-------
Table of Contents
Foreword.
Letter from the Partners
Our Goal:
All Waters in Region 5 Will Support Healthy
Aquatic Biological Communities 1-1
Our Goal:
The Quantity and Quality of Critical Aquatic Habitat in Region 5,
Including Wetlands, Will Be Maintained or Improved 21
Our Goal:
All Waters in Region 5 Will Support Fish Populations
with Safe Levels of Contaminants 3-1
Our Goal:
Designated Swimming Waters in Region 5 Will Be Swimmable 4
Our Goal:
All People in Region 5 Served by Public Water
Supplies Will Have Water That Is Consistently Safe to Drink 51
Contacts and Web Resources (Back inside cover)
Partners and Stewards (Back inside cover)
Cover Photos (Clockwise from the top)
Photograph Courtesy of U S Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
Source- EPA
Photograph by Rodney E. Rawhorst; Photograph Courtesy of Michigan Travel Bureau
Source: EPA
Source: EPA
Foward Photos
Source. EPA
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Foreword
Our Long-Term Goal: All people in Region 5 will have drinking water that is
clean and safe to drink. The rivers, lakes, wetlands, aquifers, and coastal waters
in Region 5 will sustain healthy fish, plants, and wildlife, as well as recreational,
subsistence, and economic activities. Watersheds and their aquatic ecosystems
will be restored and protected to improve human health, enhance water quality,
reduce flooding, and provide habitat for wildlife.
This year marks the 30lh anniversary of the Clean Water
Act. We are pleased to celebrate this important
milestone by presenting the first joint State of the
Waters report - a report representing years of progress
in improving the Region's water quality. EPA Region
5's Water Division and its partners have made great
strides in our efforts to ensure clean and safe water.
This report highlights the status of our waters and
successes achieved for our shared water goals of healthy
biological communities, aquatic habitats, fish
populations, swimming waters, and drinking waters.
This report is intended to be the first in a series that,
when taken together, will show trends in Region 5's
water quality. Some of the data is already complete
enough to report on water quality trends. For others,
however, data improvements are needed before a
baseline can be established. Over time, the report is
intended not only to show the status of our waters but
also the progress made in improving data.
We hope you find this and future reports useful in
tracking the progress we have made to date and
recognizing the challenges we face in our continuing
commitment to improving water quality.
(IIAO^—
Thomas V. Skinner
Regional Administrator
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
We are fortunate to live in a Region abundant with water resources totaling over 350,000 miles of rivers and
streams and 5,800,000 lake acres, and stretching across the incredibly beautiful and diverse Great Lakes,
Upper Mississippi River, Ohio River, Missouri River, and Red River Basins. These unique resources provide us
with water for drinking, recreation, commerce, and agricultural production. Region 5's protection and
enhancement of water quality takes many forms and involves many partners, including collaboration with
the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin, as well as 35 Federally recognized
Tribes and other federal agencies. Most importantly, however, the key to improving our rivers, lakes and
wetlands comes from the actions of individuals like you.
In 2002, our nation will celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act - the national statute which
provides the authority for EPA and State surface water programs. While EPA and State agencies have
accomplished much over the past three decades to ensure clean and safe water for the American public,
there is more to be done to protect and improve the environment. The States and EPA are committed to
building on these achievements through our strong federal/state partnerships and reporting on the progress
we make. We are also committed to updating the citizens of Region 5 on our work to protect and improve
the quality of water resources.
Over the past year, EPA's Region 5 Water Program and seven State Environmental and Public Health
Agencies developed a set of five shared environmental goals to enhance our joint efforts to protect and
restore our valuable water resources and measure accomplishments. These shared water goals are:
Goal 1: All waters in Region 5 will support healthy aquatic biological communities.
Goal 2: All waters in Region 5 will support fish populations with safe levels of contaminants.
Goal 3: Designated swimming waters in Region 5 will be swimmable.
Goal 4: All people in Region 5 served by public water supplies will have water that is consistently
safe to drink.
Goal 5: The quantity and quality of critical aquatic habitat in Region 5, including wetlands, will be
maintained or improved.
Our efforts to establish a framework for reporting on environmental improvements is continuing. This year,
we will reach agreement on a set of shorter-term milestones that we will use to chart progress against the
five goals. This first State of the Waters report presents environmental information organized around the five
goals and documents what we know now about the overall quality of the waters in Region 5. In future
reports, we will track progress against the specific targets and more specifically detail our efforts to achieve
each goal.
In signing this report, the States and EPA are reaffirming our commitment to improving water quality and
reporting on our efforts to the public. We hope you find the information in this report useful and insightful
and that the successes described inspire you to take up the challenge of protecting and enhancing the
environment with us.
i, ' ')
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
'n.
19.U.J
7 ' -7 L/—- / '
Indiana Department o ^Environmental Management lY^mriesota Department of Health
mnesota Pollution Control Agency
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
.^Kc^d i <_>, 'vjc i L i'^jd rC f'"
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
y\ '.. /' (.
IiL/S F.PX, Region 5. Water Division U.S EPA. defeat Lakes National Program Office
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Our Goal:
All Waters in
Region 5 Will
Support Healthy
Aquatic Biological
Communities
In many ways, the portion of the Midwest that
makes up Region 5 is defined by its water resources.
These range from the major waters of the Great
Lakes in the north to the great Ohio and Mississippi
Rivers in the south. The region also includes the
myriad of lakes, wetlands and trout streams of the
northern forests and the prairie streams of the south.
Thanks to this wide array of resources, Region 5 is
host to a variety of plants and animals that reside
in the water. The health of these organisms is an
important indicator of the overall quality of the
aquatic biological communities in the surface
waters of the Midwest.
An "aquatic biological community" is the
collection of plants and animals - microorganisms,
algae, invertebrates, fish and other living things—
Water Quality Criteria and Standards
Water quality criteria are developed for specific
chemicals to evaluate whether a water body is
supporting aquatic life uses. Such criteria describe
the minimum level of water quality necessary to
allow a use to occur. EPA has developed water
quality criteria for 157 pollutants to protect a variety
of water body uses. States and tribes define the
specific water body uses to be protected. A
water body use and the water quality criterion
developed to protect that use, together with an
antidegradation policy, make up a water quality
standard.
For more information on water quality standards and
criteria, see http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
criteria or http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
standards.
that inhabit a body of water. Some, such as the
region's many species of sport fish, are highly prized
by anglers. Others, like wild rice, are culturally
important as traditional staple foods. Still others,
such as the different species of algae, aquatic
insects and forage fish, are important links in both
the water and land food webs. Taken as a whole,
the plants and animals that live in our lakes, rivers
and streams form the biological communities that
we depend on for a multitude of uses, including
food and recreation. Different components of the
aquatic biological community respond in different
ways to stressors such as the presence of pollutants,
alteration of habitat or introduction of exotic
species, resulting in changes in the community.
Measuring aquatic community health provides
direct information about the success of efforts to
protect and restore the region's waters.
How Is Aquatic Biological Community
Health Assessed?
The health of aquatic biological communities can
be assessed either directly by sampling plants and
animals present in a water body or indirectly by
measuring the chemical and physical quality of
the water and comparing those measurements
to established criteria. If the concentration
of a pollutant in the water is greater than the
corresponding water quality criterion, the health
of the biological community may be adversely
affected. Historically, chemical and physical
measurements formed the basis for assessing
aquatic community health. Recent development
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters ?0u2
-------
of direct measures of aquafic communities has
allowed more accurate assessment of aquatic
community health. Much of the information
reported by the states on the status of their aquatic
biological communities is now generated using
these direct methods.
How Are Direct Measurements of
Aquatic Biological Community Health
Completed?
Direct measures of aquatic biological community
health are based on assessments of how closely
the biological community in a specific water body
resembles the community that is expected to exist
there in the absence of human-caused stressors.
The species of fish, invertebrates, algae and plants
present as well as their condition and numbers
provide direct information about the health of a
water body and a means to efficiently assess the
health of aquatic biological communities. The
plants and animals therefore serve as biological
indicators of community health. An indicator is a
sign or signal about the status of a water body that
can be used to assess the effects of a variety of
stressors on that water body. A useful indicator is
one that changes in a predictable way in response
to biological, chemical or physical stressors in the
water body.
Example Indicators of Biological Community Health
PhytopluiMon
0.025 ppm
Hirring Gull Eggs
124 ppm
Levels of Toxic
Contamination in Fish and
Birds at the Top of the Food
Chain
Certain human-made
toxic chemicals present
in a water body
biologically accumulate
(bioaccumulate) in
organisms that live
there. Even though these
chemicals may be present
at very low levels, through
bioaccumulation, organisms
such as phytoplankton can
accumulate them at much
higher concentrations than
Source: EPA are found in the water. As
the phytoplankton are eaten by zooplankton and small fish, the toxic chemicals are further concentrated in
the bodies of the zooplankton and fish. This process is repeated at each step of the food chain and is known
as biomagnification.
Shoreline Populations of Bald Eagles
Some pollutants and contaminants can be acutely toxic in relatively
small amounts and can be harmful through long-term (chronic)
exposure to minute concentrations. Aquatic and wildlife species
have been intensively studied, and adverse effects such as crossbills
and eggshell thinning in birds and tumors in fis-h are well documented.
Evidence also suggests that polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and
other contaminants may inhibit the reproduction of certain fish and
wildlife species. For example, although they are greatly recovered
from their decline in the 1960s, shoreline populations of bald eagles in
the Great Lakes are having limited reproductive success compared
to inland populations. These reproductive problems are likely caused
by higher contaminant levels in the diet of the shoreline populations.
Source: EPA
Bald Eagle and Young at Nest
Photograph by Don Simonelli, Michigan Travel Bureau
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
1-2
-------
Aquatic Nuisance Species
Fish communities are the most visible indicators of water body health. To most people, they also represent
one of the most important resources of the region's waters. Plankton communities (microscopic plants and
animals) are the foundation of the food web and therefore are one of the most critical components of a water
body's ecosystem. Changes to such communities may be occurring in the region as a result of the presence
of contaminants and excessive nutrients in the water and sediment. In addition, exotic nuisance species such
as the spiny water flea and zebra mussel are affecting aquatic ecosystems.
1988
States with zebra mussels in inland and adjacent waters
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
Zebra mussels were introduced to North America when they were discharged in the Great Lakes through a
transatlantic ship's ballast discharge. The zebra mussel is now present in waterways throughout the eastern
United States. Unlike native freshwater bivalves, which prefer to burrow into mud, the zebra mussel latches
onto any hard surface it finds—rocks, pipes, boat hulls, other bivalves, and even sunken shopping carts. A
million zebra mussels can cover I square meter. Their shells
have impacted Great Lakes beaches. Great Lakes industrial
facilities using surface water spent $120 million for zebra mussel
monitoring and control between 1989 and 1994, according to
the results of a 1995 survey by an Ohio Sea Grant researcher.
Zebra mussels are also rearranging the ecosystems they invade.
They filter vast amounts of water to consume microscopic
phytoplankton. Although the filtering improves water clarity, it
leaves less food for other organisms,
with effects rippling through food
webs. Native mollusks, for example,
have disappeared from Lake
St. Clair. Fishery populations in the
Great Lakes are also being affected,
although it will take years to sort
out the specific impact of zebra
mussels.
Zebra mussel on crayfish
Photograph Courtesy of Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources
More recently, an accidental release
of the Asian carp in the Mississippi River has threatened the Mississippi River system
and the Great Lakes. The Asian carp, which grow to 50 pounds, has no natural
predators and competes for food with native fish. The carp has been seen 22 miles
south of Lake Michigan in the Illinois River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers installed
an experimental barrier in 2002 that many hope will prevent the Asian carp and
other non-native species from spreading to the Great Lakes. It will also prevent
migration of non-native species from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River system.
Asian Carp
Photograph by Burr Fisher
1-3
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
What Does it Mean When an Aquatic
Life Use Is Reported as Impaired or Not
Attained?
Under the Clean Water Act, states and tribes
designate uses for the surface waters within the
states and reservations, respectively. The uses
that states and tribes must consider in evaluating
a particular water body include aquatic life,
recreation, public water supplies, agricultural
and industrial water supplies and navigation. An
aquatic life use may be considered impaired if the
aquatic community present at a site is significantly
different from the expectations for the site or if the
concentration of a particular pollutant or pollutants
is greater than the criterion for that water body.
The criteria are specific pollutant concentrations
that protect specific uses. For example, if the
concentration of copper is less than the aquatic
life criterion, aquatic life in the water body should
not be adversely affected by the copper.
What Do Assessments Conducted by
the States Show?
Every 2 years, the states report on the status of
their water bodies. These reports are required
under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act and
are commonly referred to as "305(b) Reports."
They are compiled into a National Water Quality
Report to Congress. While the 305(b) Reports are
not based solely on biological assessments (they
include chemical and physical data assessments
as well), they provide an overview of the status of
aquatic biological communities.
Although 305(b) Reports provide a "snapshot" of
water quality conditions, they do not reflect the
status of all the water bodies within a state. As
shown in Figures 1-1 and 1-2, states typically assess
only a portion of the water bodies within their
borders. For example, of the 87,110 miles of rivers
and streams in Illinois, 15,304 miles were assessed
for the 2002 305(b) Report, and 9,559 miles of the
assessed streams were found to attain state water
quality standards.
Of the 366,419 miles of rivers and streams in
Region 5, 81,021 miles were assessed for the 2002
305(b) Reports (see Figure 1-3). A total of 54,982
of the miles assessed attained state water quality
standards. This information compares favorably to
data reported nationally, as Region 5 states both
assess a greater percentage of river and stream
miles than the national average and have a higher
3,500,000
1,000,000
oOU,UUU
o-
su ^
Source: 200.
Figure 1-1
Inland Lakes (acres)
fi
1
ft , BT— - i.
i
.! LL_ lt_
T 1 1 1 1
IL IN Ml MN OH Wl
fotal • Assessed [_i Attaining
I State 305 (b) Reports
Figure 1-2
Rivers and Streams (miles)
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
o-1—
IL IN Ml MN OH Wl
£ Total | Assessed [71 Attaining
Source: 2002 State 305 (b) Reports
percentage of rivers and streams attaining water
quality standards.
This type of summary provides useful information
on the status of waters across the entire region as
well as the capacity of state monitoring programs.
Reporting the number of stream miles or lake
acres assessed does not provide a measure of
the distribution of sampling sites across a state
or region, which is also important for accurately
assessing water quality on a state or regional
scale. For example, Ohio EPA visits each basin in
the state once every 5 years. Each year, Ohio EPA
staff visit 10 to 15 different study areas. Multiple
sites in each study area are visited, bringing
the total to 300 to 400 sampling sites per year.
Biological, chemical and physical monitoring and
assessment techniques are used at each site. Ohio
EPA's approach for selecting sites ensures that the
samples are representative of all the stream sizes
within a watershed and that streams are covered
across the state.
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
1.4
-------
Figure 1-3
Aquatic Life Use: Rivers & Streams
Reported 2002
Total Miles Unassessed
Miles Assessed
Miles Attaining
Miles Impaired
Source: 2002 State 305(b) Reports
Figure 1-4
Aquatic Life Use: Inland Lakes in Region
Reported 2002
H Acres Unassessed |
| Acres Attaining |
Source: 2002 State 305(b) Reports
Acres Assessed
Acres Impaired
An urban stream showing relatively few
effects of urbanization. This stream has intact
stream bank vegetation, natural banks and
some natural variation in stream width,
depth and habitat.
Photograph by Edward Hammer, EPA
The same stream on the same day
undergoing channelization for flood control.
Channelization eliminates aquatic habitat,
destroys stream bank vegetation and
changes flow regimes, all major causes of
impaired aquatic communities in Region 5.
Photograph by Edward Hammer, EPA
I-5
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Illinois River Success Story Runs
from Carp to Trophy Bass
In the 1970s, the Illinois River could have served
as the poster child for "Ugly Rivers." This
important stream, which drains nearly a third
of the state, was laden with trash, industrial
waste and siltation. Nearly 30 years of point-
source pollution control efforts since then have
distinctly improved the river's water quality.
Thirty years ago, anglers' catches in the river
were chiefly catfish and carp. As discharges
received more effective treatment, the
waters cleared, and sport fish as well as the
macroinvertebrates they feed on returned.
Today, anglers from throughout the Midwest
are catching walleye, sauger, crappie and
a variety of bass in the river. In 1995, Peoria
was the site of a Professional Bass Masters
Tournament, and there are many such
tournaments along the river.
The focus for additional Illinois River
improvements has shifted to nonpoint-source
pollution. Several major plans have been
developed to enlist landowner support for
programs to reduce runoff and sedimentation.
Under the Integrated Management Plan for
the Illinois River, state government and leaders
from agriculture, business and conservation
are working in concert with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Natural Resource
Conservation Service and its Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), which
was developed to enhance the Illinois River.
Illinois EPA has also channeled significant
Clean Water Act Section 319 funding to CREP
in order to implement conservation practices
in environmentally sensitive areas.
Illinois EPA's success is indicated by the state's
standing as the national leader in CREP
enrollment. As of June 1, 2002, a total of 5,148
landowner agreements had been signed, with
another 465 pending. So far, 122,370 acres
have been enrolled in the program, which has
a state goal of 132,000 acres.
CREP goals include reducing sedimentation
and runoff; reducing phosphorus and nitrogen
deposits in the river, increasing populations of
waterfowl, shorebirds and state- and federally
listed species; and increasing native fish and
mussel stocks.
Region 5 states also provide information on the quality
of their lakes. As with rivers and streams, states typically
assess only a portion of their lakes. For example, of the
982,155 acres of inland lakes in Wisconsin, 146,479 acres
were assessed for the 2002 305(b) Report, and 12,740
of the acres assessed attained state water quality
standards.
Of the 5,801,970 acres of inland lakes in the region,
518,650 acres were assessed for the 2002 305(b) Reports
(see Figure 1-4). A total of 348,320 of the acres assessed
attained water quality standards. In contrast to the
stream and river assessments, Region 5 states assess a
lower percentage of lake acreage than the national
average. This is due in part to the abundance of
lakes in Region 5. On average, each EPA region has
approximately 4,159,375 acres of lakes and reservoirs.
With 5,801,970 acres, Region 5 has more than 1.5 million
(39 percent) more lake acres than the regional average.
Region 5 states report a greater percentage of lake
acres attaining water quality standards as compared
with national data.
Causes and Sources of Aquatic Life Use
Impairments
In their 305(b) Reports, the states provide information
about the causes of water body impairments and the
sources of the pollutants responsible for the impairments.
Figure 1 -5 shows the causes of impairments for rivers and
streams in Region 5, and Figure 1-6 shows the causes
of impairments for inland lakes and reservoirs. These
causes are ranked in descending order from those most
frequently cited to those least frequently cited in the
states' 2002305(b) Reports.
Metals are most frequently cited as the cause of
impairment of rivers and streams but not aquatic life
impairment. Fish consumption advisories resulting from
mercury contamination of fish account for most of the
reported impairments. Toxic effects associated with
metals, however, are actually responsible for only a
small proportion of the reported impairments of aquatic
community health. Based on the data gathered by
the states, habitat alteration, siltation, nutrients, organic
enrichment and low dissolved oxygen are the primary
causes of adverse impacts on aquatic life. Pathogens,
the primary cause of impairment of recreational uses,
was a cause of impairment of 7 percent of the river and
stream miles assessed.
The causes of aquatic life use impairments for lakes
and reservoirs follow a similar pattern. Fish consumption
advisories for mercury are the leading cause of
impairment overall (greater than 100 percent because
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Wisconsin lists all its surface waters as impaired
as a result of fish tissue contamination with
mercury). PCBs are the second most important
cause of impairment because of fish consumption
advisories (11 percent of impaired waters). The
top causes of impaired aquatic communities in
lakes and reservoirs (in order from most to least
significant) are nutrients (18 percent), siltation (11
percent), excessive algal growth (10 percent),
organic enrichment and low dissolved oxygen (8
percent), exotic species (8 percent), suspended
solids (6 percent), noxious plants (4 percent) and
turbidity (4 percent).
The states also report on the sources of the pollutants
responsible for the reported causes of impairment.
The primary source of impairments for rivers and
streams is atmospheric deposition of pollutants
(see Figure 1-7), which leads to such problems as
high levels of mercury and other metals in these
water bodies. Agriculture is also a major source
of impairments because it causes such problems
as high nutrient loads, contamination with
pathogens, low dissolved oxygen levels, habitat
alterations and siltation. Habitat modifications
and hydromodifications (such as channelizing a
river) are also major sources of impairment.
The sources of impairment for inland lakes and
reservoirs are similar to those for rivers and streams.
Figure 1 -8 shows the sources of impairment and the
percentages of the total assessed acres of inland
Improved Water Quality Through the Clean Michigan Initiative
Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states are to list water bodies that are not in compliance with
water quality standards. Michigan is working to remove water bodies from its impaired waters list (delisting)
by controlling a variety of pollutant sources. As part of the Clean Michigan Initiative passed in 1998, specific
funds were allocated to address nonpoint-source pollutant loadings. The nonpoint-source activities resulted in
delisting of 10 water bodies, primarily because of actions that addressed sedimentation and animal access to
water bodies. Michigan also delisted seven water bodies as a result of actions taken to correct point-source
discharges. The water bodies now meet water quality standards, as has been shown by follow-up monitoring.
In addition, seven water bodies included on the 2000 Section 303(d) list because of contaminated sediments
have been delisted because the sediments have been remediated or are under order or contract to be
remediated. These water bodies include the South Branch of the Black River, Manistique River, Pine River,
Rouge River (Newburgh Lake), Saginaw River, Unnamed Tributary to Wolf Creek and Willow Run Creek.
Figure 1-5
Causes of Impairments for Inland Rivers and Streams in Region 5
Habitat Alterations
Siltation
Pathogens
Organic
Nutrients Ennchment/Low Dioxms/PAHs/PCBs Flow Alterations
Dissolved Oxygen
Causes of Impairments (Excluding Mercury)
Note: PAH = Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
Source: 2002 State 30S(b) Reports
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Figure 1-6
Causes of Impairments for Inland Lakes and Reservoirs in Region 5
Causes of Impairment (Excluding Mercury)
Source: 2002 State 305(b) Reports
lakes and reservoirs impaired by the sources based
on 2002 data reported by the states. As with rivers
and streams, atmospheric deposition is the most
significant source of impairment, accounting for 77
percent of the lake and reservoir acres assessed
as impaired. Atmospheric deposition is primarily
responsible for the input of mercury into inland
lakes and reservoirs, resulting in fish consumption
advisories because of unacceptably high levels of
mercury in fish tissue, but is not a significant cause
of impaired aquatic communities. Other significant
sources of impairment of lakes and reservoirs are
agriculture (13 percent); habitat modifications
(10 percent); forest, grassland and parkland (5
percent); hydromodifications (5 percent); and
recreational activities (5 percent).
What Are We Doing to Address
the Problems?
The impairments identified through the assessment
process reveal how a healthy biological community
can be disrupted. Because the problems are
created by both point and nonpoint sources or
pollution, solving them requires a combination
of traditional and innovative approaches. EPA
and the states are using a mixture of voluntary,
incentive-based and regulatory tools to restore
and protect aquatic biological communities.
Many problems originating from point sources
have been addressed since the passage of the
Clean Water Act in 1972, as is evidenced by the
most often cited causes and sources in state
305(b) Reports. As a result of the Clean Water
Act, all point-source dischargers to surface waters
in the United States are required to obtain a
permit to discharge. Such a permit includes limits
on pollutants in the discharge that ensure that
certain standards of wastewater treatment are
achieved and that water quality standards will not
be exceeded. Also, all states have water quality
criteria for toxic pollutants. These criteria are
intended to ensure that aquatic life is protected
from toxic effects. To address water quality impacts
resulting from nutrients, Region 5 states and tribes
are developing water quality criteria that establish
levels of nutrients that will not adversely affect
surface waters.
As revealed by the state assessment process,
nonpoint-source pollution and related issues are
the leading cause of aquatic life impairment.
State nonpoint- source programs established
under Clean Water Act Section 319 target various
problems facing aquatic communities. These
programs reduce polluted runoff, restore habitat
and improve water quality. The programs also
promote education and outreach activities to
increase public awareness about nonpoint-source
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Figure 1-7
Major Sources of River and Stream Impairment in Region 5
60%
Agriculture
Source: State 2002 305(b) Reports
Atmospheric
Deposition
Habitat modifications Hydromodifications
Figure 1-8
Major Sources of Inland Lake and Reservoir Impairment in Region 5
Source: 2002 State 305(b) Reports
I 9
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
issues and to involve citizens in resolving problems.
Examples of how nonpoint- source programs are
being used to improve water quality, rehabilitate
degraded habitat and restore natural flow regimes
are provided the accompanying text boxes. For
additional information on specific issues related to
critical aquatic habitats, see Section 2.
Additional Data Sources
Biological Indicators of Watershed Health: http:
//www.epa.gov/bioindicators/
The Conservation of Biological Diversity in the
Great Lakes Ecosystem: Issues and Opportunities:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/ecopage/issues.html
Sauk River Chain of Lakes Watershed
in Minnesota
The Sauk River Chain of Lakes Watershed includes popular recreational water bodies between Richmond and
Cold Sprint, Minnesota. Over the years the river suffered from increased nutrient and sediment loading, causing
deterioration of water quality. In 1985, many partners and several EPA funding sources began a long-term,
urban and rural, basin-wide nutrient and sediment reduction program. The Sauk River Watershed District and
Stearns County have continued the effort with defined phosphorus management goals for each river tributary.
Environmental results include a decrease in severe algal scums and signs of improved fisheries. Continued
nutrient reductions will be cumulative and will improve water quality for recreation as well as the fisheries.
Source: EPA
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
1-10
-------
Spring Creek Best Management
Practices in Wisconsin
The Spring Creek Watershed Team in
southeastern Wisconsin used EPA funding to
encourage farmers to adopt a series of best
management practices (BMP) in order to
reduce runoff pollution. Watersheds where
BMPs had been adopted were compared with
watersheds where BMPs were not employed to
address changes in stream habitat, reductions
in fish and macroinvertebrate populations and
stream bank erosion. Trout populations in Spring
Creek improved after BMP implementation, and
the stream's physical habitat and water quality
have also improved. Spring Creek now meets
water quality standards as a trout stream and is
expected to be removed from Wisconsin's list of
impaired waters.
Pair of Wood Ducks
Photograph Courtesy of
The National Park Service
Restoring Streams to Natural Flow Regimes
in Michigan and Wisconsin
Improved Salmon Reproduction
For 80 years, hydroelectric dams caused large, daily fluctuations in water flow in western Michigan's Manistee
River. Fluctuations such as these can impact the biological community in a stream by increasing erosion
and either stranding or sweeping downstream the aquatic organisms that fish rely on for food. In 1989, the
Manistee River hydroelectric dams began more natural "run-of-river flow management" consistent with
conditions specified by the state in the dams' new hydropower licenses. As a result, stable flows were restored
to the Manistee River.
Today, more young Chinook salmon survive as a result of the more stable flows in the Manistee River. Based on
available sampling data, the number of young Chinook salmon entering Lake Michigan is estimated to have
increased from 100,000 to 250,000 per year. Stable flows and erosion control projects have also increased the
percentage of cobble and gravel in the first 1.7 kilometers downstream of the Tippy Dam from 63 percent of
the stream bottom in 1990 to 82 percent in 1996. Cobble and gravel stream bottoms are important because
they provide better habitat for fish and invertebrates.
Dam Removal
Wisconsin waters are impounded by over 3,500 dams. Returning rivers to a free-flowing condition eliminates
safety risks posed by aging dams and improves the biological health of streams. Dam removal can also make
sense economically, as the cost of repairing a small dam is on average 300 percent greater than the cost of
removing a dam. In the last three decades, about 60 dams have been removed from Wisconsin streams-the
largest number of dam removals in the nation.
The 1998 removal of the Waterworks Dam in Baraboo is an example of how dam removal can be a river
restoration tool. Dams transformed the Baraboo Rapids segment of the Baraboo River from a fast-moving
stream with healthy fish populations to a series of sluggish impoundments. The river once supported a spawning
lake sturgeon population but became known for its carp. With removal of the dam, three-quarters of a mile
of high-quality riffle habitat, which is rare in southern Wisconsin rivers, was restored to its free-flowing condition.
Within 18 months of dam removal, water quality improved significantly, and the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources found 24 species of fish in the newly free-flowing stretch of river, of which smallmouth bass
was the dominant species. Partners in the project included the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
the City of Baraboo, the Baraboo River Canoe Club, the River Alliance of Wisconsin, the State Historical Society,
Circus World Museum and many others.
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Our Goal: The
Quantity and
Quality of Critical
Aquatic Habitat
in Region 5,
Including Wetlands,
Will Be Maintained
or Improved
In Region 5, we have access to abundant water
and spectacular rivers, streams and lakes. In
addition to the resources that often come to
mind when thinking of our region—the Ohio and
Mississippi River, the Great Lakes and thousands
of inland lakes—other unique and often critical
habitats exist. Although this report does not
address every type of critical aquatic habitat, it
does provide information on two special types:
wetlands and the shorelines of lakes and streams
(also called riparian areas).
A wide variety of hydrologic and biological wetland
types can be found in the Midwest, including
marshes, swamps, bogs, wet meadows and more.
Wetlands have increasingly been recognized for
the valuable role they play in supporting biological
diversity, maintaining valuable economic resources
such as fisheries and acting as a natural method
of flood control and some pollution removal.
Maintaining shoreline habitat is also important for
protecting surface waters from land erosion and
associated water quality problems. Like wetlands,
these buffer areas provide vital habitat for native
species and increase the overall habitat value and
water quality of the waters they surround.
Over the years, the Midwestern landscape has
been altered by human activities. Land has
been drained to create more suitable conditions
for agriculture; and wetlands, shoreline habitat
and other open space have been increasingly
subjected to the pressures of development. Total
historical wetland losses range from 42 to 90
percent in the Region 5 states, with greater losses
in the southernmost states. The Region 5 states
have lost more wetland acreage than the national
average. Many of the wetlands that remain
are homes for rare species, in part because of
habitat lost elsewhere. Likewise, the undeveloped
shoreline along streams and lakes has decreased
markedly.
Figure 2-1
Region 5 Wetland Losses
In Millions of Acres
IL IN Ml MN
Q Original Wetlands in 1780s
| Existing Wetlands in 1980s
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990
Wl
FPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
What Are the Major Problems Causing
Impairments and Losses of Critical
Aquatic Habitats?
Critical aquatic habitats can be lost directly by
filling or draining of areas for development or by
substituting walls or "manicured" landscaping for
natural shorelines. Historically, the biggest losses
of wetlands in the Midwest were the result of
creating drainage for agriculture during projects
conducted from the 1800s to the present. A
drained wetland is not necessarily suitable for
crops—it can be extremely productive, or it may
not reliably produce a crop every year because
of wetness. Ephemeral wetlands, or wetlands that
Ephemeral Wetlands
Ephemeral wetlands are depressional wetlands that
temporarily hold water in spring and early summer
or after heavy rains. Periodically these wetlands
dry up, often in mid to late summer. They are
isolated, lacking a permanent inlet or outlet, but
may overflow in times of high water. As such, they
are important for flood control. Ephemeral wetlands
are free of fish, which allows successful breeding
of certain amphibians and invertebrates, and are
important habitats for migrating birds. Even small
sites of less than an acre can produce hundreds of
frogs, toads and salamanders.
Many ephemeral wetlands have been drained
and filled to facilitate agriculture, new subdivisions
or other development. This not only eliminates
aquatic habitat but also increases the risk of local
flooding. Other ephemeral wetlands have been
excavated to construct storm water retention
ponds. Pollutants are often washed into these
ponds during rainstorms.
Photograph by Michael R. Jeffords, EPA
dry up in summer, are at particular risk of being lost
to agricultural and residential development (see
inset). Figure 2-1 shows that many of the wetlands in
the Region 5 states have been lost since the 1780s.
Other reductions in habitat value can occur when
waters are dredged or channelized for navigation,
development or flood control purposes.
Figure 2-2
Shorvland Building Increase
*«> increase in number ot dwellings (average = 216*1
Shoreline development has also occurred over time
but is increasing rapidly as our population grows and
more people purchase waterfront property. New
houses and other developments are expanding
along lakes, rivers and wetlands, and existing
seasonal cabins are renovated into year-round,
often larger homes. Comprehensive figures are not
available on shoreline development, but a study
performed in Wisconsin shows that there has been
an average 216 percent increase in the number
of dwellings on lakes between 1965 and 1995
(see Figure 2-2).
Less obvious are the indirect causes of aquatic
Figure 2-3
SliorcUuid areeii frog trends
What has Happened to Green Frogi?
ZONING RULES
(52 HOMES/MILE)
10 20 30 40 50
Swot WKcran O& ot tttifd Hesounc;
The Wncoimn iofcw Farbwrdup '
2-2
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
habitat impairments, such as hydrologic changes,
landscaping changes, poor land use practices
and polluted runoff. Wetlands can be degraded
or destroyed when they are dammed up or dug
out to create deeper ponds and lakes and when
water flow is diverted to or from wetlands.
The economic incentive to use the maximum
amount of land on a farm or the desire to have
a clear view of a lake or other water body over
a manicured lawn often has led to elimination of
natural vegetated buffers that normally surround a
lake, stream or wetland. Studies have shown that
there can be many species of plants and animals
in the areas near the water's edge and that
development measurably decreases the numbers
and kinds of species present. For example, studies
in both Wisconsin and Minnesota have shown
correlations between loss of shoreline habitat
and declines in various species. In Wisconsin,
the number of green frogs declined rapidly with
increased housing density (see Figure 2-3), and the
composition of bird species changed markedly. The
number of uncommon song birds, such as warblers
and vieros, was higher on undeveloped land. In
Minnesota, researchers found and mapped 897
crappie spawning nests and then compared the
locations to shoreline developments. Only 24 of the
897 crappie nests were located near shoreline that
had any type of dwelling on it.
Many wetlands in the Midwest also suffer from
invasive plants such as purple loosestrife and reed
canary grass that out-compete natural vegetation,
greatly reducing the variety of vegetation types
and the land's value to wildlife. Purple loosestrife,
for example, displaces native wetland vegetation
and disrupts the habitat essential for many wildlife
species. Eventually purple loosestrife can overrun
wetlands and almost entirely eliminate the open
water habitat. The plant can also detract from
recreational activities by choking waterways.
Finally, critical aquatic habitat can be impacted
by pollution from point sources (such as wastewater
treatment plant discharges) or from diffuse or
nonpoint sources (such as runoff from agricultural
areas or from urban or suburban areas). Wetlands
in particular are impacted by runoff that can
contain sediment, nutrients and chemicals from
farm fields, animal waste and road salt, all of which
decrease water quality. In addition, shoreline
habitat can be impacted by sedimentation near
the water's edge resulting from loss of vegetation
and increased nutrient loads.
What Are We Doing to Address the
Problems?
Wetland losses have slowed down since the
mid-1970s, in part because of the regulatory
and educational activities of EPA and the states.
However, resource protection programs have
historically focused on single goals or a small set
of goals that do not address the entire problem
of wetland loss. EPA is now developing additional
tools to assist in protecting Region 5's wetlands.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act established
Wisconsin's Wetland Program
Wisconsin has approximately 5.3 million acres
of wetlands remaining from the 10 million acres
that covered the landscape before European
settlement. These remaining wetlands are critical
to sustaining mammal, fish, amphibian and reptile
habitat; to maintaining flood storage; to protecting
surface water and groundwater quality; and to
providing scenic beauty and recreation for boaters,
hunters, wildlife watchers and others.
Since Wisconsin adopted wetland water quality
standards in 1991, the wetland acreage lost
under permits approved by USAGE has slowed
to 347 acres per year from 1,440 acres per year
previously. Wisconsin's wetland standards now
require people who want to pursue a project that
potentially impacts a wetland to obtain Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) water
quality certification before applying for a wetland
permit from USAGE. Applicants must demonstrate
that they will make every effort to avoid harming
wetlands and that any such harm will be minimized.
No permit is issued if a project would result in
significant harm to wetlands. A recent Supreme
Court decision left many isolated wetlands across
the country vulnerable to filling. Wisconsin became
the first state in the nation to restore protection
for such wetlands when the Wisconsin legislature
passed and the governor signed legislation to
protect Wisconsin wetlands.
To further reduce illegal filling of wetlands and to
restore wetlands where feasible, WDNR recently
developed a new strategy known as "Reversing
the Loss." The strategy recognizes that 75 percent
of Wisconsin's wetlands are in private ownership
and that WDNR needs to provide landowners with
the tools and means to manage their wetlands.
This strategy charts a course for WDNR programs
associated with wetland education, protection,
restoration, enhancement and management to
follow over the next 6 years.
EPA Region 5 State of The Waters 2002
2-3
-------
a permitting program in 1972 to regulate
discharges of dredged and fill materials into
waters of the United States, and this program was
later expanded to include wetlands. Activities
regulated under this program include filling areas
for development; water resource projects such
as dam and sea wall construction; infrastructure
development through construction of homes,
highways and airports; and in some instances
conversion of wetlands for farming and forestry.
This program is jointly administered by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and EPA. EPA reviews
proposals to fill wetlands based on environmental
criteria. These criteria stress that projects should
avoid wetlands and waters to minimize their direct
and indirect impacts on waters and to adequately
compensate for any unavoidable impacts.
Using a combination of EPA and other funding,
states, tribes and localities have strengthened
their wetland protection programs, and some
have become national leaders in using innovative
approaches to protect their wetland resources.
Michigan, for example, is one of only two states
in the nation to have assumed responsibility for
the Section 404 permitting program. Several
midwestern states and some counties have
stepped in to assert their legal role in protecting
isolated wetlands in response to a Supreme Court
ruling that restricted federal authority over these
wetlands.
In addition to applying their traditional regulatory
tools, Region 5 and the states are actively
pursuing a Watershed Protection Approach to
address water quality problems. EPA's and the
states' traditional programs have succeeded
in identifying and controlling the larger point
sources of pollution such as industrial discharges to
waterways. The traditional approach is especially
effective for dealing with single dischargers or
a localized problem. The watershed approach
focuses more holistically on environmental
resources and addresses problems that are more
pervasive across the landscape, such as habitat
destruction or diffuse sources of polluted runoff.
EPA and the states are encouraging local resource
managers to establish watershed plans that
identify all problems impacting their resources and
that integrate programs and tools for solving those
problems. Among other things, EPA is developing
guidance that more specifically identifies the need
to link wetland protection programs to watershed
planning efforts and is supporting a series of
national and regional meetings on wetlands and
Protecting Wetland in
Wisconsin and Indiana
Using Section 404 Programs
A site selected for the new Superior Middle School
in Superior, Wisconsin, included 35 acres of high-
quality wetlands containing four species of state-
listed rare plants. The project was redesigned to
reduce wetland filling to 24.7 acres and to shift
impacts away from the most sensitive parts of the
site. EPA continues to do advance planning with
the City of Superior and with state and federal
agencies in order to protect important wetlands
in the city and ensure that effective compensatory
mitigation projects, such as creating new wetlands,
are conducted.
EPA also prosecutes violators of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, especially in cases where
unpermitted fill has been placed in wetlands. EPA
recently settled a case against a recreation area
in Indiana for placement of soil in a lake, river and
wetland.
watershed planning.
EPA and USAGE jointly conduct technical
assistance projects to identify high-quality wetlands
Figure 2-4
Draft Northwest Indiana ADID Wetland Study
2 UIlM
•OURCE:
p UBGS OOG-1
2-4
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Ohio's Water Resource Restoration Sponsorship Program
Ohio EPA has developed an innovative way to finance restoration and protection of aquatic habitat
resources. The Water Resource Restoration Sponsorship Program (WRRSP) allows recipients of loans for publicly
owned treatment works from the Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (WPCLF) to sponsor a variety of habitat
restoration and protection actions to benefit stream corridors and wetlands. These actions can be undertaken
by park districts, land trusts or municipalities. The WPCLF reduces the interest rate for repayment of a treatment
works loan by an amount sufficient to offset the cost for sponsoring aquatic habitat restoration and protection
actions and to provide additional savings in the overall loan repayments for the sponsor. Through 2001, the
WRRSP has provided more than $21 million for 14 habitat restoration and protection projects in Ohio.
One WRRSP project was carried out to protect Sawmill Creek in Mansillon, Ohio. The Mill Creek Metroparks
had a limited opportunity to acquire this undisturbed, biologically rich headwater stream before the property
where it lies was sold to a developer. The property contains several wetlands along with Sawmill Creek,
which is a tributary of the Meander Creek Reservoir, the drinking water source for the area. To meet the
time line established by the property owner for the sale, the Trust for Public Land took out a WPCLF loan for
the initial property acquisition and then entered into a lease and purchase agreement with the Metroparks.
Subsequently, the City of Massillon used the WRRSP to obtain a WPCLF loan for its wastewater treatment plant
improvements and to sponsor the Metroparks' purchase of the property from the Trust for Public Land. The
WRRSP's involvement thus made it possible for the Metroparks to acquire and preserve an important water
quality resource.
in advance of development. These projects aid
local planning efforts and regulatory decision-
making and most often occur in developing
metropolitan areas. Region 5 has sponsored
a number of such studies called Advance
Identification (ADID) studies. The draft northwest
Indiana ADID study has been made available to
the public on a geographic information system
web site (see figure 2-4). Another ADID study is
being concluded for Kane County, Illinois, west of
Chicago.
EPA is also promoting development of water quality
standards designed specifically for wetlands. The
Region 5 states are national leaders in adopting
narrative water quality standards for wetlands. A
more specific type of water quality standard can
be developed through biological assessments
using biologically based criteria; such a standard
describes the qualities that must be present to
support the desired aquatic life use of a water
body. EPA assists many Region 5 states and tribes
in developing biological criteria for their wetland
types.
Along with development of water quality standards,
EPA is working with the states to develop wetland
monitoring programs that focus on documenting
not only the quantity of wetlands (and gains and
losses) but the also the quality of wetlands. Efforts
are proceeding nationally to identify the critical
elements of a wetland monitoring program, and
within Region 5, a number of states are developing
more complete monitoring programs. Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin are all developing
basic biological assessment programs for wetlands.
For example, Minnesota has been working to
develop appropriate tools for monitoring the quality
of wetlands. Currently, the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency is conducting two biological
assessment projects, one for depressional wetlands
and one for riparian wetlands. Ohio is developing
quantitative biological criteria to support its
wetland standards. The state adopted wetland
water quality standards in 1998. To implement those
standards, Ohio is developing biological criteria for
wetlands using plants, macroinvertebrates and
amphibians as indices of biotic integrity. As part
of this project, the state is working to describe
Figure 2-5
Areas where NR115 applies
NR115 - Shoreland and
Flnndplain Zoning
1000'ZONE
300'ZONE
FLOODPLAIN
TTw Wuraniit lite Pnrlnmto
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
2-5
-------
reference conditions for weflonds in ifs four main
ecoregions, and fhis information will then be used
as a goal for wetland mitigation projects.
For the most part, protection of shorelines does not
fall under the regulatory authority of EPA, but both
the national and state nonpoint-source control
programs promote a number of practices that can
help protect this valuable habitat. These practices
include leaving buffers around the edge of waters,
planting with native species, installing erosion
control measures and limiting land-disturbing
activities on the most sensitive sites. States also use
other innovative mechanisms to protect critical
habitat.
In addition, states and local governments may
use voluntary measures or choose to regulate
how development occurs. For example,
Wisconsin passed a shoreline zoning ordinance
(designated as "NR115") to manage the density of
development along waters and to create buffers
or keep them intact. Figure 2-5 shows where the
Wisconsin ordinance applies: land within 1,000
feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of a
navigable lake, pond or flowage and land that is
within 300 feet of the OHWM of a navigable river or
stream, or from the landward edge of a floodplain
if that is greater.
Finally, one major activity that is regulated nationally
by EPA is runoff from construction that occurs on
more than 1 acre of land. Such activity requires
a permit, and developers must employ practices
designed to minimize pollutant runoff, especially
practices focusing on sediment. Minimizing soil
loss near the water's edge is especially important
because of the impact that excess sediment can
have on aquatic habitat.
Identifying Critical Ecosystems
Identifying areas that support ecosystems critical
to the health of a region is an important but
difficult task. Critical ecosystems are areas that
are potentially the most important for retaining at
least some of the natural heritage of the region.
Currently, these ecosystems are identified using
best professional judgment, and this judgment is
rarely verified through a variety of other methods.
The Critical Ecosystem Team in Region 5 used
geographic information system technology and
best professional judgement to create a database
of critical ecosystems in the region. The regional
map shown in Figure 2-6 was created by overlaying
Whittlesey Creek Watershed in Wisconsin
The Whittlesey Creek Watershed project is designed to protect coastal wetlands and restore habitat in the
watershed through involvement of both citizens and agencies. The project was initiated by the Bayfield County
Land Conservation Committee using state nonpoint-source pollution funds. A plan for improving watershed
health was developed. Since 1996, Wisconsin has provided over $120,000 for cost-sharing with landowners to
restore wetlands, replant critical habitat and stabilize eroding stream banks. Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife
Refuge was established in 1999 to protect coastal wetlands and restore wetland and stream hydrology.
Private landowners are given technical and
financial assistance for habitat restoration
projects that improve both aquatic and terrestrial
community health in the watershed. State,
federal and nonprofit organizations are working
cooperatively to restore the native coaster brook
trout to Chequamegon Bay and Whittlesey
Creek. A fishery assessment of Whittlesey Creek
was conducted in summer 2001 as a precursor
to this restoration work. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is offering to purchase conservation
easements from landowners in the watershed to
protect fish and wildlife habitat. Bayfield County
and the U.S. Geological Survey are completing
a hydrologic study of surface water and
groundwater flows and of the effects of land use
on those flows. The study results will help direct
future habitat protection and restoration work.
u*.-'-"x,--\rsnaixmMmi r>i»i~'"»tL -mawns1:
Photograph Courtesy of WDNR
2-6
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Sugarloaf Cove: A Unique Restoration in Minnesota
An uncommon effort to restore a wetland on Lake Superior's north shore (nearSchroeder, Minnesota) has had
impressive results. A joint effort between the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the
Sugarloaf Interpretive Center Association (SICA) restored coastal wetland and extensive upland areas at the
Sugarloaf Point Scientific and Natural Area and on surrounding property owned and managed by SICA.
The site was used by
Consolidated Paper to
create log rafts bound for
Ashland, Wisconsin, where
they were loaded on railcars
headed for inland paper
plants. During the time the
land was used for moving
logs, low areas were filled,
and much of the forest was
cut so that buildings and
roads could be constructed.
When the paper company
stopped using the site,
most of the buildings were
removed.
After being considered
as a site for a safe harbor
development, the Sugarloaf
Point natural area was
expanded, and the
surrounding land came
under the management of
the nonprofit SICA. Restoration of native plant communities is a priority both for SICA and for MDNR's Division
of Ecological Services, which manages the natural area. Cooperation between MDNR and SICA as well as
grant money from EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office allowed a thorough survey of remaining natural
plant communities as well as a subsurface investigation beneath the fill placed on the wetland in the past. The
results of these studies were used to carefully define restoration targets for both uplands and wetlands, and
restoration began in earnest in 1999. Fill removed from the wetlands was used to restore upland areas such as
an old road site.
The strong educational focus of SICA will ensure that the lessons learned in restoring wetland and upland plant
communities on the shores of Lake Superior are available to residents and visitors alike. Tours and a slide show
of the restoration project as well as an informational brochure may be obtained by contacting Terri Port Wright
at (218) 879-4334 or via e-mail atsugarloaf@qwest.net.
Photograph by Patrick!. Collins, MDNR
many different datasets that described ecological
characteristics in three broad categories: diversity,
sustainability and rarity. The resulting composite
map indicates areas in Region 5 that support
potentially critical ecosystems—those with high
ecological diversity, many rare species and
enough space to sustain the ecosystem. The
mapping project will assist Region 5 and the states
in protecting the region's invaluable aquatic
habitat.
Additional Data Sources
Visit the EPA Office of Wafers,
Oceans, and Wetlands web site at
http://www.epa.gov/owow for more information
on critical aquatic habitat, wetlands and polluted
runoff control.
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
2-7
-------
Figure 2-6
Wetlands and Waters Within Ecosystems
Scoring in the Top 10% for Ecological Quality
A
300
300
Source: EPA
emergent wetlands
swamp
open water
Region 5 states
Data compiled from Critical Ecosystem Team
analysis performed on 1990-1992
National Land Cover Dataset
600 Miles
Great Blue Heron
Photograph by Don Breneman
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Our Goal:
All Waters in
Region 5 Will
Support Fish
Populations with
Safe Levels of
Contaminants
Fishing is one of the most popular forms of outdoor
recreation in the Midwest, and Americans are
eating more fish as our diets shift toward more
low-fat foods (for additional information, see
http://www.usda.gov/facibook/intro.htm, which
provides statistics on fish consumption). Fish
consumption, however, has been shown to be
a major pathway of human as well as wildlife
exposure to persistent toxic substances such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury.
Contaminants released from many sources are
transported through the environment and are
carried into streams and lakes. Small organisms
absorb these contaminants in water and are in
turn eaten by other organisms and small fish. Some
of these contaminants bioaccumulate in the fish
- and in humans who eat them - to levels that can
pose health risks.
State fish consumption advisories are issued to
protect people from potential adverse health
effects associated with contaminants found in
fish. These advisories recommend amounts and
types of fish that are safe to eat. Fish consumption
advisories may also include information to educate
the public on how to minimize exposure to certain
contaminants through proper preparation and
cooking of fish. The advisories are viewed as a
temporary measure to protect the public while
control measures and site cleanups reduce
contamination in water to safe levels.
What Substances Contaminate Fish?
Mercury, PCBs and dioxin are the contaminants
of greatest concern in Region 5 fish. These
contaminants originate from various sources.
Mercury occurs naturally and is distributed
throughout the environment by both natural
processes and human activities. Solid waste
incineration and fossil fuel combustion facilities
generate approximately 87 percent of the mercury
emissions in the United States. There are no known
natural sources of PCBs; therefore, all sources of
PCBs are related to commercial manufacturing,
storage and disposal activities. The manufachjre
of PCBs was banned in the United States in 1979;
however, PCB-containing products manufactured
before the ban may still be in use. Dioxin is also not
a natural chemical. Manufacturing processes,
paper bleaching and burning of various organic
materials have resulted in incidental creation of
dioxin and its release into the environment. In the
past, DDT and a number of other pesticides had
been present at levels of concern in the region,
but their levels have declined dramatically in
most places since they were taken off the market.
Levels of other contaminants such as PCBs have
also declined noticeably since their ban (see
Figure 3-1).
Since the 1970s, EPA, other federal agencies and
the states have aggressively tested fish found in
Region 5's waters for contaminants. Region 5 states
analyze 3,500 to 4,000 fish tissue samples each year.
States may test a number of species sampled at a
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
3-1
-------
Figure 3-1
Poly chlorinated Biphenyls
Concentration in Lake Trout from Four
Great Lakes 1970 -1998
iu"u i&TS lieu vite iWu
Source: EPA
-Q- La« Hunn
single site for a variety of contaminants (see Figure
3-2). Because a major objective of fish testing
programs is assessing risk to human health, wildlife
or both, sampling sites are selected where fishing is
popular or in waters that are known or suspected
to contain higher contaminant levels. Because
these programs are not specifically designed to
track trends, data for the Great Lakes is often used
for this purpose.
The states use the information collected to reduce
people's exposure to contaminants by issuing
advisories to help people choose what fish to eat as
well as how often and how much. This information
is not intended to discourage people from eating
fish, but it should be used as a guide for choosing
fish that are low in contaminants. After consulting
the advisories, people may find that they do not
have to change their fish consumption habits, or
they may choose to eat different fish or to space
fish meals farther apart. The number of advisories
issued varies by state (see Figure 3-3).
While fish are a good, low-cost, low-fat source of
nutrition, some individuals, particularly pregnant
women, developing fetuses and young children,
are more sensitive to contaminants than the
general adult population. State fish consumption
advisories include advice specifically targeted to
these sensitive populations.
As noted above, the primary contaminants that
lead to issuance of fish consumption in Region 5
include mercury, PCBs, and dioxin. The levels of
PCBs in fish have declined significantly over the last
25 years since their manufacture and sale were
curtailed, and dioxin levels have decreased over
the past 10 years as its sources were controlled.
Mercury levels in fish have remained generally
stable. Recent research linking mercury to
developmental problems in children has resulted
in a more stringent threshold for mercury in fish. All
the Region's states now have revised fish advisories
reflecting this new threshold.
Fish Contaminant Research and Pollution Control Follow-Up
By the late 1970s, it had become obvious that fish could accumulate pollutants to levels posing human health
concerns. During this period, analytical methods and equipment were improving to the point that low—yet
potentially unhealthful—levels of contaminants could be detected in fish tissue. A plan was developed by
the EPA Regional Office in Chicago and the Duluth Research Laboratory to use fish tissue analysis to search
for previously unidentified sources of bioaccumulative contaminants and to scan the tissue samples for
contaminants that had not been previously identified. This project was one of the earliest attempts to team up
experts in laboratory analysis, staff with knowledge of manufacturing facilities and processes, and state and
federal fish experts in order to systematically search for and identify fish tissue contaminant issues.
The results of the study provided an increased understanding of bioaccumulative pollutants and their
possible sources in the region that has been critical to regulatory activities and investigations since that time.
Experience gained in this study and a concurrent regional analysis of manufacturing processes conducted to
identify contaminant sources provided the basis for pollution control efforts that continue today. For example,
industrial facilities that discharge waste to municipal wastewater treatment plants must follow pretreatment
regulations to control pollutants that might otherwise interfere with plant processes or contaminant biosolids.
This has helped to control sources of contaminants. Another spinoff of the study has been development and
implementation of new fish tissue analysis procedures that have aided the development of fish consumption
advisories. Overall, the study has led to significant reductions in bioaccumulative pollutants in fish and wildlife
in the Great Lakes region and a better-informed public.
3-2
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Figure 3-2
Median PCB Concentrations of Different Fish Species in the Upper Mississippi River
PCBsppm 3
Period
Chanm*
Cat ^ WHte
Species
Walleye
Bluegill
This illustration shows median PCB concentrations (in parts per million [ppm]) in fillets of different fish species
collected from the upper Mississippi River by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources )WDNR) from
1975 to 1998. Over this 24-year period, WDNR intensively monitored PCB concentrations in the upper Mississippi
River. Evaluation of the fish fillet data clearly show higher PCB concentrations in channel catfish, carp and white
bass than in walleye and bluegill. These differences were most pronounced in the fish collected during the late
1970s and early 1980s before widespread PCB regulation reduced the amount of PCBs in the environment.
The fat content of channel catfish, carp and white bass is greater than that of walleye and bluegill and is an
important factor influencing the differences in PCB concentrations.
Source: WDNR
What Is Being Done to Make Fish Safer?
EPA and the states have had significant success
in reducing the levels of persistent chemicals in
the environment. Levels of such substances as
DDT and PCBs in fish decreased significantly when
their use was banned in the 1970s and 1980s. EPA
is examining policies that will reduce mercury
releases to the environment through various source
reduction and regulatory programs.
Contaminated sediment in waterways is a
significant source of fish tissue contamination.
Substances found in sediment reflect the land
uses in the watersheds of the region. A number of
industries have been identified as potential sources
of specific contaminants and have been required
to change their processes in order to reduce or
prevent their generation of these substances. In
addition, runoff from agricultural lands may carry
agricultural chemicals and unsafe levels of nutrients
into water bodies. Urban runoff also contributes
sediment contaminated with pesticides, nutrients,
oils and other pollutants.
Figure 3-3
Total Number of Fish Consumption Advisories - 2001
(Change from 2000)
The Region 5 states issue 58 percent of all fish advisories in the United
States, reflecting a long history of these states monitoring and assessing
fish contaminants. As a result, more and better information is provided
to the region's citizens to protect public health. Source: EPA
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
3-3
-------
Finding Mercury in Minnesota Schools
Mercury is found in fish from many of Minnesota's more than 14,000 lakes, and no individual is doing more to
raise public awareness about the impacts of this toxic metal than Clancy, the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency's (MPCA) mercury-detecting dog. This energetic Labrador retriever mixed breed, a linchpin of the
agency's Mercury-Free Zone Program, is the only
dog in the nation trained to detect vapor from as
little as a half gram of mercury.
EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office, the
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance,
Xcel Energy and the St. Paul Police Department
Canine Unit provided funding and in-kind services
to MPCA to train Clancy for the statewide
Mercury-Free Zone Program, which debuted in
October 2001.
To date, 150 schools have pledged to become
mercury-free zones, and Clancy's investigative
skills have resulted in removal of 250 pounds
of mercury from participating schools. For
more information, visit MPCA's web site at http:
//www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/mercury-free/
Photograph by David L. Hansen index.html.
Clancy works through a science classroom with his trainer and handler Carol Hubbard, locating broken
thermometers and fluorescent tubes, forgotten mercury in cabinets, accumulations in sink U-bends and spills in
the cracks between floorboards and tiles.
All these sources are being targeted by Region multimedia approach to contaminant cleanup
5 and the states through a range of policies, through such programs as Superfund, the Resource
EPA works closely with the states to clean up Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), state
contaminated sediment so that it does not cleanups and voluntary remediation programs.
pose a threat. EPA and the states have taken a
Sources of mercury contamination are being
Dioxin Sources - Burn Barrels in Indiana and Michigan
Dioxin has been identified as a fish tissue contaminant that causes fish consumption advisories. Dioxin is
created as a by-product of the manufacture and burning of organic chemicals and plastics that contain
chlorine. Many large combustion sources are now controlled to prevent dioxin formation. One of the major
sources of dioxin, however, is backyard burning of trash
in "burn barrels."
In Indiana, it is against the law to burn garbage or
household trash such as household waste, plastic,
batteries, rubber, disposable diapers and painted or
stained wood. In addition, there are local open burning
laws that provide more limitations. For more information,
see http://www.in.gov/idem/air/compliance/
bum.html.
A "Burning Household Waste" brochure developed by
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) lists pollutants emitted from burn barrels, some
of the health consequences and national household
burn barrel emissions. It is available at the MDEQ
Environmental Assistance Center, from district staff or
at http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-aqd-
bhw.pdf. Source: EPA
3-4
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Tribal Monitoring of Fish Contaminants
Fish and other aquatic species are an important
food source for many tribal peoples. Tribe members
consume significantly greater amounts of fish than
other residents of the Midwest. For this reason, it is
especially important for tribes to understand what
contaminants are present in fish tissues and the
health risks that these contaminants may pose.
Great Lakes - For the past several years, an intertribal
consortium in Michigan has collected fish samples
from waters of the Great Lakes used by tribal fishers
and analyzed the samples for contaminants. The
fish tissue data is compared with Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) action levels to determine
the saleability and safety of the fish for human
consumption. Lake Huron was sampled in 1999
and Lake Michigan in 2000. The analyses showed
that the whitefish and lake trout collected had
contaminant levels below the FDA action levels.
The data collected in 1999 and 2000 was compared
with data from previous years to assess trends. The
data demonstrates dramatic declines in PCB levels
in whole lake trout from 1972 to 1990. Since 1990,
the data has fluctuated, and there has been no
further obvious decline. Mercury concentrations
have generally been constant.
Inland Lakes - For several years, a number of tribes
in Minnesota and Wisconsin and an intertribal
consortium in Wisconsin have collected fish samples
from inland lakes fished by tribe members, analyzed
the samples and developed tailored education and
outreach information for tribe members on potential
risks associated with eating the fish. The intertribal
consortium in Wisconsin uses an innovative system
for communicating the risks of consuming walleye in
which maps of the lakes are color-coded (see http:
//www.glifwc.org/).
addressed through voluntary efforts such as clean
sweep programs and thermostat trade programs
that encourage people to properly dispose of
mercury-containing products. EPA is also working
with the Region 5 states to develop proposed
policies to virtually eliminate mercury emissions.
Cleaning up the legacy of contaminated industrial
sites and sediment continues to be a high priority,
and some progress has been made toward
cleaning up the most highly contaminated sites in
recent years. From 1997 to 2001, almost 2 million
cubic yards of contaminated sediment was
remediated at sites within the Region 5 portion
of the Great Lakes basin. Furthermore, progress
is being made to minimize future siltation and
sediment contamination problems.
Hook into Healthy Fish
You cannot see, smell or taste mercury, PCBs or
dioxin in fish. That is why it is important to know
which fish are safer than others to eat. State health
programs in Region 5 have joined together to
improve public understanding of fish consumption
advice (see Figure 3-4). One product of their
efforts is a common theme, "Hook into Healthy
Fish." They are promoting selection of fish with the
lowest contaminant levels for home consumption.
There is no need to stop eating fish. By following
health guidelines and selecting fish carefully,
you can reduce your exposure to contaminants,
reduce your health risks and still get the benefits of
eating fish.
When you're deciding which fish are safer to eat,
keep in mind that larger fish, older fish and fatty fish
generally have greater amounts of contaminants.
Fish that feed on other fish—such as walleye,
northern pike and bass—have the greatest
amounts of mercury in their meat. They can sHIl be
eaten in reasonable quantities, but both you and
the fishery will benefit if the larger individuals are
released or kept only when they are trophy-sized.
To reduce your risk of exposure to contaminants in
fish,
• Eat smaller fish.
• Eat more panfish (such as sunfish and
crappies) and fewer predator fish (such as
walleye, northern pike and lake trout).
• Trim fish skin and fat, especially belly fa I", and
eat fewer fatty fish such as carp, catfish and
lake trout. PCBs build up in fish fat. Mercury
cannot be removed from fish through
cleaning or cooking because it gets into
their flesh; however, you can reduce the
amounts of other contaminants like PCBs by
removing fat when you clean and cook fish
(see Figure 3-5).
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
3-5
-------
Figure 3-4
HOOK INTO HEALTHY FISH
Reel in your FREE copy of the WI Fish Advisory.
Call your local health department.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Public Health
Figure 3-5
A fish has fat on
back,sides and belly.
Carefully fliM tlitjiiili
vilh a Ions sAarp knife.
Cut awej tht dark fatty
tissue alvsg th e side of
ike fillet
Trim off the
belly fat
Source: WDNR
Fish Contaminant Monitoring in Michigan
MDEQ conducts fish contaminant monitoring in the
waters of Michigan. The goals of the monitoring are
to determine the need for sport fish consumption
advisories and commercial fishing regulations,
identify water quality trends and evaluate whether
existing programs are effectively reducing chemical
contamination in the water.
Edible portion fish tissue samples, caged fish samples
and whole adult fish samples are analyzed to address
fish contaminant monitoring goals. MDEQ collected
edible portion samples from 38 sites in 2000. Based
on monitoring results, sport fish consumption advisories
were relaxed at nine of the water bodies that had
been monitored prior to 2000. Also, recent caged fish
monitoring demonstrates the effectiveness of source
control and contaminated sediment removal at
sites like Portage Creek and River Raisin. In addition,
results of EPA's and MDEQ's whole fish monitoring
indicate that contaminant concentrations declined
dramatically (because of the banning and phaseout
of many pesticides and PCBs) between the late 1970s
and early 1980s and then either stabilized or declined
more slowly.
Where Can You Find Information About
Local Fish Advisories?
Individual state fish advisories can be found at
the following web sites:
Illinois: http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/
fishadv/fishadvisory02.htm
Indiana: http://www.state.in.us/isdh/
dataandstats/fish/fish_adv_index.htm
Michigan: http://www.michigan.gov/
documents/Fishing_Advisory_2002_26575_7.pdf
Minnesota: http://www.health.state.mn.us/
divs/eh/fish/index.html
Ohio: http://www.odh.state.oh.us/alerts/
fishadv.pdf
Wisconsin: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/
water/fhp/fish/advisories
3-4
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Our Goal:
Designated
Swimming
Waters in
Region 5 Will Be
Swimmable
Most water at beaches is safe for swimming;
however, there are potential risks associated
with the quality of the water. Beach water
should be tested for the presence of disease-
causing microorganisms. Monitoring of beach
water quality by local health and environmental
agencies is necessary to warn citizens when there
is a problem. When bacteria levels in the water
are found to be too high, these agencies notify
the public of beach advisories or closings, as
swimming or playing in water that is polluted may
make people sick. The people who are most at
risk are children, the elderly and individuals with
weakened immune systems.
Photograph Courtesy of Michigan Travel Bureau
A beach advisory or closing typically occurs when
monitoring results indicate that water quality may
pose a health risk. About 28 percent of the Great
Lakes beaches that participated in the National
Beach Health Survey (315 of approximately 580
beaches contributed information) had at least
one advisory or one area closed during the 2001
swimming season. The main reason given for the
advisories and closings was elevated bacteria
levels. For more information on Great Lakes beach
closings, see: http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/
beach.
Region 5 and state public health and environmental
agencies are committed to reducing problems
Beach Programs in Ohio
In Ohio, much work is being done along the Lake
Erie shoreline to ensure biologically safe swimming
areas. Many agencies are involved in identifying
factors that adversely affect beach water. Some
local health departments have instituted programs
specifically aimed at locating and eliminating failed
septic systems that might contribute to high bacteria
counts at public beaches. Other organizations are
concentrating on controlling the migratory habits
of numerous waterfowl (seagulls, geese, and
so on) to minimize their effects on beach water
quality. By employing intense sampling surveys
and sophisticated DNA fingerprinting technologies,
researchers are seeking the sources of disease-
causing bacteria on Lake Erie beaches. In recent
years, high levels of fecal coliform and E. coli
bacteria have resulted in Lake Erie beach postings
warning people to enter the water only at their own
risk. Two Lake Erie Commission-funded projects, one
at Maumee Bay State Park in the western Lake Erie
basin and one in the Cleveland area, are working
to identify and eliminate the sources of these
pathogens. The goal is to ensure the health of all
that enjoy our Lake Erie beaches.
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
4-1
-------
associated with disease-causing microorganisms
at recreational beaches. Agencies in charge
of protecting the health of swimmers typically
monitor water quality at beaches. Most water
quality standards for beaches are based on the
risk of human exposure to pathogens. Because
pathogen detection is difficult and expensive,
pathogens themselves are usually not measured
directly. Instead, one or more "indicator organisms"
are measured and used to predict the presence of
pathogens.
What Are the Major Problems Causing
Beach Closings?
When pathogen levels exceed water quality
standards, beach managers post signs advising
the public that it may not be safe to swim, or post
"No Swimming" notices to protect human health.
Beach water can be polluted by bacteria and
other microorganisms like viruses and parasites.
The most frequent sources of disease-causing
microorganisms are combined and sanitary sewer
overflows, polluted storm water runoff, sewage
treatment plant malfunctions, boat sewage and
malfunctioning septic systems. Levels of pollution
in beach water are often much higher during and
immediately following rainstorms because water
draining to the beach often carries sewage from
overflowing sewage treatment systems or other
contaminants. Rainwater flows to beaches after
running off farmland, lawns, streets, construction
sites and other urban sites and thus can carry
animal waste, fertilizer, pesticides, trash and many
other pollutants.
CSOs and SSOs
A combined sewer overflow (CSO) occurs when
the flow capacity of a sewer system designed to
carry both sanitary sewage and storm water is
exceeded and a mixture of domestic waste and
storm water is discharged untreated into surface
water. A sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) occurs
when untreated sewage is unintentionally released
from a sanitary sewage collection system before
treatment. Both CSOs and SSOs occur most often
during excessive wet weather conditions such as
heavy rains.
CSOs are a remnant of the country's early
infrastructure and are typically found in older
communities in the Northeast, Great Lakes states
and the Pacific Northwest. Region 5 has 364
CSO communities, which is about 47 percent of
the national total. Approximately 135 of these
Decreasing Fecal Coliform Contamination
in the Chippewa River in Minnesota
The Chippewa River is one of 13 major tributaries
to the Minnesota River, which ranks as one of the
most threatened rivers in the nation. The Chippewa
contributes significant sediment, nutrients and
harmful bacteria to the Minnesota River, and
the lower reaches of the Chippewa exceed the
fecal coliform standard. But with the help of a
state $300,000 Clean Water Partnership grant-and
$418,700 in matching and in-kind support-the
Chippewa River Watershed Project is tackling
a 10-year program to develop a network of
people and projects focused on improving water
quality. Program sponsors, including four county
governments, hope to make the Chippewa River a
major recreational resource in the Minnesota River
basin.
The strategies for improving water quality have
included
• Working with the sugar beet industry (the
largest industry in the watershed).
• Publishing a newsletter for 8,000 residents.
• Consulting with Glenwood, a city in the
watershed, on a storm water management
plan.
• Encouraging soil and water conservation
districts to participate in the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program.
• Conducting water quality monitoring across
the watershed.
• Offering seminars for farmers on nutrient
management.
• Conducting a Chippewa River tour during a
River Leaders Summit.
CSO communities discharge to the Great Lakes,
and the Region 5 states are giving high priority to
development and implementation of CSO controls
for these communities.
EPA and the Region 5 states have taken a
number of steps to control CSOs and bring CSO
communities into compliance with the Clean
Water Act. EPA's 1994 CSO policy requires
communities to implement nine minimum controls,
which are measures that can reduce CSOs and
their effects on water quality without requiring
significant engineering studies, construction
activity or financial investment. The policy also
calls for communities to develop CSO long-term
4-2
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
CSOs in EPA Region 5
There are currently 364 communities in the Region 5 states with CSOs (Illinois - 107, Indiana - 107, Ohio - 93,
Michigan - 52, Minnesota - 3 and Wisconsin - 2). In its 2001 Report to Congress on CSO policy implementation,
EPA reports that in Region 5, 79 percent of CSO communities have been required to implement the nine
minimum controls, and 56 percent have been required to develop CSO LTCPs. An additional 30 percent of the
communities were required to develop CSO controls outside the LTCP process.
Planning is only one step in the process of bringing CSOs under control. Following review and approval of
LTCPs, communities must finance and build the controls, and this may take a number of years. Nevertheless,
there have been many successes in controlling CSOs in Region 5. For example,
• In Chicago, the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, construction of which began in the 1970s, has reduced CSO
frequency from nearly 100 per year to fewer than 15 per year. Discharges reaching Lake Michigan are
now an infrequent occurrence.
• Under the Rouge River Wet Weather Demonstration Project, CSO controls in 16 communities in the
Rouge River watershed have removed CSOs from 30 miles of the river. In other areas where treatment
basins have been built, treated overflows occur approximately one to seven times per year, whereas
previously, untreated overflows occurred 50 times per year.
• Minneapolis and St. Paul have completed the separation of their formerly combined sewers.
• Numerous other communities have either designed or constructed CSO controls, including sewer
separation, CSO storage for later treatment at a wastewater treatment plant or stand-alone treatment
systems for wet weather events.
• In 1988, Michigan identified 90 municipal entities with untreated CSO discharges. Through the efforts
of these municipalities and the state, CSO discharges have been eliminated or adequately treated
in 36 communities. All the remaining 54 communities have Long-Term CSO Control Programs, most of
which are in advanced stages of implementation. Based on the number of completed projects and
the advanced stages of most of the remaining LTCPs, a large percentage of the historically untreated
CSO discharge has been eliminated or is being adequately treated. Treatment includes disinfection to
protect public health.
control plans (LTCP) that provide for compliance a suitable environment, thus creating unsafe
with the technology- and water quality-based conditions for beach users.
requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Pinpointing the sources of beach contamination
Together with its state partners, EPA is continuing takes time and consistent teamwork, as is
to improve the inventory and assess the impact evidenced by the efforts of an interagency task
of Region 5 CSOs and SSOs, particularly those force convened to investigate beach closings
near beach areas. These efforts will strengthen along the Indiana shoreline of Lake Michigan.
the ability to target CSOs and SSOs that may be Beginning in 1997, this group of 19 public and
contributing to beach closings in order to reduce private-sector organizations coordinated E, coli
or eliminate them as sources of pollution. monitoring at 60 locations in northwest Indiana. The
task force identified a variety of suspected sources
Beach closings cannot in all cases be directly of contamination ranging from a mobile home
linked to CSOs or SSOs. Such pollutant sources, in park on an upstream tributary to malfunctioning
fact, are only part of the story. Pollution of coastal WQste faci|ities in a state park on the lakeshore.
waters and beaches is a complex issue. Many EPA and other state and bca| regulatory
conditions can affect beaches, including weather, agencies have used various methods to address
wind direction, water currents, water depth, beach contamination from these sources, including both
location and geography, nearby animal and bird direct enforcement and compliance assistance.
habitats, and human activity. Recent research
indicates that bacteria and pathogens existing
in nearshore areas and at beaches may multiply
when weather and water conditions provide
EPA Reqion 5 Strjtp of the Waters 2002 4-3
-------
What are We Doing to Address the
Problems?
EPA's BEACH Program
EPA's Beaches Environmental Assessment Coastal
Health (BEACH) Program is aimed at reducing
health risks for swimmers by minimizing their
exposure to disease-causing microorganisms
at recreational beaches. For example, EPA is
providing storm water controls and is working with
states and various stakeholders to control boat
sewage discharges. Moreover, EPA is working to
improve beach programs across the country. The
goal is to improve beach monitoring, strengthen
recreational water quality standards, improve
public notification procedures and find ways to
eliminate pollution sources. One important factor
is the proximity to beaches of CSOs and SSOs.
Region 5 is working with its state program partners
to inventory all known CSOs and SSOs, particularly
Photograph by David Riecks; Photograph Courtesy of Illinois-Indiana
Sea Grant
those near Great Lakes beach areas. Region 5 and
the state programs will then target CSOs and SSOs
as well as confined animal feeding operations that
may be contributing to beach closings in order to
reduce or eliminate them as sources of pollution.
Moreover, EPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office developed a Great Lakes Strategy that
includes promoting clean and healthy beaches.
Many key actions are outlined in the strategy,
including working with state, local and tribal
governments and federal agencies to reduce or
eliminate beach closings and trying to identify
pollution sources for all monitored beaches.
BEACH Act Grant Program
EPA is making $10 million in grants available to
eligible coastal states, tribes and territories in order
to protect public health at the nation's beaches.
These grants are available to coastal and Great
Lakes states for developing programs to monitor
water quality at beaches and to notify the public
when water quality problems exist. During the first
year of BEACH Act development grants, each of
the coastal and Great Lakes states that applied for
the grants received $58,600 to develop a beach
monitoring and notification program.
In March 2002, the availability of additional BEACH
Act development grant funding was announced.
Region 5 grants will be allocated as follows based
on swimming season length, number of coastal
miles, and beach use: Illinois - $248,615; Indiana -
$206,670; Michigan - $287,556; Minnesota - $204,631;
Ohio - $227,879; and Wisconsin - $228,396. Over the
next few years, EPA is authorized to issue additional
funds to eligible states, tribes, territories and local
governments in order to support development
and implementation of beach monitoring and
notification programs.
Research
A great deal of research is needed to improve
the science supporting recreational water quality
monitoring programs. A major problem with
current monitoring procedures is that the process
of collecting and preparing samples, incubating
Beach Programs in Illinois
Most of the Illinois beaches on Lake Michigan are monitored for water quality in an effort to ensure the safety
of the thousands of people that use them. In Lake County, water at the nine beaches on Lake Michigan is
sampled daily by the Lake County Health Department. Water at the 32 beaches operated by the Chicago
Park District is sampled from Monday through Friday, and test results are posted daily at www.ch/cagoparkd/s
fricf.eom//ndex.cfm/fuseacf/on/sw/m.sw/mreporf.
The Illinois Department of Public Health will be working with several local and state entities to meet the
objectives of an EPA developmental grant. Although the number of beach closings in Illinois is a concern,
efforts are underway to determine the causes of the high bacterial counts at the beaches, and there have
been no reports of illness associated with swimming at the beaches.
4-4
EPA Region 5 State ot the Waters 2002
-------
Photograph by Carol Y Swinehart, Michigan Sea Grant Extension
bacteria, conducting the analyses and reporting
the results requires 24 to 48 hours betore problems
can be detected and notifications issued. As
a result of this delay, a beach can be left
unprotected for swimmers to become exposed to
contaminants, or a beach can be closed when the
problem has already passed. Methods are needed
to identify water quality problems before exposure
takes place. Moreover, research is needed on the
health risks associated with swimming in polluted
water. Swimmer patterns, such as time spent in
the water and the amount of water swallowed,
need to be assessed. Also, research needs to be
conducted in order to determine what types of
respiratory illnesses may be caused by swimming
in contaminated water and whether cuts in a
swimmer's skin may contribute to infection.
The Region 5 states currently use different standards
and measurement methods to determine the
need for beach closings. As a result, there are
limitations on the ability to compare frequencies
Beach Monitoring Grants in Michigan
The Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) has provided grants to local
health departments for monitoring water at public
beaches for E. coli. An average annual amount
of approximately $150,000 has been awarded to
local health departments for this purpose over the
past few years. MDEQ has applied for federal funds
so that it will be possible to provide local health
departments with additional money to develop and
enhance their beach monitoring programs. MDEQ
has also developed a beach monitoring web site
(http://www.deq.state.mi.us/beach) where local
health departments can make the results of their
beach monitoring available to the public.
of exceedances of microbiological standards in
order to evaluate trends in recreational water
quality. Given these limitations, the frequency of
beach postings has traditionally been used as an
indicator of recreational water quality. However,
microbial standard exceedances may be a better
measure of the actual health risk associated with
recreational waters. By April 2004, all the Region
5 states intend to adopt bacteria criteria at least
as protective as the EPA Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Bacteria issued in 1986. EPA's annual
voluntary beach survey program provides an
indication of the status of beach health.
For more information about EPA's BEACH Program,
visit the BEACH Watch web site at www.epa.gov/
OST/beaches. The web site contains information
about individual beaches, protection programs,
workshops and results of annual national beach
surveys as well as links to other web sites for regional
beach projects.
.*sr;
Photograph by Patrick! Collins,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
4-5
-------
Photograph Courtesy of Wisconsin Travel Bureau
Local Beach Programs in Wisconsin
Wisconsin has formed a BEACH Act workgroup composed of local and state health officials and interested
parties to develop a comprehensive beach monitoring and public notification plan. Several efforts to collect
water quality data are already underway at Wisconsin beaches. The information collected will support
assessment of short-term increases in bacteria resulting from storm events.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Beach Pilot Project
The Bureau of Watershed Management, in conjunction with the Bureau of Parks, designed a beach water
testing pilot project for the duration of the 2001 swimming season. The pilot project involved weekly sampling
of beach water at Harrington Beach State Park, Kohler-Andrae State Park and Point Beach State Forest.
City of Milwaukee EMPACT Study of Water Quality at Local Streams and Public Beaches (1998 and 1999)
The City of Milwaukee Health Department (MHD) partnered with the City of Racine Health Department (RHD),
the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Great Lakes WATER Institute and other
organizations to study five beaches in Milwaukee and Racine. The targeted locations were Bradford Beach,
McKinley Beach and South Shore Beach in Milwaukee and Zoo Beach and North Beach in Racine.
Water at beach sites in Milwaukee and Racine was sampled from Monday through Friday during the 2002
swimming season. Additional samples were collected on Saturdays and Sundays if high E. coli counts were
anticipated based on the previous week's sample results. MHD sampled Bradford, McKinley and South Shore
Beaches, while RHD sampled the water at North Beach (in four different places), Zoo Beach (in three different
places) and the English Street outfall.
Kenosha County Division of Health
Water at Kenosha's Eichelman Beach is sampled from Monday through Thursday. If E. coli standards are
exceeded, additional samples are collected every day of the week until test results are again within the
standards.
Ozaukee County Health Department
The Ozaukee County Health Department collects water samples at Port Washington Beach twice each week
to monitor water quality. In addition, the following information is being collected at South Shore Beach in
Milwaukee and North Beach in Racine: rainfall; wind speed and direction; air temperature; wave height; and
water temperature, turbidity and conductance. This information and the Port Washington Beach monitoring
data will be used to help identify short-term pathogen increases and pathogen increases resulting from storm
events.
4-6 EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Our Goal: All
People in
Region 5 Served
by Public Water
Supplies Will Have
Water That Is
Consistently
Safe to Drink
The vast majority of people in the Midwest have
easy access to clean, safe drinking water. To make
sure this does not change, EPA requires community
water systems to sample and analyze their water
regularly and to report on the quality of the drinking
water that they are providing to the public. Each
year, the Region 5 states receive analytical
results for some 83 different contaminants found
in samples collected from over 7,700 community
drinking water supplies. As indicated in Figure
5-1, over 95 percent of the
community water systems'
customers receive water
meeting all EPA health-based
standards. The Region 5 states
face a unique challenge in
ensuring safe water in over
41,000 non-community water
systems, or about 40 percent
of the non-community water
systems in the country. These
non-community systems
are usually very small and
require extensive technical
assistance.
Community water systems are defined as systems
that provide drinking water year-round to 25 or
more of the same people or that have 15 or more
water service connections. In addition, there are
two other types of water systems: non-transient
non-community water systems such as schools and
transient non-community water systems such as
highway rest stops. Each type has its own monitoring
requirements.
The drinking water quality
that we enjoy is no accident
and should not be taken for
granted. Region 5 and its
state partners work with water
Figure 5-1
Percentage Population Served by Community Water
Systems Meeting All Health-Based Standards
Region 5 Totals
100
0>
CO
95
94.8 95.4 95.7
92.8
£ 90 88.3
CO
a.
o
Q.
25
85
80
1994 1995 1996
1997 1998
Fiscal Years
1999 2000 2001
Source: EPA Region 5
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
5-1
-------
In Region 5, about 23 million people (49 percent
of the total population) rely on groundwater for
their potable water supply, and the rest use surface
water sources for their water supply.
Source: EPA
suppliers to minimize the presence of harmful
contaminants in drinking water, including total
coliform bacteria, lead, nitrates and pesticides. In
Region 5, all six states have primary authority for
implementing EPA's drinking water program.
The importance of maintaining a safe water supply
led Congress to pass the Safe Drinking Water Act
in 1974 and to amend the act in 1986 and 1996.
Under the act, each municipality, community or
other group that operates a community water
system, including groups on tribal reservations,
must regularly monitor the quality of its drinking
water.
EPA does not require testing of private water
supplies, such as those serving just one home.
People using a private well, however, would be
well advised to monitor their water for both nitrate
and bacteria. Nitrate contamination can come
from fertilizers, septic systems and animal feedlots,
and it poses a significant problem in many Region
5 groundwater sources. Excessive nitrate levels in
drinking water can cause serious illness or death
for infants under the age of 6 months. Information
on how well owners can ensure the safety of their
water supply is available on EPA's web site at http:
//www.epa.gov/safewater/pwellsl.html.
In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Act established
an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program
to deal with the largely uncontrolled discharge of
fluids into the subsurface through deep or shallow
wells and subsurface fluid distribution systems such
as many of the tilefields that distribute effluent
from large-capacity septic tanks. Deep injection
»-2-t
Deep injection wells
Source: EPA
5-2
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Storm sewer outfalls inventoried during source water assessments are manageable contaminant sources for surface water supplies such as
that served by the Alpena, Michigan, Water Treatment Plant.
Photograph Courtesy of EPA
wells include those drilled to dispose of industrial
and municipal wastes, the by-products of oil and
gas production, and fluids involved in mineral
production. Shallow wells account for nearly
all point- source discharges into the subsurface
except for domestic sewage from single-family
septic systems and small nonresidential septic
systems serving fewer than 20 people per day.
Understanding Groundwater Dynamics in
Minnesota
To help private well owners and decision-makers
understand groundwater dynamics, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency's Rochester Office
partnered with EPA and the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources to present "Rocks and Water:
Understanding Minnesota's Limestone Country"on
the porous karst geology that allows quick migration
of contaminants into groundwater, and their
subsequent, rapid and unpredictable migration to
potential points of human exposure, such as water
wells and surface waters. For more information
about groundwater in Minnesota, see http://
www.pca.state.mn.us/water/southeast-gwp.html.
What Are the Major Sources Of
Contamination in Drinking Water?
Although we know a great deal about the health
impacts of drinking water contamination, many
questions remain. Research continues to provide
new information on health effects and to identify
new potential drinking water threats.
The major sources of drinking water contamination
include spills and faulty fuel storage, waste
disposal, agricultural and industrial practices.
Microbiological or chemical pollutants are
released into the environment from these sources
and make their way into groundwater or surface
water. Some contaminants found in certain areas
of the Midwest, such as arsenic and radium, occur
naturally in soil and rock.
Uncontrolled and improperly managed injection
wells are one of the major pathways though which
contaminants can reach underground aquifers.
Deep injection wells can pose a threat if they are
not properly regulated, but shallow wells have
had a far greater impact in Region 5. As many
as 500,000 shallow injection wells are thought to
exist nationally, and funding to control them has
been very limited. Through these wells, untreated
contaminants are often discharged directly into
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
5-3
-------
Underground Injection Wells for Wisconsin Brownfield Cleanup
A Burlington, Wisconsin, brownfield site located along the Fox River near downtown Burlington formerly contained
a coal gasification plant that contaminated soil and the underlying portion of the shallow aquifer. Among the
contaminants found at the site are benzene, toluene and xylene. Approximately 300 injection wells are being
used to introduce a mixture of iron oxide and hydrogen peroxide into the subsurface to promote degradation
of the hazardous substances present. This project is being managed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) and is a joint effort
between the Bureau of Drinking Water
and Groundwater, which has provided
guidance for use of such injection
wells as well as general oversight
for the project, and the Bureau of
Remediation and Redevelopment,
which is directing the cleanup. With
bioremediation the increasing choice
at many cleanup sites, the role of DIG
wells in such activities is expected to
increase.
Photograph by Andrew F. Boettcher
actual or potential drinking water sources, or
where treatment does occur, as in septic tanks, it
is often insufficient to remove organic compounds,
solvents, viruses and other potential health threats.
What Are We Doing to Address the
Problems?
Source Water Protection
Preventing contamination from reaching drinking
water supplies is the key to maintaining safe,
affordable drinking water. To help accomplish this,
states are establishing source water protection
programs for drinking water supplies and are doing
source water assessments to evaluate the potential
for the water supplies to become contaminated.
Figure 5-2 shows the number of assessments that
have been completed in Region 5. Based on these
assessments, source water protection areas are
established and potential sources of contamination
are identified. After the source water assessments
are completed, activities to protect surface water
and groundwater from the potential threats need
to be identified and implemented. Protection
efforts are most effectively implemented at the
local level. Thus, the participation of the public in
promoting protection of drinking water is key. It is
much more expensive to clean up groundwater
once it is contaminated than to prevent it from
being contaminated in the first place.
The Region 5 states have been very active in
source water protection. In Illinois, for example,
the community of East Alton has been faced
with a methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) plume
threatening the groundwater that is the source of
its drinking water. MTBE is a natural gas derivative
that boosts oxygen to make gasoline burn cleaner.
Two leaking underground storage tank sites within
the source water protection area for East Alton's
water supply are being aggressively pursued for
cleanup. Nearly $1 million has been spent to clean
up each of the two sites, but the remediation
is not yet complete. East Alton is also working
on a groundwater protection ordinance and
contingency planning procedures to safeguard its
water supply from future problems.
Illinois has also adopted the state's first regulated
recharge area regulation for the Pleasant Valley
Public Water District. In the regulated recharge
Figure 5-2
Number of Community Water Systems With
Source Water Assessments Complete
Region 5 Totals
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
604
2000
2001
2002
Source: EPA Region 5
5-4
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
area, a regulatory approach has been adopted
to protect the district's source water protection
area from potential contamination. Citizen
involvement to support this action was key. The
recharge area regulation requires existing and new
potential sources of groundwater contamination
to be registered with Illinois EPA. Certain types
of new potential sources will be prohibited under
the regulation, and a suitability assessment will be
required for others.
In Michigan, 40 stakeholder groups were invited to
assist with developing a Source Water Assessment
Program (SWAP) by participating in the SWAP
Advisory Committee. Implementation of the
Michigan SWAP has strengthened federal, state
and local partnerships to protect Michigan's public
drinking water sources.
Michigan has also developed partnerships with
EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the Detroit Water and
Sewerage Department, Environment Canada and
the American Water Works Association Research
Foundation to develop a flow model used to define
source water areas for 14 public water supply
intakes on the connecting channels of the St. Clair
River-Lake St. Clair-Detroit River system. These water
supply intakes serve almost one-half of Michigan's
population. Additional information on the Michigan
SWAP and the Connecting Channels Flow Model is
available at http://www.michigan.gov/deq and
http://mi.water.usgs.gov.
Ohio EPA, with partial funding from a grant
Education Programs in Minnesota
As part of on ongoing effort to develop on informed
citizenry and increase drinking water awareness
among teachers and students, the Education
Committee of the Minnesota Section of the
American Water Works Association, in conjunction
with the Science Museum of Minnesota, a premier
organization for teacher education in the state, held
a 4-day seminar, "Water Works! A Drinking Water
Institute for Educators." The seminar was designed to
teach Minnesota teachers about drinking water, get
them involved in inquiry-based activities and have
them develop a plan for incorporating lessons and
activities involving drinking water into their science
curriculum. The goal of the seminar program is
to eventually produce high school graduates in
Minnesota who are both knowledgeable about
drinking water and able to apply their knowledge in
their daily lives.
from EPA, partnered with the Great Lakes Rural
Community Assistance Program to complete a
regional source water assessment and protection
plan for the karst region in Seneca, Sandusky, Huron
and Erie counties. The karst region is characterized
by high groundwater flow rates as well as a high
susceptibility to and history of contamination. The
protection area encompasses 15 public water
systems that use groundwater and the watershed
protection area for the City of Bellevue. Because
groundwater in this region moves via large fractures
and conduit flow, Ohio EPA delineated the entire
region that contributes water via the karst system
as a source water protection area. The karst region
also includes portions of the watershed protection
areas for Clyde, Tiffin and Fremont.
Underground Injection Control
Under the UIC Program, deep injection wells have
been strictly regulated because they can cause
great harm to aquifers used as sources of drinking
water. EPA and Region 5 state agencies, which
have primary authority for the UIC Program, have
gone to great lengths to ensure that these wells
are properly sited, designed, constructed and
operated. Among the safeguards taken is ensuring
that these wells are completed in deep formations
well below usable aquifers and that the waste is
confined by shale and other impermeable layers.
Deep injection wells are also required to have
several layers of pipe and cement and are tested
on a frequent basis using sophisticated logging
techniques to ensure that leakage does not occur.
In addition, a search is conducted for abandoned
wells and other boreholes that could be close
enough to an injection well to serve as unintended
conduits for the fluids injected. If such abandoned
wells are found, they must be properly plugged
before use of the injection well is authorized.
Because shallow injection wells clearly pose a threat
to shallow aquifers, EPA developed new regulations
that became effective on April 5, 2000, for two of
the most endangering well types: large-capacity
cesspools and motor vehicle waste disposal wells.
New wells of both types are banned, and existing
large cesspools must be closed by 2005. 'n the
Midwest, all existing motor vehicle waste disposal
wells will be closed or required to obtain a strict
permit. Any such wells located in source water
protection areas will be addressed first in a phasing
approach. States with primary authority and EPA
are now implementing the new regulations. For
instance, of the 12 injection wells that Ohio EPA
closed during state fiscal year 2002, seven were
motor vehicle waste disposal wells. Ohio EPA has
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 200?
5-5
-------
also completed a UIC inventory of endangering
wells in five major Ohio counties, which included
sending notifications to known motor vehicle
repair facilities. The EPA Region 5 Direct
Implementation Program, which covers Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota and tribal areas, has hired
three new Class V field inspectors under the Senior
Environmental Employment Program. Working on
a county-by-county basis, these inspectors are
identifying substantial numbers of motor vehicle
waste disposal and other endangering wells.
Regional office staff members are then working
with the operators of these facilities to close or
otherwise mitigate the problems caused by the
wells.
Compliance Assistance
Region 5 states are providing compliance
assistance to help water supply systems meet
safe drinking water requirements. For example,
the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) initiated a compliance
assistance program in July 2002 to help about
2,400 small systems serving fewer than 100 people
each to do required water sampling for nitrate and
bacteria analyses. If the required sampling and
analysis are not done, the quality of the drinking
water is unknown. IDEM is using state funds to
analyze samples for the small systems. This small-
system assistance program will be continued to
complement OEM's ongoing efforts to provide
safe drinking water to the public.
WDNR has developed partnerships with state
health agencies, the Wisconsin Department of
Commerce, local municipalities and local health
agencies to complete well sampling intended to
determine whether arsenic levels in groundwater
exceed the new safe drinking water standard that
goes into effect in 2006.
In addition, WDNR created a public information
brochure on arsenic in cooperation with the
Wisconsin Department of Health and Family
Services. Moreover, in 2000, informational meetings
were held in many of the townships in the Lower
Fox River area to educate local residents about
arsenic in their water supplies and possible solutions
Source EPA
Drinking Water Security
Following the events of September 11, 2001, EPA and the states have increasingly focused on protecting
drinking water systems from possible terrorist threats. In Region 5, EPA has awarded over $5 million in grants to
large public water systems in order to help them assess their potential vulnerabilities.
This effort represents a major step toward improving the security of large water systems and protecting the
drinking water of millions of people. Each vulnerability assessment performed for a water system provides
a prioritized plan for security upgrades, modifications of operational procedures, policy changes or a
combination of approaches to mitigate the risks and vulnerabilities associated with the utility's critical assets.
5-6
EPA Rea.or, 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
to remedy the problem. See http:
//www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic.html
to get more information on the new
arsenic standard for drinking water.
The vigilance of EPA's drinking water
program extends beyond the tap. EPA
is working cooperatively with the Region
5 states to
• Ensure that underground injection
wells are properly drilled and
operated so that groundwater
aquifers are protected.
• Safeguard lakes and streams from
spills of hazardous materials, effluent
from sewage treatment plants and
industrial facilities and runofi from
agricultural and urban areas.
• Prevent contamination of
groundwater and surface water
by sponsoring household waste
collection programs.
For more information on the Safe
Drinking Water Act and frequently asked
questions about drinking water, see
EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/
safewater or call the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline at 1-800-426-4791.
Photograph by Jeffrey E. Edstrom
Consolidation of Tribal Public Water Systems
Small water supply systems often have difficulty complying with all the requirements necessary to ensure long-
term protection of public health because of the complexities of drinking water regulations and of operation
and management of a drinking water system. Therefore, Region 5 encourages consolidation of small tribal
public water supply systems wherever possible. (EPA, not the states, has responsibility for overseeing tribal
systems.) There are many benefits to consolidating small public water systems, such as reducing sampling and
analysis costs, the required number of certified operators, the cost of source water protection efforts and the
cost of the water produced. Consolidation also provides greater assurance of a safe, reliable supply of drinking
water. During the past 5 years, a total of 26 tribal water supply systems have been consolidated with other
systems, and about a dozen more consolidations are either proceeding or planned.
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
5-7
-------
Contacts & Web Resources
'he 2002 EPA Region 5 State of the Waters Report is initiated, developed and
published by:
Water Division
US Environmental Protection Agency Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
JS EPA Region 5 Water Division US EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline
ittp://www. epa.gov/region5/water/ 1 800426-4791
312353-2147
JS EPA Office of Water US EPA Wetlands Helpline
-ittp://www.epa.gov/OW/ 1 800832-7828
\cknowledgments
Project Director: Linda Hoist
Project Manager: Richard Zdanowicz
Writers: Catherine Garra, Janet Kuefler, David Pfeifer, Walter Redmon,
Holiday Wirick
Input and Support: Jennifer Beese, Michael Davis, Sarah Lehmann, Robert
Newport, Jori Spolarich, John Taylor, William Tansey
Web & Computer Support: Jonathan Barney, Christopher Murphy, Alan Nudelman,
Khalia Poole
Copy Edit: Michael Rogers, Office of Public Affairs
Special Thanks: Tetra Tech EM Inc: Joe Abboreno, Sandy Anagnostopoulos,
Jeffrey Edstrom, Rick Hersemann, Jon Mann, Carole
Ramsden, William Ward
EPA Region 5 Partners and Stewards
Over the past 30 years, EPA Region 5 has worked in cooperation with the states, tribal nations and
other federal agencies in our six state region to improve the quality of our water resources. Much
progress has been made through our mission of working together to identify, solve, and prevent
important water resource problems. This report is intended to provide information on the status of our
waters and recognize some of our partners' efforts and successes for our five shared water goals. The
results reflected in this report are the outcomes of the collaborative efforts of many key partners.
In addition, there are many other entities that carry out programs that contribute to improving the
quality of water resources within the Region, including: county soil and water conservation districts,
county health departments, multi-county planning commissions, universities and extension offices,
state and federal agricultural agencies, industry, environmental groups, local watershed groups and
interstate basin organizations.
Finally, EPA Region 5 recognizes the citizens that contribute to the accomplishments reflected here,
both individually and through the collective outputs of many volunteer organizations, and who will
continue to carry the banner of environmental stewardship into the future.
EPA Region 5 State of the Waters 2002
-------
Clean Water
Everywhere for Everyone,
It's Up to You!
* 2002 *
THE YEAR OF
CLEAN WATER
2002:The Year of Clean Water - To commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act, Congress
has proclaimed 2002 as "the Year of Clean Water." This Anniversary provides an excellent opportunity
for all Americans to participate in the process of cleaning and protecting our nation's rivers, lakes,
bays, estuaries and oceans. For more information see: www.yearofcleanwater.org
------- |