&EPA
tr.viromientai Proten
National Water Quality
Inventory
.,:.,...-fi.:
1992 Report to Congress
ill
-------
This report was prepared pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, which states:
"(b)(1) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1,1975, and shall
bring up to date by April 1,1976, and biennially thereafter, a report which shall indude
"(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State during the
preceding year, with appropriate supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take
into account seasonal, tidal, and other variations, con-elated with the quality of water
required by the objective of this Act (as identified by the Administrator pursuant to
criteria published under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water quality described in
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;
"(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such State provide for the
protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and
allow recreational activities in and on the water;
"(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and
a level of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the
water, have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this Act, together with
recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for
what waters such additional action is necessary;
"(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, 00 the economic and social costs
necessary to achieve the objective of this Act in such State, (iii) the economic and social
benefits of such achievement; and (iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and
"(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and
recommendations as to the programs which must be undertaken to control each category
of such sources, including an estimate of the costs of implementing such programs.
"(2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together with an analysis thereof,
to Congress on or before October 1,1975, and October 1,1976, and biennially thereafter."
Cover photo of Lake Mead by Patricia Cunningham
-------
Errata Sheet
December 1993 version of the National Water Quality Inventory--
1992 Report to Congress
Insert the following paragraph on page 1 of the Executive Summary
after the first paragraph of the Introduction:
This Report displays and summarizes data provided by
the States to EPA. EPA has not determined the accuracy of
these data. It is important to note that these State-
reported data are intended to provide a snapshot of the
quality of the waters they assessed and cannot be used to
determine trends in our Nation's water resources. These
limitations are due to major differences from year to year
in assessment*methods within and between States as well as
differences in the waters assessed in each 2-year period.
In addition, not all States follow EPA's guidance on
procedures for determining whether waters are "supporting
the uses" designated in their water quality standards. EPA
and the States are taking many steps towards transforming
the 305(b) process into one which provides comparable data
with known accuracy. These steps include implementing the
recommendations of the National 305(b) Consistency Workgroup
and the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality, as well as improving the Section 305(b) guidelines
and stipulating adherence to those guidelines in the
proposed State Section 106 grant guidelines. These efforts
will foster consistency and accuracy among States and allow
better sharing of data across political boundaries for
watershed protection.
In addition, on page 1 of Chapter 1--Introduction, replace the 3rd
paragraph starting with "The 305(b) water quality...." with the
above paragraph.
-------
Transmittal Memo to the President of the Senate
-------
Transmittal Memo to the Speaker of the House
-------
Acknowledgments
This report b based primarily on water quality assessments submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by the States, Territories, American Indian Tribes, the District of Columbia, and
Interstate Commissions of the United States. The EPA wishes to thank the authors of these
assessments for the time and effort spent in preparing these reports and reviewing the draft of this
national assessment Additional thanks go to the water quality assessment coordinators from all ten
EPA Regions who work with the States.
The project manager and editor of this document was Barry Burgan of the Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Key contributions were
also made by the following individuals in other EPA program offices: Richard McDermott, Ground
Water Protection Division; Rob Wood, Permits Division; Benjy Picks, Wetlands Division; Ann Beier,
Nonpoint Source Control Branch; Kevin Perry, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division; Brett Snyder,
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation; Kevin Summers and Steve Paulsen, Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program; Joseph Macknis, Chesapeake Bay Program; Susan MacMullin,
Gulf of Mexico Program; and Alice Mayio, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division. Additional
information was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Contractor support was provided under Contracts 68-C3-0303 and 68-C9-0013 with Tetra Tech,
Inc Subcontractor Research Triangle Institute (RTI) provided data analysis, additional technical
assistance, editorial support, design, typesetting, and graphics. Additional graphic design concepts
were provided by David Stolar and JT&A, Inc., under Contract No. 68-C3-0303.
-------
For more information about the National Water Quality Inventory
Report or for additional copies of this report or the companion
summary document, contact-
Barry Burgan
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7060
(202) 260-7024 (fax)
-------
Contents
Page
Figures vii
Tables ix
Executive Summary ES-1
Introduction ES-1
Measuring Water Quality ES-1
How Many of Our Waters Were Assessed for 1992? ES-4
Pollutants That Degrade Water Quality ES-6
Sources of Water Pollution ES-8
Rivers and Streams ES-10
Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs ES-13
The Great Lakes ES-15
Estuaries ES-16
Ocean Coastal Waters ES-18
Wetlands ES-19
Ground Water ES-22
Water Quality Protection Programs ES-24
What You Can Do ES.35
Highlight Fish Consumption Advisories ES-38
Parti: Introduction
Chapter 1
Introduction 3
The Clean Water Ad: 3
Assessment Methodology 4
Overall Use Support 6
Total Assessed Waters 6
Causes and Sources of Impairment 7
Changes in Reporting Methodology 8
Highlight The Waterbody System: A Database of Water
Quality Assessments 10
Part II: Water Quality Assessments
Chapter 2
Rivers and Streams 15
Overall Use Support 16
Individual Use Support 17
Causes of Impairment 18
Sources of Impairment 19
Highlight Nutrient Loads in Four Major River Basins 22
-------
Chapter 3 Page
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 27
Overall Use Support 27
Individual Use Support 28
Causes of Impairment 29
Sources of Impairment 32
Highlight EMAP-Surface Waters: Northeast Lakes Pilot 34
Chapter 4
Estuaries and Coastal Waters 37
Estuaries 38
Overall Use Support 38
Individual Use Support 39
Causes of Impairment 39
Sources of Impairment 41
Highlight A Regional Assessment of the Ecological Condition
of Estuaries 42
Highlight Chemical Contamination in Coastal Sediments 48
Coastal Waters 50
Overall Use Support 50
Individual Use Support 50
Causes and Sources of Impairment 51
Chapter 5
Wetlands 55
Introduction 55
Values and Functions of Wetlands 56
Consequences of Wetlands Loss and Degradation 57
Extent of the Resource 58
Integrity of the Resource 61
Designated Use Support in Wetlands 62
Summary 64
-------
Chapter 6 Page
Ground Water Quality 67
Introduction 67
Ground Water Use 67
Ground Water Quality 70
Highlight Are Pesticides Affecting Ground Water Quality?
Case Study of the Delmarva Peninsula 74
Highlight Are Pesticide; Affecting Ground Water Quality? Findings of
the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells 78
Chapter 7
Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 83
Public Health Concerns 83
Toxic Pollutants 83
Highlight The National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (NSCRF) 86
Bacterial and Viral Contamination 90
Aquatic Ecosystem Concerns 92
Toxic Pollutants 92
Physical and Chemical Conditions 93
Fish Kills Caused by Pollution 93
Sediment Contamination 95
Total Waters Affected by Toxic Pollutants 97
Chapter 8
Individual State Summaries 101
Chapter 9
State Recommendations 160
Nonpoint Source Abatement 162
Identification and Control of Toxic Substances 162
Water Quality Monitoring 163
Future Ground Water Concerns 163
Wetlands Protection 164
Pollutant Source Discharge Permitting 165
Municipal Facilities 165
Water Quality Criteria and Standards 166
HI
-------
Part III: Water Quality Management Programs Page
Chapter 10
The Watershed Protection Approach 169
Background 169
Implementation 170
Highlight The Anacostia River Restoration Project 172
Highlight Puget Sound Watershed Planning 174
Chapter 11
Geographically Targeted Programs 179
Introduction 179
The Great Waterbodies Program 179
Background 179
The Gulf of Mexico 179
The Great Lakes Basin 184
The Chesapeake Bay Program 194
The Great Waters Program 200
The National Estuary Program. 201
Chapter 12
Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 211
Introduction 211
Overview of National Monitoring Activity 211
Effects of Changes in Water Programs 212
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality 213
Major Nationwide Monitoring Programs 214
Office of Water Programs to Support Monitoring 217
Specific Water Program Monitoring 220
EPA Data and Information Systems 223
Highlight Volunteer Monitoring 224
Chapter 13
Point Source Control Program 231
Treating Municipal Wastewater 231
Funding Needs for Wastewater Treatment 232
Treating Industrial Wastewater 233
Permitting, Compliance, and Enforcement 234
National Municipal Policy 235
Controlling Toxicants 236
The National Pretreatment Program 238
Managing Sewage Sludge 240
New Initiatives in Point Source Control 242
iv
-------
Chapter 14 Page
Nonpoint Source Control Program 247
Background 247
The National Section 319 Program 247
Reports on Section 319 Activities 249
National NPS Strategic Plan 250
Nonpoint Source Management Programs and Implementation 251
Funding for Nonpoint Source Control 256
Chapter 15
The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 261
Introduction 261
Program Coals and Objectives 262
Publicly Owned Lakes 263
Clean Lake Program Implementation Grants 264
Section 314 Reporting Requirements 266
Highlight The Red Lake Chippewa Lake Assessment Grant 268
Trophic Status 270
Acid Effects on Lakes 274
Toxic Effects on Lakes 275
Trends in Significant Public Lakes 276
Lake Restoration and Pollution Control Measures 277
Chapter 16
Wetlands Protection Programs 281
Section 404 281
Wetlands Water Quality Standards 281
Water Quality Certification of Federal Permits and Licenses 283
State Wetlands Conservation Plans 283
State Wetlands Protection Grants 284
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 284
Nonpoint Source Pollution and Wetlands 284
Swampbuster 285
State Programs to Protect Wetlands 285
Highlight Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Program 288
Opportunities and Recommendations from States 290
Summary 292
-------
Chapter 17 Page
Ground Water Protection Programs 295
Resource Protection 295
Pollutant Source Control 306
Chemical Product Controls 311
Pollution Prevention 313
EPA Management of Ground Water Data 314
USGS Ground Water Quality Investigations 316
Part IV: Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
Chapter 18
Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 321
Introduction 321
Costs 321
Benefits 325
The Greater Benefits of Water Quality Programs 327
Appendixes
Appendix A: Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-1
Appendix B: Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-1
Appendix C: Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-1
Appendix D: Individual State Data - Wetlands D-1
Appendix E: Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic
Life Concerns E-1
Appendix F: Individual State Data - Great Lakes F-1
Appendix G: Individual State Data - Section 314 Clean Lakes G-1
VI
-------
Figures
No. Page
ES-1 Percent of Total Waters Assessed for the 1992 Report ES-5
ES-2 Levels of Overall Use Support - Rivers and Streams ES-10
ES-3 Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired by Pollutants ES-10
ES-4 Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired by Sources
of Pollution ES-11
ES-5 Levels of Overall Use Support - Lakes ES-12
ES-6 Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired by Pollutants ES-13
ES-7 Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired by Sources
of Pollution ES-14
ES-8 Levels of Overall Use Support- Great Lakes ES-15
ES-9 Percent of Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles Impaired
by Pollutants ES-15
ES-10 Percent of Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles Impaired by
Sources of Pollution ES-16
ES-11 Levels of Overall Use Support - Estuaries ES-17
ES-12 Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles Impaired
by Pollutants ES-17
ES-13 Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles Impaired by Sources
of Pollution ES-18
ES-14 Levels of Overall Use Support- Oceans ES-19
ES-15 Levels of Overall Use Support-Wetlands ES-20
ES-16 Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity ES-21
ES-17 Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity ES-21
ES-18 In-Lake Treatment Techniques Implemented by the States ES-28
ES-19 Management Options for Lake Restoration and Pollution
Control ES-28
ES-20 Locations of National Estuary Program Sites ES-29
1 -1 Percentage of Total Waters Assessed for the 1992 Report 7
2-1 The States Assessed 642,881 Miles of Rivers and Streams
in 1992 15
2-2 Overall Use Support in Assessed Rivers and Streams 16
2-3 Individual Use Support in Rivers and Streams 17
2-4 The Effects of Siltation in Rivers and Streams 18
2-5 Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired by Pollutants 19
2-6 Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired by Sources
of Pollution 20
2-7 Distribution of Agricultural Impacts on Rivers and Streams 21
3-1 The States Assessed Almost Half of the Nation's Lake Waters
Excluding the Great Lakes in 1992 27
3-2 Overall Use Support in Assessed Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds ... 28
3-3 Individual Use Support in Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 29
3-4 Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired by Pollutants 30
3-5 Distribution of Lake Acres Impaired by Nutrients 31
3-6 Lake Impaired by Excessive Nutrients/Healthy Lake Ecosystem... 32
3-7 Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired by Sources of Pollution . 33
VII
-------
Page
4-1 The States Assessed 27,227 Square Miles of Estuarine Waters
in 1992 37
4-2 Overall Use Support in Assessed Estuaries 38
4-3 Individual Use Support in Estuaries 39
4-4 Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles Impaired
by Pollutants 40
4-5 Pathogen Indicators 40
4-6 Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles Impaired by Sources
of Pollution 41
4-7 Overall Use Support in Assessed Coastal Waters 50
4-8 Individual Use Support in Coastal Waters 51
4-9 Percent of Assessed Shore Miles Impaired by Pollutants 52
4-10 Percent of Assessed Shore Miles Impaired by Sources
of Pollution 52
5-1 Depiction of Wetland Adjacent to Waterbody 55
5-2 Formation of Detritus in a Tidal Salt Marsh 56
5-3 States With Over 50% Wetlands Loss 58
5-4 Sources of Current Wetlands Losses 59
5-5 Designated Use Support in Wetlands 63
5-6 Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity 63
5-7 Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity 64
6-1 National Ground Water Withdrawals by Water Use Category.... 68
6-2 Total Fresh Ground Water Withdrawals by State 68
6-3 Fresh Ground Water Withdrawals by Water Use Category 69
6-4 Overall Ground Water Quality 70
6-5 Sources of Contamination 71
6-6 Highest Priority Contamination Sources 72
6-7 Substances Contaminating Ground Water 73
7-1 Fish Consumption Advisories in the United States 84
7-2 Pollutants Causing Fish Consumption Advisories 85
7-3 Sources of Contaminants Causing Fishing Advisories 89
7-4 Sources Associated With Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions 91
7-5 Pollutants Causing Recreational Restrictions 92
7-6 Number of Fish Kills Nationwide 94
7-7 Pollutants Associated With Fish Kills 95
7-8 Sources Associated With Fish Kills 96
7-9 Waters Monitored for Toxic Contamination 97
7-10 Percent of Monitored Waters with Toxic Contamination 98
VIII
-------
Page
10-1 Neuse River Basin 171
11 -1 Overall Use Support in the Great Lakes Shoreline 185
11 -2 Individual Use Support in the Great Lakes 186
11 -3 Percent of Great Lakes Shore Miles Impaired by Pollutants 187
11 -4 Percent of Great Lakes Shore Miles Impaired by Sources
of Pollution 187
11-5 Present State and Desired Future State of the Lower
Green Bay Ecosystem 191
11-6 Status of Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Development for
Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes 192
11-7 Effects of Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay 195
11-8 1985 Total Nitrogen Base Load Distribution in
Chesapeake Bay 196
11-9 1985 Total Phosphorus Base Load Distribution in
Chesapeake Bay 196
11-10 Point Source Phosphorus Reduction Progress 198
13-1 Percent of Facilities in Significant Noncompliance with NPDES
Permit Requirements 235
15-1 Activities Conducted with Clean Lakes Program Grants 262
15-2 The Progression of Eutrophication 271
16-1 Development of State Water Quality Standards for Wetlands 282
16-2 Funding for Wetlands Protection Projects 284
17-1 States With EPA-Approved Wellhead Protection Programs 298
17-2 States With National Rural Water Association Programs 299
17-3 Types of State Ground Water Protection Programs 301
17-4 Ongoing Ground Water Protection Programs of States
and Territories Reporting 303
17-5 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Programs 309
IX
-------
Tables
No. Page
ES-1 Levels of Use Support ES-3
ES-2 Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment ES-6
ES-3 Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report ES-8
ES-4 Five Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment ES-9
1 -1 Levels of Use Support 5
1 -2 Comparison of Waters Assessed in 1990 and 1992 9
7-1 Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions Reported by the States 90
11-1 Effects of Toxic Contamination on Fish and Wildlife
in the Great Lakes 188
11 -2 Toxic Chemicals of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin:
11 Criteria Pollutants Identified by the IjC's Water
Quality Board 190
11 -3 Nitrogen Loading to Chesapeake Bay -1985 Base Load
and Controllable Fraction 197
11 -4 Phosphorus Loading to Chesapeake Bay -1985 Base Load
and Controllable Fraction 197
11 -5 Results of Phosphorus Detergent Bans in the Chesapeake
Bay System 198
13-1 Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facility
and Other Eligibilities 232
13-2 Status of Permit Issuance 234
15-1 Effects of pH on Aquatic Life 274
15-2 Number of States Reporting Use of In-Lake Restoration
Measures 278
15-3 Number of States Reporting Control Measures 278
17-1 Status of Federal Financially Assisted Projects Reviewed
by EPA Under the Sole Source Aquifer Program 300
17-2 Summary of State Ground Water Protection Programs 304
18-1 Total Annualized Costs of Water Pollution Control for the
United States 322
18-2 Total Annualized Costs of Environmental Protection for the
United States 322
18-3 State and Federal Expenditures for Water Pollution Control
in Pennsylvania, 1987-1991 323
18-4 Washington State Expenditures for Water Pollution Control 324
18-5 Wastewater Treatment System Expenditures and Ohio River
Water Quality Improvements 324
-------
-------
Executive Summary
Introduction
The 1992 Report to Congress
describes the geographic extent of
water pollution across the country
and identifies specific pollutants and
sources of pollutants contaminating
our waters. This national snapshot of
water quality conditions summarizes
information submitted by the States,
the District of Columbia, Territories,
Interstate Water Basin Commissions,
and one American Indian Tribe in
their 1992 water quality assessment
reports (required under Clean Water
Act Section 305(b)). The 1992 Sec-
tion 305(b) reports contain assess-
ments of each State's water quality
during 1990 and 1991.
Why Is It Important
To Learn About Water
Pollution?
The EPA encourages each citizen
to become a steward of our pre-
cious natural resources. Complex
environmental threats and diminish-
ing funds for pollution control force
us to jointly solve the pollution
problems that foul our beaches and
lakes or close our favorite fishing
sites. We need to understand these
problems and become a part of
their solution. Once we understand
these pollution problems and what
is needed to combat them, we will
be better able to prioritize our
efforts, devise sound solutions, take
appropriate action, monitor progress
after solutions are implemented, and
modify behavior that contributes to
the problems.
This document provides funda-
mental water quality information
needed to resolve our persistent
water pollution problems. This
Report to Congress
Defines key water quality
concepts
Discusses the leading pollution
problems in rivers and streams,
lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, wet-
lands, and ground water as reported
to EPA by the States
Briefly describes major State and
Federal activities to control water
pollution
Offers several water quality pro-
tection actions for every citizen to
adopt
Measuring Water
Quality
The States assess the quality of
their waters by determining if their
waters attain State water quality
standards. Water quality standards
consist of beneficial uses, numeric
and narrative criteria for supporting
each use, and an antidegradation
statement
-------
ES-2 Executive Summary
Overall use support is a
general description of
water quality conditions in
a waterbody based on
evaluation of individual
use support Overall use
support determinations
summarize multiple indi-
vidual use determinations
into a single measure of
water quality conditions.
Designated beneficial uses are
the desirable uses that water quality
should support Examples are drink-
ing water supply, primary contact
recreation (such as swimming), and
aquatic life support Each designated
use has a unique set of water quality
requirements or criteria that must
be met for the use to be realized.
States 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 cri-
teria may set maximum concentra-
tions 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 distri-
bution 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 indigenous
aquatic species." Narrative criteria
may also describe conditions that
are desired in a waterbody, such as,
"Waters must be free of substances
that are toxic to humans, aquatic
life, and wildlife."
Antidegradatlon statements
protect existing designated uses and
prevent high-quality waterbodies
from deteriorating below the water
quality necessary to maintain exist-
ing or anticipated designated bene-
ficial uses.
The Clean Water Act provides
primary authority to States to set
their own standards but requires
that all State beneficial uses and
their criteria comply with the "fish-
able and swimmable" goals of the
Act At a minimum, State beneficial
uses must support aquatic life and
recreational use. In effect, States
cannot designate "waste assimila-
tion" as a beneficial use, as some
States did prior to 1972.
The EPA recommends that
States assess support of the follow-
ing individual beneficial uses:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody pro-
vides suitable habitat for survival
and reproduction of desirable fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic organ-
isms.
Fish Consumption
The waterbody sup-
ports a population of
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.
-------
Executive Summary ES-3
Drinking Water
Supply
supply safe drinking water with con
Primary Contact
Recreation -
Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
waterborne diseases from raw sew-
age contamination):
Secondary Contact
Recreation
People can perform
activities on the water (such as ca-
noeing) without risk of adverse hu-
man health effects from occasional
contact with the water.
The water quality is
suitable for irrigating
fields or watering livestock.
EPA recognizes five levels of use
support (Table ES-1). If possible, the
States determine the level of use
support by comparing monitoring
data with numeric criteria for each
use designated for a particular
waterbody. If monitoring data are
not available, the State may deter-
mine the level of use support with
qualitative information. Valid qualita-
tive information includes land use
data, fish and game surveys, and
predictive model results. Monitored
assessments are based on monitor-
ing data. Evaluated assessments
are based on qualitative information
or monitored data more than 5
years old.
After the States determine the
level of use support for each indi-
vidual designated use in each
waterbody, the States consolidate
individual use support assessments
to determine the level of overall use
support for each waterbody.
Fully Supporting Overall Use -
All designated beneficial uses are
fully supported.
Threatened Overall Use - One
or more designated beneficial uses
are threatened and the remaining
uses are fully supported.
Table ES-1. Levels of Use Support
Symbol
t?
\&
yggK.flM
-------
ES-4 Executive Summary
Partially Supporting Overall
Use - One or more designated
beneficial uses are partially sup-
ported and the remaining uses are
fully supported.
Not Supporting Overall Use -
One or more designated beneficial
uses are not supported.
Not Attainable - The State has
performed a use-attainability study
and documented that use support
of one or more designated bene-
ficial uses is not achievable due to
Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality monitoring consists of data collection and sample
analysis performed according to quality control protocols. Monitoring
also includes subsequent analysis of the body of data to support
dedsionmaking. Federal, interstate, State, Territorial, Tribal, Regional,
and local agencies, industry, and citizen groups with approved quality
assurance programs monitor a combination of chemical, physical, and
biological water quality parameters throughout the country.
Chemical data often measure concentrations of pollutants and other
chemical conditions that influence aquatic life, such as pH (i.e., acidity)
and dissolved oxygen concentrations. The chemical data may be ana-
lyzed In water samples, fish tissue samples, or sediment samples.
Physical data include measurements of temperature, turbidity (i.e.,
light penetration through the water column), and solids in the water
column.
Biological data measure the health of aquatic communities.
Biological data include counts of aquatic species that indicate healthy
ecological conditions.
Monitoring agencies vary parameters, sampling frequency, and
sampling site selection to meet program objectives and funding con-
straints. Sampling may occur at regular intervals (such as monthly,
quarterly, or annually), irregular intervals, or during one-time intensive
surveys. Sampling may be conducted at fixed sampling stations, ran-
domly selected stations, stations near suspected water quality prob-
lems, or stations in pristine waters.
natural conditions or human activity
that cannot be reversed without
imposing widespread economic and
social impacts.
Impaired Waters - The sum of
waterbodies partially supporting
uses and not supporting uses.
The EPA then aggregates the
State use support information into a
national assessment of the Nation's
water quality.
How Many of Our
Waters Were Assessed
for 1992?
National estimates of the total
waters of our country provide the
foundation for determining the per-
centage of waters assessed by the
States and the portion impaired by
pollution. In 1992, EPA calculated
national estimates of total rivers and
streams, lakes, estuaries, and coastal
shoreline by summing State esti-
mates of their total waters reported
in their 1992 305(b) reports. Based
on State-reported data, the estimate
of total river and stream miles in-
creased in 1992 because the States
included nonperennial streams, ca-
nals, and ditches that were previ-
ously excluded from estimates of
total stream miles.
Current estimates indicate that
the United States has
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.,
intermittent streams)
-------
Executive Summary ES-5
Approximately 40 million acres
of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs
About 37,000 square miles of
estuaries (excluding Alaska)
More than 56,000 miles of ocean
shoreline, including 36,000 miles in
Alaska
5,382 miles of Great Lakes shore-
line
More than 277 million acres of
wetlands such as marshes, swamps,
bogs, and fens in the continental
States including 170 million acres of
wetlands in Alaska.
Due to funding limitations, most
States assess a subset of their total
water resources during each 2-year
reporting cycle required under
Clean Water Act Section 305(b).
States are more capable of assessing
all of their waters over a 5- to 10-
year period. Figure ES-1 presents the
percentage of total waters assessed
by the States for the 1992 report. It
should be noted that the percent-
age of perennial rivers and streams
assessed is much greater than the
percentage of total rivers and
streams assessed.
The summary information based
on assessed waters may not repre-
sent overall conditions in the
Nation's total waters because States
often focus on monitoring and
assessing major perennial rivers,
estuaries, and public lakes with sus-
pected pollution problems. Many
States lack the resources to collect
use support information for intermit-
tent streams, small tributaries, and
private ponds. EPA cannot predict
the health of these unassessed
waters.
Figure ES-1
Percent of Total Waters Assessed
for the 1992 Report
Rivers and Streams
Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs
Estuaries
Ocean Coastal
Waters
Great Lakes
Shoreline
Wetlands
642,881 -18% assessed
Total miles: 3,551,247-
18,300,000 -46% assessed
li Total acres: 39,920,000"
27,227 - 74% assessed
Total square miles: 36,890C
3,398 - 6% assessed (including Alaska)
Total miles: 56,121 miles, including Alaska's
36,000 miles of shoreline"
5,319-99% assessed
Total miles: 5,382
10.5 million - 4% assessed (including Alaska)
Total acres: 277 million acres, including Alaska's 170
million acres of wetlands
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
NOTE: These figures were reported by the States. See explanation of changes In total
water estimates on page ES-4.
' Does not include river miles in American Samoa and Guam, which did not report total
river miles.
b Does not include lake acreages in American Samoa, Guam, Kentucky, and the virgin
Islands, which did not report total lake acreages.
c Does not include estuarine areas in Alaska, American Samoa, and Guam.
d Does not include shoreline miles in American Samoa and Guam.
-------
ES-6 Executive Summary
Pollutants That
Degrade Water
Quality
Where possible, States identify
the pollutants or processes that
degrade water quality and indicators
that document impacts of water
quality degradation (see Table ES-2).
Pollutants include sediment, nutri-
ents, and chemical contaminants
(such as dioxin and metals). Proc-
esses that degrade waters include
habitat modification (such as de-
struction 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 abundance. Examples of physi-
cal and chemical parameters include
pH, turbidity, and temperature.
Following are descriptions of the
effects of the pollutants and proc-
esses most commonly identified in
rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal
waters, wetlands, and ground water.
Table ES-2. Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rivers
Siltation
Nutrients
Pathogens
Pesticides
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO
Lakes
Metals
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO
Siltation
Priority Organic
Chemicals
Estuaries
Nutrients
Pathogens
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO
Siltation
Suspended Solids
Source: State 305(b) reports.
Nutrients include nitrates found
in sewage and fertilizers and
phosphates found in detergents
and fertilizers. In excess levels,
nutrients overstimulate the
growth of aquatic plants and
algae. Excessive growth of these
organisms, in turn, can clog
navigable waters, use up dis-
solved oxygen as they decom-
pose, and block light to deeper
waters. This seriously affects the
respiration of fish and aquatic
invertebrates, leads to a
decrease in animal and plant
diversity, and affects our use of
the water for fishing, swimming,
and boating. In ground water,
fertilizers and nitrates are
among the principal contami-
nants that can lead to drinking
water well closures.
Silt and other suspended
solids wash off plowed fields,
construction and logging sites,
urban areas, strip-mined land,
and eroded stream banks when
it rains. As these sediments
enter rivers, lakes, coastal
waters, and wetlands, fish respi-
ration is impaired, plant produc-
tivity and water depth are
reduced, aquatic organisms and
their habitats are smothered,
and our aesthetic enjoyment of
the water is reduced.
Pathogens (certain waterborne
bacteria, viruses, and protozo-
ans) can cause human illnesses
that range from typhoid and
dysentery to minor respiratory
and skin diseases. These organ-
isms can enter waterways
through a number of routes,
including inadequately treated
sewage, storm water drains,
septic systems, runoff from
-------
Executive Summary ES-7
livestock pens, and boats that
dump sewage. Because it is
impossible to test water for
every type of disease-causing
organism, States usually mea-
sure indicator bacteria such as
fecal coliforms that suggest the
water may be contaminated
with untreated sewage and that
other, more dangerous, organ-
isms may be present
Organic material may enter
waterways in many different
forms-as sewage, as leaves and
grass clippings, or as runoff
from livestock feedlots and pas-
tures. When natural bacteria
and protozoa in the water break
down this organic material, they
begin to use up the oxygen
dissolved in the water. Many
types of fish and bottom-
dwelling animals cannot survive
when levels of dissolved oxygen
drop below 2 to 5 parts per
million.
Metals (such as mercury, lead,
and cadmium) and toxic or-
ganic chemicals (such as PCBs
and dioxin) may originate in
industrial discharges, runoff
from city streets, mining activi-
ties, leachate from landfills, and
a variety of other sources. These
toxic chemicals, which are gen-
erally persistent in the environ-
ment, can cause death or repro-
ductive failure in fish, shellfish,
and wildlife. In addition, they
can accumulate in animal and
fish tissue, be absorbed in sedi-
ments, or find their way into
drinking water supplies, posing
long-term health risks to hu-
mans.
Pesticides and herbicides used
on croplands, lawns, and in
termite control can be washed
into ground and surface waters
by rainfall, snowmelt, and irriga-
tion practices. These contami-
nants are generally very persis-
tent in the environment and
may accumulate in fish, shell-
fish, and wildlife to levels that
pose a risk to human health and
the environment. Pesticides are
among the principal contami-
nants causing drinking water
well closures in the southern
and western regions of the
country.
Habitat modification results
from activities such as grazing,
Fish Kills
Fish kill reporting is a voluntary process; States are not required to
report on how many fish kills occur, or what might have caused them.
In many cases it is the public-fishermen and hunters, recreational boat-
ers, or hikers-^who first notice fish kills and report them to game war-
dens or other State officials. Many fish kills go undetected or unre-
ported, and others may be difficult to investigate, especially if they
occur in remote areas. This is because dead fish may be carried quickly
downstream, or may be difficult to count because of turbid conditions.
It is therefore likely that the statistics presented by the States underesti-
mate the total number of fish kills that occurred nationwide between
1990 and 1992.
Despite these problems, fish kills are an Important consideration in
water quality assessments, and State reporting on the number and
causes of kills is improving. In 1992, 43 States reported a total of 1,620
fish kill incidents. These States attributed 930 of the fish kills to pollu-
tion, 369 to unknown causes, and 586 to natural conditions, such as
low flow and high temperatures. Pollutants most often cited as the
cause of kills included biochemical oxygen-demanding substances, pes-
ticides, manure and silage, oil and gas/ chlorine/ and ammonia. Lead-
ing sources of fish kills include agricultural activities, industrial dis-
charges, municipal sewage treatment plant discharges, spills, and pesti-
cide applications.
-------
ES-8 Executive Summary
farming, channelization, dam
construction, and dredging.
Typical examples of the effects
of hydrologic modification
include loss of streamside vege-
tation, siltation, smothering of
bottom-dwelling organisms, and
increased water temperatures.
Other pollutants include salts,
acidic contaminants, and oil and
grease. Fresh waters may be-
come unfit for aquatic life and
some human uses when they
become contaminated by salts.
Sources of salinity include irriga-
tion runoff, brine used in oil
extraction, road deicing opera-
tions, and the intrusion of sea
water into ground and surface
waters in coastal areas. Acidity
Table ES-3. Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report
Category
Industrial
Municipal
Combined
Sewers
Storm Sewers/
Urban Runoff
Agricultural
Silvtcultural
Construction
Resource
Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydrologic
Modification
Examples
Pulp and paper mills, chemical manufacturers, steel plants,
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, buildings,
lawns, and other paved areas that enters a sewer, pipe, or ditch
before discharge into surface waters
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
problems are of concern in
areas with many abandoned
mines (acid mine drainage) and
areas susceptible to acid rain.
Changes in acidity (measured as
pH) can alter the toxicity of
other chemicals in water and
can render lakes and streams
unfit for aquatic life.
Other pollutants of concern
include crude oil and processed
petroleum products spilled dur-
ing extraction, processing, or
transport or leaked from under-
ground storage tanks; noxious
aquatic plants, particularly intro-
duced species that compete
against native plants; and
increased water temperatures
resulting from industrial cooling
processes or habitat modifica-
tion.
Sources of
Water Pollution
Often we associate water pollu-
tion with images of oil spills or raw
sewage and toxic chemicals spewing
from pipes at industrial facilities and
sewage treatment plants. Although
point source discharges produce
some pollution, most are controlled
with specific permit conditions that
they usually meet Currently, less
visible nonpoint sources of pollution
are more widespread and introduce
vast quantities of pollutants into our
surface and ground waters.
Nonpoint sources deliver pollutants
to waterbodies in a dispersed man-
ner rather than from a discrete pipe
or other conveyance. Nonpoint
sources include atmospheric deposi-
tion, contaminated sediments, and
land use activities that generate
-------
Executive Summary ES-9
polluted runoff, such as construc-
tion, agriculture, logging, mining,
and onsite sewage disposal.
In contrast, point sources dis-
charge wastes into waterbodies
from a discrete point that is easily
identified. The most common point
sources are industrial facilities,
municipal treatment plants, and
combined sewers. Although diffuse
runoff is generally treated as a
nonpoint source, runoff is a point
source if it enters and is discharged
from a conveyance such as those
described in CWA Section 502(14)
(such as pipes, ditches, and canals).
Table ES-3 defines the point and
nonpoint categories of pollution
sources most frequently cited in this
document Table ES-4 lists the lead-
ing sources of impairment reported
by States for their rivers, lakes, and
estuaries.
Other sources cited less fre-
quently include atmospheric deposi-
tion, in-place contaminants, and
natural sources. Atmospheric deposi-
tion refers to contaminants entering
waters from polluted air. In-place
contaminants were generated by
past activities, such as discontinued
industrial discharges, logging, or
one-time spills. In-place contami-
nants often reside in sediments but
continue to release pollutants back
into the water column. Natural
sources refer to an assortment 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 expen-
sive for States to identify specific
sources responsible for water quality
impairments. Many States lack fund-
ing for monitoring to identify all but
the most apparent sources degrad-
ing waterbodies. State management
priorities may focus monitoring bud-
gets on other water quality issues,
such as identification of contami-
nated fish populations that pose a
human health risk. Management
priorities may also direct monitoring
efforts on larger waterbodies and
overlook sources impairing smaller
waterbodies. As a result, the States
do not associate every impacted
waterbody with a source of impair-
ment in their 305(b) reports, and
the summary information presented
in this report applies exclusively to a
subset of the Nation's impaired
waters.
"The term 'point source'
means any discernible, con-
fined, and discrete convey-
ance, Including but not lim-
ited to any pipe, ditch, chan-
nel, 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. Five Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rivers
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Industrial Point Sources
Lakes
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Hydro logic/Habitat
Modification
Municipal Point Sources
Onsite Wastewater
Disposal
Estuaries
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Contaminated Sediments
Source: State 305(b) reports.
-------
ES-10 Executive Summary
Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
Total assessed = 642,881 miles
18% Assessed
82% Unassessed
Figure ES-2
Levels of Overall Use Support
Rivers and Streams
Fully Supporting
56%
Threatened
6%
Partially Supporting
25%
Not Supporting
13%
Not Attainable
Rivers and Streams
Pollutants discharged upstream
often become the problem of some-
one who lives downstream (or of
the aquatic life that exists instream),
and all of the activities that take
place in a watershed can have a
water quality impact elsewhere in
the watershed. The term watershed
simply refers to a geographic area in
which water, sediments, and dis-
solved materials (contaminants)
drain to a common outlet such as a
point on a larger river, lake, ground
water aquifer, or ocean. It is there-
fore important to remember that
rivers and streams are connected-
by hydrology, ecology, geology,
and social and economic consider-
ations-to the lakes, wetlands, and
coastal and ground waters we dis-
cuss later in this document.
Do Our Rivers and
Streams Support Uses?
In 1992, 54 States, Territories,
Tribes, Commissions, and the Dis-
trict of Columbia (hereafter referred
to as "States") assessed 642,881
miles (18%) of the Nation's total 3.5
million miles of rivers and streams
(see Appendix A, Table A-1, for
individual State information).
The States assessed about 4,000
fewer river miles in 1992 than in
1990. EPA expected the percentage
and amount of waters assessed to
decline in 1992 because EPA advised
the States to no longer include
waters in the assessed categories for
which the State lacked specific infor-
mation. The percentage of waters
assessed dropped because the
baseline estimate of total waters
increased.
Conditions in unassessed rivers
cannot be estimated with summary
information based on assessed
waters because unassessed rivers
include an unknown combination of
pristine and impaired rivers.
Figure ES-3
Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired
by Pollutants
(222,370 assessed river miles impaired)
Pollutants
Siltation
Nutrients
Pathogen Indicators
Pesticides
Organic Enrichment/DO
10
20 30
Percent
40
-------
Executive Summary ES-11
Therefore, the following discussion
applies exclusively to assessed waters
and cannot be extrapolated to de-
scribe conditions in the Nation's
rivers as a whole. EPA is working
with the States to expand assess-
ment coverage of the Nation's wa-
ters and expects future assessment
information to cover a greater por-
tion of the Nation's rivers and
streams (see Chapter 12).
Of the Nation's 642,881
assessed river miles, the States found
that 56% fully support their desig-
nated uses, and an additional 6%
support uses but are threatened and
may become impaired if pollution
control actions are not taken. The
States reported that 25% of the
assessed river miles partially support
uses, and 13% of the assessed river
miles do not support designated
uses. Only 125 miles (less than one-
tenth of 1 %) of the assessed waters
could not attain designated uses
(see Figure ES-2).
What Is Polluting Our
Rivers and Streams?
The States reported that siltation
and nutrients impair more miles of
rivers and streams than any other
pollutants, affecting 45% and 37%
of impaired stream miles in the
States reporting causes, respectively
(see Appendix A, Table A-3, for
individual State information). Other
leading causes of impairment
include indicators of pathogens,
affecting 27%; pesticides, affecting
26%; and organic enrichment and
resultant low levels of dissolved oxy-
gen, affecting 24% of impaired
stream miles (see Figure ES-3).
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Forty-eight States identified
sources contributing to the impair-
ment of 221,878 miles of their rivers
and streams not fully supporting
designated uses (see Appendix A,
Table A-4, for individual State infor-
mation). These States reported that
agricultural runoff is the leading
source of pollutants in rivers and
streams (see Figure ES-4). Forty-five
States identified almost 160,000
river miles impaired by agricultural
sources, including nonirrigated crop
production, irrigated crop produc-
tion, rangeland, and animal holding
areas. These States found that agri-
cultural activities contribute to the
impairment of 72% of the impaired
stream miles in the 48 States report-
ing sources. The States identified.
Figure ES-4
Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired
by Sources of Pollution
(221,878 assessed river miles impaired)
Pollution Sources
Agriculture
Municipal Point
Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Industrial Point
Sources
Silviculture
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Total
72
15
11
11
7
7
7
I
I
I
I
I
10 20
30 40 50
Percent
60 70 80
-------
ES-12 Executive Summary
Total lakes = 39,920,000 acres
Total assessed = 18,300,000 acres
46% Assessed
54% Unassessed
other sources of impairment less
frequently, such as municipal point
sources, affecting 15%, urban runoff
and storm sewers, affecting 11%,
and resource extraction, affecting
11 % of the impaired waters.
Although this summary provides
the best picture of national impacts
from sources available to EPA at this
time, it has limitations. The informa-
tion provided applies to only a small
portion of our Nation's total rivers
and streams because the States can-
not assess all their waters in a 2-year
period and they cannot specify the
source of pollution impairing each
waterbody assessed. In addition,
national summary information can
obscure sources with regional or
State significance. For example,
Oregon reports that silviculture (for-
estry activity) contributes to the
impairment of 46% of their rivers
and streams that do not fully sup-
port designated uses. Nationally,
silviculture impacts only 7% of the
impaired rivers and streams. There-
fore, it is important to refer to the
individual State data presented in
Appendix A for a more specific de-
scription of sources impairing rivers
and streams.
Figure ES-5
Levels of Overall Use Support
Lakes
Fully Supporting
43%
Threatened
13%
Partially Supporting
35%
Not Supporting
9%
Not Attainable
Oligotrophlc
Mesotrophic
Eutrophic
Hypereutrophlc
Dystrophic
Trophic States
Gear waters with little organic matter or sediment
and minimum biological activity.
Waters with more nutrients and, therefore, more
biological productivity.
Waters extremely rich in nutrients, with high biological
productivity. Some species may be choked out
Murky, highly productive waters, closest to the wetlands.
status. Many ciearwater species cannot survive.
Low In nutrients, highly colored with dissolved humic
organic matter. (Not necessarily a part of the natural
trophic progression.)
The Eutrophication Process
Eutrophication is a natural process, but human activities can accel-
erate eutrophication by increasing the rate at which nutrients and or-
ganic substances enter lakes from their surrounding watersheds. Agri-
cultural runoff, urban runoff, leaking septic systems, Sewage discharges,
eroded streambanks, and similar sources can enhance the flow of nutri-
ents and organic substances into lakes. These substances can overstimu-
late the growth of algae and aquatic plants, creating conditions that
interfere with the recreational use of lakes and the health and diversity
of indigenous fish, plant, and animal populations. Enhanced eutrophi-
cation from nutrient enrichment due to human activities is one of the
leading problems facing our Nation's lakes and reservoirs.
-------
Executive Summary ES-13
Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs
Lakes are sensitive to pollution
inputs because lakes flush out their
contents relatively slowly. Even
under natural conditions, lakes
undergo eutrophication, an aging
process that slowly fills in the lake
with sediment and organic matter
(see sidebar). The eutrophication
process alters basic lake characteris-
tics such as depth, biological pro-
ductivity, oxygen levels, and water
clarity. The eutrophication process is
commonly defined by a series of
trophic states as described in the
sidebar.
Do Our Lakes and
Reservoirs Support Uses?
Forty-nine States assessed overall
use support in more than 18 million
lake acres representing 46% of the
approximately 40 million total acres
of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds in the
Nation (see Appendix B, Table B-1,
for individual State information). In
1992, the States assessed about
180,000 fewer lake acres than in
1990. Overall, 43% of the assessed
lake acres fully support designated
uses such as swimming, fishing, and
drinking water supply (see Figure
ES-5). An additional 13% were iden-
tified as threatened and could soon
become impaired if pollution control
actions are not taken. The States
reported that 35% of assessed lake
acres partially support designated
uses, 9% do not support uses, and
less than 1% cannot attain uses.
What Is Polluting
Our Lakes, Reservoirs,
and Ponds?
Forty-seven States reported
causes of impairment in their lakes
(Appendix B, Table B-3, contains
individual State data). Overall, these
States reported that metals and
nutrients are the most common
causes of nonsupport in assessed
lakes, affecting 47% and 40% of
impaired lake acres, respectively (see
Figure ES-6). However, impairments
due to metals were concentrated in
several States with large numbers of
lakes (primarily Minnesota), while
nutrient problems were widely
reported by 41 States. Other leading
causes of lake impairment were
organic enrichment, affecting 24%
of impaired lake acres; siltation,
affecting 22%; and priority organics,
affecting 20% of impaired lake
acres.
Forty-one States also assessed
trophic status, which is associated
with nutrient enrichment, in 11,415
Figure ES-6
Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired
by Pollutants
(7,958,064 assessed lake acres impaired)
Pollutants
Metals
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/DO
Siltation
Priority Organic
Chemicals
10
20 30
Percent
40
50
-------
ES-14 Executive Summary
of their lakes. Nutrient enrichment
tends to increase the proportion of
lakes in the eutrophic and hyper-
eutrophic categories. These States
reported that 17% of the lakes they
assessed for trophic status were
oligotrophic, 35% were mesotro-
phic, 32% were eutrophic, 7.5%
Add Effects on Lakes
Increases in lake acidity can radically alter the community of fish
and plant species in lakes and can increase the solubility of toxic sub-
stances and magnify their adverse effects. Twenty-four States reported
the results of Jake acidification assessments. These States assessed pH (a
measure of acidity) at more than 6,800 lakes and detected a threat of
acidic conditions in 1,038 lakes (15% of the assessed lakes). Most of
the States that assessed acidic conditions are located in the Northeast
upper Midwest, and the South.
Only 11 States identified sources of acidic conditions. States in the
Northeast attributed most of their acid Jake conditions to acid deposi-
tion from acidic rain, fog, or dry deposition in conjunction with natural
conditions that limit a lake's capacity to neutralize acids. Only two
States, Tennessee and Alabama, reported that acid mine drainage
resulted in acidic lake conditions.
Figure ES-7
Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired
by Sources of Pollution
(5,543,987 assessed lake acres impaired)
Pollutants Sources
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Municipal Point Sources
Onsite Wastewater
Disposal
Total
56
24
23
21
16
10
20
30 40
Percent
50 60
were hypereutrophic, and 8.5%
were dystrophic. This information
may not be representative of na-
tional lake conditions because States
often assess lakes in response to a
problem or public complaint or
because of their easy accessibility. It
is likely that more remote lakes -
which are probably less impaired -
are underrepresented in these
assessments.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Forty-five States identified indi-
vidual sources degrading some of
their 5.5 million impaired lake acres
(Appendix B, Table B-4, contains
individual State data). These States
reported that agriculture impairs
more lake acres than any other
source. Thirty-eight States found
that agriculture contributes to the
impairment of 3 million lake acres,
or 56% of the impaired lake acres in
the 45 States reporting sources of
pollution in lakes (see Figure ES-7).
The States also reported that
urban runoff and storm sewers con-
tribute to impairments in 24% of
their impaired lake acres, hydrologic
modifications and habitat modifica-
tions affect 23%, municipal point
sources affect 21 %, and onsite
wastewater disposal (such as septic
systems) affect 16% of the impaired
lake acres.
-------
Executive Summary ES-15
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 associ-
ated with the large urban centers
located on their shores. Many of the
pollutants that reach the Great
Lakes remain in the system indefi-
nitely because the Great Lakes are a
relatively closed water system.
Do the Great Lakes
Support Uses?
The States assessed 99% of the
Great Lakes shoreline miles in 1992.
Less than 3% of the assessed shore-
line miles fully support uses due to
conditions that generate fish con-
sumption advisories issued by the
Great Lakes States and the Province
of Ontario for the nearshore waters
of the Great Lakes (see Figure ES-8).
Thirty percent of assessed shoreline
miles partially support uses, and the
remaining 67% do not support
uses. These figures do not address
water quality conditions in the
deeper, cleaner, central waters of
the Lakes.
Total Great Lakes = 5,382 miles
Total assessed = 5,319 miles
99% Assessed
1% Unassessed
What Is Polluting
the Great Lakes?
Most of the Great Lakes shore-
line is polluted by toxic organic
chemicals-primarily PCBs and
DDT-that are often found in fish
tissue samples. The Great Lakes
States reported that toxic organic
chemicals impact 99% of the im-
paired Great Lakes shoreline miles.
Other leading causes of impairment
include metals, affecting 11%, or-
ganic enrichment and low dissolved
oxygen, affecting 7%; nutrients,
affecting 5%; and siltation, affecting
3% (see Figure ES-9).
Figure ES-8
Figure ES-9
Levels of Overall Use Support
Great Lakes
Fully Supporting
2%
Threatened
1%
Partially Supporting
30%
Not Supporting
67%
Not Attainable
Percent of Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles
Impaired by Pollutants
(5,171 assessed Great Lakes shore miles impaired)
Pollutants
Metals
Organic Enrichment/DO
Nutrients
Siltation |
Total
11
7
5
3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent
-------
ES-16 Executive Summary
Figure ES-10
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Although information on
sources of pollution in the Great
Lakes is sketchy, the reported infor-
mation suggests that atmospheric
deposition and contaminated sedi-
ments are the leading sources im-
pairing Great Lakes waters. Sedi-
ment contamination is a major
problem in nearshore waters and
harbors. Other sources cited by the
States include landfills, urban runoff,
and combined sewer overflows (see
Figure ES-10).
Estuaries
Percent of Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles
Impaired by Sources of Pollution
(1,884 assessed Great Lakes shore miles impaired)
Pollution Sources
Atmospheric Deposition
Contaminated Sediments
Land Disposal
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflow
10
20 30
Percent
40
50
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.
Total estuaries = 36,890 square miles
Total assessed = 27,227 square miles
Assessed 74%
Unassessed 26%
-------
Executive Summary ES-17
Do Our Estuaries
Support Uses?
Twenty-five coastal States as-
sessed roughly three-quarters of the
Nation's total estuarine waters in
1992. Of these, 56% were found to
fully support designated uses. An
additional 12% are fully supporting
uses but are threatened and could
become impaired if pollution control
actions are not taken. Twenty-three
percent of assessed estuarine square
miles partially support uses, and the
remaining 9% do not support uses
(see Figure ES-11).
What Is Polluting
Our Estuaries?
States report that the most
common causes of nonsupport of
designated uses in our Nation's estu-
aries are nutrients, affecting 55% of
the 8,572 impaired square miles;
followed by pathogens, affecting
42%; organic enrichment and
resulting low levels of dissolved oxy-
gen, affecting 34%; and siltation,
affecting 12% (see Figure ES-12).
Pathogen contamination is respon-
sible for the closure of shellfishing
beds in many areas of the country.
Figure ES-11
Levels of Overall Use Support
Estuaries
Fully Supporting
56%
Threatened
12%
Partially Supporting
23%
Not Supporting
9%
Not Attainable
0%
Figure ES-12
Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles
Impaired by Pollutants
(8,572 assessed estuarine square miles impaired)
Pollutants
Nutrients
Pathogen Indicators
Organic Enrichment/DO
Siltation
Suspended Solids
10
20 30
Percent
40
50
-------
ES-18 Executive Summary
Figure ES-13
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
States report that municipal
sewage treatment plants, storm
sewers/urban runoff, and agriculture
are the leading sources of pollution
in their estuarine waters, affecting
53%, 43%, and 43% of impaired
estuarine square miles, respectively
(see Figure ES-13). Other leading
sources cited by the States include
industrial point sources, affecting
23%, and resource extraction,
affecting 12%. Point sources con-
tinue to have a significant impact
on estuarine water quality because
concentrated population centers
and industrial operations are located
adjacent to major estuarine systems.
In contrast, rivers and lakes are
more dispersed in rural and urban
areas throughout the country and
tend to support more diverse land
uses that generate nonpoint source
pollution.
Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles Impaired
by Sources of Pollution
(8,303 assessed estuarine square miles impaired)
Pollution Sources
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Resource Extraction
Total
S3
43
43
23
12
10
20 30
Percent
40
50
60
Ocean Coastal Waters
We know less about the condi-
tion of our ocean coastal waters
than we do about our estuarine or
inland waters. In part, this may be
because we tend to think that only
oil spills or similar disastrous events
could possibly affect a resource as
vast as an ocean.
In fact we are seeing evidence
that our ocean waters - particularly
the waters near our coasts - suffer
from the same pollution problems
that affect our inland waters. Beach
debris cleanups are cataloging tons
of trash carried into the oceans by
rivers, washed in from city storm
sewers, thrown in by beach visitors,
or dumped overboard by boaters.
Beaches are closed to swimming
every summer due to pathogens
from inadequately treated wastes.
Marine mammals are suffering from
pollution-related stresses. Fragile
coral reefs in Florida and Hawaii
show signs of pollution impacts.
Coastal development is increasing at
a rapid rate. Clearly we can no
longer assume that the oceans can
take care of themselves.
Total ocean shore = 56,121 miles
Total assessed = 3,398 miles
6% Assessed
CD.
94% Unassessed
-------
Executive Summary ES-19
Do Ocean Shores
Support Uses?
Twelve of the 29 coastal States
assessed only 6% of the Nation's
estimated 56,121 miles of ocean
coastlin. Of these, 80% were found
to fully support their designated
uses, and 7% are supporting uses
but are threatened and likely to
become impaired if pollution con-
trol actions are not taken. Nine
percent of assessed ocean shore
miles partially support designated
uses, and 5% do not support uses
(see Figure ES-14). These figures do
not necessarily represent water qual-
ity conditions in the Nation's ocean
coastal waters as a whole because
they apply to only 696 of the
Nation's coastline miles. Data on
pollutants and sources of pollution
Figure ES-14
Levels of Overall Use Support
Ocean Coastal Waters
Fully Supporting
80%
Threatened
7%
Partially Supporting
9%
Not Supporting
5%
Not Attainable
0%
are too sparse to be included in this
report
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 generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Often in the past, wetlands
were considered wastelands-the
source of mosquitoes, flies, and
unpleasant odors-to be filled or
drained and put to "better use."
When European settlers first arrived
in America, over 200 million acres of
wetlands existed in the coterminous
States. Today, half of our Nation's
wetlands have been destroyed by
filling, draining, polluting,
channelizing, grazing, clearing, and
other modifications resulting from
human activity.
Wetlands are now recognized as
some of the most unique and
important natural areas on earth.
They vary in type according to dif-
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, 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 southwestern playa
lakes.
-------
ES-20 Executive Summary
Total wetlands = 277 million acres
Total assessed = 10,516,754 acres
4% Assessed
96% Unassessed
Figure ES-1S
Levels of Overall Use Support
Wetlands
Fully Supporting
50%
Threatened
Partially Supporting
26%
Not Supporting
24%
Not Attainable
0%
Wetlands provide food and
shelter to countless animal species
including many fishes, birds, reptiles,
and mammals. A high percentage of
federally listed threatened or endan-
gered animals and plants depend
directly or indirectly on wetlands for
their survival. Wetlands also provide
spawning habitat and nursery
grounds for an estimated 71% of
commercially valuable fish and shell-
fish consumed in this country. In
addition, they also serve as feeding
areas along migration routes for
waterfowl and other wildlife.
Wetlands soil and vegetation
help in flood control by acting as
natural sponges that attenuate
flooding water. Wetlands plants also
help control erosion in two ways:
their roots bind the soil and their
leaves slow the movement of water.
Wetlands help purify water by proc-
essing nutrients and other pollutants
and filtering suspended materials.
They also help regulate water quan-
tity by absorbing water in wet sea-
sons and releasing it through seeps,
springs, and open outlets during dry
seasons.
In addition, wetlands are widely
enjoyed by hikers, birdwatchers,
hunters, fishermen, photographers,
and boaters and play an important
role in our Nation's natural and
cultural heritage. Millions of people
spend nearly $10 billion each year
observing and photographing wet-
lands-dependent wildlife.
Do Our Wetlands
Support Uses?
In 1992, most States could not
assess use support in wetlands
because they were still developing
wetlands water quality standards. As
a result, only eight States (California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas,
Nevada, North Carolina, and Okla-
homa) reported use support for
10.5 million acres of their wetlands.
These States assessed use support in
approximately 4% of the Nation's
277 million acres of wetlands. North
Carolina assessed 99% of the
assessed wetlands; therefore, the
summary information on use sup-
port describes conditions primarily
in North Carolina's wetlands rather
than the Nation's wetlands as a
whole (see Figure ES-15).
These States reported that 50%
of the assessed wetlands fully sup-
port designated uses, less than 1%
are threatened, 26% partially sup-
port uses, and 24% do not support
designated uses (Appendix D, Table
D-2, contains individual State data).
However, this information does not
accurately reflect water quality con-
ditions in the Nation's wetlands due
to the skewed distribution of the
assessed wetlands. Despite limita-
tions in the data, the summary
information suggests that water
quality problems exist in our
remaining wetlands.
What is Polluting
Our Wetlands?
Of the eight States reporting
overall use support in wetlands, only
three States (Iowa, Kansas, and
Nevada) quantified the wetlands
acreage degraded by specific
-------
Executive Summary ES-21
pollutants or processes causing wet-
lands impairment Although the
data submitted by these States are
not representative of national condi-
tions in wetlands, these States did
report that metals impair over
60,000 acres of wetlands, salinity
and chlorides impair over 42,000
acres of wetlands, and siltation im-
pairs almost 29,000 acres of wet-
lands. Fourteen States did not quan-
tify the acreage affected but did
identify pollutants and processes
that degrade some unknown quan-
tity of their wetlands. Most of these
States cited sediment and nutrients
as pollutants of concern in wetlands
(Figure ES-16). Fewer States
reported that water diversions, pesti-
cides, salinity, heavy metals,
ponding, weeds, low dissolved oxy-
gen, and pH impact their wetlands.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Iowa, Kansas, and Nevada also
reported that agriculture impairs
76,000 acres of wetlands, hydro-
logic habitat modification impairs
48,000 acres, and municipal point
Figure ES-17
sources impair over 11,000 acres of
wetlands. Fourteen States did not
quantify the acreage affected but
did identify sources of pollutants
that degrade some unknown quan-
tity of wetlands. Most of these
States reported that agriculture,
development, channelization, and
road construction degrade wetlands
integrity (see Figure ES-17). These
States also reported that urban run-
off, resource extraction, landfills,
natural conditions, industrial runoff,
onsite systems, irrigation, recreation,
point sources, and silviculture
impact wetlands.
Figure ES-16
Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity
(14 States Reporting)
Causes
Sediment ^^^^^^^1
Nutrients
Water Diversions
Pesticides
Salinity
Total
13
8
6
5
4
5 10
Number of States Reporting
15
Source: State 305(b) reports.
Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity
(14 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture ^^^^^^^^^1
Development
Channelization
Road Construction
Urban Runoff
Total
11
9
9
8
7
5 10
Number of States Reporting
15
Source: State 305(b) reports.
-------
ES-22 Executive Summary
Wetlands Loss:
A Continuing Problem
Despite what we have learned
about the value of our wetlands,
these national treasures continue to
be threatened by a variety of hu-
man activities. A U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service study of wetlands loss
found that 2.6 million acres of wet-
lands were lost over the 9-year
study period from the mid-1970s to
the mid-1980s, or 290,000 acres a
year. This is an improvement from
the 1950s to the 1970s when wet-
lands were lost at a rate of 450,000
acres per year. Serious consequences
have resulted nationwide from the
loss and degradation of wetlands,
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs
A Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSCWPP) is
a prevention-first approach that will enable better coordination of Fed-
eral, State, Tribal, and local ground-water-related programs. This will
allow for better allocation of resources to the highest priority activities.
Once the EPA endorses a CSCWPP, the Agency will seek to provide
more consistent deference to State priorities.
A CSGWPP Is composed of six "strategic activities,11 which include
Establishing a prevention-oriented goal
Establishing priorities, based on the characterization of the resource
and identification of sources of contamination
Defining roles, responsibilities, resources, and coordinating mecha-
nisms
Implementing all necessary efforts to accomplish the State's ground
water protection goal
Coordinating information collection and management to measure
progress and reevaluate priorities
V Improving public education and participation.
including species decline and extinc-
tion, water quality decline, and
increased incidences of flooding.
In 1992, 26 States reported on
sources of current wetlands losses.
These include agriculture, commer-
cial development, residential devel-
opment, highway construction,
impoundments, resource extraction,
industry, and dredge disposal (see
Appendix D, Table D-1, for indi-
vidual State information).
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 most of the
Nation's ground water is considered
to be of good quality, an increasing
number of pollution events have
threatened the integrity of the
resource.
Ground Water Use
Nationally, 53% of the popula-
tion relies to some extent on
ground water as a source of drink-
ing water. This percentage is even
higher in rural areas where most
-------
Executive Summary ES-23
residents rely on potable or treatable
ground water as an economical
source of drinking water. Eighty-one
percent of community water
systems are dependent on ground
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, etc.) are ground
water systems.
Irrigation accounts for approxi-
mately 64% 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 ap-
proximately 17% of national ground
water withdrawals.
Ground Water Quality
Although the 1992 Section
305(b) State Water Quality Reports
indicate that, overall, the Nation's
ground water quality is good to
excellent, many local areas have
experienced significant ground
water contamination. Although the
sources and types of ground water
contamination vary depending upon
the region of the country, those
most frequently reported by States
indude:
Leaking underground storage
tanks. About 400,000 of an esti-
mated 5 to 6 million underground
storage tanks in the United States
are thought to be leaking. About
30% of all tanks store petroleum or
hazardous materials.
Septic tanks. Approximately 23
million domestic septic systems are
in operation in the United States.
About half a million new systems
are installed each year.
Municipal landfills. Of the quar-
ter million solid waste disposal facili-
ties in the United States, about
6,000 are municipal solid waste
facilities. Approximately 25%
of these municipal facilities have
ground water monitoring capabili-
ties.
Agricultural activities. Seventy-
seven percent of the 1.1 billion
pounds of pesticides produced an-
nually in the United States is applied
to land in agricultural production,
which often overlies aquifers.
Abandoned hazardous waste
sites. Approximately 33,000 sites
have been identified as abandoned
hazardous waste sites, of which
42% involve ground water contami-
nation.
The most common contami-
nants associated with these sources
include nitrates, metals, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and
pesticides.
EPA has been working with
States to develop a set of ground
water quality indicators. These indi-
cators will allow the characterization
of trends in ground water quality
over space and time. Examples of
preliminary indicators include the
number of maximum contaminant
level violations in public water sys-
tems, detections of VOCs in ground
water, and the extent of leachable
agricultural pesticide use. EPA will
continue to work with the States to
-------
ES-24 Executive Summary
refine these ground water quality
indicators.
Additional ground water moni-
toring initiatives have been under-
taken in numerous States. These
initiatives are aimed at characteriz-
ing the overall quality of ground
water resources and typically include
the establishment of ambient moni-
toring networks, regional monitor-
ing networks that focus on sensitive
aquifers, or site-specific monitoring
efforts that focus on known or sus-
pected contamination sources.
The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA)
Several key features characterize the WPA:
The WPA encourages managers to examine all the factors contribut-
ing to water quality problems in a watershed and apply a coordinated,
holistic approach to resolving the problems.
The WPA advocates restoring and protecting ecological integrity in
addition to protecting human health and meeting water quality stan-
dards.
The WPA fosters a high level of interprogram coordination.
A State that is using the WPA
Targets those watersheds where pollution poses the greatest risk to
human health, ecological resources, or desirable uses of the water
Involves ali parties with a stake in the watershed in the analysis of
problems and the implementation of solutions
Draws on the full range of methods and tools available, integrating
them Into a coordinated, multiorganizatlonal attack on the problems.
Water Quality
Protection Programs
The EPA works in partnership
with State and local governments to
improve and protect water quality.
Since the 1990 Report to Congress,
EPA and many States have moved
toward a more geographically
oriented approach to water quality
management They share a growing
consensus that the Nation's remain-
ing water quality problems can be
solved most effectively at the basin
or watershed level.
In 1991, EPA highlighted the
Watershed Protection Approach
(WPA), a framework for focusing
and integrating water quality moni-
toring and management activities
in a watershed of concern. The WPA
is not a new government program,
but rather a means of pulling to-
gether the resources and expertise
of existing programs at all levels,
from Federal to State and local
levels.
The EPA, other Federal agencies,
State pollution control agencies, and
local governments are applying the
WPA to existing monitoring and
assessment programs as well as
water quality protection programs
(see sidebar). A number of laws
provide the authority to develop
and implement pollution control
programs. The primary statute pro-
viding for water quality protection in
the Nation's rivers, lakes, wetlands,
estuaries, and coastal waters is the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972, commonly known as the
Clean Water Act (CWA).
-------
Executive Summary ES-25
The Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act of 1972
and its amendments are the driving
force behind many of the water
quality improvements we have wit-
nessed in recent years. Key provi-
sions of the Clean Water Act provide
the following pollution control pro-
grams.
Water quality standards and
criteria - States 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 (see page ES-2).
Effluent guidelines - The EPA
develops nationally consistent
guidelines limiting pollutants in
discharges from industrial facili-
ties and municipal sewage treat-
ment plants. These guidelines
are then used in permits issued
to dischargers under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Additional controls
may be required if receiving
waters are still affected by water
quality problems after permit
limits are met
Total Maximum Daily Loads-
The development of Total Maxi-
mum Daily Loads, or TMDLs,
establishes the link between
water quality standards and
point/nonpoint source pollution
control actions such as permits
or Best Management Practices
(BMPs). A TMDL calculates
allowable loadings from the
contributing point and nonpoint
sources to a given waterbody
and provides the quantitative
basis for pollution reduction
necessary to meet water quality
standards. States 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. The States and
EPA inspect facilities to deter-
mine if their discharges comply
with permit limits. If dischargers
are not in compliance, enforce-
ment action is taken.
In 1990, EPA promulgated per-
mit application requirements for
municipal sewers that carry
storm water separately from
other wastes and serve popula-
tions of 100,000 or more and
for storm water discharges asso-
ciated with some industrial
activities. The EPA is developing
regulations to establish a com-
prehensive program to regulate
storm sewers, including require-
ments for State storm water
management programs.
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
Under the Watershed Pro-
tection Approach (WPA),
a "watershed" is a hydro-
geologic 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.
-------
ES-26 Executive Summary
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 storm water 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 con-
trol nonpoint source pollution.
The States are responsible for
analyzing the extent and sever-
ity of their nonpoint source .
pollution problems and devel-
oping and implementing
needed water quality manage-
ment actions.
Control of combined sewer
overflows - Under the National
Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Strategy of 1989, States
develop and implement mea-
sures to reduce pollution dis-
charges from combined storm
and sanitary sewers. The EPA
works with the States to imple-
ment the national strategy.
The CWA also established pollu-
tion control and prevention pro-
grams for specific waterbody cat-
egories, such as the Clean Lakes
Program, discussed in more detail
on the next page. 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, imple-
ment drinking water protection
programs, and implement Un-
derground Injection Control
(UIC) programs.
The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act establishes
State and EPA programs for
ground water and surface water
protection and cleanup and
emphasizes prevention of re-
leases through management
standards in addition to other
waste management activities.
The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act (Super-
fund Program), which provides
EPA with the authority to clean
up contaminated waters during
remediation at contaminated
sites.
The Pollution Prevention Act
of 1990 requires EPA to pro-
mote pollutant source reduction
rather than focus on controlling
pollutants after they enter the
environment
-------
Executive Summary ES-27
The Clean Lakes Program
EPA's Clean Lakes Program pro-
vides Federal funds to help States
carry out diagnostic studies of lake
problems, determine necessary pro-
tection and restoration measures,
implement those measures, and
monitor the long-term impacts and
effectiveness of those measures. The
Clean Lakes Program provides
grants for four types of cooperative
agreements:
Lake Water Quality Assess-
ments strengthen State lake
management programs and
improve water quality informa-
tion.
Phase I Diagnostic/Feasibility
Studies investigate the causes of
water quality decline in a pub-
licly owned lake and determine
the most feasible procedures for
controlling pollutants and
restoring the lake.
Phase II Projects implement
the restoration and pollution
control methods identified in a
Phase I study.
Phase III Postrestoration Moni-
toring Projects sponsor long-
term monitoring to verify the
longevity and effectiveness of
restoration and control mea-
sures implemented during a
Phase II project
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 fo-
cus 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 qual-
ity or threatening to impair lake
water quality. Control measures
include planning activities, regu-
latory actions, and implementa-
tion of BMPs to reduce
nonpoint sources of pollutants.
During the 1980s, most States
implemented chemical and mechan-
ical in-lake restoration measures to
control aquatic weeds and algae. In
their 1992 Section 305(b) reports,
the States report a shift toward
watershed planning techniques and
nonpoint source controls to reduce
pollutant loads responsible for
aquatic weed growth and algal
blooms. Watershed management
plans simultaneously address mul-
tiple sources of pollutants, such as
runoff from urbanized areas, agricul-
tural activities, and failing septic
systems along the lake shore.
Although the States reported that
they still use in-lake treatments
(figure ES-18), the States recognize
that source controls are needed in
addition to in-lake treatments to
restore lake water quality.
-------
ES-28 Executive Summary
Figure ES-18
In-Lake Treatment Techniques Implemented
by the States
(22 States Reporting)
Techniques
Dredging
Lake Drawdown
Chemical Weed and
Algae Controls
Mechanical Weed Control
Biological Weed Control
Circulation/Hypolimnetic
Aeration
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of States Reporting
Source: 1992 State Section 30S(b) reports.
Figure ES-19
Management Options for Lake Restoration
and Pollution Control
(35 States Reporting)
Options
Modified NPDES
Permits
Rely on 319 Program
State Lake Water
Quality Standards
Watershed
Management Plans
Phosphate Detergent
Restrictions
5 10 15 20
Number of States Reporting
25
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
The States reported that they
most frequently rely on their NPDES
permit programs and their Section
319 NPS management programs to
control pollutants entering lakes
(Figure ES-19). Through the State
NPDES permit programs, States
often impose stricter nutrient limits
for effluents discharged into lakes
than into rivers and streams. Seven
States reported that phosphorus
detergent restrictions enhanced
sewage treatment plant compliance
with NPDES nutrient limits. Twenty-
two States reported that they use
their Section 319 NPS programs to
implement BMPs in watersheds
surrounding impaired or threatened
lakes.
Successful lake programs require
strong commitment from local citi-
zens and cooperation from natural
resource agencies at the local, State,
and Federal levels. Forty-nine States,
Puerto Rico, and 18 American Indian
Tribes have established cooperative
frameworks for managing lakes un-
der the Clean Lakes Program.
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 sur-
rounding land area as a whole.
Through the NEP, States nomi-
nate estuaries of national signifi-
cance that are threatened or im-
paired by pollution, development, or
overuse. EPA evaluates the
-------
Executive Summary ES-29
nominations and selects those that
show evidence of a committed citi-
zenry, political support, a range of
government involvement (State,
Federal, regional, and local), and
available scientific and technical
expertise to tackle the problem. The
EPA convenes management confer-
ences with representatives from all
interested groups (e.g., industry,
agriculture, conservation organiza-
tions, and State agencies) to more
fully characterize the problems and
seek solutions.
The NEP is also a national dem-
onstration program. There are more
than 150 estuaries in the United
States and only a small fraction can
be targeted for action through the
NEP. It is therefore important that
the lessons learned through the NEP
be communicated to estuarine wa-
ter quality managers throughout the
country. As of June 1993, 21 estuar-
ies are included in the NEP (see
Figure ES-20).
Protecting Wetlands
Section 404 of the CWA
remains the primary Federal vehicle
for protecting wetlands. Section 404
regulates the discharge of dredged
or fill material into waters of the
United States, including wetlands.
EPA continues to promote other
mechanisms to protect wetlands
including
Incorporating wetlands consider-
ations into traditional water pro-
grams and other EPA programs
Working with other Federal
agencies
Helping to build State and local
government programs to protect
wetlands
Improving wetlands science
Promoting outreach and
education
Developing voluntary partner-
ships with landowners
Coordinating international wet-
lands protection.
Figure ES-20
Locations of National Estuary Program Sites
OVI
-------
ES-30 Executive Summary
More information on wetlands
am be obtained from the EPA
Wetlands Hotline at
1-800-832-7828.
In addition, EPA has awarded
wetlands grants since 1990 to sup-
port the development of State and
Tribal wetlands protection pro-
grams. States and Tribes have used
these grants to develop water qual-
ity standards, monitor trends in
wetlands loss, coordinate State and
local planning agencies, and dis-
seminate educational materials on
wetlands.
Overall, States reported that
they are making considerable
progress in protecting the quantity
and quality of their wetlands
through regulatory and nonregula-
tory approaches. States were asked
to report on several key areas, in-
cluding the application of Section
401 certification authority to protect
wetlands, their progress in develop-
ing water quality standards for wet-
lands, and efforts to incorporate .
wetlands considerations into other
programs (see Appendix D, Table
D-5). In addition, 18 States and one
American Indian Tribe reported on
efforts to inventory the physical
acreage of their wetlands.
According to State-reported
information, no State is currently
operating a statewide wetlands
monitoring program. However, five
States did describe water quality
and habitat monitoring efforts for
some portion of their wetlands.
EPA recognizes that the devel-
opment of biological monitoring
and assessment methods for wet-
lands is a critical need for State wet-
lands managers so that they can
begin to monitor their wetlands. To
this end, EPA is developing assess-
ment protocols for freshwater emer-
gent wetlands as part of its 5-year
research plan. However, more re-
search on other wetlands systems is
needed on both the Federal and
State levels.
State monitoring programs are
critical for determining whether
wetlands are meeting their desig-
nated and existing uses as well as
for prioritizing restoration once im-
pairment is identified. Wetlands
monitoring information is also im-
portant for making Section 401
certification decisions, determining
mitigation success for Section 404,
and supporting other management
decisions.
Protecting the
Great Lakes
The Great Lakes are coopera-
tively managed by the United States
and Canada under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1978
(as amended in 1987). The Interna-
tional joint Commission, established
by the 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty, is responsible for identifying
actions to protect the Great Lakes.
Representatives from State and Fed-
eral agencies and universities work
together on the Commission's two
boards to identify problem areas,
plan programs to reduce pollution,
and publish findings and issue pa-
pers.
Since 1973, 43 Areas of Con-
cern have been identified in the
Great Lakes basin where environ-
mental quality is substantially de-
graded. Most Areas of Concern are
harbors, bays, and river mouths.
Remedial Action Plans have been
developed for each Area of Concern.
These plans identify impaired uses
and examine management options
to restore the areas.
In 1989, the EPA launched the
Great Lakes Initiative to provide a
framework for Federal assistance in
pursuing the goal of whole-system
restoration based on an ecosystem
-------
ES-32 Executive Summary
and provides oversite for the restora-
tion and protection of the Bay and
its living resources. On August 6,
1991, the Chesapeake Executive
Council adopted four action steps,
building on the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement to reduce nitrogen
and phosphorus loads entering the
Bay by 40%. The four action steps
commit the Council to
Reevaluating and accelerating the
nutrient reduction program
Adopting pollution prevention
Restoring and enhancing living
resources and their habitats, such as
submerged aquatic vegetation beds
Broadening participation in the
Bay Program.
The Chesapeake Bay Program
has implemented programs to
reduce impacts from nutrients,
oxygen-demanding substances, and
pathogens. To date, three elements
of the Chesapeake Bay Program's
point source control strategy are
responsible for reductions in nutrient
loadings:
Ugrading wastewater treatment
plants
Improving compliance with dis-
charge and pretreatment permits
Pollution prevention actions such
as prohibiting the sale of detergents
containing phosphorus.
As a result of these measures,
annual discharges of phosphorus
into the Bay dropped by 40% (4.7
million pounds) between 1985 and
1991.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's
nonpoint source program empha-
sizes controls for runoff generated
by agricultural activities, paved sur-
faces, and construction in urban
areas. The program includes nutri-
ent management for applying ani-
mal wastes and fertilizers to crop-
land in amounts calculated to meet
crop requirements without contami-
nating ground and surface waters.
The Chesapeake Bay Program
developed a model to estimate nu-
trient load reductions from nonpoint
sources because it is not possible to
monitor every nonpoint source in
the Bay's watershed. The model
estimates that implementation of
nonpoint source controls has re-
sulted in a 12% and 8% reduction
in controllable nonpoint source ni-
trogen and phosphorus, respec-
tively.
Overall, water quality monitor-
ing data confirm significant progress
in reducing phosphorus loads into
Chesapeake Bay. Total phosphorus
concentrations in the Bay decreased
by 16% between 1984 and 1992.
However, total nitrogen concentra-
tions have remained stable in the
mainstem of the Bay and increased
in some tributaries, indicating a
need for additional progress in re-
ducing nitrogen loadings.
The Gulf of Mexico
Program
In 1988, the Gulf of Mexico
Program (CMP) was established
with EPA as the lead Federal agency
to develop and help implement a
strategy to protect restore, and
maintain the health and productivity
of the Gulf. The GMP is a grass
roots program that serves as a cata-
lyst to promote sharing of
-------
Executive Summary ES-33
information, pooling of resources,
and coordination of efforts to re-
store and reclaim wetlands and
wildlife habitat, clean up existing
pollution, and prevent future con-
tamination and destruction of the
Gulf. The CMP mobilizes State,
Federal, and local government; busi-
ness and industry; academia; and
the community at large through
public awareness and information
dissemination programs, forum dis-
cussions, citizen committees, and
technology applications.
A Policy Review Board and a
newly formed Management Com-
mittee determine the scope and
focus of CMP activities. The pro-
gram also receives input from a
Technical Advisory Committee and a
Citizen's Advisory Committee. The
CMP Office and 10 Issue Commit-
tees coordinate the collection, inte-
gration, and reporting of pertinent
data and information. The Issue
Committees are responsible for
documenting environmental prob-
lems and management goals, avail-
able resources, and potential solu-
tions for a broad range of issues,
including habitat degradation, pub-
lic health, freshwater inflow, marine
debris, shoreline erosion, nutrients,
toxic pollutants, and living aquatic
resources. The Issue Committees
publish their findings in Action
Agendas. Two additional commit-
tees provide operational support
and information transfer activities for
the entire CMP.
On December 10,1992, the
Governors of Alabama, Florida, Loui-
siana, Mississippi, and Texas; EPA;
the Chair of the Citizen's Advisory
Committee; and representatives of
10 other Federal agencies signed
the Gulf of Mexico Program Partner-
ship for Action agreement for
protecting, restoring, and enhancing
the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent
lands. The agreement commits the
signatory agencies to pledge their
efforts, over the next 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 fisheries
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 habi-
tats that support migratory birds,
fish, and other living resources
Expand public education/out-
reach tailored for each Gulf Coast
county or parish.
During 1992, the GMP also
launched Take-Action Projects in
each of the five Gulf States to dem-
onstrate that program strategies and
methods could achieve rapid results.
The Take-Action Projects primarily
address inadequate sewage treat-
ment, pollution prevention, and
-------
ES-34 Executive Summary
habitat protection and restoration.
Several projects aim to demonstrate
the effectiveness of innovative
sewage treatment technologies to
control pathogenic contamination 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 application.
Ground Water
Protection Programs
Protection of ground water
resources is addressed under the
Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Toxic
Substances Control Act, the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act (FIFRA), and the Pollution
Prevention Act The Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Pro-
grams (CSGWPP) are an approach
to ground water protection that
embraces all the above-mentioned
ground water protection activities,
with emphasis placed on preventing
contamination. A CSGWPP is also
intended to act as a catalyst for
fundamental changes in the devel-
opment and implementation of
ground water protection programs
at the Federal, State, and local lev-
els.
Several principal or important
ground water protection programs
control pollutant sources: solid and
hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal and underground stor-
age tanks are regulated under RCRA;
subsurface injection of fluids is regu-
lated under SDWA; abandoned
waste is regulated under CERCLA
and pesticides are controlled under
FIFRA. These programs enable States
to regulate and monitor pollutant
sources more effectively.
Funds allotted under Sections
319(h) and (i) and 518 of the Clean
Water Act are intended to assist
States in implementing EPA-
approved nonpoint source manage-
ment programs and ground water
protection activities. In addition, a
number of States have developed
nonpoint source control programs
that focus on contamination result-
ing from agriculture and septic
tanks.
The Toxic Substances Control
Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fun-
gicide, and Rodenticide Act control
the use and disposal of commercial
chemical products thereby minimiz-
ing the risks to public health and
the environment. EPA's Pesticides
and Ground Water Strategy empha-
sizes prevention and protection of
the Nation's ground water resources
and provides a flexible framework
for tailoring programs to the needs
of each State. In addition, EPA has
established a Restricted Use classifi-
cation for pesticides, which is in-
tended to reduce both the risks of
point source causes of ground water
contamination and nonpoint source
causes of contamination.
The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 was enacted by Congress to
promote pollution prevention and
environmental protection goals. The
Act allows for grants to be allotted
to fund research projects involving
education, demonstration, and train-
ing in sustainable agriculture and
other agricultural practices that em-
phasize ground water protection
and reducing the excessive use of
nutrients and pesticides.
-------
Executive Summary ES-35
A number of mechanisms have
been developed to manage the
ever-growing volume of information
on the Nation's ground water
resources. These include the devel-
opment of a standard format for
reporting ground water data called
the Minimum Set of Data Elements
(MSDE) for Ground Water Quality.
The MSDE is intended to improve
access to ground water data and to
increase information sharing capa-
bilities by standardizing the ele-
ments used in ground water data-
bases. Additional mechanisms
include the development of a geo-
graphic information system (CIS) to
integrate ground water data that
have been collected under different
programs and the development and
management of two databases con-
cerning pesticides and ground
water.
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 leam 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 dis-
posing of harmful household wastes
so they do not end up in sewage
treatment plants that cannot handle
them or in landfills not designed to
receive hazardous materials.
Be Responsible
In your yard, determine whether
additional nutrients are needed
before you apply fertilizers, and look
for alternatives where fertilizers
might run off into surface waters.
Consider selecting plants and
grasses that have low maintenance
requirements. Water your lawn cpn-
servatively. 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 man-
age land through which a stream
flows, you may wish to consult your
local county extension office about
methods of restoring stream banks
in your area by planting buffer strips
of native vegetation.
Around your house, keep litter,
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 in-
stall water-saving devices in shower
heads and toilets. Always follow
-------
ES-36 Executive Summary
directions on labels for use and dis-
posal of household chemicals. Take
used motor oil, paints, and other
hazardous household materials to
proper disposal sites such as ap-
proved service stations or desig-
nated 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 mea-
surements, tracking the progress of
protection and restoration projects,
or reporting special events, such as
fish kills and storm damage.
Volunteer monitoring can be of
great benefit to State and local gov-
ernments. Some States stretch their
monitoring budgets by using data
collected by volunteers, particularly
in remote areas that otherwise
might not be monitored at all.
Because you are familiar with the
water resources in your own 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 volun-
teer monitoring programs in your
State, contact your State depart-
ment of environmental quality, or
write to
Alice Mayio
U.S. EPA
Volunteer Monitoring (4503)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7018
For further information on water
quality in your State, write to your
State department of environmental
quality (see Chapter 8). Additional
water quality information may be
obtained from the following
Regional offices of the U.S. EPA:
Diane Switzer
EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 860-4377
Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Maine, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
-------
Executive Summary ES-37
Xuan-Mai T. Iran
EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-3188
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Margaret Passmore
EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-6149
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsyl-
vania, Virginia, West Virginia,
District of Columbia
Larinda Tervelt
EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)347-2126
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
Donna Williams
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-6175
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Russell Nelson
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)655-7145
Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
John Houlihan
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7432
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska
Phil Johnson
EPA Region 8
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)293-1581
Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming
Ed Liu
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-2012
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa,
Guam
Donna Walsh
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-1754
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington
For Further Reading
U.S. EPA. 1988. America's Wetlands:
Our Vital Link Between Land and
Water. Office of Water. EPA 87-016.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Environmental
Backgrounder: Wetlands. Office of
Water.
U.S. EPA. 1989. EPA Journal: Can
Our Coasts Survive More Growth?
Volume 15, Number 5.
U.S. EPA. 1991. EPA Journal: Non-
point Source Pollution: Runoff of
Rain and Snowmelt, Our Biggest
Water Quality Problem. Volume 17,
Number 5.
U.S. EPA. 1992. National Water
Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to
Congress. Office of Water. EPA 503/
99-92-006.
-------
;HT J-HCHLICKT
Fish Consumption Advisories
States issue fish consumption
advisories to protect the public from
ingesting harmful quantities of toxic
pollutants in contaminated fish and
shellfish. Fish may accumulate dan-
gerous quantities of pollutants in
their tissues by ingesting many
smaller organisms, each contami-
nated with a small quantity of pol-
lutant This process is called
bioaccumulation or biomagnifica-
tion. Pollutants also enter fish and
shellfish tissues through the gills or
skin.
Fish consumption advisories
recommend that the public limit the
quantity and frequency of fish con-
sumption from specific waterbodies.
The States tailor individual advisories
to minimize health risks based on
contaminant data collected in their
fish tissue sampling programs. Advi-
sories may completely ban fish con-
sumption in severely polluted waters
or limit fish consumption to several
meals per month or year in cases of
less severe contamination. Advisories
may target a subpopulation at risk
(such as children, pregnant women,
and nursing mothers), specific fish
species, or larger fish that may have
accumulated high concentrations of
a pollutant over a longer lifetime
than a smaller, younger fish.
The EPA fish consumption advi-
sory database tracks advisories
issued by each State. For 1993, the
database listed 1,279 fish consump-
tion advisories in effect in 47 States.
Fish consumption advisories are
unevenly distributed among the
States because the States use their
own criteria to determine if fish
tissue concentrations of toxics pose
a health risk that justifies an advi-
sory. States also vary the amount of
fish tissue monitoring they conduct
and the number of pollutants ana-
lyzed. States that conduct more
monitoring and use strict criteria will
issue more advisories than States
that conduct more monitoring and
use weaker criteria. For example,
66% of the advisories active in 1993
were issued by the States surround-
ing the Great Lakes, which support
i
i
i
i
-------
I
HK3HOG
I
I
I
extensive fish sampling programs
and follow strict criteria for issuing
advisories.
Most of the fish consumption
advisories are due to mercury, poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlor-
dane, and DDT (with its byprod-
ucts). The States report that the
leading sources of these pollutants
are industrial discharges and pol-
luted wet weather runoff from agri-
cultural lands, urban areas, and
combined sewer overflows.
Many coastal States report
restrictions on shellfish harvesting in
estuarine waters. Shellfish-particu-
larly oysters, clams, and mussels-
are filter-feeders that extract their
food from water. Waterbome bacte-
ria and viruses may also accumulate
on their gills and mantles and in
their digestive systems. Shellfish
contaminated by these microorgan-
isms are a serious human health
concern, particularly if consumed
raw.
States currently sample water
from shellfish harvesting areas to
measure indicator bacteria, such as
total coliform and fecal coliform
bacteria. These bacteria serve as
indicators of the presence of poten-
tially pathogenic microorganisms
associated with untreated or
undertreated sewage. States restrict
shellfish harvesting to areas that
maintain these bacteria at concen-
trations in sea water below estab-
lished health limits.
In 1992, 18 States reported that
shellfish harvesting restrictions were
in effect for more than 3,823 square
miles of estuarine and coastal waters
during the 1990-1992 reporting
period. Nine States reported that
urban runoff and storm sewers,
municipal wastewater treatment
facilities, marinas, and industrial
discharges restricted shellfish har-
vesting.
-------
Parti
Introduction
-------
-------
Introduction
This document describes the
overall quality of our Nation's
assessed surface and ground waters
during 1990 and 1991. The con-
tents discuss the geographic extent
of water pollution across the country
and identify specific pollutants and
sources of pollutants contaminating
our waters. This document also
highlights programs initiated by
State and local governments, the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and other Federal
agencies to improve water quality.
To prepare this document, EPA
summarized information submitted
by States, Territories, Interstate
Water Basin Commissions, the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and the Cila River
Indian Community in their 1992
water quality assessment reports
(the "305 (b) reports" required
under Clean Water Act Section
305(b)). Individual State summaries
are provided in Chapter 8.
The 305(b) water quality assess-
ments submitted by the States form
biennial snapshots of our Nation's
water quality. Statistically valid na-
tional water quality trends cannot
be inferred from these snapshots
because individual States may assess
different waters during each 2-year
305(b) reporting cycle and may
change their standards for rating
water quality between assessments.
However, EPA is working closely
with the States to improve the con-
sistency of assessment methods and
criteria so that 305(b) information
can be used for trend analysis in the
future.
The Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) still
guides Federal and State water pol-
lution control programs 20 years
after it was enacted by Congress. In
1972, the CWA launched a national
objective to "restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biologi-
cal integrity of the Nation's waters."
The Act set two goals to achieve this
objective:
Eliminate the discharge of pollut-
ants into navigable waters by 1985,
and
Achieve an interim water quality
level that protects and propagates
fish, shellfish, and wildlife and sup-
ports recreation in and on the
water, where attainable.
As it became evident that the
Nation could not eliminate pollutant
discharges by 1985, Congress
amended the CWA to stress achiev-
ing the interim water quality levels,
which came to be known as "the
fishable and swimmable goals of the
Act"
The EPA measures national
progress in achieving the CWA
interim water quality levels by sum-
marizing attainment of State water'
quality standards. Water quality
standards consist of designated
beneficial uses, numeric and narra-
tive criteria sufficient to protect each
use, and an antidegradation
statement
The Clean Water Act of 1972
... it is the national goal
that, wherever attainable, an
interim goal of water quality
which provides for the protec-
tion and propagation offish,
shellfish, and wildlife and
provides for recreation in and
on the water, be achieved by
July 1, 1983 . ..
-------
4 Chapter One Introduction
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 realized. States may
designate an individual water-
body for multiple beneficial uses.
Numeric water quality criteria
establish the minimum physical,
chemical, and biological parameters
required to support a beneficial use.
Physical and chemical numeric cri-
teria may set maximum concentra-
tions 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 distri-
bution 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, "Aquatic
life shall be as it naturally occurs,"
or "Ambient water quality shall be
sufficient to support life stages of all
indigenous aquatic species." Narra-
tive criteria may also describe condi-
tions that are desired in a water-
body, such as, "Waters must be free
of substances that are toxic to
humans, aquatic life, and wildlife."
Antidegradation statements
protect existing designated uses and
prevent high-quality waterbodies
from deteriorating below the water
quality necessary to maintain exist-
ing or anticipated designated bene-
ficial uses.
The CWA allows States to set
their own standards but requires
that all State beneficial uses and
their criteria comply with the goals
of the Act At a minimum, State
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 fishable and swimmable
goals of the Act), where attainable.
The Act prohibits States from desig-
nating waste transport or waste
assimilation as a beneficial use, as
some States did prior to 1972.
Assessment
Methodology
Section 305(b) of the CWA
requires that the States biennially
assess their water quality for attain-
ment of the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Act and report the
results to EPA. The States measure
attainment of the CWA goals by
determining how well their waters
support their designated beneficial
uses. EPA encourages States to
assess support of the following indi-
vidual beneficial uses:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody pro-
vides suitable habitat for survival
and reproduction of desirable fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic organ-
isms.
-------
Chapter One Introduction 5
Fish Consumption
The waterbody sup-
ports a population of
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
supply safe drinking water with con
Primary Contact
Recreation -
Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
waterbome diseases from raw sew-
age contamination).
Secondary Contact
Recreation
People can perform
activities on the water (such as
canoeing) without risk of adverse
human health effects from occa-
sional contact with the water.
Agriculture
The water quality is
suitable for irrigating
fields or watering livestock.
The States assign one of five
levels of Use support categories to
each of their waterbodies (Table
1-1). If possible, the States
determine the level of use support
by comparing monitoring data with
numeric criteria for each use desig-
nated for a particular waterbody. If
monitoring data are not available,
the State may determine the level of
use support with qualitative informa-
tion. Valid qualitative information
includes land use data, fish and
game surveys, and predictive model
results. Monitored assessments are
based on monitoring data. Evalu-
ated assessments are based on
qualitative information or monitored
information more than 5 years old.
Table 1 -1 . Levels of Use Support
Symbol
£y
Y
Hi
LuS^M
-------
6 Chapter One Introduction
Overall Use Support
For waterbodies with more than
one designated use, the States con-
solidate the individual use support
information into a single overall use
support determination:
Fully Supporting Overall Use -
All designated beneficial uses are
fully supported.
SAMPLE
Little River
Little River is designated for aquatic life use
and primary contact recreation. The State
examines dissolved oxygen data and notes
that 15% of the samples contained dissolved
oxygen concentrations below the aquatic life
use criterion of 5 parts per million (ppm).
Bacterial indicators did not exceed the contact recreation
criterion. Therefore, the waterbody partially supports aquatic
life use and fully supports contact recreation use. The water-
body partially supports overall uses based on monitored data.
SAMPLE
Turkey Lake
Turkey Lake is also designated for aquatic life use and
primary contact recreation. However, the State has
never sampled chemical and physical parameters, such
as dissolved oxygen, in the lake. The State
did perform a biological survey of the lake
and noted the presence of desirable fish spe-
cies and insect larvae. The survey also revealed a probable
source of sewage contamination upstream. The lake appears
to fully support aquatic life use but may only partially sup-
port contact recreation use due to sewage contamination.
The waterbody partially supports overall uses based on
evaluated information (the suspected source of sewage con-
tamination).
Threatened Overall Use - One
or more designated beneficial uses
are threatened and the remaining
uses are fully supported.
Partially Supporting Overall
Use - One or more designated
beneficial uses are partially sup-
ported and the remaining uses are
fully supported.
Not Supporting Overall Use -
One or more designated beneficial
uses are not supported.
Not Attainable - The State has
performed a use-attainability study
and documented that use support
of one or more designated bene-
ficial uses is not achievable due to
natural conditions or human activity
that cannot be reversed without
imposing widespread economic and
social impacts.
Impaired Waters - The sum of
waterbodies partially supporting
uses and not supporting uses.
Total Assessed Waters
Most States do not assess all of
their waterbodies during the 2-year
reporting cycle required under Sec-
tion 305(b). Thus, the assessed
waters reported in Figure 1-1 are a
subset of the Nation's total waters.
In addition, the summary informa-
tion based on assessed waters may
not represent overall conditions in
the Nation's total waters because
States often focus on assessing
major perennial rivers, estuaries, and
public lakes with suspected pollution
problems in order to direct scarce
resources to areas that could pose
the greatest risk. Many States lack
the resources to collect use support
-------
Chapter One Introduction 7
information for intermittent streams,
small tributaries, and private ponds.
This report does not predict the
health of these unassessed waters,
which include an unknown ratio of
pristine waters and waters impaired
by point sources and nonpoint
sources.
Causes and Sources
of Impairment
Where possible, States identify
the pollutants causing water quality
impairments and the sources of
pollutants degrading their water-
bodies. Causes of impairment are
pollutants or processes that violate
numeric or narrative use support
criteria. Causes of impairment
include chemical contaminants
(such as polychlorinated biphenyls
[PCBs], dioxin, and metals), physical
parameters (such as temperature),
and biological parameters (such as
aquatic weeds).
Sources of impairment gener-
ate the pollutants that violate use
support criteria. Point sources dis-
charge pollutants directly into sur-
face waters from a conveyance.
Point sources include industrial facili-
ties, municipal sewage treatment
plants, and combined sewer over-
flows. Nonpoint sources deliver pol-
lutants to surface waters from dif-
fuse origins. Nonpoint sources
include urban runoff, agricultural
runoff, and atmospheric deposition
of contaminants in air pollution.
Habitat alterations, such as hydro-
modification, dredging, and stream-
bank destabilization, can also
degrade water quality.
Throughout this document, EPA
rates the significance of causes and
sources of pollution by the
Figure 1-1
Percentage of Total Waters Assessed
for the 1992 Report
Rivers and Streams 642,881 - 18% assessed
m Total miles: 3,551,247'
Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs
Estuaries
Ocean Coastal
Waters
Great Lakes
Shoreline
Wetlands
18,300,000 -46% assessed
Total acres: 39,920,000b
27,227 - 74% assessed
Total square miles: 36,890C
3,398 - 6% assessed (including Alaska)
Total miles: 56,121 miles, including Alaska's
36,000 miles of shoreline11
5,319-99% assessed
Total miles: 5,382
10.5 million - 4% assessed (including Alaska)
Total acres: 277 million acres, including Alaska's 170
million acres of wetlands
Source: 1992 State 305(b) reports.
NOTE: These figures were reported by the States. See explanation of changes in total
water estimates on page 8.
' Does not include river miles in American Samoa and Guam, which did not report total
river miles.
b Does not include lake acreages in American Samoa, Guam, Kentucky, and the virgin
Islands, which did not report total lake acreages.
' Does not include estuarine area in Alaska, American Samoa, and Guam.
d Does not include shoreline miles in American Samoa and Guam.
-------
8 Chapter One Introduction
Several States assess a
portion of their water-
sheds each year as part of
a rotating basin planning
program. These States
assess all of their waters
in a 5-year period. The
2-year 30S(b) snapshot
does not give these States
fUll credit for their wide
assessment coverage.
States that will assess all
of their waters over a
longer time period include
North Carolina, Ohio,
South Carolina, and
Wisconsin.
percentage of waters impaired by
each individual cause or source (ob-
tained from the States 305(b) re-
ports). 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 a
subset of their impaired waters,
which are a small subset of assessed
waters, which are a subset of the
Nation's total waters. For example,
the States identified sources degrad-
ing some of the 241,407 impaired
river miles, which represent 38% of
the assessed river miles and only 7%
of the Nation's total stream miles.
Changes in Reporting
Methodology
Individual Use Support
and the CWA Goals
During previous 305(b) report
cycles, States reported overall use
support status and CWA fishable
and swimmable goal attainment for
their waters. CWA goal attainment
was reported separately from overall
use support status. For example, in
the past a State would report
The number of river miles fully
supporting, threatened, partially
supporting, and not supporting
designated uses
The number of river miles attain-
ing the fishable goal of the Act
The number of river miles attain-
ing the swimmable goal of the Act
For the 1992 report cycle, the
305(b) Consistency Workgroup
(composed of State and EPA Re-
gional 305(b) coordinators as well
as EPA Headquarters staff) recom-
mended that States report individual
use support status instead of CWA
goal status. The Workgroup sug-
gested that data on individual use
support, such as fish consumption
use and aquatic life use support,
would distinguish which compo-
nents of the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Act are impaired. In the
past, it was unclear whether waters
did not attain the fishable goals of
the Act because the water quality
failed to support a healthy commu-
nity of fish or because the fish were
contaminated and unfit for human
consumption, or both. Individual
use support information identifies
specific water quality problems con-
tributing to lack of full attainment of
the fishable and swimmable goals of
the Act
Total Waters
National estimates of total
waters provide the foundation for
determining the percentage of our
waters assessed by the States. In
1992, EPA provided the States with
national estimates of total waters
derived from the EPA Reach File, a
database containing traces of water-
bodies adapted from 1:100,000
scale maps prepared by the U.S.
Geological Survey. The States modi-
fied these total water estimates
where necessary. Previously, EPA
had used estimates of total rivers
and stream miles and lake acres
reported in America's Clean Water
The States' Nonpoint Source Assess-
ment, prepared by the Association of
State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) in
1985. Based on the new Federal/
-------
Chapter One Introduction 9
State estimates of total waters, the
estimate of total river and stream
miles increased in 1992 because
most States included intermittent
streams, canals, and ditches in total
water estimates for the first time. As
a result the percentage of river and
stream miles assessed appears much
lower than in past Reports to Con-
gress (Table 1-2).
The estimate of total Great
Lakes shoreline grew in 1992
because Wisconsin's Coastal Zone
Management Division updated its
measurements of Wisconsin's shore-
line mileage. Wisconsin's estimate of
total Great Lakes shoreline grew
from 650 miles (reported in 1990)
to 840 miles in 1992.
The States assessed nearly the
same area of lakes and estuarine
waters in 1992 and 1990, but the
States assessed fewer ocean shore-
line miles in 1992. EPA did not
change its method for calculating
total estuarine and ocean coastal
waters; both the 1990 and 1992
estimates are based on State esti-
mates of their total estuarine and
ocean coastal waters. However, the
national estimates of total estuarine
and ocean coastal waters increased
in 1992 because more States
reported the information. In particu-
lar, the estimate of total ocean
coastal waters more than doubled
with the addition of 36,000 shore-
line miles in Alaska.
Interpreting Toxic
Pollutant Data
In the guidelines for preparing
the 1992 State Section 305(b) re-
ports, EPA recommended that the
States implement stricter assessment
methods for determining aquatic life
use support with toxicant data.
According to the new assessment
method, one or more violations of
toxic pollutant criteria in a 3-year
period indicate that a waterbody
does not support aquatic life use. In
previous assessment cycles, States
might have classified waterbodies
with one toxic criteria violation as
partially supporting aquatic life use.
The new assessment method
increases the proportion of waters
not supporting designated uses even
if no actual change in water quality
occurred between 1990 and 1992.
Table 1-2. Comparison of Waters Assessed in 1990 and 1992
Waterbody
Type
Rivers and
Streams
Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs
Estuaries
Ocean
Shoreline
Great Lakes
Shoreline
Year
1992
1990
1992
1990
1992
1990
1992
1990
1992
1990
Estimate of
Total Waters
3,551, 247 mi3
1,800,000 ml
39,920,000 acb
39,400,000 ac
36,890 mi2'
35,624 mi2 -
56,121 mid
19,200 mi"
5,382 mi
5, 169 mi
Assessed
Waters
642,881 mi
647,066 mi
1 8,300,000 ac
1 8,488,636 ac
27,227 mi2
26,693 mi2
3,398 mi
4,230 rra
5,319 mi
4,857 mf
Percent
Assessed
18
36
46
44
74
75
6
22
99
94
Sources: National Water Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to Congress and the
1992 State Section 305 (b) reports.
1 Does not include river miles in American Samoa and Guam, which did not report
total river miles.
b Does not include lake acreages in American Samoa, Guam, Kentucky, and the
virgin Islands, which did not report total lake acreages. Includes estimate of
Alaska's total lake acreage reported in the 1986 Report to Congress.
e Does not include estuarine area in Alaska, American Samoa, and Guam.
d Does not include shoreline miles in American Samoa and Guam.
e Does not include shoreline miles in Alaska.
NOTE: These figures were reported by the States. See explanation of changes in
total water, estimates on page 8.
-------
HTHtGHUGKr
The Waterbody System:
A Database of Water Quality Assessments
EPA designed the Waterbody
System (WBS) as a State and
national database for storing and
analyzing water quality assessment
information. The WBS tracks use
support information for water units
called waterbodies. States, Territo-
ries, American Indian Tribes, and
River Basin Commissions define their
own waterbodies to best serve their
management needs. An individual
waterbody may consist of a short
stretch of stream, an individual lake,
or the rivers and streams of an
entire watershed. Usually, waterbody
boundaries correspond to significant
hydrologic or ecologic features, such
as watershed boundaries. The WBS
recognizes rivers, lakes, estuaries,
tidal wetlands, freshwater wetlands,
Great Lakes shorelines, and coastal
shorelines as different types of
waterbodies.
The WBS provides a convenient
way for a State to track a wide
range of assessment information for
its designated waterbodies. Data
fields track information on desig-
nated use support including aquatic
life support, human health risks
related to fish and shellfish con-
sumption, and recreational use sup-
port. The WBS provides data fields
to document causes and sources of
pollution impairing full attainment
of State water quality standards in
each designated waterbody.
Once a State enters the data,
it can use the WBS to generate a
variety of summary reports and lists
that simplify preparation of its
305(b) water quality assessment
reports. EPA can then use all WBS
data to prepare the National Water
Quality Inventory Report to Con-
gress. Summary data from each
305(b) Report and the WBS are
found in the Appendices of this
report. Other WBS uses include
information management for the
Section 314 Clean Lakes Program,
the Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Management Program, and the new
nonpoint source management initia-
tives under the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments.
EPA originally designed the WBS
to facilitate analyses of water quality
information. The future design for
the WBS is to include geographic
analyses and visualization as pic-
tured on the next page. The WBS
and related software tools can be
used on a variety of computer plat-
forms, including personal comput-
ers, the EPA National Computing
-------
WBS: Design for the Future
Prototype example shown: South Carolina
«T HIGHLIGHT
WB Identification 1
WB Reach Indexing 2
Assessment Into 3
Assessment Codes 4
Use Support Matrix 5
Cause/Sources 7
Point Sources 7
Nonpolnt Sources 6
Sb> tifKua by Prtorty PoUarau, MmmK of CMortit
Bin CWA314 krfMtod Stz»CWA314Hw«al«Md
Sl2t CWM3I0 hflpolrad Sin CWA319 TtVMIflfWd
Stz* bipctod ot TtvMlwwd by Add Dtposttm
OVERALL USE SUPPORT IN SOUTH CAROLINA RIVERS
Enoree River
\ \ Fully Supporting
tn* assesses
support for entire watersheds, rather
-------
Center mainframe computer, and
Geographic Information System
workstation environments. WBS data
through the 1992 cycle are available
on the EPA mainframe and from the
States through the 305(b) coordina-
tors (see Chapter 8). Those access-
ing the data on the mainframe must
have an account and be authorized
STORE! users. As EPA moves to
encourage geographic targeting
approaches, access to databases
with spatial location elements
becomes critical. EPA's Watershed
Protection Initiative (see Chapter 10)
and the total maximum daily load
(TMDL) process provide additional
uses for spatially oriented water
quality information stored in the
WBS.
-------
Part U
Water Quality Assessments
-------
-------
Rivers and Streams
Fifty-three States, Territories,
Jurisdictions, and Interstate River
Commissions, the District of Colum-
bia, and one American Indian Tribe
(hereafter collectively referred to as
States) rated the water quality in
642,881 miles of streams and rivers
in their 1992 Section 305(b) reports.
In the years 1990-1992, these States
assessed 18% of the total 3,551,247
river and stream miles reported by
these States (Figure 2-1). The States
assessed about 4,000 fewer river
miles than they assessed for 1990.
EPA expected the States to assess
fewer waters in 1992 because EPA
issued stricter guidance for defining
assessed waters in 1992. The
percentage of rivers assessed in
1992 appears much smaller than
the percentage assessed in 1990
because the Nation shifted its
baseline to the more inclusive total
waters estimates described in Chap-
ter 1 (page 8).
Fifty States reported overall use
support for rivers and streams. Over-
all use support is the standard meas-
ure of water quality required by the
Clean Water Act States determine
overall use support by summarizing
how well each waterbody supports
each designated use, such as
18%
ASSESSED
in 1990-1992
The States ASSESSED
642,881 Miles of Rivers
and Streams in 1992
Total Number of Miles:
3,551,247
It appears that the States
assessed a smaller percentage
of the Nation's rivers in 1992
than in 1990 due to an
increase in (he estimate of
total waters in the United
States, for the first time, most
States used a nationally con-
sistent method for counting
their waters, By this method,
States included intermittent
streams, canals, and ditches
in estimates of total stream
miles in 1992. As a result,
the national estimate of total
stream miles almost doubled
from 1.8 million miles in
1990 to more than 3.5 million
miles in 1992.
River Miles Assessed by the States
1992 642,881 miles = 18% assessed
«Total miles: 3,551,247
1990 647,066 miles = 36% assessed
^ Total miles: 1,800,000
1988 519,413 = 29% assessed
^ Total miles: 1,800,000
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-1.
-------
16 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
Total assessed = 642,881 miles
18% assessed
82% unassessed
Assessed 18%
Unassessed 82%
Of the assessed miles:
36% were monitored
60% were evaluated
4% were not specified
drinking water supply use, recre-
ational use, or aquatic life use (see
Chapter 1 for a complete discus-
sion of use support). Another five
States reported individual use
support for rivers and streams but
did not summarize overall use
support. In such cases, EPA as-
sumed that the status of aquatic life
support use represented overall use
support.
Overall Use
Support
Fifty-six percent of the 642,881
river miles assessed fully support
overall designated uses (Figure 2-2).
The percentage of river miles fully
supporting overall designated uses
fell slightly in 1 992 due to changes
in the total river miles assessed, the
Figure 2-2
Overall Use Support
in Assessed Rivers and Streams
number of States reporting use sup-
port, and the assessment methods
employed by each State.
An additional 6% of the
assessed river miles fully support
overall uses but are threatened by
potential sources of pollution. These
rivers may not support uses in the
near future if we fail to control
potential sources of pollution.
Twenty-five percent of the assessed
river miles partially support desig-
nated uses. One or more uses may
be temporarily restricted in these
rivers. For example, a stream may
fully support recreational use in dry
weather but not support recre-
ational use following a severe thun-
derstorm because heavy rainfall
might overload a combined sewer
system with a slug of runoff. The
resulting discharge of undertreated
sewage would restrict the public's
fully Partially Not Not
Supporting Threatened Supporting Supporting Attainable
54% <$% 25%
Based on data contained in Appendix A .Table A-1.
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 17
use of the river for swimming until
the flow of runoff into the treatment
plant subsided.
Thirteen percent of the assessed
river miles do not support overall
designated uses and less than 1%
cannot attain designated uses due
to excessive degradation or natural
conditions such as low flow.
Individual Use
Support
The States assessed support of
six individual designated uses in
rivers: aquatic life support, fish con-
sumption, primary contact recre-
ation-swimming, secondary contact
recreation, public drinking water
supply, and agricultural supply (see
Chapter 1, page 3, for a description
of each individual use). The States
reported the status of aquatic life
support and swimming use support
most frequently (Figure 2-3). Fifteen
States failed to report individual use
support (see Appendix A, Table A-2,
for individual State information).
Rivers fully support aquatic life
in 60% of the 547,871 miles
assessed. Aquatic life support
accounts for most of the river miles
partially supporting their designated
uses. Of the 221,352 river miles
assessed for drinking water supply
use, 27% cannot attain drinking
water use standards. Natural physi-
cal characteristics, such as hardness
and color, as well as degradation
from human activities may prevent
rivers from attaining drinking water
standards.
Individual Use Support in Rivers and Streams
ttftt -
Aquatic Life Support
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-2.
-------
18 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
Causes of
Impairment
Forty-nine States identified the
number of stream miles affected by
individual causes of nonsupport
Causes of nonsupport are pollutants
or pollutant processes that impair
waterbodies, such as sediment,
metals, acidity, and hydromodifica-
tion. The total number of river miles
Figure 2-4
The Effects of Siltation in Rivers and Streams
Sediment
abrades gills
Sediment suffocates
fish eggs and bottom-
dwelling organisms
Sediment smothers cobbles
where fish lay eggs
Siltation is the leading pollution problem in the Nation's rivers and
streams. Over the long term, unchecked Siltation can alter habitat
with profound effects on aquatic life. In the short term, silt can kill
fish directly, destroy spawning beds, and increase water turbidity
resulting in depressed photosynthetic rates.
affected by a particular pollutant is
subdivided into whether the cause
is a major or moderate/minor con-
tributor to impairment. A major
contributor is solely responsible for
the impairment or predominates
over other causes. A moderate con-
tributor is one of multiple causes
responsible for less than full support,
of which none predominate.
Any given stream mile can be
affected by multiple causes of
impairment Therefore, States count
each stream mile under each cause
category contributing to its impair-
ment As a result, States count a
single mile of river affected by mul-
tiple causes of impairment under
several cause categories. The values
reported are the total number of
river miles affected by a particular
cause of impairment according to
whether the cause is a major or
moderate/minor contributor to im-
pairment
States report that Siltation is the
most prevalent cause of impairment
in assessed rivers and streams
(Figure 2-4). Siltation affects 45% of
the 222,370 impaired stream miles
in the States reporting causes of
pollution (Figure 2-5). Nutrients, the
second most commonly reported
cause, affect 37% of the impaired
river miles and most often consist
of nitrogen and phosphorus com-
pounds typically found in agricul-
tural fertilizers, phosphate deter-
gents, and municipal sewage
treatment plant discharges.
Pathogen contamination affects
27% of the impaired stream miles.
Pathogens impair drinking water
supply uses and contact recreation
uses and commonly enter waters in
inadequately treated sewage or
runoff from pastures, feedlots, and ;
urban areas.
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 19
Forty-two States specified the
degree of impact (i.e., major or
moderate/minor) of the causes
affecting rivers and streams. These
States reported that all causes have
more moderate and minor impacts
than major impacts.
Sources of
Impairment
Forty-eight States reported
sources of some impairments in
their rivers and streams. Because it
is so difficult to detect and differen-
tiate sources of pollution, most
States identify sources for a subset
of their impaired rivers, which are a
portion of their assessed rivers,
which are, in turn, a fraction of the
Nation's total river miles. As a result,
the ranking of sources shown in
Figure 2-6 applies to only 6% of the
Nation's total river miles.
As with causes of impairment,
multiple sources may affect an indi-
vidual river mile. Therefore, States
count a single river mile under each
source category contributing to its
impairment As a result,
States count a single mile of
river affected by multiple
sources of impairment under
several source categories. The
values reported are the total
number of river miles affected
by a particular source of impair-
ment according to whether the
source is a major or moderate/
minor contributor to impairment.
The States report that agricul-
ture is the most extensive source
of pollution in the Nation's assessed
rivers. The general category of agri-
culture, which includes irrigated
crop production, nonirrigated crop
51
Lt/VtVOH
is
;adm9
cause
t»^ea?renUn
«*V*S£a>*
' ot*e
mttes'
Figure 2-5
Percent of ASSESSED River Miles Impaired
by Pollutants
(222,370 assessed river miles impaired)
Pollutants
Siltation
Nutrients
Pathogen Indicators
Pesticides
Organic Enrichment/DO
Metals
Major
^ Moderate/Minor
Hi Not Specified
10
20
Percent
30
40
Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
Total assessed = 642,881 miles
18% assessed
sis 82% unassessed
Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-3.
-------
20 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams
Figure 2-6
Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
Total assessed = 642,881 miles
18% assessed
82% unassessed
It is relatively easy to collect a
water sample and identify
pollutants causing impair-
ments, such as fecal coliform
bacteria indicating pathogen
contamination. .However,
detecting and ranking sources
of pollutants can require
monitoring pollutant move-
ment from numerous potential
sources, such as failing septic
systems, agricultural fields,
urban runoff, municipal sew-
age treatment plants, and
local waterfowl populations.
Percent of ASSESSED River Miles Impaired
by Sources of Pollution
(221,878 assessed river miles impaired)
Pollution Sources
Agriculture
Municipal Point
Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Total
72
15
11
J
m
Resource Extraction
Industrial Point BS
Sources HU
Silviculture il||
Hydrologic/Habitat 1M]
Modification Hi]
1
1 11
7
7
7
I. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mai°r 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Moderate/Minor percfint
Not Specified
Based on data contained in Appendix A .Table A-4.
production, rangeland, and feed
lots, affects 72% of the 221,878
impaired river miles in the States
reporting sources of river impair-
ments. Reporting of agricultural
impacts is widespread (Figure 2-7).
Agricultural sources are responsible
for many pollutants such as sedi-
ment, nutrients, pesticides, patho-
gens, and organic enrichment
Other specific sources of pollu-
tion that impair rivers include mu-
nicipal point sources (15%), urban
runoff and storm sewers (11 %),
resource extraction (11%), industrial
point sources (7%), silviculture
(7%), and hydrologic and habitat
alterations (7%).
The States also report that
"other" sources impair significant
stretches of our rivers and streams.
"Other" sources include natural
sources, such as low-flow conditions,
leaf litter, and glacial debris that
may increase turbidity, acidity, and
water temperature in the absence of
human activity. For example, Ore-
gon reported that 4,232 river miles
were impaired by natural glacial
debris elevating turbidity.
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 21
Figure 2-7
Distribution of Agricultural Impacts on Rivers and Streams
Percent of State's Impaired River Miles
Impacted by Agriculture
0%
1-25%
26-50%
BB 51-75%
^i 76-100%
NR = Not Reported
Based on data contained in Appendix A,Table A-4
-------
Nutrient Loads in Four Major
River Basins*
Nutrient enrichment is one of
the most pervasive water qualify
problems in the Nation's rivers and
streams. Excessive inputs of nutrients
(such as nitrogen and phosphorus)
can overstimulate aquatic plant
growth and algal productivity,
Surface water pilot studies
started in FY1986
Flgurel. U.S. Geological Survey National Water
Quality Assessment Program.
which, in turn, destabilizes dissolved
oxygen concentrations and pH
(acidity) in stream ecosystems. The
unstable conditions may force fish
and other aquatic organisms to seek
healthier habitat.
The U.S. Geological Survey
(USCS) assessed total
phosphorus and total
nitrogen loads in four
river basins under the
National Water
Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) Program.
The USCS designed
the NAWQA Program
to describe status and
trends in the Nation's
water resources and
to improve under-
standing of the natu-
ral and human factors
that affect the quality
of water resources.
The NAWQA program
assessed point and
nonpoint source nutri-
ent loads in the Ken-
tucky River Basin, the
Upper Illinois River
Basin, the Lower
*The information contained in this highlight was extracted from Preliminary Esti-
mates of Phosphorus and Nitrogen Loads from Point and Nonpoint Sources in Four
Major River Basins in the United States, by J.V. Davis and W.C. Wilber of the U.S.
Geological Survey.
i
-------
HIGHU
₯
it
Kansas River Basin, and the Yakima
River Basin in Washington (Figure
1).
The USCS estimated the mean
daily instream loads of total phos-
phorus and total nitrogen at USGS's
most downstream long-term moni-
toring site in each river basin. The
USCS used all available water quality
data to develop equations relating
instream flow to nutrient loads and
applied the equations to daily
streamflow records to estimate
mean annual nutrient loads in each
basin. The annual loads were
divided by 365 days to estimate the
mean daily instream load of nutri-
ents entering each basin. The USCS
also divided the mean daily nutrient
loads by the drainage area of each
basin to estimate the yield of nutri-
ents coming off an acre of land in
each basin.
The USGS calculated mean daily
loads from point sources (such as
sewage treatment plants and indus-
trial dischargers) with effluent flow
rate data and nutrient concentration
data contained in EPA's Permit
Compliance System Database and
other databases managed by
wastewater treatment plant opera-
tors. The USCS estimated nonpoint
source nutrient loads by subtracting
the total point source load in a ba-
sin from the total instream basin
load at the most downstream moni-
toring station. The resulting estimate
of nonpoint source nutrient load is
conservative because it does not
take into account nutrient losses due
to physical, biological, and chemical
processes.
Of the four basins studied, the
Upper Illinois River basin had the.
highest estimates of instream nutri-
ent loads and yields (Figure 2). The
Upper Illinois River basin also has
the largest percentage of land
devoted to cultivated row crops
(75%), the highest nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilizer application
rates, and the largest wastewater
effluent loadings of nitrogen and
phosphorus due to the large popu-
lation in the basin (about 7.6 million
people).
In contrast, nitrogen and phos-
phorus loads were smallest in the
Yakima River basin, which has a
small population and land use domi-
nated by forests, grazing lands,
-------
HIGH
Kentucky
River
Upper
Illinois River
Lower
Kansas River
Yakima River
N on point Sources
D Point Sources
Figure 2. Mean daily total
phosphorus loads.
orchards, and crops that tend to be
more permanent and result in less
erosion.
Nonpoint sources generated
most of the nutrient loads in the
Lower Kansas River basin, the Ken-
tucky River
basin, and the
Yakima River
basin (Figure
2). Point
sources played
a greater role in
generating
nutrients in the
Upper Illinois
River basin than
in the other
basins because
the Upper Illi-
nois River
basin's large
population
generates more
sewage than do
populations in
the other ba-
5 10 15 20 25
Mean Daily Total
Phosphorus Load
(1,000 Ib/day)
sins. Point
sources ac-
counted for
57% of the mean annual load of
total phosphorus exported from the
Upper Illinois River basin compared
to 39% in the Lower Kansas River
basin, 27% in the Yakima River ba-
sin, and 20% in the Kentucky River
basin.
In general, point source effluent
monitoring and ambient monitoring
programs still lack integration,
which limits our ability to determine
the relative magnitude of point
versus nonpoint sources of contami-
nation. For example, relatively few
wastewater treatment facilities
routinely monitor their effluent for
nutrients, metals, and other con-
stituents of interest in ambient water
assessments. Estimates of point and
nonpoint sources of contamination
would be improved by the follow-
ing:
Sampling the same pollutants
and constituents in point source
discharges and ambient waterbodies
Increasing the frequency of efflu-
ent monitoring at many locations
and using flow-weighted composite
samples for selected constituents
Developing and using a quality
assurance plan for effluent flow-rate
estimation.
-------
Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 25
-------
..-; : :; :..':-.'-:::..-'
-------
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Overall Use
Support
Forty-seven States and Terri-
tories, the District of Columbia, and
one American Indian Tribe (hereafter
referred to as States) assessed overall
use support in more than
18 million acres of lakes, reservoirs,
and ponds (see Appendix B, Table
B-1, for individual State data). As
shown in Figure 3-1, these States
assessed almost half of the Nation's
40 million acres of lake waters
(excluding the Great Lakes, dis-
cussed in Chapter 11). The States
based 63% of their lake assessments
on monitored data, 22% of their
lake assessments on evalu-
ated information, and 14%
were not specified.
Forty-three percent of
the assessed lake acres fully
support designated beneficial
uses (Rgure 3-2). Another
13% of the assessed lake acres
fully support uses but are
threatened by potential sources
of pollutants. Thirty-five percent of
the assessed lake acres partially sup-
port designated uses, and 9% of the
assessed lake acres do not support
designated uses.
46%
ASSESSED
in'1990-1992
The States ASSESSED
Almost Half of the Nation's Lake Waters
Excluding the Great Lakes in 1992
Total Acres:
39,920,000
Lake, Reservoir, and Pond Acres
Assessed by the States
1992 18,300,000 acres = 46%
assessed
li Total acres: 39,920,000
Unassessed 54%
1990 18,489,000 acres = 47%
assessed
^ Total acres: 39,400,000
1988 16,314,000 acres = 41%
assessed
^ Total acres: 39,400,000
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-1.
-------
28 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Lake data should not be compared
among States, which devote varying
resources to monitoring
water quality chemistry,
^ -^wyniL *** , biological integrity, and
^e%*aterf£)' *Wo*t Itoxic p°llutants in ?sh tis-
* «ie
-------
Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 29
tissues. Water pollution also impairs
fish consumption use by degrading
the habitat of desirable sport fish
species.
Causes of
Impairment
Forty-seven States reported the
number of lake acres impaired by
individual causes of nonsupport (see
Appendix 8, Table B-3, for individual
State data). Causes of nonsupport
are pollutants and processes that
impair water quality, such as metals,
nutrients, or sediment Multiple
pollutants may impair an individual
lake acre. Therefore, States may
count an individual lake acre under
several cause categories although
the lake acre was counted only once
as an impaired waterbody. The
causes are designated as either
major or moderate/minor contrib-
utors to waterbody impairments.
The relative extent of each
cause is determined by dividing the
acreage impaired by each cause
category by the total impaired acres
in the States reporting causes of
nonsupport. In 1992, these States
reported that 7,958,064 lake acres
were impaired, which represents
43% of the assessed lake acres and
20% of the 40 million total lake
acres in the Nation.
The information reported by
the States indicates that metals,
nutrients, organic enrichment/
dissolved oxygen depletion, siltation,
and priority organic chemicals are
the five leading causes of lake
impairment (Figure 3-4). Although
metals impaired the most lake acres
overall, the effect of metals is con-
centrated in one State: Minnesota
Individual Us* Support to lake$, Reservoirs, arid Ponds
Designated
States fciHy
(^porting Supporting
Partially Mot Not
Supporting Supporting
Aquatic Life Support
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-2.
-------
30 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
reported more than 50% of all the
acres impaired by metals. The infor-
mation on metals contamination
may also be exaggerated by con-
taminated samples. The Workshop
on Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals,
held by EPA in January 1993, found
that most metals data have not
been collected using clean sam-
pling and analysis techniques.
Consequently, metal values may
be unreliable due to various types
of contamination.
More States reported problems
from nutrients than any other
single pollutant (Figure 3-5). Forty-
one States reported that nutrients
impair more than 3 million lake
acres. Nutrients cause nuisance
overgrowth of algae as well as
noxious aquatic plants, which leads
to oxygen depletion via plant
respiration and microbial
decomposition of plant matter
(Figure 3-6).
Thirty States reported that silta-
tion impairs their lakes, ponds, and
reservoirs. Siltation can smother
aquatic organisms and their habi-
tats, damage gills in fish and other
aquatic organisms, and gradually fill
in reservoirs. As reservoirs fill, they
support fewer recreational activities
and cannot function as reliable
sources of drinking water.
Priority organic chemicals (such
as polychlorinated biphenyls-PCBs)
increased in relative importance
during the 1992 reporting cycle. In
1990, priority organics ranked
eighth in the number of lake acres
impaired. In 1992, priority organics
ranked fifth, with Minnesota
reporting 82% of the lake acreage
impacted by priority organics.
Total lakes = 39,920,000 acres
Total assessed = 18,300,000 acres
46% assessed
II 54% unassessed
Figure 3-4
Percent of ASSESSED Lake Acres Impaired by Pollutants
(7,958,064 assessed lake acres impaired)
Pollutants
Metals
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/DO
Siltation
Priority Organic
Chemicals
Suspended Solids
Major
H Moderate/Minor
H Not Specified
20 30
Percent
Based on data contained in Appendix 8, Table B-3.
-------
Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 31
Figure 3-5
Distribution of Lake Acres Impaired by Nutrients
Percent of State's Impaired Lake
Acres Impaired by Nutrients
i 1 0%
1-25%
26-50%
OSW 51-75%
i" 76-100%
NR = Not Reporting
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
32 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Sources of
Impairment
Forty-five States reported the
number of lake acres impaired by
individual sources of pollutants (see
Appendix B, Table B-4). Multiple
sources may impair an individual
lake acre. In these cases, States
count the impaired acre under each
source category contributing to its
impairment Therefore, States may
count an individual lake acre under
several source categories. The
sources are designated as either
major or moderate/minor contribu-
tors to waterbody impairments.
As with causes, the source cat-
egories are ranked by the percent-
age of impaired waters attributed to
each source category. The States
reported sources of lake impairment
for 5,543,987 impaired lake acres,
which represents 30% of the lake
acres assessed and 14% of the
40 million total lake acres in the
United States.
The State data portray agricul-
ture as the most extensive specific
source of pollution in the Nation's
Figure 3-6
Lake Impaired by Excessive Nutrients
Healthy Lake Ecosystem
Algal blooms form mats
on surface. Odor and
taste problems result.
Noxious aquatic plants
clog shoreline and reduce
access to lake
Fish suffocate
i
Dead algae sink
to bottom
Bacteria deplete oxygen as
they decompose dead algae
Nutrients cause nuisance overgrowth of algal as well as noxious aquatic
plants, which leads to oxygen depletion via plant respiration and microblal
decomposition of plant matter.
-------
Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 33
lakes, followed by urban runoff and
storm sewers, hydrologic and habi-
tat modification, municipal point
sources, and onsite wastewater dis-
posal (Figure 3-7). Hydrologic modi-
fication includes dredging activities
and drawdown at reservoirs. Habitat
modification includes activities that
destroy shoreline vegetation that
buffers the aquatic system from
disturbances on shore. The States
also reported that "other" sources,
including natural sources, impair
lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. Natural
sources include drought conditions
and natural turbidity, which may
impair swimming use at a reservoir.
The summary information on
sources of impairment in lakes
should be interpreted with care.
Individual States with large lake
acreages can influence source
rankings. For example, Florida
alone reported 49% (almost
half) of all the lake acres im-
paired by urban runoff and storm
sewers and 68% of the lake acres
impaired by onsite wastewater
disposal. As a result, the source
ratings can fluctuate dramatically
depending on which States report
sources of impairment.
is
of*»«?S«a5ff*
Figure 3-7
Percent of ASSESSED Lake Acres Impaired
by Sources of Pollution
(5,543,987 assessed lake acres impaired)
Pollutants Sources
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Municipal Point Sources
Onsite Wastewater
Disposal
Flow Modification
Major
H Moderate/Minor
D Not Specified
30 40
Percent
Total lakes = 39,920,000 acres
Total assessed = 18,300,000 acres
46% assessed
li 54% unassessed
\
Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-4.
-------
ffl HIGHLIGHT
EMAP - Surface Waters:
Northeast Lakes Pilot
Mesotrophic
42% ±15
Eutrophic and
Hypereutrophic
21%±12
Oligotrophic
38% ±14
Figure 1. Lake Trophic State - 1991
EMAP data for the Northeastern
United States.
The EPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD) initiated the
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) to
evaluate the quantity and quality
of our Nation's ecological resources.
EMAP consists of seven integrated
units, each dedicated to evaluating
an individual ecological resource
area such as forests or surface waters
(lakes and streams). To address
EMAP*s broad goals, ORD coordi-
nates planning and implementation
with numerous EPA program offices,
EPA Regions, and States, as well as
other Federal agencies, including the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and
the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
In 1991, ORD began piloting
the EMAP-Surface Waters program
with a study of northeastern lakes.
The EMAP-Surface Water team
selected indicators of biological
integrity, trophic condition, and
fishability to describe the
condition of the Nation's
lakes. The first year of the
pilot study focused on col-
lecting data on trophic status
from northeastern lakes with
a surface area between 1 and
2,000 hectares (or approxi-
mately 2.5 to 5,000 acres).
The pilot study also esti-
mated the number of lakes
in the northeastern United
States using updated versions
of the EPA Office of Water's
River Reach File (which
produced the estimates of total
waters used in this report).
Lake Water Quantity
The EPA Office of Water, using
Version 3.0 of the EPA River Reach
File (RF3), summarizes digitized
traces of waters from the USGS
1:100,000 scale map series to esti-
mate the number of lakes and total
lake acreage in each State. RF3 was
used by EMAP-Surface Waters to
select a stratified, random sample of
lakes across the northeastern States.
This statistical sampling approach
will allow EMAP, along with the
States and others, to submit correc-
tions to update the RF3 estimates of
stream miles, lakes, and lake acre-
age.
Lake Water Quality
During the first year of the lake
pilot study, EMAP-Surface Waters
sampled and analyzed chlorophyll a
and total phosphorus concentrations
in northeastern lakes (New England,
New York, and New Jersey). Chloro-
phyll a (a surrogate measure of algal
biomass) and total phosphorus con-
centrations indicate the degree of
nutrient enrichment in lakes. After
screening over 300 lakes, EMAP
teams visited 74 lakes to measure
various lake quality parameters.
EMAP-Surface Waters then applied
criteria developed by the North
American Lake Management Society
-------
to chlorophyll a and total phospho-
rus data to classify lakes according
to trophic category. Based on the
distribution of sampled lakes, EMAP-
Surface Waters estimated the total
number of lakes (including confi-
dence limits) in each trophic cate-
gory in the Northeast (Figure 1).
To demonstrate how the EMAP
approach might be used to evaluate
spatial patterns in lake quality, the
data were statistically aggregated
into three ecoregions (Figure 2):
the Adirondack, the New England
Uplands, and the Coastal/Lowland/
Plateau regions. During this first
year's pilot, the sample sizes within
each of these regions were quite
small (all <30 lakes sampled) but the
statistical design still provides an
estimate of lake trophic condition
and a measure of the uncertainty in
the estimate (Figure 3). In future
years, the sample size will be larger
and greater confidence can be
placed in the estimates.
The results of the EMAP-
Surface Waters program
complement the State pro-
grams described elsewhere in
this report. The EMAP-Surface
Waters program applies a
consistent lake definition,
sampling protocols, and as-
sessment methods across an
entire region. EMAP-Surface
Waters looks at all lakes
rather than a subset of im-
pacted lakes or other high-
priority lakes. With data from
EMAP and from the assess-
ments of high- priority
waterbodies conducted by
the States, we will have a
much clearer picture of water
resource conditions upon which to
base management decisions. In
future years, EMAP-Surface Waters
will report on biological integrity in
lakes and will address the condition
of river and stream resources.
HIGHLIGHT
New England Upland
Adirondack*
Coastal/Lowland/
Plateau
Figure 2. Three ecological regions on
which statistical summaries can be
based for routine reporting.
Adirondack;
New England Upland
Eutrophic and
Hypereutrophic
6% ±9
Mesotrophic
43% ± 20
Oligotrophic
51% ±21
Eutrophic and
Hypereutrophic
2% ±2
Mesotrophic
55% ± 28
Oligotrophic
43% ±19
Coastal/Lowland/Plateau
Oligotrophic
27% ± 23
Eutrophic and
Hypereutrophic
51% ±29
Mesotrophic
22% ±12
Figure 3. Lake trophic states for northeast subregions.
-------
-------
Estuaries and Ocean
Coastal Waters
Estuaries are our richest aquatic
ecosystems and also the most
susceptible to cumulative contami-
nation. Estuaries are coastal waters
where tidal influence mixes oceanic
salt water with riverine fresh water
that carries pollutants from the
entire watershed. Estuarine waters
include bays and tidal rivers that
serve as nursery areas for most
commercial fisheries and shellfish
populations. Almost all of our fish
and shellfish industry relies upon
productive, healthy estuarine waters
and their adjacent wetlands.
Both local and distant pollution
sources threaten estuarine health.
Most of the pollutants that enter
rivers migrate toward the coast
As rivers approach the coast, their
mouths broaden and flow
decreases. The low flow and
fluctuating tides, characteristic
of estuarine waters, reduce
flushing and trap nutrients as
well as pollutants within estua-
rine waters. The ability to trap
nutrients lays the foundation for
a rich estuarine ecosystem but
also makes estuaries vulnerable to
overloading.
Historic development patterns
have amplified natural trapping
functions and overloaded estuaries
from Boston Harbor to San
74%
ASSESSED
in 1990-1992
The States ASSESSED
27,227 Square Miles of Estuarine
Estuaries Assessed by the States
1992
27,227 square miles = 74%
Total square miles: 36,890
1990
1988
Unassessed 26%
26,692 square miles = 75%
Total square miles: 35,624
26,676 square miles = 76%
Total square miles: 35,198
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-1.
-------
38 Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Francisco Bay. Historically, industrial
development clustered around
estuarine bays with access to
shipping and an adjacent
waterbody for waste disposal.
Population centers grew up
around the industrial sites and
added sewage to estuarine waters.
Now, many coastal cities must
develop alternative disposal systems
for their outdated combined sewer
systems.
Estuaries
Overall Use
Support
Twenty-three States (including
the Delaware River Basin Commis-
sion and Territories) reported overall
use support status for estuarine
waters (Appendix C, Table C-1,
contains individual State data). In
addition, California and New jersey
reported individual use support in
estuarine waters but did not sum-
marize overall use support. The EPA
assumed that aquatic life use sup-
port status represented overall use
support status in these two States.
Altogether, the States assessed
27,227 square miles of estuarine
waters representing 74% of the
total estuarine waters in the lower
48 States (Figure 4-1). Fifty-six
percent of the assessed waters fully
support their designated beneficial
uses; an additional 12% fully sup-
port designated uses but are threat-
ened by pollution (Figure 4-2).
Impaired waters include 23% of the
estuarine waters partially supporting
their designated uses and 9% of the
waters not supporting their desig-
nated uses.
Figure 4-2
Total estuaries = 36,890 square miles
Total assessed = 27,227 square miles
74% assessed
26% unassessed
Of the assessed estuarine waters:
41 % were monitored
33% were evaluated
26% were not specified
Overall Use Support
in Assessed Estuaries
fully Partially Not Not
Supporting Threatened Supporting Supporting Attainable
23%
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-1.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters 39
Four of the 29 estuarine States
and Territories did not submit desig-
nated use assessments for their
estuarine waters. Four of the 25
States that did submit estuarine use
support information reported that
almost none of their estuarine
waters fully supported designated
uses (Delaware, the District of
Columbia, California, and Oregon).
These States may have focused
assessment and monitoring efforts
on estuaries with known or sus-
pected water quality problems.
Individual Use
Support
For the first time, 19 States
reported individual use support
status for estuarine waters (see
Appendix C, Table C-2). Data sug-
gest that shellfishing use is the most
impaired individual use (Figure 4-3).
Nineteen percent of the assessed
waters do not support shellfish har-
vesting use and 11% partially sup-
port shellfish harvesting use. In addi-
tion, almost one-quarter of the
assessed estuaries do not fully sup-
port aquatic life.
Causes of
Impairment
Twenty-three States reported
the extent of estuarine waters im-
paired by individual pollutants (see
Appendix C, Table C-3, for indi-
vidual State data). Several pollutants
may prevent a waterbody from fully
supporting its designated uses.
Therefore, States count a square
mile of an estuary impacted by mul-
tiple pollutants under several cause
categories (although the estuarine
area was counted only once as an
impaired waterbody). The relative
extent of each cause is represented
by the fraction of the total impaired
estuarine acreage (in the States re-
porting causes of impairments in
individual Use Support in Estuaries
Number of.
Designated States Fu8y PartfaSy Mot Nat
Use Reporting Supporting ThHs&tenwJ Supporting Supporting Attainable
Aquatic Life Support
83
1
85
1
14
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-2.
-------
40 Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Figure 4-4
Percent of ASSESSED Estuary Square Miles
Impaired by Pollutants
Total Impaired = 8,572 Square Miles = 23% of the Nation's total estuarine area
Pollutants
Nutrients
Pathogen Indicators
Organic Enrichment/DO
Siltation
Suspended Solids
Oil and Crease
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
10
20 30
Percent
40
50
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-3.
Figure 4-5
Pathogen Indicators
Urban runoff and storm sewers are ~*
the leading source of impairment
in estuarine waters ,
Overloaded or improperly functioning
sewage treatment plants may release
Failing septic systems iiiiii waste that contains pathogen indicators
may release pathogen
indicators
estuarine waters) attributed to each
cause category.
As with rivers and lakes, nutri-
ents, pathogen indicators, organic
enrichment and low dissolved oxy-
gen concentrations, and siltation
were among the top five causes of
water quality impairment (Figure
4-4). Nutrients affected 55% of the
8,572 square miles of impaired es-
tuarine waters in the States report-
ing causes of estuarine impairments.
Pathogen indicators (which indicate
sewage contamination and cause
shellfish harvesting restrictions) fol-
lowed nutrients, affecting 42% of
the impaired waters (Figure 4-5).
Organic enrichment and low dis-
solved oxygen concentrations im-
pacted 34% of the impaired estuar-
ies, and siltation affected 12%.
Pathogen indicators, such as fecal coliform bacteria, provide evidence that an estuary is contaminated with fecal
material that may contain pathogenic bacteria and viruses harmful to people. Often, the pathogenic viruses and
bacteria do not adversely impact aquatic life, such as fish and shellfish. However, shellfish may accumulate bacteria
and viruses that cause human diseases when ingested. Therefore, officials restrict shellfish harvesting in contami-
nated waters to protect public health. Pathogen indicators also impair swimming uses because some pathogenic
bacteria and viruses can be transmitted by contact with contaminated water.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters 41
Sources of
Impairment
Twenty-two States reported the
extent of estuarine waters impaired
by individual sources of pollutants
(see Appendix C, Table C-4). States
counted any area impacted by mul-
tiple sources under each source
category, although the area was
counted only once as an impaired
waterbody. As with causes, the rela-
tive importance of each source was
determined by dividing the area
impaired by an individual source by
the total impaired estuarine area in
the States reporting sources of es-
tuarine impairments.
The States identified municipal
wastewater treatment plants as the
most pervasive source of pollution in
assessed estuarine waters (Figure
4-6). Municipal point sources im-
paired 53% of the impaired estua-
rine waters in the 22 States report-
ing source information. Urban runoff
and storm sewers impacted 43% of
the impaired estuarine waters
and agriculture also affected
43%. Industrial point sources
affected 23% of the impaired
estuarine waters and resource
extraction affected 12%. In estua-
rine waters, point sources contrib-
ute significantly to water quality
degradation because population
centers and industrial centers are
often located adjacent to estuarine
waters.
Figure 4-6
Percent of ASSESSED Estuary Square Miles
Impaired by Sources of Pollution
(8,303 assessed estuarine square miles impaired)
Pollution Sources
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Resource Extraction
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
20 30
Percent
Total estuaries = 36,890 square miles
Total assessed = 27,227 square miles
74% assessed
26% unassessed
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-4.
-------
HIGHUGtf|jHI IPHT HIGNOGM1
.
-
*
*
I
A Regional Assessment of the
Ecological Condition of Estuaries
Pollution control programs in
the United States have been esti-
mated to cost more than $80 billion
annually. Most of these programs
address specific local pollution prob-
lems; however, it is difficult to assess
the effectiveness of these programs
for protecting the environment at
national and regional scales and
over extended periods of time. The
EPA considers it critical to establish
monitoring, research, and assess-
ment programs to determine the
effectiveness of pollution control
strategies and to substantiate the
science upon which these strategies
are based.
To address these issues, the
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) is
being developed as a national pro-
gram by EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD). EMAP is
an integrated Federal program
examining the condition of the
Nation's ecological resources. While
ORD is coordinating, planning, and
developing EMAP; other Federal
agencies (e.g., Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion) participate in the collection
and analysis of EMAP data and will
use them to guide their policy deci-
sions, as appropriate.
One component of EMAP is
designed to quantitatively assess the
condition of the Nation's estuarine
resources using ecological indicators.
During the period 1 990-1 993 (and
continuing annually), NOAA, EPA
regions, State agencies, and univer-
sities have assisted ORD in planning
and implementing EMAP estuarine
demonstration projects in the Virgin-
ian Province (between Cape Cod,
MA, and the mouth of Chesapeake
Bay), the Louisianian Province (be-
tween Tampa Bay, FL, and the
Mexican border), and the Carolinian
Province (between Chesapeake Bay
and Indian River Lagoon, FL).
EMAP- Estuaries has been devel-
oped by EPA/ORD because an inte-
grated monitoring and assessment
program that samples estuarine
resources in a probability-based
manner offers considerable addi-
tional information to historical moni-
toring approaches. The EMAP ap-
proach provides improved definition
of the extent and magnitude of
pollution problems at regional and
national scales. Simultaneous, prob-
ability-based sampling of pollution
exposure, environmental condition,
and biological resources is the im-
portant central focus of EMAP-Estu-
aries. This approach enables esti-
mates to be made of the uncer-
tainty associated with assessments
ft
-------
HlGHlJC
and will improve our ability to iden-
tify ecological responses to pollu-
tion. EMAP-Estuaries (and eventually
other resource groups within EMAP,
e.g., surface waters, forests) will
provide objective assessments of the
severity and extent of environmental
problems on an historical and re-
gional scale and the degree to
which degraded resources are re-
sponding to efforts to protect or
restore them.
EMAP-Estuaries
In 1990-1993, EMAP-Estuaries
teams annually sampled about 150
sites in the Virginian Province and
about 165 sites in the Louisianian
Province. Beginning in 1994 about
100 sites will be sampled annually in
the Carolinian Province. The specific
number of sites may vary in any
year by about 5% due to the nature
of the probability-based sampling
design. This design is used to select
sampling sites throughout the re-
gions being assessed in proportion
to the area! distribution of the estua-
rine resources in the region. The
sampling teams measure indicators
that can be directly measured in the
field to represent biotic integrity,
ecosystem quality, and societal val-
ues of estuarine resources. These
indicators represent key aspects of
the estuarine ecosystem such as
benthic and fish community param-
eters, health condition of fish, and
degree of eutrophication. In addi-
tion, several abiotic condition indica-
tors are measured to characterize
the environment associated with
these estuarine ecosystems, includ-
ing sediment contaminants and
toxicity, water quality, dissolved
oxygen, and habitat characteristics.
By measuring these two types of
indicators concurrently, EMAP-
Estuaries can determine the degree
that observed ecological degrada-
tion appears to be associated with
specific types of environmental ex-
posures.
Biotic Integrity
The presence of a healthy,
diverse, and sustainable biological
community reflects strong biotic
integrity. The EMAP-Estuaries teams
evaluated biotic integrity in the Vir-
ginian and Louisianian Provinces in
1991 by measuring species compo-
sition and abundance of bottom-
dwelling organisms and the condi-
tion of fish communities. Benthic
organisms are sensitive to pollution
and integrate responses to pollution
over a long period of time. Fish can
HJGHUCHT
\
-------
bioaccumulate contaminants and
their health condition can deterio-
rate with continued exposure to
environmental stresses. Preliminary
data from 1991 indicate that de-
graded benthic communities popu-
late 19 ± 8% of the estuarine area
in the Virginian Province and 31 ±
9% of the estuarine area in the Loui-
sianian Province (Figure 1).
Ecosystem Quality
Ecosystem quality refers to the
condition of the environment in
which organisms live. EMAP-
Estuaries measured dissolved oxygen
(DO) concentrations in the water
Louisianian
Virginian
(5
Degraded
31%
Undegraded
69%
Degraded
19%
Undegraded
81%
Figure 1. Benthic resources.
Louisianian
Virginian
Figure 2. Dissolved oxygen
concentrations.
column and toxic contaminants
concentrations in sediments and
tested sediment toxicity to evaluate
this second component of ecological
integrity in the two demonstration
provinces.
The EMAP-Estuaries teams com-
pared DO concentrations measured
in bottom waters to two threshold
values, 5 ppm and 2 ppm. Some
fish and benthic organisms cannot
tolerate DO concentrations below
5 ppm; therefore, many States set
minimum DO standards at 5 ppm
to support aquatic life. Many estua-
rine organisms are adversely affected
if DO concentrations fall below
2 ppm. Dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions fell below 5 ppm
in bottom waters in
approximately 35 ± 10%
of the estuarine bottom
waters of the Virginian
Province and in 21 ±9%
of the bottom waters of
the Louisianian Province
(Figure 2). Bottom dis-
solved oxygen concentra-
tions fell below 2 ppm in
6 ± 5% of the Virginian
Province and 12 ± 6% of
the Louisianian Province.
However, about half of
hypoxic waters in the
Louisianian Province were
below 2 ppm only in the
early morning hours (2
a.m.-7 a.m.) representing
cyclic conditions. Under
these cyclic conditions,
acceptable DO concen-
trations exist most of the
time with poor conditions
occurring about 20% to
30% of the time.
< 2 ppm
12%
2-5 ppm
9%
> 5 ppm
79%
< 2 ppm
6%
2-5 ppm
29%
> 5 ppm
65%
-------
The EMAP teams also evaluated
the potential for sublethal effects
from sediment contamination in
estuaries. The teams compared con-
taminant concentrations in sediment
samples collected at all sites to ER-L
values. ER-L values represent con-
centrations at which biological ef-
fects (both sublethal and lethal)
were observed in at least 10 percent
of the contaminant exposure studies
reviewed in the literature.
Metals were the most prevalent
contaminants found at concentra-
tions exceeding ER-L values indicat-
ing biological concern. In the Virgin-
ian Province, 38 ± 7% of the estua-
rine sediments contained contami-
nant concentrations of biological
concern. Lead, nickel, and zinc most
frequently exceeded ER-L values.
Sampling detected organic contami-
nants at concentrations of biological
concern in 12 ± 7% of Virginian
Province sediments (Figure 3).
In the Louisianian Province,
33 ± 9% of the estuarine sediments
contained elevated concentrations
of metals, primarily mercury, arsenic,
and chromium. Pesticides followed
metals with 31 ± 8% of the prov-
ince sediments containing concen-
trations that exceeded ER-L values.
Dieldrin, chlordane, and DDT were
the most widespread pesticides
observed in the Louisianian Prov-
ince.
Societal Values
The EMAP teams evaluated the
extent of marine debris, measured
water clarity, and measured con-
taminant levels in selected seafood
to determine how well estuarine
waters attain societal values. Marine
debris has multiple deleterious
effects on coastal economies and
public perceptions of coastal health.
Marine debris decreases the market
potential for fish, damages fishing
gear and vessels, and can reduce
tourism. The EMAP teams estimated
that trash was present in 17 ± 5%
of the Virginian and Louisianian
Provinces (Figure 4).
Society values dear waters,
which contribute to healthy, pro-
ductive aquatic communities. How-
ever, clarity varies greatly in estuar-
ies and should not necessarily be
compared between
estuarine water bod-
ies. A healthy estuary
may be turbid due
to local geomorphol-
ogy or natural inputs
of detritus. In other
estuaries, reduced
clarity may indicate
unhealthy conditions
resulting from pol-
lutant inputs of sedi-
ments and nutrients.
Although EMAP
cannot distinguish
between reduced
clarity caused by
pollution or natural
sources, the data
collected during the
pilot projects estab-
lishes a baseline
against which future
changes in water
clarity may be as-
sessed. The EMAP
teams found that
Metals
Pesticides
Tributyltin
Alkanes
PAHs
PCBs
HIGHLIGHT
10 20 30
Percent Area
40
Louisianian
Virginian
Figure 3. Sediment contamination
exceeding ER-L values.
-------
HTHICHUSHT
14 ± 6% of the Virginian Province
had clarity of less than 1 meter, the
depth of one's feet when wading in
waist-deep water. Waters in the
Virginian Province were character-
ized by a visibility of no better than
0.3 meters (approximately 1 foot) in
less than 1% of its estuarine area.
About 55 ± 11% of the Louisianian
Province had water clarity of less
than 1 meter, including 27 ± 10%
of the Province's waters with clarity
less than 0.3 meters deep
(Figure 5).
Contaminants in the edible
portions of commercially and recrea-
tionally important fish and shellfish
are important social measures of
acceptable estuarine condition. At
present, the Food and Drug Admin-
istration (FDA) provides action limits
for fish and shellfish denoting safety
for consumption. While EMAP-
Estuaries does not provide a com-
prehensive evaluation of all fish and
shellfish, selected target species were
examined. These target species in-
cluded weakfish, flounders, white
perch, and croakers in the Virginian
Province and Atlantic croaker, cat-
fish, and shrimp in the Louisianian
Province. Only fillet or tailmeat ma-
terials were examined. No fish taken
from Virginian waters were observed
Louisianian
Present
17%
Not Present
83%
Virginian
Present
17%
Not Present
83%
Figure 4. Presence of marine
debris and trash.
Louisianian
rx-
Virginian
> 1 m
45%
<0.3 m
27%
0.3-1 m
28%
< 0.3 m
4%
0.3-1 m
10%
> 1 m
86%
Figure 5. Water clarity.
-------
HfGHUGi
to exceed the FDA limits while only
1% of the marine catfish collected
in the Louisianian Province exceeded
the FDA limit for mercury. A more
complete risk assessment associated
with the contaminant levels
observed in fish and shellfish from
the Virginian and Louisianian Prov-
inces is presently underway.
Overall Estuarine
Condition
As the EMAP-Estuaries program
reaches full implementation, a single
index will be developed to summa-
rize the overall condition of estua-
rine resources within each province
and to accumulate province mea-
sures to create a national estimate
of estuarine condition. The index
may incorporate measures of
fishability, swimmability, and aes-
thetics with measures of biotic in-
tegrity based on benthic communi-
ties and fish assemblages. For the
demonstration studies, overall condi-
tion was estimated in each province
by integrating biotic integrity indica-
tors and societal value indicators.
The results indicate that 42 ± 7% of
the Virginian Province and 53 ± 9%
of the Louisianian Province showed
evidence of degraded biological
resources or degraded ability to
support activities valued by society
(Figure 6).
The Virginian and Louisianian
Provinces represent about 40% of
the estuarine resources in the United
States. At present, our best estimate
of estuarine condition in the United
States falls somewhere between the
assumption that the remaining
estuarine resources (Southeast West
Coast) are in acceptable condition
and the estuarine resources in these
areas are in similar condition to
those observed along the mid-Atlan-
tic and Gulf coasts. These assump-
tions would bound the overall na-
tional estimate of estuarine condi-
tion between 23% and 47% of the
resource showing evidence of de-
graded biological resources or de-
graded ability to support human
activities.
HT HIGHLIGHT
Louisianian
Virginian
Undegraded
47%
Both
16%
Degraded
Biology
16%
Impaired Use
21%
Both
4%
Degraded
Biology
16%
Impaired Use
22%
Undegraded
58%
Figure 6. Overall condition of
estuarine waters.
-------
HIGH
Chemical Contamination
in Coastal Sediments*
Background
The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
created the National Status and
Trends (NS&T) Program to monitor
trends of chemical contamination
in coastal waters and to determine
biological responses to contamina-
tion. Since 1984, NOAA has ana-
lyzed seven trace metals and four
organic contaminants (see Table 1)
in sediments, bottom-feeding fish,
and mussels and oysters collected
from almost 300 NS&T sites around
the United States.
The NS&T Program was
designed to describe national distri-
butions of contamination; the pro-
gram was not designed to identify
the most contaminated sites in the
country. Therefore, NOAA selected
monitoring sites that represent large
coastal areas and avoided sites in
small-scale patches of contamina-
tion, or "hot spots." In particular,
the Agency avoided sites that were
located near known wastewater
discharge points.
The selected sites were not
uniformly distributed. Almost half of
the sites were located in urban estu-
aries within 10 miles of population
centers in excess of 100,000 people.
The distribution is based on the
assumption that contamination is
more severe, more variable, and
more likely to cause biological
impacts in urban coastal areas than
in rural areas. The monitoring sites
are also more densely situated in
estuaries than in open shorelines.
Nationwide Distribution
of Contaminants
in Sediment
NOAA detected low concentra-
tions of contaminants in the sedi-
ment samples collected at the vast
majority of sampling sites. The
Agency defined the upper 17% of
observed contaminant concentra-
tions as "high" concentrations of
contaminants. On the national scale,
high contaminant concentrations in
sediment were associated with
urbanized areas of the northeast
States, San Diego, Los Angeles, and
Seattle. High contaminant concen-
trations were relatively rare in most
of the Southeast and along the Gulf
of Mexico coast. This association of
higher sediment contamination with
*The information contained in this highlight was extracted from Coastal Environmen-
tal Quality in the United States, 1990 - Chemical Contamination in Sediment and
Tissues, published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Rockville, Maryland.
-------
highly populated areas is not a sur-
prising result Nevertheless, it is
important to note that these results
come from sites that are considered
to be "representative" of conditions
throughout the U.S. coastal zone.
The high sediment contamina-
tion levels detected at NS&T sites
are generally lower than those
expected to cause sediment toxicity.
NOAA did not find many cases of
biological responses to high sedi-
ment contaminant concentrations,
such as liver tumors in fish. How-
ever, the NS&T program provides
an overall picture of sediment con-
tamination in the Nation's coastal
waters and does not
describe conditions
at individual sites.
Studies of individual
sites have detected
higher concentra-
tions of contami-
nants in sediments
than were detected
at any of the NS&T
sites. Therefore, it is
important for States,
universities, and
local agencies to
conduct site-specific
studies to complement the NS&T
Program and provide the detailed
information needed for local
decisionmaking.
NOAA is beginning to define
temporal trends in contaminant
levels at NS&T sites from annual
analyses of mussels and oysters.
Comparing data collected over a
10-year period or longer indicates
that concentrations of most con-
taminants measured in the NS&T
Program may be decreasing.
With the exception of copper, there
is little evidence that contaminant
concentrations are increasing.
Table 1. Chemicals Measured in NOAA's National
Status and Trends Program
Trace Metals Organic Compounds
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Zinc
Total DDT (DDT, DDE, and ODD)
Total PCBs (sum of 18 types of PCBs)
Total chlordane
Total polychlorinated aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs)
-------
50 Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Ocean Coastal Waters Assessed
by the States
Total ocean coastal waters (includ-
ing Alaska) = 56,121 miles
Including Alaska's ocean shore miles
g 6% Assessed
94% Unassessed
Unassessed 94%
Excluding Alaska's Ocean Coastal Waters
1992 3,398 miles =17%
;§: Total ocean shore miles: 20,121
Unassessed 83%
1990 4,230 miles = 22%
SI Total ocean shore miles: 19,200
1988 3,755 miles = 20%
t£ Total ocean shore miles: 19,200
Of the assessed ocean shore miles:
28% were monitored
47% were evaluated
25% were not specified
Ocean Coastal
Waters
Overall Use Support
Twelve of the 29 coastal States
and Territories assessed only 6% of
the 56,121 miles of ocean coastline
(including Alaska's 36,000 miles of
ocean coastline) or 17% of the
20,121 miles of national ocean
coastline (excluding Alaska) (see
Appendix C, Table C-5, for indi-
vidual State information). Most of
the assessed waters fully support
designated beneficial uses (80%)
(Figure 4-7). Another 7% fully
support uses but are threatened by
pollution. Nine percent of the
assessed shoreline miles partially
support designated uses and 5% do
Figure 4-7
Overall Use Support
in Assessed Ocean Coastal Waters
not support designated uses.
Because only 12 States submitted
use support data, these figures do
not represent the extent of condi-
tions in ocean coastal waters
throughout the 29 coastal States.
Individual Use
Support
Ten of the 29 coastal States
reported attainment of aquatic life
use in ocean coastal waters (see
Appendix C, Table C-6, for indi-
vidual State data). Fewer States re-
ported support of other individual
uses. General conclusions cannot be
drawn from information represent-
ing such a small fraction of the
Nation's ocean coastal waters
(Figure 4-8).
Fully Partial^ Not Not
Supporting Threatened Supporting Supporting Attainable
80% 7% 9% 5%
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-5.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters 51
Causes and Sources
of Impairment
Only 5 of the 29 coastal States
identified individual pollutants
responsible for less than full support
of designated uses in assessed ocean
coastal waters (Appendix C, Table
C-7). These States reported that
pathogen indicators, metals, priority
organics, and unknown toxicity
caused more impairments than any
other contaminants (Figure 4-9).
However, this information applies to
only 1% of the ocean shoreline
along the contiguous States, which
may explain why the data portray
toxic pollutants as a more pervasive
problem in ocean coastal waters
than in estuarine waters. States may
be targeting their limited ocean
coastal sampling in areas with
suspected toxicity problems.
Five States also listed sources of
pollutants preventing designated use
support in 1% of the Nation's ocean
shore miles (Appendix C, Table C-
8). These States identified urban
runoff and storm sewers as the lead-
ing source of contamination in
ocean coastal waters, followed by
land disposal (including septic
tanks), municipal point sources, and
contaminated sediments (Figure
4-10).
Individual Use Support m Ocean Coastal Waters
Number of <
State*
Percent
, - WOt V Nfrt -\--
Oie
Aquatic Life Support
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-6.
-------
52 Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Total ocean shore miles = 20,121 miles
(excluding Alaska)
Total assessed = 3,398 miles
B 17% assessed
ss 83% unassessed
Figure 4-9
Percent of ASSESSED Ocean Shore Miles Impaired
by Pollutants
(239 assessed ocean shore miles impaired)
Pollutants Total
65
Pathogen Indicators
Metals
Priority Organics
Unknown Toxicity
Nutrients
Major
!H Moderate/Minor
H Not Specified
10 20
30 40
Percent
50 60
Based on data contained in Appendix C,.Table C-7.
Figure 4-10
Percent of ASSESSED Ocean Shore Miles Impaired
by Sources of Pollution
(239 assessed ocean shore miles impaired)
Total
59
Pollutants
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Land Disposal
Municipal Point Sources
Contaminated Sediments
Recreational Activities
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
10
20
30 40
Percent
50
60
Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-8.
-------
Chapter Four Estuaries and Coastal Waters S3
-------
-------
Wetlands
Introduction
Wetlands are areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support (and
that under normal circumstances do
support) a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions (Figure 5-1). Wet-
lands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
This is the definition of wetlands as
it appears in the regulations jointly
issued by the Army Corps of Engi-
neers (COE) and the U.S. EPA (33
CFR Part 328.3(b), 40 CFR Part
232.2 (r), and 40 CFR Part
230.3(t)).
A wide variety of wetlands exist
across the country as a result of
regional and local differences in
hydrology, vegetation, water chem-
istry, soils, topography, climate,
and other factors. Wetlands type
is determined primarily by local
hydrology, the unique pattern of
water flow through an area. In
general, there are two broad cat-
egories of wetlands: coastal and
inland wetlands.
With the exception of the Great
Lakes coastal wetlands, coastal wet-
lands are closely linked to estuaries,
where sea water mixes with fresh
water to form an environment of
varying salinity and fluctuating
water levels due to tidal action.
Coastal marshes dominated by
grasses and halophytic (salt-loving)
plants are particularly abundant
along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts
due to the gradual slope of the
land. Mangrove swamps, which are
dominated by halophytic shrubs and
trees, are common in Hawaii, Puerto
Rico, and in southern Florida.
Inland wetlands are most com-
mon on floodplains along rivers and
streams, in isolated depressions sur-
rounded by dry land, and along the
margins of lakes and ponds. Inland
wetlands include marshes and wet
meadows dominated by grasses and
herbs, shrub swamps, and wooded
swamps dominated by trees, such as
hardwood forests along floodplains.
Some regional wetlands types
include the pocosins of North
Figure 5-1
Depiction of Wetland Adjacent to Waterbody
Terrestrial
System
Aquatic
System
Productivity
Low to Medium
Wetlands are often found at the interface between dry terrestrial ecosys-
tems, such as upland forests and grasslands, and permanently wet
aquatic ecosystems, such as lakes, rivers, and oceans.
Reprinted with modifications, by permission, from Mitsch/Gosselink: Wetlands 1986, fig. 1-4,
p. 10. ©1986, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
-------
56 Chapter Five Wetlands
States assessed only 4%
of their wetlands. There-
fore, these use support
figures should not be
extrapolated to represent
national trends in wet-
lands integrity.
Figure 5-2
Carolina, bogs and fens of the
northeastern and north central
States and Alaska, inland saline and
alkaline marshes and riparian wet-
lands of the arid and semiarid West,
vernal pools of California, playa lakes
of the Southwest, cypress-gum
swamps of the South, wet tundra of
Alaska, the South Florida Everglades,
and prairie potholes of Minnesota,
Iowa, and the Dakotas.
Values and Functions
of Wetlands
In their natural condition,
wetlands provide many benefits,
including food and habitat for fish
and wildlife, flood protection,
shoreline erosion control, natural
products for human use, ground
water exchange, water quality
improvement, and opportunities for
recreation, education, and research.
Wetlands are critical to the
survival of a wide variety of animals
Formation of Detritus in a Tidal Salt Marsh
Spartina
(cord grass)
-> Detritus ->> Aquatic
Food Web
^^u.« »'%»% .'P-Xti' .-':':.
\ A It \r ^St'^ i?Jl*-v^p- ^vv-'/X'^
Decomposition processes in salt marshes fragment original detritus (e.g.,
dead Spartina leaves and stems) into smaller pieces. The smaller, bacte-
ria-rich detritus provides more nutrition for animals than live Spartina
tissue. The enriched detritus is the principal food for many aquatic
invertebrates, shellfish, and forage fish.
and plants, including numerous rare
and endangered species. Wetlands
are also primary habitats for many
species, such as the wood duck,
muskrat, and swamp rose. For
others, wetlands provide important
seasonal habitats where food, water,
and cover are plentiful.
Wetlands are among the most
productive natural ecosystems in the
world. They produce great volumes
of food as leaves and stems break
down in the water to form detritus
(Figure 5-2). This enriched material
is the principal food for many
aquatic invertebrates, various shell-
fish, and forage fish that are food
for larger commercial and recre-
ational fish species such as bluefish
and striped bass.
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 agricul-
tural areas, wetlands can help
reduce the likelihood of flood dam-
age to crops. Wetlands within and
upstream of urban areas are espe-
cially valuable for flood protection,
since urban development increases
the rate and volume of surface
water runoff, thereby increasing the
risk of flood damage.
Wetlands are often located
between rivers and high ground
and are therefore able to store flood
waters and reduce channel erosion.
Wetlands bind soil, dampen wave
action, and reduce current velocity
through friction.
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 57
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. For
example, in the Southeast, 96% of
the commercial catch and over 50%
of the recreational harvest are fish
and shellfish that depend on the
estuary-coastal wetlands system.
Waterfowl hunters spend over $300
million annually to harvest wetlands-
dependent birds.
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 receiv-
ing waters.
Wetlands provide considerable
opportunities for popular recre-
ational activities such as hiking, bird
watching, fishing, and boating. An
estimated 50 million people spend
nearly $10 billion each year observ-
ing and photographing wetlands-
dependent birds.
Consequences
of Wetlands Loss
and Degradation
The loss or degradation of wet-
lands can lead to serious conse-
quences, including increased flood-
ing; species decline, extinction, or
deformity; and decline in water
quality. The following are a few
examples of the consequences of
wetlands loss and degradation.
In Massachusetts, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers estimated that
over $17 million of annual flood
damage would result from the
destruction of 8,422 acres of wet-
lands in the Charles River Basin. The
Corps decided to preserve the wet-
lands rather than construct expen-
sive flood control facilities.
Wetlands in the Kesterson Wild-
life Refuge in California were
degraded after being continuously
flooded with agricultural irrigation
return flow waters that contained
high concentrations of selenium.
Largemouth bass, striped bass, and
catfish disappeared from Kesterson
National Wildlife Refuge in 1982. In
the spring of 1983, water-
fowl eggs hatched less fre-
quently and their embryos
suffered more deformities.
Cost estimates for the Refuge
cleanup and restoration of its
wetlands now exceed $5 bil-
lion.
The channelization of the
Kissimmee River in South Florida
in the 1960s disrupted the eco-
logical balance of the entire re-
gion. Marshlands have disap-
peared because channelization
minimizes or prevents natural
spillover of water. Habitat loss has
caused wading bird populations to
drop by 90% and white-tailed deer
populations by 50%. Some argue
that the drainage of wetlands has
disrupted the normal rain cycle,
creating the potential for a long-
term drought in South Florida. The
dechannelization of the Kissimmee
River and the restoration of wetlands
will cost an estimated $280 million.
Forested riparian wetlands play
an important role in reducing nutri-
ent loading into the Chesapeake
Bay. In one study, a riparian forest
in a predominantly agricultural
watershed was shown to remove
approximately 80% of the phospho-
rus and 89% of the nitrogen from
ex*
-------
58 Chapter Five Wetlands
the water before entering a tributary
of the Chesapeake Bay. Destruction
of wetlands that reduce the amount
of nutrients entering the Bay would
lead to an increase in undesirable
weed growth and algae blooms.
When algae decomposes, oxygen is
used up, threatening fish and other
oxygen-dependent life forms.
Figure 5-3
States with over 50% Wetlands Loss
50% to 80% Loss
>80%Loss
Twenty-two States have lost at least 50% of their original wetlands.
Seven of these 22 (California, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Ken-
tucky, and Ohio) have lost more than 80% of their original wetlands.
Source: Dahl, I.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Extent of the Resource
Wetlands Loss in the
United States
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 wet-
lands 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 (see Figure 5-3). 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%).
Massachusetts reported that it
continues to lose an estimated
1,000 acres per year. South Dakota
reported that, since enactment of
the Swampbuster provisions of the
Food Security Act, annual losses of
wetlands in the State due to drain-
age, excavation, and fill has de-
creased by 50%. Wisconsin tracks
individual Section 404 permits, and,
from 1982-1990, a total of 11,800
acres of wetlands were lost from
permitted discharges of dredged or
fill material. A study in southeast
Wisconsin showed that when losses
from impacts not related to the
Section 404 program were consid-
ered, the loss total tripled.
Detailed wetlands maps and
status and trends reports are used to
track the quantity of wetlands
nationally. Detailed maps provide
site-specific information on
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 59
wetlands, and status and trend in-
formation is used to evaluate
changes to the resource in 10-year
intervals based on a subset of the
Nation's wetlands. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) has the statu-
tory mandate to conduct these ef-
forts and has completed inventory
maps for 67% of all States except
Alaska and has digitized 15% for the
lower States (as of the beginning of
1993). The FWS is the primary
source of inventory information for
States. Additionally, some States use
information from the Soil Conserva-
tion Service (SCS) or the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (NOAA). In some instances,
States map their own wetlands or
supplement national inventories
with State inventories.
According to the 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 mid-1980s it was 290,000
acres. Agriculture was responsible
for 87% of the loss from the mid-
1950s to the mid-1970s and 54%
of the loss from the mid-1970s to
the mid-1980s.
Twenty-seven States listed
sources of current wetlands loss in
their 1992 305(b) reports (Figure 5-
4). Agriculture and commercial de-
velopment were cited as the leading
sources of current losses (see
Appendix D, Table D-1, for indi-
vidual State information). Other
losses were due to residential devel-
opment, highway construction,
impoundments, and resource ex-
traction.
Eighteen States and one Terri-
tory reported on efforts to inventory
wetlands. Some of the programs are
designed to augment the FWS's
National Wetlands Inventory, while
others are designed to produce
status and trend information. Some
of the programs have already been
completed and others have been
authorized but not funded.
Massachusetts reported that the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
maps provide a good baseline
for wetlands resources, but
that considerable construction
activity and wetlands impacts
have occurred since the maps
were produced in the late 1970s.
In addition, NWI maps at a
1:24,000 scale do not show many
wetlands smaller than 1 acre in
size. In response, the Massachu-
setts Division of Wetlands and
Waterways, through the Wetlands
Figure 5-4
Sources of Current Wetlands Losses
(27 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture
Commercial Development
Residential Development
Highway Construction
Impoundments
Resource Extraction
industry
Dredge Disposal
Silviculture
Natural
Mosquito Control
Total
21
19
16
14
12
11
11
9
7
7
1
10 20
Number of States Reporting
30
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-1.
-------
60 Chapter Rve Wetlands
Conservancy Program, has initiated
a project to develop more detailed,
larger-scale (1:5000) maps to pro-
vide a baseline of wetlands re-
sources.
Massachusetts'* inventory will be
conducted over the next 5 to 10
years and the Conservancy Program
will map and classify all wetlands in
Massachusetts greater than or equal
to 1/4 acre in size. This geographic
information will be entered into the
Massachusetts Geographic In-
formation System (CIS) and will
be used to compile and auto-
mate highly accurate location
data for hazardous waste sites
and other regulated activities. The
information from the inventory will
be used in conjunction with the
permit tracking system to quantify
wetlands losses.
Delaware reported that it
updated the FWS maps from 1983
for its tidal waters and entered the
information into a database for State
and local agencies to use to make
land use decisions.
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources developed a digitized land
cover/wetlands database for the
entire State based on LANDSAT
satellite imagery taken in 1989-
1990.
Ohio reported that its Depart-
ment of Natural Resources is con-
ducting a statewide wetlands inven-
tory with the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service. The program reviews digital
LANDSAT data and compares them
with digitized soils data from the
SCS. The State completed classifying
the data in 1992 and is now con-
ducting field verification.
Oregon Division of State Lands,
the FWS, and the Portland Metro-
politan Service District completed
inventories and maps at a scale of
1:24,000.
Puerto Rico's Department of
Natural Resources published an
inventory of mangroves in 1989.
The Virgin Islands Department of
Planning and Natural Resources is
conducting an inventory of wetlands
in their territory and, in the interim,
will rely on digitized NWI data.
Pennsylvania reported that it has
been monitoring wetlands status
and trends yearly for its coastal zone
since 1986. Federal and State
enforcement agencies also docu-
ment wetlands losses with annual
helicopter overflights.
Arizona will inventory and classify
riparian areas throughout the State.
The State defines riparian areas as
aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems that
are associated with bodies of waters
or are dependent upon the exist-
ence of surface or subsurface water
drainage.
The Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources received a grant from EPA
to create a statewide wetlands in-
ventory using a GIS and to develop
a statewide classification and rank-
ing model specific to Utah.
Idaho reported that the main
work to determine the extent of its
wetlands is being done by the FWS,
which is currently mapping wet-
lands in Idaho. In addition, they
mentioned some local efforts scat-
tered throughout the State.
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 61
Washington's Department of
Ecology issued grants to 16 local
jurisdictions to perform field wet-
lands inventories. The Department
developed inventory guidance,
including specific inventory meth-
ods, a wetlands function and value
characterization, and a four-tier
rating system. It also initiated the
development of a State-wide wet-
lands database.
Between 1981 and 1986, the
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources conducted a statewide
land cover/use inventory, including
wetlands. The State obtained data
from infrared aerial photographs,
digitized them, and entered them
into the computerized Michigan
Resource Inventory System. The
State classified wetlands into seven
categories, which do not corre-
spond to the Cowardin classification
system developed by the FWS.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department initiated a statewide
habitat mapping project The
project used LANDSAT data and
produced vegetation cover maps
and detailed numerical inventory
data for coastal marshes, swamps,
bottomland hardwoods, and other
forested wetlands.
Florida completed a comprehen-
sive statewide wildlife habitat inven-
tory in 1990, which included several
wetlands types. However, the State
reported that it has not imple-
mented a wetlands inventory pro-
gram required in the Warren S.
Henderson Wetlands Protection Act
passed in 1984 because of funding
limitations. Florida legislation re-
quires reporting of wetlands acreage
affected by permitting activities. The
State tracks wetlands conversions
and mitigation efforts authorized
under the dredge and fill program.
Many violations are reported by the
public.
New York requires regulatory
inventories of tidal wetlands on
Long Island, in New York City, and
in certain counties along the
Hudson River. State statutes also
require inventories of freshwater
wetlands protected by State
law.
South Carolina received a
fiscal year 1991 State wetlands
grant to develop a statewide land
use/land cover inventory using
satellite imagery and Ecological
Monitoring and Assessment Pro-
gram (EMAP) classification. Wet-
lands are a component of this
project
Kentucky is currently digitizing all
NWI maps and Tennessee has
already digitized NWI maps in the
western part of the State where 85
percent of the State's wetlands are
located.
Integrity of the
Resource
Monitoring programs should
and could provide the data needed
to identify integrity degradation in
wetlands and sources of that degra-
dation, but specific wetlands moni-
toring programs are still in their
infancy. Five States described water
quality and habitat monitoring ef-
forts for wetlands. Three of these
States currently monitor some wet-
lands and two States have proposed
or are considering wetlands moni-
-------
62 Chapter Five Wetlands
toring programs. No State is cur-
rently operating a statewide wet-
lands monitoring program.
Massachusetts requested an EPA
wetlands grant to create a standard
operating procedure for collecting
wetlands data. An EPA-funded
project is currently under way to
develop a two-tiered approach for
functional assessment of wetlands.
The State requires project propo-
nents to monitor specific project
elements.
Montana's Water Quality Bureau
will monitor 20 water quality im-
paired wetlands and 40 minimally
impaired wetlands. The data will
establish baseline water qualify and
biological conditions needed to
develop wetlands standards. The
Montana Department of Transporta-
tion will also develop a monitoring
program to judge the effectiveness
of existing wetlands mitigation
projects.
As part of its efforts to develop
water quality standards for wetlands,
the Texas Water Commission
currently monitors water quality,
associated biota, and beneficial
uses at selected minimally im-
pacted coastal wetlands. The
program will be expanded to
monitor other wetlands types as
personnel and funds become avail-
able.
Washington State does not have
an established monitoring program
for assessing use support of wet-
lands, but it has studied plant and
animal habitat diversity in addition
to chemical and physical water qual-
ity parameters in wetlands.
Wisconsin is considering wetlands
initiatives that include monitoring
wetlands communities and habitats.
Designated Use
Support in Wetlands
Only eight States (California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas,
North Carolina, Nevada, and Okla-
homa) provided information on
overall use support in some portion
of their wetlands (see Appendix D,
Table D-2). Half of the 10,516,774
acres of assessed wetlands acreage
fully support their designated uses
(Figure 5-5), but this information
pertains to less than 4 percent of
the total wetlands in the United
States. Of the assessed acres, 98%
are in North Carolina. Therefore, the
use support figures should not be
extrapolated to represent national
trends in wetlands integrity.
More States will assess use sup-
port in wetlands as they develop
standards for wetlands. Many States
are still in the process of developing
wetlands water quality standards,
which provide the baseline for de-
termining beneficial use support (see
Chapter 16). Improved standards
will also provide a firmer foundation
for assessing impairments in wet-
lands in those States already report-
ing use support in wetlands. Hawaii,
for example, reports that it assessed
100% of its wetlands but also re-
ports that it is still developing wet-
lands-specific use classifications and
that few of their existing water qual-
ity standards can be applied to wet-
lands. Wetlands-specific water qual-
ity standards will help eliminate
some of these apparent inconsisten-
cies.
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 63
Figure 5-5
Designated Use Support
in Wetlands
Fully Partially Not Not
Supporting Threatened Supporting Supporting Attainable
50%
-------
64 Chapter Five Wetlands
More information on wetlands
can Ite obtained from
EPA's Wetlands Hotline
at 1-800432-7828,
between 9 am. and 5p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.
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 pollutants
and sources, 14 States identified
pollutants and sources known to
degrade wetlands integrity to some
extent (Figures 5-6 and 5-7). These
States listed sediment as the most
pervasive pollutant impacting wet-
lands, followed by nutrients, water
diversions, and pesticides. Agricul-
ture topped the list of sources
degrading wetlands, followed closely
by development channelization,
road construction, and urban runoff
Figure 5-7
Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity
(14 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture ^^^^^^^1
Development
Channelization
Road Construction
Urban Runoff
Resource Extraction
Landfills
Industrial Runoff
Onslte Systems
Irrigation
Recreation
Municipal Sewage
Silviculture
Industrial Sewage
Oil Extraction
Total
11
9
9
8
7
5
5
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
5 10
Number of States Reporting
15
(see Appendix D, Tables D-3 and
D-4, for individual State informa-
tion).
Summary
Currently, most States are not
equipped to report on the integrity
of their wetlands. Only eight States
reported attainment of designated
uses for wetlands in 1992. National
trends cannot be drawn from this
limited information. This is expected
to change, however, as States adopt
wetlands water quality standards
and enhance their existing monitor-
ing programs to more accurately
assess designated use support in
their wetlands. In addition, EPA's
EMAP for wetlands will provide indi-
cators and procedures that States
may eventually be able to adapt to
their own programs. The EMAP
indicators and procedures may also
provide consistent macroscale infor-
mation on wetlands conditions in
the future.
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-4.
-------
Chapter Five Wetlands 65
-------
-------
Ground Water Quality
Introduction
The protection of our Nation's
ground water resources has received
widespread attention at all levels of
government The need to protect
this vital resource to sustain the life
and health of citizens and the eco-
system is becoming increasingly
clear. Ground water is used for
domestic and municipal drinking
water supplies, irrigation and live-
stock, and industrial processes.
Ground water also supports the
health of related surface water eco-
systems, including lakes, rivers,
streams, wetlands, and estuaries. In
many parts of the Nation, ground
water serves as the only reliable
source of drinking or irrigation
water. However, the quality of this
vital resource is threatened by a
number of land-use activities.
As a result of the growing pub-
lic awareness of the importance of
our ground water resources, EPA has
issued guidance for Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Pro-
grams. These programs will be the
focal point for long-term joint com-
mitments between the Federal Gov-
ernment and the States and will
provide for a more coherent and
comprehensive approach to ground
water protection. The States have
identified a broad range of ground
water contaminants and contamina-
tion sources that threaten the integ-
rity of the resource. Controlling
these sources of contamination and
preventing further contamination of
the resource have become the focus
of a number of State and Federal
programs.
EPA compiled the information
reported in this chapter primarily
from 1992 305(b) State Water Qual-
ity Reports required under the Clean
Water Act EPA requested that
each State provide information
concerning its ground water qual-
ity and protection initiatives, along
with information on sources of
ground water contamination and
the principal contaminants of con-
cern. In addition to the data
reported in the State 305(b) reports,
this chapter provides information
obtained from the U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 92-63
entitled Preliminary Estimates of
Water Use in the United States, 1990
and information reported by other
Federal agencies.
This chapter consists of three
sections that summarize the follow-
ing ground water information: use,
quality, and indicators.
Ground Water Use
Ground water withdrawals in
1990 accounted for approximately
20% of the Nation's total water
withdrawals. Ground water with-
drawals increased significantly
between 1950 and 1980 from 34
billion gallons/day (gal/d) to 83
billion gal/d. The 1990 estimate of
total ground water withdrawals is
-------
68 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
Figure 6-1
IRRIGATION
accounted for more
than 64% of
ground water use
National Ground Water Withdrawals
by Water Use Category
Irrigation 64.2%
Thermoelectric 0.7%
Commercial 1.1%
Mining 2.5%
Livestock 3.4%
Domestic 4.1%
Industrial 5.0%
Public Supply 19.0%
Source: Open-File Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey.
Figure 6-2
Total Fresh Ground Water Withdrawals by State
(billion gal/d)
0-99
100-499
500 - 999
1,000-4,999
5,000 - 15,000
Source: Open-File Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey.
81 billion gal/d. This is consistent
with a general decrease in the rate
of increase in ground water with-
drawals from 1970 to 1980 and
with a decrease in total ground
water withdrawals from 1985 to
1990. While public, domestic, and
commercial water supply withdraw-
als and withdrawals for mining and
thermoelectric power continued to
increase between 1985 and 1990,
withdrawals for irrigation and indus-
trial supply declined.
Nationally, ground water pro-
vides drinking water for 53% of the
total population and nearly all of the
rural population. National ground
water withdrawals by water use
category are shown in Figure 6-1.
Irrigation accounts for the largest
percentage of ground water with-
drawals with approximately 51 bil-
lion gal/d or 64% of total withdraw-
als. Public water supplies account for
approximately 19% of the total
ground water withdrawals. Indus-
trial, domestic, livestock, mining,
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 69
commercial, and thermoelectric
withdrawals account for a total of
17% of withdrawals.
Figure 6-2 depicts the total fresh
ground water withdrawals by State.
Nine States accounted for 72% of
the Nation's total ground water use.
In 1990-1991, California withdrew a
total of 14.6 billion gal/d, approxi-
mately 10.7 billion gal/d of which
was used for irrigation. Idaho and
Texas withdrew 7.6 and 7.4 billion
gal/d, with 6.6 and 5.6 billion gal/d,
respectively, used for irrigation.
Ground water withdrawals from
Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, and
Nebraska were used primarily for
irrigation accounting for 92% of
the withdrawals. The remaining
two States were Florida and Ari-
zona; 72% of Arizona's ground
water was used for irrigation. Irri-
gation and public water supply
combined account for 78% of with
drawals in Florida.
Ground water is withdrawn for
a number of purposes, which vary
considerably depending on the
Figure 6-3
Fresh Ground Water Withdrawals by Water Use Category
O
Drinking Water Supply
Agricultural Supply
Industrial/Commercial Supply
Mining and Thermoelectric Supply
Source: Open-Hie Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey.
-------
70 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
29
STATES
judged their ground
water quality to be
good or excellent
region. Fresh ground water
withdrawal with breakdowns of
water use categories is shown in
Figure 6-3. In the East and South,
withdrawals are used primarily for
industrial, domestic, commercial,
and public water supply purposes.
In the West, most ground water is
withdrawn for agricultural supply.
Ground Water Quality
For the 1992 Section 305(b)
State Water Quality Reports, EPA
requested that States use best pro-
fessional judgment to assess the
Figure 6-4
Overall Ground Water Quality
Excellent *
Good or Adequate'
Variable or Poor*
Not Indicated
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Based on 38 States reporting.
overall quality of their ground water.
Overall, the Nation's ground water
quality is good to excellent (Figure
6-4). Thirty-eight States made some
judgment concerning the quality of
their ground water: 11 States
judged their ground water quality to
be excellent, 18 States judged their
ground water quality to be good,
and 9 States repotted that their
overall ground water quality was
variable or poor. One problem in
assessing national ground water
quality trends stems from the lack of
consistent and reliable ground water
quality indicators. While the overall
quality of the Nation's ground water
resource appears to be good, local
ground water contamination prob-
lems are widespread in every State.
In 1985, the National Gover-
nor's Association (NCA) began con-
ducting biennial surveys to identify
State restrictions imposed on con-
taminated or hazardous sites. In
1992, the NCA published a report
entitled Restrictions Imposed on Con-
taminated Sites: A Status of State
Actions, covering information
obtained during the 1991 survey.
This report cites 1,295 incidents of
ground water use restrictions
imposed at contaminated sites, an
increase of 37% from the number
reported in 1989 (948 incidents)
and nearly four times the number
reported in 1987 (331 incidents).
The imposed use restrictions include
restricted ground water use for
drinking, the need for treatment or
blending of contaminated ground
water to meet drinking water stan-
dards, restrictions on ground water
use for irrigation or food processing
purposes, and the issuance of
ground water use advisories.
The NCA also gathered infor-
mation on State well closings in an
effort to gain insight into ground
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 71
water quality around contaminated
sites. The 1992 report lists a total of
14,324 well closures and restrictions,
based on State responses to a sur-
vey question concerning restrictions
imposed on contaminated sites. The
primary ground water contaminants
that resulted in the reported well
closures include benzene, trichloro-
ethylene, tetrachloroethylene, other
volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
ethylene dibromide, fertilizers, and
nitrates.
Many States are undertaking
studies and programs to better un-
derstand the quality of their ground
water, to identify potential contami-
nation sources, and to determine
ways to protect the resource from
further contamination. Twenty-six
States reported that they have con-
ducted statewide ground water
monitoring studies that focus on
one or more contaminants, and an
additional six States reported on
statewide programs that are under
development The contaminants
assessed in these large-scale moni-
toring efforts include pesticides,
nitrates, volatile organic chemicals,
radionuclides, chloride, iron, and
bacteria.
Eighteen States reported on
regional ground water studies con-
ducted in sensitive ground water
basins or other areas of concern.
Contaminants of concern in these
regional studies include pesticides,
nitrates, volatile organic chemicals,
bacteria, chloride, and radionuclides.
Reported underground chemical
storage or releases and waste dis-
posal sites in all States require moni-
toring under a number of Federal
statutes. In addition, 25 States re-
ported on site-specific monitoring
efforts surrounding contamination
point sources such as landfills,
underground fuel and chemical
storage facilities, hazardous waste
surface impoundments, mining sites,
and spray irrigation sites. The princi-
pal contaminants of concern at
these monitoring sites are petroleum
hydrocarbons, volatile organic
chemicals, acidic mine drainage,
metals, and nutrients.
Overview of
Contamination Sources
EPA requested that the States
identify and rank the severity of
sources of ground water contami-
nation in their jurisdiction. The rank-
ing was based on the best
professional judgment of State
Figure 6-5
Sources of Contamination
(Number of States Reporting)
Other Major
Sources (40)
Abandoned Hazardous
Waste Sites (37)
Surface
Impoundments (33)
Regulated
Hazardous Waste
Sites (32)
Injection Wells
(28)
Land Application/
Treatment (24)
Salt Water Intrusion
(24)
Oil & Gas
Brine Pits
(19)
26
STATES
reported that they
conducted statewide
ground water
monitoring studies
of one or more
contaminants.
Septic Tanks
(43)
Road
Salting
Agricultural Activities
(44)
Underground
Storage Tanks
(50)
Other Landfills
(32)
Industrial Landfills
(38)
Municipal Landfills
(41)
Aboveground
Storage Tanks
(12)
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
72 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
UNDER-
GROUND
STORAGE
TANKS
were cited by 39 States
as the most common
source of ground water
contamination.
ground water experts and included
consideration of many factors such
as: findings of the State's ground
water protection strategy or related
studies, evaluations of the popula-
tion at risk from contaminated
drinking water, the number or loca-
tion of contamination sources,
evaluations of the risk posed to
human health or the environment,
and the suitability of existing con-
trols.
Figure 6-5 summarizes the ma-
jor sources of contamination listed
by the 49 States reporting. The
most frequently cited sources of
contamination were underground
storage tanks, landfills, agricultural
activities, and septic tanks. Approxi-
mately two-thirds of the States listed
landfills, including municipal, indus-
trial, and other types of landfills, as
a significant source of ground water
contamination, and more than 75
percent of the States reported that
Figure 6-6
Highest Priority Contamination Sources
Sources
Underground Storage Tanks
Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites
Municipal Landfills
Agricultural Activities
Septic Tanks
Other Major Sources
Surface Impoundments
Other Landfills
Regulated Hazardous Waste Sites
Industrial Landfills
Aboveground Storage Tanks
Injection Wells
Oil & Gas Brine Pits
Land Application/Treatment
Salt Water Intrusion
Total
39
17
16
15
14
9
7
6
6
5
5
5
3
2
1
10
20
30
40
50
Number of States and Territories Reporting Sources
as one of Top 3 Priorities
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 73
agricultural activities posed a signifi-
cant threat to ground water quality.
In addition to the sources high-
lighted in Figure 6-5, the States
noted contamination from hazard-
ous material spills, mining activities,
urban and stormwater runoff, aban-
doned or improperly constructed
water wells, and agricultural drain-
age wells.
Figure 6-6 depicts the highest
priority contamination sources as
ranked by the States. Underground
storage tanks continue to be the
most frequently ranked high-priority
contamination source. Abandoned
hazardous waste sites, municipal
landfills, agricultural activities, and
septic tanks were the next most
frequently reported sources. These
rankings were relatively unchanged
from the 1990 State reports. Surface
impoundments, landfills, and other
chemical or waste storage facilities
also continue to be sources of con-
cern in the States.
Overview of
Contaminants
EPA also requested that the
States identify the most prevalent
contaminants observed in their
ground water (see Figure 6-7). Ni-
trates were identified as a principal
ground water contaminant by 49
States, an increase of five States
from the 1990 reports. The next
most frequently reported contami-
nants were volatile organic sub-
stances, petroleum products, metals,
and pesticides. These contaminants
were also reported as most fre-
quently observed in ground water in
1990. Fluoride was reported as a
principal contaminant by 21 States
in 1990, but was reported by only
20 States in 1992. Among the other
contaminants reported by States
were bacteria, radionuclides, dis-
solved inorganics, septage and sew-
age, and acids.
Indicators of Ground
Water Quality
While vast amounts of ground
water quality data are being col-
lected at the community, regional,
State, and national levels, there re-
mains a growing need to standard-
ize the collection of data on key
environmental indicators. These data
will allow the characterization of
trends in ground water quality over
space and time. The EPA Office of
Figure 6-7
Substances Contaminating Ground Water
(Number of States Reporting)
49
STATES
identified nitrates as
a principal ground
water contaminant.
Other Substances
(26)
Radioactive Material
(23)
Nitrates
(49)
Synthetic Organic
Substances
(36)
Pesticides
(43)
Metals
(45)
Other Agricultural
Chemicals
(23)
Petroleum
Products
(46)
Brine/Salinity Arsenic
(37) (28)
Volatile
Organic
Substances
(48)
Other Inorganic
Substances
Fluoride (15)
(20)
-------
Are Pesticides Affecting
Ground Water Quality?
Case Study of the Delmarva Peninsula
The USCS began a National
Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
case study of the Delmarva Penin-
sula in 1986. The area of study cov-
ers 6,050 square miles in-
cluding most of Delaware
and the entire eastern shore
of Maryland and Virginia.
Nearly half of the land is
used for farming; inorganic
and organic fertilizers and
nearly 3 million pounds of
herbicides, insecticides, and
fungicides are used annually
in this area. The potential
movement of these chemi-
cals into ground water is a
concern of the 600,000
residents who rely solely on
ground water for both
drinking and irrigation pur-
poses.
The USCS sampled over
235 wells and analyzed the
samples for nitrate, pesti-
cides, and other dissolved
Area with little nitrate
Area with detectable concentrations
of nitrate, generally less than 10
mg/L
Area with detectable concentrations
of nitrate, commonly near or
exceeding 10 mg/L
constituents. Nitrate concentrations
in 15% of the wells in the water
table aquifer exceeded the maxi-
mum contaminant level (MCL) of
10 milligrams/liter (mg/L) set by the
EPA. Concentrations of pesticides
were generally low; 94% of the
samples with detectable limits of
pesticides were below the MCL set
by the EPA. The pattern of con-
tamination was found to correlate
with crop type, geology, soils, land
use, and ground water flow. An
understanding of these factors will
help to identify areas where future
contamination is most likely to
occur. One direct result of this study
is the development and implemen-
tation of management and protec-
tion strategies by local, State, and
Federal agencies. These strategies
center on monitoring and protect-
ing surface and ground water from
future nitrate and pesticide contami-
nation.
For additional information, see:
Are Fertilizers and Pesticides in the
Ground Water? A Case Study of the
Delmarva Peninsula, Delaware,
Maryland, and Virginia. USCS Circu-
lar 1080.
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 75
Ground Water and Drinking Water
continues to work with States and
others in the ground water commu-
nity to refine a series of indicators.
Preliminary indicators that have
been developed to track progress
and trends in ground water protec-
tion efforts at the State and national
levels are:
Maximum contaminant level
(MCL) violations in public drinking
water systems supplied by ground
water, and the population at risk
from these violations
Extent of ground water contami-
nation resulting from hazardous
waste sites, and the population at
risk from exposure to this contami-
nation
Detections and levels of VOCs in
ground water
Detections and levels of nitrates
in ground water
Extent of teachable agricultural
pesticide use.
In its guidelines for preparation
of the 1992 State 305(b) reports,
the EPA encouraged States to use
one or more of these indicators,
where data were available, as part of
their 305(b) reporting. Further guid-
ance on the reporting of ground
water indicators will be available for
the preparation of 1994 State
305(b) reports.
Thirty-five States provided infor-
mation on one or more of the re-
quested ground water indicators.
Twenty-eight of the States reporting
provided information on nitrates,
pesticides, or VOC detections from
regional or local ground water
monitoring studies. Other indicator
parameters reported by several
States included: salinity, bacteria,
inorganic constituents, and radioac-
tivity levels. The most in-depth indi-
cation of ground water quality was
provided through descriptions of
State monitoring programs. Some of
these programs are described in the
following section.
State Ground Water
Monitoring Programs
A number of States have under-
taken monitoring initiatives that are
aimed at characterizing the overall
quality of their ground water re-
sources. Statewide initiatives com-
monly include the establishment of
ambient monitoring networks.
Many of these networks include
private domestic and agricultural
wells, in addition to ground wa-
ter monitoring wells maintained
by USGS or the States. In addition,
concern over the effects of agricul-
tural land use on ground water
resources has prompted a number
of States to monitor shallow and
alluvial aquifers for nitrates and pes-
ticides. Many States also maintain
regional monitoring networks that
focus on sensitive areas or vulner-
able aquifers. Site-specific monitor-
ing efforts were reported by most
States. These studies typically focus
on known or suspected contamina-
tion sources. The range of ground
water monitoring initiatives reported
by the States is demonstrated by
the following approaches.
-------
76 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
Missouri
New Jersey
Missouri relies on several activi-
ties to assist in forming a statewide
characterization of ground water
quality. Public drinking water wells
serve about half the area of the
State and draw from four aquifers
(the confined and the unconfined
Ozark bedrock aquifers of southern
Missouri, and the unconsolidated
alluvial aquifers of Cretaceous and
Quaternary age in the Missouri
Bootheel aquifer). The wells are
sampled every 3 years for a large list
of water quality constituents and
will be tested more frequently as
cities begin meeting monitoring
requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act
For many years, the State has
also provided free bacterial and
nitrate testing for many private wells
statewide. Since 1986, special stud-
ies by the USCS, the Missouri De-
partment of Health, and other stud-
ies by the University of Missouri and
the Department of Natural Re-
sources have sampled several hun-
dred private wells for pesticides and
nitrates, giving an excellent profile
of farm chemical levels in private
wells in agricultural areas of the
State.
In addition to drinking water
wells, a number of monitoring wells,
usually associated with the cleanup
of surface or ground water contami-
nation sites, are used to define and
characterize ground water problems.
The prevalence of naturally oc-
curring radionuclides in the rock
formations in several areas of New
Jersey has prompted a number of
regional studies of well water. In
1987, 389 wells tapping crystalline
rock aquifers in the Reading Prong
and Newark Basin areas were moni-
tored for radionuclides. In the Read-
ing Prong area, radon levels in well
water ranged from 36 to 24,000
picocuries per liter (pCi/L), and ap-
proximately 5% of the wells
sampled were found to have radon
levels that exceeded 10,000 pCi/L
In the Newark Basin area, radon
levels in well water ranged from
approximately 70 to 16,000 pCi/L,
with the highest concentrations of
radionuclides found in wells tapping
a narrow uranium-rich layer of the
aquifer. A 1990 study of the Kirk-
wood-Cohansey aquifer in the
southern New Jersey Coastal Plain
has also revealed the presence of
radionuclides in well water. Prelimi-
nary findings indicate that 26% of
the 82 wells sampled exceeded the
health standards for radium.
In a study to determine whether
agricultural chemicals have adversely
affected ground water quality, 120
domestic, irrigation, and public wa-
ter supply wells were sampled in 10
Coastal Plain counties. Residues of
22 pesticides and 3 pesticide me-
tabolites were detected in these
wells, and dissolved nitrate concen-
trations were found to exceed
health standards in 24% of the wells
sampled. In another study, the ef-
fects of heavy ground water with-
drawals from the New Jersey Coastal
Plain aquifer system and a buried
valley aquifer system in the Central
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 77
Passaic River basin were evaluated.
Investigations have revealed the
increased potential for saltwater
intrusion in several areas of the New
jersey Coastal Plain and the decrease
in the quantity of available potable
ground water supplies. A
three-dimensional computer model
is being used to help predict the
response of the Central Passaic River
aquifer system to future ground
water withdrawals.
New Mexico
Ground water quality is of para-
mount concern in New Mexico,
since approximately 88% of the
population of the State relies on
ground water for their drinking wa-
ter supplies. The State maintains a
comprehensive monitoring program
for both community and noncom-
munity water systems that rely on
ground water. The 495 noncom-
munity systems in New Mexico are
sampled every 4 years to monitor
the levels of nitrates. In addition, the
596 community ground water sys-
tems are sampled every 3 years for
nitrates, fluoride, and trace elements
and every 4 years for radiological
parameters. Some systems located
in vulnerable areas are also sampled
every 3 to 5 years for a suite of 59
potential contaminants.
New Mexico also sponsors an
outreach program to benefit private
well owners. The State organizes
water fairs where citizens may bring
samples from private wells for free
testing in a mobile laboratory. The
State maintains a database of test
results and conducts followup test-
ing of wells that exceed levels of
concern for detected contaminants.
In addition, the State maintains an
inventory of all known instances of
ground water contamination. The
inventory covers contamination
incidents dating from 1927 to the
present A total of 177 public water
supply wells and 1,465 private wells
have been affected by the 1,745
incidents of contamination recorded
through early 1992. Most of the
affected public water supply wells
have been removed from use, and
some level of remediation has been
undertaken or is planned in 149 of
the other contamination incidents.
-------
HJCHUG
HT HIGHLIGHT
Are Pesticides Affecting
Ground Water Quality?
Findings of the National Survey
of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells
The National Survey of Pesti-
cides in Drinking Water Wells was a
joint project of EPA's Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water
(OGWDW) and Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP). It was the first
national study of pesticides, pesticide
degradates, and nitrates in drinking
water wells. Information on the
construction of rural domestic and
community supply wells was also
collected. The study was designed
with two principal objectives:
To determine the frequency of
occurrence and concentration of
pesticides and nitrates in drinking
water wells nationally
To relate the occurrence of
pesticides and nitrates in drinking
water wells to agronomic and
hydrogeologic factors.
It is estimated that approxi-
mately 10,500,000 rural domestic
wells (RDWs) and 94,600 commu-
nity water system (CWS) wells
supply drinking water in the United
States. Approximately 1% of these
wells may exceed a health-based
limit for at least one pesticide.
EPA estimates that about 10%
of CWS wells contain detectable
levels of one or more pesticides, and
approximately 7% of these wells
may exceed an established maxi-
mum contaminant level (MCL) or
health advisory for the detected
contaminant. In contrast, it was
estimated that about 4% of RDWs
may contain detectable levels of one
or more pesticides, with approxi-
mately 28% of these wells exceed-
ing a health-based limit. Approxi-
mately 150,000 people obtain water
from RDWs that exceed health-
based levels for at least one pesti-
cide.
In the survey, the most
frequently detected pesticide was a
metabolite of dacthal, an herbicide
primarily used on turf. The dacthal
metabolite was generally detected at
concentrations below the health-
based action level. The only pesti-
cides detected at concentrations
that exceeded action levels were
alachlor, atrazine, 1,2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane (DBCP), ethylene
dibromide (EDB), and lindane.
Alachlor and atrazine are herbicides,
DBCP and EDB are nematocides,
and lindane is an insecticide.
EPA concluded that the overall
chance that a given drinking water
-------
w
_.
well has exceeded a level of concern
for a pesticide is low. However, if
pesticide residues are present in
individual wells, they are likely to be
present at high levels that pose a
health risk. In contrast it was esti-
mated that approximately 52% of
the RDWs and 57% of CWSs con-
tain detectable levels of nitrates,
with approximately 2% of RDWs
and 1% of CWSs exceeding the
health-based limits for nitrates.
Among the major findings of
the survey were associations
between the occurrence of pesti-
cides and nitrates in drinking water
wells and individual agronomic and
hydrogeologic factors. These find-
ings include
Detections of 1,2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane (DBCP) acid metab-
olites were related to the rate of
DCPA use by urban applicators and
golf courses.
At the county level, the concen-
trations of nitrates in wells was posi-
tively correlated with the amount of
fertilizer sold in that county.
-
HiGHUGH^f|~j ipMT HIGHLIGHT
Detections of nitrates were less
likely in areas with high levels of
precipitation.
Shallow water wells were corre-
lated with more frequent detections
of pesticides and nitrates.
Older wells were correlated with
more frequent detections of pesti-
cides and nitrates.
In conclusion, EPA recommends
that well owners who know or
suspect that their well is affected by
pesticides or nitrates have the water
tested. Because of the many factors
that may influence the contamina-
tion of drinking water wells, EPA
recommends an approach that
focuses on pollution prevention.
Among the steps that should be
considered to protect the Nation's
ground water resources are appro-
priate applications of pesticides and
fertilizers, site-specific assessments to
accurately target vulnerable ground
water supplies, identification and
protection of ground water recharge
areas and wellhead areas, more
careful use of flood irrigation, and
continued efforts to identify prob-
lem pesticides.
'
^V .
-
%
-
%
..
V
:. vv
,_
"
,, V X :
-------
80 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality
Oklahoma
In 1983, the State established a
ground water quality monitoring
network covering 21 major ground
water basins in Oklahoma. This net-
work provides information on ambi-
ent ground water quality in the
State. The monitoring network is
being used to characterize the cur-
rent status of the State's ground
water resources and to identify
changes in ground water quality
over time. The accuracy of well loca-
tion and completion information has
been evaluated for all wells included
in the monitoring network, and a
vulnerability assessment was com-
pleted for each network well in
1989. In 1990, an additional 224
domestic, irrigation, stock, and mu-
nicipal water wells were included in
the network. The ground water
quality monitoring network is
sampled annually.
Public drinking water wells are
routinely monitored for nitrates,
bacteria, VOCs, and other drinking
water parameters. The State main-
tains a database of MCL violations
for these wells that includes the
name and county of the water sup-
ply system, the aquifer tapped by
the contaminated well, and the
confirmation date for each violation.
In addition, the State performs
analyses of private water supplies at
the request of private citizens. The
State has also undertaken a 3-year
sampling project to identity private
drinking water wells at risk from
agricultural contamination. The
project is scheduled to be com-
pleted in 1994 and will address a
total of 200 sites.
-------
Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 81
-------
-------
Public Health and
Aquatic Life Concerns
Water pollution threatens public
health by contaminating seafood,
drinking water supplies, and recre-
ational waters with toxic substances
as well as pathogenic viruses and
bacteria, which cause disease.
Aquatic organisms tolerate most
bacteria and viruses pathogenic to
humans, but many aquatic organ-
isms are more sensitive to toxic
substances than humans are.
Aquatic organisms also suffer if
chemical and physical conditions
exceed an acceptable range. Impor-
tant chemical and physical condi-
tions include acidity, dissolved oxy-
gen concentration, and
temperature.
Public Health
Concerns
Toxic Pollutants
Health officials link waterbome
toxic pollutants, such as mercury,
dioxin, PCBs, and some pesticides
with human birth defects, cancer,
neurological disorders, and kidney
ailments. Once discharged to sur-
face waters, these toxicants persist
in the sediments and contaminate
the food chain and the overlying
water. Waterbome toxicants can
enter human systems via ingestion
of contaminated fish, shellfish, or
drinking water supplies. Swimmers
may also swallow toxic substances
or absorb toxic pollutants through
skin exposure in contaminated rec-
reational waters. Fish and shellfish
contamination usually poses a
greater human health risk than does
contaminated drinking water or
recreational waters because fish and
shellfish concentrate many toxic
substances in their tissues. As a
result, the concentration of toxicants
within fish and shellfish tissues may
be one million times the concentra-
tion of toxicants in the surrounding
waters.
Fish Consumption
Advisories
States issue fish consump-
tion advisories to protect the
public from ingesting harmful
quantities of toxic pollutants in
contaminated fish and shellfish.
In general, advisories recom-
mend that the public limit the
quantity and frequency of fish
consumption from specific
waterbodies. The States tailor
individual advisories to minimize
health risks based on contaminant
data collected in their fish tissue
sampling programs. Advisories may
completely ban fish consumption in
severely polluted waters or limit fish
consumption to several meals per
month or year in cases of less severe
contamination. Advisories may tar-
get a subpopulation at risk (such as
children, pregnant women, or
NO
FISHING
-------
84 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Figure 7-1
Fish Consumption Advisories in the United States
^-) American Samoa
Number of Advisories in Effect (1993)
0
1-10
11-25
26-50
51-100
>100
Note: States that perform routine fish tissue analysis (such as the Great Lakes States) will
detect more cases of fish contamination and issue more advisories than States with less
rigorous fish sampling programs.
Based on data contained in the EPA Fish Consumption Advisory Database as of September
1993 (see Appendix E, Table E-1, for individual State data).
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 85
nursing mothers), specific fish spe-
cies that concentrate toxic pollutants
in their flesh, or larger fish within a
species that may have accumulated
higher concentrations of a pollutant
over a longer lifetime than a smaller
(i.e., younger) fish.
EPA evaluates the national ex-
tent of toxic contamination in fish
and shellfish by counting the total
number of waterbodies with con-
sumption advisories in effect For
this year's Report to Congress, EPA
used information from its new Fish
Consumption Advisory Database to
tabulate the number of State adviso-
ries. EPA built the database to cen-
tralize fish consumption advisory
information separately maintained in
various State agencies and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
The 1993 EPA Fish Consump-
tion Advisory Database listed 1,279
advisories in effect in 47 States (Fig-
ure 7-1). The database counts one
advisory per waterbody, regardless
of the number of species affected
and the number of toxic pollutants
detected at dangerous concentra-
tions in fish sampled within a
waterbody (see Appendix E, Table
E-1, for individual State data).
EPA cannot identify States with
a high proportion of toxic contami-
nation based solely on the number
of fish consumption advisories issued
by each State. National statistics on
advisories are difficult to interpret
because the intensity and coverage
of State monitoring programs vary
widely from State to State. Simply
comparing the total number of fish
advisories in each State unfairly
penalizes States with superior toxi-
cants monitoring programs that
often use strict criteria for issuing
consumption warnings. The EPA has
advocated consistent criteria and
methods for issuing fish consump-
tion advisories in several publications
released from 1991 to 1993 (see
sidebar, page 89).
Mercury, PCBs, chlordane,
dioxins, and DDT (with its
byproducts) caused more than
93% of the fish consumption advi-
sories in 1993 (Figure 7-2). EPA
and the States have banned or
restricted the use of PCBs, chlor-
dane, and DDT for over a decade,
yet these organochlorine com-
pounds persist in the sediments and
still threaten public health.
Because some fish species
migrate considerable distances, it is
often difficult to identify sources of
pollutants causing fish consumption
advisories. Migratory fish may be
exposed to toxic pollutants in the
sediments and water column or
may ingest toxic contaminants con-
centrated in prey miles from the
sampling areas where they are col-
lected. In this reporting period, only
Figure 7-2
Pollutants Causing Fish Consumption Advisories
93%
of advisories were
caused by mercury,
PCBs, chlordane,
dioxins, and DDT
and its byproducts.
Pollutants
Mercury
PCBs
Chlordane
Dioxins
DDT/DDD/DDE I
Pesticides
I
Number of
Advisories
899
319
96
59
29
14
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Number of Advisories Issued for Each Pollutant
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-2.
-------
HICH!
HJCHUCHT
The National Study of Chemical
Residues in Fish (NSCRF)
This study, previously referred
to as the National Bioaccumulation
Study, was a one-time screening
study undertaken by EPA to deter-
mine the prevalence of selected
bioaccumulative pollutants in fish
and identify sources of these pollut-
ants. The NSCRF study began in
1986 as an outgrowth of the EPA's
National Dioxin Study, a nationwide
investigation of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-
TCDD) contamination in soil, water,
sediment, air, and fish. Some of the
highest concentrations of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD detected in the National
Dioxin Study were found in fish
tissue. EPA's concern that there may
be other toxic pollutants
bioaccumulating in fish that may
pose a risk to human health was the
primary reason for conducting the
NSCRF. Additionally, this study was
conducted in response to a petition
from the Environmental Defense
Fund and the National Wildlife Fed-
eration in which EPA committed to
conducting a fish contaminant
monitoring survey of the occurrence
of chlorinated dibenzodioxins and
dibenzofurans. Fish and other
aquatic biota serve as sentinels that
indicate whether substances are
bioaccumulating and that signal
acutely toxic conditions and stresses,
such as sublethal toxicity, particu-
larly due to interactions among
chemicals.
Toxic pollutants were selected
for analysis in the NSCRF based
on their
potential to bioaccumulate in fish
potential for causing human
health effects
persistence in the environment
detectability in fish tissue.
An initial list of 403 pollutants
was screened, resulting in a final list
of 60 compounds. These com-
pounds included 15 dioxins and
furans, 10 polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), 21 pesticides/herbicides,
mercury, biphenyl, and 12 other
organic compounds.
Three to five adult fish of the
same species and of similar size
were collected at each site. At most
locations, both a composite sample
of a bottom-feeding fish species
(e.g., carp, channel catfish, white
sucker) and a composite sample of a
predatory gamefish (e.g., walleye,
largemouth bass, smallmouth bass)
were collected. Although 119 differ-
ent finfish species were collected,
-------
most of the fish belonged to only
14 different species.
Fish were collected at a total of
388 unique sites throughout the
United States selected by EPA Re-
gional and State staff. The types of
sites sampled included 315 targeted
sites near potential point or
nonpoint sources of pollution where
contamination of fish was suspected,
34 background sites where chemical
contamination was not
anticipated, and 39
sites that were a subset
of sites from the United
States Geologic Survey
NASQAN network (see
map).
Target sites were
selected based on prox-
imity to potential
sources. Fish and other
aquatic biota were
sampled near industrial
discharges, urban areas,
or areas receiving agri-
cultural runoff. The
number of sites was not
allocated equally
among types of
sources. Some of the
targeted sites were
selected based on
potential chlorinated
dioxin and furan
contamination. These sites included
areas near pulp and paper mills
using chlorine to bleach pulp, wood
preservative facilities, users of poly-
chlorinated phenols and phenox-
ides, PCB dischargers, organic
chemical and pesticide manufactur-
ers, and combustion sources (sew-
age sludge and municipal refuse
incinerators). More sites with
HIGHLIGHT
Location of Bioaccumulation Study
Sampling Sites
£4 PR
-------
potential dioxin/furan contamina-
tion were selected than any other
chemical groups to follow up on
results of the National Dioxin Study.
Fish samples were analyzed at
the EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory (ERL) in Duluth, Minne-
sota. In general, the bottom-feeding
species were analyzed as whole-
body samples to determine the
occurrence of the study chemicals
and the gamefish were analyzed as
fillets to indicate the potential risks
to human health from fish con-
sumption.
The study revealed that seven
dioxins/furans/congeners were
detected in samples from more than
50% of the sites surveyed. Pulp and
paper mills using a chlorine-
bleaching process were identified as
the dominant source of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD and 2,3,7,8,-tetrachloro-
dibenzofuran (2,3,7,8-TCDF).
Statistical correlation analyses were
less definitive for the other dioxins/
furans in that results showed no
dominant source for any of these
chemicals.
The study also showed that
six pesticides, PCBs, three other
industrial organic chemicals, and
mercury were detected at more
than 50% of the sites surveyed.
Results for the other 45 chemicals
studied showed no single dominant
source for any of these chemicals.
Although these compounds showed
no dominant source, a number of
observations can be made from
review of the data. Two such
observations involve pesticides and
PCBs. A comparison of 15 agricul-
tural and 20 background sites for 10
of the pesticides evaluated showed
no significant differences between
these categories. This same compari-
son for four other pesticides (DDE,
nonachlor, chlordane, and lindane)
showed that fish contamination
levels were significantly higher at
sites near agricultural sources. The
median PCB concentration for the
20 background sites was below
detection compared with values of
213 to 525 parts per billion for in-
dustrial/urban sites, paper mills us-
ing chlorine, refinery/other industry
sites, nonchlorine paper mills, and
Superfund sites.
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 89
23 States identified specific sources
of toxicants causing fish consump-
tion advisories (Figure 7-3). These
States attributed the largest number
of fishing restrictions to industrial
discharges, agriculture, urban runoff,
and combined sewer overflows (see
Appendix E, Table E-3, for individual
State data).
At this time, EPA cannot detect
trends in toxic contamination of fish
and shellfish because the States have
not established a baseline inventory
of advisories and the contaminant
levels that trigger advisories may
vary from State to State. The States
inevitably issue new advisories as
they sample more sites and identify
toxic contamination that previously
went undetected.
Drinking Water
Restrictions
Four States reported cases of
surface drinking water supply
closures and advisories due to
priority pollutant chemicals, oil, and
cyanide (see Appendix E, Table E-4,
for individual State data). Chemical
plant spills, an oil spill at a power
plant and priority pollutants from
hazardous waste disposal sites
caused the closures.
Recreational Restrictions
Three States listed contact
recreation restrictions (such as beach
closures) due to toxics. Tennessee
closed two sites where toxicants
were detected in the sediment and
water column. Ohio restricted access
to seven recreational sites with
elevated concentrations of PCBs,
dioxin, mirex, chlordane, and
EPA Publications About Fish Consumption Advisories
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
Advisories. Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis. 1993. EPA 823/R-93-
002, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
Proceedings from National Workshop on PCBs in Fish Tissue, May 11-12,
1993* In preparation. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Volume 1. 1992. EPA 823/
R-92-008a. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Volume 2. 1992. EPA 823/
R-92-008b. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
Consumption Surveys for Fish and Shellfish: A Review and Analysis of
Survey Methods. EPA 822/R-92-004. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Near Coastal
Program Laboratory Methods for Filleting and Compositing Fish for Organk
andlnorgank Contaminant Analyses. 1991. Draft Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, Rl.
Figure 7-3
Sources of Contaminants Causing
Fishing Advisories
(23 States Reporting)
Sources
Industrial
Discharges
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Resource
Extraction
Natural
Atmospheric
Deposition
Number of
Advisories
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80
Number of Advisories Attributed to Each Source
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-3.
-------
90 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). Louisiana reported that
abandoned hazardous waste sites
impacted recreational waters (see
Appendix E, Table E-5, for individual
State data).
Bacterial and Viral
Contamination
Waterbome viral and bacterial
pollutants may also cause serious
Table 7-1. Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions Reported
by the States
State
Alabama
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Louisiana*
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Number of
Waterbodies
with Restrictions
4
0
17
17
2
1
6
258
33
11
67
8
48
86
25
69
652
Area Affected
(sq. miles)
373
0
122
42
6
86
297
188
605
19
306
59
56
53
304
663
276
3,455
* Louisiana reports three permanent closures due to potential pollution
from industry, but does not report the number of waterbodies
periodically closed by other sources.
Source: 1992 State Section 305 (b) reports.
Not reported.
human illness and death. People can
contract infectious hepatitis, gastro-
enteritis, dysentery, and cholera
from waters receiving inadequately
treated sewage. Bacteria and viruses
may enter human systems through
contact with contaminated swim-
ming and bathing waters or
through ingestion of contaminated
drinking water or shellfish.
Shellfish Contamination
Contaminated shellfish pose a
public health risk particularly to
those who consume raw shellfish.
Shellfish, such as oysters, clams, and
mussels, extract their food (plank-
ton) by filtering water over their
gills. In contaminated waters, shell-
fish accumulate bacteria and viruses
on their gills and mantle and within
their digestive systems. If shellfish
grown in contaminated waters are
not cooked properly, consumers
may ingest live bacteria and viruses.
To protect public health, coastal
States routinely monitor shellfish
harvesting areas for bacterial con-
tamination and restrict shellfish har-
vests in contaminated waters. Most
often, States measure concentrations
of fecal coliform bacteria such as
Enterococcus or Escherichia coli,
which are nonpathogenic bacteria
that populate human digestive sys-
tems and waste products. Their
presence in water samples is an
indicator of sewage contamination
that may pose a human health risk
from pathogenic viruses and bacte-
ria. Fecal conforms, however, may
exceed criteria even when no
human sewage is present because
birds and nonhuman mammals also
excrete them.
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 91
States issue several types of
shellfish harvesting restrictions:
Prohibited Waters violate criteria
consistently; therefore, shellfish can-
not be harvested at any time.
Restricted Waters may be har-
vested if the shellfish are transferred
to clean waters to reduce concentra-
tions of bacteria.
Conditionally Approved Waters
temporarily exceed bacteriological
criteria following predictable events
(such as a storm). Shellfish from
these waters may be harvested
when criteria are met
Nineteen of the 29 coastal
States and Territories provided infor-
mation on shellfish harvesting re-
strictions in their 1992 Section
305(b) reports (Table 7-1). Eighteen
of these States prohibit, restrict, or
conditionally approve shellfish har-
vesting in more than 3,455 square
miles of estuarine waters. Maine and
Delaware reported 275 harvesting
restrictions but did not report the
size of their estuaries affected by the
restrictions.
Only nine States identified spe-
cific sources contaminating shellfish
waters with pathogens (Figure 7-4).
These States cited urban runoff and
storm sewers as the source of 143
shellfish harvesting restrictions (see
Appendix E, Table E-6, for individual
State information). Municipal dis-
charges caused bacterial contamina-
tion at 60 sites, marinas impacted
51 sites, and industrial discharges
affected 40 sites.
The EPA cannot draw firm
national conclusions from shellfish
restriction data because the States
issue shellfish harvesting restrictions
based on varying bacteriological
criteria. The quality of State shellfish
monitoring programs also varies.
Therefore, States with strict bacterio-
logical criteria and progressive moni-
toring programs appear to have
more polluted estuarine waters than
other States that may monitor less
vigorously or use less stringent
criteria.
Drinking Water
Restrictions
Pathogens seldom cause com-
plete closures of drinking water
supplies because disinfection proce-
dures (such as chlorination or boil-
ing) usually eliminate pathogenic
contamination. In most cases of
bacterial contamination, water offi-
cials temporarily advise consumers
to boil or chemically treat their
drinking water rather than to stop
consumption.
Only six States and Puerto Rico
reported drinking water restrictions
Figure 7-4
Sources Associated with Shellfish
Harvesting Restrictions
(9 States Reporting)
States
cited urban runoff
and storm sewers as
the leading source of
shellfish restrictions
Pollution Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Municipal Discharges
Marinas
Industrial Discharges
Other Point Sources
Septic Tanks
CSOs
Total
143
60
51
40
38
24
. 6
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Number of Restrictions
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-6.
-------
92 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
36 States
provided informa-
tion on recreation
restrictions.
caused by pathogens (see Appendix
E, Table E-4, for individual State
information). These States and
Puerto Rico blamed drinking water
treatment plant malfunctions and
raw sewage discharges for elevating
bacterial concentrations above safe
drinking water standards.
Recreational Restrictions
Pathogenic indicators cause
most contact recreation restrictions,
such as beach closures (Figure 7-5).
Thirty-six States provided informa-
tion on 371 recreation restrictions
(see Appendix E, Table E-5, for indi-
vidual State data). Twenty-five of
these States restricted recreational
activities in 294 cases because bac-
teria concentrations exceeded public
health criteria. Only three States
Figure 7-5
Pollutants Causing Recreational Restrictions
(36 States Reporting)
Pollutants
Pathogenic
Indicators and
Bacteria
Unspecified
Toxic
Contaminants
Medical Waste
I
Total
294
66
10
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
J
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Number of Restrictions Attributed to Each Pollutant
reported recreational restrictions due
to toxics and only one State (New
Mexico) reported a recreational
closure due to medical waste on the
shores of a reservoir. Six States re-
ported that they did not restrict
activities at any recreational sites
during the 1991-1992 reporting
cycle.
Aquatic Ecosystem
Concerns
Toxic Pollutants
Many indigenous aquatic organ-
isms are more sensitive than hu-
mans to toxic pollutants. In severe
cases of contamination, toxicants
destroy the aquatic ecosystem; in
less severe cases, toxicants alter the
species composition in aquatic eco-
systems. The aquatic system deterio-
rates as toxic contaminants poison
aquatic organisms (including fish,
shellfish, benthic bottom-dwelling
organisms, and plants), increase
their susceptiblility to disease, inter-
fere with their reproduction, or
reduce the viability of their young.
Toxic pollutants also disrupt the
chemical and physical balance in an
aquatic ecosystem and indirectly
cause mortality.
Aquatic toxicants fall into four
broad categories:
Metals (such as copper, cad-
mium, and mercury)
Priority organic chemicals, includ-
ing pesticides and numerous sol-
vents (such as toluene and benzene)
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-5.
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 93
Other petrochemical hydrocar-
bons (such as oil and grease)
Nonconventional toxics (such as
ammonia and chlorine).
Physical and Chemical
Conditions
Mortality of aquatic life from
depleted oxygen concentrations,
excessive temperatures, or high
acidity can exceed the impact of
toxic pollutants in aquatic habitats.
Organic pollutants impose a biologi-
cal oxygen demand (BOD) on
receiving waters because bacteria
consume oxygen as they decom-
pose organic wastes. Nutrients also
may indirectly deplete oxygen con-
centrations by feeding algal blooms.
Acidity (the concentration of
hydrogen ions) drives many chemi-
cal reactions in living organisms. The
standard measure of acidity is pH,
and a pH value of 7 represents a
neutral condition. A low pH value
(less than 5) indicates acidic condi-
tions; a high pH value (greater than
9) indicates alkaline conditions.
Many biological processes (such as
reproduction) cannot function in
either acidic or alkaline waters. High
acidity also aggravates toxic
contamination problems because
sediments release toxicants in acidic
waters. Common sources of acidity
include mine drainage, runoff from
mine tailings, and atmospheric
deposition.
Fish Kills Caused
by Pollution
The number of fish kills provides
a limited picture of pollutant im-
pacts on aquatic life. In general, fish
kill data track sporadic pollution
events (such as chemical spills)
rather than chronic pollution prob-
lems. Data collection methods also
bias the data toward identifying kills
in populated areas because most
States acquire leads on fish kills from
the public (such as anglers, hikers,
and boaters). Fish kills in remote
areas may go undetected and unre-
ported.
Forty-three States reported that
pollution caused 930 fish kills during
1990 and 1991 (Figure 7-6). More
than 5 million fish died during these
events (see Appendix E, Table E-7,
Causes of Pollution-Related Fish Kills
(43 States Reporting)
Unknown or
Unspecified
39%
Habitat
Modifications
3%
Toxic Pollutants
26%
Conventional
Pollutants
32%
Based on data contained in Appendix E,
Table E-7.
pH
Neutral
±
3 4
Acid -
7
-x-
10 11
- Alkaline
12 13 14
Most aquatic organisms cannot live outside
a pH range of 5-9.
-------
94 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
for individual State data). Toxic pol-
lutants (including ammonia and
chlorine) caused 26% of these fish
kills. Conventional pollutants (includ-
ing BOD, pH, suspended solids,
temperature, and oil and grease)
caused 32% of the reported fish
kills, and habitat modification
caused 3% of the reported fish kills.
The States could not determine the
cause of 39% of the fish kills. Fish
kill investigations often fail to iden-
tify causes and sources because
currents can carry dead fish down-
stream from the pollutant source
before the kill is observed.
In some cases, toxicants trigger
conventional pollutant impacts. For
example, Florida reported that her-
bicide applications, in conjunction
with high temperatures and heavy
rainfall, depressed oxygen concen-
trations and suffocated over 45,000
fish in Lake Rousseau. The toxic
herbicide caused heavy die-off of
aquatic weeds, and bacteria de-
pleted oxygen concentrations as
they decomposed the dead weeds.
Thirty-nine States identified
specific pollutants causing fish kills.
These States attributed most fish kills
to BOD and depressed oxygen
Figure 7-6
Number of Fish Kills Nationwide
O
0 or Not Reported
1-10
11-30
31-70
>70
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-7.
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 95
concentrations, pesticides, and a
combination of manure and silage
(Figure 7-7 and Appendix E, Table
E-8). Manure and silage contain
ammonia, which is lethal to fish,
and organic substances, which in-
crease biological oxygen demand.
Thirty-seven States listed
sources of pollutants causing fish
kills (Figure 7-8). Natural sources
(such as high temperatures) caused
the greatest number of fish kills,
followed by agriculture, industrial
discharges, municipal discharges,
other spills (such as trucks), and
pesticide applications (Appendix E,
Table E-9). Pesticide applications
include intentional algicide and
herbicide applications on lakes to
control algae and weeds.
Sediment Contamination
Most waterbome toxic pollut-
ants settle to the bottom and bind
to sediments or organic material or
remain in solution in the interstitial
water between the sediment par-
ticles. Bacteria degrade some
toxicants in sediments, but many
toxic contaminants (such as metals)
persist in sediments for many years
after the original toxic source has
been eliminated. Contaminated
sediments may reintroduce toxi-
cants into the water column for
decades.
Dredging contaminated sedi-
ments may also reintroduce toxi-
cants into the water column and
food web. Due to these impacts,
sediment contamination can ob-
struct maintenance dredging of
harbors and navigation channels.
Dredge spoil disposal methods
(such as open water dumping,
spreading on "reclaimed" lands,
and diked containment areas) may
also create new aquatic life threats.
Currently, no national criteria
are in effect that define harmful
concentrations of pollutants in sedi-
ment However, EPA plans to release
draft sediment criteria for five pollut-
ants (endrin, dieldrin, phenanthrene,
fluoranthene, and acenaphthene) in
1993 for public comment and pub-
lish final criteria for the five toxicants
in 1994. EPA also intends to publish
additional sediment criteria for two
or three pollutants each year
beginning in 1994 and propose
methods for deriving sediment qual-
ity criteria for metals in 1994.
In 1992, 27 States reported
incidents of sediment contamination
in their 305(b) reports (see Appen-
dix E, Table E-10, for individual
State data). Several States preferred
not to list contaminated sites until
EPA publishes national criteria for
screening sediment data. Other
States lack the analytical tools and
resources to conduct extensive
sediment sampling and analysis.
39 States
identified specific
pollutants causing
fish kills
Figure 7-7
Pollutants Associated with Fish Kills
(39 States Reporting)
Pollutants
Manure/Silage ^1
Oil and Gas
Chlorine §
Ammonia
Temperature
0 50 100 150 200
Number of Fish Kills
Total
221
^^ 1
96
69
58
41
30
23
250
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-8.
-------
96 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Therefore, the following discussion
probably understates the extent of
sediment contamination in the
Nation's surface waters.
Twenty-seven States listed 669
separate sites with contaminated
sediments and identified pollutants
detected in sediments. These States
most frequently listed metals (e.g.,
mercury, cadmium, and zinc),
PCBs, DDT (and its byproducts),
Figure 7-8
Sources Associated with Fish Kills
(37 States Reporting)
Pollution Sources
Natural Sources
Agriculture
Industrial Discharges
Municipal Discharges
Other Spills
Pesticide Applications
Hydromodification/
Low Flows
Total
188
157
102
69
45
32
31
50 100 150
Number of Fish Kills
200
250
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-9.
A1989 National Academy of Sciences Report on contaminated marine
sediments concluded that the effects of sediment contamination are poten-
tially far-reaching. This report found that contamination of marine sedi-
ments poses a.potential threat to marine resources and human health
(through consumption of seafood) in numerous sites around the country -
particularly near metropolitan areas.
Source: Contaminated Marine Sediments - Assessment and Remediation,
Committee on Contaminated Marine Sediments, Marine Board, Commis-
sion on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council,
National Academy Press, 1989.
chlordane, and priority organics.
These States also identified industrial
and municipal discharges (past and
present), landfills, resource extrac-
tion, abandoned hazardous waste
disposal sites, and combined sewer
overflows as the primary sources of
sediment contamination.
EPA is developing the following
guidance and information sources to
provide States with better tools for
assessing and managing sediment
contamination:
A compendium of sediment as-
sessment methods (Fall 1992)
Sediment criteria for toxicants
(beginning in 1993)
National Inventory of Sediment
Contaminant Sources (Spring 1993)
Sediment Remediation Methods
(Spring 1993)
EPA's Sediment Management
Strategy will focus the Agency's
resources on preventing, remediat-
ing, and managing disposal of
dredged contaminated sediments
(Spring 1993)
A testing manual for evaluating
sediment disposal in inland waters
under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (Fall 1993)
Guidance documents describing
methods for conducting acute toxic-
ity tests, chronic toxicity tests, and
bioaccumulation tests for sediments
(Fall 1993)
A national database of contami-
nated sediment sites (late 1993)
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 97
Methods for deriving sediment
quality criteria for heavy metals (late
1993).
Total Waters Affected
by Toxic Pollutants
Responding to public concern
about toxic pollutants, EPA re-
quested that States track the overall
extent of toxic contamination in
their surface waters. Forty-eight
States reported the size of waters
monitored for toxicants (either in
the water column, sediments, or
aquatic organisms) and the total
waters found to contain elevated
concentrations of toxic pollutants
(see Figure 7-9 and Appendix E,
Table E-11, for individual State
data).
Forty-six States reported that
they monitored toxicants (primarily
in the water column) in almost
600,000 miles of rivers and streams.
These States monitored 17% of the
Nation's 3.5 million river miles for
toxic contamination. The States
detected elevated concentrations of
toxicants in only 8% of the moni-
tored rivers and streams (Figure
7-10).
Forty-two States reported that
they sampled toxicants in almost 10
million acres of lakes, reservoirs, and
ponds. The monitored acres repre-
sent 25% of the Nation's 40 million
lake acres. The States found elevated
concentrations of toxicants in 43%
of the sampled lake acres.
Eighteen coastal States sampled
toxicants in 20% of the Nation's
estuarine waters. These States de-
tected elevated toxic concentrations
Figure 7-9
Waters Monitored for Toxic Contamination
Rivers and
Streams
Lakes
Great Lakes
Estuaries
Ocean Shore3
Total
17
25
99
20
I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Total Waters Monitored for Toxic Contamination
The results do not
describe the extent of
toxic contamination in
att waters across the
Nation because most
toxic pollutants are found
in the sediment and food
chain, not in the water
column.
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-11.
Excluding the Alaska shoreline.
-------
98 Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
River miles monitered: 600,000
Total river miles: 3.5 million
Lake acres monitored: 10 million
Total lake acres: 39,950,000
Estuarine waters monitored: 7,307
square miles
Total estuarine waters: 36,000 square
miles
Great Lakes miles monitored: 5,319
Total Great Lakes shore miles: 5,382
Ocean shore miles monitored: 506
Total ocean shore miles: 20,121
(excluding Alaska)
in 13% of the 7,307 square miles of
estuarine waters that they sampled.
Only six States reportedly moni-
tored toxicants in coastal waters.
These States found elevated concen-
trations of toxicants in 57% of the
sampled coastline, but this informa-
tion cannot be applied nationally
because the States monitored less
than 3% of the Nation's coastal
waters (excluding the Alaska
shoreline).
Figure 7-10
Seven States reported that they
monitored all of their Great Lakes'
shoreline for toxicants (primarily in
fish tissue samples) and detected
elevated toxicants in 98% of the
shoreline. Three States reported that
they monitored toxicants in 167,178
acres of wetlands (less than one-
tenth of 1%) of the Nation's wet-
lands. The States identified elevated
concentrations of toxicants in 63%
of the monitored wetlands.
Percent of Monitored Waters
with Toxic Contamination
Rivers and
Streams
Lakes
Great Lakes
Estuaries
Ocean
Shore
Total
8
43
98
13
57
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Monitored Waters with Toxic Contamination
Based on data contained in Appendix E, Table E-11.
-------
Chapter Seven Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns 99
-------
-------
Individual State Summaries
This section provides individual
summaries of the data reported by
the States, Territories, Interstate
Water Basin Commissions, District of
Columbia, and Cila River Indian
Community in their 1992 Section
305 (b) water quality assessments.
Variation among States in how
these data are generated result from
differences in pollution problems,
monitoring priorities, and water
quality criteria. Each State does not
use the same method to measure
use support and, in many instances,
the standards against which use
support is measured are different
Regional patterns of pollution also
affect the data generated. In addi-
tion, some States have the funds for
more sophisticated monitoring tech-
niques while other States must rely
on more conventional methods to
identify pollutants of concern.
However, progress is being
made in introducing consistency in
assessment approaches to the
305(b) reporting process. In addi-
tion, statistically valid information on
water quality status and trends in
the Nation's waters will be collected
in coming years by scientifically
designed, broad-scale monitoring
programs such as EMAP (see
Chapter 10).
-------
102 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Alabama
For a copy of the Alabama 1992
30S(b) report, contact
Michael j. Rief
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
Planning and Projects Branch
1751 Congressman W. L Dickinson
Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205)271-7829
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Agricultural runoff, municipal
point sources, industrial point
sources, and resource extraction
impair rivers and streams with nutri-
ents, siltation, organic materials,
pathogen indicators, ammonia, pes-
ticides, and metals. Industrial point
sources impair more lake acres than
any other source with priority
organics and pathogen indicators.
Pathogen indicators, primarily from
storm sewers, urban runoff, and
septic tanks, cause all of the use
support violations in estuarine
waters.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
12,292 mi
392,474 ac
343 mi2
50 mi
Fully
Supporting
72%
49%
77%
100%
Threatened
2%
30%
Partially
Supporting '
18%
20%
22%
Not
Supporting
8%
1%
1%
"Totals represent 16% of river miles, 84% of lake acres, 56% of estuary square miles, and 100%
of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Alabama reduced toxic loadings
into surface waters by 57 percent
between 1989 and 1990. Additional
reductions should result since
Alabama's Department of Environ-
mental Management (ADEM)
adopted numeric standards for a
broad range of toxic pollutants in
1991. All National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits issued since adoption of the
numeric standards limit toxicant
concentrations in wastewater dis-
charges. (Prior to 1991, NPDES
permits primarily regulated conven-
tional pollutants, such as pH, fecal
coliforms, and oxygen-demanding
substances.)
ADEM is also initiating water-
shed projects that simultaneously
address pollutants from multiple
sources. The Bayview Lake Water-
shed Project, for example, employs
artificial wetlands treatment technol-
ogy to address urban runoff, acid
mine drainage from coal mine tail-
ings, and pollution from an indus-
trial landfill.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
ADEM is assessing habitats and
resident biota at several candidate
streams in order to establish refer-
ence sites for future biological moni-
toring.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 103
Alaska
For a copy of the Alaska 1992
305(b) report, contact
Earl Hubbard
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
P.O. Box 0
Juneau, AK 99811-1800
(907) 465-2653
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Urban runoff is the major source
of impaired rivers and streams, fol-
lowed by placer mining, petroleum
products, and sources of sewage.
Urban development is also the ma-
jor source of pollution in 26 im-
paired lakes, followed by fuel and
chemical leaks and spills, septic sys-
tem failures, erosion, and agricul-
tural sources of pesticides, fertilizers,
and animal wastes. The State attri-
butes impairments at 34 estuaries to
harbor activities, urban develop-
ment, oil and gas development,
transportation, industrial sources,
municipal sewage treatment plants,
and silvicultural activities. Gas and
oil development on the Kenai Penin-
sula and the North Slope have also
impaired wetlands.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
4,054 mi
Fully
Supporting
29%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
32%
Not
Supporting
39%
"Totals represent 1% of river miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Alaska's Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) program will address
pulp mills, the seafood processing
industry, placer mining, timber har-
vesting, and urban runoff sources.
The Alaska Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (AD EC) re-
ceived $120,000 in FY92 to assess
and monitor activities in support of
the TMDL program. The State also
intends to revise its water quality
standards to include criteria for nu-
merous toxic pollutants.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The State operates intensive
monitoring programs to evaluate
water quality at sites on the State's
list of impaired waters (which in-
cludes waters suspected of degrada-
tion). The State also initiated inten-
sive monitoring programs to study
the effects of placer mining, the
Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Ketchikan
Pulp Mill, and heavy metal contami-
nation in Skagway Harbor. In 1991,
ADEC established the Alaska Volun-
teer Water Watch program, and the
new State Forest Practices program
includes intensive monitoring of the
effectiveness of best management
practices implemented to control
runoff from timber activities.
-------
104 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
American Samoa
For a copy of the American Samoa
1992 305(b) report, contact
Pat Young
Project Officer for American Samoa
U.S. EPA Region 9 MC E-4
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1591
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
The waters of this Territory suf-
fer from numerous manmade
sources of pollution including dis-
charges from tuna canneries, erosion
and surface runoff, discharges of
domestic wastewater, direct dis-
charges from ocean-going vessels,
and careless disposal of solid wastes.
Visiting vessels and local inhabitants
frequently dispose of solid wastes
directly into the harbor where tides
transport the wastes upstream.
Many villages withdraw water for
domestic use from these streams,
which frequently do not meet safe
drinking water standards. The gov-
ernment water system relies prima-
rily on ground water, which is also
at risk of contamination from failing
sewage disposal systems and animal
wastes.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
Fully
Supporting
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
Not
Supporting
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In FY90, the Territory entered
into a consent agreement with the
two canneries discharging 95 per-
cent of the nutrient load into Pago
Pago Harbor. As a result of the
agreement, the canneries imple-
mented high-strength waste segre-
gation and began discharging high
nutrient wastes and sludge at an
ocean dump site instead of into the
Harbor. Since initiation of these
changes, monthly measurements of
total nitrogen and total phosphorus
in the Harbor have decreased by as
much as 50 percent. The Territory
also initiated the Nonpoint Source
Management Program that sponsors
demonstrations of best manage-
ment practices, a Well Head Protec-
tion Program, and public education
projects. Specific projects demon-
strate soil stabilization techniques,
swine production practices that
prevent manure from contaminating
waters, and ground water protec-
tion controls.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The Territory samples water
quality monthly at 12 of the Terri-
tories' 163 streams. Shortages of
trained personnel, supplies, and
equipment limit monitoring and
analysis.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 105
Arizona
For a copy of the Arizona 1992
305(b) report, contact
Diana Marsh
Arizona Department of Environ-
mental Quality
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 207-4545
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Agriculture is the predominant
source of turbidity, sediment, and
nutrients in rivers and streams. Habi-
tat and hydrologic modification
(including channelization, dredging,
and dam construction) is also wide-
spread in Arizona and impacts all
types of waterbodies. Ground water
pollution from inorganic compounds
(i.e., nitrates, sulfates, and total dis-
solved solids), pesticides, and
radiochemicals results from agricul-
tural and mining activities, while
volatile organic chemicals, petro-
leum, and microorganism contami-
nation result from leaking under-
ground storage tanks, landfills, and
poor well construction.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed'
4,461 mi
121,058 ac
Fully
Supporting
18%
4%
Threatened
7%
23%
Partially
Supporting
36%
72%
Not
Supporting
38%
1%
Totals represent 3% of river miles and 94% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Arizona's Nonpoint Source Wa-
ter Quality Management Plan inte-
grates regulatory and voluntary pro-
gram components. Regulatory pro-
grams include general permits for
nitrogen fertilizer applications and
concentrated animal feeding opera-
tions, a Pesticide Contamination
Prevention Program, draft Best Man-
agement Practices (BMPs) for graz-
ing activities, and the Aquifer Pro-
tection Permit system. The Aquifer
Protection Permit system requires
permits for most activities that may
impact ground water from point
and nonpoint sources, including
landfills, storage ponds, injection
wells, mine leaching practices, septic
tanks, recharge projects, and point
source discharges to rivers. Monitor-
ing is required by dischargers to
show no violation of Aquifer Water
Quality Standards. In addition, BMPs
are required for nitrogen fertilizer
applications.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Arizona's Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality (ADEQ) and the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
monitored ambient water quality at
62 sites in 1990-1991. Baseline bio-
logical, chemical, and physical
monitoring will be conducted at
over 100 less impacted, perennial
stream sites for use in developing
biocriteria for future assessments.
-------
106 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Arkansas
For a copy of the Arkansas 1992
305(b) report, contact
Bill Keith
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
(501)562-7444
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Siltation and turbidity primarily
from agricultural sources cause the
majority of impairments in rivers
and streams. Contamination of shal-
low domestic wells and springs by
human and animal wastes is the
most predominant ground water
problem in the State.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology listed
impacts from the expansion of con-
fined animal production as a special
State concern in their 1992 305(b)
report. The Arkansas National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program regulates
liquid wastes from the confined
animal industry in addition to indus-
trial point sources and municipal
treatment plants. Farms with liquid
waste handling and storage systems
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
7,462 mi
355,063 ac
' Fully
Supporting
49%
100%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
29%
Not
Supporting
22%
'Totals represent 8% of river miles and 67% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
must obtain a State Water Permit
This rule applies to most swine and
poultry layer operations and some
dairy production facilities.
The Arkansas Nonpoint Source
Pollution Management Plan also
educates poultry, swine, and dairy
producers about best management
practices (BMPs) to prevent manure
from entering streams and ground
water. Under the program, the Uni-
versity of Arkansas Agricultural Ex-
tension Service provides soil testing
and analyzes proper land application
rates for animal wastes. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture Soil Con-
servation Service prepares a waste
management plan for individual
facilities, and the Arkansas Soil and
Water Conservation Commission
and Districts provide financial assis-
tance for animal producers to volun-
tarily implement the waste manage-
ment plans.
Arkansas categorizes its waters
into geographically defined
ecoregions. Waterbodies within an
ecoregion share similar physical,
chemical, and biological features as
well as major pollution problems
arising from land use practices com-
mon throughout an ecoregion. The
ecoregion approach enables the
State to identify the predominant
land use in each ecoregion that
threatens water quality.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 107
California
For a copy of the California 1992
305(b) report, contact-
Nancy Richard
California State Water Resources
Control Board, M&A
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 944213
Sacramento, CA 94244-2130
(916)657-1126
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Pesticides and metals are the
leading major cause of impairment
in rivers, lakes, estuaries, bays, and
harbors. Other causes of impairment
in lakes are nutrients, siltation, sus-
pended solids, and low dissolved
oxygen. Pathogens are a moderate
problem in many estuaries, and
salinity and dissolved solids cause
most ground water impairments.
Agriculture dominates the list of
major sources impairing rivers, estu-
aries, bays and harbors, and ground
water, and land development, urban
runoff, and habitat modifications are
the leading sources of lake degrada-
tion.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
5,679 mi
307,981 ac
89 mi2
700 mi
60,858 ac
Fully
Supporting
13%
7%
90%
1%
Threatened
5%
1%
4%
Partially
Supporting
77%
92%
96%
9%
99%
Not
Supporting
5%
1%
"Totals represent 3% of river miles, 26% of lake acres, 12% of estuary square miles, 38% of ocean
miles, and 26% of wetlands acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
As a result of toxicity test results,
rice growers cooperated with the
California Department of Food and
Agriculture and modified rice culti-
vation practices. Improved pesticide
management practices developed
by the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation and overseen
by the Central Valley Regional Water
Board decreased rice pesticide con-
centrations in the City of Sacramen-
to's water supply by 99.5 percent.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Toxicity testing plays a central
role in California's three Water Qual-
ity Control Plans, which establish
standards for all surface waters in
the State. The toxicity standards set
minimum survival rates for test spe-
cies exposed to test waters for acute
(short-term) and chronic (long-term)
periods. Currently, the State and
Regional Water Boards are investi-
gating toxicity testing protocols for
nonpoint sources of water pollution
in three major agricultural regions:
the Sacramento Valley, the San
joaquin Valley, and the Imperial
Valley. The Sacramento Valley study
identified rice field pesticides as a
source of toxicity in agricultural
discharges to the Sacramento River
and Delta.
-------
108 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Colorado
For a copy of the Colorado 1992
305 (b) report, contact
John Farrow
Colorado Department of Health
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-3575
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Metals are the most common
pollutant identified in Colorado riv-
ers not supporting designated uses.
Agriculture and resource extraction
are the leading sources impacting
rivers. In lakes, nutrients and metals
cause most impairments and major
sources are agriculture, construction
runoff, industrial discharges, and
municipal discharges. Many of
Colorado's shallow, unconfined
aquifers are contaminated with ni-
trates and salts resulting from agri-
cultural activities.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Water quality management in
Colorado has evolved from a tech-
nology-based program into a pro-
gram that relates specific control
actions to water quality problems.
Program goals focus on measurable
improvements or maintenance of
existing water quality. The State is
giving more attention to nonpoint
source pollution controls where it
can be shown that stream standards
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
27,1 95 mi
143,140ac
60 ac
Fully
Supporting
84%
85%
100%
Threatened
3%
8%
Partially
Supporting
4%
7%
Not
Supporting
8%
<1%
will not be attained by additional
point source controls at reasonable
cost levels. Colorado's nonpoint
source program provides education
and supports watershed programs
to restore water quality and demon-
strate nonpoint source treatment
techniques.
In 1990, the Colorado Legisla-
ture passed an agricultural chemicals
ground water protection act (Senate
Bill 126). The Act will be imple-
mented by the Colorado Depart-
ment of Agriculture with fees col-
lected on fertilizer and agricultural
chemical sales. The Department of
Health will monitor ground water
and the Colorado Extension Service
will conduct education programs.
If monitoring reveals ground water
contamination, the Commissioner of
Agriculture may designate an agri-
cultural management area and ini-
tiate a tiered approach to solving
the problem. The first tier consists
of voluntary implementation of best
management practices (BMPs). If
BMP implementation fails to correct
the ground water problem, manda-
tory rules and regulations may be
developed.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
In Colorado, 9,315 stream miles
have been, or are being, routinely
monitored. At least seven lakes have
long-term monitoring programs that
sample nutrients and other trophic
state indicators.
Currently, Colorado lacks com-
prehensive data on ground water
contamination. The Ground Water
Unit is addressing the problem by
developing a comprehensive ground
water quality database that will con-
tain data on organic and inorganic
chemical concentrations, radionu-
clides, and agricultural chemicals.
The State is collecting additional
data on agricultural chemicals in
ground water under several pro-
grams. In 1992, the State sampled
100 wells in the South Platte River
Valley. Permanent wells will be es-
tablished where ground water prob-
lems are identified, forming a state-
wide network. A Section 319
nonpoint source (NPS) grant sup-
ports additional ground water moni-
toring in agricultural areas. The pro-
gram will provide background data
and identify aquifers vulnerable to
contamination by agricultural
chemicals.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 109
Connecticut
For a copy of the Connecticut 1992
305(b) report, contact
Donald Conyea
Bureau of Water Management PERD
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
165 Capital Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
(203)566-7167
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Estuarine waters are primarily
impacted by nutrients and indicator
bacteria, with lesser impacts from
conventional organic pollutants. The
dominant sources of pollutants are:
municipal sewage treatment plants,
urban runoff, CSOs, in-place con-
taminants and agricultural activities.
Rivers and streams are impacted by
a combination of conventional
organic and inorganic pollutants,
toxics, indicator bacteria, nutrients,
and associated dissolved oxygen
problems. The dominant sources of
pollutants are: municipal and indus-
trial point sources, CSOs, in-place
contaminants, and a variety of
nonpoint sources. Lake water quality
is primarily impacted by excessive
nutrient loads associated with nox-
ious plant growth and priority or-
ganics. The dominant sources of
pollutants are: nonpoint sources,
in-place contaminants, and munici-
pal sewage treatment plants.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
893 mi
43,407 ac
600 mi2
Fully
Supporting
41%
76%
60%
Threatened
20%
11%
<1%
Partially
Supporting
31%
13%
39%
Not
Supporting
8%
1%
"Totals represent 11 % of river miles, 52% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The State Clean Water Fund
was created to address the costs of
municipal sewage treatment plant
upgrading and CSO abatement The
State NPDES program is streamlin-
ing and addressing discharge toxic-
ity issues in accordance with revi-
sions to State water quality stan-
dards. The State is designating sig-
nificant resources to and has ex-
panded the Clean Water Fund to
include nonpoint source pollution
control strategies.
Physical/chemical monitoring is
conducted both in cooperation with
the USCS ambient monitoring pro-
gram and with specific State pro-
grams including: intensive surveys,
ambient toxicity monitoring, and
specific water quality surveys as
needed. Ambient biological moni-
toring is conducted to assess bio-
logical community viability, and
bioaccumulation monitoring is con-
ducted for a variety of pollutants.
The State participates in the Long
Island Sound Study monitoring wa-
ter quality trends and finfish popula-
tion. In addition, the State compiles
water quality data from other State
agencies, local authorities, and
water supply utilities.
-------
110 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Delaware
For a copy of the Delaware 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Sergio Herda
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 739-4590
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Bacteria, nutrients, and toxics
impact surface water quality in Dela-
ware. Bacteria concentrations ex-
ceed swimming criteria at 93% of
assessed rivers, 63% of assessed lake
waters, and 70% of estuarine waters
(excluding the Delaware River and
Bay). Inadequately treated sewage
from onsite systems and municipal
treatment plants are of most con-
cern. Industrial point sources are the
major source of elevated zinc and
copper concentrations. Nutrient
contamination impairs 77% of riv-
ers, 67% of lake waters, and 100%
of estuarine waters (excluding the
Delaware River and Bay). Primary
sources of nutrients include agricul-
tural runoff, municipal wastewater
treatment plants, food processing
plant discharges, and urban runoff.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
802 mi
2,805 ac
29 mi2
25 mi
Fulty
Supporting
11%
22%
100%
Threatened
1%
8%
Partially
Supporting
6%
32%
Not
Supporting
82%
38%
100%
"Totals represent 25% of river miles, 73% of lake acres, 35% of estuary square miles, and 100%
of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmen-
tal Control (DNREC) adopted a wa-
tershed approach for assessing and
managing water quality. The water-
shed approach enables the DNREC
to evaluate all pollutant sources
impacting a waterbody and to de-
termine the most effective and effi-
cient methods for protecting water
quality or abating existing problems.
In 1991, DNERC also initiated the
Sediment Control and Stormwater
Management Program to prevent
existing flooding and water quality
problems from worsening. The four
components of the program are:
(1) sediment control and storm-
water management plan approval;
(2) inspections during construction;
(3) post-construction inspection of
permanent Stormwater facilities; and
(4) education and training.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The DNREC will conduct inten-
sive surveys in the priority water-
sheds targeted for initial implemen-
tation of the watershed approach.
The surveys integrate water quality
sampling with hydrodynamic and
hydrologic studies to determine
pollutant mass loadings and trans-
port.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 111
Delaware River Basin Commission
For a copy of the Delaware River
Basin Commission 1992 305(b)
report, contact
Warren Huff
Delaware River Basin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, Nj 08628-0360
(609) 883-9500
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Fish consumption use is not
supported on 5.6 miles of the Dela-
ware River and 22 square miles of
the Delaware Estuary due to a fish
advisory restricting consumption of
fish contaminated with chlordane
and PCBs. Forty-two square miles of
Delaware Bay do not support
shellfishing use because elevated
concentrations of pathogen indica-
tors restrict harvests. An area of
acute toxicity also extends from the
Bucks/Philadelphia County boundary
downstream to the mouth of the
Schuylkill River.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
206 mi
NA
21 6 mi2
NA
Fully
Supporting
NA
NA
Threatened
100%
NA
100%
NA
Partially
Supporting
NA
NA
Not
Supporting
NA
NA
"Totals represent 100% of river miles and 28% of estuary square miles.
NA = Not applicable.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In 1991, the Commission initi-
ated a special study to develop a
comprehensive combined sewer
overflow (CSO) assessment and
control strategy for the Delaware
Estuary. Combined sewers remain
one of the last largely uncontrolled
sources of water pollutants in the
estuary. The 2-year study will deter-
mine critical flows, loadings, and
impacts from the four CSOs dis-
charging into the estuary. The study
will also evaluate and model CSO
functional designs and real-time
operations. Surrounding land use
patterns will be determined to esti-
mate nonpoint source wasteloads.
The study will estimate conventional
and nonconventional pollutant im-
pacts with several hydraulic and
surface water quality models. Upon
completion of the model studies,
the Commission will evaluate alter-
native control strategies.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The Commission and the coop-
erating States initiated the Delaware
Estuary Toxics Management Pro-
gram in 1989 to control toxic sub-
stances discharged from point
sources. During 1990, the coopera-
tors established a toxics database to
track the occurrence and magnitude
of toxic pollutants in wastewater
discharges, ambient waters, and
sediments. The cooperators will use
the database to establish water qual-
ity criteria for toxics.
-------
112 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
District of Columbia
For a copy of the District of Colum-
bia 1992 305(b) report, contact
Dr. Hamid Karimi
Water Quality Monitoring Branch
Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs
2100 Martin Luther King jr.
Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20020
(202)404-1130
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Elevated fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations impair contact recre-
ation uses in most district waters.
Metals are a concern, especially in
the District's smaller streams. Low
dissolved oxygen concentrations
resulting from organic enrichment
impair most of the Anacostia River.
Oil and grease, high pH, and prior-
ity organics also degrade District
waters. The principal source of pol-
lutants is urban runoff from storm
sewers, combined sewer overflows,
and surface runoff. Wastewater
treatment plant effluent discharges
are a major source of nutrients in
the Potomac Estuary.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
39 mi
238 ac
6 mi2
Fully
Supporting
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
9%
Not
Supporting
91%
100%
100%
"Totals represent 21 % of river miles, 100% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The District contracted the Met-
ropolitan Washington Council of
Governments (MWCOG) to study
the feasibility of charging a fee
when developers obtain a storm-
water management waiver. Current
stormwater regulations require all
new development projects to con-
trol stormwater runoff with best
management practices (BMPs).
However, the District finds it difficult
to apply traditional BMPs to sites
undergoing development or redevel-
opment in the central city. Most
traditional BMPs require more land
than is available in the City. As a
result, the District waives stormwater
regulations at many sites under
development The study will investi-
gate fees and recommend storm-
water retrofit projects the District
might implement with fees collected
in lieu of stormwater management
plans.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
During the 1990-1992 reporting
period, the District performed a
small-scale rapid bioassessment of its
tributaries and a land use monitor-
ing project to assess nonpoint
source pollutant loadings. The Dis-
trict also performed field sampling
of toxics in sediments and planned
to monitor effects of urban best
management practices in 1992.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 113
Florida
For a copy of the Florida 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Joe Hand
Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation
Twin Towers Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(904) 487-0506
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Many of the problems in
Florida's surface waters can be attri-
buted to industrial discharges and
sources associated with residential
development Other important
sources include agricultural runoff,
domestic wastewater, and hydro-
logic modifications (including dam
construction, channelization, dredg-
ing, and draining). Major sources of
ground water contamination are
underground storage tanks, agricul-
tural activities, landfills, and septic
tanks. Three agricultural chemicals
(aldicarb, alachlor, and ethylene
dibromide) have caused local and
regional contamination problems.
Other pollutants of concern include
nitrates, petroleum products, and
hazardous wastes.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
7,933 mi
95 7,1 20 ac
2, 730 mi2
902 mi
Fully
Supporting
64%
31%
62%
95%
Threatened
3%
1%
1%
Partially
Supporting
23%
56%
32%
4%
Not
Supporting
10%
12%
6%
1%
"Totals represent 15% of river miles, 46% of lake acres, 64% of estuary square miles, and 11 %
of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In addition to controlling dis-
charges with standard permit pro-
grams, Florida is pursuing reuse of
wastewater discharges, primarily for
irrigation use, and the use of wet-
lands for advanced treatment of
wastewater plant discharges. Flor-
ida's Stormwater rule is the core of
Florida's nonpoint source program.
Regulations require all new develop-
ments to retain the first inch of run-
off water in ponds to remove, theo-
retically, 80% to 90% of the sedi-
ment carried in the runoff. However,
these rules are difficult to monitor
and enforce.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
During the reporting period,
Florida planned to revise its
biocriteria and initiated projects to
develop freshwater macroinverte-
brate sampling protocols and to
refine the delineation of ecoregions
in Florida. The State will conduct
biological and chemical sampling at
proposed ecoregion reference sites
during wet and dry periods to de-
termine the best quality invertebrate
community present for the represen-
tative habitat and water chemistry.
-------
114 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Georgia
For a copy of the Georgia 1992
305 (b) report, contact
W. M. Winn, III
Georgia Environmental Protection
Division
Water Quality Management
Program
205 Butler Street, S.E.
Floyd Towers, East
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-4905
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Pathogens and metals are major
causes of impairments in rivers,
lakes, and estuaries. Pesticides and
pH also affect many lakes, and low
concentrations of dissolved oxygen
persist in estuarine waters. Industrial
and municipal point sources, urban
runoff, storm sewers, and industrial
nonpoint sources generate most
pollutants.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
4,054 mi
394,802 ac
854 mi2
Fully
Supporting
29%
90%
53%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
32%
7%
Not
Supporting
39%
2%
47%
"Totals represent 6% of river miles, 94% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) pays sig-
nificant attention to compliance and
enforcement activities. During the
reporting period, EPD issued 139
orders to municipalities for violations
of NPDES permit requirements, col-
lected $456,744 in related civil pen-
alties, and imposed sewer connec-
tion bans on 42 municipalities. Dur-
ing the same period, DER issued 65
legal orders to industries for improp-
erly treated discharges and collected
$412,440 in related penalties. EPD
issued 17 additional orders to pri-
vate discharges and assessed their
fines at $28,050. In addition, EPD
issued 12 orders to resolve erosion
and sedimentation problems and
fined violators $41,000. Another 12
orders and fines of $65,000 resulted
from investigations of hazardous
spills.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
During the reporting period,
EPD added 16 sampling stations to
the fixed station trend monitoring
network, raising the number of sites
to 145 stations. EPD conducted 26
intensive surveys of rivers, lakes, and
estuaries and performed more than
600 compliance inspections of
wastewater plant discharges. The
State also performs aquatic toxicity
testing to identify discharges that
may require additional controls to
eliminate toxic effects.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 115
Gila River Indian Community
For a copy of the Gila River Indian
Community 1992 305(b) report,
contact:
Errol Blackwater
Gila River Indian Community
Water Quality Planning
P.O. Box 370
Sacaton, AZ 85247
(602) 562-3203
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
The Water Quality Planning
Office suspects that rangeland man-
agement, agriculture, and upstream
mining are the source of turbidity
and siltation, salinity, and metals
loading in the Gila River. Pathogens
from onsite sewage disposal were
detected in ground water and are
the primary public health concern in
the community. Other concerns
include salinity and pesticides from
large-scale agriculture and the lim-
ited potential for fuel and solvent
leaks.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
196 mi
153ac
Fully
Supporting
_
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
31%
18%
Not
Supporting
69%
82%
'Totals represent 100% of river miles and 100% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Community's Water Quality
Planning Office initiated a water
quality control program by applying
for Federal funding of a Wellhead
Protection Strategy study. The pro-
posed Wellhead Protection Strategy
would identify the Community's
most vulnerable water supplies and
define a point source control pro-
gram for wellhead protection areas.
Point source controls will eliminate
discharges that could reach ground
water or provide incentives for rapid
mitigation in cases where ground
water is contaminated. The commu-
nity needs funding to address exist-
ing pollution and potential degrada-
tion resulting from growth in the
adjacent Phoenix metropolitan area
and a planned large-scale expansion
of agricultural activity on Commu-
nity lands.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The Gila River Indian Commu-
nity currently participates in a
small-scale joint surface water moni-
toring effort with the Arizona De-
partment of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ). The program collects grab
samples during runoff events in the
Gila River to assess potential sulfate
impacts from upstream mining op-
erations. To assess overall water
quality, the Community needs to
establish quarterly sampling at sites
on the Gila River, Thawnc Lake, and
other ponds and ephemeral streams.
The Community's Water Quality
Planning Office has developed a
ground water monitoring program
consisting of 35 wells. Sampling
from this program will establish the
first comprehensive and reliable data
set on ground water quality for the
Community.
-------
116 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Hawaii
For a copy of the Hawaii 1992
305(b) report, contact
Eugene Akazawa, Monitoring
Supervisor
Hawaii Department of Health
Clean Water Branch
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808) 586-4309
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Degradation of Hawaii's waters
occurs mainly in urban, populated
areas. Nonpoint sources such as
agricultural, industrial and urban
runoff generate the largest amount
of damage to the water quality of
streams, rivers, estuaries and coastal
waters. Impacts from nonpoint
sources are especially high during
the wet seasons when runoff in-
creases significantly. Pesticide perco-
lation is considered to be the most
important source of ground water
contamination.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
105 mi
874 mi2
773 mi
51,802ac
Fully
Supporting
52%
86%
81%
70%
Threatened
48%
12%
5%
30%
Partially
Supporting
<1%
3%
Not
Supporting
2%
10%
"Totals represent 42% of river miles, 100% of estuary square miles, 99% of ocean miles, and 100%
of wetlands acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In order to control soil erosion
and sediment, county governments
are required to enact ordinances
which set erosion control standards
for various types of soil and land
uses. These ordinances also include
criteria, techniques, and methods for
control of erosion and sediment
problems caused by land-disturbing
activities. The State would like to
enact ordinances that require the
rating of pesticides on their poten-
tial to migrate through soil and into
ground water. The use of pesticides
that pose a threat to ground water
quality would be prohibited. Until
more stringent ordinances can be
enacted, the State recommends
using alternatives to pesticides, such
as natural predators of pests or
other biological controls. Also en-
couraged is the use of low-toxicity,
degradable, nonpersistent chemicals
for home gardens, landscaping, and
golf courses.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The State and EPA jointly moni-
tor priority pollutants in water, sedi-
ment, fish, and shellfish samples
collected at sites with a high poten-
tial for toxic contamination as well
as at recreationally important areas.
The State is also concerned about
the uncertainty associated with bac-
terial indicators of human fecal con-
tamination.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 117
Idaho
For a copy of the Idaho 1992
305(b) report, contact
Don Zaroban
Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Statehouse Mall
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 334-5860
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Point sources impact only 7% of
Idaho's surface waters, but nonpoint
sources impair 57% of the State's
surface waters. Agriculture, including
grazing, has the greatest impact on
rivers and streams, followed by road
construction and maintenance, for-
est practices, and mining. The ex-
tent of impacts by these activities
varies by region. Urban runoff, land
disposal, and hydrologic modifica-
tion also impact lakes.
Fine sediments, channel alter-
ation, nutrients, elevated tempera-
tures, acid mine drainage, vegeta-
tion removal, streambank destabili-
zation, low dissolved oxygen con-
centrations, and organic loading
impair aquatic life in Idaho's waters.
Recreational uses are impaired by
bacteria and hydrologic modifica-
tion. Bacteria, radionuclides, inor-
ganic compounds, volatile organic
compounds, and turbidity impair
drinking water supply uses.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed"
12,987 mi
41 8, 529 ac
Fully
Supporting
5%
Threatened
3%
57%
Partially
Supporting
66%
9%
Not
Supporting
26%
34%
"Totals represent 11% of river miles and 81% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Idaho Forest Practices Act
contains approved best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) for control-
ling water quality impacts from for-
est practices. These mandatory
BMPs are approved in the State
Water Quality Standards. New staff
positions recently increased forestry
BMP inspection, education, and
enforcement activities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The BMP Feedback Loop fea-
tures onsite and in-stream monitor-
ing to evaluate the effectiveness of
implemented agricultural BMPs. The
BMPs are modified through a public
participation process if monitoring
indicates that BMPs are not protect-
ing beneficial uses. The Forest Prac-
tices Water Quality Management
Plan also sponsors monitoring to
determine the effectiveness of for-
estry BMPs.
-------
118 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Illinois
For a copy of the Illinois 1992
305(b) report, contact
Joel Cross
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Boxl9276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-3362
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Nutrients, siltation, organic en-
richment and dissolved oxygen defi-
ciencies, habitat/flow alteration,
ammonia, metals, and suspended
solids cause most impairments in
Illinois. The sources of pollution
most impacting Illinois waters
include agriculture (primarily row
crop production), in-place contami-
nants deposited on sediments, hy-
drologic/habitat modification, re-
source extraction, urban runoff,
atmospheric depositions, and mu-
nicipal point sources.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
13,980 mi
206,081 ac
63 mi
Fully
Supporting
42%
1%
Threatened
2%
8%
100%
Partially
Supporting
54%
50%
Not
Supporting
1%
41%
"Totals represent 40% of river miles, 67% of lake acres, and 100% of Great Lakes shore miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA) documents such as
Surface Water Monitoring Strategy,
Water Pollution Control Program
Plan - FY92, and the Illinois Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
detail the numerous surface water
pollution control and monitoring
programs of the agency for both
point and nonpoint source control
programs. Point source control pro-
gram activities include Monitoring,
Planning, Permitting, Financial Assis-
tance Administration, Compliance
Assurance, and Program Manage-
ment Current nonpoint source pro-
grams are built on the original rec-
ommendations of the WQMP,
which includes, but is not limited to,
the State Nonpoint Source Manage-
ment Program Report and the State
Nonpoint Source Assessment Report.
The IEPA conducts a wide vari-
ety of surface water monitoring
programs that are designed to
assess water quality and program
effectiveness. Surface water monitor-
ing programs include a Toxicity
Testing Program, Ambient Water
Quality Monitoring Network
(streams), Pesticide Monitoring
Subnetwork, Industrial Solvents
Subnetwork, Facility-Related Stream
Survey Program, Intensive River
Basin Surveys Program, Ambient
Lake Monitoring Program, Volunteer
Lake Monitoring Program, Lake
Water Quality Assessment Grant
Program, Lake Michigan Survey
Program, and the Fish Contaminant
Monitoring Program.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 119
Indiana
For a copy of the Indiana 1992
305(b) report, contact
Arthur Carter
Indiana Department of Environ-
mental Management
Office of Water Management
100 North Avenue
P.O. Box6015
Indianapolis, IN 46241
(317) 243-5090
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
The major causes of use impair-
ment are bacteria, organic enrich-
ment, pesticides, priority organic
compounds, and ammonia. The
sources of substances most often
contributing to nonsupport of uses
are industrial and municipal point
sources, combined sewer overflows,
and agricultural nonpoint sources.
Impacts due to nonpoint sources are
considered major. Nitrates, volatile
organic chemicals, and heavy metals
are most commonly detected in
drinking water wells. The most com-
monly reported sources of ground
water contaminants include hazard-
ous material spills, underground
storage tanks, and waste disposal
activities.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
6,849 mi
102, 096 ac
43 mi
Fully
Supporting
70%
100%
Threatened
6%
.
Partially
Supporting
5%
<1%
100%
Not
Supporting
19%
<1%
'Totals represent 19% of river miles, 71 % of lake acres, and 100% of Great Lakes shore miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Indiana's T-by-2000 program is
a State-funded initiative aimed at
reducing erosion on each acre of
land to its tolerable (T) limit (at
which crop productivity is not im-
paired) and controlling all offsite
sedimentation using best practical
technology. The program sponsors
soil conservation education, agricul-
tural and urban erosion control
technical assistance, cropland ero-
sion control cost-sharing, and lake
enhancement projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Until EPA issues sediment crite-
ria, Indiana will continue to identify
areas of toxic concern by comparing
sediment data with maximum back-
ground concentrations of toxic pol-
lutants. The State derived back-
ground concentrations of toxicants
from sediment samples collected at
86 background sites located up-
stream of known point source dis-
charges. Toxicant concentrations
exceeding 100 times the back-
ground concentrations merit high
concern. A contaminant concentra-
tion of 10 to 100 times the back-
ground concentration merits me-
dium concern. During the
1990-1992 reporting cycle, pesti-
cides, PCBs, and metals in fish and
sediment were detected at medium
to high levels of concern in 35% of
the monitored stream miles. Only
3% of the monitored inland lakes
exhibited toxic levels of concern in
sediments.
-------
120 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Iowa
For a copy of the Iowa 1992 305(b)
report, contact
John Olson
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Water Quality Section
900 East Grand Avenue
Wallace State Office Building
DesMoines, IA 50319
(515)281-8905
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
The failure of assessed water-
bodies of all types to fully support
their designated uses is attributed
primarily to sediment and nutrients
from nonpoint sources of pollution.
Point sources, however, impact
approximately 5% of the stream
miles assessed and toxics impair the
Red Rock Reservoir.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Iowa's Resources Enhancement
and Protection (REAP) Program rep-
resents a major new initiative to
protect and enhance Iowa's natural
resources. The REAP fund supports
various conservation activities, in-
cluding soil and water enhance-
ments. The Iowa Division of Soil
Conservation (DSC) and the County
Soil and Conservation Districts
implement the Water Protection
Program and the Water Protection
Practices Program with REAP fund-
ing. In 1991, the REAP Act provided
almost $2 million for Water Protec-
tion Program projects and Water
Protection Practices. The DSC
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Water-body
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed"
9,983 mi
48,730 ac
26,489 ac
Fully
Supporting
3%
4%
Threatened
5%
48%
31%
Partially
Supporting
91%
47%
52%
Not
Supporting
4%
2%
14%
'Totals represent 12% of river miles, 60% of lake acres, and 72% of wetlands acres.
None or not reported.
adopted rules for administering the
Water Protection Practices Program
in 1990, which include the follow-
ing provisions:
Districts must designate
high-priority watersheds or water
quality problems targeted for fund-
ing and the State Soil Conservation
Committee must approve the prior-
ity designations
Cost-share (up to 75%) will be
available for best management prac-
tices ignored by previous programs,
such as planting critical areas, grass
strips, field borders, filter strips, and
pasture and hay lands.
The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture
program is reversing the previous
trend of wetlands destruction in
Iowa. The program purchases and
restores wetlands with funds pro-
vided by State agencies, Federal
agencies, and county and private
organizations. During 1990 and
1991, the program purchased al-
most 5,000 acres of wetlands and
surrounding uplands and restored
almost 1,300 acres of wetlands in
288 basins.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Since the 1970s, Iowa's Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (DNR)
has collected data from fixed-station
water quality monitoring sites
(sampled monthly or quarterly),
from DNR-sponsored special studies,
and from monitoring programs
conducted by other agencies. The
State's surface water monitoring
strategy was revised in 1990, but no
major changes were made in DNR's
monitoring network.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 121
Kansas
For a copy of the Kansas 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Mike Butler
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Bureau of Water Protection
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913)296-5575
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Pathogens, metals, salinity, and
suspended solids are the major
causes of use impairment in Kansas
streams. These contaminants enter
streams via agricultural runoff, sew-
age treatment plant discharges, and
other point sources. Agricultural
activities generate most of the pesti-
cides and nutrients degrading lake
water quality. Flow alterations result-
ing from agricultural activities and
hydromodifications are responsible
for impairments in assessed wet-
lands. The most significant sources
of ground water contamination are
underground storage tanks and oil
and gas operations (excluding injec-
tion wells).
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Kansas' Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Program assumes
that nonpoint source (NPS) pollution
threatens all of Kansas' water re-
sources and that NPS controls must
be implemented to reverse existing
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
17,1 03 mi
172,1 29 ac
34,256 ac
Fully
Supporting
3%
<1%
Threat-
ened
2%
Partially
Supporting
2%
92%
100%
Not
Supporting
45%
5%
Not
Attainable
50%
'Totals represent 13% of river miles, 100% of lake acres, and 100% of wetlands acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
In 1990, the Kansas Department
of Health and Environment added
NPS assessment sites to the ambient
stream chemistry network. NPS
monitoring sites now constitute
58% of the 277 sampling stations in
the network.
damage and prevent future water
quality degradation. The program
consists of four components. The
Certification Unit reviews and
certifies local NPS Pollution Manage-
ment Plans and Project Plans and
reviews Federal, State, and local
projects for consistency with State
water quality standards and the NPS
Pollution Control Program. The Local
Environmental Protection Unit
provides funding to local govern-
ments to prepare and implement
Local Environmental Protection Plans,
which include a subdivision and
wastewater management plan,
public water supply plan, and an
NPS control plan. The Technical
Assistance Unit develops and
administers demonstration projects,
helps local health departments and
conservation districts prepare plans,
and maintains a Catalog of NPS
Control Practices. The Information
and Education Unit produces
several newsletters, fact sheets, and
displays.
-------
122 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Kentucky
For a copy of the Kentucky 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Terry Anderson
Department for Environmental
Protection
Division of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)564-3410
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Fecal conforms cause most im-
pairments of swimming use in rivers,
while siltation and organic enrich-
ment impair aquatic life use in riv-
ers. The sources impairing the larg-
est number of stream miles include
municipal wastewater treatment
plants, agricultural activities, and
resource extraction. Nutrients, pri-
marily from agricultural runoff and
municipal discharges, were the
greatest cause of impairment in
lakes. Iron and manganese also im-
paired domestic water supply use in
many lakes. The Commonwealth
considers underground storage
tanks, septic tanks, abandoned haz-
ardous waste sites, agricultural ac-
tivities, and landfills to be the lead-
ing sources of ground water con-
tamination.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Riven
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
9,737 mi
21 4, 962 ac
Fully
Supporting
67%
47%
Threatened
1%
44%
Partially
Supporting
10%
6%
Not
Supporting
22%
3%
Totals represent 11 % of river miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In 1988, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky integrated whole-effluent
toxicity (WET) limits with traditional
chemical limits in discharge permits
issued to industrial facilities and
municipal wastewater treatment
plants. The Commonwealth set WET
limits for both acute and chronic
toxicity based on case-by-case evalu-
ations of the discharge type and
volume, and the characteristics of
the receiving waterbody. By the end
of 1991, 77 municipal and 35 in-
dustrial discharge permits required
WET monitoring. Initially, these fa-
cilities submit monthly WET test
results for 1 year after which tests
are performed quarterly. A facility
must undertake a toxicity reduction
evaluation following two consecu-
tive failures of a single concentration
"screen" test. As a result of the pro-
gram, five dischargers are changing
plant operations, five dischargers are
making plant improvements, and
four dischargers are constructing
new treatment plants to reduce
effluent toxicity.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Kentucky implemented several
long-term studies to determine
nonpoint source impacts and dem-
onstrate water quality improvements
from best management practices,
including a joint project with the
State of Tennessee to correct mine
drainage problems in the Bear Creek
watershed.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 123
Louisiana
For a copy of the Louisiana 1992
305(b) report, contact
Emelise S. Cormier, Acting Program
Manager
Louisiana Department of Environ-
mental Quality
Office of Water Resources
Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge. LA 70884-2215
(504) 765-0511
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
The most frequently cited pol-
lutants causing impairments are
pathogen indicators, nutrients, or-
ganic enrichment and low dissolved
oxygen concentrations, and oil and
grease. Most estuaries are impaired
by high bacterial counts that force
the State to close oyster harvesting
areas. The most commonly cited
sources of pollutants impacting the
assessed waterbodies are agricultural
runoff, discharges and spills from
petroleum activities, urban runoff,
industrial point sources, and inad-
equately treated sewage discharges
from municipalities. Although the
quality of the State's major ground
water aquifer remains excellent, the
State is concerned about threats to
shallow aquifers and the water-
bearing zones that contribute signifi-
cantly to the deeper aquifers.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
9,089 mi
61 2,288 ac
4,943 mi2
Fully
Supporting
26%
42%
29%
Threat-
ened
21%
7%
53%
Partially
Supporting
37%
51%
17%
Not
Supporting
16%
<1%
<1%
Not
Attainable
<1%
'Totals represent 14% of river miles, 57% of lake acres, and 65% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
In 1989, the Louisiana State
Legislature created the Lake Pont-
chartrain Basin Foundation, a
nonprofit organization that brings
together scientists, citizens, and
politicians to reverse the shoreline
erosion, loss of marshes, and reduc-
tion in fisheries accelerated by urban
runoff and shell dredging. To date,
the Foundation has sponsored
educational projects with funding
from the Greater New Orleans
Expressway Commission and private
donations.
The State's water pollution con-
trol program relies heavily on strong
water quality standards. During
1989 and 1991, the State adopted
numerical criteria for toxic sub-
stances including several priority
organics and metals. Currently, the
State is revising its bacteriological
criteria and is considering biological
criteria for all waters.
-------
124 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Maine
For a copy of the Maine 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Paul Dutram
Maine Department of Environ-
mental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Control
State House Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207)289-7195
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
In Maine, priority pollutants
(most notably dioxin) cause the
most significant nonattainment in
major rivers. In other riverine waters,
oxygen deficits due to organic en-
richment and bacteria are the most
significant causes of impairment
Nonpoint sources generate most of
the organic enrichment while mu-
nicipal point sources, onsite waste-
water treatment, and untreated
discharges are the primary sources
of pathogenic indicators. The most
significant cause of nonattainment
in Maine lakes is organic enrichment
from nonpoint sources of pollution,
such as urban runoff, agriculture,
and silviculture. Pathogenic indica-
tors from municipal point sources
are the most significant cause of
nonattainment in estuarine and
coastal waters. The greatest threat
to Maine's ground water is leaking
underground storage tanks.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed'
31 ,672 mi
958, 389 ac
1,633 mi2
Fully
Supporting
98%
73%
90%
Threatened
6%
Partially
Supporting
1%
21%
2%
Not
Supporting
1%
8%
'Totals represent 100% of river miles, 97% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The State issued fish consump-
tion advisories for major rivers due
to elevated concentrations of dioxin
detected in fish tissue samples.
Maine is working with the Kraft pulp
and paper mills to reduce dioxin
concentrations in their discharges.
As a result, Maine restored the fully
supporting status of 20 river miles
that were previously contaminated
by dioxin.
The Maine Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection (DEP) is con-
cerned about possible mercury con-
tamination from nonpoint sources.
Occasionally, samples of older lake
trout caught in inland waters lacking
point sources exceed FDA standards
for mercury. The DEP plans addi-
tional ambient fish tissue sampling
during the next 2 years.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 125
Maryland
For a copy of the Maryland 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Shermer Garrison
Maryland Department of the
Environment
Chesapeake Bay and Special Projects
Program
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410)631-3580
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Overall, Maryland's surface
waters are in good condition, but
recreational bathing, shellfish har-
vesting, and consumption of certain
fish species are restricted or prohib-
ited in some areas. The most serious
water quality problem in Maryland is
the continuing accumulation of nu-
trients in estuaries and lakes. Excess
nutrients from agricultural, urban,
and natural runoff, as well as point
sources, result in algal blooms and
low dissolved oxygen concentrations
in lakes and tidal embayments. The
impacts affect water supplies, recre-
ational activities, and limit habitat for
aquatic plants and animals.
Locally high sediment levels
affect all of the State's surface waters.
Sources of sediment include agricul-
tural and urban runoff, construction
activities, natural erosion, dredging,
forestry, and mining operations.
Other State concerns include high
bacteria levels found in all water
types, toxic contaminants in sedi-
ments and fish tissues in selected
urban areas, and acidic waters from
acid mine drainage in western
Maryland.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
17,000 mi
21,001 ac
2,522 mi2
Fully
Supporting
92%
77%
99%
Threatened
4%
4%
1%
Partially
Supporting
7%
19%
93%
Not
Supporting
<1%
<1%
3%
"Totals represent 100% of river miles, 27% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In 1989, the State issued a fish
consumption advisory in a portion
of the Potomac River in western
Maryland due to elevated concen-
trations of dioxin identified in sev-
eral fish species. The Kraft-process
paper mill identified as the source of
the dioxin changed its treatment
process, reductions in dioxin levels
in fish tissue samples were observed,
and this advisory was modified to
address only two fish species. A
Targeted Watershed Program was
implemented at several sites to
demonstrate how an interagency
approach can be used to identify
and solve water pollution problems.
Nonpoint source pollution control
programs affect most of the State's
citizens to some degree and range
from shoreline protection and devel-
opment regulations to implementa-
tion of agricultural and construction
BMPs to educational efforts. Efforts
to improve wastewater treatment
plant performance through capital
improvements and enhanced opera-
tor training have resulted in very
high levels of compliance (greater
than 95%) at major wastewater
facilities in Maryland during the past
2 years.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Maryland's diverse and extensive
water quality and aquatic resource
monitoring programs are reviewed
periodically and revised to incorpo-
rate newer technologies and sam-
pling strategies. The Chesapeake
Bay Monitoring Program monitors
water quality, sediment, and aquatic
resources intensively to document
nutrient trends in the Bay and calcu-
late pollutant loads from significant
river systems. In 1990, the State
initiated a biological assessment
program using EPA-sanctioned rapid
bioassessment protocols at almost
400 stream sites throughout the
State. The State also modified its fish
tissue and shellfish monitoring pro-
grams to enhance efficiency and
respond to the analytical needs of
each program.
-------
126 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Massachusetts
For a copy of the Massachusetts
1992 305(b) report, contact
Warren Kimball
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Division of Water Pollution Control
Technical Services Branch
1 Winter Street - 8th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5968
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Pathogens impair the most
miles of rivers and streams, followed
by priority organics, and nutrients.
Urban runoff/storm sewers are the
predominant source of contamina-
tion in rivers and streams, followed
by septic systems and in-place con-
taminants. Major causes of non-
attainment in lakes include excessive
aquatic plant growth, nutrients,
organic enrichment, and exotic
species. The major sources of lake
water quality impairments are un-
known. Stormwater runoff and com-
bined sewer overflows generate the
pathogenic contamination that im-
pairs most estuarine waters. Estuar-
ies also suffer from unionized am-
monia and low dissolved oxygen
concentrations. Organic pollutants
appear most often in contaminated
public ground water supplies.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes'1
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
1,571 mi
21,247ac
223 mi2
Fully
Supporting
39%
38%
30%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
17%
55%
10%
Not
Supporting
44%
7%
60%
'Totals represent 18% of river miles, 14% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
""Excludes Quabbin Reservoir which covers 53% of the State's lake surface area. The entire
Quabbin Reservoir does not support its designated uses because of a fish consumption advisory
based on elevated mercury levels in fish tissues.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Recent State legislation will
provide funds for a revolving loan
program to cities and towns for the
correction of combined sewer over-
flows and the construction of waste-
water treatment facilities. Local
sources of funding to repay the
loans and to finance nonfundable
projects will be increased through
higher use fees and other financial
arrangements. DEP has established
a Nonpoint Source Program. Cur-
rently, 14 demonstration projects
are being funded with Section 319
funds in the State. DEP is develop-
ing a watershed based planning
approach for regulation and moni-
toring of water quality.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
DEP has ongoing surface water
quality and assessment programs
including wastewater discharge
evaluations, river monitoring, lake
monitoring, and coastal monitoring.
In addition to water chemistry, there
is a biomonitoring program includ-
ing macroinvertebrate analysis,
bioaccumulation studies, and toxicity
testing. DEP has a joint surface
water discharge permit program
with EPA. The permits contain efflu-
ent limits for various parameters and
monitoring requirements necessary
to achieve compliance with water
quality standards.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 127
Michigan
For a copy of the Michigan 1992
305(b) report, contact
Greg Coudy
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909
(517)335-3310
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Priority organics caused impair-
ments in more river miles than any
other cause, followed by heavy met-
als and siltation/sedimentation. The
State identified agriculture-related
nonpoint sources as the most com-
mon source of river impairments.
Heavy metals, priority organics, and
dissolved oxygen depletion had the
greatest impact on inland lakes.
Point sources were the leading
source of impairment in lakes. All
Michigan waters in the Great Lakes
failed to support designated uses
because of elevated PCB concentra-
tions in water and fish tissue
samples. Sources of contamination
include atmospheric deposition and
in-place contamination (e.g., sedi-
ments contaminated by discontin-
ued industrial discharges). The larg-
est number of ground water con-
tamination incidents are associated
with underground storage tanks,
surface discharges, and landfills.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
22,590 mi
490,455 ac
3,288 mi
Fully
Supporting
94%
95%
Threatenedb
Partially
Supporting11
Not
Supporting
6%
5%
100%
"Totals represent 40% of river miles, 51% of lake acres, and 100% of Great Lakes shore miles.
bMichigan assesses its waters as either fully supporting their designated uses or not supporting
their designated uses. Michigan does not recognize threatened and partially supporting
categories of use support.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The Watershed Demonstration
Program is the major focus of
nonpoint source control efforts in
Michigan. The program facilitates
interagency cooperation to improve
water quality in specific watersheds
and ensures that limited resources
are directed to the highest priority
areas. Most of the funded watershed
projects combine streambank stabili-
zation techniques with soil erosion
controls and animal waste best
management practices to reduce
sedimentation and nutrient loading
in waterbodies.
Michigan is pursuing a sediment
assessment protocol that combines
biological field surveys with chemi-
cal and physical analysis of sedi-
ments and sediment toxicity testing.
The State will not incorporate sedi-
ment bioassay tests into an assess-
ment program until further work
validates toxicity test results in the
field and defines the relationship
between laboratory test results and
instream responses.
-------
128 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Minnesota
For a copy of the Minnesota 1992
305(b) report, contact
Catherine Malave
MPCA, Division of Water Quality
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612)296-8861
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Minnesota most frequently cites
metals, nutrients, and fecal material
from nonpoint sources as the causes
of impairment in rivers. Pollution in
lakes is primarily due to nutrients
from agricultural runoff and mercury
from atmospheric deposition. Por-
tions of Lake Superior suffer from
persistent toxic substances. Data
indicate that human activities have
introduced volatile organic com-
pounds, pesticides, and nitrate into
several important ground water
aquifers.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Water-body
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
4,634 mi
2,882,81 8 ac
272 mi
Fully
Supporting
23%
11%
Threatened
6%
Partially
Supporting
25%
76%
Not
Supporting
52%
7%
100%
"Totals represent 5% of river miles, 88% of lake acres, and 100% of Great Lakes shore miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) is moving toward
integrating surface water monitor-
ing, planning, and management on
a watershed basis. Such an ap-
proach will focus on interconnec-
tions throughout the whole water-
shed and deal with water pollution
problems in a comprehensive man-
ner. Minnesota also interfds to
strengthen wetland preservation
through local implementation of the
Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.
The Act advocates "no net loss" in
the quantity, quality, and biological
diversity of Minnesota's existing
wetlands. The Act requires develop-
ers to avoid impacts where it is pru-
dent and feasible, or replace wet-
land values where impacts cannot
be avoided. The Act also creates a
compensation program for perma-
nent easements on high-quality
wetlands and provides property tax
incentives to landowners enrolling
wetlands in preservation banks for 8
years. The State also plans to estab-
lish a cost-share program to create
and restore wetlands.
The State tries to locate the
source of fish tissue contamination
by monitoring sediments in areas
where fish tissue samples reveal
elevated toxic concentrations. The
State would like to pair sediment
sampling with routine monitoring
performed by dischargers where a
toxicity problem is detected. Cur-
rently, several municipal wastewater
dischargers monitor sediments for
pollutants that tend to bioaccumu-
late.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 129
Mississippi
For a copy of the Mississippi 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Randy Reed
Mississippi Department of Environ-
mental Quality
Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601)961-5158
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Nutrients, pathogens, pesticides,
and solids cause major impacts to
rivers and streams; pesticides and
nutrients cause major impacts on
assessed lakes; and metals cause the
only significant major impact on
estuaries. Agriculture impacts the
majority of impaired river miles,
followed by industrial and municipal
point sources. Major impacts on
lakes are also due to agricultural
nonpoint sources. Septic tanks con-
tribute to moderate impairments on
lakes. Industrial point sources cause
major impairments in estuaries. Mu-
nicipal point sources, urban runoff,
and septic tanks cause moderate
impairments in estuarine waters and
coastal waters.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
35,854 mi
326,844 ac
18 mi2
81 mi
Fully
Supporting
6%
47%
5%
Threatened
4%
18%
68%
12%
Partially
Supporting
88%
35%
26%
88%
Not
Supporting
2%
<1%
'Totals represent 43% of river miles, 65% of lake acres, 14% of estuary square miles, and 100%
of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Currently, Mississippi is imple-
menting 10 nonpoint source (NPS)
control projects with funds from
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act
The projects provide technical assis-
tance, public education, and
agrichemical monitoring and dem-
onstrate the effectiveness of slotted
board risers, animal waste spray
irrigation systems, constructed wet-
lands, and other best management
practices.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The Mississippi Office of Pollu-
tion Control (OPC) implements an
ambient biological integrity program
that features annual ambient fish
tissue sampling and macroinverte-
brate sampling in freshwater and
periphyton sampling in estuarine
waters. The OPC collects three fish
species at selected primary stations
and analyzes composite samples for
the presence of 27 organic com-
pounds and 7 heavy metals. The
OPC protocols include habitat as-
sessment and sampling of every
habitat that could be a home for
macroinvertebrates. Staff count the
number of individuals of each
macroinvertebrate species collected
to rate species richness and trophic
community structure at each site.
-------
130 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Missouri
For a copy of the Missouri 1992
305 (b) report, contact
John Ford
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314)751-7024
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Siltation, habitat alteration, and
water loss cause most impairments
in rivers and streams. Channeliza-
tion has degraded aquatic life habi-
tat in 17 percent of Missouri's
streams and the State does not have
a program to prevent additional
projects to straighten streams. Agri-
culture is the predominant source of
river impairments. Pesticides from
agricultural activities cause most lake
impairments in the State. Urban
runoff and hydrologic/habitat alter-
ations also impair lakes.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
21, 015 mi
287,543 ac
Fully
Supporting
53%
53%
Threatened
35%
Partially
. Supporting
46%
2%
Not
Supporting
1%
10%
'Totals represent 18% of river miles and 100% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The Nonpoint Source (NPS)
program staff were very active dur-
ing 1990 and 1991. The NPS staff
generated four new pieces of legisla-
tion, participated in 11 public infor-
mation and education projects, 11
watershed implementation projects,
and 8 technical assistance programs.
The NPS program focus areas in-
clude animal waste management,
dead bird composting, inventory
and water quality monitoring of
NPSs, and fertilizer and pesticide
management The most successful
nonpoint source program to date
reclaims abandoned coal mine
lands. Reclamation projects reduced
the number of stream miles seriously
impaired by coal mine drainage
from 100 miles to 42 miles by Octo-
ber 1991.
The Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) discontin-
ued ambient chemical monitoring
primarily for financial reasons. As a
result, some important streams with
long historical records are no longer
monitored. In contrast the ambient
fish tissue monitoring network grew
in recent years. At present the EPA
and Missouri DNR sample fish from
25 sites for a wide variety of toxi-
cants. The Missouri Department of
Conservation also analyzes a smaller
number of toxicants in approxi-
mately 170 fish collected at 60 sites.
The expansion of the ambient fish
sampling program enables the Mis-
souri Department of Health to
specify individual species and water-
body segments affected by fish con-
sumption advisories. Currently, the
State recommends limiting con-
sumption of fish caught in 19
waterbodies.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 131
Montana
For a copy of the Montana 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Christian j. Levine
Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Science
Water Quality Bureau
Cogswell Building, Room A206
1400 Broadway
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-5342
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Flow alteration, suspended sol-
ids, and siltation cause most impair-
ments in rivers and streams. Agricul-
tural sources (crop production and
rangeland), streambank destabiliza-
tion, silviculture, flow modification,
and construction impact the most
stream miles. Metals, flow alteration,
nutrients, suspended solids, noxious
aquatic plants, and organic enrich-
ment impair the most lake acres.
Agricultural activities and flow regu-
lation are the leading sources of lake
impairments. Natural arsenic con-
tamination in much of the State's
water remains a concern, and the
State is concerned about elevated
concentrations of selenium, salts,
and other trace elements and pesti-
cides entering wetlands from agri-
cultural and irrigation practices.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
178, 896 mi
979,433 ac
Fully
Supporting
90%
38%
Threatened
2%
14%
Partially
Supporting
7%
46%
Not
Supporting
1%
2%
'Totals represent 100% of river miles and 100% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences,
Water Quality Bureau, received an
EPA grant for more than $433,000
to fund a Statewide interagency
wetlands program. The program's
six components will (1) collect exist-
ing interagency data and establish a
database; (2) monitor 20 water-
quality-limited wetlands and 40
least-impacted wetlands and de-
velop wetland biocriteria; (3) de-
velop wetland education programs;
(4) implement river corridor man-
agement projects; (5) revise the
Department of Transportation's
wetland protection and mitigation
program, develop a system to track
wetlands losses and mitigation bank-
ing, and monitor mitigation projects
to determine effectiveness; and (6)
print a Statewide classification and
management document for riparian
and wetland sites.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Successful long-term trend
analysis has been limited to the
Clark Fork River Basin and Flathead
Lake. The Clark Fork River has
shown improvement during the last
several years. Copper concentrations
have declined in the headwater
reaches and phosphorus concentra-
tions have declined in the lower
reaches of the river. Unfortunately,
water quality in Flathead Lake has
declined as evidenced by increased
algal growth.
The State is implementing stud-
ies under the Clean Lakes Program
that will develop a nutrient balance
and determine primary productivity
status for Flathead Lake and Swan
Lake. A third study will investigate
methylmercury and PCBs in fish
tissue and sediments as well as
trophic status in 20 of the most
heavily fished lakes in Montana.
-------
132 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Nebraska
For a copy of the Nebraska 1992
305(b) report, contact
Steven Walker, Section Supervisor
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402)471-2875
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Nebraska identified fecal bacte-
ria, pesticides, and flow alteration as
major causes of river impairments.
Organic enrichment, ammonia, and
metals cause moderate or minor
impairments. Agriculture, natural
sources, and point sources affected
the most river miles. Metals, patho-
gens, suspended solids, and nutri-
ents were the leading cause of im-
pairment in lakes. Municipal point
sources and agriculture were the
leading sources of lake impairments.
Major sources of ground water con-
tamination included agricultural
activities, leaking underground stor-
age tanks, septic systems, waste
disposal, and industrial facilities.
Nitrate contamination, primarily
from overfertilization of irrigated
land, is the most widespread
ground water concern in the State.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
8,061 mi
132, 948 ac
Fully
Supporting
26%
26%
Threatened
2%
2%
Partially
Supporting
49%
43%
Not
Supporting
23%
29%
"Totals represent 10% of river miles and 87% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The Special Protection Area
(SPA) Program authorizes local
Natural Resource Districts (NRDs) to
regulate activities that may generate
nonpoint source contamination in
designated ground waters. Desig-
nated SPA areas suffer from docu-
mented nonpoint source contamina-
tion or face a threat from nonpoint
sources of pollution. The Nebraska
Department of Environmental Con-
servation (NDEC) conducts detailed
studies of proposed SPA sites. The
predesignation studies usually in-
clude ground water sampling, cor-
ing of the vadose zone, and collec-
tion of existing data on geology,
soils, and land use. At the close of
1991, NDEC had examined eight
proposed SPA sites and designated
two SPA sites encompassing 482
square miles.
The Nebraska Department of
Health annually monitors nitrate
concentrations in samples represent-
ing all 1,426 public ground water
supplies in the State.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 133
Nevada
For a copy of the Nevada 1992
305(b) report, contact-
Glen Gentry
Bureau of Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Protection
123 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 687-4670
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Agricultural practices (specifically
irrigation, grazing, and flow regula-
tion) generate the large sediment
and nutrient loads impacting the
waters of Nevada. Urban drainage
systems add nutrients, heavy metals,
and organic substances to the load.
The State is eliminating point
sources where possible and their
adverse effects on water quality
have been greatly reduced. How-
ever, the Las Vegas wastewater
treatment plant and low flows re-
sulting from natural drought condi-
tions also impair waters in the State.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
1,427 mi
21 3,257 ac
36,1 69 ac
Fully
Supporting
23%
62%
Threat-
ened
Partially
Supporting
23%
12%
33%
Not
Supporting
50%
26%
67%
Not
Attainable
3%
Totals represent 1% of river miles, 38% of lake acres, and 26% of wetlands acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The Nevada Nonpoint Source
(NPS) Base Program (initiated in
1991) enhances the Nevada NPS
Program with new activities that
address technical transfer and tech-
nical outreach. The new Base Pro-
gram utilizes existing staff and one
new hire to administer new projects.
In 1990, DEP issued two
stormwater discharge permits to
control runoff from two major urban
areas in the State. The first permit
was issued jointly to the Cities of
Reno and Sparks, Washoe County,
and the Nevada Department of
Transportation (NDOT). The second
permit was issued to the cities of Las
Vegas, North Las Vegas, and
Henderson, the NDOT, and the
Clark County Regional Flood Control
District The permits require moni-
toring, land use planning, and zon-
ing to address upstream stormwater
issues. Wet weather sampling began
in 1991.
As a long-term goal, DEP rec-
ommends increased staffing and
funding to develop a ground water
monitoring network and database.
Current activities are fragmented,
sporadic, and site-specific. The State
would use the monitoring data to
assess existing water quality in
Nevada's aquifers and inventory
sources of known or potential
threats to ground water quality.
-------
134 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
New Hampshire
For a copy of the New Hampshire
1992 305(b) report, contact
Richard Flanders, Supervisor
Water Quality Section
New Hampshire WSPCD/DES
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301-6528
(603)271-3571
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Elevated bacteria levels, organic
enrichment and depressed oxygen
concentrations, nutrients, and silt-
ation cause occasional problems in
rivers and streams. The sources of
these contaminants are primarily
"unknown." Excessive noxious
aquatic plants and nutrients from
industrial and municipal discharges
and "unknown" sources are the
main cause of nonattainment of
designated uses in reservoirs. El-
evated bacteria levels from small
point sources and nonpoint sources
restrict shellfishing in the coastal
bays and estuaries. The major
sources of ground water contamina-
tion are leaky underground storage
tanks, uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites, and municipal landfills.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
10,841 mi
1 53,580 ac
28 mi2
18 mi
Fully
Supporting
98%
85%
34%
100%
Threatened
6%
Partially
Supporting
1%
6%
Not
Supporting
1%
3%
66%
"Totals represent 100% of river miles, 100% of lake acres, 100% of estuary square miles, and
100% of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The State drafted a Clean Water
Strategy to address the remaining
water quality standard violations.
The plan proposes to confirm the
presence of violations with addi-
tional sampling and detect causes
and sources with field investigations.
The State will take compliance ac-
tions to eliminate the sources on a
priority basis. Plan implementation
relies on EPA funding.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
All point source discharge per-
mits require (or will require) effluent
testing for acute toxicity. Some per-
mits will also require chronic toxicity
testing depending on the flow limi-
tations of the receiving waters.
Some dischargers must also sample
surface water toxicity at upstream
sites. Approximately 80 percent of
the industrial dischargers and 90
percent of the municipal dischargers
have been screened for acute toxic-
ity. The State has not detected evi-
dence of in-stream acute toxicity.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 135
New Jersey
For a copy of the New jersey 1992
305(b) report, contact
Kevin Berry
Office of Regulatory Policy
New Jersey DEPE
401 East State Street
3rd Floor - CN029
Trenton, N] 08625
(609) 633-7021
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Fecal coliform bacteria, nutri-
ents, depressed dissolved oxygen
concentrations, siltation, road salts,
and oil and grease cause most water
quality impairments in rivers and
streams. The most common pollu-
tion problems in lakes include nutri-
ents, siltation, depressed dissolved
oxygen concentrations, and excess
primary productivity. The State cites
nonpoint sources (such as storm-
water outfalls, construction, urban
and agricultural runoff) as the princi-
pal source of contaminants in sur-
face waters. However, very little
monitoring data exist to quantify
the effect of individual nonpoint
sources. The most common pollut-
ants detected during ground water
pollution investigations include vola-
tile organic compounds, metals,
base neutrals, acid extractables,
PCBs, and pesticides. Underground
storage tanks are most often cited
as the source of ground water con-
tamination, followed by landfills,
surface spills, and industrial/com-
mercial septic systems.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Water-body
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
1,515 mi
61 4 mi2
146 mi
Fully
Supporting
72%
73%
Threatened
73%
Partially
Supporting
15%
20%
Not
Supporting
12%
8%
27%
'Totals represent 23% of river miles, 100% of estuary square miles, and 100% of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The New jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and En-
ergy (N)DEPE) developed the Sew-
age Infrastructure Improvement Act
(SIIA) program to address storm-
water drainage and combined sewer
overflows in the coastal zone. The
program provides funds to munici-
palities to inventory and map their
sewer lines, stormwater systems,
cross-connections, and interconnec-
tions. The municipalities will use the
data to develop municipal nonpoint
source abatement measures and
plans.
The New Jersey Cooperative
Coastal Monitoring Program con-
cluded that 70% of New Jersey's 62
ocean beach closures between 1987
and 1991 could be prevented
through implementation of the SIIA
program.
-------
136 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
New Mexico
For a copy of the New Mexico 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Erik Galloway
Surface Water Quality Bureau
New Mexico Environment
Department
P.O. Box26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110
(505) 827-2923
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Siltation, metals, and habitat
alterations in the riparian zone cause
most impairments in rivers and
streams. Agricultural sources impair
more stream miles and lake acres
than any other identified source.
Hydrologic modification and recre-
ation impair rivers to a lesser extent
Recreation, spills and silviculture
impair significant areas of lakes. The
leading causes of impairment in
lakes are mercury contamination in
fish tissues, siltation, metals, and
habitat alterations along shorelines.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
New Mexico's ground water
protection regulations consist of
(1) ground water quality standards
and (2) requirements for ground
water discharge plans. The ground
water discharge plans establish
baseline concentrations of contami-
nants that cannot be exceeded after
the discharger begins disposal prac-
tices. The dischargers prepare the
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
3,589 mi
143, 71 Sac
Fully
Supporting
9%
<1%
Threatened
1%
9%
Partially
Supporting
82%
91%
Not
Supporting
8%
<1%
"Totals represent 3% of river miles and 95% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
plans, which must be approved by
the New Mexico Environment De-
partment or the Oil Conservation
Division. The State approves most
plans for a 5-year period, after
which the discharger must renew
the plan. With enforceable numeric
standards, the State ground water
discharge plans function like a dis-
charge permit As of 1991, New
Mexico had adopted numeric
ground water quality standards for
47 contaminants and narrative crite-
ria for 87 toxic pollutants in ground
waters that could serve a beneficial
use. The ground water rules apply
to wastewater discharges on the
surface of the ground as well as
subsurface discharges. In addition to
municipal sewage plants and indus-
trial facilities, ground water dis-
charge plans regulate dairies, min-
eral extraction operations, sludge
and septage disposal sites, hydrocar-
bon cleanup operations, and large
private sewage treatment systems
for trailer parks.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The ground water discharge
plans also specify monitoring sched-
ules to detect standard violations or
document compliance with stan-
dards.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 137
New York
For a copy of the New York 1992
305(b) report, contact
George K. Hansen, P.E.
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Monitoring and
Assessments
50 Wolf Road - Room 328
Albany, NY 12233-3503
(518)457-8819
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Agriculture and hydrologic/
habitat modifications are major
sources of water quality impairment
in New York's rivers, lakes, and res-
ervoirs. Agricultural sources contrib-
ute nutrients and silt, which cause
turbidity and excessive weed and
algae growth. Hydrologic/habitat
modifications include activities that
alter stream beds or shorelines, such
as dredging, filling, and impound-
ments. Urban runoff is the major
nonpoint source of impairment in
New York's bays and estuaries. Ur-
ban runoff is a source of silt, patho-
gen indicators, bacteria, petroleum
products, heavy metals, and
oxygen-demanding substances.
Pathogen indicators from urban
runoff, point sources, boats, water
fowl, and onsite disposal systems
caused the State to close 200,000
acres (16 percent) of the shellfish
beds in the New York City-Long
Island region.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
51, 729 mi
730, 387 ac
577 mi
1,530 mi2
120 mi
Fully
Supporting
93%
44%
15%
72%
50%
Threatened
3%
3%
<1%
Partially
Supporting
6%
53%
85%
11%
48%
Not
Supporting
<1%
3%
17%
2%
"Totals represent 100% of river miles, 100% of lake acres, 100% of Great Lakes shore miles, 100%
of estuary square miles, and 100% of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In 1991, New York revised its
surface water quality standards and
adopted methodologies for develop-
ing toxic standards for human
health and aquatic life. To date, the
State has adopted standards and/or
guidance values for nearly 250 toxic
substances or groups of toxic sub-
stances. These standards and guid-
ance values are the basis for setting
effluent limits for discharge permits.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
In 1990 and 1988, the NY State
Division of Environmental Conserva-
tion (NYSDEC) sampled PCB and
aroclor in Hudson River striped bass.
The data indicated a spatial decline
in average PCB concentrations with
increasing distance from the Albany-
Troy area. The study also found an
overall decline in fish tissue concen-
trations of total PCB, Aroclor 1254,
and Aroclor 1016 between 1980
and 1990.
-------
138 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
North Carolina
For a copy of the North Carolina
1992 305(b) report, contact
Carol Metz
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
(919)733-5083
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Siltation causes most use impair-
ment in rivers and streams. Agricul-
ture is the leading source of water
quality degradation in rivers and
streams, followed by urban runoff/
storm sewers, and point sources.
Excessive nutrient enrichment is the
major cause of use impairment in
North Carolina lakes. Municipal
wastewater treatment plants are the
leading source of nutrients in lakes.
Gasoline and diesel fuel from leaking
underground tanks is the primary
cause of ground water contamina-
tion.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
North Carolina has a number of
strong programs to not only correct,
but also to prevent, water quality
impairments. Several of these in-
clude
A newly initiated Basinwide Man-
agement Program that addresses
both point and nonpoint source
pollution on a watershed basis. This
program will cover every basin in
the State on a 5-year cycle.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
35,060 mi
304,542 ac
3, 122 mi2
10,307, 000 ac
fully
Supporting
37%
70%
87%
51%
Threatened
34%
21%
4%
Partially
Supporting
24%
9%
9%
25%
Not
Supporting
5%
<1%
<1%
24%
"Totals represent 93% of river miles, 100% of lake acres, 100% of estuary square miles, and 100%
of wetlands acres.
None or not reported. Programs tO ASS6SS
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
North Carolina integrates a wide
variety of information to address
multiple needs of the water quality
program. Data collected from a
statewide fixed station chemical/
physical monitoring network (AMS)
provides baseline long-term informa-
tion. Intensive water quality charac-
terization studies augment baseline
data in predictive modeling for
assimilative capacity and wasteload
allocation. These surveys include
time of travel work, physical/chemi-
cal collections, long-term BOD
analysis, and in situ sediment oxy-
gen demand measurements. Nu-
merous assessment tools are used in
evaluating existing conditions of
water quality and biological integrity
in-stream. These include macroinver-
tebrate surveys, fish community
structure analyses, phytoplankton
analyses, fish tissue analyses, aquatic
toxicity tests, and limnological re-
view of lakes and watersheds incor-
porating many of these tools.
A Water Supply Protection Pro-
gram requiring development within
water supply watersheds to control
stormwater quantity and quality
through density restrictions or
stormwater treatment devices.
A substantial Agricultural Cost
Share Program ($8 million per year)
to reduce sediment nutrients, pesti-
cides, etc., which contribute to im-
pairment of State waters.
Recently enacted Animal Waste
Management Rules, which mandate
Best Management Practices for new
and existing confined animal feed-
ing operations.
An innovative nutrient manage-
ment strategy involving nutrient
trading between point and nonpoint
sources in the nutrient-sensitive
waters of the Tar-Pamlico River Ba-
sin. This strategy provides point
sources with the option of meeting
nutrient reduction goals either
through in-plant reductions or
through the funding of agricultural
BMPs within the basin.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 139
North Dakota
For a copy of the North Dakota
1992 305(b) report, contact
Mike Ell
North Dakota State Department
of Health
Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
(701)221-5210
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Nutrients and siltation, primarily
from agricultural runoff, caused
most impairments in the State's
surface waters. Loss of streamside
vegetation, wetlands drainage, and
flow regulation also impaired
streams. The recent drought, com-
pounded by water management
policies for the two mainstem Mis-
souri River reservoirs in the State,
Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe,
impaired approximately 36 percent
of the assessed lake acres. The policy
implemented during the drought
required the State to maintain
downstream Missouri River uses
(such as municipal water supply and
navigation uses) by releasing reser-
voir waters at the expense of lake
uses (such as fishing, recreation, and
wildlife habitat). Five percent of the
assessed lake acres partially sup-
ported designated uses due to peri-
odic fish kills resulting from low
dissolved oxygen concentrations
caused by the decomposition of
organic matter. Major sources of
pollution to the State's lakes are
agricultural runoff and internal nutri-
ent cycling from sediments. Drain-
age continued to be the greatest
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Water-body
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed'
9, 172 mi
61 1,074 ac
Fully
Supporting
2%
2%
Threatened
73%
36%
Partially
Supporting
25%
26%
Not
Supporting
0%
36%
'Totals represent 77% of river miles and 99% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
threat to wetlands in the State.
However, nonpoint source pollution
problems, such as siltation and pes-
ticide contamination are a growing
concern as significant threats to
wetlands in the State. Chemical
spills from petroleum storage facili-
ties and agricultural chemical stor-
age facilities are the primary sources
of ground water contamination.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
During the past 3 years, the
State directed a majority of its Sec-
tion 319 funds to local projects ad-
dressing NPS pollution from agricul-
ture lands, the dominant land use in
North Dakota. Given the complexity
of the agricultural industry, the Divi-
sion of Water Quality has to work
closely with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), as well as with
local project sponsors to secure suffi-
cient funds to adequately address
agriculture-related pollution at spe-
cific project watersheds. Funded
projects demonstrate the effective-
ness of reduced cropland tillage,
proper grazing use, livestock waste
management low energy precision
application (LEPA) irrigation, as well
as nutrient and pesticide manage-
ment as effective strategies for NPS
pollution control and abatement.
Several projects also provide funds
to demonstrate proper procedures
for sealing abandoned wells.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
North Dakota's Division of
Water Quality administers a diverse
program to assess water quality.
Program monitoring and assessment
activities include the State's ambient
stream water quality monitoring
network, which includes 61 moni-
toring sites on 31 rivers and
streams, the lake water quality
assessment project the ground
water monitoring program, monitor-
ing in support of Section 319, NPS
pollution projects, and biological
monitoring including instream bio-
assay and fish flesh analysis. In
March 1991, the State issued its first
fish consumption advisory for sec-
tions of the Missouri River, the Red
River, and 10 lakes. The advisory
affects 509 miles of rivers and
339,370 acres of lakes where fish
sampling revealed elevated concen-
trations of mercury in fish tissues.
-------
140 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries .
Ohio
For a copy of the Ohio 1992
305(b) report, contact
Ed Rankin
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614) 777-6264
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Organic enrichment affects 30
percent of the assessed river miles,
followed by sediment (affecting 9
percent), and habitat modification
(affecting 8 percent). Point sources
are the leading source of pollutants
impairing rivers, followed by habitat
modification, agriculture, and min-
ing. Agricultural runoff, discharges
from wastewater treatment plants
and industries, failing septic systems,
stormwater runoff, and habitat
modifications are the leading
sources depleting oxygen, elevating
nutrients, and causing siltation in
Ohio's lakes. The Great Lakes shore-
line is impaired by a fish consump-
tion advisory and exceedences of
copper and cadmium criteria in the
water column.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
7,903 mi
78,527 ac
236 mi
Fully
Supporting
33%
<1%
Threatened
7%
8%
Partially
Supporting
21%
85%
100%
Not
Supporting
39%
7%
"Totals represent 27% of river miles, 66% of lake acres, and 100% of Great Lakes shore miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
Ohio EPA is shifting from a
regulatory approach that controls
individual pollutants to an ecosys-
tem approach that tackles habitat
degradation on shore as well as in
the water. Long-term solutions in-
clude land use setbacks and preser-
vation of stream hydrology.
Ohio EPA adopted biocriteria
(direct measures of fish and macro-
invertebrate population and com-
munity characteristics) in February
1990. The State measures biological
community health by comparing
observed ecological characteristics
with the characteristics at least-
impacted reference sites for a given
ecoregion and stream type. Biologi-
cal monitoring enables the State to
detect aquatic life effects that would
not be revealed by measuring
chemical and physical parameters
alone. Trend analysis of comprehen-
sive data collected over the past 12
years indicates substantial improve-
ments in river quality, especially in
rivers where organic enrichment
loadings have declined and dis-
solved oxygen levels have increased.
The State attributes much of the
water quality improvements to
wastewater treatment plant up-
grades performed since 1972.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 141
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
For a copy of the ORSANCO 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Jason Heath
ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45228
(513)231-7719
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Priority organics, metals, pesti-
cides, siltation, and pathogens im-
pair the mainstem of the Ohio River.
Priority organics, such as benzene
and chloroform, exceed the 10-6
Cancer Risk Criteria Level in 10 to
90 percent of the daily samples.
Urban runoff, storm sewers, com-
bined sewer overflows, unknown
sources, agriculture, and industrial
point sources impair large stretches
of the river, and the relative contri-
bution of nonpoint sources appears
to be increasing.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
981 mi
NA
Fully
Supporting
0%
NA
Threatened
0%
NA
Partially
Supporting
51%
NA
Not
Supporting
49%
NA
Totals represent 100% of river miles.
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Ohio River Valley Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO) relies on
its member States (Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia) to administer point
source permit programs. However,
the Commission reviews point
source permits drafted by the States
to ensure that Commission stan-
dards will not be violated. The
Commission's Pollution Control
Standards (adopted in 1990) include
criteria for human health pollutants
and industrial waste treatment re-
quirements. The Commission re-
cently began to define its role in
controlling nonpoint source pollu-
tion. The Commission went on
record advocating a technology-
based approach for controlling
nonpoint sources. The Commission
will prioritize the control of pollution
resulting from resource extraction
activities, followed by urban runoff.
However, the Commission's role in
managing nonpoint source pollution
remains undefined.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
ORSANCO's monitoring pro-
gram includes ambient sampling,
daily organics monitoring, fish tissue
analysis, fish population studies,
bacterial monitoring, and intensive
surveys. Following detections of
copper in samples collected from
intakes, the Monitoring Strategy
Subcommittee undertook a com-
plete review and assessment of the
ambient monitoring system. The
Subcommittee will review field op-
erations, sample handling and analy-
sis, data review and validation, data
uses, and reporting procedures. The
review should ensure that valid data
are generated and distributed to
decision makers.
-------
142 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Oklahoma
For a copy of the Oklahoma 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Sylvia Ritzky
Oklahoma Department of
Pollution Control
P.O. Box 53504
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405)271-4468
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Turbidity, siltation, pesticides,
and nutrients, primarily from agricul-
tural sources, cause the most wide-
spread impairments in rivers,
streams, and lakes. Other significant
sources include domestic and indus-
trial wastewater discharges, con-
struction runoff, urban runoff, and
oil field activities.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
7,045 mi
605,892 ac
120ac
Fully
Supporting
8%
16%
Threatened
50%
38%
100%
Partially
Supporting
31%
40%
Not
Supporting
11%
6%
'Totals represent 8% of river miles, 58% of lake acres, and <1 % of wetlands acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
In 1990, the Oklahoma Conser-
vation Commission (OCC) received
an EPA 319 grant to implement a
3-year demonstration project for
"Control of Erosion Related Pollution
from Mixed Agricultural Activities."
The OCC will implement the dem-
onstration project at three water-
sheds in western Oklahoma. Two of
the watersheds suffer from excessive
nutrient and sediment loads; the
third watershed is impaired by bac-
teria, followed by sediment and
nutrients. Local conservation districts
and the OCC will select best man-
agement practices (BMPs) to rem-
edy the problems in each watershed
and recruit agricultural operators to
implement the BMPs. The OCC set
a project goal at 70 percent partici-
pation by local landowners. The
project also includes background
monitoring and post-implementa-
tion monitoring to assess BMP effec-
tiveness.
In 1991, the State initiated a
3-year sampling program to identify
ground water wells potentially at
risk from agricultural impacts. The
State conducted background surveys
to identify areas most likely to be
contaminated by agricultural im-
pacts, such as animal waste, fertil-
izer, and pesticides. In 1991, the
State sampled 67 wells and analyzed
the samples for nitrate-nitrogen and
specific pesticides used in the vicin-
ity of each well. Four of the samples
contained nitrate-nitrogen "above the
recommended limit of 20 mg/L for
noncommunity water supplies.
None of the samples contained
significant concentrations of pesti-
cides. Ultimately, the State will
sample 200 wells under the pro-
gram.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 143
Oregon
For a copy of the Oregon 1992
305(b) report, contact
Elizabeth Thompson
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Division of Water Quality Planning
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5358
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Habitat alterations, flow alter-
ations, elevated temperatures, and
siltation affect the largest number of
stream miles. Rangeland, agriculture,
forestry, and recreational activities
impair the most stream miles. Nutri-
ents and pH affect lakes, and patho-
gens and toxics impair estuarine
waters.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed'
29,1 09 mi
504,928 ac
60 mi2
Fully
Supporting
43%
74%
7%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
30%
12%
63%
Not
Supporting
27%
14%
31%
"Totals represent 32% of river miles, 82% of lake acres, and 30% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Croundwater Protection Act
requires statewide ground water
monitoring, domestic well testing,
public education activities, and
implementation of Best Manage-
ment Practices (BMPs). The Oregon
Department of Environmental Qual-
ity (DEQ) implements the Cround-
water Quality Protection Rules
through existing programs such as
the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program for point sources and the
Environmental Cleanup Program.
The ground water rules minimize
wastewater discharges by requiring
facilities to adopt "highest and best
methods" that prevent pollutants
from entering ground water. The
rules also require that facilities de-
velop ground water management
plans and monitor ground water
quality. In addition, the DEQ reviews
new facility plans to ensure that
facility design, construction, and
operation will not degrade ground
water.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
In 1991, the State adopted new
narrative biocriteria and focused on
using biological monitoring to de-
tect the effects of nonpoint sources.
In 1991, the State monitored
macroinvertebrates at 45 sites to
determine the effects of grazing and
forest management practices on
water quality. The biological moni-
toring program includes
macroinvertebrate assessments, fish
enzyme studies, fish tissue analysis
for toxic chemicals, fish health ob-
servations, periphyton growth stud-
ies, and toxicity testing.
-------
144 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Pennsylvania
For a copy of the Pennsylvania
1992 305(b) report, contact
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Bureau of Water Quality
Management
Division of Assessment and
Standards
P.O. Box8465, 10th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
(717) 783-2959
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Abandoned mine drainage is
the leading source of surface water
quality degradation. The pollutants
responsible for degradation due to
mining are low pH, metals, and
turbidity. Other sources of surface
water degradation include agricul-
ture and municipal and industrial
point sources. These sources gener-
ate nutrients, turbidity, and metals.
The major source of ground water
contamination is leaking under-
ground storage tanks. Other sources
of ground water contamination
include coal mining, bulk storage
tanks, chemical plants, and oil and
gas exploration. Contamination is
from both organic and inorganic
chemicals.
1992 Water Quality Assessment3
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed11
24,751 mi
Fully
Supporting
81%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
8%
Not
Supporting
11%
"Source: 1993 30S(b) Update.
blbtals represent 45% of river miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Current efforts to address
mining-related problems include:
requiring abatement or load reduc-
tion when sites are remined, recon-
struction of abandoned mines that
are a threat to public health, and
research programs. The Department
of Environmental Resources is also
pursuing legislative changes to pro-
vide incentives for remining and
reclamation. Agriculture problems
are addressed primarily through
individual conservation plans using
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
and education programs. Several of
the State's agencies are jointly de-
veloping a single, integrated docu-
ment that encompasses all the plan-
ning issues related to agriculture
such as erosion/sediment control,
manure management, and inte-
grated pest management. A permit-
ting program modifies land disposal
problems, and stormwater rules
require every county to prepare a
stormwater management plan that
identifies problems and suggests
BMPs to address the problems.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Currently there are 168
fixed-monitoring stations on rivers,
streams, and Lake Erie scheduled to
be visited monthly for stream dis-
charge and physical/chemical analy-
sis and annually for biological evalu-
ation of stream bottom life.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 145
Puerto Rico
For a copy of the Puerto Rico 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Eric H. Morales
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
(809)751-5548
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
The principal causes of impair-
ment in rivers are pathogen indica-
tors, nutrients, dissolved oxygen,
and metals primarily from land dis-
posal activities, agriculture, and ur-
ban runoff. Impairment in lakes and
lagoons is caused by pathogen indi-
cators, nutrients, dissolved oxygen,
and other inorganics, the sources of
which include land disposal, urban
runoff, and agriculture. In estuaries,
urban runoff, storm sewer dis-
charges, and land disposal are pri-
mary sources of impairment caused
by unknown toxicity, metals, or-
ganic enrichment, and pathogen
indicators. Pathogen indicators are
the primary cause of impairment in
oceans with metals, chlorine, and
unknown toxicity also contributing.
Sources of ocean impairment in-
clude land disposal and municipal
point sources.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries"
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
5, 375 mi
1 0,587 ac
184 mi
428 mi
Fully
Supporting
5%
15%
5%
44%
Threatened
11%
22%
8%
42%
Partially
Supporting
18%
29%
18%
8%
Not
Supporting
66%
33%
69%
5%
aTotals represent 100% of river miles, 100% of lake acres, 100% of estuary square miles, and
100% of ocean miles.
"Puerto Rico reports linear miles of estuaries supporting designated uses rather than square miles
of estuaries supporting designated uses.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
In addition to traditional point
source controls, Puerto Rico pro-
motes water quality through various
nonpoint source programs. Two of
the more prominent programs at-
tempt to control contamination
from livestock enterprises and ero-
sion from construction and mining
operations. Livestock enterprises are
required to implement animal fecal
waste management systems and
other Best Management Practices
(BMPs). Construction or extraction
activities that meet certain require-
ments are required to file a sedi-
ment and erosion control plan that
establishes the control measures
necessary to minimize erosion.
Monitoring of both surface and
ground waters was performed in
five priority watersheds to evaluate
the effectiveness of BMPs. Inspec-
tions of 200 livestock enterprises
were performed in five priority wa-
tersheds. Inspections will also be
performed on cropland and agricul-
tural activities within the priority
watersheds to evaluate implementa-
tion of BMPs.
-------
146 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Rhode Island
For a copy of the Rhode Island
1992 305(b) report, contact
Carlene Newman
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908-5767
(401)277-6519
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Metals, especially copper and
lead, are the most significant causes
of nonsupport in rivers and streams,
followed by priority organics, patho-
gen indicators, low dissolved oxygen
concentrations, and nutrients. Nutri-
ents, metals, eutrophication-related
low dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions, and pH impair lakes. In estuar-
ies and coastal waters, the major
causes of impairment include patho-
gen indicators, heavy metals, nutri-
ents, and eutrophication-related low
dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Major sources of pollutants in rivers
and estuaries include industrial dis-
charges, municipal discharges, com-
bined sewer overflows, urban runoff,
highway runoff, septic systems, and
contaminated sediments. In lakes,
septic systems and runoff are the
leading sources of impairment
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
664 mi
16,749ac
193 mi2
Fully
Supporting
31%
8%
73%
Threatened
42%
71%
7%
Partially
Supporting
5%
18%
11%
Not
Supporting
22%
3%
9%
'Totals represent 86% of river miles, 100% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
Since 1990, the NPS manage-
ment program has documented
freshwater wetland water quality
problems, evaluated the State's
freshwater wetland regulations, and
proposed revisions to the regula-
tions. The NPS program also re-
viewed the existing regulatory
framework for stormwater runoff
and developed Best Management
Practice (BMP) performance stan-
dards and applicability criteria for a
guidance manual issued to State
and municipal staff. The NPS pro-
gram also oversaw creation of the
Site Plan Review Program by the
Rhode Island Conservation Districts.
The program assists municipalities
reviewing site plans for compliance
with soil erosion and sediment con-
trols.
The Rhode Island Department
of Environmental Management and
the Narragansett Bay Project devel-
oped the Citizen's Volunteer Moni-
toring Program Coordination Project
to promote and coordinate all vol-
unteer monitoring groups at the
State level. The project supports a
Statewide Coordinator to educate
volunteers and ensure data quality.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 147
South Carolina
For a copy of the South Carolina
1992 305(b) report, contact
Zach Corontzes
South Carolina DHEC
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-5300
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Organic enrichment, pathogens,
and pH cause most stream impair-
ments in South Carolina. Agricul-
ture, unknown sources, municipal
point sources, and urban runoff/
storm sewers are the leading sources
of impairments in rivers and
streams. Organic enrichment and
low dissolved oxygen concentrations
are the leading source of impair-
ment in lakes and estuaries. Un-
known sources generate most lake
impairments, followed by agriculture
and industrial point sources. Un-
known sources also generate most
estuarine impairments, followed by
urban runoff/storm sewers and in-
dustrial point sources. Leaking un-
derground storage tanks account for
most ground water contamination
incidents in the State.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
3,954 mi
382,028 ac
427 mi2
fully
Supporting
72%
80%
73%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
16%
14%
24%
Not
Supporting
12%
6%
3%
'Totals represent 40% of river miles, 73% of lake acres, and 20% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Con-
trol (DHEC) initiated the Watershed
Water Quality Management Strategy
to integrate protection activities on
a basin and watershed scale. The
Strategy integrates monitoring, as-
sessment, problem identification and
prioritization, water quality model-
ing, permitting, and planning activi-
ties to develop management plans
and implementation strategies for
entire watersheds. On a 5-year rota-
tion, DHEC will develop or revise a
water quality management strategy
for one of five delineated hydrologic
basins per year. Each year, DHEC
staff can focus monitoring efforts on
the targeted basin rather than ran-
domly selecting monitoring sites
throughout the State. The water-
shed approach encourages DHEC to
evaluate both point and nonpoint
source impacts and consolidate
management solutions.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Biological monitoring includes
identification and enumeration of
phytoplankton, aquatic macroinver-
tebrates, and fish. Biological sam-
pling stations are located in head-
water reaches of selected impound-
ments, in major waterbodies subject
to possible pollution, and critical
waters used for water supplies, rec-
reation, and fish and wildlife propa-
gation.
-------
148 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
South Dakota
For a copy of the South Dakota
1992 305(b) report, contact
Andrew Repsys
South Dakota Department of the
Environment and Natural
Resources
Division of Water Resource
Management
523 East Capitol, joe Foss Building,
Room 425
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-3696
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Agricultural nonpoint sources
and livestock operations are the
primary sources of suspended solids
and pathogens causing impairments
in rivers and streams. River impair-
ments also result from natural pol-
lutant sources, such as the erosive
soils naturally occurring in western
South Dakota. Elevated stream pH is
another important cause of impair-
ment, but the source could not be
identified. Runoff from agricultural
lands, carrying sediment and nutri-
ents, remains the major source of
lake pollution. Petroleum products,
fertilizers, and pesticides are the
most frequently identified contami-
nants in ground water.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
3,604 mi
683,458 ac
Fully
Supporting
17%
Threatened
81%
Partially
Supporting
26%
5%
Not
Supporting
57%
14%
"Totals represent 36% of river miles and 98% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The land treatment phase of the
Oakwoods-Poinsett Rural Clean Wa-
ter Program (RCWP) implemented
best management practices (BMPs)
to reduce total nitrogen, pesticides,
animal wastes, and water- and
sediment-borne contaminants enter-
ing ground water and surface wa-
ters. The project identified and pri-
oritized three critical areas for BMP
implementation based on aquifer
vulnerability and sediment delivery.
The RCWP contracted with land-
owners to implement BMPs (conser-
vation tillage, fertilizer management,
pesticide management, and animal
waste management) on 81 percent
of the critical area with highest pri-
ority and 60 percent of all three
critical areas. The RCWP provided
75 percent cost share assistance
through the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
The Comprehensive Monitoring
and Evaluation (CM&E) phase of the
Oakwoods-Poinsett RCWP moni-
tored the effects of BMP implemen-
tation on ground water and surface
water quality. The CM&E phase
included three monitoring studies:
(1) ground water monitoring,
(2) the Oakwood Lakes System
Study, and (3) the Agricultural
Chemical Leaching Study in the
vadose zone. Ground water moni-
toring was conducted at five farmed
fields with BMPs, one farmed field
without BMPs, and one unfarmed
site. Event-based sampling tech-
niques were developed for monitor-
ing ground water and the vadose
zone.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 149
Tennessee
For a copy of the Tennessee 1992
305(b) report, contact
Greg Denton
Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation
Division of Water Pollution Control
401 Church St., L&C Annex,
6th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
(615)532-0699
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
No single cause or source of
water quality impairment is domi-
nant, but siltation, organic enrich-
ment/dissolved oxygen, and sus-
pended solids affect many river
miles. Principal sources of river im-
pairment are agriculture, hydro-
modification, and land develop-
ment/construction. Although agri-
culture impacts approximately
25 percent of the State's river miles,
it is not necessarily dominant Im-
pairment of Tennessee's lakes is
from organic enrichment/dissolved
oxygen, priority organics, flow alter-
ation, and siltation. Sources of lake
impairment include in-place con-
taminants, upstream impound-
ments, land development/construc-
tion, and agriculture. The largest
single source of lake impacts is
in-place contaminants, which has
resulted in the majority of the
State's fish consumption advisories.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
10,823 mi
539, 326 ac
Fully
Supporting
47%
78%
Threatened
16%
1%
Partially
Supporting
27%
9%
Not
Supporting
9%
12%
"Totals represent 57% of river miles and 100% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
New regulatory and planning
tools such as Total Maximum Daily
Loading studies, updated water
quality standards, and the Storm-
water Program are being used to
adress pollution sources. Tennessee
has been very progressive in its use
of the Federal 401 Certification and
the State Aquatic Resource Altera-
tion Permit (ARAP) program to pro-
tect wetlands, regulate construction
runoff, and oversee activities such as
gravel dredging and channelization
of streams. Future tools envisioned
include watershed planning for
NPDES permitting activities, biocri-
teria, sediment criteria, and in-
creased ability to require BMPs for
nonpoint sources not currently be-
ing regulated. Tennessee's ground
water criteria, wellhead protection
program, and an aquifer mapping
program are currently under devel-
opment.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Overall program effectiveness
will ultimately be gaged by streams
and lakes that are not currently fully
supporting designated uses being
brought into compliance with water
quality standards. The recent updat-
ing of the STORET system and the
newest Waterbody System (WBS)
will be used to track support of
designated uses and improved water
quality.
-------
150 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Texas
For a copy of the Texas 1992
305(b) report, contact
David Petrick
Stream Monitoring Unit
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512)463-8464
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Use impairments in Texas
streams and rivers result primarily
from treated domestic wastewater
discharges that reduce dissolved
oxygen concentrations and elevate
fecal coliform densities. Use impair-
ments in reservoirs stem from natu-
ral sources and municipal wastewa-
ter treatment plant discharges result-
ing in elevated salinity, total dis-
solved solids, and fecal coliform
densities. Industrial and municipal
point sources generate most of the
fecal coliform bacteria and toxic
contaminants causing use impair-
ments in bays. Most ground water
contamination incidents are related
to point source activities, such as
petroleum storage tanks and indus-
trial waste disposal.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed'
14,1 07 mi
1,504,539 ac
1,991 m2
Fully
Supporting
74%
89%
66%
'
Threat-
ened
Partially
Supporting
10%
<1%
8%
Not
Supporting
17%
11%
23%
Not
Attainable
3%
"Totals represent 7% of river miles, 49% of lake acres, and 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The Texas Water Commission
(TWC) wrote new rules that created
the Program for Assessment of Wa-
ter Quality by Watershed and River
Basin. The rules realign water quality
programs by regional river authori-
ties and require the TWC to move
toward simultaneously issuing all
wastewater discharge permits in a
basin. The watershed program en-
courages public participation in the
development of regional assess-
ments.
The TWC, Texas Parks and Wild-
life Department, and EPA Region 6
are cooperatively conducting the
Texas Ecoregion Project. The project
will evaluate regional variability of
physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of Texas streams. The
project will determine the potential
for developing regional water qual-
ity standards and biological criteria,
verify Texas ecoregions, and refine
use assessment procedures.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 151
Utah
For a copy of the Utah 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Thomas W. Toole
Utah Department of Environmental
Quality
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801)538-6146
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Metals impair aquatic life sup-
port use and total dissolved solids
impair agricultural uses of streams
and rivers. The primary source of
these pollutants is nonpoint source
runoff. Agricultural practices such as
grazing and irrigation increase sedi-
ment and nutrient loading in
streams. Nutrient concentrations,
especially phosphorus, exceed State
indicator levels in most rivers,
streams, lakes, and reservoirs
sampled. However, the State does
not consider nutrient levels when
determining use support in rivers
and streams because the effects of
nutrients are difficult to assess with-
out concurrent biological sampling
or visual evaluations of aquatic plant
growth. The State does consider
nutrients the leading cause of im-
pairment in lakes, followed by low
dissolved oxygen and suspended
solids. The major sources of lake
pollutants are nonpoint sources,
agricultural practices, industrial and
municipal point sources, drawdown
of reservoirs, and natural back-
ground level sources. Irrigation,
urbanization, and infiltration of
leachate from landfills, mine tailings,
and mill tailings degrade ground
water.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
7,557 mi
450,078 ac
fully
Supporting
57%
61%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
16%
32%
Not
Supporting
27%
7%
"Totals represent 64% of river miles and 93% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
Utah's Watershed Program is
implementing NPS controls in five
priority watersheds, restoring stream
channels and wetlands, and identify-
ing sources of salts and sediments
entering the Colorado River. The
priority watershed projects will dem-
onstrate the water quality benefits
derived from NPS controls. The
State routinely relies on the Soil
Conservation Service to provide
technical expertise to cooperators in
priority watersheds. The Jordan River
Wetland Project will demonstrate
river restoration techniques in an
urban area. The Colorado River
project will focus on rangelands
loading salts and sediment into the
River.
Utah's interagency monitoring
program will undertake additional
habitat monitoring in addition to
chemical sampling to document
water quality improvements result-
ing from nonpoint source manage-
ment Sampling will focus on water-
sheds implementing best manage-
ment practices.
-------
152 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Vermont
For a copy of the Vermont 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Jerome J. McArdle
Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Water Quality Division
103 South Main Street
Building 10 North
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
(802) 244-6951
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
As in 1990, agriculture impairs
the greatest number of river miles,
primarily via nutrient runoff from
nonirrigated crop production, ani-
mal management areas, and pasture
land. Siltation, nutrients, thermal
modification, and organic enrich-
ment cause the most extensive im-
pairments in rivers and streams.
Unspecified sources generate flow
alterations, nutrients, and algae, the
leading causes of impairments in
lakes and ponds (excluding Lake
Champlain). Flow regulation,
streambank destabilization, and
agriculture are the most significant
identified nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion in lakes. All of Vermont's por-
tion of Lake Champlain is impaired
by phosphorus concentrations that
exceed the State's lake-specific crite-
ria. Fish consumption advisories for
priority organics, PCBs, and mercury
also threaten the entire lake. Lead-
ing sources of ground water con-
tamination include leaking under-
ground storage tanks and leachate
from landfills and hazardous waste
sites.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes/ Ponds
Lake Champlain
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
5,264 mi
52,851 ac
174,175ac
Fully
Supporting
59%
37%
Threatened
22%
33%
Partially
Supporting
15%
20%
46%
Not
Supporting
4%
10%
54%
'Totals represent 100% of river miles and 99% of lake/pond acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In 1991, Vermont received EPA
Section 319 funding to implement
erosion controls in targeted water-
sheds, demonstrate agricultural
milkhouse waste treatment BMPs,
enforce domestic discharge rules,
and coordinate NPS projects with
other States.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Diagnostic studies on three lakes
suggested that watershed monitor-
ing programs are the only reliable
method for identifying nonpoint
sources impairing lakes. The diag-
nostic studies identified sources that
contradicted professional evaluations
made prior to watershed monitor-
ing. For example, monitoring re-
vealed that internal phosphorus
loading was the major source of
pollution in Lake Morey. Prior to
monitoring, the State suspected that
poorly sited septic systems were the
primary source of nutrients in the
lake. Vermont will expand lake
monitoring with an EPA Clean Lakes
grant
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 153
Virginia
For a copy of the Virginia 1992
305(b) report, contact
Linda j. Hegstrom
Department of Environmental
Quality - Water Division
Office of Water Resources
Management
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230-1143
(804)527-5183
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Elevated densities of fecal colif-
orm bacteria, primarily from agricul-
tural runoff, are the most common
cause of impairment in Virginia's
rivers and streams, followed by met-
als. Nutrients and pH are the most
common causes of nonsupport in
lakes. The most prevalent sources of
lake impairments are agriculture,
silviculture, and urban runoff/storm
sewers. Nutrients are the dominant
cause of impairment in estuaries,
followed by Kepone and suspended
solids. Municipal and industrial point
sources, in-place contamination,
agriculture, runoff/storm sewers, and
atmospheric deposition affect the
most estuarine waters in Virginia.
Water-body
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
17,958 mi
90,762 ac
3,080 mi2
120 mi
Fully
Supporting
80%
93%
78%
100%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
14%
7%
20%
Not
Supporting
6%
<1%
2%
"Totals represent 33% of river miles, 56% of lake acres, 100% of estuary square miles, and 100%
nf rtroan milac
of ocean miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
The Virginia Water Control
Board (now the Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality) encourages
wastewater treatment plants to
implement biological nutrient re-
moval (BNR), a new cost-effective
technology. The Hampton Roads
Sanitation District (HRSD)-York River
Sewage Treatment Plant conducted
a full-scale demonstration of the
BNR process during 1988 and 1989,
with a grant from the Water Control
Board. The HRSD was granted a
public domain patent for the BNR
process, ensuring that it will be
freely available to other municipali-
ties and industrial dischargers.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Virginia contracts the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey (USCS) and two uni-
versities to monitor the Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries. The USGS
samples nutrients at the fall lines of
five tributaries. The USGS increases
sampling frequency during storm
events to capture increased nutrient
and sediment loadings into the tidal
portion of the watershed. Virginia
will estimate nutrient loads to the
Bay with the nutrient data collected
by the USGS. The universities
sample chemical and biological pa-
rameters at 27 stations in the
mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay.
The State will characterize spatial
and temporal patterns of nutrients,
organic materials, and plant pig-
ments in the Bay and its tributaries.
-------
154 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Virgin Islands
For a copy of the Virgin Islands
1992 305(b) report, contact
Robin Addley
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of
Planning and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 4340
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, VI 00801
(809) 773-0565
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Conventional pollutants pose
the greatest threat to marine and
estuarine environments. Sewage
discharges are frequent and result
from both mechanical breakdowns
and unpermitted discharges.
Nonpoint source contamination is
primarily from construction projects
and urban runoff from roads and
landfills. This runoff leads to in-
creased turbidity and nutrient levels.
Wastes from marine vessels is
another significant source of im-
paired water quality. Water quality
standards for fecal coliform are often
exceeded and low dissolved oxygen
levels are found where there are
large numbers of live-aboard vessels
and low flushing rates of waters.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
6 mi2
Fully
Supporting
50%
Threatened
17%
Partially
Supporting
17%
Not
Supporting
16%
'Totals represent 100% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
Discharge permits are the princi-
pal regulatory tool for reducing
pollutant release into territorial wa-
ters. Currently, a bill is pending that
would disallow any marine vessel
from discharging pollutants into the
territorial waters. Effective nonpoint
source control is, for all purposes,
nonexistent, but the Territory is
developing programs to combat soil
erosion and urban runoff. For ex-
ample, new development projects
must provide for vegetated buffers,
wetlands, catch basins, porous pave-
ments, and similar systems for the
detention, retention, treatment, and
percolation of runoff. The Coastal
Zone Management Act also requires
that the Territory develop manage-
ment plans for 18 of the most sensi-
tive areas in the Territory. Unfortu-
nately many delays have prevented
development of these plans.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Toxicity testing, stormwater
limits, and biological monitoring are
required by some permits. All point
sources must self-monitor and sub-
mit results to DPNR and EPA. DPNR
conducts compliance inspection on
all permittees and compliance moni-
toring on all major permittees.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 155
Washington
For a copy of the Washington 1992
305 (b) report, contact
Steve Butkus
Washington Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia,WA 98504-8711
(206) 493-9340
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Low levels of dissolved oxygen,
often naturally occurring, are the
major cause of impairment of desig-
nated uses in estuaries. Bacterial
contamination, primarily from agri-
cultural runoff, onsite wastewater
disposal, and municipal wastewater
treatment plants also causes impair-
ments in estuaries. Major causes of
impairment in lakes include nutri-
ents, pesticides, siltation, flow alter-
ation, and low dissolved oxygen.
Agricultural production is the pre-
dominant source of impairment in
lakes. Other sources include urban
runoff, land disposal, septic tanks,
and natural sources. In rivers and
streams agriculture is the major
source of water quality degradation,
followed by industrial point sources
and hydro-habitat modification.
Causes of water quality impairment
from these sources include thermal
modification, pathogen indicators,
metals, and priority organics.
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Oceans
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
5,639 mi
80,696 ac
1,093 mi2
Fully
Supporting
29%
46%
24%
Threatened
7%
5%
13%
Partially
' Supporting
19%
22%
9%
Not
Supporting
46%
27%
54%
"Totals represent 14% of river miles, 13% of lake acres, and 37% of estuary square miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
Washington provides financial
incentives to encourage compliance
with permit requirements, the prin-
cipal vehicle for regulating point
source discharges. The State also has
extensive experience developing,
funding, and implementing non-
point source pollution prevention
and control programs since the early
1970s. The State has developed
nonpoint source control plans with
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
for forest practices, dairy waste,
irrigated agriculture, dryland agricul-
ture, and urban stormwater. The
State is now focusing attention is
watershed planning. Efforts are cur-
rently geared toward prioritizing
watersheds and developing compre-
hensive plans for the priority water-
sheds.
Washington implements an
aggressive program to monitor the
quality of lakes, estuaries, and rivers
and streams. The program makes
use of fixed-station monitoring to
track spatial and temporal water
quality changes so as to ascertain
the effectiveness of various water
quality programs and be able to
identity desirable adjustments to the
programs.
-------
156 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
West Virginia
For a copy of the West Virginia
1992 305(b) report, contact
Michael A. Arcuri
West Virginia Division of Natural
Resources
Water Resources Division
1201 Creenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304)558-2108
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Metals, siltation, and pH are the
leading causes of impairment in
rivers and lakes. Coal mining impairs
the most stream and river miles,
followed by pasture land and road
construction and maintenance. Coal
mining is the dominant source of
impairment in lakes, followed by
industrial point sources and agricul-
ture.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
5,287 mi
21,522 ac
fully
Supporting
14%
27%
Threatened
7%
8%
Partially
Supporting
63%
57%
Not
Supporting
16%
8%
Totals represent 16% of river miles and 100% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 157
Wisconsin
For a copy of the Wisconsin 1992
305(b) report, contact
Meg Turville-Heitz
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
(608)266-0152
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Siltation, habitat alterations, and
nutrients cause most impairments in
Wisconsin's rivers and streams. Un-
specified nonpoint sources, agricul-
ture, and habitat modification are
the leading sources of river impair-
ments. Most lake impairments are
due to aquatic weeds, metals, and
nutrients. Fish contamination impairs
all 840 miles of Wisconsin's Great
Lakes shoreline. The Wisconsin De-
partment of Natural Resources
blames historical point source dis-
charges for introducing most of the
priority organics, pesticides, and
metals currently detected in fish
samples. Other significant sources
include atmospheric deposition and
contaminated sediments.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Great Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
1 1,336 mi
211, 734 ac
840 mi
Fully
Supporting
82%
21%
threatened
1%
21%
Partially
Supporting
12%
25%
100%
Not
Supporting
5%
33%
Totals represent 20% of river miles, 22% of lake acres, and 100% of Great Lakes shore miles.
None or not reported.
Programs to Assess
Programs to Correct Water Quality and
Impairments Program Effectiveness
The WDNR is currently develop-
ing a strategic plan, Water 2010, to
guide the State's water-related ac-
tivities for the next 20 years. River
basin water quality management
plans lay the foundation for the
Water 2010 strategic plan. The ba-
sin plans, updated every 5 years,
identify planning goals, summarize
the condition of the waters in each
river basin, identify water quality
improvements and persistent pollu-
tion problems, and recommend
remedial or preventive actions
needed to protect water quality.
The river basin plans also contain
watershed rankings used to select
priority watershed projects for fund-
ing under the Wisconsin Nonpoint
Source Water Pollution Abatement
Program. The nonpoint source pro-
gram provides funds to individual
landowners and communities to
implement priority watershed
projects.
Under the Great Lakes Coastal
Sediment Study, WDNR is evaluat-
ing procedures for assessing sedi-
ment toxicity. The staff established
reference concentrations for toxics
measured in samples collected from
coastal streams and harbors above
contaminated areas. The study will
evaluate contaminant bioacummu-
lative potential of coastal sediments
by placing caged fathead minnows
over sediments previously sampled
for laboratory tests. Sediment
samples will be collected from the
cage sites for bulk chemistry analy-
sis.
-------
158 Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries
Wyoming
For a copy of the Wyoming 1992
305(b) report, contact
Robert Cumtow
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building - 4th Floor
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7098
Causes and Sources
of Water Quality Impairments
Sediment and siltation, nutri-
ents, total dissolved solids and salin-
ity, flow alteration, and low dis-
solved oxygen concentrations are
the top five causes of water quality
impairment in Wyoming streams.
The top five sources, based on the
number of miles impacted, are
rangeland, natural sources, irrigated
cropland, pasture land, and high-
way, bridge, and road construction.
In lakes, low dissolved oxygen con-
centrations, nutrients, sediment and
silt, other inorganics, and metals
cause the most extensive impair-
ments. The top five sources of im-
pairment in lakes include natural
sources, rangeland, irrigated crop-
land, flow regulation, and municipal
discharges.
1992 Water Quality Assessment
Waterbody
Type
Rivers
Lakes
Wetlands
Waters
Assessed*
6,01 3 mi
125,422 ac
Fully
Supporting
13%
26%
Threatened
20%
1%
Partially
Supporting
59%
50%
Not
Supporting
8%
23%
"Totals represent 26% of river miles and 43% of lake acres.
None or not reported.
Programs to Correct
Impairments
In 1991, the Governor ap-
pointed a citizen-based Nonpoint
Source Task Force to modify the
Wyoming Nonpoint Source Plan
and oversee nonpoint source project
funding and implementation. Since
its formation, all project proposals
undergo Task Force review. Cur-
rently funded projects will demon-
strate best management practices
for cropland production and road
construction, riparian restoration,
and education programs.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality and
Program Effectiveness
Nonpoint source assessment is a
high priority in Wyoming due to the
complexities of accounting for natu-
ral background levels of sedimenta-
tion. The State intends to incorpo-
rate volunteer monitoring and bio-
logical assessment in the routine
monitoring program to gather addi-
tional data needed to distinguish
natural sedimentation and nonpoint
source inputs. Currently, the State is
designating reference stream sites
representative of relatively undis-
turbed sites in specific ecoregions.
Biological parameters such as spe-
cies composition, species abun-
dance, and relative habitat condition
will be examined at these candidate
streams.
-------
Chapter Eight Individual State Summaries 159
-------
-------
State Recommendations
In their 1992 reports, 30 States
and Territories discussed recom-
mended program actions needed to
make additional progress toward the
Clean Water Acf s goal of fishable
and swimmable waters. These rec-
ommendations encompass a range
of actions at the congressional, Fed-
eral, State, and local levels and are
often expressed in terms of State
objectives or continuing needs. It
should be emphasized that the rec-
ommendations discussed here were
reported by the States themselves in
1992; this discussion does not at-
tempt to assess their merits. Nor
should this discussion be construed
as an EPA or Administration en-
dorsement of any State recommen-
dations. Many of the State recom-
mendations for action do, however,
coincide with current EPA program
concerns and priorities.
A recurring theme in almost all
State recommendations is the need
for continued, and in many cases
additional, funding to implement
ever-expanding State water quality
protection responsibilities. For ex-
ample, Mississippi's 305(b) report
includes the following:
Because of the decline in Fed-
eral monies to support existing
and new environmental pro-
grams, new sources of revenue
are needed. Additional resources
are needed to evaluate and
regulate the environmental risk
from the release of toxic chemi-
cals, to develop the storm water
permitting and regulatory
program, to implement a state-
wide nonpoint control program,
to expand and strengthen our
wetlands protection efforts, to
implement and manage the
State's Wellhead Protection Pro-
gram, to expand the Ambient
Surface Water Monitoring Pro-
gram, to develop narrative and
numeric biological criteria, to
expand our laboratory's analyti-
cal capability, to develop Total
Maximum Daily Loads, and to
develop and implement a
citizen volunteer monitoring
program. Without additional
funding and staffing, most of
these concerns cannot be
adequately addressed, if at all.
In general, the most frequently
reported State recommendations fall
into eight major categories. These
areas of concern are
nonpoint source
abatement toxic
identification and
control, water quality
monitoring, ground
water conservation,
wetlands protection,
pollutant source dis-
charge permitting,
municipal facilities, and
water quality criteria and
standards. Other
concerns less frequently
reported include data
management/coordina-
tion, sewer overflow treat-
ment and education to increase
public awareness.
-------
162 Chapter Nine State Recommendations
Nonpoint Source
Abatement
Recommendations most often
cited by the States concern the
identification, prevention, and con-
trol of nonpoint sources (NPSs) of
pollution. Most commonly, States
cite the need for additional
funding for development of
better monitoring and assess-
ment methods to detect
nonpoint sources, assess their
impacts, and determine the effec-
tiveness of NPS controls. States
listed regulation of urban runoff
and increased monitoring as NPS
areas needing additional financial
support. (Note that much of urban
runoff is discharged in a conveyance
that is legally considered a point
source and is subject to National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem [NPDES] stormwater require-
ments.) Many States indicate that
increased monitoring will enhance
the ability to identify and eventually
control nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion. Montana's 305(b) states:
To adequately measure the
effectiveness of the state's
nonpoint source control pro-
gram and other water pollution
control programs would require
a greatly expanded monitoring
and assessment effort.
A number of States cite in-
creased public education on the
nature of NPS pollution and NPS
controls as a mechanism for encour-
aging BMP implementation and
NPS program funding. Several
States suggest EPA should take spe-
cific actions with respect to NPS
programs ranging from issuing total
maximum daily loading limits for
NPS pollutants and recommending
adoption of more stringent nutrient
standards to developing numeric
criteria for NPS pollutants.
Identification
and Control of
Toxic Substances
The States strongly recommend
expanding efforts to gather data on
toxic pollutants and to develop or
implement State toxic control pro-
grams. Specific recommendations
for data collection on toxics empha-
size two areas: bioaccumulation of
toxics in fish and shellfish tissue and
sediment contamination. The States
cite a need for the Federal govern-
ment to provide national guidance
on bioaccumulation of toxics in fish
tissue. Several States requested fund-
ing to initiate or expand their cur-
rent fish tissue monitoring pro-
grams. With respect to sediment
contamination, there were recom-
mendations for the EPA to actively
pursue development of a nation-
wide in-place pollutant program
designed to provide both technical
guidance and dedicated Federal
financial support for expansion of
sediment monitoring programs and
remediation efforts. In addition,
States cite the need for EPA to refine
and/or develop national sediment
criteria for toxics, particularly heavy
metals.
-------
Chapter Nine State Recommendations 163
Water Quality
Monitoring
Beyond expressing a general
need to expand water quality moni-
toring activities and evaluate them
to be certain they are providing
needed data, a prominent theme of
State monitoring recommendations
is to increase the emphasis on
instream biological monitoring as an
indicator of pollution and pollution
abatement Specifically, several
States recommend the expanded
use of volunteer monitoring pro-
grams in which volunteers are
trained to make observations of
aquatic and terrestrial conditions
and perform water quality sampling
and analysis. Other monitoring rec-
ommendations include seeking in-
creased EPA and State support to
expand fish tissue and sediment
toxics monitoring programs as well
as lake and NFS monitoring efforts.
Future Ground Water
Concerns
A number of special or future
ground water concerns were men-
tioned by 33 States in their Section
305 (b) reports. The most prevalent
issues were
Agricultural nonpoint source dis-
charges, including nitrate and pesti-
cide contamination and soil erosion
problems (17 States)
Funding and staff resources
(15 States)
Data management (12 States)
Development and implementa-
tion of State and Federal regula-
tions, including enforcement and
legislative support for State ground
water protection programs (12
States)
Development and maintenance
of State monitoring systems (11
States).
Nitrate and pesticide contami-
nation of ground water are of par-
ticular concern in many States be-
cause of the extensive reliance on
ground water for rural drinking
water supplies. Poten-
tial adverse health
effects associated with
the consumption of
nitrate- or pesticide-
tainted water include
methemoglobinemia
(blue baby syndrome),
cardiovascular disorders,
hypertension, and cancer.
In response to these con-
cerns, one State suggested
that Federal pesticide regis-
tration criteria should be
developed to rate pesticides on their
potential to migrate through soils
and into ground water.
A number of States expressed
concerns with regard to the contin-
ued ability to fund State and Federal
ground water research and protec-
tion programs. The lack of a stable
long-term source of funding for
these programs and the Federal
emphasis on expanding the role of
State governments in ground water
protection programs were of con-
cern to many States. These States
applauded the Federal focus on
prevention of ground water
contamination as a more effective
-------
164 Chapter Nine State Recommendations
and economical approach than a
focus solely on remediation pro-
grams. However, they also ex-
pressed that, without adequate Fed-
eral funding, the development and
implementation of these programs
cannot be accomplished. Two States
suggested better utilization of volun-
teers in reaching program goals.
Also mentioned was the establish-
ment of a cleanup fund financed by
penalties or other enforcement ac-
tions and fees.
Data management concerns for
many States included the lack of
computerized databases to accom-
modate the growing body of
ground water quality data.
Monitoring produces large
volumes of data, much of which
remains on manual files in various
State and local agencies where it is
not readily accessible. Incompatibil-
ity between computer systems and
lack of coordination between agen-
cies was also cited as a problem.
Many of the States recognized that
they must continue to expand their
monitoring efforts to include poten-
tial sources of contamination and to
evaluate the relationship between
surface water and ground water
quality.
Although ground water has
traditionally been considered a safe
source of drinking water, research
and monitoring have revealed prob-
lems in a number of States that may
threaten the integrity of their
ground water resources. Population
growth and residential development
compound the need for clean, safe
ground water supplies. Many States
see that the promotion of public
awareness campaigns and improved
ground water monitoring have
placed ground water protection in
the forefront of their environmental
agenda.
Wetlands Protection
Several States called for in-
creased Federal efforts in protecting
valuable wetlands resources. Specific
recommendations include the need
for additional Federal appropriations
to identify and quantify wetlands
acreage and to strengthen existing
State protection efforts. In addition,
a number of States cited the need
for additional Federal guidance in
developing water quality standards
and designated use classification for
wetlands or, in lieu of that the need
for establishing national minimum
water quality standards for wetlands
to be incorporated into State
regulations.
-------
Chapter Nine State Recommendations 165
Pollutant Source
Discharge Permitting
Federal financial assistance has
been requested by the States for
increases in planning/review func-
tions necessary to enact a more
forceful and stricter NPDES permit
program as stipulated by the Federal
Government Because new man-
dates require sludge management,
toxicity biomonitoring, and storm
water management to be imple-
mented through the NPDES pro-
gram, a heavier burden has been
placed on State programs to comply
with these revisions. Several States
indicated the need to incorporate
NPS into the NPDES permit pro-
gram. The State of Oklahoma is
currently developing a Total Maxi-
mum Daily Load process to be used
in issuing NPS permits. Another
recommendation made was to
amend the Atomic Energy Act,
which exempts certain pollutants,
such as plutonium and enriched
uranium, from regulation under the
NPDES program. The EPA was spe-
cifically asked to change its NPDES
enforcement policy from focusing
on permit classification (dischargers
are currently graded on volume of
discharge) to uniform enforcement,
regardless of discharge volume. It
was suggested that enforcement
efforts be based on compliance
records, designated stream uses,
water quality standards violations,
and potential risk to environment or
public health.
Municipal Facilities
Continued funding for the
maintenance, upgrade, and con-
struction of municipal sewage treat-
ment facilities remains a leading
recommendation of the States. Sev-
eral States expressed concerns about
the State Revolving Fund Program,
which replaces the Construction
Grants Program terminated in 1990.
The State Revolving Fund Program
transfers funding responsibility for
wastewater treatment construction
from the Federal Government to the
States. Several States voiced con-
cerns that adequate money is not
available to provide a smooth transi-
tion from the Construction Grants
Program to the State Revolving
Fund Program. Several States ex-
pressed concerns about acquiring
the matching funds required to
initiate State Revolving Fund Pro-
grams in their States.
Two other municipal concerns
that were cited by many States in-
volved pretreatment and combined
sewer overflow (CSO) mitigation
problems. States feel EPA should put
more pressure on municipalities to
implement and enforce their ap-
proved pretreatment programs.
Federal funding is urged to support
inspections, audits of industrial uses,
enforcement, and more research on
the effectiveness of pretreatment in
reducing toxics in effluent Special
appropriations are also needed for
CSO mitigation projects, and, be-
cause of excessive costs, States rec-
ommend Federal assistance be pro-
vided to implement the projects
expeditiously.
-------
166 Chapter Nine State Recommendations
States' water quality
standards consist of:
Criteria for specific
pollutants established by
the States and approved
byEPA
Designated uses
Antidegradation policy
Water Quality Criteria
and Standards
The States' ability to assess
water quality conditions depends
heavily on criteria for specific pollut-
ants established by the States and
approved by the EPA. When these
criteria are violated, designated uses
may not be met Together with an
antidegradation policy, the criteria
and the uses they protect form the
State's water quality standards. A
number of States recommend up-
dating their standards by taking
such actions as strengthening nu-
merical criteria for toxics (particu-
larly priority organics and heavy
metals), adopting new standards for
NFS pollutants and wetlands protec-
tion, or developing more specific
classifications such as nutrient-
sensitive or high-quality waters.
Federal leadership is urged in finaliz-
ing criteria for sediment contamina-
tion and continuing to refine and
develop criteria for substances caus-
ing risks to human health with spe-
cific emphasis on fish and shellfish
consumption advisories. EPA is also
encouraged to promote greater
interstate consistency in all water
quality standards.
-------
Partm
Water Quality
Management Programs
-------
-------
The Watershed Protection
Approach
Background
Since the 1990 Report to Con-
gress, EPA and many States have
moved toward a more geographi-
cally oriented approach to water
quality management They share a
growing consensus that the Nation's
nonpoint source and habitat degra-
dation problems can be solved best
at the basin or watershed level.
In 1991, EPA highlighted the
Watershed Protection Approach
(WPA), a framework for focusing
efforts on carefully chosen water-
sheds. The WPA is not a new gov-
ernment program, but rather a
means of pulling together the re-
sources and expertise of existing
local, State, and Federal programs. A
State that is using the WPA
Targets those watersheds where
pollution poses the greatest risk to
human health, ecological resources,
or desirable uses of the water, and
where a successful outcome is likely
Involves all parties with a stake in
the watershed in the analysis of
problems and the implementation
of solutions
Draws on the full range of meth-
ods and tools available, integrating
them into a coordinated, multi-
organizational attack on the prob-
lems.
The WPA draws on existing EPA
authorities, as well as State and local
requirements, and voluntary actions
to resolve all significant water qual-
ity problems in a water-
shed. The WPA empha-
sizes the goal of moni-
toring or restoring eco-
logical integrity in water-
sheds in addition to the
more traditional goals of
protecting human health
and meeting water quality
standards. Restoring ecolog-
ical integrity means more
than controlling chemical
pollutants in the water col-
umn; other factors-flow, tem-
perature, bank and riparian
buffer condition, sedimenta-
tion, existence of riffles and
pools in the stream-must be
considered.
The Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) process, as established by
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water
Act, is a key element of the Water-
shed Protection Approach. TMDLs
provide a flexible tool to address
any stressor that precludes the at-
tainment of water quality standards.
A TMDL calculates allowable load-
ings from the contributing point
and nonpoint sources to a given
waterbody and provides a quantita-
tive target for the pollution reduc-
tion necessary to meet water quality
standards. States develop and imple-
ment TMDLs for impaired or threat-
ened waterbodies.
Under the WPA, a
"watershed" is a hydro-
geologic area defined for
best management pur-
poses. A watershed can
be a river basin, a
county-sized watershed,
or a small supply
watershed.
-------
170 Chapter Ten The Watershed Protection Approach
EPA's recent efforts to fully
implement Section 303(d) revolve
around tackling more challenging
problems and moving toward inte-
grated water-quality-based controls
on point and nonpoint sources,
geographic targeting, and water-
shed-scale assessments and protec-
tion.
The WPA fosters a high level of
interprogram coordination within a
State. Historically, each individual
program deals with a particular
problem, and each sets its own
priorities. In a typical State, the Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) program issues
discharge permits for point sources,
the Section 319 program deals with
nonpoint source controls, the
ground water program protects
wellheads and aquifers, and the
fisheries program monitors fish
populations and contamination by
toxics. The WPA seeks to establish
common priorities so that all avail-
able resources and talent can be
brought to bear on targeted areas.
Implementation
WPA projects are being imple-
mented at three levels-State, local,
and regional. Some States, such as
North Carolina and South Carolina,
have incorporated elements of the
WPA by shifting program activities
to a basinwide planning approach.
These States concurrently conduct
most major program activities such
as NPDES permitting, nonpoint
source management, TMDL devel-
opment, and monitoring within a
basin (Figure 10-1). A management
plan is developed for each basin
every 5 years. Both of these States
made the switch to basinwide plan-
ning without major organizational
changes or increased resources.
Wisconsin's Priority Watershed
Program focuses on watersheds
rather than large basins. Wisconsin
targets several of the State's 330
-------
Chapter Ten The Watershed Protection Approach 171
watersheds each year and begins
nonpoint source planning, monitor-
ing, and other efforts; full imple-
mentation of a watershed plan takes
about 10 years.
On the local level, the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture and other
agencies have sponsored watershed
projects for many years. In other
cases, a local government agency
provides the impetus for a project
and a special management agency
may be formed. Successful projects
involve a high degree of local par-
ticipation through advisory commit-
tees, volunteer monitoring, and
other activities. The Anacostia River
Restoration Program is an example
of a progressive urban watershed
project (see highlight). The State of
Washington also provides technical
expertise to local committees for
preparation of watershed action
plans (see Puget Sound highlight).
At the regional level, large
watershed projects often involve
multiple States and Federal jurisdic-
tions. The Great Lakes and National
Estuary Programs (described in
Chapter 11) are examples of WPA-
type projects at the regional level. In
addition, the EPA Regions are imple-
menting a series of WPA projects in
their States.
Figure 10-1
Neuse River Basin
The Neuse River Basin, North Carolina, featuring the upper Contentnea
Creek watershed. The State will update the Neuse River Basin Plan,
conduct monitoring, and revise NPDES permits concurrently throughout
the basin every 5 years.
-------
HJCHUCHT
I
The Anacostia River
Restoration Project
This project illustrates many of
the principles being encouraged
under EPA's Watershed Protection
Approach.
Background
The Anacostia River is a tributary
to the Potomac River and has a
watershed of about 150 square
miles. The watershed has a variety
of pollution and habitat modification
problems. Starting in the 1930s,
construction projects along the
Capitol Mall and Washington's cen-
tral business district transferred
much of the surface drainage of the
Tiber River to the Anacostia. This
creates a substantial combined
sewer overflow (CSO) problem on
the lower, tidal portions of the River.
In addition, approximately 75% of
the Anacostia watershed's forest
cover has been removed for urban
development and agriculture, result-
ing in high stormwater flows and
pollutant loadings.
From an early date, the
Anacostia was targeted by Maryland
as a Critical Area under the Chesa-
peake Bay program. With impetus
from this program, the Anacostia
Restoration Agreement was signed
in 1987. The four principal signa-
tories are the State of Maryland,
Maryland's Montgomery and Prince
George's Counties, and the District
of Columbia.
Stakeholders
The Anacostia River Restoration
Committee consists of representa-
tives from the signatory agencies:
District of Columbia Department
of Public Works
District of Columbia Department
of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Prince George's County Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation
Montgomery County Depart-
ment of Environmental Programs
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
Maryland Department of the
Environment
Other stakeholders and participants
include
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission
National Park Service
Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin
Metropolitan Council of Govern-
ments
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Izaac Walton League
Anacostia Watershed Society
Alliance for Chesapeake Bay.
-------
I
HICHUCH
Subwatershed Action Plans
With more than 60 groups and
government programs involved, the
key to restoring the Anacostia River
is the creation of detailed Subwater-
shed Plans (SWAPs). SWAPS are
blueprints for restoration activities
within a portion of the Anacostia
Basin. SWAPs address high-priority
needs in each subwatershed while
targeting attention on goals that will
benefit the entire basin.
Each SWAP consists of eight
elements:
an analysis of existing water
quality information
specific goals to guide restoration
efforts
an inventory of stormwater
retrofit and stream restoration
opportunities
a priority ranking of restoration
projects based on feasibility, cost,
and ability to meet goals
long-term agreements to imple-
ment and monitor priority restora-
tion projects
plans to increase wetlands and
forest cover
lists of additional actions that
could protect the subwatershed
a long-term monitoring program
to assess progress in achieving water
quality and habitat improvements.
SWAPs have been defined for
nine subwatersheds and three more
SWAPs are under development
Implementation of Controls
Implementation measures in the
Anacostia Basin generally fall into
two categories: stormwater retrofits
and stream restoration projects.
Stormwater retrofits usually control
storm surges with wet or dry deten-
tion structures. Promising restoration
measures include the establishment
of stream buffer zones, streambank
stabilization, wetlands reclamation,
riparian reforestation, and modifica-
tion of fish barriers. Coordination
with open space agencies, such as
the National Park Service and city
parks, helps target restoration efforts
to streamsides with the most poten-
tial to restore aquatic resources and
enhance natural processes that trap
pollutants.
IHT HIGHLIGHT
-------
HiCHOCi
Ml HI6HLICHT
I
Puget Sound Watershed Planning'
Developing an Action
Plan
Local watershed management
committees form the backbone of
efforts to protect the State of
Washington's Puget Sound from
nonpoint sources. Local committees
seeking funding for watershed
projects in the Puget Sound basin
are required to prepare action plans
for control of nonpoint sources. The
Puget Sound Water Quality Author-
ity's Nonpoint Rule requires water-
shed management committees to
include, at a minimum, the follow-
ing elements in their action plans:
A watershed characterization,
including information such as water-
shed maps, geographic and biologi-
cal information, and sources of data
on the watershed
A water quality assessment iden-
tifying nonpoint sources of pollution
and evaluating water quality,
beneficial uses, and the biological
"health" of the watershed
A problem definition indicating
the extent of existing and potential
water quality problems and effects
on beneficial uses from nonpoint
sources in the watershed
Goals and objectives for preven-
tion and correction of these non-
point pollution concerns
Specific source control programs
to address the problems identified
and justification for the manage-
ment actions proposed in each of
these programs. Source control pro-
grams can apply to stormwater,
erosion, agriculture, onsite sewage
disposal systems, forest practices,
boats and marinas, and other
nonpoint sources.
Source: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1989.
I
I
J
-------
1
I
HIGHLt
An implementation strategy iden-
tifying specific actions required, the
responsibilities of each implement-
ing agency or entity, and project
milestones, costs, and funding
sources.
Interagency Technical
Assistance Teams
The Washington Department
of Ecology (DOE) formed the Inter-
agency Technical Assistance Team to
support local watershed committees.
The Interagency Technical Assistance
Team provides a central pool of
experts that local committees can
utilize. The team consists of repre-
sentatives from over 20 State agen-
cies with expertise in
Forestry best management
practices
Technical transfer to the agri-
cultural community
Surface water quality monitoring
and assessment
Ground water protection
Stormwater management
Shellfish protection
Public involvement strategies
Wildlife management
Habitat protection.
In addition, a Puget Sound Co-
operative River Basin Study Team
was formed with representatives
from the Soil Conservation Service,
the Forest Service, the Washington
Department of Fisheries, and DOE.
This team helps evaluate land use
water quality problems within wa-
tersheds through field and literature
investigations, provides manage-
ment alternatives, and produces
reports and maps based on water-
shed information.
I
I
I
-------
176 Chapter Ten The Watershed Protection Approach
Helpful Publications About Watershed Protection
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1990. The State of
Anacostia: 1989 Status Report Washington, DC.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1992. Watershed
Restoration Sourcebook. Washington, DC.
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science,
Technology, and Publk Policy. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1989. Managing Nonpoint Pollution:
An Action Plan Handbook for Puget Sound Watersheds. Seattle, Washington.
USEPA. 1993. Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples. EPA 841/
B-93-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1993. The Watershed Protection Approach: Basinwide Water Quality
Management. Draft Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1992. Watershed Events: An EPA Bulletin on Integrated Aquatic
Ecosystems Protection. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. The Watershed Protection Approach: An Overview. EPA 503/
9-92-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Final Watershed Protection Framework Document Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL
Process. EPA 440/4-91-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. A Review of Methods for Assessing Nonpoint Source Contami-
nated Ground-Water Discharge to Surface Water. EPA 570/9-91-010. Office
of Ground Water, Washington, DC.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Dane County Land Conser-
vation Department 1989. A Plan for the Control of Nonpoint Sources and
Related Resource Management in the Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed
Plan. Madison, Wisconsin.
-------
Chapter Ten The Watershed Protection Approach 177
-------
-------
Geographically
Targeted Programs
Introduction
The programs described in this
chapter (the Great Waterbodies
Program, the Great Waters Program,
and the National Estuary Program)
embody a watershed protection
approach at different scales. The
Great Waterbodies Program and the
Great Waters Program target entire
drainage basins, such as the Gulf of
Mexico, which drains two-thirds of
the continental United States and a
large portion of Mexico. The Na-
tional Estuary Program (NEP) targets
clusters of watersheds that drain
into a specific estuary, such as
Galveston Bay. NEP sites may be
nested within a larger basin targeted
by the Great Waterbodies or Great*
Waters Programs, such as the Gulf
of Mexico.
Although scales differ, these
programs share a common ecosys-
tem approach to solving water qual-
ity problems. The ecosystem ap-
proach recognizes that all compo-
nents of the environment are inter-
connected and that pollution re-
leased in one area can cause prob-
lems in another. This concept re-
quires all responsible parties to rec-
ognize and reduce impacts. There-
fore, managing pollution on the
ecosystem level requires building
institutional frameworks that involve
all affected parties, such as agricul-
tural interests, environmental advo-
cacy organizations, industry, govern-
ment agencies, and private citizens.
Consensus is a key to managing
pollution on the ecosystem level.
The ecosystem approach also
encourages pollution prevention and
efforts to avoid actions that can
even indirectly lead to contamina-
tion of the waterbody. Although
such ecosystem perspectives are
hardly new, they are more often
applied to much smaller units such
as watersheds.
The Great
Waterbodies
Program
Background
The Great Waterbodies Program
manages water quality protection in
the three largest watersheds tar-
geted by EPA: the Gulf of Mexico,
the Great Lakes, and the Chesa-
peake Bay.
The Gulf of Mexico
Background
The Gulf of Mexico is fed by
rivers draining a vast area in five
countries. The Gulf's watershed,
which covers almost 2 million
square miles, is far larger than the
Chesapeake Bay or Great Lakes
watersheds. It includes two-thirds of
-affl^
-------
180 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
the continental United States, one-
half of Mexico, and parts of Canada,
Guatemala, and Cuba. Over 1.1
million square miles of the
Gulfs watershed are in the
Mississippi River drainage
system, making the Mississippi
the single largest freshwater
riverine influence on the Gulf.
The Gulf of Mexico is enor-
mously productive and diverse.
Covering 600,000 square miles,
the Gulf provides habitat for over
75% of U.S. migratory waterfowl.
Its commercial fisheries annually
produce nearly 2 billion pounds of
fish, oysters, shrimp, and crabs, and
almost 90% of U.S. offshore oil and
gas comes from Gulf waters. Four of
our Nation's busiest ports border its
shores, and many nations of the
world fish its waters. As a recre-
ational resource, the Gulf and adja-
cent estuaries provide a playground
for sport fishing, diving, water ski-
ing, sailing, swimming, sunbathing,
beachcombing, or just plain relax-
ing.
However, the health and vitality
of the Gulf have been declining in
recent years, caused in part by in-
creasing populations along its coast
and the growing demand upon its
resources and in part by the accu-
mulation of years of careless deple-
tion, abuse, and neglect of its envi-
ronment These problems in the
Gulf have reduced its ability to
regenerate naturally. The result has
been alarming damage and destruc-
tion of the Gulf's ecosystem and
habitats, particularly wetlands and
seagrasses. These losses stem from:
marine debris, toxic substances and
pesticides, coastal and shoreline
erosion, nutrient enrichment, fresh-
water inflow, nonpoint source run-
off, and contaminants from ineffi-
cient or nonexistent septic systems.
The effects are seen in decreasing
populations of waterfowl and ma-
rine wildlife, increasing degradation
and loss of wetlands and other habi-
tat, and growing threats to human
health from environmental pollution.
The Gulf of Mexico
Program
In response to signs of serious
long-term environmental damage
throughout the Gulfs coastal and
marine ecosystem, the Gulf of
Mexico Program (GMP) was estab-
lished in August 1988 with EPA as
the lead Federal agency. The Pro-
gram Office is located at Stennis
Space Center in Mississippi. Its main
purpose is to develop and help
implement a strategy to protect,
restore, and maintain the health and
productivity of the Gulf. The GMP is
a grass roots program that serves as
a catalyst to promote sharing of
information, pooling of resources,
and coordination of efforts to re-
stdre and reclaim wetlands and
wildlife habitat, clean up existing
pollution, and prevent future con-
tamination and destruction of Gulf
resources.
In addition to providing funds,
the GMP mobilizes Federal, State,
and local government; business and
industry; academia; and the com-
munity at large through programs
of public awareness, information
dissemination, forum discussions,
citizen committees, and technology
application. A Policy Review Board
and a newly formed Management
Committee determine the scope
and focus of GMP activities. The
program also receives input from a
Technical Advisory Committee and a
Citizen's Advisory Committee. The
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 181
CMP Office and 10 technical Issue
Committees coordinate the collec-
tion, integration, and reporting of
pertinent data and information.
The Issue Committees are re-
sponsible for documenting environ-
mental problems and management
goals, available government and
private resources, and potential solu-
tions relating to specific issue areas.
The Issue Committees are composed
of individuals from Federal, State,
and local agencies and from indus-
try, science, education, business,
citizen groups, and private organiza-
tions. These committees cover a
broad range of issues, including
habitat degradation, public health,
freshwater inflow, marine debris,
coastal and shoreline erosion, nutri-
ent enrichment, toxics and pesti-
cides, and living aquatic resources.
They develop and present their find-
ings in CMP documents called Ac-
tion Agendas, which describe strate-
gies to build upon programs already
under way and to develop new
cooperative mechanisms with other
public and private organizations.
The Action Agendas also provide
strategies to monitor and assess the
effectiveness of ongoing efforts and
to communicate information to
individuals and agencies that can
best use it Two additional commit-
tees provide operational support for
public education and outreach and
data and information transfer activi-
ties for the entire CMP.
Partnership for Action
On December 10, 1992, EPA;
the Governors of Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas; the
Chair of the Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee; and representatives of 10
other Federal agencies signed a Gulf
of Mexico Program Partnership for
Action agreement for protecting,
restoring, and enhancing the Gulf of
Mexico and adjacent lands. The
partnership document includes vi-
sion and goal statements and nine
5-year challenges for the GMP. The
goals established for the Gulf of
Mexico Program are to protect,
restore, and enhance the coastal
and marine waters of the Gulf of
Mexico and its natural coastal habi-
tats, to sustain living resources, to
protect human health and the food
supply, and to ensure the recre-
ational use of Gulf shores, beaches,
and waters in ways consistent with
the economic well-being of the
region.
The nine environmental chal-
lenges commit the signatory agen-
cies to pledge their efforts, over the
next 5 years, to obtain the knowl-
edge 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 fisheries
Protect human health and the
food supply by reducing inputs of
nutrients, toxic substances, and
pathogens 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.
-------
182 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
The CMP structure has been
streamlined to better meet the
needs of the new 5-year environ-
mental challenges. In addition, EPA
is restructuring its management
scheme for the CMP to increase
Regional involvement in the pro-
gram as it moves to implement
environmental protection and resto-
ration activities.
Take-Action Projects
During 1992, the CMP
launched important environmental
projects in each of the five Gulf
States to demonstrate that CMP
strategies and methods could
achieve positive results quickly.
Called 'Take-Action Projects,"
they primarily address habitat
protection and restoration and
public health. They are designed
for Gulf-wide application to help
restore the environment
Water Quality
In Louisiana, Florida, and Ala-
bama, several Take-Action Projects
deal with pollution and contami-
nants from inadequate treatment of
human waste-a main cause of dam-
age to Gulf coastal ecosystems and
a major concern to public health
officials and to the tourism and sea-
food industries.
An innovative wastewater treat-
ment system is being monitored in
a pilot project near the Port Four-
chon/Bay Marchand area of
Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. The
upwetting injection system filters
human wastewater through a sand/
soil bed to remove fecal coliforms
and enteric viruses-the primary pol-
lutants and contaminants in human
waste. The system uses inexpensive,
easy to install equipment that has
potential use throughout the Gulfs
system of rivers and bayous. Moni-
toring and mathematical modeling
will be used to evaluate the im-
provement of environmental condi-
tions in nearby oyster beds.
A Take-Action Project is under
way in Florida's Suwannee Sound
and Appalachicola National Estua-
rine Research Reserve to upgrade
existing septic systems that pollute
coastal waters. Contamination from
fecal coliforms has required suspen-
sion of oyster harvesting and threat-
ened to close beaches. Health offi-
cials are monitoring improvements
to oyster habitat and recreational
uses of coastal waters.
The use of peat moss as a me-
dium for filtration and biological
treatment of household wastewater
is being demonstrated in Weeks
Bay, Alabama. Use of this raw mate-
rial and renewable resource as a
sewage treatment medium is in-
tended to reduce fecal coliforms in
nearby oyster-producing waters.
Pollution Prevention
The State of Mississippi has
developed a common sense publica-
tion entitled The Gulf of Mexico
Citizens Pollution Prevention Hand-
book. Written in nontechnical lan-
guage, the handbook describes the
Gulf of Mexico and explains why it
is a valuable resource to our
Nation's economy and quality of
life. This take-action guide provides
a detailed listing of contacts for
more information, and it explains
specific ways that everyone in the
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 183
Gulf region can be actively involved
in restoring and preserving the
environmental quality of the Gulf.
Habitat Protection
Based on a Texas program
called Coastal Preserves, a GMP
Take-Action Project called Eco-
reserves strives to protect coastal
tracts that have been identified as
important to the Gulf ecosystem. In
some cases, areas may be preserved
as wilderness. In others, they would
be conserved-that is, carefully moni-
tored and managed to maintain
their vitality as wildlife and marine
life habitat while being used for
hunting, fishing, resource extraction,
recreation, or other development
Ideally, these tracts would be under
the management and protection of
a government agency or established
environmental organization.
To promote the concept Gulf-
wide, the GMP sponsored an
Ecoreserves Workshop in New
Orleans to share information about
the need to protect such areas; to
discuss the resources available to
help manage, preserve, or conserve
them; and to develop a strategy for
generating Gulf-wide support and
funding for protecting the most
valuable of these tracts.
Adopting this concept, Mississippi
set aside a donated portion of the
Graveline Bayou Estuary and placed
it under the protection and man-
agement of the State's Bureau of
Marine Resources.
Protection of oyster habitat is the
goal of a Take-Action Project in
Alabama. Oyster beds and reef sys-
tems in the shallow waters of
Mobile Bay, often harmed
unintentionally by boaters and fish-
ermen, have been marked with
buoys and signs to help boaters and
fishermen avoid damaging them in
the future.
Habitat Restoration
The degradation (and in many
cases, complete disappearance) of
wildlife and marine life habitats is
one of the most serious environ-
mental problems of the Gulf ecosys-
tem. Restoration of these habitats is
the focus of numerous GMP Take-
Action Projects throughout the Gulf
Region. Wetlands, reefs, seagrasses,
and the quality of the water in these
habitats are among the most signifi-
cant concerns receiving immediate
attention.
Seagrass Beds
One of several Take-Action
Projects in Alabama's Mobile Bay is
an innovative program to restore
damaged or destroyed seagrass
beds - a major habitat for fish,
shrimp, and crabs. A new approach
being developed is less costly and
labor intensive than current meth-
ods of transplanting from existing
seagrass beds. Seagrasses are germi-
nated from the seeds of wild plants,
grown in the natural environment
within protected mesh-covered
trays, then planted in designated
areas where seagrass beds are in
decline or are known to have once
existed. Low in cost and requiring
very little equipment or technical
knowledge, this program lends itself
extremely well to hands-on partici-
pation by concerned citizens and
can be easily implemented
Gulf-wide.
-------
184 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Salt Marsh Wetland
Another Take-Action Project in
Alabama's Mobile Bay is the restora-
tion of a salt marsh wetland on an
abandoned site near the Dauphin
Island Sea Lab. A wildlife habitat
before the Civil War, this marsh
wetland was filled in and used for a
number of land uses including grave
sites and large septic tank reservoirs.
The objective of this project is to
accelerate the natural reclamation
process of tidal action and provide a
model for future manmade marsh
and wetlands areas. A team of scien-
tists is carefully monitoring the
marsh reconstruction (from initial
sloping of the land and planting of
marsh and wetlands flora, to re-
building of the adjacent dune sys-
tem) and will conduct a long-term
evaluation of the habitat's health
and development This "living
marsh" will also serve as an outdoor
exhibit for the nearby Estuarium - a
marine sciences museum intended
to educate the public about the
marine flora and fauna found in the
surrounding area.
Oyster Bed
In Louisiana, Florida, and Ala-
bama, the number of oyster reefs
that have been closed to harvesting
operations has steadily increased in
recent years due to bacterial
contamination from inadequately
treated human waste. The solution
is a series of Take-Action Projects to
install upgraded septic systems or
innovative sewage treatment sys-
tems in areas affecting the oyster
beds. In a few short years, these
low-cost easy-to-install systems are
expected to revitalize oyster habitats
and help rebuild associated com-
mercial operations.
In Louisiana, the Nation's num-
ber one producer of oysters, a take-
action project in cooperation with
the National Estuary Program targets
240,000 acres of the Barataria-
Terrebonne Estuary that contains
68% of the State's private oyster
leases-an area increasingly closed to
harvesting. Likewise, the oyster-
producing areas near Suwannee
Sound and Appalachicola Bay
(Florida) and Weeks Bay (Alabama)
will benefit from similar projects to
improve sewage treatment systems.
Another Take-Action Project in
Alabama's Mobile Bay aims to re-
store and create oyster habitat with
a certain type of Mexican coral
taken from dead reef deposits found
inland and used to form new living
reefs for young oysters to grow on.
This first-of-its-kind application of
such coral will shorten the time it
takes for oyster reefs to form. If
successful, it could have far-reaching
impacts in reef restoration Gulf-
wide.
The Great Lakes Basin
Background: Water
Quality in the Great Lakes
During the past two decades,
the United States and Canada have
corrected many of the nutrient
enrichment problems in the Great
Lakes region that attracted national
attention in the 1960s. Since 1970,
phosphorus detergent restrictions,
municipal sewage treatment plant
construction and upgrades, and
agricultural practices that reduce
runoff have cut the annual phos-
phorus load into the Great Lakes in
half. The decline in phosphorus
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 185
loadings is most evident in Lake Erie,
which receives more effluent from
sewage treatment plants and sedi-
ment from agricultural lands than
the other Great Lakes. Lake Erie also
experienced a concurrent decline in
phytoplankton biomass, an indicator
of trophic condition and nutrient
enrichment The decline in phyto-
plankton biomass provides evidence
that the phosphorus controls imple-
mented in the early 1970s have
reversed Lake Erie's severe nutrient
enrichment problems of the 1960s.
Despite dramatic declines in the
occurrence of algal blooms, fish kills,
and "dead" zones depleted of oxy-
gen, less visible problems continue
to degrade water quality in the
Great Lakes. The States report that
toxic contamination is the most
prevalent and persistent water pollu-
tion problem in the Great Lakes.
Figure 11-1
Overall Use Support in the
Great Lakes Shoreline
The eight States bordering the Lakes
have issued advisories to restrict
consumption of fish caught along
their entire shorelines because con-
centrations of mercury, RGBs, pesti-
cides, and dioxins in fish tissues
exceed standards set to protect
human health. As a result, virtually
all of the waters along the Great
Lakes shoreline fail to fully support
fish consumption use, and therefore
fail to fully support overall desig-
nated uses(Rgure 11-1).
Although fish consumption use
is impaired throughout the Lakes,
more than 96% of the Great Lakes
shoreline fully supports recreational
uses, drinking water supply use, and
agricultural use (Figure 11 -2). The
individual use support data submit-
ted by the States indicate that the
remaining problems on the Lakes
have the greatest impact on fishing
Fully Partially Not Not
Supporting Threatened Supporting Supporting Attainable
1% 50% *?% 0%
Great Lakes Shoreline Miles Assessed
by the States
1992
5,319 miles = 99% assessed
; Total shoreline miles: 5,382
99% Assessed
1990
1 % Unassessed
4,857 miles = 94% assessed
£3 Total shoreline miles: 5,169
1988 4,479 miles = 87% assessed
^ Total shoreline miles: 5,169
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-1.
-------
186 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Individual Use Support m the Great lakes
."<*$*««.
Not
Svpp<*rfl»9 threatened
Aquatic Life Support
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-2.
activities and aquatic life. Aquatic life
impacts indude depleted fish popu-
lations and reproduction problems
in birds (Table 11-1 and box).
Aquatic life impacts result from per-
sistent toxic pollutant burdens in
birds, habitat degradation and
destruction, and competition and
predation by nonnative species,
such as the zebra mussel and the
sea lamprey.
The States reported that priority
organic chemicals, such as PCBs and
dioxins, are the most prevalent
cause of impairment in their Great
Lakes waters (Figure 11 -3). These
toxic chemicals persist in fish tissues,
wildlife tissues, and sediment The
States reported much lower inci-
dences of metal contamination,
depressed oxygen conditions, nutri-
ent pollution, and siltation.
The States did not report exten-
sively on sources of contamination
in the Great Lakes (Figure 11-4).
Therefore, the information on
sources applies to only one-third of
the Great Lakes shoreline. The States
reported that atmospheric deposi-
tion contributes to the impairment
of 50% of the impaired shoreline,
followed by contaminated sediments
(affecting 40%), land disposal
(affecting 30%), and urban runoff
and storm sewers (affecting 1096).
Building Institutional
Frameworks for the
Great Lakes
Rehabilitating the Great Lakes
requires cooperation from numerous
organizations because pollutants
originate in both Canada and the
United States and pollutants enter
the Lakes via multiple media (i.e.,
air, ground water, and surface
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 187
water). The International Joint Com-
mission (IJC), established by the
1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, lays
the foundation of the institutional
framework for managing the Great
Lakes. Representatives from the Gov-
ernments of the United States and
Canada, the Province of Ontario,
and the eight States bordering the
Lakes sit on the IJC. The IJC is re-
sponsible for identifying actions
needed to maintain the integrity of
the Great Lakes ecosystem.
The EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) serves as a
liaison and provides information to
the Canadian members of the IJC
and the Canadian counterparts to
the EPA. The GLNPO also coordi-
nates activities in the United States
aimed at protecting and restoring
the Lakes.
The Great Lakes Protection Fund
was formed by the Great Lakes Gov-
ernors in 1989. The mission of the
Fund is to identify, demonstrate,
and promote regional action to
enhance the health of the Great
Lakes ecosystem. It is the Nation's
first multi-State environmental
endowment The Great Lakes States
have pledged $100 million to its
permanent endowment
Public-private partnerships sup-
port the institutional framework for
managing the Great Lakes water
quality. Special boards, commis-
sions, and committees composed of
representatives from universities,
environmental organizations, agri-
cultural interests, industry, shipping
interests, and government play vital
roles in coordinating policy and
management decisions. Some of
these groups focus on local areas
and issues, while others represent
national organizations. To better
coordinate their activities on the
Figure 11-3
Percent of Great Lakes Shore Miles
Impaired by Pollutants
Total Impaired = 5,171 Miles = 97% of the total Great Lakes shoreline
Pollutants
Priority Organic;
Metals
Organic Enrichment/DO
Nutrients
Siltation
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
Percent
| Major
11 Moderate/Minor
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-3.
Figure 11-4
Information on
sources applies to
ONLY 35%
of the Great Lakes
Shoreline.
Percent of Great Lakes Shore Miles Impaired
by Sources of Pollution
Total Impaired = 1,884 Miles = 35% of the total Great Lakes shoreline
Pollution Sources Total
Atmospheric Deposition 50
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers 10
Combined Sewer Overflow 8
| Major
H Moderate/Minor
10
20 30
Percent
40
50
Based on data contained in Appendix F, Table F-4.
-------
188 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Trends in PCB Contamination in the Great Lakes
Research conducted by the United States and Canada in the Great
Lakes indicates that PCB concentrations in wildlife have declined dramati-
cally since the EPA banned most uses of PCBs in 1976. However, the PCB
concentrations in fish persist welt above concentrations set to protect
public health, and the persistent PCB burdens in some fish, mammals,
and birds still may impair reproductive success, for example, concentra-
tions of PCBs in Lake Michigan lake trout declined by about 90% since
1970, but remain at about 180 times the target goal of 0.014 parts per
million. Similarly, body burdens of PCBs in a colony of Forster's terns near
Green Bay, Wisconsin, declined by 66% while hatching success tripled
between 1983 and 1988. However, the tern's offspring continued to suf-
fer "wasting" and other fatal health problems, which may have resulted
from the contaminant burdens in the adult birds.
Table 11-1. Effects of Toxic Contamination on Fish and Wildlife in the Great Lakes
Species
Mink
Otter
Double-crested
Cormorant
Black-crowned
Night Heron
Bald Eagle
Herring Gull
Ring-billed Gull
Caspian Tern
Common Tern
Forster's Tern
Snapping
Turtle
Lake Trout
Brown
Bullhead
White Sucker
Population
Decrease
X
X
X
X
X
NE
Effects on
Reproduction
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Eggshell
Thinning
NA
NA
X
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Birth
Defects
NE
NE
X
X
NE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Behavioral
Changes
NE
NE
X
NE
X
NE
Biochemical
Changes
NE
NE
X
X
NE
X
NE
NE
X
X
NE
X
X
X
X
Mortality
X
7
7
7
NE
X
X
NE
X = Effects documented.
NA = Not applicable.
NE = Not examined.
? - Suspected because population declined.
NOTE: Unpublished records of gross birth defects exist for the double-crested cormorant, great blue heron, and the Virginia
rail.
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 189
Great Lakes Basin, groups have be-
gun to support umbrella organiza-
tions, such as Great Lakes United.
Great Lakes United, started in 1982,
represents more than 180 affiliated
groups in the United States and
Canada. One of its goals is to facili-
tate citizen involvement in decision-
making processes.
The Great Lakes Commission is
an independent organization
binationally chartered that integrates
environmental concerns with eco-
nomic development concerns. The
Commission's members are
appointed by the States, Canadian
Provinces, and Federal governments.
The members issue reports on sub-
jects such as the environmental
impacts of transportation options in
the Great Lakes Region. The reports
provide data for decisionmaking by
the government bodies with author-
ity to manage the Lakes.
Private conservation groups are
also working with government
agencies to protect natural areas in
the Great Lakes Basin. The GLNPO is
funding 19 restoration and protec-
tion projects based, in part, on find-
ings of the Great Legacy Project
The Great Legacy Project includes
efforts by the Nature Conservancy
of Canada and the United States
and other conservation groups to
pool natural heritage data from
several public agencies and land
trusts and to apply geographic
targeting approaches to identify
particularly high-quality resource
areas.
The Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement
The 1978 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA), as
amended in 1987, estab-
lished a commitment by
the United States and
Canada to restore and pro-
tect the Great Lakes. The
Amendments to the Agree-
ment stress two central con-
cepts: (1) the ecosystem
approach, and
(2) the virtual elimination of
persistent toxic substances.
Although there has been
considerable progress in ad-
dressing impacts from point and
nonpoint loadings of conventional
pollutants under the GLWQA, the
Great Lakes are still highly vulner-
able to toxic pollutants. The IjC
released a set of recommendations
identifying 11 "critical pollutants"
for which management scrutiny is
warranted throughout the Basin.
These chemicals and possible
sources are presented in Table 11 -2.
The Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative
In June of 1989, EPA launched
the Great Lakes Water Quality Initia-
tive to provide a framework for Fed-
eral assistance in pursuing the goal
of whole-system restoration based
on an ecosystem perspective. The
Initiative emphasizes areas in which
EPA can provide State governments
and other stakeholders with techni-
cal support The Initiative envisions
EPA making the following technical
contributions:
-------
n
CI
Table 11-2. Toxic Chemicals of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin: 1 1 Critical Pollutants Identified by the IJC's Water Quality Board
Chemical
2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) and
2,3,7,8-TCDF (furan)
Benzo[«]pyrene (b[a]p)
DDT3 and its breakdown products
(including DDE)
Dieldrin"
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
Alkylated lead
Mirexb
Mercury
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)C
Toxaphene3
Production
and Release
Unintentional
Unintentional
Intentional
Intentional
Unintentional
Intentional
Unintentional
Intentional
Intentional
Unintentional
Intentional
Unintentional
Intentional
Source
Contaminant in herbicides used in agriculture, range, and forest management. Also produced as a byproduct of
combustion of fossil fuels and waste incineration, and through production of pentachlorophenol (PCP) and pulp
and paper production processes. 2,3,7,8-TCDD is the most toxic of 75 congeners (forms) of dioxin, and 2,3,7,8-
TCDF is the most toxic of 1 35 congeners of furan.
Product of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and wood, including forest fires, grills (charcoal broiling), auto
exhaust, and waste incineration. One of a large family of polynuctear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Insecticide; used heavily for mosquito control in tropical areas. Banned for use in the U.S. and Canada with some
exceptions for gypsy moth control. Once used extensively in North America and worldwide.
Insecticide used extensively at one time, especially on fruit.
Byproduct of combustion of fuels and waste incineration, and of manufacturing processes using chlorine.
Found as a contaminant in chlorinated pesticides.
Used as a fuel additive and in solder, pipes, and paint.
Released through combustion of fuel, waste, and cigarettes, and from pipes, cans, and paint chips.
Fire retardant; pesticide used to control fire ants. Breaks down to more toxic form, photomirex, in presence of
sunlight. Present sources are residuals from manufacturing sites, spills, and land disposal.
Used in metallurgy, batteries, thermometers, electrical switches, and disinfectants.
Byproduct of chlor-alkali, gold mining, paint, and electrical equipment manufacturing processes. Also occurs
naturally in soils and sediments. Releases into the aquatic environment may be accelerated by sulfate deposition
(i.e., acid rain) and leaching from landfills.
Insulating fluids used in electrical capacitors and transformers and in the production of hydraulic fluids, lubricants,
and inks. Was previously used as a vehicle for pesticide dispersal. PCBs comprise a family of 209 congeners of
varying toxicity.
Primarily released to the environment through leakage, spills, and waste storage and disposal. Leaches from
soil and sediment deposits.
Insecticide used on cotton. Substitute for DDT. Use in Great Lakes Basin not documented, but the presence
of toxaphene in the Great Lakes raised the issue of long-range transport, or atmospheric deposition.
o
<§
3
n
Bl
D)
(3
I
I
5
3 Use restricted in the United States and Canada.
b Banned for use in the United States and Canada.
c Manufacture and new uses prohibited in the United States and Canada.
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 191
Develop guidance for identifying
areas affected by toxics
Develop guidance for tracking
the relative contributions of toxic
and acidic pollutants from surface
water and atmospheric sources
Develop guidance for determin-
ing the relative roles of point and
nonpoint source contributions to
conventional and toxic pollutant
burdens
Suggest innovative approaches
for the protection of critical habitat
areas
Support the development of
special wildlife standards.
To help implement the goals of
the Great Lakes Initiative, EPA Re-
gion 5 and the EPA CLNPO coordi-
nate a Steering Committee, Techni-
cal Workgroup, and Public Participa-
tion Croup. The States have played
an active role in the development of
draft criteria and policies. For ex-
ample, Wisconsin took the lead in
developing water quality standards
criteria and wildlife criteria. This is
clearly one of the most challenging
aspects of the Great Lakes Initiative,
since it involves attention to a vari-
ety of mammals, waterfowl, and
raptors that use aquatic or wetlands
habitats and are especially vulner-
able to toxicants in their aquatic
food supplies. Figure 11-5 illustrates
the current status of an impaired
Great Lakes watershed (the Lower
Green Bay Ecosystem) and the de-
sired future status of the ecosystem,
which is the ultimate goal of the
Great Lakes Initiative.
By August 1993, EPA had held
public hearings on the Great Lakes
Figure 11-5
Present State and Desired Future State
of the Lower Green Bay Ecosystem
Present State
eenthk Invertebrates
Midge Larvae, Sludge Worms
Sediments
PCBs, Organic Wastes,
Oxygen Demand
Desired Future State
Submerged Aquatic Vfegetstfon
Predator Fisf»
Northern Pike, Walleye, Bass, Muskie
Benthic Invertebrates
Fingernail Clams, Mayflies
-------
192 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Initiative Guidance published in the
Federal Register in the Spring of
1993. When issued in final form, the
CLNPO will use this major guidance
document to update the Great
Lakes Five Year Strategy. The Strat-
egy translates the general goals of
the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement into practical steps.
Remedial Action Plans
for Areas of Concern
Implementing control measures
for pollutants usually begins in
smaller drainages and waterbodies.
At the smallest geographic scale, the
IJC identified 43 Areas of Concerns
(AOCs), located primarily along river
mouths or harbors. The United
States and Canada designated all 43
AOCs, which face major toxics con-
cerns. Thirty-five of the 43 AOCs
report toxics concerns in ambient
Figure 11-6
Status of Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Development
for Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes
10 15 20 25
Number of RAPs Submitted
30
35
| Stage I RAP Submitted
j Stage II RAP Submitted
water, 41 of 43 report toxics in
sediments, and 38 of 43 AOCs re-
strict consumption of fish harvested
from local waters because of ele-
vated toxic concentrations in fish
tissues.
In 1985, the Great Lakes States
and the Canadian Provinces agreed
to develop and implement a Reme-
dial Action Plan (RAP) for each AOC.
A complete RAP encompasses the
following stages and has a planning
document associated with each
milestone:
STAGE 1 - Summarizes available
information and specifies the nature
of the problem(s).
STAGE 2 - Specifies remedial and
regulatory measures needed to re-
store beneficial uses.
STAGE 3 - Summarizes results as
progress is achieved in implement-
ing management plans.
Figure 11 -6 summarizes the
status of Stage 1 and Stage 2 RAP
submittals through 1992.
Lakewide
Management Plans
Lakewide Management Plans
(LaMPs) are the next level of geo-
graphic integration envisioned in the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment The United States is preparing
the LaMP for the Lake Michigan
Basin, which is contained entirely in
this country. Although impacts from
nutrients and un-ionized ammonia
toxicity persist, most of the prob-
lems in Lake Michigan stem from
toxic contaminants already in the
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 193
Lake system and ongoing toxic
loadings from point and nonpoint
sources.
Building on work in progress at
the various AOCs, the Lake Michi-
gan LaMP will look at the lake eco-
system as a whole and identify a set
of critical pollutants. In some cases,
this would be a subset of the range
of pollutants being addressed at
smaller geographic units such as the
AOCs. In other cases, pollutants that
are not of the highest concern in
localized areas but are deemed criti-
cal to the entire Lake Michigan
ecosystem may warrant scrutiny. As
the set of critical pollutants is re-
fined, the LaMP will propose a
tiered concept for developing man-
agement actions.
The LaMPs for each Great Lake
will also encourage pollution pre-
vention approaches. Lake Superior
provides perhaps the best opportu-
nity to implement pollution preven-
tion because it is the least impacted
of the Great Lakes. Lake Superior
has been spared much of the
extreme ecological disruptions asso-
ciated with industrial and municipal
discharges, introduction of exotic
species, and overharvesting of the
fisheries that have had devastating
impacts on the lower Great Lakes,
especially Lakes Ontario and Erie.
In the Spring of 1992, the
United States, Canada, and the
States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan formally agreed on a new
regional agreement to protect Lake
Superior from toxic pollution. The
Binational Agreement seeks to ex-
pand authorities (where appropri-
ate) to implement a goal of zero
pollutant discharge of persistent
toxic substances. As a first step,
both the U.S. and the Canadian
governments will work to freeze
loadings of toxic discharges. The
United States and Canada plan to
issue a draft LaMP for Lake Superior
by the end of October 1993.
Pollution Prevention
Initiatives
The EPA GLNPO is working with
EPA Regions 2, 3, and 5, the States,
and their Canadian counterparts to
promote pollution prevention as the
most effective approach to achieve
the GLWQA goal of virtually elim-
inating discharges of persis-
tent toxic substances in the
Great Lakes. In 1991, EPA
and the States developed the
Great Lakes Pollution Preven-
tion Action Plan to highlight
how EPA and the States will
minimize the use, production,
and release of toxic substances
at the source. The Action Plan
targets persistent bioaccumula-
tive toxic substances for reduc-
tion or elimination.
At this time, the EPA is imple-
menting the National 35/50 Pro-
gram in the Great Lakes Basin.
Under this program, EPA has
received voluntary commitments
from industry to reduce the emis-
sion of 17 priority pollutants by
50% by the end of 1995. The EPA is
also working with utilities located
within the Great Lakes Basin to
accelerate the phaseout of trans-
formers containing PCBs.
-------
194 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
The Chesapeake Bay
Program
In 1975, the Chesapeake Bay
became the Nation's first estuary to
be targeted for protection and res-
toration when Congress, through
the appropriations bill, directed
EPA's Office of Research and Devel-
opment to launch a study investi-
gating the causes of the environ-
mental declines experienced in the
Bay. Section 117(a) of the Clean
Water Act amendments of 1987
required the EPA Administrator to
continue the ongoing Chesapeake
Bay Program and maintain a Chesa-
peake Bay Program Office. This
program would continue to collect
and make available information
about the Bay's environmental qual-
ity; coordinate Federal and State
efforts to improve the Ba/s water
quality; and determine the impact
of sediment deposition and natural
and man-induced environmental
changes in the Bay, especially nutri-
ents, chlorine, acid precipitation,
dissolved oxygen, and toxic pollut-
ants, with particular attention to the
impact on striped bass.
Building Institutional
Frameworks
A system of committees, sub-
committees, work groups, and task
forces have evolved under the
Chesapeake Executive Council,
which acts as the coordinating body
for implementation, establishes the
policy direction, and provides over-
sight for the restoration and protec-
tion of the Bay and its living re-
sources. On August 6, 1991, the
Chesapeake Executive Council
adopted four action steps, building
on the original 1987 agreement,
which defined the future priorities
and direction of the Chesapeake Bay
Program. These steps are: (1) to
reevaluate and accelerate the nutri-
ent reduction program; (2) to adopt
pollution prevention; (3) to restore
and enhance living resources and
their habitat; and (4) to broaden
participation in the Bay Program.
Baywide Nutrient
Reduction Strategy
In 1987, the parties to the origi-
nal Chesapeake Bay Agreement of
1983 signed a new Chesapeake Bay
Agreement The 1987 agreement
set a specific goal-to achieve at least
a 40% reduction of nitrogen and
phosphorus entering the mainstem
Chesapeake Bay by the year 2000.
The agreement also included a pro-
vision that the goal be reevaluated
in 1991 to determine whether it is,
indeed, the reduction needed.
The Problem
Studies completed in the 1970s
substantiated that increases in agri-
cultural development, population
growth, and sewage treatment plant
flows were causing the Bay to be-
come nutrient enriched. High levels
of nutrients (primarily phosphorus
and nitrogen) flow into the Bay
causing excessive algae growth (see
Figure 11 -7). This condition involves
a chain reaction and has two effects:
In shallow areas, the excess algae
shade underwater bay grasses,
blocking the light the grasses need
to grow. This degrades the habitat
and causes the eventual loss of grass
beds.
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 195
In deeper areas, when the algae
die and sink to the bottom, their
decomposition uses up available
oxygen in the water. During the
warm summer months, oxygen in
the bottom waters can only be re-
plenished slowly because little mix-
ing with the high oxygen surface
water occurs. Many bottom-living
animals such as oysters, clams, and
worms, which provide food for fish
and crabs, cannot survive this pro-
longed period of low oxygen.
Figure 11-7
The Sources
Nutrients that enter the Chesa-
peake Bay originate from point
sources (e.g., municipal and indus-
trial wastewater), nonpoint sources
(e.g., cropland, animal wastes, ur-
ban and suburban runoff), and
atmospheric deposition (airborne
contaminants). These sources span
so vast an area that it is difficult to
collect comprehensive data
throughout the watershed. There-
fore, a computer simulation of
Effects of Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay
Healthy System
Nutrients
Sediments
Toxicants
Low Dissolved
Oxygen
Water Column Habitat
Clear Water
Algal Growth Balanced
Oxygen Levels Adequate
Finfish Abundant
Aquatic Plant Habitat
Flourishes
Aquatic Plant
Growth Inhibited
Bottom Habitat
Healthy
Fish, Shellfish and Other
Organisms Stressed
-------
196 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Figure 11-8
1985 Total Nitrogen Base Load Distribution
in Chesapeake Bay
Atmospheric Deposition
26% (9% tidal waters:
17% Bay watershed)
Point Sources
23%
Nonpoint Sources
41%
Total Load = 376 Million Pounds
Source: 1991 Watershed Model, September 30, 1992.
Figure 11-9
1985 Total Phosphorus Base Load Distribution
in Chesapeake Bay
Atmospheric Deposition
5%
Point Sources
34%
. Nonpoint Sources
61%
Total Load = 27 Million Pounds
sources was used as the common
mechanism for estimating both the
1985 base load and the load reduc-
tions that are necessary to improve
dissolved oxygen conditions in the
deep trench of the Bay.
To approximate long-term aver-
age conditions, the 1985 base load
was calculated as a 4-year average
to take into account the natural
variations in runoff and river flow.
Figure 11 -8 shows that nonpoint
sources contribute 41% to the total
nitrogen load followed by atmos-
pheric deposition (26%), and point
sources (23%). Atmospheric loads of
total nitrogen include nitrogen loads
deposited on the tidal waters of the
Bay (9%) and total nitrogen loads
deposited on the watershed lands
surrounding the Bay that wash into
the Bay waters (17%). Figure 11-9
shows the same breakdown but for
phosphorus. The percentage of con-
tributions are 61% for nonpoint.
sources, 34% for point sources, and
5% for atmospheric deposition.
To calculate the controllable
loads of nutrients to the Bay, the
Program estimated the expected
load if there were 100% forest cover
and subtracted that from the 1985
base load (see Tables 11 -3 and
11 -4). The controllable fraction of
nutrient loads is approximately 49%
for nitrogen and 77% for phospho-
rus.
Point Source Nutrient
Reduction
Municipal and industrial dis-
charges are major sources of nutri-
ent loads to the Bay system. Three
elements of the Chesapeake Bay
Program's point source control strat-
egy are responsible for reductions in
the nutrient loading:
Source: 1991 Watershed Model, September 30, 1992.
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 197
Upgrading wastewater treatment
plants
Improving compliance with
permit requirements
Pollution prevention actions such
as prohibiting the sale of detergents
containing phosphorus.
Phosphorus detergent restric-
tions sharply reduced the quantity
of phosphorus entering municipal
sewage treatment plants at the
same time that population growth
increased the total volume of water
entering treatment facilities (Table
11 -5). Plant operators also use fewer
chemicals to remove phosphorus
from their effluent and produce less
sludge as a result of the phosphorus
detergent restrictions.
Phosphorus load reduction has
occurred at a faster pace than pre-
dicted. Annual discharges have
dropped about 4.7 million pounds
from 1985 to 1991, a reduction of
40% since 1985 (Rgure 11-10).
Wastewater treatment plant up-
grades have also begun to have an
effect on nitrogen loads.
The Chesapeake Bay Program
has conducted pilot projects to
assess the cost and effectiveness of
an emerging technology known as
biological nutrient removal. That
technology is now used to reduce
nitrogen and phosphorus loads from
point sources in the Bay.
Furthermore, compliance has
improved with permitted discharge
limits. Since 1989 when the Chesa-
peake Executive Council made com-
pliance a priority, the rate of signifi-
cant noncompliance has declined
from a high of about 7% in 1989 to
less than 4% in 1992. The percent-
age of significant noncompliance
Table 11-3. Nitrogen Loading to Chesapeake Bay- 1985 Base
Load and Controllable Fraction (million Ib/yr)
Nutrient
Source*
Nonpoint
Point
Atmospheric
Deposition6
Total
1985 Base
Loadb
254.6
87.3
34.6
376.5
Forest
Background
Load'
153.9
2.8
156.7
Controllable
Loadd
100.7
84.5
0
185.2
Reduction
(40%
Controllable)
40.3
33.8
0
74.1
a Nonpoint source loads include atmospheric deposition to the land (17%).
Point source loads are reported as delivered to tidal waters.
bThe 1985 Base Load is 1984-1987 output from the Watershed Model plus point
source load discharged below the fall line.
c Forest Background Load simulated all land uses converted to forest. Includes
atmospheric deposition on the land, rivers, and lakes that may be possible to
control.
d Controllable Load equals Base Load minus Forest Background Load.
e Deposition to tidal waters only (9%). Deposition to land is included in nonpoint
source load. Technical studies indicate that a large majority of this load is attribut-
able to human activities, but that fraction is not estimated here.
Source: 1991 Watershed Model, September 30,1992.
Table 11-4. Phosphorus Loading to Chesapeake Bay - 1985 Base
Load and Controllable Fraction (million Ib/yr)
Nutrient
Source*
Nonpoint
Point
Atmospheric
Deposition6
Total
1985 Base
Loadb
16.50
9.25
1.47
27.22
Forest
Background
Load0
4.35
0.33
4.68
Controllable
Loadd
12.15
8.92
0
21.07
Reduction
(40%
Controllable)
4.86
3.57
0
8.43
a Nonpoint source loads include atmospheric deposition to the land. Point source
loads are reported as delivered to tidal waters.
bThe 1985 Base Load is 1984-1987 output from the Watershed Model plus point
source load discharged below the fall line.
c Forest Background Load simulated all land uses converted to forest. Includes
atmospheric deposition on the land, rivers, and lakes that may be possible to
control.
d Controllable Load equals Base Load minus Forest Background Load.
* Deposition to tidal waters only. Technical studies indicate that a large majority of
this load is attributable to human activities, but that fraction is not estimated here.
Source: 1991 Watershed Model, September 30,1992.
-------
198 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
nationally has decreased from
approximately 10% in 1989 to 9%
in 1992.
Nonpoint Source Nutrient
Reduction
The Chesapeake Bay Program's
nonpoint source control program
emphasizes controls on agriculture,
Table 11-5. Results of Phosphorus Detergent Bans in the
Chesapeake Bay System
State
Maryland
District of
Columbia
Virginia
Pennsylvania
(Susquehanna
River Basin)
Date
Implemented
1985
1986
1988
1990
Reduction
in Influent
Phosphorus
30%
26%
34%
25-33%
Reduction
in Effluent
Phosphorus
16%
50%
Reduction
in Sludge
Production
28 dry
tons/day
14%
~
Not reported.
Figure 11-10
Point Source Phosphorus Reduction Progress
^ 12
§ 10
J3
C o
g o
1 6
***s
v>
1 *
0 L-1
Progress
Nutrient
Reduction
Goal
4.65(1992)
85
88
91 94
Year
97 2000
Source: Progress of the Baywide Nutrient Reduction devaluation, February 1992.
paved surfaces, and construction in
urban areas. The most important
additional control measure is the
practice of nutrient management in
which animal wastes and fertilizers
are applied to farmland in amounts
carefully calculated to meet the
needs of the crops. This practice
reduces the runoff and leaching of
nutrients that result from overuse of
fertilizers.
Because it is not possible to
monitor every nonpoint source, a
model was developed to estimate
the reduction of nutrient loadings.
Implementation of nonpoint source
control programs has resulted in a
12% and 8% reduction in control-
lable nonpoint source nitrogen and
phosphorus, respectively. Portions of
these decreases are reductions in
nitrogen loads to ground water.
Because nitrogen in ground water is
released very slowly, the benefits to
Bay water quality may not be seen
for years.
Water Quality Trends and
Characterization
Bay water quality monitoring
data confirm the significant progress
made in reducing phosphorus from
nonpoint source and municipal
point source loads, as well as the
need for further progress toward
reducing nitrogen loadings. These
trends are as follows:
Phosphorus Trends
Total phosphorus levels in the
Chesapeake Bay decreased by 16%
between 1984 and 1992.
Significant downward trends in
phosphorus concentrations were
observed in the upper middle
mainstem (from the Susquehanna
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 199
Flats to the Bay Bridge) and the
lower mainstem (from the
Rappahannock River south to the
mouth of the Bay).
Phosphorus concentrations
declined in two upper tributaries
(Patuxent and James) and increased
in three tributaries (Gunpowder,
Nanticoke, and Choptank).
Nitrogen Trends
Total nitrogen levels in the
mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay
are essentially unchanged.
Nitrogen concentrations in-
creased in the upper reaches of
several tributaries (Potomac,
Rappahannock, York, James,
Gunpowder, Northeast, Sassafras,
Chester, and Choptank).
Nitrogen concentrations in-
creased significantly in Mobjack Bay,
located between the Rappahannock
and York Rivers).
Dissolved Oxygen Trends
The volume of anoxic/hypoxic
water in the mainstem has fluctu-
ated widely over the last four de-
cades, often reflecting patterns of
freshwater inflow.
The volume of anoxic waters has
increased since 1950, based on
available data.
Water Quality
Characterization
Numerous areas in the Bay's
tributaries, as well as previously
identified areas in the mainstem
Bay, are impacted by low dissolved
oxygen. These tributaries include the
Patapsco, Magothy, Severn, South,
West, Rhode, Patuxent, Potomac,
Anacostia, Rappahannock, Your,
Chester, and Little Choptank rivers,
as well as Easter Bay.
Submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) is the best single indicator of
the health of the Bay. Although
water quality conditions in many
tributaries are not currently suitable
for survival and growth of SAV, the
amount of SAV in the Bay has
doubled during the past decade.
There is no one single limiting
nutrient in the Bay. Phosphorus
tends to stimulate algae growth in
freshwater areas of the Bay while
nitrogen stimulates phytoplankton
development in salt water areas.
Reduced phosphorus loads will
decrease algae growth in the tribu-
taries and upper portions of the Bay,
allowing for increased light penetra-
tion to underwater grasses. Reduced
nitrogen loads will improve dis-
solved oxygen conditions in the
upper and lower Bay by reducing
the amount of decomposing algae
available to settle to the saltier and
denser bottom water that circulates
back up the Bay.
Water Quality and Living
Resource Objectives
The Bay Program's highest pri-
ority is to restore the Bay's living
resources. One of the ways to do
this is to improve water quality
through nutrient reductions. These
reductions will increase dissolved
oxygen and improve water clarity.
Submerged aquatic vegetation pro-
vides critical habitat for many of the
Bay's organisms, but requires
-------
200 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Cfc *"»s ot
relatively clear water to grow and
photosynthesize. The Chesapeake
Bay Executive Council, which con-
sists of the Governors of Maryland,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania, the
Administrator of the EPA, the Mayor
of the District of Columbia, and the
Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, set a goal to increase
the amount of SAV from 70,000
acres to 114,000 acres. At the cur-
rent rate of recovery, this acreage
will be achieved by the year 2005.
The Council also pledged to open
hundreds of miles of Bay tributaries
to spawning fish by removing some
dams and creating fish passages.
The Great Waters
Program
Section 112(m) of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 requires
that the EPA and the National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) jointly
conduct a program to identify
the extent of atmospheric
deposition of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) into the Great
Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Lake
Champlain, and selected coastal
waters. EPA developed the Great
Waters Program to comply with
Section 112(m).
The Great Waters Program
requires four monitoring networks:
A Great Lakes monitoring net-
work established one wet/dry collec-
tion facility for each of the five Great
Lakes. The facilities will collect data
to help identify and track movement
of HAPs into the Great Lakes ecosys-
tem and determine overall HAP
loadings from atmospheric
deposition. EPA will ensure that the
data collected are compatible with
related databases. The information
will support development of Reme-
dial Action Plans (RAPs) for the 43
Areas of Concern designated by the
United States and Canada and
development of LaMPs.
A Chesapeake Bay monitoring
network has deposition monitoring
stations within the Bay watershed,
which extends into Virginia, Mary-
land, West Virginia, Delaware, and
Pennsylvania. The monitoring pro-
gram will help determine the rela-
tive contribution of atmospheric
HAP loadings to total pollutant load-
ings into the Bay, investigate sources
of HAPs, and evaluate the environ-
mental effects of deposited HAPs on
the Bay ecosystem based on biologi-
cal sampling within individual water-
sheds.
A Lake Champlain monitoring
network should establish deposition
monitoring stations in the Lake
Champlain watershed straddling
Vermont and New York. The Lake
Champlain network will also investi-
gate the contribution air deposition
makes to overall pollutant loadings,
the sources of deposited HAPs, and
the environmental effects of atmos-
pheric deposition in the Lake
Champlain watershed.
A coastal waters monitoring net-
work should determine relative load-
ings of HAPs into National Estuary
Program waters designated by EPA
and National Estuarine Research
Reserves designated by NOAA. The
first step in this network is a screen-
ing study targeted for Galveston Bay
in 1993-94.
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 201
Beginning in 1993, Section 112
of the Clean Air Act Amendments
also requires EPA to report program
results to Congress biennially. The
Great Waters Report to Congress
should describe the relative contribu-
tion of deposited HAPs to total pol-
lutant loadings, the environmental
and human health effects of HAPs,
the sources of HAPs, and water qual-
ity standards violations due to HAP
deposition in designated Great Wa-
ters. Recommendations should also
be proposed for additional regula-
tory revisions under any Federal laws
needed to protect the Great Waters
from hazardous pollutants, and EPA
should promulgate any needed revi-
sions under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act
EPA assembled three teams to
author scientific documents that will
support preparation of the Great
Waters Report to Congress. Each
team analyzed available information
on one of the following issues:
Loading of toxicants from air
relative to total loading from all
routes
Human and ecological exposure
and effects
Source identification.
Each team distributed a draft of
its support document, and EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) held a workshop
to critique, discuss, and supplement
their documents. Attendees included
invited experts and the Great Waters
Core Group, composed of represen-
tatives from EPA program offices,
EPA laboratories, NOAA, and States.
The teams recently incorporated
workshop comments into the final
drafts of their support documents.
Currently, EPA is synthesizing
the supporting information into the
Great Waters Report to Congress.
The Report will describe the extent
of our knowledge, the data needed
to fill gaps, and conclusions based
upon available information. EPA will
develop a long-term strategy for
future Great Waters work based on
the research needs described in the
support documents and policy
needs identified by program partici-
pants.
The National Estuary
Program
The National Estuary Program
embodies the ecosystem approach
by building coalitions, 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
estuarine waters.
Congress recognizes that estuar-
ies are unique and endangered eco-
systems and that traditional water
pollution control programs alone
cannot address the more complex
issues associated with estuaries.
These issues include protecting liv-
ing resources and their habitats,
controlling diffuse sources of pollut-
ants, and managing estuaries as
watershed ecosystems. Responding
to the unmet needs of estuarine
ecosystems, Congress established
the National Estuary Program in
1987 under Section 320 of the
Clean Water Act
The NEP adopts a geographic,
basin-wide approach to environ-
mental management. A State gover-
nor nominates an estuary in the
-------
202 Chapter Ten Geographically Targeted Programs
governor's State for participation in
the program. The State must dem-
onstrate a likelihood for success in
protecting candidate estuaries and
provide evidence of institutional,
financial, and political commitment
to solving estuarine problems.
If an estuary meets the NEP
guidelines, the EPA Administrator
convenes a management confer-
ence of representatives from inter-
ested Federal, Regional, State, and
local governments; affected indus-
tries; scientific and academic institu-
tions; and citizen organizations. The
management conference defines
program goals and objectives, iden-
tifies problems, and designs strate-
gies to prevent and control pollu-
tion and manage natural resources
in the estuarine basin. Each man-
agement conference develops and
initiates implementation of a
Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) to
restore and protect its estuary.
The NEP currently supports
21 estuary projects, including four
sites added to the program in
1992:
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds in
North Carolina
Buzzards Bay in Massachusetts
Long Island Sound in Connecti-
cut and New York
Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island
Puget Sound in Washington State
San Francisco Bay Estuary in Cali-
fornia
Santa Monica Bay in California
Delaware Estuary in New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Delaware
Delaware Inland Bays in Delaware
Calveston Bay in Texas
New York-New jersey Harbor in
New York and New jersey
Sarasota Bay in Florida
Indian River Lagoon in Florida
Tampa Bay in Florida
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine
Complex in Louisiana
Casco Bay in Maine
Massachusetts Bay in Massachu-
setts
Corpus Christ! Bay in Texas
Peconic Bay in New York
San juan Bay in Puerto Rico
Tillamook Bay in Oregon.
These 21 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 envi-
ronmental conditions in estuaries
throughout the United States and its
Territories.
The NEP integrates science and
decisionmaking for the protection,
restoration, and maintenance of
estuaries. Through a characterization
process, scientists from Federal,
State, and local government agen-
cies, academic institutions, and the
private sector analyze an estuary's
problems and their causes and work
with estuary managers to suggest
remedies. Because the NEP is not a
research program, it relies heavily on
past and current research of other
agencies and institutions to support
its work.
Appendix F, Table F-5, lists
physical and economic characteris-
tics of 17 NEP estuarine basins. The
table also describes each estuary's
susceptibility to pollution in terms of
its ability to flush out and dilute
pollutants. This information is being
evaluated as part of a national sur-
vey of nutrient enrichment in estuar-
ies, sponsored jointly by EPA and
NOAA.
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 203
Estuarine Problems
Each of the 21 estuaries in the
NEP is unique, yet the estuaries
share common threats and stressors.
Each estuary faces expanding
human activity near its shores that
may degrade water quality and
habitat Eutrophication, toxic sub-
stances (including metals), patho-
gens, and changes to living
resources and habitats top the list of
problems being addressed by the
NEP Management Conferences.
Tables F-6, F-7, and F-8 in Appendix
F, list the problems stressing 17 NEP
sites.
Eutrophication
Nutrients enter waterways
through sewage treatment plant
discharges, stormwater runoff from
lawns and agricultural lands, faulty
septic tanks, and even ground water
discharges. (For example, nitrates
are believed to leach into ground
water and discharge into the Dela-
ware Inland Bays.) Algae and bacte-
ria respond to elevated inputs of
nutrients by rapidly reproducing.
Decomposition of the algae con-
sumes oxygen and causes hypoxia-
low concentrations of dissolved oxy-
gen.
The Long Island Sound Study
Management Conference (which
includes representatives from NOAA,
State and County agencies in Con-
necticut and New York, and New
York City) is focusing on sources of
hypoxia in the basin surrounding
the Sound. During recent summers,
poor water circulation exacerbated
hypoxia problems in parts of the
Sound. The Long Island Sound
Study identified nitrogen as the
primary nutrient linked to hypoxia
in the Sound and concluded that
discharges from sewage
treatment plants and run-
off are the leading control-
lable sources of nitrogen
loadings to the estuary.
The Delaware Inland Bays
Management Conference is
focusing on the Inland Bays'
capacity to assimilate nutri-
ents. First, the study identified
critical information gaps and
planned research projects to fill
the gaps. Ongoing research projects
target four goals: (1) determine
ground water contributions of nutri-
ents, (2) develop a mass balance
model of nutrient cycling between
ground water and the Inland Bays,
(3) define nutrient transport pro-
cesses in the Inland Bays' basin, and
(4) develop a strategy for using
living resources as indicators of
water quality. The project coordi-
nates public input and research
conducted by Federal, State, aca-
demic, and private scientists in an
attempt to characterize the estuary
and develop a Comprehensive Con-
servation and Management Plan.
Toxic Substances
Metals in Massachusetts Bay
illustrate the impact from sewage
treatment plants, atmospheric
deposition, and polluted tributaries.
The Bay receives high metal loading
from the Merrimack River. The
Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan for the Bay will
have to address sources of metals
contaminating the Merrimack River
as well as sources discharging met-
als directly into the Bay.
-------
204 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Sediment core samples collected
at Narragansett Bay revealed that
most metal concentrations peaked
during the 1950s and have declined
by an average of 60% since the
1950s. The study attributes declines
in metal concentrations to improve-
ments in sewage treatment
The Casco Bay Estuary Project
focuses on the extent of toxic con-
tamination in Bay sediments. Heavy
metal concentrations in Casco Bay
sediments exceed concentrations in
most NEP estuaries. The Casco Bay
study detected heavy metals, PCBs,
PAHs, pesticides, dioxins, and other
organic compounds in the Casco
Bay sediments. NOAA's flounder
liver survey revealed heavy concen-
trations of lead, copper, zinc, silver,
and PCBs in fish captured in Casco
Bay.
Pathogens
Pathogens are bacteria and
viruses that cause diseases. To pro-
tect public health, State agencies
prohibit the harvest of shellfish in
waters contaminated with patho-
gens or pathogen indicators, such as
fecal coliforms. Waters contaminated
with pathogens also pose a health
risk to swimmers, surfers, and divers.
A growing network of shellfish
farms on the Indian River Lagoon
serves as a monitoring system to
alert scientists and managers to
water quality problems in the
Lagoon, including the presence of
pathogens.
Elevated counts of bacterial and
viral indicators in two Santa Monica
storm drains raised concern about
the safety of swimming near storm
drain outfalls. Additional sampling
confirmed elevated bacterial indica-
tor counts in the surf zone and in
storm drain runoff. However, the
data were inadequate to calculate
health risks. The study recom-
mended additional research to
determine the source of fecal organ-
isms and viruses in the storm drains
and the dispersion of runoff along
the shoreline.
Living Resources
and Their Habitat
Overharvesting and loss of habi-
tats have led to a decline of valuable
species, an increase in populations
of less desirable species, and a de-
crease in the diversity of living re-
sources in estuaries. Land develop-
ment in upland areas increases sedi-
mentation in waterways; construc-
tion in wetlands destroys this valu-
able filter system and habitat for
juvenile fish; bulkheading interferes
with natural plant and animal shore-
line interactions; and dredge and fill
activities create turbid waters, de-
stroy habitat, and interfere with
circulation patterns. In Florida, on-
going estuary projects study the
effects of habitat changes, rapid
growth and development, and sew-
age treatment plant expansion on
living resources.
The Florida Marine Research Insti-
tute is conducting cooperative stud-
ies of fish-habitat relationships in
Tampa Bay with NOAA funding
channeled through the Florida De-
partment of Environmental Regula-
tion. These studies examine fish
community structure along the
salinity gradient, fish density in
seagrass beds and unvegetated
habitats, and the use of micro-
habitats by economically valuable
fish species. The State will enter the
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 205
results of this research into a data-
base for predicting the effects of
future habitat modifications.
In Sarasota Bay, water qualify
trends indicate that nutrient and
salinity levels and the alkalinity/
acidity ratio have decreased over
time. The decrease reflects a shift
from agrarian to urban land use. On
the eastern shore, submerged
aquatic vegetation has declined,
particularly in an area within trans-
port range of a seawater treatment
plant outfall. Although the total
concentration of suspended solids is
elevated, researchers cannot link
increased biomass to decreased light
resulting from the sewage plant
discharges. Further studies are inves-
tigating another possible cause of
the vegetation losses: the formation
of insoluble calcium carbonate from
the soluble bicarbonate present in
the sewage plant effluent
The Bay Study Croup of the City
of Tampa has conducted extensive
monitoring in Tampa Bay. Moni-
toring at middle Tampa Bay and
Hillsborough Bay indicate waste-
water plant upgrades implemented
in 1979 reduced nitrogen and chlo-
rophyll concentrations and blue-
green algae levels in Hillsborough
Bay. Dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions and water transparency also
increased. At the same time, sea
grasses colonized shallow areas
around Hillsborough Bay, which had
been barren of attached vegetation
for several decades preceding the
sewage plant upgrades. The Bay
Study Croup has documented a
fourfold increase in the quantity of
sea grasses since they began
monitoring sea grass in 1986.
Although historical information
and current investigations have ex-
panded our understanding of estua-
rine problems, cooperative scientific
studies must continue to evaluate
management options for correcting
estuarine impairments. Knowledge
of estuarine systems lays the founda-
tion for successful management
plans.
Looking to the Future:
Trends and Needs
As we approach the end of this
century, it is encouraging to con-
sider the advances in pollution con-
trol achieved during the past two
decades. Under the Clean Water
Act, many regulatory controls
evolved to minimize point source
discharges (see Chapter 13 for a
discussion of point source controls).
New technologies have also
improved the effectiveness of waste-
water treatment processes. These
pollution controls have led to some
improvements in estuarine water
quality, particularly with respect to
reduced toxic discharges.
In spite of these advances, some
problems persist and challenge all of
us: pollution from the air, waste
sites, and ground water; runoff from
agricultural land and urban streets;
and the loss of wetlands and other
vital habitats. Alliances of Federal,
State, and local agencies with the
scientific community and the public
will accelerate our pursuit of these
challenges.
-------
206 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Closer Integration with EPA
Programs
There is growing concern about
impacts on estuaries from air depo-
sition, solid and hazardous waste
sites, and contaminated ground
water. Several NEP projects are
investigating cross-media pollutant
sources. The Long Island Sound
Study is investigating the role that
vehicle emissions play in polluting
the Sound. Work at Superfund sites
in Puget Sound and Buzzards Bay
has been coordinated with NEP
projects, but even closer ties
between remediation activities at
waste sites and estuary projects are
needed. Although the New York-
New Jersey Harbor estuarine pro-
gram addresses the problems
caused by solid waste, few projects
deal directly with trash by encourag-
ing household recycling and waste
reduction. With cooperation from
the Rhode Island business commu-
nity, the Narragansett Bay Project is
performing hazardous waste audits
and encouraging source reduction,
recycling, and safer chemical substi-
tution.
Though much interaction
among EPA's base programs is un-
der way, more integration is needed
at EPA Regional Offices and
Headquarters.
A Scientific/Management/
Public Partnership
Using the scientific knowledge
gathered and interpreted during the
characterization phase ensures that
the public, elected officials, and
special interest groups-all part of
the Management Conference-
understand the problems of the
estuary and are prepared to support
the measures needed to correct the
problems.
This process is simple in theory
but complex in practice. Scientists
do not always agree on the causes
of a problem or the solutions. Fur-
thermore, scientists and managers
do not always communicate well
with each other. In the NEP, man-
agers operate on a 5-year plan;
scientists rarely operate on a fixed 5-
year plan. Under the auspices of the
Management Conferences, however,
scientists are focusing their research
and applying their results to project
managers' needs and time con-
straints. Managers are challenging
scientists to direct their studies to
meet Management Conference
needs for short-term answers. The
Management Conference enhances
communication between scientists
and managers and results in better
solutions to management issues.
Members of the public often
express concerns about highly vis-
ible problems, yet these issues may
not be the most important prob-
lems for the Management Confer-
ence to consider. In fact, spending
resources on a highly visible but
relatively insignificant problem could
divert attention from a crucial mat-
ter. It is imperative, therefore, that
scientific findings be widely commu-
nicated and form the basis for pub-
lic education efforts.
Faced with diverse constituencies,
each with a different idea of what
constitutes a monitoring program
appropriate for Santa Monica Bay,
the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Program held a 2-day consensus-
building conference for scientists,
managers, dischargers, regulators,
and public interest group
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 207
representatives. The conference goal
was to outline monitoring objectives
that would guide the development
of detailed hypotheses and sampling
and analysis plans. Conference par-
ticipants were led through a set of
structured exercises that focused on
the overall concerns driving the
regulatory/monitoring system,
agreement on a monitoring philoso-
phy for the Bay, and determination
of which Bay resources were the
most highly valued. These exercises
were followed by a decisionmaking
process through which specific
monitoring objectives were devel-
oped. The selected objectives re-
flected management goals, scientific
knowledge, and public concerns.
Every estuary program in the
NEP has a public participation and
education component Solutions to
pollution problems are grounded in
scientific information, but protection
of habitats and commitment to
action are dependent upon public
education. Through education and
participation, the public gains an
understanding of the estuary and its
problems, the will to act to solve
immediate problems, and the desire
to be stewards of the ecosystem for
the future.
Priority Concerns
The public, in partnership with
scientists and government manag-
ers, faces enormous challenges com-
pounded by the population growth
projected to continue in the coastal
zone well into the 21st century. We
will need to manage this growth
more effectively to protect our
coastal resources. Critical manage-
ment areas that must be addressed
include general growth and
development, nonpoint sources, and
natural habitat destruction.
Growth and Development
Coastal population growth and
development patterns disrupt natu-
ral processes in coastal ecosystems
and threaten both the ecologic and
economic values of estuaries. As we
approach the year 2000, we must
improve conventional pollution con-
trols and accelerate enforcement
actions. However, new strategies are
required to solve the more complex
problems brought about by increas-
ing pressure to develop rural areas
and sensitive pristine areas.
Shoreline development often
strips vegetation and eliminates
wetlands, which exposes the land to
erosion. Increased sedimentation in
shallow waters chokes underwater
grasses and threatens fish and shell-
fish habitats. Development near
shorelines also damages life-sustain-
ing habitats for shore birds and
animals.
As development replaces veg-
etation with less pervious surfaces
(such as buildings, parking lots, and
roads), rainwater cannot seep slowly
into the soil and replenish ground
water. Instead, storm water runs off
the impervious surfaces, collecting
pollutants deposited from the air,
and delivers the pollutants directly
into surface waters. Without wet-
lands and other vegetated areas, the
land cannot filter pollutants from
storm water runoff before it enters
estuarine waters. Looking ahead, our
major challenge is controlling
nonpoint sources resulting from
population growth and their im-
pacts on estuarine habitats.
-------
208 Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs
Nonpoint Source Control
Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act provides funding for some
nonpoint source control projects
in estuarine waters (see
chaPter 14 for a tolldis-
cussion of the Sectjon 319
Nonpoint Source Program).
States employ both volun-
tary and regulatory controls
to encourage implementa-
t"00 °f best management
practices to minimize
nonpoint source pollution
generated by agriculture, con-
struction, silviculture, marinas,
and urbanization.
The 1990 amendments to the
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) require States with federally
approved coastal zone management
programs to develop nonpoint
source pollution control programs in
coastal areas. Each State's program
will consist of selected management
measures for source categories, such
as construction, marinas, and agri-
culture. The States will develop and
implement the coastal nonpoint
source programs through existing
State coastal zone management
programs administered by NOAA
under Section 306 of the CZMA
and State nonpoint source programs
administered by EPA under Section
319 of the Clean Water Act
In May 1991, EPA, in consulta-
tion with NOAA, proposed manage-
ment measures to control nonpoint
sources in coastal waters. In October
1991, EPA and NOAA proposed
guidelines to help States develop
their coastal nonpoint source pollu-
tion control programs. EPA issued
final guidelines in 1992.
EPA also issued new stormwater
regulations in 1992 that will require
National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) permits for
urban storm drainage systems and
runoff discharges from various in-
dustrial and commercial sites (see
Chapter 12 for a complete discus-
sion of storm water controls). The
rule applies to 173 cities, 47 urban-
ized counties with populations ex-
ceeding 100,000 people, and sev-
eral smaller communities using
storm sewers in covered jurisdic-
tions. The rule applies to industries
that discharge into municipal storm
sewers or directly discharge storm
water into surface waters. The rule
stops illegal connections to storm
drains.
Habitat Protection
NEP projects are looking beyond
traditional pollution control
approaches toward strategies that
address total estuarine ecosystem
health. These strategies base habitat
protection plans on a scientific
understanding of how ecosystems
function. These long-term strategies
require further coordination of re-
search and monitoring activities
performed by EPA, NOAA, individual
NEP projects, marine academic insti-
tutions, and other Federal and State
agencies.
While long-term strategies are
being developed, management
conferences act locally to address
immediate threats to estuarine habi-
tats. For example, management
conferences limit fish harvesting,
replant seagrass beds, seek building
restrictions such as setback require-
ments, create land conservation
areas, and curb harmful uses of
waterways. Such efforts are not
implemented in all NEP sites but will
-------
Chapter Eleven Geographically Targeted Programs 209
likely be more widespread in the
future.
Management conferences will
need to work even more closely
with agencies such as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to improve
our understanding of habitat prob-
lems and develop new technologies
to mitigate adverse impacts. Ex-
amples of new technologies include
stabilizing shorelines with vegetation
instead of bulkheads and techniques
for creating wetlands. EPA is work-
ing with Management Conferences
to increase habitat mitigation activi-
ties, such as removing dams block-
ing fish migrations and eliminating
freshwater diversions.
Steps in the Right Direction
The NEP recognizes that it may
take decades to furfull Congress'
directive to restore and protect estu-
aries of national significance. In the
short term, however, progress con-
tinues. Each estuary project in the
NEP is focusing on the key environ-
mental problems in its estuary and
integrating protection efforts con-
ducted by Federal, State, and local
agencies. NEP projects are consider-
ing air and land pollution sources in
addition to controls for traditional
point source polluters. Finally, NEP
projects are developing restoration
and protection strategies based
upon an understanding of estuarine
ecosystem functions and encourag-
ing the public to care for estuarine
ecosystems.
-------
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
and Assessment Programs
Introduction
Water quality monitoring is
essential for an understanding of
the condition of water resources
and to provide a basis for effective
policies that promote wise use and
management of those resources. A
large number of Federal, State, and
local agencies and private sector
organizations currently collect water
quality information for a wide range
of purposes that can generally be
divided into five categories:
(1) status and trends, (2) detection
of existing and emerging problems
and setting priorities among them,
(3) designing and implementing
programs, (4) evaluating program
or project success, and (5) emer-
gency response monitoring.
Numerous public and private
groups conduct many and varied
monitoring programs to fulfill one
or more of these purposes. This
chapter discusses current conditions
of water resource quality monitoring
in the United States and efforts to
establish an integrated nationwide
monitoring strategy.
Overview of National
Monitoring Activity
Water resource quality monitor-
ing is conducted by Federal, inter-
state, State, local, and Tribal agen-
cies, as well as public, private, and
volunteer organizations. A recent
survey undertaken by the Inter-
governmental Task Force on Moni-
toring Water Quality indicates that
18 Federal agencies conduct ap-
proximately 141 separate monitor-
ing programs across the country, as
do all States and Territories, local
governments, and an increasing
number of American Indian Tribes.
At the Federal level, ambient
water quality data are collected by
the U.S. Geological Survey (USCS),
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), the U.S. Forest Ser-
vice, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the
National Park Service,
EPA, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration (NOAA),
the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), the
Bonneville Power Admin-
istration, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Bureau of Land Man-
agement (BLM), and vari-
ous other organizations
within the Departments of
Agriculture, Energy, Defense,
and Interior. Of this group, the
USCS, FWS, EPA, NOAA, and TVA
have either long-term regional or
both regional and national pro-
grams for water quality monitoring.
The other agencies and organiza-
tions monitor ambient water quality
primarily at site-specific or project
18 FEDERAL
AGENCIES
conduct 141 monitoring
programs across the
country
-------
212 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
scales, usually for limited periods of
time.
Results from Federal monitoring
programs have provided important
information at the national and
regional scales. For example, USCS
data indicate that fecal bacteria
counts and total phosphorus con-
centrations have decreased at a
considerable number of stations
across the United States from the
late 1970s to the late 1980s. The
FWS and NOAA data show that
bioaccumulation of trace elements,
pesticides, and trace
industrial compounds
has occurred at many
locations in our rivers,
estuaries, and near-
coastal areas. And data
from EPA monitoring
indicate substantial im-
provement in the phos-
phorous concentrations of
the Chesapeake Bay dur-
ing the past 6 years.
Similarly, within each
State, both State and local
monitoring programs have
provided the data to characterize
State water resource quality and
assess the effectiveness of water
management and regulatory pro-
grams. Contributing to the picture
are the monitoring programs run by
industrial and municipal dischargers,
by private groups, and by volunteer
monitoring organizations.
This wealth of information from
individual agencies, however, cannot
be easily aggregated to provide an
overview of national water quality
conditions. Individual reports, such
as this 305(b) report, aggregate
State information. Individual agency
reports, such as that of USCS, give
nationwide information on particular
constituents. Because of inconsisten-
cies among the various agencies in
monitoring purpose and design as
well as data collection methods and
assessment procedures, data from
the various sources cannot be easily
combined to give an overall national
water quality picture. In addition,
data are often stored without
accompanying descriptors, thus
other data users cannot determine if
they can use the data for their own
purposes.
Effects of Changes
in Water Programs
In addition to this multiplicity of
effort, water programs themselves
are changing, necessitating similar
changes in water monitoring activi-
ties. The country is moving beyond
single-media command-and-control
programs into more holistic man-
agement programs based on risk
assessment and reduction. New
emphases include watershed,
ecoregion, and geographically based
programs; a focus on biological,
ecological, and habitat integrity and
diversity; wet weather runoff control
programs such as those for
non point sources, stormwater, and
combined sewer overflows; and
wetlands and sediment contamina-
tion programs. Traditional monitor-
ing programs must be expanded to
include assessment of biological and
ecological resources and new meth-
ods must be developed to identify
and control pollution from hard-to-
trace, diffuse sources of pollution
such as wet weather runoff and
sediment contamination.
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 213
Intergovernmental
Task Force on
Monitoring Water
Quality
In January of 1992, representa-
tives from EPA, USGS, NOAA, FWS,
COE, USDA, DOE, OMB, and seven
State agencies and one interstate
agency formed a 3-year Intergovern-
mental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality (ITFM) to prepare a
strategy for improving water quality
monitoring nationwide. The Tennes-
see Valley Authority, National Park
Service, one State, and one Ameri-
can Indian Tribe, have since been
added. The ITFM is part of the
implementation of Office of Man-
agement and Budget (OMB) memo-
randum 92-01 to strengthen coordi-
nation of water information across
the country. The USCS has lead
responsibility for this and has de-
signed its Water Information Coordi-
nation Program for this purpose.
The ITFM is chaired by the EPA
with the USCS as vice chair and
Executive Secretariat To date, over
100 additional Federal, State, and
interstate agency representatives
have been involved in the delibera-
tions of the ITFM and its seven task
groups:
Institutional Framework
Environmental Indicators
Methods
Data Management Sharing
Assessment and Reporting
Financial Survey
Ground Water.
The ITFM is considering the full
range of nationwide water re-
sources, including surface and
ground waters, near-coastal waters,
associated aquatic communities and
habitat, wetlands, and sediment
Water resource protection factors
include human and ecological
health and the uses designated for
the Nation's waters through State
water quality standards. Monitoring
activities include gathering data on
physical, chemical/toxicological, and
biological/ecological/habitat
parameters.
The mission of the ITFM is to
develop and implement a national
strategic plan to achieve effective
collection, interpretation,
and presentation of
water quality data and
to improve the availabil-
ity of existing information
for decisionmaking at all
levels of government. To
accomplish this, the ITFM
has recommended and will
develop an integrated
nationwide voluntary strat-
egy that will meet the na-
tionwide objectives of various
monitoring programs, make
more efficient use of available
resources, distribute information
more effectively, and provide com-
parable data and consistent report-
ing of water quality status and
trends.
A standing national monitoring
committee is envisioned to provide
guidelines and support for compa-
rable field and laboratory methods,
quality assurance/quality control,
-------
214 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
environmental indicators, data man-
agement and sharing, ancillary data,
interpretation techniques, and train-
ing. Regional data collection under
the national guidelines would pro-
vide the needed information for
nationwide assessment of water
resource quality.
The ITFM is also producing
products that can be used by moni-
toring programs nationwide, such as
an outline for a recommended
monitoring program, environmental
indicator selection criteria, and a
matrix of indicators to support
assessment of State designated uses.
The ITFM will disband in favor
of full implementation overseen by a
permanent committee in January
1995.
Major Nationwide
Monitoring Programs
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP)
EPA's Office of Research and Devel-
opment initiated EMAP in 1990 to
provide information on the current
status and long-term trends in
the condition of the ecological
resources of the United States.
EMAP develops indicators to
measure ecological condition,
monitors for those indicators,
and presents analyses of data in
periodic reports. Site selection is
based on a random design within
natural resource areas so individual
results can be interpolated with
confidence to the condition of the
Nation as a whole. EMAP, in coop-
eration with NOAA and the FWS,
monitors seven resource groups:
Near Coastal Waters, Surface Wa-
ters, Wetlands, Forests, Arid Lands,
Agroecosystems, and Great Lakes.
National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (NAPAP)
During the 1970s, the effects of acid
rain on the environment and human
health became a major concern for
many scientists, public policy offi-
cials, public interest groups, the
media, and the general population.
Reports were published linking emis-
sions from industry, electric power
plants, and automobiles with acid
rain. Many believed that acid rain
damages crops, forests, buildings,
animals, fish, and human health.
Congress established NAPAP under
the Acid Precipitation Act of 1980 to
provide the information needed for
policy and regulatory decisions on
acidic deposition. The areas of inves-
tigation addressed by NAPAP Task
Croups are Emissions and Controls,
Atmospheric Processes, Atmospheric
Transport and Modeling, Atmos-
pheric Deposition and Air Qualify
Monitoring, Terrestrial Effects,
Aquatic Effects, and Effects on Mate-
rials and Cultural Resources. NAPAP
has also developed Assessment Work
Groups in the areas of Atmospheric
Visibility, Human Health Effects, and
Economic Valuation.
U.S. Geological Survey, National
Water Quality Assessment Program
(NAWQA)
The USGS developed NAWQA to
provide a nationally consistent de-
scription of current water quality
conditions for a large part of the
Nation's water resources; to define
long-term trends (or lack thereof) in
water quality; and to identify, de-
scribe, and explain, to the extent
possible, the major factors that
affect observed water quality condi-
tions and trends. This program is
concerned with both ground and
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 215
surface water quality; ultimately, 60
drainage basins will be monitored
under this program.
U.S. Geological Survey, National
Stream Quality Accounting Network
(NASQAN)
This network is composed of 420
stations on large rivers, located at
the outlets of major drainage basins
to collectively measure a large frac-
tion of total runoff in the United
States. The stations reflect general
water quality conditions in the
country. Measurements at NASQAN
sites include inorganic constituents,
radionuclides, and bacteria, but
exclude routine analyses for organic
chemicals.
U.S. Geological Survey, the Hy-
drologic Benchmark Network (HBN)
Composed of 55 stations located in
relatively pristine headwater basins,
this network is designed to define
baseline water quality conditions
and the effects of atmospheric
deposition on water quality. The
Network measures inorganic con-
stituents, radionuclides, and bacte-
rial contamination, among other
parameters.
Both NASQAN and HBN achieve
their objectives but neither is
designed to provide a statistically
representative sample of basins
throughout the Nation, nor are
stations in NASQAN purposefully
located downstream from industry,
municipal, and urban runoff outfalls
to isolate and measure maximum
impacts. These network design
considerations are a component of
the NAWQA program.
U.S. Geological Survey, the
National Atmospheric Deposition
Program/National Trends Network
Composed of 200 sampling sites
within the interagency NAPAP, this
network is designed to determine
spatial patterns and temporal trends
in chemical wet-only deposition. It
supports research into impacts on
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Measurements are limited to inor-
ganic constituents only.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Contaminant Biomoni-
toring Program (NCBP)
This program, now being revised,
determines tissue residue levels in
fish and birds nationwide. The fish
tissue part of the program consists
of 110 stations at nonrandomly
selected points along the Nation's
major rivers and in the Great Lakes.
Fish tissues are analyzed for organic
contaminants (pesticides and indus-
trial chemicals) and seven elements.
Sampling has been conducted on a
2- to 4-year basis since the mid-
1960s.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biomonitoring of Environmental
Status and Trends (BEST) Program
This program, now under develop-
ment, has three major goals: (1) to
determine the status and trends of
contaminants and their effect on
natural resources; (2) to identify and
assess the major factors affecting
resources and provide current and
predictive information to alleviate
impacts; and (3) to provide sum-
mary information in a timely man-
ner to decisionmakers and the pub-
lic. The BEST Program has two
major components: FWS lands and
-------
216 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
The National
Biological Survey
Secretary of the Interior, Bruce
Babbitt, has proposed the cre-
ation of an independent, non-
advocacy biological science
bureau within the Department
of the Interior. The National
Biological Survey (NBS) will
provide information and tech-
nical assistance. The NBS witt
be created by incorporating
elements from eight bureaus
within the Department. The
NBS vdll have three major
functions:
biological and ecological
research
inventory and monitoring
of the Nation's biological
resources
information transfer
activities.
The NBS will be operational
by October 1,1993.
FWS trust species and their habitats.
Activities include collection and
evaluation of existing data for site
characterization and bioassessment
data from four general categories-
ecological surveys, tissue residue,
organism health or biomarkers, and
toxicity tests/bioassays.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Program
This program determines status and
trends of U.S. wetlands to produce
comprehensive, statistically valid
acreage estimates of the Nation's
wetlands. This information is widely
distributed and mandated by the
Emergency Wetland Resource Act of
1986. To date, more than 32,000
detailed wetlands maps have been
completed covering 72% of the
coterminous United States, 22% of
Alaska, and all of Hawaii and Puerto
Rico.
National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration (NOAA),
National Status and Trends Program
(NS&T)
NOAA conducts the NS&T, which
includes the Benthic Surveillance
Program and the Mussel Watch
Program. Indicators for determining
the effects on marine biotas of con-
taminated sediments are currently
under development Parameters that
are sampled for NS&T include accu-
mulated compounds in the tissues
and conditions of physical features
of selected biota as well as sediment
chemistry.
National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration (NOAA),
National Estuarine Research Reserves
The National Estuarine Research
Reserve System was created to
protect representative areas of the
estuarine environment and to pro-
vide a system of protected sites for
long-term monitoring and research.
It is a State-Federal partnership man-
aged by NOAA under the Coastal
Zone Management Act The Act
requires nomination of a reserve site
by the Governor of a State and
designation by the Secretary of
Commerce. Since 1972, NOAA has
kept this partnership, and the evolv-
ing statutory mission of the pro-
gram, by providing resources and
guidance to the States, by develop-
ing national programs, and by shap-
ing the legislation into an operating
program. Twenty-one reserves have
been designated including sites in
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Great Lakes,
the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic
Coast, and the West Coast
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
Water Resource Monitoring
TVA conducts a regional water
resource monitoring program to
evaluate ecological health and suit-
ability for body-contact recreation of
reservoirs and major streams in the
Tennessee Valley and to evaluate the
suitability for human consumption
of fish in those waters. The program
includes systematic measurement of
physical, chemical, and biological
variables at strategic locations. Re-
sults are used to draw attention to
pollution problems, to set cleanup
goals, and to measure the effective-
ness of water quality improvement
efforts over time. TVA also monitors
aquatic plant and mosquito
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 217
populations around TVA lakes to
help target management efforts.
Monitoring of conditions in
tailwaters below several dams fo-
cuses on prioritizing facilities for
reaeration of reservoir releases and
providing data to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of those efforts.
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Resource Conservation Act of 1977
(RCA)
Mandated by the Resource Conser-
vation Act (RCA) of 1977, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) is
"to provide for furthering the con-
servation, protection, and enhance-
ment of the Nation's soil, water, and
related resources for sustained use."
In recognition of the importance of,
and need for, obtaining and main-
taining information on the current
status of soil, water, and related
resources, USDA makes a continuing
appraisal of the soil, water, and
related resources of the Nation. The
objective of the appraisal currently
under way is to present information
to assist policy decisionmakers and
program managers to form better
policies and programs to address
soil, water, and other environmental
concerns for the next 2 decades.
RCA appraisals include data on: the
quality and quantity of soil, water,
and related resources, including fish
and wildlife habitats; the capability
and limitations of those resources
for meeting current and projected
demands on the resource base; the
changes that have occurred in the
status and condition of those
resources resulting from various past
uses, including the impact of farm-
ing technologies, techniques, and
practices; and the current Federal
and State laws, policies, programs,
rights, regulations, ownerships, and
their trends and other considerations
relating to the use, development,
and conservation of soil, water, and
related resources.
Developed by the Interagency
Work Croup on Water Quality, the
Guide to Federal Water Quality Pro-
grams and Information is an attempt
to inventory all significant Federal
water quality programs and infor-
mation of national scope or interest
The guide contains information on
(1) factors affecting water quality
including underlying demographic
pressures, use of the land, water,
and resources, and pollutant load-
ing; (2) ambient water quality infor-
mation, including biological, chemi-
cal, and physical/ecological condi-
tions; (3) other effects of water pol-
lution including waterbome disease
outbreaks; and (4) a listing of
programs established to preserve,
protect, and restore water quality.
For a copy of the Guide, contact
EPA's Public Information Clearing-
house (PIC) at (202) 260-7751 .
Office of Water
Programs to Support
Monitoring
Environmental
Indicators
The EPA Office of Water
(OW) is developing a strategic
plan that outlines its future
directions and articulates its goals.
To measure success toward these
goals, OW is establishing indicators
to accurately characterize the health
of national water resources and
measure how well the waters meet
For a description of other
Federal water quality
programs, see the Guide to
Federal Water Quality
Programs and Information,
available from EPA's Public
Information Clearinghouse at
(202) 260-7751.
-------
218 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
their designated uses. This effort has
identified data sources to track the
indicators. Future indicator develop-
ment activities include developing
comparable monitoring and report-
ing mechanisms by working with
other agencies and national trends
programs, such as EPA's EMAP and
USCS1 NAWQA, through the ITFM.
Monitoring Program
Grant Guidance
EPA gives grants to States to
assist them in administering pollu-
tion prevention and control pro-
grams, including monitoring activi-
ties. In fact, the law states EPA
shall not give such grants unless
the State adequately monitors
surface and ground waters, com-
piles and analyzes the data, and
reports them in 305(b) reports.
EPA, working with States and the
ITFM, is developing an outline for a
recommended monitoring program.
A comprehensive monitoring pro-
gram would include both ambient
monitoring and monitoring to de-
termine the effectiveness of indi-
vidual projects and individual pro-
grams designed to protect
waterbodies or control sources of
pollution. Recommended elements
of a monitoring program include
monitoring program objectives; a
monitoring design description; writ-
ten protocols; analytical laboratory
support; quality assurance and qual-
ity control procedures; data storage,
management, and sharing; water
resource assessment and reporting;
training; and volunteer monitoring
support.
305(b) Consistency
Workgroup
The 305(b) Consistency Work-
group, convened in 1990, was
expanded in 1992 to address issues
of consistency in water quality
reporting and to improve accuracy
and coverage of State assessments.
The 1994 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup consists of representa-
tives of 21 States, 6 Federal agen-
cies, the 10 EPA Regions, and EPA
Headquarters. This standing
workgroup, which will develop fu-
ture 305(b) guidance, makes recom-
mendations to improve each itera-
tion of guidance to the States.
Recent recommendations have in-
cluded refining total State waters
estimates and providing more de-
tailed guidance for aquatic life use
support assessments, including ap-
propriate methods for using biologi-
cal data along with physical and
chemical data.
Water Monitor
Newsletter
Since the early 1980s, EPA has
issued a regular status report on
monitoring activities at EPA and
among the States. Now known as
the Water Monitor, this report pro-
vides monthly updates on State, EPA
Regional, and EPA Headquarter ac-
tivities in areas such as biological
monitoring, total maximum daily
load development biological criteria
and protocol development, volun-
teer monitoring, and the watershed
approach. New documents and
upcoming meetings are highlighted.
To obtain a copy or be placed on
the mailing list for the Water
Monitor, write to Editor, Water
Monitor, AWPD (WH-553), 401 M
St. SW, Washington, DC 20460.
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 219
Biological Monitoring
The Biological Criteria
Program
Priorities established in 1991 by
EPA call for States to adopt biologi-
cal criteria (biocriteria) into their
water quality standards. To support
this priority, the Agency has pro-
vided guidance for development
and implementation of biocriteria.
Several future guidance documents
will provide additional technical
information to facilitate activities
directed toward that implementa-
tion. When implemented, biocriteria
will expand and improve water
quality standards programs, help to
quantify impairment of beneficial
uses, and aid in setting program
priorities. These criteria will be useful
because they provide for direct mea-
surement of the condition of the
resource at risk, detect problems
that other methods may miss or
underestimate, and provide a sys-
tematic process for measuring
progress resulting from the imple-
mentation of water resource quality
programs. Biocriteria are intended to
supplement, rather than replace,
chemical and lexicological methods.
Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols
In 1989, EPA's Office of Water
issued rapid bioassessment protocols
(RBPs) for streams as a tool intended
to provide States with biological
monitoring methods to supplement
traditional instream chemical analy-
ses. The key concept underlying
these protocols is the comparison of
the structure and function of the
aquatic community in the context
of habitat quality at a given stream
study site to that of an ecological
reference site. On the basis of this
comparison, a water resource quality
assessment can be made. EPA has
provided technical support and
training to States to encourage the
implementation of the RBPs. Cur-
rently (1993), 24 States have active
RBP-based water resource monitor-
ing programs for streams and
another eight have RBP programs
under development
Additional guidance is being
developed to aid States in adapting
the protocol framework to fit a vari-
ety of ecological regions in the
United States (lakes/reservoirs, estu-
aries, and others). Work is also
under way to evaluate the effective-
ness of RBPs for assessing combined
sewer overflows.
Quality Assurance/Quality
Control for Biological
Monitoring and Biological
Assessment
The U.S. EPA Office of Water
and Office of Research and Develop-
ment are assembling generic guid-
ance documents for production of
quality assurance project plans for
biological monitoring and assess-
ment This work is currently under
way and involves review and input
from State and EPA regional moni-
toring personnel.
EPA Habitat Cluster
In ranking habitat degradation
and loss as one of the highest envi-
ronmental risk problems facing EPA
and other governmental agencies
today, the EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB) recommended in 1990
that EPA attach as much importance
to reducing ecological risks as to
reducing human health risk. EPA has
-------
220 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
since progressed toward a more
comprehensive approach to environ-
mental problems and their reme-
dies, and habitat is an integral part
of this perspective. In 1992, EPA
established the Habitat Cluster, co-
chaired by OW and EPA's Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
which is developing a strategy for
the agency to deal comprehensively
with habitat issues.
Fish Advisory Guidance
and Information
In response to interest on the
part of States to have nationally
consistent methods for issuing fish
consumption advisories, EPA's Office
of Science and Technology (OST),
Standards and Applied Science Divi-
sion, is developing guidance docu-
ments for sampling and analysis of
contaminated fish tissues for
the purposes of issuing con-
sumption advisories. This
guidance became available in
October, 1993.
In addition to this guid-
ance, OST has developed two
databases, one for States to
report fish advisory information
and another that contains fish
tissue contaminant data. The Fish
Advisory Database contains fish
advisory information reported
nationwide by States including the
waterbody.affected, the type of fish
species, the type of advisory, and a
contact person. It is updated regu-
larly and can be accessed through
the Fish Advisory Special Interest
Croup on the Nonpoint Source
Bulletin Board. The National Fish
Tissue Contaminants Database can
be accessed through the Ocean
Data Evaluation System (ODES).
National Study of
Chemical Residues in Fish
In late 1992, EPA issued a report
on results of the EPA National Study
of Chemical Residues in Fish
(NSCRF), formerly called the Na-
tional Bioaccumulation Study. This
study is a followup to the EPA Na-
tional Dioxin Study and substantially
broadens that work with regard to
both the number of chemicals ana-
lyzed and the number of sites exam-
ined. The NSCRF was a screening
study designed to determine the
extent to which water pollutants are
bioaccumulating in fish and to iden-
tify correlations with sources of the
contamination within a watershed/
drainage basin (see the highlight in
Chapter 7 for further information
about the NSCRF).
Specific Water
Program Monitoring
National Estuary Program
Monitoring Guidance
EPA is developing guidance on
the design, implementation, and
evaluation of estuary monitoring
programs required under Section
320 of the Clean Water Act The
guidance document identifies the
major steps involved in developing
and implementing estuary monitor-
ing programs, documents existing
monitoring methods, and describes
their use in monitoring the effective-
ness of estuarine management ac-
tions. Case studies of existing pro-
grams are included.
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 221
Nonpoint Source
National Monitoring
Program
EPA is developing a national
monitoring database designed to
provide information on the success
of nonpoint source pollution control
activities. To be induded in the
database, projects must have ambi-
ent monitoring of chemical, physi-
cal, and/or biological/habitat condi-
tions, and the monitoring must be
part of a rigorous nonpoint source
abatement program with well-
defined goals and objectives. Each
of the 10 EPA Regions is to allocate
a portion of the Section 319 grant
funds for these projects. Data pro-
vided through this program will
document the effects of well-
developed nonpoint source pollu-
tion control efforts, provide better
understanding of management pro-
grams and results, and provide a
model for adjusting best manage-
ment practices, where necessary, to
achieve better results.
Wetlands Monitoring
National estimates of wetlands
acreage have been available since
1975 from the FWS National Wet-
lands Inventory (see Chapter 16).
EPA's Wetlands Division is now
working closely with FWS and EPA's
EMAP-Wetlands Program to charac-
terize the ecological status and
trends of existing wetlands. Stan-
dardized protocols are being devel-
oped for measuring wetlands
conditions. See Chapter 16 for fur-
ther information about EPA and
State wetlands monitoring and pro-
tection programs.
Contaminated Sediment
Strategy
In early 1993, EPA issued its
Contaminated Sediment Manage-
ment Strategy: A Proposal for Dis-
cussion. One of its main objectives is
to describe EPA's current under-
standing of the extent and severity
of sediment contamination. A major
principle outlined in the Strategy
describes EPA's commitment to
continue to develop and improve
methods for identifying contami-
nated sediments, to provide a basis
for assessment of sediment contami-
nation, to outline steps to reduce
risk supported by sound science,
and to outline a strategy for assess-
ing the extent and severity of sedi-
ment contamination.
One of the initial steps to imple-
ment not only this strategy but to
meet mandated statutory require-
ments to address and resolve con-
taminated sediment problems is to
develop a national inventory of con-
taminated sediment sites for which
a detailed monitoring database will
be developed entitled the National
Inventory of Contaminated Sedi-
ment Sites. Based on existing data,
the site inventory will provide a
near-term screening assessment of
the national extent and severity of
sediment contamination across the
country and will contain sampling
locational data, site characteristic
data, quality assurance and quality
control information, and sampling
parameters. It is expected to be
completed by December 1994.
-------
222 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
Ground Water
Monitoring
EPA's support for State Ground
Water Protection Programs has ex-
panded in line with the Ground
Water Task Force's recommenda-
tions in the report Protecting the
Nation's Ground Water. EPA's Strat-
egy for the 1990's. This document
addresses the development of con-
sistent data collection protocols to
improve accessibility, quality, and
the usefulness of ground water qual-
ity data. To that end, the Ground
Water Minimum Set of Data Ele-
ments for Ground Water Quality
was finalized requiring their use for
EPA ground water monitoring.
Volunteer Monitoring
Programs
In recognition of the value of
volunteer water monitoring efforts
and to encourage the development
of carefully planned volunteer pro-
grams that work in conjunction with
State water quality agencies, EPA, in
1990, developed a volunteer water
monitoring guide for State manag-
EPA Publications About Volunteer Monitoring
Citizen Volunteers in Environmental Monitoring: Summary Proceedings
of the Second National Workshop. New Orleans, Louisiana. EPA 503/9-90-009.
Office of Water, Washington, DC.
National Directory of Citizen Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs,
Third Edition. EPA 503/9-90-004. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Proceedings of Third National Citizen's Volunteer Water Monitoring
Conference - Building Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water. March 29-
April 2, 1992. EPA 841/R-92-004. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual. December 1991.
EPA 440/4-91-002. Office of Water, Washington, DC
Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers. August 1990.
EPA 440/4-90-010. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
ers (see sidebar). This guide provides
specific steps for planning, imple-
menting, and maintaining a volun-
teer water monitoring program, and
includes sections on quality assur-
ance and quality control, data man-
agement and presentation, and
funding.
EPA also developed a variety of
other documents in support of vol-
unteer monitoring, including a lake
monitoring methods manual for
volunteers, which provides step-by-
step instructions for common volun-
teer monitoring techniques of lakes,
a directory of volunteer monitoring
programs nationwide, and the pro-
ceedings of the third national con-
ference on volunteer monitoring.
EPA will continue to provide
technical support in the area of
volunteer monitoring by developing
additional methods manuals (one
for streams and one for estuaries are
under way) and guidance on prepa-
ration of quality assurance project
plans for volunteers. To help facili-
tate technical transfer and informa-
tion exchange, EPA is sponsoring
regular national and regional volun-
teer monitoring conferences, work-
ing to strengthen its own network
of volunteer monitoring coordina-
tors in the 10 EPA Regions, and
sponsoring technical transfer tools
such as the Volunteer Monitoring
newsletter and an electronic bulletin
board for volunteers. In addition,
many of the EPA Regions issue
Clean Water Act grants to the States
under the Nonpoint Source and
Clean Lakes programs that include
volunteer monitoring components.
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 223
EPA Data and
Information Systems
Storet Modernization
The STORET (STOrage and
RETrieval) Database of ambient
water quality data, first developed in
1964, is one of the oldest and larg-
est water information systems cur-
rently in use. It has been jointly
maintained by EPA's Office of Infor-
mation Resources Management and
the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds. STORET stores informa-
tion on ambient, intensive survey,
effluent, and biological water quality
monitoring and provides users with
an array of analytical tools and link-
ages to other data systems. STORET
primarily contains chemical and
physical water quality monitoring
data in the water quality system,
with biological sampling and site
information stored in the BIOS (Bio-
logical System) Database, another
major component ODES (Ocean
Data Evaluation System) is a sepa-
rately maintained and linked infor-
mation system specifically for water
quality and biological data for
marine, estuarine, and freshwater
environments. ODES users can
access STORET information for
further manipulation using ODES
graphical and modeling tools.
EPA information systems are
being called upon to respond to
new program needs, including geo-
graphically oriented management
approaches, storage of ground
water quality and associated geo-
logic data and biological and habitat
assessment information, and to en-
hance sharing of data (across EPA,
other Federal, State, and local
programs). STORET, BIOS, and
ODES are undergoing a major mod-
emization scheduled to be complete
in 1997 with interim products
throughout, including a prototype
in late 1993. This effort will result
in a more flexible, efficient, and
usable state-of-the-art information
system, which, in turn, will
provide improved tools for ground
and surface water quality decision-
making.
The Waterbody System
The Waterbody System (WBS) is
a data management tool used by
States to record assessments of am-
bient water quality for surface wa-
ters. Although originally designed to
facilitate the reporting under Section
305(b), the WBS is used by many
States to track results of all their
ambient water quality assessments.
During the 1992 reporting cycle,
30 States, Territories, and Interstate
Water Commissions submitted WBS
data files. Approximately 10 addi-
tional States used the WBS in some
capacity but did not submit files
compatible with the 1992 version of
the WBS.
The Waterbody System contains
information that program managers
can access quickly on the water
quality status of a particular water-
body. Data elements include
waterbody identification, water qual-
ity status, assessment information,
designated use evaluations, causes
of impairment (nutrients, pesticides,
siltation, etc.), and sources of im-
pairment (municipal treatment
plants, agricultural runoff, etc.).
Enhanced twice since it was
originally developed in 1988, system
users communicate regularly with
each other and can receive user
information and support from the
Monitoring Branch at EPA Head-
quarters.
-------
HfCHUCHt T
Volunteer Monitoring
Across the country, people are
learning about water quality issues
and helping to assess and protect
our Nation's water resources by
monitoring waters in their commu-
nities. Volunteers commonly mea-
sure physical and chemical water
quality parameters, including dis-
solved oxygen concentrations, acid-
ity (pH), nutrient concentrations,
and temperature. Some volunteers
also evaluate the health of stream
habitats and aquatic biological com-
munities, inventory stream-side con-
ditions, and assess land uses that
may affect water quality. Other vol-
unteers collect and catalog beach
debris and restore degraded habi-
tats.
State and local agencies may
use volunteer data to screen for
water quality problems, establish
trends in waters that would other-
wise be unmonitored, or make plan-
ning decisions. Volunteers benefit by
learning more about their local
water resources, identifying condi-
tions and activities that might be
contributing to pollution problems,
and working with clubs, environ-
mental groups, and government
agencies to address problem areas.
What is EPA's Role in
Volunteer Monitoring?
The EPA supports volunteer
monitoring by providing technical
guidance, establishing formats for
information exchange, and offering
limited funding. EPA sponsors
national and regional conferences to
encourage information exchange
among volunteer groups, govern-
ment agencies, businesses, and edu-
cators. EPA publishes sampling
method manuals for volunteers and
provides technical assistance (pri-
marily on quality control and labora-
tory methods) through the 10 EPA
regional offices. The EPA Regions
also manage grants to States to
support volunteer monitoring in
lakes and waters impacted by
nonpoint sources.
What is the State's Role
in Volunteer Monitoring?
Every year, citizens initiate new
volunteer monitoring programs.
Many of these volunteer monitoring
groups work with State agencies. In
1988, only 14 State agencies pro-
vided technical and/or organiza-
tional assistance to volunteer
I
J
-------
I
HtCHUCH
monitoring groups. In 1992, 32
States supported volunteer monitor
ing programs and 6 additional
States were planning volunteer
monitoring programs.
Over 24,000 volunteers monitor
more than 985 streams, 4 major
estuaries, and 2,800 lakes, ponds,
and wetlands in State-supported
programs. Without volunteers, the
States could not monitor many of
these waterbodies.
Who Pays for
Volunteer Monitoring?
Volunteer monitoring programs
are funded through a variety of
private and public sources. In some
cases, public agencies sponsor vol-
unteer programs by providing staff
to train and organize volunteers,
equipment and services, such as
data analysis. City, county, and
Tribal governments, State agencies,
and Federal agencies (such as the
U.S. Park Service, the U.S. Forest
Service, and the EPA) support volun-
teer monitoring programs financially
or with guidance and training.
Many volunteer programs also
receive private support from founda-
tions, corporate sponsors, universi-
ties, and other research centers. This
support may include funding for
full- or part-time organizers, equip-
ment, training workshops, and data
analysis. Many volunteers contribute
by purchasing their equipment and
hosting training sessions.
How Do Volunteer
Monitoring Programs
Improve Our
Environment?
The following examples demon-
strate the important contributions
volunteers have made to improving
the environment
Snohomish County's Adopt-a-
Stream Program: Improving Fish
Resources in Washington State
Over 20 school groups and
16 parent groups currently maintain
and monitor adopted streams and
tributaries in Snohomish County,
Washington. The groups look for
evidence of pollution, erosion, and
activities that might disrupt fish
spawning in their adopted streams.
I
IHT HIGHLIGHT
-------
HfGHUCBT"
I
Volunteers and county employees,
working together, completed over
105 stream restoration projects and
opened 30 miles of previously
restricted spawning and rearing
habitat for salmon and steelhead
trout
Neighborhoods United: Protecting
the Cold Stream in Cedar Rapids,
Iowa
With only 13 members, Neigh-
borhoods United began protecting
the Cold Stream in Cedar Rapids,
Iowa, 3 years ago. The volunteers
accomplished the following tasks:
Identified a sewer overflow and
convinced the City to repair it by
presenting a video tape of the over-
flow to city officials.
Organized city-wide cleanup
days that dramatically reduced the
stream's solid waste content by
several commercial truckloads of
garbage.
Involved children and adults in
regular biological monitoring of the
stream.
Vermont Lay Monitoring Program:
Lake Champlaln's Steward
Hundreds of volunteers measure
Secchi disk transparency (a measure
of the water turbidity) and collect
water samples from 30 monitoring
stations on Lake Champlain. The
State analyzes chlorophyll and total
phosphorus concentrations in the
water samples collected by the vol-
unteers. Volunteers also conduct
user perception surveys. Volunteer
data helped the State establish
phosphorous standards for Lake
Champlain and obtain a Federal
grant to study phosphorus in Lake
Champlain. The volunteer data also
enabled the State to include infor-
mation on Lake Champlain in the
State's 305(b) report
Volunteer Lake Monitoring
Program: Benefits in Illinois
Every year, 270 volunteers
donate 2,400 hours of their time to
monitor over 150 lakes in Illinois.
Volunteers collect data on water
transparency, nutrients, and sus-
pended solids. State agencies and
local lake associations perform the
following tasks with the data:
Plan and implement over 30
lake and watershed management
projects, such as a cost-sharing
project with farmers to implement
safe and effective use of agricultural
chemicals.
Determine water quality trends
and the effectiveness of lake and
watershed management projects.
Prepare the State's 305(b) report.
Trout Unlimited: Restoring
and Protecting Fish Habitat
Trout Unlimited is a nonprofit
cold water fisheries conservation
organization with 66,000 members
in 400 local chapters. Trout Unlim-
ited offers technical assistance to its
members who participate in dozens
of water monitoring and river resto-
ration projects each year. Trout Un-
limited members recently completed
the following projects:
I
-------
I
Constructed a barbed-wire fence
along California's Trout Creek in the
Shasta-Trinity National Forest to
prevent cows from damaging fish
habitat Chevron Corporation
assisted.
Restored fish habitat on Spring
Creek in Missouri's Mark Twain
National Forest Trout Unlimited
members planted 20,000 trees
along a 6-mile segment of the
creek, restored the creek banks,
and reclaimed the natural Ozark
vegetation.
The GREEN Project: Empowering
People to Improve Water Quality
Around the World
The Global Rivers Environmental
Network (GREEN) is affiliated with
the School of Natural Resources at
the University of Michigan in Ann
Arbor. GREEN provides a clearing-
house of scientific information and
ideas for people with an interest in
studying and improving local water
quality through hands-on monitor-
ing and problemsolving. Several
examples of student actions arising
from GREEN's water monitoring
programs include:
In Swaziland on the African conti-
nent, students reduced the cases of
schistosomiasis (a tropical disease
caused by parasitic worms) by locat-
ing an alternative river site for wash-
ing clothes and providing basins
and water pumps at the new site.
In Australia, students and teach-
ers identified partially treated
sewage near public beaches and
appeared on national television to
advise the public of the health risks.
In Detroit, Michigan, students
identified a malfunctioning munici-
pal sewage treatment station empty-
ing raw sewage into the Rouge
River. The city immediately repaired
the station's equipment
For More Information
To leam more about volunteer
monitoring and how to participate,
contact
Alice Mayio
Volunteer Monitoring
Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (4503)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7018
r
-------
228 Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs
For further information about
databases and information
systems, see the Office of
Water Environmental and
Program Information Systems
Compendium available from
the EPA Office of Water at
(202)260-5684.
The Permit Compliance
System
The Permit Compliance System
(PCS) is an information manage-
ment system maintained by the
Office of Wastewater Enforcement
and Compliance (OWEC) to track
the permit, compliance, and en-
forcement status of facilities regu-
lated by the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program under the Clean
Water Act PCS tracks information
about wastewater treatment and
industrial and Federal facilities dis-
charging into navigable rivers.
Tracked items include facility and
discharge characteristics, permit
conditions, inspections, enforcement
actions, and compliance schedules.
PCS distinguishes between major
and minor facilities based on the
potential threat to human health or
the environment Only major facili-
ties must provide complete records
to PCS, currently numbered at
around 7,100; however, States and
Regions do submit information for
approximately 56,300 minor facili-
ties. PCS users are able to use
graphical and statistical tools to
analyze PCS data and can use a
PCS/STORET interface to link the
systems and support additional
analyses.
Nonpoint Source
Information Exchange
The Nonpoint Source Informa-
tion Exchange, housed at the Assess-
ment and Watershed Protection
Division of EPA's Office of Water, is
designed to serve as a national cen-
ter for the exchange of information
concerning (1) the nature of non-
point source (NPS) pollution,
(2) NPS management techniques
and methods, and (3) institutional
arrangements for the planning and
implementation of NPS manage-
ment including financial arrange-
ments.
The Exchange contains two
major activities: a technical bulletin,
the NPS News-Notes, published ap-
proximately eight times per year,
and the NPS Electronic Bulletin
Board System (NPS BBS). The target
audience for the News-Notes is State
and local water quality managers
although, with a circulation of over
10,000, other interested parties
including public officials, environ-
mental groups, private industry,
citizens, and academics receive
News-Notes regularly.
The NPS BBS, first opened in
1991, provides timely and relevant
NPS and other information to a
similar audience. There are more
than 1,200 users of the NPS BBS
who, through the system, can
access several special interest areas:
Agricultural Issues, Fish Consump-
tion Advisories and Bans, Waterbody
System Users Group, NPS Research,
Watershed Restoration Network,
Total Maximum Daily Loads, and
Volunteer Monitoring. Also available
are on-line searchable databases
such as the Clean Lakes Clearing-
house, NPS News-Notes database,
the Fish Consumption Bans and
Advisories database, and the Na-
tional Registry of Watershed
Projects.
-------
Chapter Twelve Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Programs 229
Great Lakes Envirofacts
The Great Lakes National Pro-
gram Office (CLNPO) is initiating a
computer system development pilot
effort called Great Lakes Envirofacts
(CLEF) to assist managers and tech-
nical staff in developing strategies to
reduce toxic chemical loadings. The
keystone goal of GLNPO's data inte-
gration program is developing a
system to enable technical staff to
access, display, analyze, and present
Great Lakes multimedia and geo-
graphic information from their desk
top, providing environmental
decisionmaking support for Great
Lakes Program managers. The GLEF
pilot project will explore both the
system requirements of Great Lakes
Program staff and the technical
means (hardware, software, and
telecommunications) to begin realiz-
ing its keystone goal.
The GLEF will build upon the
Envirofacts/Gateway system devel-
oped by EPA's Office of Information
Resources Management (OIRM)
Program Systems Division (PSD).
The Envirofacts database stores envi-
ronmental monitoring and program
(e.g., PCS, TRIS, FINDS) information
in a relational structure. Gateway is
a graphical user interface that pro-
vides spatially referenced access to
the Envirofacts database. The Great
Lakes Envirofacts project will be the
first implementation of the Gate-
way/Envirofacts concept, testing its
capability and utility for the Great
Lakes Program.
Other Information
Clearinghouses &
Electronic Bulletin Boards
Several other clearinghouses,
electronic bulletin boards, newslet-
ters, and information updates on
water quality activities have been
developed by EPA for use by State
and local governments, Federal
agencies, and the public. These
include COASTNET bulletin board
for coastal waters and estuary pro-
tection activities, the Clean Lakes
Clearinghouse, the Contaminated
Sediment News bulletin, the Water
Monitor (described on page 218),
and the Office of Science and
Technology's Resource Center.
-------
-------
Point Source
Control Program
Treating Municipal
Wastewater
Municipal treatment facilities
receive wastewater from residential
sources as well as from industry,
ground water infiltration, and storm
water runoff. The array of pollutants
that may be associated with these
sources includes suspended solids,
organics, pesticides, heavy metals,
nutrients, acids, viruses, and bacte-
ria.
Adequate treatment of munici-
pal wastewater is important for the
protection of the Nation's water
resources and public health. Without
adequate treatment, this pollution
poses a potentially serious threat to
aquatic life, commercial and recre-
ational opportunities, surface water
drinking supplies, ground water
drinking supplies, and the general
health and stability of many of the
Nation's stream, river, lake, estua-
rine, and coastal ecosystems.
The Clean Water Act requires
municipalities to achieve treatment
levels based on technology perfor-
mance. The 1981 CWA amend-
ments extended the deadline for
eligible treatment plants to achieve
"secondary treatment" to July 1,
1988. Secondary treatment removes
at least 85% of several key conven-
tional pollutants. If secondary treat-
ment is not enough to meet water
quality standards, the Clean Water
Act mandates additional treatment
as necessary.
Historically, under the Clean
Water Act, EPA has been authorized
to help municipalities solve their
wastewater treatment prob-
lems by providing grants for
construction. For this purpose,
$18 billion was originally appro-
priated to the construction
grants program. Funding has
continued since the initial appro-
priation in 1972, and the Federal
investment in municipal waste-
water treatment was $56 billion
through fiscal year 1992.
Through the 1987 amendments
to the Clean Water Act, the State
Revolving Fund (SRF) Program was
established to follow the phaseout
of the Construction Grants Program.
Under this program, the Agency
provides grants to States to fund the
establishment of State-run loan pro-
grams. This is a major step in restor-
ing the responsibility for financing
wastewater treatment to States and
municipalities. Congress appropri-
ated $6 billion through fiscal year
1991 for State Revolving Funds. In
addition, Congress has authorized a
total of $1.8 billion for 1993 and
1994. States must provide a 20%
match as part of their commitment
toward establishing their SRFs. In
addition to providing loans for con-
struction of wastewater treatment
facilities, SRFs allow funding for
activities not previously eligible
^SSfUH0
i^osSSX
-------
232 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
under the Construction Grants Pro-
gram. The amendments of 1987
expanded eligibilities and also led to
the promulgation of new rules re-
lated to new enforceable re-
quirements. The major catego-
ries of new eligibilities are
nonpoint source control and
programs for the protection of
ground water and estuaries. The
primary programs with new en-
forceable requirements are those
dealing with storm water, toxic
discharges, and sludge use and
disposal. The SRF loan program
provides States with more discretion
than ever before in selecting
projects for funding. States are now
able to finance projects they may
consider to be of higher priority,
Table 13-1. Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment
Facilities and Other Eligibilities (January 1992
Dollars in Billions)
Needs Category
Title II Eligibilities
1 Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
IIIA Infiltration/Inflow Correction
NIB Replacement /Rehabilitation
IVA New Collector Sewers
IVB New Interceptor Sewers
V Combined Sewer Overflows
VI Storm Water (institutional source controls only)6
Total Categories I-VI
Other Eligibilities (Sections 319 and 320)
Nonpoint Source (agriculture and silviculture only)
Ground Water, Estuaries, Wetlands
GRAND TOTAL
Total
Needs
31.3
15.5
2.8
3.6
17.9
14.7
41 .2 '
0.1 "
127.1
8.8 a
1.2
137.1
"Modeled needs.
blncludes SRF-eligible costs to develop and implement storm water plans but not
eligible structural and construction costs.
NOTE: Costs for operation and maintenance are not eligible for SRF funding and
therefore are not included.
such as nonpoint source, estuarine,
combined sewer overflow, or storm
water control projects. All States and
Puerto Rico had approved SRF pro-
grams in place as of September
1990.
The States provided some ex-
amples of water quality improve-
ments due to municipal construc-
tion and upgrading in their 1992
305(b) reports (see sidebar).
Funding Needs
for Wastewater
Treatment
The Needs Survey, a biennial
report to Congress, is the primary
mechanism for assessing municipal
wastewater treatment needs nation-
wide. The 1992 Needs Survey
focuses on the expanded CWA
funding eligibilities under the SRF in
the 1987 Amendments to the Clean
Water Act Models were used to
supplement documented needs
estimates for combined sewer over-
flows (CSOs). Models were also used
to develop preliminary urban storm
water and agricultural and silvicul-
tural nonpoint source (NPS) pollu-
tion control implementation costs
since very little documentation of
specific projects or costs was avail-
able from the States.
EPA's needs estimates include
those facilities and activities for
which a water quality or public
health problem could be docu-
mented using specific criteria estab-
lished by EPA. The capital invest-
ment necessary to satisfy all catego-
ries of need is presented in Table
13-1. Additional nonconstruction
estimates are included for program
development costs associated with
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 233
storm water and NPS control. The
1992 total documented and mod-
eled needs are $137.1 billion to
satisfy all categories of needs eligible
for SRF funding for the design year
(2012) population.
This amount included $50.1
billion in modeled needs for CSO,
storm water, and NPS pollution
control. For storm water and NPS,
the estimates exclude operation and
maintenance costs (O&M) since
O&M costs are ineligible for SRF
funding. However, O&M costs are
the major costs associated with
storm water and NPS program
implementation. Only agriculture
and silviculture NPS pollution con-
trol costs were estimated. Many
types of NPS pollution were not
addressed: abandoned mines, urban
areas, septic systems, contaminated
sediments, hydromodification, and
atmospheric deposition.
The needs estimate for the
Nation rose in constant dollars by
$53.4 billion (39%) from 1990 to
1992. The increase was due to a
variety of factors, primarily improved
documentation of SRF eligibilities
and the use of models to capture
full CSO, as well as partial urban
storm water and NPS costs.
Treating Industrial
Wastewater
The Clean Water Act required
EPA to establish uniform, nationally
consistent effluent limitation guide-
lines for industrial discharges. At this
time, EPA has established Best Avail-
able Technology Economically
Achievable (BATEA) and Best Con-
ventional Pollutant Control Technol-
ogy (BCT) guidelines for about 28
industrial categories. EPA has also
Water Quality Improvements from
Treatment Plant Upgrades
Wisconsin reported that construction of new municipal treatment
plants restored large segments of the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers,
These segments now fully support fishing use and aquatic life use.
As a result; sport and commercial fisheries have returned to some
river segments.
Vermont reported that a secondary treatment facility constructed in
Troy addressed untreated municipal discharges and corrected long-
term stream use impairments.
The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
detected statistically significant declines in total suspended solids and
total nitrogen in the Ohio River mainstem between 1977 and 1987.
These pollutants commonly occur in municipal wastewater discharges
and their decline suggests that treatment plant upgrades are reduc-
ing pollution in the Ohio River.
New Mexico attributed a sharp decline in the total loading of oxygen
demanding wastes (BOD) into the State's surface waters between
1977 and 1991 to sewage treatment plant construction. During the
same period, population growth spurred an increase in the total vol-
ume of wastewater treated. However, the construction of more effi-
cient treatment plants outpaced the increase in wastewater load.
promulgated technology-based
guidelines for approximately 15
additional secondary industries that
represent Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available
(BPT) levels. EPA is studying an addi-
tional dozen industries for future
guidelines development.
In addition to these technology-
based requirements, EPA, in 1984,
issued a policy on the water-quality-
based control of toxic pollutants
discharged by point sources. In
1985, EPA issued the Technical Sup-
port Document for Water Quality-
Based Toxics Control to support the
national policy. EPA updated and
enhanced this document in 1991.
-------
234 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
Table 13-2. Status of Permit
Issuance
Total Facilities
Major
Permits
7,105
Minor
Permits
57,143
EPA-l$sued Permits
Total
Expired
Percent
2,070
217
10.5%
7,243
4,055
56%
State-Issued Permits
Total
Expired
Percent
5,035
1,119
22.2%
49,900
18,518
37.1%
Source: Permit Compliance System,
February 1993.
Both the policy and guidance rec-
ommend using overall toxicity as a
measure of adverse water quality
impact and as a regulatory param-
eter. In 1989, EPA amended its
NPDES regulations to require the
use of effluent discharge limitations
for whole-effluent toxicity in addi-
tion to specific toxic chemicals. The
use of whole-effluent toxicity as a
regulatory tool coupled with con-
trols for specific chemicals provides
a powerful means of detecting and
controlling toxic problems.
Permitting,
Compliance,
and Enforcement
EPA and the States use rigorous
permit conditions to control point
source discharges from industrial
and municipal wastewater treatment
facilities. During the early 1980s, the
rate of permit issuance fell behind
the rate of permit expiration, and
large backlogs of unissued permits
developed. Efforts to remedy these
backlogs have been largely success-
ful. Table 13-2 illustrates the status
of permit issuance as of February
1993.
Once the permit is established,
compliance with these conditions is
essential for achieving water quality
improvements. Despite examples of
water quality improvements associ-
ated with upgrading municipal fa-
cilities, 10% of major municipal
treatment plants are in significant
noncompliance with applicable per-
mit conditions. Industrial permittees
have historically achieved a higher
rate of compliance; 7% of industrial
facilities are in significant noncom-
pliance with their permit conditions.
EPA and States with approved
NPDES programs are responsible for
ensuring that municipal and indus-
trial facilities comply with the terms
of their discharge permits. Currently,
39 States have approval from EPA to
administer their own NPDES pro-
grams. This responsibility includes
issuing permits, conducting compli-
ance inspections and other compli-
ance monitoring activities, and en-
forcing compliance. EPA has the
lead implementation responsibility in
the remaining States. EPA and the
States evaluate compliance by
screening self-monitoring reports
submitted by the permitted facility.
Facilities that are determined to be
in noncompliance are subject to
Federal as well as State enforcement
action.
Figure 13-1 illustrates rates of
significant noncompliance based on
statistics maintained by EPA from
December 1983 through June 1992.
Significant noncompliance rates for
municipal and industrial facilities
jumped in FY90 primarily because,
for the first time, EPA calculated
noncompliance directly from its
automated database. Therefore, if
data are not entered into the Permit
Compliance System in a timely
manner (e.g., failure to enter the
receipt of a required report within
30 days), the system will automati-
cally determine that the facility is
not in compliance. EPA is continuing
to refine its tracking of compliance
with permit conditions to better
reflect instances of noncompliance
by the regulated community.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 235
National Municipal
Policy
Due to the generally poor mu-
nicipal compliance record, and be-
cause of congressional concern over
the performance of treatment works
built primarily with Federal funds,
EPA developed the National Munici-
pal Policy (NMP) to address the
failure of publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) to meet treatment
levels required for compliance with
the CWA. On January 23,1984, the
Figure 13-1
EPA Administrator signed the NMP
into effect The NMP clarified and
emphasized EPA's resolve to ensure
that municipalities comply with the
Clean Water Act as quickly as pos-
sible, regardless of whether Federal
grant assistance was available for
treatment plant construction.
The deadline established for full
compliance with the Clean Water
Act was July 1,1988. By this date,
all municipal treatment facilities
were to be in compliance with the
secondary treatment requirement of
Section 301(b)(1)(B) of the CWA or
Percent of Facilities in Significant Noncompliance
with NPDES Permit Requirements
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
have a higher rate of
compliance with dis-
charge permits than do
municipal facilities.
20
18
16
S 14
-------
236 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
with more stringent limitations
established to meet State water
quality standards. Of the total uni-
verse of 3,731 major municipal fa-
cilities, 1,478 facilities were identi-
fied as requiring construction to
meet the 1988 deadline. By July 1,
1988, all but 423 municipal facilities
achieved compliance with the
requirements. Since the 1988
deadline, 188 facilities have
come into compliance, and, of
the remaining 235 facilities, all
but 50 have been placed on
enforceable compliance schedules.
EPA is continuing to track the
progress of these facilities in meet-
ing the requirements of the CWA.
In the 1987 Water Quality Act
amendments to the CWA, EPA was
given authority to seek administra-
tive penalties from permittees in
noncompliance with the Act's re-
quirements. EPA issued guidance
and delegated the authority for
issuing these orders to the regional
level in August 1987. The first Ad-
ministrative Penalty Order (APO)
was issued in September 1987.
Through October 1990, 396 APOs
have been issued assessing a total of
57.5 million in penalties. These or-
ders have been an effective tool in
expeditiously addressing violations
of the CWA and represent an inte-
gral component of EPA's overall
enforcement strategy.
Controlling Toxicants
The 1987 amendments to the
Clean Water Act reinforced both the
water-quality-based and technology-
based approaches to point source
control, requiring EPA to develop
and update technology-based stan-
dards and adding specific direction
as to how water-quality-based limits
should be used to achieve additional
improvements. One of the Act's
primary emphases lay in strengthen-
ing the Nation's toxics control pro-
gram.
Identifying Waters
Impaired by Toxicants
Section 304(1) of the CWA re-
quired States to develop lists of
impaired waters, identify point
sources and the amounts of pollut-
ants they discharge that cause toxic
impacts, and develop an individual
control strategy (ICS) for each such
point source. These ICSs are NPDES
permits with new or more stringent
limits on the toxic pollutants of con-
cern. The individual control strate-
gies must be accompanied by sup-
porting documentation to show that
the permit limits are sufficient to
meet water quality standards as
soon as possible but no later than
3 years after establishment of the
ICS. The general effect of Section
304(1) was to immediately focus
national surface water quality pro-
tection programs on addressing
known water quality problems due
entirely or substantially to point
source discharges of Section 307(a)
toxic pollutants. Under Section
304(1), EPA and States identified 68
facilities in the United States that
were required to have individual
control strategies. ICSs have been
established for 58 of these facilities.
EPA implements control mea-
sures for all toxic pollutants as part
of its ongoing surface water pro-
gram. Section 304(1) emphasized
implementing point source controls
to protect particularly impaired
surface waters for priority toxic
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 237
pollutants. EPA will continue identi-
fying impaired waters and control-
ling the discharge of toxic and other
pollutants through existing report-
ing, standards setting, and permit-
ting programs.
In developing lists of impaired
waters under Section 304(1), States
used a variety of available data
sources (including State Section
305(b) reports). At a minimum,
dilution analyses were conducted
based on existing or readily available
data. EPA asked States to assemble
data quickly to report preliminary
lists of waters, point sources, and
amounts of discharged pollutants by
April 1,1988, in their Section
305(b) reports. These lists were then
to be refined and expanded by the
statutory deadline of February 4,
1989.
Section 304(1) encourages the
States and EPA to address problems
identified through review of existing
and readily available data. The
States and EPA Regions will continue
to collect new water quality data to
fill existing data gaps and ensure
that changes in water quality are
identified.
Status of 304(1)
Implementation
(as of August 1993)
As of August 1993, 529
waterbodies had been identified as
being impaired entirely or substan-
tially by point source discharges of
Section 307(a) toxic pollutants. In
addition, 687 point sources were
listed as being responsible for im-
pairing the quality of those waters.
There are also 18,770 waters on the
"long" list that includes all waters
impaired by any pollutant from
either point sources or nonpoint
sources. The long list will be used
for long-term planning and setting
of priorities for monitoring, total
maximum daily load development,
nonpoint source controls, and per-
mit revisions.
In a September 1990 decision in
NRDC v. EPA, the U.S. Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit, remanded
portions of EPA's regulations inter-
preting Section 304(1) of the Clean
Water Act The Court said that EPA
erred when it required States to
identify only those point sources
discharging to waters listed by
States as impaired entirely or
substantially due to the point
source discharge of toxic pollut-
ants; there are 529 such waters.
Instead, the Court said that EPA
must require States to identify
point sources discharging toxic
pollutants to any water identified
under Section 304(1) as impaired for
any reason; there are 18,770 such
waters. The States are currently list-
ing the additional point sources and
EPA expects the new listings to be
finalized by November 1993.
In its 1990 decision in NRDC v.
EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit, recognized it might
be significantly changing the list of
point sources under Section 304(1).
So the Court required EPA to recon-
sider whether all point sources un-
der Section 304(1) should be re-
quired to have individual control
strategies (EPA's regulations at issue
had required control strategies for
all point sources listed under Section
304(1)). EPA is currently considering
this question and has invited public
comment (see 57 FR 33051, July 24,
1992).
EPA Regions and the States
continue to work on implementing
-------
238 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
304(1) requirements. Approximately
80% of the ICSs required are in
place as EPA-approved draft or final
NPDES permits.
Toxicity Testing
On March 9,1984, EPA issued a
policy designed to reduce or elimi-
nate toxics discharge and help
achieve the objectives of the Act
The "Policy for the Development of
Water Quality-Based Permit Limita-
tions for Toxic Pollutants" (49 FR
9016) described EPA's integrated
toxics control program. The inte-
grated program consisted of the
application of both chemical-
specific and biological meth-
ods to address the discharge of
toxic pollutants. To support this
policy, EPA issued the Technical
Support Document for Water
Quality-Based Toxics Control
(TSD) guidance. EPA continued
the development of the toxics
control program by revising the
TSD in 1991 and by including
some aspects of the policy in
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
122.44(d)(1) in June 1989.
Toxicity reduction evaluations
(TREs) identify and implement what-
ever actions are needed to reduce
effluent toxicity to the levels speci-
fied in the permit TREs combine
toxicity testing, chemical analyses,
source investigations, and treatability
studies to determine either the ac-
tual causative agents of effluent
toxicity or the control methods that
will reduce effluent toxicity. EPA is
currently documenting successful
TREs conducted by permittees,
States, and EPA researchers. Meth-
ods and procedures for conducting
TREs are described in several EPA
guidance documents and referenced
in the TSD.
In October 1992, EPA con-
ducted a survey of the SO States
and the District of Columbia to
determine the extent of implemen-
tation of whole effluent toxicity
(WET) controls for industrial and
municipal point sources. The District
of Columbia and 49 States are using
the whole effluent approach in per-
mitting as part of their water-qual-
ity-based toxics control program.
Thirty-five States and the District
required numeric WET limits in
NPDES permits for industrial and
municipal dischargers, while 14
States required monitoring. Forty
States and the District required both
acute and chronic testing.
The National
Pretreatment Program
The primary goal of the Na-
tional Pretreatment Program is to
protect POTWs and the environ-
ment from the adverse impact that
may occur when toxic, hazardous,
and concentrated conventional
wastes are discharged into sewer
systems from industrial sources. To
achieve this goal, the EPA has pro-
mulgated national pretreatment
standards for pollutants that (1)
interfere with the operation of a
POTW, including interference with
its use or disposal of municipal
sludge; or (2) pass through the
POTW and contaminate the receiv-
ing stream or are otherwise incom-
patible with the operation of the
treatment works. In addition, the
program is intended to improve
opportunities to recycle and reclaim
municipal and industrial wastewaters
and sludges. The prevention of
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 239
interference, the prevention of pass-
through, and the improvement of
opportunities to recycle wastewater
and sludge are the three regulatory
objectives of the National Pretreat-
ment Program. These objectives are
accomplished through a pollution
control strategy with two elements:
National Categorical Standards:
National technology-based stan-
dards developed by EPA Headquar-
ters reflecting best available technol-
ogy (BAT) in establishing effluent
limits for the 126 "priority pollut-
ants" as well as for conventional and
nonconventional pollutants for spe-
cific industrial categories.
Prohibited Discharge
Standards:
General Prohibitions: National regu-
latory prohibitions established by
EPA against pollutant discharges
from any nondomestic user that
cause pass-through or interference
at the POTW.
Specific Prohibitions: National regula-
tory prohibitions established by EPA
against pollutant discharges from
any nondomestic user that cause:
(1) fire or explosive hazard, (2) cor-
rosive structural damage, (3) inter-
ference due to obstruction, (4) inter-
ference due to flow rate or concen-
tration, (5) interference due to heat,
(6) interference from petroleum-
based oil, and (7) acute worker
health and safety problems from
toxic gases.
Local Limits: Enforceable local efflu-
ent limitations developed by POTWs
on a case-by-case basis to reflect
site-specific concerns and implement
the Federal general and specific
prohibited discharge standards as
well as State and local regula-
tions.
To ensure the success of the
pretreatment program, EPA also
issues guidance documents and
has conducted scores of training
seminars to assist POTWs in
developing, implementing, and
enforcing effective pretreatment
programs.
The primary focus for pretreat-
ment implementation is at the local
level since the POTW is in the best
position to regulate its industrial
users. States may become involved
in pretreatment implementation
through a formal approval process
in which the Federal Government
transfers its oversight responsibilities
to the State. The Federal Govern-
ment, through the EPA, is involved
in pretreatment through standard
setting, policy development, and
oversight of program implemen-
tation by approved States and
POTWs in States without ap-
proved pretreatment programs. At
present, 27 States have received
approval from EPA to administer
the pretreatment program, includ-
ing five States that have chosen to
directly regulate the industrial com-
munity in their States in lieu of local
program approval and implementa-
tion. In addition, 1,442 local pro-
grams have been approved by ei-
ther EPA or approved States, and
another 100 programs are under
development The pretreatment
program currently regulates approxi-
mately 30,000 significant industrial
users (SlUs).
On July 24, 1990, the EPA pro-
mulgated the Domestic Sewage
Study (DSS) final rule, which
implements the recommendations
-------
240 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
made in the DSS. Specifically, the
rule is designed to improve the
control of hazardous wastes dis-
charged to POTWs as well as
strengthen the enforcement of pre-
treatment program requirements. In
addition, the rule requires that
POTWs conduct toxicity testing of
their effluents. A continuing task will
be to integrate the implementation
of these requirements into the nor-
mal operations of the POTWs1 pre-
treatment programs.
The environmental accomplish-
ments of the National Pretreatment
Program have been significant Na-
tionwide, EPA estimates that toxic
pollutant loadings to POTWs have
decreased by up to 75% through
pretreatment In many cases, the
effects on surface water and sludge
have been dramatic Between 1975
and 1985, for example, 15 POTWs
discharging to San Francisco Bay
decreased their overall metals load-
ings by 80%, despite a 15% in-
crease in POTW flows. In Wisconsin,
14 of 24 POTWs reported marked
decreases in average total metals
concentrations in their sludge after
approval of their local pretreatment
programs.
The compliance status of indus-
trial users and POTWs is an indicator
of the programmatic success of
pretreatment implementation. Based
on data reported by POTWs or
States, approximately 54% of signifi-
cant industrial users of sewage treat-
ment plants are in significant non-
compliance with discharge stan-
dards and/or reporting and self-
monitoring requirements. This com-
pares with a rate of 7% significant
noncompliance for the major indus-
tries in the NPDES program, which
discharge directly to waterbodies.
According to data in EPA's national
database, 39% of POTWs are failing
to implement at least one significant
component of their approved pre-
treatment programs.
EPA has focused its oversight
and enforcement resources on
ensuring that local municipalities
properly implement their approved
programs. Toward that end, on
October 4,1989, EPA announced
the National Pretreatment Enforce-
ment Initiative against cities for fail-
ure to adequately implement their
approved pretreatment programs. In
this action, EPA joined with several
States in bringing civil judicial suits
or administrative penalties against
61 cities. This effort was designed to
alert cities as to their requirements
under the pretreatment program
and to ensure adequate implemen-
tation of the program. A followup
announcement was made on May
1, 1991, containing 755 additional
actions against both POTWs and
significant industrial users.
In July 1991, EPA issued a report
to Congress on the effectiveness of
the pretreatment program as re-
quired under Section 519 of the
CWA. This report analyzed the ma-
jor strengths and weaknesses of the
program and has provided direction
for improving the program.
Managing
Sewage Sludge
The need for effective sewage
sludge management is continuous
and growing. In the United States,
the quantity of municipal sewage
sludge produced annually has al-
most doubled since 1972. Munici-
palities currently generate approxi-
mately 5.3 million dry metric tons of
wastewater sludge per year, or
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 241
approximately 47 pounds per
person per year (dry weight basis).
Improper sewage sludge manage-
ment could lead to significant envi-
ronmental degradation of water,
land, and air, as well as adverse
human health conditions.
Prior to the 1987 amendments
to the Clean Water Act, the authori-
ties and regulations related to the
use and disposal of sewage sludge
were fragmented and did not pro-
vide States and municipalities with
adequate guidelines on which to
base sludge management decisions.
There was no single legislative ap-
proach or framework for integrating
the various Federal laws to ensure
that sludge would be used or dis-
posed of in a consistent or environ-
mentally acceptable manner. Al-
though the Clean Water Act, the
Clean Air Act, the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act, the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Art, and the Toxic Substances Con-
trol Act all regulate some aspect of
sludge management, coverage is
uneven, and the requirements are
based on different methodologies
and approaches.
Section 406 of the Water Qual-
ity Act of 1987, which amends Sec-
tion 405 of the Clean Water Act, for
the first time sets forth a compre-
hensive program for reducing the
environmental risks and maximizing
the beneficial uses of sludge. The
program is based on the develop-
ment of technical requirements for
sludge use and disposal and the
implementation of such require-
ments directly through the rule and
through permits.
In May 1989, EPA promulgated
regulations for including sewage
sludge conditions in NPDES permits
and for issuing sludge-only permits.
These rules also outline the require-
ments for States to seek EPA
approval to implement the new
statutory requirements.
EPA will be the permitting au-
thority for sewage sludge since there
are currently no approved State
programs. Initially, EPA will rely
strongly on the self-implementing
nature of the technical regulations.
EPA will focus its initial permitting
efforts on
Sewage sludge incinerators
(which require site-specific pollutant
limits)
Facilities posing a threat to
human health and the environment
Facilities needing a permit to
promote beneficial use
Facilities with NPDES permits up
for renewal.
In implementing the new sew-
age sludge requirements, EPA will
also focus on approving State pro-
grams and educating the general
public and the regulated commu-
nity.
In addition, regulations that
address sewage sludge disposal in
municipal solid waste landfills were
proposed in August 1988 and are
scheduled to be promulgated on
October 9, 1993.
Pursuant to Section 405, EPA
has developed regulations for each
of the major use and disposal
options for sewage sludge. These
options include land application,
incineration, landfilling, and surface
disposal. The standards for each
end use and disposal practice
consist of general requirements,
numerical limits on the pollutant
-------
242 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
concentrations in sewage sludge,
management practices, and, in
some cases, operational require-
ments. The final rule also includes
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements.
Standards apply to publicly and
privately owned treatment works
that generate or treat domestic sew-
age sludge, as well as to any person
who uses or disposes of sewage
sludge from such treatment works.
The rule requires compliance with
these standards as expeditiously as
possible but not later than 12
months after the date the rule is
published, or within 24 months of
publication if construction of new
pollution control facilities is required
to comply with the regulations.
New Initiatives in
Point Source Control
Combined Sewer
Overflow Control
Currently about 1,100 commu-
nities served by 1,303 CSO facilities
nationwide use combined sewer
systems, which are designed to
carry sanitary and industrial
wastewater and storm water.
These facilities are mainly located
in older cities in the Northeast, the
midcentral States, and along the
west coast Combined sewer over-
flows occur when the capacity of
the combined sewer system is ex-
ceeded during a storm event Dur-
ing these storm events, part of the
combined flow in the collection
system is discharged untreated into
receiving waters. The overflows may
contain high levels of suspended
solids, floatables, heavy metals,
nutrients, bacteria, and other
pollutants. Pollution from CSOs can
pose health risks, degrade the ecol-
ogy of receiving waters, and impair
the beneficial use of water resources.
EPA published the National
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Strategy in the Federal Register on
September 8,1989, at 54 FR
37370. Although implementation of
the 1989 strategy has resulted in
some progress toward controlling
CSOs, significant public health and
water quality risks remain.
In August 1991, EPA deter-
mined that implementation of the
1989 strategy was not proceeding
rapidly enough. EPA's Office of Wa-
ter (OW) initiated an Expedited Plan
to accelerate the implementation of
the 1989 National CSO Control
Strategy. At the recommendation of
OW's Management Advisory Croup,
a negotiated policy dialogue with
key stakeholders was also initiated.
The negotiations occurred during
the summer of 1992.
Based on the negotiated policy
dialogue and subsequent negotia-
tions between municipal and envi-
ronmental groups and States, a CSO
Framework Document - Recom-
mended Guidance to NPDES Permit
Writers, dated November 2, 1992,
was submitted to EPA's Office of
Water for consideration as part of
the development of a draft CSO
policy. Although the framework was
not the result of consensus among
the negotiating parties, significant
agreement was reached, allowing
OW to use the framework as the
basis to develop a draft CSO policy.
On December 22, 1992, the
Assistant Administrator for Water
and the Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement issued a draft CSO
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 243
Control Policy (dated December 18,
1992) for comment A notice of
availability was placed in the Federal
Re&ster on January 19,1993,
establishing a public comment
period until March 22,1993, on the
draft policy (58 FR 4994).
The main purposes of the Policy
are to elaborate on the 1989
National CSO Control Strategy and
to expedite compliance with the
requirements of the Clean Water
Act
The Policy is being developed to
provide guidance to permittees with
CSOs, NPDES authorities, and State
water quality standards authorities
on coordinating the planning, selec-
tion, sizing, and construction of
CSO controls that meet the require-
ments of the CWA and to allow for
public involvement during the
decisionmaking process.
Contained in the Policy are pro-
visions for developing appropriate,
site-specific NPDES permit require-
ments for all combined sewer sys-
tems that overflow as a result of wet
weather events and enforcement
initiatives to require the immediate
elimination of overflows that occur
during dry weather and to ensure
that the remaining CWA require-
ments are complied with as soon as
practicable. The 1992 Needs Survey
modeled the cost of compliance
with the draft 1992 CSO Policy. The
Needs Survey estimated that the
national cost of CSO corrections will
be $41.2 billion. The modeled esti-
mate compares to the State-docu-
mented costs of $22.4 billion for
375 of the approximately 1,300
CSOs needing correction.
EPA will finalize this policy in the
fall of 1993. As it finalizes the draft
policy, EPA is preparing a number of
guidance documents to assist in the
implementation of the final policy
when it is issued. Specific
programmatic areas that this guid-
ance will address are implementing
minimum CSO control measures by
all communities with CSOs; moni-
toring and modeling of combined
sewer systems, CSO discharges, and
receiving water impacts; preparation
of long-term CSO control plans by
CSO communities; and drafting
NPDES permit requirements for CSO
discharges by EPA and State NPDES
permit writers.
NPDES Storm Water
Controls
Since 1972, State and EPA
efforts under the NPDES program
have traditionally focused on con-
trolling pollutant discharges
from POTWs and industrial
process wastewaters. As
these sources of pollution
came increasingly under con- \ \f$
trol, the need for controlling
pollutants in storm water point
source discharges became
more critical to efforts to
achieve the goals of the CWA.
As reflected in this report, storm
water discharges from a variety
of sources, including storm sew-
ers discharging urban runoff, con-
struction site runoff, runoff from
resource extraction activities, and
runoff from land disposal sites, are
major sources of use impairment
Section 402(p) of the CWA
amendments of 1987 established a
timetable and framework for EPA to
address storm water discharges
under the NPDES program. Section
402(p) required EPA to develop a
two-phase program to control point
source discharges of storm water.
-------
244 Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program
On November 16, 1990, EPA
promulgated permit application
requirements for the first phase for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving popula-
tions of 100,000 or more and for
storm water discharges associated
with 11 industrial categories:
Manufacturing facilities
Construction operations or
activities disturbing 5 or more acres
Hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities
Landfills
POTWs with approved pretreat-
ment programs and/or discharging
over 1 million gallons per day
Recycling facilities
Power plants
Mining operations
Some oil and gas operations
Airport facilities
Certain transportation facilities
(such as vehicle maintenance areas).
Permits are required to be
issued for these sources, for the
most part, by October 1,1993.
For the second phase, EPA is
required to develop two storm
water reports to Congress. The first
will identify storm water discharges
and determine, to the maximum
extent practicable, the nature and
extent of pollutants in such dis-
charges. The second study will es-
tablish procedures and methods to
control storm water discharges to
the extent necessary to mitigate
impacts on water quality. Based on
these two studies and recommenda-
tions from experts, as well as public
input, Congress will direct EPA to
control additional sources under
Phase II.
Control of
Bioconcentratable
Contaminants
Bioconcentratable contaminants
can damage both human health
and aquatic life. In response, EPA
has developed draft guidance to
identify and, where necessary, con-
trol bioconcentratable organic com-
pounds that may be present in efflu-
ents, nonpoint source runoff, receiv-
ing waters, sediments, dredged
material, and the tissues of aquatic
organisms.
-------
Chapter Thirteen Point Source Control Program 245
The approach outlined in EPA's
draft guidance is designed to assist
regulatory authorities in identifying
and determining the concentration
of specific organic compounds in
complex mixtures and to make
more informed decisions concerning
control of these substances. EPA's
approach provides: a comprehensive
screen for organic chemicals that are
likely to bioconcentrate, procedures
for assessing and controlling com-
plex mixtures, a standardized assess-
ment methodology, and triggers for
regulatory action and control devel-
opment EPA's draft guidance
focuses principally on the develop-
ment and implementation of point
source limitations on bioconcentrat-
able organic compounds.
Pollution Prevention
EPA has established an Office of
Pollution Prevention that works with
other program offices to improve
pollution prevention activities within
the Agency. For example, an
Agency pollution prevention policy
has been developed, and a strategy
to address pollution prevention in
manufacturing and chemical use has
been drafted. Future strategies will
focus on the municipal water and
wastewater, agricultural, energy,
and transportation sectors. A
subcommittee comprising
representatives from EPA Headquar-
ters and Regions has been formed
to develop an Agency-wide training
strategy to ensure that pollution
prevention concepts are inte-
grated into all Agency activities.
In terms of the point source
control program, the Agency's
draft pollution prevention strategy
recognizes the importance of per-
mitting and enforcement activities
and will continue support for a
strong program in these areas.
Training is being provided to famil-
iarize NPDES permit writers with
pollution prevention opportunities,
how their permit decisions can af-
fect other media, and how to effec-
tively communicate the concept of
pollution prevention to industrial
managers.
-------
-------
Nonpoint Source
Control Program
Background
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollu-
tion generally results from land run-
off, atmospheric deposition, drain-
age, or seepage of contaminants.
Major sources of nonpoint pollution
include agricultural runoff, runoff
from urban areas, and runoff from
silvicultural operations. Siltation and
nutrients are the pollutants respon-
sible for most of the nonpoint
source impacts to the Nation's sur-
face waters. These diffuse sources
are often harder to identify, isolate,
and control than traditional point
sources. As a result, from 1972 to
1987, EPA and the States placed
primary focus on addressing the
obvious problems due to municipal
and industrial discharges: issuing
permits for point source discharges,
then inspecting, monitoring, and
enforcing those permits to ensure
that point sources met the Clean
Water Act requirements.
Sections 208 and 303(e) of the
Clean Water Act of 1972 established
the initial framework for addressing
nonpoint sources of pollution. States
and local planning agencies ana-
lyzed the extent of NPS pollution
and developed water quality
management programs to control it
with funds provided by EPA under
Section 208. Best management
practices were evaluated, assessment
models and methods were devel-
oped, and other types of technical
assistance were made available to
State and local water quality man-
agers.
The National Section
319 Program
In 1987, Congress enacted Sec-
tion 319 of the Clean Water Act,
which established a national pro-
gram to control nonpoint sources of
water pollution. Section 319 created
a three-stage national
program to be imple-
mented by the States
with Federal approval and
assistance. States were to
address nonpoint source
pollution by (1) developing
nonpoint source assessment
reports, (2) adopting
nonpoint source manage-
ment programs, and (3)
implementing the manage-
ment programs over a
multiyear timeframe.
All States and Territories
now have EPA-approved nonpoint
source assessments. EPA has also
fully approved 51 State nonpoint
source management programs and
has approved the high-priority por-
tions of all remaining State manage-
ment programs.
Section 319 also authorizes EPA
to issue annual grants to States to
assist them in implementing their
H»*nof
e tn« r - most o1
-------
248 Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
~--
EPA-approved programs. From FY90
through FY93, Congress appropri-
ated more than $191 million for
Section 319 assistance. EPA issued
final guidance on the award and
management of Section 319 funds
in February 1991 following extensive
public comment The guidance
encourages States to focus Section
319 funds on high-priority activities
including:
Addressing nationally significant,
high-risk nonpoint source problems
and focusing implemen-
tation activities in
priority watershed or
ground water areas
Comprehensively
integrating existing
programs to control
nonpoint source pollu-
tion
Providing for monitor-
ing and evaluation of pro-
gram effectiveness includ-
ing using water quality
monitoring protocols
Emphasizing pollution prevention
mechanisms
Protecting particularly sensitive
and ecologically significant waters
(wetlands, estuaries, wild and scenic
rivers)
Promoting comprehensive water-
shed management
Roughly half of each State's
annual award supports Statewide
program activity (staffing, public
education and outreach, technical
assistance) and half supports specific
projects to prevent or reduce
nonpoint source pollution at the
watershed level.
Funding under Section 319 is
also available to American Indian
Tribes with approved nonpoint
source assessments and manage-
ment programs. To date, EPA has
awarded grants to the Poarch Band
Tribe (Alabama) and the Colville
Tribe (Washington). In addition, in
FY91, one-time funds were made
available by EPA for tribal develop-
ment of nonpoint source assess-
ments and management programs.
In the summer of 1993, EPA will
update the 319 grant guidance,
incorporating lessons learned during
3 years of awarding and managing
319 grants and consulting with the
States.
Section 319 National
Monitoring Program
To improve technical under-
standing of nonpoint pollution and
the effectiveness of various nonpoint
source control technologies, the
Section 319 grants guidance estab-
lishes requirements for a standard-
ized water quality monitoring pro-
gram for representative watersheds
across the country. The guidance
requires each of EPA's 10 Regional
offices to award a portion of each
year's funds to support more inten-
sive water quality monitoring of
selected watershed projects. To
date, EPA headquarters has ap-
proved three projects: Long Creek,
North Carolina, Sny Magill, Iowa,
and Elm Creek, Nebraska. A total of
approximately $1.4 million had
been obligated for these projects as
of July 1992. This national set-aside
totalled approximately $2.1 million
in FY91 and $2.3 million in FY92.
-------
Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 249
The Sny Magill watershed in-
volves an interagency effort to
monitor and assess improvements in
water quality resulting from the
implementation of nonpoint source
controls. The entire watershed is
agricultural with no industrial or
urban areas. Land use consists pre-
dominantly of cropland (com, oats,
and alfalfa), pasture, and forest
Sediment is the major pollutant but
nutrients, pesticides, and animal
waste are also of concern. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
will provide technical assistance, cost
sharing, and educational programs
to assist agricultural producers in
implementing nonpoint source con-
trol measures such as sediment con-
trol, stream corridor management
improvements, and animal waste
management systems. Land treat-
ment application will be coordinated
with water quality monitoring.
The Bloody Run watershed (a
neighboring watershed of approxi-
mately the same size) serves as the
paired comparison watershed. Pri-
mary monitoring sites were estab-
lished on both watersheds to mea-
sure discharge and suspended sedi-
ment Other sites on both creeks
will be sampled for chemical and
physical water quality variables on a
weekly to monthly basis. A habitat
assessment will be conducted along
stretches of both stream corridors
annually, fishing surveys will be con-
ducted annually, and biomonitoring
of macroinvertebrates will be per-
formed bimonthly.
The Long Creek project is
located in south-central North Caro-
lina. The watershed contains mixed
agricultural and urban/industrial
land use. Long Creek serves as the
primary water supply for Bessemer
City (population 5,000). Sediment
from eroding cropland is the major
problem in the upper third of the
watershed (above the water supply
intake). Long Creek is impaired
mainly by bacteria and nutrients
from urban areas and animal hold-
ing facilities below the in-
take. Proposed
nonpoint controls in-
volve implementing the
land use restrictions of
the State watershed
protection law for areas
above the water supply
intake and a comprehen-
sive nutrient management
system for a farm below
the intake. Water quality
monitoring will include a station
before and after the land treatment
design near the water intake, an
upstream/downstream design on
the Creek above and below the
dairy farm, and a paired watershed
design at a cropland runoff site on
the dairy. Continuous and grab
samples will be collected at various
sites to provide the data needed to
assess the effectiveness of the
nonpoint controls.
Reports on Section
319 Activities
The 1990 Report to Congress
on Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act, "Managing Nonpoint Source
Pollution," provides the most cur-
rent (as of October 1,1990) and
comprehensive information on
nonpoint source programs at the
national, State, and local levels. In-
cluded are findings of State
nonpoint source assessments; re-
lated activities of EPA, other Federal
agencies, and other entities; State
achievements to date in controlling
-------
250 Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
Five Themes for NFS Action
Public Awareness
Practical Solutions
Financial Incentives
Regulatory Capabilities
Tools
NPS pollution; and summaries of
the activities and views of other
private and public organizations
active in the NPS arena. EPA is cur-
rently preparing an update to the
1990 report that will include activi-
ties carried out with the FY91 and
FY92 grant awards. This update will
be available in the fall of 1993.
National NPS
Strategic Plan
In January 1989, EPA developed
the Nonpoint Source Agenda for the
Future. This Agenda was designed
to assist EPA in defining the goals of
the national NPS program and the
means to achieve those goals.
The stated goal of the Agenda
was to protect and restore the qual-
ity of U.S. waters through strong
national leadership and by helping
State and local governments over-
come barriers to the successful
implementation of NPS measures.
Among identified barriers were (1)
inadequate public awareness of the
nonpoint source problem, (2) inad-
equate knowledge or inadequate
transfer of knowledge about suc-
cessful solutions to nonpoint source
problems, and (3) inadequate incen-
tives to correct nonpoint source
pollution.
EPA organized the goals of the
Agenda under five themes:
Raise public awareness of
nonpoint source pollution
Provide States and local govern-
ments with information on practical
nonpoint source solutions
Provide financial incentives that
encourage the public to install
pollution controls and change land
management practices.
Help States and localities im-
prove their regulatory capabilities
(e.g., by developing water quality
criteria and monitoring protocols
specifically designed to evaluate
control activities)
Develop tools needed by States
and localities to establish sound
water-quality-based nonpoint source
control programs.
EPA has made progress in all of
the theme areas. For example, EPA
(with assistance from the States and
other Federal agencies) developed
the first comprehensive nationally
recognized technical guidance on
nonpoint source management tech-
niques during 1991 and 1992. EPA
also initiated the first phase of its
public awareness program: a
nonpoint source brochure and
poster were distributed in early
1990, and EPA's Nonpoint Source
Newsnotes now serves as the pri-
mary vehicle for sharing State and
local success stories on nonpoint
control. EPA also began operating
an electronic bulletin board to sup-
port transfer of nonpoint pollution
information.
EPA believes that much of the
Agenda continues to be sound and
relevant At the same time, 4 years
of Federal funding for State
nonpoint source implementation
and the experiences that has pro-
vided, initiation of a new coastal
nonpoint source program, and sig-
nificant increases in State's commit-
ment to address nonpoint source
pollution create new opportunities.
Therefore, EPA, with the involve-
ment of all parties who have a role
-------
Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 251
to play in preventing and reducing
nonpoint source pollution, will con-
duct, during 1993 and 1994, a
broad and inclusive effort to develop
an updated strategic plan for the
national nonpoint source program.
Nonpoint Source
Management
Programs and
Implementation
The States, local governments,
community groups, and EPA Re-
gions have initiated many innovative
projects across the Nation to man-
age nonpoint source pollution prob-
lems. The projects described in this
section exemplify the diversity of
approaches that have been applied
to NPS pollution prevention and
control. In some cases, prevention
or control is only beginning. In
other situations, prevention and/or
control measures have been in place
long enough to show significant
results.
Lake Whitney Reservoir,
Connecticut
The Lake Whitney Reservoir in
Hamden, Connecticut, has been a
public water supply for the city of
New Haven since 1862. The
reservoir's watershed area (36.4
square miles) is primarily impervious
due to residential, commercial, and
industrial development More than
60 storm water outlets discharge
near or directly into Lake Whitney or
the nearby Mill River without treat-
ment Main water quality problems
are: sedimentation, accelerated eu-
trophication, and anoxia, which is
largely the result of urban storm
water runoff.
In an effort to restore Lake
Whitney, a plan was developed to
capture and treat storm water prior
to discharge into Lake Whitney or its
tributaries as well as to work with
local townships to
adopt storm water
regulations. The
2-year project will
demonstrate how the
construction of a
storm water treatment
system can reduce the
input of contaminants
associated with urban
runoff. Postconstruction
monitoring of inflow and
outflow from the storm
water treatment basin will
characterize the quality of
urban runoff and the aver-
age pollutant removal efficiency.
The results of the project will be
applied to other subwatersheds that
contribute to Lake Whitney.
Middle Fork River,
West Virginia
In 1990, the American Fisheries
Society (AFS) initiated a meeting
with EPA and the Department of
Interior's (DOI) Office of Surface
Mining to discuss deteriorating wa-
ter quality conditions and dwindling
fisheries resources in eastern streams
caused by acid mine drainage from
abandoned coal mines. In response,
the participants signed a Memoran-
dum of Understanding agreeing to
commit technical and financial sup-
port to a project in the Middle Fork
River watershed.
The Middle Fork watershed
encompasses 151 square miles in
north central West Virginia. Acid
mine drainage has eradicated fish
from the lower 24 miles of the river.
-------
252 Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
The effort to date has focused on
inventorying all coal mine sites in
the watershed, developing baseline
water quality data, and designing
and installing abatement techniques
to remedy or reduce acid mine im-
pacts. Along with contributions from
the West Virginia Division of Envi-
ronmental Protection and Division of
Natural Resources, the West Virginia
State Soil Conservation Committee,
USDA's Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), and DOI's Office of Surface
Mining, EPA has provided Section
319 funds to establish a Geographic
Information System to analyze the
resource data provided by other
agencies, to install an anoxic lime-
stone trench and engineered wet-
lands to assimilate acid mine drain-
age and prevent entrance of acid
waters into the river, and to evalu-
ate and implement abatement tech-
nologies.
Indian Lake, Ohio
Indian Lake is a eutrophic lake
in a rural watershed. The pri-
mary water quality
problems are sedimen-
tation and, to a lesser
degree, nutrient enrich-
ment The project pro-
vides an excellent ex-
ample of the use of a mix
of EPA and USDA pro-
grams to address agricul-
tural nonpoint source prob-
lems. First, EPA allocated
Clean Lakes Phase I funds for evalua-
tion of the lake's water quality prob-
lems.
Currently, Phase II Clean Lakes
grants are funding implementation
efforts such as construction of shore-
line erosion controls and spot
dredging so that the lake can be
used for recreational purposes until
sediment source control is accom-
plished in the watershed. Section
319 money provides assistance to
farmers purchasing no-till planters
and supports technical assistance
and education costs throughout the
watershed. USDA's SCS provides
additional education and technical
assistance to farmers through the
Hydrologic Unit Program. Extra
USDA cost-share funds are also be-
ing targeted to the watershed
through its designation as an Agri-
cultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Service's ACP Special Water
Quality Project Area.
West Lake Reservoir, Iowa
West Lake is a reservoir owned
and operated by the City of
Osceola, which serves as a public
drinking supply for the cities of
Osceola, Woodburn, and several
hundred rural users. In a watershed
dominated by agricultural land use,
runoff from cropland impacts the
lake's water quality. Sediment, pesti-
cides, and nutrients are major pol-
lutants. Pesticides, such as atrazine,
are of particular concern. Samples of
treated drinking water often exceed
EPA's maximum contaminant level
of 3 parts per billion of atrazine
(determined on an annual basis by
averaging results of quarterly tests of
treated drinking water).
To protect the reservoir, a com-
prehensive nonpoint pollution con-
trol project has been developed. The
project emphasizes education and
voluntary adoption of best manage-
ment practices by farmers. Section
319 funds have been awarded to
promote better farm management
including the use of conservation
tillage or no-till methods and inte-
grated crop management (nutrient
and pesticide management).
-------
Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 253
To address the atrazine problem,
more than 90% of the watershed's
farmers voluntarily agreed to reduce
or eliminate atrazine use during the
1992 cropping season. Initial
monitoring results after the volun-
tary reductions found only one
sample with atrazine levels greater
than 3 ppb. Monitoring over a
longer period will be necessary to
determine if atrazine levels will re-
main below the maximum contami-
nant level.
Maskenthine Lake,
Nebraska
In 1989, the Nebraska Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality be-
gan one of its first Clean Lakes Pro-
gram projects monitoring Masken-
thine Lake in northeastern Nebraska
with a Phase I grant Project imple-
mentation began with funding from
the Clean Lakes Program (Phase II),
Section 319, the Lower Elkhorn
Natural Resources District, and the
USDA. In addition, EPA's TMDL
"Swat Team" is assisting the State in
calculating a TMDL for the lake with
funding from a TMDL mini-grant
The project will determine the as-
similative capacity of the lake for
targeted pollutants (atrazine, nutri-
ents, and sediment) and loading
targets for the lake inflow. The
TMDL process will evaluate various
watershed management scenarios
that include load allocations for
subwatersheds, uplands, and stream
channels. The State will use the
TMDL to refine and implement the
watershed management plan.
Godfrey Creek, Montana
The Godfrey Creek project com-
bines a Section 319 nonpoint source
pollution management project with
a USDA Hydrologic Unit Area
project It addresses severe dairy/
animal waste related water quality
problems (i.e., high nutrient and
bacteria levels and physical channel
degradation) in the creek and the
surrounding 8,000-acre watershed.
The project strives to reduce nutri-
ent and bacteria levels in the creek
by 80% and to restore fisheries
through on-farm implementation of
best management practices over a
10-year period (1991-2000).
The Callatin County Conserva-
tion District is managing the
Godfrey Creek project
with assistance from
the SCS, the Extension
Service, and the Mon-
tana Water Quality
Bureau. Best manage-
ment practices (BMPs),
such as renovated and
expanded dairy waste
handling facilities, reloca-
tion of animal confine-
ment areas, off-stream
livestock watering, channel
shaping, revegetation,
improved grazing systems,
and improved irrigation manage-
ment are being implemented. Edu-
cation, peer pressure, and observa-
tion of the successes of BMP imple-
mentation by the initial cooperating
landowners have helped overcome
initial resistance to the project
Although BMP implementation will
take several years to complete, great
progress has been made in securing
the cooperation of the watershed's
landowners.
«SS£*
«ffiS$8*p
w^SSafla,
ttfflflri
-------
254 Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
Morro Bay, California
The State of California estab-
lished a cooperative agreement be-
tween the State Water Resources
Control Board and the California
Coastal Commission in response to
the nonpoint source requirements of
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone
Act Reauthorization Amendments of
1990. The agreement provides re-
sources for a nonpoint source con-
trol project in the Morro Bay water-
shed. Morro Bay is located in San
Luis Obispo County within the cen-
tral California coastal area. The wa-
tershed supports a $16 million agri-
cultural industry. Limited grazing
and the presence of several aban-
doned mines on public lands con-
tribute sediment and heavy metals
to the Bay. Major impairments are
sediment, increased temperature,
and agricultural pollutants such as
nutrients. Cost-share funds are being
provided for implementation of
selected erosion control practices.
California, with support from EPA
Region 9, will support a long-term
monitoring effort in the watershed
and the project is being considered
for inclusion in the Section 319
national monitoring program.
Malheur Experiment
Station Best Manage-
ment Practices Research
and Development
Program
Oregon has used Section 319
funds to support multiple, interre-
lated ground water protection
projects in the Malheur Basin, an
irrigated area in the eastern part of
the State. Heavy fertilizer and
chemical applications have contami-
nated the shallow aquifer underlying
the Malheur Plains. Nitrate concen-
trations exceed EPA's maximum
contaminant level in many private
wells. Oregon's Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality has designated
the Malheur Basin as a ground wa-
ter management area under the
State's Croundwater Management
Act This designation enables State
agencies to focus resources on
nonpoint source problems contribut-
ing to ground water contamination.
Oregon State University's Agri-
culture Experiment Station is leading
the research efforts to develop
modified fertilizer applications (rate
and timing) and new irrigation prac-
tices that reduce nitrate contamina-
tion of the ground water. The Ex-
periment Station shares its results
with local growers through widely
attended annual field days, during
which they take growers on tours of
various experiment sites and explain
the objectives and results of each
project
-------
Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 255
Upper North Bosque
Watershed, Texas
The Upper North Bosque Water-
shed demonstration project, west of
Fort Worth, supports technical assis-
tance, water quality monitoring, and
technology transfer activities. The
Texas State Soil and Water Conser-
vation Board (TSWCB) provides an
onsite coordinator to integrate ani-
mal waste management activities in
the basin. The coordinator assists
area dairy operators in understand-
ing the technical requirements of
the Texas Water Commission's ani-
mal waste rules. The project also
supports water quality monitoring
by the Texas Agriculture Extension
Services (TAEX) at the edge of fields
on two dairies that land-apply their
waste. Both farms have established
filter strips (of varying size and grass
species) that are instrumented with
automatic samplers to measure
nitrogen, phosphorus and bacteria
in the runoff water.
Monitoring for sediment, nutri-
ents, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, and
oxygen-demanding waste will be
conducted to assess best manage-
ment practices at selected sites.
Biological monitoring of benthic
organisms will be performed on the
three tributaries and on the main
stem of the Bosque River to evaluate
the effectiveness of the project The
USDA also has begun a Hydrologic
Unit Area project in the watershed
that will determine the cost of
shared lagoon installation and pro-
vide increased technical assistance
to dairy farmers.
The demonstration project,
working through the Tarleton Insti-
tute for Applied Environmental
Research (TIAER) at Tarleton State
University, coordinates the actions
and policies of private citizens, dairy
farmers, city and county govern-
ments and State agency personnel
to promote changes in waste han-
dling practices. Each member is to
transfer the technology and pro-
gram information back to his/her
respective group or agency and
work to implement the changes
agreed upon. Demonstration of new
technology on six sites will be part
of the TIAER education/outreach
program.
Bluewater Creek,
New Mexico
The Bluewater Creek watershed
is located 60 miles west of Grants,
New Mexico, in the Cibola National
Forest In this project the USDA
Forest Service and the USDA Soil
Conservation Service are implement-
ing best management practices
(BMPs) on Federal lands to prevent
further overgrazing in the water-
shed. Newer and innovative BMPs
indude riparian fencing to exclude
cattle, people, and elk; rerouting of
roads and road closures; and
rechannelizing a stream away from
sloughing stream banks too steep
and unstable to repair. The Forest
Service also added improved live-
stock management requirements to
new grazing leases, such as rest/
rotation grazing systems.
These agencies and New
Mexico's Environment Department
are also monitoring BMP effective-
ness with instream grab samples
above and below each BMP site
during all seasons. The agencies
monitor physical, chemical, and
biological parameters, as well as
physical habitat The data gathered
by New Mexico's Environment De-
partment on this project suggest
-------
256 Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
that some BMPs are truly more
effective than others and other
BMPs would be effective if their
design and installation location were
modified. The Forest Service has
used this information to modify
their BMP handbook and design
specifications.
Funding for Nonpoint
Source Control
In addition to Section 319
funds, several States have taken
advantage of State revolving funds
(SRFs) to provide loans to fi-
nance nonpoint
source and other
water pollution control
programs. SRFs were
originally established to
assist States in upgrad-
ing their sewage treat-
ment systems, but the
1987 amendments to the
Clean Water Act provide
States with the opportu-
nity to use these funds for
nonpoint source control.
SRF loans are particularly
suitable for funding struc-
t u r a I BMP construction, such as
storm water detention ponds and
manure storage structures.
At present, four States - Wash-
ington, California, Delaware, and
Wyoming - are using SRF loans to
fund a wide variety of nonpoint
programs. Approved projects will
retrofit failed septic tanks, construct
storm water management struc-
tures, remediate leaking under-
ground storage tanks, and build
poultry composting facilities. As
States meet sewage treatment sys-
tem upgrade requirements, SRF
funds will become increasingly avail-
able to address nonpoint source
problems.
New Initiatives in
NPS Control
The 1990 Farm Bill
The Food, Agriculture, Conser-
vation and Trade Act of 1990 (1990
Farm Bill), enacted by Congress on
October 25, 1990, contains strong
water quality provisions and offers
new opportunities to link USDA and
EPA water quality programs in the
States. The bill, hailed by many as
the most environmentally sound
agricultural legislation ever passed
by Congress, builds on existing
USDA and EPA efforts, broadens the
applicability of the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) to environ-
mentally sensitive areas and estab-
lishes a new Wetland Reserve Pro-
gram (WRP) and Water Quality
Incentives Program (WQIP).
-------
Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 257
The CRP, created by the 1985
Farm Bill, has paid producers to
remove highly erodible cropland
from production for a 10-year
period to protect and improve soil
and water resources. The 1990 Farm
Bill expands the land eligibility re-
quirements to indude not only
highly erodible land, but also other
cropland areas that are potential
threats to surface water quality and
ground water quality in wellhead
protection areas. The bid evaluation
process also provides higher priority
for producers who provide
filterstrips, sod waterways,
shelterbelts, and contour grass strips
on their property, which increase
water quality benefits under the
CRP.
The Act also established a Wet-
land Reserve Program with an
enrollment goal of up to 1 million
acres. Land accepted into the WRP
would be removed from production
through easements.
The WQIP allows the USDA to
provide technical assistance and up
to $3,500 in incentive payments to
individual producers to develop and
implement farm-level water quality
plans. An additional $1,500 in cost-
share payments is available to indi-
vidual farmers to implement some
practices. Lands identified by States
under the Wellhead Protection Pro-
visions (Section 1428) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act and Section 319
of the Clean Water Act are explicitly
targeted under the WQIP.
Other areas targeted
are endangered or
threatened species
habitat areas and
areas of karst topogra-
phy, which are particu-
larly vulnerable to seep-
age of contaminants.
In addition to the
WQIP and CRP, the Farm
Bill contains provisions for
greater flexibility to allow
crop rotations, sustainable
agriculture research and
education programs, pesti-
cide recordkeeping for certi-
fied applicators, and an organic
food certification program.
The Coastal Zone
Management
Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990
Congress also enacted the
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments (CZARA) of 1990,
which established under Section
6217 a new coastal nonpoint source
pollution control program that inte-
grates State Section 319 (CWA)
programs with State Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) pro-
grams. NOAA administers the
-------
258 Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program
CZMA and EPA administers Section
319, and the two agencies have
worked cooperatively toward imple-
menting Section 6217.
Section 6217 requires that
States with federally approved
coastal zone management programs
develop and implement Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Pro-
grams to ensure protection and
restoration of coastal waters.
Twenty-nine States and Territories,
including several Great Lakes States,
currently have approved coastal
zone management programs.
Under CZARA, State Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Pro-
grams must provide for imple-
mentation of (1) management mea-
sures specified by EPA in the
national technical guidance, and (2)
additional, more stringent measures
developed by each State as neces-
sary to attain and maintain water
quality standards where the baseline
measures do not accomplish this
objective. The CZARA further pro-
vides that States' Coastal Zone Man-
agement Programs must contain
enforceable policies and mecha-
nisms to ensure implementation of
the baseline and additional manage-
ment measures.
EPA issued final technical guid-
ance in January 1993. This guidance
specifies management measures for
five major categories of nonpoint
pollution: agricultural runoff, urban
runoff, silvicultural runoff, hydro-
modification, and marinas and rec-
reational boating. The guidance also
describes specific practices that may
be used to achieve the level of pre-
vention or control specified in the
management measures.
EPA and NOAA have also issued
joint program guidance to assist the
States in developing coastal non-
point pollution control programs.
Final program guidance was issued
in January 1993. The program guid-
ance addresses issues related to
development by the States of
coastal nonpoint programs for joint
approval by NOAA and EPA. The
States must submit coastal nonpoint
control programs to NOAA and EPA
within 30 months of issuance of the
management measures guidelines
Ouly1995).
-------
Chapter Fourteen Nonpoint Source Control Program 259
-------
-------
The Section 314
Clean Lakes Program
Introduction
Background and New
Themes Since the 1987
CWA Reauthorization
The principal Federal program
dealing with restoration of degraded
lakes is EPA's Clean Lakes Program
(CLP), established by the Clean Wa-
ter Act (CWA) of 1972. Activities
under the CLP began in 1975 as
congressional appropriations were
used to develop a national program
to clean up publicly owned fresh-
water lakes. From 1975 to 1978,
research and development grants
were issued to identify restoration
techniques and conduct demonstra-
tion projects to restore specific lakes.
By 1980, formal regulations were
finalized governing the award of
Federal funds for Clean Lakes grants.
These regulations (40 CFR Part 35,
Appendix H) still provide the frame-
work for use of the Federal grants
and for States seeking to create their
own programs.
The CLP has always stressed the
need for skillful coordination with
other State or Federal programs.
During the 1970s and early 1980s,
a major goal of CLP grants was to
rehabilitate lakes that had experi-
enced excessive nutrient inputs from
point and nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion. The CLP requires that all point
sources be treated or have
treatment planned under Sections
201 and 402 of the CWA before a
grant is awarded for in-lake restora-
tion activities.
In the course of the 1980s, and
especially with the 1987 CWA reau-
thorization, States were encouraged
to consider control measures for
nonpoint source impacts and even
for multimedia issues such as acid
rain. Programs that integrated sup-
port from CLP with assistance from
other Federal, State, or local ini-
tiatives were encouraged.
In particular, States were
encouraged to coordinate
their CLP activities with
their Section 319
Nonpoint Source Manage-
ment Programs. The CLP
helped pioneer a holistic
watershed approach to iden-
tifying lake pollution control
and restoration needs. This
watershed perspective is
prominent in Section 319 pro-
grams and is a major organizing
principle for the Section 303(d)
TMDL process and for such efforts
as EPA's new Watershed Protection
Approach (WPA). These integrated
management concepts are impor-
tant for projects carried out wholly
within the scope of a Federal CLP
grant Such concepts become essen
tial when projects are designed to
address concerns that could easily
exceed the levels of support from a
conventional Section 314 project.
-------
262 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
Especially for larger lakes, or where
watershed control measures are vital
to successful lake protection or res-
toration, the Clean Lakes Program
becomes just one component in a
larger institutional framework.
Figure 15-1
Activities Conducted with Clean Lakes
Program Grants
Lake Water Quality
Assessments
Statewide screening level
assessments of lake quality
Public information/education
Priority setting
Water quality sampling
Data analysis
Determine longevity and
effectiveness of control
and restoration measures
Phase I. Diagnostic/
Feasibility
Studies
Water quality sampling
Data analysis
Recommend control and
restoration measures to
address water quality problems
In-lake treatments
- Mechanical weed control
- Artificial aeration
- Phosphorus precipitation
Watershed treatments
- Best management practices
- Zoning and planning ordinances
- Public education
Phase III. Postrestoration
Monitoring
Phase II. Implementation
Program Goals
and Objectives
The CLP encourages States to
develop active, ongoing monitoring
and assessment programs and has
supported these efforts with Lake
Water Quality Assessment Grants.
These activities should be sufficiently
broad to cover all important publicly
owned lakes in a State, with general
monitoring procedures geared to
those lakes with high-priority protec-
tion or restoration needs. For as
many lakes as possible, and certainly
for lakes with serious water quality
concerns, more detailed investiga-
tions should be conducted to out-
line the major pollution problems
(or threats) and identify appropriate
restoration or control techniques.
Where this sort of background infor-
mation is available, and where stake-
holders can be identified who are
willing to assume management or
stewardship responsibilities, the
stage is set for actual lake projects.
The first step is to carry out an
appropriate limnological study to
document baseline conditions and
to make a careful determination of
the most appropriate techniques for
pollution controls and in-lake or
watershed restoration measures. The
next step is to implement the rec-
ommended management measures,
making use of available CLP grants
but also leveraging support from
other local, State, and Federal re-
sources. The final step is to docu-
ment the success of the lake project,
gathering technically sound evi-
dence that water quality conditions
have improved.
The three steps described coin-
cide with CLP Phase I, Phase II, and
Phase III grants (Figure 15-1). One
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 263
of the most difficult parts of the
Clean Lakes Program lies in putting
together enough information to
initiate a Phase I grant After adop-
tion of the formal rules and regula-
tions in 1980, EPA provided funds
for States to carry out classification
surveys. These classification survey
grants provided States an opportu-
nity to evaluate existing information,
and collect new data where needed,
to provide an ample candidate pool
of publicly owned lakes. A typical
State would be able to assemble
good background information on
approximately 100 lakes. From the
classification information, a ranking
system could be developed to high-
light lakes with the more pressing
management concerns for award of
CLP project grants.
By the 1987 CWA reauthoriza-
tion, many States were using classifi-
cation and priority lists that did not
always reflect current conditions. In
addition, the original classification
surveys had focused almost exclu-
sively on adverse impacts from ex-
cessive nutrient loadings, excessive
sedimentation, or other signs of
significant cultural eutrophication.
The 1987 reauthorization en-
couraged States to adopt an even
broader water-quality-based per-
spective. Although there was still a
need for evaluating lakes according
to their trophic condition, States
were also asked to consider any
other major pollution problems. In
addition to conventional pollutants
(e.g., nutrients or sediment), States
were to pay attention to impacts
from toxics and acidity problems
resulting from acid mine drainage or
acid deposition.
Instead of a one-time classifica-
tion survey, lake monitoring and
assessment were to become part of
each State's continuing planning
process. Available information was
to be summarized biennially and
submitted as part of the biennial
305(b) reports. To help States insti-
tutionalize these enhanced lake
monitoring and assessment expecta-
tions, EPA has made available special
Lake Water Quality Assessment
grants. Most States, and other
groups such as American Indian
Tribes, have taken advantage of
these grants, and, with the 1992
National Inventory Report, many
States have completed the transition
from their older classification surveys
to more current information gener-
ated over the past 2 to 4 years.
Publicly Owned Lakes
The CLP requires participating
States to define "significant publicly
owned lakes" that are eligible for
CLP assistance. The CLP and
the States focus on highly
utilized lakes because local
citizens and governments are
more likely to assist in control
and restoration projects and
assume ongoing stewardship
for these lakes and their water-
sheds. High-value lakes attract a
diverse group of local stakehold-
ers to anchor the activities associ-
ated with a Section 314 project
States define significant publicly
owned lakes with varied physical
and legal criteria, but most States
include minimum size criteria and
recreational use caveats in their defi-
nitions. For example, New Hamp-
shire's definition of significant pub-
licly owned lakes is "any freshwater
lake or pond that has a surface area
of 10 or more acres, is not private,
and does not prohibit recreational
activity."
-------
264 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
Some States further refine their
definition of significant publicly
owned lakes with quantitative
criteria that describe recre-
ational use. In another
example, Iowa's screening
criteria for significant publicly
owned lakes exclude shallow
marsh-like lakes, reservoirs used
solely for water supply, and flood
control impoundments con-
structed by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
As a general rule of thumb,
most States settle on a set of signifi-
cant lakes ranging in number from
less than a hundred (for a smaller
State like Rhode Island) to a few
hundred lakes in larger western or
midwestem States.
Clean Lake Program
Implementation
Grants
Based on the most current
monitoring and assessment informa-
tion for significant publicly owned
lakes, States prepare a classification
list and a ranking and prioritization
system to help target the lakes most
in need of restoration or pollution
control attention. High-priority can-
didate lakes can be considered for
three types of cooperative agree-
ments under the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram:
Cooperative Agreements for
Phase I:
Diagnostic/Feasibility Studies: These
studies investigate the causes of the
decline in quality of a publicly
owned lake and determine the most
feasible procedure for protecting
and restoring the lake. The
maximum Federal contribution is
$100,000 with a 30% non-Federal
match required.
Cooperative Agreements for
Phase II Projects:
These projects implement the rec-
ommended methods and proce-
dures for controlling pollution enter-
ing a lake and for restoring or pro-
tecting a lake. Phase II agreements
follow Phase I studies or equivalent
investigations. There is a 50%
non-Federal match for Phase II
awards. There is no absolute cap on
the size of the Federal share.
Cooperative Agreements for
Phase III Studies:
Postrestoration monitoring coopera-
tive agreements offer selected
projects the opportunity to conduct
long-term, postrestoration monitor-
ing studies to verify the longevity
and effectiveness of various restora-
tion techniques. The non-Federal
share is 30% with the maximum
Federal share set at $125,000.
In addition to these lake-specific
cooperative agreements, States can
be eligible for cooperative agree-
ments for Lake Water Quality Assess-
ments.
Cooperative Agreements for Lake
Water Quality Assessments:
These awards are intended to help
States compile a comprehensive
Statewide assessment of lake water
quality, to enhance overall State lake
management programs, and to
increase public awareness and
commitment to protecting lakes.
The Clean Lakes regulations
require that any lake project must
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 265
be consistent with the State Water
Quality Management Plan (40 CFR
Part 35). This is to ensure that EPA
and the States coordinate a variety
of programs under the Clean Water
Act the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and other laws adminis-
tered by EPA. The Clean Lakes Pro-
gram is conducive to integration
with other water quality manage-
ment programs because of the natu-
ral linkages between lake manage-
ment and other environmental ef-
forts.
EPA has provided support to
help States develop ongoing lake
assessment efforts through special
Lake Water Quality Assessment
(LWQA) grants. In addition to
detailed monitoring work carried
out through State water quality
agencies, LWQA grants have been
used to provide technical assistance
to citizen or lake association moni-
toring groups. These local volunteer
groups typically use Secchi depth
measurements to monitor lake trans-
parency. Although many States feel
that additional measurements are
needed to provide an adequate
characterization of lake trophic sta-
tus, time series data collected by
volunteers can be valuable to docu-
ment trends in lake water quality.
This information can also be used to
develop relative ranking systems
based on an important aspect of a
lake's recreational appeal. Grass
roots involvement starting with vol-
unteer monitoring activities can also
help build the institutional frame-
works vital to undertaking a success-
ful lake restoration project These
grants have very successfully created
and fostered strong working rela-
tionships among EPA, States, local
governments, and citizens.
In addition to its work with the
States and such political entities as
the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico, the Clean Lakes Program has
made substantial progress
in expanding its work
with American Indian
Tribes. The 1987 CWA
reauthorization stressed
enhanced partnerships in all
programs in which Ameri-
can Indian Tribes could
assume management or
stewardship responsibilities. In
addition to activities such as
the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit-
ting program, American Indian
Tribes are also encouraged to de-
velop monitoring and assessment
programs and to use this informa-
tion to address both point and
nonpoint source pollution control
efforts. Many American Indian Tribes
are interested in developing
watershed-based approaches to
improve the management of lakes
and streams on tribal lands. The CLP
has proved a very attractive vehicle
for American Indian Tribes to de-
velop monitoring and resource stew-
ardship capabilities. To become
eligible for CLP grants, Tribes must
meet several requirements in CWA
Section 518 that enable EPA to treat
Tribes as States. Since 1989, 18
American Indian Tribes in seven EPA
Regions have participated in LWQA
grants, and several American Indian
Tribes have proceeded with Phase I
or Phase II implementation grants.
As specified in the Clean Lakes
Program Guidance, Clean Lakes
projects must be developed and
implemented on a watershed basis.
This ensures that restoration activi-
ties funded by EPA are long term
-------
266 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
and address symptoms of water
quality impairments as well as
immediate lake restoration. The
Guidance further states
that this geographic
approach to water
quality management
has been identified as a
key element of success
in nonpoint source con-
trol, ground water pro-
tection, water-
quality-based permitting,
estuarine protection and
cleanup, and wetlands
protection. In awarding
cooperative agreements
under the competitive
Clean Lakes Program, EPA favors
projects with a watershed-based
approach to water quality manage-
ment
Starting with grant awards for
fiscal year 1990, the Clean Lakes
Program has recommended that
EPA Regional offices (which have
been delegated authority to enter
into Clean Lakes cooperative agree-
ments with the States) encourage
States to integrate their Clean Lakes
projects with other State and Fed-
eral programs. This memorandum
also encourages States to consider
technical and financial assistance
that may be available through Sec-
tion 319 State nonpoint source pro-
grams for targeted watershed dem-
onstration projects. The memo also
mentions that USDA P.L 83-566
projects (for small watershed conser-
vation assistance) promote land
treatment activities in watersheds
significantly affected by agricultural
nonpoint source pollution.
Section 314 Reporting
Requirements
Biennial Lake Assessment
Under the 1987 CWA
reauthorization, several new provi-
sions were added to the original
provisions encouraging States to
identify their publicly owned lakes
and classify them according to their
eutrophic condition. Lake assess-
ment information was to be up-
dated in a fashion analogous to
other State water quality assess-
ments and reported biennially fol-
lowing the same time lines as the
Section 305(b) reports. Most States
now include their Section 314 lake
assessments in their 305(b) reports.
Recent procedural changes to the
regulations governing the Water
Quality Planning and Management
Program (FRL-3979-8, Federal Regis-
ter, Vol. 57, No. 143, Friday, July 24,
1992) now clearly specify that lake
assessment materials should be part
of the 305(b) report submittals.
Continued Importance
of Trophic Status
Classifications
Reporting on trophic conditions
is still a central feature under the
1987 CWA reauthori/ation, and
most States still use ranking systems
based primarily on this trophic sta-
tus information as the foundation
for their selection of candidates for
the Federal Clean Lakes Program
grants.
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 267
Pollution Control and
Restoration Techniques
The Clean Water Act encour-
ages reporting on in-lake restoration
techniques to improve lake water
quality and control techniques for
reducing pollutant loadings from
the surrounding watershed. Lake
pollution controls may include provi-
sions in point source permitting or
other regulatory programs. States
can describe lake quality standards
and monitoring programs related to
standards enforcement as a means
of controlling lake pollution. States
should also describe the relation of
their CLP to other State programs,
especially their Section 319
nonpoint source management pro-
grams. Approaches working with
other State or Federal programs can
also be included.
States should also provide mate-
rials on their lake restoration tech-
niques. For example, States may
provide specific restoration tech-
niques from which they will draw to
develop lake-specific management
plans. Where possible, States are
encouraged to document specific
techniques recommended for indi-
vidual publicly owned lakes. This
information could be drawn from
CLP projects completed or under
way as well as techniques antici-
pated to be promoted for specific
lakes.
Toxics and Acidity
Impacts or Threats
During the 1980s, considerable
national attention was focused on
how pollution factors can lower the
pH of receiving waters, especially
lakes. Acidity can pose a direct
threat to aquatic life and lake recre-
ational amenities. Major potential
sources would be atmospheric
deposition or acid mine drainage. In
addition to impacts from acidity
per se, low pH conditions can
accentuate impacts from a vari-
ety of toxicants. For instance,
many metals show increased
availability as the pH drops and,
where acid mine drainage is in-
volved, the pollutant source for the
acidity may also be a source of
toxicants. Acidity may also accentu-
ate the impacts on aquatic organ-
isms of a variety of toxics and may
often increase bioaccumulation or
biomagnification processes that
move toxicants into the tissues of
fish and thus into the food chain.
Toxic accumulations in sediment
also complicate the use of lake res-
toration techniques such as dredg-
ing.
In light of these concerns, Con-
gress added provisions for State lake
assessment reporting to document
known instances of acidity or toxics
impact to public lakes. If such issues
are related to actual impairments or
pose real degradation threats, States
are encouraged to document meth-
ods and procedures that could miti-
gate the harmful effects of high
acidity or toxic metals and other
toxic substances. These activities are
funded with LWQA grants.
-------
The Red Lake Chippewa
Lake Assessment Grant
The 1987 Clean Water Act reau-
thorization encouraged States, and
other groups with lake stewardship
responsibilities, to develop ongoing
monitoring and assessment pro-
grams. To help institutionalize these
assessment activities, the national
Clean Lakes Program created special
Lake Water Quality Assessment
(LWQA) Grants, which became
available starting in fiscal year 1989.
By the end of the 1992 305(b)
reporting cycle, most States had
availed themselves of these "modi-
fied" Clean Lakes Phase I coopera-
tive agreements. Section 518(e) of
the CWA also encouraged EPA to
work with those American Indian
groups interested in assuming re-
sponsibilities for programs or grants.
In addition to activities such as the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) permitting
program, Tribes may apply for a
variety of water quality manage-
ment grants. Since 1989, the EPA
Clean Lakes program has awarded
Lake Water Quality Assessment
grants to 18 American Indian Tribes
in seven EPA Regions. These LWQA
grants can help equip American
Indian groups to organize their own
Clean Lakes programs.
There has been considerable
interest in these LWQA grants in
Region 5. States such as Wisconsin
and Minnesota are dotted with
natural lakes and have numerous
large tracts of American Indian
lands. A good example of an LWQA
grant is work being completed by
the Red Lake Chippewa Tribe. The
Chippewa, also known as the
Ojibway, are part of the Sioux
Indian Group that inhabitated an
area from the forests of the upper
Midwest out into the prairies. By
1919, the Chippewa people in
Minnesota had been assigned to a
number of scattered holdings and
two large reservations. The Red Lake
Chippewa have set up a so-called
"closed" reservation-they direct
their tribal government, have con-
trol over their resource base and
livelihoods, and have preserved their
native language and customs.
The reservation covers an area
the size of Rhode Island and is the
.home for around 4,000 people. The
tribal lands surround the 230,000
acres of the Upper and Lower Red
Lakes. These waterbodies represent
remnants of the mammoth Lake
Agassiz that covered most of the
i
i
-------
I
HICHLIC!
present drainage of the Red River of
the North during the Ice Ages. The
Red Lakes are perched above several
ancient shoreline terraces in a scenic
wooded landscape completely differ-
ent from the flat prairies on the Red
River's course along Minnesota's
border with the Dakotas. The Red
Lakes are famous for their walleye
pike, perch, and whitefish. Since
1929, the Tribe has operated a
cooperative that harvests and pack-
ages fish for commercial markets as
far away as Minneapolis and Chi-
cago. The Tribe grows much of its
own food. There are commercial
timber operations as well as a saw-
mill, a factory for cedar fencing
materials, and shops producing
other finished wood products. The
Tribe operates its own schools, gen-
eral stores, and other commercial
and social services.
These diversified economic en-
terprises and land use activities can
pose threats to the integrity of
water resources on the reservation.
An LWQA Grant awarded with FY
1989 funds has enabled the Red
Lake Chippewa to gather baseline
data on the trophic condition of the
Upper and Lower Red Lakes and
inventory possible pollutant sources
in the lakeshore area and along
small tributaries.
The Tribe is especially eager to
identify critical erosion areas and
activities that could increase nutrient
loadings. Traditionally, the oligotro-
phic Red Lakes contain few nutri-
ents, but considerable natural inputs
of humic materials from marshes
and wetlands give the water a
brownish appearance. The natural
coloration of the water prevents the
Chippewa from detecting trophic
status with simple measurements
such as Secchi disk depth. There-
fore, they must perform detailed site
evaluations and chemical analyses to
detect nutrient and sediment
hotspots. To date, sampling per-
formed with the LQWA Grant has
documented nutrient inputs from a
malfunctioning lift station in a com-
munity sewerage system. When
complete, the findings of this assess-
ment grant will help the Tribe pur-
sue an integrated approach to
implementing lake restoration or
watershed control measures.
HlCHtiGHT
I
-------
270 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
Lake Beneficial Use
Impairments and Trends
The 1987 CWA reauthorization
contained many provisions encour-
aging a water-quality-based ap-
proach to pollution assessment,
planning, and management activi-
ties. Biennial lake assessments are
now expected to make use of avail-
able information to document pub-
licly owned lakes where uses are
known to be impaired as well as
lakes where there is evidence of
water qualify deterioration. Most
States use EPA's Waterbody System
to produce summary tables that
categorize lake acreages by use at-
tainment (e.g., fully supporting,
threatened, partially supporting, or
not supporting). Summary tables are
also generally provided that catego-
rize the major causes and sources of
pollution. However, many States still
lack water quality standards for
lakes. Without standards, States
cannot assess beneficial use support
and lake impairments in a consistent
manner.
Under the 305(b) reporting
process, States are encouraged to
provide waterbody-specific summa-
ries of various public health and
aquatic life concerns. This can in-
clude information on fishing adviso-
ries, fish kills, sites with sediment
contamination, restrictions on sur-
face water drinking supplies, bathing
area restrictions, and incidents of
waterbome diseases. This informa-
tion is reported for all waterbody
types, including lakes. Perhaps the
most common concern reported is
the contamination of fish tissue by
toxicants, leading to fish consump-
tion warnings or advisories. Al-
though valuable, many States have
difficulty relating this information
dearly to provisions in their own
water quality standards. For in-
stance, a public health agency may
declare a fish consumption advisory
for a lake based on trigger values for
some toxicant (for instance, mer-
cury) that are not tied to numeric
standards criteria for any particular
beneficial use. States are making
progress in achieving consistency in
their reporting of concerns such as
fish consumption advisories in rela-
tion to their reporting State benefi-
cial use attainment status. However,
results for these two types of assess-
ment information may require care-
ful scrutiny to avoid misinterpreta-
tion.
A final provision in the 1987
CWA reauthorization encourages
States to make use of available infor-
mation to identify apparent trends
in water quality for public lakes.
Where possible, such determinations
should look not only at shifts in
trophic status but at all forms of
point and nonpoint source pollu-
tion. Attention to trends involving
toxics is particularly recommended.
Trophic Status
Trophic condition is a character-
ization of a lake's biological produc-
tivity based on the availability of
plant nutrients. Commonly accepted
systems for describing trophic status
recognize a range of conditions,
with oligotrophic indicating the least
biologically productive lakes and
eutrophic indicating significantly
higher levels. For national reporting
purposes, the following categories
are recommended: oligotrophic,
mesotrophic, eutrophic, and
hypereutrophic. For those lakes
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 271
showing exceptionally high levels of
organic materials and associated
reduced pH levels, humic sub-
stances, and natural color, the term
dystrophic is used.
Both natural lakes and
manmade reservoirs will usually
show shifts in their trophic condition
over time (Figure 15-2). As natural
lakes fill in, a process that ordinarily
may take centuries, they may natu-
rally shift from an oligotrophic to a
more eutrophic status. Reservoirs
have design lives ranging from a
few decades to perhaps a few hun-
dred years. Sedimentation processes
will eventually lead to trophic shifts
in manmade impoundments, gener-
ally in a much shorter time period
than for natural lakes. Similarly,
newly impounded reservoirs may
initially be characterized as
eutrophic because of the decay of
woody debris but may shift to a less
eutrophic status for most of the
impoundment's useful life.
Because there is an inherent
dynamic aspect to the trophic
balances in lakes, caution must be
exercised in characterizing anything
other than an oligotrophic condition
as undesirable. On the other hand,
many types of anthropogenic
stresses may result in rapid trophic
status shifts. If a lake shows rapid
progression toward a state exhibit-
ing excessive algae growth (i.e.,
algal blooms), rapid organic and
inorganic sedimentation and
shallowing, and seasonal or diurnal
dissolved oxygen deficiencies lead-
ing to obnoxious odors, fish kills, or
a shift in the composition of aquatic
life forms to less desirable forms,
then cultural eutrophication is very
likely. Most commonly, large inputs
of nutrients or nutrient-laden sedi-
ments associated with point or
Figure 15-2
The Progression of Eutrophication
Natural Eutrophication
Man-induced Eutrophication
Eutrophy/
Hypereutrophy
Fertilizers and
Pesticides
Eutrophy/
Hypereutrophy
(left column) The progression of natural lake aging or eutrophication through nutri-
ent-poor (oligotrophy) to nutrient-rich (eutrophy) sites. Hypereutrophy represents
extreme productivity characterized by algal blooms or dense macrophyte populations
(or both) plus a high level of sedimentation. The diagram depicts the natural pro-
cess of gradual nutrient enrichment and basin filling over a long period of time (e.g.,
thousands of years).
(right column) Man-induced or cultural eutrophication in which lake aging is greatly
accelerated (e.g., tens of years) by increased inputs of nutrients and sediments into a
lake, as a result of watershed disturbance by humans.
Source: NC Lake Assessment Report. NCDEHNR, DEM. Report No. 92-02. |une 1992.
-------
272 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
nonpoint source pollution will lead
to cultural eutrophication. Restoring
a lake to a more desirable trophic
condition will then require imple-
mentation of control techniques to
reduce the nutrient loadings
and possibly in-lake restora-
tion activities to mitigate
the impacts of previous
pollution inputs.
Trophic classification
begins with an assessment of
conditions in a lake at a given
time. There are many aspects
of reservoirs that make it diffi-
cult to categorize them by
traditional trophic status assess-
ments. When evidence suggests
that pollution factors are driving the
lake to a more eutrophic state, a
State's Clean Lakes Program will
likely rate that waterbody as a rela-
tively higher priority candidate for
management attention. Other types
of information are helpful in priori-
tizing a public lake's management
needs (e.g., documentation of
trends and consideration of factors
such as acidity or toxics), but tro-
phic status assessments are the
backbone of the classification sys-
tems used in most States.
At least half the States make use
of a trophic classification methodol-
ogy developed by R.E. Carlson in
the 1970s. Carlson worked primarily
with natural lakes in the Midwest
He developed a series of indices
involving simple logarithmic trans-
forms of monitoring records based
on total phosphorus, chlorophyll a,
and Secchi depth. For many lakes,
these parameters provide a measure
of a principal cause of cultural
eutrophication (the nutrient
phosphorus), a reasonable indicator
of the standing crop of algae associ-
ated with nutrients (chlorophyll a is
the major photosynthetic pigment
in algal phytoplankton), and a mea-
sure of unwanted reduction in water
transparency due to elevated levels
of algal biomass.
The formulas for these trophic
status indexes (TSIs) were calibrated
to conditions in the Midwest so that
an increase of 10 index units would
match a change in lake eutrophic
condition to the next highest status
(e.g., from oligotrophic to mesotro-
phic). For many lakes studied by
Carlson, there was a strong correla-
tion among the predictions pro-
vided by the TSIs. Because it is gen-
erally much less expensive to gather
total phosphorus data than chloro-
phyll a data and much easier to
measure a light transparency from a
Secchi disk than to develop actual
water chemistry data, there has
been a tendency to rely heavily on
Secchi disk measurements when
using a Carlson TSI to characterize
trophic state.
Well over half the States use
one or more of the Carlson TSIs or
indices very similar to Carlson's. For
the 1992 305(b) reporting cycle,
there is a noticeable tendency on
the part of the States to use greater
discretion when the only measure-
ment for a TSI comes from Secchi
disk readings. Without other infor-
mation about a lake, and especially
reservoirs where reductions in trans-
parency may be due more to sus-
pended inorganic particles than to
blooms of algae or due to location
of the sampling site or other factors,
a Secchi measurement may give
false signals as to the degree of
biological productivity.
States are increasingly giving
greater precedence to TSIs using
phosphorus or, where possible, chlo-
rophyll a measurements. However,
light transparency data may still be
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 273
useful, especially when correlated
with visual observations of color.
Even if loss of transparency is due
more to turbidity and suspended
solids than to algae, it may indicate
unwanted sedimentation problems
affecting trophic balances and a
lake's recreation value. When avail-
able, long time series of Secchi
depth readings are often a good
tool for trend analysis. Secchi read-
ings, often collected by volunteer
monitoring groups, can therefore
still play an important role in a
State's lake monitoring programs;
but, for the highest quality charac-
terization of lake trophic status,
measurements more closely related
to biological process and food chain
dynamics are preferred.
With support from EPA Lake
Water Quality Assessment grants,
many States are evaluating different
ways to supplement methods such
as Carlson TSIs to make cost-effec-
tive characterizations of trophic sta-
tus. For instance, using a broader
range of parameters, there are other
standard indexes that may prove
helpful, many of these originally
developed in the 1970s as part of
EPA's pioneering National Eutrophi-
cation Survey. Whatever the general
form in a TSI formula, it is highly
desirable to regionalize the system
to conditions found in a specific
State or ecoregion. States such as
North Carolina have developed re-
gional indices, and Oregon, Minne-
sota, and Arkansas have applied
ecoregion concepts in interpreting
their lake monitoring data. Okla-
homa and Texas are evaluating
different methods to assess trophic
status in reservoirs.
Because a TSI is a simplified
analysis tool with a strong correla-
tion to basic aspects of the biologi-
cal structure for lakes in a region,
many States are exploring ways to
develop bioassessment techniques.
For instance, the presence or ab-
sence of certain types of zooplank-
ton is often strongly correlated with
a well-balanced biological commu-
nity. Diverse and healthy popula-
tions of algae-consuming zooplank-
tons such as Daphnia pulex can help
prevent the buildup of objectionable
algal biomass even in lakes showing
appreciable nutrient inputs. Shifts in
the populations of game fish or
plankton-eating forage fish can
sometimes lead to a decimation of
the zooplankton, allowing algae to
flourish. Biomanipulation techniques
aimed at increasing the populations
of top predator fishes or reducing
the populations of forage fishes can
often correct the trophic imbal-
ances. Bioassessments of the plank-
ton communities or the fish popula-
tions can therefore indicate overall
trophic status. Other techniques
being explored look at benthos or
macrophytes in lake littoral areas.
These techniques can be valuable
supplements to the more traditional
Carlson TSIs that focus on algal
standing crop, nutrients, or transpar-
ency parameters.
In 1992, 41 States reported that
17% of the 11,520 lakes they
assessed for trophic status were
oligotrophic, 35% were mesotro-
phic, 32% were eutrophic, 8% were
hypereutrophic, and 8% were dys-
trophic. This information may be
somewhat biased, as 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 lakes-which are
probably less impaired-are under-
represented in these assessments.
-------
274 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
Table 15-1. Effects of pH on Aquatic Life
pH Range
6.5 to 6.0
6.0 to 5.5
5.5 to 5.0
5.0 to 4.5
General Biological Effects
Some adverse effects for highly acid-sensitive species
Loss of sensitive minnows and forage fish;
decreased reproductive success for trout and walleye
Loss of many common sports fish and additional
nongame species
Loss of most sports fish; very few fishes able to survive
and reproduce where pH levels commonly below 4.5
Acid Effects on Lakes
Acidic lakes are generally found
in areas where watershed soils have
limited buffering capabilities. Acid
rain or acid mine drainage can then
depress a lake's pH levels to a point
at which many forms of aquatic life
are stressed or eliminated. Table
15-1 summarizes some of the com-
mon biological effects at progres-
sively lower pH ranges.
Acid conditions can also aggra-
vate toxics impacts, especially for
heavy metals. During the 1980s
there was major public concern
over the impacts of lowered pHs to
lakes, primarily from atmospheric
deposition. EPA coordinated a major
multi-agency study called the Na-
tional Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program (NAPAP). NAPAP led to
actual data collection efforts on
many lakes and stream systems. It
also provided insights into promis-
ing monitoring designs to docu-
ment receiving waters with actual
acidity problems or sensitivities to
potential acid impacts.
NAPAP's conclusion was that
the incidence of serious acidification
problems was far more limited than
originally feared, and this Federal
hypothesis seems to be reflected in
evidence reported by the States in
their lake water
quality assess-
ments. At least
for significant
publicly owned
lakes, the
Adirondack
area of New
York emerges
as the only
region show-
ing appreciable
numbers of public lakes with signifi-
cant acidification damage. States
have documented areas where local
geological and soil factors may
render lakes deficient in natural
buffering capacity and therefore
vulnerable to acidity stress. Such
sensitive areas seem quite prevalent
in high-altitude glacial lakes in
mountainous areas in the Rockies
and several western States. A major
concern here is low pH water intro-
duced from snowpack meltwater.
Many of these high-altitude lakes
may show a seasonal pulse of low
pH inflows, usually during the
Spring. The ecological conse-
quences are not entirely clear, and
States such as Colorado and Wash-
ington will continue to study this
episodic phenomenon.
In the eastern United States,
such areas as southern New jersey
have been shown to have limited
natural buffering capacity, making
many lakes potentially vulnerable to
acid deposition impacts. In addition
to lakes, some States are concerned
about acidity impacts on
high-gradient trout streams. Where
the acidity concerns affect whole
watersheds, this encourages a
search for mitigation techniques
that could benefit both lakes and
streams. New York has undertaken
some innovative demonstration
projects aimed at liming whole
watershed areas instead of the more
traditional strategy of liming just
the lakes.
Serious impacts from acid mine
drainage also seem relatively rare.
No State has found clear documen-
tation of acidity impacts related to
active mining activities. However,
there is some concern about aban-
doned mine workings. At least one
State, Oklahoma, is undertaking a
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 275
CLP Phase I study on a portion of
the Eufaula Reservoir that lies in a
region with a long history of surface
and hard rock coal mining activities.
Toxic Effects on Lakes
In the 1987 CWA reauthoriza-
tion, there was an expectation that
if toxics concerns were encountered
in lakes, they might be tied to an
anticipated widespread incidence of
acidity problems. From evidence
submitted by the States and from
the Federal NAPAP investigations,
lake acidity problems are much
rarer than anticipated. Toxics con-
cerns States have submitted, there-
fore, will generally not be related to
depressed pH levels.
Many States do report serious
toxic concerns, with the most com-
mon centering on fish consumption
advisories. Most States maintain
programs to sample fish tissues
from their major public lakes. These
collections also generally involve
sampling of ambient water and
sediments. Rarely do ambient water
levels exceed detection limits for
heavy metals or common pesti-
cides. For sediments and fish flesh,
however, virtually all States have at
least one public lake at which
elevated levels of some toxicant
have been documented. Any
exceedances of FDA alert levels or
other Federal or State threshold
levels will be noted in the 305(b)
reporting process. Especially for
contaminants in fish flesh, State
health authorities will issue con-
sumption advisories so that the
public can make appropriate fish
consumption decisions.
If a State has established provi-
sions in its water quality standards
regarding these public health issues,
lakes may be reported as showing
beneficial use impairments. Where
such standards are not well-defined,
the information may show up only
in the 305(b) sections dealing with
public health/aquatic life con-
cerns. If it is carried over into
the use attainment portion of
the 305(b) documents, States
may choose to characterize the
concern as a 305(b) "assessment"
issue. This is a rapidly evolving
field, with many States attempting
to add public health features to
their water quality standards or
expanded standards' provisions for
wildlife protection.
Because many of the toxicants
in question are persistent substances
(e.g., chlordane or PCBs), it is often
likely that there are no active pollut-
ant sources; rather the problems are
related to in-place contaminants.
This situation is compounded by the
fact that many of the organic or
heavy metal toxicants are multi-
media problems, with any ongoing
pollutant loading coming from
atmospheric deposition. The sources
for such "air pollution" inputs are
generally not well known; in
some cases the ultimate
sources may even lie out-
side the United States,
reflecting pollution pro-
cesses on a hemispheric or
global scale. Faced with
these uncertainties, most
States are continuing to
gather monitoring data and
are adopting risk manage-
ment strategies.
-------
276 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
ad*Cteedfor
^Usss?
Trends in Significant
Public Lakes
Lakes are dynamic systems,
which means that they may natu-
rally display shifts in tro-
phic status over time. The
only exception might be
bog-like dystrophic lakes
that constitute a special
case in terms of the ordinary
evolution for lake
waterbodies. Without some
time series records of lake
conditions, it can be hard to
interpret the management implica-
tions of a eutrophic classification
based solely on current conditions.
Trend analysis can be extremely
valuable in documenting rapid shifts
toward more eutrophic features.
Waterbodies in which changes can
be related to ongoing pollution
inputs are generally considered to
warrant higher priority in manage-
ment attention. Although the desir-
ability of trend assessments is widely
recognized, States still face chal-
lenges in gathering adequate infor-
mation to document a trend signal,
especially when they try to apply
sophisticated statistical methods to
document the significance of an
apparently empirical change.
The majority of States do at-
tempt some sort of trend determi-
nation when they have at least a
recent set of trophic classifications in
conjunction with other data, usually
from their original classification sur-
vey in the early 1980s. Determina-
tions made based on data from only
two points in time must rely heavily
on best professional judgment (BPJ).
Virtually every State that presents
such BPJ trends assessments notes
that confidence limits or other mea-
sures of reliability or precision are
not available.
At least three States-Illinois,
Wisconsin, and Minnesota-did apply
statistical analysis techniques to se-
lect lakes for which approximately 5
to 10 years of time series data were
available. Illinois used least squares
regressions (using a "parametric"
statistical approach) combined with
examination of scatter plots of the
raw data and residuals. From 212
lakes, about 50 results suggested
either alinear improvement or a
degradation trend. Nearly 60 per-
cent of the lakes had extremely
complicated fluctuating patterns
suggesting cyclical or nonlinear pat-
terns, perhaps related to weather
variability. Illinois therefore felt that
additional data and further analysis
would be worthwhile.
Wisconsin and Minnesota used
the Kendall tau test available with
the WQSTAT computer program
developed at Colorado State Univer-
sity. This is a non parametric test
considered by many to be
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 277
preferable to parametric techniques
for use with water quality data. Min-
nesota applied the test to 161 lakes;
trends were suggested in 32. Wis-
consin looked at 49 lakes, with the
test suggesting trends for 25. Wis-
consin, in particular, expressed some
reservations. They felt the main pat-
terns in the raw data reflected nor-
mal, short-term, cyclical changes
rather than genuine long-term
trends in water quality.
Although States continue to
explore ways to detect empirically
significant trends, virtually every
State expressed the need to acquire
additional data, a common estimate
being that at least 10 years of obser-
vations would be needed to apply
rigorous statistical methods. Another
common theme is that the patterns
displayed in many lakes do not
seem linear. Most available statistical
tests are geared to spotting simple,
linear trends. Where the underlying
physical patterns are nonlinear or
cyclical, more complex analysis sys-
tems may be needed.
Lake Restoration and
Pollution Control
Measures
Managing lake quality often
requires a combination of in-lake
restoration measures and pollution
controls, including watershed
management 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 wa-
ter column. Restoration measures
may not address the source of the
pollution.
Pollution controls deal with the
sources of pollutants degrading lake
water quality or threatening to
impair lake water quality. Control
measures include planning activities,
regulatory actions, and implementa-
tion of best management practices
to reduce nonpoint sources of pol-
lutants. Regulatory measures include
point source discharge prohibitions
and phosphate detergent bans.
Watershed management plans and
lake management plans are
examples of planning measures.
Watershed management plans
simultaneously address multiple
sources of pollutants, such as runoff
from urbanized areas, agricultural
activities, and failing septic systems
along the lake shore.
During the 1980s, most States
implemented chemical and mechan-
ical in-lake restoration measures to
control aquatic weeds and algae. In
their 1992 Section 305(b) reports,
the States report a shift toward
watershed planning techniques and
-------
278 Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program
nonpoint source (NPS) controls to
reduce pollutant loads responsible
for aquatic weed growth and algal
blooms. Although the States re-
ported that they still use in-lake
treatments (Table 15-2), the States
recognize that source controls are
needed in addition to in-lake treat-
ments to restore lake water quality.
The States reported that they
most frequently rely on their NPDES
permit programs and their Section
319 NPS management programs to
control pollutants entering lakes
Table 15-2. Number of States Reporting Use
of In-Lake Restoration Measures
Control Measures
Dredging
Lake Drawdown
Chemical Weed and Algae Control
Mechanical Weed Harvesting
Biological Weed Control
Artificial Circulation/Hypolimnetic
Aeration
Chemical Nutrient Inactivation
In-Flow Diversion
Hypolimnetic Withdrawal
Number
of States
Reporting
16
14
13
12
9
9
7
6
5
(Table 15-3). Through the State
NPDES permit programs, States
often impose stricter nutrient limits
for effluents discharged into lakes
than into rivers and streams. Seven
States reported that they enhanced
sewage treatment plant compliance
with NPDES nutrient limits for lakes
by imposing phosphorus detergent
restrictions.
Twenty-two States reported that
they use their Section 319 NPS pro-
grams to implement BMPs in water-
sheds surrounding impaired or
threatened lakes. The States
reported that they implemented
agricultural practices to reduce soil
erosion, constructed retention and
detention basins to cleanse urban
storm water, revegetated shorelines,
and constructed or restored wet-
lands to remove pollutants before
they entered lake waters.
Table 15-3. Number of States Reporting
Control Measures
Control Measures
Section 319 NPS Program
NPDES Permit Program
State Lake Water Quality Standards
Watershed Management Planning
Restrict Phosphate Detergents
Restrict Point Source Discharges
Regulate Shoreline Activities
Lake Management Planning
Number
of States
Reporting
22
22
15
12
7
6
5
4
-------
Chapter Fifteen The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 279
-------
-------
Wetlands Protection Programs
A variety of public and private
programs protect wetlands. The
Conservation Foundation organized
the National Wetlands Policy Forum
in 1987 to coordinate these dispar-
ate efforts and develop a national,
coordinated vision for wetlands pro-
tection. The forum included three
State governors and representatives
from State and local governments;
the oil, gas, agriculture, and forestry
industries; academic institutions;
environmental/conservation groups;
and EPA and other Federal agencies.
The group issued a report in
November 1988 containing over
100 recommended actions for all
levels of government and the pri-
vate sector.
The Forum established an
interim goal to achieve no overall
net loss of the Nation's wetlands
base and a long-term goal to
increase the quantity and quality of
the Nation's wetlands resource base.
The Clinton Administration has
adopted these goals and plans to
issue a Presidential Executive Order
to implement them. In addition, the
Administration has recommended
that Congress amend the Clean
Water Act to include them.
Section 404
The major Federal program for
regulating activities in wetlands is
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Section 404 establishes a permit
program for regulating discharges of
dredged and fill material to wet-
lands and other U.S. waters. The
EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) jointly implement
the Section 404 program. The COE
is responsible for administering the
permit program day-to-day, review-
ing permit applications, and issuing
or denying permits. The EPA is re-
sponsible for reviewing COE permit
decisions, determining geographic
jurisdiction, overseeing State pro-
grams, and enforcing with the COE
the Section 404 program.
The COE processes permit appli-
cations under Section 404. EPA
reviews and evaluates applications
using its Section 404(b)(1) guide-
lines, which contain the environ-
mental criteria for Section 404 per-
mit decisions. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service also influ-
ence the Section 404 permitting
process through their review of
applications. After receiving com-
ments from these agencies, the
States, and other interested parties,
the COE makes a permit decision.
Under Section 404(c), EPA has
the authority to veto a COE decision
to issue a permit or to otherwise
prohibit or restrict the discharge of
dredged or fill material to wetlands
or other waters of the United States.
EPA has the ultimate authority to
determine the geographic scope of
the CWA (i.e., whether an area is a
wetland or other U.S. water). Simi-
larly, EPA has the final word on the
applicability of Section 404(0, which
exempts certain discharges from
regulation. EPA and the COE share
authority for enforcing the require-
ments of Section 404. Also, EPA
The Administration's goals
are to
Achieve no overall net
loss of the Nation's
remaining wetlands base
Increase the quality and
quantity of the Nation's
wetlands resource base
-------
282 Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs
approves and oversees State as-
sumption of the Section 404 pro-
gram. To date, Michigan is the only
State to have assumed this responsi-
bility.
Wetlands Water
Quality Standards
Water quality standards for wet-
lands 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. Figure 16-1 indi-
cates the State's progress in devel-
oping these standards (see Appen-
dix D, Table D-5, for individual State
data).
Figure 16-1
Development of State Water Quality Standards
for Wetlands
Antidegradation
Use Classification
Narrative Biocriteria
Numeric Biocriteria
CH Proposed
HH Under Development
IB In Place
10 15 20 25
Number of States Reporting
30
Water quality standards have
three major components: desig-
nated uses, criteria to protect those
uses, and an antidegradation policy.
States designate uses that must, at a
minimum, meet the goals of the
CWA by providing for the protec-
tion and propagation of fish, shell-
fish, and wildlife and for recreation
in and on the water. States may
choose to designate additional uses
for their wetlands, such as flood
water attenuation or ground water
recharge. Once uses are designated,
States are required to adopt criteria
sufficient to protect their designated
uses. Criteria are general narrative
statements or specific numerical
values such as concentrations of
contaminants and water quality
characteristics (e.g., dissolved oxy-
gen concentration = 5.0 mg/L).
Narrative criteria are particularly
appropriate to wetlands. An
example of a narrative criteria is
"natural hydrological conditions
necessary to support the biological
and physical characteristics naturally
present in wetlands shall be
protected."
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.
Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-S.
-------
Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs 283
Water Quality
Certification of Federal
Permits and Licenses
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 permits un-
der Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, point source discharge permits
under Section 402 of the Clean
Water Act, and Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's hydro-
power licenses. States review these
permits to ensure that they meet
State water quality standards. In
1989, EPA issued guidance to States
and American Indian Tribes on how
to use 401 certification authority to
protect wetlands. Ideally, 401 certifi-
cation should be used to augment
State programs because it applies
only to projects requiring Federal
permits or licenses. Activities that do
not require permits, such as draining
of wetlands, are not covered.
State Wetlands
Conservation Plans
A new tool that States are using
to protect wetlands are State Wet-
lands Conservation Plans (SWCPs).
Essentially, these plans are strategies
for States to achieve their wetlands
management goals, such as no net
loss of wetlands, by integrating both
regulatory and cooperative
approaches to protecting wetlands.
Wetlands are impacted by a
large number of land- and
water-based activities not addressed
by a single Federal, State, or local
agency program. In addition, many
public and private programs and
activities exist to protect wetlands,
but often each program is limited in
scope and is not well coordinated
with the others. Also, these pro-
grams often do not address all of
the problems affecting wetlands.
An SWCP can help to integrate
programs; avoid duplication of
effort; identify problems that
need to be addressed;
maximize budgets,
staff, and expertise; and
tap or combine unused
resources. Twenty States
are currently involved in
different stages of devel-
oping an SWCP; 19 of
these States have received
financial assistance from
EPA. Michigan's SWCP will
focus on nonregulatory
aspects of wetlands management
New York will work toward a no net
loss/net gain goal under its SWCP.
California plans to inventory its wet-
lands, identify crucial wetlands, de-
velop a statewide strategy to plan
wetlands protection and restoration,
and take a crucial role in overall
wetlands regulation through its
SWCP. Missouri, Tennessee, Dela-
ware, New jersey, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas,
Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas,
Illinois, Montana, Nebraska,
Vermont, and Massachusetts are
also pursuing SWCPs.
-------
284 Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs
Figure 16-2
State Wetlands
Protection Grants
In FY90, Congress first appropri-
ated funds to establish a grant pro-
gram specifically aimed at support-
ing State wetlands protection pro-
grams. This grant program has pro-
vided and continues to provide fi-
nancial support to States and feder-
ally recognized American Indian
Tribes to enhance existing State
wetlands programs or develop new
ones.
Grant funds are available to
State agencies administering or de-
veloping wetlands protection pro-
grams or to State agencies with
wetlands-related programs. Since
the program began in 1990, these
grants have been instrumental in
enhancing State expertise in the
following areas: Section 404
assumption, Section 401 water qual-
ity certification, State Wetland Con-
servation Plans, watershed approach
Funding for Wetlands Protection Projects
1990
Requested
Granted
1992
10
$ (million)
15
20
demonstration projects, improved
coordination, and wetlands water
quality standards development.
Each year, more States and
American Indian Tribes participate in
the EPA Wetlands Protection Grants
Program and each year funding for
the program has grown (Figure
16-2). However, EPA grants cannot
keep up with State requests for Wet-
lands Protection Grants.
Environmental
Monitoring and
Assessment Program
The wetlands component of
EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) aims to
assess and report the status and
trends of ecological conditions in
wetlands on regional and national
scales. In the short term, the
EMAP-Wetlands program will pro-
vide standardized protocols measur-
ing and describing wetlands condi-
tions, provide estimates of wetlands
conditions in several regions, and
develop formats for reporting pro-
gram results.
Nonpoint Source
Pollution and
Wetlands
Section 319 of the 1987 CWA
amendments created a comprehen-
sive program to integrate Federal
and State programs aimed at con-
trolling nonpoint source (NPS) water
pollution. The physical location of
wetlands between water and land
links wetlands protection with
abatement of NPS runoff and water
quality improvements in adjacent
waters. In 1990, EPA published
-------
Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs 285
guidance on the coordination of
State and Federal NPS control pro-
grams and wetlands protection pro-
grams. The guidance discusses the
implementation of activities that
benefit both NPS and wetlands pro-
grams.
Under the NPS control pro-
gram, Section 319(h) authorizes
Federal grants to States with ap-
proved assessment reports and man-
agement programs. These grants
assist the States in implementing the
NPS controls identified in their man-
agement programs. Thirty-two
States received 319(h) funds in fiscal
years 1990 and 1991 for NPS con-
trol projects with a wetlands or ri-
parian area component Nineteen of
the projects involved protection or
restoration of wetlands or riparian
areas. Other projects involved pro-
gram development, education and
training materials development, or
wetlands construction.
Swampbuster
The swampbuster provisions of
the 1985 and 1990 Food Security
Acts ("Farm Bills") deny crop sub-
sidy payments and other agricultural
benefits to farm operators who con-
vert wetlands to cropland after De-
cember 23,1985the date the
1985 Farm Bill was signed into law.
The U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture's Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) is responsible for determining
compliance with swampbuster pro-
visions and for determining whether
agricultural wetlands sites fall under
the jurisdiction of the swampbuster
provisions. EPA and the COE have
sole authority to determine Section
404 jurisdiction.
State Programs to
Protect Wetlands
States protect their wetlands
with a variety of approaches, includ-
ing use of CWA authorities (such as
Section 401 and 303), permitting
programs, coastal management
programs, wetlands acquisition
programs, natural heritage
programs, and integration with
other programs. For this report.
States described particularly innova-
tive or effective approaches they use
to protect wetlands.
State-Reported
Information
The following trends emerged
from individual State reporting:
States are making progress in
developing wetlands water quality
standards.
States are beginning to incorpo-
rate wetlands considerations into
other programs.
States are working with the Army
Corps of Engineers and other State
and Federal agencies to coordinate
Section 404 permit reviews and
Section 401 certifications.
A large number of States
reported that they denied Section
401 certification of Section 404
nationwide permits.
The pressure to develop in wet-
lands areas remains high based on
the number of Section 404 permit
applications States are receiving.
-------
286 Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs
States continue to lose wetlands.
Some highlights from individual
State reports are as follow:
Alaska reported that it integrates
wetlands protection into existing
water quality programs such as
nonpoint source pollution con-
trol, ground water protection,
and wetlands monitoring through
land use planning and local con-
trols.
Arizona reported that it has inte-
grated wetlands protection into the
nonpoint source program. Arizona
reported an incident in which it
used Section 401 certification to
require changes to an original plan
to reduce wetlands loss from 20 to
3 acres.
Florida reported that it has in
place a joint Federal/State applica-
tion form for dredge and fill
projects. In addition to direct dredg-
ing and filling, the quantity and
quality of water delivered to wet-
lands is extremely important to wet-
lands integrity in Florida. The most
notable example is the Everglades in
southern Florida. Florida also men-
tioned that degraded wetlands are
used primarily for treatment of
storm water; in these cases, restora-
tion of the hydroperiod is an impor-
tant goal and extensive monitoring
is sometimes required.
Wisconsin, which recently had its
wetlands water quality standards
approved by EPA, reported that
wetlands water quality standards
appear to be the most effective
mechanism for protecting wetlands.
Wisconsin's Department of Natural
Resources reported that it will be
making use of its 401 certification
authority now that standards are in
place. The State is also considering
implementing a wetlands monitor-
ing program.
Wisconsin also reported that stan-
dards may influence Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) dam
relicensing, Wisconsin Pollution Dis-
charge Elimination System permits
to discharge treated wastewater,
landfill siting and Superfund cleanup
activities, fish and wildlife manage-
ment decisions, construction and
operation of cranberry marshes, park
acquisitions, selection of best man-
agement practices in priority water-
sheds, and chemical applications for
controlling aquatic weeds.
Louisiana reported that 401 certi-
fication in coastal areas is more ef-
fective when done in conjunction
with coastal use permits. Louisiana is
sponsoring wetlands research to find
out how wetlands respond to mu-
nicipal wastewater and processing
wastewater. The State developed
numeric biocriteria in the Thibodaux
swamp.
Rhode Island denied 401 certifi-
cation for most nationwide permits,
feeling that these projects should be
reviewed individually. It also
reported that the Department of
Environmental Management's Divi-
sion of Forest Environment and the
Freshwater Wetlands Division coordi-
nate on forest management plans.
South Dakota reported that it is
developing a comprehensive,
interagency, statewide wetlands
protection program.
-------
Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs 287
Idaho reported that it used its
401 certification authority to prevent
the draining of significant wetlands
as part of a residential development
Idaho is currently in the process of
developing 401 certification regula-
tions; one objective of these regula-
tions is to include wetlands impacts
in the 401 certification process.
Indiana reported that largely
through placing conditions on 401
certification of permits, the State is
obtaining approximately 3 acres of
wetlands as mitigation for every acre
lost
South Carolina denied certifica-
tion for nationwide permit 26 be-
cause it believes that protection of
isolated and headwater wetlands is
imperative for South Carolina to
achieve the goals of the CWA.
North Carolina has a State Gen-
eral Permits Program for 404 per-
mits and has developed a State
wetlands rating method currently
used in 401 certification evaluations.
The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (DER) re-
ported that it has adopted a joint
permit application with the COE
that enables applicants to enter
both State and Federal permit re-
view processes with one application.
An Environmental Review Commit-
tee, consisting of representatives
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, Pennsylvania Came Commis-
sion, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission, EPA, COE, and DER,
meets monthly to review selected
applications submitted under Sec-
tion 404.
The DER receives 1,500 applications
each year for water obstruction per-
mits under the Dam Safety and
Encroachments Act of 1978, which
establishes DER's jurisdiction for the
protection of wetlands. The DER
reported that there are 3,000 viola-
tions of the Act each year, 75% of
which involve wetlands resources.
Hawaii reported that it denied
401 certification for all nationwide
permits.
Virginia reported that it uses a
joint permitting process that allows
applicants to submit one application
to the Commission, which coordi-
nates review with appropriate agen-
cies whose comments are consid-
ered in development of or
denial of 401 certification.
Virginia denied certifica-
tion of nationwide permit
26 for areas greater than 1
acre. It also denied three
other nationwide permits
because associated impacts
would not be addressed ad-
equately through other regu-
latory processes (e.g., FERC
licensing procedures and
storm water management
pond construction).
Texas reported that it received a
wetlands protection grant to im-
prove its 401 certification program.
Minnesota reported that it is
undertaking a permit simplification
program. It wants to produce a
combined permit application that
may serve as an application for a
404 permit and as notification to
Minnesota's Department of Natural
-------
HIGH!
HtCHUGHT
Louisiana Coastal Wetlands
Program
Coastal Louisiana is losing
marshes and swamps at a rate of
25 square miles per year. Yet, Loui-
siana's remaining 10,160 square
miles of coastal marshes account
for 40% of the Nation's marsh
resource, support 25% of the
Nation's fishing industry, support
the largest furbearing trade in North
America, and provide habitat for
more than two-thirds of the winter-
ing waterfowl on the Mississippi
flyway.
Historically, the Mississippi River
carried extremely large quantities of
sediment that formed most of Loui-
siana. Under natural conditions,
water would overflow onto sur-
rounding land via overbank deposi-
tion. This water would be dispersed
through an extensive network of
delta tributaries, depositing large
volumes of sediment in the sur-
rounding marshes and wetlands.
Through these deltaic building
processes, wetlands generation kept
pace with natural subsidence and
sea level rise.
In modern times, levees built
along the Mississippi River prevent
fresh water and sediment from over-
flowing into coastal wetlands during
floods. Without this replenishment
of sediment, wetlands and marshes
are gradually deteriorating to open
water. Exacerbating this problem
are the numerous navigation and oil
and gas pipelines and flood control
levees that speed the river's flow,
which prevents sediments from set-
tling out over the marshes. As a
result, sediments are not captured
and enter the deep waters of the
Gulf of Mexico. It is estimated that
Louisiana's land loss is directly attrib-
utable to the marshes not being
able to capture sediment and pro-
vide subsequent accretion. For
example, between 1954 and 1963,
subsidence rates were 1.32 centime-
ters per year, while backmarsh
accretion rates were approximately
0.72 centimeters per year. Coupled
with subsidence, sea level rise is
estimated to be 0.3 meters per cen-
tury, further endangering wetlands
resources.
To address this national resource
crisis, the U.S. Congress passed the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protec-
tion, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA)
(P.L 106-646) in 1990. The
CWPPRA authorizes appropriations
for up to approximately $70 million
dollars a year, depending on small
gasoline tax revenue collections, to
develop priority restoration projects.
Under the Act, a list of priority
projects is sent to Congress each
year for projects to be funded and
i
-------
I
HICHIJQ
implemented during the coming
fiscal year.
In addition, the CWPPRA man-
dates a plan to restore coastal Loui-
siana. Possible options will be pre-
sented in the Comprehensive
Coastal Restoration Plan for decreas-
ing wetlands loss and restoring the
Mississippi Delta. The Plan, currently
under development, divides the
delta into nine distinct hydrologic
units or basins. The overall plan
selects alternatives to aggressively
approach the rebuilding and main-
tenance of the coast by initiating
growth of a new delta through
enhancement of natural processes,
except in areas where erosion is
severe. Other strategies include
enforcing the barrier island chain as
a primary defense to protect inland
wetlands, decrease the advance of
saltwater intrusion, and decrease the
wave energy of the Gulf in the
marshes and estuaries. The major
objectives of this plan will be to
determine the maximum use of the
flow of sediment of the Mississippi
River; to create and sustain wet-
lands; to possibly curtail wetlands
loss; and to restore the first line of
defense-the barrier island chain.
In addition to the restoration
efforts in Louisiana, resource protec-
tion of wetlands may benefit across
the country through information
gained from this large-scale restora-
tion effort
New restoration strategies and
techniques, as well as coastal ero-
sion prevention techniques that are
being developed and demonstrated
through this effort, may provide
viable restoration options for other
areas of the country.
Methodologies will be developed
to evaluate the relative benefits of
these environmental projects.
Intensive monitoring will allow
detailed analysis to determine the
success of individual restoration
project techniques and document
these techniques as successful in a
summary Report to Congress.
The intensive planning process
will be documented and planning
techniques may be transferred to
other areas of the country where
dramatic wetlands loss is occurring
or where intensive resources are
targeted to address wetlands loss
and degradation.
HtCHUCHT
-------
290 Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs
Resources (DNR), SCS, and local
governments. The Governor of Min-
nesota issued an Executive Order in
January 1990 directing all State de-
partments and agencies to follow
"no net loss" of wetlands policy and
requiring them to protect, enhance,
and restore the State's wetlands to
the full extent of their authority.
Minnesota reported that it will be
expanding its antidegradation policy
to include a sequencing review pro-
cess, requiring avoidance/minimiza-
tion of impacts before considering a
project for approval.
The Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection (MDEP)
reported that unreported or
unpermitted wetlands alterations
continue to present a highly signifi-
cant problem. In response, it is un-
dertaking a pilot project in
Merrimack River Watershed that
combines legal assistance to munici-
palities with an increased focus
on enforcement actions with
multiple resource interests.
MDEP also reported that it
has spent considerable effort in
coordinating wetlands consid-
erations within its department
and with other State agencies.
One area mentioned is its role in
revising the hazardous waste site
cleanup program to ensure maxi-
mum protection of wetlands.
Massachusetts said that the pres-
sure to develop in wetlands areas
and buffer zones remains high
throughout Massachusetts with an
estimated 5,300 applications ex-
pected to be received during FY92.
Ohio reported that it applies its
antidegradation policy to wetlands,
which are classified as State resource
waters. Ohio EPA has denied 401
certification for fill projects and re-
duced the scope of proposed activi-
ties in wetlands by issuing condi-
tional certification. Two examples of
the types of conditions it is requiring
are: an unmaintained buffer area
around mitigation wetlands and
existing wetlands and extensive
monitoring of water quality, sedi-
ment, vegetation establishment, and
hydroperiod for 5 years.
Wyoming reported that the only
mechanism it has at present to re-
quire preservation of any particular
wetland is to show that the destruc-
tion of that wetland will result in an
exceedence of an ambient water
quality standard.
Opportunities and
Recommendations
from States
Several States identified chal-
lenges and opportunities for the
future and came up with specific
recommendations on how to im-
prove wetlands protection.
Hawaii recommended that wet-
lands protection would improve if
"wetlands planning" and "regula-
tory administration" functions were
consolidated into a single State
agency.
-------
Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs 291
Oregon reported that it lacks the
capability for assessing and monitor-
ing ecological and water quality
functions of wetlands. This inhibits
its ability to establish definitive
wetlands-specific beneficial uses and
criteria to protect those uses.
Alabama recommended that
activities that impact wetlands such
as draining and logging operations
be regulated in addition to dis-
charges.
Arizona recommended that the
Army Corp of Engineers' area of
interest be expanded to include the
100-year floodplain. In addition, the
State recommended that the COE
definition of wetlands be revised to
better accommodate arid climates.
Rhode Island suggested that juris-
diction extend to some activities
adjacent to wetlands. To illustrate
the need for such protection, it
offered as an example the clearing
of natural vegetation adjacent to
wetlands. This can result in de-
creases in the natural filtering ca-
pacities of wetlands and in concomi-
tant increases in runoff velocities
and pollutant loads.
Florida said that the quantity and
quality of water delivered to wet-
lands is an issue and cited as the
most notable example the Florida
Everglades in southern Florida.
Louisiana called for a permitting
system in which requests are consid-
ered on the basis of the whole land-
scape.
Wisconsin reported that the all or
nothing delegation of the Section
404 permit program to the
States is inflexible. Wiscon-
sin expressed concern that
it will become swamped by
the 404 permit process due
to its denial of nationwide
permits. Specifically, the State
feels that changes in the
COE's approach to permitting
is resulting in case-by-case calls
under 401.
Pennsylvania reported that it
will not change criteria for wet-
lands until EPA comes out with
aquatic life criteria specifically for
wetlands.
Massachusetts reported that
more attention and effort must be
provided for long-term project
monitoring, especially for wetlands
replication projects.
Delaware reported that certain
activities allowed in wetlands
through nationwide permits have an
adverse cumulative impact It gave
as an example a house built on
pilings in wetlands that must then
be connected to underground utili-
ties.
-------
292 Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs
Summary
More information on wetlands
can be obtained from EPA's
Wetlands Hotline at
1-800-832-7828 (9 a.m. to
. 5 p.m., eastern standard time).
There are a variety of public and
private programs to protect wet-
lands. A forum was held in 1987 to
coordinate these and provide
national direction in the area
of wetlands. Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act is the major
Federal program for regulating
activities in wetlands. Other
important tools to protect wet-
lands include wetlands water
quality standards, State water
quality certification, State wetlands
conservation plans, swampbuster
provisions of the Farm bills, as well
as incorporating wetlands consider-
ations into other programs.
States reported that they are
making progress in developing their
programs to protect wetlands, espe-
cially in the areas of application of
401 certification, development of
water quality standards for wetlands,
and formation of more efficient joint
application procedures for permits.
Despite these efforts, States reported
that they continue to lose wetlands
and the pressure to develop in wet-
lands remains high. In addition,
there is little known about the qual-
ity of the remaining wetlands. States
put forward a variety of recommen-
dations on how to improve protec-
tion of wetlands, including consider-
ation of wetlands on a landscape or
ecosystem basis, development of
scientific tools for States to assess
and monitor ecological and water
quality functions of wetlands,
greater sensitivity for arid climates,
and regulation of additional activi-
ties that impact wetlands.
-------
Chapter Sixteen Wetland Protection Programs 293
-------
-------
Ground Water
Protection Programs
The EPA is responsible for 20
programs related to ground water
protection. EPA has issued National
Guidance to assist States in develop-
ing Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs
(CSGWPPs), which are a key com-
ponent of the Agency's Ground
Water Protection Strategy. Several
concepts are fundamental to this
new approach to ground water
protection:
1. States have the primary responsi-
bility for ground water protection
2. The CSGWPP approach is
resource-oriented, using resource
protection needs to guide priorities
across programs, focusing on the
highest priorities first
3. In partnership with States, EPA
will organize coordinated Federal
interagency approaches
4. In organizing a coordinated
Federal approach, EPA will stress
development of consistent Federal
policies and regulations.
Comprehensive State programs
will be the focal point for long-term
joint commitments between the
Federal government and the States.
These programs promote a more
coherent and comprehensive
approach to protecting the Nation's
ground water resources, with
emphasis placed on preventing
contamination. State activities will
center on
Ground water protection goals
Resource characterization and
priority setting
Coordination mechanisms
Roles and responsibilities
Implementation programs
Data management
Public participation.
Federal programs will support
CSGWPPs by offering programmatic
and funding flexibility and by target-
ing Federal efforts to better address
the unique needs and priorities of
each State. Highlights of a number
of Federal and State ground water
protection programs are presented
according to the following protec-
tion categories: resource protection,
pollutant source control, nonpoint
source control, and chemical prod-
uct control.
Resource Protection
Ground water protection activi-
ties are addressed under the Clean
Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking
-------
296 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
Water Act (SDWA), the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA).
Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection
Program
The CSCWPP approach
embraces all the above-mentioned
ground water protection activities.
As an integral part of the CSCWPP
approach, EPA is committed to
identifying or developing new
opportunities for State flexibility
within the Agency's various
ground-water-related programs.
For instance, under EPA's
regulations on municipal landfills
under Subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act,
States may make site-specific
decisions on landfill design or
monitoring requirements based, in
part, on the relative vulnerability of
the ground water. Decisions related
to corrective action at municipal
landfills may be based on the
underlying ground water's use,
value, and vulnerability.
EPA expects that the Agency's
endorsement of States' CSCWPPs
will be key to eliciting the involve-
ment and support of other Federal
agencies, as well as EPA programs,
in the CSCWPP process. The U.S.
Geological Survey, for example,
could target mapping of aquifer
recharge areas, studies of ground
and surface water interactions, and
other similar activities to areas of
high-priority ground water as identi-
fied by the State. Other Federal
agency programs, such as the
Department of Agriculture's Soil
Conservation Service, Extension
Service, and Cooperative State
Research Service, could similarly
focus technical assistance, educa-
tion, and research activities related
to ground water on State priorities.
EPA intends the CSCWPP
approach to be the catalyst for fun-
damental changes in the develop-
ment and implementation of
ground water protection programs
at the Federal, State, and local lev-
els. These changes will lead to
increased integration of all ground
water protection efforts, linked by a
comprehensive resource-based per-
spective and State-directed priorities.
As a result, EPA anticipates that
coordination will be significantly
enhanced and ground water re-
sources will be protected more
effectively.
Clean Water Act
In the CWA (Public Law 92-500)
of 1972 and in the CWA Amend-
ments of 1977 (Public Law 95-217),
Congress provided for the regula-
tion of discharges into all navigable
waters of the United States. Ground
water protection is addressed indi-
rectly by several components of this
Act, specifically with respect to areas
where surface water and ground
water are hydraulically connected.
Funds allotted under Section 106 of
the CWA are intended to assist
States in the prevention and abate-
ment of surface and ground water
pollution. Section 104(b)(3) allows
grants to support State programs
that focus on pollution prevention,
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 297
reduction, and elimination. Grants
to facilitate the development of
water quality management plans by
States and regional comprehensive
planning agencies are allotted under
Section 604(b).
Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA (Public Act 93-523)
was passed by Congress in 1974
and amended in 1986 in response
to accumulating evidence that
unsafe levels of contaminants in
public drinking water supplies,
including ground water, were pos-
ing a threat to the public health.
There are several major provisions to
the Act that impact ground water
quality. The Act provides protection
to ground water through the estab-
lishment of drinking water stan-
dards, sole source aquifer designa-
tion, and the establishment of the
Wellhead Protection Program and
the Underground Injection Control
Program. Standards known as maxi-
mum contaminant levels (MCLs)
were developed under the SDWA
and also may be used for enforce-
ment in ground water monitoring
programs.
Drinking Water Standards
EPA, under the SDWA, seeks to
ensure that public water supplies are
free of contaminants that may cause
health risks and to protect ground
water resources by preventing the
endangerment of underground
sources of drinking water. EPA has
pursued a twofold approach, pro-
tecting drinking water at the tap
and preventing contamination of
ground water sources of drinking
water supplies. The 1986 Amend-
ments provided for an expanded
Federal role in protecting drinking
water, mandating sweeping changes
in nationwide safeguards, and new
responsibilities to enforce them in
the event of State inaction.
EPA's strategy has been to usher
in a comprehensive level of drinking
water protection by maximizing
voluntary compliance through a
balance of enhanced enforcement
presence, pollution prevention, State
capacity building, mobilization of
local government support and inno-
vative partnerships. EPA has estab-
lished its implementation priorities
according to the degree of human
health risk, focusing on four classes
of contaminants with the highest
health risks nationwide: microbio-
logical pathogens, lead, radionu-
clides and disinfection byproducts.
Similarly, enforcement priorities,
embodied in the definition of Sig-
nificant Non-Compliance (SNC) of
Public Water Systems (PWSs), have
been risk based.
EPA has also focused on the
prevention of contamination of vul-
nerable ground water resources by
assisting States in the development
and implementation of comprehen-
sive ground water protection strate-
gies. These strategies address both
the full range of actual and potential
sources of ground water contamina-
tion and provide for wellhead pro-
tection activities in the areas around
public water systems. In addition,
EPA has targeted specific activities to
protect drinking water sources from
the harmful effects of injection of
wastes and other fluids. In particu-
lar, EPA is increasing emphasis on
the vast number of diverse shallow
(Class V) injection wells by develop-
ing new regulations, and reviewing
-------
298 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
27 States
had EPA-approved
WHP Programs in place
by the end of 1992.
the permitting of Class I hazardous
waste wells.
Wellhead Protection Program
The 1986 Amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act established
the Wellhead Protection (WHP) Pro-
gram. Under SDWA Section 1428,
each State must prepare a WHP
Program and submit it to EPA for
approval. The objective of this pro-
gram is to protect ground water
quality by identifying the areas
around public water supply wells
that contribute ground water to the
Figure 17-1
States with EPA-Approved Wellhead
Protection Programs
PR
American Samoa, Guam,
Northern Mariana Islands,
Palau, and Virgin Islands
States and Territories with EPA
Approved Wellhead Protection
Programs
well and managing the potential
sources of contamination to reduce
threats to the resource in that area.
By the end of December 1992,
a total of 27 States and Territories
had EPA-approved WHP Programs in
place (Figure 17-1). EPA is currently
working with the remaining States
and Territories to help them develop
WHP Programs. EPA's Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water
is supporting the development and
implementation of WHP Programs
with Wellhead Protection Demon-
stration grants and a cooperative
agreement with the League of
Women Voters (LWV). An additional
form of EPA-funded support is pro-
vided through the National Rural
Water Association (NRWA) Wellhead
Protection programs as depicted in
Figure 17-2.
In fiscal years 1990-1992, EPA
awarded $3,400,000 in WHP
demonstration grants for a total of
116 projects. Through these
projects, municipalities and Ameri-
can Indian Tribes design and test
ground water protection approaches
that may be applied statewide in
developing and implementing effec-
tive WHP programs. In 1991, EPA
funded a 2-year cooperative agree-
ment with NRWA to promote
ground water protection. At the
conclusion of the first 18 months of
the NRWA program, over 550 com-
munities in 14 States were actively
involved in developing their own
WHP programs. Also in 1991, EPA
funded the first year of a 3-yeair
cooperative agreement with the
LWV. One objective of the LWV
program is to develop and test
models of community outreach in
18 communities, which are de-
signed to stimulate development of
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 299
WHP programs or similar ground
water protection programs.
According to the States' 305(b)
reports, WHP programs have taken
varying forms in different States.
Among the stages of WHP program
development reported by States are
Grants to communities to explore
and tailor WHP approaches
Mapping of sensitive ground
water protection areas
Establishment of mandatory WHP
programs to protect public water-
supply wells
Establishment of public education
and outreach programs
Establishment of specific protec-
tion criteria for wells tapping con-
fined aquifers and more stringent
protection criteria for wells tapping
unconfined aquifers.
Sole Source Aquifer
Program
The Sole Source Aquifer (SSA)
program was established under
Section 1424(e) of the SDWA of
1974. The program allows individu-
als and organizations to petition the
EPA to designate aquifers as the
"sole or principal" source of drink-
ing water for an area. EPA has
approved 58 SSA designations na-
tionwide and 12 petitions are cur-
rently being evaluated for possible
designation. An SSA designation
authorizes EPA to review plans for
Federal financially assisted projects in
the subject area to determine the
potential for aquifer contamination
that would create significant hazards
to public health.
After designation, no commit-
ment of Federal financial assistance
may be made to a project that is
found through EPA review to have
the potential to contaminate the
aquifer and create hazards to public
health. Federal financially assisted
projects eligible for review under the
SSA program may include highway
construction projects, animal waste
disposal plans, airport construction
approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration, deep water dredg-
ing projects proposed by the Army
Corps of Engineers, and subway
construction projects.
15 States
had established
NRWA Programs by
the end of 1992.
Figure 17-2
States with National Rural Water
Association Wellhead Protection Programs
PR
American Samoa, Guam,
Northern Mariana Islands,
Palau, and Virgin Islands
States and Territories with NRWA
Wellhead Protection Programs
-------
300 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
Between fiscal year 1991 and
fiscal year 1992, the number of
Federal financially assisted projects
reviewed for potential impacts on
designated sole source aquifers grew
while the number of projects found
to have potential impacts declined
(Table 17-1). This decline could be
attributed to an increased awareness
of potential ground water impacts.
Petitioners for and agencies offering
Federal financial assistance are de-
signing projects to minimize poten-
tial adverse effects on ground water.
In fiscal year 1991, EPA required
modifications to 25 projects and
denied approval to four projects
because of their potential to con-
taminate the sole source aquifer
over which they were planned. In
contrast EPA required modifications
in only six projects and denied
approval of only one project during
fiscal year 1992.
Project modifications due to SSA
concerns include
Highway storm water drainage
system construction
Installation of clay/synthetic liners
for wastewater ponds and lagoons
Rehabilitation of water wells
Table 17-1 . Status of Federal Financially Assisted Projects
Reviewed by EPA Under the Sole Source
Aquifer Program
Fiscal
Year
1990
1991
1992
Number
of Projects
Reviewed
159
152
214
Number of Projects
Modified to
Prevent Potential
Contamination of a
Sole Source Aquifer
20
25
6
Number of Projects
Not Recommended
Due to Potential
Contamination of a
Sole Source Aquifer
0
4
1
Alteration of highway bridge
construction design
Installation of pollution abate-
ment equipment.
EPA denied approval to projects,
based on SSA concerns, that submit-
ted insufficient information regard-
ing ground water protection or
insufficient project plans to ensure
ground water protection.
State Ground Water
Protection Programs
States are currently working in
conjunction with Federal and local
agencies to provide the necessary
educational, financial, and technical
assistance required to restore
impaired water resources, to prevent
future impairment, and to evaluate
the effects of these activities on
ground and surface water resources.
Many States have reported on a
variety of activities intended to
address ground water contamina-
tion and the sources of these
contaminants. These activities
include adopting and implementing
best management practices and
ground water protection strategies,
enacting legislation aimed at the
development of ground water pro-
tection programs and coordinating
the efforts of local, State, and
Federal agencies in meeting the
goals of ground water protection.
The ground water protection
activities reported in State 305(b)
reports provide only a partial picture
of State efforts to protect ground
water. As an initial step in imple-
menting CSCWPPs, EPA and States
are developing individual State
assessments during fiscal year 1993.
These assessments will better
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 301
document the full range of State
ground water protection activities.
The principal State programs
and strategies that address ground
water protection are depicted in
Rgure 17-3. These include
agricultural programs, septic tank
programs, certification programs for
well drillers or pesticide applicators,
storm water runoff and erosion con-
trol programs, underground injec-
tion control programs, aquifer classi-
fication systems, ground water stan-
dards, and strategies aimed at
controlling contamination from
industrial landfills and ponds.
Figure 17-4 shows ongoing
State ground water protection pro-
grams reported in 1992. Compo-
nents of State ground water protec-
tion programs are summarized in
Table 17-2. The table identifies
Ground water protection legisla-
tion that has been adopted or is
under development by State gov-
erning bodies
Figure 17-3
Types of State Ground Water Protection Programs
Septic Tank
Programs
Storm Water Runoff
and Erosion Control
Programs
Agricultural
Programs
Industrial
Landfills
and Ponds
Wellhead
Protection
Programs
Industrial Disposal
Well(UIC-ClassV)
&/////////////////////^^^^
Aquifer Classification Systems
and Ground Water Standards
Underground Injection
Control Programs
-------
302 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
Wellhead Protection Programs
that have been submitted, reviewed,
or approved by EPA
Ground water strategies or Com-
prehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program initiatives that
have been adopted or are under
development
State-specific ground water pro-
tection standards
Statewide ground water monitor-
ing programs or initiatives that con-
sist of a statewide network of wells
periodically sampled and analyzed
for specific ground water quality
parameters
Aquifer classification or mapping
programs to characterize ground
water resource regions
Special programs or methods
that address the control or
remediation of specific contamina-
tion sources
The existence of a plan, advisory
committee, or task force established
to facilitate or coordinate inter-
agency ground water protection
programs
Controls or measures established
to address nonpoint source contami-
nation.
State Ground Water
Standards
Although many States have
used Federal drinking water stan-
dards to direct their ground water
protection activities, a number of
States have tailored standards to
their specific conditions. State
ground water protection standards
can be either narrative or numeric.
Numeric standards set health-based
maximum contaminant levels.
Narrative standards are adopted for
pollutants for which no numeric:
standards have been adopted.
Minnesota updated their stan-
dards in 1990, adding 53 toxic pol-
lutants and a detailed set of proce-
dures to establish criteria for adding
toxic pollutants. That State has also
set Recommended Allowable Limits
(RALs) that may be enforced at a
later time. Arizona has drafted
Health-Based Guidance Levels for
230 chemicals, including pesticides,
organics, metals, and other
inorganics in drinking water. A total
of 35 States reported the develop-
ment or implementation of State
ground water protection standards.
State Aquifer
Classification Systems
Thirty-one States report the
existence or development of pro-
grams to classify or map vulnerable
ground water supplies. State pro-
grams are combining elements of
Federal guidelines along with ele-
ments aimed at meeting the indi-
vidual State's needs and problems.
Ground water is classified by factors
such as the intended ground water
use, current ground water quality,
and hydrology.
Massachusetts currently classifies
its ground water according to its
most sensitive use. The three
ground water classes in Massachu-
setts are
Class I: fresh ground water des-
ignated as a source of potable water
supply
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 303
Figure 17-4
Ongoing Ground Water Protection Programs
of States and Territories Reporting
A
Agricultural Programs
Septic Tank Programs
Underground Injection
Control Programs
Certification Programs
Underground Storage Tank
Program
Ground Water
Standards
Aquifer Classification
System
Programs under development
or not reported in 1992
Note: This map excludes Wellhead Protection Programs. Not shown are American Samoa,
Guam, and the Virgin Islands. Programs in those Territories either were not reported
or are under development.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
2
5
Table 17.2. Summary of State Ground Water Protection Programs
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
Ground
Water
Legislation*
D
Wellhead
Protection
Program
D
0
D
D
D
D
O
D
D
O
O
Ground
Water
Strategy*
Ground
Water
Protection
Standards*
n
0
D
D
D
Statewide
Ground Water
Monitoring
Systems*
D
D
D
D
D
Aquifer
Classification/
Mapping
Program*
O
D
D
Special
Source
Controls
Interagency
Coordination*
Non point
Source
Controls*
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
a
D
a
O
1
g.
I
-------
Table 17.2. Summary of State Ground Water Protection Programs (continued)
State
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total"
Ground
Water
Legislation*
35
Wellhead
Protection
Program
D
D
D
D
O
D
D
46
Ground
Water
Strategy*
55
Ground
Water
Protection
Standards*
D
D
D
.
35
Statewide
Ground Water
Monitoring
Systems*
a
a
a
0
38
Aquifer
Classification/
Mapping
Program*
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
31
Special
Source
Controls
55
Interagency
Coordination*
55
Nonpoint
Source
Controls*
D
D
__
D
D
D
D
D
42
a>
C?
I?
a.
o
1
3
3
Program in place.
O Program under revision or review.
D Program under development.
Not reported.
* Information derived from 1992 State 305(b) reports.
b Total number of programs in place, under development, or under revision or review.
-------
306 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
Class II: saline ground water
designated as a source of potable
mineral waters or as a raw material
for the manufacture of such prod-
ucts as sodium chloride
Class III: fresh and saline ground
water designated for uses other than
potable water supply.
People may request by petition
a specific use for a local ground
water resource. Ground water for
which no petition is received is
automatically designated as Class I.
Ground water quality standards and
protection guidelines are strictest for
water classified as Class I.
Pollutant Source
Control
Four principal programs control
pollutant sources under four differ-
ent laws: solid and hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal and
underground storage tanks are regu-
lated under RCRA; underground
injection of waste fluids is regulated
under SDWA; abandoned waste is
regulated under CERCLA; and
nonpoint sources are regulated un-
der CWA.
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (Public Law 94-580)
was passed by Congress in October
1976, amending the 1965 Solid
Waste Disposal Act to address the
problem of safe disposal of the huge
volumes of solid and hazardous
waste generated nationwide each
year. This Act authorizes a
regulatory program to identify and
manage wastes that pose a substan-
tial hazard to human health or the
environment RCRA is a part of
EPA's comprehensive program to
protect ground water resources.
Protection is achieved through the
development of regulations and
methods for handling, storing, and
disposing of hazardous material and
through the regulation of under-
ground storage tanks.
Poorly managed or poorly
located municipal landfills rank high
among State ground water contami-
nation concerns. Of the quarter
million solid waste disposal facilities
in the United States, about 6,000
are municipal solid waste facilities.
Approximately 25% of these
municipal facilities have ground
water monitoring capabilities.
Solid and
Hazardous Waste
RCRA has evolved from a rela-
tively limited program dealing with
nonhazardous solid waste to a far-
reaching program that also encom-
passes the handling, storage, and
disposal of hazardous waste. Hazard-
ous waste generators, transporters,
and owner/operators of treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDFs) constitute the RCRA-regu-
lated community. On November 8,
1984, Congress passed the Hazard-
ous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) to RCRA, thereby greatly
expanding the nature and complex-
ity of activities covered under RCRA.
The goals of RCRA, as set forth
by Congress, are
To protect human health and the
environment
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 307
To reduce waste and conserve
energy and natural resources
To reduce or eliminate the gen-
eration of hazardous waste as expe-
ditiously as possible.
RCRA also requires the promul-
gation of standards related to
underground storage tank systems
for both chemicals and petroleum
products.
In 1990 and 1991, RCRA pro-
grams continued to emphasize the
preparation of risk assessment docu-
ments and development and evalua-
tion of tests and procedures for
conducting risk assessments. Health
and Environmental Effects Docu-
ments, Reference Doses, and techni-
cal evaluations are provided to sup-
port the RCRA waste listing, permit-
ting, and land disposal restriction
programs. The 1990 program em-
phasized the development of health
and environmental effects docu-
ments for the listing/delisting pro-
grams and reference doses for the
land disposal restriction program. In
addition, techniques for determining
soil gas concentrations and constitu-
ents and for determining ground
water contamination potential were
evaluated under field and laboratory
conditions. Guidelines for monitor-
ing ground water around RCRA
Subtitle D landfill facilities are being
developed.
Underground Storage
Tanks (UST) Program
The EPA is working with State
and local governments to develop
support for, and improve the effec-
tive management of, USTs. To facil-
itate compliance with UST
regulations, EPA is developing stan-
dard test procedures for leak detec-
tion equipment These standards will
allow tank owners to choose equip-
ment that meets EPA requirements.
In addition, a nationwide marketing
campaign is being conducted to
promote resource-efficient methods
for State monitoring of owner/op-
erator compliance. The EPA contin-
ues to support the development of
State UST regulations and encour-
ages States to apply for UST pro-
gram approval. The Agency also
provides technical advice and assis-
tance in the development and
implementation of State UST data
management systems.
Under the UST Program, EPA
also assists municipalities by provid-
ing guarantees to local owner/op-
erators and by encouraging the
development of State assurance
programs and loan funds. Loan
programs may be used by tank
owners to upgrade or replace tanks,
thereby preventing many leaks from
ever occurring. These guarantees
and assurance programs help
owner/operators to meet their finan-
cial responsibility requirements.
In 1990 and 1991, EPA issued
final regulations on corrective ac-
tion, leak detection, and technical
performance standards for new and
existing tanks that contain petro-
leum products and hazardous sub-
stances. Final regulations concerning
financial responsibility requirements
were also issued. EPA also negoti-
ated UST grants with all States and
provided technical assistance and
guidance for implementation and
enforcement of UST regulations.
-------
308 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
State Underground
Storage Tank Programs
About 400,000 of an estimated
5 to 6 million USTs and associated
piping are thought to be leaking.
About 30% of all tanks store petro-
leum or hazardous materials. Each
State, under RCRA requirements, has
designated a State agency that reg-
isters new and existing USTs. Thirty-
three States have reported that they
have UST regulations in place or
under development that are no less
stringent than Federal regulations.
State agencies involved with UST
regulations vary, including fire, envi-
ronmental, public health, or labor
departments.
State-reported strategies include
annual registration, strict installation
requirements, and monitoring stan-
dards. They also include oversight of
owner and operator compliance
with Federal UST technical and
financial responsibility requirements.
Several States require permitting for
USTs. Pennsylvania requires all USTs
with a capacity greater than 110
gallons to be permitted. Permits are
given only to tank owners who
comply with State and Federal sit-
ing, design, leak detection, and
operation requirements. They also
provide a guidance document for
tank owners and operators.
Several States, including Virginia
and Minnesota, maintain a UST
database. Minnesota's database of
USTs contains known and potential
sources of ground water contamina-
tion. Virginia's database tracks
upgrades, repairs, and closures of
USTs.
Safe Drinking Water Act
Pollutant source control is
addressed under the SDWA through
the Underground Injection Control
(UIC) program.
UIC Regulations
EPA's UIC program was devel-
oped to regulate underground injec-
tion wells and fluids and thereby
ensure that underground sources of
drinking water are protected. Injec-
tion wells are classified as follows:
Class I: Wells used to inject
hazardous substances or industrial
and municipal waste beneath the
lowermost formation containing a
source of drinking water. There are
approximately 80 hazardous waste
wells at 175 facilities controlled by
stringent design, construction, and
operating requirements.
Class II: Wells used to inject
fluids in the process of oil or natural
gas production. These more than
170,000 disposal and enhanced
recovery wells return brines back
down to deep formations.
Class III: Wells used to inject
fluids for the purpose of in situ
mineral extraction.
Class IV: Wells used to dispose of
hazardous or radioactive waste into
or above an underground drinking
water source. These wells are
banned.
Class V: Injection wells not.
included in the above classifications.
These wells include more than
100,000 shallow injection wells such
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 309
as those used to dispose of waste
from automotive service bays.
Grants allotted under Sections
1443(b) and 1451 of the SDWA
may be used to support UIC activi-
ties to protect ground water
resources. State and Federal UIC
programs include permitting and
review of permits to ensure that
wells meet requirements for well
construction, operation, monitoring,
plugging and abandonment, and
financial responsibility to ensure
underground sources of drinking
water are not endangered. Section
1422 provides EPA with authority to
grant primary enforcement authority
(primacy) to States to administer a
UIC program in their States. Section
1425 allows an alternative test for
EPA to use to approve of a State's
UIC program for oil and brine (Class
II) wells.
UIC Programs
EPA and the States currently
administer 57 UIC programs to
maintain regulatory coverage of the
more than half million underground
injection wells. The majority of these
programs are State-administered, as
depicted in Figure 17-5. State agen-
cies with primary enforcement au-
thority respond to UIC violations. If
a response cannot be made in a
timely manner, EPA takes enforce-
ment action.
In 1990 and 1991, EPA contin-
ued to review "no-migration" peti-
tions for hazardous waste injection
wells to ensure conformance with
RCRA and UIC provisions. EPA has
targeted specific enforcement, out-
reach, and regulatory activities to
protect drinking water sources from
the harmful effects of injections of
wastes and other fluids through the
vast number of diverse Class V injec-
tion wells. EPA Regional offices
administering UIC programs in
nonprimacy States continue to
review permit applications for injec-
tion wells, and continue oversight of
State primacy programs to ensure
that UIC permits issued meet pro-
gram requirements. Regional offices
also continue to review petitions
from operators of hazardous waste
injection wells seeking exemptions
from the injection ban under Part
148.
Figure 17-5
Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Programs
State Program
EPA
Split EPA/State Program
PR
Guam and Northern
Mariana Islands
American Samoa, Palau,
and Virgin Islands
-------
310 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and
Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act, more popularly
known as "Superfund," was passed
by Congress in December 1980 to
deal with threats posed to the pub-
lic by abandoned waste sites.
Approximately 33,000 sites have
been identified as abandoned haz-
ardous waste sites, of which
42% involve ground water contami-
nation. With the Superfund Amend-
ments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986, CERCLA has
assumed a larger role in the cleanup
of hazardous waste sites. The main
objectives of CERCLA as established
by Congress are
To develop a comprehensive
program to set priorities for cleaning
up the worst existing hazardous
waste sites
To make responsible parties pay
for those cleanups whenever
possible
i To set up a Hazardous Waste
Trust Fund for the twofold pur-
pose of performing remedial
cleanups in cases where respon-
sible parties could not be held ac-
countable and responding to emer-
gency situations involving hazardous
substances
To advance scientific and techni-
cal capabilities in all aspects of haz-
ardous waste management, treat-
ment, and disposal.
Grants to States are allotted
under Section 104(b) of CERCLA.
These funds are intended to support
implementation, coordination,
enforcement, training, community
relations, site inventory and assess-
ment, administration of remedial
activities, and legal assistance relat-
ing to CERCLA implementation.
Nonpoint Source Control
Funds allotted under Sections
319(h) and (i) and 518 of the CWA
are intended to assist States in
implementing EPA-approved
nonpoint source management pro-
grams and ground water protection
activities. At least 10% of each
State's annual work under these
programs should be devoted to
priority ground water protection
activities. These activities include
assessing and characterizing ground
water resources, delineating well-
head protection areas, aquifer
recharge areas, and zones of signifi-
cant ground water surface water
interactions, establishing a basis for
priority protection needs, and
addressing ground water protection
priorities.
State Nonpoint Source
Control/Agricultural
Programs
As the need for American farm-
ers to increase their productivity
rises so does concern about agricul-
tural nonpoint source pollution. Of
the 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides
produced annually in the United
States, 77% is applied to land in
agricultural production. Twenty-
seven States have reported that they
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 311
have either full-scale agricultural
programs or best management
strategies in place. Most of these
programs focus on controls for
nitrate and pesticides.
Arizona, along with several
other States, regulates concentrated
feeding operations, nitrogen fertilizer
application, and agricultural applica-
tions of sludge. They also review
registered pesticides to determine if
their applications have an unreason-
able adverse effect on the environ-
ment When pesticide residues are
detected in drinking water supplies
in Hawaii, the Chairperson of the
Board of Agriculture and the Direc-
tor of Health must suspend, cancel,
or restrict the use of that pesticide.
Numerous States reported current
monitoring of ground water near
agricultural regions conducted to
determine the need for future pro-
grams and strategies.
Educating the public on how
farming operations and other land
activities may cause pollution is a
key component of most State
ground water protection initiatives.
Kentucky implemented a program
that includes instructing farmers on
use of agricultural best management
practices. The program also affords
water-well users an opportunity to
have their water tested for nonpoint
source contaminants. New York
incorporates water quality in farm-
level planning, provides technical
assistance to farmers, and develops
educational programs that heighten
awareness of water quality problems
that can result from improper land
management
Approximately 23 million
domestic septic systems are in
operation in the United States.
About half a million new systems
are installed each year. State septic
tank programs incorporate strategies
to protect ground water from con-
tamination. Strategies include certifi-
cation of septic tank installers, con-
struction, siting, operation, and
maintenance guidelines. A variety of
State agencies are re-
sponsible for enforcing
septic tank regulations
including fire marshals,
planning boards, and
local and State health
departments.
In New Jersey, septic
tank regulations are
enforced by the Local Plan-
ning Board. They must
approve construction plans for indi-
vidual sewage disposal systems and
regulate multiple connections to a
single septic system. The Ohio De-
partment of Health (ODH) regulates
the siting, design, operation, and
maintenance of septic tanks. New
Mexico requires that each system
include a treatment unit and be
situated in conformance with local
and State siting standards. When
necessary, New Mexico officials
modify the State's standards on a
case-by-case basis.
Chemical Product
Controls
The Toxic Substances Control
Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fun-
gicide, and Rodenticide Act control
the use and disposal of commercial
products thereby minimizing the
risks to public health and the envi-
ronment
-------
312 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
Toxic Substances Control
Act
The Toxic Substances Control
Act (Public Law 94-469), enacted by
Congress in 1976, brought signifi-
cant changes in the day-to-day
operation of the U.S. chemical in-
dustry. With TSCA, EPA was given
the authority to identify and control
chemical products that pose an un-
reasonable risk to human health or
the environment through their
manufacture, chemical distribution,
processing, use, or disposal. To en-
able EPA to monitor the marketing
of new chemicals, TSCA re-
quires manufacturers to submit
premanufacture notices on new
chemical substances.
EPA is authorized to take a
variety of steps to protect against
threats to human health or the
environment by the introduction
or unrestricted use of new chemi-
cals. Such steps include publication
of the chemical inventory, informa-
tion-gathering authority, and per-
mitting access to manufacturing
data that could assist in the devel-
opment of source inventories for
ground water protection planning
and investigation.
The Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act
Under FIFRA, the EPA may deny
registration for a pesticide if its nor-
mal use will result in unreasonable
adverse effects on ground water
quality. A number of ground water
protection initiatives have been
undertaken in support of FIFRA. In
1991, EPA put forth a Pesticides and
Ground Water Strategy that estab-
lishes the policy framework for using
the regulatory authorities available
under FIFRA to implement ground
water protection principles. The
practical objective of this Strategy is
the prevention of ground water
contamination by regulating the
normal use of certain pesticides.
Grants to States are available
under Section 23(a)(1) of FIFRA.
These funds are intended to pro-
mote the enforcement of pesticide
compliance and ground water pro-
tection programs.
Pesticides and Ground Water
Strategy
EPA's Pesticides and Ground
Water Strategy describes the
national policy framework for ad-
dressing the risks of ground water
contamination by pesticides. The
Strategy discusses EPA's authority
under a number of statutes, but
focuses on the use of FIFRA author-
ity to achieve the Agency's goals for
the protection of ground water from
pesticide contamination.
This Strategy emphasizes
prevention and protection of the
Nation's ground water resources
and provides a flexible framework
for tailoring programs to the condi-
tions in different geographic areas.
The centerpiece of the Strategy is
the development of State Manage-
ment Plans for pesticides that may
pose environmental concerns. The
management plan approach affords
States the opportunity to manage
the use of pesticides so as to protect
the ground water resource.
EPA has worked with States to
develop a framework for the devel-
opment of comprehensive State
Management Plans that will focus
on the protection of ground water
resources. The management plan
approach will allow States the
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 313
flexibility to tailor pesticide use and
ground water protection programs
to local conditions. States have been
encouraged to develop this man-
agement framework in the form of
"generic" management plans. In
1993, EPA plans to release a list of
chemicals for which pesticide-spe-
cific management plans will be
required. The Pesticide State Man-
agement Plans may subsequently be
integrated with State Comprehen-
sive Ground Water Protection Pro-
grams.
Prevention of Ground Water
Contamination by Restricting
Pesticide Use
Classifying a pesticide for
Restricted Use limits its use to certi-
fied applicators or supervision by
certified applicators. Certification
depends upon completion of
required training concerning the
proper handling and application of
pesticides with the potential to con-
taminate ground water. Restricting
use to certified applicators has three
practical results for the reduction of
ground water contamination:
Reduction in the population of
pesticide users
Education of the certified users to
reduce the ground water contami-
nation risks
Training and experience in
proper mixing and loading of pesti-
cides to reduce the chances of spills
or other potential ground water
contamination hazards.
Therefore, Restricted Use classifi-
cation is intended to reduce both
the risks of some "point source"
causes of ground water
contamination as well as nonpoint
source causes of contamination.
Pollution Prevention
The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 was enacted by Congress to
promote pollution prevention and
environmental protection goals.
Under this Act the EPA Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics and
the US DA Cooperative State Re-
search Service have worked coopera-
tively to lead the Nation in the de-
velopment of environmentally sound
agricultural policies. The Agriculture
in Concert with the Environment
Program promotes the use of sus-
tainable agriculture and the inte-
grated management of nutrients,
pesticides, resources, and wastes to
reduce the risks of environmental
pollution. Grants allotted under this
Act may be used to fund outreach
projects involving education, dem-
onstration, and training in sustain-
able agriculture and other agricul-
tural practices that emphasize
ground water protection and reduc-
ing the excessive use of nutrients
and pesticides.
Grants are also available under
this Act to support State and local
pollution prevention programs that
address the reduction of pollutants
across all environmental media: air,
land, surface water, ground water,
and wetlands. These grants may be
used to promote and coordinate
existing State pollution prevention
activities that focus on specific
media, to develop new multimedia
pollution prevention programs, to
develop mechanisms to measure
progress in multimedia pollution
prevention, and to conduct educa-
tion and outreach programs.
-------
314 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
EPA Management of
Ground Water Data
A number of mechanisms have
been developed to manage the
ever-growing volume of information
on the Nation's ground water
resources. These include the devel-
opment of a standard nomenclature
for reporting ground water data, the
development of geographic infor-
mation systems (CISs) to integrate
ground water data that have been
collected under different programs,
and the development and manage-
ment of two databases concerning
pesticides and ground water.
Minimum Set
of Data Elements
In keeping with EPA's Ground
Water Protection Strategy for the
1990s, the Agency has identified the
need to improve the collection,
accessibility, transfer, and use of
information on the Nation's ground
water resources. Therefore, the
Agency has established a Minimum
Set of Data Elements (MSDE) for
Ground Water Quality. The MSDE
are intended to improve access to
ground water data and to increase
information sharing capabilities by
standardizing the elements used in
ground water database develop-
ment The MSDE is implemented
when States, Federal agencies, or
other officials are creating or updat-
ing ground water quality databases.
The 21 data elements in the mini-
mum set are divided into four cat-
egories:
General descriptors pertaining to
where the well information is main-
tained
Geographic descriptors pertaining
to the location of the well in relation
to the earth's surface
Well descriptors pertaining to
construction details and other fea-
tures of the well
Sample descriptors pertaining to
aspects of sample collection, analy-
sis, and recording of the results of
ground water sampling.
These elements represent the
minimum data elements that States
and Federal agencies should include
during ground water information
collection and reporting activities. In
addition, formats and conventions
for reported data are presented as
examples to guide the development
of standardized databases and facili-
tate data sharing.
Cross-Program
Integration Approach
Using CIS
EPA recognizes that it is critical
for the Agency to integrate its
ground water protection programs
and provide assistance to the States
as they seek to build State and local
capacity. States have the responsibil-
ity to implement a number of Fed-
eral programs that may impact the
quality of surface-water and ground-
water resources. For this reason, a
project has been undertaken in the
EPA's Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water to integrate the
information obtained in a number
of Federal programs (Public Water
Supply, Underground Injection Con-
trol, Wellhead Protection, and Com-
prehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program) and to
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 315
demonstrate how these programs
complement and support each
other in protecting ground water
and drinking water.
The specific goals of the project
are to use CIS to investigate the
types of ground water data needed
to facilitate State, Regional, and
national programs and support the
development of Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Pro-
grams and to assess the application
of existing data to characterize the
contamination threats to the
Nation's water supplies. Information
on ground water and surface water
contaminants will also be used to
investigate perceived threats to
drinking water supplies and to tar-
get critical geographic areas for
ground water protection activities.
The multiyear project will involve
the analysis of data from six study
sites that characterize a number of
potential ground water contamina-
tion threats and various hydrogeo-
logic regimes. It is further hoped
that the project will demonstrate an
approach for linkage to the USCS
NAWQA program and selected State
monitoring programs.
Pesticides in Ground
Water Database
The Pesticides in Ground Water
Database was created by the EPA's
Office of Pesticide Programs to pro-
vide a more complete picture of
ground water monitoring for pesti-
cides in the Nation. It is a collection
of ground water monitoring studies
conducted by Federal, State, and
local governments, universities, and
private institutions. The focus of
these studies must include the
analysis of samples for pesticide
residues. The Pesticides in Ground
Water Database consists of monitor-
ing data and auxiliary information in
both computerized and hard copy
form. The computerized portion of
the database consists of files describ-
ing the study, each monitoring well,
and information on ground water
samples. This portion of the data-
base is a part of the Pesticide Infor-
mation Network (PIN), a computer-
ized collection of files that contain
pesticide monitoring and regulatory
information in an electronic bulletin-
board format The EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs is planning to
publish a summary report of the
data in the Pesticides in Ground
Water Database on approximately a
yearly basis.
Prevention of Ground
Water Contamination
from Pesticides:
Information Systems
for State Use
The development of State Man-
agement Plans to implement the
Pesticides and Ground Water Strat-
egy will require technical informa-
tion and tools to predict vulnerabil-
ity of ground water to pesticide use.
Some information and tools are
available, and others can be devel-
oped, to locate problem areas and
develop strategies for management
of pesticides on a State or local
level. These tools include models to
predict the leaching of pesticides to
ground water, data on soil proper-
ties and other relevant environmen-
tal factors, GISs for integrating infor-
mation spatially, and monitoring
strategies for detecting and tracking
pesticide movement in the
-------
316 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
subsurface. The EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development has under-
taken a set of projects to provide
the technical tools that States may
use to develop and implement lo-
cally meaningful pesticide manage-
ment plans. These projects include:
Development of a user-friendly
model or screening system for locat-
ing vulnerable soils within a State
Identification of, and guidance
to, the access of useful national
databases
Development of guidance on
using CIS for pesticide management
Development of guidance on
monitoring strategies considering
temporal, spatial, and environmental
factors affecting pesticide occurrence
and transport
Enhancement of the PIN to
include additional databases and
sources of information useful to
States.
This work is based on the best
available knowledge and is being
coordinated with related projects
and research on the effects of agri-
cultural chemicals on water quality
at EPA and other Federal and State
agencies.
USGS Ground Water
Quality Investigations
The USCS initiated the Na-
tional Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) pilot program in 1986.
In 1991, the USCS began the tran-
sition from the pilot program to a
full-scale program. The NAWQA
program is designed to address
national and regional water quality
concerns through comparative stud-
ies in a variety of hydrologic sys-
tems. Study-unit investigations of 60
areas that include most major river
basins and aquifer systems have
been initiated. Coals include provid-
ing nationally consistent water qual-
ity information to define long-term
water quality trends and describing
the primary factors affecting the
Nation's surface and ground water
quality. An ongoing goal of the
NAWQA program is to facilitate data
exchange, communication, and
coordination among the USCS,
water resource managers in agencies
at Federal, State, and local levels, as
well as other interested scientists.
National issues being addressed
by the NAWQA Program focus on
the degradation of water quality
from nonpoint sources of pollution.
Specific issues being addressed in
many of the study-units focus on
pesticides, nutrients, and sediment
Several specific questions related to
pesticides that will be addressed by
the program include:
What are the occurrences and
concentrations of pesticides in
selected river basins and aquifer
systems nationwide?
What is the relation of pesticide
concentrations in surface and
ground water to natural factors,
changes in hydrologic conditions,
pesticide use, chemical properties,
and land management practices?
What significance do key findings
have on current water quality moni-
toring, management, and regulatory
practices?
-------
Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs 317
EPA Publications About Ground Water Protection
USEPA 1993. Guide for Cost-effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analysis of State and
Local Ground Water Protection Programs. EPA 813R/93-001. Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1992. Case Studies in Wellhead Protection: Ten Examples of Innovative
Wellhead Protection Programs. EPA 813R/92-002. Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1992. Final Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
Guidance. EPA 10OR/93-001. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Best Management Practices for Protecting Ground Water: Facilities
Using Storm Water Drainage Wells, Improved Sinkholes, and Industrial Drainage
Wells. EPA 570/9-91-036M. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Best Management Practices for Protecting Ground Water: Facilities
Using Special Drainage Wells. EPA 570/9-91-036N. Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Managing Ground Water Contamination Sources in Wellhead
Protection Areas: A Priority Setting Approach. EPA 570/9-91-023. Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Protecting Local Ground Water Supplies Through Wellhead
Protection. EPA 570/9-91 -007. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Protecting the Nation's Ground Water; EPA's Strategy for
the 1990's: The Final Report of the EPA Ground Water Task Force. EPA 21Z-
1020. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990. Citizen's Guide to Ground Water Protection. EPA 440/6-90-004.
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990. Guide to Ground Water Supply Contingency Planning for Local
and State Governments. EPA 440/9-90-003. Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990. Progress in Ground Water Protection and Restoration. EPA440/
6-90-001. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1989. Wellhead Protection Programs: Tools for Local Governments. EPA
440/6-89-002. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA 1988. Developing a State Wellhead Protection Program: A User's Guide
to Assist State Agencies Under the Safe Drinking Water Act EPA 440/6-88-003.
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA 1987. Guidelines for Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas. EPA
440/6-87-010. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1985. Protecting Our Ground Water. EPA 440/6-85-006. Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA 1984. Protecting Ground Water: The Hidden Resource. EPA 440/6-84-
001. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA 1975. Manual of Water Well Construction Practices. EPA 570/9-75-
001. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
-------
318 Chapter Seventeen Ground Water Protection Programs
-------
Part TV
Costs and Benefits of
Water Pollution Control
-------
-------
Costs and Benefits of
Water Pollution Control
Introduction
Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act calls for States to prepare
estimates of the economic and
social costs necessary to achieve the
objectives of the Act. States are also
requested to report on the eco-
nomic and social benefits of these
achievements. This section draws
upon the information submitted by
States and developed by EPA and
other Federal agencies concerning
the benefits and costs of water pol-
lution control.
None of the States and Territo-
ries reporting on their water quality
programs attempted to describe the
full extent of economic benefits and
costs associated with progress made
in improving and protecting water
quality conditions.
Instead, studies have been un-
dertaken on either a State, local, or
regional scale to generate benefit
and/or cost information for more
specific water quality issues. Most
studies of this type analyze a limited
number of beneficial outcomes asso-
ciated with water quality changes
occurring within a given watershed,
lake, or estuary. The results of these
studies are used to assess implemen-
tation options or to provide a
means of evaluating the effective-
ness of water quality control pro-
grams. EPA and the States and Terri-
tories have had to rely upon such
studies in order to provide informa-
tion on the economic benefits and
costs of water quality controls.
This chapter presents informa-
tion both prepared by EPA and re-
ported by the States in their 305(b)
reports that pertains to the eco-
nomic costs and benefits of water
quality protection programs. This
information does not present a
comprehensive view of conditions
throughout the Nation but illustrates
the types and magnitude of benefits
and costs that result from water
quality control programs in specific
situations.
Costs
Estimates of the economic costs
of water quality programs include
expenditures for personnel and
equipment used to reduce and treat
discharges to waterbodies and gov-
ernmental expenditures for develop-
ing, implementing, and enforcing
water quality regulations. Previous
305 (b) reports have included tables
showing national cost estimates
prepared by the EPA and the U.S.
Department of Commerce. These
tables are reproduced here with
some minor modifications to reflect
additional information and changes
in methodologies followed in cost
calculations conducted by the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
-------
322 Chapter Eighteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
As displayed in Table 18-1, the
costs for water quality controls (both
point source programs and
nonpoint source programs) continue
to constitute the largest portion of
water pollution control expenditures
(91% as of 1987). Water quality
costs are those associated with ac-
tions taken to meet the Marine Pro-
tection, Sanctuaries, and Research
Act of 1972 and the Clean Water
Act as amended in 1987.
Table 18-1 . Total Annualized Costs of Water Pollution Control
for the United States (millions of 1986 dollars)
Program
Point Source
Nonpoint Source
Drinking Water
Total
1972
8,543
567
802
9,912
1980
20,726
647
1,982
23,355
1987
27,546
779
2,765
31,090
1990
36,075
823
3,591
40,489
1995
44,162
893
5,350
50,405
2000
52,537
959
6,563
60,059
Source: U.S. EPA, Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment -
A Summary, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, December 1990, Table 3-3,
page 3-3. Updated and revised based upon information supplied by the Depart-
ment of Commerce Census Bureau data on private and public expenditures.
Table 18-2. Total Annualized Costs of Environmental Protection
in the United States (millions of 1986 dollars)
Program
Water
Land
Air and Radiation
Multimedia9
Chemicals
Total
Percent of CNPb
1972
9,912
8,412
7,826
107
92
26,349
0.87
1980
23,355
13,449
17,218
868
889
55,779
1.52
1987
31,090
15,716
22,562
687
773
70,828
1.70
1990
40,489
31,159
26,755
1,580
1,608
101,591
2.13
1995
50,405
40,973
35,187
2,122
2,466
131,153
2.53
2000
60,056
51,535
42,390
2,299
2,886
159,166
2.80
a Includes costs not attributable to individual media programs (e.g., EPA management
and support, Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, and undesignated
non-EPA Federal costs.
bCNP = Cross National Product using the CNP implicit price index.
Source: U.S. EPA, Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment -
A Summary, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, December 1990, Table 3-3,
page 3-3. Updated and revised based upon information supplied by the Depart-
ment of Commerce Census Bureau data on private and public expenditures.
Nonpoint source expenditures
are those incurred to control pollu-
tion from sources such as land run-
off, precipitation, drainage, and
seepage, including agricultural storm
drainage and irrigation return flows.
As shown in the table, expenditures
for point source controls account for
the lion's share of the expenditures
for improving water quality.
Although the table includes esti-
mates of expenditures for nonpoint
source controls, there is much un-
certainty associated with this esti-
mate. Estimates of expenditures for
point source controls, on the other
hand, are much more reliable.
Total annual water pollution
costs (including drinking water pro-
tection expenditures) have increased
steadily over time, from about $9.9
billion in 1972 to $40.5 billion in
1990 (in constant 1986 dollars). The
majority of historical point source
control costs are for sewerage ser-
vices and wastewater treatment and
for control of industrial effluents and
the pretreatment of wastewater
discharges to municipal treatment
facilities. Future costs are projected
to reach $60 billion by the year
2000. Much of the projected in-
crease is attributable to additional
drinking water regulations and the
need to construct backlogged
municipal wastewater treatment
facilities. Future cost increases to
control nonpoint sources are also
anticipated, but the magnitude of
this increase is highly uncertain.
Therefore, the forecasted increase in
nonpoint source controls is based
on increases associated with recent
trends for changes in nonpoint
source expenditures.
Several other environmental
statutes expressly recognize that
pollution sources regulated under
-------
Chapter Eighteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 323
their protection programs can con-
tribute to changes in water quality
conditions. For example, the 1990
amendments to the Clean Air Act
contain sections that call for air
quality controls that will reduce the
effects of acidic deposition and the
delivery of other toxic materials to
affected waterbodies. Measures
taken to reduce runoff and leakage
from landfills and underground stor-
age facilities under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act can
prevent the contamination of sur-
face and ground water supplies. The
regulation of toxic chemicals and
pesticides under the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
and the Toxic Substances Control
Act can prevent the deterioration of
natural ecosystems and enhance
recreational and commercial fisher-
ies. Table 18-2, which describes the
costs of all pollution control pro-
grams, gives some perspective on
the magnitude of pollution control
expenditures in the United States.
The relevant proportion of these
costs that can be directly or other-
wise related to water quality
improvements has not been com-
puted. But, as the estimates in Table
18-2 indicate, water quality pro-
grams alone make up a significant
portion (35% to 40%) of the total
estimated expenditures for all envi-
ronmental programs in the United
States.
Given the scarcity of State infor-
mation, it is not possible to develop
comprehensive estimates of environ-
mental expenditures for all States.
However, several States produced
information on the costs of water
quality control programs. Two of
the more comprehensive presenta-
tions were supplied by Pennsyl-
vania's Department of Environmen-
tal Resources and Washington's
Department of Environmental Con-
servation (Tables 18-3 and 18-4).
The costs demonstrated in these
two tables are not necessarily repre-
sentative of expenditures in other
States, but illustrate the variety of
Federal, State, local, and privately
funded and administered activities
aimed at protecting water quality.
Table 18-3. State and Federal Expenditures for Water Pollution Control in Pennsylvania, 1987-1991
(millions of dollars)
Year
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Total
EPA New
Grants
78,083
107,261
41,398
34,116
32,137
292,995
EPA Grant
Exp.
109,973
135,225
69,691
83,987
51,473
450,349
FHA
Grant
3,861
4,615
4,565
5,533
13,554
32,128
Federal
Dept of
Comm.
1,000
600
1,180
950
0
3,730
PADER
Act
443
49
637
249
8
5
948
PADER
Act
339
18,920
19,865
20,934
23,778
27,211
110,708
PADER
Act
537
1,868
1,961
1,037
2,097
1,103
8,066
PA
ARC
0
200
0
0
0
200
PA
Dept of
Comm.
4,314
6,558
0
5,146
935
16,953
PENN
VEST
Loan and
Grant
162,508
152,525
110,251
128,243
553,527
Source: 1992 draft Pennsylvania 305(b) report, Table 23, page 128.
-------
324 Chapter Eighteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
Table 18-4. Washington State Expenditures for Water Pollution Control (millions of dollars) j
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Manufacturing Industries Water
Pollution Control Costs
Capital
Expend-
itures
16.4
No data
21.7
45.4
No data
No data
No data
No data
Operating
Costs
90.3
No data
113.8
112.2
No data
No data
No data
No data
Payments
for Public
Sewage
Services
13.0
No data
15.7
21.9
No data
No data
No data
No data
State and
Local
Govern-
ment
Sewerage
Expenses
286.6
441.5
433.4
346.0
369.4
No data
No data
No data
State and Federal Financial
Assistance Grants and Loans
Centennial
Clean
Water
Fund
10.6
22.6
60.0
80.0
41.5
No data
CWA
Construc-
ion
Grants
10.9
17.5
51.9
22.2
18.7
48.8
State
Revolving
Fund
16.0
20.0
41.5
No data
WA State
Depart-
ment of
Ecology
Annual
Funding
No data
No data
3.4
5.5
6.3
7.0
9.0 (est.)
9.0 (est.)
Source: 1992 Washington State 305(b) report, Tables V-5 to V-8, pp. 183-186.
Table 18-5. Wastewater Treatment System Expenditures and Ohio River
Water Quality Improvements
Ohio
River
Mile
Point
138.2
142.6
155.1
171.0
172.2
175.7
183.3
183.3
183.3
185.7
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
Sisterville
Friendly
St. Mary's
Marietta
Williamstown
Central Boaz
Ohio County
Parkersburg
Vienna
Belpre
State
WV
wv
WV
OH
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
OH
Dollars
Spent
2,221,000
2,859,598
787,668
7,114,580
2,523,700
3,131,600
4,928,806
19,951,500
960,867
2,069,974
Monitoring
Station
Mile
Point
161.8
203.9
Water
Quality
Trend
Improving
Improving
Biological
Indicator
NA
No trend
NA = Not available (insufficient data).
Source: Adapted from Table 20, pages 40-41,1992 Ohio Section 305(b) report, Ohio EPA, 1992.
-------
Chapter Eighteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 325
Benefits
Like previous State Section
305(b) reports, the 1992 submis-
sions do not fully describe the eco-
nomic and environmental benefits
associated with water quality im-
provements in the States. States
continue to focus their reports on
measurable physical, chemical, and
biological changes in water quality
and estimated changes in physical
loadings from point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. Few States
have used this information in their
305(b) reports to estimate the
effects of changes in water quality
conditions on economic activities,
and fewer still attach values to these
economic activities in a manner that
allows for a comparison between
the economic costs and benefits.
Following are three examples
that demonstrate how States have
responded to requests for informa-
tion on the economic benefits of
their programs. They show the spec-
trum in the use of information and
economic theory in the preparation
of State benefit analyses.
The Ohio River Commission
examined long-term trends in moni-
toring data for total suspended
solids (TSS) and total Kjeldahl nitro-
gen (TKN) and their relationship
with wastewater treatment dollars
spent through the Construction
Grants Program. In Table 18-5, the
category of dollars spent refers to
monies allocated from 1977
through 1991 for publicly owned
treatment works discharging directly
into the Ohio River. The dollar
amount may include additional
State and local funds as well as
monies spent for project planning,
collection system improvements,
and other areas not directly result-
ing in improved effluent quality.
Further, some monies allocated dur-
ing this period may not have been
spent, while monies allocated prior
to 1977 are not reported but may
have been spent during the report
period. The trend data refer to me-
dian decreases in TSS and TKN con-
centrations measured using the
Commission's monitoring program.
These data illustrate the relationship
between construction expenditures
for wastewater treatment and water
quality improvements in the Ohio
River.
Arizona described a specific water
quality action for which the benefits
and costs of the decision were not
calculated in dollars but were de-
scribed in qualitative terms. This
action demonstrates some of the
issues that relate to the weighing of
benefits and costs associated with
water quality programs. In this par-
ticular case, the circumstances re-
volved around the ^classification of
a waterbody as a Unique Water with
the adoption of the new State Sur-
face Water Standards in January
1992. The Arizona report indicates
that the costs of the actions include,
but are not necessarily limited to,
the following:
public acquisition of private
land for the preserve
limitation of land use options
on adjoining properties to
the preserve
request to eliminate grazing
permits along the waterbody
cleanup of petroleum-tainted
soils in a railroad right-of-way
-------
326 Chapter Eighteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control
development of a mainte-
nance and emergency
response plan by the railroad
restoration of a contaminated
well
plans to develop and imple-
ment potential roadway spill
runoff from an adjacent high-
way
chemical and biological
monitoring of surface and
ground water quality and
flow levels
State resources to develop
site-specific water quality
standards
revegetation of areas dam-
aged by construction, min-
ing, utility corridors, and
transportation rights-of-way.
The potential benefits to con-
sider measuring from this action
include, but are not necessarily lim-
ited to, the following:
protection of one of two
remaining perennial streams
in the Tucson area
maintenance of an area used
for geological, ornithological,
and botanical research and
education
land management cost sav-
ings afforded by consolida-
tion of land holdings
reduced costs of flood protec-
tion insurance
protection of a rare ecological
system and habitat for local
and migratory species
protection of high-quality
drinking water sources
provision of suitable habitat
for future reintroduction of
endangered native species.
The Arizona report notes that
some of the costs were inevitable. In
such cases, the benefits should not
be solely attributed to the process.
In such instances, some means must
be developed to correctly attribute
both benefits and costs to policy
decisions, or the information must
be caveated in such a way as to
make this known to policymakers
and the public.
Pennsylvania described the eco-
nomic value of fishing and boating
using information on the number of
fishing and boating permits and
studies performed by the Pennsylva-
nia State Data Center. In this study
an estimated 3,333,000 persons
participated in recreational fishing
with expenditures totaling $1.35
billion on equipment, supplies, food,
lodging, fuel, and other goods. In
addition, some 2,981,000 State
residents participated in boating
activities and spent $2.878 billion in
this activity.
While these expenditures pro-
vide significant revenues and in-
come to the State economy, it
would be incorrect to argue that the
economic benefits of these activities
are equal to the amount of money
spent in the pursuit of such activi-
ties. In the absence of these local
recreational and boating opportuni-
ties, most of these individuals would
probably be engaged in some alter-
native activity or choose to recreate
elsewhere, which would also gener-
ate expenditures on their part.
-------
Chapter Eighteen Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Control 327
The Greater Benefits
of Water Quality
Programs
As the preceding discussion
makes clear, information on benefits
is rather sparse. Nevertheless, it is
also clear that protection of the
Nation's waters is important to indi-
vidual citizens and the economy as
a whole. This section provides some
perspectives on particular economic
sectors dependent on water pollu-
tion control efforts to maintain their
vitality.*
Recreational Fishing
An estimated 46 million Ameri-
cans participate in recreational fish-
ing. In 1985, they spent 976 million
days on the water. Most of these
days (84%) were spent freshwater
fishing, with saltwater fishing
accounting for 16%. Recreational
fishers spend about $32 billion
annually on tackle, gear, boats,
lodging, transportation, and related
expenses.
Clean water is essential to pre-
serving recreational fisheries and
local communities that depend on
them. An example is the Great
Lakes fishery. Sport fishing contrib-
utes about $4 billion annually to the
economies of the Great Lakes States.
However, fishing bans and advisories
have adversely affected fishing along
4,808 of the 5,382 miles of Great
Lakes shoreline.
Boating
In 1989, one out of three
Americans participated in boating,
and approximately 16 million boats
are registered in the United States.
Expenditures on boating were ap-
proximately 513.7 billion in 1990.
The recreational boating industry
employs about 600,000 workers,
including 242,000 manufacturing
workers, 184,000 workers in marine
wholesaling and retailing operations,
and about 174,000 workers em-
ployed by marine service businesses.
Although high levels of water
quality are not absolutely necessary
for safe boating, poor water quality
may restrict access. Even where
poor water quality does not deter
boating, there is little doubt that
water pollution such as floatables,
odor, and algae growths detract
from the pleasures of boating.
Commercial Fishing
Approximately 274,000 Ameri-
cans are commercial fishers and
90,000 workers are employed in
seafood processing and related
activities. In 1990, the U.S. catch
was valued at $3.6 billion, and this
sector's total contribution to GNP
was approximately $16.5 billion.
Pollution of the Nation's rivers,
lakes, bays, and estuaries has direct
and indirect impacts on the com-
mercial fisheries. Short-term effects
include fish kills and advisories or
bans that limit access. Long-term
impacts include adverse impacts on
spawning grounds and nurseries.
Shellfish are extremely vulnerable to
water pollution, which has severely
affected much of the country's
prime shellfishing grounds. Of the
17 million acres of estuarine waters
monitored in 1990, 25% were pro-
hibited for shellfishing and another
12% were in restricted or condi-
tional status.
* Information in this section is drawn from Clean Water and the Economy: An Overview, Office of Water, EPA, August 1992.
-------
Appendix A
Individual State Data
Rivers and Streams
-------
A-2 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
Table A-1. Overall Designated Use Support in Rivers and Streams (miles) '
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California*
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Ola River Ind. Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana*
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey*
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio*
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
% of Assessed Waters
Fully Supporting
Eval- Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
7,478 1,323 8,801
- 1,165 - 1,165
467 349 - 816
2,322 1,315 3,637
- - 713 713
15,725 7,984 - 23,709
215 172 387
44 43 - SJ
2,168 2,880 5,048
- 1,165 - 1,165
42 13 - 55
352 282 - 634
2,370 3,568 - 5,938
1,153 3,595 - 4,748
228 670 898
3,916 2,572 6,488
1,979 408 2/387
20,620 10,580 - 31,200
14,372 1,317 - 15,689
200 188 388
- 21,299 - 21,299
99 989 - 1,088
1,958 191 2,149
7,398 3,642 11,040
46,732 804 47,536
458 1,660 - 2,118
128 204 332
2,073 8,541 - 10,614
35 278 313
43,978 3,094 - 47,072
8,682 4,242 - 12,924
- 180 - 180
1,368 1,244 - 2,612
537 37 574
12,330 322 12,652
12,790 7,351 20,141
285 3 288
- - 206 206
- - 2,842 2,842
66 548 614
3,432 1,666 5,098
10,381 10,381
2,582 1,711 - 4,293
2,808 305 3,113
2,266 12,155 - 14,421
605 1,016 1,621
126 587 713
7,818 1,516 9,334
15 747 762
232,220 113,921 14,142 360,283
64% 32% 4% 56%
Threatened
Eval- Monl. Not
uated tored Specified Total
122 89 211
182 138 320
- - 316 316
90 82 172
3 6 9
206 206
5 247 252
48 2 - 50
179 175 354
- 273 - 273
281 96 377
108 386 494
69 69
1,885 1,885
113 120 233
1,021 550 1,571
2,620 615 3,235
40 104 144
1,022 1,022
50 50
1,304 92 - 1,396
9,866 1,967 - 11,833
4,783 1,926 6,709
108 411 519
3,136 386 - 3,522
S77 13 590
282 282
921 854 1,775
975 172 1,147
369 - - 369
44 324 - 368
92 7 99
826 388 1,214
29,698 9,748 1,620 41,066
72% 24% 4% 6%
Partially Supporting
Eval- Monl- Not
uated ttored Specified Total
923 1,320 - 2,243
251 1,040 1,291
1,061 569 - 1,630
1,366 826 2,192
- - 4,367 4,367
1,173 193 - 1,366
30 238 268
2 46 - 48
- 3 - 3
669 1,152 1,821
251 1,040 - 1,291
61 61
7,066 1,570 - 8,636
2,400 5,173 - 7,573
154 189 343
8,609 443 - 9,052
62 644 - 706
226 762 - 988
116 3,260 3,376
58 153 211
349 911 1,260
80 183 263
476 679 - 1,155
30,002 1,573 - 31,575
5,930 3,705 9,635
9,144 3,397 12,S41
590 3,375 3,965
334 334
80 80
- - 329 329
556 2,400 2,956
2,759 194 - 2,953
6,392 2,215 8,607
210 2,074 - 2,284
794 901 1,695
79 420 - 499
2,175 2,175
7,381 1,321 8,702
364 1,573 1,937
862 98 960
- - 32 32
648 648
275 672 - 947
1,408 1,559 2,967
- - 1,356 1,356
915 265 - 1.180
687 103 790
94 2,357 - 2,451
535 525 1,060
248 3,100 3,348
1,141 185 1,326
2,285 1,264 - 3,549
97,973 56,259 6,793 161,025
61% 35% 4% 25%
'Entered aquatic life use support data in lieu of overall use support data.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-3
Table A-1. (continued)
Not Supporting
Eval-
uated
384
168
1,070
971
1,703
5
236
248
168
2,698
73
60
22
7
319
755
11
21
270
152
396
125
25
1,004
108
87
5
5
288
1,032
1,910
40
7
4,926
173
2,605
110
342
891
173
21
551
280
391
24,836
31%
Moni-
tored
653
1,430
625
662
417
58
423
35
564
1,430
666
123
1,244
414
15,492
1,874
686
250
31
418
1,139
1,994
434
315
361
1,726
629
142
265
20
664
1,167
442
768
2,829
2,500
932
1,932
643
1,193
42
1,065
2,036
577
187
488
51,985
65%
Not
Specified
283
135
164
145
464
2,370
3,561
4%
Total
1,037
1,598
1,695
1,633
283
2,120
63
659
35
812
1,598
135
3,364
196
1,304
436
15,499
2,193
1,441
261
52
688
1,291
2,390
559
340
1,365
1,834
716
147
164
270
308
1,696
3,077
482
775
7,755
2,673
3,537
145
464
2,042
985
2,370
2,084
215
1,086
2,587
857
578
488
80,382
13%
Not Attainable
Eval- Monl- Not
uated tored. Specified Total
_ _ _ _
12-3
_ _ _ _
77 77
_ _ _ _
45 45
_ _ _ _
_ _ _
1 47 77 125
1% 38% 62% <1%
Total Assessed
Eval-
uated
8,907
419
2,780
4,659
18,601
341
285
3,090
419
137
90
10,295
4,843
1,648
8,739
297
4,461
4,735
20,689
14,742
663
152
971
33,106
13,353
59,500
1,196
215
2,078
596
48,329
25,972
4,993
4,180
119
3,680
24,637
13,327
4,329
376
451
6,103
4,388
4,643
2,381
2,060
698
9,442
3,126
385,241
60%
Moni-
tored
3,385
3,635
1,681
2,803
8,594
552
518
206
38
4,843
3,635
59
15
2,693
9,137
5,124
1,243
16,806
5,277
4,354
10,983
2,259
909
22,438
3,662
2,748
7,662
5,177
6,865
1,212
8,763
2,993
3,400
9,088
4,180
3,723
862
3,366
4,472
11,424
1,046
289
3,152
4,722
3,169
622
15,577
3,577
4,588
1,895
2,887
232,308
36%
Not
Specified
5,679
77
1,515
3,954
14,107
25,332
4%
Total
12,292
4,054
4,461
7,462
5,679
27,195
893
803
206
38
7,933
4,054
196
105
12,988
13,980
6,849
9,982
17,103
9,738
9,089
31,672
17,001
1,572
22,590
4,633
35,854
21,015
64,677
8,061
1,427
10,841
1,515
3,589
51,729
35,060
9.173
7,903
981
7,046
29,109
24,751
5,375
665
3,954
3,603
10,825
14,107
7,557
5,265
17,958
5,637
5,286
11,337
6,013
642,881
18%
-------
A-4 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
Table A-2a. Aquatic Life Use Support in Rivers and Streams (miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
8,631
802
4,019
713
22,243
616
580
206
12
5,048
490
5,938
4,748
2,829
7,208
31,514
15,698
894
21,412
1,918
2,196
11,037
42,350
1,479
731
10,768
4,022
49,254
12,924
238
2,612
19,859
751
298
3,347
12,941
4,634
2,298
1,007
9,302
327,567
60%
Threatened
221
793
316
56
3
252
277
273
377
508
72
280
1,003
3,121
527
1,039
809
11,833
6,983
518
.282
688
227
368
69
30,895
6%
Partially
Supporting
2,024
1,178
2,119
4,367
1,366
182
81
3
1,822
61
1,761
7,573
343
9,323
2,152
1,121
1,141
146
430
31,501
9,638
36,058
3,888
354
73
216
1,502
8,607
1,983
1,694
608
1,937
1,577
12
334
554
1,162
451
3,323
1,150
143,815
26%
Not
Supporting
939
1,584
764
283
2,166
38
138
23
811
135
147
196
1,304
141
12,122
780
158
161
209
1,178
1,160
435
340
3,377
317
357
164
251
164
1,696
3,077
373
2,673
2,359
128
309
579
1,761
276
592
875
44,540
8%
Not
Attainable
710
3
82
77
8
116
45
13
1,054
<1%
Total
Assessed
11,815
4,357
6,902
5,679
26,485
895
802
206
38
7,933
278
2,675
13,980
6,849
9,980
17,103
9,181
31,672
17,000
1,529
22,590
3,508
35,251
21,015
84,906
6,211
1,487
10,841
1,419
4,273
51,729
35,060
9,204
7,901
981
24,751
5,375
665
3,990
14,074
7,557
3,025
5,290
11,409
547,871
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-5
Table A-2b. Fish Consumption Use Support in Rivers and Streams (miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
8,624
6,716
3,154
22,243
9
778
200
1,350
4,417
515
278
9,057
5,207
31,436
16,940
418
21,884
182
19,959
95
10,827
51,457
12,924
1,471
14,144
23
155
966
245,429
84%
Threatened
221
230
59
121
9
439
11,833
332
13,244
5%
Partially
Supporting
2,024
39
1,880
1,366
66
28
1,503
236
60
1,194
745
28
13
93
137
8,607
509
321
981
110
122
20,062
7%
Not
Supporting
952
147
68
2,166
2
24
6
467
331
77
20
125
2,380
300
706
485
312
135
1,696
231
894
389
68
11,981
4%
Not
Attainable
710
8
718
<1%
Total
Assessed
11,821
6,902
5,332
26,485
136
802
206
28
1,817
4,748
721
298
9,182
9,090
31,672
17,000
727
22,590
1,861
21,016
562
10,840
93
51,729
35,060
509
2,124
981
14,375
917
654
1,156
291,434
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
A-6 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
Table A-2c. Swimming Use Support in Rivers and Streams (miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
8,674
1,295
5,375
2,576
9,422
557
61
206
5,048
1,131
1,617
937
1,960
1,543
3,408
31,544
16,999
649
22,188
1,696
595
5,370
68,251
546
870
10,694
316
51,343
800
252
1,247
843
1,094
2,000
11,221
2,022
1,230
3,387
278,967
68%
Threatened
140
224
8
79
252
524
415
166
214
504
80
82
340
6,645
2,141
469
124
12,407
3%
Partially
Supporting
2,047
434
296
204
37
3
1,822
61
574
1,478
127
1,761
3,540
265
2,409
337
488
1,472
14,272
479
220
40
6
295
200
2,307
159
1,053
1,316
166
1,141
189
1,163
40,361
10%
Not
Supporting
943
399
783
60
50
615
35
811
135
89
560
3,246
293
11,306
1,697
3,273
128
2
365
402
1,324
126
1,773
1,338
331
147
405
9
30
2,145
587
2,496
120
1,668
12
624
463
38,790
10%
Not
Attainable
3
51
135
8,173
15,645
13,073
45
37,125
9%
Total
Assessed
11,804
2,352
6,158
2,940
9,422
893
764
206
38
7,933
331
2,318
3,655
4,310
10,642
16,806
3,505
9,090
31,672
17,001
1,517
22,590
3,508
2,407
21,015
84,800
15,436
1,466
10,841
525
322
51,729
1,370
9,204
3,551
4,624
5,375
2,286
14,030
2,034
2,043
5,137
407,650
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-7
Table A-2d. Secondary Contact Recreational Use Support in Rivers and Streams (miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
8,681
289
6,902
5,112
21,743
846
781
1
61
1,466
24
9,476
5,328
31,544
1,240
22,188
25,115
3,768
50,587
12,924
252
1,548
3,545
51
2,022
1,416
4
216,914
77%
Threatened
140
131
649
60
418
343
11,833
8,952
25
454
23,005
8%
Partially
Supporting
2,024
389
1
56
38
225
5,538
2,550
116
8,827
70
799
8,607
1,578
279
6
358
38
31,499
11%
Not
Supporting
939
639
3
13
27
24
1,791
1,212
128
107
402
870
14
1,696
1,796
109
12
315
10,097
4%
Not
Attainable
3
116
669
788
<1%
Total
Assessed
11,784
1,448
6,902
5,113
21,799
890
794
28
61
2,364
24
16,805
9,090
31,672
1,523
22,590
35,346
3,852
51,729
35,060
9,204
694
5,376
3,933
57
2,034
2,089
42
282,303
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
A-8 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
Table A-2e. Drinking Water Supply Use Support in Rivers and Streams (miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
818
211
6,037
2,287
16,213
90
62
206
244
665
1
6,192
47
22,551
3,160
8,770
339
11
785
1,026
2,731
594
257
427
29,109
1,138
8,598
8,303
3,800
1,842
126,514
57%
Threatened
64
12
7
13
5
15
83
1,313
9
155
2,085
1,683
51
504
5,999
3%
Partially
Supporting
799
33
239
77
109
1
559
6,261
2
180
221
1,233
1,867
557
61
2,246
138
330
14,913
7%
Not
Supporting
139
832
1
2
4
196
2
10,054
12
39
742
33
2
13
159
167
53
1,486
237
11
237
14,421
7%
Not
Attainable
15,353
196
10,684
17,855
15,417
59,505
27%
Total
Assessed
818
1,213
6,902
2,538
31,566
98
77
206
325
392
774
10,693
16,805
74
22,590
83
21,015
17,086
15,756
44
789
1,228
376
6,208
4,144
981
592
29,109
5,374
8,598
8,678
3,811
2,409
221,352
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-9
Table A-2f. Agriculture Use Support in Rivers and Streams (miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
79
1,624
6,742
3,443
31,225
828
. 702
196
2,717
21,094
2,141
31,672
17,000
22,590
11,598
2,103
11
3,515
51,729
12,924
4,933
462
29,109
8,598
5,936
272,971
84%
Threatened
717
5
306
351
11,833
3,592
89
16,893
5%
Partially
Supporting
146
557
40
2
6
35
1,900
4,729
538
8,607
679
73
114
17,426
5%
Not
Supporting
133
723
160
8
12,765
448
56
33
47
1,696
9
1,284
17,362
5%
Not
Attainable
15
710
1
726
<1%
Total
Assessed
373
3,621
6,902
3,483
31,935
836
702
6
196
3,066
21,094
16,806
31,672
17,000
22,590
17,126
2,159
44
4,100
51,729
35,060
9,204
633
29,109
8,598
7,334
325,378
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
A-10 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
I Table A-3. Leading Causes of Pollution in Assessed Rivers and Streams (miles) !
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total River Miles Impaired
% of Impaired River Miles*
Affected by Each Cause
% of Assessed River Miles
Affected by Each Cause
% of Total River Miles
Affected by Each Cause
Total Impaired Miles
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
- 3,280
2,889
3,325
3,825
- 4,650
3,486
331
707
38
2,633
2,889
196
12,000 -
- 7,769
1,647
9,488
16,205
3,181
4,817
472
1,312
951
1,291
3,545
- 32,134
9,975
13,906
5,799
1,050
227
493
3,226
3,261
10,303
2,284
4,772
981
2,950
16,457
4,610
4.497
177
1,112
2,989
3,952
3,726
- 3,264
1,005
3,537
- 3,647
4,205
1,904
- 4,037
19,037 222,370
Slltatlon (1)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
382 1,036 1,418
2,277 117 2,394
327 1,671 1,998
- 35 35
1 1
_ _ _ _
181 6,598 6,779
40 40
8,364 1,121 9,485
810 109 919
97 771 868
139 831 970
8 22 30
169 37 206
340 29,085 29,425
4 7,225 7,229
303 6,497 6,800
- 66 66
810 1,322 2,132
2,302 1,225 3,527
3,941 3,941
691 1,129 - 1,820
720 1,040 1,760
1,142 1,142
725 2,575 3,300
1,260 1,260
110 275 385
463 367 830
- 90 - 90
37 435 472
543 2,880 3,423
493 2,662 3,155
3,225 3,225
20,295 70,404 8,426 99,125
9% 32% 4% 45%
3% 11% 1% 15%
1% 2% <1% 3%
Nutrients (2)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
497 1,446 1,943
402 402
141 649 790
312 375 687
10 47 - 57
410 208 618
279 408 687
982 6,584 7,566
31 9,034 9,065
208 - 208
270 92 362
828 2,008 2,836
374 878 - 1,252
12 243 255
10 42 52
- 1,653 1;653
834 29,077 29,911
104 5,628 - 5,732
89 161 250
81 81
9 614 623
553 2,230 2,783
- - 518 518
759 1,118 1377
44 97 141
147 2,530 2,677
_ _ 745 745
- 582 582
695 592 1,287
12 20 32
137 236 373
220 264 484
163 97 - 260
269 269
302 494 796
514 2,395 2,909
- - 877 877
9,027 69,891 2,722 81,640
4% 31% 1% 37%
1% 11% <1% 13%
<1% 2% <1% 2%
Includes only impaired river miles in States reporting causes affecting rivers and streams.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Total Impaired River Mile* in States Reporting Causes: 222,370 miles
Total Assessed River Miles: 642,881 miles
Estimate of Total River Miles in the Nation: 3,531,247 mites
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-11
Table A-3. (continued)
Pathogen Indicators (3)
Major
298
5
175
173
30
94
669
18
32
1,086
157
2,644
392
11,520
1,702
926
62
66
334
62
166
490
8
1,029
67
81
49
231
249
151
2,346
56
472
795
1,563
12
54
811
309
93
29,477
13%
5%
1%
Mod/
Mln
377
219
157
1,529
25
32
37
6
249
723
183
648
1
49
2,374
64
956
370
26
1,819
8,880
1,600
78
240
1,082
608
218
200
1,359
27
243
796
790
345
1,325
1,395
70
405
29,505
13%
5%
1%
Not
Specified
.
656
885
155
126
1,822
1%
<1%
<1%
Total
675
224
332
UOZ
55
126
706
24
281
1,809
340
3,292
392
11 ,521
1751
3300
126
1,022
704
88
»,985
9,370
1,608
1,029
145
81
289
U13
656
608
467
351
885
155
3705
83
715
U91
2,353
12
399
2,136
1,704
70
498
126
60,804
27%
9%
2%
Pesticides (4)
Major
128
2,040
78
245
161
2,808
172
2
472
101
606
3
36
37
418
271
368
71
366
10
277
99
8,769
4%
1%
<1%
Mod/
Mln
243
145
124
11
7
66
116
8,292
1,785
32,479
572
3
132
811
65
66
492
2,614
380
63
5
56
130
169
48,826
22%
8%
1%
Not
Specified
52
161
273
486
<1%
<1%
Total
371
145
2,164
11
85
66
361
8,453
2,808
1,957
2
32,951
673
606
3
135
847
65
103
910
2,885
52
161
748
134
5
422
140
277
268
273
58,081
26%
9%
2%
Organic Enrich./ Low Dissolved Oxygen (5)
Major
522
46
76
3
45
69
5
338
72
149
653
16
2,981
588
530
117
36
84
81
157
22
47
45
8
27
131
10
2,374
128
611
17
639
300
125
119
14
149
458
11,803
5%
2%
<1%
Mod/
Mln
796
382
66
82
10
52
80
14
557
110
1,430
45
59
124
56
2,216
106
106
225
25
1,231
23,774
37
932
790
86
34
11
80
888
219
781
915
485
10
16
679
361
345
319
196
589
399
1,158
40,865
18%
6%
1%
Not
Specified
507
603
184
516
1,810
1%
<1%
<1%
Total
1,318
382
112
158
13
97
149
19
895
182
U79
698
75
3,105
644
2,746
223
106
261
109
1,312
23,931
59
979
790
131
42
11
107
1,019
507
229
3,155
1,043
603
184
1,096
27
655
679
661
345
444
315
603
548
1,616
516
54,478
24%
8%
2%
(continued)
-------
A-12 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
1 Table A-3. (continued)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total River Miles
Impaired
% of Impaired River
Miles' Affected by
Each Cause
% of Assessed River
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
% of Total River
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
Metals (6)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified total
37 382 419
241 950 1,191
24 24
396 460 856
873 706 1,579
70 47 117
34 28 62
3 16 19
838 92 930
14 1,187 - U01
440 130 570
165 165
9,683 9,683
225 18 243
102 132 234
3 3 6
54 155 - 209
175 7-182
250 1,801 - 2,051
204 1,085 U89
13 45 - 58
565 3,979 4,544
474 474
134 - 134
1 5 6
1 1
501 1,199 1,700
41 217 - 258
- - 324 324
- 857 - 857
501 655 \,\S6
1,505 U05
73 812 885
2,061 2,061
450 486 936
130 3 133
18 - 18
85 85
911 30 941
16 45 61
234 503 737
50 1,019 1,069
555 1,925 2,480
97 83 180
- - 374 374
18,097 21,151 2,759 42,007
8% 10% 1% 19%
3% 3% <1% 6%
<1% <1% <1% 1%
Suspended Solids (7)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
113 529 642
74 74
- 22 22
- 28 - 28
77 195 272
66 715 781
53 180 233
8,025 124 8,149
32 4 - 36
609 2,084 - 2,693
80 80
- 7 7
949 949
331 273 604
338 6,747 7,085
48 48
60 315 - 375
182 611 793
194 660 854
11 11
1 2 - 3
703 1,651 - 2354
596 596
62 62
3 - 3
1,087 772 - 1,859
32 43 75
36 36
201 201
19 - 19
13 40 53
- - 299 299
11,916 16,474 906 29,296
5% 7% <1% 13%
2% 3% <1% 5%
<1% <1% <1% 1%
Sallntty/TDS/Chlorldes (8)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified Total
18 563 581
34 87 121
23 - 23
14 - 14
_ _ _ _
106 106
13 - 13
8,619 8,619
178 20 198
301 1,585 1,886
15 15
1 6-7
10 653 663
13 1,324 1,337
431 5,449 5,880
31 31
135 106 241
98 250 348
26 429 455
176 495 671
22 13 35
418 880 U98
28 28
- 3 - 3
7 7
391 855 - 1,246
280 63 343
1,194 124 1,318
44
49 49
13 13
881 881
12,371 13,154 909 26,434
6% 6% <1% 12%
2% 2% <1% 4%
<1% <1% <1% 1%
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-13
Table A-3. (continued)
Ha tout Alterations (9)
Major
101
70
Mod/ Not
Mln Specified
29
1,500
Total
101
29
1,570
449
212
98
320
78
314
66
603
639
313
18
1,197
35 -
177
24
305
3
31
4,497
5,264
103
1,584
716
277
1,480
1,646
35
389
122
625
3
109
4,497
5,578
103
66
2,187
1,355
590
1,480
18
_ _ _ _
211
88
1
517
4,098
2%
1%
<1%
199
222
405
62
2,482
485
19,112 1,965
9% 1%
3% <1%
1%
410
222
493
63
2,999
485
25,175
11%
4%
1%
Flow Alterations (10)
Major
61
143
Mod/ Not
Mln Specified
227
211
Total
288
354
28
83
516
4
9
102
10
552
635
38
207
402
15
773
655 -
476 -
4
2
50
6,686
204
45 -
537
2
89
272
154
1,355
10
683
83
992
8
9
2
152
10
7,238
839
45
38
744
2
89
674
169
1,355
783
_ _ _ _
199
24
266
4,067
2%
1%
112
56
298
19
1,231
694
11,338 2,051
5% 1%
2% <1%
311
56
298
43
1,497
694
17,456
8%
3%
<1% <1% <1% <1%
-------
A-14 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
1 Table A-4. Leading Sources of Pollution in Assessed Rivers and Streams (miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
ONo
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total River Miles Impaired
% of Impaired River Miles'
Affected by Each Source
% of Assessed River Miles
Affected by Each Source
% of Total River Miles
Affected by Each Source
Total impaired Miles
States Not States
Reporting Sources Reporting Sources
3,280
2,889
3,325
- 3,825
4,650
3,486
331
707
38
2,633
2,889
196
12,000
7,769
1,647
9,488
16,205
3,181
4,817
472
1,312
951
1,291
3,546
32,134
9,975
13,906
5,799
1,050
227
493
- 3,226
3,261
10,303
- 2,284
4,772
981
2,950
16,457
4,610
4,497
177
1,112
2,989
3,952
3,726
3,264
1,005
- 3,537
3,647
- 4,205
1,904
4,037
19,530 221,878
Agriculture (general) (1)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
300 1,018 1,318
1,563 - 1,563
2,509 204 2,713
2,472 2,568 5,040
585 1,503 2,088
46 46
20 662 682
162 1,518 1,680
1,827 5,202 - 7,029
512 - 512
8,689 773 9,462
- 18,742 18,742
1,214 563 - 1,777
2,602 2,794 5,396
72 63 135
362 669 1,031
4 32 36
148 74 222
27,492 1,827 29,319
7,142 7,142
8,108 8,108
4,346 4,346
- 822 822
1 1
2,550 367 2,917
1,264 938 2,202
5,777 5,777
1,518 3,468 4,986
630 1,312 1,942
1,308 1,308
4,015 4,015
9,305 9,305
674 674
408 601 1,009
36 36
395 213 608
1,356 1,745 3,101
151 151
184 974 1,158
446 766 1,212
432 452 884
214 1,838 2,052
257 692 949
831 2,548 3,379
2,478 2,478
63,801 43,917 51,635 159,353
29% 20% 23% 72%
10% 7% 8% 25%
2% 1% 1% 4%
Natural <2)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
22 103 - 125
202 - 202
3 177 180
10 10
34 34
56 69 125
9,004 8 9,012
215 836 1,051
50 142 192
9 4 - 13
8 3,145 3,153
427 7,701 8,128
1,198 1,198
68 123 191
77 116 193
709 870 1,579
57 57
- 4,232 4,232
137 137
1,192 1,080 2,272
731 20 751
2,566 1,274 3,840
116 181 297
9 825 - 834
120 162 282
1,854 1,854
15,473 18,044 6,425 39,942
7% 8% 3% 18%
2% 3% 1% 6%
<1% <1% <1% 1%
Includes only rnpaired nver m.les in Mates report, sources attect.ng rrvers and streams. To|>| |mpajfed ^ ^ ift StatejReporting ^^ ^^ mi|es
- None or not reported. Total Assessed River Miles: 642,881 miles
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. Estimate of Total River Miles in the Nation; 3,551,247 miles
-------
Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams A-15
Table A-4. (continued)
Municipal Point Sources (3)
Mod/
Major Mln
321
126
80
113
1
32
448
378
292
177
3,962
1,287
501
14
1
49
55
383
231
20
46
9
38
235
37
1,704
190
14
166
1,086
53
107
19
129
242
12,546
6%
2%
<1%
629
187
448
96
64
168
675
209
2,644
507
201
165
1,995
85
177
294
6
403
1,565
31
1,373
983
16
129
185
792
645
59
87
28
129
33
442
109
373
592
1,212
822
18,558
8%
3%
1%
Not
Specified
341
259
655
1,255
1%
<1%
<1%
Total
950
341
313
528
96
177
168
1
707
657
3,022
799
378
3,962
1,452
2,496
99
178
343
61
786
1,796
51
1,419
983
25
167
420
829
2,349
59
259
277
42
295
33
1,528
162
480
611
1,341
1,064
655
32,359
15%
5%
1%
Urban Runoff /Storm Sewers (4)
Major
84
183
14
149
1
15
67
787
28
77
110
2,852
490
1,201
3
110
86
63
234
47
69
38
22
313
209
408
408
16
88
267
24
70
64
13
122
98
8,647
4%
1%
Mod/
Mln
249
126
591
151
132
380
24
1,681
382
1,242
1,409
73
1,364
27
366
463
82
628
530
83
48
2
607
32
636
483
56
218
133
256
150
110
100
269
521
338
128
14,070
6%
2%
Not
Specified Total
333
- 183
140
740
151
133
380
39
1,748
1,169
1,270
- 77
1,519
2,852
563
2,565
- 30
476
- 549
145
- 862
577
- 83
69
86
24
920
1,352 1,352
32
845
891
- 56
52 52
626
149
344
- 150
- 377
- 24
170
333
534
460
226
103 103
1,690 24,407
1% 11%
<1% 4%
<1% <1% <1% 1%
Resource Extraction (5)
Major
107
932
245
282
271
20
4
952
190
97
1,098
34
3
110
33
582
38
14
2
76
18
742
4,918
2%
1%
Mod/
Mln
519
24
340
1,012
23
431
1,153
123
51
2,617
59
11
66
671
304
151
510
270
777
275
30
62
491
1
24
86
2,674
44
12,799
6%
2%
Not
Specified
189
2,280
2,579
5,980
3%
1%
Total
626
932
269
622
1,283
23
431
1,173
4
123
1,003
2,807
156
11
1,098
100
674
414
184
189
510
852
815
275
2,280
64
491
1
100
104
3,416
44
23,697
11%
4%
<1% <1% <1% 1%
-------
A-16 Appendix A Individual State Data - Rivers and Streams
1 Table A-4. (continued)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total River Miles
Impaired
% of Impaired River
Miles' Affected by
Each Source
% of Assessed River
Miles Affected by
Each Source
% of Total River
Miles Affected by
Each Source
Industrial Point Sources (6)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
18 433 451
210 210
205 «2 267
30 297 327
117 16 - 133
2 110 112
1 2 3
98 430 528
61 47 108
25 846 - 871
90 27 117
81 81
1,300 1,300
180 25 - 205
685 1,875 2,560
102 169 271
57 31 88
76 30 106
349 1,821 2,170
10 1 11
339 339
563 563
13 13
28 120 - 148
12 - 12
708 405 1,113
350 350
_ _ 194 194
144 58 202
28 28
44 87 131
11 - - 11
95 12 107
10 23 33
94 58 152
285 842 1,127
359 449 808
119 707 826
263 263
5,384 10,288 667 16,339
2% 5% 7%
1% 2% - 3%
" ~ " "
Silviculture (7)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
25 193 218
154 154
36 157 193
25 1,428 1,453
- 43 - 43
154 154
_
- 34 - 34
130 1,037 1,167
5 18 - 23
1,528 523 2,051
2 1,387 - 1,389
17 104 121
61 156 217
313 313
6 17 23
126 126
7,580 7,580
_ _ _ _
2 9 - l7
102 473 - 575
129 262 - 391
2,068 6,121 8,047 16,236
1% 3% 4% 7%
<1% 1% 1% 3%
_ _ _
Hydro/Habitat Modification (8)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified Total
68 312 380
1,563 1,563
206 209 415
16 16
- 20 - 20
20 834 854
9 1221
9 809 818
31 - - 31
159 282 - 441
83 83
110 69 179
543 1,932 2,475
21-3
29 29
109 75 184
- 35 - 35
140 140
44 58 102
144 523 - 667
1,188 888 2,076
354 354
685 926 1,611
44 44
1 - 1
_ _ _ _
181 181
16 1,129 1,145
14 20 34
126 1,065 - 1,191
26 26
3,777 9,355 1,987 15,119
2% 4% 1% 7%
1% 1% 2%
_
-------
Appendix B
Individual State Data
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
-------
B-2 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
1 Table B-1. Overall Designated Use Support in Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds (acres) :
state
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gla River Ind. Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts'
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
% of Assessed Waters
Fully Supporting
Eval- Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
106,302 87,114 193,416
81 5,000 - 5,081
800 354,263 355,063
- - 21,578 21,578
94,647 35,523 130,170
23,722 13,744 - 37,466
441 172 613
NA NA NA NA
111,104 183,552 294,656
1,788 355,374 357,162
367 1,406 - 1,773
27,818 74,089 101,907
1,353 1,353
200 200
100,454 100,454
238,136 17,651 - 255,787
190,436 511,583 702,019
16,072 - - 16,072
726 2,050 - 2,776
1,551 462,639 464,190
124,495 206,784 331,279
12,230 140,599 152,829
12,750 152,802 165,552
312,593 58,968 371,561
- 34,401 - 34,401
95,912 36,812 - 132,724
58,045 72,605 - 130,650
85 62 147
57,778 222,309 - 280,087
- - 213,903 213,903
13,031 96 13,127
- - 259 259
NA NA NA NA
8,684 90,363 - 99,047
374,303 374,303
939 668 1,607
- - 1,277 1,277
305,903 305,903
422,221 422,221
- - 1,334,354 1;334,354
274,083 274,083
1,783 17,570 - 19,353
- 84,392 - 84,392
NA NA NA NA
9,983 27,391 37,374
3 5,729 - 5,732
30,592 14,914 - 45,506
- 32,169 - 32,169
2,202,633 3,825,6691,877,274 7,905,576
28% 48% 24% 43%
Threatened
Eval- Mont- Not
uated tored Specified Total
116,510 116,510
26,962 1,027 27,989
- - 2,970 2,970
882 1,916 - 2,798
62 157 219
NA NA NA NA
3,264 6,592 9,856
79,429 158,217 - 237,646
4,031 13,173 17,204
21,904 1,333 23,237
852 2,684 - 3,536
94,839 94,839
42,119 - - 42,119
10,293 43,600 53,893
917 917
1,986 3,211 5,197
63,474 100,148 163,622
469 58,764 59,233
7,663 81,326 88,989
8,270 129,357 137,627
2,608 26 - 2,634
5,779 3,800 - 9,579
45 13,390 13,435
5,394 20,756 - 26,150
63,947 63,947
2,306 217,219 219,525
6,265 6,265
NA NA NA NA
33,587 197,276 230,863
1,382 967 2,349
11,896 11,896
6 555,987 - 555,993
3,909 3,909
1,157 16,396 - 17,553
NA NA NA NA
3,220 591 3,811
- 1,775 - 1,775
14,774 30,049 44,823
1,409 4 - 1,413
344,244 1,874,999 85,078 2,304,321
15% 81% 4% 13%
Partially Supporting
Eval- Monl- Not
uated Itored Specified Total
12,900 65,168 '78,068
58,688 27,874 86,562
283,433 283,433
12,930 12,930
3,143 3,143
212 693 905
NA NA NA NA
37,632 502,912 540,544
201 29,134 29,335
28 28
9,073 28,688 - 37,761
49,708 53,662 103,370
88 88
22,349 491 22,840
2,075 156,862 158,937
12,931 12,931
97,529 214,400 311,929
- 20*477 - 202,477
3,906 - - 3,906
4,744 6,902 - 11,646
178,271 2,017,746 2,196,017
8,232 106,422 114,654
4,366 4,366
98,352 357,242 455,594
57,390 57,390
12,228 12,500 24,728
5,516 3,195 8,711
40,273 89,839 130,112
83,287 320,463 403,750
25,861 25,861
4,144 152,544 - 156,688
66,835 66,835
NA NA NA NA
25,120 216,522 241,642
43,902 15,016 58,918
2,110 1,000 3,110
3,020 3,020
54,725 54,725
15,090 16,871 31,961
48,540 48,540
9,411 9,411
142,417 142,417
167 89,865 - 90,032
6,318 6,318
NA NA NA NA
452 17,601 18,053
2 12,283 - 12,285
10,729 41,761 52,490
29,538 33,822 - 63,360
998,935 4,939,57J 443,313 6,381,821
16% 77% 7% 35%
"Does not include Quabbin Reservoir.
None or not reported.
NA « Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-3
Table B-1. (continued)
Not Supporting
Eval-
uated
722
40
81
NA
27,704
142,212
62,977
101
1,300
337
60
106
1,137
931
86,138
46
70
5,251
39,800
4,176
5
4,208
101,666
NA
9,679
24,791
33,578
81
NA
864
10,884
555,945
33%
Moni-
tored
4,480
704
987
NA
238
87,360
8,305
910
20,757
9,119
6,738
475
25,334
105,762
82
28,566
9,400
38,523
16,005
464
19
16,192
120,068
NA
34,340
62,028
3,521
70,713
64,656
100,007
52
NA
20,594
1,730
58,031
28,480
944,640
56%
Not
Specified
NA
125
.
831
5,168
NA
556
21,400
160,774
NA
Total
4,480
1,426
40
1,068
NA
238
112,064
8,305
125
143,122
83,734
101
1,300
$,456
6,738
60
106
1,612
26,265
191,900
128
28,636
14,651
38,523
55,805
4,640
24
20,400
831
221,734
5,168
NA
34,340
71,707
3,521
556
21,400
95,504
64,^56
160,774
33,578
100,088
52
NA
21,458
1,730
«,915
28,480
188,854 1,689,439
11% 9%
Not Attainable
Eval- Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
_____
NA NA NA NA
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
2,393 2,393
2 14 _16
_ _ _
NA NA NA NA
_ _ _ _
NA NA NA NA
2,395 14 2,409
99% 1% <1%
Total Assessed
Eval-
uated
119,202
86,453
800
94,687
24,604
796
NA
176,704
1,989
153
230,714
117,083
28,007
46,906
3,264
380,237
200,729
21,001
8,595
2,482
452,378
20,977
20,483
424,466
2,608
147,940
73,516
40,408
150,667
121,146
NA
67,391
427,884
4,431
39,887
450,078
3,188
NA
14,519
5
66,979
30,947
4,104,305
22%
Moni-
tored
273,272
34,605
354,263
48,453
18,803
2,009
NA
238
780,416
392,813
187,815
88,998
74,089
1,824
168,865
214,962
232,051
757,660
12,652
487,973
2,430,440
305,867
267,060
554,967
130,340
65,317
80,064
103,310
579,720
489,927
NA
538,501
77,044
6,156
643,571
539,326
223,838
90,762
NA
66,177
21,517
144,755
94,475
11,584,895
63%
Not
Specified
307,981
NA
304,542
78,527
NA
16,749
382,028
1,504,539
NA
2,594,366
14%
Total
392,474
121,058
355,063
307,981
143,140
43,407
2,805
NA
238
957,120
394,802
153
418,529
206,081
102,096
48,730
172,129
214,962
612,288
958,389
21,001
21,247
490,455
2,882,818
326,844
287,543
979,433
132,948
213,257
153,580
143,718
730,387
304,542
611,074
78,527
NA
605,892
504,928
10,587
16,749
382,028
683,458
539,326
1,504,539
450,078
227,026
90,7«
NA
80,696
21,522
211,734
125,422
18,283,566
46%
-------
B-4 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Table B-2a. Aquatic Life Use Support in Lakes (acres)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
21 3,492
7,152
355,063
21,578
130,170
23,500
2,314
NA
136
294,656
1,773
78,818
1,484
200
156,974
702,095
19,619
9,722
464,190
152,829
175,275
325,920
83,215
132,674
141,243
674
657,687
230,183
101,199
259
NA
468,652
2,607
8,448
318,083
1,504,539
274,083
NA
30,582
7,774
107,920
7,206,782
60%
Threatened
131,902
40,413
2,970
276
NA
9,856
249,951
17,204
23,237
28,914
49,239
80,966
6,869
59,233
110,239
4,567
8,025
12,909
1,600
54,997
131,453
6,265
NA
2,349
4,944
NA
591
1,775
38,685
1,079,429
9%
Partially
Supporting
1,620
72,1 1 7
283,433
975
125
NA
540,544
28
38,458
103,370
88
23,276
142,639
2,469
175,328
1,276
3,884
114,654
1,959
621,353
9,725
40,733
3,743
130,112
57,250
18,531
1,896
66,835
NA
39,765
2,110
2,795
42,525
142,417
NA
1,907
10,244
7,993
2,706,177
22%
Not
Supporting
1,376
40
166
NA
103
112,064
125
129,732
83,734
101
730
376
6,280
106
477
26,265
128
70
26,505
35,972
39,050
570
23
13,850
831
376,526
5,168
NA
76,041
3,521
562
21,400
33,578
NA
953
1,730
55,354
1,053,507
9%
Not
Attainable
80
NA
3
NA
NA
83
<1%
Total
Assessed
347,0214
121,058
355,063
307,981
130,290
24,751
2,605
NA
239
957,120
153
418,141
206,081
79,007
48,730
172,129
214,962
958,389
21,001
20,952
490,455
326,844
287,543
973,778
133,479
212,457
153,581
143,718
730,387
304,542
611,074
78,527
NA
584,458
10,587
16,749
382,008
1,504,539
450,078
NA
34,033
21,523
209,952
12,045,978
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-5
Table B-2b. Fish Consumption Use Support in Lakes (acres)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
35,200
355,063
177,785
117,240
21,195
2,447
NA
123,264
491
214,962
290,597
958,389
20,901
1,949
467,705
46,671
254,089
118,120
596,137
280,672
14,337
NA
485,646
1,504,539
NA
25,167
91
117,042
6,229,699
63%
Threatened
93,100
2,970
33
NA
941
722
8,551
268
1,132
300
NA
NA
22,930
130,947
1%
Partially
Supporting
56,698
127,046
2,875
NA
238
6,965
210,886
2,168,357
119
119,391
131,300
23,530
339,307
180
NA
14,858
..
NA
64,945
3,266,695
33%
Not
Supporting
4,480
12,930
158
NA
153
16,524
12
108,412
100
670
22,750
6,869
33,335
2,950
340
NA
4,424
500
279
NA
6,820
221,706
2%
Not
Attainable
NA
3
NA
_
NA
3
<1%
Total
Assessed
189,478
355,063
307,801
130,170
24,103
2,605
NA
238
153
147,694
12
1,216
8,551
214,962
609,895
958,389
21,001
2,887
490,455
2,223,029
287,543
118,420
119,391
730,387
304,542
339,307
14,517
NA
504,928
1,505,039
279
NA
25,167
91
211,737
9,849,050
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
B-6 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Table B-2c. Swimming Use Support in Lakes (acres)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
200,100
90,832
355,063
1 1 7,61 6
113,133
15,592
964
NA
294,656
49,453
97,372
6,743
200
214,743
320,210
702,019
21,001
8,118
490,455
1,167,640
186,372
163,200
486,238
88,339
133,602
141,815
607,587
264,604
2,134
NA
49,587
491,649
2,940
369,083
1,486,728
NA
61,851
21,523
8,823,162
64%
Threatened
80,1 32
23,905
24
8,890
NA
9,856
377,115
1 7,346
143,713
207,110
2,368
301,814
58,500
97,1 78
3,217
1,554
1,400
281,294
NA
275,070
2,016
NA
1,829,502
13%
Partially
Supporting
18,280
4,428
70,161
268
739
NA
540,544
28
31,711
88,234
88
21,683
24,722
219
273,569
49,260
9,522
74,361
5,237
5
465,238
39,833
39,905
5,421
116,650
14,821
NA
192,351
13,218
3,680
11,425
9,411
NA
1,619
2,126,631
16%
Not
Supporting
1,086
40
902
NA
238
112,064
125
7
68,394
89
686
373
16,116
928
185,542
72
22,302
1,034
39,750
4,072
4,750
62
375,501
NA
30,990
61
1,951
8,400
1,000
NA
112
876,647
6%
Not
Attainable
NA
2,371
27,088
NA
NA
29,459
<1%
Total
Assessed
298,512
120,251
355,063
187,801
113,173
24,750
2,605
NA
238
957,120
153
408,833
206,081
97,549
48,829
169,008
214,962
609,895
958,389
21,001
20,936
490,455
1,729,357
250,109
287,543
973,778
132,423
213,257
152,862
730,387
264,666
610,750
NA
547,998
504,928
10,587
380,508
1,504,539
1,000
NA
63,582
21,523
13,685,401
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-7
Table B-2d. Secondary Contact Recreational Use Support in Lakes (acres)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
200,100
10S
355,063
307,801
32,071
16,227
1,307 .
NA
27
291,904
200
109,830
31 7,695
958,389
10,880
490,455
31 7,881
140,080
683,537
230,183
2,134
NA
4,906
381,228
NA
20,837
4,872,840
64%
Threatened
80,132
7,353
245
NA
9,856
153
377,1 76
144,878
93,700
3,851
1,594
129,382
171
2,050
54,997
233,115
NA
335
NA
1,138,988
15%
Partially
Supporting
18,280
474
120,000
1,170
811
NA
196,736
31,655
26,625
5,659
288,569
6,070
7,323
332,619
137
43,000
18,531
NA
3,949
800
NA
686
1,103,094
14%
Not
Supporting
227
242
NA
211
112,064
2
334
60
134
46
11,151
13
1,800
831
375,501
NA
1,397
1,000
NA
8
505,021
7%
Not
Attainable
NA
NA
NA
Total
Assessed
298,512
806
355,063
427,801
32,071
24,750
2,605
NA
238
610,560
153
408,833
172,037
209,189
606,324
958,389
20,935
490,455
326,844
61 3,232
321
730,387
304,542
610,750
NA
10,587
382,028
1,000
NA
8
21,523
7,619,943
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
B-8 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
II
Table B-2e. Drinking Water Supply Use Support in Lakes (acres)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
28,834
75,843
137,278
109,474
296 .
NA
2,752
61,599
32,000
5,914
200
80,623
958,31 3
19,324
490,455
84,200
27,834
291,650
90,000
342,107
158,177
128
NA
56,330
504,838
2,466
381,228
1,332,646
450,078
NA
5,037
5,729,624
69%
Threatened
40,266
13,268
118,000
NA
393,120
5,519
47,619
69,203
20,930
363,880
9,389
NA
6,306
682
NA
1,750
1,089,932
13%
Partially
Supporting
8,300
18,898
4,510
NA
343,808
44,534
7,917
93,941
5,826
1,478
314,041
54,950
1,191
60,748
NA
8,800
90
3,262
NA
972,294
12%
Not
Supporting
65
NA
153
140
570
9,040
458
76
288
12,900
140
116,851
9,679
NA
268
151,874
NA
302,502
4%
Not
Attainable
NA
27,986
188,740
NA
^_
NA
216,726
3%
Total
Assessed
77,400
108,074
259,788
109,474
296
NA
346,560
153
393,260
106,133
32,000
47,906
150,800
86,907
958,389
19,324
490,455
84,200
287,543
61 8,591
90,000
41 7,987
158,317
481,922
79,944
NA
71,436
504,928
6,678
381,228
1,484,520
450,078
NA
6,787
8,311,078
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-9
Table B-2f. Agriculture Use Support in Lakes (acres)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado '
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
98,825
148,175
148,943
2,605
NA
28
106,203
958,389
21,001
490,455
600,297
89,296
730,387
230,183
NA
57,347
504,928
381,228
450,078
NA
5,01 8,368
79%
Threatened
15,684
NA
401,698
132,032
'
54,997
365,071
NA
236
NA
969,718
15%
Partially
Supporting
350
NA
388
15,003
5,394
41,586
11,400
18,531
NA
NA
92,652
1%
Not
Supporting
440
667
NA
129,722
12,900
831
116,851
NA
NA
261,411
4%
Not
Attainable
440
NA
125
NA
NA
565
<1%
Total
Assessed
440
115,526
148,175
148,943
2,605
NA
153
531,808
106,203
147,035
958,389
21,001
490,455
618,591
130,882
11,400
730,387
304,542
481,922
NA
57,583
504,928
381,228
450,078
NA
6,342,714
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
B-10 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Table B-3. Leading Causes of Impairment in Lakes (acres) !
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut*
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total Lake Acres Impaired
% of Impaired Lake Acres6
Affected by Each Cause
% of Assessed Lake Acres
Affected by Each Cause
% of Total Lake Acres
Affected by Each Cause
Total Impaired Acres
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
82,548
87,988
- 283,433
12,970
- 3,143
- 1,973
NA MA
- 238
652,608
37,640
153
180,883
187,104
189
24,140
168,393
19,669
311,989
202,477
4,012
13,258
26,265
2,387,917
114,782
33,002
470,245
95,913
80,533
13,351
130,136
424,150
26,692
378,422
72,003
NA NA
275,982
130,625
- 6,631
- 3,576
76,125
127,465
113,196 -
170,185
175,995
190,120
6,370
NA NA
39,511
14,015
121,405
- 91,840
113,196 7,958,064
^Connecticut assessed some lakes as impaired by nutrients even though t
did not meet the Section 319 definition of impaired.
Includes only impaired lake acres in States reporting causes affecting lak
Metab(1)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
- 15,271 - 15,271
214,200 34,936 - 249,136
102 9,424 9,526
189 56 - 245
NA NA NA NA
- 103 - 10J
7,655 650 8,305
811 811
4,300 21,553 25,853
45 45
5 136,701 136,706
5,314 5,314
60 60
572 - - 572
10,972 3,565 14,537
834,107 1,332,235 2,166,342
- 200 - 200
16,449 302,175 318,624
4,626 74,680 79,306
14,800 11,400 26,200
65,700 65,700
6,500 8,600 15,100
9,680 9,680
339,307 339,307
307 4,767 5,074
NA NA NA NA
5,813 90,843 96,656
84 125 - 209
441 371 812
4,909 4,909
2,499 2,499
- 558 558
NA NA NA NA
104 104
3,757 2,996 6,753
71,765 - 71,765
- - 25,730 25,730
1,211,698 2,464,584 25,730 3,702,012
15% 31% <1% 47%
7% 13% <1% 20%
3% 6% <1% 9%
Nutrient* (2)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
50 65,391 65,441
145,800 5,570 151,370
14 7,952 7,966
3,856 2,095 - 5,951
580 1,286 1,866
NA NA NA NA
27,392 116,608 - 144,000
31,644 146,430 178,074
46,044 149,064 195,108
122 12 134
8,338 15,751 24,089
4,077 159,924 164,001
9,520 9420
22,932 63,410 86,342
2,463 61,165 63,628
265 2,921 - 3,186
5,424 5,025 - 10,449
975 975
212,691 47,212 - 259,903
7,064 166,905 - 173,969
1,155 178 - 1,333
319,316 319,316
12,211 - 12,211
21,200 - 21,200
4,728 12 4,740
24 44,702 44,726
163,900 103,100 267,000
18,020 90 18,110
7,374 6,294 13,668
7,408 25,699 33,107
NA NA NA NA
26,799 229,382 256,181
115,965 115,965
852 1,331 2,183
80 1,184 1,264
103,468 9,093 112,361
83,163 73,461 156,624
121,420 58,785 180,205
5,810 5,810
NA NA NA NA
635 8,577 9,212
- 2,790 - 2,790
57,865 57,865
40,618 40,618
1,089,477 1,918,736 214,448 3,222,661
14% 24% 3% 40%
6% 10% 1% 18%
3% 5% 1% 8%
ne lakes Tota| |mpaired Lakes Acres jn statej importing Causes: 7,958,064 acres
Total Assessed Lake Acres: 1 8,283,566 acres
** Estimate of Total Lake Acres in the Nation: 39,922,437 acres
None or not reported.
NA o Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-11
Table B-3. (continued)
Organic Enrkh./Low Dissolved Oxygen (3)
Major
13,140
160
475
86
NA
103
2,145
73,704
59
2,387
29,716
135,312
6
233
2,200
1,730
50,300
1,025
5,350
100
1,608
50,589
NA
29,300
58
600
63,925
477
156,859
2,442
NA
836
30
624,955
8%
3%
2%
Mod/
Mln
270
2,600
3,510
145
NA
79,296
63,020
115,793
63
4,800
10,292
55,792
2,405
7,626
163,126
259,702
7,994
950
14
506
85,350
29,032
2,982
NA
156,514
898
1,404
8,728
11,882
736
NA
2,036
32
1,077,498
14%
6%
3%
Not
Specified
NA
NA
69,147
NA
55,286
55,259
179,692 1
2%
1%
Total
270
15,740
160
3,985
231
NA
103
79,296
65,165
189,497
122
7,187
40,008
191,104
2,411
7,859
2,200
163,126
1,730
259,702
7,994
5t,250
1,039
506
90,700
100
30,640
53471
NA
185,814
69,147
956
600
63,925
1,881
165,587
14,324
736
NA
2,872
62
55,286
55,259
,882,145
24%
10%
5%
SllUtkm (4)
Major
120,110
326
215
NA
67,579
12,706
3,855
2,112
100
8
22
70
1,526
5
22,800
636
1,970
3,378
NA
74,729
109
75,818
119,450
1,651
NA
370
509,545
6%
3%
1%
Mod/
Mln
11,173
18,080
2,870
42
NA
103
125,693
6,242
54,885
16,307
66,712
3,860
96
172,086
81,822
6,276
84,865
113,300
540
158
19,577
NA
313,783
284
65,300
8,197
18,085
585
NA
4,630
5,480
1,201,031
15%
7%
3%
Not
Specified
NA
NA
NA
33,743
33,743
<1%
<1%
<1%
Total
11,173
138,190
3,196
257
NA
103
193,272
18,948
58,740
18,419
66,712
3,960
104
172,108
70
81,822
7,802
84,870
136,100
1,176
2,128
22,955
NA
388,512
393
141,118
127,647
19,736
585
NA
4,630
5,850
33,743
1,744,319
22%
10%
4%
Priority Organic* ($)
Major
61,178
170
2,875
158
NA
2,041
12
2,236
8,562
7,096
46
Mod/ Not
Mln Specified
6
NA NA
103 -
2,786
187
44,824
1,293,440
Total
61,178
176
2,875
158
NA
103
4,827
12
187
47,060
8,562
1,300,536
46
_ _ _
102,100
340
NA
11,805
NA
198,619
2%
1%
<1%
1,240
20,450
2,076
NA NA
22,468 -
337
NA NA
104
1,388,021
17%
8%
3% -
1,240
122,550
340
2,076
NA
34,273
337
NA
104
1,586,640
20%
9%
4%
(continued)
-------
B-12 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Table B-3. (continued)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total River Miles
Impaired
% of Impaired River
Miles' Affected by
Each Cause
% of Assessed River
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
% of Total River
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
Suspended Solids (6)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
824 824
86 . - 86
NA NA NA NA
103 103
- 216,704 216,704
1,319 139,620 140,939
73,058 121,206 194,264
5 - - 5
4,517 - 4,517
6,912 6,912
187 106 293
22 - 22
310,844 310,844
16,123 16,123
2,429 - 2,429
1,350 1,350
NA NA NA NA
68,874 183,418 252,292
- - 15,594 15,594
359 29,133 29,492
97,232 21 97,253
NA NA NA NA
30 - 30
252,571 1,021,911 15,594 1,290,076
3% 13% <1% 16%
1% 6% <1% 7%
1% 3% <1% 3%
Noxious Aquatic Plants (7)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
213 1,037 1,250
45,000 2,970 47,970
3,430 622 4,052
781 868 1,649
NA NA NA NA
573 573
29,129 105,066 134,195
- 258 - 258
40 40
9,044 40,333 49,377
408 408
5,119 8,739 13,858
306,019 306,019
250 250
14,800 14,800
5,001 440 5,441
41 11,959 12,000
1,650 58,300 59,950
1,416 600 2,016
2,247 2,247
NA NA NA NA
5,680 18,002 23,682
133 3,822 3,955
102,468 5,483 107,951
2,826 100,154 - 102,980
21,639 8,444 30,083
NA NA NA NA
2,413 2,413
49 49
86,545 86,545
248,709 678,757 86,545 1,014,011
3% 9% 1% 13%
1% 4% <1% 6%
1% 2% <1% 3%
flow Alteration (8)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
950 950
NA NA NA NA
_ _
1,000 7,740 8,740
10 67 77
3,792 7,788 11,580
2,112 3,864 5,976
- 30 30
_ _ _ _
363,221 363^21
47,200 9,400 - 56,600
221,568 - 221,368
8,817 8,317
NA NA NA NA
40,117 42,063 82,180
7,868 7,868
7,482 441 - 7,923
NA NA NA NA
2,858 2,858
9,420 9,420
323,281 455,107 9,420 787,808
4% 6% <1% 10%
2% 2% <1% 4%
1% 1% 2%
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-13
Table B-3. (continued)
Major
170
210
IMA
13,395
12
336
52,065
100
5,961
33,622
3,365
25,650
604
NA
Pesticides (9)
Mod/ Not
Mln Specified
50
NA NA
103 -
24,911
7,579
598
19,693
57,941
25,844
165,815 -
326
43,350
8,734
NA NA
215,663
738
Pathogen Indicators (10)
Total:
170
260
NA
103
24,9t1
7,579
13,993
12
20,029
110,006
25,844
100
171,776
33,622
3,365
326
71,000
9,338
NA
215,663
738
_ _ _ _
NA
6,621
142,111
2%
1%
<1%
210 -
NA NA
573,555 -
7%
3% -
1%
210
NA
6,621
7\S,666
9%
4%
2%
Major
18,280
50
1,280
1,212
NA
211
4,288
79
1,800
45
248
9,556
9,248
6
1
2
1,399
104
14,550
NA
1,325
290
12,200
16,230
1,000
844
52
NA
41
94,341
1%
1%
<1%
Mod/
Mln
100
6,790
462
NA
27
448
650
36,181
4,651
77
257,263
366
266
7,569
70
13,312
38,733
79
151,400
2,022
NA
1,820
1,494
581
25
1,581
10
286
NA
1,818
528,081
7%
3%
1%
Not
Specified
NA
NA
13,248
NA
13,248
<1%
<1%
<1%
Total
18,280
150
8,070
1,674
NA
238
4,736
650
36,260
6,451
122
248
9,556
266,511
372
266
:.. . i
7;569 .
72
14,711
38,733
183
165,950
2,022
NA
1,820
13,248
2,819
871
12,225
17,811
1;000
854
338
NA
1,859
635,670 :
8%
3%
2%
-------
B-14 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Table B-4. Leading Sources of Impairment in Assessed Lakes (acres)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinob
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total Lake Acres Impaired
% of Impaired Lake Acres'
Affected by Each Source
% of Assessed Lake Acres
Affected by Each Source
% of Total Lake Acres
Affected by Each Source
Total Impaired Acres
States Not States
Reporting Sources Reporting Sources
82,548
87,988
- 283,433
12,970
3,143
1,973
NA NA
- 238
652,608
37,640
153
180,883
187,104
- 189
- 24,140
168,393
19,669
311,989
202,477
4,012
13,258
26,265
2,102,552 285,365
114,782
33,002
470,245
95,913
80,533
13,351
130,136
424,150
26,692
- 378,422
72,003
NA NA
275,982
130,625
6,631
- 3,576
76,125
127,465
113,196
170,185
175,995
190,120
6,370
NA NA
39,511
- 14,015
121,405
91,840
2,527,273 5,543,987
Agriculture (total) (1)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
620 4,000 4,620
- - 31,876 ?1,876
25,111 1 25,112
1,503 13,976 15,479
2,168 2,168
NA NA NA NA
1,920 630,912 632,832
5,008 118,243 123,251
141,887 46,057 187,944
12 - 12
15,612 7,811 - 23,423
44,335 101,545 - 145,880
8,093 - - 8,093
43,213 25,326 68,539
1,402 66,805 68,207
271 4,647 4,918
55 537 592
171,758 1,300 173,058
33,730 - 33,730
12,900 302,233 315,133
3,380 6,278 9,658
14,800 108,000 122,800
124 45 169
5 101,387 101,392
71,600 74,600 146,200
1,149 340 1,489
4,354 12,810 17,164
2,956 33,879 36,835
NA NA NA NA
45,698 343,104 388,802
- - 98,145 98,145
1,125 1,125
562 562
11,400 11,400
11,573 29,557 41,130
165,000 165,000
2,875 2,875
NA NA NA NA
350 16,259 16,609
40 2,094 2,134
- - 63,229 63,229
674,859 2,058,476 358,250 3,091,585
12% 37% 6% 56%
4% 11% 2% 17%
2% 5% 1% ...... 8%
Urban Runoff /Storm Sewers (2)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
416 416
120,640 2,781 - 123,421
900 8,552 9,452
_ 1,444 _ 1,444
NA NA NA NA
211 27 - 238
646,528 646,528
25,561 25^,561
890 890
2,986 83,669 86,655
35 22 57
5,194 2,209 7,403
8,042 7,495 15,537
20,608 23,416 44,024
32,805 89,608 122,413
110 384 494
1,660 1,019 2,679
2,245 - - 2,243
22 1,400 1,422
3,535 - - 3,535
546 546
100 400 500
1,260 12 1,272
5 - 5
19,400 24,400 43,800
715 90805
- 22 - 22
3,306 10,596 13,902
NA NA NA NA
81,555 - 81,555
10,866 10,866
112 73 185
1,057 296 1,353
25 - 25
90 90
46,953 46,953
21 1,152 - 1,173
NA NA NA NA
160 11,724 11,884
12 - - 12
1,434 1,434
272,209 1,025,871 12,716 1,310,796
5% 19% <1% 24%
1% 6% <1% 7%
1% 3% <1% 3%
'Includes only impaired lake acres in States reporting sources affecting lakes.
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Total Impaired Lake Acres in States Reporting Sources: 5,543,987 acres
Total Assessed Lake Acres: 18,283,566 acres
Estimate of Total Lake Acres in the Nation: 39,922,437 acres
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-15
Table B-4. (continued)
Hydro-Habitat
Major
120,000
975
NA
1,220
29,237
220
3,458
61,632
1,270
1,730
784
108,000
25
60,300
NA
1,339
98,699
NA
488,889
9%
3%
1%
Mod/
Mln
640
NA
103
454,400
7,691
144,004
40
156
5,824
30,298
8,057
196
26,700
12,466
NA
36
7,868
3,530
NA
3,407
705,416
13%
4%
2%
Modification (3)
Not
Specified
81,278
NA
NA
NA
81,278
1%
<1%
<1%
Total
81,278
120,640
975
NA
103
454,400
8,911
173,241
40
376
9,282
91,930
8,057
1,270
1,730
784
108,000
25
196
87,000
12,466
NA
36
9,207
102,229
NA
3,407
1,275;583
23%
7%
3%
Natural (4)
Major
Mod/
Mln
Not
Specified
Total
_ _ _ _
189
NA
3,595
18,939
6,474
208
22,049
828
575
334
NA
12,055
1,463
11,674
35,366
100,326
NA
61
214,136
4%
1%
1%
395
NA
27
4,081
5,831
232
140,598
131
322,945
950
452
429
222,917
24,847
NA
6,654
215
406
114,208
14,500
NA
10,668
870,486
16%
5%
2%
NA
NA
111,231
NA
64,515
175,746 1
3%
1%
<1%
584
NA
27
4,081
5,831
3,827
159,537
6,474
339
344,994
1,778
1,027
429
222,917
25,181
NA
18,709
111,231
1,678
12,080
149,574
114,826
NA.
10,668:
61
64;S15
,260,368
23%
7%
3%
Municipal Point Sources (5)
Mod/
Major Mln
NA
1,216
4,925
59
12
20,785
6,445
23,968
76
1,008
906
285,365
7
6,400
3,632
13,900
15,850
NA
1,870
16,230
97,584
10
NA
500,248
9%
3%
1%
4,000
7,172
268
93
NA
250,560
3,774
811
90,120
63
119,813
455
15,819
4,845
231
66
5,100
30,000
63,600
1,090
2,701
13,149
NA
233
21
448
NA
3,069
4
617,505
11%
3%
2%
Not
Specified
559
NA
NA
485
NA
30,809
31,853 ;1
1%
<1%
<1%
Total
4,000
559
7,172
268
93
NA
251,776
3,774
811
95,045
122
12
140,598
6,900
39,787
4,921
1,239
906
285,365
73
5,100
30,000
6,400
3,632
77,500
16,940
2,701
13,149
NA
485
233
1,870
16,230
97,605
458
NA
3,069
4
30,809
,149,606
21%
' $&!
3%-::
-------
B-16 Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Table B-4. (continued)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total Lake Acres
Impaired
% of Impaired Lake
Acres' Affected by
Each Cause
% of Assessed Lake
Acres Affected by
Each Cause
% of Total River
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
Onstte Wastewater Disposal (6)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified Total
92 92
25,640 820 26,460
_ _ _ 0
1,267 1,267
NA NA NA NA
591,488 591,488
_ _ _ o
_ _ _ 0
3,109 317 3,426
_ _ _ o
_ _ _ Q
_ _ _ o
376 984 1,360
_ _ _ 0
3,422 100 3,522
9,708 9,708
_ _ _ 0
_ _ _ o
57,300 96,850 154,150
_ _ _ 0
_ _ _ 0
1,995 18,140 20,135
NA NA NA NA
- 35,739 - 35,739
- 13,129 13,129
- - - . "0
532 532
_ _ _ 0
_ 4,554 4,554
_ _ _ 0
NA NA NA NA
8,703 8,703
_ _ _ o
_ _ _ o
91,842 769,202 13,221 874,265
2% 14% <1% 16%
1% 4% <1% 5%
<1% 2% <1% 2%
flow Modification (7)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
NA NA NA NA
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
299,629 299,629
50,200 950 51,150
221,568 - - 221,568
- 2,540 - 2,540
NA NA NA NA
46,019 46,013 92,032
_ _ _ _
637 733 1,370
NA NA NA NA
2,962 - 2,962
44,938 44,938
363,362 352,827 - 716,189
7% 6% 13%
2% 2% 4%
1% 1% /::296i;
Contaminated Sediments (8)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
NA NA NA NA
_ _ _
58,190 134,553 - 192,743
334 334
18,432 18,432
697 5,649 6,346
3,660 3,660
2,066 2,066
23,800 18,100 41,900
9,680 9,680
25 8,957 - 8,982
NA NA NA NA
17,628 105,751 123,379
_ _ _ _
NA NA NA NA
790 790
114,014 294,298 408,312
2% 5% 7%
1% 2% 2%
1% 1%
-------
Appendix B Individual State Data - Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds B-17
Table B-4. (continued)
Industrial Point Sources (9)
Mod/
Major Mln
56,698
170
262
NA
650
2,631
46,976
4,877
3,961
43,400
340
NA
895
112
800
96,900
NA
12,000
270,672
5%
1%
1%
35
NA
62,720
1,223
811
14,500
13,088
4,288
200
3,300
16,356
NA
122
21
448
NA
117,112
2%
1%
<1%
Not
Specified
NA
NA
NA
Total
56,698
170
262
35
NA
62,720
t,873
811
17,131
60,064
4,288
4,877
200
3,961
46,700
340
16,356
NA
895
234
800
96,921
448
NA
12,000
387,784
~
~"
7%
2%
1%
Resource Extraction (1 0)
Ma|or
2,832
69,200
NA
3
155
30
190
4,871
44,800
1,200
Mod/
Mln
32,816
NA
31,872
811
41,777
50
42,643
952
Not
Specified Total
2,832
102,016
NA NA
- 31,872
- 814
41,932
30
- 240
- 4,871
87,443
- 952
1,200
_ _ _ _
500
212
NA
4,556
NA
49,679
500
- 4,768
NA NA
- 49,679
2,815
NA
3,911
130,719
2%
1%
<1%
NA
8,040
213,196
4%
1%
1%
2,815
NA NA
11,951
343,915
- 6%
2%
1%
-------
Appendix C
Individual State Data
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
-------
C-2 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Tabled. Overall Designated Use Support in Estuaries (square miles) i
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New jersey
New York
North Carolina
Orego^
PuertdMico*
Rhodefiland
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
% of Assessed Waters
Fully Support Ing
Eval- Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
12 253 - 265
- - 361 361
730 953 - 1,683
443 10 - 453
718 32 - 750
851 594 1,445
1,423 50 - 1,473
65 2 67
1 1
- 10 - 16
_ _ 440 440
1,106 1,106
- - 2,721 2,721
- - 4 4
- - 141 141
310 310
1,318 1,318
267 2,130 2,397
- - 3 3
17 243 - 260
4,526 5,384 5,298 15,208
30% 35% 35% 56%
Threatened
Eval- Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
- - 4 4
- 216 - 216
- 25 - 2S
*
88 13 - 101
2,614 - - 2,614
87 693
- 1 - 1
13 13
1 1
131 131
- - 14 14
- 140 - 140
2,789 415 149 3,353
83% 12% 4% 12%
PartlaBy Supporting
Eval- Monl- Not
uated ttored Specified Total
- 75 - 75
85 85
- 235 235
97 773 870
- 3-3
864 - - 864
- 36 - 36
197 2,153 2,350
5 17 22
55
- - 121 121
- 166 - 166
269 269
- 38 38
- 21 21
- - 101 101
- - 150 150
48 567 615
- - 1 1
1 104 - 105
1,212 3,899 1,021 6,132
20% 64% 17% 23%
' Puerto Rico reported linear miles of estuarine impairments rather than square miles (see Chapter 8, Individual State Summaries, for more information).
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-3
Table C-l
. (continued)
Not Supporting
Eval-
uated
5
237
20
7
8
42
5
7
3
334
14%
Moni-
tored
3
29
6
147
164
20
118
71
92
14
258
60
585
1,567
64%
Not
Specified
4
53
19
17
15
453
1
562
23%
Total
3
4
29
6
152
401
30
20
125
79
134
19
53
258
19
17
15
453
67
1
588
2,463
9%
Not Attainable
Eval- Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
71 71
- - 71 71
100% <1%
Total Assessed
Eval-
uated
12
832
680
806
4,349
1,430
292
112
5
322
21
8,861
33%
Monl-
tored
331
29
216
6
1,898
174
68
594
204
2,230
112
19
24
1,531
2,757
1,072
11,265
41%
Not
Specified
89
600
614
3,121
61
193
426
1,992
5
7,101
26%
Total
343
89
600
29
216
6
2,730
854
874
4,943
1,634
2,522
224
19
29
614
1,531
3,121
61
193
426
1,992
3,079
5
1,093
27,227
74%
-------
C-4 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-2a. Aquatic Life Use Support in Estuaries (square miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
328
375
132
1,683
4,673
1,475
114
1
28
1,513
2,721
178
341
1,991
490
16,043
76%
Threatened
4
59
25
93
1
13
131
8
334
2%
Partially
Supporting
85
223
17
25
1
870
269
36
2,350
31
5
16
269
97
13
4,307
20%
Not
Supporting
3
2
12
4
152
122
79
51
1
7
11
32
476
2%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
331
89
600
29
216
5
2,730
4,942
1,633
2,522
197
19
28
1,530
3,121
193
449
1,991
535
21,160
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-S
Table C-2b. Fish Consumption Use Support in Estuaries (square miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
328
7
600
29
191
2^02
9
28
1,415
2,721
1,947
9,777
93%
Threatened
2
131
23
156
1%
Partially
Supporting
80
6
115
269
470
4%
Not
Supporting
3
25
21
46
44
139
1%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
331
89
600
29
216
6
2,523
55
28
1,530
3,121
1,991
23
10,542
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
C-6 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-2c. Shellfishing Use Support in Estuaries (square miles)
state
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
196
7
483
878
281
1,646
77
10
440
1,344
4
1,308
208
6,882
67%
Threatened
2
25
6
1
139
173
2%
Partially
Supporting
75
3
10
472
3
97
14
5
121
4
59
38
139
88
1,128
11%
Not
Supporting
3
117
42
74
139
90
132
4
19
53
182
19
453
620
1,947
19%
Not
Attainable
11
71
82
1%
Total
Assessed
274
12
600
10
42
1,449
434
1,839
223
9
29
614
1,531
59
61
1,971
1,055
10,212
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-7
Table C-2d. Swimming Use Support in Estuaries (square miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rko
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
327
9
538
9
205
1,683
3,299
1,631
2,520
99
28
1,456
353
1,977
482
14,616
83%
Threatened
1
1
25
8
35
<1%
Partially
Supporting
3
59
17
870
1,063
59
1
35
10
15
2,132
12%
Not
Supporting
3
3
5
152
580
3
2
48
73
12
34
915
5%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
327
13
601
29
205
5
2,730
4,942
1,634
2,522
214
28
1,530
400
1,987
531
17,698
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
C-8 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-2e. Secondary Contact Recreational Use Support in Estuaries (square miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rko
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
328
89
538
29
11
3,689
192
6
1,519
2,721
420
4
487
10,033
85%
Threatened
1
5
131
137
1%
Partially
Supporting
59
5
U33
11
7
11
269
15
32
1,642
14%
Not
Supporting
3
3
1
20
2
13
42
<1%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
331
89
601
29
11
6
4,942
205
18
1,530
3,121
435
4
532
11,854
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-9
-------
C-10 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-3. Leading Causes of Estuarine Impairments (square miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total Estuarine Area Impaired
% of Impaired Estuarine
Areab Affected by Each Cause
% of Assessed Estuarine
Area Affected by Each Cause
% of Total Estuarine
Area Affected by Each Cause
Total Impaired Waters
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
- 78
- 85
- 239
29
6
1,022
401
23 -
884
161
- 2,429
- 156
- 5
19
174
424
269
- 57
- 38
116
603
682
2
693
23 8,572
Nutrients (1)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
2 1 - 3
236 15 - 251
26 3 - 29
_ 1 _ 1
95 300 195
55 808 863
404 2,102 - 2,506^
- 21 - 21
- 14 - 14
70 - - 70
1 108 - 109
113 113
- 14 - 14
236 127 363
1,125 3,514 113 4,752
13% 41% 1% 55%
4% 13% 17%
3% 10% 13%
Pathogen Indicators (2)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
78 - 78
2 - 2
13 125 138
14 15 29
1 56
44 44
85 489
622 - 622
38 - - 38
59 638 - 697
96 51 - 147
- 18 - 18
19 - - 19
142 - - 142
266 35 301
- -59 59
- - 56 56
28 4-32
28 9-37
174 362 - 536
- 163 - 163
45 301 - 346
1,088 2,396 115 3,599
13% 28% 1% 42%
4% 9% 13%
3% 6% - 10%
' Puerto Rico reported linear miles of estuarine impairments rather than square miles (see Chapter 8, Individual State Summaries, for more information).
b Includes only impaired estuarine waters in States reporting causes of estuarine impairments.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Total Impaired Estuarine Miles in States Reporting Causes: 8,572 square miles
Total Assessed Estuarine Miles: 27,227 square miles
Estimate of Total Estuarine Mites in the Nation: 36,890 square miles
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-11
Table C-3
. (continued)
Organk Enrtdi./Low Dissolved Oxygen (3)
Major
1
7
13
1
3
1
293
10
86
133
68
Mod/ Not
Mln Specified
19
3
29
102
746
616
48
2 -
114
32
7
63
514
616 2,263
7%
2%
2%
26%
8% -
6%
Total
i
26
US
1
»
105
746
1
909
48
2
124
32
7
66
196
582
2,911
34%
»%
8%
smattoft(4}
Major
1
1
14
140
1
Mod/ Not
Mln Specified
4
187
670
26
Total
5
+m
1
187
684
140
27
_ _ _
157
2%
1%
887
10%
3% -
2%
1,044
12%
4%
3%
Suspended SoUdt (5)
Major
Mod/ Not
Mln Specified
Total
_
1
111
15
12
323
187 -
30
12
1
434
187
45
229
356
4%
1%
1%
2
554
6%
2% -
2%
231
910
11%
3%
2%
(continued)
-------
C-12 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-3. (continued) !
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico1
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total Estuarine Area
Impaired
% of Impaired Estuarine
Areab Affected by
Each Cause
% of Assessed Estuarine
Area Affected by
Each Cause
% of Total Estuarine
Area Affected by
Each Cause
OB and Grease (6)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
1 1
- 1 - t
262 560 822
2 2
22 22
_ _ _ _
21 21
- 5 - 5
263 611 - 874
3% 7% 10%
1% 2% 3%
1% 2% 2%
P«sUddcs(7)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified TotiJ
76 1-77
- 1 - 1
- 1 - 1
- 187 - 187
27 - - 27
70 - - 70
_ _ _ _
158 94 252
331 284 - 615
4% 3% 7%
1% 1% 2%
1% 1% 2%
Sabntty/TDS/ChtorUlcs (8)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
20 560 - 580
_ _ _ -
_ _ _ _
_____
20 560 - 580
7% 7%
- 2% - 2%
- 2* - 2%
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-13
Table C-3. (continued)
Priority Organic* (9)
Major
1
1
3
1
1
70
120
197
2%
1%
1%
Mod/
Mln
20
1
18
20
7
6
7
24
6
31
140
2%
1%
Not
Specified
_
65
E
65
1%
*"~
"
Total
21
t
18
20
3
1
70
126
65
7
24
6
3t
402
5%
1%
1%
Metals (10)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified
77 1 -
1
4
16 68 -
Total
78
1
4
84
_ _ _ _
30
9 -
32
7
1
1 44
14
104 201
1% 2%
1%
30
32
7
1
45
14
305
4%
1%
1% «6
-------
C-14 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-4. Leading Sources of Estuarine Impairments (square miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total Estuarine Area Impaired
% of Impaired Estuarine
Areab Affected by Each Source
% of Assessed Estuarine
Area Affected by Each Source
% of Total Estuarine
Area Affected by Each Source
Total Impaired Waters
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
78
- 85
239
29
6
1,022
401
23
884
161
- 2,429
156
5
19
174
424
269
- 57
- 38
116
603
- 682
2
693
292 8,303
MunldpaJ Point Sources (1)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
3 - - 3
75 - - 75
263 182 445
- 25 - 25
744 744
4 107 - 111
809 809
117 6 - 123
389 341 - 730
10 81 91
- 9 - 9
5 - - 5
140 140
57 210 267
53 53
- 30 - 30
- 12 - 12
134 92 226
236 110 346
139 139
1,433 2,897 53 4,383
17% 35% 1% 53%
5% 11% 16%
4% 8% 12%
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers (2)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
- 75 - 75
78 381
340 340
29 29
1 23
3 944 947
5 5
621 621
188 238 - 426
10 105 115
- 18 - 18
280 - 280
124 69 193
- 17 17
7 26 - 33
29 - 29
4 267 - 271
104 104
729 2,841 17 3,587
9% 34% 43%
3% 10% 13%
2% 8% 10%
'Puerto Rico reported linear miles of estuarine impairments rather than square miles (see Chapter 8, Individual State Summaries, for more information).
Includes only impaired estuarine waters in States reporting sources of estuarine impairments.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Total Impaired Estuarine Miles in States Reporting Sources: 8,303 sq. mi.
Total Assessed Estuarine Miles: 27,227 sq. mi.
Estimate of Total Estuarine Mile in the Nation; 36,890 sq. mi.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-15
Table C-4. (continued)
Agricultural (general) (3)
Major
79
13
374
643
70
236
4
1,419
17%
5%
4%
Mod/
Mln
1
247
16
552
1,046
2
5
1
19
178
2,067
25%
8%
6%
Not
Specified
53
53
1%
Total
80
247
29
552
374
1,689
2
70
5
53
1
255
182
3,53?
43%
im
to%
Industrial Point Sonnet <4)
Major
3
15
34
20
86
1
14
1
1
175
2%
1%
Mod/ Not
Mln Specified
1 -
49
1
280
130
747
9
13
19
- 42
16
11
24
283
102
Total
3
1
49
t
295
164
767
95
14
19
42
16
25
25
284
102
1,685 42 1,902
20% 1%
6% -
5%
23%
7%
5%
Natural (5)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified
- 231 -
4
253 212 -
11
Total
231
4
465
11
_ _ _
183
61 264
314 905
4% 11%
1% 3% -
1% 2%
183
325
1,219
15%
4%
3%
(continued)
-------
C-16 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-4. (continued) I
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico'
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total Estuarine Area
Impaired
% of Impaired Estuarine
Areab Affected by
Each Source
% of Assessed Estuarine
Area Affected by
Each Source
% of Total Estuarine
Area Affected by
Each Source
Resource Extraction (6) .
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
75 - - 75
1 . 1
90 90
207 615 - 822
-6-6
_
r
4 A
283 715 998
3% 9% 12%
1% 3% 4%
1% 2% 3%
Construction (7)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
- 2 - 2
_ _ «. 4*v
^ _ ^ -t***
- 482 - 482
140 140
_____
- 13 - 13
- 27 - 27
140 524 664
2% 6% 8%
1% 2% 2%
- 1% - 2%
Contaminated Sediments (8)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
1 49 - SO
- - - «. _
_ - - __
- 34 - 34
120 36 - 156
- 7 - 7
158 94 252
- 35 - 35
279 255 - 534
3% 3% 6%
1% 1% - 2%
1% 1% 1%
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-17
Table C-4
. (continued)
Atmospheric Depojftton (9)
Major
Mod/ Not
Mln Specified ToW
- 230 - 230
_ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
228
228
3%
1%
1%
8 - 23«
238 - 466
3% 6%
1% 2%
1% 1%
Hydrologk/mbtUt Modification (V))
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified
71
75 4 -
1
202
2
Total
71
79
1
202
2
I I I I
- 20 -
82
75 382 -
1% 5%
1%
1%
20
82
457
6%
2%
1%
-------
C-18 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-5. Overall Designated Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters (shore miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
% of Assessed Waters
Fully Supporting
EvaJ- Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
50 - - SO
628 628
25 - - 25
609 245 - 854
476 150 626
- 32 - 32
- 18 - 18
107 107
60 60
135 56 191
120 120
1,415 561 735 2,711
52% 21% 27% 80%
Threatened
Eval. Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
_ _ _ _
18 23 - 41
- <1 - <1
- 10 - 10
112 67 179
130 100 230
57% 43% 7%
PtrtUfly Supporting
Eval- Monl- Not
uated ftored Specified Total
- - 62 62
19 17 - 36
- 27 - 27
- 71 - 71
- 57 - 57
10 27 37
_ _ _ _
29 199 62 290
10% 69% 21% 9%
'Puerto Rico reported linear miles of estuarine impairments rather than square miles.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-19
Table C-5
. (continued)
Not Supporting
Eval-
uated
Moni-
tored
Not
Specified
Total
10 1&
12
80
3
23
39
12
80
39
3
23
_ _ _ _
12
7%
106
63%
49
29%
167
5%
Not Attainable
Eval Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ **
- _ _ *.
I I I I
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
Total Assessed
Eval-
uated
SO
25
640
494
257
120
1,586
47%
Moni-
tored
262
280
32
81
18
120
173
966
28%
Not
Specified
700
146
846
25%
TOW
50
700
25
902
774
32
81
18
146
120
430
120
3,398
17%
-------
C-20 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-6a. Aquatic Life Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters (shore miles) ;
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
50
25
846 .
32
10
18
128
120
346
624
2,199
92%
Threatened
55
55
2%
Partially
Supporting
35
71
18
124
5%
Not
Supporting
12
9
21
1%
Not
Attainable
__
Total
Assessed
50
25
893
32
81
18
128
120
428
624
2,399
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-21
Table C-6b. Fish Consumption Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters (shore miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rko
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
SO
25
32
18
70
60
624
879
89%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
50
60
110
11%
Not
Supporting
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
50
25
32
18
120
120
624
989
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
C-22 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-6c. Shellfishing Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters (shore miles) !
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
50
70
32
18
107
117
624
1,018
91%
Threatened
<1
<1
Partially
Supporting
60
60
6%
Not
Supporting
39
3
42
4%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
50
70
32
60
18
146
120
624
1,120
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-23
Table C-6d. Swimming Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters (shore miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
50
25
32
18
128
120
286
624
1,283
85%
Threatened
10
97
107
7%
Partially
Supporting
71
25
96
6%
Not
Supporting
20
20
1%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
50
25
32
81
18
128
120
428
624
1,506
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
C-24 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-6e. Secondary Contact Recreational Use Support in Ocean Coastal Waters (shore miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
CaHomia
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
50
25
10
18
120
372
595
82%
Threatened
45
45
6%
Partially
Supporting
71
71
10%
Not
Supporting
11
11
2%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
50
25
81
18
120
428
722
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-2S
-------
C-26 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-7. Leading Causes of Ocean Coastal Water Impairments (shore miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total Shoreline Miles Impaired
% of Impaired Shoreline
Miles Affected by Each Cause
% of Assessed Shoreline
Miles Affected by Each Cause
% of Total Shoreline Miles
Affected by Each Cause
Total Impaired Waters
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
72 -
48
107 -
71
39 -
- 60
60
218 239
Pathogen Indicators (1)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
- 25 - 25
41 40 - 81
3 3
25 21 46
_ _ _ _
69 86 155
29% 36% 65%
2% 3% 5%
1%
Metab (2)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
_____
_ _ _ *_.
30 51 - 81
43-7
_ _ _ _
34 54 88
14% 23% 37%
1% 2% 3%
Does not include the Alaska coastline.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Total Impaired Coastal Shoreline Miles In States Reporting Causes: 239 miles
Total Assessed Coastal Shoreline Miles: 3,366 miles
Estimate of Total Coastal Shoreline Miles tn the Nation: 20,121 miles*
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-27
Table C-7. (continued)
Priority Organic* (3)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
- 11 - 11
57 3 - #)
- 1 - 1
_ _ _ _
57 15 - 72
24% 6% 30%
2% - - 2%
__ _
Unknown ToxkJty (4)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_
I I
40 40
41-5
_ _ _ _
4 41 45
2% 17% 19%
1% 1%
_ ,
NutrienU (5)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _
17 17
_ _ _ _
- - - ,-
«
_ _ _ _
17 - - 17
7% 7%
1% 1%
(continued)
-------
C-28 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-7. (continued) ;
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total Shoreline Miles
Impaired
% of Impaired Shoreline
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
% of Assessed Shoreline
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
% of Total Shoreline
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
Chlorine (6)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified Total
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
32- 5
3 2 - . S
1% 1% 2%
01) and Grease (7)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
- 3 - 3
_ _ _ _
3 3
1% 1%
Thermal Modification (8)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
*44-
«*
_ _ _ -.
- - - -*
1 2-3
_ _ _ _
1 2-3
1% 1%
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-29
Table C-7. (continued)
OtherOrgankj(9)
Mod/ Nat
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
11-2
_ _ _ _
11-2
1%
" " " "
pH(10
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ _
_ _ _
-2-2
-2-2
1% 1%
" " " "
-------
C-30 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-8. The Leading Sources of Ocean Coastal Water Impairments (shore miles)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total Shoreline Miles Impaired
% of Impaired Shoreline
Miles Affected by Each Source
% of Assessed Shoreline
Miles Affected by Each Source
% of Total Shoreline Miles
Affected by Each Source
Total Impaired Water*
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
72 -
- 48
107 -
- 71
39
60
60
218 239
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers (1)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
- 25 25
- 28 - 28
_ _ _ _
- 81 - 81
1 6 - 7
_ _ _
1 140 - 141
59% 59%
4% 4%
1% 1%
Und Disposal (2).
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
12 12
_____
- 71 - 71
15 3-18
_ _ _ _
15 86 - 101
6% 36% - 42%
3% 3%
- - - 1%
'Does not include the Alaska coastline.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Total Impaired Coastal Shoreline Mites in States Reporting Sources; 239 mites
Total Assessed Coastal Shoreline Miles: 3,366 miles
Estimate Of Total Coastal Shoreline Mites In the Nation; 20,121 miles'
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-31
Table C-8. (continued)
Municipal Point Sources (3)
Mod/ Not
Major Min Specified Total
- 25 - 25
_ _ _ _
- 21 - 21
- 3 - 3
12 8 20
12 57 - 69
5% 24% 29%
- 2% - 2%
Contaminated Sediment* (4)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Tout
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
57 3 60
_ _ _ _
57 3 60
24% 1% 25%
2% - _2%
Recreational Activities (5)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
- 25 - 25
- 30-30
- _ _
_ _ _ _
- 55 - 55
- 23% - 23%
- 2% - 2%
_
(continued)
-------
C-32 Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table C-8. (continued)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total Shoreline Miles
Impaired
% of Impaired Shoreline
Miles Affected by
Each Source
% of Assessed Shoreline
Miles Affected by
Each Source
% of Total Shoreline
Miles Affected by
Each Source
Agricultural (general) (6)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
- 47 - 47
_
_ _ _ _
- 3 - J
_ _ _ _
50 50
21% 21%
- 1% - I*
HydrologkaJ Habitat Modification (7)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_____
- 47 - 47
_ _ _ _
_____
I I I I
_ _ _ _
47 47
20% 20%
1% 1%
Industrial Point Sources (8)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
--.
_____
- 21 -21
9 211
_ _ _ _
9 23 - 32
4% 10% 13%
1% 1%
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-33
Table C-8. (continued)
Dra)n»ge/FB8ng(9)
Major
Mod/ Not
Mln Specified Tot*|
_____
_ _ _ _
_____
- 30 - 30
_
_ _ _ _
- 30 - 30
13% 13%
1% 1%
Construction (10)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
- 17 -17
_ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
- 17 -17
7% 0% 7%
1% 1%
-------
Table C-9. Characteristics of National Estuary Program (NEP) Sites |
Estuary
Casco Bay
Massachusetts
Bay
Buzzards Bay
Narragansett
Bay
Long Island
Sound
Hudson River/
Raritan Bay
Delaware
Estuary
Delaware
Inland Bays
Albemarle-
Pamlico
Sounds
Indian River
Lagoon
Sarasota Bay
Tampa Bay
Barataria-
Terrebonne
Bays
Galveston Bay
Santa Monica
Bay
San Francisco
Bay
Puget Sound
Total
Physical Features
Water
Surface
Area
(sq. ml.)
164
981
228
165
1,281
298
768
32
2,949
280
44
346
1,326.
540
211
716
1,292
11,621
Dally
Freshwater
Inflow
(100 cfs)
21
65
12
32
300
267
198
3
460
14
4
24
101
152
9
370
942
2,974
Volume
(billion
cu. ft.)
191
2,014
215
139
2,192
172
448
4
1,081
51
8
123
200
92
1,844
412
7,081
16,267
Natural Resources
Classified Shellfish
Waters
Wetlands
(sq. ml.)
61
141
75
155
315
269
641
ND
1,768
161
ND
394
1,458
374
4
909
387
7,112
Total
(sq. ml.)
168
141
199
165
1,342
257
623
30
3,088
106
ND
88
782
547
0
125
141
7,802
Approved
(sq. ml.)
144
79
184
110
1,122
0
549
19
2,524
34
ND
9
623
0
0
0
94
5,491
Economic Activities .
Land Use
(% of EDA)
Urban
14
122
13
26
25
24
24
10
9
17
28
17
9
16
60
27
27
Agri-
culture
10
6
6
9
14
25
42
46
59
30
26
40
30
50
2
86
16
Point Sources
of Pollution
Industry
40
115
7
113
226
582
181
9
103
14
6
69
1
747
6
178
308
2,705
Muni-
cipal
10
34
5
24
87
287
153
7
84
54
11
29
51
566
4
87
72
1,565
Susceptibility to Pollution
Dissolved
Concen-
tration
Potential
M
M-H
H
M
L
M
M
H
M .
H
H
H
M-H
M
M
M
L-H
Particle
Retention
Efficiency
H
M-H
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
H
M
H
M
M
H
M-H
M-H
X
n
|
5;
00
sr
I
i
i"
Dl
i'
ea
O.
n
f
H = High EDA = Estuary drainage area
M = Medium ND = No data
L = Low
Source: MOM, Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. A Special 20th Anniversary Report. U.S. Department of Commerce.
October 1990.
NOTE: This table does not include the four estuaries added to the National Estuary Program in 1992.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-3S
Table C-10. Point Source Problems at National Estuary Program Sites
Cause
Toxicants
Pathogens
Eutrophication
Habitat Loss/
Modification
Changes
in Living
Resources
Industrial
Discharges -
Direct
AP, C, D,
G, LIS, M,
N, NY, PS,
SF, SMB
AP,T
AP, G, M,
SF,T
AP, C, D,
LIS, M, N,
NY, PS,
SF,T
Industrial
Discharges -
Indirect
BT, C, D,
G, US, M,
N, NY, PS,
SF, SMB
T
G,SF,T
D, LIS, M,
N, NY, PS,
SF,T
Sewage
Treatment
Plants
G, M, N,
PS, SF
B, D, G,
LIS, M, N,
PS, SMB
AP, BT,
C, G, 1,
LIS, M,
NY, PS,
S, SMB
AP, G, 1,
M, SF
AP, D, G,
1, LIS, M,
N, NY,
SMB
Combined
Sewer
Overflows
B, D, LIS,
N,NY,
PS.SF
AP, C, D,
LIS, M, N,
NY, PS, S
LIS, M, N,
NY, S
AP, M, SF
D, LIS, M,
N, NY,
PS, SF
Stormwater
C,D,G,N,
PS, SF,
SMB
AP, B, C, D,
DIB, 1, LIS,
M, N, PS,
SMB
BT, DIB, 1, T
AP, G, 1, SF,
T
D,DIB,G,I,
M, PS, S,
SF,T
Animal
Feedlots
AP
AP, DIB,
G,PS
DIB
DIB
AP = Albemarie-Pamlico Sound
B = Buzzards Bay
BT = Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary
C = Casco Bay
D = Delaware Estuary
DIB = Delaware Inland Bays
G = Galveston Bay
I = Indian River Lagoon
LIS = Long Island Sound
M = Massachusetts Bay
N = Narragansett Bay
NY = New York-New Jersey Harbor
PS = Puget Sound
S = Sarasota Bay
SF = San Francisco Bay
SMB = Santa Monica Bay
T = Tampa Bay
Source: NOAA, Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. A Special 20th Anniversary
Report. U.S. Department of Commerce. October 1990.
-------
X
n
Table C-11. Nonpoint Source Problems at National Estuary Program Sites
Cause
Toxicants
Pathogens
Eutrophication
Habitat Loss/
Modification
Changes
in Living
Resources
Agriculture
AP, B, BT,
C, G, PS,
SF.T
BT, DIB, G,
PS
AP, B, BT,
C, DIB, C,
1, US, PS,
S,T
AP, C, PS,
SF,T
AP, DIB, C,
SF,T
Suburban
and Urban
BT, D, C,
US, M, N,
NY, PS,
SF, SMB,
T
BT, D, 1,
US, M, N,
NY, S,
SMB
BT, 1, LIS,
N,S,T
C, 1, S, T
D, M, NY,
S, SF, T
Mining
BT
AP,T
AP, BT, T
Silviculture
PS
PS
Construction
DIB
DIB, C, S
AP, D, DIB,
C, 1, M, N. T
D, DIB, M, S
Septic
Systems
AP, B, BT,
C, DIB, C,
1, M, N,
PS,S,T
B, C, DIB,
C, 1, M, N,
T
B, DIB, 1,
PS
Landfills
AP, N, NY,
US
BT,C
In-place
Sediments
AP,B,C,D,
C,LIS,M,
N, NY, PS,
SF, SMB, T
M
B, D, M, N,
NY, PS, SF,
SMB
Atmospheric
Deposition
AP, C, M, PS
C, M, N,
SMB
Ground-
water
C, C
DIB, N
DIB
51
B)
I
L?
£T
I
D)
I'
I
L?
AP = Albemarle-Pamlico Sound
B = Buzzards Bay
BT = Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary
C = Casco Bay
D = Delaware Estuary
DIB = Delaware Inland Bays
G = Galveston Bay
I = Indian River Lagoon
LIS = Long Island Sound
M = Massachusetts Bay
N = Narragansett Bay
NY = New York-New Jersey Harbor
PS = Puget Sound
S = Sarasota Bay
SF = San Francisco Bay
SMB = Santa Monica Bay
T = Tampa Bay
Source: NOAA, Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. A Special 20th Anniversary Report. U.S. Department of Commerce.
October 1990.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Estuaries and Coastal Waters C-37
Table C-12. Other Sources of Problems at National Estuary Program Sites
Cause
Toxicants
Pathogens
Eutrophication
Habitat Loss/
Modification
Changes
in Living
Resources
Shipping
Marinas
QD,
DIB, C, 1,
M,PS,
SMB.T
C,DIB,
G, US, M
C, DIB, C
BT, C, C,
1, M, PS,
S,T
C,D,
DIB, 1,
SF,T
Dredging
C,M,
NY.SF
C.T
AP,C,
DIB,C,I,
M, PS
S, SF, T
AP, DIB,
C, M, S,
SF,T
Shoreline
Development
B, DIB,
M, S
DIB, M,
N
AP, B, C,
D, DIB,
G, 1, N,
NY, LIS,
M, S, SF,
PS,T
B,D,
DIB,G,I,
N, LIS,
M, S, SF,
T
Freshwater
Inflow
BT, M, SF
1
AP, BT, G,
1, SF, T
BT, G, SF,
T
Sealevel
Rise
Other
SMB-
ocean
dump
site
SMB-
301
AP = Albemarte-Pamlico Sound
B = Buzzards Bay
BT = Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary
C = Casco Bay
D = Delaware Estuary
DIB = Delaware Inland Bays
G = Galveston Bay
I = Indian River Lagoon
LIS = Long Island Sound
M = Massachusetts Bay
N = Narragansett Bay
NY = New York-New |ersey Harbor
Source: NOAA, Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. A Special 20th
Anniversary Report. U.S. Department of Commerce. October 1990.
PS = Puget Sound
S = Sarasota Bay
SF = San Francisco Bay
SMB = Santa Monica Bay
T = Tampa Bay
-------
Appendix D
Individual State Data
Wetlands
-------
D-2 Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands
Table D-1. Current Sources of Direct Wetlands Losses ;
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
ONo
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total Number of States
Agriculture
_
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
Commercial
Development
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
19
Residential
Development
___
_
1
1
1
_
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
Highway
Construction
1
1
_
1
_
1
_
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
Impound-
ments
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
Resource
Extraction
1
1
_
1
_
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1 o The State reported that the source caused current wetlands losses.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) Reports.
-------
Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands D-3
Table D-1. (continued)
Industry
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
Dredged Material
Disposal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
Silviculture
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Natural
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Mosquito
Control
1
1
-------
D-4 Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands
Table D-2. Overall Designated Use Support in Wetlands (acres)
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gla River Ind. Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
% of Assessed Waters
Fully Supporting
Eval- Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
_ _ _
780 780
80 - - 80
_ _ _ _
36,328 - - 36.328
969 ' 969
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
- - 5,256,000 5,256,000
^ _ _
_ _ _ _
37,377 5,256,780 5,294,157
1% 99% 50%
Threatened
Eval- Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
15,474 15,474
8,215 - - 8,215
_ _ _ _
_ _ _
120 720
_ _ _ _
_ _
23,809 23,809
100% <1%
Partially Supporting
Eval- Monl- Not
uated Itored Specified Total
_ _ _ _
60,078 60,078
13,665 13,665
34,256 34,256
_ _ _ _
12,000 12,000
- - 2,577,000 2,577,000
_
_ _ _ _
25,665 34,256 2,637,078 2,696,999
1% 1% 98% 26%
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands D-S
Table D-2. (continued)
Not Supporting
Eval- Monk Not
uated tored Specified Total
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
3,640 3,6*0
_ _ _ _
_ _ _
24,169 - - 24,169
_ _ 2,474,000 2,474,000
_
_ _ _ _
27,809 2,474,000 2,501,809
1% 99% 24%
Not Attainable
Eval- Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
_____
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _
Total Assessed
Eval- Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
60,858 60,858
80 - - 80
_ _ _ _
51,802 51,802
26,489 26,489
34,256 34,256
_ _ _ _
36,169 36,169
10,307,000 10,307,000
120 120;
114,660 34,256 10,367,858 10,516,774
1% <1% 99% 10%
-------
D-6 Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands
Table D-3. Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mkhigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total Number of States
Sediment
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
Nutrients
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
Water
Diversions
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Pesticides
1
1
1
1
1
5
Salinity
1
1
1
1
4
Heavy
Metals
1
1
1
3
Ponding
1
1
1
3
Weeds
1
1
1
3
1 = The State reported that the pollutant or process degrades wetlands integrity.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) Reports.
-------
Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands D-7
Table D-3. (continued)
Low DO
1
1
2
pH
1
1
2
Selenium
1
1
-------
D-8 Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands
Table D-4. Sources of Integrity Degradation in Wetlands ;
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total Number of States
Agriculture
__
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
"
1
1
1
1
11
Development
_
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
Channelization
_
1
~
1
1
1
1
1
^~
1
1
1
9
Road
Construction
__
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
Urban
Runoff
__
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Resource
Extraction
I
1
1
1
1
1
5
Landfills
__
1
_
1
_
1
1
1
5
Natural
_._
_
1
I
1
1
1
1
5
1 = The State reported that the source degrades wetlands integrity.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) Reports.
-------
Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands D-9
Table D-4. (continued)
Industrial
Runoff
1
1
1
1
4
Onstte
Systems
1
1
1
3
Irrigation
1
1
1
3
Recreation
1
1
1
3
Municipal
Sewage
1
1
2
Silviculture
1
1
2
Industrial
Sewage
1
1
2
on
Extraction
1
1
-------
D-10 Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands
Table D-5. Development of State Wetland Water Quality Standards
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
tit Place
Use
Classification
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
Narrative
Blocrtterla
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
Numeric
Bkxrltlerla
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Anti-
degradation
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
26
Under Development
Use
Classification
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
Narrative
Btocriterla
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
Numeric
Btocrlteria
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
Anti-
degradation
1
1
1
1
1
5
1 = The State reported program status.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) Reports.
-------
Appendix D Individual State Data - Wetlands D-11
Table D-5. (continued)
Proposed
Use
Classification
^
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
Narrative
Btocrlterla
1
~
1
1
I
1
1
5
Numeric
Btocrlterta
1
1
"~
1
*~
1
4
Anti-
degradation
1
1
I
1
1
1
5
Implementation Process
Regional Water Boards
Municipal jurisdiction for Inland Waters
Limited
In place for Thibodaux Swamp
Limited
401, Coastal Area Management Act
Clean Stream Laws
Water Quality Standards
401
Regulations
Limited
401
Wetlands Standards
NR 103 (Wetlands Standards)
-------
Appendix E
Individual State Data
Public Health and Aquatic Life
Concerns
-------
E-2 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-1. Number and Extent of Fishing Restrictions Reported by the States
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Riven and Streams
Number of
Restrictions
3
3
3
6
2
3
1
27
5
6
19
2
1
3
3
3
1
12
35
55
5
1
1
3
1
1
8
3
24
6
3
15
1
2
24
1
7
6
1
1
8
1
7
71
394
Total Miles
Affected
246
107
119
39
6
583
467
331
77
10
789
51
236
60
1,076
28
509
635
133
254
7
458
440
6,661
Lakes and Reservoirs
Number of
Restrictions
3
1
1
10
8
1
36
1
10
1
1
3
1
7
19
432
2
1
5
24
25
6
10
3
2
1
2
2
11
5
1
1
1
170
807
Total Acres
Affected
10
45
24,911
23,489
12
150
107
100
33,334
339,306
103,628
500
525,750
Great Lakes Shore
Number of
Restrictions
2
1
8
1
1
1
1
3
18
Total Mites
Affected
63
43
3,288
272
492
_
4,158
Estuaries
Number of
Restrictions
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
2
1
1
2
21
Square Miles
Affected
600
58
658
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 30S(b) reports.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-3
Table E-l. (continued)
Ocean Shore
Number of
Restrictions
12
1
1
2
16
Total Miles
Affected
~~
Multiple Waters Affected
Number of
Restrictions
__
1
13
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
23
Total Acres
Affected
Total Number
of Restrictions
6
1
A
5
29
8
4
3
1
77
6
18
21
3
1
A
8
3
4
22
62
489
7
4
1
3
2
1
21
27
54
13
13
19
3
3
28
1
3
19
13
2
2
8
2
7
244
1,279
-------
E-4 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-2. Number of Fishing Restrictions Caused by Individual Pollutants ;
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexko
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percentage
Mercury
1
1
3
11
3
1
77
3
1
_
3
27
479
1
2
27
9
6
13
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
219
899
60%
PCBs
1
1
1
10
3
2
'
1
1
7
18
2
4
5
10
34
74
5
1
14
38
15
1
19
1
2
12
4
2
3
3
25
319
21%
Chtordane
3
3
1
1
2
10
3
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
2
8
7
4
1
21
6
3
1
7
96
6%
Dloxln
4
3
_
1
1
3
1
4
4
3
3
1
6
7
5
2
1
3
1
1
4
1
59
4%
Pesticides
^
3
3
_
_
1
7
14
2%
Other
_
4
_
=
1
1
1
3
E
1
11
2%
DDT
1
1
4
11
_
1
=
3
3
3
=
1
1
29
2%
Priority
Metals
1
3
1
1
~
1
_
E
7
1%
Organic:
5
_ _
1
=
6
1%
Dleldrln
3
_
2
1
=
6
1%
None or not reported.
Source: USEPA Fish Consumption Advisory Database, September 1993.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-5
Table E-3. Sources of Pollutants Causing Fishing Restrictions
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut'
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mkhigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Industrial
Discharges
4
2
1
1
2
3
6
3
1
6
1
1
19
11
2
6
3
S
2
79
Unknown
3
3
5
1
3
24
12
5
3
1
1
1
3
4
69
Agriculture
3
2
4
2
16
27
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
1
2
1
1
IS
2
22
Resource
Extraction
4
1
5
Natural
3
3
Atmospheric
Deposition
1
1
* Advisories based on historic discharges and activities that have resulted in residual sediment contamination and/or fish tissue
contamination.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
E-6 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-4. Drinking Water Restrictions Reported by the States
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
IBinob
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rko
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Number of
Closures
3
1
9
3
5
12
33
Number of
Advisories
3
2
2
14
21
Reasons for Closures and Advisories
Color, odor, turbidity, sediment, algae, giardia, construction
Nitrate
TRIS
Chemical plant spills, oil spill from power plant
Giardia, bacteria
Giardia
Oil spill, toluene spill, raw sewage discharge, cyanide spilt
Trihalomethane
Drinking plant failures
Boil water notice
Turbidity, diesel, fuel oil, raw sewage
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-7
Table E-5. Contact Recreation Restrictions Reported by the States
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan1
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Number of Contact
Recreation Restrictions
5
2
3
1
52
7
1
22
1
1
1
7
2
2
59
20
1
1
91
7
2
1
1
5
44
5
20
1
4
2
371
Reasons for Restrictions
Fecal coliforms
Fecal coliforms
Fecal coliforms from runoff
Fecal coliforms
Bacteria from CSOs, rainfall, and sewer line rupture
Pathogens
Bacterial pollution from CSOs in aU district waters
Leaking septk tanks, WWTP discharges, sewage spills, heavy rains
Fecal cofiform bacteria attributed to water fowl
Fecal coliforms
Industrial runoff, septic tanks, animal discharges, abandoned hazardous waste sites,
industrial and municipal discharges, farm runoff
CSOs, raw sewage
Fecal coliform bacteria
Fecal coliforms from CSOs, sewer pipeline break, agriculture, domestic sewage, industry
Fecal bacteria
Medical waste
Bacteria, algae, and turbidity from storm runoff and sewage bypass
PCBs, dioxin, PAHs, mirex, chlordane
Bacteria from CSOs, urban runoff, municipal discharges
Bacteria
Bacteria, shigella outbreak from septic tanks and other NPS
Fecal coliforms
Bacteria (42); toxics in water or sediment (2)
Bacteria
Coliform, CSO
Bacterial contamination
High bacteria content from sewage
Bacteria and clarity possibly related to CSOs
' Michigan reported 8 specific incidents of waterbome disease (Swimmer's Itch and Ciardia).
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
E-8 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-6. Sources Associated with Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions 1
State
Alabama
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
a
4
1
62
1
28
47
143
Marinas
4
38
9
51
Municipal
Discharges
13
2
1
2
5
17
20
60
Industrial
Discharges
1
2
3
4
9
21
40
Other Point
Sources
4
34
^~
38
Septic
Tanks
9
1
5
9
24
CSOs
1
5
^
6
Hydro-
modification
4
4
' Precautionary closures are imposed at all conditional shellfish beds during and 48 hours following rain events.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-9
-------
E-10 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-7. Fish Kills Caused by Pollution 1
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percentages
Total Number of Wtts
Caused by Pollutants
and Natural Causes
28
2
15
21
4
26
19
1
275
40
7
19
72
35
56
33
106
2
116
97
8
31
37
7
60
12
10
20
54
35
17
42
11
11
88
9
48
15
10
2
96
6
17
1,620
Caused by
Pollution
Total No.
Fish Kills
7
2
15
21
4
9
17
1
20
40
7
19
20
19
56
30
64
2
15
70
8
12
26
7
32
11
9
20
54
35
17
42
11
1
21
2
43
15
9
2
94
6
15
930
57%
Total No.
Fish Killed
120
162,690
1,000
16,000
1,066,272
186,304
451,300
200,407
7,719
249,104
1,100,122
127,208
400,000
850
350,610
60,660
13,585
29,592
111,525
41,318
34,404
110,600
128,113
8
18,373
50
215,684
4,541
2,000
5,500
11,000
5,106,659
Kills Caused by
Toxic Pollutants
Number of
Fish Kills
1
2
5
16
2
9
2
7
16
4
1
5
8
4
25
2
10
10
2
4
2
3
3
2
8
9
3
4
10
2
1
21
1
19
11
3
11
248
26%
Number of
Fish Killed
120
9,240
16,000
1,058,827
63,952
331,300
700
216,347
4,194
40,369
400,000
850
22,730
150
236
54,710
2,694
1,557
6,300
25,720
8
18,373
50
135,867
1,164
2,411,458
Kllb Caused by
Conventional Pollutants
Number of
Fish Kills
5
8
5
1
2
1
7
21
1
2
10
46
16
5
20
6
4
8
2
11
2
9
28
17
6
11
3
13
2
1
20
4
11
308
32%
Number of
Fish Killed
25,700
3,825
114,553
10,000
32,463
95,928
73,595
350,610
37,827
2,327
163
61,715
34,257
22,420
100,046
17,303
79,036
57
5,500
7,000
1,074,325
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-11
Table E-7. (continued)
Kills Caused by
Habitat Modification
Number of
Fish Kids
I
1
1
2
2
3
4
3
4
5
2
1
28
3%
Number of
Fish Killed
1,000
1,570
110,000
6,500
28,040
I
"~~
3,764
320
2,000
153,194
Kills Caused by
Unspecified/Unknown Pollutants
Number of
Fish Kills
1
2
.1
7
13
I
3
17
4
2
39
47
38
4
13
2
14
8
1
3
17
15
2
21
6
1
13
4
2
63
2
4
369
39%
Number of
FIshKlDed
127,750
1,000
1,000
^
I
7,799
7,019
294
1,000,000
103
4,608
1,153
I
5,100
10,427
490
85,090
781
3,000
4,000
1,259,614
Kills Due to
Natural Causes
Number of
Fish Kins
21
I
8
2
255
9
11
3
42
54
27
19
11
28
1
1
10
67
7
5
1
2
2
586
Number of
Fish Killed
_
~
3,000
3,800,000
4,979
10,184
7,000
60,051
9,080
12,396
19,000
^
121,608
700
_
4,047,998
-------
E-12 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-8. Pollutants Causing Fish Kills
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
Cafifomia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
BOO/DO
4
1
3
1
3
5
15
2
9
41
3
25
15
1
14
26
5
4
4
6
1
2
5
8
1
7
10
221
Pesticides
1
1
1
2
1
5
4
2
1
2
7
1
25
2
3
6
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
12
1
2
1
4
96
Manure/
Silage
1
1
2
17
6
4
1
8
4
11
5
4
3
1
1
69
OH and
Gas
1
1
1
2
5
5
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
8
6
3
4
1
8
1
2
58
Chlorine
1
1
1
4
1
1
5
1
1
2
3
1
8
1
1
3
1
2
3
41
Ammonia
1
2
1
3
1
9
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
30
Temp-
erature
1
1
2
1
9
1
1
3
3
1
23
Acidity
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
5
19
Unspecified
Organlcs
2
1
1
1
2
4
11
'BOD/DO = Biological oxygen demand/dissolved oxygen.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-13
Table E-8. (continued) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
Nutrients
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
14
Metals
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
9
SUtotlon/
Sediment
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
10
Priority
Organic*
3
1
4
-------
E-14 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-9. Sources of Pollutants Causing Fish Kills ;
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Natural
8
3
11
16
2
42
54
11
23
1
7
5
1
4
188
Agriculture
2
2
1
3
8
2
3
14
20
6
25
5
4
3
1
10
4
19
6
6
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
2
157
Industrial
Discharges
3
4
1
5
10
3
5
3
16
1
2
2
1
2
4
1
3
14
7
10
5
102
Municipal
Discharges
4
1
1
1
9
2
2
2
10
3
3
3
4
6
5
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
3
69
Other
Spills
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
3
11
3
3
8
3
1
45
Pesticide
Application
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
12
1
2
1
32
Hydro-
modification
2
1
1
4
5
1
14
Low
Flows
4
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
17
Drinking Supply
Discharges
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
9
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-15
Table E-9. (continued)
Resource
Extraction
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
Swimming
Pools
1
5
6
Construction
1
1
1
2
5
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
1
1
1
3
-------
Table E-10. Sediment Contamination Reported by the States ^^1
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Number
of Sites
5
18
1
1
9
5
12
25
195
13
1
13
8
7
17
14
11
7
Contaminants of Concern
Metals, organics
Oil, metals
PCBs, metals, oil and grease
Pesticides (DDE and toxaphene)
DDT, DDE, ODD, chlordane, pesticides
PCBs, lead, mercury, PAHs, and miscellaneous toxicity
Metals and priority organics
Cadmium, zinc, copper, nickel, DDT, dieldrin, lindane
PCBs, chlordane, DDT byproducts, copper, lead, zinc, phenols
Cadmium, copper, mercury, lead, zinc, chromium, arsenic
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, zinc,
chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, PCBs, heptachlor epoxides
PCBs, metals, pesticides, PAHs, cyanide, phthalates
PCBs
Petroleum hydrocarbons, halogenated hydrocarbons, priority
pollutants, dioxin, PCBs, heavy metals, creosote, halogenated
aliphatic aroma tics
Cadmium, copper, dioxin, toluene, TCE, PCBs, tris, dimethyl
formamide, chlorinated solvents
Metals, organics
PCBs, metals
Metals, organic toxics
'Chlordane, PCBs, lead, zinc, radioactivity
Mercury, pesticides, organics
Sources of Contaminants
Oil spills, resource extraction
Agricultural runoff, irrigation, landfills
Industrial activity, shooting range, runoff, municipal activity
Runoff, industry, ground water contamination, Superfund site
Combined sewer overflows
Point sources and urban runoff
Unknown, multiple
Industry
Industrial discharges, industrial runoff, and industrial spills
Landfill, salvage yard, industry
Industry, urban runoff
Combined sewer overflows, industrial discharges
Industrial discharges, industrial nonpoint sources, and industrial spills
Urban runoff, agricultural runoff, USDOE plant, lead mill tailing, industry
Mercury mill, irrigation flows
(continued)
m
i
Ox
>
T3
(D
-3
Q.
x'
m
O)
1
O
sr
2:
n'
D>
3.
£?.
O
i
|
-------
Table E-10. (continued)
State
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
ORSANCO
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Number
of Sites
28
4
124
16
17
6
3
30
79
669
Contaminants of Concern
Priority organics and heavy metals
Arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, zinc
DDT, heptachlor, cadmium, lead, arsenic, copper
Priority pollutants
Metals, PCBs, petroleum, hydrocarbon
Mercury, PCBs, dioxin
PCBs, chlordane, lead, mercury, dioxin
PCBs, dioxin, PCP, PBB, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, zinc,
chromium, oil and grease, pesticides, PAHs
Sources of Contaminants
Industrial discharges, hazardous waste disposal, agriculture,
urban stormwater runoff
Unknown
Historical, industrial impacts (no longer discharging)
Discontinued point sources
Historical industrial discharges and spills, current industrial discharges
Industry, agriculture, landfills, municipal discharges,
in-place contaminants, wood treatment plant
I,
X
I
51
I
sr
o
c
I
I
D>
s.
Bl
tt
n
r>
!S
Source: 1992 State Section 305 (b) reports.
Not reported.
PAH = Porycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls.
PBB = Polybrominated biphenyls.
TCE = Trichloroethylene.
USDOE = U. S. Department of Energy.
* Missouri also reports that chlordane contaminates sediments at approximately half of their 3,200 waterbodies.
-------
E-18 Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns
Table E-11. Size of Waters Affected by Toxic Substances
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii*
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
ONo
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin blands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percentages
Riven and Streams
Monitored
for Toxics
886
2,690
355
5,339
9,315
573
231
120
38
1,072
18
1,225
8,181
5,335
1,669
16,006
307
865
6,098
3,662
2,330
3,432
43,674
1,602
1,487
8,763
3,400
b
5,826
7,901
954
400,472
7,284
1,047
256
3,739
3,080
10,834
3,802
4,994
10,633
2,040
2,169
1,234
2,113
597,051
17%
Elevated
Toxics
281
2,441
84
3,152
1,265
158
99
6
14
678
1,225
1,929
1,845
218
706
59
237
746
1,652
758
761
4,502
587
134
13
3,618
538
b
764
2,127
954
1,844
741
2,305
1,017
123
30
163
883
309
780
935
1,116
1,895
508
595
44,795
8%
Lakes and Reservoirs
Monitored
for Toxics
61,178
61,509
155,344
329,174
51,606
11,268
620
238
142,720
32,000
147,800
23,500
5,638
172,129
38,106
290,633
2,223,029
60,235
236,873
615,935
92,585
227,427
5,635
668,000
294,107
437,671
98,445
569,038
19,282
3,616
647
509,438
548,000
501,427
157,236
450,078
58,994
16,186
601,594
70,069
9,989,009
25%
Elevated
Toxics
61,178
32,941
22,666
228,174
12,930
2,875
403
103
74,880
32,000
36,222
815
320
9,118
400
23,090
2,175,226
6,007
7,824
270,847
46,885
77,550
137
122,338
135,000
10,020
339,307
13,941
201,265
19,282
1,981
441
75,067
500
4,909
2,535
8,464
214,164
2,750
4,274,554
43%
Estuaries
Monitored
for Toxics
91
558
14
53
6
481
100
10
18
1,530
21
1
23
694
919
1,384
3
1,402
7,307
20%
Elevated
Toxics
86
49
1
25
3
235
10
10
120
21
1
7
<1
58
228
1
94
948
13%
Oceans
Monitored
for Toxics
25
99
10
81
120
171
506
3%
Elevated
Toxics
99
81
60
50
290
57%
Total waterbody size estimated by EPA.
b North Carolina monitors toxics at 350 ambient monitoring sites, but the State does not relate the data to waterbodies.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix E Individual State Data - Public Health and Aquatic Life Concerns E-19
1 Table E-11. (continued)
Great Lakes
Monitored
for Tories
63
43
3,288
272
577
236
840
5,319
99%
Elevated
Tories
63
43
3,288
272
492
236
840
5,234
98%
Total Wetlands
Monitored
for Tories
106,753
34,256
26,169
167,178
42%
Elevated
Tories
79,041
26,169
105,210
63%
-------
Appendix F
Individual State Data
Great Lakes
-------
F-2 Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes
Table F-1. Overall Designated Use Support in the Great Lakes (shore miles) |
State
Illinois
Indiana*
Michigan"
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Totals
% of Assessed Waters
Fully Supporting
Evil- Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
_____
- 85 - 85
- 85 - 85
0% 100% 2%
Threatened
Eval- Monl- Not
uated tored Specified Total
- 63 - «
_ _ _ _
- 63 - 63
0% 100% 1%
PartlaRy Supporting
Eva). Monl- Not
uated Itored Specified Total
- 43 - 43
- 492 - 492
- 236 - 236
630 210 840
630 981 1,611
39% 61% 30%
' Entered aquatic life support data in Eeu of overall use support data.
b Michigan classifies aO of its waters as either fully supporting or not supporting designated uses.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes F-3
Table F-l
. (continued)
Not Supporting
Eval-
uated
Moni-
tored
3,288
272
Not
Specified
Total
3,288
272
_ _ _ _
0%
3,560
100%
3,560
6796
Not Attainable
Eval- Monl-
uated tored
Not
Specified Total
_
_ _ _ _
0% 0%
0%
Total Assessed
Eval-
uated
630
630
12%
Monl- Not
tored Specified
63
43 -
3,288
272
577
236
210 -
4,689
88%
Total
63
43
3,288
272
577
236
840
5,319
99%
-------
F-4 Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes
Table F-2a. Aquatic Life Use Support in the Great Lakes (shore miles) j
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total*
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
577
577
11%
Threatened
63
720
783
15%
Partially
Supporting
43
236
120
399
8%
Not
Supporting
3,288
23
3,311
65%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
63
43
3,288
23
577
236
840
5,070
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table F-2b. Fish Consumption Use Support in the Great Lakes (shore miles) ;
State
IDinob
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
85
85
2%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
492
236
840
1,568
29%
Not
Supporting
63
43
3,288
272
3,666
69%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
63
43
3,288
272
577
236
840
5,319
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table F-2c. Swimming Use Support in the Great Lakes (shore miles) 1
State
Illinob
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
62
43
3,287
23
483
780
4,678
96%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
1
43
94
40
178
4%
Not
Supporting
1
20
21
<1%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
63
86
3,288
23
577
840
4,877
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes F-S
Table F-2d. Secondary Contact Use Support in the Great Lakes (shore miles)
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
3,288
572
780
4,640
99%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
5
60
65
1%
Not
Supporting
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
3,288
577
840
4,705
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table F-2e. Drinking Water Supply Use Support in the Great Lakes (shore miles)
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
63
43
3,208
576
820
4,710
98%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
1
20
21
<1%
Not
Supporting
80
80
2%
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
63
43
3,288
577
840
4,811
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table F-2f. Agriculture Use Support in the Great Lakes (shore miles)
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Totals
Percent of Assessed Waters
Fully
Supporting
43
3,288
577
800
4,708
99%
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
40
40
1%
Not
Supporting
Not
Attainable
Total
Assessed
43
3,288
577
840
4,748
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
F-6 Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes
1
Table F-3. Leading Causes of Great Lakes Impairments (shore miles) !
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total Shore Mites Impaired
% of Impaired Shore Miles*
Affected by Each Cause
% of Assessed Shore Miles
Affected by Each Cause
96 of Total Shore Miles
Affected by Each Cause
Total Impaired Waters
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
- 43
3,288
272
- 492
- 236
840
5,171
Priority Organic* 0)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
63 - - 63
3,288 3,288
- 272 - 272
388 104 - 492
4 186 - 190
840 - - 840
4,583 562 5,145
8996 11% 9996
86% 11% 9796
85% 10% 96%
Metab (2)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
272 272
86 129 - 215
- 100 - 100
86 501 587
2% 9% 11%
2% 9% 11%.
2% 9% - 11%
' Includes only impaired shore miles in States reporting causes affecting the Great Lakes.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Total Impaired Great Lakes Show Miles In States Reporting Causes: 5,171 shore miles
Total Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles; 5,319 snore miles
Estimate of Total Great Lakes Shore Mites in the Nation: 5,382 shore miles
-------
Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes F-7
Table F-3
(continued)
^m
NutrtenU (3)
Major
Mod/ Not
Mln Specified Total
77
75
152
3%
3%
3%
21 98
100 - 175
121 - 273
2% 5%
2% - 5%
2% 5%
Organic Enrlch./Low Dissolved Oxygen (4)
Major
Mod/ Not
Mln Specified
Total
75
75
150
3%
3%
3%
44
46
100
190
4%
4%
3%
44
121
175
340
7%
6%
6%
Slltatlon (5)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified
Total
_ _ _ _
6 63 -
75
6 138
<1% 3%
<1% 3%
<1% 3%
69
75
144
3%
3%
3%
(continued)
-------
F-8 Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes
Table F-3. (continued) >
Stite
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total Shore Miles
Impaired
96 of Impaired Shore
Miles' Affected by
Each Cause
% of Assessed Shore
Miles Affected by
Each Cause
96 of Total Shore Miles
Affected by Each Cause
Pathogen Indicators (6)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
21 23 - 44
- 80 . 80
21 103 - 124
<196 2962%
<1% 2% - 2%
<1% 2% - 296
Noxious Aquatic Weeds (7)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
- 23 - 23
75 - - 7$
75 23 - 98
196 <1% 2%
1% <1% 2%
196 <1% 2%
Taste and Odor (8)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
1 1
40 40
1 40 41
<1% 1% - 1%
<1% 1% 1%
<1% 1% 1%
-------
Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes F-9
Table F-3. (continued)
Ammonl*{9)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
_ _ _ _
- 20 - 20
- 20 - 20
-------
F-10 Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes
Table F-4. Leading Sources of Great Lakes Impairments (shore miles) 1
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total Shore Miles Impaired
% of Impaired Shore Miles'
Affected by Each Source
% of Assessed Shore Miles
Affected by Each Source
% of Total Shore Miles
Affected by Each Source
Total Impaired Waters
States Not States
Reporting Causes Reporting Causes
- 43
3,287 1
272
492
236
840
1,884
Atmospheric Deposition (1)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
63 - - 63
- 43 - 45
840 840
63 883 946
3% 47% 50%
1% 17% - 18%
1% 16% 17%
Contaminated Sediments (2)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified Total
4 4
388 58 - 446
310 - - 310
702 58 - 760
37% 3% - 40%
13% 1% 14%
13% 1% 14%
* Includes only impaired shore miles in States reporting sources affecting the Great Lakes.
None or not reported.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
Total Impaired Great Lakes Shore Miles in States Reporting Sources: 1,884 shore miles
Total Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles; 5,319 shore miles
Estimate of Total Great Lakes Shore Mites in the Nation: 5,382 shore miles
-------
Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes F-11
Table F-4. (continued)
Und Disposal (3)
Major
Mod/
Mln
Not
Specified
Total
20
20
1%
<1%
<1%
492
4
60
556
29%
10%
10%
492
24
60
576
30%
11%
11%
Urban Runoff /Storm Sewers (4)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified
- 63 -
14 21
- 100 -
14 184 -
<1% 10%
<1% 4%
<1% 3%
Total
63
35
100
198
10%
4%
4%
Combined Sewer Overflow (S)
Mod/ Not
Major Mln Specified
10
- 43 -
1
21 14
- 60 -
22 127 -
1% 7%
<1% 2%
<1% 2%
Total
10
43
1
35
60
149
8%
3%
3%
(continued)
-------
F-12 Appendix F Individual State Data - Great Lakes
Table F-4. (continued)
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total Shore Miles
Impaired
% of Impaired Shore
Miles' Affected by
Each Source
% of Assessed Shore
Miles Affected by
Each Source
% of Total Shore Miles
Affected by Each Source
Construction (6)
Mod/ Not
Ma|or Mln Specified
Total
6 35
6 35 -
>"i(u. "yot*
-------
Appendix G
Individual State Data
Section 314 Clean Lakes Data
-------
C-2 Appendix C Individual State Data - Section 314 Clean Lakes Data
I
Table G-1. Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona'
Arkansas'1
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida0
Georgia
Gila River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
WestVirginiad
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percentages
Total
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Publk Lakes Public Lakes
A3 469,653
235 128,436
77 355,063
176 149,023
105 24,941
47 2,973
NA NA
1 103
145 968,320
27
2,557 515,510
298 155,433
115 42,974
238 172,129
75 699,722
2,312 958,499
62 21,001
704 489,407
11,842 3,290,101
127 313,538
830 161,090
174 151,320
7,648 730,387
145 304,542
216 619,088
NA NA
125
18
58 7,035
43 476,001
123 539,326
108
139 450,078
248 161,554
NA NA
93 21,522
14,973
44,127 12,378,769
Assessed
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Publk Lakes Publk Lakes
22 392,474
2 -
10
87 102,623
105 24,941
NA NA
1 103
106
38 397,147
298 155,433
186 74,144
115 42,974
220 171,857
102 214,962
30 455,476
1,732 926,593
62 21,001
320 54,846
704 489,407
1,738
34 298,652
108 262,028
1,378 643,146
64 127,517
12
507 152,862
66 145,042
1,896 349,842
145 304,542
149 604,292
NA NA
149
202
54
18
58 7,035
40 474,651
120
123 539,326
139 450,078
215,469
62 90,763
NA NA
148
127
11,520 8,196,008
OUgotrophk
Number of Acreage of
Significant Slgnlfkant
Publk Lakes Publk Lakes
1
11 8,223
7 1,549
NA NA
58
7 173,801
3 75
59 38,773
11 63,513
143 103,841
3 1,339
9 25,549
111 174,068
236
3 293
452 254,692
3
161 110,586
12 10,027
398 62,150
38 73,395
NA NA
22
59
1
1
5 388
20 97,044
23 76,323
9,306
3 5,348
NA NA
25
30
1,915 1,290,283
17% 16%
Mesotrophk
Number of Acreage of
Slgnlfkant Slgnlfkant
Publk Lakes Publk Lakes
7 82,762
2
30 42,454
61 16,165
NA NA
25
7 29,932
23 6,185
106 30,598
46 80,883
30 42,444
1,017 667,387
14 6,559
84 10,662
364 176,715
598
34 84,082
428 348,522
4 37,970
7
223 34,030
19 70,108
375 208,360
32 106,081
12 369,339
NA NA
66
72
41
6
42 5,810
6 28,807
8
36 115,862
72 225,222
178,985
20 4,285
NA NA
81
48
4,046 2,891,978
35% 35%
' Arizona's significant public lakes do not include lakes under the jurisdiction of American Indian Tribes.
b Arkansas calculated and ranked all 77 significant public lakes by a trophic index, but did not assign a trophic class to each index.
c Florida reports the number of lake reaches in each trophic category. The State has 101 significant public lakes comprised of 145 lake reaches.
d West Virginia reports total number of publicly owned lakes, some of which may not be "significant."
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data-Section 314 Clean Lakes Data C-3
Table G-1. (continued)
Eutrophk
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Publk Lakes
15 309,712
2
7
39 46,900
21 5,901
1 103
23
24 193,414
141 60,453
21 4,773
115 42,974
101 80,486
58 108,877
30 455,476
572 155,365
45 13,103
169 15,428
229 138,624
586
34 298,652
66 176,949
371 39,262
46 81,086
2
123 8,246
34 64,902
282 54,195
57 108,340
58 150,298
28
61
12
11
10 817
34 445,844
27
48 309,443
40 44,104
26,810
39 81,130
41
47
3,670 3,521,487
32% 43%
Hypereutrophk
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Publk Lakes
7 5,046
16 1,326
131 88,720
73 10,488
3 128
57 3,170
318 -
5 704
14 8,461
8 1,470
79 84,654
33
10
85
19 16,977
4 104,429
1
2
865 325,573
8% 4%
Dyjtrophk
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Publk Lakes Publk Lakes
_ _
1 37
127 670
1 5
841 25,137
10 15,256
_ __
1 20
368
981 41,493
8% 0.5%
Unknown
Number of Acreage of
Significant Slgntfkant
Publk Lakes Publk Lakes
21 77,179
25 21,382
18 272
6 110
2,547 96,327
249 25,515
502 20,217
11
5,692 270,692
7
12,914
511
9,589 524,608
84% 7%
-------
G-4 Appendix G Individual State Data -Section 314 Clean Lakes Data
Table G-2. Acidity in Significant Publicly Owned Lakes
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percentages
Number of
Lakes Assessed
for Acidity
77
105
30
NA
7
9
8
1,004
62
704
1,153
107
549
1,526
145
192
NA
58
123
4
200
62
NA
698
6,823
Acreage of
Lakes Assessed
for Acidity
24,941
NA
2,445
168,877
43,465
713,387
21,001
489,407
263,124
153,581
97,825
304,542
611,074
NA
7,035
539,326
90,762
NA
211,735
3,742,527
Number of
Lakes Exhibiting
High Acidity*
1
8
12
8
NA
4
8
59
12
218
40
642
NA
10
3
7
NA
6
1,038
15%
Acreage of
Lakes Exhibiting
High Acidity*
1,850
1,828
NA
_
43,465
697
3,277
23,462
NA
1,097
2,864
114
NA
78,654
2%
' Includes lakes threatened by high acidity (i.e., low pH) due to natural causes.
None or not reported.
NA ° Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data - Section 314 Clean Lakes Data C-S
Table G-3. Sources of High Acidity in Lakes
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Cila River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Add Deposition
Number Acreage
of Lakes Likes
Impacted Impacted
NA NA
41
19 1,681
397 17,550
NA NA
10 1,097
7 114
NA NA
474 20,442
Add Mine Drainage
Number of Acreage
Lakes Lakes
Impacted Impacted
1 1,850
NA NA
-
NA NA
3 2,864
NA NA
4 4,714
Natural Sources
Number Acreage
of Lakes Lakes
Impacted Impacted
8
12 1,828
8
NA NA
8 43,465
24
21 1,596
NA NA
10 1,097
NA NA
91 47,986
Other
Number of Acreage
Lakes Lakes
Impacted Impacted
_ _
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
C-6 AppendixC Individual State Data-Section 314 Clean Lakes Data
Table G-4. Trends in Significant Publicly Owned Lakes
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gib River Indian Comm.
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexko
New York
North Carolina'
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Percentages
Toul
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Public Lakes
43 469,653
235 128,436
77 355,063
176 149,023
105 24,941
47 2,973
NA NA
1 103
145 968,320
27
2,557 515,510
298 155,433
115 42,974
238 172,129
75 699,722
2,312 958,499
62 21,001
704 489,407
11,842 3,290,101
127 313,538
830 161,090
174 151,320
145 304,542
216 619,088
NA NA
125
18
58 7,035
43 476,001
123 539,326
108
139 450,078
248 161,554
NA NA
93 21,522
698
22,204 11,648,382
Assessed
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Publk Lakes Public Lakes
43 469,653
11 167,550
7 8,553
105 24,941
NA NA
13 159,959
212
157
114 42,939
102 214,962
585 -
210 299,942
161
1 122,535
12 34,499
316 128,377
93 286,065
189 611,075
NA NA
40 474,651
123 539,326
62 90,762
NA NA
104 -
49 48,880
2,709 3,724,669
Improving
Number of Acreage of
Significant Significant
Public Lakes Publk Lakes
1 440
1
10 10^19
NA NA
15 173
6 7,457
25
59
5 1,793
5 19,042
3 294
12
40 58,283
26
1 208
1
134 45,935
16 54,307
1 412
NA NA
8 161,975
24 37,245
6 6,643
27 9,087
5 20,217
NA NA
20
20 22,287
471 456,317
17% 13%
Stable
Number of Acreage of
Significant Slgnlfkant
Publk Lakes Publk Lakes
42 469,213
10
7 8,553
89 13,609
NA NA
36 707
5 57,897
27
106
90 38,319
93 121,482
80 211,993
190
143 205,801
129
9 33,491
54
14 765
65 212,156
162 64,099
NA NA
30 260,796
46 58,668
87 522,699
44 149,360
55 70,389
NA NA
70
24 23,150
1,707 2,523,146
63% 70%
' North Carolina counted High Rock Lake as both improving and degrading because fish consumption use improved on 1,900 acres but 13,850 acres became more
degraded by eutrophication.
None or not reported.
NA Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Appendix C Individual State Data-Section 314 Clean Lakes Data C-7
Table G-4.
(continued)
Degrading Unknown-
Number of
Significant
Public Lakes
Acreage of
Significant
PubUc Lakes
6
MA
5
2
46
21
19
25
8
21
27
6
1
2
6
168
13
26
NA
2
27
30
18
2
NA
14
5
500
18%
812
NA
34
94,605
2,827
23,764
2,145
35,858
800
81,677
19,602
546,564
NA
51,880
561,376
9,984
6,609
257
NA
3,443
1,442,236
40%
Number of
Significant
PubUc Lakes
Acreage of
Significant
Public Lakes
NA
89
50
115
11
361
NA
598
258,570
7,841
530
502
52
NA
29
NA
118,090
18,477
NA
26,127
NA
1,209
45%
430,233
12%
-------
G-8 Appendix C Individual State Data - Section 314 Clean Lakes Data
Table G-5. Clean Lakes Program Projects
SUte
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Gila River Indian Community
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Phase 1 Pro|ects
Number Number
of Projects of Projects
Initiated Completed
2 -
3
i
7 7
4
NA NA
2 1
6
3 4
18 11
3
2 5
6
1 1
1
3 1
6
21
3
4 4
4 2
9 7
2
1
3 10
2
2 2
NA NA
17
1
5
1 2
3 1
8 8
5 2
3 1
3 6
1
NA NA
4
3 1
161 88
Phase 2 Projects
Number Number
of Projects of Projects
Initiated Completed
1
3 3
1
NA NA
1
3 -
8 5
4 5
1 1
2 2
7 3
2
13
1 3
1 1
1 1
5 3
3 7
2 2
NA NA
4
2
1 1
1 1
1
3 1
1 2
NA NA
14 14
1
86 56
Phase 3 Projects
Number Number
of Projects of Projects
Initiated Completed
NA NA
2
1
1
1
1
1
NA NA
1
1
NA NA
several
g
None or not reported.
NA = Not applicable.
Source: 1992 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices
For additional information about water quality in your Region, please contact your
EPA Regional Section 305(b) coordinator listed below:
Diane Switzer
EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617)860-4377
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
Xuan-Mai T. Tran
EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-3188
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Margaret Passmore
EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-6149
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, District of
Columbia
Larinda Tervelt
EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)347-2126
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
Donna Williams
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-6175
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Russell Nelson
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)655-7145
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
John Houlihan
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7432
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Phil Johnson
EPA Region 8
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)293-1581
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Ed Liu
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-2012
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam
Donna Walsh
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-1754
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
For additional information about water quality in your State, please contact your
State Section 305(b) coordinator listed in Chapter 8.
-------
|