00
5PA-c41/A-95-Q01
National Water Quality
tnventoi
!f
t
.
-------
-------
, (
'f-l
Executive Summary
-------
The Quality of Our Nation's Water
Introduction
The National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress is the
primary vehicle for informing Con-
gress and the public about general
water quality conditions in the
United States. This document char-
acterizes our water quality, identifies
widespread water quality problems
of national significance, and
describes various programs imple-
mented to restore and protect our
waters.
The National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress summa-
rizes the water quality information
submitted by 61 States, American
Indian Tribes, Territories, Interstate
Water Commissions, and the District
of Columbia (hereafter referred to
as States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions) in their 1994 water quality
assessment reports. As such, the
report identifies water quality issues
of concern to the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions, not just the is-
sues of concern to EPA. Section
305(b) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) requires that the States and
other participating jurisdictions sub-
mit water quality assessment reports
every 2 years. Most of the survey
information in the 1994 Section
305(b) reports is based on water
quality information collected and
evaluated by the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions during 1992 and
1993.
It is important to note that this
report is based on information sub-
mitted by States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions that do not use identi-
cal survey methods and criteria to
rate their water quality. The States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions favor
flexibility in the 305(b) process to
accommodate natural variability in
their waters, but there is a trade-off
between flexibility and consistency.
Without known and consistent sur-
vey methods in place, EPA must use
caution in comparing data or deter-
mining the accuracy of data submit-
ted by different States and jurisdic-
tions. Also, EPA must use caution
when comparing water quality in-
formation submitted during differ-
ent 305(b) reporting periods be-
cause States and other jurisdictions
may modify their criteria or survey
different waterbodies every 2 years.
For over 10 years, EPA has pur-
sued a balance between flexibility
and consistency in the Section
305(b) process. Recent actions by
EPA, the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions include implementing
the recommendations of the
National 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup and the Intergovern-
mental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality. These actions will
enable States and other jurisdictions
to share data across political bound-
aries as they develop watershed
protection strategies.
EPA recognizes that national
initiatives alone cannot clean up our
waters; water quality protection and
restoration must happen at the local
watershed level, in conjunction with
State, Tribal, and Federal activities.
Similarly, this document alone can-
not provide the detailed information
needed to manage water quality at
all levels. This document should be
used together with the individual
Section 305(b) reports (see the in-
side back cover for information on
obtaining the State and Tribal Sec-
tion 305(b) reports), watershed
management plans, and other local
documents to develop integrated
water quality management options.
ES-2
-------
Key Concepts
Measuring Water
Quality
The States, participating Tribes,
and other jurisdictions survey the
quality of their waters by determin-
ing if their waters attain the water
quality standards they established.
Water quality standards consist of
beneficial uses, numeric and narra-
tive criteria for supporting each use,
and an antidegradation statement:
Designated beneficial uses are
the desirable uses that water quality
should support. Examples are drink-
ing water supply, primary contact
recreation (such as swimming), and
aquatic life support. Each desig-
nated use has a unique set of water
quality requirements or criteria that
must be met for the use to be real-
ized. States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions may designate an individual
waterbody for multiple beneficial
uses.
Numeric water quality criteria
establish the minimum physical,
chemical, and biological parameters
required to support a beneficial use.
Physical and chemical numeric
criteria may set maximum concen-
trations of pollutants, acceptable
ranges of physical parameters, and
minimum concentrations of desir-
able parameters, such as dissolved
oxygen. Numeric biological criteria
describe the expected attainable
community attributes and establish
values based on measures such as
species richness, presence or
absence of indicator taxa, and
distribution of classes of organisms.
Narrative water quality criteria
define, rather than quantify, condi-
tions and attainable goals that must
be maintained to support a desig-
nated use. Narrative biological cri-
teria establish a positive statement
about aquatic community character-
istics expected to occur within a
waterbody. For example, "Ambient
water quality shall be sufficient to
support life stages of all native
aquatic species." Narrative criteria
may also describe conditions that
are desired in a waterbody, such as,
"Waters must be free of substances
that are toxic to humans, aquatic
life, and wildlife."
Antidegradation statements,
where possible, protect existing uses
and prevent waterbodies from dete-
riorating, even if their water quality
is better than the fishable and swim-
mable water quality goals of the
Act.
The CWA allows States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions to set their
own standards but requires that all
beneficial uses and their criteria
comply with the goals of the Act. At
a minimum, beneficial uses must
provide for "the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife" and provide for "recreation
in and on the water" (i.e., the fish-
able and swimmable goals of the
Act), where attainable. The Act pro-
hibits States and other jurisdictions
from designating waste transport or
waste assimilation as a beneficial
use, as some States did prior to
1972.
Section 305(b) of the CWA
requires that the States biennially
survey their water quality for attain-
ment of the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Act and report the re-
sults to EPA. The States, participat-
ing Tribes, and other jurisdictions
measure attainment of the CWA
goals by determining how well their
waters support their designated
beneficial uses. EPA encourages the
surveying of waterbodies for sup-
port of the following individual
beneficial uses:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody pro-
vides suitable habitat for protection
and propagation of desirable fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic organ-
isms.
ES-3
-------
Fish Consumption
The waterbody sup-
ports fish free from
contamination that could pose a
human health risk to consumers.
Shellfish Harvesting
The waterbody sup-
ports a population
of shellfish free from toxicants and
pathogens that could pose a human
health risk to consumers.
Drinking Water
Supply
The waterbody can
supply safe drinking water with
conventional treatment.
Primary Contact
Recreation -
Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
waterborne diseases from raw
sewage contamination).
Secondary Contact
Recreation
People can perform
activities on the water (such as
boating) without risk of adverse
human health effects from mgestion
or contact with the water.
The water quality is
suitable for irrigating
fields or watering livestock.
States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions may also define their own
individual uses to address special
concerns. For example, many Tribes
and States designate their waters for
the following beneficial uses:
Ground Water
Recharge
The surface
waterbody plays a significant role in
replenishing ground water, and
surface water supply and quality
are adequate to protect existing or
potential uses of ground water.
Wildlife Habitat
Water quality sup-
ports the waterbody's
role in providing habitat and
resources for land-based wildlife as
well as aquatic life.
Tribes may designate their
waters for special cultural and
ceremonial uses:
.: ;- -. - -,*,«'"»/ -.WM US. tra, «=«,«*»«,« ;« »W«.»J^^-.TIWSKSaAWIW^JjM tJfcjWM^ jaW^S**,-*!,* <%K ;, ",~ ;;
;7;^^:««
ES-4
-------
Culture
Water quality sup-
ports the waterbody's
role in Tribal culture and preserves
the waterbody's religious, ceremo-
nial, or subsistence significance.
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions assign one of five levels
of use support categories to each of
their waterbodies (Table ES-1). If
possible, the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions determine the
level of use support by comparing
monitoring data with numeric crite-
ria for each use designated for a
particular waterbody. If monitoring
data are not available, the State,
Tribe, or other jurisdiction may de-
termine the level of use support
with qualitative information. Valid
qualitative information includes land
use data, fish and game surveys,
and predictive model results. Moni-
tored assessments are based on
monitoring data. Evaluated assess-
ments are based on qualitative in-
formation or monitored information
more than 5 years old.
For waterbodies with more than
one designated use, the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions con-
solidate the individual use support
information into a single overall use
support determination:
Good/Fully Supporting
Overall Use - All desig-
nated beneficial uses are
fully supported.
Good/Threatened Over-
all Use - One or more
designated beneficial uses
are threatened and the
remaining uses are fully supported.
Fair/Partially Supporting
Overall Use - One or
more designated bene-
ficial uses are partially
supported and the remaining uses
are fully supported or threatened.
These waterbodies are considered
impaired.
j| Poor/Not Supporting
K Overall Use - One or
fyjl more designated benefi-
BBI cial uses are not
supported. These waterbodies are
considered impaired.
Poor/Not Attainable -
The State, Tribe, or other
jurisdiction has performed
a use-attainability analysis
and demonstrated that use support
of one or more designated benefi-
cial uses is not attainable due to
one of six biological, chemical,
physical, or economic/social condi-
tions specified in the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR Section
131.10). These conditions include
naturally high concentrations of
pollutants (such as metals); other
natural physical features that create
Table ES-1. Levels of Use Support
Symbol
£>
[^
f
Lfcj
b
Use Support Level
Fully Supporting
Threatened
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
Not Attainable
Water Quaffiy
Condition
Good
Good
Fair
(Impaired)
Poor
(Impaired)
Poor
Definition
Water quality meets
designated use criteria.
Water quality supports
beneficial uses now
but may not in the future
unless action is taken.
Water quality fails to meet
designated use criteria at times.
Water quality frequently fails
to meet designated use criteria.
The State, Tribe, or other juris-
diction has performed a use-
attainability analysis and
demonstrated that use support
is not attainable due to one of
six biological, chemical, physi-
cal, or economic/social condi-
tions specified in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
ES-5
-------
unsuitable aquatic life habitat (such
as inadequate substrate, riffles, or
pools); low flows or water levels;
dams and other hydrologic modifi-
cations that permanently alter
waterbody characteristics; poor wa-
ter quality resulting from human
activities that cannot be reversed
without causing further environmen-
tal degradation; and poor water
quality that cannot be improved
without imposing more stringent
controls than those required in the
CWA that would result in wide-
spread economic and social im-
pacts.
Impaired Waters - The sum of
waterbodies partially supporting
uses and not supporting uses.
The EPA then aggregates the
use support information submitted
by the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions into a national assess-
ment of the Nation's water quality.
How Many of Our
Waters Were
Surveyed for 1994?
National estimates of the total
waters of our country provide the
foundation for determining the per-
centage of waters surveyed by the
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
and the portion impaired by pollu-
tion. For the 1992 reporting period,
EPA provided the States with esti-
mates of total river miles and lake
acres derived from the EPA Reach
File, a database containing traces of
waterbodies adapted from
1:100,000 scale maps prepared by
the U.S. Geological Survey. The
States modified these total water
estimates where necessary. Based on
the 1992 EPA/State figures, the
national estimate of total river miles
doubled in large part because the
EPA/State estimates included
nonperennial streams, canals, and
ditches that were previously ex-
cluded from estimates of total
stream miles.
Estimates for the 1994 reporting
cycle are a minor refinement of the
1992 figures and indicate that the
United States has:
Figure ES-1. Percentage of Total Waters Surveyed for the 1994 Report
Rivers and Streams
615,806-17% surveyed
Total miles: 3,548,738
Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs
17,134,153 - 42% surveyed
Total acres: 40,826,064
Estuaries
26,847 - 78% surveyed
Total square miles: 34,388a
Ocean Shoreline
Waters
5,208 - 9% surveyed
Total miles: 58,421 miles, including Alaska's
36,000 miles of shoreline
Great Lakes
Shoreline
5,224 - 94% surveyed
Total miles: 5,559
Source: 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by the States, Tribes, Territories, and
Commissions.
3 Excluding estuarine waters in Alaska because no estimate was available.
ES-6
-------
More than 3.5 million miles of
rivers and streams, which range in
size from the Mississippi River to
small streams that flow only when
wet weather conditions exist
(i.e., nonperennial streams)
Approximately 40.8 million acres
of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs
About 34,388 square miles of
estuaries (excluding Alaska)
More than 58,000 miles of ocean
shoreline, including 36,000 miles in
Alaska
5,559 miles of Great Lakes
shoreline
More than 277 million acres of
wetlands such as marshes, swamps,
bogs, and fens, including 170
million acres of wetlands in Alaska.
The Inteigovernmental Task Force
on
; JQuafit^j^^ p1^^i|pye^|p^mpr^n^vw^4|i
Jnd."'" " "" ' "***"'"" ''""" * ""*"" -'-^Jte-'
jjid-tfi^f^fte l»e^k»^pj^^e1i|^^p^,N|§ife OTM^'thjf _
^S^f^S'S-'!-^
;^lma|^iifcajHpara^^^^»!4f^^
fSifg^^ ^l2ib^||j||^|||^&;:, :;5f5§||il|^
Most States do not survey all of
their waterbodies during the 2-year
reporting cycle required under CWA
Section 305(b). Thus, the surveyed
waters reported in Figure ES-1 are a
subset of the Nation's total waters.
In addition, the summary informa-
tion based on surveyed waters may
not represent general conditions in
the Nation's total waters because
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
often focus on surveying major pe-
rennial rivers, estuaries, and public
lakes with suspected pollution prob-
lems in order to direct scarce
resources to areas that could pose
the greatest risk. Many States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions lack
the resources to collect use support
information for nonperennial
streams, small tributaries, and pri-
vate ponds. This report does not
predict the health of these
unassessed waters, which include an
unknown ratio of pristine waters to
polluted waters.
Pollutants and
Processes That
Degrade Water
Quality
Where possible, States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions identify the
pollutants or processes that degrade
water quality and indicators that
document impacts of water quality
degradation. The most widespread
pollutants and processes identified
in rivers, lakes, and estuaries are
presented in Table ES-2. Pollutants
include sediment, nutrients, and
chemical contaminants (such as
dioxins and metals). Processes that
ES-7
-------
degrade waters include habitat
modification (such as destruction of
streamside vegetation) and
hydrologic modification (such as
flow reduction). Indicators of water
quality degradation include physical,
chemical, and biological parameters.
Examples of biological parameters
include species diversity and abun-
dance. Examples of physical and
chemical parameters include pH,
turbidity, and temperature. Follow-
ing are descriptions of the effects of
the pollutants and processes most
commonly identified in rivers, lakes,
estuaries, coastal waters, wetlands,
and ground water.
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is a basic
requirement for a healthy aquatic
ecosystem. Most fish and beneficial
aquatic insects "breathe" oxygen
dissolved in the water column.
Some fish and aquatic organisms
(such as carp and sludge worms)
are adapted to low oxygen condi-
tions, but most desirable fish species
(such as trout and salmon) suffer if
dissolved oxygen concentrations fall
below 3 to 4 mg/L (3 to 4 milli-
grams of oxygen dissolved in 1 liter
of water, or 3 to 4 parts of oxygen
per million parts of water). Larvae
and juvenile fish are more sensitive
and require even higher concentra-
tions of dissolved oxygen.
Many fish and other aquatic
organisms can recover from short
periods of low dissolved oxygen
availability. However, prolonged
episodes of depressed dissolved
oxygen concentrations of 2 mg/L
or less can result in "dead"water-
bodies. Prolonged exposure to low
dissolved oxygen conditions can
suffocate adult fish or reduce their
reproductive survival by suffocating
sensitive eggs and larvae or can
starve fish by killing aquatic insect
larvae and other prey. Low dissolved
oxygen concentrations also favor
anaerobic bacterial activity that pro-
duces noxious gases or foul odors
often associated with polluted
waterbodies.
Table ES-2. Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment
'.lyjt''
i
2
3
4
5
;::'l^ars;, ':':''>/,'!, -».'V,:."'
Bacteria
Siltation
Nutrients
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Metals
?^«^?';::'''':%*:
Nutrients
Siltation
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Metals
Suspended Solids
"f««^^^-X!:";V:X
Nutrients
Bacteria
- Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Habitat Alterations
Oil and Crease
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
and hunters, recreational
hey 6ocur!inTeroote areasJ ihis:-fe*beE4«se 'j&j&ff °i,,>
soMftt-v -^'!
^ip^:^:
ifeiiN! :'!:,
ES-8
-------
Oxygen concentrations in the
water column fluctuate under natu-
ral conditions, but severe oxygen
depletion usually results from
human activities that introduce
large quantities of biodegradable
organic materials into surface
waters. Biodegradable organic
materials contain plant, fish, or ani-
mal matter. Leaves, lawn clippings,
sewage, manure, shellfish processing
waste, milk solids, and other food
processing wastes are examples of
oxygen-depleting organic materials
that enter our surface waters.
In both pristine and polluted
waters, beneficial bacteria use oxy-
gen to break apart (or decompose)
organic materials. Pollution-
containing organic wastes provide a
continuous glut of food for the bac-
teria, which accelerates bacterial
activity and population growth. In
polluted waters, bacterial consump-
tion of oxygen can rapidly outpace
oxygen replenishment from the
atmosphere and photosynthesis
performed by algae and aquatic
plants. The result is a net decline in
oxygen concentrations in the water.
Toxic pollutants can indirectly
lower oxygen concentrations by
killing algae, aquatic weeds, or fish,
which provides an abundance of
food for oxygen-consuming bacte-
ria. Oxygen depletion can also result
from chemical reactions that do not
involve bacteria. Some pollutants
trigger chemical reactions that place
a chemical oxygen demand on
receiving waters.
Other factors (such as temper-
ature and salinity) influence the
amount of oxygen dissolved in
water. Prolonged hot weather will
depress oxygen concentrations and
may cause fish kills even in clean
waters because warm water cannot
hold as much oxygen as cold water.
Warm conditions further aggravate
oxygen depletion by stimulating
bacterial activity and respiration in
fish, which consumes oxygen.
Removal of streamside vegetation
eliminates shade, thereby raising
water temperatures, and accelerates
runoff of organic debris. Under such
conditions, minor additions of pollu-
tion-containing organic materials
can severely deplete oxygen.
Nutrients
Nutrients are essential building
blocks for healthy aquatic communi-
ties, but excess nutrients (especially
nitrogen and phosphorus com-
pounds) overstimulate the growth
of aquatic weeds and algae. Exces-
sive growth of these organisms, in
turn, can clog navigable waters,
interfere with swimming and boat-
ing, outcompete native submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV), and lead
to oxygen depletion. Oxygen con-
centrations can fluctuate daily
during algal blooms, rising during
the day as algae perform photosyn-
thesis, and falling at night as algae
continue to respire, which consumes
oxygen. Beneficial bacteria also con-
sume oxygen as they decompose
the abundant organic food supply
in dying algae cells.
Lawn and crop fertilizers, sew-
age, manure, and detergents con-
tain nitrogen and phosphorus, the
nutrients most often responsible for
water quality degradation. Rural
areas are vulnerable to ground
water contamination from nitrates
(a compound containing nitrogen)
found in fertilizer and manure. Very
high concentrations of nitrate
(>10 mg/L) in drinking water cause
methemoglobinemia, or blue baby
syndrome, an inability to fix oxygen
in the blood.
Nutrients are difficult to control
because lake and estuarine ecosys-
tems recycle nutrients. Rather than
leaving the ecosystem, the nutrients
cycle among the water column,
algae and plant tissues, and the
bottom sediments. For example,
algae may temporarily remove all
the nitrogen from the water col-
umn, but the nutrients will return to
the water column when the algae
die and are decomposed by bacte-
ria. Therefore, gradual inputs of
nutrients tend to accumulate over
time rather than leave the system.
Sediment and Siltation
In a water quality context, sedi-
ment usually refers to soil particles
that enter the water column from
eroding land. Sediment consists of
particles of all sizes, including fine
clay particles, silt, sand, and gravel.
Water quality managers use the
ES-9
-------
term "siltation" to describe the sus-
pension and deposition of small
sediment particles in waterbodies.
Sediment and siltation can
severely alter aquatic communities.
Sediment may clog and abrade fish
gills, suffocate eggs and aquatic
insect larvae on the bottom, and fill
in the pore space between bottom
cobbles where fish lay eggs. Silt and
sediment interfere with recreational
activities and aesthetic enjoyment at
waterbodies by reducing water clar-
ity and filling in waterbodies. Sedi-
ment may also carry other pollut-
ants into waterbodies. Nutrients and
toxic chemicals may attach to sedi-
ment particles on land and ride the
particles into surface waters where
the pollutants may settle with the
sediment or detach and become
soluble in the water column.
Rain washes silt and other soil
particles off of plowed fields, con-
struction sites, logging sites, urban
areas, and strip-mined lands into
waterbodies. Eroding stream banks
also deposit silt and sediment in
waterbodies. Removal of vegetation
on shore can accelerate streambank
erosion.
Bacteria and Pathogens
Some waterbome bacteria,
viruses, and protozoa cause human
illnesses that range from typhoid
and dysentery to minor respiratory
and skin diseases. These organisms
may enter waters through a number
of routes, including inadequately
treated sewage, storm water drains,
septic systems, runoff from livestock
pens, and sewage dumped over-
board from recreational boats.
Because it is impossible to test
waters for every possible
disease-causing organism, States
and other jurisdictions usually mea-
sure indicator bacteria that are
found in great numbers in the
stomachs and intestines of warm-
blooded animals and people. The
presence of indicator bacteria sug-
gests that the waterbody may be
contaminated with untreated
sewage and that other, more
dangerous organisms may be
present. The States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions use bacterial crite-
ria to determine if waters are safe
for recreation and shellfish harvest-
ing.
Toxic Organic Chemicals
and Metals
Toxic organic chemicals are
synthetic compounds that contain
carbon, such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and the
pesticide DDT. These synthesized
compounds often persist and
accumulate in the environment
because they do not readily break
down in natural ecosystems. Many
of these compounds cause cancer
in people and birth defects in other
predators near the top of the food
chain, such as birds and fish.
Metals occur naturally in the
environment, but human activities
(such as industrial processes and
mining) have altered the distribu-
tion of metals in the environment.
In most reported cases of metals
contamination, high concentrations
of metals appear in fish tissues
rather than the water column be-
cause the metals accumulate in
greater concentrations in predators
near the top of the food chain.
PH
Acidity, the concentration of
hydrogen ions, drives many chemi-
cal reactions in living organisms.
The standard measure of acidity is
ES-10
-------
pH, and a pH value of 7 represents
a neutral condition. A low pH value
(less than 5) indicates acidic condi-
tions; a high pH (greater than 9)
indicates alkaline conditions. Many
biological processes, such as
reproduction, cannot function in
acidic or alkaline waters. Acidic con-
ditions also aggravate toxic contami-
nation problems because sediments
release toxicants in acidic waters.
Common sources of acidity include
mine drainage, runoff from mine
tailings, and atmospheric deposition.
Habitat Modification/
Hydrologic Modification
Habitat modifications include
activities in the landscape, on shore,
and in waterbodies that alter the
physical structure of aquatic
ecosystems and have adverse
impacts on aquatic life. Examples of
habitat modifications include:
Removal of streamside vegetation
that stabilizes the shoreline and
provides shade, which moderates
instream temperatures
Excavation of cobbles from a
stream bed that provide nesting
habitat for fish
Stream burial
Excessive suburban sprawl that
alters the natural drainage patterns
by increasing the intensity, magni-
tude, and energy of runoff waters.
Table ES-3. Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report
., ; »
Category
Industrial
Municipal
Combined
Sewers
Storm Sewers/
Urban Runoff
Agricultural
Silvicultural
Construction
Resource
Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydrologic
Modification
Examples
Pulp and paper mills, chemical manufacturers, steel plants,
metal process and product manufacturers, textile manufacturers,
food processing plants
Publicly owned sewage treatment plants that may receive
indirect discharges from industrial facilities or businesses
Single facilities that treat both stormwater and sanitary sewage,
which may become overloaded during storm events and
discharge untreated wastes into surface waters.
Runoff from impervious surfaces including streets, parking
lots, buildings, lawns, and other paved areas.
Crop production, pastures, rangeland, feedlots, other animal
holding areas
Forest management, tree harvesting, logging road construction
Land development, road construction
Mining, petroleum drilling, runoff from mine tailing sites
Leachate or discharge from septic tanks, landfills, and
hazardous waste sites
Channelization, dredging, dam construction, streambank
modification
Hydrologic modifications alter
the flow of water. Examples of
hydrologic modifications include
channelization, dewatering, dam-
ming, and dredging.
Other pollutants include salts
and oil and grease. Fresh waters
may become unfit for aquatic life
and some human uses when they
become contaminated by salts.
Sources of salinity include irrigation
runoff, brine used in oil extraction,
road deicing operations, and the
intrusion of sea water into ground
and surface waters in coastal areas.
Crude oil and processed petroleum
products may be spilled during
extraction, processing, or transport
or leaked from underground storage
tanks.
Sources of
Water Pollution
Sources of impairment gener-
ate the pollutants that violate use
support criteria (Table ES-3). Point
sources discharge pollutants directly
into surface waters from a convey-
ance. Point sources include indus-
trial facilities, municipal sewage
treatment plants, and combined
sewer overflows. Nonpoint sources
deliver pollutants to surface waters
from diifuse origins. Nonpoint
sources include urban runoff, agri-
cultural runoff, and atmospheric
deposition of contaminants in air
pollution. Habitat alterations, such
as hydromodification, dredging, and
streambank destabilization, can also
degrade water quality.
Throughout this document, EPA
rates the significance of causes and
ES-11
-------
sources of pollution by the percent-
age of surveyed waters impaired by
each individual cause or source
(obtained from the Section 305(b)
reports submitted by the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions). Note
that the cause and source rankings
do not describe the condition of all
waters in the United States because
the States identify the causes and
sources degrading some of their
impaired waters, which are a small
subset of surveyed waters, which
are a subset of the Nation's total
waters. For example, the States
identified sources degrading some
of the 224,236 impaired river miles,
which represent 36% of the sur-
veyed river miles and only 6% of
the Nation's total stream miles.
'The term 'point source'
means any discernible,
confined, and discrete
conveyance, including but not
limited to any pipe, ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, well,
discrete fissure, container,
rolling stock, concentrated
animal feeding operation, or
vessel or other floating craft,
from which pollutants are or
may be discharged. This term
does not include agricultural
storm water discharges
and return flows from
irrigated agriculture."
Clean Water Act Section 502(14)
Table ES-4 lists the leading sources
of impairment related to human
activities as reported by States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions for
their rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
Other sources cited include removal
of riparian vegetation, forestry activi-
ties, land disposal, petroleum extrac-
tion and processing activities, and
construction. In addition to human
activities, the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions also reported
impairments from natural sources.
Natural sources refer to an assort-
ment of water quality problems:
Natural deposits of salts, gypsum,
nutrients, and metals in soils that
leach into surface and ground
waters
Warm weather and dry condi-
tions that raise water temperatures,
depress dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, and dry up shallow
waterbodies
Low-flow conditions and tannic
acids from decaying leaves that
lower pH and dissolved oxygen
concentrations in swamps draining
into streams.
With so many potential sources
of pollution, it is difficult and
expensive for States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions to identify specific
sources responsible for water quality
impairments. Many States and other
jurisdictions lack funding for moni-
toring to identify all but the most
apparent sources degrading
waterbodies. Local management
priorities may focus monitoring
budgets on other water quality
issues, such as identification of con-
taminated fish populations that pose
a human health risk. Management
priorities may also direct monitoring
efforts to larger waterbodies and
overlook sources impairing smaller
waterbodies. As a result, the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions do
not associate every impacted
waterbody with a source of impair-
ment in their 305(b) reports, and
the summary cause and source
information presented in this report
applies exclusively to a subset of the
Nation's impaired waters.
Table ES-4. Five Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment
$N^5
1
2
3
4
5
ti&ii$ ' ^::<> -' . V- ' -?te? \\ "':~,
Agriculture
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
£a$|ff | |
Agriculture
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Unspecified Nonpoint
Sources
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Petroleum Activities
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
ES-12
-------
Rivers and Streams
Rivers and streams are charac-
terized by flow. Perennial rivers and
streams flow continuously, all year
round. Nonperennial rivers and
streams stop flowing for some
period of time, usually due to dry
conditions or upstream withdrawals.
Many rivers and streams originate in
nonperennial headwaters that flow
only during snowmelt or heavy
showers. Nonperennial streams
provide critical habitats for nonfish
species, such as amphibians and
dragonflies, as well as safe havens
for juvenile fish to escape from
predation by larger fish.
The health of rivers and streams
is directly linked to habitat integrity
on shore and in adjacent wetlands.
Stream quality will deteriorate if
activities damage shoreline (i.e.,
riparian) vegetation and wetlands,
which filter pollutants from runoff
and bind soils. Removal of
vegetation also eliminates shade
that moderates stream temperature
as well as the land temperature that
can warm runoff entering surface
waters. Stream temperature, in turn,
affects the availability of dissolved
oxygen in the water column for fish
and other aquatic organisms.
Overall Water Quality
For the 1994 Report, 58 States,
Territories, Tribes, Commissions, and
the District of Columbia surveyed
615,806 miles (17%) of the Nation's
total 3.5 million miles of rivers and
streams (Figure ES-2). The surveyed
rivers and streams represent 48% of
the 1.3 million miles of perennial
rivers and streams that flow year
round in the lower 48 States.
Altogether, the States and
Tribes surveyed 27,075 fewer river
miles in 1994 than in 1992. Indi-
vidually, most States reported that
they surveyed more river miles in
1994, but their increases were offset
by a decline of 85,000 surveyed
river miles reported by Montana,
Mississippi, and Maryland. For 1994,
these States reported use support
status for only those river miles that
they surveyed in direct monitoring
programs or evaluations rather than
using inferences for unsurveyed
waters.
The following discussion applies
exclusively to surveyed waters and
cannot be extrapolated to describe
conditions in the Nation's rivers as a
whole because the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions do not con-
sistently use statistical or probabil-
istic survey methods to characterize
all their waters at this time. EPA is
working with the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions to expand survey
coverage of the Nation's waters and
expects future survey information to
cover a greater portion of the
Nation's rivers and streams.
Figure ES-2. River Miles Surveyed
Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
Total surveyed = 615,806 miles
17% Surveyed
83% Not
Surveyed
Figure ES-3. Levels of Overall Use
Support - Rivers
(Good) Fully Supporting
57%
(Good) Threatened
7%
Lid
(Fair) Partially
Supporting 22%
(Poor) Not Supporting
14%
(Poor) Not Attainable
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States,
Tribes, Territories, Commissions,
and the District of Columbia.
ES-13
-------
Of the Nation's 615,806
surveyed river miles, the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions found
that 64% have good water quality.
Of these waters, 57% fully support
their designated uses, and an addi-
tional 7% support uses but are
threatened and may become
impaired if pollution control actions
are not taken (Figure ES-3).
Some form of pollution or
habitat degradation prevents the
remaining 36% (224,236 miles) of
the surveyed river miles from fully
supporting a healthy aquatic com-
munity or human activities all year
round. Twenty-two percent of the
surveyed river miles have fair water
quality that partially supports desig-
nated uses. Most of the time, these
waters provide adequate habitat for
aquatic organisms and support hu-
man activities, but periodic pollution
interferes with these activities and/or
stresses aquatic life. Fourteen per-
cent of the surveyed river miles
have poor water quality that consis-
tently stresses aquatic life and/or
prevents people from using the river
for activities such as swimming and
fishing.
What Is Polluting Our
Rivers and Streams?
The States and Tribes report
that bacteria pollute 76,397 river
miles (which equals 34% of the
impaired river miles) (Figure ES-4).
Bacteria provide evidence of pos-
sible fecal contamination that may
cause illness "rf the public ingests the
water.
Siltation, composed of tiny soil
particles, remains one of the most
widespread pollutants impacting
rivers and streams. The States and
Tribes reported that siltation impairs
75,792 river miles (which equaJs
34% of the impaired river miles).
Bacteria and siltation are
the most widespread
pollutants in rivers and
streams, affecting 34% of
the impaired river miles.
Siltation alters aquatic habitat and
suffocates fish eggs and bottom-
dwelling organisms. Excessive silt-
ation can also interfere with drink-
ing water treatment processes and
recreational use of a river.
In addition to siltation and bac-
teria, the States and Tribes also
reported that nutrients, oxygen-
depleting substances, metals, and
habitat alterations impact more
miles of rivers and streams than
other pollutants and processes.
Often, several pollutants and
processes impact a single river seg-
ment For example, a process, such
as removal of shoreline vegetation,
may accelerate erosion of sediment
and nutrients into a stream.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
The States and Tribes reported
that agriculture is the most wide-
spread source of pollution in the
Nation's surveyed rivers (Figure
ES-4). Agriculture generates pollut-
ants that degrade aquatic life or
interfere with public use of 134,557
river miles (which equals 60% of
the impaired river miles) in 49
States and Tribes.
Twenty-one States reported the
size of rivers impacted by specific
types of agricultural activities:
Nonirrigated Crop Production -
crop production that relies on rain
as the sole source of water.
Irrigated Crop Production - crop
production that uses irrigation
systems to supplement rainwater.
Rangeland - land grazed by ani-
mals that is seldom enhanced by
the application of fertilizers or pesti-
cides, although managers some-
times modify plant species to a lim-
ited extent
Pastureland - land upon which a
crop (such as alfalfa) is raised to
feed animals, either by grazing the
animals among the crops or har-
vesting the crops.
Feedlots - facilities where animals
are fattened and confined at high
densities.
Animal Holding Areas - facilities
where animals are confined briefly
before slaughter.
The States reported that
nonirrigated crop production im-
paired the most river miles, followed
by irrigated crop production, range-
land, feedlots, pastureland, and
animal holding areas.
Many States reported declines
in pollution from sewage treatment
Agriculture is the leading
source of impairment in
the Nation's rivers,
affecting 60% of the
impaired river miles.
ES-14
-------
plants and industrial discharges as a
result of sewage treatment plant
construction and upgrades and
permit controls on industrial
discharges. Despite the improve-
ments, municipal sewage treatment
plants remain the second most
common source of pollution in
rivers (impairing 37,443 miles) be-
cause population growth increases
the burden on our municipal facili-
ties.
Hydrologic modifications and
habitat alterations are a growing
concern to the States. Hydrologic
modifications include activities that
alter the flow of water in a stream,
such as channelization, dewatering,
and damming of streams. Habitat
alterations include removal of
streamside vegetation that protects
the stream from high temperatures,
and scouring of stream bottoms.
Additional gains in water quality
conditions will be more subtle and
require innovative management
strategies that go beyond point
source controls.
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions also reported that urban
runoff and storm sewers impair
26,862 river miles (12% of the im-
paired rivers), resource extraction
impairs 24,059 river miles (11 % of
the impaired rivers), and removal of
streamside vegetation impairs
21,706 river miles (10% of the im-
paired rivers).
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions also report that "natu-
ral" sources impair significant
stretches of rivers and streams.
"Natural" sources, such as low flow
and soils with arsenic deposits, can
prevent waters from supporting uses
in the absence of human activities.
Figure ES-4. Impaired River Miles: Pollutants and Sources
Not
Surveyed |
83%
Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
Total surveyed = 615,806 miles
Total impaired = 224,236 miles
Leading Pollutants
Impaired %
Bacteria
Siltation
Nutrients
Oxygen-Depleting Sub.
Metals
Habitat Alterations
Suspended Solids
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
I I
I
I
34
34
23
18
17
16
14
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percent of Impaired River Miles
40
Leading Sources
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Hydro/Habitat Mod.
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Removal of Streamside Veg.
Forestry
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
J_
60
17
17
12
11
10
9
10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Impaired River Miles
70
ES-15
-------
Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs
Lakes are sensitive to pollution
inputs because lakes flush out their
contents relatively slowly. Even
under natural conditions, lakes
undergo eutrophication, an aging
process that slowly fills in the lake
with sediment and organic matter
(see following sidebar). The eutro-
phication process alters basic lake
characteristics such as depth, bio-
logical productivity, oxygen levels,
and water clarity. The eutrophica-
tion process is commonly defined
by a series of trophic states as
described in the sidebar.
Overall Water Quality
Forty-eight States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions surveyed overall
use support in more than 17.1 mil-
lion lake acres representing 42% of
the approximately 40.8 million total
acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs
in the Nation (Figure ES-5). For
1994, the States surveyed about
1 million fewer lake acres than in
1992.
The number of surveyed lake
acres declined because several States
separated fish tissue data from their
survey of overall use support. Some
of these States, such as Minnesota,
have established massive databases
of fish tissue contamination informa-
tion (which is used to establish fish
consumption advisories), but lack
other types of water quality data for
many of their lakes. In 1994, these
States chose not to assess overall
use support entirely with fish tissue
data alone, which is a very narrow
indicator of water quality.
The States and Tribes reported
that 63% of their surveyed 17.1
million lake acres have good water
quality. Waters with good quality
include 50% of the surveyed lake
acres fully supporting uses and 13%
of the surveyed lake acres that are
threatened and might deteriorate if
we fail to manage potential sources
of pollution (Figure ES-6).
Some form of pollution or
habitat degradation impairs the
remaining 37% of the surveyed lake
acres. Twenty-eight percent of the
surveyed lake acres have fair water
quality that partially supports desig-
nated uses. Most of the time, these
waters provide adequate habitat for
aquatic organisms and support
human activities, but periodic pollu-
tion interferes with these activities
and/or stresses aquatic life. Nine
percent of the surveyed lake acres
suffer from poor water quality that
consistently stresses aquatic life and/
or prevents people from using the
lake for activities such as swimming
and fishing.
Figure ES-5. Lake Acres Surveyed
Total lakes = 40.8 million acres
Total surveyed = 17.1 million acres
42% Surveyed
58% Not Surveyed
Figure ES-6. Levels of Overall Use
Support- Lakes
(Good) Fully Supporting
50%
(Good) Threatened
13%
(Fair) Partially
Supporting 28%
(Poor) Not Supporting
9%
(Poor) Not Attainable
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States,
Tribes, Territories, Commissions,
and the District of Columbia.
ES-16
-------
What Is Polluting Our
Lakes, Ponds, and
Reservoirs?
Forty-one States, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported
the number of lake acres impacted
by individual pollutants and
processes.
Thirty-seven States and Puerto
Rico identified more lake acres pol-
luted by nutrients than any other
pollutant or process (Figure ES-7).
The States and Puerto Rico reported
that extra nutrients pollute 2.8 mil-
lion lake acres (which equals 43% of
the impaired lake acres). Healthy
lake ecosystems contain nutrients in
small quantities, but extra inputs of
nutrients from human activities un-
balance lake ecosystems.
In addition to nutrients, the
States, Puerto Rico, and the District
of Columbia report that siltation
pollutes 1.8 million lake acres
(which equals 28% of the impaired
Trophic States
Clear waters with little organic matter or sediment
Waters with more nutrients and, therefore, more
biological productivity.
out
HypereutropMc Murky, highly productive waters, closest to the wetlands
Low in nutrients, highly colored with dissolved huirtic .
organic matter,
-------
to the fourth leading pollutant
impairing lakes in 1994. The decline
is due to changes in State reporting
and assessment methods rather
than a measured decrease in metals
contamination. In 1994, several
States chose to no longer assess
overall use support with fish con-
tamination data alone. Much of
that data consisted of measure-
ments of metals in fish tissue. As a
result of excluding this fish tissue
data, the national estimate of lake
acres impaired by metals fell by
over 2 million acres in 1994.
More States reported
impairments due to
nutrients than any other
single pollutant.
Forty-one States also surveyed
trophic status, which is associated
with nutrient enrichment, in 9,735
of their lakes. Nutrient enrichment
tends to increase the proportion of
lakes in the eutrophic and hyper-
eutrophic categories. These States
reported that 18% of the lakes they
surveyed for trophic status were
oligotrophic, 32% were mesotro-
phic, 36% were eutrophic, 6% were
hypereutrophic, and 3% were dys-
trophic. This information may not
be representative of national lake
conditions because States often
assess lakes in response to a prob-
lem or public complaint or because
of their easy accessibility. It is likely
that more remote lakeswhich
are probably less impairedare
underrepresented in these
assessments.
Figure ES-7. Impaired Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources
Not f >v
Surveyed/ \
58% ^^'^^^^
Total lakes = 40.8 million acres
Total surveyed = 17.1 million
acres
Total impaired = 6.7 million acres
Leading Pollutants
Nutrients
Siltation
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Metals
Suspended Solids
Pesticides
Priority Organic Toxic
Chemicals
Major
H Moderate/Minor
El Not Specified
I
I
43
28
24
21
14
11
8
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Percent of Impaired Lake Acres
Leading Sources
Impaired %
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Unspecified Nonpoint Sources
Hydro/Habitat Modification
Industrial Point Sources
Land Disposal
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
Not Specified
50
19
18
15
12
11
11
10 20 30 40 50
Percent of Impaired Lake Acres
60
ES-18
-------
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Forty-two States and Puerto
Rico reported sources of pollution in
some of their impacted lakes,
ponds, and reservoirs. These States
and Puerto Rico reported that agri-
culture is the most widespread
source of pollution in the Nation's
surveyed lakes (Figure ES-7). Agricul-
ture generates pollutants that de-
grade aquatic life or interfere with
public use of 3.3 million lake acres
(which equals 50% of the impaired
lake acres).
Agriculture is the leading
source of impairment in
lakes, affecting 50% of
impaired lake acres.
The States and Puerto Rico also
reported that municipal sewage
treatment plants pollute 1.3 million
lake acres (19% of the impaired lake
acres), urban runoff and storm
sewers pollute 1.2 million lake acres
(18% of the surveyed lake acres),
unspecified nonpoint sources impair
u
989,000 lake acres (15% of the
impaired lake acres), hydrologic
modifications and habitat alterations
degrade 832,000 lake acres (12% of
the impaired lake acres), and indus-
trial point sources pollute 759,000
lake acres (11% of the impaired lake
acres). Many States prohibit new
point source discharges into lakes,
but existing municipal sewage treat-
ment plants remain a leading source
of pollution entering lakes.
The States and Puerto Rico
listed numerous sources that impact
several hundred thousand lake
acres, including land disposal of
wastes, construction, flow regula-
tion, highway maintenance and
runoff, contaminated sediments,
atmospheric deposition of pollut-
ants, and onsite wastewater systems
(including septic tanks).
ES-19
-------
The Great Lakes
The Great Lakes contain one-
fifth of the world's fresh surface
water and are stressed by a wide
range of pollution sources, including
air pollution. Many of the pollutants
that reach the Great Lakes remain in
the system indefinitely because the
Great Lakes are a relatively closed
water system with few natural
outlets. Despite dramatic declines in
the occurrence of algal blooms, fish
kills, and localized "dead" zones
depleted of oxygen, less visible
problems continue to degrade the
Great Lakes.
Overall Water Quality
The States surveyed 94% of the
Great Lakes shoreline miles for 1994
and reported that fish consumption
advisories and aquatic life concerns
are the dominant water quality
problems, overall, in the Great Lakes
(Figure ES-8). The States reported
that most of the Great Lakes
nearshore waters are safe for swim-
ming and other recreational activi-
ties and can be used as a source of
drinking water with normal treat-
ment. However, only 2% of the
surveyed nearshore waters fully sup-
port designated uses, overall, and
1 % support uses but are threatened
(Figure ES-9). About 97% of the
surveyed waters do not fully support
designated uses, overall, because
fish consumption advisories are
posted throughout the nearshore
waters of the Great Lakes and water
quality conditions are unfavorable
for supporting aquatic life in many
cases. Aquatic life impacts result
from persistent toxic pollutant bur-
dens in birds, habitat degradation
and destruction, and competition
Figure ES-8. Great Lakes Shore Miles
Surveyed
Total Great Lakes = 5,559 miles
Total surveyed = 5,224 miles
94% Surveyed
6% Not Surveyed
Figure ES-9. Levels of Overall Use
Support - Great Lakes
(Good) Fully Supporting
2%
(Good) Threatened
1%
i
(Fair) Partially
Supporting 34%
(Poor) Not Supporting
63%
(Poor) Not Attainable
0%
Source: Based on 1994 State Section
305(b) reports.
ES-20
-------
and predation by nonnative species
such as the zebra mussel and the
sea lamprey.
Considerable progress has
been made in controlling
conventional pollutants,
but the Great Lakes are
still subject to the effects
of toxic pollutants.
These figures do not address water
quality conditions in the deeper,
cleaner, central waters of the Lakes.
What Is Polluting
the Great Lakes?
The States reported that most
of the Great Lakes shoreline is
polluted by toxic organic chemicals-
primarily PCBs-that are often found
in fish tissue samples. The Great
Lakes States reported that toxic
organic chemicals impact 98% of
the impaired Great Lakes shoreline
miles. Other leading causes of
impairment include pesticides,
affecting 21 %; nonpriority organic
chemicals, affecting 20%; nutrients,
affecting 6%; and metals, affecting
6% (Figure ES-10).
Figure ES-10. Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources
Total shoreline = 5,559 miles
Total surveyed = 5,224 miles
Impaired
97%
Total impaired = 5,077 miles
Leading Pollutants
impaired %
Priority Toxic Organic
Chemicals
Pesticides
Nonpriority Organic
Chemicals
Nutrients
Metals
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
P
Major
B Moderate/Minor
D Not Specified
I
I
I
I
98
21
20
6
6
6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline
Leading Sources
Impaired %
Air Pollution
Discontinued Discharges
Contaminated Sediment
Land Disposal of Wastes
Unspecified NPS
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/Storm Sew.
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
I
I
I
21
20
15
9
6
4
4
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline
ES-21
-------
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Only four of the eight Great
Lakes States measured the size of
their Great Lakes shoreline polluted
by specific sources. These States have
jurisdiction over one-third of the
Great Lakes shoreline, so their
findings do not necessarily reflect
conditions throughout the Great
Lakes Basin.
Wisconsin identifies air pollution
and discontinued discharges as a
source of pollutants contaminating
all 1,017 of their surveyed shoreline
miles. Wisconsin also identified
smaller areas impacted by
contaminated sediments, nonpoint
sources, industrial and municipal
discharges, agriculture, urban runoff
and storm sewers, combined sewer
overflows, and land disposal of
waste.
Indiana attributes all of the
pollution along its entire 43-mile
shoreline to air pollution, urban
runoff and storm sewers, industrial
and municipal discharges, and
agriculture.
Ohio reports that nonpoint
sources pollute 86 miles of its 236
miles of shoreline, in-place
contaminants impact 33 miles, and
land disposal of waste impacts 24
miles of shoreline.
New York identifies many sources
of pollutants in their Great Lakes
waters, but the State attributes the
most miles of degradation to
contaminated sediments (439 miles)
and land disposal of waste (374
miles).
ES-22
-------
Estuaries
Estuaries are areas partially sur-
rounded by land where rivers meet
the sea. They are characterized by
varying degrees of salinity, complex
water movements affected by ocean
tides and river currents, and high
turbidity levels. They are also highly
productive ecosystems with a range
of habitats for many different spe-
cies of plants, shellfish, fish, and
animals.
Many species permanently
inhabit the estuarine ecosystem;
others, such as shrimp, use the
nutrient-rich estuarine waters as
nurseries before traveling to the sea.
Estuaries are stressed by the
particularly wide range of activities
located within their watersheds.
They receive pollutants carried by
rivers from agricultural lands and
cities; they often support marinas,
harbors, and commercial fishing
fleets; and their surrounding lands
are highly prized for development.
These stresses pose a continuing
threat to the survival of these boun-
tiful waters.
Overall Water Quality
Twenty-five coastal States and
jurisdictions surveyed 78% of the
Nation's total estuarine waters in
1994 (Figure ES-11). The States and
other jurisdictions reported that
63% of the surveyed estuarine wa-
ters have good water quality that
fully supports designated uses
(Figure ES-12). Of these waters, 6%
are threatened and might deterio-
rate if we fail to manage potential
sources of pollution.
Some form of pollution or
habitat degradation impairs the
remaining 37% of the surveyed
estuarine waters. Twenty-seven
percent of the surveyed estuarine
waters have fair water quality that
partially supports designated uses.
Most of the time these waters pro-
vide adequate habitat for aquatic
organisms and support human
activities, but periodic pollution
interferes with these activities and/or
stresses aquatic life. Nine percent of
the surveyed estuarine waters suffer
from poor water quality that consis-
tently stresses aquatic life and/or
prevents people from using the
estuarine waters for activities such as
swimming and shellfishing.
Figure ES-11. Estuary Square Miles
Surveyed
Total estuaries = 34,388 square miles
Total surveyed = 26,847 square miles
78% Surveyed
22% Not Surveyed
Figure ES-12. Levels of Overall Use
Support - Estuaries
(Good) Fully Supporting
57%
(Good) Threatened
6%
L
(Fair) Partially
Supporting 27%
(Poor) Not Supporting
9%
(Poor) Not Attainable
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States,
Tribes, Territories, Commissions,
and the District of Columbia.
ES-23
-------
What Is Polluting
Our Estuaries?
The States identified more
square miles of estuarine waters
polluted by nutrients and bacteria
than any other pollutant or process
(Figure ES-13). Fifteen States
reported that extra nutrients pollute
4,548 square miles of estuarine
waters (which equals 47% of the
impaired estuarine waters). As in
lakes, extra inputs of nutrients from
human activities destabilize estua-
rine ecosystems.
Twenty-five States reported that
bacteria pollute 4,479 square miles
of estuarine waters (which equals
46% of the impaired estuarine
waters). Bacteria provide evidence
that an estuary is contaminated
with sewage that may contain
numerous viruses and bacteria that
cause illness in people.
The States also report that oxy-
gen depletion from organic wastes
impacts 3,127 square miles (which
equals 32% of the impaired
estuarine waters), habitat alterations
impact 1,564 square miles (which
equals 16% of the impaired estua-
rine waters), and oil and grease
pollute 1,344 square miles (which
equals 14% of the impaired estua-
rine waters.
Chris Inghram, age 8, Bruner Elementary, North Las Vegas, NV
ES-24
-------
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Twenty-three States reported
that urban runoff and storm sewers
are the most widespread source of
pollution in the Nation's surveyed
estuarine waters. Pollutants in urban
runoff and storm sewer effluent
degrade aquatic life or interfere with
public use of 4,508 square miles of
estuarine waters (which equals 46%
of the impaired estuarine waters)
(Figure ES-13).
The States also reported that
municipal sewage treatment plants
pollute 3,827 square miles of estua-
rine waters (39% of the impaired
estuarine waters), agriculture pol-
lutes 3,321 square miles of estuarine
waters (34% of the impaired estua-
rine waters), and industrial dis-
charges pollute 2,609 square miles
(27% of the impaired estuarine
waters). Urban sources contribute
more to the degradation of estua-
rine waters than agriculture because
urban centers are located adjacent
to most major estuaries.
Krista Rose, age 8, Bruner Elementary,
North Las Vegas, NV
Figure ES-13. Impaired Estuaries: Pollutants and Sources
Not
Surveyed
22%
Total estuaries = 34,388 square
miles
Total surveyed = 26,847
square miles
Total impaired = 9,700 square miles
Leading Pollutants
Nutrients
Bacteria
Oxygen-Depleting Sub.
Habitat Alterations
Oil and Grease
Priority Toxic Chemicals
Metals
Major
I Moderate/Minor
11 Not Specified
I
I
J I
I
I
47
46
32
16
14
10
9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles
Leading Sources
Impaired %
Urban Runoff/Storm Sew.
Municipal Point Sources
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Petroleum Activities
Construction
Land Disposal of Wastes
Major
Moderate/Minor
S Not Specified
I I I I I I
46
39
34
27
13
13
13
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles
ES-25
-------
Ocean Shoreline Waters
Although the oceans are expan-
sive, they are vulnerable to pollution
from numerous sources, including
city storm sewers, ocean outfalls
from sewage treatment plants, over-
board disposal of debris and sew-
age, oil spills, and bilge discharges
that contain oil and grease.
Nearshore ocean waters, in particu-
lar, suffer from the same pollution
problems that degrade our inland
waters.
Overall Water Quality
Thirteen of the 27 coastal States
and Territories surveyed only 9% of
the Nation's estimated 58,421 miles
of ocean coastline (Figure ES-14).
Most of the surveyed waters (4,834
miles, or 93%) have good quality
that supports a healthy aquatic
community and public activities
(Figure ES-15). Of these waters, 225
miles (4% of the surveyed shoreline)
are threatened and may deteriorate
in the future.
Some form of pollution or habi-
tat degradation impairs the
remaining 7% of the surveyed
shoreline (374 miles). Five percent
of the surveyed estuarine waters
have fair water quality that partially
supports designated uses. Most of
the time, these waters provide
adequate habitat for aquatic organ-
isms and support human activities,
but periodic pollution interferes with
these activities and/or stresses
aquatic life. Only 2% of the sur-
veyed shoreline suffers from poor
water quality that consistently
stresses aquatic life and/or prevents
people from using the shoreline for
activities such as swimming and
shellfishing.
Only six of the 27 coastal States
identified pollutants and sources of
pollutants degrading ocean shore-
line waters. General conclusions
cannot be drawn from the informa-
tion supplied by these States
because these States border less
than 1% of the shoreline along the
contiguous States. The six States
identified impacts in their ocean
shoreline waters from bacteria, met-
als, nutrients, turbidity, siltation, and
pesticides. The six States reported
that urban runoff and storm sewers,
industrial discharges, land disposal
of wastes, septic systems, agricul-
ture, unspecified nonpoint sources,
and combined sewer overflows
(CSOs) pollute their coastal shore-
line waters.
Figure ES-14. Ocean Shoreline Waters
Surveyed
Total ocean shore = 58,421 miles
including Alaska's shoreline
Total surveyed = 5,208 miles
9% Surveyed
91 % Not Surveyed
Figure ES-15. Levels of Overall Use
Support - Ocean Shoreline
Waters
(Good) Fully Supporting
89%
(Good) Threatened
4%
Lid
(Fair) Partially
Supporting 5%
(Poor) Not Supporting
2%
ra
(Poor) Not Attainable
0%
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States and
Territories.
ES-26
-------
Wetlands
Wetlands are areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface
water or ground water at a fre-
quency and duration sufficient to
support (and that under normal
circumstances do support) a preva-
lence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands, which are
found throughout the United States,
generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas.
Wetlands are now recognized as
some of the most unique and
important natural areas on earth.
They vary in type according to d'rf- .
ferences in local and regional
hydrology, vegetation, water chem-
istry, soils, topography, and climate.
Coastal wetlands include estuarine
marshes; mangrove swamps found
in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Louisiana,
and Florida; and Great Lakes coastal
wetlands. Inland wetlands, which
may be adjacent to a waterbody or
isolated, include marshes and wet
meadows, bottomland hardwood
forests, Great Plains prairie potholes,
cypress-gum swamps, and south-
western playa lakes.
In their natural condition,
wetlands provide many benefits,
including food and habitat for fish
and wildlife, water quality improve-
ment, flood protection, shoreline
erosion control, ground water
exchange, as well as natural
products for human use and oppor-
tunities for recreation, education,
and research.
Wetlands help maintain and
improve water quality by intercept-
ing surface water runoff before it
reaches open water, removing or
retaining nutrients, processing
chemical and organic wastes, and
reducing sediment loads to
receiving waters. As water moves
through a wetland, plants slow the
water, allowing sediment and pol-
lutants to settle out. Plant roots trap
sediment and are then able to
metabolize and detoxify pollutants
and remove nutrients such as nitro-
gen and phosphorus.
Wetlands function like natural
basins, storing either floodwater that
overflows riverbanks or surface
water that collects in isolated
depressions. By doing so, wetlands
help protect adjacent and
downstream property from flood
damage. Trees and other wetlands
vegetation help slow the speed of
flood waters. This action, combined
with water storage, can lower flood
heights and reduce the water's
erosive potential. In agricultural
areas, wetlands can help reduce the
likelihood of flood damage to crops.
Wetlands within and upstream of
urban areas are especially valuable
for flood protection because urban
development increases the rate and
volume of surface water runoff,
thereby increasing the risk of flood
damage.
Wetlands produce a wealth of
natural products, including fish and
shellfish, timber, wildlife, and wild
rice. Much of the Nation's fishing
and shellfishing industry harvests
wetlands-dependent species. A
national survey conducted by the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in
1991 illustrates the economic value
of some of the wetlands-dependent
products. Over 9 billion pounds of
fish and shellfish landed in the
United States in 1991 had a direct,
dockside value of $3.3 billion. This
served as the basis of a seafood
processing and sales industry that
generated total expenditures of
$26.8 billion. In addition, 35.6 mil-
lion anglers spent $24 billion on
freshwater and saltwater fishing. It is
estimated that 71 % of commercially
ES-27
-------
valuable fish and shellfish depend
directly or indirectly on coastal
wetlands.
Overall Water Quality
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions are making progress in
developing specific designated uses
and water quality standards for wet-
lands, but many States and Tribes
still lack specific water quality crite-
ria and monitoring programs for
wetlands. Without criteria and
monitoring data, most States and
Tribes cannot evaluate use support.
To date, only 9 States and Tribes
reported the designated use support
status for some of their wetlands.
Only one State used quantitative
data as a basis for the use support
decisions.
EPA cannot derive national con-
clusions about water quality condi-
tions in all wetlands because the
States used different methodologies
to survey only 3% of the total
wetlands in the Nation. Summariz-
ing State wetlands data would also
produce misleading results because
two States (North Carolina and
Louisiana) contain 91 % of the
surveyed wetlands acreage.
What Is Polluting Our
Wetlands and Where
Does This Pollution
Come From?
The States have even fewer data
to quantify the extent of pollutants
degrading wetlands and the sources
of these pollutants. Although most
States cannot quantify wetlands area
impacted by individual causes and
sources of degradation, 12 States
identified causes and 13 States iden-
tified sources known to degrade
wetlands integrity to some extent.
These States listed sediment as the
most widespread cause of degrada-
tion impacting wetlands, followed
by flow alterations, habitat modifica-
tions, and draining (Figure ES-16).
Agriculture topped the list of
sources degrading wetlands, fol-
lowed by urban runoff, hydrologic
modification, and municipal point
sources (Figure ES-17).
Wetlands Loss:
A Continuing Problem
It is estimated that over 200
million acres of wetlands existed in
the lower 48 States at the time of
European settlement. Since then,
extensive wetlands acreage has
been lost, with many of the original
wetlands drained and converted to
farmland and urban development.
Today, less than half of our original
wetlands remain. The losses amount
to an area equal to the size of Cali-
fornia. According to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's Wetlands Losses
in the United States 1780's to 1980's,
the three States that have sustained
the greatest percentage of wetlands
loss are California (91 %), Ohio
(90%), and Iowa (89%).
According to FWS status and
trends reports, the average annual
loss of wetlands has decreased over
the past 40 years. The average
annual loss from the mid-1950s to
the mid-1970s was 458,000 acres,
and from the mid-1970s to the mid-
1980s it was 290,000 acres. Agricul-
ture was responsible for 87% of the
loss from the mid-1950s to the mid-
1970s and 54% of the loss from the
mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.
Figure ES-16
Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity
(12 States Reporting)
Sediment
Flow Alterations
Habitat Alterations
Filling and Draining
Pesticides
Nutrients
Pathogens
Metals
Unknown Toxicity
8
5
5
5
3
2
2
2
2
5 10
Number of States Reporting
15
ES-28
-------
A more recent estimate of
wetlands losses from the National
Resources Inventory (NRI), con-
ducted by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), indi-
cates that 792,000 acres of wet-
lands were lost on non-Federal lands
between 1982 and 1992 for a
yearly loss estimate of 70,000 to
90,000 acres. This net loss is the
result of gross losses of 1,561,300
acres of wetlands and gross gains of
768,700 acres of wetlands over the
10-year period. The NRI estimates
are consistent with the trend of
declining wetlands losses reported
by FWS. Although losses have
decreased, we still have to make
progress toward our interim goal of
Figure ES-17
no overall net loss of the Nation's
remaining wetlands and the long-
term goal of increasing the quantity
and quality of the Nation's wetlands
resource base.
The decline in wetlands losses is
a result of the combined effect of
several trends: (1) the decline in
profitability in converting wetlands
for agricultural production;
(2) passage of Swampbuster provi-
sions in the 1985 and 1990 Farm
Bills that denied crop subsidy ben-
efits to farm operators who con-
verted wetlands to cropland after
1985; (3) presence of the CWA
Section 404 permit programs as
well as development of State man-
agement programs; (4) greater
Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity
(13 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture
Urban Runoff
Hydrologic Modification
Municipal Point Sources
Construction
Road Construction
Land Disposal
Total
5 10
Number of States Reporting
15
public interest and support for wet-
lands protection; and (5) implemen-
tation of wetlands restoration pro-
grams at the Federal, State, and
local level.
Nineteen States listed sources of
recent wetlands losses in their 1994
305(b) reports. Residential develop-
ment and urban growth were cited
as the leading sources of current
losses. Other losses were due to
commercial development; construc-
tion of roads, highways, and
bridges; agriculture; and industrial
development. In addition to human
activities, a few States also reported
that natural sources, such as rising
lake levels, resulted in wetlands
losses and degradation.
Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA
More information on wetlands
can be obtained from the
EPA Wetlands Hotline at
1-800-832-7828.
ES-29
-------
Ground Water
Ninety-five percent of all fresh
water available on earth (exclusive
of icecaps) is ground water. Ground
water-water found in natural under-
ground rock formations called aqui-
fers-is a vital natural resource with
many uses. The extent of the
Nation's ground water resources is
enormous. At least 60% of the land
area in the conterminous United
States overlies aquifers. Usable
ground water exists in every State.
Aquifers can range in size from
thin surficial formations that yield
small quantities of ground water to
large systems such as the High
Plains aquifer that underlies eight
western States and provides water
to millions. Although the Nation's
ground water is of good quality, it
is recognized that ground water is
more vulnerable to contamination
than previously reported and that
an increasing number of pollution
events and contamination sources
are threatening the integrity of the
resource.
Ground Water Use
Nationally, 51 % of the popula-
tion relies to some extent on
ground water as a source of drink-
ing water. This percentage is even
Ground water provides
drinking water for 51%
of the population.
higher in rural areas where most
residents rely on potable or treat-
able ground water as an economical
source of drinking water. Eighty-one
percent of community water
systems are dependent on ground
ES-30
water. Seventy-four percent of
community water systems are small
ground water systems serving 3,300
people or less. Ninety-five percent
of the approximately 200,000
noncommunity water systems (serv-
ing schools, parks, and other small
facilities) are ground water systems.
Irrigation accounts for approxi-
mately 63% of national ground
water withdrawals. Public drinking
water supplies account for approxi-
mately 19% of the Nation's total
ground water withdrawals. Domes-
tic, commercial, livestock, industrial,
mining, and thermoelectric with-
drawals together account for
approximately 18% of national
ground water withdrawals.
Ground Water Quality
Although the 1994 Section
305(b) State Water Quality Reports
indicate that, overall, the Nation's
ground water is of good quality,
many local areas have experienced
significant ground water contamina-
tion. The sources and types of
ground water contamination vary
depending upon the region of the
country. Those most frequently
reported by States include:
Leaking underground storage
tanks. Approximately 1.2 million
federally regulated underground
storage tanks are buried at over
500,000 sites nationwide. An esti-
mated 139,000 tanks have leaked
and impacted ground water quality.
Agricultural activities. Seventy-
seven percent of the 1.1 billion
pounds of pesticides produced
annually in the United States is
applied to land in agricultural
production, which often overlies
aquifers.
Superfund sites. More than 85%
of all Superfund sites have some
degree of ground water contamina-
tion. Most of these sites impact
aquifers that are currently used, or
potentially may be used, for drink-
ing water purposes.
Septic tanks. Approximately 23
million domestic septic tanks are in
operation in the United States.
These tanks impact ground water
quality through the discharge of
fluids into or above aquifers.
The most common contami-
nants associated with these sources
include petroleum compounds,
nitrates, metals, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and pesticides.
States are reporting that ground
water quality is most likely to be
adversely affected by contamination
-------
in areas of high demand or stress.
To combat these problems, States
are developing programs designed
to evaluate the overall quality and
vulnerability of their ground water
resources, to identify potential
threats to ground water quality, and
to identify methods to protect their
ground water resources. Thirty-three
States indicate that they have imple-
mented statewide ground water
monitoring programs.
Ground water monitoring pro-
grams vary widely among the
States, depending upon the special
needs of each of the States. For
example, some States choose to
monitor ground water quality in
specific areas that are especially
vulnerable to contamination,
whereas other States may choose to
monitor ground water quality on a
state-wide basis. When it comes to
selecting chemicals to test for in the
ground water, some States monitor
for a large suite of chemicals,
whereas other States limit monitor-
ing to one or two specific chemicals
that are a definite threat to ground
water quality.
Ground water monitoring pro-
vides a great deal of information
about the nature and quality of our
Nation's ground water resources.
Still, there is much we do not know
about how human activities influ-
ence ground water quality. Our
continued quest for information
about the status of our ground wa-
ter will help protect and preserve
this vast and vulnerable resource.
Through a greater understanding of
how human activities influence
ground water quality, we can better
ensure the long-term availability of
high-quality water for.future
generations.
Alisha Batten, age 8, Bruner Elementary, North Las Vegas, NV
Kings Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA
ES-31
-------
Water Quality Protection Programs
Although significant strides have
been made in reducing the impacts
of discrete pollutant sources, our
aquatic resources remain at risk
from a combination of point
sources and complex nonpoint
sources, including air pollution.
Since 1991, EPA has promoted the
watershed protection approach as a
holistic framework for addressing
complex pollution problems.
The watershed protection
approach is a place-based strategy
that integrates water quality man-
agement activities within hydrologi-
cally defined drainage basins-
watersheds-rather than areas
defined by political boundaries.
Thus, for a given watershed, the
approach encompasses not only the
water resource (such as a stream,
lake, estuary, or ground water aqui-
fer), but all the land from which
water drains to the resource. To
Under the Watershed
Protection Approach
(WPA), a "watershed"
is a hydrogeologic area
defined for addressing
water quality problems.
For example, a WPA
watershed may be a river
basin, a county-sized
watershed, or a small
drinking water supply
watershed.
protect water resources, it is increas-
ingly important to address the con-
dition of land areas within the
watershed because water carries the
effects of human activities through-
out the watershed as it drains off
the land into surface waters or
leaches into the ground water.
EPA's Office of Water envisions
the watershed protection approach
as the primary mechanism for
achieving clean water and healthy,
sustainable ecosystems throughout
the Nation. The watershed protec-
tion approach enables stakeholders
to take a comprehensive look at
ecosystem issues and tailor correc-
tive actions to local concerns within
the coordinated framework of a
national water program. The
emphasis on public participation
also provides an opportunity to
incorporate environmental justice
issues into watershed restoration
and protection solutions.
In May of 1994, the EPA Assis-
tant Administrator for Water, Robert
Perciasepe, created the Watershed
Management Policy Committee to
coordinate the EPA water program's
support of the watershed protection
approach. During 1995, EPA's water
program managers, under the direc-
tion of the Watershed Management
Policy Committee, evaluated their
programs and identified additional
activities needed to support the
watershed protection approach in
an action plan.
EPA's Office of Water will con-
tinue to promote and support the
watershed protection approach at
local, State, Tribal, Territorial, and
Federal levels. The Office of Water
recognizes that the watershed
protection approach relies on active
participation by local governments
and citizens who have the most
direct knowledge of local problems
and opportunities in their water-
sheds. However, the Office of Water
will look to the States, Tribes, and
Territories to create the framework
ES-32
-------
for supporting local efforts because
most EPA programs are imple-
mented by the States, Tribes, and
Territories.
The Clean Water Act
A number of laws provide the
authority to develop and implement
pollution control programs. The
primary statute providing for water
quality protection in the Nation's
rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and
coastal waters is the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, com-
monly known as the Clean Water
Act.
The CWA and its amendments
are the driving force behind many
of the water quality improvements
we have witnessed in recent years.
Key provisions of the CWA provide
the following pollution control
programs.
Water quality standards and
criteria - States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions adopt EPA-
approved standards for their
waters that define water quality
goals for individual waterbodies.
Standards consist of designated
beneficial uses to be made of
the water, criteria to protect
those uses, and antidegradation
provisions to protect existing
water quality.
Effluent guidelines - The EPA
develops nationally consistent
guidelines limiting pollutants in
discharges from industrial
facilities and municipal sewage
treatment plants. These guide-
lines are then used in permits
issued to dischargers under the
Ttie Watershed Protection Approach (WPA)
Several key principles gaide tie watershed protection approach:
Place-based focus - Resource management activities are directed
within specific geographical areas, usually defined by watershed boun-
daries, areas overlying or recharging ground water, or a combination
of both. ,
Stakeholder involvement and partnerships - Watershed initiatives
involve the people most likely to be affected by management deci-
sions in the decision making process. Stakeholder participation ensures
that the objectives of the watershed initiative wl include economic,
stability and that the people who depend on the Water resources in
the watershed will participate in planning and implementation activi-
Jtfes, Watershed initiatives also establish partnerships between federal,
State, and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations with
interests in the watershed.
« Environmental objectives - The stakeholders and partners identify
environmental objectives (such as "populations of striped bass wW
\, stabilize or increase") rather than programmatic objectives (such as
; ;?ttte State vwll eliminate the backlog of discharge.permit fienewais") to
; = imeasore tNie success of the watershed initiative. The environmental
yj^obfedlwe^are based on the condition of the ecological resource and
,:« fhie rieedsrbf people in the watershed.
« PToblern identification and prioritization - The stakeholders and
^rtriers use sound scientific data and methods to -identify and priori-
i primary threats to human and ecosystem health wfthinthe
1 Consistent with the Agency's mission, 1EPA' ,ilews-!-ecosys5 ,:
; aslhe interactions of complex communities Aatlr^u^e^ojple;':,
^ healthy ecosystems provide for the health"ahdiVvelfare of tt J; ~, I;
fhiiStiahs as well as otiier living things.
i Integrated actions - The stakeholders a
^>; a^ojlKifta comprehensive and integratsd
jf'land;fj&irie ^tions if necessary. The wai
: CTOrdjna^siactivTtfes conducted by numerous
Sand rksngoverrimental organizations to
ES-33
-------
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Additional controls
may be required if receiving
waters are still affected by water
quality problems after permit
limits are met.
Total Maximum Daily Loads-
Trie development of Total Maxi-
mum Daily Loads, or TMDLs,
establishes the link between
water quality standards and
point/nonpoint source pollution
control actions such as permits
or Best Management Practices
(BMPs). A TMDL calculates
allowable loadings from the
contributing point and
nonpoint sources to a given
waterbody and provides the
quantitative basis for pollution
reduction necessary to meet
water quality standards. States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions
develop and implement TMDLs
for high-priority impaired or
threatened waterbodies.
Permits and enforcement - All
industrial and municipal facilities
that discharge wastewater must
have an NPDES permit and are
responsible for monitoring and
reporting levels of pollutants in
their discharges. EPA issues
these permits or can delegate
that permitting authority to
qualifying States or other juris-
dictions. The States, other quali-
fied jurisdictions, and EPA
inspect facilities to determine if
their discharges comply with
permit limits. If dischargers are
not in compliance, enforcement
action is taken.
Grants - The EPA provides
States with financial assistance
to help support many of their
pollution control programs.
These programs include the
State Revolving Fund program
for construction and upgrading
of municipal sewage treatment
plants; water quality monitor-
ing, permitting, and enforce-
ment; and developing and
implementing nonpoint source
pollution controls, combined
sewer and stormwater controls,
ground water strategies, lake
assessment protection, and
restoration activities, estuary
and near coastal management
programs, and wetlands protec-
tion activities.
Nonpoint source control - The
EPA provides program guid-
ance, technical support, and
funding to help the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions
control nonpoint source pollu-
tion. The States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions are respon-
sible for analyzing the extent
and severity of their nonpoint
source pollution problems and
developing and implementing
needed water quality manage-
ment actions.
The CWA also established
pollution control and prevention
programs for specific waterbody
categories, such as the Clean Lakes
Program. Other statutes that also
guide the development of water
quality protection programs include:
The Safe Drinking Water Act,
under which States establish
standards for drinking water quality,
monitor wells and local water
supply systems, implement drinking
water protection programs, and
implement Underground Injection
Control (UIC) programs.
The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, which establishes
State and EPA programs for ground
water and surface water protection
and cleanup and emphasizes pre-
vention of releases through man-
agement standards in addition to
other waste management activities.
The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (Superfund
Program), which provides EPA with
the authority to clean up contami-
nated waters during remediation at
contaminated sites.
The Pollution Prevention Act
of 1990, which requires EPA to
promote pollutant source reduction
rather than focus on controlling
pollutants after they enter the
environment.
ES-34
-------
Protecting Lakes
Managing lake quality often
requires a combination of in-lake
restoration measures and pollution
controls, including watershed man-
agement measures:
Restoration measures are
implemented to reduce existing
pollution problems. Examples of
in-lake restoration measures
include harvesting aquatic
weeds, dredging sediment, and
adding chemicals to precipitate
nutrients out of the water col-
umn. Restoration measures
focus on restoring uses of a lake
and may not address the source
of the pollution.
Pollution control measures
deal with the sources of pollut-
ants degrading lake water
quality or threatening to impair
lake water quality. Control mea-
sures include planning activities,
regulatory actions, and imple-
mentation of BMPs to reduce
nonpoint sources of pollutants.
During the 1980s, most States
implemented chemical and
mechanical in-lake restoration
measures to control aquatic weeds
and algae. In their 1994 Section
305(b) reports, the States and
Tribes report a shift toward
nonpoint source controls to reduce
pollutant loads responsible for
aquatic weed growth and algal
blooms (Figure ES-18). Twenty-two
States reported that they imple-
mented best management practices
to control nonpoint source pollution
entering more than 171 lakes.
The States reported that they
implemented agricultural practices
to control soil erosion, constructed
retention and detention basins to
control urban runoff, managed ani-
mal waste, revegetated shorelines,
and constructed or restored wet-
lands to remove pollutants from
runoff. Although the States reported
that they still use in-lake treatments,
the States recognize that source
controls are needed in addition to
in-lake treatments to restore lake
water quality.
Successful lake programs require
strong commitment from local citi-
zens and cooperation from natural
resource agencies at the local, State,
and Federal levels.
Figure ES-18
Lake Restoration and Pollution
Coritrol Measures
Total
Implement NPS Controls (total)3
Dredging
Modified Discharge Permits
Shoreline Stabilization/Rip Rap
Lake Drawdown
Chemical Weed and Algae Controls
Mechanical Weed Harvesting
Biological Weed Control
Local Ordinances and Zoning
5 10 15 20
Number of States Reporting
22
18
14
13
12
12
11
11
10
25
includes best management practices, such as conservation tillage, sediment detention basins, vegetated
buffers, and animal waste management.
ES-35
-------
Figure ES-19. Locations of National Estuary Program Sites
The National Estuary
Program
Section 320 of the Clean Water
Act (as amended by the Water
Quality Act of 1987) established the
National Estuary Program (NEP) to
protect and restore water quality
and living resources in estuaries. The
NEP adopts a geographic or water-
shed approach by planning and
implementing pollution abatement
activities for the estuary and its
surrounding land area as a whole.
The NEP embodies the ecosys-
tem approach by building coali-
tions, addressing multiple sources of
contamination, pursuing habitat
protection as a pollution control
mechanism, and investigating cross-
media transfer of pollutants from air
and soil into specific estuarine
waters. Under the NEP, a State gov-
ernor nominates an estuary in his or
her State for participation in the
program. The State must demon-
strate a likelihood of success in pro-
tecting candidate estuaries and pro-
vide evidence of institutional, finan-
cial, and political commitment to
solving estuarine problems.
If an estuary meets the NEP
guidelines, the EPA Administrator
convenes a management
conference of representatives from
interested Federal, Regional, State,
and local governments; affected
industries; scientific and academic
institutions; and citizen organiza-
tions. The management conference
defines program goals and objec-
tives, identifies problems, and
designs strategies to control pollu-
tion and manage natural resources
in the estuarine basin. Each man-
agement conference develops and
initiates implementation of a Com-
prehensive Conservation and Man-
agement Plan (CCMP) to restore
and protect the estuary.
The NEP currently supports
28 estuary projects.
The NEP integrates science and
policy by bringing water quality
managers, elected officials, and
stakeholders together with scientists
from government agencies, aca-
demic institutions, and the private
sector. Because the NEP is not a
research program, it relies heavily
on past and ongoing research of
other agencies and institutions to
support development of CCMPs.
With the addition of seven estu-
ary sites in July of 1995, the NEP
currently supports 28 estuary
projects (see Figure ES-19). These
28 estuaries are nationally significant
in their economic value as well as in
their ability to support living
resources. The project sites also
represent a broad range of environ-
mental conditions in estuaries
throughout the United States and
its Territories so that the lessons
learned through the NEP can be
applied to other estuaries.
ES-36
-------
Shorty after coming int»
office, the Clinton Administration
convened an interageney woidang
group to address concerns with
federal wetlands policy. After hear-
ing from States, developed/ &rm-
ecs, e"nvifEmmehtcrf Interests, nTem-
bers of Congress; and sclenfists,
v^tlarias protection to^rnakev^t-
and effective. This, plan was Issued
on August 24, 1993.
The Administration's Wetlands
ting programs
Basing wetlands protection on
good sciencejand sound
States, Tribes, Jocal govern-
ments, and the public In
wetlands protection.
Protecting Wetlands
A variety of public and private
programs protect wetlands. Section
404 of the CWA continues to pro-
vide the primary Federal vehicle for
regulating certain activities in wet-
lands. Section 404 establishes a
permit program for discharges of
dredged or fill material into waters
of the United States, including
wetlands.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers (COE) and EPA jointly imple-
ment the Section 404 program. The
COE is responsible for reviewing
permit applications and making
permit decisions. EPA establishes the
environmental criteria for making
permit decisions and has the
authority to review and veto Section
404 permits proposed for issuance
by the COE. EPA is also responsible
for determining geographic jurisdic-
tion of the Section 404 permit
program, interpreting statutory
exemptions, and overseeing Section
404 permit programs assumed by
individual States. To date, only two
States (Michigan and New Jersey)
have assumed the Section 404 per-
mit program from the COE. The
COE and EPA share responsibility for
enforcing Section 404 requirements.
The COE issues individual Sec-
tion 404 permits for specific projects
or general permits (Table ES-5).
Applications for individual permits
go through a review process that
includes opportunities for EPA, other
Federal agencies (such as the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service),
State agencies, and the public to
comment. However, the vast major-
ity of activities proposed in wetlands
are covered by Section 404 general
permits. For example, in FY94, over
48,000 people applied to the COE
for a Section 404 permit. Eighty-two
percent of these applications were
covered by general permits and
were processed in an average of 16
days. It is estimated that another
50,000 activities are covered by
general permits that do not require
notification of the COE at all.
General permits allow the COE
to permit certain activities without
performing a separate individual
Table ES-5. Federal Sect
"on 404 Permits
, - '": - ' / GeneraFPerrnits ' '.,-
(streamlined permit review procedures)
Nationwide
Permits
Cover 36 types of
activities that the
COE determines
to have minimal
adverse impacts
on the environment
Regional
Permits
Developed by COE
District Offices to
cover activities in a
specified region
Programmatic
Permits
State
Programmatic
Permits
COE defers permit
decisions to State
agency while
reserving authority
to require an
individual permit
Others
Special Management
Agencies
Watershed Planning
Commissions
Individual :
:PerthitS;\
Required for major projects
that have the potential to
cause significant adverse
impacts
Project must undergo
interagency review
Opportunity for public
comment
Opportunity for 401
certification review
ES-37
-------
permit review. Some general
permits require notification of the
COE before an activity begins. There
are three types of general permits:
Nationwide permits (NWPs)
authorize specific activities across
the entire Nation that the COE
determines will have only minimal
individual and cumulative impacts
on the environment, including con-
struction of minor road crossings
and farm buildings, bank stabiliza-
tion activities, and the filling of up
to 10 acres of isolated or headwater
wetlands.
Regional permits authorize types
of activities within a geographic
area defined by a COE District
Office.
Programmatic general permits
are issued to an entity that the COE
determines may regulate activities
within its jurisdictional wetlands.
Under a programmatic general per-
mit, the COE defers its permit deci-
sion to the regulating entity but
reserves its authority to require an
individual permit.
Currently, the COE and EPA are
promoting the development of
State programmatic general permits
(SPCPs) to increase State involve-
ment in wetlands protection and
minimize duplicative State and Fed-
eral review of activities proposed in
wetlands. Each SPGP is a unique
arrangement developed by a State
and the COE to take advantage of
the strengths of the individual State
wetlands program. Several States
have adopted comprehensive SPGPs
that replace many or all COE-issued
nationwide general permits. SPGPs
simplify the regulatory process and
increase State control over their
wetlands resources. Carefully devel-
oped SPGPs can improve wetlands
protection while reducing regulatory
demands on landowners.
Water quality standards for
wetlands ensure that the provisions
of CWA Section 303 that apply to
other surface waters are also applied
to wetlands. In July 1990, EPA
issued guidance to States for the
development of wetlands water
quality standards. Water quality
standards consist of designated ben-
eficial uses, numeric criteria, narra-
tive criteria, and antidegradation
statements. Figure ES-20 indicates
the State's progress in developing
these standards.
Standards provide the founda-
tion for a broad range of water
quality management activities under
the CWA including, but not limited
to, monitoring for the Section
305(b) report, permitting under
Section 402 and 404, water quality -
certification under Section 401, and
the control of nonpoint source pol-
lution under Section 319.
States, Territories, and Tribes are
well positioned between Federal
and local government to take the
lead in integrating and expanding
wetlands protection and manage-
ment programs. They are experi-
enced in managing federally man-
dated environmental programs, and
they are uniquely equipped to help
resolve local and regional conflicts
and identify the local economic and
geographic factors that may influ-
ence wetlands protection.
Section 401 of the CWA gives
States and eligible American Indian
Tribes the authority to grant, condi-
tion, or deny certification of feder-
ally permitted or licensed activities
that may result in a discharge to
U.S. waters, including wetlands.
Such activities include discharge of
dredged or fill material permitted
under CWA Section 404, point
source discharges permitted under
CWA Section 402, and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's
Figure ES-20. Development of State Water Quality Standards for Wetlands
Antidegradation
Use Classification
Narrative Biocriteria
Numeric Biocriteria
25 States and Tribes Reporting
CH Proposed
H Under Development
In Place
I
5 10 15
Number of States Reporting
20
ES-38
-------
hydropower licenses. States review
these permits to ensure that they
meet State water quality standards.
Section 401 certification can be
a powerful tool for protecting wet-
lands from unacceptable degrada-
tion or destruction especially when
implemented in conjunction with
wetlands-specffic water quality stan-
dards. If a State or an eligible Tribe
denies Section 401 certification, the
Federal permitting or licensing
agency cannot issue the permit or
license.
Until recently, many States
waived their right to review and
certify Section 404 permits because
these States had not defined water
quality standards for wetlands or
codified regulations for implement-
ing their 401 certification program
into State law. Now, most States
report that they use the Section
401 certification process to review
Section 404 projects and to require
mitigation if there is no alternative
to degradation of wetlands. Ideally,
401 certification should be used to
augment State programs because
activities that do not require Federal
permits or licenses, such as some
ground water withdrawals, are not
covered.
State Wetlands Conservation
Plans (SWCPs) are strategies that
integrate regulatory and coopera-
tive approaches to achieve State
wetlands management goals, such
as no overall net loss of wetlands.
SWCPs are not meant to create a
new level of bureaucracy. Instead,
SWCPs improve government and
private-sector effectiveness and
efficiency by identifying gaps in
wetlands protection programs and
identifying opportunities to improve
wetlands programs.
States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions protect their wetlands with
a variety of other approaches, in-
cluding permitting programs,
coastal management programs,
wetlands acquisition programs,
natural heritage programs, and inte-
gration with other programs. The
following trends emerged from
individual State and Tribal reporting:
Most States have defined wet-
lands as waters of the State, which
offers general protection through
antidegradation clauses and desig-
nated uses that apply to all waters
of a State. However, most States
have not developed specific wet-
lands water quality standards and
designated uses that protect wet-
lands' unique functions, such as
flood attenuation and filtration.
Without specific wetlands uses
and standards, the Section 401
certification process relies heavily on
antidegradation clauses to prevent
significant degradation of wetlands.
In many cases, the States use the
Section 401 certification process to
add conditions to Section 404
permits that minimize the size of
wetlands destroyed or degraded by
proposed activities to the extent
practicable. States often add condi-
tions that require compensatory
mitigation for destroyed wetlands,
but the States do not have the
resources to perform enforcement
inspections or followup monitoring
to ensure that the wetlands are
constructed and functioning
properly.
More States are monitoring
selected, largely unim parted
wetlands to establish baseline
conditions in healthy wetlands. The
States will use this information to
monitor the relative performance of
constructed wetlands and to help
establish biocriteria and water qual-
ity standards for wetlands.
Although the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions report that they
are making progress in protecting
wetlands, they also report that the
pressure to develop or destroy wet-
lands remains high. EPA and the
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions
will continue to pursue new mecha-
nisms for protecting wetlands that
rely less on regulatory tools.
Protecting the
Great Lakes
Restoring and protecting the
Great Lakes requires cooperation
from numerous organizations be-
cause the pollutants that enter the
Great Lakes originate in both the
United States and Canada, as well
as in other countries. The Interna-
tional Joint Commission (IJC), estab-
lished by the 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty, provides a framework for the
cooperative management of the
Great Lakes. Representatives from
the United States and Canada, the
Province of Ontario, and the eight
States bordering the Lakes sit on the
IJC's Water Quality Board. The
Water Quality Board recommends
actions for protecting and restoring
the Great Lakes and evaluates the
environmental policies and actions
implemented by the United States
and Canada.
The EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) coordi-
nates Great Lakes management
ES-39
-------
activities conducted by all levels of
government within the United
States. The GLNPO also works with
nongovernmental organizations to
protect and restore the Lakes. The
GLNPO provides leadership through
its annual Great Lakes Program Priori-
ties and Funding Guidance. The
GLNPO also serves as a liaison to
the Canadian members of the IJC
and the Canadian environmental
agencies.
The 1978 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (as amended in
1987) lay the foundation for on-
going efforts to restore and protect
the Great Lakes. The Agreement
committed the United States and
Canada to developing Remedial
Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of
Concern and Lakewide Manage-
ment Plans (LaMPs) for each Lake.
Areas of Concern are specially desig-
nated waterbodies around the Great
Lakes that show symptoms of seri-
ous water quality degradation. Most
of the 42 Areas of Concern are
located in harbors, bays, or river
mouths entering the Great Lakes.
RAPs identify impaired uses and
examine management options for
addressing degradation in an Area
of Concern. LaMPs use an ecosys-
tem approach to examine water
quality issues that have more wide-
spread impacts within each Great
Lake. Public involvement is a critical
component of both LaMP develop-
ment and RAP development.
EPA advocates pollution preven-
tion as the most effective approach
for achieving the virtual elimination
of persistent toxic discharges into
the Great Lakes. The GLNPO has
funded numerous pollution preven-
tion grants throughout the Great
Lakes Basin during the past 3 years.
EPA and the States also imple-
mented the 38/50 Program in the
Great Lakes Basin, under which EPA
received voluntary commitments
from industry to reduce the emis-
sion of 17 priority pollutants by
50% by the end of 1995. In addi-
tion, EPA, the States, and Canada
are implementing a virtual elimina-
tion initiative for Lake Superior. The
first phase of the initiative seeks to
eliminate new contributions of
mercury.
The Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative is a key element of the
environmental protection efforts
undertaken by the United States in
the Great Lakes Basin. The purpose
of the Initiative is to provide a con-
sistent level of protection in the
Basin from the effects of toxic
pollutants. In 1989, the Initiative
was organized by EPA at the request
of the Great Lakes States to pro-
mote consistency in their
environmental programs in the
Great Lakes Basin with minimum
requirements.
Initiative efforts were well under
way when Congress enacted the
Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of
1990. The Act requires EPA to pub-
lish proposed and final water quality
guidance that specifies minimum
water quality criteria for the Great
Lakes System. The Act also requires
the Great Lakes States to adopt
provisions that are consistent with
the EPA final guidance within 2
years of EPA's publication. In addi-
tion, Indian Tribes authorized to
administer an NPDES program in
the Great Lakes Basin must also
adopt provisions consistent with
EPA's final guidance.
To carry out the Act, EPA pro-
posed regulations for implementing
the guidance on April 16, 1993,
and invited the public to comment.
The States and EPA conducted pub-
lic meetings in all of the Great Lakes
States during the comment period.
As a result, EPA received over
26,500 pages of comments from
over 6,000 commenters. EPA
reviewed all of the comments and
published the final guidance in
March of 1995.
The final guidance prioritizes
control of long-fasting pollutants
that accumulate in the food web
bioaccumulative chemicals of con-
cern (BCCs). The final guidance
includes provisions to phase out
mixing zones for BCCs (except in
limited circumstances), more exten-
sive data requirements to ensure
that BCCs are not underregulated
due to a lack of data, and water
quality criteria to protect wildlife
that feed on aquatic prey.
ES-40
-------
Publication of the final guidance is a
milestone in EPA's move toward
increasing stakeholder participation
in the development of innovative
and comprehensive programs for
protecting and restoring our natural
resources.
The Chesapeake Bay
Program
In many areas of the Chesa-
peake Bay, the quality is not suffi-
cient to support living resources
year round. In the wanner months,
large portions of the Bay contain
little or no dissolved oxygen. Low
oxygen conditions may cause fish
eggs and larvae to die. The growth
and reproduction of oysters, clams,
and other bottom-dwelling animals
are impaired. Adult fish find their
habitat reduced and their feeding
inhibited.
Many areas of the Bay also have
cloudy water from excess sediment
in the water or an overgrowth of
algae (stimulated by excessive nutri-
ents in the water). Turbid waters
block the sunlight needed to sup-
port the growth and survival of Bay
grasses, also known as submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV). Without
SAV, critical habitat for fish and
crabs is lost Although there has
been a recent resurgence of SAV in
some areas of the Bay, most areas
still do not support abundant popu-
lations as they once did.
The main causes of the Bay's
poor water quality and aquatic habi-
tat loss are elevated levels of the
nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus.
Both are natural fertilizers found in
animal wastes, soil, and the atmos-
phere. These nutrients have always
existed in the Bay, but not at the
present elevated concentrations.
When the Bay was surrounded pri-
marily by forests and wetlands, very
little nitrogen and phosphorus ran
off the land into the water. Most of
it was absorbed or held in place by
the natural vegetation. As the use of
the land has changed and the
watershed's population has grown,
the amount of nutrients entering
the Bay has increased tremendously.
Now in its twelfth year, the
Chesapeake Bay Program is a re-
gional partnership of Federal, State,
and local participants that has di-
rected and coordinated restoration
of the Bay since the signing of the
historic 1983 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, the District of Columbia,
the Chesapeake Bay Commission,
EPA, and advisory groups form the
partnership. The Chesapeake Execu-
tive Council provides leadership for
the Bay Program and establishes
program policies to restore and
protect the Bay and its living
resources. The Council consists of
the governors of Maryland, Virginia,
and Pennsylvania, the mayor of the
District of Columbia, the administra-
tor of EPA, and the chairperson of
the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
Considered a national and inter-
national model for estuarine restora-
tion and protection programs, the
Chesapeake Bay Program is still a
"work in progress." Since 1983,
milestones in the evolution of the
program include the 1987 Chesa-
peake Bay Agreement and the 1992
amendments to the Agreement The
1987 Agreement set a goal to re-
duce the quantity of nutrients enter-
ing the Bay by 40% by the year
2000. In the 1992 amendments to
the Agreement, the partners reaf-
firmed the 40% nutrient reduction
goal, agreed to cap nutrient load-
ings beyond the year 2000, and
agreed to attack nutrients at their
source by applying the 40% reduc-
tion goal to the 10 major tributaries
of the Bay. The amendments also
stressed managing the Bay as a
whole ecosystem. The amendments
also spell out the importance of
reducing atmospheric sources of
nutrients and broadening regional
interstate cooperation.
Protection and restoration of
forests is a critical component of the
Chesapeake Bay Program because
scientific data clearly show that
forests are the most beneficial land
cover for maintaining clean water,
especially forests alongside
waterbodies in the riparian zone.
Through the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram, unique partnerships have
been formed among the Bay
region's forestry agencies, forest
managers, and interested citizen
groups. Since 1990, the U.S. Forest
Service has assigned a Forestry Pro-
gram Coordinator to the Chesa-
peake Bay Program to assist both
the EPA and Bay Program commit-
tees in developing strategies and
projects that will contribute to the
Bay restoration goals. A Forestry
Work Croup, formed under the
Nonpoint Source Subcommittee,
raises and addresses issues related to
forests and the practice of forestry
in the watershed.
In addition, State foresters and
local governments have developed
and implemented numerous
programs and projects aimed at the
protection and restoration of forests.
ES-41
-------
Forestry incentive programs in all of
the Bay States have resulted in the
planting of millions of trees, the
restoration of nearly 50 miles of
riparian forest, the development of
stewardship plans, and forest .
enhancement projects on thousands
of acres within the Bay watershed.
On the positive side, the extent
of Bay grasses has increased by 75%
since 1978. The current extent of
SAV attains 64% of the goal estab-
lished by the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram. Striped bass, or rockfish, have
made a remarkable recovery over
the past decade due to improved
reproduction and better control of
the harvest. There has been a mod-
est increase in the number of Ameri-
can shad returning to the Bay to
spawn. Controls on the harvest of
American shad, creation of fish pas-
sages at blockages, stocking pro-
grams, and habitat restoration are
expected to yield increases in the
American shad population and simi-
lar fish species that inhabit the Bay
during part of their life cycle.
Phosphorus levels continue to
decline and, after many years of
increasing nitrogen concentrations,
most of the Bay's tributaries are
showing a leveling off of this trend.
Some tributaries are showing declin-
ing trends in nitrogen concentra-
tions. These trends indicate that
both point and nonpoint source
pollution abatement programs are
working.
Despite the promising trends in
nutrient concentrations, oxygen
concentrations are still low enough
to cause severe impacts or stressful
conditions in the mainstem of the
Bay and several larger tributaries.
Prospects for the Bay's oyster
populations remain poor. Overhar-
vesting, habitat loss, and disease
have severely depleted oyster stocks.
New management efforts have been
developed to improve this situation.
The blue crab is currently the
most important commercial and
recreational fishery in the Bay. There
is growing concern about the health
of the blue crab population due to
increasing harvesting pressures and
relatively low harvests in recent
years. Both Maryland and Virginia
have recently implemented new
regulations on commercial and rec-
reational crabbers to protect this
important resource.
Overall, the Chesapeake Bay still
shows symptoms of stress from an
expanding population and changes
in land use. However, conditions in
the Chesapeake Bay have improved
since the Chesapeake Bay Program
was launched, and continuation of
the Program promises an even
brighter future for the Bay.
The Gulf of Mexico
Program
The Gulf of Mexico Program
(CMP) was established in 1988 with
EPA as the lead Federal agency in
response to signs of long-term envi-
ronmental damage throughout the
Cuffs coastal and marine ecosystem.
The main purpose of the CMP is to
develop and help implement a strat-
egy to protect, restore, and main-
tain the health and productivity of
the Gulf. The CMP is a grass roots
program that serves as a catalyst to
promote sharing of information,
pooling of resources, and coordina-
tion of efforts to restore and reclaim
wetlands and wildlife habitat, clean
up existing pollution, and prevent
future contamination and destruc-
tion of the Gulf. The GMP mobilizes
State, Federal, and local govern-
ment; business and industry;
academia; and the community at
ES-42
-------
large through public awareness and
information dissemination programs,
forum discussions, citizen commit-
tees, and technology applications.
A Policy Review Board and the
Management Committee determine
the scope and focus of CMP activi-
ties. The program also receives
input from a Technical Advisory
Committee and a Citizen's Advisory
Committee. The GMP Office, eight
technical issue committees, and the
operations and support committees
coordinate the collection, integra-
tion, and reporting of pertinent data
and information. The issue commit-
tees are composed of individuals
from Federal, State, and local agen-
cies and from industry, science,
education, business, citizen groups,
and private organizations.
The issue committees are
responsible for documenting envi-
ronmental problems and manage-
ment goals, available resources, and
potential solutions for a broad range
of issues, including habitat degrada-
tion, public health, freshwater
inflow, marine debris, shoreline
erosion, nutrient enrichment, toxic
pollutants, and living aquatic
resources. The issue committees
publish their findings in Action
Agendas.
On December 10, 1992, the
Governors of Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas;
EPA; the Chair of the Citizen's Advi-
sory Committee; and representatives
of 10 other Federal agencies signed
the Gulf of Mexico Program Partner-
ship for Action agreement for
protecting, restoring, and enhanc-
ing the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent _
lands. The agreement committed
the signatory agencies to pledge
their efforts, over 5 years, to obtain
the knowledge and resources to:
Significantly reduce the rate of
loss of coastal wetlands
Achieve an increase in Gulf Coast
seagrass beds
Enhance the sustainability of Gulf
commercial and recreational fisher-
ies
Protect human health and food
supply by reducing input of nutri-
ents, toxic substances, and patho-
gens to the Gulf
Increase Gulf shellfish beds avail-
able for safe harvesting by 10%
Ensure that all Gulf beaches are
safe for swimming and recreational
uses
Reduce by at least 10% the
amount of trash on beaches
Improve and expand coastal
habitats that support migratory
birds, fish, and other living resources
Expand public education/out-
reach tailored for each Gulf Coast
county or parish
Reduce critical coastal and shore-
line erosion.
Beginning in 1992, the GMP
also launched Take-Action Projects
in each of the five Gulf States to
demonstrate that program strategies
and methods could achieve rapid
results. The Take-Action Projects
primarily address inadequate
sewage treatment, pollution preven-
tion, and habitat protection and
restoration. Several projects aim to
demonstrate the effectiveness of
innovative sewage treatment tech-
nologies to control pathogenic con-
tamination of shellfish harvesting
areas. Other projects aim to restore
wetlands, sea grass beds, and oyster
reefs. The Take-Action Projects are
designed to have Gulf-wide applica-
tion.
Take-Action Projects
in the five Gulf States
primarily address sewage
treatment pollution
prevention, and habitat
protection and
restoration.
Since 1992, EPA has streamlined
and restructured its management
scheme for the GMP to increase
Regional involvement and better
meet the needs of the 5-year envi-
ronmental challenges. The GMP has
also expanded efforts to integrate
Mexico and the Caribbean Islands
into management of the Gulf. These
activities include technology transfer
and development of international
agreements that prohibit the
discharge of ship-generated wastes
and plastics into waters of the Gulf
and Caribbean Sea.
ES-43
-------
Ground Water
Protection Programs
The sage adage that "An ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of
cure" is being borne out in the field
of ground water protection. Studies
evaluating the cost of prevention
versus the cost of cleaning up con-
taminated ground water have found
that there are real cost advantages
to promoting protection of our
Nation's ground water resources.
Numerous laws, regulations,
and programs play a vital role in
protecting ground water. The fol-
lowing Federal laws and programs
enable, or provide incentives for,
EPA and/or States to regulate or
voluntarily manage and monitor
sources of ground water pollution:
The Resource Conservation and t
Recovery Act (RCRA) addresses the*
problem of safe disposal of the
huge volumes of solid and hazard-
ous waste generated nationwide
each year. RCRA is part of EPA's
c6mprehensive program to protect
ground water resources through the
development of regulations and
methods for handling, storing, and
disposing of hazardous material and
through the regulation of under-
ground storage tanksthe most
frequently cited source of ground
water contamination.
The Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) regulates the
restoration of contaminated ground
water at abandoned hazardous
waste sites.
The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) regulates subsurface
injection of fluids that can contami-
nate ground water.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
controls the use and disposal of
pesticides, some of which have
been detected in ground water
wells in rural communities.
The Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) controls the use and disposal
of additional toxic substances,
thereby minimizing their entry into
ground water. Other Federal laws
establish State grants that may be
used to protect ground water.
Clean Water Act Sections 319(h)
and (i) and 518 provide funds to
State agencies to implement EPA-
approved nonpoint source
Comprehensive State
'"''':: Protection
Establishing priorities, based on the
and Wentification of sources of contamination ; :!!>:V ^t;
Ground Water Protection
6f six "strategic activities." They am:,..; ;.;;V,,>; ;
I a prevention-oriented goal ~; ]<:> '/<;:::
Defining rotes, responsibifities, resources/and cooidinstir^;nt^Si»;
rife,'-.'./;/' ; - ';--$J:H V^-'v-'-J
Implementing all feessary efforts to,
fection goat
Hid information collection and
ii^te priorities , . -": '' ,y=, ^ '-,f\ ^ |1 ^;;, >' V^ ;';/^; °;<:: -,
^(ucajfon and, participation;;; AV--'{/;' ;,>; Ivi-^-f,v?" V;;-.:-/'.
ES-44
-------
management programs that include
ground water protection activities.
Several States have developed pro-
grams that focus on ground water
contamination resulting from
agriculture and septic tanks.
The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 allows grants for research
projects to demonstrate agricultural
practices that emphasize ground
water protection and reduce the
excessive use of fertilizers and
pesticides.
Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs
(CSCWPPs) attempt to combine all
of the above efforts and emphasize
contamination prevention.
Comprehensive State
ground water protection
programs support State-
directed priorities in
resource protection.
CSGWPPs improve coordination of
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
ground water programs and enable
distribution of resources to estab-
lished priorities.
Another means of protecting
our Nation's ground water resources
is through the implementation of
Wellhead Protection Plans. EPA's
Office of Ground Water and Drink-
ing Water is supporting the
development and implementation
of Wellhead Protection Plans at the
local level through many efforts. For
example, EPA-funded support is
provided through the National Rural
Water Association Ground Water/
Wellhead Protection programs. At
the conclusion of the first 4 years of
this program, over 2,000 communi-
ties in 26 States were actively in-
volved in protecting their water
supplies by implementing wellhead
protection programs. These 2,000
communities represent almost 4
million people in the rural areas of
the United States who will have
better-protected water supplies.
Recognizing the importance
and cost-effectiveness of protecting
our Nation's ground water
resources, States are participating in
numerous activities to prevent
future impairments of the resource.
These activities include enacting
legislation aimed at the develop-
ment of comprehensive State
ground water protection programs
and promulgating protection regu-
lations. More than 80% of the
States indicate that they have
current or pending legislation
geared specifically to ground water
protection. Generally, State legisla-
tion focuses on the need for pro-
gram development, increased data
collection, and public education
programs. In addition, States also
may mandate strict technical con-
trols such as discharge permits,
underground storage tank registra-
tions, and protection standards.
All of these programs are
intended to provide protection to a
valuable, and often vulnerable,
resource. Through the promotion of
ground water protection on both
State and Federal levels, our
Nation's ground water resources will
be safeguarded against contamina-
tion, thereby protecting human
health and the environment
ES-45
-------
What You Can Do
Federal and State programs
have helped clean up many waters
and slow the degradation of others.
But government alone cannot solve
the entire problem, and water qual-
ity concerns persist. Nonpoint
source pollution, in particular, is
everybody's problem, and every-
body needs to solve it.
Examine your everyday activities
and think about how you are con-
tributing to the pollution problem.
Here are some suggestions on how
you can make a difference.
Be Informed
You should learn about water
quality issues that affect the com-
munities in which you live and
work. Become familiar with your
local water resources. Where does
your drinking water come from?
What activities in your area might
affect the water you drink or the
rivers, lakes, beaches, or wetlands
you use for recreation?
Leam about procedures for
disposing of harmful household
wastes so they do not end up in
sewage treatment plants that can-
not handle them or in landfills not
designed to receive hazardous
materials.
Be Responsible
In your yard, determine
whether additional nutrients are
needed before you apply fertilizers,
and look for alternatives where fertil-
izers might run off into surface
waters. Consider selecting plants
and grasses that have low mainte-
nance requirements. Water your
lawn conservatively. Preserve
existing trees and plant new trees
and shrubs to help prevent erosion
and promote infiltration of water
into the soil. Restore bare patches in
your lawn to prevent erosion. If you
own or manage land through which
a stream flows, you may wish to
consult your local county extension
office about methods of restoring
stream banks in your area by plant-
ing buffer strips of native vegeta-
tion.
Around your house, keep litter,
pet waste, leaves, and grass clip-
pings out of gutters and storm
drains. Use the minimum amount of
water needed when you wash your
car. Never dispose of any house-
hold, automotive, or gardening
wastes in a storm drain. Keep your
septic tank in good working order.
Within your home, fix any drip-
ping faucets or leaky pipes and
install water-saving devices in
shower heads and toilets. Always
follow directions on labels for use
and disposal of household chemi-
cals. Take used motor oil, paints,
and other hazardous household
materials to proper disposal sites
such as approved service stations or
designated landfills.
Be Involved
As a citizen and a voter there is
much you can do at the community
level to help preserve and protect
our Nation's water resources. Look
around. Is soil erosion being con-
trolled at construction sites? Is the
community sewage plant being
operated efficiently and correctly? Is
the community trash dump in or
along a stream? Is road deicing salt
being stored properly?
Become involved in your com-
munity election processes. Listen
and respond to candidates' views
on water quality and environmental
issues. Many communities have
recycling programs; find out about
them, leam how to recycle, and
volunteer to help out if you can.
One of the most important things
you can do is find out how your
community protects water quality,
and speak out if you see problems.
Volunteer Monitoring:
You Can Become Part
of the Solution
In many areas of the country,
citizens are becoming personally
involved in monitoring the quality
of our Nation's water. As a
volunteer monitor, you might be
involved in taking ongoing water
quality measurements, tracking the
progress of protection and restora-
tion projects, or reporting special
events, such as fish kills and storm
damage.
ES-46
-------
Volunteer monitoring can be of
great benefit to State and local gov-
ernments. Some States stretch their
monitoring budgets by using data
collected by volunteers, particularly
in remote areas that otherwise
might not be monitored at all.
Because you are familiar with the
water resources in your own neigh-
borhood, you are also more likely to
spot unusual occurrences such as
fish kills.
The benefits to you of becom-
ing a volunteer are also great. You
will learn about your local water
resources and have the opportunity
to become personally involved in a
nationwide campaign to protect a
vital, and mutually shared, resource.
If you would like to find out more
about organizing or joining
volunteer monitoring programs in
your State, contact your State de-
partment of environmental quality,
or write to:
Alice Mayio
Volunteer Monitoring
Coordinator
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7018
For further information on water
quality in your State or other juris-
diction, contact your Section 305(b)
coordinator listed in Chapters 9, 10,
and 11. Additional water quality
information may be obtained from
the Regional offices of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(see inside front cover).
For Further Reading
Volunteer Monitoring. EPA-800-F-
93-008. September 1993. A brief
fact sheet about volunteer moni-
toring, including examples of how
volunteers have improved the
environment.
Starting Out in Volunteer Water
Monitoring. EPA-841-B-92-002.
August 1992. A brief fact sheet
about how to become involved in
volunteer monitoring.
National Directory of Citizen Volun-
teer Environmental Monitoring Pro-
grams, Fourth Edition. EPA-841 -B-
94-001. January 1994. Contains
information about 519 volunteer
monitoring programs across the
Nation.
Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A
Methods Manual. EPA-841-D-95-
001. 1995. Presents information
and methods for volunteer moni-
toring of streams.
Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A
Methods Manual. EPA-842-B-93-
004. December 1993. Presents
information and methods for vol-
unteer monitoring of estuarine
waters.
Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Meth-
ods Manual. EPA-440/4-91-002.
December 1991. Discusses lake
water quality issues and methods
for volunteer monitoring of lakes.
Many of these publications can
also be accessed through EPA's
Water Channel on the Internet.
From the World Wide Web or
Gopher, enter http://
www.epa.gov/owow to enter
WIN and locate documents. See
page 380 for additional informa-
tion about EPA's Water Channel.
ES-47
-------
''^Wiri&r&^^
li'fft^'''.«,f!sjtfft
ES-48
------- |