440490005
. cr2(r»ri:a ^?=
*v»v^ : i£iiLiwa £1X3 WVtiiVvi ii
-------
The Quality of Our Nation's Water 1
Our Nation's Water Resources 2
What is Water Pollution? 4
Monitoring Our Nation's Waters 6
Rivers and Streams 8
Lakes and Reservoirs 10
The Great Lakes 12
Estuaries • 14
Coastal Waters 15
Wetlands 16
Ground Water 18
Water Quality Protection 20
You Can Make a Difference 22
A view of the Pecos River in northern New Mexico.
Prinltd on Resydtd Ptper
Front cover: Acadia National Park, Maine
Photo by Judith B. Trimarchi
All photographs are courtesy of individual and or organization listed.
-------
Introduction
What is water pollution? How does
it affect the Nation's rivers, lakes,
estuaries, coastal waters, wetlands,
and ground waters? Are we making
progress cleaning up our waters?
What can you do to help?
If these questions interest you,
read on. This booklet has been devel-
oped to provide answers to these
questions, based on our best available
current information. It is meant as an
introduction to the water quality
issues, concerns, and facts of today
and is drawn from an EPA report to
Congress on National Water Quality.
It is not a technical report and it
cannot, by its very nature, answer
all questions about water pollution.
But it can serve to encourage you,
the reader, to become educated about
water quality issues and involved in
the decisions that affect our waters.
Why is this important? It is im-
portant because we have abused our
water resources for centuries. As our
society has become more complex, our
growing population has put greater
stress on our water resources and we
have made greater use of a range of
synthetic chemicals. We have dumped
untreated or poorly treated wastes
into our rivers, lakes and oceans; we
have drawn water out of the ground
faster that it can be replenished; we
have used and overused the land
without thought to erosion and con-
taminated runoff; we have built our
houses, cities, dams, bridges, and
roads wherever we pleased, regardless
of our impact on the natural environ-
ment. These actions began when
mankind first began to alter the
natural environment, and they con-
tinue today.
Today, however, we are beginning
to question. We are beginning to
learn about the natural links between
ourselves and our environment, to
search for solutions to the problems
we have created. We are beginning
to recognize our role as stewards of
the environment, entrusted with its
care and protection.
Clean Waters—How Far
Have We Come?
Much work remains to be done, as
this booklet will show. However, it is
easy to lose sight of how far we have
come in cleaning up our water
resources. Young people in particular
may not be aware of how badly
polluted many of our rivers and lakes
were in the 1950s and 1960s. Many
rivers smelled foul due to complete
lack of oxygen and supported only
the most pollution-tolerant organisms.
Urban waters were plagued by un-
treated or poorly treated sewage
wastes and industrial chemicals, and
were covered with oil and debris. At
least one river was so polluted it ac-
tually caught fire on four separate
occasions!
These forms of gross pollution
are largely a thing of the past.
Through substantial investment in the
treatment of sewage and industrial
wastes, we have cleaned up many
rivers. Fish have returned to waters
that once could not support them,
and people are safely swimming in
areas that once were off-limits. Our
pollution control efforts have kept
pace with a rapid rise in population:
59 million more people are now
served by improved levels of sewage
treatment than in 1972, and signifi-
cant reductions have occurred in
pollutant loads from sewage treat-
ment facilities and industries.
However, that doesn't mean that
our water resources are as clean as
they could be. To a large extent, we
have done the "easy" work—control-
ling the discharges from sewage treat-
ment plants and industries that enter
waters via discrete points such as
pipes (known as "point source" pol-
lution). But our water quality infor-
mation tells us that nontradirional
sources of pollution—especially storm-
water runoff from urban/suburban
areas and "non-point sources" of
pollution originating from diffuse
areas and land use activities such as
farming, timbering, and construction-
are now the leading reasons for water
quality problems. We are also learn-
ing more about subtle risks to aquatic
ecosystems and human health resulting
from toxic chemicals. These problems
pose difficult cleanup challenges, but
like the problems that came before,
they can be solved. How much prog-
ress we make in coming years is
limited only by our understanding of
these problems and by our commit-
ment, as individuals and as a society,
to solving them.
Skipjack on the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
Current estimates tell us that there
are about two million miles of rivers
and streams in the U.S., nearly 40
million acres of lakes and reservoirs
(excluding the Great Lakes), and
about 36,000 square miles of estu-
aries. The Great Lakes hold one
fifth of the world's fresh water. We
are only now beginning to map
the extent of wetland areas of the
U.S.—the swamps, marshes, prairie
potholes, and wet meadows that are
flooded or saturated by water for
various times each year. These sur-
face waters, the oceans, and the
water that lies below ground in
water-bearing rock formations are
all linked by nature into the hydro-
logic cycle (see Figure below).
They are also linked by our
actions—specifically, by the uses to
which we put them. When we dam
rivers to generate electric power or
drain wetlands to increase our farm-
ing acreage, we alter the relation-
ship of these waters to the natural
environment: to downstream waters,
to the animal and plant communi-
ties that depend on them, to the
land over which they flow. When
we pollute our rivers, rivers may
carry those pollutants to lakes or all
the way to the sea. When we extract
too much ground water for irriga-
tion or to allow cities to bloom in
the desert, we dry out the mountain
springs that feed the rivers.
Designated Uses—
A Basic Concept
All waters of the U.S. are required
by law to be designated for "beneficial
uses" that must then be protected.
These uses establish a level of qual-
ity that is the goal for water quality
management. Waters classified for
support of aquatic life and contact
recreation should be usable for fish-
ing and swimming. A smaller set of
waters are designated as public water
supplies—with some treatment, this
is the water that is piped into homes
for drinking and bathing.
Once States have set these uses
for their waters, scientists establish
criteria necessary to protect those
uses. These criteria are requirements
such as chemical or habitat condi-
tions that must be met in order to
maintain compliance with the goals.
If these criteria are not met, the uses
they are protecting may be impaired.
Degree of Designated Use Support in the
Nation's Assessed Waters
Do Not
Support Uses
Partially
Support Uses
Fully
Support Uses
Assessed
Total in U.S.*
RIVER
MILES
LAKE
ACRES
ESTUARY
SQUARE MILES
10% (53,449)
20% (104,632)
70% (361,332)
10% (1,591,391)
17% (12,701,577)
74% (12,021,044)
6% (1.488)
23% (6,078)
72% (19,110)
519,412
1,800,000
16,313,962
39,400,000
26,628
36,000
Total waters based on State-reported Information In America's Clean Water: The States' Non-
point Source Assessment, ASIWPCA, 1965. Total U.S. estuarine square miles based on 1988 State
reported 305(b) data and excludes Alaska and island Territories.
Storage in the
Atmosphere
Precipitatio
Over the Oceans
Horizontal Transport from the
Oceans to the Land
Precipitation Over the Land
Evaporation
from the
Oceans
Evaporation
Transpiration
Runoff
to
Storage in ^~--/V,..A Oceans
Rivers and Lakes
Storage In the Oceans
Moisture Storage
Groundwater RunoTr to Streams
-------
Together, water quality criteria
and designated uses comprise each
State's water quality standards, which
must be approved by EPA. It is by
assessing the degree to which stan-
dards are met and designated uses
are supported that we determine the
status of the Nation's waters.
The basis for this
report—The 1988
National Water
Quality Inventory
Every two years, the States report to
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on the quality of their
rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries,
coastal waters, wetlands, and
ground water. EPA, in turn, pre-
pares and delivers a summary
report to Congress. This information
is used to assess the effect of cur-
rent water quality protection
policies, and to help determine
where improvement is needed.
This booklet explains the findings
in the 1988 National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress. It
begins by exploring the nature and
impacts of water pollution; discusses
how we monitor water quality and
points out the limits of our available
data; summarizes what States report
on quality conditions; briefly high-
lights some of the steps that are
being taken to restore and protect
our water resources; and describes
actions that you, as an individual,
can take to make a difference.
-Oceans 97.6%
^Icecaps, Glaciers 1.9%
-Ground Water 0.5%
This figure shows the relative amounts of
free water in storage on the earth. Nearly
98 percent of the water is stored in the
oceans. Glaciers and ice caps contain
the largest store of fresh water, but this
water is relatively unavailable to man.
Most of the readily available fresh water
is stored in porous rock beds as ground-
water. The amount of water stored in
the atmosphere is relatively small, but
because it is actively transported it plays
a key role in the hydrologic cycle. (After
Nace, 1969)
--Rivers, Lakes, Inland Seas 0.02%
i Soil Moisture 0.01%
'Atmosphere 0.0001%
Geese in a salt-water marsh on Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
-------
Water pollution is a broad term. It
refers to the alteration of aquatic
ecosystems such that aquatic life
may be impaired or destroyed,
human health may be threatened, or
water may become so foul that
recreation and aesthetic enjoyment
are no longer possible. This altera-
tion may occur when substances
such as chemicals, sediments, and
excess nutrients are introduced into
our waters. However, water pollu-
tion also includes other actions that
alter aquatic ecosystems, such as
dredging or changing flow
characteristics.
When we think of pollution, we
often cor'ure up images of oil spills,
raw sewage, chemicals spewing
from factory pipes, and medical
wastes washing up on public beaches.
While these are indeed critical con-
cerns, other water pollution problems
are more widespread, and less obvi-
ous. Removing the natural vegeta-
tion along a stream, which can result
in the loss of the natural biological
community, is one such widespread
pollution problem.
In fact, the most striking finding
of the States' reports to EPA for 1988
is that the leading causes of impaired
water uses are excess nutrients and
sediments. These, and the other types
of pollution reported, are contributed
by a variety of sources (see Box).
Nutrients
Nutrients, such as the nitrates
found in fertilizers and phosphates
found in detergents, overstimulate
the growth of aquatic plants and
algae. These organisms begin to
choke the water, use up dissolved
oxygen, and cut off light in deeper
waters. This seriously affects the res-
piration of fish and aquatic inverte-
brates, leads to a decrease in animal
and plant diversity, and affects our
ability to use the water for fishing,
swimming, and boating. Lakes and
estuaries are particularly vulnerable
to the effects of excess nutrients.
Dealing effectively with the water pollution problems our Nation faces will, in
large part, involve tracing the various causes of pollution back to their sources
and working to reduce or eliminate the amount of pollution generated by each
source.
Pollution Source Categories Used in this Report
Category Examples
Industrial Pulp and paper mills, chemical manufacturers, steel plants, textile
manufacturers, food processing plants
Publicly-owned sewage treatment plants that may receive indirect
discharges from small factories or businesses
Storm and sanitary sewers combined, which may discharge
untreated wastes during storms
Runoff from streets, paved areas, lawns, etc., that enters a sewer,
pipe or ditch before discharge
Crop production, pastures, rangeland, feedlots
Barest management, harvesting, road construction
Highway building, land development
Mining, petroleum drilling, runoff from mine tailing sites
Leachate or discharge from septic tanks, landfills, hazardous
waste disposal sites
Channelization, dredging, dam construction, stream bank
modification
Municipal
Combined Sewers
Storm Sewets/
Runoff
Agricultural
Sflvicultural
Construction
Resource
Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydrologk
Modification
Sediments
When it rains, silt and other
suspended solids wash off plowed
fields, construction and logging
sites, urban areas, and strip-mined
land. As these solids enter rivers,
lakes, and coastal waters, fish res-
piration is impaired, plant produc-
tivity is reduced, aquatic habitats are
smothered, and our aesthetic enjoy-
ment of the water is reduced.
Bacteria/Viruses/Protozoans
Certain waterborne bacteria,
viruses, and protozoans can cause
human illnesses that range from
typhoid and dysentery to minor
respiratory and skin diseases. These
organisms can enter our water via a
number of routes, including sewers,
storm water drains, septic systems,
runoff from livestock pens, and
boats that dump sewage. Since it is
impossible to test water for every
type of organism, fecal coliform
bacteria are measured as indicators
that the water may have been con-
taminated with untreated sewage
and that other, more dangerous
organisms may be present.
Organic Enrichment
Organic material may enter
the water in many forms—sewage,
leaves and grass clippings, or runoff
from livestock feedlots and pastures.
As the natural bacteria and protozoa
in the water break down this organ-
ic material, they begin to use up the
oxygen dissolved in the water. When
levels of dissolved oxygen drop,
many types of fish and bottom
dwelling animals cannot survive.
Toxic Chemicals/Heavy Metals
Metals (such as mercury, lead,
selenium, and cadmium) and toxic
organic chemicals (such as PCBs
and dioxin) may originate in indus-
trial discharges (either direct, or in-
direct via sewage treatment plants),
runoff from city streets, mining activ-
ities, leachate from landfills, and a
variety of other sources. They can
cause death or reproductive failure
-------
in fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and
pose health risks to humans.
Pesticides/Herbicides
Rainfall and irrigation can wash
pesticides and herbicides used on
farm land, lawns, and in termite con-
trol into ground and surface waters.
These contaminants are generally
very persistent in the environment
and may accumulate in fish, shell-
fish, and wildlife to levels that pose
a risk to human health and the
environment.
Habitat Modification
Loss of habitat occurs when
streams and lakes are modified by
activities such as grazing, farming,
channelization, construction of dams,
and dredging. Typical examples of
habitat modification include loss of
stream-side vegetation, siltation,
smothering of bottom dwelling
organisms, and increased water
temperatures.
Other Pollutants
Other water pollutants are also
reported, although to a somewhat
lesser extent. For example, 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
operations, and the infusion of sea
water into fresh ground and surface
waters in coastal areas. Problems
with pH are of concern in areas
with many abandoned mines (acid
mine drainage) and areas suscep-
tible to acid rain. pH can alter the
toxicity of other chemicals in water,
and can render lakes and streams
unfit for aquatic life. Other pollut-
ants of concern include crude oil
and processed petroleum products
spilled during extraction, processing
or transport; and increased water
temperatures resulting from in-
dustrial cooling processes or habitat
modification.
SPECIAL CONCERNS: FISH KILLS
One obvious and important
indicator of water quality problems
is the occurrence of fish kills
caused by pollution. The infor-
mation reported by the States in
1988 probably underestimates the
extent of the problem because
reporting of pollution-caused fish
kills is voluntary and incomplete.
Of 37 States reporting on fish kills
in the 1986-1988 period, 35 States
indicated there had been a total of
996 incidents, involving the death
of at least 36 million fish.
Toxic substances such as heavy
metals and pesticides appear to be
a less common cause of fish kills
than conventional polllutants such
as biochemical oxygen-demanding
(BOD) substances. Leading causes
of fish kills include BOD/low dis-
solved oxygen, oil and gas, pesti-
cides, ammonia, chlorine, herbi-
cides, and temperature change.
The most commonly reported
sources of such pollution are
agriculture (in particular, runoff
from livestock pens, and the ap-
plication of fertilizers and
nutrients), spills, municipal
sewage treatment plants, and in-
dustrial dischargers.
Fish Kill Distribution Nationwide
KILLS
I I 1-10 reCT 11-30 I I 31-70
Source: 1988 State Section 305 Reports
-------
The States and EPA share respon-
sibility for monitoring the quality of
U.S. surface waters. States receive
Federal funds to conduct water
quality monitoring and report to
EPA, and EPA provides guidance,
technical support, and conducts
studies addressing issues of national
concern.
What kinds of data are collected
by the States? Do all States use the
same methods? How good is our in-
formation? The answers to these
questions are key to understanding
the findings reported by the States
and summarized in this booklet.
What Kinds of Data
Are Collected?
States collect a variety of informa-
tion on water quality conditions us-
ing two basic methods—monitoring
and evaluation.
Monitoring data can be pro-
vided by networks of chemical or
biological sampling stations located
near dischargers or at other strategic
points along a waterbody. Short-
term or one-time intensive or special
surveys also provide monitoring
data for discrete areas or to answer
questions about specific problem
sources or conditions. The data col-
lected may be chemical (such as the
concentration of a given pollutant in
water, sediment, or fish tissue) or
biological (such as counts of the
number of species in a given area or
tests of the toxicity of ambient water
or wastewater samples). Monitoring
data are collected using quality con-
trol procedures and actual observa-
tions and samples of water,
sediments, tissue, and organisms.
Evaluative data, on the other
hand, are collected from sources
that may not use quality control
procedures or involve actual sam-
pling at aquatic sites. Examples of
this type of data include information
provided by volunteer monitors,
reports of pollution-caused fish kills,
screening using predictive models,
and surveys of fishery biologists and
game wardens.
These two types of data supple-
ment each other and help us gain
the best possible insight into the
condition of our waters.
Do All States Use the
Same Methods?
States approach their water monitor-
ing responsibilities in many different
ways. Because of limited resources,
States generally concentrate their
monitoring activities in waters that
are most degraded or most heavily
used. Some may rely almost ex-
clusively on one type of monitoring
activity (such as networks of
chemical sampling stations) or may
use a variety of monitoring and
evaluative approaches. Once data
are collected, they must be analyzed
using established procedures to
determine if designated uses are be-
ing met.
EPA issues guidelines to en-
courage the use of consistent pro-
cedures among States, but wide
variation remains in monitoring ap-
proaches, analysis of data, and com-
prehensiveness of reporting.
Biologist from the Ohio EPA Sampling on the Scioto
River.
SPECIAL CONCERNS:
SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
Contamination of sediments
by toxic substances is a problem of
growing concern in the United
States. Contaminants can be re-
tained in sediments for many
years after a source has ceased
releasing them, and serve as a
continuing source of toxic
pollutants that harm the in-
digenous aquatic life. Sediment
contamination also poses obstacles
to the maintenance dredging of
navigation channels. Dredging
stirs the contaminants back into
the water, and disposal of con-
taminated dredge spoils may be
a problem.
Methods of analyzing sedi-
ments are still in their infancy.
EPA is working to issue criteria for
contaminants in sediment, and is
documenting methods of assessing
and cleaning up problems. Many
States do not have the analytical
tools or resources for sediment
monitoring. Therefore, our
knowledge of the extent of sedi-
ment problems is limited.
Of 35 States that discussed
sediment contamination in their
1988 report, 34 indicated that con-
tamination exists in some areas. A
total of 533 separate instances of
sediment contamination were
reported. Common contaminants
include copper, mercury, lead,
cadmium, chromium, zinc, PCBs,
DDT, chlordane, and dieldrin.
-------
How Good is our
Information?
As a result of this variation, our
knowledge of water quality condi-
tions is limited. In 1988, about 30
percent of the Nation's river miles
and 40 percent of its lake acres were
assessed to determine if designated
uses were supported. Inconsistent
methods of monitoring and analysis
make it difficult to compare findings
between States and limit EPA's ability
to draw national conclusions.
It is also dear that most of the
monitoring effort is directed toward
supporting regulatory actions and not
toward problems such as diffuse
sources of pollution (e.g., agricultural
runoff) and ecological impacts (e.g.,
loss of stream habitat) for which
there are fewer regulatory controls.
Our need for good monitoring
data has never been greater. Passage
of the Water Quality Act of 1987
added new requirements to evaluate
the effects of diffuse sources of pollu-
tion, to identify waters impaired by
toxic substances, and to evaluate the
condition of lakes and estuaries.
We are beginning to see the results
of this new emphasis. States are assess-
ing more waters and are striving to
improve their monitoring capabilities
and reporting procedures. EPA is en-
couraging the use of biological and
diffuse source monitoring procedures,
and work is underway to develop better
procedures for States to use in mak-
ing assessment decisions. EPA has also
developed a computerized data base
to help States manage their assessment
information in more useful ways.
Perhaps most importantly, the
water quality assessment process itself
is growing in importance as a critical
tool in managing the Nation's water
quality protection programs. These
developments will lead to better water
quality assessment in the future.
Trends in Water Quality
Is our Nation's water quality getting better or worse?
This is a question that water quality
analysts are often asked, and one
that is not easily answered.
We know that we have made
progress since the 1970s in cleaning
up the most obvious pollution prob-
lems. There are many examples of
rivers that have been returned to
health after the construction or
upgrading of sewage and industrial
wastewater treatment facilities. We
know that there has been a signifi-
cant rise in the number of people
served by improved levels of sewage
treatment. We are making strides in
better enforcement of clean water
laws. We are learning increasingly
sophisticated and effective tech-
niques to monitor pollution.
However, we also know that our
data are limited. Because States have
traditionally designed their monitor-
ing and assessment programs, a
great deal of variation exists between
States in the data they collect and
the analyses they use. Data that
vary so widely cannot be effectively
aggregated and analyzed to yield
trends on a national basis.
Even within a State, it is difficult
to measure trends over time because
of the inherent variability in the
constituents that are typically moni-
tored. Long term monitoring records
generally focus on a discrete set of
traditional chemical constitutents.
However, we know now that factors
other than these traditional con-
stituents also affect water quality.
Habitat degradation and toxic
substances are two such problems,
and data on them are limited. Fur-
thermore, as our monitoring tech-
niques grow more sophisticated, we
are discovering the magnitude of
previously under-estimated
problems.
Because of these factors, the ques-
tion of whether the Nation's water
quality is getting better or worse is
one we can only answer rather sub-
jectively at this time. We can point
to many examples of improvements,
and say that significant progress has
been made—but we also know that
previously undetected problems are
becoming evident, and that some
persistent problems remain.
Some information is available on
trends in water quality. For example,
the Council on Environmental Qual-
ity (CEQ) has recently published a
compilation of trends information on
all aspects of the environment, in-
cluding water. (Environmental Trends,
CEQ, 1989.) EPA and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service conducted a na-
tional survey of fisheries biologists
and summarized trend data for
1972-1982 for a statistically selected
sample of waters. (1982 National
Fisheries Survey, EPA, June 1984.)
-------
When the States report on the condi-
tion of their rivers and streams, they
include information on waters as
diverse as the Mississippi River—
2,340 miles long and draining a
watershed of 1.2 million square miles;
pristine mountain streams such as
the headwaters of the Poudre River in
Colorado; and stressed rivers that
flow through urban areas, such as
the Saginaw River in Michigan. In
more arid parts of the country, some
rivers and streams do not even carry
water the year around, but rather,
flow and dry out with the cycle
of rains.
Since the enactment of the Clean
Water Act in 1972, many programs ad-
dressing point sources of pollution
have influenced the quality of our
Nation's rivers and streams. For ex-
ample, the construction grants
program—which provided money to
municipalities to construct and
upgrade sewage treatment plants-
has led to an additional 59 million
people served by improved levels of
sewage treatment. As a result, uses
such as swimming and fishing have
been restored in many rivers.
Possibly because we have made
good progress in cleaning up this
type of pollution source, we are now
seeing more evidence of the impact of
pollution from diffuse sources such
as agricultural and urban runoff. In
fact, the two leading pollutants affect-
ing the Nation's rivers and streams
are predominately of diffuse origin.
These two pollutants are siltation—
the smothering of stream beds by
sediments, usually from soil erosion—
and nutrients. Nutrients include
phosphorous and nitrogen com-
pounds such as those used in
agricultural fertilizers.
Assessing Stream Quality:
The Biological Approach
The ecological health of an aquatic
ecosystem, such as a river or stream,
is defined by its combined chemical,
physical, and biological characteristics
—the concentrations of chemical
constituents in its water, sediments,
and organisms; the condition of its
physical habitat (e.g., stream bed,
banks, vegetative cover, and stream-
flow); and the health, variety, and
nature of the plants and animals that
live within it.
Because biological condition is
probably the best indicator of a
stream's ecological health, EPA is
developing a policy on the use of
biological assessments and biological
criteria in State water programs. At
the core of this policy is characteriz-
ing resident aquatic communities
such as fish and invertebrates.
EPA has developed relatively quick
and inexpensive techniques
to assess these communities in
streams, and encourages their use by
the States. EPA also encourages
States to adopt biological criteria:
numerical measures or narrative
descriptions of biological conditions
that define a required level of
ecological "health."
A view of the lower Clark Fork River, Montana.
8 i
-------
Do Our Rivers and
Streams Support Uses?
Twenty-nine percent of the Nation's
total river and stream miles were
assessed in 1988. Of those, 70 percent
were found to be fully supporting
their designated uses. Ten percent of
those fully supporting waters were
identified as threatened and could
soon become impaired if pollution
control actions were not taken. Twen-
ty percent of assessed waters were
reported as partially supporting uses,
and 10 percent were found to be not
supporting beneficial uses.
Total U.S. River Miles
Do Not Support—53,449
Partially Support—104,632
Fully Support—361,332
Designated Use Support in Rivers
Based on assessment of 519,412 river miles—
29 percent of the Nation's estimated 1.8 million
stream miles.
What is Polluting Our
Rivers and Streams?
Siltation and nutrients are the most
commonly reported causes of non-
support of designated uses in our
Nation's rivers and streams. Other
leading pollutants include fecal col-
iform bacteria and organic enrich-
ment/low dissolved oxygen.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
The most extensive source of pollu-
tion impairing our Nation's rivers and
streams is agriculture. Other exten-
sive sources include municipal
dischargers, resource extraction,
hydrologic/habitat modification, and
storm sewers/runoff.
LU
It
<
co
LU
50%
40%
30%
20%
Top Ten Pollutants in Rivers
o
LU
-------
£
A
The Aging Process
in Lakes
Many lakes and reservoirs are known
to have changed over long time
periods, filling with sediments and
organic material that alter their depth,
biological productivity, oxygen levels,
and water transparency. This natural
aging process typically occurs over
thousands of years.
Human activities can greatly
accelerate this process by increasing
the amount of nutrients and organic
materials in lakes through agricul-
tural and urban runoff, sewage dis-
charges, septic tank failures, and
similar sources. Excessive amounts
of these materials overstimulate algae,
plant, and weed growth, creating
choked conditions that impair swim-
ming, boating, and the health and
diversity of the local fish population.
This major change in lake ecology
due to human activities is called
cultural eutrophication.
Oligotrophic Clear waters with lit-
tle organic matter or
sediment, and mini-
mum biological
activity.
Mesotrophic Waters with more
nutrients and, there-
fore, more biological
productivity
Eutrophic Waters extremely rich
in nutrients, with
high biological pro-
ductivity. Some
species may be
choked out.
Hypereutrophic Murky, highly pro-
ductive waters, closest
to the wetland status.
Many clearwater
species cannot
survive.
Dystrophic
Low in nutrients,
highly colored with
dissolved humic
organic matter. (Not
necessarily a part of
the natural trophic
progression.)
Recreation on Lake Tahoe, California
States reported that 30 percent of
all lakes assessed for trophic status
(see definitions at left) were either
eutrophic or hypereutrophic; 23 per-
cent were mesotrophic; 14 percent
were oligotrophic; and less than 2
percent were dystrophic. Trophic
status for the remaining 30 percent
assessed was unknown.
Degree of eutrophication is one
key measure of lake status, although
not the only one needed to evaluate
lake water quality. Like rivers and
streams, lakes are affected by a myriad
of pollutants and pollution sources.
EPA's Clean Lakes
Program
Widespread public support for
preserving and protecting our Nation's
lakes gave rise in 1972 to the dean
Lakes Program, which sets ambitious
goals for defining the causes and ex-
tent of pollution problems in lakes,
and for restoring and protecting lakes.
This program provides Federal
funds to States for classification sur-
veys, studies of lake pollution, reports
outlining restoration and protection
measures, lake restoration projects, and
projects that affect the land manage-
ment practices around lakes.
With the passage of the Water
Quality Act of 1987, the dean Lakes
Program was re-authorized and
expanded. States now have to report
more fully on the status of their lakes
in order to receive Federal grants. EPA
has developed a demonstration program
to improve understanding of the causes
of lake damage and the effectiveness
of various restoration techniques. EPA
has also developed a lake restoration
guidance manual for State use. In
1988-1989, EPA awarded over 150 dean
Lakes Program grants to States and
Indian tribes for the study, restoration,
and protection of lakes and reservoirs.
-------
Do Our Lakes and
Reservoirs Support
Uses?
Forty-one percent of the Nation's lake
acres were assessed by the States in
1988. Of those, 74 percent were found
to be fully supporting designated
uses such as swimming, fishing, and
water supply. Twenty-four percent of
fully supporting waters were iden-
tified as threatened and could soon
become impaired if pollution control
actions were not taken. Seventeen
percent of assessed waters were
reported as partially supporting uses,
and 10 percent were reported as not
supporting uses.
Total
Assessed
Acres
Total
Unassessed
Acres
Do Not Support- 1,591,391
Partially Support- 2,701,577
Fully Support-12,021,044
Total U.S. Lake Acres
Designated Use Support in Lakes
Based on assessment of 16,313,952 lake
acres—41% of the Nation's estimated
39,400,000 acres.
What is Polluting Our
Lakes and Reservoirs?
The most commonly reported cause
of nonsupport of designated uses in
lakes is nutrients, affecting 49 per-
cent of impaired lake acres. Siltation
and organic enrichment were other
commonly cited causes of non-
support—each affecting 25 percent
of impaired lake acres.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
The most extensive source of pollu-
tion reported for our Nation's lakes
and reservoirs is agricultural runoff.
Other extensive sources include
hydrologic/habitat modification,
storm sewers/runoff, land disposal,
and municipal dischargers.
50%
Top Ten Pollutants in Lakes and Reservoirs
0%
%>^^«x
°>K 'A,. Qo. >?/-,
60%
Sources of Pollution in Lakes
-------
Our Inland Seas
The Great Lakes hold one-fifth of
the world's fresh water and are so
large that in many ways they might
be better considered as freshwater
inland seas. They have immense
recreational and commercial value,
and are unique, vital natural
resources. Major urban and in-
dustrial centers such as Chicago,
Detroit, Gary, Toledo, Toronto, and
Buffalo are located along their
shores.
The Great Lakes receive munici-
pal and industrial discharges in many
of these urban areas, and are also
affected by a variety of other pollu-
tion sources including urban and
agricultural runoff, hazardous waste
sites, pollution brought by tributar-
ies, and atmospheric deposition.
Since the Great Lakes are a rela-
tively closed water system, many of
the pollutants that reach them remain
in the system indefinitely. Most pollu-
tants enter the Lakes at or near the
shoreline; these are the waters that
studies show are the most degraded.
Partnership in Action
The Great Lakes are cooperatively
protected by the U.S. and Canada
under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978 as amended in
1987. The International Joint Com-
mission, which was established
under the 1909 Boundary Water
Treaty with Canada, is responsible
for identifying actions needed to
maintain the integrity of the Great
Lakes ecosystems. The Commission's
two boards—the Great Lakes Water
Quality Board and the Science Advi-
sory Board—include members from
a variety of State and Federal agen-
cies and universities who work togeth-
er to identify problem areas, plan
Looking over Lake Superior from Grand Sable Dunes.
programs to reduce pollution, and
publish reports on issues and findings.
The Great Lakes Today
In 1988, the States reported that
contamination of fish tissue and
sediments by toxic substances such
as mercury, PCBs, DDT, and other
pesticides continues to be wide-
spread. Fish advisories and bans are
in place in many areas of the Great
Lakes. However, some declines are
noted in toxic substances in fish
tissue—particularly in levels of DDT
and mercury.
12
No improvement was noted for
toxic contamination of sediments—
a major problem in Great Lakes har-
bors and bays. Sediment contamina-
tion, in turn, can affect aquatic life
and serve as a continuing source of
toxic substances to the larger lake
system. Phosphorus control pro-
grams have successfully reduced the
levels of this nutrient in the Great
Lakes. Improvements in the eutro-
phic conditions of nearshore waters
are noted by several States. Nitrogen
levels, however, may be increasing.
Nearshore waters—particularly
harbors and river outlets—seem to
have the greatest problems with
sediment contamination, industrial
and municipal pollution, combined
sewer overflows, and tributary
inputs.
-------
Do the Great Lakes
Support Uses?
Of those assessed Great Lake
shoreline miles, 8 percent were
found to be fully supporting their
designated uses. Four percent of
those fully supporting waters were
identified as threatened waters that
could soon become impaired if
pollution control actions were not
taken. Eighteen percent of assessed
waters were reported as partially
supporting uses, and 73 percent
were reported as not supporting
uses. The low rate of support is
largely the result of fishing advisor-
ies and bans in effect throughout
the nearshore waters of the Lakes.
Do Not
Support—
3,288
Total Assessed
Shoreline Miles
Total
Unassessed
Shoreline
Miles
Designated Use Support in the Great
Lakes
Based on assessment of 4,479 shoreline
miles—87% of the total number of Great
Lakes shoreline miles in the U.S.
It should be noted that it is the waters near
the shores of the Great Lakes that are most
likely to be degraded. This figure does not
address water quality conditions in the
deeper, cleaner, central waters of the Lakes.
Partially
Support—819
Fully Support—372
Total U.S. Great Lakes
Shoreline Miles
The Soo Locks at Sault Sainte Marie.
13
-------
Where Rivers Meet
the Sea
Estuaries are areas partially sur-
rounded by land where ocean tides
meet fresh river water. Acre for acre,
estuaries are some of the most pro-
ductive regions on earth. This high
productivity is caused by nutrients
which are easily trapped in the
ecosystem—trapped in a physical
sense by the ocean tide and fresh
water flow patterns, and in a bio-
logical sense because nutrients are
tied up in the natural food chain.
Estuaries provide an excellent
environment for many species to
thrive, and serve as nurseries to
many ocean dwelling creatures,
such as salmon and shrimp.
Working to Save
Estuaries—The National
Estuary Progam
The National Estuary Program
(NEP) was created in 1985 to protect
and restore water quality and living
resources in the Nation's estuaries.
Through the NEP, States nominate
estuaries of national significance
that are threatened or impaired by
pollution, development, or overuse.
EPA evaluates the State nominations
and selects those that support a
national demonstration program.
Comprehensive conservation and
management plans are developed
which provide a strategy to manage
environmental problems. Manage-
ment conferences are convened to
seek solutions to the problems that
have been identified in the estuaries.
Each estuary program seeks to:
• increase public understanding of
the nature of the estuary and
rank its problems,
• provide State and local managers
with the best scientific and
technical information available on
well-defined problems,
• focus efforts on the need for, and
benefits of, system-wide and
basin planning, and
• gain acceptance for the public
and private costs of increased
pollution controls and restoration
of living natural resources.
Programs have been initiated for
17 estuaries: San Francisco Bay/Delta
and Santa Monica Bay (California);
Albemarle/Pamlico Sound (North
Carolina); Puget Sound (Washington);
Buzzards Bay (Massachusetts);
Narragansett Bay (Rhode Island);
Long Island Sound (New York and
Connecticut); New York/New Jersey
Harbor (New York and New Jersey);
Delaware Bay (Pennsylvania,
New Jersey and Delaware); Delaware
Inland Bays (Delaware); Sarasota Bay
(Florida); Galveston Bay (Texas);
Casco Bay (Maine); Massachusetts
Bay (Massachusetts); Tampa Bay
(Florida); Indian River Inlet (Florida);
and Barataria-Terrebone Basin
(Louisiana).
14
Do Our Estuaries
Support Uses?
Of the estuarine square miles
assessed, 72 percent were found to
be fully supporting their designated
uses. About 2 percent of those were
identified as threatened waters that
could soon become impaired if
pollution control actions were not
taken. Twenty-three percent of
assessed waters were reported as
partially supporting uses, and 6 per-
cent were reported as not support-
ing uses.
What is Polluting Our
Estuaries?
The most commonly reported
causes of nonsupport of designated
uses in our Nation's estuaries are
nutrients and pathogens, affecting
50 and 48 percent of total impaired
square miles, respectively. Organic
enrichment/low dissolved oxygen was
found to affect 29 percent of impaired
waters. Eutrophication (caused by
overabundant nutrients) and high
levels of bacteria—which can lead to
shellfish gathering restrictions and
bans—appear to be the leading
threats to our estuaries.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Municipal discharges are reported
as the most extensive source of
estuarine pollution, followed by
resource extraction, storm sewers/
runoff, and land disposal.
-------
Partially
Support- 6,078
Do Not
Support
1,488
Fully
Support—
19,110
Total
Assessed
Square
Miles
Total
nassessed
Square
Miles
Total US. Estuarine Sq, Miles
Designated Use Support in Estuaries
Based on assessment of 26,676 square miles—
76% of the Nation's estimated square miles of
estuaries.
a30%
Top Ten Fbllutants
in Estuaries
LU 40%
LL
U.
<
ft 30%
-j
12°%
«
o
£ 10%
Sources of Pollution
in Estuaries
\
We may think of our ocean coastal
waters as extensions of the vast oceans
beyond and, therefore, generally unaf-
fected by human activity. In reality, all
of the world's oceans are feeling the
impact of pollution, especially the
waters near our coasts.
Near-Coastal Water
Pilot Projects
The Near-Coastal Water Pilot Projects
are joint State-EPA efforts to demon-
strate innovative management actions
in selected U.S. near-coastal waters.
These management actions can then
be applied in other areas of the coun-
try. Projects include:
• Developing a computerized
Advanced Information System to
help officials quickly and accurately
assess impacts of proposed actions
on natural resources in Delaware's
inland bays;
• Developing a comprehensive
action plan for Oregon's coastal
watersheds;
• Developing a framework of strategies
to protect and enhance Florida's
and Alabama's Perdido Bay.
Do Our Ocean Coastal
Waters Support Uses?
Only about 20 percent of the Nation's
estimated miles of ocean coastal
waters were evaluated and reported
on by the States in 1988. This lack of
complete data, as well as inconsisten-
cies in assessment methodologies,
makes it difficult to gain a national
view of the status of these waters, rbr
example, data on pollutants and
sources of pollution are too sparse to
be summarized for this report.
Of those coastal shoreline miles
assessed, 89 percent were found to be
fully supporting their designated
uses. Two percent of those were iden-
tified as threatened waters that could
soon become impaired if pollution
control actions were not taken. Eight
percent of assessed waters were
reported as partially supporting uses,
and 3 percent were reported as not
supporting uses.
Do Not
Support—124
Partially
Support—307
Fully
Support-
3,324
Total
Assessed^
Miles
Total
Unassessed
Miles
Total U.S.
Ocean Coastal Miles
Designated Use Support in Assessed
Ocean Coastal Waters
Based on assessment of 3,755 coastal shoreline
miles—only about 20% of the Nation's
estimated 19,200 miles of ocean coastline.
(Estimate of total coastal shoreline miles ex-
dudes figures for Connecticut, Rhode Island,
and Alaska.)
15
-------
Fascinating and Fragile
"Wetlands" is a collective term
for marshes, swamps, bogs, and
similar areas that are often saturated
by water. Wetlands may be coastal or
inland, salt or freshwater, and as
diverse as the Florida Everglades,
sphagnum-heath bogs in Maine,
coastal Alaskan salt marshes, and
the shallow, seasonally flooded
prairie potholes of the Great Plains.
Once considered wastelands to be
drained or filled, wetlands are
vibrant, productive ecosystems, and
create critical buffers between the
land and open water.
Our Nation's wetlands provide
habitat for a huge number of plants
and animals, including many endan-
gered species. Approximately two-
thirds of the major U.S. commercial
fish species depend on estuaries and
salt marshes for nursery or spawning
grounds. Coastal wetlands are essen-
tial to the proliferation of many
species of shrimp, blue crabs, clams
and oysters. Wetlands are extremely
important to their own resident bird
species, and also serve as breeding
grounds and wintering areas for
migratory birds.
Wetlands play an important
role in flood control by absorbing
peak flows and releasing the
water slowly. Along coastlines, they
buffer land against wave damage
and capture suspended solids,
building up the shoreline.
Wetlands can also improve
water quality in adjacent water-
bodies by filtering out contaminants
such as nitrogen, phosphorus, pesti-
cides, heavy metals, and suspended
solids from runoff before it reaches
open water.
Recreational and commercial
fishing, bird hunting, and the culti-
vation of wild rice and cranberries in
wetlands add from $20 to $40 billion
annually to our Nation's economy.
We spend almost $10 billion a year
just photographing and observing
wetland-dependent birds.
A Disappearing
Treasure
Once there were over 200 million
acres of wetlands in the lower 48
States. In 1984, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service estimated that only
99 million acres remained. (An addi-
tional 200 million acres are estimated
to exist in Alaska.) Wetland destruc-
tion was estimated to be continuing
at the rate of 458,000 acres per year.
Drainage of inland wetlands for
farming was responsible for 87
percent of the losses between the
mid-50's and mid-70's. Urban and
other development was responsible
for 13 percent. Urban development
was the major cause of coastal
wetland losses outside of Louisiana.
(In Louisiana, most wetland loss has
resulted from land subsidance.)
Major Causes of
Wetland Loss and
Degradation
Human Impacts
• Drainage
• Dredging and stream channelization
• Deposition of fill material
• Diking and damming
• tilling for crop production
• Grazing by domestic animals
• Discharge of pollutants
• Mining
• Alteration of hydrology
Natural Threats
• Erosion
• Subsidence
• Sea level rise
• Droughts
• Hurricanes and other storms
• Overgrazing by wildlife
Protecting Our
Wetlands
Section 404 of the 1972 Cleari Water
Act has developed into the most
important Federal regulatory
program for the protection of
wetlands.
This Section gives the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and EPA the
authority to issue permits to protect
the environment from the adverse
impact of the discharge of dredged
or fill materials.
The Corps of Engineers processes
13,000 project applications each year
for various water projects that might
affect wetlands. EPA, with various
Federal agencies and State govern-
ments, assists in the review and
approval of these applications—
saving an estimated 50,000 acres of
wetlands a year.
In 1987, the 20 members of the
independent National Wetlands
Policy Forum convened to provide
policy recommendations to Federal,
State, and local officials, and to wet-
land owners and users, on protect-
ing wetlands. Forum participants
included three governors, various
local officials, developers, environ-
mentalists, farmers, academicians,
and representatives from the forestry,
oil, and gas industries. The Forum
set the goal—which EPA has since
adopted—of "no overall net loss" in
the Nation's remaining wetland base,
and to restore and create wetlands,
where feasible.
In further actions to protect
wetlands, the 1985 Farm Bill discon-
tinued subsidies to farmers who
16
-------
drain and plant in wetlands. Many
States have developed programs to
regulate activities that affect wet-
lands and to encourage wetland
preservation. These programs
include permitting, coastal zone
management, wetland acquisition,
and heritage programs, to name a few.
Citizens are learning that they
can protect wetlands by building on
upland sites, donating wetlands or
funds to purchase wetlands to
conservation agencies, preserving
wetlands on their property, and
building ponds where wetland
species are introduced and
encouraged.
More remains to be done. Drain-
ing and filling of wetlands continues
in many areas. Mapping of our
Nation's wetlands is incomplete.
Only 27 States specifically include
wetlands in their definition of "State
waters," thereby ensuring that they
are subject to the same water quality
standards as other surface waters.
EPA and the States are continuing to
work together to provide a compre-
hensive store of information on the
status of our Nation's wetlands.
The Wetland Ecosystem
The National Wetlands
Inventory
The National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) is a long-term program of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to map
the Nation's wetlands and track the
loss of wetlands every 10 years. Wet-
land maps developed by the NWI
provide the only reliable source of
information about the extent of
wetlands in the U.S.
Wetlands are mapped primarily
by the use of good quality, high alti-
tude aerial photography. To date,
approximately 60 percent of the
lower 48 States, 100 percent of
Hawaii, and 16 percent of Alaska
are mapped.
Wetlands Acreage Distribution Nationwide
ACRES I I oorNR E222 I-SOOK (353 sooK-ioooKEZD ioooK-5ooodD > SOOOK
Source National Watland* Invmtory
17
-------
Ground water—water stored in
natural underground formations
called aquifers—is one of our
Nation's most important water
resources. In many parts of the
country, it is the only reliable source
of water for drinking and other
domestic uses.
Just over 50 percent of the Nation's
population relies on ground water as
a source of drinking water (see map,
p. 19). The importance of good-quality
ground water as a drinking water
source is illustrated by the heavy
reliance on ground water in all regions
of the country. In 12 States and Terri-
tories, ground water supplies drink-
ing water for greater than 75 percent
of the population. The vast majority
of the Nation's rural population relies
on potable ground-water sources to
provide water for domestic use. Only
five States rely on ground water to
provide domestic supply for less
than 25 percent of their population.
A Threatened Resource
As we have come to rely more and
more on ground water, we have
learned that it can be quite vulner-
able to contamination. An increasing
number of pollution incidents affect-
ing both public water supplies and
private wells have been reported
throughout the country.
In 1988, over half the States iden-
tified the following major threats
to the quality of their ground water:
• leaking underground storage
tanks (for example, gasoline storage
tanks at service stations and heating
oil supply tanks for schools and
public buildings);
• poorly operating septic systems;
• agricultural activities such as crop
dusting, irrigation, and manure
spreading;
National Use of Ground Water
1950-1985
I"
w 80
£ 70
O
jj 60
m.
3 50
g 40
I
§ 30
^ E*. - ifl*"**^*. ''
-fT^^^r^-^-
T
I
1975
I
1980
YEAR 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970
Source: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-112.
Over the past 35 years, our rate of ground-water use has risen significantly.
1985
• poorly managed or poorly located
municipal landfills used to dispose
of non-hazardous waste products
and household waste;
• improperly located or designed
surface impoundments—pits, ponds,
and other holding areas for liquid
wastes used by municipalities and
industries for receiving hazardous
and non-hazardous wastes:
• abandoned and uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites such as those
subject to cleanup under the EPA
"Superfund" program.
More than half the States identi-
fied nitrates, pesticides, volatile
organic compounds, petroleum
products, metals, and brine as con-
taminants of concern originating
from these sources of pollution.
Other contaminants include bacteria,
solvents, acids, and tanning wastes.
Protecting Our
Ground-Water Resources
As a result of a growing awareness
of the importance of ground water
and its vulnerability to pollution,
many States are developing and ex-
panding legislation, regulations, and
programs to protect ground water.
Preventing ground-water pollution is
especially important because of the
difficulty and cost involved in clean-
ing up contaminated aquifers, pro-
viding alternative supplies of water,
or treating the water that is used in
public systems.
Almost all the States have
ground-water protection strategies or
are in the processing of developing
them. These strategies typically
outline goals and objectives for ad-
dressing ground-water problems;
contain information on the nature
and location of State ground-water
resources; and describe programs to
protect ground-water quality and
generate public interest in protection
activities.
18
-------
Other State activities to protect
ground water include adopting legis-
lation to manage specific sources of
contamination and set standards for
protection; identifying and mapping
ground-water resources and poten-
tial sources of contamination; and
developing innovative approaches
such as wellhead protection programs.
While the States have primary respon-
sibility for protecting and managing
their ground-water resources, EPA
works in partnership with them
through programs mandated by the
Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and other national legis-
lation. EPA's own Ground-Water
Protection Strategy provides an
approach for integrating the many
control and cleanup programs into a
comprehensive management
"framework."
Sources of Ground Water
Contamination
Percentage of Population Served
by Ground Water for Domestic Supply
S3 75-100% of Pop L_J 50-74% 01 Pop I I 25-49% of Pop I 1 0-24% of Pop
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) Reports or 1986 U.S.GLS. National Water Summary
Agricultural Activities
Underground Injection La9°on
Storage Tank Well Pit' or
Leakage " '
Septic •••
Tank or
Cesspool
Discharge Landfill, Dump, or Refuse Pile
JUULJUL
Sewer Leakage
Discharge or Injection
19
-------
EPA works in partnership with
State and local governments to im-
prove and protect water quality. A
number of laws provide the authority
to develop and implement water pol-
lution control programs. The primary
statute addressing water quality pro-
tection in the Nation's rivers, lakes,
estuaries and wetlands is the Clean
Water Act.
The Clean Water Act
The dean Water Act (CWA) of 1972
determines the way the Federal
government and the States regulate
sources of pollution, and has been
the driving force behind many of the
improvements in water quality we
have witnessed in recent years. In
1987, amendments to the CWA gave
the Nation a new impetus to protect
and restore our waters.
Among the provisions of the
1987 amendments are a new finan-
cing mechanism for municipal waste-
water treatment; the imposition of
tighter controls on toxic substances;
and a comprehensive framework for
accelerated efforts to control non-
point (diffuse) sources of pollution.
The CWA and its amendments
provide certain tools to address
water pollution:
Water Quality Standards and
Criteria—States adopt EPA-approved
standards for their waters that define
the uses for these waters, and specif-
ic criteria—limits on pollution—to
protect those uses.
Effluent Guidelines-EPA
develops nationally consistent
discharge limits for individual
pollutants in industrial discharges
and sewage treatment plants. These
guidelines are then used to set per-
mit limits under which dischargers
must operate. Additional controls
may be required based on the water
quality of the receiving waters.
Permits and Enforcement—All
industrial and municipal facilities
that discharge wastewater directly in-
to the water must have a permit, and
are responsible for monitoring and
reporting discharge levels. The States
and/or EPA inspect dischargers to
determine if they are in compliance.
Appropriate enforcement actions are
taken as needed.
Grants—EPA provides financial
assistance to States to support pro-
grams such as the construction of
municipal sewage treatment plants;
water quality monitoring, permitting
and enforcement; implementation of
nonpoint source pollution controls;
and development and implementa-
tion of State ground-water strategies.
Nonpoint Source Control
Program—The States are granted
primary responsibility for controlling
nonpoint source pollution. They
receive funds to analyze its extent
and to develop needed water quality
management programs. EPA's role
has traditionally been to provide pro-
gram guidance, technical support,
and funding.
The 1987 amendments to the
CWA include provisions to en-
courage States to accelerate efforts to
control nonpoint source pollution.
The amendments require States to
prepare a nonpoint source Assess-
ment Report and a 4-year Manage-
ment Program. Funds are provided
to assist the States in implementing
these programs. New deadlines were
established to address runoff from
urban areas through the development
of a permit program for stormwater
discharges. EPA is also required to
report to Congress annually on the
States' progress in controlling non-
point source pollution.
Toxics Control Program—States
develop lists of waters impaired by
toxic materials, identify point sources
and the amounts of pollutants they
discharge that cause toxic impacts,
and develop individual control
strategies for each such point source.
These strategies are designed to
ensure that applicable water quality
standards are achieved no later than
June, 1992. EPA approves the State
lists and individual control strate-
-------
gies, or develops them if States
cannot do so.
Other statutes also guide the
development of water quality
protection activities:
The Safe Drinking Water Act—
EPA establishes standards for drink-
ing water quality. Local water supply
systems are required to monitor their
drinking water periodically to deter-
mine if these standards are being
met. Periodic monitoring of wells
used for underground injection of
hazardous wastes is also required.
EPA is authorized to award grants to
States to develop and implement
programs to protect drinking water
resources at the tap and in the ground.
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)—States and
EPA manage programs emphasizing
ground-water protection through
standards for hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal
facilities, and for municipal solid
waste landfills. EPA also develops a
program for managing certain cate-
gories of underground storage tanks.
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA)—EPA and
the States operate programs to clean
up contaminated ground water.
Emergency response and remedial
actions are authorized.
SPECIAL CONCERNS: FISH CONSUMPTION
ADVISORIES AND BANS
Toxic chemicals discharged to
rivers, lakes and estuaries may be
absorbed or ingested by aquatic
organisms that are, in turn, con-
sumed by larger predators such as
fish. Toxic substances can accumu-
late in these fish, which then pose
a health threat to the humans who
eat them. When States find levels
of toxic substances in fish tissue ex-
ceeding established safety stan-
dards, they issue fishing advisories
or bans.
National statistics regarding ad-
visories and bans are incomplete.
There is a great deal of variability in
the States' criteria used to establish
restrictions, and in the programs to
monitor and report on toxic
substances in fish tissue. Therefore,
States reporting large numbers of
restrictions may simply have better
established fish tissue monitoring
or reporting programs than other
States. In 1988, 47 States provided
information on this topic to EPA.
Thirty-nine states reported a total
of 586 advisories, and a total of 135
bans were reported by 21 States.
The pollutants most commonly
identified as leading to advisories
or bans include PCBs, chlordane,
mercury, dioxin, and DDT. Sources
contributing these pollutants in-
clude industrial discharges, land-
fills, hazardous waste sites, and
non-point sources, such as spills,
in-place contaminants, atmospheric
deposition, and agricultural
activities.
Fishing Restrictions Nationwide
RESTRICTIONS CD o CH3 i-s
Source: 1988 Slit* Section 305 100
• Zero or no reported restrictions.
21
-------
Governmental regulation and en-
forcement have helped clean up
many waters and slow the degrada-
tion of others. But government alone
cannot solve the entire problem.
There are many things that you, as
an individual, can do to further pre-
serve and protect our Nation's waters.
Be Informed
You should learn about water quality
issues that affect the communities in
which you live and work.
Become familiar with your local
water resources. Where does your
drinking water come from? If you
apply pesticides and fertilizers,
where might they end up after a
rainfall? What other activities in
your area might affect the water you
drink, or the rivers, lakes, beaches,
or wetlands you use for recreation?
Learn about procedures for
disposing of harmful household
wastes so they don't end up in
sewage treatment plants that can't
handle them, or in landfills not
designed to receive hazardous
materials.
Read Up On
Water Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1988. America's Wetlands: Our Vital Link
Between Land and Water. Office of Wetland
Protection. OPA-87-016. Rbruary.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1989. Nonpoint Source Agenda for the
Future. Office of Water. January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1989. Report to Congress: Activities and
Programs Implemented under Section 319 of
the Clean Water Act, FY 1988. Office of
Water. EPA-506/9-89/003. August.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1989. Report to Congress: Water Quality of
the Nation's Lakes. Office of Water.
EPA-440-5-89-003.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1988. 1986
National Water Summary. Water Supply
Paper 2325.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1990. National Water Quality Inventory:
1988 Report to Congress. Office of Water.
EPA-440/4-90-003.
U.S. EPA, Rhode Island Sea Grant
College Program. 1990. National Directory
of Citizen Volunteer Environmental
Monitoring Programs. Office of
Water/University of R.I., EPA
503/9-90-004. April.
Be Responsible
A first step in preserving our water
resources is to practice water conser-
vation. The less water you use, the
more water remains clean. But there
is also much you can do to help to
reduce the amounts of organic
materials, silt, nutrients, and toxic
materials that wash into our local
waters.
In your yard, seek alternatives
to pesticide/herbicide use, and use
landscaping to control erosion. If
you are a land owner or manager,
consult your local county extension
office about methods of restoring
stream banks in your area by plant-
ing buffer strips of native vegetation.
Water your lawn conservatively or
develop landscaping techniques that
require little watering. Don't waste
water when you wash your car. Keep
litter, pet wastes, leaves, and grass
clippings out of gutters and storm
drains. Never dispose of any house-
hold, automotive, or gardening
wastes in a storm drain. Keep your
septic tank in good working order.
In your home, fix any dripping
faucets or leaky pipe and install
water-saver shower heads. 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 desig-
nated landfills. Use non-phosphate
detergents and try substituting non-
hazardous substances for household
chemicals such as drain cleaners and
bleaches.
Involved citizens: volunteers in Kentucky's Water
Watch program participate in stream cleanups.
22
-------
Learn How to Safely
Dispose of Household
Chemicals
Be Involved
As a citizen and 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 controlled at construction
sites? Is new development destroying
wetlands or critical aquatic habitats?
Are new subdivisions installing
stormwater retention basins and
maintaining natural buffer strips
along stream courses? Is the com-
munity sewage plant being operated
efficiently and correctly? Is the com-
munity trash dump in or along a
stream? Is road deicing salt being
properly stored?
It is important to know where
your elected officials stand on water
quality and environmental issues—
and let your opinions be heard!
Many communities have recycling
programs; find out about them,
learn how to recycle, and volunteer
to help out if you can. One of the
most important things you can do is
find out how your community
regulates development, construction
activities, and other activities with
potential water quality impacts, and
speak out if you see problems.
Volunteer Monitoring:
You Can Become
Part of the Process
In many areas of the country,
citizens are becoming personally
involved in monitoring the quality
of our Nation's water. As a volunteer
monitor, you might be involved in
taking ongoing water quality mea-
surements, identifying sources of
pollution, tracking the progress of
protection and restoration projects,
and/or reporting special events, such
as fish kills and storm damage.
Volunteer monitoring can be
of great benefit to State and local
governments. Some States stretch
their monitoring budgets by using
data collected by volunteers,
particularly in remote areas that
might otherwise 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, and you are also more
likely to be aware of local pollution
sources.
The benefits to you of becoming
a volunteer monitor are also great.
You will learn about your local water
resources and have the opportunity
to become personally involved in a
nationwide campaign to protect a
vital, and mutually shared, resource.
If you would like to find out more
about organizing or joining volunteer
monitoring programs in your State,
contact your State department of
environmental quality, or write to:
U.S. EPA
Volunteer Monitoring (WH-553)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
For further information on water
quality in your state, write to your
State department of environmental
quality. Additional water quality
information may be obtained from
the U.S. EPA and Regional offices of
the U.S. EPA (see back cover).
23
-------
Regional Offices
EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3424
Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, Vermont
EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-2515
New Jersey, New York, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands
EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-9370
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia,
District of Columbia
EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3004
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
EPA Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-2072
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 655-2200
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7006
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
EPA Region 8
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 1300
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 293-1692
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
EPA Region 9
1235 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 556-6322
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam,
Trust Territories of the Pacific
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-1465
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
-------
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protectton
Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |