United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
EPA841-S-97-001
April 1998
The Quality of Our Nation's
Water: 1996
Executive Summary of the National Water Quality
Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress
-------
Cover photo by Greg Despopoulos.
-------
Contents
Section I
1 National Summary
of Water Quality
Conditions
2 The Quality of Our Nation's
Water
3 Index of Watershed
Indicators
4 Key Concepts
14 Rivers and Streams
17 Lakes, Ponds, and
Reservoirs
21 The Great Lakes
24 Estuaries
27 Ocean Shoreline Waters
28 Wetlands
31 Ground Water
33 Water Quality Protection
Programs
47 What You Can Do
Section II
51 Presenting Water
Quality Information
52 Presenting Water Quality
Information: 305(b) and
the Index of Watershed
Indicators
52 Introduction
52 What Is the Index of
Watershed Indicators?
52 Why Watersheds?
53 What Is the Size of These
Watersheds?
53 What Are the Indicators?
53 Condition Indicators
54 Vulnerability Indicators
55 Where Can You View
the IWI?
55 How Is the Overall
Watershed Score
Developed?
56 How Are 305(b) Data
Used in the IWI?
57 Data Presentations —
South Carolina Example
64 Conclusion
Section III
67 State and Territorial,
Tribal, and Interstate
Commission Summaries
69 State and Territorial
Summaries
177 Tribal Summaries
191 Interstate Commission
Summaries
-------
-------
Section I
National Summary of
Water Quality Conditions
-------
The Quality of Our Nation's Water
Introduction
The National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress is the
primary vehicle for informing Con-
gress and the public about general
water quality conditions in the
United States. This document char-
acterizes our water quality, identifies
widespread water quality problems
of national significance, and
describes various programs imple-
mented to restore and protect our
waters.
The National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress summa-
rizes the water quality information
submitted by 58 States, American
Indian Tribes, Territories, Interstate
Water Commissions, and the District
of Columbia (hereafter referred to
as States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions) in their 1996 water quality
assessment reports. As such, the
report identifies water quality issues
of concern to the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions, not just the
issues of concern to the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) requires that the States
and other participating jurisdictions
submit water quality assessment
reports every 2 years. Most of the
survey information in the 1996
Section 305(b) reports is based on
water quality information collected
and evaluated by the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions during 1994
and 1995.
It is important to note that this
report is based on information sub-
mitted by States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions that do not use identical
survey methods and criteria to rate
their water quality. The States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions favor
flexibility in the 305(b) process to
accommodate natural variability in
their waters, but there is a trade-off
between flexibility and consistency.
Without known and consistent sur-
vey methods in place, EPA must use
caution in comparing data or deter-
mining the accuracy of data submit-
ted by different States and jurisdic-
tions. Also, EPA must use caution
when comparing water quality
information submitted during differ-
ent 305(b) reporting periods
because States and other jurisdic-
tions may modify their criteria or
survey different waterbodies every
2 years.
For over 10 years, EPA has pur-
sued a balance between flexibility
and consistency in the Section
305(b) process. Recent actions by
EPA, the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions include implementing
the recommendations of the
National 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup and the National Water
Quality Monitoring Council. These
actions will enable States and other
jurisdictions to share data across
political boundaries as they develop
watershed protection strategies.
EPA recognizes that national
initiatives alone cannot clean up our
waters; water quality protection and
restoration must happen at the local
watershed level, in conjunction with
State, Tribal, and Federal activities.
Similarly, this document alone can-
not provide the detailed information
needed to manage water quality at
all levels. This document should be
used together with the individual
Section 305(b) reports (see the
inside back cover for information on
obtaining the State and Tribal
Section 305(b) reports), watershed
management plans, and other local
documents to develop integrated
water quality management options.
-------
Index of Watershed Indicators
The Index of Watershed Indi-
cators (IWI) is a compilation of
information on the condition of
aquatic resources in the United
States. Using data from many
sources, IWI maps 15 indicators on
a watershed basis. Together these
indicators point to whether these
watersheds are "healthy" and
whether activities on the surround-
ing lands are making these waters
more vulnerable to pollution (see
map).
While this new assessment tool
is broader and more inclusive than
the National Water Quality Inven-
tory, State 305(b) assessment infor-
mation is the most important data
source in the IWI.
State 305(b) information is
included as one of the 15 indicator
maps in IWI as: Assessed Rivers
Meeting All Designated Uses Set in
State/Tribal Water Quality Stand-
ards. The IWI uses data compiled
on a watershed basis from a
number of national assessment
programs from several EPA
programs, from U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (NOAA), U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), the Corps of
Engineers, and the Nature Conserv-
ancy, and from the States, Tribes
and other jurisdictions. Six other
indicator maps show EPA's rating of
the condition of watersheds; eight
additional indicator maps show
EPA's rating of the vulnerability of
watersheds. Vulnerability factors
include, for example, the rate of
population growth, the potential
of various forms of nonpoint source
pollution, and compliance facility
permits. Using this approach, the
IWI characterizes nearly three-
quarters of the 2,111 watersheds
in the 48 contiguous States.
The IWI was released in
October 1997 and is updated
periodically. In October 1997, 16%
of the watersheds had good water
quality problems, 36% had moder-
ate water quality problems, 21 %
had more serious problems, and
sufficient data were lacking to fully
characterize the remaining 27%. In
addition, 1 in 14 watersheds in all
areas was vulnerable to further
degradation from pollution, primar-
ily from urban and rural runoff.
The IWI enables managers and
community residents to understand
and help protect the watershed
where they live. The information is
easily available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/surf/iwi.
National Watershed Characterization
'Analysis of Alaska ahb*'
Hawaii reserved for Phase 2.
Watershed Classification
C3 Better Water Quality - Low Vulnerability
C3 Better Water Quality - High Vulnerability
Less Serious Water Quality Problems - Low Vulnerability
tsB Less Serious Water Quality Problems - High Vulnerability
IB More Serious Water Quality Problems - Low Vulnerability
•• More Serious Water Quality Problems - High Vulnerability
f~~l Data Sufficiency Threshold Not Met
Index of Watershed
Indicators
http://www.epa.gov.surf
-------
Key Concepts
Measuring Water
Quality
The States, participating Tribes,
and other jurisdictions survey the
quality of their waters by determin-
ing if their waters attain the water
quality standards they established.
Water quality standards consist of
beneficial uses, numeric and narra-
tive criteria for supporting each use,
and an antidegradation statement:
• Designated beneficial uses are
the desirable uses that water quality
should support. Examples are drink-
ing water supply, primary contact
recreation (such as swimming), and
aquatic life support. Each designated
use has a unique set of water quality
requirements or criteria that must
be met for the use to be realized.
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
may designate an individual water-
body for multiple beneficial uses.
• Numeric water quality criteria
establish the minimum physical,
chemical, and biological parameters
required to support a beneficial use.
Physical and chemical numeric
criteria may set maximum concen-
trations of pollutants, acceptable
ranges of physical parameters such
as flow, and minimum concentra-
tions of desirable parameters such as
dissolved oxygen. Numeric biologi-
cal criteria describe the expected
attainable community attributes and
establish values based on measures
such as species richness, presence
or absence of indicator taxa, and
distribution of classes of organisms.
• Narrative water 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 character-
istics expected to occur within a
waterbody. For example, "Aquatic
life shall be as it naturally occurs,"
or "Ambient water quality shall be
sufficient to support life stages of
all indigenous aquatic species."
Narrative criteria may also describe
conditions that are desired in a
waterbody, such as, "Waters must
be free of substances that are toxic
to humans, aquatic life, and
wildlife."
• Antidegradation statements,
where possible, protect existing uses
and prevent waterbodies from dete-
riorating even if their water quality is
better than the fishable and swim-
mable goals of the Act.
The CWA allows States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions to set their
own standards but requires that all
beneficial uses and their criteria com-
ply with the goals of the Act. At a
minimum, beneficial uses must pro-
vide for "the protection and propa-
gation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife"
and provide for "recreation in and
on the water" (i.e., the fishable and
swimmable goals of the Act), where
attainable. The Act prohibits States
and other jurisdictions from desig-
nating waste transport or waste
assimilation as a beneficial use, as
some States did prior to 1972.
Section 305(b) of the CWA
requires that the States biennially
survey their water quality for attain-
ment of the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Act and report the
results to EPA. The States, participat-
ing Tribes, and other jurisdictions
measure attainment of the CWA
goals by determining how well their
waters support their designated
beneficial uses. EPA encourages
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
to survey waterbodies for support of
the following individual beneficial
uses:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody pro-
vides suitable habitat for protection
and propagation of desirable fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic organ-
isms.
Fish Consumption
The waterbody sup-
ports fish free from
contamination that could pose a
human health risk to consumers.
4
-------
Shellfish
Harvesting
The waterbody
supports a population of shellfish
free from toxicants and pathogens
that could pose a human health risk
to consumers.
Drinking Water
Supply
can supply safe drinking water with
conventiona treatment.
Primary Contact
Recreation -
Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
waterborne diseases from raw
sewage contamination).
Secondary Contact
Recreation
People can perform
activities on the water (such as
boating) without risk of adverse
human health effects from ingestion
or contact with the water.
Agriculture
The water quality is
suitable for irrigat-
ing fields or watering livestock.
States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions may also define their own
individual uses to address special
concerns. For example, many Tribes
and States designate their waters for
the following beneficial uses:
Ground Water
Recharge
The surface
waterbody plays a significant role
in replenishing ground water, and
surface water supply and quality
are adequate to protect existing or
potential uses of ground water.
Wildlife Habitat
Water quality sup-
ports the water-
body's role in providing habitat and
resources for land-based wildlife as
well as aquatic life.
Tribes may designate their
waters for special cultural and
ceremonial uses:
Water Quality Monitoring
Water, quality monitoring consists of data collection and sample
analysis performed using accepted protocols and quality control proce-
dures. Monitoring^atso includes subsequent analysis of the body of data
' to support decisionmaklng. federal, Interstate, State, Territorial, Tribal,
Regional, and local agencies, industry, and volunteer groups with
approved quality assurance programs monitor a combination of chemi:
cal, physical, and biological water quality parameters throughout the
country.
• "Chemical data often measure concentrations of pollutants and other
xhemical conditions that influence aquatic life, such as pH (i.e., acidity)
and dissolved oxygen concentrations. The chemical data may be
analyzed in water samples, fish tissue samples, or sediment samples,
• Physical data include measurements of temperature, turbidity
(i.e., light penetration through the water column), and solids in
the water column.
», Biological data measure the health of aquatic communities.
Biological data include counts of aquatic species that indicate
healthy ecological conditions.
• Habitat and^ ancillary data (such as land use data) help interpret the
above monitoring information.
Monitoring agencies vary parameters, sampling frequency, and
sampling site selection to meet program objectives and funding
constraints. Sampling may occur "at regular intervals (such as monthly,
quarterly, or annually), irregular intervals, or during one-time intensive
surveys. Sampling may be conducted at fixed sampling stations,
randomly selected stations, stations near suspected water quality
problems, or stations in pristine waters.
-------
Culture
Water quality sup-
ports the water-
body's role in Tribal culture and pre-
serves the waterbod/s religious,
ceremonial, or subsistence signifi-
cance.
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions assign levels of use
support to each of their waterbodies
(Table 1). If possible, the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions deter-
mine the level of use support by
comparing monitoring data with
numeric criteria for each use desig-
nated for a particular waterbody. If
monitoring data are not available,
the State, Tribe, or other jurisdiction
may determine the level of use
support with qualitative information.
Valid qualitative information includes
land use data, fish and game sur-
veys, and predictive model results.
Monitored assessments are based
on recent monitoring data collected
during the past 5 years. Evaluated
assessments are based on qualita-
tive information or monitored infor-
mation more than 5 years old.
For waterbodies with more than
one designated use, the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions con-
solidate the individual use support
information into a summary use
support determination:
Good/Fully Supporting
All Uses - All designated
beneficial uses are fully
supported.
Good/Threatened for
One or More Uses - One
or more designated bene-
ficial uses are threatened
and the remaining uses are fully
supported.
Impaired for One or
More Uses - One or
more designated bene-
ficial uses are partially or
not supported and the remaining
uses are fully supported or threat-
ened. These waterbodies are consid-
ered impaired.
Not Attainable - The
State, Tribe, or other
jurisdiction has per-
formed a use-attainability
analysis and demonstrated that use
support of one or more designated
beneficial uses is not attainable due
to one of six biological, chemical,
physical, or economic/social condi-
tions specified in the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR Section 131.10).
These conditions include naturally
high concentrations of pollutants
(such as metals); other natural physi-
cal features that create unsuitable
Table 1. Levels of Summary Use Support
Symbol
J^°°
J-
/v
^
Use Support Level
Fully Supporting
All Uses
Threatened for One
or More Uses
Impaired for One
or More Uses
Not Attainable
Water Quality
Condition
Good
Good
Impaired
Definition
Water quality meets
designated use criteria.
Water quality supports
beneficial uses now
but may not in the future
unless action is taken.
Water quality fails to meet
designated use criteria at times.
The State, Tribe, or other
jurisdiction has performed a
use-attainability analysis and
demonstrated that use support
is not attainable due to one of
six biological, chemical, physical,
or economic/social conditions
specified in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
-------
aquatic life habitat (such as inade-
quate substrate, riffles, or pools);
low flows or water levels; dams and
other hydrologic modifications that
permanently alter waterbody char-
acteristics; poor water quality result-
ing from human activities that
cannot be reversed without causing
further environmental degradation;
and poor water quality that cannot
be improved without imposing
more stringent controls than those
required in the CWA, which would
result in widespread economic and
social impacts.
• Impaired Waters - Waterbodies
either partially supporting uses or
not supporting uses.
The EPA then aggregates the
use support information submitted
by the States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions into a national assessment
of the Nation's water quality.
How Many of Our
Waters Were
Surveyed for 1996?
National estimates of the total
waters of our country provide the
foundation for determining the per-
centage of waters surveyed by the
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
and the portion impaired by pollu-
tion. For the 1992 reporting period,
EPA provided the States with esti-
mates of total river miles and lake
acres derived from the EPA Reach
File, a database containing traces of
waterbodies adapted from
1:100,000 scale maps prepared by
the U.S. Geological Survey. The
States modified these total water
estimates where necessary. Based on
the 1992 EPA/State figures, the
national estimate of total river miles
doubled in large part because the
EPA/State estimates included
nonperennial streams, canals, and
ditches that were previously
excluded from estimates of total
stream miles.
Estimates for the 1996 reporting
cycle are a minor refinement of the
1992 figures and indicate that the
United States has:
• More than 3.6 million miles of
rivers and streams, which range in
size from the Mississippi River to
small streams that flow only when
wet weather conditions exist
(i.e., nonperennial streams)
• Approximately 41.7 million acres
of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs
• About 39,839 square miles of
estuaries (excluding Alaska)
Figure 1. Percentage of Total Waters Surveyed for the 1996 Report
Rivers and Streams
693,905 -19% surveyed (53% of perennial miles)
Total perennial miles: 1,306,121
Total miles: 3,634,152
Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs
Estuaries
16,819,769 - 40% surveyed
Total acres: 41,684,902
28,819 - 72% surveyed
Total square miles: 39,839a
Ocean Shoreline
Waters
3,651 - 6% surveyed
Total miles: 58,585 miles, including Alaska's
36,000 miles of shoreline
Great Lakes
Shoreline
• 5,186-94% surveyed
• Total miles: 5,521
Source: 1996 Section 305(b) reports submitted by the States, Tribes, Territories, and
Commissions.
aExcluding estuarine waters in Alaska because no estimate was available.
-------
• More than 58,000 miles of ocean
shoreline, including 36,000 miles in
Alaska
• 5,521 miles of Great Lakes
shoreline
• More than 277 million acres of
wetlands such as marshes, swamps,
bogs, and fens, including 170
million acres of wetlands in Alaska.
Most States do not survey all of
their waterbodies during the 2-year
reporting cycle required under CWA
Section 305(b). Thus, the surveyed
waters reported in Figure 1 are a
subset of the Nation's total waters.
In addition, the summary informa-
tion based on surveyed waters may
not represent general conditions in
the Nation's total waters because
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
The National Water Quality
Monitoring Council
In 1992, the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality (ITFM) convened to prepare a strategy for improving water
quality monitoring nationwide. The ITFM was a Federal/State partner-
spip of 10 Federal agencies, 9 State and Interstate agencies, and 1
.'"American Indian |ribefaThe E^chaired the UIM^^J^^!^^^',',,
[""""Wee chair a'n'cl Executivg Secretariat'as'part of tn'ei'r" Water'lnfprrnatibn
Coordination f'rograiTJ pursuant to 6MB memo 92-01.
The mission of the ITFM was to develop and aid implementation
of a national strategic plan to achieve effective collection, interpreta-
tion, and presentation of water quality data and to improve the avail-
ability of existing information for decisionmaking at all levels of gov-
ernment and the private sector. A permanent successor to the ITFM,
the National Monitoring Council provides guidelines and support for
Institutional collaboration, comparable field and laboratory methods,
quaflty assurance/quality control, environmental indicators, data
management and sharing, ancillary data, interpretation and
techniques, and training.
The National Monitoring Council is also producing products that
can be used by monitoring programs nationwide, such as an outline
for a recommended monitoring program, environmental indicator
selection criteria, and a matrix of indicators to support assessment
of State and Tribal designated uses.
For a copy of the first, second, and final ITFM reports, contact:
The U.S. Geological Survey
417 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
1-800-426-9000
often focus on surveying major
perennial rivers, estuaries, and public
lakes with suspected pollution
problems in order to direct scarce
resources to areas that could pose
the greatest risk. Many States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions lack
the resources to collect use support
information for nonperennial
streams, small tributaries, and
private ponds. This report does
not predict the health of these
unassessed waters, which include an
unknown ratio of pristine waters to
polluted waters.
Pollutants and
Processes That
Degrade Water
Quality
Where possible, States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions identify the
pollutants or processes that degrade
water quality and indicators that
document impacts of water quality
degradation. The most widespread
pollutants and processes identified
in rivers, lakes, and estuaries are pre-
sented in Table 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 hydrologic modifi-
cation (such as flow reduction).
Indicators of water quality degrada-
tion include physical, chemical, and
biological parameters. Examples of
biological parameters include
species diversity and abundance.
Examples of physical and chemical
parameters include pH, turbidity,
and temperature. Following are
-------
descriptions of the effects of the pol-
lutants and processes most com-
monly identified 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 conditions,
but most desirable fish species (such
as trout and salmon) suffer if dis-
solved oxygen concentrations fall
below 3 to 4 mg/L (3 to 4 milli-
grams of oxygen dissolved in 1 liter
of water, or 3 to 4 parts of oxygen
per million parts of water). Larvae
and juvenile fish are more sensitive
and require even higher concentra-
tions of dissolved oxygen.
Many fish and other aquatic
organisms can recover from short
periods of low dissolved oxygen
availability. However, prolonged
episodes of depressed dissolved
oxygen concentrations of 2 mg/L
or less can result in "dead"water-
bodies. Prolonged exposure to low
dissolved oxygen conditions can
suffocate adult fish or reduce their
reproductive survival by suffocating
sensitive eggs and larvae or can
starve fish by killing aquatic insect
larvae and other prey. Low dissolved
oxygen concentrations also favor
anaerobic bacterial activity that pro-
duces noxious gases or foul odors
often associated with polluted
waterbodies.
Oxygen concentrations in the
water column fluctuate under natu-
ral conditions, but severe oxygen
depletion usually results from
human activities that introduce large
quantities of biodegradable organic
materials into surface waters.
Biodegradable organic materials
contain plant, fish, or animal matter.
Leaves, lawn 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-contain-
ing organic wastes provide a contin-
uous glut of food for the bacteria,
which accelerates bacterial activity
and population growth. In polluted
waters, bacterial consumption of
oxygen can rapidly outpace oxygen
replenishment from the atmosphere
and photosynthesis performed by
algae and aquatic plants. The result
is a net decline in oxygen concen-
trations in the water.
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 pollutants
trigger chemical reactions that place
a chemical oxygen demand on
receiving waters.
Other factors (such as tempera-
ture and salinity) influence the
amount of oxygen dissolved in
water. Prolonged hot weather will
depress oxygen concentrations and
may cause fish kills even in clean
waters because warm water cannot
hold as much oxygen as cold water.
Warm conditions further aggravate
oxygen depletion by stimulating
bacterial activity and respiration in
fish, which consume oxygen.
Removal of streamside vegetation
eliminates shade, thereby raising
water temperatures, and accelerates
runoff of organic debris. Under such
conditions, minor additions of
pollution-containing organic materi-
als can severely deplete oxygen.
Nutrients
Nutrients are essential building
blocks for healthy aquatic communi-
ties, but excess nutrients (especially
nitrogen and phosphorus com-
pounds) overstimulate the growth
of aquatic weeds and algae. Exces-
sive growth of these organisms, in
Table 2. Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rivers ,
Siltation
Nutrients
Bacteria
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Pesticides
Lakes
Nutrients
Metals
Siltation
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Noxious Aquatic Plants
Estuaries
Nutrients
Bacteria
Priority Toxic
Organic Chemicals
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Oil and Grease
Source: Based on 1996 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
-------
turn, can clog navigable waters,
Interfere with swimming and boat-
Ing, outcompete native submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV), and, with
excessive decomposition, lead to
oxygen depletion. Oxygen concen-
trations can fluctuate daily during
algal blooms, rising during the day
as algae perform photosynthesis,
and falling at night as algae contin-
ue to respire, which consumes
oxygen. Beneficial bacteria also
consume oxygen as they decom-
pose the abundant organic food
supply in dying algae cells.
Lawn and crop fertilizers,
sewage, manure, and detergents
contain nitrogen and phosphorus,
the nutrients most often responsible
for water quality degradation. Rural
areas are vulnerable to ground
water contamination from nitrates
(a compound containing nitrogen)
found in fertilizer and manure.
Very high concentrations of nitrate
(>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.
ISX1..WFW. T» TAKK
;u.n!>H.
OIO*I«H
Sedimentation and Siltation
In a water quality context,
sedimentation usually refers to soil
particles that enter the water col-
umn from eroding land. Sediment
consists of particles of all sizes,
including fine clay particles, silt,
sand, and gravel. Water quality
managers use the term "siltation" to
describe the suspension and deposi-
tion of small sediment particles in
waterbodies.
Sedimentation and siltation can
severely alter aquatic communities.
Sediment may clog and abrade fish
gills, suffocate eggs and aquatic
insect larvae on the bottom, and
fill in the pore space between
bottom cobbles where fish lay eggs.
Suspended silt and sediment inter-
fere with recreational activities and
aesthetic enjoyment at waterbodies
by reducing water clarity and filling
in waterbodies. Sediment may also
carry other pollutants into water-
bodies. Nutrients and toxic chemi-
cals may attach to sediment parti-
cles on land and ride the particles
into surface waters where the pollut-
ants 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 waterborne bacteria,
viruses, and protozoa cause human
illnesses that range from typhoid
and dysentery to minor respiratory
and skin diseases. These organisms
10
-------
may enter waters through a number
of routes, including inadequately
treated sewage, stormwater drains,
septic systems, runoff from livestock
pens, and sewage dumped over-
board from recreational boats.
Because it is impossible to test
waters for every possible disease-
causing organism, States and other
jurisdictions usually measure indica-
tor bacteria that are found in great
numbers in the stomachs and
intestines of warm-blooded animals
and people. The presence of indica-
tor bacteria suggests that the water-
body may be contaminated with
untreated sewage and that other,
more dangerous organisms may be
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 Metais
Toxic organic chemicals are
synthetic compounds that contain
carbon, such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and the
pesticide DDT. These synthesized
compounds often persist and
accumulate in the environment
because they do not readily break
down in natural ecosystems. Many
of these compounds cause cancer in
people and birth defects in other
predators near the top of the food
chain, such as birds and fish.
Metals occur naturally in the
environment, but human activities
(such as industrial processes and
mining) have altered the distribution
of metals in the environment. In
most reported cases of metals con-
tamination, high concentrations of
metals appear in fish tissues rather
than the water column because the
metals accumulate in greater
concentrations in predators near the
top of the food chain.
PH
Acidity, the concentration of
hydrogen ions, drives many chemi-
cal reactions in living organisms. The
standard measure of acidity is pH,
and a pH value of 7 represents a
neutral condition. A low pH value
(less than 5) indicates acidic condi-
tions; a high pH (greater than 9)
indicates alkaline conditions. Many
biological processes, such as
reproduction, cannot function in
acidic or alkaline waters. Acidic
conditions also aggravate toxic
contamination problems because
sediments release toxicants in acidic
waters. Common sources of acidity
include mine drainage, runoff from
mine tailings, and atmospheric
deposition.
Habitat Modification/
Hydrologic Modification
Habitat modifications include
activities in the landscape, on shore,
and in waterbodies that alter the
physical structure of aquatic ecosys-
tems and have adverse impacts on
aquatic life. Examples of habitat
modifications to streams include:
• Removal of streamside vegetation
that stabilizes the shoreline and
provides shade, which moderates
instream temperatures
• Excavation of cobbles from a
stream bed that provide nesting
habitat for fish
• Stream burial
• Excessive suburban sprawl that
alters the natural drainage patterns
by increasing the intensity, magni-
tude, and energy of runoff waters.
11
-------
Hydrologic 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 storage
tanks.
Sources of
Water Pollution
Sources of impairment gener-
ate the pollutants that violate use
support criteria (Table 3). Point
sources discharge pollutants
directly into surface waters from a
conveyance. Point sources include
industrial facilities, municipal
sewage treatment plants, and
combined sewer overflows.
Nonpoint sources deliver pollutants
to surface waters from diffuse
Table 3. Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report ;
Category
Industrial
Municipal
Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSOs)
Storm Sewers/
Urban Runoff
Agricultural
Silvlcultural
Construction
Resource
Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydrologic
Modification
Habitat
Modification
Examples
Pulp and paper mills, chemical manufacturers, steel plants,
metal process and product manufacturers, textile manufacturers,
food processing plants
Publicly owned sewage treatment plants that may receive
indirect discharges from industrial facilities or businesses
Single facilities that treat both storm water and sanitary sewage,
which may become overloaded during storm events and
discharge untreated wastes into surface waters.
Runoff from impervious surfaces including streets, parking
lots, buildings, and other paved areas.
Crop production, pastures, rangeland, feedlots, animal
operations
Forest management, tree harvesting, logging road construction
Land development, road construction
Mining, petroleum drilling, runoff from mine tailing sites
Leachate or discharge from septic tanks, landfills, and
hazardous waste sites
Channelization, dredging, dam construction, flow regulation
Removal of riparian vegetation, streambank modification,
drainage/filling of wetlands
origins. Nonpoint sources include
urban runoff, agricultural runoff,
and atmospheric deposition of con-
taminants in air pollution. Habitat
alterations, such as hydromodifica-
tion, dredging, and streambank
destabilization, can also degrade
water quality.
Throughout this document, EPA
rates the significance of causes and
sources of pollution by the percent-
age of impaired waters impacted
by each individual cause or source
(obtained from the Section 305(b)
reports submitted by the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions). Note
that the cause and source rankings
do not describe the condition of all
waters in the United States because
the States identify the causes and
sources degrading some of their
impaired waters, which are a small
subset of surveyed waters, which
are a subset of the Nation's total
waters. For example, the States
identified sources degrading some
of the 248,028 impaired river miles,
which represent 36% of the sur-
veyed river miles and only 7% of
the Nation's total stream miles.
12
-------
"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."
• 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 potentialsources
of pollution, it is difficult and expen-
sive for States, Tribes, and other ,
jurisdictions to identify specific
sources responsible for water quality
impairments. Many States and other
jurisdictions lack funding for moni-
toring to identify all but the most
apparent sources degrading water-
bodies. Local management priorities
may focus monitoring budgets on
other water quality issues, such as
identification of contaminated fish
populations that pose a human
health risk. Management priorities
may also direct monitoring efforts
to larger waterbodies and overlook
sources impairing smaller waterbod-
ies. As a result, the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions do not asso-
ciate every impacted waterbody
with a source of impairment in their
305(b) reports, and the summary
cause and source information pre-
sented in this report applies exclu-
sively to a subset of the Nation's
impaired waters.
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 activ-
ities, land disposal, petroleum
extraction and processing activities,
and construction. In addition to
human activities, the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions also reported
impairments from natural sources.
Natural sources refer to an assort-
ment of water quality problems:
• Natural deposits of salts, gypsum,
nutrients, and metals in soils that
leach into surface and ground
waters
Table 4. Five Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment Related to Human
1 Activities
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rivers
Agriculture
Municipal Point
Sources
Hydrologic
Modification
Habitat
Modification
Resource
Extraction
Lakes
Agriculture
Unspecified
Nonpoint Sources
Atmospheric
Deposition
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Municipal Point
Sources
Estuaries
Industrial Discharges
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Municipal Point
Sources
Upstream Sources
Agriculture
Source: Based on 1996 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
13
-------
Rivers and Streams
Rivers and streams are charac-
terized by flow. Perennial rivers and
streams flow continuously, all year
round. Nonperennial rivers and
streams stop flowing for some peri-
od of time, usually due to dry
conditions or upstream withdrawals.
Many rivers and streams originate in
nonperennial headwaters that flow
only during snowmelt or heavy
showers. Nonperennial streams
provide critical habitats for nonfish
species, such as amphibians and
dragonflies, as well as safe havens
for juvenile fish to escape from
predation by larger fish.
The health of rivers and streams
fs directly linked to habitat integrity
on shore and in adjacent wetlands.
Stream quality will deteriorate if
activities damage shoreline (i.e.,
riparian) vegetation and wetlands,
which filter pollutants from runoff
and bind soils. Removal of vegeta-
tion also eliminates shade that
moderates stream temperature as
well as the land temperature that
can warm runoff entering surface
waters. Stream temperature, in turn,
affects the availability of dissolved
oxygen in the water column for fish
and other aquatic organisms.
Overall Water Quality
For the 1996 Report, 54 States,
Territories, Tribes, Commissions, and
the District of Columbia surveyed
693,905 miles (19%) of the
Nation's total 3.6 million miles of
rivers and streams (Figure 2). The
surveyed rivers and streams repre-
sent 53% of the 1.3 million miles of
perennial rivers and streams that
flow year round in the lower 48
States.
Altogether, the States and Tribes
surveyed 78,099 more river miles in
1996 than in 1994. Although most
States surveyed about the same
number of river miles in both
reporting cycles, Illinois, Maryland,
North Dakota, and Tennessee col-
lectively account for an increase of
over 75,000 surveyed river miles.
Since 1994, Illinois, North Dakota,
and Tennessee have refined their
stream estimates, increasing the
mileages associated with surveyed
streams.
The following discussion applies
exclusively to surveyed waters and
cannot be extrapolated to describe
conditions in the Nation's rivers as a
whole because the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions do not con-
sistently use statistical or probabilis-
tic survey methods to characterize
all their waters at this time. EPA is
working with the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions to expand survey
coverage of the Nation's waters and
expects future survey information to
cover a greater portion of the
Nation's rivers and streams.
Figure 2. River Miles Surveyed
Total rivers = 3.6 million miles
Total surveyed = 693,905 miles
19% Surveyed
81% Not Surveyed
Figure 3. Levels of Overall Summary
Support - Rivers
Good
(Fully Supporting All Uses)
56%
Good
(Threatened for One
or More Uses)
Impaired
(Impaired for One
or More Uses)
36%
Not Attainable
Source: Based on 1996 State Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States, Tribes,
Territories, Commissions, and the
District of Columbia.
-------
Of the Nation's 693,905
surveyed river miles, the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions found
that 64% have good water quality.
Of these waters, 56% fully support
their designated uses, and an addi-
tional 8% support uses but are
threatened and may become
impaired if pollution control actions
are not taken (Figure 3). Some form
of pollution or habitat degradation
prevents the remaining 36%
(248,028 miles) of the surveyed
river miles from fully supporting a
healthy aquatic community or
human activities all year round.
What Is Polluting Our
Rivers and Streams?
The States and Tribes report
that siltation, composed of tiny soil
particles, remains one of the most
widespread pollutants impacting
rivers and streams, impairing
126,763 river miles (18% of
surveyed river miles (Figure 4).
Siltation is the
most widespread
pollutant in rivers and
streams, affecting 18% of
the surveyed river miles.
Siltation alters aquatic habitat and
suffocates fish eggs and bottom-
dwelling organisms. Excessive silta-
tion can also interfere with drinking
water treatment processes and
recreational use of a river.
In addition to siltation, the
States and Tribes also reported that
nutrients, bacteria, oxygen-deplet-
ing substances, habitat alterations,
and metals impact more miles of
rivers and streams than other pollut-
ants and processes. Often, several
pollutants and processes impact a
single river segment. For example, a
process, such as removal of shore-
line vegetation, may accelerate
erosion of sediment and nutrients
into a stream.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
The States and Tribes reported
that agriculture is the most wide-
spread source of pollution in the
Nation's surveyed rivers (Figure
4). Agriculture generates pollutants
that degrade aquatic life or interfere
with public use of 173,629 river
miles (25% of the surveyed river
miles) in 50 States and Tribes.
Twenty-four States reported the
size of rivers impacted by specific
types of agricultural activities:
• Nonirrigated Crop Production -
crop production that relies on rain
as the sole source of water.
• Irrigated Crop Production - crop
production that uses irrigation sys-
tems to supplement rainwater.
• Rangeland - land grazed by ani-
mals that is seldom enhanced by the
application of fertilizers or pesticides,
although managers sometimes
modify plant species to a limited
extent.
• Pastureland - land upon which
a crop (such as alfalfa) is raised to
feed animals, either by grazing
the animals among the crops or
harvesting the crops.
• Feedlots - facilities where animals
are fattened and confined at high
densities.
• Animal Operations - generally
livestock facilities other than large
cattle feedlot operations.
• Animal Holding Areas - facilities
where animals are confined briefly
before slaughter.
The States reported that non-
irrigated crop production impaired
the most river miles, followed by
irrigated crop production, range-
land, feedlots, pastureland, and
animal operations.
Many States reported declines
in pollution from sewage treatment
Agriculture is the leading
source of impairment
in the Nation's rivers,
contributing to impairment
of 25% of the surveyed
river miles.
plants and industrial discharges as a
result of sewage treatment plant
construction and upgrades and
permit controls on industrial dis-
charges. Despite the improvements,
municipal sewage treatment plants
remain the second most common
source of pollution in rivers (impair-
ing 35,087 miles) because popula-
tion growth increases the burden
on our municipal facilities.
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,
15
-------
such as channelization, dewatering,
and damming of streams. Habitat
alterations include removal of
streamside vegetation that protects
the stream from high temperatures
and scouring of stream bottoms.
Additional gains in water quality
conditions will be more subtle and
require innovative management
strategies that go beyond point
source controls.
The States, Tribes, and other
Jurisdictions also reported that
resource extraction impairs 33,051
river miles (5% of the surveyed
rivers), and urban runoff and storm
sewers impair 32,637 river miles
(5% of the surveyed rivers).
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions also report that
"natural" sources impair significant
stretches of rivers and streams.
"Natural" sources, such as low flow
and soils with arsenic deposits, can
prevent waters from supporting
uses in the absence of human
activities.
Figure 4. Surveyed River Miles: Pollutants and Sources
Total rivers = 3.6 million miles
Total surveyed = 693,905 miles
Good Impaired
(12%) (7%)
Surveyed 19%
Leading Pollutants/Stressors
Surveyed %
Siltation
Nutrients
Bacteria
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Pesticides
Habitat Alterations
Suspended Solids
Metals
j Leading Sources
_L
J_
_L
I
18
14
12
10
7
7
7
6
5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed River Miles
25
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Hydromodifi cation
Habitat Modification
Resource Extraction
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Removal of Streamside Veg.
Industrial Point Sources
.Surveyed
5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed River Miles
25
Based on 1996 State Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories, Commissions,
and the District of Columbia.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a river segment.
16
-------
Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs
Lakes are sensitive to pollution
inputs because lakes flush out their
contents relatively slowly. Even
under natural conditions, lakes
undergo eutrophication, an aging
process that slowly fills in the lake
with sediment and organic matter
(see sidebar on next page). The
eutrophication process alters basic
lake characteristics such as depth,
biological productivity, oxygen lev-
els, and water clarity. Eutrophication
is commonly defined by a series of
trophic states as described in the
sidebar.
Overall Water Quality
Forty-five States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions surveyed overall
use support in more than 16.8 mil-
lion lake acres representing 40% of
the approximately 41.7 million total
acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs
in the Nation (Figure 5). For 1996,
the States surveyed about 300,000
fewer lake acres than in 1994.
The number of surveyed lake
acres declined because several
States faced funding constraints
that limited the number of lakes
sampled.
The States and Tribes reported
that 61 % of their surveyed 16.8
million lake acres have good water
quality. Waters with good quality
include 51 % of the surveyed lake
acres fully supporting uses and 10%
of the surveyed lake acres that are
threatened and might deteriorate if
we fail to manage potential sources
of pollution (Figure 6). Some form
of pollution or habitat degradation
impairs the remaining 39% of the
surveyed lake acres.
Figure 5. Lake Acres Surveyed
Total lakes = 41.7 million acres
Total surveyed = 16.8 million acres
40% Surveyed
What Is Polluting
Our Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs?
Forty-one States, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported
the number of lake acres impacted
by individual pollutants and
processes.
The States and Puerto Rico
identified more lake acres polluted
by nutrients and metals than other
pollutants or processes (Figure
7). The States and Puerto Rico
reported that metals and extra nutri-
ents pollute 3.3 million lake acres
(51 % of the impaired lake acres).
Healthy lake ecosystems contain
nutrients in small quantities, but
extra inputs of nutrients from
human activities unbalance lake
ecosystems. States consistently
report metals as a major cause of
impairment to lakes. This is mainly
60% Not Surveyed
Figure 6. Levels of Summary Use
Support - Lakes
Good
(Fully Supporting All Uses)
51%
Good
(Threatened for One
or More Uses)
10%
Impaired
(Impaired for One
or More Uses)
39%
Not Attainable
Source: Based on 1996 State Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States, Tribes,
Territories, Commissions, and the
District of Columbia.
17
-------
due to the widespread detection of
mercury in fish tissue samples.
States are actively studying the
extent of the mercury problem,
which is complex because it involves
transport from power-generating
facilities and other sources.
In addition to nutrients and
metals, the States, Puerto Rico, and
the District of Columbia report that
siltation pollutes 1.6 million lake
acres (10% of the surveyed lake
acres), enrichment by organic
wastes that deplete oxygen impacts
1.4 million lake acres (8% of the
surveyed lake acres), and noxious
aquatic plants impact 1.0 million
acres (6% of the surveyed lake
acres).
States reported more
impairments due to
metals and nutrients
than other pollutants.
Trophic States
Oligotrophic Clear waters with little organic matter or sediment
and minimum biological activity.
j Mesotrophic Waters with more nutrients and, therefore, more
|Eutrbphic Waters extremely rich in nutrients, with high biological
i; -;•: '^r^ .^rl^r jftoHuctivity." S\Jme'sp'e'cle's'rna'y be choked out.
^vjrereutrognic' Murk^ "highly^ 'groductiw'"^^^!^,1 closest to the wetlands
^"SiS*^SiK?B5fS5Fus.'Many clearwater species cannot survive.
Mi' Mi iiJK JH^ m iiiiuiiiniiiiiiiiiM iipiiiHi1 Minn iiiinwi iiiiiiiiimw ib ^ ^ v i
t.'^CiAinni'hi'SiB^^^^^^^ *' \*
f _ !!I1S^^^^^^^^^^^ T <
Dystrophic Low in nutrients, highly colored with dissolved humic
organic matter. (Not necessarily a part of the natural
trophic progression.)
The Eutrophication Process
i ii i i i i1 -
Eutrophication is a natural process, but human activities can acceler-
ate eutrophication by increasing the rate at which nutrients and organic
substances enter lakes from their surrounding watersheds. Agricultural
''runoff, urban runoff, leaking septic systems, sewage discharges, eroded
streambanks, and similar sources can enhance the flow of nutrients, and
organic substances into lakes. These substances can overstimulate the
growth of algae and aquatic plants, creating conditions that interfere with
i the recreational use of lakes and the health and diversity of native fish,
[ plant, and animal populations. Enhanced eutrophication from nutrient
enrichment due to human activities is one of the leading problems facing
our Nation's lakes and reservoirs.
Thirty-seven States also sur-
veyed trophic status, which is asso-
ciated with nutrient enrichment, in
8,951 of their lakes. Nutrient enrich-
ment tends to increase the propor-
tion of lakes in the eutrophic and
hypereutrophic categories. These
States reported that 16% of the
lakes they surveyed for trophic
status were oligotrophic, 38% were
Acid Effects on Lakes
Increases in lake acidity can
radically alter the community of
fish and plant species in lakes
and can increase the solubility
of toxic substances and magnify
their adverse effects. Eighteen
States reported the results of
lake acidification assessments.
These States assessed pH (a
measure of acidity) at 5,269
lakes and detected acidic condi-
tions in 194 lakes and a threat of
acidic conditions in 1,087 lakes.
Most of the States that assessed
acidic conditions are located in
the Northeast, upper Midwest,
and the South.
Only 13 States identified
sources of acidic conditions.
Maine and New Hampshire
attributed most of their acid lake
Conditions to acid deposition
from acidic rain, fog, or dry
deposition in conjunction with
natural conditions that limit a
lake's capacity to neutralize
acids. Alabama, Kansas, Mary-
land, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and
West Virginia reported that acid
mine drainage resulted in acidic
lake conditions or threatened
lakes with the potential to
generate acidic conditions.
18
-------
mesotrophic, 36% were eutrophic,
9% were hypereutrophic, and less
than 1 % were dystrophic. This
information may not be representa-
tive of national lake conditions
because States often assess lakes in
response to a problem or public
complaint or because of their easy
accessibility. It is likely that more
remote lakes—which are probably
less impaired—are underrepresented
in these assessments.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Forty-one States and Puerto
Rico reported sources of pollution in
some of their impacted lakes,
ponds, and reservoirs. These States
and Puerto Rico reported that agri-
culture is the most widespread
source of pollution in the Nation's
surveyed lakes (Figure 7). Agricul-
ture generates pollutants that
degrade aquatic life or interfere with
public use of 3.2 million lake acres
(19% of the surveyed lake acres).
Agriculture is the leading
source of impairment in
lakes, affecting 19%
of surveyed lake acres.
The States and Puerto Rico also
reported that unspecified nonpoint
sources pollute 1.6 million lake acres
(9% of the surveyed lake acres),
atmospheric deposition of pollutants
impairs 1.4 million lake acres (8%
of the surveyed lake acres), urban
runoff and storm sewers pollute
1.4 million lake acres (8% of the
surveyed lake acres), municipal
Figure 7. Surveyed Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources
Total lakes = 41.7 million acres
Total surveyed = 16.8 million
acres
Good
(61%)
Surveyed 40%
Impaired
(39%)
Leading Poflutants/Stressors
Surveyed %
Nutrients
Metals
Siltation
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Noxious Aquatic Plants
Suspended Solids
Total Toxics
20
20
10
8
6
5
5
0 5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed Lake Acres
25
Leading Sources
Surveyed %
Agriculture
Unspecified Nonpoint Sources
Atmospheric Deposition
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Point Sources
Hydromodification
Construction
Land Disposal
I
19
9
8
8
7
5
4
4
05 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed Lake Acres
25
Based on 1996 State Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories, Commissions,
and the District of Columbia.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair a lake.
19
-------
sewage treatment plants pollute
1.2 million lake acres (7% of the
surveyed lake acres), and hydrologic
modifications degrade 924,000 lake
acres (5% of the surveyed lake
acres). Many more States reported
lake degradation from atmospheric
deposition in 1996 than in past
reporting cycles. This is due, in part,
to a growing awareness of the
magnitude of the atmospheric
deposition problem.
The States and Puerto Rico list-
ed numerous sources that impact
several hundred thousand lake
acres, including land disposal of
wastes, construction, industrial point
sources, onsite wastewater systems
(including septic tanks), forestry
activities, habitat modification, flow
regulation, contaminated sedi-
ments, highway maintenance and
runoff, resource extraction, and
combined sewer overflows.
Sam Baskir, 1st grade, Estes Hills Elementary, Chapel Hill, NC
-------
The Great Lakes
The Great Lakes contain one-
fifth of the world's fresh surface
water and are stressed by a wide
range of pollution sources, including
air pollution. Many of the pollutants
that reach the Great Lakes remain in
the system indefinitely because the
Great Lakes are a relatively closed
water system with few natural out-
lets. Despite dramatic declines in
the occurrence of algal blooms, fish
kills, and localized "dead" zones
depleted of oxygen, less visible
problems continue to degrade the
Great Lakes.
Overall Water Quality
The States surveyed 94% of the
Great Lakes shoreline miles for 1996
and reported that fish consumption
advisories and aquatic life concerns
are the dominant water quality
problems, overall, in the Great Lakes
(Figure 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 normal treatment.
However, only 2% of the surveyed
nearshore waters fully support
designated uses, and 1 % support all
uses but are threatened for one or
more uses (Figure 9). About 97% of
the surveyed waters do not fully
support designated uses because
fish consumption advisories are
posted throughout the nearshore
waters of the Great Lakes and water
quality conditions are unfavorable
for supporting aquatic life in many
cases. Aquatic life impacts result
from persistent toxic pollutant bur-
dens in birds, habitat degradation
and destruction, and competition
Figure 8. Great Lakes Shore Miles
Surveyed
Total Great Lakes = 5,521 miles
Total surveyed = 5,186 miles
94% Surveyed
Figure 9. Levels of Summary Use
Support — Great Lakes
6% Not Surveyed
Good
(Fully Supporting All Uses)
2%
Good
(Threatened for One
or More Uses)
1%
I
Impaired
(Impaired for One
or More Uses)
97%
Not Attainable
Source: Based on 1996 State Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States, Tribes,
Territories, Commissions, and the
District of Columbia.
21
-------
and predation by nonnative species
such as the zebra mussel and the
sea lamprey.
Considerable progress has
been made in controlling
conventional pollutants,
but the Great Lakes are
still subject to the effects
of toxic pollutants.
These figures do not address
water quality conditions in the
deeper, cleaner, central waters of
the Lakes.
What Is Polluting
the Great Lakes?
The States reported that most
of the Great Lakes shoreline is
polluted by toxic organic chemi-
cals—primarily PCBs—that are often
found in fish tissue samples. The
Great Lakes States reported that
toxic organic chemicals impact 32%
of the surveyed Great Lakes shore-
line miles. Other leading causes of
impairment include pesticides,
affecting 21 %; nonpriority organic
chemicals, affecting 20%; nutrients,
affecting 7%; metals, affecting 6%;
and oxygen-depleting substances,
affecting 6% (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Purveyed Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources
Not Surveyed
6%
Total shoreline = 5,521 miles
Impaired
Surveyed 94%
Total surveyed = 5,186 miles
Leading Pollutants
Priority Toxic Organic
Chemicals
Pesticides
Nonpriority Organic
Chemicals
Nutrients
Metals
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Surveyed %
J_
31
20
20
6
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percent of Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline
Leading Sources
Atmospheric Deposition
Discontinued Discharges
from Pipes
Contaminated Sediment
Land Disposal of Wastes
Unspecified NPS
Other Point Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm
Sewers
Surveyed %
0 5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline
Based on 1996 State Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories, Commissions,
and the District of Columbia.
22
-------
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Only three of the eight Great
Lakes States measured the size of
their Great Lakes shoreline polluted
by specific sources. These States
have jurisdiction over one-third of
the Great Lakes shoreline, so their
findings do not necessarily reflect
conditions throughout the Great
Lakes Basin.
• Wisconsin identifies atmospheric
deposition and discontinued dis-
charges as a source of pollutants
contaminating all 1,017 of their
surveyed shoreline miles. Wisconsin
also identified smaller areas
impacted by contaminated sedi-
ments, nonpoint sources, industrial
and municipal discharges, agricul-
ture, urban runoff and storm
sewers, combined sewer overflows,
and land disposal of waste.
• Ohio reports that nonpoint
sources pollute 86 miles of its 236
miles of shoreline, contaminated
sediment impacts 33 miles, and
land disposal of waste impacts
24 miles of shoreline.
• New York identifies many sources
of pollutants in their Great Lakes
waters, but the State attributes the
most miles of degradation to
contaminated sediments (439 miles)
and land disposal of waste (374
miles).
23
-------
Estuaries
Estuaries are areas partially sur-
rounded by land where rivers meet
the sea. They are characterized by
varying degrees of salinity, complex
water movements affected by ocean
tides and river currents, and high
turbidity levels. They are also highly
productive ecosystems with a range
of habitats for many different
species of plants, shellfish, fish, and
animals.
Many species permanently
inhabit the estuarine ecosystem;
others, such as shrimp, use the
nutrient-rich estuarine waters as
nurseries before traveling to the sea.
Estuaries are stressed by the par-
ticularly wide range of activities
located within their watersheds.
They receive pollutants carried by
rivers from agricultural lands and
cities; they often support marinas,
harbors, and commercial fishing
fleets; and their surrounding lands
are highly prized for development.
These stresses pose a continuing
threat to the survival of these boun-
tiful waters.
Overall Water Quality
Twenty-three coastal States and
jurisdictions surveyed 72% of the
Nation's total estuarine waters in
1996 (Figure 11). The States
and other jurisdictions reported that
62% of the surveyed estuarine
waters have good water quality that
fully supports designated uses
(Figure 12). Of these waters,
4% are threatened and might dete-
riorate if we fail to manage potential
sources of pollution. Some form of
pollution or habitat degradation
impairs the remaining 38% of the
surveyed estuarine waters.
What Is Polluting
Our Estuaries?
The States identified more
square miles of estuarine waters pol-
luted by nutrients than any other
pollutant or process (Figure 13).
Eleven States reported that extra
nutrients pollute 6,254 square miles
of estuarine waters (57% of the
impaired estuarine waters). As in
lakes, extra inputs of nutrients from
human activities destabilize estuar-
ine ecosystems.
Twenty-one States reported that
bacteria pollute 4,634 square miles
of estuarine waters (22% of the
impaired estuarine waters). Bacteria
provide evidence that an estuary is
contaminated with sewage that may
contain numerous viruses and bacte-
ria that cause illness in people.
Figure 11. Estuary Square Miles
Surveyed
Total estuaries = 39,839 square miles
Total surveyed = 28,819 square miles
72% Surveyed
28% Not Surveyed
Figure 12. Levels of Summary Use
Support- Estuaries
Good
(Fully Supporting All Uses)
58%
Good
(Threatened for One
or More Uses)
4%
Impaired
(Impaired for One
or More Uses)
38%
Not Attainable
Source: Based on 1996 State Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States, Tribes,
Territories, Commissions, and the
District of Columbia.
24
-------
Figure 13. Surveyed Estuaries: Pollutants and Sources
Not Surveyed
28%
Total estuaries = 39,839 square
miles
Impaired
(28%)
Surveyed 72%
Total surveyed = 28,819 square miles
Leading Pollutants/Stressors
Surveyed %
Nutrients
Bacteria
Priority Toxic Organic Chemicals
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Oil and Grease
Salinity
Habitat Alterations
5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed Estuarine
Square Miles
25
Leading Sources
Industrial Discharges
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Point Sources
Upstream Sources
Agriculture
Combined Sewer Overflows
Land Disposal of Wastes
Surveyed %
5 10 15 20
Percent of Surveyed Estuarine
Square Miles
25
Based on 1996 State Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories, Commissions,
and the District of Columbia.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may
impair an estuary.
The States also report that prior-
ity organic toxic chemicals pollute
4,398 square miles (15% of the
surveyed estuarine waters); oxygen
depletion from organic wastes
impacts 3,586 square miles (12%
of the surveyed estuarine waters);
oil and grease pollute 2,170 square
miles (8% of the surveyed estuarine
waters); salinity, total dissolved
solids, and/or chlorine impact 1,944
square miles (7% of the surveyed
estuarine waters); and habitat alter-
ations degrade 1,586 square miles
(6% of the surveyed estuarine
waters).
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Twenty-one States reported that
industrial discharges are the most
widespread source of pollution in
the Nation's surveyed estuarine
waters. Pollutants in industrial
discharge degrade aquatic life or
interfere with public use of 6,145
square miles of estuarine waters
(21 % of the surveyed estuarine
waters) (Figure 13).
Sydney Locker, Quaker Ridge School, Scarsdale, NY
25
-------
The States also reported that
urban runoff and storm sewers
pollute 5,099 square miles of estuar-
ine waters (18% of the surveyed
estuarine waters), municipal
discharges pollute 4,874 square
miles of estuarine waters (17% of
the surveyed estuarine waters), and
upstream sources pollute 3,295
square miles (11 % of the surveyed
estuarine waters). Urban sources
contribute more to the degradation
of estuarine waters than agriculture
because urban centers are located
adjacent to most major estuaries.
Dana Soady, 4th Grade, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC
-------
Ocean Shoreline Waters
Although the oceans are expan-
sive, they are vulnerable to pollution
from numerous sources, including
city storm sewers, ocean outfalls
from sewage treatment plants,
overboard disposal of debris and
sewage, oil spills, and bilge dis-
charges that contain oil and grease.
Nearshore ocean waters, in particu-
lar, suffer from the same pollution
problems that degrade our inland
waters.
Overall Water Quality
Ten of the 27 coastal States and
Territories surveyed only 6% of the
Nation's estimated 58,585 miles of
ocean coastline (Figure 14). Most of
the surveyed waters (3,085 miles, or
87%) have good quality that sup-
ports a healthy aquatic community
and public activities (Figure
15). Of these waters, 315 miles (9%
of the surveyed shoreline) are
threatened and may deteriorate in
the future. Some form of pollution
or habitat degradation impairs the
remaining 13% of the surveyed
shoreline (467 miles).
Only six of the 27 coastal States
identified pollutants and sources of
pollutants degrading ocean shore-
line waters. General conclusions
cannot be drawn from this limited
source of information. The six States
identified impacts in their ocean
shoreline waters from bacteria,
turbidity, nutrients, oxygen-
depleting substances, suspended
solids, acidity (pH), oil and grease,
and metals. The six States reported
that urban runoff and storm sewers,
land disposal of wastes, septic sys-
tems, municipal sewer discharges,
industrial discharges, recreational
marinas, and spillls and illegal
dumping pollute their coastal
shoreline waters.
Figure 14. Ocean Shoreline Waters
Surveyed
Total ocean shore = 58,585 miles
including Alaska's shoreline
Total surveyed = 3,651 miles
6% Surveyed
94% Not Surveyed
Figure 15. Levels of Summary Use
Support - Ocean Shoreline
Waters
Good
(Fully Supporting All Uses)
79%
Good
(Threatened for One
or More Uses)
9%
Impaired
(Impaired for One
or More Uses)
13%
Not Attainable
0%
Source: Based on 1996 State Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States, Tribes,
Territories, Commissions, and the
District of Columbia.
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100%
due to rounding.
27
-------
Wetlands
Wetlands are areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface
water or ground water at a fre-
quency and duration sufficient to
support (and that under normal
circumstances do support) a
prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands, which are
found throughout the United States,
generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas.
Wetlands are now recognized as
some of the most unique and
important natural areas on earth.
They vary in type according to
differences in local and regional
hydrology, vegetation, water chem-
istry, soils, topography, and climate.
Coastal wetlands include estuarine
marshes; mangrove swamps found
in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Louisiana,
and Florida; and Great Lakes coastal
wetlands. Inland wetlands, which
may be adjacent to a waterbody or
isolated, include marshes and wet
meadows, bottomland hardwood
forests, Great Plains prairie potholes,
cypress-gum swamps, and south-
western playa lakes.
In their natural condition,
wetlands provide many benefits,
including food and habitat for fish
and wildlife, water quality improve-
ment, flood protection, shoreline
erosion control, ground water
exchange, as well as natural prod-
ucts for human use and opportuni-
ties for recreation, education, and
research.
Wetlands help maintain and
improve water quality by intercept-
ing surface water runoff before it
reaches open water, removing or
retaining nutrients, processing
chemical and organic wastes,
and reducing sediment loads to
receiving waters. As water moves
through a wetland, plants slow the
water, allowing sediment and
pollutants to settle out. Plant roots
trap sediment and are then able to
metabolize and detoxify pollutants
and remove nutrients such as nitro-
gen and phosphorus.
Wetlands function like natural
basins, storing either floodwater
that overflows riverbanks or surface
water that collects in isolated
depressions. By doing so, wetlands
help protect adjacent and down-
stream property from flood dam-
age. Trees and other wetlands vege-
tation help slow the speed of flood
waters. This action, combined with
water storage, can lower flood
heights and reduce the water's
erosive potential. In agricultural
areas, wetlands can help reduce the
likelihood of flood damage to crops.
Wetlands within and upstream of
urban areas are especially valuable
for flood protection because urban
development increases the rate and
volume of surface water runoff,
thereby increasing the risk of flood
damage.
Wetlands produce a wealth of
natural products, including fish and
shellfish, timber, wildlife, and wild
rice. Much of the Nation's fishing
and shellfishing industry harvests
wetlands-dependent species. A
national survey conducted by the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in
1991 illustrates the economic value
of some of the wetlands-dependent
products. Over 9 billion pounds of
fish and shellfish landed in the
United States in 1991 had a direct,
dockside value of $3.3 billion. This
served as the basis of a seafood
processing and sales industry that
generated total expenditures of
$26.8 billion. In addition, 35.6
million anglers spent $24 billion on
28
-------
freshwater and saltwater fishing. It is
estimated that 71 % of commercially
valuable fish and shellfish depend
directly or indirectly on coastal
wetlands.
Overall Water Quality
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions are making progress in
developing specific designated uses
and water quality standards for wet-
lands, but many States and Tribes
still lack specific water quality crite-
ria and monitoring programs for
wetlands. Without criteria and mon-
itoring data, most States and Tribes
cannot evaluate use support. To
date, only nine States and Tribes
reported the designated use support
status for some of their wetlands.
Only Kansas used quantitative data
as a basis for the use support
decisions.
EPA cannot derive national con-
clusions about water quality condi-
tions in all wetlands because the
States used different methodologies
to survey only 3% of the total wet-
lands in the Nation. Summarizing
State wetlands data would also
produce misleading results because
two States (North Carolina and
Louisiana) contain 91% of the
surveyed wetlands acreage.
What Is Polluting
Our Wetlands and
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
The States have even fewer data
to quantify the extent of pollutants
degrading wetlands and the sources
of these pollutants. Although most
States cannot quantify wetlands
area impacted by individual causes
and sources of degradation, nine
States identified causes and sources
known to degrade wetlands integ-
rity to some extent. These States
listed sediment and nutrients as the
most widespread causes of degrada-
tion impacting wetlands, followed
by draining and pesticides (Figure
16). Agriculture and hydrologic
modifications topped the list of
sources degrading wetlands, fol-
lowed by urban runoff, draining,
and construction (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
1980's, the three States that have
sustained the greatest percentage of
wetlands loss are California (91 %),
Ohio (90%), and Iowa (89%).
According to FWS status and
trends reports, the average annual
loss of wetlands has decreased over
the past 40 years. The average
annual loss from the mid-1950s to
the mid-1970s was 458,000 acres,
and from the mid-1970s to the
mid-1980s it was 290,000 acres.
Agriculture was responsible for 87%
of the loss from the mid-1950s to
the mid-1970s and 54% of the loss
from the mid-1970s to the mid-
1980s.
Figure 16. Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity (10 States Reporting)
Causes
Sedimentation/Siltation
Nutrients
Filling and Draining
Pesticides
Flow Alterations
Habitat Alterations
Metals
Salinity/TSS/Chlorides
Total
2468
Number of States Reporting
10
Source: Based on 1996 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
29
-------
A more recent estimate of wet-
lands losses from the National
Resources Inventory (NRI), conduct-
ed by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), indi-
cates that 792,000 acres of wetlands
were lost on non-Federal lands
between 1982 and 1992 for a yearly
loss estimate of 70,000 to 90,000
acres. This net loss is the result of
gross losses of 1,561,300 acres of
wetlands and gross gains of
768,700 acres of wetlands over the
10-year period. The NRI estimates
are consistent with the trend of
declining wetlands losses reported
by FWS. Although losses have
decreased, we still have to make
progress toward our interim goal of
no overall net loss of the Nation's
remaining wetlands and the long-
term goal of increasing the quantity
and quality of the Nation's wetlands
resource base.
The decline in wetlands losses is
a result of the combined effect of
several trends: (1) the decline in
profitability in converting wetlands
for agricultural production;
(2) passage of Swampbuster provi-
sions in the 1985, 1990, and 1996
Farm Bills that denied crop subsidy
benefits to farm operators who con-
verted wetlands to cropland after
1985; (3) presence of the CWA
Section 404 permit programs as
well as development of State
management programs; (4) greater
public interest and support for wet-
lands protection; and (5) implemen-
tation of wetlands restoration pro-
grams at the Federal, State, and
local level.
Twelve States listed sources of
recent wetlands losses in their 1996
305(b) reports. Residential develop-
ment and urban growth was cited
as the leading source of current
losses. Other losses were due to
agriculture; construction of roads,
highways, and bridges; hydrologic
modifications; channelization; and
industrial development. In addition
to human activities, a few States
also reported that natural sources,
such as rising lake levels, resulted in
wetlands losses and degradation.
Figure 17. Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity (9 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture
Hydrologic Modification
Urban Runoff
Filling and Draining
Construction
Natural
Dredging
Resource Extraction
Livestock Grazing
1234567
Number of States Reporting
Total
9
8
7
5
4
4
4
4
Source: Based on 1996 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
Dorothy Scott, 4th Grade, Burton GeoWorld,
Durham, NC
More information on wetlands
can be obtained from the
EPA Wetlands Hotline at
1-800-832-7828.
30
-------
Ground Water
Although 75% percent of the
earth's surface is covered by water,
only 3% is fresh water available for
our use. It has been estimated that
more than 90% of the world's fresh
water reserve is stored in the earth
as ground water. Ground water—
water found in natural underground
rock formations called aquifers—is a
vital national resource that is used
for myriad purposes. Unfortunately,
this resource is vulnerable to
contamination, and ground water
contaminant problems are being
reported throughout the country.
To ascertain the extent to which
our Nation's ground water resources
have been impacted by human
activities, Section 106(e) of the
Clean Water Act requests that each
State monitor ground water quality
and report the findings to Congress
in their 305(b) State Water Quality
Reports. Recognizing that an accu-
rate representation of our Nation's
ambient ground water quality con-
ditions required developing guide-
lines that would ultimately yield
quantitative data, EPA, in partner-
ship with interested States, devel-
oped new guidelines for assessing
ground water quality. It was these
guidelines that were used by States
for reporting the 1996 305(b) .
ground water data.
Despite variations in reporting
style, the 1996 305(b) State Water
Quality Reports represent a first step
in improving the assessment of
State ambient ground water quality.
Forty States, one Territory, and two
Tribes used the new guidelines to
assess and report ground water
quality data. For the first time,
States provided quantitative data
describing ground water quality.
Furthermore, States provided quan-
titative information pertaining to
contamination sources that have
impacted ground water quality.
Ground Water
Contamination
Not too long ago, it was
thought that soil provided a protec-
tive "filter" or "barrier" that immobi-
lized the downward migration of
Ground water provides
drinking water for 51%
of the population.
contaminants released on the land
surface and prevented ground
water resources from being adverse-
ly impacted or contaminated. The
discovery of pesticides and other
contaminants in ground water
demonstrated that ground water
resources were indeed vulnerable
to contamination resulting from
human activities. The potential for a
contaminant to affect ground water
quality is dependent upon its being
introduced to the environment and
its ability to migrate through the
overlying soils to the underlying
ground water resource.
Ground water contamination
can occur as relatively well defined
plumes emanating from specific
sources such as spills, landfills, waste
lagoons, and/or industrial facilities.
Contamination can also occur as a
general deterioration of ground
water quality over a wide area due
to diffuse nonpoint sources such as
agricultural fertilizer and pesticide
applications, septic systems, urban
runoff, leaking sewer networks,
application of lawn chemicals, high-
way deicing materials, animal feed-
lots, salvage yards, and mining
activities. Ground water quality
degradation from diffuse nonpoint
sources affects large areas, making it
difficult to specify the exact source
of the contamination.
Ground water contamination is
most common in highly developed
areas, agricultural areas, and indus-
trial complexes. Frequently ground
water contamination is discovered
long after it has occurred. One
reason for this is the slow move-
ment of ground water through
aquifers, sometimes on the order of
less than an inch per day. Contam-
inants in the ground water do not
mix or spread quickly, but remain
concentrated in slow-moving
plumes that may persist for many
years. This often results in a delay in
the detection of ground water
contamination. In some cases,
contaminants introduced into the
31
-------
subsurface more than 10 years ago
are only now being discovered.
Ground Water
Contaminant Sources
As reported by States, it is evi-
dent that ground water quality may
be adversely impacted by a variety
of potential contaminant sources. In
1996, EPA requested each State to
indicate the 10 top sources that
potentially threaten their ground
water resources. The list was not
considered comprehensive and
States added sources as was neces-
sary based on State-specific con-
cerns. Factors that were considered
by States in their selection include
the number of each type of source
in the State, the location of the var-
ious sources relative to ground
water used for drinking water
purposes, the size of the population
at risk from contaminated drinking
water, the risk posed to human
health and/or the environment from
releases, hydrogeologic sensitivity
(the ease with which contaminants
enter and travel through soil and
reach aquifers), and the findings of
the State's ground water protection
strategy and/or related studies.
Thirty-seven States provided
information related to contaminant
sources. Those most frequently
reported by States include:
• Leaking underground storage
tanks. Leaking underground storage
tanks (USTs) were cited as the high-
est priority contaminant source of
concern to States. The primary caus-
es of leakage in USTs are faulty
installation and corrosion of tanks
and pipelines. As of March 1996,
more than 300,000 releases from
USTs had been confirmed. EPA
estimates that nationally 60% of
these leaks have impacted ground
water quality, and, in some States,
the percentage is as high as 90%.
• Landfills. Landfills were cited by
States as the second highest
contaminant source of concern.
Landfills are used to dispose of sani-
tary (municipal) and industrial
wastes. Municipal wastes, some
industrial wastes, and relatively inert
substances such as plastics are dis-
posed of in sanitary landfills. Com-
mon materials that may be disposed
of in industrial landfills include plas-
tics, metals, fly ash, sludges, coke,
tailings, waste pigment particles,
low-level radioactive wastes, poly-
propylene, wood, brick, cellulose,
ceramics, synthetics, and other simi-
lar substances. States indicated that
the most common contaminants
associated with landfills were metals,
halogenated solvents, and petrole-
um compounds. To a lesser extent,
organic and inorganic pesticides
were also cited as a contaminant of
concern.
• Septic systems. Septic systems
were cited by 29 out of 37 States as
a potential source of ground water
contamination. Ground water may
be contaminated by releases from
septic systems when the systems are
poorly designed (tanks are installed
in areas with inadequate soils or
shallow depth to ground water),
poorly constructed; have poor well
seals; are improperly used, located,
or maintained; or are abandoned.
Typical contaminants from domestic
septic systems include bacteria,
nitrates, viruses, phosphates from
detergents, and other chemicals that
might originate from household
cleaners.
Ground Water
Quality Assessments
Thirty-three States reported data
summarizing ground water quality.
In total, data were reported for 162
specific aquifers and other hydro-
geologic settings. States used data
from ambient monitoring networks,
public water supply systems (PWSs),
private and unregulated wells, and
special studies. Nationally, more
States reported data for nitrates,
metals, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs) than any other
parameter grouping. Nitrates,
metals, SVOCs, and VOCs generally
represent instances of ground water
degradation resulting from human
activities.
Due to the importance of
ground water as a drinking water
resource, many of the aquifers that
were evaluated for 1996 are used to
supply water for public and private
consumption. The aquifers are also
used for irrigation, commercial, live-
stock, and industrial purposes. In
general, water quality problems
affected irrigation, commercial, live-
stock, and industry uses less fre-
quently than drinking water. This
may reflect the high water quality
standards set for drinking water.
32
-------
Water Quality Protection Programs
Although significant strides have
been made in reducing the impacts
of discrete pollutant sources, our
aquatic resources remain at risk
from a combination of point sources
and complex nonpoint sources,
including air pollution. Since 1991,
EPA has promoted the watershed
protection approach as a holistic
framework for addressing complex
pollution problems.
The watershed protection
approach is a place-based strategy
that integrates water quality man-
agement activities within hydrologi-
cally defined drainage basins-water-
sheds-rather than areas defined by
political boundaries. Thus, for a
given watershed, the approach
encompasses not only the water
resource (such as a stream, lake,
estuary, or ground water aquifer),
but all the land from which water
drains to the resource. To protect
Under the Watershed
Protection Approach
(WPA), a "watershed"
is a hydrogeoiogic area
defined for addressing
water quality problems.
For example, a WPA
watershed may be a river
basin, a county-sized
watershed, or a small
drinking water supply
watershed.
water resources, it is increasingly
important to address the condition
of land areas within the watershed
because water carries the effects of
human activities throughout the
watershed as it drains off the land
into surface waters or leaches into
the ground water.
EPA's Office of Water envisions
the watershed protection approach
as the primary mechanism for
achieving clean water and healthy,
sustainable ecosystems throughout
the Nation. The watershed protec-
tion approach enables stakeholders
to take a comprehensive look at
ecosystem issues and tailor correc-
tive actions to local concerns within
the coordinated framework of a
national water program. The
emphasis on public participation
also provides an opportunity to
incorporate environmental justice
issues into watershed restoration
and protection solutions.
In May of 1994, the EPA Assis-
tant Administrator for Water, Robert
Perciasepe, created the Watershed
Management Policy Committee to
coordinate the EPA water program's
support of the watershed protection
approach. Since then, EPA's water
program managers, under the direc-
tion of the Watershed Management
Policy Committee, evaluated their
programs and identified additional
activities needed to support the
watershed protection approach in
an action plan.
EPA's Office of Water will con-
tinue to promote and support the
watershed protection approach and
build upon its experience with
established place-based programs,
such as the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram and the Great Lakes National
Program to eliminate barriers to the
approach. These integrated pro-
grams laid the foundation for the
Agency's shift toward comprehen-
sive watershed management and
continue to provide models for
implementing the "place-based"
approach to environmental
problem-solving.
33
-------
The Clean Water Act
A number of laws provide the
authority to develop and implement
pollution control programs. The
primary statute providing for water
quality protection in the Nation's
rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and
coastal waters is the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, com-
monly known as the Clean Water
Act
The CWA and its amendments
are the driving force behind many
of the water quality improvements
we have witnessed in recent years.
Key provisions of the CWA provide
the following pollution control
programs.
Water quality standards and
criteria - States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions adopt EPA-
approved standards for their
waters that define water quality
goals for individual waterbodies.
Standards consist of designated
beneficial uses to be made of
the water, criteria to protect
those uses, and antidegradation
provisions to protect existing
water quality.
Effluent guidelines - EPA devel-
ops nationally consistent guide-
lines limiting pollutants in dis-
charges from industrial facilities
and municipal sewage treat-
ment plants. These guidelines
are then used in permits issued
to dischargers under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Additional controls
may be required if receiving
The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA)
Several key principles guide the watershed protection approach:
• Place-based focus - Resource management activities are directed
within specific geographic areas, usually defined by watershed bound-
aries, areas overlying or recharging ground water, or a combination
of both.
• Stakeholder involvement and partnerships - Watershed initiatives
involve the people most likely to be affected by management decisions
in the decision making process. Stakeholder participation ensures that
the objectives of the watershed initiative will include economic stability
and that the people who depend on the water resources in the water-
shed will participate in planning and implementation activities. Water-
shedI initiatives also establish partnerships between Federal, State, and
local agencies and nongovernment organizations with interests in the
watershed.
• Environmental objectives - The stakeholders and partners identify
environmental objectives (such as "populations of striped bass will
stabilize or increase") rather than programmatic objectives (such as
"the State will eliminate the backlog of discharge permit renewals") to
measure the success of the watershed initiative. The environmental
objectives are based on the condition of the ecological resource and the
needs of people in the watershed.
• Problem identification and prioritization - The stakeholders and
partners use sound scientific data and methods to identify and prioritize
the primary threats to human and ecosystem health within the water-
shed. Consistent with the Agency's mission, EPA views ecosystems as the
interactions of complex communities that include people; thus, healthy
ecosystems provide for the health and welfare of humans as well as
other living things.
• Integrated actions - The stakeholders and partners take corrective
actions in a cgmprehensive and integrated manner, evaluate success,
and refine actions if figcessary. The, watershed protection approach
coordinates aclwij^sbcojidk.icted by numerous government agencies
and nongovernment organizations to maximize efficient use of
limited resources.
34
-------
waters are still affected by water
quality problems after permit
limits are met.
Total Maximum Daily Loads -
The development of Total Maxi-
mum Daily Loads, or TMDLs,
establishes the link between
water quality standards and
point/nonpoint source pollution
control actions such as permits
or Best Management Practices
(BMPs). A TMDL calculates
allowable loadings from the
contributing point and non-
point sources to a given water-
body and provides the quantita-
tive basis for pollution reduction
necessary to meet water quality
standards. States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions develop and
implement TMDLs for high-
priority impaired or threatened
waterbodies.
Permits and enforcement - AH
industrial and municipal facilities
that discharge wastewater must
have an NPDES permit and are
responsible for monitoring and
reporting levels of pollutants in
their discharges. EPA issues
these permits or can delegate
that permitting authority to
qualifying States or other juris-
dictions. The States, other quali-
fied jurisdictions, and EPA
inspect facilities to determine if
their discharges comply with
permit limits. If dischargers are
not in compliance, enforcement
action is taken.
Loans - The Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CW-SRF) is an
innovative water quality financ-
ing program that is designed to
provide low-cost project financ-
ing to solve important water
quality problems. The SRF pro-
gram is made up of 51 state-
level infrastructure funds (Puerto
Rico has one, too) that operate
much like banks. These funds
were created by the 1987
Amendments to the Clean
Water Act and are intended to
provide permanent and inde-
pendent sources of funding for
municipal sewage treatment,
nonpoint source, and estuary
projects. EPA and the States are
capitalizing or providing "seed
money" to establish these
revolving funds. The goal is to
capitalize the 51 programs so
that they can provide in excess
of $2 billion in loans for water
quality projects each year for
the foreseeable future. The CW-
SRF is, by far, the most powerful
financial tool available to the
water quality program.
The 1996 Amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) created the new
Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DW-SRF) program. The
primary purpose of this pro-
gram is to upgrade drinking
water infrastructure to facilitate
compliance with the SDWA.
Congress has appropriated
$2 billion to begin the capital-
ization of this program. The
long-term strategy is to con-
tinue capitalization of this pro-
gram so that the SRFs will be
able to provide in excess of
$500 million each year in assist-
ance for priority drinking water
projects. In January 1997, EPA
released the first Drinking
Water Needs Survey, which
identified $138.4 billion in
needs over the next 20 years.
EPA is currently working with
the States to set up their
drinking water SRFs.
Grants - EPA provides States
with financial assistance to help
support many of their pollution
control programs. The pro-
grams funded include water
quality monitoring, permitting,
and enforcement; nonpoint
source; ground water; National
Estuary Program; and wetlands.
Nonpoint source control -
EPA provides program guid-
ance, technical support, and
funding to help the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions
control nonpoint source pollu-
tion. The States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions are responsi-
ble for analyzing the extent
and severity of their nonpoint
source pollution problems and
developing and implementing
needed water quality manage-
ment actions.
The CWA also established
pollution control and prevention
programs for specific waterbody
categories, such as the Clean Lakes
Program. Other statutes that also
guide the development of water
quality protection programs include:
• The Safe Drinking Water Act,
under which States establish
standards for drinking water quality,
monitor wells and local water
supply systems, implement drinking
water protection programs, and
implement Underground Injection
Control (UIC) programs.
35
-------
• The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, which establishes
State and EPA programs for ground
water and surface water protection
and cleanup and emphasizes pre-
vention of releases through manage-
ment standards in addition to other
waste management activities.
• The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (Superfund
Program), which provides EPA with
the authority to clean up contami-
nated waters during remediation at
contaminated sites.
• The Pollution Prevention Act
of 1990, which requires EPA to
promote pollutant source reduction
rather than focus on controlling
pollutants after they enter the
environment.
Protecting and
Restoring Lakes
Since the 1980s, EPA has
encouraged States to develop lake
projects with a watershed perspec-
tive. This ensures that protection
and restoration activities are long
term and comprehensive. EPA offers
sources of funding assistance for lake
projects and also encourages States
to develop their own independent
mechanisms to provide resources for
their lake management programs.
A good example of a State-
based lakes initiative is the Illinois
Conservation 2000 Clean Lakes pro-
gram. Illinois' system adopted major
features of the Federal Clean Lakes
program. The process leading to the
Conservation 2000 program can be
traced back to legislative actions in
the late 1980s that set up the basic
framework and identified agency
roles and responsibilities. The pro-
gram now has assured ongoing
funding to support lake restoration
projects and to underwrite a variety
of technical support and educational
activities.
At the Federal level, EPA offers
support for watershed-oriented lake
projects through Nonpoint Source
319(h) grants included under State
Nonpoint Source Management
Programs. Other EPA resources may
be available under provisions of the
reauthorized Safe Drinking Water
Act, with its emphasis on source
water protection.
36
-------
Figure 18. Locations of National Estuary Program Sites
Successful lake programs require
local stakeholder support and an
awareness on the part of stake-
holders of how to identify pollution
concerns as well as knowledge of
appropriate lake protection and
restoration management measures.
EPA provides support for a variety of
local stakeholder outreach and edu-
cation initiatives. A good example is
the Great American Secchi Dip-In,
an event held for the past 4 years, in
which volunteer lake and reservoir
monitoring programs from across
the country take a Secchi disk
measurement on one day in a peri-
od surrounding July 4th. Secchi
disks are typically flat, black and
white disks that are used to measure
the transparency of water. Transpar-
ency is one indicator of the impact
of human activity on lake water
quality.
The National Estuary
Program
Section 320 of the Clean Water
Act (as amended by the Water
Quality Act of 1987) established the
National Estuary Program (NEP) to
protect and restore water quality
and living resources in estuaries. The
NEP adopts a geographic or water-
shed approach by planning and
implementing pollution abatement
activities for the estuary and its
surrounding land area as a whole.
The NEP embodies the ecosys-
tem approach by building coali-
tions, addressing multiple sources
of contamination, pursuing habitat
protection as a pollution control
mechanism, and investigating cross-
media transfer of pollutants from
air and soil into specific estuarine
waters. Under the NEP, a State
governor nominates an estuary in
his or her State for participation in
the program. The State must
demonstrate a likelihood of success
in protecting candidate estuaries
and provide evidence of institution-
al, financial, and political commit-
ment to solving estuarine problems.
If an estuary meets the NEP
guidelines, the EPA Administrator
convenes a management confer-
ence of representatives from inter-
ested Federal, Regional, State, and
local governments; affected indus-
tries; scientific and academic institu-
tions; and citizen organizations. The
management conference defines
program goals and objectives, iden-
tifies problems, and designs strate-
gies to control pollution and
manage natural resources in the
estuarine basin. Each management
conference develops and initiates
implementation of a Comprehen-
sive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP) to restore and protect
the estuary.
The NEP currently supports
28 estuary projects.
The NEP integrates science and
policy by bringing water quality
managers, elected officials, and
stakeholders together with scientists
from government agencies, aca-
demic institutions, and the private
sector. Because the NEP is not a
research program, it relies heavily
on past and ongoing research of
other agencies and institutions to
support development of CCMPs.
With the addition of seven
estuary sites in July of 1995, the
NEP currently supports 28 estuary
projects (see Figure 18). These 28
estuaries are nationally significant in
their economic value as well as in
their ability to support living
37
-------
•ill
BiBB
pfter coming into
________
(convened SD, ITSsSSSO^ wo,:rl- i| fiiDgress, and scientists,
la
plan for
tection to make wet-'
jls, programs more fair, flexiEIe,
I" and effective. This plan was issued
'gust 24," 1993.
•ie Administration's Wetlands
t i _ i iiiiijiii inn i 11111111,11 in i
'Ian emphasizes improving Federal
wetlari3s policy by
• Streamlining wetlands permit-
ting programs
I i INN 3 r 3 i , ,| i i
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 prolecUbn.
resources. The project sites also
represent a broad range of environ-
mental conditions in estuaries
throughout the United States and
its Territories so that the lessons
learned through the NEP can be
applied to other estuaries.
Each of the 28 estuaries in the
NEP is unique. Yet the estuaries
share common threats and stressors.
Each estuary faces expanding
human activity near its shores that
may degrade water quality and
habitat. Eutrophication, toxic sub-
stances (including metals), patho-
gens, and changes to living
resources and habitats top the list of
problems being addressed by NEP
Management Conferences.
Protecting Wetlands
A variety of public and private
programs protect wetlands. Section
404 of the CWA continues to
provide the primary Federal vehicle
for regulating certain activities in
wetlands. Section 404 establishes a
permit program for discharges of
dredged or fill material into waters
of the United States, including
wetlands.
The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and EPA jointly
implement the Section 404 pro-
gram. The COE is responsible for
reviewing permit applications and
making permit decisions. EPA estab-
lishes the environmental criteria for
making permit decisions and has
the authority to review and veto
Section 404 permits proposed for
issuance by the COE. EPA is also
responsible for determining geo-
graphic jurisdiction of the Section
404 permit program, interpreting
statutory exemptions, and over-
seeing Section 404 permit programs
assumed by individual States. To
date, only two States (Michigan and
New Jersey) have assumed the
Section 404 permit program from
the COE. The COE and EPA share
responsibility for enforcing Section
404 requirements.
The COE issues individual
Section 404 permits for specific
projects or general permits (Table
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
Table 5, Federal Section 404 Permits
General Permits
(streamlined permit review procedures)
Nationwide
Permits
• Cover 39 types of
activities that the
COE determines
to have minimal
adverse impacts
on the environment
Regional
Permits
• Developed by COE
District Offices to
cover activities in
a specified region
Programmatic
Permits
State
Programmatic
Permits
• COE defers permit
decisions to State
agency while
reserving authority
to require an
individual permit
Others
• Special Management
Agencies
• Watershed Planning
Commissions
Individual
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
38
-------
Service), State agencies, and the
public to comment. However, the
vast majority of activities proposed
in wetlands are covered by Section
404 general permits. For example,
in FY96, over 64,000 people applied
to the COE for a Section 404 per-
mit. Eighty-five percent of these
applications were covered by gener-
al permits and were processed in an
average of 14 days. It is estimated
that another 90,000 activities are
covered by general permits that do
not require notification of the COE
at all.
General permits allow the COE
to permit certain activities without
performing a separate individual
permit review. Some general
permits require notification of the
COE before an activity begins. There
are three types of general permits:
• Nationwide permits (NWPs)
authorize specific activities across
the entire Nation that the COE
determines will have only minimal
individual and cumulative impacts
on the environment, including con-
struction of minor road crossings
and farm buildings, bank stabiliza-
tion activities, and the filling of up
to 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.
Under a programmatic general
permit, the COE defers its permit
decision to the regulating entity but
reserves its authority to require an
individual permit.
Currently, the COE and EPA are
promoting the development of
State programmatic general permits
(SPGPs) to increase State involve-
ment in wetlands protection and
minimize duplicative State and
Federal review of activities proposed
in wetlands. Each SPGP is a unique
arrangement developed by a State
and the COE to take advantage of
the strengths of the individual State
wetlands program. Several States
have adopted comprehensive SPGPs
that replace many or all COE-issued
nationwide general permits. SPGPs
simplify the regulatory process and
increase State control over their
wetlands resources. Carefully devel-
oped SPGPs can improve wetlands
protection while reducing regulato-
ry demands on landowners.
Water quality standards for
wetlands ensure that the provisions
of CWA Section 303 that apply to
other surface waters are also applied
to wetlands. In July 1990, EPA issued
guidance to States for the develop-
ment of wetlands water quality
standards. Water quality standards
consist of designated beneficial uses,
numeric criteria, narrative criteria,
and antidegradation statements.
Figure 19 indicates the State's
progress in developing these
standards.
Standards provide the founda-
tion for a broad range of water
quality management activities under
the CWA including, but not limited
to, monitoring for the Section
305(b) report, permitting under
Sections 402 and 404, water quality
certification under Section 401, and
the control of nonpoint source
pollution under Section 319.
States, Territories, and Tribes are
well positioned between Federal
and local government to take the
lead in integrating and expanding
wetlands protection and manage-
ment programs. They are experi-
enced in managing federally man-
dated environmental programs, and
they are uniquely equipped to help
resolve local and regional conflicts
Figure 19. Development of State Water Quality Standards for Wetlands
Antidegradation
Use Classification
Narrative Biocriteria
Numeric Biocriteria
30 States and Tribes Reporting
I
E3 Proposed
IB Under Development
• In Place
I
5 10 15
Number of States Reporting
20
39
-------
and identify the local economic and
geographic factors that may influ-
ence wetlands protection.
Section 401 of the CWA gives
States and eligible American Indian
Tribes the authority to grant, condi-
tion, or deny certification of feder-
ally permitted or licensed activities
that may result in a discharge to
U.S. waters, including wetlands.
Such activities include discharge of
dredged or fill material permitted
under CWA Section 404, point
source discharges permitted under
CWA Section 402, and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's
hydropower licenses. States review
these permits to ensure that they
meet State water quality standards.
Section 401 certification can be
a powerful tool for protecting wet-
lands from unacceptable degrada-
tion or destruction especially when
implemented in conjunction with
wetlands-specific water quality
standards. If a State or an eligible
Tribe denies Section 401 certifica-
tion, the Federal permitting or
licensing agency cannot issue the
permit or license.
Until recently, many States
waived their right to review and
certify Section 404 permits because
these States had not defined water
quality standards for wetlands or
codified regulations for implement-
ing their 401 certification program
into State law. Now, most States
report that they use the Section
401 certification process to review
Section 404 projects and to require
mitigation if there is no alternative
to degradation of wetlands. Ideally,
401 certification should be used to
augment State programs because
activities that do not require Federal
permits or licenses, such as some
ground water withdrawals, are not
covered.
State/Tribal Wetlands Conserva-
tion Plans (SWCPs) are strategies
that integrate regulatory and coop-
erative approaches to achieve State
wetlands management goals, such
as no overall net loss of wetlands.
SWCPs are not meant to create a
new level of bureaucracy. Instead,
SWCPs improve government and
private-sector effectiveness and
efficiency by identifying gaps in
wetlands protection programs
and identifying opportunities to
improve wetlands programs.
States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions protect their wetlands with
a variety of other approaches,
including permitting programs,
coastal management programs,
wetlands acquisition programs,
natural heritage programs, and inte-
gration with other programs. The
following trends emerged from
individual State and Tribal reporting:
• Most States have defined wet-
lands as waters of the State, which
offers general protection through
antidegradation clauses and desig-
nated uses that apply to all waters
of a State. However, most States
have not developed specific wet-
lands water quality standards and
designated uses that protect wet-
lands' unique functions, such as
flood attenuation and filtration.
• Without specific wetlands uses
and standards, the Section 401
certification process relies heavily on
antidegradation clauses to prevent
significant degradation of wetlands.
• In many cases, the States use the
Section 401 certification process to
add conditions to Section 404
permits that minimize the size of
wetlands destroyed or degraded by
proposed activities to the extent
practicable. States often add condi-
tions that require compensatory
mitigation for destroyed wetlands,
but the States do not have the
resources to perform enforcement
inspections or followup monitoring
to ensure that the wetlands are
constructed and functioning
properly.
• More States are monitoring
selected, largely unimpacted
wetlands to establish baseline
conditions in healthy wetlands. The
States will use this information to
monitor the relative performance of
constructed wetlands and to help
establish biocriteria and water
quality standards for wetlands.
Although the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions report that they
are making progress in protecting
wetlands, they also report that the
pressure to develop or destroy wet-
lands remains high. EPA and the
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
will continue to pursue new mecha-
nisms for protecting wetlands that
rely less on regulatory tools.
Protecting the
Great Lakes
Restoring and protecting the
Great Lakes requires cooperation
from numerous organizations
because the pollutants that enter
the Great Lakes originate in both
the United States and Canada, as
40
-------
well as in other countries, and
pollutants enter the lakes via multi-
ple media (i.e., air, ground water,
and surface water). The Interna-
tional Joint Commission (IJC), estab-
lished by the 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty, provides a framework for the
cooperative management of the
Great Lakes. Representatives from
the United States and Canada, the
Province of Ontario, and the eight
States bordering the Lakes sit on the
IJC's Water Quality Board. The Water
Quality Board recommends actions
for protecting and restoring the
Great Lakes and evaluates the envi-
ronmental policies and actions
implemented by the United States
and Canada.
The EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) coordi-
nates activities within the United
States at all government levels and
works with academia, industry, and
nongovernment organizations to
protect and restore the lakes. The
GLNPO provides leadership through
its annual Great Lakes Program
Priorities and Funding Guidance.
The GLNPO also serves as a liaison
to the Canadian members of the IJC
and the Canadian environmental
agencies.
The 1978 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (as amended in
1987) lay the foundation for on-
going efforts to restore and protect
the Great Lakes. The Agreement
committed the United States and
Canada to developing Remedial
Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of
Concern and Lakewide Manage-
ment Plans (LaMPs) for each lake.
Areas of Concern are specially desig-
nated waterbodies around the Great
Lakes that show symptoms of
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
quality issues that have more wide-
spread impacts within each Great
Lake. Public involvement is a critical
component of both LaMP develop-
ment and RAP development.
EPA advocates pollution preven-
tion as the most effective approach
for achieving the virtual elimination
of persistent toxic discharges into
the Great Lakes. The GLNPO has
funded numerous pollution preven-
tion grants throughout the Great
Lakes Basin since FY93. The GLNPO
is targeting its grant dollars to sup-
port projects that further the goal of
virtual elimination of persistent toxic
substances. As part of the efforts to
protect Lake Superior, EPA, the
States, and Canada are implement-
ing a virtual elimination initiative for
Lake Superior that seeks to eliminate
new contributions of critical pollut-
ants, especially mercury.
The Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative is a key element of the
environmental protection efforts
undertaken by the United States in
the Great Lakes Basin. The purpose
of the Initiative is to provide a con-
sistent level of protection in the
Basin from the effects of toxic
pollutants. In 1989, the Initiative
was organized by EPA at the request
of the Great Lakes States to 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 pro-
visions that are consistent with the
EPA final guidance within 2 years of
EPA's publication. In addition, Indian
Tribes authorized to administer an
NPDES program in the Great Lakes
Basin must also adopt provisions
consistent with EPA's final guidance.
To carry out the Act, EPA pro-
posed regulations for implementing
the guidance on April 16,1993,
and invited the public to comment.
The States and EPA conducted pub-
lic meetings in all of the Great Lakes
States during the comment period.
As a result, EPA received over
26,500 pages of comments from
41
-------
over 6,000 commenters. EPA
reviewed all of the comments and
published the final guidance in
March of 1995.
The final guidance prioritizes
control of long-lasting pollutants
that accumulate in the food web—
bioaccumulative chemicals of con-
cern (BCCs). The final guidance
includes provisions to phase out
mixing zones for BCCs (except in
limited circumstances), more exten-
sive data requirements to ensure
that BCCs are not underregulated
due to a lack of data, and water
quality criteria to protect wildlife
that feed on aquatic prey. Publica-
tion of the final guidance was a
milestone in EPA's move toward
increasing stakeholder participation
in the development of innovative
and comprehensive programs for
protecting and restoring our natural
resources.
The Chesapeake Bay
Program
The Chesapeake Bay is an enor-
mously complex and dynamic sys-
tem of fish, waterfowl, and vegeta-
tion in an estuary where salt water
from the Atlantic Ocean and fresh
water from its many tributaries in
the 64,000-square-mile watershed
come together. The extremely shal-
low and productive Bay presents
formidable challenges to the under-
standing and management of this
great estuary. In many areas of the
Bay, water quality is not sufficient to
support living resources year round.
In the warmer months, large por-
tions of the Bay contain little or no
dissolved oxygen, which may cause
fish eggs and larvae to die. The
growth and reproduction of oysters,
clams, and other bottom-dwelling
animals are impaired. Adult fish find
their habitat reduced and their
feeding inhibited.
Many areas of the Bay also have
cloudy water from excess sediment
in the water or an overgrowth of
algae (stimulated by excessive nutri-
ents in the water). Turbid waters
block the sunlight needed to sup-
port the growth and survival of Bay
grasses, also known as submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV). Without
SAV, critical habitat for fish and
crabs is lost. Although there has
been a recent resurgence of SAV in
some areas of the Bay, most areas
still do not support abundant popu-
lations as they once did.
The main causes of the Bay's
poor water quality and aquatic habi-
tat loss are elevated levels of the
nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus.
Both are natural fertilizers found in
animal wastes, soil, and even the
atmosphere. These nutrients have
always existed in the Bay, but not at
the present elevated concentrations.
When the Bay was surrounded
primarily by forests and wetlands,
very little nitrogen and phosphorus
ran off the land into the water. Most
of it was absorbed or held in place
by the natural vegetation. As the
use of the land has changed and
the watershed's population has
grown, the amount of nutrients
entering the Bay has increased
tremendously.
The Chesapeake Bay Program
is a unique regional partnership
leading and directing the restoration
of Chesapeake Bay since 1983. The
Chesapeake Bay Program partners
include the States of Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the Dis-
trict of Columbia; the Chesapeake
Bay Commission; and EPA. The
Chesapeake Executive Council,
made up of the governors of Mary-
land, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the
mayor of the District of Columbia;
the EPA administrator; and the chair
of the Chesapeake Bay Commission,
provides leadership for the Bay
Program and establishes program
policies to restore and protect the
Bay and its living resources.
The Bay Program has set itself
apart by adopting strong numerical
goals and commitments with dead-
lines, and tracking progress with an
extensive array of environmental
indicators. In the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement, Chesapeake Bay
Program partners set a goal to
reduce the nutrients nitrogen and
phosphorus entering the Bay by
40% by the year 2000. In the 1992
amendments to the Agreement,
partners agreed to maintain the
40% goal beyond the year 2000
and to attack nutrients at their
source—upstream in the tributaries.
Recent agreements have outlined a
regional focus to address toxic
problem areas, set specific goals and
commitments for federally owned
lands throughout the watershed,
involved the 1,650 local govern-
ments in the Bay restoration effort,
and addressed land use manage-
ment in the watershed, including a
riparian buffer initiative.
Since its inception, the Chesa-
peake Bay Program's highest priority
has been the restoration of the Bay's
living resources—its finfish, shellfish,
Bay grasses, and other aquatic life
and wildlife. Now, the Chesapeake is
clearly on the upswing. Bay grasses
have increased by 70% since 1984,
with recent population changes
suggesting that many of these
42
-------
populations may rebound if water
quality conditions are improved and
maintained. Striped bass popula-
tions have reached historically high
levels and wild shad are increasing
in numbers as hatchery-reared shad
successfully reproduce and their
offspring make their runs back up
into tributaries. Bald eagles are also
returning to the Chesapeake Bay,
with over 500 young produced in
1996, up from only 63 young in
1977.
Other improvements have also
been observed in the Bay. The Bay
Program, through 1996, has
reopened 272 miles of fish spawn-
ing habitat through its fish passage
initiative. According to the Toxics
Release Inventory, chemical releases
in the Bay watershed have shown
a 55% drop between 1988 and
1994, and Toxics of Concern have
declined by 62% during the same
period.
In spite of near record-high
flows in 3 of the past 4 years, most
of the Bay's major rivers are running
cleaner than they were 10 years
ago. Phosphorus concentrations
have shown significant reductions
throughout most of the Bay, and
nitrogen levels have remained
steady in spite of the high flows and
population increases. Overall, these
nutrient trends indicate that water
quality conditions in this important
tributary are improving basinwide.
Despite these promising trends
in nutrients, dissolved oxygen levels
are still low enough to cause severe
impacts and stressful conditions in
the mainstem of the Bay and several
of the larger tributaries. A long-term
decline in the abundance of the
native waterfowl is also of great
concern. The necessary corrective
Sam Mohar, 4th Grade, Burton CeoWorld, Durham, NC
action to reverse this trend is habitat
improvement and resurgence of
SAV.
The blue crab is currently the
most important commercial and
recreational fishery in the Bay. With
increasing fishing pressures and rela-
tively low harvests in recent years,
there is growing concern for the
health of the stocks. While scientists
agree that neither the crab popula-
tion nor the fishery are on the verge
of collapse, they concur that the
stock is fully exploited. The 1997
Blue Crab Fisheries Management
Plan contains recommendations to
maintain regulations, limit access to
the fishery, prevent exploitation and
improve research and monitoring
and incorporates an enhanced habi-
tat section recommending protec-
tion and restoration of Bay grasses
and water quality.
Overall, the Chesapeake Bay still
shows symptoms related to stress
from an expanding population and
the changes such growth brings
about in land use. However, the
concentrated restoration and man-
agement effort begun 12 years ago
has produced tangible results. When
taken as a whole, results from coop-
erative monitoring of input from the
Bay's rivers generally show very
encouraging signs.
The Gulf of Mexico
Program
The Gulf of Mexico Program
(GMP) was established in August
1988 as a partnership to provide a
broad geographic focus on the
major environmental issues in the
Gulf before they become irreversible
or too costly to correct. Its main
purpose is to develop and imple-
ment strategies for protecting,
restoring, and maintaining the
health and productivity of the Gulf
of Mexico in ways consistent with
the economic well being of the
43
-------
Region. This partnership also
includes representatives from State
and local government, Federal agen-
cies, and the citizenry in each of the
five Gulf States, the private sector
(business, industry, and agriculture),
and the academic community. The
partnership provides:
• A mechanism for addressing com-
plex problems that cross Federal,
State, and international jurisdictional
lines
• Better coordination among
Federal, State, and local programs,
increasing the effectiveness and
efficiency of the long-term commit-
ment to manage and protect Gulf
resources
• A regional perspective to access
and provide the information and
address research needs required for
effective management decisions
• A forum for affected groups using
the Gulf, for public and private
educational institutions, and for the
general public to participate in the
solution process.
Through its partnerships, the
GMP Is working with the scientific
community, policy makers at the
Federal, State and local levels, and
the public to help preserve and
protect America's abundant sea. It
has made significant progress iden-
tifying the environmental issues in
the Gulf Ecosystem and organizing
a program to address those issues.
Eight issue areas were initially iden-
tified as Program concerns:
• Habitat degradation in such areas
as coastal wetlands, seagrass beds,
and sand dunes
• Freshwater inflow changes in the
volume and timing of flow resulting
from reservoir construction; diver-
sions for municipal, industrial, and
agricultural purposes; and modifica-
tions to watersheds with concomi-
tant alteration of runoff patterns
• Nutrient enrichment resulting
from such sources as municipal
wastewater treatment plants, storm
water, industries, and agriculture
• Toxic substances and pesticides
contamination originating from
industrial, urban, and agricultural
sources
• Coastal and shoreline erosion
caused by natural and human-
related activities
• Public health threats from swim-
ming in, and eating seafood prod-
ucts coming from, contaminated
water
• Marine debris from land-based
and marine recreational and
commercial sources
• Sustainability of the living aquatic
resources of the Gulf of Mexico
ecosystem.
The current focus of
the GMP is on nutrient
enrichment, shellfish
restoration, critical habitat,
and introduction of
exotic species.
The GMP is now focusing its
limited resources on implementa-
tion of actions to address specific
problems that emerged as the
Program concerns were character-
ized. The current focus is on nutri-
ent enrichment, shellfish restoration,
critical habitat, and introduction of
exotic species. Other operational
efforts provide public education and
outreach and data and information
transfer.
Since its formation in 1988, the
GMP has been committed to spon-
soring projects that will benefit the
environmental health of the region.
These projects, numbering over
200, vary immensely, from "shovel-
in-the-ground" demonstration
projects to scientific research to
public education. Examples include
a wetlands restoration project in
Texas' Galveston Bay System, a Bay
Rambo Artificial Oyster Reef project
in Louisiana, a Shellfish Growing
Water Restoration project in
Mississippi, a demonstration project
in sewage management in Alabama,
and a health professional education
program in Florida.
Ground Water
Protection Programs
The sage adage that "An ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of
cure" is being borne out in the field
of ground water protection. Studies
evaluating the cost of prevention
versus the cost of cleaning up con-
taminated ground water have found
that there are real cost advantages
to promoting protection of our
Nation's ground water resources.
Numerous laws, regulations,
and programs play a vital role in
protecting ground water. The fol-
lowing Federal laws and programs
enable, or provide incentives for,
44
-------
EPA and/or States to regulate or
voluntarily manage and monitor
sources of ground water pollution:
• The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) authorizes EPA to ensure
that water is safe for human con-
sumption. One of the most funda-
mental ways to ensure consistently
safe drinking water is to protect the
source of that water (i.e., ground
water). Source water protection is
achieved through three SDWA
programs: the Wellhead Protection
Program, the Sole Source Aquifer
Program, and the Underground
Injection Control Program. The
1996 Amendments to the SDWA
also created the Source Water
Assessment Program to ensure that
States conduct assessments to
determine the vulnerability of drink-
ing water to contamination.
• The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) addresses the
problem of safe disposal of the huge
volumes of solid and hazardous
waste generated nationwide each
year. RCRA is part of EPA's compre-
hensive program to protect ground
water resources through the devel-
opment of regulations and methods
for handling, storing, and disposing
of hazardous material and through
the regulation of underground
storage tanks—the most frequently
cited source of ground water
contamination.
• The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the
Superfund Amendments and Reau-
thorization Act of 1986 created
several programs operated by EPA,
States, Territories, and Tribes that
act to protect and restore contami-
nated ground water. Restoration of
contaminated ground water is one
of the primary goals of the Super-
fund program. As stated in the
National Contingency Plan, EPA
expects to return usable ground
waters to their beneficial uses, wher-
ever possible, within a time frame
that is reasonable given the particu-
lar circumstances of the site.
• Clean Water Act Sections 319(h)
and (i) and 518 provide funds to
State agencies and Indian Tribes to
implement EPA-approved nonpoint
source management programs and
ground water protection activities.
Such activities include assessing and
characterizing ground water
resources; delineating wellhead pro-
tection areas; and addressing
ground water protection priorities.
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs
A Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP)
v is composed of six "strategic activities." They are:
i Establishing a prevention-oriented goal
i Establishing priorities, based on the characterization of the resource
and identification of sources of contamination
i Defining fofes, responsibilities, resources, and coordinating mechanisms
i Implementing all necessary efforts to accomplish the State's ground
--water protection goal
i Coordinating information collection and management to measure
progress and reevaiuate priorities
• Improving public education and partFcipafjon.
45
-------
• Section 102 of the Clean Water
Act grants States the authority to
develop Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Programs
(CSGWPPs) tailored to their goals
and priorities for the protection of
ground water resources. CSGWPPs
attempt to combine all of the above
efforts and emphasize contamina-
tion prevention. The programs pro-
vide a framework for EPA to give
greater flexibility to a State for man-
agement and protection of its
ground water resources. CSGWPPs
guide the future implementation of
all State and Federal ground water
programs and provide a framework
for States to coordinate and set
priorities for all ground-water-related
activities.
Another means of protecting
our Nation's ground water resources
Is through the implementation of
Wellhead Protection Plans (WHPs).
EPA's Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water is supporting the
development and implementation
of WHP Programs at the local level
through many efforts. For example,
EPA-funded support is provided
through the National Rural Water
Association (NRWA) Ground Water/
Wellhead Protection programs. As
of December 31,1996, over 2,600
communities had become involved
in developing local WHP plans.
Comprehensive State
ground water protection
programs support State-
directed priorities in
resource protection.
These 2,600 communities represent
over 6 million people. Over 1,600 of
these communities have completed
their plans and are managing their
wellhead protection areas to ensure
the community that their water
supplies are protected.
As a result of the 1996 Amend-
ments to the SDWA, source water
protection has become a national
priority. Accordingly, EPA included a
source water protection goal in a
draft of Environmental Coals for
America With Milestones for 2005,
which was released in January 1996.
The draft goal states that "by the
year 2005, 60% of the population
served by community water systems
will receive their water from systems
with source water protection
programs in place." This goal will
be achieved using a three-phased
approach, which builds upon key
accomplishments and foundations,
such as the WHP Program, and
maximizes the use of new tools and
resources provided for under the
1996 Amendments. The new
emphasis on public involvement
and new State Source Water Assess-
ment Programs should lead to State
Source Water Protection Programs.
Also, the Amendments provide
States an unprecedented opportuni-
ty for source water assessment and
protection programs to use new
funds from the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DW-SRF) program
for eligible set-aside activities.
46
-------
What You Can Do
Federal and State programs
have helped clean up many waters
and slow the degradation of others.
But government alone cannot solve
the entire problem, and water
quality concerns persist. Nonpoint
source pollution, in particular, is
everybody's problem, and every-
body needs to solve it.
Examine your everyday activities
and think about how you are con-
tributing to the pollution problem.
Here are some suggestions on how
you can make a difference.
Be Informed
You should learn about water
quality issues that affect the com-
munities in which you live and
work. Become familiar with your
local water resources. Where does
your drinking water come from?
What activities in your area might
affect the water you drink or the
rivers, lakes, beaches, or wetlands
you use for recreation?
Learn about procedures for
disposing of harmful household
wastes so they do not end up in
sewage treatment plants that
cannot handle them or in landfills
not designed to receive hazardous
materials.
Be Responsible
In your yard, determine
whether additional nutrients are
needed before you apply fertilizers,
and look for alternatives where
fertilizers might run off into surface
waters. Consider selecting plants
and grasses that have low mainte-
nance requirements. Water your
lawn conservatively. Preserve exist-
ing trees and plant new trees and
shrubs to help prevent erosion and
promote infiltration of water into
the soil. Restore bare patches in
your lawn to prevent erosion. If you
own or manage land through
which a stream flows, you may
wish to consult your local county
extension office about methods of
restoring stream banks in your area
by planting buffer strips of native
vegetation.
Around your house, keep litter,
petwaste, leaves, and grass clip-
pings out of gutters and storm
drains. Use the minimum amount
of water needed when you wash
your car. Never dispose of any
household, automotive, or garden-
ing wastes in a storm drain. Keep
your septic tank in good working
order.
, Within your home, fix any
dripping faucets or leaky pipes and
install water-saving devices in
shower heads and toilets. Always
follow directions on labels for use
and disposal of household chemi-
cals. Take used motor oil, paints,
and other hazardous household
materials to proper disposal sites
such as approved service stations
or designated landfills.
Be Involved
As a citizen and a voter there is
much you can do at the community
level to help preserve and protect
our Nation's water resources. Look
around. Is soil erosion being con-
trolled at construction sites? Is the
community sewage plant being
operated efficiently and correctly?
Is the community trash dump in or
along a stream? Is road deicing salt
being stored properly?
Become involved in your com-
munity election processes. Listen
and respond to candidates' views
on water quality and environmental
issues. Many communities have
recycling programs; find out about
them, learn how to recycle, and vol-
unteer to help out if you can. One
of the most important things you
can do is find out how your
47
-------
community protects water quality,
and speak out if you see problems.
Volunteer Monitoring:
You Can Become Part
of the Solution
In many areas of the country,
citizens are becoming personally
involved in monitoring the quality
of our Nation's water. As a volunteer
monitor, you might be involved in
taking ongoing water quality mea-
surements, tracking the progress of
protection and restoration projects,
or reporting special events, such as
fish kills and storm damage.
Volunteer monitoring can be of
great benefit to State and local gov-
ernments. Some States stretch their
monitoring budgets by using data
collected by volunteers, particularly
in remote areas that otherwise
might not be monitored at all.
Because you are familiar with the
water resources in your own
neighborhood, you are also more
likely to spot unusual occurrences
such as fish kills.
The benefits to you of becom-
ing a volunteer are also great. You
will learn about your local water
resources and have the opportunity
to become personally involved in a
nationwide campaign to protect a
vital, and mutually shared, resource.
If you would like to find out more
about organizing or joining
volunteer monitoring programs in
your State, contact your State
department of environmental
quality, or write to:
Alice Mayio
Volunteer Monitoring
Coordinator
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7018
For further information on
water quality in your State or other
jurisdiction, contact your Section
305(b) coordinator listed at the
back of this document. Additional
water quality information may be
obtained from the Regional offices
of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (see inside back cover).
For Further Reading
EPA's Volunteer Monitoring Program.
EPA-841-F-95-001. February 1995.
Contains a brief description of EPA
activities to promote volunteer
monitoring.
Volunteer Monitoring. EPA-800-F-
93-008. September 1993. A brief
fact sheet about volunteer moni-
toring, including examples of how
volunteers have improved the
environment.
National Directory of Citizen Volun-
teer Environmental Monitoring
Programs, Fourth Edition. EPA-841 -
B-94-001. January 1994. Contains
information about 519 volunteer
monitoring programs across the
Nation.
Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A
Methods Manual. EPA-841-D-95-
001. 1995. Presents information
and methods for volunteer moni-
toring of streams.
Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A
Methods Manual. EPA-842-B-93-
004. December 1993. Presents
information and methods for vol-
unteer monitoring of estuarine
waters.
Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A
Methods Manual. EPA-440/4-91-
002. December 1991. Discusses
lake water quality issues and
methods for volunteer monitoring
of lakes.
Many of these publications can
also be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/volunteer/
epasvmp.html.
48
-------
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
skin.
Fish consumption advisories
recommend that the public limit
the quantity and frequency of con-
sumption of fish caught in specific
waterbodies. 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
advisory database tracks advisories
issued by States and Tribes. For
1996, the database listed 2,196 fish
consumption advisories in effect in
47 States, the District of Columbia,
and American Samoa. Fish con-
sumption 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 advisory.
States also vary the amount of fish
tissue monitoring they conduct and
the number of pollutants analyzed.
States that conduct more monitor-
ing and use strict criteria will issue
more advisories than States that
conduct less monitoring and use
weaker criteria. For example, 70%
of the advisories active in 1996
were issued by the States surround-
ing the Great Lakes, which support
extensive fish sampling programs
and follow strict criteria for issuing
advisories.
Most of the fish consumption
advisories (76%) are due to mer-
cury. 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 microorga-
nisms 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 conform
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 1996, 10 States reported
that shellfish harvesting restrictions
were in effect for 4,804 square
miles of estuarine and coastal
waters during the 1994-1996
reporting period. Five States
reported that nonpoint sources,
point sources, urban runoff and
storm sewers, municipal wastewater
treatment facilities, marinas, septic
tanks, and industrial discharges
restricted shellfish harvesting.
49
-------
50
-------
Section II
Presenting Water Quality Information
-------
Presenting Water Quality Information:
305(b) and the Index of Watershed Indicators
Introduction
Water quality data can be
interpreted by resource managers,
researchers, conservation groups,
and other interested parties in a
variety of ways, depending on how
the data are collected, compiled,
and presented. Because of these
differences in data gathering and
presentation, similar data gathered
by different agencies might not be
directly comparable. This section
focuses on two ways water quality
data are presented — through the
305(b) process and in EPA's Index
of Watershed Indicators (IWI).
Examples from South Carolina are
used to illustrate the two methods
of data presentation.
There are important links
between the 305(b) process and the
IWI. 305(b) data are an integral part
of the indices used in the IWI. Both
305(b) and the IWI report on the
condition and vulnerability of water-
bodies. Condition indicators
describe the current status and func-
tions of a waterbody while vulnera-
bility is influenced by environmental
factors or activities that can place
stress on the resource, though
perhaps not to the point that its
values or functions are impaired.
What Is the Index
of Watershed
Indicators?
The Index of Watershed Indi-
cators (IWI) is a compilation of infor-
mation on the condition of aquatic
resources in the United States. Just
as a physician might take your tem-
perature and blood pressure, check
your pulse, and listen to your heart-
beat and respiration to determine
the status of your health, the Index
looks at a variety of indicators that
point to whether rivers, lakes,
streams, wetlands, and coastal areas
are "well" or "ailing" and whether
activities on the surrounding lands
are placing these waters at risk.
The Index is in large part based
on the June 1996 Environmental
Indicators of Water Quality in the
United States, developed by EPA in
partnership with States, Tribes,
private organizations, and other
Federal agencies. The Indicators
Report presents 18 national indica-
tors of the health of our water
resources. The Index evaluates a
similar set of indicators, categorized
as "condition" and "vulnerability"
indicators, for each of 2,111 water-
sheds in 48 States. (Alaska, Hawaii,
and the Territories will be added in
future versions of the Index.)
Why Watersheds?
A watershed is defined in
nature by topography. It is the land
area that drains to a body of water,
such as a lake, an estuary, or a river.
The watershed's drainage affects the
water flow or water level and, in
many cases, the overall condition of
downstream bodies of water. Thus,
a lake, river, or estuary is a reflection
of its watershed. EPA's Office of
Water, along with many local
groups and State agencies, has
been emphasizing the importance
of organizing water quality improve-
ment efforts on a watershed basis.
Downstream conditions are affected
by all contributing input from
upstream tributaries and adjacent
land use activities.
52
-------
What Is the Size of
These Watersheds?
The U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) has developed and mapped
a geographic Hydrologic Unit
Classification (HUC) System of
watersheds at four different scales.
The lower 48 States, for example,
are comprised of 18 basins known
as regions. Subregions, identified
with a 4-digit number, nest within
the regions, and 6-digit accounting
units are smaller yet. Within those
accounting units are 8-digit cata-
loging units, which define water-
sheds that are generally greater
than 700 square miles in drainage
area. For the Index, watersheds are
depicted at the 8-digit scale — the
smallest unit in the nationally con-
sistent HUC System. South Carolina,
for example, has 31 cataloging
units, which vary in size from about
500 to 1,800 square miles.
What Are the
Indicators?
Phase I of the 1WI project uses
15 indicators or data layers. They
were selected because they are
appropriate to the IWI objectives,
they have relatively uniform avail-
ability across the Nation, and they
can be depicted at the 8-digit HUC
scale. Seven of the indicators are
related to the condition of the
aquatic resources, and eight are
related to vulnerability. Phase II will
include Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto
Rico and will add more data layers
such as ground water.
Condition Indicators
1. Assessed Rivers Meeting All
Designated Uses Established
by State or Tribal Water
Quality Standards (§305(b)):
Information reported by States
and Tribes on the percentage of
waters within the watershed that
meet all uses established for
those waters as reported in 1994
or 1996 reports to Congress
required under Clean Water Act
Section 305(b).
2. Fish and Wildlife Consumption
Advisories: Advisories recom-
mended by States to restrict
consumption of locally harvested
fish or game due to the pres-
ence of contaminants, (data
from EPA's National Listing of
Fish and Wildlife Consumption
Advisories)
3. Indicators of Source Water
Quality for Drinking Water
Systems: Three data sets com-
bined to give insight on the
extent to which waters from
rivers, lakes, or reservoirs require
treatment before use as drinking
water based on (1) attainment
of the "water supply" desig-
nated use under Section 305(b)
based on river and lake water-
bodies, (2) community water
supply systems with treatment in
place beyond conventional treat-
ment or systems that were in
violation of source-related stan-
dards in 1995 (Safe Drinking
Water Information System
[SDWIS]), and (3) presence of
Condition Indicators
, Condition indicators describe the
, current status and functions of a
^waierbody. In the 305(b) process,
States and Tribes evaluate condi-
"lion| in a'waterbody and report
orj whether ft supports, partially
-supports, or does not support
'beneficial uses. The Index reports
n*a number of condition iridTca-
f tors, fnduding fish consumption
advisories, contaminated sedi-
ment, and wetlands loss.
contaminants in source water at
levels that exceed one-half the
maximum contaminant level
(MCL). (The MCL is the level to
which a contaminant must be
removed from drinking water to
meet Safe Drinking Water Act
safety requirements.) (data from
EPA's STORET database)
4. Contaminated Sediments: The
level of potential risk to human
health and the environment
derived from sediment chemical
analysis, sediment toxicity data,
and fish tissue residue data, (data
from EPA's National Sediment
Inventory)
5. Ambient Water Quality Data —
Four Toxic Pollutants: Ambient
water quality data showing
percent exceedances of national
criteria levels, over a 6-year
period (1990-1996), of copper,
hexavalent chromium, nickel,
and zinc, (data from STORET)
53
-------
indicators
ijfl|Hf}iJity, indicators describe
| {actors ^activities
'
• stress on the
iqh perhaps not to
iIBEijlllaSs
5p5ff'""a Beneficial use, but are
&^^l^j^a^ii^^n^,
|cJrcu|ipnc;es jp IS JsRMfldira
kyyatersned. T^eJrjdej Deports on
nUmber_of wlneraBi^ indica-.
s, Ipcluding^pecies"at" rfsk^ pol-
ilutant loads, runoff potential, etc.
6. Ambient Water Quality Data —
Four Conventional Pollutants:
Ambient water quality data
showing percent exceedances
of national reference levels, over
a 6-year period (1990-1996),
of ammonia, dissolved oxygen,
phosphorus, and pH. (data from
STOREQ
7. Wetlands Loss Index: Percent-
age of wetlands loss over a
historic period (1870-1980)
and more recently (1986-1996).
(data from U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Wetland
Inventory and Natural Resources
Conservation Service's National
Resource Inventory, respectively)
Vulnerability Indicators
8. Aquatic/Wetlands Species at
Risk: Watersheds with high
occurrences of species at risk.
(data from The Nature Conser-
vancy and State Heritage data-
bases)
9. Pollutant Loads Discharged
Above Permitted Discharge
Limits — Toxic Pollutants:
Discharges over a 1 -year period
for toxic pollutants, combined
and expressed as a percentage
above or below the total dis-
charges allowed under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permitted amount, (data from
EPA's Permit Compliance
System)
10. Pollutant Loads Discharged
Above Permitted Discharge
Limits — Conventional
Pollutants: Discharges over a
1 -year period for conventional
pollutants combined and
expressed as a percentage
above or below the total
discharges allowed under the
NPDES permitted amount.
(data from EPA's Permit
Compliance System)
11. Urban Runoff Potential: An
estimate of the potential for
urban runoff impacts based on
the percentage of impervious
surface in the watershed, e.g.,
roads, paved parking, and roofs.
(data from USGS and Census
Bureau)
12. Index of Agricultural Runoff
Potential: A composite index
composed of (1) a nitrogen
runoff potential index, (2) mod-
eled sediment delivery to rivers
and streams, and (3) a pesticide
runoff index, (data from Natural
Resources Conservation Service)
13. Population Change: Popula-
tion growth rate as a surrogate
of many stress-producing activi-
ties from urbanization, (data
from Census Bureau)
14. Hydrologic Modification —
Dams: An index that shows
relative reservoir impoundment
volume in the watershed. The
process of impounding streams
changes their characteristics,
and the reservoirs and lakes
formed in the process can be
more susceptible to pollution
stress, (data from Corps of
Engineers)
15. Estuarine Pollution Suscepti-
bility Index: An index that
measures an estuary's suscepti-
bility to pollution based on its
physical characteristics and its
propensity to concentrate
pollutants, (data from National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration)
54
-------
. VVhat are ^qjone^of the Benefits
f of the Index?
grst"'*^"^Jj'1^* ' y/'^-f , i v - ' t/ a . >' "
A focus oh watershed resources: The, Index provides easy-to-get
;tinforrnatipn from many sources aoout local watersheds and their
needs.
is power: The Index enables managers and residents to
2*1 T understand, and therefore act responsibly about, their watershed.
»<*- * S , 5 ,- , - „
^f Progress: Together, many organizations and people have been
E - "working to maintain and improve our water quality, and they have
been successful in many areas, while maintaining population and
' "
^Partners: Various Federal, State and nongovernmental organizations
'," have begun to combine their information to tell a coordinated story.
Using this information, the combined forces of these organizations
can work together to better address our remaining problems and
protection needs.
t -a * £ t
*,*T J^^ ^-*=V f
i Missing data: Indicators with too little data are clearly shown in
"grey, indicating where information needs to be collected.
sr-« Monitoring: IWI uses information from many public and private
.sources to provide a full picture of watershed health.
Where Can You
View the IWI?
The Index of Watershed Indica-
tors can be viewed on the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/surf/iwi and
in a hard copy report available from
the National Center for Environ-
mental Publications and Information
(NCEPI). The Index includes a map
of the United States with color-
coded information on the overall
condition/vulnerability of each
watershed, as well as national maps
depicting each data layer for all
watersheds. The Internet version of
the Index provides links to a broad
range of support material.
For instance, an individual
Watershed Profile page (see example
from South Carolina) presents a
map of each Cataloging Unit shown
in relation to adjacent watersheds
and the boundary of the State in
which it is primarily located. This
profile also describes the physical
features and demographics of the
watershed and display its Overall
Watershed Score (one of seven
categories) and the scores for each
individual indicator.
How Is the Overall
Watershed Score
Developed?
Each watershed is identified as
having good quality, less serious or
more serious problems, and high or
low vulnerability. There is a separate
category for watersheds with too
little data for a valid characteriza-
tion. Condition and vulnerability
indicators are evaluated separately
for each watershed.
For the indicators, a minimum
number of observations is necessary
to assign a "score." If data for a par-
ticular indicator are insufficient, that
is displayed on the map and indi-
cated in the Profile. At least 4 of 7
condition indicators and 6 of 8 vul-
nerability indicators must be present
to calculate the overall index for any
given watershed.
,« ., .
Detailed information on
'- sources of data, the method used
tp,characterize each data layer,
u jnd the method for combining
individual indicators into the
overall Index is available through
the Irrternet at www.epa.gov/surf.
In aggregating the 15 indicators
into the overall Index, Indicator 1,
Assessed Rivers Meeting All Desig-
nated Uses, is weighted more heav-
ily than other indicators because it is
a comprehensive assessment and
EPA believes considerable weight
should be given to the State and
Tribal 305(b) assessment process.
55
-------
Figure 1. Assessed Rivers Meeting All Designated Uses Set in State/Tribal Water Quality Standards 1994/1996
Analysis of Alaska and
Hawaii reserved for Phase 2.
Percent of Cataloging Unit Waterbodies
Meeting All Designated Uses:
•I 80-100% Met
•1 50 - 79% Met
•13 20-49% Met
n < 20% Met
Insufficient Data
Index of Watershed Indicators
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
National Water Quality Inventory
All other indicators are weighted
equally. If Indicator 1 is not avail-
able, the values of the other condi-
tion indicators are increased by a
factor of 3 to derive an Index score.
How Are 305(b) Data
Used in the IWI?
The IWI map of "assessed rivers
meeting all designated uses estab-
lished by state or tribal water quality
standards" (Figure 1) presents a
national picture of the overall health
condition of individual watersheds.
Correctly read, the information pro-
vided is interpreted as follows: "In
X watershed, Y percent (as a range)
of the assessed stream miles in the
watershed meet all designated
uses." Watersheds in which a high
percentage of waterbodies meet
designated uses generally have
better water quality than watersheds
in which the percentage is low.
Designated uses can be drinking
water supply, aquatic life support,
fish and shellfish consumption, pri-
mary and secondary contact recre-
ation, and agriculture. Where a
watershed shows a lower degree of
overall designated use attainment, it
is helpful to be able to break out
data summaries for specific uses.
Different uses employ different
benchmarks to define use attain-
ment (e.g., bacteria counts for
swimming use and dissolved
oxygen levels for aquatic life use).
56
-------
Data summaries on such pollution
stressors or the sources of the stres-
sors may also be needed for many
management decisions. The poten-
tials of such supplemental data
presentations are illustrated below.
Data Presentations —
South Carolina
Example
While the 305(b) process and
the IWI depict similar water quality
data, they differ both in scope and
scale. As discussed, the Index deals
with a variety of indicators, a num-
ber of which draw on data gathered
through means other than the
305(b) process. IWI and 305(b) data
are also presented at different scales.
305(b) data are typically gathered at
the waterbody level and then aggre-
gated to the State level for reporting
in the National Water Quality Inven-
tory, while IWI presents data at the
HUC level. The following example
using data from South Carolina
demonstrates how data are reported
through IWI and the 305(b) process
and compares and contrasts the two
presentations.
Figure 2 is a table of individual
use support in South Carolina taken
Figure 2. Individual Use Support in South Carolina in 1994
Percent
Aquatic Life
Use Support
Fish Consumption
Use Support
Contact Recreation
Use Support
Designated Use
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
yzrfv&~nfwtriiiBZ *ss%«l *f 521S'TSSJESS Slis:
11 /
-------
Figure 3. South Carolina s Edisto Watershed
1 Fully Supporting
Partially Supporting
1 Not Supporting
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
The map in Figure 3 was gener-
ated through a process called reach
indexing, whereby waterbody-level
305(b) use support data were linked
to a map of South Carolina's hydro-
graphy. Reach indexing is the
process of linking water quality
information to the EPA Reach File,
a hydrography dataset at the
1:100,000 scale that will eventually
become part of a Federal standard
National Hydrography Dataset
(NHD). The link between the map
and the water quality data is made
using a geographic information
system (CIS). Reach indexing gives
States powerful mapping and spa-
cial analysis capabilities for specific
streams within a watershed.
from the 1994 National Water
Quality Inventory summary docu-
ment. These data were originally
gathered at the waterbody level.
In other words, State resource
managers assessed particular rivers,
lakes, and estuaries in South Caro-
lina, then compiled statistics at the
statewide level. For example, the
data show that 91% of rivers in
South Carolina fully support aquatic
life use, as opposed to 75% of
estuarine waters. In this format, the
data are useful to individuals inter-
ested in general water quality condi-
tions across the State, such as a con-
cerned citizen or legislator.
Figure 3, also taken from the
1994 National Water Quality Inven-
tory summary document, represents
another depiction of 305(b) data.
This figure shows a map of South
Carolina's Edisto watershed. Each
stream in the watershed is color-
coded to its corresponding use
support status. This type of map is
particularly helpful to watershed
resource managers who need to
prioritize water quality monitoring
and restoration projects in a water-
shed. For example, red areas (which
do not support all beneficial uses)
might be targeted for improvement
measures or additional research.
58
-------
Figure 4. Assessed Rivers Meeting All Designated Uses in South Carolina
Percent of Cataloging Unit
Water-bodies Meeting All
Designated Uses:
^M 80-100% Met
•B 50-79% Met
20-49% Met
EZH < 20% Met
I I Insufficient Data
Index of Watershed Indicators
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
National Water Quality Inventory
1WI displays information at the
same watershed scale as the map of
the Edisto watershed shown above.
Figure 4 is an example of one way
in which the IWI presents informa-
tion. The figure shows all the water-
sheds in South Carolina color-coded
by the IWI indicator of the percent
of the watershed meeting all desig-
nated uses. A map at this scale
might benefit a State resource
manager who needs information on
how to allocate resources across
South Carolina.
A resource manager might also
want to view information just for a
single watershed in South Carolina.
Through EPA's World Wide Web
page, Surf Your Watershed, individ-
uals can choose a particular water-
shed in a State and obtain IWI infor-
mation. Figure 5 shows the option
of obtaining IWI information for the
Edisto watershed.
Figure 6 presents the IWI indica-
tors for the Edisto watershed as they
are displayed in Surf Your Watershed.
In addition to an overall watershed
score, there are also scores for both
the condition and vulnerability of
the Edisto watershed. As discussed
above, 305(b) assessment data for
the watershed are used to deter-
mine the designated use attainment
score. This indicator is weighed
more heavily than the others.
Through Surf Your Watershed,
the IWI makes available 305(b) data
aggregated at the watershed scale.
Figures 7 and 8 display aquatic life
use support in the Edisto watershed
for rivers and estuarine waters,
59
-------
Figure 5. Surf Your Watershed World Wide Web Page for the Edisto Watershed
http://www.epa.gov/suf/hucHo/03050205/
SURF YOUR WTERSHED
iafkyaur information
Edisto
USGS Cataloging trait 03050205
J J Index of Watershed Indicators
Interactive Mapping «« Conditions and Itends
Related Internet Sites J| Adopt Your Watershed
SS Get Connected
respectively. The data show that
over 90% of the rivers and estuarine
waters in the watershed fully sup-
port aquatic life use. It is interesting
to compare these values to the
statewide numbers presented in
Figure 2. While statewide, 91% of
South Carolina rivers fully supported
aquatic life use, only 75% of the
State's estuarine waters fully sup-
ported this use. Thus, the data tell
us that the Edisto watershed has
better than average estuarine water
quality than compared to the State
as a whole. This type of information
can be helpful for a water quality
manager interested in targeting
resources across the State.
The IWI also makes available
305(b) data on the causes and
sources of impairment at the water-
shed level. As Figure 3 demon-
strates, there is a "hot spot" in the
Edisto basin where a number of
streams do not support all beneficial
uses. It might be helpful for
resource managers planning pro-
grams to improve water quality in
the area to have information on the
causes and sources of this impair-
ment. The cause and source infor-
mation for the Edisto watershed
available through the IWI (Figures 9
and 10) indicates that the most
prevalent causes of impairment in
rivers are pathogens and turbidity,
and the most prevalent sources of
pollution are agriculture, natural
sources, and municipal point
sources.
60
-------
Figure 6. Water Quality Information Presented Graphically on Surf Your Watershed
As displayed in Surf Your
Watershed, IWI indicators
of the condition of the
watershed are scored and
assigned to one of three
categories — better water
quality, water quality with
less serious problems, and
water quality with more
serious problems. Second,
indicators of vulnerability
are scored to create two
characterizations of vul-
nerability — high and low.
These two sets of indica-
tors are then combined to
create the Overall Water-
shed Score illustrated at
the right.
oeittoft: I htfo-//www spa aov/surf/IWI/03050a05/
Jfet_ SijarclTj [ Destinations ] |"Software ^ | r
E«sto0gQS CaWus-aing Unit: 03050205
Overall Watershed Score:
This score is the result of combining 15 indicates
'
• Access aO, tavtloti ia*
l frjgieaEQr mag* xtl fae
Jji1 4 I 5 J 8 I insufficient Date]
Mo re Serious
Water Quality . ,
. • " .. PnjMems '
IMMdualMfcaoss wie scoKi o» sepsrse scettes for washed coMttioaaad mteislKd vwtefflatilic?. For more Morm&tioii on
WATERSHED VULNERABILITY
3* 012
t _'~——— ii
Insufficient Data
Scores f on
WATERSHED CX3NDITICW
Oi
iit» aaiiitim «t tit jwtty of tM HATIOHM, i!jj» set. For nay si«iSe watnM, mm or 1«» 4a»o£ aJspae jartUy
;.S»ieiei«nt»ate Q
Mtot & is tut to co
s taag«a»m zero to tires. T£fti%ier iijmitrs tsOert ti« mom s&Ssms jroilsiasifijieleJSy ti&4st&.
61
-------
Figure 7. Aquatic Life Use Support for Rivers in the Edisto Watershed
h(tp://www.epagov/sutf/IWI/03050205/SCnveis-us.html
itevaurvi&te
get information '_'_'_
ilnkyaur information
" ma!
SUKB YOUR WATERSHED
Rivers in South Carolina
Surveyed Waters Meeting State Water Quality Standards for this
Watershed
(Cataloguing Unit # 03050205)
(bar graph legend)
Aquatic Life Use
GOOD (Fully Supporting)
GOOD (Threatened)
FAIR (Partially Supporting)
jfc I POOR (Not Supporting)
POOR (NotAttainable)
62
-------
Figure 8. Aquatic Life Use Support for Estuarine Waters in the Edisto
Watershed
locate vow waters/tea
SURB YOtFK. Wj
_T- link war information
t, sneakoul!
Estuaries in South Carolina
I Surveyed Waters Meeting State Water Quality Standards for this
Watershed
(Cataloguing Unit # 03050205)
(bar graph legend)
Aquatic Life Use
Estuary Water Quality Assessment
GOOD (Fully Supporting)
GOOD (Threatened)
FAIR (Partially Supporting}
POOR (NotSupportlng)
POOR (NotAttainable)
63
-------
Figure 9. Major Causes of Impairment to Rivers in the "Edisto
Watershed
WAIT Ma HIM 030X205
hU(l/Aw(W.epagov/sijfflWl/03050205«Oiv(asHB.hW
SURJP YOUR •WKTERSHED
Rivers in South Carolina
Causes and Sources of Pollution
(Cataloguing Unit # 03050205)
Most Prevalent Causes
Conclusion
As the South Carolina example
demonstrates, 305(b) and the IWI
offer many ways of viewing water
quality information. The scale at
which data are aggregated, whether
it be at the National, regional, State,
watershed, or waterbody level, pro-
vides us with various "snapshots" of
water quality conditions and vulner-
ability. All of the presentations are
valid, but each is an attempt to pre-
sent information in a different way,
and each has strengths and weak-
nesses. Determining which presenta-
tion is best depends on the needs of
the resource manager.
Figure 10. Major Sources of Impairment to Rivers in the
Edisto Watershed
Mwm.epagov/a«MW03Q50205/S Qiveis-us.html
Agriculture
© Natural Source
Municipal PS
64
-------
Gabriel Eng-Goetz, 5th Grade, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC
65
-------
66
-------
Section
State and Territorial, Tribal, and
Interstate Commission Summaries
-------
-------
State and Territorial Summaries
This section provides individual
summaries of the water quality
survey data reported by the States
and Territories in their 1996 Section
305(b) reports. The summaries
provide a general overview of water
quality conditions and the most
frequently identified water quality
problems in each State and Terri-
tory. However, the use support data
contained in these summaries are
not comparable because the States
and Territories do not use 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.
69
-------
Alabama
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Diglt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Alabama 1996
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 and 17%
of the surveyed lake acres from fully
supporting aquatic life use. Oxygen-
depleting wastes and nutrients are
the most common pollutants
impacting rivers and coastal waters.
The leading sources of river pollution
include agriculture, municipal waste-
water treatment plants, and resource
extraction. In coastal waters, the
leading sources of pollution are
urban runoff and storm sewers and
municipal point sources.
Toxic priority organic chemicals
impact the most lake acres, usually in
the form of a fish consumption advi-
sory. These pollutants may accumu-
late in fish tissue at a concentration
that greatly exceeds the concentra-
tion in the surrounding water.
Unknown sources and industrial
dischargers are responsible for the
greatest acreage of impaired lake
waters.
Special State concerns include
impacts from forest clearcutting and
lack of streamside management
zones. Animal waste runoff is
another special concern that is being
dealt with on a case-by-case priority
basis.
Ground Water Quality
The Geological Survey of
Alabama monitoring well network
indicates relatively good ground
water quality. However, the number
of ground water contamination inci-
dents 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 pesti-
cide monitoring and a Wellhead
Protection Program to identify non-
point sources of ground water
contamination and further protect
public water supplies.
70
-------
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 production,
municipal dischargers, household
septic systems, widespread littering,
and urban runoff. Ongoing activities
in the project include water quality
and biological sampling and moni-
toring and CIS spatial data layer
development. ADEM has increased
use of the watershed protection
approach with the initiation of the
5-year multistakeholder Choccolocco
Creek Watershed Project begun in
1996.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Alabama's surface water moni-
toring program includes a fixed
station ambient network, reservoir
sampling, fish tissue sampling, inten-
sive 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 corre-
sponding resident biota at several
candidate reference streams.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A subset of Alabama's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Alabama
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
ff jvers'aritf Streams (total Miles -
Total Miles
70
Cakes (Total Acres = 490,472) \ ~'
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
71
-------
Alaska
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Di9it HydrologJc Unit)
For a copy of the Alaska 1996
305(b) report, contact
Drew Grant
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
Division of Air and Water Quality
410 Willoughby Street - Suite 105
Juneau,AK 99801-1795
(907) 465-5304
e-mail: dgrant@environ.state.ak.us
Surface Water Quality
The vast majority of Alaska's
watersheds, while not being moni-
tored, are presumed to be in rela-
tively pristine condition due to
Alaska's size, sparse population,
and general remoteness. However,
Alaska has localized water pollution.
Surface water quality has been
found to be impaired or threatened
from sources such as urban runoff
(Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau),
mining operations in the Interior and
Northwest Alaska, seafood process-
ing facilities in the Aleutian Islands,
and forest products facilities in
southeast Alaska.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is one of Alaska's
least understood natural resources.
It is the major source of fresh water
for public and private drinking water
supply systems, industry, and agri-
cultural development. Although
ground water is presumed to be of
excellent quality in most areas of the
State, specific areas of generally
good ground water quality have
been degraded by human activities.
Ground water impairment has been
documented in various areas of the
State and has been linked predomi-
nantly to aboveground and subsur-
face petroleum storage facilities, as
well as operational and abandoned
military installations. Other sources,
such as failed septic systems, also
contribute to ground water contami-
nation.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
has developed the Watershed Man-
agement Section, within the Division
of Air and Water Quality, to imple-
ment the watershed protection
approach that has been used suc-
cessfully in other States. The purpose
of this approach is to cost-effectively
improve the water quality of Alaska's
polluted waterbodies and to protect
its healthy watersheds in cooperation
with other agencies, industry, inter-
est groups, and the public. The
process to be used to advance the
watershed protection approach in
Alaska is outlined in the document,
"Watershed Partnerships in Alaska."
A summary document is currently
available to the public, with an
72
-------
expanded version scheduled for
completion in November 1997.
ADEC also supports numerous
additional water quality projects and
programs statewide, including: pol-
lution prevention, leaking under-
ground storage tanks, contaminated
sites, industrial permitting, water-
body assessments and recovery
plans, water quality monitoring,
water quality technical services, and
public outreach and education from
statewide public service offices.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Alaska Watershed Moni-
toring and Assessment Project
(AWMAP) is a statewide water quali-
ty monitoring project involving local,
State, and Federal agencies; indus-
try; schools; the University of Alaska;
and other entities conducting water
quality monitoring. A recent
AWMAP report identified areas of
the State (by USGS hydrologic unit)
where water quality monitoring is
either absent or insufficient to
address the potential pollution
sources.
Other water quality monitoring
activities are conducted by ADEC,
other agencies, industry, and the
public. Applicant self-monitoring
of receiving waters is a common
permit requirement associated
with Alaska's major point source dis-
chargers. ADEC, in cooperation with
the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (ADNR), has periodically
conducted water quality monitoring
related to placer mining. Implemen-
tation of the State Ground Water
Quality Protection Strategy is contin-
uing, encouraging increased ground
water monitoring.
Summary of Use Support in Alaska
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Surveyed
lakesJTotai Acjres =»• 12,78?;200} * \ »
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
73
-------
Arizona
Basin Boundaries
(JJSGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Arizona 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Diana Marsh
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 207-4545
Surface Water Quality
Good water quality fully sup-
ports aquatic life uses in 49% of
Arizona's assessed river miles and
53% of their surveyed lake acres.
However, Arizona reported that over
51 % of their assessed stream miles
and 47% of their assessed lake acres
do not fully support aquatic life uses.
Metals, turbidity, salinity, and
pathogens were the stressors most
frequently identified in streams. The
leading stressors in lakes were salini-
ty, metals, inorganics, and turbidity.
Natural sources, agriculture, and
hydrologic modification (stream
bank destabilization, channelization,
dam construction, flow regulation,
removal of shoreline vegetation),
and resource extraction were the
most common sources of stressors in
both streams and lakes. Nonpoint
sources were the primary source of
degradation of rivers and lakes.
Ground Water Quality
Arizona monitors a network of
ambient water quality index wells
and compiles data from other moni-
toring programs, which are primarily
targeted at areas of known or sus-
pected contamination. Existing data
indicate that ground water generally
supports drinking water uses, but
radiochemicals, primarily from natur-
al sources, exceed standards in 65%
of ambient wells and 39% of tar-
geted wells. Flouride and metals also
cause localized contamination, some
of it from natural sources. At tar-
geted monitoring sites, volatile
organic chemicals, nitrates, and
pesticides are found at unnaturally
high levels. These are caused by
human sources, including agricul-
ture, leaking storage tanks, landfills,
mine waste, and septic tanks.
Five "Active Management
Areas" were designated in the
largest population centers and in
areas where ground water resources
are most imperiled by overdraft.
A Comprehensive State Ground-
water Protection Program has been
initiated as a demonstration project
in Tucson.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Arizona's nonpoint source con-
trol program integrates regulatory
controls with nonregulatory educa-
tion and demonstration projects.
74
-------
Regulatory programs include the
Aquifer Protection Permit Program,
the Pesticide Contamination Preven-
tion Program, and best manage-
ment requirements for controlling
nitrogen at concentrated animal
feeding operations. The State is also
developing best management prac-
tices for timber activities, grazing
activities, urban runoff, and sand
and gravel operations. Arizona's
point source control program
encompasses planning, facility con-
struction loans, permits, pretreat-
ment, inspections, permit compli-
ance, and enforcement.
Additionally, the State's Water
Protection Fund provides a source
of funding to restore rivers and asso-
ciated riparian habitats.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Recently, Federal and State
agencies increased efforts to coordi-
nate monitoring, provide more con-
sistent monitoring protocols, and
provide mechanisms to share data,
spurred by tightened budgets.
Monitoring programs in Arizona
include a fixed station network,
complaint investigations and special
studies, priority pollutant monitor-
ing, and monitoring to support
biocriteria development. Biological
criteria are being developed by
ADEQ, which will recognize normal
regional differences in biological
community structure and allow for
an assessment of the biological
integrity of Arizona's streams.
Individual Use Support in Arizona
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Surveyed
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A 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.
blnc!udes 2,531 miles of nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
c Does not include waters on Tribal lands, which total 37,130 stream miles and 65,128 lake
acres.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
75
-------
Arkansas
—— Fuily Supporting
—- Partially Supporting
— Not Supporting
—— Not Assessed
—— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Diglt Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Arkansas 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Tony Hill
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
P.O. Box8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
(501)682-0667
Surface Water Quality
The Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology
(DPCE) reported that 62% of their
surveyed rivers and streams and
100% of their surveyed lake acres
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses. Good
water quality also fully supports
swimming use in 80% of the 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 discharge
permits and the development of
more effective methods to identify
nonpoint source impacts. Arkansas is
also concerned about impacts from
the expansion of confined animal
production operations and major
sources of turbidity and silt including
road construction, road mainte-
nance, 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 poul-
try and livestock operations, includ-
ing northwest Arkansas, the Arkansas
River Valley, and southwest Arkansas.
In northwest Arkansas, nitrate
contamination was documented in
5% to 7% of the domestic wells
sampled. Wells sampled in pristine
areas of northwest Arkansas were
not contaminated.
76
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Arkansas has focused nonpoint
source management efforts on con-
trolling waste from confined animal
production operations. Arkansas uti-
lizes education, technical assistance,
financial assistance, and voluntary
and regulatory activities to control
nonpoint source pollution from poul-
try, swine, and dairy operations.
Liquid waste systems are regulated
by permit and dry waste systems are
controlled by voluntary implementa-
tion 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 six eco-
regions including the Delta, Gulf
Coastal, Ouchita Mountain, Arkansas
River Valley, Boston Mountain, and
Ozark Mountain Regions. By classify-
ing water resources in this manner,
Arkansas can identify the most com-
mon 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 sur-
veys in watersheds throughout the
State to determine point and non-
point 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)
Total Miles
Surveyed 62
28
Total Acres 100
Surveyed
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Arkansas' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
77
-------
California
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologtc Unit)
For a copy of the California 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Nancy Richard
California State Water Resources
Control Board, M&A
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 944213
Sacramento, CA 94244-2130
(916)657-0642
Surface Water Quality
Siltation, metals, nutrients, and
bacteria impair the most river miles
in California. The leading sources of
degradation in California's rivers and
streams are agriculture, unspecified
nonpoint sources, forestry activities,
urban runoff and storm sewers, and
municipal point sources. In lakes,
siltation, metals, and nutrients are
the most common pollutants.
Hydrologic/habitat modifications
pose the greatest threat to lake
water quality, followed by urban
runofff/storm sewers, construction/
land development, and atmospheric
deposition.
Metals, pesticides, trace ele-
ments, and unknown toxic contami-
nants are the most frequently identi-
fied pollutants in estuaries, harbors,
and bays. Urban runoff and storm
sewers are the leading source of pol-
lution in California's coastal waters,
followed by municipal sewage treat-
ment plants, agriculture, spills,
resource extraction, and industrial
dischargers. Oceans and open bays
are degraded by industrial and
municipal point sources.
Ground Water Quality
Salinity, total dissolved solids,
and chlorides are the most fre-
quently identified pollutants impair-
ing use of ground water in Califor-
nia, followed by nutrients and pesti-
cides. Leading sources are septage
disposal, agriculture, and dairies. The
State also reports that trace inorgan-
ic elements, flow alterations, and
nitrates degrade over 1,000 square
miles of ground water aquifers.
78
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
California's stormwater permit
program, which was the first in the
Nation, has matured into an aggres-
sive program to reduce pollution
associated with stormwater runoff.
The State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) is embarking
on a Watershed Management
Initiative in order to integrate point
and nonpoint pollution source
controls on a watershed basis.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Saltwater monitoring in 1994
and 1995 included shellfish tissue
analysis from coastal sites, sediment
chemistry and toxicity testing (bio-
assays) in bays and estuaries, a
regional monitoring pilot project
along the coast, and water column
monitoring for toxic pollutants in
San Francisco Bay.
Inland water monitoring
included toxicity testing and pesti-
cide analysis in some agricultural
areas, statewide fish tissue sampling,
biological monitoring in the Sacra-
mento-San joaquin Delta, and sever-
al nonpoint source pollution studies
in river basins around the State.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A 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.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due
to rounding.
Individual Use Support in California
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
•••?•* * * u f*. f^&i«ft^^^&^'^%'^%'f^^^^^^™^%^i^^^%'^%™^&'*r&%~^f%^%^™^~^Tl^"'f'&*&
£.'».". '-_ -•*
•Estuaries (Total SqutfrjfMfoeb;g?3|yjjj|fj | ff| fff|Jff1
79
-------
Colorado
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Colorado 1996
305(b) report, contact:
John Farrow
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-3575
Surface Water Quality
Colorado reports that 89% of its
surveyed river miles and 91 % of its
surveyed lake acres have good water
quality that fully supports 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 lead-
ing sources of pollution in rivers.
Agriculture, construction, urban
runoff, and municipal sewage treat-
ment plants are the leading sources
of pollution in lakes.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality in
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 met-
als contaminate aquifers. Colorado
protects ground water quality with
statewide numeric criteria for organ-
ic chemicals, a narrative standard to
maintain ambient conditions or
Maximum Contaminant Levels of
inorganic chemicals and metals, and
specific use classifications and stan-
dards for ground water areas.
Colorado also regulates discharges
to ground water from wastewater
treatment impoundments and land
application systems with a permit
system.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Colorado's nonpoint source pro-
gram supports a wide range of pro-
jects. Ten projects were funded to
identify appropriate treatment
80
-------
options for waters polluted by aban-
doned mines. Several projects identi-
fied and funded implementation
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 man-
agement practices to control non-
point 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 intensify
monitoring in one basin per year,
rather than perform infrequent sam-
pling statewide. Colorado retained
some of the old fixed-station sam-
pling sites to monitor statewide
trends in water quality conditions.
The basin chosen to be analyzed
during this reporting period (1994-
1995) on a watershed approach was
the Arkansas Basin.
Summary of Use Support3 in Colorado
Percent
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired
(For One
or More Uses)
a Summary use support is presented because Colorado did not report individual use support
in its 1996 Section 305(b) report.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
81
-------
Connecticut
— Fully Supporting
— Threatened
•—— Partially Supporting
— Not Supporting
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-D!g!t Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Connecticut 1996
305(b) report, contact
Donald Gonyea
Bureau of Water Management^ PERD
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(860)424-3715
'Discontinuous stream reaches may be due to
lakes or impoundments that are not shown in
this graphic.
Surface Water Quality
Connecticut has restored over
300 miles of large rivers since enact-
ment of Connecticut's State Clean
Water Act in 1967. Back in 1967,
about 663 river miles (or 74% of the
State's 893 miles of large rivers and
streams) were unfit for fishing and
swimming. In 1996, Connecticut
reported that 165 river miles (18%)
do not fully support aquatic life uses
and 248 miles (28%) do not support
swimming due to bacteria, PCBs,
metals, oxygen-demanding wastes,
ammonia, nutrients, and habitat
alteration. Sources of these pollut-
ants include urban runoff and storm
sewers, industrial dischargers,
municipal sewage treatment plants,
and in-place contaminants. Threats
to Connecticut's reservoir and lake
quality include atmospheric deposi-
tion, upstream impoundments, and
municipal sewage treatment plants.
Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen)
is a widespread problem in Connect-
icut's estuarine waters in Long Island
Sound. Bacteria also prevent shellfish
harvesting and an advisory restricts
consumption of bluefish and striped
bass contaminated with PCBs.
Connecticut's estuarine waters are
impacted by municipal sewage
treatment plants, combined sewer
overflows, industrial discharges and
runoff, failing septic systems, urban
runoff, recreational activities, 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 identi-
fied 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.
82
-------
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 wetlands
acts and supported regulation of
buffer areas to protect wetlands.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Connecticut samples physical
and chemical parameters at 27 fixed
stream sites and biological parame-
ters at 47 stream sites. Other activi-
ties include intensive biological sur-
veys, toxicity testing, and fish and
shellfish tissue sampling for accumu-
lation of toxic chemicals.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Connecticut's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Connecticut
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Surveyed ^
Lakes (Total A"cffeir= 64;973)
Total Acres 95
Surveyed
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 612)
Total Square
Surveyed 60
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
83
-------
Delaware
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Diglt Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Delaware 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Brad Smith
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
Division of Water Resources
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 739-4590
Surface Water Quality
Delaware's rivers and streams
generally meet standards for aquatic
life uses, but 84% of the surveyed
stream miles and 76% of the sur-
veyed lake acres do not meet bacte-
ria criteria for swimming. Bacteria
are the most widespread contami-
nant in Delaware's surface waters,
but nutrients and toxics pose the
most serious threats to aquatic life
and human health. Excessive nutri-
ents stimulate algal blooms and
growth of aquatic weeds. Toxics
result in seven fish consumption
restrictions in three basins, including
Red Clay Creek, Red Lion Creek, the
St. Jones River, and the Delaware
Estuary. Agricultural runoff, nonpoint
sources, municipal sewage treatment
plants, and industrial dischargers are
the primary sources of nutrients and
toxics in Delaware's surface waters.
Ground Water Quality
High-quality ground water
provides two-thirds of Delaware's
domestic water supply. However,
nitrates, synthetic organic chemicals,
saltwater, and iron contaminate iso-
lated wells in some areas. In the agri-
cultural areas of Kent and Sussex
counties, nitrates in ground water
are a potential health concern and
a potential source of nutrient conta-
mination in surface waters. Synthetic
organic chemicals have entered
some ground waters from leaking
industrial underground storage
tanks, landfills, abandoned haz-
ardous waste sites, chemical spills
and leaks, septic systems, and agri-
cultural activities.
Programs 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 methods
for protecting water quality or abat-
ing 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
84
-------
management. The Appoquinimink
River subbasin, the Nanticoke River
subbasin, the Delaware's Inland Bays
subbasin, and the Christina River
subbasin are priority watersheds
targeted for development of inte-
grated pollution control strategies.
Delaware's Wellhead Protection
Program establishes cooperative
arrangements with local govern-
ments to manage sources of ground
water contamination. The State may
assist local governments in enacting
zoning ordinances, site plan reviews,
operating standards, source prohibi-
tions, public education, and ground
water monitoring.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Delaware's Ambient Surface
Water Quality Program includes
fixed-station monitoring and biologi-
cal surveys employing rapid bio-
assessment protocols. Monitoring
within the Fixed Station Network
will be modified to provide quarterly
sampling for 1 complete year for
each basin in Delaware. Delaware is
developing and testing new proto-
cols for sampling biological data in
order to determine whether specific
biological criteria can be developed
to determine support of designated
uses.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A 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.
GDoes not include waters under jurisdiction
of the Delaware River Basin Commission.
Individual Use Support in Delaware
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
&
gnd Streaiis|CTofij|iI
-Jf „ •a.:^!R^;-#v&:3&-?*i3%-\*,?.%• •^•^jv '&§ $£«&.-•*&'#.- >
29
^:SgSS^!«W^'fS«^*»'»»'T*^;S"^*s ^ M^ mW %?f Sf™ S
Lakes
uaries (Total Square Miles = 29)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
85
-------
District of Columbia
— Fuhy Supporting
— Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Oiglt Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the District of
Columbia 1996 305(b) report,
contact:
Dr. Hamid Karimi
Department of Health
Environmental Regulation
Administration
Water Quality Monitoring Branch
2100 Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20020
(202)645-6611
Surface Water Quality
There has not been a drastic
change in the poor water quality of
the District of Columbia within the
past 2 years. However, until CSOs
are controlled in the District of
Columbia, major changes in the
quality of its waterbodies probably
will not be seen. The District of
Columbia sees some positive signs.
For example, submerged aquatic
vegetation (underwater grasses) is
now found in places where there
was little or none before. Also,
waters are increasingly used for
recreational fishing and the abun-
dance and diversity of the fishery has
improved.
As the focus of water quality
studies has shifted to toxic pollutants
and biological indicators, waterbod-
ies that were at least partially sup-
porting some of their designated
uses in the past are now not sup-
porting those uses. Although the
results of these studies are not favor-
able, better information and man-
agement of these pollutants and
their effect is better for the health of
both the citizens and the aquatic
resources of the District of Columbia.
A fish consumption advisory remains
in effect for all District surface
waters, and sediment contamination
degrades aquatic life on the Anacos-
tia River. Urban runoff may be the
source of high concentrations of
cadmium, mercury, lead, PCBs,
PAHs, and DDT found in sediment
samples. Combined sewer overflows
are the main source of bacterial pol-
lution that causes unsafe swimming
conditions and a consequent swim-
ming ban.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water, though of
potable quality, is not the drinking
water source for the District of
Columbia. However, its quality is a
concern as it contributes to the
rivers' base flows. Sources of con-
tamination are diverse (above- and
underground storage tanks, landfills,
hazardous waste generators, and
urban runoff) and numerous in rela-
tive terms. Various activities are in
place or under development to
protect and enhance the quality of
ground water.
86
-------
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 imple-
ment urban stormwater retrofits,
CSO controls, and revegetation
projects in both the District and
Maryland to improve water quality
in the Anacostia River.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The District performs monthly
physical and chemical sampling at
80 fixed stations on the Potomac
River, the Anacostia River, and their
tributaries. The District samples
phytoplankton (microscopic plants)
monthly at 15 stations and zoo-
plankton at 3 stations. The District
samples metals in the water column
four times a year and analyzes toxic
pollutants in fish tissue once a year.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of District of Columbia's desig
nated uses appear in this figure. Refer to
the District's 305(b) report for a full
description of the District's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in District of Columbia
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Surveyed
39
100
72
28
45 43
100
238
uaries' (Tpta|Square Miles = 6.1)
238
Total Square 86
Miles Surveyed
5.8
100
5.8
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
87
-------
Florida
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Florida 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Joe Hand
Florida Dept of Environmental
Protection
Mail Stop 3555
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904)921-9441
e-mail: handj@dep.state.fl.us
Surface Water Quality
Overall, the majority of Florida's
surface waters are of good quality,
but problems exist around densely
populated urban areas, primarily in
central and southern Florida. In
rivers, nutrient enrichment, low dis-
solved oxygen, organic matter, silta-
tion, and habitat alteration degrade
water quality. In lakes, the leading
problems result from metals and
other toxics, ammonia, and nutri-
ents. In estuaries, nutrient enrich-
ment, habitat alteration, and silta-
tion degrade quality. Urban storm-
water, agricultural runoff, domestic
wastewater, industrial wastewater,
and hydrologic modifications are the
major sources of water pollution in
Florida.
Special State concerns include
the decline of juvenile alligator pop-
ulations in Lake Apopka, widespread
toxic contamination in sediments,
widespread mercury contamination
in fish, bacterial contamination in
the Miami River, and algal blooms
and extensive die-off of mangroves
and seagrasses in Florida Bay.
Ground Water Quality
Data from over 1,900 wells in
Florida's ambient monitoring net-
work indicate generally good water
quality, but local ground water con-
tamination problems exist. Agricul-
tural chemicals, including aldicarb,
alachlor, bromacil, simazine, and
ethylene dibromide (EDB) have
caused local and regional (in the
case of EDB) problems. Other threats
include petroleum products from
leaking underground storage tanks,
nitrates from dairy and other live-
stock operations, fertilizers and pesti-
cides in stormwater runoff, and toxic
chemicals in leachate from haz-
ardous 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 pol-
lution with its own discharge permit-
ting process similar to the NPDES
program. The State permits about
88
-------
5,111 ground water and surface
water discharge facilities. The State
also encourages reuse of treated
wastewater (primarily for irrigation)
and discharge into constructed
wetlands as an 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 pol-
lutants. Ongoing contracts focus on
best management practices for other
nonpoint sources, including agricul-
ture, septic tanks, landfills, mining,
and hydrologic modification.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Florida's Surface Water Ambient
Monitoring Program's (SWAMP)
work on surface-water chemistry was
merged with the Ground Water
Ambient Monitoring Program, and
SWAMP's biocriteria and bioassess-
ment work was moved to a separate
section. SWAMP provides informa-
tion on the health of Florida's water-
bodies; assesses whether those
waterbodies meet standards and
criteria; and tracks changes in water
quality.
Individual Use Support in Florida
aA subset of Florida's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Assessed 60
32
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 4,298)
Total Square
Miles Assessed 54
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
89
-------
Georgia
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dig!t Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Georgia 1996
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 munici-
palities have made it possible for
Georgians to fish and swim in areas
where water quality conditions were
unacceptable for decades. Water
quality in Georgia streams, lakes,
and estuaries during 1994 and 1995
was good, but the number of
stream miles and lake acres not
fully supporting designated uses
increased. Georgia Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) reassessed
all fish contamination mercury data
and added reduced consumption
guidelines in 1996 for a number of
lakes and streams that had no
restrictions in 1995. Persistent prob-
lems include mud, litter, bacteria,
pesticides, fertilizers, metals, oils,
suds, and other pollutants washed
into rivers and lakes by stormwater.
Ground Water Quality
Georgia's ambient Ground
Water Monitoring Network consists
of 133 wells sampled periodically. To
date, increasing nitrate concentra-
tions in the Coastal Plain are the only
adverse trend detected by the moni-
toring network, but nitrate concen-
trations are still well below harmful
levels in most wells. Additional
nitrate sampling in over 5,000 wells
since 1991 revealed that nitrate con-
centrations exceeded EPA's Maxi-
mum Contaminant Level (MCL) in
less than 1 % of the tested wells.
Pesticide monitoring indicates that
pesticides do not threaten Georgia's
drinking water aquifers at this time.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Comprehensive river basin man-
agement planning will provide a
basis for integrating point and non-
point source water protection efforts
within the State and with neighbor-
ing States. In 1992, the Georgia
General Assembly passed Senate Bill
637, which requires the Department
of Natural Resources to develop
90
-------
management plans for each river
basin in the State. The law requires
that the Chattahoochee and Flint
River Basin Plans be completed by
December 1997, and the Coosa and
Oconee River Basin Plans be com-
pleted by December 1998. Georgia
is also participating in a Tri-State
Comprehensive Study with the
Corps of Engineers, Alabama, and
Florida to develop interstate agree-
ments for maintaining flow and allo-
cating assimilative capacity. Other
interstate basin projects include the
Savannah Watershed Project with
South Carolina and the Suwannee
River Basin Planning Project with the
Georgia and Florida Soil Conserva-
tion Services.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The number of fixed monitoring
stations statewide was reduced in
order to focus resources for sampling
and analysis in a particular group of
basins in any one year in accordance
with the basin planning schedule.
Georgia also sampled toxic sub-
stances in effluent from point source
dischargers, streams, sediment, and
fish tissues at selected sites through-
out the State.
Individual Use Support in Georgia
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Georgia's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
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
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 854)
Total Square 96
Miles Surveyed
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
91
-------
Kauai
Oahu
> Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Hawaii 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Eugene Akazawa, Monitoring
Supervisor
Hawaii Department of Health
Clean Water Branch
919AlaMoanaBlvd.
Honolulu, HI 96814
(808) 586-4309
Maui
Hawaii
Surface Water Quality
Most of Hawaii's waterbodies
have variable water quality due to
stormwater runoff. During dry
weather, most streams and estuaries
have good water quality that fully
supports beneficial uses, but the
quality declines when stormwater
runoff carries pollutants into surface
waters. The most significant pollu-
tion problems in Hawaii are siltation
and turbidity, nutrients, fertilizers,
toxics, pathogens, and pH from
nonpoint sources, including agricul-
ture and urban runoff. Introduced
species and stream alteration are
other stressors of concern. Very few
point sources discharge into Hawaii's
streams; most industrial facilities and
wastewater treatment plants dis-
charge 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 contamina-
tion from discontinued wastewater
discharges at Wailoa Pond and Hilo
Bay.
Ground Water Quality
Compared to mainland States,
Hawaii has very few ground water
problems due to a long history of
land use controls for ground water
protection. Prior to 1961, the State
designated watershed reserves to
protect the purity of rainfall recharg-
ing ground water. The Underground
Injection Control Program also pro-
hibits 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 waste-
water disposal systems, such as seep-
age pits and cesspools, landfills, leak-
ing underground storage tanks, and
agricultural return flows.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
County governments are
required to set erosion control stan-
dards for various types of soil and
land uses. These standards include
92
-------
criteria, techniques, and methods for
controlling sediment erosion from
land-disturbing activities. The State
would like to enact ordinances that
require the rating of pesticides on
their potential to migrate through
soil into ground water. The State
would regulate the use of pesticides
that pose a threat to ground water.
Until more stringent ordinances can
be enacted, the State recommends
using alternatives to pesticides, such
as natural predators and other bio-
logical controls. The State also
encourages the use of low-toxicity,
degradable chemicals for home gar-
dens, landscaping, and golf courses.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Hawaii has scaled back its water
quality monitoring program because
of budgetary constraints. The State
has halted toxics monitoring, fish
tissue contamination monitoring,
and biological monitoring and elimi-
nated sampling at numerous fixed
monitoring stations. The State also
reduced the frequency of bacterial
monitoring at coastal beaches. In a
proposed monitoring strategy (in
progress), the State will revise its
water quality monitoring plan in
order to utilize the limited resources
more efficiently and to refocus on
waterbody-specific needs.
Summary of Use Support3 in Hawaii
Percent
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired
(For One
or More Uses)
Total Miles
Surveyed
32
100
'LakCf. (Total Acres r'2,168)
•~~.~^— ~ i
! Total Acres
Surveyed
.
fetl
:;380) ,
Total Square
Miles Surveyed
^^^y&K^jfS^iSi^^^^^^^^^iSv^^M^lrfs^A.^^-^S-^.- S %,-.$£ 5'. 4: JJ-.. £ " J& '£. t? ••£ i£ $ .'& S .'.€ ^ *> ,"-j V ff.-^ --*i "-' "' ^. ^ ^ •? & i: !•• V- ™ ^' '&; > ^- ^
Total Shoreline
Miles Surveyed
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a Summary use support data from 1994 are presented because Hawaii did not report these data
to EPA in 1996. The State reports there is no basis to believe that water quality has changed
substantially from 1994 to 1996.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
93
-------
Idaho
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Oigit Hydrologic Unit)
For Information about water quality
in Idaho, contact:
Bill Clarke
Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Statehouse Mall
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 373-0263
Surface Water Quality
Idaho did not provide this infor-
mation for the 1996 report.
Ground Water Quality
The Idaho Statewide Ground
Water Quality Monitoring Program
samples about 800 wells every two
years. This program, along with
regional monitoring projects and
data from public drinking water
wells, indicated that nitrates, sol-
vents, and pesticides are the most
prevalent contaminants in ground
water. Major sources of ground
water contamination include land-
fills, fertilizer and pesticide applica-
tion, animal feedlots, underground
storage tanks, septic systems, and
industrial facilities.
The Idaho Legislature adopted
the Ground Water Quality Plan in
1992. The plan contains six major
policy areas directing State agencies
and entities in the protection of
ground water quality. These six pol-
icy areas cover protection, preven-
tion, public education, government
interaction, monitoring, and remedi-
ation. Ground water quality protec-
tion programs in Idaho address
underground injection, wastewater
land application, underground stor-
age tanks, pesticide use, mining,
industrial facilities, remediation,
sewage disposal, solid waste, inter-
agency coordination, ground water
quality monitoring, pollution preven-
tion, and wellhead protection.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
EPA has primary responsibility
for issuing NPDES permits in Idaho.
Idaho's DEQ is concerned that EPA is
not issuing permits for minor point
source dischargers, and inspections
of permitted and unpermitted dis-
chargers are rare. Neither DEQ or
EPA have sufficient staff to conduct
compliance inspections. Without
94
-------
oversight, there are no assurances
that these facilities are being proper-
ly operated and meet water quality
standards.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DEQ operates a water quality
monitoring program that measures
biological, physical, and chemical
parameters. Data collection varies
in intensity, from desktop reviews
of existing data (Basic or Level I),
through qualitative surveys and
inventories that cannot be repeated
with confidence (Reconnaissance or
Level II), to quantitative measure-
ments that can be repeated and
yield data suitable for statistical
analysis (Intensive or Level III). The
program includes monitoring of
trends, beneficial uses, and BMP
effectiveness.
Individual Use Support in Idaho
Percent
Designated Use
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
1141
Total Miles
Surveyed
Lakes (Total Acres ^?00?000) \,
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
95
-------
Illinois
— Fuliy Supporting
— Threatened
Partially Supporting
— Not Supporting
—— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depkts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Illinois 1996 305(b)
report, contact:
Mike Branham
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Boxl9276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-3362
e-mail: epal 110@epa.state.il.us
Surface Water Quality
Overall water quality has steadily
improved over the past 26 years
since enactment of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act. Trend
analysis generally indicates stable or
improving trends in stream concen-
trations of ammonia consistent with
the continued decline in point
source impacts. However, dissolved
oxygen depletion and ammonia still
impair streams, as do nutrients, silta-
tion, 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, hydrologic/
habitat modification, urban runoff,
and resource extraction.
Trend analysis also indicates
improving water quality in lakes.
The most prevalent causes of
remaining pollution in lakes include
nutrients, suspended solids, and sil-
tation. The most prevalent sources
of pollution in lakes include contami-
nated sediments, agriculture, and
hydrologic/habitat alterations.
Trend analysis of lake water
quality showed that the quality of
many Illinois lakes is fluctuating or
declining. Those lakes that have
improved in water quality have gen-
erally had special in-lake restoration
techniques or intensive watershed
management projects implemented.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality is gen-
erally good, but past and present
activities contaminate ground water
in isolated areas. Ground water is
contaminated around leaking under-
ground gasoline storage tanks, large
aboveground petroleum storage
facilities, agricultural chemical opera-
tions, salt piles, landfills, and waste
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Illinois Environmental
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
96
-------
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 multi-
media basis. Activities include pro-
motion of pollution prevention for
all sources of toxics in all media
(such as air and water).
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Ongoing monitoring programs
include ambient and toxicity moni-
toring, pesticide monitoring, inten-
sive river basin surveys, fish contami-
nant monitoring, and volunteer lake
monitoring. These programs gener-
ate a rich inventory of monitoring
data for assessing water quality
conditions across the State.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Illinois' designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to
rounding.
Individual Use Support in Illinois
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) Threatened Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
45
(f t >(TotaXShore,MJIe%=63), . x 1,,
$ Z % t.
s
Total Square
Miles Surveyed
63
100
100
63
63
21
97
-------
Indiana
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Indiana 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Dennis Clark
Indiana Department of Environ-
mental Management
Office of Water Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317)233-2482
Surface Water Quality
Over 99% of the surveyed lake
acres and 84% of the surveyed river
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life. However,
only 18% of the surveyed river miles
support swimming due to high
bacteria concentrations. A fish con-
sumption advisory impairs all of
Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline.
The pollutants most frequently iden-
tified in Indiana waters include bac-
teria, priority organic compounds,
oxygen-depleting wastes, pesticides,
and metals. The sources of these pol-
lutants include industrial facilities,
municipal/semipublic wastewater
systems, combined sewer overflows,
and agricultural nonpoint sources.
Indiana identified elevated con-
centrations of toxic substances in
about 6% of the river miles moni-
tored for toxics. High concentrations
of PCBs, pesticides, and metals were
most common in sediment samples
and in fish tissue samples. Less than
1 % of the surveyed lake acres con-
tained 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 activi-
ties, the State has documented
over 1,200 sites of ground water
contamination. Nitrates are the most
common pollutant detected in wells,
followed by volatile organic chemi-
cals and heavy metals. Some trends
identified in ground water contami-
nation site summaries were that
industrialized areas exhibited the
highest degree of contamination,
and VOCs were the primary class of
contaminants in all hydrogeologic
settings. Heavy metal contamination
is associated with waste disposal
sites.
98
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Since 1972, Indiana has spent
over $1.4 billion in Federal construc-
tion grants, $207 million in State
funds, and $190 million in matching
local funds to construct or upgrade
sewage treatment facilities. As a
result of these expenditures, 53% of
Indiana's population is now served
by advanced sewage treatment. The
State issues NPDES permits to ensure
that these new and improved facili-
ties control pollution. Indiana is
increasing enforcement activities to
ensure compliance with permit
requirements.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Early in 1995 the Water Quality
Surveillance and Standards Branch of
the Office of Water Management ini-
tiated a revision of the surface water
monitoring program of the Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM). The proposed
strategy provides a "proactive"
assessment program that is more
ideally suited to meeting the variety
of data and information needs for
assessing Indiana surface waters.
Individual Use Support in Indiana
Percent
Designated Use3
Good ' Fair Poor , Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not ' (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
s^ffel,^*? 3&.i*^>'ijr %»
-------
Iowa
—— Fully Supporting
—• Threatened
— Partially Supporting
— Not Supporting
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Iowa 1996
305(b) report, contact:
John Olson
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Water Resources Section
900 East Grand Avenue
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515)281-8905
Surface Water Quality
Modifications to stream habitat
and hydrology, sediment and plant
nutrients, and natural conditions
(such as shallowness in lakes) impair
aquatic life uses in 34% of the sur-
veyed rivers and over 35% of the
surveyed lakes. Swimming use is
impaired in 76% of the 862 sur-
veyed river miles and 27% of the
surveyed lakes, ponds, and reser-
voirs. Saylorville, Coralville, and
Rathbun reservoirs have good water
quality that fully supports all desig-
nated uses, but siltation severely
impacts Red Rock Reservoir. Point
sources still pollute about 5% of
the surveyed stream miles and two
lakes.
Ground Water Quality
Groundwater supplies about
80% of all Iowa's drinking water.
Agricultural chemicals, underground
storage tanks, agricultural drainage
wells, livestock wastes, and improper
management of hazardous sub-
stances all contribute to some
degree of ground water contamina-
tion in Iowa. Several studies have
detected low levels of common agri-
cultural pesticides and synthetic
organic compounds, such as sol-
vents and degreasers, in both
untreated and treated ground water.
In most cases, the contaminants
appear in small concentrations
thought to pose no immediate
threat to public health, but little is
known about the health effects of
long-term exposure to low concen-
trations of these chemicals.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1979, Iowa began imple-
menting its agricultural nonpoint
strategy with education projects
and cost-share programs to control
sediment, the greatest pollutant,
by volume, in the State. Later, Iowa
adopted rules that require that land
disposal of animal wastes not
contaminate surface and ground
waters. Landfill rules establish specific
siting, design, operation, and moni-
toring criteria and require annual
100
-------
inspections and permit renewals
every 3 years. Iowa also regulates
construction in floodplains to limit
soil erosion and impacts on aquatic
life.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Iowa's DNR maintains a fixed
sampling network and conducts
special intensive surveys at selected
sites. The State routinely monitors
metals, ammonia, and residual chlo-
rine at the fixed sampling sites.
Limited sampling for agricultural
pesticides began as part of the fixed
network in October 1995. Pesticides
are also monitored for special studies
examining the fate of pesticides in
Iowa rivers and levels of pesticides in
water supply reservoirs. Limited
monitoring for toxics in sediment
was conducted as part of a special
study of PCB contamination in the
Mississippi River. Routine sampling
has not included biological sampling
in the past, but the role of biological
sampling continues to grow. A pro-
gram to develop biologically based
water quality criteria for sampling for
wadeable streams in each of Iowa's
ecoregions began in 1994 and
continues.
aA subset of Iowa's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for
a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Excludes flood control reservoirs.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to
rounding.
individual Use Support in Iowa
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Surveyed
66
34
fFlood Control Reservoirs (Total Acres=31,700)
23
Total Acres
Surveyed
31,700
33
100
101
-------
Kansas
Fully Supporting
— Not Supporting
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Kansas 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Mike Butler
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Office of Science and Support
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka,KS 66620
(913)296-5580
Surface Water Quality
Kansas reports that 74% of the
19,330 perennial stream miles
assessed from 1991 through 1995
did not support at least one of the
beneficial designated uses. Major
causes of nonsupport were sus-
pended solids, fecal coliform bac-
teria, dissolved solids, oxidizable
organic wastes, and pesticides.
Impairment of streams was attrib-
uted to agriculture, habitat modifica-
tion, natural sources, resource extrac-
tion, hydromodification, and ground
water withdrawal. Nonpoint source
effects were more widespread than
point source effects.
The majority (85%) of the 291
public lakes assessed during the
reporting period were impaired for at
least one use. The major causes of
impairment were pesticides, sus-
pended solids, eutrophication, and
turbidity. Sources of impairment
include agriculture, municipal point
sources, natural sources, and hydro-
modification. The trophic status of
70% of monitored lake acres was
found to be stable over time.
Of the public wetlands in
Kansas, 60% fully support but are
threatened for noncontact recre-
ational and food procurement use,
and 36% fully support but are
threatened for chronic aquatic life
use support. Trophic status studies
indicated that 58% of the wetlands
were stable over time.
Ground Water Quality
The primary ambient ground
water monitoring is conducted by
the Kansas Department of Health
and Environment's (KDHE) ground
water quality monitoring network
composed of 242 different types of
wells (e.g., public water supply, irri-
gation, rural-domestic). Nitrate con-
tamination is of major concern.
From 1991 through 1995, nitrate
concentrations exceeded EPA's
Maximum Contaminant Level in
12% of 681 well samples. These
exceedances were attributed primar-
ily to human activities, natural condi-
tions, or both. Other concerns of
ground water contamination
included the presence of volatile
organic compounds, heavy metals,
petroleum products, and/or bacteria.
The major sources of contamination
included industrial facilities, spills,
leaking or overflowing lagoons, leak-
ing storage tanks, mineral extraction
activities, agricultural operations,
and, in some areas, natural con-
stituents.
102
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
A Local Environmental Protec-
tion Program provides financial assis-
tance to 97 of the State's 105 coun-
ties to develop and implement a
comprehensive plan for protection
of the local environment.
The Point Source Pollution
Program regulates wastewater treat-
ment systems of municipal, Federal,
industrial, and commercial sewage
facilities, storm water, and certain
larger livestock operations. Smaller
livestock facilities and other diffuse
sources of pollutants are addressed
by the Non Point Source Control
Program. The Federal Construction
Grants Program, Kansas Water
Pollution Control Revolving Fund,
and Community Development Bloc
Grant Programs directed funds,
mainly to upgrade large wastewater
treatment facilities serving cities,
resulting in documented water
quality improvements in receiving
streams at several locations.
Several lake restoration/rehabili-
tation efforts were implemented
under the Clean Lakes Program.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Every year, KDHE collects and
analyzes about 1,500 surface water
samples, 50 aquatic macroinverte-
brate samples, and 40 composite
fish tissue samples from stations
located throughout the State.
Wastewater samples are collected
at about 50 municipal sewage treat-
ment plants, 20 industrial facilities,
and 3 Federal facilities to evaluate
compliance with discharge permit
requirements. KDHE also conducts
special studies and prepares about
100 site-specific water quality sum-
maries at the request of private citi-
zens 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)
Total Miles 91
Surveyed
Lakes frbtal Ae||
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Kansas' designated uses appears in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
c Kansas designated uses do not address swimming beaches. Refer to the Kansas 305(b) report
on contact recreational use.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
103
-------
Kentucky
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Kentucky 1996
305(b) report^ contact
Tom VanArsdall
Department for Environmental
Protection
Division of Water
UReillyRoad
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)564-3410
Surface Water Quality
About 75% of Kentucky's sur-
veyed rivers (including the Ohio
River) and 97% of surveyed lake
acres have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life. Swim-
ming use is fully supported in 100%
of the surveyed lake acres, but 82%
of the surveyed river miles do not
fully support swimming due to ele-
vated bacteria levels. Fecal coliform
bacteria, siltation, and oxygen-
depleting substances are the most
common pollutants in Kentucky
rivers. Sewage treatment facilities
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 consumption
advisories remain posted on three
creeks for PCBs and on the Ohio
River for PCBs and chlordane. The
State issued advisories for the Green
River Lake because of PCB spills from
a gas pipeline compressor station
and for five ponds on the West
Kentucky Wildlife Management Area
because of mercury contamination
from unknown sources.
Ground Water Quality
Ambient ground water monitor-
ing at 70 sites statewide was begun
in 1995. Underground storage
tanks, septic tanks, abandoned haz-
ardous waste sites, agricultural activ-
ities, and landfills are estimated to
be the top five sources of ground
water contamination in Kentucky.
Bacteria is the major pollutant in
ground water. The State is con-
.cerned about the lack of ground
water data, absence of ground
water regulations, and the potential
for ground water pollution in karst
regions of the State.
104
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Construction grants, State
revolving loan fund monies, and
other funding programs have
provided more than $53 million for
the construction of 23 wastewater
projects that came on line 1994 to
1995. These projects either replaced
outdated or inadequate treatment
facilities or provided centralized
treatment for the first time. Ken-
tucky requires toxicity testing of
point source discharges and permits
for stormwater outfalls and com-
bined sewer overflows. The non-
point source program oversees pro-
jects addressing watershed remedia-
tion, education, training, technical
assistance, and evaluation of best
management practices.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Kentucky sampled 44 ambient
monitoring stations characterizing
about 1,432 stream miles during
the reporting period. The State
performed biological sampling at
25 of these stations. Thirteen lakes
were sampled to detect eutrophica-
tion trends. The State also per-
formed 17 intensive studies to eval-
uate point source and nonpoint
source impacts, establish baseline
water quality measurements, and
reevaluate water quality in several
streams.
Individual Use Support in Kentucky
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
14
©S (TotarAcrfes^228,385-):**
Total Acres
Surveyed 73
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Kentucky's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
105
-------
Louisiana
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DigIt Hydralogic Unit)
For a copy of the Louisiana 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Albert E. Hindrichs
Louisiana Department of Environ-
mental Quality
Office of Water Resources
Water Quality Management Division
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
(504) 765-0511
e-mail: al_h@deq.state.la.us
Surface Water Quality
About 71 % of the surveyed
stream miles, 27% of the surveyed
lake acres, and 71 % of the surveyed
estuarine waters have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life. Fecal coliform bacteria continue
to be the most common pollutant
in Louisiana's rivers and streams, fol-
lowed by low dissolved oxygen con-
centrations and nutrients. As a result
of violation of fecal coliform bacteria
standards, 37% of the surveyed river
miles do not fully support swim-
ming and other contact recreational
activities. Thirty-one percent of the
surveyed lake acres and 23% of the
surveyed estuarine waters also do
not fully support swimming.
Sources of bacteria include sewage
discharges from municipal treat-
ment plants, subdivisions, trailer
parks, and apartment complexes.
Septic tanks, sewage/stormwater
overflows, pastures, and rangeland
also generate bacterial pollution.
Agricultural runoff generates
oxygen-depleting substances and
nutrients.
In lakes, bacteria are the most
common problem, followed by
noxious aquatic plants, metals,
dissolved oxygen, siltation, and
nutrients. Leading pollutant sources
include municipal point sources,
septic tanks, and inflow and infiltra-
tion. In estuaries, nutrients and
pathogen indicators replaced oil
and grease as the most common
pollutants. Nutrients and pathogens
can derive from a number of
sources including municipal point
sources, pastureland and septic
tanks, all of which ranked among
the leading suspected sources of
impairment.
Ground Water Quality
Water in the State's major
aquifer systems remains of good
quality. Of special concern, how-
ever, are the shallow aquifers and
the water-bearing zones that are
not used as major sources of water.
These strata contribute significantly
to the water balance of the deeper
aquifers, but the shallow aquifers
are increasingly threatened.
106
-------
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 in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Louisiana's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
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
Assessed
16
EstTjaHeS'(total Square Miles = 7,656)
Total Square
Miles Assessed 7J
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
107
-------
—— Futty Supporting
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
—— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dig!t Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts overall use support status, a State-defined beneficial use.
For a copy of the Maryland 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Shertn Garrison
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
Resource Assessment Service/TEA
Tawes State Office Building, D-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)260-8624
e-mail: sgam'son@dnr.state.md.us
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 continu-
ing 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,
acidic waters from abandoned coal
mines severely impact some
streams. Agricultural runoff, urban
runoff, natural runoff, and failing
septic systems elevate bacteria con-
centrations and cause continuous
shellfish harvesting restrictions in
about 102 square miles of estuarine
waters and cause temporary restric-
tions in another 71.1 square miles
after major rainstorms.
Ground Water Quality
Maryland's ground water
resource is of generally good quality.
Localized problems include excess
nutrients (nitrates) from fertilizers
and septic systems; bacteria from
septic systems and surface contami-
nation; saline water intrusion aggra-
vated by ground water withdrawals
in the coastal plain; toxic com-
pounds from septic tanks, landfills,
and spills; petroleum products from
leaking storage facilities; and acidic
conditions and metals from aban-
doned coal mine drainage in west-
ern Maryland. Control efforts are
limited to implementing agricultural
best management practices and
enforcing regulations for septic
tanks, underground storage tanks,
land disposal practices, and well
construction.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Maryland manages nonpojr^.
sources with individual progr"'
110
-------
each individual nonpoint source
category. Urban runoff is addressed
through stormwater and sediment
control laws that require develop-
ment projects to maintain predevel-
opment runoff patterns through
implementation of best manage-
ment practices (BMPs), such as
detention ponds or vegetated
swales. The Agricultural Water Qual-
ity Management Program supports
many approaches, including Soil
Conservation and Water Quality
Plans, implementation of BMPs, and
education. The Agricultural Cost
Share Program has provided State,
and some Federal, funds to help
offset the costs of implementing
almost 8,000 agricultural BMPs since
1983.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Maryland's monitoring pro-
grams include a combination of
water chemistry, compliance, aquat-
ic resource, and habitat monitoring
programs. In addition to traditional
monitoring, Maryland also conducts
an innovative randomized sampling
program in Chesapeake Bay waters
using a probabilistic approach to
sample analysis. Besides these pro-
grams, data from local governments
and volunteer groups are available
in some areas of the State.
Individual Use Support in Maryland
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Maryland's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Surveyed
84
'psjuarjes. (Tdfal Square Miles = 2,522)
Lakes (Total Acres »77,965)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Ill
-------
Massachusetts
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-DIgit Hydralogic Unit)
For a copy of the Massachusetts
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Warren Kimball
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Division of Watershed Management
627 Main Street, 2nd floor
Worcester, MA 01608
(508) 792-7470
Surface Water Quality
Nearly 70% of the 1,369 river
miles assessed by Massachusetts
now support aquatic life, swim-
ming, and boating uses, although
half of the swimmable miles still
experience intermittent problems.
Twenty-five years ago, swimming
and boating in most of these waters
would have been unthinkable. The
completion of river cleanup will
require targeting various sources of
pollution, primarily nonpoint source
pollution from stormwater runoff
and combined sewer overflows, and
toxic contamination in sediments
(largely historical).
Less than a quarter of the
assessed lake acreage supports all
beneficial uses. The causes of non-
support include introductions of
nonnative species, excessive growth
of aquatic plants, and excess metals.
The sources of these stressors are
largely unknown, although non-
point sources, including stormwater
runoff and onsite wastewater
systems, are largely suspected.
Massachusetts' marine waters
lag behind its rivers in improvement.
Only 27% of the assessed waters
fully support all their uses. However,
all the major urban areas along the
coast either have initiated or are
planning cleanup efforts. Foremost
among these is a massive project to
clean up Boston Harbor.
Ground Water Quality
Contaminants have been
detected in at least 206 ground
water suppy wells in 85 municipali-
ties. Organic chemicals (especially
TCE) contaminate 60% of these
wells. Other contaminants include
metals, chlorides, bacteria, inorganic
chemicals, radiation, nutrients, tur-
bidity, and pesticides. Since 1983,
Massachusetts has required permits
for all industrial discharges into
ground waters and sanitary waste-
water discharges of 15,000 gallons
or more per day. The permits
require varying degrees of waste-
water treatment based on the
quality and use of the receiving
ground water. Additional controls
are needed to eliminate contamina-
tion from septic systems and sludge
disposal.
112
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Wastewater treatment plant
construction has resulted in signifi-
cant improvements in water quality,
but $7 billion of unfunded waste-
water needs remain. The Nonpoint
Source Control Program has imple-
mented 35 projects to provide tech-
nical assistance, implement best
management practices, and educate
the public. The State has also
adopted a combined sewer overflow
policy that provides engineering
targets for cleanup and is presently
addressing several CSO abatement
projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Department of Environ-
mental Protection (DEP) adopted a
watershed planning approach to
coordinate stream monitoring with
wastewater discharge permitting,
water withdrawal permitting, and
nonpoint source control on a 5-year
rotating schedule. The DEP is also
adapting its monitoring strategies to
provide information on nonpoint
source pollution. For example, DEP
will focus more on wet-weather
sampling and biological monitoring
and less on chemical monitoring
during dry periods in order to gain a
more complete understanding of
the integrity of water resources.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Massachusetts's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
State's 305(b) report for a full description
of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Excluding Quabbin Reservoir.
Individual Use Support in Massachusetts
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Surveyed 57
28
w^«artTF*T'CT!^".^^^Maj»!SB»i!i»I?SS|;*|r|.f^«a***S*s*S.S
lakes (Total
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 223)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
113
-------
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-DIgit Hydrologk Unit)
For a copy of the Michigan 1996
305(b) report, contact:
John Wuycheck
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909-7528
(517)335-3307
e-mail: wuycheck@state.mi.us
The report is also available on the
Internet afc
ftp://ftp.deq.state.mi.us/pub/swq/
305brepf.doc
Surface Water Quality
Ninety-eight percent of Michi-
gan's surveyed river miles and 95%
of Michigan's surveyed lake acres
fully support aquatic life uses. Swim-
ming use is also fully supported in
98% of the surveyed rivers and 99%
of the surveyed lake acres. Priority
organic chemicals (in fish) are the
major cause of nonsupport in more
river miles than any other pollutant,
followed by bacteria, siltation and
sedimentation, and metals. Leading
sources of pollution in Michigan
include unspecified nonpoint
sources, agriculture, contaminated
sediments, municipal and industrial
discharges, combined sewers, and
atmospheric deposition.
Very few lakes in Michigan com-
pletely fail to support fishing and
swimming, but there is no doubt
that both point and nonpoint
sources have increased the rate of
eutrophication (overenrichment),
altered biological communities, and
degraded the overall aesthetic and
recreational quality of a great
number of Michigan's fragile lake
resources. Many more lakes are
threatened by long-term, cumula-
tive pollutant loads, especially in the
rapidly growing communities on
northern lower Michigan.
Four of the five Great Lakes
border Michigan. The open waters
of Lakes Superior, Michigan, and
Huron have good quality. Poor
water quality is restricted to a few
degraded locations near shore. Lake
Erie's water quality has improved
dramatically in the last two decades.
Once declared dead, Lake Erie now
supports the largest walleye sport
fishery on the Great Lakes. The
dramatic improvements are due
primarily to nutrient controls
applied to sewage treatment plants,
particularly in the Detroit area.
Ground Water Quality
Most of the ground water
resource is of excellent quality, but
certain aquifers have been contami-
nated with toxic materials leaking
from waste disposal sites, businesses,
or government facilities. The Michi-
gan Ground Water Protection
Strategy and Implementation Plan
identifies specific program initiatives,
schedules, and agency responsibili-
ties for protecting the State's ground
water resources.
114
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Major point source reductions
in phosphorus and organic material
loads have reduced or eliminated
water quality problems in many
Michigan waters. However,
expanded efforts are needed to
control nonpoint source pollution,
eliminate combined sewer over-
flows, and reduce toxic contamina-
tion. Michigan has implemented
an industrial pretreatment program,
promulgated rules on the discharge
of toxic substances, and regulated
hazardous waste disposal facilities,
but many toxicity problems are due
to past activities that contaminated
sediments.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Between 1990 and 1996, the
Department of Natural Resources
devoted a significant amount of
staff time to documenting water
quality impacts from nonpoint
sources of pollution and verifying
information in the Michigan
Nonpoint Source Assessment.
Chemical, biological, and physical
surveys were conducted to identify
water quality standards violations
and degraded biological communi-
ties in numerous watersheds.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Michigan's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Michigan
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
r-fiii-v i~ ^ • vf«ff**^4%!,w|«if««p
Lakes (Total
Great Eakes;(tot^i Miles ^a.'
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
115
-------
Minnesota
— Fully Supporting
— Threatened
— Partially Supporting
— Not Supporting
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 4-D!glt Hydrologlc Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Minnesota 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Elizabeth Brinsmade
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Water Quality Division
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612)296-7312
Surface Water Quality
As part of its basin manage-
ment approach, Minnesota reported
on three basins for the State's 1996
305(b) report — the Minnesota
River, Red River, and Lake Superior
basins. More than 48% of the sur-
veyed river miles have good quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses
and 30% of the surveyed rivers fully
support swimming. Over 68% of
the surveyed lake acres fully support
swimming. The most common
pollutants identified in rivers were
toxics, turbidity, nutrients, siltation,
and bacteria. Nonpoint sources
generate most of the pollution in
rivers. Minnesota's 272 miles of Lake
Superior shoreline have fish con-
sumption advisories. These advi-
sories recommend some limits on
fish meals consumed for certain
species and size classes. Most of the
pollution originated from point
sources has been controlled, but
runoff (especially in agricultural
regions) still degrades water quality.
Ground Water Quality
The State maintains a Ground
Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program to evaluate the quality of
ground waters that supply domestic
water to 70% of Minnesota's popu-
lation. For the 1996 305(b) report,
the State provided maps of poten-
tial ground water contamination
sources in the three basins analyzed
during the reporting cycle.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
During the 1994 reporting
cycle, Minnesota revised its Non-
point Source (NPS) Management
Program with new strategies for
addressing agricultural sources,
forestry, urban runoff, contaminated
sediments, feedlots, mining, and
septic systems. The State also
revised strategies for monitoring
and assessing NPS impacts, educat-
ing the public, implementing BMPs,
and applying the watershed protec-
tion approach to NPS management.
Minnesota adopted narrative
water quality standards for wetlands
116
-------
in 1994. These rules identify
wetlands as "waters of the State,"
establish nondegradation standards,
designate wetlands use classes, and
adopt narrative language designed
to protect aquatic life. The State has
also developed recommended
hydroperiod standards.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Minnesota maintains an Ambi-
ent Stream Monitoring Program
with 82 sampling stations. Because
of the rotating basin approach,
approximately 40 sites are visited
each year. The State also performs
fish tissue sampling, sediment moni-
toring, intensive surveys, biological
surveys, and lake assessments and
supports a citizen lake monitoring
program. In 1994, the State com-
pleted the Minnesota River Assess-
ment Project, a comprehensive
study involving over 30 Federal,
State, and local agencies. The pro-
ject incorporated intensive biologi-
cal monitoring and habitat assess-
ments with traditional chemical
monitoring to identify multiple
sources and their impacts. A pilot
use support methodology was used
for rivers in the Minnesota River
basin that reflected this comprehen-
sive monitoring.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Minnesota's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Minnesota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Surveyed
7,793
10
12
39
30
18
<1
Total Acres
Surveyed
Great Lakes (Total Miles=272)
^5*
Total Miles
Surveyed
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
117
-------
Mississippi
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Mississippi 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Randy Reed
Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Box10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601)961-5158
Surface Water Qualify
Mississippi reported that 94%
of its surveyed rivers have fair water
quality that periodically does not
support aquatic life uses and another
1 % have poor water quality that
does not support aquatic life uses.
About 91 % of the surveyed rivers do
not fully support swimming. The
most common pollutants identified
in Mississippi's rivers include nutri-
ents, pesticides, suspended solids,
and bacteria. Agriculture is the most
common source of pollution in
rivers, followed by municipal sewage
treatment plants.
About 95% of the surveyed lake
acres have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses and
99% of the surveyed lake acres fully
support swimming. Nutrients,
metals, siltation, pesticides, and
oxygen-depleting substances are the
most common pollutants in Missis-
sippi lakes. Agriculture is also the
dominant source of pollution in
Mississippi's lakes.
In estuaries, over 88% of the
surveyed waters have good quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses,
and shellfishing activities are
impaired in 60% of the surveyed
estuarine waters. Organic enrich-
ment, turbidity, and bacteria cause
most of the impacts observed in
estuaries. High bacteria levels are
associated with shellfish harvesting
restrictions. The State attributes
impacts in estuarine waters to urban
runoff/storm sewers, septic systems,
and land disposal activities.
The State has posted six fish
consumption advisories and three
commercial fishing bans due to ele-
vated concentrations of PCBs, PCP,
dioxins, and mercury detected in
fish tissues.
Ground Water Quality
Extensive contamination of
drinking water aquifers and public
water supplies remains uncommon
in Mississippi although localized
ground water contamination has
been detected at various facilities
across the State. The most frequent-
ly identified sources of contamina-
tion are leaky underground storage
tanks and faulty septic systems. Brine
contamination is also a 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 Monitoring Program,
118
-------
and the Wellhead Protection
Program (approved by EPA in 1993).
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
During 1993 and 1994, Missis-
sippi developed regulations for con-
ducting Section 401 Water Quality
Certifications. The regulations enable
the State to review Federal licenses
and permits for compliance with
State water quality standards. The
comprehensive regulations went
through public review and were
adopted in February 1994. Missis-
sippi also expanded its definition of
waters of the State to include wet-
lands 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 supplement-
ed by a network of 27 stations oper-
ated by the USGS.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Mississippi's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Mississippi
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
rFfiveirs ant Streaimfs (Total Mites\M4,oo3)b ~ >
(Total Acres g 500,000)
uaries (Total Square Miles = 760) -
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
119
-------
Missouri
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Oigit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Missouri 1996
305(b) report, contact:
John Ford
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
(573)751-7024
Surface Water Quality
Almost half of Missouri's rivers
and streams have impaired aquatic
habitat due to a combination of
factors including natural geology,
climate, and agricultural land use.
As a result of these factors, many
streams suffer from low water vol-
ume, low dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, high water temperatures,
and excessive siltation. In lakes, low
dissolved oxygen from upstream
dam releases, taste and odor
problems, 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 concentra-
tions of chlordane, PCBs, and other
contaminants in these fish.
Ground Water Quality
In general, ground water quan-
tity and quality increases from north
to south and west to east. Deep
ground water aquifers in northern
and western Missouri are not suit-
able for drinking water due to high
concentrations of minerals from nat-
ural sources. Nitrates and, to a much
lesser extent, pesticides also contam-
inate 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.
120
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Sewage treatment plant con-
struction has restored many surface
waters in Missouri, but point sources
still impact about 40 classified
stream miles. Nonpoint source
control efforts have been greatly
expanded over the past few years.
With a focus on agriculture, approxi-
mately $2 million annually is spent
for statewide informational pro-
grams, technical assistance and
demonstrations on a regional and
local basis, and BMP implementation
in local watersheds. A dedicated
State sales tax provides an additional
$28 million annually for soil erosion
control and water quality watershed
projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Missouri's water quality monitor-
ing strategy features approximately
40 fixed station chemical ambient
monitoring sites, short-term inten-
sive chemical monitoring studies, a
rapid visual/aquatic invertebrate
assessment program and detailed
biological sampling in support of
development of biocriteria. The
State also reviews water quality
monitoring data and published
studies done by others.
Missouri requires toxicity testing
of effluents for all major dischargers
and has a fish tissue monitoring pro-
gram for selected metals, pesticides
and PCBs. Several nonpoint source
watershed projects related to man-
agement of manure or farm chemi-
cals have their own monitoring
programs.
Individual Use Support in Missouri
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
s (Total Acres = 292,204)
- Not repotted in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Missouri's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
121
-------
Montana
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologtc Unit)
For a copy of the Montana 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Christian j. Levine
Montana Department
of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Phoenix Building
2209 Phoenix Avenue, Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901
(406) 444-5342
e-mail: clevine@mt.gov
Surface Water Quality
Most of Montana's rivers and
streams (74%) have fair water qual-
ity that periodically fails to support
aquatic life uses. Another 5% have
poor water quality that consistently
fails to support aquatic life uses.
About 17% of the surveyed lake
acres have good water quality that
fully supports fish and aquatic life,
46% fully support swimming, and
94% fully support drinking water
use. Agriculture (especially irrigated
crop production and rangeland)
impairs 63% of the surveyed stream
miles and 57% of the surveyed lake
acres. In general, nonpoint sources
are a factor in 90% of the impaired
rivers and 80% of the impaired
lakes. Resource extraction, forestry,
and municipal sewage treatment
plants have less widespread impacts
on water quality.
Ground Water Quality
More than 50% of Montanans
get their domestic water supply from
ground water sources. Ground water
is plentiful and the quality is general-
ly 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.
122
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Montana is actively pursuing
interagency/interdisciplinary water-
shed planning and management.
Currently, five large watershed
projects are under way in Montana:
the Flathead Lake Watershed
Management Plan, the Blackfoot
River Watershed Management
Project, the Grassroots Planning
Process for the Upper Clark Fork
Basin, the Tri-State Clark Fork Pend
Oreille Watershed Management
Plan, and the Kootenai River Basin
Program. Each program advocates
collaboration by all interested parties
to devise comprehensive manage-
ment options that simultaneously
address all major factors threatening
or degrading water quality.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Montana will need to expand its
monitoring and assessment program
to adequately measure the effective-
ness of the State's nonpoint source
control program and other water-
shed 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 Legis-
lature to fund additional staff and
operating expenses to expand ambi-
ent 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)
ltlt-iiih «*giO'itii still
74
Lakes (Total -
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Montana's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
123
-------
Nebraska
— FuMy Supporting
— Not Supporting
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the Nebraska 1996
305(b) report, contact
Mike Callam
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division,
Surface Water Section
P.O. Box 98922, State House Station
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402)471-4249
Surface Water Quality
Agriculture is the most wide-
spread source of water quality prob-
lems in Nebraska, but urban runoff
also impacts the State's rivers and
streams. Agricultural runoff intro-
duces excess silt, bacteria, sus-
pended solids, pesticides, and nutri-
ents into surface waters. Municipal
and industrial facilities may con-
tribute ammonia, bacteria, and
metals. Channelization and hydro-
logic 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, suspended solids, and nutri-
ents. Reports have revealed that
current water quality criteria for
atrazine, a pesticide, are being
exceeded. Next to Illinois, Nebraska
applies more atrazine to crops than
any other State. Sources of pollution
in lakes include agriculture, construc-
tion, 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 doc-
umented. Major sources of ground
water contamination include agricul-
tural activities, industrial facilities,
leaking underground storage tanks,
oil or hazardous substance spills,
solid waste landfills, wastewater
lagoons, brine disposal pits, and
septic systems.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Originally, Nebraska's Nonpoint
Source (NPS) Management Program
concentrated on protecting ground
water resources. Now, surface water
protection efforts include watershed
124
-------
assessments and implementation
projects. Assessments on the Willow
Creek and Yankee Hill watersheds
were initiated in 1994. An assess-
ment on the Holmes Lake watershed
was initiated in 1995. Currently,
Nebraska has 35 NPS-related proj-
ects.
Nebraska revised wetlands water
quality standards to protect benefi-
cial uses of aquatic life, aesthetics,
wildlife, and agricultural water sup-
ply. The State also protects wetlands
with the water quality certification
program, permit requirements for
underground injection activities and
mineral exploration, and water qual-
ity 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 monitor-
ing strategy to guide NPS monitor-
ing projects. During 1994 and 1995,
the State conducted three water-
shed assessments, diagnostic/feasi-
bility studies for three lakes, and
ongoing BMP effectiveness studies in
10 watersheds.
Individual Use Support in Nebraska
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Nebraska's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
125
-------
Nevada
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Nevada 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Glen Gentry
Bureau of Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Protection
123 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 687-4670
Surface Water Quality
Only 10% (about 15,000 miles)
of Nevada's rivers and streams flow
year round, and most of these
waters are inaccessible. For this
reporting period, Nevada surveyed
1,490 miles of the 3,000 miles of
accessible perennial streams with
designated beneficial uses. Twenty-
eight percent of the surveyed stream
miles fully supported all of their des-
ignated uses, while the remaining
72% were impaired for one or more
uses. In lakes, 57% of the surveyed
acres fully support all uses.
Agricultural practices (irrigation,
grazing, and flow regulation) have
the greatest impact on Nevada's
water resources. Agricultural sources
generate large sediment and nutri-
ent loads. Urban drainage systems
contribute nutrients, heavy metals,
and organic substances that deplete
oxygen. Flow reductions also have a
great impact on streams, limiting
dilution of salts, minerals, and pollut-
ants.
Ground Water Quality
Nevada lacks comprehensive
ground water protection legislation,
but the State does have statutes that
control individual sources of contam-
ination, including mining, under-
ground storage tanks, septic sys-
tems, handling of hazardous materi-
als and waste, solid waste disposal,
underground injection wells, agricul-
tural practices, and wastewater dis-
posal. Land use statutes also enable
local authorities to implement Well-
head Protection Plans by adopting
zoning ordinances, subdivision regu-
lations, and site plan review proce-
dures. Local authorities can imple-
ment certain source control pro-
grams at the local level.
126
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Nevada's Nonpoint Source
Management Plan aims to reduce
NPS pollution with interagency coor-
dination, education programs, and
incentives that encourage voluntary
installation of best management
practices. In 1994, the State updat-
ed the Handbook of Best Manage-
ment Practices and supported NPS
assessment activities in each of the
State's six major river basins.
Nevada's Wellhead Protection
Program was finalized during
January of 1994.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Several State, Federal, and local
agencies regularly sample chemical
and physical parameters at over
TOO 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 bioassessment
protocols to the arid conditions 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 Hum-
boldt 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
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Impaired
(For One
or More Uses)
72
sT^xA-* A**- * - *• ^'•$^:s&i^^^-^-;&$H!:^
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Nevada's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
127
-------
New Hampshire
' Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the New Hampshire
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Gregg Comstock
State of New Hampshire
Department of Environmental
Services
Water Division
64 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2457
Surface Water Quality
Since 1994, New Hampshire has
issued a statewide freshwater con-
sumption advisory due to mercury
levels found in fish tissue; the pri-
mary source of which is believed to
be atmospheric deposition from
upwind States. When this advisory is
included in the assessment, all fresh
surface waters, by definition, are less
than fully supporting of all uses. If
this advisory is not included in the
assessment, however, the quality of
the State's surface waters is excellent
with over 99% of the river miles and
over 92% of the lake acres fully
supporting aquatic life uses and
swimming.
The State's estuaries fully sup-
port most uses with the primary
exception of shellfish consumption.
Over 61 % of the shellfish beds are
closed due to bacteria and a
consumption advisory for lobster
tomalley is in effect in 84% of the
estuaries due to PCB contamination.
Bacteria is the leading cause of
impairment in rivers. Dissolved oxy-
gen depletion, macrophytes and
nutrients are the major cause of
impairment in lakes. Most of these
impairments are naturally occurring.
Nonpoint sources are responsible for
most of the pollution entering the
State's waters.
Ground Water Quality
New Hampshire is highly
dependent on ground water for
drinking water. Natural ground
water quality from stratified drift
aquifers is generally good; however,
aesthetic concerns such as taste and
odor exist. Bedrock well water qual-
ity is also generally good although it
can be impacted by naturally occur-
ring contaminants including fluo-
ride, arsenic, mineral radioactivity
and radon gas.
In addition to naturally occur-
ring contaminants, there are many
areas of localized contamination due
primarily to releases of petroleum
and volatile organic compounds
from petroleum facilities, commer-
cial and industrial operations, and
landfills. Due to widespread winter
application of road salt, sodium is
also a contaminant of concern.
In 1994, New Hampshire
received EPA's endorsement of its
Comprehensive State Groundwater
Protection Program (CSGWPP), an
acknowledgment that the State has
an array of local, State and Federal
ground water protection programs
that are sufficiently coordinated to
comprehensively protect ground
water. As part of the CSGWPP devel-
opment process, all of the different
128
-------
parties interested in protection of
ground water came together and
jointly developed a multiyear work
plan to enhance existing efforts.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
,Over the past 25 years, New
Hampshire has eliminated or abated
all significant untreated municipal
and industrial wastewater discharges
in State waters. To resolve remain-
ing problems, the Department of
Environmental Services (DES) initiat-
ed a basin protection approach in
1995. As part of this approach, DES
will compile watershed maps and
land use data, identify major sources
of pollution, and establish local
watershed advisory committees in
each basin to create and implement
local watershed plans.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DES implemented a 3-year
rotating watershed monitoring pro-
gram in 1989. From 1993 to 1996
the rotation was temporarily halted
to intensify monitoring at sites
exceeding standards. In 1997, DES
intends to resume the rotating
watershed monitoring program. To
assess the ecological health of rivers
and streams, DES initiated a biologir
cal monitoring program in 1995.
DES also has several lake assessment
programs including a volunteer
monitoring program.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
"A subset of New Hampshire's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
State's 305(b) report for a full description
of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Excluding the statewide freshwater fish
consumption advisory due to mercury.
Individual Use Support in New Hampshire
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
and Stre
Total Miles
>99
<1
ft.akgs;n:otai |a§jj|t 63.033?
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
129
-------
New Jersey
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the New jersey 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Kevin Berry
NJDEP
Office of Environmental Planning
401 East State St.
P.O. Box 418
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609)633-1179
Surface Water Quality
Thirty-five percent of the 3,815
surveyed stream miles have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life, but New Jersey's high
population density threatens these
waters. Bacteria (which indicates
unsafe swimming conditions) and
nutrients are the most common
pollutants in rivers and streams. All
of the State's lakes are believed to be
either threatened or actively deterio-
rating. Bacterial contamination is the
most widespread problem in estuar-
ies, impairing both shellfish harvest-
ing and swimming. Other problems
include nutrients, pesticides, and
priority organic chemicals. Major
sources impacting New Jersey's
waters include municipal treatment
plants, industrial facilities, combined
sewers, urban runoff, construction,
agriculture, and land disposal of
wastes (including septic tanks).
Ground Water Quality
Available data suggest that, at
present, there is an ample supply of
good quality ground water in most
of the State of New Jersey. However,
ground water quantity (and quality)
problems are usually concentrated in
areas where the greatest volumes of
ground water are needed, such as
urban and agricultural areas. Over-
pumping in these areas has created
hydraulic gradients that sometimes
result in the recharge of aquifers
from undesirable sources such as
seawater, polluted surface waters, or
severely contaminated ground
water.
The most widespread violations
of standards for naturally occurring
contaminants involve the State's
recommended secondary drinking
water regulations. These contami-
nants include iron, total dissolved
solids, sulfate, and hardness.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1996, New Jersey was one
of five States in the Nation to pilot a
mechanism to allow States greater
flexibility in addressing their priority
environmental problems while
reducing Federal oversight if and
where appropriate. This mechanism
is the National Environmental
Performance Partnership System
130
-------
(NEPPS), which emphasizes environ-
mental management aimed toward
results using environmental goals
and indicators as measures of
progress. The NEPPS process places
greater emphasis on scientific assess-
ments of trends in environmental
quality and, through the identifica-
tion of key issues and the setting of
priorities, lays the foundation for
long-term environmental planning.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Ambient chemical monitoring in
New Jersey is now extensively sup-
plemented by biological assessments
of in-stream benthic macroinverte-
brates. From this, evaluations regard-
ing the overall health of in-stream
biota are estimated. These biological
assessments are useful in directly
assessing the aquatic life support
designated use, as well as revealing
the impact of toxic contaminants
and detecting chronic water quality
conditions that may be overlooked
by ambient chemical sampling. The
bioassessments have been per-
formed for all the major watersheds
within the State—700 monitoring
locations, all located in nontidal por-
tions of rivers and streams.
New Jersey is revamping its
chemical monitoring to include both
broad-scale long-term continuous
monitoring and short-term intensive
site-specific assessments.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of New Jersey's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
c Includes tidal portions of coastal rivers.
Individual Use Support in New Jersey
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
52
12
stuaries (Total Square Miles = 614)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
131
-------
New Mexico
— Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the New Mexico 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Erik Galloway
New Mexico Environment
Department
Surface Water Quality Bureau
Evaluation and Planning Section
P.O. Box26l10
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110
(505) 827-2923
Surface Water Quality
About 28% of New Mexico's
surveyed stream miles have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life uses. Eighty-three
percent of the surveyed river miles
fully support swimming. The lead-
ing problems in streams include
habitat alterations (such as removal
of streamside vegetation), siltation,
nutrients, and metals. Nonpoint
sources are responsible for over
96% of the degradation in New
Mexico's 3,438 impaired stream
miles. Municipal wastewater
treatment plants impair about 2%
of the degraded waters (54 stream
miles).
Agriculture and recreational
activities are the primary sources of
nutrients, siltation, reduced shore-
line vegetation, and bank destabi-
lization that impairs aquatic life use
in 89% of New Mexico's surveyed
lake acres. Mercury contamination
from unknown sources appears in
fish caught at 22 reservoirs. How-
ever, water and sediment samples
from surveyed lakes and reservoirs
have not detected high concentra-
tions of mercury. Fish may contain
high concentrations of mercury in
waters with minute quantities of
mercury because the process of
biomagnification concentrates
mercury in fish tissue.
Ground Water Quality
About 88% of the population of
New Mexico depends on ground
water for drinking water. The Envi-
ronment Department has identified
at least 1,745 cases of ground water
contamination since 1927. The
most common source of ground
water contamination is small house-
hold septic tanks and cesspools.
Leaking underground storage tanks,
injection wells, landfills, surface
impoundments, oil and gas produc-
tion, mining and milling, dairies,
and miscellaneous industrial sources
also contaminate ground water in
New Mexico. New Mexico operates
a ground water discharger permit
program that includes ground water
standards for intentional discharges
and a spill cleanup provision for
other discharges.
132
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
New Mexico's Nonpoint Source
Management Program contains a
series of implementation milestones
that were designed to establish
goals while providing a method to
measure progress and success of the
program. Implementation consists
of the coordination of efforts among
NPS management agencies, promo-
tion and implementation of best
management practices, coordina-
tion of watershed projects, inspec-
tion and enforcement activities,
consistency reviews, and education
and outreach activities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
New Mexico relies heavily on
chemical and physical data to assess
water quality. Fish tissue data
became available in 1991, and data
from biological surveys and bioassay
tests were incorporated into the
1994 assessments where possible.
The State also conducts extensive
monitoring to determine the
effectiveness of best management
practices implemented under the
Nonpoint Source Management
Program. During the current 305(b)
reporting cycle, New Mexico
completed two special water quality
surveys along the Rio Hondo and
the Red River in Taos County.
Individual Use Support in New Mexico
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Surveyed
4,115
93
17
100
352
17
s (otat Acres a 397,467)
Total Acres
Surveyed
124,827
109,909
<1
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of New Mexico's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
133
-------
New York
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the New York 1996
30S(b) report, contact:
Fred VanAIstyne
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Monitoring and
Assessment
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518)457-0893
e-mail: fevanals@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Surface Water Quality
Ninety-one percent of New
York's rivers and streams, over 73%
of the State's lake acres, 97% of the
State's Great Lakes shoreline, and
99% of the bays and tidal waters
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses. Swim-
ming is fully supported in 99% of
the surveyed rivers, 78% of the sur-
veyed lakes, 80% of the Great Lakes
shoreline, and more than 93% of
the surveyed estuarine waters.
Eighty-five percent of New York's
Great Lake's shoreline does not fully
support fish consumption use
because of a fish consumption
advisory.
Agriculture is a major source of
nutrients and silt that impair New
York's rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
Hydrologic modification and habitat
modification are also a major source
of water quality impairment in rivers
and lakes. Urban runoff is a major
source of pollution in the State's
estuaries. Bacteria from urban runoff
and other sources close about
200,000 acres (16%) of potential
shellfishing beds.
Contaminated sediments are
the primary source of 18% of the
impaired rivers, 20% of the
impaired lakes, 89% of the impaired
Great Lake's shoreline, and 51% of
the impaired estuarine waters in
New York State. Sediments are cont-
aminated with PCBs, chlorinated
organic pesticides, mercury, cad-
mium, mirex, and dioxins that
bioconcentrate in the food chain
and result in fish consumption
advisories.
Sewage treatment plant con-
struction and upgrades have had a
significant impact on water quality.
Since 1972, the size of rivers
impacted by municipal sewage
treatment facilities has declined
from about 2,000 miles to 300
miles.
Ground Water Quality
About 3% of the State's public
water supply system wells (160
wells) are closed or abandoned due
to contamination from organic
chemicals. The most common
contaminants are synthetic solvents
and degreasers, gasoline and other
petroleum products, and agricultur-
al pesticides and herbicides (primar-
ily aldicarb and carbofuran). The
134
-------
most common sources of organic
solvents in ground water are spills,
leaks, and improper handling at
industrial and commercial facilities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Virtually every county of the
State has a county water quality
coordinating committee composed
of local agencies (such as Cornell
Cooperative Extension and soil and
water conservation districts), local
representatives from State and
Federal agencies, and public interest
groups. The county committees
meet regularly to discuss local prior-
ities and "fashion local strategies to
address nonpoint source pollution.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1987, New York State imple-
mented the Rotating Intensive Basin
Studies (RIBS), an ambient monitor-
ing program that concentrates
monitoring activities on one-third
of the State's hydrologic basins for
2-year periods. The DEC monitors
the entire State every 6 years.
Intensive monitoring clarifies cause-
and-effect relationships between
pollutants and water quality,
measures the effectiveness of imple-
mented pollution controls, and
supports regulatory decisions.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A 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.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to
rounding.
Individual Use Support in New York
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) : (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
fe'^i^-i4S^*.>«^%.^^^^^^^^^-^*--^^--^^'^'^-'rt-^"1'^^1'S * *^^.^"^ ilt'S
<1
<&:&w&'&'%?*%%*%:8>>& S.S ^•^;&'iSj.*?frs>^'f^^>3Fs:4?%
=
*.^****i* t* «
Great Lakes
135
-------
North Carolina
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dtglt Hydrotogic Unit)
For a copy of the North Carolina
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Carol Metz
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
(919)733-5083
e-mail: caroldem.ehnr.state.nc.us
Surface Water Quality
About 80% of the State's sur-
veyed freshwater rivers and streams
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses, 17% have
fair water quality that partially sup-
ports aquatic life uses, and 3% have
poor water quality that does not
support aquatic life uses. Ten per-
cent of the surveyed rivers do not
fully support swimming. The major
sources of impairment are agricul-
ture (responsible for 53% of the
impaired river miles), urban runoff
(responsible for 16%), and construc-
tion (responsible for 13%). These
sources generate siltation, bacteria,
and organic wastes that deplete
dissolved oxygen.
Only 6% of the surveyed lakes
in North Carolina are impaired for
swimming and 17% are impaired
for aquatic life uses. A few lakes are
impacted by dioxin, metals, and
excessive nutrient enrichment. The
Champion Paper mill on the Pigeon
River is the source of dioxin contam-
ination in Waterville Lake. The State
and the mill implemented a dioxin
minimization program in the mid-
1980s and completed a moderniza-
tion program in 1993 that will
reduce water usage and discharges.
About 94% of the estuaries and
sounds in North Carolina fully sup-
port designated uses. Agriculture,
urban runoff, septic tanks, and point
source discharges are the leading
sources of nutrients, bacteria, and
low dissolved oxygen that degrade
estuaries.
Ground Water Quality
About half of the people in
North Carolina use ground water as
their primary supply of drinking
water. Ground water quality is
generally good. The leading source
of ground water contamination is
leaking underground storage tanks,
which contaminate ground water
with gasoline, diesel fuel, and heat-
ing oil. Comprehensive programs
are under way to assess potential
contamination sites and develop a
ground water protection strategy
for the State.
136
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1993-1995, North Carolina
continued its aggressive program to
control nonpoint source pollution.
North Carolina established the NPS
Workgroup, implemented NPS
Teams for each of the 17 river
basins, published a guide for estab-
lishing a point/nonpoint source
pollution reduction trading system,
and introduced the Draft Interim
Plan of the Neuse River Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW) Manage-
ment Strategy.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Surface water quality in North
Carolina was primarily evaluated
using physical and chemical data
collected by the Division of Environ-
mental Management (DEM) from a
statewide fixed-station network and
biological assessments. These
include macroinvertebrate (aquatic
insect) community surveys, fish
community structure analyses,
phytoplankton analyses, bioassays,
and limnological review of lakes and
watersheds. Other sources of infor-
mation were point source monitor-
ing data, shellfish closure reports,
lake trophic state studies, and
reports prepared by other local,
State, and Federal agencies.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of North Carolina's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
State's 305(b) report for a full description
of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in North Carolina
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
treams (Total Miles = 37.556)°
g.AV-j!:-^....-» V #'.......#* - I >./...^......>......
33
-
Cakes {Total jf(c(es = 306,5
Total Acres 94
Surveyed
tuanes (Total s
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
137
-------
North Dakota
— Threatened
— Partial!/Supporting
— Not Supporting
— Not Assessed
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dig!t Hydrologic Unit)
This map depicts aquatic life use support status.
For a copy of the North Dakota
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Michael Elf
North Dakota Department of Health
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 5520
Bismark, ND 58502-5520
(701)328-5210
e-mail: ccmail.mell@ranch.
state.nd.us
Surface Water Quality
North Dakota reports that 71 %
of its surveyed rivers and streams
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses now, but
good conditions are threatened in
most of these streams. Sixty-seven
percent of the surveyed streams fully
support swimming. Siltation, nutri-
ents, pathogens, oxygen-depleting
wastes, and habitat alterations
impair aquatic life use support in
29% of the surveyed rivers and
impair swimming in over 32% of
the surveyed rivers. The leading
sources of contamination are
agriculture, drainage and filling of
wetlands, hydromodification, and
upstream impoundments. Natural
conditions, such as low flows caused
by water regulation, also contribute
to aquatic life use impairment.
In lakes, 96% of the surveyed
acres have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses, and
more than 84% of the surveyed
acres fully support swimming.
Siltation, nutrients, and oxygen-
depleting substances are the most
widespread pollutants in North
Dakota's lakes. The leading sources
of pollution in lakes are agricultural
activities (including nonirrigated
crop production, pasture land, and
confined animal operations), urban
runoff/storm sewers, and habitat
modification. Natural conditions also
prevent some waters from fully sup-
porting designated uses.
Ground Water Quality
North Dakota has not identified
widespread ground water contami-
nation, although some naturally
occurring compounds may make
the quality of ground water undesir-
able in a few aquifers. Where
human-induced ground water
contamination has occurred, the
impacts have been attributed
primarily to petroleum storage facil-
ities, agricultural storage facilities,
feedlots, poorly designed wells,
abandoned wells, wastewater treat-
ment lagoons, landfills, septic
systems, and the underground injec-
tion of waste. Assessment and pro-
tection of ground water continue
through ambient ground water
138
-------
quality monitoring activities, the
implementation of wellhead protec-
tion projects, the Comprehensive
Ground Water Protection Program,
and the development of a State
Management Plan for Pesticides.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
North Dakota's Nonpoint
Source Pollution Management Pro-
gram has provided financial support
to 26 projects over the past 4 years.
Although the size, type, and target
audience of these projects vary, the
projects share the same basic goals:
(1) increase public awareness
of nonpoint source pollution,
(2) reduce or prevent the delivery
of NPS pollutants to waters of the
State, and (3) disseminate informa-
tion on effective solutions to NPS
pollution.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The North Dakota Department
of Health monitors physical and
chemical parameters (such as dis-
solved oxygen, pH, total dissolved
solids, nutrients, and toxic metals),
toxic contaminants in fish, whole
effluent toxicity, and fish and
macroinvertebrate community
structure. North Dakota's ambient
water quality monitoring network
consists of 27 sampling sites on 15
rivers 'and streams. The Depart-
ment's biological assessment pro-
gram has grown since 1993.
Currently, biosurveys are conducted
at approximately 50 sites each year.
Individual Use Support in North Dakota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
62
(Total Acres = 650,380),
100
494,389 0 0
I
0 0
625,591
16
a A subset of North Dakota's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
139
-------
Ohio
— Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Wgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Ohio 1996 305(b)
report, contact:
Ed Rankin
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Surface Water
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614)728-3388
e-mail: ed_rankin@central.epa.
ohio.gov
Surface Water Quality
Ohio based their 1996 assess-
ments on monitoring data collected
between 1989 and 1994. Ohio's
assessment methods compare
observed ecological characteristics
(including data on aquatic insects,
fish species, habitat, and streamside
vegetation) with background condi-
tions found at least-impacted refer-
ence sites for a given ecoregion and
stream type.
Ohio identified ecological
impacts from organic enrichment
and low dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, siltation, habitat modifica-
tion, metals, ammonia, and flow
alterations. Fecal coliform bacteria
indicate impaired swimming condi-
tions in Ohio's rivers and lakes.
These impacts stem from municipal
discharges, runoff from agriculture,
urban runoff, and combined sewer
overflows.
Ohio estimates that wastewater
treatment plant construction and
upgrades have restored aquatic life
to about 1,000 river miles since the
1970s. Since 1988, the percentage
of surveyed river miles fully fit for
swimming also grew from 49% to
57%. However, increasing threats
from nonpoint sources could erode
gains made with point source
controls and slow the rate of
restoration.
The most common impacts on
Ohio lakes include nutrients, volume
loss due to sedimentation, organic
enrichment, and habitat alterations.
Nonpoint sources, including agricul-
ture, urban runoff, construction
activities, and septic systems, gener-
ate most of these impacts. However,
municipal point sources still affect
58% of the impaired lake acres.
Most of the Lake Erie shoreline
is fit for recreational use, but a fish
consumption advisory for channel
catfish and carp remains in effect
along the entire shoreline. Ohio also
issued fish consumption advisories
for all species of fish caught on 137
river miles and documented ele-
vated levels of PCBs in fish caught at
two small lakes.
140
-------
Ground Water Quality
About 4.5 million Ohio resi-
dents depend upon wells for
domestic water. Waste disposal
activities, underground storage tank
leaks, and spills are the dominant
sources of ground water contamina-
tion in Ohio.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
To fully restore water quality,
Ohio EPA advocates an ecosystem
approach that confronts degrada-
tion on shore as well as in the water.
Ohio's programs aim to correct
nonchemical impacts, such as
channel modification and the
destruction of shoreline vegetation.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Ohio pioneered the integration
of biosurvey data, physical habitat
data, and bioassays with water
chemistry data to measure the over-
all integrity of water resources.
Biological monitoring provides the
foundation of Ohio's water pro-
grams because traditional chemical
monitoring alone may not detect
episodic pollution events or non-
chemical impacts. Ohio EPA found
that biosurvey data can increase the
detection of aquatic life use impair-
ment by about 35% to 50%.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Ohio's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Ohio
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Lafces
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
141
-------
Oklahoma
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Oklahoma 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Mark Derichsweiler
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
1000 NE 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
(405) 271-7440 ext. 105
e-mail: mark.derichsweiler
@oklaosf.state.ok.us
Surface Water Quality
Over 60% of the surveyed river
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses and
69% fully support swimming. The
most common pollutants found in
Oklahoma rivers are siltation, pesti-
cides, nutrients, and suspended
solids. Agriculture is the leading
source of pollution in the State's
rivers and streams, followed by
petroleum extraction and hydro-
logic/habitat modifications.
Sixty percent of the surveyed
lake acres fully support aquatic life
uses and more than 66% fully
support swimming. The most wide-
spread pollutants in Oklahoma's
lakes are siltation, nutrients,
suspended solids, pesticides, and
oxygen-depleting substances.
Agriculture is also the most
common source of pollution in
lakes, followed by contaminated
sediments and hydrologic/habitat
modifications. Several lakes are
impacted by acid mine drainage,
including the Gaines Creek arm of
Lake Eufaula and the Lake O' the
Cherokees.
Ground Water Quality
Ambient ground water monitor-
ing has detected elevated nitrate
concentrations in monitoring wells
scattered across the State. Monitor-
ing has also detected isolated cases
of hydrocarbon contamination, ele-
vated selenium and fluoride concen-
trations (probably due to natural
sources), chloride contamination
from discontinued oil field activities,
metals from past mining operations,
and gross alpha activity above maxi-
mum allowable limits. Industrial sol-
vents contaminate a few sites near
landfills, storage pits, and Tinker Air
Force Base. The State rates agricul-
ture, injection wells, septic tanks,
surface impoundments, and under-
ground storage tanks as the highest
priority sources of ground water
contamination.
142
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Oklahoma's nonpoint source
control program is a cooperative
effort of State, Federal, and local
agencies that sponsors demonstra-
tion projects. The demonstration
projects feature implementation of
agricultural best management prac-
tices, water quality monitoring
before and after BMP implementa-
tion, technical assistance, education,
and development of comprehensive
watershed management plans.
Currently, Oklahoma is conducting
five NFS projects in Comanche
County, Greer and Beckham
Counties, Custer County, Tillman
County, and the Illinois River Basin.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Oklahoma's Conservation
Commission is conducting five large
watershed studies in the Illinois River
Basin, the Little River Basin, the
Neosho (Grand) River Basin, the
Southeast Oklahoma Multiple Basin,
and the Poteau River/Wister Lake
Project (a cooperative effort with
the LeFlore Conservation District,
the Water Board, and the USGS).
All together, 385 sites will be
sampled for chemical parameters
and one- third of these sites will also
be sampled for biological integrity.
Individual Use Support in Oklahoma
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
yqrsandStl
Total Miles
52
30
kes.JTotal Acres =rl,04l,
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
143
-------
Oregon
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DigIt Hydrologic Unit)
For information about water quality
in Oregon, contact:
Robert Baumgartner
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5323
Surface Water Quality
The State of Oregon did not
submit a 305(b) report to EPA in
1996.
144
-------
Overall3 Use Support in Oregon
Percent
Designated Use
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
; Streams (Total
7T<* „ ^ « I** ^ ^ - !*-.. ^ .^/-^J»g^%9-«^*!lJS4^ml
Total Miles
Surveyed
Total Acres
Surveyed
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
145
-------
Pennsylvania
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Oiglt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Pennsylvania 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Division of Water Quality
Assessment and Standards
P.O Box 8555
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
(717)787-9637
e-mail: frey.robert@a1 .dep.
state.pa.us
Surface Water Quality
Over 81 % of the surveyed river
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses and
swimming. The most widespread
pollutants impairing the remaining
miles are metals, which impact over
2,107 miles. Other pollutants
include suspended solids, nutrients,
and acidity.
Abandoned mine drainage
is the most significant source of
surface water quality degradation.
Drainage from abandoned mining
sites pollutes at least 2,417 miles of
streams, 54% of all degraded
streams. Other sources of degrada-
tion include agriculture, industrial
point sources, and municipal
sewage treatment plants.
Pennsylvania has issued fish
consumption advisories on 21
waterbodies. Most of the advisories
are due to elevated concentrations
of PCBs and chlordane in fish tissue,
but two advisories have been issued
for mirex and one for mercury.
Zebra mussels are present in
Pennsylvania in Lake Erie and the
immediate vicinity, as well as the
lower Monongahela, lower
Allegheny, and upper Ohio rivers.
There are about 175 publicly and
privately run zebra mussel sampling
sites statewide.
Ground Water Qualify
Major sources of ground water
contamination include leaking
underground storage tanks, contain-
ers from hazardous materials facili-
ties, and improper handling or
overuse of fertilizer. Petroleum and
petroleum byproducts are the most
common pollutants in ground
water. Coal mining and oil and gas
production have also elevated con-
centrations of several elements
(including chlorides, iron, barium,
and strontium) in some regions.
Pennsylvania is currently developing
a Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Program (CSGW-
PP). The CSGWPP provides a mech-
anism whereby Pennsylvania and
EPA can work together to develop a
comprehensive and consistent
statewide approach to ground water
quality protection. Pennsylvania and
EPA will use the CSGWPP to focus
on a long-term process for improv-
ing existing State and Federal
ground water programs. In addition,
146
-------
Pennsylvania's Ground Water
Quality Protection Strategy is cur-
rently being reviewed for consis-
tency with the Land Recycling and
Environmental Remediation
Standards Act of 1995.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Eliminating acid mine drainage
from abandoned mines will require
up to $5 billion. The cost, difficulty,
magnitude, and extent of the prob-
lem have hampered progress. To
date, the Commonwealth has
funded studies to determine the
effectiveness of alternative tech-
niques for treating mine drainage
and preventing contamination. The
U.S. Office of Surface Mining and
EPA Region III have created the
Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative
to address water quality problems
associated with mine drainage in
Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia. It is hoped that this
initiative will involve private organi-
zations and local citizens, as well as
government agencies, in moving
toward solutions.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Water Quality Network
monitors chemical and physical
parameters almost monthly and
biological parameters annually at
153 fixed stations on rivers, streams,
and Lake Erie. The Commonwealth
also conducts ambient ground
water monitoring at 537 monitoring
sites.
individual Use Support in Pennsylvania
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
11
(Total Afcres= 11,445)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A 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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
147
-------
Puerto Rico
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DJgit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Puerto Rico 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Eric H. Morales
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board
Water Quality Area
Box11488
Santurce, PR 00910
(787)751-5548
Surface Water Quality
In rivers and streams, 81 % of
the surveyed miles have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life uses, 1 % partially support aquat-
ic life uses, and 19% do not support
aquatic life uses. Swimming is
impaired in 21 % of the surveyed
rivers and streams. Bacteria, low dis-
solved oxygen, metals, inorganic
chemicals, flow alteration, and nutri-
ents are the most widespread prob-
lems in rivers and streams. In lakes,
60% of the surveyed acres fully sup-
port aquatic life uses, 5% partially
support these uses, and 36% do not
support aquatic life uses. Swimming
is impaired in 48% of the surveyed
lake acres. Uses are impaired by
bacteria and low dissolved oxygen
concentrations.
Ninety-nine percent of the
assessed estuarine waters fully sup-
port aquatic life and swimming
uses. Land disposal of wastes, urban
runoff, agriculture, municipal sew-
age treatment plants, and natural
conditions are the most common
sources of water quality degradation
in rivers, lakes, and estuaries. Indus-
trial and municipal discharges, spills,
marinas, urban runoff, and land dis-
posal of wastes also pollute beaches.
Ground Water Quality
Organic compounds, including
dichloromethane, 1,1,2-trichloro-
ethane, and toluene were detected
below maximum contaminant levels
in several wells. Four wells were
closed due to bacterial contamina-
tion and high turbidity and two
wells were shut down due to
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 prior-
ity list that ranks critical areas for
remediation and protection
activities.
148
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Puerto Rico requires permits or
certificates for ground water and
surface water discharges, under-
ground storage tanks, and livestock
operations. Certificates require live-
stock operations to implement ani-
mal waste management systems
and other best management prac-
tices. During the 1992-1993 report-
ing period, Puerto Rico issued 194
certificates for livestock operations;
inspected 427 livestock operations;
implemented 77 BMPs in priority
watersheds; offered 15 conferences
to educate the public about 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 conven-
tional parameters. Twice a year, the
samples are analyzed for metals and
several toxic substances. Puerto Rico
also maintains a Permanent Coastal
Water Quality Network of 88 sta-
tions and the San Juan Beachfront
Special Monitoring Network of 22
stations sampled monthly for bacte-
rial contamination.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
aA subset of Puerto Rico's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the
Commonwealth's 305(b) report for a full
description of the Commonwealth's uses.
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)
67
•
19
5,385 ^L. ^B 1 ^M 0
,.
tuaries, (Total Miles = 175)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
149
-------
Rhode Island
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dtgtt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Rhode Island 1996
305(b) report contact:
Connie Carey
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Office of Water Resources
235 Promenade St.
Providence, Rl 02908
(401) 277-3961
Surface Water Quality
Seventy-three percent of Rhode
Island's rivers, over 75% of lakes,
and 96% of estuarine waters support
aquatic life uses. However, many of
these waters are considered threat-
ened. About 75% of rivers, more
than 92% of lakes, and 93% of estu-
aries fully support swimming. The
most significant pollutants in Rhode
Island's waters are heavy metals
(especially copper and lead), bacte-
ria, low dissolved oxygen, excess
nutrients, and low pH/low buffering
capacity. Recurring algae blooms
and high nutrients threaten the use
of several surface waters for drinking
water supplies.
Rivers and estuaries are
impacted by industrial and munici-
pal discharges, agricultural runoff,
combined sewer overflows, urban
runoff, highway runoff and disposal
of wastes, failed septic systems, and
contaminated sediments. Lakes are
primarily impacted by nonpoint
sources, including septic systems,
storm water runoff, and soil erosion.
Ground Water Quality
About 19% of the State's popu-
lation is supplied with drinking water
from public and private wells.
Overall, Rhode Island's ground water
has good to excellent quality, but
over 100 contaminants have been
detected in localized areas. Thirteen
community and eight noncommuni-
ty wells have been closed and over
350 private wells have had contami-
nant concentrations exceeding
drinking water standards. The most
common pollutants are petroleum
products, certain organic solvents,
and nitrates. Significant pollution
sources include leaking underground
storage tanks, hazardous and indus-
trial 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
Now in the midst of a major
departmental reorganization, the
RIDEM Office of Water Resources is
taking the opportunity to initiate the
transition from program-centered
management to a watershed
approach. The watershed approach
coordinates monitoring, modeling,
planning, permitting, and enforce-
ment activities within a geographic
area. This watershed-based frame-
work for coordinated planning and
action will increase departmental
efficiency, enhance internal and
external communication, allow for
targeting of resources to priority
areas and issues, bring collaborative
150
-------
problem solving into management
decisions, and help build a con-
stituency for environmental protec-
tion and restoration actions.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Surface water quality monitor-
ing activities conducted in Rhode
Island waters range from investiga-
tion of complaints to intensive river
and watershed monitoring projects.
The Office of Water Resources
(OWR) performs bacteriological
monitoring at all State-owned
beaches and provides intensive bac-
teriological monitoring of shellfish-
able waters. OWR has contracted
with the USGS to conduct riverine
monitoring at six stations in Rhode
Island. Biological monitoring, utiliz-
ing artificial substrates, is conducted
at six river stations near the USGS
fixed river stations. The USEPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols are followed
for macroinvertebrate sampling at
40 stream sites around the State.
Twenty-five of these 40 stations are
also monitored for various conven-
tional and toxic pollutants. The OWR
is involved in 10 watershed monitor-
ing projects. These projects are in
accordance with the Department's
initiation of a Watershed Approach
and total maximum daily load
(TMDL) development. Surface water
monitoring activities are also con-
ducted by many Citizens Monitoring
groups. These groups supply the
OWR with supplemental water qual-
ity data for numerous rivers, lakes,
ponds, and estuarine waters of the
State.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A 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.
Individual Use Support in Rhode Island
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Surveyed
15 12
17
i9'157)
Total Acres
14,620
(Total Square Mites = 193)c
Total Square 91
Miles Surveyed
192
173
10
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
151
-------
South Carolina
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Olglt Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the South Carolina
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Gina Kirkland
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental
Control
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803)734-5153
e-mail: kirklagl@columb35.dhec.
state.sc.us
Surface Water Quality
Eighty-seven percent of sur-
veyed rivers, 92% of surveyed lakes,
and 68% of estuaries have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life uses. Fifty-three percent
of rivers, 100% of lakes, and 89%
of estuaries fully support swimming.
Unsuitable water quality is respon-
sible for shellfish harvesting prohi-
bitions in only 2% of the State's
coastal shellfish waters. Another
11 % of shellfish waters are closed as
a precaution due to potential pollu-
tion from nearby marinas or point
source discharges.
Bacteria are the most frequent
cause of impairment (i.e., partial or
nonsupport of designated uses) in
rivers and streams; metals are the
most frequent cause of impairment
in lakes, but only 8% of lakes do not
fully support uses; and low dissolved
oxygen is the most frequent cause
of impairment in estuaries. Toxic
contaminants do not appear to be a
widespread problem in South
Carolina surface waters.
Ground Water Quality
Overall ground water quality
remains excellent, although the
number of reported ground water
contamination cases rose from 60
cases in 1980 to 3,330 cases in
1997. The increase in the number
of contaminated sites is primarily
due to expanded monitoring at
underground storage tank sites.
Leaking underground storage tanks
are the most common source of
contamination, impacting 2,767
sites, followed by spills and leaking
pits, ponds, and lagoons.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Con-
trol (DHEC) initiated a Watershed
Water Quality Management Strat-
egy (WWQMS) to integrate moni-
toring, assessment, problem identifi-
cation and prioritization, water
quality modeling, planning, permit-
ting, and other management activi-
ties by river drainage basins. DHEC
152
-------
has delineated five major drainage
basins encompassing 280 minor
watersheds. Every year, DHEC will
develop or revise a management
plan and implementation strategy
for one basin. The majority of water
quality activities in these watersheds
will be based on a 5-year rotation.
The basin strategies will refocus
water quality protection and restor-
ation priorities for allocation of
limited resources.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Year round, DHEC samples
chemical and physical parameters
monthly at fixed primary stations
located in or near high-use waters.
DHEC samples secondary stations
(near discharges and areas with a
history of water quality problems)
monthly from May through
October for fewer parameters. Each
year, DHEC adds new watershed
stations within the specific basin
under investigation. Watershed
stations are sampled monthly for
1 year corresponding with the
WWQMS schedule.
Individual Use Support in South Carolina
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
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)
10
Total Square
Miles Surveyed 68
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
153
-------
South Dakota
Basin Boundaries
CUSGS 6-Digit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the South Dakota
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Andrew Repsys
South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Division of Financial and Technical
Assistance
Watershed Protection Program
523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-3882
e-mail: andrewr@denr.state.
sd.us
Surface Water Quality
Seventeen percent of South
Dakota's surveyed rivers and streams
fully support aquatic life uses and
83% do not fully support aquatic
life uses. Forty-three percent of the
surveyed rivers also support swim-
ming, and 57% of the surveyed
rivers do not fully support swim-
ming. The most common pollutants
impacting South Dakota streams are
suspended solids due to water ero-
sion from croplands, gully erosion
from rangelands, streambank
erosion, and other natural forms of
erosion. Eighty percent of South
Dakota's surveyed lake acres fully
support aquatic life uses now, but
the quality of these lakes is threat-
ened. Similarly, 84% of the surveyed
lake acres fully support swimming,
but these waters are threatened.
The most common pollutants in
lakes are nutrients and sediments
from agricultural runoff.
The high water conditions that
prevailed in South Dakota for most
of this reporting period greatly
increased watershed erosion and
sedimentation in lakes and streams.
Suspended solids criteria were
severely violated in many rivers and
streams, and there was an increase
in the incidence of fecal coliform
bacteria in swimming areas at lakes.
However, water quality improved in
some lakes that experienced low
water levels during 1992-1996, and
high flows diluted bacteria in rivers
and streams.
Ground Water Quality
Nitrates exceed EPA Maximum
Contaminant Levels in more wells
than any other pollutant. About
19% of the samples collected at
three eastern State aquifers during
1988-1994 had nitrate concentra-
tions that exceeded the State criteria
of 10 mg/L. Potential sources of
nitrate include commercial fertilizer
use and manure applications. There
were no violations of drinking water
standards for petroleum products
reported during 1994-1995, but
petroleum products were involved
in 76% of the spills reported during
the period.
154
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Compliance with municipal
wastewater discharge permit
requirements steadily rose from
37% in 1979 to 75% statewide in
1993 following construction of
162 wastewater treatment facilities.
Compliance is even higher (97%)
among the plants completed with
EPA Construction Grants. South
Dakota relies primarily on voluntary
implementation of best manage-
ment practices to control pollution
from nonpoint sources, such as
agricultural activities, forestry opera-
tions, and mining. The State has
initiated over 50 BMP development
and implementation projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
South Dakota conducts ambient
water quality monitoring at estab-
lished stations, special intensive
surveys, intensive fish surveys,
wasteload allocation surveys, and
individual nonpoint source projects.
The USGS, Corps of Engineers, and
U.S. Forest Service also conduct
routine monitoring throughout the
State. Water samples are analyzed
for chemical, physical, biological,
and bacteriological parameters.
Individual Use Support in South Dakota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
61
Hikes (total Acres = 750,000)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of South Dakota's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
155
-------
Tennessee
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dig!t Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Tennessee 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Greg Denton
Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation
Division of Water Pollution Control
401 Church Street, L&C Annex
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
(615)532-0699
e-mail: gdenton@mail.state.tn.us
Surface Water Quality
Seventy-three percent of
surveyed rivers and streams fully
support aquatic life uses and 27%
are not supporting these uses due
to severe pollution. Conventional
pollutants (such as siltation,
suspended solids, nutrients, and
oxygen-depleting substances) affect
the most river miles. Toxic materials,
bacteria, and flow alterations impact
rivers to a lesser extent. Major
sources of pollutants include agricul-
ture, hydromodification, and munic-
ipal point sources. Intense impacts
from mining occur in the Cumber-
land Plateau region, and poor qual-
ity water discharged from dams
impacts streams in east and middle
Tennessee.
In lakes, 496,340 acres (92%)
fully support aquatic life uses and
42,390 acres (8%) do not support
these uses due to severe pollution.
The most widespread problems in
lakes include nutrients, low dis-
solved oxygen, metals, flow altera-
tion, and priority organics. Major
sources of these pollutants are
stream impoundments, contaminat-
ed sediments, urban runoff/storm
sewers, land treatment, and spills.
Swimming and wading are
restricted in Chattanooga Creek and
East Fork Poplar Creek due to toxic
contamination from discontinued
waste disposal practices and
elevated levels of fecal coliform
bacteria.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality is general-
ly good, but pollutants contaminate
(or are thought to contaminate) the
resource in localized areas. These
pollutants include, but are not
limited to, volatile and semivolatile
organic chemicals, bacteria, metals,
petroleum products, pesticides, and
radioactive materials.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Division of Water Pollution
Control has adopted a watershed
156
-------
approach to improving water qual-
ity and encouraging coordination
with the public and other agencies.
Each of the 54 watersheds will be
managed on a 5-year cycle coincid-
ing with the duration of discharge
permits. Tennessee is also conduct-
ing several Total Maximum Daily
Load studies that use a watershed
approach to allocate maximum pol-
lutant loading among all the point
sources discharging into a stream or
its tributaries.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Tennessee's ambient monitoring
network consists of 156 active sta-
tions sampled quarterly for conven-
tional pollutants (such as dissolved
oxygen, bacteria, and suspended
solids), nutrients, and selected
metals. The State also performs
intensive surveys at streams where
State personnel suspect that human
activities are degrading stream qual-
ity. Intensive surveys often include
biological monitoring. The State
samples toxic chemicals in fish and
sediment at sites with suspected
toxicity problems.
With assistance from EPA,
Tennessee has undertaken to subde-
lineate ecoregions and to character-
ize water quality at carefully selected
reference streams. Data from this
project will help the Division set
clean water goals on a regional,
rather than statewide, basis.
Individual Use Support in Tennessee
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and
-jtfW^ ^^W^W^^^^^ ^^^"^ *^I'l^-%w.|? J?. & '!'&""% if ^.4 %£('*- 'f'f\ ^ v1*?"'* 4-*"^
Total Miles
73
27
a « t «. -* »v.^fc»««!MaHHi'W-Wi»tt1S
Lakes (Tofei
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Tennessee's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
157
-------
Texas
1 Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Dfgit Hydrotogic Unit)
For a copy of the Texas 1996 305(b)
repor^ contact-
Steve Twidwell
Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512)239-4607
Surface Water Quality
About 91 % of the surveyed
stream miles fully support aquatic
life uses, 3% partially support these
uses, and 5% do not support
aquatic life uses. Swimming is
impaired in about 27% of the
surveyed rivers and streams. The
most common pollutants degrading
rivers and streams are bacteria,
metals, and oxygen-depleting sub-
stances. Major sources of pollution
include municipal sewage treatment
plants, unknown sources, agricultur-
al runoff, and urban runoff.
In reservoirs, 91 % of the sur-
veyed surface acres fully support
aquatic life uses, 5% partially sup-
port these uses, and 4% do not sup-
port aquatic life uses. Ninety-seven
percent of the surveyed lake acres
fully support swimming. The most
common problems in reservoirs are
metals, low dissolved oxygen, and
elevated bacteria concentrations.
Major sources that contributed to
nonsupport of uses include
unknown sources, atmospheric
deposition, natural sources (such as
high temperature and shallow condi-
tions), municipal sewage treatment
plants, and industrial point sources.
The leading problem in estuaries
is bacteria from unknown sources
that contaminate shellfish beds.
Sixty-one percent of the surveyed
estuarine waters fully support shell-
fishing use, 36% partially support
this use, and 4% do not support
shellfishing.
Ground Water Quality
About 41 % of the municipal
water is obtained from ground water
sources in Texas. Identified ground
water contaminant sources include
storage tanks, surface impound-
ments, landfills, septic systems, and
natural sources. The most commonly
reported ground water contam-
inants from human activities are
gasoline, diesel, and other petroleum
products. Less commonly reported
contaminants include volatile organ-
ic compounds and pesticides. The
degradation of ground water quality
from natural sources probably has a
greater effect than do all anthro-
pogenic sources combined.
158
-------
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, comprehensive
and integrated geographic manage-
ment 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 integrating
actions. The basin approach also
allows for the use of risk-based tar-
geting to prioritize issues and better
allocate finite public resources.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The TNRCC samples about 450
fixed stations as part of its Surface
Water Quality Monitoring Program
(SWQMP). The TNRCC samples
different parameters and varies the
frequency of sampling at each site to
satisfy different needs. The TNRCC
also conducts intensive surveys to
evaluate potential impacts from
point source dischargers during low
flow conditions and special studies
to investigate specific sources and
pollutants. About 3,000 citizens also
perform volunteer environmental
monitoring in the Texas Watch
Program.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A subset of Texas' designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Texas
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles 91
Surveyed
<1
&•«•"%$''* & f&ip"?? ixs •& % 9 9-2 & £• 5 *y%r-: '%, #JS& $"'5*'if % W\ % f'^f
s. (Tptal Acres =
anes (Total Square Miles = 1,991)
Total Square 94
Miles Surveyed
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
159
-------
Utah
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-D\g\t Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Utah 1996 305(b)
report, contact:
Thomas W. Toole
Utah Department of Environmental
Quality
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801)538-6859
Surface Water Quality
Of the 6,582 river miles sur-
veyed, 74% fully support aquatic life
uses, 22% partially support these
uses, and 4% do not support
aquatic life uses. The most common
pollutants impacting rivers and
streams are sediments and nutri-
ents. Agricultural practices, such as
grazing and irrigation, elevate
nutrient and sediment loading into
streams. Point sources also con-
tribute to nutrient loads, while nat-
ural conditions introduce metals
and sediments to streams in some
areas. Resource extraction and asso-
ciated activities, such as road con-
struction, also impact Utah's rivers
and streams.
About 62% of the surveyed lake
acres fully support aquatic life uses,
36% partially support these uses,
and 2% do not support aquatic life
uses. The leading problems in lakes
include nutrients, siltation, low
dissolved oxygen, suspended solids,
organic enrichment, noxious aquatic
plants, and violations of pH criteria.
The major sources of pollutants are
grazing and irrigation, industrial and
municipal point sources, drawdown
of reservoirs, and urban runoff.
Fish and wildlife consumption
advisories are posted on the lower
portion of Ashley Creek drainage
and Stewart Lake in Uintah County
due to elevated levels of selenium
found in fish, ducks, and American
coots.
Ground Water Quality
In general, the quality of
ground water in Utah has remained
relatively good throughout the
State, although some ground water
degradation occurs in south central
Utah in the metropolitan area of Salt
Lake City and along the Wasatch
Front area from Payson north to
Brigham City. Sources of ground
water degradation include agricul-
tural chemical facilities, animal
feedlots, storage tanks, surface
impoundments, and waste tailings.
In 1994, new ground water regula-
tions went into effect.
160
-------
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 NFS pollution
controls. As best management
practices are implemented, the Task
Force will update and revise the
priority list.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1993, Utah adopted a basin-
wide water quality monitoring
approach. Intensive surveys have
been completed on the lower Bear
River, Weber River, and the Utah
Lake-Jordan River watersheds. The
Green River Basin monitoring began
in early 1995, and monitoring
began in April 1996 in the Sevier-
Virgin River Basins. A fixed-station
network was also developed to eval-
uate general water quality across
the State. Utah's surface water qual-
ity monitoring program consists of
about 200 ambient stations, 7 salin-
ity monitoring stations, and 30
biological monitoring sites. In addi-
tion, 135 industrial and municipal
sites were monitored.
Individual Use Support in Utah
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Utah's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for a
full description of the State's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
161
-------
Vermont
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Olgit Hydrologlc Unit)
For a copy of the Vermont 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Jerome J. McArdle
Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
Water Quality Division
103 South Main Street,
Building 10 North
Waterbury,VT 05671-0408
(802)241-3776
e-mail: jerrym@waterq.anr.
state.vt.us
Surface Water Quality
Of the 5,261 miles of surveyed
rivers and streams, over 79% fully
support aquatic life uses, 16% par-
tially support these uses, and 5% do
not support aquatic life uses. Over
10% of the surveyed rivers and
streams do not fully support swim-
ming. The most widespread impacts
include siltation, thermal modifica-
tions, organic enrichment and low
dissolved oxygen, nutrients, patho-
gens, and other habitat alterations.
The principal sources of impacts are
agricultural runoff, streambank
destabilization and erosion, removal
of streamside vegetation, upstream
impoundments, flow regulation,
and land development.
Sixty-five percent of the sur-
veyed lake acres (excluding Lake
Champlain) fully support aquatic life
uses, 26% partially support these
uses, and 9% do not support
aquatic life uses. The most common
problems in lakes include fluctuating
water levels, nutrient enrichment,
algal blooms, organic enrichment,
siltation, and aquatic weeds.
Although ranking sixth among cur-
rent impairments, nonnative species
infestations, primarily Eurasian water
milfoil, are perhaps the fastest grow-
ing cause of lake impairment. Runoff
from agricultural lands, roads, and
streambank erosion are the most
frequently identified sources of lake
problems.
In July 1995, a fish consumption
advisory was issued on all Vermont
waters containing walleye or lake
trout due to mercury and PCB con-
tamination, respectively. However,
there is an interim fish consumption
advisory for all fish due to possible
mercury contamination.
Ground Water Quality
The quality of Vermont's ground
waters is not well understood due to
a lack of resources required to gath-
er and assess ground water data.
Ground water contamination has
been detected at hazardous waste
sites. Other sources of concern
include failing septic systems, old
solid waste disposal sites, agricul-
ture, road salt, leaking underground
storage tanks, and landfills. The
State needs to implement a
Comprehensive Ground Water
162
-------
Protection Program, but lacks the
financial and technical resources to
do so.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The recent water quality
improvements have not been as
dramatic as in earlier years due to
completion of the wastewater treat-
ment facilities on the more heavily
polluted rivers. This is because the
State is focusing on the reduction of
nonpoint sources of pollution. Water
quality certifications were issued for
seven hydroelectric facilities, which
could result in the improvement of
42 miles of rivers and 4,350 acres
of lakes through minimum flow
requirements.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Vermont's monitoring activities
balance short-term intensive and
long-term trend monitoring.
Notable monitoring activities
include fixed-station monitoring on
lakes and ponds, citizen monitoring,
long-term acid rain lake monitoring,
compliance monitoring for permit-
ted dischargers, toxic discharge
monitoring, fish contamination
monitoring, and ambient biomoni-
toring of aquatic insects and fish.
- Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
a A subset of Vermont's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
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 58
16
Lakes „ (Total A|cfes!=ift
Lake CHamplain (Total Acres * 174,175)
163
-------
Virginia
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Dig!t Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Virginia 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Ronald Gregory
Department of Environmental
Quality
Water Division
Office of Water Resources
Management
P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
(804) 698-4471
Surface Water Quality
Of the 31,431 river miles sur-
veyed, 76% fully support aquatic life
use, another 22% fully support this
use now but are threatened, and
over 2% do not fully support this
use. As in past years, fecal coliform
bacteria are the most widespread
problem in rivers and streams.
Agriculture and pasture land
contribute much of the fecal coli-
form bacteria in Virginia's waters.
Urban runoff also is a significant
source of impacts in both rivers and
estuaries.
Ninety percent of Virginia's
publicly owned lakes fully support
aquatic life use. The most common
problems in lakes include dissolved
oxygen depletion, coliform bacteria,
pH, and temperature, primarily from
nonpoint sources.
In estuaries, 11 % of the sur-
veyed waters fully support aquatic
life use, 82% support this use but
are threatened, and 6% partially
support this use. Nutrients are the
most common problem in Virginia's
estuarine waters, followed by
organic enrichment and low dis-
solved oxygen concentrations. All
of Virginia's Atlantic Ocean shoreline
fully supports designated uses.
The VDH Bureau of Toxic
Substances Information has four
health advisories and one restriction
currently in effect for fish consump-
tion.
Ground Water Quality
As in previous years, bacterial
violations continue to be the pre-
dominant MCL exceedance. Nitrates
and trihalomethane were also
detected in a small percentage of
the sampled private wells. Virginia
revised ground water protection
rules with the Ground Water
Management Act of 1992.
164
-------
^!ie^r^
, I**'""!«, s««*sia\ P^:
^irt^SLi**1".^.
°(as^<;
sar°9 ccV^er°
°leot°na3"
165
-------
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Territorial Pollution Dis-
charge Elimination System (TPDES)
requires permits for all point source
discharges, but not all permitted
Facilities are in compliance with their
permit requirements. During the
1992-1993 reporting period, the
Division of Environmental Protection
Drought four major violators into
:ompliance. The Virgin Islands is
also developing new regulations for
:iting and constructing onsite
.ewage disposal systems and advo-
:ating best management practices
n the Revised Handbook for Home-
ouilders and Developers.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Ambient Monitoring
'rogram performs quarterly sam-
)ling at 64 fixed stations around
it. Croix, 57 stations around
>t. Thomas, and 19 stations around
>t. John. Samples are analyzed for
ecal coliforms, turbidity, dissolved
>xygen, and temperature. Twenty
tations on St. Croix were also sam-
)led for phosphorus, nitrogen, and
uspended solids. Intensive studies,
vhich include biological sampling,
re conducted at selected sites that
nay be affected by coastal develop-
nent. The Virgin Islands does not
nonitor bacteria in shellfish waters
>r toxics in fish, water, or sediment.
167
-------
Washington
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Washington 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Steve Butkus
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia,WA 98504-7600
(360) 407-6482
e-mail: stbu461@ecy.wa.gov
Low levels of dissolved oxygen,
often naturally occurring, are the
major cause of impairment of desig-
nated uses in estuaries. Bacterial
contamination, primarily from agri-
cultural runoff, onsite wastewater
disposal, and municipal wastewater
treatment plants also causes impair-
ment in estuaries. Major causes of
impairment in lakes include nutri-
ents and noxious aquatic plants.
Agricultural production is the pre-
dominant source of impairment in
lakes. Other sources include urban
runoff, municipal point sources, land
disposal, construction runoff, and
natural sources. In rivers and
streams, agriculture is the major
source of water quality degradation,
followed by hydro-habitat modifica-
tion, natural sources, and municipal
point sources. Causes of water qual-
ity impairment from these sources
include thermal modification, patho-
gen indicators, pH, and low dis-
solved oxygen.
Surface Water Quality Ground Water Quality
Washington reports that 23% of
their surveyed river miles fully sup-
port aquatic life uses, 14% partially
support these uses, and 63% do not
support aquatic life uses. All sur-
veyed lakes partially support swim-
ming use. Two percent of the sur-
veyed estuarine waters fully support
aquatic life uses, 3% partially sup-
port these uses, and 95% do not
support aquatic life uses.
Washington reports ground
water contamination by metals,
trace elements, nitrates, pesticides,
petroleum, and synthetic organic
chemicals. Sources include industrial
activities, agriculture, municipal
wastewaters, mining, and onsite
sewage systems.
168
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Washington provides financial
incentives to encourage compliance
with permit requirements, the prin-
cipal vehicle for regulating point
source discharges. The State also
has extensive experience develop-
ing, funding, and implementing
nonpoint source pollution preven-
tion and control programs since the
early 1970s. The State has devel-
oped nonpoint source control plans
with best management practices
for forest practices, dairy waste, irri-
gated agriculture, dryland agricul-
ture, and urban stormwater. The
State is now focusing attention on
watershed planning. The watershed
approach is designed to synchronize
water quality monitoring, inspec-
tions, permitting, nonpoint ativities,
and funding.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Washington implements an
aggressive program to monitor the
quality of lakes, estuaries, and rivers
and streams. The program makes
use of fixed-station monitoring to
track spatial and temporal water
quality changes so as to ascertain
the effectiveness of various water
quality programs and be able to
identify desirable adjustments to the
programs.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Washington
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
63
(Total Square Miles = 2,943)
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
169
-------
West Virginia
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-DIg!t Hydrologic Unit)
For information about water quality
in West Virginia, contact:
Mike Arcuri
West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection
Office of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304)558-2108
Surface Water Quality
West Virginia reported that 46%
of their surveyed river and stream
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses, and
73% fully support swimming. In
lakes, 32% of the surveyed acres
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses and 100%
fully support swimming.
Metals and siltation are the most
common water quality problems in
West Virginia's rivers and lakes. Fecal
coliforms, oxygen-depleting sub-
stances, and acidity also impair a
large number of river miles. In lakes,
siltation, oxygen-depleting sub-
stances, acidity, toxics, nutrients,
and algal blooms also impair a sig-
nificant number of acres. Agriculture
impaired the most stream miles, fol-
lowed by abandoned mine drainage
and forestry activities. Abandoned
mine drainage was the leading
source of degraded water quality in
lakes, followed by forestry and agri-
culture.
West Virginia reported that fish
consumption advisories are posted
for the Kanawha River, Pocatalico
River, Armour Creek, Ohio River,
Shenandoah River, North Branch of
the Potomac River, the Potomac
River, and Flat Fork Creek. Five of
the advisories were issued because
of elevated dioxin concentrations in
bottom feeders. The other advisories
address PCBs and chlordane in suck-
ers, carp, and channel catfish.
Ground Water Quality
West Virginia ranked mining
and mine drainage as the highest
priority source of ground water
contamination in the State, followed
by municipal landfills, surface water
impoundments (including oil and
gas brine pits), abandoned hazard-
ous waste sites, and industrial land-
fills. West Virginia has documented
or suspects that ground water has
been contaminated by pesticides,
petroleum compounds, other
organic chemicals, bacteria, nitrates,
brine/salinity, arsenic, and other
metals.
170
-------
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)
l!!lS>iil%*lt&®:!J#i$^
44
a A subset of West Virginia's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
bincludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
171
-------
Wisconsin
1 Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologfc Unit)
For a copy of the Wisconsin 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Meg Turville-Heitz
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
(608)266-0152
e-mail: turvime@dnr.state.wi.us
Surface Water Quality
The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) found
that 33% of the surveyed river miles
fully support aquatic life uses, 23%
support these uses now but are
threatened, 36% partially support
aquatic life uses, and 8% do not
support aquatic life uses. The most
prevalent problems in rivers are
habitat and flow alterations, silta-
tion, excessive nutrients, and oxy-
gen-depleting substances. The
sources of these problems are often
polluted runoff/especially in agricul-
tural areas, and river modifications,
such as ditching, straightening,
and the loss of wetlands alongside
streams. Wastewater discharges also
moderately impair more than 2,270
miles of streams.
About 37% of the surveyed lake
acres fully support aquatic life uses,
3% support these uses but are
threatened, 55% partially support
these uses, and 6% do not support
aquatic life uses. The primary source
of lake degradation is deposition of
airborne pollutants, especially
mercury, and polluted runoff. All of
Wisconsin's Great Lakes' shoreline
partially supports fish consumption
use due to fish consumption advi-
sories posted throughout the Great
Lakes. Bacteria from urban runoff
also impair swimming along 60
miles of shoreline.
Ground Water Quality
The primary sources of ground
water contamination in Wisconsin
are agricultural activities, municipal
landfills, leaking underground stor-
age tanks, abandoned hazardous
waste sites, and spills. Other sources
include septic tanks and land appli-
cation of wastewater. Nitrate-
nitrogen is the most common
ground water contaminant. Nitrates
come from fertilizers, animal waste
storage sites and feedlots, municipal
and industrial wastewater and
sludge disposal, refuse disposal
areas, and leaking septic systems.
172
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
WDNR is integrating multiple
agencies, programs, interests, and
jurisdictions in an "ecosystem
approach" that looks at all parts of
the ecosystem when addressing
water quality—the land that drains
to the waterbody, the air above it,
the plants, animals, and people
using it Since the 1970s, WDNR
has prepared water quality manage-
ment plans for each of the State's
river basins that summarize the
condition of waters in each basin,
identify improvements and needs,
and make recommendations for
cleanup or protection. WDNR
updates the plans every 5 years and
uses the plans to rank watersheds
for priority projects under the
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program and
to address wastewater discharge
concerns.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1992, Wisconsin imple-
mented a surface water monitoring
strategy to support river basin plan-
ning. The strategy integrates moni-
toring and management activities in
each of the State's river basins on
the 5-year basin planning schedule.
In recent years, Wisconsin has
placed more emphasis on monitor-
ing polluted runoff and toxic
substances in bottom sediments
and tissues of fish and wildlife.
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or
unknown.
NA = Not applicable because use is not
designated in State standards.
Individual Use Support in Wisconsin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
1. ....,tj.ial ^ ^^^M&M%*aTl^j!|/&.ff,w^
36
* . . - k _ ~'^^'
-
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.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
173
-------
Wyoming
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Wyoming 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Phil Ogle
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-5622
Surface Water Quality
Of the 5,714 river miles sur-
veyed, 37% fully support aquatic life
uses, 4% fully support these uses
now but are threatened, 55% par-
tially support aquatic life uses, and
4% do not support aquatic life uses.
The most widespread problems in
rivers and streams are siltation and
sediment, nutrients, total dissolved
solids and salinity, flow alterations,
and habitat alterations. The most
prevalent sources of water quality
problems in rivers and streams are
rangeland, natural sources, irrigated
cropland, pasture land, and con-
struction of highways, roads, and
bridges.
In lakes, 54% of the surveyed
acres fully support aquatic life uses
and 46% partially support these
uses. The leading problems in lakes
are low dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions and organic enrichment, nutri-
ents, sediment and siltation, other
inorganic substances, and metals.
The most prevalent sources of water
quality problems in lakes are natural
sources, rangeland, irrigated crop-
land, flow regulation, and municipal
sewage treatment plants.
The State's water quality survey
is designed to identify water quality
problems, so it is reasonable to
assume that most of the unassessed
waters are not impacted. However,
the State lacks definitive information
to that effect.
Ground Water Quality
Some aquifers in Wyoming have
naturally high levels of fluoride, sele-
nium, and radionuclides. Petroleum
hydrocarbons are the most preva-
lent type of contaminants impacting
Wyoming ground waters, followed
by halogenated solvents, salinity/
brine, nitrates, and pesticides.
Leaking underground storage tanks
are the most numerous source of
contamination. Other sources
include mineral mining, agricultural
activities, spills, landfills, septic tank
leachfields, and other industrial sites.
174
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Wyoming requires discharger
permits and construction permits
for all wastewater treatment facili-
ties. The Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ) reviews pro-
posed plans and specifications to
ensure that plants meet minimum
design criteria. Wyoming's nonpoint
source program is a nonregulatory
program that promotes better man-
agement practices for all land use
activities, including grazing, timber
harvesting, and hydrologic modifi-
cations.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Wyoming is currently monitor-
ing reference stream sites around
the State in order to define charac-
teristics of relatively undisturbed
streams in each ecoregion. Limited
funding precluded a comprehensive
watershed effort for surface water
assessment. The State is sampling
chemical and biological parameters,
such as dissolved oxygen, nutrients,
aquatic insect species composition,
species abundance, and habitat
conditions at the candidate refer-
ence stream sites. Once established,
the reference site conditions will
serve as the basis for assessing other
streams in the same ecoregion or
subecoregion. Wyoming will use the
reference conditions to establish a
volunteer biological monitoring
program.
Individual Use Support in Wyoming
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
Surveyed
55
(Total Acres = 372,309) <
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of Wyoming's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.
175
-------
176
-------
Tribal Summaries
This section provides individual
summaries of the water quality sur-
vey data reported by six American
Indian Tribes in their 1996 Section
305(b) reports. Tribal participation
in the Section 305(b) process grew
from two Tribes in 1992 to six
Tribes during the 1996 reporting
cycle, but Tribal water quality
remains unrepresented in this
report for the hundreds of other
Tribes established throughout the
country. Many of the other Tribes
are in the process of developing
water quality programs and 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 partic-
ipate 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.
177
-------
Campo Indian Reservation
For information about water quality
on the Campo Indian Reservation,
contact
Stephen W. Johnson or
Michael L Connolly
Campo Environmental Protection
Agency
36190 Church Road, Suite #4
Campo, CA 91906
(619)478-9369
Surface Water Quality
Location of Reservation
The Campo Indian Reservation
covers 24.2 square miles in south-
eastern San Diego County, Califor-
nia. The Campo Indian Reservation
has 31 miles of intermittent streams,
80 acres of freshwater wetlands, and
10 lakes with a combined surface
area of 3.5 acres.
The natural water quality of
Tribal streams, lakes, and wetlands
ranges from good to excellent. There
are no point source discharges with-
in 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 construction also
threaten water quality.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies 100%
of the domestic water consumed
on the Campo Indian Reservation.
Nitrate and bacteria from nonpoint
sources occasionally exceed drinking
water standards in some domestic
wells. The proximity of individual
septic systems to drinking water
wells poses a human health risk
because Reservation soils do not
have good purification properties.
Elevated iron and manganese levels
may be due to natural weathering of
geologic materials.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Campo Environmental
Protection Agency (CEPA) 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 fund-
ing from the Section 104(b)(3) State
Wetlands Protection Program. The
Tribe has used funding from the
Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Program to stabilize stream banks,
178
-------
construct sediment retention struc-
tures, and fence streams and riparian
zones to exclude livestock. CEPA
promulgated water quality standards
in 1995 to establish beneficial uses,
water quality criteria, and antidegra-
dation provisions for all Tribal waters.
In 1994, the General Council
passed a resolution to suspend cattle
grazing on the Reservation for at
least 2 years and to concurrently
restore degraded recreational water
resources by creating fishing and
swimming ponds for Tribal use.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Streams, wetlands, and lakes
on Tribal lands were not monitored
until CEPA initiated its Water
Pollution Control Program in 1992.
Following EPA approval of CEPA's
Quality Assurance Project Plan in
May 1993, CEPA conducted short-
term intensive surveys to meet the
information needs of the 305(b)
assessment process. Based on the
results of the 1994 305(b) assess-
ment, CEPA developed a long-term
surface water monitoring program
in 1995. CEPA will consider includ-
ing biological monitoring, physical
and chemical monitoring, monthly
bacterial monitoring in lakes, 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)
™ _>-^;J:t-'!-ftt-^f-f 1f-^#-|?^IHH-'-^-f i'%i~^'^l«t!^f l^'l^^'lf 1'9 I® f '*
Total Miles
Assessed
Lakes (Total Acres = 3.5)
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A 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.
179
-------
Coyote Valley Reservation
Location of
Reservation
Not Assessed
• „ >i Not Supporting
••••I Partially Supporting
H-H+H Parking
A Casino
B Education/Recreation
Facility
For information about water quality
on the Coyote Valley Reservation,
contact:
Jean Hunt or Sharon Ibarra
The Coyote Valley Reservation
P.O. Box 39
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
(704) 485-8723
Surface Water Quality
The Coyote Valley Band of the
Pomo Indians is a federally recog-
nized Indian Tribe, living on a
57-acre parcel of land in Mendocino
County, California. Segments of the
Russian River and Forsythe Creek
flow past the Reservation, although
flow diminishes in the summer and
fall. Fishing, recreation, and religion
are important uses for surface waters
within the Reservation.
Currently, the Tribe is concerned
about bacteria contamination in the
Russian River, potential contamina-
tion of Forsythe Creek from a mal-
functioning 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 irriga-
tion well (Well A) was abandoned
because it went dry after the gravel
mining operation on Forsythe Creek
lowered the water table. Well B,
located adjacent to Forsythe Creek,
is used as a water supply for an
education/recreation facility on the
Reservation. Well C, located on a
ridge next to the Reservation's hous-
ing units, is not in use due to severe
iron and taste problems. Sampling
also detected high levels of barium,
total dissolved solids, manganese,
and conductivity in Wells B and C.
However, samples from Well B did
not contain organic chemicals, pesti-
cides, or nitrate in detectable
amounts. Human waste contamina-
tion from septic systems may pose
the greatest threat to ground water
quality.
180
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Codes and ordinances for the
Reservation will be established to
create a Water Quality and Manage-
ment Program for the Reservation.
With codes in place, the Coyote
Valley Tribal Council will gain the
authority to restrain the discharge of
pollutants that could endanger the
Reservation water supply and affect
the health and welfare of its people,
as well as people in the adjacent
communities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Tribal Water Quality
Manager will design a monitoring
system with assistance from environ-
mental consultants. The Water
Quality Manager will sample a
temporary monitoring station on
Forsythe Creek and a proposed
sampling station on the Russian
River every month. A fisheries biolo-
gist will survey habitat on the rivers
every other year, as funding permits.
These activities will be funded
through an EPA General Assistance
Program (GAP) grant. GAP grants
assist Tribes in increasing their capac-
ity to administer environmental
programs.
Individual Use Support in Coyote
Valley Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers
Total Miles
77
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.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
181
-------
Fort Berthold Reservation
North
Dakota\
Location of Reservation
For information about water quality
at the Fort Berthold Reservation,
contact:
Jfm Heckman
Three Affiliated Tribes
Environmental Division, HC3 Box 2
New Town, ND 58763
(701) 627-4569
Surface Water Quality
The Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation, located in northwestern
North Dakota, was originally estab-
lished by the Fort Laramie Treaty of
1851. The current boundaries, as
determined by an Act of Congress in
1891, encompass approximately
1,540 square miles of which about
half is held in trusts by the United
States for either the Three Affiliated
Tribes or individual Native Ameri-
cans.
The large manmade lake, Lake
Sakakawea, occupies 242 square
miles of land in the center of the
Reservation. Created by the con-
struction of the Garrison Dam on
the Missouri River, the lake stretches
178 miles in length between Willis-
ton and Riverdale, North Dakota,
with a drainage area of 181,400
square miles. The dam created a lake
with a surface area at full pool of
575 square miles surrounded by
1,300 miles of shoreline, six hundred
of which lie within the Reservation
boundaries.
Lake Sakakawea provides munic-
ipal water for three of the six
Reservation communities. Two addi-
tional communities are in the con-
struction phase. The lake is also a
major source of recreational oppor-
tunities including fishing, boating,
and water skiing. Industrial use of
the lake resources is minimal due to
the lack of industrial development
on the Reservation.
Aside from Lake Sakakawea,
surface water resources include the
Little Missouri River on the southern
border of the Reservation, numerous
small tributaries and ephemeral
streams, seasonal wetlands areas and
small manmade impoundments, all
of which are used to some extent by
livestock and/or wildlife.
A major concern of water qual-
ity impairment on the Reservation is
that very few of the farmers and
ranchers are currently implementing
best management practices (BMPs).
The majority of the livestock located
within the Reservation boundaries
are allowed to drink directly from
the surface waters. This has caused
the riparian habitat of the surface
waters to become denuded of vege-
tation accelerating erosion of the
banks. The water quality is being
degraded through increased
sedimentation, turbidity and fecal
coliform, and fecal streptococci
bacteria.
182
-------
Ground Water Quality
The Three Affiliated Tribes
Division of Environmental Quality's
primary focus is currently on the
Reservation's surface waters.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The draft water quality standards
for the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation have been submitted to
the EPA Region 8 for review and
comment. Once the standards are in
place, the Three Affiliated Tribes will
be able to write and enforce ordi-
nances and codes to protect the sur-
face and ground waters on the
Reservation.
An ecosystem protection initia-
tive project is currently being imple-
mented on the Reservation.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The surface water monitoring
program established by the Three
Affiliated Tribes Division of Environ-
mental Quality is in the second year
of collecting monitoring data at six
monitoring sites. Three additional
sites are in their first year of being
monitored.
The U.S. Geological Survey has
three continuous recording gaging
stations and two miscellaneous dis-
charge measurement sites on and
adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation. The USGS report
Variations in Land Use and Non-point
Source Contamination on the Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation, West
Central North Dakota, 1990-93,
assesses water quality based on data
from these sites.
183
-------
Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation
Location of
Reservation
For a copy of the Hoopa Valley
Indian Reservation 1996 305(b)
report^ contact:
Ken Norton
P.O. Box1348
Hoopa, CA 95546
(916)625-5515
Surface Water Quality
The Hoopa Valley Indian Reser-
vation covers almost 139 square
miles in Humboldt County in north-
ern California. The Reservation con-
tains 133 miles of rivers and streams,
including a section of the Trinity
River, and 3,200 acres of wetlands.
The Reservation does not contain
any lakes.
Surface waters on the Reserva-
tion appear to be free of toxic
organic chemicals, but poor forest
management practices and mining
operations, both on and off the
Reservation, have caused significant
siltation that has destroyed gravel
spawning beds. Water diversions,
including the damming of the Trinity
River above the Reservation, have
also stressed the fishery by lowering
stream volume and flow velocity.
Low flows raise water temperatures
and reduce flushing of accumulated
silt in the gravel beds. Upstream
dams also stop gravel from moving
downstream to replace excavated
gravel. Elevated fecal coliform con-
centrations 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 leachfields, and aban-
doned hazardous waste sites with
documented soil contamination.
These sites contain dioxins, herbi-
cides, nitrates, PCBs, metals, and
other toxic organic chemicals. The
Tribe's environmental consultants are
designing a ground water sampling
program to monitor potential threats
to ground water.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1990, EPA approved the
Hoopa Valley Tribe's application for
treatment as a State under Section
106 of the Clean Water Act. In May
of 1995 the Hoopa Valley Tribal
Council approved Reservation-wide
water quality standards and benefi-
cial uses for all waters within the
Reservation. EPA approved the Tribe's
application for Treatment as a State
184
-------
with respect to Sections 303 and
401 of the Clean Water Act The
Tribe currently issues dredge and fill
permits through the Tribe's Riparian
Protection and Surface Mining
Ordinance and Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. In July 1996 the
Tribe completed a Non-Point Source
Assessment and Non-Point Source
Management Plan and applied for
Treatment as a State under Sections
404 and 319 of the Clean Water Act.
This application is currently pending.
approval.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Tribe is currently developing
permanent monitoring stations to
collect primary water quality data
and determine water quality trends.
Currently, the Tribal Fisheries,
Forestry, and EPA have been working
closely together to coordinate the
purchase and installation of five
water quality monitoring stations
and enhance the two existing sta-
tions in upper and lower Mill Creek.
The overall purpose of collecting
water quality information is to moni-
tor forest management practices and
determine if these practices impact
fishery habitat. Substantial data from
throughout northern California indi-
cate that existing unmaintained
roads, new road construction, and
road reconstruction have the largest
impacts on fisheries habitat com-
pared to other forest management
practices. The three departments
have been working closely with the
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station
in Arcata, which has installed many
similar water quality monitoring sta-
tions throughout northern California.
Individual Use Support in Hoopa Valley
Indian Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Acres
Assessed
3,200
100
100
3,200
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
aA subset of Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the Tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
185
-------
Hop! Tribe
For a copy of the Hopi Tribe's
1996 305(b) report, contact:
Phillip Tuwaletstiwa
The Hopi Tribe
Water Resources Program
Box 123
Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039
(520) 734-9307
Surface Water Quality
The 2,439-square-mile Hopi
Reservation, located in northeastern
Arizona, is bounded on all sides by
the Navajo Reservation. Surface
water on the Hopi Reservation
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 formations.
The Hopi Tribe assessed 18 springs
in 1992 and 1993. The assessment
revealed that several springs had one
or more exceedances of nitrate, sele-
nium, total coliform, or fecal col-
iform. The primary potential sources
of surface water contamination on
the Hopi Reservation include mining
activities outside of the Reservation,
livestock grazing, domestic refuse,
and wastewater lagoons.
Ground Water Quality
In general, ground water quality
on the Hopi Reservation is variable.
Ground water from the N-aquifer
provides drinking water of excellent
quality to most of the Hopi villages.
The D-aquifer, sandstones of the
Mesaverde Group, and alluvium also
provide ground water to shallow
stock and domestic wells, but the
quality of the water from these
sources is generally of poorer quality
than the water supplied by the
N-aquifer.
Mining activities outside of the
Reservation are the most significant
threat to the N-aquifer. Extensive
pumping at the Peabody Coal
Company Black Mesa mine may
induce leakage of poorer quality
D-aquifer water into the N-aquifer.
This potential problem is being
investigated under an ongoing
monitoring program conducted by
the U.S. Geological Survey. In addi-
tion, the U.S. Department of Energy
186
-------
is investigating ground water
impacts from abandoned uranium
tailings at Tuba City. Other potential
sources of contamination in shallow
wells include domestic refuse, under-
ground storage tanks, livestock graz-
ing, wastewater lagoons, and septic
tanks.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Draft water quality standards
(including an antidegradation 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
Several surface and ground
water assessment activities have
occurred since the 1994 report was
submitted. These include collections
of water samples from shallow allu-
vial wells, surface water samples
along the main stem of the Little
Colorado River, and surface water
samples from wetlands areas. Addi-
tionally, the USGS completed a well
and spring inventory, and the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (USER) con-
ducted water quality assessment
activities at selected wells and
surface water locations.
Individual Use Support in Hopi Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Total Miles
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
a A subset of the Hopi Tribe's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Tribe's 305(b)
report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
187
-------
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians
For a copy of the Hopland
Reservation 1996 305(b) report,
contact
R. Jake Decker
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians
P.O. Box 610
Hopland, CA 95449
(707)744-1647
Location of
Reservation
Surface Water Quality
The jurisdictional boundary of
the Hopland Reservation includes
2,070 acres in the Mayacmas Moun-
tains of southeastern Mendocino
County about 90 miles north of San
Francisco. Surface water on the
reservation is scarce. Streams are
intermittent rather than perennial,
rendering them unreliable as water
supply sources or for recreation,
fishing, shellfishing, agriculture, or
aquatic life use support.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water at the Hopland
Reservation, and the larger
McDowell Valley area, is contained
in two aquifers — fractured base-
ment rocks of the Franciscan
Assemblage and younger sedimen-
tary deposits. This water is the sole
source of supply for about 200 tribal
members and non-Indian residents
living in the developed area of the
reservation at the north end of
McDowell Valley.
Ground water contamination
from manmade sources is not a
major concern for water resources
management at the reservation.
Water quality concerns at the Hop-
land Reservation and elsewhere in
McDowell Valley are predominantly
related to natural chemical reactions
between ground water and the
rocks and sediments that compose
the aquifers. Potential sources of
contamination from human activities
include agricultural activities at vine-
yards, leachate from septic drain
fields, and infiltration of contami-
nants from dumping sites. To date,
no pesticides or herbicides have
been detected in samples from three
wells near the reservation vineyards
and no pathogen indicators have
been detected in public supply wells.
Maximum contaminant levels for
188
-------
secondary drinking water standards,
which are designed to regulate the
taste, odor, or appearance of drink-
ing water, were exceeded at three
wells.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
No ground water protection
programs have been formalized on
the Hopland reservation other than
the adoption of a no-dumping ordi-
nance. The Tribe views their 1996
305(b) report as an initial step in a
ground water protection program in
that it provides the hydrogeologic
framework of aquifers at the reserva-
tion and describes the ambient
ground water quality.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Ground water quality was deter-
mined by analyzing samples of
ground water from wells and springs
in the reservation area during the
summers of 1993 and 1994.
Samples were collected for analysis
of common inorganic constituents
(major ions), trace elements,
radionuclides, common pesticides
and herbicides, and pathogen indi-
cators. The Tribe reports on whether
tested waters meet Federal primary
and secondary drinking water
standards.
189
-------
190
-------
Interstate Commission Summaries
Interstate Commissions provide
a forum for joint administration of
large waterbodies that flow through
or border multiple States and other
jurisdictions, such as the Ohio River
and the Delaware River and Estua-
rine System. Each Commission has
its own set of objectives and proto-
cols, but the Commissions share a
cooperative framework that
embodies many of the principles
advocated by EPA's watershed
management approach. For exam-
ple, Interstate Commissions can
examine and address factors
throughout the basin that con-
tribute to water quality problems
without facing obstacles imposed
by political boundaries. The infor-
mation presented here summarizes
the data submitted by three Inter-
state Commissions in their 1996
Section 305(b) reports.
191
-------
Delaware River Basin Commission
/ \/ !
/Washington, D.C.
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Delaware River
Basin Commission 1996 305(b)
report, contact-
Robert Kausch
Delaware River Basin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, Nj 08628-0360
(609) 883-9500, ext. 252
e-mail: bkausch@drbc.state.nj.us
Surface Water Qualify
The Delaware River Basin covers
portions of Delaware, New Jersey,
New York, and Pennsylvania. The
Delaware River system consists of a
206-mile freshwater segment, an
85-mile tidal reach, and the
Delaware Bay. Nearly 8 million
people reside in the Basin, which is
also the home of numerous indus-
trial facilities and the port facilities of
Philadelphia, Camden, and
Wilmington.
All of the riverine waters and
over 87% of the estuarine waters in
the Basin have good water quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses.
Over 26% percent of the riverine
waters do not fully support fish con-
sumption. All riverine waters fully
support swimming. In estuarine
waters, poor water quality impairs
shellfishing in over 14% of the sur-
veyed waters. Low dissolved oxygen
concentrations and toxic contami-
nants in sediment degrade portions
of the lower tidal river and estuary.
Toxic contaminants and metals
impair a portion of the Delaware
River. Shellfishing advisories affect
96 square miles of the Delaware Bay.
In general, water quality has
improved since the 1994 305(b)
assessment period. Tidal river oxygen
levels were higher during the critical
summer period, and the level of pH
and fecal coliforms dropped slightly
in some nontidal sections.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Commission's Toxics
Management Program is designed
to identify the substances (and their
sources) that impair fish consump-
tion, aquatic life, and drinking water.
Further, the relative contribution of
point and nonpoint sources to the
pollution loading in the tidal reach
of the river is being addressed by a
3-year study of combined sewer
overflows. The DRBC and the States
have carried out an aggressive pro-
gram for many years to reduce point
soures of oxygen-demanding mate-
rials and other pollutants and will
192
-------
continue to do so. As part of an
ongoing effort to provide more
support for fish and aquatic life, the
Commission is developing a new
model to evaluate the impacts of
point and nonpoint pollutants on
dissolved oxygen levels. The
Commission's Special Protection
Waters regulations protect existing
high water quality in the upper
reaches of the nontidal river from
the effects of future population
growth and land development. A
comprehensive watershed manage-
ment approach to pollution control
in this area will eliminate the occa-
sional occurrence of elevated levels
of pH, bacteria, contaminants,
nutrients, and BOD.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Commission conducts an
intensive monitoring program along
the entire length of the Delaware
River and Estuary. At least a dozen
parameters are sampled at most sta-
tions, located about 7 miles apart.
The new Special Protection Waters
regulations requires more compre-
hensive monitoring and modeling,
such as biological monitoring and
continuous water quality monitor-
ing. The Combined Sewer Overflow
Study and the Toxics Study have
used specialized water sampling
programs to acquire data for math-
ematical models. New management
programs will very likely require
customized monitoring programs.
Individual Use Support in the
Delaware River Basin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (total Mites = 206).
>99
^5 ^:$ % < ¥ 4fc~e :?£-
-------
Interstate Sanitation Commission
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Dlgit Hydrologk Unit)
For a copy of the Interstate
Sanitation Commission 1996 305(b)
report, contact:
Peter L Sattler or Howard Golub
Interstate Sanitation Commission
311 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
(212)582-0380
Surface Water Quality
Established in 1936 by Federal
mandate, the Interstate Sanitation
Commission (ISC) is a tristate envi-
ronmental agency of the States of
New Jersey, New York, and Connect-
icut. The Interstate Sanitation District
encompasses approximately 797
square miles of estuarine waters in
the Metropolitan Area shared by the
States, including the Arthur Kill/
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Lower
Hudson River, Raritan Bay, Sandy
Hook Bay, Upper and Lower New
York Bays, western Long Island
Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean.
Notwithstanding the significant
environmental gains that have been
made in recent years, a tremendous
amount of work remains to be done.
In the past several years, due to a
great degree to ISC's year-round dis-
infection requirement, which went
into effect in 1986, thousands of
acres of shellfish beds have been
opened on a year-round basis and,
during the last six bathing seasons,
only a few beach closings occurred
due to elevated levels of coliform
bacteria or washups of debris. How-
ever, due to a combination of
factors, including, but not limited to,
habitat loss, hypoxia, and overfish-
ing by commercial and recreational
interests, bag limits and minimum
size restrictions for several finfish
species (i.e., black sea bass and
porgy) were promulgated by the
coastal States.
Topics of concern to the ISC
include compliance with ISC regula-
tions, toxic contamination in District
waters, pollution from combined
sewer overflows, closed shellfish
waters, and wastewater treatment
capacity to handle growing flows
from major building projects.
Ground Water Quality
The ISC's primary focus is on
surface waters shared by the States
of New Jersey, New York, and
Connecticut.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The ISC actively participates in
the Long Island Sound Study, the
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary
Program (HEP), the New York Bight
Restoration Plan, and the Dredged
Material Management Plan for the
Port of New York and New Jersey.
194
-------
The ISC has representatives on the
Management Committees and var-
ious workgroups for each program.
During the 1994-1995 reporting
period, approximately 2.5 BCD of
treated sewage discharged in the
Interstate Sanitation District received
secondary treatment. Yet to be
addressed are the untreated
discharges from combined sewer
overflows and storm sewers.
The Commission's water pollu-
tion abatement programs continue
to provide assistance for the effective
coordination of approaches to
regional problems. ISC's long-stand-
ing goal of making more areas avail-
able for swimming and shellfishing
remains a high priority. The
Commission's programs include
enforcement, minimization of the
effects of combined sewers, partic-
ipation in the National Estuary
Program, compliance monitoring,
pretreatment of industrial wastes,
toxics contamination, land-based
alternatives for sewage sludge dis-
posal, ocean disposal of dredged
material, and monitoring the
ambient waters.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The ISC performs intensive
ambient water quality surveys and
samples effluents discharged by
publicly owned and private waste-
water treatment facilities and indus-
trial facilities into District waterways.
The ISC's effluent requirements are
incorporated into the individual dis-
charge permits issued by the partic-
ipating States.
Individual Use Support in Interstate Sanitation
Commission Waters
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair
(Fully GOOd (Partially
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting)
Poor
(Not
Supporting)
Poor
(Not
Attainable)
Total Miles
Assessed
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
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.
195
-------
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO)
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydfologic Unit)
For a copy of the ORSANCO 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Jason Heath
ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45228-1112
(513)231-7719
e-mail: jheath@orsanco.org
Surface Water Quality
The Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
was established in 1948 by the sign-
ing 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, developing waste treatment
standards, and monitoring and
assessing the Ohio River mainstem.
The mainstem runs 981 miles from
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Cairo,
Illinois.
The most common problems in
the Ohio River are PCB and chlor-
dane contamination in fish and bac-
teria, pesticides, and metals in the
water column. The States have
issued fish consumption advisories
along the entire length of the Ohio
River based on ORSANCO data.
ORSANCO also suspects that com-
munity combined sewer overflows
along the entire length of the river
elevate bacteria levels and impair
swimming. ORSANCO detected
bacteria contamination at all seven
monitoring stations downstream of
major urban areas with a large
number of CSOs.
A majority of Ohio River manual
sampling stations exhibited one to
several violations of the chronic
warm water aquatic life criterion for
lead. Sporadic violations for ammo-
nia, chromium, copper, zinc, and
nickel for selected waters, in con-
junction with lead violations,
resulted in a moderately supporting
aquatic life use classification for the
Markland Pool.
Public water supply use of the
Ohio River is impaired by 1,2-
dichloroethane near Paducah and by
atrazine near Louisville and the
mouth of the River at Grand Chain,
Illinois. The extent of atrazine con-
tamination is unknown because few
sites are monitored for atrazine.
Ground Water Quality
ORSANCO does not have juris-
diction over ground water in the
Ohio River Basin.
196
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1992, an interagency work-
group developed a CSO program for
the Ohio River Basin with general
recommendations to improve coor-
dination of State CSO strategies. In
1993, ORSANCO added require-
ments for CSOs to the Pollution
Control Standards for the Ohio River
and the Commissioners adopted a
strategy for monitoring CSO impacts
on Ohio River quality. The Commis-
sion also established a Nonpoint
Source Pollution Abatement Task
Force composed of ORSANCO
Commissioners, representatives from
State NPS control agencies, and
representatives from industries that
generate NPS pollution.
In 1995, an Ohio River Water-
shed Pollutant Reduction Program
was established to address, on a
whole-watershed basis, pollutants
causing or contributing to water
quality impairments. These pollut-
ants include dioxin, PCBs, chlordane,
atrazine, copper, lead, nitrogen, and
phosphorous. The objective of the
program is to determine the extent
of impairment, identify sources,
quantify impacts, and recommend
to the States abatement scenarios
necessary to achieve water quality
objectives. The program is being
implemented following a phased
approach without the establishment
of new regulatory structures to
implement controls that are environ-
mentally meaningful, technically
sound, and economically reasonable.
Individual Use Support in the
Ohio River Valley Basin
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Designated Use3 Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Jotal Miles = 981)
100
981
981
18
-Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.
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.
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, a'nd fish com-
munity monitoring. ORSANCO uses
the Modified Index of Well Being
(Mlwb) to assess fish community
characteristics, such as total biomass
and species diversity. ORSANCO is
currently developing a numerical
biological criteria.
197
-------
-------
Order Form
Additional copies of this report and related water quality assessment documents can be ordered from the
National Center for Environmental Publication and Information (NCEPI) or accessed electronically on the
Internet through the EPA Office of Water website at www.epa.gov/305b/. To order hard copies, please check
the boxes beside the documents that you would like to order and return this form to the address on the
reverse, contact NCEPI at 1-800-490-9198, or fax this form to NCEPI at (513) 891-6685. Due to limited supply,
we can send you only one copy of each publication. Allow 2 to 3 weeks for delivery.
I—I The National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress. EPA841 -R-97-008. April 1998.
— The complete report containing discussions of water quality information submitted by States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions as well as full descriptions of EPA programs to maintain and restore water quality.
(588 pages)
I—I The National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress - Appendixes. EPA841 -C-9 7-001.
1—' April 1998. This disk contains spreadsheet files with the data tables used to generate the information
presented in the 1996 Report to Congress.
(1 disk)
I—I The Quality of Our Nation's Water: 1996, Executive Summary of the National Water Quality
— Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress. EPA841 -S-97-001. April 1998. A summary of the complete
Report to Congress, including individual summaries of the Section 305(b) reports submitted by the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions.
(197 pages)
I—1 Report Brochure: National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress. EPA841-F-97-003.
— April 1998. Brief synopsis of the water quality data submitted by the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions in their 1996 Section 305(b) reports.
(12 pages)
I—I Water Quality Conditions in the United States. EPA841 -F-97-001. April 1998. A short profile of the
'— National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress.
(2 pages)
I—I Guidelines for Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports).
L-' EPA841 -B-95-001. May 1995.
(350 pages)
I—| Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports)
— and Electronic Updates: Report Contents.
EPA841-B-97-002A. September 1997.
(225 pages)
I—1 Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports)
— and Electronic Updates: Supplement.
EPA841-B-97-002B. September 1997.
(275 pages)
Ship to:.
Address:.
City, State, ZIP:.
Daytime Phone:.
(Please include area code)
-------
- second fold •
NCEPI
11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5
Cincinnati, OH 45242
first fold
-------
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices
For additional information about water quality in your Region, please contact your EPA
Regional Section 305(b) Coordinator listed below:
Diane Switzer
EPA Region 1 (EMS-LEX)
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
(617) 860-4377
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
Randall Young
EPA Region 2 (2WMD-SWQB)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)637-3847
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Mark Barath
EPA Region 3 (3ES11)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-6149
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, District of
Columbia
David Melgaard
EPA Region 4
Water Management Division
100 Alabama Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-9265
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
Dave Stoltenberg
EPA Region 5 (SQ-14J)
77 West Jackson Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-5784
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Paul Koska
EPA Region 6 (6W-QT)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)665-8357
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
Robert Steiert
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7433
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Jill Minter
EPA Region 8 (8WM-WQ)
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)312-6084
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Janet Hashimoto
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1933
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam
Curry Jones
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-6912
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
U.S. EPA Regions
virgin Islands
E23 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.
-------
13 O
3
CD
cf
co — a- z*
CD
._. J* tQ CO
o co 3 m
^-03
8
3
CD
Co
m
-------
|