheny, and upper Ohio rivers.
There are about 175 publicly and
privately run zebra mussel sampling
sites statewide.
Ground Water Quality
Major sources of ground water
contamination include leaking
underground storage tanks, contain-
ers from hazardous materials facili-
ties, and improper handling or
overuse of fertilizer. Petroleum and
petroleum byproducts are the most
common pollutants in ground
water. Coal mining and oil and gas
production have also elevated con-
centrations of several elements
(including chlorides, iron, barium,
and strontium) in some regions.
Pennsylvania is currently developing
a Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Program (CSGW-
PP). The CSGWPP provides a mech-
anism whereby Pennsylvania and
EPA can work together to develop a
comprehensive and consistent
statewide approach to ground water
quality protection. Pennsylvania and
EPA will use the CSGWPP to focus
on a long-term process for improv-
ing existing State and Federal
ground water programs. In addition,
Pennsylvania's Ground Water
Quality Protection Strategy is cur-
rently being reviewed for consisten-
cy with the Land Recycling and
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 249
Environmental Remediation
Standards Act of 1995.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Eliminating acid mine drainage
from abandoned mines will require
up to $5 billion. The cost, difficulty,
magnitude, and extent of the prob-
lem have hampered progress. To
date, the Commonwealth has
funded studies to determine the
effectiveness of alternative tech-
niques for treating mine drainage
and preventing contamination. The
U.S. Office of Surface Mining and
EPA Region III have created the
Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative
to address water quality problems
associated with mine drainage in
Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia. It is hoped that this
initiative will involve private organi-
zations and local citizens, as well as
government agencies, in moving
toward solutions.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Water Quality Network
monitors chemical and physical
parameters almost monthly and
biological parameters annually at
153 fixed stations on rivers, streams,
and Lake Erie. The Commonwealth
also conducts ambient ground
water monitoring at 537 monitoring
sites.
Individual Use Support in Pennsylvania
Percent
Designated Use3
G°0d /~ -i Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
82
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
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.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
250 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Puerto Rico
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!g!t Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Puerto Rico 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Rubfin Gonzalez
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board
Water Quality Area
Box11488
Santurce, PR 00910
(787) 767-2530
Surface Water Quality
In rivers and streams, 81% of
the surveyed miles have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life uses, 1 % partially support aquat-
ic life uses, and 19% do not support
aquatic life uses. Swimming is
impaired in 21 % of the surveyed
rivers and streams. Bacteria, low dis-
solved oxygen, metals, inorganic
chemicals, flow alteration, and
nutrients are the most widespread
problems in rivers and streams. In
lakes, 60% of the surveyed acres
fully support aquatic life uses, 5%
partially support these uses, and
36% do not support aquatic life
uses. Swimming is impaired in 48%
of the surveyed lake acres. Uses are
impaired by bacteria and low dis-
solved oxygen concentrations.
Ninety-nine percent of the
assessed estuarine waters fully sup-
port aquatic life and swimming
uses. Land disposal of wastes, urban
runoff, agriculture, municipal sew-
age treatment plants, and natural
conditions are the most common
sources of water quality degradation
in rivers, lakes, and estuaries. Indus-
trial and municipal discharges, spills,
marinas, urban runoff, and land dis-
posal of wastes also pollute beaches.
Ground Water Quality
Two wells were closed due to
bacterial contamination. Another
eight wells were closed for the fol-
lowing reasons: low yield, presence
of iron, manganese, trichloroethyl-
ene, and collapse. The major
sources of ground water contamina-
tion are septic tanks, livestock oper-
ations, agriculture, storage tanks,
and landfills. Puerto Rico adopted
ground water use classifications and
water quality standards in 1990. In
1993, the Environmental Quality
Board completed the ground water
priority list that ranks critical areas
for remediation and protection
activities.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 251
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 1993-1995 report-
ing period, Puerto Rico issued 287
certificates for livestock operations;
inspected 2,402 livestock opera-
tions; offered 25 conferences to
educate the public about nonpoint
sources, pollution, and controls; and
monitored the effectiveness of BMPs
implemented at poultry, 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 conven-
tional 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
bacterial contamination.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
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.
Includes 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)
67
19
Estuaries (Total Mifesx 175)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
252 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Rhode Island
> Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Rhode Island 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Connie Carey
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Office of Water Resources
235 Promenade St.
Providence, Rl 02908
(401) 277-3961
Surface Water Quality
Seventy-three percent of Rhode
Island's rivers, over 75% of lakes,
and 96% of estuarine waters sup-
port aquatic life uses. However,
many of these waters are considered
threatened. About 75% of rivers,
more than 92% of lakes, and 93%
of estuaries fully support swimming.
The most significant pollutants in
Rhode Island's waters are heavy
metals (especially copper and lead),
bacteria, low dissolved oxygen,
excess nutrients, and low pH/low
buffering capacity. Recurring algae
blooms and high nutrients threaten
the use of several surface waters for
drinking water supplies.
Rivers and estuaries are impact-
ed by industrial and municipal
discharges, agricultural runoff,
combined sewer overflows, urban
runoff, highway runoff and disposal
of wastes, failed septic systems, and
contaminated sediments. Lakes are
primarily impacted by nonpoint
sources, including septic systems,
storm water runoff, and soil erosion.
Ground Water Quality
About 19% 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.
Thirteen community and eight non-
community wells have been closed
and over 350 private wells have had
contaminant concentrations exceed-
ing drinking water standards. The
most common pollutants are petro-
leum products, certain organic sol-
vents, and nitrates. Significant pollu-
tion sources include leaking under-
ground storage tanks, hazardous
and industrial waste disposal sites,
illegal or improper waste disposal,
chemical and oil spills, landfills, sep-
tic systems, road salt storage and
application, and fertilizer applica-
tion.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Now in the midst of a major
departmental reorganization, the
RIDEM Office of Water Resources is
taking the opportunity to initiate
the transition from program-cen-
tered management to a watershed
approach. The watershed approach
coordinates monitoring, modeling,
planning, permitting, and enforce-
ment activities within a geographic
area. This watershed-based frame-
work for coordinated planning and
action will increase departmental
efficiency, enhance internal and
external communication, allow for
targeting of resources to priority
areas and issues, bring collaborative
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 253
problem solving into management
decisions, and help build a con-
stituency for environmental protec-
tion and restoration actions.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Surface water quality monitor-
ing activities conducted in Rhode
Island waters range from investiga-
tion of complaints to intensive river
and watershed monitoring projects.
The Office of Water Resources
(OWR) performs bacteriological
monitoring at all State-owned
beaches and provides intensive bac-
teriological monitoring of shellfish-
able waters. OWR has contracted
with the USGS to conduct riverine
monitoring at six stations in Rhode
Island. Biological monitoring, utiliz-
ing artificial substrates, is conducted
at six river stations near the USGS
fixed river stations. The USEPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols are
followed for macroinvertebrate
sampling at 40 stream sites around
the State. Twenty-five of these 40
stations are also monitored for
various conventional and toxic
pollutants. The OWR is involved in
10 watershed monitoring projects.
These projects are in accordance
with the Department's initiation of a
Watershed Approach and total max-
imum daily load (TMDL) develop-
ment. Surface water monitoring
activities are also conducted by
many Citizens Monitoring groups.
These groups supply the OWR with
supplemental water quality data for
numerous rivers, lakes, ponds, and
estuarine waters of the State.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Rhode Island's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Includes ocean waters.
Individual Use Support in Rhode Island
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
49
Estuaries (Total Square Miles,= 193}°
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
254 Chapter Nine State Summaries
South Carolina
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the South Carolina
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Gina Kirkland
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803)734-5153
e-mail: kirklagl@columb35.dhec.
state.sc.us
Surface Water Quality
Eighty-seven percent of sur-
veyed rivers, 92% of surveyed lakes,
and 68% of estuaries have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life uses. Fifty-three percent
of rivers, 100% of lakes, and 89%
of estuaries fully support swimming.
Unsuitable water quality is respon-
sible for shellfish harvesting prohi-
bitions 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 8% of lakes do not
fully support uses; and low dissolved
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.
Ground Water Quality
Overall ground water quality
remains excellent, although the
number of reported ground water
contamination cases rose from 60
cases in 1980 to 3,330 cases in
1997. The increase in the number
of contaminated sites is primarily
due to expanded monitoring at
underground storage tank sites.
Leaking underground storage tanks
are the most common source of
contamination, impacting 2,767
sites, followed by spills and leaking
pits, ponds, and lagoons.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Con-
trol (DHEC) initiated a Watershed
Water Quality Management Strat-
egy (WWQMS) to integrate moni-
toring, assessment, problem identifi-
cation and prioritization, water
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 255
quality modeling, planning, permit-
ting, and other management activi-
ties 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. The majority of water
quality activities in these watersheds
will be based on a 5-year rotation.
The basin strategies will refocus
water quality protection and restor-
ation 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
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of South Carolina's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
State's 305(b) report for a full description of
the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles 87
Estuairies (Total Square Miles = 682)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
256 Chapter Nine State Summaries
South Dakota
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit modified by South Dakota)
For a copy of the South Dakota
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Andrew Repsys
South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Division of Financial and Technical
Assistance
Watershed Protection Program
523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-3882
e-mail: andrewr@denr.state.
sd.us
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. Forty-three percent of the
surveyed rivers also support swim-
ming, and 57% 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. Eighty percent of South
Dakota's surveyed lake acres fully
support aquatic life uses now, but
the quality of these lakes is threat-
ened. Similarly, 84% 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 1992-1996, 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
19% of the samples collected at
three eastern State aquifers during
1988-1994 had nitrate concentra-
tions that exceeded the State crite-
ria of 10 mg/L. Potential sources of
nitrate include commercial fertilizer
use and manure applications. There
were no violations of drinking water
standards for petroleum products
reported during 1994-1995, but
petroleum products were involved
in 76% of the spills reported during
the period.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 257
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Compliance with municipal
wastewater discharge permit
requirements steadily rose 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)
61
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of South Dakota's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
258 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Tennessee
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Tennessee 1996
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
e-mail: gdenton@mail.state.tn.us
Surface Water Quality
Seventy-three percent of
surveyed rivers and streams fully
support aquatic life uses and 27%
are not supporting these uses due
to severe pollution. Conventional
pollutants (such as siltation,
suspended solids, nutrients, and
oxygen-depleting substances) affect
the most river miles. Toxic materials,
bacteria, and flow alterations impact
rivers to a lesser extent. Major
sources of pollutants include agricul-
ture, hydromodification, and munic-
ipal point sources. Intense impacts
from mining occur in the Cumber-
land Plateau region, and poor qual-
ity water discharged from dams
impacts streams in east and middle
Tennessee.
In lakes, 496,340 acres (92%)
fully support aquatic life uses and
42,390 acres (8%) do not support
these uses due to severe pollution.
The most widespread problems in
lakes include nutrients, low dis-
solved oxygen, metals, flow altera-
tion, and priority organics. Major
sources of these pollutants are
stream impoundments, contaminat-
ed sediments, urban runoff/storm
sewers, land treatment, and spills.
Swimming and wading are
restricted in Chattanooga Creek and
East Fork Poplar Creek due to toxic
contamination from discontinued
waste disposal practices and
elevated levels of fecal coliform
bacteria.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality is general-
ly good, but pollutants contaminate
(or are thought to contaminate) the
resource in localized areas. These
pollutants include, but are not
limited to, volatile and semivolatile
organic chemicals, bacteria, metals,
petroleum products, pesticides, and
radioactive materials.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 259
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Division of Water Pollution
Control has adopted a watershed
approach to improving water qual-
ity and encouraging coordination
with the public and other agencies.
Each of the 54 watersheds will be
managed on a 5-year cycle coincid-
ing with the duration of discharge
permits. Tennessee is also conduct-
ing several Total Maximum Daily
Load studies that use a watershed
approach to allocate maximum pol-
lutant loading among all the point
sources discharging into a stream or
its tributaries.
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
metals. The State also performs
intensive 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.
With assistance from EPA,
Tennessee has undertaken to subde-
lineate ecoregions and to character-
ize water quality at carefully selected
reference streams. Data from this
project will help the Division set
clean water goals on a regional,
rather than statewide, basis.
Individual Use Support in Tennessee
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Acres 92
Surveyed
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Tennessee's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
260 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Texas
1 Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Texas 1996 305(b)
report, contact:
Steve Twidwell
Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission
P.O. Boxl3087
, Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512)239-4607
Surface Water Quality
About 91 % of the surveyed
stream miles fully support aquatic
life uses, 3% partially support these
uses, and 5% do not support
aquatic life uses. Swimming is
impaired in about 27% of the
surveyed rivers and streams. The
most common pollutants degrading
rivers and streams are bacteria,
metals, and oxygen-depleting sub-
stances. Major sources of pollution
include municipal sewage treatment
plants, unknown sources, agricultur-
al runoff, and urban runoff.
In reservoirs, 91 % of the sur-
veyed surface acres fully support
aquatic life uses, 5% partially sup-
port these uses, and 4% do not
support aquatic life uses. Ninety-
seven percent of the surveyed lake
acres fully support swimming. The
most common problems in reser-
voirs are metals, low dissolved
oxygen, and elevated bacteria
concentrations. Major sources that
contributed to nonsupport of uses
include unknown sources, atmos-
pheric deposition, 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. Sixty-one percent of the sur-
veyed estuarine waters fully support
shellfishing use, 36% partially
support this use, and 4% do not
support shellfishing.
Ground Water Quality
About 41 % of the municipal
water is obtained from ground
water sources in Texas. Identified
ground water contaminant sources
include storage tanks, surface
impoundments, landfills, septic
systems, and natural sources. The
most commonly reported ground
water contaminants from human
activities are gasoline, diesel, and
other petroleum products. Less
commonly reported contaminants
include volatile organic compounds
and pesticides. The degradation of
ground water quality from natural
sources probably has a greater effect
than do all anthropogenic sources
combined.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 261
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 450
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 and
special studies to investigate specific
sources and pollutants. About 3,000
citizens also perform volunteer
environmental monitoring in the
Texas Watch Program.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A subset of Texas' designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Texas
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
^^^^&.fc&.s.^fe;¥:.^ ^^jL&.ff..£:&.^:4-^f:ff-i ^
Total Miles 91
Surveyed
<1
Estuaries (Total Square ftliles = 1,991)
Total Square 94
Miles Surveyed
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
262 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Utah
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!git Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Utah 1996 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 6,582 river miles sur-
veyed, 74% fully support aquatic life
uses, 22% partially support these
uses, and 4% do not support
aquatic life uses. The most common
pollutants impacting rivers and
streams are sediments and nutri-
ents. Agricultural practices, such as
grazing and irrigation, elevate
nutrient and sediment loading into
streams. Point sources also con-
tribute to nutrient loads, while nat-
ural conditions introduce metals
and sediments to streams in some
areas. Resource extraction and asso-
ciated activities, such as road con-
struction, also impact Utah's rivers
and streams.
About 62% of the surveyed lake
acres fully support aquatic life uses,
36% partially support these uses,
and 2% do not support aquatic life
uses. The leading problems in lakes
include nutrients, siltation, low
dissolved oxygen, suspended solids,
organic enrichment, noxious -
aquatic plants, and violations of pH
criteria. The major sources of pollut-
ants are grazing and irrigation,
industrial and municipal point
sources, drawdown of reservoirs,
and urban runoff.
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
agricultural chemical facilities,
animal feedlots, storage tanks,
surface impoundments, and waste
tailings. In 1994, new ground water
regulations went into effect.
-------
. Chapter Nine State Summaries 263
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The State's Nonpoint Source
Task Force is responsible for coordi-
nating nonpoint source programs in
Utah. The Task Force is a broad-
based group with representatives
from Federal, State, and local agen-
cies; local governments; agricultural
groups; conservation organizations;
and wildlife advocates. The Task
Force helped State water quality
and agricultural agencies prioritize
watersheds in need of NPS pollution
controls. As best management
practices are implemented, the Task
Force will update and revise the
priority list.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1993, Utah adopted a basin-
wide water quality monitoring
approach. Intensive surveys have
been completed on the lower Bear
River, Weber River, and the Utah
Lake-Jordan River watersheds. The
Green River Basin monitoring began
in early 1995, and monitoring
began in April 1996 in the Sevier-
Virgin River Basins. A fixed-station
network was also developed to eval-
uate general water quality across
the State. Utah's surface water quali-
ty monitoring program consists of
about 200 ambient stations, 7 salini-
ty monitoring stations, and 30
biological monitoring sites. In addi-
tion, 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)
^*&V^ri;*^ff..^.:;fr_.^
Total Miles
74
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Utah's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for a
full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
264 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Vermont
1 Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
impoundments, flow regulation,
and land development.
Sixty-five percent of the sur-
veyed lake acres (excluding Lake
Champlain) fully support aquatic life
uses, 26% 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,
siltation, and aquatic weeds.
Although ranking sixth among cur-
rent impairments, nonnative species
infestations, primarily Eurasian water
milfoil, are perhaps the fastest grow-
ing cause of lake impairment.
Runoff from agricultural lands,
roads, and streambank erosion are
the most frequently identified
sources of lake problems.
In July 1995, a fish consumption
advisory was issued on all Vermont
waters containing walleye or lake
trout due to mercury and PCB con-
tamination, respectively. However,
there is an interim fish consumption
advisory for all fish due to possible
mercury contamination.
For a copy of the Vermont 1996
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)241-3776
e-mail: jerrym@waterq.anr.
state.vt.us
Surface Water Quality Ground Water Quality
Of the 5,261 miles of surveyed
rivers and streams, over 79% fully
support aquatic life uses, 16% par-
tially support these uses, and 5% do
not support aquatic life uses. Over
10% 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
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 sys-
tems, old solid waste disposal sites,
agriculture, road salt, leaking under-
ground storage tanks, and landfills.
The State needs to implement a
Comprehensive Ground Water
Protection Program, but lacks the
financial and technical resources to
do so.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 265
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The recent water quality
improvements have not been as
dramatic as in earlier years due to
completion of the wastewater treat-
ment facilities on the more heavily
polluted rivers. This is because the
State is focusing on the reduction of
nonpoint sources of pollution. Water
quality certifications were issued for
seven hydroelectric facilities, which
could result in the improvement of
42 miles of rivers and 4,350 acres
of lakes through minimum flow
requirements.
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
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A subset of Vermont's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes perennial streams only.
c Excluding Lake Champlain.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Surveyed 58
Champlain (Totai Acfes.= 174,175)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
266 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Virginia
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!g!t Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Virginia 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Ronald Gregory
Department of Environmental
Quality
Water Division
Office of Water Resources
Management
P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
(804) 698-4471
Surface Water Quality
Of the 31,431 river miles sur-
veyed, 76% fully support aquatic life
use, another 22% fully support this
use now but are threatened, and
over 2% 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 con-
tribute much of the fecal coliform
bacteria in Virginia's waters. Urban
runoff also is a significant source of
impacts in both rivers and estuaries.
Ninety percent of Virginia's
publicly owned lakes fully support
aquatic life use. The most common
problems in lakes include dissolved
oxygen depletion, coliform bacteria,
pH, and temperature, primarily
from nonpoint sources.
In estuaries, 11 % of the sur-
veyed waters fully support aquatic
life use, 82% support this use but
are threatened, and 6% partially
support this use. Nutrients are the
most common problem in Virginia's
estuarine waters, followed by
organic enrichment and low dis-
solved oxygen concentrations. All
of Virginia's Atlantic Ocean shoreline
fully supports designated uses.
The VDH Bureau of Toxic
Substances Information has four
health advisories and one restriction
currently in effect for fish consump-
tion.
Ground Water Quality
As in previous years, bacterial
violations continue to be the pre-
dominant MCL exceedance.
Nitrates and trihalomethane were
also detected in a small percentage
of the sampled private wells.
Virginia revised ground water
protection rules with the Ground
Water Management Act of 1992.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 267
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Virginia's Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality recommends
control measures for water quality
problems identified in the 305(b)
report in their Water Quality Man-
agement Plans (WQMPs). WQMPs
establish a strategy for bringing
impaired waters up to water quality
standards and preventing the
degradation of high-quality waters.
Control measures are implemented
through Virginia's point source
permit program and application
of best management practices for
nonpoint sources.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Ambient Water Quality
Monitoring Program has grown to
include 1,114 monitoring stations,
a 24% increase over the previous
report. These stations are sampled
for chemical and physical param-
eters 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.
Individual Use Support in Virginia
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A subset of Virginia's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Size of significant publicly owned lakes,
a subset of all lakes in Virginia.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
22
<1
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
268 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Virgin Islands
St. Thomas St. John
St. Croix
' Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For information about water quality
in the Virgin Islands, contact:
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of
Planning and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Protection
Water Gut Homes 1118
Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 00820-
5065
(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
frequent breakdowns of lift stations,
pump stations, and pipelines.
Clogged and collapsed lines
frequently cause discharges into
surface waters. Stormwater also
overwhelms sewage treatment facil-
ities and results in bypasses of raw
or under-treated sewage into bays
and lagoons.
Other water quality problems
result from unpermitted discharges,
permit violations by private industri-
al dischargers, oil spills, and unper-
mitted filling activities in mangrove
swamps. Nonpoint sources of con-
cern include failing septic systems,
erosion from development, urban
runoff, waste disposal from vessels,
and spills.
Ground Water Quality
The Virgin Islands' ground
water is contaminated with bacteria,
saltwater, and volatile organic com-
pounds. Septic tanks, leaking
municipal sewer lines, and sewage
bypasses contaminate ground water
with bacteria. Overpumping of
aquifers causes saltwater intrusion.
VOC contamination is due to under-
ground storage tanks and indiscrim-
inate discharges of waste oil.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 269
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
Program performs quarterly sam-
pling at 64 fixed stations around
St. Croix, 57 stations around
St. Thomas, and 19 stations around
St. John. Samples are analyzed for
fecal coliforms, turbidity, dissolved
oxygen, and temperature. Twenty
stations on St. Croix were also sam-
pled for phosphorus, nitrogen, and
suspended 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.
-------
270 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Washington
' Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Diglt Hydrologic Unit)
aquatic life uses, 3% partially sup-
port these uses, and 95% 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 and noxious aquatic plants.
Agricultural production is the pre-
dominant source of impairment in
lakes. Other sources include urban
runoff, municipal point sources,
land disposal, construction runoff,
and natural sources. In rivers and
streams, agriculture is the major
source of water quality degradation,
followed by hydro-habitat modifica-
tion, natural sources, and municipal
point sources. Causes of water qual-
ity impairment from these sources
include thermal modification,
pathogen indicators, pH, and low
dissolved oxygen.
For a copy of the Washington 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Steve Butkus
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
O!ympia,WA 98504-7600
(360) 407-6482
e-mail: stbu461 ©ecy.wa.gov
Surface Water Quality Ground Water Quality
Washington reports that 23% of
their surveyed river miles fully sup-
port aquatic life uses, 14% partially
support these uses, and 63% do not
support aquatic life uses. All sur-
veyed lakes partially support swim-
ming use. Two percent of the sur-
veyed estuarine waters fully support
Washington reports ground
water contamination by metals,
trace elements, nitrates, pesticides,
petroleum, and synthetic organic
chemicals. Sources include industrial
activities, agriculture, municipal
wastewaters, mining, and onsite
sewage systems.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 271
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, irri-
gated agriculture, dryland agricul-
ture, and urban stormwater. The
State is now focusing attention on
watershed planning. The watershed
approach is designed to synchronize
water quality monitoring, inspec-
tions, permitting, nonpoint ativities,
and funding.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Washington implements an
aggressive program to monitor the
quality of lakes, estuaries, and rivers
and streams. The program makes
use of fixed-station monitoring to
track spatial and temporal water
quality changes so as to ascertain
the effectiveness of various water
quality programs and be able to
identify desirable adjustments to the
programs.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Washington's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Washington
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
r|r'l-F^:f:f '*'f %i£^££"'if -f f l^5f^rT'f fTm'$l^J?f ^^HJ*$ $•¥t $ if i-'^^'l?f"f-f &"¥ff ^'f ''If 4:-^-|;^*f #1?^
iversf andiSireamsl (T6M|Mjre% %35%06»J f | If JI if p f l}| III«II
•j^j^^f-'H-'^^m-1«^^:.^^.>^.^^ fe^-^^^^' ^-•^foU--&™~?&?~-*%,&M.,i*'l<^«O^4% $•&. ^:J^%jygj'i. J f %• 1 if IJl' & g & .g .fs.? f J* a_:&&
Lakes (Total Acres = 466,296)
Total Acres
Surveyed
v.a *• -v •*>-.•*• >"? >^^^s*|^^W';i;*i^^J®^'¥w'e"
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
272 Chapter Nine State Summaries
West Virginia
> Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlglt Hydrologic 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 46%
of their surveyed river and stream
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses, and
73% 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, oxygen-
depleting substances, and acidity
also impair a large number of river
miles. In lakes, siltation, oxygen-
depleting substances, acidity, toxics,
nutrients, and algal blooms also
impair a significant number of acres.
Agriculture impaired the most
stream miles, followed by aban-
doned mine drainage and forestry
activities. Abandoned mine drainage
was 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
organic chemicals, bacteria, nitrates,
brine/salinity, arsenic, and other
metals.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 273
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)
m
44
a A subset of West Virginia's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
274 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Wisconsin
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!glt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Wisconsin 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Meg Turville-Heitz
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wi 53707
(608)266-0152
e-mail: turvime@dnr.state.wi.us
Surface Water Quality
The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) found
that 33% of the surveyed river miles
fully support aquatic life uses, 23%
support these uses now but are
threatened, 36% partially support
aquatic life uses, and 8% do not
support aquatic life uses. The most
prevalent problems in rivers are
habitat and flow alterations,
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 2,270
miles of streams.
About 37% of the surveyed lake
acres fully support aquatic life uses,
3% support these uses but are
threatened, 55% partially support
these uses, and 6% do not support
aquatic life uses. The primary source
of lake degradation is deposition of
airborne pollutants, especially
mercury, and polluted runoff. All of
Wisconsin's Great Lakes' shoreline
partially supports fish consumption
use due to fish consumption advi-
sories posted throughout the Great
Lakes. 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 appli-
cation of wastewater. Nitrate-
nitrogen is the most common
ground water contaminant. Nitrates
come from fertilizers, animal waste
storage sites and feedlots, municipal
and industrial wastewater and
sludge disposal, refuse disposal
areas, and leaking septic systems.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 275
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
WDNR is integrating multiple
agencies, programs, interests, and
jurisdictions in an "ecosystem
approach" that looks at all parts of
the ecosystem when addressing
water quality—the land that drains
to the waterbody, the air above it,
the plants, animals, and people
using it. Since the 1970s, WDNR
has prepared water quality manage-
ment plans for each of the State's
river basins that summarize the
condition of waters in each basin,
identify improvements and needs,
and make recommendations for
cleanup or protection. WDNR
updates the plans every 5 years and
uses the plans to rank watersheds
for priority projects under the
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program and
to address wastewater discharge
concerns.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1992, Wisconsin implement-
ed a surface water monitoring
strategy to support river basin plan-
ning. The strategy integrates moni-
toring and management activities in
each of the State's river basins on
the 5-year basin planning schedule.
In recent years, Wisconsin has
placed more emphasis on monitor-
ing polluted runoff and toxic
substances in bottom sediments
and tissues offish and wildlife.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
NA = Not applicable because use is not
designated in State standards.
Individual Use Support in Wisconsin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Great Lakes (Tojal Miles = 1,017)
aA subset of Wisconsin's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
276 Chapter Nine State Summaries
Wyoming
> Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Wyoming 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Phil Ogle
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-5622
Surface Water Quality
Of the 5,714 river miles sur-
veyed, 37% fully support aquatic life
uses, 4% fully support these uses
now but are threatened, 55% par-
tially support aquatic life uses, and
4% 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, 54% of the surveyed
acres fully support aquatic life uses
and 46% partially support these
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 fluo-
ride, selenium, and radionuclides.
Petroleum hydrocarbons are the
most prevalent type of contami-
nants impacting Wyoming ground
waters, followed by halogenated
solvents, salinity/brine, nitrates, and
pesticides. Leaking underground
storage tanks are the most numer-
ous source of contamination. Other
sources include mineral mining,
agricultural activities, spills, landfills,
septic tank leachfields, and other
industrial sites.
-------
Chapter Nine State Summaries 277
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Wyoming requires discharger
permits and construction permits
for all wastewater treatment facili-
ties. The Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ) reviews pro-
posed plans and specifications to
ensure that plants meet minimum
design criteria. Wyoming's nonpoint
source program is a nonregulatory
program that promotes better man-
agement practices for all land use
activities, including grazing, timber
harvesting, and hydrologic modifi-
cations.
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. Limited
funding precluded a comprehensive
watershed effort for surface water
assessment. The State is sampling
chemical and biological parameters,
such as dissolved oxygen, nutrients,
aquatic insect species composition,
species abundance, and habitat
conditions at the candidate refer-
ence 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)
55
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Wyoming's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
-------
\
,; :llr
ifesjt« vLJir.jt j»k- is VI..AW uijj.'juK*jjnii»Ktt - *jft ir<,4UKkta&. tluA V<^i^£4*4lUaM»'&K£
i ' iiii^ " ' iji™ ,i.**ohia>**i
-------
Tribal Summaries
This chapter provides individual
summaries of the water quality sur-
vey data reported by six American
Indian Tribes in their 1996 Section
305(b) reports. Tribal participation
in the Section 305(b) process grew
from two Tribes in 1992 to six Tribes
during the 1996 reporting cycle,
but Tribal water quality remains
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 participation,
EPA has sponsored water quality
monitoring and assessment training
sessions at Tribal locations, prepared
streamlined 305(b) reporting guide-
lines for Tribes that wish to partici-
pate in the process, and published
a brochure, Knowing Our Waters:
Tribal Reporting Under Section
305(b). EPA hopes that subsequent
reports to Congress will contain
more information about water
quality on Tribal lands.
-------
280 Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries
Campo Indian Reservation
Location of Reservation
For information about water quality
on the Campo Indian Reservation,
contact:
Stephen W. Johnson or
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 dis-
charges within or upstream of the
Reservation, 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 (CERA) 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
Source Program to stabilize stream
banks, construct sediment retention
structures, and fence streams and
-------
Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries 281
riparian zones to exclude livestock.
CEPA promulgated water quality
standards in 1995 to establish bene-
ficial 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 Pollu-
tion 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 developed a long-term
surface water monitoring program
in 1995. CEPA will consider includ-
ing biological monitoring, physical
and chemical monitoring, monthly
bacterial monitoring in lakes, toxici-
ty testing, and fish tissue monitoring
in its monitoring program.
Individual Use Support in Campo Indian Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good /^ -i Fair Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
'M r~^&*"i»l" •
< I V^f^pfe".
' \^r*M.t'i
Total Miles
Assessed
** *• ~ « _ _
i$fiif/ijjfJ(fljlilM
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
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.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
282 Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries
Coyote Valley Reservation
Location of
Reservation
Not Assessed
Not Supporting
Partially Supporting
I Ml II ;
A
B
Parking
Casino
Education/Recreation
Facility
For information about water quality
on the Coyote Valley Reservation,
contact:
Jean Hunt or Sharon Ibarra
The Coyote Valley Reservation
P.O. Box 39
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
(704) 485-8723
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 as a water
supply for an education/recreation
facility on the Reservation. Well C,
located on a ridge next to the
Reservation's housing units, is not in
use due to severe iron and taste
problems. Sampling also detected
high levels of barium, total dissolved
solids, manganese, and conductivity
in Wells B and C. However, samples
from Well B did not contain organic
chemicals, pesticides, or nitrate in
detectable amounts. Human waste
-------
Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries 283
contamination from septic systems
may pose the greatest threat to
ground water quality.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Codes and ordinances for the
Reservation will be established to
create a Water Quality and Manage-
ment Program for the Reservation.
With codes in place, the Coyote
Valley Tribal Council will gain the
authority to restrain the discharge of
pollutants that could endanger the
Reservation water supply and affect
the health and welfare of its people,
as well as people in the adjacent
communities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Tribal Water Quality
Manager will design a monitoring
system with assistance from
environmental consultants. The
Water Quality Manager will sample
a temporary monitoring station on
Forsythe Creek and a proposed
sampling station on the Russian
River every month. A fisheries biol-
ogist will survey habitat on the
rivers every other year, as funding
permits. These activities will be
funded through an EPA General
Assistance Program (GAP) grant.
GAP grants assist Tribes in increasing
their capacity to administer environ-
mental programs.
Individual Use Support in Coyote Valley Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
G°0d ^ -• Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Assessed
0.52
23
0.52
77
0.52
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.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
r
284 Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries
Fort Berthold Reservation
North Dakota\
Location of Reservation
For information about water quality
at the Fort Berthold Reservation,
contact:
Jim Heckman
Three Affiliated Tribes
Environmental Division, HC3 Box 2
New Town, ND 58763
(701)627-4569
Surface Water Quality
The Fort Berthold Indian Reser-
vation, located in northwestern
North Dakota, was originally estab-
lished by the Fort Laramie Treaty of
1851. The current boundaries, as
determined by an Act of Congress
in 1891, encompass approximately
1,540 square miles of which about
half is held in trusts by the United
States for either the Three Affiliated
Tribes or individual Native
Americans.
The large manmade lake, Lake
Sakakawea, occupies 242 square
miles of land in the center of the
Reservation. Created by the con-
struction of the Garrison Dam on
the Missouri River, the lake stretches
178 miles in length between Willis-
ton and Riverdale, North Dakota,
with a drainage area of 181,400
square miles. The dam created a
lake with a surface area at full pool
of 575 square miles surrounded by
1,300 miles of shoreline, six
hundred of which lie within the
Reservation boundaries.
Lake Sakakawea provides muni-
cipal water for three of the six
Reservation communities. Two addi-
tional communities are in the con-
struction phase. The lake is also a
major source of recreational oppor-
tunities including fishing, boating,
and water skiing. Industrial use of
the lake resources is minimal due to
the lack of industrial development
on the Reservation.
Aside from Lake Sakakawea,
surface water resources include the
Little Missouri River on the southern
border of the Reservation, numer-
ous small tributaries and ephemeral
streams, seasonal wetlands areas
and small manmade impound-
ments, all of which are used to
some extent by livestock and/or
wildlife.
A major concern of water qual-
ity impairment on the Reservation is
that very few of the farmers and
ranchers are currently implementing
best management practices (BMPs).
The majority of the livestock located
within the Reservation boundaries
are allowed to drink directly from
the surface waters. This has caused
the riparian habitat of the surface
waters to become denuded of
vegetation accelerating erosion of
the banks. The water quality is
being degraded through increased
sedimentation, turbidity and fecal
coliform, and fecal streptococci
bacteria.
-------
Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries 285
Ground Water Quality
The Three Affiliated Tribes Divi-
sion of Environmental Quality's pri-
mary focus is currently on the Reser-
vation's surface waters.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The draft water quality stan-
dards for the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation have been submitted to
the EPA Region 8 for review and
comment. Once the standards are
in place, the Three Affiliated Tribes
will be able to write and enforce
ordinances and codes to protect the
surface and ground waters on the
Reservation.
An ecosystem protection initia-
tive project is currently being imple-
mented on the Reservation.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The surface water monitoring
program established by the Three
Affiliated Tribes Division of Environ-
mental Quality is in the second year
of collecting monitoring data at six
monitoring sites. Three additional
sites are in their first year of being
monitored.
The U.S. Geological Survey has
three continuous recording gaging
stations and two miscellaneous dis-
charge measurement sites on and
adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation. The USGS report
Variations in Land Use and Non-point
Source Contamination on the Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation, West
Central North Dakota, 1990-93,
assesses water quality based on data
from these sites.
-------
286 Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries
Hoopa Valley Indian
Reservation
Location of
Reservation
For a copy of the Hoopa Valley
Indian Reservation 1996 305(b)
report, contact:
Ken Norton
P.O. Box1348
Hoopa, CA 95546
(916)625-5515
Surface Water Quality
The Hoopa Valley Indian Reser-
vation covers almost 139 square
miles in Humboldt County in north-
ern California. The Reservation
contains 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 Reser-
vation 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 consul-
tants are designing a ground water
sampling program to monitor
potential threats to ground water.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1990, EPA approved the
Hoopa Valley Tribe's application for
treatment as a State under Section
106 of the Clean Water Act. In May
of 1995 the Hoopa Valley Tribal
Council approved Reservation-wide
water quality standards and bene-
ficial uses for all waters within the
Reservation. EPA approved the
Tribe's application for Treatment as
-------
Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries 287
a State with respect to Sections 303
and 401 of the Clean Water Act.
The Tribe currently issues dredge
and fill permits through the Tribe's
Riparian Protection and Surface
Mining Ordinance and Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. In July 1996
the Tribe completed a Non-Point
Source Assessment and Non-Point
Source Management Plan and
applied for Treatment as a State
under Sections 404 and 319 of the
Clean Water Act. This application is
currently pending approval.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Tribe is currently develop-
ing permanent monitoring stations
to collect primary water quality data
and determine water quality trends.
Currently, the Tribal Fisheries,
Forestry, and EPA have been work-
ing closely together to coordinate
the purchase and installation of five
water quality monitoring stations
and enhance the two existing sta-
tions in upper and lower Mill Creek.
The overall purpose of collecting
water quality information is to mon-
itor forest management practices
and determine if these practices
impact fishery habitat. Substantial
data from throughout northern
California indicate that existing
unmaintained roads, new road con-
struction, and road reconstruction
have the largest impacts on fisheries
habitat compared to other forest
management practices. The three
departments have been working
closely with the U.S. Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station in Arcata, which
has installed many similar water
quality monitoring stations through-
out northern California.
Individual Use Support in Hoopa Valley
Indian Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
^-'-^^^Bs-'g'f-vi'f'^^'^&^^Jt'^&:~;r&^:&'TlgJ^^"|T?r«T^lF-f'l*trf^ tf *'•i^f i £1'; f:f*;^ #'Ci'-?'^ i- £ ^--: £•£ i"&'& *v- 't g £ 5
Total Miles
Assessed
90
100
78
85
100
(Total Acres = 3,200)
Total Acres
Assessed
3,200
100
100
3,200
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A 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.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
288 Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries
Hopi Tribe
For a copy of the Hopi Tribe's
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Phillip Tuwaletstiwa
The Hopi Tribe
Water Resources Program
Box 123
Kykotsmovi, 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 col-
iform. The primary potential sources
of surface water contamination on
the Hopi Reservation include mining
activities outside of the Reservation,
livestock grazing, domestic refuse,
and wastewater lagoons.
Ground Water Quality
In general, ground water quality
on the Hopi Reservation is variable.
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
-------
Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries 289
U.S. Department of Energy is inves-
tigating ground water impacts from
abandoned uranium tailings at Tuba
City. Other potential sources of con-
tamination in shallow wells include
domestic refuse, underground stor-
age tanks, livestock grazing, waste-
water 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
Several surface and ground
water assessment activities have
occurred since the 1994 report was
submitted. These include collections
of water samples from shallow allu-
vial wells, surface water samples
along the main stem of the Little
Colorado River, and surface water
samples from wetlands areas. Addi-
tionally, the USGS completed a well
and spring inventory, and the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) con-
ducted water quality assessment
activities at selected wells and
surface water locations.
Individual Use Support in Hopi Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Assessed
43
Sjifir^w ™*^ T * V-'' ' * P " S ** & « £ S & is v K t % 5: i?1^ v » '^ S %. •% :S' $ I
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of the Hopi 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.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
-------
290 Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries
Hopland Band of Porno
Indians
For a copy of the Hopland
Reservation 1996 305(b) report,
contact:
R. Jake Decker
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians
P.O. Box 610
Hopland, CA 95449
(707)744-1647
Surface Water Quality
The jurisdictional boundary of
the Hopland Reservation includes
2,070 acres in the Mayacmas Moun-
tains of southeastern Mendocino
County about 90 miles north of San
Francisco. Surface water on the
reservation is scarce. Streams are
intermittent rather than perennial,
rendering them unreliable as water
supply sources or for recreation,
fishing, shellfishing, agriculture, or
aquatic life use support.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water at the Hopland
Reservation, and the larger McDow-
ell Valley area, is contained in two
aquifers — fractured basement
rocks of the Franciscan Assemblage
and younger sedimentary deposits.
This water is the sole source of sup-
ply for about 200 tribal members
and non-Indian residents living in
the developed area of the reserva-
tion at the north end of McDowell
Valley.
Ground water contamination
from manmade sources is not a
major concern for water resources
management at the reservation.
Water quality concerns at the Hop-
land Reservation and elsewhere in
McDowell Valley are predominantly
related to natural chemical reactions
between ground water and the
rocks and sediments that compose
the aquifers. Potential sources of
contamination from human activi-
ties include agricultural activities at
vineyards, leachate from septic drain
fields, and infiltration of contami-
nants from dumping sites. To date,
no pesticides or herbicides have
been detected in samples from
three wells near the reservation
vineyards and no pathogen indica-
tors have been detected in public
supply wells. Maximum contami-
nant levels for secondary drinking
water standards, which are
designed to regulate the taste, odor,
-------
Chapter Ten Tribal Summaries 291
or appearance of drinking water,
were exceeded at three wells.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
No ground water protection
programs have been formalized on
the Hopland reservation other than
the adoption of a no-dumping ordi-
nance. The Tribe views their 1996
305(b) report as an initial step in a
ground water protection program
in that it provides the hydrogeo-
logic framework of aquifers at the
reservation and describes the
ambient ground water quality.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Ground water quality was
determined by analyzing samples
of ground water from wells and
springs in the reservation area dur-
ing the summers of 1993 and 1994.
Samples were collected for analysis
of common inorganic constituents
(major ions), trace elements, radio-
nuclides, common pesticides and
herbicides, and pathogen indicators.
The Tribe reports on whether tested
waters meet Federal primary and
secondary drinking water standards.
-------
-------
Interstate Commission
Summaries
Interstate Commissions provide
a forum for joint administration of
large waterbodies that flow through
or border multiple States and other
jurisdictions, such as the Ohio River
and the Delaware River and Estua-
rine System. Each Commission has
its own set of objectives and proto-
cols, but the Commissions share
a cooperative framework that
embodies many of the principles
advocated by EPA's watershed
management approach. For exam-
ple, Interstate Commissions can
examine and address factors
throughout the basin that con-
tribute to water quality problems
without facing obstacles imposed
by political boundaries. The infor-
mation presented here summarizes
the data submitted by three
Interstate Commissions in their
1996 Section 305(b) reports.
-------
294 Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries
Delaware River Basin
Commission
Albany <
' Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Delaware River
Basin Commission 1996 305(b)
report, contact:
Robert Kausch
Delaware River Basin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360
(609) 883-9500, ext 252
e-mail: bkausch@drbc.state.nj.us
Surface Water Quality
The Delaware River Basin covers
portions of Delaware, New Jersey,
New York, and Pennsylvania. The
Delaware River system consists of a
206-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
over 87% of the estuarine waters in
the Basin have good water quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses.
Over 26% percent of the riverine
waters do not fully support fish con-
sumption. All riverine waters fully
support swimming. In estuarine
waters, poor water quality impairs
shellfishing in over 14% of the
surveyed waters. Low dissolved
oxygen concentrations and toxic
contaminants in sediment degrade
portions of the lower tidal river and
estuary. Toxic contaminants and
metals impair a portion of the
Delaware River. Shellfishing advi-
sories affect 96 square miles of the
Delaware Bay.
In general, water quality has
improved since the 1994 305(b)
assessment period. Tidal river oxy-
gen levels were higher during the
critical summer period, and the level
of pH and fecal coliforms dropped
slightly in some nontidal sections.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Commission's Toxics
Management Program is designed
to identify the substances (and their
sources) that impair fish consump-
tion, aquatic life, and drinking
water. Further, the relative contribu-
tion of point and nonpoint sources
to the pollution loading in the tidal
reach of the river is being addressed
by a 3-year study of combined
sewer overflows. The DRBC and the
States have carried out an aggres-
sive program for many years to
reduce point soures of oxygen-
demanding materials and other
-------
Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries 295
pollutants and will continue to do
so. As part of an ongoing effort to
provide more support for fish and
aquatic life, the Commission is
developing a new model to evaluate
the impacts of point and nonpoint
pollutants on dissolved oxygen
levels. The Commission's Special
Protection Waters regulations
protect existing high water quality
in the upper reaches of the nontidal
river from the effects of future pop-
ulation growth and land develop-
ment. A comprehensive watershed
management approach to pollution
control in this area will eliminate the
occasional occurrence of elevated
levels of pH, bacteria, contaminants,
nutrients, and BOD.
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 requires more
comprehensive monitoring and
modeling, such as biological moni-
toring and continuous water quality
monitoring. The Combined Sewer
Overflow Study and the Toxics
Study have used specialized water
sampling programs to acquire data
for mathematical models. 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)
>99
Estuaries (Tofa Sqoaeiwfies = 866)
Total Square 84
Miles Assessed
a A subset of the Delaware River Basin Commission's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the Commission's 305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
-------
296 Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries
Interstate Sanitation
Commission
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Interstate Sanita-
tion Commission 1996 305(b)
report, contact:
Peter L. Sattler or Howard Golub
Interstate Sanitation Commission
311 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
(212)582-0380
Surface Water Quality
Established in 1936 by 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, Newark Bay, Lower
Hudson River, Raritan Bay, Sandy
Hook Bay, Upper and Lower New
York Bays, western Long Island
Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean.
Notwithstanding the significant
environmental gains that have been
made in recent years, a tremendous
amount of work remains to be
done. In the past several years, due
to a great degree to ISC's year-
round disinfection requirement,
which went into effect in 1986,
thousands of acres of shellfish beds
have been opened on a year-round
basis and, during the last six bath-
ing seasons, only a few beach clos-
ings occurred due to elevated levels
of coliform bacteria or washups of
debris. However, due to a combina-
tion of factors, including, but not
limited to, habitat loss, hypoxia,
and overfishing by commercial and
recreational interests, bag limits and
minimum size restrictions for several
finfish species (i.e., black sea bass
and porgy) were promulgated by
the coastal States.
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
Connecticut.
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
-------
Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries 297
Dredged Material Management
Plan for the Port of New York and
New Jersey. The ISC has representa-
tives on the Management Com-
mittees and various workgroups for
each program. During the 1994-
1995 reporting period, approxi-
mately 2.5 BCD of treated sewage
discharged in the Interstate Sanita-
tion District received secondary
treatment. Yet to be addressed are
the untreated discharges from com-
bined sewer overflows and storm
sewers.
The Commission's water pollu-
tion abatement programs continue
to provide assistance for the effec-
tive coordination of approaches to
regional problems. ISC's long-stand-
ing goal of making more areas avail-
able for swimming and shellfishing
remains a high priority. The Com-
mission's programs include enforce-
ment, minimization of the effects of
combined sewers, participation in
the National Estuary Program, com-
pliance monitoring, pretreatment of
industrial wastes, toxics contamina-
tion, land-based alternatives for
sewage sludge disposal, ocean
disposal of dredged material, and
monitoring the ambient waters.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The ISC performs intensive
ambient water quality surveys and
samples effluents discharged by
publicly owned and private waste-
water treatment facilities and indus-
trial facilities into District waterways.
The ISC's effluent requirements are
incorporated into the individual
discharge permits issued by the
participating States.
Individual Use Support in Interstate
Sanitation Commission
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Designated Use3 Supporting) (Threatened)
Estuaries {Total Square Miles s
= 72) - -V
Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
?
Total Miles
Assessed
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of the Interstate Sanitation Commission's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the Commission's 305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
Note: All waters under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Sanitation Commission are estuarine.
-------
298 Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries
Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission
(ORSANCO)
' Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the ORSANCO 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Jason Heath
ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45228-1112
(513)231-7719
e-mail: jheath@orsanco.org
Surface Water Quality
The Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
was established in 1948 by the
signing of the Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Compact by
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
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 mainstem 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.
A majority of Ohio River manual
sampling stations exhibited one to
several violations of the chronic
warm water aquatic life criterion for
lead. Sporadic violations for ammo-
nia, chromium, copper, zinc, and
nickel for selected waters, in
conjunction with lead violations,
resulted in a moderately supporting
aquatic life use classification for the
Markland Pool.
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 con-
tamination is unknown because few
sites are monitored for atrazine.
Ground Water Quality
ORSANCO does not have juris-
diction over ground water in the
Ohio River Basin.
-------
Chapter Eleven Interstate Commission Summaries 299
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1992, an interagency work-
group developed a CSO program
for the Ohio River Basin with gen-
eral recommendations to improve
coordination of State CSO strate-
gies. 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.
In 1995, an Ohio River
Watershed Pollutant Reduction
Program was established to address,
on a whole-watershed basis, pollut-
ants causing or contributing to
water quality impairments. These
pollutants include dioxin, PCBs,
chlordane, atrazine, copper, lead,
nitrogen, and phosphorous. The
objective of the program is to deter-
mine the extent of impairment,
identify sources, quantify impacts,
and recommend to the States
abatement scenarios necessary to
achieve water quality objectives.
The program is being implemented
following a phased approach with-
out the establishment of new regu-
latory structures to implement con-
trols that are environmentally mean-
ingful, technically sound, and eco-
nomically reasonable.
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)
Total Miles
Assessed
981
981
81
19
100
981
Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
A subset of ORSANCO's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Commission's
305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
ORSANCO operates 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.
ORSANCO is currently developing
a numerical biological criteria.
-------
-------
Part IV
Water Quality
Management Programs
-------
-------
The Watershed Protection
Approach and Place-based
Management Programs
Watershed
Protection
Approach
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, includ-
ing air pollution. Since 1991,
EPA has promoted the watershed
approach as a holistic framework
for addressing complex pollution
problems.
The watershed approach is a
place-based strategy that integrates
water quality management activities
within hydrologically defined drain-
age basins—watersheds—rather
than areas defined by political
boundaries. Thus, for a given water-
shed, the approach encompasses
not only the water resource (such as
a stream, lake, estuary, or ground
water aquifer), 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 12-1
Watershed Management Units
in the Great Lakes Basin
Superior
Michigan \-r
v/
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, partnerships
are developing comprehensive management strategies for the entire Great Lakes Basin, the water-
shed draining into each Great Lake, and the watersheds draining into individual areas of concern
on the Great Lakes, such as the Kalamazoo River watershed. Each level of detail provides addi-
tional insight about the factors contributing to complex water quality problems.
-------
304 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
boundaries, 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 the success of the water-
shed initiative. The environmental
objectives are based on the condi-
tion of the ecological resource and
the needs of people in the water-
shed.
• 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 and inte-
grated 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 approach as the
primary mechanism for achieving
clean water and healthy, sustainable
ecosystems throughout the Nation.
The watershed approach enables
stakeholders to take a comprehen-
sive look at ecosystem issues and
tailor corrective actions to local
concerns within the coordinated
framework of a national water
program. The emphasis on public
participation also provides an oppor-
tunity to incorporate environmental
justice issues into watershed restora-
tion 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. Since then, 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 305
and identified additional activities
needed to support the watershed
protection approach in an action
plan. The action plans address
several broad directions:
• Enhance interagency coordination
at the Federal, State, and local
levels.
• Build State and Tribal watershed
protection capabilities by encourag-
ing States and Tribes to better coor-
dinate existing programs using com-
prehensive watershed approaches.
The Watershed Approach Frame-
work (EPA 840-S-96-001) provides a
fuller explanation of EPA's vision for
watershed approaches. It is available
through NCEPI or the Internet.
• Develop tools (such as methods,
models, criteria, indicators, data
management, and monitoring
techniques) for implementing the
watershed 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
and providing easy access to infor-
mation via the Internet at http://
www.epa.gov/OWOW.
EPA's Office of Water will con-
tinue to promote and support the
watershed approach and build upon
its experience with established
place-based programs, such as the
Chesapeake Bay Program and the
Great Lakes National Program, to
eliminate barriers to the approach.
These integrated programs
(described later in this chapter) laid
the foundation for the Agency's shift
toward comprehensive watershed
management and continue to
provide models for implementing
the "place-based approach" to
environmental problem solving.
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 or regions, such as
the Gulf of Mexico, which drains
two-thirds of the continental United
States and a large portion of Mex-
ico. 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
-------
306 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
pollution released in one area can
cause problems in another. This con-
cept requires all responsible parties
to recognize and reduce impacts.
Therefore, managing pollution on
the ecosystem level requires building
institutional frameworks that involve
all affected parties, such as agricul-
tural interests, environmental advo-
cacy organizations, industry, govern-
ment agencies, and private citizens.
Consensus is a key to managing
pollution on the ecosystem level.
The ecosystem approach also
encourages pollution prevention
and efforts to avoid actions that can
even indirectly lead to contamina-
tion of the waterbody. Although
such ecosystem perspectives are
hardly new, they are more often
applied to much smaller units such
as watersheds.
The Great
Waterbodies Program
Background
The Great Waterbodies Program
manages water quality protection
in the three largest watersheds tar-
geted by EPA: the Gulf of Mexico,
the Great Lakes, and the Chesa-
peake Bay.
The Gulf of Mexico
Background
The Gulf of Mexico is fed by
rivers draining a vast area in five
countries. The Gulfs 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 Missis-
sippi River drainage system, making
the Mississippi River the dominant
freshwater riverine influence on the
Gulf. The combined flow of the
Mississippi River and Atchafalaya
River (which branches off from the
Mississippi above Baton Rouge)
provide approximately 79 percent of
all freshwater inflow to the Gulf.
The Gulf of Mexico is enor-
mously productive and diverse.
Covering 600,000 square miles, the
Gulf provides habitat for a majority
of U.S. migratory waterfowl. Its
commercial fisheries produced over
1.4 billion pounds of fish, oysters,
shrimp, and crabs in 1995, with the
Gulf leading the nation in the
quantities of shrimp and oysters
harvested. It is a major source of
petroleum, with its Federal Outer
Continental Shelf waters producing
25% of the Nation's natural gas and
11 % of the Nation's oil. Seven of
our Nation's 10 busiest ports border
its shores, and many nations of the
world fish its waters. As a recreation-
al resource, the Gulf and adjacent
estuaries provide a playground for
sport fishing, sailing, swimming,
sunbathing, and a host of other
recreational activities.
However, the natural beauty
and integrity of the Gulf are put
under greater stress every year.
Potential problems throughout the
Gulf include:
• Fish kills and toxic "red tides" are
an increasing phenomenon in Gulf
waters.
• Hypoxia (dissolved oxygen
concentration of less than 2 parts
per million) is a continuing problem
along the inner continental shelf of
Louisiana.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 307
• Diversions and consumptive use
for human activities have resulted in
significant changes in the quantity
and timing of freshwater inflow to
the Gulf.
• More than half of the shellfish-
producing areas along the Gulf
coast are permanently or condition-
ally closed.
• Valuable coastal wetlands are
being lost. From the mid-1950s
through 1970, Louisiana lost an
average of over 50 square miles of
wetlands per year. Significant wet-
lands loss continues throughout all
five Gulf States. Such wetlands are
essential habitat for much of the
Nation's migratory waterfowl and
for many of the Gulfs fish species.
• Unsightly marine trash is seen
along the Gulf shores and in its
waters, presenting a threat to birds,
fish, and other creatures.
• Gulf shorelines are eroding.
• Gulf fisheries are being threat-
ened by pollution and over-
exploitation.
There are many causes for
these problems, from the increasing
populations along its coast and
upstream tributaries in the water-
shed to the growing demands upon
its resources.
In response to signs of serious
long-term environmental damage
throughout the Gulfs coastal and
marine ecosystem, the Gulf of
Mexico Program (GMP) was estab-
lished in August 1988 as a partner-
ship to provide a broad geographic
focus on the major environmental
issues in the Gulf before they
become irreversible or too costly to
correct. Its main purpose is to
develop and implement strategies
for protecting, restoring, and main-
taining the health and productivity
of the Gulf of Mexico in ways con-
sistent with the economic well being
of the Region. This partnership
includes representatives from State
and local government and the citi-
zenry in each of the five Gulf States,
the private sector (business, indus-
try, and agriculture), Federal agen-
cies, and the academic community.
The partnership provides:
• A mechanism for addressing
complex problems that cross Fed-
eral, State, and international jurisdic-
tional lines
• Better coordination among
Federal, State, and local programs,
increasing the effectiveness and
efficiency of the long-term commit-
ment to manage and protect Gulf
resources
• A regional perspective to access
and provide the information and
address research needs required for
effective management decisions
• A forum for affected groups using
the Gulf, for public and private
educational institutions, and for the
general public to participate in the
solution process.
Through its partnerships, the
GMP is working with the scientific
community, policy makers at the
Federal, State, and local levels, and
the public to help preserve and pro-
tect America's abundant sea. It has
made significant progress identifying
the environmental issues in the Gulf
ecosystem and organizing a pro-
gram to address those issues. Eight
issue areas were initially identified as
Program concerns:
-------
308 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Ttie goals of the Gulf of
Mexico Program are to
ill I
• Protect, restore, and
enhance'tiigcofKtul and"_
\marlne~\vaters '6fWe'"Crii{
tind its natural coastal
habitats
:jt Sustain living resources
.. pijjilijiH' riS*" ; J ps Sii*!! >'! I!1!!!!!:!!' •*"» >i» Mil
i Protect human I
of
J!=-:JCitlf shores, beaches, and
S'.'iSWaters ill ways consistent
" ' "irffJgfj "the economic well-
Wiii-wf"'""! T " yjy i
'•betng of the region,
"I ,!• Si "A; ,1 I °
• Habitat Degradation in such
areas as coastal wetlands, seagrass
beds, and sand dunes
• Freshwater Inflow changes in
the volume and timing of flow
resulting from reservoir construc-
tion; diversions for municipal, indus-
trial, and agricultural purposes; and
modifications to watersheds with
concomitant alteration of runoff
patterns
• Nutrient Enrichment resulting
from such sources as municipal
waste water treatment plants, storm
water, industries, and agriculture
• Toxic Substances and Pesticides
contamination originating from
industrial, urban, and agricultural
sources
• Coastal and Shoreline Erosion
caused by natural and human-
related activities
• Public Health threats from swim-
ming in, and eating seafood prod-
ucts coming from, contaminated
water
• Marine Debris from land-based
and marine recreational and
commercial sources
• Sustainability of the Living
Aquatic Resources of the Gulf
of Mexico Ecosystem.
"Action Agenda" documents
that characterize each issue are
available from the CMP. The
Program is now focusing its limited
resources on implementing actions
to address specific problems that
have emerged from this characteri-
zation process. The current focus is
on:
• Nutrient Enrichment - Protect
the Gulf from the deleterious effects
of nutrient enrichment, as indicated
by a zone of hypoxia along the
Louisiana inner continental shelf,
with emphasis on the most signifi-
cant contributing sources. The
immediate focus for action is reduc-
ing the aerial extent of the hypoxia
zone by reducing the input of nutri-
ents from the Mississippi River sys-
tem. The hypoxic waters extend
over an area of up to 7,000 square
miles along the coast of Louisiana.
In this area, which has enlarged
from 3,500 square miles since 1993,
there are low densities of fish and
shellfish with other less mobile
organisms dying or being severely
stressed. Although hypoxic waters
occur near the mouths of other
large rivers around the world,
hypoxia in the northern Gulf repre-
sents one of the largest zones of
oxygen-deficient bottom waters in
the western Atlantic Ocean. In
recent years, the areal extent of
the hypoxia zone has rivaled the
hypoxic regions of the Baltic and
Black seas.
• Shellfish Restoration - Prevent
adverse health effects resulting from
the consumption of raw shellfish
harvested from the Gulf by increas-
ing the number of shellfish beds
available for safe harvesting by
10%. The Gulf of Mexico is the top
shellfish-producing region in the
Nation, with over 27 million pounds
of oysters landed in 1994 at a value
of $96 million. However, the 1995
National Shellfish Register indicates
that over half of the 9 million acres
of shellfish growing waters in the
region have regulatory limitations
on harvest due to a variety of
reasons ranging from administrative
rules to degraded water quality.
Recognizing the importance of
shellfish bed closures as an indicator
of potential decline in coastal water
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 309
quality, the CMP has identified
restoration of shellfish acreage as
one of its top environmental objec-
tives. The next step is to develop
detailed tactical implementation
plans and initiate actions for
selected watersheds in each Gulf
State.
• Critical Habitat - Protect and
restore key Gulf habitats, including
coastal wetlands, submerged
aquatic vegetation, important
upland areas, and marine/offshore
areas. Encompassing over 5 million
acres (about 50% of the national
total), Gulf of Mexico coastal
wetlands serve as essential habitat
for a large percentage of the
Nation's migrating waterfowl and
provide year-round nesting and
feeding grounds for shorebirds and
critical habitat for endangered
species. Many of the estuarine-
dependent commercial and recre-
ational fisheries depend on coastal
wetlands and submerged aquatic
vegetation. The dockside value of
the commercial harvest alone was
over $641 million in 1992. To fur-
ther environmental progress and to
continue to support the economic
base of the Gulf dependent on fish
and shellfish, the GMP will focus on
community-based efforts to protect
and restore coastal wetlands and
submerged aquatic vegetation.
• Introduction of Exotic Species -
Reduce the impact of human activi-
ties on important fisheries, including
mortality caused by pollution and
through the introduction of undesir-
able, nonindigenous organisms.
The introduction of undesirable,
nonindigenous organisms has
continued to garner great public
attention. From the introduction of
cholera into Mobile Bay from ship
ballast to the possible introduction
of shrimp viruses into coastal waters
from the processing of foreign
shrimp, biological pollution is a
growing concern at the regional
and national level. Given the poten-
tial ecological and economic
impacts associated with exotic
species and the recent introduction
of national legislation, the GMP
plans to bring greater regional
attention to this issue. The GMP
will initiate innovative technological
approaches for the prevention and
treatment of exotics and also
provide a regional perspective as
national policies are developed.
The GMP has also implemented
operational efforts that provide:
• Public Education and Outreach
to encourage and support public
understanding, coordination, coop-
eration, and action in addressing
environmental issues in the Gulf of
Mexico
• Data & Information Transfer to
provide access to, and encourage
sharing of, data and information
gulfwide. The Program has estab-
lished a Gulf Information Network
(GIN) that can be accessed interna-
tionally through the Internet.
Since its formation in 1988, the
GMP has been committed to spon-
soring projects that will benefit the
environmental health of the region.
These projects, numbering over
200, vary immensely, from "shovel-
in-the-ground" demonstration proj-
ects to scientific research to public
education. The case study highlight
describes five case studies that show
the range of projects sponsored by
GMP and the progress that has
been made toward protecting Gulf
resources.
-------
310 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
.„ .. t—^ - r*>. ^"fc « , ^ • •••
it ". "*•" " 1 " ' * !».»' ^ T, '""
]HT HIGHLIGHT
Will'"!'' < ^im!!1''!;1:"!'1"!!!!'!!! < 'IIS",:1'" "ill 'I1''SHI flllliPTH fl'l Aliiaili'l!; lliillliiSS'HI'liflTIi 'II VifAW Hi;"'
!H^
iiKjMii.iiiii!'iiii;:*iiiiiiiiiiiijid liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiPPiiEP'iiiPiiiihiidap;
Gulf of Mexico Program:
5 Case Studies
Texas: Wetlands Restoration
Location: Galveston Bay
Objective: To speed up marsh restora-
tion efforts, increase their effectiveness,
and improve the overall chance for
success.
The Galveston Bay System is
worth hundreds of millions of dollars
to the local economy, and habitat
destruction is its number one environ-
mental problem. For decades, salt
water marshes in Galveston Bay were
drowned by severe subsidence and
destroyed by harmful dredging prac-
tices. The Gulf of Mexico Program
funded a project through the U. S.
Department of Agriculture's Natural
Resource Conservation Service to
support wetlands restoration efforts in
Galveston Bay.
Various species of salt marsh plants
were cultivated in containers for use in
marsh restoration instead of removing
young plants from native stands and
possibly damaging the health of these
areas. Once the cultivated plants were
ready, volunteers planted them in
various areas around Houston and
Galveston Bay. In total, 12 sites
received plantings, including bald
cypress trees, black mangrove trees,
as well as other species of wetlands
plants. The overall survival rate for
these plantings has been greater than
90%.
Louisiana: Bay Rambo
Artificial Oyster Reef
Location: Eastern shoreline of Bay
Rambo, within Lafourche Parish in
southeastern Louisiana
Objective: To initiate growth of a
500-foot-long reef along the shoreline
of Bay Rambo that would provide a
stable framework for oyster growth,
help form a barrier against future
erosion, and diversify shoreline habitat
in the area.
This project was originally initiated
to reduce erosion, which is a problem
common to many other areas within
Louisiana's coastal marshes.
Eighty specially constructed units,
loaded with seed oysters, were put in
place to form the nucleus area of an
oyster reef. This technique resulted in a
more rapid formation of reef habitat
than would be possible through natu-
ral reef evolution. One year after instal-
lation, the reef blocks are still intact,
with preliminary studies showing that
the number of seed oysters has
doubled. Sediment has been accumu-
lating behind the reef, further stabiliz-
ing the in-place structures, and many
species of fish and wildlife, including
game fish and shrimp, are populating
the environment created by the artifi-
cial reef.
Mississippi: Shellfish
Growing Water Restoration
Location: Jackson County
Objective: To improve water quality
in shellfish growing areas by reducing
levels of fecal coliform.
The major cause of poor water
quality and harvest closures in this and
many other areas is elevated levels of
fecal coliform bacteria that enters the
waters from poorly functioning or
failed residential septic systems.
In 1993, the Jackson County
Board of Supervisors received a grant
from the CMP to replace 41 failing or
poorly operating septic systems with
rock-reed treatment systems in the
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 311
HIGHLIG
southeastern area of the county. This
area has the highest concentration of
residences in the region and is the
apparent source of fecal coliform that
pollutes the nearby Bangs Lake oyster
beds. Rock-reed systems are one of the
few types of systems that allow
adequate treatment of residential
wastewater and reduce leaching
effluents in poor soil conditions. Initial
sampling of these systems shows that
they are capable of removing signifi-
cant amounts of fecal coliform bacte-
ria, ammonia, and nitrate.
Alabama: Demonstration
Project in Sewage
Management
Location: Weeks Bay Estuary, eastern
shore of Mobile Bay, Baldwin County
Objective: To demonstrate an alter-
native onsite wastewater treatment
system that protects sensitive coastal
environments.
The estuary has been closed to
commercial shellfishing for many years
due to elevated fecal coliform levels.
Area surveys point to the heavy
reliance on septic tank systems for
onsite wastewater disposal. In October
1992, the Gulf of Mexico Program
provided funding to the Alabama
Department of Public Health to replace
20 defective sewage disposal systems
that were contaminating Weeks Bay.
Special biofiltration systems, developed
in Ireland, were installed at each site.
The biofiltration systems use a fibrous
type of peat commonly used in
gardening for filtration and purification
of wastewater effluent. Traditional
septic systems use soil for filtration and
purification, and in many areas of the
Gulf Coast the soils are unsuitable for
such systems. The peat medium pro-
duced good removal rates of fecal col-
iform bacteria and biological oxygen
demand in the treated effluent—a sig-
nificant improvement over the removal
rates for traditional septic systems.
Florida: Health Professional
Education Program
Location: Gulf States
Objective: To train and educate
health care professionals on shellfish
consumption risks, potential sources
of contamination, diagnosis and treat-
ment, patient education, and individ-
ual State reporting requirements.
The health care profession can
play a critical role in preventing and
reducing illness due to seafood con-
sumption. The challenge is to provide
these professionals with answers to
questions such as: How prevalent is
seafood poisoning in your State? Who
are the "at risk" patients? What are the
best ways to counsel patients on this
topic?
With funding from the Gulf of
Mexico Program, Florida State
University's Center for Biomedical and
Toxicological Research, in collaboration
with the Department of Human
Nutrition at the University of Florida,
has trained and educated over 800
health care professionals, including
physicians, nurses, physician assistants,
pharmacists, and local public health
staff throughout the five Gulf States.
Over 90% of the participants indicated
that they will be able to use the course
information in their medical practices.
-------
312 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Great Lakes Shoreline Miles Surveyed
by States and Tribes
1996 • 5,186 miles = 94% surveyed
• Total shoreline miles: 5,521a
94% Surveyed
6% Not Surveyed
1994 • 5,224 miles = 94% surveyed
• Total shoreline miles: 5,559b
1992 • 5,319 miles: 99% surveyed
• Total shoreline miles: 5,382C
Of the surveyed Great Lakes shoreline
waters:
• 71% were monitored
• 14% were evaluated
• 16% were not specified
Overall Surveyed Water Quality
97% Impaired
The Great Lakes Basin
Background: Water Quality
in the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes have classically
been defined in terms of water qual-
ity. Nutrients and toxicants are the
two categories of pollutants that
have dominated efforts to maintain
and restore these inland freshwater
seas. 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. Figure 12-2 is a timeline
of some of the activities undertaken
3% Good
a Source: 1996 State Section 305(b) reports.
b Source: 1994 State Section 305(b) reports.
c Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 12-2. Timeline |
1909
1972
1978
1982
1985
1986
1987
1989
1990
1991
1993
1994
Boundary Waters Treaty (established International Joint Commission)
U.S. and Canada sign Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
U.S. and Canada renegotiate GLWQA
Great Lakes United formed — 180 affiliated groups in U.S. and Canada
Great Lakes States and Canadian Provinces agree to develop and imple-
ment a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for each Area of Concern (AOC)
Governors of Great Lakes States sign agreement to promote
consistency in their environmental programs for the Great Lakes Basin
U.S. and Canada update GLWQA
U.S. and Canada incorporate commitment to develop RAPs into GLWQA
"Four-Party Agreement" — Declaration of Intent by U.S. EPA,
Environment Canada, New York State Department of Environmental ,
Conservation, and Province of Ontario
Niagara River Declaration of Intent commits Four Parties to develop
Toxics Management Plan for Niagara River & Lake Ontario
U.S. EPA organizes Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLWQI) at
request of Great Lakes States
Great Lakes Protection Fund formed by Great Lakes Governors
($100 million)
Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan created
Great Lakes Critical Programs Act passed
Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan updated
Binational Program agreed to by U.S., Canada, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Province of Ontario to protect Lake Superior
Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Action Plan developed by EPA
and States
Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan updated
U.S. EPA proposes regulations for implementing water quality guidance
and invites public comment
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC '94) held
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) completes Assessment
and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program
Binational Program progress report on RAPs released - I
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 313
by these cooperating parties during
this century.
During the past two and a half
decades, the two countries have
corrected many of the nutrient
enrichment problems in the Great
Lakes region that first attracted
national attention in the 1960s.
Since 1970, industrial discharger
limits, phosphorus detergent restric-
tions, municipal sewage treatment
plant construction and upgrades,
and agricultural practices that
reduce runoff have cut the annual
phosphorus load in the Great Lakes
in half.
Large reductions in nutrient
loads have shown clear results in
the lakes and stand as a model for
future protection initiatives. As the
human population continues to
grow, however, sewage treatment
may have to become more stringent
to maintain the same loading rate
into the lakes.
Toxic chemical loadings have
been reduced, as have concentra-
tions in the tissue of plants and
animals. Nonetheless, problem areas
of contaminated sediment remain in
urban/industrial harbors. Persistent
bioaccumulative contaminants con-
tinue at levels that may be causing
problems. The water column of the
Great Lakes still contains levels of
PCBs and dieldrin that exceed some
water quality criteria for the Lakes.
Atmospheric deposition is an
important contributor to some types
of toxic pollution to the Great Lakes
and many other waterbodies.
Metals, organic compounds, and
pesticides released into the atmos-
phere have been measured in signif-
icant quantities near the Great Lakes
and their deposition measured or
calculated. The contribution of
atmospheric deposition to potential
human health effects, however,
cannot be quantified at this time.
Both local and long-range emission
sources are believed to contribute to
atmospheric deposition in the lakes.
Recent research on human
health effects include an investiga-
tion of the concern that certain
pollutants may disrupt the endo-
crine system by interfering with
hormone action in the body. There
is concern over the possibility of
human exposure to such pollutants
through fish consumption. There
has also been continuing research
on mercury compounds, particularly
regarding the effect of methylmer-
cury on neurological development
in children.
The support data submitted by
the States indicate that the remain-
ing problems in the lakes have the
greatest impact on fishing activities
and aquatic life. Aquatic life impacts
include depleted fish populations
and reproduction problems in
piscivorous (fish-eating) birds (Table
12-1 and box). Aquatic life impacts
result from persistent toxic pollutant
burdens in birds, habitat degrada-
tion and destruction, and competi-
tion and predation by nonnative
species, such as the zebra mussel
and the sea lamprey. A summary of
use support for the Great Lakes is
shown in Figure 12-3.
The States report that toxic con-
tamination is the most prevalent
and persistent water pollution prob-
lem in the Great Lakes. The eight
States bordering the Lakes have
issued advisories that seek to restrict
consumption of fish caught along
their entire shorelines. Depending
upon location, mercury, PCBs, pesti-
cides, or dioxins are found in fish
tissues at levels that exceed stan-
dards set to protect human health.
As a result, virtually all of the waters
along the Great Lakes shoreline fail
-------
314 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Trends in PCB Contamination 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, y ,
health problems, which may have resulted from the contaminant burdens in the adult birds/For additional
information, see D. De Vault, D.M. Whittle, and S. Rang, Toxic Contaminants in the Great Lakes, SOLEC
Working Paper presented at State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, Chicago, IL (EPA 905-0-94-0013,
Octoberl994). - -' -;. -\:-' ^.' V -\ ''-. '••;"''A-' -':'-.: '••...'•''• V ; ^::UH ;'
Table -12-1. Effects of Toxic Contamination on Fish and Wildlife in the Great Lakes
Species
Mink
Otter
Double-crested
Cormorant
Black-crowned
Night Heron
Bald Eagle
Herring Gull
Ring-billed Gull
Caspian Tem
Common Tem
Forster's Tem
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
^H
Mortality
X
?
?
?
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.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 315
to fully support fish consumption
uses (Figure 12-4).
Priority organic chemicals
(primarily PCBs) are viewed by the
States as the most prevalent class
of contaminant causing impairment
of their Great Lakes waters (Figures
12-5 and 12-6). These toxic chemi-
cals persist in fish tissues, wildlife
tissues, and sediment. The States
reported much lower incidences of
metal contamination, depressed
oxygen conditions, and nutrient
pollution.
The levels of most organochlo-
rine contaminants have declined
dramatically since control measures
began in the mid-1970s. As a result,
although the trend seems to be
leveling off, concentrations of these
contaminants in fish tissue have
declined. The pesticide toxaphene
(or toxaphene-like compounds),
however, appears to be running
counter to this trend in Lake
Superior, where lesser declines have
occurred. It is not clear, however,
whether or not this can be attrib-
uted to historical use of toxaphene,
long-distance atmospheric deposi-
tion, or the introduction of a similar
compound from an unidentified
nearby source. Efforts are under way
by the U.S. EPA and Canada to
determine the source of the toxa-
phene and toxaphene-like com-
pounds. Fish consumption advisories
have been issued in Lakes Superior
and Michigan due to "apparent"
toxaphene.
Although fish consumption use
is impaired for some species
throughout the lakes, more than
96% of the Great Lakes shoreline
fully supports recreational uses and
drinking water supply use (Figure
12-4). However, in the well-
publicized outbreak of cryptosporid-
iosis 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. Standard
treatment system practices at the
time were inadequate, resulting in
over 100 deaths and thousands of
illnesses.
Great Lakes beaches are moni-
tored by local health authorities to
determine their suitability for public
use. Local officials may close or
restrict access if public health is
threatened. Of about 581 Great
Lakes beaches, roughly half are
monitored. Of these, about one-
fourth are closed one or more times
a year (see Figure 12-7). Eighteen
counties have beaches that are con-
sidered poor or deteriorating. The
primary cause of beach closings has
been the overflow of combined
storm water and wastewater sewers
following heavy rainfalls. Industrial
X X / ^
Summary of Use Support
in Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline Waters^
o
o-
- Good
(Fully / ^
Supporting) iv»~ --~~,
Good'
(Tljreatened for One
' or More Uses)
', 1%
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-2.
-------
316 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Individual Use Support in the Great Lakes
a. f, *»>y f
Percent
III in I i ((I I Good Fair Poor Poor
Designated rviiles (Fully " Good (Partially (Not (Not
the Surveyed Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
63
waste discharges also resulted in
beach closings in several counties.
Only three 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 (Figures 12-5 and 12-6).
• Wisconsin identified air pollution
and discontinued discharges as
sources of pollutants contaminating
all 1,017 of their surveyed shoreline
miles. Discontinued discharges are
historic waste discharges which
resulted in contamination of harbor
and bay sediments that remains
today. 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.
• Ohio reported that nonpoint
sources pollute 86 miles of its 236
miles of shoreline, in-place contami-
nants impact 33 miles, and land dis-
posal of waste impacts 24 miles of
shoreline.
• New York identified many sources
of pollutants in its Great Lakes
waters, but the State attributes the
most miles of degradation to
contaminated sediments (439 miles)
and land disposal of waste (374
miles).
Ecosystem Health of the
Great Lakes
While water quality remains an
extremely important component of
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-3.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 317
the health of the Great Lakes, this
precious ecosystem is dependent on
much more than the standard water
quality issues. The U.S. and Canada
have acknowledged the interrela-
tionships between water quality and
many other elements of the eco-
system by stressing an ecosystem
approach to restoring and protect-
ing the Great Lakes.
Loss of aquatic habitat has been
catastrophic, and largely over-
shadowed to date by government
programs focused .on nutrient and
toxicant loading. Declines in native
species have been equally cata-
strophic, with collateral loss of
biological diversity.
Changes in coastal land use
practices represent a major threat to
the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.
Sprawling urban development and a
growing cottage industry have been
destructive to nearshore ecosystems.
Shoreline modification, which often
accompanies development, also
impacts the Great Lakes ecosystem
by restricting the movement of sand
and other natural sediments that
nourish the shoreline and replace
the eroded materials. Construction
of dams in tributaries interrupts the
supply of new sand from upland
sources to replace that carried
downshore and offshore. Hardened
or armored shorelines shift wave
energy farther downshore and may
accelerate erosion elsewhere. This
disruption of the dynamic, long-
shore sediment transport process
alters or destroys beaches, wetlands,
shoreline dunes, and shallow water
habitat.
Exotic, or nonnative, species are
having a substantial impact on the
aquatic health of the lakes and the
basin. A major vector of such exotic
introductions into the Lakes has
been the discharge of ballast water
of transoceanic vessels. Some of the
more invasive introductions to date
are the zebra mussel, the spiny
water flea, the sea lamprey, and
other fish species such as the Eur-
asian ruffe, round goby, and tube
nose goby (see sidebar). Control
efforts have been expensive but,
with the exception of sea lamprey,
have merely helped limit the spread.
Some have now spread beyond the
Basin.
Another factor impacting the
Great Lakes ecosystem is the artificial
regulation of water levels in Lakes
Superior and Ontario. This is the
most serious stressor to Great Lakes
coastal wetlands. More than 90% of
the approximately 200 fish species
in the Great Lakes are directly
dependent on coastal wetlands for
survival at some point in their life
cycles. Natural fluctuations of water
levels are essential to the proper
functioning of these coastal wet-
lands. Numerous buried seeds allow
wetlands plants to quickly respond
to changes in water levels, causing
periodic landward and lakeward
shifting of wetlands communities.
Periodic high water levels also limit
the survival of invasive upland
plants. These natural water level
fluctuations are required to maintain
habitats and the diversity of plant
and animal species.
The impacts of regulated lake
levels even extends inland. Water-
level fluctuations are critical in the
dune building, dune-swale, and
dune-lagoon system cycles. The
associated plant and animal com-
munities are dependent upon lake-
level fluctuations and, in many
areas, especially along the Lake
< Introduced Species
-Zebra/nussets have spread to
all of the;Greatlakes'and,bey6nd. -
They foul watepintakes and naviga-,
* tion structures, and currently are cost-
• ing municipalities and 'industries' hun-
dreds^of millions of dollars annually.,
They reproduce^ rapidlyand.'selective-'
ly filter plankton, rejecting certain
bJue-greerT algae. At the same time,
they excrete nutriejrrts sthat,serve to !'
fertilize further blue-green algae
' growth.- Zebra 'rhussels'are'believed -;
to be responsible for recent blue- -,
green algae blooms;in the'shallow , -
western basin of Lake Erie, which has -
-experienced taste and odor problems
'- in drinking water; Saginaw Bay has -
also experienced reoent'blue-cjreert' ,
algae s'blpoms.T-rom an'ecologicaj -
standpojnt,~bfu£-green algae are toxic
- and of lower food-value to many's
organisms in the'aquatic food chain.' -
"; fThe Eurasian ruffe and the tube^
nose and round gobies'are aggressive
fish that directly compete with native
fish for food and habitat The ruffe
has now extendedJts range ffom
Lake Superibr-to Lake Huron.- The
- rotind goby has pow been' reported
in'all the Lakes' except Lake QntarlpC
Although sea lamprey'had largely
been'controlled by application of a -
, selective pesticidein breeding \ < - '
^streams, a major factor in Its increase
jn northern. Lake Huron seems to be'
the inability to control sea lamprey in -
the.St. Mary's River. "
,-, The spiny water flea is a tiny '• -
crustacean that feeds on some,of .the
same"plankton as many small fish,-
which find it unpalatable or inedible
due to-ifc sharp spine. As a result,; , >
^when its population increases, fish ^
populations .decline. Such'alterations, -'
in'the plankton community adversely *
affecfthe entire'food chain and the
integrity cif the Great Lakes ecbsys-:
tem.' " *'' , , , - • ' -
-------
318 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Figure 12-5
SURVEYED Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources
Not Surveyed
6%
Total shoreline = 5,521 miles
Impaired
Surveyed 94%
Total surveyed = 5,186 miles
Leading Pollutants
• •;• • t r •;'{',;'•!'• i* V;*Surveyed%;'
Priority Toxic Organic
Chemicals
Pesticides
Nonpriority Organic
Chemicals
Nutrients
Metals
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
_L
_L
_L
31
20
20
6
6
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percent of Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline
Leading Sources
Surveyed %
Atmospheric Deposition
Discontinued Discharges
from Pipes*
Contaminated Sediment
Land Disposal of Wastes
Unspecified NPS
Other Point Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm
Sewers
_L
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
I
20
20
15
9
6
6
4
0 5 10 15 20
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.
*These discharges resulted in sediment contamination which remains today.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 319
Figure 12-6
IMPAIRED Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources
Not
Surveyed xf |
Total shoreline = 5,521 miles
Total surveyed = 5,039 miles
' b ff- ••' £ ..- x-' -'*"? •* ,$• ?. « f $ •>; ft. <$,. #. % g- %• £ .? £ * ?.$ ^ ;s & W #• v- •& •* 3 % f- •.& ® &•,$ '£"$ & % ^.f[ £r Isf?*! -3. si £ jsfr £ ']|s -;?,§• ^"J S; % j& S; # -jj? if -fl 3
Priority Toxic Organic
Chemicals
Pesticides
Nonpriority Organic
Chemicals
Nutrients
Metals
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Msfi ^"i^f ^'i"^§s^€
II Major
H Moderate/Minor
IB Not Specified
_L
J_
_L
J_
32
21
20
7
6
6
0 5 20 20 20 25 30 35
Percent of Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline
MalHnH Sources' '
^ .V :v v* * S l^fv -i -* '> / r
Impaired %
Atmospheric Deposition
Discont. Dis. from Pipes*
Contaminated Sediment
Land Disposal of Wastes
Unspecified NPS
Other Point Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm
Sewers
E*
t
_L
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
I
20
16
9
7
6
4
0 5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline
PRJOBITY TOXIC ORGANIC
£H'EMk2AL$ are thfe most;;' ,.
corn^mon pollutanii affecting' ,-
^surveyed Great Lakes shoreline
waters.-Water quaiijy problems
frorri these toxieihertJicais" ' >
r J« are found jn 31% of >1!' ^
['- , Great Lakes shoreline^' ^'
- ^ -; vyaters, jgflnd '_,:'„ _/
, • ^coiistitute 32%of aj •-':>
- ',' vyater qOality: problems,'.
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.
These discharges resulted in sediment
contamination which remains today.
-------
320 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Figure 12-7
Ontario shore, catastrophic changes
are taking place where the dynamic
dune-building process has been
disrupted.
Pollution control since the
1970s has reversed most of the
ecological impacts associated with
nutrient loading into the lakes.
Similarly, with the reduction in load-
ings of persistent toxic contaminants
such as PCBs and other organochlo-
rine compounds, most of the fish-
eating bird populations have recov-
ered. The effects of exposure to
PCBs have also been linked to
reduced populations of mink and
otter. Both live in wetlands habitat
near the shorelines and consume
Great Lakes fish in their diets. Mink
are one of the most sensitive mam-
mals to PCBs, resulting in reproduc-
tive problems and death. Otters
may not be as sensitive to these
chemicals, but they may be exposed
to higher levels than mink because
fish make up a much larger part of
their diet. Mink populations have
increased, but otter populations
have not shown the same trend,
Status of U.S. Great Lakes Bathing
Beaches, 1981-94
Total beaches
Total monitored beaches
Monitored beaches closed
or use-restricted one or
more times per year
81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89 90 91
Year
92 93
possibly because of their lower rate
of reproduction.
As with human health effects,
endocrine disrupters have become
an emerging issue of interest regard-
ing ecological effects. The potential
mechanisms of action of these pol-
lutants are a major focus of research
on possible linking of observed
effects in wildlife to hormone
disruption.
The Great Lakes ecosystem is
both resilient and dynamic, and its
restorative powers have enabled us
to reverse the impacts of many of
our past mistakes. There are, how-
ever, many stressors that still chal-
lenge the ecological integrity of this
ecosystem. These stressors come
from many sources and their
impacts are cumulative. Figure 12-8
summarizes the primary ecosystem
effects, stressors, and sources.
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
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 laid
the foundation of the institutional
framework for managing the
Great Lakes and established the
International Joint Commission (IJC).
Representatives from the Govern-
ments of the United States and
Canada, the Province of Ontario,
and the eight States bordering the
Lakes sit on the IJC's Water Quality
Board. The IJC reviews progress in
implementing the Agreement and
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 321
makes recommendations to the
United States and Canada regarding
actions needed to maintain the
integrity of the Great Lakes ecosys-
tem. The IjC also monitors and
reports upon the progress of the
two nations in meeting their com-
mitments 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 and
works with academia, industry, and
nongovernmental organizations to
protect and restore the Lakes. One
vehicle for this coordination is the
Joint Federal/State 5-Year Strategy
(1992-97) for Protecting 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
to ERA's Canadian counterparts.
GLNPO provides support to the
Great Lakes National Program
Manager, who acts on behalf of the
State Department and chairs the
Binational Executive Committee.
The Great Lakes States and the
Federal agencies work together with
their Canadian counterparts to pro-
vide a broad range of routine and
Figure 12-8
Primary Ecosystem Effects, Stressors, and Sources
ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY & BENEFITS
Ecological Health
Self-Sustaining Communities ofNative Species
Genetic Diversity
Productivity
Unimpaired Reproduction
Healthy Organisms
Quality of Life
Swim
Rsh and Hunt
Eatfish and Game
DrinkWater
Aesthetic Enjoyment
Satisfaction/Feeling of Well-being
Human Health and Welfare
Healthy Humans
Reduced Exposure and Risk
Economic Benefit
Recreation Industry
Tourism Industry
Commercial Rshery
Reduced Health Costs
*~ " * .. ^ '
CKemical
Environment
-
KEY STRESSORS
Chemical
Toxic Contamination
Excess Nutrients
Excess Competition
Pathogens
Exotic Spea'es
Genetic Loss
Population Disruption
Physical
Sedimentation
Habitat Access Loss
Habitat Degradation or Loss
Hydrologic Modffication
, , -
£jhfl-;
SOURCES.
A
f ^^
jr *# &
jfl&x
'Riling or-
Shore
MocHcatiori
^
Dams or
' Dikes "
ECONOMICS
Dredging
and 1 Navigation
Draining |
SOCIAL '
* VALUES/
BEHAVIOR
Exotic*
Species- _,
introduction
INSTITUTIONS
- AND
ORGANIZATIONS
Excess
Harvester
Stocidng
' Land
Devefopment;
Erosion, and
< Runoff
LAWS
' Alto
POUOES
Air, 1 . Point
Emission, and I Source
Deposition, j 'Discharges-
PROGRAMS
I
Gontaminatec
Sediment
X
FACTORS
THATSTIMULATE
OR LIMIT STRESSORS
-------
322 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
special monitoring of the Lakes and
their basin. The States and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) perform
most tributary monitoring, and
State agencies and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, together with the
Biological Resource Division (for-
merly National Biological Service)
of USGS, collect tributary and open
lakes fish for contaminant monitor-
ing. GLNPO conducts essentially all
the United States' open lakes water
quality and sediment monitoring
and carries out contaminant analy-
ses on fish. It also carries out, and is
the primary funding source for,
major special studies, such as those
for mass balance of Lake Michigan
and Green Bay.
This intensive effort is the most
comprehensive water quality moni-
toring program in the world. It is
performed with the assistance of
EPA's Office of Research and Devel-
opment Environmental Research
Laboratory in Duluth, MN, and its
Large Lakes Research Station in
Grosse He, Ml. The studies entail
coordination of many state and local
cooperators, universities, and private
contractors.
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
organizations, such as Great Lakes
United. Established in 1982, Great
Lakes United represents more than
180 affiliated groups in the United
States and Canada. One of its goals
is to facilitate citizen involvement in
decision making processes.
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, and they
issue reports on subjects such as the
environmental impacts of trans-
portation 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 also work-
ing under a cooperative agreement
with GLNPO for expansion of the
Great Lakes Information Network
(GLIN), an Internet Server. The GUN
provides a major outlet and source ,
for Great Lakes environmental infor-
mation.
Private conservation groups are
also working with government
agencies to protect natural areas in
the Great Lakes Basin. Since 1992,
GLNPO has funded 87 restoration
and protection projects based, in
part, on findings of the Great
Legacy Project. The Great Legacy
Project, sponsored to a considerable
extent by GLNPO, includes efforts
by The Nature Conservancy of
Canada and the United States and
other conservation groups to pool
natural heritage data from several
public agencies and land trusts and
to apply geographic targeting
approaches to identify particularly
high-quality resource areas.
In 1994, GLNPO completed
a statutory 6-year mandate, the
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 323
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 conferences
to benefit both the public and
private sectors.
In the fall of 1994, GLNPO and
Environment Canada, its Canadian
counterpart, together with the eight
Great Lakes States, the Council of
Great Lakes Industries, environmen-
tal groups, and the Province of
Ontario, convened a partnered
endeavor to provide all sectors of
the Great Lakes community with a
synopsis of the state of knowledge
on the Great Lakes ecosystem. This
effort took two forms: the State of
the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
(SOLEC '94), a major conference for
environmental managers, and a set
of six peer-reviewed draft topical
papers and an integration paper.
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. Based largely on SOLEC '94,
the United States and Canada issued
the report State of the Great Lakes
7995.
The second conference, SOLEC
'96, held in November 1996,
focused on the state of the near-
shore zone. Background papers
presented and discussed covered
nearshore waters, coastal wetlands,
terrestrial ecosystems by the lakes,
changing land use, and information
management.
The SOLEC '94 and the draft
SOLEC '96 papers are posted on the
Internet GLIN server (http://www.
great-lakes.net/) for public
access and comment. Additional
information on the activities of the
EPA Great Lakes National Program
Office can be found on the GLNPO
web site at http://www.glnpo.
epa.gov.
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 Agreement
stresses two central concepts:
(1) the ecosystem approach, and
(2) the virtual elimination of persis-
tent toxic substances. The Agree-
ment set a limited number of eco-
system-based objectives for water
quality, biota, habitat, and beneficial
uses of the lakes. The 1987 revision
to the Agreement also institutional-
ized the Areas of Concern (AOC)
concept as well as the call for
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 ppllutants
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
management scrutiny is warranted
throughout the Basin. These
chemicals and possible sources are
presented in Table 12-2.
i:
?
-------
324 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
t
S-ffc
3 ^-ff
a.™!?
^*/> (O
Contaminant in herbicides used in agriculture, range, and forest managemenL Also produced a:
combustion of fossil fuels and waste incineration and through production of pentachlorophenol
and paper production processes. 2,3,7,8-TCDD is the most toxic of 75 congeners (forms) of dio
TCDF is the most toxic of 1 35 congeners of furan.
re
Q
I
C
'c
"g
ro
°x c
° S
a~Z
Q Q
j=! (7
CO CO
txr-C
crTrn"
rfor
1
re
I
It
Product of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and wood, including forest fires, grills (charcoal
exhaust, and waste incineration. One of a large family of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (Pf
re
c
0
•4=
I
c
'c
s
s
il
,0-
I
s
n)
m
t/i
5
-§
Insecticide; used heavily for mosquito control in tropical areas. Banned for use in the U.S. and C
exceptions for gypsy moth control. Once used extensively in North America and worldwide.
•o
J5
•a
c
aj
j2
S
1
Q.
C
|
ro
!§
^.i1
^"i
Q c
Q^
1
c
o
T3
-------
326 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
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
special 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 GLWQI Committees devoted
considerable effort to identifying
such chemicals—"bioaccumulative
chemicals of concern" (BCCs)—and
developing the most appropriate cri-
teria, methodologies, policies, and
procedures to address them. The
special provisions for BCCs, initially
developed by the GLWQI Commit-
tees and incorporated into the final
Guidance, include antidegradation
procedures to minimize future prob-
lems; general phaseout and elimina-
tion of mixing zones for BCCs
(except in limited circumstances) to
reduce their overall loadings to the
Lakes; more extensive data genera-
tion requirements to ensure that
BCCs are not inadequately regulated
for lack of data; and development of
water quality criteria that will pro-
tect wildlife that feed on aquatic
prey.
Remedial Action Plans
for Areas of Concern
Great Lakes Areas of Concern
are severely degraded geographic
areas within the Great Lakes Basin.
The IJC's Water Quality Board initial-
ly identified 42 AOCs located pri-
marily along river mouths or harbors
where beneficial uses were impaired
(see Figure 12-9). Altogether, the
Agreement identified 14 types of
use impairment ranging from limita-
tions on use of water for commerce
to fish consumption 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. Of these 42, 26 are
in the U.S. and 16 in Canada (5 are
shared between the U.S. and Can-
ada on connecting river systems).
In 1985, the Great Lakes States
and the Canadian Provinces agreed
to develop and implement a Reme-
dial Action Plan (RAP) 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 1994
binational progress report on RAPs
pointed out that RAPs are most
effective if they are mission-driven
(i.e., focus on ecosystem results and
restoring use) and not rule-driven.
RAPs are leaders in implementing
ecosystem-based management and
watershed management.
As a result of the RAP process,
reports are provided to the IJC at
three stages.
• Stage 1 identifies the nature of
the problem and causes, and sum-
marizes available information
• Stage 2 specifies remedial and
regulatory actions needed to restore
beneficial uses
• Stage 3 measures and summa-
rizes results as progress is achieved
in implementing management
plans. The findings from the RAPs
are summarized in Table 12-3,
which shows the status of each of
the 14 impairments of beneficial
uses.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 327
The Ashtabula River RAP is one
example of how the process works.
U.S. ERA, the Army Corps of Engi-
neers, the State of Ohio, and a large
number of diverse public and pri-
vate organizations have formed the
Ashtabula River Partnership. This
Partnership seeks to address and
implement an ambitious, full-scale
cleanup of the contaminated
sediments in the Ashtabula River
and Harbor in Ohio to restore bene-
ficial uses. The sediments are con-
taminated with PCBs, other chlori-
nated organic compounds, and
heavy metals, which have limited
the amount of dredging and pre-
clude open water disposal. The
Partnership plans to clean up rough-
ly 750,000 cubic yards of contami-
nated sediments from the river and
harbor through the innovative use
of multiple authorities.
Lakewide Management
Plans
Lakewide Management Plans
are whole lake planning efforts.
Under the GLWQA, LaMPs are to
employ an ecosystem approach
founded on the same use impair-
ments forming the basis of the RAP
process. While focusing primarily on
Figure 12-9
Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin
Oswebo River
sterEg-flbayment
ivert NSW York)
Presque Isle Bay
Astabula River
Milwaukee Estuary __
Kalamazo]
Rivet
Waukegan Harbour • ', T ~ - „RiverRaistn
Grand Calumet River
Canada
U.S.A.
DelistedAOC
Connecting Channels
-------
328 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 329
IV
VS
•o
A3
Q.
s
i- _ -0*5
Degradatio
of plankton
(phyto &
zoo)
communities
Add
ag
fit i
triction
on drinking
water; taste
and odor
problems
5.1= ro
egradatio
of
benthos
Fish
tumors
other
deformities
egr
offish
and
wildlife
opulations
inting of
ish and
wildlife
flavor
fil
k?%
ochester
bay
o
n
s -•>
V*
,«*
ted
ip
l sources
ired
ts wil
iana
l
ir
e
|n
o lo
im
impairm
River/|
le
n
i
e
nt
se
Impaired but not attr
After additional asses
M
* The status of the b
„ The fu|| ngme js C
-------
330 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
the effects of toxics, the LaMPs will
also address habitat and nutrient
concerns. Public involvement is a
critical element in LaMP develop-
ment.
The first effort at lakewide
management 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. Also, in 1987, the Niagara
River Declaration of Intent (DOI)
committed the Four Parties to
develop Toxics Management Plans
for the Niagara River and Lake
Ontario. The Lake Ontario Toxics
Management Plan was developed in
1989 and was updated in 1991 and
1993. The LOTMP has been the
primary toxic substances reduction
planning effort for Lake Ontario.
In May 1996, the Four Parties
signed a Letter of Intent in which
they agreed that one program (i.e.,
the LaMP) should be developed that
provides an overall framework for
efforts in Lake Ontario. The LOTMP
serves as a foundation for the devel-
opment of the Lake Ontario LaMP.
All relevant commitments from the
LOTMP will be carried over into the
LaMP. The Four Parties submitted
their Stage 1 LaMP document for
public comment during the spring
of 1997 and expect it to be for-
warded to the Lake Ontario Coordi-
nation Committee for adoption in
the fall of 1997.
The United States is preparing
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 other
Federal agencies, all four Lake
Michigan States, and Tribes. Most of
the problems in Lake Michigan stem
from toxic contaminants already in
the lake system, ongoing toxic load-
ings from point and nonpoint
sources, and exotic species and their
many effects. Future iterations of the
LaMP will address all 14 beneficial
use impairments.
Building on work in progress at
the various AOCs, the Lake Michi-
gan LaMP looks at the lake ecosys-
tem as a whole and has identified a
set of critical pollutants. In some
cases, this is a subset of the range I
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 proposed a tiered con-
cept for developing management
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 conclude 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, follow-
ing the receipt of public comments.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 331
A final Stage 1 version is anticipated
by the end of 1997.
In the fall of 1991, the United
States, Canada, 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 pollu-
tion prevention and expand authori-
ties (where appropriate) to imple-
ment a Zero Discharge Demon-
stration Program focused on the
goal of achieving zero discharge or
emission of nine persistent, bioaccu-
mulative, toxic substances in the
Lake Superior ecosystem. This zero
discharge objective is integrated
with a broader program to restore
beneficial uses and to protect and
restore ecosystem health in Lake
Superior and its watershed. The
Binational Program has published
reports on a variety of issues related
to Lake Superior. The Stage 1 LaMP
was finalized in September 1995
and the public comment period on
the Stage 2 LaMP extended through
February 1997.
The LaMP for Lake Erie is in the
problem assessment phase. The
binational Lake Erie LaMP Work-
group, under the direction of the
Management Committee, is devel-
oping ecosystem objectives, analyz-
ing the status of beneficial use
impairments, and collecting data on
pollutant sources and loadings. The
Workgroup has also initiated a vari-
ety of public involvement activities,
including facilitation of an active
binational Public Forum to provide
ongoing public input into LaMP
development. The first progress
report from the Lake Erie LaMP is
expected to be finalized in October
1997.
Pollution Prevention
Initiatives
The LaMPs for each Great Lake
will also encourage pollution
prevention approaches. Lake
Superior provides perhaps the best
opportunity to implement pollution
prevention because it is the least
impacted of the Great Lakes. Lake
Superior has been spared much of
the extreme ecological disruptions
associated with industrial and
municipal discharges, introduction
of exotic species, and overharvesting
of the fisheries that have had devas-
tating impacts on the lower Great
Lakes, especially Lakes Ontario and
Erie. Nonetheless, Lake Superior is
also the most sensitive of the Great
Lakes, having a naturally low nutri-
ent level and a simpler biotic com-
munity than the lower lakes.
GLNPO is working with EPA
Regions 2, 3, and 5, the States, and
their Canadian counterparts to pro-
mote 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 Action
Plan targets persistent bioaccumula-
tive toxic substances for reduction
or elimination.
GLNPO has allocated significant
funding and developed a formal
process for funding numerous pollu-
tion prevention grants throughout
the Great Lakes Basin since FY93.
The three EPA Regions in the Great
Lakes Basin are using the pollution
prevention approach to prioritize
-------
332 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
solutions. The Regions view pollu-
tion prevention as a voluntary
approach that complements
regulatory programs.
The GLNPO is targeting its
grant dollars to support projects
that further the goal of virtual
elimination of persistent toxic
substances, as described in the draft
Binational Virtual Elimination Strat-
egy.
As part of efforts to protect Lake
Superior, EPA and the States are
cooperating with Canada to under-
take 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.
The Chesapeake Bay
Program
Background
The Chesapeake Bay Program is
a unique regional partnership lead-
ing and directing the restoration of
Chesapeake Bay since 1983. The
Chesapeake Bay Program partners
include the States of Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the
District of Columbia; the Chesa-
peake Bay Commission, a tri-state
legislative body; and EPA, which
represents the Federal Government.
The Chesapeake Bay is an estuary
where salt water from the Atlantic
Ocean and fresh water from the
64,000-square-mile watershed
merge to support an enormously
complex and dynamic system of
fish, waterfowl, and vegetation.
The extremely shallow and produc-
tive Bay presents formidable chal-
lenges to the understanding and
management of this great estuary.
The Bay Program has set itself
apart by adopting strong numerical
goals and commitments with
deadlines and developing an exten-
sive array of environmental indica-
tors to track progress. In the 7 987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the
Chesapeake Bay Program partners
set a goal to reduce by 40% the
amount of the nutrients nitrogen
and phosphorus entering the Bay by
the year 2000. In the 7992 Amend-
ments to the Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ment, the partners agreed to main-
tain the 40% goal beyond the year
2000 and to attack nutrients at their
source—upstream in the tributaries.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is
currently focusing on the 1997
Reevaluation, which is examining
the State plans to achieve the year
2000 40% nutrient reduction goal
and, if necessary, to identify what
additional plans may need to be
implemented to ensure that the
goal is achieved.
The Chesapeake Executive
Council, made up of the governors
of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia; the mayor of Washington,
DC; the EPA Administrator; and the
chair of the Chesapeake Bay Com-
mission, are guiding the restoration
efforts. In 1993, they approved five
directives addressing key areas of
the restoration. These directives
addressed the tributaries, toxics,
underwater Bay grasses, fish pas-
sages, and agricultural nonpoint
source pollution. In 1994, the Bay
Program partners outlined initiatives
for habitat restoration of aquatic,
riparian, and upland environments;
nutrient reduction in the Bay's
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 333
tributaries; improved management
of Federal lands; and a toxics reduc-
tion and prevention strategy.
in 1995, the Chesapeake Bay
Program partners took steps to bet-
ter engage the watershed's 1,650
local governments in the Bay
restoration effort. The Chesapeake
Executive Council adopted the Local
Government Participation Action Plan
and the Priorities for Action for Land,
Growth and Stewardship in the
Chesapeake Bay Region. These plans
address land use management,
growth and development, stream
corridor protection, and infrastruc-
ture improvements. The partners
also launched a riparian forest
buffers initiative in 1996 to further
the Bay Program's commitment to
improving water quality and
enhancing living resource habitat.
The main goals of the initiative are
protecting existing streamside
forests and increasing riparian forest
buffers on 2,010 miles of stream
and shoreline in the watershed by
the year 2010.
Stresses on the
Ecosystem
Land Use
The Chesapeake Bay's 64,000-
square-mile watershed continues to
undergo changes that reflect how
we use the land. Data from 1990
show that forest 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,
including pasture and cropland,
constitutes about 33% of the water-
shed. Urban and suburban lands are
generally 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 loads from urban and agri-
cultural land.
Based on projections of a stead-
ily increasing population, the largest
change in land use will be from
forest and agriculture to urban and
suburban. 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.
The Chesapeake Executive
Council has recently committed to
several initiatives that address land-
based issues in the Chesapeake Bay
Region. A Local Government
Participation Action Plan provides a
strategy to broaden the participa-
tion of local governments in the
Chesapeake Bay Program in land
use management and stewardship,
stream corridor protection and
restoration, and infrastructure
improvements.
The goal of these Executive
Council Commitments is "to encour-
age sustainable development pat-
terns that integrate economic
health, resource protection, and
community participation" and to
".. .identify models, technologies,
and practices that can be used to
assess and minimize the impacts of
different development patterns and
land use designs on nutrient load-
ings to the Bay."
Riparian forests along waterways
are an important resource that
protects water quality and provides
habitat and food to support fish and
wildlife survival and reproduction.
The Chesapeake Executive Council
recently signed an Adoption State-
ment that requires the restoration of
2,010 stream miles of riparian forest
f £
I :I
-------
334 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
buffers in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
Population
Population growth is the single
most important factor underlying
the various stresses on the Bay
ecosystem. In 1950, the Bay's water-
shed contained 8.4 million residents.
By 1990, this figure had grown to
14.3 million, and, by 2020, there
will be approximately 17.8 million
people living in the watershed. An
expanding population relies on
highways and automobiles, increas-
ing both the number of cars on the
road and the miles driven. The
growing population also requires
land for homes, transportation,
shops, jobs, and recreation. Forests
and other lands of higher environ-
mental benefit are often converted
to less environmentally beneficial
uses to meet these needs.
Not only does population
growth help drive changes in land
use, it also generates larger waste-
water flows that must be processed
by wastewater treatment plants.
This wastewater contains the nutri-
ents phosphorus and nitrogen,
excessive quantities of which are the
primary pollution threats facing Bay
waters.
Great strides have been made in
reducing phosphorus watewater
loads. Overall, phosphorus loads
have declined by about 70% since
the 1970s while nitrogen discharges
increased steadily between 1950
and 1985. Innovative technologies,
such as biological nutrient removal
(BNR), provide better management
of the sewage treatment process,
resulting in lower nitrogen and
phosphorus levels. Continued
reductions are needed, especially in
nitrogen, to offset flow increases in
areas of rapid population growth.
Toxic Pollution Reduction
Chemical releases from indus-
tries in the Chesapeake Bay basin
have declined. The latest data
available on chemical releases
through the national Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) showed a 55%
reduction in releases in the Bay
region between 1988 and 1994.
The basinwide measure of progress
in promoting pollution prevention is
a 65% reduction in TRI chemical
releases and a 75% reduction of
TOC chemical releases by the year
2000 (based on a 1988 baseline).
Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) was used on over one million
acres of cropland in the basin in
1995. This is an increase of about
37,000 acres since 1994. IPM tech-
niques help farmers, growers, and
other pesticide users reduce or elimi-
nate their use of potentially harmful
pesticides. The Bay Program goals
for IPM are for 75% of all agricultur-
al, recreational, and public lands in
the basin, 50% of all commercial
land, and 25% of all residential land
to be under IPM by the year 2000.
Toxics data will be used to char-
acterize Chesapeake Bay habitats. In
1996, the Chesapeake Bay Program
began implementation of a geogra-
phically based targeting protocol.
Under this program, existing toxics
data will be used to characterize
Bay and tidal tributary habitats
according to the presence—or
absence—of toxic impacts. These
characterizations will help in estab-
lishing the appropriate toxics
management actions throughout
the Chesapeake Bay. In addition,
ongoing toxics research and
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 335
assessments continue in order to •
better characterize the sources,
amounts, and types of chemical
contaminants entering the Bay and
their potential for toxic impacts on
the Bay's crabs, fish, and shellfish.
Impacts on the Ecosystem
Rivers - The quality and quantity of
fresh water entering the Chesapeake
Bay from the surrounding nontidal
tributaries is an important factor in
determining the water and habitat
quality of the estuary. Results of the
monitoring program from 1985
through 1995 have shown that
nitrogen concentrations have
decreased in six of the nine rivers:
the Susquehanna, Patuxent, Rappa-
hannock, Choptank, Mattaponi (a
tributary to the York), and the James
rivers. Decreases in phosphorus have
also been seen in four of the nine
rivers: the Susquehanna, Patuxent,
Potomac, and the James rivers.
Tidal Tributaries and Mainstem
Chesapeake Bay - The main causes
of the poor water quality and
aquatic habitat loss in tidal tribu-
taries and the Bay are elevated levels
of nitrogen and phosphorus. Both
are natural fertilizers found in animal
and human waste, soil, and even
the atmosphere. In excessive
amounts, however, these nutrients
cause an exorbitant growth of algae,
which clouds the water and blocks
the sunlight that is essential for sub-
merged 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 and impair the growth
and reproduction of oysters, clams,
and other bottom-dwelling animals.
Adult fish find their habitat reduced
and their feeding inhibited. Animals
that cannot move to seek out a
better habitat may die.
Nutrient levels in the tributaries
and mainstem of the Chesapeake
Bay are responding to reduced
inputs of nutrients from the nontidal
rivers. Long-term monitoring at five
stations in the Susquehanna indi-
cates that nitrogen concentrations
decreased at all five stations, and
phosphorus decreased in the south-
ern part of the basin where popula-
tion density and intense agricultural
activity are greatest. The improve-
ments in phosphorus reflect the
cumulative effort of phosphate bans,
best management practices, and
wastewater plant upgrades. Overall,
these nutrient trends indicate that
water quality conditions in this
important tributary are improving
basinwide.
The most dramatic action on
nitrogen control baywide has
occurred in the Patuxent River basin
of Maryland. Great strides in nitro-
gen reduction have been made as
all the major wastewater treatment
plants are now removing nitrogen
with many cutting edge processes
including Biological Nutrient
Removal (BNR). These treatment
plant upgrades have resulted in
significant decreases in nitrogen
loadings discharged from the treat-
ment plants and in improved water
quality in the Patuxent River.
In Virginia, nutrient levels have
declined in portions of the James
River and other tributaries. Nitrogen
concentrations were down in
portions of the tidal James as well as
upper portions of the tidal Rappa-
hannock, tidal Mattaponi, and
tidal Pamunkey. Nitrogen concentra-
tions increased in the middle and
lower portions of the tidal York.
-------
336 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Phosphorus concentrations
decreased in a portion of the tidal
James, but increasing trends were
observed in the middle portions of
the James, York, and the upper tidal
Rappahanock rivers. Other tidal por-
tions of Virginia tributaries showed
no trends in concentration.
The mainstem Bay showed no
change in nutrient levels through
1995, despite major storm events in
3 of the past 4 years and increased
stresses from growth. This is a
notable achievement and may indi-
cate the return of some resiliency to
the system. Total phosphorus con-
centrations have shown significant
reductions in the upper Bay and
near the mouth of the Bay while
increasing in the middle part of the
Bay. Other areas of the mainstem
have remained unchanged.
Figure 12-10
600
Areas of Bay Grasses
Potential Habitat (600,000 acres)
76-
57 -
38 -
19-
Interim Goal (114,000 acres)
•No Surveys -
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Sediment - Many types of contam-
inants, including trace metals,
organic 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.
Potentially toxic contaminants
stored in the Bay's bottom sedi-
ments from years of pollution reach
levels of concern only in a few local-
ized areas that have intensive indus-
trial activity and high population
densities. The inputs of many of
these pollutants have already been
reduced, but additional measures
are being studied to mitigate any
possible toxic impacts.
Living Resource Response
Habitats
Bay grasses (Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation) - Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV) grows in shallow
water regions of the estuary and is
ecologically important to the Bay's
living resources. SAV provides food
for waterfowl and habitat for fish,
crabs, and invertebrates; removes
suspended sediments from the
water; and adds oxygen to the
water and sediments. Growth is
dependent on sufficient levels of
light reaching the underwater
leaves. The link between water
quality and living resources habitat
and SAV distribution and abundance
makes SAV plant communities good
barometers of the Chesapeake Bay's
health. SAV historically covered vast
areas of the Bay's shallow waters
and nurtured a rich variety of Bay
life. During the late 1960s and
early 1970s, however, Bay grass
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 337
populations experienced a dramatic
decline due to increased nutrient
and sediment pollution from devel-
opment within the watershed. In
1993, the Executive Council agreed
to an interim goal of restoring
114,000 acres of SAV baywide by
2005.
The total acreage of Bay grasses
increased in 1996, after decreasing
in 1994 and 1995 (see Figure 12-
10). Overall, acreage has increased
around 70% since the 1984 low
point. Scientists attributed the
declines seen in 1994 and 1995 to
natural fluctuations, but speculated
that spring floods in 1993 and
1994, which carried increased sedi-
ments and nutrients, may have
contributed to the loss.
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,
algae, and a source of SAV propag-
ules either within or close to these
areas.
Several initiatives to plant SAV in
Chesapeake Bay continued or were
started in 1996. These initiatives
demonstrate the many partnerships
working to improve Chesapeake Bay
habitat.
Annual surveys of SAV in the
Bay continue and the results are
being made available sooner than in
past years. The latest results in map
and tabular formats are now avail-
able on the VIMS World Wide Web
site at http://www.vims.edu/
bio/sav/.
Wetlands - Wetlands are a vital link
between the land and water of
Chesapeake Bay. Wetlands help
maintain water quality, contribute to
flood and erosion control, and pro-
vide wildlife habitat. Nearly 1.5 mil-
lion acres of wetlands occupy the
Bay's watershed. Population and
development pressures, however,
are threatening both tidal and
nontidal wetlands in all the Bay
States. The Bay Program established
a "no net loss" goal in 1988.
Stream restoration - A large
portion of the Bay's nutrients and
sediments come from the tribu-
taries. Stream preservation and
restoration is crucial to controlling
nitrogen and sediment inputs into
Chesapeake Bay. Healthy streams
provide essential habitat for fish and
other wildlife.
Freshwater tributaries are one
of four habitat areas targeted for
restoration efforts. In 1996 the
Chesapeake Executive Council rein-
forced the Bay Program's commit-
ment to stream restoration by
establishing a goal to restore forest
buffers on 2,010 miles of stream
and shoreline in the watershed by
the year 2010. Watershed groups in
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia
are planting trees and assessing
natural resources and are a good
example of local, State, and Federal
government agencies partnering
with local, nonprofit organizations.
Forest buffer restoration and stream-
bank protection benefit both fish
and migratory birds. Streams will
have less sediment, better clarity,
and improved in-stream fish habitat.
Biological Communities
Zooplankton and Phytoplankton -
Zooplankton and phytoplankton are
floating, often microscopic, animals
that form the base of the food
chain. Zooplankton are the most
plentiful animals in the Chesapeake
-------
338 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
18
Bay and its tributaries. The most
common zooplankton are the larval
forms of Crustacea, including larvae
of animals such as crabs and
barnacles.
Zooplankton are a critical food
for larval striped bass and are vitally
important to their growth and
survival. Zooplankton act as a critical
link between water quality and
living resources, and zooplankton
environmental indicators are cur-
rently under development for use in
assessing the health of the Chesa-
peake Bay.
Recent evidence suggests that
controls from predator fish such as
striped bass may significantly affect
the number of plankton-eating fish,
such as menhaden and anchovy,
living in Chesapeake Bay. Because
menhaden and anchovy eat phyto-
plankton and zooplankton, a web of
interdependency is created.
Phytoplankton are a critical
component of the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem and represent the first
biological response to the Bay's
nutrient enrichment problem.
Phytoplankton are particularly
important to the Bay ecosystem
because they are primary producers,
converting energy from sunlight
into food for animals such as zoo-
plankton, oysters, and fish. Although
phytoplankton form the foundation
of the food chain in the Bay, prob-
lems can occur if this community
grows too large or has species shifts
due to excess nutrients.
Benthos -The benthos community
comprises invertebrate organisms
that live on or in the bottom sedi-
ments. 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 can be a reliable
indicator of environmental health.
Some benthic organisms are com-
mercially 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 bottom-feeders such as the 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
areas such as the Elizabeth, Anacos-
tia, and Patapsco Rivers.
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) are a tribute to
interagency cooperation in the
management of an important Bay
resource. Maryland's striped bass
young-of-year survey, defined as the
average number of juvenile striped
bass caught in a standard seine
haul, showed there were more juve-
nile striped bass in Chesapeake Bay
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 339
that year than any time in the past
43 years (see Figure 12-11). As
shown in Figure 12-12, Virginia's
juvenile striped bass survey results
paralleled Maryland's good news
with the highest index number ever
recorded in Virginia. In Maryland,
the young-of-year index for 1996,
was 59.4. The previous record of
39.8 was set in 1993. Virginia's 1996
index of 23.0 fish per seine haul
dwarfed the 1995 index of 5.45 and
was substantially higher than the
previous record of 18.1 reported in
1993. Key factors came together to
produce the high numbers of juve-
niles, including: record high flows
that created large freshwater nursery
areas; large numbers of returning
females; and recovering populations
of zooplankton, which provide food
for hatching striped bass larvae.
Shad - Once one of the most
commercially valuable species in the
Chesapeake Bay, American shad
(Alosa sapidissimd) populations have
declined dramatically. This was due
to habitat destruction and dam and
culvert construction that blocked
migration routes.
Harvest restrictions and larval
fish stocking, combined with
removal of blockages, have resulted
in substantial increases in shad
populations. The Bay States, the
Pamunkey Tribal Government in
Virginia, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service all contributed to
American shad and river herring
stock rebuilding efforts through trap
and transfer of adult spawners and/
or culture and release of marked
larvae. During the past 15 years, the
shad population estimate in the
Trends in Striped Bass:
Maryland Juvenile Index
58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96
Year
Figure 12-12
Trends in Striped Bass:
Virginia Juvenile Index
T3
24
22 -
20 -
18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10 -
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
0
Moratorium
1989-1990
58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96
Year
-------
340 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
upper Chesapeake Bay improved
from fewer than 10,000 fish to over
300,000, largely in response to
hatchery releases. None of these
management actions affect the
coastal "intercept" fishery, which
continues to harvest the species all
along the Atlantic coast.
Fish Passage - An integral compo-
nent of the shad's long-term success
is its ability to return to its upstream
spawning habitat. Anadromous fish,
including several species of shad and
herring, must migrate from saltwa-
ter environments to spawn in fresh-
water tributaries. Many streams and
rivers in the Chesapeake Bay water-
shed are blocked by dams, culverts,
and other structures. Over 2,500
blockages in the watershed keep
anadromous and other migratory
fish from reaching historic spawning
grounds.
The Bay Program is committed
to opening blockages in the tribu-
Figure 12-13
120
Blue Crab Commercial Harvest
1
o
Q.
I
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
Maryland and Virginia Harvest
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
taries so anadromous fish can reach
freshwater spawning grounds. Fish
passage goals established in 1993
direct Bay Program signatories to
open 582 stream miles by 1998 and
over 1,356 miles by 2003.
By the end of 1996, Bay jurisdic-
tions had completed nearly 50 fish
passage projects, opening almost
272 miles of stream habitat.
Blue Crab - The blue crab
(Callinectes sapidus) is currently the
most important commercial and
recreational fishery in the Chesa-
peake Bay. With increasing fishing
pressures and relatively low harvests
in recent years, as shown in Figure
12-13, there is growing concern for
the health of the stocks. Both
Maryland and Virginia took specific
actions to manage the resource; a
Bi-State Blue Crab Advisory Com-
mittee was established to enhance
coordinated, baywide management
of the blue crab; and results from
scientific research helped increase
understanding of crab stock status
and ecology.
In September 1996, the
Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment
Committee (CBSAC) completed its
blue crab stock assessment study.
Scientists agree that neither the crab
population nor the fishery are on
the verge of collapse. However, sci-
entists concur that the stock is fully
exploited. They also agree that total
fishing effort has increased about
five-fold since 1945 and that there
has been a corresponding near
exponential decline in catch-per-
unit-effort during the same period.
This means that baywide, more
watermen are working harder and
with more gear to catch a relatively
constant number of crabs each year.
Scientists also agree that recruit-
ment to the stock (i.e., the number
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 341
of young crabs entering the stock
each year) has been increasing since
the early 1970s. Environmental
variation, however, makes
recruitment estimates somewhat
unpredictable. Finally, scientists
agree that the peeler fishery is
expanding rapidly and that the
impacts of this expansion are
unknown.
The 7997 Blue Crab Fishery
Management Plan recognizes the
importance of habitat and includes
a habitat section recommending
protection and restoration of Bay
grasses and water quality.
Oysters - Oyster harvesting has
been an integral part of the Bay
region's economic development and
cultural heritage (see Figure 12-14).
The filtering capabilities of the oyster
enable it to remove large quantities
of algae and sediment from the
water column, while its shells pro-
vide habitat for new oyster popula-
tions, as well as a variety of benthic
organisms and fish species. Some
scientists feel that the restoration 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. This manage-
ment plan was the first of its kind to
recognize the ecological importance
of the oyster, in addition to its
commercial value. Recent habitat
restoration efforts focusing on cre-
ations of aquatic reefs should help
boost oyster population recovery in
the future.
Aquatic Reefs - Aquatic reefs
provide essential habitat for the
Bay's oysters, as well as finfish and
crabs. Historically, reefs of densely
packed individual oysters grew
upward and outward, creating
many acres of hard three-dimen-
sional habitat for bay creatures. Reef
acreage has been lost to harvest
pressure, oyster diseases, and pollu-
tion. Harvesting techniques have
reduced many three-dimensional
reefs to flat surfaces.
The Aquatic Reef Habitat Plan
establishes specific goals to rebuild
and restore reefs as habitat for the
oyster and other reef community
species. The plan commits Bay
Program signatories "to enhancing,
protecting, and restoring benthic
reefs as ecological systems to benefit
the oyster resource and the diverse
ecological community associated
with Chesapeake Bay structured
reefs."
Figure 121-1
Commercial Harvest of Oysters:
Maryland and Virginia
53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95
Year
-------
342 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Aquatic reefs are being created
using designed structures, oyster
shells, rock, fly ash, and recycled
materials. Maryland used strategic-
ally placed oyster shell piles and
designed concrete structures to
create aquatic reefs. Success of reef
restoration has been demonstrated
by the colonization of natural
oysters within a mile radius of one
of Virginia's first reef projects, and
development of oyster reef commu-
nities in Maryland.
Waterfowl - Over a million water-
fowl migrate through or overwinter
in Chesapeake Bay. Historically,
waterfowl were so abundant they
seemed to blanket areas of the Bay.
Widespread deterioration of shallow
water habitats and wetlands,
coupled with increasing human dis-
turbance, have reduced the ability
of many Bay areas to support water-
fowl. According to the Midwinter
Waterfowl Survey, waterfowl are
declining in the Bay, with the largest
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 pop-
ulations are increasing. 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 Bay grasses.
Eagles - At one time, up to 3,000
pairs of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leuco-
cephalus) inhabited the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. The effects of DDT
reduced the Virginia and Maryland
bald eagle population to only 80 to
90 pairs by 1970. After the 1972
ban on DDT use, populations
increased. Recently, both the
national and Chesapeake Bay bald
eagle population crossed the thresh-
old for down-listing from endan-
gered to threatened. The Chesa-
peake Bay threshold was 175 to 250
nesting pairs in the basin, producing
at least 1.1 eaglets per active nest.
The number of nests in the Chesa-
peake Bay basin soared from 72 in
1977 to over 330 in 1996. Over 500
young were produced in 1996, up
from only 63 young in 1977. Con-
tinued success of the bald eagle
depends on preservation of shore-
line forests with suitable large trees
for nesting.
Conclusions
Since its inception, the highest
priority of the Chesapeake Bay
Program has been the restoration of
the Bay's living resources and their
habitats. There have been successes.
Striped bass are at historically high
levels, the number of young bald
eagles produced each year has
increased by over seven times since
1972, Bay grasses (SAV acreage)
have increased nearly 70% since
1984, and 272 miles of fish spawn-
ing habitat have been reopened.
Other elements of the complex Bay
ecosystem are also improving. Most
of the Bay's major rivers are running
cleaner than they were 10 years ago
despite the near-record high flows in
3 of the past 4 years. Phosphorus
concentrations have shown signifi-
cant reductions in many areas of the
Bay, and nitrogen levels have
remained steady in spite of the high
flows and population increases.
Chemical releases in the Bay water-
shed have shown a 55% drop
between 1988 and 1994. Clearly,
the Chesapeake is on the upswing.
While the above allow for much
optimism, the Chesapeake Bay still
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 343
shows symptoms related to stress
from an expanding population and
the changes such growth brings
about in land use. We are far from
declaring victory in our fight to
save the Chesapeake Bay. The
Chesapeake Bay is an interconnect-
ed system, and population growth,
land use changes, and poor man-
agement of resources can set off a
chain of events that ultimately
produces degraded water quality
and habitat conditions and declines
in fishery harvests.
The results also show that these
conditions, which have resulted
from almost 300 years of abuse, are
reversible. The concentrated restora-
tion and management effort begun
13 years ago has produced tangible
results—a state of the Chesapeake
Bay that is better today than it was
when we started—and promises
that 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. But we can
have relatively clean water and
large, protected areas of marsh and
shoreline. 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
willingness to act on them, will
determine the state of the Chesa-
peake Bay that we leave to future
generations.
The National Estuary
Program
The National Estuary Program
(NEP) embodies the ecosystem
approach by building coalitions,
addressing multiple sources of
contamination, pursuing habitat
protection and restoration, and
investigating cross-media transfer
of pollutants from air and soil into
estuarine waters.
The NEP targets a broad range
of issues and engages local commu-
nities in the process. The program
focuses on improving water quality
in estuaries and maintaining the
integrity of the whole system—its
chemical, physical, and biological
properties as well as its economic,
recreational, and aesthetic values.
Estuaries are unique and endan-
gered ecosystems, and traditional
water pollution control programs
alone cannot address the more
complex issues associated with estu-
aries. 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 watershed,
basinwide approach to environmen-
tal management. A State governor
nominates an estuary in his or 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.
-------
344 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
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
businesses and industries; scientific
and academic institutions; and citi-
zen organizations. The management
conference made up of these stake-
holders defines program goals and
objectives, identifies problems, and
designs strategies to prevent and
control pollution and manage
natural resources in the study area.
Each management conference
develops and initiates implementa-
tion of a Comprehensive Conserva-
tion and Management Plan (CCMP)
to restore and protect its estuary.
With the addition of seven
estuary programs in July 1995, the
NEP currently supports 28 estuary
projects (Figure 12-15):
Figure 12-15
Locations of National Estuary Program Sites
• 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
• 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 envi-
ronmental conditions in estuaries
throughout the United States and its
Territories.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 345
The NEP integrates science and
decision making 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.
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
may degrade water quality and
habitat. Eutrophication, air deposi-
tion, toxic substances (including
metals), pathogens, and changes to
living resources and habitats top the
list of problems being addressed by
the NEP Management Conferences.
Nutrient Overloading
Nutrients are necessary to sup-
port a healthy aquatic ecosystem
but, in excess, can lead to nuisance
conditions and low dissolved oxy-
gen levels. Nitrogen is the limiting
nutrient in most estuaries. Although
nitrogen occurs naturally in animal
wastes, soil, and even in the atmos-
phere, land use practices have great-
ly increased the amount of nitrogen
entering estuary waters. Excess
nitrogen and nutrients stimulate the
growth of algae. As the algae die,
settle to the bottom and decay, their
decomposition robs the water of
oxygen. If oxygen levels become
too low, estuaries are unable to
sustain healthy populations of living
resources. Fish and other mobile
organisms will avoid low oxygen
areas, but immobile species (e.g.,
mussels) and organisms with limited
geographic movement (shrimp,
crabs, etc.) may be severely stressed.
The typical State dissolved oxygen
standard for healthy waters is 5.0 or
, 6.0 pprn. If levels go below 2 ppm,
many species are likely to die due to
lack of oxygen.
Other impacts from increased
nutrients include: loss of rooted
aquatic plants caused by increased
algae and suspended particulate
levels; increase in brown tide that
may be related to increased levels
of dissolved organic nitrogen and
higher levels of dissolved inorganic
nitrogen (DIN); increase in red tides
that have been blamed for massive
fish kills, manatee deaths, and detri-
mental impacts to shellfish; and
generally poor aesthetic values,
which can result from increased
algae caused by an overload of
nutrients.
NOAA's Office of Ocean
Resources Conservation and Assess-
ment is conducting a national
coastal eutrophication study, which
has found thus far:
• Approximately 86% of estuaries
(including those outside the NEP)
surveyed on the East Coast are
considered to be nitrogen sensitive,
with high nitrogen concentrations
(>1.0 mg/L) observed in 14 of 22
estuaries surveyed in the mid-Atlan-
tic, and in 11 of 21 in the south
Atlantic; moderate nitrogen
concentrations (0.1 to 0.9 mg/L)
-------
346 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
were observed in another 5 of 22
estuaries surveyed in the mid-
Atlantic and another 7 of 21 in the
south Atlantic.
• Increases in nitrogen over the
past 2 to 15 years of 10% to 25%
were reported for Long Island
Sound, portions of the Potomac
River, and Chesapeake Bay. Increases
up to 25% were reported for the
Neuse River and for the northern
seawater part of Biscayne Bay.
• Hypoxic conditions (with oxygen
content 0 to 2 mg/L) were reported
in 13 of 22 estuaries in the mid-
Atlantic region and 13 of 21 south
Atlantic estuaries.
• Biologically stressful levels of
oxygen (2 to 5 mg/L) were reported
in 21 of 22 mid-Atlantic estuaries
and 20 of 21 south Atlantic estuar-
ies.
Twenty-five of the 28 NEPs have
identified the impacts of nutrient
overloading as either a high or
medium priority. The Narragansett
Bay program has areas with low
dissolved oxygen levels (hypoxia)
in mid- to late summer linked to
excess nitrogen. The Maryland
Coastal Bay found that rainwater
runoff from land contributes more
than 50% of nitrogen loadings. Half
of these loadings are associated with
agricultural feeding operations (pri-
marily poultry), despite the small
amount of land area used by these
operations (less than 1 % of the
watershed). Waters studied within
the Indian River Lagoon Estuary pro-
gram have shown a 30% reduction
in sea grass acreage from 1970 to
1990. With current population pro-
jections, nonpoint source loadings
are predicted to increase by more
than 30% by 2010 (if no action is
taken). Hypoxic and anoxic condi-
tions are common in waters of
Mobile Bay and are generally
prevalent during the summer ;
months. Occasional fish kills have
been reported, many of which are
believed to be caused by low dis-
solved oxygen. Fluctuations in nutri-
ent concentrations observed from
the data appear to be associated
primarily with rainfall, implicating
nonpoint source inputs.
Air Deposition
The deposition of atmospheric-
borne nitrogen is also a major con-
tributor to overall estuary loadings in
many areas; for example, estimates
of the atmospheric contribution for
selected estuaries are: Long Island,
20%; Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds,
44%; and Tampa Bay, 29%. Table
12-4 shows the estimated nitrogen
deposition to selected coastal
waters.
Pathogens
Pathogens are viruses, bacteria,
and protozoans that cause diseases
in plants, humans, and other ani-
mals. Pathogens found in marine
waters include those causing gastro-
enteritis, salmonellosis, and hepatitis
A. Vibrios are a naturally occurring
bacteria found in some estuarine
waters; these bacteria can produce
severe symptoms, particularly in
unhealthy individuals. To protect
public health, State agencies pro-
hibit the harvest of shellfish from
waters contaminated with patho-
gens or pathogen indicators, such as
fecal coliforms. Waters contami-
nated with pathogens also pose a
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 347
health risk to swimmers, surfers,
divers, and seafood consumers.
Annually, 10,000 swimmers may
become ill from incidental ingestion
of marine waters.
Twenty-five of the 28 NEPs have
identified pathogen contamination
as a water quality management
issue. The general trend over the
past 25 years has been a gradual
decline in the acreage of coastal
waters open to shellfishing. In the
Peconic Estuary program, over
4,700 acres (out of a total of
110,000 acres) of bay bottom are
closed, either year-round or season-
ally. This represents about 14% of
the productive shellfish areas.
Monitoring from the Corpus Christi
program has indicated that over
21 % of the hydrographic segments
in the study area exceeded the State
coliform standard 10% or more of
the time. Tillamook Bay reported
that, in 1996, oyster beds were
closed approximately 50 days
between September and May. None
of the five rivers that drain into the
Bay meet standards for beneficial
uses because of high levels of
bacteria.
Toxic Chemicals
Since 1940, more than 70,000
synthetic chemicals have been intro-
duced to the marine environment.
Many of these chemicals are toxic
even in minute concentrations. The
toxics of greatest concern in the
marine environment are polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), toxic
metals, PCBs, and pesticides.
Several classes of toxic
chemicals collect in sediments.
Bottom-dwelling animals are
exposed to these chemicals, which
pass through the food web. Hot
spots in urban areas have been
shown to alter and reduce the bot-
tom-dwelling community and cause
disease in fish. Health officials have
warned people not to eat fish
caught in contaminated areas.
Twenty-two of the 28 NEPs,
from every region of the U.S., have
identified toxic chemicals as an
important water quality manage-
ment issue, at least in "hot spots"
throughout the estuary. Two classes
of organic chemicals, PCBs and
PAHs, are present at potentially toxic
levels to bottom-dwelling animals in
the inner Fore River of Casco Bay.
PAH levels are considered high in
several locations when compared to
other bays around the country. Four
heavy metals—lead, cadmium, mer-
cury, and silver—are considered
"high" in some locations compared
to bays nationwide. The pesticide
DDT is present in relatively low
concentrations. Dioxins and furans
were detected in sediments from all
areas of Casco Bay; however, con-
centrations were relatively low when
1 Table 12J-4. Estimates of Atmospheric Nitrogen Loadings to Selected Coastal
Waters (in millions of kg)*
Coastal Water
Albemarle/Pamlico Sound
Chesapeake Bay
Delaware Bay
Delaware Inland Bays
Long Island Sound
Massachusetts Bay
Narragansett Bay
Sarasota Bay
Tampa Bay
Indirect
Atmospheric
Load from
Watershed
6.7
29
5
—
6
—
0.3
—
—
Total
Atmospheric
Load
10
45
8
0.28
11
1.5-6
0.6
0.16
1.1
Total
Load
from All
Sources
23
170
54
1.3
60
22-30
5
0.6
3.8
% Load
from
Atmosphere
44
27
15
21
20
5-27
12
26
28
*Adapted from Valigura et al., 1996.
-------
348 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
compared to other areas nationally.
In Massachusetts Bay, some com-
mercially valuable species are
impacted, including liver lesions and
fin rot in flounder and black gill
disease in lobsters. The State has
issued two consumption advisories:
no one should eat the tomalley of
lobsters harvested in Boston Harbor
and high-risk individuals should
avoid all seafood harvested in
Boston Harbor. The lower Columbia
River is listed as "impaired" by the
States of Oregon and Washington
due to toxic chemicals that are
found in fish tissue and the associ-
ated cancer risks. Levels of PCBs,
dioxins/furans, pesticides, and some
metals in otter tissues are highly
correlated with developmental
abnormalities of the reproductive
system of male otters. In San Fran-
cisco Estuary, there are probable
population impacts on striped bass
and possible population impacts on
other fish (salmon, delta smelt) and
numerous other species. All estuary
fish tissues sampled in a 1994 study
exceeded screening values for PCBs.
Many samples exceeded values for
mercury, dieldrip, chlordane, DDT,
and dioxin. The Sacramento River
supplies 80% of the estuary's fresh-
water flow but violates water quality
criteria for copper, mercury, pesti-
cides, and toxicity. Twelve percent
of all water measurements of trace
substances exceeded EPA water
quality criteria or State objectives in
1995. Copper, mercury, and nickel
levels exceeded standards in more
than half of the 1994 and 1995
samples; silver, zinc, and cadmium
less than 10%.
Habitat Loss
and Degradation
The continued health and bio-
diversity of marine and estuarine sys-
tems depends on the maintenance
of high-quality habitat. The same
areas that often attract human
development near the coasts and
throughout the watersheds are also
essential food, cover, migratory cor-
ridors, and breeding and nursery
habitat for a broad array of coastal
and marine organisms. In addition,
these habitats perform other impor-
tant functions, such as water quality
protection, water storage, and flood
protection. As development pres-
sures mount, it is increasingly impor-
tant to protect and enhance sensi-
tive coastal habitat. Ecosystem-level
conservation is regarded as the best
approach to conserving and preserv-
ing living resources and their habi-
tat.
The causes of habitat degrada-
tion are many. The quality of coastal
habitat is intimately related to the
quality of incoming water and sedi-
ment. Hypoxia, caused by excess
nitrogen loading, creates dissolved
oxygen levels that are insufficient to
support healthy populations of
marine life. Excess nitrogen loading
can also cause algae blooms that
deplete oxygen and block sunlight,
which kills underwater grasses.
Sediments and chemicals trans-
ported by stormwater runoff also
impact aquatic habitat.
Twenty-three of the 28 NEPs
have identified habitat loss and
degradation, including reduced or
changed submerged aquatic vegeta-
tion, habitat alteration, and reduced
or degraded wetlands as a high-
priority management issue. In New
York-New Jersey Harbor, at least
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 349
75% of the historic tidal wetlands in
each of New York City's five bor-
oughs has been lost. Similar losses
have occurred in New Jersey coun-
ties of the Harbor core area. In addi-
tion, as much as 99% of New York
City's historic freshwater wetlands
may no longer exist and marine and
upland habitats in the region have
suffered significant losses. Studies in
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuaries
through 1978 showed that over
11,500 acres of land a year were
being lost in the Barataria^
Terrebonne Basins. The rate in 1990
was estimated at almost 13,500
acres per year. The rate of land loss
currently shows a decline. Conserva-
tive estimates are that an additional
163,000 acres of land will be lost by
the year 2000. In San Francisco
Estuary, about 90% of the historic
wetlands acreage has been convert-
ed to farmland, urban area, or other
uses. Currently, there are about
628,000 acres of wetlands in the
estuary. This includes some 385,000
acres within farmed areas. Although
losses of large wetlands areas have
been stemmed, urbanization contin-
ues to impact smaller areas and
compensatory mitigation for these
losses is often inadequate.
Introduced Species
Intentional or accidental intro-
ductions of invasive species may
often result in unexpected ecologi-
cal, economic, and social impacts
to the estuarine environment. In
regions where invasive species have
been studied the results are alarm-
ing. These species may now consti-
tute the largest single threat to the
biological diversity of coastal waters.
Key problems associated with intro-
duced species include the displace-
ment or reduction of native species.
Through predation and competi-
tion, introduced species have con-
tributed to the eradication of some
native populations and drastically
reduced others, fundamentally alter-
ing the food web. Other impacts
include alteration of water tables,
modification of nutrient cycles,
increased erosion, interference to
navigation, decline of fisheries, and
degradation of habitat.
Nine of the 28 NEPs have
identified introduced (exotic) species
as a high or medium priority. In
Delaware Bay, Haplosporidium
nelsoni, also known as MSX,
is a parasitic protozoan that has
caused catastrophic die-offs of
American oyster in the Delaware
Estuary. MSX is thought to be
genetically similar to a parasite
associated with the Pacific oyster.
Although it is not known how the
parasite was introduced into the
Delaware Estuary in the 1950s, it is
hypothesized that spores from MSX
were transferred from the West
Coast of the U.S. or Asia via ballast
water. In Charlotte Harbor, Austra-
lian pine, Brazilian pepper, and
other introduced plant species are a
significant concern due to their
encroachment on native mangroves
and other native wetlands commu-
nities. Historic dredge and fill activi-
ties (in the 1950s and 1960s) creat-
ed spoil deposition areas that are
now dominated by nonnative plant
species. Wetlands impacted by these
species are typically smaller and
fragmented, allowing other invasive
species to take hold. It is now illegal
to plant Australian pine in Florida.
Four years after the first appearance
of brown mussels in Corpus Christi
Bay, they had become firmly estab-
lished over a distance of about
1,300 km. Their phenomenal
-------
350 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
growth has the potential to dramati-
cally increase the maintenance
requirements of navigational aids.
Recently, new colonies have estab-
lished in areas where salinities were
thought to be prohibitive.
A Scientific/Management/
Public Partnership
Using the scientific knowledge
gathered and interpreted during the
characterization phase ensures that
the public, elected officials, user and
environmental groups, business and
industry, and scientific institutions—
all part of the Management Confer-
ence—understand the problems of
the estuary and are prepared to sup-
port 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.
Furthermore, scientists and man-
agers do not always communicate
well with each other. Under the aus-
pices of the Management Confer-
ences, however, scientists are focus-
ing their research and applying their
results to project managers' needs
and time constraints. Managers are
challenging scientists to direct their
studies to meet Management Con-
ference needs for short-term real-
world answers. The Management
Conference enhances communica-
tion between scientists and man-
agers and results in better solutions
to management issues.
Members of the public often
express concerns about highly
visible problems, yet these issues
may not be the most important
problems for the Management
Conference to consider. In fact,
spending resources on a highly
visible but relatively insignificant
problem could divert attention from
a crucial matter. It is imperative,
therefore, that scientific findings be
widely communicated and form the
basis for public education efforts.
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.
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.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 351
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.
Examples of new technologies
include stabilizing shorelines with
vegetation instead of bulkheads and
techniques for creating wetlands.
EPA is working with Management
Conferences to increase habitat
mitigation activities, such as
removing dams blocking fish migra-
tions and eliminating freshwater
diversions.
Steps in the Right Direction
The dedication and hard work
of people who have become
involved with the National Estuary
program is paying off. The following
success stories attest to this fact:
• The Leffis Key Restoration project
from Sarasota Bay NEP created 30
acres of productive intertidal habitat.
More than 50,000 native plants and
trees were installed at a cost of
$315,000. The restoration project
was featured in Good Housekeeping
magazine and won an Environ-
mental Excellence Award from the
Florida Marine Research Institute.
Additionally, the successful Florida
Yards and Neighborhoods Program,
initiated by the Sarasota Bay NEP
and now adopted by all four NEPs
in Florida, is in place in over 20
counties now. The program focuses
on the control of nitrogen and other
pollutants through better landscape
practices.
• Through an Action Plan Develop-
ment Project (APDP), Peconic Bay
NEP created a filter strip to divert
runoff from a highway on Shelter
Island to a grass retention basin,
which is expected to improve water
quality to the extent that shellfish
beds could be reopened.
• In Tampa Bay, 4,000 acres of sea
grass and 400 acres of wetlands
have been restored through the
involvement of volunteers and the
Bay Conservation Corps.
• Through State, local, and home-
owner funding, 850 septic systems
were replaced using a sewer line
extension. Faulty septic systems
had been contributing coliform
discharges into Buttermilk Bay (part
of the Buzzards Bay NEP).
• Through stream bed restoration
and construction of a stormwater
diversion and sediment entrapment
system, sediment loading to the
Puget Sound from Shell Creek was
reduced by 5.7 tons in the first year
and is estimated to have reduced
stream bed erosion by 65%.
• As part of a demonstration
project in Delaware Inland Bays, a
2-acre artificial wetland was created
for stormwater pollution control and
habitat creation in an urban area.
It is estimated that up to 60% of the
nitrogen and up to 40% of the
phosphorous is being removed from
the stormwater after flowing
through the wetland.
• Long Island Sound tested two
innovative wastewater treatment
technologies that resulted in
reduced nitrogen loadings into the
sound by 83% from one plant and
by 73% in the other treatment
plant.
• In Massachusetts Bay, an inter-
agency effort led to the develop-
ment of a Shellfish Bed Restoration
Faced with diverse constituen- *
- cies, each with a different idea '
of what constitutes a monitoring
program appropriate for Santa
' Monica Bay, the Santa Monica'
Bay Restoration Prograrq held a-%
•2-day consensus-building con-'
" ference for^scientists; managers,
• -dischargers, regulators, and
',public inferesj:'group representa-
tives. The conference' goal was
to outline'monitoring "objectives
„ that would, guide the develop-
, ment of detailed hypotheses -
, and sa'rh'pling and analysis plans.
Conference participants were
led through a set of structured
.exercises thafrfo'cused on the ',
- overall 'concerns driving the *
'regulatory/monitoring 'system,
, agreement on a monitoring
-philosophy forthe Bay, 'and -
determination of which Bay
. resources were the'most highly
valued. These exercises were , *'
followed by'a decision'making"
- pYoce'ss through which-specific
m'onitorirtg -objectives were ,
developed.-The-selected objec-
tives reflected management
•- goals, scientific knowledge, and
public concerns. , ,
-------
352 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Program, which, to date, has been
successful in opening over 400 acres
of shellfish beds and has raised
awareness of the need for restora-
tion in many communities. Through
the NEP, Federal, State, and local
agencies and citizen groups were
brought together in a coordinated
effort to address the major source
of contamination to the beds:
nonpoint source pollution, particu-
larly discharges from storm drains.
The Restoration Program has also
incorporated innovative technolo-
gies that target remediation of
contaminants associated with
stormwater.
Coastal 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 ecological
and economic values of estuaries.
As we approach the year 2000, we
must improve conventional pollu-
tion controls and accelerate enforce-
ment actions. However, new strate-
gies are required to solve the more
complex problems brought about
by increasing 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
shellfish habitats. Development
near shorelines also damages
life-sustaining habitats for shore
birds and animals.
As development replaces vege-
tation 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 non-
point sources resulting from popula-
tion growth and their impacts on
estuarine habitats.
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 pollut-
ants (HAPs) and, at the discretion of
the Administrator, other air pollut-
ants to the Great Lakes, Lake Cham-
plain (bordering Vermont and New
York), Chesapeake Bay, and coastal
waters in the National Estuary
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 353
Program and the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System (Figure
12-16). The Administrator added
nitrogen compounds to the list of
pollutants of concern because of
nitrogen's role in excessive nutrient
enrichment and eutrophication of
coastal waters and because data
indicated that atmospheric loadings
of nitrogen to the Chesapeake Bay
are significant. One objective of this
assessment program 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, to take appropriate
actions to prevent adverse effects on
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 studies, such as assessing
sources and deposition rates, evalu-
ating adverse effects, and research-
ing 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, in conjunction
with the second report to Congress,
EPA must determine whether the
other regulatory programs under
Section 112 are "adequate to pre-
vent serious adverse effects to public
health and serious or widespread
environmental effects, including
those effects resulting from indirect
exposure pathways." EPA must then
promulgate emission standards or
other measures under Section 112
that may be necessary and appropri-
ate to prevent adverse effects. Also,
EPA is to describe any regulatory
changes under the Clean Air Act or
other applicable Federal legislation
that may be necessary to ensure
protection of human health and the
environment. The second report to
Congress and associated draft
determinations were completed in
June 1997.
Progress under Section
112(rn) Implementation
Activities and Relevant
EPA Programs
EPA has made progress imple-
menting the specific monitoring
Figure 12-16
Locations of Designated Great Waters
Chesapeake
Bay
1
+ Great Waters designated by name
• EPA National Estuary Program (NEP) Sites
• NOAA NERRS Designated Sites*
D Existing EPA and NOAA NERRS Designated Sites
n Existing EPA and NOAA NERRS Proposed Sites
-------
354 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
requirements of Section 112(m).
In 1992, five master (regional back-
ground) stations were established to
collect wet and dry toxics deposition
samples at each of the Great Lakes
as part of the Integrated Atmos-
pheric Deposition Network, a joint
effort between the United States
and Canada. EPA and the
Chesapeake Bay States began
collecting 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 under-
standing of atmospheric deposition
of pollutants of concern and related
risks to human health and the envi-
ronment:
• 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
systems
• Prepared a national screening
level emission inventory for specific
pollutants in Section 112(c)(6), as
well as assisted the Great Lakes
States in developing a comprehen-
sive toxics emission inventory and
database system
• Developing prototype long-range
mercury transport models and
indirect mercury exposure models
• Conducting sampling to evaluate
deposition to Galveston Bay and
Tampa Bay with methods that will
complement other Great Waters
work
• Assessing the urban contribution
to atmospheric loading, as well as
evaluating other processes and
parameters through field measure-
ments for use in modeling
• Participating in development of
a Lake Michigan Mass Balance for
chemicals representing four types
of hazardous chemical groups.
• 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.
• 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
Many of these activities are
performed by 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.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 355
The Great Waters
Reports to Congress
In May of 1994, EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards
submitted the first Great Waters
Program Report to Congress, Depo-
sition of Air Pollutants to the Great
Waters. This first Report to Congress
summarized the scientific under-
standing of atmospheric deposition
at that time and identified key regu-
latory 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 toxic chemicals and
nitrogen to surface waters, identify-
ing more than 1,100 scientific publi-
cations. EPA then convened three
committees of leading independent
scientists and charged them with
evaluating and summarizing the lit-
erature in the three areas identified
in Section 112(m):
• 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 1992. Attendees
of the workshop included commit-
tee members, other independent
scientists, EPA scientists, EPA pro-
gram representatives, and represen-
tatives from groups such as NOAA,
State agencies, industry, and
environmental groups. Following
the workshop, the committees pre-
pared final background documents
that became the foundation for the
first Report to Congress. The con-
tents of Deposition of Air Pollutants to
the Great Waters, first report to
Congress, are summarized in the
following subsections.
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 pollutants
that are persistent in the environ-
ment (including several pesticides
that have not been used in signifi-
cant amounts in the United States
since the 1970s) have become wide-
ly distributed in the environment.
These toxic chemicals remain in our
environment and continue to cycle
between air, water, soil, and biota
(living organisms) even after their
manufacture, use, or release has
stopped. Their persistence increases
the potential for exposure to these
toxic chemicals.
Pollutants of concern (see side-
bar) 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 accumulate chemical
concentrations many millions of
times greater than the concentra-
tions present in the water. Fish
consumption advisories have been
-------
356 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
issued for over 2,000 waterbodies
nationwide, including the Great
Lakes. Some of these advisories were
issued as a result of finding excessive
concentrations of chemicals in fish
due to biomagnification (see
Chapter 7 for more information
about fish consumption advisories).
Significant adverse effects in
wildlife have been observed due to
exposure (especially through fish
consumption) to persistent pollut-
ants that bioaccumulate. These
chemicals have also been shown to
have, or potentially have, significant
adverse effects on human health.
Adverse effects range from immune
system disease and reproductive
problems in wildlife to subtle devel-
opmental and neurological impacts
on children and fetuses. Although
most of the chemicals of concern
are probable human carcinogens,
many are also developmental toxi-
cants capable of altering the forma-
tion and function of critical body
systems and organs. Therefore,
developing embryos, fetuses, and
Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern
Potential Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern
Aldrin
4-Bromopheny! 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
Dleldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene; hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane; BHC
a-Hexachlorocyclohexane; ot-BHC
b-Hexachlorocyclohexane; p-BHC
d-HexachlorocycIohexane; 8-BHC
Undane; 'y-BHC; y-hexachlorocyclohexane
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Mirex; dechlorane
Octachlorostyrene
PCBs; polychlorinated biphenyls
Pentachlorobenzene
Photomlrex
2,3,7,8-TCDD; dioxin
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachtorobenzene
Toxaphene
Benzo[o]pyrene; 3,4-benzopyrene
3,4-Benzofluoranthene; benzo[6]fluoranthene
11,12-Benzofluoranthene; benzo[£]fluoranthene
1,12-Benzoperylene; benzo[gr/7/]perylene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
1,2:5,6-Dibenzanthracene; dibenz[a,ft]anthracene
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 quality guidance for the Great Lakes system: Proposed rule and correction, Federal
Register 58:20802-21047, April 16,1993.
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 357
breast-fed infants are particularly
sensitive to these chemicals 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
impairment, reproductive problems,
or neurological changes—all of
which can affect population survival.
Other adverse ecological effects are
caused by nitrogen compounds.
Atmospheric sources of nitrogen
exacerbate nutrient enrichment (or
eutrophication) of coastal waterbod-
ies, which results in impacts that
range from nuisance algal blooms to
the depletion of oxygen and resul-
tant 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, in recent years, a
significant percentage of the load-
ings of PCBs to Lake Superior and
about a quarter of the loadings of
nitrogen into the Chesapeake Bay
are estimated to come from air
deposition. However, insufficient
data are available to quantify the
overall relative atmospheric loadings
for all of the HAPs and nitrogen
entering all of the Great Waters.
Therefore, relative loadings esti-
mates are, and will continue to be,
chemical-specific and waterbody-
specific. The absolute quantity of
loadings from all pathways (air,
water, and release from sediment)
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, petrole-
um 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 generates
the atmospheric loadings entering
any particular waterbody, and trans-
port 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, even though there are
significant uncertainties associated
with this information. While further
research is needed to reduce these
uncertainties, reasonable actions to
ft
-------
358 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
decrease atmospheric loadings need
not wait for the results of such fur-
ther research. Adverse effects of the
chemicals of concern are evident
and studies of selected waters show
that significant proportions of toxic
pollution come from the atmos-
phere. EPA believes that the charac-
teristics of toxicity, persistence, and
tendency to bioaccumulate warrant
special treatment of the Great
Waters pollutants of concern. In the
1994 report, the actions recom-
mended by EPA focus on chemicals
of concern rather than specific
sources because the linkage
between specific sources and subse-
quent deposition and effects has yet
to be demonstrated.
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 pollu-
tants; evaluating the appropriate-
ness of establishing lesser-quantity
emission rates (LQERs) for specific
pollutants and source categories,
and, where warranted, to establish
such emission rates; evaluating
which area sources should be regu-
lated under the maximum achiev-
able control technology (MACT)
program; and considering appropri-
ate emission levels requiring regula-
tion when sources are modified.
Second, EPA recognizes the
need for an integrated multimedia
approach to the problems of the
Great Waters and, therefore, will uti-
lize authorities beyond the Clean Air
Act, where appropriate, to reduce
human and environmental exposure
to pollutants of concern. Under this
theme, EPA will take actions that
include using the Great Waters Core
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 the
Clean Water Act to address sources
of water pollution; 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. EPA plans to support
research efforts to better understand
and quantify atmospheric loadings
to the Nation's waterbodies and the
effects of those loadings, to develop
appropriate models to better charac-
terize atmospheric transport and
deposition processes, and to
improve and standardize sampling
and analysis methods. Research is
also needed to identify sources
contributing to atmospheric load-
ings and control strategies for
decreasing those loadings.'
Second Report to Congress
The second Great Waters report
to Congress, issued in June 1997,
confirms and provides added
support for the findings of the first
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 359
report. Quantitative monitoring
studies have demonstrated that
atmospheric deposition contributes
to pollution in the Great Waters.
Studies also show encouraging
evidence that significant declines in
concentrations of persistent toxic
pollutants occurred during the
1970s and 1980s, due to many
efforts to reduce uses and discharges
of potentially harmful chemicals.
Considerable research has focused
on deposition of nitrogen com-
pounds to coastal estuaries and has
found atmospheric deposition to be
responsible for a significant fraction
of the loadings to the Chesapeake
Bay.
In addition to these findings,
the second report also includes:
• Information on the extent of
contamination by the pollutants of
concern in the Great Waters, includ-
ing recent data on exceedances of
water quality criteria
• Updated information on impacts
on animal and plant life in the Great
Waters as well as ecological and
potential human health effects
associated with exposure to the
pollutants of concern
• A discussion of some of the major
atmospheric monitoring and model-
ing efforts that are contributing to
an understanding of the effects of
atmospheric deposition to the Great
Waters
• A summary of several Federal,
State, and local agency activities
that are taking place to protect the
four major waterbody groups of the
Great Waters (Great Lakes, Lake
Champlain, Chesapeake Bay, and
other U.S. coastal waters)
• Conclusions and recommenda-
tions for future actions related to
atmospheric deposition of pollutants
of concern to the Great Waters.
The report also includes a dis-
cussion of future directions for the
Great Waters program. These direc-
tions include the following: to
expand and improve modeling
efforts; continue to develop and
implement process changes or con-
trol strategies under Section 112
and other Clean Air Act provisions to
reduce releases of pollutants of con-
cern; increase the focus on identifi-
cation of emissions sources; contin-
ue to promote pollution prevention;
and assess the economic impacts of
pollution to the Great Waters.
Along with the report, EPA
issued, in July 1997, a draft deter-
mination for public comment about
the adequacy of the authorities
under Section 112 to prevent
adverse effects to public health and
the environment associated with
atmospheric deposition of haz-
ardous air pollutants to the Great
Waters. Based on the analysis of the
broad scope of the Section 112
provisions, EPA believes its authori-
ties are adequate to prevent these
effects. EPA also issued a draft
determination that no further Great
Waters program beyond those
otherwise authorized by Section
112 are believed to be necessary or
appropriate. EPA will make final
determinations by March 15, 1998.
-------
360 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
Savannah River Basin
Watershed Project
The Savannah River Basin
Watershed Project is an innovative
basinwide project that incorporates
the watershed protection approach
and random monitoring survey
design to evaluate the ecological
resources of the study area. The
project was developed by the
Ecological Assessment Branch of EPA
Region 4 in response to the needs
of the States of Georgia and South
Carolina and their policy-relevant
questions.
The Savannah River
Basin
The Savannah River Basin lies
along the boundary of South
Carolina and Georgia, encompass-
ing 10,579 square miles of land and
17,354 stream miles. The basin
covers three distinct physiographic
regions — the Blue Ridge moun-
tains, covered with Appalachian oak
forests; the gently sloping Pied-
mont, a mixture of croplands,
pasturelands, and urban areas; and
the flat, forested Coastal Plain. The
Savannah River Basin was selected
for a watershed project because of
high population growth, known
environmental problems, its suscep-
tibility to further degradation, and
the likelihood of successfully
enhancing the quality of life in the
basin.
REMAP
Applying a watershed protec-
tion approach, EPA Region 4
brought together stakeholders of
varying interests who developed a
comprehensive strategy known as
the Savannah River Basin Watershed
Project. Part of that strategy
included a monitoring component,
the Regional Environmental Moni-
toring and Assessment Program .
(REMAP).
REMAP represents a funda-
mental change in environmental
appraisal. It produces representative ,
measurements of overall status and
trends in environmental conditions.
Its goal is to measure cumulative
effects with a known degree of
certainty, provide decision makers
with sound ecological data, and
measure the effectiveness of envi-
ronmental protection efforts.
The Science and Ecosystem
Support Division of EPA Region 4
was asked by the Savannah River
Watershed Project Policy Committee
to implement the REMAP strategy
as a demonstration project for the
States of South Carolina and
Georgia. These States wanted to
reduce sampling and analyses, have
the ability to reduce or increase
sampling density, respond quickly to
emerging environmental problems,
and maintain representative cover-
age of environmental resources
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 361
* ' * s * * ~ ^ * ' x i *
,' ,,' „ - ,, - "~ , ' >X- - ' * '. •<"" " ^ \ v / ~ *
r < s * ' ~ * * N
through systematic yet random
means of sampling.
Objectives
f
In response to the needs of the
States and the policy-relevant ques-
tions they posed, the Ecological
Assessment Branch developed the
following study objectives:
• Estimate the status and change
r .1 J'j.* £. j_
of the condition of water resources
in the Savannah River Basin
• Identify water quality spatial
gradients that exist within the
Savannah River Basin and associate
current and changing condition
with factors that may be contribut-
ing to this condition and spatial
gradients
• Demonstrate the utility of the
REMAP approach for watershed
and river basin monitoring and its
applicability for State monitoring
programs
• Incorporate the REMAP approach
in the formulation and accomplish-
ment of River Basin Management
Plans
• Provide baseline information
required to conduct comparative
risk assessments in the Savannah
River Basin
; ' j ' -\' v ' _^ ", ' i '' '-,'
'' ' '" T VN- ' ~~~- " - - -' f,~~ 't''
* ^ ~ ™ -*#* ^ " ^^ ^ ' '\ > < ^
-"•" ,- - ' - '' " " ; "," -'
HfcHLfGH/fwO'GNTH'iGHUdHT "
' , IV | , |]| // "• ™ -^ "I
s ' " \^^^fc.^ ' P' S" * * '
:>>:^TvN& ;/,;<;:;
'\.'. ~ i. ,,..^.' ^\,~~'\ '— ' '^^
* * > ' s. "" ( ^"'l ^ *• -N ^
'' ~" t;^'^^'"" < *~- "
' * / t ' ^ * ^ ^
, " %" **' * * •* '~ " '^ -**' t" ' ,
Yv^l;^;-
N™^"^^ *' '/' " th
- ,"•**, ' -.*'--- >' '' • ' , S'-
'-" " '*-,,'' > - , ' " '
- - " - ,- ' f ,-"<*", \_
- ~'~> ', ^ { ,_' :
_ J- ^ s"< -^S" r~ ',,': - ;\ ..-- -
~ , , ••'-, ; ' % » '
s -'' ^ ':-,-" '~~ , s :„ '" ,"<*'*">
-' ' • ' ' *. ;
;; : «:•.-< -/ .'"'"---•/ >*- -
<->*', ' ' ;__-<- /? N • ^ ~ ~ ~- -.
-'r<, " "-' ' '- "" (' '^C '* .'' \<~ r '
>'- x\ ~ '*' ~ , ";'-;' -,N ' -",
^ " ^ , ** ^ ~ z ^ ~ ^ ^ 2
'--' , , '/ - , '? " ,1 .-'" ' "\' '
I" - t - ->",- •''" -'',''
- -,' '"•'•'' ," - >; >N •'--'
'-'.-, ",-.'' "'-"'. ', -''v
^ , " ; ^ s'"-,>" ^ -
•'.'"»""'"''" - c' ,-^'' - *
^"- ""-', -^ ^ ,-'" '' ,"" ;_"
i - ", ,"-• - ' , - i , - ,7 . r ^ - ;
•"','*'"< ^ r ~ ~ ' - '
'.----_'„-, . , - "s :; ,. , i'- */'*•
"i^^J \" ' „ "* ^ ^
- '-. ' ",,' ^ ^ ' v" /
-\x ' " - ""/^ "-- '-;- /'%- - " ;
" v ' - ."--* C - -, ' - N. * " - '
*- , >e '<,'"/ '\'' ; " / ^ -*" •% /
^~>-'^ S"~" ^-" s,*'
;>; . ./ ' 7.', :*: <:~'f ,-. ' -s "-
< ^ ^- < , - ^ V ^ - - , 7
- , , < „ , ' -J ',' ,'v , ' ~ • ""')
' ^ - ' ;!-' '„, •:"" ^. ' ,1 ' . '-''?
, , • x.- '" '„'','''
*•< "; ^ ~' :
-------
r
362 Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs
HT HIGHLIGHT
Hi fii I" 11 ii|ipniiiiiii K,ii
111 lifliillll11 V 11 lii
iniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii n
in in 11 inn mi n
ii I lllllllllllllillilllilllllllll hi II III III III
ii ii i iii nun i IP 11 iii 1111 iii iii nil 11
I1 n lllll'li'lili1'! 'iillHI I lit1' Illl ••(VI ll'lliliINI UK! I1']'
|i N n ii iipi|iiii|iiiiiipiipiiiiii i niiihiii n iiiiiiiiiipiiiipiiiii iihiiiiiii|iiiihiihiiiii iiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiii 111 minimi iiiiiiiimiiiimiiiiiiippiiiiinniiiii
111 ilH IF il I mtt illi! Hlli'i'll 'I' 'ill1 Illllllllll' I'llllliill iiHllllllllllllil'l11
Biological integrity incorporates
the idea that all is well in the com-
munity. That is, the different groups
are stable and working with little if
any external management of the
community, whether it is a town-
ship, coral reef, or stream. One
measure scientists use to evaluate
the ecological health of Savannah
River Basin streams is the biological
integrity of the aquatic insect com-
munity, insects are important
processors of organic material in
streams and are very sensitive to
changes in water quality conditions.
Fish are a second indicator of bio-
logical integrity. Like insect commu-
nities, fish communities will respond
to environmental change, whether
it is chemical or physical. Some fish
are very sensitive to environmental
change while others are not. By
Savannah River Basin REMAP
Habitat
40 60 80
Habitat Score - Percent of Reference
—•— CDF 95% Confidence Limits
Figure 1. Cumulative distribution of Habitat Score.
90
examining all fish groups that live in
a stream, scientists can assess the
general condition of a stream.
Trophic condition is a measure
of water quality based on different
levels of available nutrients. When
nutrients are in excess, overabun-
dance of algae and larger green
plants results in nuisance conditions.
Millions of dollars are spent annually
to control the growth of algae and
other plants. Overabundant growth
of plants can affect not only biologi-
cal integrity but also human uses
like fishing, boating, and swimming.
Scientists in the Savannah River
Basin use the Algal Growth Potential
Test (AGPT), a measure of algal
growth, to determine trophic
condition.
Monitoring Assessment
One of the tasks of the Savan-
nah River REMAP Project is to estab-
lish action levels (index scores or
concentrations) for the streams in
the basin. These levels are then used
to determine if a stream is in good,
fair, or poor ecological condition
relative to a particular societal value
or issue of concern.
Development of action levels
for indicators used in the study pro-
vides the opportunity to estimate
the miles of wadable streams and
their relative condition. These esti-
mates can be made easy to under-
stand by the cumulative density
function (CDF) or distribution
"curve." These curves show the
percent of wadable stream miles
that are less than or equal to some
-------
Chapter Twelve The Watershed Protection Approach and Place-based Management Programs 363
specified concentration or index
number, plus or minus a confidence
interval. The Savannah River Basin
Project uses a confidence level of
95%, meaning scientists are 95%
certain that the present stream miles
estimated to be equal or less than a
given index score or concentration
are within the bounds of the interval
lines on the graph. (See Figures 1
and 2).
Findings
During the first two summers
of a 4-year cycle (1 994 and 1 995),
64 sites on wadable streams were
monitored in a systematic random
manner to evaluate the status of
ecological condition in the basin.
By sampling fish, insects, and algae
and evaluating the habitat, investi-
gators found that water quality of
most streams was in good condition
with respect to nutrient content.
However, 38% of the stream miles
were affected by poor habitat, and
33% to 52% of the insect and fish
communities, respectively, were in
poor ecological condition. (See
Figure 3)
Although the Ecological Support
Branch has just begun to explore
the potential use of the Geographic
Information System (CIS), two areas
encompassing several counties in
Georgia and South Carolina seemed
to have clusters of sites of poor
ecological condition. Besides poor
habitat, two other potential causes
of poor conditions, wastewater
treatment plants and animal feeding
operations, may be negatively
Savannah River Basin REMAP
Stream AGPT
41
1
i
g
°-
10
40
50
20 30
AGPT mg/L
-•- CDF -- 95% Confidence Limits
Figure 2. Cumulative distribution curve for AGPT.
60
affecting the condition of insect and
fish communities. Further refine-
ment of the data
analysis and
eventual rechecks
of sites in this
area will be nec-
essary before
conclusions can
be drawn. The
cluster of poor
sites in South
Carolina, at this
time, are attrib-
uted only to
habitat effects
like sediment ero-
sion, deposition
of sediments, and
stream bank
failure.
Ecological Assessment Summary
Classification of Stream Indicators
Savannah River Basin REMAP
Fish
Habitat Insects
Indicator
Algae
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 3. Summary of CDF curve classification
of basin river miles.
-------
-------
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
emerging problems and setting
priorities among them, (3) design-
. ing and implementing programs,
(4) evaluating program or project
success, and (5) emergency
response monitoring.
Numerous public and private
groups conduct many and varied
monitoring programs to fulfill one
or more of these purposes. This
chapter discusses current conditions
of water resource quality monitor-
ing in the United States and efforts
to establish an integrated nation-
wide monitoring strategy.
Overview of National
Monitoring Activity
Water resource quality monitor-
ing is conducted by Federal,
interstate, State, local, and Tribal
agencies, as well as public, private,
and volunteer organizations. A
study undertaken by the Intergov-
ernmental Task Force on Monitor-
ing Water Quality indicates that 18
Federal agencies conduct approxi-
mately 141 separate monitoring
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, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), the Bonneville
Power Administration, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the
Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), and various other organiza-
tions within the Departments of
Agriculture (USDA), Energy (DOE),
Defense (DOD), and Interior. Of
this group, the USGS, FWS, EPA,
NOAA, and TVA have either long-
term regional or both regional and
national programs for water quality
monitoring. States, Tribes, and
other agencies and organizations
monitor ambient water quality at
their specific geographic scale.
Results from Federal monitoring
programs have provided important
information at the national and
regional scales. For example, USGS
In addition to monitoring
performed by
States, Tribes, and
Territories,
18 FEDERAL
AGENCIES
conduct 141 monitoring
programs across the
country.
-------
366 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
data indicate that fecal bacteria
counts and total phosphorus con-
centrations 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
organizations.
This wealth of information from
individual agencies, however, can-
not be easily aggregated to provide
an overview of national water quali-
ty conditions because of inconsis-
tencies among the various agencies
in monitoring purpose and design
as well as data collection methods
and assessment procedures. In
addition, data are often stored
without accompanying descriptors,
thus other data users cannot deter-
mine 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 them-
selves are changing, necessitating
similar changes in water monitoring
activities. The country is moving
beyond single-media command-
and-control programs into more
holistic management programs
based on risk assessment and
reduction. New emphases include
watershed, ecoregion, and geo-
graphically based programs; a focus
on biological, ecological, and habi-
tat integrity and diversity; wet
weather runoff control programs
such as those for nonpoint sources,
stormwater, and combined sewer
overflows; and wetlands and sedi-
ment contamination programs.
Traditional monitoring programs
must be expanded to include
assessment of biological and eco-
logical resources and new methods
must be developed to identify and
control pollution from hard-to-
trace, diffuse sources of pollution
such as wet weather runoff and
sediment contamination.
National Water
Quality Monitoring
Council
In 1992, representatives from
EPA, USGS, NOAA, FWS, COE,
USDA, DOE, TVA, NPS, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB),
and 10 State agencies and one
interstate agency formed the
Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM)
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 367
to prepare and facilitate implemen-
tation of a strategy for improving
water quality monitoring nation-
wide. The strategy was published in
1995 accompanied by technical
products to support implementa-
tion. The ITFM was part of the
implementation of OMB memoran-
dum 92-01 to strengthen coordina-
tion of water information across the
country. The USGS has lead respon-
sibility for this under its Water
Information Coordination Program.
The ITFM was 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 repre-
sentatives have been involved in
the deliberations of the ITFM and
its six task groups:
• Institutional Framework
• Environmental Indicators
• Methods
• Data Management Sharing
• Assessment and Reporting
• Ground Water.
In May 1997, the ITMF became
the National Water Quality Moni-
toring Council (the Council),
adding as members monitoring
groups representing industry, aca-
demia, municipalities, agriculture,
and volunteers. With the ITFM,
these groups had sat on an asso-
ciated advisory committee.
The Council is dealing with
monitoring for the full range of
nationwide water resources, includ-
ing 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, chemical/toxicological,
and biological/ecological/habitat
parameters.
The Council is implementing
the ITFM's national strategic plan
to achieve effective collection, inter-
pretation, and presentation of
water quality data that will improve
the availability of existing informa-
tion for decisionmaking at all levels
of government. This integrated
nationwide voluntary strategy 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.
The Council will provide guide-
lines and support for comparable
field and laboratory methods,
quality assurance/quality control,
environmental indicators, data
management and sharing, ancillary
data, interpretation techniques, and
training.
The Council has available prod-
ucts that can be used by monitor-
ing programs nationwide, such as
an outline for a recommended
monitoring program, environmen-
tal indicator selection criteria, and
a matrix of indicators to support
assessment of State and Tribal
designated uses.
-------
368 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
1131
Major Nationwide
Monitoring Programs
• Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP)
EPA's Office of Research and
Development initiated EMAP in
1990 to provide information on the
current status and long-term trends
in the condition of the ecological
resources of the United States.
EMAP develops indicators to
measure ecological condition,
monitors for those indicators, and
presents analyses of data in periodic
reports. Site selection is based on a
random design within natural
resource areas so individual results
can be interpolated with confi-
dence to the condition of the area
as a whole. EMAP, in cooperation
with NOAA and the FWS, has
monitored 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 estab-
lished NAPAP under the Acid
Precipitation Act of 1980 to provide
the information 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
Materials and Cultural Resources.
NAPAP has also developed Assess-
ment Work Groups in the areas of
Atmospheric 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 moni-
tored 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 fraction of total runoff in the
United States. The stations reflect
general water quality conditions in
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 369
the country. Measurements at
NASQAN sites include inorganic
constituents, radionuclides, and
bacteria, but exclude routine
analyses for organic chemicals.
• U.S. Geological Survey, the
Hydrologic Benchmark Network
(HBN)
Composed of 55 stations locat-
ed in relatively pristine headwater
basins, this network is designed to
define baseline water quality condi-
tions 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 deter-
mine spatial patterns and temporal
trends in chemical wet-only depo-
sition. It supports research into
impacts on aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. Measurements are
limited to inorganic constituents
only.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Water Resource Monitoring
The four environmental pillars
(stewardship, compliance, restora-
tion, and preservation) that support
the Corps environmental mission
require water quality and environ-
mental monitoring. To accomplish
this mission requires that the Corps
routinely monitor physical, chemi-
cal, and biological parameters at
most of its 541 reservoir projects
and in the waters influencing and
influenced by project operation.
The Corps monitors to aid in the
day-to-day operational decision
making, determine status and
trends, identify and solve problems,
evaluate project performance,
respond to emergencies and
provide credibility to the Corps'
commitment to its environmental
mission. The Corps' hazardous and
toxic waste site cleanup program
of existing and former military sites
and the 404 permit program also
require substantial sampling moni-
toring and data assessment. In
addition, the Corps collects and
evaluates water quality data for
special studies, such as the Chesa-
peake Bay Program, and for many
other Corps mission-related activi-
ties. The quantity, magnitude, and
spatial extent of some of these data
sets are substantial, often covering
an entire watershed. There has
been a gradual trend toward
increasing biological monitoring to
evaluate project performance. Data
are maintained at and are available
from local Corps offices.
-------
370 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
The Biological
Resources Division,
uses
Secretaiy of the Interior, Bruce
Babbitt, proposed the creation
of an independent, non-
advocacy biological science
bureaif within the Department
of the Interior. Tlie Biological
Resources Division (BED) pro-
\ides information and techni-
cal assistance. Tlie BRD was
created by incorporating
elements from seven bureaus
within the Department. The
BRp has three major fiinc-
tions:
• biological and ecological
research
• inventor}' and monitoring
of the Nation's biological
resources
• information transfer
activities.
TlieBRD became operational
on November 11, 1993.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Contaminant Biomonitor-
ing 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 nonran-
domly selected points along the
Nation's major rivers and in the
Great Lakes. Fish tissues are ana-
lyzed for organic contaminants
(pesticides and industrial chemicals)
and seven elements. Sampling has
been conducted on a 2- to 4-year
basis since the mid-1960s.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biomonitoring of Environmental
Status and Trends (BEST) Program
This program, now under
development, 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 pro-
vide current and predictive informa-
tion to alleviate impacts; and (3) to
provide summary information in a
timely manner to decisionmakers
and the public. The BEST Program
has two major components: FWS
lands and FWS trust species and
their habitats. Activities include col-
lection and evaluation of existing
data for site characterization and
bioassessment data from four gen-
eral categories—ecological surveys,
tissue residue, organism health or
biomarkers, and toxicity tests/
bioassays.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Program
This program determines status
and trends of U.S. wetlands to
produce comprehensive, statistically
valid acreage estimates of the
Nation's wetlands. This information
is widely distributed and mandated
by the Emergency Wetland
Resource Act of 1986. To date,
more than 32,000 detailed wet-
lands 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 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
accumulated 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
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 371
the Coastal Zone Management Act.
The Act requires nomination of a
reserve site by the Governor of a
State and designation by the
Secretary of Commerce. Since
1972, NOAA has kept this partner-
ship, and the evolving statutory
mission of the program, by provid-
ing 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 Puerto
Rico, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of
Mexico, the Atlantic Coast, and the
West Coast.
• 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 eval-
uate the suitability for .human con-
sumption of fish in those waters.
The program includes systematic
measurement of physical, chemical,
and biological variables at strategic
locations. 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.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation
Service
Resource analysis and assess-
ments are ongoing functions of the
Natural Resources Conservation
Service. These assessments play an
important role in how we keep the
public and policy makers informed
about emerging conservation and
environmental issues, develop plans
to conserve our natural resources,
and design programs to provide
national leadership for the conser-
vation of natural resources on
America's private lands. For addi-
tional information about this or
other NRCS resource assessment
publications, contact the Director
of the Resource Assessment and
Strategic Planning Division, USDA,
Natural Resources Conservation
Service, P.O. Box 2890, Washing-
ton, DC 20013.
Developed by the Interagency
Work Group on Water Quality, the
Guide to Federal Water Quality
Programs and Information is an
attempt to inventory all significant
Federal water quality programs and
information of national scope or
interest. The guide contains infor-
mation on (1) factors affecting
water quality including underlying
demographic pressures; use of the
land, water, and resources; and pol-
lutant loading; (2) ambient water
quality information, including
biological, chemical, and physical/
ecological conditions; (3) other
effects of water pollution including
waterborne disease outbreaks; and
(4) a listing of programs established
to preserve, protect, and restore
water quality. For a copy of the
Guide, contact EPA's Public Informa-
tion Clearinghouse (PIC) at (202)
260-7751.
description of other -
Federal water 'quality '
programs; Seethe Guidfe to- ~'
federal! Water ^Quality ,'
Programs arid Information,
available, from EPA's, 'Public, -
Information Clearinghouse at
(202)260-7751,' -
-------
372 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
Office of Water
Programs to Support
Monitoring
Environmental Indicators
The EPA Office of Water and
its many public and private partners
have agreed upon five national
water quality objectives and
18 indicators to measure these
objectives. The five objectives are
shown in the pyramid in Figure
13-1, and the surrounding boxes
include the corresponding indica-
tors. In particular, State and Tribal
305(b) reports and databases are
the input for the designated use
indicators under Objective 3 and
the biological integrity indicator
under Objective 2. In June 1996,
EPA published its first summary of
results of all 18 indicators, Environ-
mental Indicators of Water Quality
in the United States (EPA 841 -F-96-
001). The Agency and its partners
plan to update this report periodi-
cally with improved information on
the 18 indicators.
Index of Watershed
Indicators
To carry these water quality
objectives to the national level,
EPA is conducting the Indicators of
Watershed Integrity (IWI) project.
The goals of IWI are to
Figure 13-1
Water Quality Objectives and the 18 National Indicators
Public Health
1. Population served by community drinking water systems
violating health-based requirements*
2. Population served by unfiltered surface water systems
at risk from microbiological pollution*
3. Population served by drinking water systems exceeding
lead action levels*
4. Source water protection*
5. Fish consumption advisories*
6. Shellfish growing water classification
Aquatic Ecosystems
7. Biological integrity
8. Species at risk*
9. Wetland acreage
Loadings and Other Stressors
16s. Selected point source
loadings to surface water*
1 fib. Sources of point source
loadings through Class V
wells to ground water*
Nonpoint source loadings
to surface water
Marine debris
1 7.
18.
Support Uses Designated by States
and Tribes in Their Water Quality Standards'
Conserve
& Enhance
Aquatic
Ecosystems
Designated Uses (30S(b))
lOa. Drinking water supply
designated use
lOb. Fish and shellfish consumption
designated use
10c. Recreation designated use
lOd. Aquatic life designated use
Conserve or Improve Ambient Conditions
Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings and Other Stressors
12.
Ground water pollutants
Surface water pollutants*
13. Selected coastal surface water pollutants
in shellfish
14. Estuarine eutrophication conditions
15. Contaminated sediments*
* Data provided by States/Tribes independent of 305 (b)
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 373
• Characterize broadly the aquatic
condition and vulnerability of the
watersheds of the United States
(defined as 8-digit USGS Cataloging
Unit watersheds)
• Educate and empower citizens
through easy access to this aggre-
gated information
• Provide a baseline for dialogue
among water managers at all water-
shed scales
• Help measure progress toward
our national goal of healthy water-
sheds.
Phase I of IWI, begun in 1996,
includes data for most of the 18
water environmental indicators
described above. State 305(b)
assessments are key inputs to IWI.
IWI results are presented graphically
in national watershed maps such as
Figure 13-2, which shows IWI
results for designated use support
in rivers and streams. The complete
series of IWI maps is available on
National Watershed Characterization
Analysis of Alaska and
Hawaii reserved for Phase 2.
Watershed Classification
EH3 Better Water Quality - Low Vulnerability
Better Water Quality - High Vulnerability
Less Serious Water Quality Problems - Low Vulnerability
Less Serious Water Quality Problems - High Vulnerability
More Serious Water Quality Problems - Low Vulnerability
More Serious Water Quality Problems - High Vulnerability
Data Sufficiency Threshold Not Met
Index of Watershed
Indicators
http://www.epa.gov.surf
-------
374 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
the Surf Your Watershed on the
Internet (see below).
1WI assessments will be consid-
ered, along with other factors, as
States and Tribes, working with EPA
Regions, define work activities and
set priorities including performance
partnerships for Clean Water Act
and Safe Drinking Water Act source
protection programs.
Surf Your Watershed
EPA's newest Internet applica-
tion, Surf Your Watershed, provides
citizens and managers with a
convenient means to access envi-
ronmental information. For a State
or a watershed, users can find out
about protection efforts and volun-
teer opportunities, water resources,
drinking water sources, land use,
population, wastewater dischargers,
and water quality. Links to other
Internet sites with environmental
information are provided. It is also
possible to request a map of a
particular watershed according to
the user's preferences. The site can
be accessed on the EPA home page
at http://www.epa.gov/surf.
Monitoring Program
Grant Guidance
EPA gives grants to States to
assist them in administering pollu-
tion prevention and control pro-
grams, including monitoring activi-
ties. EPA, working with States and
the ITFM, has developed an outline
for a recommended monitoring
program. A comprehensive moni-
toring program would include both
ambient monitoring and monitor-
ing 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; 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. Copies can be
obtained by contacting the
Monitoring Branch at the following
address:
U.S. EPA (4503F)
Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460.
305(b) Consistency
Workgroup
The 305(b) Consistency Work-
group, convened in 1990, was
expanded in 1994 and 1996 to
address issues of consistency in
water quality reporting and to
improve accuracy and coverage of
State assessments. The 1996 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup consisted of
representatives of the 50 States,
7 Tribes, 5 Territories, 2 Interstate
Commissions, the District of Colum-
bia, 7 Federal agencies, the 10 EPA
Regions, and EPA Headquarters.
This workgroup has made recom-
mendation to improve each itera-
tion of guidance to the States.
Recent improvements include guid-
ance on annual electronic reporting
of 305(b) water quality results and
more detailed guidance for aquatic
life use support assessments, includ-
ing appropriate methods for using
biological data along with habitat,
physical/chemical, and toxicity data.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 375
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 bimonthly updates on State,
EPA Regional, and EPA Headquarters
activities in areas such as biological
monitoring, total maximum daily
load development, biological crite-
ria and protocol development, vol-
unteer monitoring, and the water-
shed approach. New documents
and upcoming meetings are high-
lighted. 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, or visit the newsletter on
the Office of Water homepage at
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/
monitor/.
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 qualitative
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
; ;, VEPA Publications About Developing and / •- '
- , .Implementing Biocriteria
' USEPA. 1996. Combined CSOs and the Multimetric Evaluation-of Their Biological
Effects: Case Studies in'Ohio and NeW York. EPA-823-R-96-002. Office ,of'Water,,
Washington, DC.',,'"'-,''c , - ^- '' ' - s * >
USEPA. .199C5. Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan Guidance for Programs Using
..Community-Level Biological Assessment in Streams and Wadeab'le Rivers. EPA-841-
^ B-95-OQ4. Office of WAer, Washington,\DC. ' ,-;<',.'-
USEPA. 1993.'EPA Region W in-Stream Biological Monitoring* Handbook (for • ', '
, Wgdeab'le'St'reamsinrthe-Pacific Northwest). G.A.sHayslip (ed:X EPA-910-9-92- , ;
,013.- Region -1,0, -Environmental Services Division, Seattle;- Washington. - '
v 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-440:5-9,1-003'.-Office of Water, Washington, DC. - - -, - - ,
' USEPA.-1991. -Biological Criteria:'Guide to Technical Literature. EPA-440-5-91-004
Office of, ,' "-,?'-.
USEPA'.,1991. Policy pHthe Usef/f Biological;Assessments and Criteria in the-Waier.
Quality Program. 'Office of Water, Office of,Science.ahd Technology, Washington/
,DC, - i <,_'.«'• -";'-', <•
, USEPA. 199J 5 Technical'.Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control.
,EPA 505-2-90-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC ,' -'',>''"',
USEPA". {[ 990, Biological "Criteria; National; Program Guidance for Surface 'Waters.' •
^EPA 44,0-5-90-004.' Office'of Water,Re'gulatidns and,Standards, Washington, DC.,
- USEPA; -T990. Proceedings of the -1990'Mictivesf Pollutioh -Control Biologists Meeting.' •
W:S., Davis (e,d.),EPA-909-9-90-005. Region 5, Environmental Sciences Division,
/Chicago,' Illinois;:- ,.-',,'' ~" --, ': - - ',<-->
", '? ' * ~*, ' ' *• ~ > " •, ' • - •' ,. -
USEPA. 1989. Ra'pid ftipas&ssmerit Protocolstfor Use in Streams and"Rivers: Benthic' .
Macrplnv'eriebrates and Fish. EPA-440-4-89-001. Office of Wafer Regulations and '
Standards, Washington, DC". (Currently under revisjon. Available at http:// - ' -'
vvwVtf.epa.gpv/6wowvvtra/monitoring/AVyPD/RBP/bioas'ses.html).' • '
USEPAi 1987. Repoctto the National Workshop orj Instream BiologicaHvlonitoring-
and Criteria. Office of Water Regulations arid StandaYds. fnstream Biological •
Criteria Committee, Region 5/and Environmental Research kaboratory-Gorvailis'/ "-
Washington; DC, -',,', "',",.' ' -• " ., , ,'-.'
.USEPA.' 198,7''/Surface Water'Monitoring^ 'A Framework for'Change. Office of Water
"and Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington; DC.' - "-'" - "
-------
r
376 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
information to facilitate activities
directed toward that implementa-
tion. When fully implemented,
biocriteria will expand and improve
water quality standards programs,
help to quantify impairment of
beneficial uses, and aid States and
Tribes in setting program priorities.
These criteria will be useful because
they provide for direct measure-
ment 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 proto-
cols (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 con-
dition. 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. A companion document
to provide generic quality assur-
ance/quality control (QA/QC) for
State programs using community-
level biological assessment in
streams is also available (see publi-
cations box).
Currently, over 30 States have
active RBP-like water resource
monitoring programs for streams,
another three are under develop-
ment, and three States go beyond
the guidelines. Updated RBP guid-
ance is being developed to aid
States in adapting the original
protocol framework to go beyond
a single reference site approach to
including ecoregional reference
conditions that fit a variety of
ecological 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
estuaries. A document was pub-
lished in April 1996 (EPA-823-R-96-
002) that provides examples of
using RBPs for assessing the biologi-
cal effects of combined sewer over-
flows. Copies may be obtained from
NCEPI or the Water Resources
Center.
QA/QC for Biological
Monitoring and Biological
Assessment
The U.S. EPA Office of Water
and Office of Research and Devel-
opment are assembling generic
guidance documents for production
of quality assurance project plans
for biological monitoring and
assessment. This work is currently
under way and involves review and
input from State and EPA regional
monitoring 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
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 377
of Science and Technology (OST),
Standards and Applied Science
Division, is developing national
guidance documents. This guid-
ance, developed in cooperation
with States, Tribes, and others, is
presented in a four-volume set of
documents titled Guidance for
Assessing Chemical Contaminant
Data for Use in Fish Advisories,
Volume I: Fish Sampling and Analysis
(September 1993); Volume II: Risk
Assessment and Fish Consumption
Limits (June 1994); Volume III: Risk
Management Gune 1996); and
Volume IV: Risk Communication
(March 1995).
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 National Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Consumption Advisories
(NLFWCA) contains fish and wildlife
advisory information reported
nationwide by States including the
waterbody affected, type of species,
type of pollutants, type of advisory,
geographic extent of the advisory,
and name of a contact person.
It is updated annually and can be
obtained by contacting the EPA
Fish Contaminants Section at the
following address or by calling
(202) 260-1305:
NLFCWA 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 it and incor-
porate it as a major prototype
during the modernization (Phase III)
of EPA's STORET (STOrage and
RETrieval) Database (see page 381
for more information about STORET
and ODES). The use of real fish
tissue data during prototype devel-
opment 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 could
be easily moved to the new STORET
system when it is completed in
1997. Additional information may
be obtained by writing to the
following, address:
NFTDR
U.S. EPA (4305)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
information about
' Databases and infomtation
systems, 'seethe Office of '
Water Environmental and' -
Program Information-Systems
Compendium available from
: the EPA Office of. Water at
(202)360-5684.. ''' ',' "
-------
378 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
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.
Specific Water
Program Monitoring
National Estuary
Program Monitoring
Guidance
EPA developed and published
guidance on the design, implemen-
tation, and evaluation of estuary
monitoring programs required
under Section 320 of the Clean
Water Act (EPA 842-B-92-004). 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 pollution and to
rigorously evaluate the effectiveness
of NPS pollution control activities.
Under this program, EPA's Regional
Offices nominate projects by for-
warding State proposals to EPA
Headquarters for review and con-
currence. Projects are selected on a
competitive basis from within each
of the EPA Regions. EPA works with
project sponsors to develop approv-
able 6- to 10-year projects. The
project sponsors then work through
the State/EPA Section 319 process
to obtain approval and funding.
As of May 1997, 20 projects have
been approved. More information
about the Section 319 National
Monitoring Program is provided in
Chapter 15.
Wetlands Monitoring
EPA's Wetlands Division, in
cooperation with the Office of
Science and Technology and the
Assessment and Watershed Protec-
tion Division, is coordinating an
interagency work group to develop
draft guidance for assessing and
monitoring the ecological integrity
of wetlands. This workgroup, which
consists of State and Federal wet-
lands managers and academic
scientists, will investigate methods
of selecting and classifying reference
wetlands and measuring how
assemblages of plants and animals
respond to habitat disturbances.
Eventually, the biological monitoring
techniques will enable States (1) to
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 379
target wetlands protection and
restoration efforts more effectively,
(2) to develop wetlands-specific
numeric biological criteria, (3) to
determine aquatic life use support
in wetlands, (4) to evaluate the
success of pollution abatement and
habitat protection programs, and
(5) to establish performance stan-
dards for wetlands restoration and
mitigation projects. In addition to
developing biological assessment
methods, EPA's Wetlands Division is
supporting the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in developing the hydro-
geomorphic (HGM) assessment
method to assess wetlands func-
tions. EPA's Wetlands Division also
continues to work with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the U.S.
Natural Resources Conservation
Service in improving wetlands sta-
tus and trends reporting. See Chap-
ters 5 and 17 for further informa-
tion about EPA and State wetlands
monitoring and protection
programs.
Ground Water
Monitoring
EPA's support for the collection
and use of ground water monitor-
ing data was given heightened
significance with the passage of the
August 1996 Amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act. Source
water assessments together with
the 305(b) ground water guidance
on selecting specific aquifers for
study will provide much of the
information to develop programs to
protect drinking water at its source.
Information gathered under current
305(b) reporting and from future
source water assessments will be
very useful, for example, in
determining the occurrence of
contaminants, in seeking alternative
monitoring relief, or in providing
local flexibility in ground water
disinfection. The source water
assessment guidance was issued in
August 1997.
EPA is also working closely with
the U.S. Geological Survey on a
document proposing a national
strategy to guide the approach,
design, and implementation for the
collection and monitoring of
ground water quality data. This
document is being completed
under the Ground Water Focus
Group of the Intergovernmental
Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality (ITFM). The document to
be released in late 1997 is entitled:
An Approach for a National Ground-
Water Quality Monitoring Strategy.
EPA's Implementation and
Assistance Division, Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water,
also has completed two documents
that apply to the delineation of
source water protection areas. State
Methods for Delineating Source Water
Protection Areas for Surface Water
Supply Sources of Drinking Water
reviews various methods to delin-
eate source water protection areas
in watersheds or basins. A second
document entitled Delineation
of Source Water Protection Areas,
A Discussion for Managers: Part I:
A Conjunctive Approach for Ground
Water and Surface Water describes
an approach to delineating ground
water and surface water protection
boundaries for the protection of
critical sites such as drinking water
intakes and endangered species
habitats. This document addresses
ground water contribution to
surface water and several methods
used by States and communities for
delineating the surface area around
a drinking water intake.
-------
380 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
Volunteer Monitoring
Programs
EPA's Office of Water encour-
ages all citizens to learn about their
water resources and supports
EPA Volunteer Monitoring Materials
IPA's Volunteer Monitoring Program. EPA-841F-95-001. February 1995. Contains
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
improved the environment. /
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 Gtizen'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 Gtizen's Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference.
EPA-841 /R-92-004. September 1992. Presents proceedings from the third
national conference held in Annapolis, Maryland, in 1992.
The Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans. EPA-841 -B-96-
003. September 1996. Presents information on how to develop a quality
assurance project plan to document volunteer monitoring program objectives,
organization, sample design, and lab and field quality assurance procedures.
Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA-841 -D-95-001.1995.
Presents information and methods for volunteer monitoring of streams.
Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA-842-B-93-004. December
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-440/4-90-01JO.
August 1990. Discusses the importance of volunteer monitoring, quality assur-
ance 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.
Many of these materials are available on the Internet at http://www.epa/gov/
volunteer/epasvmp.html.
volunteer monitoring because of its
many benefits. Volunteer monitors
build awareness of pollution prob-
lems by
• Becoming trained in pollution
prevention
• Helping clean up problem sites
• Providing data for waters that
may otherwise be unassessed,
with accompanying data on the
methods used to collect the data
• Increasing the amount of water
quality information available to
decisionmakers at all levels of
government.
Volunteer data are used to
delineate and characterize water-
sheds, screen for water quality
problems, and measure baseline
conditions and trends, among other
things.
EPA supports volunteer moni-
toring by providing technical guid-
ance and forums for exchanging
volunteer information. For example,
EPA sponsors biennial national
conferences that bring together
volunteer organizers, State and local
agencies, environmental groups,
school groups, and the business
sector. EPA also distributes a nation-
al newsletter for volunteers, pub-
lishes a directory of volunteer moni-
toring programs across the Nation,
and maintains many of its volunteer
monitoring documents on the EPA
homepage. EPA has released guid-
ance on planning and implement-
ing volunteer monitoring programs;
on volunteer monitoring methods
for streams, lakes, and estuaries;
and on developing quality assur-
ance project plans.
Many of EPA's 10 Regional
Offices are actively involved in
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 381
volunteer 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 monitor-
ing and public participation, and
providing information exchange
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. EPA will also
continue encouraging cooperation
and information exchange among
volunteer programs and between
volunteers and State, local, Tribal,
and Federal agencies. A common
theme of all of these activities will
be a commitment to increase the
diversity of the volunteer monitor-
ing 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 quali-
ty monitoring and provides users
with an array of analytical tools and
linkages to other data systems.
STORET primarily contains chemical
and physical water quality
monitoring data, with biological
sampling and site information
stored in the associated BIOS (Bio-
logical System) Database, another
major component. ODES (Ocean
Data Evaluation System) is a sepa-
rately maintained and linked infor-
mation system specifically for water
quality and biological data for
marine, estuarine, and freshwater
environments. ODES users can
access STORET information for
further manipulation using ODES
graphical and modeling tools.
EPA information systems are
being called upon to respond to
new program needs, including geo-
graphically oriented management
approaches, storage of ground
water quality and associated geo-
logic data and biological and habi-
tat assessment information, and to
enhance sharing of data (across
EPA, other Federal, State, and local
programs). STORET, BIOS, and
ODES are undergoing a major
modernization scheduled to be
complete in 1997. This effort will
result in a more flexible, efficient,
and usable state-of-the-art informa-
tion system, which, in turn, will
provide improved tools for ground
and surface water quality decision-
making.
The prototype of the system
has been completed. It is being
reviewed and updated based on
comments obtained at the Fourth
STORET X Workshop in December
1996. As soon as this review is com-
plete, beta testing of the prototype
will begin in several EPA Regions,
States, and local agencies.
During this beta testing phase,
work will be continued on the
technical architecture of the pro-
duction system, migration issues,
and a transition plan from the
-------
382 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
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
current system to the modernized
system. Under the current schedule,
data storage in the current system
will no longer be possible after
January 1, 1999; retrievals will cease
on December 31, 1999. After these
dates, only the new modernized
system will be available to the user
community.
For more information on
STORET modernization, contact:
Phil Lindenstruth
U.S. EPA (4503F)
Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-6549
(800) 424-9067
The Waterbody System
The Waterbody System (WBS)
is a data management tool used by
States to record assessments of
ambient water quality for surface
waters. Although originally
designed to facilitate the reporting
under Section 305(b), the WBS is
used by many States to track results
of all their ambient water quality
assessments. During the 1996
reporting cycle, approximately 40
States, Territories, and Interstate
Water Commissions submitted WBS
data files or WBS-compatible files.
The Waterbody System con-
tains information that program
managers can access quickly on the
water quality status of a particular
waterbody. Data elements include
waterbody identification, location,
waterbody size meeting each desig-
nated use, causes of impairment
(nutrients, pesticides, siltation), and
sources of impairment (municipal
treatment plants, agricultural
runoff).
The Monitoring Branch at EPA
Headquarters has updated the WBS
three times since it was developed
in 1988 and provides user training
and technical support.
Increasingly, States that do not
use WBS simply transfer their WBS-
compatible database information
electronically to EPA. In 1996, EPA
took a significant step forward in
presenting information nationally
by aggregating State 305(b) infor-
mation to a nationally uniform
watershed level (8-digit USGS
Cataloging Units). This allows
305(b) characterization of the 8-
digit watersheds across the Nation.
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
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 383
users are able to use graphical and
statistical tools to analyze PCS data
and can use a PCS/STORET inter-
face to link the systems and support
additional analyses. An effort is cur-
rently under way to allow permit-
tees the opportunity to electronic-
ally submit data to States and EPA,
thereby streamlining the reporting
process.
Safe Drinking Water
Information System
(SDWIS)
The Safe Drinking Water Infor-
mation System (SDWIS) is the data-
base for storing information related
to drinking water quality in the
United States. SDWIS is designed to
store parametric data on both regu-
lated and unregulated contami-
nants occurring in drinking water.
SDWIS is actually two distinct,
although related, data systems:
SDWIS/FED and SDWIS/IAN.
SDWIS/FED is the Federal compo-
nent that resides on a mainframe
computer at EPA's Enterprise
Technology Services Division in
North Carolina. SDWIS/FED replaces
the Federal Reporting Data System
(FRDS) and is the national reposi-
tory for a subset of State and EPA
Regional inventory data on public
water systems, data related to com-
pliance with drinking water regula-
tions, and other data such as unreg-
ulated contaminant monitoring
data.
SDWIS/LAN is a local area net-
work (LAN)-based system designed
to meet the needs of the States that
directly implement the drinking
water program. At this time, five
States use SDWIS/LAN. SDWIS/LAN
contains all of the data needed
(e.g., complete PWS inventory,
monitoring schedules, and sample
results) to compute compliance
with drinking water regulations and
to perform other Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS) func-
tions. A subset of SDWIS/LAN data
is transferred to SDWIS/FED quar-
terly to meet the reporting require-
ments. This same data transfer is
also performed by States that do
not use SDWIS/LAN and have their
own data systems. A summary of
, the current SDWIS/FED reporting
requirements placed on State PWSS
programs can be found in the
Consolidated Summary of State
Reporting Requirements for the Safe
Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS), EPA 812-B-95-001,
November 1995.
SDWIS was designed using
Information Engineering and Com-
puter Aided Software Engineering
(CASE) tools. Following this
approach, modules called business
systems have been developed that
represent major areas of similar
functions such as inventory and
sampling. The Inventory Business
System contains data on the name
and address of the public water
system, the treatment plants and
sources of water and other facility
data such as locational data, the
population served, number of ser-
vice connections, geographic areas,
and service areas. The Sampling
Business System contains data on
sampling locations, analytical
results, and contaminants.
SDWIS also contains business
systems for maintaining monitoring
schedules and noncompliance
determinations for the Total
Coliform Rule. In addition, SDWIS/
FED maintains data on violations,
enforcement actions, and
-------
384 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
variances/exemptions for regulated
contaminants that exceed the
Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) under the SDWA regula-
tions.
States are currently required to
report unregulated contaminant
monitoring data to SDWIS/FED. The
purpose of unregulated contami-
nant monitoring is to assist EPA in
determining the occurrence of
unregulated contaminants in drink-
ing water and whether future regu-
lations are warranted. The monitor-
ing guidance calls for reporting a
minimum set of data elements on
48 contaminants. This information
is critical for EPA in determining
contaminants for future regulatory
control.
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 releas-
es 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
• Conduct selected manufacturing
operations in the industry groups
specified in the U.S. Government
Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) Codes 20 through 39,
including chemicals, petroleum
refining, primary metals, fabricated
metals, paper, plastics, and trans-
portation 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 public can work with
industry and government 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 promis-
ing areas of pollution prevention, to
establish reduction targets, and to
measure and document progress
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 385
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 gov-
ernments can use the TRI data to
identify hot spots, compare facilities
or geographic areas, evaluate pollu-
tion control and prevention pro-
grams, and track progress in reduc-
ing 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 limi-
tations. TRI captures only a portion
of all toxic chemical releases nation-
wide because nonindustrial sources,
such as dry cleaners and auto ser-
vice stations, are not required to
submit TRI data. In addition, the TRI
data alone are not sufficient to
calculate potential adverse effects
on human health from toxic chemi-
cals because TRI does not track
exposure of the public to released
chemicals.
The TRI data are available to
the public online through the
National 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 information about
obtaining TRI data, 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-TRIFACTS,
an auxiliary software package devel-
oped by EPA.
Contaminated Sediment
Management Strategy
and National Inventory
In January 1990, an Agency-
wide Sediment Steering Committee
decided to prepare an Agency-wide
Contaminated Sediment Manage-
ment Strategy to coordinate and
focus the Agency's resources on
contaminated sediment problems.
In August 1994, the Strategy docu-
ment, EPA's Contaminated Sediment
Management Strategy, was pro-
posed for public comment in the
Federal Register. The purpose
of the Strategy is to: describe EPA's
understanding of the extent and
severity of sediment contamination,
including uncertainties about the
dimension of the problem; to
describe the cross-program policy
framework to promote considera-
tion ancl reduction of ecological
and human health risk posed by
sediment contamination; and to
describe actions EPA believes are
needed to bring about considera-
tion and reduction of risks posed
by contaminated sediments.
EPA is revising the draft strategy
to address public comments and
evolving policy.
Paramount to increasing our
ability to address sediment contami-
nation is the development of inven-
tories of information about existing
-------
386 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
To subscribe to EPA's e-mail
listserver on nonpoint source
pollution, NPSINFO:
• Send an e-mail to
listserver@unixmail.
rtpnc.epa.gov
• In the body of the
message (not the
subject line), type:
subscribe npsinfo
your first name
your last name
To contact the entire NPSINFO
list, send an e-rnail to:
NPSINFO@unixmail.rtpnc.
epa.gov
contaminated locations and
contaminant sources. In response
to this need, and to meet certain
statutory requirements, EPA's Office
of Science and Technology has
developed the National Sediment
Inventory (NSI), an extensive geo-
referenced database of sediment
quality monitoring and pollutant
source information for the Nation's
freshwater and estuarine ecosys-
tems. The goals of the NSI are to
survey data regarding sediment
quality nationwide, identify loca-
tions that are potentially contami-
nated, and describe possible sources
of contaminants responsible for
contamination.
Environmental managers can
use NSI data and assessment proto-
cols now as screening tools to help
determine the incidence and severi-
ty of sediment contamination and
to identify areas requiring closer
inspection. In time, NSI data and
assessments will reveal trends and
help measure progress in minimiz-
ing risk. EPA's first Report to
Congress on the subject, The Inci-
dence and Severity of Sediment
Contamination in Surface Waters of
the United States, includes a volume
entitled "The National Sediment
Quality Survey," which is high-
lighted on page 158 of this
document.
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 pollu- ;
tion, (2) NPS management tech- ;
niques and methods, and (3) insti-
tutional arrangements for the plan-
ning and implementation of NPS
management including financial
arrangements. The Exchange con-
tains three main activities: a techni-
cal bulletin, the Nonpoint Source
News-Notes, normally published six
times per year; the NPS Information
Exchange site on EPA's World Wide
Web; and NPSINFO, an e-mail list
for people interested in communi-
cating with others on various topics
related to nonpoint source pollu-
tion. The target audience for the
News-Notes is State and local water
quality program managers
although, with a circulation of over
10,000, other interested parties
including public officials, environ-
mental groups, private industry, cit-
izens, and academics receive News-
Notes regularly. For a free subscrip-
tion, send your name and address
to: NPS News-Notes, c/o Terrene
Institute, 4 Herbert Street, Alexan-
dria, VA 22305 or by fax to (202)
260-1517 or (703) 548-6299.
The NPS Information Exchange
site on EPA's World Wide Web can
be found at http://www.epa.gov/
OWOW/NPS/npsie.html. This site
contains information on various
sources of nonpoint pollution, back
issues of News-Notes, a calendar of
NPS-related events, and informa-
tion on how to subscribe to
NPSINFO. In addition, a link back
to EPA's Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program page is included.
The NPSINFO e-mail discussion
group is used by nearly 800 people
nationwide, with some international
subscribers, to exchange informa-
tion and answer questions on non-
point source pollution.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 387
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
technical staff in developing strate-
gies to reduce toxic chemical
loadings. The keystone goal of
GLNPO's data integration 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 desks,
providing environmental decision-
making 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
realizing 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
environmental monitoring and
program (e.g., PCS, TRIS, FINDS)
information in a relational structure.
Gateway is a graphical user inter-
face that provides spatially refer-
enced access to the Envirofacts
database. The Great Lakes Enviro-
facts project will be the first
implementation of the Gateway/
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.
Sheila Lynn Preston, 1st grade, Estes Hills Elementary, Chapel Hill, NC
-------
388 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
HIGHLIGHT
Volunteer Monitoring
and the 305(b) Process
More and more States are find-
ing that the information collected
by their water quality professionals
is simply not enough—many waters
are going unmonitored because
State budgets are strapped and
because the task of monitoring all of
a State's waters is simply enormous.
In response, many States are turning
to volunteer monitoring data to
supplement their own professionally
collected data.
What Types of Monitoring Do
Volunteers Perform?
Volunteers collect a variety of water quality
data. Volunteers typically monitor lake turbidity
using Secchi disks and observational data (see
highlight on the Great American Secchi Dip-In
in Chapter 16). For rivers and streams, volun-
teers sample macroinvertebrates (aquatic
insects) and use a picture key to identify organ-
isms and rate the sample on a scale from poor
to excellent. For marine and estuarine waters,
volunteers typically measure temperature,
salinity, fecal coliform, secchi depth, and
dissolved oxygen. Other chemical and physical
measurements taken by volunteers include pH,
nutrients, algal growth, biochemical oxygen
demand, and total suspended solids.
ll III
How Does Volunteer
Monitoring Fit into
the 305(b) Picture?
EPA guidance encourages States
to include volunteer monitoring
data in their 305(b) reports. Since
1991, EPA has told States they can
use volunteer monitoring data as a
potential source of both "evaluated"
and "monitored" information.
"Evaluated" is the category that
includes less-rigorous types of infor-
mation such as land use patterns,
predictive models, surveys, and his-
torical information. States can use
quality-assured data by trained
volunteers as "monitored," on par
with professional data.
How Did States Use
Volunteer Monitoring
Datainthe1996305(b)
Reports?
In 1996, 24 State 305(b)
reports mentioned the presence of
volunteer monitoring programs
within the State. Seven simply
discussed volunteer monitoring
programs in general terms.
i ill I 11 jin n ttafm ft"ti i it ™
llllllllllllllllllllllll 111 •Hil"]»»«B> • «T« Jt ! N| r» t
in mi i illinium pi i 11 (ifiiiiji nmniititi 11* ^ j £ n #
ill i ij 11 toi w n wt %t ^ n vf
**|
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 389
;"."'-''" J < '
•"•*'-.' ', *s ,
Seventeen States, on the other
hand, indicated that they actively
supported volunteer monitoring
programs, were confident in the
quality of the data collected by vol-
unteers, and actually used volun-
teer-collected data in their reports.
The information in these reports
illustrates that volunteer-collected
information is being widely used by
State water quality agencies despite
varying State approaches to sup-
porting volunteer programs and
managing volunteer data. Some
States train and manage volunteers
through extensive, statewide pro-
grams. Others simply recognize the
value and quality of data collected
by individual programs and work
< ' " "-'*'<'.
>''- "•-, '', s"" ' ~-c ''•<•** -^~ ~'[.
V. ' " 'V" -" -*"" , v/'
with them to incorporate their data
as possible. It is also clear that, to
fill their own data gaps, States are
using many different types of volun-
teer-collected data for different
types of waterbodies.
States most often use volunteer-
collected data to assess trends in
lake quality and screen for potential
problems in rivers and streams. A
number of States, including Florida,
Missouri, and Texas, enter quality-
assured stream data into their State
database along with professional
data. Those States that did not use
volunteer monitoring data in their
305(b) reports often expressed
interest in using such data in the
future.
'*:V: ;-/'^5 ^/;' ;:;:
Hk3HudJ^m^HU^^
{ ' ' '. < \Hjyr "^ IGH lG'iT "
®SS
' - ^ j ~
i'^-^-V-';;;--^;.-'"-?";
:>-:.;-V.--V"N.-'."-'..:.'
^ ->-*„' >'"f> '* '- ^~ '"^. '*]"' " *•--
''•„ / -/•' '::'<•* * " -"'' ;
-------
390 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
Volunteer Monitoring at Work
Across the country, volunteer
monitors are working to improve
their States' water quality. The fol-
lowing examples demonstrate how
volunteer monitors are putting their
information to use.
Detecting Milfoil
Invasions
Milfoil Watchers are volunteers
trained by the Vermont Department
of Environmental Conservation to
monitor lakes for "pioneer" (i.e.,
new) infestations of the nonnative
aquatic plant Eurasian watermilfoil.
It is important to detect infestations
early since new invasions are much
easier to control. When milfoil is
found, Milfoil Watchers work quickly
to inform lake residents of the prob-
lem and educate them about how
they can help keep the infestation
from spreading. Lake residents
then work with the Department
of Environmental Conservation to
implement control activities in
affected lakes (see highlight in
Chapter 16).
Long-Term Data Used
for Lake Management
In 1994, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency published
a 100-page report entitled Lake
Water Quality Trends in Minnesota.
Secchi disk data from the State's
Citizens Lake Monitoring Program
provided a significant amount of
material for the report. For some
lakes, the report includes a continu-
ous data set dating from 1973, the
year the program was founded.
Government agencies in Minnesota
use the report to help make deci-
sions about lake management issues
such as septic system upgrades,
algicide treatments, dredging, and
construction.
Monitoring Impacts of
Highway Construction
The Maryland Save Our Streams
organization and the Maryland
State Highway Administration (SHA)
forged a partnership in 1994. The
Save Our Streams volunteers con-
duct stream monitoring at road
construction sites before, during,
and after construction projects. The
volunteers monitor a number of
parameters, including benthic
macroinvertebrates, habitat assess-
ment, and several chemical and'
physical measurements. The SHA
will use the data to determine exist-
ing stream conditions, assess the
potential impacts of road projects,
determine whether contractors are
adhering to sediment control regu-
lations, and implement enforcement
measures and restoration and miti-
gation activities where construction-
related impacts exist.
Students Discover
Sewage Leak
High school students participat-
ing in the Mill River Watch Program
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 391
in Massachusetts helped the
superintendent of the Department
of Public Works discover a broken
sewer line. The students discovered
high bacteria levels coming from a
storm drain while out on a routine
sampling run and presented their
findings to the department. The
surrounding community was partic-
ularly appreciative of the students'
efforts because the leaking sewage
had been draining to a downstream
pond in which people often fished
and waded.
Volunteers Take
Statistics on Marine
Debris
During Earth Week 1996, the
Center for Marine Conservation
kicked off the National Marine
Debris Monitoring Program. The
5-year program, funded by EPA, is
working to determine whether the
amount of debris on U.S. coastlines
is decreasing and where the debris
comes from. Trained volunteers are
monitoring 30 specific debris items
at 40 sites along the Gulf of Mexico
and the Caribbean. The volunteers'
preliminary data suggest that the
majority of ocean-based debris, such
as floats, buoys, and fishing line,
washes ashore in the western
portion of the Gulf of Mexico.
Volunteers in Texas typically collect
25 to 30 bags of debris during
monthly visits while their Florida
counterparts typically collect less
than 1.
Stream Watchers
Assist State Officials
The Delaware Stream Watch, a
grassroots volunteer water resource
protection program, is a cooperative
effort of the Delaware Nature
Society, the Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control (DNREC), and, more
recently, industry. As part of a
stream adoption project, volunteers
take biological and physical/chemi-
cal data at streams across the State.
DNREC provides training for volun-
teers and provides a liaison to main-
tain contact with volunteers and
respond to their data questions and
concerns. Stream Watcher pollution
reports have been of great assis-
tance to State and county officials.
Volunteers are often the first to
report fish kills, illegal dumping,
high coliform counts, failing septic
systems, sewer overflows, and ero-
sion/sedimentation problems.
For More Information
Alice Mayio
National Volunteer Monitoring
Coordinator
USEPA Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds
4503F, 401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7018
mayio.alice@epamail.epa.gov
Information taken from Volunteer
Monitor newsletter and State
305(b) reports.
-------
392 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
,=
HT HIGHLIGHT
Index of Watershed Indicators
Watershed - an area of land bounded
by ridge lines that catches rain and
snow and drains into a marsh, estu-
ary, stream, river, lake, or ground-
water aquifer.
iii 111 ill i nil
in n n in in in 11 n
i n n n iiiniiiiiiiiini niniiiiiinin n iiiiinni|i nil iiniini i in in in nil nil inn nil in
^^
The Index of Watershed Indica-
tors (IW1 or Index) is a compilation
of information on the condition of
aquatic resources in the United
States. Just as a physician might take
your temperature and blood pres-
sure, check your pulse, and listen to
your heartbeat and respiration
to determine the status of
your health, the Index looks
at a variety of indicators that
point to whether rivers,
lakes, streams, wetlands, and
coastal areas are "well" or
"ailing" and whether activi-
ties on the surrounding lands
are placing these waters at risk.
The Index is, in large part,
based on the June 1996 Environ-
mental Indicators of Water Quality in
the United States, developed by EPA
in partnership with States, Tribes,
private organizations, and other
Federal agencies. The Indicators
Report presents 18 national indica-
tors of the "health" of our water
resources. The Index evaluates a
similar set of indicators for each of
2,111 watersheds in 48 States.
(Alaska, Hawaii, and the Territories
will be added in future versions of
the Index.)
Why Watersheds?
A watershed is defined in
nature by topography. It is the land
area that drains to a body of water,
such as a lake, an estuary, or a large
river. The watershed drainage affects
the water flow or water level and, in
many cases, the overall condition of
downstream bodies of water. Thus,
a lake, river, or estuary is a reflec-
tion of its watershed.
EPA's Office of Water, along
with many local groups and State
agencies, has been emphasizing the
importance of organizing water
quality improvement efforts on a
watershed basis. Downstream con-
ditions are affected by all contribut-
ing input from upstream tributaries
and adjacent land use activities.
What Is the Size of
These Watersheds?
The US Geological Survey
(USGS) has developed and mapped
a geographic Hydrologic Unit Classi-
fication (HUG) System of watersheds
at four different scales. The lower 48
States, for example, are comprised
by 18 basins known as regions.
Subregions, identified with a 4-digit
number, nest within the regions,
and 6-digit accounting units are
smaller yet. Within those accounting
units are 8-digit cataloging units,
which define watersheds that are
generally greater than 700 square
miles in drainage area. For the
Index, watersheds are depicted at
the 8-digit scale - the smallest unit
in the nationally consistent HUG
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 393
System. South Carolina, for exam-
ple, has 31 cataloging units, which
vary in size from about 500 to
1,800 square miles.
Percent of Assessed
Watershed Rivers Meeting
All Designated Uses:
RB 80 -100% Met
IHI 50-79% Met
CD 20-49% Met
I." .1 < 20% Met
I I Insufficient Data
Index of Watershed
Indicators
Sources: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency:
National Water Quality Inventory
Figure 1. This map presents the designated uses data for the
34 watersheds located in, or adjacent to, South Carolina.
The map represents one layer of data used in developing
the Index (Condition Indicator #1).
-s HI6HLIGH,
-------
394 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
HT HIGHLIGHT
Assessed Rivers Meeting
All Designated Uses Estab-
lished by State/Tribal Water
Quality Standards
Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Advisories
Indicators of Source Water
Quality for Drinking Water
Systems
Contaminated Sediments
5. Ambient Water Quality
Data - Four Toxic
Pollutants
6. Ambient Water Quality
Data - Four Conventional
Pollutants
7. Wetlands Loss Index.
I
nil iiiiii i iiiii i ill iiiniii
What Are the Indicators?
The first phase of the IWI proj-
ect, Phase I, uses 15 indicators or
data layers. They were selected
because they are appropriate to the
IWI objectives, they have relatively
uniform availability across the
Nation, and they can be depicted at
the 8-digit HUC scale. Seven of the
indicators are related to the condi-
tion of the aquatic resources, and
eight are related to vulnerability.
Vulnerability is influenced by condi-
tions or activities that can place
stress on the resources, though
perhaps not to the point that their
values or functions are impaired.
Phase II will add Alaska, Hawaii, and
Puerto Rico and more data layers
such as ground water.
Condition Indicators
1. Assessed Rivers Meeting All
Designated Uses Established by
State or Tribal Water Quality
Standards (§305(b)): Information
reported by Tribes and States on
the percentage of waters within
the watershed that meet all uses
established for those waters as
reported in 1994 or 1996 reports
to Congress required under
Clean Water Act Section 305(b).
2. Fish and Wildlife Consumption
Advisories: Advisories recom-
mended by Tribes or States to
restrict consumption of locally
harvested fish or game due to
the presence of contaminants.
(National Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Consumption Advisories)
3. Indicators of Source Water Quality
for Drinking Water Systems: Three.
data sets combined to give
insight on the extent to which
waters from rivers, lakes, or reser-
voirs require treatment before
use as drinking water based on
(a) attainment of the "water
supply" designated use (305(b)),
(b) community water supply
systems with treatment in place
beyond conventional treatment
or systems that were in violation
of source-related standards in
1995 (Safe Drinking Water
Information System [SDWIS]),
and (c) presence of contaminants
in source water at levels that
exceed one-half the maximum
contaminant level or MCL. (The
MCL is the level to which a con-
taminant must be removed from
drinking water to meet Safe
Drinking Water Act safety
requirements.) (EPA's STORET
database)
4. Contaminated Sediments: The level
of potential risk to human health
and the environment derived
from sediment chemical analysis,
sediment toxicity data, and fish
tissue residue data. (National
Sediment Inventory)
5. Ambient Water Quality Data - four
Toxic Pollutants: Ambient water
quality data showing percent
exceedances of national criteria
levels, over a 6-year period
(1990-1996), of copper, hexava-
lent chromium, nickel, and zinc.
(STORET)
Illllllllllllllll
II I (I II II ll III
illllH I :
*' i t
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 395
—' HIGHLIG
6. Ambient Water Quality Data - Four
Conventional Pollutants: Ambient
water quality data showing per-
cent exceedances of national ref-
erence levels, over a 6-year peri-
od (1990-1996), of ammonia,
dissolved oxygen, phosphorus,
and pH. (STORE!)
7. Wetland Loss" Index: Percentage
of wetlands loss over a historic
period (1870-1980) and more
recently (1986-1996). (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's National
Wetland Inventory and Natural
Resources Conservation Service's
National Resource Inventory,
respectively)
Vulnerability Indicators
8. Aquatic/Wetlands Species at Risk:
Watersheds with high occur-
rences of species at risk. (The
Nature Conservancy and State
Heritage databases)
9. Pollutant Loads Discharged Above
Permitted Discharge Limits - Toxic
Pollutants: Discharges over a 1 -
year period for toxic pollutants
combined and expressed as a
percentage above or below the
total discharges allowed under
the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permitted amount. (EPA's Permit
Compliance System)
10. Pollutant Loads Discharged Above
Permitted Discharge Limits -
Conventional Pollutants:
Discharges over a 1-year period
for conventional pollutants
combined and expressed as a
percentage above or below the
total discharges allowed under
the NPDES permitted amount.
(EPA's Permit Compliance
System)
11. Urban Runoff Potential: An
estimate of the potential for
urban runoff impacts based on
the percentage of impervious
surface in the watershed (e.g.,
roads, paved parking, and
roofs) (USGS, Census Bureau)
12. Index of Agricultural Runoff
Potential: A composite index
composed of (a) a nitrogen
runoff potential index, (b) mod-
eled sediment delivery to rivers
and streams, and (c) a pesticide
runoff index. (Natural Resources
Conservation Service)
13. Population Change: Population
growth rate as a surrogate of
many stress-producing activities
from urbanization. (Census
Bureau)
14. Hydrologic Modification - Dams:
An index that shows relative
reservoir impoundment volume
in the watershed. The process
of impounding streams changes
their characteristics, and the
reservoirs and lakes formed in
the process can be more sus-
ceptible to pollution stress.
(Corps of Engineers)
Vulnerability Indicators
8. Aquatic/Wetlands Species
at Risk
9. Pollutant Loads
Discharged Above
Permitted Limits - Toxic
Pollutants
10. Pollutant Loads
Discharged Above
Permitted Discharge
Limits - Conventional
Pollutants
11. Urban Runoff Potential
12. Index of Agricultural
Runoff Potential
13. Population Change
14. Hydrologic Modification -
Dams
15. Estuarine Pollution
Susceptibility Index
N
-------
396 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
I
Illlllllllllllllllll i^^
15. Estuarine Pollution Susceptibility
Index: An index that measures
an estuary's susceptibility to
pollution based on its physical
characteristics and its propensity
to concentrate pollutants.
(National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration)
Vulnerability Indicators
8. Aquatic/Wetland Species at Risk
9. Pollutant Loads Discharged Above
Limits - Toxic Pollutants
10. Pollutant Loads Discharged Above
Limits - Conventional Pollutants
11. Urban Runoff Potential
12. Index of Agricultural Runoff
Potential
1 3. Population Change
14. Hydrologic Modification
Dams
15. Estuarine Pollution
Susceptibility Index
Condition Indicators
1. Assessed Rivers meeting All Designated
Uses Set in State or Tribal Water Quality
Standards
2. Fish and Wildlife Consumption
Advisories
3. Indicators of Source Water Conditions
for Drinking Water Systems
4. Contaminated Sediments
5. Ambient Water Quality Data - Four
Toxic Pollutants
6. Ambient Water Quality Data - Four
Conventional Pollutants
7. Wetland Loss Index
Condition
Watersheds With Better
Water Quality
Watersheds With Less Serious
Water Quality Problems
Watersheds With More
Serious
Watersheds With
Insufficient Data
Vulnerability
Lower
Category
1
Category
3
Category
S
Higher
Category
2
Category
4
Category
6
Category
7
Category
1
Better Water
Quality
Category
2
Category
3
Category
4
Category
5
Category
6
More Serious
Water Quality
Problems
Category
7
Watersheds
With
Insufficient
Data
Figure 2. Indicators of the condition of the watershed are scored and assigned to one of three
categories—better water quality, water quality with less serious problems, and water
quality with more serious problems. Next, indicators of vulnerability are scored
to create two characterizations of vulnerability—high and low. These two sets of
indicators are then combined to obtain the Overall Watershed Score illustrated at
the right.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 397
GHT| la
US. ErtWrtJrtmeitfcjt Protection
SUR2 YOUR W£TEJ$HED
IndeK of Watershed Indicators Scorestieet - Hue 03050106
jhtip ://wvw.epa.goY/surf/IVI/QZOS0106/iviscoresheet.html
Lover Broad DSGS Cataloguing Unit 03050106
far tUi mtnktl. (it «»inutttal firti itlav, &&&, uun iiliUd jiti.
O
-------
398 Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
HT HIGHLIGHT
Surf Your Watershed is a service
available over the INTERNET. From
EPA's homepage, a user is able to
access specific information on all
the watersheds in the continental
United States. The service includes
a link to the Index of Watershed
Indicators as well as maps of the
location of the watershed and
other information. Surf Your
Watershed is available at
http://www.epa.gov/surf
/Si!1-
'„,{!,
How Is the Overall
Watershed Score
Developed?
Each watershed is depicted
based on whether it has good qual-
ity, less serious problems, or more
serious problems and whether it has
high or low vulnera-
bility. (See example
"Overall Watershed
Score" on previous
page.)
To determine the
scores, condition and
vulnerability indica-
tors were evaluated.
For each condition
indicator, values were
selected that repre-
sent an appropriate
basis to describe the
aquatic resources
within the watershed
as having good quality, less serious
problems or more serious problems.
Similarly, for each vulnerability indi-
cator, selected values are appropri-
ate to differentiate "lower" or "high-
er" vulnerability.
For the indicators, a minimum
number of observations necessary to
assign a "score" was established. If
there were insufficient data for a
particular indicator, that information
is displayed on a map and indicated
in the Profile. At least 10 of the 15
data layers must be present to
calculate the overall index for any
given watershed.
How Are Designated
Use Attainment Data
Reflected in the
Watershed Score?
In aggregating the 15 indicators
into the overall Index, Indicator 1,
Assessed Rivers Meeting All Desig-
nated Uses, is weighted more heav-
ily than other Indicators because it is
a comprehensive assessment and
EPA believes considerable weight
should be given to the State and
Tribal 305(b) assessment process.
All other indicators are weighted
equally. If Indicator 1 is not avail-
able, the values of the other indica-
tors are increased to derive an Index
score.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 399
/:. ~';' ':''"''\V'-'-:''' ':-< --
Detailed information on sources
of data, the method used to charac-
terize each data layer, and the
method for combining individual
indicators into the overall index is
available at www.epa.gov/surf.
What Are Some of the
Benefits of the Index?
Information at our fingertips:
The Index provides easy-to-get
information from many sources
about local watersheds.
Knowledge is power: The
Index enables managers and resi-
dents to understand, and therefore
act responsibly about, their water-
shed.
Progress: Together, many
organizations and people have been
working to maintain and improve
our water quality, and have been
successful in many areas, while
maintaining population and
economic growth.
Partners: Various Federal, state
and nongovernmental organizations
>' ; ';;.%• ;:^\C::^
-f-y^M-^^i^^^
have begun to combine their infor-
mation to tell a coordinated story.
Using this information, the com-
bined forces of these organizations
can work together to better address
our remaining problems and protec-
tion needs.
Watershed Conditions:
Nationally, of the 2,1 1 1 watersheds
assessed, 21 % show more serious
water quality problems, 36% have
some degradation in important indi-
cators, 1 6% have high quality, and
27% add too little infomation to
make a judgment
Watershed Vulnerability: While
all watersheds are vulnerable to
degradation, about 1 in 14 water-
sheds is highly vulnerable to further
degradation.
Targeting: 1WI information can
help target areas where further
information or action is needed.
Monitoring: IWI uses informa-
tion from many public and private
sources to provide a full picture of
watershed health.
t
'-"'/' , -"->;-:"-', ,'" * - <>s:
•-.'/r '/- ^<: -*%i '%o r- . .^
•f "'"" ( ' ' ' ^, ^
1 s s: "" £ \~s. * 'X
„"**'" (< ' ~ J ' , " :
" "'* ' ^ *i- "" r :S 4"w^ ''I ,
" . ] <«.] -~~ -— - '%:"' ^\
s\ ^ ' *
'. . ^ w s« >, ^ . ^ , ." , /
;* , - - ;>r- -' ' ' ' ' ;- „' ^c
r" s> " '^ <• ' ~ *^' '-; * ' ';
% ^ '-''- :.'.':"« ,^r- *'.'/: 4--
-------
(Ill1 - - . IIL , Innin 11 null i
IN • i |V * »
• i 111 i
t i In i ii i
» 11$ i n ifii, 111 iiinii|i|(!i 11
til I. i i j \
-------
Point Source
Control Programs
Water Quality
Financing:
The State Revolving
Fund Program
Historically, under the Clean
Water Act, EPA has been authorized
to help municipalities solve their
wastewater treatment problems by
providing grants for the develop-
ment of municipal wastewater
treatment plants. Since 1972, EPA,
through the Construction Grants
Program, has provided more than
$54 billion to municipalities to con-
struct 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 Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (SRF) program was
created. This program has resulted
in the establishment of indepen-
dent and permanent sources of
clean water funding in each State
and in Puerto Rico. Capitalization
of these funds is provided by the
Federal (83%) and State (17%)
governments. Through fiscal year
1998, Congress has appropriated
$14 billion for Clean Water State
Revolving Funds; when combined
with State matching funds, leverage
bond proceeds, and other sources,
the national program has more
than $24 billion in assets.
The Clean Water State Revolv-
ing Fund program is a powerful
partnership between EPA and the
States. It allows States the flexibility
to provide funding for projects that
will address their highest priority
water quality needs. Under the pro-
gram, EPA provides grants or "seed
money" to States to help capitalize
the revolving loan funds. The
States, in turn, make loans to
communities, individuals, and oth-
ers for high-priority water quality
activities (Figure 14-1). As money is
paid back into the fund, new loans
are made to other recipients who
need help in maintaining the quali-
ty of their water (hence the revolv-
ing nature of the funds). Because of
the funds' revolving nature, the
Federal investment can result in the
construction of up to four times as
many projects over a 20-year peri-
od as a one-time grant.
While traditionally used to build
or improve wastewater treatment
plants, SRF loans are also being
used for agricultural, rural, and
urban runoff control activities;
estuary improvement projects;
wet weather flow control, including
storm water and sewer overflows/-
and alternative treatment technol-
ogies. Loans may also be used for
the protection of ground water
resources. To date, loans totaling
-------
402 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
approximately $20 billion have
been made to fund more than
5,600 clean water projects.
Recently, State programs have
begun to devote an increasing vol-
ume of loans to nonpoint source,
estuary management, and other
high-priority water quality projects.
Eligible nonpoint source projects
include virtually any activity that a
State has identified in its nonpoint
source management plan. Such
activities include projects to control
runoff from agricultural land; con-
servation tillage and other projects
to address soil erosion; develop-
ment of streambank buffer zones;
and wetlands protection and
restoration. Estuary management
projects may include any of these
activities, as well as restocking fish,
restoration of wildlife habitat,
and provision of marine sewage
pump-out facilities.
Figure 14-1
How the SRF Program Works
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency makes grants to each State and
Puerto Rico (Step 1), and States in turn provide loans for eligible water quality
projects (Step 2).
U.S. EPA
Since the Clean Water SRF
program is managed largely by the
States, project eligibility varies
according to each State's program
and priorities. Eligible loan recip-
ients include communities, individ-
uals, citizens' groups, and nonprof-
its. Besides financial savings, loan
recipients can realize significant
environmental benefits, including
protection of public health and
conservation of local watersheds.
EPA is committed to managing
the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund program to provide financial
assistance for the improvement of
water quality throughout the
United States. The 1996 Amend-
ments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) created the new
Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DW-SRF) program. The pri-
mary purpose of this program is to
upgrade drinking water infrastruc-
ture to facilitate compliance with
the SDWA. Congress has appropri-
ated $2.0 billion dollars to begin
the capitalization of this program.
The long-term strategy is to contin-
ue capitalization of this program so
that the SRFs will be able to provide
in excess of $500 million each year
in assistance for priority drinking
water projects. In January 1997,
EPA released the first Drinking
Water Needs Survey which identi-
fied $138.4 billion dollars in needs
over the next twenty years. EPA is
currently working with the States to
set up their drinking water SRFs.
The two SRF programs (CW
and DW) are structured and man-
aged in a similar manner and their
missions overlap in the area of
source water protection. The
Amendments to SDWA place an
increased emphasis on preventive
source water protection measures
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 403
and call for the States to develop
comprehensive source water assess-
ments and protection programs.
Much of the assessment and pro-
gram development work will be
conducted under the drinking
water program. Implementation,
including control of point and non-
point sources, can be conducted
with either CW- or DW-SRF.
Wastewater
Treatment
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
drinking water supplies, aquatic life,
commercial and recreational oppor-
tunities, and the general health of
the Nation's stream, lake, estuarine,
and coastal ecosystems. Secondary
treatment of wastewater removes at
least 85% of several key conven-
tional pollutants. If secondary treat-
ment is not enough to meet local
water quality standards, the Clean
Water Act mandates additional
treatment as necessary.
The Needs Survey, a biennial
report to Congress, is the primary
mechanism for assessing municipal
wastewater treatment needs nation-
wide. The 1996 Needs Survey
begins to focus on the expanded
CWA funding eligibilities under the
SRF in the 1987 Amendments to
the Clean Water Act. Models were
used to develop Phase I urban
storm water and agricultural and
silvicultural nonpoint source pollu-
tion control implementation costs
since very little documentation of
specific projects or costs was avail-
able from the States.
EPA's needs estimates include
those facilities and activities for
which a water quality or public
health problem could be docu-
mented using specific criteria estab-
lished by EPA. The capital invest-
ment necessary to satisfy all cate-
gories of need is presented in Table
14-1. Costs for operation and
maintenance are not eligible for SRF
funding and therefore are not
• . 1
Table 14-1. Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment
Facilities and Other Eligibilities (January 1996
Dollars in Billions)
Needs Category
Title II Eligibilities
1 Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
II1A Infiltration/Inflow Correction
IIIB Replacement/Rehabilitation
IVA New Collector Sewers
1VB New Interceptor Sewers
V Combined Sewer Overflows
VI Storm Waterb
Total Categories I-VI
Other Eligibilities (Sections 319 and 320)
Nonpoint Source (agriculture and silviculture only)
Ground Water, Estuaries, Wetlands, Urban Runoff
GRAND TOTAL
Total
Needs
26.5
17.5
3.3
7.0
10.8
10.8
44.7
7.4a
128.0
9.4a
2.1
139.5
a Modeled needs.
b Includes SRF-eligible costs for structural and construction costs for Phase I
stormwater communities only.
NOTE: Costs for operation and maintenance are not eligible for SRF funding
and therefore are not included.
-------
404 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
Table 14-2. Facilities Covered
by NPDES Permit,
Pretreatment, and
Sludge Programs
16,024 POTWs with individual permits
48,600 non-POTWs with individual
permits
20,000 industrial non-storm water
sources with general permits
140,000 industrial storm water sources
with general permits
833 municipals with storm sewer
systems
900 municipals with combined
sewer systems
270,000 industrial users of POTW
systems
20,000 facilities handling biosolids
included. The 1996 total docu-
mented and modeled needs are
$139.5 billion to satisfy all cate-
gories of needs eligible for SRF
funding for the design year (2016)
population.
This amount included $56.2
billion in needs for combined sewer
overflows (CSO), storm water, and
NPS pollution control. For storm
water and NPS, the estimates
exclude operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs because O&M costs
are ineligible for SRF funding.
However, O&M costs are the major
costs associated with storm water
and NPS program implementation.
Only agriculture and silviculture
NPS pollution control costs were
estimated. Many types of NPS pol-
lution were not addressed: aban-
doned mines, urban areas, septic
systems, contaminated sediments,
hydromodification, and atmospher-
ic deposition.
In constant 1996 dollars the
needs decreased by $15.5 billion
from 1992 to 1996. The reduction
in needs reflects, in part, progress
made in meeting the nation's water
quality infrastructure needs. The
change also reflects efforts by EPA
and the States to improve the qual-
ity of data in the Clean Water
Needs Survey database through a
major redocumentation effort.
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
Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT) and Best Conven-
tional Pollutant Control Technology
(BCT) guidelines for about 28
industrial categories. EPA has also
promulgated technology-based
guidelines for approximately 15
additional secondary industries that
represent Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available
(BPT) levels. EPA is studying an
additional dozen industries for
future guidelines development.
In addition to these technol-
ogy-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 Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control
to support the national policy. EPA
updated and enhanced this docu-
ment in 1991. Both the policy and
guidance recommend using overall
toxicity as a measure of adverse
water quality impact and as a regu-
latory parameter. In 1989, EPA
amended its National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(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.
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 405
Permitting,
Compliance,
and Enforcement
The NPDES permit, pretreat-
ment, and biosolids programs oper-
ate under the concept of providing
for a cleaner environment by
restricting the release of pollutants.
Over 500,000 sources are now
subject to regulation by these
programs (see Table 14-2). EPA
and the States use rigorous permit
conditions to control point source
discharges from industrial and
municipal wastewater treatment
facilities.
Once the permit is established,
compliance with these conditions is
essential for achieving water quality
improvements. Despite examples
of water quality improvements
associated with upgrading munici-
pal facilities, 12% of major munici-
pal treatment plants are in signifi-
cant noncompliance with appli-
cable permit conditions. Industrial
permittees have historically
achieved a higher rate of compli-
ance; 9% of industrial facilities are
in significant noncompliance 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, 43 States including the
United States Virgin Islands 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 responsibility in the
remaining States, Territories and
Federal Indian Reservations. EPA
and the States evaluate compliance
by screening self-monitoring
reports submitted by the permitted
facility. Facilities that are deter-
mined to be in noncompliance are
subject to Federal as well as State
enforcement action.
Figure 14-2 illustrates rates of
significant noncompliance based on
statistics maintained by EPA from
March 1988 through December
1996. 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 6-month period or any exceed-
ance of limits set by an administra-
tive order. Discharge monitoring
reports or pretreatment schedules
more than 30 days late are also
considered in significant noncom-
pliance. 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
automatically determine that the
facility is not in compliance. EPA is
continuing to refine its tracking of
compliance with permit conditions
to better reflect instances of
noncompliance by the regulated
community.
-------
406 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
National Municipal
Policy
Due to the generally poor
municipal compliance record, and
because of congressional concern
over the performance of treatment
works built primarily with Federal
funds, EPA developed the National
Municipal Policy (NMP) to address
the failure of publicly owned treat-
ment works (POTWs) to meet treat-
ment levels required for compliance
with the CWA. On January 23,
1984, the EPA Administrator signed
the NMP into effect. The NMP clari-
fied and emphasized EPA's resolve
to ensure that municipalities com-
ply 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
Figure 14-2
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
(O
=5. 12
o
10
o
03
8
6
4
2
0
I I I I
i i i i I i 'I'
I I
1988
1989 1990 1991
Total Nonmunicipals = Nonmunicipals + Federals
Municipals
1992
Date
1993
1994
1995
1996
Source: USEPA Permit Compliance System, Summer 1997.
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 407
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)(l)(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 iden-
tified as requiring construction to
meet the 1988 deadline. By July 1,
1988, all but 423 municipal facili-
ties had achieved compliance with
the requirements. Since the 1988
deadline, 188 facilities have come
into compliance, and, of the
remaining 235 facilities, all but 50
have been placed on enforceable
compliance schedules. EPA is
continuing to track the progress
of these facilities in 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 integral component of EPA's
overall enforcement strategy.
Controlling Toxicants
The 1987 amendments to the
Clean Water Act reinforced both
the water-quality-based and
technology-based approaches to
point source control, requiring EPA
to develop and update technology-
based standards and adding spe-
cific direction as to how water-qual-
ity-based limits should be used to
achieve additional improvements.
One of the Act's primary emphases
lay in strengthening the Nation's
toxics control program.
Identifying Waters
Impaired by Toxicants
Section 304(1) of the CWA
required States to develop lists of
impaired waters, identify point
sources and the amounts of
pollutants they discharge that cause
toxic impacts, and develop an indi-
vidual 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 individ-
ual control strategies must be
accompanied by supporting docu-
mentation to show that the permit
limits are sufficient to meet water
quality standards as soon as possi-
ble but no later than 3 years after
establishment of the ICS. The gen-
eral effect of Section 304(1) was to
immediately focus national surface
water quality protection programs
on addressing known water quality
problems due entirely or substan-
tially 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
-------
408 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
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 substan-
tially 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. Currently,
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
monitoring, 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
surface waters for priority toxic pol-
lutants. EPA will continue identify-
ing 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
program. The integrated program
consisted 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 in 40 CFR
122.44(d)(1) in June 1989.
Toxicity reduction evaluations
(TREs) identify and implement
whatever actions are needed to
reduce effluent toxicity to the levels
specified in the permit. TREs com-
bine toxicity testing, chemical
analyses, source investigations, and
treatability studies to determine
either the actual causative agents
of effluent toxicity or the control
methods that will reduce effluent
toxicity. EPA is currently document-
ing successful TREs conducted
by permittees, States, and EPA
researchers. Methods and proce-
dures for conducting TREs are
described in several EPA guidance
documents and referenced in the
TSD.
In December 1994, EPA
conducted a survey of 50 States,
7 Territories, and 3 Tribes to deter-
mine the extent of implementation
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 409
of whole effluent toxicity (WET)
controls 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 criteria (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
promulgated national pretreatment
standards for pollutants that:
(1) interfere with the operation of
a POTW, including interference
with its use or disposal of municipal
biosolids (sludge); or (2) pass
through the POTW and contami-
nate the receiving stream or are
otherwise incompatible with the
operation of the treatment works.
In addition, the program is
intended to improve opportunities
to recycle and reclaim municipal
and industrial wastewaters and
sludges. The prevention of inter-
ference, the prevention of pass-
through, and the improvement of
opportunities to recycle wastewater
and biosolids are the three regula-
tory objectives of the National
Pretreatment Program. These
objectives are accomplished
through a pollution control strategy
with two elements:
• National Categorical
Standards: National technology-
based standards developed by EPA
Headquarters reflecting best avail-
able technology (BAT) in establish-
ing effluent limits for the 126
"priority pollutants" as well as for
conventional and nohconventional
pollutants for specific industrial
categories.
• Prohibited Discharge
Standards:
General Prohibitions: National regu-
latory prohibitions established by
EPA against pollutant discharges
from any nondomestic user that
cause pass-through or interference
at the POTW.
Specific Prohibitions: National regu-
latory prohibitions established by
EPA against pollutant discharges
from any nondomestic user that
cause: (1) fire or explosive hazard,
(2) corrosive structural damage,
(3) interference due to obstruction,
(4) interference due to flow rate or
concentration, (5) interference due
to heat, (6) interference from petro-
leum-based oil, and (7) acute work-
er health and safety problems from
toxic gases.
Local Limits: Enforceable local
effluent limitations developed by
POTWs on a case-by-case basis to
reflect site-specific concerns and
implement the Federal general
and specific prohibited discharge
standards as well as State and local
regulations.
To ensure the success of the
pretreatment program, EPA also
issues guidance documents and has
conducted scores of training semi-
nars to assist POTWs in developing,
-------
410 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
implementing, and enforcing
effective pretreatment programs.
The primary focus for pretreat-
ment implementation is at the local
level since the POTW is in the best
position to regulate its industrial
users. States may become involved
in pretreatment implementation
through a formal approval process
in which the Federal Government
transfers its oversight responsibilities
to the State. The Federal Govern-
ment, through the EPA, is involved
in pretreatment through standard
setting, policy development, and
oversight of program implementa-
tion by approved States and
POTWs in States without approved
pretreatment programs. Currently,
31 of 42 NPDES-authorized States
have approved Pretreatment pro-
grams, 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,
1,578 POTWs have been required
to develop pretreatment programs,
of which 1,535 (97%) are
approved. Pretreatment POTWs
receive 80% of national wastewater
flows (-30 billion gals/day). There
are an estimated 270,000 Industrial
Users (lUs) discharging to POTWs.
Of the 270,000 lUs, 31,842 are
considered to be Significant Indus-
trial Users (SlUs). Of these SlUs,
14,914 are subject to categorical
standards, and the remaining
16,928 SlUs have been designated
due to one of the following criteria:
£25,000 gallons per day process
flow; £5% of hydraulic or organic
flow of POTW; reasonable potential
to cause pass-through or interfer-
ence.
In 1990, EPA promulgated the
Domestic Sewage Study (DSS) final
rule to implement the recommen-
dations made in the DSS. This rule
was designed to improve the con-
trol of hazardous wastes discharged
to POTWs and to strengthen the
enforcement of pretreatment pro-
gram requirements. The rule also
required POTWs to conduct toxicity
testing of their effluents. In July
1991, EPA issued a report to
Congress on the effectiveness of the
pretreatment program as required
under Section 519 of the CWA. This
report analyzed the major strengths
and weaknesses of the program
and provided additional direction
for improving the program.
The environmental accomplish-
ments of the National Pretreatment
Program have been significant.
Nationwide EPA estimated that
implementation of pretreatment
controls was responsible for
reducing annual metals loadings by
190-204 million pounds (95%
reduction overall) and for reducing
annual organics loadings by 33 to
108 million pounds (40% reduction
overall). In Region 5, for TRI report-
ing industries, loadings to POTWs
went from 3.5 million Ibs/yr in
1988 to 600,000 Ib/yr in 1993.
In Wisconsin, 24 of 26 POTWs
reported marked decreases averag-
ing 90% in metals loadings in their
biosolids after implementation of
local pretreatment programs.
The Metal Finishing sector of
the Common Sense Initiative (CSI)
conducted a POTW pretreatment
compliance and assistance project
in 1996. After visiting 14 POTWs,
the CSI team found POTW
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 411
capabilities could be improved by
additional information transfer,
guidance and training, and
increased regulatory flexibility for
top performers. EPA is working with
stakeholders to accomplish some of
these projects.
Currently, EPA has two pretreat-
ment regulation revision projects
under way. On July 30, 1996, EPA
proposed revisions to 40 CFR
403.18 designed to streamline the
process for modifying approved
pretreatment programs. EPA also
plans to propose further regulatory
revisions to streamline the program
in FY1997. Input on pretreatment
streamlining has been provided by
an Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)/Water
Environment Federation (WEF) Pre-
treatment Streamlining Workshop
that included representatives from
POTWs, industry, environmental
groups, consultants, States, and
EPA.
Biosolids
(Sewage Sludge)
Management
Implementation of secondary
and advanced treatment require-
ments for wastewater treatment
plants has improved effluent quality
while increasing the amount of
sewage sludge (biosolids) being
generated. Municipalities currently
generate approximately 7 million
dry metric tons of sewage sludge
per year. Proper management of
this growing amount of biosolids is
becoming increasingly important as
efforts to remove pollutants from
wastewater become more effective.
Several options exist for dealing
with these vast quantities of bio-
solids. One such option is beneficial
use. EPA considers biosolids a valu-
able resource since it contains nutri-
ents and has physical properties
that make it useful as a fertilizer and
soil conditioner. Biosolids have been
used on agricultural lands, in
forests, for landscaping projects,
and to reclaim strip-mined land.
EPA will continue to encourage
such practices.
Regulation of the use or dispos-
al of biosolids is important, how-
ever, because improper use or dis-
posal can adversely affect surface
water, ground water, wetlands, and
public health through a variety of
exposure pathways. The multi-
media nature of the risks and expo-
sure pathways requires a compre-
hensive approach to protect public
health and the environment in
order to promote the beneficial use
of biosolids and ensure that solving
problems in one medium will not
create problems for another.
Section 406 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987, which amend-
ed Section 405 of the Clean Water
Act, established a comprehensive
program for reducing the risks to
public health and the environment.
The program is based on the devel-
opment of technical requirements
for biosolids use and disposal and
the implementation of these
requirements directly through the
rule and through permits.
In May 1989, EPA promulgated
regulations for including sewage
sludge conditions in NPDES permits
and for issuing sludge-only permits.
In February 1993, EPA amended the
permitting regulations to establish a
-------
412 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
tiered permit application schedule.
These rules also outline the require-
ments for States to seek EPA
approval to operate State biosolids
management programs. Until State
biosolids programs are authorized,
EPA will administer the program.
Two States (Utah and Oklahoma)
were authorized by the end of
1996. EPA is working with a num-
ber of other States that are seeking
authorization. In February 1997,
EPA proposed streamlining changes
to the permitting regulations to
make it easier for States with
well-run biosolids management
programs to become authorized.
In February 1993, EPA pub-
lished the Standards for the Use or
Disposal of Sewage Sludge. This
regulation pertains to land applica-
tion, surface disposal, incineration,
and landfilling of biosolids. The
requirements for each use or dis-
posal practice consist of general
requirements, pollutant limits,
management practices, operational
standards, monitoring, recordkeep-
ing, and reporting. The standards
apply to publicly and privately
owned treatment works that gen-
erate or treat domestic sewage
sludge, as well as to any person
who uses or disposes of sewage
sludge from such treatment works.
Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO)
Control Policy
Currently about 1,000 commu-
nities nationwide use combined
sewer systems, which are designed
to carry sanitary and industrial
wastewater combined with storm
water. These facilities are mainly
located in older cities in the north-
east and midwest. Combined sewer
overflows occur during storm
events when sewer system capacity
is exceeded and part of the com-
bined flow is discharged untreated
into rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
CSOs may contain high levels of
suspended solids, floatables, heavy
metals, nutrients, bacteria, and
other pollutants. Pollution from
CSOs can pose health risks, cause
unsightly trash slicks, and impair
the designated use of water
resources.
On April 19, 1994, EPA pub-
lished the CSO Control Policy in the
Federal Register (59 FR 18688). The
purpose of the Policy was to elabo-
rate an earlier 1989 CSO strategy
and expedite compliance with the
Clean Water Act for communities
with combined sewer systems. The
CSO Policy is a comprehensive
national strategy to ensure that
municipalities, NPDES permitting
authorities, water quality standards
authorities, and the public engage
in a comprehensive and coordi-
nated planning effort to achieve
cost-effective CSO controls that
ultimately meet appropriate health
and environmental objectives,
including compliance with water
quality standards. The policy recog-
nizes the site-specific nature of CSO
and their impacts, and provides the
flexibility necessary to tailor controls
to local situations. It contains provi-
sions for developing appropriate
site-specific NPDES permit require-
ments for combined sewer systems.
EPA has prepared seven
guidance documents to assist in
implementation of the CSO Control
Policy. These documents provide
assistance in implementing
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 413
minimum technology-based con-
trols, developing long-term control
plans, monitoring and modeling,
and other aspects of CSO control.
NPDES Stormwater
Controls
Since 1972, State and EPA
efforts under the NPDES program
have traditionally focused on con-
trolling pollutant discharges from
POTWs and industrial process
wastewaters. As these sources of
pollution came increasingly under
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,
runoff from resource extraction
activities, and runoff from land
disposal sites, are major sources of
use impairment.
Section 402(p) of the CWA
amendments of 1987 established a
timetable and framework for EPA
to address 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 applica-
tion requirements for the first phase
for discharges from municipal sepa-
rate storm sewer systems serving
populations 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
• Landfills
• POTWs with approved pretreat-
ment programs and/or discharging
over 1 million gallons per day
• Recycling facilities
• Power plants
• Mining operations
• Some oil and gas operations
• Airport facilities
• Certain transportation facilities
(such as vehicle maintenance
areas).
Permits 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 sub-
mitted to Congress in March 1995.
The study identifies the nature
and extent of pollutants in these
discharges and proposes one possi-
ble option for controlling these
discharges.
EPA issued an interim permit
rule for Phase II discharges on
August 7, 1995. To explore addi-
tional options for a Phase II
stormwater program, EPA convened
a Federal Advisory Committee
-------
414 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
subcommittee comprising a broad
spectrum of stakeholders. The
subcommittee provided EPA with
recommendations for a Phase II
storm water program. EPA pub-
lished the proposed Phase II regula-
tions on January 9, 1998, and will
finalize these 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 activ-
ities within the Agency. For exam-
ple, an Agency pollution prevention
policy has been developed, and a
strategy to address pollution pre-
vention in manufacturing and
chemical use has been drafted.
Future strategies will focus on the
municipal water and wastewater,
agricultural, energy, and transpor-
tation sectors. A subcommittee
comprising representatives 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
recognizes the importance of
permitting and enforcement
activities and will continue support
for a strong program in these areas.
Training is being provided to famil-
iarize NPDES permit writers with
pollution prevention opportunities,
how their permit decisions can
affect other media, and how to
effectively communicate the con-
cept of pollution prevention to
industrial managers.
Janine Camara, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 415
-------
416 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
ll in i pi Tin ii
Watershed-based Trading
In response to President
Clinton's Reinventing Environmental
Regulation (March 1995), EPA is
strongly promoting the use of
watershed-based trading. Trading is
an innovative way for water quality
agencies and community stakehold-
ers to develop common-sense, cost-
effective solutions for water quality
problems in their watersheds.
Community stakeholders include
States and water quality agencies,
local governments, point source
dischargers, contributors to non-
point source pollution, citizen
groups, other federal agencies,
and the public at large. Trading can
allow communities to grow and
prosper while retaining their
commitment to water quality.
In May 1996, EPA released a
Draft Framework for Watershed-
based Trading. The document pro-
vides information on how to best
implement the Clean Water Act and
EPA's regulations to facilitate trading
in watersheds.
What is Trading?
v Trading is a method to attain
and/or maintain water quality
standards, by allowing sources of
pollution to achieve pollutant reduc-
tions through substituting a cost-
effective and enforceable mix of
controls on other sources of dis-
charge. Trading is not a retreat from
«'f 1 *
Clean Water Act goals. It can be a
more efficient, market-driven
approach to meet those goals. EPA
supports only trades that meet
existing CWA water quality require-
ments.
How Does Trading
Work?
Generally, the term "trading"
describes any agreement between
parties contributing to water quality
problems on the same waterbody
or within the same watershed that
alters the allocation of pollutant
reduction responsibilities among the
sources. Such agreements also may
include third parties, such as State
agencies, local agencies, or broker-
age entities. The EPA trading frame-
work groups trades into five cate-
gories:
Point/Point Source Trading:
A point source arranges for
other point sources to undertake
greater-than-required control in lieu
of reducing its own level of pollu-
tant discharge, beyond the mini- •
mum technology-based treatment
requirements, to achieve water
quality objectives more cost-effec-
tively.
Intra-Plant Trading: A point source
allocates pollutant discharges
among its outfalls in a cost-effective
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 417
~ '- ,':'" '•"" • - »! 'r\'f -^ ^. <'-'-.
*, ~ ,* ° / 'i ;; -' , .- , -j. ,, -/•"''- : ^ ^ ':*',: -^W^O^lliHTHiCHLIGHTj;
~-.JV '- ;-.> ^Y"" ., - -- '-' ^ ' • '-' ''^.- -*--*;r?-\^^»£j^fr--'i;-"^;-- "--"';;;?••'
manner, provided that the com-
bined permitted discharge with
trading is no greater than the
combined permitted discharge
without trading and discharge from
each outfall complies with the
requirements necessary to meet
applicable water quality standards.
Pretreatment Trading: An indirect
industrial point source that dis-
charges to a publicly owned treat-
ment works (POTW) arranges for
greater-than-required reductions in
pollutant discharge by other indirect
sources in lieu of upgrading its own
pretreatment beyond the minimum
technology-based discharge stand-
ards to achieve water quality objec-
tives more cost-effectively.
Point/Nonpoint Source Trading:
A point source arranges for control
of pollutants from nonpoint source
discharges in lieu of upgrading its
own treatment beyond the mini-
mum technology-based discharge
standards to achieve water quality
objectives more cost-effectively.
Nonpoint/Nonpoint Source Trad-
ing: A nonpoint source arranges for
more cost-effective control of other
nonpoint sources in a watershed in
lieu of installing or upgrading its
own control or implementing pollu-
tion prevention practices.
'*.'•*", '-. .,*'",, ' , <*
Trading Provides
Flexibility
Trading provides watershed
managers with opportunities to
facilitate the implementation of
pollution loading reductions in a
way that maximizes water quality
and ecological improvements.
Managers can encourage trades
that result in desired pollution con-
trols, preferred reduction locations,
and optimal scales for effective
efforts.
Trading can fully use the flexibil-
ity of existing regulatory programs.
For example, selected POTWs in
North Carolina's Tar Pamlico Basin
pay into a State fund that supports
the implementation of best man-
agement practices on farms. This
arrangements allows plants to
achieve water quality goals less
expensively than if each plant
upgraded its facility independently.
Trading Encourages
Environmental Benefits
Regardless of who trades and
how, the common goal of trading is
to achieve water quality objectives,
including water quality standards,
more cost-effectively. Some commu-
nities will use trading to meet their
waterbodies' designated uses at a
lower cost than the cost without
trading. Other communities will use
"•-','" ~ v ^ N ,s ^ ^ i '•• #
/ * " ' < „ f -••**, " ~ f ~ '
< - * *
""/ v f „ „ ^ ""* ' ~ "e ~"^ 7\ ^ "" ' f ' ^ „
\"V * '« '" " / - X^"-v\ ^ ^ . '' ^"
*• >\ " ^ ^ , ^/'
' * <*„*'.'* ~ i ^ ' "•<.'- '">*" - ,
"'; ^ , " "< ^ ' - >.<*
^ ^ ^» f "V" . x:^, ? z t" ^': ">^
j ? ''", ^ * ' < < *•" ^ „ » ' ^
'" , ' ^ C * - "' ™ %' * - * ^ ^ '* ''" f~ "'•
• ^ f- '' . '' : " ', "vs, > ' - ' -~r " '
/'"*/"? ' n"* „ ' ^ , '" ^ ^ f
v " Xta
-•. -, ,.-"- |.™ N^ v^ ^^
„" '" s.' ^™rA'J '* ^™S^^'K"N^^ ^
-^ -^ / ^ -' , ^ ^ N/ ' /
„*•*' s. s ' v -. v .* ' ,;-' " ;.
'^ ^ " , t r , /*-*
^x '!
-------
418 Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program
HT HIGHLIGHT
trading to expand a waterbody's
designated uses for the same
amount they would have spent
preserving fewer uses without trad-
ing. Communities can also use trad-
ing to maintain water quality in the
face of proposed new discharges.
Trading might provide States
and dischargers with new opportu-
nities to comply with anti-degrada-
tion policies. In the absence of trad-
ing, load increases for some of the
Nation's cleaner waters may be jus-
tified only on the basis of important
social and economic growth. Trad-
ing provides an additional option
for a new source, or a source
proposing to add new pollution to
a waterbody, to offset the new load-
ing by arranging for pollution
reductions from an existing source.
Trading can produce environ-
mental benefits by accelerating
and/or increasing the implementa-
tion of pollution control measures in
a watershed. Sources have more
flexibility in their selection of pollu-
tion controls when they also can
consider options at other sources.
Where trading involves non-
point source pollution reduction, it
offers a mechanism to implement
restoration and enhancement pro-
jects. Such projects improve water
quality not only along chemical
parameters, but also along physical
parameters, such as temperature
and flow, which can help preserve
and expand designated uses. More-
over, such projects provide an array
of other habitat benefits for aquatic
life, birds, and other animals.
In particular, trading offers sig-
nificant opportunities to expand
nonpoint source pollution reduc-
tions beyond current levels. Point/
nonpoint and nonpoint/nonpoint
trading can facilitate nonpoint
source reductions where they other-
wise would not have occurred. In so
doing, it can help address one of
the sources of water pollution that is
most persistent and difficult to
reduce (economically, technically,
and politically).
Beyond implementing trades,
the process communities go
through when they consider a trad-
ing option moves them toward
more complete management
approaches and more effective envi-
ronmental protection. Identifying
trading opportunities involves
examining all pollution sources at
once when evaluating technical and
financial capabilities to achieve load-
ing reductions. This brings regu-
lated and unregulated sources
together with other watershed
stakeholders and engages them in a
partnership to solve water quality
problems.
Trading Encourages
Economic Benefits
One of the most immediately
visible benefits of trading is the
money some sources save while
meeting pollution control responsi-
bilities. Sources that "sell" loading
reductions can also benefit finan-
cially and can invest proceeds in
-------
Chapter Fourteen Point Source Control Program 419
HICHLTC
research and development, for
example, or use them to offset
other costs.
The array of control options
provided under trading often
includes less expensive choices
that can satisfy loading reduction
responsibilities. Increasing the
affordability of pollution control
makes it possible for sources to
achieve reductions more quickly
and/or in greater amounts than
without trading.
Additionally, trading can facili-
tate economic development while
protecting water quality. Some
communities face growth con-
straints because nearby waterbodies
already have water quality problems
or could soon develop problems.
Trading provides a mechanism for
new and expanding sources to
offset additional loading by obtain-
ing reductions from other sources.
GHT HIGHLIGHT
EPA's Draft Trading Framework
EPA's Draft Framework for Watershed-based Trading desribes eight principles effluent trading
should follow in the United States:
1. Trading participants meet applicable Clean Water Act technology-based requirements.
2. Trades are consistent with water quality standards throughout a watershed, as well
as anti-backsliding, other requirements of the Clean Water Act, other federal laws,
State laws, and local ordinances.
3. Trades are developed within a Total Maximum Daily Load or other equivalent analytical
and management framework.
4. Trades occur in the context of current regulatory and enforcement mechanisms.
5. Trading boundaries generally coincide with watershed or waterbody segment
boundaries, and trading areas are of a manageable size.
6. Trading will generally add to existing ambient monitoring.
7. Careful consideration is given to types of pollutants traded.
-------
, f — - - •».-.-,,«?
-------
Nonpoint Source
Control Program
Background
Nonpoint source pollution
generally results from land runoff,
atmospheric deposition, drainage,
or seepage of contaminants. Major
sources of nonpoint source pollu-
tion include agricultural runoff,
runoff from urban areas, and runoff
from silvicultural operations. Silta-
tion and nutrients are the pollutants
responsible for most of the non-
point source impacts to the
Nation's surface waters. These
diffuse sources are often harder to
identify, isolate, and control than
traditional point sources.- As a result,
from 1972 to 1987, EPA and the
States placed primary focus on
addressing the obvious problems
due to municipal and industrial dis-
charges: issuing permits for point
source discharges, then inspecting,
monitoring, and enforcing those
permits to ensure that point sources
met the Clean Water Act require-
ments.
Sections 208 and 303(e) of
the Clean Water Act of 1972 estab-
lished the framework to address
nonpoint sources of pollution.
States and local planning agencies
analyzed the extent of NPS pollu-
tion and developed water quality
management programs to control it
with funds provided by EPA under
Section 208. Best management
practices were evaluated, assess-
ment models and methods were
developed, and other types of tech-
nical assistance were made available
to State and local water quality
managers.
The National Section
319 Program
In 1987, however, Congress
enacted Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act, which established a
more focused national program
specifically to control nonpoint
sources of water pollution. Section
319 created a three-stage national
program to be implemented by
the States with Federal approval
and assistance. States were to
address nonpoint source pollution
by (1) developing nonpoint source
assessment reports, (2) adopting
nonpoint source management
programs, and (3) implementing
the management programs over a
multiyear time frame.
All States and Territories and
11 Tribes now have EPA-approved
nonpoint source assessments. EPA
has also approved 55 State and
Territorial nonpoint source manage-
ment programs and 11 Tribal
nonpoint source management
programs.
Section 319 also authorizes EPA
to issue annual grants to States,
Territories, and Tribes to assist
them in implementing their EPA-
approved programs. From FY90
-------
422 Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
through FY97, Congress appropriat-
ed and EPA awarded approximately
$572 million for Section 319 assist-
ance.
In 1995, recognizing the grow-
ing experience of States, Tribes,
and localities in addressing non-
point source pollution and the
fact that State, Tribal, and local
nonpoint source programs had
matured considerably since enact-
ment of Section 319 in 1987,
representatives of EPA Headquar-
ters, Regions and the States, under
the auspices of the Association of
State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators (ASIWPCA),
initiated joint discussions to develop
a new framework for further
strengthening State and local
nonpoint source programs. These
discussions continued for more
than a year spanning Fiscal Years
1995 and 1996 and resulted in new
national Section 319 program and
grant guidance jointly signed by
EPA and ASIWPCA and issued by
EPA on May 16, 1996. This guid-
ance reflects a joint commitment to
upgrade State nonpoint source
management programs to incorpo-
rate nine key program elements
designed to achieve and maintain
beneficial uses of water. The guid-
ance also provides for
• Discontinuance of competitive
award of a portion of each State's
annual Section 319 grant award
thereby assuring each State and
Territory of a firm annual planning
target at the outset of each annual
award cycle
• Reduction in the amount and
frequency of administrative over-
sight and reporting
• Greater flexibility for the States,
Territories, and Tribes in establishing
priorities for the use of these funds.
The nine key elements that
form the core of the new approach
are:
• The State program contains
explicit short- and long-term goals,
objectives, and strategies to protect
surface and ground water.
• The State strengthens its working
partnerships and linkages to appro-
priate State, interstate, Tribal,
regional, and local entities; private
sector groups; citizens groups; and
Federal agencies.
• The State uses a balanced
approach that emphasizes both
statewide nonpoint source
programs and on-the-ground
management of individual water-
sheds where waters are impaired
or threatened.
• The State program (1) abates
known water quality impairments
from nonpoint source pollution and
(2) prevents significant threats to
water quality from present and
future nonpoint source activities.
• The State program identifies
water/watersheds impaired by non-
point source pollution and impor-
tant unimpaired waters that are
threatened or otherwise at risk and
establishes a process to progressive-
ly address these identified waters by
developing and implementing
watershed implementation plans.
• The State reviews, upgrades,
and implements all program com-
ponents required by the Clean
-------
Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 423
Water Act and establishes flexible,
targeted, and iterative approaches
to achieve and maintain beneficial
uses of water as expeditiously as
practicable.
• The State identifies Federal lands
and activities that are not managed
consistently with State nonpoint
source program objectives and,
where appropriate, seeks EPA assis-
tance to help resolve issues.
• The State manages and imple-
ments its nonpoint source program
efficiently and effectively, including
necessary financial management.
• The State periodically reviews
and evaluates its nonpoint source
management program using
environmental and functional
measures of success, and revises
its nonpoint source assessment and
its management program at least
every 5 years.
The guidance also included a
new section on lake protection and
restoration activities that encour-
ages the use of Section 319 funds
for eligible activities that might
have been funded in previous years
under Section 314 (the Clean Lakes
Program).
Roughly half of each State's
annual award supports statewide
program activity (staffing, public
education and outreach, technical
assistance) and half supports specif-
ic projects to prevent or reduce
nonpoint source pollution at the
watershed level.
Funding under Section 319 is
also available to American Indian
Tribes with approved nonpoint
source assessment and manage-
ment programs. Tribal grants are
provided under a separate statutory
set-aside of the annual Section 319
national appropriation. Because
these funds are limited, Tribal
grants are awarded by EPA Regions
but administered by EPA Head-
quarters. EPA also provides special
319 grant guidance and workshops
and consultation to assist Tribes to
prevent and reduce nonpoint
source pollution on their lands.
Section 319 National
Monitoring Program
EPA developed the Section 319
National Monitoring Program to
improve technical understanding of
nonpoint source pollution and the
effectiveness of various nonpoint
source control technologies. This
program selects watershed projects
that consistently monitor water
quality and land management with
standardized protocols for 6 to 10
years. As of April 1997, EPA had
approved and funded 20 projects in
18 States. Several of these projects
are summarized here.
The Oak Creek, Arizona,
Section 319 National Monitoring
Program project is an upstream/
downstream water quality monitor-
ing project designed to evaluate
best management practices for a
State park, campground, and park-
ing lot. The heavy use at both the
park and campground causes
excess fecal coliform and nutrient
levels in Oak Creek. Runoff of
pollutants from automobile parking
lots drains into Oak Creek. The best
management practices (BMPs)
implemented at the State park and
campground include enhanced
restroom facilities, better litter
control through more intense
monitoring by State park officials
-------
424 Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
of park visitors, and the promotion
of visitor compliance with park and
campground regulations on use of
facilities, littering, and waste dispos-
al. The BMPs implemented at the
parking lot include periodic clean-
ing of the detention basin, promo-
tion of an aerobic environment in
the basin, periodic sweeping of the
parking lot, and, if necessary, retro-
fitting the detention basin itself.
These BMPs will be monitored to
determine their effect on Oak
Creek.
The Jordan Cove watershed
is located along the north or Con-
necticut side of the Long Island
Sound. Jordan Cove is a small estu-
ary fed by Jordan Brook; the estuary
empties into Long Island Sound.
Water quality sampling has indi-
cated that the Cove does not meet
bacteriological standards for shell-
fish growing and sediment sam-
pling has revealed high concentra-
tions (>20 ppm) of arsenic. Also,
short-term monitoring of bottom
waters has documented depressed
levels of dissolved oxygen. The
project is located in a residential
section of the watershed. The
project plan is to develop a 10.6-
acre area following traditional sub-
division requirements and another
6.9-acre area of housing using
BMPs. A third drainage area consist-
ing of 43 lots on 13.9 acres, which
was developed in 1988, will be
used as a control. The project will
incorporate the paired watershed
monitoring design for the three
study areas. Additionally, monitor-
ing of selected individual BMPs will
be conducted.
Lake Pittsfield was constructed
in 1961 to serve as both a flood
control structure and a public water
supply for the city of Pittsfield, a
western Illinois community of
approximately 4,000 people. The
6,956-acre watershed (Blue Creek
watershed) that drains into Lake
Pittsfield is agricultural. Sedimen-
tation is the major water quality
problem in Lake Pittsfield. Sediment
from farming operations, gullies,
and shoreline erosion has decreased
the surface area of Lake Pittsfield
from 262 acres to 220 acres in the
past 33 years. The major land treat-
ment strategy is to reduce sediment
transport into Lake Pittsfield by con-
structing settling basins throughout
the watershed, including a large
basin at the upper end of Lake
Pittsfield. The Illinois State Water
Survey (ISWS) is conducting the
Lake Pittsfield Section 319 National
Monitoring Program project to
evaluate the effectiveness of the
settling basins. Water quality moni-
toring consists of storm event tribu-
tary sampling, lake water quality
monitoring, and lake sedimentation
rate monitoring.
Peacheater Creek is located in
eastern Oklahoma. The watershed
is primarily pastureland and forest-
land with little cropland and range-
land. There are 51 poultry houses
and 9 dairies in the watershed,
along with 1,200 beef cattle. Fish
and macroinvertebrate habitat qual-
ity is impaired by large gravel bars
generated from streambank ero-
sion. Cattle traffic and forestry
activities are thought to be major
contributors to streambank erosion.
The project team has completed an
extensive natural resource and
stream corridor inventory. Data
from the inventory have been digi-
tized and mapped in a geographic
information system. A distributed
parameter watershed model has
been used for determining critical
-------
Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 425
areas for treatment. Critical areas
are pasturelands, riparian areas, and
dairies. Nutrient management plan-
ning is underway to improve poul-
try and dairy waste utilization on
cropland and pastureland. A paired
watershed study is planned using
chemical parameters. Biological and
habitat monitoring is planned for
tributaries and the main stem
stream.
The Upper Grande Ronde
Basin (695 mi2) is located in the
Columbia Intermontane Central
Mountains of northeast Oregon.
The Grande Ronde River traverses
primarily forest and grazing lands
draining into the Snake River, a
major tributary of the Columbia
River. The watershed has historically
been important for anadromous
fish production, but, from about
1970 to the present fish numbers
have been declining. Land use
activities, such as grazing, timber
harvest, road construction, and live-
stock production, have been cited
as contributing to fish and other
aquatic species' habitat degrada-
tion. Water temperature and loss of
physical habitat have been identi-
fied by the US Forest Service (USFS)
as the most important factors
affecting spring Chinook salmon
and steelhead populations. An
important cause of increased
stream temperature is the loss of
riparian vegetation. The monitoring
effort targets five subbasins within
the Upper Grande Ronde Basin.
Water quality monitoring is based
on a paired watershed design for
two highly impacted basins, while
other basins represent a range of
less impacted control sites. Addi-
tionally, an upstream/downstream
approach is used to evaluate
changing land use along individual
streams. The major monitoring
components include habitat,
macroinvertebrates, fish, and water
quality. A significant measure of
success will be a reduction in maxi-
mum summer temperatures,
improved habitat for aquatic life,
and increased biotic index scores
for fish and macroinvertebrates.
Totten and Eld Inlets are
located in southern Puget Sound,
Washington. These adjacent inlets
are characterized by enriched
marine waters that make them
exceptional shellfish production
areas. The most significant NPS
pollution problem in these inlets is
bacterial contamination of shellfish
production. The major sources of
fecal coliform (FC) bacteria are fail-
ing onsite wastewater treatment
systems and livestock-keeping prac-
tices along stream corridors and
marine shorelines. The monitoring
effort targets six subbasins within
the larger Totten and Eld Inlet
watersheds. The goals of water
quality monitoring are to detect,
over time (1) trends in water qual-
ity and implementation of land
treatment practices and (2) asso-
ciated changes in water quality to
changes in land treatment prac-
tices. A paired watershed design is
being used for two basins and a
single-site approach will be used for
four other basins. Water quality
monitoring is conducted weekly
from November to April for at least
20 consecutive weeks each year.
Fecal coliform bacteria, suspended
solids, turbidity, flow, and precipita-
tion are the main parameters of
interest. Best management prac-
tices are also being tracked.
-------
426 Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
Reports on Section
319 Activities
In 1994, EPA published its first
volume of Section 319(h) Success
Stories, which provided examples
of successful solutions to nonpoint
source pollution problems in States,
Territories, and Tribes. By the end
of 1997, Sect/on 319(h) Success
Stories: Volume II will be published.
It will highlight water quality
improvements that have resulted
from riparian restoration projects,
agricultural best management prac-
tices (e.g., dairy waste manage-
ment, no-till irrigation), and urban
runoff projects. The reductions in
phosphorus, nitrates, and a lowered
fecal coliform count in the lakes,
rivers, and streams are successes of
the 319 program.
Nonpoint Source
Management
Programs and
Implementation
States, local governments,
farmers, community groups, and
EPA Regions have initiated many
innovative projects across the
United States to manage nonpoint
source pollution in their waters. The
projects described in this section
will be published in Section 319(h)
Success Stories: Volume II. They
exemplify the diversity of approach-
es and settings of Section 319
projects.
Treating High Metal
Load Acid Mine
Drainage, Rock Creek
Watershed, Kentucky
The oxidation of pyrite materi-
als in the coal-bearing strata of
Appalachia has resulted in a serious
water pollution problem. Acid mine
drainage (AMD) is iron- and
sulfate-rich water with high acidity.
AMD from abandoned under-
ground coal mines significantly
impairs water quality in the Rock
Creek watershed. In an attempt to
improve treatment efficiencies, a
two-phase renovation project was
developed that incorporates the use
of anoxic limestone drains (ALD)
and a series of anaerobic subsurface
drains that promote vertical flow
through limestone beds overlain by
rich organic compost. The modified
design is intended to increase pH
and bicarbonate alkalinity produc-
tion through limestone dissolution
and bacterially mediated sulfate
reduction. Moreover, the subsurface
drains force the interaction of AMD
within the substrate leading to
increased residence time and possi-
ble increased retention of contami-
nants within the wetlands system.
Analytical results from postcon-
struction water quality monitoring
are encouraging. Mean iron con-
centrations have decreased from
788 to 35 mg/L, pH increased from
3.41 to 6.38, and acidity has been
reduced from 2,280 to 124 mg
CaCO3. Renovation has resulted in
the retention of 98.0% Al, 95.5%
Fe, 94.4% acidity, 57.3% sulfate,
and 48.6% Mn within the wet-
lands. Monthly performance data
reveal dramatic changes in water
-------
Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 427
quality after construction and indi-
cate good consistency in treatment
efficiency throughout the postcon-
struction period.
Lake Jackson Revitalized,
Florida
Lake Jackson, located in north
central Leon County, Florida, is a
relatively closed system with no
other outlets besides several sink-
holes. Above-average rainfall during
this period, coupled with inade-
quate sediment controls, caused a
large turbidity plume that extended
over the southern third of the lake.
Subsequent efforts to protect the
main body of the lake effectively
turned Megginnis and Fords Arms
into sediment traps.
Studies indicated widespread
problems including increased sedi-
ment and nutrient loading as well
as contamination of bottom sedi-
ments by heavy metals and other
pollutants. Dredging activities in
Megginnis Arm were completed by
July 1991, followed by recondition-
ing of the marsh area, removal of
the sheetpile dam, and consolida-
tion of the disposal area. All told,
more than 100,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment was
removed from Megginnis Arm.
Following the dredging project,
Section 319 funds were used to
help remove exotic or nuisance
vegetation (primarily Chinese tallow
and alligator weed) from the littoral
area of Megginnis Arm and to
reestablish native wetlands species.
Beginning in May 1992, the project
originally called for planting
150,000 herbaceous wetlands
plants and 200 woody plants on
44 acres of the littoral zone
between 84 and 86 contour feet
(NGVD). Data collected in the
northernmost part of Megginnis
Arm show trends that suggest our
efforts to address nonpoint source
pollution in that watershed are
achieving some success.
Nitrate-nitrite, orthophospho-
rus, total phosphorus, turbidity,
conductivity, and chlorophyl a are
all at the lowest levels they have
been in over 20 years. Dissolved
oxygen concentrations at the sur-
face are near all time highs for that
time frame and, even more impor-
tant, were above 8 mg/L at mid-
depth and the bottom during sam-
pling events in April and July 1996.
Shellfish Beds
Upgraded, Navesink
River, New Jersey
On January 1, 1997, the
Navesink River was approved for
unrestricted shellfish harvesting for
the first time in 25 years. Water
quality in the Navesink River has
improved significantly as a result
of a major interagency initiative
involving Federal, State, county,
and private institutions (represent-
ing the environment, health, and
agriculture), as well as the general
public, that has been underway for
several years in the Navesink River
watershed, Monmouth County.
Sources of contamination of the
Navesink River were attributed to a
combination of stormwater runoff
associated with residential develop-
ment, agricultural waste, and mari-
na/boat-associated pollutants.
Many innovative measures
were implemented to control
nonpoint source pollution in the
Navesink watershed:
-------
428 Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
• Construction of a manure com-
posting facility to reduce animal
waste runoff
• Comprehensive strormwater
controls as part of coastal permits
• Putting in place berms and
concrete pads to redirect manure
• Initiation of a citizen monitoring
program
• Formation of the Navesink
Municipalities Association and the
Navesink Environmental League
• State and Federal funding for
public education on ways to reduce
pollution
• State funding for a free public
boat pump-out facility.
There was an upgrade in classi-
fication for 623 acres of waters east
of the Oceanic Bridge that allowed
shellfish to be harvested every year
from November through April with-
out need for purification. A total of
nearly 4,800 acres were upgraded
in the shellfish reclassification as a
result of improvement in overall
water quality, bringing the total
harvesting acreage to over
580,000.
Crystal Lake Preserva-
tion Association Tackles
Urban Runoff, New
Hampshire
Crystal Lake is a small lake
(21 acres) which, due to its urban
setting, is an important recreational
resource. Its watershed lacks surface
tributaries; the lake is recharged by
ground water and storm water
runoff. A diagnostic/feasibility study,
completed in 1985 under the Clean
Lakes Program, documented that
67% of the phosphorus contribu-
tion to the lake is from direct
runoff.
The 319 project, which began
in 1994 and ended in June 1996,
had three interrelated components:
(1) storm drain stenciling; (2) street
sweeping/storm water quality, and
(3) informational kiosk. Educational
activities are included in all project
activities. Water quality benefits
from the educational activities are
difficult to measure; however,
volunteer lake assessment data,
collected monthly during the grow-
ing season from 1991 -1995, indi-
cate that pollutant levels have been
reduced to levels at which alum
treatment, recommended in the
diagnostic/feasibility study, is no
longer needed.
The street sweeping/storm-
water quality component included
storm event monitoring to measure
the effectiveness of a stormwater
runoff best management practice:
street sweeping. Stormwater runoff
was monitored at four entry points
to the lake during similar storm
events before and immediately after
street sweeping. After street sweep-
ing the following pollutant reduc-
tions in stormwater were achieved:
Total Phosphorus 48%
Lead 78%
Total Suspended Solids 75%
Turbidity 68%
Copper 67%
Zinc 33%
£ co// bacteria increased after
street sweeping from a range of
-------
Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 429
30 to 70 colonies per 100 ml to a
range of 10 to 2,000 for unknown
reasons.
Funding for
Nonpoint Source
Control
In addition to Section 319
funds, many States have taken
advantage of State Revolving Funds
(SRFs) to provide loans to finance
nonpoint source and other water
pollution control programs. The
1987 Amendments to the Clean
Water Act provide States with the
opportunity to use these funds for
nonpoint source control and to
implement actions under the
National Estuary Program.
Twenty States are using SRF
loans to fund a wide variety of non-
point source and estuary manage-
ment projects. SRF loans are well
suited to funding these types of
projects because: the low-interest
nature of the SRF program trans-
lates into substantial savings — an
SRF loan can provide up to a 50%
savings or more compared with
financing at market rates; SRF loans
can be used to cover 100% of the
project costs, including planning
and design; SRF loans can be used
to cover 100% of the project costs,
including planning and design; SRF
loans carry fewer federal require-
ments than most federal grants.
These advantages can make an SRF
loan a better deal than a grant,
especially one with a high cost-
share requirement.
SRF loans can be used to fund:
agricultural BMPs such as manure
storage facilities, no/low-till farm
equipment, erosion control, stream
bank buffers; urban and forestry
BMPs; wetlands restoration and
preservation; ground water, source
water, and wellhead protection
measures; projects to improve estu-
aries under the National Estuary
Program; stormwater controls, and
many others. (For more informa-
tion, see page 401 or "The Clean
Water State Revolving Fund; How
to Fund Nonpoint Source and
Estuary Enhancement'Projects"
EPA909-K-97-001, July 1997.)
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
Reauthorization Amendments
(CZARA) of 1990, which established
under Section 6217 a new coastal
nonpoint source pollution control
program to be incorporated into
both State Section 319 CWA pro-
grams and State Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) pro-
grams. NOAA administers the
CZMA and EPA administers Section
319, and the two agencies were
jointly charged with implementing
Section 6217.
Section 6217 requires that
States with federally approved
coastal zone management pro-
grams develop and implement
coastal nonpoint pollution control
"1Q States use SRF loans for
NFS programs: - '
i Alaska N ','
' c* California '" ''" •
•> - ,. ~*
. " Delaware " , -
"Maryland '-- ' <
, Massachusetts
.Minnesota
.Missouri .. ,-
.Nebraska ^ '
.New Hampshire-
, New York
North Dakota"
'-Ohio / -- <
' 'Pennsylvania
Rhode Island "
South' Dakota ^
3/irginia , ^
Washington ^ '
West Virgin|a ,
Wyoming ,
-------
430 Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
programs to ensure protection and
restoration of coastal waters. Thirty
States and Territories, including
several Great Lakes States, currently
have approved coastal zone man-
agement programs.
Under CZARA, State Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control
Programs must provide for imple-
mentation of (1) management
measures specified by EPA in
national technical guidance, and
(2) additional, more stringent mea-
sures developed by each State as
necessary to attain and maintain
water quality standards where the
baseline measures do not accom-
plish this objective. The CZARA fur-
ther 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
guidance in January 1993 titled
Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters. This
guidance specifies management
measures for five major categories
of nonpoint pollution: agricultural
runoff, urban runoff, silvicultural
runoff, hydromodification, and
marinas and recreational boating.
The guidance also describes specific
practices that may be used to
achieve the level of prevention or
control specified in the manage-
ment measures. EPA and NOAA also
issued joint program guidance to
assist the States in developing
coastal nonpoint pollution control
programs.
All States with federally
approved Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Programs have now submit-
ted nonpoint source programs for
EPA and NOAA approval. The first
set of State CZARA programs are
scheduled to receive approval with
conditions in late spring of 1997
with the remainder soon to follow.
-------
Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 431
-------
432 Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
I II i, I II 1,11'. ! '!' i 4 7 k" Si S^ TJS» •* ''
jf^"^.
HIGHUGHfUl
III || I HI || || | | llll I II
II III III II III III III IIIIIIIIIIIIH^ J
III III III III II II III ^^ ,^
3HT HIGHLIGHT
' ! h^^lH IB
i1'^
. 11 * i«^^^^^
iiK
Citizen's Group Works with
Officials to Restore an Urban
Watershed - Salmon Return to
Pipers Creek in Washington State I
For over 60 years, damage
to fish passages, high volumes of
stormwater, and overfishing
destroyed the salmon run in
Seattle's Pipers Creek. Also damag-
ing was nonpoint source pollution
from the surrounding urban area.
Runoff from lawns, construction
sites, automobiles, and other land
uses degraded this salmon habitat.
The citizens of Pipers Creek (former-
ly Carkeek) Watershed, however,
refused to lose this critical part of
their natural heritage. Working with
city, county, and State officials, the
Carkeek Watershed Community
Action Project (CWCAP) has helped
to improve habitat and water quali-
ty in the watershed. Thanks to their
efforts, salmon have been returning
to the creek in large numbers for
the past 4 years.
Water Quality in Pipers
Creek Watershed
Bordering Puget Sound, Pipers
Creek Watershed contains Pipers
Creek and two tributaries (see map).
Carkeek Park lies at the heart of the
3 square mile watershed located
8 miles from downtown Seattle. The
watershed receives all of the street
stormwater and surface water runoff
from an urban community of about
17,000. Oils, solvents, garden pesti-
cides, lawn fertilizers, antifreeze, and
other contaminants from house-
holds, businesses, and automobiles
find their way into storm drains that
empty directly into the streams.
Sediment from various sources,
including yard waste and construc-
tion debris, fills stream beds and
destroys sensitive salmon habitat.
Urban development has increased
the amount of paved surfaces in the
watershed, causing unusually high
surface runoff that floods the creeks
and causes erosion and loss of
salmon spawning beds. Pet waste
and possible sewer leaks have
caused bacterial contamination of
streams. As a result, the Washington
Department of Ecology (DOE) put
Pipers Creek on its Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) list for fecal coliform.
This section of the CWA requires
States to establish a Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) of pollutants for
those waters for which the effluent
limitations required by the Act are
not stringent enough to meet water
quality standards.
The 303(d) listing was even-
tually removed because EPA
-------
Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 433
approved a watershed action plan
developed by CWCAP and its part-
ners as a TMDL. CWCAP has
worked with numerous agencies
and individuals in its efforts to
restore Pipers Creek watershed.
Collaborators have included the
Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Seattle Public Utility,
Washington DOE, King County
Natural Resources Department,
AmeriCorps volunteers, Seattle
Department of Parks and Recrea-
tion, Shoreline Community College,
and University of Washington.
Environmental
Education
Carkeek Park is uniquely suited
for teaching outdoor education
because of its various canyons
(which contain both the headwaters
and the mouths of numerous
streams) and because it is near to a
salt water beach and local schools.
Working as a team, the Seattle
Department of Parks and Recre-
ation, Seattle Public Utility, and
CWCAP have taken advantage of
the park's location and designed
an outdoor education program for
various grade levels and interests.
Their mission is to provide water-
shed-based conservation and envi-
ronmental education programs to
encourage citizen stewardship.
"Salmon Stewards" educate Carkeek
Park visitors about salmon enhance-
ment efforts. Visitors may also tour
the Salmon to Sound Trail devel-
oped by CWCAP and the Seattle
Parks and Recreation Department.
CWCAP and Shoreline Commu-
nity College have designed and
-------
434 Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
HIGHLlGHff 14 |\3HT HIGHLIGH
r~J ~< «*^ v ^
develop the Pipers Creek Watershed
Interpretive Program (a program
to educate watershed residents,
schoolchildren, and businesses
about protecting water quality from
nonpoint sources of pollution) and
to provide a center for park and
community education programs.
The Seattle Parks and Recreation
Department and Seattle Public
Utility were partners in the project.
The city of Seattle has shown its
commitment to the program by hir-
ing the Pipers Creek Watershed
Interpretive Specialist to implement
the watershed action plan. Her role
is to initiate and coordinate water
quality public education activities.
Salmon
Supplementation
Program
Pipers Creek and its tributaries
historically had runs of cutthroat,
coho, and chum salmon. Since
1980, CWCAP and the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
have been involved in a program to
release young salmon into the
creek. Their salmon supplementa-
tion efforts focus on restoring water
quality and habitat and stocking
salmon. Working with the Seattle
Parks and Recreation Department,
Seattle Public Utility, and King
County Natural Resources Depart-
ment, CWCAP has built weirs to
enable salmon to move up into two
creeks. Through the Salmon in the
Classroom program supported by
" ""*" "r ~"" "~ x •;••" "~ **""""" "
"•)>« "I H. ««# j 4 dt\ * f '
-------
Chapter Fifteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 435
^HJG'HUG
the Seattle Public Utility, school-
children are helping to restore
salmon while they learn about their
watershed. The children raise
salmon from eggs in their class-
rooms. When ready, they work with
CWCAP and the Watershed Inter-
pretive Specialist to transfer the fry
into a holding area in the stream to
imprint them with the memory of it
before releasing them. The hope is
that the returning salmon will
become a self-sustaining fishery.
Monitoring Activities
The King County Natural
Resources Department and the City
of Seattle monitor Pipers Creek for
possible bacterial contamination
and notify the community of poten-
tial risks to those who play and
swim in the creek. CWCAP supple-
ments these efforts by sponsoring a
number of monitoring activities in
the park and watershed, including
Watershed Stewards who report
spills and concerns and a Salmon
Monitoring Program with the
University of Washington. CWCAP
recently received an EPA Streamwalk
grant to further the work of the
Carkeek Park Stream Naturalist
Volunteer Program to observe and
monitor the waters and riparian
area around Pipers Creek and its
tributaries in Carkeek Park. The
group is concerned about the heavy
stormwater events that endanger
their chum salmon stock supple-
mentation program.
Looking to the Future
Despite their efforts, CWCAP
participants realize there is much
work left to be done. They plan to
continue their efforts to control
stormwater pollution and educate
the public about watershed man-
agement until the salmon popula-
tion is thriving and safe from harm.
Salmon Return
For the fourth year in a row, chum salmon are
returning to spawn in Piper's Creek. Returns
have varied over time, with 1996 a banner year.
Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
Number of Salmon
300+
93
223
608
to Return
In addition to the return of hatchery salmon,
wild salmon have been spotted spawning in
Pipers Creek. Second-generation salmon, whose
hatchery-born parents spawned in the creek,
are also returning. CWCAP hopes that someday
hatchery fish will no longer be needed to keep
the salmon population alive, and the salmon
will thrive on their own.
-------
-------
Protecting and Restoring Lakes
Background
Since the early 1980s, water-
shed approaches and attention to
nonpoint source impacts have
received increasingly greater atten-
tion in State and Federal water
quality management efforts. EPA
has encouraged States to develop
and implement lake projects, with
an emphasis on protection and
restoration plans that use a water-
shed perspective. This ensures that
restoration activities are long term
and comprehensive. EPA continues
to provide funding under the
Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Program and other programs to
assist States and Tribes in imple-
menting lake restoration and pro-
tection activities. EPA also encour-
ages States to develop their own
independent mechanisms to pro-
vide resources for their lake man-
agement programs.
Assessments for
Publicly Owned Lakes
Section 314 of the CWA calls
for States to report on the status of
their "publicly owned lakes." As a
general rule, most States report on
their "significant" lakes, with signifi-
cant lakes ranging in number from
less than a hundred for smaller
States to a few hundred lakes in
larger western or midwestern
States. However, some States
classify all of their lakes as signifi-
cant publicly owned lakes. The
States typically focus on highly uti-
lized lakes because local citizens
and governments are more likely to
assist in control and restoration pro-
jects and assume ongoing steward-
ship for these lakes and their water-
sheds. High-value lakes attract a
diverse group of local stakeholders
to anchor the activities associated
with lake projects. States now gen-
erally use the 305(b) process to
carry out their biennial lake assess-
ment reporting.
Beneficial Use
Impairments
and Trends
Prior to the 1987 CWA
Amendments, lake surveys focused
on impacts from excessive nutrient
loadings.. Lake assessments now fac-
tor in a broader range of informa-
tion to document where such bene-
ficial uses as aquatic life support or
body contact recreation are
impaired. Where trend information
is available, States also document
evidence of water quality deteriora-
tion. States are also encouraged to
supply information dealing with fish
consumption advisories, fish kills,
sites with sediment contamination,
restrictions on surface water drink-
ing supplies, bathing area restric-
tions, and incidents of waterborne
diseases.
-------
438 Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes
Importance of
Trophic Status
Classifications
Reporting on lake trophic status
(or eutrophic condition) is still a
central feature in most State lake
assessments. Trophic status is a
characterization of a lake's biologi-
cal productivity based on the avail-
ability of plant nutrients. Com-
monly accepted systems for
describing trophic status recognize
a range of conditions, with olig-
otrophic indicating the least biolog-
ically productive lakes and eutroph-
ic indicating significantly higher
levels of productivity. For national
reporting purposes, the following
categories are recommended: olig-
otrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic,
and hypereutrophic. For those lakes
showing exceptionally high levels
of organic materials and associated
reduced pH levels, humic sub-
stances, and natural color, the term
dystrophic is used.
Both natural lakes and man-
made reservoirs may shift in their
trophic condition over time (Figure
16-1). Where human inputs are a
major source of the nutrient load-
ings, the resulting pollution stresses
are usually referred to as cultural
eutrophication, or the culturally
induced rapid acceleration of natur-
al eutrophication processes. If a lake
shows rapid progression toward
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 non-
point sources leads to an undesir-
able 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.
Most States make use of a
trophic classification methodology
developed by R.E. Carlson in the
1970s. Carlson worked primarily
with natural lakes in the Midwest.
He developed a series of indexes
involving simple logarithmic trans-
formations of monitoring records
based on total phosphorus, chloro-
phyll a, and Secchi depth. The for-
mulas 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 as one
tool to characterize trophic state.
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes 439
An ongoing national demonstration
project called the Great American
Secchi Dip-In (see highlight on
page 456) has helped encourage
laypersons to participate in volun-
teer monitoring groups that use
Secchi disk measurements to
document lake status and trends.
Many States are exploring ways
to apply a growing toolkit of bio-
logically based (bioassessment)
techniques. For instance, the pres-
ence or absence of certain types of
zooplankton is often strongly corre-
lated with a well-balanced biologi-
cal community. Diverse and healthy
populations of algae-consuming
zooplanktons such as Daphnia pulex
can help prevent the buildup of
objectionable algal biomass even in
lakes showing appreciable nutrient
inputs. Shifts in the populations of ,
game fish or plankton-eating forage
fish can sometimes lead to a deci-
mation of the zooplankton, allow-
ing algae to flourish. Biomanipula- /
tion techniques aimed at increasing
the populations of top predator
fishes or reducing the populations
of forage fishes can often correct
the trophic imbalances. Bioassess-
ments of the plankton communities
or the fish populations can there-
fore indicate overall trophic status.
Other techniques 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 1996, 37 States reported
that 16% of the 8,951 lakes they
assessed for trophic status were
oligotrophic, 38% were mesotroph-
ic, 36% were eutrophic, 9% were
hypereutrophic, and less than 1 %
were dystrophic (Figure 16-2).
Figure 16-1
The Progression of Eutrophication
Natural Eutrophication
Cultural (Human-Induced)
Eutrophication
1/1
o
• Fertilizers and
Pesticides
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: WC Lake Assessment Report. NCDEHNR, DEM. Report No. 92-02. June 1992.
-------
440 Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes
Figure 16-2
Trophic Status
of Assessed Lakes
Dystrophic
Hyperaitrophte
(9%)
Oligotropic
(16%)
Eutrophic
(36%)
Mesotrophic
(38%)
Based on data contained in Appendix H,
Table H-1.
Lake Acidity and
Toxics Impacts
During the 1980s, considerable
national attention was 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. In addition to
impacts from acidity per se, low pH
conditions can accentuate impacts
from a variety 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 biomagnifica-
tion 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 1996, 18 States reported
that, of the 5,269 lakes assessed for
acidity, 4% exhibited acidity and
20% were threatened by acidity.
Nearly one-quarter of the lakes
exhibiting acidity and roughly
one-half of the lakes threatened by
acidity were in New Hampshire.
Pollution Control
and Restoration
Techniques
Managing lake quality often
requires a combination of in-lake
restoration measures and pollution
controls, including watershed man-
agement measures:
Restoration measures are
implemented to reduce existing
pollution problems. Examples of
in-lake restoration measures include
the addition of oxygen to lake bot-
tom waters to help minimize the
effects of lake turnover or the addi-
tion of chemicals to precipitate
phosphorus out of the water col-
umn. Restoration measures must
usually be coupled with watershed-
level pollution control measures to
ensure that the restoration mea-
sures will achieve more than a
short-term benefit.
Pollution controls deal with
the sources of pollutants degrading
lake water quality or threatening to
impair lake water quality. Control
measures include planning activi-
ties, regulatory actions, and imple-
mentation of best management
practices to reduce nonpoint
sources of pollutants. Watershed
management plans and lake man-
agement plans are examples of
planning measures. Watershed
management plans simultaneously
address multiple sources of pollut-
ants, such as runoff from urbanized
areas, agricultural activities, and fail-
ing septic systems along the lake
shore. Regulatory measures include
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes 441
point source discharge prohibitions
and phosphate detergent bans.
Funding Sources
for State Lake
Protection and
Restoration Efforts
Opportunities Through
EPA Clean Water Act
and Safe Drinking Water
Act Programs
After 1994, new funding ceased
under the Federal Section 314
Clean Lakes grant program. In
recent years, however, EPA has
taken steps to make sure that lake
protection and restoration activities
can still find support under two
major ongoing programs. These
involve the Nonpoint Source
Program under Section 319(h) of
the Clean Water Act and provisions
under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) regarding source water
protection. Watershed-oriented
initiatives for lakes have long been
included in State NPS Management
Programs. Updates to EPA's guid-
ance on the Section 319(h) pro-
gram and a more recent supple-
mentary document have clarified
approaches for using of 319(h)
grants for projects following the
basic framework of the older
Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
while ensuring that important
nonpoint source-related pollution
management goals are addressed.
Under the SDWA Amendments of
1996, source water protection
initiatives were a major feature of
the reauthorization, and eligible
activities can
clearly include
projects geared to
drinking water
lakes and their
watersheds. The
highlight box on
page 453 outlines
the opportunities
for EPA grant
support under
these two pro-
grams.
Building State-financed
Clean Lakes Programs:
an Example from Illinois
Since the passage of the Clean
Water Act, at least 21 States have
taken formal steps to establish their
own lake management programs to
protect, enhance, and restore their
lakes. A critical component in
achieving autonomous State
programs is to establish a secure
source of funding independent of
EPA grants. This can take sustained
effort over a period of years to
achieve even after legislatures have
created the basic legal framework.
For example, Illinois finally achieved
success in finding funding in the
1990s to underwrite a program
created in the late 1980s. See the
highlight for a description of Illinois'
State Lakes Program.
Clean Lakes Demonstrations
The 1987 amendments to
Clean Water Act Section 314 estab-
lished a Demonstration Program for
lakes. The EPA Administrator was to
give priority to the following 10
lakes for inclusion in the Demon-
stration Program: Lake Bomoseen,
Vermont; Lake Worth, Texas;
Table ;1 6-1. Effects of pH on Aquatic Life |
pH Range
6.5 to 6.0
6.0 to 5.5
5.5 to 5.0
5.0 to 4.5
General Biological Effects
Some adverse effects for highly acid-sensitive species
Loss of sensitive minnows and forage fish;
decreased reproductive success for trout and walleye
Loss of many common sports fish and additional
nongame species
Loss of most sports fish; very few fishes able to survive
and reproduce where pH levels commonly below 4.5
-------
442 Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes
, jiijij , . „ •,;, ;„, „ „; "'iii,,,,:;,;,,,;!1,,,,;::,'.,,,1:;,,,
HT HiGHUGHT
Illinois Implements a New
Comprehensive State Lake
Program
On July 1, 1995, the State of
Illinois took a major step toward
ensuring the protection/restoration
of Illinois lakes with the passage of
"Conservation 2000" (C2K) legisla-
tion, a $100 million, 6-year state-
wide initiative aimed at protecting
natural resources and expanding
outdoor recreational opportunities.
Illinois lakes are greatly benefiting
by receiving a $7 million portion of
C2K over this 6-year period.
Administered by the Illinois
EPA, this enhanced lakes program
expands current lake management
efforts in the areas of financial and
technical assistance, monitoring and
research, and environmental educa-
tion. The Illinois Clean Lakes
Program (ICLP) is a "state-funded"
program modeled after the Federal
Clean Lakes Program (FCLP). ICLP
offers Phase I diagnostic/feasibility
study and Phase II implementation
grants patterned after the guidelines
and requirements of the FCLP. Both
Phase II implementation grants
awarded to date have been made to
lakes that participated in the FCLP
Phase I study process. To summa-
rize, in SFY1996, five lake projects
were selected to share grants total-
ing almost $300,000. Four of these
projects were Phase I studies and
one was a Phase II project. In
SFY1997, five Phase I studies were
awarded along with one Phase II
grant, totaling $500,000. Approxi-
mately $650,000 is planned for
ICLP distribution in SFY1998, with
emphasis on funding Phase II
projects. In all, Illinois EPA plans to
provide approximately $3 million in
lake study and implementation pro-
jects during the 6-year C2K period.
In addition to ICLP grants,
C2K funds a variety of new and
expanded program activities.
Ambient Lake Monitoring Program
activities are now conducted on
50 lakes per year, a 66% expansion
of this baseline program. The
Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program
was expanded to include new
chlorophyll and zebra mussel com-
ponents, and expanded the water
quality monitoring component by
100%. Four new lakes program staff
were hired to provide expanded
technical assistance capabilities.
New educational programs were
initiated, highlighted by the new
Lake Education Assistance Program
(LEAP). During LEAP'S initial year of
awarding small grants to teachers
and other not-for-profit organiza-
tions for lake/lake watershed-related
educational activities, 128 awards
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes 443
-,' -:.'vHl,CHUG
were made totaling over $32,500.
Like those originally sponsored by
PCLP—Lake Water Quality Assess-
ment grant funding, five to six
weekend lake management work-
shops are now annually held
throughout the State to help citi-
zens better understand and deal
with local lake issues. A series of
publications called Lake Notes was
also instituted. These fact sheets
provide lake and watershed resi-
dents with a greater understanding
of the actions necessary to manage
and protect lllin,ois lakes. For more
complete and updated information
on the program, contact Illinois
EPA's Lakes Program staff at
217/782-3362 or the Agency's
homepage at http://www.epa.
state.il.us/programs/c2000/.
«"»•.*-»**>i-^ i- «»TW»»- .j ^jfltx % .*-« s.^^,
><.v«.^ «.». li*4!*!*^*^^^*-? s" ^' ',
" " * ~" ^ *« ^"™ s"W i ^ ^A
•^ ~ ^ "* ^^S^> ,„ ^*fjfc3i.*!£ ^s*-.
GHT HIGHLIGHT,
-------
444 Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes
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; and Sauk Lake,
Minnesota.
These 10 lakes have water
quality 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 load-
ing. In several cases, these cultural
eutrophication concerns are aggra-
vated by the presence of nuisance
macrophtyes. These demonstration
projects have also addressed con-
cerns over toxicants.
Demonstration Lakes
Lake Bomoseen. With the
exception of Lake Champlain,
Lake Bomoseen is the largest lake
located entirely within Vermont.
Lake Bomoseen covers 2,364 acres
and has an average depth of
27 feet. Lake Bomoseen is located
in the scenic Taconic Mountains
area in western Vermont close to
the towns of Castleton and Hub-
bard in Rutland County. Portions of
the shoreline are contained within
the Bomoseen State Park. As a
result, the lake is a major recreation-
al resource and contribute to the
economy of the region. Since the
1940s, there has been concern over
excessive growth of native macro-
phytes in portions of the lakes.
These concerns had been
satisfactorily addressed through
such techniques as mechanical
harvesting until the early 1980s,
when the exotic water plant
Eurasion milfoil became established
in the lake. Conventional macro-
phyte control measures steadily lost
their effectiveness. With assistance
from the Clean Lakes Demonstra-
tion Program, biological control
options have been explored. One
innovative application-making use
of an insect that naturally feeds on
the Eurasian milfoil-is described in
the highlight.
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. Army Corps of Engineers, and
coordination through an inter-
agency planning committee com-
posed of Federal, State, and local
entities. Considerable progress has
been made in implementing key
items in the restoration plan.
Restoration objectives include instal-
lation of an 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 aban-
doned dock pilings. A final project
report is anticipated in September
of 1998 documenting the manage-
ment measures implemented as
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes 445
•- HIGHLIG
Lake Bomoseen, Vermont:
A Biological Control
Demonstration Project
Lake Bomoseen is a large natur-
al lake covering about 2,364 acres.
It is located in the laconic Moun-
tains area in Vermont's scenic
Southwestern Lakes Region in the
towns of Castleton and Hubbardton
in Rutland County. Portions of the
shoreline are contained within the
Bomoseen State Park. The area
around Lake Bomoseen has long
been considered one of Vermont's
finest summer and winter retreat
locations. With a picturesque chain
of lakes surrounded by rolling
hills and cliffs, the area offers fine
sailing, fishing, and canoeing. Lake
Bomoseen is a major recreational
resource and contributes substan-
tially to the economy of the region.
Since the 1940s, there has been
concern over excessive growth of
native macrophytes in portions of
the lakes. In 1982, a mechanical
harvesting program began when
the exotic water plant Eurasion mil-
foil (Myriophyllum spicatum) became
established in the lake. Since then,
however, conventional macrophyte
control measures have steadily lost
their effectiveness.
Eurasian milfoil is a major con-
cern in numerous lakes in Vermont
and in parts of Lake Champlain.
Since its accidental introduction into
the United States in the mid 1950s,
Eurasian watermilfoil has spread to
40 states and 3 Canadian provinces,
making it one of the most wide-
spread nuisance macrophytes in
North America. Experts believe that
the extent of Eurasian watermilfoil is
due to its ability to live in a variety
of climatic conditions; it can with-
stand a broad range of aquatic
environments from oligotrophic to
eutrophic waters, and it grows in
water depths as shallow as 0.5
meters and as deep as 8 meters and
in sediment with nutrient levels
ranging from poor, sandy sediment
to highly organic substrate. Eurasian
watermilfoil also can live in waters
of varying salinity, pH, and tempera-
ture. The plants grow quickly; and
when they reach the water surface,
they continue to grow laterally to
form a canopy. The dense beds do
not provide suitable habitat for an
abundant and diverse invertebrate
community, especially as compared
to beds of macrophytes of varied
height and leaf shape that create
many levels of livable environment.
The beds may interfere with access
to the water from the shore by
boaters or swimmers; the dense
canopy growth near the surface is
also considered a nuisance for
fishing.
C-HT HfCmiGHT
-------
1" "I'R'1!" ^V9K^^^i'9fvP,
,.^,^^
!*« I"' •*! »: «<: t*!" •• «lf"« fcrfjiW-i
L : I I, , Inu 'i, Uwi'1 ," ,i, ih'iHi',,,, x ! .«'I"1.'I.IP i!,i,l;
Some types of herbivorous
insects are known to feed on
Eurasian watermilfoil, and the pur-
poseful introduction of such natural
biological controls into lakes where
the beds have grown to nuisance
proportions has been considered as
a possible means for reducing the
amounts of watermilfoil to tolerable
levels. For such an approach to be
feasible, it is helpful to identify local
waterbodies as a source for the
herbivorous insect, which can then
be artificially reared and released
into other lakes in the vicinity. In
1989 biologists with the Vermont
Department of Conservation
(VTDEC) documented a natural
decline in the population of Eur-
asian watermilfoil in Brownington
Pond in the northeastern region of
the State. In 1990, VTDEC was
awarded a grant under Section
314(d) of the Clean Water Act from
the USEPA to examine the possibility
of using aquatic herbivores found in
Brownington Pond as a biological
control of Eurasian watermilfoil in
other areas of occurrence. This
Clean Lakes Demonstration Program
grant was awarded for the purpose
of investigating this new biological
control technique for lake restora-
tion.
Working under contract for the
VTDEC, researchers from Middle-
bury College mapped and studied
the decreases and increases in
Eurasian watermilfoil from 1990
through 1995 in Brownington
Pond. The results of the plant and
invertebrate sampling over the years
of study led to the conclusion that
herbivorous insects were primarily
responsible for the Eurasian water-
milfoil decline. The two main herbi-
vores that feed on Eurasian water-
milfoil in Brownington Pond are the
aquatic weevil Euhrychiopsis lecontei
and the caterpillar Acentria
ephemerella. The evidence sug-
gested that the naturally occurring
weevil populations played a signifi-
cant role in the decline in the
Brownington Pond Eurasian water-
milfoil population. A series of labo-
ratory and in-lake experiments were
then conducted that further docu-
mented the effectiveness of weevils
in inhibiting growth of Eurasion
watermilfoil. Experiments were also
carried out that showed that the
weevil had no significant impact on
a variety of native aquatic plants.
With the support of the results from
these experiments, the weevil was
deemed acceptable as a biological
control for Eurasian watermilfoil
1, •;, ,, ' . ' .'' '.ii "• • '" „ •,H|',iil, i:1 w1,, j'lf,,* I",: [i'i V1 fL
•M! , * '•,' ' 'H'I. 'I'l,:!!!,'!!!,1! ! I,,". ., , ,| '',| i-i ," ! i;", ' , '.'
•«»|: i'. • J > ||' • • ff::, • w*",:.,, i,E > .,.:•' •• . B • ^f, r ^Jv- ^' • '£ '*fy, •, ^> f
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes 447
, ' \f ; -V • r~, "''
because it would not have any
significant negative effect on the
native plant species.
In the summer of 1 993, VTDEC
issued a Biological Control Permit
under the state's Aquatic Nuisance
Control Permit Program allowing
the release of weevils into two
Vermont lakes, including Lake
Bomoseen, in an effort to control
Eurasian watermilfoil. Monitoring
was conducted at control sites and
at weevil augmentation sites at Lake
•'• >!'-v/-"--';;''/;i\:'V'^'<
* -" ,^ '"., '" ',"„'*-"
Bomoseen through 1 995. The cur-
rent results suggest that the weevil
is successfully established in the
Lake Bomoseen sites and is damag-
ing watermilfoil plants in several
areas. The thriving weevil popula-
tion and the widespread weevil
induced damage at the introduction
sites in Lake Bomoseen suggest that
the weevil may have the potential
to effectively limit the nuisance
plant over time.
•-• ;J:':r:^^;^'';:;'r-^:;^:
to^jPh^?;;
'( ^ A s ™ ' •,""<«'"' > * *
^ * * x m ~ , / ^ f
f 1 <• '* ' ^ f- 3 ' ~^.
7 *; - , . '-?; •,' , "/-:
"/ 1 '" >f * ' ' ' ^ ^^ ^ v ' i
' f " * " , ' ^ \ ' *
-------
448 Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes
well as an assessment of the effec-
tiveness of these measures.
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 have
been conducted to examine alter-
native mitigation options. Final rec-
ommendations were made follow-
ing completion of an independent
study conducted by the City of
Houston.
Beaver Lake. Located near
Fayetteville, Arkansas, Beaver Lake is
a 28,190-acre reservoir on the
White River that serves as a drinking
water supply and recreational facili-
ty for the surrounding population
of more than 200,000 people.
Although the lake has escaped sig-
nificant impairment to date, the
State of Arkansas is concerned that
rapid commercial, agricultural, and
residential development threatens
the water quality of the lake. In
addition to documenting baseline
conditions in the reservoir and its
large watershed, several Federal
agencies have cooperated in studies
of tributary areas within the
White River Basin to identify poten-
tial impacts from alternative
development patterns. Based on the
information from current studies,
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 is still carrying out
supplemental studies on the water
quality of the lake and the sur-
rounding watershed.
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
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 dis-
charges, and point source dis-
charges into tributaries of the lake.
Sources of lake pollution have been
identified and a 10-part restoration
plan was developed in the 1980s.
Some portions of the plan-specifi-
cally lake drawdown and aquatic
plant harvesting-were implemented
as early as 1985. In addition,
sewage treatment facilities have
been upgraded, stormwater control
measures have been implemented
for new developments, and runoff
conveyances have been maintained.
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes 449
Ongoing efforts include lake level
drawdown, weed harvesting, devel-
opment of a stormwater manage-
ment plan prioritizing sites, con-
struction of stormwater detention
basins, and a public education pro-
gram. Preliminary results indicate
that the recurrence of excessive
aquatic plants has decreased. In
addition to the efforts of the States
and EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has developed a dredging
plan for the lake. The implementa-
tion of recommended management
measures in the New Jersey parts of
the lake and its watershed are now
virtually complete. Efforts will con-
tinue to help local governments in
New York complete implementation
work in the areas outside of New
Jersey.
Deal Lake. Deal Lake is one of
the largest freshwater bodies in
Monmouth County, New Jersey.
By 1950, sedimentation, excessive
aquatic macrophyte and algal
growth, and bacteria concentrations
had become so excessive that recre-
ational uses were impaired or
restricted. Local interest in restoring
the lake led to a 1093 comprehen-
sive diagnostic/feasibility study.
Conclusions from this study deter-
mined that overland runoff was
contributing the majority of sedi-
ment and nutrients to the lake.
The study recommended restora-
tion/management activities includ-
ing control of sediment and nutri-
ent loadings to the lake through
sound watershed management
practices, spot dredging in areas
of sediment accumulation and
construction of sediment collection
basins. The Phase II restoration proj-
ect commenced in 1989 using a
combination of Federal, State, and
local funds. Activities completed
before the Federal grant ended in
September 1995 included public
education programs, planning and
permit acquisition for the two major
sediment basin projects, and con-
struction of two smaller detention
basins using local funds. In addition,
in June 1997, construction of a sedi-
ment basin in one of the major
arms of Deal Lake commenced
using a combination of State and
local funds.
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. Polluting had been
going on for over 20 years. In 1980,
a major threat was identified from
releases from approximately
150,000 gallons of chemical waste
from the LiPari Landfill. The LiPari
Landfill was designated as a Super-
fund project. The Clean Lakes pro-
gram worked in concert with
Superfund to restore both the lake
and its watershed. Superfund was
responsible for both dredging the
lake to remove the contaminated
sediments and rehabilitating the
wetlands impacted by the leachate
from the landfill. The Clean Lakes
program was responsible for water-
shed activities, with assistance from
the U.S. NRCS. Bioengineering was
used to stabilize streambanks on
-------
450 Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes
Rowan College property. Storm-
water detention basins were
installed in both the parkland
immediately surrounding Alcyon
Lake and at various locations
upstream in the watershed. The
banks of Glen Lake, a lake within
the Alcyon Lake watershed, were
also graded and improved. Moni-
toring activities are still under way
at both lakes. A notable feature of
the dredging program was the
salvage of a portion of the lake's
turtle population. Maintained while
the lake was drained and dredged,
the turtles were a major educational
attraction and were returned to the
lake when water levels were
restored.
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, bac-
teria, fertilizers (nutrients), and sedi-
ment. Resulting problems are algal
blooms, overgrowth of aquatic veg-
etation, and a decline in the fishery.
Recommendations from an initial
study stressed that the restoration
plan must deal with the causes of
the water pollution-land use prac-
tices in the watershed-as well as
in-lake work. Land use management
recommendations included erosion
and sediment control, particularly
during construction and at storm-
water outfalls; stormwater treat-
ment and/or diversion; and elimina-
tion of loadings from onsite sewage
disposal systems. In-lake methods
proposed included limited dredg-
ing, nutrient inactivation, and
aquatic plant harvesting.
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 sedimenta-
tion have occurred. The decomposi-
tion of the aquatic plants and algae
has decreased the dissolved 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, pri-
marily ground water, and conse-
quently has poor flushing. In addi-
tion, many lakeshore residents 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 primary source of
nutrients to the lake, and a central-
ized wastewater treatment system
has been recommended. In-lake
management measures such as
drawdown, harvesting, and algi-
cides may also be needed, as well
as watershed management activities
such as revision of local land ordi-
nances, rip rap and vegetative
swells, land acquisition, and better
maintenance of stormwater
drainage systems.
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
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes 451
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. In addition, a community
education program was imple-
mented. The Army Corps of Engi-
neers has implemented a harvesting
effort to reduce the aquatic plants
in Sauk Lake.
Lake Champlain:
Geographic and
Multimedia
Approaches for a
Great Waterbody
Lake Champlain's basin
includes portions of Vermont,
northeastern New York, and the
Province of Quebec, Canada. The
lake is 177 kilometers (110 miles)
long and 19 kilometers (12 miles)
wide at its widest. The total area of
the basin is over 21,000 square kilo-
meters (8200 square miles). It is a
large natural lake that many would
view as the smallest of the Great
Lakes. Concerns over pollution
impacts to at least portions of Lake
Champlain started as early as the
1940s, and major advances in
reducing pollution inputs from
municipal or industrial point source
discharges were witnessed follow-
ing the passage of the modern
Clean Water Act in 1972.
Following the 1987 reauthor-
ization of the Clean Water Act, a
series of actions at the State and
Federal levels were launched to
address both point and nonpoint
source concerns using a holistic,
watershed-based approach. In
1988, New York, Vermont, and the
Province of Quebec signed a
Memorandum of Understanding
(MOD) on Environmental Coopera-
tion on the Management of Lake
Champlain. At the Federal level,
Lake Champlain received major
attention in the Great Lakes Critical
Programs Act of 1990. A special
Title III in this law added Lake
Champlain as part of the Clean
Water Act's Demonstration Lakes
Program. In addition, a Clean Lakes
grant awarded in 1989 for a Phase I
diagnostic/feasibility study was used
to gather information on water
quality, specifically phosphorus, as a
foundation for understanding one
of the significant issues facing the
lake.
The Lake Champlain Manage-
ment Conference established by the
Act comprised 31 representatives
from both sides of the lake, includ-
ing Federal, State, and local govern-
ments; local interest groups; busi-
nesses; academics; farmers; and citi-
zens. Its goal was to develop a
Pollution Prevention, Control and
Restoration Plan. Funding was pro-
vided to support work leading to
development of a plan and has sup-
ported a multiyear series of educa-
tional, research, monitoring, plan-
ning, and demonstration projects.
As part of the 1990 Clean Air
Act reauthorization, Section 112(m)
created a new Great Waters
Program. For the Great Lakes, major
estuaries, and Lake Champlain,
analyses were conducted to gage
the incidence and severity of
-------
452 Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes
pollutants delivered via atmospheric
transport, with emphasis on a list
of hazardous air pollutants. The
atmospheric loadings were
compared to the levels of toxics
documented in other media such as
ambient water and sediment or
bioaccumulated and biomagnified
in fish tissues. Ongoing evaluation
of the role of atmospheric transport
in the levels of pollutants delivered
to soil, sediments, water, or food
chains help ensure that studies of
Great Waters such as Lake Cham-
plain and its watershed are put in
the broadest possible multimedia
perspective.
By 1996, the Lake Champlain
Basin Program had prepared a
Pollution Prevention, Control and
Restoration Plan. First published in
draft form, an extensive public
process provided comments and
input. The final plan was signed by
the two governors and two EPA
regional administrators at a cere-
mony in October 1996. A multi-
stakeholder strategy was outlined to
address a range of critical manage-
ment needs. Major concerns are
toxics in lake sediments, eutrophica-
tion caused by both point and non-
point sources and due primarily to
excessive phosphorus loadings, and
management or prevention of
nuisance aquatic species (flora and
fauna), including zebra mussels,
water chestnut, and Eurasian water-
milfoil.
Mary Ann Reeves, 1st grade, Estes Hills Elementary, Chapel Hill, NC
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes 453
/• „_ „ « f , ^ •__ - T— ; ;— s ;
, ^ ' * -^ ~ " > ~ <•
V""''"i * ^ " , - «"'X "* ' ,'" - ^"" £ "'-''•; * ~ •
Sources of EPA Support
for State Lake Protection
and Restoration Projects
Support for Lake Clean Lakes Program are eligible for
Projects Throildh the funding under Section 31 9(h)
i iujeii.3 i IIIUULJII ii ic arants " However the Section 319
CWA Section 31 9(h) guidance stresses that "(l)ake pro-
Grant Program tection and restoration activities are
eligible for funding under Section
On May 1 6, 1 996, EPA issued 31 9(h) to the same extent, and sub-
new Nonpoint Source Program and ject to the same criteria, as activities
Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 to protect and restore other types of
and Future Years to ensure imple- waterbodies from nonpoint source
mentation of effective nonpoint pollution." Thus, for example, fol-
source management programs lowing are several key criteria that
under Section 31 9 and for awarding lakes-related work needs to meet
Section 31 9(h) grants to States (key to be eligible for funding under
aspects of this guidance are high- Section 31 9:
lighted in Chapter 15, Nonpoint
Source Control Program). Of special • To be eligible for funding under
interest to lake users and managers Section 31 9(h) the activity must be
is the new section of the guidance included in a State nonpoint source
on "Lake Protection and Restoration management program. Thus, State
Activities." This section encourages lake managers and lake communi-
States to use Section 31 9 funding ties will need to ensure that critical
for "eligible activities that might lake nonpoint source control needs
have been funded in previous years are included in any updated State
under Section 314 of the Clean nonpoint source management
Water Act." programs.
In November 1 996, EPA also
issued a set of Questions and • The May 1 996 guidance allows
Answers on the Relationship Between States to use Section 31 9 funds to
the Section 3 7 9 Nonpoint Source update State nonpoint source man-
Program and the Section 314 Clean agement programs and nonpoint
Lakes Program. These Questions and source assessments, including Phase
Answers clarified that "Phase 1, II, | Clean Lakes Diagnostic-Feasibility
and III projects, and lake water Studies and statewide lake water
quality assessments which were pre- quality assessments, subject to the
viously done under the Section 314 following limitations: The guidance
f -C ' „ ' r 7 *• N" ^ """' r * " .- j- ~ " < ' > v'
"f V *••*.* J "*
'\ ^ -"* jf"~ "^fc*"* *" "*' " " "<• ^
HICBUCH£|-J I IjGrjT HIGHLIGHT ,
--f *t s ^ -» »- ^ «,
*• i *• "" •*• / ^" ~ * /
" ^ v ~~ s
\ ^ "** ^ "*!. -~ t
a •>•„.'/'' '
< ^ f ,- i
^" , -< s " -< v „ »f
^ '
-------
454 Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes
HT HIGHLIGHT
! I! i ! i I ! I ! 1 1! I l I i i
i i i ! !=! gate 6 1 i a
mi i i iiii ill nig ilLniiiiSi iiiiin Mi in i i! ilill| illknii iiniiiiiiiii|i|iiiii i| in If Ill III minium, ii |l I. Ill | i I
fiiii iji,;; iiiiiii Li,;, ;i ;i ;,£ ii ,i i Jiii,,;:;;; i l ,; , iiii ii
provides that "States may use up to
20 percent of their Section 319(h)
funds or $250,000, whichever is
less, to update and refine their
programs and assessments."
EPA Regional Clean Lakes Coor-
dinators, EPA Regional Nonpoint
Source Coordinators and their coun-
terparts at the State/local level are
working together to ensure that
critical lake nonpoint source
management needs are addressed
through Section 319. Key actions
include ensuring that lake manage-
ment needs are included in updated
State nonpoint source management
programs so that these activities are
grant eligible and assuring that high
priority lake management activities
are included in annual work pro-
grams for Section 319(h) grants.
Support for Lake
Projects Through Safe
Drinking Water Act
Initiatives
The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) Amendments of 1996
created a Source Water Assessment
Program and provided funding to
conduct source water assessments
and, subsequently, to develop and
implement source water protection
plans. Lakes that provide drinking
water supplies will clearly be one of
the major waterbody types consid-
ered under these new source water
protection initiatives. States must
carry out source water assessments
for all their public water systems
and may use a setaside (up to 10%
of the Fiscal Year 1997 State alloca-
tion) from the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund to do so. All public
water systems must be assessed
within 2 years after EPA approves a
State's program. (An 18-month
extension is available to States.
Many will need this extra time.)
EPA anticipates that many of
the principles developed as part of
the existing Wellhead Protection
Program for ground water systems
will be applicable to surface water
systems. Among other options,
States may design source water
protection programs that build on
wellhead components such as
source water area delineation,
contaminant source inventories,
management measures, and contin-
gency planning. Approaches for lake
assessment and diagnostic tech-
niques developed under the Clean
Water Act should also provide
models.
Developing a new water supply
can be very expensive. Source water
protection can be a cost-effective
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes 455
prevention strategy for ensuring safe
drinking water supplies for new and
existing supply systems. A poor
water supply also increases the costs
of treatment for both large and
small water systems. To address
source water protection, the new
law creates a program to ensure
that States conduct assessments,
coordinated with existing informa-
tion and programs, to determine
the vulnerability of sources of
drinking water to contamination.
Delineating source water protection
areas and inventorying sources of
contamination ensures that commu-
nities know the threats to their
drinking water and can develop and
implement appropriate protection
efforts.
NOTE: At a State's discretion, other set-aside funds from the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund are available for protection activities, including continuation of wellhead protection
programs.
HJCHJLIG
Gftf HIGHLIGHT
-------
456 Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes
I | juJ**™**™!.™ I I
' J^^\ I . "
I HlCHUGHlfj-j | JJGHT HIGHLIGHT
H»t Smirch j| Destinations || Software j
I
ocaHon: IhUp ;//humboldt .kent.edu/'dipin !
Great American Secchi Dip-In
What is the Great American Secchi Dip-In?
The concept of the Dip-In is simple: volunteers in volunteer lake and reservoir monitoring programs
from across the United States take a Secchi disk measurement on one day some time around July 4th. These
Secchi values Increase our knowledge of the condition of our Nation's waters and increase awareness of the
importance of clean lakes and the role of volunteer monitoring. The Dip-In is sponsored by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the North American Lake Management Society.
The History of the Great American Secchi Dip-In
The first Great American Dip-In began as a pilot study in 1994. During Dip-In 1994 over 800 vol-
unteers participated from six Midwest states: Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and
Wisconsin. The results from the first Dip-In suggested that regional patterns in transparency do exist,
appearing to correlate with land use and whether the water body is a natural lake or a reservoir. In
1995, the Dip-In became the Great AU-American Secchi Dip-In as the program expanded to include
volunteers across the entire United States. Over 2,000 volunteers from 37 States and 2 Provinces of
Canada participated. Volunteers from estuary and river volunteer programs were also included. In 1996
the Dip-In spread even farther across the United States. All volunteer monitoring programs that used a
Secchi disk were welcome to participate. Again, over 2,000 volunteers participated in 1996.
The 1997 Great American Secchi Dip-In took place from June 27 to July 13,1997. During that
period, volunteers from all over the United States went out on their lakes and took a Secchi disk mea-
surement. They also answered questions about their perceptions of the type and degree of water quality
problems on their lake. From their responses, we can get a sense of what problems volunteers are find-
ing in their lakes.
Why Volunteer Monitoring?
Although most people would agree that it is important to monitor our environment for possible
changes, the cost for a detailed effort would be enormous. Volunteers can obtain the data at a fraction of
the cost. As an added benefit, the volunteers become informed about what causes change.
For more information on the Dip-In, contact Bob Carlson at:
RCarlson@kent.edu
Great American Secchi Dip-In
Department of Biological Sciences
Kent State University
Kent, OH 44242
-------
Chapter Sixteen Protecting and Restoring Lakes 457
location: jhttp://humbold-t kent.edu/~dipin/
A KANSAS CITY EVENT FROM
THE 1995 SECCffl DIP-IN
Preparing for the Event
As part of the nationwide activitities for the 1995
Secchi Dip-In, EPA Region 7 helped host an event
held at an urban recreational lake called BIG 11
Lake in Kansas City, Kansas. Prior to the data-gath-
ering activities on July 4, Region 7 staff worked with
groups of students interested in volunteer monitoring
to describe different types of water quality monitor-
ing and to provide hands-on training on taking read-
ings with the Secchi disk. Students were shown how
they could make their own disks from such readily
available materials as paint can lids, bolts, string, and
some black paint to add the alternating light and dark
quadrants on the disk.
The week before the actual 'event, sessions were con-
ducted to check out the Secchi disks the students had
made and to make calibration marks or knots in the string attached to the disk. These marks make it easier to
measure how far the disks are lowered into the lake before the light and dark marks on their Secchi disks are
no longer distinguishable.
On the week of the event, local newspapers and television media were invited. The event itself was a great
photo opportunity. Each student was given a chance to take measurements with their disks to contribute to
the national 1995 Secchi Dip-In database.
Goals of the Project
Urban lakes are often unvalued resources. The BIG 11 Lake was selected to highlight the importance of
urban lakes for recreation and as good places to catch fish.
This event aimed to generate interest in urban lakes on the part of citizens in the surrounding neighborhoods.
BIG 11 Lake provided an excellent location to involve and educate students and build their interests in sci-
ence and the environment. It also emphasized the many untapped environmental resources in the urban
waters in their own communities.
Followup activities have encouraged schools and other organizations to adopt an urban lake or stream and
keep tabs on these resources through volunteer monitoring.
*>*-iV<$£** \ V-^-*"--™-
QHTHICrJUGHT^
fit* t s *i •,» u *i A; -
|||,
ffjfffffiifp,
g j. J^B jt^^i T, * ^? •-
•£& «,%» *. ~ j^-* ^a-'"!^™
lifjfsitsxf-
|l|i,|?fi«'W
ff!T^,;^'"
|MIf|/*ir?i-i£f?
.-Jf lsf»*-fS|-st,S-
tllljliii^ysj.
|ff|fcf,'*» ,-
*f|j-f>«sy*rrs
lff«Af|^4c
«&|iF|lfeA
'/I. ^^Vi &4 ** •* -
*Sl ^-Jtsx*14* #• * ^*
# %* t*'*'* 3-*-s,:s ^\
I I rmi * * * * *^- "*
^ - I ;&# «"4 * * *" £ "*»-VA
'Jjj^fjritis;?1
mi:s$ks:~':
tj-fttn^/mfj
I £•* Ss* *** *-* £*» """"^ ~^" w>"
fBjR/mjFljfl-f-iifi
* * I i ^ l^1* **--*,^ S" *• •*"% **-- !
fis*tif-««"*4r
| , ;,..„„,..
1 * ^ JE |F =9~* »
,,...,*?§««
fi-f ******* 6*-
-------
-------
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 wetlands policy. After hear-
ing from States, developers, farm-
ers, environmental interests, mem-
bers of Congress, and scientists, the
working group developed a com-
prehensive 40-point plan for wet-
lands protection to make wetlands
programs more fair, flexible, and
effective. This plan was issued on
August 24, 1993 (see highlight).
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
Engineers (COE) and EPA jointly
implement the Section 404 pro-
gram. The COE is responsible for
reviewing permit applications and
making permit decisions. EPA estab-
lishes the environmental criteria for
making permit decisions and has
the authority to review and veto
Section 404 permits proposed for
issuance by the COE. EPA is also
responsible for determining geo-
graphic jurisdiction of the Section
404 permit program, interpreting
statutory exemptions, and oversee-
ing 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
Section 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 majority of
activities proposed in wetlands are
covered by Section 404 general
permits. For example, in FY96, over
64,000 people applied to the COE
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
-------
460 Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs
iill iihl in Iliiiiiiiliniiiliiilliiiiliiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiii!iiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiii«iiiii iiijjjglj
;' f:;i::;
The 1993 Wetlands Plan
The Clinton Administration's
1993 Wetlands Plan is a compre-
hensive set of common-sense, work-
able initiatives to make Federal wet-
lands programs more effective, fair
and flexible for private landowners,
and better coordinated with State,
Tribal, and local efforts. Many of the
Plan's proposals have already been
implemented, resulting in tangible
progress directly benefitting land-
owners, farmers, and others. Other
initiatives have been proposed and
will be completed in the near
future. They include:
• Improving Mitigation Through
"Banking" - To improve the effec-
tiveness of wetlands mitigation
efforts and inject more flexibility
into the regulatory process, the
Federal agencies issued guidance on
November 28, 1995, encouraging
expanded use of "mitigation bank-
ing." Banks give greater flexibility to
permit applicants by providing
opportunities for wetlands mitiga-
tion more easily, at reduced cost,
and with a greater certainty of
success.
• Streamline Permitting for
Forestry Activities - On November
28,1995, the agencies also issued
guidance in coordination with both
the forestry industry and environ-
mental community that clarifies that
a wetlands permit is not needed
when certain forestry activities are
conducted in accordance with best
management practices in suitable
wetland types.
• Empower State and Local
Governments - On April 26, 1996,
the agencies developed procedures
that will encourage States to devel-
op State Programmatic General
Permits (SPGPs) to reduce duplica-
tion between State and Federal
programs. Nationally, thousands of
wetlands projects are processed by
States rather than the Federal
government under this mechanism.
This tool offers an alternative to
those States wishing to take a more
active role in wetlands protection
without taking on the entire permit
program. Fourteen States have
currently adopted SPGPs.
• Provide Relief for Homeowners
Nationwide - On July 19, 1995, the
agencies announced a new nation-
wide permit that allows landowners
to build or expand a home affecting
up to one-half acre of nontidal
wetlands without the need for an
individual Section 404 permit. This
action eliminates an unnecessary
burden on families trying to build
or add on to an existing home in
wetlands on their property. The
nationwide permit also covers
common features such as garages,
driveways, storage sheds, yards,
and septic tanks.
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetlarra's Protection Programs 461
• Improve Wetlands Identifica-
tion - To increase predictability and
consistency for landowners, all
Federal agencies have agreed to use
a common definition of wetlands
and to identify wetlands using a
single methodology, the 1987
Manual for Wetlands Delineation.
Most State wetlands programs also
rely on this manual. The Corps is
also developing procedures to make
it easier to rely on wetlands identifi-
cation determinations done by
private contractors and State and
local governments to save money
and provide greater consistency.
• Establish Appeals for Land-
owners - In response to landowner
concerns that there is no adminis-
trative process available to them to
appeal agency decisions such as
permit denials and wetlands identi-
fications, an appeals process has
been developed and made subject
to public review and comment.
Once these regulations are com-
pleted, landowners will be able to
seek higher-level review of wetlands
permit decisions and thereby avoid
the costs and delays associated with
litigation.
, HIGHllG
GHT HIGHLIGHT
-------
462 Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs
for a Section 404 permit. Eighty-five
percent of these applications were
covered by general permits and
were processed in an average of
14 days. Less than 6% of the appli-
cations were subject to the more
detailed individual evaluation
-which took an average of 88 days.
Almost all of the applicants for
Section 404 permits in 1996
received a permit, and the average
time for a decision was 21 days.
Only 219, or 0.3%, of the permits
were denied. It is estimated that
another 90,000 activities are cov-
ered each year by 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 per-
mits 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,
39 NWPs authorize activities includ-
ing construction of minor road
crossings and farm buildings, bank
stabilization activities, some cran-
berry operations, and the filling of
up to 3 acres of isolated or head-
water wetlands.
• Regional permits authorize types
of activities within a geographic
area defined by a COE District
Office. Regional permits may autho-
rize activities in a specific water-
body, 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
programmatic general permits
Table 17-1, Federal Section 404 Permits
General Permits
(streamlined permit review procedures)
Nationwide
Permits
• Cover 39 types of
activities that the
COE determines
to have minimal
adverse impacts
on the environment
Regional
Permits
• Developed by COE
District Offices to
cover activities in a
specified region
Programmatic
Permits
State
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 Wetlands Protection Programs 463
(SPGPs), the COE defers permit
decisions to a State program for
specific activities 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 involve-
ment in wetlands protection and
minimize duplicative State and
Federal review of activities pro-
posed in wetlands. Each SPGP is a
unique arrangement developed by
a State and the COE to take advan-
tage of the strengths of the individ-
ual State wetlands program. SPGPs
may cover all 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 nationwide general
permits.
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 land-
owners.
Wetlands Water
Qualify 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
indicates the State's progress in
developing these standards (see
Appendix D, Table D-5, for individ-
ual State data).
Water quality standards have
three major components: designat-
ed uses, criteria to protect those
uses, and an antidegradation policy.
States designate uses that must, at
a minimum, meet the goals of the
CWA by providing for the protec-
tion and propagation of fish, shell-
fish, and wildlife and for recreation
in and on the water. States may
choose to designate additional uses
for their wetlands, such as flood
water attenuation or ground water
recharge where appropriate. Once
uses are designated, States are
required to adopt criteria sufficient
to protect their designated uses.
Criteria are general narrative
statements or specific numerical
values such as concentrations of
contaminants and water quality
characteristics. Narrative criteria
can be particularly appropriate for
Figure R7-1
Development of State Water Quality
Standards for Wetlands
Antidegradation
Use Classification
Narrative Biocriteria
Numeric Biocriteria
30 States and Tribes- Reporting
_L
Proposed
Under Development
In Place
I
5 10 15
Number of States Reporting
20
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-5.
-------
•464 Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs
wetlands when quantitative data do
not exist. An example of a narrative
criterion is "natural hydrological
conditions necessary to support the
biological and physical characteris-
tics naturally present in wetlands
shall be protected."
Standards provide the foun-
dation 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.
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, increased
runoff from impervious surfaces,
vegetation clearing, introduction of
exotic species, habitat fragmenta-
tion, chemical pollutants, sedimen-
tation, and changes in pH, dis- '
solved oxygen, and temperature.
The use of water quality standards
is an important tool for States to
use to address these causes of
wetlands degradation.
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 water-
body (including physical and chem-
ical conditions) and will reflect a
range of diverse degrading impacts
on a system. Conventional water
quality monitoring techniques rely
on surrogates, such as the use of
chemical water quality data or
laboratory-based toxicity criteria, to
predict impacts to biological com-
munities. In contrast, biological
assessments (bioassessments) pro-
vide direct, site-specific measure-
ments of the biological integrity
of aquatic plant and animal assem-
blages. Unlike conventional meth-
ods, bioassessments can detect
cumulative impacts of multiple,
long-term, and intermittent
impacts. Bioassessments can also
detect the impacts of physical and
biological stressors to an aquatic
habitat, such as hydrologic modifi-
cation, habitat alteration, and intro-
duction of exotic species. Measur-
ing 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
ecoregion 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
developed for each aquatic life use
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs 465
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, compari-
son with degraded wetlands, and
research on the links between the
type of disturbance and the ecolog-
ical integrity of wetlands. Without
these data, and programs to pro-
tect the quality as well as quantity
of wetlands resources, wetlands
losses will continue.
States can apply biomonitoring
to a variety of programs in addition
to supporting biocriteria. States can
use biomonitoring to measure the
success of mitigation and restora-
tion projects at improving the bio-
logical condition of wetlands.
Biomonitoring will help agencies
identify deteriorating wetlands,
target resources more efficiently,
and evaluate the success of pollu-
tion abatement and habitat restora-
tion programs. Once biomonitoring
programs are created, States could
use them as an initial screening
process and then use expensive
chemical monitoring when the
biota show signs of degradation.
Biomonitoring can also provide the
foundation for developing water-
shed management approaches and
ecological risk assessments.
Although State progress toward
development of biocriteria pro-
grams is limited and varied, several
States have begun systematic long-
term regional monitoring and mon-
itoring of reference sites necessary
to support a wetlands biocriteria
program. Currently, Kentucky,
Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico,
North Dakota, and Ohio are devel-
oping such programs (see Chapter
5). Other States have initiated proj-
ects, often limited to a specific
region, wetlands type, or monitor-
ing method, that will help them
gain experience and acquire data
needed for launching a statewide
wetlands biomonitoring program.
In September 1996, EPA held a
workshop in Boulder, Colorado, to
help States develop bioassessment
methods and design biological
monitoring programs for wetlands.
In 1997, EPA will be coordinating
an interagency workgroup with
States to further develop bioassess-
ment methods and biomonitoring
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 fed-
erally permitted or licensed activi-
ties 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
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).
-------
466 Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs
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 certifica-
tion 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
standards. Section 401 grants
States and Tribes the authority to
deny certification or require condi-
tions 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 per-
mitting 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 individ-
ual and general Section 404 per-
mits 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
practicable alternative to degrada-
tion 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/Tribal Wetland
Conservation Plans
State/Tribal Wetland Conserva-
tion Plans (SWCPs) are strategies
that integrate regulatory and coop-
erative approaches to achieve State
wetlands 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'(see
highlight).
A large number of land- and
water-based activities impact
wetlands. These activities are not
addressed by a single Federal, State,
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 affect-
ing wetlands.
States, Territories, and Tribes
are well positioned between Federal
and local governments to take the
lead in integrating and expanding
wetlands protection and manage-
ment programs. They are experi-
enced in managing federally
mandated environmental programs
under the Clean Water Act and the
Coastal Zone Management Act.
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs 467
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.
Although SWCPs are instru-
mental in helping identify goals
and strategies for wetlands man-
agement, these plans also encour-
age resource managers to coordi-
nate wetlands goals with other nat-
ural resource goals including sur-
face and ground water quality, non-
point source management, and
wildlife habitat management. In
many cases, development of these
plans requires analysis of activities
within a watershed or ecosystem
that have the potential to impact
the functions of a particular wet-
lands system encouraging a more
holistic approach to natural
resource management.
• Texas' SWCP will focus on non-
regulatory and voluntary approach-
es to wetlands protection to com-
plement its regulatory program.
The plan will encourage develop-
ment of economic incentives for
private landowners to protect wet-
lands and educational outreach for
State and local officials.
• Maine's SWCP will focus on ways
to establish better coordination
between State and Federal regula-
tory programs as well as new non-
regulatory 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 compensatory mitigation
policies.
• The Flathead Indian Tribal
Wetland Conservation Plan (TWCP)
is being designed to establish a
management plan for the wetlands
on the reservation that are threat-
ened by accelerated development
pressures. The goals of the TWCP
are to (1) maintain and protect the
quantity, quality, and biological
diversity of the Reservation wet-
lands ecosystems; (2) mitigate for
all unavoidable adverse impacts to
Reservation wetlands ecosystems;
(3) restore Reservation wetlands
ecosystems that have been drained,
filled, or otherwise degraded; and
(4) provide a framework for work-
ing cooperatively with Federal,
State, and local agencies, private
landowners, and private organiza-
tions to address common wetlands
concerns. These goals support an
overall goal of no net loss and long-
term net gain.
Swampbuster
The Swampbuster provisions of
the 1985 Food Security Act, the
1990 Food, Agriculture, Conserva-
tion and Trade Act, and the 1996
Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act ("Farm Bills") deny
crop subsidy payments and other
agricultural benefits to farm opera-
tors who convert wetlands to crop-
land 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
Conservation Service (formerly the
Soil Conservation Service) is respon-
sible for determining compliance
with Swampbuster provisions.
Under an interagency memoran-
dum of agreement, NRCS is the
-------
468 Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs
Urn i id i Jim I (liii .
State/Tribal Wetlands
Grant Program
The purpose of the EPA State/
Tribal Wetlands Grant Program is to
assist State and Tribal wetlands pro-
tection efforts. Grant funds can be
used to develop new wetlands pro-
tection programs or refine existing
wetlands protection programs. The
State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Program
is one of the few funding sources
available for States and Tribes for
wetlands-related projects. In the
past, the Wetlands Grant Program
has provided funding to promote a
variety of projects, for example:
• Nebraska is using Wetlands
Grant funds to establish fixed and
rotational water quality monitoring
stations in all major wetlands
complexes in Nebraska. This project
is coordinated by the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Qual-
ity's Basin Management Approach,
which assesses long-term trends and
develops reference sites for impact
analysis.
• Louisiana is using Wetlands
Grant funds in cooperation with The
Nature Conservancy to develop the
Tensas River Basin Wetland Water-
shed Protection Initiative. The
Initiative will promote wetlands
protection and enhancement solu-
tions in the basin while balancing
the economic importance of wet-
lands to farmers and landowners.
Several goals of the Initiative are
to improve water quality, improve
habitat for wetlands wildlife,
increase recreational opportunities,
prevent and reduce nonpoint source
pollution, and develop a methodol-
ogy for assessing, planning, and
implementing wetlands protection
and restoration strategies in the
context of landscape-level perspec-
tive, which affords community input
and review.
• New Hampshire is using Wet-
lands Grant funds, in cooperation
with the Audubon Society of New
Hampshire, to evaluate the success
of alternative wetlands mitigation
approaches.
• Arizona is using Wetlands Grant
funds to develop a stream ecosys-
tem monitoring protocol for
measuring the integrity of stream
ecosystems.
• The Inter-Tribal Council of Michi-
gan (MITC) is using Wetlands Grant
funds to provide technical assistance
to 10 Tribes in Michigan. MITC's
goal is to develop wetlands man-
agement strategies that include the
identification, preservation, and
management of wetlands on reser-
vations.
• Maryland is using Wetlands Grant
funds to develop training courses in
wetlands hydrology and functional
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs 469
' ~v< . , *';-'"' \ - —
'' ' ~\v ' ' "-/^ ""*-•' ^ -'" ^ "
assessment for State, county, and
local personnel.
• Michigan is using Wetlands Grant
funds to improve wetlands and
watershed management by devel-
oping a Special Wetland Area
Management Plan for the Grand
Traverse Region, developing a
wetlands protection plan for the
Cheboygan River Watershed, devel-
oping criteria for peat extraction,
and developing wetlands biological
assessment procedures.
• Ohio is using Wetlands Grant
funds to establish and perform a full
functional analysis on 40 reference
wetlands. Data from this study will
serve as a basis for developing wet-
lands biocriteria and water quality
standards. Ohio is also using
Wetlands Grant funds to develop
and implement methodologies for
sampling macroinvertebrates and
amphibians in wetlands.
In 1997, EPA expanded the
eligibility of the Wetlands Grant
Program to fund meritorious proj-
ects that support local efforts to
improve wetlands protection. Local
governments, nonprofit organiza-
tions, local conservation districts,
and regional planning boards are
eligible to compete under the
expanded eligibility. As with the
State and Tribal grants, grant appli-
cants from local entities must pro-
vide a 25% match of the funds and
can only use the funds for program
development, not for operational
support of programs.
xX - ^'.' \ ';>"..*""' ,^''~'r ---'^ ;.'--. -O^v 'v-'-'''*'V -
v~ x > * ' » <
;HBHya^^rHKiicrfr'.!
_-;^%;r:;;^
~ * ' * , '
/ /"-,-,*-.- ',> >-v. -' „ ; ^; / --',1
' ' , - * " v"" ^'
'X ' „ '. "- '' . , ,'-,.*-.'*
^' "
'" " '• "~ ' *• '- ,1'^ ' ' " J
' •-- -_~ * ^ "• , . ^ '
<" \ • '•'/• * "'/.'•- r '\'
;*'., *^^ ••'
** , >~ t * * * ~
f~r?*f^*f ^ '^^ ^ ^^.
.. , •• - - -
"' " • ' * '-^ " j ~" " ' - "s
^^ ' ^ "< v ' ^
,
'v-*F'>^rf ' J
'''-'.--/- v s ' , ; '
" <• , ' i , ' ^ j
>
- y • > \ " / • - " " ? ' • ^ '
M^;f^:f,: :''..:i
S:<: >-,"'/' ;";"S:> -i'v „ v -- '^
-------
470 Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs
lead Federal agency for identifying
wetlands on agricultural lands for
both the Swampbuster provisions
and Clean Water Act Section 404.
State Programs to
Protect Wetlands
States protect their wetlands
with a variety of approaches,
including use of CWA authorities
(such as Sections 401 and 303),
permitting programs, coastal man-
agement programs, wetlands acqui-
sition 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 unique
wetlands functions, such as flood
attenuation and filtration.
• Without specific wetlands uses
and standards, the Section 401 cer-
tification 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 wet-
lands to establish baseline condi-
tions in healthy wetlands. The
States will use this information to
monitor the relative performance of
constructed wetlands and to help
establish biocriteria and water
quality standards for wetlands.
Some excerpts from individual
State reports are as follows:
• In 1994, Pennsylvania added a
definition of wetlands to its water
quality standards regulations. In
addition, the phrase "including
wetlands" was added following the
words "waters of the Common-
wealth" in the scope section of the
regulations. These modifications
make it clear that wetlands are sub-
ject to all provisions of Pennsylva-
nia's water quality standards includ-
ing designated uses, narrative and
numeric criteria, and antidegrada-
tion policy.
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs 471
• In April 1995, Wyoming began a
wetlands mitigation bank. The wet-
lands bank provides incentives for
organizations or individuals to cre-
ate, restore, or enhance wetlands
areas thereby contributing to the
general environmental health of the
State.
i
• Nebraska applies specific wet-
lands water quality standards to
wetlands and classifies wetlands
into two categories: (1) isolated
and (2) surface-water overflow.
Nebraska has assigned beneficial
uses of aquatic life, wildlife, agricul-
tural use, and aesthetics to all wet-
lands. In addition, surface-water
overflow wetlands are protected for
the assigned beneficial uses of their
adjacent lake or stream. Nebraska
has assigned narrative criteria for all
uses and additional numeric criteria
to protect against toxic pollutants.
• Maine regulates activities in
freshwater wetlands under the
Natural Resources Protection Act
(NRPA). In 1995, Maine changed
the law to better coordinate permit
activities with Federal regulations.
As a result, Maine and the Army
Corps of Engineers have adopted a
joint "one stop permitting" applica-
tion and Maine now coordinates
with Federal agencies on screening
and reviewing applications.
• In October 1995, Florida began
a new Environmental Resources
Permit (ERP) program that consoli-
dated permitting by water manage-
ment districts and the Florida
Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP). Prior to 1995,
water management districts regu-
lated surface water flows in both
uplands and wetlands, including
isolated wetlands. At the same
time, FDEP regulated dredge and
fill activities in contiguous water
and wetlands of the State. The ERP
program was designed to integrate
and streamline the permitting
process. The ERP permit also serves
as a joint application for the Army
Corps of Engineers Section 404
permits. In most cases, the ERP
permit acts as the State Water
Quality Certification for Section
404 permits.
• Vermont is using geographic
information system (CIS) technol-
ogy to create wetlands maps for
every town in the State.
• Arkansas established the Multi-
Agency Wetlands Planning Team
(MAWPT) in 1995 to develop the
Arkansas Wetland Conservation
Plan. The Arkansas Wetland Conser-
vation Plan will consist of two ele-
ments: (1) statewide strategies for
wetlands protection and restora-
tion, and (2) watershed wetlands
conservation strategies based on
CIS inventories and analysis requir-
ing local partnership and decision
sharing. In 1995, Arkansas also
passed legislation that provides tax
incentives and monetary aid to
property owners who engage in
the conservation or restoration of
wetlands and riparian areas.
-------
472 Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs
More Information on wetlands
can be obtained from EPAJs
Wetlands Hotline at
1-800-832-7828 (9 a.m. to
5 p.m., eastern standard time).
• The District of Columbia adopted
narrative criteria for wetlands in its
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 protected from significant
adverse hydrologic modifications,
excessive sedimentation, deposition
of toxic substances in toxic
amounts, nutrient imbalances, and
other adverse impacts from human
activities.
• 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 specifi-
cally for wetlands. Ohio has drafted
aquatic life, wetlands hydrology,
and recreational/educational use
designations specifically for wet-
lands. The State is also developing
performance goals for wetlands
mitigation projects and designing a
monitoring program to support
both wetlands water quality stan-
dards and the mitigation perfor-
mance goals.
Summary
There are a variety of public
and private programs to protect
wetlands. A forum was held in
1987 to coordinate these and pro-
vide national direction in the area
of wetlands. Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act is the major
Federal program for regulating
activities in wetlands. Other impor-
tant tools to protect wetlands
include voluntary stewardship,
wetlands water quality standards,
State water quality certification,
State/Tribal Wetland 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 proce-
dures 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 for-
ward a variety 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 ecological and water
quality functions of wetlands,
greater sensitivity for arid climates,
and regulation of additional activi-
ties that impact wetlands.
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs 473
-------
474 Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs
HT HIGHLIGHT
The Tennessee State Wetlands
Conservation Strategy
The goal of the Tennessee
Wetlands Conservation Strategy is
to provide the maximum practi-
cable wetlands benefits to the citi-
zens of Tennessee by conserving,
enhancing, and restoring acreage,
quality, and biological diversity of
Tennessee wetlands. The responsi-
bility of wetland conservation and
management under the Strategy is
decentralized and shared by Federal
agencies and programs, State agen-
cies and programs, regional organi-
zations, county and city planning
commissions, and private landown-
ers who make day-to-day decisions
about their land. The Strategy pro-
vides a framework for sharing infor-
mation and coordinating and moni-
toring protection and restoration
efforts.
As part of the Strategy, the
State is responsible for collecting
data, inventorying and characteriz-
ing wetlands resources, creating a
CIS-based wetlands database, con-
ducting research, and monitoring
long-term status and trends of wet-
lands. Tennessee is also identifying
and ranking unique wetlands and
potential restoration sites. The
Strategy calls for regular dissemina-
tion of technical information to
planners and wetlands managers.
Tennessee's plan also focuses on
providing outreach and education
well as to regional and local deci-
sion makers.
Since most wetlands in Tennes-
see are privately owned, one theme
of the Strategy is to provide private
landowners of wetlands with the
information they need to make
informed management decisions
that will benefit them while protect-
ing wetlands functions as well as the
public benefits derived from wet-
lands. A second theme of the
Strategy is coordination and cooper-
ative action. This calls for sharing
the work load, sharing information,
pooling resources, and communicat-
ing and coordinating consistently
among agencies and interest
groups. In short, the Strategy calls
for the creation of working partner-
ships between the public and
private sectors.
Tennessee's State Wetlands
Strategy recommends 10 objectives
to help achieve its wetland goals:
• To characterize the wetlands
resources more completely and
identify the critical functions of the
major types of wetlands in each
physiographic province
• To identify and prioritize unique,
exceptionally high quality, or scarce
wetlands community types and sites
for acquisition or other equally
1 1
f
1 1 1
[ fi «|[» [»• mi 1 1 1 "J| iff PI 1 "" , f ^ r "-11 '1^ ** ^ % % i"* ^ ™* *• " ^ *
i \\ h llH |i(if* I'fcl • 1% *« * B«CI *Ar a +vfyk*!,J T «• - x
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs 475
*-- <- ' " - 2~ _ f * * "^ r "
' - ,.."• .">" """'-'' Js ,'X;' , :-7""
• To identify priority wetlands
restoration sites in each river corri-
dor, based on site characteristics
and the distribution and functions
of existing wetlands
• To increase the level of benefits
from wetlands on private lands
• To restore 70,000 acres of wet-
lands in west Tennessee by the year
2000
• To achieve no overall net loss of
the wetlands functional base in each
USGS hydrologic unit
^ ,' ~ *~ * , "~
<; "",","' / , " ,-- ' ''~C "„,.
"- -' -' » '- V- '*-,""<. , ' , • ' - '- s "
<• ^ ; %; ;_^;: - '"- '->'"•„,,--"' ' -
• To develop the information
needed to maintain or restore nat-
ural floodplain hydrology for the
sake of wetlands functions
• To establish meaningful wetlands
use classifications and water quality
standards to protect those uses
• To create more urban riparian/
wetlands greenbelt areas
• To increase wetlands information
deliver)/ to local governments, the
public, and schools.
-
' , 't -. ' ' ••
*', ' C ' , " ~ -.-. '' i~'"' ' " ' - >"-'"*" ' ,
;, ^-"^^—iV^.vi..^
,HIGHUGH|T WH|GHT HIGHUGSY /
sftta
'"'''.' : "•'' v/>-": '''.- .• '"' ''' < i
'~'~:'''~ <:vX"J-;"'''' " -Vi
'f ~.'*~\-f.\ ,-^'- ,.- "^''^ i \' -.'.
- "' "-V :"SV ',-";<; '• \ ;-v ' ";
^ " •, '' " "' ' ' *~ '." - - \ ', " > ' '"',•
><:~. '*":"' "-I ''' s'"^ . . ' "' ' ~~~.*'*
"^ ' , v "-!'""- ~ " -.s" ;? - ' c, " ^ -N
^'"t >• t ' x ^ •* x*
;^si.,"y:;-y ->;•:->:'
^ * ''^ ' -^ ^^ " - ^ \^^'l ^ "" * s -^ ^ * W"^N j
; -- 3->>~r ' 75" Ov ;'.--/ '•'; 'l
.^-.:->'^.^ ^.^^^r.'. <-W.^-^Wf»>."*!4j
-------
476 Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs
IHT HIGHLIGHT
Iff!
;*'!.
& i' f
; *" t
»it f
.'i"
4 *
The Nationwide Permit
Program
The Clean Water Act Section
404 Nationwide Permit program is
a package of 39 general permits
that allow certain activities with
minor environmental effects to be
conducted in wetlands and other
waters of the U.S. with little or no
individual review. Specifically,
Section 404(e) authorizes the Army
Corps of Engineers to issue general
permits for "categories of activities"
that are similar in nature and will
cause only minimal adverse environ-
mental effects both individually and
cumulatively. Activities typically
authorized under this program
include projects such as the con-
struction of driveways, boat docks,
minor road crossings, and the place-
ment of utility lines. The Corps esti-
mates that as many as 130,000
activities are authorized annually
under the Nationwide Permit pro-
gram. The Nationwide Permits are
revised and reissued every 5 years
and the existing permits, effective in
early 1997, expire in February 2002.
The most recent revisions to the
Nationwide Permit program, consis-
tent with the Clinton Administration
Wetlands Plan, represent substantial
progress toward meeting the
Administration's goals to ensure
greater environmental protection for
the Nation's wetlands, to continue
to reduce unnecessary regulatory
burdens on the public, and to
actively engage States and Tribes in
effectively protecting their wetlands.
Changes to the revised set of
Nationwide Permits include:
• Most notably, the replacement of
Nationwide Permit 26, which autho-
rizes many activities in isolated and
headwater wetlands, within 2 years
by activity-based Nationwide
Permits. The focus of these replace-
ment permits will be activities cur-
rently regulated under Nationwide
Permit 26, including the activities of
small businesses, small landowners,
and farmers who have few or no
alternatives available to them in
siting their projects.
• Initiation of formal programmatic
consultation under the Endangered
Species Act on the Nationwide
Permit program with U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service to ensure
that the Nationwide Permit pro-
gram effectively addresses potential
endangered species concerns and
results in case-specific consultation
where appropriate.
• Increased data collection and
reporting to more effectively evalu-
ate and confirm that environmental
effects under the Nationwide Permit
program are minimal.
-------
' N / •- ^ ^ '-
"- „ X ">•**' f
• An opportunity to more actively
engage and coordinate with States
and Tribes in developing conditions
on a regional basis to ensure that
water quality standards are met.
This will simplify the process for
users of the Nationwide Permits
because applicants who receive
Corps authorization will not need
to obtain individual Section 401
certification.
--' - :'* - ',-,;-*' ",
*; «'„ - „*'"-.' v-\ ' '
All of these improvements will
be implemented in a way that
maintains the key role of the
Nationwide Permit program in
allowing thousands of activities with
minimal environmental impact to
go forward with little delay or
unnecessary burden.
> ^ ' /t •/ 'r ^ v *
'• "-. ^-/>^^;^,^^v;i:J
W^*^W^""!*^ '
;^:;^^V^;
:-': -• [-?- s
. <, ', ' ' ' 1
• . • j
-------
478 Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs
~T> ~
HlGf-iLIGHM I~l I K3HT HIGHLIGHT
Wetlands and Watersheds
Wetlands are integral compo-
nents of a watershed and should be
addressed in watershed planning
efforts. Wetlands affect the overall
integrity of a watershed by filtering
water, slowing and storing flood
waters, trapping sediments, protect-
ing against erosion, recharging
ground waters, and providing habi-
tat for fish and wildlife. Removing
wetlands within a watershed will
impact the quality of adjacent rivers,
lakes, ground waters, and drinking
water supplies. Conversely, land use
changes within a watershed can
directly or indirectly impact wet-
lands and other waterbodies.
Although current regulatory pro-
grams protect wetlands from the
direct impacts of dredging and fill-
ing, wetlands are still degraded by
the cumulative impacts of human
activities within a watershed. The
watershed protection approach
provides a framework for coordinat-
ing public and private efforts to
address these cumulative and diffuse
impacts.
EPA is helping States and Tribes
adopt watershed protection
approaches by providing technical
support, guidance, training, and
funding. EPA is also fostering part-
nerships between public and private
efforts to protect wetlands and
watersheds. Below are several exam-
ples of watershed management
approaches that emphasize the
importance of wetlands to a healthy
watershed.
• The Lake Champlain Basin
Program (LCBP) is a watershed
initiative jointly administered by
EPA, the States of Vermont and New
York, and the New England Inter-
state Water Pollution Control Com-
mission. The LCBP is designed to
protect and enhance the environ-
mental integrity and social and eco-
nomic benefits of Lake Champlain
and its 8,234-square-mile water-
shed. A watershed approach was
considered essential to deal with
nonpoint source pollution and vari-
ous other water quality threats to
Lake Champlain. An important
feature of LCBP is the incorporation
of wetlands protection and the
conservation of wetlands functions
and values as part of the watershed
management strategy. The LCBP
initiated several inventories of wet-
lands and undertook an advance
planning project (ADID) in a
26-town area of Vermont that had
been experiencing a rapid rate
of wetlands loss. The LCBP also
provided a strategy to protect or
purchase wetlands of particular
importance or that harbored threat-
ened or endangered species.
• The Tulalip Tribe of Washington
developed a watershed manage-
ment plan to address present and
in nil •( i a i, Mg
jfififot '*,!«, i
" S»V7k- ' V "V*
-------
Chapter Seventeen Wetlands Protection Programs 479
- yv \ - -,-r '• ';•-_.;' \ :.
future threats to the Tribe's water
resources from nonpoint source
pollution and other impacts associ-
ated with growth on the Tulalip
Reservation. The Tribe inventoried
wetlands and streams, basin condi-
tions, and land use activities. The
Tribe coordinated inventory, protec-
tion, and restoration efforts with
local citizens and neighboring
communities.
• The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources,
and The Nature Conservancy are
coordinating the development of
the Mackinaw River Watershed
Management Plan. The Mackinaw
River, one of the finest examples
of a prairie stream left in Illinois,
is threatened by urbanization
. / *;*''7'. •'-'-;•; -"V'-'y^-
yr~,; . -.-; \-f'-\ ' v-' I ;
and expanding agriculture. The
Watershed Management Plan is
designed to empower urban and
agricultural watershed landowners
to adopt best land management
practices to protect the river and
wetlands from siltation, flooding,
erosion, and pollution.
• The California Coastal Conserv-
ancy is leading an effort to develop
a comprehensive management and
restoration plan for the San Diego
Creek and Upper Newport Bay in
Orange County, California. The Plan
will address sedimentation of the
Bay, loss and degradation of wet-
lands and uplands, nutrient loadings
and other water quality impacts, as
well as opportunities to enhance
both recreational and habitat values
in the watershed.
*tiVx'-;- r"'?/ Vs'- .*' '',A~ "" : '' f
-> 1-4 If"* Ml l<""*l*f// 4^_I 1 ufUT" l*li/^iJi i/^ut"
-niuouunn f-4|UUm rfiOnUUjfciT
;,,:^^
c ™ & "V" ''«™r , * ?N ^ "
C <' ^ \ ,: "" 1 "/„""" / ' ~ * 4
AC VV >N>\ , ^^ */ * ' " ; ' ^' *V^
"•.** £ ^ *• "" ^ ' ^ x> j
J " f a "& * * "A.
"f^t"fH <££"?•* "-^ **** * "" "^v;^^^.-"*' ^"<-*i> P**1
"*^ ^ 4 ^ ** ^-x^ ^ /^ * * " , " ^^^
"* , is ^ „ -^ , ^^ '
J^^~ '^ r. -^ ^' l , 4 ^ ~ '•
}***-. ,:f' :~ -: " ,V :-;-, ". ' . 7" - -
]jS^:^t
i-s,^" "^ » ,« yj """ "" ^ v~ "x ^ >
<<;"' :;^" -: '""^ -.. ' - ^-^y .
^ »-:,=. ^-- -~ ^- *v- -^ v i
^"^ ^ s^" * >. - t, "• * J^
-------
-------
Ground Water
Protection Programs
Eighty-nine percent of public
water supply systems in the Nation
depend either fully or partially on '
ground water to meet consumer
demand. 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
vulnerable to human contamination,
and, in their 1996 305(b) reports,
States identified 79 contaminant
sources that threaten the integrity
of ground water resources. Once
ground water resources have been
compromised by contamination,
experience has shown that it is both
difficult and expensive to restore
them to their former condition. In
many cases, they will never be fully
restored. The following chapter
discusses the laws and programs
that are being implemented by
States and the Federal government
to provide a framework for the
protection of our ground water
resources.
Primary Drinking
Water Protection
Programs
The protection of our Nation^
ground water resources is addressed
under both the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA). The CWA encourages
ground water protection, recogniz-
ing that ground water provides a
significant proportion of the base
flow to streams and lakes. In the
CWA (Public Law 92-500) of 1972
and in the CWA Amendments of
1977 (Public Law 95-217), Congress
provided for the regulation of
discharges into all navigable waters
of the United States. Ground water
protection is addressed in Section
102, providing for the development
of Federal, State, and local compre-
hensive programs for reduction,
elimination, and prevention of
ground water contamination. Two
very important aspects under the
CWA are the development of State
Comprehensive Ground Water
Protection Programs and the
measurement of national progress
in achieving State and Tribal water
quality standards.
The SDWA was passed by
Congress in 1974 and amended in
1986 and 1996. Under the SDWA,
EPA is authorized to ensure that
water is safe for human consump-
tion. One of the most fundamental
ways to ensure consistently safe
drinking water is to protect the
source of that water (i.e., ground
water). Source water protection is
achieved through four programs:
the Wellhead Protection Program,
the Sole Source Aquifer Program,
the Underground Injection Control
Program, and, under the 1996
Amendments, the Source Water
Assessment Program.
CWA Section 102
THfe administrator shall...
prepare or develop
corriprehensive' programs
-for preventing, reducing, '
or eliminating the pollution
of the .navigable waters and'
ground water and .improving'
the sanitary condition of
surface and underground;
waters. " ''
-------
482 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
Clean Water Act
One of the goals of the CWA is
to achieve an interim water quality
level that protects the desirable uses
that water quality should support.
These "beneficial" uses include
drinking water as well as primary
contact recreation, fish consump-
tion, and aquatic life support.
Under the authority of the CWA
Section 102, States are developing
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs (CSGWPPs)
tailored to their goals and priorities
for the protection of ground water
resources. One of the primary pur-
poses of a CSGWPP is to provide a
framework for EPA to give greater
flexibility to a State for management
and protection of its ground water
resources. CSGWPPs guide the
future implementation 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.
Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection
Programs
EPA is committed to working
with States in developing and carry-
ing out the CSGWPP approach.
Guidance issued by EPA in 1992
fosters a "State-focused," "resource-
based" approach to ground water
protection that relies on a State's
continuous efforts to evolve from a
"Core" CSGWPP to an eventual
"Fully Integrating" CSGWPP.
The evolution is a three-stage
process. The first stage focuses on
the States, which must develop a
Core CSGWPP and submit it to
EPA Regional Offices for review
and endorsement. The Core
CSGWPP represents a State's initial
commitment to working jointly with
EPA. It provides a framework for
States to demonstrate their potential
to be the primary decision-makers in
ground water protection efforts.
Although a Core CSGWPP need only
include one ground water protec-
tion or remediation program to
demonstrate whether the State's
approach is consistent with the
guidance, each Core CSGWPP
must meet adequacy criteria for six
Strategic Activities, including:
• Establishment of a ground water
protection goal
• Establishment of priorities based
on characterization of the resource,
identification of sources of contami-
nation, and programmatic needs
• Definition of authorities, roles,
responsibilities, resources, and coor-
dinating mechanisms across relevant
programs
• Implementation of necessary
efforts to accomplish the ground
water protection goal
• Coordination of information
collection and management
• Improvement of public education
and participation in all aspects of
ground water protection.
The six Strategic Activities foster
more efficient and effective protec-
tion of ground water through
enhanced cooperation, consistency,
and coordination of all relevant
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
programs within a State. Attainment
of a Core CSGWPP marks the point
at which all six Strategic Activities
first emerge as a cohesive program.
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 483
As shown in Figure 18-1, six States
have achieved EPA-endorsed Core
CSGWPPs. An additional 10 States
are awaiting EPA review and
approval.
Following EPA endorsement of
a Core CSGWPP, the second stage
involves joint discussions between
States and EPA to develop a multi-
year planning agreement for incor-
porating additional State and EPA
programs into the CSGWPP, thereby
leading to a Fully Integrating
CSGWPP. The Core CSGWPP pro-
vides the.basis for the multiyear
planning discussions.
The third stage, attainment of a
Fully Integrating CSGWPP, means
that ground water protection efforts
are coordinated and focused across
all Federal, State, Tribal, and local
programs. The Fully Integrating
CSGWPP is based on a State's
understanding of and decisions
regarding the relative use, value,
and vulnerability of its ground water
resources, including the relative
threat of all actual or potential con-
tamination sources. The six Strategic
Activities fundamentally influence
and support the day-to-day opera-
tions of all ground-water-related
programs in a Fully Integrating
CSGWPP.
EPA recognized that fundamen-
tal changes within its own programs
were just as much a prerequisite to
achieving a Fully Integrating
CSGWPP as were the Strategic
Activities that a State must under-
take. EPA documented its willingness
to change in the 1995 document
entitled EPA's Commitments to
Support Comprehensive State Ground-
Water Protection Programs. This doc-
ument identified specific actions that
EPA has already taken, will take, or
will evaluate for future action to
support CSGWPPs. The focus of the
commitments is to provide the
States enhanced flexibility for setting
their own priorities and promoting
greater State- and community-based
decision-making. The 1995 commit-
ments reflect only the first set of EPA
actions to support States developing
CSGWPPs. EPA will continue to
review proposals for future actions
and program changes that could
improve comprehensive ground
water protection.
Coordination of Protection
Programs Among State
Agencies
Historically, ground water
protection programs were overseen
by many different agencies within
Figure 18-1
States with Core CSGWPP
Puerto Rico
American Samoa
States with Core CSGWPP Endorsed by EPA
as of March 1997
States with Core CSGWPP Submitted to EPA
as of March 1997
-------
484 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
HlCHUGHft-| JJJCHT HIGHLIGHT
i li i i * t i i I it r tip
1 i H ni i i „
-TT^K „ » .
Alabama's Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection
Program
Alabama received EPA endorse-
ment of its Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Program in
November of 1994. The Alabama
Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) is the lead
agency in Alabama for ground water
protection. The majority of ground
water programs in the State are
administered by ADEM. This
includes the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitles
C and D; the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act (CERCLA);
the Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program, and the Under-
ground Storage Tank (UST) Pro-
gram. ADEM has received full dele-
gation from EPA for administration
of the RCRA, UIC, and UST
programs and program approval for
the State Wellhead Protection
Program. ADEM also administers a
State UST Corrective Action Fund
that has received EPA approval.
The Ground Water Branch is
located organizationally within the
Water Division of ADEM. This Branch
directly administers the UIC and UST
programs for the State as well as
providing hydrogeological technical
support for all other programs
with ground water protection or
remediation elements. For example,
geologists in the Ground Water
Branch perform required inspections
of ground water monitoring systems
for the RCRA Subtitle C program.
Geologists within this Branch
provide support to the Public Water
Supply Branch in implementation of
the Wellhead Protection Program;
review siting and expansion propos-
als for municipal solid waste landfills;
ground water assessments and
remedial action proposals under
CERCLA; land application proposals;
surface impoundment siting propos-
als; and ground water assessment
and remedial action proposals for
sites that do not fall under any other
formal regulatory program.
Assistance is also provided to the
Health Department upon request for
review of location and design of
multifamily domestic waste disposal
systems.
The organizational function of
the Ground Water Branch within
ADEM integrates the various
ground-water-related programs
within the Department and serves in
large part as the coordinating mech-
anism which had to be demon-
strated to obtain EPA's endorsement
of Alabama's ground water program.
To complete coordination between'
programs, a Ground Water Advisory
Committee was formed to aid in
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 485
coordination between ground water
interests of other State and Federal
agencies and to allow for public
input into program development.
The Ground Water Advisory Com-
mittee meets at least twice a year.
One meeting deals with coordina-
tion issues between agencies and
the other addresses more general
program development related
topics.
An area of active program devel-
opment is a comprehensive ground
water database that would encom-
pass all ground water data received
or generated by the Department.
Efforts are also in progress for devel-
opment of a Geographic Informa-
tion System that would include loca-
tion of public water supply wells
with respect to industrial facilities
and areas of known contamination.
Megan Collins, 1st grade, Estes Hills Elementary, Chapel Hill, NC
GHT HJCHUGHT
-------
486 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
the States, making coordination
difficult for those programs. In
recent years, many jurisdictions have
begun coordinating the activities of
these agencies to ensure that effi-
cient ground water protection pro-
grams have become a top priority.
Within the six Strategic Activities
identified by EPA as prerequisite for
an "adequate" Core CSGWPP,
interagency coordination is a recur-
ring theme. Consistent with the
CSGWPP inter-agency approach,
many States, Territories, and Tribes
have established,, or are establishing,
an integrated, interagency approach
to ground water protection. Thirty-
five States reported on the status of
establishing interagency coordina-
tion in their 1996 305(b) reports.
Of these, 15 have fully established
interagency coordination. Twenty
States are continuing efforts toward
that goal.
Methodologies used by States
to develop interagency coordination
vary. Alabama is currently planning
and programming a comprehensive
ground water database that will link
existing databases within the Ala-
bama Department of Environmental
Management and will eventually
incorporate a Geographic Inforrna-
tion System (CIS). In contrast, the
State of Washington does not intend
to develop a single "mega" data-
base system, but rather to establish
common data definitions in order to
make data transfer a useful exercise.
Several agencies in Washington have
begun parallel processes to establish
common data formats.
Maine found that most of their
ground water quality data are col-
lected as a result of permit condi-
tions, enforcement agreements, or
impact assessments. These data are
scattered in a number of different
State agencies in paper or computer
files. Although much of the data are
potentially useful, it is not easily
accessed by either the public or by
companion agencies. This access
problem is the subject of a three-
phase study of ground water
data management. The first phases
have been completed. Phase II
resulted in specific and detailed
recommendations for a more
efficient and accessible system.
Recognizing the importance
of coordinating data management
across agency boundaries, the
Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection (DEP) actively coordinates
with several other State agencies in
order to utilize the ground water-
related data collected by those
agencies. The DEP and other State
water agencies also maintain open
and regular communications with
several Federal agencies. This inter-
agency data sharing has been bene-
ficial. One of the first steps com-
pleted was the compilation of a data
directory summarizing the data
types collected and managed by
each agency. The next step in facili-
tating data-sharing between agen-
cies is to define data elements that
might be used by all agencies.
Nevada is in the process of adopting
minimum sets of data elements for
ground water-related data. DEP
ground water and CIS work groups
and the Ground Water Protection
Task Force have discussed this issue,
particularly with respect to spatial -
data. Table 18-1 shows draft mini-
mum sets of data elements consis-
tent with EPA recommendations.
State response in the 1996
305(b) reports show that data shar-
ing is an important component in
the coordination of protection
programs. Although methodologies
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 487
to achieve data sharing vary, many
States are moving forward to this
common goal.
Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA was passed by
Congress in 1974 and amended in
1986 and in 1996. The 1986 and
1996 Amendments to the SDWA
provide for an expanded Federal
role in protecting drinking water
and mandating changes in nation-
wide safeguards.
Source Water Assessment
The SDWA Amendments of
1996 were signed by President
Clinton in August of 1996. The
Amendments contain a significant
number of new provisions for EPA,
the States, water suppliers, and the
public. These provisions are
expected to bring substantial
change to the national drinking
water program. These changes
should resolve today's challenges
and help EPA, States, and water
system suppliers prepare for the
safety of future drinking water
supply.
In particular, the Amendments
establish a strong new emphasis on
preventing contamination problems
through source water protection
and enhanced water system man-
agement. As part of the source
water protection initiative, States
will develop programs for delineat-
ing source water areas for public
water systems and assessing the
susceptibility of the source waters
to contamination. Assessment
programs may also use data from
other, related watershed-type survey
activities. For example, the design
of State source water protection
programs builds on components of
existing State Wellhead Protection
(WHP) Programs, including source
water area delineation, contaminant
source inventories, management
measures, and contingency plan-
ning. Currently, 43 States and two
Territories have EPA-approved WHP
Programs in place and 7 States are
continuing their efforts to develop
an approved WHP Program.
In August 1997, EPA published
guidance for States for the develop-
ment of - State Source Water Assess-
ment Programs (SWAPs). As shown
in Figure 18-2, SWAPs must (1)
delineate the boundaries of the
areas providing source waters for
public water systems, (2) identify, to
the extent practical, the origins of
regulated and certain unregulated
contaminants in the delineated
areas, and (3) determine the suscep-
tibility of public water systems to
such contaminants. Assessments
must be completed for all public
water systems within two years of
EPA approval of the State's pro-
grams. Many localities have already
begun to delineate Source Water
Protection Areas (SWPAs) through
their WHP Programs.
' Jhe* 1996, Amendment,, \
" creaites^the source water * t .
^ protection program; to:ensures
\that;States conduct assess-'
mehts'to.dejerrriine'-ttje:' « '
s; vulnerability, of ^rrn|ing
"-water, to contamination. - ' ,
: fSburce water: protection , ; -
»should ;prove to be a cost s *
^ -saving benefit ton ensuring
s;safe drinking water supplies.^
11 t *• f \ •* s f 's •* v \ J * "• t
'*(»' .., .'».* >.-. . "'• «••*.'
Table 18-1. Nevada's Draft Minimum Sets of Data Elements
For all Spatial Data
Unique identification number
Facility name
Type of facility/well
Latitude
Longitude
Accuracy of latitude and longitude
Altitude
Accuracy of altitude
Method used to measure altitude
State and County FIPS code
Data source (agency/program
with contact person)
For Ground Water Quality Data
(in addition to that listed for all spatial data)
Total depth of well
Screened/open interval
Well log type
Well log data source
Water quality sample identification number
Depth to water
Water quality parameter measured
Water quality parameter value
Water quality parameter value qualifier
Water quality parameter method of detection
Method detection limit
Quality assurance indicator
-------
488 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
', *»<*s,i>t,-f - t'f
4 » !. < *
', 't1l> *• I
' f . i^' ^ ,
Illinois' Source Water
Protection Program
Approximately 10.5 million people (nearly 95%
of the State population) in Illinois rely on public
water supplies as their source of potable water.
Community water supplies (CWS) using ground
water as a source serve approximately 4.1 million
customers, whereas surface water supplies the
remaining 6.4 million customers. In total, Illinois has
1,820 CWSs, of which 1,181 utilize ground water as
their source water, 114 utilize surface water, seven
depend upon mixed sources of ground and surface
waters, and 518 purchase their water. In addition,
there are approximately 4,446 noncommunity
ground-water-dependent systems, and an estimated
400,000 residents are served by private wells.
A great deal of work remains to be done to pro-
tect this valuable resource. Nearly 35% of the CWS
wells using unconfined aquifers have already been
adversely impacted by ground water contamination
from volatile organic compounds, synthetic organic
chemicals, and nitrates. Approximately 86% of the
recharge areas supporting unconfined aquifer wells
do not have formal protection programs.
i ii
IIIIIIM
The State of Illinois recognizes
that protecting its ground water
resources is essential to avoid eco-
nomic repercussions that may result
from ground water contamination.
In 1987, Illinois enacted the Illinois
Groundwater
Protection Act
(IGPA). The
IGPA responds
to the need to
manage ground
water quality
by emphasizing
a prevention-
oriented
approach.
Although the
IGPA is directed
toward protec-
tion of ground
water as a nat-
ural and public
resource, special
provisions are
included to
target drinking
water wells.
The Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency (ERA) Bureau of
Water has implemented a source
water protection program designed
to manage the recharge areas of
community water supply (CWS)
wells utilizing unconfined aquifers
and the watersheds of surface
drinking water supplies. Approxi-
mately 30% of the ground
water-dependent CWSs utilize
unconfined aquifers and 121 facili-
ties utilize surface waterbodies. The
majority of these source waters are
highly vulnerable to surface/subsur-
face contaminant releases, and rou-
tine applications of pesticides and
fertilizers. The source water provided
in these three-dimensional water-
sheds is considered a high priority.
Within these high priority three-
dimensional watersheds, the IEPA
will continue to emphasize educa-
tional efforts that focus on the
implementation of source water pro-
tection programs. These programs
should help to ensure that adequate
quantities of safe drinking water will
continue to be provided to con-
sumers through the use of pollution
prevention, agricultural best man-
agement practices, and engineering
controls. By implementing these
management tools, communities
should secure a sound and stable
economy and enhance the quality
of life through the protection of
ecosystems.
Source water protection
progress was made as a result of a
recently completed Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) contaminant
monitoring waiver program
approved by EPA. The program
allowed CWSs to reduce the
monitoring frequency of certain
chemicals where they demonstrated
the following:
Illllillllllllllllll
I 111
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 489
CHT HIGHLIGHT:-
• A minimal risk of contamination
• Implementation of wellhead
protection programs
• A favorable monitoring history.
The waiver program relies on
wellhead/source water protection
measures to reduce the risk of con-
tamination. Monitoring waivers were
approved or conditionally approved
for 79% of the CWS applicants.
Consequently, 435 communities
have developed full wellhead protec-
tion programs and 91 are in the
process of so doing.
Implementation of the local
wellhead protection programs has
prevented: deterioration in drinking
water quality and quantity;
decreased health risks; increased
water rates for alternative water
suppliers; diminished home sales or
commercial real estate sales; loss to
tax base; consulting and legal fees;
and remediation costs.
Illinois' source water protection
program provides technical assis-
tance to CWSs in the form of CIS
mapping and planning. Section 319
funding is being provided to the
Regional Groundwater Protection
Planning Committees, county exten-
sion or other farm service organiza-
tion to implement a cost share finan-
cial assistance to farmers with CWS
well recharge areas. Four projects
will occur in the next 2 years with
emphasis on nutrient and pesticide
management plans, integrated pesti-
cide management, soil testing,
enhanced recordkeeping, scouting,
buffer strips, and winter cover crops.
Protection Status
Plans
o Source Water Protection
Under Development
A Full Service Water Protection
— Illinois State Boundary
— Illinois County Boundaries
Sources: Facility locations obtained from the ISWS. Facility status
data compiled by the IEPA. Map compiled by the IEPA,
Division of Public Water Supplies, Ground Water Section.
-------
490 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
Figure 18-2
What Actions Are Needed to Complete a Local
Source Water Assessment?
{>
Delineation
Delineation of a source
water protection area
(e.g., wellhead or
surface water or ground
water/surface water
(e.g., fixed radius, TOT,
topographic watershed
or watershed area)
Establish Delineation
Policy with Best
Available Data
Inventory
Identify significant
potential sources of
contamination, to the
extent practical
- Identify contaminants
- Inventory sources of
those contaminants
- Map significant
potential sources
Establish Inventory
with Best Available Data
Susceptibility
Analyses
Hydrological and
hydrogeologic analysis
of the source water
protection area (e.g.,
depth to water, water
flow rates)
[No monitoring or
modeling required]
Do Analyses with Best
Available Data
Why Is Wellhead Protection Important?
No degree of monitoring or treatment can protect against man-made
contamination a's reliably as preventing the contamination in the first place.
WHP is a pollution prevention approach to preserving our Nation's
ground water resources, thereby ensuring adequate future supplies of drink-
ing water. By defining a WHP area and conducting a potential contaminant
source Inventory, a water supplier can identify the contaminant sources that
pose a threat to the water supply. The water supplier can then work in coop-
eration with Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies to:
« Develop management strategies specific to the potential contaminant
sources and ensure that they are implemented.
• Ensure that cleanup measures are given high priority in the event
of a contaminant release.
• Ensure that the water system is given sufficient warning of any
impending contaminant releases.
• Ensure that proposed activities that could pose a threat to the water .
supply are restricted or banned within the WHP area. -
Wellhead Protection
The 1986 Amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act established
the Wellhead Protection (WHP)
Program. Under Section 1428 of the
SDWA, each State must develop a
WHP Program to protect wellhead
areas from contaminants that may
have an adverse effect on human
health. Protection is achieved
through (1) the identification of
areas around public water supply
wells that contribute ground water
to the well, and (2) the manage-
ment of potential sources of
contamination in these areas to
reduce threats to the resource.
Although States are given the
freedom to develop WHP programs
that best meet their needs and par-
ticular regulatory and hydrogeologic
environment, the SDWA stipulates
that WHP plans must have EPA
approval. For EPA approval to be
granted, State WHP programs must
contain specific elements addressing
the roles and responsibilities of state
and local governments; delineation
of wellhead protection areas; poten-
tial contaminant source inventory
procedures; contaminant source
management and control proce-
dures; contingency plans for alter-
native water supplies; new well/well
siting standards; and public partici-
pation.
As of May 1, 1997, almost 87%
of the States and Territories have
developed and implemented WHP
programs. Specifically, 43 States and
two Territories have EPA-approved
WHP Programs in place and 7 States
are continuing their efforts to devel-
op an approved WHP Program
(Figure 18-3). Most of these State
WHP Programs are based on
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 491
existing ground water and drinking
water protection programs.
EPA's Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water is supporting
the development and implementa-
tion of WHP Programs at the local
level through many efforts. For
example, EPA-funded support is pro-
vided through the Ground Water/
Wellhead Protection programs of
the National Rural Water Association
(NRWA). Currently, these State Rural
Water Association programs are
being implemented voluntarily in
48 States. In each of these States a
ground water technician works with
small and rural communities to assist
them in developing and implement-
ing WHP plans. These plans are inte-
grated with the WHP Program so
that they meet State requirements.
Only Alaska and Hawaii are not
included in the program at this
time.
This effort with NRWA began in
March 1991. As of December 31,
1996, over 2,600 communities had
become involved in developing local
WHP plans. These 2,600 commu-
nities represent over 6,000,000
people. Over 1,600 of these com-
munities have completed their plans
and are managing their wellhead
protection areas to ensure the com-
munity that their water supplies are
protected.
EPA has also funded Wellhead
Protection workshops for local
decision makers. Over 150 of these
workshops have been held in 32
States. The workshops have been
attended by 5,200 people. Cur-
rently, an additional 93 workshops
are planned for 31 States.
Since 1991, the League of
Women Voters Education Fund has
been working to educate communi-
ties on the importance of protecting
sources of drinking water through
wellhead protection. In 1991, the
League conducted 18 volunteer-led
community education programs
nationwide. The efforts of the local
organizations ranged from conduct-
ing contaminant source inventories
around wellhead protection areas
to the development of videos,
brochures, and other educational
materials.
In 1994, the League sponsored
a national teleconference focusing
on ground water policy issues that
was broadcast to approximately 200
downlink sites nationwide. More
recently, in 1997, the League spon-
sored a second videoworkshop
aimed at community implementa-
tion of wellhead/source water
protection programs. With its focus
on how to undertake specific
Figure 18-3
WHP Approval Status as of May 1, 1997
Pending Approval/Continuing Efforts
Puerto Rico
4/5/91
Guam and Northern
Mariana Islands
8/16/93
-------
492 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
-T= i
HIGHLIGHT* l-l I YGHT HIGHLIGHT
'I B!]"1!!
(iiiiiiii ill ••ill i1 i iiiiiiii mmiitm
II111 III 111 11111 111lliilllill 111111 111 IIIM
i iiiiiiiiii i ill iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinii ill
1
mim in
Illli
iiiiiiii
1111,11'1 Iniilil IIH I 111 ill i
Illllllllllllllll1! 1(11 ill •lIlllllllllllH
Costs of Remediation
versus Prevention
Pollution prevention is based
on the premise that ground water
remediation may not be the most
economical approach, e.g., it costs
less to prevent contamination than
to remediate the ground water once
it has been contaminated. This
premise is supported by examples
provided by States that show the
costs incurred for the remediation of
municipal water supplies and the
estimated costs of implementing a
WHP Plan. Typical costs for imple-
menting a WHP Program vary based
on the individual State requirements,
the size of the water system to be
protected, and the site-specific geol-
ogy. Listed below are examples of
cost savings:
• In 1977, a municipal wellfield in
Truro, Massachusetts, was temporar-
ily closed due to gasoline contami-
nation. An underground storage
tank (LIST) at a retail fuel outlet
released 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of
unleaded gasoline. This UST was
approximately 600 feet from the
wellfield. The contamination forced
the use of alternative water supplies,
the institution of a strict water con-
servation program, and the design
and implementation of a corrective
action program. After 10 years,
more than $5 million has been spent
in remediating the aquifer. Daily
monitoring will be required for an
additional 3 years following comple-
tion of remediation activities.
• At Prices Landfill in New Jersey, a
Superfund site, a municipal wellfield
was abandoned due to contamina-
tion. A new wellfield was established
at a cost of $5 million, or about
$500,000 per well.
• The State of Maine WHP guid-
ance provides for the cost of devel-
oping and implementing a WHP
Plan in accordance with State guide-
lines versus the cost of remediating
contaminated ground water sup-
plies. Examples of these costs follow.
- In Sabattus, Maine, a well that
was installed in 1970 had to be
replaced in 1976 after being con-
taminated by salt from a sand/salt
pile located at the town garage,
approximately 1,500 feet upgradient
of the well. The cost for a new well
and pump house was $500,000
(1993 dollars). A WHP area delinea-
tion and plan implementation would
have cost approximately $5,000[.
- A municipal well was installed
in a relatively undeveloped area in
the Norway Water District of Maine.
In 1990, one of the 12 petroleum-
containing-underground storage
tanks located within a 200-day time-
of-travel to the water supply well
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 493
s; '!;:^::--^ -:>.:
leaked. Total cost of the remedial These examples clearly show
effort was $657,000— costs for a that if WHP principles had been
WHP Plan were estimated to be adopted by these water systems,
approximately $20,000. If the com- costly ground water remediation or
munity had initiated WHP activities water system replacement may have
prior to the development of the area been avoided. However, develop-
around the well, the zoning officials ment and implementation of a WHP
would have recognized the potential Plan will not protect ground water
threat to drinking water supplies. supplies alone. The water supplier
must continuously work with the
Federal, State, and community regu-
latory agencies and the facilities.
* * - N - ~V- ' '< "'' . ^' - ' -1' . "/'' *- ;;"•/'
:};Sr:^V-:T^
"' - , ~v ~S " »^\ „",•,'--
*\ " x ^ "„ - * -- '; "'\- :
;^--,;> .;;- -: v '-„ '.'. -)
t ^^ * ^ » ^ * 1
^ ^ \>r 1 " " ^ - " S S '
-------
494 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
•AP
HiGHiJGHf
tvB.I M. 'I:11" iV'V'jfii,'. L! . :,i
.-«",
, „.. ;' |;-, .|;
*1'*'""' :""!l":; "gr;^
slt; ;::: ;i,;:i;!,,;;;;;;,ii; ui'Uli ;,; aasiit! iliiiLii,, Liii: ;i;i:£ L
i ipiP! ill il^ !i!fii !! ili (i l!!^ i! iMi^
A-i/ ^f'>''';.;i'.'/iA71! 'i' ':i.": *^v<
' ' •' :' ' •'•''
Senior Volunteers and
Ground Water Protection
When the Texas Water Com-
mission (now the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commis-
sion) worked with the city of El Paso
on the development of its wellhead
protection program in late 1989,
there was no indication that a
nationwide movement would start.
To assist the city in conducting the
contaminant source inventory for
the wellhead protection program, a
team of 23 retired citizens was
recruited by the El Paso Retired and
Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP).
Over a 31/2 - day period, the senior
volunteers surveyed potential
sources of ground water contamina-
tion around all 138 public water
wells that provide drinking water to
El Paso and identified more than
2,000 potential sources of contami-
nation.
The State estimated that the
volunteers saved the city more than
$35,000. This inventory formed the
backbone of the El Paso wellhead
protection program and resulted in
a city ordinance relating to the stor-
age of hazardous materials in the
vicinity of public water supply wells.
Eight years later, a core group of
these volunteers is still actively work-
ing to ensure the safety of drinking
water in El Paso and in the unincor-
porated communities (i.e., colonias)
along the border between the U.S.
and Mexico. Their effort also was
expanded across the border into
Ciudad Juarez, El Paso's sister city,
which shares the same underground
water supply.
The success of the El Paso effort
motivated EPA to test the model
developed there elsewhere in the
United States. In a cooperative effort
with the National Senior Service
Corps, of which RSVP is one compo-
nent, pilot projects were funded in
12 communities: Anaheim, Cali-
fornia; Eugene, Oregon; Steuben
and Chemung Counties, New York;
Tallahassee, Florida; Owensboro,
Kentucky; Maricopa County,
Arizona; Rockford, Illinois; Lincoln
County, Nevada; Clay County, Iowa;
Callaway County, Missouri; Thurston
County, Washington; and Stokes
County, North Carolina. These proj-
ects, too, achieved significant suc-
cesses in their communities, docu-
menting the high degree of accep-
tance and respect given to senior
volunteers within their own commu-
nities. Further testimony to this can
be found in the example of Rock-
land County, New York, where the
RSVP was awarded a grant by the
local water supplier (United Water,
New York) to recruit and train senior
volunteers to conduct the contami-
nant source inventory.
In turn, the success of the RSVP
pilot projects has led to yet another
set of pilot projects to protect
sources of drinking water—this time
a partnership among EPA and a
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 495
. ' 3 * " '•-, ' * ''"">' 's * " - '•'* ""
S •, 1- « f
S s. _ f ^ / •*• i
\ ,•"-<-, -'-""'<•'' , '
number of other national, State,
and local organizations. Called the
Source Water Protection (SWP)
Mentor Project, this effort focuses
on augmenting the assistance that
can be provided to communities
through the State Rural Water
Associations. Since 1 990, the Office
of Ground Water and Drinking
Water (OGWDW) and Regional
Office staffs have been working in
partnership with State Rural Water
Associations to provide one-on-one
technical assistance to communities
that want to develop and imple-
ment wellhead protection programs.
More than 48 States now are
involved in this program.
Under the SWP Mentor Project,
retired professionals, county and
town officials, and other interested
local citizens are being recruited and
trained to serve as auxiliary ground
water technicians, or "Mentors," to
help their communities to develop
and implement drinking water
protection programs. This project
emphasizes the importance of local
responsibility for protecting local
iciuurt-cb anu DUIIUS on tne success
of OGWDW's previous efforts with
RSVP. In the SWP Mentor Project,
senior volunteers from larger
geographic areas (e.g., counties and
regions) are being recruited and
trained to work in teams to provide
a broad range of assistance to a
number of communities, including
' , * - ; -' ' s " , ' ,-'
f* * *. ~ "" s , * '
helping the communities make
progress through the five basic steps
of protecting community drinking
water supplies.
The SWP Mentor Project is
designed to be a partnership among
EPA and several community-oriented
organizations such as the National
Rural Water Association (NRWA), the
Groundwater Foundation, the
National Association of Towns and
Townships (NATaT), the Environ-
mental Alliance for Senior Involve-
ment (EASI), the Retired and Senior
Volunteer Program (RSVP), state
environmental agencies, and nation-
al and state agricultural programs
such as the Natural Resources Con-
servation Service and the Extension
Service. Because many community
drinking water wells are located in
rural areas, it is particularly impor-
tant that representatives from the
agricultural community actively par-
ticipate in this effort. Each of these
partners has specific roles to play,
from informing local officials to
developing the training program
and coordinating the efforts of the
Mentors.
The SWP Mentor Project is
being piloted in 15 States, begin-
ning with Texas, Washington,
Oregon, Kentucky, Wyoming,
Illinois, Missouri, Maryland, Pennsyl-
vania, and Utah. Five additional
states are expected to be added by
the end of FY97.
f „" * v, ' ' f •> ~ '/ f *•.**•?
^ -? "f ' •» ^ , „ ' ^ ^ f £
- tilQHLftStfftJj lOGHtlilGHLIGHT' '!'
" '- -,f Vi * *S*/J - ' " ^* ' " <
'''•'*"'-? •• " ->
; ^ V ''-'-_ ^ ' / '", * ,,^\ 1
~ / •- \ '• -'-'","-/', "' ': -', ,,"J
* • K * s" '" '" , ' > -'.
' ^*^ ^ 7 ",,'„„ * '
* . ' " ; >^ *', " 1
O' / /'<'' "v'%: S7V;*~ ~-: "'
'- - ^ s ' '\ - *<,•• ' • '•. '•* - •*, j
"• - 1 -s r
-" ^- "" ~ ^ " f^ *• ^^ 1
- -; -• <•/ f < i
"^Vf*_ s^ ! S.f
-?•&"•;*' '-. ,
^^^ , > J / \ ^ ', s.,
* ( •* f 1 ^ f * f •>• "~ ' ! ^ ^
"* ' -^ ^ , *
f * •* -f \ ; "*• ' '
^ r-v "If X f ^ •" ^ * -^
" ™ < >, \ k
', ( < V t *S^
^ ; "N ^ * N" ', * ^' / „ * ^ * /x 1
^ ' * »/'. , " " ' ' V " , ' x-(x
,~ "^s - '" ^ - * ' \ - , s ^
t ~ s " fc , -' " * ^ , * " - - ^ - ^
''- ; --, •„-% , ' . -j
^A4H / Ji1t-r"*L'l »'-'' t«*'*j,rc
-------
496 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
protection activities presented by a
panel of experts, this videoworkshop
attracted a broad audience of
community officials and concerned
citizens at more than 700 downlink
sites nationwide.
Sole Source Aquifer
Protection Program
The Sole Source Aquifer (SSA)
Protection Program was established
under Section 1424(e) of the SDWA
of 1974 and reauthorized as part of
the August 1996 Amendments to
that Act. The program allows com-
munities, individuals, and organiza-
tions 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—
67 designations have been made
nationwide. Three petitions are
under evaluation for possible desig-
nation at the end of 1996.
Once an aquifer is designated,
EPA has the authority to review and
approve Federal financially assisted
projects that may have the potential
to contaminate the aquifer so as to
create a significant hazard to public
health. If the proposed project is
approved by EPA, then the project
may be implemented as planned;
however, if the potential for
contamination of the aquifer exists,
then modifications to the project are
recommended to minimize the
potential impacts that may affect
ground water quality.
EPA coordinates project reviews
with other EPA programs as well as
other Federal, Tribal, State, and local
agencies that may have a role
and/or responsibility for ground
water quality protection. Projects
that occur in SSA areas may include
a variety of activities by the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment and the Department of
Agriculture, Rural Development.
These include the construction of
senior citizen/community centers,
the repair and construction of multi-
ple housing unit facilities, and
improvements to water and waste-
water systems. The types of activities
within these projects that may
impact ground water quality include
the improper treatment or disposal
device for storm surface water
runoff, the improper location of
large community onsite septic sys-
tems, and the identification and
removal of underground storage
tanks.
The Department of Transporta-
tion assists in funding construction
of roads, highways, mass transit,
and certain railroad and airport
facilities. The major impacts to
ground water quality from transpor-
tation type construction activities
include the improper disposal
and/or lack of treatment of storm
and surface water runoff, fuel or
petroleum underground storage
tanks, the improper containment
of large equipment/truck refueling
stations, hazardous material spills,
and improper disposal and contain-
ment of aircraft deicer compounds.
Designation helps the petitioner,
public, other ground water protec-
tion organizations, States, and local
environmental and public health
agencies, and the Tribes to become
more aware of the importance of
protecting ground water resources.
The awareness and stewardship that
is built from coordination gives
these groups the opportunity to
develop strategies beyond the SSA
Protection Program to protect the
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 497
community's drinking water aqui-
fers, such as adopting Wellhead
Protection Programs and evaluating
and instituting Source Water Protec-
tion Programs.
Figure 18-4 illustrates the num-
ber of projects reviewed, approved,
and modified for fiscal years 1990
though 1996. Only 11 projects were
not approved during this period;
four projects in 1991, one in 1992,
and three each in the years 1995
and 1996. The relatively low
number of unapproved projects
reviewed over 7 years (approxi-
mately 8% of total project reviews)
is an indication that the SSA project
sponsors have adjusted to the
ongoing SSA ground water protec-
tion program objectives.
Table 18-2 reflects an annual
summation of SSA project review
information for fiscal years 1990
through 1996. In certain instances
Table 18-2 underestimates the dollar
amounts or degree of review activity
that occurred during a fiscal year
because the data were not available
to the Region at report time and
could not be summarized.
Review of Figure 18-4 and
Table 18-2 indicates the following:
• A total of 1,342 projects were
reviewed over the 7-year period.
Of these, 1,095 were approved
without modification, 117 were
modified, and 11 projects were
either not recommended or were
disapproved. Remaining projects
were withdrawn.
• Sole Source Aquifer post-designa-
tion reports indicate that the drink-
ing water of over 10 million persons
was affected by construction proj-
ects proposed during 1996.
Project Reviews
350
1990 1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
• Projects Reviewed
H Projects Approved
D Projects Modified
Projects Reviewed (cumulative)
Projects Approved (cumulative)
1 Table i8-2. Summary— Fiscal Year Post Designation Project Reviews
1 (1990-1996) ;
Fiscal
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Total
Number of
Projects
Revieweda
159
152
214
275
239
153
150
1,342
Funds
Affected
($)
571,748,000
570,886,000
1,818,665,000
2,078,266,000
1,173,545,000
307,153,000
1,756,535,000
8,276,798,000
Number of
Projects
Approved
136
117
186
231
168
130
127
1,095 .
Number of
Projects
Modified
20
25
6
13
10
20
23
117
Number of
Projects
Disapproved
or Not
Recommended
0
4
1
0
0
3
3
11
"Differences in annual totals by category are due to projects "under review" at year's end.
-------
498 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
Injection wells are used to
discharge or dispose of fluids
underground. They dispose
of approximately 11% of our
Nation's fluid waste.
When properly sited,
constructed, and operated,
injection wells can be an
effective and enyironmentally
safe .....
disposa jhere are many
different types of injection
welts, but they are all similar
in their basic function.
• Review of project modification
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 post-
construction activity monitoring,
and review of initial project designs.
• For the two most recent fiscal
years (i.e., 1995 and 1996), project
modifications remained at approxi-
mately 14%. The level of project
modifications after 7 years of SSA
reviews totals 8% of total reviews,
acknowledging that proper protec-
tion is required up front in the
design phase and that incorporation
Figure 18-5
Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program
State Program
EPA
Split EPA/State Program
Guam and Northern
Mariana Islands
American Samoa, Palau,
and Virgin Islands
of proper aquifer protection will
expedite project approvals. It also
reflects a program in which project
planners and reviewers need to
analyze and recommend a variety
of plans to provide workable ground
water protection strategies.
Underground Injection
Control Program
Federal regulation of under-
ground injection began under the
SDWA of 1974, which called for EPA
to establish minimum requirements
for States to regulate underground
injection wells used for fluid dispos-
al. The SDWA establishes joint
Federal and State roles in regulating
injection wells. States with EPA-
approved Underground Injection
Control Programs have primary
enforcement responsibility (primacy)
under the Act.
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 pro-
grams are State-administered, as
depicted in Figure 18-5. State agen-
cies with primary enforcement
authority respond to UIC violations.
If a response cannot be made in a
timely manner, EPA takes enforce-
ment action.
Figure 18-6 illustrates four of the
five classes of injection wells regu-
lated under the Underground Injec-
tion Control (UIC) Program. A
description of Classes I through V is
provided below.
Class I wells are technologically
sophisticated wells that inject large
volumes of hazardous and nonhaz-
ardous wastes into deep, isolated
rock formations that are separated
from the lowermost source of
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 499
Figure 18-6
Injection Well Relationship to Underground Sources of Drinking Water
Class I wells inject
hazardous or nonhazardous
wastes into geological
formations that are capable
of confining the fluids.
Class II wells inject waste
fluids associated with
the production of oil
and natural gas.
Class III wells inject fluids
to extract minerals from
underground.
Class V wells are wells that
are not included in the
previous three classes and
inject nonhazardous fluids into
or above an underground
source of drinking water.
-------
500 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
drinking water by many layers of
impermeable clay and rock.
Although most hazardous waste
fluids are treated and released to
surface waters, Class I wells account
for 89% of the hazardous waste
fluid disposed of on land. As of
December 1994, there were 413
operating Class I wells located in 21
States. One hundred eighteen of
these wells were used to inject haz-
ardous wastes. Class I wells consti-
tute less than 1 % of all injection
wells in the country.
Class II wells are used to inject
fluids associated with the production
of oil and natural gas or to store
hydrocarbons. Most of the injected
fluid is brine that is produced when
oil and gas are extracted from the
earth. As of December 1994, there
were more than 171,000 Class II
wells in the United States, most of
which are located in the Gulf Coast
and Great Lakes States and Cali-
fornia. They constitute approxi-
mately 41 % of injection wells.
Class III wells are used for
special purposes, such as mining
minerals. They are used to inject
super-hot steam or water into min-
eral formations, dissolving or loosen-
ing the minerals, which are then
pumped to the surface and extract-
ed. Generally, the fluid is treated
and reinjected into the same forma-
tion. More than 50% of the salt and
80% of the uranium extracted in the
United States is produced this way.
Class III wells constitute 8% of injec-
tion wells.
Class IV wells were used in the
past to dispose of hazardous or
radioactive wastes into or above an
underground drinking water source.
These wells have since been
banned.
Class V wells include all other
waste injection wells that do not fit
into the other four categories. Class
V wells generally include shallow
wastewater disposal wells, septic sys-
tems, storm water, and agricultural
drainage systems or other devices
that can release nutrient and toxic
fluids into the ground and eventual-
ly into water table aquifers. EPA esti-
mates that more than 1 million
Class V wells currently exist in the
United States. This accounts for
approximately 50% of all injection
wells.
The majority of Class V wells
pose little or no risk to human
health; however, wastewater dispos-
al practices are of concern because
the disposed waste may contain
toxic chemicals. This is of particular
concern for certain types of busi-
nesses, such as automobile service
stations, dry cleaners, electrical com-
ponent or machine manufacturers,
photo processors, and metal platers
or fabricators. Such businesses are
often found in strip malls, industrial
parks, and many areas that are not
served by municipal sewer systems.
Without access to sewer systems,
these businesses may rely on Class V
wells (e.g., septic systems, dry holes)
to get rid of their wastes. The
environmental consequences of this
form of wastewater disposal, how-
ever, can be great.
Class V wells introduce the
wastes directly into the ground.
These wells are not designed to treat
industrial wastes and the harmful
chemicals contained in some indus-
trial wastes can percolate into the
ground and contaminate ground
water and drinking water supplies.
Over the past decade, many com-
munities in the United States have
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 501
had to address the contamination
resulting from waste disposal prac-
tices of local businesses. The few
examples presented in Table 18-3
show some of the costs associated
with cleaning up ground water con-
tamination. These are just a few of
the cases of ground water contami-
nation nationwide that can be
attributed to Class V disposal wells.
Other Control
Programs and
Activities
Two other principal programs
control pollutant sources under
different laws. Underground storage
tanks and solid and hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal are
regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and abandoned waste is
Table 18-3.
Location
Cases of Contamination Resulting from Onsite Wastewater Disposal Syste
Incident
Remediation
Financial Impact
Exton,
Pennsylvania
Solvents used to clean engines
at an automotive repair facility
contaminated an onsite water
supply well and threatened the
water supply of 77,000 persons
living within 3 miles of the site.
EPA placed the site on the National
Priorities List of Superfund sites
and issued a Record of Decision
in September 1995.
Remediation is expected to cost
approximately $10,967,000. It will
include carbon filtration, the excavation
and offsite disposal of contaminated
soils, and air stripping to treat ground
water.
Boulder,
Colorado
A manufacturer of printed circuit
boards used its septic system to
dispose of process wastewater
containing chlorinated solvents,
primarily trichloroethane. A plume
of volatile organic chemicals
contaminated area drinking water
wells.
Long-term remediation plans
include connecting affected
residences to the Boulder
municipal water system. Bottled
water is being supplied in the
interim.
Residents sued the manufacturer and
were awarded $4.1 million ($3 million
for neighborhood cleanup; $750,000
for a new water supply; $225,000 for
medical monitoring; and $165,000 for
loss of use and enjoyment of property).
Vancouver,
Washington
An electroplating company
discharged hexavalent chromium
into a dry well, which contaminated
local ground water. A well field that
serves 10,000 residents is threatened.
The selected remedial action
includes the installation of
extraction wells to remove
chromium from the ground
water by ion exchange.
The remedial action is expected to cost
approximately $3.8 million.
South Cairo,
New York
A thermostat manufacturer poured
trichloroethylene and tetrachloro-
ethylene sludges into drains that led
to an abandoned septic system. As a
result, the community's drinking
water source was contaminated.
Remediation includes cleanup
of ground water using spray
aeration and air stripping, while
at the same time, supplying the
affected community with an
alternative water supply.
The remedial action, which includes the
installation of a new well and pipeline,
is expected to cost $2.3 million. Annual
operation and maintenance costs will
run $10,000.
Corvallis,
Oregon
An electroplater disposed of floor
drippings, washings, and product
rinse in a dry well, contaminating
soil and ground water.
The selected remedial action
includes the installation of wells
to extract chromium-contami-
nated ground water for treatment,
and the excavation and removal
of contaminated soil.
Capital costs of remediation are expected
to run approximately $1.6 million.
Annual operation and maintenance
costs are expected to be approximately
$261,000.
-------
502 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
regulated under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (1976) amended the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. In 1984,
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) were passed
by Congress, which greatly
expanded the scope of the RCRA
Program. Statutorily, the RCRA pro-
gram has four major components.
Subtitle D - Solid Waste Program
Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste
Program
Subtitle I - Underground
Storage Tank
Program
Subtitle J - Medical Waste
Program (Federal
program expired*)
The intent of RCRA is to protect
human health and the environment
by establishing a comprehensive
regulatory framework for investigat-
ing and addressing past, present,
and future environmental contami-
nation. This is done by identifying as
hazardous those wastes that may
pose hazards if improperly man-
aged, and establishing requirements
for waste treatment and manage-
ment to ultimate disposal. Specific
goals of RCRA are as follows:
• To protect human health and the
environment
• To reduce waste and conserve
energy and natural resources
• To reduce or eliminate the gener-
ation of hazardous waste as expedi-
tiously as possible.
To ensure that the RCRA
program is current in its mission to
protect human health and the envi-
ronment from hazards associated
with waste management, the
Agency has recently completed or
has ongoing several activities that
focus primarily on protection of
ground water:
• Final Universal Treatment Stan-
dards (UTS) regulations. Under these
rules, any hazardous constituent in
hazardous wastes must be treated to
reduce its toxicity or mobility in the
environment before the waste can
be finally disposed of on the land,
thereby minimizing potential
impacts to ground water quality.
• The Hazardous Waste Character-
istic Scoping Study. A comprehen-
sive review of hazardous waste char-
acteristics regulations had the goal
of identifying potential program
gaps and follow-on activities. Key
topics included review of the com-
prehensiveness and adequacy of the
Toxicity Characteristic rules and the
Toxic Characteristics Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) test.
• Ongoing development of the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR) for Contaminated Media
(HWIR-media). The proposed rule
*The Federal medical waste tracking program no longer exists (Subtitle J). It was a 2-year pilot
program in response to the ocean washup of medical instruments along the East Coast during
the summer of 1988. Several States have implemented their own medical waste tracking
programs.
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 503
re-examines many of the RCRA
Subtitle C treatment and manage-
ment standards that apply to reme-
diation wastes and contaminated
media, such as contaminated soils
and ground water. EPA anticipates
that the final rule will accelerate
cleanups and reduce overall costs by
addressing some of the biggest
causes of problems and delays in
cleanup.
• Ongoing development of the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR-waste). This rule is supported
by cutting-edge risk assessment
modeling work that addresses the
fate and transport of contaminants
in the ground water environment
through the use of a more acccurate
ground water model (as well as
assesses risks posed by other release
pathways). These models were used
in the December 1995 HWIR-waste
proposal to evaluate risks from
approximately 200 hazardous waste
constituents.
• Ongoing hazardous waste
listings. Regulations for petroleum
refinery wastes are proposed.
• Development of guidance for
managing industrial nonhazardous
waste. EPA's Office of Solid Waste
and the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials (ASTSWMO) are. jointly
developing a voluntary decision-
makers guide for facility managers,
State agency staff, and the public.
This guide will provide comprehen-
sive recommendations for protective
management of industrial solid
waste in surface impoundments,
landfills, waste piles, and land appli-
cation units.
Underground Storage
Tank Program
The Underground Storage Tank
Programs falls under RCRA. One of
the primary goals of this program is
to protect the Nation's ground
water resources from releases by
underground storage tanks (USTs)
containing petroleum or certain haz-
ardous substances. The EPA works
with State and local governments to
implement Federal requirements for
proper management of USTs. The
EPA estimates that about 1 million
federally regulated USTs are buried
at over 400,000 sites nationwide.
Nearly all USTs contain petroleum;
about 25,000 USTs hold hazardous
waste covered by the Federal regula-
tions.
In 1988, EPA issued regulations
setting minimum standards for
new tanks^ (those installed after
December 22, 1988) and existing
tanks (those installed before
December 22, 1988). By December
1998, existing USTs must be
upgraded to meet minimum stan-
dards, be replaced with new tanks,
or be closed properly. Since 1988,
more than 1.1 million old USTs have
been closed, thus eliminating a
number of potential sources of
ground water contamination. Of the
remaining 1 million USTs, about
450,000 are in compliance with the
1998 deadline requirements. EPA
expects a substantial increase in
compliance as UST owners meet the
December 1998 deadline for replac-
ing, upgrading, or closing USTs.
-------
504 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
New and existing USTs comply-
ing with EPA's standards can prevent
leaks caused by spills, overfills, corro-
sion, and faulty installation. USTs
complying with the leak detection
requirements can identify releases
quickly, before contamination
spreads. Corrective action require-
ments ensure responsible and timely
cleanup of contaminated sites.
As of September 1997, almost
341,800 UST releases had been
confirmed. The EPA estimates that
about half of these releases have
reached ground water. Ground
water impacts include the presence
of well-documented contaminants,
such as benzene, toluene, ethylben-
zene, and xylene (BTEX). Also,
ground water contamination from
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
has become a documented concern
recently. Remediation decisions
involving MTBE can differ from
those involving BTEX, often
Figure 18-7
350,000
Growing Number of Cleanups
91 92 93 94
— Confirmed Releases
- - Cleanups Started
--- Cleanups Completed
--- Cleanups Awaiting
Action
90
requiring more expensive and
extensive cleanups.
About 162,000 contaminated
sites have been cleaned up, and
cleanups are in progress at 115,000
more sites (Figure 18-7). EPA esti-
mates that the total number of con-
firmed releases could reach 400,000
in the next few years, primarily
releases discovered during the clo-
sure or replacement of old USTs.
After this time period, EPA expects a
relatively small number of new
releases as USTs increasingly comply
with leak prevention requirements.
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 which require
emergency action. Since 1986,
$563 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 that 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 per occurrence, accord-
ing 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 $1.3 billion in
1997 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
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 505
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 pro-
gram. So far 24 States have received
State Program Approval. All States
have UST regulations and programs
in place. The Agency also has devel-
oped 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 negotiated
UST grants with all States and pro-
vided technical assistance and guid-
ance for implementation and
enforcement of UST regulations.
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
Figure 18-8
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 (NCP), EPA
expects to return usable ground
waters to their beneficial uses, wher-
ever possible, within a time frame
that is reasonable given the particu-
lar circumstances of the site.
As shown in Figure 18-8, the
CERCLA process involves a series of
steps:
Preliminary Assessment -
As a screening process, the EPA will
perform a preliminary assessment
(PA) of a site (often a review of data
without an actual site visit) to
CERCLA Process
Preliminary
Assessment/
Site Inspection
> •
Scoping
of
RI/FS
1 * ' Ri/FS
Work .
. ' •%( , '
~ .„ ' S
t t
GWOU QROU
->
Baseline
Risk
Assessment
(BRA)
+
Remedial
Investigation
(Rl)
>
Feasibility
Study
/rc\
(.r-Y
Activities
Documents
QBWOU: Quarry Bulk Waste Operable Unit
CPOU: Chemical Plant Operable Unit
QROU: Quarry Residuals Operable Unit
GWOU: Ground Water Operable Unit
Past
ROD
Changes
C
Remedial
Design/
Remedial
Action
t t
POU QBWOU
Source: WSSRAP Home Page
-------
506 Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs
determine if further study is neces-
sary.
Site Inspection - A site inspec-
tion (SI) is an onsite investigation to
find out whether there is a release or
potential release and to determine
the nature of the associated threats.
The purpose is to augment the data
collected in the PA and to generate,
if necessary, sampling and other
field data to determine if further
action or investigation is necessary.
If deemed necessary, the site is
scored using the Hazard Ranking
System (MRS). Any site that receives
a score of 28.50 or above on the
MRS will be included on the
National Priorities List (NPL).
Remedial Investigation -
A remedial investigation (Rl) is a
process undertaken by the lead
agency to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by
the release. The Rl emphasizes data
collection and site characterization
and is generally performed
concurrently and in an interactive
fashion with the feasibility study.
Feasibility Study - A feasibility
study (FS) is undertaken by the lead
agency to develop and evaluate
options for remedial action. The FS
emphasizes data analysis, using data
gathered during the Rl. The Rl data
are used to define the objectives of
the response action, to develop
remedial alternatives, and to under-
take an initial screening and detailed
analysis of the alternatives.
Proposed Plan - The Proposed
Plan outlines the nature and extent
of contamination at the site, the
alternatives evaluated and the
preferred approach to remediation.
Input from the general public is
received during this step.
Record of Decision - Once the
RI/FS is completed, the EPA selects
the appropriate cleanup option,
following principles set forth in the
CERCLA Cleanup Standards and
the revised NCP. This selection is
described in a public document
called the Record of Decision.
Remedial Design - The reme-
dial design is the technical analysis
and procedures that follow the
selection of a remedy for a site and
results in a detailed set of plans and
specifications for implementation of
the remedial action.
Remedial Action - The reme-
dial action follows the remedial
design and involves the actual
construction or implementation of
a cleanup.
Following are statistics related to
Superfund cleanups:
• 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 sug-
gests that only 6% of NPL sites
involving ground water contamina-
tion are classified as nonusable
aquifers (e.g., saline or nonpotable).
-------
Chapter Eighteen Ground Water Protection Programs 507
• Of the 622 NPL sites reporting
ground water contamination near
the site, the ground water is current-
ly used for private water supplies at
42% of the sites and for public sup-
plies 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 threatened 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-
4 lists the most frequently detected
organic and inorganic constituents
reported at NPL sites.
• Ground water contamination is
associated with 63% of the sites for
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.
Conclusion
We are continuing to learn a
great deal about the nature and
quality of our Nation's ground water
resources. Still, there is much we do
not yet know about how to most
effectively protect and preserve this
vast and often vulnerable resource.
Our continued quest for high quality
and representative information
about the status of our ground
water resources will help us learn
how best to approach ground water
protection. Through a greater
understanding of how human activi-
ties influence the quality of our
waters, we can better ensure the
long-term availability of high-quality
water for future generations.
Table 18-4. Contaminants Most Frequently Reported in
Ground Water at CERCLA National Priority
List Sites
Rank
Contaminants
Number of Sites
Organic Compounds
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1,1,2-Trichloroethylene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethene
Benzene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Polychlorinated faiphenyls
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
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 Lead 306
2 Chromium ion and related species 213
3 Arsenic 149
4 Cadmium 126
5 Copper ion and related species 83
6 Mercury 81
7 Zinc ion and related species 75
8 Nickel ion and related species 45
9 Barium 41
10 Cyanides and associated salts 38
-------
-------
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
economic and social benefits of
these achievements. None of the
States, Territories, and Tribes report-
ing 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; 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 eco-
nomic benefits data are not avail-
able, biological indicators are used
to show stream improvement. The
assumption is that, if the insect life
in the stream is improving, eventu-
ally the fish will return and so will
recreation, which has an economic
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
Benefits 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, munici-
palities spend about $23 billion per
-------
510 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
considering that, during this time,
both the Nation's population and
the volume of pollution flowing
through its sewer systems increased
by nearly 30%.
EPA has invested approximately
$1.4 billion since 1972 in maintain-
ing State water quality programs
through grants funded under
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act.
The goals of the Section 106 pro-
gram 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 contrib-
uted substantially to the water
pollution control efforts in this
country.
Pennsylvania reported that,
during the past 5 years, new grants
totaling more than $162 million in
Federal funds were offered to Penn-
sylvania municipalities for construc-
tion of sewage treatment facilities.
Actual dollar expenditures under this
Federal grant program during this
period amounted to $301.4 million,
which includes expenditures from
grants made during prior years.
Table 19-1. Summary of Current and Planned Spending under the Existing CWA (million $/year)
Pre-1 987 Act
Non point
Source Controls/
Watershed
Storm Water.
Phase 1
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
Programsa
$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
* 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 511
Funding from other Federal agen-
cies, including the Farmer's Home
Administration and the Department
of Commerce, has provided munici-
palities an additional $101.1 million
for facilities planning and adminis-
tration. State funds and grants
issued by the Department of
Environmental Resources (DER) and
the Pennsylvania Department of
Commerce have provided munici-
palities another $240.9 million for
wastewater 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.
Illinois reported that the Bureau
of Water distributed a total of $16.8
million in State construction grants
and an additional $132.4 in loans
during 1994 and 1995 for construc-
tion of municipal wastewater treat-
ment facilities.
Benefits of Water
Quality Improvement
Improvements in water quality
are valuable to all Americans.
Millions of people enjoy recreational
activities such as fishing, swimming,
and boating on waters where these
pursuits might not be possible with-
out the control measures undertak-
en under the Clean Water Act.
Table 19-2. State and Federal Expenditures fo" Water Pollution Control in Pennsylvania, 1989-1993
(thousands of dollars) ° : •
Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Total
EPA New
Grants
41,398
34,116
32,1 37
1,237
9,605
0
44,500
162,993
EPA
Grant
Expds.
69,691
83,987
51,473
26,155
29,957
23,320
1 6,845
301,428
FHA
Grant
Expds.
4,565
5,533
13,554
18,444
1 7,323
1 7,233
15,380
92,032
Federal
Dept. of
Comm.
Expds.
1,180
950
0
300
1,250
2,000
3,445
9,125
PA DER
Act
443
Expds.
249
8
5
55
11
0
0
328
PA DER
Act
339
Expds.
20,934
23,778
27,21 1
28,787
28,667
34,600
36,500
200,477
PA DER
Act
537
Expds.
1,037
2,097
1,013
3,132
3,120
3,000
2,757
16,156
PA
Dept. of
Comm.
Expds.
0
5,146
935
3,402
3,398
5,682
5,409
23,972
PENN
VESTa
Loan and
Grant
Obligat.
122,300
104,600
135,400
67,300
76,300
1 34,546
91,397
731,843
Total
Expds.
261,354
260,215
261,728
148,812
169,631
220,381
216,233
1,538,354
aPENNVEST is a fund created in Pennsylvania to provide grants and loans for sewage treatment projects.
NOTE: EPA new grants column refers to EPA's delivery of grants to the State in that year. EPA grants expenditures column refers to the
State's actual use of grant funds during that period and prior years. Thus, the grants and expenditures in any one year will not
necessarily be equal.
Source: 1994 Pennsylvania 305(b) report, Table 47, page 156.
-------
512 Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
Cleaner water has reduced health
risks to people who swim and fish
and 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 contaminat-
ed water before using it. It has also
lowered costs to drinking water sys-
tems that might otherwise have to
install additional treatment tech-
nologies. Finally, cleaner water has
provided important aesthetic bene-
fits to Americans who derive value
from knowing that waters are clean-
er, even when they are unable to
visit them.
Notwithstanding these impor-
tant and substantial benefits of clean
water, EPA has not quantified all of
the extraordinarily diverse improve-
ments in water quality that have
occurred since the Clean Water Act
was passed. Since such quantifica-
tion must precede the valuation of
improvements in dollar terms, the
total magnitude of environmental,
economic, and health-related bene-
fits that result from improvements to
water quality are not measurable
given existing data and analytic
methods. The following discussion
describes some of the benefits asso-
ciated with water quality improve-
ments.
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
closings 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.
* 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.
Washington, DC, February 1993.
-------
Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 513
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
are good, and where recreational
opportunities are abundant. These
amenities are essential for the qual-
ity of life required by today's work-
force.
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 Game 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,
20 bald eagle nests were found in
1995. All together, the nests
produced 30 hatchlings.
Through cooperative projects,
over 100 osprey (fish hawks) were
hatched in northeastern Pennsylva-
nia 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
*Hall, Bob. Green and Gold. Institute for Southern Studies, October 1994.
-------
514 Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
Dam in Tioga County, which can
accommodate up to 16 ospreys.
This project was initiated in 1990
with nine ospreys, the first of
approximately 70 to be released
over 5 years. A 5-year osprey hatch-
ing project was initiated in Lake
Arthur in 1993 with six young
osprey, five of which survived. In
1995, as many as 20 active osprey
nests were located in the State.
River otter reintroduction 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 reintroduc-
tion in northwestern Pennsylvania
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. More
than 70 otters were released by
1993. In addition, Maryland stocked
18 otters on the Youghiogheny near
Oakland in 1989 and 1990. The
success of these programs is due, in
part, to improved water quality and
resulting improved fisheries.
While the economic benefits
of water pollution control would be
nearly impossible to calculate,
estimates are available on the eco-
nomic value of fishing and boating
in the Commonwealth. In 1994, a
total of 1,050,652 fishing licenses
were sold in Pennsylvania. In addi-
tion, 736,508 Trout/Salmon Stamps
were sold. These sales provided $17
million in revenue to the Pennsyl-
vania Fish and Boat Commission.
Anglers age 16 and older (anglers
under age 16 do not require a
license) spent $678 million in direct
trip and equipment expenditures.
This generated $1.1 billion in eco-
nomic revenue in the Common-
wealth and supported 16,090 jobs.
This is a significant contribution to
the economy.
In addition, there were 322,318
registered boats in Pennsylvania in
1994, which generated $3.9 million
in fees for the Fish and Boat Com-
mission in 1992. Pennsylvanians
participate in boating activities
about 20 million days each year,
which contribute $1.7 billion to the
economy for equipment, supplies,
food, lodging, fuel, etc.
These economic benefits are in
addition to the enjoyment and aes-
thetic benefits of these recreational
activities. The maintenance and
improvement of water quality
directly supports these activities
and provides the economic benefits
noted above.
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.
-------
Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 515
Three billion dollars of this was
attributed to Connecticut's econo-
my. The following discussion briefly
summarizes use valuations for
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 mil-
lion for Connecticut's economy (on
average, $21 per person 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 are estimated at
$258.5 million (on average, $780
per angler per year). Related activi-
ties 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 developed land. Many values,
such as flood control and erosion
buffers, were not assigned dollar val-
ues. A conservative estimate of the
value of the marshes as spawning
grounds and feeding areas for com-
mercial and recreational fishes was
calculated at $93.75 million. This
value was equally divided between
New York and Connecticut.
Connecticut's shellfish industry
has grown from a harvest of 30,000
bushels in 1972 to 900,000 bushels
in 1992 with a value exceeding $46
million. The shellfish industry con-
tributes 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 cul-
tivated. Eighty percent of all acreage
available for shellfishing is currently
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. Management efforts
of local shellfish commissions are
increasing, and several towns,
including Stamford, Norwalk,
Guilford, and Madison, have begun
"relay" programs to enhance
recreational shellfishing.
Other fisheries, including
lobsters, finfish, squid, hard clams,
scallops, and conch, contribute
significantly to Connecticut's fishery
harvest. This harvest amounted to
19,200,000 pounds in 1992, com-
bining live weight of fish, lobsters,
-------
516 Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
and squid plus the meat of oysters,
clams, scallops, and conch. At an
off-vessel value of nearly $60 million,
this makes Connecticut the 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 various 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
recreational fishing to District
waters. Surveys conducted by fish-
eries management 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 fishing
licenses sold in 1995 (12,695) was
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; it is
important to note that they would
not have been feasible without the
leadership of the Federal Govern-
ment, State government, local
government, citizen groups, and
industry all working together.
New York
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation pub-
lished 20 Year Trends in Water Qual-
ity of Rivers and Streams in New York
State in 1993. The study reports
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, Cowanda -
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 doc-
umented in 1976. These discharges
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.
-------
Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 517
Lower Hudson River below
Albany - All biological indices have
improved below Albany since 1972
and may be attributed to many
improvements in municipal and
industrial sewage treatment. Several
blue crabs were collected in this
reach in 1992.
Mohawk River below Rome -
From 1972 to 1989, species
richness rose from 8 to 24 species,
and mayflies, stoneflies, and caddis-
flies appeared. The change is attrib-
uted 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 caddis-
flies.
Upper Hudson River below Glens
Falls - Mayfly/caddisfly species
increased from one to seven from
1972 to 1986, following numerous
improvements in treatment of
municipal and industrial wastes.
Biological changes were accompa-
nied 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, sedi-
mentation, 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.
"(J.S. EPA, Clean Lakes Program Review. 1992.
-------
518 Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
Chesapeake Bay
A 1987 study estimated the
value of the Chesapeake Bay to the
commercial fishing industry, port
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 Mexico1'
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.
Seventy 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 shell-
fish include blue crabs and oysters.
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 tre-
mendous economic and ecological
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. Recrea-
tional fishing adds another $3 billion
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
* 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.
tjhe Center for Marine Conservation and U.S. EPA. Environmental Quality in the Gulf of Mexico:
A Citizen's Guide. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC, 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 519
to some harbors from which they
had disappeared.
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 recreation-
al 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 revitaliza-
tion of the fishery resources in Lake
Ontario has spurred the develop-
ment of the charter boat fishing
industry, boater and angler access
sites, fishing derbies, and additional
employment opportunities.
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.
Wisconsin
Grants and loans helped
Wisconsin achieve a better than
94% compliance rate for all munic-
ipal dischargers, one of the highest
in the Nation. As a result of the
Clean Water Fund, a State Revolving
Fund loan program that provides
low interest loans to allow waste
treatment plants to meet standards,
complete upgrade and construction
projects, and address urban and
rural polluted runoff, there are
marked water quality improvements
in many waterbodies. Additionally,
the installation of best management
practices resulted in benefits to both
the streams and the farmland:
• An estimated 327 tons of sedi-
ment eroding from stream banks
annually was cut by about 230 tons
• Bank stabilization decreased
stream width and deepened the
channel, creating better habitat
conditions for fish and aquatic
insects
• A grassed waterway and grade
stabilization structure reduced gully
erosion by 180 tons per year
• Contour strip cropping reduced
topsoil erosion by 64%
• An estimated 133 pounds of
phosphorus entering the stream
annually was slashed to about
2 pounds
-------
520 Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
• Fishery surveys in South Bear
Creek from 1990 found one trout
per 1,000 feet of stream. In 1994,
15 trout were found in the same
section of stream.
Louisiana
The citizens and visitors to
Louisiana derive a number of bene-
fits, financial and aesthetic, from the
State's abundance of waterbodies.
In 1991, the water resources of
Louisiana were used for fishing by
an estimated 899,000 adults,
130,000 of whom were from out
of State. In 1992, persons engaged
in sport fishing contributed $686
million to Louisiana's State and local
economies. Commercial marine fish-
ing in Louisiana had an estimated
dockside value of $340 million in
1994. Recreational and commercial
fishing contributed over $1 billion to
the economy of Louisiana.
In a holistic approach to envi-
ronmental and resource manage-
ment, consideration must be given
to all wildlife, both aquatic and ter-
restrial, because all require clean
water for their survival. In 1992,
Louisiana's economy received $434
million from hunting and $222
million from nonconsumptive recre-
ational enthusiasts, such as bird
watchers, campers, and hikers. It is
important to note that hunters and
nonconsumptive users are less likely
to participate in their activities in
areas with questionable water and
aesthetic quality.
Maine
An example of direct economic
benefits of water quality protection
is the elimination of pollution
sources from shellfishing areas.
The Maine Department of Environ-
ment and Marine Resources (DMR)
launched a major initiative in 1995
to target polluted shellfish harvest-
ing areas in eastern Maine for clean-
up. Many of these areas have been
off limits due to contamination from
failing or inadequate wastewater
treatment systems. By the end of
1995,1,800 acres had already been
reopened for shellfish harvesting
and aquaculture. The Maine
Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) and DMR plan to
continue targeting coastal commu-
nities to open more shellfish areas in
eastern Maine. This action results in
environmental and economic bene-
fits to the citizens of Maine.
Florida
Tourism, recreation, and fishery
resources, which depend on a
healthy environment, are all impor-
tant contributors to Florida's econ-
omy. An estimated 62% ($158
billion, 1985 data) of Florida's gross
product is generated in coastal areas
(NOAA, 1996).
Benefits from upgrading waste-
water discharges to advanced treat-
ment or reuse, have resulted in
improvement to the water quality,
increase in acreage of seagrasses,
and decreased nutrient loadings.
All of these benefits led to increases
in fishery and recreational use of the
bay.
-------
Chapter Nineteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 521
Illinois
Illinois examined three lakes,
Lake Le-Aqua-Na, Johnson Sauk Trail
Lake and Lake of the Woods, which
completed the Clean Lakes Program
restoration, Phase I and II, including
restoration efforts. By comparing
pre- and post-Clean Lakes Program
conditions in the lake, annual bene-
fits were calculated using potential
"visitor day" to estimate carrying
capacity, recreational activities,
accessibility, and aesthetics. Increase
in annual benefits for the three lakes
ranged from $197,000 to $660,700.
-------
-------
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 the EPA Office of Water website at www.epa.gov/305b/. To order hard copies please check
the boxes beside the documents that you would like to order and return this form to the address on the
reverse, contact NCEPI at 1-800-490-9198, 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.
QJ The National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress. EPA841 -R-97-008. April 1998.
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
(588 pages) /-
Qj The National Water Qualify Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress - Appendixes. EPA841 -C-97-001.
April 1998. This disk contains spreadsheet files with the data tables used to generate the information
presented in the 1996 Report to Congress.
(1 disk)
Q The Quality of Our Nation's Water: 1996, Executive Summary of the National Water Quality
Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress. EPA841 -S-97-001. April 1998. 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. '
(197 pages)
Q Report Brochure: National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress. EPA841-F-97-003
April 1998. Brief synopsis of the water quality data submitted by the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions in their 1996 Section 305(b) reports.
(12 pages)
Q Water Quality Conditions in the United States. EPA841 -F-97-001. April 1998. A short profile of the
National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress.
(2 pages)
rn Guidelines for Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports)
L—' EPA841-B-95-001. May 1995.
(350 pages)
rn Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports)
and Electronic Updates: Report Contents.
EPA841-B-97-002A. September 1997.
(225 pages)
rn Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports)
^ and Electronic Updates: Supplement.
EPA841-B-97-002B. September 1997.
(275 pages)
Ship to:.
Address:.
City, State, ZIP:.
Daytime Phone:.
(Please include area code)
-------
• second fold •
NCEP1
11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5
Cincinnati, OH 45242
first 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
Randall Young
EPA Region 2 (2WMD-SWQB)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)637-3847
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Mark Barath
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
100 Alabama Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-9265
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
Paul Koska
EPA Region 6 (6W-QT)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)665-8357
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
Jill Minter
EPA Region 8 (8WM-WQ)
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)312-6084
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
Virgin Islands
E3 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.
-------
#(tlt,»t
, A/
(o
m
$
------- |