vvEPA
United States '',_
Environments!
Agency
National
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago. IL 60604-3590
-------
This report was prepared pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act, which states:
"(b)(l) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator
by April 1, 1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and
biennially thereafter, a report which shall include—
"(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in
such State during the preceding year, with appropriate
supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take into
account seasonal, tidal, and other variations, correlated with the
quality of water required by the objective of this Act (as
identified by the Administrator pursuant to criteria published
under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water quality described
in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;
"(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of
such State provide for the protection and propagation of a
balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow
recreational activities in and on the water;
"(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the
discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which
provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational
activities in and on the water, have been or will be achieved by
the requirements of this Act, together with recommendations as
to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for
what waters such additional action is necessary;
"(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the
economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of
this Act in such State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of
such achievement; and (iv) an estimate of the date of such
achievement; and
"(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint souces of
pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs which
must be undertaken to control each category of such sources,
including an estimate of the costs of implementing such
programs.
"(2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together
with an analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975,
and October 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter."
Front Cover: A view of the Pearl River at the Mississippi-Louisiana
border. Photo by Steve Delaney
-------
United States Washington DC
Environmental Protection 20460
Agency
r/EPA
The Administrator
Dear Mr. President:
Dear Mr. Speaker:
As required by Section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, I am transmitting to the Congress the
National Water Quality Inventory Report for 1986. This report is the sixth in the series of national inventory reports
published since 1975. It is based primarily on reports submitted by the States in 1986; in some cases, State-reported
information has been supplemented by data developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although
the EPA has analyzed and summarized the water quality information in the State reports, the views and
recommendations presented are those of individual States, not those of the EPA or the Administration. The
individual 1986 State reports are being transmitted to the Congress in their entirety.
The message presented by the States in their 1986 Section 305(b) reports is clear-since the enactment of the
1972 Clean Water Act, the Nation has made significant progress in cleaning up water pollution. It is equally clear,
however, that persistent pollution problems remain.
Of the rivers, lakes, and estuaries that were assessed by the States, most are supporting the uses lor which they
have been designated. These uses, such as drinking water supply, swimming, and the propagation of aquatic life,
were found to be supported in 74 percent of assessed river miles, 73 percent of assessed lake acres, and 75 percent of
assessed estuarme and coastal waters.
However, a variety of pollution problems continue in our rivers, lakes, and estuaries at levels that exceed water
quality standards or other levels of concern. In those waters that are not supporting their uses, pollution from
nonpoint or diffuse sources such as runoff from agricultural and urban areas is cited by the States as the leading
cause of water quality impairment. Issues of concern reported by the States include ground-water protection, toxic
substances and toxics control, nonpoint sources, wetland loss, and acid deposition. Concern about diminishing
financial resources for pollution control is also reported.
Nevertheless, as this report shows, the Nation's commitment to improve water quality has had significant
results Expenditures by EPA, the States, and local governments to construct and upgrade sewage treatment facilities
have substantially increased the population served by higher levels of treatment. Permitting backlogs have been
reduced The States have made significant strides toward developing and implementing a variety of ground-water
management activities. Continued progress and activity is occurring in the implementation of nonpoint source
controls. In addition, by providing statutory emphasis and Federal resources in many of these areas, the new
Water Quality Act of 1987 addresses problems such as nonpoint sources and toxics identification and control, and
strengthens many of the programs that have been in place since the passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972.
The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 created several new requirements for water quality assessments. Effective
implementation of Federal and State pollution control programs depends on coordinating these assessments and
using the information in program planning. We have therefore asked the States to integrate their WQA assessments
with their 1988 Section 305(b) reports. We are also asking the States to prepare Clean Water Strategies that provide a
blueprint for setting priorities and addressing identified problems. In addition, EPA is working with the States to
improve the consistency and comprehensiveness of the Section 305(b) process, and will continue to refine future
reports in this series.
Sincerely,
Lee M. Thomas
Honorable George M. Bush
President of the Senate
Washington, B.C. 20510
Honorable James Wright
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
-------
Acknowledgments
This report is based primarily on water quality assessments submitted to EPA by the States /
Territories, and interstate commissions of the U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
wishes to thank the authors of these assessments for the time and effort spent in preparing these
reports and reviewing the draft of this national assessment. Additional thanks go to the water quality
assessment coordinators from all ten EPA regions who work with the States.
This document was written and edited by Alice Mayio of the Monitoring and Data Support
Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS), under the direction of Bruce Newton
Chief, Monitoring Analysis Section. Contributions were also made by the following individuals in
other EPA program offices: Ed Bender and Katherine Wilson, Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits; Lee Braem, Office of Ground-Water Protection; William Fallon, Office of Research and
Development; Katherine Minsch, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection; David Moon and
Elaine Greening, Office of Municipal Pollution Control; Brett Snyder, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation; Stuart Tuller and Joseph Yance, OWRS; and Lorraine Williams, Office of Wetlands'
Protection.
Special thanks also go to Sandra Gill of the Washington Information Center, and Jendayi Oakley-
Gordon of OWRS.
Design, graphics and typesetting were done by Research Triangle Institute's Research Services
Department under contract No. 68-03-3423. Georgia Minnich (project management); Sophie
Burkheimer (graphic design); Beth Tressler (typesetting); Marie Turner, Greg Davis, and Georgia
Minnich (drawings).
-------
Contents
-| Introduction
Methodology
3 Ground-Water Quality
Introduction
Page
'"
Figures ........ .................................................
Tables [[[ iv
Preface [[[ v
Executive Summary 1
2 Surface Water Quality ™
Introduction [[[
Rivers and Streams ...............................................
Attainment of the Clean Water Act Goal ..............................
Lakes and Reservoirs ..............................................
Attainment of the Clean Water Act Goal .............................. 3J
OC
The Great Lakes ................................................
Estuaries and Coastal Waters ........................................
Current Ground-Water Use ..........................................
Ground-Water Quality Throughout U.S .................................. °°
Overview of State Programs for Ground-Water Protection ................... 62
Federal Programs for Ground-Water Protection ........................... 65
4 Special Issues and Emerging Concerns 69
Toxics and Public Health ........................................... 1°
Nonpoint Source Pollution ..........................................
Wetlands [[[
Funding Needs ..................................................
Acid Deposition ..................................................
]\J\J
-------
Page
New Initiatives in Point Source Control 117
Nonpoint Sources 118
Water Quality Monitoring 127
Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control 123
State Recommendations 137
References 141
Appendix
A-1
-------
Figures
No. Title
2-1 Statewide Parameters of Concern 14
2-2 Causes of Nonsupport in Rivers and Streams 20
2-3 Causes of Nonsupport in Lakes 30
2-4 Causes of Nonsupport in Estuaries 44
3-1 Population Reliance on Ground Water for Drinking Water 59
4-1 States Reporting Toxics Control as a Special Concern 70
4-2 States Reporting Nonpoint Sources as a Special Concern 80
4-3 Nonpoint Sources Reported as Major Causes of Use Impairments 81
4-4 Nonpoint Source Parameters Most Widely Reported 82
4-5 States Reporting Wetlands as a Special Concern 84
4-6 States Reporting Funding Needs as a Special Concern 90
4-7 States Reporting Operation and Maintenance as a Special Concern 91
4-8 States Reporting Acid Deposition as a Special Concern 96
4-9 States Reporting Mine-Related Problems as a Special Concern 100
5-1 Spending on Municipal Systems 13°
5-2 Spending on Industrial Pollution Abatement 131
5-3 Net Capital Stock of Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant and Equipment 131
5-4 Benefit Categories for Analysis of Water Quality Programs 133
-------
Tables
No. Title Page
ES-1 Degree of Designated Use Support in the Nation's Waters 2
2-1 Common Categories and Effects of Aquatic Pollutants 14
2-2 Sources and Pollutants 15
2-3 Designated Use Support in Rivers and Streams 19
2-4 Relative Impact of Pollution Sources in Rivers and Streams with Impaired Uses . 21
2-5 River Miles Meeting the Fishable/Swimmable Goal of the Clean Water Act 25
2-6 Designated Use Support in Lakes of Unspecified Size Category 28
2-7 Designated Use Support in Lakes Under 5000 Acres 29
2-8 Designated Use Support in Lakes Over 5000 Acres 29
2-9 Relative Impact of Pollution Sources in Lakes with Impaired Uses 31
2-10 Trophic Status of Lakes 32
2-11 Lake Acres Meeting the Fishable/Swimmable Goal of the Clean Water Act 34
2-12 Designated Use Support in Estuaries 42
2-13 Relative Impact of Pollution Sources in Estuaries with Impaired Uses 43
2-14 Classification of Shellfish Growing Waters, 1985 49
3-1 Population Reliance on Ground Water for Drinking Water, by State 59
3-2 Major Sources of Ground-Water Contamination Reported by States 60
3-3 Major Ground-Water Contaminants Reported by States 61
3-4 Overview of Activities Included in State Ground-Water Protection Programs 62
4-1 Number of States Reporting Elevated Levels of Metals and Inorganics 72
4-2 Number of States Reporting Elevated Levels of Pesticides and Other Organics . . 72
4-3 Number of States Reporting Sources of Toxics 73
4-4 Primary Pollutants Associated with Fishing Advisories and Bans 77
4-5 Needs for Publicly Owned Treatment Works 92
4-6 Facility Data by Level of Treatment, 1986/AII Needs Met 93
4-7 Eastern Lake Survey Results 93
4-8 Western Lake Survey Results 99
5-1 Facility Data by Level of Treatment, 1984/1986 109
5-2 Status of Permit Issuance 115
5-3 National Composite Rates of Facilities in Significant Noncompliance 116
5-4 Spending for Water Pollution Abatement and Control 129
5-5 Annual Benefits and Costs of Control Options for Sewage Treatment Plants
and Combined Sewer Overflows 134
5-6 Cost and Benefits Associated with NPS Control in Tillamook Bay Rural
Clean Water Program 136
-------
Preface
This document, the sixth in a
series of National Water
Quality Inventories published
since 1975, summarizes water
quality reports submitted by the
States and other jurisdictions of
the United States in 1986.
These State reports are
submitted to the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency
(EPA) pursuant to Section
305(b) of the Clean Water Act.
All States and jurisdictions
submitted reports in time for
their inclusion in the tables,
figures, and text of this
document. It should be noted
that some of the State reports
on which this document is
based were submitted in draft
form and may contain addi-
tional information in their final
form. The State reports for the
most part reflect field data
collected in 1984 and 1985 and
were written before the passage
of the Water Quality Act of
1987. Where appropriate, this
document supplements State-
reported information with EPA
data, especially in discussing
programmatic issues.
Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act requires each State
to submit a biennial report to
the EPA describing the quality
of its navigable waters. This
report is to include the
following: an analysis of the
extent to which the State's
waters support fish, shellfish,
and wildlife populations and
allow water-based recreation;
an analysis of the extent to
which pollution control actions
have achieved this level of water
quality, and recommendations
for needed additional actions;
an estimate of the environ-
mental impacts, economic and
social costs and benefits, and
date of achieving this level of
water quality; and a description
of the nature and extent of
nonpoint sources of pollution
and recommendations for their
control. The EPA is required to
transmit the State reports to
Congress, along with an
analysis of these reports
describing the quality of the
Nation's water. Although EPA
has analyzed and summarized
the State water quality
information, the views and
recommendations presented
here are generally those of
individual States, not of EPA or
the Administration.
Over the past four years,
EPA and the States have
worked together to improve and
standardize their reporting
methods for this Section 305(b)
process. Through cooperative
projects with the Association of
State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administra-
tors, the States and EPA have
selected a number of common
measures to describe water
quality. Many States were able
to use these measures in their
reports. It should be noted that
in some cases the States may be
reporting the best professional
judgement of water quality
analysts, and not necessarily
quantifiable monitoring data.
In addition to serving as
major sources of water quality
information, the State Section
305(b) reports are proving
valuable in directing and
supporting State and Federal
water quality management and
planning activities. The States
and EPA will use the 305(b)
process as a primary vehicle for
the reporting of a variety of new
water quality and program-
matic measures required by the
Water Quality Act of 1987.
Continuing efforts are therefore
being made to improve the
quality of these reports, and
hence their usefulness both as
water quality assessments and
as management tools.
-------
Executive Summary
The message presented by
the States in their 1986 Section
305(b) reports is clear: since the
enactment of the 1972 Clean
Water Act, the Nation has
made significant progress in
cleaning up water pollution. It
is equally clear, however, that
some persistent pollution
problems remain.
To What Extent Do
the Nation's Surface
Waters Support
Beneficial Uses?
According to the 1986 State
Section 305(b) reports, approxi-
mately one-fifth of the Nation's
rivers and streams, one-third of
its lakes, and one-half of its
estuarine waters were assessed
for attainment of water quality
standards (termed designated
use support). There are many
reasons why such relatively
small percentages of the
Nation's waters were assessed:
not all States provided
information on designated use
support; monitoring, assess-
ment, and reporting strategies
vary among those States that
did provide information; and
States tend to focus their
monitoring resources on waters
most likely to be affected by
pollution.
-------
bummarv
In 1986, the States reported
that designated beneficial uses
were found to be supported in
most of the waters assessed,
including 74 percent of assessed
river miles, 73 percent of
assessed lake acres, and 75
percent of assessed estuarine
and coastal waters (see Table
ES-1). For rivers and streams,
the 1986 results are essentially
consistent with those reported
in 1984. In the case of lakes and
estuaries, States reported
slightly lower percentages of
waters supporting uses.
Comparison of the 1984 and
1986 figures for these waters is
confounded by an increase in
the number of States providing
data and an increase in the
number of waters reported as
assessed. The difference may
also be a result of more targeted
monitoring and discovery of
problems, as well as actual
water quality degradation.
A variety of pollutants
continue to be found in the
Nation's waters at levels that
exceed water quality standards
or other levels of concern:
• Contamination by toxic
substances is a special concern
in many States. Twenty-two
States reported on stream miles
affected by toxic substances, 16
States reported on lake acres
affected by toxics, and 6 States
reported on estuarine square
miles affected by toxics. In these
States, 8,500 stream miles,
362,000 lake acres, and 190
estuarine square miles
reportedly show elevated levels
of toxics. Industry is cited as the
leading source of elevated levels
of toxics in the Nation's waters
(p.71)
• Metals and PCBs are the
most widely reported toxic
pollutants. Of the pesticides,
chlordane is most often cited,
although DDT still appears to
be a significant concern in
many States, (p.72)
• Fecal coliform bacteria was
cited most frequently as a
pollutant of concern. Other
commonly reported pollutants
are nutrients, turbidity/
suspended solids, biochemical
oxygen demand/dissolved
oxygen, metals, and other
toxics, (p. 14)
• The most often cited water
quality problem in the Nation's
lakes is cultural eutrophication,
the over-enrichment of
waterbodies due to man-
induced causes. In the 23 States
reporting, 45 percent of
assessed lakes were classified as
eutrophic. (p.32)
Table ES-1. Degree of Designated Use Support in the Nation's
Waters*
Rivers Lakes Estuaries
(miles) (acres) (square miles)
Total in U.S.**
Assessed
(% of Total)
Fully Supporting
(% of Assessed)
Partially Supporting Uses
(% of Assessed)
Not Supporting Uses
(o/o of Assessed)
Unknown
(o/o of Assessed)
1 ,800,000
370,544
(21o/o)
274,537
(740/o)
70,916
(19o/o)
22,974
(6%)
2,127
(10/0)
39,400,000
12,531,846
(32%)
9,202,752
(73o/0)
2,181,331
(I70/o)
859,080
(7o/o)
288,684
(2o/o)
32,000
17,606
(55o/o)
13,154
(750/o)
3,224
(18%)
1,177
(70/o)
51
(O.SO/o)
— • • -—•**« wviiwi i uu\j\*j/ uuiu (ao iimuvvo. i\ji i iveis, tf^ Olalco aDQ TGiTIIOrlSS
reported; for lakes, 37 States reported; for estuaries, 20 States reported.
* "Total waters based on State-reported information in America's Clean Water
The States' Nonpoint Source Assessment, ASIWPCA, 1985. Total U S. estuarine
square miles excludes Alaska.
-------
Executive Summary
What Are the
Sources of Pollution
in Those Waters
That Fail to Support
Uses?
The States were asked to
rank the sources of pollution
affecting those waters where
uses are not fully supported.
Nonpoint sources (such as
runoff from agricultural areas)
are reported as the leading
cause of failure to support uses
in the Nation's lakes, streams,
and estuaries. Seventy-six
percent of impaired lake acres,
65 percent of impaired stream
miles, and 45 percent of
impaired estuarine square miles
are affected by nonpoint
sources. Point sources (such as
municipal and industrial
discharges that enter the
aquatic environment from a
pipe) contribute more to use
impairment in estuaries and
streams than in lakes. Of
assessed waters with impaired
designated uses, point sources
are reported to affect 34 percent
of estuarine square miles, 27
percent of stream miles, and 9
percent of lake acres.
Nonpoint sources appear to
be increasingly important
causes of use impairment, as
reported by the States.
Intensified nonpoint data
collection efforts are certainly a
factor in explaining the
dominance of nonpoint sources.
Another explanation may be
that nonpoint source impacts
are becoming more and more
evident as point sources come
increasingly under control.
What Is the
Condition of the
Nation's Ground
Water?
Ground water is a vital
natural resource used for a
variety of purposes, including
industrial operations, agricul-
tural activities, and domestic
needs. More than half of the
Nation's population depends on
ground water for its supply of
drinking water. The reports
indicate that States are
becoming increasingly aware
that ground-water resources are
extremely vulnerable to
contamination and can be
seriously harmed. Protection of
ground water is getting
increased attention from the
States through the development
of ground-water protection
strategies as well as new and
expanded programs in ground-
water classification, wellhead
protection, and control of
pollutant sources.
The States have expanded
and improved ground-water
reporting since the 1984
National Water Quality Inventory.
In 1986, the States were
requested to cite their major
sources of ground-water
contamination and rank the top
four sources. Ground-water
contaminants associated with
these sources were also to be
identified. All but four States
and territories provided some
information on ground-water
contamination and pollutants of
concern in their 1986 Section
305(b) reports.
• The most frequently cited
sources of ground-water
contamination are underground
storage tanks, septic systems,
and agricultural activities.
(P-60)
• More than half the States
and territories also cite four
other major sources of
contamination. These are on-
site industrial landfills, surface
impoundments, municipal
landfills, and abandoned waste
sites, (p.60)
• The three most commonly
cited contaminants affecting the
Nation's ground water—
sewage, nitrates, and synthetic
organic chemicals—can be
clearly associated with the three
primary sources of pollution.
Sewage, nitrates, and synthetic
organic compounds are
commonly associated with
septic systems; nitrates are also
a common product of
agricultural activities; and
synthetic organic compounds
can be linked to leaking
underground storage tanks.
(P-61)
• A significant increase in
State ground-water protection
activities is reported in the 1986
State submittals. These
activities fall into four distinct
categories: ground-water
mapping and resource
assessment; ground-water
monitoring; policy and strategy
development; and source
control programs, (p.62)
-------
EPA and the States work
together under the Clean Water
Act, the Safe Drinking Water
Act, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, and other
Federal statutes that address
ground-water contamination. In
1986, Congress amended the
Safe Drinking Water Act to
strengthen Federal and State
ground-water protection efforts.
Recent EPA actions include:
developing rules and guidance
for the States' use in designing
and implementing two new
grant programs to protect sole
source aquifers and wellhead
areas; initiating a grant
program to regulate all
underground storage of
petroleum products and
hazardous substances; and
developing and conducting a
survey of pesticide residues in
public water supply and
domestic drinking water wells
throughout the U.S.
In 1985, 1986, and 1987,
Congress made Federal funds
available to the States under the
Clean Water Act for the
development of ground-water
protection strategies. With this
and other funding available
under other Federal statutes,
the States have made significant
new strides toward developing
and implementing a variety of
ground-water management
activities.
What Issues Are of
Special Concern to
the States?
The States were asked to
identify issues that are of special
concern, either because they are
current water quality problems
or because they are expected to
become problems in the near
future. Thirty-eight States
reported on their special
concerns; a number of the more
commonly reported issues are
national in scope. For example:
Ground-water protection was
cited as a special concern in 20
States, (p.69)
Toxic substances and toxics
control issues are cited as a
concern by 16 States. Problems
with toxics contamination of
fish tissue and sediments are
especially significant. Twenty-
seven States reported finding
detectable levels of toxics in
some samples of fish tissue; 23
reported concentrations
exceeding FDA action levels.
Two hundred and eighty six
fishing advisories were reported
by 24 States, and 15 States
reported 108 fishing bans in
selected waterways. PCBs,
mercury, and chlordane were
ihe pollutants most often cited
as responsible for bans or
advisories. These findings
probably underestimate the
problem, since accounting may
be incomplete in some States
and since about half of the
States did not report at all on
bans and advisories. Increases
in the total number of bans and
advisories reported since 1984
are more probably the result of
increasingly comprehensive
reporting than actual water
quality changes, (p. 70)
Debris along a streambank.
-------
Executive Summary
Nonpoint sources are reported
as a special concern by 16
States. Agricultural runoff is by
far the most commonly
reported nonpoint source,
followed by urban, construc-
tion, and mining runoff.
Sediment/turbidity and
nutrients are the most prevalent
pollutants linked directly to
nonpoint sources, (p.80)
Wetland loss is reported as a
concern by 12 States. Once
considered as wastelands, over
50 percent of the wetlands in
the lower 48 States have been
converted to other uses such as
agriculture over the past 200
years. These losses are
continuing at a rapid rate.
(p.83)
Funding needs are listed as a
special concern by 11 States.
The program most commonly
cited as vulnerable to funding
shortfalls is the construction
and upgrading of municipal
sewage treatment plants. Ten
States also cited proper
operation and maintenance of
existing sewage treatment
plants as a concern, (p.90)
Acid deposition is cited as a
special concern by 13 States,
although in many cases the
effects and extent of acid
deposition remain uncertain
and unquantified. (p.96)
Abandoned mines and acid
mine drainage contribute a
variety of problems to the
Nation's waters, and are
reported as a special concern in
nine States, (p.100)
Are the Nation's
Water Pollution
Control Programs
Working?
The Clean Water Act
provides a baseline for the way
EPA and the States regulate
point and nonpoint sources of
pollution. Some States and local
governments have enacted
statutes that provide additional
pollution control. Point sources
are regulated through permits—
issued either by EPA or the
States—that contain limits on
the amount of pollutants that
may be discharged to U.S.
waters. Nonpoint sources are
most often controlled by best
management practices (BMPs).
These are practices designed to
reduce the rate and impacts of
pollution-laden water runoff,
and include such activities as
conservation tillage, replanting
eroding surfaces, and building
detention basins. BMPs may be
imposed through regulatory or
voluntary programs, and are
generally developed and applied
on a site-specific basis.
Runoff from farmland is the most
commonly reported nonpoint
source.
-------
Executive Summary
Progress in reducing the
impacts of point sources to the
Nation's waters has been well
documented. Many rivers once
heavily degraded by municipal
and industrial discharges have
been returned to health by the
construction of improved
treatment facilities, and
loadings of key conventional
pollutants have declined as
levels of sewage treatment have
improved. Similarly, some
nonpoint source control
programs have had site-specific
successes, and the relative
effectiveness of various BMPs
has been demonstrated.
Despite this progress,
however, the States report
mixed signs in many areas.
Although the construction grant
authorization remains at $2.4
billion until FY 1992, some
States feel that declining
resources could be a problem
that will slow sewage treatment
plant construction, upgrading,
and, most importantly,
maintenance. Our knowledge of
many problems such as toxics,
ground-water contamination,
and acid deposition is still
limited. Nonpoint sources, by
their very nature, are difficult to
identify; they are even harder to
control because of fragmented
State and Federal responsibil-
ities and the reliance on
voluntary pollution mitigation
in most States.
Settling basins such as these are I
used at various stages of the
sewage treatment process.
A variety of new control
initiatives have been under
development to deal with
difficult point and nonpoint
source problems, as follows:
II Regulations for each of the
major use and disposal options
for sewage sludge are being
developed by EPA to compen-
sate for a current lack of
protective control requirements.
II EPA is revising the Ocean
Dumping Regulation to take
into account the availability and
impacts of land-based alterna-
tives to the disposal of sludge
and dredge spoil at designated
ocean sites.
H Implementation of programs
to pretreat industrial discharges
to municipal treatment facilities
is beginning in approximately
1,500 municipal plants.
H In 1986, EPA issued a
nonpoint source strategy that
emphasizes: identifying
innovative and effective
approaches to nonpoint source
management for the States and
disseminating them through
technology transfer; integrating
efforts under the strategy and
EPA's Near Coastal Waters
Strategic Plan; identifying
waters not meeting designated
uses due to nonpoint source
pollution; leveraging the
resources and programs of
other Federal agencies; and
ensuring that necessary controls
are installed on Federal lands.
-------
Executive Summary
Under the Clean Water Act
revisions of 1987, new EPA and
State responsibilities are
evolving in many areas of point
and nonpoint source control.
Learning to manage these new
responsibilities and effectively
measure progress under the
more mature programs estab-
lished in 1972 and 1977 is a
basic challenge of coming years.
What Program
Actions Do the
States Recommend
to Further Improve
Water Quality?
Twenty-nine States and terri-
tories provide recommendations
for program actions that will
allow further progress toward
the Clean Water Act's goal of
"fishable and swimmable"
waters. These recommendations
are often expressed by the
States in terms of objectives or
continuing needs, and cover a
range of congressional, EPA,
State, and local actions.
Major recommendations
include securing sufficient
resources at the Federal and
State levels to continue the
upgrading and construction of
sewage treatment facilities;
identifying, monitoring, and
protecting the Nation's ground-
water resources; and developing
comprehensive management
strategies for the control of
nonpoint sources.
Other recommendations
commonly cited by the States in
1986 include developing
additional criteria for toxic
pollutant concentrations in fish,
sediment, and water; expanding
monitoring and identification of
toxics problems; increasing
State monitoring capabilities in
light of funding constraints;
developing methods to fund
operation and maintenance
programs for existing sewage
treatment facilities; managing
pretreatment programs; and
strengthening permitting and
compliance activities, (p.138)
Fishing on a Mississippi bayou. It
is the goal of the Clean Water Act 1
that all of the Nation's waters be
fishable and swimmable.
-------
1
Introduction
The value of the Nation's
water resources is immense.
Our surface waters are
intensely used for a wide
variety of purposes, ranging
from public water supply and
fisheries habitat to navigation.
Our ground waters are the
primary source of drinking
water for more than half of the
Nation's population and a vital
source of irrigation water for
the agricultural lands of the
arid West.
The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (commonly known
as the Clean Water Act) has
been the primary regulatory
force protecting these water
resources, although a number
of other statutes—for example,
the Safe Drinking Water Act,
the Marine and Estuarine
Protection Act, and the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act—also directly
address water quality issues.
The objective of the Clean
Water Act is to "restore and
maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's
waters." An interim goal
established to achieve this
objective is that "wherever
attainable...water quality which
provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the water
be achieved by July 1, 1983."
In response to the Act, in the
early 1970s the Federal
government and the States
developed new water pollution
control programs and
strengthened existing efforts to
deal with the myriad sources
adversely affecting water
quality. The problems were
daunting: industries and
municipalities were discharging
poorly treated or raw wastes
into rivers, lakes, and estuaries;
the disposal of hazardous
materials in landfills and
dumpsites occurred without
regulation or control; the use of
pesticides such as DDT was
virtually unrestricted despite
growing concerns about
environmental persistence and
harmful effects to organisms
other than those targeted; and
little or no consideration was
given to methods to control
o
surface runoff of pesticides,
fertilizers, and sediments.
Significant progress has been
achieved in addressing these
problems; however, significant
obstacles still remain. In the
chapters that follow, these
successes, problems, and
directions for the future will be
discussed.
-------
Introduction
Methodology
Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act requires States to
report to EPA on the extent to
which their waters are meeting
the goal of the Act, and to
recommend how the goal may
be achieved. EPA, in turn, is to
analyze these reports and
transmit them and this national
report to Congress.
There are a number of
variables involved in defining
water quality, collecting
monitoring data, and compiling
and reporting on that
information. EPA seeks to
establish consistency among
these variables by preparing
guidelines for States' use in
reporting water quality
information. These guidelines
promote the use of a consistent
measure of water quality based
on the degree to which a water
is in compliance with the
applicable State water quality
standards. State water quality
standards consist of the water
quality objective, expressed as
the "beneficial use," and
numeric and narrative
"criteria" designed to ensure
maintenance of the beneficial
use. EPA's 305(b) guidelines
require that States report on
water quality in terms of the
degree that beneficial uses are
supported. Degree of use
support is divided into three
categories, as follows: fully
supporting, partially
supporting, and not supporting.
Limited criteria for defining
these categories have been
developed but there is
considerable State discretion in
determining exactly how
decisions about the degree of
use support are made. Thus,
the data reported by the States
should be considered to
represent State judgements
about water quality.
The 305(b) Guidelines also
request information on the
specific problems and sources
causing poor water quality.
Ideally, the State assessments
contain two types of water
quality information: waterbody-
specific and summary. This
dual approach allows the State
reports to serve various
functions. The identification of
specific problem areas and
pollutants increases the utility
of the reports in determining
State management needs and
pollution control priorities;
summary data permit a "big
picture" of State and national
water quality to be drawn. In
general, it is the State summary
data that have been extracted
and analyzed for this 1986
National Water Quality Inventory.
In future 305(b) reporting
cycles, considerably more
emphasis will be placed on
waterbody-specific information
that will be managed using a
computerized data system.
Some of the major data
elements that were used in this
report include:
• total number of assessed
waters (in river miles, lake
acres, estuarine square miles)
per State fully, partially, or not
supporting their designated
uses;
• sources of pollution in those
waters not fully supporting their
uses, reported as statewide
"percent contribution";
H major parameters of
statewide concern;
H number of waters adversely
affected by toxic pollutants; and
II trophic status of lakes.
Electrofishing device used in fish
sampling.
10
-------
Guidelines for preparing the
305(b) reports have been issued
biennially by EPA since the
1982 reporting cycle. Since
1984, the major aspects of these
guidelines were developed
jointly by EPA and the Associa-
tion of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control
Administrators to increase
consistency and effectiveness of
reporting. However, problems
still remain: although many
States have provided most or all
of the summary data requested
in the guidance, others have
failed to do so. For example, out
of the 56 States and jurisdic-
tions that submitted water
quality assessments in 1986:
• 42 provided information that
could be used to derive the
overall degree of designated use
support for 370,544 stream
miles, 21 percent of the Nation's
total;
• 37 provided information on
designated use support for
12,531,846 acres of lakes and
reservoirs, 32 percent of the
Nation's total;
• 20 provided information on
designated use support for
17,600 square miles of estuaries,
55 percent of the Nation's total;
• 41 reported on sources of
pollution in rivers not fully
supporting uses; 31 reported on
sources in lakes not fully
supporting uses; and 16
reported on sources in estuaries
not fully supporting their
designated uses;
• 22 provided data on the total
number of river miles affected
by toxics; 16 reported on the
number of lake acres affected by
toxics; 6 reported on the
number of estuarine square
miles affected by toxics; and
• 23 States provided data on
the trophic status of lakes.
Marina at Annapolis, Maryland. $
The failure of some States to
provide this information limits
EPA's ability to analyze the data
over time and creates gaps in
our understanding of water
quality conditions nationwide.
An equal obstacle arises
because of inconsistencies
between States in how these
data were generated. These
inconsistencies are themselves
the result of different State
capabilities, outlooks, and
needs, as well as lack of explicit
direction from EPA. Inconsis-
tencies result, for example, from
the following issues: How far
back should a State go to find
data on waters that have not
been recently assessed? What
sorts of assessment activities
provide a reasonable baseline
for evaluating waters for which
no quantitative chemical or
biological data exist? If
available funding decreases,
should States concentrate
resources on monitoring previ-
ously unassessed waters that are
presumed to be of good quality,
or focus their attention on
known problem areas? What
definitions determine if
waterways are classified as fully,
partially, or not supporting
their designated uses? These are
a few of the questions EPA and
the States are seeking to resolve
before the next cycle of 305(b)
report preparation.
-------
Introduction
To an extent, the continuing
effort to improve and better
manage water quality data is
succeeding: despite incomplete
reporting, in 1986 the States
provided more data on many
topics of concern than in
previous years. Current State
and EPA initiatives to further
improve water monitoring and
reporting include developing a
computerized system to manage
information on the condition,
trends, pollution sources, and
control actions for individual
waterbodies and developing
more cost-effective monitoring
techniques. EPA is also
beginning to implement a wide
range of projects to develop
more effective monitoring and
to improve the use of available
information.
iff
Measuring a channel transect for
a stream flow calculation.
12
-------
2
Surface Water Quality
Introduction
Pollutants in our waterways
may impair or destroy aquatic
life, threaten human health, or
simply foul the water such that
recreational and aesthetic
potential is lost. What are the
most common pollutant cate-
gories and what are their
effects? Table 2-1 briefly depicts
this information.
In their 1986 Section 305(b)
assessments, the States reported
on their most widely found
parameters of concern Figure
2-1 depicts these findings for the
Nation as a whole. The most
widely reported parameter or
category of concern is fecal
coliform bacteria, followed by
nutrients, turbidity/suspended
solids, and dissolved oxygen/
biochemical oxygen demand.
Metals and other toxics also
figure highly among the most
commonly reported parameters.
All of the most widespread
parameters can enter waterways
from a variety of sources. Point
sources are those that discharge
into the water via a discrete
"point" such as a pipe or ditch.
Nonpoint sources, on the other
hand, are diffused over a wide
area and cannot be traced to
any one point. Table 2-2
illustrates examples of point and
nonpoint sources, and shows
which pollutants they most
commonly contribute.
13
-------
Surface Water Quality
Table 2-1. Common Categories and Effects of Aquatic Pollutants
Pollutant Effect
Fecal Coliform Bacteria'. Used as indicators of the presence of disease-causing organisms.
Nutrients: Stimulate the growth of aquatic plants; can result in altered aquatic commu-
nities, fish kills, excess weed growth, unpleasant odors and tastes, and
impaired recreational uses.
Siltation/Suspended
Solids:
Modify aquatic community through habitat alteration. Impair fish respiration,
reduce plant productivity; aesthetic impacts reduce recreational uses.
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand:
Reflects materials that reduce the availability of dissolved oxygen, which is
crucial to the respiration of fish and aquatic invertebrates.
Salinity/Total Dissolved
Solids:
Impair use of water for drinking and crop irrigation and adversely affect
aquatic ecosystems.
Toxics:
Can cause death, mutation, or reproductive failure in fish and wildlife and
may pose carcinogenic or other health threats to humans.
Which sources of pollution
are more significant? Until the
last decade or so, pollution
control experts might have
responded automatically that
point sources such as industries
and sewage treatment plants
were the major contributors of
pollution. After all, sewage
outfalls, industrial pipes, and
plumes of pollution can be
easily identified as responsible
for poor, often drastically
degraded, water quality condi-
tions. But as pollution control
efforts were initiated in the
1960s and 1970s to attack these
point sources, it became evident
that nonpoint sources—more
difficult to track and identify—
were also major causes of water
quality problems.
45
40
35
S 30
s
~ 25
O) or.
£1 20
I 15
10
5
0
1
I
I
Source: 1986 State Section 305(b) Reports
Figure 2-1. Statewide Parameters of Concern
14
-------
Surface Water Quality
Rivers and Streams
As we have already noted,
the degree to which waters
support their designated uses is
the standard measure of water
quality. In their 1986 Section
305(b) reports, 42 States
provided this information.
These States assessed 370,544
river miles—21 percent of the
Nation's estimated 1.8 million
miles of rivers.* Seventy-four
percent of the assessed waters,
or 274,537 miles, were found to
fully support their designated
uses; 19 percent, or 70,916
miles, were reported as partially
supporting uses; and 6 percent,
or 22,974 miles, were reported
as not supporting uses. In less
than 1 percent of assessed
waters, the degree of designated
use support was unknown.
Table 2-3 depicts this informa-
tion on a State-by-State basis.
This table illustrates some of
the reporting and assessment
inconsistencies that frustrate the
current Section 305(b) report-
ing process. First, 10 States and
4 jurisdictions failed to provide
usable current summary data
on designated use support.
Second, of those States that
provided data, wide variations
exist in two areas: the percent
of total State waters assessed (4
States assessed less than 10
percent of their waters, while 11
States report that they assessed
100 percent of their waters),
and methods of assessing use
support (9 States reported that
90 percent or more of their
waters fully supported uses,
while 4 States found that 20
percent or less of their waters
fully supported uses).
Early spring in Vermont:
Mt. Mansfield overlooking the
Waterbury Dam.
18
'Estimate from A.SIWPCA, America's Clean Water The States' Nonfiomt Source Assessment, 1985
-------
Surface Water Quality
Why do these monitoring
and assessment strategies vary?
Clearly, some States have more
funds than others for these
activities, just as some have
more waters to deal with and
some have more severe water
quality problems. States heavily
affected by diffuse and difficult-
to-locate nonpoint sources may
have to rely on other than tradi-
tional fixed station monitoring
of chemical pollutants to detect
problems.
On the other hand, States
with high concentrations of
industries and cities may find it
more effective to rely on fixed
monitoring stations and surveys
to assess water quality. Tradi-
tionally, then, each State weighs
its needs and judges how it can
best use its limited monitoring
resources.
The drawback of this
approach is that it results in
only a relatively small percent-
age of the Nation's waters being
assessed. We assume that since
States generally focus their
monitoring resources on waters
most likely to have problems—
e.g., urban waters or those that
are intensively used for
recreational purposes—the
remaining unassessed waters
may be of better quality. EPA is
encouraging increased water
quality assessment in order to
verify that this is true and to
gain a more accurate picture of
the Nation's waters as a whole,
New monitoring approaches,
such as rapid biosurvey tech-
niques, are being developed to
increase the number of waters
assessed by the States. Chapter
5 discusses the States' current
monitoring programs and
recent efforts to improve them.
Throughout the remainder of
this chapter, certain degraded
rivers, lakes, and estuaries will
be highlighted for discussion. It
should be noted that these
waters are not necessarily the
worst in their States. They were
selected for discussion simply
because they illustrate the
complex nature of existing
pollution problems. In many
cases, pollution control
programs may be underway to
address degraded water quality
conditions.
Biologist at EPA's Environmental
Monitoring System laboratory in
Las Vegas running a test to
evaluate chronic toxicity.
17
-------
Surface Water Quality
How do we judge water
quality conditions for reporting
and assessment purposes?
There are many ways to
evaluate the quality of a
waterbody. However, under
Federal statute, States must
develop water quality standards
that define the "use" that the
water is to provide. Pollution
control programs must then
strive to achieve and maintain a
level of water quality that will
ensure that the designated use
exists. While some waterbodies
may be assigned "low quality"
uses such as industrial cooling
or irrigation, the majority are
designated for recreation and
for the support of fish popula-
tions. Within these designations
are subcategories of water use:
primary contact, such as
swimming and water skiing;
secondary contact, such as
boating; and cold and warm-
water fisheries, which have
different levels of quality
requirements because of the
sensitivities of the fish species
they support. Water for drink-
ing, with or without treatment,
is yet another designated use.
Most waterbodies have more
than one designated use and
should be clean enough to
support all of their uses.
The standard measure for
evaluating water quality is the
degree to which the designated
uses are supported in a given
waterbody. Determining the
degree of use support involves a
considerable amount of judge-
ment, particularly for the
aquatic life uses. It also involves
going beyond examination of
the specific criteria contained in
State water quality standards.
Such criteria are designed to
support the use but are often
incomplete compared to the
range of potential pollutants
and phenomena that adversely
affect water quality and,
ultimately, the degree of use
support.
In the sections that follow,
the degree of designated use
support and causes of impair-
ments will be discussed for
rivers and streams, lakes, and
estuaries. These results should
be interpreted with caution
because of inconsistencies in
State reporting and incomplete
monitoring. Designated use
support numbers reflect differ-
ent State assessment and
reporting methodologies. For
instance, some States reported
only on monitoring activities
conducted within the two-year
Section 305(b) reporting period,
while others include all waters
for which information is avail-
able. Some States reported on a
very high percentage of their
waters, relying on best
professional judgement and
computer modeling to supple-
ment actual chemical,
biological, and physical
monitoring data. Other States
reported on only a small
percentage of their total stream
miles because they preferred to
rely almost exclusively on actual
monitoring data. In addition,
there are basic inconsistencies
involving how support of
designated uses is determined:
variability exists between States
in defining the characteristics a
waterbody must have to be
fully, partially, or not
supporting its use.
The Nation's waters have many
uses.
16
-------
Surface Water Quality
Table 2-2. Sources and Pollutants
Sources Common Pollutant Categories
Point Sources
Municipal sewage
treatment plants
Industrial facilities
Combined sewer
overflows
Nonpoint Sources
Agricultural runoff
BOD; bacteria; nutrients; ammonia; toxics
Toxics; BOD
BOD; bacteria; nutrients; turbidity; total dissolved solids; ammonia; toxics;
bacteria
Nutrients; turbidity; total dissolved solids; toxics; bacteria
Urban runoff
Construction runoff
Mining runoff
Septic systems
Landfills/spills
Silvicultural runoff
Turbidity; bacteria; nutrients; total dissolved solids; toxics
Turbidity; nutrients; toxics
Turbidity; acids; toxics; total dissolved solids
Bacteria; nutrients
Toxics; miscellaneous substances
Nutrients; turbidity; toxics
Although States and Federal
agencies monitor for many
parameters of both point and
nonpoint origin, the traditional
monitoring effort has centered
on non-toxics. This has
occurred for a number of
reasons: because the earliest
monitoring efforts began before
toxics were understood or
considered a threat; because
toxics are more difficult and
expensive to sample for; and
because there are not many
toxics standards available
against which to judge the
results of sampling efforts.
This reliance on the
monitoring of non-toxic
pollutants to judge water
quality is changing, but toxics
sampling efforts are still limited
in many States. Thus, many of
the monitoring results discussed
in this document may
underestimate the prevalence of
toxic substances and may reflect
the results of control efforts that
have traditionally focused on
non-toxics. Toxic concerns
and programs will be discussed
in more detail in Chapters 4
and 5.
15
-------
Surface Water Quality
Table 2-3. Designated Use Support in Rivers and Streams
State
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
Total
Total
River
Miles
365,000
40,600
1 1 ,438
17,537
26,959
8,400
579
40
9,320
20,000
7,310
14,080
18,000
20,600
40,000
14,180
31,672
9,300
10,704
36,350
10,274
20,536
20,532
24,000
14,544
6,450
3,500
70,000
37,359
43,900
90,000
50,000
724
9,679
9,937
19,124
80,000
4,863
27,240
22,819
19,655
3,469
1 ,290,674
River
Miles
Assessed
5,025
12,101
11,438
1,412
9,627
880
516
40
6,575
17,000
7,310
3,395
4,365
4,495
5,683
2,500
31,672
7,440
1,676
36,350
10,274
20,536
19,505
4,794
1,320
780
3,500
3,400
37,359
6,628
1 1 ,855
6,225
724
2,442
3,987
5,748
15,942
1,167
4,716
18,244
19,655
2,243
370,544
Miles
Fully
Supporting
2,662
10,835
5,914
615
6,163
597
309
7
4,448
16,185
6,046
1,861
72
3,512
3,130
1,240
30,695
6,852
802
35,696
9,260
10,390
12,184
2,717
981
225
3,140
2,667
25,156
4,048
9,665
3,332
655
2,127
1,865
3,794
14,966
882
948
10,225
17,386
283
274,537
Miles Miles
Partly Not
Supporting Supporting
2,363
804
5,524
391
1,518
232
184
18
1,670
458
572
1,457
3,077
359
1,877
800
513
449
572
0
1,014
10,075
6,934
1,135
259
465
360
246
10,171
1,977
1,915
1,242
34
194
1,130
1,118
0
269
1,536
6,631
297
1,076
70,916
0
462
0
406
335
51
23
10
457
357
692
77
1,216
435
675
460
464
139
302
497
0
71
387
942
80
90
0
487
1,867
603
275
1,651
35
121
992
847
976
16
2,232
1,388
1,972
884
22,974
Assessed
Miles
Unknown
0
0
0
0
1,611
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
188
1
0
0
0
0
157
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
165
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,127
Note: Reporting from 14 States and territories (Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah,
Washington, Wisconsin, Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa) did not allow determination of
overall use support
Source 1986 State Section 305(b) Reports
19
-------
Vater Quality
The States were asked to
assess the relative importance of
the various sources of pollution
in causing use impairments.
Ideally, for those waters not
fully supporting (i.e., waters
found to be partially or not
supporting) their designated
uses, the States were to deter-
mine the number of miles with
impacts due to nonpoint, muni-
cipal, industrial, combined
sewer overflow, natural, and
other sources, then combine
these to arrive at estimates of
the relative percentage of State
waters affected by each source.
Weighted national averages
were then calculated, with
weighting based on the number
of river miles per State partially
and not supporting uses, as
reported in Table 2-3.
Of the 41 States that
provided information on
sources of pollution, 3 States
and 1 territory did not provide
statewide data on miles not
fully supporting uses and were
not included in the calculation.
Among the remaining 37
States, nonpoint sources are
reported as the predominant
sources, affecting 65 percent of
assessed river miles where
designated uses are impaired.
Point sources affect 27 percent
of the impaired waters, with the
predominant sources breaking
out as follows: municipal
sources affect 17 percent,
industrial sources affect 9
percent, and combined sewer
overflows affect 1 percent.
Natural sources are cited as the
cause of use impairment in 6
percent of impaired river miles,
and either "other" or unknown
causes are responsible for
impairing uses in the remaining
2 percent. Table 2-4 and Figure
2-2 depict these results.
Industrial
9% ^
Municipal
17%
20
Figure 2-2. Causes of Nonsupport in Rivers and Streams
-------
Surface Water Quality
Table 2-4. Relative Impact of Pollution Sources in Rivers and Streams with Impaired Uses (in
percent)
State
Alaska
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
Guam
Average
(weighted)
Industrial
85
26
0
0
8
25
1
2
2
0
7
26
7
0
5
6
0
5
0
2
1
12
25
1
20
12
16
3
7
42
12
4
5
4
11
4
4
1
10
11
5
9
Municipal
1
10
16
40
6
29
95
3
56
3
36
20
26
100
30
26
42
23
1
3
7
64
35
5
40
17
36
10
13
24
60
9
8
71
22
34
26
1
4
21
10
17
Combined
Sewers
0
0
0
20
8
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
13
0
11
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
15
1
Nonpoint
Sources
12
20
64
9
59
40
4
78
10
97
25
54
46
0
50
26
51
72
99
95
92
18
35
81
11
71
30
57
71
19
26
34
76
14
50
51
64
98
43
63
50
65
Natural
0
0
0
0
19
2
0
17
0
0
28
0
17
0
15
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
30
3
0
0
49
0
11
11
10
6
0
43
0
20
6
Other/
Unknown
2
44
20
31
0
4
0
0
2
0
4
0
4
0
0
12
7
0
0
0
0
0
5
11
16
0
7
0
5
15
2
4
11
0
6
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
Source- 1986 State Section 305(b) Reports.
21
-------
The Cooper River
New Jersey's Cooper River is
a highly degraded stream
receiving significant amounts of
sewage treatment effluent.
Monitoring reveals that the
river is of generally good
quality in its upper reaches, but
rapidly worsens to some of the
poorest quality water in the
State as it flows through
Camden and adjoining towns.
In addition, pesticides
contamination in stream
sediments and fish have led to a
recreational fishing ban for the
lower Cooper River.
The water quality problems
of the Cooper River are the
result of excessive municipal
and industrial discharges,
combined with the effects of
urban stormwater runoff and
the stream's limited assimilative
capacity. The Carnden County
regional sewage system will
eventually eliminate most of the
discharges to the Cooper River,
but the river will continue to
suffer from runoff and benthic
oxygen demands. One national
Superfund hazardous waste
site, the Cooper Road Dump in
Voorhees Ibwnship, is located
in this watershed.
At its headwaters, the Cooper
River is of generally good
quality, with moderate amounts
of nutrients and low
summertime dissolved oxygen
concentrations. Fecal coliform
counts are low. However, by the
time the Cooper River reaches
the city of Lawnside it has
received wastewaters from a
number of municipal treatment
facilities. Water quality
degradation occurs due to
extremely high amounts of
nutrients and fecal coliform
bacteria in violation of State
criteria. Because of high
biochemical oxygen demand in
the stream, dissolved oxygen is
frequently below its criterion
level. Un-ionized ammonia
concentrations are at times
above the criterion for
protection of warmwater
fisheries.
Downstream at Haddonfield,
the Cooper River improves
somewhat but is still grossly
polluted. Biomonitoring
confirms the presence of an
unhealthy stream environment
dominated by pollution-tolerant
organisms. Although long-term
trend analysis of water quality
data from the Cooper River at
Haddonfield finds increased
dissolved oxygen concentrations
and a reduction in total
mercury, these improvements
must be considered minor
because of gross nutrient and
bacterial pollution.
These figures should not be
compared to those reported in
the 1984 National Water Quality
Inventory for two major reasons.
First, in 1984, national averages
of the percent of use impair-
ment caused by individual
pollutant sources were calcu-
lated using an unweighted
averaging technique that
ranked each State equally
regardless of the amount of
waters impaired. This method
was replaced in this report by
the weighted averaging calcula-
tion noted above. Second, in
1986 these numbers appear to
reflect increased reporting and
a new awareness of the
importance and pervasiveness
of nonpoint sources. A 1985
nonpoint source assessment
sponsored by the Association of
State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administra-
tors (ASIWPCA) served to spur
this awareness. State water
quality personnel were urged to
consult agricultural and forestry
officials and to search for new
sources of nonpoint data.
Existing data were reevaluated,
and standardized reporting
methodologies encouraged the
States to make definitive
assessments of nonpoint source
problems. Doubtless this effort,
combined with a growing
national interest and concern,
has contributed to the change
in the States' assessment of
their nonpoint problems. The
results of the ASIWPCA assess-
ment and their implications will
be discussed further in Chapter 4.
22
-------
Smokestack looms over an urban
stream.
Attainment of the Clean
Water Act Goal
As stated at the beginning of
the Clean Water Act, "It is the
national goal that, wherever
attainable, an interim goal of
water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
provides for recreation in and on
the water be achieved by July 1,
1983." Most U.S. waters are
classified to reflect this bench
mark, which is commonly
referred to as the fishable/
swimmable goal of the Clean
Water Act.
The Grand Calumet
River
Indiana reports on the
quality of the Grand Calumet
River, which drains some of the
most industrialized and
populated areas in die State.
The east branch of the Grand
Calumet originates in Gary,
just upstream from outfalls of
the U.S. Steel Corporation mill.
It joins die west branch and
empties into Lake Michigan via
the Indiana Harbor Ship
Canal.
Because of the intense
industrial and municipal uses to
which the Grand Calumet-
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal
system has been put, it has
been designated for industrial
water supply and limited
aquatic life. Its classification
was revised downward in 1985
and a partial-body contact
designation was dropped due to
the presence of high
concentrations of toxic
substances in sediment.
Designated by the
International Joint Committee
as a Class A area of concern,
the river and canal system is
affected by three major sewage
treatment plants at Gary,
Hammond, and East Chicago;
by an extensive network of
combined sewer systems; by a
variety of industrial dischargers
including U.S. Steel, Inland
Steel, J & L Steel, and DuPont;
and by nonpoint sources such
as parking lot runoff and vessel
discharges. Standards violations
are common for dissolved
oxygen, chlorides, ammonia,
phosphorus, and fecal coliform
bacteria. Fish flesh sampling in
1982 and 1984 has revealed
PCBs in excess of the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA)
action level.
\ \
Grand Calumet
Indiana
r
Recent additions to the Gary
sewage treatment plant have
resulted in water quality
improvements to the Grand
Calumet River. Data from 1984
and 1985 indicate that
ammonia, fecal coliform,
phosphorus, and cyanide
violations have declined. A
gross comparison of biological
observations reveals the same
improving trend. Resident fish
populations are evident, and
some salmonids have been
found to stray up the river in
autumn. Macroinvertebrate
communities have increased in
diversity, and the bird life along
the stream is abundant. These
observations could be due to
both better wastewater
treatment and a reduction in
the effluent discharged by the
steel mills in recent years.
Programs have been
developed by the State and EPA
to address problems in the
Grand Calumet River. These
programs include Best Available
Technology permit develop-
ment, wasteload allocations,
pretreatment program devel-
opment, and municipal and
industrial compliance actions.
Longer-term evaluations of the
effectiveness of existing and new
control programs will also be
conducted.
"XSL
23
-------
Surface Water Quality
In their 1986 305(b) reports,
35 States and territories
reported on their progress
toward this goal (Table 2-5).
These numbers show great
disparity between States, in
large part because of varying
methods of assessing the ability
of waters to support fishing and
swimming. Some States may
determine that inaccessible or
physically unsuitable streams
(e.g., intermittent or shallow
waters) fail to support fishable
and swimmable uses. Other
States, faced with the same
circumstances, reason that the
goals are not precluded by
pollution and do not count such
waters as impaired under the
Clean Water Act. Nevertheless,
the average percentage of
waters meeting the goal—based
on the 25 States reporting on
fishable and swimmable condi-
tions in 224,279 assessed river
miles—is 74 percent, the same
as the percent of waters meeting
their designated uses.
Seventeen States report that
about 14,039 stream miles out
of a total of 169,527 they
assessed for goal attainment will
never be able to attain the
fishable/swimmable goal.
Virtually all sources of
pollution—from inactive mines
and stormwater runoff to
industrial and municipal
dischargers—are reported by
the States as causes of failure to
attain the goal. An additional
15,349 miles are expected to
meet the goal within the next
five to ten years, if pollution
control programs proceed as
planned.
Recreation on the Hudson River
near Bear Mountain
24
*
-------
Surface Water Quality
Table 2-5. River Miles Meeting the Fishable/Swimmable Goal of the Clean Water Act
State
Alabama
Arizona
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
No. of
Miles
Assessed
12,101
1,412
880
516
6,575
7,310
4,365
4,495
5,683
2,500
31,672
7,440
1,676
36,350
1,896
10,274
20,536
19,505
4,794
1,320
780
3,500
3,400
37,359
6,628
1 1 ,855
6,225
724
2,442
3,987
5,748
15,942
1,167
19,655
2,243
No. of
Miles
Fishable
6,873
654
419
6,422
72
4,170
2,140
—
1,374
35,960
1,583
—
3,493
690
3,164
—
—
—
2,229
2,716
—
1,151
18,549
1,311
No. of No. of Miles
Miles Fishable and
Swimmable Swimmable
930
392
6,650
—
2,040
—
802
688
—
1,067**
225
3,490
—
—
—
1,934
1,054
—
855
887* * *
331
2,984
596
6,118
6,105
—
3,130
30,695
6,852
802
9,260
10,390
19,054
2,717
934
225
2,667
25,160
4,048
8,773
3,332
588
1,748
3,785
14,832
839
283
No. of
Miles Expected
Fishable/
Swimmable in
5-10 Years
2,144
127
426
1,032
0
559
977
588
:
1,009
230
107
733
5,750
55
11
:
49
1,552
No. of
Miles
Never
Fishable/
Swimmable
144
2
31
346
4,293
7
0
0
5
221
47
6,476
:
81
16
217
1,057
1,096
No. of
Miles
Designated
More Stringent
than F/S
929
81
289
265
4,075
110
:
:
:
48
20,422
65
567
6,380
276
0
3,201
72
7,459
0
No. of
Miles
Designated
Less Stringent
than F/S
629 '
0
31
345
3,157*
—
—
—
283
5
64
47
—
225
0
81
6,290
0
310
0
*lowa — 3,157 miles are not designated for swimmable uses
"Nebraska — only 2,347 stream miles have been assigned primary contact as a use; 3,748 miles were assessed
* * 'Wyoming — only 917 stream miles are designated for swimming in the State.
25
-------
Colorado River
Salinity
The Colorado River Basin
covers a large area of the
American West, including
portions of Colorado, Utah,
Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada,
Wyoming, and California.
Much of the basin is arid to
semiarid; as a result, the limited
waters of the Colorado River
dominate the political, econom-
ic, and environmental fabric of
the region. Major population
centers and agricultural areas
outside the basin are also
dependent upon water diverted
from the Colorado River.
The Colorado flows
approximately 1,400 miles from
its headwaters in the Rocky
Mountains to its delta in the
Gulf of California and carries
an annual salt load of approxi-
mately 9 million tons. This salt
adversely affects more than 18
million people and over 1
million acres of irrigated farm-
land in the United States. The
Bureau of Reclamation has
estimated that a one-mg/1
increase in salinity at Imperial
Dam equates to approximately
$600,000 in annual future
damages to water users in the
Lower Basin.
Salinity in the Colorado
River is the result of both
natural processes and human
activities. Approximately 75
percent of the land in the basin
is managed by the Federal
government (primarily the
Bureau of Land Management
and the Forest Service) and
almost half the salinity in the
river is attributed to diffuse and
point sources on these lands.
Salinity concentrations are
affected through salt loading
(such as irrigation return flows
and land use disturbances) and
salt concentration (such as
diversions of high quality water
and reservoir evaporation).
Salinity is recognized as the
major basinwide water quality
problem in the Colorado River
Basin. The salinity issue is of
concern to the seven basin
States, three EPA Regions, the
Departments of Interior and
Agriculture, and the Republic
of Mexico.
The Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum was
created in 1973 by the seven
basin States (California,
Colorado, Arizona, Wyoming,
Utah, New Mexico, and
Nevada). The Forum was
established to encourage
interstate cooperation and to
provide the States with
information necessary to
comply with EPA Regulation
40 CFR Part 120, which
requires the setting of water
quality standards for salinity in
the Colorado Basin. Also
central to salinity control are
agreements with Mexico on
Colorado River system waters
entering that country.
In 1975, the Forum
developed basinwide salinity
standards that included
numeric criteria and a plan of
implementation. These
standards call for maintenance
of flow-weighted average salinity
concentrations of 723 mg/1
below Hoover Dam, 747 mg/1
below Parker Dam, and 879
mg/1 below Imperial Dam.
The implementation plan
calls for constructing Federal
salinity control measures,
placing effluent limitations and
monitoring requirements on
industrial and municipal
discharges, including salinity
issues in State Water Quality
Management Plans, and other
appropriate State actions.
At the Federal level, salinity
control requires coordination
between the EPA, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and
the U.S. Department of the
Interior. The legal bases for
controlling salinity are the
Clean Water Act and the
Colorado River Basin Control
Act (P.L. 93-320 as amended by
PL. 98-569). Some of the
activities carried out under
these authorities include
construction of a desalting
complex; cost-sharing and
technical assistance for on-farm
irrigation improvements; canal
lining; and water quality
management planning.
26
The Colorado River northeast of Moab, Utah, near the Colorado border.
-------
Surface Water Quality
Since the Forum and the U.S.
government have actively
worked on die salinity problem,
there has not been a violation of
salinity criteria at the three key
locations below Hoover, Parker,
and Imperial Dams on the
lower main stem of the
Colorado. However, projections
indicate salinity levels
increasing beyond numeric
criteria if planned controls are
not implemented. In the last
five years, exceptional snowpack
and high flows have flushed salt
out of die major reservoirs and
significantly lowered salinity
levels, masking the overall
salinity problem.
Despite recent progress in
addressing the salinity issue in
the Colorado River, complica-
tions abound. For example,
western water rights—based on
the "use-it-or-lose-it" premise-
discourage water conservation;
State adherence to Forum
recommendations is not directly
enforceable, although the States
themselves have enforcement
capabilities; and funding
shortages have threatened
implementation of salinity
control measures and U.S.
Geological Survey monitoring
efforts. It is therefore clear that
cooperation and commitment
are a continuing need if the
Forum's goal of maintaining the
numeric criteria for salinity in
the Colorado River is to be
achieved.
-------
Surface Water Quality
supported their uses, 19 percent
partially supported their uses,
and 8 percent did not support
designated uses. Eleven States,
assessing 3 million acres of
large lakes, report that 79
percent of the acres assessed
supported uses, 18 percent
partially supported uses, and
only 3 percent failed to support
designated uses (Tables 2-6, 2-7,
and 2-8).
Lakes and
Reservoirs
In 1986, 37 States and terri-
tories reported on designated
use support in their lakes and
reservoirs. A total of 12,531,846
lake acres were assessed, 32
percent of the estimated
39,400,000 total lake acres in
the U.S. Seventy-three percent
of the assessed lake acres, or
9,202,752 acres, were found to
be fully supporting their
designated uses. Seventeen
percent, or 2,181,331 acres, were
partially supporting uses, and 7
percent, or 859,080 acres, were
reported as not supporting
designated uses. Degree of
designated use support was
unknown in the remaining 2
percent of lake acres.
Table 2-6. Designated Use Support in Lakes of Unspecified Size Category* (in acres)
The States were asked to
assess designated use support
separately for lakes smaller than
5,000 acres and lakes larger
than 5,000 acres. Many States,
however, failed to specify the
size category of the lakes they
assessed. An analysis of the
data from the States that did
separate their lake assessments
by size category reveals that
larger lakes may be of some-
what better quality. Sixteen
States report that 72 percent of
their 1.8 million acres of
assessed small lakes fully
State
Alaska
Alabama
California
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oregon
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Total
Total
Area
12,787,200
505,336
1,397,137
82,900
920,320
417,730
362,718
242,359
81 ,200
514,212
500,000
756,450
198,100
18,923
5,725
500,000
455,000
538,603
224,066
16,158
971,000
21,495,137
Area
Assessed
27,513
505,336
1 ,279,944
38,884
796,800
417,730
362,718
25,303
73,771
467,738
495,191
663,363
105,840
18,923
5,725
192,000
405,555
538,603
224,066
16,158
969,000
7,630,161
Supporting
Uses
14,598
505,336
617,122
36,858
497,920
361,391
362,624
1,849
53,899
407,215
476,374
629,518
103,088
13,625
5,524
112,700
399,895
431 ,325
210,907
14,360
200,000
5,456,128
Partially
Supporting
12,915
0
168,585
2,026
234,880
50,961
94
1 1 ,353
19,832
58,135
18,817
20,595
2,222
3,785
201
75,200
250
89,744
13,114
0
503,000
1 ,285,709
Not
0
0
231 ,052
0
64,000
5,378
0
12,101
40
2,388
0
13,250
530
1,514
0
4,100
5,410
17,534
45
1,798
266,000
625,140
Area
0
0
263,185
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
263,185
'Excludes Great Lakes
Source: 1986 State Section 305
-------
Surface Water Quality
Table 2-7. Designated Use Support in Lakes Under 5,000 Acres
State
Arizona
District of Columbia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Virginia
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
Total
Total
Area
84,458
107
71,441
49,742
376,305
573,538
32,583
—
126,912
331 ,000
67,938
16,520
1 ,003,987
47,664
141,316
7,250
2,930,761
Area
Assessed
16,753
107
71,441
40,102
22,803
573,538
32,583
385,997
86,207
321,000
67,938
16,520
60,929
47,664
18,316
7,250
1,769,148
Supporting
Uses
1 1 ,805
0
68,993
23,873
10,569
548,916
24,616
112,735
62,103
279,000
58,728
15,900
10,581
35,510
13,636
1,280
1 ,278,245
Partially
Supporting
4,213
107
2,448
6,289
11,661
24,622
7,958
211,331
19,574
25,900
5,510
530
5,089
8,864
3,811
3,305
341,212
Not
Supporting
735
0
0
423
573
0
9
61,931
4,530
16,100
3,700
0
45,259
0
869
2,665
136,794
Area
Unknown
0
0
0
9,517
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
0
3,290
0
0
12,897
Source 1986 State Section 305(b) Reports
Table 2-8. Designated Use Support in Lakes Over 5,000 Acres*
State
Arizona
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
South Dakota
Virginia
Wyoming
Total
Total
Area
26,312
16,000
118,422
421,022
408,000
252,568
594,298
81,958
269,968
2,188,548
Area
Assessed
18,058
16,000
118,422
339,600
421 ,022
553,932
58,711
408,000
252,568
594,298
81,958
269,968
3,132,537
Supporting
Uses
18,058
16,000
81,400
315,914
409,479
149,771
58,711
300,600
252,568
562,540
81,958
221 ,380
2,468,379
Partially
Supporting
0
0
24,420
23,686
1 1 ,543
379,161
0
107,400
0
0
0
8,200
554,410
Not
Supporting
0
0
0
0
0
25,000
0
0
0
31,758
0
40,388
97,146
Area
Unknown
0
0
12,602
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,602
"Excludes Great Lakes
Source 1986 State Section 305(b) Reports
29
-------
Surface Water Quality
For those lake acres not fully
supporting their designated
uses, the acreages affected by
the various pollution sources
were combined and statewide
percentages derived. Weighted
averages were calculated, based
on the number of lake acres per
State with impaired uses, to
arrive at national estimates of
the relative contribution of
individual pollution sources to
use impairment in the Nation's
lakes. An evaluation of the
causes of use impairment was
provided by 31 States. The
predominant cause was found
to be nonpoint sources, affect-
ing 76 percent of impaired lake
acres. Municipal sources were
reported to affect 8 percent,
with natural sources affecting
12 percent, and other or
unknown sources affecting 3
percent. Industrial sources of
pollution were reported to have
a relatively slight effect,
impairing uses in 1 percent of
assessed lake acres. This
information is depicted in Table
2-9 and Figure 2-3.
Two years ago, the 1984
National Water Quality Inventory
also reported that nonpoint
sources were the major cause of
use impairments in lakes,
although to a lesser extent. In
large part the difference
between 1984 and 1986 findings
can be attributed to the use of
weighted averages in this report
to more accurately reflect the
total lake acreage with use
impairments. The 1986 findings
should therefore not be
compared to those reported in
1984. Nevertheless, it is clear
that nonpoint sources have been
and continue to be by far the
leading cause of use impair-
ment in the Nation's lakes.
Nonpoint sources are the leading
cause of use impairment in the
Nation's lakes.
30
Other/Unknown
;W 3%
Industrial
1%
Figure 2-3. Causes of Nonsupport in Lakes
-------
Surface Water Quality
Table 2-9. Relative Impact of Pollution Sources in Lakes with Impaired Uses (in percent)
State
Alaska
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
Average
(weighted)
Industrial
19
0
0
0
8
2
1
10
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
11
0
0
2
24
0
7
45
0
0
0
1
0
0
11
1
Municipal
0
1
0
0
47
96
1
15
0
0
2
0
1
15
1
0
5
0
0
12
26
1
39
40
0
7
6
1
0
1
17
8
Combined
Sewers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0.03
Nonpoint
Sources
51
9
52
32
43
2
90
75
100
100
17
50
88
65
99
100
34
100
100
75
50
50
54
15
98
89
74
98
100
90
46
76
Natural
0
2
48
68
1
0
8
0
0
0
77
0
0
18
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
49
0
0
2
0
4
0
0
9
0
12
Other/
Unknown
30
88
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
50
11
0
0
0
37
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
4
10
0
0
0
26
3
Source. 1986 State Section 305(b) Reports
31
-------
Surface Water Quality
The water quality problem
most often cited in the Nation's
lakes is cultural eutrophication,
the over-enrichment of water-
bodies due to man-induced
causes. Cultural eutrophication
occurs when organics and
nutrients such as phosphorus
and nitrogen enter lakes as
fertilizer runoff from cultivated
fields, animal waste from
pastures, or as components of
municipal sewage or septic tank
leachate. These nutrients can
overstimulate algae, plant, and
weed growth, creating choked
conditions that can adversely
affect swimming, boating, and
the health of indigenous fish
populations.
When lakes are classified
according to their degree of
eutrophication, they are
generally placed into one of
three categories. Oligotrophic
lakes are those that have the
lowest nutrient levels and the
least amount of plant and algae
productivity. Eutrophu lakes, on
the other hand, are those with
the highest levels of organic
enrichment. Mesotrophic lakes
are those in an intermediate
stage of productivity.
Table 2-10. Trophic Status of Lakes
State
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee"
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Total
Number of
Lakes
Assessed
70
135
36
554
107
154
92
462
160
12,034
34
1,880
24
418
3,340
25
26
113
64
223
220
140
2,925
23,236
Number
Eutrophic
18
39
32
499
107
125
50
62
28
7,822
29
371
22
76
84
10
23
17
36
25
61
45
802
10,383
Number
Mesotrophic
44
22
4
55
0
29
28
276
113
3,009
5
428
2
158
132
13
3
52
18
80
64
24
1,518
6,077
Number
Oligotrophic
8
36
0
0
0
0
14
124
19
1,203
0
452
0
141
85
2
0
7
10
118
10
58
605
2,892
Number of
Other/
Unknown
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
629*
0
43
3,039
0
0
37
0
0
85***
13
0
3,884
In their 1986 reports, 23
States provided eutrophication
data for 23,236 lakes and
reservoirs. Forty-five percent, or
10,383 lakes, were assessed as
eutrophic; 26 percent of lakes,
or 6,077, were assessed as meso-
trophic; and 12 percent, or
2,892, were reported as oligo-
trophic. Trophic status was
unknown in 17 percent of
assessed lakes. Table 2-10
depicts these numbers for the
23 States reporting. These
statistics may not reflect the
condition of the Nation's lakes
and reservoirs as a whole, and
may, in fact, be biased toward
eutrophy, since some States
concentrate their assessment
efforts on those lakes believed to
have eutrophication problems.
Nevertheless, eutrophication is
obviously a significant problem
in many areas, particularly
where smaller lakes are
subjected to persistent urban,
recreational, and agricultural
pressures.
'Includes 127 dystrophic lakes
"Non-federally managed lakes only
"'Includes one dystrophic lake
Source: 1986 State Section 305(b) Reports
32
-------
Attainment of the Clean
Water Act Goal
The Nation's lakes and
reservoirs, like its flowing
waters, are also traditionally
measured in terms of their
ability to support fishing and
swimming, a basic goal oi the
Clean Water Act. In 1986, 26
States reported this information
or a subset (e.g., waters that are
fishable).
Twenty States discussed
attainment of the fishable and
swimmable goal in 6,589,679
acres of assessed lakes. (See
Table 2-11.) Of these, an average
of 84 percent of assessed lake
acres meet the fishable and
swimmable goal. As with rivers
and streams, the States report a
wide range in the percent of
lake acres attaining the fishable
and swimmable goal; in general,
however, the degree of goal
attainment in the Nation's lakes
appears to be high.
Thirteen States report that
54,518 acres of lakes, of their
5,378,764 acres assessed, will
most likely fail to achieve
fishable and swimmable uses.
Nonpoint sources, natural
factors, and nearness to urban
centers are all cited as reasons.
Over 355,000 acres of lakes are
expected to become fishable
and swimmable in the next five
to ten years, assuming that
pollution control efforts proceed
as planned or are maintained at
their current levels.
Excess nutrients can
overstimulate the growth of algae
and weeds in lakes.
Lake Okeechobee
Florida's Lake Okeechobee
encompasses 727 square miles.
It receives drainage from a
number of sources in the
Kissimmee River basin,
including the Kissimmee River,
Indian Prairie Canal,
Fisheating Creek, and the
Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough
area. The primary land use
along the northeast edge of the
lake is dairy farming. Land use
south of the lake is intensive
row crop farming of sugar cane
and vegetables. There are also
some citrus groves and wetlands
in this area. On the south end
of Lake Okeechobee, a levee
some 85 miles long allows for
nearly total control of lake
elevation through a system of
gates and pumps connecting the
six major flood control canals.
Major sources of pollution to
the lake include agricultural
runoff from ranch and dairy
operations and from back-
pumping of runoff from row
crops and sugar cane. The
Kissimmee River also delivers
nutrients to the lake from
sewage effluents that are
discharged in the upper portion
of the Kissimmee River basin.
Water quality problems in
the north end of the lake
include elevated phosphorus
and coliform concentrations. In
the south end of the lake,
increased nutrients and pesti-
cide problems are caused by
back-pumping. Consequently,
at different locations and at
different seasons of rainfall or
drought, the lake receives
varying amounts of nutrients,
biochemical oxygen demanding
substances, bacteria, and toxic
materials. In the southern
portion of the lake, a trend
toward increasing levels of
nutrients has been found.
In the last ten years there has
been a campaign to increase
awareness of pollution problems
in Lake Okeechobee and protect
lake water quality. At a recent
workshop, the South Florida
Water Management District
emphasized the need to
intensify enforcement of best
management practices designed
to decrease the amount of
nutrient loadings from cattle
waste. Policies were also
adopted to decrease the need
for back-pumping during dry
seasons by decreasing water
usage upstream.
33
-------
Big Stone Lake
South Dakota
Big Stone Lake
South Dakota's Big Stone
Lake is hypereutrophic and
receives high loads of nutrients
from its tributaries. Lengthy
algae blooms and excessive
weed growth have been
observed in the lake. As a
result, recreational usage and
property values have declined.
Erosion from cropland and
runoff from livestock operations
have been identified as major
sources of pollution. Other
sources include municipal
discharges, food processing
wastes, streambank and lake-
shore erosion, and erosion from
construction activities.
In 1983, a Clean Lakes
report submitted to EPA
proposed a watershed manage-
ment approach to restore Big
Stone Lake. The goal of the
project was to upgrade the
trophic status of the lake from
hypereutrophic to eutrophic by
reducing nutrient and sediment
inputs from the watershed. This
approach involved the
accelerated application of
agricultural best management
practices (BMPs); construction
of animal waste management
(AWM) systems; streambank,
lakeshore, and roadside erosion
control; recovery of a key
wedand; a no-till demonstration
program; improved manage-
ment of the Whetstone River
diversion and lake level control
structure; and participation in
related projects to control
municipal, industrial, and
private wastewater disposal.
Under Section 314 of the Clean
Water Act, EPA provided
nearly $850,000 to South
Dakota and Minnesota in
restoration funds in 1984 and
1985; a like amount was
required from State and local
sources to provide matching
funds.
The initiative to clean up Big
Stone Lake has involved local
authorities, two States, and
Federal agencies. Bordering
counties applied for grants to
build AWM systems. The
conservation districts in each
county accepted administration
of the program and set up
program guidelines. South
Dakota provided a list of nearly
200 feedlots for priority
attention based on a computer
model developed by
Minnesota's Agricultural
Research Service. The priority
list will allow cost-share funds
to be targeted to feedlots with
the most severe pollution
problems. The U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture's Soil
Conservation Service agreed to
provide technical assistance,
engineering, and contruction
management for the program.
Operators of those feedlots
contributing die largest
pollution loadings were invited
to join the program. However,
although initial response was
good, only three AWM systems
had been completed by 1986.
Table 2-11. Lake Acres Meeting the Fishable/Swimmable Goal of
State
No. No.
Acres Acres
Assessed Fishable
No. No. Acres
Acres Fishable and
Swimmable Swimmable
Alabama
Arizona
505,336 448,746
34,811 32,431
31,508
Connecticut
Florida
38,884
796,800
Idaho
Iowa
362,718 362,718
73,771 53,899
362,718
Kansas
Kentucky
152,810 139,214
362,403 —
137,430
Louisiana
Maine
467,738
994,560
Maryland
Michigan
32,583 —
840,960 820,480
Mississippi
Montana
495,191 —
663,363 650,113
663,363
South Carolina
South Dakota
405,555 405,555
655,227
404,465
Vermont 224,066 224,024 224,063
Wyoming 411,284 409,223 230,335
'Excludes Great Lakes
Source: 1986 State Section 305
-------
the Clean Water Act*
No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres
Expected Fishable/ Never Designated Designated
Swimmablein Fishable/ More Stringent Less Stringent
5-10 years Swimmable than F/S than F/S
56,590
0
0
951
64,000
—
3,321
—
60,523
36,165
0
0
—
17,476
21,452
0
0
20,000
339,840
279,250
24,658
0
—
0
0
0
7,380
15,139
:
9 — — —
18,817
0
13,250
38,000
134,000
23,000
149,400
7,450
0 545,000
1,760 177,515
35
535
7,203
436
45
14,398
184,821
Devils Lake, Oregon
Devils Lake is a long, shallow
coastal lake located in Oregon's
Lincoln County. It is 678 acres
in size, with a length of 3 miles,
an average width of 0.4 miles,
and an average depth of 12 feet.
Two tributary streams, Rock
and Thompson Creeks, flow
into the lake. Rock Creek
drains about 60 percent of the
watershed area—primarily
steep, undeveloped, forested
land. The upper portion of the
watershed is managed for
timber and the lower portion
for agricultural uses such as
dairy farming. Thompson
Creek drains the moderately
sloped northern area of the
watershed, where land use is
predominantly residential with
some agriculture. The shore
around Devils Lake is zoned
residential and is ringed with
permanent single family homes,
summer and weekend cottages,
and motels.
The condition of Devils Lake
has impaired its use by local
residents and the thousands of
visitors that come to enjoy the
tourist facilities in Lincoln City
every year. Boat ramps, parks,
and campgrounds were used
extensively at one time.
However, algae blooms and
dense macrophyte growth,
along with high fecal coliforms
in bathing areas, have impaired
recreational enjoyment of the
lake in recent years.
An EPA Clean Lakes Phase 1
Diagnostic and Feasibility
Study was initiated in 1980 to
investigate these problems. The
study determined that the algae
blooms and the dense macro-
phyte growth resulted from
both natural eutrophication
processes and nutrient loadings
to the lake from nonpoint
sources. Animal wastes on dairy
farms in the Rock Creek
watershed, lawn fertilizing, and
leachate from septic tanks
located near the shore were
found to contribute nitrates,
phosphates, and fecal coliform
bacteria. Nutrients are also
stored in high concentrations in
lake bottom sediments, and
may have been contributed by
the former Oceanlake sewage
treatment plant that discharged
inadequately treated sewage
directly into the lake until 1970.
Strong wind mixing dispersed
the effluent plume and
contaminated the entire south
end of the lake. Nutrients were
also contributed to lake
sediments via the decay cycle of
macrophytes and ground-water
influx.
A Phase 2 grant was awarded
in 1985 to employ lake restora-
tion techniques to improve
water quality, increase
accessibility and recreational
use, and implement watershed
management strategies. In
1986, a workplan was developed
that outlined components of the
lake restoration program. Plans
were designed for watershed
management, introduction of a
sterile, weed-eating grass carp,
and a public participation
process. Dredging and
harvesting are still being
considered.
35
-------
The Great Lakes
Introduction
The Great Lakes, containing
20 percent of the world's fresh
water, are commercially and
recreationally valuable natural
resources. They provide drink-
ing water, varied recreational
opportunities, and routes for
travel and commerce. Over the
years, they have also served as
vast sinks for the industrial and
municipal dischargers clustered
along their perimeter.
The Great Lakes are
cooperatively protected by the
U.S. and Canada under the
Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978. The
International Joint Commission
(IJC), which was established
under the 1909 Boundary
Water Treaty with Canada, is
responsible for identifying
actions needed to maintain the
integrity of the Great Lakes
ecosystems. The Commission's
two boards, the Great Lakes
Water Quality Board and the
Science Advisory Board,
include members from a variety
of State and Federal agencies
and universities who work
together to identify problem
areas, plan programs to reduce
pollution, and publish reports
on issues and findings.
The IJC has identified 42
areas of concern in the Great
Lakes region. These are defined
as waterways where environ-
mental quality is degraded and
beneficial uses are adversely
affected. The IJC has developed
a system to classify the areas of
concern in terms of the infor-
mation available on each and
the stage of development and
implementation of remedial
actions. The IJC's main focus,
in its listing of these problem
areas, has shifted away from
eutrophication toward toxic
contamination of fish tissue and
sediments.
Among these areas of
concern are the following
discussed in the 1986 305(b)
reports:
• The Niagara River, New
York;
• Ohio's Maumee, Black,
Cuyahoga, and Ashtabula
harbors in Lake Erie;
• Lake St. Clair, the Detroit
River, and the St. Mary's
River, connecting channels
between the Great Lakes;
• The Grand Calumet River-
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal,
Indiana;
• Saginaw River and Saginaw
Bay, within Michigan's jurisdic-
tion in Lake Huron; and
• Wisconsin's Milwaukee
estuary and the Lower Fox
River/Southern Green Bay.
In their 1986 Section 305(b)
reports, seven States—Illinois
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, and Wiscon-
-provided some information
sin
on the quality of the Great
Lakes within their jurisdictions.
Some overall conclusions can be
drawn about Great Lakes water
quality based on these
assessments:
• Contamination of fish tissue
and sediments by toxic sub-
stances such as mercury, PCBs,
DDT, and other pesticides
continues to be widespread.
Fish advisories and bans
remain in place in many areas
of the Great Lakes. However,
declines are noted in toxics in
fish tissue—particularly in
levels of DDT and mercury—in
all the Great Lakes.
Mi No improvement is noted for
toxic contamination of sedi-
ments, a common problem in
Great Lakes harbors and bays
which, in turn, can affect
aquatic life and serve as a
continuing source of toxics to
the larger lake system.
•I Phosphorus control
programs such as bans on
phosphorus-containing deter-
gents have been successful in
reducing the levels of this
nutrient in the Great Lakes and
in improving the eutrophic
condition of nearshore waters.
Nitrogen levels, however,
appear to be increasing.
• Nearshore waters—
particularly harbors and river
outlets—seem to have the
greatest problems with indus-
trial and municipal pollution,
combined sewer overflows, and
upstream sources.
-------
Surface Water Quality
>tf6H POUUTIQH tiWK ;
APtOfTfKfOWO/tf
THfSE WAT£f>S
Information from the State
305(b) reports is summarized
below for each of the lakes in
the Great Lakes system.
Lake Superior
According to the 1986
Michigan 305(b) report, Lake
Superior is classified as
oligotrophic and has only a few
localized problem areas along
its shoreline. An intensive study
of Lake Superior was conducted
by the U.S. and Canada in 1983
to update information on
trophic status and toxics.
Preliminary results indicate
that metals concentrations are
low relative to other Great
Lakes; that phosphorus levels
are lower than in 1973; but that
concentrations of ions such as
sodium, sulfate, and nitrate
have increased. Organochlorine
pesticides and PCBs were found
to be widespread but at low
levels. DDT and mercury levels
in lake trout appeared to have
declined between 1977 and 1982
and are below U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA)
action levels. PCB levels,
though fluctuating, were found
to be lower in 1982 than at any
time since 1977. Dieldrin levels
in trout remained consistently
low.
Minnesota reports that Lake
Superior's sport fishery has
improved dramatically in recent
years. Total angler hours and
total catch have increased in the
1980s, and a lake trout stocking
program has been successfully
implemented.
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan's open waters
are classified as oligotrophic.
Nearshore areas in Green Bay
and the southern portion of the
lake are more mesotrophic due
to nutrients from industrial and
urban areas.
A 1983 survey of Lake
Michigan by EPA found that
phosphorus levels have declined
since 1976. However, a variety
of other contaminants such as
nitrate, sulfate, chloride, and
sodium have increased. Mercury
levels in fish have been
declining since 1972; 1984 data
for several species under 20
inches in length showed that
levels in 90 percent or more of
the fish tested did not exceed
FDA action levels. On the other
hand, in larger fish and in carp
and brown trout, mercury levels
remained high. Levels of DDT,
dieldrin, and PCBs are consis-
tently higher in fish taken from
the southern end of the lake,
where the higher levels are also
found to contaminate sedi-
ments. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service data show substantial
declines in total DDT and
PCBs in fish since the
mid-1970s.
Illinois monitors Lake
Michigan from stations on the
north and south shores and in
open water. Among its findings
are that the lake's trophic status
appears improved since 1977
and that levels of total coliform,
ammonia nitrogen, and total
phosphate have improved since
1968. Illinois notes that this
change is primarily due to the
diversion of treated municipal
and industrial discharges from
Lake Michigan to the Des
Plaines river basin. Relatively
high sulfate and chloride levels
along the south shore are
attributed to heavy concentra-
tions of industry, particularly
petroleum refining and steel
manufacturing.
1983 fish flesh data collected
from the Illinois portion of
Lake Michigan found chlor-
dane, PCBs, dieldrin, DDT,
and heptachlor epoxide in over
75 percent of samples analyzed,
although only PCBs and
chlordane exceeded the FDA
tolerance level in 9 percent and
4 percent of the samples,
respectively. A sport fish health
advisory has been issued for
Lake Michigan by Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, and
Wisconsin.
Indiana reports that the
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal is
the site of the highest levels of
mercury and phenols in Lake
Michigan waters under its
jurisdiction. Violations of
dissolved oxygen, chlorides,
ammonia, phosphorus, and
fecal coliforms are also
common. The Ship Canal
empties into Lake Michigan
and is formed by the two
branches of the Grand Calumet
River. The Grand Calumet, in
turn, drains the most populated
and industrialized area in the
State, including the cities of
Gary, Hammond, and East
Chicago. All three cities are
involved in wastewater
enforcement actions with the
EPA at this time.
Indiana reports that water
quality in the Grand Calumet
River-Indiana Harbor Ship
Canal system is improving
somewhat due to better waste-
water treatment and a
reduction in discharges from
steel mills in recent years.
37
-------
Surface Water Quality
Lake Huron
Michigan reports that Lake
Huron is classified as
oligotrophic, although it
contains two eutrophic areas:
Saginaw Bay and Thunder Bay.
A 1983 water quality study
revealed that many contami-
nants such as chloride, sulfate,
sodium, and potassium remain
at low levels, but that nitrate
and silica values have increased
since 1971.
In general, lake trout taken
from northern Lake Huron
have lower levels of toxic
contaminants than fish collected
in the southern part of the lake.
Mean values of PCBs increased
between 1979 and 1982 but
declined in 1983; DDT values
decreased in 1982 and 1983.
Mercury levels have remained
consistently below the FDA
action level in all Lake Huron
fish species studied.
Lake Erie
Lake Erie is classified as
eutrophic; its warm temperatures
and comparative shallowness
make it susceptible to nutrient
enrichment. Michigan reports
that eutrophic conditions
appear to be improving due to
phosphorus control programs.
An increase in the walleye
population in Lake Erie is
another indication of improved
water quality. PCBs and other
organochlorine compounds
monitored in walleye since 1977
show no obvious trends, but
mercury levels have decreased
and are below FDA action
levels.
Ohio reports that Lake Erie
nearshore areas are generally in
good to fair condition and are
partially attaining their uses.
The major problems in harbor
areas are metals from industrial
and municipal effluent and
urban runoff; high nutrient
concentrations; high fecal
coliform concentrations from
combined sewer overflows,
septic systems, and municipal
sewage treatment plants; and
the deposition of contaminated
sediments.
Many bathing beaches along
the Ohio shores of Lake Erie
are monitored for fecal coliform
bacteria levels. However, water
quality testing is generally
carried out by local authorities
and may not be uniform or
extensive. Ohio reports that
factors such as heavy rainfall,
proximity to sewage treatment
plants and combined sewer
overflows, and frequency of
monitoring increase the poten-
tial for violations of water
quality standards.
Lake Ontario
According to the New York
Section 305(b) report, Lake
Ontario's nearshore waters are
those that are most affected by
pollution problems. Inflow from
the Niagara, Genessee, and
Oswego Rivers contributes
much of the pollution to the
lake. The Niagara and Oswego
Rivers, for example, have been
identified as major sources of
the pesticide Mirex in Lake
O'ntario sediments and fish.
The bioaccumulation of
toxics is one of the lake's biggest
water quality problems. Fishing
advisories are in effect for
several species of fish because of
contamination by PCBs, Mirex,
and dioxin. However, the
advisory was rescinded for
smallmouth bass in 1985 when
M irex levels were found to be
less than the FDA action level.
Analysis of herring gull eggs
collected from 1974 to 1983
indicates declines in the six
organochlorine substances that
were studied.
Eutrophication of Lake
Ontario was identified as a
major concern in the 1960s;
since then, phosphorus control
measures have resulted in
reductions of this nutrient,
although nitrogen levels are on
the rise. Improving conditions
are evident in the shift of the
open lake phytoplankton
community toward more
species associated with
oligotrophic, rather than
mesotrophic, water quality.
However, New York reports that
cut rophication is a significant
problem in two major embay-
ments, Irondequoit Bay and
Sodus Bay.
Algae scooped from Lake Michigan, 1985.
38
-------
Surface Water Quality
New Initiatives in the
Great Lakes
A variety of programmatic
and monitoring activities are
underway in the Great Lakes to
address many of the problems
discussed above. With one
exception, they focus on the
problem of greatest concern in
the Great Lakes today: toxics
contamination.
Great Lakes Phosphorus
Control—Progress has been
reported under this plan to
reduce phosphorus inputs to the
Great Lakes. The U.S. and
Canada, working in coopera-
tion with the IJC, have
determined how much phos-
phorus is entering the lakes
from all sources and the
reduced levels, or "targets,"
that must be reached to protect
the lakes from eutrophication.
Required point source
controls for major municipal
dischargers, together with
industrial controls and
detergent phosphate bans, have
been found to adequately
protect the upper lakes except
for Saginaw Bay in Lake
Huron. For the lower lakes of
Erie and Ontario, further
controls will be necessary. Load
reductions still needed to meet
the targets have been calculated
for these areas.
Phosphorus plans have been
prepared by a task force of
State, interstate, and Federal
officials focusing on the poten-
tial for control of nonpoint
sources. The plans place major
reliance on voluntary adoption
of agricultural nonpoint source
management practices that will
be tracked to determine their
adequacy.
Niagara River Toxics
Activities—The Niagara River
is a connecting channel of the
Great Lakes and an IJC-
designated area of concern. In
1980, work began to coordinate
monitoring activities by the
EPA, the New York Depart-
ment of Environmental
Conservation, the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment,
and Environment Canada. The
Report of the Niagara River
Toxics Committee was
published in October 1984; its
recommendations are currently
being addressed in the recent
Niagara River Toxics Manage-
ment Plan.
Upper Great Lakes Connect-
ing Channels Study—Begun
in 1983, this study of the
sources and effects of toxics in
the connecting channels of the
upper Great Lakes—the St.
Mary's, St. Glair, and Detroit
Rivers, and Lake St. Glair—is a
joint U.S./Canada effort similar
to the Niagara River initiative.
The Study is a joint research
and monitoring effort being
carried out by 12 agencies
undertaking 150 separate
projects. The results of the
Connecting Channels study will
assist both the State of
Michigan and the Province of
Ontario in finalizing Remedial
Action Plans for the four study
areas. The study has also served
to focus international attention
and resources on defining and
controlling pollution originating
from the huge petrochemical
complex at Sarnia, Ontario and
the problems of the Rouge
River sub-basin.
Green Bay Mass Balance
Study—-The Green Bay Mass
Balance Study will pilot the use
of the mass balance approach
for management of toxic
substances in a lake system.
The primary goal of the effort,
which will run from October
1986 to September 1990, is to
model selected organic and
metal contaminants from
incoming loads to the tissue of
important fish species. While
the specific goal of the study is
quite narrow, researchers are
being encouraged to participate
and contribute complementary
studies on the transport, fate,
and effects of toxics in Green
Bay. Major participants will be
the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, the
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, and
Wisconsin Sea Grant.
39
-------
Surface Water Quality
Fish Advisories—The Great
Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) has been working
with the States since 1984 to
develop consistent, scientifically
sound advice for consumers of
chemically contaminated fish in
the Great Lakes. Since then,
comparable monitoring proto-
cols have been adopted and the
States are actively engaged in
sharing and evaluating their
combined data bases.
Fish Tissue Residue
Monitoring—The Great Lakes
Fish Monitoring Program is a
coordinated effort by more than
18 Federal and State agencies to
monitor and evaluate fish
contaminants in the Great
Lakes. The program consists of
four broad elements: trend
monitoring in the open lakes;
detection of emerging problems
in harbors and tributary
mouths; human exposure
through consumption of fish;
and tumors and other indica-
tors of environmental health.
Atmospheric Deposition in
the Great Lakes Basin—Since
1981, the Great Lakes National
Program Office has been
operating a network of precipi-
tation samplers around the
Great Lakes to measure the
concentrations of selected
nutrients and metals being
deposited into the lakes. From
these measurements, annual
precipitation loadings to each of
the Great Lakes have been
estimated for parameters such
as acidity, total phosphorus,
sulfates, nitrates, ammonia,
lead, cadmium, calcium, and
sodium.
As a result of a recent acid
deposition workshop, and in
response to increasing concerns
about the atmospheric deposi-
tion of toxic substances, the
GLNPO's atmospheric deposi-
tion monitoring network is
being redesigned. Planned
changes call for a reduction in
the number of monitored sites
from 36 to 17, with additional
sampling at each of the
remaining sites for toxic
organics in both the atmosphere
and in precipitation.
40
-------
Surface Water Quality
Estuaries and
Coastal Waters
The Nation's estuaries and
coastal waters serve as crucial
habitat to many species of fish
and wildlife, including inland
species that migrate to salt
water for a portion of their life
cycles; are of enormous recrea-
tional value to vast numbers of
people who live near—or travel
to—coastal areas to enjoy
boating, swimming, and fish-
ing; and are of economic
importance to the coastal cities
that depend on their harbors
and offshore waters for
commercial fishing, shipping,
industry, and tourism.
However, the U.S. estuarine
and coastal environment is
becoming increasingly stressed,
particularly as growth in coastal
regions continues to accelerate.
Population in coastal counties
increased by 69 percent
between 1950 and 1980 and is
still growing rapidly. In fact, the
U.S. Census Bureau predicts
that by 1990, 75 percent of the
U.S. population will live within
50 miles of a coastline. The
average population density in
coastal counties is 343 persons
per square mile, compared to
71 persons per square mile in
non-coastal counties.
Pollution sources abound. In
addition to their own municipal
sewage treatment plants, indus-
trial outfalls, combined sewers,
and varied nonpoint sources,
coastal areas are affected by the
contaminants accumulated by
rivers as they flow to the sea.
Commercial shipping brings
with it vessel discharges and
spills of oil and hazardous
substances. Marinas and
vacation-area development
stress fragile coastlines. Off-
shore activities such as oil and
gas drilling and ocean dumping
of sludge and dredged material
can impair or destroy aquatic
habitats and introduce a variety
of toxicants to the near-shore
environment. Hazardous waste
disposal sites located within
coastal drainage basins are
potential sources of toxic
chemicals.
Coastal areas have enormous
commercial and recreational
value.
The information provided by
the States in their 1986 Section
305(b) reports is highly
consistent with data reported
for the Nation's rivers and
lakes. Twenty States and
jurisdictions reported on the
degree of designated use
support for 17,606 square miles
of estuaries, 55 percent of the
estimated 32,000 square miles
of estuaries* in the U.S. (Table
2-12). Of these, 13,154 square
miles, or 75 percent, are
reported to fully support their
designated uses; 3,224 square
miles, or 18 percent, partially
support their uses; and 1,177
square miles, about 7 percent,
do not support their uses.
The designated use numbers
reported in 1986 differ
significantly from those
reported in 1984. These
numbers show an increase of
eight percentage points in the
number of waters with some
degree of use impairment.
Explanations for the apparent
decline in estuarine water
quality include more compre-
hensive reporting, an increase
in State monitoring and hence
in the discovery of problems,
and actual water quality
degradation. It is not yet
possible to determine which of
these factors is most responsible
for the change in use support.
In any case, it appears that the
more comprehensive 1986
designated use support
numbers more accurately
reflect current estuarine
conditions.
•Source: ASIWPCA, America's Clean Water The States'Nonpoint Source Assessment, 1985 Estimate excludes Alaska
41
-------
Surface Water Quality
The States were asked to
assess the relative importance of
the various sources of pollution
in their estuarine waters. For
those estuarine square miles not
fully supporting uses, the areas
affected by individual pollution
sources were combined and
statewide percentages derived.
Weighted averages were then
calculated based on the number
of waters with impaired uses
per State (see Table 2-12) to
arrive at national estimates of
the contribution of the various
pollution sources to use impair-
ment in the Nation's estuarine
waters (Table 2-13 and
Figure 2-4).
Other/Unknown
18%
Industrial
8%
Natural
3%
Figure 2-4. Causes of Nonsupport in Estuaries
Table 2-12. Designated Use Support in Estuaries (in square miles)
State
Alaska
Alabama
California
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Total
Total
Area
625
600
7
2,728
594
7,656
1,850
2,382
164
133
27
1,564
3,200
71
257
790
2,382
25,030
Area
Assessed
127
625
483
600
7
2,287
475
2,233
1,850
1,822
156
133
27
1,564
3,176
66
257
384
1,300
34
17,606
Supporting
Uses
100
593
409
483
0
1,349
468
914
1,814
1,159
39
118
14
1,115
2,677
3
228
340
1,300
31
13,154
Partially
Supporting
27
0
47
73
5
762
0
699
28
663
105
14
13
190
498
63
17
19
0
1
3,224
Not
0
32
20
1
1
176
7
620
8
0
12
1
0
259
1
0
12
25
0
2
1,177
Area
0
0
7
43
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
51
Source: 1986 State Section 305(b) Reports
42
-------
Surface Water Quality
Sixteen States reported on
the sources of pollution in
estuarine waters that do not
fully support uses. According to
these results, nonpoint sources
are the major contributors to
use impairment in estuaries, as
was also reported for rivers and
lakes. Nonpoint sources are the
cause of use impairment in 45
percent of impaired estuarine
waters. Municipal sources are
the next leading cause, affecting
22 percent of impaired waters.
Other sources include industrial
dischargers, affecting 8 percent,
and CSOs, affecting 4 percent.
Other or unknown sources of
pollution affect 18 percent of
impaired estuarine waters, and
natural sources are cited in the
remaining 3 percent of estua-
rine waters.
As for rivers and lakes, the
contribution of the various
pollution sources to use impair-
ment in estuaries should not be
compared between 1984 and
1986, primarily because of
differences in averaging tech-
niques used to arrive at national
figures. An additional six States
reported on sources of estuarine
pollution in 1986 than reported
in 1984, further reducing the
comparability of results
between the two years. It is
expected that, as reporting
becomes even more comprehen-
sive, these numbers will
stabilize to form a consistent
picture of estuarine water
quality.
Table 2-13. Relative Impact of Pollution Sources in Estuaries with Impaired Uses (in percent)
State
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Virgin Islands
Average
(weighted)
Industrial
34
9
4
23
15
0
0
0
13
0
6
10
6
15
1
0
8
Municipal
16
8
19
34
5
0
78
30
31
79
38
25
20
64
14
55
22
Combined
Sewers
0
0
55
0
0
0
22
0
0
6
31
0
0
0
0
0
4
Nonpoint
Sources
50
83
14
43
0
50
0
50
56
15
0
65
66
21
84
45
45
Natural
0
0
0
0
80
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
3
Other/
Unknown
0
0
8
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
1
0
18
Source 1986 State Section 305(b) Reports
43
-------
Surface Water Quality
The States provide significant
details about these pollution
sources and their impacts. In
most cases, a combination of
sources impair estuarine water
uses; however, many States can
cite the particular industries or
runoff problems that are
responsible for use impair-
ments. For example:
• Boston Harbor is degraded
by a number of urban sources.
Sewage discharges from two
million people enter the harbor
and total roughly 500 million
gallons per day. Degraded
conditions also result from
industrial waste discharges,
approximately a hundred
CSOs, vessel wastes, and
pollution brought by tributaries
to the harbor. Major water
quality problems include
elevated levels of trace metals,
coliform bacteria, oil and
grease, and depleted levels of
dissolved oxygen. Flounder
sampled from Boston Harbor
reportedly display a high
incidence of liver lesions and
tumors.
• New Jersey reports that
clean water goals are not
attained in the New Jersey-New
York interstate waters and in
the tidal Delaware River near
Philadelphia. This is due to the
large amount of untreated and
primary treated wastewaters
still being discharged to these
waters. In New York City alone,
over two billion gallons per day
are discharged, with ten percent
being raw sewage. Twice this
amount may be discharged
during storm events by
combined sewer overflows. A
number of New Jersey-New
York interstate waters contain
extremely high levels of fecal
coliform bacteria and
experience severely depressed
summertime dissolved oxygen
(DO) concentrations.
High levels of PC Bs and
certain pesticides (primarily
chlordane) have been found in
finfish from New York-New
Jersey interstate waters. As a
result, commercial fishing bans
and recreational fishing
advisories have been issued by
the States for these waters.
Runoff and poorly treated wastes
from urban areas may degrade
estuarine and coastal waters.
44
-------
Surface Water Quality
• Although North Carolina
reports that its coastal waters
are generally of good quality,
coastal estuaries such as the
Chowan/Albemarle, Tar-
Pamlico, and Neuse Rivers have
experienced symptoms of
accelerated eutrophication over
the past decade. Major factors
affecting coastal waters are the
conversion of forests to
agricultural land; waterfront
development along barrier
islands; and septic systems
contributing coliform bacteria.
• In Louisiana's Barataria
Bay, sewage treatment plant
bypasses and drainage from
non-sewered communities are
the main sources of bacterial
contamination.
• Seafood processing and oil
and gas production are the two
primary causes of non-support
of uses in Alaska's estuarine
waterways, affecting about 8
and 7 square miles, respectively.
Discharges from seafood
processors can smother benthic
life, decrease availability of
dissolved oxygen, and cause
noxious gases to arise. The
major pollution problems from
oil and gas production include
high levels of heavy metals and
petroleum hydrocarbons from
oil spills, the disposal of muds
and drilling fluids, and
discharges from refineries and
ballast treatment facilities.
Development along the North Carolina coast.
Shrimp processing facility in the
Gulf of Mexico.
45
-------
Chesapeake
Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Maryland and Virginia
reported extensively on the
water quality of the Chesapeake
Bay in their 1986 Section 305(b)
reports. Problems cited by the
States in the bay and its
tributaries include high nutrient
levels from agricultural and
urban runoff and municipal
discharges; high bacterial levels
from municipal sources, failing
septic systems, and agricultural
and urban runoff; seasonally
low levels of dissolved oxygen in
the deeper portions of the bay,
caused by natural decomposi-
tion processes believed to be
aggravated by man-related
activities; high concentrations
of toxic organic compounds in
the bottom sediments of the bay
near known sources such as
industrial facilities, river
mouths, and areas of maximum
turbidity; and high metal
concentrations in the water
column and sediments in
certain areas, particularly in
tributaries such as the Patapsco
and Elizabeth Rivers, where
industries are concentrated.
The following impacts caused
by these water quality problems
have been documented:
• Seasonal algal blooms occur
throughout the bay due to high
nutrient levels.
• Submerged aquatic
vegetation has declined in
abundance and diversity since
the late 1960s.
• Landings of freshwater
spawning fish such as shad and
alewife have decreased.
• Oyster harvests have
decreased baywide. Increases
have been noticed in the harvest
of blue crabs, but are attributed
to increased fishing effort.
The Chesapeake Bay
Agreement of 1983
In response to these
problems, in December 1983
the Governors of Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia and
the Mayor of the District of
Columbia pledged to restore
and protect Chesapeake Bay.
This commitment, known as
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
of 1983, established the
Chesapeake Executive Council
to coordinate bay cleanup
efforts undertaken by the
signatories to the Agreement.
EPA provides funding to
support this effort, as well as
technical and administrative
assistance. In 1984, several
Federal agencies joined the bay
States, the District, and EPA to
expand the partnership to clean
up the bay.
Since the signing of the
Agreement, substantial progress
has been made. Effective
interagency networks have been
developed. States have built
many new programs that
deliver educational, technical,
and financial assistance. After
less than one year of best
management practices (BMP)
implementation, funds
leveraged with Chesapeake Bay
Program grants enabled the
three bay States to install
agricultural BMPs on
approximately 61,620 acres;
reduced erosion on those acres
by about 363,860 tons per year;
and reduced losses from
cropland by nearly 400,250
pounds annually within the bay
basin. During the same time,
830,290 tons of animal waste
were controlled.
Agricultural runoff is a leading source of nutrients and bacteria to the
Bay. Contour strip cropping, shown here on a Maryland farm, may help
reduce the problem.
46
-------
Surface Water
The Water Quality Act of
1987 reinforces the Federal
commitment to the bay by new
statutory recognition of the
Chesapeake Bay Program. A
new section of the Act (Section
117) directs EPA to continue the
Chesapeake Bay Program, to
maintain an office to coordinate
Federal and State cleanup
efforts, and to continue to assess
and report on the problems of
the bay. Section 117 authorizes
$3 million for FY 1987 through
1990 for these support activities
and $10 million per year in
grants to the States.
A number of special initia-
tives have been undertaken by
the States to address the
problems in the bay:
Maryland has developed 34
legislative initiatives authoriz-
ing $36 million in operating
and capital expenses. In
addition to nine point source
pollution control initiatives and
eight nonpoint source pollution
control initiatives, a number of
other efforts are underway
including initiatives to restore
biologically and commercially
important resources such as
submerged aquatic vegetation
and oyster populations; land
protection initiatives to protect
the State's shorelines and
wetlands; resource enhance-
ment initiatives to improve
habitats and encourage fisheries
development; programs for
public environmental
education; and monitoring and
research initiatives.
Virginia supports 31
Chesapeake Bay initiatives,
funded for FY 1984-1986 with
over $17 million. Among these
are a chlorine discharge control
effort; a sewerline infiltration/
inflow renovation initiative; a
program to provide State funds
for the construction and
renovation of local sanitary
systems; various targeted
monitoring efforts; a program
to reestablish submerged
aquatic vegetation; and a.
number of shoreline residential
sanitation projects. Five
shoreline residential sanitation
projects have been completed to
date, opening over 800 acres of
shellfish waters; additional
projects are in progress and are
expected to open several
thousand acres to shellfishing.
Pennsylvania reports on new
initiatives to improve bay
quality by reducing excess
nutrient loadings from the
Susquehanna River.
Pennsylvania provides
assistance to farmers in the
Susquehanna basin to manage
nutrients and control soil loss.
Recently approved point source
control regulations will further
reduce phosphorus loads.
Oystermen on the Chesapeake Bay. Oyster harvests appear to have
declined in recent years.
47
-------
Surface Water Quality
Shellfish Growing Waters
Possibly the most obvious
result of pollution in estuarine
and coastal areas is the closure,
restriction, or decline of
shellfish growing waters.
Individual States are respon-
sible for the sanitary control,
harvest, shipment, and market-
ing of shellfish. The National
Shellfish Sanitation Program,
developed by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, provides
criteria and standards that are
then incorporated into State
law.
According to the 1985
National Shellfish Register of
Classified Estuarine Waters
(NOAA/FDA, 1985), shellfish
populations are affected by
many factors. Dams, canals,
dredge and fill operations, and
other land use activities can
alter circulation patterns,
salinity regimes, or sedimenta-
tion rates that can directly
affect shellfish abundance.
Toxic waste discharges, oil
spills, and numerous other
types of contamination can be
lethal. Even subtle changes in
the nutrient input from
domestic waste treatment,
urban development, and
agricultural runoff can alter
plankton composition and, in
turn, affect the feeding ability
and survival of shellfish
resources. Shellfish are at the
mercy of their immediate
surroundings and can be
affected by activities occurring
throughout the river drainage
systems that feed estuaries.
In order to ensure that these
factors do not impair public
health, the States classify their
shellfish growing waters into
five categories. Approved waters
are those determined by
sanitary surveys to be free of
hazardous concentrations of
pathogenic organisms and/or
pollution. Prohibited waters are
those closed due to hazardous
levels of contamination.
Conditionally approved waters are
those that may or may not be
suitable for shellfish harvesting,
depending on predictable levels
of pollution such as increased
wastewater effluent due to
seasonal population growth in
coastal towns. Restricted waters
produce shellfish that are
unsafe for direct marketing but
can be made safe following
purification. Nonshellfish/
nonproductive waters are those that
are inaccessible or do not
naturally support shellfish in
commercial quantities. It
should be noted that in most
cases, shellfish area classifica-
tions are based primarily on
concentrations of fecal coliform
bacteria. Other pollutants such
as toxics are often not moni-
tored in sanitary surveys.
The classification of shellfish
growing waters is affected by
many factors other than changes
in water quality. These include,
for example, the ability of
States to conduct sanitary
surveys, the economic
importance of the available
shellfish resources, and the
ability of States to manage the
classification. Table 2-14
summarizes the classification
status of shellfishing waters as
reported in the 1985 National
Shellfish Register. The Register
reports that during the past five
years, States have expanded
their shellfish control activities
and increased the extent of
waters classified.
In FY87 and FY88, the
interagency task force that
oversees production of the
Register will attempt to better
quantify and account for some
of the inconsistencies that
inevitably arise in combining
data sets from many States.
One cause for such inconsisten-
cies is that water quality
specifications associated with
each regulatory category are
not identical from State to
State. However, even given the
inconsistencies that exist in the
data bases of past Registers, the
information they present is
ertremely valuable; they
provide comprehensive descrip-
tions of measured water quality
for all the estuarine waters of
the contiguous United States
over a two-decade time period.
48
-------
Surface Water Quality
Table 2-14. Classification of Shellfish Growing Waters, 1985 (in thousands of acres)
;
Region
and State
Approved
Harvest Limited Areas
for Conditionally
Harvest Prohibited Approved
Restricted
o/o of Total
Productive
Waters Nonshellfish/
Approved Nonproductive Total
Northeast
Maine
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
Subtotal
936
4
255
96
309
828
236
0
209
1,369
1,295
5,537
87
6
41
20
78
192
118
0
19
64
174
799
13
0
1
12
6
1
20
0
3
0
33
89
10
0
5
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
36
89
40
84
75
79
81
60
90
96
86
86
0
0
500
0
0
0
0
6
44
97
2
649
1,046
10
802
128
393
1,021
395
6
275
1,530
1,504
7,110
Southeast
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Subtotal
1,755
200
61
40
2,056
370
72
144
36
622
0
9
0
37
46
0
0
0
0
0
83
71
30
35
75
0
0
0
748
748
2,125
281
205
861
3,472
Gulf of Mexico
Florida
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas
Subtotal
266
74
123
0
1,310
1,773
260
103
96
31
358
848
306
195
171
3,462
0
4,134
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
20
32
79
26
578
2
0
0
2
582
1,410
374
390
3,493
1,670
7,337
West Coast
California
Oregon
Washington
Subtotal
U.S. Total
2
14
147
163
9,529
263
14
49
326
2,595
12
0
45
57
4,326
1
12
0
13
49
1
35
61
29
58
248
44
1,795
2,087
4,066
526
84
2,036
2,646
20,565
Source: NOAA/U.S FDA, 1985 National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarme Waters, 1985
4£
-------
Surface Water Quality
In their 1986 Section 305(b)
reports, some States discussed
the problems affecting their
shellfish growing waters. The
most commonly cited pollutant
is fecal coliform bacteria,
originating primarily from
inadequate municipal sewage
treatment plants, storm
drainage, and malfunctioning
septic systems. Viruses and
outbreaks of shellfish-associated
gastroenteritis are also
reported, although to a far
lesser degree. No national
trends are readily apparent
from this State-reported data:
some States cite declining
acreages of approved waters,
while others find improvements
occurring due to upgraded
sewage treatment facilities and
nonpoint source controls. Some
examples of both declining and
improving quality in shellfish
growing waters are provided
below.
• Delaware reports that the
landings of hard clams by
commercial shellfishing
interests has dropped drastically
since 1958. One possible reason
is the increase in sediment
reaching the inland bays. This
sediment, originating from
agricultural runoff, residential
construction, and wetland
modification, alters the
optimum clam habitat by cover-
ing the sand or shell bottom on
which clams grow. Insufficiently
treated waste discharges, over-
land runoff, and septic systems
also considerably degrade bay
water quality.
• Massachusetts reports that
shellfish contamination is
increasing rapidly due to high
levels of coliform bacteria from
sewage discharges. More waters
are being closed to shellfishing,
in part because of more moni-
toring and reclassification.
• Florida reports that between
1980 and 1985, about 40
percent of its approved shellfish
harvesting areas were down-
graded to conditional status.
Waste treatment plants and
nonpoint source runoff were
cited as the reason for the
degradation.
• In New Hampshire, the
oyster population is cited as
improving due to sediment and
erosion controls, the reestablish-
ment of eelgrass beds, and the
construction of wastewater
treatment facilities.
• New York reports that there
has been a net increase of
approximately 7,300 acres of
certified shellfish waters in that
State since 1976.
New Initiatives in
Estuarine and Coastal
Water Protection
The EPA is responsible for
establishing and supervising
many regulatory and manage-
ment programs affecting the
quality of the coastal environ-
ment. The two statutes most
responsible for guiding EPA's
coastal activities are the Clean
Water Act and the Marine
Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act. Other
agencies, including the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Food
and Drug Administration, and
the Coast Guard, also have
jurisdiction over aspects of
estuarine and coastal water
protection.
These agencies and EPA are
responsible for the administra-
tion of at least 21 programs
affecting the near coastal water
environment. Additionally, the
coastal States are directly
concerned with water, agricul-
ture, health, fishery, land use,
and resource protection
programs affecting their
estuarine and coastal waters.
States are responsible for the
sanitary control, harvest,
shipment, and marketing of
shellfish.
50
-------
Surface Water Quality
However, no national policy
exists for protecting and
improving estuarine and coastal
waters, and progress has been
impeded due to conflicts caused
by overlapping programs and
jurisdictions, a multiplicity of
laws and authorities, and a
clear lack of interagency
coordination. Further, in order
to implement more effective
controls, it is necessary to better
understand the interaction of
pollutants with the physical,
chemical, geological, and
biological processes in near
coastal waters. This requires
short- and long-term research,
as well as the application of
existing data through inter-
agency coordination.
In response to these needs,
EPA has begun developing a
long-term strategic plan for
improving the management of
the near coastal water environ-
ment. The plan will address five
major national near coastal
water environmental problems
identified through the initiative:
toxics contamination, eutrophi-
cation, pathogens, habitat loss
and alteration, and changes in
living resources. EPA is
currently identifying tools that
could be used to achieve the
initiative's strategic goal of
maintaining—and, where
possible, enhancing—the
environmental quality of near
coastal waters. Potential tools
include regulatory activities
(criteria, permitting, and
enforcement); research and
data collection; innovative
management techniques; insti-
tutional changes; interagency
coordination; technology
transfer; and public participa-
tion. Two major activities are
planned to begin in FY88: a
national assessment of near
coastal waters (relying on
existing information such as
that gathered through the
305(b) process and from other
State and Federal agencies) and
three or four pilot projects to
demonstrate innovative
management techniques. The
purpose of the assessment is to
identify those near coastal
waters needing management
attention, whether it be
regulatory, nonpoint source
control, protection, or designa-
tion under the National Estuary
Program.
The National Estuary
Program (NEP), which was
created in 1985 to protect and
restore water quality and living
resources in the Nation's
estuaries, is now officially
recognized in Section 320 of the
Water Quality Act of 1987. It is
envisioned as one of the future
tools of EPA's Near Coastal
Waters Initiative. The NEP
consists, to date, of six individ-
ual programs, each of which
has a geographical focus on a
single estuary and its associated
drainage basin. Each estuary
program seeks to:
• increase public
understanding of the nature of
the estuary and rank its
problems;
• provide State and local
managers with the best
scientific and technical
information available on well-
defined problems;
• focus efforts on the need for
and benefits of system-wide and
basin planning; and
• gain acceptance for the
public and private costs of
increased pollution controls and
restoration of living natural
resources.
EPA is developing a long-term plan to maintain and enhance the quality
of near coastal waters.
51
-------
surface Water Quality
Each estuary program
establishes a working
partnership with other Federal
agencies, State and local
governments, academic and
scientific communities,
industries and businesses,
public action groups, and
private citizens. The program
participants establish goals that
seek to maintain existing
conditions, restore historical
water quality or resources, or
maintain pristine areas.
The following problem
statements for each of the areas
in the National Estuary
Program were developed by
EPA and illustrate the nature of
the water quality impairments
that will be addressed by the
Program.
San Francisco Bay/Delta—The
San Francisco Bay and Delta
have been extensively modified
by human activities, with direct
and often unanticipated adverse
impacts on the ecology of the
estuary. Major activities
causing impacts are diking and
filling of wetlands, introduction
of exotic aquatic species, and
diversion of freshwater inflow.
These activities have changed
the dynamics of the estuarine
ecosystem and contributed to
the decline of desirable species
such as striped bass. In
addition, disposal of toxic waste
has contaminated organisms
and sediments, and sewage
effluent has caused
eutrophication.
Albemarle and Pamlico
Sounds, North Carolina—The
Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary
suffers from environmental
problems related to
eutrophication, overfishing of
important commercial fish
stocks, deforestation, and
physical alterations. The area is
experiencing a rapid increase in
development. Industrial and
municipal point sources and
agricultural runoff have caused
eutrophication. The ecology of
the estuary is also threatened by
physical alterations such as
dams which block fish migra-
tion, drainage of wetlands for
cultivation, and urban nonpoint
sources.
Netting crabs in Baltimore Harbor.
I
52
-------
Surface Water Quality
Puget Sound, Washington—
Puget Sound is one of the most
biologically productive and
recreationally important
estuarine systems in the U.S. It
supports a rich and diverse
commercial and sport fishery
for finfish and shellfish.
Economically, the Puget Sound
basin is a focus for industrial
and commercial activity,
shipping, and international
commerce. The Puget Sound
Estuary Program evolved from
earlier efforts of EPA and the
Washington State Department
of Ecology to examine Puget
Sound pollution issues through
joint studies. The program has
focused primarily on toxics in
urban bays, particularly on the
development and implementa-
tion of urban bay action plans,
including implementation of
toxicity-based permitting. Once
ongoing sources of contamina-
tion are controlled, remedial
actions to clean up contami-
nated sediments can occur. In
addition, the State has
identified variable flushing
rates, wetland loss, pathogen
contamination, inadequate
funding and implementation of
water quality programs, and
land use patterns as priority
problems for Puget Sound.
Future work coordinated
through the State and EPA will
continue to assess and seek to
understand the nature, extent,
and significance of pollution in
the Puget Sound system.
Buzzards Bay,
Massachusetts—Buzzards Bay
is subject to increasingly rapid
nearshore water quality
degradation, in part because of
major population shifts to
shoreline areas, especially on
the side of the Bay bordered by
Cape Cod. Increased closures
of swimming beaches and
shellfishing areas have occurred
because of the high levels of
bacteria and elevated levels of
PCBs and heavy metals.
Primary causes of the high
coliform bacteria levels are
believed to be septic tanks and
other nonpoint sources, but
inputs from wastewater treat-
ment plants, marinas, and
other sources are also being
evaluated. An additional major
cause for concern in Buzzards
Bay is the extremely large
quantity of toxic wastes—PCBs
in particular—in the sediments
of the western shore's New
Bedford Harbor, a National
Superfund site. The Superfund
program and the Buzzards Bay
study are assessing the
ecological effects of these
wastes, possible approaches to
cleanup, and the extent to
which local fisheries and
shellfisheries will have to
remain closed in the future to
safeguard human health.
One of the goals of the National
Estuary Program is to increase
public understanding of the nature
of the estuarine environment.
53
-------
Surface Water Quality
Narragansett Bay,
Rhode Island—Narragansett
Bay supports several important
commercial shellfisheries and is
one of the Northeast's major
marine recreational areas. The
shores and tributaries of
Narragansett Bay also support
heavily industrialized, older
urban areas. The Bay therefore
receives an exceptionally large
input of untreated or poorly
treated sewage and urban
runoff from overburdened
combined sewer overflows and
storm drains, as well as large
loads of heavy metals associated
with the industries of the
region. Urban runoff and sewer
overflows result in a large
portion of the upper Bay being
frequently closed to shellfishing.
The ecological and public
health significance of the heavy
metal and other toxic chemical
inputs is not well quantified,
and is a primary subject for
investigation by EPA's
Narragansett Bay Program.
Long Island Sound,
New York and Connecticut—
Long Island Sound is a long,
narrow waterbody bordered by
two States. Water quality
characteristics range from
oxygen depletion and signif-
icant in-place toxicant
contamination in the heavily
urbanized western sound, to
areas with very good water
quality in the east, where the
surrounding land is primarily
suburban and rural Dissolved
oxygen levels in the western
sound have historically been
depressed by conventional (i.e.,
non-toxic) pollutant loads.
Preliminary results of a
dissolved oxygen assessment
indicate that seasonal oxygen
concentrations in the extreme
western sound may have
improved in recent years,
possibly due to the upgrading
of many wastewater treatment
plants to secondary treatment.
However, during the same time
period, trends toward declining
dissolved oxygen levels have
taken place further east in the
sound, indicating that second-
ary treatment upgrades may
not be sufficient to solve the low
oxygen problem entirely. These
declines appear to result when
nutrients in the effluent
stimulate algal growth. The
algal growth, occurring in the
form of more frequent phyto-
plankton blooms, creates new
areas of oxygen depletion.
Further studies are being
conducted to verify the cause
and increased frequency of
these phytoplankton blooms.
54
-------
Surface Water Quality
The Islands
Hawaii and five island
territories of the U.S.—Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, and
the Northern Mariana
Islands—submitted Section
305(b) reports in 1986. These
islands are unique ecosystems.
They have few if any lakes, and
most streams are generally
small and dominated by
rainfall. Pollution problems
tend to concentrate where
population is highest, near the
coastal waters, harbors, and
bays that are also the primary
focus of industrial and
recreational activity. Ground
water is a critically important
source of drinking water on
most islands, and is increas-
ingly being stressed.
The most prevalent pollutant
affecting water quality on the
island territories is fecal
coliform bacteria, originating
primarily from inadequate
sewage treatment, septic
systems, and other nonpoint
sources. Elevated levels of fecal
coliform bacteria—indicators of
the possible presence of disease-
causing organisms—are
responsible for the closure of
some bathing beaches in Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, and
Guam. Incidences of water-
borne gastroenteritis are also
reported. Hawaii and the island
territories also report some
evidence of toxics contamina-
tion, primarily nonpoint in
origin. In fact, nonpoint sources
appear to be the leading cause
of pollution problems in the
islands. Problems from septic
systems, urban runoff,
agriculture, petroleum storage
tanks, and landfills are
reported.
Monitoring efforts and
pollution control programs are
in their early stages in many of
the U.S. islands, and in general
appear to focus on ensuring
safe drinking water supplies and
preventing degradation of high
quality coastal waters. While
island water quality is generally
good to excellent, it is clear that
many of the problems affecting
the continental U.S. can also be
found in the islands, particu-
larly nonpoint source pollution,
ground-water contamination,
and inadequate sewage
treatment.
Sunset on Haena Beach, Kauai.
55
-------
Groun
ier
Introduction
Ground water is a vital
natural resource used for a
variety of purposes in the U.S.,
including industrial operations,
agricultural activities, and
domestic needs. The States are
becoming increasingly aware
that ground-water resources are
vulnerable to contamination.
Protection of ground water is
receiving increased attention
from the States through the
development of ground-water
protection strategies as well as
new and expanded programs in
ground-water classification,
wellhead protection, and
control of pollutant sources
such as underground storage
tanks and hazardous waste
treatment and disposal facilities
Programs to prevent
contamination are particularly
desirable, because cleaning up
contaminated ground water,
providing alternative drinking
water supplies, or adding
treatment to public water
systems can be costly to a
community in both monetary
and personnel terms. This
chapter on ground-water
resources reflects the States'
increased awareness and
concern for protecting the
Nation's ground water.
Section 106(e)(l) of the Clean
Water Act ties State receipt of
Federal grant funds under the
Section to the submittal of
ground-water data to EPA. The
data are to include information
on State ground-water monitor-
ing programs and ground-water
quality. This information is
provided to EPA through the
Section 305(b) reporting process.
Starting with the 1984 report,
the States have been requested
by EPA to expand and improve
ground-water reporting. The
instructions EPA sent to the
States for preparing the 1986
report specified minimum
ground-water reporting criteria.
57
-------
Ground-Water Quality
These instructions directed
States to cite their major
sources of contamination and
rank the top four sources, with
the top-ranked source identified
as the primary source of
concern. The States were
required to identify the ground-
water contaminants associated
with these sources. EPA also
asked the States to voluntarily
provide a discussion of special
concerns and issues that affect
their ground-water quality
programs. All but four of the
fifty States and six territories
included some information on
sources of ground-water
contamination and types of
pollutants in their Section
305(b) reports. Three of these
four States did not include any
information on ground water.
This chapter is based on
information from three separate
sources: State-reported data
from the 1986 Section 305(b)
reports; ground-water use data
from the U.S. Geological
Survey; and an EPA study of
State ground-water programs
prepared jointly by the Office of
Ground-Water Protection
(OGWP) and the ten EPA
regions in March 1985
This chapter consists of four
main sections summarizing the
following State information:
ground-water use in the United
States; major contaminants and
sources of contamination;
ongoing State programs for
ground-water protection; and
current Federal initiatives
designed to assist the States in
developing their ground-water
protection programs. Three
State programs are presented
that illustrate current ground-
water protection strategies
being developed and
implemented by the States. A
si. mmary of ground-water
conditions in each State is
included in the Appendix to
this report.
Water pours freely from an
artesian well.
58
-------
Ground-Water Quality
Current Ground-
Water Use
At present, more than half of
the Nation's population
depends on ground water for its
supply of drinking water. Table
3-1 shows the percentages of
population, by State, using
ground water for drinking
water purposes. In nearly 68
percent of the States and
territories (38 of 56), ground
water serves as the principal
source of drinking water: 50
percent or more of the
population rely on ground
water. Of these States and
territories, five depend on
ground-water sources for 90
percent or more of their
drinking water needs. For these
States and territories, and for
many of the Nation's rural
areas, ground-water protection
is essential since alternative
sources of water may not be
physically, legally, or
economically available. It
should also be noted that in
Source: 1986 305(b) State Submittals or USGS National Water Summary of
1984
Figure 3-1. Population Reliance on Ground Water for Drinking
Water
every region of the country
there are some States with more
than 50 percent dependence on
ground water.
Figure 3-1 shows the demand
for ground water throughout
the U.S. It shows a large
number of States in which more
than 60 percent of the
population uses ground water
as a potable water source. Of
these States, 14 (excluding
Alaska and Hawaii) are rural
States located west of the
Mississippi River and are
dependent on agricultural
activities as a revenue source.
Five of these States (Arizona,
Colorado, Nebraska, New
Mexico, and Wyoming) depend
on ground water for 80 percent
of their irrigation requirements
as well. Two of the remaining
States heavily dependent on
ground water have large coastal
areas (i.e., Florida and
Virginia). Typically,
communities along the coastline
must use ground water for their
potable water needs.
Table 3-1. Population Reliance
on Ground Water for Drinking
Water, by State
State
Percent
Northern Marianas
Nevada
Hawaii
Mississippi
Florida
Idaho
New Mexico
Nebraska
Iowa
American Samoa
Virginia
South Dakota
Colorado
Washington
Guam
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Delaware
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
North Dakota
Minnesota
Oregon
New Hampshire
Indiana
Maine
Vermont
Montana
Alabama
West Virginia
Tennessee
Michigan
Alaska
New Jersey
Arkansas
North Carolina
California
Illinois
Kansas
Georgia
Texas
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Virgin Islands
South Carolina
Oklahoma
New York
Missouri
Massachusetts
Puerto Rico
Connecticut
Kentucky
Rhode Island
Maryland
District of Columbia
99
95
95
93
90
88
87
82
82
80
80
77
75
71
70
69
67
67
66
65
65
62
62
60
60
59
57
55
55
54
53
51
50
50
50
50
50
50
49
49
48
47
44
42
42
42
41
35
34
33
33
33
31
24
15
0
Source. 1986 State 305(b) Reports sup-
plemented by U.S. Geological
Survey's National Water
Summary 1984
59
-------
Ground-Water Quality
Ground-Water
Quality Throughout
the U.S.
The States identified 16
major sources of ground-water
contamination, as shown in
Table 3-2, and three-quarters of
these sources were the primary
source of contamination in at
least one State. Underground
storage tanks and septic tanks
were the two most prevalent
primary sources, and these two
sources, together with agricul-
tural activities, were the most
frequently cited major sources
of contamination. Table 3-3,
listing the principal contam-
inants, shows a clear-cut
relationship between the most
cited contaminants and the
three most prevalent sources.
Sewage, nitrates, and synthetic
organic compounds, for
example, are associated with
septic tanks; nitrates from
agricultural activities are also
common contaminants, and
synthetic organic compounds
are linked to leaking under-
ground storage tanks. Below is
a detailed discussion of the
major sources and
contaminants.
Of the 52 States and
territories reporting ground-
water quality information, 46
(i.e., 89 percent) identified
failing septic systems as a major
source of ground-water
contamination. Failing septic
systems were cited as the
primary source of concern in
nine of these States (Arkansas,
Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky,
Maine, Maryland, Nevada,
Ohio, and Tennessee).
Contamination from septic
systems is not a new problem;
however, shifts in housing
patterns and land use, specifi-
cally population growth in
suburban areas, have made
septic system discharges a more
prevalent problem. As a result,
many States have recently
initiated new programs or
modified their existing
programs for managing septic
systems. These programs are
designed to control
contaminants such as
pathogenic bacteria (sewage)
and nitrates, two contaminants
c;ted most often by the States as
major ground-water contam-
inants (see Table 3-3). To assist
the States, the U.S. EPA
recently developed a guide for
State and local officials that
p rovides technical and institu-
tional information on programs
to control septic systems.*
Table 3-2. Major Sources of Ground-Water Contamination
Reported by States
No. of
States
Reporting
Source Source?
Septic Tanks
Underground Storage Tanks
Agricultural Activities
On-site Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Municipal Landfills
Abandoned Waste Sites
Oil and Gas Brine Pits
Saltwater Intrusion
Other Landfills
Road Salting
Land Application of Sludge
Regulated Waste Sites
Mining Activities
Underground Injection Wells
Construction Activities
46
43
41
34
33
32
29
22
19
18
16
12
12
11
9
2
%of
States
Reporting
Source
89%
83%
79o/o
65%
64%
62%
56%
42%
37%
35%
31%
23%
23%
21"/o
17%
4%
No. of
States
Reporting
as Primary
Source**
9
13
6
5
2
1
3
2
4
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
'Based on a total of 52 States and territories which reported ground-water
contamination sources in their 305(b) submittals.
"Some States did not indicate a primary source
*U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection, Septic Systems and Ground-Water Protection A
Program Manager's Guide and Reference Book (July 1986), Washington, DC
60
-------
Ground-Water Quality
Incidents of petroleum
products and solvents (listed in
Table 3-3 as volatile organic
chemicals) leaking from
underground storage tanks are
a major source of ground-water
contamination throughout most
of the U.S. They are the second
most cited source, reported by
43 (i.e., 83 percent) of the
States. Underground tanks are
listed as the primary source of
ground-water contamination in
11 of these States (Alabama,
Alaska, Florida, Michigan,
Montana, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
and Virginia). Several of these
States provided specific
information in their 305(b)
reports on this particular
problem. For example:
Underground storage tanks being
lowered into place.
• New Jersey reports that
8,985 gasoline stations in the
State have the potential to have
leaking underground storage
tanks.
• In upstate New York, 65
percent of the reported private
well contamination incidents
are petroleum-related.
• Over 75 percent of the spills
reported on Long Island, NY
were due either to inland (i.e.,
non-marine related) spills from
filling underground tanks or
leaks from such tanks.
• Florida has discovered and is
repairing several hundred
leaking underground storage
tanks and estimates that 6,000
more are presently leaking.
• In 1985, approximately half
of the confirmed ground-water
pollution incidents in North
Carolina were due to leaking
underground storage tanks.
Table 3-3. Major Ground-Water Contaminants Reported by States
Reported as a Major Contaminant
Contaminant
Another widespread
pollution source is
contamination from
agricultural activities (cited by
41, or 79 percent, of the States
and territories). Six States
(Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Connecticut, Hawaii, and Iowa)
listed this as their primary
contamination source. Agricul-
tural activities that lead to
ground-water contamination
include use of fertilizers,
application of pesticides, and
runoff from animal feedlots.
Nitrate, a major contaminant
listed in Table 3-3, originates
from animal waste and
application of chemical
fertilizers at agricultural sites.
No. of States
of States
Sewage
46
89%
Inorganic Chemicals:
Nitrates
Brine/Salinity
Arsenic
Fluorides
Sulfur Compounds
Organic Chemicals:
Synthetic
Volatile
Metals
Pesticides
Petroleum
Radioactive Materials
42
36
19
18
7
37
36
34
31
21
12
75%
69%
37%
35%
14%
71%
69%
65%
60%
40%
23%
'Based on a total of 52 States and territories which cited ground-water contaminants in
their 305(b) submittals
61
-------
Ground-Water Quality
More than half the States
and territories also cited four
other major sources of
contamination. These are on-
site industrial landfills, surface
impoundments, municipal
landfills, and abandoned waste
sites.
Saltwater intrusion, although
only cited by four States as their
primary contamination source,
was nonetheless reported as a
major source by 19 States.
Problems with saltwater
intrusion were reported by
coastal States and territories or
those that have high
concentrations of oil and gas
drilling operations. Coastal
States reported high salinity
levels in aquifers due to
excessive withdrawals for
potable water or irrigation
demands.
Map depicts the relationship
between Wellhead Protection
areas, sources of ground-water
contamination, and the water
distribution network in Dade
County, Florida.
Table 3-4. Overview of Activities Included in State Ground-Water Protection Programs
Activities
Number of States
Initiating
Percent of States
Initiating
GW Mapping/Resource Assessment
GW Monitoring Program
Policy/Strategy Development
GW Discharge Permit Program
GW Classification System
Public Information/Education Program
GW Standards Development
Data Management System
Local Management Plan Development
Specific Source Control
Underground Injection Control Program
Septic Management
Underground Storage Tank Program
Hazardous Waste Sites
Agricultural Contamination
Landfill Sites
Surface Impoundments
51
46
38
26
23
23
22
14
2
47
38
30
34
23
20
14
91%
82%
68%
46%
41%
41%
39%
25%
4%
84o/o
68%
54%
61%
41o/o
360/0
25o/o
Overview of State
Programs for
Ground-Water
Protection
The States are currently
adopting a number of ground-
water protection activities.
Table 3-4 lists ten activities
typically found in State
programs to protect ground-
water resources. The table
indicates that a majority of
States are performing at least
one of four distinct activities for
ground-water protection. These
include ground-water mapping
and resource assessment (91
percent), ground-water moni-
toring (82 percent), policy and
strategy development (68
percent), and some form of
source control program. In
addition, a significant number
of States are developing and
implementing ground-water
discharge permitting, ground-
water classification systems,
public outreach programs, and
new or revised ground-water
standards.
62
-------
Ground-Water Quality
drinking water quality,
measuring discharges from
non-hazardous and hazardous
waste sites, and identifying the
presence of saltwater and
pesticides in ground water.
Pollution controls must often
be applied at the source.
Although source controls are
typically described as pollution
control technologies, other
source controls for ground-
water contamination include
siting laws, registration,
monitoring, and inspection.
Source control programs
implemented by over half the
States include: septic system or
on-site waste management
programs (68 percent), ground-
water control at hazardous
waste sites (61 percent), and
underground storage tank
programs (54 percent). The
percent of States implementing
these programs could reflect the
concern noted earlier that septic
or on-site systems and under-
ground storage tanks represent
the two sources cited most often
as causes of ground-water
contamination in the U.S. In
addition, about half of the
States have developed discharge
permit programs. Twenty-three
States (41 percent) have
initiated programs that address
agricultural activities. However,
more work remains to be done
since agricultural pollutants
were cited as the third highest
contaminants of concern. The
cleanup of ground-water
contamination by agricultural
chemicals can be more difficult
than the cleanup of
contamination by storage tanks
because the sources are
disparate and points of infiltra-
tion are distributed over large
land areas.
State ground-water
protection programs have many
sources to control and different
ways to address them The
above discussion highlights the
major sources, associated
contaminants, and general
activities States are currently
performing to address risks to
ground-water resources. To
better understand how these
pieces fit together, the following
discussion briefly describes the
strategies and management
plans of three States.
States are implementing ground-
water programs at hazardous
waste sites.
For most of the activities
listed in the table, the number
of States involved in the activity
has risen sharply in the past two
years. For example, 38 States
and territories (68 percent)
report that they have developed
or are developing a ground-
water protection policy or
strategy* Additionally, 22 States
(39 percent) have developed
standards for ground-water
resources. This is a significant
increase from 1985. An OGWP
summary of State ground-water
protection programs at that
time found that only 12 States
and/or territories had developed
a strategy or policy and few
States had specific ground-
water standards. To better
understand the activities
covered by State ground-water
programs, several examples of
State strategies are presented
later in this chapter.
A recent accomplishment in
ground-water management has
been State efforts to map and
assess their ground-water
resources (Table 3-4). Most of
these studies have been
completed in conjunction with
the U.S. Geological Survey. As
many as 23 States have
accomplished or initiated efforts
to classify ground-water
resources, and many other
States have such studies in
preliminary stages of
development.
It is crucial that States know
what the major problem
contaminants are and the
magnitude of the contamina-
tion before embarking on
controls and corrective actions.
Forty-six States (about 80
percent) have started or have
already developed ground-water
monitoring programs. These
monitoring programs have f
focused on establishing
*A recent survey by U S EPA's Office of Ground Water Protection indicates that all States and territories are at some stage in
developing a ground-water protection strategy.
63
-------
Ground-Water Quality
Examples of Ground-Water
Protection Strategies
Most States are developing or
have completed comprehensive
State ground-water protection
strategies. Many of these
strategies were based on
approaches developed over the
past several years. The range of
approaches is exemplified by
the following State strategies.
Florida completed its ground-
water protection strategy in
1983. This strategy combines
several approaches including a
ground-water classification
system, permitting systems for
waste discharges and other
surface activities, ground-water
quality standards, a statewide
monitoring program, protection
of the zones of influence around
public supply wells, and various
public awareness and involve-
ment programs. Specifically, the
Florida program applies
ground-water protection
management activities and
controls in specified areas
around public water wells.
Florida explored various
techniques for establishing the
size and shape of these "special
well protection areas." Through
a State technical advisory
committee, Florida chose to
establish the protection zones
on the basis of how long
contaminants took to travel,
both vertically and horizontally.
through ground water to the
wells.
Massachusetts has a
coordinated ground-water
protection program involving
State, county, and municipal
governments. The State's
numerous statutes and
regulations governing sources of
contamination are supple-
mented by local ordinances and
regulations. Regulatory
measures implemented by the
State include drinking water
standards, water well
registration requirements,
sewage disposal requirements,
ground-water protection
regulations for solid and
hazardous waste sites, and an
underground storage tank
program requiring specific leak
detection and prevention
measures.
In 1982, Massachusetts
established the Aquifer Land
Acquisition (ALA) Program
that has provided almost $15
million in financial assistance to
cities and towns to purchase
lands, waters, and easements to
protect and conserve ground-
water aquifers for future water
resource needs. Applications
are ranked in order of priority
according to value and use of
the resource, degree of resource
protection, and cost-effectiveness
of the project. In order to be
eligible for a grant, the
applicant must have developed
a plan that includes a three-
zone approach to ground-water
protection: a 400-foot radius
around the wellhead, the
primary recharge zone, and the
streamflow source zone. Each
zone is controlled in a different
Connecticut's comprehensive
ground-water management
program was initiated with the
enactment of the Clean Water
Act of 1967 (Connecticut Public
Act 57). In addition to
conventional regulatory
approaches for ensuring the
quality of public water (such as
a ground-water classification
system), Connecticut has
enacted legislation requiring
parties responsible for pollution
of ground waters to provide
potable drinking water to
affected people. A responsible
party may include the
manufacturer, distributor,
applicator, or user of the
polluting substance and the
person causing or allowing the
discharge of the substance.
Another provision of the law
allows the Commissioner of the
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
(DEP) to direct a municipality
to provide potable water if a
responsible party determination
cannot be made or the respon-
sible party does not have
sufficient assets. The
municipality can obtain a State
grant to pay for developing and
connecting the alternate water
supply. If action cannot be
taken quickly, the DEP
Commissioner is responsible for
providing bottled water to
residences and schools until a
responsible party, municipality,
or water company provides the
water. The responsible parties
ca.n be required to reimburse
the State, municipality, or water
company for the expense of
developing an alternate water
supply.
64
-------
Ground-Water Quality
Federal Programs
for Ground-Water
Protection
States have a long history of
establishing programs to protect
and manage their ground-water
resources. In recent years, EPA
has joined in a partnership with
the States to deal more effective-
ly with increased concerns about
ground-water contamination. In
fact, this is one element of the
Agency's Ground-Water
Protection Strategy. Several
current Federal programs deal
specifically with control of
sources and pollutants that
could contaminate ground
water. These programs grow
out of Federal statutes such as
the Clean Water Act (CWA),
the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), the Comprehensive
Environmental Response and
Liability Act (CERCLA), and
the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Several of these
programs, together with a
special EPA study of pesticides
in ground water, are described
in the following subsections.
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 established programs to protect
sources of drinking water.
'"
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), enacted in 1974,
established several programs to
protect both surface and
underground sources of
drinking water. One such
program, the Underground
Injection Control Program,
establishes technical criteria and
standards for the construction,
operation, monitoring, and
testing of wells to control
underground injection
practices. Establishment of
drinking water standards to
control contaminants is part of
the Public Water Supply
Supervision program. A third
program, the Sole Source
Aquifer Designation program,
requires EPA to undertake a
special review of possible
ground-water impacts from
federally funded projects in
designated areas where 50
percent or more of the
population depends on ground
water for drinking water. In
1986, Congress amended the
SDWA to strengthen these and
other Federal and State ground-
water protection efforts.
Specifically, the Act established
two new grant programs for the
States: the Sole Source Aquifer
Demonstration (SSAD) and
Wellhead Protection (WHP)
programs.
Responsibility for
administering these two new
ground-water protection
programs rests with the Office
of Ground-Water Protection
(OGWP), which EPA
established in 1984. OGWP is
currently developing rules,
procedures, and guidance for
the States to use in designing
and implementing both the
SSAD and/or WHP programs.
The guidance for the WHP
program and regulation for the
SSAD program were issued by
June 1987.
65
-------
Vater Quality
Wellhead Protection
Program
The 1986 SDWA Amend-
ments authorize assistance to
States to develop a program to
protect the wellhead area of all
public water systems from
ground-water contaminants
that may adversely affect
human health. Each State
Wellhead Protection program
must, at a minimum:
• specify the duties of
participating State and local
agencies;
• determine the extent of the
WHP area;
• inventory all potential
manmade sources of
contaminants;
• describe a program to
protect the water supply from
such contaminants in the
wellhead area;
• include contingency plans
for alternate drinking supplies
for each public water system;
and
• consider all potential
contamination sources before
construction of new wells.
EPA is required to provide
States with guidance which they
may use for determining the
extent of the wellhead protec-
tion area. Public participation
is required in the development
of the Wellhead Protection
program. Once a program is
approved, the EPA is author-
ized to make 50 to 90 percent
matching grants to the State.
The States are required to
submit biennial reports on the
progress and accomplishments
of the WHP program.
In many rural areas, ground water may be the only available source of
drinking water.
66
-------
Ground-Water Quality
Sole Source Aquifer
Demonstration Program
The purpose of the second
program under the SDWA is to
designate Critical Aquifer
Protection Areas (CAPA)
within sole source aquifers and
to establish demonstration
programs for the CAPA. The
sole source aquifer designation
must be made no later than two
years after enactment of the
SDWA to be eligible for the
program. EPA also is required
to establish, by rule, criteria to
define a CAPA within one year
after the date of enactment.
Any State or local agency
with jurisdiction over the CAPA
may apply for funds. Through
the development of a compre-
hensive management plan, the
applicant should propose a plan
that involves a new or unique
technique for source
identification and assessment,
management and control of
sources, or institutional
arrangements. EPA approval of
the plan is a prerequisite for
eligibility for a grant. Eligibility,
however, will not guarantee
demonstration funding.
Underground Storage
Tank (UST) Control
Subtitle I of RCRA, passed
in the 1984 Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments,
directed EPA to initiate a major
Federal program to regulate all
underground storage of petro-
leum products and hazardous
substances. It is the intention of
Congress to have the States
implement the UST program
because of the enormous
number of tanks involved (over
1.5 million) and their
distribution throughout the
U.S. A State grant program was
established to assist the States.
In response, States are begin-
ning to set up their own
underground storage tank
control agencies and initiate
programs to protect ground
water from leaking tanks.
Pesticides in Drinking
Water Study
In 1985, EPA initiated the
National Survey of Pesticides in
Drinking Water, which is a joint
effort of the Office of Pesticide
Programs and the Office of
Drinking Water. The goals of
the survey are to estimate
pesticide residues in public
water supply and domestic
drinking water wells throughout
the U.S. and to assess the
relationships among hydro-
geologic conditions, ground-
water vulnerability, agricultural
activities, and pesticide
residues. An essential feature of
the study is close and extensive
cooperation among EPA, State
and local officials, and well
owners. States will perform the
sampling of public wells, gather
crop and pesticide usage data at
the county level, and support
the overall survey effort. States
will be promptly notified about
wells that are found to contain
pesticides. When the results of
the full study have been
analyzed, States will receive
information on parameters that
affect the extent to which
ground-water resources are
vulnerable to pesticides.
Some potential sources of ground-water contamination.
67
-------
Clean Water Act Section
106 Grant
To support State programs to
protect ground water, Congress
appropriated $7 million in FY
1985 and $6.7 million in FY
1986 and 1987 under Section
106 of the Clean Water Act.
Subsequently, EPA developed
State ground-water grant
guidance that focused on
improving State institutional
capabilities through the
development of ground-water
protection strategies. With the
Section 106 funds, States have
made strides towards
completing and implementing
ground-water management
strategies and plans as shown
earlier in the chapter. These
funds also allow States to
expand or accelerate their own
ground-water pollution control
activities.
EPA's grant guidance also
mentioned other Federal
program funds that States could
use to support ground-water
protection programs: Sections
205(g) and 205ft') bf the Clean
Water Act; Section 1443(b) of
the Safe Drinking Water Act;
and Section 3011 of the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
Enjoying spring water in Virginia.
68
-------
4
Special Issues and
Emerging Concerns
In their 1986 305(b) reports,
the States were asked to provide
individual discussions of any
issues they had found to be of
either current or emerging
special concern. The results of
those findings are presented in
this chapter.
Those surface water concerns
most often discussed by the
States were toxics and public
health; nonpoint sources;
wetland loss; funding needs;
acid deposition; and acid mine
drainage. Twenty States
reported that ground-water
protection was a special concern
(see Chapter 3 for further
discussion of ground-water
issues).
69
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Toxics and Public
Health
In 1986, 16 States reported
that toxic substances or some
aspect of toxics control—e.g.,
the need to develop statewide
toxics management strategies or
address the water quality
problems associated with toxic
waste sites—is an issue of
special concern (see Figure 4-1).
What are toxics and why are
they such a problem?
The dictionary defines the
term "toxic" as "harmful,
destructive, or poisonous."
Although any pollutant may
have toxic effects if it is found in
sufficient amounts, a number of
pollutants appear to have
adverse and long-term effects at
extremely low concentrations.
These are the substances that
are commonly referred to as
"toxics." They may be either
synthetic or naturally
occurring, may persist in the
environment for long periods of
time or dissipate quickly, and
may have a variety of different
effects on public health and
aquatic life.
Although our knowledge of
the health effects of many toxics
in water and fish tissue is still
limited, we know that some
toxics are linked to human
health problems such as cancer,
kidney ailments, and birth
defects. Some chronic health
effects may result only after
long-term exposure; others may
develop years after a single
exposure. In addition to public
health problems, toxic
pollutants can damage aquatic
ecosystems by eliminating
sensitive species or causing
disease in the species that
remain. Some toxics may
persist in the environment for
decades, posing a continuing
threat to hurnans, aquatic
organisms, birds, and other
wildlife.
S_ *^» **** "*'«^T " .B^irajj, "* »^,
„ •****. », -^^s ^^ f^f _ ^^ *T^ •
Viigin
Islands
Guam
Puerto
Rico
Figure 4-1. States Reporting Toxics Control as a Special
Concern
70
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
The problem of toxics control
is particularly troublesome
because of the Nation's
dependence on products that
may contain hazardous
substances or lead to the
creation of hazardous by-
products. Over 60,000
commercial chemical
substances are currently in use
in the U.S. About 3.5 billion
pounds of formulated pesticide
products are applied each year,
with over 50,000 pesticide
products registered since 1947.
The value of these products in
everyday life is substantial, and
the Nation is unlikely to retreat
from their use. Therefore, it is
important to prevent the misuse
of these products, avoid releases
resulting in environmental
degradation and risks to human
health, and clean up those sites
and waters that have already
been contaminated.
To a large extent, our
understanding of toxic risks,
exposure routes, and levels of
concern is limited by the
difficulty and expense of
monitoring and conducting
long-term studies. The Federal
government has developed 62
numeric human health criteria
and 25 aquatic life criteria for
toxics against which sampled
concentrations can be
measured; many more toxic
substances affect the aquatic
environment, and State
adoption of existing criteria is
not universal. Therefore, in
1986 as in 1984, the following
discussion of toxic
contamination is only in terms
of "elevated" levels reported by
the States. These elevated levels
are defined as either
exceedances of State water
quality standards, of criteria
developed by EPA under
Section 304(a) of the Clean
Water Act, of action levels or
tolerances established by the
Food and Drug Administration
under the Federal Food and
Cosmetics Act, or of "levels of
State concern" where mimeric
criteria do not exist.
Reporting on the extent of
toxic contamination of waters
was more comprehensive in the
1986 State Section 305(b)
reports than in past years. In
1986, 22 States reported that
8,500 of their stream miles
showed elevated levels of toxics
and 16 States reported toxics in
362,000 lake acres. Six States
reported that 190 square miles
of estuarine waters were
affected by toxics. These
numbers reflect substantial
increases compared to 1984
data on waters affected by
toxics; the increase most likely
occurred because a greater
number of States provided
information in 1986. Increased
monitoring activity may also
explain the increase.
Scientists at EPA's research lab in
Gulf Breeze, Florida, examine a
marine fish for tumors, which may
indicate toxic contamination.
71
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Tables 4-1 and 4-2 display the
toxic pollutants most commonly
reported by the States. This
information reveals that metals
and PCBs are the most widely
reported toxic pollutants. Of
the pesticides, chlordane is the
most prevalent; DDT appears
still to be a significant concern
despite bans on its use imposed
in the mid-1970s.
Many States reported on the
sources of toxics found in their
waters, sediments, and fish
tissue. Table 4-3 summarizes
these findings.
Table 4-1 . Number of States
Reporting Elevated Levels of
Metals and Inorganics
Metal and Inorganics
No. of
States
Metals (unspecified) 23
Mercury 24
Copper 12
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
12
10
10
Chromium
Cyanide
Selenium
8
8
7
Industry is the most commonly
cited source of toxics in the
aquatic environment.
Table 4-2. Number of States
Reporting Elevated Levels of
Pesticides and Other Organics
Pesticides and
Other Organics
Number
of States
PCBs 22
Organics (unspecified) 20
Chlordane
DDT
15
11
Dieldrin
Dioxin
10
6
Phenols
Toxaphene
5
4
72
-------
Special Issues and Emerging (
Table 4-3 shows that
industrial facilities are cited by
the States as the most common
source of toxic substances in the
aquatic environment. Toxics
discharged by industries
include heavy metals such as
mercury and cadmium, and
organics such as PCBs and
phenols.
Table 4-3. Number of States
Reporting Sources of Toxics
Source
Industry
Agriculture
Municipal facilities
Mining
Sediments
Urban runoff
Landfill leachate
Spills
Natural conditions
Number
of States
28
16
14
13
10
8
6
4
4
Agriculture is also a
significant source of toxics,
primarily pesticides such as
chlordane, DDT, and dieldrin
that are washed off cultivated
fields by rainfall and irrigation.
Municipal facilities, especially
those that receive industrial
waste that has not been
pretreated, may discharge a
wide variety of toxic chemicals.
Ongoing mining activities and
abandoned mines where no
pollution controls are in place
may contribute metals such as
lead, copper, and silver that
leach from the geologic
formations that were mined.
Sediments are also significant
contributors of toxics, as they
can retain substances
discharged in the past and
release them to the water and
aquatic organisms long after the
discharge has ceased.
Agricultural activities such as pesticide application can be a source of toxics.
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
In fact, in their discussions of
toxic conditions, seven States
identified contamination of
sediments as a special problem,
and a number of other States
cited examples of localized
problems with sediment
contamination. The severity
and complexity of the sediment
contamination issue can be
illustrated by a few such
examples.
• In Connecticut, the most
significant incidence of
sediment contamination is in
the Housatonic River. From the
1930s until 1977, General
Electric discharged PCBs used
in the manufacture of trans-
formers at its plant in Pittsfield,
Massachusetts. PCBs are now
found in fish in various parts of
the river and in river sediments.
In 1977, an advisory was issued
against the consumption of fish
taken from the river between
the Massachusetts State line
and Stevenson Dam at Lake
Zoar. Extensive studies of this
sediment contamination
problem have been performed
and presently a 5-year study
(1984-1988) of sediment
management options and fish
tissue concentrations is
underway.
II Montana reports that toxic,
metals-bearing sediments are a
concern at most abandoned
mine sites and, particularly, in
the Clark Fork River, where
they have accumulated behind
hydroelectric dams. For
example, at the Milltown dam
near Missoula, sediments laden
with arsenic contaminated the
Milltown water supply; the
town's source of drinking water
had to be changed and a Super-
fund cleanup action initiated.
74
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
• In New York, PCB-
contaminated sediments are a
problem in the Hudson River,
and sediments containing
Mirex are known to affect Lake
Ontario. Heavy metals in
sediments are a problem in the
Mohawk River between Rome
and Utica, the Buffalo River,
and at the mouths of the
Oswego and Genesee Rivers.
• Wisconsin reports that
sediment contamination has
been identified in the State
through statewide monitoring
of toxics in fish tissue, follow-up
sediment studies, and review of
dredging projects. Pollutants in
Wisconsin sediments are widely
distributed and chemically
diverse. The most common
problem parameters are PCBs,
mercury, dioxin, and pesticides.
Wisconsin began a Toxic
Materials Management
Program in 1983 to address the
problem.
In addition to potential
impacts on the water column
and biota, sediment contamina-
tion can pose obstacles to the
maintenance dredging of
harbors and navigation
channels. Disposal of dredge
spoil can become a difficult
issue if that spoil contains
PCBs, mercury, dioxin, and
similar chemicals. Methods of
disposal such as open water
dumping, confinement in diked
containment areas, and
spreading in coastal areas,
wetlands, and "reclaimed
lands" could clearly create
new—and possibly more
severe—environmental
problems. Other impacts that
may occur when dredging takes
place include resuspension of
toxics into the water column,
habitat alteration, and the
smothering of bottom-dwelling
aquatic organisms.
On the other hand, dredging
of contaminated waters is
sometimes practiced specifically
to clean up problem areas,
although it is an expensive and
difficult solution. New York, for
example, reports that a proposed
project to dredge PCB
"hotspots" in the Upper
Hudson River has been delayed
due to cost and administrative
considerations; New York also
notes that dredging is not a
practical cleanup solution for
large areas of contamination
such as Lake Ontario.
Since it may be necessary to
dredge harbors simply to keep
them open for navigation
purposes, the States face
difficult decisions where
sediment contamination is a
concern. Rhode Island reports
that toxicity issues and lack of
disposal sites have brought the
maintenance dredging of most
harbors and channels to a
standstill in the State.
Connecticut estimates that
approximately 60 million cubic
yards of dredged sediment will
have to be disposed of in the
next 50 years because of routine
maintenance dredging and
harbor improvement projects.
Several areas in Long Island
Sound will require special
consideration because of high
levels of sediment
contamination.
Sediment core taken from an ocean disposal site.
75
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Fish Consumption
Advisories and Bans
Toxic chemicals discharged to
rivers, lakes, and estuaries may
be absorbed or ingested by
aquatic organisms that are, in
turn, consumed by larger
predators. Toxics can collect
(bioaccumulate) in the tissues
and organs of these fish, posing
a potential health hazard to
people who eat fish taken from
contaminated waters. The Food
and Drug Administration
(FDA) has established "action
levels" against which to
measure these tissue samples.
Fish that contain toxic
contaminants above these levels
can be harmful to human
health if consumed.
In 1986, 27 States reported
finding detectable levels of toxic
contaminants in some fish
tissue samples; 23 reported
concentrations exceeding FDA
action levels in localized areas.
Many States respond to the
finding of FDA action level
exceedances by imposing
fishing bans or fish
consumption advisories.
Advisories typically recommend
limiting consumption of certain
species of fish from given
waterways to a few meals per
week or month. Fishing bans,
of course, are completely
restrictive.
National statistics on fishing
advisories and bans are
incomplete. Many States rely
on local authorities to impose
these restrictions, and therefore
do not keep statewide tallies of
their numbers, locations, and
the species of fish affected.
Nevertheless, these statistics are
valuable indicators of the extent
of toxic pollution, and their
reporting will be stressed in the
future. In their 1986 reports, 25
States provided some discussion
of fishing advisories and bans:
in most of these States, both
kinds of fishing restrictions were
cited, although some cited only
one type. Two hundred and
eighty-six fishing advisories
were reported by 24 States, and
15 States reported 108 bans on
fishing in selected waterways.
Several States discussed the
imposition of advisories, but
did not report on how many
were in effect.
These results should be
interpreted with caution and
should not be compared to the
findings of previous 305(b)
reports until standardized and
complete reporting is in effect.
Bans and advisories, once
imposed, tend to remain in
place for a number of years
because of the biological
persistence of many of the
chemicals involved. Thus, large
apparent changes in the total
number of bans and advisories
reported by the States over a
two-year period are more
probably the result of
increasingly comprehensive
reporting and monitoring than
actual water quality changes.
The reader should also note
that for any given waterway, a
combination of advisories and
bans may be imposed for
different fish species or in
different segments.
"**w '*!^»^^^^r^ "V " .^^™™,
'
76
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Those toxic pollutants or
pollutant categories that were
most commonly cited by the
States as responsible for fishing
restrictions are listed in
Table 4-4.
It is clear from these statistics
that pollution due to toxic
substances is not a problem that
is "going away." On the
contrary, the more we study
and monitor for toxics, the
more likely we are to find them
and realize their pervasiveness.
Since much of our water quality
information to date deals with
conventional (i.e., non-toxic)
pollutants, any statement on the
condition of the Nation's waters
must be qualified with this
caution.
The following examples of
fishing advisories and bans
were drawn from the 1986 State
305(b) reports:
• New York reports that PCBs
once discharged in the Upper
Hudson River have remained
in sediments and contaminated
aquatic life in both the Upper
and Lower Hudson River.
Fishing advisories and bans are
in effect for several fish species,
including striped bass.
• Kentucky reports that fish
consumption advisories were
issued in 1985 and remain in
effect for 47 miles of the West
Fork of Drakes Creek and 65
miles of the Mud River due to
PCB contamination. Discharges
from an adhesives plant and a
metal dye-cast plant are
believed to be the sources of the
contamination.
• In Iowa, a fish consumption
advisory was issued for Cedar
Lake near Cedar Rapids due to
elevated chlordane levels
believed to originate from
termite control applications.
• In Missouri, an advisory has
been issued against
consumption of any fish caught
in the lower 22 miles of the
Meramec River because of
chlordane contamination. Fish
contamination by dioxin has
also been discovered, although
at average concentrations below
the FDA action level.
• Montana reports that
mercury contamination in trout
has led to a fish consumption
advisory in Silver Creek near
Helena. Mining operations are
believed to be the source of the
contamination.
• California provides examples
of advisories in estuarine and
coastal waters. These include
the Monterey Harbor/Cannery
Row area, posted against
consumption of mussels due to
lead contamination; the
Elkhorn Slough/Moss Landing
Harbor area, posted against
shellfish consumption due to
pesticides; and the San Diego
Bay/Harbor Island East Basin
area, posted against shellfish
consumption due to PCBs.
The States and EPA are
committed to increasing our
knowledge about toxic
substances, locating problem
areas, and implementing
controls to reduce toxic hazards
to human health and aquatic
life. Chapter 5, "Water
Pollution Control Programs,"
discusses these State and
Federal efforts.
Table 4-4. Primary Pollutants Associated with Fishing
Advisories and Bans
Pollutant
No. of States
PCBs
Mercury
Chlordane
Pesticides (unspecified)
Dioxin
DDT
Metals (unspecified)
Organics (unspecified)
Dieldrin
15
11
10
7
7
5
5
3
3
77
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
EPA's National
Dioxin Study
"Dioxin" is the generic term
for a group of 75 related
compounds known as
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins; however, in common
use the name refers to the most
toxic and thoroughly studied of
these compounds:
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin, or 2,3,7,8-TCDD. This
compound, which has caused
toxic effects at concentrations
lower than any other manmade
chemical, is not produced
intentionally but rather is a
byproduct in the manufacture
of several pesticides, chiefly
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
(2,4,5-TCP).
While the use of many
products that may cause dioxin
contamination has been
suspended, the compound is
persistent once it enters the
environment. In addition,
dioxin bioaccumulates so that
even if present in extremely low
concentrations, it can concen-
trate in organisms to much
higher levels, increasing the
likelihood of hazard.
During the past three years,
EPA has conducted a national
monitoring program using new
and sensitive analytical
techniques to estimate the
extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
contamination in the
environment.
In 1983, EPA issued its
National Dioxin Strategy. This
strategy was designed to
provide a framework for the
study of dioxin-related
problems, including the nature
and extent of dioxin contamina-
tion throughout the country
and risks to people and the
environment. The strategy also
addressed the cleanup of
contaminated sites and the
destruction or disposal of
existing dioxin. To implement
the information-gathering
portion of the strategy, EPA
defined seven categories (or
tiers) of sites for investigation.
The tiers were believed to
exhibit a decreasing potential
for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
contamination.
Findings of the National
Dioxin Study
• Of the 84 sites selected for
sampling where 2,4,5-TCP and
its derivatives were formulated,
64 were sampled. Contamina-
tion was detected at 12 sites,
and only 2 were extensively
contaminated. As a result of
these findings, EPA concluded
that the immediate investigation
of the remaining sites is not
warranted, although the Agency
will conduct further evaluations
of specific large pesticide
manufacturers where 2,4,5-TCP
and its derivatives are
formulated.
• Twenty-six sites were
sampled in areas where
pesticides suspected of
containing dioxin had been
used. At the 15 sites where
2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected, soil
and sediment contamination
was extensive, with over 40
percent of the samples analyzed
at each site containing levels
above the parts per trillion (ppt)
detection limit. Two sites had
detectable levels in fish, and, at
one of these, all fish samples
were contaminated. While
contamination in soil and
sediment was widespread,
concentrations were generally
quite low (less than 5 ppt).
Levels detected in fish fillets
were between 8 and 23 ppt, and
dioxin was not detected in other
animal tissue or in vegetation
samples. Due to low levels
found at these sites, EPA
concluded that further national
investigation of spray areas was
not warranted.
Technician extracts a sample from a trench at a feed packaging outlet as
part of the National Dioxin Study.
78
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
• EPA identified 67 facilities
thought to manufacture one or
more of the 60 compounds
whose production can create
dioxin. Twenty-eight sites were
selected for sampling and
dioxin was detected at only
three. None of the three sites
was extensively contaminated.
As a result, it was concluded
that additional investigation of
this tier was not warranted.
• Sampling was carried out at
359 soil sites and 395 fish sites
that had no previously known
sources of dioxin. In the soil
samples, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was
detected infrequently (17 sites)
and at very low levels (0.2-11.2
ppt). Background fish contami-
nation was somewhat higher
(112 sites, 0.3-85 ppt). Of the
fish samples, the highest
proportion of contaminated
samples was found in Great
Lakes sites.
• The two fish sampling sites
with the highest levels of dioxin
contamination were the
Androscoggin River in Maine
and the Rainy River in
Minnesota. In both cases, the
rivers were subject to upstream
pulp and paper mill discharges.
Further investigations at these
and similar sites are being
conducted by EPA, the States,
and the paper industry to
determine the sources of
2,3,7,8-TCDD within the mills.
As a result of the study, fish
consumption advisories were
issued by the two States.
Major accomplishments of
the National Dioxin Study
include a major increase in
EPA's knowledge of
2,3,7,8-TCDD levels in the
environment, and a refinement
of the tools needed for further
understanding of dioxins.
Sediment sampling in the
Potomac River at the former site of
a pesticide formulator.
Transit used to locate sites for
sediment sampling.
79
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Nonpoint Source
Pollution
As discussed in Chapter 2,
nonpoint or diffuse sources of
pollution are major causes of
water quality problems in the
U.S. Their extent and intensity
are becoming more and more
evident as the States increase
their ability to assess the causes
of use impairments, and as new
sources of data are tapped.
In their 1986 Section 305(b)
reports, 16 States identified
control of nonpoint sources as
an issue of special concern
(Figure 4-2).
Additional State-reported
information provided insight
into the widespread nature of
the nonpoint source problem.
Of the 52 States and territories
that ranked the relative impacts
of nonpoint sources, 33 found
nonpoint sources to be a major
problem, 14 found them to be a
moderate problem, one
reported only minor impacts,
and four stated that nonpoint
sources were a problem of
unknown magnitude. These
findings, compared to 1984
when 24 States found nonpoint
sources to be a major problem,
indicate that the States are
becoming more aware of the
extent and impacts of nonpoint
sources.
By far the most common
nonpoint source reported by the
States in 1986 is agricultural
runoff. Runoff from urban
areas, construction sites, and
mining areas are also major
nonpoint sources, followed by
landfill leachate, septic systems,
hydrologic modification, and
silviculture.
Forty-nine States listed
problem pollutants that can be
linked directly to nonpoint
sources. Of these, sediments/
turbidity are most widely cited,
followed by nutrients, fecal
coliform bacteria, toxics, and
biochemical oxygen demand/
dissolved oxygen. These results
are pictured in Figures 4-3 and
4-4.
A grain elevator on a midwestern farm.
Virgin
Islands
Puerto
Rico
Figure 4-2. States Reporting Nonpoint Sources as a Special
Concern
80
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
§
I
Agric
Figure 4-3. Nonpoint Sources Reported as Major Causes of Use
Impairments
A number of \986 State
submissions did not
comprehensively discuss
nonpoint sources. A more
comprehensive picture of the
nature and scope of nonpoint
source pollution may be gained
from a recent study of nonpoint
source pollution and related
Federal, State, and local
nonpoint source programs.
This study was conducted by
the States under the sponsor-
ship of the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA).
Bacteria
BOD/DO
Nulnents
Toxics
Turbidrty
Documented in a report
entitled America's Clean Water:
The States' Nonpoint Source
Assessment, 1985, the assessment
was based on surveys prepared
by 49 States, 3 territories, 3
interstate agencies, and the
District of Columbia. In
making their evaluations, the
States used long-term
monitoring data, short-term
water quality surveys, other
more general information such
as fish surveys and citizen
observations, and best
professional judgement. States
were queried regarding the
quantity and types of water
resources in their States; the
extent and severity of use
impairments from nonpoint
sources associated with rivers,
lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and
ground water; the primary
pollutants and sources causing
use impairments; and current
nonpoint source programs.
Overall, approximately ten
times as many stream/river
miles, lake acres, and estuary
square miles were assessed for
nonpoint source pollution
effects as had ever been
formally assessed before.
However, varying amounts of
the Nation's rivers, lakes, and
estuaries have yet to be assessed
for nonpoint source pollution.
Significant data gaps remain
(e.g., information on the Great
Lakes, the Great Salt Lake,
Chesapeake Bay, and Puget
Sound was not included).
Nevertheless, ASIWPCAs
study provides the most up-to-
date and extensive national
summary of nonpoint source
pollution problems and
programs currently available.
Figure 4-4. Nonpoint Source Parameters Most Widely Reported
81
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Runoff from construction sites is a
significant nonpoint source
problem.
The percentage of total
waters in the Nation assessed by
the States for this study varied
by category of waters. For rivers
and streams, the miles assessed
represent from 13 to 23 percent
of the total river/stream miles in
the United States, depending
upon the total river/stream mile
estimate used.* Lake acres
assessed represent 39 percent of
the total lake acres in the
Nation (the Great Lakes and
the Great Salt Lake were
excluded). Estuary square miles
assessed represent 59 percent of
the total estuary square miles in
the United States (the
Chesapeake Bay and Puget
Sound were excluded). From
these percentages, it is apparent
that varying amounts of the
Nation's rivers, lakes, and
estuaries have yet to be assessed
for nonpoint source pollution.
Of the 406,000 miles of rivers
and streams assessed by the
States, 30,000 miles (7 percent)
were found to be severely
impaired, 87,000 miles (21
percent) were moderately
impaired, and 48,000 miles (12
percent) were threatened by
nonpoint source pollution.**
Agricultural activities were
found to be the predominant
contributor of nonpoint source
pollution in both lakes and
rivers. Agriculture was reported
as the primary pollutant source
for 64 percent of affected river
miles, 57 percent of affected
lake acres, and 19 percent of
affected estuarine areas. Urban
runoff, resource extraction, and
hydrologic modification were
noted as the next most
widespread nonpoint sources of
pollution. The predominant
pollutant of nonpoint origin in
rivers and streams was found to
be sediment; in lakes and
estuaries, nutrients were the
predominant pollutant of
nonpoint origin.
Nonpoint Source
Programs
The States also reported on
nonpoint source programs at
the Federal, State, and local
levels as of 1984. They
identified 354 programs at the
State and local level, and 32
programs in 17 Federal
agencies, that manage nonpoint
source-related activities and
affect water quality.
The most frequently listed
Federal programs were those of
the Soil Conservation Service,
the Forest Service, the Office of
Surface Mining, the Bureau of
Land Management, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
State programs ranged from
dredge-and-fill permitting and
fish and wildlife management to
pesticide applicator licensing
and coastal zone/floodplain
management. Local programs
listed most frequently included
those of soil and water conser-
vation districts and planning;/
r o
zoning commissions and those
having to do with permitting of
well construction/septic systems
and erosion/sediment control.
States reported that 69
percent of State- and locally-
initiated nonpoint source
programs include some degree
of regulatory authority. Grants,
loans, tax abatement, and other
incentives are included in 14
percent of the State and local
programs, with most of these
programs directed toward
agricultural activities. The
States concluded that effective
nonpoint source programs
require close cooperation
among State, Federal, and local
governments, along with private
iaterests and the public at large.
Controlling pollution from
nonpoint sources is a difficult
task, in large part because of
the very nature of diffuse
runoff. Chapter 5 will explore
the programs and responsibil-
ities of those agencies with
jurisdiction over nonpoint
sources, the obstacles they face,
and the successes they have
achieved to date.
"The States report a total of 1 8 million miles, but detailed National estimates indicate the total is 3 2 million miles when first-
order streams are included First-order streams are more likely to be degraded by nonpoint than by point source pollution
"Numbers may differ slightly from those in ASIWPCA's summary report because they were computed directly from the
report's Appendix of State submissions (ASIWPCA, The States' Nonpoint Source Assessment 1985, Appendix)
82
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Wetlands
Wetlands are areas that are
flooded or saturated by surface
or ground water frequently
enough—and for long enough
time—to support a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil condi-
tions. Wetlands frequently
include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas. They may be
coastal or inland, salt or
freshwater, and as diverse as the
Florida Everglades, sphagnum-
heath bogs in Maine, coastal
Alaskan salt marshes, and the
shallow, seasonally flooded
potholes of the northern Great
Plains. Although of critical
value to the natural environ-
ment, wetlands have historically
been treated as unhealthy and
useless, fit only for draining,
filling, and conversion to other
uses.
It is now known that
wetlands serve a wide variety of
important natural functions.
For example, wetlands provide
habitat for a huge number of
plants and animals, including
many endangered species.
Approximately two-thirds of the
major U.S. commercial fish
species depend on estuaries and
salt marshes for nursery or
spawning grounds. Coastal
wetlands are essential for
important shellfish such as
shrimp, blue crabs, clams, and
oysters. In addition to providing
year-round habitat for resident
birds, wetlands are extremely
important as breeding grounds,
overwintering areas, and
feeding grounds for migratory
waterfowl and other birds.
Wetlands can also
temporarily store flood waters,
thereby protecting downstream
property. This flood storage
ability also helps slow the
water's speed and lower the
height of waves, thus reducing
the water's erosive potential.
Wetland vegetation can reduce
shoreline erosion by stabilizing
substrates, dissipating wave and
current energy, and trapping
sediments. This reduces
turbidity, thereby improving
water quality.
The role that wetlands play
in ground-water recharge is not
clear. It appears that some
wetlands recharge the ground-
water system. The recharge
potential varies according to
type of wetland, location, soil
type, water table location, and
precipitation.
Most wetlands provide
recreational opportunities that
can be enjoyed by the general
population, including hunting,
sport fishing, and bird
watching. Wetlands can also be
used for open space, scientific
study, and educational
purposes.
Lastly, wetlands often play a
role in improving water quality.
They can function as filters that
remove sediments and pollut-
ants from moving waters.
Dissolved nutrients may be
directly taken up by plants and
by chemical absorption and
precipitation at the wetland soil
surface. Organic and inorganic
suspended material tends to
settle out and is trapped in the
wetland.
An aerial view of the Florida Everglades.
83
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Regional Trends
Throughout history, wetlands
have been considered "waste-
lands" to be drained or filled
for conversion to "productive"
use. Within the last 200 years,
over 50 percent of the wetlands
in the lower 48 States have been
converted to other uses such as
agriculture, mining, forestry, oil
and gas production, and
urbanization. These losses are
continuing today at an
alarming rate; an estimated
350,000 to 500,000 acres are
lost annually.
The most extensive inland
wetlands losses have occurred in
Louisiana, Mississippi,
Arkansas, North Carolina,
North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Florida, and Texas.
Estuarine wetlands losses have
been greatest in California,
Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey,
and Texas.
In many coastal areas where
estuarine wetland loss is high,
urbanization and increased
ground-water withdrawal have
resulted in saltwater
contamination of public water
supplies. In Chesapeake Bay—
the largest estuary in the
United States—sea grass beds
and tidal wetlands have been
declining since the 1960s; in
some areas of the bay, they have
almost disappeared. This is due
to a combination of natural and
manmade factors. The
manmade factors include
industrial and sewage treatment
plant discharges, failing septic
systems, and agricultural and
urban runoff. These result in
increased turbidity and
sedimentation, nutrient
overload, and chemical
pollution in the bay.
In North Carolina, forestry
and agriculture have played an
important role in the loss of
much of the evergreen forested
and scrub-shrub wetlands
known as pocosins. Much of
this area has been transferred to
large-scale agriculture. In
addition to extensive land
clearing and ditching, large
quantities of fertilizers and lime
must be added to these former
wetlands to keep them fertile
and productive. Runoff from
these areas degrades the water
quality of adjacent estuaries.
In their 1986 State 305(b)
assessments, 12 States reported
that wetlands were of special
concern (Figure 4-5). Problems
with both wetland loss and
diminished wetland quality are
noted.
Despite their importance to the natural environment, wetlands are still
being destroyed at a rapid rate.
Puerto
Rico
Figure 4-5. States Reporting Wetlands as a Special Concern
84
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
A number of States provided
information that illustrates the
variety and extent of problems
affecting wetlands in the U.S.
• In Alaska, the major cause
of wetland impacts is oil and
gas extraction activity on the
North Slope and Kenai
Peninsula. A total of 19,200
acres—less than 1/100 of a
percent of Alaska's inland and
tidal wetlands—have been
assessed; of those, 16,640 do not
fully support designated uses.
• California reports that 56
percent of its assessed wetland
area is classified as poor in
quality, including the
57,000-acre Suisun Marsh.
Nonpoint sources are identified
as the primary causes of use
impairment in California
wetlands.
• In Kentucky, half of the
original wetland acreage is
gone. Nearly all of the areas
that remain have been degraded
by either pesticides, acid mine
drainage, siltation, brine water,
or domestic and industrial
sewage. In addition, Kentucky
reports that it does not have a
wetlands monitoring program
and that there continues to be a
poor understanding of wetland
conditions, remaining areas,
and rates of loss.
• Louisiana reports that the
loss of wetlands in the deltaic
plain of coastal Louisiana is
occurring at an accelerated
rate, with an estimated annual
loss of 25,000 acres. Approxi-
mately 800,000 acres of
wetlands have been lost from
the deltaic plain over the last 80
years.
The factors causing wetland
loss in coastal Louisiana are
complex and involve wave
erosion following channeliza-
tion, subsidence, and saltwater
intrusion. Louisiana's coastal
wetlands originally developed as
the Mississippi River deposited
freshwater, nutrients, and
sediments over a broad coastal
area. Extensive leveeing of the
river for flood control has
reduced the area of natural
"delta building" by cutting off
the flow of water and sediment
to the marshes. The construc-
tion of navigation and pipeline
canals has interrupted flow
patterns and accelerated rates
of erosion and saltwater
intrusion.
The net result has been a
rapid loss of land and the
intrusion of saline water into
coastal marshes and water-
bodies. Some local trappers and
fishermen have reported a
decline in harvests of freshwater
species due to the higher
salinity levels. Some freshwater
swamp and marsh vegetation
has died and been replaced by
more salt-tolerant plant species.
• It has been estimated that
Michigan once had 11.2 million
acres of wetlands; by 1955, only
about 3.2 million acres
remained. Wetlands along
Michigan's Great Lakes coast
are estimated to have once
covered 369,000 acres, but a
1972 inventory identified only
105,855 acres of coastal
wetlands remaining. Most
wetlands were lost through the
development of land for
agricultural production,
highways, parking lots,
residential and commercial
building sites, industrial plants,
marinas, and harbors.
• By 1980, nearly half of the
original wetland acres in North
Dakota had been drained. Since
1980, the rate of wetland loss in
North Dakota is estimated at
20,000 acres per year. The
annual loss of wetlands appears
to be lessening; however, this
may be attributable to the
diminishing wetland base as
well to the cost and difficulty of
draining.
85
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
• In Vermont, it is estimated
that approximately half of the
yearly impacts on wetlands are
due to construction of bridges
and highways. The remaining
impacts are caused by dredging,
drainage, clearing for utility
rights-of-way, structures, filling,
boat moorings and wharves,
railroad beds, logging, auto
junkyards, impoundments,
sanitary landfills, and sewage
treatment facilities.
• In Wyoming, the principal
developmental pressure on
wetland areas is the encroach-
ment of urban and industrial
development on flood plains.
The primary areas of impact
are in relatively isolated patches
along the Platte, Big Horn, and
Bear Rivers, although lesser
drainage areas are also affected.
Intensive cropland management
and livestock grazing pressure
are also cited as causes of
wetland loss.
• West Virginia has two major
wetland complexes: Canaan
Valley and Meadow River. Both
are constantly being threatened:
Canaan Valley by a proposed
hydropower project, resource
extraction, second-home
development, and off-road
recreation vehicles, and
Meadow River by interstate
highway construction. Threats
to smaller wetlands come
primarily from resource
extraction activities, land
development, and transporta-
tion projects.
Wetland Regulations
Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act gives the Army
Corps of Engineers authority to
issue permits for "the discharge
of dredged or fill material into
the navigable waters [of the
United States] at specified
disposal sites." Section 404 also
gives EPA a number of respon-
sibilities to assure that the
environment is sufficiently
protected from the adverse
impacts of these discharges.
Since 1972, the "404 program"
has developed into the most
important Federal regulatory
program for the protection of
wetlands.
Inland freshwater wetlands
comprise 95 percent of the
remaining wetland resource in
the United States and 97
percent of the estimated
300,000 acres of wetlands lost
each year to development.
Many of the losses involve
drainage without a discharge,
which is not regulated under
the 404 program. The 1985
Farm Bill should help mitigate
this problem by discontinuing
subsidies to farmers who drain
and plant wetlands.
Marshlands in the Chesapeake Bay.
86
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Approximately 11,000 project
applications under Section 404
are processed each year by the
Corps of Engineers. EPA
reviews and evaluates them
using its 404(b)(l) guidelines,
which contain the environ-
mental criteria for 404 permit
decisions. The Fish and
Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries
Service also influence the 404
permitting process through
their review of applications.
After receiving comments from
these agencies, the States, and
other interested parties, the
Corps of Engineers makes its
permit decisions.
Before permits are issued,
EPA has an opportunity to
exercise its authority to
prohibit, condition, or restrict
the use of any site if such use is
found to "have an unacceptable
adverse effect on municipal
water supplies, shellfish beds
and fishery areas (including
spawning and breeding areas),
wildlife, or recreational areas."
However, this action occurs on
only a small fraction of projects.
As a result of this process, the
Corps of Engineers annually
denies slightly more than three
percent of project applications.
About one-third of the permits
are significantly modified from
their original application, and
about 14 percent of the 11,000
annual permit applications are
withdrawn by applicants. The
Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment has
estimated that these denials,
modifications, and application
withdrawals save 50,000 acres of
wetlands every year.
In their 1986 305(b) reports,
the States discussed their
wetland protection programs
and in many cases cited
examples of successes as well as
continuing problems. In
general, passage of State-level
wetland protection legislation
appears to be an important first
step in protecting valuable
wetlands.
• In Florida, the Warren S.
Henderson Wetlands Protection
Act of 1984 authorizes the
Department of Environmental
Regulation to adopt rules and
regulatory programs to protect
wetlands. One of its primary
requirements is an inventory to
track gains and losses of
wetland area.
• Michigan, the first State to
assume Section 404 permitting
responsibility, has enacted a
Wetland Protection Act that
provides for the preservation,
management, and use of wet-
lands; requires permits to alter
wetlands; and provides penalties
for illegal wetland alteration. A
number of other State laws also
regulate the use of Michigan's
wetlands. Successful programs
also exist to purchase wetland
areas using revenues from oil,
gas, and mineral production on
State-owned land, from hunting
activities, and through a "Save-
the-Marsh" drive for St. John's
Marsh along Lake St. Glair.
A hardwood swamp in North Carolina.
87
-------
Florida
Kissimmee River
The Kissimmee
River
The Kissimmee River once
meandered for 98 miles from
Lake Kissimmee to Lake
Okeechobee in central Florida.
After several serious floods, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
at the request of the State of
Florida, channelized the river.
Today, the "Kissimmee Ditch"
is a 30-foot deep, 48-mile long
canal. The project resulted in
many environmental problems,
including:
• conversion of approximately
40 miles of meandering river to
stagnant pools;
• loss of 70-80 percent of the
basin's original 40,000 acres of
wetlands, and degradation of
remaining wetlands;
• loss of valuable fish and
wildlife habitat;
• conversion of basin
hydrology from
upland/floodplain retention and
slow runoff to one of
upland/floodplain drainage and
rapid runoff; and
• induced upland drainage
resulting in increased land use,
degraded water quality entering
Lake Okeechobee, and
saltwater intrusion into the
Biscayne Aquifer.
Even before the project was
completed, restoration of the
Kissimmee was being
considered. Various State
agencies recommended
developing measures for
restoring the water quality in
the Kissimmee River Valley
and to consider restoration of
the river. Following Congres-
sional authorization, the Corps
began evaluating options for
enhancing the river's
environmental resources. The
Corps concluded that
(1) a nonchannelization
alternative (pool stage
manipulation) offered the
greatest potential for wetlands
restoration, and
(2) implementation of best
management practices would be
the most cost-effective means of
maintaining and improving the
basin's water quality. The
Corps also concluded that none
of the alternatives qualifies for
Federal implementation.
The State of Florida is
committed to restoring natural
fish, wildlife, and water quality
benefits to the Kissimmee River
system. The State will proceed
with a dechannelization alter-
native that it believes is the best
method for achieving its
environmental goals.
• Delaware's Wetlands Act
gives the State authority to
regulate activities in all tidal
wetlands and contiguous non-
tidal wetlands that are of 400
acres or greater. This State
authority has meant a dramatic
reduction in the loss of these
wetlands. Delaware lost about
450 acres per year from 1954
until regulations were imple-
mented in 1973. Between 1973
and 1979, the average annual
rate of wetlands loss resulting
directly from human actions
was 20 acres per year. Generally
small-scale and nondestructive
projects are still allowed with a
State permit. In larger projects,
the destruction of wetlands in
one area must be offset by the
creation of an equal area of
wetlands nearby.
However, non-tidal or fresh-
water wetlands less than 400
acres currently have no State
protection and only limited
protection under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. Roughly
20 percent of the State's
freshwater wetlands have been
lost since 1954. Most of this loss
resulted from drainage projects
and agricultural conversion.
Freshwater wetlands currently
account for 132,695 acres, or
about 60 percent of the State's
\vetlands.
Source: National Wetlands Newsletter,
February 1986.
88
-------
Protection of America's
important wetlands resources is
one of EPA's top priorities. EPA
created a new Office of
Wetlands Protection in 1986 to
enhance wetlands protection
nationwide. One of the key
objectives for the new office is
to improve coordination with,
and provide increased
assistance to, State wetland
protection efforts. Another
focus will be increased
coordination of the long-range
research efforts underway at
EPA and other Federal
agencies. One focus of EPA's
current research plan is the
water quality functions of
wetlands. The plan also
provides for research on
cumulative impacts of wetlands
losses and evaluation of
mitigation alternatives.
In addition to these efforts,
EPA will strive to build
consensus on the value of
wetlands; expand on the
progress already made in
cooperating with other Federal
agencies to establish consistent
policies and procedures for
wetlands protection; increase
efforts to identify, protect, and
restore wetlands, strongly
stressing the early identification
of particularly valuable and
vulnerable wetlands; and
emphasize communication with
the public, including individual
property owners and devel-
opers, to give them a better
understanding of the values of
wetland resources.
The Rainwater
Basin
Nebraska reports that
wetland acreage in the
Rainwater Basin has declined
from its original area of about
95,000 acres to 21,000 acres in
1984. The primary cause of this
wetland loss is draining and
filling activity designed to
expand agricultural production.
The severe decline of wetland
acreage and associated problems
such as waterfowl overcrowding,
flooding, and erosion in the
Rainwater Basin has captured
the attention of a number of
resource agencies. EPA and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
have taken the lead in initiating
the Rainwater Basin Project
with several State agencies—the
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control, the
Game and Parks Commission,
and the Natural Resources
Commission—along with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Soil Conservation
Service, and three local natural
resources districts cooperating
in the project.
Rainwater Basin
Although 404 permit
requirements are not being
changed and no sites are being
prohibited from fill, the
advance identification of these
wetland sites is needed in order
to provide critical information
for appropriate 404 permit
decisions. Field components of
the project are designed to
provide information on juris-
dicdonal limits (i.e., where a
404 permit would be needed),
wildlife and waterfowl use,
detailed vegetative characteris-
tics, and functional values of the
wetlands. This information will
be combined with an analysis of
the historic variability of
Rainwater Basin wetlands and
information from the National
Wetlands Inventory to form a
list of wetland sites generally
unsuitable for fill.
In addition to the advance
identification of wetland sites,
the project will conduct an
analysis of the economics of
filling wetlands. Landowners
will be involved: this
information will be made
available to them, and
educational programs will
improve awareness of Section
404 requirements and the value
of wetlands. It is hoped that the
information generated during
the project will provide the
basis for additional wetland
protection programs.
In Nebraska's Rainwater Basin, conversion to agricultural uses is the
primary cause of wetland loss.
89
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Funding Needs
In 1986, 11 States reported
that diminishing Federal and
State funds for water pollution
control are an issue of special
concern, especially in light of
their expectation of additional
funding cutbacks. The program
most commonly cited by the
States as vulnerable to funding
shortfalls is the construction
and upgrading of municipal
sewage treatment plants.
However, passage of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 authorizes
an additional $7.2 billion for
construction grants and $8.4
billion for a new program for
the establishment of State
revolving loan funds. In
addition, ten States noted the
importance of proper operation
and maintenance of existing
sewage treatment plants—a
problem closely tied to funding
needs in many States. Figures
4-6 and 4-7 depict these
findings.
Virgin
Islands
Puerto
Rico
Figure 4-6. States Reporting Funding Needs as a Special
Concern
90
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
The Clean Water Act
requires that EPA assess and
report on State needs in
municipal upgrading and
construction. EPA does so
through its biennial Needs
Survey. In 1986, the Survey
determined that extensive
construction is needed in order
to solve existing water quality
and public health problems.
These needs are restricted to
those based on documented
water quality or public health
problems. As shown in Table
4-5, needs for the current
population in all categories total
$60.3 billion, while documented
needs for population growth
between 1986-2005 total $15.9
billion.
The total of $76.2 billion in
wastewater construction needs
is distributed among 10,100
facilities. One hundred of these
facilities—one percent of the
total—have needs greater than
$100 million each, accounting
for almost half of all needs. The
average need per facility is $7.5
million.
Meeting all needs will result
in improved treatment facilities
as well as expanded treatment
capacity. As shown in Table 4-6,
meeting all needs will result in
a net addition of 1,800
advanced treatment facilities,
1,300 secondary treatment
facilities, and 10,700 million
gallons per day of treatment
capacity at secondary or better.
Meeting all needs will also
increase the total population
served by secondary treatment
or better from 127 million to
193 million.
Virgin
Islands
Puerto
Rico
Figure 4-7. States Reporting Operation and Maintenance as a
Special Concern
91
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
During sewage treatment, wastewater is aerated to promote microbial
growth and breakdown of pollutants.
An analysis of Needs Survey
data has indicated that roughly
15 percent of all treatment
needs ($28 billion) are asso-
ciated with upgrading levels of
treatment, while the remaining
85 percent are linked to
providing expanded capacity.
Treatment upgrades, defined as
construction that improves
\vastewater treatment for
population currently being
served, typically result in
decreased discharge of
municipal pollutants and
improved surface water quality.
Treatment expansions, defined
as construction that adds
treatment capacity for current
population not being served or
for future population, often
result in either the elimination
of ineffective small treatment
plants (in favor of regional
plants) or the elimination of
failing septic systems. An
estimated 3,100 communities
are currently served by deficient
septic tank systems, many of
which threaten ground-water
drinking supplies and public
health.
Table 4-5. Needs for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (in billions of 1986 dollars)
Category of Need
I. Secondary Treatment
II. Advanced Treatment
IMA. Infiltration/Inflow Correction
IIIB. Major Sewer Rehabilitation
IVA. New Collector Sewers
IVB. New Interceptor Sewers
V. Combined Sewer Overflows
Total
Needs for
1986 Population
$17.8
3.3
2.6
3.0
9.0
9.4
15.2
60.3
Needs for
Population Growth
$6.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
5.0
0.0
15.9
Design Year
(2005) Needs
$23.9
4.3
2.6
3.0
12.8
14.4
15.2
76.2
Note: All needs are based on a documented water quality or public health problem.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1986 Needs Survey Report (o Congress
92
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
A second major class of
wastewater treatment problems
involves facilities that have
completed needed construction
but still do not satisfy the
requirements of the CWA due
to improper operation and
maintenance (O&M). One
reason many municipal facil-
ities are experiencing O&M
problems is that many of the
treatment facilities that were
constructed over the last 14
years are more mechanically
complex than in the past and
thus require highly skilled
operators and sophisticated
O&M practices. Another
reason is that user charges often
do not fully cover the cost of
O&M as required by Section
204(b) of the Clean Water Act.
While State and EPA
monitoring and enforcement of
O&M and local user charge
programs are currently very
limited, there is increasing
interest in establishing
improved information on the
status of O&M problems at
municipal facilities. A number
of States are working on
developing better compliance
programs that include O&M
and operator training for both
major and minor facilities.
Increased EPA emphasis on
enforcement activities to meet
the 1988 compliance deadline
has contributed to expanded
efforts by State and local
governments to promote
effective O&M and operator
training programs.
The States and EPA have
increased efforts specifically
focused on resolving O&M
problems at minor facilities
(those with flows less than one
million gallons per day). Efforts
have included onsite technical
assistance, identifying and
resolving local user charge
system and O&M budget
problems affecting O&M
compliance, identifying
opportunities for more cost-
effective O&M, disseminating
information, and increasing
private sector contracting for
O&M management by local
governments.
Table 4-6. Facility Data by Level of Treatment, 1986/AII Needs Met
Level of Treatment
Raw Discharge
Less than Secondary*
Secondary
Greater than Secondary
No Discharge
Other
Total
No. of
1986
149
2,112
8,403
3,115
1,762
46
15,587
Facilities
Needs Met
0
45**
9,675
4,906
2,273
81
16,980
Population Served
(millions)
1986
1.6
28.8
72.3
54.9
5.7
10.5
173.8
Needs Met
0
2.9
107.4
85.8
10.9
36.7
243.7
Design Capacity
(MGD)
1986
N/A
5,529
15,714
14,373
973
88
36,677
Needs Met
N/A
387
18,844
21 ,996
1,686
110
43,023
*The Needs Survey definition of less than secondary includes trickling filter and lagoon systems
* "These treatment plants have applied for a waiver from the secondary treatment requirements in accordance with section 301 (h) of
the Clean Water Act. All have received at least tentative approval
Source. U S. EPA, 7986 Needs Survey Report to Congress
93
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Some examples from the
State 305(b) reports illustrate
the problem of funding and
O&M needs:
• Rhode Island reports that
the massive rehabilitation and
upgrade of the Field's Point
wastewater treatment facility in
Providence is the highest
priority project in the State and
alone is capable of using all of
Rhode Island's dwindling grant
allotment. Several communities
are faced with tight schedules
for secondary upgrades in order
to meet June 1988 secondary
treatment requirements.
Uncertainties, changes, and
delays in funding have caused
disruption in project schedules.
Communities are experiencing
significant shortfalls in local
funding necessary to complete
projects. These same
communities are then forced to
increase their bonded
indebtedness, if possible, to
cover the incremental costs.
Rhode Island also notes that
failure to properly operate and
maintain sewage treatment
plants threatens the water
quality progress that has been
made to date under the Clean
Water Act. The costs for
operation and maintenance of
Rhode Island's older treatment
facilities are becoming; an
o
increasingly greater portion of
total annual costs.
H Vermont provides specific
findings illustrating the water
quality problems that can result
from poorly operated and
maintained sewage treatment
plants. Analysis of compliance
monitoring data in that State
shows that 60 percent of the
time, treatment plant effluents
contain more coliforms than
permit limits allow. Further-
more, ten percent of the time,
effluents were found to contain
coliforms at over 60 times the
concentration allowed in
operating permits. Specific
facilities were found to have
better or worse operation
records depending on their
design and the care taken in
their operation and
maintenance.
The 1986 Needs Survey found that
extensive construction is needed
to solve existing water quality and
public health problems.
94
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
• Nebraska cites concern
about the recent trend toward
an early phaseout of Federal
assistance for construction of
needed facilities. Continued
maintenance of an adequate
wastewater infrastructure is also
of great concern. Mechanisms
are needed to ensure that local
authorities maintain their
treatment and collection
facilities in order to prevent
operational deterioration.
Without continued
maintenance of these facilities
and completion of new
treatment plants to meet the
needs of a growing population,
domestic point sources will
become a significant factor
causing water quality
impairment.
• Puerto Rico reports serious
problems with the operation
and maintenance of its sewage
treatment plants. Eighty-five of
a total of 114 facilities were cited
in a Federal court order because
of failure to comply with
NPDES permits. As a result of
these operational problems, the
quality of drinking water from
affected streams has been
degraded. Fifty-one of the
plants were identified as
overloaded and operating above
their maximum designated
capacity.
Funding needs affect a
variety of program efforts other
than sewage treatment plant
construction and upgrading.
Permitting and enforcement
efforts have slowed in some
areas, with resultant backlogs in
permit issuance by some States.
Water quality monitoring may
also be affected and several
States report reductions in their
number of fixed monitoring
stations. Tests to identify toxics
in the water column, fish tissue,
and sediment are sophisticated
and expensive; their cost
restricts the ability of some
States to conduct extensive
toxics sampling. Correction of
difficult water quality problems
such as combined sewer
overflows and nonpoint sources
may be given lower priority in
funding decisions. Many States
are clearly concerned that
funding shortfalls will negate
the gains in water quality that
have been made since the
passage of the Clean Water Act.
To prevent this, resources will
have to be carefully managed
and alternate funding methods
may need to be explored.
Meeting these challenges will
likely become a pressing task
for all levels of government—
local, State, and Federal—in
the years ahead.
Many States are concerned that
funding shortfalls may negate
recent gains in water quality.
95
-------
special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Acid Deposition
Thirteen States cite acid
deposition as an issue of special
concern (Figure 4-8), although
in some areas the effects of acid
deposition remain uncertain
and unquantified. In general,
most States cite lowered pH of
rainfall as evidence of potential
problems. Lowered-pH rain is
most commonly reported in the
New England and mid-Atlantic
States. For example,
Connecticut and New Jersey
note that rain in those States
has an average pH of about 4.3
(compared to the 5.6 pH of
unpolluted rain); Maine reports
finding a consistent pattern of
deposition ranging in pH from
3.8 to 4.5; and in New
Hampshire, rain sampled
between 1972 and 1983 had an
average pH of 3.9. However,
acidic precipitation is not
limited to the east coast of the
U.S. Montana, for example,
reports that snow in the
southwestern portion of the
State commonly has a pH of
between 4 and 5.
Puerto
Rico
Acid deposition occurs when
emissions of sulfur and nitrogen
oxide gases interact with sunlight,
other chemical substances, and
water vapor in the upper
atmosphere to form acidic
compounds.
Figure 4-8. States Reporting Acid Deposition as a Special
Concern
96
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Nonetheless, factors other
than the pH of rainfall must be
considered when evaluating the
impacts of acid rain. Perhaps
the most significant factor is an
area's geologic formations.
Some soil and rock formations
have few natural carbonates to
buffer or neutralize the acidity
in rain. Montana notes that
studies of the buffering capacity
of its lakes show that many
lakes in the State—particularly
alpine lakes overlying granitic
basins—are extremely sensitive
to acid rain. In New York,
detrimental acid rain effects are
documented for lakes in the
Adirondack region, and other
geographic areas such as the
central Catskills and the
Hudson highlands have recently
been determined to be sensitive.
Two areas in New Jersey—the
Pine Barrens region in the
south, and portions of the
Highlands, Ridge, and Valley
provinces in the north—are
believed to be particularly
sensitive to acid deposition.
Lakes and streams in
northwestern New Jersey
appear to have sufficient
buffering capacity to prevent
increases in acidity, although
pollution may be increasing pH
and therefore masking the
effects of acid deposition in
some waters. Connecticut
reports that its soils are
generally well buffered and
measurements of the alkalinity
of 35 lakes show little evidence
of acidification.
In response to the growing
concern about possible impacts
of acid rain, many States are
instituting research and
monitoring programs and have
passed legislation to address the
problem. Examples from the
State 305(b) reports illustrate
the nature of these programs.
• In 1985, the Maine
legislature appropriated money
for a study of acid rain.
Included in the study are
assessments of nitrogen oxides
emissions, the response of
geologically sensitive lakes, the
impact of acid deposition on
forests, and modeling efforts to
determine sources of pollution.
• Connecticut reports that it
has initiated several studies to
assess the effects of acid rain,
including research on impacts
to trout and salmon in
headwater spawning streams.
• Maryland established an
interdepartmental work group
in 1983 to document acid rain
effects. In response to
recommendations from this
group, a variety of research and
monitoring efforts are being
designed to address problems in
sensitive areas such as
Maryland's coastal streams.
• New York passed a State
Acid Deposition Control Act in
1984. This Act contains a
procedure and schedule to
reduce sulfur dioxide emissions
within the State, although a
regional program involving
other States is necessary in
order to significantly reduce the
impact of wet sulfate deposition
in sensitive areas.
Gathering samples for analysis of
acidity in Tennessee.
97
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
New Initiatives:
EPA's National
Surface Water
Survey
EPA is carrying out a
National Surface Water Survey
to characterize the status of
lakes and streams in regions
potentially sensitive to acidic
deposition, and to select
characteristic waters for long-
term monitoring. The first
phase of the lake survey has
been completed, and the results
were published in 1986 (U.S.
EPA, Characteristics of Lakes in the
Eastern United States, June 1986).
Samples were collected from
2,332 lakes selected from within
four regions (the Northeast,
upper Midwest, Southeast, and
West). A suite of chemical
variables was measured for each
lake.
The sampling design allows
estimation of the chemical
status of lakes within a specific
region or subregion. Estimates
of the numbers of lakes in
sampled portions of individual
States at or below specific
values of acid neutralizing
capacity and pH were also
made (see Tables 4-7 and 4-8).
Acid neutralizing capacity is
one of several factors that can
influence the response of a lake
to inputs of acid. The acid
neutralizing capacity in lake
waters is influenced by
numerous factors such as the
surrounding geology. pH is a
measure of the acidity of a lake.
Most lakes exhibit a pH of
6.5-8.0, although some lakes,
particularly lakes associated
with swampy areas, are
naturally more acidic and
exhibit a lower pH.
Some of the findings of the
study are as follows:
• Western lakes tended to be
low in acid neutralizing
capacity and did not appear to
have experienced acidification
on a regional scale.
• The eastern subregions that
contain the largest proportion
of low pH lakes are the
Adirondacks, the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan, and
Florida.
Table 4-7. Eastern Lake Survey Results4
State
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Massachusetts
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
North Carolina
New Hampshire
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Vermont
Wisconsin
Estimated
Number of
Lakes
346
2,088
155
926
1,966
2,073
3,026
55
639
2,041
616
113
40
258
3,402
Number
of Lakes
Sampled
24
138
54
97
225
160
174
30
69
191
106
15
12
29
253
Acid Neutralizing
Capacity (/*eqL~1)"
<0
47
453
10
52
8
107
0
0
17
168
20
13
0
0
41
«50
47
732
10
239
200
368
143
4
171
577
7f
33
0
19
801
<200
145
1,146
49
578
1,337
704
1,124
35
537
1,200
284
86
10
90
1,690
pH
<5.0
19
249
10
54
8
103
0
0
17
128
13
0
0
0
27
<6.0
47
677
10
180
90
330
103
1
126
384
58
20
0
11
386
'Includes only States in which more than 10 lakes were sampled
* VeqL = microequivalents per liter
Source: U S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Characteristics of Lakes in the Eastern U S,, June 1986.
98
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
• Sulfate concentrations were
greatest in Florida and the
southern portions of the
Northeast. No linear relation-
ships between sulfate and pH or
acid neutralizing capacity were
evident. High concentrations of
sulfate were found at low and
high pH values.
• Extractable aluminum,
which can be toxic to aquatic
life, was found in higher
concentrations in lakes with low |
pH, and found to be higher in |
the Northeast than in other S
"o
regions. |
An impoundment in California.
Table 4-8. Western Lake Survey Results
State
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Estimated
Number of
Lakes
2,390
1,476
972
1,597
551
548
1,338
1,480
Number
of Lakes
Sampled
147
132
72
80
55
30
117
83
Acid
Neutralizing
Capacity
(^ eq
<50
880
70
189
160
113
20
219
94
4200
2,078
591
599
824
461
484
822
1,068
PH
46.0
32
0
0
0
10
0
31
30
VeqL = microequivalents per liter
Source- U.S EPA, Office of Research and Development
99
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Mine Drainage
Nine States cited drainage
from mines as a special concern
(Figure 4-9). In addition,
mining activities are widely
reported as a cause of use
impairment across the Nation.
Impacts to rivers and lakes
come from a variety of mine-
related sources. Acid mine
drainage occurs when sulfur-
bearing minerals are exposed
during the mining process and
form sulfuric acid in the
presence of water and air.
Contaminated water draining
or seeping from mines can
create acid conditions in
receiving streams; may dissolve
metals from geologic formations
and carry these into waterways;
and, when entering a pH-
neutral stream, may form iron
compounds that "settle out"
and smother bottom-dwelling
aquatic organisms. These
factors can devastate streams
for miles downstream of mining
activity; cleanup and control,
always a complex issue, is
complicated further because
many of the worst problems
come from mines that were
operated and abandoned long
before water quality impacts
were a consideration.
In addition, metal mines
such as silver, lead, and copper
mines most widely found in the
western U.S. can directly
contribute metal-laden runoff
through tailings piles and mine
seepage. Sedimentation,
erosion, and habitat destruc-
tion, which can result from
earthmoving activities, are also
significant problems associated
with mining.
Earthmoving activities associated with mining can lead to sedimentation,
erosion, and habitat destruction.
Alaska
JO Virgin
Islands
American
Samoa
r~s
Guam ^-x-^^^^X
Puerto
Rico
Figure 4-9. States Reporting Mine-Related Problems as a
Special Concern
100
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
Point source discharges from
active mines are regulated by
EPA and State National
Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permits, and many States
employ best management
practices to lessen nonpoint
runoff. Pollution from
abandoned mines is addressed
in the Federal Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (PL. 95-87). Programs to
control runoff from abandoned
mines include treating wastes;
reclaiming land through refill-
ing, regrading, and replanting;
and sealing mine openings.
These programs are expensive
and the problems they address
are difficult to solve. The
following examples from the
State 305(b) reports illustrate
the variety of mine-related
problems cited by the States in
1986, as well as progress being
made in their control.
• In 1979, sediment from
abandoned mines was identified
as a major cause of stream
degradation in North Carolina's
Appalachian Mountain region.
An extensive area of eroding
abandoned mines was inven-
toried along the Nolichucky
River in the French Broad
River Basin. One hundred and
three mines covering 590 acres
o
were found to be responsible for
extensive sedimentation
affecting the macrobenthos and
fisheries and causing severe loss
of storage capacity in
downstream dams.
To control these impacts, the
Tennessee Valley Authority, the
Soil Conservation Service, and
State and local governments
began a cooperative
reclamation effort in 1979.
From 1980 to 1985, all 590
acres were reclaimed at an
average cost of $825 per acre.
This reclamation effort is
expected to reduce levels of
sedimentation and improve the
biota in the Nolichucky River.
• Within the past 15 years,
extensive mining in the upper
15 miles of West Virginia's
Buckhannon watershed has
created many acid mine
drainage sources. Because of
the low buffering capacity of the
Buckhannon River, relatively
small amounts of acid are
capable of acidifying significant
portions of the river. Acid mine
drainage from these sources is
normally treated and neutral-
ized at the mine site before
being allowed to enter the river.
However, over the past eight
years, intermittent and
temporary releases of relatively
small amounts of unneutralized
acid mine drainage from mines
in the upper watershed have
entered the river and eliminated
or significantly reduced the
aquatic resources of a ten-mile
stretch of the Buckhannon
River.
101
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
West Virginia also reports
that several active coal
operations are currently using
anhydrous ammonia in treat-
ment processes to increase pH
and reduce metal (iron and
manganese) concentrations.
Anhydrous ammonia is
desirable because it is relatively
inexpensive and much easier to
apply than the traditional lime
slurry process. However,
potential problems associated
with the use of ammonia
include nutrient enrichment,
instream ammonia toxicity,
oxygen demand, generation of
acidity in the nitrification
process, and reduction of
stream buffering capacity.
• Maryland reports that
before implementation of State
and Federal mining and
reclamation regulatory
programs, approximately 9,500
acres of land and 450 miles of
streams in the State were
adversely affected by surface
and underground coal mining.
Significant progress has been
made in the reclamation of
abandoned coal mine lands and
waters. Between 1984 and 1985,
the Abandoned Mine Lands
Program reclaimed
approximately 152 acres of
disturbed mine lands, and
directly improved the water
quality in 17 miles of streams.
• Pennsylvania reports on its
program, carried out under
authority of PL. 95-87, the
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977, to
designate certain areas as
unsuitable for surface mining.
Many areas have unique or
extremely sensitive
environmental characteristics
which even after land
reclamation would be
irreparably damaged by surface
mining. Precluding any surface
mining activity is seen as the
most effective way to protect
these sensitive areas. As of
December 1985, Pennsylvania
had designated, proposed, or
studied 10 separate streams and
watersheds under this program.
At a placer mine in Alaska, an operator mixes muddy recycled water with soil that is being mined tor gold. The
water forces the dirt through a sluice into a settling pond.
102
-------
Special Issues and Emerging Concerns
• In Missouri, erosion of
tailings has affected 40 miles of
classified streams, including
seven miles in which aquatic
habitat uses are precluded.
High levels of soluble heavy
metals affect an additional 18
miles of classified streams.
Ownership of almost all of these
tailings has been transferred to
persons without the financial
resources to rehabilitate these
sites. Thus, although violations
of State and Federal water law
have continued for many years,
no enforcement actions have
been taken to resolve this
problem. No State or Federal
funds exist for rehabilitation of
these sites.
The Department of Natural
Resources is now developing a
process that would ensure
maintenance and inspection of
active tailings ponds once they
are abandoned, and prevent
transferring ownership to
persons unable to afford
maintenance and any needed
repairs.
As can be seen by these
examples, mine-related
problems are varied and
require a substantial
commitment by State and
Federal authorities if they are to
be solved. Some States appear
to be dedicating necessary
resources and directing effective
abatement programs, although
other States have only just
started to develop strategies to
address mine drainage
concerns.
""'*""f~
A coal strip mine in Montana.
103
-------
5
Water Pollution Control Programs
Introduction
The Clean Water Act of 1972
determines the way the Federal
government and the States
regulate point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. Although
revised by amendments in 1977,
1981, and 1987, the basic
directives embodied in the
original Act continue to guide
the Nation's water pollution
control programs.
The Clean Water Act (CWA)
established two basic types of
approaches for controlling
pollution from point sources:
the technology-based approach
and the water quality-based
approach. Technology-based
controls consist of uniform,
EPA-established standards of
treatment that apply to
industries and municipal
sewage treatment facilities.
These effluent standards are
limits on the amounts of
pollutants that may be
discharged to waterways. The
limits are derived from the
technologies that are available
for treating the effluent and
removing the pollutants. They
are applied uniformly to every
facility in an industrial
category, regardless of the
condition of the water to which
the effluent is discharged.
105
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Water quality-based controls,
on the other hand, are based on
the quality of the receiving
water. This approach relies on
the use of water quality
standards set by the States on
the basis of the uses to be made
of the streams (e.g., fishing and
swimming) and the criteria (or
limits on pollutants) necessary
to protect those uses. Individual
discharge requirements are
based on the effluent quality
that is needed to ensure
compliance with the water
quality standards.
Regulatory attention in the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
program has begun to shift
focus to water quality-based
pollutant control. To this end,
EPA has issued a policy on the
control of toxic pollutants (49
FR 9016) as well as guidance
documents to assist States and
Regions in developing controls.
EPA expects that the current
plans for implementing the
Water Quality Act (WQA) of
1987 will go far toward
increasing the number of water
quality-based limits in NPDES
permits. The principal means
of achieving this goal is Section
304(1) of the CWA, as amended,
which requires a progressive
program of toxicity control.
Under Section 304(1), States
must identify waters where
technology-based controls and
existing water quality-based
controls are not adequate to
meet water quality standards,
either for the Section 307(a)
priority pollutants or to protect
users, wildlife, or the fish and
shellfish in a waterbody.
Section 304(1) of the CWA
further requires the develop-
ment of individual control
strategies for point sources
causing impairment. Under this
provision, States must identify
(within two years of the
enactment of the WQA)
individual point sources that
may be causing violation of
standards in the waters not
presently achieving water
quality standards, and develop
individual control strategies for
each point source that will
attain applicable water quality
standards within three years
after the strategy is established.
As in the case of pollution
caused by point sources,
nonpoint pollution may also be
said to be subject to two
abatement approaches: in this
case, regulatory and non-
regulatory. Regulatory controls
tend to apply where cause-and-
effect relationships can be most
easily established, although
many exceptions exist.
Examples include controls on
runoff from mining, construc-
tion, and silvicultural activities
in many States where these are
significant industries. Other
nonpoint categories such as
agricultural runoff are more
likely to be subject to non-
regulatory—i.e., voluntary—
controls, with incentives and
technical support provided by a
number of State and Federal
agencies. Nonpoint pollution
controls are often applied on a
case-by-case basis, and are in
many situations administered at
the local or State level.
Programs to control point
and nonpoint source pollution
will be discussed in more detail
below, along with obstacles to
their implementation, successes
achieved, and new initiatives for
the future.
106
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Point Sources
Technology-based limits are
incorporated into the permits
issued to industries and
municipalities under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System. The Clean
Water Act requires these
discharges to reach progressive-
ly more protective technology-
based controls over time.
Where technology-based
controls will not be stringent
enough to ensure that waters
can support their uses, the
water quality-based approach is
used to develop stricter effluent
limits. Permits based on water
quality standards therefore
provide a greater degree of
protection than permits based
on technological considerations
alone.
One of the basic tools of the
water quality-based approach is
the wasteload allocation (WLA)
process: mathematical modeling
that determines the maximum
amount of waste each source
located along a waterbody can
discharge, while still allowing
water quality standards to be
met. Kansas and Wisconsin
were two States that provided
examples illustrating the
application of the WLA process
to problem waters affected by
both industrial and municipal
discharges.
• In Kansas, a recent study
was performed in Johnson
County to evaluate the water
quality conditions and future
requirements for effluent limits
for Mill and Indian Creeks.
Water quality models were
calibrated and then used to
perform wasteload allocations
on the two streams. The
modeling showed that advanced
treatment is needed at all
plants, with low effluent
concentrations required for
both BOD and ammonia.
• Wisconsin reports on the use
of the WLA process on the
Wisconsin River. Described as
"one of the hardest working
rivers in the world," the
Wisconsin River has 29 major
industrial and municipal
dischargers located along its 170
miles between Rhinelander and
the Petenwell Flowage. This
stretch of the river was grossly
polluted in the early 1970s:
extensive fish kills were
common, and game fish were
unpalatable due to taste and
odor problems. WLAs were
performed between 1973 and
1983, and, as a result of the
water quality-based effluent
limits set under the WLA
process, an over 90 percent
reduction occurred in the
amount of BOD being
discharged by pulp and paper
mills and municipalities.
Marked increases in dissolved
oxygen levels resulted, and the
river now meets fish and
aquatic life standards.
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Treating Municipal
Wastewater
Water entering wastewater
treatment plants is typically
contaminated by organics,
solids, nutrients, bacteria,
viruses, and household toxics
such as paint and drain
cleaners. It may also contain
industrial waste, infiltration
from ground water, and inflow
from stormwater runoff.
Adequate treatment of
municipal wastewater is
important for the protection of
the Nation's water resources
and public health. Without
adequate treatment, this
pollution poses a potentially
serious threat to fish and
shellfish communities,
recreational opportunities,
surface water drinking supplies,
ground-water drinking supplies,
and the general health and
stability of many of the Nation's
streams, rivers, lakes, and
estuarine ecosystems.
The Clean Water Act
requires municipalities to
achieve treatment levels based
on technology performance. A
July 1977 deadline, extended by
the 1981 CWA amendments to
July 1, 1988, for eligible plants,
was established for the
achievement of "secondary
treatment," a level of treatment
that removes at least 85 percent
of several key conventional
pollutants. If secondary
treatment is not enough to
protect water quality and public
health, the Clean Water Act
mandates advanced or
'tertiary" levels of treatment.
Under the Clean Water Act,
EPA is authorized to help
municipalities solve their
wastewater treatment problems
by providing grants (and now
loans) for construction. Projects
eligible for grant assistance
include wastewater treatment
facilities that provide secondary
or advanced treatment,
interceptor sewers, and
correction of infiltration/inflow
problems in sewer systems. The
grants process includes the
ranking of each project via a
State priority system that is
based on water quality and
public health objectives, the
development of a detailed
facilities plan and project
design, the distribution of
construction grant funds to
States (based on an allotment
formula specified by the CWA),
arid, finally, the issuance of
grants to fundable high priority
projects.
Aerial view of a sewage treatment
plant showing aeration basins in
foreground and settling basin in
background.
108
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Since 1972, EPA, State, and
local governments have invested
heavily in the construction and
upgrading of sewage treatment
facilities. As a result of these
expenditures, the Nation's
ability to adequately treat its
wastewater has improved
substantially. The total
population served by secondary
treatment or better has
increased from 85 million in
1972 to 127 million in 1986,
while the total population
discharging untreated
wastewater has dropped from 5
million to less than 2 million.
Many of the upgraded and/or
expanded treatment plants were
financed in part by the
construction grants program.
Through fiscal year 1986, a
total of 11,100 construction
grants have been awarded,
totaling more than $40 billion,
while projects totaling $25
billion have been completed.
Thus far, roughly 4,600
operational treatment plants
have been built or improved
with construction grant funds.
During the reporting period
of 1984 through 1986 alone, a
total of 2,200 construction
grants projects were physically
completed, totaling $10 billion.
Projects completed during FY
1984-86 have resulted in
improved treatment facilities as
well as expanded treatment
capacity. As shown in Table 5-1,
roughly 500 more treatment
plants provided secondary
treatment or better in 1986 than
in 1984, and an additional 1,600
million gallons per day of
increased capacity at secondary
or better were provided. These
upgraded and expanded
wastewater treatment facilities
are protecting public drinking
water supplies and are helping
to make the Nation's waters
fishable and swimmable.
What has been the actual
water quality effect of these
State, local, and Federal
investments? As we have said,
the construction grants
program is widely
acknowledged to have led to a
reduction in the loadings of
pollutants from municipal
sources; to have significantly
reduced the number of
untreated or undertreated
sewage discharges; and to have
improved water quality and
biological conditions
downstream of many new and
upgraded facilities. However,
efforts to quantify these
improvements have lagged
because of the extensive stream
sampling and modeling efforts
that are required—before and
after sewage treatment plant
construction—to definitively
assess effects.
Table 5-1. Facility Data by Level of Treatment, 1984/1986
Number of Facilities
Design Capacity (MGD)
Level of Treatment
Raw Discharge
Less than Secondary
Secondary
Greater than Secondary
No Discharge
Other
Total
1984
202
2,617
8,070
2,965
1,726
0
15,580
1986
149
2,112
8,403
3,115
1,762
46
15,587
Net
Change
-53
-505
+ 333
+ 150
+ 36
+ 46
+ 7
1984
N/A
6,510
14,603
13,874
938
0
35,925
1986
N/A
5,529
15,714
14,373
973
88
36,677
Net
Change
N/A
-981
+ 1,111
+ 499
+ 35
+ 88
+ 752
Source: U.S. EPA, 7984 and 7986 Needs Survey Report to Congress.
109
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
The results of one such
analysis were reported in the
Missouri 1986 305(b) report.
Before-and-after studies of 10
municipal facility construction
or upgrading projects in
Missouri estimated 1.25 miles of
stream improvement per
project, representing about an
86 percent reduction in the
length of affected segments.
The study concludes that:
• Upgrading or replacing a
single facility typically results in
an average improvement of just
over half a mile. Percent of
affected stream improved by the
grant project would range from
40-80 percent, depending upon
which treatment types are
involved.
• Regionalization of
wastewater treatment usually
results in several miles of
stream improvement per
project.
Although such quantified
results are rare, site-specific
narrative information is
available from the 1986 State
305(b) reports on water quality
improvements due to the
construction grants program.
For example:
• Georgia reports that during
1984-85, significant improve-
ment was noted in the
Conasauga River below Dalton,
in the South River below
metropolitan Atlanta, and in
the Ochlocknee River below
Moultrie. The improvements in
each case were the result of
municipal water pollution
control plant upgrading. In
addition, municipal facility
upgrading in Covington (Dried
Indian Creek), Hinesville
(Peacock Canal), Jesup (Little
McMullen Creek), LaFayette
(Chattooga Creek), and
Fitzgerald (Turkey Branch) also
provided for improved quality
in the receiving streams.
A number of states reported that
improved water quality has
occurred as a result of the
construction grants program.
110
• Idaho reports that since
1982, nearly 50,000 people have
been added to the total
population served by secondary
treatment facilities. This is a
result of the recent completion
of more than two dozen grant-
supported projects to improve
\vastewater treatment. All of
these facilities discharge an
effluent which meets or exceeds
State and Federal standards.
II In New Mexico, comparison
of data from 1977 and 1985
indicates that the amount of
biochemical oxygen demand
discharged to the State's surface
waters decreased by 34 percent
despite a 30 percent increase in
the amount of waste being
treated by municipal
wastewater treatment facilities.
Furthermore, municipal waste
discharged to surface waters
was treated to a higher level in
1985 than in 1977. In 1977, the
discharged BOD was 42 percent
of the generated waste, whereas
in 1985 the discharged BOD
was only 11 percent. These
percentages are equivalent to 58
and 89 percent removals,
respectively.
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
• Nevada's Truckee River
continues to show improvement
in aquatic life below the
Reno/Sparks wastewater
treatment plant because of
control of toxics (e.g., chlorine)
and the reduction of phosphates
in the river. At the end of 1981,
Reno/Sparks initiated
phosphate removal and had
reduced the phosphate loading
to the river from the treatment
plant at least 70 percent. More
recently, Reno/Sparks has
reduced levels of phosphorus
further, resulting in over 95
percent removal of total
phosphorus.
• New York reports that water
quality in the Little Ausable
River below the Peru sewage
treatment plant improved
immediately when a new
facility was placed in operation
in April 1985. Sludge deposits
and odors disappeared after the
inadequate primary plant was
upgraded. Similar observations
were noted in the Saranac
River and tributary when the
Village of Dannemora
upgraded its primary facility to
secondary treatment and the
Village of Bloomingdale built a
new facility with secondary
treatment to eliminate raw
discharges there.
• South Dakota reports that
22 stream miles improved in
1984 and 19 improved in 1985
due to projects carried out
under the construction grants
program.
• In Vermont, municipal
treatment plant upgrading and
construction has restored a
number of important rivers and
streams. These include the Dog
River, now known locally for its
fine trout fishery; the
aesthetically much-improved
Winooski River between
Montpelier and Essex Junction;
and the greatly improved
Connecticut River, now being
seriously considered as a
recreational site by Brattleboro
and other communities along
its banks. Vermont's rivers and
streams have been improved so
much that more than half of the
State's population presently
uses them for swimming and
other water contact sports. The
recently upgraded Newport
City wastewater treatment plant
has improved Lake
Memphremagog's water quality
such that the municipal
swimming beach is no longer
closed each summer due to high
bacteria counts.
111
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Treating Industrial
Wastewater
The Clean Water Act
required industries to achieve
Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available
(BPT)byJuly 1, 1977. These
BPT limitations are based, in
general, on the average of the
best existing performance by
plants of various sizes, ages,
and processes within the
industry or subcategory of
industry.
EPA was also required to
establish more stringent
technology-based limits for
individual categories of
industrial dischargers. These
new requirements, referred to
as Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable
(BAT), are specifically designed
to control the discharge of toxic
pollutants from industrial
sources. EPA has promulgated
27 final BAT regulations since
1979.
In addition to these
technology-based requirements,
in 1984 EPA issued a policy on
the water quality-based control
of toxic pollutants discharged
by point sources. In 1985, a
technical guidance document
was issued to support the
national policy. Both the policy
and guidance recommend using
overall toxicity as a measure of
adverse impact and as a regula-
tory parameter. The use of
toxicity testing as a regulatory
tool is a new concept, but its
use, coupled with chemical
testing for pollutants that are
hazards through
bioaccumulation, provides a
powerful means of detecting
and controlling toxicity.
States are making progress in
developing the capability to
assess and regulate toxic
discharges using biological
techniques. As of summer 1986,
42 States required effluent
toxicity monitoring by
dischargers. Fifteen States
either required toxicity testing
in over half of their major
permits or had more than 50
permits with testing require-
ments. 1,033 permits included
permit limitations on effluent
toxicity; 1,802 permits required
effluent toxicity monitoring;
and 73 permits required
ambient field biological
assessment.
There is no doubt that
improvements in the treatment
of industrial wastes have
benefited some of the Nation's
waterways. Examples of water
quality improvements due to
the implementation of
industrial controls are provided
by several States:
•I Connecticut reports that
approximately 400 miles of
major streams in that State
have improved to varying
degrees due to the regulation of
industrial facilities. Further
treatment beyond normally
required BAT is still needed on
some river systems in order to
reduce remaining toxic impacts
on aquatic life.
The aquatic invertebrate
Ceriodaphnia, used in toxicity
testing.
112
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
One example of water quality
enhancement is the Naugatuck
River, once considered one of
the most polluted rivers in the
country. Between 1973 and
1976, the State issued
abatement orders to 35 major
and 42 minor industrial
dischargers along the river.
Metal finishing plants were
required to neutralize acids,
destroy cyanide wastes, and
remove heavy metals. In 1970,
the river was virtually devoid of
aquatic life; today, water quality
has improved so much that the
upper 22 miles from Torrington
to Thomaston Dam have been
stocked with trout on an
experimental basis. Monitoring
has shown a marked reduction
in heavy metals such as copper
and zinc and improved pH
levels. The river has been
identified as a potentially
valuable resource for cold water
and anadromous fisheries.
However, the large number of
dischargers remaining in the
river in 1986 still creates water
quality problems in the lower
portion of the river. More
stringent effluent limitations
will still be required in order to
fully achieve water quality
goals.
• New York reports on a
number of streams and rivers
improved due to industrial
controls. Among them is
Cattaraugus Creek, which once
received inadequately treated
industrial wastes from facilities
in Gowanda. This stream was
severely polluted and supported
only a few desirable fish species
until one of the industries
ceased operation and the other
installed appropriate waste
treatment. Cattaraugus Creek
is now reportedly the best
salmonid fishing stream in New
York's portion of the Lake Erie
basin, and is stocked annually
with chinook and coho salmon
and steelhead trout. The stream
is popular with anglers along
the 42-mile segment from Lake
Erie to the Springville Dam.
• North Dakota reports that
pollution loadings from
industrial dischargers had
significant impacts on the
quality of the Red River of the
North. A dramatic reduction in
BOD loading has occurred
since industrial controls were
implemented starting in 1972.
The industrial loading of the
Red River in 1972 was in excess
of 3.8 million pounds; in 1985,
the industrial loading had
dropped to approximately 0.25
million pounds.
A power plant on the Ohio River.
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Pretreatment
The goal of the National
Pretreatment Program is to
protect municipal wastewater
treatment plants and the
environment from damage that
may occur when toxic or
hazardous wastes are
discharged by industries into a
sewer system. This protection is
achieved by regulating the
wastewater discharged to
municipal facilities by industrial
or non-domestic users. There
are two types of standards:
prohibited discharge standards
and categorical pretreatment
standards. The responsibility
for administering the program
is shared with municipalities
that must develop and receive
approval to operate a
pretreatment program.
Over the past two years, most
of the major municipalities have
had their programs approved
and have begun to implement
them. EPA and the States have
begun evaluating the municipal
programs and have continued
to enforce requirements for
pretreatment among more than
20,000 categorical industrial
users. Full implementation will
significantly reduce loading of
metals and organic toxic
pollutants to municipal
facilities, thus providing
protection to the facility and the
receiving stream. EPA hopes
that States and municipal
sewage treatment plants will
continue to make progress
toward assuming their full
responsibility so the program
goals may be realized.
As of September 30, 1986,
1,429 local programs had been
approved. Of those remaining,
60 programs were recently
identified and are on compli-
ance schedules. More than half
of the other unapproved
programs have been sued to
obtain an approvable program
and implementation. Progress
has been slow and uneven, but
implementation is now
beginning.
In their 1986 305(b) reports,
a number of States reported on
their progress in implementing
the pretreatment program.
Because of the program's
relative youth, few actual water
quality improvements were
reported, although benefits can
be measured in other ways. For
example:
• In New Jersey, active
implementation of the Federal
pretreatment standards, with
an emphasis on electroplating
standards, has resulted in the
reduction of toxics, especially
heavy metals, cyanides, and
organics discharged to munici-
pal sewage treatment plants.
Approximately 270 indirect
dischargers are affected by the
electroplating standards, with
40 percent already in full
compliance.
• Mississippi reports that
essentially all categorical
industries are now under State-
issued pretreatment permits.
The State's permitting efforts
have resulted in the construc-
tion of many pretreatment
facilities, most of which were
completed in 1985 or are
nearing completion. The State
has a compliance rate for the
metal finishing industry in
excess of 90 percent, with
compliance being defined as
attainment of permit limits or
the facility being on schedule
with enforceable orders. The
State is now primarily shifting
emphasis for pretreatment
categorical facilities to
compliance and enforcement
rather than simply permit
issuance. Significant reductions
are expected in the number of
municipal noncompliance and
treatment "upsets" caused by
toxics. Additionally, significant
levels of heavy metals,
pentachlorophenols, total
phenols, and other toxic
parameters are being removed
prior to discharge to receiving
streams.
114
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
• Indiana has identified 51
municipalities that need direct
control of their industrial users
(lUs). Only three of these have
yet to receive EPA/State
approval of their program plan.
There are also approximately
70 lUs that discharge into
smaller municipal sewage plants
that will be controlled directly
by the State. The State has
already issued about 30
industrial waste pretreatment
permits, and another 30
permits have been drafted and
are waiting to be issued.
Table 5-2. Status of Permit Issuance
Major Permits
Minor Permits
Total Facilities
EPA-lssued:
Total
Expired
Percent
State-Issued:
Total
Expired
Percent
7,406
2,193
189
9
5,213
494
9
57,187
9,193
4,150
45
47,994
15,541
32
Permitting
During the early 1980s, the
rate of permit issuance fell
behind the rate of permit
expiration, and large backlogs
of unissued permits developed.
This resulted from delays in
promulgating BAT treatment
standards and confusion about
limiting toxics based on water
quality. Efforts to remedy these
backlogs have been largely
successful. As Table 5-2
illustrates, the backlog of major
unissued permits has been
brought down to less than 10
percent and the backlog of
minors to less than 35 percent.
Compliance and
Enforcement
Despite examples of water
quality improvements associ-
ated with the construction and
upgrading of municipal sewage
treatment plants, 35 percent of
major municipal facilities do
not meet the requirements of
their National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
permits. Industrial permittees
have achieved a much higher
rate of compliance and only 6
percent are now unable to meet
their final permit limits.
Source Permit Compliance System, November 10, 1986.
EPA and the States are
responsible for ensuring that
municipal and industrial facil-
ities comply with the terms of
their discharge permits.
Currently, 37 States have
approval to administer their
own NPDES programs. EPA
has the lead implementation
responsibility in the remaining
States. Along with the States,
EPA monitors discharger
compliance with permit limits.
Facilities in noncompliance are
subject to Federal as well as
State enforcement action.
Table 5-3 illustrates rates of
significant noncompliance,
based on statistics maintained
by EPA for the reporting period
of June 1984 through June
1986. It is important to note
that at the beginning of
FY 1986, the NPDES program
modified its definition of
significant noncompliance to
promote greater consistency
and clarify what quantifiable
and qualitative violations
needed to be reported by the
States. This redefinition
included a strict interpretation
of the resolution of significant
noncompliance and a stronger
emphasis on violations of
reporting requirements and
enforcement orders. As a result,
rates of significant noncompli-
ance increased during FY 1986.
115
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Table 5-3. National Composite Rates of Facilities in Significant
Noncompliance (in percents)
Quarter Ending
Non-Municipals
Municipals
12/31/83
3/31/84
6/30/84
9/30/84
12/31/84
3/31/85
6/30/85
9/30/85
12/31/85*
3/31/86*
6/30/86*
8
10
6
6
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
19
20
14
13
12
13
10
9
14
16
15
•Reflects NPDES rule change
Because of the generally poor
municipal compliance record,
and because of Congressional
concern over the performance
of treatment plants built
substantially with Federal
funds, EPA and the States
developed the National
Municipal Policy (the Policy) to
address the entire spectrum of
municipal noncompliance. On
January 23, 1984, the EPA
Administrator signed the Policy
into effect. The Policy clarifies
and emphasizes EPA's resolve to
assure that municipalities
comply with the Clean Water
Act as quickly as possible,
regardless of whether Federal
grant assistance is available for
treatment construction.
The Policy requires EPA and
the States to identify affected
municipal facilities and their
construction needs and to
prepare individual facility
action plans to bring these
facilities into full statutory
compliance by July 1, 1988.
September 30, 1985, was set as
an interim Agency goal for all
noncomplying major facilities
to be on enforceable compliance
schedules. A major municipal
sewage treatment facility is one
that discharges one million
gallons per day or greater, or
serves an equivalent population
of 10,000. After the Policy took
effect, EPA and the States
identified about 1,500 major
and over 2,000 minor facilities
that needed some construction
to meet requirements.
During 1985 and 1986, EPA
and the States brought 278
majors into compliance and
placed an additional 1,095 on
enforceable schedules requiring
compliance with the July 1988
(deadline. Many of these
communities are constructing
facilities without substantial
Federal assistance. As of
November 1986, an additional
72 were under referral for
judicial enforcement action to
obtain the necessary schedules;
55 major municipal facilities
\vere still not on final
compliance schedules, nor had
formal enforcement been
initiated. Over 1,000 minor
facilities were also placed on
enforceable schedules.
In addition to the Municipal
Policy, EPA has adopted several
improvements in the area of
enforcement procedures.
During FY 1986, all States and
EPA Regions were required to
prepare and/or update written
enforcement management
system procedures. These
procedures describe the process
for reviewing violations and
determining appropriate
enforcement responses.
In February 1986, EPA
issued a revised Clean Water
Act Penalty Policy for
determining penalties that are
appropriate for settlements.
T'he principles of the policy
have been adopted by States
and accepted in several court
decisions as equitable and
logical approaches to assess
penalties for violations of
NPDES permit conditions.
116
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
New Initiatives in
Point Source
Control
Toxicity Testing and
Toxicity Reduction
Evaluations:
States and EPA regional
offices are beginning to
incorporate toxicity limits and
toxicity testing requirements
into permits. When toxicity
testing shows that a permittee's
discharge contains toxicity at
unacceptable levels, either the
EPA region or the State agency
with responsibility for that
permit are urged to require the
permittee to reduce toxicity so
that no harmful effects occur
instream.
Toxicity reduction evaluations
(TREs) are a way to identify
and implement whatever
actions are needed to reduce
effluent toxicity to the levels
specified in the permit. TREs
combine toxicity testing,
chemical tests, and treatment
analysis to determine either the
actual causative toxicants or the
treatment methods that will
reduce effluent toxicity. EPA is
currently documenting
successful TREs conducted by
permittees, States, and EPA
researchers.
In addition, EPA's Permit
Writer's Guide to Water Quality-
Based Permitting for Toxic Pollutants
is urging the use of an
integrated toxics control
strategy with both whole
effluent toxicity-based
assessment procedures and
pollutant-specific assessment
procedures to uphold State
water quality standards.
Sludge Management
The need for effective sludge
management is continuous and
growing. In the United States,
the quantity of municipal
sludge produced annually has
almost doubled since 1972.
Municipalities currently
generate approximately 7.6
million dry metric tons of
wastewater sludge per year, or
approximately 32 kilograms per
person per year. Improper
sludge management could lead
to significant environmental
degradation of land and air.
Failure to properly dispose of
sludge could have impacts on
ground water and wetlands, as
well as human health.
Prior to the 1987
amendments to the Clean
Water Act, the authorities and
regulations related to the use
and disposal of sewage sludge
were fragmented and did not
provide States and
municipalities with adequate
guidelines on which to base
sludge management decisions.
There was no single legislative
approach or framework for
integrating the various Federal
laws to ensure that sludge
would be used or disposed of in
a consistent or environmentally
acceptable manner. While the
Clean Water Act, the Clean Air
Act, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Marine
Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), and
the Toxic Substances Control
Act all regulate some aspect of
sludge management, coverage is
uneven, and the requirements
are based on different method-
ologies and approaches.
Section 406 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987, which
amends Section 405 of the
Clean Water Act, for the first
time sets forth a comprehensive
program for reducing the
environmental risks and
maximizing the beneficial uses
of sludge. The program is based
on the development of technical
requirements for sludge use and
disposal, and the implementa-
tion of such requirements
through permits.
Pursuant to these require-
ments, EPA is developing
regulations for each of the
major use and disposal options
for sewage sludge. These
options include land
application, incineration,
landfilling, distribution and
marketing, and ocean disposal.
EPA will ensure that these
regulations also comply with
other relevant statutes such as
the Clean Air Act, the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, and the
MPRSA. The first set of
regulations, addressing 41
pollutants in sewage sludge, is
scheduled to be proposed in
early 1988. Development of a
comprehensive set of disposal
option regulations will give the
States and municipalities a
basis for making environmen-
tally appropriate and cost-
effective sludge management
decisions.
EPA is also developing
regulations to include sludge
limits in NPDES permits, and
to establish requirements for
State sludge management
programs to implement the new
statutory requirements. These
are scheduled to be proposed in
December 1987.
117
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Ocean Dumping
EPA is in the process of
revising the Ocean Dumping
Regulation in response to a
lawsuit brought by the city of
New \brk. This legal decision
found that EPA could not
categorically prohibit the ocean
dumping of materials such as
sludge and dredge spoil which
fail the marine impact criteria.
Instead, the EPA must take into
account the need for ocean
dumping and the availability
and impacts of land-based
alternatives to ocean dumping.
The revision is also in response
to the results of a National
Wildlife Federation lawsuit on
dredged material disposal, and
to statutory amendments since
the last promulgation of
regulations in 1977. The revised
regulations are scheduled for
proposal in early 1988.
Nonpoint Sources
EPA's current nonpoint
source responsibilities are
embodied in several provisions
of the Clean Water Act.
Sections 208 and 303 of the Act
established a framework, within
the general water quality
planning process, for planning
and implementing nonpoint
source controls. From 1975
through 1981, Section 208 funds
were provided to the States and
areawide planning agencies.
These funds were to be used to
analyze the extent of nonpoint
source-related water quality
problems and to develop
strategies to control them as
part of each State's overall
water quality management
program. During this period,
significant funding was also
devoted to evaluating best
management practices, devel-
oping assessment methodologies
and models, and providing
other nonpoint source technical
support to State and local water
quality managers.
The Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program was conducted to
characterize the types and effects f
of pollutants in urban runoff and to
evaluate controls.
Toward the end of this
period, major emphasis was
placed on addressing water
(quality problems caused by
urban stormwater runoff. From
1978 through 1983, the Office
of Water committed $30 million
to the Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program (NURP). The
NURP program included 28
projects scattered across the
Nation, conducted separately at
the local level but centrally
reviewed, coordinated, and
guided. All included one or
more of the following elements:
characterizing pollutant types,
loads, and effects on water
quality; determining the need
for control; and evaluating
various alternatives for the
control of urban stormwater
pollution.
NURP was not intended to
hie a research program per se,
but to provide information,
methodologies, and site-specific
technical support to water
quality management efforts.
Therefore, wherever possible,
the projects were selected with
two basic criteria in mind: work
undertaken would complete the
urban runoff elements of formal
water quality management
plans, and the results would
likely be incorporated in future
plan updates and lead to
implementation of management
recommendations. Several
forums for the communication
of experience and the sharing of
data were provided through
semi-annual meetings involving
participants from all projects.
118
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
In addition to assisting
communities in resolving their
particular urban runoff
problems, NURP produced
important insights into the
performance of selected best
management practices and
generated the most extensive
database on urban stormwater
runoff yet available. But what
may prove to be of greatest
value was the development of a
statistically based analytic
methodology that is capable of
reliably predicting, with a high
degree of accuracy, the high
variability of pollutant
concentrations found in urban
runoff. This methodology has
particular value as a screening
tool to enable water quality
managers to determine more
quickly and cost-effectively
where their worst urban runoff
problems are and which control
practices are most promising for
particular applications. With
modifications, the methodology
will be applicable to all forms of
nonpoint source pollution.
EPA has also worked
extensively with other Federal
agencies to provide technical
support to State and local
agencies in their efforts to
manage and control nonpoint
source pollution. The prime
example of such interagency
cooperation is the Experimental
Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP), begun in 1979 as a
result of national legislation
enacted by Congress. The
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is the lead agency and
has primary responsibility for
directing the program. EPA's
role is to ensure that water
quality objectives are fully
addressed. RCWP is designed
to provide incentives for the
implementation of agricultural
best management practices
(BMPs) to solve nonpoint
source water quality problems.
This program provides long-
term technical and financial
assistance to farmers in 21
watersheds across the country.
Since 1980, EPA and USDA
have sponsored a special project
of the North Carolina
Extension Service called the
National Water Quality
Evaluation Project (NWQEP).
NWQEP conducts technical
analyses and evaluations of
agricultural nonpoint source
projects around the country,
especially RCWP projects, and
issues an annual report
identifying current findings and
observations of interest and use
to those responsible for
agricultural nonpoint source
pollution control. Some recent
findings are summarized on the
following pages.
The Rural Clean Water Program
provides financial incentives for
the implementation of best
management practices.
119
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Control Strategies
and Best
Management
Practices: Recent
Findings
Urban Runoff
The Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program (NURP),
comprised of 28 projects
conducted by State and local
water quality management
agencies from 1978 to 1983
under EPA's direction, reached
the following conclusions about
best management practices to
control urban runoff:
Detention basins are capable
of providing very effective
removal of pollutants from
urban runoff. Wet basins
(designs which maintain a
permanent water pool) have the
greatest performance
capabilities. When basins are
adequately sized, particulate
removals in excess of 90 percent
(for total suspended solids and
lead) can be obtained.
Pollutants with significant
soluble fractions show lower
reductions, on the order of 65
percent for total phosphorus
and approximately 50 percent
for biochemical oxygen
demand, chemical oxygen
demand, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, copper, and zinc. Dry
basins (conventional stormwater
management basins) can be
effective in attenuating peak
runoff rates but according to
NURP data are essentially
ineffective in reducing pollutant
loads. Dual-purpose basins
(conventional dry basins with
modified outlet structures
which significantly extend
detention time) appear from
limited NURP data to provide
effective reductions in urban
runoff loads.
120
Adequately sized recharge
devices are capable of
providing very effective control
of urban runoff pollutant
discharges to surface waters,
but continued attention to the
potential for ground-water
contamination is warranted.
Soil type, depth to ground
water, land slopes, and
proximity to water supply wells
must all be given careful
consideration.
Street sweeping is generally
ineffective as a technique for
improving the quality of urban
runoff. However, there may be
special cases in which street
cleaning, applied at selected
times of the year (e.g.,
immediately following snow
melt or leaf fall) or at restricted
locations (e.g., urban
neighborhoods consistently
prone to amass debris) could
provide reductions in pollution
levels.
Grass swales can provide
moderate improvements in
urban runoff quality. Design
conditions are important.
Additional study could
significantly enhance the
performance capabilities of
swales.
Wetlands, both natural and
artificial, are considered to be
of potential value in the control
of urban runoff quality. Only
one NURP project actually
monitored performance of a
wetland. This was a natural
wetland; flows passing through
it were uncontrolled. Initial
results suggest potential to
improve quality, but the
investigation was not adequate
to associate necessary design
factors with performance
capability.
The relative effectiveness of
various best management
practices has been demonstrated
under the Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program and the National
Water Quality Evaluation Project.
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Agriculture
The National Water Quality
Evaluation Project has
evaluated the effectiveness of
more than 30 agricultural
nonpoint source pollution
control projects. Among its
findings:
• Arid land irrigation canals
respond most quickly to BMP
implementation.
• The time it takes to observe
water quality results from
agricultural nonpoint source
control measures depends on
monitoring design, meteoro-
logic variability, watershed size,
water resource type, and
pollutant type. At least five
years are needed to document
water quality improvements in
humid regions.
• Eliminating the practice of
manure spreading may slightly
reduce loss of total phosphorus
and substantially reduce loss of
ortho-phosphate.
• While structural BMPs can
be effective in reducing
sediment and nutrient losses,
they often are not the most cost-
effective methods. Preliminary
evaluation shows that
conservation tillage and
vegetative cover practices are
substantially more cost-effective
than sediment basins, diver-
sions, terraces, and sediment
control structures.
• Improved fertilizer
management appears to be the
most cost-effective BMP for
reducing nutrient losses in most
projects.
• Nitrogen management can
reduce applied nitrogen
substantially, with no adverse
effect on corn yields. Irrigation
management is thought to be
effective in minimizing the
leaching of nitrate into the
ground water with no effect on
corn yields.
• Irrigation scheduling has a
significant effect on seasonal
sediment loss. In many cases,
reducing the number of
irrigations can lower sediment
losses without affecting
productivity.
• Aggressive marketing, use of
local agricultural agencies, and
water quality plans integrating
on-farm and water quality
concerns can be effective even
in areas that are economically
depressed.
• Factors that may contribute
to high rates of farmer
participation include visible
water quality objectives, large
amounts of money for cost-
sharing, identifying preferred
BMPs, technical assistance, and
active publicity.
121
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
By 1983, it became clear that
stricter control of nonpoint
source pollution was needed in
order to fully realize the water
quality benefits of the Nation's
large point source control
expenditures, and to meet the
goals of the Clean Water Act.
Congress commissioned EPA to
compile a comprehensive report
on nonpoint source pollution
control efforts. In January of
1984, EPA issued Nonpoint Source
Pollution in the United States, a
summary of what was then
known about the nature and
extent of nonpoint source water
quality problems and current
efforts by Federal, State, and
local agencies to address them.
Recognizing the need to
accelerate efforts to control
nonpoint source pollution and
the importance of closer
coordination among the diverse
agencies with nonpoint source
management responsibilities at
all levels, EPA convened a
Federal/State/local Nonpoint
Source Task Force in March of
1984. This Task Force included
representatives of all parties
with an interest or involvement
in nonpoint source
management, including
Federal, State, and local
agencies; public and private
interest groups; and individual
landowners and land managers.
The Task Force developed a
recommended national
nonpoint source policy, and all
participating Federal, State,
and local agencies developed
individual strategies to
implement the recommended
policy. Both the national policy
and individual strategies were
founded on the principle that
States have primary
responsibility for preventing
and controlling nonpoint source
pollution. There are several
reasons for this:
• Nonpoint source water
quality problems are typically
diverse and site-specific, and
States best combine proximity
to the problems with sufficient
span of control to address
hydrologic units effectively.
• States legally possess
primary authority for land use
regulation and control.
• States, in cooperation with
local jurisdictions, are in the
best position to weigh local
needs and conditions and to
make necessary adjustments to
implementation strategies.
Dams alter the natural courses of rivers and may create water quality
problems.
122
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
To provide additional
incentive to accelerate nonpoint
source control efforts by the
States, Congress enacted major
new nonpoint source
requirements for the States as
part of the Water Quality Act
(WQA) Amendments of 1987.
The provisions require that
each State prepare and submit
to EPA within 18 months of
enactment a nonpoint source
Assessment Report and
Management Program. The
Assessment Report must
identify State waters that will
not attain or maintain water
quality standards without
additional nonpoint source
controls; the particular
nonpoint sources responsible;
the process to identify BMPs
for each nonpoint source
category; and the State and
local programs that would
implement controls. The
Management Program,
covering a four-year period, will
identify the following: actual
BMPs to address the problems
documented in the assessment
and programs to implement the
BMPs; sources and proposed
uses of all nonpoint source
control funding; and Federal
programs and projects that
States need to review for
consistency with their own
nonpoint source programs.
Under the WQA, EPA may
award implementation grants to
States that apply and whose
Assessment Reports and
Management Programs are
approved. The WQA authorizes
appropriations of $70 million in
FY88, $100 million each in
FY89 and FY90, and $130
million in FY91. In addition,
the WQA reserves an additional
one percent of each State's
annual construction grant
allotment to be used to prepare
and carry out the Assessment
Report and Management
Program. The WQA also makes
implementation of approved
State Nonpoint Source
Management Programs eligible
for funding under the
Governor's twenty percent
discretionary set-aside of the
State's annual construction
grant allotment and under the
State Water Pollution Control
Revolving Fund.
In addition, the Water
Quality Act of 1987 established
new deadlines for the develop-
ment of a permit program for
stormwater discharges
associated with industrial
activities and municipal
separate storm sewers. The
substantive requirements of
these programs are still being
evaluated.
Finally, EPA is required to
provide annual reports to
Congress on the States'
progress in controlling nonpoint
source pollution. At the end of
the four-year period provided
by Congress for the States'
initial Management Programs,
EPA is further required to
recommend programs (includ-
ing enforcement) that are
needed to control nonpoint
sources sufficiently to attain
and maintain water quality
standards and the goals of the
Act.
In addition, the nonpoint
source provisions of the WQA
amendments require that
ground water as well as surface
water protection be addressed
by States in developing and
implementing their nonpoint
source programs. States must
specifically identify the
•" ^4j4jg: %.
• m. *•
Harvesting potatoes in Idaho.
123
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
potential ground-water impacts
of BMPs they propose to use in
their nonpoint source
Management Programs. Up to
$7.5 million annually of the
grant funds authorized for State
implementation of such
Management Programs may be
used for ground-water
protection activities that will
advance implementation of the
Programs.
Clearly, much remains to be
done to achieve adequate
control of nonpoint source
pollution. More precise and
reliable analytic techniques are
needed in order to estimate the
water quality impacts of
pollutants generated by
nonpoint source activities and
transported by storm events of
variable frequency, intensity,
and duration. More effective
institutional arrangements must
be forged between the many
jurisdictions, organizations, and
individuals involved in
nonpoint source management.
In order to more efficiently use
the resources available at
Federal, State, and local levels,
more workable approaches
must be devised to target and
set priorities for nonpoint
source cleanup activities. The
WQA amendments of 1987
provide needed support,
incentives, and opportunity for
the States to move forward
more aggressively on all these
fronts.
Some examples of water
quality successes due to the
implementation of nonpoint
source controls are reported by
the States in 1986:
• In Idaho, a project to
monitor the effectiveness of
BMPs for irrigated agriculture
is underway in the Rock Creek
drainage area. Intensive trend
monitoring funded through the
Rural Clean Water Program is
showing a substantial reduction
in loadings of suspended
sediments and other pollutants
in areas where the most BMPs
were implemented. A signifi-
cant reduction in DDT has
been shown in upper Rock
Creek, indicating that past
residues are breaking down and
new sources are not being
introduced.
Two examples of nonpoint source problems: runoff from fields causes soil erosion, and chemicals sprayed on
crops may be washed into waterways.
124
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
• Indiana reports that large-
scale implementation of
agricultural conservation tillage
practices have significantly
reduced phosphorus loadings to
Lake Erie. Target phosphorus
loadings, which were agreed
upon by the U.S. and Canada,
called for Indiana to reduce its
phosphorus loadings to Lake
Erie by 90 metric tons per year
for four years, beginning in
1985. Since earlier State
legislation had curbed point
source phosphorus discharges,
it was determined that any
additional significant decreases
would have to come from
nonpoint controls. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture,
local Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, and the
Cooperative Extension Service,
in cooperation with EPA,
assisted farmers in the use of
BMPs including conservation
tillage. The calculated result of
the effort was a 106 metric ton
reduction for 1985, 16 tons
more than the year's target.
• Kentucky's Reformatory
Lake, once classified as hyper-
eutrophic due to nutrients from
livestock operations, was
impaired as a recreational
fishing resource because of low
dissolved oxygen levels. Better
livestock management practices
were instituted to treat the
problem. Preliminary data from
1985 indicate that the measures
taken by farm managers, with
assistance from the State and
the University of Kentucky's
Agricultural Extension Service,
have dramatically improved
lake quality. Decreases were
found in chlorophyll, phos-
phorus, and nitrogen levels,
with a concomitant increase in
dissolved oxygen and water
clarity. The lake is no longer
considered hypereutrophic.
• New Hampshire reports on
efforts undertaken to relieve
construction runoff at a large
residential development site on
Lake Winnipesaukee. Problems
with sediment runoff were
traced to inadequate retention
structures, large areas of raw
earth, and resultant channeliza-
tion. Immediate controls were
imposed, including seeding and
mulching; the use of rip-rap,
check dams, and diversion
ditches; the redesign of a
sedimentation pond; and the
development of a "timing and
sequencing" plan to ensure
immediate stabilization of soil
and temporary controls to
prevent erosion. Since
imposition of control measures,
no further sedimentation
problems have occurred at this
project.
• In North Dakota,
information provided by the
Soil Conservation Service
indicates that soil conservation
BMPs instituted in 1984 and
1985 have resulted in reductions
in soil loss. In 1984, soil
conservation measures applied
to 1.6 million acres of cropland,
pastures, rangeland, woodland,
wildlife areas, and recreation
land resulted in savings of 3.4
million tons of soil, averaging
2.1 tons per acre; in 1985, 4.4
million tons of soil were saved,
averaging 2.4 tons per acre.
Nonpoint source impacts are
expected to decline as sedi-
ments and nutrients are kept on
the land and out of rivers and
lakes.
125
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
State discussions of nonpoint
source control programs reveal
that continued progress and
activity is occurring in BMP
implementation, especially in
the control of agricultural
pollution. For example, in Iowa,
projects to control agricultural
nonpoint source pollution have
begun in the watersheds of a
number of high priority lakes
including Prairie Rose Lake,
Green Valley Lake, Arrowhead
Lake, and twelve others. A
statewide water quality
management plan has been
implemented, State legislation
has provided funding for no-
and low-interest loan programs
for soil conservation, and cost-
share funding has been
increased.
Idaho reports that 43,524
acres of farmland are under
contract for cost-share projects.
With cost-share funds, local soil
conservation districts conduct
voluntary pollution control
projects along stream segments
affected by agricultural runoff.
In Maryland, the recent finding
that agricultural nonpoint
sources contribute much of the
nutrient enrichment to
Chesapeake Bay has resulted in
revisions to the State
agricultural control program.
BMPs for reducing nutrient
losses from cropland and
animal wastes are being
promoted, and a new set of
priority watersheds has been
identified in which to focus
conservation measures.
California reports on the
adoption of a basin water
quality control plan for Lake
Tahoe that includes the
expenditure of $12.5 million in
State, local, and Federal funds
for remedial erosion control,
and the expenditure of Federal
funds to purchase environmen-
tally sensitive land in the Tahoe
Basin. Significant strides are
also noted in the areas of
mining, agriculture, abandoned
gas wells, and the application of
chemicals in silviculture.
A number of States report on
the passage of strengthened
erosion control legislation. In
Connecticut, for example,
major erosion and sedimenta-
tion control legislation was
passed in 1983. Georgia reports
that amendments to the Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Act
were passed in 1985. Illinois
adopted a soil erosion and
sediment control program in
January 1983 that requires each
soil and water conservation
district to prepare district-wide
erosion and sedimentation
guidelines. In addition, a $2.3
billion "Build Illinois" program
was adopted in 1985 for agricul-
tural soil erosion control
practices.
Despite progress and the
pzissage of new legislation,
barriers to nonpoint source
pollution control persist.
Primary barriers reported by
the States include funding and
resource limitations, and the
need to document the effective-
ness of BMPs.
126
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Water Quality
Monitoring
Under the Clean Water Act,
the States and interstate
agencies, in cooperation with
EPA, perform water quality
monitoring. This monitoring is
needed in order to establish and
revise water quality standards;
calculate total maximum daily
loads; assess compliance with
permits; evaluate the effective-
ness of control measures; and
report on conditions and trends
in ambient waters.
To determine the severity of
pollution, States must make
evaluations based on the most
accurate information available.
This information is of various
types:
• Chemical screening data
cover specific pollutants and
constituents sampled from the
water column, sediments, and
fish/shellfish tissue. They are
collected through "fixed" or
stationary monitoring station
networks; intensive, short-term
surveys; or special studies
designed to answer questions
about a particular stream
segment or pollution discharger.
• Biomonitoring data can be
obtained from two types of
monitoring activities:
biosurveys and bioassays.
Biosurveys may consist of
surveys of fish, macroinverte-
brates, and other biological
communities; tissue analyses;
studies of species diversity and
abundance; habitat evaluations;
and other quantitative
measures. Bioassays, on the
other hand, are tests for
assessing the toxicity of
discharges and ambient water
samples to aquatic life, and for
screening discharges for human
health hazards.
• Professional judgement and
direct observation include data
on stream loadings and
dilution, stream models,
discharge data, fish kill reports,
citizen complaints, and data
from other streams of similar
size and watershed characteris-
tics within the same aquatic
ecological conditions.
An additional type of data
results from compliance
monitoring activities.
Compliance monitoring
includes all monitoring
activities by State or Federal
regulatory agencies to
determine whether NPDES
permittees are adhering to the
conditions of their permits.
Generally, this type of
monitoring data is used in
compliance evaluations and in
support of enforcement actions
where permit violations are
occurring.
EPA directs the States to
establish balanced monitoring
programs capable of collecting
all types of information. In
combination, these activities
help each State set management
priorities for cleanup and direct
limited resources where they
will be of most value.
Mobile laboratory belonging to Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection.
127
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Responsibility for the EPA-
sponsored water quality
monitoring effort rests with
both EPA and the States. In
general, EPA provides overall
policy, guidance, technical
assistance, training, and
overview of program implemen-
tation. EPA is also responsible
for national assessments of
water quality and program
effectiveness. The States collect
data from fixed stations and
dischargers; conduct
biosurveys/bioassays, intensive
surveys, and special studies;
perform wasteload allocations
and water quality analyses; and
ensure that needed
environmental data are
provided to EPA.
New Initiatives in Water
Monitoring
In an effort to increase the
percentage of the Nation's
waters that are assessed and to
make judgements on the
reliability of those assessments,
EPA is proposing that States
report in more specific detail on
individual waterbodies,
especially those that fail to
support designated uses. The
Section 305(b) process will be
the vehicle for this reporting. A
computerized waterbody
information system is being
designed by EPA and the States
to contain this information and
keep it readily available for
updating and revision. Key
monitoring data reported by the
States and incorporated into
this system will include
segment-specific data on
impaired uses, sources of
pollution, problem parameters,
and monitoring and control
activities.
New tools are being
(developed by EPA to expand
the States' capability to assess
previously unassessed waters.
Such tools include techniques
for rapid bioassessment. EPA is
preparing guidance on these
methods, which involve brief
site visits to evaluate water
quality using cost-effective
biological sampling and
evaluation methods. New
toxicity tests are also available
for sensitive and economical
screening of ambient waters
and effluents. The test
procedures are described in
EPA's Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control (Office of Water,
September 1985.)
Conducting bioassays at EPA's laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island.
128
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Costs and Benefits
of Pollution Control
Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act calls for States to
provide an estimate of the
economic and social costs
necessary to achieve the
objective of the Act in their
States and the economic and
social benefits of such
achievement. The EPA must
then provide an analysis of the
State submittals. This is a new
area of analysis for many
States, and, as a result, State-
reported information is not
extensive. This section will
therefore include data from a
variety of sources in addition to
the 1986 State 305(b) reports.
Costs
Many States do not provide
data on costs in their 305(b)
reports; where they do, these
data are mostly capital costs for
municipal wastewater treatment
systems. Therefore, in order to
provide an overall, historical
view on resources devoted to
water pollution control,
aggregrate expenditures—based
primarily on surveys and
analyses by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, U.S.
Department of Commerce—are
shown in Table 5-4. The data
compare expenditures from
1972 to 1984.
Expenditures for municipal
sewage treatment facilities are
shown in Figure 5-1 in constant
1982 dollars. Capital spending
rose from $6.9 billion per year
in 1972 to a peak of $10.1 billion
in 1978. Since then, the rate of
investment has dropped to a
level of about $6.0 billion per
year in 1982-1984.
Table 5-4. Spending for Water Pollution Abatement and Control (billions of constant 1982 dollars)
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984**
Pollution Abatement
Point Sources
Operation of Facilities
Municipal Sub-
systems Industrial Other Total
2.9 2.5 0.2 5.6
3.2 2.8 0.3 6.3
3.3 2.8 0.4 6.5
3.4 3.0 0.5 6.9
3.7 3.4 0.4 7.5
4.1 3.7 0.4 8.2
4.4 3.9 0.5 8.8
4.6 4.2 0.5 9.3
4.7 4.1 0.3 9.1
4.9 4.2 0.2 9.3
5.2 4.0 0.3 9.4
5.5 4.4 0.5 10.3
5.8 4.7 0.4 10.8
Capital Spending
Municipal Sub-
Systems Industrial Other* Total
6.9 3.3 2.0 12.1
7.2 3.6 2.1 12.8
8.1 3.4 1.7 13.2
9.0 4.2 1.3 14.5
9.4 4.6 1.4 15.4
9.4 4.4 1.6 15.5
10.1 4.3 1.9 16.2
9.8 4.0 1.8 15.6
8.9 3.7 1.5 14.1
6.9 3.3 1.3 11.4
6.1 3.1 1.3 10.6
5.6 2.8 1.6 10.0
6.4 2.9 1.9 11.2
Total
Point
Sources
17.8
19.2
19.7
21.4
22.9
23.7
25.0
24.9
23.2
20.7
20.0
20.3
22.0
Monpoint
Sources
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.0
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
Total
Pollution
Abatement
19.7
21.3
21.5
22.8
24.4
24.7
26.6
26.5
24.6
22.0
21.2
21.5
23.2
Control
1 Total
Research Regulation
and and
Development Monitoring
0.3 0.3
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.5
0.3 0.5
0.3 0.5
0.3 0.6
0.3 0.6
0.3 0.6
0.3 0.6
0.3 0.6
0.3 0.5
0.3 0.4
0.2 0.4
Pollution
Abatement
and
Control
20.3
22.0
22.2
23.6
25.3
25.5
27.5
27.4
25.5
22.8
22.0
22.2
23.9
Note Pollution abatement and control expenditures cover: direct pollution abatement expenditures by industry, household, and governmental units for reduction of point and non-
point source discharges; regulation and monitoring expenditures by government for activities that "stimulate and guide action to reduce pollutant emissions , and research
and development expenditures to support abatement and to help increase the efficiency of regulation and monitoring.
"Consists largely of spending for private connectors to public sewer systems
** Preliminary.
Source. Kit D. Farber and Gary L Rutledge, "Pollution Abatement and Control Expenditures," Survey of Current Business, July 1986, p. 86
129
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
§
"o
Q
CO
CO
O)
"o
m
c
g
S
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-
~ ^'' ""^S
:«xx s
_ ^ ^
iM H^ ^*
, '
^ "
•
_ — — - Capital Expenditures
_ — • Operations & Maintenance
1 1 i i
1972 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Year
Figure 5-1. Spending on Municipal Systems
Although the rate of capital
expenditures has dropped, the
total value of municipal plant
and equipment continues to
grow. This is indicated
indirectly by the continuing
growth in operation and
maintenance (O&M) expendi-
tures for municipal sewage
treatment facilities. This
statistic, which excludes
depreciation of capital
equipment, has grown from
$2.9 billion in 1972 to double
that amount, $5.8 billion, in
1984.
Analogous data for industrial
waste treatment are shown in
Figure 5-2. Capital expendi-
tures rose from $3.3 billion per
year in 1972 to $4.6 billion in
1976 and then drifted
downward to a recent level of
about $3 billion per year (in
constant 1982 dollars). Figure
5-3 shows that the total value of
industrial treatment plant and
equipment in place increased
steadily from $18.5 billion in
1972 to $43.7 billion in 1984.
As in the case of municipal
facilities, industrial O&M
expenditures show an upward,
though less stable, trend. The
irregularity of the trend is
apparently the result of
fluctuations in industrial
activity. To examine the possible
effect of industrial activity on
wastewater treatment O&M,
the Federal Reserve Board
Industrial Production Index is
shown in Figure 5-2. The
pauses in the upward movement
of the O&M trend appear to be
correlated with the drops in
industrial production in
1974-75 and 1980-82.
One question on which these
time series cast light is this: how
much greater is the cost of
water pollution control since the
Clean Water Act was passed
than it was before the Act, after
taking into account the growth
in industrial production? The
annual cost of interest and
depreciation for industrial water
pollution control (estimated to
be 12 percent of the value of
water pollution plant and
equipment) plus O&M expend-
itures yields the total annual
cost of industrial pollution
control. These costs have risen
from $4.74 billion in 1972 to
$9.89 billion in 1984. This 109
percent increase is estimated to
be the product of a 40 percent
increase in industrial
production and a 49 percent
increase in water pollution
control requirements per unit of
production. Thus, for a given
production level, it is estimated
that industrial pollution control
costs have increased by a half as
a result of the Clean Water Act
requirements. For example, if
pollution control costs were one
percent of production costs
before the Clean Water Act,
today they would be, on
average, 1.5 percent.
130
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
7
to 6
JS
~0 5
Q
CM 4
00
O)
Z 3
1 2
_O
m 1
- " S X '-
^»* '™— S ^ ^
• **^~ ^i
Jt^^ ^^^^^^**^^^^"^^^ —
^p ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^"^^ ^^*^^^ ^^^^^^fc^
~ ^wmmt^"^ ^^"""••••"••••••*
*^^^
i- "• "• ~ Industrial Production Index (FRB) -
•— • Capital Expenditures
^"•~" Operation ~
i i i i i i i i i i i
140
120
100
80 g
"D
C
60 m
cc
40 ""
20
1972 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Year
Figure 5-2. Spending on Industrial Pollution Abatement
50 r—
40
30
O
Q
cvj
CO
O)
>_ 20
O
10
in
I
1972 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Year
Figure 5-3. Net Capital Stock of Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Plant and Equipment
Two other household
expenditure categories in Table
5-4 are quite sizable. The
"Point Sources/Capital
Spending" category largely
represents the cost of
connecting private homes to
public sewer systems. This
category has fluctuated in the
range of $1.3 to $2.1 billion per
year over the period. The
"Nonpoint Sources" cost
estimate is much less inclusive
than one might expect: the
largest portion represents
capital and operating expendi-
tures for septic systems, and a
much smaller component is for
highway erosion abatement.
These nonpoint source
expenditures have also
fluctuated in the range of $1.1 to
$2.1 billion.
These data are of interest,
first, in illustrating the time
pattern of water pollution
control expenditures since
1972—a surge in plant and
equipment expenditures
following passage of the Clean
Water Act, peaking in
1976-1978. Since then, plant
and equipment expenditures
have dropped off, but growth
continues in the value of water
pollution plant and equipment
and in the resources devoted to
their operation. The data also
support an observation made in
the 1977 edition of this report
that industrial point sources
had moved faster toward
compliance than municipal
treatment plants: the peak rate
of municipal investment
spending occurred in 1978, that
of industrial spending on plant
and equipment in 1976. Finally,
the time series provide the data
for a back-of-the-envelope
calculation that, per unit of
output, the costs of industrial
water pollution control are
about 50 percent higher now
than before the Clean Water
Act was passed.
131
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Benefits
Federal, State, and local
expenditures for pollution
abatement are easier to
measure than the benefits
derived from these programs.
However, as funding for water
quality control programs
becomes scarcer, there is a
greater need to compare the
tradeoffs between environmen-
tal programs and evaluate their
abilities to achieve desirable
water quality goals. Several
States have begun to place a
greater emphasis on consider-
ing the beneficial outcomes that
result from specific water
quality projects. Nevertheless,
in general, the States do not
assess the overall benefits of
water quality improvement.
A first step in this process is
to define benefits and the
various categories of benefits
attributable to pollution
abatement (see Figure 5-4).
The "benefits" of water quality
improvement are defined by
economists in terms of people's
willingness to pay for such
improvements. The major
distinction in the classification
of benefits is between user and
non-user benefits. User benefits
are those related to the instream
use of the water—such as
recreational benefits from
improved fishing, swimming,
and boating—or those benefits
that occur because the water
withdrawn for industrial,
agricultural, or public water
supply use is of better quality.
A review of monetary estimates
of these benefit categories
indicates that recreational
benefits make up a major
portion of user benefits, and
that all user benefits make up
about 60 percent of total
benefits*
However, there is evidence
that a significant portion of the
benefits from water quality
improvement result from
benefits perceived by non-users—
either because they might wish
to take advantage of using the
resource in the future, or
because they value the preser-
vation of environmental quality
for other reasons. These non-
user benefits are estimated to
range from 30-50 percent of
total benefits.**
In the past few years, strides
have been made to improve
methods of evaluating the
benefits of water quality
improvement. EPA has funded
a number of studies with this
goal. For some categories of
benefits, these methods focus on
inferring the amount people
would be willing to pay for
improved water quality, based
on the travel costs they are
willing to incur for recreation at
sites with better water quality.
Another approach has been to
devise surveys to determine the
public's willingness to pay for
improved water quality. A great
deal of attention has been
devoted to examining the valid-
ity of the latter techniques, and
there appears to be promise in
these methods.
A view from the shore of Lake Michigan.
*A Myrick Freeman, Air and Water Pollution Control A Benefit-Cost Assessment, Wiley, New York, 1982
"Ann Fisher and Robert Raucher, "Intrinsic Benefits of Improved Water Quality Conceptual and Empirical Perspectives,'
in V Kerry Smith and Ann D. Witte, eds , Advances in Applied Microeconomics, Vol III, JAI Press, 1984
132
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Cu
Direct Use
Onsite Witt
Water Quality Benefits
rrent User Benefits Ir
Indirect Use Potential
drawal Near-Site Option
itrinsic Non-User Benefits
Jse No Potentia
Existence
• Recreational • Municipal • Recreation • Near-term • Stewardship
— Fishing — Drinking water — Hiking personal use (bequest for
- Swimming - Wastewater - Picnicking future
Boatina - Animal " Long-term generations)
Boating • Agricultural qt..H.. personal use
• Commercial - Irrigation V • Vicarious
— Fishing — Wastewater • Relaxation consumption
- Navigation . lndustrjal/commercia. ~ Vlewing
— Cooling • Aesthetic
(enjoyment
through other's
use)
ilUse
Ecological
• Species
diversity
• Pristine
ecosystems
— Wastewater — Enhancing
— Manufacture adjacent
— Power (hydroelectric amenities
steam generation)
Figure 5-4. Benefit Categories for Analysis of Water Quality Programs
Strides are being made in
evaluating the benefits of
improved water quality.
133
-------
Boston Harbor
Massachusetts
In 1985, EPA completed a
study examining the feasibility
of using economic tools to assess
the beneficial outcomes of
upgrading municipal sewage
treatment plants (STPs) and
combined sewer overflows
(CSOs). The report used the
Boston Harbor in Boston,
Massachusetts, as a case study
to demonstrate the application
of benefit estimation techniques.
Where feasible, the study
provided dollar estimates of the
economic benefits of treatment
alternatives for recreation and
commercial fishing, as well as
other relevant categories.
The report considered the
impacts of fecal coliform,
biochemical oxygen demand,
suspended solids, heavy metals,
and toxics on potential uses of
the harbor. The categories for
which benefit estimates were
computed were determined by
those uses of Boston Harbor
that are affected by pollutants
discharged from STPs and
CSOs. A term often used to
describe uses which are
adversely affected by pollution
sources and which benefit from
abatement processes is
"receptor." The receptors or
benefit categories in this study
included recreational activities
such as fishing, swimming,
boating and fishing; commercial
finfishing and shellfishing;
support of a healthy ecological
habitat; and intrinsic benefits to
non-users who would be willing
to pay for pollution control.
The benefits of improved
water quality accrue to users
and non-users alike, and are
presented with a summary
discussion of specific benefit
estimates (see Table 5-5). Some
conclusions reached by the
study include:
• Recreational categories
appear to be especially
important for urbanized areas
where local population density
and demand for yearly
recreational opportunities are
high.
• Geographic location of the
pollution source in relation to
the receptor or benefit category
is an important factor in
determining the type and level
of benefits that will be
generated by different
treatment options.
The benefit estimate
numbers presented in Table 5-5
are approximations and
represent means computed
from ranges—sometimes wide
ranges—that have been
developed for each benefit
category. For the most part,
they are conservative
assumptions and generally
underestimate the benefits.
Despite some limitations in
our ability to place a value on
each category of benefits, this
study shows that economic
analysis of the beneficial
outcomes of water quality
improvements is feasible and is
a useful tool, especially where
there is a choice to be made
among several alternatives and
where funds are limited.
Table 5-5. Annual Benefits and Costs of Control Options for Sewage Treatment Plants and
Combined Sewer Overflows (millions of 1982 dollars)
Pollution Control Option
Combined Sewer
Benefit Estimates Overflows for
by Category Boston Harbor
Combined Sewer
Combined Sewer Overflows Overflows and
and Ocean Outfalls for Secondary Treatment
Boston Harbor for Boston Harbor
Swimming
12.1-18.0* (15.1)'
15.2-23.6 (19.0)
14.2-22.4 (183)
Recreational:
Boating
Fishing
Health
Commercial
Shellfishing
Intrinsic
Ecological
Total Benefits
Total Costs
None available.
Available only for CSO
and STP control
scenario.
0.1-1.7(0.9)
0.001-0.02(0.01)
Based on total recreation
benefits. None available.
Unquantified. Value of
productive salt marshes
in harbor: supporting
animals, shore birds, and
waterfowl.
12.2-19.7(16.0)
6.4-12.2
5.4-12.1 (8.8)
03-7.9(4.1)
0.2-2.7 (1.4)
0.02-0.12 (0.06)
10.1-21.8 (15.9)
Unquantified. Potentially
large benefit to shoreline
saltmarshes. Negative
impacts on Massachusetts
Bay: finfish, shellfish, and
migratory whales.
31.2-68.2(49.3)
103.3-109.1
6.5-14.6 (10.5)
0.8-9.5(5.1)
0.2-2.8 (15)
0.02-0.12 (0.06)
10.7-23.2 (17.0)
Unquantified.
Potentially large benefit
to shoreline
saltmarshes.
32.4-72.6(52.5)
137.4-143.2
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Policy Analysis. A Methodological Approach to an Economic Analysis of the Beneficial Outcomes of Water
Quality Improvements from Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrading and Combined Sewer Overflow Controls, EPA-230-11-B5-017,
MflfCn 1986.
'Range of potential benefits.
"Point estimate.
134
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Techniques of benefit
estimation are gradually
moving from the research phase
to application. Many of the
benefit categories are
understood and accepted by
environmental managers.
However, there are obstacles to
progress because of the different
way that economic analysts and
environmental managers
consider benefits. For example,
there is lack of consensus on
how to interpret additional
economic activity—such as
increased sales of fishing tackle,
bait, accommodations, and
increased employment in the
service sector—resulting from
improved water quality. Some
studies by State agencies have
interpreted these measures of
economic activity as the
primary measures of benefits.
On the other hand, economic
theorists often omit these
"secondary benefits" altogether,
claiming that they represent the
expenditure of funds that, in
the absence of the water quality
improvement, would be spent
elsewhere. It is also claimed
that including these secondary
benefits may result in double
counting benefits that have
been estimated using other
methods.
Clearly some conceptual
matters in the field of cost-
benefit assessment are still at
issue. The preparation of
statewide assessments of water
quality benefits is a goal that
will be only gradually achieved
as concepts and techniques
improve. In addition, improved
data are essential. Systematic
attempts to inventory surface
waters and their quality will
form an important part of
benefit assessments in the
future.
State-Reported Information
Although there are little
quantitative data provided in
State 305(b) reports on water-
based recreational and
commercial improvements,
most States provide some
information on the benefits that
have resulted from actions
taken to reduce water pollution.
For example, coastal States have
funded wastewater treatment
projects that enabled the
opening of shellfish beds and
improved bathing water quality
at beaches. Several States report
the return of pollution-sensitive
fish species and increasing
recreational demand placed on
waters located in or near major
urban areas. Increases in
demand for rafting, canoeing,
and other boating activities
have been observed on
previously degraded streams.
135
-------
Tillamook Bay,
Oregon
Tillamook Bay was selected
in 1980 as a nonpoint source
(NFS) pollution control project
under the Rural Clean Water
Program (RCWP). This iso-
lated community, situated along
the northern coast of Oregon,
depends economically on the
dairy, shellfish, and recreation
industries.
The Tillamook Bay RCWP
project area was selected as a
case study for economic
analysis of nonpoint source
controls for several reasons:
• The water resource has a
clearly documented use impair-
ment that is largely attributable
to nonpoint source pollution.
• Reliable and relatively
complete data are available on
the economic value of the water
resource, the costs associated
with pollution, and the cost of
pollution control.
• Agricultural nonpoint source
pollution control has improved
the quality of the bay.
The watershed surrounding
Tillamook Bay includes about
120 dairy farms located near
bay tributaries. The climate is
mild with extremely high
rainfall, and the density of fecal
coliform bacteria in the bay
frequently causes closure of the
shellfish beds. Prior to the
RCWP project, in 1980, the
situation had become so severe
that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA)
threatened to withdraw
certification of the bay's
commercial shellfishing for
interstate shipment unless a
vigorous pollution control effort
was initiated and water quality
improvements were demon-
strated. FDA action would have
initiated a chain of actions that
would culminate in complete
closure of the bay to both
commercial and recreational
shellfishing.
Project Costs
Records from the RCWP
project indicate that during the
period 1981 through 1990, a
total of $5.7 million will be
spent to administer and
implement the NPS control
project. This cost includes
information and education
programs to generate public
support and farmer participa-
tion, cost sharing to help
cooperating farmers install
pollution control practices, and
technical assistance to design
appropriate pollution control
plans for each farm. The
farmers' share of pollution
control costs (generally 25
percent) is not considered
because this cost is generally
offset by on-farm benefits from
manure nutrient savings, direct
labor savings, and improved
water management that allows
more efficient operation in wet
weather.
Project Benefits
Benefits from three categories
have been identified:
commercial shellfishing,
recreational shellfishing, and
other recreational activities
such as viewing and picnicking.
Because FDA action would
result in complete closure of the
bay to shellfishing activities,
radical consequences are
expected in both commercial
and recreational shellfishing,
and mild consequences were
expected in other recreational
activities. Economic conse-
quences are amplified because
of the isolation of the Tillamook
Bay community and the lack of
comparable shellfishing
opportunities in that region of
the Pacific coast.
As shown below, commercial
shellfishing benefits over a ten-
year timeframe are equal to 80
to 95 percent of the amount
spent on pollution control in the
RCWP project. Recreational
benefits that would be lost from
closure of the bay, however,
exceed the cost of the RCWP
project from three- to seven-
fold. Even the benefits associ-
ated with a five percent decline
in picnicking and viewing could
be equal to 25 percent of the
cost of the RCWP project.
Table 5-6. Cost and Benefits Associated with NPS Control in
Tillamook Bay Rural Clean Water Program
Analysis of the Tillamook
Bay RCWP shows that:
• NPS control can be highly
cost-effective when the
impairment is clearly
attributable to nonpoint
sources.
• Recreational benefits
represent substantial value, the
loss of which could justify
expenditure of public funds for
control of NPS pollution.
• Unique, productive
ecological habitats such as
Tillamook Bay provide very
high economic benefits that are
seldom recognized.
This information was provided by
North Carolina State University's
National Water Quality Evaluation
Project and the Tillamook Bay Rural
Clean Water Program.
Project Costs (1981-1991):
Benefits to Shellfish Industry:
$5,736,074
$4,700,000-$5,500,000
Benefits to Recreational Shellfishing:
Benefits to Other Recreation
(5% decline):
$21,734,000-143300,000
$1300,000
136
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Some States have begun to
consider the potential benefits
of a pollution control project
prior to funding and
implementing it. For example,
Montana reports that the
Flathead River and Lake
system—known for its high
quality—began to show signs of
accelerated eutrophication that
prompted the State to take
several steps to rectify the
problem. Among these steps
were phosphorus limits imposed
on all State-permitted effluents
in the drainage area. In
addition, several wastewater
treatment plants will be
required to upgrade their
treatment processes and the
water quality monitoring
program will be expanded to
better measure phosphorus
contributions to the lake. The
two counties comprising the
lake's watershed have passed
ordinances restricting the sale of
phosphorus-containing laundry
detergents. To help justify these
measures, the State considered
their relative benefits and costs.
Montana believed that the
value of using and preserving
the condition of the Flathead
River/Lake system far
outweighed the likely costs of
implementing the phosphorus
control strategy.
Other States are evaluating
the extent of damages
attributable to nonpoint source
pollution, since the sources of
these pollutants and their
resulting damages are becoming
more evident as point source
pollution discharges are
reduced. Iowa, for example, has
estimated the potential benefits
and costs of both erosion
control measures and improved
fertilizer management.
Although a great deal of
uncertainty is involved in this
estimate, it does illustrate how
the worth of nonpoint source
control programs can be
evaluated against the costs of
current agricultural practices.
Some of the preliminary
findings of this assessment were
that:
• The cost of crop losses and
farm structure damage related
to sediments in Iowa may be as
much as $13 million per year.
Damages to rural road
networks may average $1.6
million a year, and costs for
treating sediment-degraded
water supplies is about $1
million a year. Switching to
certain soil conservation
practices, on the other hand,
was estimated to potentially
increase farm income by over
$20 million a year.
"V* ,,
• Fertilizer loss due to surface
runoff from Iowa corn and
soybean fields each year causes
a direct economic impact. The
study estimates an annual loss
of 39 pounds of total nitrogen
per acre. At a cost of $300 per
ton for nitrogen, this represents
over $180 million spent
unnecessarily every year by
Iowa farmers.
Rather than assess the
beneficial outcomes of its water
quality programs, Maine asked
its Regional Water Quality
Advisory Committees whether
Maine's water cleanup effort
over the past 15 years had
provided sufficient benefits to
justify its costs. Of the 163
respondents, 76 percent felt the
benefits exceeded the costs, 6
percent felt the opposite was
true, and 18 percent were not
sure. The survey found that
respondents agreed that water
cleanup efforts had maintained
water quality for farming,
industrial, logging, and small
business purposes. In addition,
72 percent felt that local
residents had benefited from
Maine's program, and 74
percent believed that the
tourism industry had improved
as a result of progress made in
the State's water programs.
Although surveys like Maine's
are somewhat subjective in their
approach, they do begin to
address the issue of public
perceptions of the success of
State water quality programs.
Clamming in Tillamook Bay,
Oregon.
137
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
State
Recommendations
In their 1986 reports, 29
States and territories provided
discussion and recommenda-
tions for program actions
needed to make additional
progress toward the Clean
Water Act's goal of fishable and
swimmable waters. These
recommendations are often
expressed in terms of State
objectives or continuing needs,
and cover a range of actions at
the Congressional, Federal,
State, and local levels. These
recommendations are discussed
below. It should be emphasized
that this discussion is restricted
to the recommendations
reported by the States
themselves in 1986, and does
not attempt to analyze their
appropriateness. However,
many of the State recommenda-
tions for action also reflect EPA
program priorities.
The State recommendations
may be grouped around the
following ten major topics,
based roughly on the frequency
with which they are reported:
municipal facility funding;
ground-water protection;
nonpoint sources; criteria and
standards development; toxics
identification and control;
monitoring; sewage treatment
plant operation and mainten-
ance; pretreatment; permitting
and enforcement; and wetlands.
Other less frequently cited
topics include combined sewer
overflows, acid rain, lake
protection, sludge disposal, and
stormwater runoff. In addition,
a variety of other State-specific
actions were also recom-
mended, such as the cleanup or
study of a particular waterway.
Municipal Facility Funding:
Financing to upgrade existing
sewage treatment facilities and
construct new, more advanced
facilities is a high priority in
many States. The Federal
funding share under the
construction grants program
was reduced in most cases from
75 percent to 55 percent
beginning in FY 1985, and
several States cite an inability to
meet waste treatment and water
quality goals without consistent,
adequate Federal assistance.
Others recommend the develop-
ment of new State financial
assistance programs such as
revolving low interest loan/
grant programs to meet State
needs. EPA support in the use
of Federal funds to "seed" these
programs is another common
theme.
Ground-Water Protection:
Ground-water recommenda-
dons cover a wide range of
issues. Common needs are for
more monitoring to map
ground-water resources and the
extent of contamination;
additional research into
ground-water problems and the
development of ground-water
standards; and more effective
and coordinated management
of monitoring data. Completion
of comprehensive State and
Federal control strategies is also
cited by several States, as is the
need for continued Federal
support of State ground-water
activities and the identification,
cleanup, and control of
hazardous waste disposal sites
having a potential to
contaminate ground water.
138
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Nonpoint Sources: The States
generally agree that consider-
able progress has been made
recently in heightening
awareness of nonpoint source
problems and in conducting a
variety of nonpoint control
activities such as demonstration
projects and localized
implementation of best
management practices.
However, a common recom-
mendation among many States
is the development of well-
defined statewide management
strategies to coordinate control
efforts, determine costs, assess
problem waters, and set
priorities. Cooperation and
coordination between the many
Federal and regional State
agencies with jurisdiction over
nonpoint-related programs
would be a high priority of
these strategies. Increased
financing for nonpoint controls,
including cost-sharing and
alternate funding mechanisms,
is also recommended.
Criteria and Standards: One
major limitation to the
identification and analysis of
toxic pollution in the U.S. is the
lack of numeric toxic criteria.
The States urge more develop-
ment of fish, sediment, and
water criteria for toxics to
protect human health and
aquatic life. These criteria must
then be incorporated into State
standards. EPA is requested to
continue working with the
States to provide these guide-
lines and/or update existing
criteria. Development and
refinement of some existing
non-toxics criteria, such as the
fecal coliform limits used to
determine recreational poten-
tial, are also recommended by
some States.
Toxics Identification and
Control: The underlying need
expressed in State discussions of
toxics control is to expand
monitoring and identification of
toxics problems. Several States
report that limited laboratory
capability prevents the
expansion of toxic monitoring
programs, and recommend
increased financial support
from EPA in this area.
Integration of toxic'control
efforts on a statewide basis is
another priority cited by some
States.
Several states report that limited laboratory capability prevents them
from expanding their efforts to monitor for toxics.
139
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
Monitoring: The States
recommend increased water
quality monitoring. Monitoring
to assess the extent of nonpoint
source problems is currently a
high priority, as is the develop-
ment and expansion of
biomonitoring capabilities.
Funding constraints have
limited some State monitoring
efforts; this poses a barrier to
evaluating the success of control
programs, assessing previously
unassessed waters, conducting
trend analyses, and detecting
emerging water quality
problems.
Operation and Maintenance:
Recognizing that proper
operation and maintenance of
existing sewage treatment
facilities is key to increasing
permit compliance and
improving water quality, a
number of States stress the
importance of operator training
and certification, and of
preventive maintenance of
facilities. Several States
recommend increased Federal
support to meet O&M needs,
including funding and technical
assistance.
Pretreatment: Common
recommendations regarding
pretreatment of industrial waste
include evaluating State
pretreatment needs;
encouraging greater municipal
participation in pretreatment
programs; and providing more
resources for the management
and regulation of pretreatment
systems.
Permitting and Enforcement:
The States report that
permitting and enforcement
activities are critical to
achieving water quality
progress. Strengthening
enforcement responses to
permit noncompliance and
enhancing State inspection
programs are recommended.
Wetlands: The most common
State recommendation
concerning wetlands protection
is to continue the mapping and
inventory of wetland areas.
Several States recommend
development of additional
regulatory authority for wetland
protection.
140
-------
References
In addition to the 1986 State Section 305(b) water quality assessments, the following publications
were cited in this report:
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, in cooperation with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America's Clean Water- The States' Nonpoint Source Assessment,
1985 Washington, 1985.
Farber, Kit D. and Gary L. Rutledge. "Pollution Abatement and Control Expenditures," in Survey of
Current Business, July 1986, p. 86.
Fisher, Ann and Robert Raucher. "Intrinsic Benefits of Improved Water Quality: Conceptual and
Empirical Perspectives," in V. Kerry Smith and Ann D. Witte, eds., Advances in Applied Microeconomics,
Vol. Ill, JAI Press, 1984.
Freeman, A. Myrick, III. Air and Water Pollution Control: A Benefit-Cost Assessment. Wiley, New York,
1982.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 1985
National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuanne Waters. Washington, December 1985.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Liaison Office. Draft Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source
Report. Annapolis, MD, April 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Septic Systems and Ground-
Water Protection. A Program Manager's Guide and Reference Book. Washington, July 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Municipal Pollution Control. 1986 Needs Survey Report
to Congress EPA 430/9-87-001, Washington, February 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis. A Methodological Approach to an
Economic Analysis of the Beneficial Outcomes of Water Quality Improvements from Sewage Treatment Plant
Upgrading and Combined Sewer Overflow Controls. EPA 230/11-85-017, Washington, March 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits. Permit Writer's Guide
to Water Quality-Based Permitting for Toxic Pollutants.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards. National Water
Quality Inventory, 1984 Report to Congress. EPA 440/4-85-029, Washington, August 1985.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards. The National
Dioxm Study, Tiers 3, 5, 6, and 7. EPA 440/4-87-003, Washington, February 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Characteristics of Lakes in
the Eastern U.S. Washington, June 1986.
U.S. Geological Survey. National Water Summary 1984 Water Supply Paper 2275. Washington, 1985.
141
-------
Appendix
Excerpts from the State Reports
ALABAMA
For a complete copy of the
Alabama 305(b) report,
contact:
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
Water Division
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
Surface Water
Quality
During the 1984-85 reporting
period, Alabama assessed 12,101
miles of its streams and rivers
and found that 90 percent were
supporting their designated
uses. Of the 10 percent not fully
supporting their designated
uses, approximately one-third
are the subject of some form of
permit modification or Depart-
mental action which should
result in improvements in water
quality within the next two
years. One hundred percent of
assessed lake acres and 95
percent of bay/estuarine square
miles fully support their
designated uses.
A review of those waters not
fully supporting their desig-
nated uses reveals the pollutants
most responsible for this
nonsupport to be oxygen
deficits, sedimentation, toxics,
dissolved solids, pathogenic
organisms, and excess
nutrients.
As in the past, the Alabama
Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) is
concerned about the presence of
pollutants such as PCBs, DDT,
and mercury in the State's
environment. In all of the
known incidents involving these
pollutants, the source has been
identified and controlled, and
the Department is either
monitoring the cleanup or
tracking the pollutants'
dissipation from the
environment.
Individual assessments of the
major river basins show the
Black Warrior River Basin to
be the most severely impaired
as a result of the dense
population and heavy industri-
alization of the metropolitan
Birmingham area. The Mobile
River Basin is also affected by
these factors and, along with
the Upper and Lower Tombig-
bee River Basins, will require
more intensive management in
the future as a result of the
development of the Tennessee-
Tbmbigbee Waterway.
Since 1972, Alabama has
reduced the discharge of less
than secondarily treated efflu-
ent from 68 million gallons per
day (MGD) to 1 MGD. This
was accomplished through the
construction of 93 public
wastewater treatment facilities
completed since the construc-
tion grants program began.
Industries within the State
exhibit a permit compliance
rate of approximately 92
percent. In the past two years,
ADEM has become more
aggressive in its enforcement of
discharge permit limits and, if
resources allow, this policy will
continue.
Nonpoint source pollution
continues to be a concern in
Alabama. ADEM is joining in
cooperative agreements with
other State and Federal
agencies to attempt to control
the many causes of this
problem.
With the passage of the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act
and its resulting impacts on
funding, ADEM's main concern
is securing the financial
resources necessary to maintain
and continue improvements in
water quality. Other special
concerns include ground-water
protection, operation and
maintenance of municipal
wastewater treatment facilities,
sludge management, natural
resources extraction, and
nonpoint source pollution.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 54 percent of
Alabama's population uses
ground water as its primary
source of domestic water.
Currently, the major efforts in
this area involve the develop-
ment and passage of legislation
allowing the ADEM to establish
a comprehensive regulatory
program, and immediately
addressing the problems caused
by underground storage within
the State.
Underground storage tanks,
regulated hazardous waste sites,
surface impoundments, and on-
site industrial landfills were
ranked as the major sources
affecting ground water in
Alabama.
ALASKA
For a complete copy of the
Alaska 305(b) report, contact:
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
P.O. Box 0
Juneau, AK 99811
Surface Water
Quality
Alaska's water resources are
so vast that only a tiny fraction
have been assessed. However,
the Alaskan population and the
area that can be affected by
human activities are so small
that only a small proportion of
Alaskan waters is subject to use
impairment. Most Alaskan
waters are pristine.
Designated uses are not fully
supported in about half of the
5,025 stream miles in Alaska.
The major causes of
nonsupport of designated uses
on these 2,300 stream miles are
placer mining, timber harvest-
ing, sewage, urban runoff, and
gravel mining.
The trend is toward improve-
ment. About 618 degraded
stream miles are expected to
achieve fishable/swimmable
goals within a decade. Only 227
miles are not expected to meet
Clean Water Act goals.
Two-tenths of a percent of
Alaska's lake acres—27,513
acres—have been assessed.
Impairment of designated uses
has been detected in approxi-
mately half of these assessed
waters. It is presumed that
designated uses in the
remaining lakes are essentially
A-1
-------
Appendix
unimpaired. The major causes
of nonsupport of designated
uses on the affected lakes are
uncontrolled sewage discharges,
placer mining, gravel mining,
urban runoff, land develop-
ment, and oil pollution.
As with streams, the trend is
toward improvement: over half
of the affected acreage is
expected to achieve fishable/
swimmable goals within ten
years. Only 510 acres are not
expected to meet these goals.
Alaska has approximately
223,000,000 acres of inland and
tidal wetlands. Only about
19,200 acres have been assessed.
However, effects on designated
uses have been detected in most
of the wetlands that have been
assessed. The major causes of
wetland impacts result from oil
and gas activities on the North
Slope and Kenai Peninsula.
Over 81,000 acres of bays and
estuaries have been assessed.
Designated use impairment has
been observed in about 25,700
of these acres. The major causes
of nonsupport of designated
uses in the affected areas are
seafood processing, oil and gas
production, uncontrolled
sewage discharges, land devel-
opment, oil pollution, and
urban runoff. Impacts on the
remaining area are attributed
to pulp mill effluents, log
transfer facilities, and munici-
pal sewage outfalls. Two-thirds
of the impaired waters are
expected to meet Clean Water
Act goals within ten years.
Ground-Water
Quality
Although nearly half of
Alaska's population obtains its
drinking water from ground-
water sources, very little is
known about ground-water
quality.
Until recently, the most
serious known ground-water
problems were in northcentral
Alaska, where elevated levels of
arsenic and nitrate were
detected in approximately 86
private wells and 14 public
wells. These contaminants are
believed to stem from natural
sources. In southcentral Alaska,
reserve pits for oil drilling muds
in the vicinity of the Kenai
Moose Range are suspected
sources of ground-water con-
tamination, but no problems
have yet been documented.
Statewide, contamination by
bacteria or petroleum hydro-
carbons has been detected in
about 150 wells. In a variety of
scattered instances, levels of
benzene (as well as toluene and
xylene) have been detected in
private wells. Levels are
generally low, but in some
instances have ranged to the
parts per million levels.
In recent years, the depart-
ment has increased its efforts to
enforce monitoring regulations
for public drinking water
supplies, and a substantial
increase in monitoring has
resulted. However, problems
related to contamination of
private wells continue to
appear, emphasizing the need
to develop a comprehensive
approach to ground-water
quality management.
AMERICAN
SAMOA
For a complete copy of the
American Samoa 305(b) report,
contact:
American Samoa
Environmental Quality
Division
Office of the Governor
Pago Pago, American Samoa
96799
Surface Water
Quality
There are approximately 120
streams in American Samoa.
Of these, twelve are sampled for
biological contamination on a
monthly basis. Five major
streams emptying into Pago
Pago harbor are sampled for
physical and chemical
parameters.
Monitoring data indicate
that fecal coliform bacteria
standards are consistently
exceeded in almost every
stream. Streams are degraded
by erosion, animal pens,
agricultural practices,
individual sewer systems,
laundry and shower discharges,
and careless solid waste
disposal.
Nonpoint source pollution is
a problem in many of American
Samoa's streams, coastal areas,
and embayments. Discharges
from agricultural wastes,
domestic wastes, indiscriminate
littering, and illegal dredging
and filling activities contribute
to water quality degradation.
Water quality in Pago Pago
harbor does not meet water
quality standards due largely to
discharges from two tuna
canneries. A study was begun
in 1984 to develop plans for
wasteload reduction from these
canneries.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is the primary
source of potable water in
American Samoa. During times
of drought, normal pumping
rates have led to elevated
chloride levels in many wells. A
problem with high turbidity
and coliform contamination has
also occurred in some of the
wells during the rainy season.
However, results of inorganic
and radiological sampling
indicate that ground-water
quality meets Safe Drinking
Water Act standards.
A-2
-------
Appendix
ARIZONA
For a complete copy of the
Arizona 305(b) report, contact:
Arizona Department of Health
Services
Division of Environmental
Health
Bureau of Water Quality
Control
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Surface Water
Quality
In 1986, Arizona reported
that 43 percent of its 1,412
assessed river miles fully
supported their designated uses.
Twenty-eight percent partially
supported uses, and 29 percent
failed to support designated
uses. Industrial and nonpoint
sources are the principal causes
of use impairment in rivers and
streams; mine effluents are also
cited as a leading cause.
Of Arizona's 34,811 assessed
lake acres, 85 percent fully
support uses, 12 percent
partially support uses, and 3
percent do not support uses.
The leading causes of use
impairment in lakes are
recreation impacts and the use
of contaminated ground water
to fill urban lakes. Eutrophica-
tion and sedimentation are
other leading sources of use
impairment in lakes.
Toxics have been found in
some of Arizona's surface
waters, channel sediments, and
fish. Mine effluents are
generally acidic and contain
trace metals. Toxaphene and
metabolites of DDT continue to
be found in sediment and fish
tissue in the Gila River
downstream of agricultural
areas near Phoenix. Fish and
sediments in recreational lakes
along the lower parts of Indian
Bend Wash and the Salt River
contain residues from pesticides
and from the discharge of
ground water contaminated
with industrial solvents.
In the State's urban areas,
the most significant
achievement is the maintenance
of water quality in the presence
of rapid population and
economic growth. The number
of significant NPDES permitted
facilities (municipal and non-
municipal categories) that were
meeting permit requirements in
1984 reached a new high of 24
(63 percent). Enforcement
actions were initiated for 38
wastewater systems during 1984
and 1985.
Special concerns cited in the
Arizona 305(b) report include
insufficient surface and ground-
water quality monitoring, and
problems from interstate and
international pollution
discharges. Significant
improvements in the
environmental protection
program are expected since the
passage, in 1986, of State
legislation providing new legal,
technical, financial, and
organizational resources.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is protected
statewide for drinking water
supply. Although no statewide
ground-water monitoring
program exists for comprehen-
sive parametric surveillance,
numerous State and Federal
programs provide data for
water quality assessment. Of
the State's 68,000 production
wells, approximately 2,900 have
been tested for regulated public
water supply contaminants. Of
the latter group, approximately
1,500 production wells have also
been tested for priority
pollutants or pesticides not
covered by drinking water
maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs). Statewide, a total of
347 production wells have been
documented as contaminated,
including 200 that are used for
drinking water supply. State
health regulations and policies
have minimized human
exposure by blending, source
replacement, or treatment. Of
the 347 contaminated
production wells, 115 contain
pesticides (primarily DBCP or
EDB), 173 contain volatile
organic compounds, and 59
exceed conventional MCL
limits. Pesticide sampling has
been conducted only in two
counties.
ARKANSAS
For a complete copy of the
Arkansas 305(b) report,
contact:
Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology
Water Division
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
Surface Water
Quality
Of the 11,438 stream miles
assessed in Arkansas in
1984-85, 52 percent are meeting
all designated uses. Water
quality in the State has
remained relatively stable. A
decline in the percentage of
waters supporting uses, as
compared to 1984 information,
reflects two factors: redesigna-
tion of the State's waters to
include a primary contact use,
and redistribution of the
ambient monitoring network to
waters most affected by point
source dischargers.
Arkansas' Delta Region is
heavily influenced by nonpoint
sources, particularly agricul-
tural runoff. A decline is
evident in the detection of
pesticides in this region. The
Gulf Coastal Region of south-
ern Arkansas still exhibits the
effects of petroleum production.
High chloride concentrations
are common throughout the oil-
producing area. The Ouachita
Mountain Region continues to
be widely used as a recreational
area with extremely high
quality water. One of the major
concerns is the potential for
erosion from clear-cutting
practices; turbidity is one of the
more commonly exceeded
parameters in the region. In the
Arkansas River Valley Region,
past coal strip mining practices
have left many streams
A-3
-------
Appendix
damaged. Current natural gas
production practices have the
potential to cause surface water
degradation throughout the
region. Concerns in the Boston
Mountain Region, which is
sparsely populated and highly
used for recreation, center
around continued development.
Potential water quality degrada-
tion may be tied to conversion
of hardwood hills to pastures,
expansion of confined animal
operations, and even-aged
timber management. Lastly,
water quality in the Ozark
Highlands Region is degrading
due to accelerated development.
Nutrients and fecal coliform
bacteria are leading problems
in this region.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water problems in
Arkansas are localized and
include contamination, poor
natural quality, overdraft, and
low yields. Contamination of
shallow domestic wells by
human and animal wastes is the
most prominent problem, and
is evident in high nitrate
concentrations. Some surficial
aquifers appear to have been
contaminated by industrial
wastes that include both heavy
metals and organic chemicals.
Contamination of fresh
ground water by saline water
has occurred in several places
due to large-scale pumping.
The most prominent sites of
contamination include the
Sparta Sand aquifer in
Independence, White, Monroe,
Lincoln, Desha, and Chicot
Counties, and in areas adjacent
to the Arkansas River.
Continued large-scale pumping
has the potential to increase
problems in these areas. In
some locations, saltwater
contamination appears to be of
natural origin and not the result
of human activity. Some salt-
water contamination in south
Arkansas is due to oil and gas
exploration, production, and
disposal practices.
Potential ground-water
problems are found statewide.
A large number of waste
impoundments, landfills, and
open dumps pose potential
threats to ground water,
especially those located in
moderate to high aquifer
recharge zones. Contamination
from waste impoundments and
dumps has occurred and may
continue. Hazardous substances
transported by pipelines,
vehicles, and trains, as well as
storage tanks containing
hazardous substances, are other
sources of potential
contamination.
CALIFORNIA
For a complete copy of the
California 305(b) report,
contact:
California State Water
Resources Control Board
Division of Technical Services
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95801
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality in California
was generally good in
1984-1985. Of those surface
water resources assessed, 80
percent of the streams, 61
percent of the lakes, 99 percent
of the mainland coast, and 95
percent of the harbors and bays
are classified in the good to
medium range. The major
pollution sources in California
streams are municipal point
sources, agriculture,
international sources
originating in Mexico,
abandoned and active mines,
and other nonpoint sources.
Agriculture and nonpoint
sources are the principal causes
of pollution in marine waters.
Tomales Bay and Suisun Marsh
are affected by these sources.
Urban storm runoff and erosion
are major nonpoint pollution
sources in San Francisco, San
Diego, Newport, and Mission
Bays.
Lakes are mostly polluted by
natural causes and agricultural
return flow. Agricultural
pollution of lakes is dominated
by irrigation return flows to the
Salton Sea.
California's surface waters
have been improved or
protected from overall
degradation from point sources.
There do not appear to be
significant changes in the
overall quality of marine and
estuarine waters, although
major improvements in
bacterial quality have been
noted in Humboldt/Arcata Bay,
portions of San Francisco Bay,
and San Diego Bay.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ninety percent of the State's
ground-water basins are
classified in the good to
medium range. However, the
Si ate notes that there has been
a noticeable decline in the
quality of ground water.
Pollution of ground-water
supplies can occur from many
sources. These include septic
tanks, solid and liquid waste
disposal sites, underground
chemical storage tanks, surface
spills of toxic substances,
applications of agricultural
chemicals, urban runoff, deep
injection well disposal, and
other sources. Areas with the
most numerous and widespread
ground-water problems are the
San Francisco Bay Region, the
Central Valley Region, and
three South Coastal Regions of
Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and
San Diego.
A-4
-------
Appendix
COLORADO
For a complete copy of the
Colorado 305(b) report,
contact:
Colorado Department of
Health
Water Quality Control Division
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality in Colorado is
discussed by hydrologic river
basin. Constituents that were
routinely analyzed during the
reporting period include fecal
coliforms, toxic metals, un-ion-
ized ammonia, and dissolved
oxygen.
In the Platte River Basin,
man's activities have affected
water quality in the South
Platte area. Violations of water
quality standards for dissolved
oxygen, unionized ammonia,
fecal coliforms, and metals have
been identified within the
basin. Phosphorus, nitrates,
and dissolved solids concentra-
tions in parts of the basin are
generally among the highest in
the State. Total suspended
solids concentrations, however,
are comparatively low.
Water quality in the
Arkansas River basin reflects
early mining activity in the
Leadville area, burgeoning
population in the middle basin,
(especially the Fountain Creek
subbasin), and agriculture in
the lower basin.
Overall, the quality of water
in the Colorado River main-
stem and its principal
tributaries is probably the best
in the State. This quality has
been maintained by the
investment of considerable
manpower and fiscal resources
in the basin since the early
1970s. Since much of the
region's economy depends on
outdoor recreation and water-
based activities, it is a priority
area for the State's water
quality program. Planned
energy development during the
1970s posed an additional
threat to the quality of the
basin's water; however, low
energy prices during the 1980s
dampened much of the growth,
leaving many communities with
excess wastewater treatment
plant capacities.
In the Green River Basin,
the Yampa and White Rivers
and their tributaries met water
quality standards. Exceptions
were copper in the Yampa
River below the Little Snake,
and cadmium in the Yampa
River above Oak Creek.
Neither of these exceedances
are related to point source
discharges. No problems were
identified which relate to
municipal wastewater.
The San Juan basin has high
quality water except for the
Animas River at its headwaters
near Silverton. Previous mining
activities have resulted in high
metals loads to the mainstem
and several tributaries. These
metals have significantly
affected aquatic life support
uses. Planned recreational
developments in the upper
reach of the San Juan River
and above Electra Lake may
threaten those waterbodies.
High suspended solids and total
dissolved solids occur on several
stream segments in the basin.
In the Rio Grande Basin,
metals impairment of several
stream segments is the only
identified water quality
problem. No water quality
problems have been identified
in the Republican River basin.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is the primary
water source for 75 percent of
the public water supply systems
of the State. Ground water is
also heavily used for the
production of crops and live-
stock. An estimated 200,000
,ncres are presently being
irrigated with ground water and
approximately 12,500 well
permits have been issued for
livestock watering.
No testing of either private or
agricultural water supply wells
is required in the State.
Therefore, the severity and
extent of ground-water
contamination cannot be
reliably determined. Many
existing ground-water contami-
nation incidents affect localized
ground-water areas. In those
cases, the contamination occurs
near population centers and
generally in industrial zones.
This is also true of regionalized
high nitrate levels attributed to
agricultural practices. Existing
and potential point sources of
ground-water pollution include
surface impoundments,
materials stockpiling, and spills.
CONNECTICUT
For a complete copy of the
Connecticut 305(b) report,
contact:
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
Water Compliance Unit
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Surface Water
Quality
Great progress has been
made in improving the quality
of the State's waters since 1972.
As of 1986, 68 percent of
Connecticut's 880 major river
miles fully support designated
uses. This is a significant
improvement over 1972, when
35 percent of major river miles
fully supported uses.
In Connecticut's major rivers
and streams, less than full
support of designated uses is
attributed to municipal sewage
treatment plants (40 percent),
toxic and conventional pollut-
ants from industrial discharges
(30 percent), municipal
combined sewer overflows (20
percent), and nonpoint sources
(10 percent).
Approximately 89 percent
(by area) of the State's 70 major
recreational lakes are known to
fully support recreational uses.
The most common water
quality concern is the growth of
nuisance weeds and algae
caused by nutrient enrichment.
Nutrient inputs to these lakes
are attributed to natural sources
(68 percent), plus a variety of
nonpoint sources such as septic
systems, fertilizers, erosion and
sedimentation, and stormwater
runoff (32 percent). The elimi-
nation of Federal funding under
Section 314 of the Clean Water
Act seriously reduces the ability
A-5
-------
Appendix
of the State to conduct
additional studies or implement
recommendations for previous-
ly studied lakes.
Long Island Sound, the
major marine resource in
Connecticut, has benefited from
improved municipal and
industrial wastewater treat-
ment. The most heavily
polluted areas are the
urbanized harbors and tidal
portions of the major tributary
rivers. Approximately 20
percent of the 600 square miles
assessed are suspected of having
water quality problems. The
sources of pollution in areas not
fully supporting designated uses
are combined sewer overflows
and urban runoff (55 percent),
municipal sewerage systems (19
percent), failing septic systems
(14 percent), and toxic and
conventional pollutants from
industrial sources (12 percent).
However, there has been a
dramatic increase in the
amount of oysters and lobsters
harvested over the last 10 years
in the Sound. This has been
partially attributed to improved
water quality.
Progress in the construction
grant program has been slowed
by reductions in Federal
authorizations. In 1986, the
State legislature created a new
State financial assistance
program that would establish a
revolving low-interest
loan/grant program in order to
meet project needs.
Connecticut reports that for
significant industrial facilities,
permit compliance has
increased from 24 percent in
1972 to 77 percent in 1985 as
measured by effluent compli-
ance and compliance with
Abatement Order schedules.
The State administers a
pretreatment program that
currently regulates about 350
industrial dischargers.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 32 percent of
Connecticut's population
depends on ground water for
potable water supply. The vast
majority of the State's ground-
water resources should be
suitable for drinking without
treatment. However, impacts
from improper solvents
handling and disposal, leaking
underground petroleum storage
tanks, landfill leachate,
pesticides, and improper road
salt storage have resulted in the
contamination of about 928
water supply wells as of April
1986 (726 private wells and 202
public water supply wells).
Ground-water monitoring
activities include potability
monitoring, investigatory and
compliance monitoring, and
ambient ground-water quality
monitoring. Ensuring the
availability of adequate
unpolluted ground water for
public consumption is an
important goal of the State's
water pollution control
program.
DELAWARE
For a complete copy of the
Delaware 305(b) report,
contact:
Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19901
Surface Water
Quality
Delaware's surface waters are
for the most part in good
condition. Of the 516 stream
miles assessed, 309 fully
support designated uses, 184
partially support uses, and 23
do not support designated uses.
The major water quality
problem in this State is elevated
levels of fecal coliform bacteria.
In most cases, these levels are
not so excessive as to suggest
OO
public health hazards or total
loss of use of those waters for
recreation. Additionally,
questions have been raised
concerning the accuracy of past
and present measures of the
healthfulness of waters for
contact recreation.
Depressed dissolved oxygen
levels are also a common
finding in Delaware streams.
This situation is believed to be
typical in turbid estuarine
waters during warmer weather.
However, low oxygen concen-
trations can signal problems
with loadings of organic
materials from point source
discharges or agricultural
operations.
Toxic substances do not
appear to be present at
unacceptable levels in most
Delaware waters. The State is
concerned about information
regarding toxic contamination
of fish and sediment in Red
Clay Creek, and is working to
gather data on the types,
sources, and effects of the
toxins. The State is also
addressing other basins where
toxicity is a potential problem.
A strategy is being developed to
evaluate and handle toxic
situations affecting the surface
waters of the State.
The majority of water quality
problems in the State are
believed to originate from
nonpoint sources. Identifiable
sources of this pollution include
runoff from land surfaces,
ground-water seepage, and
direct rainfall. Natural sources
of pollution, such as wetlands
runoff, have been blamed for
many water quality problems in
the past. Violations of bacteria
and dissolved oxygen standards
in tidal rivers appear to be
caused by runoff from adjacent
wetlands. These problems,
which account for much of the
non-attainment of uses listed in
previous reports, are now
considered to be normal unless
there is evidence to the
contrary.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water quality in the
State is generally good,
although at least four areas of
concern are noted. First,
abandoned dumps and indus-
trial sites have been found to
contain large amounts of toxic
metals and organic compounds.
These substances have shown
the ability to move offsite and
contaminate wells used for
domestic purposes. A second
problem is leaking under-
ground storage tanks. Wells
have been tainted by various
fuels, resulting in a need to find
alternative water supplies, while
fish kills have occurred in at
A-6
-------
Appendix
least one stream that received
leaked fuel oil from ground
water.
A third concern is the
increasing levels of nitrate in
domestic wells in downstate
agricultural areas. Nitrate,
which may have adverse health
impacts, enters ground water
from sources such as fertiliza-
tion of farmlands and closely
spaced septic systems. In fact,
any indiscriminant disposal
practice for nitrogen-bearing
compounds can cause nitrate
contamination of ground water.
A fourth ground-water concern,
saltwater intrusion, is occurring
in the growth areas of coastal
Sussex County. Overpumping
of the limited ground-water
supplies has rendered
numerous wells unusable, and
has forced larger municipal
suppliers to move their wells
farther from the coast.
DELAWARE RIVER
BASIN
COMMISSION
For a complete copy of the
DRBC 305(b) report, contact:
Delaware River Basin
Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Surface Water
Quality
Water pollution control in the
Delaware River is the joint
responsibility of the Federal
government, the four Delaware
River Basin States, and the
Delaware River Basin
Commission (DRBC). The
Commission conducts monitor-
ing, regulatory, and other water
quality management programs
as part of its basinwide
responsibilities. In the
1986-1987 period, a major effort
of all concerned parties will be
the development of a use
attainability study for the
Delaware Estuary. The study
will examine the aquatic uses
currently being achieved,
potential uses that can be
attained, and causes of any use
impairment. Other new efforts
of the Commission include
seasonal disinfection studies
and a basinwide well registra-
tion. Nonpoint sources, toxics,
and thermal impacts are among
the special concerns for the
future.
The Delaware River and Bay
comprise part of the boundaries
of four States—Delaware, New
Jersey, New York and Pennsyl-
vania—and include 120 miles in
the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System. From Hancock,
New York to the mouth of the
Delaware Bay, the Delaware
River flows 330 miles, draining
one percent of the land area of
the U.S. Over 10 percent of the
Nation's population relies on
the Delaware River Basin for
potable and industrial water.
The tidal Delaware River
Estuary extending from
Trenton, New Jersey to Listen
Point, Delaware flows through
the Nation's fifth largest urban
area: the Philadelphia-Camden
metropolitan area. This area is
one of the world's greatest
concentrations of heavy
industry, the second largest U.S.
oil refining/petrochemical
center, and the world's largest
freshwater port. Although the
Delaware Estuary has histori-
cally been one of the Nation's
most grossly polluted rivers,
major water quality improve-
ments have been documented
in recent years.
The 782-square mile
Delaware Bay is biologically
productive and the home of
commercially important finfish
and shellfish. Recreation and
navigation are important as
well.
The water quality of the
Delaware River, the Delaware
Bay, and the interstate portion
of the West Branch of the
Delaware River was assessed for
the 1984-85 period. Of the total
river miles assessed (339 miles),
it appears that 88 percent meet
the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Clean Water Act.
Thirteen percent of the basin's
river miles have known or
potential problems with toxic
substances. Point and nonpoint
sources are both significant
causes of use impairment in the
basin.
Special concerns cited by the
DRBC include nonpoint
sources, toxics, oil spills and
spills of other substances,
wastewater treatment facilities
that fail to meet their effluent
limitations, increasing recrea-
tional use of the Delaware
River, and potential adverse
impacts from waste heat
sources.
A-7
-------
Appendix
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
For a complete copy of the
District of Columbia 305(b)
report, contact:
DC Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs
Water Hygiene Branch
5010 Overlook Ave. S.W.
Washington, DC 20032
Surface Water
Quality
In the District of Columbia,
surface waters partially to fully
supported their designated uses
during the 1984 and 1985 water
years. The Potomac River
enjoyed generally good water
quality, as evidenced by the
increase in recreational use of
the river for boating, fishing,
and windsurfing. The
Anacostia River, on the other
hand, still suffers from several
pollution problems. The overall
water quality of the District's
small tributaries is good;
however, there are exceptions
with pollution problems specific
to individual tributaries.
The water quality in the
Potomac River from Fletcher's
Boathouse to Rosier Bluff was
good. Nutrient and sediment
loading from upstream sources
continues to account for a
substantial portion of the
Potomac River estuary nutrient
budget. Within the District,
improvements made at the Blue
Plains Wastewater Treatment
Plant have helped to maintain a
downward trend in total
phosphorus downstream of the
plant. Also, the construction of
nitrification facilities at the
plant resulted in lower levels of
nitrogen and increased nitrates
downstream of the plant.
Recent improvement in
dissolved oxygen concentrations
have been recorded at the
Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
No significant algae blooms
were observed in District
waters, although submerged
aquatic vegetation produced
dense beds just below the
District line in 1984 and 1985
that proved to be a nuisance to
recreational boaters. The
principal violation of the
Potomac River's designated
uses was high bacterial counts
resulting from combined sewer
overflows and nonpoint sources.
Other forms of pollution
occasionally impacting the
Potomac during the study
period included small, isolated
oil spills.
The Anacostia River
continues to suffer from a
variety of pollution problems.
Chief among these are excessive
sediment loading, high bacterial
counts, high nutrient levels,
high un-ionized ammonia
levels, and occasional low
dissolved oxygen
concentrations.
A high rate of erosion
continues to result in the filling
of the navigational channel,
making the river unsuitable for
navigation by large boats. High
sedimentation has led to low
water clarity, which in turn has
affected other biological
parameters. Combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) remain the
primary source of bacterial
contamination. Other sources
of pollution include the
discharge of pollutant-laden
waters from the Anacostia's
tributaries. Frequent trash
dumping directly into the
Anacostia channel and trash
carried from upstream also add
to the Anacostia River's
pollution problems.
The District has joined
Maryland in an Anacostia
Watershed Restoration Strategy.
This agreement calls for the
cleanup of the Anacostia River
through combined sewer
overflow abatement within the
District and implementation of
erosion control measures in the
Anacostia watershed. As a
result, Maryland will reclaim
surface miles that have
contributed heavily to the
sediment load to the river.
The District has committed
itself to a major program for the
abatement of combined sewer
overflows. This program
consists of a $70 million
construction project with EPA
financing 85 percent of the cost.
It is anticipated that after
completion, the frequency of
CSO discharges will be reduced
by over 70 percent.
FLORIDA
For a complete copy of the
Florida 305(b) report, contact:
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
2600 Blairstone Road
Twin Towers Office Building
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Surface Water
Quality
The majority of Florida's
waters are of good quality.
Designated uses were met in 68
percent of assessed stream
miles, 63 percent of assessed
lake acres, and 59 percent of
assessed estuarine square miles.
Where water quality problem
areas occur, their distribution
closely follows the distribution
of Florida's population. The
sparsely populated northwest
and west-central sections of the
State have very good water
quality. The exceptions are the
Fenholloway River area, which
is affected by the pulp mill
industry, and the Perdido Bay
basin, which is also affected by
the pulp mill industry and by
rapid coastal and bay urban
development. Other basins in
Florida with good overall water
quality are in the south-central
portion of the State, extending
from Lake Kissimmee to the
Everglades. Most of Florida's
east coast basins from Jackson-
ville to Miami have fair overall
quality. There are many areas
with very good water quality
within these basins; however,
there are also many problem
areas in and around the major
cities of Jacksonville, Orlando,
Cocoa, and in the area which
extends from West Palm Beach
to Miami. Fair overall
basinwide water quality is
found only in the Tampa Bay
A-8
-------
Appendix
area and in the Peace River
basin. The only basin found to
have poor overall quality in the
State is the Taylor Creek-
Nubbin Slough basin located
just northeast of Lake
Okeechobee. Every reach in this
river basin has fair to poor
water quality due to low
dissolved oxygen levels, and
elevated nutrient and bacteria
concentrations. The source of
these problems includes runoff
from dairy and farming
operations plus discharge from
a sewage treatment plant.
The majority (55 percent) of
water quality problems in the
State are caused by point
sources, including both muni-
cipal and industrial. Nonpoint
sources account for about 42
percent of the water quality
problems. Many reaches are
affected by a combination of
point and nonpoint sources of
pollution. One percent of the
problem areas are caused by
natural conditions, primarily
low dissolved oxygen and pH
caused by drainage from
wetland areas. Two percent of
the problem areas have no
identifiable pollutant sources.
Ground-Water
Quality
Florida's population is
dependent upon ground water
for 92 percent of its drinking
water supplies. Twenty percent
of this water is drawn directly
from private wells and is
generally untreated. Although
individual water supplies are
monitored on a regular basis
for contamination, there has
been a long-standing need to
look at ground-water systems as
contiguous reservoirs which
have connections to surface
waters and any accompanying
surface water contamination.
Florida has committed to a
four-year program to assess
ground-water quality, with
special emphasis on areas that
receive heavy applications of
agricultural chemicals. This
program will include as many
as 1,500 new monitoring wells
and sampling of as many as
1,000 existing wells.
The State has a ground-water
rule designed to protect ground
water from the introduction of
hazardous materials. The rule
encourages the recycling and
storage of waters in a manner
compatible with aquifer protec-
tion. Other ground-water
programs include underground
injection control, storage tank
inspection, septic tank manage-
ment, and pesticides tracking.
GEORGIA
For a complete copy of the
Georgia 305(b) report, contact:
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Environmental Protection
Division
270 Washington St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality in Georgia's
streams, lakes, and estuaries
during 1984-1985 was good.
Data from State monitoring
programs revealed that 95
percent of the stream miles, 87
percent of the acres of publicly
owned lakes, and 98 percent of
the square miles of estuaries in
Georgia fully supported desig-
nated water uses. No significant
decreases in water quality were
documented during 1984-1985.
Improvements have been docu-
mented throughout the State,
most notably in the Conasauga
River downstream of Dalton, in
the South River downstream of
metropolitan Atlanta, and in
the Ochlocknee River below
Moultrie.
The major areas of poor
water quality in the State
continue to be downstream of
major metropolitan areas.
Although improvements have
been made, additional control
efforts are needed, many of
which are presently in progress.
Many municipalities are
participating in the construc-
tion grants program and are in
need of additional funding to
complete current projects.
Municipal sources are the
leading causes of use impair-
ment in Georgia, affecting 84
percent of impaired streams
and 96 percent of impaired
lakes and reservoirs. Nonpoint
sources affect 15 percent of
impaired streams and 2 percent
of impaired lakes. Industrial
sources are cited as the cause of
use impairment in 1 percent of
streams and 2 percent of lakes
and reservoirs. In Georgia's
estuaries, 80 percent of use
impairment is attributed to
natural sources, 15 percent to
industrial sources, and 5
percent to municipal sources of
pollution.
Leading parameters of
concern identified by the State
include dissolved oxygen, nutri-
ents, temperature, toxic
substances, turbidity, and fecal
coliform bacteria.
In 1984-1985, high priority
was placed on: 1) water quality
monitoring, including estuarine
monitoring/modeling and
increased toxic substance
monitoring; 2) implementation
of the National Municipal
Policy; 3) issuance and
enforcement of NPDES,
pretreatment, and land
application system permits;
4) water quality management,
including standards revisions
and nonpoint source assessment;
5) construction grants
management; and 6) imple-
mentation of approved
pretreatment programs for
industrial wastewaters
discharged to municipal
facilities.
A-9
-------
Appendix
Construction activities
resulted in the completion of 25
new publicly owned water
pollution control plants and the
elimination of 19 inadequate
plants in 1984-85. Approxi-
mately 59 percent of Georgia's
5.6 million people were served
by public sewerage systems, 35
percent by septic tank systems,
and 6 percent by inadequate
treatment facilities. Approxi-
mately 90 percent of the
oxygen-demanding pollutants
generated by municipalities
were removed by wastewater
treatment in 1985.
GUAM
For a complete copy of the
Guam 305(b) report, contact:
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
P.O. Box 2999
Agana, Guam 96910
Surface Water
Quality
During the past two years
there has been no major
improvement or quantifiable
deterioration in Guam's water
quality. This is important to
note, as there has been and
continues to be a very high
growth and development rate
that could have severely affected
water quality if not properly
regulated.
Guam's major water quality
problem is bacteriological
contamination of surface
waters. Although bacteriological
contamination has been
significantly reduced at many
locations as a result of the sewer
construction grant program,
most rivers and streams remain
contaminated greater than 25
percent of the time. This is a
result of surface runoff of
animal wastes, a large number
of individual on-site waste
treatment facilities, and storm
drains.
At times, high residue or
turbidity values may also be in
violation of water quality
standards. These violations
result from heavy silt loads that
are carried by rivers in the
south following periods of heavy
rain. Although some erosion is
natural, much of the turbidity
is associated with man's
activities such as development
and farming. Another major
factor influencing siltation is the
extensive grassland fires that
occur in southern Guam. Most
of these fires are intentionally
set by man. The repeated
burning of the southern
hillsides has denuded many
areas and exposed them to
erosion.
Ground-Water
Quality
Guam's drinking water,
although high in calcium and
magnesium carbonates due to
the composition of the
territory's coral aquifers, is
unusually pure. Several
instances of saltwater intrusion
have occurred and were caused
by improper well location and
overpumping. Guam's ground
water contains 2 to 2.5 ppm
nitrate-nitrogen, twice the
national average. The exact
cause of this is unknown,
although leachate from many
small feedlot operations and on-
site waste disposal systems are
suspected to be major causes.
Continual, comprehensive
ground-water monitoring is
part of Guam's recently revised
monitoring strategy. Results of
this sampling continue to verify
that ground-water contaminants
are well below the recom-
mended maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) established by
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
HAWAII
For a complete copy of the
Hawaii 305(b) report, contact:
Hawaii Department of Health
Environmental Protection and
Health Services Division
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
Surface Water
Quality
Water pollution problems in
the State of Hawaii are to a
large extent determined by the
State's location and geography.
Unlike the coterminous United
States, the islands of Hawaii
have no major river basin
systems. Each of the major
islands is considered a discrete
hydrological system of small
streams and related small
drainage areas. Island streams
can change rapidly from
normally low or non-existent
flows to flood stage during
periods of heavy precipitation.
The flows resulting from the
high runoff are among the
major factors affecting the
quality of coastal waters.
The chemical quality of
Hawaii's surface water is
excellent near the headwaters of
streams. However, before
reaching the ocean these
streams can accumulate
significant amounts of dissolved
solids, nutrients, and coliform
bacteria from surface runoff,
sewage effluent, industrial
wastes, irrigation, and urban
runoff.
Fourteen coastal water areas,
primarily embayments and
estuaries throughout the State,
have been identified as waters
lhat do not meet water quality
standards and will not meet
them even after point source
effluent limitation requirements
A-10
-------
Appendix
are applied. In almost every
case, nonpoint sources are the
reason for water quality
degradation. These nonpoint
sources include unconfmed
irrigation tailwaters carrying
silt, cane wastings, chemical
fertilizers, and pesticides from
agricultural activities;
sedimentary materials eroded
by heavy rain, storm runoff
from urbanized areas, and
construction areas; and cesspool
seepage from unsewered areas.
Nonpoint sources of pollution
are major contributing factors
to the high concentrations of
nitrogen and phosphorus,
coliform bacteria counts, and
turbidity in all identified
problem areas. However, the
report notes that continued
improvement of sewage
treatment and abatement or
removal of municipal waste
sources have markedly
enhanced water quality over the
past several years and have
reduced public health hazards
from swimming beaches.
Recovery of coral reef systems
has also been noted.
Ground-Water
Quality
Most of Hawaii's drinking
water supply comes from
ground water, which is
generally of good quality. All
ground water developed and
approved for public and
domestic purposes is chemically
suitable for use without
treatment. The concentrations
of all constituents are within the
limits of U.S. drinking water
standards. However, some
degradation of ground-water
quality has occurred. Possible
reasons include, but are not
limited to, increased population
pressures, the legal use of
pesticides, the illegal disposal of
pesticides, industrial activities,
irrigation, solid waste disposal,
and subsurface waste disposal
practices. The State is in the
process of developing and
implementing a comprehensive
ground-water quality protection
strategy to address these and
other issues.
IDAHO
For a complete copy of the
Idaho 305(b) report, contact:
Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare
450 West State Street
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Surface Water
Quality
Idaho's surface water is of
good overall quality. Of the
7,310 river miles assessed for
designated use support, 6,046
supported uses, 572 partially
supported uses, and 692 did not
support uses. A total of 362,718
lake acres were assessed;
362,624 acres supported uses
and only 94 acres partially
supported uses.
Nonpoint source activities
account for 78 percent of the
use impairment in Idaho's
rivers and 90 percent of use
impairment in its lakes. The
major sources of nonpoint
water quality impacts in Idaho
are agriculture, forestry, and
mining. Agriculture and related
activities (grazing, feedlots, and
dairies) account for 38 percent
of nonpoint source impacts
statewide. Forestry, including
road construction, accounts for
19 percent and mining accounts
for 9 percent. If natural and
upstream sources are added to
the above three categories, 91
percent of the total nonpoint
source impact statewide is
accounted for.
The major water quality
pollutants of concern in Idaho
reflect the predominance of
nonpoint source impacts.
Excessive sediment, nutrients,
and bacteria are produced by
agricultural activities. Forestry
activities result in increased
sediment and nutrients and
may cause temperature
increases and reductions in
dissolved oxygen. Mining can
cause excessive sedimentation
and metal toxicity. In general,
excessive sedimentation is the
most critical water quality
problem resulting from
nonpoint source activities.
Impacts on fisheries are
particularly severe.
Point source impacts in
Idaho are minor when
compared to nonpoint source
impacts. Pollutants of concern
for municipal and industrial
discharges include nutrients,
suspended solids, bacteria, and
oxygen-demanding materials.
Metals and chemical toxicity
are a concern with mining
discharges. Permit compliance
rates are high; therefore, water
quality impacts from point
source discharges are minimal.
Ground-Water
Quality
Idaho ranks among the five
States with the greatest use of
ground water, by volume. Sixty-
four percent of its total ground-
water withdrawal is for irriga-
tion purposes and 33 percent
for industrial purposes. Ninety
percent of Idaho's drinking
water comes from its aquifers.
Idaho's ground-water quality
is generally excellent. Most
ground water is suitable for use
for drinking water, irrigation,
and industrial purposes
including aquaculture.
Naturally high levels of
dissolved solids, fluoride, or
hardness affect some ground
water. Known contamination
has only affected three percent
of ground water statewide. The
potential for ground-water
contamination is high, however,
A-11
-------
Appendix
as the most vulnerable aquifers
are located in areas of most
intense land use.
A priority ranking of poten-
tial sources of ground-water
contamination in Idaho rates
the six leading sources to be
petroleum handling and
storage, feedlots and dairies,
landfills and hazardous waste
sites, land application of
wastewater, hazardous material
handling, and pesticide han-
dling and use. Major ground-
water contaminants of concern
include volatile and synthetic
organic chemicals, pesticides,
nitrates, fluorides, metals, and
bacteria.
ILLINOIS
For a complete copy of the
Illinois 305(b) report, contact:
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Surface Water
Quality
In 55 percent of Illinois'
assessed stream miles,
designated uses were fully
supported, 28 percent were
partially supported with minor
impairment, 15 percent were
partially supported with
moderate impairment, and 2
percent were not supported.
Degree of support in this case is
equated with the suitability of
water quality to protect aquatic
life. Agricultural nonpoint
pollution was most often cited
as the probable cause of use
impairment, followed by
municipal wastewater treatment
plant effluents and urban
runoff.
Of the lake acres assessed in
1984-85, 7 percent fully
supported designated uses, 45
percent partially supported
uses, and 48 percent did not
support uses. Major problems
identified in Illinois' lakes were
sediment pollution and aquatic
weeds and algae. Eighty-nine
percent of the lakes monitored
were classified as eutrophic and
the remainder as mesotrophic.
Nonpoint sources contributed
to problems in 75 percent of the
lake acreage; municipal sources
in 15 percent; and industrial/
other sources in 10 percent. The
major parameters contributing
to inland lake problems were
suspended solids and turbidity
from nonpoint sources, and
phosphorus and nitrogen from
all sources.
An assessment of Lake
Michigan water quality over the
past ten years shows consider-
able improvement. Beach
closures due to fecal coliform
bacteria have been reduced in
frequency, primarily because of
the diversion of discharges from
the North Shore Sanitary
District from Lake Michigan to
the Des Plaines River basin.
Ground-Water
Quality
A preliminary survey
conducted by the Illinois EPA
in 1984 found that over one-
third of the State's public water
supply wells are located in
geological areas that are highly
vulnerable to ground-water
contamination. The survey
found a definite relationship
between these "susceptibility"
ratings and verified contamina-
tion. The majority of verified
problems were caused by bacteria
or nutrient contamination; data
on contamination by organics
were not available. Of the wells
surveyed, 9 percent were
suspected of having problems or
of being threatened by contam-
ination from a known source.
A significant portion of the
contaminated or threatened
wells coincide with urban/
industrial areas. The major
threats are from hazardous
waste sites, landfills, industries,
and road salting practices. In
addition, water supply wells can
be affected as a result of
deficient well construction
techniques. Another significant
threat to ground water is from
coal mining and oil production,
which can be particularly
important since these activities
occur in areas of sparse ground-
water supply and can pollute
the only available source of
water. Other problems include
materials storage and gasoline
leaks from petroleum storage
facilities.
A-12
-------
Appendix
INDIANA
For a complete copy of the
Indiana 305(b) report, contact:
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
105 South Meridian Street
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
Surface Water
Quality
Since 1972, water quality in
Indiana has improved in
approximately a thousand
stream miles, and there remain
only about 200 miles where
aquatic life is seriously
depressed. No additional
stream miles have been
degraded on these permanent
streams. The greatest improve-
ments have occurred in the
upper and middle West Fork of
White River, the East Fork of
White River, the Wabash River,
the Maumee River, the
Muscatatuck River, the Grand
Calumet River, and many
smaller streams. In the
1984-1985 reporting period, the
most serious remaining
problems were in the Little
Calumet and Grand Calumet
River basins in Lake County,
and in Trail Creek at Michigan
City.
Few, if any, public beaches on
Indiana lakes and reservoirs
have been closed recently
because of high bacterial
counts. Those closures that did
occur could be traced to upsets
in sewage treatment plant
operations or spills and were
short-term occurrences (1-2
days). About 60 percent of the
stream sampling stations where
fecal coliform bacteria were
monitored did not meet the
recreational use designation;
however, while standards were
not always met, the maximum
and average values for fecal
coliform concentrations have
dropped dramatically at most
stations in recent years.
Indiana's largest body of
water is the 154,000 acres of
Lake Michigan. It is used
extensively for sport and
commercial fishing, swimming
and boating, and both potable
and industrial water supply.
The swimming use has
occasionally been impaired.
However, no Indiana beaches
have been closed recently, and
water quality along all of the
shoreline has improved. A
lakewide fish consumption
advisory is in effect for certain
species due to high concentra-
tions of chlordane, dieldrin,
DDT, and PCBs.
Ground-Water
Quality
Nearly 59 percent of the
State's population uses ground
water for drinking water
purposes and 426 public water
systems, using some 1,775
individual waterwells, are
directly dependent on ground
water for their supplies.
Over the past 20 years, and
most notably the past 5 years,
nearly 400 separate wells were
documented to have been
contaminated in Indiana.
Alternate water supplies or
water treatment were used in
most of the cases, while a
cleanup of the contamination
also occurred in about a fourth
of the incidents.
Leading sources of ground-
water contamination include
hazardous material spills;
underground storage tank
systems; solid and hazardous
water disposal; above-ground
storage of materials; and pits,
ponds, and lagoons. Substances
contaminating ground water in
Indiana include volatile organic
chemicals, petroleum and
petroleum products, metals and
heavy metals, chlorides and
salts, and nitrates.
Indiana is developing a
ground-water protection policy.
A ground-water protection
strategy, which identifies
substantive issues and
formulates action plans to
resolve short- and long-term
problems regarding ground-
water protection, was also
planned for development in
1986.
IOWA
For a complete copy of the Iowa
305(b) report, contact:
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
The Wallace State Office
Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
Surface Water
Quality
This report provides use
assessment results for about
4,300 river and stream miles
(24 percent of the State's total)
and for 129 publicly owned
lakes and impoundments.
Although available chemical
and bacterial water quality
results were considered, the
major basis for the assessment
was information compiled in
1985 in developing Iowa's
portion of the nonpoint source
report for the Association of
State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control
Administrators.
Of the river and stream miles
assessed, two percent were
found to fully support desig-
nated uses. Ninety percent of
the miles assessed were found to
partially support uses, and eight
percent were found to not
support uses.
The relatively large percent-
age of stream miles either
partially or not supporting uses
reflects the predominant
influence of agricultural
nonpoint source pollution on
surface water quality in Iowa.
A-13
-------
Appendix
Impacts from municipal
wastewater treatment facilities
accounted for 3 percent of
impaired waters, while indus-
trial discharges affected 0.2
percent of the miles assessed.
Although point sources account
for a small percentage of miles
that do not fully support uses,
they do cause severe localized
water quality impacts in Iowa
streams.
Of the 81,200 acres of
publicly owned lakes and
reservoirs in Iowa, 73,771 acres
were assessed for support of
designated uses. Seventy-three
percent of assessed lake acres
were found to support desig-
nated uses. Twenty-seven
percent of the acres were found
to partially support designated
uses, and one 40-acre lake
(Lake Hendricks in Howard
County) did not support
designated uses.
Because the discharge of
municipal and industrial
effluents to State-owned lakes is
prohibited, the primary source
affecting designated uses in
Iowa lakes is nonpoint source
pollution, especially that
associated with agricultural
practices. In all 39 lakes not
fully supporting their desig-
nated uses, nonpoint source
pollution was identified as the
cause of use impairment.
Thirty-six of these lakes had
uses impaired by sediments and
nutrients from agricultural
nonpoint sources. Designated
uses of three oxbow lakes along
the Missouri River were
impaired by hydrological
modification of the river
channel and urban runoff.
Several studies of toxic
contaminants in fish were
conducted during 1984 and
1985. The pesticide chlordane
was frequently found in low
concentrations in fish, and at
unusually high levels in fish
from an urban impoundment in
A-14
Cedar Rapids. The suspected
source of the contamination is
drainage from the foundations
of buildings that have been
treated with chlordane to
control termites.
Other pesticides whose use
has been banned, such as aldrin
and DDT, were only occasional-
ly found in Iowa fish. However,
the compounds into which these
two pesticides eventually break
down (dieldrin, DDD, and
DDE) were frequently found.
Although the levels of both
these pesticides and their
breakdown products were never
high enough to be of concern to
human health, dieldrin
frequently exceeded the levels
recommended for the protec-
tion of fish-consuming wildlife.
Low levels of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) were found in
37 percent of the fish samples
from around the State. Nearly
half of these were collected in a
special study of the Mississippi
River near Davenport, where a
disposal site for PCB-
contaminated oil was being
investigated. Except for a single
composite sample from down-
stream of that site, all samples
were well below the level
considered to be of concern to
human health. Corrective
measures are currently
underway at that site.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water studies
completed during 1984 and
1985 focused primarily on
contamination involving
nitrates, pesticides, and other
man-made organic chemicals.
High levels of nitrates were
more frequently found in
shallow wells than in deep wells.
Private wells more commonly
exceeded the health limit than
public water supplies.
All of the commonly used
pesticides were detected in
Iowa's ground water. The
herbicide atrazine was the most
frequently detected. In addition
to pesticides, 17 other man-
made organic chemicals were
reported in various studies of
wells serving Iowa's public
water supplies. These contami-
nants were not found as
frequently in treated water as in
well water. However, in several
instances the concentrations
were high enough to be
considered a health threat for
long-term exposure.
KANSAS
For a complete copy of the
Kansas 305(b) report, contact:
Kansas Department of
Health and Environment
Bureau of Water Protection
Water Quality Assessment
Section
Forbes Field
Topeka, KS 66620
Surface Water
Quality
All streams and lakes in
Kansas are affected or
threatened by nonpoint source
pollution. Nonpoint source
pollutants include biochemical
oxygen demand, nutrients,
dissolved and suspended solids,
bacteria, metals, and pesticides.
While runoff from urban and
mined land areas may carry a
greater number of different
pollutants, runoff from
agricultural land is much more
widespread and affects a greater
fraction of the State's surface
water resources.
The most significant
nonpoint source pollutant in all
streams and in most lakes in
Kansas is suspended solids. The
frequency of pesticides
detection is increasing over
time. Since 1977, pesticides
have been detected in 19 of 58
lakes sampled. Pesticides in fish
tissue have exceeded National
Academy of Sciences and
National Academy of
Engineering guidelines at 65
percent of the 24 stations
sampled.
Point sources of pollution in
Kansas include municipal
wastewater treatment plants
and industrial discharges.
These point sources, controlled
by the State through the
administration of the National
-------
Appendix
Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, did not
contribute pollution to the
streams in 1984 and 1985 in
quantities that would violate the
State standards if the facilities
were properly operated and
maintained.
Natural conditions such as
low flow and mineral intrusion
may result in violations of the
dissolved oxygen, boron,
fluoride, and metals criteria
during summer months or in
some parts of the State.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water supplies about
85 percent of the water used in
Kansas. Public and rural
systems provide ground water
to almost 1.2 million people,
about 49 percent of the State's
population. Approximately 93
percent of the ground water
withdrawn is used for
irrigation.
While no significant statewide
ground-water quality problems
exist, the Kansas Department
of Health and Environment is
aware of many isolated, site-
specific ground-water problems
and expects to find many more.
These problems are generally
the result of human activity,
although in several cases they
have been attributed to natural
sources.
At identified contamination
sites, pollutants such as
chlorides, heavy metals,
petroleum, and organic
chemicals have been detected.
The more common sources of
ground-water contamination in
Kansas include industrial waste
disposal practices, improperly
constructed or abandoned oil or
gas wells, leaking underground
petroleum storage tanks, and
surface storage of brines and
other wastewater. Much of the
ground-water contamination
found is suspected to be the
result of past waste manage-
ment practices. Current State
regulatory programs seek to
minimize potential future
pollution by setting construc-
tion standards for wells and
surface ponds, eliminating
certain types of disposal
techniques, upgrading replace-
ment requirements for storage
tanks, and monitoring potential
contamination sources.
KENTUCKY
For a complete copy of the
Kentucky 305(b) report,
contact:
Kentucky Department of
Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
Division of Water
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Surface Water
Quality
Approximately 5,700 of
Kentucky's 18,500 stream miles
were assessed in the 1984-85
reporting period. Forty-five
percent of the total miles
assessed experienced some
degree of use impairment. Uses
were not supported in 12
percent of the assessed miles.
The major causes of use
impairment were coal mining
activities, oil production
operations, and municipal and
industrial wastewater
discharges. A water quality
ranking of thirty-one hydrologic
units encompassing most of the
State reveals that the seven
watersheds with the lowest
water quality ranking contain
58 percent of the stream miles
not supporting designated uses.
These hydrologic units include:
Mud River and Pond River
within the Green River basin;
the northern half of the Salt
River basin; the upper main-
stem of the Kentucky River
basin including the Red River;
Tug Fork and Elaine Creek
within the Big Sandy River
basin; and the Little Sandy
River.
More than 90 percent of
Kentucky's publicly owned lake
acreage was assessed. Of the
362,403 acres assessed, 326,483
acres (90 percent) support
designated uses. The five lakes
constituting the 573 acres not
supporting designated uses are
McNeely, Carpenter, Corbin,
Loch Mary, and Sympson.
Natural conditions contribute
to 77 percent of the document-
ed use nonsupport in lakes.
This is largely due to impacts
on domestic water supplies
from hypolimnetic water
released from large reservoirs,
which contains excessive levels
of iron and manganese.
Nonpoint sources are the
second largest cause of use
impairment (17 percent).
Sedimentation from surface
coal mining is by far the most
significant nonpoint source
pollutant. Another pollutant of
growing concern is brine
discharged from oil-producing
facilities.
As a result of the implemen-
tation of a toxics control
strategy during 1984-85, a
partial assessment was made of
the extent of toxic substances in
the State's waters. The results
of acute and chronic toxicity
tests below 15 municipal and
industrial wastewater discharges
indicate that a total of 155
stream miles are being
adversely affected. During 1985,
fish consumption advisories
were issued for two streams
totalling 115.5 miles in length
because of the presence of PCBs
from industrial sources.
Another toxic pollutant that is
emerging as a potential health
threat is chlordane, which has
been detected in fish tissue and
sediment samples at a number
of stream stations. Toxics are
not considered to be a problem
in any State lakes.
A-15
-------
Appendix
Brine discharges from oil
production facilities are cited as
a special concern in Kentucky.
In the eastern oil production
region, documented impacts
from brine discharges are
observed in 191 stream miles. A
number of State and Federal
actions have been initiated to
control the problem. Another
special concern in the State is
the loss of wetland resources.
Kentucky estimates that half of
its original wetland acreage is
gone; remaining areas have
been degraded by pesticides,
acid mine drainage, siltation,
oil brine, or domestic and
industrial wastes. Competing
land uses and poor land
management practices are
continuing threats to wetlands
in the State.
Ground-Water
Quality
With some exceptions, the
quality of Kentucky's ground
water is good. However, there
are a number of ground-water
contamination and depletion
incidents, particularly in the
karst region of the State, that
underscore the need for an
effective ground-water manage-
ment program. In the Drakes
Creek watershed, PCBs were
originating from an industrial
discharge to a sinkhole. Cities
such as Elizabethtown and
Georgetown are undergoing
rapid economic development
and depend on ground water
for community water supplies.
These supplies come from karst
aquifers that are very suscep-
tible to pollution. The trend
toward use of ground-water
heat pump systems for large
office buildings may cause a
depletion of the Louisville
aquifer. Bowling Green has a
history of point and nonpoint
source ground-water pollution
problems associated with indus-
trial, urban, and agricultural
activities over major karst
aquifers.
The development of a
comprehensive ground-water
management program was
mandated by the Water
Management Plan approved by
the Governor in November
1984. Since that time, the
Division of Water has initiated
such activities as the develop-
ment of a ground-water data
base, implementation and
administration of the State
water well drillers program,
identification and classification
of Kentucky's aquifers, and
development of a statewide
ground-water policy/strategy.
LOUISIANA
For a complete copy of the
Louisiana 305(b) report,
contact:
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Pollution Control
Division
P.O. Box 44091
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4091
Surface Water
Quality
The quality of Louisiana's
surface waters is fair to good,
with seasonal fluctuations
observed.
A use-impairment index was
utilized to determine the degree
of designated use support in
rivers and to identify each
parameter's contribution to
overall use impairment.
Approximately 50 percent of
the 2,500 assessed river miles
fully support their designated
uses, 32 percent partially
support their designated uses,
and 18 percent do not support
their designated uses.
The major causes of water
quality degradation are
nonpoint source pollution (46
percent), municipal discharges
(26 percent), natural conditions
(17 percent), and industrial
sources (7 percent). Other/
unknown causes are cited in the
remaining 4 percent of waters.
Violations of the fecal coliform
bacteria criteria are widespread
and result from both point and
nonpoint source pollution.
Chronic and seasonally
depressed dissolved oxygen
concentrations may impair the
propagation of sensitive aquatic
organisms and can result from
a combination of natural and
man-induced sources. The use
impairment index was not able
to address heavy metals, other
toxics, or nutrients since the
numerical criteria for these
parameters have not been
defined in State standards.
According to conventional
trophic indices, most lakes in
Louisiana fall into the eutrophic
category due to their shallow
depths and high nutrient levels.
However, these lakes support
diverse, productive fisheries and
provide tremendous recreation-
al opportunities for residents
and visitors of the State.
Approximately 87 percent of
Louisiana's assessed lake acres
fully support their uses, 12
percent partially support their
designated uses, and less than 1
percent do not support their
designated uses. Use
impairment in lakes was
attributed primarily to
nonpoint sources.
Approximately 41 percent of
the assessed estuarine square
miles fully support their
designated uses, 31 percent
partially support their
designated uses, and 28 percent
clo not support their designated
uses. The areas which do not
support their uses have been
closed to the harvesting of
shellfish due to bacterial
contamination from untreated
and inadequately treated
sewage and from pasturelands
and wildlife.
Ground-Water
Quality
The quality of water in the
State's major aquifer systems
remains excellent. Testing by
the U.S. Geological Survey and
public water distribution
A-16
-------
Appendix
systems reveals that the deeper
aquifers remain free from
contamination. Of specific
concern in Louisiana, however,
are the shallow aquifers and
water-bearing zones that are
not used as major sources of
water. Site-specific contamina-
tion of these shallow strata
presents a direct threat to the
major aquifers by means of
leakage through well bores,
stratigraphic interconnections,
and fractures. In addition,
individual wells are located in
these shallow strata and may
become directly contaminated.
Major sources of ground-
water contamination in
Louisiana are surface impound-
ments, oil and gas brine pits,
abandoned hazardous waste
sites, and underground storage
tanks. Substances that contami-
nate ground-water in the State
include volatile and synthetic
organic chemicals, brine/
salinity, nitrates, fluorides, and
metals.
MAINE
For a copy of the 1986 Maine
305(b) report, contact:
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
State House Station No. 17
Augusta, ME 04333
Surface Water
Quality
In general, Maine's water is
of very good quality. Many of
the rivers and lakes that were
grossly polluted earlier in the
century have recovered since
the passage of the Clean Water
Act in 1972. Most of the
western and northern portions
of Maine contain waters that
are relatively pristine and are
affected primarily by atmos-
pheric deposition, timber
harvesting activities, and
natural disasters such as forest
fires.
This report includes an
assessment of all of Maine's
31,672 miles of rivers and
streams. For the period covered
by the report, monitoring data
exist for about 19 percent of
Maine's total estimated river,
stream, and brook miles.
Roughly 97 percent of Maine's
rivers, streams, and brooks fully
support designated uses. Of
those waters that do not fully
support the swimmable goal of
the Clean Water Act, many are
in violation of their bacteria
standard due to a combination
of factors such as urban
stormwater, combined sewer
overflows, and untreated or
inadequately treated domestic
wastewater discharges.
All of Maine's 5,779 lakes
and ponds attain bacteriological
standards for the protection of
swimmers and biological stand-
ards for habitat protection.
Despite this apparently suitable
water quality, 4 percent of
Maine's lake and pond acres
are classified as priority
problem waters due to periodic
algal blooms and a resultant
lack of transparency.
Over 98 percent of Maine's
estuaries, bays, and near shore
waters fully support their
designated uses. Thirty-six
square miles of near shore
waters do not fully support
these uses due to high bacteria
levels. Because bacteria stand-
ards are more restrictive for
shellfish harvesting than for
swimming, 28 square miles of
these nonattainment waters
support the swimming use but
not shellfish harvesting.
In the more populated areas
of Maine, water quality is
affected by a combination of
point sources such as industrial
and municipal effluents, and
nonpoint sources such as urban
and suburban stormwater run-
off, combined sewer overflows,
agriculture, silviculture,
construction-related runoff, and
waste disposal practices. Given
the difficulties of controlling
nonpoint sources, the low
number of remaining untreated
point sources and the
emergence of ground-water
quality and hydropower as
major concerns, it is doubtful
that future water quality
improvements will continue at
the same rate as has occurred
recently.
Ground-Water
Quality
There are many sources of
ground-water contamination in
Maine, with septic tanks, under-
ground storage tanks, road salt
storage, and municipal landfills
estimated to cause the greatest
problems. The Department of
Environmental Protection has
programs to study and abate
pollution from the latter three
sources. These studies have
found more than 300 contami-
nated domestic and public wells
near underground storage
tanks, sand-salt piles and
municipal landfills in Maine.
Additionally, 41 wells are known
to have been contaminated by
hazardous waste dumps.
Protection of Maine's ground
water is becoming an issue of
increasing concern at the local,
regional, State, and Federal
level. Programs for assessing
the quality of ground-water
resources, including ground-
water classification and aquifer
mapping, are underway in
many parts of the State. More
are planned for the future.
A-17
-------
Appendix
MARYLAND
For a complete copy of the
Maryland 305(b) report,
contact:
Maryland Department of the
Environment
Water Management
Administration
201 West Preston St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
Surface Water
Quality
Overall, Maryland's surface
water quality is good. However,
serious impacts do occur state-
wide. The most serious of these
problems is the continuing
accumulation of nutrients in
both tidal waters and impound-
ments. The primary sources of
the nutrients are agriculture,
urban runoff, and municipal
discharges. Suspended
sediments carried by nonpoint
source runoff continue to be a
problem in both flowing and
tidal waters. Locally elevated
bacterial levels are found
throughout the State and in
severe instances have resulted in
some areas being closed to
shellfish harvesting or bathing.
Acid mine drainage from many
abandoned coal mines in
western Maryland remains a
long-standing and difficult
problem to solve. Finally, toxic
heavy metals and organic
compounds have been found in
certain sediments and fish
tissue, indicating a long-term
pollution problem with an as
yet unknown impact on water
quality and aquatic resources in
the State. Primary sources of
toxics include municipal and
industrial discharges and
agricultural and urban runoff.
Of the 7,440 river miles
assessed by the State in 1986,
6,852 supported uses, 449
partially supported uses, and
139 did not support uses. A
total of 32,583 acres of lakes
were assessed; of these, 24,616
supported uses and the
remainder were primarily in
partial support of uses. Finally,
of 1,822 square miles of
estuaries/oceans assessed, 1,159
fully supported designated uses
and 663 partially supported
uses.
Nonpoint sources are the
leading cause of use impair-
ment in those assessed waters
not fully supporting uses. Sixty-
five percent of impaired lake
acres and 50 percent of
impaired stream miles and
estuarine square miles are
affected by nonpoint sources.
Findings of a number of
Federal, State, and local studies
have implicated nonpoint
source pollution as a major
source of water degradation in
the Chesapeake Bay. These
findings have resulted in the
development of programs to
control nonpoint pollution
sources statewide. Federal,
State, and local agencies are
involved in many of Maryland's
nonpoint source control
programs.
To address Federal and
interstate agreements to protect
and restore the Chesapeake
Bay, the State implemented a
series of initiatives in 1984 to
focus on point and nonpoint
source pollution, restoration
and enhancement of aquatic
and wetland/shoreline
resources, education,
monitoring, and research.
Special concerns cited by the
State include atmospheric
deposition, acid mine drainage,
and wetlands preservation.
Ground-Water
Quality
The quality of the State's
ground water is generally good.
Most ground-water quality
problems are localized and do
not affect entire aquifers or
other geologic formations. The
most serious ground-water
quality problem is bacterial
contamination. This problem
generally occurs as a result of
malfunctioning septic systems
and deteriorating wells.
Elevated nitrate levels in
ground water are of some
concern, particularly on the
Eastern Shore, with the
problem occurring statewide as
well. Sources are widespread
and diffused. Reports of
ground-water contamination
from leaking underground
storage tanks have increased in
recent years. Finally, saltwater
intrusion into aquifers in
coastal areas is also of prime
concern.
MASSACHUSETTS
For a complete copy of the
Massachusetts 305(b) report,
contact:
Massachusetts Division of
Water Pollution Control
Westview Building
Lyman School Grounds
Westborough, MA 01581
Surface Water
Quality
Massachusetts' surface water
quality has improved consider-
ably since the 1972 Federal
Water Pollution Control
Amendments were enacted. Of
the 10,704 river miles in
Massachusetts, 1,676 major
miles have been surveyed. 48
percent of these river miles fully
support their designated uses
and 34 percent partially
support their uses. 92 percent of
the lakes and ponds acres
assessed met oligotrophic or
mesotrophic status, and 25
percent of the harbors and bays
fully met their water quality
classification.
Use impairments are attrib-
uted to municipal sources (26
percent), nonpoint sources (24
percent), combined sewer over-
flows (16 percent), natural
conditions (14 percent), in-place
sediments (7 percent), indus-
trial sources (6 percent), and
other sources (7 percent). The
major pollution problems in
rivers and harbors are bacteria/
pathogens, dissolved oxygen
depletion, biochemical oxygen
demand, and nutrients. PCB
and heavy metal contamination
severely affect a few basins and
harbors, resulting in fish
consumption advisories and
toxic aquatic conditions.
A-18
-------
Appendix
An increase in shellfish
closures due to bacterial
contamination has been found
through more monitoring and
reclassification. It appears that
coastal water contamination is
more widespread than realized,
and special actions and
programs are now being
initiated by the Department.
The NPDES and construction
grants programs have been
responsible for the reduction of
BOD, bacteria, and solids
problems in the State's rivers. A
continuation of these programs
will further upgrade river water
quality.
The present focus of the
Division of Water Pollution
Control is on the complex
problems of combined sewer
overflows, toxic contamination,
and eutrophication. These
problems are difficult to assess
and expensive to correct;
abatement projects are less
likely to be funded as Federal
support is reduced.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water contamination
in Massachusetts is becoming
apparent due to the increasing
number of ground-water public
water supplies being closed.
Forty-six communities have had
to close part or all of their
public water supplies due to
contamination; 45 of these
closures involved ground-water.
The sources of the water supply
contamination are industrial
activities, accidental spills,
road-salting, landfills, over
development, and pesticides.
Organic chemicals have caused
the contamination in 67 percent
of the State's closures.
Programs are being
established to protect the
ground water in the
Commonwealth. Funds and
authority are available to
prevent and clean up
contaminated public water
supplies. Protection of the
Commonwealth's ground-water
resources is further provided
through resource information
maps, land acquisition, and a
ground-water discharge permit
program that classifies ground-
waters according to their most
sensitive use. Each discharge
permit is reviewed on a case-by-
case basis and strict discharge
limits and monitoring
requirements must be met.
MICHIGAN
For a complete copy of the
Michigan 305(b) report,
contact:
Michigan Department of
Natural Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
Stephens T. Mason Building
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality in Michigan's
lakes and streams is generally
quite good, with high quality
waters found in most areas of
the State. With a few localized
exceptions, the inland waters of
Michigan's upper peninsula
and the northern half of the
lower peninsula are of excellent
quality and contain diverse
aquatic communities. Lakes
and streams in the southern
half of Michigan's lower penin-
sula are typically of good
quality and support warmwater
biological communities. This
southern portion of the State
contains Michigan's major
urban areas; much of the
remaining rural land is in
agricultural production.
Consequently, some rivers and
lakes in this area have been
affected by surface water runoff
from agricultural land and
urban centers as well as by
municipal and industrial
wastewater discharges. This has
caused eutrophication and toxic
material problems in some
locations, particularly down-
stream of metropolitan areas.
Of Michigan's 36,350 total
river miles, roughly 497 are not
meeting designated uses.
Approximately 157 additional
miles are known to be affected
but the degree of water quality
degradation is not known, nor
is it known if designated uses
are not being met. The major
sources of contamination are
nonpoint source pollution, in-
place toxic materials, combined
sewer overflows, industrial and
municipal point source
dischargers, and the leaking of
contaminated ground water
into surface waters. The
primary pollutant materials are
nutrients (phosphorus and
nitrogen), suspended solids,
toxic organic compounds, heavy
metals, and existing oil and
grease sediment deposits.
Four of the five Great Lakes
border Michigan. Lakes
Superior, Michigan, and Huron
are considered to be oligo-
trophic and of excellent water
quality. Water quality in Lake
Huron's Saginaw Bay has
improved considerably in recent
years. Conditions in Lake Erie
have also improved and, though
it is still considered to be
eutrophic, biological
communities are becoming
more balanced and there are
fewer problems with low
dissolved oxygen levels. The
State is currently preparing
remedial action plans to address
the pollution problems of Great
Lakes nearshore areas of
concern.
Toxic contaminants continue
to have a major impact in
several areas of the State. These
materials have contaminated
some fish stocks in certain
inland waters and the Great
Lakes, necessitating the
issuance of public health
advisories against consumption
of some species.
A-19
-------
Appendix
Ground-Water
Quality
At least 24 Michigan munici-
pal well systems are known to
have been affected by toxic
contaminants as of February
1986. Over 200 private
residential wells have become
polluted, which has resulted in
a need for alternative water
supplies. Even greater numbers
of public and private wells are
potentially affected by
contaminated sites.
Of known point sources of
ground-water contamination,
the largest number of problems
is associated with underground
storage tanks. This has resulted
in new legislation requiring
underground tank registrations
that provide important infor-
mation such as tank age,
location, and contents. Other
major contamination sources
include landfills, metal plating
and production facilities,
chemical products
manufacturing, salt storage,
and agriculture/food-related
activities.
MISSISSIPPI
For a complete copy of the
Mississippi 305(b) report,
contact:
Mississippi Department of
Environmental Regulation
Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39209
Surface Water
Quality
Surface water in Mississippi
is generally of good quality.
Most water bodies either meet
all applicable water quality
standards or fully support their
designated uses.
Of the 10,000 miles of rivers
and streams assessed, 90
percent currently support their
designated uses, with the
remainder partially supporting
uses. At present, it is antici-
pated that all but those streams
classified for lower uses will
attain support of the fishable/
swimmable use goal.
Of 995,000 acres of lakes and
reservoirs assessed, 96 percent
supported their designated uses.
The remainder partially
supported their uses. With
implementation of best
management practices it is
anticipated that all of the lakes
and reservoirs assessed could
meet the fishable/swimmable
use goal.
Approximately 133 square
miles of estuaries were assessed
for this report. Of these, 118
square miles supported their
designated uses, 14 square miles
partially supported their uses,
and one square mile did not
support its designated uses. All
133 square miles could eventu-
ally support the fishable/
swimmable use goal with
implementation of nonpoint
source controls.
For rivers and streams, the
major cause of nonsupport was
nonpoint sources (72 percent).
In addition, significant impacts
were noted from municipal
sources (23 percent).
Nonsupport of designated uses
in lakes and reservoirs is
attributed entirely to nonpoint
sources. Uses in estuaries were
impaired by nonpoint sources
(56 percent), municipal sources
(31 percent) and industrial
sources (13 percent).
Approximately 811 miles of
streams and 12,673 acres of
lakes are adversely affected by
toxic substances in Mississippi.
All of these waters are located
within the Yazoo River Basin,
which is affected by extensive
agricultural activities.
The Bureau conducts a study
each summer to determine
bacteria levels in swimming
areas along the Mississippi Gulf
Coast. This study points out a
continuing problem with high
bacteria counts related to
improperly treated wastewater
and urban runoff.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is the principal
source of drinking water in
Mississippi. It is used for
municipal, industrial, domestic,
and agricultural purposes.
Ground water is found in 14
major aquifers and is available
in large quantities almost
everywhere in the State. It
requires little or no treatment
and is used extensively
compared to surface water,
which requires treatment for
most uses.
Current issues of concern are
the extent of pollution caused
by oil and gas industry
operations and underground
storage tanks. The unknown
extent of pollution from
currently unmonitored sources,
which include many types of
surface impoundments,
iionhazardous landfills, and
agricultural operations, is also
an important issue.
Evaluation of potential
sources of ground-water
pollution and associated
regulatory programs are
currently underway. When
these are complete, specific
recommendations for each will
be made, if necessary.
A-20
-------
Appendix
MINNESOTA
For a complete copy of the
Minnesota 305(b) report,
contact:
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
Surface Water
Quality
Monitoring data from 1,896
miles of assessed rivers and
streams in Minnesota show that
83 percent of the mileage fully
met the fishable use designation
during the 1984-85 reporting
period. The causes of partial
and nonsupport were found to
be pollutant loadings from
nonpoint sources (51 percent),
point sources (42 percent), and
combinations of point and
nonpoint sources (7 percent). A
ten-year trend analysis indi-
cated that water quality impacts
from point sources are declining
as a direct result of improved
wastewater treatment. However,
nonpoint sources continue to
degrade water quality, particu-
larly in highly agricultural areas
of the State.
A trophic status assessment
of 28 percent of Minnesota's
total lake acreage showed that
28 percent of the assessed lake
acreage fully supported desig-
nated uses (meso and
oligotrophic), 63 percent
partially supported uses
(eutrophic), and 9 percent did
not support uses (hypereutro-
phic). The highly eutrophic
lakes exhibited nuisance
conditions that detracted from
the resource's value. An
estimated 90 percent of
Minnesota's lakes may be
affected by nonpoint sources of
nutrients which accelerate lake
eutrophication. The near-shore
waters of Lake Superior fully
supported designated fishable/
swimmable uses.
Fish tissue samples taken
from 1975 to 1984 in 404,765
acres of lakes showed that 45
percent of the lake acreage fully
supported fisheries uses and did
not require fish consumption
restrictions. Fish consumption
advisories were issued for the
remaining 55 percent of lake
acreage, primarily due to
mercury contamination in some
northeastern Minnesota lakes.
In addition, fish tissue assess-
ment of 968 miles of rivers
indicated that 30 percent of the
mileage supported designated
fisheries use, 45 percent
partially supported, and 25
percent did not support this
use The major causes of
nonsupport were PCB
contamination, particularly
downstream from large
population centers. It should be
noted that fish tissue monitor-
ing focuses on areas where
there are potential problems,
and so these figures may not be
representative of all Minnesota
waters. A trend analysis of PCB
concentrations in Mississippi
River fish species showed a
promising decline over the last
ten years.
Ground-Water
Quality
Minnesota's ground water is
a valuable resource, yet it is also
vulnerable to stress from con-
tamination and over-withdrawal.
Ninety-four percent of the
State's public water supply
systems and 75 percent of
domestic supply systems draw
from ground-water sources.
Ground water also supplies
about 88 percent of the water
used for agricultural irrigation.
These withdrawals totaled more
than 250 billion gallons in 1984
alone.
The natural quality of
Minnesota's ground water is
quite good. However, ground-
water contamination problems
have resulted from land use
practices and improper storage
of wastes in areas where natural
soils and geological formations
afford little protection for
ground-water aquifers. Contin-
ual progress is being made to
investigate and conduct reme-
dial actions at 120 identified
sites of contamination.
Major sources of ground-
water contamination are
industry/manufacturing (on-site
spills, illegal or uncontrolled
disposals, and impoundments);
solid waste landfills and dumps:
storage and transportation of
petroleum and other products;
and agricultural activities.
Contaminants include metals,
organic chemicals, industrial
solvents, pesticides, gasoline,
and nitrates.
MISSOURI
For a complete copy of the
Missouri 305(b) report, contact:
Missouri Department of
Natural Resources
Division of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Surface Water
Quality
Missouri's water quality is
generally good. Just over half
the State's classified waters are
fully meeting Clean Water Act
goals and most of the remaining
waters are partially meeting
those goals. Most of those
waters not fully meeting the
goals of the Act have
sedimentation and substrate
instability problems caused by
natural soil and geologic
conditions aggravated by
accelerated soil erosion from
agricultural practices and land
use conversions. The fact that
this kind of problem is extensive
and partially of natural origin
will make it difficult and
expensive to treat.
The impacts of certain
nonpoint sources are more
localized and more amenable to
treatment. Some of these areas
are now being treated by the
Department of Natural
Resources with funds provided
by the Office of Surface
Mining. Point source impacts
are a lesser problem due to
Missouri's essentially rural
nature and the State and
Federal grants to cities to
upgrade or replace aging
sewage collection and treatment
facilities.
A-21
-------
Appendix
The five most important
pollutants and pollutant sources
in the State are: sediment
deposited in streams from soil
erosion; acid mine drainage
(acidity, sulfate, iron, and
deposition of coal waste solids)
from abandoned coal mines;
municipal sewage treatment
plant effluent (BOD,
ammonia); deposition of lead-
zinc mine tailings (sand-silt
sized mineral particles,
bioavailable lead and zinc); and
releases from reservoirs (low
dissolved oxygen, dissolved
manganese, rapid temperature
changes, velocity and stage
changes).
Missouri discusses special
State concerns that are not
being adequately addressed
because of lack of manpower,
money, or authority. Stream
channelization is causing both
loss and degradation of aquatic
habitat; increases in stream-
bank erosion, frequency and
severity of flooding, and water
temperatures; and reduced
dissolved oxygen levels.
Abandoned lead-zinc mining
areas are degrading habitat due
to high rates of sediment
deposition or inflow of high
levels of bioavailable heavy
metals. Lake of the Ozarks, a
large reservoir, is experiencing
high density residential and
commercial development in
areas where sewage collection
and centralized treatment are
impractical. Cleanup of
abandoned hazardous waste
sites is proceeding very slowly.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground waters yield good
quality water in about 60
percent of the State. Aquifers in
the remainder of the State are
not potable due to naturally
high salinity associated with
very slow recharge and ground-
water movement. Localized
contamination of potable
aquifers does occur and some
public drinking water wells have
been contaminated. Alluvial
aquifers appear to be most
vulnerable. Improperly cased or
uncased private wells in shallow
bedrock aquifers in areas of
rapid ground-water recharge
are believed to be frequently
contaminated by septic tanks,
feedlots, and surface runoff.
The most important sources of
ground-water contamination in
the State are, in order of
decreasing importance,
abandoned hazardous waste
sites, surface impoundments,
underground storage tanks, and
septic tanks.
The Department of Natural
Resources' ground-water
protection goal is to maintain
the quality and quantity of the
State's ground water at the
highest level possible.
Important components of a
protection strategy include
identifying contaminant sources
that currently affect or threaten
ground-water uses, recom-
mending remedial or other
action toward the contaminant
sources, and directing resources
against the identified problems.
MONTANA
For a complete copy of the
Montana 305(b) report,
contact:
Montana Water Quality
Bureau
Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
Surface Water
Quality
Nonpoint sources are by far
the leading cause of water
quality degradation in
Montana, affecting 95 percent
of waters not fully supporting
their designated uses. Agricul-
ture, hydromodification, land
disposal, and mining are the
leading nonpoint sources in the
State. Three percent of
impaired waters are affected by
municipal sources and two
percent by industrial sources,
primarily oil production water
discharges to the Powder River
system. The five pollutant
categories most responsible for
water quality degradation in
Montana are sediment/
turbidity; salinity/dissolved
solids; heavy metals; nutrients;
and Giardia lamblia, an intestinal
parasite.
Of the 19,505 stream miles
assessed in Montana during the
reporting period, 12,184 support
their designated uses, 6,934
partially support uses, and 387
do not support uses.
Montana's largest and
highest priority river is the
Clark Fork, which suffers from
toxic metals contamination,
nutrient enrichment, and other
perturbations. The Clark Fork
River Basin Project has been
established in the Governor's
Office to coordinate water
quality management efforts and
to seek long-term solutions to
the river's problems.
Four lakes with a total area of
13,250 acres do not support
their designated uses and eight
lakes with a total area of 20,595
acres only partially support
their designated uses. The
remaining 1,972 lakes (629,518
acres) that were assessed
support their designated uses.
Flathead Lake is the largest
natural lake in the western U.S.
and Montana's highest priority
lake for water quality manage-
ment. The State implemented a
six-point phosphorus control
strategy after accelerated
eutrophication was documented
in 1983. The Flathead Basin
Commission serves to oversee
and coordinate management
and regulatory activities
affecting water quality in the
Flathead River Basin.
Relatively little information is
available regarding water
quality in Montana wetlands.
This is probably because the
principal use of wetlands is for
wildlife habitat and the water
quality of most Montana wet-
lands has not been shown to
impair this use. Concerns
regarding wetland water quality
result from the haphazard use
of pesticides and herbicides and
increasing salinity from poor
agricultural practices.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately two percent
of the total amount of water
used in Montana is ground
water. However, ground-water
sources provide potable water
for 55 percent of Montana's
population. Irrigation consumes
the largest part of ground water
used in Montana. Irrigation is
followed, in order of decreasing
A-22
-------
Appendix
consumption, by public water
supply systems, industrial, rural
domestic, and livestock uses.
Although there is no major
threat to ground water in
Montana, more local problems
occur each year. Some major
contaminants include fertilizers,
pesticides, hydrocarbons, and
heavy metals. During the last
two years, 14 ground-water
pollution control permits were
issued, and about 40 incidents
were investigated for possible
pollution Four sites revealed
cyanide from mining leach
operations, and 15 locations
were investigated for fuel
leaking into the ground water.
Seven businesses are planning
stringent monitoring programs
as part of completing applica-
tions under the Montana
Hazardous Waste Act.
Additionally, Montana now has
seven Superfund sites, and 24
more sites are being investi-
gated for inclusion in the
C ERG LA program. All of these
sites include ground-water
investigation, and in some
cases, actual cleanup work.
The State has not developed
a formal ground-water manage-
ment strategy. However, it has
implemented several programs
to identify and address ground-
water quality and quantity
problems. These programs can
be used in the future as
building blocks for a statewide
ground-water management
strategy. The programs are
directed towards quantification
of water resources, control of
potential sources of ground-
water pollution, and
identification and review of
important issues.
NEBRASKA
For a complete copy of the
Nebraska 305(b) report,
contact:
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control
Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, NE 68509
Surface Water
Quality
During 1984 and 1985,
primary contact recreational
and aquatic life uses were fully
supported in 2,717 stream
miles, or 57 percent of
Nebraska's assessed stream
miles that were assigned one or
both of these uses. Partial
support of assigned uses
occurred in 1,135 miles, while
942 miles did not support these
assigned uses. In general,
aquatic life uses were fairly well
supported; most of the impair-
ments were of primary contact
(e.g., swimming) uses.
Nonpoint source pollution is
responsible for water quality
degradation in about 92 percent
of stream miles with use
impairment. The principal
nonpoint source in Nebraska is
agricultural runoff, which
increases levels of fecal coliform
bacteria, suspended solids, and
certain pesticides. Domestic
point sources are responsible for
the impairment of about 8
percent of degraded miles,
while industrial point sources
cause the remaining beneficial
use impairment to streams (less
than 1 percent). Domestic
sources contribute ammonia
and fecal coliform bacteria,
while problems with heavy
metals are suspected to be due
to industrial sources.
Although several toxic
parameters have been detected
in water samples and fish tissue
samples, only cadmium and
chlordane were detected at
levels that would indicate water
quality impairment. High levels
of these parameters were
responsible for partial support
of the aquatic life use in 177
stream miles.
Of the lake acres assessed, 97
percent fully supported all
assigned uses while 2 percent
exhibited partial support and
only 0.5 percent exhibited
nonsupport. The partial
support ratings were due to
occasional dissolved oxygen
problems from the decay of
large amounts of algal biomass
in six highly productive lakes
and unexplained excessive
mercury concentrations in one
lake. Agricultural nonpoint
source pollution and the
inherent characteristics of the
lake appear to be responsible
for the high productivity in
these lakes. The nonsupport
rating was due to prolonged low
dissolved oxygen concentrations
in one lake. This problem is
believed to have been caused by
the operation of a new hydro-
electric facility.
A number of water quality
issues have been identified as
areas of concern or problems of
statewide importance. These
include the failure to support
primary contact recreation in
designated stream segments;
the widespread impacts of
nonpoint source pollution;
increasing trends in the
detection of certain toxic
pollutants; continued funding
of publicly owned treatment
works; and the increasing threat
to ground-water quality. Future
financial needs are projected to
be greatest in the areas of
nonpoint source pollution
control, continued funding of
the construction grants
program, and ground-water
pollution abatement.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is an
extremely important resource in
Nebraska, supplying water for
domestic, municipal, agricul-
tural, and industrial uses. It
supplies approximately 67
percent of the water used for
irrigation and approximately 77
percent of the public water
supplies.
Identified ground-water
quality problems in Nebraska
can be grouped into four
general categories: nitrate-
nitrogen, synthetic organic
compounds, hydrocarbons, and
other contaminants. Nitrate-
nitrogen concentrations in
ground water are increasingly
being detected at levels greater
than the drinking water
maximum contaminant level of
10 milligrams per liter. Syn-
thetic organic compounds have
been detected in municipal
water supplies at several
locations in the State. Hydro-
carbons and related chemicals
leak from fuel and chemical
storage tanks or are possibly
spilled from other sources.
Other contaminants, such as
sulfuric acid and detergents
related to industrial activities,
have also been detected in
ground water.
The Nebraska Ground-Water
Quality Protection Strategy was
recently completed. It put
forward a plan for ground-water
quality protection that
emphasizes the prevention of
ground-water contamination.
Many of the elements of this
plan are currently being
pursued with a number of
legislative measures passed by
the 1986 Legislature.
A-23
-------
Appendix
NEVADA
For a complete copy of the
Nevada 305(b) report, contact:
Nevada Department of
Conservation and Natural
Resources
Division of Environmental
Protection
201 South Fall St.
Carson City, NV 89710
Surface Water
Quality
The 1986 Nevada 305(b)
report assesses the quality of the
Colorado, Truckee, Carson,
Walker, and Humboldt River
systems, and Lake Tahoe.
Runoff from agricultural areas,
rangeland, and urban drainage
systems are cited as the leading
sources of pollution in Nevada,
along with septic system
discharges.
Agricultural and rangeland
sources contribute large
sediment loads to waters of the
State. Urban runoff contributes
nutrients, heavy metals, and
organic loads. The agressive
administration of the State's
nonpoint source control law
and implementation of best
management practices are
necessary to achieve reductions
in nonpoint source loads.
The nonpoint source
problems caused by existing on-
site disposal of wastewater will
be resolved by implementation
of sewerage projects which
eliminate septic systems. Strict
enforcement of regulations for
on-site disposal and permitting
of subsurface disposal systems
will prevent such disposal
methods from causing future
ground-water pollution or
nonpoint source problems.
A-24
The implementation of
proposed sewerage projects
through FY87, along with
implementation of best
management practices for new
and existing development and
on farms and ranches, should
result in improvement of the
Truckee, Carson, Humboldt
and Colorado River systems as
well as some minor river
systems. This will provide for a
high degree of protection and
propagation of fish and wildlife
and allow recreational activities
in and on the water.
Ground-Water
Quality
The Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection
established a ground-water
section in 1985. Major work
responsibilities include
developing and implementing a
State ground-water protection
plan. Programs with the highest
priority are Underground
Injection Control (UIC) and
Underground Storage Tanks
(UST). The State is currently
developing a UIC program so
as to seek program delegation
from the EPA. Nevada is imple-
menting the tank notification
requirements of the UST
program, but will not develop
regulations until after the
Federal regulations are
developed, currently scheduled
for February 1987.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
For a complete copy of the New
Hampshire 305(b) report,
contact:
New Hampshire Water Supply
and Pollution Control
Commission
Hazen Drive
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301
Surface Water
Quality
The overall water quality in
New Hampshire remains excel-
lent. Evidence for this is the
ever expanding water-based
recreational use of the many
miles of rivers and streams and
1,300 lakes in the State. In the
past two years, 94 river miles
have been upgraded to fishable/
swimmable status. About 71
percent of the State's assessed
waters are meeting fishable/
swimmable standards.
Parameters of major concern
in New Hampshire are
bacteria, dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, pH, and nutrients.
Primary sources include
municipal wastewater treatment
facilities; runoff from urban;
agricultural, and construction
areas; septic systems; acid
precipitation; and natural
causes.
New Hampshire's lakes and
ponds are the focus of
tremendous growth in second
home and condominium
construction. Increased
population growth has also
resulted in the conversion of
cottages to year-round homes.
The increased loading on older
inadequate septic systems is of
concern and may be a factor in
the accelerated eutrophication
of smaller lakes and ponds.
Acid precipitation has also
affected the salmonid fishery
especially in remote, high
altitude ponds with poor
buffering capacity. Acidification
is also felt to be responsible for
reducing species diversity in
lakes and ponds as well as
increasing corrosivity in
municipal water supplies.
Continued Federal, State,
and local funding is in order to
resolve the State's remaining
municipal pollution problems.
Many of the required municipal
and community wastewater
treatment facilities and
associated sewers have been
designed and await construction
grants funding. Similarly,
existing facilities that must be
upgraded and municipalities
needing separation of storm
and sanitary sewers are
awaiting funding.
The remaining problems
from industrial discharges are
relatively few. Problems include
biotoxicity from several textile
manufacturing operations, the
need to provide or upgrade
pretreatment prior to discharge
into municipal sewers, and the
upgrading of industrial waste-
water treatment facilities in
New Hampshire and Vermont
which currently degrade the
Connecticut River.
Ground-Water
Quality
Incidents of ground-water
contamination in New
Hampshire are widely
scattered; most of the State's
ground-water resource is of
high quality. Episodes of
ground-water contamination
from leaking petroleum
products in underground
storage tanks have occurred. In
recognition of the need to better
monitor and upgrade such
facilities, regulations were
passed in 1985 that require
regular testing of all existing
-------
Appendix
tanks and set new standards for
all new installations. Ground-
water pollution from landfill
leachate, hazardous waste sites,
and septage lagoons has also
become more common.
Contamination of public and
private water supplies from
volatile organic compounds and
other toxic constituents has
created a financial burden on
communities to search for new
supplies, extend water mains to
affected areas, and take
remedial action on suspected
pollution sources. The mapping
of potential pollution sources on
a town-by-town basis has
created a greater awareness of
the problem and increased
demand on local and State
government to address the
NEW JERSEY
For a complete copy of the New
Jersey 305(b) report, contact:
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Division of Water Resources
Monitoring and Planning
Element
P.O. Box CN-029
Trenton, NJ 08625
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality conditions in
New Jersey rivers and streams
continue to be relatively stable.
The fish propagation and main-
tenance goal is being attained
throughout most fresh waters.
Increases in dissolved oxygen
and reductions in nitrogen
concentrations have occurred
throughout the past 5-8 years.
In addition, no new toxics
contamination of freshwaters
has been identified. Only 12
percent of the monitored fresh
waters are considered not
meeting or partially meeting
the fishable goal. These waters
are all located in the State's
urbanized areas, and suffer
from large amounts of point
source effluent and nonpoint
runoff.
New Jersey's rivers and
streams contain excessive fecal
coliform concentrations and, as
a result, only 29 percent of the
monitored fresh waters current-
ly meet the swimmable goal.
Sixty-three percent do not
attain the swimmable goal, and
eight percent are considered to
be periodically meeting this
goal. Runoff from developed
and agricultural lands is
thought to be the prime source
of fecal coliform. Other sources
include improperly operating/
discharging sewage treatment
plants, on-site septic systems,
and natural sources.
Point sources have been
recognized as the major water
pollution problem in the State
for a number of years. Most
larger waterways in New Jersey
have at least one point source
discharger, although the
greatest concentration of point
sources is found along the
State's urbanized tidal waters.
A recent nonpoint source
assessment identified
pathogens, sediments, and
nutrients to be primary
nonpoint pollutants affecting
rivers and streams. The
primary sources were agricul-
tural lands, urban areas, and
land disposal practices
(including on-site septic
systems). Also thought to be a
serious nonpoint source water
quality problem in New Jersey's
urbanized areas is oil and
grease being discharged during
storm events.
New Jersey's lakes are being
increasingly threatened with
significant loadings of sedi-
ments, nutrients, and .toxic
substances. This may be
leading to eutrophication and
deteriorating water quality. In
the 1985 New Jersey Nonpoint
Source Assessment prepared for
the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators, almost
19,000 acres of the State's lakes
were assessed for designated use
impairment from nonpoint
sources. Over 5,000 acres were
known to have moderate or
severe degradation, with over
11,000 acres listed as threatened
with impairment. An additional
1,400 lake acres suffer from
both point and nonpoint source
water pollution.
Nonpoint sources affect water
quality throughout the State's
estuarine waters, but most
impacts are minor and
localized. The primary
nonpoint source is urban/
suburban runoff, with fecal
bacteria being the main
pollutant. Less than 15 percent
of the State's estuarine waters
are severely or moderately
degraded solely from nonpoint
sources. Another 15 percent are
affected by both point and
nonpoint sources.
The New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) has found high levels
of PCBs and certain pesticides
(primarily chlordane) in finfish
from New York-New Jersey
interstate waters. As a result,
commercial fishing bans and
recreational fishing advisories
have been issued by the State
for these waters.
Sixty-six percent of the
State's estuarine and ocean
waters are identified as meeting
the swimmable/fishable goals of
the Clean Water Act, while 18
percent are classified as
partially meeting the goals and
16 percent are classified as not
meeting the goals. The
elimination of ocean-
discharging primary sewage
treatment plants and the
regionalization of many small
facilities have resulted in a net
gain of nearly 18,700 shellfish
growing acres (or 10 percent) to
open status since 1976. This
improvement in water quality
can be considered a major
highlight in the State's water
pollution control efforts.
Additional regionalization and
upgrading of municipal treat-
ment plants will continue along
the coast.
A-25
-------
Appendix
Ground-Water
Quality
About half of the State's
population, about four million
people, rely on ground water
for their drinking water.
Although New Jersey's ground
water is of generally good
quality, man-induced pollution
from 1970 to 1985 led to the
closure of 109 municipal supply
wells and 667 domestic supply
wells. During this same time,
the NJDEP responded to nearly
700 ground-water pollution
cases. The primary causes of
well closure are high levels of
hydrocarbons and other organic
chemicals. In addition, the
presence of minute amounts of
organic chemicals and metals
generally not hazardous to
public health have been found
to be widespread throughout
New Jersey's ground-water
systems. Significant causes of
ground-water degradation
include the State's large
number of known and
suspected hazardous waste sites,
leaking underground storage
tanks, industrial site pollution,
spills, and overpumpage.
NEW MEXICO
For a complete copy of the New
Mexico 305(b) report, contact:
New Mexico Environmental
Improvement Division
Surface Water Quality Bureau
P.O. Box 968
Santa Fe, NM 87504-0968
Surface Water
Quality
There are 3,500 miles of
perennial rivers and streams in
New Mexico. The quality of
surface waters varies according
to locality. Generally, water
originating in the high
mountains is of excellent
quality. At lower elevations,
water is frequently of lesser
quality. Due to the presence of
readily soluble minerals, good
quality water may be subjected
to degradation through use as it
flows downstream.
Available information
indicates that designated or
existing uses are partially
impaired in 48 reaches totalling
360 stream miles. The fisheries
use is partially impaired in 336
miles, the irrigation use in 47
miles, the domestic water
supply use in 21 miles, and the
primary contact recreation use
in 10 miles.
Seventy-four percent of all
stream miles judged to have
partially impaired uses are
being affected by nonpoint
sources of pollutants. Point and
unknown sources are each
responsible for the partial
impairment of 8 percent of the
affected stream mileage,
followed by hydrological
modification (7 percent) and
natural conditions (2 percent).
Sediment is by far the major
pollutant affecting designated
uses in New Mexico's streams.
Plant nutrients and
temperature are also important
pollutants impairing uses.
Of New Mexico's 5,725 acres
of unclassified lakes, 201 acres
(two lakes) have partially
impaired designated uses. The
fisheries use was impaired in
these waters. Nonpoint sources
are totally responsible for lake
use impairment, contributing
sediments, and plant nutrients.
It should be noted that
although water quality
problems have resulted in the
partial impairment of fisheries
and primary contact recreation
in some of New Mexico's rivers
and lakes, all waters can be said
to meet the goals of the Act in
that the fisheries, wildlife
watering, or recreational uses
are not known to be precluded.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is an
extremely important resource in
New Mexico. Approximately 87
percent of the population
depends on ground water for
drinking water, and it is the
only source of water in many
parts of the State.
About 4.4 billion acre-feet of
recoverable fresh and slightly
saline ground water are
estimated to be present in New
Mexico. Overall, the quality of
this water is good. There are,
however, significant pollution
problems known to affect
limited areas around the State.
From the 1920s until the
present, approximately 71
public water supply wells in
New Mexico have been affected
by pollution caused by human
activities. Of these, 52 had to be
taken out of use for human
consumption. As of mid-1986,
only 12 out of 1,365 public
water supply systems were
found to exceed any inorganic
standards.
Significant ground-water
pollution problems have been
identified in five areas of special
concern. The Albuquerque
South Valley has serious
longstanding ground-water
pollution problems and includes
one site included on the
Superfund National Priorities
List; possible causes include
agricultural practices, industrial
contamination, and private
sewage systems. In Lea County,
ground-water pollution occurs
from a variety of causes
including oil and gas
production and sewage disposal.
The Grants Mineral Belt is an
area of concern because of
effects of past uranium mining
and milling activities; two mills
are designated as Superfund
sites and one abandoned
refinery has been nominated.
The San Juan Basin is of
concern due to a variety of
causes including landfill
problems and oil and gas
production. The concentrated
dairy areas of the Lower Rio
Grande Valley are also of
concern due to the existing and
potential effects on ground
water of dairy waste disposal
practices.
A-26
-------
Appendix
NEW YORK
For a complete copy of the New
York 305(b) report, contact:
New York State Department of
Environmental Protection
Division of Water
Bureau of Monitoring and
Assessment
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-0001
Surface Water
Quality
In 1986, designated uses were
supported in 78 percent of New
York's assessed major rivers and
streams, 80 percent of its
assessed lakes and reservoirs,
and 71 percent of its assessed
tidal waters. This is a
significant improvement over
1982. However, as in 1982, only
14 percent of New York's Great
Lakes waters supported their
designated uses.
Causes of nonsupport in
rivers and streams were cited as
municipal discharges (40
percent), industrial discharges
(20 percent), combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) (13 percent),
nonpoint sources (11 percent),
acid precipitation (9 percent),
and contaminated sediments (7
percent). In tidal waters,
municipal sources were again
the leading cause of use
impairment, affecting 38
percent of impaired waters.
CSOs affected 31 percent,
contaminated sediments
affected 25 percent, and
industrial discharges affected
the remaining 6 percent.
Nonpoint sources were the
leading cause of use
impairment in lakes, affecting
75 percent of impaired lakes
acres. Municipal discharges (12
percent) and acid precipitation
(9 percent) were also major
causes of use impairment,
followed by contaminated
sediments and industrial
discharges (2 percent each). Use
impairment in New York's Lake
Ontario was attributed to
sediment contamination
primarily by the pesticide
Mirex, which has resulted in a
lakewide fishing advisory.
The pollutants most
responsible for nonsupport of
designated uses statewide are
pesticides/herbicides, heavy
metals, pH, bacteria/pathogens,
and other toxic organics. About
565 miles of rivers, 159 miles of
estuaries, and 35,000 lake acres
are affected to some degree by
toxic pollutants. In addition,
about 150 river miles, 130
estuarine miles, and 3,000 lake
acres are affected to some
degree by contaminated
sediments.
Special concerns in New York
include hazardous substances,
Long Island ground water,
nonpoint sources, PCB cleanup
of the Hudson River, acid
precipitation, and data
management.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately six million
people in New York State use
ground water as a source of
water. Half of these people are
on Long Island and the
remainder are in upstate New
York.
Ground-water quality is
generally a more serious
problem on Long Island than it
is upstate. The Department of
Health has reported 99 public
water supply closures or
abandonments statewide due to
organic contamination. Of
these, 50 water supplies on
Long Island and 21 upstate
remain closed; 28 have
reopened.
Contamination by synthetic
organic chemicals is the most
significant threat to ground-
water quality statewide. The
three major categories of
organic contaminants that are
detected most frequently in
ground water are: industrial/
commercial synthetic organic
solvents and degreasers,
primarily trichlorethane,
trichloroethylene and tetra-
chloroethylene; gasoline and
other petroleum products that
contain the compounds
benzene, toluene, and xylene;
and agricultural pesticides and
herbicides, primarily aldicarb
and carbofuran.
To a far lesser extent, nitrate
and chloride contamination
have also been identified as
ground-water quality problems.
NORTH CAROLINA
For a complete copy of the
North Carolina 305(b) report,
contact:
NC Department of Natural
Resources and Community
Development
Division of Environmental
Management
Water Quality Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Surface Water
Quality
Overall, 67 percent of North
Carolina's 37,000 miles of
streams and rivers support their
uses, 28 percent partially
support uses and 5 percent do
not support their uses. River
basins located in the mountains
tend to have the highest
percentage of use support,
while the more heavily
developed piedmont or coastal
basins have more stream
mileage with use impairment.
Sediment, nutrients
(especially phosphorous),
ammonia, and heavy metals are
the major causes of degradation
statewide. It is estimated that
nonpoint sources (especially
urban and agricultural runoff)
account for about 71 percent of
the less-than-fully supporting
stream mileage, while industrial
sources are responsible for 12
percent and municipal sources
for 17 percent. These ratios
reflect the State's past emphasis
on point sources. This emphasis
has had great positive benefit.
However, effective nonpoint
source control is more difficult
to implement, and it is
anticipated that progress toward
control of pollution from these
sources will be slower.
A-27
-------
Appendix
Ninety-seven percent of the
surface area of lakes and
reservoirs in North Carolina
support their designated uses, 2
percent partially support uses,
and 1 percent do not support
their uses. About 33 percent of
the State's total lake area is
threatened by eutrophication.
The largest cause of partial and
nonsupport has been coal-fired
power plant discharges to two
lakes (Hyco and Belews) which
have resulted in excessive
selenium levels in these lakes.
Belews Lake no longer receives
coal ash basin effluent while
Hyco Lake will not receive
effluent in the future. These
actions should restore biota in
both lakes. In addition,
extensive efforts are underway
to control eutrophication to two
relatively new lakes (Falls and
Jordan) which should reduce
the threatened acreage.
Of the acreage of estuaries
and sounds in North Carolina,
84 percent fully support their
designated uses while 16
percent partially support uses.
Nonpoint sources (primarily
upstream pollution, coastal land
clearing, and estuarine/barrier
island development) are the
main causes of less-than-full
support. Several new efforts by
the State are underway,
including protection of primary
nursery areas and control of
coastal stormwater runoff to
shellfish areas.
Since 1972, the State has had
an intensive program to control
point source pollution through
the NPDES program. New or
expanded programs to reduce
the impact of point sources
include new computerized data
bases, bioassay monitoring and
permit limits, pretreatment
program implementation, and
new or revised water quality
standards. These actions should
reduce the amount of pollution
from point sources in the State.
Nonpoint pollution is a
major cause of water quality
problems in the State.
Examples of efforts to control
nonpoint sources include
reduction of sedimentation and
erosion from abandoned mines
in the Appalachian Mountains,
water supply protection in
developing watersheds, and
nutrient-sensitive waters. The
latter program provides
agricultural cost-sharing money
to assist farmers with on-farm
control of erosion and animal
wastes.
Ground-Water
Quality
About half of the people in
North Carolina use ground
water as their primary water
supply. Ground-water quality is
generally good statewide. The
major source of ground-water
contamination is leaking
underground storage tanks,
although spills and lagoons are
also important. Comprehensive
programs are underway to
assess potential contamination
sites and develop a
comprehensive ground-water
protection strategy for the
State.
NORTH DAKOTA
For a complete copy of the
North Dakota 305(b) report,
contact:
North Dakota Department of
Health
Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismarck, ND 58504
Surface Water
Quality
The majority of waterbodies
in North Dakota are eutrophic
to hypereutrophic. Both point
source and nonpoint source
impacts are intensified by
climate: point source impacts
are most severe from July
through November during
seasonal low flows, while the
major nonpoint impacts occur
during spring runoff, from
March through June. Of
792,375 lake acres assessed,
5,646 acres were affected by
point source pollution but all
792,375 lake acres were affected
to varying degrees by nonpoint
sources. Of 5,684 river miles
assessed, 288 miles were
affected by point source
discharges, with all assessed
miles affected by nonpoint
source pollution.
Surface water quality
degradation resulting from
point source discharges in
North Dakota is being lessened;
all municipalities in the State
have had secondary treatment
facilities installed since 1984.
Beyond secondary treatment,
the State needs systems such as
overland flow, irrigation, and
wetland uptake to strip
nutrients and total suspended
solids from effluents. Municipal
storm sewer systems may
require improvements or modi-
fications to control urban
runoff.
With the exception of one
power plant, all industries are
in compliance with the North
Dakota Permit Discharge
Elimination System program.
Ammonia is the primary toxic
oollutant in municipal and
industrial discharges in North
Dakota.
Many streams and lakes in
the State are degraded due to
high nutrients (primarily
phosphates), sedimentation,
wetland drainage, low flows,
and alterations to stream banks
and beds. Chronic low flows in
major rivers and their
tributaries result in high
dissolved solids, high stream
temperatures, and poor
biological diversity. The slow
trend toward more eutrophic
conditions in the State's waters
indicates that it is necessary to
accelerate implementation of
better management practices on
land surrounding these aquatic
systems. A primary goal for
future water quality programs
in North Dakota is better
understanding and implemen-
tation of practices that control
nonpoint source pollution.
The North Dakota Depart-
ment of Health will continue to
monitor rivers with emphasis
on interstate and international
waters. The ongoing lake water
quality survey will continue
until all lakes have been
sampled and the data are
analyzed. Priority waterbodies
will be monitored in order to
implement or intensify
pollution abatement activities,
provided necessary funding is
available.
A-28
-------
Appendix
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is one of North
Dakota's most valuable
resources. Over half the State's
population currently relies on
ground water for domestic use,
and dependence on ground
water will likely increase. Most
smaller communities in North
Dakota depend solely on
ground water.
North Dakota is primarily
agricultural, with limited
industrial development.
Consequently, it has experi-
enced relatively minor ground-
water quality problems.
Ground-water monitoring of
both municipal and private
wells has indicated concentra-
tions of arsenic, nitrate, and
fluoride that exceed primary
drinking water standards. High
concentrations of arsenic in
ground water have been
confined to the southeastern
part of the State. These
concentrations are thought to
be caused by a combination of
natural arsenic released from
the aquifer material and arsenic
that was applied to soil as
grasshopper poison in the
1930s. Elevated nitrate
concentrations have been found
in many private wells. These
concentrations have been linked
either to natural conditions or
contamination from septic tank
drainfields, nitrogen fertilizers,
or feedlot operations. High
natural concentrations of
fluoride in ground water have
accounted for all the fluoride
primary drinking water
standard violations.
Many of the contaminated
ground-water sites identified by
the State are affected by
hydrocarbons and were located
by reports of spills, leaks, or
taste and odor problems in
drinking water.
Ground-water protection
programs in North Dakota
include point and nonpoint
source pollution programs, a
public water supply program,
an underground injection
control program, the construc-
tion grants program, a solid
waste management program,
and the hazardous waste
management program.
NORTHERN
MARIANAS
For a complete copy of the
Northern Mariana Islands
305(b) report, contact:
CNMI Department of Public
Health and Environmental
Services
Division of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 1304
Saipan, Northern Mariana
Islands 96950
Surface Water
Quality
Tourism is the major
industry in the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana
Islands. Problems associated
with tourism include sewage
disposal, ground-water
protection, and the prevention
of environmental damage from
earthmoving activities. These
problems have been
exacerbated by the growth of
other industries, including
garment manufacture and the
construction associated with the
development of new low-cost
housing subdivisions, a
hospital/health center project,
and several large hotel/resort
complexes.
Ground-Water
Quality
Protection of ground-water
resources is a major concern in
the Commonwealth. The
growing construction and
garment industries present
potential adverse impacts to
ground water. All of the
Commonwealth's producing
water wells are included in a
monthly monitoring program to
determine the fluctuations of
water quality over time as well
as the effects of pumping rates.
The parameters measured
include chloride, alkalinity,
dissolved solids, conductivity,
hardness, and pH. Saltwater
intrusion is a major problem.
Overpumping of wells into a
seriously leaking distribution
system continues. The laying of
new pipelines in the southern
villages of Saipan and a project
designed to deliver better
quality water from the Kagman
area to San Vicente and the
southern villages is expected to
improve this situation.
In 1985, the Governor
appointed a Water Resources
Task Force to address the
problems that affect the water
resources of the
Commonwealth. A major
activity will be to compile all
existing information on ground
water in the Commonwealth
and make recommendations
that will lead to the
development of a Water
Resources Management Plan.
A ground-water monitoring
strategy will also be developed
based on the information
derived from this project.
A-29
-------
Appendix
OHIO
For a complete copy of the Ohio
305(b) report, contact:
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessment
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43266-1049
Surface Water
Quality
Of the total evaluated stream
miles in Ohio, 60 percent (4,091
miles) are attaining their
aquatic life use designations, 30
percent (2,043 miles) are
partially attaining their aquatic
life uses, and 10 percent (679
miles) are not attaining their
aquatic life uses. The small
percentage of the total stream
mileage actually evaluated and
the non-representative method
of selecting streams for
evaluation (i.e., a bias towards
selecting stream segments in
problem areas) preclude any
projection of the percentage of
total stream miles in Ohio that
will meet clean water goals.
Of the 2,722 stream miles
determined not to be fully
achieving their aquatic life use
designations, 36 percent were
affected by municipal
discharges, 16 percent by
industrial discharges, 11 percent
by combined sewer overflows,
and 5 percent were altered due
to the effects of channelization.
In addition, various nonpoint
source problems contributed to
approximately 25 percent of the
non-attainment of aquatic life
use designations. The primary
individual nonpoint source
problem appears to be acid
mine drainage (affecting 3
A-30
percent of stream miles),
followed by other nonpoint
sources (urban and agricultural
runoff, septic systems, stream
bank erosion, feedlot waste, and
landfill leachate). Most stream
segment degradation was due to
a combination of pollution
sources.
Rivers in Ohio that were
grossly polluted by sanitary
wastes such as bacteria and
deoxygenated water 30 to 40
years ago have substantially
improved because of State and
Federal water pollution control
laws enacted in the 1960s and
1970s. Dramatic improvements
in overall conditions have
occurred in numerous major
waterways in Ohio such as the
Scioto River, the Great Miami
River, and the Tuscarawas
River. Partial recovery has also
been noted in the Cuyahoga
and Mahoning Rivers, both
systems heavily influenced by
industrial, municipal, and
urban pollution sources.
However, the increasing use of
chemicals and our ever-
improving ability to monitor
and detect the influence of some
of these chemicals in the
environment indicate that
pollution from toxic chemicals
is a growing concern. The
major pollution problems noted
in Lake Erie harbors and
nearshore areas include metal
concentrations from municipal
and industrial effluent and
urban runoff; high nutrient
(phosphorus) concentrations;
high fecal coliform concentra-
tions, particularly from CSOs;
septic systems and sewage
treatment plants; and
deposition of sediments
requiring harbor dredging and
associated disposal problems for
contaminated sediments.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ohio's ground water is a
critically important resource. It
provides drinking water to
almost half of all Ohioans.
Some 700,000 rural households
depend on private wells for
drinking water and about 75
percent of the State's 1,600
community water systems rely
on ground water for all or part
of their water supply. Ground
water is also widely used for
manufacturing and cooling
water and, to a far lesser extent,
for irrigation.
Ohio's large population and
the diversity of the State's
economic activities generate
many ground-water threats.
Ground-water contamination
by bacteria, viruses, nitrates, or
toxic chemicals appears to be a
growing threat.
The most serious sources or
potential sources of ground-
water contamination in Ohio
include hazardous waste sites,
solid waste landfills, leaks and
spills, agriculture, septic tanks,
mineral extraction, and
improperly constructed and
maintained wells.
OHIO RIVER
VALLEY WATER
SANITATION
COMMISSION
For a complete copy of the
ORSANCO 305(b) report,
contact:
ORSANCO
49 E. Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Surface Water
Quality
The States of Pennsylvania,
Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky,
Indiana, and Illinois, which
share the main stem of the
Ohio River, have assigned the
Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission with
responsibility to prepare the
biennial water quality report on
the Ohio River main stem.
Those six States, together with
New York and Virginia,
comprise the Commission, an
interstate agency created to
administer a compact among
the States to eliminate present
pollution and prevent future
degradation of the waters of the
Ohio River Basin. The Federal
government is an active
participant in the Commission's
functions.
The Ohio River is 981 miles
long and drains an area of
almost 204,000 square miles. In
1980, the population residing
within the basin was 20,814,324.
The river supports a variety of
uses including navigation,
power generation, industrial
processes, municipal water
supply, fish and wildlife habitat,
and recreation, including
swimming, boating, water
skiing, and fishing. The river
also receives treated wastes
from over 220 industrial and
-------
Appendix
126 municipal sources. The
largest category of land use
within the basin is agriculture.
Another activity within the
basin that can affect water
quality is the extraction of
resources, primarily coal
mining and drilling for oil and
gas.
In water years 1984-85, the
Ohio River supported the uses
of water supply and aquatic life
habitat either partially or fully
throughout its length. Contact
recreation was not supported in
one area, but was either
partially or fully supported on
most of the river. Water quality
problems encountered in this
period included levels of
dissolved oxygen, metals, fecal
coliform bacteria, and certain
organic compounds which
occasionally did not meet
Commission stream criteria.
Also, in several instances levels
of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) in fish exceeded
guidelines for safe
consumption. Causes of these
problems include municipal
and industrial discharges as well
as nonpoint sources.
The major change since the
last reporting period is the
adoption of more stringent
water quality criteria by the
Commission for temperature,
dissolved oxygen, copper, and
zinc, as well as the receipt of
new information on PCBs in
fish flesh. During the reporting
period, specific improvements
were observed for fecal coliform
bacteria and phenolics/cyanide.
Parameters indicating poorer
water quality conditions were
temperature and dissolved
oxygen.
Special concerns discussed in
the Commission's assessment
include the manufacture and
transport of organic chemicals
and other hazardous substances
in the Ohio Valley; the effects of
nonpoint sources; and the
development of hydroelectric
power at each of the Ohio
River's navigation dams.
OKLAHOMA
For a complete copy of the
Oklahoma 305(b) report,
contact:
Oklahoma Department of
Pollution Control
P.O. Box 53504
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
Surface Water
Quality
There are seven water quality
basins identified in this report.
The quality of water within
each basin has been analyzed;
the results of beneficial use
determinations, goals assess-
ment, and trend analysis are
presented. Summaries are
presented by basin.
Trend analysis for a number
of pollutants in Oklahoma's
waters reveals an apparent
increasing trend for phos-
phorus. Possible control options
for achieving a reduction in
phosphorus levels include a ban
on the use of phosphate based
soaps, implementation of
nonpoint source management
practices, and/or phosphorus
removal implemented at
wastewater treatment facilities.
A decreasing trend in pH
levels is also noted. Possible
reasons include acid rain or
humic acid entering streams
from forested areas, and/or acid
mine drainage.
An interesting phenomenon
that has occurred during the
last two years is the increasing
number of violations of the
numerical goal for total arsenic
in sediment. All but one of the
water quality basins indicate
violations of this goal. During
the last two years, the
Oklahoma State Department of
Health (OSDH) has expanded
its sediment analysis program
to include more stations. As a
result, an increase in the
number of occurrences of total
arsenic violations has been
seen. The OSDH is in the
process of resampling, which
will provide a larger database
and a more definitive picture of
the problem. A review of the
numeric goals for sediment may
be in order. However, further
work is needed to clarify the
relative contribution from
natural or anthropogenic
sources in the various regions of
the State.
It is apparent that with
decreasing Federal funding
from EPA for water quality
management programs and the
loss of State revenues due to low
oil prices, cuts in Oklahoma's
basic water quality manage-
ment programs will occur.
These cuts will affect the
programs dealing with
inspection and compliance
monitoring of both municipal
and industrial facilities as well
as the State's ambient trend
monitoring program. These
cuts could result in a reversal of
progress made in cleaning up
the waters of the State.
It is imperative that
remaining funds be allocated
prudently and wisely. In
addition, it is critically
important that programs be
carefully evaluated to eliminate
duplication of effort while
promoting interagency
cooperation, and that other
sources of funding be identified
to carry on the State's water
quality management programs.
A-31
-------
Appendix
OREGON
For a complete copy of the
Oregon 305(b) report, contact:
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Executive Building
811 Southwest Sixth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
Surface Water
Quality
Of the estimated 90,000
stream miles in the State,
nearly 28,000 miles have been
cataloged. Of this total, 11,855
miles have been assessed as
follows: 9,665 miles (82 percent)
fully support designated
beneficial uses, 1,915 miles (16
percent) partially support desig-
nated beneficial uses, and 275
miles (2 percent) do not support
designated beneficial uses.
Major parameters of concern
include fecal coliform bacteria,
suspended solids, nutrients, and
dissolved oxygen. Bacterial
contamination results from
different sources including
failing septic tanks and
drainfield systems, inadequately
managed animal waste disposal
operations, cattle grazing,
sewage bypasses, inadequately
treated sewage, and natural
sources. Algae and aquatic
weed growth occur at some
stream sites due to the presence
of nutrients, physical site
conditions, and low flow. These
conditions cause dramatic fluc-
tuations in dissolved oxygen
and pH which can affect cold
water fisheries.
In 46 percent of stream miles
with use impairment, nonpoint
sources were cited as the
primary cause of degradation.
For the most part, Oregon's
lakes are of excellent chemical
and physical quality, and are
low in mineral content. Many
lakes are largely inaccessible
and have excellent water
quality. Many of the more
accessible lakes also have good
quality water. Nevertheless, as
more demands for recreation
and development are placed on
these lakes and their drainage
basins, the potential for water
quality deterioration may
develop. In Oregon, several
lakes already show signs of
deteriorating water quality.
Between 1972 and 1985, 65
lakes totalling approximately
200,000 acres were assessed.
The most sensitive designated
uses, swimming and fisheries,
are supported in 59 percent of
the 200,000 lake acres, partially
supported in 39 percent, and
not supported in 2 percent.
Less than full support of
designated uses is attributed to
factors such as reduced depth
due to sedimentation and
erosion, and nuisance aquatic
plant growths that occur
naturally and are accelerated by
human activity.
Bacterial standards were used
for evaluating support of the
shellfishing use in Oregon's
estuaries. The assessment shows
this use is fully supported in 6
percent of the estuarine acres.
Shellfishing in the remaining 94
percent is partially supported
because bacterial standards are
exceeded during wet weather in
the winter. It is estimated that
nonpoint sources, including
inadequate animal waste dispo-
sal practices and on-site sewage
disposal, account for the largest
contribution of fecal coliform
bacteria. Sewerage system
overflows during the winter
months are significant contrib-
utors to bacterial pollution in
Coos Bay. Tidal flushing
characteristics, estuarine
circulation patterns, and ocean
upwelling are considered
natural factors influencing fecal
coliform values in excess of the
standard.
Ground-Water
Quality
In several areas of the State,
ground-water pollution has
been documented. Elevated
nitrate-nitrogen concentrations
and bacterial contamination
have been two primary
indicators of wastes seeping
underground. Recently,
however, data have been
collected which suggest the need
to investigate toxic chemical
and hydocarbon contamination
in ground water.
Major steps have been taken
that emphasize prevention of
ground-water pollution. A
statewide protection policy was
established in 1981 and
amended in 1984. The impor-
tant preventive measures of the
policy include ensuring that
domestic and industrial wastes
are properly treated before
disposal, especially where soils
are porous and pollutants can
seep through them easily;
determining the extent to which
unsewered development can be
accommodated in a given area
without harming ground water;
and ensuring that drinking
water wells are constructed
according to State Water
Resources Department regula-
tions to protect public health.
PENNSYLVANIA
For copies of the Pennsylvania
305(b) report, contact:
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Surface Water
Quality
Of the 6,225 river and stream
miles assessed in Pennsylvania
during the 1984-85 reporting
period, approximately 3,332 or
54 percent attained uses; 1,242
miles or 20 percent partially
attained uses; and 1,651 miles
or 26 percent did not attain
uses. Many of the State's
remaining 44,000 stream miles
which were not assessed are
believed to support the desig-
nated fish and aquatic life use.
Mining is the single biggest
cause of water quality degrada-
tion in Pennsylvania. Mining is
responsible for water quality
problems in at least 1,690 of the
2,890 stream miles reported as
degraded (partially and not
supporting uses). This
represents 58 percent of the
State's degraded miles. Acid
mine drainage affects every
major river basin in
Pennsylvania. While some
funds are available for
abandoned mine drainage
abatement, the immensity of
the problem and difficulties
associated with control have
severely hampered abatement
and treatment projects. These
difficulties are expected to
continue.
Other major causes of
degradation reported in the
State assessment are municipal
discharges (13 percent), agricul-
ture (8 percent), and industrial
sources (7 percent). Municipal
A-32
-------
Appendix
sewage treatment plants were
responsible for degrading about
386 miles of streams. Municipal
sewage discharges are found
throughout the Common-
wealth, but the areas reported
as experiencing problems were
the heavily populated areas in
southeastern Pennsylvania
(Delaware River basin), and
southwestern Pennsylvania
(Ohio River basin).
Agricultural sources were
responsible for degrading
approximately 223 stream miles
statewide. Of these, 135 miles
(60 percent) were reported in
the lower Susquehanna River
basin. Specific contributors are
runoff from cultivated fields,
overgrazing, free access of
livestock to streams, and
manure management problems
due to the high density of
livestock.
Industrial sources were
responsible for degrading about
203 miles statewide. Problems
were caused by various types of
industries and pollutants. Major
river basins affected were the
Ohio, the Delaware, the lower
(main stem) Susquehanna, and
the Allegheny. As with munici-
pal sources, industrial
discharges are usually dealt
with through the permitting
process
Special State concerns
reported in Pennsylvania in
1986 include abandoned mine
drainage, acid deposition,
Chesapeake Bay initiatives in
the Susquehanna River basin,
oil and gas production, and
wetlands protection.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water provides over
90 percent of the fresh water in
the State. On a statewide basis,
ground water contributes
approximately 70 percent of
stream flow under average
conditions and up to 100
percent during low flow
periods. More than two-thirds
of the public water supplies,
and almost all private supplies
in the State come from ground
water.
Except for high iron, sulfates,
hardness, and total dissolved
solids concentrations in
large portions of western
Pennsylvania, ground-water
quality in most of the
remainder of the State is
believed to be acceptable for
drinking with little or no
treatment. Heavy mining and
oil and gas production activities
are contributing to ground-
water problems in western
counties. Hardness, fluoride,
and nitrate-nitrogen problems
occur to a limited extent.
Leaking underground storage
tanks have contributed to local
ground-water problems state-
wide. Ground-water depletion
due to overpumping and
contamination from malfunc-
tioning on-lot systems, leaking
underground storage tanks,
landfills, toxic substance
dumping, impoundments, and
excessive use of fertilizers,
pesticides, and road salts could
cause problems in the future.
The Department of
Environmental Resources has
been aggressively involved in
ground-water protection since
the early 1960s. The current
program relies on the develop-
ment and implementation of
regulations and permits to
prevent and abate pollution
from all major sources. New
initiatives currently under
development which address
ground-water issues include
the Ground-Water Quality
Protection Strategy, the
Ground-Water Quality
Monitoring Strategy, Under-
ground Storage Tanks, and Soil
Dependent Treatment Systems
for On-Lot Disposal.
PUERTO RICO
For a complete copy of the
Puerto Rico 305(b) report,
contact:
Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board
Water Quality Standards
Development Division
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910-1488
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality analyses
conducted during 1984 and
1985 indicated that most
surface waters in Puerto Rico
are affected by fecal coliforms
and low levels of dissolved
oxygen. Of 2,243 stream miles
assessed, 13 percent supported
designated uses, 48 percent
partially supported uses, and 39
percent did not support desig-
nated uses. Nonpoint sources
were determined to be the
leading cause of use impair-
ment, affecting 63 percent of
impaired stream miles;
municipal sources affected 21
percent, industrial sources
affected 11 percent, and the
sources in the remaining stream
miles were unknown.
Most of the lakes in Puerto
Rico have eutrophication
problems caused by nutrient
loads from point sources
(principally municipal sewage
treatment plants) and nonpoint
sources such as livestock
enterprises and other agricul-
tural activities. Common
problems found in these
eutrophic lakes are the presence
of water hyacinths and other
aquatic weeds; reduction of
storage capacity due to silta-
tion; turbidity; and lack of
suitable bathing areas. Of the
7,250 lake acres assessed for
support of designated uses, 18
percent were fully supporting,
46 percent were partially
supporting, and the remainder
were not supporting designated
uses. Nonpoint sources were the
cause of degradation in 46
percent of impaired waters,
municipal sources were the
cause in 17 percent, industrial
sources in 11 percent, and
unknown causes in 26 percent.
Sixty-six percent of 434
assessed coastal miles in Puerto
Rico were fully supporting uses
in 1984-85, 5 percent were
partially supporting uses, and
29 percent were not supporting
uses. Municipal sources were
the leading cause of use
impairment in Puerto Rico's
coastal miles, affecting 43
percent of degraded waters;
nonpoint sources affected 41
percent, industrial sources
affected 14 percent, and causes
in the remaining coastal waters
were unknown.
Ground-Water
Quality
Twenty-two percent of the
water used in Puerto Rico
comes from ground-water
sources. Because of the use of
ground water for public water
supplies, four ground-water
quality studies have been
conducted between 1981-1985.
These studies provide island-
wide baseline data and reveal
the presence of bacteriological,
inorganic, and organic
contaminants. Major sources of
ground-water contamination in
Puerto Rico are industrial spills
and underground storage tanks,
landfills, modified sinkholes,
septic tanks, agricultural
activities, and excess
withdrawal/saltwater intrusion.
A-33
-------
Appendix
The main goal of Puerto
Rico's ground-water program is
to establish water quality
standards to protect classified
ground-water uses. Measures to
protect ground-water quality in
Puerto Rico include restrictions
on underground injection and
sinkhole discharges, establish-
ment of a permit system for
septic tanks and underground
storage tanks, and requirements
for integrity tests and leak
detection systems for under-
ground storage tanks.
RHODE ISLAND
For a complete copy of the
Rhode Island 305(b) report,
contact:
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
83 Park Street
5th Floor
Providence, RI 02903
Surface Water
Quality
Rhode Island's overall
quality is good and has been
maintained over the last two
years. Ninety percent (655
miles) of the State's river and
stream miles, 97 percent (16,520
acres) of lakes and 91 percent
(234 square miles) of estuaries/
oceans support designated uses.
However, only 81 percent of
river and stream miles are
fishable/swimmable, while 97
percent of the lakes and 94
percent of the estuaries/oceans
are fishable/swimmable (Rhode
Island fresh and salt water
designations include Class C,
which is fishable but not
swimmable).
The top five causes of
nonsupport are coliforms,
dissolved oxygen, toxics,
nutrients, and pH. In 1982,
1983, and 1985, priority
pollutant scans of major
industry and municipality
effluents showed nickel, copper,
and zinc at levels potentially
hazardous to aquatic life, while
cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, silver, and cyanide
levels appeared to warrant
further study.
The major sources of
nontoxic concerns are
combined sewer overflows,
urban runoff pollution, and
septic system pollution. While
more vigorous enforcement of
septic system violations would
abate some septic system
pollution, an integrated
program is needed that
combines proper management,
design, and siting of new
development, repair and
replacement of septic systems
where possible, and extension of
sewer lines where necessary.
The top five special concerns
in Rhode Island are funding
wastewater treatment facilities;
municipal facilities' operation
and maintenance; maintaining
water quality in light of
population shifts and industrial
growth; toxics in genera], and,
specifically the toxicity of
chlorinated compounds in
wastewater treatment facility
effluents; and algae blooms in
Narragansett Bay.
Rhode Island is delegated to
administer the construction
grants program and the
NPDES permit program. Since
the delegation, permit backlogs
have dropped from 100 to 10.
Major construction to upgrade
wastewater treatment facilities
remains to be done in seven
Rhode Island communities. In
addition, four communities
have combined sewage overflow
(CSO) problems. The largest
CSO problem is in Providence,
where the Narragansett Bay
Commission has undertaken a
program of comprehensive
study and abatement of CSO
discharges. Pretreatment
regulations were adopted by the
State in 1984. Under these
regulations, 13 publicly owned
treatment works have been
designated as control
authorities; 12 pretreatment
programs have been approved
to date.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water resources
supply 15 percent to 30 percent
of the State's population. The
quality of Rhode Island's
ground water is good to
excellent. Major sources of
contamination include surface
impoundments of liquid
industrial, agricultural, and
municipal wastes; solid waste
1 andfills; hazardous waste
disposal sites; leaking under-
ground fuel storage tanks;
septic systems and cesspools;
road salt storage practices; and
oil and chemical spills.
In 1985, the Rhode Island
General Assembly passed a
ground-water protection act
which established broad
protection policies for the
ground waters of the State. The
Division of Water Resources
regulates the Underground
Injection Control Program, the
Underground Storage Tank
Program, and has prepared
draft regulations for the
location and design of salt
storage facilities. All of the
State's ground water will be
classified into four classes and
water quality standards will be
developed for each
classification.
In 1985, the Division
responded to more than 180
complaints involving possible
contamination of ground water
and took cleanup action in 50
major cases. The Division also
began a year-long study in 1985
to evaluate ground-water
quality associated with eight
categories of land use.
A-34
-------
Appendix
SOUTH CAROLINA
For a complete copy of the
South Carolina 305(b) report,
contact:
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental
Control
Water Quality Planning and
Standards Section
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Surface Water
Quality
South Carolina reports that
2,442 river and stream miles
were assessed in 1984 and 1985.
Of these, 86 percent fully
supported designated uses, 8
percent partially supported
uses, and 5 percent failed to
support their uses. Pollution
from municipal wastewater
discharges and nonpoint
sources contributed most to
lowered water quality and
partial or non-attainment of
classified uses in the State's
rivers.
Ninety-seven percent of the
State's 405,555 assessed lake
acres were fully supporting
designated uses during the
reporting period. Two percent
partially met uses, and one
percent did not support desig-
nated uses. In lakes, municipal
and industrial wastewater
discharges contributed most to
lowered water quality and
partial or non-attainment of
State classified uses.
Of the State's 384 assessed
tidal saltwater square miles, 89
percent fully supported uses, 4
percent partially supported
uses, and 7 percent did not
support designated uses. Pollu-
tion from nonpoint sources was
the primary cause of degraded
water quality conditions.
Total phosphorus concentra-
tions were exceeded more often
than other standards, criteria,
or guidelines in the State's lakes
and rivers. Phosphorus prob-
ably originates from municipal
waste discharges as well as
runoff from nonpoint sources.
Toxic pollutants are not
widespread in South Carolina
waters. Less than 10 percent of
freshwaters had heavy metals in
concentrations that exceeded
EPA criteria recommended to
protect aquatic life. Although
more than 50 percent of
saltwaters had metals in
concentrations which exceeded
these EPA criteria, the occur-
rence of the metals had no
apparent adverse effects on the
aquatic community and some
occurrences have since been
attributed to analytical inter-
ference. PCBs, pesticides, and
organics were not detected in
the water column at any
location in the trend monitoring
network. However, toxics were
detected at certain sites chosen
for special studies.
Department of Health and
Environmental Control
(DHEC) approval and imple-
mentation of industrial waste
pretreatment programs for
publicly owned treatment works
have improved water quality by
reducing toxic discharges from
these facilities. Most point
source agricultural waste
discharges have been eliminated
through the issuance of State
construction permits that
require alternate non-
discharging treatment systems.
Implementation of a State
Municipal Strategy has
improved the municipal waste
treatment facilities permit
compliance record. The DHEC
has issued orders placing all
publicly owned treatment works
not meeting final permit
conditions on schedules to
assure compliance with final
effluent limits by July 1988.
The DHEC also plans to accel-
erate enforcement activity in
the areas of operation and
maintenance and pretreatment
compliance.
South Carolina's nonpoint
source control strategy includes
regulatory and voluntary
programs. DHEC is involved in
nonpoint source pollution
control through water quality
certification of Federal permits
(mostly Army Corps 404
permits) as required by Section
401 of the Clean Water Act;
stormwater control require-
ments on some NPDES and
construction permits for
wastewater treatment facilities;
and "best management
practices" requirements to
control oil and hazardous and
toxic substances at industrial
facilities. Numerous State and
local agencies are involved in
nonpoint source control
programs.
Ground-Water
Quality
The overall quality of
ground-water in South Carolina
is excellent. There are, however,
156 instances of localized
ground water contamination
where contaminants exceed
drinking water standards.
Contamination sources have
been diverse and include
industrial and agricultural
activities, accidental spills and
leaks, and municipal waste
disposal. Except for certain
waste-disposal sites and indus-
trial sites that require ground-
water montoring under existing
permitting regulations, the
detection of ground-water
contamination has been
nonsystematic and has often
involved citizen reporting. The
DHEC has made an effort to
educate the public about
ground-water contamination.
The Department has attempted
to minimize ground-water
contamination by requiring the
licensing of well drillers,
establishing well construction
standards, and regulating
underground storage tanks.
A-35
-------
Appendix
SOUTH DAKOTA
For a complete copy of the
South Dakota 305(b) report,
contact:
South Dakota Department of
Water and Natural Resources
Office of Water Quality
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501
Surface Water
Quality
South Dakota has a total of
9,937 miles of rivers and
streams. Of these, 3,987 miles
have been assessed for water
quality. Currently, 47 percent of
these assessed waters are fully
supporting their assigned
beneficial uses, 28 percent are
partially supporting uses, and
25 percent are not supporting
their uses. Nonsupport of
designated uses is caused by the
following factors: natural
conditions (49 percent),
nonpoint sources (34 percent),
inadequate municipal waste-
water treatment (9 percent),
industrial discharges (4
percent), and unknown sources
(4 percent).
Water quality seems to have
been maintained or slightly
improved, even though
comparisons between the 1984
and 1986 designated use
support percentages and stream
impairment rankings may seem
to indicate otherwise.
Unusually high amounts of
precipitation throughout much
of the State had a distinct effect
on water quality during 1984
through 1986. The Cheyenne,
White, Grand, and Moreau
Rivers showed drastic increases
in total suspended solids
concentrations due to the highly
erosive nature of the soils
located within these basins.
Fecal coliform concentrations
fluctuated with runoff events
and dilutional flows.
Approximately 41 stream
miles were improved during the
reporting period due to EPA
construction grants program
projects. A total of 66
communities have completed
EPA-funded wastewater treat-
ment facilities; this has
contributed tremendously to
improved water quality.
In addition to rivers and
streams, South Dakota has 799
lakes and reservoirs totalling
1,003,987 acres. Approximately
98 percent of use impairment
for lakes can be attributed to
nonpoint sources. Natural
events account for the
remaining 2 percent. Roughly
57 percent of the total lake acres
assessed support their desig-
nated uses; 55 percent of this
total are threatened. Only 0.5
percent of lakes partially
support uses, 8 percent do not
support uses, and 35 percent
are unknown.
Most lakes in the State are
characterized as eutrophic to
hypereutrophic. Runoff,
carrying sediments and
nutrients from agricultural
land, is the major nonpoint
pollution source. Smaller lakes
are more severely affected by
nonpoint sources than larger
lakes, which have so far been
able to withstand these
pollution sources.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is of highly
variable quality but is generally
suitable for domestic, indus-
trial, and agricultural
(including irrigation) uses.
Many of the deeper aquifers
contain higher concentrations
of dissolved salts. Shallow
aquifers are easily contami-
nated. Ground-water
degradation results from
improperly located and/or
constructed wastewater
treatment lagoons, septic
systems, feedlots, landfills,
leaking artesian wells,
improperly sealed or placed
wells, and hazardous materials
spills.
Potential ground-water
contamination incidents have
increased substantially over the
last ten years. This is primarily
due to increased public
awareness and reporting
requirements. Over 13 percent
of spilled substances such as
petroleum products and fertil-
izers entered ground water or
had the potential to do so.
Ninety-three percent of the
State's 908 public drinking
water systems (PWS) are drawn
totally from ground-water
sources. Many of these PWS do
not meet federally recom-
mended criteria for dissolved
solids (287 PWS), chloride (27
PWS), sulfate (210 PWS), iron
(210 PWS), manganese (265
PWS), and sodium (325 PWS).
These constituents are all
naturally occurring, as are
fluorides. Twenty-five PWS
exceed the standard for
fluoride, five exceed the
standard for nitrate, and one
exceeds the standard for
triohalomethanes.
South Dakota is aggressively
attacking ground-water
pollution. Ongoing ground-
water projects include: the
Oakwood/Poinsett Rural Clean
Water Project; petroleum brine
pits studies; a test hole plugging
study; assumption of the
Underground Injection
Control, Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act, and
Underground Storage Tanks
programs; and cleanup
activities from hazardous
materials spills.
TENNESSEE
For a complete copy of the
Tennessee 305(b) report,
contact:
Tennessee Department of
Health and Environment
Office of Water Management
T.E.R.R.A. Building
150 Ninth Ave, North
Nashville, TN 37219-5404
Surface Water
Quality
Overall, Tennessee has good
water quality, with 66 percent
of assessed stream miles
supporting designated uses.
This assessment was based on
the streams' ability to meet
established criteria for the fish
and aquatic life, recreation, and
water supply classifications.
Twenty percent of the assessed
stream miles supporting uses
are threatened with potential
water quality impairment in the
future. Nineteen percent of
assessed stream miles are
moderately impaired. Fifteen
percent are severely impaired
and do not support designated
uses.
The largest single cause of
nonsupport in Tennessee
streams is surface mining, both
active and abandoned sites.
Major pollutants emitted by
surface mines include acidity,
sediment, and toxic materials.
In certain areas of the State,
water quality in entire water-
sheds has been destroyed. Most
aquatic degradation caused by
surface mining is concentrated
in the Cumberland Plateau
region of the State.
Other pollution sources
A-36
-------
Appendix
causing nonsupport in
Tennessee streams are: agricul-
tural runoff, municipal
discharges, industrial
discharges, hydrologic
modification, land disposal, and
urban runoff. Nonpoint sources
(surface mining, agricultural
runoff, hydrologic modification,
and land disposal) account for
76 percent of the total stream
degradation in Tennessee.
Of the 538,603 lake acres in
Tennessee, 70 percent are
considered to be fully support-
ing designated uses. Ten
percent of the total lake acres
supporting uses are threatened
with future use impairment.
Seventeen percent are currently
moderately impaired. Three
percent of lake acres are
severely impaired and do not
support designated uses.
Small lakes (less than 1,000
surface acres) were subjected to
further evaluation, since they
tend to have different water
quality problems than do large
reservoirs. Most of these
reservoirs are managed by State
or municipal agencies. Only 42
percent of these small lakes
currently fully support
designated uses.
Eutrophication causes 74
percent of the nonsupport in
Tennessee lakes. Other reasons
for nonsupport in Tennessee
lakes are low dissolved oxygen,
fecal coliform contamination,
toxic materials, low pH, and
sediment.
Almost half of the
nonsupporting acres in
Tennessee lakes have agricul-
tural runoff as a source of
pollution. Other important
sources of pollutants causing
nonsupport in lakes are urban
runoff, hydrologic modification,
municipal discharges, surface
mining, land disposal, malfunc-
tioning septic tanks, artificial
fertilization, and industrial
discharges. In lakes less than
1,000 acres, artificial fertiliza-
tion is by far the largest source
of nutrients and the leading
cause of eutrophication.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water quality is very
good statewide. Ground-water
contamination problems appear
to be localized. Between 1980
and 1984, contamination was
discovered in 91 private wells,
10 public wells, and one indus-
trial well. This amounts to a
negligible percentage of the
ground water in Tennessee.
Suspected major sources of
ground-water contamination in
Tennessee include septic tanks,
underground storage tanks,
land application/treatment, and
municipal landfills. Although
there is no known, widespread
ground-water contamination in
the State, the increasing poten-
tial for contamination is a
concern. A Ground-Water
Management Strategy is
currently being developed by
the State to provide long-term
protection for Tennessee's
ground-water resources.
TEXAS
For a complete copy of the
Texas 305(b) report, contact:
Texas Water Commission
Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Surface Water
Quality
Of the 15,942 classified
stream miles in Texas, 1,110
miles (7 percent) are not
currently considered fishable
and swimmable, and 976 miles
(6 percent) do not meet
segment-specific standards. In
comparison with historical
water quality, these figures
indicate that water quality in
the State is being maintained,
and in some cases improved,
despite a rapidly increasing
population. Approximately 70
percent of the 1,110 stream miles
rated unsuitable for fishing and
swimming are adversely
affected by six major metropoli-
tan areas: Houston, Dallas-Fort
Worth, San Antonio, Austin,
the Rio Grande Valley Cities,
and Beaumont-Port Arthur.
Major improvements in sewage
treatment facilities are planned
or underway for these areas.
Approximately 71 percent of
the stream miles that are not
achieving designated uses in
Texas are affected primarily by
dissolved oxygen depletion and
elevated fecal coliform levels
caused by discharges of treated
domestic sewage. An additional
4 percent of use impairment is
caused by dissolved oxygen
reduction due to industrial
discharges. The remaining
impaired surface waters are
affected by a combination of
impacts from multiple or
undetermined sources including
nonpoint sources and natural
conditions. Nonpoint sources
have been estimated to impair
uses in only 133 stream miles.
Designated uses in an addi-
tional 372 stream miles were
considered threatened but not
impaired by nonpoint sources.
Concerns for health and
aquatic life have prompted an
expanded program of toxic
monitoring and regulation for
surface waters. Although
definitive cases of use impair-
ment due to toxic pollution are
rare, the large number of
permitted industrial discharges
in Texas (737 as of February
1986) underscores the need for
a strong surveillance program.
The Texas Water Commission
is developing a more compre-
hensive strategy for implement-
ing toxic controls. The initial
steps of this strategy will
include increased monitoring
and control of effluent toxicity,
a review and expansion of
statewide surface water moni-
toring, and a new series of
intensive priority pollutant
surveys in selected surface
waters.
A-37
-------
Appendix
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 75 percent of
the total water used by Texans
for domestic, municipal,
industrial, and agricultural
purposes is supplied by ground-
water sources. A major form of
ground-water contamination is
saltwater intrusion from natural
sources. Saline conditions are
sometimes aggravated by
ground-water withdrawals. In
the past, oil and natural gas
extraction activities have been
suspected of causing saline
contamination in some areas.
Improvements in brine
disposal, well-plugging, and
underground injection proce-
dures have reduced these
problems in recent petroleum
operations.
A ground-water quality
monitoring network consisting
of some 5,827 observation wells
is currently maintained by the
Board with approximately 750
wells being sampled annually
for the common constituents of
natural ground water. Local,
regional, and other State and
Federal agencies are also
involved in additional monitor-
ing of the quantity and quality
of Texas' ground-water
resources.
UTAH
For a complete copy of the
Utah 305(b) report, contact:
Utah Bureau of Water Pollution
Control
Division of Environmental
Health
288 North 1460 West
P.O. Box 16690
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-0690
Surface Water
Quality
Data analyzed from October
1983 through September 1985
generally indicate that total
phosphate levels are moderately
exceeding the criteria for
assigned beneficial uses
statewide. Increases in total
phosphates are attributed to
increased amounts of overland
flow and inundation of
vegetated areas. Total
phosphates come from natural,
agricultural, construction,
recreation, mining, and
municipal sources. Minerals
containing phosphorus are
natural sources of total
phosphates. Phosphate
fertilizers contribute total
phosphate to stream systems
from overland runoff where
these fertilizers have been
applied. Phosphorus is also a
component of domestic
wastewater and is carried
through the treatment process.
Point sources of pollution can
present water quality problems
anywhere they are located, but
are usually more significant in
highly populated areas. An
example in Utah is Jordan
River in Salt Lake Valley.
Regionalization of wastewater
treatment facilities will provide
high levels of treatment to
maintain and improve
downstream water quality in
the Jordan River.
Many of the remaining water
quality problems in Utah result
from nonpoint sources rather
than point source discharges.
Nonpoint sources of pollution
include natural geologic
formations, failing individual
wastewater disposal systems,
urban sources, hydrologic
modifications, agriculture,
mining, recreation,
construction, and silviculture.
Natural sandstone formations
in eastern and southern Utah
contribute significant amounts
of sediments through erosion.
Natural deposits of salts,
phosphates, fluorides, nutrients,
and arsenic also contribute to
water quality degradation in
certain areas of the State.
Salinity will remain a water
quality problem in Utah. High
runoff has decreased total
dissolved solid concentrations,
but increased flows have
increased total loadings to the
Colorado and Sevier River
systems. Salinity control
projects have been implemented
in the Uinta, Duchesne, Price,
San Rafael, and Dirty Devil
River Basins.
The Utah State Wastewater
Loan Program was established
by the State Legislature in 1983
in recognition of, and to offset,
Federal funding shortfalls,
increasing wastewater facility
needs, and prevailing high
bonding interest rates. The
program provided a total of $20
million for the Water Pollution
Control Committee to loan to
communities and sewerage
districts for constructing needed
wastewater facilities. The Utah
State Wastewater Credit
Enhancement Agreement
Program was also established
by the State Legislature in
1983. The program will permit
the State of Utah to enter into
agreements with communities
to improve the security and
marketability of wastewater
project obligations.
Ground-Water
Quality
Utah's ground-water
resources are important to the
health and economic well-being
of the State's citizens. Ground
water furnishes about 20
percent of the State's total water
needs. About two-thirds of the
State's population is dependent
on ground water as a source of
public water supply.
Several independent
programs monitor ground-
water quality in Utah. Utah has
developed a Ground-Water
Quality Protection Strategy
that reviews facts about ground
water, describes government
programs that affect ground
water, and discusses potential
sources of ground-water
pollution. The strategy also
provides management proposals
for public consideration and
comment. The purpose of these
proposals is to generate
discussion and provide a
framework for a carefully
crafted protection program.
The public's comments will be
used in the development of this
ground-water protection effort.
A-38
-------
Appendix
VERMONT
For a complete copy of the
Vermont 305(b) report, contact:
Vermont Agency of
Environmental Conservation
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05676
Surface Water
Quality
The water quality of
Vermont's streams and lakes
remains high and continues to
improve, primarily due to
continued wastewater treatment
facility upgrading and construc-
tion. Of the 1,167 segmented
river miles assessed (those rivers
and streams watched closely
due to potential impacts,
primarily from point source
pollution discharges), 76
percent support their desig-
nated uses, 99 percent meet
fishable criteria, and 73 percent
meet swimmable criteria.
The sources of pollution
causing less than full support of
water uses in Vermont's stream
segments are nonpoint sources
(50 percent), municipal dis-
charges (22 percent), industrial
discharges (11 percent), natural
sources (11 percent), and other
sources (6 percent). Nonpoint
sources are primarily from
land-based activities such as
agriculture, forestry, mineral
extraction, and development.
Affected stream segments from
hydropower dams are also
included. Municipal sources
include direct discharges from
malfunctioning sewage treat-
ment facilities, combined sewer
overflows, stormwater, and
untreated sewage. Industrial
discharges are poorly or
untreated industrial wastes,
including toxics and wastes
from other States. Natural
sources include natural
sloughing of stream banks into
the water and unshaded shal-
low, slow-moving streams
causing thermal pollution.
Other sources are discharges
from failed individual and
commercial sewage treatment
systems and untreated or poorly
treated wastes from dairy
plants.
The most common param-
eters of concern for Vermont's
rivers and streams are sand/silt
and fecal coliform bacteria.
Violations of water quality
standards for these parameters
account for approximately 140
miles of the State's 285 miles of
streams where standards are
violated. They originate
primarily from treated and
untreated municipal and
private wastes and nonpoint
sources.
Vermont has a total lake
acreage of 224,066 acres. Of
this figure, 210,907 acres fully
support their uses. All but 45
acres, or 99.9 percent, meet
fishable/swimmable criteria.
Based on measured springtime
phosphorus concentrations,
Vermont has 5,225 acres of
eutrophic lakes, 9,730 acres of
mesotrophic lakes, and 21,099
acres of oligotrophic lakes. The
trophic status of the balance of
188,012 acres is unknown. Of
the State's estimated 200,000
acres of wetlands, 60-70 acres
are being lost each year due to
filling, draining, dredging, and
various other construction
projects.
Nutrients, pH, and bacteria
are the three major pollutant
groups of concern in lakes and
ponds. Approximately 70
percent of this pollution comes
from nonpoint sources and the
remainder from municipal
combined sewer overflows and
internal recycling of past
nutrient loads to the lake. Acid
rain appears to be the source of
the high pH and loss of fish life
in two southern lakes.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water serves as the
source of drinking water for
approximately 55 percent of the
State's population. Vermont's
ground water has relatively few
contamination problems
compared to more populous
industrial States. However, the
State does have some ground-
water problems, most of which
are site-specific. Leaking
underground storage tanks and
spills containing petroleum
products and solvents have
contaminated approximately 50
wells, and approximately 40
wells have elevated levels of
sodium and/or chloride. This
has been caused by the use or
storage of rock salt for roadway
de-icing. Approximately 500
wells have varying levels of
contamination due to their
locations adjacent to salted
roads or storage facilities. Fewer
than ten wells have been
identified as contaminated by
fertilizers and/or septic systems.
However, the suspected number
of cases is on the order of 300
statewide. In order to prevent
or mitigate future contamina-
tion problems, recently passed
legislation requires the State to
develop a comprehensive
ground-water protection
program.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
For a complete copy of the
Virgin Islands 305(b) report,
contact:
VI Department of Conservation
and Cultural Affairs
Division of Natural Resources
Management
P.O. Box 4340
Charlotte Amalie,
St. Thomas, VI 00801
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality in the Virgin
Islands has not significantly
degraded in the past several
years despite an increase in
construction along the coast-
line. The exception to this
finding, however, is the
continued deterioration of the
Mangrove Lagoon in St.
Thomas.
Of the approximately 34
square miles of Virgin Islands
coastal waters, 31 support
designated uses, 1.5 partially
support uses, and 2 do not
support uses. Major causes of
use impairment are municipal/
domestic sources and nonpoint
sources. Major parameters of
concern are fecal coliform
bacteria, turbidity, and
dissolved oxygen.
A-39
-------
Appendix
An increase in heavy
construction for major hotels on
the coasts of the three main
islands is expected to increase
nonpoint source problems.
Since these projects are not
near main sewer lines, Terri-
torial Pollution Elimination
Discharge System (TPDES)
permits may need to be issued
for treatment and discharge of
sewage into the open ocean.
Special concerns cited in this
report include a need for
improved monitoring in sensi-
tive marine ecosystems;
vulnerability to flooding and
attendant nonpoint source
problems; program funding;
and saltwater contamination of
ground-water supplies.
Ground-Water
Quality
Some ground-water contami-
nation occurs in the Virgin
Islands, primarily in the form
of elevated chloride concentra-
tions caused by saltwater
intrusion.
Nitrates and non-significant
contaminants are also reported.
An underground storage tank
in St. Croix recently leaked
about 900 gallons of low octane
gasoline; efforts are underway
to verify if ground-water
contamination occurred. Broken
sewer lines are another
significant source of ground-
water contamination.
VIRGINIA
For a complete copy of the
Virginia 305(b) report, contact:
Virginia State Water Pollution
Control Board
Bureau of Water Control
Management
2111 North Hamilton St.
Richmond, VA 23230
Surface Water
Quality
Virginia's surface waters
generally meet or exceed water
quality standards for dissolved
oxygen, pH, and temperature.
Natural conditions were
primary reasons for noncompli-
ance with these three standards.
Fecal coliform bacteria data
present a different picture. The
stringent fecal coliform bacteria
standard, which applies to all
Virginia waters, is intended to
protect primary contact recrea-
tional uses (e.g., swimming).
Waters at an estimated 48 to 75
percent of the State's
monitoring stations failed to
meet this standard, and about
3,400 stream miles statewide
were estimated to have bacteria
problems. Agricultural
nonpoint sources, including
animal waste runoff, accounted
for about half of the miles
affected (53 percent).
Municipal point sources
accounted for about 36 percent
of the total miles. The majority
of these miles affected by
domestic sewage were located in
southwestern Virginia, where
many thousands of individual
homes discharge directly to
streams.
Virginia has about 129,600
acres of publicly owned lakes
and reservoirs. The vast
majority of lake acres—91
percent—fully meet designated
uses. Seven percent of the
State's lake acreage was affected
by moderate pollution
problems. Nonpoint source
problems were the responsible
cause in 98 percent of the
affected acreage.
The State reports on three
fishing advisories or bans in
effect during this reporting
period. One hundred and
thirteen miles of the James
River estuary are subject to
seasonal commercial fishing
restrictions due to contamina-
tion by the pesticide Kepone.
However, sport fishing is
allowed. In the North Fork
Holston River, 81 miles are
restricted to catch-and-release
fishing due to mercury pollu-
tion. Lastly, 102 miles of the
South River and the South Fork
of the Shenandoah River are
under a fish consumption
health advisory due to mercury
pollution.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water accounts for
approximately 22 percent of the
water used in Virginia for
purposes other than hydro-
electric and thermoelectric uses.
Eighty percent of Virginians
use ground water either as their
only water supply or as part of
their supply.
Contamination of major
aquifers in Virginia is not a
serious problem. Most ground-
water pollution incidents
contaminate finite areas near
the spill or accident. There are
more than 500 documented
cases of contamination inci-
dents and approximately five
new cases are added per month.
Most of these are leaking
underground tanks and
associated piping. As this type
of incident increases, an ever-
increasing percentage of
ground-water resources
becomes contaminated. Once
contaminated, the area within
the plume is normally
considered unusable for the
foreseeable future.
Ground-water depletion
incidents and well interference
problems are found mainly in
the eastern part of the State and
are localized. Virginia's
Ground-Water Act of 1973 was
passed to control increased
industrial demands on major
aquifers in this area. In the
future, as more information
becomes available on geological
and ground-water conditions in
eastern Virginia, changes in the
Act will be recommended to
make it more effective.
Virginia plans to move ahead
in designing new programs and
maintaining existing ones to
effectively manage ground-
water resources. The State is in
the process of developing and
implementing a ground-water
protection strategy. Specific
ground-water program activities
in Virginia include ground-
water quality monitoring, a,
study of saltwater intrusion
problems, complaint investiga-
tions, and disposal site
evaluations. An underground
storage tank program is being
planned.
A-40
-------
Appendix
WASHINGTON
For a complete copy of the
Washington 305(b) report,
contact:
Washington Department of
Ecology
Water Quality Management
Division
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504
Surface Water
Quality
Of 160 river segments in
Washington, 65 were found to
be meeting the "fishable/
swimmable" goal. In 48
segments, failure to meet the
goal was attributed to natural
or irreversible causes; in 7
segments, it was attributed to
point sources, and in 39 to
nonpoint sources. Primary
parameters of concern in
Washington's rivers include
fecal coliform bacteria,
temperature, turbidity, and
nutrients.
Trophic status was assessed
for 140 lakes totalling 288,830
acres. Fifty-eight lakes were
determined to be oligotrophic,
24 lakes were mesotrophic, 45
were eutrophic, and 13 lakes
were unknown. Nonpoint
sources, primarily agriculture,
were the cause of trophic
problems in Washington's lakes.
A total of 56 marine
segments were assessed. Of
these, 31 were meeting the
"fishable/swimmable" goal.
Failure to meet the goal in
marine waters was attributed to
fecal coliform bacteria, and, to
a far lesser extent, to dissolved
oxygen, turbidity, and toxicity.
In the late 1970s, more
attention was shifted to
nonpoint source problems as
many point source problems
were being corrected. A
subjective evaluation of the
relative significance of nonpoint
source problems in Washington
resulted in the following
priorities: agriculture (irrigated
agriculture, dryland
agriculture, and dairy waste
management), silviculture, on-
site disposal, and urban runoff.
More recently it has become
necessary to undertake a
renewed effort to regulate
municipal and industrial
discharges. Washington's
municipal policy provides for
compliance with Federal and
State wastewater treatment
requirements regardless of the
availability of construction
grants funds. Implementation
of this policy has been identified
as a high priority. Implementa-
tion of Best Available
Technology requirements for
the control of toxics discharges
by industries also has been
identified as a high priority.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water quality is
being assessed on a local and
regional basis. Collection of
available data on concentrations
of nitrates, chloride, total
dissolved solids, synthetic
organic compounds, metals,
and naturally occurring
contaminants is an ongoing
effort that was given priority
during FY 1986.
Priority ground-water quality
problem areas identified for FY
1987 include Chambers/Clover
Creek, the Spokane-Rathdrum
Prairie, South King County,
Island County, Vashon Island,
Kitsap County, and the aquifers
serving Gig Harbor, Redmond,
and Issaquah.
The Washington Department
of Ecology will complete a
ground-water quality manage-
ment strategy in early FY 1987.
The purpose of the strategy is
to provide a comprehensive
approach to ground-water
quality protection. Work has
also begun on a statewide
aquifer mapping project that
will show geology, aquifer zones,
water availability, and yields.
WEST VIRGINIA
For a complete copy of the West
Virginia 305(b) report, contact:
West Virginia Department of
Natural Resources
Water Resources Division
1201 Greenbriar St.
Charleston, WV 25311
Surface Water
Quality
Of the approximately 22,000
stream miles in West Virginia,
18,244 miles were assessed
using data from various sources
and the judgment of State
biologists and inspectors. Only
6 percent (1,388 miles) of the
assessed streams did not
support their designated uses.
Another 29 percent (6,631
miles) were found to partially
support their uses. Designated
uses were fully supported in 45
percent (10,225 miles) of the
assessed streams. About 20
percent were not assessed.
Major reservoirs were also
evaluated and, of the 16,158
acres assessed, only 11 percent
(1,798 acres) did not support
designated uses. The major
causes of nonsupport were
identified as mine drainage,
sewage, and nonpoint sources.
Comparison of current data
with that in earlier reports
showed very little change in
water quality during the last
few years.
A-41
-------
Appendix
In order to describe more
specific problems, the State was
divided into seven major river
basins and 50 subbasins. The
bacteria standard continued to
be violated almost 100 percent
of the time in the Big Sandy/
Tug Fork and Guyandotte
basins. Acid mine drainage
problems were found primarily
in the Monongahela Basin.
Nonpoint sources affected water
quality in most of the State but
were a particular problem in
the Little Kanawha and parts of
the Kanawha basins. Organics
were also a potential problem in
the Kanawha. Dioxin, PCBs,
and chlordane were found in
fish flesh, although the levels
were very low. Work is
continuing to analyze the
problem and locate possible
sources.
Specific State water quality
concerns in West Virginia
include possible acidification of
the Buckhannon River Basin,
use of ammonia in the treat-
ment of mine drainage,
continued development of the
oil and gas general permit,
continuing abandoned mine
drainage problems, adverse
impacts on wetlands, develop-
ment of a State ground-water
strategy, development of a State
sludge management strategy,
and impacts and control of
nonpoint sources.
Ground-Water
Quality
Although ground water in
West Virginia is generally of
good quality, in most parts of
the State it was found to be
naturally hard and to contain
elevated levels of iron and
manganese. Major contamina-
tion problems in the central and
western parts of the State
included acid mine drainage
and salt water intrusion caused
by oil and gas well drilling
operations. In the karst areas of
the east, pollution problems
from animal feedlots, domestic
septic tanks, and other
nonpoint sources were the
principal concerns.
At present, there is no
indication that contamination
by synthetic organic
compounds is a serious threat
to water quality, although there
is a potential for damage from
accidental spills and nonpoint
sources.
Based on U.S. Geological
Survey data, drainage basins
were ranked according to
ground-water quality. The
Gauley River Basin ranked the
highest and the Guyandotte the
lowest.
WISCONSIN
For a complete copy of the
Wisconsin 305(b) report,
contact:
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Bureau of Water Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality in Wisconsin
has improved significantly since
1972. In 1972, nearly 400
stream miles were not support-
ing their designated uses,
primarily due to pulp and
paper mill and municipal
wastewater treatment plant
discharges. Currently, about 70
stream miles are not supporting
designated uses due to point
sources. However, significant
problems remain to be
addressed. Nonpoint sources
affect about 30 percent of
Wisconsin's stream miles, 40
percent of lake surface acres,
and 25 percent of Great Lakes
shoreline miles. An increasing
number of toxic substances are
being detected in the aquatic
environment, including fish
tissue and sediments.
The primary sources of
nonsupport of designated uses
are, in fact, nonpoint sources.
Major nonpoint pollutant
problems in streams include
sediment, turbidity, oxygen-
demanding material (e.g.,
barnyard runoff), and physical
habitat alteration (e.g., dams,
stream straightening). The
major nonpoint source pollut-
ants in lakes are sediments,
turbidity, and plant nutrients
(e.g., phosphorus, nitrogen)
Agricultural activities are the
most significant cause of
nonpoint source impacts in the
State.
The nature of water quality
problems in the Great Lakes
has changed over the past 15
years. Surface waters have
improved considerably, particu-
larly in levels of phosphorus
and in the resulting adverse
algae growths. To some extent,
heavy metals such as mercury
have also decreased as a result
of control programs. These
improvements are most evident
in heavily used harbors and
bays.
A major current concern is
the presence of persistent toxic
substances in the Great Lakes.
Contaminated fish in some
areas of the Great Lakes are
one symptom of the larger
problem of toxic substances that
must be addressed. In addition,
harbor sediments contaminated
by toxic substances affect
biological communities in
harbors and act as a continuing
source of contamination to the
larger lake system.
Fish contaminant monitoring
data for the Great Lakes
generally show that levels of
most contaminants are declin-
ing. However, health advisories
remain in effect for certain
species and size classes in all
Great Lakes. Chemical con-
taminants are implicated in
causing tumors in fish from
certain rivers, harbors, and
near-shore waters, and in
causing deformities and repro-
ductive impairment in several
species of fish-eating birds.
A-42
-------
Appendix
Ground-Water
Quality
Wisconsin relies heavily on
its ground water. Ninety-four
percent of the State's cities and
villages and 67 percent of its
residents use ground water for
their drinking water. Agricul-
tural and industrial activities
are also dependent on ground-
water supplies.
The contaminant most often
tested for and most often found
to exceed the State ground-
water standard is nitrate.
Nitrate can enter ground water
from many sources, including
nitrogen-based fertilizers,
animal waste storage areas and
feedlots, municipal and indus-
trial wastewater, refuse disposal
areas, and septic systems.
Volatile organic chemicals are
also a significant contamination
problem, as are pesticides such
as aldicarb.
The major sources of
ground-water contamination in
Wisconsin are landfills,
industrial and commercial
activities, pesticide application,
and leaking underground
petroleum storage tanks. While
leaking petroleum storage tanks
are the smallest of the major
categories in percentage by
source, petroleum constituents
(namely benzene) have the
highest toxicity level.
WYOMING
For a complete copy of the
Wyoming 305(b) report,
contact:
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Herschler Building
122 West 25th St.
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Surface Water
Quality
Generally, water quality in
Wyoming remains good to
excellent. Significant improve-
ments have been made in
reducing water quality impacts
from municipal and industrial
point sources. Additional
progress in dealing with
industrial and municipal wastes
will be evident in the near
future. Despite increased
population growth throughout
the State, water quality in the
major river basins is improving
or stable.
Wyoming reports that 17,386
river miles fully support their
designated uses, 297 miles
partially support uses, and
1,972 miles do not support
designated uses. Of the State's
288,284 acres of assessed lakes
and reservoirs, 235,016 fully
support uses, 12,011 acres
partially support uses, and
41,257 do not support
designated uses.
Nonpoint sources are the
leading anthropogenic cause of
use impairment, affecting 43
percent of waters with impaired
uses. Natural sources affect
another 43 percent, industrial
sources affect 10 percent, and
municipal sources affect 4
percent.
Oil treaters are the most
common industrial dischargers
in Wyoming. Oil and grease
and total dissolved solids are
the primary contaminants
associated with oil treatment
facilities. Other industrial
dischargers include coal and
uranium mines. Because coal
and uranium mining disturbs
the land surface, erosion is a
potential problem and may
result in sediments entering
surface waters.
In Wyoming, principal
nonpoint pollutants are
sediments (which often elevate
turbidity values), total dissolved
solids, and nutrients. The most
significant nonpoint sources in
Wyoming include crop and
range lands, hydrologic
modification, and land or
resource-related development
activities. The largest single
contributor of nonpoint source
pollution in Wyoming is erosion
of rangelands and stream
channels. Most of the rangeland
erosion observed today is a
result of past and present
abuses including overgrazing,
road construction, and other
surface disturbances. Erosion
from tilled and irrigated
agricultural lands has been
identified as locally important.
The erosion from furrow irri-
gated row crops appears to have
the largest impact. In addition,
irrigation return flows laden
with salt, silt, and nutrients are
a threat to water quality.
Channel erosion in irrigation
return drains is significant in
some areas.
Natural saline seeps under-
lying areas of irrigated
agriculture are also a problem.
Over-irrigation causes excess
water to percolate into saline
strata, reappearing as highly
saline seeps some distance away.
These saline seeps affect surface
water quality and can prevent
the use of water for public water
supply, irrigation, and even
livestock watering.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 65 percent of
Wyoming's population depends
on ground water as the source
of its domestic water. The
State's livestock industry is
heavily dependent on ground
water. The energy industry uses
ground water in power genera-
tion, secondary and tertiary oil
recovery, and uranium mining
and processing. Although the
amount of ground water used
for irrigation is small in
comparison with the amount of
surface water used, it still
accounts for almost half of the
State's total ground-water use.
The ambient ground-water
quality of the State's aquifers
varies tremendously. High
concentrations of fluoride
appear to be the most wide-
spread problem for Wyoming's
drinking water aquifers. All
basins have some wells showing
levels of fluoride that exceed
primary standards in at least
one major aquifer. Selenium is
also a fairly widespread
problem. It should be
emphasized, however, that these
problems are local in nature
and appear to result from
natural conditions.
Most basins display some
exceedances of the nitrate
standard. These are usually
detected in shallow wells and
are thought to be man-caused.
A-43
-------
Appendix
Fertilizer and irrigation
practices, septic tank leach
fields, and livestock feedlot
operations are known contribu-
tors of nitrates to shallow
ground water. Small leaks in
underground storage tanks pose
a common pollution problem
and contribute petroleum
hydrocarbons and chemicals.
Wyoming's booming energy
industry is rapidly creating
other potential sources of
aquifer contamination. At
present, there are roughly 4,000
petroleum-related injection
wells, 350 in situ uranium
injection wells, and 400
underground coal gasification
injection wells in the State.
Other potential contamination
sources include oil refineries
and proliferating septic
tank/leach fields.
A-44
ri US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1988 - 518-328 - 1302/62936
------- |