United States
               Environmental Protection
               Agency
              Office of Water
              Washington, DC 20460
December 1995
&EPA
The Quality of Our Nation's
Water:  1994
                Executive Summary of the National Water Quality
                Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress

-------
Cover photo of Misty Fiords National
Monument, Alaska, by Barry Burgan.

-------
                                      Errata Sheet         j
                       The Quality of Our Nation's Water: 1994
 Page 106 (Illinois).  Please paste the following label over the current legend:
                            Full Support or Full Threatened
                            Partial Minor Support
                            Partial Moderate Support
                            Not Supporting
                            Basin Boundaries
                            (USGS 6-digit Hydrologic Unit)
 Page 164 (South Dakota).  Please paste the following label below the map and to the
 right of the legend:   \                                      \
                            Note: All blue colored streams in the western-
                            most basins of South Dakota are considered
                            Fully Supporting, not Threatened. Trend
                            analyses for the Threatened category have
                            not been evaluated, so South Dakota does
                            not report streams as Threatened.
Page 207 (ORSANCCn. In the figure, the gray-shaded line should read:
                      !                                     .I
            Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 981)       !
Also, delete footnote "b."  Reason: As noted on page 206, 0RSANCO is
responsible for certain activities on the Ohio River mainstemi

-------
rl

-------
Contents
Section I
  1 National Summary
    of Water Quality
    Conditions
  2 The Quality of Our Nation's
    Water
  3 Key Concepts
 13 Rivers and Streams
 16 Lakes, Ponds, and
    Reservoirs
 20 The Great Lakes
 23 Estuaries
 26 Ocean Shoreline Waters
 27 Wetlands
 30 Ground Water
 32 Water Quality Protection
    Programs
 46 What You Can Do
Section II
49 Basinwide Survey:
    Ohio and Tennessee
    River Valley
50 Introduction
50 Basin Description
51 Water Use in the Basin
53 Rating Water Quality
    Conditions in the Basin
54 Overview of Conditions in
    the Ohio and Tennessee
    River Basin
63 The Allegheny River
    Subbasin
68 Special State Concerns
    and Recommendations
69 Recommendations for
    Reporting from a Basinwide
    Assessment Perspective
 71 Appendix A. Ohio and
    Tennessee River Basin Fish
    Consumption Advisories
Section III
 77 State and Territorial,
    Tribal, and Interstate
    Commission Summaries
 79 State and Territorial
    Summaries
187 Tribal Summaries
201 Interstate Commission
    Summaries

-------

-------
       Section I
  National Summary of
Water Quality Conditions

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

      The contents of this section
  summarize the information con-
  tained in the National Water Quality
  Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress.
  The National Water Quality
  Inventory Report to Congress is the
  primary vehicle for informing
  Congress and the public about gen-
  eral water quality conditions in the
  United States. This document char-
  acterizes our water quality, identifies
  widespread water quality problems
  of national significance, and
  describes various programs imple-
  mented to restore and protect our
  waters.
      The National Water Quality
  Inventory Report to Congress sum-
  marizes the water quality informa-
  tion submitted by 61 States,
  American Indian Tribes, Territories,
  Interstate Water Commissions, and
  the  District of Columbia (hereafter
  referred to as States, Tribes, and
  other jurisdictions) in their 1994
  water quality assessment reports.
  As such, the report identifies water
  quality issues of concern to the
  States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
  tions, not just the issues of concern
  to the U.S. Environmental Protec-
  tion Agency (EPA). Section 305(b)
  of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
  requires that the States and other
  participating jurisdictions submit
  water quality assessment reports
  every 2 years. Most of the survey
  information in the 1994 Section
  305(b) reports is based on water
  quality information collected and
  evaluated by the States, Tribes, and
  other jurisdictions during 1992 and
  1993.
     It is important to note that this
  report is based on information
  submitted by States, Tribes, and
 other jurisdictions that do not use
 identical survey methods and crite-
 ria to rate their water quality. The
 States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
 tions favor flexibility in the 305(b)
 process to accommodate natural
 variability in their waters, but there
 is a trade-off between flexibility and
 consistency. Without known and
 consistent survey methods in place,
 EPA must use caution in  comparing
 data or determining the  accuracy of
 data submitted by different States
 and jurisdictions. Also, EPA must use
 caution when comparing water
 quality information submitted dur-
 ing different 305(b) reporting peri-
 ods because States and other juris-
 dictions may modify their criteria or
 survey different waterbodies every
 2 years.
    For over 10 years, EPA has pur-
 sued a balance between  flexibility
 and consistency in the Section
 305(b) process. Recent actions by
 EPA,  the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions include implementing
the recommendations of the
National 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup and the Intergovern-
mental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality. These actions will
enable States and other jurisdictions
to share data across political bound-
aries as.they develop watershed
protection strategies.
    EPA recognizes that national ini-
tiatives alone cannot clean up our
waters; water quality protection and
restoration must happen at the
local watershed level, in conjunc-
tion with State, Tribal, and Federal
activities. Similarly, this document
alone cannot provide the detailed
information needed to manage
water quality at all levels. This docu-
ment should be used together with
the individual Section 305(b)
reports (see the inside back cover
for information on obtaining the
State and Tribal Section 305(b)
reports), watershed management
plans, and other local documents to
develop integrated water quality
management options.

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

     The States, participating Tribes,
  and other jurisdictions survey the
  quality of their waters by determin-
  ing if their waters attain the water
  quality standards they established.
  Water quality standards consist of
  beneficial uses, numeric and narra-
  tive criteria for supporting each use,
  and an antidegradation statement:

  •  Designated beneficial uses are
  the desirable uses that water quality
  should support. Examples are drink-
  ing water supply, primary contact
  recreation (such as swimming), and
  aquatic life support. Each designat-
  ed use has a unique set of water
  quality requirements or criteria that
  must be met for the use to be real-
  ized. States, Tribes, and other juris-
  dictions may designate an individ-
  ual waterbody for multiple benefi-
  cial uses.

  •  Numeric water quality criteria
  establish the minimum physical,
  chemical, and biological parameters
  required to support a beneficial use.
  Physical and chemical numeric cri-
  teria may set maximum concentra-
  tions 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 dis-
  tribution  of classes of organisms.
• Narrative water quality criteria
define, rather than quantify, condi-
tions and attainable goals that must
be maintained to support a desig-
nated use. Narrative biological crite-
ria establish a positive statement
about aquatic community charac-
teristics expected to occur within a
waterbody. For example, "Ambient
water quality shall be sufficient to
support life stages of all native
aquatic species." Narrative criteria
may also describe conditions that
are desired in a waterbody, such as
"Waters must be free of substances
that are toxic to humans, aquatic
life, and wildlife."

• Antidegradation statements,
where possible, protect existing
uses and prevent waterbodies from
deteriorating, even if their water
quality is better than the fishable
and swimmable water quality goals
of the Act.

    The CWA allows States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions to set their
own standards but requires that all
beneficial uses and their criteria
comply with the goals of the Act.
At a minimum, beneficial uses must
provide for "the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife" and provide for "recreation
in and on the water" (i.e., the fish-
able and swimmable goals of the
Act), where attainable. The Act pro-
hibits States and other jurisdictions
from designating waste transport or
waste assimilation as a beneficial
use, as some States did prior to
1972.
    Section 305(b) of the CWA
requires that the States biennially
survey their water quality for attain-
ment of the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Act and report the
results to EPA. The States, participat-
ing Tribes, and other jurisdictions
measure attainment of the CWA
goals by determining how well their
waters support their designated
beneficial uses. EPA encourages the
surveying of waterbodies for sup-
port of the following individual
beneficial uses:

             Aquatic
             Life Support

             The waterbody pro-
vides  suitable habitat for protection
and propagation of desirable fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic organ-
isms.

-------
             Fish Consumption

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

             Shellfish Harvesting

             The waterbody sup-
             ports a population
of shellfish free from toxicants and
pathogens that could pose a human
health risk to consumers.
                                                 Drinking Water
                                                 Supply
                                   supply safe drinking water with con
waterborne diseases from raw
sewage contamination).
                                                 Primary Contact
                                                 Recreation -
                                                 Swimming
                                    People can swim in the waterbody
                                    without risk of adverse human
                                    health effects (such as catching
                          Quality Monitoring

            lality monitoring consists of data collection and sample
     'sis perfprmecl using accepted protocols and quality control proce-
  lures. Monitoring also "includes subsequent analysis of the body of data
   S|ipport decisionmaking. Federal, Interstate, State, Territorial, tribal,
    Itonal, and local agencies, industry, and volunteer groups with
    ffjviy quality assurance programs monitor a combination of chemi-
    physical, and biological water quality parameters throughout the
 COUfitry.        '    """""' 	 ;  	   ."  '      " "	'".""' '";-'•'""  '--";
 'lit. CKemical data often measure concentrations of pollutants and other
   chemical conditions that influence aquatic life, such as pH (i.e., acidi-
   tyj and dissolved oxygen concentrations. The chemical data may be
          " in water samples, fish tissue samples, or sediment samples.
      'sica| data include, measurements of temperature, turbidity
     :;| light penetration through the water column), and solids in
                mn-           	                                 ,
          si	data	meajurethe	health of aquatic' communities!" Biological'
          jude"cQubtl"of aquatic species that indicate healthy ecological
   conditions,
 • Habitat and ancillary data (such as land use data) help interpret the
__l«_2vg	!B2n.!i2Qn9 information.
  i;,,S2QSl2DP9la9enl^s'lva"iy	parameters,"sampling frequency, and	
     ling site selection to meet program objectives and funding
     "~|si; Sampling['may occur at regular intervals (such as monthly,
                 '"  if irregular intervals, or during one-time intensive
      ^s: Sampling may be conducted at fixed sampling stations,
 randomly selected stations, stations near suspected water quality
pTobiems, or stations in pristine waters.
iiiqil'iigpii1!11	FI; 'inn in p  i  i  q n i  i I   III Ml         I       i  ;    'id      i        > r
             Secondary Contact
             Recreation
             People can perform
activities on the water (such as
boating) without risk of adverse
human health effects from ingestion
or contact with the water.

             Agriculture

             The water quality is
___________ suitable for irrigating
fields or watering livestock.

    States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions may also define their own indi-
vidual uses to address special con-
cerns. For example, many Tribes
and  States designate their waters for
the following beneficial uses:

             Ground Water
             Recharge

             The surface water-
body plays a significant role in
replenishing ground water, and
surface water supply and quality are
adequate to protect existing or
potential uses of ground water.
                                                                                       Wildlife Habitat

                                                                                       Water quality sup-
                                                                                       ports the waterbody's
                                                                          role in providing habitat and
                                                                          resources for land-based wildlife as
                                                                          well as aquatic life.

                                                                             Tribes may designate their
                                                                          waters for special cultural and
                                                                          ceremonial uses:

-------
              Culture

              Water quality sup-
              ports the waterbody's
role in Tribal culture and preserves
the waterbody's religious, ceremoni-
al, or subsistence significance.

    The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions assign one of five levels
of use support categories to each of
their waterbodies (Table 1). If possi-
ble, the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions determine the level of
use support by comparing monitor-
ing data with  numeric criteria for
each  use designated for a particular
waterbody. If  monitoring data are
not available,  the State, Tribe, or
other jurisdiction may determine
the level of use support with quali-
tative information. Valid qualitative
information includes  land use data,
fish and game surveys, and predic-
tive model results. Monitored
assessments are based on monitor-
ing data. Evaluated assessments are
based on qualitative information or
monitored information more than
5 years old.

    For waterbodies with more than
one designated use, the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions con-
solidate the individual use support
information into a single overall use
support determination:

           Good/Fully Supporting
           Overall Use - All desig-
           nated beneficial uses are
           fully supported.

            Good/Threatened
            Overall Use - One or
            more designated benefi-
            cial  uses are threatened
            and the remaining uses
are fully supported.
           Fair/Partially
           Supporting Overall
           Use - One or more des-
           ignated beneficial uses
           are partially supported
and the remaining uses are fully
supported or threatened. These
waterbodies are considered
impaired.

           Poor/Not Supporting
           Overall Use - One or
           more designated bene-
           ficial uses are not
           supported. These water-
bodies are considered  impaired.
                                      Poor/Not Attainable -
                                      The State, Tribe, or
                                      other jurisdiction has
                                      performed a use-attain-
                                      ability analysis and
                           demonstrated that use support of
                           one or more designated beneficial
                           uses is not attainable due to one of
                           six biological, chemical,  physical, or
                           economic/social conditions specified
                           in the Code of Federal Regulations
                           (40 CFR Section 131.10). These
                           conditions include  naturally high
                           concentrations of pollutants (such
                           as metals); other natural physical
                           features that create unsuitable
 Table!.  Levels of Use Support
  Symbol
Use Support Level
            Fully Supporting
            Threatened
            Partially Supporting
            Not Supporting
            Not Attainable
Water Quality
Condition
                     Good
                     Good
                     Fair
                     (Impaired)
                     Poor
                     (Impaired)
                     Poor
Definition
                Water quality meets
                designated use criteria.
                Water quality supports
                beneficial uses now
                but may not in the future
                unless action is taken.
                Water quality fails to meet
                designated use criteria at times.
                Water quality frequently fails
                to meet designated use criteria.
                The State, Tribe, or other juris-
                diction has performed a use-
                attainability analysis and
                demonstrated that use support
                is not attainable due to one of
                six biological, chemical, physi-
                cal, or economic/social condi-
                tions specified in the Code of
                Federal Regulations.

-------
 aquatic life habitat (such as inade-
 quate substrate, riffles, or pools);
 low flows or water levels; dams and
 other hydrologic modifications that
 permanently alter waterbody char-
 acteristics; poor water quality result-
 ing from human activities that can-
 not be reversed without causing
 further environmental degradation;
 and poor water quality that cannot
 be improved without imposing
 more stringent controls than those
 required in the CWA, which would
 result in widespread economic and
 social impacts.

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

    The EPA then aggregates the
 use support information submitted
 by the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions into a national assess-
ment of the Nation's water quality.

 How Many of Our
Waters  Were
 Surveyed for 1994?

    National estimates of the total
waters of our country provide the
foundation for determining the per-
centage of waters surveyed by the
States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions and the portion impaired by
pollution. For the 1992 reporting
period, EPA provided the States
with estimates of total river miles
and lake acres derived from the EPA
Reach File, a database containing
traces of waterbodies adapted from
1:100,000 scale maps prepared by
the U.S. Geological Survey. The
 States modified these total water
 estimates where necessary. Based
 on the 1992 EPA/State figures, the
 national estimate of total river miles
 doubled in large part because the
 EPA/State estimates included
 nonperennial streams, canals, and
                         ditches that were previously
                         excluded from estimates of total
                         stream miles.
                            Estimates for the 1994 report-
                         ing cycle are a minor refinement of
                         the 1992 figures and indicate that
                         the United States has:
  Figure 1. Percentage of Total Waters Surveyed for the 1994!Report
             Rivers
             streams
             Lakes,
             Ponds,
             Reservoirs
             Estuaries
               615,806 -17% surveyed
               Total miles: 3,548,738
              17,134,153 - 42% surveyed
              Total acres: 40,826,064
              26,847 - 78% surveyed
              Total square miles: 34,388a
Ocean
Shoreline
Waters
                           5,208 - 9% surveyed
                           Total miles: 58,421 miles, including Alaska's
                           36,000 miles of shoreline
             Great Lakes • 5,224 - 94% surveyed
             Shoreline   B Total miles: 5,559
Source:  1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by the States, Tribes, Territories,
       and Commissions.

aExcluding estuarine waters in Alaska because no estimate was available.

-------
• 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., nonperennial streams)

• Approximately 40.8 million acres
of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs

• About 34,388 square miles of
estuaries (excluding Alaska)
                                   • More than 58,000 miles of ocean
                                   shoreline, including 36,000 miles in
                                   Alaska

                                   • 5,559 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.
             '<*^v'^''^
                     onitorm
          	...„„.		
         < )|2, the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
  ^uaiity'tlTFM) cow
  quality monitoring nat^wide^                          partnership  :
    ^,t,^_.,^..^^                                                  -.„.

           n IriBe. THe~iEPA"elTa!rs the tfFN/TwIth the USGS all/Fee Waff™1
           	~- ^«;MP^%^«iiftM^	-™»«-—.	«™*... ,..^«r.
                                          rater information
_B. .„	utive becretanat aspart of their Water information Coordina-
a$^i!!3Zi!umvi^ji^jixvsm^*qaws^
^lonPi"9gram pursuant to OMB memo 92-01.

«i,B:,:*,i-'.::=i-::.- -^'^^^^W^^^^'^m^&mer^^^^
                ic plan to achieve effective"coHecfibn, interpretation,
       pres|r)tation~pt^aTEer"guality da|ajnH tolmprqve~tRe ^   _  _^_
      '^^^^^^^6n^j^i^^io^ak}n^B^_:a\\ jeveTs'of goyernfnentr
  ^,,,,i%4K£-RHYJ^^                                               ''"'
  ^atiorjal^ojilloriji.g 'C^^                                         ™
  jqstjtutional coifaboratiori, comparaBle field arid laboratoryJ methods,
  Duality assurance/quality control, envTrojirnentarindicators^ data"  '
    .anagement and sharing^ajicillajp^^te^
                                  e National Monitoring Council? are
                                  SBJ»SS-^(P!SH!«;jMS™«S(a^^S»i^Er-,^3S.T*f hi^=«ii m^^S^^^Mta^^oii^^i^^iiss^^^imifitaei^^y^^
           ucing products that can Jje used byjTionitoring prograrns
             "                      ""'
       riwide,"sucfi as an
  ^^^^$V'^W"£^tf*^r:'WF-.r<^^
  pro^raffi, environmental indicator selection criteria, and a matrix of
  IHdif atoris ^^yppQ^ assessment" of State ¥n JTriFaTdesTg^
  '^k*^'l?-S-<>'i'','-''?::.>'''$r^
  ^^^j^^^py^^^'fj^^pn"^ • an^ natfffM" reports; IcontactT"""
      LJ, . 11"* i  .if*, j£fsutMLfma^:SS,s^,£m^'fiim^^

    Most States do not survey all of
their waterbodies during the 2-year
reporting cycle required under CWA
Section 305(b). Thus, the surveyed
waters reported in Figure 1 are a
subset of the Nation's total waters.
In addition, the summary informa-
tion based on surveyed waters may
not represent general conditions in
the Nation's total waters because
States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions often focus on surveying
major perennial rivers, estuaries,
and public lakes with suspected  pol-
lution problems in order to direct
scarce resources to areas that could
pose the greatest risk. Many States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions lack
the resources to collect use support
information for nonperennial
streams, small tributaries, and pri-
vate ponds. This report does not
predict the health of these
unassessed waters, which include
an unknown ratio of pristine waters
to polluted waters.

Pollutants and
Processes That
Degrade Water
Quality

    Where possible, States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions identify the
pollutants or processes  that degrade
water quality and indicators that
document impacts of water quality
degradation. The most widespread
pollutants and processes identified
in rivers, lakes, and estuaries are
presented in Table 2. Pollutants
include sediment, nutrients, and
chemical contaminants (such as
dioxins and metals). Processes that

-------
degrade waters include habitat
modification (such as destruction of
streamside vegetation) and hydro-
logic modification (such as flow
reduction). Indicators of water qual-
ity degradation include physical,
chemical, and biological parame-
ters. Examples of biological parame-
ters include species diversity and
abundance. Examples of physical
and chemical parameters include
pH, turbidity, and temperature.
Following are descriptions of the
effects of the pollutants and
processes most commonly identi-
fied in rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal
waters, wetlands, and ground
water.

Low Dissolved Oxygen
    Dissolved oxygen is a  basic
requirement for a healthy  aquatic
ecosystem. Most fish and beneficial
aquatic insects "breathe" oxygen
dissolved in the water column.
Some fish and aquatic organisms
(such as  carp and sludge worms)
are adapted to  low oxygen condi-
tions, but most desirable fish
species (such as trout and salmon)
suffer if dissolved oxygen concen-
trations fall below 3 to 4 mg/L (3 to
4 milligrams of oxygen dissolved in
1 liter of water, or 3 to 4 parts of
oxygen per million parts of water).
Larvae and juvenile fish are more
sensitive  and require even  higher
concentrations of dissolved oxygen.
    Many fish and other aquatic
organisms can recover from short
periods of low dissolved oxygen
availability. However, prolonged
episodes of depressed dissolved
oxygen concentrations of 2 mg/L
or less can result in "dead"water-
bodies. Prolonged exposure to low
dissolved oxygen conditions can
suffocate adult fish or reduce their
reproductive survival by suffocating
sensitive eggs and larvae or can
starve fish by killing aquatic insect
larvae ancl other prey. Low
                             dissolved oxygen concentrations
                             also favor anaerobic bacterial activi-
                             ty that produces noxious gases or
                             foul odors often associated with
                             polluted waterbodies.
 Table 2. Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment
  Rank
Rivers
         Bacteria
         Siltation
         Nutrients
         Oxygen-Depleting
         Substances
         Metals
Lakes
                      Nutrients
                      Siltation
                      Oxygen-Depleting
                      Substances
                      Metals
                      Suspended Solids
Estuaries
                                                     Nutrients
                     Bacteria
                     Oxygen-Depleting
                     Substances
                     Habitat Alterations
                     Oil and Grease
Source:  Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
       Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
 JK	^iJ^^
 I!1::,":"', Fish 'kill reporting is a' vpjuntar/ grpcess; "States, 'Tribe's, and"pther
 Pjunsdiciions are nptjequjrecl tp_rep_ort_on how many "fish kills occur, or
 l^^l pfjjgf^Tiavg caused, them.,,In,, ma,ny cases it is the public-anglers,"
 trlSf	huntgg^recreatipnaj^boater^^^^^
    nd repp'rt"tfiem"to" game'^rde'ns^pr'ptifjer State'pffidaisrMany' fish"'"'™"'
 * kills go  undetected or unreported,  and others may be difficult to inves-
 fttigate, especially if they occur in remote areas. This is because dead
  fish may be carried quickly downstream or  may be difficult to count
  because of turbid  conditions. It is therefore likely that the statistics pre-
 a sented by the States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions underestimate the
 - total number offish kills that occurred nationwide between 1992 and
  1994. ,'"„",";",", ';;;'.';.  ' pi	    _              ,      t        _^
  "•   ?• Despite these  problems, fish kills are an important considerationTin""
  water quality assessmehts™ In 1994j 32"States, Tribes, and pther juris-
 S dictions,irepprted a total ofl1,454''fis'h''kiirincidents^%ese''''States attriKJ	
       737 of the fisR Rills to poTTufion, 257 to unknown causes, 263 to
 •natural  conditions (such as low flow and high temperatures), and 229 !
 Skills to ambiguous causes. Pollutants "most" often cited as the cause of
  kills include oxygen-depleting substances, sewage,  pesticides, manure
 _and silage, oil and gas, chlorine, and arnmonia. Leading sources of fish
 ^"kills include agncuituraracivlties7 industriaf dischgfges^ "municipal"
 ^ sewage* treatment	jpTanfcfiscKargesT'spins^	ruKorfrand'pe'strciHe	
  applications.
  	'	^ i-i-i- T	,•, :• i-ft-	••• •	r4. fer	~:-gi,~%gs..a^iSga;^.a^;-L:5fe±i?Ai'^^

-------
    Oxygen concentrations in the
water column fluctuate under natu-
ral conditions, but severe oxygen
depletion usually results from
human activities that introduce
large quantities of biodegradable
organic materials into surface wat-
ers. Biodegradable organic materials
contain plant, fish, or animal mat-
ter. Leaves, lawn clippings, sewage,
manure, shellfish processing waste,
milk solids, and other food process-
ing wastes are examples of oxygen-
depleting organic materials that
enter our surface waters.
    In both pristine and polluted
waters, beneficial bacteria use oxy-
gen to break apart (or decompose)
organic materials. Pollution-
containing organic wastes provide a
continuous glut of food for the bac-
teria, which accelerates bacterial
activity and population growth. In
polluted waters, bacterial consump-
tion of oxygen can rapidly outpace
oxygen replenishment from the
atmosphere and photosynthesis
performed by algae and aquatic
plants. The result is a net decline in
oxygen concentrations in the water.
    Toxic pollutants can indirectly
lower oxygen concentrations by
killing algae, aquatic  weeds, or fish,
which provides an abundance of
food for oxygen-consuming bacte-
ria. Oxygen depletion can also
result from chemical  reactions that
do not involve bacteria. Some pol-
lutants trigger chemical reactions
that place a chemical oxygen
demand on receiving waters.
    Other factors (such as tempera-
ture and salinity) influence the
amount of oxygen dissolved in
water. Prolonged hot weather will
depress oxygen concentrations and
may cause fish kills even in clean
waters because warm water cannot
hold as much oxygen as cold water.
Warm conditions further aggravate
oxygen depletion by stimulating
bacterial activity and respiration in
fish, which consumes oxygen.
Removal of streamside vegetation
eliminates shade, thereby raising
water temperatures, and accelerates
runoff of organic debris. Under such
conditions, minor additions of pol-
lution-containing organic materials
can severely deplete oxygen.

Nutrients
    Nutrients are essential building
blocks for healthy aquatic commu-
nities, but excess nutrients (especial-
ly nitrogen and phosphorus com-
pounds) overstimulate the growth
of aquatic weeds and algae. Exces-
sive growth of these organisms, in
turn, can clog navigable waters,
interfere with swimming and boat-
ing, outcompete native submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV), and lead
to oxygen depletion. Oxygen
concentrations can fluctuate daily
during algal blooms, rising during
the day as algae perform photosyn-
thesis, and falling at night as algae
continue to respire, which con-
sumes oxygen. Beneficial bacteria
also consume oxygen as they
decompose the abundant organic
food supply in dying algae cells.
    Lawn and crop fertilizers,
sewage, manure, and detergents
contain nitrogen and phosphorus,
the nutrients most often responsible
for water quality degradation.  Rural
areas are vulnerable to ground
water contamination from nitrates
(a compound containing nitrogen)
found in fertilizer and manure. Very
high concentrations of nitrate
(>10 mg/L) in drinking water cause
methemoglobinemia, or blue baby
syndrome, an inability to fix oxygen
in the blood.
    Nutrients are difficult to control
because lake and estuarine ecosys-
tems recycle nutrients. Rather  than
leaving the ecosystem, the nutrients
cycle among the water column,
algae and plant tissues, and the
bottom sediments. For example,
algae may temporarily remove all
the nitrogen from the water col-
umn, but the nutrients will return to
the water column when the algae
die and are decomposed by bacte-
ria. Therefore, gradual inputs of
nutrients tend to accumulate over
time rather than leave the system.

Sediment and  Siltation
    In a water quality context, sedi-
ment usually refers to soil particles
that enter the water column from
eroding land. Sediment consists of
particles of all sizes, including fine
clay particles, silt,  sand, and gravel.
Water quality managers use the

-------
   term "siltation" to describe the sus-
   pension and deposition of small
   sediment particles in waterbodies.
       Sediment and siltation can
   severely alter aquatic communities.
   Sediment may clog and abrade fish
   gills, suffocate eggs and aquatic
   insect larvae on the bottom, and fill
   in the pore space between bottom
   cobbles where fish lay eggs. Silt and
   sediment interfere with recreational
   activities and aesthetic enjoyment at
   waterbodies by reducing water clar-
   ity and filling in waterbodies. Sedi-
   ment may also carry other pollut-
   ants into waterbodies. Nutrients
   and toxic chemicals may attach to
   sediment particles on land and ride
   the particles into surface waters
   where the pollutants may settle
   with the sediment or detach and
   become soluble in the water
   column.
       Rain washes silt and other soil
   particles off of plowed fields, con-
   struction sites, logging sites, urban
   areas, and strip-mined lands into
   waterbodies. Eroding stream banks
   also deposit silt and sediment in
   waterbodies. Removal of vegetation
   on shore can accelerate streambank
   erosion.

   Bacteria and Pathogens
       Some waterbome bacteria,
   viruses, and protozoa cause human
   illnesses that range from typhoid
   and dysentery to minor respiratory
   and skin diseases. These organisms
   may enter waters through a num-
   ber of routes, including inadequate-
   ly treated sewage, stormwater
   drains, septic systems, runoff from
   livestock pens, and sewage dumped
   overboard from recreational boats.
   Because it  is impossible to test
waters for every possible disease-
causing organism, States and other
jurisdictions usually measure indica-
tor bacteria that are found in great
numbers in the stomachs and
intestines of warm-blooded animals
and people. The presence of indica-
tor bacteria suggests that the water-
body may be contaminated  with
untreated sewage and that other,
more dangerous organisms may be
present. The States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions use bacterial
criteria to determine if waters are
safe for recreation and shellfish
harvesting.

Toxic Organic Chemicals
and Metals

   Toxic organic chemicals  are
synthetic compounds that contain
carbon, such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and the
pesticide DDT. These synthesized
compounds often persist and
accumulate in the environment
because they do not readily break
down in natural ecosystems. Many
of these compounds cause cancer
in people and birth defects in other
predators near the top of the food
chain, such as birds and fish.
    Metals occur naturally in the
environment, but  human activities
(such as industrial processes and
mining) have altered the distribu-
tion of metals in the environment.
In most reported cases of metals
contamination, high concentrations
of metals appear in fish tissues
rather than the water column
because the metals accumulate in
greater concentrations in predators
near the top of the food chain.

PH

    Acidity, the concentration of
hydrogen ions, drives many chemi-
cal reactions in living organisms.
The standard measure of acidity is
10

-------
pH, and a pH value of 7 represents
a neutral condition. A low pH value
(less than 5) indicates acidic condi-
tions; a high pH (greater than 9)
indicates alkaline conditions. Many
biological processes, such as
reproduction, cannot function in
acidic or alkaline waters. Acidic
conditions also aggravate toxic
contamination problems because
sediments release toxicants in acidic
waters. Common sources of acidity
include mine drainage, runoff from
mine tailings, and atmospheric
deposition.

Habitat Modification/
Hydroiogic Modification

    Habitat modifications include
activities in the landscape, on
shore, and in waterbodies that alter
the physical structure of aquatic
ecosystems and have adverse
impacts on aquatic life. Examples
of habitat modifications include:

•  Removal of streamside vegeta-
tion that stabilizes the shoreline and
provides shade, which moderates
instream temperatures

•  Excavation of cobbles from a
stream bed that provide nesting
habitat for fish

•  Stream burial

•  Excessive suburban sprawl that
alters the natural drainage patterns
by increasing the intensity, magni-
tude, and energy of runoff waters.
TableS. Pollution Source Categories Used! in This Report - ; 1
Category
Industrial
Municipal
Combined
Sewers
Storm Sewers/
Urban Runoff
Agricultural
Silvicultural
Construction
Resource
Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydroiogic
Modification
Examples
Pulp and paper mills, chemical manufacturers, steel plants,
metal process and product manufacturers, textile manufacturers,
food processing plants
Publicly owned sewage treatment plants that may receive
indirect discharges from industrial facilities or businesses
Single facilities that treat both storm water and sanitary sewage,
which may become overloaded during storm events and
discharge untreated wastes into surface waters.
Runoff from impervious surfaces including streets, parking
lots, buildings, lawns, and other paved areas.
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
    Hydroiogic modifications alter
the flow of water. Examples of
hydrologic modifications include
channelization, dewatering,
damming, and dredging.

    Other pollutants include salts
and oil and grease. Fresh waters
may become unfit for aquatic life
and some human uses when  they
become contaminated by salts.
Sources of salinity include irrigation
runoff, brine used in oil extraction,
road deicing operations, and  the
intrusion  of sea water into ground
and surface waters in coastal  areas.
Crude oil and processed petroleum
products may be spilled during
extraction, processing, or transport
or leaked from underground stor-
age tanks.

Sources of
Water Pollution

    Sources of impairment generate
the pollutants that violate use sup-
port criteria (Table 3). Point sources
discharge pollutants directly into
surface waters from a conveyance.
Point sources include industrial facil-
ities, municipal sewage treatment
plants, and combined sewer over-
flows. Nonpoint sources deliver
pollutants to surface waters from
diffuse origins. Nonpoint sources
include urban runoff, agricultural
runoff, and atmospheric deposition
of contaminants in air pollution.
Habitat alterations, such as hydro-
modification, dredging, and
streambank destabilization, can also
degrade water quality.
                                                                                                           11

-------
       Throughout this document, EPA
   rates the significance of causes and
   sources of pollution by the percent-
   age of impaired waters impacted by
   each individual cause or source
   (obtained from the Section 305(b)
   reports submitted by the States,
   Tribes, and other jurisdictions).
   Note that the cause and source
   rankings do not describe the condi-
   tion of all waters in the United
   States because the States identify
   the causes and sources degrading
   some of their impaired waters,
   which are a small subset of sur-
   veyed waters, which are a subset of
   the Nation's total waters. For exam-
   ple, the States identified sources
   degrading some of the 224,236
   impaired river miles, which repre-
   sent 36% of the surveyed river
   miles and only 6% of the Nation's
   total stream miles.
       "The term 'point source'
       means any discernible,
       confined, and discrete
   conveyance, including but not
      limited to any pipe, ditch,
   channel, tunnel, conduit, well,
      discrete fissure, container,
      rolling stock, concentrated
    animal feeding operation, or
    vessel or other floating craft,
    from which pollutants are or
    may be discharged. This term
    does not include agricultural
       storm water discharges
       and return flows from
        irrigated agriculture."

    Clean Water Act, Section 502(14)
    Table 4 lists the leading sources
of impairment related to human
activities as reported by States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions for
their rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
Other sources cited include removal
of riparian vegetation, forestry
activities, land  disposal, petroleum
extraction and processing activities,
and construction. In addition to
human activities, the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions also reported
impairments from natural sources.
Natural sources refer to an assort-
ment of water quality problems:

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

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

•  Low-flow conditions and tannic
acids from decaying leaves that
lower pH and dissolved oxygen
concentrations in swamps draining
into streams.
    With so many potential sources
of pollution, it is difficult and
expensive for States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions to identify specif-
ic sources responsible for water
quality impairments. Many States
and other jurisdictions lack funding
for monitoring to identify all but
the most apparent sources degrad-
ing waterbodies. Local manage-
ment priorities may focus monitor-
ing budgets on other water quality
issues, such as identification of con-
taminated fish populations that
pose a human health risk. Manage-
ment priorities may also direct
monitoring efforts to larger water-
bodies and overlook sources impair-
ing smaller waterbodies. As a result,
the States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions 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.
Table 4. Five Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment Delated to Human Activities
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rivers
Agriculture
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Lakes
Agriculture
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Unspecified Nonpoint
Sources
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Estuaries
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Petroleum Activities
                                        Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
                                              Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
12

-------
Rivers  and   Streams
      Rivers and streams are charac-
  terized by flow. Perennial rivers
  and streams flow continuously, all
  year round. Nonperennial rivers
  and streams stop flowing for some
  period of time, usually due to dry
  conditions or  upstream withdraw-
  als. Many rivers and streams origi-
  nate in nonperennial headwaters
  that flow only during snowmelt or
  heavy showers. Nonperennial
  streams provide critical habitats for
  nonfish species, such as amphibians
  and dragonflies, as well as safe
  havens for juvenile fish to escape
  from predation by larger fish.
      The health of rivers and streams
  is directly linked to habitat integrity
  on shore  and  in adjacent wetlands.
  Stream quality will deteriorate if
  activities damage shoreline (i.e.,
  riparian) vegetation and wetlands,
  which filter pollutants from runoff
  and bind soils. Removal of vegeta-
  tion also eliminates shade that
  moderates stream temperature as
  well as the land temperature that
  can warm runoff entering surface
  waters. Stream temperature, in
  turn, affects the availability of dis-
  solved oxygen in the water column
  for fish and other aquatic organ-
  isms.

  Overall Water Quality

      For the 1994 Report,  58 States,
  Territories, Tribes, Commissions,
  and the District of Columbia sur-
  veyed 615,806 miles (17%) of the
  Nation's total  3.5 million miles of
  rivers and streams (Figure 2). The
  surveyed  rivers and streams repre-
  sent 48% of the 1.3 million miles of
  perennial rivers and streams that
  flow year round in the  lower 48
  States.
    Altogether, the States and
Tribes surveyed 27,075 fewer river
miles in 1994 than in 1992. Individ-
ually, most States reported that
they surveyed more river miles in
1994, but their increases were off-
set by a decline of 85,000 surveyed
river miles reported by Montana,
Mississippi, and Maryland. For
1994, these States reported use
support status for only those river
miles that they surveyed in direct
monitoring programs or evaluations
rather than using inferences for
unsurveyed waters.
    The following  discussion applies
exclusively to surveyed waters and
cannot be extrapolated to describe
conditions in the Nation's rivers as a
whole because the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions do not con-
sistently use statistical or probabilis-
tic survey methods to characterize
all their waters at this time. EPA is
working with the States, Tribes, arid
other jurisdictions to expand survey
                                    coverage of the Nation's waters and
                                    expects future survey information
                                    to cover a greater portion of the
                                    Nation's rivers and streams.
                                     Figure 2. River Miles Surveyed
                                    Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
                                    Total surveyed = 615,806 miles
                                                  17% Surveyed
                                                  83% Not Surveyed
                                     Figure13.  Levels of Overall Use
                                             Support - Rivers
          Good
          (Fully Supporting)
          57%
          Good
          (Threatened)
          7%
          a
          Fair
          (Partially Supporting)
          22%
          Poor
          (Not Supporting)
          14%
          Poor
          (Not Attainable)
Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
      reports submitted by States, Tribes,
      Territories, Commissions, and the
      District of Columbia.
                                                                                                          13

-------
       Of the Nation's 615,806 sur-
   veyed river miles, the States, Tribes,
   and other jurisdictions found that
   64% have good water quality. Of
   these waters, 57% fully support
   their designated uses, and an addi-
   tional 7% support uses but are
   threatened and may become
   impaired if pollution control actions
   are not taken (Figure 3).
       Some form of pollution or
   habitat degradation  prevents the
   remaining 36% (224,236 miles) of
   the surveyed river miles from fully
   supporting a healthy aquatic com-
   munity or human activities all year
   round. Twenty-two percent of the
   surveyed river miles have fair water
   quality that partially supports desig-
   nated uses. Most of the time, these
   waters provide adequate habitat for
   aquatic organisms and support
   human activities, but periodic pollu-
   tion interferes with these activities
   and/or stresses aquatic life. Four-
   teen percent of the surveyed river
   miles have poor water quality th~»t
   consistently stresses aquatic life
   and/or prevents people from using
   the river for activities such as swim-
   ming and fishing.

   What Is Polluting Our
   Rivers and Streams?
        «
      The States and Tribes report
   that bacteria pollute 76,397 river
   miles (which equals 34% of the
   impaired river miles) (Figure 4).
   Bacteria provide evidence of possi-
   ble fecal contamination that may
   cause illness if the  public ingests the
   water.
       Siltation, composed of tiny soil
   particles, remains one of the most
   widespread pollutants impacting
rivers ancl streams. The States and
Tribes reported that siltation impairs
75,792 river miles (which equals
34% of the impaired river miles).


  Bacteria and siltation are
    the most widespread
   pollutants in rivers and
  streams, affecting 34% of
  the impaired river miles.


Siltation alters aquatic habitat and
suffocates fish eggs and bottom-
dwelling organisms. Excessive silta-
tion can also interfere with drinking
water treatment processes and
recreational use of a river.
    In addition to siltation and bac-
teria, the States and Tribes also
reported that nutrients, oxygen-
depleting substances, metals, and
habitat alterations impact more
miles of rivers and streams than
other pollutants and processes.
Often, several pollutants and
processes impact a single river seg-
ment. For example, a process, such
as removal of shoreline vegetation,
may accelerate erosion of sediment
and nutrients into a stream.

Where Does This
Pollution Come From?

    The States and Tribes reported
that agriculture is the most wide-
spread source of pollution in the
Nation's surveyed rivers (Figure 4).
Agriculture generates  pollutants
that degrade aquatic life or interfere
with public use of 134,557 river
miles (which equals 60% of the
impaired river miles) in 49 States
and Tribes.
Twenty-one States reported the size
of rivers impacted by specific types
of agricultural activities:

• Nonirrigated Crop Production -
crop production that relies on rain
as the sole source of water.

• Irrigated Crop Production - crop
production that uses irrigation sys-
tems to supplement rainwater.

• Rangeland - land grazed by ani-
mals that is seldom enhanced by
the application of fertilizers  or pesti-
cides, although managers some-
times modify plant species to a lim-
ited extent.

• Pastureland - land upon  which a
crop (such as alfalfa) is raised to
feed animals, either by grazing the
animals among the crops or har-
vesting the crops.

• Feedlots - facilities where animals
are  fattened and confined at high
densities.

• Animal Holding Areas - facilities
where animals are confined briefly
before slaughter.

    The States reported that non-
irrigated crop production impaired
the most river miles, followed by
irrigated crop production, range-
land, feedlots, pastureland,  and
animal holding areas.
    Many States reported declines
in pollution from sewage treatment
  Agriculture is the leading
   source of impairment in
      the Nation's rivers,
     affecting 60% of the
     impaired river miles.
14

-------
plants and industrial discharges as a
result of sewage treatment plant
construction and upgrades and
permit controls on industrial dis-
charges. Despite the improvements,
municipal sewage treatment plants
remain the second most common
source of pollution in rivers (impair-
ing 37,443 miles) because popula-
tion growth increases the  burden
on our municipal facilities.
    Hydrologic modifications and
habitat alterations are a growing
concern to the States. Hydrologic
modifications include activities that
alter the flow of water in a stream,
such as channelization, dewatering,
and damming of streams. Habitat
alterations include removal of
streamside vegetation that protects
the stream from high temperatures,
and scouring of stream bottoms.
Additional gains in water quality
conditions will be more subtle and
require innovative management
strategies  that go beyond  point
source controls.
    The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions also reported  that
urban runoff and storm sewers
impair 26,862 river miles (12% of
the impaired rivers), resource
extraction impairs 24,059 river
miles (11 % of the impaired rivers),
and removal of streamside vegeta-
tion impairs 21,706 river miles
(10% of the impaired rivers).
    The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions also report that "natur-
al" sources impair significant
stretches of rivers and streams.
"Natural" sources, such as low flow
and soils with arsenic deposits, can
prevent waters from supporting
uses in the absence of human
activities.
Figure 4. Impaired 
-------
 Lakes,   Ponds,  and  Reservoirs
       Lakes are sensitive to pollution
   inputs because lakes flush out their
   contents relatively slowly.  Even
   under natural conditions,  lakes
   undergo eutrophication, an aging
   process that slowly fills in  the lake
   with sediment and organic matter
   (see sidebar). The eutrophication
   process alters basic lake characteris-
   tics such as depth,  biological pro-
   ductivity, oxygen levels, and water
   clarity. The eutrophication process
   is commonly defined by a series of
   trophic states as described in the
   sidebar.

   Overall Water Quality

       Forty-eight States, Tribes, and
   other jurisdictions surveyed overall
   use support in more than  17.1  mil-
   lion lake acres representing 42% of
   the approximately 40.8 million total
   acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs
   in the Nation (Figure 5). For 1994,
   the States surveyed about 1 million
   fewer lake acres than in 1992.
       The number of surveyed lake
   acres declined because several
   States separated fish tissue data
   from their survey of overall use sup-
   port. Some of these States, such as
   Minnesota, have established mas-
   sive databases of fish  tissue contam-
   ination information (which is used
   to establish fish consumption advi-
   sories), but lack other types of
   water quality data for many of their
   lakes. In 1994, these States chose
   not to assess overall use support
   entirely with fish tissue data alone,
   which is a very narrow indicator of
   water quality.
       The States and Tribes  reported
   that 63% of their surveyed 17.1
   million lake acres have good water
quality. Waters with good quality
include 50% of the surveyed lake
acres fully supporting uses and 13%
of the surveyed lake acres that are
threatened and might deteriorate if
we fail to manage potential sources
of pollution (Figure 6).
    Some form of pollution or habi-
tat degradation impairs the remain-
ing  37% of the surveyed lake acres.
Twenty-eight percent of the sur-
veyed lake acres have fair water
quality that partially supports desig-
nated uses. Most of the time, these
waters provide adequate habitat for
aquatic organisms and support
human activities, but periodic pollu-
tion interferes with these activities
and/or stresses aquatic life. Nine
percent of the surveyed lake acres
suffer from poor water quality that
consistently stresses aquatic life
and/or prevents people from using
the  lake for activities such as swim-
ming and fishing.
                                    Figure 5J Lake Acres Surveyed
                                   Total lakes = 40.8 million acres
                                   Total surveyed = 17.1 million acres
                                                 42% Surveyed
                                                 58% Not Surveyed
                                    Figure 6.  Levels of Overall Use
                                          ;  Support - Lakes
          Good
          (Fully Supporting)
          50%
          Good
          (Threatened)
          13%
          Fair
          (Partially Supporting)
          28%
          Poor
          (Not Supporting)
          9%
          Poor
          (Not Attainable)
Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
      reports submitted by States, Tribes,
      Territories, Commissions, and the
      District of Columbia.
16

-------
What Is  Polluting
Our Lakes,  Ponds,
and Reservoirs?
    Forty-one States, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto  Rico reported
the number of lake acres impacted
by individual pollutants and
processes.
    Thirty-seven States and Puerto
Rico identified more lake acres pol-
luted by nutrients than any other
pollutant or process (Figure 7). The
                                      States and Puerto Rico reported
                                      that extra nutrients pollute 2.8 mil-
                                      lion lake acres (which equals 43%
                                      of the impaired lake acres). Healthy
                                      lake ecosystems contain nutrients in
                                      small quantities, but extra inputs of
                                      nutrients from human activities
                                      unbalance lake ecosystems.
                                          In addition to nutrients, the
                                      States, Puerto Rico, and the District
                                      of Columbia report that siltation
                                      pollutes 1.8 million lake acres
                                      (which equals 28% of the impaired
 ^	y$jg^^
 JOJlgptrpphic    Clear .waters, with little organic matter^br sediment
  "'"'•" '''JI'"'>3^W&5U^;st4»
                  AA/aters with more nutrients and, therefore, more
                        icaf productivity.- •  •
 fEutrppfiicf'^:'
                   |rpyyc|ivfe. ^Sprne species may be choked put
                   >iffl5^i'rfy88«i§S&XiiK^                     I? •f^P^sswat^sff xi r5xVn'--«KeKES¥,.5S
                           ughly/prouctve waters,.closest to thewetids
                                                '^'"'"""'
                                                       issolved humic
                       I5C55aaBaf»(a«iS»!Jaa^s®Ji«jl^^iiJ4*=' »^.^Pi«^V1s^^;^^'^yf iK^Bss^^^T^ncfwa-w • ssyji.'.vf &:; •."?:.',. yjrf&rsn • 'K:^^^                                         .

        jrbapjrunoff,Jeaking septic systems,
  rSambajife an3 similar sources can enhance tfie flow of nutrients and
  K^«6'3^^4i4"fe?' ^p{S*"S*'"1S«iWiw DIAL'S "S^Sft f'-S.^f^SSji^S'!^ is*JS^f^SSli^ 5f« .^.W^"fe»S$1^4S^';>£isJ^ ^ i«c i?1^ -i^is ww b^»?«cin.^ii;^r5!^ii.i^;;i*s4 &^-a:i;-^Si?^S'jSi3;?iS'5^' S
a  jganic sybstances into lakes.MThes,e substances. .caji^ oyerstimulate^the.  ,_r ',
Jfo^fi'pf aJgae anB'Vqu^
^^^"^^^j^^\^^^^^^j^^^^^'^^^:'^n^s^^\,^.'.' "•
/piant, and anjrnal.popuiatipns\°'|nfi.anceH"euifro              nutrient
                             -  '-   js'pr|e^-ojth^Je^^probiemsfacing
lake acres), enrichment by organic
wastes that deplete oxygen  impacts
1.6 million lake acres (which equals
24% of the impaired lake acres),
and metals pollute 1A million acres
(which equals 21% of the impaired
lake acres).
    Metals declined from the most
widespread pollutant impairing
lakes in the 1992 305(b) reporting
                                                                                        Iter tl^e community ot
                                                                                  anB plant species in Fakes
                                                                             |||nd can .Increase the solubility
                                                                              of toxic substances and maqnify
                                                                              =-..1- .Vf. j , _- ; _.. _,.;• _-.- _•,.; .- - i- -.:;—•.-,-.•,,-.;.., - ^ -.---.' ']-. , ~J . , J .
                                                                              tlieir adyerse effects. Twerity-
                                                                             Iplght States reported the results
                                                                             aof Jake acidification assessments.
                                                                             SyS|S;.^';5;;;i-.f-'-V:S;t4,.!:';ii«*!-i»..«Ss«:-:a»--.SiSiE'.iv.::3»w!*i^'-
                                                                             iThese States assessed pH (a
                                                                             Sfteasilre bf aciBity) at more than
                                                                             B§;,933 lakes and detected acidic
                                                                              !cpnp!itipns in 526 lakes and a
                                                                                      acidic, cpjQdjtions in_ _______ „
                                                                                        Iviost pfthe!states
                                                                             tthat assessed acidic conditions
                                                                             ilafS" located in the Northeast,
                                                                              [Upper Midwest, and the South.
                                                                              £;, ;6nlyll States identified ,..,;-
                                                                                     p,
                                                                                     and
                                                                              attributed mpst of their add lake
                                                                                        to: acid deposition
                                                                                         t
                                                                              l|rorrijiacijc;rairji, fog, or ciry
                                                                              lyfeposition in conjunction with
                                                                              Jngtural cpjTcfitipns t,(i01imjf a ._ ,
                                                                              dake^sxapacity to neutralize
                                                                                                        ,,.
                                                                              , Maryland, Montana, Oklahoma,
                                                                              jand Tennessee reported that
                                                                              rjcid mine drainage resulted in
                                                                              Acidic lake cpnditipns pr threajt-;
                                                                               ened lakes with the potential to
                                                                              n B^i.,; .->.,.(.,->-»-..-.. (!•*., . - .'i^i .• ,.-«,f j-.H . -....•._•• : -: _  ....... .
                                                                             j| generate acidic conditipns.
                                                                              S':;,, '„- ;, V,fe;- ':-"~ '.',r;  ; :'- « '- • -
                                                                                                                17

-------
   cycle to the fourth leading pollutant
   impairing lakes in 1994. The
   decline is due to changes in State
   reporting and assessment methods
   rather than a measured decrease in
   metals contamination. In 1994, sev-
   eral States chose to no longer assess
   overall use support with fish
   contamination data alone. Much of
   that data consisted of measure-
   ments of metals in fish tissue. As a
   result of excluding these fish tissue
   data, the national estimate of lake
   acres impaired by metals fell by
   over 2  million acres in 1994.
       More States reported
        Impairments due to
      nutrients than any other
          single pollutant.


       Forty-one States also surveyed
   trophic status, which is associated
   with nutrient enrichment,  in 9,735
   of their lakes. Nutrient enrichment
   tends to increase the proportion of
   lakes in the eutrophic and hypereu-
   trophic categories. These States
   reported that 18% of the lakes they
   surveyed for trophic status were
   oligotrophic, 32% were mesotroph-
   ic, 36% were eutrophic, 6% were
   hypereutrophic, and 3% were dys-
   trophic. This information may not
   be representative  of national lake
   conditions because States often
   assess lakes in response to a prob-
   lem or public complaint or because
   of their easy accessibility. It is likely
   that more remote lakes—which
   are probably less impaired—are
   underrepresented in these assess-
   ments.
Figure 7. Impaired Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources
                        Not
                      Surveyed
                       58%
Total lakes = 40.8 million acres
                                                                  •^p"~ Impaired  /•
                                                                         37%
                                           Total surveyed = 17.1 million
                                                         acres
                   Total impaired = 6.7 million acres
Leading Pollutants Impaired %
Nutrients
Siltation
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Metals
Suspended Solids
Pesticides
Priority Organic Toxic
Chemicals

B •-•'•- -' -''' •"•"*'' 1 I 1

fc... ,:.•;] 11

Ife.^i";- 3 1 1

fife " ' ";i :| 1

l'"i 1 II n Majnr

§1 1 LI Moderate/Minor
i.-^g — n 1— 1 Not Specified
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
43
28
24
21
14
11
8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Percent of Impaired Lake Acres
Leading Sources Impaired %
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Unspecified Nonpoint Sources
Hydro/Habitat Modification
Industrial Point Sources
Land Disposal

Bfep-^l 1 1

n n

Rl 1 1


lE&s 	 | | | lii Moderate/Minor
E3 Not Specified
El 	 ,1 1 ] Mnt ^nnrifiorl

BBl 1
i i i i i i
50
19
18
15
12
11
11
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Impaired Lake Acres
                                        Source:  Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
                                               Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
18

-------
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?

    Forty-two States and Puerto
Rico reported sources of pollution
in some of their impacted lakes,
ponds, and reservoirs. These States
and Puerto Rico reported that agri-
culture is the most widespread
source of pollution in the Nation's
surveyed lakes (Figure 7). Agricul-
ture generates pollutants that
degrade aquatic life or interfere
with public use of 3.3 million lake
acres (which equals 50% of the
impaired lake acres).


  Agriculture is the leading
   source of impairment in
    lakes, affecting 50% of
     impaired lake acres.


The States and Puerto Rico also
reported that municipal sewage
treatment plants pollute 1.3 million
lake acres (19% of the impaired
lake acres), urban runoff and storm
sewers pollute 1.2 million lake acres
(18% of the surveyed lake acres),
unspecified nonpoint sources impair
989,000 lake acres (15% of the
impaired lake acres), hydrologic
modifications and habitat alter-
ations degrade 832,000 lake acres
(12% of the impaired lake acres),
and industrial point sources pollute
759,000 lake acres (11 % of the
impaired lake acres). Many States
prohibit new point source dis-
charges into lakes, but existing
municipal sewage treatment plants
remain a leading source of pollution
entering lakes.
    The States and Puerto Rico list-
ed numerous sources that impact
several hundred thousand lake
acres, including land disposal of
wastes, construction, flow regula-
tion, highway maintenance and
runoff, contaminated sediments,
atmospheric deposition of pollut-
ants, and onsite wastewater systems
(including septic tanks).
                                                                                                         19

-------
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, includ-
   ing air pollution. 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 with
   few natural outlets. Despite dramat-
   ic declines in the occurrence of
   algal blooms, fish kills, and localized
   "dead" zones depleted of oxygen,
   less visible problems continue to
   degrade the Great Lakes.

   Overall Water Quality

      The States surveyed 94% of the
   Great Lakes shoreline miles for
   1994 and reported that fish con-
   sumption advisories and aquatic life
   concerns are the dominant water
   quality problems, overall, in the
   Great Lakes (Figure 8). The States
   reported that most of the Great
   Lakes nearshore waters are safe for
   swimming and other recreational
   activities and can be used as a
   source of drinking water with nor-
   mal treatment. However, only 2%
   of the surveyed nearshore waters
   fully support designated uses, over-
   all, and 1 % support uses but are
   threatened (Figure 9). About 97%
   of the surveyed waters do not fully
   support designated uses, overall,
   because fish consumption advi-
   sories are posted throughout the
   nearshore waters of the Great Lakes
   and water quality conditions are
   unfavorable for supporting aquatic
   life in many cases. Aquatic life
   impacts result from persistent toxic
   pollutant burdens in birds, habitat
   degradation and destruction, and
 Figure 8. Cheat Lakes Shore Miles
        Surveyed
Total Great Lakes = 5,559 miles
Total surveyed = 5,224 miles
              94% Surveyed
Figure 9.'.  Levels of Overall Use
      ;  Support - Great Lakes
              6% Not Surveyed
         Good
         (Fully Supporting)
         2%
                                            Good
                                            (Threatened)
                                            1%
                                            I
         Fair
         (Partially Supporting)
         34%
                                            Poor
                                            (Not Supporting)
                                            63%
                                            Poor
                                            (Not Attainable)
                                            0%
                                                                        Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
                                                                              reports.

-------
competition and predation by
nonnative species such as the zebra
mussel and the sea lamprey.
 Considerable progress has
  been made in controlling
   conventional pollutants,
   but the Great Lakes are
  still subject to the effects
      of toxic pollutants.


    These figures do not address
water quality conditions in the
deeper, cleaner, central waters of
the Lakes.

What Is Polluting
the Great  Lakes?

    The States reported that most
of the Great Lakes shoreline is
polluted by toxic organic chemi-
cals-primarily PCBs-that are often
found in fish tissue samples. The
Great Lakes States reported that
toxic organic chemicals impact
98% of the impaired Great Lakes
shoreline miles. Other  leading caus-
es of impairment include pesticides,
affecting 21%; nonpriority organic
chemicals, affecting 20%; nutrients,
affecting 6%; and metals, affecting
6% (Figure 10).
Figure 10.  Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources
                                                             Not
                                                            Surveyed^
                                       Surveyed
                                        94%
                                        Total shoreline = 5,559 miles


                                          Total surveyed = 5,224 miles
                     Total impaired = 5,077 miles
Leading Pollutants Impaired %
Priority Toxic Organic
Chemicals
Pesticides
Nonpriority Organic
Chemicals
Nutrients
Metals
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances

m^,-'-:i 1 i

i i

\ i
H Major
i 1 Q Moderate/Minor
„-, D Not Specified
P~~^ 1 1 1 1
98
21
20
6
6
6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline
Leading Sources Impaired %
Air Pollution
Discontinued Discharges
Contaminated Sediment
Land Disposal of Wastes
Unspecified NPS
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/Storm Sew.

1 • 1

lt~ ' - _j r -- ^1


ir--;;:;:-" r; >:;, \ : 1 i

1 8

iE—l I
	 p51| . . .
| IHl Major
El Moderate/Minor
1 	 i D Not Specified
1 1 1 1 1
21
20
15
9
6
4
4
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline
                                    Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
                                           Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
                                                                                                          21

-------
   Where Does This
   Pollution Come From?

       Only four of the eight Great
   Lakes States measured the size of
   their Great Lakes shoreline polluted
   by specific sources. These States
   have jurisdiction over one-third of
   the Great Lakes shoreline, so their
   findings do not necessarily reflect
   conditions throughout the Great
   Lakes Basin.

   • Wisconsin identifies air pollution
   and discontinued discharges as a
   source of pollutants contaminating
   all 1,017 of their surveyed shoreline
   miles. Wisconsin also identified
   smaller areas impacted by contami-
   nated sediments, nonpoint sources,
   industrial and municipal discharges,
   agriculture, urban runoff and storm
   sewers, combined sewer overflows,
   and land disposal of waste.

   • Indiana attributes all of the pollu-
   tion along its entire 43-mile  shore-
   line to air pollution, urban runoff
   and storm sewers, industrial  and
   municipal discharges, and agricul-
   ture.

   • Ohio reports that nonpoint
   sources pollute 86 miles of its 236
   miles of shoreline, in-place contami-
   nants impact 33 miles, and land
   disposal of waste impacts 24 miles
   of shoreline.

   • New York identifies many sources
   of pollutants in their Great Lakes
   waters, but the State attributes the
   most miles of degradation to
   contaminated sediments (439
   miles) and land disposal of waste
   (374 miles).
22

-------
Estuaries
      Estuaries are areas partially sur-
  rounded by land where rivers meet
  the sea. They are characterized by
  varying degrees of salinity, complex
  water movements affected by
  ocean tides and river currents, and
  high turbidity levels. They are also
  highly productive ecosystems with a
  range of habitats for many different
  species of plants, shellfish, fish, and
  animals.
      Many species permanently
  inhabit the estuarine ecosystem;
  others, such as shrimp, use the
  nutrient-rich estuarine waters as
  nurseries before traveling to the sea.
      Estuaries  are stressed by the
  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.

  Overall Water  Quality
      Twenty-five coastal States and
  jurisdictions surveyed  78% of the
  Nation's total estuarine waters in
  1994 (Figure 11). The States and
  other jurisdictions reported that
  63% of the surveyed estuarine
  waters have good water quality that
  fully supports designated uses
  (Figure 12). Of these waters, 6%
  are threatened and might deterio-
  rate if we fail to  manage potential
  sources of pollution.
    Some form of pollution or habi-
tat degradation impairs the remain-
ing 37% of the surveyed estuarine
waters. Twenty-seven percent of the
surveyed estuarine waters have fair
water quality that partially supports
designated uses. Most of the time
these waters provide adequate habi-
tat for aquatic organisms and sup-
port human activities,  but  periodic
pollution interferes with these activi-
ties and/or stresses aquatic life. Nine
percent of the surveyed estuarine
waters suffer from poor water quali-
ty that consistently stresses aquatic
life and/or prevents  people from
using the estuarine waters for
activities such  as swimming and
shellfishing.
                                      Figure 11. Estuary Square Miles
                                               Surveyed        I
                                     Total estuaries = 34,388 square miles
                                     Total surveyed = 26,847 square miles


                                                    78% Surveyed
                                                    22% Not Surveyed
                                      Figure 12.  Levels of Overall Use
                                                Support - Estuaries
Good
(Fully Supporting)
57%
Good
(Threatened)
6%
E3
Fair
(Partially Supporting)
27%
Poor
(Not Supporting)
9%
Poor
(Not Attainable)
                                                                             Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
                                                                                   reports submitted by States, Tribes,
                                                                                   Territories, Commissions, and the
                                                                                   District of Columbia.
                                                                                                               23

-------
   What Is Polluting
   Our Estuaries?
       The States identified more
   square miles of estuarine waters
   polluted by nutrients and bacteria
   than any other pollutant or process
   (Figure  13). Fifteen States reported
   that extra nutrients pollute 4,548
   square miles of estuarine waters
   (which equals 47% of the impaired
   estuarine waters). As in lakes, extra
inputs of nutrients from human
activities destabilize estuarine
ecosystems.
    Twenty-five States reported that
bacteria pollute 4,479 square miles
of estuarine waters (which equals
46% of the impaired estuarine
waters). Bacteria provide evidence
that an estuary is contaminated
with sewage that may contain
numerous viruses and bacteria that
cause illness in people.
    The States also report that oxy-
gen depletion from organic wastes
impacts 3,127 square miles (which
equals 32% of the impaired estuar-
ine waters), habitat alterations
impact 1,564 square miles (which
equals 16% of the impaired estuar-
ine waters), and oil and grease pol-
lute 1,344 square miles (which
equals 14% of the impaired estuar-
ine waters).
   Chris Inghram, age 8, Bruner Elementary, North Las Vegas, NV
24

-------
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?

    Twenty-three States reported
that urban runoff and storm sewers
are the most widespread source of
pollution in the Nation's surveyed
estuarine waters. Pollutants in urban
runoff and storm sewer effluent
degrade aquatic life or interfere
with public use of 4,508 square
miles of estuarine waters (which
equals 46% of the impaired estuar-
ine waters) (Figure 13).
    The States also reported that
municipal sewage treatment plants
pollute 3,827 square miles of estu-
arine waters (39% of the impaired
estuarine waters), agriculture pol-
lutes 3,321 square miles of estuar-
ine waters (34% of the impaired
estuarine waters), and  industrial dis-
charges pollute 2,609 square miles
(27% of the impaired estuarine
waters). Urban sources contribute
more to the degradation of estuar-
ine waters than agriculture because
urban centers are located adjacent
to most major estuaries.
Krista Rose, age 8, Bruner Elementary,
North Las Vegas, NV
Fiqure 13. Impaired'Estuaries: Pollutants and Sources
                        Not
                       Surveyed
                        22%
                                          Total estuaries = 34,388 square
                                                         miles
                                            Total surveyed = 26,847
                                                           square miles
                    Total impaired = 9,700 square miles
Leading Pollutants Impaired %
Nutrients
Bacteria
Oxygen-Depleting Sub.
Habitat Alterations
Oil and Grease
Priority Toxic Chemicals
Metals

lit— » S
|t- ...... - ..... 3 |
F' - 1 1 1

i-H 1 1

1 1



11 1 Q Moderate/Minor
p| 	 1 U Not Specified
III 1 II 1 .1 I 1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles
47
46
32
16
14
10
9
Leading Sources ; i Impaired %
Urban Runoff/Storm Sew.
Municipal Point Sources
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Petroleum Activities
Construction
Land Disposal of Wastes

h ^ 1
\- I 11
LI II
W ,11
1 - i i
IS 1 |§! Major
' — ^ Modpratp/Minor
t 1! n Not Specified
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles
46
39
34
27
13
13
13
                                      Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
                                             Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
                                                                                                               25

-------
 Ocean  Shoreline Waters
       Although the oceans are expan-
   sive, they are vulnerable to pollu-
   tion from numerous sources,
   including city storm sewers, ocean
   outfalls from sewage treatment
   plants, overboard disposal of debris
   and sewage, oil spills, and bilge dis-
   charges that contain oil and grease.
   Nearshore ocean waters, in particu-
   lar, suffer from the same pollution
   problems that degrade our inland
   waters.

   Overall Water Quality

       Thirteen of the 27 coastal
   States and Territories surveyed only
   9% of the Nation's estimated
   58,421 miles of ocean coastline
   (Figure 14). Most of the surveyed
   waters (4,834 miles, or 93%) have
   good quality that supports a
   healthy aquatic community and
   public activities (Figure 15).  Of
   these waters, 225 miles (4% of the
   surveyed shoreline) are threatened
   and may deteriorate in the future.
       Some form of pollution or habi-
   tat degradation impairs the remain-
   ing 7% of the surveyed shoreline
   (374 miles). Five percent of the sur-
   veyed estuarine waters have fair
   water quality that partially supports
   designated uses. Most of the time,
   these waters provide adequate
   habitat for aquatic organisms and
   support human activities, but peri-
   odic pollution interferes with these
   activities and/or stresses  aquatic life.
   Only 2% of the surveyed shoreline
   suffers from poor water quality that
   consistently stresses aquatic life
   and/or prevents people from using
the shoreline for activities such as
swimming and shellfishing.
   Only six of the 27 coastal States
identified pollutants and sources of
pollutants degrading ocean shore-
line waters. General conclusions
cannot be drawn from the informa-
tion supplied by these States
because these States border less
than  1 % of the shoreline along the
contiguous  States. The six States
identified impacts in their ocean
shoreline waters from bacteria,
metals, nutrients, turbidity, siltation,
and pesticides. The six States
reported that urban runoff and
storm sewers, industrial discharges,
land  disposal of wastes, septic sys-
tems, agriculture, unspecified non-
point sources, and combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) pollute their
coastal shoreline waters.
                                    Figure 14. pcean Shoreline Waters
                                          :   Surveyed
                                   Total ocean shore = 58,421 miles
                                     including Alaska's shoreline
                                   Total surveyed = 5,208 miles
                                                 9% Surveyed
                                                 91% Not Surveyed
                                    Figure 15.  Levels of Overall Use   i
                                             Support-Ocean Shoreline
                                             Waters
Good
(Fully Supporting)
89%
Good
(Threatened)
4%
Fair
(Partially Supporting)
5%
Poor
(Not Supporting)
2%

Poor
(Not Attainable)
0%
                                                                         Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
                                                                               reports submitted by States and
                                                                               Territories.
26

-------
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 does support) a
   prevalence of vegetation typically
   adapted for life in saturated soil
   conditions. Wetlands, which are
   found throughout the United
   States, generally include swamps,
   marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
      Wetlands are now recognized
   as some of the most unique and
   important natural areas on earth.
   They vary in type according to
   differences in local and regional
   hydrology, vegetation, water chem-
   istry,  soils, topography, and climate.
   Coastal wetlands include estuarine
   marshes; mangrove swamps found
   in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Louisiana,
   and Florida; and Great Lakes coastal
   wetlands. Inland wetlands, which
   may  be adjacent to a waterbody or
   isolated, include marshes and wet
   meadows,  bottomland hardwood
   forests, Great Plains prairie pot-
   holes, cypress-gum swamps, and
   southwestern playa lakes.
      In their natural condition,
   wetlands provide many benefits,
   including food and habitat for fish
   and wildlife, water quality improve-
   ment, flood protection, shoreline
   erosion control, ground water
   exchange,  as well as natural prod-
   ucts for human use and  opportuni-
   ties for recreation, education, and
   research.
      Wetlands help maintain and
   improve water quality by intercept-
   ing surface water runoff before it
   reaches open water, removing or
   retaining nutrients, processing
   chemical and organic wastes, and
reducing sediment loads to
receiving waters. As water moves
through a wetland, plants slow the
water, allowing sediment and
pollutants to settle out. Plant roots
trap sediment and are then able to
metabolize and detoxify pollutants
and remove nutrients such as nitro-
gen and phosphorus.
    Wetlands function like natural
basins, storing either floodwater
that overflows riverbanks or surface
water that collects in isolated
depressions.  By doing so, wetlands
help protect adjacent and down-
stream property from flood dam-
age. Trees and other wetlands veg-
etation help slow the speed of flood
waters. This action, combined with
water storage, can lower flood
heights and reduce the water's ero-
sive potential. In agricultural areas,
wetlands can help reduce the likeli-
hood of flood damage to crops.
Wetlands within and upstream of
urban areas are especially valuable
for flood protection because urban
development increases the rate and
volume of surface water runoff,
thereby increasing the risk of flood
damage.
    Wetlands produce a wealth of
natural products, including fish and
shellfish, timber, wildlife, and wild
rice. Much of the Nation's fishing
and shellfishing industry harvests
wetlands-dependent species. A
national survey conducted by the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in
1991 illustrates the economic value
of some of the wetlands-dependent
products. Over 9 billion pounds of
fish and shellfish landed in the
United States in 1991 had a  direct,
dockside value of $3.3 billion. This
served  as the basis of a seafood
processing and sales industry that
generated total expenditures of
$26.8 billion. In addition, 35.6
million anglers spent $24 billion on
freshwater and saltwater fishing.
It is estimated that 71 % of
                                                                                                            27

-------
   commercially valuable fish and
   shellfish depend directly or
   indirectly on coastal wetlands.

   Overall Water Quality
       The States, Tribes, and other
   jurisdictions are making progress in
   developing specific designated uses
   and water quality standards for
   wetlands, but many States and
   Tribes still lack specific water quality
   criteria and monitoring programs
   for wetlands. Without criteria and
   monitoring data, most States and
   Tribes cannot evaluate use support.
   To date, only nine States and Tribes
   reported the designated use sup-
   port status for some of their wet-
   lands. Only one State used quanti-
   tative data as a basis for the use
   support decisions.
       EPA cannot derive national con-
   clusions about water quality condi-
   tions in all wetlands because the
   States used different methodologies
   to survey only 3% of the total wet-
   lands in the Nation. Summarizing
   State wetlands data would also
   produce misleading results because
   two States (North Carolina and
   Louisiana) contain 91 % of the
   surveyed wetlands acreage.

   What Is Polluting
   Our Wetlands and
   Where  Does This
   Pollution  Come From?

       The States have even fewer
   data to quantify the extent of
   pollutants degrading wetlands and
   the sources of these pollutants.
   Although most States cannot
   quantify wetlands area impacted by
   individual causes  and  sources of
 degradation, 12 States identified
 causes and 13 States identified
 sources known to degrade wetlands
 integrity to some extent. These
 States listed sediment as the most
 widespread cause of degradation
 impacting wetlands, followed  by
 flow alterations, habitat modifica-
 tions, and draining (Figure 16).
 Agriculture topped the list of
 sources degrading wetlands, fol-
 lowed by urban runoff, hydrologic
 modification, and municipal point
 sources (Figure 17).

 Wetlands Loss:
 A Continuing Problem

    It is estimated that over 200
 million acres of wetlands existed in
 the lower 48 States at the time of
 European settlement. Since then,
 extensive wetlands acreage has
 been lost, with many of the original
 wetlands drained and converted to
farmland and urban development.
Today, less than half of our original
wetlands remain. The losses
amount to an area equal to the size
of California. According to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Wetlands
Losses in the United States 1780's to
7980's, the three States that have
sustained the greatest percentage
of wetlands loss are California
(91%), Ohio (90%), and Iowa
(89%).
    According to FWS status and
trends reports, the average annual
loss of wetlands has decreased over
the past 40 years. The average
annual loss from the mid-1950s to
the mid-1970s was 458,000 acres,
and from the mid-1970s to the
mid-1980s it was 290,000 acres.
Agriculture was  responsible for 87%
of the loss from  the mid-1950s to
the mid-1970s and 54% of the loss
from the mid-1970s to the mid-
1980s.
 Figure 16. ;Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity (12 StatesJReporting)
Causes
Sediment
Flow Alterations
Habitat Alterations
Filling and Draining
Pesticides
Nutrients
Pathogens
Metals
Unknown Toxicity

fc ..'••••• i

r -•; ' vi

F , ,•: , . .,' 1

1 	 1

h , II
1 1 1
Total
8
5
5
5
3
2
2
2
2
05 10 15
Number of States Reporting
Source:  Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
       Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
28

-------
    A more recent estimate of wet-
lands losses from the National
Resources Inventory (NR1), conduct-
ed by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), indi-
cates that 792,000 acres of wet-
lands were lost on non-Federal
lands between  1982 and 1992 for a
yearly loss estimate of 70,000 to
90,000 acres. This net loss is the
result of gross losses of 1,561,300
acres of wetlands and gross gains of
768,700 acres of wetlands over the
10-year period. The NRI estimates
are consistent with the trend of
declining wetlands losses reported
by FWS. Although losses have
decreased, we still have to make
progress toward our interim goal of
no overall net loss of the Nation's
remaining wetlands and the long-
term goal of increasing the quantity
and quality of the Nation's wet-
lands resource base.
    The decline in wetlands losses is
a result of the combined effect of
several trends: (1) the decline in
profitability in converting wetlands
for agricultural production;
(2) passage of Swampbuster provi-
sions in the 1985 and 1990 Farm
Bills that denied crop subsidy bene-
fits to farm operators who convert-
ed wetlands to cropland after 1985;
(3) presence of the CWA Section
404 permit programs as well as
development of State management
programs; (4) greater public
interest and support for wetlands
protection; and (5) implementation
of wetlands restoration programs at
the Federal, State, and local level.
    Nineteen States listed sources
of recent wetlands losses  in their
1994 305(b) reports. Residential
development and urban growth
were cited as the leading sources of
current losses. Other losses were
due to commercial development;
construction of roads, highways,
and bridges; agriculture; and indus-
trial development. In addition to
human activities, a few States also
reported that natural sources, such
as rising lake levels,  resulted in
wetlands losses and degradation.
 Figure 17.  Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity (12 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture
Urban Runoff
Hydrologic Modification
Municipal Point Sources
Construction
Road Construction
Land Disposal


»=.-_-, _ -U=:.vi-J

»E" "-'..* 1

1C ' i

IEZ:_ ^_ .1

ICT*~ ;|

\f~ *~: I

If- •'•.'. 11
i i i
Total
8
6
5
4
4
4
4
0 5 10 15
Number of States Reporting
Source:  Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
       Commissions, and the District of Columbia.

                                     Kings Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA


                                         More information on wetlands
                                           can be obtained from the
                                            EPA Wetlands Hotline at
                                               1-800-832-7828.
                                                                                                             29

-------
 Ground  Water
       Ninety-five percent of all fresh
   water available on earth (exclusive
   of icecaps) is ground water. Ground
   water-water found in natural
   underground rock formations called
   aquifers-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 that may be
   susceptible to contamination.
   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 the Nation's
   ground water is of  good quality, it
   is recognized that ground water is
   more vulnerable to contamination
   than previously reported and that
   an increasing number of pollution
   events and contamination sources
   are threatening the integrity of the
   resource.

   Ground Water Use
       Nationally, 51% 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 51%
         of the population.

   higher in rural areas where most
   residents rely on potable or treat-
   able ground water as an economi-
   cal 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 sys-
tems (serving schools, parks, and
other small facilities) are ground
water systems.
    Irrigation accounts for approxi-
mately 63% 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 18% of national
ground water withdrawals.

Ground  Water Quality
   Although the 1994 Section
305(b) State Water Quality Reports
indicate that, overall, the Nation's
ground water is of good quality,
many local areas have experienced
significant ground water contami-
nation. The sources and types of
ground water contamination vary
depending upon the region of the
country. Those most frequently
reported by States include:

•  Leaking underground storage
tanks. Approximately 1.2 million
federally regulated underground
storage tanks are buried at over
500,000 sites nationwide. An esti-
mated 139,000 tanks have leaked
and impacted ground water quality.

•  Agricultural activities. Seventy-
seven percent of the  1.1 billion
pounds of pesticides  produced
annually in the United States is
applied to land in agricultural
production, which usually overlies
aquifers.

•  Superfund sites. More than
85% of all Superfund sites have
some degree of ground water
contamination. Most of these sites
impact aquifers that are currently
used, or potentially may be used,
for drinking water purposes.

•  Septic tanks. Approximately 23
million domestic septic tanks are in
operation in the United States.
These tanks impact ground water
quality through the discharge of
fluids into or above aquifers.

   The most common contami-
nants associated with these sources
include petroleum compounds,
nitrates, metals, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and pesticides.
   States are reporting that
ground water quality is most likely
to be adversely affected by
contamination in areas of high
30

-------
demand or stress. To combat these
problems, States are developing
programs designed to evaluate the
overall quality and vulnerability of
their ground water resources, to
identify potential threats to ground
water quality, and to identify meth-
ods to protect their ground water
resources. Thirty-three States indi-
cate that they have implemented
statewide ground water monitoring
programs.
    Ground water monitoring
programs vary widely among the
States, depending upon the special
needs of each of the States. For
example, some  States choose to
monitor ground water quality in
specific areas that are especially vul-
nerable to contamination, whereas
other States may choose to monitor
ground water quality on a  statewide
basis. When it comes to selecting
chemicals to test for in the ground
water, some States monitor for a
large suite of chemicals, whereas
other States limit monitoring to one
or two specific chemicals that are a
definite threat to ground water
quality.
    Ground water monitoring pro-
vides a great deal of information
about the nature and quality of our
Nation's ground water resources.
Still, there is much we do not know
about how human activities influ-
ence ground water quality. Our
continued quest for information
about the status of our ground
water will help protect and preserve
this vast and vulnerable resource.
Through a greater understanding of
how human activities influence
ground water quality, we can better
ensure the long-term availability of
high-quality water for future
generations.

Alisha Batten, age 8, Bruner Elementary, North Las Vegas, NV
Kings Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA
                                                                                                           31

-------
Water  Quality  Protection  Programs
      Although significant strides
  have been made in reducing the
  impacts of discrete pollutant
  sources, our aquatic resources
  remain at risk from a combination
  of point sources and complex non-
  point sources, including air pollu-
  tion. Since 1991, EPA has promoted
  the watershed protection approach
  as a holistic framework for address-
  ing complex pollution problems.
      The watershed protection
  approach is  a place-based strategy
  that integrates water quality man-
  agement activities within hydrologi-
  cally defined drainage basins-water-
  sheds-rather than areas defined by
  political boundaries. Thus, for a
  given watershed, the approach
  encompasses not only the water
  resource (such as a stream, lake,
  estuary, or ground water aquifer),
  but all the land from which water
  drains to the resource. To protect


      Under the Watershed
       Protection Approach
      (WPA), a "watershed"
     Is a hydrogeologic area
      defined for addressing
     water quality problems.
       For example, a WPA
    watershed may be a  river
       basin, a county-sized
      watershed/ or a small
      drinking water supply
           watershed.
  water resources, it is increasingly
  important to address the condition
  of land areas within the watershed
because water carries the effects of
human activities throughout the
watershed as it drains off the land
into surface waters or leaches into
the ground water.
   EPA's Office of Water envisions
the watershed protection approach
as the primary mechanism for
achieving clean water and healthy,
sustainable ecosystems throughout
the Nation. The watershed protec-
tion approach enables stakeholders
to take a comprehensive look at
ecosystem issues and tailor correc-
tive actions to local concerns within
the coordinated framework of a
national water program. The
emphasis on public participation
also provides an opportunity to
incorporate environmental justice
issues into watershed restoration
and protection solutions.
   In May of 1994, the EPA
Assistant Administrator for Water,
Robert Perciasepe, created the
Watershed Management Policy
Committee to coordinate the EPA
water program's support of the
watershed protection approach.
During 1995, EPA's water program
managers, under the direction of
the Watershed Management Policy
Committee, evaluated their pro-
grams and identified additional
activities needed to support the
watershed protection approach in
an action plan.
   EPA's Office of Water will con-
tinue to promote and support the
watershed protection approach at
local, State, Tribal, Territorial, and
Federal levels. The Office of Water
recognizes that the watershed pro-
tection approach relies on active
participation by local governments
and citizens who have the most
direct knowledge of local problems
and opportunities in their water-
sheds. However, the Office of Water
will look to the States, Tribes, and
32

-------
Territories to create the framework
for supporting local efforts because
most EPA programs are implement-
ed by the States, Tribes, and
Territories.

The Clean Water Act

    A number of laws provide the
authority to develop and implement
pollution control programs. The
primary statute providing for water
quality protection in the Nation's
rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries,
and coastal waters is the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of
1972, commonly known as the
Clean Water Act.
    The CWA and its amendments
are the driving force behind many
of the water quality improvements
we have witnessed in recent years.
Key provisions of the CWA provide
the following  pollution control
programs.

    Water quality standards and
    criteria - States, Tribes, and
    other jurisdictions adopt EPA-
    approved standards for their
    waters that define water quality
    goals for individual waterbod-
    ies. Standards consist of desig-
    nated beneficial  uses to be
    made of the water, criteria to
    protect those uses, and anti-
    degradation provisions to pro-
    tect existing water quality.

    Effluent guidelines - The EPA
    develops nationally consistent
    guidelines limiting pollutants in
    discharges from  industrial facili-
    ties and municipal sewage
    treatment plants. These guide-
    lines are then used in permits
    issued to dischargers under the
    rfhe Vtfrsieci l^tect|^    proa^h (WPA)
Sexera[|;eyprjnciples guide

^J^ce-fosed^^
       .^specific^ gepjjaDhjcal areas, usj^^^fined by watershedjapund;
                        rec
         SaS.as4Sg3^||3SSlEPSSfiK^
         iffinSii^^
                  e-mostlikely;tp> be: affected by management decisions
                      3 prpcess. Stakeholder participation ensures that
                     watershejd initiativei.'vyjll. includj: ecpnoroic,stability
                   e who depend pnthe wateivrespurcesjn the^/vater^
          ^participate in planning and implementation activities.
                             ' "   .partnerships between Federal, State,
                              srnmentaj organizations with interests in
      ^|*JibiS^ai^ft-;^s<^«M«M^ J-jSKi-f'W. Wc^e'TSowS7>S¥&l%fE!^' ^g«a«J^K6fi4tf'if Va^fH^Vt^Hif^^'iti, r' ^ff Wtfu^W!11^ 1W; ufiSV^^iKS iiP-^WnWHS! rt
             ^                            a^d partners identify
       Sn^^                     "pOjDulatipns ofstrfped bass will

       wili elimi^
        M|he ^c^s^pl j|^:watershed
     iectTves are Easedb
     ^tt|feftKfetei^!^w^^*iiSW»Sa)®a^^
        of people in the watershed.         .
                                                    f^^-""-1-:"^ *^!i'?T-J,^S ^^'^l "K^'KfS''*?1
                     an-a.n  pripritizationj- The ^aik|ho[ders_anc[ part-
  flerclini sc^^ffi'an8°rrlietHods fojdentify andTpTioritize the
 gprimary threats toihuman and ecosystem health within the watershed.
      sJsterit wthjthe Agencyjs mission, EPA views ecosystems as the i
                            ities thatincfudei people;^^ thus, healthy
  eCQ^^iTTS; prpyiye liar tBe^.Kealtharidi welfare ofhumans as welt as
 ptBer,I|yjng things. ;•;_;
 r^^^v^p^^-Xi^^T^^f^^
         ;^^ajf^oiRS.'=L.i|i&^kehpfd^/ajaci. partners take corrective
                           and integrated mariner, evaluate success,
                        gfary. The •.wateMi^cl, prptectipn approach
          ^S^pJiy^fe;gonBuj3ei|^'^ur^                          ;.'.."_
                               :ipns to^..rpijxlmize: effiaent_use pf lirnited

                                                                                                            33

-------
      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
      Maximum Daily Loads, or
      TMDLs, establishes the link
      between water quality stand-
      ards and point/nonpoint source
      pollution control actions such
      as permits or Best Management
      Practices (BMPs). A TMDL cal-
      culates allowable loadings from
      the contributing point and
      nonpoint sources to a given
      waterbody and  provides the
      quantitative basis for pollution
      reduction necessary to meet
      water quality standards. States,
      Tribes, and other jurisdictions
      develop and implement TMDLs
      for high-priority impaired or
      threatened waterbodies.

      Permits and  enforcement - All
      industrial and municipal facili-
      ties that discharge wastewater
      must have an NPDES permit
      and are responsible for moni-
      toring and  reporting levels of
      pollutants in their discharges.
      EPA issues these permits or can
      delegate that permitting
      authority to qualifying States or
      other jurisdictions. The States,
      other qualified jurisdictions, and
      EPA inspect facilities to deter-
      mine if their discharges comply
      with permit limits. If discharg-
      ers are not in compliance,
      enforcement action is taken.
    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 enforce-
    ment; and developing and
    implementing nonpoint source
    pollution controls, combined
    sewer and stormwater controls,
    ground water strategies, lake
    assessment, protection, and
    restoration activities, estuary
    and near coastal management
    programs, and wetlands pro-
    tection activities.

     Nonpoint source  control -
    The EPA provides program
    guidance, technical  support,
    and funding to help the States,
    Tribes, and other jurisdictions
    control nonpoint source pollu-
    tion. The States, Tribes, and
    other jurisdictions are responsi-
    ble for analyzing the extent
    and severity of their nonpoint
    source pollution  problems and
    developing and implementing
    needed water quality manage-
    ment actions.

    The CWA also established pollu-
tion control and prevention pro-
grams for specific waterbody cate-
gories, such as the Clean Lakes
Program. Other statutes that also
guide the development of water
quality protection  programs
include:
• The Safe Drinking Water Act
under which States establish
standards for drinking water quality,
monitor wells and local water
supply systems, implement drinking
water protection programs, and
implement Underground Injection
Control (UIC) programs.

• 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 pro-
mote pollutant source reduction
rather than focus on controlling
pollutants after they enter the envi-
ronment.

Protecting Lakes
    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,
34

-------
    and adding chemicals to
    precipitate nutrients out of the
    water column. Restoration
    measures focus on restoring
    uses of a lake and may not
    address the source of the
    pollution.

    Pollution control measures
    deal with the sources of pollut-
    ants degrading lake water qual-
    ity or threatening to impair lake
    water quality. Control measures
    include planning activities, reg-
    ulatory actions, and  implemen-
    tation of BMPs to reduce non-
    point sources of pollutants.

    During the 1980s, most States
implemented chemical and
mechanical in-lake restoration mea-
sures to control aquatic weeds and
algae. In their 1994 Section 305(b)
reports, the States and Tribes report
a shift toward nonpoint source
 Figure 18
controls to reduce pollutant loads
responsible for aquatic weed
growth and algal blooms (Figure
18). Twenty-two States reported
that they implemented best man-
agement practices to control non-
point source pollution entering
more than 171 lakes. The States
reported that they implemented
agricultural practices to control soil
erosion, constructed retention and
detention basins to control urban
runoff, managed animal waste,
revegetated shorelines,  and con-
structed or restored wetlands to
remove pollutants from runoff.
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.
    Successful lake programs
require strong commitment from
Lake Restoration and Pollution
Control Measures .-. : • AV''
Implement NFS Controls (total)3
Dredging
Modified Discharge Permits
Shoreline Stabilization/Rip Rap
Lake Drawdown
Chemical Weed and Algae Controls
Mechanical Weed Harvesting
Biological Weed Control
Local Ordinances and Zoning


b- -.-.-•:-. .:-:--. .;_,/-_ |

IS" ' • - ' : - •---- -.---.••.-!

|2 ....... ..:;,...,,.:,,,_ .-,,

|p-.-. -- - .--.- , - -.-• •-• - -|

1C . 1

r~ ' I

F~ 1

ST , 1

1' 1
I I I I 1
Total
22
18
14
13
12
12
11
11
10
0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of States Reporting
Includes best management practices, such as conservation tillage, sediment detention basins, vegetated buffers,
 and animal waste management.
local citizens and cooperation from
natural resource agencies at the
local, State, and Federal levels.

The National Estuary
Program
    Section 320 of the Clean Water
Act (as amended by the Water
Quality Act of 1987) established the
National Estuary Program (NEP) to
protect and restore water quality
and living resources in estuaries.
The NEP adopts a geographic or
watershed approach by planning
and implementing pollution abate-
ment activities for the estuary and
its surrounding land area as a
whole.
    The NEP embodies the ecosys-
tem approach by building coali-
tions, addressing multiple sources of
contamination, pursuing habitat
protection as a pollution control
              mechanism, and
              investigating cross-
              media transfer of
              pollutants from  air
              and soil into specific
              estuarine waters.
              Under the NEP,  a
              State governor nom-
              inates an estuary in
              his or her State for
              participation in the
              program. The State
              must demonstrate a
              likelihood of success
              in protecting candi-
              date estuaries and
              provide evidence of
              institutional, finan-
              cial, and political
              commitment to
              solving estuarine
              problems.
                                                                                                           35

-------
   Figure 19. Locations of National Estuary Program Sites
      If an estuary meets the NEP
   guidelines, the EPA Administrator
   convenes a management confer-
   ence of representatives from inter-
   ested Federal, Regional, State, and
   local  governments; affected indus-
   tries; scientific and academic institu-
   tions; and citizen organizations. The
   management conference defines
   program goals and objectives, iden-
   tifies  problems, and designs strate-
   gies to control pollution and man-
   age natural resources in the estuar-
   ine basin. Each management con-
   ference develops and initiates
   implementation of a Compre-
   hensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) to
restore and protect the estuary.
 The NEP currently supports
     28 estuary projects.


The NEP integrates science and
policy by bringing water quality
managers, elected officials, and
stakeholders together with scientists
from government agencies,
academic institutions, and the pri-
vate sector. Because the NEP is not
a research program, it relies heavily
on past and ongoing  research of
other agencies and institutions to
support development of CCMPs.
    With the addition of seven
estuary sites in July of 1995, the
NEP currently supports 28 estuary
projects (see Figure 19). These 28
estuaries are nationally significant in
their economic value as well as in
their ability to support living
resources. The project sites also rep-
resent a broad range of environ-
mental conditions in estuaries
throughout the United States and
its Territories so that the lessons
learned  through the NEP can be
applied  to other estuaries.

Protecting Wetlands
    A variety of public and private
programs protect wetlands. Section
404 of the CWA continues to
provide the primary Federal vehicle
for regulating certain activities in
wetlands. Section 404 establishes a
permit program for discharges of
dredged or fill material into waters
of the United States, including
wetlands.
    The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and EPA jointly
implement the Section 404 pro-
gram. The COE is responsible for
reviewing permit applications and
making permit decisions. EPA estab-
lishes the environmental criteria for
making permit decisions and has
the authority to review and veto
Section  404 permits proposed for
issuance by the COE. EPA is also
responsible for determining geo-
graphic jurisdiction of the Section
404 permit program, interpreting
statutory exemptions, and
36

-------
     Shortly after coming into
 office, the Clinton Administration
 convened an interagency working
 group to address concerns with
 Federal wetlands policy. After hear-
  ng from States, developers, farm-
 ers, environmental interests,, mem-
  Ders of Congress, and scientists,
I the working group developed a
^comprehensive 40-point plan for
 wetlands protection to make wet-
Is lands programs more fair, flexible,
 and effective. This plan was issued
 on August 24, 1993.
     The Administration's Wetlands
!, Plan emphasizes improving
 Federal wetlands policy by
 "                     -  -
| •  Streamlining wetlands  permit-
    ting programs
 •  Increasing cooperation with
    private landowners to protect
    and restore wetlands
 •  Basing wetlands protection on
    good science and sound
    judgment
 •  Increasing participation by
    States, Tribes, local govern-
 ^  ments, and the public in
  ^wetlands protection.
overseeing Section 404 permit pro-
grams assumed by individual
States. To date, only two States
(Michigan and New Jersey) have
assumed the Section 404 permit
program from the COE. The COE
and EPA share responsibility for
enforcing Section 404 require-
ments.
    The COE issues individual
Section 404 permits for specific
projects or general permits (Table
5). Applications for  individual per-
mits go through a review process
that includes opportunities for EPA,
other Federal agencies (such as the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries
Service), State agencies, and the
public to comment. However, the
vast majority of activities proposed
in wetlands are covered by Section
404 general permits. For example,
in FY94, over 48,000 people
applied  to the COE for a Section
404 permit. Eighty-two percent of
these  applications were covered by
general  permits and were processed
in an  average of 16 days. It is esti-
mated that another 50,000 activi-
ties are covered by general permits
that do not require notification of
the COE at all.
    General permits allow the COE
to permit certain activities without
performing a separate individual
permit review. Some general per-
mits require notification of the COE
before an activity begins. There are
three types of general permits:

•  Nationwide permits (NWPs)
authorize specific activities across
the entire Nation that the COE
determines will have only minimal
individual and cumulative impacts
on the environment, including con-
struction of minor road crossings
and farm buildings, bank stabiliza-
tion activities, and the filling of up
to 10 acres of isolated or headwater
wetlands.

•  Regional permits authorize types
of activities within a geographic
area defined by a COE District
Office.

•  Programmatic general permits
are issued to an entity that the COE
determines may regulate activities
within  its jurisdictional wetlands.
Table 5. Federal Section 404 Permits ! • ; . 1

General Permits
-i (streamlined permit review procedures)
Nationwide
Permits
• Cover 36 types of
activities that the
COE determines
to have minimal
adverse impacts
on the environment
Regional
Permits
• Developed by COE
District Offices to
cover activities in
a specified region
Programmatic
Permits
State
Programmatic
- ~ Permits
• COE defers permit
decisions to State
agency while
reserving authority
to require an
individual permit
Others
• Special Management
Agencies
• Watershed Planning
Commissions
Individual
Permits ;
• Required for major projects
that have the potential to
cause significant adverse
impacts
• Project must undergo
interagency review
• Opportunity for public
comment
• Opportunity for 401
certification review
                                                                                                             37

-------
   Under a programmatic general
   permit, the COE defers its permit
   decision to the regulating entity but
   reserves its authority to require an
   individual permit.

      Currently, the COE and EPA are
   promoting the development of
   State programmatic general permits
   (SPGPs) to increase State involve-
   ment in wetlands protection and
   minimize duplicative State and
   Federal review of activities pro-
   posed in wetlands. Each SPGP is a
   unique arrangement developed by
   a State and the COE to take advan-
   tage of the strengths of the individ-
   ual State wetlands program. Several
   States have adopted comprehensive
   SPGPs that replace many or all
   COE-issued nationwide general per-
   mits. SPGPs simplify the regulatory
   process and increase State control
   over their wetlands resources.
   Carefully developed SPGPs can
   improve wetlands protection while
   reducing regulatory demands  on
   landowners.
      Water quality standards for
   wetlands ensure that the provisions
   of CWA Section 303 that apply to
   other surface waters are also
   applied to wetlands. In July 1990,
   EPA issued guidance to States for
   the development of wetlands water
   quality standards. Water quality
   standards consist of designated
   beneficial uses, numeric criteria,
   narrative criteria, and antidegrada-
   tion statements. Figure 20 indicates
   the State's progress in developing
   these standards.
      Standards provide the founda-
   tion for a broad range of water
quality management activities
under the CWA including, but not
limited to, monitoring for the
Section 305(b) report, permitting
under Section 402 and 404, water
quality certification under Section
401, and the control of nonpoint
source pollution under Section 319.
    States, Territories,  and Tribes
are well positioned between Federal
and local government to take the
lead in integrating and expanding
wetlands protection and manage-
ment programs. They  are experi-
enced in managing federally man-
dated environmental programs,
and they are uniquely equipped to
help resolve local  and  regional con-
flicts and identify the local econom-
ic and geographic factors that may
influence wetlands protection.
    Section 401 of the CWA gives
States and eligible American Indian
Tribes the authority to grant, condi-
tion, or deny certification of federal-
ly permitted or licensed activities
that may result in a discharge to
U.S. waters, including wetlands.
Such activities include discharge of
dredged or fill material permitted
under CWA Section 404, point
source discharges permitted under
CWA Section  402, and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's
hydropower licenses. States review
these permits to ensure that they
meet State water quality standards.
    Section 401 certification can be
a powerful tool for protecting wet-
lands from unacceptable degrada-
tion or destruction especially when
implemented in conjunction with
wetlands-specific water quality
standards. If a State or an eligible
Tribe denies Section 401 certifica-
tion, the Federal permitting or
licensing agency cannot issue the
permit or license.
    Until recently, many States
waived their right to  review and
certify Section 404 permits because
these States had not  defined water
 Figure 20  Development of State Water Quality Standards for Wetlands
 Antidegradation

 Use Classification

 Narrative Biocriteria

 Numeric Biocriteria
                               25 States and Tribes Reporting
           Proposed
           Under Development
           In Place
                I	
                                                               J
                              5          10         15
                              Number of States Reporting
                          20
38

-------
quality standards for wetlands or
codified regulations for implement-
ing their 401 certification program
into State law.  Now, most States
report that they use the Section 401
certification process to review
Section 404 projects and to require
mitigation if there is no alternative
to degradation of wetlands. Ideally,
401 certification should be used to
augment State programs because
activities that do not require Federal
permits or licenses, such as some
ground water withdrawals, are not
covered.
    State Wetlands Conservation
Plans (SWCPs) are strategies that
integrate regulatory and coopera-
tive approaches to achieve State
wetlands management goals, such
as no overall net loss of wetlands.
SWCPs are not meant to create a
new level of bureaucracy. Instead,
SWCPs improve government and
private-sector effectiveness and
efficiency by identifying gaps in
wetlands protection programs
and identifying opportunities to
improve wetlands programs.
    States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions protect their wetlands with
a variety of other approaches,
including permitting programs,
coastal management programs,
wetlands acquisition programs,
natural heritage programs, and inte-
gration with other programs. The
following trends emerged from
individual State and Tribal report-
ing:

• Most States have defined wet-
lands as waters of the State, which
offers general  protection through
antidegradation clauses and desig-
nated uses that apply to all waters
of a State. However, most States
have not developed specific wet-
lands water quality standards and
designated uses that protect wet-
lands' unique functions, such as
flood attenuation and filtration.

• Without specific wetlands uses
and standards, the Section 401 cer-
tification process relies heavily on
antidegradation clauses to prevent
significant degradation of wetlands.

• In many cases, the States use the
Section 401  certification process to
add conditions to Section 404 per-
mits that minimize the size of wet-
lands destroyed or degraded by
proposed activities to the extent
practicable.  States often add condi-
tions that require compensatory
mitigation for destroyed wetlands,
but the States do not have the
resources to perform enforcement
inspections or followup monitoring
to ensure that the wetlands are
constructed and functioning
properly.

•  More States are monitoring
selected, largely unimpacted wet-
lands to establish baseline condi-
tions in healthy wetlands. The
States  will use this  information to
monitor the relative performance of
constructed wetlands  and to help
establish biocriteria and water
quality standards for wetlands.

    Although the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions report that they
are making  progress in protecting
wetlands, they also report that the
pressure to  develop or destroy wet-
lands remains high. EPA and the
States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions will continue to pursue
new mechanisms for protecting
wetlands that rely less on regulatory
tools.

Protecting the
Great Lakes
    Restoring and protecting the
Great Lakes requires cooperation
from numerous organizations
because the pollutants that enter
the Great Lakes originate in both
the United States and Canada, as
well as in other countries. The
International joint Commission
(IJC), established by the 1909
Boundary Waters Treaty, provides a
framework for the cooperative man-
agement of the Great Lakes.
Representatives from the United
States and Canada, the Province of
Ontario, and the eight States bor-
dering the Lakes sit on the IJC's
Water Quality Board. The Water
Quality Board recommends actions
for protecting and restoring the
Great Lakes and evaluates the envi-
ronmental policies and actions
implemented by the United States
and Canada.
     The EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) coordi-
nates Great Lakes management
activities conducted by all  levels of
government within the United
States. The GLNPO also works with
nongovernmental organizations to
protect and restore the Lakes. The
GLNPO provides leadership
through its annual Great Lakes
Program Priorities and Funding
Guidance. The GLNPO also serves
as a liaison to the Canadian
members of the IJC and the
Canadian environmental agencies.
                                                                                                            39

-------
       The 1978 Great Lakes Water
    Quality Agreement (as amended in
    1987) lay the foundation for on-
    going efforts to restore and protect
    the Great Lakes. The Agreement
    committed the United States and
    Canada to developing Remedial
    Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of
    Concern and Lakewide Manage-
    ment Plans (LaMPs) for each Lake.
    Areas of Concern are specially des-
    ignated waterbodies around the
    Great Lakes that show symptoms of
    serious water quality degradation.
    Most of the 42 Areas of Concern
    are located in harbors, bays, or river
    mouths entering the Great Lakes.
    RAPs identify impaired uses  and
    examine management options for
    addressing degradation in an Area
    of Concern. LaMPs use an ecosys-
    tem approach to examine water
    qualify issues that have more wide-
    spread impacts within each  Great
    Lake.  Public involvement is a critical
    component of both LaMP develop-
    ment and RAP development.
       EPA advocates pollution preven-
    tion as the most effective  approach
   for achieving  the virtual elimination
    of persistent toxic discharges into
   the Great Lakes. The GLNPO has
   funded numerous pollution  preven-
   tion grants throughout the Great
    Lakes Basin during the past 3 years.
    EPA and the States also implement-
   ed the 38/50 Program in the Great
    Lakes  Basin, under which  EPA
   received voluntary commitments
   from industry to reduce the  emis-
   sion of 17 priority pollutants by
   50% by the end of 1995.  In addi-
   tion, EPA, the States, and Canada
   are implementing a virtual elimina-
   tion initiative for Lake Superior. The
first phase of the initiative seeks to
eliminate new contributions of
mercury.
    The Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative is a key element of the
environmental protection efforts
undertaken by the United States in
the Great Lakes Basin. The  purpose
of the Initiative is to provide a con-
sistent level of protection in the
Basin from the effects of toxic
pollutants. In 1989, the initiative
was organized by EPA at the request
of the Great Lakes States to pro-
mote consistency in their environ-
mental programs in the Great Lakes
Basin with minimum  requirements.
    Initiative efforts were well under
way when Congress enacted the
Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of
1990. The Act requires EPA to pub-
lish proposed and final water quality
guidance that specifies minimum
water quality criteria for the Great
 Lakes System. The Act also requires
 the Great Lakes States to adopt
 provisions that are consistent with
 the EPA final guidance within 2
 years of EPA's publication. In addi-
 tion, Indian Tribes authorized to
 administer an NPDES program in
 the Great Lakes Basin must also
 adopt provisions consistent with
 EPA's final guidance.
    To carry out the Act, EPA pro-
 posed regulations for implementing
 the guidance on April  16, 1993,
 and invited the public to comment.
 The States and EPA conducted pub-
 lic meetings in all of the Great Lakes
 States during the comment period.
 As a result, EPA received over
 26,500 pages of comments from
 over 6,000 commenters. EPA
 reviewed all of the comments and
 published the final guidance in
 March of 1995.
    The final guidance prioritizes
 control of long-lasting pollutants
 that accumulate in the food web—
 bioaccumulative chemicals of con-
 cern (BCCs). The final guidance
 includes provisions to phase out
 mixing zones for BCCs (except in
 limited circumstances), more exten-
 sive data requirements to ensure
 that BCCs are not underregulated
 due to a lack of data, and water
 quality criteria to protect wildlife
that feed on aquatic prey. Publica-
tion of the final guidance is a mile-
stone in EPA's move toward increas-
ing stakeholder participation in the
development of innovative and
comprehensive programs for pro-
tecting and restoring our natural
resources.
40

-------
The Chesapeake Bay
Program
    In many areas of the
Chesapeake Bay, the quality is not
sufficient to support living resources
year round. In the warmer months,
large portions of the Bay contain
little or no dissolved oxygen. Low
oxygen conditions may cause fish
eggs and larvae to die. The growth
and  reproduction of oysters, clams,
and  other bottom-dwelling animals
are impaired. Adult fish find their
habitat reduced and their feeding
inhibited.
    Many areas of the Bay also
have cloudy water from excess
sediment in the water or an over-
growth of algae (stimulated by
excessive nutrients in the water).
Turbid waters block the sunlight
needed to support the growth and
survival of Bay grasses, also known
as submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV). Without SAV, critical habitat
for fish and crabs is lost. Although
there has been a recent resurgence
of SAV in some areas of the Bay,
most areas  still do not support
abundant populations as they once
did.
    The main causes of the Bay's
poor water quality and aquatic
habitat loss are elevated levels of
the nutrients  nitrogen and phos-
phorus. Both  are natural fertilizers
found in  animal wastes, soil, and
the atmosphere. These nutrients
have always existed in the Bay, but
not at the present elevated concen-
trations. When the Bay was sur-
rounded  primarily by forests and
wetlands, very little nitrogen and
phosphorus ran off the land into
the water. Most of it was absorbed
or held in place by the natural
vegetation. As the use of the land
has changed and the watershed's
population  has grown, the amount
of nutrients entering the Bay has
increased tremendously.
    Now in its twelfth year, the
Chesapeake Bay Program is a
regional partnership of Federal,
State, and local  participants that
has directed and coordinated
restoration of the Bay since the
signing of the historic 1983
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
the District of Columbia, the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, EPA,
and advisory groups form the part-
nership. The Chesapeake Executive
Council provides leadership for the
Bay Program  and establishes pro-
gram policies to restore and protect
the Bay and its living resources. The
Council consists of the governors of
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsyl-
vania, the mayor of the District of
Columbia, the administrator of EPA,
and the chairperson of the
Chesapeake Bay Commission.
    Considered a national and
international model for estuarine
restoration and  protection pro-
grams, the  Chesapeake Bay
Program is still a "work in
progress." Since 1983, milestones
in the evolution of the program
include the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement and the 1992 amend-
ments to the Agreement. The 1987
Agreement set a goal to reduce the
quantity of nutrients entering the
Bay by 40% by the year 2000. In
the 1992 amendments  to the
Agreement, the partners reaffirmed
the 40% nutrient reduction goal,
agreed to cap nutrient loadings
beyond the year 2000, and agreed
to attack nutrients at their source
by applying the 40% reduction
goal to the 10 major tributaries of
the Bay. The amendments also
stressed managing the Bay as a
whole ecosystem. The amendments
also spell out the importance of
reducing atmospheric sources of
nutrients and broadening regional
interstate cooperation.
    Protection and restoration of
forests is  a critical component of
the Chesapeake Bay Program
because scientific data clearly show
that forests are the most beneficial
land cover for maintaining clean
water, especially forests alongside
waterbodies in the riparian zone.
Through  the Chesapeake Bay
Program, unique partnerships have
been formed among the Bay
region's forestry agencies, forest
managers, and interested citizen
groups. Since 1990, the U.S. Forest
Service has assigned a Forestry
Program  Coordinator to the
Chesapeake  Bay Program to assist
both the EPA and Bay Program
committees in developing strategies
and projects that will contribute to
the Bay restoration goals. A Forestry
Work Group, formed under the
Nonpoint Source Subcommittee,
raises and addresses issues related
to forests and the practice of
forestry in the watershed.
    In addition, State foresters and
local governments have developed
and implemented numerous pro-
grams and projects aimed at the
protection and restoration of
forests. Forestry incentive programs
in all of the Bay States have resulted
in the planting of millions of trees,
the restoration of nearly 50 miles of
                                                                                                          41

-------
   riparian forest, the development of
   stewardship plans, and forest
   enhancement projects on
   thousands of acres within the Bay
   watershed.
       On the positive side, the extent
   of Bay grasses has increased by
   75% since 1978. The current extent
   of SAV attains 64% of the goal
   established by the Chesapeake Bay
   Program. Striped bass, or rockfish,
   have made a remarkable recovery
   over the past decade due to
   improved reproduction and better
   control of the harvest. There has
   been a modest increase in the
   number of American shad returning
   to the Bay to spawn.  Controls on
   the harvest of American shad, cre-
   ation of fish passages at blockages,
   stocking programs, and habitat
   restoration are expected to yield
   increases in the American shad
   population and similar fish species
   that inhabit the Bay during part of
   their life cycle.
       Phosphorus levels continue to
   decline and, after many years of
   increasing nitrogen concentrations,
   most of the Bay's tributaries are
   showing a leveling off of this trend.
   Some tributaries are showing
   declining trends in nitrogen con-
   centrations. These trends indicate
   that both point and nonpoint
   source pollution abatement pro-
   grams are working.
       Despite the promising trends in
   nutrient concentrations, oxygen
   concentrations are still low enough
   to cause severe impacts or stressful
   conditions in the mainstem of the
   Bay and several larger tributaries.
   Prospects for the  Bay's oyster popu-
   lations remain poor. Overharvest-
   ing, habitat loss, and  disease have
severely depleted oyster stocks.
New management efforts have
been developed to improve this
situation.
    The blue crab is currently the
most important commercial and
recreational fishery in the Bay.
There is growing concern about the
health of the blue crab population
due to increasing harvesting pres-
sures and relatively low harvests in
recent years. Both Maryland and
Virginia have recently implemented
new regulations on commercial and
recreational crabbers to protect this
important resource.
    Overall, the Chesapeake Bay
still shows symptoms of stress from
an expanding population and
changes in land use. However, con-
ditions in the Chesapeake Bay have
improved since the Chesapeake Bay
Program was launched, and contin-
uation of the Program promises an
even brighter future for the Bay.
The Gulf of Mexico
Program

    The Gulf of Mexico Program
(GMP) was established in 1988
with EPA as the lead Federal agency
in response to signs of long-term
environmental  damage throughout
the Gulfs coastal and marine
ecosystem. The main purpose of
the GMP is to develop and help
implement a strategy to protect,
restore, and maintain the health
and productivity of the Gulf. The
GMP is a grass roots program that
serves as a catalyst to promote
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 destruc-
tion of the Gulf. The GMP mobilizes
State, Federal, and local govern-
ment; business and industry;
42

-------
academia; and the community at
large through public awareness and
information dissemination pro-
grams, forum discussions, citizen
committees, and technology
applications.
    A Policy Review Board and the
Management Committee determine
the scope and focus of GMP activi-
ties. The program also receives
input from a Technical Advisory
Committee and a Citizen's Advisory
Committee. The GMP Office, eight
technical issue committees, and the
operations and support committees
coordinate the collection, integra-
tion, and reporting of pertinent
data and information. The issue
committees are composed of indi-
viduals from Federal,  State, and
local agencies and from industry,
science, education, business, citizen
groups, and private organizations.
    The issue committees are
responsible for documenting envi-
ronmental problems and manage-
ment goals, available resources, and
potential solutions for a broad
range of issues, including habitat
degradation, public health,
freshwater inflow, marine debris,
shoreline erosion, nutrient enrich-
ment, toxic pollutants, and living
aquatic resources. The issue
committees publish their findings
in Action Agendas.
    On December 10, 1992, the
Governors of Alabama,  Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas;
EPA; the Chair of the  Citizen's
Advisory Committee; and represen-
tatives of 10 other Federal agencies
signed the Gulf of Mexico Program
Partnership for Action agreement
for protecting, restoring, and
enhancing the Gulf of Mexico and
adjacent lands. The agreement
committed the signatory agencies
to pledge their efforts, over 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
fisheries

•  Protect human health and food  -
supply by reducing input of
nutrients, toxic substances, and
pathogens to the Gulf

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

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

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

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

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

•  Reduce critical coastal and
shoreline erosion.

    Beginning in 1992, the GMP
also launched Take-Action Projects
in each of the five Gulf States to
demonstrate that program strate-
gies and methods could achieve
rapid results. The Take-Action
Projects primarily address
inadequate sewage treatment,
pollution prevention, and habitat
protection and restoration.  Several
projects aim to demonstrate the
effectiveness of innovative sewage
treatment technologies to control
pathogenic contamination of shell-
fish 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.


     Take-Action Projects
    in the five Gulf States
  primarily address sewage
     treatment,  pollution
   prevention, and habitat
        protection  and
          restoration.


Since 1992, EPA has streamlined
and restructured its management
scheme for the GMP to increase
Regional involvement and better
meet the needs of the 5-year envi-
ronmental challenges.  The GMP has
also expanded efforts to integrate
Mexico and the Caribbean  Islands
into management of the Gulf.
These activities include technology
transfer and development of inter-
national agreements that prohibit
the discharge of ship-generated
wastes and plastics into waters of
the Gulf and Caribbean Sea.
                                                                                                          43

-------
   Ground Water
   Protection Programs
       The sage adage that "An ounce
   of prevention is worth a pound of
   cure" is being borne out in the field
   of ground water protection. Studies
   evaluating the cost of prevention
   versus the cost of cleaning up con-
   taminated ground water have
   found that there are real cost
   advantages to promoting protec-
   tion of our Nation's ground water
   resources.
       Numerous laws, regulations,
   and programs play a vital role in
   protecting ground water. The
   following Federal laws and pro-
   grams 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) addresses the
   problem of safe disposal of the
huge volumes of solid and haz-
ardous waste generated nationwide
each year. RCRA is part of EPA's
comprehensive  program to protect
ground water resources through
the development of regulations and
methods for handling, storing, and
disposing of hazardous material and
through the regulation of under-
ground storage tanks—the most
frequently cited source of ground
water contamination.

• The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) regulates
the restoration of contaminated
ground water at abandoned
hazardous waste sites.

• The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) regulates subsurface injec-
tion of fluids that can contaminate
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 dispos-
al 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
State agencies to implement EPA-
approved nonpoint source manage-
ment programs that include
ground water protection activities.
Several States have developed pro-
grams that focus on ground water
contamination resulting from agri-
culture and septic tanks.
 io^Comprehensjve State Ground' Water

 -'  '  " ss>w"*^" t&^^^^j[^grams	"	"
                    «. k^^i^^S.^                        ""*»'•'""»'»>wii^'ii«ii^iiii'pr'^3ii"!Siii
 BJ-                    ,P iiiiiii	uiSijp.nii-.Jiiii.iPnniMjin-Hiihjn.jiErK Niiqife, n^hTiiiT!, iff, VS ff*,,' i. ",,'r'f IK nin'pyi; , _; .n X r, 5Gr MI hill' in	MI.!I. 'nf«, -; '.'iil.j1!1	hiu n	sir .i^'IsiKji'.Siii^ijiiJi jiUififir.y'iJrSi'l'i
 rA Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP)
  is composed of six "strategic activities." They are:

    Establishing a prevention-orienteS goal
    4hi I 01 jjl jHjHj*|W

    Establishing priorities, based on the characterization of the resource
WP  and udentification^of^sources ,o| contamjfiatipn^^^
    IT I r 'm.r'111 rll.r	—	•-	,	—I™	^SMBMMMWHBUBK'ffiiOSffi£iBi§H^!i^ibfiW'3i!e?i^ '. — «n •«.-.,
    Defining roles, responsibilities, resources, and coordinating mechanisms
        I1" "*ipa:aK»                                         •"* * 9 > " •i«'L
  • Implementing all necessary "efforts to "accomplish" the State's ground
    Water protection goal
   ~" lit" n"""'' «pT'M»M*«™^
   i Coordinating information cpllectipn and management to measure
fi'" Iprlogfess""l"a"n3 "reevaluate priorities

    Improving public education and participation.
                               f»m?f^?f?9ff^stismg^f'w^ssf:Km9is9;SfiS^Sf'
44

-------
• 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 pesti-
cides.

    Comprehensive  State Ground
Water Protection Programs
(CSGWPPs) attempt to combine all
of the above efforts and emphasize
contamination prevention.


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


CSGWPPs improve coordination of
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
ground water programs and enable
distribution of resources to estab-
lished priorities.
    Another means of protecting
our Nation's ground water
resources is through the implemen-
tation of Wellhead Protection Plans.
EPA's Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water is  supporting  the
development and implementation
of Wellhead Protection Plans at the
local level through many efforts. For
example, EPA-funded support is
provided through the National
Rural Water Association Ground
Water/Wellhead Protection pro-
grams. At the conclusion of the first
4 years of this program, over 2,000
communities  in 26 States were
actively involved in protecting their
water supplies by implementing
wellhead protection programs.
These 2,000 communities represent
almost 4 million people in the rural
areas of the United States who will
have better-protected water sup-
plies.
    Recognizing the importance
and cost-effectiveness of protecting
our Nation's ground water
resources, States are participating  in
numerous activities to prevent
future impairments of the resource.
These activities include enacting
legislation aimed at the develop-
ment of comprehensive State
ground water protection programs
and promulgating protection regu-
lations. More than 80% of the
States indicate that they have cur-
rent or pending legislation geared
specifically to ground water protec-
tion. Generally, State legislation
focuses on the need for program
development, increased data collec-
tion, and public education pro-
grams. In addition, States also  may
mandate strict technical controls
such as discharge permits, under-
ground storage tank registrations,
and protection standards.
    All of these programs are
intended to provide protection to a
valuable, and often vulnerable,
resource. Through the promotion
of ground water protection on both
State and Federal levels, our
Nation's ground water resources
will be safeguarded against
contamination, thereby protecting
human health and the environ-
ment.
                                                                                                          45

-------
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 activi-
   ties and think about how you are
   contributing to the pollution prob-
   lem. Here are some suggestions on
   how you can make a difference.

   Be Informed

      You should learn about water
   quality issues that affect the com-
   munities in which you live and
   work. Become familiar with your
   local water resources. Where does
   your drinking water come from?
   What activities in your area might
   affect the water you drink or the
   rivers, lakes, beaches, or wetlands
   you use for recreation?
      Learn about procedures for
   disposing of harmful household
   wastes so they do not end up in
   sewage treatment plants that
   cannot handle them or in landfills
   not designed to receive hazardous
   materials.

   Be Responsible

      In your yard, determine
   whether additional nutrients are
   needed before you apply fertilizers,
   and look for alternatives where
   fertilizers might run off into surface
   waters. Consider selecting plants
   and grasses that have low mainte-
   nance requirements. Water your
   lawn conservatively. Preserve exist-
ing trees and plant new trees and
shrubs to help prevent erosion and
promote infiltration of water into
the soil. Restore bare patches in
your lawn to prevent erosion. If
you own or manage land through
which a stream flows, you may
wish to consult your local county
extension office about methods of
restoring stream banks in your area
by planting buffer strips of native
vegetation.
    Around your house, keep litter,
pet waste, leaves, and grass clip-
pings out of gutters and storm
drains. Use the minimum amount
of water needed when you wash
your car. Never dispose of any
household, automotive, or garden-
ing wastes in a storm drain. Keep
your septic tank in good working
order.
    Within your home, fix any
dripping faucets or leaky pipes and
install water-saving devices in
shower heads and toilets. Always
follow directions on labels for use
and disposal of household chemi-
cals. Take used motor oil, paints,
and other hazardous household
materials to proper disposal sites-
such as approved service stations or
designated landfills.


Be Involved

    As a citizen and a voter there is
much you can do at the communi-
ty level to help preserve and pro-
tect our Nation's water resources.
Look around. Is soil erosion being
controlled at construction sites? Is
the community sewage plant being
operated efficiently and correctly? Is
the community trash dump in or
along a stream? Is road deicing salt
being stored properly?
    Become involved in your com-
munity election processes. Listen
and respond to candidates' views
on water quality and environmental
issues. Many communities have
recycling programs; find out about
them, learn how to recycle, and
volunteer to help out if you can.
One of the most important things
you can do is find out how your
community protects water quality,
and speak out if you see problems.

Volunteer Monitoring:
You  Can  Become Part
of the Solution

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

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

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

    For further information on
water quality in your State or other
jurisdiction, contact your Section
305(b) coordinator listed in Section
111. Additional water quality infor-
mation may be obtained from the
Regional offices of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(see inside  back cover).
For Further Reading
 Volunteer Monitoring. EPA-800-F-
 93-008. September 1993. A brief
 fact sheet about volunteer moni-
 toring, including examples of how
 volunteers have improved the
 environment.
 Starting Out in Volunteer Water
 Monitoring. EPA-841 -B-92-002.
 August 1992. A brief fact sheet
 about how to become involved in
 volunteer monitoring.
 National Directory of Citizen
 Volunteer Environmental Monitoring
 Programs, Fourth Edition. EPA-841 -
 B-94-001. January 1994. Contains
 information about 519 volunteer
 monitoring programs across the
 Nation.
 Volunteer Stream Monitoring:  A
 Methods Manual. EPA-841-D-95-
 001. 1995. Presents information
 and methods for volunteer moni-
 toring of streams.
 Volunteer Estuary Monitoring:  A
 Methods Manual. EPA-842-B-93-
 004. December 1993. Presents
 information and methods for vol-
 unteer monitoring of estuarine
 waters.
 Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A
 Methods Manual. EPA-440/4-91-
 002. December 1991. Discusses
 lake water quality issues and
 methods for volunteer monitoring
 of lakes.

 Many of these publications can
 also be accessed through EPA's
 Water Channel on the Internet.
 From the World Wide Web or
 Gopher, enter http://
 www.epa.gov/OWOW to enter
 WIN and locate documents.
                                                                                                            47

-------
Fish Consumption Advisories
    States issue fish consumption
advisories to protect the public
from ingesting harmful quantities
of toxic pollutants in contaminated
fish and shellfish. Fish may accumu-
late dangerous quantities of pollut-
ants in their tissues by ingesting
many smaller organisms, each con-
taminated with a small quantity of
pollutant. This process is called
bioaccumulation or biomagnifica-
tion. Pollutants also enter fish and
shellfish tissues through the gills or
sk!n.
    Fish consumption advisories
recommend that the public limit
the quantity and frequency of con-
sumption of fish caught in specific
waterfaodies. The States tailor indi-
vidual advisories to minimize health
risks based on contaminant data
collected in their fish tissue sam-
pling programs. Advisories may
completely ban fish consumption in
severely polluted waters, or limit
fish consumption to several meals
per month or year in  cases of less
severe contamination. Advisories
may target a subpopulation at risk
(such as children, pregnant women,
and nursing mothers), specific fish
species, or larger fish that may have
accumulated high concentrations of
a pollutant over a longer lifetime
than a smaller, younger fish.
    The EPA fish consumption advi-
sory database tracks advisories
issued by each State.  For 1994, the
database listed 1,531  fish consump-
tion advisories in effect in 49 States.
Fish consumption advisories are
unevenly distributed among the
States because the States use their
own criteria to determine if fish
tissue concentrations of toxics pose
a health risk that justifies an advis-
ory. States also vary the amount of
fish tissue monitoring they conduct
and the number of pollutants
analyzed. States that conduct more
monitoring and use strict criteria
will issue more advisories than
States that conduct less monitoring
and use weaker criteria. For exam-
ple, 62% of the advisories active in
1994 were issued by the States
surrounding the Great Lakes, which
support extensive fish sampling
programs and follow strict criteria
for issuing advisories.
    Most of the fish consumption
advisories (73%) are due to
mercury. The other pollutants most
commonly detected in elevated
concentrations in fish tissue samples
are polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), chlordane, dioxins, and
DDT (with its byproducts).
    Many coastal States report
restrictions on shellfish harvesting in
estuarine waters. Shellfish-particu-
larly oysters, clams, and mussels-
are filter-feeders that extract their
food from water. Waterborne bacte-
ria and viruses may also accumulate
on their gills and mantles and in
their digestive systems. Shellfish
contaminated by these micro-
organisms are a serious human
health concern, particularly if
consumed raw.
    States currently sample water
from shellfish harvesting areas to
measure indicator bacteria, such as
total coliform and fecal coliform
bacteria. These bacteria serve as
indicators of the presence of  poten-
tially pathogenic microorganisms
associated with untreated or under-
treated sewage. States restrict shell-
fish harvesting to areas that main-
tain these bacteria at concentrations
in sea water below established
health limits.
    In 1994, 15 States reported
that shellfish harvesting restrictions
were in effect for more than 6,052
square miles of estuarine and
coastal waters during the  1992-
1994 reporting period. Six States
reported that urban  runoff and
storm sewers, municipal wastewater
treatment facilities, nonpoint
sources, marinas, industrial
discharges,  CSOs, and septic tanks
restricted shellfish harvesting.

-------
           Section II
       Basinwide Survey:
Ohio and Tennessee River Valley

-------
 Basinwide Survey:   Ohio and  Tennessee  River Valley
   Introduction

      The U.S. Environmental
   Protection Agency (EPA) requested
   that the Ohio River Valley Water
   Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
   and the Tennessee Valley Authority
   (TVA) produce a prototype basin-
   wide assessment of water quality
   conditions in the Ohio and
   Tennessee River Valley. This basin-
   wide assessment illustrates how EPA
   might present information in the
   National Water Quality Inventory
   Report to Congress in future years.
   The information in this assessment
   was drawn from several sources,
   primarily the most recent Section
   305(b) reports submitted by the
   individual States in the Ohio and
   Tennessee River Valley. This assess-
   ment illustrates how EPA can com-
   pile State water quality information
   into assessments of conditions in
   major basins throughout the
   United States.
      The Ohio and Tennessee River
   basin assessment also illustrates
   many of the recommendations pro-
   posed by the Intergovernmental
   Task Force on Monitoring Water
   Quality (ITFM). The ITFM was
   established to develop a strategic
   plan for effective collection, inter-
   pretation, and presentation of
   water quality data nationwide and
   to improve its availability for deci-
   sion making (see sidebar).-
      The three major sections in this
   report are: (1) an overview of con-
   ditions throughout the entire Ohio
   and Tennessee River basin; (2) a
   more detailed analysis of water
   quality conditions in the Allegheny
   River subbasin; and (3) a discussion
   of special concerns and
recommendations. The basin
overview describes how well water-
sheds throughout the basin support
four basic stream uses—aquatic life
support, contact recreation (such as
swimming), public drinking water
supply, and fish consumption. The
overview also identifies pollutants
impairing the use of streams and
the sources of these pollutants. The
section on the Allegheny River
Watershed illustrates the level of
detail that can be presented for
smaller individual watersheds with-
in a large basin. Finally, this report
describes special issues of concern
in the Ohio and Tennessee River
basin and recommends changes to
monitoring and reporting methods
that should make it easier to inte-
grate water quality information
submitted  by multiple agencies
into an interstate basinwide water
quality assessment.
 Basin Description

    The Ohio and Tennessee River
 basin covers more than 200,000
 square miles in 14 States and con-
 stitutes 6.5% of the continental
 United States (Figure 1). The Ohio
 River mainstem extends 981 miles
 from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to
" Cairo, Illinois, where it joins the
 Mississippi River. Along the way,
 the Ohio River forms the border
 between Ohio, Indiana,  and Illinois
 to the north and West Virginia and
 Kentucky to the south.
    The basin's topography varies
 from the Appalachian Mountains in
 the east to the midwestern prairies
 in the west. Land use  patterns gen-
 erally follow topographic character-
 istics. Forests, agriculture, and
 mining dominate the  land use in
 the northeastern portion of the
 basin; most of the land is forested
 in the southeastern portion; and
50

-------
Ife*
 f              T/ About This^Section

 i""" Communicating information about environmental conditions to the
 public is a challenging task for scientists and engineers. They are trained to
 [focus on details ang^ use precise technical terms so others can repeat their
 l^penments ana analyses. ATa result, most scientific papers are nearly
 [incomprehensible to anyone except narrowly focused specialists. But the
 Jpublic and elected officials are interested in environmental conditions.
 ^Furthermore, the public ultimately pays for most environmental research and
 ingnitoring,  either through taxes or by'purchasing consumer goods with
 Tthose costs embedded in the prices,"   J
 sto  Recognizing these facts", in 1992 the Intergovernmental Task Force bri"
 lyionitoring (ITFM), a multiagenc^y group examining ways to'improve water^
 Ijpfality monitoring throughoft~tKe UnTte3 States, began identifying common
 tlbaracteristics of successful^enyironmentarrepbrts.'They found repbrts that"
 Affectively communicate environmental information to the public use
 j|:ommori guidelines taught in journalism:
       Put the most important information at the beginning.
       Draw  significant conclusions without too many qualifications.
       Write  in a conversational style that is easy to read.
      ^Avoid technicaljerms^sjTiuchjs possible and keep sentences   ___
      " relatively short/ * *     "     **    " ~    ""           -.---.—
                     ^    *,   1* $>     f      ^ »   * *&     £, ^ •% *?  *' "**"* **
       When technical terms mustt>e used, define them directly or
       through context.
 fen  • Use clear and accurate graphics that help illustrate the ideas
 !"   ^ presented in the text.    	""""	   	""""	"	""	"""  "
«',                       •  ^5 »v.  »              v,              >*_,
   - • Avoid complex figures that try to convey too much information.
     • If possible, use color to increase appeal to readers, to make figures"
       easier to understand, and to tie common elements together
       throughout the report.
   '— jp „ Be brief—know how long a report your audience is likely to
   E "'actually read.            "'	"*"" ":        "	•'   ; "	
   -,t-  J-    t   *    f -"^f t
     i Have  enough  white space  to make text pages less intimidating
       to readeVs.  ._      ,» .    ^  „       '      . f .        „„
     i" Use a multicolumn format, which helps make text pages more
       "friendly." ^
     i Use a serif typeface for text and a san-serif typeface for headings.
     Most audiences a're interested  in reports  that integrate environmental
 f information  across scfentifiic.g^iscipiihes and political boundaries, they may
 fwant to pull the information apart to get a State-by-State picture or to see
 tresults for one scientific discipffhe such as fisheries. However, they first want
 |to see how the different pieces fit together to form a".complete picture of
 environmental conditions.
agricultural cropland dominates the
western areas of the basin. Almost
three-fourths of the Nation's identi-
fied coal reserves are located within
the basin. Due in part to this fact,
there are a considerable number of
electric power plants located in the
basin. Other major industries
include steel and petrochemical
production.
    Over 26 million people live in
the Ohio and Tennessee River
basin. Large cities include Pitts-
burgh, Cincinnati, and Louisville  on
the Ohio River mainstem, as well as
Columbus, Indianapolis, Chatta-
nooga, and Nashville. Major tribu-
taries to the Ohio River include
the Allegheny, Monongahela,
Kanawha, Kentucky, Green,
Wabash, Cumberland,  and Tennes-
see Rivers.

Water  Use in the
Basin

    Abundant rainfall in the Ohio
and Tennessee River Valley main-
tains steady flows in the Ohio River
and its tributaries that  support
many uses, such as transportation,
drinking water supply,  and indus-
trial uses. Over 40% of the Nation's
waterborne commerce is trans-
ported on more than 2,500 miles
of commercially navigable water-
ways in the Ohio and Tennessee
River basin. Coal and petroleum
products are the most common
commodities carried by barge on
the navigable waterways. Streams
and lakes in the basin also provide
water for a variety of industrial
purposes, including processing and
cooling. Numerous coal-fired
power plants and nuclear facilities
use large amounts of water to cool
                                                                                                            51

-------
     Figure 1. Ohio and Tennessee River Basin
52

-------
steam produced by these plants.
There are also a number of hydro-
electric power plants in the basin,
particularly on the Tennessee and
Cumberland Rivers.
    Water uses of primary concern
in this assessment are those that
depend on good water quality
conditions (e.g., public water
supply, water contact recreation,
aquatic life use, and fish consump-
tion). Most of the rivers, streams,
and lakes in the basin are classified
for  more than one of these uses.
    About 10 million people  in the
basin receive drinking water from
public water supply systems that
use surface water as a source. Most
of the designated swimming
beaches are located on the many
lakes and reservoirs in the basin,
but many people also water ski on
and swim in the larger  rivers.
Whitewater canoeing, kayaking,
and rafting are popular activities on
several rivers, including the New
and the Gauley in West Virginia,
the Ocoee in Tennessee, and the
Nantahala in North Carolina.
    Most of the waters of the basin
are capable of supporting warm
water aquatic communities that
include bass, catfish, sauger,  and
sunfish. Sport fishing is steadily
increasing throughout the basin,
and there is a significant commer-
cial fishing and mussel  industry on
the Tennessee and lower Ohio
Rivers.

Rating Water Quality
Conditions in  the
Basin

    EPA and the States rate water
quality conditions by comparing
water quality data and  narrative
information with water quality
criteria established by the States.
Water quality criteria define condi-
tions that must be met to support
designated beneficial uses (such as
bacteria limits for safe swimming
use). Each State is responsible for
assigning (i.e., designating) uses to
each of the waterbodies within its
borders. A State may designate a
waterbody for multiple uses,  and
each designated  use may have dif--
ferent criteria. At a minimum, the
Clean Water Act  requires that
States designate  their waters  for
uses that protect swimming and
aquatic life.
    EPA encourages the States to
use consistent use support cate-
gories for rating water quality
conditions in their waterbodies:

    • Fully supporting - good
water quality meets criteria for
designated uses.
    • Threatened -  good water
quality meets designated use crite-
ria now, but may not in the future.
    • Partially supporting - fair
water quality fails to meet desig-
nated use criteria at times.
    • Not supporting - poor water
quality frequently fails to meet
designated use criteria.
    The States survey use support
status in their waterbodies and
submit the results to EPA in their
Section 305(b) reports every
2 years. ORSANCO  and TVA
assessed basinwide  water quality
conditions by pooling the use sup-
port information submitted by the
Ohio and Tennessee River basin
States in their most recent Section
305(b) reports (most of which were
submitted in 1994). ORSANCO and
TVA focused on four basic desig-
nated uses—aquatic life support,
contact recreation (such as swim-
ming), public water supply, and
fish consumption. These uses were
selected because they are more
sensitive to water quality condi-
tions than other uses (such as
transportation), and the States
have designated most of the rivers,
streams, and lakes in the basin for
one or more of these uses.
    In addition, ORSANCO and
TVA compiled assessment informa-
tion concerning water quality con-
ditions in individual watersheds
within the Ohio and Tennessee
River basin. Where possible,
ORSANCO and TVA organized the
States' use support information by
watersheds defined by the U;S.
Geological Survey (USGS). USGS
divides the United States (including
the Ohio and Tennessee River
basin) into many watersheds, each
identified with a unique 8-digit
hydrologic unit code (HUC). Each
watershed unit consists of a set of
connected rivers, lakes, and other
waterbodies that drain about 1,000
square miles. A few States did not
report their 305(b) information by
standardized 8-digit HUCs, so
ORSANCO and TVA summarized
their data by larger watershed units
when possible. In some cases, data
had to be excluded from the
watershed assessments for those
States that did  not associate their
water quality information with any
watershed  units.
    Each watershed contains multi-
ple rivers and streams, some of
which are typically in excellent
condition while others are in fair  or
poor condition. For this report,
ORSANCO and TVA developed five
categories for rating  general water
                                                                                                          53

-------
   quality conditions in watersheds
   based on the combination of river
   miles in good, fair, or poor condi-
   tion (i.e., fully supporting uses or
   threatened, partially supporting
   uses, or not supporting uses).
   Watersheds with a high percentage
   of river miles fully supporting des-
   ignated uses received the best
   water quality rating. The  worst
   water quality rating was assigned
   to watersheds with a high percent-
   age of river miles not supporting
   designated uses. The remaining
   watersheds received three inter-
   mediate water quality ratings. The
   criteria for each  rating category
   were derived by ranking conditions
   in streams and assigning  an equal
   number of assessed stream miles to
   each category.
      This approach to rating water
   quality conditions provides a good
   picture of relative conditions
   among watersheds. It should be
   applicable for evaluating conditions
   in other large river basins; however,
   rating categories for other basins
   will not necessarily correspond to
                                   those used for the Ohio and
                                   Tennessee River basin. Redefinition
                                   of rating categories may be neces-
                                   sary.

                                   Overview of
                                   Conditions in the
                                   Ohio and Tennessee
                                   River Basin

                                   Aquatic  Life Use
                                   Support

                                   Basinwide Assessment
                                       During 1992-1994, the States
                                   surveyed aquatic  life use support
                                   status in approximately one-third
                                   (33%) of all rivers and streams
                                   within the Ohio and Tennessee
                                   River basin (Figure 2), or almost
                                   half (45%) of the perennial rivers
                                   and streams (those that flow year
                                   round) in the basin. The States
                                   assessed aquatic life use support in
                                   more river miles than any other
                                   designated use. Eleven of the 14
              t:,! ii  i,
         i 11.  Hi 11 i (I
                         tt i| Aquatic Life Use?
                         •wk.iM£iUb&___._	----T-yi--r--r;1	12:3-;—--"-r
                               :ic life;use provide suitable; habitat for
the protection and propagation of a healthy community of fish, shellfish, :
andjather aquatic oj-ganismsl"Ini general,"h_ealthy"'aquatic'cpmmunLtfes
support many dlfferentf species* of organisms, many of which are intoler-
ant ^o pollution. Each State establishes its own criteria for measuring
how well its waters support aquatic life uses. Some States have biological
  f'teija that directly iggajure	thar,heajth, of the gquatic community (such
rik species diversity measurements^	iowever,*'many"States"still rely    "	~
primarily on pfiysical and~cTTernicarcrJtiria ffiaTdi^ne' habitat require-
naenS for a healthy aq_uatic community (such as minimum djssolved
oxygen concentrations "and maximurn concentrations of toxic
chenifcais). Physical and chemical measurements provide an" indirect
measure of aquatic community health.
States within the basin presented
aquatic life use information in their
1994 Section 305(b) reports in a
format that enabled ORSANCO
and TVA to isolate the data pertain-
ing to the Ohio and Tennessee
River basin from statewide
 Figure 2. River Miles Surveyed
Total rivers = 255,330 miles
Total surveyed = 83,366 miles
              33% Surveyed
              67% Not Surveyed
 Figure 3. Levels of Overall Use
        Support - Rivers
          Good
          (Fully Supporting)
          70%
                                                                                Good
                                                                                (Threatened)
                                                                                5%
                                                                                O
                                                                                    Fair
                                                                                    (Partially Supporting)
                                                                                    15%
                                                                                    Poor
                                                                                    (Not Supporting)
                                                                                    10%
                                                                                    Poor
                                                                                    (Not Attainable)
                                                                                    0%
                                                                          Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
                                                                                reports.
54

-------
assessment data. Additional infor-
mation was retrieved from West
Virginia's 1992 Waterbody System
database.
    Approximately 70% of the
surveyed streams in the Ohio and
Tennessee River basin fully support
aquatic life (Figure 3). These rivers
and streams provide suitable condi-
tions for the survival and reproduc-
tion of fish  and other aquatic
organisms.  An additional 5% of the
surveyed streams were classified as
threatened because these streams
fully support aquatic life uses now,
but sources of pollution may jeop-
ardize that  support if they are  not
adequately controlled. Only 15% of
the surveyed streams partially  sup-
port aquatic life, and 10% do  not
meet State criteria for supporting
aquatic life uses.
 JxiOTE: For, this report,
 '~"RSANCO,"TVA, and EPA
 fesumed that overall use support
 Information in the Section ^
 305(b) reports and the~Water-
 ^body System represents aquatic
 *|fe use support information.
 ^Overall use support is a com-
 " [ned measurejp! how wel^a
   Jaterbody supports all of its"
 Individual uses. Overall use, is m
 Irnpaired if poor water quality
 ^conditions impair one or more
 Individual uses. For rn,any water-
 podies, aquatic life use support
   atijs ^quates witn the overall
 juse support'rating because
 ^cfuatic life use is~more"sensitive
 lo pollution than^)tner desfg-
   aied uses.   '  " "I   "*"  ~*
Watershed Assessments

    Figure 4 illustrates aquatic life
use support ratings for individual
watersheds in the Ohio and
Tennessee River basin. The ratings
range from the best use support
status (blue) to the worst use sup-
port status (red), with three inter-
mediate ratings (light blue, green,
and gold). The use support ratings
summarize general conditions in
each watershed. The best water-
sheds contain the highest percent-
age of rivers and streams that fully
support aquatic life use, even
though these watersheds  may
contain a few streams that do not
support aquatic life. However,
when examined as a group, more
rivers and streams in the best
watersheds support aquatic  life
uses. Watersheds that appear red
contain the greatest percentage of
streams not supporting aquatic life
use, although several streams in
these watersheds may fully support
a diverse aquatic community.
    Figure 4 suggests that Ohio
contains many of the watersheds
with the worst aquatic life use sup-
port status, but it is very unlikely
that water quality conditions in
  Figure 4. Aquatic Life Use Support: Ohio land Tennessee River Basin
                                                                                          Worst Water Quality
                                                                                                         55

-------
   Ohio are much different than in the
   adjacent States. It is more likely
   that Ohio contains a lot of water-
   sheds with poor ratings because
   Ohio uses primarily biological mon-
   itoring data and strict criteria to
   assess aquatic life use support sta-
   tus in its rivers and streams. Ohio
   Environmental Protection Agency
   studies show that using biological
   data to evaluate aquatic life use
   support identifies 35% to 50%
   more rivers and streams that do
   not support aquatic life use than
   assessments that rely exclusively on
   chemical and physical data. Conse-
   quently, aquatic life use support
   ratings depend not only on the
   health of biological communities
   and the water quality of the rivers
   and streams, but also on the use
   support criteria and assessment
   techniques used by each State.
      Another example of how differ-
   ences in State assessment methods
   affect the use support assessments
   can be seen along the Kentucky-
   Tennessee border. Here, the aquatic
   life use attainment in the Kentucky
   portion of the Cumberland River
   watershed  is designated as "best,"
   while the Tennessee portion of the
   watershed  is shown as having
   lower degrees of aquatic life
   support. Similar "State line faults"
   occur throughout the basin, partic-
   ularly along the borders between
   Indiana and Illinois and between
   Virginia and North Carolina.
Pollutants Impairing Rivers
and Streams

    Eleven States reported both
aquatic life use assessments and
estimates of river miles impaired  by
specific pollutants.* These States
reported that siltation and organic
enrichment are the most common
pollutants impacting aquatic life
throughout the Ohio and Tennes-
see River basin (Figure 5). Siltation
impairs over half of the river miles
that fail to fully support aquatic life
use. Silt and sediments deposited in
rivers and streams destroy the habi-
tat of many aquatic organisms,
including nesting and spawning
areas of important fish species. Silt
also smothers  benthic organisms,
 NOTE: The sum of river mites
|impaired by all pollutants may
|etc€ed the estimate of river* "
'miles that do not fully support"
^designated uses because multl-
« pie poflutants may impact an
                             "'"
              ....
|example, both siltation ahcf
          may pollute a 1-mile
Driver reach. In such cases, a State
      report that 1 mile is not
 Jully supporting its designated
      1 mile is impaired by silta-
 tion, and 1 mile is impaired by
mutrients. In this example, only
|1 stream mile is impaired, but
 the State identifies pollutants
^impairing a total of 2 stream
-miles.
Figure 5. Pollutants Found in Surveyed Rivers
Leading Impaired
Siltation
Organic Enrichment/DO
Metals
Nutrients
pH

I" ' '1

1 ' !

1 ! i

IP I !
1 ! : • Major
La Moderate/Minor
E| • n Not Specified
I 1 1 1 1
57%
32%
29%
19%
19%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Impaired River Miles
   *TWs report attempts to discriminate among pollutants impairing aquatic life uses and pollutants impairing other designated uses, such as
    contact recreation and drinking water supply. However, many States reported total miles of pollutants rather than miles of pollutants for individ-
    ual uses. As a result, this report assumes that pollutants that impaired the overall use support of a stream also impacted an equal mileage of
    streams designated for aquatic life use.
56

-------
and materials suspended in water
interfere with respiration and diges-
tion. In  addition, contaminated
sediments act as a reservoir for
different types of pollutants that
may be released into the water
column over time.
    Organic enrichment impacts
32% of the river miles that fail to
fully support aquatic life use in the
Ohio and Tennessee River basin.
Organic enrichment depletes the
dissolved oxygen content in the
water column. Many desirable fish
and other aquatic species cannot
survive or propagate in waters with
low oxygen  concentrations.
    Following siltation and organic
enrichment, the most common
pollutants of rivers and streams
within the Ohio River basin are
metals,  nutrients, and pH (a mea-
sure of acidity). Elevated metals
concentrations  and  acidic
conditions, often associated with
abandoned  mining  operations, can
be lethal to  aquatic  communities.
Excessive inputs of nutrients can
harm aquatic communities by trig-
gering the growth of algae popula-
tions (i.e., algae blooms) that
destabilize dissolved oxygen con-
centrations in the water column.
    Based on data submitted  by
11 States, ORSANCO and TVA
identified the most  common pollut-
ant in each of the watershed units
throughout  the basin (Figure 6).
Insufficient data were available to
determine the major pollutants in
Indiana, Georgia, and Mississippi.
Figure 6 illustrates that siltation is
the most prevalent  pollutant in the
greatest number of  watersheds.
This watershed analysis confirms
that siltation is a widespread prob-
lem throughout the Ohio and
Tennessee River Valley. In contrast,
impacts from metals appear to be
concentrated in Pennsylvania
watersheds and a few isolated
watersheds in areas that support
mining activities. Impacts from
organic enrichment and low dis-
solved oxygen are most common
in Ohio, Kentucky, and the
Alabama portion of the Tennessee
River subbasin.
Sources of Pollutants
Impairing Rivers and
Streams
    Eleven States also reported the
sources of pollutants impairing
rivers and streams of the  Ohio and
Tennessee River basin. The States
identified resource extraction,
which includes mining and petrole-
um activities, as the most common
source of pollution (Figure 7).
Resource extraction accounts for
siltation,  low pH (i.e., high acidity),
 Figure 6. Major Pollutants of Ohio and Tennessee River Basin
                                                 HI No Impairment
                                                 IE1 Siltation
                                                 HI Organic Enrichment
                                                 •I Metals
                                                 I.....J Nutrients
                                                 l^ftal _u
                                                 HBgsgl pn
                                                 • Other
                                                 I  I Insufficient Data
                                                                                                            57

-------
   and high levels of metals in almost
   half of all impaired rivers and
   streams. Some States reported the
   miles of rivers polluted by specific
   resource extraction activities,
   including surface and subsurface
   mining, acid  mine drainage, mine
   and mill tailings, and petroleum
   activities (Figure 8). Both active
   mining and acid mine drainage
   from active and abandoned  mines
   are significant sources of concern in
   the Ohio and Tennessee River
   basin.
      Agriculture is the second lead-
   ing source of pollutants impacting
   the rivers and streams of the Ohio
   and Tennessee River  basin. Approxi-
   mately 40% of the impaired rivers
   and streams do not achieve full
   aquatic life use support as a  result
   of agricultural activities. Several
   States reported impacts from more
   specific agricultural activities, such
   as nonirrigated crop  production
   and feedlots (Figure 9). Based on
   more limited  data, these  States
reported that pastureland is the
most common agricultural source
of impairment in rivers and streams
in the Ohio and Tennessee River
basin, followed by nonirrigated
crop production.
    Urban activities also impact
many rivers and streams in the
basin. Municipal point sources
pollute 23% of the impaired river
miles in the basin (the third largest
source of pollution following
resource extraction and agricultural
activities). Combined sewer over-
flows, storm sewers,  and urban
runoff also impact 18% of the
impaired rivers and streams.
    ORSANCO and TVA also identi-
fied the most common sources of
pollutants in each watershed (insuf-
ficient data were available to deter-
mine the  major sources of pollut-
ants in Indiana, Georgia, and
Mississippi) (Figure 10). The top
three sources of pollution  basin-
wide also generate significant water
quality problems within individual
Figure 7. Sources of Pollutants Found in Surveyed Rivers and Streams
Leading Sources Impaired %
Resource Extraction
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm
Sevvers/CSOs
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modifications

1 1 1

K 1 1

I 	 r '"I

1 	 ••',: 	 ill j 1
"-"="-" •• "' II H Major
L~J Moderate/Minor
If::.: 	 | | | n Not Specif fed
i i i i i i i i i
48%
40%
23%
18%
18%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Percent of Impaired River Miles
watersheds. Resource extraction is
by far the most significant pollu-
tion source in the upper part of
the basin (Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, Virginia, and eastern Ohio
and Kentucky), while agriculture
and municipal point sources pre-
dominate in the rest of the basin.
Agricultural runoff is a particular
concern throughout the Tennessee
River basin and the Illinois portion
of the Wabash River basin. Waters
polluted by municipal point source
Figure 8. Resource Extraction Activities
       : Polluting Rivers and Streams
    Dredge Mining
      Mine Tailings
         (10%)
Petroleum
Activities
 (26%)
Mill Tailings
                           Mining
                           (34%)
                                                                                         Acid Mine Drainage
                                                                                              (29%)
                                                                                Figure 9. Agricultural Activities Polluting
                                                                                       Rivers and Streams
                                                                               Specialty Crops
                                                                                   (2.3%)
                                                                              Irrigated Crops
                                                                                 (5.7o/o)
                                                                                  Feedlots
                                                                                   (7.4%),
                                                                                 Animal
                                                                              Holding/Mgt
                                                                                (20.5%)
                                                           Manure Lagoons
                                                               (1.4%)
                                                           Other (0.2%)
                                                              Pastureland
                                                               (31.7%)
                                                                                          Nonirrigated Crops
                                                                                              (30.8%)
58

-------
discharges are most common in
the Scioto, Little Miami, and Great
Miami watersheds within the State
of Ohio.

Contact  Recreation Use
Support
    Seven of the 14 States within
the Ohio and Tennessee River basin
assessed contact recreation use
support for rivers and streams in
their 1994 Section 305(b) reports.
ORSANCO and TVA extracted con-
tact recreation data from another
State's 1992 Section 305(b) report,
but contact recreation data were
not available for the remaining six
States. ORSANCO and TVA com-
bined primary contact recreation
(i.e., swimming) and secondary
contact recreation (activities that
involve occasional contact with the
water, such as boating) into a sin-
gle assessment because only one
State reported separate information
about secondary contact recreation
use.
    The Ohio and Tennessee River
basin States assessed over 44,000
 Figure 10. Major Sources of Pollutants — Ohio and Tennessee River Basin
                                                 H No Impairment
                                                 I  H Resource Extraction
                                                 ^B Agriculture
                                                 Mi Municipal Point Sources
                                                     Hydromodification
                                                 I   I Industrial Point Sources
                                                 •I Other
                                                 I   I Insufficient Data
miles of rivers and streams desig-
nated for contact recreation use.
Almost three-fourths of the streams
assessed fully support contact
recreation use (Figure 11). In addi-
tion, 5% of the stream miles fully
support contact recreation use but
are threatened.
    Only four States and
ORSANCO reported the most
significant pollutants and sources
of pollution preventing their
streams from fully supporting
water contact recreation. Bacteria
are clearly the most significant pol-
lutant impairing contact recreation
use in streams and are responsible
for 86% of the stream miles
impaired for this use. Urban
                                                                            Figure 11. Levels of Primary Contact
                                                                                    Recreation (Swimming)
                                                                                    Use Support - Rivers
                                                                                     Good
                                                                                     (Fully Supporting)
                                                                                     73%
                                                                                     Good
                                                                                     (Threatened)
                                                                                     5%
                                                                                     m
                                                                                     Fair
                                                                                     (Partially Supporting)
                                                                                     8%
                                                                                     E3I
                                                                                     Poor
                                                                                     (Not Supporting)
                                                                                     14%
                                                Poor
                                                (Not Attainable)
                                                0%
                                     Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
                                            reports.
                                                                                                            59

-------
   runoff/storm sewers and combined
   sewer overflows are the leading
   sources of pollutants impairing
   contact recreation use (Figure 12).

   Drinking Water Supply
   Use Support

       The States provided minimal
   information about support of drink-
   ing water supply use. Six of the
   fourteen States in the Ohio and
   Tennessee River basin assessed
   drinking water supply use support
   in just 2% of the river miles in the
   basin. ORSANCO and TVA acquired
   data from a 1992 Section 305(b)
   report for one additional  State, but
   data about drinking water supply
   use support were not available for
   the remaining seven States. Due to
   the limited amount of information
   available, ORSANCO and TVA
   could not prepare a basinwide
   summary of drinking water use
   status;  however, the available data
   are summarized here.
       Nearly three-fourths of the
   assessed stream reaches fully sup-
   port drinking water supply use,
   with an additional 5% classified as
   fully supporting but threatened
   (Figure 13). Fifteen percent of the
   assessed streams partially support
   drinking water supply use, and 7%
   do not support the use.
       Even less information was avail-
   able in the States' Section 305(b)
   reports regarding the pollutants
   impacting drinking water supply
   uses or their sources. Only two
   States and ORSANCO provided
pollutant and source information.
The minimal data available indicate
that pesticides are the most signifi-
cant pollutants, followed by priori-
ty organics, siltation, nutrients,
other habitat alterations, and sus-
pended solids. Agricultural runoff
was reported as the most common
source of pollutants, followed by
ground water loadings,  channeliza-
tion, and resource extraction.
                                     Fish  Consumption Use
                                     Support
                                        Only three States within the
                                     Ohio and Tennessee River basin
                                     assessed fish consumption use sup-
                                     port in their 1994 305(b) reports;
                                     however, information about fish
                                     consumption advisories was avail-
                                     able for each State. States issue
                                     advisories to protect the public
                Where Are Lakes, Wetlands,
                      and Ground Water?
                       h   fl      I1 *l "'" J^ H           i               ]  V 1
     Except for a short discussion on lakes in the Allegheny River
 sybbasin, this report does not describe water quality conditions in lakes,
                     water. The States report less information about
 these waters , because Jakes, ..... wetiands^ and ground water aquifers present
 greater water quality monitoring challenges than rivers and streams."
 Lakes a/id^aqyifej^Jj^ej^Mcji. ..... larger horizontal and vertical water quality
 variations than do streams. The variation makes it difficult to ensure that
    ^'i, ,„ ....... n, . I, jiii M.'i||'i •, , „,« ..... ', I"1' "i"1 ' i";1' ,i. ''"If1 'i '>»" ';;'' i'1'1'1 - L1!' ..... *!, |i'.''f ; •: ", ,•',"''•" ..... !>' ,1 'I,'!1!,1,, '! ' " r  ' ,' ' .' !! ,. '',ii»ii' 'W"'!.;:^1,!!1,,!,!,!!";!!]':.!!.''!'
 samples really reflect conditions throughout the lake or aquifer. Lakes
 and aquifers also respond to environmental stresses differently than
 streams and in different time frames. Even when hiqh-quality data are
 ?"L ."i!1"!*:,	.'I. •,; "'Mij'Wl'iiiillii"111,;'!1 iiWii'iiTiis''!:!'"'.»' in;:7'^:,.;SVVW      '^^^'W/KiKp'S' !»'•	rj; l1 .•"!! C •!""1i.',;.'i!: !.,.'-•(',„ "	'„   . /	,	,	
 available, there is less aqreement on whether they are the riqht data and
 F'l'T'"'!!:,,,1'1'!!!,! lINi!1"!!*:,".* ,,,,'/i>,,.i'„,>«,>]'	„.	i,!	f,i,,,	i,,,, *™yFr ,1,, *? ,---,„ ,r-r „ - -: ., -, r, ,-, „ -,,- 	   -,  -,, , , ,/- „ ,-, -  r,, , -  ,,.,-,•??- , - r-'  .•• •, v -a ">• "" ,-c „ -,»
 on" how they should be  interpreted.
 t,' :,:';, jv,„:«•	:;:,\f:\\,: \\a.\4\S;:	„„„ „„,,	„	., „,,,-.	,r, r	-,-,1	!,„„„„„,»,.,,	„	„.	„	,,.,.,,„	., „„ , , , 	 „ ,„.	,„„„„,.„,,„,-	,„,	.,„,„*.,-„	„.	„• „..,,.„,.
  ""*"jnJakes^,factors such as lake shape, lake basin shape, average and
 iiJiyiS^y^.JJieptfis; flushing rate, and inflow quality profoundly affect
 conditions for aquatic life. Reservoirs (lakes formed by damminq  rivers or
 ,;;:,,,, ;•' N*, il!1,,"1!!, ,„:";,„*! ;,'.*'i|i«»j1'!. |jf |J11,'«' »„»*'' :!'}"l!l ,,,„,„ „„		m™ .„,,,™,_ ™ u .„„ „,-.,„ ™,i,™ „ .-'™^™kL.,,. .j :,,-.i«. ,.,„;		-,„	lU	k , ^ „ ,_ ,i	 , ,..,_; ' ,.±?.i.. ,ni.,	L,, „-. ,,u.,j.-.* ,,u.,
 ^__   _ _^_^___^^^
 r|1^	Bl1*11!™"!1	ii»ff''»»»'«» ."iJi«-K^.»V»	IIW'^-iaHWU'WW ft 	;	n,	-,- ..t^-^^.™, "1^-.  . '-	< " ^ - - - • -!- -	,'.-•-,•; ., ^ . ,. ,	..- ,.",rr, -r.,_
   atural lakes, while at other times or at other locations in the  lake, they
 act more like rivers.
  .-,...-.    ^ •-• .^
                                          .• -ij .,::,-   V •.
 a
oped	clear g'ujdelmes'f^
particular objectives or how best to analyze and present the results. An
EPA wor|g£ou_p_ cpmp'psec! of representatives from"umyerslties, States,
 irid!F^deTa|riagencies is currentfy woFRih'g on these issues. ftecbrnmen-
         p'nTjtijis^cpup will help gufde future lake monitoring programs'
    will	help xhakejiifferent organizations' assessments of use support
                   „„_„_„__    ,„.   gTp"u£s"are""vyb"rking on recpmmen- •
                                   '"fp.pnljgrl^^n^a^essment'""
                                         ^
                                         protbcols. Future versions of this report shoufd summarize lafc, ground
                                         vya£erA aricf wetlands Information using these assessment guidelines.
60

-------
Figure 12. Contact Recreation UselSupport; Percentage of Pollutants and Their Sources
                 pH (7.0%)
                      Siltation (5.0%)
                         Other (2.0%)
                                         Other (7.0%)
                                                         Municipal (10%)
                                                              Agriculture
                                                               (20%)
  Bacterial Contaminants -
       Pathogens
        (86%)
     Percent of Stream Miles
     Impaired by Pollutants
                                Urban Runoff/
                              Storm Sewers/CSOs
                                   (38%)
                                                   Land Disposal -
                                            Septic Tanks, Package Plants, etc.
                                                      (25%)
                                          Percent of Stream Miles
                                        Impaired by Pollutant Sources
^               Why Monitor? Why Report?

^~   Water quality monitoring is technically demanding and expensive.
^Furthermore, ideas about what indicators should be monitored and how
* to interpret the results continue to change. So why should we invest
 public funds in monitoring, and who wants the information that is
^produced?
j!fr-  The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality
l(fTFM) defined monitoring as  "    an integrated activity for evaluating
~the physical, chemical, and biological character of water in relation to
ghuman health, ecological conditions, and designated water uses." it
|went on to say that monitoring '\. .is a means for understanding the  '
^condition of water resources and providing a basis for effective policies
 that promote the wise use and management of this vital resource"
J(1TFM, 1992).                            "                    .
fe+  .This link with resource management policies is why water quality
rqribhitoring is important. Monitoring provides information that helps set
fpolicies and programs to protect and improve the quality of our Nation's
^streams, rivers, and lakes. It provides a basis for prioritizing needs so lim-
 ';ed,funds can be effectively allocated to; improye conditions. Monitoring ^
  Jso provides the basis both lor Determining whether those policies  and
fprograms actually result in measurable environmental improvements,
ferid for changing policies and programs to increase their effectivenessT
|Because funding required for water quality protection and improvement
   "arge, and because protection and improvement activities can have
^profound implications to pjivate citizens,^ water cjualily nn^itoring is'a
'.sound investment to guide developmenf^and ensure effectiveness of
.water quality policies and programs.
from consuming unsafe quantities
of contaminated fish caught in cer-
tain waters. States issue advisories if
monitoring data indicate that con-
centrations of toxic contaminants
in fish tissue samples exceed State
and Federal criteria. The criteria for
issuing advisories may vary from
State to State. Therefore, neighbor-
ing States may issue different advi-
sories for interstate waters that flow
between them, which can confuse
the public.
    Figure 14 illustrates the distri-
bution of fish consumption advi-
sories across the basin. Each  circled
number in Figure 14 represents a
specific advisory. More specific
information on  each advisory is
                                                                           Figure 13. Levels of Drinking Water
                                                                                   Supply Use Support I Rivers
                                                                                    Good
                                                                                    (Fully Supporting)
                                                                                    73%
                                                                                    Good
                                                                                    (Threatened)
                                                                                    5%
                                                                                    El
                                                                                    Fair
                                                                                    (Partially Supporting)
                                                                                    15%
                                                                                    I&-.  i
                                                                                    Poor
                                                                                    (Not Supporting)
                                                                                    7%
                                                                                    Poor
                                                                                    (Not Attainable)
                                                                                    0%
                                                                          Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
                                                                                reports.
                                                                                                           61

-------
    Figure 14.  Fish Consumption Advisories - Ohio and Tennessee River Basin
                                                                   Fish Consumption Advisory - One Species of Fish

                                                              C_)  Fish Consumption Advisory - Multiple Species of Fish

                                                               Specific information for each numbered advisory
                                                               is provided in Appendix A.
  Source: EPA National Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories, September 1994.
62

-------
provided in Appendix A. Currently,
78 advisories are in effect in the
Ohio and Tennessee River basin.
Twenty-seven advisories restrict the
consumption of all fish species;
19 restrict consumption of one fish
species. Carp and catfish are the
subject of more advisories than any
other fish species; 70 advisories
restrict consumption of carp and/or
catfish. The most common pollut-
ants responsible for fish consump-
tion advisories are PCBs and chlor-
dane. Metals (particularly mercury),
dioxin, and other pollutants
account for the remainder  of the
advisories. Several advisories have
been issued for combinations of
two or more contaminants.

The Allegheny  River
Subbasin

Background

    The Allegheny River drains just
over 11,500 square miles of the
headwaters of the Ohio River basin
in the States of New York and
Pennsylvania (Figure 15). It con-
tains about 14,000 stream miles, of
which  10,162  miles are classified as
perennial. The Allegheny River orig-
inates in the mountains of north-
central Pennsylvania, then  flows
northwest into New York, turns
southwest, and reenters Pennsyl-
vania. From its headwaters, the
Allegheny flows 325 miles  to its
mouth in Pittsburgh, where it joins
with the Monongahela River to
form the Ohio River. Major tribu-
taries include the Kiskiminetas River,
Conemaugh River, Clarion  River,
Conewango Creek, and French
Creek.
    Mining and manufacturing are
the major economic activities with-
in the subbasin, followed by
agriculture and forestry. Coal, oil,
natural gas, sand, gravel, lime-
stone, sandstone, clay, and shale
are extracted from the subbasin.
Principal  manufacturing products
 Figure 15. Allegheny River Basin
include petroleum and coal, rubber
and plastic products, stone and
clay products, primary and fabricat-
ed metals, leather and apparel, and
electrical and other machinery. In
the southern portion of the sub-
basin, a chain of industrial river
valleys and mining towns wind
                                                      Upper Allegheny
                                                   Pennsylvania
                  Oil Creek f Allegheny
                              River
                                                 Central Allegheny
                                                      Lower Allegheny
                                                                                                         63

-------
   westward toward Pittsburgh, the
   industrial heart of the subbasin.
   Due to the decline of the coal
   industry and the mechanization of
   mines and steel mills, unemploy-
   ment is a significant problem in
   these areas.

   State Assessment
   Techniques
      New York and Pennsylvania use
   different terms and assessment
   methods to rate use support status
   in their rivers and streams. Pennsyl-
   vania rates its waters as either fully
   supporting, partially supporting, or
   not supporting designated uses.
   New York rates its waters as threat-
   ened, stressed, impaired, or pre-
   cluded.* To consolidate the data
   from the two States, ORSANCO
   and TVA assumed that "threat-
   ened" waters in New York are
   comparable to "fully supporting"
   waters in Pennsylvania, "stressed"
   and "impaired" waters are compa-
   rable to "partially supporting"
   waters, and  "precluded" waters
   are comparable to "not support-
   ing" waters  (Table 1).
      New York and Pennsylvania
   also use different criteria for inter-
   preting water quality data.
Differences in State assessment cri-
teria can have dramatic effects on
interstate water quality assess-
ments. Based on different criteria,
each State may assign different use
support ratings to streams with
very similar water quality. As a
result, a stream that crosses the
State border may fully support uses
in Pennsylvania and partially sup-
port uses after it flows into New
York, even though  water quality
data are  the same on both sides of
the State border. EPA is working
with the  States to address inconsis-
tent assessment criteria (see Special
State Concerns and Recommenda-
tions).

Aquatic Life  Use

    Over 6,600 miles (65%) of
perennial rivers and streams in the
Allegheny River subbasin were
assessed  for the 1994 305(b)
reporting cycle. Of the  streams that
were assessed, 72% (3,851 miles)
fully support aquatic life use, 12%
(660 miles) partially support
aquatic life use, and 15% (820
miles) do not support aquatic life
use.
    ORSANCO and TVA also rated
aquatic life use support status in
Table 1. Equivalent Use Support Ratings in New York and Pennsylvania
New York Ratings
Threatened
Stressed
Impaired
Precluded
Pennsylvania Ratings
Fully Supporting
Partially Supporting
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
individual watersheds in the
Allegheny River subbasin (Figure
16) using the same criteria devel-
oped for ranking watersheds basin-
wide in Figure 4. One feature that
clearly stands out is the sharp
contrast between aquatic life use
support ratings in watersheds that
straddle the border between
Pennsylvania and New York. In
New York, most of the border
watersheds have an intermediate
aquatic life use support rating. In
contrast, the same watersheds have
the best rating on the Pennsylvania
side of the border. This State line
fault is most likely due to differ-
ences in State water quality assess-
ment criteria rather than real differ-
ences in water quality.
    Within Pennsylvania, the
streams with the best aquatic life
use support ratings are located in
   * According to New York's terminology, threatened streams fully support designated uses but could become impaired in the future due to
   existing activities. Impaired stream segments partially support one or more uses, and stressed streams are intermittently impaired. Precluded
   streams do not support one or more uses.
64

-------
the upper Allegheny River and
French Creek watersheds. The
Clarion River and middle Allegheny
River watersheds are slightly more
impaired, while the lower Alle-
gheny River watershed, including
the Conemaugh and Kiskiminetas
Rivers, is the most impaired water-
shed in the subbasin. It should be
noted that the depiction of the
New York portion of the French
Creek watershed as having the
lowest degree of use support is
primarily due to differences in the
States' use support ratings and the
problems that follow when trying
to compare separate sections of an
interstate watershed.
  Figure 16. Allegheny River Subbasin - Aquatic Life Use
                                                    New York
                                                       Worst Water Quality
                                                       Streams
                                                    Lower Allegheny
                                    Approximately 56% of the assessed
                                    stream miles in the French Creek
                                    watershed were identified as
                                    "stressed" by New York, which, for
                                    the purposes of this report, were
                                    assumed to be equivalent to "par-
                                    tially supporting" streams (the use
                                    designation utilized by
                                    Pennsylvania). However, if the use
                                    support ratings were further
                                    defined, the "stressed" stream
                                    miles could be classified as having
                                    only minor partial impairment,
                                    which would most likely result in a
                                    better use support rating for the
                                    watershed.

                                    Pollutants and Their
                                    Sources

                                        Both  States identified specific
                                    pollutants and sources of pollutants
                                    impairing rivers and streams.  Figure
                                    17 presents the percentage of
                                    stream miles impaired by particular
                                    pollutants in four portions of the
                                    Allegheny River subbasin, each
                                    comprised of several watersheds.
                                    Metals are the major pollutant of
                                                                                                          65

-------
   concern in the Pennsylvania
   portion of the subbasin, and sus-
   pended solids are the most com-
   mon pollutant identified in the
   New York portion of the subbasin.
   New York reported that suspended
   solids impact over three-fourths of
   the rivers and streams impaired by
   identified pollutants. Throughout
   the entire Allegheny River subbasin,
   metals are the most common pol-
   lutant (impacting 598 stream
   miles), followed closely by siltation
   and suspended solids (impacting
   547 miles). Other pollutants
                                     impacted less than 5% of the
                                     impaired rivers and streams.
                                         By far, resource extraction is
                                     the largest source of pollution in
                                     the Allegheny River subbasin
                                     (Figure 18). Throughout the sub-
                                     basin, resource extraction impacts
                                     over 900 miles of streams, nearly
                                     all of which are located  in
                                     Pennsylvania. Of these,  775 miles
                                     are impacted by acid mine drain-
                                     age. Other significant sources of
                                     pollution in the subbasin include
                                     agriculture (the major pollutant
                                     source in the New York  portion  of
    Figure 17. Pollutants of Concern in Impaired Streams - Allegheny River Basin
                             Metals
                             (39%)
     Other Inorganics
         (7.8%)
Suspended Solids
    (9.1%)
  Organic
Enrichment//
   DO
  (6.1%)
              Other
              (38%)

        Upper Allegheny Basin - PA
            130 Miles Impaired
                            Metals
                            (53%)
   Suspended Solids
       (16%)
                                           PH
                                          (12%)
                                       Other
                                     Inorganics
                                       (11%)
                                             Other
                                             (8.5%)

                                         Central Allegheny Basin - PA
                                             440 Miles Impaired
  Suspended Solids
      (26%)
      PH
     (3.2%)
     Natural
     (3.0%)
           Other
           (15%)
                           Metals
                           (52%)
               Metals
    Organic     (2.6%)
  Enrichment/DO-
     (7.9%)
   Other -
   (1.7%)
  Thermal'
Modifications |!
  (9.2%)
Suspended
  Solids
 (78.5%)
        Lower Allegheny Basin - PA
            583 Miles Impaired
                                          Allegheny River Basin - NY
                                             339 Miles Impaired
the subbasin, which impacts 202
miles) and hydrologic/habitat mod-
ifications (impacting 157 miles).

Additional Stream Uses

    ORSANCO and TVA could not
rate the status of contact recreation
use and drinking water use in the
Allegheny River subbasin because
Pennsylvania did not report the sta-
tus of these  individual uses in its
Section 305(b) report. New York
assessed contact recreation and
drinking water use support state-
wide, but in the Allegheny River
subbasin,  New York's assessed
waters included only 42 miles of
Conewango Creek (fully supporting
contact recreation use)  and 7.5
miles of the  Allegheny River (par-
tially supporting drinking water
supply use).

Fish Consumption
Advisories
    The only fish consumption
advisory in the Allegheny River sub-
basin advises the public to avoid
consumption of carp and channel
catfish in the lower 14.5 miles of
the Allegheny  River (in Pennsyl-
vania) due to contamination by
PCBs and chlordane.

Lake Water Quality
Assessments
    The Allegheny River subbasin
contains 665 lakes and reservoirs
covering a total surface area of
53,212 acres. Only five  of these
lakes are larger than 1,000 acres.
Six lakes in the subbasin do not
fully support designated uses.
Nutrients impact five lakes in New
66

-------
York (totaling 631 acres), and
Pennsylvania classified Tamarack
Lake (556 acres) as eutrophic. Eight
other lakes, covering nearly 17,000
acres, are classified as threatened
(by Pennsylvania) or stressed (by
New York), including Chautauqua
Lake (13,400 acres) and Beaver Run
Reservoir (1,125 acres).
                    New York and Pennsylvania
                used Carlson's Trophic State Index
                to rate the trophic status of 24
                lakes in the Allegheny River sub-
                basin (Table 2). Carlson's Trophic
                State Index is based on phospho-
                rus, chlorophyll, and water clarity
                (i.e., secchi disk) data. Carlson's
                Trophic State Index classifies lakes
  Figure 18. Sources of Pollution in Impaired Streams - Allegheny River Subbasin
         Unknown
         (10.5%)
      Resource
     Extraction
      (59.2%)
                      Agriculture
                       (10.4%)
  Agriculture
    (9.7%)

  Natural
  (8.0%)
    Other
   (6.1%)
     Industrial
      (6.5%)
     Upper Allegheny Subbasin - PA
           130 Miles Impaired
     Natural
     (6.3%)
  Other
  (3.1%)
Industrial
 (1.7%)
Unknown
 (1.3%)
       Resource
      Extraction
       (77.2%)
                    Central Allegheny Subbasin - PA
                          440 Miles Impaired
   Urban Runoff
     (2.2%)
 Land Disposal
    (2.1%)
   Other
   (9.1%)
             Agriculture
              (2.2%)
Natural
(3.0%)
       Resource
       Extraction
       (81.3%)
        Silviculture
         (10.0%)
                                  Hydrologic/Habitat
                                     Modifications
                                       (41.3%)
      Agriculture
       (37.4%)
                                               Construction
                                                  (5.2%)
                                             Other
                                            (2.9%)
                                          Resource
                                          Extraction
                                           (3.3%)
     Lower Allegheny Subbasin - PA
           583 Miles Impaired
                     Allegheny River Subbasin - NY
                          349 Miles Impaired
as oligotrophic (very clear and
nutrient poor), mesotrophic
(moderate clarity and nutrient
content), or eutrophic (relatively
murky and nutrient rich). Many
eutrophic lakes are naturally nutri-
ent rich and support healthy fish
communities, but eutrophic condi-
tions may indicate that a lake is
receiving an overdose of nutrients
from unnatural sources.
    Pennsylvania classified eight
lakes as eutrophic and eight lakes
as mesotrophic, including Kinzua
Lake (12,100 acres). New York
rated three lakes as mesotrophic
and five lakes as eutrophic, includ-
ing Chautauqua Lake. None of the
lakes in the subbasin were classified
as oligotrophic.
    As of 1995, EPA had sponsored
studies on two lakes in the
Allegheny River subbasin,
Chautauqua  Lake in New York and
Conneaut Lake in Pennsylvania. An
ongoing study on Chautauqua
Lake, the largest lake in the sub-
basin, is identifying pollutant
sources and evaluating lake protec-
tion options. Weed growth and
algal blooms in Chautauqua Lake
are the greatest concerns, while
construction impacts have also
been high due to the intensive
development in the area. Conneaut
Lake once was a popular tourist
attraction but now has nuisance
levels of aquatic weeds and severe
oxygen depletion. A study in
progress for Conneaut Lake is
determining  pollutant budgets for
phosphorus, nitrogen, and sus-
pended solids to help in drafting a
management plan.
                                                                                                               67

-------
   Special State
   Concerns and
   Recommendations
       Ten States reported special
   water quality concerns and/or rec-
   ommendations for improving water
   pollution control programs in their
   Section 305(b) reports. The follow-
   ing five issues were listed by three
   or more States; some of the issues
   are especially relevant to the Ohio
   and Tennessee River basin, but all
   five issues are applicable to water
   quality assessments at the State,
   watershed, basin, or national level.
    1. The need for coordinated
efforts to address nonpoint
sources of pollution.
    States noted the complexities
of controlling pollution that origi-
nates from numerous diverse
sources, each of which contributes
a small amount of pollution.
Coordination among different
agencies and the different layers
within government agencies—
Federal, State, local, and regional—
is critical to avoid duplication of
efforts and conflict among pro-
grams. Agencies need to consider
the effects of waste generation and
disposal on the total environment
in their regulatory decisions.
Table 2. Trophic Status of Allegheny River Subbasih Lates
Mesotrophic
Lake
Conneaut Lake (PA)
Cuba Lake (NY)
Hemlock Lake (PA)
Justus Lake (PA)
Keystone Lake
(Westmoreland County, PA)
Keystone Lake
(Armstrong County, PA)
Kinzua Lake (PA portion)
Quaker Lake (NY)
Quemahoning Reservoir (PA)
Red House Lake (NY)
Saltlick Reservoir (PA)
Acres
929
184
NR
NR
880
78
12,100
92
900
44
NR


Eutrophic
Lake
Bear Lake (NY)
Beaver Run Reservoir (PA)
Canadohta Lake (PA)
Cassadaga Lake, Lower (NY)
Cassadaga Lake, Upper (NY)
Chautauqua Lake, North (NY)
Edinboro Lake (PA)
Findley Lake (NY)
Hinckston Reservoir (PA)
Loyalhanna Reservoir (PA)
North Park Lake (PA)
Tamarack Lake (PA)
Yellow Creek Lake (PA)
Acres
44
1,125
170
34
41
5,434
240
124
NR
210
75
556
740
    2. A coordinated framework
for ground water protection.
    A number of Federal and State
agencies have authority and
responsibility for ground water pro-
tection. To coordinate their efforts,
several States are developing
ground water management strate-
gies that set forth overall objectives
and principles and define each
agency's role.

    3. Pollution from resource
extraction.
    In the 7994 National Water
Quality Inventory Report to
Congress, the 14 Ohio and Tennes-
see River basin States accounted for
almost half of the  river miles
reported as impaired due to
resource extraction.  Most of the
impairment was attributed to mine
drainage, while a much smaller
portion  was related to oil and gas
drilling. The  States note that inade-
quate funding to address pollution
from abandoned mines is a special
concern.

    4. Human health criteria.
    Several States  raised concerns
about criteria to protect human
health from contamination in water
and fish. These States identified a
need to establish criteria for  addi-
tional harmful substances and addi-
tional guidance on the use of crite-
ria. The  States are particularly con-
cerned that changing to risk-level-
based criteria will result in many
new locations being classified as
impaired for fish consumption or
water supply use.
   NR = Not reported.
68

-------
    5. Watershed planning and
management.
    Several States reported on their
own initiatives toward watershed-
based pollution abatement
programs. The States expressed
concern that a transition to a
watershed approach might disrupt
or delay current programs. The
States consistently requested that
EPA provide incentives for States to
adopt watershed-based
approaches.

Recommendations
for Reporting from
a Basinwide Assess-
ment Perspective

    Inconsistencies in the States'
305(b) information  presented
obstacles to developing this water
quality assessment of a large, inter-
state basin. The inconsistencies
included the geographic bases of
the assessments, the designated
uses assessed, the identification of
causes and sources of use impair-
ment, and the assessment method-
ologies themselves. State-to-State
differences in assessment methods,
interpretation, and reporting must
be reduced if information in future
Section 305(b) reports is to be
aggregated into large regional or
interstate basin assessments of
water quality conditions. The fol-
lowing section describes several
recommendations to address these
problems.
Assessment by
Watershed

    Some States present their
assessments on a statewide basis,
some provide summaries by large
watersheds, and others present
information for individual streams.
To facilitate reporting on an inter-
state basis, States need to report
their information at a consistent
level of watershed units. Water-
sheds identified by USGS 8-digit
HUCs should be the minimum
reporting units. States may choose
to aggregate their information by
smaller watershed units (i.e., 11 -
digit HUC codes), or they may, in
some instances, combine adjacent
units where necessary for their own
reporting purposes.

Assessment of All
Designated Uses
    Many States assess only aquatic
life use support; others report a sin-
gle, overall use support assessment
that is usually based on aquatic life
use support status. Since the goal
of the Clean Water Act is for all
waters to support aquatic life and
recreation, each State should at
least address both of these uses.
The lack of information on water
supply use support probably results
from a historic separation of pro-
grams that address water supply
issues and water pollution control.
The absence of such information
in a report on water quality
conditions, however, is difficult to
justify. At a minimum, States
should assess waters that serve as
sources for public supplies. To
improve reporting of fish consump-
tion use support status, EPA should
request that the States identify the
watershed in which each advisory
occurs. EPA already requests that
each State submit a list of fish con-
sumption advisories, but EPA does
not currently request watershed
identification with this information.

Causes and Sources of Use
Impairment

    Most States report causes and
sources of use impairment, but
many do so only on an overall
basis; most do not identify the indi-
vidual use impaired by a cause or
source. Some States report the
total waters impaired by causes
and sources statewide and do not
identify the size of waters impaired
by causes and sources in individual
watersheds. Most  States cannot
identify the causes and sources
responsible for degrading all of
their impaired waters. These incon-
sistencies seriously compromise any
effort to report such information
on a multistate basis. EPA's 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup should
address  these issues and develop
appropriate recommendations.
                                                                                                      69

-------
   Consistent Assessment
   Methodologies
      Assessments of lakes, ground
   water, and wetlands were extreme-
   ly inconsistent among the 14 States
   that share the Ohio and Tennessee
   River basin. EPA's guidelines for
   preparing the Section 305(b)
   reports are less precise for lakes,
   wetlands, and ground water than
   for rivers and streams; as a result,
   States have developed their own
   approaches for assessing these
   waters. If interstate basins are to be
   a basis for reporting in future
   national water quality summaries, it
   will be necessary to fine-tune
   reporting requirements for lakes,
   wetlands, and ground water.
      Even though the assessment
   methods for rivers and streams are
   clearly specified in the 305(b)
   guidelines, this report shows that
   there are differences in how the
   States interpret and apply the
   guidelines. This was noted in the
   section on the Allegheny River sub-
   basin where waters of similar quali-
   ty conditions received very different
   assessments by the States of New
   York and Pennsylvania. It also was
   apparent in several other instances
   where abrupt changes in the level
   of use support appeared to occur
   at State lines.
      States arrive at different use
   support ratings because the States
   monitor different water quality indi-
   cators and use different use support
   criteria. For example, some States
   base their aquatic life use support
 assessments primarily on biological
 survey results while others use only
 physical and chemical data. Studies
 have shown that biological moni-
 toring data often detect more
 water quality impairments than
 chemical and physical monitoring
 data alone. In addition, States can
 arrive at different use support
 ratings if some States monitor dis-
 solved metals concentrations while
 others continue to measure total
 recoverable metal concentrations.
 Even if neighboring States monitor
 comparable indicators and use sim-
 ilar criteria, they may be evaluating
 information collected in different
 years.
    Contact recreation  use is
 assessed primarily on the basis of
 bacteria levels, but the States  base
 their recreation use support ratings
 on a variety of indicator bacteria.
 Some States have adopted criteria
 for £ co// and/or Enterococcus
 while others continue to monitor
 fecal coliforms. Support of public
 water supply use is subject to
 greater inconsistencies. For water
 supply utilities, the parameters
 regulated under the Federal Safe
 Drinking Water Act are most
 important. Many of those parame-
 ters are  not specifically regulated
 under the Clean Water Act and are
 not routinely monitored by State
water quality agencies.
    EPA's 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup has addressed several
 of these issues in the 305(b) guide-
 lines for the 1996 report cycle.
 Initiating Watershed
 Assessments

    All of the difficulties and incon-
 sistencies described above can be
 overcome if they are addressed
 early in the assessment process.
 Where river basin organizations
 exist, they are ideally suited to take
 a lead role in coordinating inter-
 state watershed assessments. The
 process used  by ORSANCO to
 prepare a Section 305(b) report for
 the Ohio River mainstem on behalf
 of six States might serve as an
 example. Preparation for the Ohio
 River assessment begins 7 months
 prior to the April due date for the
 report. A proposed outline of the
 assessment, including descriptions
 of the methodologies to be used, is
 distributed to the States and is dis-
 cussed in one or more teleconfer-
 ences. A preliminary draft is distrib-
 uted approximately 3 months
 before the due date and, if com-
 ments warrant, is discussed in
 another teleconference.
    For watersheds where an inter-
 state river basin agency does not
 exist, it may be necessary for the
 EPA Region to take the lead role in
 coordinating the States' assess-
 ments. Regardless of who assumes
the lead role,  coordination early in
the process will result in more con-
sistent and comprehensive assess-
 ments.
70

-------
Appendix A
•

P^^^^Klm^^^^^^JMwI^^^^^^^^w^

ppsgp^lflts^'.sf'i,..
i;-.«>aS ,<..»«>iW«'V;.".- ..
Ohio and Tennessee River Basin Fish Consumption Advisories
PENNSYLVANIA

Advisory
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Waterbody
Ohio River
Allegheny River
Cheat River
Monongahela River
Monongahela River
Monongahela River
Chartiers Creek
L. Chartiers Creek
Shenango River •
Beaver River
N. Fork Dunkard Fork
of Wheeling Creek
Location
RM 40.0 to 0.0
RM14.5toRMO.O
Fayette County
Fayette/Washington
Counties
RM11.2toRMO.O
Fayette/Greene Counties
Canonsburg to mouth
Canonsburg L to mouth
Mercer County
Beaver County
All
• . • .
Miles/Acres
40.0
14.5


11.2






_. ' . - •'
HUCs '
5030101,5030106
5010009
5020004
5020005
5020005
5020005
5030101
5030101
5030102
5030104
5030106
Fish Species
Carp; Channel Catfish
Carp; Channel Catfish
White Bass
Carp; Channel Catfish
Carp; Channel Catfish
White Bass
Carp; Largemouth Bass
Carp; Largemouth Bass
Carp
Carp; Channel Catfish
Smallmouth Bass
Contaminants
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs
Type
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
WEST VIRGINIA
Advisory
No.
12
13
14
15
16
Waterbody
Ohio River
Kanawha River
Pocatalico River
Flat Fork Creek
Armour Creek
Location
Entire WV length
Coal River to Point Pleasant
RM 2.0 to RM 0.0
Harmony
RM 2.0 to RM 0.0
OHIO
Advisory
No.
17
18
19
Waterbody
Ohio River
Ohio River
Middle Fork
L. Beaver Cr.
Location
PA border to Creenup Dam
Cincinnati/Mill Creek
confluence
RM 39.1 to RM 9.1
Miles/Acres
277.0
46.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
HUCs
5030101,5030106
5030201,5030202
5030901
5050008
5050008
5050008
5050008
Fish Species
Carp; Channel Catfish
Bottom Feeders
Bottom Feeders
Carp; Channel Catfish;
Suckers
Bottom Feeders
Contaminants
PCBs; Chlordane
Dioxin
Dioxin
PCBs
Dioxin
Type
No Consumption
No Consumption .
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption

Miles/Acres
307
0.5
30.0
HUCs
5030101,5030106
5030201, 5030202
5090101
5090203
5030101
Fish Species
Carp; Catfish
Largemouth/
Smallmouth/Spotted
Bass; Sauger
White Bass
Hybrid Striped Bass;
Flathead Catfish
Catfish
All Species
Contaminants
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Mirex; Chlordane;
Photomirex
Type
No Consumption
One Meal/Week
One Meal/Month
Six Meals/Year
One Meal/Month
No Consumption


                                 71

-------

OHIO (continued)
Advisory
No.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Waterbody
Mahoning River
Tuscarawas River
Portage (Ohio Canal)
Lake Nesmith
Summit Lake
Scioto River
Scfppo Creek
Great Miami River
Ford Hydraulic Canal
Little Scioto River
Mill Creek
Location
NW Bridge Street
to PA border
RM 112.8 to RM 55.0
All Waters
All Waters
All Waters
Greenland Dam
to Ohio River
Kingston Pike
to Scioto R.
Lowhead Dam to RM 0.0
Power Plant to G. Miami R.
RM 6.6 to RM 2.7
1-275 to Ohio River
Miles/Acres
29.2
57.8



134.0
5.3
80.7
2.0
3.9

HUCs
5030103
5040001
5040001
5040001
5040001
5060001,5060002
5060002
5080002
5080002
5090103
5090203
Fish Species
All Species
Largemouth/Rock Bass
Channel Catfish;
Smallmouth Bass;
Yellow Bullhead
Carp
Carp; Catfish
Carp; Catfish
Carp; Catfish
Carp; Catfish
All Species
Carp; Catfish; Suckers
All Species
All Species
All Species
Contaminants
PAHs; PCBs;
Phthalate esters;
Mirex
PCBs;
Hexachlorobenzene
PCBs;
Hexachlorobenzene
PCBs;
Hexachlorobenzene
PCBs
PCBs; Tetrachloro-
benzene
PCBs
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs;
Organometallics
PAHs; Metals
PCBs
Type
No Consumption
One Meal/Week
One Meal/Month
Six Meals/Year
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
RCP
KENTUCKY
Advisory
No.
31
32
33
34
35
36
Waterbody
Ohio River
Green River Lake
W. Fork Drakes Creek
Town Branch/
Mud River
Little Bayou Creek
West Kentucky Wildlife
Management Area
Location
Entire Kentucky border
Taylor, Adair Counties
Simpson, Warren Co.
Logan, Butler,
Muhlenberg Co.
McCracken Co.
McCracken Co.
Miles/Acres
663.9

46.9
71.5
6.5
5 ponds
HUCs
5090103,5090201
5090203,5140101
5140104,5140201
5140202-3, 5140206
5110001
5110002
5110003
5140206
5140206
Fish Species
Carp; Channel Catfish;
Paddlefish; White Bass
Carp; Channel Catfish
All Species
All Species
All Species
Largemouth Bass
Contaminants
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Mercury
Type
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
Key: RCP Restricted consumption - general population
NCSP No consumption - special population (e.g., nursing mothers and children)
RSP Restricted consumption - special population (e.g., nursing mothers and children)

72

-------
INDIANA

Advisory
-No.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Waterbody
Ohio River
Great Miami River
Little Mississinewa R.
Mississinewa River
Wildcat Creek
Little Sugar Creek
Sugar Creek
Dugger Lake
White River
Buck Creek
West Fork White River
Stoney Creek
Sand Creek
Clear Creek
Salt Creek
Salt Creek
Pleasant Run Creek
Elliot Ditch/
Wea Creek
East Fork White River
East Fork White River
Pigeon Creek
Kokomo Creek
Location
Entire Indiana border
Dearborn County
Randolph County
One mile above
L. Mississinewa to
downstream of
Ridgeville, IN
Waterworks Dam
to Wabash River
Montgomery County
Montgomery County;
1-74 to SR 32 bridge
Sullivan County
Delaware County
Delaware County
Noblesville, IN to Hamilton/
Marion County line
Downstream of Wilson
Ditch in Noblesville, IN
Below Creensburg, IN
Monroe County
Monroe Reservoir to
Peerless, IN
Peerless, IN to
E. Fork White R.
Lawrence County
Tippecanoe County
Bedford, IN to
Williams Dam
Below Williams Dam
Vanderburgh County
Howard County
Miles/Acres
356.0
1.6
7.6
11.0
2.7
15.3
8.7

6.7
18.6
10.0
0.8
15
14.3
11.1
14.9
4.6
10.8
11.9
79.0
31.9

HUCs
5090203,5140101,
5140104,5140201
5140202
5080002
5120103
5120103
5120107
5120110
5120110
5120111
5120201
5120201
5120201
5120201
5120206
5120208
5120208
5120208
5120208
5120208
5120208
5120208
5140202
5120107
- "- . • ': .
Fish Species '.-
Carp; Channel
Catfish < 19"
Channel Catfish > 19"
Channel Catfish
All Species
Carp; Catfish
All Species
All Species
All Species
Carp; Catfish
Carp
Carp
All Species
All Species
All Species
All Species
Carp; Catfish; Drum
All Species
All Species
All Species
All Species
Carp; Channel Catfish
Carp; Channel Catfish
All Species
Contaminants
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Chlordane
PCBs
PCBs, Chlordane
Chlordane
Chlordane
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Type
NCSP, RGP
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
NCSP; RGP
NCSP; RGP
No Consumption
NCSP; RGP
No Consumption
NCSP; RGP
NCSP; RGP
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
NCSP; RGP
No Consumption
ILLINOIS
Advisory
,:M-.
59
Waterbody
Lake Vermillion
Location / ;
Vermillion County
Miles/Acres
608.0 acres
HUCs,, : V
5120109
Fish Species : /
Channel Catfish
Contaminants
Chlordane
Type
No Consumption
NEW YORK No fish consumption advisories for the Allegheny River basin.

73

-------



VIRGINIA
Advisory
No.
60
Watorbody
North Fork Holston
River
Location

Milesy Acres
80.0
HUCs
6010101
Fish Species
All Species
Contaminants
Mercury
Type
No Consumption
MARYLAND No fish consumption advisories for the Youghiogheny River basin.
TENNESSEE
,!Advtory
;: No.
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Waterbody
North Fork Holston
River
Boone Reservoir
Pigeon River
East Fork Poplar
Creek
Fort Loudon Reservoir
Fort Loudon Reservoir
Little River Embayment
Watts Bar Reservoir
Watts Bar Reservoir
Watts Bar Reservoir
Tellico Lake
Melton Hill Reservoir
Chattanooga Creek
Nkkajack Reservoir
Woods Reservoir
Location
TN/VA Line to Holston
River
All waters
NC state line to Douglas
Reservoir
Anderson/Roane Counties
Loudon/Knox/Blount
Counties
Embayment of
Ft Loudon Res.
Tennessee River portion
Tennessee River portion—
Roane, Meigs, Rhea,
Loudon counties
Clinch River arm
All Waters
All Waters
Mouth to GA state line
All Waters
All Waters
Miles/Acres
6.2
4400
20.4
1S.O
14600




16500
5690

19730
3908
HUCs
6010101
6010102
6010106
6010201
6010201
6010201
6010201
6010201
6010201
6010202
6010207
6020001
6020001
6030003
Fish Species
All Species
Carp; Catfish
All Species
All Species
Catfish and Largemouth
Bass over 2 pounds
Largemouth Bass
Striped Bass
Smallmouth Buffalo;
Sauger
Largemouth Bass;
White Bass;
Carp
Catfish; Hybrid Bass
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
All Species
Catfish
Catfish
Contaminants
Mercury
PCBs; Chlordane
Dioxin
Mercury; Metals;
Organics
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs
PCBs
Type
No Consumption
Precautionary*
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
Precautionary*
Precautionary*
No Consumption
Precautionary*
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
Precautionary*
No Consumption
* Precautionary Advisory- Children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers should not consume the fish species named. All other persons should limit consumption of the
named species to 1.2 pounds per month.
NORTH CAROLINA
Advhory
No,
75
Waterbody
Pigeon River
Location
Haywood County
Miles/Acres

HUCs
6010106
Fish Species
Carp; Catfish
Contaminants
Dioxin
Type
No Consumption
GEORGIA No fish consumption advisories for the Tennessee River basin.

74

-------
ALABAMA
Advisory
No.
76
77
78
Waterbody
Tennessee River
Tennessee River
Indian Creek and
Huntsville Spring Br.
Location
RM 320.9 to RM 309.6
One mile around
cnfl with Indian Creek

Miles/Acres
11.9
2
13
HUCs
6030002
6030002
6030002
Fish Species
Channel Catfish
Largemouth and
Smallmouth Buffalo;
Channel Catfish
Bigmouth and Small-
mouth Buffalo; Channel,
Bullhead, and Brown
Catfish; White Bass
Contaminants
DDT
DDT
DDT
Type
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
MISSISSIPPI   No fish consumption advisories for the Tennessee River basin.
                                                                                                                                  75

-------
76

-------
           Section
 State and Territorial, Tribal, and
Interstate Commission Summaries

-------
Section III photo by Nancy Mueller, Planning
Department, Cortland County, New York

-------
State  and  Territorial  Summaries
     This section provides individual
  summaries of the water quality
  survey data reported by the States
  and Territories in their 1994 Section
  305(b) reports. The summaries
  provide a general overview of water
  quality conditions and the most
  frequently identified water quality
  problems in each State and Terri-
  tory. However, the use support data
  contained in these summaries are
  not comparable because the States
  and Territories do not use compara-
  ble criteria and monitoring strate-
  gies to measure their water quality.
  States and Territories with strict
  criteria for defining healthy waters
  are more likely to report that a high
  percentage of their waters are in
  poor condition. Similarly, States
  with progressive monitoring  pro-
  grams are more likely to identify
  water quality problems and to
  report that a high percentage of
  their waters do not fully support
  designated uses. As a result,  one
  cannot assume that water quality is
worse in those States and Territories
that report a high percentage of
impacted waters in the following
summaries.
                                                                                              79

-------
 Alabama
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Alabama 1994
   305(b) report, contact

   Michael J. Rief
   Alabama Department of
     Environmental Management
   Water Quality Branch
   P.O. Box 301463
   Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
   (334)271-7829
Surface Water Quality

    Since enactment of the .Clean
Water Act of 1972, water quality
has substantially improved near
industrial and municipal facilities.
However, pollution still prevents
about 29% of the surveyed stream
miles, 15% of the surveyed lake
acres, and 20% of the surveyed
estuaries from fully supporting
aquatic life use. Oxygen-depleting
wastes and nutrients are the most
common pollutants impacting rivers
and coastal waters. The leading
sources of river pollution include
 agriculture, municipal wastewater
 treatment plants, and resource
 extraction. In coastal waters, the
 leading sources of pollution are
 urban runoff and storm sewers,
 municipal sewage treatment plants,
 and combined sewer overflows.
    Toxic priority organic chemicals
 impact the most lake acres, usually
 in the form of a  fish consumption
 advisory. These pollutants may
 accumulate in fish tissue at a con-
 centration that greatly exceeds the
 concentration in the surrounding
 water. Unknown sources and indus-
 trial dischargers are  responsible for
 the greatest acreage of impaired
 lake waters.
    Special State concerns include
 impacts from the poultry broiler
 industry, forestry activities, animal
 waste runoff, and hydroelectric
 generating facilities.

 Ground Water Quality

    The Geological Survey of
Alabama monitoring well network
 indicates relatively good  ground
water quality. However, the number
of ground water contamination
incidents has increased significantly
in the past few years due to better
reporting under the Underground
Storage Tank Program and
increased public  awareness of
ground water issues. Alabama has
established pesticide monitoring
and a Wellhead Protection Program
to identify nonpoint sources of
ground water contamination and
further protect public water
supplies.
80

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    In 1992, the Alabama
Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) initiated the
Flint Creek watershed project to
simultaneously manage the many
sources degrading Flint Creek,
including intensive livestock and
poultry operations, crop produc-
tion, municipal dischargers, house-
hold septic systems,  widespread lit-
tering, and urban runoff. Numerous
Federal, State, and local agencies
play a role in the watershed project,
which includes data collection
activities, public education and out-
reach, and development of a total
maximum daily load (TMDL) model
for the watershed. The  model
output will show the mix of point
and  nonpoint loadings  that can be
permitted without violating
instream water quality standards.
ADEM expects to increase  use of
the watershed protection approach.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

Alabama's surface water monitoring
program includes a fixed station
ambient network, reservoir sam-
pling, fish tissue sampling, intensive
wasteload allocation surveys, water
quality demonstration surveys,  and
compliance monitoring of point
source discharges. As a first step in
establishing biological criteria,
ADEM is assessing the habitats and
corresponding resident biota at
several candidate reference streams.

a A subset of Alabama's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
            Individual Use Support in Alabama
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
  Good               Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     Good   (Partially     (Not     (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
       :an
-------
 Alaska
       •*SP
     1 Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Oigit Hydrologic Unit)
   For information about water quality
   in Alaska, contact:

   Eric Decker
   Alaska Department of
     Environmental Conservation
   410 Willoughby Street - Suite 105
   Juneau, AK 99801-1795
   (907) 465-5328
   The State of Alaska did not
submit a 305(b) report to EPA in
1994.
82

-------
          Overall3 Use Support in Alaska  (1992)
                                                Percent
                            Good               Fair      Poor     Poor
                            (Fully      Good    (Partially    (Not      (Not
                          Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting)  Attainable)
   versjarxd Streams  (Total wines = aes.pbp)
   ^S^'&iB^j^jJ':ci*."^5i.;VifeJL^V-S'i ? • .:& ^^H^P-'^t-t - -".—.	..- • - •- • .--.--...— • -•• „••   • :
                Total Miles
                 Surveyed


                  2,889
               Acres = 12,787,200)

                Total Acres
                 Surveyed
                ta| Square Miles =Unk:nown)
                Total Square
               Miles Surveyed
'Overall use support data from 1992 are presented because Alaska did not submit a 305(b)
 report to EPA in 1994.
                                                                            83

-------
 Arizona
     > FuBy Supporting
      Threatened
     > Partially Supporting
     1 Not Supporting
     > Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrdogic Unit)
   For a copy of the Arizona 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

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

    Good water quality fully sup-
ports swimming uses in 59% of
Arizona's surveyed river miles and
94% of their surveyed lake acres.
However, Arizona reported that
51% of their surveyed stream miles
and 28% of their surveyed lake
acres do not fully support aquatic
life uses. Arizona reported that
metals, turbidity, salinity, and sus-
pended solids were the stressors
most frequently identified in
streams. The leading stressors in
lakes were salinity,  metals, inorgan-
ics, and low dissolved oxygen.
Natural sources, agriculture, and
hydrologic modification (stream
 bank destabilization, channelization,
 dam construction, flow regulation,
 and removal of shoreline vegeta-
 tion) were the most common
 sources of stressors in both streams
 and lakes, followed by resource
 extraction (mining) in streams and
 urban runoff in lakes. Nonpoint
 sources played a role in degrading
 96% of the impaired river miles and
 93% of the impaired lake acres.

 Ground Water Quality

    Arizona is gradually establishing
 a network of water quality index
 wells in principal aquifers to mea-
 sure ground water quality condi-
 tions and document future trends.
 Existing data indicate that ground
 water generally supports drinking
 water uses, but nitrates, petroleum
 products, volatile organic chemi-
 cals, heavy metals, pesticides,
 radioactive elements, and bacteria
 cause localized contamination in
 Arizona. Both natural sources and
 human sources (including agricul-
 ture, leaking underground storage
 tanks, and septic tanks) generate
 these contaminants.
    The State has established 50
 ground water basin boundaries,
four of which are designated Active
 Management Areas because they
 encompass the largest population
 centers with the greatest ground
water demands. A Comprehensive
 State Groundwater.Protection
 Program has been initiated as a
demonstration project in Tucson.
 Under this program, the State will
work with all interested parties to
set priorities for ground water
management and mitigate existing
water quality problems.
84

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Arizona's nonpoint source con-
trol program integrates regulatory
controls with nonregulatory educa-
tion and demonstration projects.
Regulatory programs include the
Aquifer Protection Permit Program,
the Pesticide Contamination
Program, and best management
requirements for controlling nitro-
gen at concentrated animal feeding
operations. The State is also devel-
oping best management practices
for timber activities, grazing activi-
ties, urban runoff, and sand and
gravel operations. Arizona's point
source control program encom-
passes planning, facility construc-
tion loans, permits, pretreatment,
inspections, permit compliance,
and enforcement.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

Recently, Federal and State agencies
increased efforts to coordinate
monitoring, provide more consis-
tent monitoring protocols, and pro-
vide mechanisms to share data,
spurred by tightened budgets.
Monitoring  programs in Arizona
include a fixed station network,
complaint investigations and special
studies, priority pollutant monitor-
ing, and monitoring to support
biocriteria development. ADEQ will
develop narrative biological criteria
with biological, physical, and chem-
ical data collected at over 100
biological reference sites in 1992,
1993, and 1994.
            Individual Use Support in Arizona
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
                  Good               Fair     Poor     Poor
                   (Fully     Good    (Partially     (Not      (Not
                 Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
iand
                       (Total Miles = 1 04,200)b
               Total Miles
               Surveyed

                 5,472
        JTbtaj Acres =• 302,000)
               Total Acres
               Surveyed
                                              27
                 55,109
                           41       39
aA subset of Arizona's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
 for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                            85

-------
 Arkansas
     1 Bask) Boundaries
      (USGS 6-O!git Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Arkansas 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

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

    The Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology
(DPCE) reported that 56% of their
surveyed rivers and streams and
100% of their surveyed lake acres
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses. Good
water quality also fully supports
swimming use in 81 % of the sur-
veyed river miles and 100% of the
surveyed lake acres. Siltation and
turbidity are the most frequently
 identified pollutants impairing
 Arkansas' rivers and streams, fol-
 lowed by bacteria and nutrients.
 Agriculture is the leading source of
 pollution in the State's rivers and
 streams and has been identified as
 a source of pollution in four lakes.
 Municipal wastewater treatment
 plants, mining, and forestry also
 impact rivers and streams. Arkansas
 has limited data on the extent of
 pollution in lakes.
    Special State concerns include
 the protection of natural wetlands
 by mechanisms other than dis-
 charge permits and the develop-
 ment of more effective  methods to
 identify nonpoint source impacts.
 Arkansas is also concerned about
 impacts from the expansion of con-
 fined animal production operations
 and major sources of turbidity and
 silt including road construction,
 road maintenance, riparian land
 clearing, streambed gravel removal,
 and urban construction.

 Ground Water Quality

    Nitrate contamination was
 detected in some domestic wells
 sampled in portions of the State
 undergoing rapid expansion of
 poultry and livestock operations,
 including northwest Arkansas, the
Arkansas River Valley, and southwest
Arkansas. In northwest Arkansas,
 nitrate contamination was docu-
 mented in 5% to 7% of the domes-
tic wells sampled. Wells sampled in
pristine areas of northwest Arkansas
were not contaminated.
86

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Arkansas has focused nonpoint
source management efforts on
controlling waste from confined
animal production operations.
Arkansas utilizes education, techni-
cal assistance, financial assistance,
and voluntary and regulatory activi-
ties to control nonpoint source
pollution from poultry, swine, and
dairy operations. Liquid waste
systems are regulated by permit
and dry waste systems are con-
trolled by voluntary implementation
of BMPs in targeted watersheds.
Water quality is monitored during
watershed projects to evaluate the
effectiveness of the BMPs.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Arkansas classifies its water
resources by ecoregion with similar
physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics. There are seven
ecoregions including the Delta,
Gulf Coastal, Ouchita Mountain,
Arkansas River Valley, Boston
Mountain, and Ozark Mountain
Regions. By classifying water
resources in this  manner, Arkansas
can identify the most common land
uses within each region and address
the issues that threaten the water
quality.
    The State has increased surface
water and ground water monitoring
to determine the fate of animal
waste applied to pastures. Arkansas
also conducted 10 water quality
surveys in watersheds throughout
the State to determine point and
nonpoint sources of pollution
impacting water quality.
            Individual Use Support in Arkansas
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
  Good               Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     Good   (Partially    (Not     (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
                           56
                                             32
                                                      12
        (Total Acres = 514,245)
a A subset of Arkansas' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
 for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                           87

-------
 California
        Basin Boundaries
        (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the California 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Nancy RFchard
   California State Water Resources
     Control Board, M&A
   Division of Water Quality
   P.O. Box 944213
   Sacramento, CA 94244-2130
   (916)657-0642
Surface Water Quality

    Siltation, pesticides, nutrients,
and bacteria impair the most river
miles in California. The leading
sources of degradation in Cali-
fornia's rivers and streams are agri-
culture, unspecified nonpoint
sources, forestry activities, urban
runoff and storm sewers, and
resource extraction. In lakes, silta-
tion, metals, and nutrients are the
most common pollutants. Construc-
tion and land development pose
the greatest threat to lake water
quality, followed by urban runoff
and storm sewers, forestry, and land
disposal of wastes.
    Metals, pesticides, trace ele-
ments, and unknown toxic contam-
inants are the most frequently
identified pollutants in estuaries,
harbors, and bays. Urban runoff
and storm sewers are the leading
source of pollution in California's
coastal waters, followed by munici-
pal sewage treatment plants, agri-
culture, hydrologic and habitat
modifications, resource extraction,
and industrial dischargers. Oceans
and open bays are degraded by
urban runoff and storm sewers,
agriculture, and atmospheric
deposition.

Ground Water Quality

   California assigns beneficial uses
to its ground water. Salinity, total
dissolved solids, and  chlorides are
the most frequently identified
pollutants  impairing use of ground
water in California. The State also
reports that trace inorganic ele-
ments, flow alterations, and nitrates
degrade over 1,000 square  miles of
ground water aquifers.
88

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
    No information was provided in
the 1994 305(b) report.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality
    No information was provided in
the 1994 305(b) report.
aA subset of California's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do  not flow all year.
           Individual Use Support in  California
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
  Good               Fair     Poor    Poor
  (Fully     Good   (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
                            Mites = 211^513)b
               Total Miles
               Surveyed

                11,775
   22
                                         ;es(Tota[ Acres = 1,672,684)
                                                    Total Acres
                                                    Surveyed

                                                     454,699
                           21
                                            jr|f S:. (Tptial gqiiare Miles— 731.1)
                                                    Total Square
                                                   Miles Surveyed

                                                       477
                                                       462
                                                       416
                                                                                            <1
                                                                                           <1
                                                                                                            89

-------
 Colorado
       1 Basin Boundaries
        (USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Colorado 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

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

    Colorado reports that 89%
of its surveyed river miles and 91%
of its surveyed lake acres have good
water quality that fully supports
designated uses. Metals are the
most frequently identified pollutant
in rivers and lakes. High nutrient
concentrations also degrade many
lake acres. Agriculture and mining
are the leading sources of pollution
in rivers. Agriculture, construction,
urban runoff, and municipal sewage
treatment plants are the leading
sources of pollution in lakes.

Ground  Water Quality

    Ground water quality in
Colorado ranges from excellent in
mountain areas where snow fall is
heavy, to poor in alluvial aquifers of
major rivers. Naturally occurring
soluble minerals along with human
activities are responsible for signifi-
cant degradation of some aquifers.
Nitrates and salts from agricultural
activities have contaminated many
of Colorado's shallow aquifers. In
mining areas, acidic water and
metals contaminate aquifers.
Colorado protects ground water
quality with statewide numeric
criteria for organic chemicals, a
narrative standard to maintain
ambient conditions or Maximum
Contaminant Levels of inorganic
chemicals and metals, and specific
use classifications and standards for
ground water areas. Colorado also
regulates discharges to ground
water from wastewater treatment
impoundments and land applica-
tion systems with a permit system.
90

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Colorado's nonpoint source
program supports a wide range of
projects. Ten projects were funded
to identify appropriate treatment
options for waters polluted by
abandoned mines. Several projects
identified and funded implementa-
tion of good management practices
for riparian (streamside) areas.
Under another project, Colorado
developed agreements with the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
and the U.S. Forest Service to
ensure that these agencies apply
effective best management prac-
tices to control nonpoint runoff
from grazing, timber harvesting,
and road construction activities on
Federal lands.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    During the 1994 305(b) report-
ing cycle, Colorado switched over
from a statewide monitoring pro-
gram  to a basinwide monitoring
strategy. The basinwide monitoring
strategy allows that State to inten-
sify monitoring in one basin per
year, rather than perform infre-
quent sampling statewide. Colo-
rado retained some of the old fixed-
station sampling sites to monitor
statewide trends in water quality
conditions.
             Overall3 Use Support in Colorado
                                           Percent
                         Good              Fair     Poor    Poor
                          (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
                        Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                      -..(Total Miles = 105,581)"
    es (Total Acres = 143.019)
    *t*K^.ft=W™f.r,*-~.;,~i,.-.-i:.-....-. .-.-..,-. .••*.;< '
- Not reported.
a Overall use support is presented because Colorado did not report individual use support in
 their 1994 Section 305(b) report.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                          91

-------
 Connecticut
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Connecticut 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Donald Gonyea
   Bureau of Water Management,
      PERD
   Connecticut Department of
      Environmental Protection
   79 Elm Street
   Hartford, CT  06106-5127
   (860) 424-3827 or (860) 424-3020
Surface Water Quality

    Connecticut has restored over
300 miles of large rivers since
enactment of Connecticut's State
Clean Water Act in 1967. Back in
1967, about 663 river miles (or
74% of the State's 893 miles of
large rivers and streams) were unfit
for fishing and swimming. In 1994,
Connecticut reported that 222 river
miles (25%) do not fully support
aquatic life uses and 248 miles
(28%) do not support swimming
due to bacteria, PCBs, metals,
oxygen-demanding wastes, ammo-
nia, nutrients, and habitat alter-
ation. Sources of these pollutants
include urban runoff and storm
sewers, industrial dischargers,
municipal sewage treatment plants,
and in-place contaminants. Threats
to Connecticut's reservoir and lake
quality include failing septic sys-
tems, erosion and sedimentation
from construction and agriculture,
agricultural wastes, fertilizers, and
stormwater runoff.
    Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen)
is the most widespread problem in
Connecticut's estuarine waters  in
Long Island Sound. Bacteria also
prevent shellfish harvesting and an
advisory restricts consumption  of
bluefish and striped bass contami-
nated with PCBs. Connecticut's
estuarine waters are impacted by
municipal sewage treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows, industri-
al discharges and runoff, failing
septic systems, urban runoff, and
atmospheric deposition. Historic
waste disposal practices also  con-
taminated sediments in Connect-
icut's harbors and bays.

Ground  Water Quality

    The State and USGS have iden-
tified about 1,600 contaminated
public and private wells since the
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP)
began keeping records in 1980.
Connecticut's Wellhead Protection
Program incorporates water supply
planning, discharge permitting,
water diversion, site remediation,
prohibited activities, and numerous
nonpoint source controls.
92

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Ensuring that all citizens can
share in the benefits of clean water
will require continued permit
enforcement, additional advanced
wastewater treatment, combined
sewer separation, continued aquatic
toxicity control, and resolution of
nonpoint source issues. To date,
14 sewage treatment facilities have
installed advanced treatment to
remove nutrients. Nonpoint source
management includes education
projects and a permitting program
for land application of sewage, agri-
cultural sources, and solid waste
management facilities.
    Wetlands are protected by the
State's Clean Water Act and
Standards of Water Quality. Each
municipality has an Inland Wetlands
Agency that regulates filling and
establishes regulated  buffer areas
with DEP training and oversight.
Connecticut's courts have strongly
upheld enforcement of the wet-
lands acts and supported regulation
of buffer areas to protect wetlands.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Connecticut samples physical
and chemical parameters at 27
fixed  stream sites and biological
parameters at 47 stream sites.
Other activities include intensive
biological surveys, toxicity testing,
and fish and shellfish tissue sam-
pling for accumulation of toxic
chemicals.
- Not reported
a A subset of Connecticut's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
          Individual Use Support in Connecticut
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair      Poor     Poor
  (Fully     Good    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                             -      ...
                            pies = 5,830)
               Total Miles
               Surveyed
                           64
                                             18
                                                      10
                                                               <1
Lakes (Total Acres = 64,973)
                           63
                                    36
                24,941
            (Total Square Miles = 600)
               Total Square    „_
              Miles Surveyed
                                             37
                                                                                                           93

-------
 Delaware
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Oigit Hydrotoglc Unit)
   For a copy of the Delaware 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Brad Smith
   Delaware Department of Natural
      Resources and Environmental
      Control
   Division of Water Resources
   P.O. Box 1401
   Dover, DE 19903
   (302) 739-4590
Surface Water Quality

    Delaware's rivers and streams
generally meet standards for
aquatic life uses, but 93% of the
surveyed stream miles and 76% of
the surveyed lake acres do not
meet bacteria criteria for swim-
ming. Bacteria are the most wide-
spread contaminant in Delaware's
surface waters, but nutrients and
toxics pose the most serious threats
to aquatic life and human health.
Excessive nutrients stimulate algal
blooms and growth of aquatic
weeds. Toxics result in six fish
consumption restrictions in three
basins, including Red Clay Creek,
Red Lion Creek, the St. Jones River,
and the Delaware Estuary. Agricul-
tural runoff, septic systems, urban
runoff, municipal sewage treatment
plants, and industrial dischargers
are the primary sources of nutrients
and toxics in Delaware's surface
waters.

Ground Water Quality

    High-quality ground water
provides two-thirds of Delaware's
domestic water supply. However,
nitrates, synthetic organic chemi-
cals, saltwater, and iron contami-
nate isolated wells in some areas.
In the agricultural areas of Kent and
Sussex counties, nitrates in ground
water are a potential health
concern and  a potential source of
nutrient contamination in surface
waters. Synthetic organic chemicals
have entered some ground waters
from leaking  industrial under-
ground storage tanks, landfills,
abandoned hazardous waste sites,
chemical spills and leaks, septic
systems, and agricultural activities.

Prograims to Restore
Water Quality

    The Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control (DNREC) adopted a water-
shed approach to determine the
most effective and efficient meth-
ods for protecting water quality or
abating existing problems. Under
the watershed approach, DNREC
will evaluate all sources of pollution
that may impact a waterway and
target the most significant sources
for management. The Appoquini-
mink River subbasin, the Nanticoke
River subbasin, the Delaware's
94

-------
Inland Bays subbasin, and the
Christina River subbasin are priority
watersheds targeted for develop-
ment of integrated pollution
control strategies.
    Delaware's Wellhead  Protection
Program establishes cooperative
arrangements with local govern-
ments to manage sources of
ground water contamination. The
State may assist local governments
in enacting zoning ordinances, site
plan reviews, operating standards,
source prohibitions, public educa-
tion, and ground water monitoring.

Programs to  Assess
Water Quality

    Delaware's Ambient Surface
Water Quality Program includes
fixed-station monitoring and bio-
logical surveys employing rapid
bioassessment protocols. Delaware
is developing and testing new
protocols for sampling biological
data in order to determine whether
specific biological criteria can be
developed to determine support of
designated uses.
            Individual Use Support in Delaware
                                             Percent
-Not reported.
aA subset of Delaware's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do  not flow all year.
GExcludes waters under jurisdiction of the
 Delaware River Basin Commission.
Designated Use3
  Good              Fair      Poor    Poor
  (Fully     Good   (Partially    (Not      (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
                             Miles = 3,i58)b
                            80
j-akes (Total Acres = 4,499)
               Total Acres     85
                Surveyed
                                                                                                             95

-------
 District  of  Columbia
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the District of
   Columbia 1994 305(b) report,
   contact:
   Dr. Hamid Karimi
   Department of Consumer
     and Regulatory Affairs
   Environmental Regulation
     Administration
   Water Quality Monitoring Branch
   2100 Martin Luther King Jr.
     Avenue, SE
   Washington, DC  20020
   (202) 645-6601
Surface Water Quality

    Poor water quality still charac-
terizes the District's surface waters,
but water quality has stabilized and
is improving in some areas. The
recovery of submerged aquatic
vegetation and fish communities in
the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers
provides qualitative evidence that
water quality is improving. How-
ever, a fish consumption advisory
and a swimming ban remain in
effect for all  District surface waters,
and sediment contamination
degrades aquatic life on the
Anacostia River. Combined sewer
overflows are the main source of
bacterial pollution that causes
unsafe swimming conditions. Urban
runoff may be the source of high
concentrations of cadmium,
mercury, lead, PCBs, PAHs, and
DDT found in sediment samples.

Ground Water Quality

    During the 1994 305(b) assess-
ment period, the District initiated
ground water monitoring. The first
round of sampling revealed that the
ground water is  potable. Some
pollutants were detected at low
concentrations in isolated cases.
Ground water is not a public drink-
ing water source in the District, but
the District has a comprehensive
State ground water protection
program to assess and manage the
resource. The program includes an
ambient ground water sampling
network, ground water quality
regulations (including numerical
and narrative criteria), and guide-
lines for preventing  and remediat-
ing ground water quality degrada-
tion.
96

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    The District is implementing
innovative stormwater runoff con-
trols for urban areas and promoting
the watershed protection approach
to clean up waterbodies that cross
political boundaries, such as the
Anacostia River. The District needs
Maryland's cooperation to control
pollution entering upstream tribu-
taries located in Maryland. Addi-
tional funds will be needed to
implement urban stormwater
retrofits, CSO controls, and revege-
tation projects in both the District
and Maryland to improve water
quality in the Anacostia River.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    The District performs monthly
physical and chemical sampling at
80 fixed stations on the Potomac
River, the Anacostia River, and their
tributaries. The District samples
phytoplankton (microscopic plants)
monthly at 15 stations and zoo-
plankton at 3 stations. The District
samples metals in the water column
four times a year and analyzes toxic
pollutants in fish tissue once a year.
In 1992 and 1993, the District
conducted rapid bioassessments
on 29 waterbodies.
    Individual Use Support in  District of Columbia
                                             Percent
a A subset of District of Columbia's desig-
 nated uses appear in this figure. Refer to
 the District's 305(b) report for a full
 description of the District's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair      Poor    Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      {Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
Rivers and Streams  (Total Miles = 39)b
                                                       62
               Total Miles
               Surveyed
Lakes (Total Acres = 251)
               Total Acres
               Surveyed     57
tStuaries  (Total Square Miles = 5.8)
               Total Square    °6
              Miles Surveyed
                                                                                                           97

-------
 Florida
   — Futty Supporting
   —— Threatened
   — Partially Supporting
   — Not Supporting
   —• Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Florida 1994
   305(b) report, contact:
   Joe Hand
   Florida Dept of Environmental
      Regulation
   Twin Towers Building
   2600 Blair Stone Road
   Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
   (904)921-9926
Surface Water Quality

    Overall, the majority of Florida's
surface waters are of good quality,
but problems exist around densely
populated urban areas, primarily in
central and southern Florida. In
rivers, nutrient enrichment, low
dissolved oxygen, high bacteria
counts, turbidity, and suspended
solids degrade water quality. In
lakes, the leading problems include
algal blooms, turbidity, and nutrient
enrichment. In estuaries, algal
blooms, nutrient enrichment, low
dissolved oxygen, and turbidity
degrade quality. Urban stormwater,
agricultural runoff, domestic waste-
water, industrial wastewater, and
hydrologic modifications are the
major sources of water pollution in
Florida.
    Special State concerns include
massive fish kills (as much as 20
tons of fish) in the Pensacola Bay
system, widespread toxic contami-
nation in sediments, widespread
mercury contamination in fish,
bacterial contamination in the
Miami River, and algal blooms and
extensive die-off of mangroves and
seagrasses in Florida Bay.

Ground Water Quality

    Data from 1,919 wells in
Florida's ambient monitoring
network indicate generally good
water quality,  but local ground
water contamination problems
exist. Agricultural chemicals, includ-
ing aldicarb, alachlor, bromacil,
simazine, and ethylene dibromide
(EDB) have caused local and region-
al (in the case of EDB) problems.
Other threats  include petroleum
products from leaking underground
storage tanks, nitrates from dairy
and other livestock operations,
fertilizers and  pesticides in storm-
water runoff, and toxic chemicals in
leachate from hazardous waste
sites. The State requires periodic
testing of all community water
systems for 118 toxic organic
chemicals.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Florida controls point source
pollution with its own discharge
permitting process similar to the
NPDES program. The State  permits
about 4,600 ground water and
98

-------
surface water discharge facilities.
The State also encourages reuse of
treated wastewater (primarily for
irrigation) and discharge into con-
structed wetlands as an alternative
to direct discharge into natural
surface waters and ground water.
    Florida's Stormwater Rule and
implementing regulations are the
core of the State's nonpoint source
program. These regulations require
all new developments to  retain the
first inch of runoff water in ponds
to settle out sediment and other
pollutants. Ongoing contracts focus
on best management practices for
other nonpoint sources, including
agriculture, septic tanks, landfills,
mining, and hydrologic modifica-
tion.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Florida's Surface Water
Assessment Program (SWAMP) will
identify ecoregion subregions and
develop community bioassessment
protocols; develop and implement
a sampling network to monitor
water quality trends and  determine
current conditions; and perform
special water quality assessments if
funds are available. The State
defined 13 ecological subregions
for the State and has established 66
reference stream sites for develop-
ing bioassessment protocols.
 - Florida does not designate waterbodies for
 this use.
 aA subset of Florida's designated uses appear
 in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
 report for a full description of the State's
 uses.
 blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
             Individual Use Support in Florida
                                             Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened) Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
iBjvgrs andJStrearns (Total Miles='si,858)b
 Lakes (Total Acres = 2,085,120)
JE^|J§r1es(Tpte[g3uare Miles = 4,298)
               Total Square
              Miles Surveyed   52
                                                                                                              99

-------
 Georgia
     1 Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-OIglt Hydrologlc Unit)
   For a copy of the Georgia 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

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

    Improvements in wastewater
treatment by industries and munic-
ipalities have made it possible for
Georgians to fish and swim in areas
where water quality conditions
were unacceptable for decades.
Water quality in Georgia streams,
lakes, and estuaries during 1992
and 1993 was good, but the num-
ber of stream miles and lake acres
not fully supporting designated
uses increased. The number of fish
advisories also grew from four to
nine during 1992-1994. However,
this is a result of more stringent
stream standards, increased
sampling, and access to additional
data. Persistent problems include
mud, litter, bacteria, pesticides,
fertilizers, metals, oils, suds, and
other pollutants washed into rivers
and lakes by stormwater.

Ground  Water Quality

    Georgia's ambient Ground
Water Monitoring Network consists
of 150 wells sampled periodically.
To date, increasing nitrate concen-
trations in the Coastal Plain are the
only adverse trend detected by the
monitoring network, but nitrate
concentrations are still well below
harmful levels in most wells. Addi-
tional nitrate sampling in 500 wells
revealed that nitrate concentrations
exceeded EPA's  Maximum Contami-
nant Level (MCL) in less than 1 % of
the tested wells. Pesticide monitor-
ing indicates that pesticides do not
threaten Georgia's  drinking water
aquifers at this time.

Programs to  Restore
Water Quality

   Comprehensive river basin
management planning will provide
a basis for integrating point and
nonpoint source water protection
efforts within the State and with
neighboring States. In 1992, the
Georgia General Assembly passed
Senate  Bill 637, which requires the
Department of Natural Resources to
TOO

-------
develop management plans for
each river basin in the State. The
State began developing compre-
hensive plans for the Chattahoo-
chee and Flint River Basins in 1992
and the Oconee and Coosa River
Basins in 1993. Georgia is also par-
ticipating in a Tri-State Compre-
hensive Study with the Corps of
Engineers, Alabama, and Florida to
develop interstate agreements for
maintaining flow and  allocating
assimilative capacity. Other inter-
state basin projects  include the
Savannah Watershed Project with
South Carolina and  the Suwannee
River Basin  Planning Project with
the Georgia and Florida Soil
Conservation Services.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Georgia continued sampling at
145 fixed monitoring  stations, con-
ducted 14 intensive surveys, and
performed  over 600 compliance
sampling inspections during 1992
and 1993. Georgia  also sampled
toxic substances in  effluent from
point source  dischargers, streams,
sediment, and fish tissues at select-
ed sites throughout the State. The
State assessed the overall toxicity in
wastewater effluent with both acute
and chronic aquatic toxicity tests.
            Individual Use Support in Georgia
                                            Percent
- Not reported.
aA subset of Georgia's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially      (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)   Attainable)
ijRiveirs arid Streams (Total Miles = 70,i50r
JLgkes (Total Acres = 425,382)
 Estuaries (Total SquareJWiles =854)
                                                                                                           101

-------
  Hawaii
                            Oahu
      Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Oigit Hydrologtc Unit)
   For a copy of the Hawaii 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Eugene Akazawa, Monitoring
      Supervisor
   Hawaii Department of Health
   Clean Water Branch
   919 Ala Moana Blvd.
   Honolulu, HI 96814
   (808) 586-4309
                                       Molokai
                                                     Maui
                                                Hawaii
Surface Water Quality

    Most of Hawaii's waterbodies
have variable water quality due to
stormwater runoff. During dry
weather, most streams and estuar-
ies have good water quality that
fully supports beneficial uses, but
the quality declines when storm-
water runoff carries pollutants into
surface waters. The most significant
pollution problems in Hawaii are
siltation and turbidity, nutrients,
fertilizers, toxics, pathogens, and
 pH from nonpoint sources,
 including agriculture and urban
 runoff. Very few point sources dis-
 charge into Hawaii's streams; most
 industrial facilities and wastewater
 treatment plants discharge into
 coastal waters. Other concerns
 include explosive algae growth in
 West Maui and Kahului Bay, a fish
 consumption advisory for lead in
 talipia caught in Manoa Stream,
 and sediment contamination from
 discontinued wastewater discharges
 at Wailoa Pond and Hilo Bay.

 Ground Water Quality

    Compared to mainland States,
 Hawaii has very few ground water
 problems due to a long history of
 land use controls for ground water
 protection. Prior to 1961, the State
 designated watershed reserves to
 protect the purity of rainfall
 recharging ground water. The
 Underground Injection Control
 Program also prohibits wastewater
 injection in areas surrounded by
 "no-pass"  lines. However, aquifers
 outside of reserves and no-pass lines
 may be impacted by injection wells,
 household wastewater disposal,
systems, such as seepage pits and
cesspools,  landfills, leaking under-
ground storage tanks, and agricul-
tural return flows.
102

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    County governments are
required to set erosion control
standards for various types of soil
and land uses. These standards
include criteria, techniques, and
methods for controlling sediment
erosion from land-disturbing activi-
ties. The State would like to enact
ordinances that require the rating
of pesticides on their potential to
migrate through soil into ground
water. The State would regulate the
use of pesticides that pose a threat
to ground water. Until more strin-
gent ordinances can be enacted,
the State recommends using alter-
natives to pesticides, such as natural
predators and other biological
controls. The State also encourages
the use of low-toxicity, degradable
chemicals for home gardens,
landscaping, and golf  courses.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Hawaii has scaled  back its water
quality monitoring program
because of budgetary  constraints.
The State has halted toxics moni-
toring, fish tissue contamination
monitoring,  and biological monitor-
ing and eliminated sampling at
numerous fixed monitoring
stations. The State also reduced the
frequency of bacterial  monitoring at
coastal beaches. The State does not
expect conditions to change in the
near future.
              Overall3 Use Support in  Hawaii
                                            Percent
                          Good              Fair     Poor    Poor
                           (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
                         Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
Bivers and Stresses {Total Miles = 249)b
               Total Miles
               Surveyed

                  32
'takes CTota'l Acres = 2,168)

^•-_as^i.1i£!,-iit_-jiL£JSiiis_iis^., _•
«&s.^-*.-. -,--^f.j^:-f 5-L-.^ =
ijg£2£afl,^iit^s3afflik*;*ift

Total Acres
Surveyed
^.^^^^.-^J^;^;-^^^-,-^;..-^ ;.-;r ,.;_;..,......,.-,. ... . .- -• .,.-..--„.-, -,.-,. .._-_..,
   |uape| (Total Square Miles = 380 )
               Total Square
                                             30
                                                      33
    Mfr^Srtffl  Miles Surveyed
 Oceans (Total Miles = l,pB3)
- Not reported.
a Overall use support is presented because Hawaii did not report individual use support in their
 1994 Section 305(b) report.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                          103

-------
 Idaho
      1 Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Olglt Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Idaho 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Don Zaroban
   Idaho Department of Health
     and Welfare
   Division of Environmental Quality
   1410 North Hilton
   Statehouse Mall
   Boise, ID  83720
   (208) 334-5860
Surface Water Quality

    Idaho omitted its water quality
assessment for surface waters in
their 1994 305(b) report because
the State is in the middle of a major
overhaul of its water quality
management program. Idaho is
restructuring its program around
the watershed protection approach.
As a first step, Idaho is redesignat-
ing its waterbodies and expanding
its assessment database to include
smaller streams that previously were
not assessed. The State postponed
its water quality assessment until all
surface waters are designated and
classified under a consistent system.
    Idaho's Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ) identified
several waterbodies with significant
problems.  Heavy metals and nutri-
ents impact the  Coeur d'Alene River
drainage, while nutrients and sedi-
ment impact Henry's Fork. The
middle Snake River exhibits severe
eutrophication from nutrient enrich-
ment. Mercury contaminates fish
tissue in Brownlee Reservoir, and
the Cascade Reservoir does not
support agricultural uses due to
overenrichment  with nutrients.

Ground Water Quality

    The Idaho Statewide Monitor-
ing Program for  Ground Water
samples over 800 wells.  This pro-
gram and other  specific  projects
have indicated that nitrates, petro-
leum products, solvents, and pesti-
cides are the most prevalent pollut-
ants in  ground water. The Idaho
Legislature adopted the  Ground
Water Quality Plan in 1992. This
plan sets four priority issues:
(1) evaluation of existing ground
water programs, (2) development
of State ground water standards,
(3) development of a State
wellhead protection program,
and (4) classification of Idaho's
aquifers. Ground water quality
protection  programs in Idaho
include underground injection
control, ground water vulnerability
mapping, and management for
animal waste, landfills, pesticides
application, underground storage
tanks, and  sewage disposal.
104

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    EPA has primary responsibility
for issuing NPDES permits in Idaho.
Idaho's DEQ is concerned that EPA
is not issuing  permits for minor
point source dischargers, and
inspections of permitted and unper-
mitted dischargers are rare. Neither
DEQ nor EPA have sufficient staff to
conduct compliance inspections.
Without oversight, there are no
assurances that these facilities are
being properly operated and meet
water quality standards.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

DEQ operates a water quality moni-
toring program that measures bio-
logical,  physical, and chemical
parameters. Data collection varies
in intensity, from desktop reviews of
existing data  (Basic or Level I),
through qualitative surveys and
inventories that cannot be repeated
with confidence (Reconnaissance or
Level II), to quantitative measure-
ments that can be repeated and
yield data suitable for statistical
analysis (Intensive or Level III).
              Individual  Use Support in Idaho
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
                          Good              Fair
                           (Fully     Good    (Partially
                         Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)
 Poor     Poor
  (Not      (Not
Supporting)  Attainable)
iRivers and
                            Miles =ii5,595)
               Total Miles
               Surveyed
Lakes (Total Acres = 700,000}
-Not reported.
a A subset of Idaho's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for
 a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                           105

-------
 Illinois
     ' Fully Supporting
      Threatened
      Partially Supporting
      Not Supporting
      Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Illinois 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Mike Branham
   Illinois Environmental Protection
     Agency
   Division of Water Pollution Control
   P.O. Box19276
   Springfield, IL 62794-9276
   (217) 782-3362
                                     siltation, habitat/flow alterations,
                                     metals, and suspended solids. The
                                     State is also concerned about
                                     upward trends in nutrient
                                     concentrations detected in several
                                     basins that probably result from
                                     nonpoint sources. Other major
                                     sources of river pollution include
                                     persistent point sources, hydro-
                                     logic/habitat modification, urban
                                     runoff, and resource extraction.
                                        Trend analysis also indicates
                                     improving water quality in lakes.
                                     The most prevalent causes of
                                     remaining pollution in lakes include
                                     nutrients, suspended solids, and
                                     siltation. The most prevalent
                                     sources of pollution in lakes include
                                     contaminated sediments, agricul-
                                     ture, and hydrologic/habitat
                                     alterations.
                                        Water quality also continues to
                                     improve in the Illinois portion of
                                     Lake Michigan. Trophic status
                                     improved from mesotrophic/
                                     eutrophic conditions in the 1970s
                                     to oligotrophic conditions today.
Surface Water Quality        Ground Water Quality
    Overall water quality has stead-
ily improved over the past 24 years
since enactment of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
Trend analysis generally indicates
stable or improving trends in
stream concentrations of dissolved
oxygen, oxygen-depleting wastes,
and ammonia consistent with the
continued decline in point source
impacts. However, dissolved oxy-
gen depletion and ammonia still
impair streams, as do nutrients,
    Ground water quality is gener-
ally good, but past and present
activities contaminate ground water
in isolated areas. Ground water is
contaminated around leaking
underground gasoline storage
tanks, large aboveground petrole-
um storage facilities, agricultural
chemical  operations, salt piles,
landfills, and waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities.
106

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA), Bureau of
Water, is committed to implement-
ing a Targeted Watershed Approach
in which high-risk watersheds are
identified, prioritized, and selected
for integrated and cooperative
assessment and protection. This
approach represents an expansion
and evolution of their previous
efforts in geographic targeting.
Current nonpoint source program
activities focus on improving public
awareness and adding land  use
data to the nonpoint source
database available statewide.
    Illinois established a Great Lakes
Program Office in FY93 to oversee
all Lake  Michigan programs on a
multimedia basis. Activities include
promotion of pollution prevention
for all sources of toxics in all media
(such  as air and water).

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    The Division of Water Pollution
Control  spent $5.5 million on a
diverse set of monitoring programs
during 1992 and 1993. These pro-
grams include ambient and  toxicity
monitoring, pesticide monitoring,
intensive river basin surveys, fish
contaminant monitoring, and
volunteer lake monitoring. These
programs generate a rich inventory
of monitoring data for assessing
water quality conditions across the
State. IEPA based their 1994 assess-
ments on data from nearly 3,500
stations.
              Individual Use Support in Illinois
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good               Fair      Poor      Poor
  (Fully     Good     (Partially      (Not        (Not
Supporting)  Threatened   Supporting)  Supporting)    Attainable)
.Rivers and Streams  (Total Miles = 32,i90)b
                                             50
               Total Miles
               Surveyed     47
Lakes (Total Acres = 309,340)
               (Total Shore Miles = 63)
                                                      100
                  63
                                             21
                                     aA subset of Illinois' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for
                                      a full description of the State's uses.
                                     blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                          107

-------
 Indiana
     • Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrotoglc Unit)
   For a copy of the Indiana 1994
   305(b) report, contact:
   Dennis Clark
   Indiana Department of Environ-
     mental Management
   Office of Water Management
   P.O. Box 6015
   Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
   (317)243-5037
Surface Water Quality

    Over 99% of the surveyed lake
acres and 79% of the surveyed river
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life. However,
only 18% of the surveyed river
miles support swimming due to
high bacteria concentrations. A fish
consumption advisory impairs all of
Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline.
The pollutants most frequently
identified in Indiana waters include
bacteria, priority organic
compounds, oxygen-depleting
wastes, pesticides, metals, cyanide,
and ammonia. The sources of these
pollutants include industrial facili-
ties, municipal/semipublic waste-
water systems, combined sewer
overflows, and agricultural  non-
point sources.
    Indiana identified elevated
concentrations of toxic substances
in about 8% of the river miles
monitored for toxics. High  concen-
trations of PCBs, pesticides, and
metals were most common in
sediment samples and in fish tissue
samples. Less than 1 % of the
surveyed lake acres contained
elevated concentrations of toxic
substances in their sediment.

Ground  Water Quality

    Indiana has a plentiful ground
water resource serving 60% of its
population for drinking water and
filling many of the water needs of
business, industry, and agriculture.
Although most of Indiana's ground
water has not been shown  to be
adversely impacted by human activ-
ities, the State has documented
over 863 sites of ground water
contamination. Nitrates are the
most common pollutant detected
in wells, followed by volatile organic
chemicals and heavy metals.  In
agricultural regions, data indicate
that 7% to 10% of the rural drink-
ing water wells contain unaccept-
able  nitrate concentrations  and
some detectable quantity of pesti-
cides. Heavy metal contamination is
associated with waste disposal sites.
108

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Since 1972, Indiana has spent
over $1.4 billion in Federal con-
struction grants, $207 million in
State funds, and $190 million in
matching local funds to construct
or upgrade sewage treatment facili-
ties. As a result of these expendi-
tures, 53% of Indiana's population
is now served by advanced sewage
treatment. The State  issues NPDES
permits  to ensure that these new
and improved facilities control
pollution. Indiana is increasing
enforcement activities to ensure
compliance with permit require-
ments.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Indiana initiated a 5-year base-
line biological sampling program in
1989. As of 1994, the State had
collected 2,000 aquatic insect
samples at 439 sites representing
81 % of  the State's geographical
area. In  the future, the State will be
able to detect deviations from the
baseline dataset. Indiana and EPA
Region 5 are also developing fish
community measurements for
evaluating biological  integrity in
Indiana's rivers and streams.
             Individual Use Support in Indiana
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor    Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                           71
                                                      16
    e§4TbtalI Acres ? 142,871)
       Lakes (Total Miles = 43)
                                    aA subset of Indiana's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
                                     for a full description of the State's uses.
                                    blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                          109

-------
 Iowa
   	Fu(y Supporting
   —— Threatened
   	Partially Supporting
   — Not Supporting
   •—• Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-D!git Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Iowa 1994 305(b)
   report, contact:
   John Olson
   Iowa Department of Natural
     Resources
   Water Resources Section
   900 East Grand Avenue
   Wallace State Office Building
   Des Moines, IA 50319
   (515)281-8905
Surface Water Quality

    Sediment and plant nutrients
from agricultural sources, modifica-
tions to stream habitat and hydrol-
ogy, and natural conditions (such as
shallowness in lakes) impair aquatic
life uses in 48% of the surveyed
rivers, 35% of the surveyed lakes,
and 33% of the surveyed flood
control reservoirs. Swimming use is
impaired in 92% of the 556 sur-
veyed river miles and 27% of the
surveyed lakes, ponds, and reser-
voirs. Saylorville, Coralville, and
Rathburn Reservoirs have good
water quality that fully supports all
designated uses, but siltation
severely impacts Red Rock
Reservoir. Point sources still pollute
about 5% of the surveyed stream
miles and one lake.

Ground Water Quality

    Ground water supplies about
80% of all Iowa's drinking water.
Agricultural chemicals, under-
ground storage tanks, agricultural
drainage wells, livestock wastes,
and improper management of
hazardous substances all contribute
to some degree to ground water
contamination in Iowa. Nitrate
concentrations exceed the EPA's
Maximum Contaminant Level in
10 of the State's 1,140 public
ground water supplies. Several
studies have detected low levels of
common agricultural pesticides and
synthetic organic compounds, such
as solvents and degreasers, in both
untreated and treated ground
water. In most cases, the contami-
nants appear in small concentra-
tions thought to pose no immedi-
ate threat to public health, but little
is known about the health effects of
long-term exposure to low concen-
trations of these chemicals.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    In 1979, Iowa began imple-
menting its agricultural nonpoint
control strategy with education
projects and cost-share programs
to control sediment, the greatest
pollutant, by volume, in the State.
Later, Iowa adopted rules that
require that land disposal of animal
wastes  not contaminate surface and
ground waters. Landfill rules
establish specific siting, design,
no

-------
operation, and monitoring criteria,
and require annual inspections and
permit renewals every 3 years. Iowa
also regulates construction in flood-
plains to limit soil erosion and
impacts on aquatic life.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Iowa's DNR  maintains a fixed
sampling network and conducts
special intensive studies at selected
sites. The State routinely monitors
metals, ammonia, and residual
chlorine at the fixed sampling sites,
but not pesticides. However, pesti-
cides were monitored for special
studies examining the fate of pesti-
cides in Iowa rivers and  levels of
pesticides in water supply reser-
voirs. Limited monitoring for toxics
in sediment was conducted as part
of a special study in 1992 and
1993. Routine sampling has not
included biological sampling in the
past, but the role of biological sam-
pling continues to grow. In 1994,
Iowa initiated a pilot study to estab-
lish biologically based water quality
criteria for wadeable streams in
each ecoregion.
               Individual Use Support in Iowa
                                             Percent
Designated Use3
 Good               Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully      GOOd     (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
            ^t^§eji^^ijiife?j= 7p>65)b '':
               Total Miles
                Surveyed
        (Total Acres; = 129,666)

                                      a A subset of Iowa's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for a
                                      full description of the State's uses.
                                      blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                      cExcludes flood control reservoirs.
                                                                                                             Ill

-------
 Kansas
     ' Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Kansas 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Mike Butler
   Kansas Department of Health
     and Environment
   Office of Science and Support
   Forbes Field, Building 740
   Topeka, KS 66620
   (913)296-5580
Surface Water Quality

    Suspended solids and dissolved
solids impair aquatic life uses in
93% of Kansas' surveyed streams.
Bacteria also prevent 95% of the
surveyed streams from fully support-
ing swimming uses. Runoff from
feedlots, animal holding areas, and
pastureland introduce pathogen
bacteria into rivers and streams.
Discharges of under-treated or
untreated wastewater from sewage
treatment plants also elevate
pathogen bacteria levels in Kansas
waters. Erosion of farmland soils
and urban runoff are the principal
sources of suspended solids.
Irrigation return flows, oil and
natural gas extraction activities, and
natural sources introduce dissolved
solids.
    Cultural eutrophication is
responsible for 34% of poor water
quality conditions in  Kansas' sur-
veyed lakes, and pesticides impair
an additional 23% of the surveyed
lakes. Overall, agricultural activities
are responsible for almost half of
the pollution in the State's lakes.
Agricultural activities and hydro-
modification are the major sources
of impacts in wetlands.

Ground Water Quality

    The Kansas Department of
Health and Environment (DHE)
has documented ground water
contamination from human activi-
ties at nearly 350 sites in the State.
Underground  storage tanks, oil and
natural gas operations, and agricul-
ture are the most significant sources
of ground water contamination in
Kansas. Kansas maintains a ground
water monitoring network of 242
wells. During 1990-1993, nitrate
concentrations exceeded EPA's
Maximum Contaminant Level in
11 % of 618 ground water samples.
A State Wellhead Protection
Program is still under development,
and several Kansas communities are
developing local plans.
112

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Qualify

    Kansas requires permits for live-
stock operations that utilize waste-
water control facilities (such as
manure pits, ponds, or lagoons);
confine 300 or more head of cattle,
hogs, sheep, or a combination of all
three; or house a commercial poul-
try flock of 1,000 or more birds.
DHE may also require permits for
other livestock operations that have
the potential to create pollution
problems, such as open lots located
adjacent to creeks or operations
with a history of improper waster
water disposal practices. The major
elements of the Kansas Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program
include interagency coordination,
information and education, techni-
cal assistance, enforcement, and
water quality certification.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Every year, DHE collects and
analyzes about 1,500 surface water
samples, 50 aquatic insect samples,
and 40 composite fish tissue sam-
ples from stations located through-
out the State. Wastewater samples
are collected at about 50  municipal
sewage treatment plants,  20 indus-
trial facilities, and 3 Federal facilities
to evaluate compliance with dis-
charge permit requirements. DHE
also conducts special studies and
prepares about 100 site-specific
water quality summaries at the
request of private citizens or other
interested parties.
             Individual Use Support in Kansas
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor    Poor
  (Fully     Good    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)

Lakes (Total Acres = 173,801)
-Not reported.
aA subset of Kansas' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
 for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                          113

-------
 Kentucky
  	Fufly Supporting
  — Threatened
  	Partially Supporting
  —• Not Supporting
  — Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Dtgit Hydrotoglc Unit)
   For a copy of the Kentucky 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

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

    About 83% of Kentucky's sur-
veyed rivers (including the Ohio
River) and 95% of surveyed lake
acres have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life. Swim-
ming use is fully supported in 100%
of the surveyed lake acres, but 52%
of the surveyed river miles do not
fully support swimming due to
elevated bacteria levels. Fecal
coliform bacteria, siltation, and
oxygen-depleting substances are
the most common pollutants in
Kentucky rivers. Sewage treatment
facilities are still a leading source of
fecal coliform bacteria and oxygen-
depleting substances, followed by
agricultural runoff, septic tanks, and
straight pipe discharges. Surface
mining and agriculture are the
major sources of siltation. Nutrients
from agricultural runoff and septic
tanks have the most widespread
impacts on lakes.
    Declining trends in chloride
concentrations and nutrients pro-
vide evidence of improving water
quality in Kentucky's rivers and
streams. The State also lifted a
swimming advisory on 76 miles of
the North Fork Kentucky River,
although the advisory remains in
effect on  86 miles. Fish consump-
tion advisories remain posted on
three creeks for PCBs and on the
Ohio River for PCBs and chlordane.
The State issued new advisories for
the Green River Lake because of
PCB spills from a gas pipeline com-
pressor station and for five ponds
on the West Kentucky Wildlife
Management Area because of mer-
cury contamination from unknown
sources.

Ground Water Quality

    Underground storage tanks,
septic tanks, abandoned hazardous
waste sites, agricultural activities,
and landfills are estimated to be the
top five sources of ground water
contamination in Kentucky. Bacteria
is the major pollutant in ground
water. The State is concerned about
the lack of ground water data,
absence of ground water regula-
tions, and the potential for ground
water pollution in karst regions of
the State.
114

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Kentucky's revolving fund pro-
gram supported 26 wastewater
treatment projects completed in
1992-93 and another 25 ongoing
projects. These projects either
replaced outdated or inadequate
treatment facilities or provided cen-
tralized treatment for the first time.
Kentucky requires toxicity testing of
point source discharges and permits
for stormwater outfalls and com-
bined sewer overflows. The non-
point source program oversees
projects addressing watershed
remediation, education, training,
technical assistance, and evaluation
of best management practices.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Kentucky sampled 44 ambient
monitoring stations characterizing
about 1,432 stream miles during
the reporting period. The State
performed biological sampling at
24 of these stations. Seven lakes
were sampled to^detect eutrophica-
tion trends and 2 lakes were sam-
pled to analyze the impact of sus-
pended solids on recreational activi-
ties. The State also performed five
intensive studies to evaluate point
source and nonpoint source
impacts, establish baseline water
quality measurements, and reevalu-
ate water quality in several streams.
            Individual Use Support in Kentucky
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                       (Total Miles = 89,43i)b
                                                      10
 Lakes (Total Acres = 228,385)
a A subset of Kentucky's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
 for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                         115

-------
 Louisiana
     • Futry Supporting
     ' Threatened
     • Partially Supporting
     • Not Supporting
     • Not Assessed
     ' Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Oigit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Louisiana 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Albert E. Hindrichs
   Louisiana Department of Environ-
     mental Quality
   Office of Water Resources
   Water Quality Management
     Division
   P.O. Box 82215
   Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
   (504) 765-0511
Surface Water Quality

    About 49% of the surveyed
stream miles, 40% of the surveyed
lake acres, and 70% of the surveyed
estuarine waters have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life. Fecal coliform bacteria continue
to be the most common pollutant
in Louisiana's rivers and streams,
followed by low dissolved  oxygen
concentrations and nutrients. As a
result of violation of fecal coliform
bacteria standards, 55% of the
surveyed river miles do not fully
support swimming and other con-
tact recreational activities.  Thirty-six
percent of the surveyed lake acres
and 28% of the surveyed estuarine
waters also do not fully support
swimming. Sources of bacteria
include sewage discharges from
municipal treatment plants, subdivi-
sions, trailer parks, and apartment
complexes. Septic tanks, sewage/
stormwater overflows, pastures, and
rangeland also generate bacterial
pollution. Agricultural runoff gener-
ates oxygen-depleting substances
and nutrients.
    In lakes, noxious aquatic plants
(which result from high nutrient
loads) are the most common prob-
lem, followed by bacteria, low dis-
solved oxygen, nutrients, and oil
and grease. Upstream sources of
pollutants impact the most lake
acres (primarily in Lake Pontchar-
train), followed by municipal point
sources, industrial point sources,
and petroleum extraction activities.
In estuaries, oil and grease, nutri-
ents, and bacteria are the most
common pollutants. Upstream
sources of contamination,  petro-
leum extraction activities, municipal
discharges, sewer/stormwater over-
flow, and septic tanks are the lead-
ing sources of pollution in estuaries.
Hydrologic modification impacts
one surveyed wetland.

Ground Water Quality

    The quality of water in the
State's major aquifer systems
remains excellent. Of special con-
cern, however, are the shallow
aquifers and the water-bearing
zones that are not used as major
sources of water.  These strata con-
tribute significantly to the water
balance of the deeper aquifers, but
the shallow aquifers are increasingly
threatened.
116

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Currently, most reductions in
nonpoint source pollution result
from cooperative demonstration
projects due to a lack of regulatory
authority in Louisiana to control
nonpoint source pollution. These
projects have demonstrated alterna-
tive rice farming management prac-
tices to reduce sediment and nutri-
ents in the Mermentau River Basin,
advocated lawn care management
to reduce erosion and runoff in the
Bayou Vermilion watershed, and
reduced fecal coliform concentra-
tions in the Tangipahoa River by
implementing septic tank and dairy
waste lagoon education programs
and upgrading municipal waste-
water treatment systems.

Programs to Assess
Water  Quality

    The surface water monitoring
program consists of a fixed-station
monitoring network, intensive sur-
veys, special studies, and waste-
water discharge compliance sam-
pling. The fixed network includes at
least one long-term trend analysis
station on the major stream in each
basin of the State. The State posi-
tioned other fixed sampling sites to
monitor targeted sources of pollu-
tion or waterbodies. Louisiana does
not maintain a regular fish tissue
sampling  program.
- Not reported.
aA subset of Louisiana's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
           Individual Use Support in Louisiana
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor    Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                       (Total Miles = 66,294)"
               Total Miles
               Surveyed     49
                                                      22
        (Total Acres = 1,078,031)
               Total Acres
               Surveyed

                602,170
                           64
                                             34
 Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 7,656)
               Total Square    __
              Miles Surveyed
                                                                                                          117

-------
 Maine
     1 Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
   For a copy of the Maine 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Phil Garwood
   Maine Department of Environ-
     mental Protection
   Bureau of Water Quality Control
   State House Station 17
   Augusta, ME  04333
   (207) 287-7695
Surface Water Quality

    Maine's water quality has sig-
nificantly improved since enact-
ment of the Clean Water Act in
1972. Atlantic salmon and other
fish now return to Maine's rivers,
and waters that were once open
sewers are now clean enough to
swim in. Ninety-nine percent of the
State's river miles, 81 % of the lake
acres, and 90% of the estuarine
waters have good water quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses.
Dioxin in fish tissue is the most sig-
nificant problem in major rivers.
Oxygen-depleting substances from
nonpoint sources and bacteria from
inadequate sewage treatment are
the most significant problem in
smaller rivers and streams. Lakes are
impacted by oxygen-depleting
substances from nonpoint sources,
including urban runoff, agriculture,
and forestiy activities. Bacteria from
municipal treatment plants and
small dischargers contaminate shell-
fish beds in estuarine waters.

Ground Water Quality

    The most significant ground
water impacts include petroleum
compounds from leaking under-
ground and aboveground storage
tanks, other organic chemicals from
leaking storage facilities or disposal
practices, and bacteria from surface
disposal systems or other sources.
Maine requires that all under-
ground tanks be registered and that
inadequate tanks be removed.
About 23,000 tanks have been
removed since  1986. Maine also
regulates installation of under-
ground storage tanks and closure
of landfills to protect ground water
resources from  future leaks.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Maine restored designated uses
in 20 miles of rivers by working
with kraft pulp  and paper mills to
reduce the levels of dioxin in their
discharges. Construction of small
wastewater treatment systems also
eliminated some bacteria problems
and dissolved oxygen problems on
small streams. However, as the
118

-------
State makes progress in restoring
waters impacted by point sources,
new water quality problems
emerge from  nonpoint sources.
Therefore, the most important
water quality  initiatives for the
future include implementing pollu-
tion prevention, nonpoint source
management, watershed-based
planning, coordinated land use
management, and water quality
monitoring. The State is linking pol-
lution prevention with the water-
shed protection approach in a pilot
project within the Androscoggin
River basin. The State is providing
local officials and citizen groups
with technical assistance to identify
problem areas and develop local
solutions for reducing pollution
generation throughout the water-
shed.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Maine's surface water monitor-
ing program  includes ambient
water quality monitoring, assimila-
tive capacity and wasteload alloca-
tion studies, diagnostic studies,
treatment plant compliance  moni- •
taring, and special investigations.
Due to budgetary constraints, some
of these activities are much more
limited in scope than is desirable for
accurately characterizing water
quality conditions in Maine.
              Individual  Use Support in Maine
                                            Percent
 -Not reported.
 aA subset of Maine's designated uses appear
  in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
  report for a full description of the State's
  uses.
 blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
  and do  not flow all year.
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair      Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially      (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)   Attainable)
jRiv^rs and streams (Total Miles = 3i,672)b
        (Total Acres =986,776)
 Estuarjes (Total Square Miles = 1,633)
                                                                                                           119

-------
  Maryland
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologlc Unit)
   For a copy of the Maryland 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Sherm Garrison
   Maryland Department of Natural
      Resources
   Chesapeake Bay and Watershed
      Program
   Tawes State Office Building
   Annapolis, MD 21401
   (410)974-2951
Surface Water Quality

    Overall, Maryland's surface
waters have good quality, but
excess nutrients, suspended sedi-
ments, bacteria, toxic materials, or
stream acidity impact some waters.
The most serious water quality
problem in Maryland is the contin-
uing accumulation of nutrients in
estuaries and lakes from agricultural
runoff, urban runoff, natural non-
point source runoff, and point
source discharges.  Excess nutrients
stimulate algal blooms and low dis-
solved oxygen levels that adversely
impact water supplies and aquatic
life.
    Sources of sediment include
agricultural runoff, urban runoff,
construction activities, natural ero-
sion, dredging, forestry, and mining
operations. In western Maryland,
abandoned coal mines release
acidic waters that severely impact
some streams. Agricultural runoff,
urban runoff, natural runoff, and
failing septic systems elevate bacte-
ria concentrations and cause con-
tinuous shellfish harvesting restric-
tions in about 104 square miles of
estuarine waters and cause tempo-
rary restrictions in another 72.3
square miles after major rainstorms.

Ground Water Quality

    Maryland's ground water
resource is of generally good quali-
ty. Localized problems include
excess nutrients (nitrates) from fer-
tilizers and septic systems; bacteria
from septic systems and surface
contamination; saline water intru-
sion aggravated by ground water
withdrawals in the coastal plain;
toxic compounds from septic tanks,
landfills, and  spills; petroleum prod-
ucts from leaking storage facilities;
and acidic conditions and metals
from abandoned coal mine drain-
age in western Maryland. Control
efforts are limited to implementing
agricultural best management prac-
tices and enforcing regulations for
septic tanks, underground storage
tanks, land disposal  practices, and
well construction.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Maryland manages nonpoint
sources with individual programs
120

-------
for each individual nonpoint source
category. Urban runoff is addressed
through stormwater and sediment
control laws that require develop-
ment projects to maintain predevel-
opment runoff patterns through
implementation of best manage-
ment practices (BMPs), such as
detention ponds or vegetated
swales. The Agricultural Water
Quality Management Program sup-
ports many approaches, including
Soil Conservation and Water Quality
Plans, implementation of BMPs, and
education. The Agricultural  Cost
Share Program has provided State,
and some Federal, funds to help
offset the costs of implementing
almost 8,000 agricultural BMPs
since 1983. An Animal Waste Permit
Program requires discharge permits
for facilities that will have a defin-
able discharge to waters of the
State.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Maryland's monitoring  program
includes a fixed-station network,
compliance sampling  at point
source discharges, bioassay tests of
effluent toxicity, special intensive
sampling programs on the  Potomac
and Patuxent Rivers, acid deposition
monitoring, fish tissue and  shell-
stock sampling, bacterial sampling
in shellfish waters, phytoplankton
sampling, biological monitoring,
and habitat assessments.
 aA subset of Maryland's designated uses
  appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
  305(b) report for a full description of the
  State's uses.
 blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
  and do not flow all year.
           individual Use Support in Maryland
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair      Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                       (Total Miles =i7,oc)b
                           69
Lakes (Total Acres = 77,965)
               Total Acres    83
               Surveyed
            (total Square Miles = 2,522)
               Total Square
              Miles Surveyed

                 2,522
                                                                                                           121

-------
 Massachusetts
        Basin Boundaries
        (USCS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
   For a copy of the Massachusetts
   1994 305(b) report, contact:
   Warren Kimball
   Massachusetts Department of
     Environmental Protection
   Office of Watershed Management
   40 Institute Road
   North Grafton, MA 01536
   (508) 792-7470
Surface Water Quality

    The 1994 report does not
reflect the progress made in clean-
ing up Massachusetts' rivers and
lakes because reporting total miles
free of all contaminants obscures
progress in removing some
contaminants from many waters.
The method of reporting survey
results obscures the statewide
reduction in oxygen-depleting
wastes because bacteria,  nutrients,
toxic pollutants, ammonia, and
acidity still impact about  half of the
surveyed river miles, lake acres, and
estuarine waters in the State. The
leading sources of contamination in
Massachusetts' surface waters are
stormwater runoff, combined sewer
overflows, and municipal sewage
treatment plants.
    Quabbin Reservoir's 25,000
acres support swimming and aquat-
ic life, but high levels of mercury in
sport fish restrict fish consumption.
Unlike other waterbody types,
coastal water bacterial quality has
deteriorated over the past 10 years,
especially in areas such as Cape
Cod where nonpoint source pollu-
tion has resulted in a tenfold
increase in shellfish bed closures.

Ground Water Quality

    Contaminants have been
detected in at least 206 ground
water suppy wells in 87 municipali-
ties. Organic chemicals (especially
TCE) contaminate 60% of these
wells. Other contaminants include
metals, chlorides, bacteria, inorgan-
ic chemicals, radiation, nutrients,
turbidity, and pesticides. Since
1983, Massachusetts has required
permits for all industrial discharges
into ground waters and sanitary
wastewater discharges of 15,000
gallons or more per day. The per-
mits require varying degrees of
wastewater treatment based on the
quality and use of the receiving
ground water. Additional controls
are  needed to eliminate contamina-
tion from septic systems and sludge
disposal.
122

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Wastewater treatment plant
construction has resulted in signifi-
cant improvements in water quality,
but $7 billion of unfunded waste-
water needs remain. The Nonpoint
Source Control Program has imple-
mented 35 projects to provide tech-
nical assistance, implement best
management practices, and edu-
cate the public. The State has also
adopted a combined sewer over-
flow policy that provides engineer-
ing targets for cleanup and is
presently addressing several CSO
abatement projects.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    The Department of Environ-
mental Protection (DEP) adopted a
watershed  planning approach to
coordinate stream monitoring with
wastewater discharge permitting,
water withdrawal permitting, and
nonpoint source control on a 5-year
rotating schedule. The DEP is also
adapting its monitoring strategies
to provide  information on nonpoint
source pollution. For example, DEP
will focus more on wet-weather
sampling and biological monitoring
and less on chemical monitoring
during dry periods in order to gain
a more complete understanding of
the integrity of water resources.
aA subset of Massachusetts^ designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
cExcluding Quabbin Reservoir.
        Individual Use Support in Massachusetts
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
iBiyers and Streams JTotai Miles = 8,229)b
               Total Miles
               Surveyed     60
                                                      16
        (Total Acres = 151,173)
               Total Acres
               Surveyed
 Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 223)
               Total Square
              Miles Surveyed   54
                                                                                                         123

-------
 Michigan
     1 Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Michigan 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Greg Goudy
   Michigan Department of Natural
     Resources
   Surface Water Quality Division
   P.O. Box 30028
   Lansing, Ml 48909-7528
   (517)335-3310
Surface Water Quality

    Ninety-eight percent of
Michigan's surveyed river miles and
99% of Michigan's surveyed lake
acres fully support aquatic life uses.
Swimming use is also fully support-
ed in 98% of the surveyed rivers
and all of the surveyed lake acres.
Priority organic chemicals (in fish)
are the major cause of nonsupport
in more river miles than any other
pollutant, followed by siltation and
sedimentation, metals, and bacte-
ria. Leading sources of pollution in
Michigan include  unspecified
nonpoint sources, agriculture,
 municipal and industrial discharges,
 combined sewers, and atmospheric
 deposition.
    Very few lakes in Michigan
 completely fail to support fishing
 and swimming, but there is no
 doubt that both point and non-
 point sources have increased the
 rate of eutrophication (overenrich-
 ment), altered biological communi-
 ties, and degraded the overall
 aesthetic and recreational quality of
 a great number of Michigan's frag-
 ile lake resources. Many more lakes
 are threatened by long-term, cumu-
 lative pollutant loads, especially in
 the rapidly growing communities
 on northern lower Michigan.
    Four of the five Great Lakes
 border Michigan. The open waters
 of Lakes Superior, Michigan, and
 Huron have good quality. Poor
 water quality is restricted to a few
 degraded locations near shore. Lake
 Erie's water quality has improved
 dramatically in the last two
 decades. Once declared dead, Lake
 Erie now supports the largest
 walleye sport fishery on the Great
 Lakes. The dramatic improvements
 are  due  primarily to nutrient con-
 trols applied to sewage treatment
 plants, particularly in the Detroit
 area.

 Ground Water Quality

    Most of the ground water
 resource is of excellent quality, but
 certain aquifers have  been contami-
 nated with toxic materials leaking
from waste disposal sites, business-
 es, or government facilities. The
 Michigan Ground Water Protection
 Strategy and Implementation Plan
124

-------
identifies specific program initia-
tives, schedules, and agency
responsibilities for protecting the
State's ground water resources.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Major point source reductions
in phosphorus and organic material
loads have reduced or eliminated
water quality problems in many
Michigan waters. However, expand-
ed efforts are needed to control
nonpoint source pollution, elimi-
nate combined sewer overflows,
and reduce toxic contamination.
Michigan has implemented an
industrial pretreatment program,
promulgated rules on the discharge
of toxic substances, and regulated
hazardous waste disposal facilities,
but many toxicity problems are due
to past activities that contaminated
sediments.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Between 1989 and 1993, the
Department of Natural Resources
devoted a significant amount of
staff time to documenting water
quality impacts from nonpoint
sources of pollution and verifying
information in the Michigan
Nonpoint Source Assessment.
Chemical, biological, and physical
surveys were conducted to identify
water quality standards violations
and degraded biological communi-
ties in numerous watersheds.
aA subset of Michigan's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
           Individual Use Support in Michigan
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)   Attainable)
        (T°J§! Acres =,887,019)
                                                                                                        125

-------
 Minnesota
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
   For a copy of the Minnesota 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Elizabeth Brinsmade
   Minnesota Pollution Control
     Agency
   Water Quality Division
   520 Lafayette Road North
   St. Paul, MN  55155
   (612)296-8861
Surface Water Quality

    About 73% of the surveyed
river miles have good quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses and
39% of the surveyed rivers fully
support swimming. Seventy-nine
percent of the surveyed lake acres
fully support swimming. The most
common pollutants identified in
rivers were bacteria,  oxygen-deplet-
ing substances, pH (acidity), salini-
ty/total dissolved solids/chlorides,
and metals. Nonpoint sources
generate most of the pollution in
rivers. Minnesota's 272 miles of
Lake Superior shoreline have fish
consumption advisories. These advi-
sories recommend some limits on
fish meals consumed for certain
species and size classes. Most of the
pollution originated from point
sources has been controlled, but
runoff (especially in agricultural
regions) still degrades water quality.

Ground Water Quality

    The State maintains a Ground
Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program to evaluate the quality of
ground waters that supply domes-
tic water to 70% of Minnesota's
population. The Program sampled
368 wells in the southeastern and
southwestern regions of the State
during 1992 and 1993. The sam-
ples were analyzed for 43 inorganic
parameters and 68 volatile organic
compounds. Monitoring detected
nitrates in 62% of the wells and low
levels of VOCs in 41 wells. Seven
percent of the sampled wells
contained nitrate concentrations
exceeding EPA's Maximum
Contaminant Level. Natural sources
of manganese, iron, and arsenic
also interfere with uses of ground
water.

Programs to  Restore
Water Quality

    During the 1994 reporting
cycle,  Minnesota revised its Non-
point Source (NPS) Management
Program with new strategies for
addressing agricultural sources,
forestry,  urban runoff, contami-
nated  sediments, feedlots, mining,
and septic systems. The State also
revised strategies for monitoring
and assessing NPS impacts, educat-
ing the public, implementing BMPs,
and applying the watershed
protection approach to NPS
management.
126

-------
    Minnesota adopted rules to
implement the State's Wetlands
Conservation Act and developed
wetlands water quality standards
during 1992 and 1993. The Wet-
land Conservation Act rules require
that local governments regulate
drain and fill activities in wetlands
that are not designated public
waters wetlands, which are listed
on the Protected Waters Inventory.
The  rules allow the local govern-
ments  to grant one or more of 25
exemptions for proposed activities
on smaller wetlands with less inun-
dation.

Programs to  Assess
Water Quality

    Minnesota maintains an Ambi-
ent Stream Monitoring Program
with 78 sampling stations. The
State also performs fish tissue sam-
pling, sediment monitoring, inten-
sive surveys, biological surveys, and
lake  assessments and supports a
citizen  lake monitoring program.
In 1994, the State completed the
Minnesota  River Assessment Project,
a comprehensive study involving
over 30 Federal, State, and local
agencies. The project incorporated
intensive biological monitoring and
habitat assessments with traditional
chemical monitoring to identify
multiple sources and their impacts.
A pilot use  support methodology
was  used for rivers in the Minnesota
River basin  that reflected this
comprehensive monitoring.
-Not reported.
aA subset of Minnesota's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
           Individual Use Support in  Minnesota
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened) Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
KftH&yl*?*™^.^
             Streams (Total Miles a 91.944)°
               Total Miles
               Surveyed
                 3,440
                                                       17
                           39
                 2,745
          oteTAcres s
               Total Acres
               Surveyed
                            63
                                                       12
    at Lakes  (Total Miles = 272)
                                                                                                           127

-------
 Mississippi
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Mississippi 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Randy Reed
   Mississippi Department of
      Environmental Quality
   P.O. Boxl0385
   Jackson, MS  39289-0385
   (601)961-5158
                                    fully support swimming. Nutrients,
                                    siltation, pesticides, and oxygen-
                                    depleting substances are the most
                                    common pollutants in Mississippi
                                    lakes. Agriculture is also the
                                    dominant source of pollution in
                                    Mississippi's lakes.
                                        In estuaries, 74% of the sur-
                                    veyed waters have good quality
                                    that fully supports aquatic life uses,
                                    but shellfishing activities are
                                    impaired in all of the surveyed
                                    estuarine waters. Bacteria and
                                    metals cause most of the impacts
                                    observed in estuaries. High bacteria
                                    levels are associated with shellfish
                                    harvesting restrictions. The State
                                    attributes impacts in estuarine
                                    waters to urban runoff/storm
                                    sewers, septic systems,  and land
                                    disposal activities.
                                        The State has posted six fish
                                    consumption advisories, including
                                    three commercial fishing  bans due
                                    to elevated concentrations of PCBs,
                                    PCP, and dioxins detected in fish
                                    tissues.
Surface Water Quality        Ground Water Quality
    Mississippi reported that 81%
of its surveyed rivers have fair water
quality that periodically does not
support aquatic life uses and
another 5% have poor water qual-
ity that does not support aquatic
life uses. About 35% of the sur-
veyed rivers do not fully support
swimming. The most common
pollutants identified in  Mississippi's
rivers include nutrients, pesticides,
siltation, oxygen-depleting sub-
stances, and bacteria. Agriculture is
the most common source of pollu-
tion in rivers, followed  by municipal
sewage treatment plants.
    About 65% of the  surveyed
lake acres have good water quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses
and 97% of the surveyed lake acres
    Extensive contamination of
drinking water aquifers and public
water supplies remains uncommon
in Mississippi although localized
ground water contamination has
been detected at various facilities
across the State. The most fre-
quently identified sources of con-
tamination are leaky underground
storage tanks and faulty septic
systems. Brine contamination is also
a problem near oil fields. Little data
exist for domestic wells that are
seldom sampled. Ground water
protection programs include the
Pesticide Container Recycling
Program, the Underground Storage
Tank Program, the Underground
Injection Control Program, the
Agrichemical Ground Water
128

-------
Monitoring Program, and the
Wellhead Protection Program
(approved by EPA in 1993).

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    During 1993 and 1994,
Mississippi developed regulations
for conducting Section 401 Water
Quality Certifications. The regula-
tions enable the State to review
Federal licenses and permits for
compliance with State water quality
standards. The comprehensive reg-
ulations went through public
review and were adopted in Febru-
ary 1994. Mississippi also expanded
its definition of waters of the State
to include wetlands and ground
waters.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Each year, the State samples
about 25 of their 57 historical fixed
monitoring stations on a rotating
schedule. The State monitors physi-
cal and chemical parameters
bimonthly, metals in the water col-
umn twice a year, and biological
parameters once a year. The devel-
opment and implementation of a
rapid bioassessment methodology
has significantly increased coverage
of State waters beyond  the historic
fixed stations. Several stations are
also sampled  annually for metals
and pesticides in fish tissues. The
State monitoring program is
supplemented by a network of 27
stations operated by the USGS.
- Not reported.
aA subset of Mississippi's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
           Individual Use Support in  Mississippi
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                                   84,003)^
              j^^^.£;ifea.-^S&;&^

                                   W.
                                                                                                         129

-------
 Missouri
      Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Digit Hydralogic Unit)
   For a copy of the Missouri 1994
   305(b) report, contact:
   John Ford
   Missouri Department of Natural
     Resources
   Water Pollution Control  Program
   P.O. Box 176
   Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
   (314)751-7024
Surface Water Quality

    Almost half of Missouri's rivers
and streams have impaired aquatic
habitat due to a combination of
factors, including natural geology,
climate, and agricultural land use.
As a result of these factors, many
streams suffer from low water vol-
ume, low dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, high water temperatures,
and excessive siltation. In lakes, low
dissolved oxygen from upstream
dam releases, taste and odor prob-
lems, and pesticides are the most
common ailments. Agriculture,
urban runoff, and reservoir releases
are the leading sources of lake
degradation.
    The Missouri Department of
Health advises that the public
restrict consumption of bottom-
feeding fish (such as catfish, carp,
and suckers) from non-Ozark
streams or lakes to 1 pound per
week due to high concentrations of
chlordane, PCBs, and other
contaminants in these fish.

Ground Water Quality

    In general, ground water quan-
tity and quality increase from north
to south and west to east. Deep
ground water aquifers in northern
and western Missouri are not suit-
able for drinking water due to high
concentrations of natural minerals.
Nitrates and, to a much lesser
extent, pesticides also contaminate
wells in this region. About one-third
of the private wells exceed drinking
water standards for nitrates, and
about 2% of private wells exceed
drinking water standards for either
atrazine or alachlor. Statewide, the
highest priority concerns include
ground water contamination from
septic tanks, feedlots and pasture-
land, and underground storage
tanks.
130

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Sewage treatment plant con-
struction has restored many surface
waters in Missouri, but overloaded
older facilities still impact about
62 stream miles. Nonpoint source
efforts have been less successful at
restoring water quality. To date, the
most successful activity has been
the reclamation of abandoned coal
mine lands, which is funded by a
tax on coal that generates $1 mil-
lion to $2 million annually. Stream
miles impacted by abandoned coal
mines fell from 100 miles to 42
miles as a result of reclamation
projects.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Missouri's water quality moni-
toring  strategy features fixed-station
chemical sampling, short-term
intensive chemical surveys, rapid
visual/bioassessments, and detailed
biological monitoring to advance
the development of biological crite-
ria. The State also conducts toxicity
testing and samples fish  tissues for
toxic chemicals. During 1992-94,
four watershed projects featured
concentrated monitoring activities
designed to answer specific ques-
tions about animal waste manage-
ment and farm chemical reduction
options.
            Individual Use Support in Missouri
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
 Rivers and Streams (Total Piles = 51,015)b
                           53
                                             46
    gS (Total Acres = 288,315)
aA subset of Missouri's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
 for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                         131

-------
 Montana
       Basin Boundaries
       (USGS 64>igit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Montana 1994
   305(b) report, contact:
   Christian ]. Levine
   Montana Department of Health
     and Environmental Science
   Water Quality Bureau
   Cogswell Building
   1400 Broadway
   Helena, MT  59620
   (406) 444-5342
Surface Water Quality

    Most of Montana's rivers and
streams (74%) have fair water qual-
ity that periodically fails to support
aquatic life uses. Another 5% have
poor water quality that consistently
fails to support aquatic life uses.
About 14% of the surveyed lake
acres have good water quality that
fully supports fish and aquatic life,
57% fully support swimming, and
62% fully support drinking water
use. Agriculture (especially irrigated
crop production and rangeland)
impairs 60% of the surveyed stream
miles and 45% of the surveyed lake
acres. In general, nonpoint sources
are a factor in  90% of the impaired
rivers and 80% of the impaired
lakes. Resource extraction, forestry,
and municipal sewage treatment
plants have less widespread impacts
on water quality.

Ground Water Quality

    More than 50% of Montanans
get their domestic water supply
from ground water sources. Ground
water is plentiful and the quality is
generally excellent, but Montana's
aquifers are very vulnerable to
pollution from human activities
that will expand as the population
expands throughout the river
valleys. The Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences and
the Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation are
jointly preparing a Comprehensive
Ground Water Protection Plan to
protect ground water quality and
quantity.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Montana is actively pursuing
interagency/interdisciplinary water-
shed planning and  management.
Currently, five  large watershed proj-
ects are under way in Montana:
132

-------
the Flathead Lake Watershed
Management Plan, the Blackfoot
River Watershed Management
Project, the Grassroots Planning
Process for the Upper Clark Fork
Basin, the Tri-State  Clark Fork Pend
Oreille Watershed Management
Plan, and the Kootenai River Basin
Program. Each program advocates
collaboration by all interested
parties to devise comprehensive
management options that simulta-
neously address all  major factors
threatening or degrading water
quality.

Programs to  Assess
Water Quality

    Montana will need to expand
its monitoring and  assessment pro-
gram to adequately measure the
effectiveness of the State's nonpoint
source control program and other
watershed management programs.
To date, only 10%  of the State's
stream miles and 2% of the lakes
have been assessed. Fixed-station
monitoring is limited to three of the
State's 16 river basins: the Flathead
and upper and lower Clark Fork
basins. The Department will ask the
State Legislature to fund additional
staff and operating expenses to
expand ambient monitoring in the
State. The State is also concerned
that the U.S. Geological Survey may
discontinue trend monitoring in
Montana.
            Individual  Use Support in Montana
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor    Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                             MHps =
                                             74
    ggJJoJaJAcres=«44,802)
- Not reported.
aA subset of Montana's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
 for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                          133

-------
 Nebraska
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
   For a copy of the Nebraska 1994
   30S(b) report, contact:

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

    Agriculture is the most wide-
spread source of water quality
problems in Nebraska, but urban
runoff also impacts the State's rivers
and streams. Agricultural runoff
introduces excess silt, bacteria,
suspended solids, pesticides, and
nutrients into surface waters.
Municipal and industrial facilities
may contribute ammonia, bacteria,
and metals. Channelization and
hydrologic modifications have
impacted aquatic life in Nebraska
streams by reducing the diversity
and availability of habitat.
    Elevated concentrations of
metals, primarily arsenic, were the
most common water quality prob-
lem identified  in lakes, followed by
siltation, low dissolved oxygen, and
nutrients. Pesticides, primarily
atrazine, also degraded 18 lakes.
Nebraska applies more atrazine to
crops than any other State in the
United States.  Sources of pollution
in lakes include municipal sewage
treatment plants, agriculture,
construction, urban runoff, and
hydrologic habitat modifications.

Ground Water Quality

    Although natural ground water
quality in Nebraska is good, hun-
dreds of individual cases of ground
water contamination  have been
documented in Nebraska and the
number of contaminated wells
increases  every year. Major sources
of ground water contamination
include agricultural activities,  indus-
trial facilities, leaking underground
storage tanks,  oil or hazardous sub-
stance spills, solid waste landfills,
wastewater lagoons, brine disposal
pits, and septic systems.

Programs to  Restore
Water Quality

    Until  recently, Nebraska's
Nonpoint Source (NPS) Manage-
ment Program concentrated on
protecting ground water resources.
Surface water  protection efforts
134

-------
consisted primarily of two federally
funded demonstration projects on
Long Pine Creek and Maple Creek.
Now, Nebraska is evaluating the
role of NFS pollution statewide. In
1994, Nebraska supported 35 NFS
projects throughout the State.
    Nebraska recently revised wet-
lands water quality standards to
protect beneficial uses of aquatic
life, aesthetics, wildlife, and agricul-
tural water supply. The State also
protects wetlands with the water
quality certification program, per-
mit requirements for underground
injection activities and mineral
exploration, and water quality
monitoring.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    The State's Nonpoint Source
Management Program cannot be
effective without monitoring infor-
mation to identify and prioritize
waters impacted by NPS, develop
NPS control plans, and evaluate the
effectiveness of implemented best
management practices. In response
to this need, Nebraska developed
an  NPS surface water quality moni-
toring strategy to guide NPS moni-
toring projects. During 1992 and
T993, the State conducted 100
NPS screening assessments, 2 fol-
lowup intensive NPS watershed
assessments, BMP effectiveness
studies in 10 watersheds, and a
pesticide reconnaissance survey in
the Big  and Little Blue  River Basin.
           Individual Use Support in Nebraska
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially      (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened) Supporting)  Supporting)   Attainable)
                       (Total Miles = 81,573)a
                                             55
        (Total/Acres •= 280.000)
aA subset of Nebraska's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
 for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                           135

-------
  Nevada
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Dlg!t Hydrologlc Unit)
   For a copy of the Nevada 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

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

    Only 10% (about 15,000 miles)
of Nevada's rivers and streams flow
year round, and most of these
waters are inaccessible. For this
reporting period, Nevada surveyed
1,440 miles of the 3,000 miles of
accessible perennial streams with
designated beneficial uses. Thirty
percent of the surveyed stream
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses; 18%
have fair water quality that some-
times does not support aquatic life
uses; and 52% have poor water
quality that does not support
aquatic life uses. Thirty-eight per-
cent of the surveyed streams fully
support swimming and 62% do not
fully support swimming. In lakes,
29% of the surveyed acres fully
support aquatic life and swimming,
and 71% partially support these
uses.
    Agricultural practices (irrigation,
grazing, and flow regulation) have
the greatest impact on Nevada's   •
water resources. Agricultural sources
generate large sediment and nutri-
ent loads.  Urban drainage systems
contribute nutrients, heavy metals,
and organic substances that deplete
oxygen. Flow reductions also have a
great impact on streams,  limiting
dilution of salts, minerals, and pol-
lutants.

Ground Water Quality

    Nevada lacks comprehensive
ground water protection legislation,
but the State does have statutes
that control individual sources of
contamination, including  mining,
underground storage tanks, septic
systems, handling of hazardous
materials and waste, solid waste dis-
posal, underground injection wells,
agricultural practices, and waste-
water disposal. Land use statutes
also enable local authorities to
implement Wellhead Protection
Plans by adopting zoning ordi-
nances, subdivision regulations, and
site plan review procedures. Local
authorities can implement certain
source control programs at the local
level.
136

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Nevada's Nonpoint Source
Management Plan aims to reduce
NFS pollution with interagency
coordination, education programs,
and incentives that encourage vol-
untary installation of best manage-
ment practices. During 1992-1994,
the State continued updating the
Handbook of Best Management
Practices and supported NPS assess-
ment activities in each of the State's
six major river basins. The State also
completed a Wellhead Protection
Plan for the  State and  began
developing a State Ground Water
Protection Policy.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Several State, Federal, and local
agencies regularly sample chemical
and physical parameters at over
100 sites in the 14 hydrologic
regions of the State. Nevada hopes
to add biological monitoring at
several routine sampling sites after
the State adapts rapid bioassess-
ment protocols to the arid condi-
tions in Nevada. The State also
coordinates  intensive field studies
on  Nevada's major river systems,
the Truckee  River Basin, Carson
River Basin, Walker River Basin, and
the Humboldt River Basin. The
State also monitors a number of
lakes and reservoirs in  conjunction
with the Section 314 Clean Lakes
Program.
             Individual Use Support in Nevada
                                            Percent
Designated Usea
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     Good    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
        and Streams  (Total Miles = I43,578)b
                                                      47
        ..(Total^Acres^ 533.239)
- Not reported.
a A subset of Nevada's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
 for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                          137

-------
 New  Hampshire
      Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the New Hampshire
   1994 305(b) report, contact:
   Gregg Comstock
   State of New Hampshire
   Department of Environmental
     Services
   Water Supply & Pollution Control
     Division
   64 North Main Street
   Concord, NH 03301
   (603)271-2457
Surface Water Quality

    Overall, the quality of New
Hampshire's surface waters is excel-
lent. Over 99% of the State's river
miles and 95% of the lake acres
have excellent or good water quali-
ty that fully supports aquatic life
uses and swimming. Poor water
quality conditions are more wide-
spread in estuaries; high bacterial
levels interfere with shellfish harvest-
ing  in  66% of the estuarine waters.
Bacteria is also the leading cause of
impairment in rivers where high
bacteria levels indicate unsafe swim-
ming conditions. Nutrients are the
major cause of impairment in lakes
and ponds. The State suspects that
nonpoint sources are responsible for
most of the pollution entering the
State's waters.
    New Hampshire advises the
public to restrict consumption of
fish caught in the Androscoggin
River below Berlin, the Connecticut
River, Horseshoe Pond, and the
Great Bay Estuary. One fish
consumption advisory is posted on
the Androscoggin River below
Berlin due to elevated concentra-
tions of dioxins in fish tissue. The
James River Corporation paper mill
in Berlin is the suspected source of
the dioxins.

Ground Water Quality

    New Hampshire's overall
ground water quality is very good.
In some localized areas, naturally
occurring arsenic, fluoride, and
radionuclides (principally radon)
exceed drinking water standards.
Releases from petroleum facilities,
industrial operations, and landfills
have contaminated isolated areas
with petroleum or volatile organic
compounds. Sodium is the only
contaminant that has exhibited an
increasing presence in ground
water due to the widespread appli-
cation of road salts in winter. New
Hampshire is developing a
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program to coordinate
their various ground water assess-
ment, prevention, and restoration
programs.
138

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Over the past 20 years, New
Hampshire has eliminated or abat-
ed all significant untreated munici-
pal and industrial wastewater dis-
charges in State waters. Recently,
the Department of Environmental
Services (DES) initiated a watershed
protection approach to identify and
resolve remaining pollution prob-
lems. DES will compile watershed
maps and land use data, identify
major sources of pollution, model
total maximum daily loads for
pollutants, and revise discharge
permits as needed in the State's five
basins. DES estimates that each
basin assessment will require 2
years to complete at current fund-
ing levels.

Programs  to Assess
Water Qualify

    DES implemented a rotating
watershed monitoring program in
1989. In  1993, the rotation was
temporarily halted so that the State
could intensify monitoring at sites
violating  standards. During 1994
and 1995, DES will investigate
sources of violations confirmed  by
the 1993 data.
       Individual Use Support in New Hampshire
                                           Percent
- Not reported.
aA subset of New Hampshire's designated
 uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
 State's 305(b) report for a full description
 of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)   Attainable)
                      (Total Miles = 10,881)b
Lakes (Total'Acres = 163,012)
 Estuaries  (Total Square Miles = 28)
                                                                                                        139

-------
 New  Jersey
      Basin Boundaries
      (USCS S-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the New jersey 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Kevin Berry
   NJ Department of Environmental
     Protection
   Office of Environmental Planning
   401 East State St.
   Trenton, NJ 08625
   (609)633-1179
Surface Water Quality

    Sixty-eight percent of the 1,617
surveyed stream miles have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life, but New Jersey's high
population density threatens these
waters. Bacteria (which indicates
unsafe swimming conditions) and
nutrients are the most common
pollutants in rivers and streams. All
of the State's lakes are believed to
be threatened or actively deteriorat-
ing. Bacterial contamination is the
most widespread problem in
estuaries, impairing both shellfish
harvesting and swimming. Other
 problems include nutrients, low
 dissolved oxygen concentrations,
 pesticides, and priority organic
 chemicals. Major sources impacting
 New Jersey's waters include munici-
 pal treatment plants, industrial facil-
 ities, combined sewers, urban
 runoff, construction, agriculture,
 and land disposal of wastes (includ-
 ing septic tanks).

 Ground Water Quality

    There are currently over 6,000
 ground water pollution investiga-
 tions under way in New Jersey. The
 most common pollutants found in
 ground water are volatile organic
 compounds, metals, base neutral
 chemicals, acid-extractable chemi-
 cals, PCBs, and pesticides. Under-
 ground storage tanks are the most
 common source of ground water
 contamination, followed by land-
 fills, surface spills, and industrial/
 commercial septic systems. New
 Jersey adopted new ground water
 quality standards in 1993 that
 revise the ground water classifica-
 tion system and establish numerical
 criteria for many pollutants. The
 standards also protect good ground
 water quality from degradation by
 future activities.

 Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    New Jersey's Department of
 Environmental Protection (DEP) is
 adopting a watershed approach to
water quality and quantity manage-
 ment. The watershed approach
coordinates monitoring, modeling,
 planning, permitting, and enforce-
ment activities within a geographic
140

-------
area that drains into a major river,
lake, or estuary. The watershed
approach allows all interested
parties to participate in the devel-
opment of consensus-based man-
agement options. DEP is currently
conducting a watershed protection
pilot project in the Whippany River
watershed with local governments,
permittees, regional interest
groups, and private citizens.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    DEP's current monitoring pro-
gram is centered around physical
and chemical sampling at fixed sta-
tions designed to monitor long-
term trends. Unfortunately, the
fixed-station network cannot pro-
vide data to address other manage-
ment needs, such as identifying
specific sources of pollution and
measuring the effectiveness of
specific pollution control actions.
Therefore, DEP recommends sup-
plementing the fixed-station moni-
toring program with intensive
watershed surveys to support
watershed protection management
projects. Intensive surveys would
collect data to profile water quality
over 24-hour periods, identify pol-
lution sources, quantify pollution
impacts, compare water quality
data to flow conditions, model
wasteload allocations, and deter-
mine assimilative capacity of water-
bodies.
 aA subset of New Jersey's designated uses
  appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
  305(b) report for a full description of the
  State's uses.
 Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
  and do not flow all year.
 clncludes tidal portions of coastal rivers.
          Individual  Use Support in New Jersey
                                             Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting)  Attainable)
                                     68
                                                       13
S^-aSiM jfeSfSr™™.*™  -   _r^
Lakes (Total Acres = 24,000)
[Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 420)
                                                                                                            141

-------
  New Mexico
      Basin Boundaries
      (USCS frDigit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the New Mexico
   1994 305(b) report, contact:
   Erik Galloway
   New Mexico Environment
     Department
   Surface Water Quality Bureau
   Evaluation and Planning Section
   P.O. Box26110
   Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110
   (505) 827-2923
Surface Water Quality

    About 93% of New Mexico's
surveyed stream miles have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life uses. Ninety-nine per-
cent of the surveyed river miles fully
support swimming. The leading
problems in streams include habitat
alterations (such as removal of
streamside vegetation), siltation,
metals, and  nutrients. Nonpoint
sources are responsible for over
93% of the degradation in New
Mexico's 3,255 impaired stream
miles. Municipal  wastewater treat-
ment plants impair about 4% of
 the degraded waters (124 stream
 miles).
    Agriculture and recreational
 activities are the primary sources of
 nutrients, siltation, reduced shore-
 line vegetation, and bank destabi-
 lization that impairs aquatic life use
 in 91 % of New Mexico's surveyed
 lake acres. Mercury contamination
 from unknown sources appears in
 fish caught at 22 reservoirs. How-
 ever, water and sediment samples
 from surveyed lakes and reservoirs
 have not detected high concentra-
 tions of mercury. Fish may contain
 high concentrations of mercury in
 waters with minute quantities of
 mercury because the process of bio-
 magnification concentrates mercury
 in fish tissue.

 Ground Water Quality

    About 88% of the population
 of New Mexico depends on ground
 water for drinking water. The Envi-
 ronment Department has identified
 at least 1,745 cases of ground
 water contamination since 1927.
 The most common source of
 ground water contamination is
 small household septic tanks and
 cesspools. Leaking  underground
 storage tanks, injection wells, land-
fills, surface impoundments, oil and
 gas production, mining and milling,
dairies, and miscellaneous industrial
sources also contaminate ground
water in  New Mexico. New Mexico
operates a ground  water discharger
permit program that includes
ground water standards for inten-
tional discharges and a spill cleanup
provision for other discharges.
142

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    New Mexico's Nonpoint Source
Management Program contains a
series of implementation milestones
that were designed to establish
goals while providing a method to
measure progress and success of
the program. Implementation con-
sists of the coordination of efforts
among NPS management agencies,
promotion and implementation of
best management practices, coordi-
nation of watershed projects,
inspection and enforcement activi-
ties, consistency reviews, and
education and outreach activities.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    New Mexico relies heavily on
chemical and physical data  to
assess water quality. Fish tissue data
became available in 1991, and data
from biological surveys and bioas-
say tests were incorporated into the
1994 assessments where possible.
The State also conducts extensive
monitoring to determine the
effectiveness of best management
practices implemented under the
Nonpoint Source Management
Program. During the current 305(b)
reporting cycle,  New Mexico com-
pleted two special water quality
surveys along the Rio Hondo and
the Red River in Taos County.
         Individual Use Support in New Mexico
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good             Fair     Poor    Poor
  (Fully     QOOd   (Partially    (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                                 = 110,741)"
 .§|g§,i(Total Acres = 151,3207
aA subset of New Mexico's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
 report for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                       143

-------
 New York
     Basin Boundaries
     (USCS 6-Olgit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the New York 1994
   305(b) report, contact:
   George K. Hansen, P.E.
   New York State Department of
     Environmental Conservation
   Bureau of Monitoring and
     Assessment
   50 Wolf Road
   Albany, NY 12233
   (518)457-8819
Surface Water Quality

    Ninety-one percent of New
York's rivers and streams, 74% of
the State's lake acres, 97% of the
State's Great Lakes shoreline, and
99% of the  bays and tidal waters
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses. Swim-
ming is fully supported in 99% of
the surveyed rivers, 78% of the
surveyed lakes, 80% of the Great
Lakes shoreline, and 93% of the
surveyed estuarine waters. Eighty-
five percent of New York's Great
Lake's shoreline does not fully sup-
port fish consumption use because
of a fish consumption advisory.
    Agriculture is a major source of
nutrients and silt that impair New
York's rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
Hydrologic modification and habitat
modification are also a major source
of water quality impairment in
rivers and lakes. Urban runoff is a
major source of pollution in the
State's estuaries. Bacteria from
urban runoff and other sources
close about 200,000 acres (16%)
of potential shellfishing beds.
    Contaminated sediments are
the primaiy source of 7% of the
impaired rivers and lakes,  76% of
the impaired Great Lake's shoreline,
and 27% of the impaired  estuarine
waters in New York State. Sedi-
ments are contaminated with PCBs,
chlorinated organic pesticides, mer-
cury, cadmium, mirex, and dioxins
that bioconcentrate  in the food
chain and result in fish consump-
tion advisories.
    Sewage treatment plant
construction and upgrades have
had a significant impact on water
quality. Since 1972, the size of
rivers impacted by municipal sew-
age treatment facilities has declined
from about 2,000 miles to 300
miles.

Ground Water Quality

    About  3% of the State's public
water supply system wells (160
wells) are closed or abandoned due
to contamination from organic
chemicals. The most common con-
taminants are synthetic solvents
and degreasers, gasoline and other
petroleum  products, and agricultur-
al pesticides and herbicides
(primarily aldicarb and carbofuran).
144

-------
The most common sources of
organic solvents in ground water
are spills, leaks, and improper
handling at industrial and commer-
cial facilities.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Virtually every county of the
State has a county water quality
coordinating committee composed
of local agencies (such as Cornell
Cooperative Extension and soil and
water conservation districts), local
representatives from State and
Federal agencies,  and public inter-
est groups. The county committees
meet regularly to discuss local prior-
ities and fashion local strategies to
address nonpoint source pollution.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    In  1987, New York State imple-
mented the Rotating Intensive Basin
Studies (RIBS), an ambient monitor-
ing program that concentrates
monitoring activities on one-third
of the  State's hydrologic basins for
2-year periods. The DEC monitors
the entire State every 6 years.
Intensive monitoring clarifies cause-
and-effect relationships between
pollutants and water quality,
measures the effectiveness of
implemented pollution controls,
and supports regulatory decisions.
    Individual Use Support in New York
                                    Percent
aA subset of New York's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
Designated Use"
 Good           Fair    Poor    Poor
 (Fully    Good   (Partially    (Not     (Not
Supporting) (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                  ; (Total Miles =;52.337)^
ItJiiJTotaj Acres'= 790,782) ^
Great LgkjI^TofalJ/liles = 577)
                                                                                                            145

-------
 North  Carolina
      Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Digit Hydralogic Unit)
   For a copy of the North Carolina
   1994 305(b) report, contact:
   Carol Metz
   NC DEHNR
   Division of Environmental
     Management
   P.O. Box 29535
   Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
   (919)733-5083
Surface Water Quality

    About 70% of the State's sur-
veyed freshwater rivers and streams
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses, 25% have
fair water quality that partially sup-
ports aquatic life uses, and 5% have
poor water quality that does not
support aquatic life uses. Eighteen
percent of the surveyed rivers do
not fully support swimming. The
major sources of impairment are
agriculture (responsible for 56% of
the impaired river miles), urban
runoff (responsible for 13%), point
sources (responsible for  12%), and
construction (responsible for 11 %).
These sources generate siltation,
bacteria, and organic wastes that
deplete dissolved oxygen.
    Only 3% of the surveyed lakes
in North Carolina are impaired for
swimming and aquatic life uses. A
few lakes are impacted by dioxin,
metals, and  excessive nutrient
enrichment. The Champion Paper
mill on the Pigeon River is the
source of dioxin contamination in
Waterville Lake. The State and the
mill implemented a dioxin mini-
mization program in the mid-1980s
and completed a modernization
program in 1993 that will reduce
water usage and discharges.
    About 93% of the estuaries and
sounds in North Carolina fully sup-
port designated uses. Agriculture,
urban runoff, septic tanks, and
point source discharges are the
leading sources of nutrients, bacte-
ria, and low dissolved oxygen that
degrade estuaries.

Ground Water Quality

    About half of the people in
North Carolina use ground water as
their primary supply of drinking
water. Ground water quality is
generally good, but new cases of
ground water contamination affect-
ed 276 public water supplies during
1992-1993.  The leading source of
ground water contamination is
leaking underground storage tanks,
which contaminate ground water
with gasoline, diesel  fuel, and heat-
ing oil. During 1992 and 1993,
North Carolina adopted new regu-
lations for administering Leaking
Underground Storage Tank funds
and amended ground water
standards.
146

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    In 1992-1993, North Carolina
continued its aggressive program to
control nonpoint source pollution.
North Carolina adopted a nondis-
charge rule for animal waste man-
agement, implemented an innova-
tive nutrient trading program
between point and nonpoint
sources in the Tar-Pamlico river
basin, signed 2,500 new contracts
under the Agricultural Cost Share
Program to implement best man-
agement practices, and reclassified
about 200 water supply watersheds
for special protection.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Surface water quality in North
Carolina was primarily evaluated
using physical and chemical data
collected by the Division of Envi-
ronmental Management (DEM)
from a statewide fixed-station net-
work and biological assessments.
These include macroinvertebrate
(aquatic insect) community surveys,
fish community structure analyses,
phytoplankton analyses, bioassays,
and limnological review of lakes
and watersheds. Other sources of
information were point source
monitoring data, shellfish closure
reports, lake trophic state studies,
and reports prepared by other
local, State, and  Federal agencies.
- Not reported.
aA subset of North Carolina's designated
 uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
 State's 305(b) report for a full description
 of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
        Individual Use Support in  North Carolina
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
fivers and Streams  (Total Miles = 37,6oo)b
               Total Miles
               Surveyed

                26,063
Lakes (Total Acres = 306,584)
Estuaries^ (Total Square Miles = 3,122)
              Total Square
              Miles Surveyed
                                                                                                        147

-------
 North  Dakota
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
   For a copy of the North Dakota
   1994 305(b) report, contact:

   Michael Ell
   North Dakota Department of Health
   Division of Water Quality
   P.O. Box 5520
   Bisrnark, ND 58502
   (701)328-5210
Surface Water Quality

    North Dakota reports that 78%
of its surveyed rivers and streams
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses now, but
good conditions are threatened in
most of these streams. Eighty-nine
percent of the surveyed streams
fully support swimming. Elevated
siltation, nutrients, ammonia,
pathogens, oxygen-depleting
wastes, and habitat alterations
impair aquatic life use support in
22% of the surveyed rivers and
impair swimming in 11 % of the
surveyed rivers. The leading  sources
of contamination are agriculture,
removal of streamside vegetation,
municipal sewage treatment plants,
and other habitat alterations.
Natural conditions, such as low
flows, also contribute to violations
of standards.
    In lakes, 95% of the surveyed
acres have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses, and
98% of the surveyed acres fully sup-
port swimming. Siltation,  nutrients,
oxygen-depleting substances, and
suspended solids are the most wide-
spread pollutants in North Dakota's
lakes. The leading sources of pollu-
tion in lakes are agricultural activi-
ties (including nonirrigated crop
production, pastureland, irrigated
crop production, and feedlots),
municipal sewage treatment plants,
and urban runoff/storm sewers.
Natural conditions also prevent
some waters from fully supporting
designated uses.

Ground Water Quality

    North Dakota has not identified
widespread ground water contami-
nation, although some naturally
occurring compounds may make
the quality of ground water
undesirable in a few aquifers.  •
Where human-induced ground
water contamination has occurred,
the impacts have been attributed
primarily to petroleum storage
facilities, agricultural storage facili-
ties, feedlots, poorly designed wells,
abandoned wells, wastewater
treatment lagoons, landfills, septic
systems, and the underground
injection of waste. Assessment and
148

-------
protection of ground water contin-
ue through ambient ground water
quality monitoring activities, the
implementation of wellhead protec-
tion projects, the Comprehensive
Ground Water Protection Program,
and the development of a State
Management Plan for Pesticides.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    North Dakota's Nonpoint
Source Pollution Management
Program has provided financial
support to 26 projects over the past
4 years. Although the size, type,
and target audience of these
projects vary, the  projects share
the same basic goals: (1) increase
public awareness of nonpoint
source pollution, (2) reduce or
prevent the delivery of NPS  pollut-
ants to waters of the State, and
(3) disseminate information  on
effective solutions to NPS pollution.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    The North Dakota Department
of Health monitors physical  and
chemical parameters (such as dis-
solved oxygen, pH, total dissolved
solids, and  nutrients), toxic contam-
inants in fish, whole effluent toxic-
ity, and fish community structure.
North Dakota's ambient water qual-
ity monitoring network consists of
61 sampling sites on 31 rivers and
streams.
        individual Use Support in  North Dakota
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor    Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                            Miles = 11,868)b
               Total Miles
               Surveyed

                7,120
            75
                     22
                                            100
                 510
                                    85
                 4,690
                                             11
        {Total Acres = 632,016)
               Total Acres
               Surveyed
                                                               <1
aA subset of North Dakota's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
 report for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                          149

-------
 Ohio
      Bisin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Oigit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Ohio 1994 305(b)
   report, contact:
   Ed Rankin
   Ohio Environmental Protection
     Agency
   Division of Surface Water
   1685 Westbelt Drive
   Columbus, OH 43228
   (614) 728-3385
Surface Water Quality

    Ohio based their 1994 assess-
ments on data collected between
1988 and  1994. Ohio's assessment
methods compare observed ecolog-
ical characteristics (including data
on aquatic insects, fish species,
habitat, and streamside vegetation)
with background conditions found
at least-impacted reference sites for
a given ecoregion and stream type.
    Ohio identified ecological
impacts from organic enrich-
ment and  low dissolved oxygen
concentrations, siltation, habitat
modification, metals, ammonia,
and flow alterations. Fecal coliform
bacteria indicate impaired swim-
ming conditions in 9% of the sur-
veyed river miles. These impacts
stem from municipal discharges,
runoff from agriculture,  hydromodi-
fication, industrial discharges, min-
ing, urban runoff, and combined
sewer overflows.
    Ohio estimates that wastewater
treatment plant construction and
upgrades have restored  aquatic life
to about 1,000 river miles since the
1970s. Since 1988, the percentage
of surveyed river miles fully fit for
swimming also grew from 49% to
60%. However,  increasing threats
from nonpoint sources could erode
gains made with point source
controls and slow the rate of
restoration.
   The most common impacts
on Ohio lakes include nutrients,
volume loss due to sedimentation,
organic enrichment, and habitat
alterations. Nonpoint sources,
including agriculture, urban runoff,
and septic systems, generate most
of these impacts. However, munici-
pal point sources still affect 63% of
the surveyed lake acres.
   Most of the Lake Erie shoreline
is fit for recreational use, but a fish
consumption advisory for channel
catfish and carp remains in effect
along the entire shoreline. Ohio
also issued fish consumption advi-
sories for all species of fish caught
on 137 river miles and documented
elevated levels of PCBs in fish
caught at two small lakes.
150

-------
Ground Water Quality

    About 4.5 million Ohio
residents depend upon wells for
domestic water. Waste disposal
activities, underground storage tank
leaks, and  spills are the dominant
sources of ground water contami-
nation in Ohio.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    To fully restore water quality,
Ohio EPA advocates an ecosystem
approach that confronts degrada-
tion on shore as well as in the
water. Ohio's programs aim to cor-
rect nonchemical impacts, such as
channel modification and the
destruction of shoreline vegetation.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Ohio pioneered the integration
of biosurvey data, physical habitat
data, and  bioassays with water
chemistry data to measure the
overall integrity of water resources.
Biological  monitoring provides the
foundation of Ohio's water pro-
grams because traditional chemical
monitoring alone may not detect
episodic pollution events or non-
chemical impacts. Ohio EPA found
that biosurvey data can increase the
detection  of aquatic life use impair-
ment by about 35% to 50%.
aA subset of Ohio's designated uses appear
 in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
 report for a full description of the State's
 uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
              Individual Use Support in Ohio
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     Good    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)   Attainable)
      i^airid Str§arri!S (Total Miles = 55,059)b
               Total Miles
               Surveyed
                                                      37
Lakes JTotal Acres = 240,378)
                                                                                                        151

-------
 Oklahoma
     • Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Oklahoma 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   John Dyer
   Oklahoma Department of
     Environmental Quality
   Water Quality Division
   1000 NETOth Street
   Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
   (405)271-5205
Surface Water Quality

    Fifty-eight percent of the sur-
veyed river miles have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life uses and 65% fully support
swimming. The most common pol-
lutants found in Oklahoma rivers
are siltation, pesticides, nutrients,
and suspended solids. Agriculture is
the leading source of pollution in
the State's rivers and streams,
followed by petroleum extraction
and hydrologic/habitat modifica-
tions.
    Fifty-seven percent of the
surveyed lake acres fully support
aquatic life uses and 60% fully
support swimming. The most wide-
spread pollutants in Oklahoma's
lakes are siltation, nutrients, sus-
pended  solids, and oxygen-deplet-
ing substances. Agriculture is also
the most common source of pollu-
tion in lakes, followed by contami-
nated sediments and flow regula-
tion. Several lakes are impacted by
acid mine drainage, including the
Gaines Creek arm of Lake Eufaula
and the  Lake O' the Cherokees.

Ground  Water Quality

   Ambient ground  water moni-
toring has detected elevated nitrate
concentrations in monitoring wells
scattered across the State. Monitor-
ing has also detected isolated cases
of hydrocarbon contamination,
elevated selenium and fluoride con-
centrations (probably due to natur-
al sources), chloride contamination
from discontinued oil field activities,
metals from past mining opera-
tions, and gross alpha activity
above maximum allowable limits.
Industrial solvents contaminate a
few sites near landfills, storage pits,
and Tinker Air Force Base. The State
rates agriculture, injection wells,
septic tanks, surface impound-
ments, and industrial  spills as the
highest priority sources of ground
water contamination.
152

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Oklahoma's nonpoint source
control program is a cooperative
effort of State, Federal, and local
agencies that sponsors demonstra-
tion projects. The demonstration
projects feature implementation of
agricultural best management prac-
tices, water quality monitoring
before and after BMP implementa-
tion, technical assistance, educa-
tion, and development of compre-
hensive watershed management
plans. Currently, Oklahoma is
conducting five NFS projects in
Comanche County, Greer and
Beckham Counties, Custer County,
Tillman County, and the Illinois
River Basin.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Oklahoma's Conservation
Commission is conducting five
large watershed studies in  the
Illinois River Basin, the Little River
Basin, the Neosho (Grand) River
Basin, the Southeast Oklahoma
Multiple Basin, and the Poteau
River/Wister Lake Project (a cooper-
ative effort with the LeFlore Conser-
vation District, the Water Board,
and the USGS). Altogether, 385
sites will be sampled for chemical
parameters and one-third of these
sites will also be sampled for
biological integrity.
           Individual Use Support in Oklahoma
                                          Percent
Designated Use3
 Good             Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened) Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
^^JMJ^^^J^^'^M^:^^^.
              Total Miles
               Surveyed
                          19
                                                    13
         btal Acres = 1,041,884)
-Not reported.
aA subset of Oklahoma's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
 for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                      153

-------
 Oregon
     1 Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-D!git Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Oregon 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Robert Baumgartner
   Oregon Department of
      Environmental Quality
   Water Quality Division
   811 SW Sixth Avenue
   Portland, OR 97204
   (503) 229-6962
Surface Water Quality

    Forty-three percent of Oregon's
surveyed rivers have good water
quality that fully supports desig-
nated uses, 30% have fair water
quality that partially supports uses,
and 27% have poor water quality
that does not support uses. The
most widespread problems in
Oregon's streams are habitat alter-
ations, high temperatures, and silta-
tion from grazing, other agricultural
activities, forestry, and recreation.
    In lakes, 74% of the surveyed
acres fully support uses, 12%
partially support uses, and 14% do
not support uses. The most
common problems in Oregon's
lakes are excess nutrients, pH (acidi-
ty), and low dissolved oxygen. DEQ
suspects that agriculture and natur-
al conditions (including shallow
depth and high evaporation rates)
are the most significant sources of
lake problems.
    Six percent of Oregon's estuar-
ine waters have good quality and
94% have fair water quality due to
periodic violations of bacteria
standards. High concentrations of
fecal bacteria usually result from
bypasses at municipal wastewater
treatment plants during rainfall
events or improper management of
animal wastes.

Ground Water Quality

    Monitoring has detected
nitrates, benzene, other volatile
organic  compounds, bacteria,
herbicides, and pesticides in ground
water. Suspected sources include
septic systems, agriculture, highway
maintenance, industry, and com-
merce. During 1992 and 1993,
DEQ conducted statewide ground
water monitoring, developed a
ground water data management
system, and issued 16 grants for
research and education  projects
designed to protect ground water
from nonpoint sources of pollution.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Oregon recently initiated a
Watershed Health Program to
encourage public/private partner-
ships for managing water quality
and ecosystem enhancement.
154

-------
Under the Watershed Health
Program, field-based technical
teams work closely with watershed
councils composed of local resi-
dents and stakeholders to set priori-
ties and fund projects. DEQ and
other State agencies targeted the
Grand Ronde Basin and the
combined South Coast and Rogue
Basins to begin implementing the
Watershed Health Program with
$10 million in State funds for 1994
and 1995. These basins were
selected because of existing Total
Maximum Daily Load programs.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    DEQ routinely monitors about
3,500 miles of streams in its ambi-
ent river monitoring program.
These streams receive about 90% of
the wastewater discharged by point
sources throughout the State.
During 1992 and 1993, DEQ
increased the number of ambient
river monitoring  stations and
expanded other monitoring pro-
grams, including ground water
studies, continuous monitoring,
mixing zone studies, and bioassess-
ments. Recently,  Oregon also initiat-
ed the Coos Bay toxics study, the
Tillamook Bay National  Estuary
Program, and the Lower Columbia
River Bi-State Program to provide
more information on estuarine
water quality.
             Overall3 Use Support In Oregon
                                           Percent
                         Good              Fair      Poor    Poor
                          (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
                        Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
        and Streams (Total Miles = H4,823)b
              Total Miles
               Surveyed
                29,109
        (Total Acres = 618,934)
                                                      14
Estuaries  (Total Square Miles = 206)
              Total Square
             Miles Surveyed

                  60
                                             94
- Not reported.
a Overall use support is presented in this figure because Oregon did not report individual use
 support in their 1994 Section 305(b) report.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                         155

-------
 Pennsylvania
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Pennsylvania
   1994 305(b) report, contact:
   Robert Frey
   Pennsylvania Department of
     Environmental Resources
   Bureau of Water Quality
     Management
   Division of Assessment and
     Standards
   P.O. Box 8465
   Harrisburg, PA  17105-8465
   (717)783-3638
Surface Water Quality

    Over 81 % of the surveyed river
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses and
swimming. About 8% have fair
water quality that partially supports
these uses, and 11 % have poor
water quality that does not support
aquatic life uses and swimming.
The most widespread pollutants are
metals, which impact over 2,092
miles. Pollutants identified less fre-
quently include suspended solids
(impacting 603 miles), nutrients
(impacting 586 miles), and pH
(impacting 273 miles).
    Abandoned mine drainage is
the most significant source of
surface water quality degradation in
Pennsylvania. Drainage from mining
sites pollutes at least 2,404 miles of
streams representing 52% of all
degraded streams in the Common-
wealth. Other sources of degrada-
tion include agriculture (impacting
694 miles), municipal sewage treat-
ment plants (impacting 241 miles),
and industrial point sources
(impacting 206 miles).
    Pennsylvania has issued fish
consumption advisories on 23
waterbodies. Most of the advisories
are due to elevated concentrations
of PCBs and chlordane in fish tissue,
but a few advisories have been
issued for mirex and mercury. In
1994, the State deactivated two
advisories for dioxins on Codurus
Creek and the South Branch of
Codurus Creek as well as one advi-
sory for chlordane on the Delaware
River.

Ground Water Quality

    Major sources of ground water
contamination in Pennsylvania
include leaking underground
storage tanks, containers from
hazardous materials facilities, and
improper handling or overuse of
fertilizer. Petroleum and petroleum
byproducts are the most common
pollutants in ground water. Coal
mining and oil and gas production
have also elevated concentrations
of several elements (including chlo-
rides, iron, barium, and strontium)
in  some regions of the Common-
wealth. A Ground Water Quality
Protection Strategy was adopted
and released to the public in
February 1992, and an Implemen-
tation Task Force was formed in
156

-------
August 1992. The Task Force
reviewed all program regulations
and scheduled revisions that will
advance the Strategy goal of
nondegradation of ground water
quality.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Eliminating acid mine drainage
from abandoned mines will require
up to $5 billion. The cost, difficulty,
magnitude, and extent of the
problem have hampered progress.
To date, the Commonwealth has
funded  studies to determine the
effectiveness of alternative tech-
niques for treating mine drainage
and preventing contamination. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)  Natural Resources Conser-
vation Service's Rural Abandoned
Mines Program also reconstructs
abandoned mine sites in Pennsyl-
vania.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    The Water Quality Network
monitors chemical and physical
parameters almost monthly and
biological parameters annually at
168 fixed stations on rivers,
streams, and Lake Erie. In 1991,
Pennsylvania began annual sam-
pling at 15 to 20 lakes for 5 years.
After 5  years, another set of lakes
will be sampled annually for 5 years
until 90 lakes have been monitored.
The Commonwealth also conducts
ambient ground water monitoring
at 537 monitoring sites.
         Individual  Use Support in Pennsylvania
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)   Attainable)

                      • (Total Miles = 53^962)°
                                                     11
         Total Acres = 161,445)

^^
Total Acres
Surveyed
- Not reported.
aA subset of Pennsylvania's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
 report for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                         157

-------
  Puerto  Rico
      1 Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Puerto Rico 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Eric H. Morales
   Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
      Board
   Water Quality Area
   Box11488
   Santurce, PR 00910
   (809)751-5548
Surface Water Quality

    In rivers and streams, 17% of
the surveyed miles have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life uses, 32% partially support
aquatic life uses, and 51 % do not
support aquatic life uses. Swimming
is impaired in 79% of the surveyed
rivers and streams. Low dissolved
oxygen, pesticides, flow alteration,
bacteria, and nutrients are the most
widespread problems in rivers and
streams. In lakes, 30% of the
surveyed acres fully support aquatic
life uses, 19% partially support
these uses, and 51% do not
 support aquatic life uses. Swimming
 is impaired in 55% of the surveyed
 lake acres. Uses are impaired by
 inorganic chemicals, low dissolved
 oxygen concentrations, bacteria,
 priority organic chemicals, metals,
 and pesticides.
    Only 16% of the assessed estu-
 arine waters fully support aquatic
 life uses and only 17% fully support
 swimming due to oxygen-depleting
 organic substances, bacteria, and
 habitat alterations. Land disposal of
 wastes, urban runoff, agriculture,
 municipal sewage treatment plants,
 and natural conditions are the most
 common sources of water quality
 degradation in rivers, lakes, and
 estuaries. Industrial and municipal
 discharges also pollute beaches.

 Ground Water Quality

    Organic compounds, including
 dichloromethane,  1,1,2-trichloro-
 ethane, and toluene were detected
 below maximum contaminant
 levels in several wells. Four wells
 were closed due to bacterial con-
 tamination and high turbidity and
 two wells were shut down due to
 contamination from volatile organic
 compounds. The major sources of
 ground water contamination are
 septic tanks, livestock operations,
 agriculture, storage tanks, and land-
fills. Puerto Rico adopted ground
water use classifications and water
quality standards in 1990. In 1993,
the Environmental Quality Board
completed the ground  water
priority list that ranks critical areas
for remediation and protection
activities.
158

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Puerto Rico requires permits or
certificates for ground water and
surface water discharges, under-
ground storage tanks, and livestock
operations. Certificates require
livestock operations to implement
animal waste management systems
and other best management prac-
tices. During the 1992-1993 report-
ing period, Puerto Rico issued 194
certificates for livestock operations;
inspected 427 livestock operations;
implemented 77 BMPs in priority
watersheds; offered 15 conferences
to educate the public about non-
point source pollution and controls;
and monitored the effectiveness of
BMPs implemented at poultry,
dairy, and hog farms.

Programs  to Assess
Water Quality

    Under a cooperative agreement
with the government of Puerto
Rico, the USGS  collects bimonthly
samples at 57 fixed surface water
monitoring stations. The samples
are analyzed for dissolved oxygen,
nutrients, bacteria, and convention-
al parameters. Twice a year, the
samples are analyzed for metals and
several toxic substances.  Puerto
Rico also maintains a Permanent
Coastal Water Quality Network of
88 stations and the San Juan Beach-
front Special Monitoring Network
of 22 stations sampled monthly for
bacterial contamination.
- Not reported.
aA subset of Puerto Rico's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the
 Commonwealth's 305(b) report for a full
 description of the Commonwealth's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
          Individual  Use Support in Puerto Rico
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
             il^

               Total Miles
               Surveyed
                5,384
                5,381
                           14
        (Total Acres = 10,887)
               Total Acres
               Surveyed
                10,887
                           10
                                    20
                                             30
                                                      25
Estuaries  (Total Miles = 175)
                                                                                                         159

-------
 Rhode   Island
      Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Rhode Island
   1994 305(b) report, contact:
   Connie Carey
   Rhode Island Department of
     Environmental Management
   Division of Water Resources
   291 Promenade St.
   Providence, Rl 02908-5767
   (401)277-6519
Surface Water Quality

    Eighty-four percent of Rhode
Island's rivers, 81 % of lakes, and
96% of estuarine waters support
aquatic life uses. However, many of
these waters are considered threat-
ened. About 80% of rivers, 94% of
lakes, and 93% of estuaries fully
support swimming. The most sig-
nificant pollutants in Rhode Island's
waters are heavy metals (especially
copper and lead), priority organic
chemicals (PCBs),  bacteria, low
dissolved oxygen, excess nutrients,
and low pH/low buffering capacity.
Recurring algae blooms, high nutri-
ents, and high turbidity threaten
the use of several surface waters for
drinking water supplies.
    Rivers and estuaries are
impacted by industrial and munici-
pal discharges, combined sewer
overflows, urban runoff, highway
runoff, failed septic systems, and
contaminated sediments. Lakes are
primarily impacted by nonpoint
sources, including septic systems,
atmospheric deposition, and land
and road runoff.

Ground  Water Quality

    About 24% of the State's popu-
lation is supplied with drinking
water from public and private wells.
Overall, Rhode Island's ground
water has good to excellent quality,
but over 100 contaminants have
been detected in localized areas.
Twenty-one community and eight
noncommunity wells have been
closed and 400 private wells have
required treatment due to contami-
nation. The  most common pollut-
ants are petroleum products, cer-
tain organic solvents, and nitrates.
Significant pollution sources include
leaking underground storage tanks,
hazardous and industrial waste
disposal sites, illegal or improper
waste disposal, chemical and oil
spills,  landfills, septic systems, road
salt storage and application, and
fertilizer application.

Programs  to Restore
Water Quality

    Rhode Island's Nonpoint Source
Management Program sponsored
the following activities during
1992-1993:  (1) preparation of NPS
management plans for 10  surface
water supply watersheds; (2) devel-
opment of a Community NPS
160

-------
Management Guide; (3) develop-
ment of a Stormwater Design and
Installation Manual; (4) preparation
of a manual for selecting best
management practices for marinas;
(5) development of a Community
Wastewater Management Guidance
Manual; (6) mitigation projects at
Greenwich Bay, including septic sys-
tem inspections and replacements;
(7) technical assistance to commu-
nities developing zoning or NPS
control ordinances; and (8) revising
and updating the Rhode Island NPS
Management Plan.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Rhode Island's monitoring
program consists of: (1) discharge
effluent monitoring, (2) the Beach
Monitoring Program, (3) the Shell-
fish Growing Area Monitoring
Program, (4) USGS Water Quality
Trend Monitoring Fixed Stations,
(5) supplemental monitoring sta-
tions sampled by the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental
Management, (6) biological moni-
toring, and (7) limited expansion
of ambient water quality stream
biological and chemical monitoring.
During the 1992-1993 reporting
cycle, Rhode Island added 25 toxics
monitoring stations to previously
unmonitored  streams.
         Individual  Use Support in Rhode Island
                                           Percent
- Not reported.
aA subset of Rhode Island's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.  •
clncludes ocean waters.
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor    Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                       (Total iyiiies = i,io6)b
                                    37
    OS, (Total Acres = 17,328)
Estuaries  (Total Square Miles = 139)
                                                                                                         161

-------
 South  Carolina
  —— Futty Supporting
  — Threatened
  ——• Partijlly Supporting
  —• Not Supporting
  — Not Assessed
  — Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the South Carolina
   1994 305(b) report, contact:
   Gina Lowman
   South Carolina Department of
     Health and Environmental
     Control
   Bureau of Water Pollution Control
   2600 Bull Street
   Columbia, SC 29201
   (803) 734-5153
Surface Water Quality

    Ninety-one percent of surveyed
rivers, 99% of surveyed lakes, and
75% of estuaries have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life uses. Sixty-three percent of
rivers, 99% of lakes, and 86% of
estuaries fully support swimming.
Unsuitable water quality is responsi-
ble for shellfish harvesting  prohibi-
tions in only 2% of the State's
coastal shellfish waters. Another
11 % of shellfish waters are closed
as a precaution due to potential
pollution from nearby marinas or
point source discharges.
    Bacteria are the most frequent
cause of impairment (i.e., partial or
nonsupport of designated uses) in
rivers and streams; metals are the
most frequent cause of impairment
in lakes, but only 1 % of lakes do
not fully support uses; and low dis-
solved oxygen is the most frequent
cause of impairment in estuaries.
Toxic contaminants do not appear
to be a widespread problem in
South Carolina surface waters. Of
all waters assessed, only 5% had
elevated levels of metals and only
3% had concentrations of PCBs,
pesticides, and organics above the
assessment criteria.

Ground Water Quality

    Overall ground water quality
remains excellent, although the
number of reported ground water
contamination cases rose from
60 cases in 1980 to 2,207 cases in
1993. The increase in the number
of contaminated sites is primarily
due to expanded monitoring at
underground storage tank sites.
Leaking underground storage tanks
are the most common source of
contamination, impacting 1,741
sites, followed by leaking pits,
ponds, and lagoons.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    The South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental
Control (DHEC) initiated a Water-
shed Water Quality Management
Strategy (WWQMS) to integrate
monitoring, assessment, problem
162

-------
identification and prioritization,
water quality modeling, planning,
permitting, and other management
activities by river drainage basins.
DHEC has delineated five major
drainage basins encompassing
280 minor watersheds. Every year,
DHEC will develop or revise a man-
agement plan and implementation
strategy for one basin. It will take
5 years to assess all basins in the
State. The basin strategies will
refocus water quality protection
and restoration priorities for alloca-
tion of limited resources.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Year round, DHEC samples
chemical and physical parameters
monthly at fixed primary stations
located  in or near high-use waters.
DHEC samples secondary stations
(near discharges and areas with a
history of water quality problems)
monthly from May through
October for fewer parameters. Each
year, DHEC adds new watershed
stations within the specific basin
under investigation. Watershed
stations are sampled monthly for
1 year corresponding with the
WWQMS schedule.
        Individual Use Support in  South Carolina
- Not reported.
a A subset of South Carolina's designated
 uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
 State's 305(b) report for a full description
 of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially      (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened) Supporting)  Supporting)   Attainable)
        and Streams (Total Miles = 35,461 )b
               Total Miles
               Surveyed
                           63
                                              16
                                                       21
Lakes (Total Acres = 525,000)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 945)
               Total Square   75
              Miles Surveyed
                                                                                                           163

-------
 South   Dakota
   —— Fully Supporting
   — Threatened
   — Partially Supporting
   — Not Supporting
   —• Not Assessed
   — Bashi Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit, as modified by South Dakota)
   For a copy of the South Dakota
   1994 305(b) report, contact:
   Andrew Repsys
   South Dakota Department of
     Environment and Natural
     Resources
   Division of Financial and Technical
     Assistance
   Watershed Protection Program
   523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building
   Pierre, SD  57501-3181
   (605) 773-3882
Surface Water Quality

    Seventeen percent of South
Dakota's surveyed rivers and
streams fully support aquatic life
uses and 83% do not fully support
aquatic life uses. Thirty-five percent
of the surveyed rivers also support
swimming, and 65% of the sur-
veyed rivers do not fully support
swimming. The most common pol-
lutants impacting South Dakota
streams are suspended solids due to
water erosion from croplands, gully
erosion from rangelands, stream-
bank erosion, and other natural
forms of erosion. Ninety-eight
percent of South Dakota's surveyed
lake acres fully support aquatic life
uses now, but the quality of these
lakes is threatened. Similarly, 100%
of the surveyed lake acres fully sup-
port swimming, but these waters
are threatened. The most common
pollutants in lakes are nutrients and
sediments from agricultural runoff.
   The high water conditions that
prevailed in South Dakota for most
of this reporting period greatly
increased watershed erosion and
sedimentation in lakes and streams.
Suspended solids criteria were
severely violated in many rivers and
streams, and there was an increase
in the incidence of fecal coliform
bacteria in swimming areas at lakes.
However, water quality improved in
some lakes that experienced low
water levels during the late 1980s,
and high flows diluted bacteria in
rivers and streams.

Ground Water Quality

   Nitrates exceed EPA Maximum
Contaminant Levels in more wells
than any other pollutant. About
15% of the samples collected at
three eastern State aquifers during
1988-1993 had nitrate concentra-
tions that exceeded the State crite-
ria of 10 mg/L. More than 7% of
the samples collected from the Big
Sioux aquifer consistently exceeded
the nitrate standard. Potential
sources of nitrate include commer-
cial fertilizer use and manure
applications. There were no viola-
tions of drinking water standards
164

-------
for petroleum products reported
during 1992-1993, but petroleum
products were involved in 81 % of
the spills reported during the
period.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Compliance with municipal
wastewater discharge permit
requirements has steadily risen from
37% in 1979 to 75% statewide in
1993 following construction of
162 wastewater treatment facilities.
Compliance is even higher (97%)
among the plants completed with
EPA Construction Grants. South
Dakota relies primarily on voluntary
implementation of best manage-
ment practices to control pollution
from nonpoint sources, such as
agricultural activities, forestry opera-
tions, and mining. The State has
initiated over 50 BMP development
and implementation projects.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    South Dakota conducts  ambi-
ent water quality monitoring at
established stations, special inten-
sive surveys, intensive fish surveys,
wasteload allocation surveys, and
individual nonpoint source projects.
The USGS, Corps of Engineers, and
U.S. Forest Service also conduct
routine monitoring throughout the
State. Water samples are analyzed
for chemical, physical, biological,
and bacteriological parameters.
         Individual Use Support in South Dakota
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
            Streams  (Total Miles = 9,937)
               Total Miles
               Surveyed
                 3,352
                           17
                 839
        {Total Acres = 750,000)
               Total Acres
               Surveyed
                685,071
                                   100
                685,071
- Not reported.
aA subset of South Dakota's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
 report for a full description of the State's uses.
                                                                                                         165

-------
 Tennessee
     1 Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Tennessee 1994
   305(b) report, contact

   Greg Denton
   Tennessee Department of
      Environment and Conservation
   Division of Water Pollution Control
   401 Church Street, L&C Annex
   Nashville, TN  37243-1534
   (615)532-0699
Surface Water Quality

    Sixty-five percent of surveyed
rivers and streams fully support
aquatic life uses, 25% partially
support these uses, and 10% are
not supporting aquatic life uses due
to severe pollution. Conventional
pollutants (such as siltation,
suspended solids, nutrients, and
oxygen-depleting substances) affect
the most river miles. Toxic materi-
als,  bacteria, and flow alterations
impact rivers to a lesser extent.
Major sources of pollutants include
agriculture, hydromodification, and
municipal point sources. Intense
impacts from mining occur in the
Cumberland Plateau region, and
poor quality water discharged from
dams impacts streams in east and
middle Tennessee.
    In lakes, 421,407 acres (78%)
fully support aquatic life uses, 2,668
acres  (less than 1 %) are threatened,
27,987 acres (5%) partially support
aquatic life uses, and 87,126 acres
(16%) do not support these uses
due to severe pollution. The most
widespread problems in lakes
include nutrients, low dissolved
oxygen, siltation,  and priority
organics.  Major sources of these
pollutants are agriculture, municipal
wastewater treatment plants,
stream impoundments, hydrologic
modification, mining, and nutrient
addition.
    Fish consumption advisories are
posted on 142 miles of rivers and
streams and over 84,000 acres of
lakes due to elevated concentra-
tions of chlordane, PCBs, dioxins,
mercury, and other toxics in fish
tissue samples. Swimming and
wading are  restricted in Chatta-
nooga Creek and  East Fork Poplar
Creek due to toxic contamination
from discontinued waste disposal
practices.

Ground  Water Quality

    Ground water quality is gener-
ally good, but pollutants contami-
nate (or are thought to contami-
nate) the  resource in localized
areas. These pollutants include,  but
are not limited to, volatile and
166

-------
semivolatile organic chemicals,
bacteria, metals, petroleum
products, pesticides, and radio-
active materials.

Programs to  Restore
Water Quality

    Tennessee is considering issuing
discharge permits on a rotating
basis for each of the State's major
river basins and is studying region-
alized standards that take into
account natural background condi-
tions. The permits in each  basin
would be evaluated and reissued
together on a 5-year cycle. Tennes-
see is also conducting several Total
Maximum Daily Load studies that
use a watershed approach to allo-
cate maximum pollutant loading
among  all the point sources dis-
charging into a stream or its tribu-
taries.

Programs to  Assess
Water Quality

    Tennessee's ambient monitor-
ing network consists of 156 active
stations sampled quarterly for
conventional pollutants (such as
dissolved oxygen, bacteria, and
suspended solids),  nutrients, and
selected metals. The State also per-
forms intensive surveys at streams
where State personnel suspect that
human  activities are degrading
stream quality.  Intensive surveys
often include biological monitoring.
The State samples toxic chemicals
in fish and sediment at sites with
suspected toxicity problems.
           Individual Use Support in Tennessee
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair      Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                           61
                                             25
                                                      10
 Lakes (Total Acres = 539,188)
 *s^sss:*i^  , »  ^             '    '
a A subset of Tennessee's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
 for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                           167

-------
 Texas
      Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Dlgft Hydrdogic Unit)
   For a copy of the Texas 1994
   30S(b) report, contact:

   Steve Twidwell
   Texas Natural Resource
     Conservation Commission
   P.O. Boxl3087
   Austin, TX 78711-3087
   (512)239-1000
Surface Water Quality

    About 89% of the surveyed
stream miles fully support aquatic
life uses, 4% partially support these
uses, and 6% do not support
aquatic life uses. Swimming is
impaired in 27% of the surveyed
rivers and streams. The most com-
mon pollutants degrading rivers
and streams are bacteria, metals,
and oxygen-depleting substances.
Major sources of pollution include
municipal sewage treatment plants,
unknown sources, pastureland
runoff, and urban runoff.
    In reservoirs, 98% of the sur-
veyed surface acres fully support
aquatic life uses and 2% partially
support these uses. Less than 1 %
do not support aquatic life uses.
Ninety-nine percent of the surveyed
lake acres fully support swimming.
The most common problems in
reservoirs are low dissolved oxygen
and elevated bacteria concentra-
tions. Major sources that con-
tributed to nonsupport of uses
include unknown sources, natural
sources (such as high temperature
and shallow conditions), municipal
sewage treatment plants, and
industrial  point sources.
   The leading problem in estuar-
ies is bacteria from unknown
sources that contaminate shellfish
beds. Fifty-nine percent of the
surveyed estuarine waters fully sup-
port shellfishing use, 8% partially
support this use, and 33% do not
support shellfishing.

Ground Water Quality

   About 44% of the municipal
water is obtained from ground
water in Texas.  Natural contamina-
tion affects the  quality of more
ground water in the State than all
other sources of contamination
combined. Natural leaching from
the aquifer matrix can elevate
minerals, metals, and radioactive
substances in ground water. The
most common ground water
contaminants from human activities
are gasoline, diesel, and other
petroleum products. Less common
contaminants include volatile
organic compounds and pesticides.
168

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    The Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC)
launched a basin approach to water
resource management with the
Clean Rivers Program (CRP). The
CRP is a first step in the develop-
ment of a long-term, comprehen-
sive and integrated geographic
management approach aimed at
improving coordination of natural
resource functions in the agency.
The basin approach will provide a
framework for identifying problems,
involving stakeholders, and inte-
grating actions. The  basin approach
also allows for the use of risk-based
targeting to prioritize issues and
better allocate finite  public
resources.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    The TNRCC samples about 700
fixed stations as part of its Surface
Water Quality Monitoring Program
(SWQMP). The TNRCC  samples
different parameters  and varies the
frequency of sampling at each site
to satisfy different needs. The
TNRCC  also conducts intensive
surveys to evaluate potential
impacts from point source discharg-
ers during low flow conditions and
special studies to investigate specific
sources and pollutants. About
3,000 citizens also perform volun-
teer environmental monitoring in
the Texas Watch Program.
aA subset of Texas' designated uses appear
 in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
 report for a full description of the State's
 uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
              Individual Use Support in Texas
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                                          b
                      (Total Miles = 191,228)p
                                                              <1
takes (Total Acres = 3,065,600)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 1,991)
                                                                                                        169

-------
 Utah
      Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Utah 1994 305(b)
   report, contact:
   Thomas W. Toole
   Utah Department of Environmental
      Quality
   Division of Water Quality
   P.O. Box 144870
   Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
   (801) 538-6859
                                    introduce metals and sediments to
                                    streams in some areas. Resource
                                    extraction and associated activities,
                                    such as road construction, also
                                    impact Utah's rivers and streams.
                                       About 61 % of the surveyed
                                    lake acres fully support aquatic life
                                    uses, 32% partially support these
                                    uses, and 7% do not support
                                    aquatic life uses. The leading
                                    problems in lakes include nutrients,
                                    siltation, low dissolved oxygen,
                                    suspended solids, organic enrich-
                                    ment,  noxious aquatic plants,  and
                                    violations of pH criteria. The major
                                    sources of pollutants are grazing
                                    and irrigation, industrial  and munic-
                                    ipal point sources, drawdown  of
                                    reservoirs, and natural conditions.
                                        Fish and wildlife consumption
                                    advisories are posted on the lower
                                    portion of Ashley  Creek drainage
                                    and Stewart Lake  in Uintah County
                                    due to elevated levels of selenium
                                    found  in fish, ducks, and American
                                    coots.
Surface Water Quality        Ground Water Quality
    Of the 5,726 river miles sur-
veyed, 75% fully support aquatic
life uses, 20% partially support
these uses, and 5% are not sup-
porting aquatic life uses. The most
common pollutants impacting
rivers and streams are siltation and
sediments, total dissolved solids,
nutrients, and metals. Agricultural
practices, such as grazing and irri-
gation, elevate nutrient and sedi-
ment loading into streams. Point
sources also contribute to nutrient
loads, while natural conditions
    In general, the quality of
ground water in Utah has remained
relatively good throughout the
State, although some ground water
degradation occurs in south central
Utah in the metropolitan area of
Salt Lake City and along the
Wasatch Front area from Payson
north to Brigham City. Sources of
ground water degradation include
irrigation, urbanization, landfills,
mining and mine tailings, and
drawdown. In 1994, new ground
water regulations went into effect.
170

-------
Programs to  Restore
Water Quality

    The State's Nonpoint Source
Task Force is responsible for coordi-
nating nonpoint source programs
in Utah. The Task Force is a broad-
based group with representatives
from Federal, State, and local agen-
cies; local governments; agricultural
groups; conservation organizations;
and wildlife advocates. The Task
Force helped State water quality
and agricultural agencies prioritize
watersheds in need of NPS pollu-
tion controls. As best management
practices are implemented, the Task
Force will update and revise the
priority list.

Programs to  Assess
Water Quality

    In 1993, Utah adopted a basin-
wide water quality monitoring
approach. Utah initiated basinwide
intensive studies in the Weber River
Basin in 1993 and the Utah Lake-
Jordan River Basin in 1994. A fixed-
station network was also developed
to evaluate general water quality
across the State. Utah's surface
water quality monitoring program
consists of about 200 ambient sta-
tions, 7 salinity monitoring stations,
and 30 biological monitoring sites.
In addition, 135 industrial  and
municipal sites were monitored.
               Individual Use Support in Utah
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair      Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable;
Tlivers and Streams (Total Miles = 85,9i6)b
                           75
                                             20
Lakes JTotal Acres = 481,638)
               Total Acres
               Surveyed     61
a A subset of Utah's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for
 a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                          171

-------
 Vermont
   — Fully Supporting
   •—• Threatened
   _ Partially Supporting
   — Not Supporting
   — Not Assessed
   ___ Basin Boundaries
       (USGS 6-Oigit Hydrologic Unit, as modified by South Dakota)

   Note: Streams not shown on this map are Fully Supporting.
   For a copy of the Vermont 1994
   305(b) report, contact:
   Jerome J. McArdle
   Vermont Agency of Natural
     Resources
   Dept. of Environmental
     Conservation
   Water Quality Division
   103 South Main Street,
     Building 10 North
   WaterburyVT  05671-0408
   (802) 244-6951
Surface Water Quality

    Of the 5,264 miles of surveyed
rivers and streams, 81% fully sup-
port aquatic life uses, 15% partially
support these uses, and 4% do not
support aquatic life uses. Ten
percent of the surveyed rivers and
streams do not fully support
swimming. The most widespread
impacts include siltation, thermal
modifications, organic enrichment
and low dissolved oxygen, nutri-
ents, pathogens, and other habitat
alterations. The principal sources of
impacts are agricultural runoff,
streambank destabilization and
erosion, removal of streamside
vegetation, upstream impound-
ments, flow regulation, and land
development.
    Sixty-four percent of the sur-
veyed lake acres (excluding Lake
Champlain) fully support aquatic
life uses, 27% partially support
these uses, and 9% do not support
aquatic life uses. The most common
problems in lakes include fluctuat-
ing water levels, nutrient enrich-
ment, algal blooms, organic enrich-
ment and low dissolved oxygen,
siltation, and aquatic weeds.
Eurasian water milfoil, an aquatic
weed, infests 13% of the State's
lakes that are 20 acres or larger.
Runoff from agricultural lands,
roads, and streambank erosion are
the most frequently identified
sources of lake problems.
    In Lake Champlain, nutrients
are the major cause of impairment,
followed by fish consumption advis-
ories posted for trout contaminated
with PCBs and walleye contami-
nated with mercury. Discovery of
the zebra mussel in 1993 threatens
all uses.

Ground Water Quality

   The quality of Vermont's
ground waters is not well under-
stood due to a lack of resources
required to gather and assess
ground water data. Ground water
contamination has been detected at
hazardous waste sites. Other
sources of concern include failing
septic systems, old solid waste dis-
posal sites, agriculture,  road salt,
leaking underground storage tanks,
and landfills. The State needs to
implement a Comprehensive
Ground Water Protection Program,
172

-------
but lacks the financial and technical
resources to do so.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    During the reporting period,
Vermont implemented dechlorina-
tion at 18 publicly owned sewage
treatment plants, which improved
water quality in about 47 miles of
rivers and streams. The State also
completed construction of the last
two planned sewage treatment
plants and upgraded four other
plants. To prevent habitat modifica-
tions,  the State used the Section
401 water quality certification
process to require minimum stream
flows at four hydroelectric facilities.
The stream flow requirements
should improve water quality on
11 miles of streams.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Vermont's monitoring activities
balance short-term intensive and
long-term trend monitoring. Not-
able monitoring activities include
fixed-station monitoring on lakes
and ponds, citizen monitoring,
long-term acid rain lake monitor-
ing, compliance monitoring for per-
mitted dischargers, toxic discharge
monitoring, fish contamination
monitoring, and ambient biomoni-
toring of aquatic insects and fish.
aA subset of Vermont's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes perennial streams only.
cExcluding Lake Champlain.
            Individual Use Support in Vermont
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
              Total Miles
               Surveyed
                           77
                5,232
                                    13
        (Total Acres = 54,208)°
              Total Acres
               Surveyed
                52,770
                52,318
                                            10
                                                     12
Lake Champlain (Total Acres = 174,175)
               Total Acres
               Surveyed

               174,175
                                       m*
                                                                                                        173

-------
 Virginia
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-DIgit Hydrologlc Unit)
   For a copy of the Virginia 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Carrie Gorsuch
   Department of Environmental
     Quality
   Water Division
   Office of Water Resources
     Management
   P.O. Box10009
   Richmond, VA 23240-0009
   (804) 762-4290
Surface Water Quality

    Of the 34,575 river miles sur-
veyed, 90% fully support aquatic
life use, another 5% fully support
this use now but are threatened,
and 5% do not fully support this
use. As in past years, fecal coliform
bacteria are the most widespread
problem in rivers and streams.
Agriculture and pastureland con-
tribute much of the fecal coliform
bacteria in Virginia's waters. Urban
runoff also is a significant source of
impacts in both rivers and estuaries.
    Ninety-nine percent of Virginia's
publicly owned lakes fully support
their designated uses, and about
1 % do not fully support uses. The
most common problems in lakes
include dissolved oxygen depletion,
coliform bacteria, pH, and tempera-
ture, primarily from nonpoint
sources.
    In estuaries, 31 % of the sur-
veyed waters fully support aquatic
life use, 64% support this use but
are threatened, and 5% partially
support this use. Nutrients are the
most common problem in Virginia's
estuarine waters, followed by
organic enrichment and low
dissolved oxygen concentrations.
All of Virginia's Atlantic Ocean
shoreline Fully supports designated
uses.
    Six advisories limit fish con-
sumption on 369 miles of Virginia's
rivers and an undetermined num-
ber of miles of tidal tributaries to
the James River. The Common-
wealth lifted one advisory that had
restricted fish consumption on the
Jackson River and the Upper James
River.

Ground Water Quality

    Sampling by the Virginia
Department of Health detected
bacterial concentrations exceeding
Maximum  Contaminant Levels at
133 ground-water-based communi-
ty public water systems in 1993.
Nitrates and pesticides were also
detected in a small percentage of
the private wells sampled in a pilot
study in Northampton County.
Virginia revised ground water pro-
tection rules with the Ground Water
Management Act of 1992.
174

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Virginia's Department of
Environmental Quality recommends
control measures for water quality
problems identified in the 305(b)
report in their Water Quality
Management Plans (WQMPs).
WQMPs establish a strategy for
bringing impaired waters up to
water quality standards and pre-
venting the degradation of high-
quality waters. Control measures
are implemented through Virginia's
point source permit program and
application of best management
practices for nonpoint sources.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    The Ambient Water Quality
Monitoring Program grew to 896
monitoring stations, a 26% increase
since the previous reporting period.
These stations are sampled for
chemical and physical parameters
on a variable schedule. The Core
Monitoring Program consists of a
subset of 51  stations that are sam-
pled for pesticides, metals, and
organic chemicals in fish and sedi-
ment on a 3-year cycle. About
150 biological stations were also
sampled during the 1992-1993
reporting cycle.
-Not reported.
aA subset of Virginia's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
cSize of significant publicly owned lakes,
 a subset of all lakes in Virginia.
             Individual Use Support in Virginia
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor    Poor
  (Fully     Good    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                       (Total Miles = 44,852)b
        (Total Acres = 161,888)
Estuaries  (Total Square Miles = 2,500)
                                                                                                         175

-------
 Virgin   Islands
                                  \
                            St. Thomas     St. John
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Virgin Islands
   1994 305(b) report, contact:

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

    The U.S. Virgin Islands consist
of three main islands (St. Croix, St.
Thomas, and St. John) and over 50
smaller islands and cays.located in
the Caribbean Sea. The islands lack
perennial streams or large fresh-
water lakes or ponds. Water quality
in the U.S. Virgin Islands is generally
good but declining due to an
increase in point source discharges
and nonpoint source pollution
entering the marine environment.
    The Virgin Islands municipal
sewage treatment plants, operated
by the Virgin Islands Department of
Public Works, are the major source
of water quality violations in the
Territory. Neglect, combined with
a lack of qualified operators and
maintenance staff, results in fre-
quent breakdowns of lift stations,
pump stations, and pipelines.
Clogged and collapsed lines
frequently cause unpermitted
discharges into surface waters.
Stormwater also overwhelms
sewage treatment facilities and
results  in bypasses of raw or under-
treated sewage into bays and
lagoons.
    Other water quality problems
result from unpermitted discharges,
permit violations by private industri-
al dischargers, oil spills, and unper-
mitted filling activities in mangrove
swamps. Nonpoint sources of con-
cern include failing septic systems,
erosion from development, urban
runoff, waste disposal from vessels,
and spills.

Ground  Water Quality

    The Virgin Islands' ground
water is contaminated with bacte-
ria, saltwater, and volatile organic
compounds. Septic tanks, leaking
municipal sewer lines, and sewage
bypasses contaminate ground water
with bacteria. Overpumping of
aquifers causes saltwater intrusion.
VOC contamination is due to
underground storage tanks and
indiscriminate discharges of waste
oil.
176

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    The Territorial Pollution
Discharge Elimination System
(TPDES) requires permits for all
point source discharges, but not all
permitted facilities are in compli-
ance with their permit require-
ments. During the 1992-1993
reporting period, the Division of
Environmental Protection brought
four major violators into compli-
ance. The Virgin Islands is also
developing new regulations for
citing and constructing onsite
sewage disposal systems and advo-
cating best management practices
in the Revised Handbook for
Homebuilders and Developers.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    The Ambient Monitoring
Program performs quarterly sam-
pling at 64 fixed stations around St.
Croix, 57 stations around St.
Thomas, and 19 stations around St.
John. Samples are analyzed for fecal
coliforms, turbidity, dissolved
oxygen, and temperature. Twenty
stations on St. Croix were also sam-
pled for phosphorus, nitrogen, and
suspended solids. Intensive studies,
which include biological sampling,
are conducted at selected sites that
may be affected by coastal develop-
ment.  The Virgin Islands does not
monitor bacteria in shellfish waters
or toxics in fish, water, or sediment.
          Overall9 Use Support in Virgin Islands
                                             Percent
                          Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
                           (Fully     Good    (Partially     (Not      (Not
                         Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 5.9)
                          62
                                                       11
       : Shoreline  (Total Miles = 173)
a Overall use support is presented in this figure because the Virgin Islands did not report indi-
 vidual use support in their 1994 Section 305(b) report.
NOTE: The Virgin Islands report that there are no perennial streams or significant lakes under
     their jurisdiction.
                                                                                                          177

-------
Washington
      Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
   For a copy of the Washington 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Steve Butkus
   Washington Department of Ecology
   P.O. Box 47600
   Oiympia,WA 98504-7600
   (360) 407-6482
Surface Water Quality

   Washington reports that 18%
of their surveyed river miles fully
support aquatic life uses, 22%
partially support these uses, and
60% do not support aquatic life
uses. In lakes, 35% of the surveyed
acres fully support aquatic life uses,
and 65% do not support aquatic
life uses. Thirty-two percent of the
surveyed estuarine waters fully sup-
port aquatic life uses, 24% partially
support these uses, and 44% do
not support aquatic life uses.
    Low levels of dissolved oxygen,
often naturally occurring, are the
major cause of impairment of desig-
nated uses in estuaries. Bacterial
contamination, primarily from agri-
cultural runoff, onsite wastewater
disposal, and municipal wastewater
treatment plants, also causes
impairment in estuaries. Major
causes of impairment in lakes
include nutrients,  pesticides, silta-
tion, flow alteration, and low dis-
solved oxygen. Agricultural produc-
tion is the predominant source of
impairment in lakes. Other sources
include urban runoff, land disposal,
septic tanks, and natural sources. In
rivers and streams, agriculture is the
major source of water quality
degradation,  followed by industrial
point sources and hydro-habitat
modification. Causes of water quali-
ty impairment from these sources
include thermal modification,
pathogen indicators, and ammonia.

Ground Water Quality

    The highest priority ground
water issues in Washington are
nitrates, pesticides, and other agri-
cultural chemicals from fertilizer
applications, pesticide applications,
and septic tanks.
178

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Washington provides financial
incentives to encourage compliance
with permit requirements, the prin-
cipal vehicle for regulating point
source discharges. The State also
has extensive experience develop-
ing, funding,  and implementing
nonpoint source pollution preven-
tion and control programs since the
early 1970s. The State has devel-
oped nonpoint source control plans
with best management practices
for forest practices, dairy waste, irri-
gated agriculture, dryland agricul-
ture, and urban stormwater. The
State is now focusing attention on
watershed planning. Efforts are cur-
rently geared toward prioritizing
watersheds and developing com-
prehensive plans for the priority
watersheds.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Washington implements an
aggressive program to monitor the
quality of lakes,  estuaries, and rivers
and streams. The program makes
use of fixed-station monitoring to
track spatial and temporal water
quality changes so as to ascertain
the effectiveness of various water
quality programs and be able to
identify desirable adjustments to
the programs.
a A subset of Washington's designated uses
 appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
 305(b) report for a full description of the
 State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
 and do not flow all year.
          Individual Use Support in Washington
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
Rivers and Streams  (Total Miles = 73,886)
               Total Miles
               Surveyed
J_akes_(TotaI Acres = 466,296)
J§StUj3ries_ (Total Square Miles = 2,943)
                                                                                                         179

-------
West Virginia
      Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For information about water quality
   in West Virginia, contact:

   Mike Arcuri
   West Virginia Division of
     Environmental Protection
   Office of Water Resources
   1201 Greenbrier Street
   Charleston, WV 25311
   (304)558-2108
Surface Water Quality

    West Virginia reported that 42%
of their surveyed river and stream
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses, and
75% fully support swimming. In
lakes, 32% of the surveyed acres
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses and 100%
fully support swimming.
    Metals and siltation are the
most common water quality prob-
lems in West Virginia's rivers and
lakes. Fecal coliforms and acidity
also impair a large number of river
miles. In lakes, oxygen-depleting
substances, acidity, nutrients, and
algal blooms also impair a signifi-
cant number of acres. Coal mining
impaired the most stream miles,
followed by municipal point sources
and agriculture. Coal mining was
also the leading source of degraded
water quality in lakes, followed by
forestry and agriculture.
    West Virginia reported that fish
consumption advisories are posted
for the Kanawha River, Pocatalico
River, Armour Creek, Ohio River,
Shenandoah River, North Branch of
the Potomac River, the Potomac
River, and Flat Fork Creek. Five of
the advisories were issued because
of elevated dioxin concentrations in
bottom feeders. The other advis-
ories address PCBs and chlordane in
suckers, carp, and channel catfish.

Ground  Water Quality

    West Virginia ranked mining
and mine drainage as the highest
priority source of ground water
contamination in the State, fol-
lowed by municipal  landfills, surface
water impoundments (including oil
and gas brine pits), abandoned
hazardous waste sites, and industri-
al landfills. West Virginia  has docu-
mented or suspects that ground
water has been contaminated by
pesticides, petroleum compounds,
other organic chemicals, bacteria,
nitrates, brine/salinity, arsenic, and
other metals.
180

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    No information was available
from the State.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    No information was available
from the State.
         Individual Use Support in West Virginia
                                          Percent
Designated Use3
 Good             Fair     Poor    Poor
  (Fully     GOOd   (Partially    (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
       and Streams (Total wines = 32,278)
                                            49
                                        6S  (Total Acres = 21,523)
                                    a A subset of West Virginia's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
                                     report for a full description of the State's uses.
                                    blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                       181

-------
 Wisconsin
      Basin Boundaries
      (USCS 6-Dkjit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Wisconsin 1994
   305(b) report, contact:
   Meg Turville-Heitz
   Wisconsin Department of Natural
     Resources
   P.O. Box 7921
   Madison, Wl 53707
   (608)266-0152
Surface Water Quality

    The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) found
that 78% of the surveyed river
miles fully support aquatic life uses,
2% support these uses now but are
threatened, 14% partially support
aquatic life uses, and 6% do not
support aquatic life uses. WDNR
believes that the survey process
underestimated the number of
threatened river miles. The most
prevalent problems in rivers are
habitat and flow alterations, silta-
tion, excessive nutrients, and
oxygen-depleting substances. The
sources of these problems are often
polluted runoff, especially in agri-
cultural areas, and river modifica-
tions, such as ditching, straighten-
ing, and the loss of wetlands along-
side streams. Wastewater discharges
also moderately impair more than
1,000 miles of streams.
   About 57% of the surveyed
lake acres fully support aquatic life
uses, 3% support these uses but are
threatened, 15% partially support
these uses, and 25% do  not sup-
port  aquatic life uses. The primary
source of lake degradation is depo-
sition of airborne pollutants, espe-
cially mercury, and polluted runoff.
All of Wisconsin's Great Lakes'
shoreline partially supports fish con-
sumption use due to fish consump-
tion advisories posted throughout
the Great Lakes. Bacteria from
urban runoff also impair swimming
along 60 miles of shoreline.

Ground  Water Quality

   The primary sources of ground
water contamination in Wisconsin
are agricultural activities, municipal
landfills, leaking underground stor-
age tanks, abandoned hazardous
waste sites, and spills. Other sources
include septic tanks and  land appli-
cation of wastewater. Nitrate-
nitrogen is the most common
ground water contaminant. Nitrates
come from fertilizers, animal waste
storage sites and feedlots, municipal
and industrial wastewater and
sludge disposal, refuse disposal
areas, and leaking septic systems.
182

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    WDNR is integrating multiple
agencies, programs, interests, and
jurisdictions in an "ecosystem
approach" that looks at all parts of
the ecosystem when addressing
water quality—the land that drains
to the waterbody, the air above it,
the plants, animals, and people
using it. Since the 1970s, WDNR
has prepared water quality man-
agement plans for each of the
State's river basins that summarize
the condition of waters in each
basin, identify improvements and
needs, and make recommendations
for cleanup or protection. WDNR
updates the plans every 5 years and
uses the plans to rank watersheds
for priority projects under the
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program and
to address wastewater discharge
concerns.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    In 1992, Wisconsin implement-
ed a surface water monitoring strat-
egy to support river basin planning.
The strategy integrates monitoring
and management activities in each
of the State's river basins on the
5-year basin planning schedule. In
recent years, Wisconsin has placed
more emphasis on monitoring pol-
luted runoff and toxic substances in
bottom sediments and tissues of
fish and wildlife.
           Individual Use Support in Wisconsin
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor    Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
            •gtreams:. (Total Miles = 57,698)°
               Total Miles     78
               Surveyed
                                                               <1
                                             NA       NA       NA
        (total Acres—982,163)
  resit Lakes (Total Miles = 1,017)
                                     NA = Not applicable because use is not designated in State standards.
                                     a A subset of Wisconsin's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
                                      for a full description of the State's uses.
                                     blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                          183

-------
 Wyoming
   — Fully Supporting
   — Threatened
   — Partially Supporting
   	Not Supporting
   	Not Assessed
   —• Basin Boundaries
      (USGS 6-DIgit Hydrologlc Unit)
   Note: The Powder River Basin was selected for illustration based
   on its high percentage of assessed waters.
   For a copy of the Wyoming 1996
   305(b) report, contact:
   Beth Pratt
   Wyoming Department of
      Environmental Quality
   Water Quality Division
   Herschler Building
   122 West 25th Street
   Cheyenne, WY  82002
   (307) 777-7079
Surface Water Quality

    Of the 6,091 river miles sur-
veyed, 13% fully support aquatic
life uses, 22% fully support these
uses now but are threatened, 63%
partially support aquatic life uses,
and 2% do not support aquatic life
uses. The most widespread prob-
lems in rivers and streams are silta-
tion and sediment, nutrients, total
dissolved solids and salinity, flow
alterations, and habitat alterations.
The most prevalent sources of
water quality problems in rivers
and streams are rangeland, natural
sources, irrigated cropland,
 pastureland, and construction of
 highways, roads, and bridges.
    In lakes, 31 % of the surveyed
 acres fully support aquatic life uses,
 47%  partially support these uses,
 and 22% do not support aquatic
 life uses. The leading problems in
 lakes  are low dissolved oxygen con-
 centrations and organic enrich-
 ment, nutrients, sediment and silta-
 tion, other inorganic substances,
 and metals. The most prevalent
 sources  of water quality problems in
 lakes  are natural sources,  rangeland,
 irrigated cropland, flow regulation,
 and municipal sewage treatment
 plants.
    The State's water quality survey
 is designed to identify water quality
 problems, so it is reasonable to
 assume  that most of the unassessed
 waters are not impacted.  However,
 the State lacks definitive informa-
 tion to that effect.

 Ground Water Quality

    Some aquifers in Wyoming
 have naturally high levels of fluo-
 ride, selenium, and radionuclides.
 Petroleum products and nitrates are
 the most common pollutants in
 Wyoming's ground water, and leak-
 ing underground storage  tanks are
 the most numerous source of con-
 tamination. Other sources include
 uranium and trona mineral mining,
 agricultural activities, mill  tailings,
 spills,  landfills, commercial and
 industrial sumps, septic tank leach-
fields, wastewater disposal ponds at
coal-fired power plants and other
 industrial sites, and commercial
oilfield disposal pits.
184

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Wyoming requires discharger
permits and construction permits
for all wastewater treatment facili-
ties. The Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ) reviews
proposed plans and specifications
to ensure that plants  meet mini-
mum design criteria.  Wyoming's
nonpoint source  program is a non-
regulatory program that promotes
better management practices for all
land use activities, including graz-
ing, timber harvesting, and hydro-
logic modifications.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Wyoming is currently monitor-
ing reference stream  sites around
the State in order to define charac-
teristics of relatively undisturbed
streams in each ecoregion. The
State is sampling chemical and
biological parameters, such as dis-
solved oxygen, nutrients,  aquatic
insect species composition, species
abundance, and  habitat conditions
at the candidate  reference stream
sites.  Once established, the refer-
ence site conditions will serve as the
basis for assessing other streams in
the same ecoregion or subecore-
gion. Wyoming will use the refer-
ence  conditions to establish a
volunteer biological monitoring
program.
           Individual Use Support in Wyoming
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
jRiyers grid Streams  (Totali Miles = H3,422)b
               Total Miles
               Surveyed
                4,284
                           13
                           93
                 4,128
 Lakes ([Total Apres = 372,309)
               Total Acres
               Surveyed
                114,149
                           100
                99,469
- Not reported.
a A subset of Wyoming's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
 for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                         185

-------
186

-------
Tribal  Summaries
      This section provides individual
  summaries of the water quality sur-
  vey data reported by six American
  Indian Tribes in their 1994 Section
  305(b) reports. Tribal participation
  in the Section  305(b) process grew
  from two Tribes in 1992 to six
  Tribes during the 1994 reporting
  cycle, but Tribal water quality
  remains unrepresented in this
  report for the hundreds of other
  Tribes established throughout the
  country. Many of the other Tribes
  are in the process of developing
  water quality programs and stand-
  ards but have  not yet submitted a
  Section 305(b) report. As Tribal
  water quality programs become
  established, EPA expects Tribal
  participation in the Section 305(b)
  process to increase rapidly. To
  encourage Tribal participation, EPA
  has sponsored water quality moni-
  toring and assessment training ses-
  sions at Tribal  locations, prepared
  streamlined 305(b) reporting guide-
  lines for Tribes that wish to partici-
  pate in the process, and published
  a brochure, Knowing Our Waters:
  Tribal Reporting Under Section
  305(b). EPA hopes that subsequent
  reports to Congress will contain
  more information about water
  quality on Tribal lands.



                                                                                                   187

-------
 Campo  Indian  Reservation
   For a copy of the Campo Indian
   Reservation 1994 305(b) report,
   contact:

   Stephen W. Johnson
   Michael L Connolly
   Campo Environmental Protection
     Agency
   36190 Church Road, Suite #4
   Campo, CA  91906
   (619)478-9369
                                           Location of Reservation
Surface Water Quality

   The Campo Indian Reservation
covers 24.2 square miles in south-
eastern San Diego County, Cali-
fornia. The Campo Indian Reserva-
tion has 31 miles of intermittent
streams, 80 acres of freshwater
wetlands, and 10 lakes with a
combined surface area of 3.5 acres.
   The natural water quality of
Tribal streams, lakes, and wetlands
ranges from good to excellent.
There are no point source dis-
charges within or upstream of the
Reservation, but grazing livestock
have degraded streams, lakes, and
wetlands with manure containing
fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients,
and organic wastes. Livestock also
trample streambeds and riparian
habitats. Septic tanks and construc-
tion also threaten water quality.

Ground Water Quality

    Ground water supplies 100%
of the domestic water consumed on
the Campo Indian Reservation.
Nitrate and bacteria from nonpoint
sources occasionally exceed drink-
ing water standards in some
domestic wells. The proximity of
individual septic systems to drinking
water wells poses a human health
risk because Reservation soils do not
have good purification properties.
Elevated iron and manganese levels
may be due to  natural weathering
of geologic materials.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

   The Campo Environmental
Protection Agency (CERA) has
authority to administer three Clean
Water Act programs. The Section
106 Water Pollution Control
Program  supports infrastructure,
the 305(b) assessment process, and
development of a Water Quality
Management Plan. The Tribe is
inventorying its wetlands with
funding from the Section 104(b)(3)
State Wetlands  Protection Program.
The Tribe has used funding from
188

-------
the Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Program to stabilize stream banks,
construct sediment retention
structures, and fence streams and
riparian zones to exclude livestock.
CEPA will promulgate water quality
standards in 1995 that will establish
beneficial uses, water quality crite-
ria, and antidegradation provisions
for all Tribal waters.
    In 1994, the General Council
passed a resolution to suspend
cattle grazing on the Reservation
for at least 2 years and to concur-
rently restore degraded recreational
water resources by creating fishing
and swimming ponds for Tribal use.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    Streams, wetlands, and lakes on
Tribal lands were not monitored
until CEPA initiated its Water Pollu-
tion Control Program in 1992.
Following EPA approval of CEPA's
Quality Assurance Project Plan in
May 1993, CEPA conducted short-
term intensive surveys to meet the
information needs of the 305(b)
assessment process. Based on  the
results of the 1994 305(b) assess-
ment, CEPA will develop a long-
term surface water monitoring pro-
gram for implementation in 1995.
CEPA will consider including biolog-
ical monitoring, physical and chem-
ical monitoring, monthly bacterial
monitoring in lakes, toxicity testing,
and fish tissue monitoring in its
monitoring program.
             Individual Use Support in Campo
                       Indian Reservation
                                             Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair      Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)   Attainable)
||iyfrs anc^Streams (Toja|iivjiies =
               Total Miles
               Assessed

                  22
                                             100
                               0       0
                          100
                                                        0       0
                                             100
                  16
                               0       0
        (total Acres = 3.5)

15^
Total Acres
Assessed
aA subset of Campo Indian Reservation's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
 Tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                          189

-------
Coyote Valley Reservation
      Location of Reservation
  For a copy of the Coyote Valley
  Reservation 1994 305(b) report,
  contact:

  jean Hunt or Eddie Knight
  The Coyote Valley Reservation
  P.O. Box 39
  Redwood Valley, CA 95470
   Fully Supporting
   Threatened
— Partially Supporting
— Not Supporting
—• Not Assessed
—• Basin Boundaries
   (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
Surface Water Quality

    The Coyote Valley Band of the
Pomo Indians is a federally recog-
nized Indian Tribe, living on a
57-acre parcel of land in Mendo-
cino County, California. Segments
of the Russian River and Forsythe
Creek flow past the Reservation,
although flow diminishes in the
summer and fall. Fishing, recrea-
tion, and religion are important
uses for surface waters within the
Reservation.
    Currently, the Tribe is con-
cerned about bacteria contamina-
tion in the Russian River, potential
contamination of Forsythe Creek
from a malfunctioning septic
system leachfield, and habitat
modifications in both streams that
impact aquatic life. Past gravel
mining operations removed gravel
spawning beds, altered flow, and
created very steep banks. In the
past, upstream mining also elevated
turbidity in Forsythe Creek. The
Tribe is also concerned about a
potential trend of increasing pH
values and high water temperatures
in Forsythe Creek during the
summer.

Ground Water Quality

    The Coyote Valley Reservation
contains three known wells, but
only two wells are operable, and
only one well is in use. The old
shallow irrigation well (Well  A) was
abandoned because it went dry
after the gravel mining operation
on Forsythe Creek lowered the
water table. Well B, located  adja-
cent to Forsythe Creek, is used to
irrigate a walnut orchard. Well C,
located on a ridge next to the
Reservation's housing units,  is not
in use due to severe iron and taste
problems. Sampling also detected
high levels of barium, total dis-
solved solids, manganese, and con-
ductivity in Wells B and C. How-
ever, samples from Well B did not
contain organic chemicals, pesti-
cides, or nitrate in detectable
190

-------
amounts. Human waste contamina-
tion from septic systems may pose
the greatest threat to ground water
quality.

Programs to Restore
Water Qualify

   Codes and ordinances for the
Reservation will be established to
create a Water Quality and Man-
agement Program for the Reserva-
tion. With codes in place, the
Coyote Valley Tribal Council will
gain the authority to restrain the
discharge of pollutants that could
endanger the Reservation water
supply and affect the health and
welfare of its people, as well as
people in the adjacent communi-
ties.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

   The Tribal Water Quality Mana-
ger will design a monitoring system
with assistance from environmental
consultants. The Water Quality
Manager will sample a temporary
monitoring station on Forsythe
Creek and a proposed sampling
station on the Russian River every
month. A fisheries biologist will
survey habitat on the rivers every
other year, as funding permits.
             Individual Use Support in Coyote
                      Valley Reservation
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
                       (Total Mites = 0.56)b
aA subset of Coyote Valley Reservation's designated uses appear in this figure.
 Refer to the Tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                        191

-------
Gila  River  Indian  Community
  —• Basin Boundaries
  	Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams
  •""" Irrigation Canals
   For a copy of the Gila River Indian
   Community 1994 305(b) report,
   contact:
   Errol Blackwater
   Gila River Indian Community
   Water Quality Planning Office
   Comer of Pima and Main Streets
   Sacaton,AZ 85247
   (602) 562-3203
Surface Water Quality

   The Gila River Indian Commu-
nity occupies 580 square miles in
Central Arizona adjacent to the
metropolitan Phoenix area. About
8,500 members of the Pima and
Maricopa Tribes live in 22 small
villages inside the Community. The
Gila River is the major surface water
feature in the Community, but its
flow is interrupted by upstream
diversions outside of the Commu-
nity. Arid conditions and little
vegetative cover cause sudden
runoff with high suspended sedi-
ment loads.
   Surface water was evaluated
with qualitative information due to
the lack of  monitoring data. Most
of the Community's surface waters
have fair water quality that partially
supports designated uses because
of turbidity, siltation, salinity, and
metals loading from rangeland,
agriculture, irrigation return flows,
and upstream mining. Information
was not available for assessing
effects of toxic contaminants and
acid rain. There is no information
about water quality conditions in
wetlands.

Ground Water Quality

   Community ground water qual-
ity generally complies with EPA's
Maximum  Contaminant Levels, but
concentrations of total dissolved
solids often exceed recommended
concentrations. However, members
of the Community have either
adjusted to the aesthetic problem
of high dissolved solids or begun
purchasing bottled water, as have
other ground water users in the
metropolitan Phoenix area. Occa-
sionally, concentrations of coliform
bacteria, nitrates, and fluoride
exceed recommended criteria in
isolated wells. Pathogens from
onsite sewage disposal systems
have been  detected in ground
water and pose the primary public
health concern. Other concerns
include salinity and pesticides from
192

-------
large-scale agriculture and potential
fuel or solvent leaks.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    The Gila River Indian Commu-
nity needs a comprehensive water
quality protection program, espe-
cially as nearby urban growth and
agricultural expansion create addi-
tional pollution and place new
demands on aquatic resources. As a
first step, the Community's Water
Quality Planning Office intends to
address point sources of pollution
through a Ground Water Protection
Strategy. The Strategy will seek to
eliminate all discharges that could
reach ground water or require rapid
mitigation if a discharge cannot be
avoided. Principles of Arizona's
Aquifer Protection Permit Program
may serve as a basis for the
Community's Strategy, but the
Strategy will be streamlined and
simple to implement. The Strategy
may include technology-based or
standards-based protocols for facili-
ties and conditions for land use
permits.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    The Community needs moni-
toring programs for ground water,
surface water, and wetlands in
order to assess use support and to
support a water pollution control
program.
           Individual Use Support in Gila River
                      Indian Community
                                            Percent
Designated Use8
   Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
    (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
  Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)

(Total Miles = 196)b
               Total Miles
               Assessed

                 196
 Lakes (Total Acres = 153)
                               69
                      31
                                                      69
                                             31
                                             18
                  153
                  153
- Not reported.
aA subset of Gila River Indian Community's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
 Community's 305(b) report for a full description of the Community's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                         193

-------
 Hoopa  Valley  Indian  Reservation
       Location of
       Reservation
   For a copy of the Hoopa Valley
   Indian Reservation 1994 305(b)
   report, contact

   Colleen Goff
   P.O. Box 1314
   Hoopa, CA  95546
   (916)625-4275
              	Not Assessed
              — Not Supporting
              — Partially Supporting
              — Supporting
Surface Water Quality

   The Hoopa Valley Indian
Reservation covers almost 139
square miles in Humboldt County
in northern California. The Reserva-
tion contains 133 miles of rivers
and streams, including a section of
the Trinity River, and 3,200 acres of
wetlands. The Reservation does not
contain any lakes.
   Surface waters on the Reserva-
tion appear to be free of toxic
organic chemicals, but poor forest
management practices and mining
operations, both on and off the
Reservation, have caused significant
siltation that has destroyed gravel
spawning beds. Water diversions,
including the damming of the
Trinity River above the Reservation,
have also stressed the fishery by
lowering stream volume and flow
velocity. Low flows raise water tem-
peratures and reduce flushing of
accumulated silt in the gravel beds.
Upstream dams also stop gravel
from moving downstream to
replace excavated gravel. Elevated
fecal coliform concentrations also
impair drinking water use on the
Reservation.

Ground Water Quality

   Ground water sampling
revealed elevated concentrations of
lead, cadmium, manganese,  iron,
and fecal coliforms in some wells.
The Tribe is concerned about
potential contamination of ground
water from leaking underground
storage tanks, septic system leach-
fields, and abandoned hazardous
waste sites with documented soil
contamination. These sites contain
dioxins, herbicides, nitrates, PCBs,
metals, and other toxic organic
chemicals. The Tribe's environmen-
tal consultants are designing  a
ground water sampling program to
monitor potential threats to ground
water.
194

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    In 1990, EPA approved the
Hoopa Valley Tribe's application for
treatment as a State under the
Section 106 Water Pollution Control
Program of the Clean Water Act.
Following  approval, the Tribe
received Section 106 funding to
conduct a Water Quality Planning
and Management Program on the
Reservation. The Tribal Water Qual-
ity Manager is developing water
quality criteria for the Reservation,
with the help of environmental con-
sultants. The proposed criteria will
be reviewed by the Hoopa Valley
Planning Department and the Tribal
Council.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    In June of 1992, the Tribal Plan-
ning Office and its hired consultants
sampled eight surface water sites
and six ground water sites. The
Tribe measured different pollutants
at each site, depending on the sur-
rounding land use activities, includ-
ing conventional pollutants, toxic
organic pollutants, metals, and fecal
coliforms.  The Tribe plans to estab-
lish fixed monitoring sites in the
near future, which will complement
ongoing biological monitoring con-
ducted by the Hoopa Valley Fisher-
ies Department on the Trinity  River.
         Individual Use  Support in Hoopa Valley
                       Indian Reservation
                                            Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor    Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
fflvers arid Streams (Total Miles =• I33)b
•Sc^tify*,*^,^^^*-^^'^^-^;^-^ x.****:**^^ •<„..- •„ ..•=.'.,.,, .,± ,,,/*.-„
                           100
                  77
                           100
                  77
                                     0

                                    67
                  77
                           12
                                             21
            {Total Acres = 3,200)
               Total Acres
               Assessed

                 3,200
                                             100
                                             100
                                                      3,200
                                     - Not reported.
                                     a A subset of Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
                                      Tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
                                     blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                          195

-------
 Hopi  Tribe
   For a copy of the Hopi Tribe's
   1994 305(b) report, contact:

   Phillip Tuwaletstiwa
   The Hopi Tribe
   Water Resources Program
   Box 123
   Kykotsmobi, AZ 86039
   (520) 734-9307
Surface Water Quality

    The 2,439-square-mile Hopi
Reservation, located in northeastern
Arizona, is bounded on all sides by
the Navajo Reservation. Surface
water on the Hopi Reservation
consists primarily of intermittent or
ephemeral streams. Only limited
data regarding stream  quality are
available. The limited data indicate
that some stream reaches may be
deficient in oxygen, although this
conclusion has not been verified by
repeat monitoring.
    In addition to the intermittent
and ephemeral washes and streams,
surface water on the Hopi Reserva-
tion occurs as springs where
ground water discharges as seeps
along washes or through fractures
and joints within sandstone forma-
tions. The Hopi Tribe assessed 18
springs in 1992 and 1993. The
assessment revealed that several
springs had one or more exceed-
ances of nitrate, selenium, total
coliform, or fecal coliform. The pri-
mary potential sources of surface
water contamination on the Hopi
Reservation include mining activities
outside of the Reservation, livestock
grazing, domestic refuse, and
wastewater lagoons.

Ground Water Quality

    In general, ground water qual-
ity on the Hopi Reservation is good.
Ground water from the N-aquifer
provides drinking water of excellent
quality to most of the Hopi villages.
The D-aquifer, sandstones of the
Mesaverde Group, and alluvium
also provide ground water to shal-
low stock and domestic wells, but
the quality of the water from these
sources is generally of poorer qual-
ity than the water supplied by the
N-aquifer.
    Mining activities outside of the
Reservation are the most significant
threat to the N-aquifer. Extensive
pumping at the Peabody Coal
Company Black Mesa mine may
induce leakage of poorer quality
D-aquifer water into the N-aquifer.
This potential problem is being
196

-------
investigated under an ongoing
monitoring program conducted by
the U.S. Geological Survey. In addi-
tion, the U.S. Department of Energy
is investigating ground water
impacts from abandoned uranium
tailings at Tuba City. Other poten-
tial sources of contamination in
shallow wells include domestic
refuse, underground storage tanks,
livestock grazing, wastewater
lagoons, and septic tanks.         ,

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    Draft water quality standards
(including an antidegradation pol-
icy) were prepared for the Tribe in
1993. The Tribe is also reviewing a
proposed general maintenance pro-
gram to control sewage lagoons.
The Tribe has repeatedly applied for
EPA grants to investigate nonpoint
source pollution on the Reservation,
but the applications were denied.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    The Tribe focused on monitor-
ing springs and ground water
during the 1994 reporting cycle.
Future surface water monitoring
will assess aquatic life in springs,
lakes, and streams; baseflow and
storm flow in streams; and biolog-
ical, sediment, and chemical
content of streams and springs.
      Individual Use Support in Hopi Reservation
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)   Attainable)
 livers and Streams (Total Miles = 280)b
  pnngs (Total Number = 175)
                                    - Not reported.
                                    aA subset of the Hopi Tribe's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Tribe's 305(b)
                                     report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
                                    blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                        197

-------
 Soboba  Band  of  Mission  Indians
      Reservation Boundaries
   For a copy of the Soboba Band of
   Mission Indians 1994 305(b) report,
   contact:

   Jamie S. Megee
   Soboba Band of Mission Indians
   P.O. Box 487
   San Jacinto, CA 92581
   (909) 654-2765
Surface Water Quality

   The Soboba Reservation
encompasses about 9.2 square
miles in southern California about
80 miles east of Los Angeles. The
San Jacinto River is the major sur-
face water feature on the Reserva-
tion. At one time,  the San Jacinto
River flowed year-round, but
upstream diversions and ground
 water withdrawals outside of the
 Reservation have reduced the flow
 to intermittent status for many
 years.
    The chemical quality of surface
 water on the Soboba Reservation is
 excellent and remains unimpaired
 to date, based on very limited data.
 The quality of surface water, to the
 extent it is available, fully supports
 the existing uses of ground water
3 recharge,  wildlife habitat, and
 recreation. Overall, the greatest
 threat to water quality on the
 Soboba Reservation is the reduction
 of surface flows and ground water
 storage by off-Reservation diver-
 sions and  pumping.

 Ground Water Quality

    Three major water supply wells
 extract  water from two aquifers on
 the Soboba Reservation. Ground
 water overdraft outside the Reserva-
 tion has seriously reduced the with-
 drawal capacity of the Reservation's
 wells and  aquifers. The chemical
 quality of ground water on the
 Soboba Reservation is excellent and
 remains unimpaired to date. The
 single most critical threat to water
 quality is a proposal by the Eastern
 Municipal Water District to routine-
 ly recharge treated effluent at a site
 within 600 feet of an  existing
 Soboba well.
198

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    There are no formal water pol-
lution control programs in place on
the Reservation. However, the Band
has achieved compliance with EPA
monitoring and treatment require-
ments for its domestic ground
water supply system and the Band
is considering development of a
wellhead protection program. In
addition, the Band is seeking assist-
ance from EPA under the Indian
Environmental General Assistance
Program to educate the Band
about water quality issues, establish
water resource protection ordi-
nances, and undertake other water
protection initiatives.
    The Soboba Band is continuing
its struggle to assert and defend its
water rights. The Soboba Band has
started negotiating with the major
water users outside of the Reserva-
tion to fairly apportion the waters
of the basin. Nondegradation of
water quality will be a basic ele-
ment of the Band's position in these
negotiations.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    The Band advocates sharing
and cooperative analysis of data on
the hydrology and water quality of
the San Jacinto  watershed to facili-
tate water rights negotiations. This
affirmative approach to water
resource management should lead
to a systematic, integrated water
quality monitoring  program for the
basin that will benefit all users.
         Individual Use Support in Soboba Band
                      of Mission Indians
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)   Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles =7
               Total Miles
               Assessed

                 2.9
                 2.9
                 7.4
                          100
                          100
                          100
aA subset of Soboba Band of Mission Indians' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
 Band's 305(b) report for a full description of the Band's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                        199

-------
200

-------
Interstate Commission Summaries
     Interstate Commissions provide
  a forum for joint administration of
  large waterbodies that flow through
  or border multiple States and other
  jurisdictions, such as the Ohio River
  and the Delaware River and Estua-
  rine System. Each Commission has
  its own set of objectives and proto-
  cols, but the Commissions share a
  cooperative framework that
  embodies many of the principles
  advocated by EPA's watershed
  management approach. For exam-
  ple, Interstate Commissions can
  examine and address factors
  throughout the basin that con-
  tribute to water quality problems
  without facing obstacles imposed
  by political boundaries. The infor-
  mation presented here summarizes
  the data submitted by four Inter-
  state Commissions in their 1994
  Section 305(b) reports.
                                                                                     201

-------
 Delaware  River  Basin  Commission
                        J  'N''
                       /Washington, D.C.
     Boski Boundaries
     (USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Delaware River
   Basin Commission 1994 305(b)
   report; contact:

   Robert Kausch
   Delaware River Basin Commission
   P.O. Box 7360
   West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360
   (609) 883-9500, ext. 252
Surface Water Quality

   The Delaware River Basin covers
portions of Delaware, New jersey,
New York, and Pennsylvania. The
Delaware River system consists of a
207-mile freshwater segment, an
85-mile tidal reach, and the Dela-
ware Bay. Nearly 8 million people
reside in the Basin, which is also the
home of numerous industrial facili-
ties and the port facilities of Phila-
delphia, Camden, and Wilmington.
   All of the riverine waters and
94% of the estuarine waters in the
Basin have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses.
Three percent of the riverine waters
do not support fish consumption
and 2% have fair quality that par-
tially supports swimming. In estuar-
ine waters, poor water quality
impairs shellfishing in 29% of the
surveyed waters. Low dissolved
oxygen concentrations and toxic
contaminants in sediment degrade
portions of the lower tidal river and
estuary. Fecal coliform bacteria and
high pH values impair a few miles
of the Delaware River. As of April
1994, fish consumption advisories
were posted on about 6 miles of
the Delaware River and 22 square
miles of the tidal river, cautioning
the public to restrict consumption
of channel catfish, white perch, and
American eels contaminated with
PCBs and chlordane.
   In general, water quality has
improved since the 1992 305(b)
assessment period. Tidal river oxy-
gen levels were higher during the
critical summer period, residues of
toxic chemicals in fish and shellfish
declined, and populations of impor-
tant fish species (such as striped
bass and American shad) increased
during the 1994 assessment period.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

   For many years, the Delaware
River Basin Commission and the
surrounding States have implement-
ed an aggressive program to reduce
202

-------
point source discharges of oxygen-
depleting wastes and other pollut-
ants. These programs will continue,
in addition to new efforts to deter-
mine the role of stormwater runoff.
The Commission also adopted new
Special Protection Waters regula-
tions to protect existing high water
quality in the upper reaches of the
nontidal river from the effects of
future population growth and
development. The Commission also
promotes a comprehensive water-
shed management approach to
coordinate several layers of govern-
mental regulatory programs
impacting the Delaware River Basin.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    The Commission conducts an
intensive monitoring  program
along the entire length  of the
Delaware River and Estuary. At least
a dozen parameters are sampled at
most stations, located about 7 miles
apart. The new Special Protection
Waters regulations require even
more sophisticated  monitoring and
modeling, such as biological moni-
toring and continuous water quality
monitoring. The  Combined Sewer
Overflow Study and the Toxics
Study will both require additional
specialized water quality analyses in
order to understand how and why
water quality is affected. New man-
agement programs will  very likely
require customized monitoring
programs.
               Individual Use Support in the
                     Delaware River Basin
                                           Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair     Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not       (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (total Miles = 206)
     aries .(Total Square Miles = 866)
              Total Square
             Miles Assessed
3 A subset of the Delaware River Basin Commission's designated uses appear in this figure.
 Refer to the Commission's 305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
                                                                                                        203

-------
 Interstate  Sanitation  Commission
    1 Basin Boundaries
     (USGS 6-Oigit Hydrologic Unit)
  For a copy of the Interstate Sanita-
  tion Commission 1994 305(b)
  report, contact:
  Howard Golub
  Interstate Sanitation Commission
  311 West 43rd Street
  New York, NY  10036
  (212)582-0380
Surface Water Quality

   Established in 1936 by Federal
mandate, the Interstate Sanitation
Commission (ISC) is a tristate envi-
ronmental agency of the States of
New Jersey, New York, and Con-
necticut. The Interstate Sanitation
District encompasses approximately
797 square miles of estuarine
waters in the Metropolitan Area
shared by the States, including the
Arthur Kill/Kill Van Kull, Lower
Hudson River, Newark Bay, Raritan
Bay, Sandy Hook Bay, and Upper
New York Bay.
   In general, water quality in the
District waters improved during the
1992-1993 reporting cycle.  Dis-
solved oxygen concentrations
increased and bacteria densities
decreased. The reduction in bacte-
ria is due to the Commission's year-
round disinfection regulations
(which took effect in 1986), and
the elimination of discharges receiv-
ing only primary treatment at
Middlesex and Hudson Counties.
   Topics of concern to the ISC
include compliance with ISC regula-
tipns, toxic contamination in Dis-
trict waters, pollution from com-
bined sewer overflows, closed shell-
fish waters, and wastewater treat-
ment capacity to handle growing
flows from major building projects.

Ground Water Quality

   The ISC's primary focus  is on
surface waters shared by the States
of New Jersey, New York, and
Connecticut.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

   The ISC actively participates in
the Long Island Sound Study, the
New York-New Jersey Harbor
Estuary Program (HEP), the New
York Bight Restoration Plan,  and the
Dredged Material Management
Plan for the Port of New York and
New Jersey. The ISC has represen-
tatives on the Management
204

-------
Committees and various work-
groups for each program. For the
HEP, the ISC organized a meeting
entitled "Current Beach Closure
Practices in New York, New jersey,
and Connecticut: Review and
Recommendations" in November
1993. Representatives of State,
county, and municipal health
departments and environmental
agencies were invited to discuss
bathing beach monitoring and
closure policies. The public and
environmental advocacy groups
were also invited. The ISC reported
the results to the HEP Pathogens
Work Group.
    During 1993, the ISC inspected
71 CSO outfalls in an effort to iden-
tify and eliminate all dry weather
discharges. The ISC notified the
States of dry weather discharges
detected during field investigations
and worked with the States to
eliminate dry weather discharges.

Programs to  Assess
Water Quality

    The ISC performs intensive
ambient water quality surveys and
samples effluent discharged by
publicly owned and private waste-
water treatment facilities and indus-
trial facilities into District water-
ways. By agreement, the ISC's efflu-
ent requirements are incorporated
into the individual  discharge per-
mits issued by the participating
States.
    Individual Use  Support in Interstate Sanitation
                      Commission Waters
                                             Percent
Designated Use3
 Good              Fair      Poor     Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened)  Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
Estuaries  (Total Square Miles = 72)

tc>
Total Miles
Assessed
aA subset of the Interstate Sanitation Commission's designated uses appear in this figure.
 Refer to the Commission's 305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
Note: All waters under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Sanitation Commission are estuarine.
                                                                                                          205

-------
 Ohio  River Valley Water  Sanitation
 Commission  (ORSANCO)
     Basin Boundaries
     (USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the ORSANCO 1994
   305(b) report, contact:

   Jason Heath
   ORSANCO
   5735 Kellogg Avenue
   Cincinnati, OH 45228-1112
   (513)231-7719
Surface Water Quality

   The Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
was established in 1948 by the
signing of the Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Compact by
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and West Virginia. ORSANCO is an
interstate agency with multiple
responsibilities that include
detecting interstate spills, develop-
ing waste treatment standards, and
monitoring and assessing the Ohio
River mainstem. The mainstem runs
981 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania, to Cairo, Illinois.
   The most common problems in
the Ohio River are PCB and chlor-
dane contamination in fish and
bacteria, pesticides, and metals in
the water column. The States have
issued fish consumption advisories
along the entire length of the Ohio
River based on ORSANCO data.
ORSANCO also suspects that com-
munity combined sewer overflows
along the entire length of the river
elevate bacteria levels and impair
swimming. ORSANCO detected
bacteria contamination at all seven
monitoring stations downstream of
major urban areas with a large
number of CSOs.
   Copper, lead, and zinc
exceeded criteria for protecting
warm water aquatic life in waters
near the Gallipolis-Huntington area,
Cincinnati, Louisville, and the Padu-
cah area. Acid mine drainage is a
suspected source of some metals in
the Ohio River.
   Public water supply use of the
Ohio River is impaired by 1,2-
dichloroethane near Paducah and
by atrazine near Louisville  and the
mouth of the River at Grand Chain,
Illinois. The extent of atrazine con-
tamination is unknown because few
sites are monitored for atrazine.

Ground Water Quality

   ORSANCO does not have juris-
diction over ground water in the
Ohio River Basin.
  NOTE: A more detailed account of water quality throughout the entire Ohio River Basin is presented in Section II.
206

-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality

    In 1992, an interagency work-
group developed a CSO program
for the Ohio River Basin with gener-
al recommendations to improve
coordination of State CSO strate-
gies. In 1993, ORSANCO added
requirements for CSOs to the Pollu-
tion Control Standards for the Ohio
River and the Commissioners adopt-
ed a strategy for monitoring CSO
impacts on Ohio  River quality. The
Commission also  established a
Nonpoint Source Pollution Abate-
ment Task Force composed of
ORSANCO Commissioners, repre-
sentatives from State NPS control
agencies, and representatives from
industries that generate NPS pollu-
tion.

Programs to Assess
Water Quality

    ORSANCO operates several
monitoring programs on the Ohio
River mainstem and several major
tributaries, including fixed-station
chemical sampling, daily sampling
of volatile organic chemicals at
water supply intakes, bacterial
monitoring, fish tissue sampling,
and fish community monitoring.
ORSANCO  uses the Modified Index
of Well Being (Mlwb)  to assess fish
community characteristics, such as
total biomass and species diversity.
               Individual Use Support in the
                   Ohio River Valley Basin
                                          Percent
Designated Usea
 Good             Fair     Poor    Poor
  (Fully     GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
Supporting)  (Threatened) Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
              treams (Total Miles = 37,600)b
aA subset of ORSANCO's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Commission's
 305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                      207

-------
 Susquehanna  River  Basin  Commission
                                           /- Location of Commission
                                                Jurisdiction
    1 Basin Boundaries
     (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
   For a copy of the Susquehanna
   River Basin Commission 1994
   30S(b) report, contact:
   Robert E. Edwards
   Susquehanna River Basin
     Commission
   Resource Quality Management
     and Protection
   1721 North Front Street
   Harrisburg, PA  17102-0423
   (717)238-0423
Surface Water Quality

   The Susquehanna River drains
27,510 square miles from parts of
New York, Pennsylvania, and
Maryland, and delivers over half of
the fresh water entering the Chesa-
peake Bay. The Susquehanna River
Basin Commission (SRBC) surveyed
17,464 miles of the 31,193 miles of
rivers and streams in the Susque-
hanna  River Basin. Over 90% of the
surveyed river miles fully support
designated uses, 4% partially
support uses, and 6% do not
support one or more designated
uses. Metals, low pH, and nutrients
are the primary causes of stream
impacts in the Basin. Coal mine
drainage is the source of most of
the metals and pH problems
degrading streams. Sources of nutri-
ents include municipal and domes-
tic wastev/ater discharges, agricul-
tural runoff, and ground water
inflow from agricultural areas.
   During past reporting cycles,
SRBC did not conduct any lake or
reservoir assessments. However, a
2-year project funded by EPA and
Pennsylvania should provide a foun-
dation of lake data upon which
SRBC can launch its lake assessment
program.

Ground Water Quality

   Ground water in the Basin  is
generally of adequate quality for
most uses. Many of the ground
water quality problems  in the Basin
are related to naturally dissolved
constituents (such as iron, sulfate,
and dissolved solids) from the geo-
logic unit from which the water
originates. The SRBC is concerned
about ground water contamination
from septic systems and agricultural
activities.

Programs to Restore
Water Quality

   The Susquehanna River Basin
Compact assigns primary responsi-
bility for water quality management
and control to the signatory States.
The SRBC's role is to provide a
208

-------
regional perspective for coordinat-
ing local, State, and Federal water
quality management efforts. For
example, the SRBC reviews pro-
posed discharge permits (issued by
the States) and evaluates potential
interstate and regional impacts. The
SRBC also recommends modifica-
tions to State water quality stand-
ards to improve consistency among
the States.

Programs  to Assess
Water Quality

    The SRBC's role in interstate
and regional issues shaped the
Commission's monitoring program.
The SRBC's fixed-station monitoring
network collects base flow data and
seasonal-storm nutrient data on the
Susquehanna mainstem and major
tributaries to assist the Chesapeake
Bay Program in evaluating nutrient
reduction projects. The SRBC also
established an  interstate stream
water quality network to evaluate
streams crossing State boundaries
for compliance with State water
quality standards.  Biological moni-
toring is conducted annually at
29 sites. The SRBC also conducts
intensive subregional surveys to
analyze regional water quality and
biological conditions.
                Overall3 Use Support in the
                  Susquehanna River Basin
                                            Percent
                         Good              Fair      Poor     Poor
                          (Fully      GOOd    (Partially     (Not      (Not
                        Supporting)  (Threatened) Supporting)  Supporting)  Attainable)
Rivers and Streams  (Total Mites = 3i,i93)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 79,687)
- Not reported.
a Overall use support is presented in this figure because the Commission did not report individ-
 ual use support in their 1994 Section 305(b) report.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
                                                                                                          209

-------

-------
                                                                           OMB Control No. 2090-0019
                                                                                  Expires on 10/31/97
                      What Do You Think About This Report?
    EPA constantly seeks to improve the content and presentation of information in the National Water
Quality Inventory Report to Congress. Your response to the following questions will help EPA tailor the
content and presentation of future reports to address your needs. Please pull out this page and return
your comments to the address on the reverse. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
                                                                        YES
1.  Are there additional topics that you would like to see covered
   in this document?
   Please list topics:	
          NO
          D
2. Are there topics that should be removed from this document?
   Please list topics:	
3. Was the organization of the report adequate?
   How could the organization be improved?
          n
4. In general, were the figures and graphics easy to understand?
   Which figures were most effective at conveying information to you?
n
5. Were there any figures that were difficult to understand?
   Please list figures: 	
6. Do you have any other suggestions for improving the content
   and presentation of information in this Report to Congress?

-------
                                                — second fold
                                      Barry Burgan
                                      National 305(b) Coordinator
                                      U.S.  EPA (4503F)
                                      401  M Street, SW
                                      Washington, DC 20460
                                                     first fold
Public reporting burden is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, gathering
information, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to: Director, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St., S.W., Washington, DC 20460. Include the OMB control number in
any correspondence. Do not send the completed questionnaire to this address.

-------
                                        Order Form

    Additional copies of this report and related water quality assessment documents can be ordered from the
National Center for Environmental Publication and Information (NCEPI) or accessed electronically on the
Internet through EPA's Water Information Network at http://www.epa.gov/OW/305b. To order hard copies,
please check the boxes beside the documents that you would like to order and return this form to the address
on the reverse, or fax this form to NCEPI at (513) 891 -6685. Due to limited supply, we can send you only one
copy of each publication. Allow 2 to 3 weeks for delivery.


r~|  The National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. EPA841 -R-95-005. December 1995.
—  The complete report containing discussions of water quality information submitted by States, Tribes,
     and other jurisdictions as well as full descriptions of EPA programs to maintain and restore water quality.
     (572 pages)

I—I  The National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress - Appendixes. EPA841 -R-95-006.
—  December 1995. This document contains the data tables used to generate the information presented in
     the 1994 Report to Congress.
     (216 pages)

I—I  The Quality of Our Nation's Water:  1994, Executive Summary of the National Water Quality
—  Inventory:  1994 Report to Congress. EPA841 -S-95-004. December 1995. A summary of the complete
     Report to Congress, including individual summaries of the Section 305(b) reports submitted by the States,
     Tribes, and other jurisdictions.
     (200 pages)

I—1  Fact Sheet: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. EPA841 -F-95-011. December
—  1995. Brief synopsis of the water quality data submitted by the States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions in
     their 1994 Section 305(b) reports.
     (12 pages)

pi  Water Quality Conditions in the United States. EPA841 -F-95-010. December 1995. A short profile of the
1—'  National Water Quality Inventory:  1994 Report to Congress.
     (2 pages)

I—1  Guidelines for Preparation of the 1994 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports).
1—'  EPA841 -B-93-004. May 1993.
     (300 pages)

I—1  Guidelines for Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports).
     EPA841 -B-95-001. May 1995.
     (350 pages)

pi   Knowing Our Waters: Tribal Reporting Under Section 305(b). EPA841 -B-95-003. May 1995.
L-'   (17 pages)
                 Ship to:.

                Address:.

          City, State, ZIP:.

          Daytime Phone:.
                                      (Please include area code)

-------
NCEPI
11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5
Cincinnati, OH 45242

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices
For additional information about water quality in your Region, please visit EPA's Water
Channel on the World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/OW/305b or contact:
    Barry Burgan
    National 305(b) Coordinator
    U.S. Environmental Protection
        Agency (4503F)
    401 M Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20760
    Internet:
    burgan.barry@epamail.epa.gov
    (202) 260-7060
    (202) 260-1977 (FAX)

    Diane Switzer
    EPA Region 1 (EMS-LEX)
    60 Westview Street
    Lexington, MA 02173
    (617) 860-4377
    Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine,
    New Hampshire,
    Rhode Island, Vermont

    Jane Leu
    EPA Region 2 (SWQB)
    290 Broadway, 25* Floor
    New York, NY 10007-1866
    (212)637-3741
    New Jersey, New York,
    Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands

    Margaret Passmore
    EPA Region 3 (3ES11)
    841 Chestnut Street
    Philadelphia, PA  19107
    (215)597-6149
    Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
    Virginia, West Virginia, District of
    Columbia

    David Melgaard
    EPA Region 4
    Water Management Division
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404)347-2126
    Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
    Kentucky, Mississippi, North
    Carolina, South Carolina,
    Tennessee
Dave Stoltenberg
EPA Region 5 (SQ-14J)
77 West Jackson Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-5784
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin

Russell Nelson
EPA Region 6 (6W-QT)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX  75202
(214)665-6646
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas

Robert Steiert
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7433
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Phil Johnson
EPA Region 8 (8WM-WQ)
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500 .
Denver, CO 80202
(303)312-6275
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

Janet Hashimoto
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1933
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam

Curry Jones
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-6912
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
                      U.S. EPA Regions
                                                              irgin Islands
                                                             Puerto Rico
For additional information about water quality in your State or other jurisdiction,
please contact your Section 305(b) Coordinator listed in Section III.

-------
•w t)
00 CD
  |T>

  <'


  cl-



  ef
         I"
           CD
ro 5
o -•
     • m c

      II
      O Q.


      is
      a s
      03 CO
      CD
               O

-------