&EPA
               United States
               Environmental Protection
               Agency
               Office of Water
               Washington, DC 20460
EPA841-S-94-002
March 1994
The Quality of Our Nation's
Water:  1992

-------
U.S.  Environmental  Protection
Agency 305(b) Coordinators
For more information about the
National Water Quality Inventory
Report or for additional copies of
this summary document, contact:
Barry Burgan
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7060
(202) 260-1977 (fax)

For information on water quality in
the EPA Regions, contact:
Diane Switzer
EPA Region 1 (EMS-LEX)
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
(617)860-4377
Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Maine, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
Xuan-Mai T. Tran
EPA Region 2 (SWQB)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-3188
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Charles A. Kanetsky
EPA Region 3 (3ESII)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-8176
Dela\vare, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, District
of Columbia
Larinda Tervelt
EPA Region 4
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA  30365
(404) 347-2126
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee

Dave Stoltenberg
EPA Region 5 (SQ-14J)
77 West Jackson Street
Chicago, IL  60604
(312)353-5784
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin

Russell Nelson
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 655-6646
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
John Houlihan
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City,  KS  66101
(913)551-7432
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

Phil Johnson
EPA Region 8 (8WM-WQ)
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO  80202
(303)293-1581
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Edwin H. Liu
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA  94105
(415) 744-2012
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam
Alan Henning
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-8293
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington

-------
Contents
The Quality of Our Nation's Water
Key Concepts
Rivers and Streams
Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs
The Great Lakes
Estuaries
The Chesapeake Bay
Ocean Coastal Waters
Wetlands
Ground Water
Water Quality Protection Programs
What You Can Do
11
14
17
19
21
23
24
27
29
39

-------
The  Quality  of  Our  Nation's   Water
Introduction

    The 1992 Report to Congress
describes the geographic extent of
water pollution across the country
and identifies specific pollutants and
sources  of pollutants  contaminating
our waters. This national snapshot
of water quality conditions summa-
rizes information submitted by the
States/ the District of Columbia,
Territories, Interstate Water Basin
Commissions, and one American
Indian Tribe  in their 1992 water
quality assessment reports (required
under Clean Water Act Section
305(b)). The 1992  Section 305(b)
reports contain assessments of each
State's water quality during 1990
and  1991.
    This report displays and sum-
marizes  data provided by  the States
to EPA.  EPA  has not determined
the accuracy of these data. It  is
important to note that these  State-
reported data are intended to
provide a snapshot of the  quality of
the waters they assessed and  can-
not be used  to determine  trends in
our Nation's water  resources.  These
limitations are due to major differ-
ences from year to year in assess-
ment methods within and between
Slates as well as differences in the
waters assessed in  each 2-year
period. In addition,  not all States
follow EPA's guidance on  proce-
dures for determining whether
waters are supporting the  uses des-
ignated in their water quality  stan-
dards. EPA and the States  are taking
many steps toward transforming the
305(b) process into one that pro-
vides comparable data  with known
accuracy. These steps include imple-
menting the recommendations of
the National 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup  and the Intergovern-
mental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality, as well as improving
the Section  305(b)  guidelines and
implementing the Office of Water's
Monitoring  Strategy. These efforts
will foster consistency and accuracy
among the  States and  allow better
sharing of data for watershed pro-
tection and  across political
boundaries.
Why Is It Important
To  Leam About Water
Pollution?

    The EPA encourages each  citi-
zen to become a steward of our
precious natural resources.  Complex
environmental threats and  diminish-
ing funds  for pollution control force
us to jointly solve the pollution
problems that foul our beaches and
lakes or close our favorite fishing
sites. We need to understand these
problems and become a part of
their solution. Once  we understand
these pollution problems and what
is needed  to combat them, we will
be better able to prioritize our
efforts, devise sound solutions, take
appropriate action, monitor
progress after solutions are  imple-
mented, and modify behavior  that
contributes to the problems.
    This document provides funda-
mental water quality information
needed to resolve our persistent
water pollution problems. This
Report to  Congress:

• Defines key water quality
concepts

• Discusses the leading  pollution
problems in rivers  and streams,
lakes,  estuaries, coastal waters,
wetlands, and ground water as
reported to EPA by the States

• Briefly describes major State and
Federal activities to control  water
pollution

• Offers several water quality
protection  actions for every citizen
to adopt.

-------
 Key Concepts
Measuring Water
Quality

    The States assess the quality of
their waters by determining if their
waters attain State water quality
standards. Water quality standards
consist of beneficial uses, numeric
and narrative criteria for supporting
each use, and an antidegradation
statement:

B Designated beneficial uses are
the desirable uses that water quality
should support. Examples are drink-
ing water supply, primary contact
recreation (such as swimming),  and
aquatic life support.  Each desig-
nated use has a unique set of water
quality requirements or criteria that
must be met for the use to be real-
ized. States may designate an indi-
vidual waterbody for multiple ben-
eficial uses.

• Numeric water quality criteria
establish the minimum physical,
chemical, and  biological parameters
required to support a  beneficial use.
Physical and chemical  numeric
criteria may set maximum concen-
trations of pollutants, acceptable
ranges of physical parameters, and
minimum  concentrations of desir-
able parameters,  such  as dissolved
oxygen. Numeric biological  criteria
describe the expected  attainable
community attributes and establish
values based on measures such  as
species richness, presence  or
absence of  indicator  taxa,  and distri-
bution  of classes of organisms.

• Narrative water quality criteria
define, rather than quantify, condi-
tions and attainable goals that must
be maintained to support a desig-
nated use. Narrative biological cri-
teria establish a positive stcitement
about aquatic community character-
istics expected to occur within a
waterbody; for example, "Ambient
water quality shall be sufficient to
support life stages of all indigenous
aquatic species." Narrative criteria
may also describe conditions that
are desired in a waterbody, such as,
"Waters must be free of substances
that are toxic to humans, aquatic
life, and wildlife."

• Antidegradation statements
protect existing designated uses and
prevent high-quality waterbodies
from deteriorating below the water
quality necessary to maintain exist-
ing or anticipated  designated bene-
ficial uses.
    The Clean Water Act provides
primary authority to States to set
their own standards but requires
that all State beneficial uses and
their criteria comply with the "fish-
able and swimmable" goals of the
Act. At a minimum, State beneficial
uses must support aquatic life and
recreational use.  In effect, States
cannot designate "waste assimila-
tion" as a beneficial use, as some
States did prior to 1972.
    The EPA recommends that
States assess support of the follow-
ing individual beneficial uses:

             Aquatic
             Life Support

             The waterbody pro-
vides suitable habitat for survival and
reproduction of desirable fish, shellfish,
and other aquatic organisms.

              Fish Consumption

             The waterbody sup-
             ports a population of
fish free from contamination that
could pose a human health risk to
consumers.
             Shellfish Harvesting

             The waterbody sup-
             ports a population of
shellfish free from toxicants and patho-
gens that could pose a human health
             Drinking Water
             Supply

             The waterbody can
supply safe drinking water with con-
ventional treatment

-------

              Primaiy Contact
              Recreation -
              Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
waterbome diseases from raw
sewage contamination).

              Secondary Contact
              Recreation

              People can perform
activities on the water (such as
canoeing) without risk of adverse
human health effects from occa-
sional contact with the water.
              The water quality is
              suitable for irrigating
fields or watering livestock.

    EPA recognizes five levels of use
support. If possible, the States deter-
mine the level of use support by
comparing monitoring data with
numeric criteria for each use desig-
nated for a particular waterbody. If
monitoring data are not available,
the State may determine the level of
use support with qualitative infor-
mation. Valid qualitative information
includes land use data, fish and
game surveys, and predictive model
results. Monitored assessments are
based on monitoring data. Evalu-
ated assessments are based on
qualitative information or monitored
data more than 5 years old.
    After the States determine the
level of use support for each indi-
vidual designated use in each
waterbody, the States  consolidate
individual use support assessments
to determine the level of overall use
support for each waterbody.
•  Fully Supporting Overall Use -
All designated beneficial uses are fully
supported.

•  Threatened Overall Use - One
or more designated beneficial uses
are threatened and the remaining
uses are fully supported.

•  Partially Supporting Overall
Use - One or more designated
beneficial uses are partially
supported and the remaining
uses are fully supported.
•  Not Supporting Overall Use -
One or more designated beneficial
uses are not supported.

•  Not Attainable - The State has
performed a use-attainability study
and documented that use support
of one or more designated bene-
ficial uses is not achievable due to
natural conditions or human activity
that cannot be reversed without
imposing widespread economic
and social impacts.
                                            :v.i-j"'it:r!'!,'ri!-:i:-'1!TfffW}!i!MMnrJ4,
        Water quality monitoring consists of data collection and sample
    analysis performed using accepted protocols and quality control proce-
    dures. Monitoring also includes subsequent analysis of the body of
    data to support decisionmaking. Federal, Interstate, State, Territorial,
    Tribal, Regional, and local agencies, industry, and volunteer groups
    with approved qualify assurance programs monitor a combination of
    chemical, physical, and biological water quality parameters throughout
    the country, ..'„	
    •  Chemical data often measure concentrations of pollutants and other
       chemicaTconSons that influence aquatic life, such as pH (i.e., acid-
       ity) and dissolved oxygen concentrations. The chemical data may be
       analyzed in water samples, fish tissue samples, or sediment samples.
    •  Physical data include measurements of temperature, turbidity
     ,  (i.e., light penetration through the water column), and solids in
     ,	te,,w,i|er,colurnn.ij,     „, „   ,   ,
    •  Biological data measure the health of aquatic communities.
       Biological data include counts of aquatic species;that indicate
       healthy ecological conditions.
                  »* i      t  ~>i *M *i  *  1 i ' '*«r  i    i, M    a      t t?  V*  i *
    •  Habitat and ancillary data (such as land use data) help interpret the
       above monitoring information.
       » Monitoring agencies vary parameters, sampling frequency, and
    sampling site selection to meet program objectives and funding con-
    straints. Sampling may occur afregular intervals (such as monthly,
    quarterly, or annually), irregular intervals, or during one-time intensive
    surveys. Sampling may be conducted at fixed sampling stations, ran-
    domly selected stations, stations near suspected water quality prob-
    lems, or stations in pristine waters.

-------
•  Impaired Waters - The sum of
waterbodies partially  supporting uses
and  not supporting uses.

    The EPA then  aggregates the
State use support information into a
national assessment of  the  Nation's
water quality.

How Many of Our
Waters Were Assessed
for 1992?

    National estimates of the total
waters of our country  provide the
foundation for determining the per-
centage of waters assessed by the
States and the portion impaired by
pollution. In 1992, EPA provided the
States with estimates of total river
miles and lake acres derived from
    Overall use support is a
     general description of
  water quality conditions in
     a waterbody based on
  evaluation of individual use
   support. Overall use sup-
   port determinations sum-
   marize multiple individual
   use determinations into a
    single measure of water
       quality conditions.

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 neces-
sary. Based on the new EPA/State
figures, the national estimate of
total river miles doubled in 1992 in
large part because the EPA/State
estimates included nonperennial
streams, canals, and ditches that
were previously excluded from esti-
mates of total stream miles.
    Current estimates indicate that
the United States has:

• More than 3.5 million miles of
rivers and streams, which  range in
size from the Mississippi River to
small  streams that flow only when
wet weather conditions exist
(i.e., intermittent streams)
Levels of Use Support
       • Approximately 40 million acres
       of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs

       • About 37,000 square miles of
       estuaries (excluding Alaska)

       • More than 56,000 miles of ocean
       shoreline, including 36,000 miles in
       Alaska

       • 5,382 miles of Great Lakes
       shoreline

       • More than 277 million acres of
       wetlands such as marshes, swamps,
       bogs, and  fens, including  170
       million acres of wetlands in Alaska.
                                       Symbol
            • • .'i!  ; . •   ' «Jf

            Use Support Level
            Fully Supporting
            Threatened
            Partially Supporting
            Not Supporting
            Not Attainable
Water Quality
Condition
                                                                     Good
Good
Fair
(Impaired)
Poor
(Impaired)
Poor
Definition
              Water quality meets
              designated use criteria.
Water quality supports
designated uses now
but may not in the future
unless action is taken.
Water quality fails to meet
designated use criteria at times.
Water quality frequently fails
to meet designated use criteria.
The State has performed a use-
attainability study and docu-
mented that use support is not
achievable due to natural
conditions or human activity
that cannot be  reversed with-
out imposing widespread
economic and social impacts.

-------
    Due to factors such as funding
limitations, most  States assess a
subset of their total water resources
during each  2-year reporting  cycle
required  under Clean Water Act
Section 305(b).   States are  more
capable of assessing all of their
waters over a 5-  to 10-year period.
The figure to the right presents the
percentage of total waters assessed
by the States for the 1992  report. It
should be noted  that the percent-
age of perennial  rivers and  streams
assessed  is much greater  than the
percentage of total rivers and
streams  assessed.
    The  summary information based
on assessed waters  may not repre-
sent overall  conditions in  the
Nation's  total waters because States
often  focus  on monitoring and
assessing  major perennial rivers,
estuaries,  and public  lakes with sus-
pected pollution  problems.  Many
States lack the resources  to collect
use support  information for inter-
mittent streams,  small tributaries,
and private  ponds.  EPA cannot pre-
dict the  health of these unassessed
waters.


Pollutants That
Degrade Water
Quality

    Where possible, States identify
the pollutants or processes that
degrade water quality and  indicators
that document impacts of water
quality degradation. Pollutants
indude sediment  nutrients, and
chemical contaminants (such as
dioxin and metals). Processes that
degrade waters indude habitat
modification (such as destruction
of streamside vegetation) and
Percent  of  Total  Waters  Assessed
for  the  1992  Report
Rivers and  Streams
Lakes, Ponds,
and  Reservoirs
Estuaries
Ocean Coastal
Waters
Great Lakes
Shoreline
Wetlands
642,881 - 18% assessed
Total miles:  3,551,247=
18,300,000 - 46% assessed
Total acres:  39,920,000"
27,227 - 74% assessed
Total square miles:  36,890°
3,398 - 6% assessed (including Alaska)
Total miles:  56,121 miles, including Alaska's
36,000 miles of shoreline11
5,319 - 99% assessed
Total miles:  5,382
10.5 million - 4% assessed (including Alaska)
Total acres:   277 million acres, including Alaska's
170 million  acres of wetlands
Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.

NOTE:  These figures were reported by the States.  See explanation of changes in total
water estimates on page 5.
a Does not include river miles in American Samoa and Guam, which did not report total
  river miles.
b Does not include lake acreages in American Samoa, Guam, Kentucky, and the Virgin
  Islands, which did not report total lake acreages.
c Does not include estuarine areas  in Alaska, American Samoa, and Guam.
d Does not include shoreline miles  in American Samoa and Guam.

-------
hydrologic  modification  (such  as
flow reduction).  Indicators of water
quality degradation include  physical,
chemical, and biological parameters.
Examples of biological parameters
include species diversity and abun-
dance. Examples of physical and
chemical  parameters include pH,
turbidity, and  temperature. Follow-
ing are descriptions of the effects of
the pollutants  and processes most
commonly  identified in  rivers,  lakes,
estuaries, coastal waters, wetlands,
and ground water.

    Nutrients include nitrates  found
    in  sewage and  fertilizer;; and
    phosphates found in detergents
    and fertilizers. In excess levels,
    nutrients overstimulate the
    growth  of aquatic plants and
    algae. Excessive growth of these
                              *      -        ^^
                    intergovernmental Task Force
                    1yfetl5hi---~v-  - 4         j=    .
                      Monitoring Water  Quality
     j»(rjJI902,  the  Intergovernmental Task  Force on Monitoring Water
     3|^|l1rF)vj)* conven'ed^to^ prepare a strategy for improving  water
     lality* monitoring nationwide. Th"e ITFM is a Federal/State partnership
     ICrFederafagenciesJ 9 State "andT Interstate agencies, and 1  Ameri-
 sirah Indian Trihia. The PPA <^]ffljjJte,JJQ^L^trj| tiie USGS as vice chair^
  (SpSBBja^HS(ilj5Bl5ljaiuaBBMBft,-?ff Part_?f tneir Water Information Coordiria-
  §tiojni P|o^ram  pursuant to jOMB jromp 92-01.
                             _,
           missjor^of th^JTJ:MtisTtp deyelop and implement a national
     at§gic.p!an to achieve Jtffectfve collection, interpretation,  and preseh-
     .!_„ _r ......	i^.-i^^»_-rj-|o"|mpirove ^e  avaiiayii^  Of existing
                 f-
 «private sec^r^_Aj3grrnanent successor" to" tfie~ fTFM will provide~guide-
 tlfnei^and*" support "for^ ihstftutfonafcoHaboration,  comparable field and
 sJaBoratpry^ metbfids^ quality^ assurance/quality control, environmental
 ?iodicatots, data management and sharing,  ancillary data, interpretation
       techniques, and training.
                    _
       The ITFM is  also producing products that can be used by rrnsnitor-
 ,,jng programs ^nationwide, such  as_a framework for monitoring pro-
 "jgrams, envfronmentat""rndlcator selection criteria, and  a  matrix of indi-
 i caters*^^ujDppj££s^smefl^of JStete"* designated uses. The ITFM will
  rcomplete Its recommencSBorTs'*frriariuary  1995.

                  oFthe'lirk-"'ancf ^cond-year ITFM reports, contact-
                                               A    Mi     &  "  •-'
                                             ^s^a^%^. w ^ *   a^ >,
                     dfficelsfJ^^:J)a|a Coordination

                      ZSJ^"1
                                  »
                                  4
                                • M
                                1 »
organisms,  in turn, can  clog
navigable waters,  use  up dis-
solved  oxygen as they decom-
pose, and block light  to deeper
waters. This seriously affects the
respiration of fish and aquatic
invertebrates, leads to a
decrease  in animal and  plant
diversity,  and affects our use  of
the water for fishing,  swim-
ming, and  boating. In ground
water,  fertilizers and nitrates are
among the  principal contami-
nants that can  lead to drinking
water well  closures.

Silt and  other suspended
solids wash off plowed  fields,
construction and  logging  sites,
urban areas, strip-mined land,
and eroded stream  banks  when
it rains. As these  sediments
enter rivers, lakes, coastal
waters, and wetlands, fish respi-
ration is  impaired, plant produc-
tivity and water depth are
reduced,  aquatic  organisms and
their habitats are smothered,
and our  aesthetic enjoyment  of
the water is reduced.

Pathogens (certain waterborne
bacteria,  viruses, and  protozo-
ans) can  cause human  illnesses
that range  from typhoid and
dysentery to  minor respiratory
and skin  diseases. These organ-
isms can enter waterways
through a number of routes,
including inadequately treated
sewage, storm  water  drains,
septic systems,  runoff  from
livestock pens, and boats that
dump sewage.  Because  it  is
impossible to test water for
every type  of disease-causing

-------
organism, States usually mea-
sure indicator bacteria such as
fecal coliforms that suggest the
water may be contaminated
with untreated sewage and that
other, more dangerous, organ-
isms may be present

Organic material may enter
waterways in many different
forms-as sewage, as  leaves and
grass clippings,  or as  runoff
from livestock feedlots and pas-
tures. When natural  bacteria
and protozoans in the water
break down this organic  mate-
rial, they begin  to use up the
oxygen  dissolved  in the water.
Many types of fish and bottom-
dwelling animals  cannot  survive
when levels of  dissolved  oxygen
drop below 2 to 5 parts  per
million.

Metals  (such as mercury, lead,
and cadmium)  and  toxic or-
ganic chemicals (such as PCBs
and dioxin) may  originate in
industrial discharges,  runoff
from city streets,  mining  activi-
ties, leachate from landfills, and
a variety of other sources. These
toxic chemicals, which are gen-
erally persistent in the environ-
ment^ can  cause death or repro-
ductive  failure in  fish, shellfish,
and wildlife. In addition,  they
can accumulate in animal and
fish tissue, be absorbed in sedi-
ments, or find their way  into
drinking water  supplies,  posing
long-term health  risks to
humans.

Pesticides and herbicides used
on  croplands, lawns, and in
termite  control  can  be washed
    into  ground and surface waters
    by rainfall,  snowmelt,  and irriga-
    tion  practices. These contami-
    nants are generally very persis-
    tent  in the environment and
may accumulate in fish, shell-
fish,  and wildlife to levels that
pose a risk to human  health
and  the  environment. Pesticides
are among the principal
Five Leading  Causes of Water Quality  Impairment
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rivers
Siltation
Nutrients
Pathogens
Pesticides
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO
: Lakes .:.;',.'<: .v'. •;>;•'.•' :
Metals
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO
Siltation
Priority Organic
Chemicals
Estuaries v -. ^ :: A; >•./:;
Nutrients
Pathogens
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO
Siltation
Suspended Solids
Source:  Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
       WtffiUhW*  V-'&l                               -f>^;
       Fish kill reporting is a voluntary process; States are not required to
   report on how many fish kills occur, or what might have caused them.
   In  many cases it is the public-fishermen and hunters, recreational boat-
      ~6T hikers-who first notice fish kills and report them to game war-
   aerisljTother State officials.  Many fish kills go undetected or unre-
   ported, and others may be difficult to investigate, especially if they
   odflf 'm remote areas. This is because dead fish may  be carried quickly
        stream or may  be difficult to  count because of turbid conditions.
        '^-^l«nSp5"tfiat'IRe^SiicTpr^Hted by the "States under-*"™"
   estimate Jhf tote(rnumbeFoHjsh( kills JnaFoccurred^nationwide^ ^ ^^
   between"!9*98"and ^f/T^      !T^'  '  ^  ^"^-^-••*'"•'  ^•«*»
      1 Despite these problems,  fish kills* are an irnportant consideration* in
      '  "quality assessments, arid" State reporting on the number and
            kills is improving.  In 1992, 45  States reported  a total of
  61,620 fish  kill incidents. These States attributed 930 of the fish kills to
     >llution, 369 to unknown  causes,  and 586 to natural conditions,  such
  *-as low flow and  high temperatures.  Pollutants most often  cfted as the
   cause of kills  include biochemical oxygen-demanding  substances, pesti-
  fb'des, manure and silage, oil and gas, Chlorine, and ammonia.  Leading
     'i&jeVof fish" kill sjodudeagrioiilturat activities, ^industrial discharges,"^
     ^^^m^^faa^iut^i,^^^^^^^ spills," and "pesfidcfe  "*""*""
  rSp"51ications.

-------
    contaminants causing drinking
    water well closures in the south-
    em  and western regions of the
    country.

    Habitat modification results
    from activities such as grazing,
    farming, channelization,  dam
    construction, and dredging.
    Typical examples of the  effects
    of hydrologic modification
    include loss of streamside vege-
    tation;  siltation,  smothering of
    bottom-dwelling organisms, and
    increased water temperatures.

    Other  pollutants include salts,
    acidic contaminants,  and oil
    and grease. Fresh waters may
become unfit for aquatic life
and some human uses when
they become contaminated by
salts. Sources of salinity include
irrigation runoff, brine used in
oil extraction, road  deicing op-
erations, and the intrusion of
sea water into ground  and sur-
face waters  in coastal areas.
Acidity problems are of concern
in areas with many abandoned
mines (acid  mine drainage) and
areas susceptible to acid  rain.
Changes in  acidity (measured  as
pH) can alter the toxicity of
other  chemicals in water and
can render lakes and streams
unfit for aquatic life.
Pollution  Source  Categories  Used  in  This Report
*r Category
Industrial
Municipal
Combined
Sewers
Storm Sewers/
Urban Runoff
Agricultural
Silvicultural
Construction
Resource
Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydrologic
Modification
Examples
Pulp and paper mills, chemical manufacturers, steel plants,
textile manufacturers, food processing plants
Publicly owned sewage treatment plants that may receive
indirect discharges from industrial facilities or businesses
Single facilities that treat both stormwater and sanitary sewage,
which may become overloaded during storm events and
discharge untreated wastes into surface waters.
Runoff from impervious surfaces including streets, buildings,
lawns, and other paved areas that enters a sewer, pipe, or ditch
before discharge into surface waters
Crop production, pastures, rangeland, feedlots, other animal
holding areas
Forest management, tree harvesting, logging road construction
Land development, road construction
Mining, petroleum drilling, runoff from mine tailing sites
Leachate or discharge from septic tanks, landfills, and
hazardous waste sites
Channelization, dredging, dam construction, streambank
modification
    Other pollutants of concern
    include crude  oil  and processed
    petroleum products spilled dur-
    ing extraction,  processing,  or
    transport or leaked  from under-
    ground storage tanks; noxious
    aquatic plants,  particularly  intro-
    duced species that  compete
    against native  plants; and
    increased water temperatures
    resulting  from industrial cooling
    processes or habitat
    modification.

Sources  of
Water  Pollution

    Often we associate  water  pollu-
tion with images of oil spills or raw
sewage and toxic  chemicals spew-
ing from pipes at industrial  facilities
and sewage treatment plants.  Al-
though point source discharges still
produce some pollution, most are
controlled with specific  permit  con-
ditions that they usually meet.  Cur-
rently, less visible nonpoint  sources
of pollution are more widespread
and introduce vast quantities of
pollutants into our surface and
ground waters. Nonpoint sources
deliver pollutants to waterbodies in
a dispersed manner rather than
from  a  discrete pipe or  other con-
veyance. Nonpoint sources  include
atmospheric deposition, contami-
nated sediments, and  many land
activities that generate polluted
runoff, such as agriculture,  logging,
and onsite  sewage  disposal.
    In contrast, point  sources dis-
charge wastes into waterbodies
from  a  discrete point that is easily
identified. The most common  point
sources are industrial  facilities,

-------
  municipal treatment plants, and
  combined sewers. Diffuse runoff is
  a point source if it enters and is
  discharged from  a conveyance such
  as those described in CWA Section
  502(14) (such  as  pipes, ditches, and
  canals).
      "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)

  The table on  the previous  page
  defines the categories  of pollution
  sources most frequently  cited  in this
  document The table on this page
  lists the leading sources  of impair-
  ment reported by States for their
  rivers, lakes,  and estuaries.  Other
  sources cited  less frequently include
  atmospheric deposition,  in-place
  contaminants, and natural  sources.
  Atmospheric deposition  refers to
  contaminants entering waters from
  polluted air. In-place contaminants
were generated by past activities,
such as discontinued industrial dis-
charges, logging,  or  one-time spills.
In-place contaminants often  reside
in sediments but  continue to release
pollutants  back  into the water col-
umn. Natural sources refer to an
assortment of water quality prob-
lems:

•   Natural deposits of salts, gypsum,
nutrients, and metals in soils that
leach into surface and ground
waters

•  Warm  weather and  dry condi-
tions that raise  water temperatures,
depress dissolved  oxygen concen-
trations, and dry  up  shallow
waterbodies

•   Low-flow conditions and tannic
acids from decaying  leaves that
lower pH  and dissolved oxygen
concentrations in  swamps draining
into streams.
    With so many potential sources
of pollution, it is difficult and
expensive for States to  identify spe-
cific sources responsible for water
quality impairments. Many  States
lack funding for monitoring to iden-
tify all but the most apparent
sources  degrading waterbodies.
State management priorities may
focus monitoring  budgets on  other
water quality issues, such as identifi-
cation of contaminated fish popula-
tions that pose a  human  health risk.
Management priorities may also
direct monitoring  efforts to larger
waterbodies and overlook sources
impairing smaller  waterbodies. As a
result, the States do not associate
every impacted  waterbody with a
source of impairment in their
305(b) reports, and the summary
cause and source information
presented in this  report applies
exclusively to a  subset of the
Nation's impaired waters.
Five  Leading  Sources  of Water Quality Impairment
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rivers
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Industrial Point Sources
Lakes. •"•, •• .v'v.Y .}:.•„; V
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Municipal Point Sources
Onsite Wastewater
Disposal
Eshiaries - ; -^ v/:-'":'
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Resource Extraction
Source:  Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
10

-------
 Rivers and Streams
    Pollutants discharged upstream
often become the problem of some-
one who lives downstream (or of
the aquatic life that exists instreani),
and all of the activities that take
place in  a watershed can have a
water quality impact elsewhere in
the watershed. The term watershed
simply refers to a geographic area  in
which water, sediments, and dis-
solved materials (contaminants)
drain to  a common outlet such as a
point on a larger river, lake, ground
water aquifer, or ocean. It is there-
fore important to remember that
rivers and streams are connected-
by hydrology, ecology, geology,
and social and economic consider-
ations-to the lakes, wetlands, and
coastal and ground waters we
discuss later in this  document.


Do Our Rivers and
Streams Support Uses?

    For the 1992 Report, 54 States,
Territories,  Tribes, Commissions, and
the District of Columbia (hereafter
collectively referred to as "States")
assessed 642,881 miles (18%) of the
Nation's total 3.5 million miles of rivers
and streams.
    The States assessed about 4,000
fewer river miles in  1992 than in
1990. EPA expected the percentage
and amount of waters assessed to
decline in 1992 because EPA
advised the States to no longer
include waters in the assessed cat-
egories for which the State lacked
specific information. The percentage
of waters assessed dropped because
the baseline estimate of total waters
increased.
    Conditions in unassessed rivers
cannot be estimated with summary
information based on assessed
waters because unassessed rivers
include an unknown combination
of pristine and impaired rivers.
Therefore, the following discussion
applies exclusively to assessed wa-
ters and cannot be extrapolated to
describe conditions in the Nation's
rivers as  a whole. EPA is working
with the States to expand assess-
ment coverage of the Nation's
waters and expects future assess-
ment information to cover a greater
portion of the Nation's rivers and
streams.
    Of the Nation's 642,881
assessed river miles, the States
found that 56% fully support their
designated uses, and an additional
6% support uses but are threatened
and may become impaired if pollu-
tion control actions are not taken.
The States reported that 2596 of the
                                     assessed river miles partially support
                                     uses, and 13% of the assessed river
                                     miles do not support designated
                                     uses. Only 125 miles (less than one-
                                     tenth of 1%) of the assessed waters
                                     could not attain designated uses.


                                     River Miles  Assessed
                                     Total rivers =  3.5 million miles
                                     Total assessed = 642,881 miles

                                                    18%  Assessed
                                                   82%  Unassessed
                                     Levels  of Overall  Use
                                     Support -  Rivers
           Fully Supporting
           56%
           Threatened
           6%
           Partially  Supporting
           25%
           Not Supporting
           13%
           SBSI
           Not Attainable
Source:  Based on 1992 State Section
       305(b) reports.
                                                                                                          11

-------
  What Is Polluting Our
  Rivers and Streams?

      The States reported that silt-
  atlon and nutrients impair more
  miles of rivers and streams than any
  other pollutants, affecting 45% and
  37% of impaired stream miles in
  the States reporting causes,
  respectively. Other leading causes


      Siltation is the leading
      cause of  impairment
      in rivers and streams,
      affecting 45% of the
      impaired river miles.


  of impairment include indicators of
  pathogens, affecting 27%; pesti-
  cides,  affecting 26%; and organic
  enrichment and  resultant low levels
  of dissolved oxygen, affecting 24%
  of impaired stream miles.

  Where Does This
  Pollution Come From?

      Forty-eight States identified
  sources contributing to the impair-
  ment of 221,877 miles of their
  rivers and streams not fully support-
  ing designated uses. These States
  reported that agricultural runoff is
  the leading source of pollutants in
  rivers and streams. Forty-five States
  identified almost 160,000 river miles
  impaired by agricultural sources,
  including nonirrigated crop produc-
  tion, irrigated crop production,
  rangeland, and animal holding
  areas. These States found that agri-
  cultural activities contribute substan-
  tially to the impairment of 72% of
  the impaired stream miles in the
Percent of Assessed River Miles  Impaired
by Pollutants
(222,370 assessed river miles impaired)
            Pollutants

              Siltation

              Nutrients

     Pathogen Indicators

             Pesticides

 Organic Enrichment/DO
                              10
20
Percent
30
40
Source:  Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
12

-------
48 States reporting sources. The
States identified other sources of
impairment far less frequently, such
as municipal point sources, affecting
15%; urban runoff and storm
  Agriculture is the leading
   source of impairment in
      the Nation's rivers,
     affecting 72% of the
     impaired river miles.


sewers, affecting 11 %; and resource
extraction, affecting 11 % of the
impaired waters.
    Although this summary provides
the best picture of national impacts
from sources available to EPA at this
time, it has limitations. The informa-
tion provided applies to only 18%
of our Nation's total rivers and
streams because the States cannot
assess all  3.5 million miles of this
Nation's rivers and streams in a
2-year period and they cannot
specify the source of pollution
impairing  each waterbody assessed.
In addition, national summary infor-
mation can obscure sources with
regional or State significance. For
example, Oregon reports that silvi-
culture (forestry activity) contributes
to the impairment of 46% of their
rivers and streams that do not fully
support designated uses. Nationally,
silviculture impacts only 7% of the
impaired  rivers and streams. There-
fore, it is  important to refer to the
individual  State data presented in
the National Water Quality Inven-
tory: 1992 Report to Congress for
detailed information on significant
sources in individual States.
Percent of Assessed  River Miles Impaired
by Sources of Pollution

(221,877 assessed river miles impaired)

      Pollution Sources
            Agriculture

        Municipal Point
               Sources
          Urban Runoff/
          Storm Sewers
     Resource Extraction

         Industrial Point
               Sources
            Silviculture

     Hydrologic/Habitat
           Modification
                           10   20
30   40   50
   Percent
60   70   80
Source:  Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
                                                                                                          13

-------
  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
  cess that slowly fills in the lake
  with sediment and organic matter
  (see following sidebar). The eutro-
  phication process alters basic lake
  characteristics such as depth, bio-
  logical productivity, oxygen levels,
  and water clarity. The eutrophica-
  tion process is commonly defined
  by a series of trophic states as
  described in the sidebar.

  Do Our Lakes and
  Reservoirs Support Uses?

     Forty-nine States assessed over-
  all use support in more than  18
  million lake acres representing 46%
  of the approximately 40 million
  total acres of lakes, reservoirs, and
  ponds in the Nation. For 1992, the
Lake Acres Assessed

Total lakes = 39,920,000 acres
Total assessed = 18,300,000 acres
             46% Assessed
             54% Unassessed
Levels  of Overall Use
Support - Lakes
         Fully Supporting
         43%
                                                                          Threatened
                                                                          13%
                                                                          Partially Supporting
                                                                          35%
                                                                          Not Supporting
                                                                          9%
                                                                          •a
                                                                          Not Attainable
                                                                 Source:  Based on 1992 State Section
                                                                       305(b) reports.
14

-------
States assessed  about 180,000 fewer
lake acres than  in  1990.  Overall,
43% of the assessed lake acres fully
support designated  uses such as
swimming, fishing,  and drinking
water supply. An additional  13%
were identified  as threatened and
could soon become impaired if
pollution control actions are not
taken. The States reported that 35%
of assessed lake acres partially sup-
port designated  uses, 9% do not
support uses, and less than 1%
cannot attain uses.
What  Is  Polluting
Our  Lakes,  Reservoirs,
and  Ponds?

    Forty-seven  States  reported
causes of impairment in their lakes.
Overall, these  States reported that
metals and nutrients are the most
common causes of nonsupport in
assessed  lakes, affecting 47% and
40%  of impaired lake  acres, respec-
tively.  However,  impairments  due to
metals were concentrated in  several
States  with large numbers of lakes
  ^Oligotrophic

   jejjotrpphic

   ib\ ;•
   ^r?phic

  \ Hypereutrophic

      trophic
       Trophic  States                  >

Clear waters with little organic matter or sediment
and minimum biological activity.
Waters with more nutrients and, therefore, more
biological  productivity.
Waters extremely rich in nutrients, with high biological!
productivity. Some species may be choked out
Murky, highly productive waters, closest to the wetlands
status. Many clearwater species cannot survive.
Low in nutrients, highly colored with dissolved  humic
organic matter.  (Not necessarily a part of the natural
trophic progression.)                         '[
                 The  Eutrophication  Process
  ____ ..... ____      ^
  115 Eutrophication is a natural process, but human activities can
  "ixelerate eutrophication  by increasing the  rate at which nutrients and
    rQanlc substances enter lakes from  their surrounding watersheds. Agri-
    jltural runoff,  urban  runoff, leaking septic systems,  sewage discharges,
          streambanks,  and similar sources can enhance the flow  of nutri-
       and organic substances into lakes. These substances can .ove^-
   tjrnyjate the growth  of algae and aquatic plants, creating conditions ^
   lat, interfere with the recreational use of lakes and the  health and
   wersity of indigenous fish,  plant and animal populations. Enhanced
 leutrophication from nutrient enrichment due  to  human activities  is one
 t of the leading  problems facing our Nation's lakes and  reservoirs.
                                                         (primarily  Minnesota), while nutrient
                                                         problems were  widely reported by


                                                             More  States reported
                                                              impairments  due  to
                                                           nutrients than any  other
                                                                single  pollutant.

                                                         41 States.  Other leading causes of
                                                         lake impairment were organic
                                                         enrichment,  affecting 24%  of
                                                         impaired  lake acres; siltation,
                                       * Acid  Effects on  Lakes

                                       /,iv Increases in lake acidity can
                                       ^radically alter the community of
                                       ""fish and plant species in lakes
                                       'and can increase the solubility of
                                       1 toxic substances  and magnify
                                        their  adverse effects. Twenty-four
                                       , States reported the results of
                                        lake acidification assessments.
                                       , These States assessed pH  (a
                                       •Jnieasure of acidity) at more  than
                                        6,800 lakes and detected a
                                        threat of acidic  conditions in
                                        1,038 lakes (15% of the assessed
                                        lakes). Most of the States that
                                        assessed acidic conditions are
                                       -located in the Northeast, upper
                                       -Midwest, and the South.
                                          '-.Only 11 States identified
                                       "'sources of acidic conditions.
                                       •States in the Northeast attrib-
                                        uted  most of their acid lake  con-
                                       f'ditions to  acid deposition from
                                        acidic rain,  fog,  or dry deposi-
                                        tion in conjunction with natural
                                        conditions  that limit a lake's
                                        capacity to neutralize acids. On|y
                                        two States, Tennessee and Ala-
                                        bama, reported  that acid mine
                                       —drainage resulted in  acidic lake
                                        conditions.

                                                                                                              15

-------
  affecting 22%; and priority organ-
  ics, affecting 20% of impaired lake
  acres.
      Forty-one States also assessed
  trophic status, which is associated
  with nutrient enrichment, in 11,477
  of their lakes. Nutrient enrichment
  tends to increase the proportion of
  lakes in the eutrophic and hyper-
  eutrophic categories. These States
  reported that 17% of the lakes they
  assessed for trophic status were
  oligotrophic, 35% were mesotro-
  phic, 32% were eutrophic, 7.5%
  were hypereutrophic, and 8.5%
  were dystrophic. This information
  may not be representative of
  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-five States identified indi-
  vidual sources degrading some of
  their 5.5 million impaired lake acres.
  These States reported that agricul-
  ture impairs more lake acres than
  any other source. Thirty-eight States
  found that agriculture contributes


    Agriculture is the leading
     source of impairment in
      lakes, affecting 56% of
       impaired lake acres.


  to the impairment of 3 million lake
  acres, or 56% of the impaired lake
acres in the 45 States reporting
sources of pollution in lakes.
    The States also reported that
urban runoff and storm sewers con-
tribute to impairments in 24% of
their impaired lake acres, hydrologic
modifications and habitat modifica-
tions affect 23%, municipal point
sources affect 21%, and onsite
wastewater disposal (such as septic
systems) affect 16% of the impaired
lake acres.
Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired
by Pollutants

(7,958,064 assessed lake acres impaired)
             Pollutants

                 Metals

               Nutrients

  Organic Enrichment/DO

               Siltation

         Priority Organic
              Chemicals
                       0      10


Source:  Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
  20     30
    Percent
40
Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired
by Sources of Pollution

(5,543,987 assessed lake acres impaired)
       Pollution Sources
            Agriculture

          Urban Runoff/
          Storm Sewers
      Hydrologic/Habitat
           Modification

  Municipal Point Sources

      Onsite Wastewater
               Disposal
                                         30     40
                                        Percent
Source:  Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
16

-------
The  Great  Lakes
    The Great Lakes contain one-
fifth of the world's fresh surface
water and are stressed by a wide
range of pollution sources associ-
ated with the large urban centers
located on their shores. Many of the
pollutants that reach the Great
Lakes remain in the system indefi-
nitely because the Great Lakes are a
relatively closed water system.

Do the Great Lakes
Support  Uses?

    The States assessed 99% of the
Great  Lakes shoreline miles in 1992.
Less than 3% of the assessed shore-
line miles fully support uses due to
conditions that also generate fish
consumption advisories issued by
the Great Lakes States and the Prov-
ince of Ontario for the nearshore
waters of the Great Lakes. Thirty
percent of assessed shoreline miles
Great  Lakes  Shore  Miles
Assessed
Total Great Lakes = 5,382  miles
Total assessed = 5,319 miles
             99%  Assessed
             1%  Unassessed
Levels of  Overall  Use
Support - Great  Lakes
                                                                           Fully Supporting
                                                                           2%
                                                                           Threatened
                                                                           1%
                                                                           i
                                                                           Partially  Supporting
                                                                           30%
                                                                           Not Supporting
                                                                           67%
                                                                           Not Attainable
                                                                           0%
                                                                  Source:  Based on 1992 State Section
                                                                        305(b) reports.
                                                                                               17

-------
  partially support uses, and the re-
  maining 67% do not support uses.


    Considerable success 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?

      Most of the Great Lakes shore-
  line is polluted by toxic organic
  chemicals-primarily PCBs and
  DDT-4:hat are often found in fish
  tissue samples. The Great Lakes
  States reported that toxic organic
  chemicals impact 99% of the
  impaired Great Lakes shoreline
  miles. Other leading causes of
  impairment include metals, affecting
  11 %; organic enrichment and low
  dissolved oxygen, affecting 7%;
  nutrients, affecting 5%; and silt-
  ation, affecting  3%.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?

   Although information on
sources of pollution in the Great
Lakes is sketchy, the reported infor-
mation suggests that atmospheric
deposition and contaminated
                                  sediments are the leading sources
                                  impairing Great Lakes waters. Sedi-
                                  ment contamination is a major prob-
                                  lem in nearshore waters and harbors.
                                  Other sources cited by the States
                                  include landfills, urban runoff, and
                                  combined sewer overflows.
Percent of Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles
Impaired by Pollutants

(5,171 assessed Great Lakes shore miles impaired)

              Pollutants

         Priority Organics
                 Metals |

   Organic Enrichment/DO |^

               Nutrients •

                Siltation 1
                                                          Total

                                                           99

                                                           11

                                                            7

                                                            5

                                                            3
                      0   10  20  30 40  50  60 70  80 90  100
                                      Percent

Source:  Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.



Percent of Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles
Impaired by Sources of Pollution

(1,884 assessed Great Lakes shore miles impaired)

       Pollution Sources
  Atmospheric Deposition
  Contaminated Sediments
                                              Land Disposal

                                    Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers

                                    Combined Sewer Overflows
                                                          0
                             10
                                   20     30
                                    Percent
Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
40
50
18

-------
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 spe-
cies of plants, shellfish, fish, and
animals.
    Many species permanently
inhabit the estuarine ecosystem;
others, such as shrimp, use the
nutrient-rich estuarine waters as
nurseries before traveling to the sea.
    Estuaries are stressed by the
particularly wide range of activities
located within their watersheds.
They receive pollutants carried by
rivers from agricultural lands and
cities; they often support marinas,
harbors, and commercial fishing
fleets; and their surrounding lands
are highly prized for development.
These stresses  pose a continuing
threat to the survival of these boun-
tiful waters.
   Estuaries are our richest
     aquatic ecosystems
      and also the most
  susceptible to cumulative
       contamination.


Do Our Estuaries
Support Uses?
   Twenty-five coastal States
assessed roughly three-quarters of
the Nation's total estuarine waters
in 1992. Of these, 56% were found
to fully support designated uses. An
additional 12% are fully supporting
                                   Estuary  Square Miles
                                   Assessed
                                   Total estuaries = 36,890 square miles
                                   Total assessed = 27,227 square miles
                                                  Assessed 74%
uses but are threatened and could
become impaired if pollution con-
trol actions are not taken. Twenty-
three percent of assessed estuarine
square miles partially support uses,
and the  remaining 9% do not
support  uses.

What  Is Polluting
Our Estuaries?

    States report that the most
common causes of nonsupport of
designated uses in our Nation's
estuaries are nutrients, affecting
55% of the 8,572 impaired square
miles; followed by pathogens,
affecting 42%; organic enrichment
and resulting low levels of dissolved
oxygen,  affecting 34%; and silt-
ation, affecting 12%. Pathogen
                                                   Unassessed 26%
                                   Levels of  Overall Use
                                   Support - Estuaries
                                             Fully Supporting
                                             56%
                                                                                Threatened
                                                                                12%
          Partially Supporting
          23%
          Not  Supporting
          9%
          Not Attainable
Source: Based on 1992 State Section
      305(b) reports.
                                                                                                     19

-------
  contamination is responsible for the
  closure of shellfishing beds in many
  areas of the country.

  Where Does This
  Pollution Come From?
      States report that municipal
  sewage treatment plants, urban
  runoff/storm sewers, and agriculture
  are the leading sources of pollution


       State water quality
     standards must support
     the fishable and swim-
       mable goals  of the
        Clean Water Act.
  in their estuarine waters, affecting
  53%, 43%, and 43% of impaired
  estuarine square miles, respectively.
  Other leading sources cited by the
  States include industrial point
  sources, affecting 23%, and
  resource extraction, affecting 12%.
  Point sources continue to have a
  significant impact on estuarine
  water quality because concentrated
  population centers  and industrial
  operations are located adjacent to
  major estuarine systems. In contrast,
  rivers and lakes are more dispersed
  in rural and urban areas throughout
  the country and tend to support
  more diverse land uses that gener-
  ate nonpoint source pollution.
Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles
Impaired by Pollutants

(8,572 assessed estuarine square miles impaired)

           Pollutants

             Nutrients

    Pathogen Indicators

Organic Enrichment/DO

             Siltation
      Suspended Solids
                           10
 20     30
    Percent
  40
  50
Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.


Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles
Impaired  by Sources of Pollution

(8,303 assessed estuarine square miles impaired)

     Pollution Sources
 Municipal Point Sources

         Urban Runoff/
         Storm Sewers
           Agriculture

 Industrial Point Sources

    Resource Extraction
                         Total

                          53

                          43

                          43

                          23

                          12
                           10
20    30
    Percent
40
50
60
                                     Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
20

-------
The  Chesapeake   Bay
    Since its inception in 1975, the
Chesapeake Bay Program has coor-
dinated numerous studies by the
Chesapeake Bay States, the EPA,
and other Federal agencies  (see
page 35  for programmatic  informa-
tion). These studies have defined
water quality problems in the Bay,
identified  sources of water quality
degradation, and documented
water quality improvements in the
Bay.

The  Problem

    Studies completed in the 1970s
substantiated that increases in agri-
cultural development, population
growth,  and sewage treatment
plant flows were generating large
quantities of nutrients (primarily
phosphorus and  nitrogen) flowing
into the Bay.  The nutrients cause
excessive  algae growth that initiates
a chain reaction with  two effects:
B  In shallow areas, the excess algae
shade underwater bay grasses,
blocking light essential for plant
growth. The habitat degradation
causes the eventual loss of grass
beds that provide food for water-
fowl  and critical habitat for other
creatures, such as juvenile blue
crabs and  Bay scallops.

•  In deeper areas, the algae die
and  sink to the bottom where their
decomposition consumes oxygen.
During the  warm summer months,
oxygen in the  bottom waters  can
be depleted. Bottom-dwelling
organisms, such as oysters, clams,
and  worms, which  provide food for
fish and crabs, cannot survive this
prolonged  period of low oxgen
concentrations.

The Sources

    Point sources, nonpoint sources,
and  atmospheric deposition gener-
ate the nutrients that enter Chesa-
peake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay
Program developed a model to
estimate the 1985 base load of
nutrients entering the Bay because
it was not feasible to monitor the
wide  array of nonpoint sources
generating nutrients. The model
estimates that  nonpoint sources
contribute 51% of the total nitro-
gen  load into the Chesapeake Bay,
followed by  atmospheric deposition
(26%) and  point sources (23%).
Atmospheric loads of nitrogen
include nitrogen deposited on the
tidal  waters of the Bay (9%) and
nitrogen deposited on the water-
shed  lands surrounding the Bay that
wash into Bay  waters (17%). The
model also  estimates  that nonpoint
sources contribute 61% of the
                                                                                                        21

-------
  phosphorus load entering the Bay,
  followed by point sources (34%)
  and atmospheric deposition (5%).

  Improvements in
  Bay Water Quality

     Annual discharges of phospho-
  rus into Chesapeake Bay dropped
  by 40% (4.7 million pounds)
  between 1985 and 1991  as a result
  of wastewater plant upgrades,
  enhanced compliance with permits,
  and bans on phosphorus detergents
  in the Bay watersheds. Overall,
  water quality monitoring  data
  confirm that the reduction in phos-
  phorus loading is reducing phos-
  phorus concentrations in Bay
  waters. Total phosphorus concentra-
  tions in the Bay decreased by 16%
  between 1984 and 1992. However,
  total nitrogen concentrations have
  remained stable in the mainstem of
  the Bay and increased in  some
  tributaries.
1985 Total  Nutrient  Base Load Distribution

            Nitrogen                        Phosphorus
             Atmospheric
             Deposition 26%
Atmospheric
Deposition 5%
                   Point Sources
                   23%
             Nonpoint Sources
             51%
                                                      Point Sources
                                                      34%
Nonpoint Sources
61%
Total Load = 376 Million Pounds         Total Load = 27 Million Pounds

Source: 1991 Watershed Model, September 30, 1992.
Point  Source Phosphorus Reduction Progress
     12
  O

  £* 10

  1   8
  00

  I    4
  Q.
  o    2

  °"    0
                                                                 Progress
                                                                                  Nutrient
                                                                                 Reduction
                                                                                   Goal
                                                                         4.65(1992)
                                              85        88        91        94       97       2000
                                                                      Year

                                     Source: Progress of the Baywide Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation, February 1992.
22

-------
Ocean Coastal Waters
We know less about the condi-
tion of our ocean coastal waters
than we do about our estuarine or
inland waters. In part, this may be
because we tend to think that only
oil spills or similar disasterous events
could possibly affect a resource as
vast as an ocean.
   In fact, we are seeing evidence
that our ocean waters-particularly
the waters near our coasts-suffer
from the same pollution problems
that affect our inland waters. Beach
debris cleanups are cataloging tons
of trash carried into the oceans by
rivers,  washed in from city storm
sewers, thrown in by beach visitors,
or dumped overboard by boaters.
Beaches are closed to swimming
every summer due to pathogens
from inadequately treated wastes.
Marine mammals are suffering from
pollution-related stresses. Fragile
coral reefs in Florida and Hawaii
show signs of pollution impacts.
Coastal development is increasing at
a rapid rate. Clearly we can no
longer assume that the oceans can
take care of themselves.

Do Ocean Shores
Support Uses?

   Twelve of the 29 coastal States
assessed only 6% of the Nation's
estimated 56,121 miles of ocean
coastline. Of these,  80% were found
to fully support their designated
uses, and 7% are supporting uses
but are threatened and likely to
                                  Ocean  Coastal  Waters
                                  Assessed
                                  Total ocean shore = 56,121 miles
                                  Total assessed = 3,398 miles
                                                 6% Assessed
                                                94% Unassessed
                                  Levels of Overall Use
                                  Support  - Ocean
                                  Coastal  Waters
become impaired if pollution con-
trol actions are not taken,, Nine
percent of assessed ocean shore
miles partially support designated
uses, and  5% do not support uses.
These figures do not necessarily
represent  water quality conditions in
the Nation's ocean coastal waters as
a whole because they apply to only
6% of the Nation's coastline miles.
Data on pollutants and sources of
pollution are too sparse to be
included in this report.
                                            Fully Supporting
                                            80%
Threatened
7%
Partially Supporting
9%
Not Supporting
5%
                                                                             Not Attainable
                                                                             0%
                                                                    Source:  Based on 1992 State Section
                                                                          305(b) reports.
                                                                                                  23

-------
  Wetlands
      Wetlands are areas that are
  inundated or saturated by surface
  water or ground water at a fre-
  quency and duration  sufficient to
  support (and that under normal
  circumstances do support) a preva-
  lence of vegetation typically
  adapted for life in saturated soil
  conditions. Wetlands generally in-
  clude swamps,  marshes, bogs, and
  similar areas.
      Often in the past; wetlands
  were considered  wastelands-the
  source of mosquitoes, flies,  and
  unpleasant odors-to be filled  or
  drained and put to "better use."
  When European settlers first arrived
  in America,  over 200  million acres
  of wetlands existed in  the contermi-
  nous States. Today, half of our
  Nation's wetlands have been  de-
  stroyed by filling, draining,  pollut-
  ing, channelizing,  grazing, clearing,
  and other modifications resulting
  from human activity.
      Wetlands are now recognized as
  some of the most unique and
  important natural areas on  earth.
  They vary in type according to dif-
  ferences in local and  regional
  hydrology, vegetation, water  chem-
  istry,  soils, topography,  and climate.
  Coastal wetlands include estuarine
  marshes; mangrove swamps found
  in Puerto Rico,  Hawaii, and Florida;
  and Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
  Inland wetlands, which may be
  adjacent to  a waterbody or isolated,
  include marshes and wet meadows,
  bottomland hardwood forests, Great
  Plains  prairie potholes, cypress-gum
  swamps, and southwestern playa
  lakes.
      Wetlands provide  food  and
  shelter to countless animal species
  including  many fishes, birds,
  reptiles, and mammals. A high
percentage of federally listed threat-
ened or endangered  animals and
plants depend directly or indirectly
on wetlands for their survival. Wet-
lands also provide  spawning habitat
and nursery grounds  for an esti-
mated  71% of commercially valu-
able fish  and shellfish consumed in
this country. In addition, they also
serve as feeding areas along migra-
tion routes for waterfowl and other
wildlife.
   Wetlands soil  and vegetation
help in flood control  by acting as
natural sponges that attenuate
flooding water. Wetlands plants also
help control erosion in  two ways:
their roots bind the soil and their
leaves slow the movement of water.
Wetlands help purify  water  by proc-
essing nutrients and other pollutants
and filtering suspended  materials.
They also  help regulate water quan-
tity by absorbing water in wet sea-
sons and releasing  it through seeps,
springs,  and open  outlets during dry
seasons.
    In addition, wetlands are widely
enjoyed by hikers,  birdwatchers,
hunters, fishermen, photographers,
and boaters and play an important
role in our Nation's neitural and
cultural  heritage.  Millions of people
spend nearly $10 billion each year
observing  and photographing wet-
lands-dependent wildlife.

Do Our Wetlands
Support Uses?

    In 1992, most States could  not
assess use support  in wetlands
because they  were still  developing
wetlands water quality  standards.  As
a result, only eight States (California,
Colorado,  Hawaii,  Iowa, Kansas,
Nevada, North  Carolina, and Okla-
homa) reported use support  for
10.5 million acres of their wetlands.
These States assessed use support in
approximately 4%  of the Nation's
277 million acres of wetlands. North
Carolina assessed 98% of the
assessed wetlands;  therefore,  the
summary information on use sup-
port describes conditions primarily
in North Carolina's wetlands rather
than the Nation's wetlands as a
whole.
    These States reported that 50%
of the assessed wetlands fully sup-
port designated uses, less than 1%
are threatened, 26% partially sup-
port uses,  and 24% do  not support
designated uses. However, this
information does not accurately
reflect water quality conditions in
the Nation's wetlands due to the
24

-------
Wetlands Acres Assessed

Total wetlands = 277 million acres
Total assessed =  10,516,754 acres
                4% Assessed
                96% Unassessed
 Levels of Overall  Use
 Support  - Wetlands
           Fully Supporting
           50%
          Threatened
           Partially Supporting
           26%
           Not Supporting
           24%
           Not Attainable
           0%
Source:  Based on 1992 State Section
       305(b) reports.
NOTE: The information on designated use
      support represents data from only
      eight States so national trends
      should not be drawn from these
      data.
skewed distibution of the assessed
wetlands. Despite limitations in the
data, the summary information sug-
gests that water quality problems
exist in our remaining wetlands.

What is  Polluting
Our Wetlands?

    Of the eight States reporting
overall use support in wetlands, only
three States (Iowa, Kansas, and
Nevada) quantified the wetlands
acreage degraded  by specific
pollutants or processes causing wet-
lands impairment.  Although the
data submitted by these States are
not representative  of national condi-
tions in wetlands, these States did
report that  metals  impair over
60,000 acres of wetlands,, salinity
and chlorides impair over 42,000
acres of wetlands, and siltation
impairs almost 29,000 acres of wet-
lands. Fourteen States did not quan-
tify the acreage affected but did
identify pollutants and processes
that degrade some unknown
quantity of their wetlands. Most of
these States cited sediment and
nutrients as pollutants of concern in
wetlands. Fewer States reported that
water diversions, pesticides, salinity,
heavy metals, ponding, weeds, low
dissolved oxygen, and  pH  impact
their wetlands.

Where Does This
Pollution Come From?

    Iowa, Kansas, and Nevada also
reported that agriculture impairs
76,000 acres of wetlands,  hydro-
logic habitat modification impairs
48,000 acres, and municipal point
sources impair over 11,000 acres of
wetlands. Fourteen States did not
quantify the acreage affected but
did identify sources of pollutants
that degrade some unknown quan-
tity of wetlands. Most of these
States reported that agriculture,
development, channelization, and
road construction degrade wetlands
integrity. These States also reported
that urban runoff, resource
Causes  Degrading  Wetlands  Integrity
(14 States  Reporting)
            Causes
          Sediment
          Nutrients
    Water Diversions
          Pesticides

            Salinity
                       Total
                        13
                         8

                         6

                         5
                         4
                                5            10
                            Number of States Reporting
                      	i
                      15
Source:  Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
                                                                                                         25

-------
  extraction, landfills, natural
  conditions, industrial runoff, onsite
  systems, irrigation, recreation, point
  sources, and silviculture impact
  wetlands.

  Wetlands Loss:
  A Continuing Problem

      Despite what we have learned
  about the value of our wetlands,
  these national treasures continue to
  be threatened by a variety of
  human activities. A U.S. Fish and
  Wildlife Service study of wetlands
  loss found that 2.6 million acres of
  wetlands were lost over the 9-year
  study period from the mid-1970s to
  the mid-1980s, or 290,000 acres a
  year. This is an improvement from
  the 1950s to the 1970s when wet-
  lands were lost at a rate of 458,000
  acres per year. Serious  conse-
  quences have resulted  nationwide
  from the loss and degradation of
  wetlands, including species decline
  and extinction, water quality de-
  cline, and increased incidences of
  flooding.
      In 1992, 27 States reported on
  sources of current wetlands losses.
  These include agriculture, commer-
  cial development, residential devel-
  opment, highway construction,
  impoundments, resource extraction,
  industry, and dredge disposal.
     More information on wetlands
       can be obtained from the
       EPA Wetlands Hotline at
           1-800-832-7828.
Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity
(14 States  Reporting)
            Sources
          Agriculture
        Development
      Channelization
    Road Construction
        Urban Runoff
                     0
10
 Total
  11

   9

   9
   8

   7
	I
 15
                             Number of States Reporting

Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
26

-------
Ground   Water
    Ninety-five percent of all fresh
water available on  earth (exclusive
of icecaps)  is ground water. Ground
water-water found  in natural under-
ground  rock formations called aqui-
fers-is a vital natural resource with
many uses. The extent of the
Nation's ground water resources is
enormous. At least  60% of the land
area in  the conterminous  United
States overlies aquifers.  Usable
ground  water exists in every State.
    Aquifers can range in  size from
thin surficial formations  that yield
small quantities of ground water to
large systems such  as the High
Plains aquifer that underlies  eight
western  States and provides water
to millions. Although most of the
Nation's ground water is  considered
to be of good quality, an increasing
number of pollution events  have
threatened  the integrity of the
resource.

Ground  Water Use

    Nationally, 53% of the  popula-
tion relies to some  extent on
ground  water as a  source of drink-
ing water. This percentage is even


   Ground water provides
   drinking water for 53%
      of the population.


higher in rural areas where most
residents rely on potable or  treat-
able ground water  as an economical
source of drinking water.  Eighty-one
percent  of  community water
systems  are dependent on ground
water. Seventy-four percent  of
community water systems are small
ground water systems serving 3,300
people or less. Ninety-five percent
of the approximately 200,000
noncommunity water systems (serv-
ing schools,  parks, etc.) are  ground
water systems.
    Irrigation accounts for approxi-
mately 64% of national ground
water withdrawals. Public: drinking
water supplies account for approxi-
mately 19% of the Nation's total
ground water withdrawals. Domes-
tic, commercial,  livestock, industrial,
mining,  and thermoelectric with-
drawals together account for
approximately 17% of national
ground water withdrawals.
Ground Water Quality

    Although the 1992 Section
305(b) State Water Quality Reports
indicate that, overall, the Nation's
ground water quality is good to
excellent, many local areas  have
experienced significant  ground
water contamination. Although the
sources and types of ground water
contamination  vary depending  upon
the region  of the country, those
most frequently reported  by States
include:

B   Leaking underground storage
tanks. About 400,000 of  an esti-
mated  5  to 6  million underground
storage tanks in the United States
are thought to be leaking. About
30% of all tanks store petroleum  or
hazardous  materials.

•   Septic tanks. Approximately 23
million  domestic  septic  systems are
in operation in the  United States.
About half a million new systems
are installed each year.

m   Municipal landfills.  Of the quar-
ter million  solid waste disposal facili-
ties in the  United States,  about
6,000 are municipal solid waste
facilities. Approximately 25%
of these municipal facilities  have
ground water  monitoring
capabilities.

a  Agricultural activities. Seventy-
seven percent of the 1.1  billion
pounds of pesticides produced
annually in the United States is ap-
plied to land in agricultural produc-
tion, which often overlies aquifers.
                                                                                                            27

-------
  • Abandoned hazardous waste
  sites. Approximately 33,000 sites
  have been identified as abandoned
  hazardous waste sites, of which
  42% involve ground water
  contamination.

      The most common contami-
  nants associated with these sources
  include nitrates, metals, volatile
  organic compounds (VOCs), and
  pesticides.
      EPA has been working with
  States to develop a set of ground
  water quality indicators. These indi-
  cators will allow the characterization
  of trends in ground water quality


      29 States judged their
   ground water quality to be
        good or excellent.


  over space and time. Examples of
  preliminary indicators include the
  number of maximum contaminant
  level violations in public water sys-
  tems, detections of VOCs in ground
  water, and the extent of teachable
  agricultural pesticide use.  EPA will
  continue to work with the States to
  refine these ground water quality
  indicators.
    Additional ground water moni-
toring initiatives have been under-
taken in numerous States. These
initiatives are aimed at characteriz-
ing the overall quality of ground
water resources  and typically
include the establishment of
ambient monitoring networks,
regional monitoring networks that
focus on sensitive aquifers, or site-
specific monitoring efforts that focus
on known or suspected contamina-
tion sources.
28

-------
Water   Quality   Protection   Programs
    The EPA works in  partnership
with State  and  local governments to
improve and protect water quality.
Since the 1990 Report to Congress,
EPA and many  States have moved
toward a more geographically
oriented approach to water quality
management. They share a growing
consensus that  the Nation's remain-
ing water quality problems can be
solved most effectively at the  basin
or watershed level.
    In 1991, EPA highlighted  the
Watershed  Protection Approach
(WPA), a framework for focusing
and integrating water  quality  moni-
toring and management activities


    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.

in  a watershed  of concern. The
WPA is not a new government pro-
gram, but  rather a means of pulling
together the  resources and expertise
of existing  programs at all levels,
from Federal to State and local
levels.
    The EPA, other Federal agen-
cies,  State  pollution control agen-
cies, and local governments are
applying the WPA to existing
monitoring and assessment pro-
grams as well as water quality pro-
tection  programs (see sidebar next
page). A number of laws provide
the authority to develop and  imple-
ment pollution control programs.
The primary statute providing for
water quality protection in the
Nation's rivers, lakes, wetlands, estu-
aries, and coastal waters is the Fed-
eral Water  Pollution Control Act of
1972, commonly known as the
Clean Water Act (CWA).

The Clean Water Act

    The Clean Water Act of 1972
and its  amendments are the driving
force behind many of the water
quality  improvements we have
witnessed in recent years.  Key
provisions of the Clean Water Act
provide the following pollution con-
trol programs.

    Water quality standards and
    criteria - States adopt EPA-
    approved standards for their
    waters that define water quality
    goals for individual waterbodies.
    Standards consist of designated
    beneficial  uses to be made of
    the water, criteria to protect
    those uses,  and antidegradation
    provisions to protect existing
    water quality.

    Effluent guidelines - The EPA
    develops  nationally consistent
    guidelines limiting pollutants in
    discharges from industrial
    facilities and municipal sewage
    treatment plants. These guide-
    lines are then used  in permits
    issued to  dischargers under  the
    National Pollutant Discharge
    Elimination  System  (NPDES)
    program. Additional controls
    may be required if  receiving
    waters are still affected by water
    quality problems after permit
    limits are  met

    Total Maximum Daily Loads-
    The  development of Total Maxi-
    mum Daily  Loads, or TMDLs,
    establishes the link between
    water quality standards and
    point/nonpoint source pollution
    control actions such as permits
    or Best Management Practices
    (BMPs). A TMDL calculates
    allowable  loadings from the
    contributing point and
    nonpoint  sources to a given
    waterbody and provides  the
    quantitative basis for pollution
                                                                                                     29

-------
      reduction necessary to meet
      water quality  standards.  States
      develop  and implement  TMDLs
      for high-priority impaired or
      threatened waterbodies.

      Permits  and enforcement - All
      industrial and municipal  facilities
      that discharge wastewater must
      have an NPDES permit and are
      responsible for monitoring and
      reporting levels of pollutants in
      their discharges. EPA issues
      these  permits  or can delegate
      that permitting authority to
      qualifying States. The States and
      EPA inspect facilities to deter-
      mine  if their discharges  comply
      with  permit limits.  If dischargers
      are not  in compliance, enforce-
      ment  action is taken.

      In 1990, EPA promulgated per-
      mit  application requirements for
      municipal sewers that carry
      storm water separately from
      other  wastes and serve popula-
      tions of  100,000 or more and
      for storm water discharges asso-
      ciated with some  industrial
      activities. The EPA is developing
      regulations to establish a com-
      prehensive program to regulate
      storm sewers, including  require-
      ments for State storm water
      management programs.

      Grants - The EPA  provides
      States with financial assistance
      to help support many of their
      pollution control  programs.
      These programs include  the
      State  Revolving Fund program
      for construction and upgrading
      of municipal sewage treatment
      plants; water  quality monitor-
      ing, permitting, and
     The  Watershed  Protection Approach  (WPA)
i
[ ' Several key features  characterize the WPA:
     The WPA encourages managers to examine all the factors contribut-
[iun i  ing to water quality  problems in a watershed  and apply a coordi-
     nated  holistic approach to resolving'the problems.
 •it ii  ii
     The WPA advocates  restoring and protecting  ecological integrity  in
     addition  to  protecting human health and  meeting water quality
     standards.             _  u(   ^ ^mJ.,,iV,,ii.,r....i.,,    _,__,      v  ,,
Jin    t                          "   -i 'r *i *R        *          '  »  t1*]1
L f The WPA fosters  a high level of interprogram coordination.
 " A State that is using the WPA:
 ,  •  Targets  those watersheds where pollution poses the greatest risk to
     human  health,  ecological resources,  or desirable uses of the water
K, p v Involves all  parties with a stake in the_watershed in the analysis of
     problems and" the implementation  o? solutions                "**
             _               ,          >"                   _  ,„_ *^,Z&
      Draws  on the full, range of methods and tools available,  integrating
     them into^a coordinated, multforganizational attack on the problems.
    enforcement; and developing
    and implementing nonpoint
    source pollution  controls, com-
    bined sewer and storm water
    controls,  ground water strate-
    gies, lake assessment,  protec-
    tion, and restoration activities,
    estuary and  near coastal man-
    agement programs,  and wet-
    lands  protection activities.

    Nonpoint source control - The
    EPA provides program guid-
    ance,  technical support,  and
    funding to help the States con-
    trol nonpoint source pollution.
    The States are responsible for
    analyzing the extent and
severity of their nonpoint source
pollution  problems and devel-
oping and  implementing
needed water quality  manage-
ment actions.

Control of combined sewer
overflows - Under the National
Combined Sewer Overflow Con-
trol Strategy of 1989,  States
develop and  implement mea-
sures to reduce pollution  dis-
charges from combined storm
and sanitary sewers. The  EPA
works with the States  to  imple-
ment the national strategy.
30

-------
   The CWA also established
pollution control and prevention
programs for specific waterbpdy
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  stan-
dards for drinking water quality,
monitor wells and local water
supply systems, implement drinking
water protection programs, and
implement Underground  Injection
Control (UIC) programs.

•  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 man-
agement 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.
The Clean Lakes Program
    EPA's Clean Lakes Program pro-
vides Federal funds to help States
carry out diagnostic studies of lake
 The Clean Lakes Program
   and the States focus on
      highly used lakes.

problems, determine necessary
protection and restoration measures,
implement those measures, and
monitor the long-term impacts and
effectiveness of those measures. The
Clean Lakes Program provides
grants for four types of cooperative
agreements:
Lake Water Quality Assess-
ments strengthen State lake
management programs and
improve water quality
information.

Phase I Diagnostic/Feasibility
Studies investigate the causes
of water quality decline in a
publicly owned lake and deter-
mine the most feasible proce-
dures for controlling pollutants
and restoring the lake.

Phase II Projects implement
the restoration and  pollution
control methods identified in a
Phase I study.
 In-Lake Treatment Techniques Implemented
 by the States

 (22 States Reporting)

             Techniques

               Dredging

         Lake Drawdown
      Chemical Weed and
          Algae Controls
  Mechanical Weed Control

   Biological Weed Control
  Circulation/Hypolimnetic
               Aeration
                            2   4    6    8   10   12   14  16
                              Number of States Reporting
                                    Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
                                                                                                       31

-------
      Phase III Postrestoration
      Monitoring Projects sponsor
      long-term monitoring to verify
      the longevity and effectiveness
      of restoration and control mea-
      sures implemented during a
      Phase II  project.

      Managing lake quality often
  requires a combination of in-lake
  restoration measures and pollution
  controls, including watershed man-
  agement measures:

      Restoration measures are
      implemented to reduce existing
      pollution problems. Examples of
      in-lake restoration measures
      include harvesting aquatic
      weeds, dredging sediment, and
      adding chemicals to precipitate
      nutrients out of the water col-
      umn. Restoration measures
      focus on restoring uses of a lake
      and may not address the source
      of the pollution.

      Pollution control measures
      deal with the sources of pollut-
      ants degrading lake water qual-
      ity or threatening to impair lake
      water quality. Control measures
      include planning activities,  regu-
      latory actions, and implementa-
      tion of BMPs to reduce
      nonpoint sources of  pollutants.

      During the 1980s, most States
  implemented chemical and
  mechanical in-lake restoration mea-
  sures to control aquatic weeds and
  algae. In their 1992 Section 305(b)
  reports, the States report a shift
  toward watershed planning
  techniques and nonpoint source
  controls to reduce pollutant loads
responsible for aquatic weed growth
and algal blooms. Watershed man-
agement plans simultaneously ad-
dress multiple sources of pollutants,
such as runoff from urbanized areas,
agricultural activities, and failing
septic systems along the lake shore.
Although the States reported that
they still use in-lake treatments, the
States recognize that source controls
are needed in addition to in-lake
treatments to restore lake water
quality.
   The States  reported that they
most frequently rely on their NPDES
permit programs and their Section
319 nonpoint source (NPS) man-
agement programs to control pol-
lutants entering lakes. Through the
State NPDES permit programs,
States often impose stricter nutrient
limits for effluents discharged into
lakes than into rivers and streams.
Seven States reported that phospho-
rus detergent restrictions enhanced
sewage treatment plant compliance
with NPDES nutrient limits. Twenty-
two States reported that they use
their Section 319 NPS programs to
implement BMPs in watersheds
surrounding impaired or threatened
lakes.
    Successful lake programs require
strong commitment from local citi-
zens and cooperation from natural
resource agencies at the local, State,
and Federal levels. Forty-nine States,
Puerto Rico, and 18 American
Indian Tribes have established coop-
erative frameworks for managing
lakes under the  Clean Lakes
Program.

The National Estuary
Program

    Section 320 of the Clean Water
Act (as amended by the Water
Quality Act of 1987) established the
National Estuary Program (NEP) to
Management Options for Lake Restoration
and Pollution Control
(35 States Reporting)
              Options

        Modified NPDES
               Permits
        Rely on 319 NPS
              Program
        State Lake Water
       Quality Standards
            Watershed
      Management Plans
    Phosphate Detergent
            Restrictions
                            Number of States Reporting

Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
                         Total
32

-------
Locations of National Estuary Program Sites
Source: U.S. EPA National Estuary Program.

protect and restore water quality
and living resources in estuaries. The
NEP adopts a geographic or water-
shed approach by planning and
implementing pollution abatement
activities for the estuary and its
surrounding land area as a whole.
    Through the NEP, States nomi-
nate estuaries of national signifi-
cance that are threatened or
impaired by pollution, development,
or overuse. EPA evaluates the
nominations and selects those that
show  evidence of a committed citi-
zenry, political support, a range of
government involvement (State,
Federal, regional, and local), and
available scientific and technical
expertise to tackle the problem. The
EPA convenes management confer-
ences with representatives from all
interested groups (e.g., industry,
agriculture, conservation organiza-
tions,  and State agencies) to more
                                                                « vi
fully characterize the problems and
seek solutions.
    The NEP is also a national dem-
onstration program. There are more
than 150 estuaries in the United
States and only a small fraction  can
be targeted for action through the
NEP. It is therefore important that
the lessons learned through the NEP
be communicated to estuarine
water quality managers throughout


The NEP currently supports
     21 estuary projects.


the country. As of June 1993, 21
estuaries are included in the NEP.

Protecting Wetlands

    Section 404 of the CWA
remains the primary Federal vehicle
for protecting wetlands. Section 404
regulates the discharge of dredged
or fill material into waters of the
United States, including wetlands.
EPA continues to promote other
mechanisms to protect wetlands
including:

•  Incorporating wetlands consider-
ations into traditional water pro-
grams and other EPA programs

•  Working with other Federal
agencies

•  Helping to build State and local
government programs to protect
wetlands

m  Improving wetlands science

•  Promoting outreach and
education

•  Developing voluntary partner-
ships with landowners

•  Coordinating international wet-
lands protection.

    In addition, EPA has awarded
wetlands grants since 1990 to sup-
port the development of State and
Tribal wetlands protection pro-
grams. States  and Tribes have used
these grants to develop water qual-
ity standards,  monitor trends  in
wetlands loss, coordinate State and
local planning agencies, and dis-
seminate educational materials on
wetlands.
    Overall, States reported that
they are making considerable
progress in protecting the quantity
and quality of their wetlands
through regulatory and nonregula-
tory approaches. States were asked
to report on several key areas,
                                                                                                          33

-------
  including the application of Section
  401 certification authority to protect
  wetlands, their progress in develop-
  ing water quality standards for wet-
  lands, and efforts to incorporate
  wetlands considerations into other
   States are making progress
     in developing wetlands
    water quality standards.


  programs. In addition, 18 States
  and one Territory reported on
  efforts to inventory the physical
  acreage of their wetlands.
     According to State-reported
  information, no State is currently
  operating a statewide wetlands
  monitoring program. However, five
  States did describe water quality
  and habitat monitoring efforts for
  some portion of their wetlands.
      EPA recognizes that the devel-
  opment of biological monitoring
  and assessment methods for
  wetlands is a critical need for State
  wetlands managers so that they can
  begin to monitor their wetlands. To
  this end, EPA is  developing assess-
  ment protocols for freshwater emer-
  gent wetlands as part of its 5-year
  research plan. However, more
  research on other wetlands systems
  is needed on both the Federal and
  State levels.
     State monitoring programs are
  critical for determining whether
  wetlands are meeting their desig-
  nated and existing  uses as well as
  for prioritizing restoration  once
  impairment is identified. Wetlands
  monitoring information is also
  important for making Section 401
  certification decisions, determining
mitigation success for Section 404,
and supporting other management
decisions.

Protecting the
Great Lakes

    The Great Lakes are coopera-
tively managed by the United States
and Canada under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1978
(as amended in 1987). The Interna-
tional Joint Commission,  established
by the  1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty, is responsible for  identifying
actions to protect the Great Lakes.
Representatives from State and Fed-
eral agencies and  universities work
together on the Commission's two
boards to  identify problem areas,
plan programs to  reduce pollution,
and publish findings and issue
papers.
    Since 1973, 43 Areas of Con-
cern have  been identified in the
Great Lakes basin where environ-
mental quality is substantially
degraded. Most Areas of Concern
are harbors, bays, and river mouths.
Remedial Action Plans are being
developed for each Area of Con-
cern. These plans identify impaired
uses and examine management
options to restore the areas.
    In 1989, the EPA launched the
Great Lakes Initiative to  provide a
framework for Federal assistance in
pursuing the goal of whole-system
restoration based on an ecosystem
perspective. The Initiative empha-
sizes areas in which EPA can provide
State governments and  other stake-
holders with technical support. The
Initiative envisions EPA making the
following technical contributions:
34

-------
•  Develop guidance for identifying
toxic hot spots

•  Develop guidance for tracking
the relative contributions of toxic
and  acidic pollutants from surface
water and atmospheric sources

•  Develop guidance for determin-
ing the relative roles of point and
nonpoint source contributions to
conventional and toxic pollutant
burdens

•  Suggest innovative approaches
for the protection of critical habitat
areas

•  Support the development of
special wildlife standards.

    To help implement the goals
of the Great Lakes Initiative, EPA
Region 5 and the EPA Great Lakes
National Program Office coordinate
a Steering Committee, Technical
Workgroup, and Public Participation
Group. The States have played an
active role in the development of
draft criteria and policies.
    By late 1992, EPA had reviewed
a draft of the Great Lakes Initiative
Guidance. When issued in final
form, this major guidance docu-
ment will assist in updating the
Great Lakes Strategy, which pro-
vides the framework for implement-
ing the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. Specific policies under
the Great Lakes Initiative will help
integrate the development of
Remedial Action Plans for desig-
nated Areas of Concern with the
more holistic goals of Lakewide
Management Plans and pollution
prevention strategies for the Great
Lakes as a whole.
The Chesapeake Bay
Program

    In 1975, the Chesapeake Bay
became the Nation's first estuary
targeted for protection and restora-
tion when Congress directed EPA to
study the causes of environmental
declines in the Bay. Section 117(a)
of the 1987 CWA amendments
required that the EPA Administrator
continue the Chesapeake Bay
Program to:

M  Collect and distribute  information
about the Bay's environmental
quality

a  Coordinate Federal and State
efforts to improve the Bay's water
quality

•  Determine impacts from environ-
mental changes such as inputs of
nutrients, chlorine, oxygen-
demanding substances, toxic pollut-
ants, and acid precipitation.

    A system of committees, sub-
committees, work groups, and task
forces have evolved under the
Chesapeake Executive Council,
which consists of the Governors of
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylva-
nia, the Administrator of EPA, the
Mayor of the District of Columbia,
and the Chairman of the Chesa-
peake Bay Commission.  The Coun-
cil coordinates program implemen-
tation, establishes policy directions,
and provides oversight for the resto-
ration and protection of the Bay
and its living resources. On August
6, 1991, the Chesapeake Executive
Council adopted four action steps,
building on the 1987 Chesapeake
 Bay Agreement to reduce nitrogen
 and phosphorus loads entering the
 Bay by 40%. The four action steps
 commit the Council to:

 m Reevaluating and accelerating the
 nutrient reduction program

 a Adopting pollution prevention

 H Restoring and enhancing living
 resources and their habitats, such as
 submerged aquatic vegetation beds

 a Broadening participation in the
 Bay Program.

    The Chesapeake  Bay Program
 has implemented programs to
 reduce impacts from nutrients,
 oxygen-demanding substances, and
 pathogens.  To date, three elements
 of the Chesapeake Bay  Program's
 point source control strategy are
 responsible for reductions in nutri-
 ent loadings:

& Ugrading wastewater treatment
 plants

B Improving compliance with dis-
 charge and pretreatment permits

a Pollution prevention actions such
 as prohibiting the sale of detergents
 containing phosphorus.

    As a result of these  measures,
 annual discharges of  phosphorus
 into the Bay dropped by 40% (4.7
 million pounds) between 1985 and
 1991.
    The Chesapeake Bay Program's
 nonpoint source program empha-
sizes controls for runoff generated
by agricultural activities, paved
                                                                                                           35

-------
  surfaces, and construction in urban
  areas.  The program includes nutri-
  ent management for applying ani-
  mal wastes and fertilizers to crop-
  land in amounts calculated to meet
      Annual discharges of
       phosphorus into the
    Chesapeake Bay dropped
     by 40% between 1985
             and 1991.
  crop requirements without contami-
  nating ground and surface waters.
      Overall, water quality monitor-
  ing data confirm significant
  progress in reducing phosphorus
  loads into Chesapeake Bay. Total
  phosphorus concentrations in the
  Bay decreased by 16% between
  1984 and 1992.  However, total
  nitrogen concentrations have re-
  mained stable in the mainstem of
  the Bay and increased in some
  tributaries, indicating a need for
  additional progress in reducing
  nitrogen loadings.

  The Gulf of Mexico
   Program

      In 1988,  the Gulf of Mexico
  Program (GMP) was established
  with EPA as the lead Federal agency
  to develop and help implement a
  strategy to protect, restore, and
  maintain the health and productiv-
  ity of the Gulf. The GMP is a grass
  roots program that serves as a cata-
  lyst to promote sharing of
  information, pooling of resources,
  and coordination of efforts to
  restore and reclaim wetlands and
  wildlife habitat, clean up existing
pollution, and prevent future
contamination and destruction of
the Gulf. The GMP mobilizes State,
Federal, and local government; busi-
ness and industry; academia; and
the community at large through
public awareness and information
dissemination programs, forum dis-
cussions, citizen committees, and
technology applications.
    A Policy Review Board and a
newly formed Management Com-
mittee determine the scope and
focus of GMP activities.  The pro-
gram also  receives input from a
Technical Advisory Committee and
a Citizen's Advisory Committee.
The GMP Office and 10 Issue Com-
mittees coordinate the collection,
integration, and reporting of perti-
nent data  and information.' The
Issue Committees are responsible for
documenting environmental prob-
lems and management  goals, avail-
able resources, and potential solu-
tions for a broad range  of issues,
including habitat degradation, pub-
lic health,  freshwater inflow, marine
debris, shoreline erosion, nutrients,
toxic pollutants, and living aquatic
resources.  The Issue Committees
publish their findings in Action
Agendas.  Two additional commit-
tees provide operational support
and information transfer activities
for the entire GMP.
    On December 10, 1992, the
Governors of Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana,  Mississippi, and Texas;
EPA; the Chair of the Citizen's Advi-
sory Committee; and representatives
of 10 other Federal agencies signed
the Gulf of Mexico Program Partner-
ship for Action agreement for
protecting, restoring, and enhanc-
ing the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent
lands.  The agreement commits the
signatory agencies to pledge their
efforts, over the next 5 years, to
obtain the knowledge and resources
to:

• Significantly reduce the rate of
loss of coastal wetlands

• Achieve an increase in Gulf Coast
seagrass beds

• Enhance the sustainability of Gulf
commercial and recreational fisher-
ies

• Protect human health and food
supply by reducing input of nutri-
ents, toxic substances, and patho-
gens to the Gulf

• Increase Gulf shellfish beds avail-
able for safe harvesting by 10%

• Ensure that all Gulf beaches are
safe for swimming and recreational
uses
36

-------
• Reduce by at least 10% the
amount of trash on beaches

• Improve and expand coastal
habitats that support migratory
birds, fish, and  other living resources

• Expand public  education/out-
reach tailored for each  Gulf Coast
county or parish.

    During 1992,  the CMP also
launched Take-Action Projects in
each of the five Gulf States to dem-
onstrate that program strategies and
methods could  achieve rapid  results.
The  Take-Action Projects primarily
address inadequate sewage treat-
ment,  pollution prevention, and
habitat protection and  restoration.
Several projects aim to demonstrate
the effectiveness of  innovative
sewage treatment technologies to
control pathogenic contamination
     Take-Action  Projects
    in the five Gulf States
  primarily address sewage
     treatment pollution
   prevention, and  habitat
        protection and
        1  restoration.
of shellfish harvesting areas.  Other
projects aim to restore wetlands, sea
grass beds, and oyster reefs.  The
Take-Action Projects are designed to
have Gulf-wide application.
Ground  Water
Protection  Programs

    Numerous laws, regulations,
and programs play a role in  protect-
ing ground water.  The following
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 Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates solid
and hazardous waste treatment,
storage,  and disposal as well  as
underground storage tanks, the
source of ground water contamina-
tion most frequently cited by the
States.

• The Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation,  and
Liability Act (CERCLA)  regulates
cleanup  of abandoned  waste sites,
many of which contain contami-
nated ground  water.

• The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) regulates subsurface
injection of fluids that can contami-
nate ground water.

• The Federal Insecticide,  Fungi-
cide, and  Rodenticide  Act  (FIFRA)
controls the use and disposal of
pesticides,  some of which  have
been detected  in ground  water
wells in rural communities.

• The Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) controls the  use and  disposal
of additional toxic substances,
thereby minimizing their entry into
ground water.  Other Federal  laws
establish State  grants that may be
used to protect ground water.

• Clean Water Act  Sections 319(h)
and (i) and 518 provide funds to
   "^'^   Comprehensive State Ground Water
                      Protection  Programs

   A Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP)
'**TTl:omposed of six "strategic activities." They are:
   w •«»<*»-, "it.
   • Establishing  a prevention-oriented goal
     Establishing  priorities,, based on the characterization  of the resource
          identification  of .sources of contamination
     Defining roles, responsibilities, resources, and coordinating mecha-
     nisms

     Implementing all necessary efforts to accomplish the State's ground
           protection goal
           *  •>                      '
                                     Wjp ^CoorBlnating information collection and  management to measure
                                     |fc' r* progress  and reevaluate priorities
                                     «|C|mproving  public education and participation.
                                     jEPgy.. •, >V>y. •;•'   --.-  -i • '  .  <•,  '.;,,'     ,,                   y
                                                                                                            37

-------
  State agencies to implement EPA-
  approved nonpoint source manage-
  ment programs that include ground
  water protection activities. Several
  States have developed programs
  that focus on ground water con-
  tamination resulting from
  agriculture and septic tanks.

  • The Pollution  Prevention Act of
  1990 allows grants for research
  projects to demonstrate agricultural
  practices that emphasize ground
  water protection and reduce the
  excessive use of fertilizers and
  pesticides.

     Comprehensive State Ground
  Water Protection Programs
  (CSGWPPs) will integrate all of
  the above efforts and emphasize
  contamination prevention.


      Comprehensive  State
    ground water protection
    programs support State-
      directed  priorities in
       resource protection.

  CSGWPPs will improve coordination
  of Federal, State, Tribal, and local
  ground water programs and enable
  distribution of resources to estab-
  lished priorities. Once EPA endorses
  a CSGWPP, the Agency will seek to
  provide more consistent deference
  to State priorities.
     EPA's Pesticides and Ground
  Water Strategy emphasizes preven-
  tion and protection of the Nation's
ground water resources and pro-
vides a flexible framework for tailor-
ing State Management Plans for the
management and control of pesti-
cide use to the needs of each State.
In addition, EPA has established a
Restricted Use classification for pesti-
cides, which is intended to  reduce
both the risks of point source causes
of ground water contamination and
nonpoint source causes of contami-
nation.
    A number of mechanisms have
been, developed to  manage the
ever-growing volume of information
on the Nation's ground water
resources. These include the
development of standard elements
for collecting ground  water data
called the Minimum Set of Data
Elements (MSDE) for Ground Water
Quality. The MSDE is intended to
improve access to ground water
data and to increase information-
sharing capabilities by standardizing
the elements used in databases that
contain ground water data. Addi-
tional mechanisms include the
development of a geographic infor-
mation system (CIS) to integrate
ground water data that have been
collected under different programs,
the development and management
of two databases concerning pesti-
cides and ground water, and the
inclusion of ground water data in a
modernized STORET (EPA's water
database).
38

-------
What  You   Can  Do
    Federal and State programs
have helped clean up many waters
and slow the degradation of others.
But government alone cannot solve
the entire  problem, and water qual-
ity concerns persist.  Nonpoint
source pollution, in particular, is
everybody's problem, and every-
body  needs to solve it
    Examine your everyday  activities
and think  about how you are con-
tributing to the pollution  problem.
Here are some suggestions on how
you can make a difference.

Be Informed

    You should leam 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?
    Leam  about procedures  for
disposing of harmful  household
wastes so they do not end up in
sewage treatment  plants that can-
not handle them or in landfills not
designed  to  receive  hazardous
materials.

Be Responsible

    In your yard,  determine
whether additional nutrients are
needed before you apply fertilizers,
and look for alternatives where fertil-
izers might run off into surface
waters. Consider selecting plants
and grasses that have low mainte-
nance requirements. Water your
lawn  conservatively.  Preserve
existing trees and  plant new trees
and shrubs to help prevent erosion
and promote infiltration of water
into the soil. Restore bare patches in
your lawn to prevent erosion. If you
own or manage land through which
a stream flows, you may wish to
consult your local  county extension
office  about methods of restoring
stream banks in your area by plant-
ing buffer strips of native vegeta-
tion.
    Around your house,  keep litter,
pet waste, leaves,  and grass  clip-
pings  out of gutters  and storm
drains. Use the minimum amount of
water needed when  you wash your
car. Never dispose of any house-
hold,  automotive,  or gardening
wastes in a storm  drain.  Keep your
septic tank  in good  working order.
    Within your home, fix any drip-
ping faucets or leaky pipes and
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, leam how to recycle, and
volunteer to help  out if you can.
One of the most  important things
you can do is find out how your
community protects water quality,
and speak out if you see problems.

Volunteer  Monitoring:
You  Can  Become  Part
of  the  Solution

    In  many areas of the country,
citizens are becoming personally
involved in monitoring the quality
of our Nation's water. As a volun-
teer monitor, you might  be involved
                                                                                                          39

-------
  in taking ongoing water quality
  measurements, tracking the
  progress of protection and restora-
  tion projects, or reporting special
  events, such as fish kills and storm
  damage.
     Volunteer monitoring can be of
  great benefit to State and local gov-
  ernments. Some States stretch their
  monitoring budgets by using data
  collected by volunteers, particularly
in remote areas that otherwise
might not be monitored at all.
Because you are familiar with the
water resources in your own neigh-
borhood, you are also more likely to
spot unusual occurrences such as
fish kills.
    The benefits to you of becom-
ing a volunteer are also great. You
will learn about your local water
resources and have the opportunity
to become personally involved in a
nationwide campaign to protect a
vital, and mutually shared, resource.
If you would like to find out more
about organizing or joining volun-
teer monitoring programs in your
State, contact your State depart-
ment of environmental quality, or
write to:

   Alice Mayio
   U.S. EPA
   Volunteer Monitoring (4503F)
   401 M St.  SW
   Washington, DC 20460
   (202)260-7018

   For further information on water
quality in your State, write to your
State department  of environmental
quality. Additional water quality
information may be obtained from
the Regional offices of the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency
(see inside front cover).


For Further Reading
U.S. EPA. 1988. America's Wet-
lands:  Our Vital Link Between Land
and Water. Office of Water. EPA
87-016.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Environmental
Backgrounder: Wetlands. Office
of Water.
U.S. EPA. 1989. EPA Journal: Can
Our Coasts Survive More Growth?
Volume 15, Number 5.
U.S. EPA. 1991. ERA Journal:
Nonpoint Source Pollution: Runoff
of Rain and Snowmelt, Our Biggest
Water Quality Problem. Volume 17,
Number 5.
U.S. EPA. 1992. National Water
Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to
Congress.  Office of Water.  EPA
503/99-92-006.
40

-------
     	fa their tissues by ingesting
     ny  smaller organisms, each
                with  a small quantity
     pollutant. This process is called
sLbJoaccumulation or biomagnifica-
f^lionrPollutants also enter fish and
    dMsh tissues through the gills or
           consumption  advisories
pjifgeomrfiend that the public limit the
       a'ty and frequency of fish'con-
       itiori^^rom specific waterbodies.
                               '/1Vf..;.MIy7f
                                                                J7T
   Fish   Consumption  Advisories;
     ^States issue  fish  consumption
           to protect the public
        ingesting harmful quantities
          'pollutants in contaminated
  Lfish and shellfish. ^Fish  may accurnu-
     twr-e,*,  ._ quantftjes y pOjJut-'
     ie_ States tailor individual advisories
     minimize health risks based on
              "data collected in their
r*,fish tissue sampling  programs. Advi-
        may completely ban fish con-
      iptipn in  severely polluted waters
     Tirnit fish consumption to  several
     i||s per month or year in cases of
       severe contamination.  Advisories
        target a subpopulation at risk
   |uch 'as children, jjregnant women,
   alTd nursing "moaTersX specific fish
^.spedes," or larger fish that may have
         ulated high concentrations of
     pollutant over a longer lifetime
        ,assjmaller, younger fish.
            PA fish consumption
    dvisory database tracks advisories
   issued by each State. For 1993,  the
jTdatabase listed 11,279 fish consump-
!«",stion advisories jn effect in ^7_^Sj
f^'Fjsh consumption advisories" are"
unevenly distributed among the
States because the States use their
own criteria to determine  I fish
tissue concentrations of toxics pose
a health risk that justifies an advi-
sory. States also vary the amount of
fish tissue monitoring  they conduct
and the number of pollutants ana-
lyzed. States that conduct more
monitoring and use strict  criteria will
issue more advisories than  States
that conduct" less monitoring  and
use'weaker criteria. For example,
66% of the advisories active in 1993
were issued by the States Isurround-
ing the Great Lakes, which support
extensive fish sampling programs
and follow strict criteria for issuing
advisories.
    Most of the fish consumption
advisories are due to mercury,
                                       51 J I   ! |1,


                                           ,t  V I
~~ ~,—   —T, -  -  ,,,-  ^,. •    •-,-•<,           *      ^  ,       ,  tt * i.  , ;
CJ-H* "_",»*  4  *  „» i^M-sLjiu^,,^*')•„„,,,'} i*,-1 *fj>i(w  « ,'itvt ,- '  .'„    •    «t«»!ia',«aA*-4%
                          £v               '>.;.fo: A"- :. y.. ^.f^']
polychlorinated biphenyls  (PCBs),
chlordane, dioxins, and DDT (with
its byproducts).
    Many coastal States report
restrictions on shellfish  harvesting in
estuarine waters. Shellfish-particu-
lariy oysters, dams, and mussels-
are filter-feeders  that extract their
food from water. Waterborne bacte-
ria and  viruses may also accumulate
on their gills and manties  and in
their digestive systems. Shellfish
contaminated by these microorgan-
isms are a serious  human  health
concern, particularly if  consumed
raw.
    States currently sample water
from shellfish harvesting areas to
measure indicator  bacteria, such as
total coliform and fecal coliform
bacteria. These  bacteria serve as
indicators of the presence  of poten-
tially pathogenic microorganisms
associated with untreated  or
undertreated  sewage.  States restrict
shellfish harvesting to  areas that
maintain these  bacteria at concen-
trations  in sea water below estab-
lished health  limits.
    In  1992,  18 States reported  that
shellfish harvesting  restrictions were
in effect for more  than 3,455 square
miles of estuarine and  coastal waters
during the 1990-1992 reporting
period.  Nine  States reported that
urban runoff  and storm sewers,
municipal wastewater treatment
facilities, marinas, and  industrial
discharges restricted shellfish
harvesting.
                                                                                                                41

-------
    State 305(b)  Coordinators
    For State-specific water quality
    information, contact:

    Michael). Rief
    Alabama Department of
       Environmental Management
    Water Quality Branch
    P.O. Box 301463
    Montgomery, AL  36130-1463
    (205) 271-7829

    Earl Hubbard
    Alaska Department of
       Environmental Conservation
    410 Willoughby Street - Suite 105
    |uneau,AK 99801-1795
    (907) 465-2653

    Pat Young
    Project Officer for American Samoa
    U.S. EPA Region 9 MC E-4
    75 Hawthorne Street
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    (415) 744-1591

    Diana Marsh
    Arizona Department of
       Environmental Quality
    3033 North Central Avenue
    Phoenix, AZ  85012
    (602) 207-4545

    Bill Keith
    Arkansas Department of Pollution
       Control and Ecology
    P.O. Box 8913
    Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
    (501) 562-7444

    Nancy Richard
    California State Water Resources
       Control Board, M&A
    Division of Water Quality
    P.O. Box944213
    Sacramento, CA  94244-2130
    (916)657-0642

    John Farrow
    Colorado Department of Health
    Water Quality Control Division
    4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
    Denver, CO 80222-1530
    (303) 692-3575

    Donald Conyea
    Bureau of Water Management
    PERD
    Connecticut Department of
       Environmental Protection
    79 Elm Street
    Hartford, CT  06106-5127
    (203) 566-2588
Sergio Huerta
Delaware Department of Natural
    Resources and Environmental
    Control
P.O. Box 1401 •
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 739-4590

Warren Huff
Delaware River Basin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360
(609) 883-9500

Dr. Hamid Karimi
Water Quality Monitoring Branch
Department of Consumer
    and Regulatory Affairs
2100 Martin Luther King Jr.
    Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20032
(202)404-1120

Joe Hand
Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection
Twin Towers Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL  32399-2400
(904) 921-9926

W. M. Winn, III
Georgia  Environmental Protection
    Division
Water Quality Management
    Program
205 Butler Street, S.E.
Floyd Towers, East
Atlanta, CA 30334
(404) 656-4905

Errol Blackwater
Gila River Indian Community
Water Quality Planning Office
Comer of Main and Pima Streets
Sacaton, AZ  85247
(602) 562-3203

Eugene Akazawa,
    Monitoring Supervisor
Hawaii Department of Health
Clean Water Branch
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808) 586-4309

Don Zaroban
Idaho Department of Health
    and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Statehouse Mall
Boise, ID  83720
(208) 334-5860
Mike Branham
Illinois Environmental Protection
   Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL  62704
(217) 782-3362

Dennis Clark
Indiana Department of
   Environmental Management
Office of Water Management
5500 W. Bradbury Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46241
(317)243-5037

John Olson
Iowa Department of Natural
   Resources
Water Quality Section
900 East Grand Avenue
Wallace State Office Building
DesMoines, IA 50319
(515)281-8905

Mike Butler
Kansas  Department  of Health
   and Environment
Bureau of Water Protection
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913)296-5575

Tom VanArsdall
Department for Environmental
   Protection
Division of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY  40601
(502) 564-3410

Emelise S. Cormier,
   Acting Program Manager
Louisiana Department of
   Environmental Quality
Office of Water Resources
Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge, LA  70884-2215
(504) 765-0511

Phil Garwood
Maine Department of
   Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Control
State House Station  17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-7695
Shermer Garrison
Maryland Department of the
    Environment
Chesapeake Bay and Special
    Projects Program
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410)631-3580

Warren Kimball
Massachusetts Department of
    Environmental Protection
Division of Water Pollution Control
Technical Services Branch
1 Winter  Street - 8th Floor
Boston, MA  02108
(617)292-5968

Greg Goudy
Michigan Department of Natural
    Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box  30028
Lansing, Ml  48909
(517)335-3310

Catherine Malave
MPCA, Division of Water Quality
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN  55155
(612)296-8861

Randy Reed
Mississippi Department of
    Environmental Quality
Office of Pollution Control
P.O. Box  10385
Jackson, MS  39289-0385
(601)961-5158

John Ford
Missouri Department of Natural
   Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box  176
Jefferson City, MO  65102
(314) 751-7024

Christian J. Levine
Montana  Department of Health
   and Environmental Science
Water Quality Bureau
Cogswell  Building, Room A206
1400 Broadway
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-5342

Steven Walker, Section Supervisor
Nebraska  Department of
   Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402)471-2875
42

-------
 Glen Gentry
 Bureau of Water Quality Planning
 Division of Environmental
    Protection
 123 West Nye Lane
 Carson City, NV 89710
 (702) 687-4670

 Greg Comstock
 Water Quality Section
 New Hampshire WSPCD/DES
 P.O. Box 95
 Concord,  NH 03301-6528
 (603)271-2457

 Kevin Berry
 Office of Land and Water Planning
 New Jersey DEPE
 401  East State Street
 4th Floor
 Trenton, NJ  08625
 (609)633-1179

 Erik Galloway
 Surface Water Quality Bureau
 New Mexico Environment
   Department
 P.O. Box26110
 Santa Fe, NM  87502-6110
 (505) 827-2923

 George K. Hansen, P.E.
 New York State Department of
   Environmental Conservation
 Bureau of Monitoring  and
   Assessment
 50 Wolf Road
 Albany, NY 12233
 (518)457-8819

 Carol Metz
 North Carolina Division of
   Environmental Management
 P.O.  Box 29535
 Raleigh,  NC  27626-0535
 (919) 733-5083

 Mike Ell
 North Dakota Department
   of Health
 Division of Water Supply and
   Pollution Control
 P.O.  Box 5520
 Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
 (701)221-5210

 Ed Rankin
 Ohio Environmental Protection
   Agency
Division of Surface Water
 1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH  43228
(614) 777-6264
 Jason Heath
 ORSANCO
 5735 Kellogg Avenue
 Cincinnati, OH  45230
 (513)231-7719

 John Dyer
 Oklahoma  Department of
    Environmental Quality
 Water Quality Division
 1000 NE Tenth Streeth
 Oklahoma  City, OK  73117-1212
 (405)271-5205

 Elizabeth Thomson
 Oregon Department of
    Environmental Quality
 Water Quality Division
 811 SW Sixth Avenue
 Portland, OR 97204
 (503) 229-5358

 Robert Frey
 Pennsylvania Department of
    Environmental Resources
 Bureau of Water Quality
    Management
 Division of  Assessment and
    Standards
 P.O. Box 8465, 10th Floor
 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
 (717) 783-2959

 Eric H. Morales
 Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
    Board
 Water Quality Area
 P.O. Box 11488
 Santurce, PR 00910
 (809) 751-5548

 Connie Carey
 Rhode Island Department of
    Environmental  Management
 Division of Water Resources
 291 Promenade Street
 Providence, Rl  02908-5767
 (401)277-6519

 Zach Corontzes
 South Carolina DHEC
 2600 Bull Street
 Columbia, SC 29201
 (803) 734-5300

Andrew Repsys
 South Dakota Department of the
   Environment and Natural
   Resources
Division of Water Resource
   Management
523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building,
Room 425
Pierre, SD  57501-3181
(605) 773-3696
 Greg Denton
 Tennessee Department of
    Environment and Conservation
 Division of Water Pollution Control
 401 Church St., L&C Annex,
    6th Floor
 Nashville, TN  37243-1534
 (615)532-0699

 Steve Twidwell
 Texas Natural  Resource
    Conservation Commission
 P.O. Box 13087
 Austin, TX 78711-3087
 (512)908-1000

 Thomas W. Toole
 Utah Department of Environmental
    Quality
 Division of Water Quality
 P.O. Box 144870
 Salt Lake City,  UT  84114-4870
 (801) 538-6146

 Jerome J. McArdle
 Vermont Agency of Natural
    Resources
 Department of Environmental
    Conservation
 Water Quality  Division
 103 South Main Street
 Building 10 North
 Waterbury,VT 05671-0408
 (802) 244-6951

 Anne Hanley
 U.S. Virgin Islands Department of
    Planning and Natural Resources
 Division of Environmental
    Protection
 P.O. Box 4340
 St. Thomas, VI  00801
 (809) 773-0565

 Steve Butkus
 Washington  Department of Ecology
 P.O. Box  47600
 Olympia,  WA 98503-7600
 (206) 407-6482

 Carrie Gorsuch
 Department of Environmental
   Quality - Water Division
 Office of Water Resources
   Manaqement
 P.O. Box "11143
 Richmond, VA  23230-1143
 (804) 762-4290

 Michael A. Arcuri
West Virginia Division of
   Environmental Protection
Office of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304) 558-2108
Meg Turville-Heitz
Wisconsin Department of Natural
   Resources
P.O.  Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
(608)266-0152

Robert Gumtow
Wyoming Department of
   Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building - 4th Floor
122 West 25th  Street
Cheyenne, WY  82002
(307) 777-7098
                                                                                                                                     43

-------
* TIS. GOVEBNMEHT PRnrTHTG OFFICE:  1994  - 520-081 - 1302/81056

-------
Order Form
For a copy of the National Water
Quality Inventory:  1992 Report to
Congress (EPA841-R-94-001), return
this form to:

NCEPI
11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5
Cincinnati, OH  45242
Fax (513) 891-6685
Due to limited supply, we can send
you only one copy of this publica-
tion. Please print clearly. Allow 2-3
weeks for delivery.
       Ship to:
         Title:

  Organization:

      Address:

City, State, Zip:

Daytime Phone:
               (Please include area code)

-------
Si"
O Q)
I
o>
CD
         *• > m
         O
         0
-------