United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
EPA841-S-94-002
December 1995
SEPA
The Quality of Our Nation's
Water: 1994
Executive Summary of the National Water Quality
Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress
-------
Cover photo of Misty Fiords National
Monument, Alaska, by Barry Burgan.
-------
Contents
Section I
1 National Summary
of Water Quality
Conditions
2 The Quality of Our Nation's
Water
3 Key Concepts
13 Rivers and Streams
16 Lakes, Ponds, and
Reservoirs
20 The Great Lakes
23 Estuaries
26 Ocean Shoreline Waters
27 Wetlands
30 Ground Water
32 Water Quality Protection
Programs
46 What You Can Do
Section II
49 Basinwide Survey:
Ohio and Tennessee
River Valley
50 Introduction
50 Basin Description
51 Water Use in the Basin
53 Rating Water Quality
Conditions in the Basin
54 Overview of Conditions in
the Ohio and Tennessee
River Basin
63 The Allegheny River
Subbasin
68 Special State Concerns
and Recommendations
69 Recommendations for
Reporting from a Basinwide
Assessment Perspective
71 Appendix A. Ohio and
Tennessee River Basin Fish
Consumption Advisories
Section III
77 State and Territorial,
Tribal, and Interstate
Commission Summaries
79 State and Territorial
Summaries
187 Tribal Summaries
201 Interstate Commission
Summaries
-------
Section I
National Summary of
Water Quality Conditions
-------
The Quality of Our Nation's Water
Introduction
The contents of this section
summarize the information con-
tained in the National Water Quality
Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress.
The National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress is the
primary vehicle for informing
Congress and the public about gen-
eral water quality conditions in the
United States. This document char-
acterizes our water quality, identifies
widespread water quality problems
of national significance, and
describes various programs imple-
mented to restore and protect our
waters.
The National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress sum-
marizes the water quality informa-
tion submitted by 61 States,
American Indian Tribes, Territories,
Interstate Water Commissions, and
the District of Columbia (hereafter
referred to as States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions) in their 1994
water quality assessment reports.
As such, the report identifies water
quality issues of concern to the
States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions, not just the issues of concern
to the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA). Section 305(b)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
requires that the States and other
participating jurisdictions submit
water quality assessment reports
every 2 years. Most of the survey
information in the 1994 Section
305(b) reports is based on water
quality information collected and
evaluated by the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions during 1992 and
1993.
It is important to note that this
report is based on information
submitted by States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions that do not use
identical survey methods and crite-
ria to rate their water quality. The
States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions favor flexibility in the 305(b)
process to accommodate natural
variability in their waters, but there
is a trade-off between flexibility and
consistency. Without known and
consistent survey methods in place,
EPA must use caution in comparing
data or determining the accuracy of
data submitted by different States
and jurisdictions. Also, EPA must use
caution when comparing water
quality information submitted dur-
ing different 305(b) reporting peri-
ods because States and other juris-
dictions may modify their criteria or
survey different waterbodies every
2 years.
For over 10 years, EPA has pur-
sued a balance between flexibility
and consistency in the Section
305(b) process. Recent actions by
EPA, the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions include implementing
the recommendations of the
National 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup and the Intergovern-
mental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality. These actions will
enable States and other jurisdictions
to share data across political bound-
aries as they develop watershed
protection strategies.
EPA recognizes that national ini-
tiatives alone cannot clean up our
waters; water quality protection and
restoration must happen at the
local watershed level, in conjunc-
tion with State, Tribal, and Federal
activities. Similarly, this document
alone cannot provide the detailed
information needed to manage
water quality at all levels. This docu-
ment should be used together with
the individual Section 305(b)
reports (see the inside back cover
for information on obtaining the
State and Tribal Section 305(b)
reports), watershed management
plans, and other local documents to
develop integrated water quality
management options.
-------
Key Concepts
Measuring Water
Quality
The States, participating Tribes,
and other jurisdictions survey the
quality of their waters by determin-
ing if their waters attain the water
quality standards they established.
Water quality standards consist of
beneficial uses, numeric and narra-
tive criteria for supporting each use,
and an antidegradation statement:
Designated beneficial uses are
the desirable uses that water quality
should support. Examples are drink-
ing water supply, primary contact
recreation (such as swimming), and
aquatic life support. Each designat-
ed use has a unique set of water
quality requirements or criteria that
must be met for the use to be real-
ized. States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions may designate an individ-
ual waterbody for multiple benefi-
cial 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 dis-
tribution 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 crite-
ria establish a positive statement
about aquatic community charac-
teristics expected to occur within a
waterbody. For example, "Ambient
water quality shall be sufficient to
support life stages of all native
aquatic species." Narrative criteria
may also describe conditions that
are desired in a waterbody, such as
"Waters must be free of substances
that are toxic to humans, aquatic
life, and wildlife."
Antidegradation statements,
where possible, protect existing
uses and prevent waterbodies from
deteriorating, even if their water
quality is better than the fishable
and swimmable water quality goals
of the Act.
The CWA allows States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions to set their
own standards but requires that all
beneficial uses and their criteria
comply with the goals of the Act.
At a minimum, beneficial uses must
provide for "the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife" and provide for "recreation
in and on the water" (i.e., the fish-
able and swimmable goals of the
Act), where attainable. The Act pro-
hibits States and other jurisdictions
from designating waste transport or
waste assimilation as a beneficial
use, as some States did prior to
1972.
Section 305(b) of the CWA
requires that the States biennially
survey their water quality for attain-
ment of the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Act and report the
results to EPA. The States, participat-
ing Tribes, and other jurisdictions
measure attainment of the CWA
goals by determining how well their
waters support their designated
beneficial uses. EPA encourages the
surveying of waterbodies tor sup-
port of the following individual
beneficial uses:
Aquatic
Life Support
The waterbody pro-
vides suitable habitat for protection
and propagation of desirable fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic organ-
isms.
-------
Fish Consumption
The waterbody sup-
ports fish free from
contamination that could pose a
human health risk to consumers.
Shellfish Harvesting
The waterbody sup-
ports a population
of shellfish free from toxicants and
pathogens that could pose a human
health risk to consumers.
Drinking Water
Supply
supply safe drinking water with con
waterborne diseases from raw
sewage contamination).
Primary Contact
Recreation -
Swimming
People can swim in the waterbody
without risk of adverse human
health effects (such as catching
Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality monitoring consists of data collection and sample
analysis performed using accepted protocols and quality control proce-
dures. Monitoring also includes subsequent analysis of the body of data
to support decisionmaking. Federal, Interstate, State, Territorial, Tribal,
Regional, and local agencies, industry, and volunteer groups with
approved quality assurance programs monitor a combination of chemi-
cal, 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., acidi-
ty) and dissolved oxygen concentrations. The chemical data may be
analyzed 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.
Habitat and ancillary data (such as land use data) help interpret the
above monitoring information.
Monitoring agencies vary parameters, sampling frequency, and
sampling site selection to meet program objectives and funding
constraints. 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,
randomly selected stations, stations near suspected water quality
problems, or stations in pristine waters.
Secondary Contact
Recreation
People can perform
activities on the water (such as
boating) without risk of adverse
human health effects from ingestion
or contact with the water.
Agriculture
The water quality is
suitable for irrigating
fields or watering livestock.
States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions may also define their own indi-
vidual uses to address special con-
cerns. For example, many Tribes
and States designate their waters for
the following beneficial uses:
Ground Water
Recharge
The surface water-
body plays a significant role in
replenishing ground water, and
surface water supply and quality are
adequate to protect existing or
potential uses of ground water.
Wildlife Habitat
Water quality sup-
ports the waterbody's
role in providing habitat and
resources for land-based wildlife as
well as aquatic life.
Tribes may designate their
waters for special cultural and
ceremonial uses:
-------
Culture
Water quality sup-
ports the waterbody's
role in Tribal culture and preserves
the waterbody's religious, ceremoni-
al, or subsistence significance.
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions assign one of five levels
of use support categories to each of
their waterbodies (Table 1). If possi-
ble, the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions determine the level of
use support by comparing monitor-
ing data with numeric criteria for
each use designated for a particular
waterbody. If monitoring data are
not available, the State, Tribe, or
other jurisdiction may determine
the level of use support with quali-
tative information. Valid qualitative
information includes land use data,
fish and game surveys, and predic-
tive model results. Monitored
assessments are based on monitor-
ing data. Evaluated assessments are
based on qualitative information or
monitored information more than
5 years old.
For waterbodies with more than
one designated use, the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions con-
solidate the individual use support
information into a single overall use
support determination:
Good/Fully Supporting
Overall Use - All desig-
nated beneficial uses are
fully supported.
Good/Threatened
Overall Use - One or
more designated benefi-
cial uses are threatened
and the remaining uses
are fully supported.
_>pr
- One or more des-
ignated beneficial uses
are partially supported
and the remaining uses are fully
supported or threatened. These
waterbodies are considered
impaired.
Poor/Not Supporting
Overall Use - One or
more designated bene-
ficial uses are not
supported. These water-
bodies are considered impaired.
Poor/Not Attainable -
The State, Tribe, or
other jurisdiction has
performed a use-attain-
ability analysis and
demonstrated that use support of
one or more designated beneficial
uses is not attainable due to one of
six biological, chemical, physical, or
economic/social conditions specified
in the Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR Section 131.10). These
conditions include naturally high
concentrations of pollutants (such
as metals); other natural physical
features that create unsuitable
Table 1. Levels of Use Support
Symbol
Use Support Level
Fully Supporting
'hreatened
Not Supporting
Not Attainable
Water Quality
Condition
Good
Good
(Impaired)
Poor
(Impaired)
Poor
Definition
Water quality meets
designated use criteria.
Water quality supports
beneficial uses now
but may not in the future
unless action is taken.
Water quality fails to meet
designated use criteria at times.
Water quality frequently fails
to meet designated use criteria.
The State, Tribe, or other juris-
diction has performed a use-
attainability analysis and
demonstrated that use support
is not attainable due to one of
six biological, chemical, physi-
cal, or economic/social condi-
tions specified in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
-------
aquatic life habitat (such as inade-
quate substrate, riffles, or pools);
low flows or water levels; dams and
other hydrologic modifications that
permanently alter waterbody char-
acteristics; poor water quality result-
ing from human activities that can-
not be reversed without causing
further environmental degradation;
and poor water quality that cannot
be improved without imposing
more stringent controls than those
required in the CWA, which would
result in widespread economic and
social impacts.
Impaired Waters - The sum of
waterbodies partially supporting
uses and not supporting uses.
The EPA then aggregates the
use support information submitted
by the States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions into a national assess-
ment of the Nation's water quality.
How Many of Our
Waters Were
Surveyed for 1994?
National estimates of the total
waters of our country provide the
foundation for determining the per-
centage of waters surveyed by the
States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions and the portion impaired by
pollution. For the 1992 reporting
period, EPA provided the States
with estimates of total river miles
and lake acres derived from the EPA
Reach File, a database containing
traces of waterbodies adapted from
1:100,000 scale maps prepared by
the U.S. Geological Survey. The
States modified these total water
estimates where necessary. Based
on the 1992 EPA/State figures, the
national estimate of total river miles
doubled in large part because the
EPA/State estimates included
nonperennial streams, canals, and
ditches that were previously
excluded from estimates of total
stream miles.
Estimates for the 1994 report-
ing cycle are a minor refinement of
the 1992 figures and indicate that
the United States has:
Figure 1. Percentage of Total Waters Surveyed for the 1994 Report
Rivers
and
Streams
Lakes,
Ponds,
and
Reservoirs
Estuaries
615,806 - 17% surveyed
Total miles: 3,548,738
17,134,153 - 42% surveyed
Total acres: 40,826,064
26,847 - 78% surveyed
Total square miles: 34,388a
Ocean 5,208 - 9% surveyed
Shoreline Total miles: 58,421 miles, including Alaska's
36,000 miles of shoreline
Waters
Great Lakes
Shoreline
5,224 - 94% surveyed
Total miles: 5,559
Source: 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by the States, Tribes, Territories,
and Commissions.
aExcluding estuarine waters in Alaska because no estimate was available.
-------
More than 3.5 million miles of
rivers and streams, which range in
size from the Mississippi River to
small streams that flow only when
wet weather conditions exist
(i.e., nonperennial streams)
Approximately 40.8 million acres
of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs
About 34,388 square miles of
estuaries (excluding Alaska)
More than 58,000 miles of ocean
shoreline, including 36,000 miles in
Alaska
5,559 miles of Great Lakes
shoreline
More than 277 million acres of
wetlands such as marshes, swamps,
bogs, and fens, including 170
million acres of wetlands in Alaska.
The Intergovernmental Task Force
on Monitoring Water Quality
In 1992, the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality (ITFM) convened to prepare a strategy for improving water
quality monitoring nationwide. The ITFM is a Federal/State partnership
of 10 Federal agencies, 9 State and Interstate agencies, and 1 Ameri-
can Indian Tribe. The EPA chairs the ITFM with the USGS as vice chair
and Executive Secretariat as part of their Water Information Coordina-
tion Program pursuant to OMB memo 92-01.
The mission of the ITFM is to develop and aid implementation of
a national strategic plan to achieve effective collection, interpretation,
and presentation of water quality data and to improve the availability
of existing information for decisionmaking at all levels of government
and the private sector. A permanent successor to the ITFM, the
National Monitoring Council will provide guidelines and support for
institutional collaboration, comparable field and laboratory methods,
quality assurance/quality control, environmental indicators, data
management and sharing, ancillary data, interpretation and
techniques, and training.
The ITFM and its successor, the National Monitoring Council, are
also producing products that can be used by monitoring 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 and Tribal designated uses.
For a copy of the first, second, and final ITFM reports, contact:
The U.S. Geological Survey
417 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
1 -800-426-9000
Most States do not survey all of
their waterbodies during the 2-year
reporting cycle required under CWA
Section 305(b). Thus, the surveyed
waters reported in Figure 1 are a
subset of the Nation's total waters.
In addition, the summary informa-
tion based on surveyed waters may
not represent general conditions in
the Nation's total waters because
States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions often focus on surveying
major perennial rivers, estuaries,
and public lakes with suspected pol-
lution problems in order to direct
scarce resources to areas that could
pose the greatest risk. Many States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions lack
the resources to collect use support
information for nonperennial
streams, small tributaries, and pri-
vate ponds. This report does not
predict the health of these
unassessed waters, which include
an unknown ratio of pristine waters
to polluted waters.
Pollutants and
Processes That
Degrade Water
Quality
Where possible, States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions identify the
pollutants or processes that degrade
water quality and indicators that
document impacts of water quality
degradation. The most widespread
pollutants and processes identified
in rivers, lakes, and estuaries are
presented in Table 2. Pollutants
include sediment, nutrients, and
chemical contaminants (such as
dioxins and metals). Processes that
-------
degrade waters include habitat
modification (such as destruction of
streamside vegetation) and hydro-
logic modification (such as flow
reduction). Indicators of water qual-
ity degradation include physical,
chemical, and biological parame-
ters. Examples of biological parame-
ters include species diversity and
abundance. Examples of physical
and chemical parameters include
pH, turbidity, and temperature.
Following are descriptions of the
effects of the pollutants and
processes most commonly identi-
fied in rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal
waters, wetlands, and ground
water.
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is a basic
requirement for a healthy aquatic
ecosystem. Most fish and beneficial
aquatic insects "breathe" oxygen
dissolved in the water column.
Some fish and aquatic organisms
(such as carp and sludge worms)
are adapted to low oxygen condi-
tions, but most desirable fish
species (such as trout and salmon)
suffer if dissolved oxygen concen-
trations fall below 3 to 4 mg/L (3 to
4 milligrams of oxygen dissolved in
1 liter of water, or 3 to 4 parts of
oxygen per million parts of water).
Larvae and juvenile fish are more
sensitive and require even higher
concentrations of dissolved oxygen.
Many fish and other aquatic
organisms can recover from short
periods of low dissolved oxygen
availability. However, prolonged
episodes of depressed dissolved
oxygen concentrations of 2 mg/L
or less can result in "dead"water-
bodies. Prolonged exposure to low
dissolved oxygen conditions can
suffocate adult fish or reduce their
reproductive survival by suffocating
sensitive eggs and larvae or can
starve fish by killing aquatic insect
larvae and other prey. Low
dissolved oxygen concentrations
also favor anaerobic bacterial activi-
ty that produces noxious gases or
foul odors often associated with
polluted waterbodies.
Table 2. Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rivers
Bacteria
Siltation
Nutrients
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Metals
Lakes
Nutrients
Siltation
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Metals
Suspended Solids
Estuaries
Nutrients
Bacteria
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Habitat Alterations
Oil and Grease
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
Fish Kills
Fish kill reporting is a voluntary process; States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions are not required to report on how many fish kills occur, or
what might have caused them. In many cases it is the public-anglers,
and hunters, recreational boaters, or hikers-who first notice fish kills
and report them to game wardens or other State officials. Many fish
kills go undetected or unreported, and others may be difficult to inves-
tigate, 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 pre-
sented by the States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions underestimate the
total number of fish kills that occurred nationwide between 1992 and
1994.
Despite these problems, fish kills are an important consideration in
water quality assessments. In 1994, 32 States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions reported a total of 1,454 fish kill incidents. These States attrib-
uted 737 of the fish kills to pollution, 257 to unknown causes, 263 to
natural conditions (such as low flow and high temperatures), and 229
kills to ambiguous causes. Pollutants most often cited as the cause of
kills include oxygen-depleting substances, sewage, pesticides, manure
and silage, oil and gas, chlorine, and ammonia. Leading sources of fish
kills include agricultural activities, industrial discharges, municipal
sewage treatment plant discharges, spills, runoff, and pesticide
applications.
-------
Oxygen concentrations in the
water column fluctuate under natu-
ral conditions, but severe oxygen
depletion usually results from
human activities that introduce
large quantities of biodegradable
organic materials into surface wat-
ers. Biodegradable organic materials
contain plant, fish, or animal mat-
ter. Leaves, lawn clippings, sewage,
manure, shellfish processing waste,
milk solids, and other food process-
ing wastes are examples of oxygen-
depleting organic materials that
enter our surface waters.
In both pristine and polluted
waters, beneficial bacteria use oxy-
gen to break apart (or decompose)
organic materials. Pollution-
containing organic wastes provide a
continuous glut of food for the bac-
teria, which accelerates bacterial
activity and population growth. In
polluted waters, bacterial consump-
tion of oxygen can rapidly outpace
oxygen replenishment from the
atmosphere and photosynthesis
performed by algae and aquatic
plants. The result is a net decline in
oxygen concentrations in the water.
Toxic pollutants can indirectly
lower oxygen concentrations by
killing algae, aquatic weeds, or fish,
which provides an abundance of
food for oxygen-consuming bacte-
ria. Oxygen depletion can also
result from chemical reactions that
do not involve bacteria. Some pol-
lutants trigger chemical reactions
that place a chemical oxygen
demand on receiving waters.
Other factors (such as tempera-
ture and salinity) influence the
amount of oxygen dissolved in
water. Prolonged hot weather will
depress oxygen concentrations and
may cause fish kills even in clean
waters because warm water cannot
hold as much oxygen as cold water.
Warm conditions further aggravate
oxygen depletion by stimulating
bacterial activity and respiration in
fish, which consumes oxygen.
Removal of streamside vegetation
eliminates shade, thereby raising
water temperatures, and accelerates
runoff of organic debris. Under such
conditions, minor additions of pol-
lution-containing organic materials
can severely deplete oxygen.
Nutrients
Nutrients are essential building
blocks for healthy aquatic commu-
nities, but excess nutrients (especial-
ly nitrogen and phosphorus com-
pounds) overstimulate the growth
of aquatic weeds and algae. Exces-
sive growth of these organisms, in
turn, can clog navigable waters,
interfere with swimming and boat-
ing, outcompete native submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV), and lead
to oxygen depletion. Oxygen
concentrations can fluctuate daily
during algal blooms, rising during
the day as algae perform photosyn-
thesis, and falling at night as algae
continue to respire, which con-
sumes oxygen. Beneficial bacteria
also consume oxygen as they
decompose the abundant organic
food supply in dying algae cells.
Lawn and crop fertilizers,
sewage, manure, and detergents
contain nitrogen and phosphorus,
the nutrients most often responsible
for water quality degradation. Rural
areas are vulnerable to ground
water contamination from nitrates
(a compound containing nitrogen)
found in fertilizer and manure. Very
high concentrations of nitrate
(>10 mg/L) in drinking water cause
methemoglobinemia, or blue baby
syndrome, an inability to fix oxygen
in the blood.
Nutrients are difficult to control
because lake and estuarine ecosys-
tems recycle nutrients. Rather than
leaving the ecosystem, the nutrients
cycle among the water column,
algae and plant tissues, and the
bottom sediments. For example,
algae may temporarily remove all
the nitrogen from the water col-
umn, but the nutrients will return to
the water column when the algae
die and are decomposed by bacte-
ria. Therefore, gradual inputs of
nutrients tend to accumulate over
time rather than leave the system.
Sediment and Siltation
In a water quality context, sedi-
ment usually refers to soil particles
that enter the water column from
eroding land. Sediment consists of
particles of all sizes, including fine
clay particles, silt, sand, and gravel.
Water quality managers use the
-------
term "siltation" to describe the sus-
pension and deposition of small
sediment particles in waterbodies.
Sediment and siltation can
severely alter aquatic communities.
Sediment may clog and abrade fish
gills, suffocate eggs and aquatic
insect larvae on the bottom, and fill
in the pore space between bottom
cobbles where fish lay eggs. Silt and
sediment interfere with recreational
activities and aesthetic enjoyment at
waterbodies by reducing water clar-
ity and filling in waterbodies. Sedi-
ment may also carry other pollut-
ants into waterbodies. Nutrients
and toxic chemicals may attach to
sediment particles on land and ride
the particles into surface waters
where the pollutants may settle
with the sediment or detach and
become soluble in the water
column.
Rain washes silt and other soil
particles off of plowed fields, con-
struction sites, logging sites, urban
areas, and strip-mined lands into
waterbodies. Eroding stream banks
also deposit silt and sediment in
waterbodies. Removal of vegetation
on shore can accelerate streambank
erosion.
Bacteria and Pathogens
Some waterborne bacteria,
viruses, and protozoa cause human
illnesses that range from typhoid
and dysentery to minor respiratory
and skin diseases. These organisms
may enter waters through a num-
ber of routes, including inadequate-
ly treated sewage, stormwater
drains, septic systems, runoff from
livestock pens, and sewage dumped
overboard from recreational boats.
Because it is impossible to test
waters for every possible disease-
causing organism, States and other
jurisdictions usually measure indica-
tor bacteria that are found in great
numbers in the stomachs and
intestines of warm-blooded animals
and people. The presence of indica-
tor bacteria suggests that the water-
body may be contaminated with
untreated sewage and that other,
more dangerous organisms may be
present. The States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions use bacterial
criteria to determine if waters are
safe for recreation and shellfish
harvesting.
Toxic Organic Chemicals
and Metals
Toxic organic chemicals are
synthetic compounds that contain
carbon, such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and the
pesticide DDT. These synthesized
compounds often persist and
accumulate in the environment
because they do not readily break
down in natural ecosystems. Many
of these compounds cause cancer
in people and birth defects in other
predators near the top of the food
chain, such as birds and fish.
Metals occur naturally in the
environment, but human activities
(such as industrial processes and
mining) have altered the distribu-
tion of metals in the environment.
In most reported cases of metals
contamination, high concentrations
of metals appear in fish tissues
rather than the water column
because the metals accumulate in
greater concentrations in predators
near the top of the food chain.
PH
Acidity, the concentration of
hydrogen ions, drives many chemi-
cal reactions in living organisms.
The standard measure of acidity is
10
-------
pH, and a pH value of 7 represents
a neutral condition. A low pH value
(less than 5) indicates acidic condi-
tions; a high pH (greater than 9)
indicates alkaline conditions. Many
biological processes, such as
reproduction, cannot function in
acidic or alkaline waters. Acidic
conditions also aggravate toxic
contamination problems because
sediments release toxicants in acidic
waters. Common sources of acidity
include mine drainage, runoff from
mine tailings, and atmospheric
deposition.
Habitat Modification/
Hydrologic Modification
Habitat modifications include
activities in the landscape, on
shore, and in waterbodies that alter
the physical structure of aquatic
ecosystems and have adverse
impacts on aquatic life. Examples
of habitat modifications include:
Removal of streamside vegeta-
tion that stabilizes the shoreline and
provides shade, which moderates
instream temperatures
Excavation of cobbles from a
stream bed that provide nesting
habitat for fish
Stream burial
Excessive suburban sprawl that
alters the natural drainage patterns
by increasing the intensity, magni-
tude, and energy of runoff waters.
Table 3. Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report
Category
Industrial
Municipal
Combined
Sewers
Storm Sewers/
Urban Runoff
Agricultural
Silvicultural
Construction
Resource
Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydrologic
Modification
Examples
Pulp and paper mills, chemical manufacturers, steel plants,
metal process and product manufacturers, textile manufacturers,
food processing plants
Publicly owned sewage treatment plants that may receive
indirect discharges from industrial facilities or businesses
Single facilities that treat both storm water and sanitary sewage,
which may become overloaded during storm events and
discharge untreated wastes into surface waters.
Runoff from impervious surfaces including streets, parking
lots, buildings, lawns, and other paved areas.
Crop production, pastures, rangeland, feedlots, other animal
holding areas
Forest management, tree harvesting, logging road construction
Land development, road construction
Mining, petroleum drilling, runoff from mine tailing sites
Leachate or discharge from septic tanks, landfills, and
hazardous waste sites
Channelization, dredging, dam construction, streambank
modification
Hydrologic modifications alter
the flow of water. Examples of
hydrologic modifications include
channelization, dewatering,
damming, and dredging.
Other pollutants include salts
and oil and grease. Fresh waters
may become unfit for aquatic life
and some human uses when they
become contaminated by salts.
Sources of salinity include irrigation
runoff, brine used in oil extraction,
road deicing operations, and the
intrusion of sea water into ground
and surface waters in coastal areas.
Crude oil and processed petroleum
products may be spilled during
extraction, processing, or transport
or leaked from underground stor-
age tanks.
Sources of
Water Pollution
Sources of impairment generate
the pollutants that violate use sup-
port criteria (Table 3). Point sources
discharge pollutants directly into
surface waters from a conveyance.
Point sources include industrial facil-
ities, municipal sewage treatment
plants, and combined sewer over-
flows. Nonpoint sources deliver
pollutants to surface waters from
diffuse origins. Nonpoint sources
include urban runoff, agricultural
runoff, and atmospheric deposition
of contaminants in air pollution.
Habitat alterations, such as hydro-
modification, dredging, and
streambank destabilization, can also
degrade water quality.
-------
Throughout this document, EPA
rates the significance of causes and
sources of pollution by the percent-
age of impaired waters impacted by
each individual cause or source
(obtained from the Section 305(b)
reports submitted by the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions).
Note that the cause and source
rankings do not describe the condi-
tion of all waters in the United
States because the States identify
the causes and sources degrading
some of their impaired waters,
which are a small subset of sur-
veyed waters, which are a subset of
the Nation's total waters. For exam-
ple, the States identified sources
degrading some of the 224,236
impaired river miles, which repre-
sent 36% of the surveyed river
miles and only 6% of the Nation's
total stream miles.
"The term 'point source'
means any discernible,
confined, and discrete
conveyance, including but not
limited to any pipe, ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, well,
discrete fissure, container,
rolling stock, concentrated
animal feeding operation, or
vessel or other floating craft,
from which pollutants are or
may be discharged. This term
does not include agricultural
storm water discharges
and return flows from
irrigated agriculture."
Clean Water Act, Section 502(14)
Table 4 lists the leading sources
of impairment related to human
activities as reported by States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions for
their rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
Other sources cited include removal
of riparian vegetation, forestry
activities, land disposal, petroleum
extraction and processing activities,
and construction. In addition to
human activities, the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions also reported
impairments from natural sources.
Natural sources refer to an assort-
ment of water quality problems:
Natural deposits of salts,
gypsum, nutrients, and metals in
soils that leach into surface and
ground waters
Warm weather and dry condi-
tions that raise water temperatures,
depress dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, and dry up shallow water-
bodies
Low-flow conditions and tannic
acids from decaying leaves that
lower pH and dissolved oxygen
concentrations in swamps draining
into streams.
With so many potential sources
of pollution, it is difficult and
expensive for States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions to identify specif-
ic sources responsible for water
quality impairments. Many States
and other jurisdictions lack funding
for monitoring to identify all but
the most apparent sources degrad-
ing waterbodies. Local manage-
ment priorities may focus monitor-
ing budgets on other water quality
issues, such as identification of con-
taminated fish populations that
pose a human health risk. Manage-
ment priorities may also direct
monitoring efforts to larger water-
bodies and overlook sources impair-
ing smaller waterbodies. As a result,
the States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions do not associate every
impacted waterbody with a source
of impairment in their 305(b)
reports, and the summary cause
and source information presented
in this report applies exclusively to
a subset of the Nation's impaired
waters.
Table 4. Five Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment Related to Human Activities
Rank
1
2
!
4
5
Rivers
Agriculture
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Lakes
Agriculture
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Unspecified Nonpoint
Sources
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Estuaries
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Petroleum Activities
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
12
-------
Rivers and Streams
Rivers and streams are charac-
terized by flow. Perennial rivers
and streams flow continuously, all
year round. Nonperennial rivers
and streams stop flowing for some
period of time, usually due to dry
conditions or upstream withdraw-
als. Many rivers and streams origi-
nate in nonperennial headwaters
that flow only during snowmelt or
heavy showers. Nonperennial
streams provide critical habitats for
nonfish species, such as amphibians
and dragonflies, as well as safe
havens for juvenile fish to escape
from predation by larger fish.
The health of rivers and streams
is directly linked to habitat integrity
on shore and in adjacent wetlands.
Stream quality will deteriorate if
activities damage shoreline (i.e.,
riparian) vegetation and wetlands,
which filter pollutants from runoff
and bind soils. Removal of vegeta-
tion also eliminates shade that
moderates stream temperature as
well as the land temperature that
can warm runoff entering surface
waters. Stream temperature, in
turn, affects the availability of dis-
solved oxygen in the water column
for fish and other aquatic organ-
isms.
Overall Water Quality
For the 1994 Report, 58 States,
Territories, Tribes, Commissions,
and the District of Columbia sur-
veyed 615,806 miles (1 7%) of the
Nation's total 3.5 million miles of
rivers and streams (Figure 2). The
surveyed rivers and streams repre-
sent 48% of the 1.3 million miles of
perennial rivers and streams that
flow year round in the lower 48
States.
Altogether, the States and
Tribes surveyed 27,075 fewer river
miles in 1994 than in 1992. Individ-
ually, most States reported that
they surveyed more river miles in
1994, but their increases were off-
set by a decline of 85,000 surveyed
river miles reported by Montana,
Mississippi, and Maryland. For
1994, these States reported use
support status for only those river
miles that they surveyed in direct
monitoring programs or evaluations
rather than using inferences for
unsurveyed waters.
The following discussion applies
exclusively to surveyed waters and
cannot be extrapolated to describe
conditions in the Nation's rivers as a
whole because the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions do not con-
sistently use statistical or probabilis-
tic survey methods to characterize
all their waters at this time. EPA is
working with the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions to expand survey
coverage of the Nation's waters and
expects future survey information
to cover a greater portion of the
Nation's rivers and streams.
Figure 2. River Miles Surveyed
Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
Total surveyed = 615,806 miles
1 7% Surveyed
83% Not Surveyed
Figure 3. Levels of Overall Use
Support - Rivers
Good
(Fully Supporting)
57%
Good
(Threatened)
7%
Fair
(Partially Supporting)
22%
Poor
(Not Supporting)
14%
Poor
(Not Attainable)
Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States, Tribes,
Territories, Commissions, and the
District of Columbia.
13
-------
Of the Nation's 615,806 sur-
veyed river miles, the States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions found that
64% have good water quality. Of
these waters, 57% fully support
their designated uses, and an addi-
tional 7% support uses but are
threatened and may become
impaired if pollution control actions
are not taken (Figure 3).
Some form of pollution or
habitat degradation prevents the
remaining 36% (224,236 miles) of
the surveyed river miles from fully
supporting a healthy aquatic com-
munity or human activities all year
round. Twenty-two percent of the
surveyed river miles have fair water
quality that partially supports desig-
nated uses. Most of the time, these
waters provide adequate habitat for
aquatic organisms and support
human activities, but periodic pollu-
tion interferes with these activities
and/or stresses aquatic life. Four-
teen percent of the surveyed river
miles have poor water quality that
consistently stresses aquatic life
and/or prevents people from using
the river for activities such as swim-
ming and fishing.
What Is Polluting Our
Rivers and Streams?
The States and Tribes report
that bacteria pollute 76,397 river
miles (which equals 34% of the
impaired river miles) (Figure 4).
Bacteria provide evidence of possi-
ble fecal contamination that may
cause illness if the public ingests the
water.
Siltation, composed of tiny soil
particles, remains one of the most
widespread pollutants impacting
rivers and streams. The States and
Tribes reported that siltation impairs
75,792 river miles (which equals
34% of the impaired river miles).
Bacteria and siltation are
the most widespread
pollutants in rivers and
streams, affecting 34% of
the impaired river miles.
Siltation alters aquatic habitat and
suffocates fish eggs and bottom-
dwelling organisms. Excessive silta-
tion can also interfere with drinking
water treatment processes and
recreational use of a river.
In addition to siltation and bac-
teria, the States and Tribes also
reported that nutrients, oxygen-
depleting substances, metals, and
habitat alterations impact more
miles of rivers and streams than
other pollutants and processes.
Often, several pollutants and
processes impact a single river seg-
ment. For example, a process, such
as removal of shoreline vegetation,
may accelerate erosion of sediment
and nutrients into a stream.
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
The States and Tribes reported
that agriculture is the most wide-
spread source of pollution in the
Nation's surveyed rivers (Figure 4).
Agriculture generates pollutants
that degrade aquatic life or interfere
with public use of 134,557 river
miles (which equals 60% of the
impaired river miles) in 49 States
and Tribes.
Twenty-one States reported the size
of rivers impacted by specific types
of agricultural activities:
Nonirrigated Crop Production -
crop production that relies on rain
as the sole source of water.
Irrigated Crop Production - crop
production that uses irrigation sys-
tems to supplement rainwater.
Rangeland - land grazed by ani-
mals that is seldom enhanced by
the application of fertilizers or pesti-
cides, although managers some-
times modify plant species to a lim-
ited extent.
Pastureland - land upon which a
crop (such as alfalfa) is raised to
feed animals, either by grazing the
animals among the crops or har-
vesting the crops.
Feedlots - facilities where animals
are fattened and confined at high
densities.
Animal Holding Areas - facilities
where animals are confined briefly
before slaughter.
The States reported that non-
irrigated crop production impaired
the most river miles, followed by
irrigated crop production, range-
land, feedlots, pastureland, and
animal holding areas.
Many States reported declines
in pollution from sewage treatment
Agriculture is the leading
source of impairment in
the Nation's rivers,
affecting 60% of the
impaired river miles.
14
-------
plants and industrial discharges as a
result of sewage treatment plant
construction and upgrades and
permit controls on industrial dis-
charges. Despite the improvements,
municipal sewage treatment plants
remain the second most common
source of pollution in rivers (impair-
ing 37,443 miles) because popula-
tion growth increases the burden
on our municipal facilities.
Hydrologic modifications and
habitat alterations are a growing
concern to the States. Hydrologic
modifications include activities that
alter the flow of water in a stream,
such as channelization, dewatering,
and damming of streams. Habitat
alterations include removal of
streamside vegetation that protects
the stream from high temperatures,
and scouring of stream bottoms.
Additional gains in water quality
conditions will be more subtle and
require innovative management
strategies that go beyond point
source controls.
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions also reported that
urban runoff and storm sewers
impair 26,862 river miles (12% of
the impaired rivers), resource
extraction impairs 24,059 river
miles (11 % of the impaired rivers),
and removal of streamside vegeta-
tion impairs 21,706 river miles
(10% of the impaired rivers).
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions also report that "natur-
al" sources impair significant
stretches of rivers and streams.
"Natural" sources, such as low flow
and soils with arsenic deposits, can
prevent waters from supporting
uses in the absence of human
activities.
Figure 4. Impaired River Miles: Pollutants and Sources
Not
Surveyed
83%
Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
Total surveyed = 615,806 miles
Total impaired = 224,236 miles
Leading Pollutants Impaired %
Bacteria
Siltation
Nutrients
Oxygen-Depleting Sub.
Metals
Habitat Alterations
Suspended Solids
I ^ I I
II II
I I I
I I I
|| | D Major
~~l KAnrinritr* /M'
I 1
II ill
34
34
23
18
17
16
14
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Percent of Impaired River Miles
Leading Sources Impaired %
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Hydro/Habitat Mod.
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Removal of Streamside Veg.
Forestry
I I I
I
II II
3 Major
J Moderate/Minor
n 1 1 D Not Specified
I I I I I I I
60
17
17
12
11
10
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percent of Impaired River Miles
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
-------
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.
Overall Water Quality
Forty-eight States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions surveyed overall
use support in more than 17.1 mil-
lion lake acres representing 42% of
the approximately 40.8 million total
acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs
in the Nation (Figure 5). For 1994,
the States surveyed about 1 million
fewer lake acres than in 1992.
The number of surveyed lake
acres declined because several
States separated fish tissue data
from their survey of overall use sup-
port. Some of these States, such as
Minnesota, have established mas-
sive databases of fish tissue contam-
ination information (which is used
to establish fish consumption advi-
sories), but lack other types of
water quality data for many of their
lakes. In 1994, these States chose
not to assess overall use support
entirely with fish tissue data alone,
which is a very narrow indicator of
water quality.
The States and Tribes reported
that 63% of their surveyed 17.1
million lake acres have good water
quality. Waters with good quality
include 50% of the surveyed lake
acres fully supporting uses and 13%
of the surveyed lake acres that are
threatened and might deteriorate if
we fail to manage potential sources
of pollution (Figure 6).
Some form of pollution or habi-
tat degradation impairs the remain-
ing 37% of the surveyed lake acres.
Twenty-eight percent of the sur-
veyed lake acres have fair water
quality that partially supports desig-
nated uses. Most of the time, these
waters provide adequate habitat for
aquatic organisms and support
human activities, but periodic pollu-
tion interferes with these activities
and/or stresses aquatic life. Nine
percent of the surveyed lake acres
suffer from poor water quality that
consistently stresses aquatic life
and/or prevents people from using
the lake for activities such as swim-
ming and fishing.
Figure 5. Lake Acres Surveyed
Total lakes = 40.8 million acres
Total surveyed = 1 7.1 million acres
42% Surveyed
58% Not Surveyed
Figure 6. Levels of Overall Use
Support - Lakes
Good
(Fully Supporting)
50%
Good
(Threatened)
13%
Fair
(Partially Supporting)
28%
Poor
(Not Supporting)
9%
Poor
(Not Attainable)
Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States, Tribes,
Territories, Commissions, and the
District of Columbia.
16
-------
What Is Polluting
Our Lakes, Ponds,
and Reservoirs?
Forty-one States, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported
the number of lake acres impacted
by individual pollutants and
processes.
Thirty-seven States and Puerto
Rico identified more lake acres pol-
luted by nutrients than any other
pollutant or process (Figure 7). The
States and Puerto Rico reported
that extra nutrients pollute 2.8 mil-
lion lake acres (which equals 43%
of the impaired lake acres). Healthy
lake ecosystems contain nutrients in
small quantities, but extra inputs of
nutrients from human activities
unbalance lake ecosystems.
In addition to nutrients, the
States, Puerto Rico, and the District
of Columbia report that siltation
pollutes 1.8 million lake acres
(which equals 28% of the impaired
Oligotrophic
Mesotrophic
Eutrophic
Hypereutrophic
Dystrophic
Trophic States
Clear 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 clearwater 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 acceler-
ate eutrophication by increasing the rate at which nutrients and organic
substances enter lakes from their surrounding watersheds. Agricultural
runoff, urban runoff, leaking septic systems, sewage discharges, eroded
streambanks, and similar sources can enhance the flow of nutrients and
organic substances into lakes. These substances can overstimulate the
growth of algae and aquatic plants, creating conditions that interfere with
the recreational use of lakes and the health and diversity of native fish,
plant, and animal populations. Enhanced eutrophication from nutrient
enrichment due to human activities is one of the leading problems facing
our Nation's lakes and reservoirs.
lake acres), enrichment by organic
wastes that deplete oxygen impacts
1.6 million lake acres (which equals
24% of the impaired lake acres),
and metals pollute 1.4 million acres
(which equals 21% of the impaired
lake acres).
Metals declined from the most
widespread pollutant impairing
lakes in the 1992 305(b) reporting
Acid 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 substances and magnify
their adverse effects. Twenty-
eight States reported the results
of lake acidification assessments.
These States assessed pH (a
measure of acidity) at more than
5,933 lakes and detected acidic
conditions in 526 lakes and a
threat of acidic conditions in
423 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.
Maine and New Hampshire
attributed most of their acid lake
conditions to acid deposition
from acidic rain, fog, or dry
deposition in conjunction with
natural conditions that limit a
lake's capacity to neutralize
acids. Alabama, Kansas,
Maryland, Montana, Oklahoma,
and Tennessee reported that
acid mine drainage resulted in
acidic lake conditions or threat-
ened lakes with the potential to
generate acidic conditions.
!
-------
cycle to the fourth leading pollutant
impairing lakes in 1994. The
decline is due to changes in State
reporting and assessment methods
rather than a measured decrease in
metals contamination. In 1994, sev-
eral States chose to no longer assess
overall use support with fish
contamination data alone. Much of
that data consisted of measure-
ments of metals in fish tissue. As a
result of excluding these fish tissue
data, the national estimate of lake
acres impaired by metals fell by
over 2 million acres in 1994.
More States reported
impairments due to
nutrients than any other
single pollutant.
Forty-one States also surveyed
trophic status, which is associated
with nutrient enrichment, in 9,735
of their lakes. Nutrient enrichment
tends to increase the proportion of
lakes in the eutrophic and hypereu-
trophic categories. These States
reported that 18% of the lakes they
surveyed for trophic status were
oligotrophic, 32% were mesotroph-
ic, 36% were eutrophic, 6% were
hypereutrophic, and 3% were dys-
trophic. This information may not
be representative of national lake
conditions because States often
assess lakes in response to a prob-
lem or public complaint or because
of their easy accessibility. It is likely
that more remote lakeswhich
are probably less impairedare
underrepresented in these assess-
ments.
Figure 7. Impaired Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources
Not
Surveyed
58%
Total lakes = 40.8 million acres
Total surveyed = 1 7.1 million
acres
Total impaired = 6.7 million acres
Leading Pollutants Impaired %
Nutrients
Siltation
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Metals
Suspended Solids
Pesticides
Priority Organic Toxic
Chemicals
II II
1 1 II
1 1
1
D Major
Ul_l Moderate/Minor
^~i n II Not Specified
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
43
28
24
21
14
11
8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Percent of Impaired Lake Acres
Leading Sources Impaired %
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Unspecified Nonpoint Sources
Hydro/Habitat Modification
Industrial Point Sources
Land Disposal
II II
1 1 II
1 1 1!
1 1 1!
_ r | Moderate/Minor
i i i
i i i I i
50
19
18
15
12
11
11
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Impaired Lake Acres
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
18
-------
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Forty-two States and Puerto
Rico reported sources of pollution
in some of their impacted lakes,
ponds, and reservoirs. These States
and Puerto Rico reported that agri-
culture is the most widespread
source of pollution in the Nation's
surveyed lakes (Figure 7). Agricul-
ture generates pollutants that
degrade aquatic life or interfere
with public use of 3.3 million lake
acres (which equals 50% of the
impaired lake acres).
Agriculture is the leading
source of impairment in
lakes, affecting 50% of
impaired lake acres.
The States and Puerto Rico also
reported that municipal sewage
treatment plants pollute 1.3 million
lake acres (19% of the impaired
lake acres), urban runoff and storm
sewers pollute 1.2 million lake acres
(18% of the surveyed lake acres),
unspecified nonpoint sources impair
989,000 lake acres (15% of the
impaired lake acres), hydrologic
modifications and habitat alter-
ations degrade 832,000 lake acres
(12% of the impaired lake acres),
and industrial point sources pollute
759,000 lake acres (11 % of the
impaired lake acres). Many States
prohibit new point source dis-
charges into lakes, but existing
municipal sewage treatment plants
remain a leading source of pollution
entering lakes.
The States and Puerto Rico list-
ed numerous sources that impact
several hundred thousand lake
acres, including land disposal of
wastes, construction, flow regula-
tion, highway maintenance and
runoff, contaminated sediments,
atmospheric deposition of pollut-
ants, and onsite wastewater systems
(including septic tanks).
-------
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, includ-
ing air pollution. 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 with
few natural outlets. Despite dramat-
ic declines in the occurrence of
algal blooms, fish kills, and localized
"dead" zones depleted of oxygen,
less visible problems continue to
degrade the Great Lakes.
Overall Water Quality
The States surveyed 94% of the
Great Lakes shoreline miles for
1994 and reported that fish con-
sumption advisories and aquatic life
concerns are the dominant water
quality problems, overall, in the
Great Lakes (Figure 8). The States
reported that most of the Great
Lakes nearshore waters are safe for
swimming and other recreational
activities and can be used as a
source of drinking water with nor-
mal treatment. However, only 2%
of the surveyed nearshore waters
fully support designated uses, over-
all, and 1% support uses but are
threatened (Figure 9). About 97%
of the surveyed waters do not fully
support designated uses, overall,
because fish consumption advi-
sories are posted throughout the
nearshore waters of the Great Lakes
and water quality conditions are
unfavorable for supporting aquatic
life in many cases. Aquatic life
impacts result from persistent toxic
pollutant burdens in birds, habitat
degradation and destruction, and
Figure 8. Great Lakes Shore Miles
Surveyed
Total Great Lakes = 5,559 miles
Total surveyed = 5,224 miles
94% Surveyed
6% Not Surveyed
Figure 9. Levels of Overall Use
Support - Great Lakes
Good
(Fully Supporting)
2%
Good
(Threatened)
1%
Fair
(Partially Supporting)
34%
Poor
(Not Supporting)
63%
Poor
(Not Attainable)
0%
Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
reports.
20
-------
competition and predation by
nonnative species such as the zebra
mussel and the sea lamprey.
Considerable progress has
been made in controlling
conventional pollutants,
but the Great Lakes are
still subject to the effects
of toxic pollutants.
These figures do not address
water quality conditions in the
deeper, cleaner, central waters of
the Lakes.
What Is Polluting
the Great Lakes?
The States reported that most
of the Great Lakes shoreline is
polluted by toxic organic chemi-
cals-primarily PCBs-that are often
found in fish tissue samples. The
Great Lakes States reported that
toxic organic chemicals impact
98% of the impaired Great Lakes
shoreline miles. Other leading caus-
es of impairment include pesticides,
affecting 21 %; nonpriority organic
chemicals, affecting 20%; nutrients,
affecting 6%; and metals, affecting
6% (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources
Not
Surveyed^
6%
Surveyed
94%
Total shoreline = 5,559 miles
Total surveyed = 5,224 miles
Total impaired = 5,077 miles
Leading Pollutants Impaired %
Priority Toxic Organic
Chemicals
Pesticides
Nonpriority Organic
Chemicals
Nutrients
Metals
Oxygen-Depleting
Substances
Z 1 1
|
1
ED Major
D Moderate/Minor
.-, 1 EH Not Specified
98
21
20
6
6
6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline
Leading Sources Impaired %
Air Pollution
Discontinued Discharges
Contaminated Sediment
Land Disposal of Wastes
Unspecified NPS
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/Storm Sew.
| |
I I
|;
[
I I
I I I Major
H Moderate/Minor
| I ED Not Specified
I I I
21
20
15
9
6
4
4
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
-------
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Only four of the eight Great
Lakes States measured the size of
their Great Lakes shoreline polluted
by specific sources. These States
have jurisdiction over one-third of
the Great Lakes shoreline, so their
findings do not necessarily reflect
conditions throughout the Great
Lakes Basin.
Wisconsin identifies air pollution
and discontinued discharges as a
source of pollutants contaminating
all 1,017 of their surveyed shoreline
miles. Wisconsin also identified
smaller areas impacted by contami-
nated sediments, nonpoint sources,
industrial and municipal discharges,
agriculture, urban runoff and storm
sewers, combined sewer overflows,
and land disposal of waste.
Indiana attributes all of the pollu-
tion along its entire 43-mile shore-
line to air pollution, urban runoff
and storm sewers, industrial and
municipal discharges, and agricul-
ture.
Ohio reports that nonpoint
sources pollute 86 miles of its 236
miles of shoreline, in-place contami-
nants impact 33 miles, and land
disposal of waste impacts 24 miles
of shoreline.
New York identifies many sources
of pollutants in their Great Lakes
waters, but the State attributes the
most miles of degradation to
contaminated sediments (439
miles) and land disposal of waste
(374 miles).
22
-------
Estuaries
Estuaries are areas partially sur-
rounded by land where rivers meet
the sea. They are characterized by
varying degrees of salinity, complex
water movements affected by
ocean tides and river currents, and
high turbidity levels. They are also
highly productive ecosystems with a
range of habitats for many different
species of plants, shellfish, fish, and
animals.
Many species permanently
inhabit the estuarine ecosystem;
others, such as shrimp, use the
nutrient-rich estuarine waters as
nurseries before traveling to the sea.
Estuaries are stressed by the
particularly wide range of activities
located within their watersheds.
They receive pollutants carried by
rivers from agricultural lands and
cities; they often support marinas,
harbors, and commercial fishing
fleets; and their surrounding lands
are highly prized for development.
These stresses pose a continuing
threat to the survival of these boun-
tiful waters.
Overall Water Quality
Twenty-five coastal States and
jurisdictions surveyed 78% of the
Nation's total estuarine waters in
1994 (Figure 11). The States and
other jurisdictions reported that
63% of the surveyed estuarine
waters have good water quality that
fully supports designated uses
(Figure 12). Of these waters, 6%
are threatened and might deterio-
rate if we fail to manage potential
sources of pollution.
Some form of pollution or habi-
tat degradation impairs the remain-
ing 37% of the surveyed estuarine
waters. Twenty-seven percent of the
surveyed estuarine waters have fair
water quality that partially supports
designated uses. Most of the time
these waters provide adequate habi-
tat for aquatic organisms and sup-
port human activities, but periodic
pollution interferes with these activi-
ties and/or stresses aquatic life. Nine
percent of the surveyed estuarine
waters suffer from poor water quali-
ty that consistently stresses aquatic
life and/or prevents people from
using the estuarine waters for
activities such as swimming and
shellfishing.
Figure 11. Estuary Square Miles
Surveyed
Total estuaries = 34,388 square miles
Total surveyed = 26,847 square miles
78% Surveyed
22% Not Surveyed
Figure 12. Levels of Overall Use
Support - Estuaries
Good
(Fully Supporting)
57%
Good
(Threatened)
6%
Fair
(Partially Supporting)
27%
Poor
(Not Supporting)
9%
Poor
(Not Attainable)
Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States, Tribes,
Territories, Commissions, and the
District of Columbia.
23
-------
What Is Polluting
Our Estuaries?
The States identified more
square miles of estuarine waters
polluted by nutrients and bacteria
than any other pollutant or process
(Figure 1 3). Fifteen States reported
that extra nutrients pollute 4,548
square miles of estuarine waters
(which equals 47% of the impaired
estuarine waters). As in lakes, extra
inputs of nutrients from human
activities destabilize estuarine
ecosystems.
Twenty-five States reported that
bacteria pollute 4,479 square miles
of estuarine waters (which equals
46% of the impaired estuarine
waters). Bacteria provide evidence
that an estuary is contaminated
with sewage that may contain
numerous viruses and bacteria that
cause illness in people.
The States also report that oxy-
gen depletion from organic wastes
impacts 3,127 square miles (which
equals 32% of the impaired estuar-
ine waters), habitat alterations
impact 1,564 square miles (which
equals 16% of the impaired estuar-
ine waters), and oil and grease pol-
lute 1,344 square miles (which
equals 14% of the impaired estuar-
ine waters).
Chris Inghram, age 8, Bruner Elementary, North Las Vegas, NV
24
-------
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
Twenty-three States reported
that urban runoff and storm sewers
are the most widespread source of
pollution in the Nation's surveyed
estuarine waters. Pollutants in urban
runoff and storm sewer effluent
degrade aquatic life or interfere
with public use of 4,508 square
miles of estuarine waters (which
equals 46% of the impaired estuar-
ine waters) (Figure 13).
The States also reported that
municipal sewage treatment plants
pollute 3,827 square miles of estu-
arine waters (39% of the impaired
estuarine waters), agriculture pol-
lutes 3,321 square miles of estuar-
ine waters (34% of the impaired
estuarine waters), and industrial dis-
charges pollute 2,609 square miles
(27% of the impaired estuarine
waters). Urban sources contribute
more to the degradation of estuar-
ine waters than agriculture because
urban centers are located adjacent
to most major estuaries.
Krista Rose, age 8, Bruner Elementary,
North Las Vegas, NV
Fiaure 13. Impaired Estuaries: Pollutants and Sources
Not
Surveyed
22%
Total estuaries = 34,388 square
mill
Total surveyed = 26,847
square miles
Total impaired = 9,700 square miles
Leading Pollutants Impaired %
Nutrients
Bacteria
Oxygen-Depleting Sub.
Habitat Alterations
Oil and Grease
Priority Toxic Chemicals
Metals
I I I
I I
II I
|
| | I I Moderate/Minor
3 Not Specified
II II II
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles
47
46
32
16
14
10
9
Leading Sources Impaired %
Urban Runoff/Storm Sew.
Municipal Point Sources
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Petroleum Activities
Construction
Land Disposal of Wastes
1 1
_1
| |
1 1 II
1 1 1
|| | 3 Major
-1 Moderate/Minor
1 II 1 1 Not Specified
1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles
46
39
34
27
13
13
13
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
25
-------
Ocean Shoreline Waters
Although the oceans are expan-
sive, they are vulnerable to pollu-
tion from numerous sources,
including city storm sewers, ocean
outfalls from sewage treatment
plants, overboard disposal of debris
and sewage, oil spills, and bilge dis-
charges that contain oil and grease.
Nearshore ocean waters, in particu-
lar, suffer from the same pollution
problems that degrade our inland
waters.
Overall Water Quality
Thirteen of the 27 coastal
States and Territories surveyed only
9% of the Nation's estimated
58,421 miles of ocean coastline
(Figure 14). Most of the surveyed
waters (4,834 miles, or 93%) have
good quality that supports a
healthy aquatic community and
public activities (Figure 15). Of
these waters, 225 miles (4% of the
surveyed shoreline) are threatened
and may deteriorate in the future.
Some form of pollution or habi-
tat degradation impairs the remain-
ing 7% of the surveyed shoreline
(374 miles). Five percent of the sur-
veyed estuarine waters have fair
water quality that partially supports
designated uses. Most of the time,
these waters provide adequate
habitat for aquatic organisms and
support human activities, but peri-
odic pollution interferes with these
activities and/or stresses aquatic life.
Only 2% of the surveyed shoreline
suffers from poor water quality that
consistently stresses aquatic life
and/or prevents people from using
the shoreline for activities such as
swimming and shellfishing.
Only six of the 27 coastal States
identified pollutants and sources of
pollutants degrading ocean shore-
line waters. General conclusions
cannot be drawn from the informa-
tion supplied by these States
because these States border less
than 1% of the shoreline along the
contiguous States. The six States
identified impacts in their ocean
shoreline waters from bacteria,
metals, nutrients, turbidity, siltation,
and pesticides. The six States
reported that urban runoff and
storm sewers, industrial discharges,
land disposal of wastes, septic sys-
tems, agriculture, unspecified non-
point sources, and combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) pollute their
coastal shoreline waters.
Figure 14. Ocean Shoreline Waters
Surveyed
Total ocean shore = 58,421 miles
including Alaska's shoreline
Total surveyed = 5,208 miles
9% Surveyed
91% Not Surveyed
Figure 15. Levels of Overall Use
Support - Ocean Shoreline
Waters
Good
(Fully Supporting)
89%
Good
(Threatened)
4%
Fair
(Partially Supporting)
5%
Poor
(Not Supporting)
2%
Poor
(Not Attainable)
0%
Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
reports submitted by States and
Territories.
26
-------
Wetlands
Wetlands are areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface
water or ground water at a fre-
quency and duration sufficient to
support (and that under normal
circumstances does support) a
prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands, which are
found throughout the United
States, generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Wetlands are now recognized
as some of the most unique and
important natural areas on earth.
They vary in type according to
differences in local and regional
hydrology, vegetation, water chem-
istry, soils, topography, and climate.
Coastal wetlands include estuarine
marshes; mangrove swamps found
in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Louisiana,
and Florida; and Great Lakes coastal
wetlands. Inland wetlands, which
may be adjacent to a waterbody or
isolated, include marshes and wet
meadows, bottomland hardwood
forests, Great Plains prairie pot-
holes, cypress-gum swamps, and
southwestern playa lakes.
In their natural condition,
wetlands provide many benefits,
including food and habitat for fish
and wildlife, water quality improve-
ment, flood protection, shoreline
erosion control, ground water
exchange, as well as natural prod-
ucts for human use and opportuni-
ties for recreation, education, and
research.
Wetlands help maintain and
improve water quality by intercept-
ing surface water runoff before it
reaches open water, removing or
retaining nutrients, processing
chemical and organic wastes, and
reducing sediment loads to
receiving waters. As water moves
through a wetland, plants slow the
water, allowing sediment and
pollutants to settle out. Plant roots
trap sediment and are then able to
metabolize and detoxify pollutants
and remove nutrients such as nitro-
gen and phosphorus.
Wetlands function like natural
basins, storing either floodwater
that overflows riverbanks or surface
water that collects in isolated
depressions. By doing so, wetlands
help protect adjacent and down-
stream property from flood dam-
age. Trees and other wetlands veg-
etation help slow the speed of flood
waters. This action, combined with
water storage, can lower flood
heights and reduce the water's ero-
sive potential. In agricultural areas,
wetlands can help reduce the likeli-
hood of flood damage to crops.
Wetlands within and upstream of
urban areas are especially valuable
for flood protection because urban
development increases the rate and
volume of surface water runoff,
thereby increasing the risk of flood
damage.
Wetlands produce a wealth of
natural products, including fish and
shellfish, timber, wildlife, and wild
rice. Much of the Nation's fishing
and shellfishing industry harvests
wetlands-dependent species. A
national survey conducted by the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in
1991 illustrates the economic value
of some of the wetlands-dependent
products. Over 9 billion pounds of
fish and shellfish landed in the
United States in 1991 had a direct,
dockside value of $3.3 billion. This
served as the basis of a seafood
processing and sales industry that
generated total expenditures of
$26.8 billion. In addition, 35.6
million anglers spent $24 billion on
freshwater and saltwater fishing.
It is estimated that 71% of
27
-------
commercially valuable fish and
shellfish depend directly or
indirectly on coastal wetlands.
Overall Water Quality
The States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions are making progress in
developing specific designated uses
and water quality standards for
wetlands, but many States and
Tribes still lack specific water quality
criteria and monitoring programs
for wetlands. Without criteria and
monitoring data, most States and
Tribes cannot evaluate use support.
To date, only nine States and Tribes
reported the designated use sup-
port status for some of their wet-
lands. Only one State used quanti-
tative data as a basis for the use
support decisions.
EPA cannot derive national con-
clusions about water quality condi-
tions in all wetlands because the
States used different methodologies
to survey only 3% of the total wet-
lands in the Nation. Summarizing
State wetlands data would also
produce misleading results because
two States (North Carolina and
Louisiana) contain 91% of the
surveyed wetlands acreage.
What Is Polluting
Our Wetlands and
Where Does This
Pollution Come From?
The States have even fewer
data to quantify the extent of
pollutants degrading wetlands and
the sources of these pollutants.
Although most States cannot
quantify wetlands area impacted by
individual causes and sources of
degradation, 12 States identified
causes and 13 States identified
sources known to degrade wetlands
integrity to some extent. These
States listed sediment as the most
widespread cause of degradation
impacting wetlands, followed by
flow alterations, habitat modifica-
tions, and draining (Figure 16).
Agriculture topped the list of
sources degrading wetlands, fol-
lowed by urban runoff, hydrologic
modification, and municipal point
sources (Figure 1 7).
Wetlands Loss:
A Continuing Problem
It is estimated that over 200
million acres of wetlands existed in
the lower 48 States at the time of
European settlement. Since then,
extensive wetlands acreage has
been lost, with many of the original
wetlands drained and converted to
farmland and urban development.
Today, less than half of our original
wetlands remain. The losses
amount to an area equal to the size
of California. According to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Wetlands
Losses in the United States 1780's to
1980's, the three States that have
sustained the greatest percentage
of wetlands loss are California
(91%), Ohio (90%), and Iowa
(89%).
According to FWS status and
trends reports, the average annual
loss of wetlands has decreased over
the past 40 years. The average
annual loss from the mid-1950s to
the mid-1970s was 458,000 acres,
and from the mid-1970s to the
mid-1980s it was 290,000 acres.
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.
Figure 16. Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity (12 States Reporting)
Causes
Sediment
Flow Alterations
Habitat Alterations
Filling and Draining
Pesticides
Nutrients
Pathogens
Metals
Unknown Toxicity
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 I
| 1
i i i
Total
8
5
5
5
3
2
2
2
2
05 10 15
Number of States Reporting
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
28
-------
A more recent estimate of wet-
lands losses from the National
Resources Inventory (NRI), conduct-
ed by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), indi-
cates that 792,000 acres of wet-
lands were lost on non-Federal
lands between 1982 and 1992 for a
yearly loss estimate of 70,000 to
90,000 acres. This net loss is the
result of gross losses of 1,561,300
acres of wetlands and gross gains of
768,700 acres of wetlands over the
10-year period. The NRI estimates
are consistent with the trend of
declining wetlands losses reported
by FWS. Although losses have
decreased, we still have to make
progress toward our interim goal of
no overall net loss of the Nation's
remaining wetlands and the long-
term goal of increasing the quantity
and quality of the Nation's wet-
lands resource base.
The decline in wetlands losses is
a result of the combined effect of
several trends: (1) the decline in
profitability in converting wetlands
for agricultural production;
(2) passage of Swampbuster provi-
sions in the 1985 and 1990 Farm
Bills that denied crop subsidy bene-
fits to farm operators who convert-
ed wetlands to cropland after 1985;
(3) presence of the CWA Section
404 permit programs as well as
development of State management
programs; (4) greater public
interest and support for wetlands
protection; and (5) implementation
of wetlands restoration programs at
the Federal, State, and local level.
Nineteen States listed sources
of recent wetlands losses in their
1994 305(b) reports. Residential
development and urban growth
were cited as the leading sources of
current losses. Other losses were
due to commercial development;
construction of roads, highways,
and bridges; agriculture; and indus-
trial development. In addition to
human activities, a few States also
reported that natural sources, such
as rising lake levels, resulted in
wetlands losses and degradation.
Figure 17. Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity (12 States Reporting)
Sources
Agriculture
Urban Runoff
Hydrologic Modification
Municipal Point Sources
Construction
Road Construction
Land Disposal
I
I
1
1
!
1
1
i I
0 5 10 1
Number of States Reporting
Total
8
6
5
4
4
4
4
5
Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,
Commissions, and the District of Columbia.
Kings Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA
More information on wetlands
can be obtained from the
EPA Wetlands Hotline at
1-800-832-7828.
29
-------
Ground Water
Ninety-five percent of all fresh
water available on earth (exclusive
of icecaps) is ground water. Ground
water-water found in natural
underground rock formations called
aquifers-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 that may be
susceptible to contamination.
Usable ground water exists in every
State.
Aquifers can range in size from
thin surficial formations that yield
small quantities of ground water to
large systems such as the High
Plains aquifer that underlies eight
western States and provides water
to millions. Although the Nation's
ground water is of good quality, it
is recognized that ground water is
more vulnerable to contamination
than previously reported and that
an increasing number of pollution
events and contamination sources
are threatening the integrity of the
resource.
Ground Water Use
Nationally, 51% of the popula-
tion relies to some extent on
ground water as a source of drink-
ing water. This percentage is even
Ground water provides
drinking water for 51%
of the population.
higher in rural areas where most
residents rely on potable or treat-
able ground water as an economi-
cal 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 sys-
tems (serving schools, parks, and
other small facilities) are ground
water systems.
Irrigation accounts for approxi-
mately 63% of national ground
water withdrawals. Public drinking
water supplies account for approxi-
mately 19% of the Nation's total
ground water withdrawals. Domes-
tic, commercial, livestock, industrial,
mining, and thermoelectric with-
drawals together account for
approximately 18% of national
ground water withdrawals.
Ground Water Quality
Although the 1994 Section
305(b) State Water Quality Reports
indicate that, overall, the Nation's
ground water is of good quality,
many local areas have experienced
significant ground water contami-
nation. The sources and types of
ground water contamination vary
depending upon the region of the
country. Those most frequently
reported by States include:
Leaking underground storage
tanks. Approximately 1.2 million
federally regulated underground
storage tanks are buried at over
500,000 sites nationwide. An esti-
mated 139,000 tanks have leaked
and impacted ground water quality.
Agricultural activities. Seventy-
seven percent of the 1.1 billion
pounds of pesticides produced
annually in the United States is
applied to land in agricultural
production, which usually overlies
aquifers.
Superfund sites. More than
85% of all Superfund sites have
some degree of ground water
contamination. Most of these sites
impact aquifers that are currently
used, or potentially may be used,
for drinking water purposes.
Septic tanks. Approximately 23
million domestic septic tanks are in
operation in the United States.
These tanks impact ground water
quality through the discharge of
fluids into or above aquifers.
The most common contami-
nants associated with these sources
include petroleum compounds,
nitrates, metals, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and pesticides.
States are reporting that
ground water quality is most likely
to be adversely affected by
contamination in areas of high
30
-------
demand or stress. To combat these
problems, States are developing
programs designed to evaluate the
overall quality and vulnerability of
their ground water resources, to
identify potential threats to ground
water quality, and to identify meth-
ods to protect their ground water
resources. Thirty-three States indi-
cate that they have implemented
statewide ground water monitoring
programs.
Ground water monitoring
programs vary widely among the
States, depending upon the special
needs of each of the States. For
example, some States choose to
monitor ground water quality in
specific areas that are especially vul-
nerable to contamination, whereas
other States may choose to monitor
ground water quality on a statewide
basis. When it comes to selecting
chemicals to test for in the ground
water, some States monitor for a
large suite of chemicals, whereas
other States limit monitoring to one
or two specific chemicals that are a
definite threat to ground water
quality.
Ground water monitoring pro-
vides a great deal of information
about the nature and quality of our
Nation's ground water resources.
Still, there is much we do not know
about how human activities influ-
ence ground water quality. Our
continued quest for information
about the status of our ground
water will help protect and preserve
this vast and vulnerable resource.
Through a greater understanding of
how human activities influence
ground water quality, we can better
ensure the long-term availability of
high-quality water for future
generations.
Alisha Batten, age 8, Bruner Elementary, North Las Vegas, NV
Kings Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA
31
-------
Water Quality Protection Programs
Although significant strides
have been made in reducing the
impacts of discrete pollutant
sources, our aquatic resources
remain at risk from a combination
of point sources and complex non-
point sources, including air pollu-
tion. Since 1991, EPA has promoted
the watershed protection approach
as a holistic framework for address-
ing complex pollution problems.
The watershed protection
approach is a place-based strategy
that integrates water quality man-
agement activities within hydrologi-
cally defined drainage basins-water-
sheds-rather than areas defined by
political boundaries. Thus, for a
given watershed, the approach
encompasses not only the water
resource (such as a stream, lake,
estuary, or ground water aquifer),
but all the land from which water
drains to the resource. To protect
Under the Watershed
Protection Approach
(WPA), a "watershed"
is a hydrogeologic area
defined for addressing
water quality problems.
For example, a WPA
watershed may be a river
basin, a county-sized
watershed, or a small
drinking water supply
watershed.
water resources, it is increasingly
important to address the condition
of land areas within the watershed
because water carries the effects of
human activities throughout the
watershed as it drains off the land
into surface waters or leaches into
the ground water.
EPA's Office of Water envisions
the watershed protection approach
as the primary mechanism for
achieving clean water and healthy,
sustainable ecosystems throughout
the Nation. The watershed protec-
tion approach enables stakeholders
to take a comprehensive look at
ecosystem issues and tailor correc-
tive actions to local concerns within
the coordinated framework of a
national water program. The
emphasis on public participation
also provides an opportunity to
incorporate environmental justice
issues into watershed restoration
and protection solutions.
In May of 1994, the EPA
Assistant Administrator for Water,
Robert Perciasepe, created the
Watershed Management Policy
Committee to coordinate the EPA
water program's support of the
watershed protection approach.
During 1995, EPA's water program
managers, under the direction of
the Watershed Management Policy
Committee, evaluated their pro-
grams and identified additional
activities needed to support the
watershed protection approach in
an action plan.
EPA's Office of Water will con-
tinue to promote and support the
watershed protection approach at
local, State, Tribal, Territorial, and
Federal levels. The Office of Water
recognizes that the watershed pro-
tection approach relies on active
participation by local governments
and citizens who have the most
direct knowledge of local problems
and opportunities in their water-
sheds. However, the Office of Water
will look to the States, Tribes, and
-------
Territories to create the framework
for supporting local efforts because
most EPA programs are implement-
ed by the States, Tribes, and
Territories.
The Clean Water Act
A number of laws provide the
authority to develop and implement
pollution control programs. The
primary statute providing for water
quality protection in the Nation's
rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries,
and coastal waters is the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of
1972, commonly known as the
Clean Water Act.
The CWA and its amendments
are the driving force behind many
of the water quality improvements
we have witnessed in recent years.
Key provisions of the CWA provide
the following pollution control
programs.
Water quality standards and
criteria - States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions adopt EPA-
approved standards for their
waters that define water quality
goals for individual waterbod-
ies. Standards consist of desig-
nated beneficial uses to be
made of the water, criteria to
protect those uses, and anti-
degradation provisions to pro-
tect existing water quality.
Effluent guidelines - The EPA
develops nationally consistent
guidelines limiting pollutants in
discharges from industrial facili-
ties and municipal sewage
treatment plants. These guide-
lines are then used in permits
issued to dischargers under the
The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA)
Several key principles guide the watershed protection approach:
Place-based focus - Resource management activities are directed
within specific geographical areas, usually defined by watershed bound-
aries, areas overlying or recharging ground water, or a combination
of both.
Stakeholder involvement and partnerships - Watershed initiatives
involve the people most likely to be affected by management decisions
in the decision making process. Stakeholder participation ensures that
the objectives of the watershed initiative will include economic stability
and that the people who depend on the water resources in the water-
shed will participate in planning and implementation activities.
Watershed initiatives also establish partnerships between Federal, State,
and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations with interests in
the watershed.
Environmental objectives - The stakeholders and partners identify
environmental objectives (such as "populations of striped bass will
stabilize or increase") rather than programmatic objectives (such as "the
State will eliminate the backlog of discharge permit renewals") to
measure the success of the watershed initiative. The environmental
objectives are based on the condition of the ecological resource and the
needs of people in the watershed.
Problem identification and prioritization - The stakeholders and part-
ners use sound scientific data and methods to identify and prioritize the
primary threats to human and ecosystem health within the watershed.
Consistent with the Agency's mission, EPA views ecosystems as the inter-
actions of complex communities that include people; thus, healthy
ecosystems provide for the health and welfare of humans as well as
other living things.
Integrated actions - The stakeholders and partners take corrective
actions in a comprehensive and integrated manner, evaluate success,
and refine actions if necessary. The watershed protection approach
coordinates activities conducted by numerous government agencies
and nongovernmental organizations to maximize efficient use of limited
resources.
-------
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
Maximum Daily Loads, or
TMDLs, establishes the link
between water quality stand-
ards and point/nonpoint source
pollution control actions such
as permits or Best Management
Practices (BMPs). A TMDL cal-
culates allowable loadings from
the contributing point and
nonpoint sources to a given
waterbody and provides the
quantitative basis for pollution
reduction necessary to meet
water quality standards. States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions
develop and implement TMDLs
for high-priority impaired or
threatened waterbodies.
Permits and enforcement - All
industrial and municipal facili-
ties that discharge wastewater
must have an NPDES permit
and are responsible for moni-
toring and reporting levels of
pollutants in their discharges.
EPA issues these permits or can
delegate that permitting
authority to qualifying States or
other jurisdictions. The States,
other qualified jurisdictions, and
EPA inspect facilities to deter-
mine if their discharges comply
with permit limits. If discharg-
ers are not in compliance,
enforcement action is taken.
Grants - The EPA provides
States with financial assistance
to help support many of their
pollution control programs.
These programs include the
State Revolving Fund program
for construction and upgrading
of municipal sewage treatment
plants; water quality monitor-
ing, permitting, and enforce-
ment; and developing and
implementing nonpoint source
pollution controls, combined
sewer and stormwater controls,
ground water strategies, lake
assessment, protection, and
restoration activities, estuary
and near coastal management
programs, and wetlands pro-
tection activities.
Nonpoint source control -
The EPA provides program
guidance, technical support,
and funding to help the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions
control nonpoint source pollu-
tion. The States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions are responsi-
ble for analyzing the extent
and severity of their nonpoint
source pollution problems and
developing and implementing
needed water quality manage-
ment actions.
The CWA also established pollu-
tion control and prevention pro-
grams for specific waterbody cate-
gories, such as the Clean Lakes
Program. Other statutes that also
guide the development of water
quality protection programs
include:
The Safe Drinking Water Act
under which States establish
standards for drinking water quality,
monitor wells and local water
supply systems, implement drinking
water protection programs, and
implement Underground Injection
Control (UIC) programs.
The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, which establishes
State and EPA programs for ground
water and surface water protection
and cleanup and emphasizes pre-
vention of releases through man-
agement standards in addition to
other waste management activities.
The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (Superfund
Program), which provides EPA with
the authority to clean up contami-
nated waters during remediation at
contaminated sites.
The Pollution Prevention Act
of 1990, which requires EPA to pro-
mote pollutant source reduction
rather than focus on controlling
pollutants after they enter the envi-
ronment.
Protecting Lakes
Managing lake quality often
requires a combination of in-lake
restoration measures and pollution
controls, including watershed man-
agement measures:
Restoration measures are
implemented to reduce existing
pollution problems. Examples
of in-lake restoration measures
include harvesting aquatic
weeds, dredging sediment,
34
-------
and adding chemicals to
precipitate nutrients out of the
water column. Restoration
measures focus on restoring
uses of a lake and may not
address the source of the
pollution.
Pollution control measures
deal with the sources of pollut-
ants degrading lake water qual-
ity or threatening to impair lake
water quality. Control measures
include planning activities, reg-
ulatory actions, and implemen-
tation of BMPs to reduce non-
point sources of pollutants.
During the 1980s, most States
implemented chemical and
mechanical in-lake restoration mea-
sures to control aquatic weeds and
algae. In their 1994 Section 305(b)
reports, the States and Tribes report
a shift toward nonpoint source
Figure 18
controls to reduce pollutant loads
responsible for aquatic weed
growth and algal blooms (Figure
18). Twenty-two States reported
that they implemented best man-
agement practices to control non-
point source pollution entering
more than 171 lakes. The States
reported that they implemented
agricultural practices to control soil
erosion, constructed retention and
detention basins to control urban
runoff, managed animal waste,
revegetated shorelines, and con-
structed or restored wetlands to
remove pollutants from runoff.
Although the States reported that
they still use in-lake treatments, the
States recognize that source
controls are needed in addition to
in-lake treatments to restore lake
water quality.
Successful lake programs
require strong commitment from
Lake Restoration and Pollution
Control Measures
Implement NPS Controls (total)3
Dredging
Modified Discharge Permits
Shoreline Stabilization/Rip Rap
Lake Drawdown
Chemical Weed and Algae Controls
Mechanical Weed Harvesting
Biological Weed Control
Local Ordinances and Zoning
i : i
I 3
i- ; i
i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i
i i
Total
22
18
14
13
12
12
11
11
10
0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of States Reporting
alncludes best management practices, such as conservation tillage, sediment detention basins, vegetated buffers,
and animal waste management.
local citizens and cooperation from
natural resource agencies at the
local, State, and Federal levels.
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
watershed approach by planning
and implementing pollution abate-
ment activities for the estuary and
its surrounding land area as a
whole.
The NEP embodies the ecosys-
tem approach by building coali-
tions, addressing multiple sources of
contamination, pursuing habitat
protection as a pollution control
mechanism, and
investigating cross-
media transfer of
pollutants from air
and soil into specific
estuarine waters.
Under the NEP, a
State governor nom-
inates an estuary in
his or her State for
participation in the
program. The State
must demonstrate a
likelihood of success
in protecting candi-
date estuaries and
provide evidence of
institutional, finan-
cial, and political
commitment to
solving estuarine
problems.
35
-------
Figure 19. Locations of National Estuary Program Sites
a VI
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 control pollution and man-
age natural resources in the estuar-
ine basin. Each management con-
ference develops and initiates
implementation of a Compre-
hensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) to
restore and protect the estuary.
The NEP currently supports
28 estuary projects.
The NEP integrates science and
policy by bringing water quality
managers, elected officials, and
stakeholders together with scientists
from government agencies,
academic institutions, and the pri-
vate sector. Because the NEP is not
a research program, it relies heavily
on past and ongoing research of
other agencies and institutions to
support development of CCMPs.
With the addition of seven
estuary sites in July of 1995, the
NEP currently supports 28 estuary
projects (see Figure 19). These 28
estuaries are nationally significant in
their economic value as well as in
their ability to support living
resources. The project sites also rep-
resent a broad range of environ-
mental conditions in estuaries
throughout the United States and
its Territories so that the lessons
learned through the NEP can be
applied to other estuaries.
Protecting Wetlands
A variety of public and private
programs protect wetlands. Section
404 of the CWA continues to
provide the primary Federal vehicle
for regulating certain activities in
wetlands. Section 404 establishes a
permit program for discharges of
dredged or fill material into waters
of the United States, including
wetlands.
The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and EPA jointly
implement the Section 404 pro-
gram. The COE is responsible for
reviewing permit applications and
making permit decisions. EPA estab-
lishes the environmental criteria for
making permit decisions and has
the authority to review and veto
Section 404 permits proposed for
issuance by the COE. EPA is also
responsible for determining geo-
graphic jurisdiction of the Section
404 permit program, interpreting
statutory exemptions, and
36
-------
Shortly after coming into
office, the Clinton Administration
convened an interagency working
group to address concerns with
Federal wetlands policy. After hear-
ing from States, developers, farm-
ers, environmental interests, mem-
bers of Congress, and scientists,
the working group developed a
comprehensive 40-point plan for
wetlands protection to make wet-
lands programs more fair, flexible,
and effective. This plan was issued
on August 24, 1993.
The Administration's Wetlands
Plan emphasizes improving
Federal wetlands policy by
Streamlining wetlands permit-
ting programs
Increasing cooperation with
private landowners to protect
and restore wetlands
Basing wetlands protection on
good science and sound
judgment
Increasing participation by
States, Tribes, local govern-
ments, and the public in
wetlands protection.
overseeing Section 404 permit pro-
grams assumed by individual
States. To date, only two States
(Michigan and New Jersey) have
assumed the Section 404 permit
program from the COE. The COE
and EPA share responsibility for
enforcing Section 404 require-
ments.
The COE issues individual
Section 404 permits for specific
projects or general permits (Table
5). Applications for individual per-
mits go through a review process
that includes opportunities for EPA,
other Federal agencies (such as the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries
Service), State agencies, and the
public to comment. However, the
vast majority of activities proposed
in wetlands are covered by Section
404 general permits. For example,
in FY94, over 48,000 people
applied to the COE for a Section
404 permit. Eighty-two percent of
these applications were covered by
general permits and were processed
in an average of 16 days. It is esti-
mated that another 50,000 activi-
ties are covered by general permits
that do not require notification of
the COE at all.
General permits allow the COE
to permit certain activities without
performing a separate individual
permit review. Some general per-
mits require notification of the COE
before an activity begins. There are
three types of general permits:
Nationwide permits (NWPs)
authorize specific activities across
the entire Nation that the COE
determines will have only minimal
individual and cumulative impacts
on the environment, including con-
struction of minor road crossings
and farm buildings, bank stabiliza-
tion activities, and the filling of up
to 10 acres of isolated or headwater
wetlands.
Regional permits authorize types
of activities within a geographic
area defined by a COE District
Office.
Programmatic general permits
are issued to an entity that the COE
determines may regulate activities
within its jurisdictional wetlands.
Table 5. Federal Section 404 Permits
General Permits
(streamlined permit review procedures)
Nationwide
Permits
Cover 36 types of
activities that the
COE determines
to have minimal
adverse impacts
on the environment
Regional
Permits
Developed by COE
District Offices to
cover activities in
a specified region
Programmatic
Permits
State
Programmatic
Permits
COE defers permit
decisions to State
agency while
reserving authority
to require an
individual permit
Others
Special Management
Agencies
Watershed Planning
Commissions
Individual
Permits
Required for major projects
that have the potential to
cause significant adverse
impacts
Project must undergo
interagency review
Opportunity for public
comment
Opportunity for 401
certification review
-------
Under a programmatic general
permit, the COE defers its permit
decision to the regulating entity but
reserves its authority to require an
individual permit.
Currently, the COE and EPA are
promoting the development of
State programmatic general permits
(SPCPs) to increase State involve-
ment in wetlands protection and
minimize duplicative State and
Federal review of activities pro-
posed in wetlands. Each SPCP is a
unique arrangement developed by
a State and the COE to take advan-
tage of the strengths of the individ-
ual State wetlands program. Several
States have adopted comprehensive
SPGPs that replace many or all
COE-issued nationwide general per-
mits. SPGPs simplify the regulatory
process and increase State control
over their wetlands resources.
Carefully developed SPGPs can
improve wetlands protection while
reducing regulatory demands on
landowners.
Water quality standards for
wetlands ensure that the provisions
of CWA Section 303 that apply to
other surface waters are also
applied to wetlands. In July 1990,
EPA issued guidance to States for
the development of wetlands water
quality standards. Water quality
standards consist of designated
beneficial uses, numeric criteria,
narrative criteria, and antidegrada-
tion statements. Figure 20 indicates
the State's progress in developing
these standards.
Standards provide the founda-
tion for a broad range of water
quality management activities
under the CWA including, but not
limited to, monitoring for the
Section 305(b) report, permitting
under Section 402 and 404, water
quality certification under Section
401, and the control of nonpoint
source pollution under Section 319.
States, Territories, and Tribes
are well positioned between Federal
and local government to take the
lead in integrating and expanding
wetlands protection and manage-
ment programs. They are experi-
enced in managing federally man-
dated environmental programs,
and they are uniquely equipped to
help resolve local and regional con-
flicts and identify the local econom-
ic and geographic factors that may
influence wetlands protection.
Section 401 of the CWA gives
States and eligible American Indian
Tribes the authority to grant, condi-
tion, or deny certification of federal-
ly permitted or licensed activities
that may result in a discharge to
U.S. waters, including wetlands.
Such activities include discharge of
dredged or fill material permitted
under CWA Section 404, point
source discharges permitted under
CWA Section 402, and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's
hydropower licenses. States review
these permits to ensure that they
meet State water quality standards.
Section 401 certification can be
a powerful tool for protecting wet-
lands from unacceptable degrada-
tion or destruction especially when
implemented in conjunction with
wetlands-specific water quality
standards. If a State or an eligible
Tribe denies Section 401 certifica-
tion, the Federal permitting or
licensing agency cannot issue the
permit or license.
Until recently, many States
waived their right to review and
certify Section 404 permits because
these States had not defined water
Figure 20. Development of State Water Quality Standards for Wetlands
Antidegradation
Use Classification
Narrative Biocriteria
Numeric Biocriteria
25 States and Tribes Reporting
J Proposed
I Under Development
In Place
5 10 15
Number of States Reporting
20
38
-------
quality standards for wetlands or
codified regulations for implement-
ing their 401 certification program
into State law. Now, most States
report that they use the Section 401
certification process to review
Section 404 projects and to require
mitigation if there is no alternative
to degradation of wetlands. Ideally,
401 certification should be used to
augment State programs because
activities that do not require Federal
permits or licenses, such as some
ground water withdrawals, are not
covered.
State Wetlands Conservation
Plans (SWCPs) are strategies that
integrate regulatory and coopera-
tive approaches to achieve State
wetlands management goals, such
as no overall net loss of wetlands.
SWCPs are not meant to create a
new level of bureaucracy. Instead,
SWCPs improve government and
private-sector effectiveness and
efficiency by identifying gaps in
wetlands protection programs
and identifying opportunities to
improve wetlands programs.
States, Tribes, and other juris-
dictions protect their wetlands with
a variety of other approaches,
including permitting programs,
coastal management programs,
wetlands acquisition programs,
natural heritage programs, and inte-
gration with other programs. The
following trends emerged from
individual State and Tribal report-
ing:
Most States have defined wet-
lands as waters of the State, which
offers general protection through
antidegradation clauses and desig-
nated uses that apply to all waters
of a State. However, most States
have not developed specific wet-
lands water quality standards and
designated uses that protect wet-
lands' unique functions, such as
flood attenuation and filtration.
Without specific wetlands uses
and standards, the Section 401 cer-
tification process relies heavily on
antidegradation clauses to prevent
significant degradation of wetlands.
In many cases, the States use the
Section 401 certification process to
add conditions to Section 404 per-
mits that minimize the size of wet-
lands destroyed or degraded by
proposed activities to the extent
practicable. States often add condi-
tions that require compensatory
mitigation for destroyed wetlands,
but the States do not have the
resources to perform enforcement
inspections or followup monitoring
to ensure that the wetlands are
constructed and functioning
properly.
More States are monitoring
selected, largely unimpacted wet-
lands to establish baseline condi-
tions in healthy wetlands. The
States will use this information to
monitor the relative performance of
constructed wetlands and to help
establish biocriteria and water
quality standards for wetlands.
Although the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions report that they
are making progress in protecting
wetlands, they also report that the
pressure to develop or destroy wet-
lands remains high. EPA and the
States, Tribes, and other
jurisdictions will continue to pursue
new mechanisms for protecting
wetlands that rely less on regulatory
tools.
Protecting the
Great Lakes
Restoring and protecting the
Great Lakes requires cooperation
from numerous organizations
because the pollutants that enter
the Great Lakes originate in both
the United States and Canada, as
well as in other countries. The
International Joint Commission
(IJC), established by the 1909
Boundary Waters Treaty, provides a
framework for the cooperative man-
agement of the Great Lakes.
Representatives from the United
States and Canada, the Province of
Ontario, and the eight States bor-
dering the Lakes sit on the IJC's
Water Quality Board. The Water
Quality Board recommends actions
for protecting and restoring the
Great Lakes and evaluates the envi-
ronmental policies and actions
implemented by the United States
and Canada.
The EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) coordi-
nates Great Lakes management
activities conducted by all levels of
government within the United
States. The GLNPO also works with
nongovernmental organizations to
protect and restore the Lakes. The
GLNPO provides leadership
through its annual Great Lakes
Program Priorities and Funding
Guidance. The GLNPO also serves
as a liaison to the Canadian
members of the IjC and the
Canadian environmental agencies.
39
-------
The 1978 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (as amended in
1987) lay the foundation for on-
going efforts to restore and protect
the Great Lakes. The Agreement
committed the United States and
Canada to developing Remedial
Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of
Concern and Lakewide Manage-
ment Plans (LaMPs) for each Lake.
Areas of Concern are specially des-
ignated waterbodies around the
Great Lakes that show symptoms of
serious water quality degradation.
Most of the 42 Areas of Concern
are located in harbors, bays, or river
mouths entering the Great Lakes.
RAPs identify impaired uses and
examine management options for
addressing degradation in an Area
of Concern. LaMPs use an ecosys-
tem approach to examine water
quality issues that have more wide-
spread impacts within each Great
Lake. Public involvement is a critical
component of both LaMP develop-
ment and RAP development.
EPA advocates pollution preven-
tion as the most effective approach
for achieving the virtual elimination
of persistent toxic discharges into
the Great Lakes. The GLNPO has
funded numerous pollution preven-
tion grants throughout the Great
Lakes Basin during the past 3 years.
EPA and the States also implement-
ed the 38/50 Program in the Great
Lakes Basin, under which EPA
received voluntary commitments
from industry to reduce the emis-
sion of 1 7 priority pollutants by
50% by the end of 1995. In addi-
tion, EPA, the States, and Canada
are implementing a virtual elimina-
tion initiative for Lake Superior. The
first phase of the initiative seeks to
eliminate new contributions of
mercury.
The Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative is a key element of the
environmental protection efforts
undertaken by the United States in
the Great Lakes Basin. The purpose
of the Initiative is to provide a con-
sistent level of protection in the
Basin from the effects of toxic
pollutants. In 1989, the Initiative
was organized by EPA at the request
of the Great Lakes States to pro-
mote consistency in their environ-
mental programs in the Great Lakes
Basin with minimum requirements.
Initiative efforts were well under
way when Congress enacted the
Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of
1990. The Act requires EPA to pub-
lish proposed and final water quality
guidance that specifies minimum
water quality criteria for the Great
Lakes System. The Act also requires
the Great Lakes States to adopt
provisions that are consistent with
the EPA final guidance within 2
years of EPA's publication. In addi-
tion, Indian Tribes authorized to
administer an NPDES program in
the Great Lakes Basin must also
adopt provisions consistent with
EPA's final guidance.
To carry out the Act, EPA pro-
posed regulations for implementing
the guidance on April 16, 1993,
and invited the public to comment.
The States and EPA conducted pub-
lic meetings in all of the Great Lakes
States during the comment period.
As a result, EPA received over
26,500 pages of comments from
over 6,000 commenters. EPA
reviewed all of the comments and
published the final guidance in
March of 1995.
The final guidance prioritizes
control of long-lasting pollutants
that accumulate in the food web
bioaccumulative chemicals of con-
cern (BCCs). The final guidance
includes provisions to phase out
mixing zones for BCCs (except in
limited circumstances), more exten-
sive data requirements to ensure
that BCCs are not underregulated
due to a lack of data, and water
quality criteria to protect wildlife
that feed on aquatic prey. Publica-
tion of the final guidance is a mile-
stone in EPA's move toward increas-
ing stakeholder participation in the
development of innovative and
comprehensive programs for pro-
tecting and restoring our natural
resources.
40
-------
The Chesapeake Bay
Program
In many areas of the
Chesapeake Bay, the quality is not
sufficient to support living resources
year round. In the warmer months,
large portions of the Bay contain
little or no dissolved oxygen. Low
oxygen conditions may cause fish
eggs and larvae to die. The growth
and reproduction of oysters, clams,
and other bottom-dwelling animals
are impaired. Adult fish find their
habitat reduced and their feeding
inhibited.
Many areas of the Bay also
have cloudy water from excess
sediment in the water or an over-
growth of algae (stimulated by
excessive nutrients in the water).
Turbid waters block the sunlight
needed to support the growth and
survival of Bay grasses, also known
as submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV). Without SAV, critical habitat
for fish and crabs is lost. Although
there has been a recent resurgence
of SAV in some areas of the Bay,
most areas still do not support
abundant populations as they once
did.
The main causes of the Bay's
poor water quality and aquatic
habitat loss are elevated levels of
the nutrients nitrogen and phos-
phorus. Both are natural fertilizers
found in animal wastes, soil, and
the atmosphere. These nutrients
have always existed in the Bay, but
not at the present elevated concen-
trations. When the Bay was sur-
rounded primarily by forests and
wetlands, very little nitrogen and
phosphorus ran off the land into
the water. Most of it was absorbed
or held in place by the natural
vegetation. As the use of the land
has changed and the watershed's
population has grown, the amount
of nutrients entering the Bay has
increased tremendously.
Now in its twelfth year, the
Chesapeake Bay Program is a
regional partnership of Federal,
State, and local participants that
has directed and coordinated
restoration of the Bay since the
signing of the historic 1983
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
the District of Columbia, the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, EPA,
and advisory groups form the part-
nership. The Chesapeake Executive
Council provides leadership for the
Bay Program and establishes pro-
gram policies to restore and protect
the Bay and its living resources. The
Council consists of the governors of
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsyl-
vania, the mayor of the District of
Columbia, the administrator of EPA,
and the chairperson of the
Chesapeake Bay Commission.
Considered a national and
international model for estuarine
restoration and protection pro-
grams, the Chesapeake Bay
Program is still a "work in
progress." Since 1983, milestones
in the evolution of the program
include the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement and the 1992 amend-
ments to the Agreement. The 1987
Agreement set a goal to reduce the
quantity of nutrients entering the
Bay by 40% by the year 2000. In
the 1992 amendments to the
Agreement, the partners reaffirmed
the 40% nutrient reduction goal,
agreed to cap nutrient loadings
beyond the year 2000, and agreed
to attack nutrients at their source
by applying the 40% reduction
goal to the 10 major tributaries of
the Bay. The amendments also
stressed managing the Bay as a
whole ecosystem. The amendments
also spell out the importance of
reducing atmospheric sources of
nutrients and broadening regional
interstate cooperation.
Protection and restoration of
forests is a critical component of
the Chesapeake Bay Program
because scientific data clearly show
that forests are the most beneficial
land cover for maintaining clean
water, especially forests alongside
waterbodies in the riparian zone.
Through the Chesapeake Bay
Program, unique partnerships have
been formed among the Bay
region's forestry agencies, forest
managers, and interested citizen
groups. Since 1990, the U.S. Forest
Service has assigned a Forestry
Program Coordinator to the
Chesapeake Bay Program to assist
both the EPA and Bay Program
committees in developing strategies
and projects that will contribute to
the Bay restoration goals. A Forestry
Work Group, formed under the
Nonpoint Source Subcommittee,
raises and addresses issues related
to forests and the practice of
forestry in the watershed.
In addition, State foresters and
local governments have developed
and implemented numerous pro-
grams and projects aimed at the
protection and restoration of
forests. Forestry incentive programs
in all of the Bay States have resulted
in the planting of millions of trees,
the restoration of nearly 50 miles of
41
-------
riparian forest, the development of
stewardship plans, and forest
enhancement projects on
thousands of acres within the Bay
watershed.
On the positive side, the extent
of Bay grasses has increased by
75% since 1978. The current extent
of SAV attains 64% of the goal
established by the Chesapeake Bay
Program. Striped bass, or rockfish,
have made a remarkable recovery
over the past decade due to
improved reproduction and better
control of the harvest. There has
been a modest increase in the
number of American shad returning
to the Bay to spawn. Controls on
the harvest of American shad, cre-
ation of fish passages at blockages,
stocking programs, and habitat
restoration are expected to yield
increases in the American shad
population and similar fish species
that inhabit the Bay during part of
their life cycle.
Phosphorus levels continue to
decline and, after many years of
increasing nitrogen concentrations,
most of the Bay's tributaries are
showing a leveling off of this trend.
Some tributaries are showing
declining trends in nitrogen con-
centrations. These trends indicate
that both point and nonpoint
source pollution abatement pro-
grams are working.
Despite the promising trends in
nutrient concentrations, oxygen
concentrations are still low enough
to cause severe impacts or stressful
conditions in the mainstem of the
Bay and several larger tributaries.
Prospects for the Bay's oyster popu-
lations remain poor. Overharvest-
ing, habitat loss, and disease have
severely depleted oyster stocks.
New management efforts have
been developed to improve this
situation.
The blue crab is currently the
most important commercial and
recreational fishery in the Bay.
There is growing concern about the
health of the blue crab population
due to increasing harvesting pres-
sures and relatively low harvests in
recent years. Both Maryland and
Virginia have recently implemented
new regulations on commercial and
recreational crabbers to protect this
important resource.
Overall, the Chesapeake Bay
still shows symptoms of stress from
an expanding population and
changes in land use. However, con-
ditions in the Chesapeake Bay have
improved since the Chesapeake Bay
Program was launched, and contin-
uation of the Program promises an
even brighter future for the Bay.
The Gulf of Mexico
Program
The Gulf of Mexico Program
(CMP) was established in 1988
with EPA as the lead Federal agency
in response to signs of long-term
environmental damage throughout
the Gulf's coastal and marine
ecosystem. The main purpose of
the GMP 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 restore and reclaim
wetlands and wildlife habitat, clean
up existing pollution, and prevent
future contamination and destruc-
tion of the Gulf. The GMP mobilizes
State, Federal, and local govern-
ment; business and industry;
42
-------
academia; and the community at
large through public awareness and
information dissemination pro-
grams, forum discussions, citizen
committees, and technology
applications.
A Policy Review Board and the
Management Committee determine
the scope and focus of CMP activi-
ties. The program also receives
input from a Technical Advisory
Committee and a Citizen's Advisory
Committee. The CMP Office, eight
technical issue committees, and the
operations and support committees
coordinate the collection, integra-
tion, and reporting of pertinent
data and information. The issue
committees are composed of indi-
viduals from Federal, State, and
local agencies and from industry,
science, education, business, citizen
groups, and private organizations.
The issue committees are
responsible for documenting envi-
ronmental problems and manage-
ment goals, available resources, and
potential solutions for a broad
range of issues, including habitat
degradation, public health,
freshwater inflow, marine debris,
shoreline erosion, nutrient enrich-
ment, toxic pollutants, and living
aquatic resources. The issue
committees publish their findings
in Action Agendas.
On December 10, 1992, the
Governors of Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas;
EPA; the Chair of the Citizen's
Advisory Committee; and represen-
tatives of 10 other Federal agencies
signed the Gulf of Mexico Program
Partnership for Action agreement
for protecting, restoring, and
enhancing the Gulf of Mexico and
adjacent lands. The agreement
committed the signatory agencies
to pledge their efforts, over 5 years,
to obtain the knowledge and
resources to:
Significantly reduce the rate of
loss of coastal wetlands
Achieve an increase in Gulf Coast
seagrass beds
Enhance the sustainability of
Gulf commercial and recreational
fisheries
Protect human health and food
supply by reducing input 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
Reduce critical coastal and
shoreline erosion.
Beginning in 1992, the CMP
also launched Take-Action Projects
in each of the five Gulf States to
demonstrate that program strate-
gies and methods could achieve
rapid results. The Take-Action
Projects primarily address
inadequate sewage treatment,
pollution prevention, and habitat
protection and restoration. Several
projects aim to demonstrate the
effectiveness of innovative sewage
treatment technologies to control
pathogenic contamination of shell-
fish 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.
Take-Action Projects
in the five Gulf States
primarily address sewage
treatment, pollution
prevention, and habitat
protection and
restoration.
Since 1992, EPA has streamlined
and restructured its management
scheme for the GMP to increase
Regional involvement and better
meet the needs of the 5-year envi-
ronmental challenges. The GMP has
also expanded efforts to integrate
Mexico and the Caribbean Islands
into management of the Gulf.
These activities include technology
transfer and development of inter-
national agreements that prohibit
the discharge of ship-generated
wastes and plastics into waters of
the Gulf and Caribbean Sea.
43
-------
Ground Water
Protection Programs
The sage adage that "An ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of
cure" is being borne out in the field
of ground water protection. Studies
evaluating the cost of prevention
versus the cost of cleaning up con-
taminated ground water have
found that there are real cost
advantages to promoting protec-
tion of our Nation's ground water
resources.
Numerous laws, regulations,
and programs play a vital role in
protecting ground water. The
following Federal laws and pro-
grams enable, or provide incentives
for, EPA and/or States to regulate or
voluntarily manage and monitor
sources of ground water pollution:
The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) addresses the
problem of safe disposal of the
huge volumes of solid and haz-
ardous waste generated nationwide
each year. RCRA is part of EPA's
comprehensive program to protect
ground water resources through
the development of regulations and
methods for handling, storing, and
disposing of hazardous material and
through the regulation of under-
ground storage tanksthe most
frequently cited source of ground
water contamination.
The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) regulates
the restoration of contaminated
ground water at abandoned
hazardous waste sites.
The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) regulates subsurface injec-
tion of fluids that can contaminate
ground water.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
controls the use and disposal of
pesticides, some of which have
been detected in ground water
wells in rural communities.
The Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) controls the use and dispos-
al of additional toxic substances,
thereby minimizing their entry into
ground water. Other Federal laws
establish State grants that may be
used to protect ground water.
Clean Water Act Sections 319(h)
and (i) and 518 provide funds to
State agencies to implement EPA-
approved nonpoint source manage-
ment programs that include
ground water protection activities.
Several States have developed pro-
grams that focus on ground water
contamination resulting from agri-
culture and septic tanks.
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs
A Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP)
is composed of six "strategic activities." They are:
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 mechanisms
Implementing all necessary efforts to accomplish the State's ground
water protection goal
Coordinating information collection and management to measure
progress and reevaluate priorities
Improving public education and participation.
44
-------
The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 allows grants for research
projects to demonstrate agricultural
practices that emphasize ground
water protection and reduce the
excessive use of fertilizers and pesti-
cides.
Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs
(CSCWPPs) attempt to combine all
of the above efforts and emphasize
contamination prevention.
Comprehensive State
ground water protection
programs support State-
directed priorities in
resource protection.
CSGWPPs improve coordination of
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
ground water programs and enable
distribution of resources to estab-
lished priorities.
Another means of protecting
our Nation's ground water
resources is through the implemen-
tation of Wellhead Protection Plans.
EPA's Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water is supporting the
development and implementation
of Wellhead Protection Plans at the
local level through many efforts. For
example, EPA-funded support is
provided through the National
Rural Water Association Ground
Water/Wellhead Protection pro-
grams. At the conclusion of the first
4 years of this program, over 2,000
communities in 26 States were
actively involved in protecting their
water supplies by implementing
wellhead protection programs.
These 2,000 communities represent
almost 4 million people in the rural
areas of the United States who will
have better-protected water sup-
plies.
Recognizing the importance
and cost-effectiveness of protecting
our Nation's ground water
resources, States are participating in
numerous activities to prevent
future impairments of the resource.
These activities include enacting
legislation aimed at the develop-
ment of comprehensive State
ground water protection programs
and promulgating protection regu-
lations. More than 80% of the
States indicate that they have cur-
rent or pending legislation geared
specifically to ground water protec-
tion. Generally, State legislation
focuses on the need for program
development, increased data collec-
tion, and public education pro-
grams. In addition, States also may
mandate strict technical controls
such as discharge permits, under-
ground storage tank registrations,
and protection standards.
All of these programs are
intended to provide protection to a
valuable, and often vulnerable,
resource. Through the promotion
of ground water protection on both
State and Federal levels, our
Nation's ground water resources
will be safeguarded against
contamination, thereby protecting
human health and the environ-
ment.
45
-------
What You Can Do
Federal and State programs
have helped clean up many waters
and slow the degradation of others.
But government alone cannot solve
the entire problem, and water qual-
ity concerns persist. Nonpoint
source pollution, in particular, is
everybody's problem, and every-
body needs to solve it.
Examine your everyday activi-
ties and think about how you are
contributing to the pollution prob-
lem. Here are some suggestions on
how you can make a difference.
Be Informed
You should learn about water
quality issues that affect the com-
munities in which you live and
work. Become familiar with your
local water resources. Where does
your drinking water come from?
What activities in your area might
affect the water you drink or the
rivers, lakes, beaches, or wetlands
you use for recreation?
Learn about procedures for
disposing 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 mainte-
nance requirements. Water your
lawn conservatively. Preserve exist-
ing trees and plant new trees and
shrubs to help prevent erosion and
promote infiltration of water into
the soil. Restore bare patches in
your lawn to prevent erosion. If
you own or manage land through
which a stream flows, you may
wish to consult your local county
extension office about methods of
restoring stream banks in your area
by 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
household, automotive, or garden-
ing wastes in a storm drain. Keep
your septic tank in good working
order.
Within your home, fix any
dripping faucets or leaky pipes and
install water-saving devices in
shower heads and toilets. Always
follow directions on labels for use
and disposal of household chemi-
cals. Take used motor oil, paints,
and other hazardous household
materials to proper disposal sites
such as approved service stations or
designated landfills.
Be Involved
As a citizen and a voter there is
much you can do at the communi-
ty level to help preserve and pro-
tect our Nation's water resources.
Look around. Is soil erosion being
controlled 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, learn how to recycle, and
volunteer to help out if you can.
One of the most important things
you can do is find out how your
community 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 volun-
teer monitor, you might be
involved in taking ongoing water
quality measurements, tracking the
46
-------
progress of protection and restora-
tion 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
volunteer monitoring programs in
your State, contact your State
department of environmental
quality, or write to:
Alice Mayio
Volunteer Monitoring
Coordinator
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7018
For further information on
water quality in your State or other
jurisdiction, contact your Section
305(b) coordinator listed in Section
III. Additional water quality infor-
mation may be obtained from the
Regional offices of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(see inside back cover).
For Further Reading
Volunteer Monitoring. EPA-800-F-
93-008. September 1993. A brief
fact sheet about volunteer moni-
toring, including examples of how
volunteers have improved the
environment.
Stoning Out in Volunteer Water
Monitoring. EPA-841-B-92-002.
August 1992. A brief fact sheet
about how to become involved in
volunteer monitoring.
National Directory of Citizen
Volunteer Environmental Monitoring
Programs, Fourth Edition. EPA-841-
B-94-001. January 1994. Contains
information about 519 volunteer
monitoring programs across the
Nation.
Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A
Methods Manual. EPA-841 -D-95-
001. 1995. Presents information
and methods for volunteer moni-
toring of streams.
Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A
Methods Manual. EPA-842-B-93-
004. December 1993. Presents
information and methods for vol-
unteer monitoring of estuarine
waters.
Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A
Methods Manual. EPA-440/4-91-
002. December 1991. Discusses
lake water quality issues and
methods for volunteer monitoring
of lakes.
Many of these publications can
also be accessed through EPA's
Water Channel on the Internet.
From the World Wide Web or
Gopher, enter http://
www.epa.gov/OWOW to enter
WIN and locate documents.
47
-------
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 accumu-
late dangerous quantities of pollut-
ants in their tissues by ingesting
many smaller organisms, each con-
taminated with a small quantity of
pollutant. 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 con-
sumption of fish caught in specific
waterbodies. The States tailor indi-
vidual advisories to minimize health
risks based on contaminant data
collected in their fish tissue sam-
pling 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 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 1994, the
database listed 1,531 fish consump-
tion advisories in effect in 49 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 advis-
ory. States also vary the amount of
fish tissue monitoring they conduct
and the number of pollutants
analyzed. States that conduct more
monitoring and use strict criteria
will issue more advisories than
States that conduct less monitoring
and use weaker criteria. For exam-
ple, 62% of the advisories active in
1994 were issued by the States
surrounding the Great Lakes, which
support extensive fish sampling
programs and follow strict criteria
for issuing advisories.
Most of the fish consumption
advisories (73%) are due to
mercury. The other pollutants most
commonly detected in elevated
concentrations in fish tissue samples
are polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), chlordane, dioxins, and
DDT (with its byproducts).
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. Waterborne bacte-
ria and viruses may also accumulate
on their gills and mantles and in
their digestive systems. Shellfish
contaminated by these micro-
organisms 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 under-
treated sewage. States restrict shell-
fish harvesting to areas that main-
tain these bacteria at concentrations
in sea water below established
health limits.
In 1994, 15 States reported
that shellfish harvesting restrictions
were in effect for more than 6,052
square miles of estuarine and
coastal waters during the 1992-
1994 reporting period. Six States
reported that urban runoff and
storm sewers, municipal wastewater
treatment facilities, nonpoint
sources, marinas, industrial
discharges, CSOs, and septic tanks
restricted shellfish harvesting.
48
-------
Section II
Basinwide Survey:
Ohio and Tennessee River Valley
-------
Basinwide Survey: Ohio and Tennessee River Valley
Introduction
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) requested
that the Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
and the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) produce a prototype basin-
wide assessment of water quality
conditions in the Ohio and
Tennessee River Valley. This basin-
wide assessment illustrates how EPA
might present information in the
National Water Quality Inventory
Report to Congress in future years.
The information in this assessment
was drawn from several sources,
primarily the most recent Section
305(b) reports submitted by the
individual States in the Ohio and
Tennessee River Valley. This assess-
ment illustrates how EPA can com-
pile State water quality information
into assessments of conditions in
major basins throughout the
United States.
The Ohio and Tennessee River
basin assessment also illustrates
many of the recommendations pro-
posed by the Intergovernmental
Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality (ITFM). The ITFM was
established to develop a strategic
plan for effective collection, inter-
pretation, and presentation of
water quality data nationwide and
to improve its availability for deci-
sion making (see sidebar).
The three major sections in this
report are: (1) an overview of con-
ditions throughout the entire Ohio
and Tennessee River basin; (2) a
more detailed analysis of water
quality conditions in the Allegheny
River subbasin; and (3) a discussion
of special concerns and
recommendations. The basin
overview describes how well water-
sheds throughout the basin support
four basic stream usesaquatic life
support, contact recreation (such as
swimming), public drinking water
supply, and fish consumption. The
overview also identifies pollutants
impairing the use of streams and
the sources of these pollutants. The
section on the Allegheny River
Watershed illustrates the level of
detail that can be presented for
smaller individual watersheds with-
in a large basin. Finally, this report
describes special issues of concern
in the Ohio and Tennessee River
basin and recommends changes to
monitoring and reporting methods
that should make it easier to inte-
grate water quality information
submitted by multiple agencies
into an interstate basinwide water
quality assessment.
Basin Description
The Ohio and Tennessee River
basin covers more than 200,000
square miles in 14 States and con-
stitutes 6.5% of the continental
United States (Figure 1). The Ohio
River mainstem extends 981 miles
from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to
Cairo, Illinois, where it joins the
Mississippi River. Along the way,
the Ohio River forms the border
between Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois
to the north and West Virginia and
Kentucky to the south.
The basin's topography varies
from the Appalachian Mountains in
the east to the midwestern prairies
in the west. Land use patterns gen-
erally follow topographic character-
istics. Forests, agriculture, and
mining dominate the land use in
the northeastern portion of the
basin; most of the land is forested
in the southeastern portion; and
50
-------
About This Section
Communicating information about environmental conditions to the
public is a challenging task for scientists and engineers. They are trained to
focus on details and use precise technical terms so others can repeat their
experiments and analyses. As a result, most scientific papers are nearly
incomprehensible to anyone except narrowly focused specialists. But the
public and elected officials are interested in environmental conditions.
Furthermore, the public ultimately pays for most environmental research and
monitoring, either through taxes or by purchasing consumer goods with
those costs embedded in the prices.
Recognizing these facts, in 1992 the Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring (ITFM), a multiagency group examining ways to improve water
quality monitoring throughout the United States, began identifying common
characteristics of successful environmental reports. They found reports that
effectively communicate environmental information to the public use
common guidelines taught in journalism:
Put the most important information at the beginning.
Draw significant conclusions without too many qualifications.
Write in a conversational style that is easy to read.
Avoid technical terms as much as possible and keep sentences
relatively short.
When technical terms must be used, define them directly or
through context.
Use clear and accurate graphics that help illustrate the ideas
presented in the text.
Avoid complex figures that try to convey too much information.
If possible, use color to increase appeal to readers, to make figures
easier to understand, and to tie common elements together
throughout the report.
Be briefknow how long a report your audience is likely to
actually read.
Have enough "white space" to make text pages less intimidating
to readers.
Use a multicolumn format, which helps make text pages more
"friendly."
Use a serif typeface for text and a san-serif typeface for headings.
Most audiences are interested in reports that integrate environmental
information across scientific disciplines and political boundaries. They may
want to pull the information apart to get a State-by-State picture or to see
results for one scientific discipline such as fisheries. However, they first want
to see how the different pieces fit together to form a complete picture of
environmental conditions.
agricultural cropland dominates the
western areas of the basin. Almost
three-fourths of the Nation's identi-
fied coal reserves are located within
the basin. Due in part to this fact,
there are a considerable number of
electric power plants located in the
basin. Other major industries
include steel and petrochemical
production.
Over 26 million people live in
the Ohio and Tennessee River
basin. Large cities include Pitts-
burgh, Cincinnati, and Louisville on
the Ohio River mainstem, as well as
Columbus, Indianapolis, Chatta-
nooga, and Nashville. Major tribu-
taries to the Ohio River include
the Allegheny, Monongahela,
Kanawha, Kentucky, Green,
Wabash, Cumberland, and Tennes-
see Rivers.
Water Use in the
Basin
Abundant rainfall in the Ohio
and Tennessee River Valley main-
tains steady flows in the Ohio River
and its tributaries that support
many uses, such as transportation,
drinking water supply, and indus-
trial uses. Over 40% of the Nation's
waterborne commerce is trans-
ported on more than 2,500 miles
of commercially navigable water-
ways in the Ohio and Tennessee
River basin. Coal and petroleum
products are the most common
commodities carried by barge on
the navigable waterways. Streams
and lakes in the basin also provide
water for a variety of industrial
purposes, including processing and
cooling. Numerous coal-fired
power plants and nuclear facilities
use large amounts of water to cool
-------
Figure 1. Ohio and Tennessee River Basin
52
-------
steam produced by these plants.
There are also a number of hydro-
electric power plants in the basin,
particularly on the Tennessee and
Cumberland Rivers.
Water uses of primary concern
in this assessment are those that
depend on good water quality
conditions (e.g., public water
supply, water contact recreation,
aquatic life use, and fish consump-
tion). Most of the rivers, streams,
and lakes in the basin are classified
for more than one of these uses.
About 10 million people in the
basin receive drinking water from
public water supply systems that
use surface water as a source. Most
of the designated swimming
beaches are located on the many
lakes and reservoirs in the basin,
but many people also water ski on
and swim in the larger rivers.
Whitewater canoeing, kayaking,
and rafting are popular activities on
several rivers, including the New
and the Cauley in West Virginia,
the Ocoee in Tennessee, and the
Nantahala in North Carolina.
Most of the waters of the basin
are capable of supporting warm
water aquatic communities that
include bass, catfish, sauger, and
sunfish. Sport fishing is steadily
increasing throughout the basin,
and there is a significant commer-
cial fishing and mussel industry on
the Tennessee and lower Ohio
Rivers.
Rating Water Quality
Conditions in the
Basin
EPA and the States rate water
quality conditions by comparing
water quality data and narrative
information with water quality
criteria established by the States.
Water quality criteria define condi-
tions that must be met to support
designated beneficial uses (such as
bacteria limits for safe swimming
use). Each State is responsible for
assigning (i.e., designating) uses to
each of the waterbodies within its
borders. A State may designate a
waterbody for multiple uses, and
each designated use may have dif-
ferent criteria. At a minimum, the
Clean Water Act requires that
States designate their waters for
uses that protect swimming and
aquatic life.
EPA encourages the States to
use consistent use support cate-
gories for rating water quality
conditions in their waterbodies:
Fully supporting - good
water quality meets criteria for
designated uses.
Threatened - good water
quality meets designated use crite-
ria now, but may not in the future.
Partially supporting - fair
water quality fails to meet desig-
nated use criteria at times.
Not supporting - poor water
quality frequently fails to meet
designated use criteria.
The States survey use support
status in their waterbodies and
submit the results to EPA in their
Section 305(b) reports every
2 years. ORSANCO and TVA
assessed basinwide water quality
conditions by pooling the use sup-
port information submitted by the
Ohio and Tennessee River basin
States in their most recent Section
305(b) reports (most of which were
submitted in 1994). ORSANCO and
TVA focused on four basic desig-
nated usesaquatic life support,
contact recreation (such as swim-
ming), public water supply, and
fish consumption. These uses were
selected because they are more
sensitive to water quality condi-
tions than other uses (such as
transportation), and the States
have designated most of the rivers,
streams, and lakes in the basin for
one or more of these uses.
In addition, ORSANCO and
TVA compiled assessment informa-
tion concerning water quality con-
ditions in individual watersheds
within the Ohio and Tennessee
River basin. Where possible,
ORSANCO and TVA organized the
States' use support information by
watersheds defined by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). USCS
divides the United States (including
the Ohio and Tennessee River
basin) into many watersheds, each
identified with a unique 8-digit
hydrologic unit code (HUC). Each
watershed unit consists of a set of
connected rivers, lakes, and other
waterbodies that drain about 1,000
square miles. A few States did not
report their 305(b) information by
standardized 8-digit HUCs, so
ORSANCO and TVA summarized
their data by larger watershed units
when possible. In some cases, data
had to be excluded from the
watershed assessments for those
States that did not associate their
water quality information with any
watershed units.
Each watershed contains multi-
ple rivers and streams, some of
which are typically in excellent
condition while others are in fair or
poor condition. For this report,
ORSANCO and TVA developed five
categories for rating general water
53
-------
quality conditions in watersheds
based on the combination of river
miles in good, fair, or poor condi-
tion (i.e., fully supporting uses or
threatened, partially supporting
uses, or not supporting uses).
Watersheds with a high percentage
of river miles fully supporting des-
ignated uses received the best
water quality rating. The worst
water quality rating was assigned
to watersheds with a high percent-
age of river miles not supporting
designated uses. The remaining
watersheds received three inter-
mediate water quality ratings. The
criteria for each rating category
were derived by ranking conditions
in streams and assigning an equal
number of assessed stream miles to
each category.
This approach to rating water
quality conditions provides a good
picture of relative conditions
among watersheds. It should be
applicable for evaluating conditions
in other large river basins; however,
rating categories for other basins
will not necessarily correspond to
those used for the Ohio and
Tennessee River basin. Redefinition
of rating categories may be neces-
sary.
Overview of
Conditions in the
Ohio and Tennessee
River Basin
Aquatic Life Use
Support
Basinwide Assessment
During 1992-1994, the States
surveyed aquatic life use support
status in approximately one-third
(33%) of all rivers and streams
within the Ohio and Tennessee
River basin (Figure 2), or almost
half (45%) of the perennial rivers
and streams (those that flow year
round) in the basin. The States
assessed aquatic life use support in
more river miles than any other
designated use. Eleven of the 14
What is Aquatic Life Use?
Waters that fully support aquatic life use provide suitable habitat for
the protection and propagation of a healthy community of fish, shellfish,
and other aquatic organisms. In general, healthy aquatic communities
support many different species of organisms, many of which are intoler-
ant to pollution. Each State establishes its own criteria for measuring
how well its waters support aquatic life uses. Some States have biological
criteria that directly measure the health of the aquatic community (such
as species diversity measurements). However, many States still rely
primarily on physical and chemical criteria that define habitat require-
ments for a healthy aquatic community (such as minimum dissolved
oxygen concentrations and maximum concentrations of toxic
chemicals). Physical and chemical measurements provide an indirect
measure of aquatic community health.
States within the basin presented
aquatic life use information in their
1994 Section 305(b) reports in a
format that enabled ORSANCO
and TVA to isolate the data pertain-
ing to the Ohio and Tennessee
River basin from statewide
Figure 2. River Miles Surveyed
Total rivers = 255,330 miles
Total surveyed = 83,366 miles
33% Surveyed
67% Not Surveyed
Figure 3. Levels of Overall Use
Support - Rivers
Good
(Fully Supporting)
70%
Good
(Threatened)
5%
Fair
(Partially Supporting)
15%
Poor
(Not Supporting)
10%
Poor
(Not Attainable)
0%
Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
reports.
54
-------
assessment data. Additional infor-
mation was retrieved from West
Virginia's 1992 Waterbody System
database.
Approximately 70% of the
surveyed streams in the Ohio and
Tennessee River basin fully support
aquatic life (Figure 3). These rivers
and streams provide suitable condi-
tions for the survival and reproduc-
tion of fish and other aquatic
organisms. An additional 5% of the
surveyed streams were classified as
threatened because these streams
fully support aquatic life uses now,
but sources of pollution may jeop-
ardize that support if they are not
adequately controlled. Only 15% of
the surveyed streams partially sup-
port aquatic life, and 10% do not
meet State criteria for supporting
aquatic life uses.
NOTE: For this report,
ORSANCO, TVA, and EPA
assumed that overall use support
information in the Section
305(b) reports and the Water-
body System represents aquatic
life use support information.
Overall use support is a com-
bined measure of how well a
waterbody supports all of its
individual uses. Overall use is
impaired if poor water quality
conditions impair one or more
individual uses. For many water-
bodies, aquatic life use support
status equates with the overall
use support rating because
aquatic life use is more sensitive
to pollution than other desig-
nated uses.
Watershed Assessments
Figure 4 illustrates aquatic life
use support ratings for individual
watersheds in the Ohio and
Tennessee River basin. The ratings
range from the best use support
status (blue) to the worst use sup-
port status (red), with three inter-
mediate ratings (light blue, green,
and gold). The use support ratings
summarize general conditions in
each watershed. The best water-
sheds contain the highest percent-
age of rivers and streams that fully
support aquatic life use, even
though these watersheds may
contain a few streams that do not
support aquatic life. However,
when examined as a group, more
rivers and streams in the best
watersheds support aquatic life
uses. Watersheds that appear red
contain the greatest percentage of
streams not supporting aquatic life
use, although several streams in
these watersheds may fully support
a diverse aquatic community.
Figure 4 suggests that Ohio
contains many of the watersheds
with the worst aquatic life use sup-
port status, but it is very unlikely
that water quality conditions in
Figure 4. Aquatic Life Use Support: Ohio and Tennessee River Basin
Best Water Quality
Worst Water Quality
55
-------
Ohio are much different than in the
adjacent States. It is more likely
that Ohio contains a lot of water-
sheds with poor ratings because
Ohio uses primarily biological mon-
itoring data and strict criteria to
assess aquatic life use support sta-
tus in its rivers and streams. Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency
studies show that using biological
data to evaluate aquatic life use
support identifies 35% to 50%
more rivers and streams that do
not support aquatic life use than
assessments that rely exclusively on
chemical and physical data. Conse-
quently, aquatic life use support
ratings depend not only on the
health of biological communities
and the water quality of the rivers
and streams, but also on the use
support criteria and assessment
techniques used by each State.
Another example of how differ-
ences in State assessment methods
affect the use support assessments
can be seen along the Kentucky-
Tennessee border. Here, the aquatic
life use attainment in the Kentucky
portion of the Cumberland River
watershed is designated as "best,"
while the Tennessee portion of the
watershed is shown as having
lower degrees of aquatic life
support. Similar "State line faults"
occur throughout the basin, partic-
ularly along the borders between
Indiana and Illinois and between
Virginia and North Carolina.
Pollutants Impairing Rivers
and Streams
Eleven States reported both
aquatic life use assessments and
estimates of river miles impaired by
specific pollutants.* These States
reported that siltation and organic
enrichment are the most common
pollutants impacting aquatic life
throughout the Ohio and Tennes-
see River basin (Figure 5). Siltation
impairs over half of the river miles
that fail to fully support aquatic life
use. Silt and sediments deposited in
rivers and streams destroy the habi-
tat of many aquatic organisms,
including nesting and spawning
areas of important fish species. Silt
also smothers benthic organisms,
NOTE: The sum of river miles
impaired by all pollutants may
exceed the estimate of river
miles that do not fully support
designated uses because multi-
ple pollutants may impact an
individual river segment. For
example, both siltation and
nutrients may pollute a 1 -mile
river reach. In such cases, a State
may report that 1 mile is not
fully supporting its designated
uses, 1 mile is impaired by silta-
tion, and 1 mile is impaired by
nutrients. In this example, only
1 stream mile is impaired, but
the State identifies pollutants
impairing a total of 2 stream
miles.
Figure 5. Pollutants Found in Surveyed Rivers
Leading
Siltation
Organic Enrichment/DO
Metals
Nutrients
pH
Impaired
Major
Moderate/Minor
Not Specified
I I
57%
32%
29%
19%
19%
10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Impaired River Miles
'This report attempts to discriminate among pollutants impairing aquatic life uses and pollutants impairing other designated uses, such as
contact recreation and drinking water supply. However, many States reported total miles of pollutants rather than miles of pollutants for individ-
ual uses. As a result, this report assumes that pollutants that impaired the overall use support of a stream also impacted an equal mileage of
streams designated for aquatic life use.
56
-------
and materials suspended in water
interfere with respiration and diges-
tion. In addition, contaminated
sediments act as a reservoir for
different types of pollutants that
may be released into the water
column over time.
Organic enrichment impacts
32% of the river miles that fail to
fully support aquatic life use in the
Ohio and Tennessee River basin.
Organic enrichment depletes the
dissolved oxygen content in the
water column. Many desirable fish
and other aquatic species cannot
survive or propagate in waters with
low oxygen concentrations.
Following siltation and organic
enrichment, the most common
pollutants of rivers and streams
within the Ohio River basin are
metals, nutrients, and pH (a mea-
sure of acidity). Elevated metals
concentrations and acidic
conditions, often associated with
abandoned mining operations, can
be lethal to aquatic communities.
Excessive inputs of nutrients can
harm aquatic communities by trig-
gering the growth of algae popula-
tions (i.e., algae blooms) that
destabilize dissolved oxygen con-
centrations in the water column.
Based on data submitted by
11 States, ORSANCO and TVA
identified the most common pollut-
ant in each of the watershed units
throughout the basin (Figure 6).
Insufficient data were available to
determine the major pollutants in
Indiana, Georgia, and Mississippi.
Figure 6 illustrates that siltation is
the most prevalent pollutant in the
greatest number of watersheds.
This watershed analysis confirms
that siltation is a widespread prob-
lem throughout the Ohio and
Tennessee River Valley. In contrast,
impacts from metals appear to be
concentrated in Pennsylvania
watersheds and a few isolated
watersheds in areas that support
mining activities. Impacts from
organic enrichment and low dis-
solved oxygen are most common
in Ohio, Kentucky, and the
Alabama portion of the Tennessee
River subbasin.
Sources of Pollutants
Impairing Rivers and
Streams
Eleven States also reported the
sources of pollutants impairing
rivers and streams of the Ohio and
Tennessee River basin. The States
identified resource extraction,
which includes mining and petrole-
um activities, as the most common
source of pollution (Figure 7).
Resource extraction accounts for
siltation, low pH (i.e., high acidity),
Figure 6. Major Pollutants of Ohio and Tennessee River Basin
No Impairment
Siltation
H Organic Enrichment
^f Metals
I I Nutrients
_
CD Other
D Insufficient Data
-------
and high levels of metals in almost
half of all impaired rivers and
streams. Some States reported the
miles of rivers polluted by specific
resource extraction activities,
including surface and subsurface
mining, acid mine drainage, mine
and mill tailings, and petroleum
activities (Figure 8). Both active
mining and acid mine drainage
from active and abandoned mines
are significant sources of concern in
the Ohio and Tennessee River
basin.
Agriculture is the second lead-
ing source of pollutants impacting
the rivers and streams of the Ohio
and Tennessee River basin. Approxi-
mately 40% of the impaired rivers
and streams do not achieve full
aquatic life use support as a result
of agricultural activities. Several
States reported impacts from more
specific agricultural activities, such
as nonirrigated crop production
and feedlots (Figure 9). Based on
more limited data, these States
reported that pastureland is the
most common agricultural source
of impairment in rivers and streams
in the Ohio and Tennessee River
basin, followed by nonirrigated
crop production.
Urban activities also impact
many rivers and streams in the
basin. Municipal point sources
pollute 23% of the impaired river
miles in the basin (the third largest
source of pollution following
resource extraction and agricultural
activities). Combined sewer over-
flows, storm sewers, and urban
runoff also impact 18% of the
impaired rivers and streams.
ORSANCO and TVA also identi-
fied the most common sources of
pollutants in each watershed (insuf-
ficient data were available to deter-
mine the major sources of pollut-
ants in Indiana, Georgia, and
Mississippi) (Figure 10). The top
three sources of pollution basin-
wide also generate significant water
quality problems within individual
Figure 7. Sources of Pollutants Found in Surveyed Rivers and Streams
Leading Sources Impaired %
Resource Extraction
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm
Sewers/CSOs
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modifications
1
H Moderate/Minor
Cl Not Specified
i iii
48%
40%
23%
18%
18%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Percent of Impaired River Miles
watersheds. Resource extraction is
by far the most significant pollu-
tion source in the upper part of
the basin (Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, Virginia, and eastern Ohio
and Kentucky), while agriculture
and municipal point sources pre-
dominate in the rest of the basin.
Agricultural runoff is a particular
concern throughout the Tennessee
River basin and the Illinois portion
of the Wabash River basin. Waters
polluted by municipal point source
Figure 8. Resource Extraction Activities
Polluting Rivers and Streams
Dredge Mining
Mine Tailings
(10%)
Petroleum
Activities
(26%)
Mill Tailings
(<1%)
Mining
(34%)
Acid Mine Drainage
(29%)
Figure 9. Agricultural Activities Polluting
Rivers and Streams
Specialty Crops
(2.3%)
Irrigated Crops
(5.7%)
Feedlots
(7.4%).
Animal
Holding/Mgt.
(20.5%)
Manure Lagoons
(1.4%)
Other (0.2%)
Pastureland
.7%)
Nonirrigated Crops
(30.8%)
58
-------
discharges are most common in
the Scioto, Little Miami, and Great
Miami watersheds within the State
of Ohio.
Contact Recreation Use
Support
Seven of the 14 States within
the Ohio and Tennessee River basin
assessed contact recreation use
support for rivers and streams in
their 1994 Section 305(b) reports.
ORSANCO and TVA extracted con-
tact recreation data from another
State's 1992 Section 305(b) report,
but contact recreation data were
not available for the remaining six
States. ORSANCO and TVA com-
bined primary contact recreation
(i.e., swimming) and secondary
contact recreation (activities that
involve occasional contact with the
water, such as boating) into a sin-
gle assessment because only one
State reported separate information
about secondary contact recreation
use.
The Ohio and Tennessee River
basin States assessed over 44,000
Figure 10. Major Sources of Pollutants - Ohio and Tennessee River Basin
CD
CD
No Impairment
Resource Extraction
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Hydromodification
Industrial Point Sources
Other
miles of rivers and streams desig-
nated for contact recreation use.
Almost three-fourths of the streams
assessed fully support contact
recreation use (Figure 11). In addi-
tion, 5% of the stream miles fully
support contact recreation use but
are threatened.
Only four States and
ORSANCO reported the most
significant pollutants and sources
of pollution preventing their
streams from fully supporting
water contact recreation. Bacteria
are clearly the most significant pol-
lutant impairing contact recreation
use in streams and are responsible
for 86% of the stream miles
impaired for this use. Urban
Figure 11. Levels of Primary Contact
Recreation (Swimming)
Use Support - Rivers
Good
(Fully Supporting)
73%
Good
(Threatened)
5%
Fair
(Partially Supporting)
8%
Poor
(Not Supporting)
14%
Poor
(Not Attainable)
0%
I | Insufficient Data
Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
reports.
59
-------
runoff/storm sewers and combined
sewer overflows are the leading
sources of pollutants impairing
contact recreation use (Figure 12).
Drinking Water Supply
Use Support
The States provided minimal
information about support of drink-
ing water supply use. Six of the
fourteen States in the Ohio and
Tennessee River basin assessed
drinking water supply use support
in just 2% of the river miles in the
basin. ORSANCO and TVA acquired
data from a 1992 Section 305(b)
report for one additional State, but
data about drinking water supply
use support were not available for
the remaining seven States. Due to
the limited amount of information
available, ORSANCO and TVA
could not prepare a basinwide
summary of drinking water use
status; however, the available data
are summarized here.
Nearly three-fourths of the
assessed stream reaches fully sup-
port drinking water supply use,
with an additional 5% classified as
fully supporting but threatened
(Figure 13). Fifteen percent of the
assessed streams partially support
drinking water supply use, and 7%
do not support the use.
Even less information was avail-
able in the States' Section 305(b)
reports regarding the pollutants
impacting drinking water supply
uses or their sources. Only two
States and ORSANCO provided
pollutant and source information.
The minimal data available indicate
that pesticides are the most signifi-
cant pollutants, followed by priori-
ty organics, siltation, nutrients,
other habitat alterations, and sus-
pended solids. Agricultural runoff
was reported as the most common
source of pollutants, followed by
ground water loadings, channeliza-
tion, and resource extraction.
Fish Consumption Use
Support
Only three States within the
Ohio and Tennessee River basin
assessed fish consumption use sup-
port in their 1994 305(b) reports;
however, information about fish
consumption advisories was avail-
able for each State. States issue
advisories to protect the public
Where Are Lakes, Wetlands,
and Ground Water?
Except for a short discussion on lakes in the Allegheny River
subbasin, this report does not describe water quality conditions in lakes,
wetlands, or ground water. The States report less information about
these waters because lakes, wetlands, and ground water aquifers present
greater water quality monitoring challenges than rivers and streams.
Lakes and aquifers have much larger horizontal and vertical water quality
variations than do streams. The variation makes it difficult to ensure that
samples really reflect conditions throughout the lake or aquifer. Lakes
and aquifers also respond to environmental stresses differently than
streams and in different time frames. Even when high-quality data are
available, there is less agreement on whether they are the right data and
on how they should be interpreted.
In lakes, factors such as lake shape, lake basin shape, average and
maximum depths, flushing rate, and inflow quality profoundly affect
conditions for aquatic life. Reservoirs (lakes formed by damming rivers or
streams) are even more complicated because they sometimes behave as
natural lakes, while at other times or at other locations in the lake, they
act more like rivers.
Because of the complexities, EPA and the States have not yet devel-
oped clear guidelines for lakes, specifically, what variables to monitor for
particular objectives or how best to analyze and present the results. An
EPA workgroup composed of representatives from universities, States,
and Federal agencies is currently working on these issues. Recommen-
dations from this group will help guide future lake monitoring programs
and will help make different organizations' assessments of use support
more comparable. Other interagency groups are working on recommen-
dations for ground water and wetlands monitoring and assessment
protocols. Future versions of this report should summarize lake, ground
water, and wetlands information using these assessment guidelines.
60
-------
Figure 12. Contact Recreation Use Support: Percentage of Pollutants and Their Sources
pH (7.0%)
Siltation (5.0%)
Other (2.
Other (7.0%)
Municipal (10%)
Agriculture
(20%)
Bacterial Contaminants -
Pathogens
(86%)
Percent of Stream Miles
Impaired by Pollutants
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers/CSOs
(38%)
Land Disposal -
Septic Tanks, Package Plants, etc.
(25%)
Percent of Stream Miles
Impaired by Pollutant Sources
Why Monitor? Why Report?
Water quality monitoring is technically demanding and expensive.
Furthermore, ideas about what indicators should be monitored and how
to interpret the results continue to change. So why should we invest
public funds in monitoring, and who wants the information that is
produced?
The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality
(ITFM) defined monitoring as ". . . an integrated activity for evaluating
the physical, chemical, and biological character of water in relation to
human health, ecological conditions, and designated water uses." It
went on to say that monitoring ". . . is a means for understanding the
condition of water resources and providing a basis for effective policies
that promote the wise use and management of this vital resource"
(ITFM, 1992).
This link with resource management policies is why water quality
monitoring is important. Monitoring provides information that helps set
policies and programs to protect and improve the quality of our Nation's
streams, rivers, and lakes. It provides a basis for prioritizing needs so lim-
ited funds can be effectively allocated to improve conditions. Monitoring
also provides the basis both for determining whether those policies and
programs actually result in measurable environmental improvements,
and for changing policies and programs to increase their effectiveness.
Because funding required for water quality protection and improvement
is large, and because protection and improvement activities can have
profound implications to private citizens, water quality monitoring is a
sound investment to guide development and ensure effectiveness of
water quality policies and programs.
from consuming unsafe quantities
of contaminated fish caught in cer-
tain waters. States issue advisories if
monitoring data indicate that con-
centrations of toxic contaminants
in fish tissue samples exceed State
and Federal criteria. The criteria for
issuing advisories may vary from
State to State. Therefore, neighbor-
ing States may issue different advi-
sories for interstate waters that flow
between them, which can confuse
the public.
Figure 14 illustrates the distri-
bution of fish consumption advi-
sories across the basin. Each circled
number in Figure 14 represents a
specific advisory. More specific
information on each advisory is
Figure 13. Levels of Drinking Water
Supply Use Support - Rivers
Good
(Fully Supporting)
73%
Good
(Threatened)
5%
Fair
(Partially Supporting)
15%
Poor
(Not Supporting)
7%
Poor
(Not Attainable)
0%
Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)
reports.
-------
Figure 14. Fish Consumption Advisories - Ohio and Tennessee River Basin
Fish Consumption Advisory - One Species of Fish
(_) Fish Consumption Advisory - Multiple Species of Fish
Specific information for each numbered advisory
is provided in Appendix A.
Source: EPA National Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories, September 1994.
62
-------
provided in Appendix A. Currently,
78 advisories are in effect in the
Ohio and Tennessee River basin.
Twenty-seven advisories restrict the
consumption of all fish species;
19 restrict consumption of one fish
species. Carp and catfish are the
subject of more advisories than any
other fish species; 70 advisories
restrict consumption of carp and/or
catfish. The most common pollut-
ants responsible for fish consump-
tion advisories are PCBs and chlor-
dane. Metals (particularly mercury),
dioxin, and other pollutants
account for the remainder of the
advisories. Several advisories have
been issued for combinations of
two or more contaminants.
The Allegheny River
Subbasin
Background
The Allegheny River drains just
over 11,500 square miles of the
headwaters of the Ohio River basin
in the States of New York and
Pennsylvania (Figure 15). It con-
tains about 14,000 stream miles, of
which 10,162 miles are classified as
perennial. The Allegheny River orig-
inates in the mountains of north-
central Pennsylvania, then flows
northwest into New York, turns
southwest, and reenters Pennsyl-
vania. From its headwaters, the
Allegheny flows 325 miles to its
mouth in Pittsburgh, where it joins
with the Monongahela River to
form the Ohio River. Major tribu-
taries include the Kiskiminetas River,
Conemaugh River, Clarion River,
Conewango Creek, and French
Creek.
Mining and manufacturing are
the major economic activities with-
in the subbasin, followed by
agriculture and forestry. Coal, oil,
natural gas, sand, gravel, lime-
stone, sandstone, clay, and shale
are extracted from the subbasin.
Principal manufacturing products
Figure 15. Allegheny River Basin
include petroleum and coal, rubber
and plastic products, stone and
clay products, primary and fabricat-
ed metals, leather and apparel, and
electrical and other machinery. In
the southern portion of the sub-
basin, a chain of industrial river
valleys and mining towns wind
New York
Upper Allegheny
Pennsylvania
Oil Creek {'Allegheny
River
Central Allegheny
Lower Allegheny
63
-------
westward toward Pittsburgh, the
industrial heart of the subbasin.
Due to the decline of the coal
industry and the mechanization of
mines and steel mills, unemploy-
ment is a significant problem in
these areas.
State Assessment
Techniques
New York and Pennsylvania use
different terms and assessment
methods to rate use support status
in their rivers and streams. Pennsyl-
vania rates its waters as either fully
supporting, partially supporting, or
not supporting designated uses.
New York rates its waters as threat-
ened, stressed, impaired, or pre-
cluded.* To consolidate the data
from the two States, ORSANCO
and TVA assumed that "threat-
ened" waters in New York are
comparable to "fully supporting"
waters in Pennsylvania, "stressed"
and "impaired" waters are compa-
rable to "partially supporting"
waters, and "precluded" waters
are comparable to "not support-
ing" waters (Table 1).
New York and Pennsylvania
also use different criteria for inter-
preting water quality data.
Differences in State assessment cri-
teria can have dramatic effects on
interstate water quality assess-
ments. Based on different criteria,
each State may assign different use
support ratings to streams with
very similar water quality. As a
result, a stream that crosses the
State border may fully support uses
in Pennsylvania and partially sup-
port uses after it flows into New
York, even though water quality
data are the same on both sides of
the State border. EPA is working
with the States to address inconsis-
tent assessment criteria (see Special
State Concerns and Recommenda-
tions).
Aquatic Life Use
Over 6,600 miles (65%) of
perennial rivers and streams in the
Allegheny River subbasin were
assessed for the 1994 305(b)
reporting cycle. Of the streams that
were assessed, 72% (3,851 miles)
fully support aquatic life use, 12%
(660 miles) partially support
aquatic life use, and 15% (820
miles) do not support aquatic life
use.
ORSANCO and TVA also rated
aquatic life use support status in
Table 1. Equivalent Use Support Ratings in New York and Pennsylvania
New York Ratings
Threatened
Stressed
Impaired
Precluded
Pennsylvania Ratings
Fully Supporting
Partially Supporting
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
individual watersheds in the
Allegheny River subbasin (Figure
16) using the same criteria devel-
oped for ranking watersheds basin-
wide in Figure 4. One feature that
clearly stands out is the sharp
contrast between aquatic life use
support ratings in watersheds that
straddle the border between
Pennsylvania and New York. In
New York, most of the border
watersheds have an intermediate
aquatic life use support rating. In
contrast, the same watersheds have
the best rating on the Pennsylvania
side of the border. This State line
fault is most likely due to differ-
ences in State water quality assess-
ment criteria rather than real differ-
ences in water quality.
Within Pennsylvania, the
streams with the best aquatic life
use support ratings are located in
' According to New York's terminology, threatened streams fully support designated uses but could become impaired in the future due to
existing activities. Impaired stream segments partially support one or more uses, and stressed streams are intermittently impaired. Precluded
streams do not support one or more uses.
64
-------
the upper Allegheny River and
French Creek watersheds. The
Clarion River and middle Allegheny
River watersheds are slightly more
impaired, while the lower Alle-
gheny River watershed, including
the Conemaugh and Kiskiminetas
Rivers, is the most impaired water-
shed in the subbasin. It should be
noted that the depiction of the
New York portion of the French
Creek watershed as having the
lowest degree of use support is
primarily due to differences in the
States' use support ratings and the
problems that follow when trying
to compare separate sections of an
interstate watershed.
Figure 16. Allegheny River Subbasin - Aquatic Life Use
New York
Worst Water Quality
Streams
Lower Allegheny
Approximately 56% of the assessed
stream miles in the French Creek
watershed were identified as
"stressed" by New York, which, for
the purposes of this report, were
assumed to be equivalent to "par-
tially supporting" streams (the use
designation utilized by
Pennsylvania). However, if the use
support ratings were further
defined, the "stressed" stream
miles could be classified as having
only minor partial impairment,
which would most likely result in a
better use support rating for the
watershed.
Pollutants and Their
Sources
Both States identified specific
pollutants and sources of pollutants
impairing rivers and streams. Figure
17 presents the percentage of
stream miles impaired by particular
pollutants in four portions of the
Allegheny River subbasin, each
comprised of several watersheds.
Metals are the major pollutant of
65
-------
concern in the Pennsylvania
portion of the subbasin, and sus-
pended solids are the most com-
mon pollutant identified in the
New York portion of the subbasin.
New York reported that suspended
solids impact over three-fourths of
the rivers and streams impaired by
identified pollutants. Throughout
the entire Allegheny River subbasin,
metals are the most common pol-
lutant (impacting 598 stream
miles), followed closely by siltation
and suspended solids (impacting
547 miles). Other pollutants
impacted less than 5% of the
impaired rivers and streams.
By far, resource extraction is
the largest source of pollution in
the Allegheny River subbasin
(Figure 18). Throughout the sub-
basin, resource extraction impacts
over 900 miles of streams, nearly
all of which are located in
Pennsylvania. Of these, 775 miles
are impacted by acid mine drain-
age. Other significant sources of
pollution in the subbasin include
agriculture (the major pollutant
source in the New York portion of
Figure 17. Pollutants of Concern in Impaired Streams - Allegheny River Basin
Other Inorganics
(7.8%)
Suspended Solids
(9.1%)
Organic
Enrichment/,
DO
(6.1%)
Metals
(39%)
Metals
(53%)
Other
(38%)
Upper Allegheny Basin - PA
130 Miles Impaired
Suspended Solids
(16%)
PH
(12%)
Other
Inorganics
(11%)
Other
(8.5%)
Central Allegheny Basin - PA
440 Miles Impaired
Suspended Solids
(26%)
PH
(3.2%)
Natural
(3.0%)
Metals
(52%)
Metals
Organic (2.6%)
Enrichment/DO \
(7.9%)
Other
(1.7%)
Thermal
Modifications
(9.2%)
Other
(15%)
Suspended
Solids
(78.5%)
Lower Allegheny Basin - PA
583 Miles Impaired
Allegheny River Basin - NY
339 Miles Impaired
the subbasin, which impacts 202
miles) and hydrologic/habitat mod-
ifications (impacting 157 miles).
Additional Stream Uses
ORSANCO and TVA could not
rate the status of contact recreation
use and drinking water use in the
Allegheny River subbasin because
Pennsylvania did not report the sta-
tus of these individual uses in its
Section 305(b) report. New York
assessed contact recreation and
drinking water use support state-
wide, but in the Allegheny River
subbasin, New York's assessed
waters included only 42 miles of
Conewango Creek (fully supporting
contact recreation use) and 7.5
miles of the Allegheny River (par-
tially supporting drinking water
supply use).
Fish Consumption
Advisories
The only fish consumption
advisory in the Allegheny River sub-
basin advises the public to avoid
consumption of carp and channel
catfish in the lower 14.5 miles of
the Allegheny River (in Pennsyl-
vania) due to contamination by
PCBs and chlordane.
Lake Water Quality
Assessments
The Allegheny River subbasin
contains 665 lakes and reservoirs
covering a total surface area of
53,212 acres. Only five of these
lakes are larger than 1,000 acres.
Six lakes in the subbasin do not
fully support designated uses.
Nutrients impact five lakes in New
66
-------
York (totaling 631 acres), and
Pennsylvania classified Tamarack
Lake (556 acres) as eutrophic. Eight
other lakes, covering nearly 1 7,000
acres, are classified as threatened
(by Pennsylvania) or stressed (by
New York), including Chautauqua
Lake (13,400 acres) and Beaver Run
Reservoir (1,125 acres).
New York and Pennsylvania
used Carlson's Trophic State Index
to rate the trophic status of 24
lakes in the Allegheny River sub-
basin (Table 2). Carlson's Trophic
State Index is based on phospho-
rus, chlorophyll, and water clarity
(i.e., secchi disk) data. Carlson's
Trophic State Index classifies lakes
Figure 18. Sources of Pollution in Impaired Streams - Allegheny River Subbasin
Unknown
(10.5%)
Resource
Extraction
(59.2%)
Agriculture
(10.4%)
Agriculture
(9.7%)
Natural
(8.0%)
Other
(6.1%)
Industrial
(6.5%)
Upper Allegheny Subbasin - PA
130 Miles Impaired
Natural
(6.3%)
Other -
(3.1%)
Industrial
(1.7%)
- Unknown
(1.3%)
Resource
Extraction
(77.2%)
Central Allegheny Subbasin - PA
440 Miles Impaired
Agriculture
(2.2%)
Urban Runoff-,
(2.2%)
Land Disposal
(2.1%)
Other -
(9.1%)
- Natural
(3.0%)
Resource
Extraction
(81.3%)
Silviculture
(10.0%)
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modifications
(41.3%)
Agriculture
(37.4%)
Construction
(5.2%)
Other
(2.9%)
Resource
Extraction
(3.3%)
Lower Allegheny Subbasin - PA
583 Miles Impaired
Allegheny River Subbasin - NY
349 Miles Impaired
as oligotrophic (very clear and
nutrient poor), mesotrophic
(moderate clarity and nutrient
content), or eutrophic (relatively
murky and nutrient rich). Many
eutrophic lakes are naturally nutri-
ent rich and support healthy fish
communities, but eutrophic condi-
tions may indicate that a lake is
receiving an overdose of nutrients
from unnatural sources.
Pennsylvania classified eight
lakes as eutrophic and eight lakes
as mesotrophic, including Kinzua
Lake (12,100 acres). New York
rated three lakes as mesotrophic
and five lakes as eutrophic, includ-
ing Chautauqua Lake. None of the
lakes in the subbasin were classified
as oligotrophic.
As of 1995, EPA had sponsored
studies on two lakes in the
Allegheny River subbasin,
Chautauqua Lake in New York and
Conneaut Lake in Pennsylvania. An
ongoing study on Chautauqua
Lake, the largest lake in the sub-
basin, is identifying pollutant
sources and evaluating lake protec-
tion options. Weed growth and
algal blooms in Chautauqua Lake
are the greatest concerns, while
construction impacts have also
been high due to the intensive
development in the area. Conneaut
Lake once was a popular tourist
attraction but now has nuisance
levels of aquatic weeds and severe
oxygen depletion. A study in
progress for Conneaut Lake is
determining pollutant budgets for
phosphorus, nitrogen, and sus-
pended solids to help in drafting a
management plan.
67
-------
Special State
Concerns and
Recommendations
Ten States reported special
water quality concerns and/or rec-
ommendations for improving water
pollution control programs in their
Section 305(b) reports. The follow-
ing five issues were listed by three
or more States; some of the issues
are especially relevant to the Ohio
and Tennessee River basin, but all
five issues are applicable to water
quality assessments at the State,
watershed, basin, or national level.
1. The need for coordinated
efforts to address nonpoint
sources of pollution.
States noted the complexities
of controlling pollution that origi-
nates from numerous diverse
sources, each of which contributes
a small amount of pollution.
Coordination among different
agencies and the different layers
within government agencies-
Federal, State, local, and regional
is critical to avoid duplication of
efforts and conflict among pro-
grams. Agencies need to consider
the effects of waste generation and
disposal on the total environment
in their regulatory decisions.
Table 2. Trophic Status of Allegheny River Subbasin Lakes
Mesotrophic
Lake
Conneaut Lake (PA)
Cuba Lake (NY)
Hemlock Lake (PA)
Justus Lake (PA)
Keystone Lake
(Westmoreland County, PA)
Keystone Lake
(Armstrong County, PA)
Kinzua Lake (PA portion)
Quaker Lake (NY)
Quemahoning Reservoir (PA)
Red House Lake (NY)
Saltlick Reservoir (PA)
Acres
929
184
NR
NR
880
78
12,100
92
900
44
NR
Eutrophic
Lake
Bear Lake (NY)
Beaver Run Reservoir (PA)
Canadohta Lake (PA)
Cassadaga Lake, Lower (NY)
Cassadaga Lake, Upper (NY)
Chautauqua Lake, North (NY)
Edinboro Lake (PA)
Findley Lake (NY)
Hinckston Reservoir (PA)
Acres
44
1,125
170
34
41
5,434
240
124
NR
Loyalhanna Reservoir (PA) 210
North Park Lake (PA)
75
Tamarack Lake (PA) 556
Yellow Creek Lake (PA)
740
2. A coordinated framework
for ground water protection.
A number of Federal and State
agencies have authority and
responsibility for ground water pro-
tection. To coordinate their efforts,
several States are developing
ground water management strate-
gies that set forth overall objectives
and principles and define each
agency's role.
3. Pollution from resource
extraction.
In the 1994 National Water
Quality Inventory Report to
Congress, the 14 Ohio and Tennes-
see River basin States accounted for
almost half of the river miles
reported as impaired due to
resource extraction. Most of the
impairment was attributed to mine
drainage, while a much smaller
portion was related to oil and gas
drilling. The States note that inade-
quate funding to address pollution
from abandoned mines is a special
concern.
4. Human health criteria.
Several States raised concerns
about criteria to protect human
health from contamination in water
and fish. These States identified a
need to establish criteria for addi-
tional harmful substances and addi-
tional guidance on the use of crite-
ria. The States are particularly con-
cerned that changing to risk-level-
based criteria will result in many
new locations being classified as
impaired for fish consumption or
water supply use.
NR = Not reported.
68
-------
5. Watershed planning and
management.
Several States reported on their
own initiatives toward watershed-
based pollution abatement
programs. The States expressed
concern that a transition to a
watershed approach might disrupt
or delay current programs. The
States consistently requested that
EPA provide incentives for States to
adopt watershed-based
approaches.
Recommendations
for Reporting from
a Basinwide Assess-
ment Perspective
Inconsistencies in the States'
305(b) information presented
obstacles to developing this water
quality assessment of a large, inter-
state basin. The inconsistencies
included the geographic bases of
the assessments, the designated
uses assessed, the identification of
causes and sources of use impair-
ment, and the assessment method-
ologies themselves. State-to-State
differences in assessment methods,
interpretation, and reporting must
be reduced if information in future
Section 305(b) reports is to be
aggregated into large regional or
interstate basin assessments of
water quality conditions. The fol-
lowing section describes several
recommendations to address these
problems.
Assessment by
Watershed
Some States present their
assessments on a statewide basis,
some provide summaries by large
watersheds, and others present
information for individual streams.
To facilitate reporting on an inter-
state basis, States need to report
their information at a consistent
level of watershed units. Water-
sheds identified by USGS 8-digit
HUCs should be the minimum
reporting units. States may choose
to aggregate their information by
smaller watershed units (i.e., 11 -
digit HUC codes), or they may, in
some instances, combine adjacent
units where necessary for their own
reporting purposes.
Assessment of All
Designated Uses
Many States assess only aquatic
life use support; others report a sin-
gle, overall use support assessment
that is usually based on aquatic life
use support status. Since the goal
of the Clean Water Act is for all
waters to support aquatic life and
recreation, each State should at
least address both of these uses.
The lack of information on water
supply use support probably results
from a historic separation of pro-
grams that address water supply
issues and water pollution control.
The absence of such information
in a report on water quality
conditions, however, is difficult to
justify. At a minimum, States
should assess waters that serve as
sources for public supplies. To
improve reporting of fish consump-
tion use support status, EPA should
request that the States identify the
watershed in which each advisory
occurs. EPA already requests that
each State submit a list of fish con-
sumption advisories, but EPA does
not currently request watershed
identification with this information.
Causes and Sources of Use
Impairment
Most States report causes and
sources of use impairment, but
many do so only on an overall
basis; most do not identify the indi-
vidual use impaired by a cause or
source. Some States report the
total waters impaired by causes
and sources statewide and do not
identify the size of waters impaired
by causes and sources in individual
watersheds. Most States cannot
identify the causes and sources
responsible for degrading all of
their impaired waters. These incon-
sistencies seriously compromise any
effort to report such information
on a multistate basis. EPA's 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup should
address these issues and develop
appropriate recommendations.
69
-------
Consistent Assessment
Methodologies
Assessments of lakes, ground
water, and wetlands were extreme-
ly inconsistent among the 14 States
that share the Ohio and Tennessee
River basin. EPA's guidelines for
preparing the Section 305(b)
reports are less precise for lakes,
wetlands, and ground water than
for rivers and streams; as a result,
States have developed their own
approaches for assessing these
waters. If interstate basins are to be
a basis for reporting in future
national water quality summaries, it
will be necessary to fine-tune
reporting requirements for lakes,
wetlands, and ground water.
Even though the assessment
methods for rivers and streams are
clearly specified in the 305(b)
guidelines, this report shows that
there are differences in how the
States interpret and apply the
guidelines. This was noted in the
section on the Allegheny River sub-
basin where waters of similar quali-
ty conditions received very different
assessments by the States of New
York and Pennsylvania. It also was
apparent in several other instances
where abrupt changes in the level
of use support appeared to occur
at State lines.
States arrive at different use
support ratings because the States
monitor different water quality indi-
cators and use different use support
criteria. For example, some States
base their aquatic life use support
assessments primarily on biological
survey results while others use only
physical and chemical data. Studies
have shown that biological moni-
toring data often detect more
water quality impairments than
chemical and physical monitoring
data alone. In addition, States can
arrive at different use support
ratings if some States monitor dis-
solved metals concentrations while
others continue to measure total
recoverable metal concentrations.
Even if neighboring States monitor
comparable indicators and use sim-
ilar criteria, they may be evaluating
information collected in different
years.
Contact recreation use is
assessed primarily on the basis of
bacteria levels, but the States base
their recreation use support ratings
on a variety of indicator bacteria.
Some States have adopted criteria
for E. co// and/or Enterococcus
while others continue to monitor
fecal coliforms. Support of public
water supply use is subject to
greater inconsistencies. For water
supply utilities, the parameters
regulated under the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act are most
important. Many of those parame-
ters are not specifically regulated
under the Clean Water Act and are
not routinely monitored by State
water quality agencies.
EPA's 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup has addressed several
of these issues in the 305(b) guide-
lines for the 1996 report cycle.
Initiating Watershed
Assessments
All of the difficulties and incon-
sistencies described above can be
overcome if they are addressed
early in the assessment process.
Where river basin organizations
exist, they are ideally suited to take
a lead role in coordinating inter-
state watershed assessments. The
process used by ORSANCO to
prepare a Section 305(b) report for
the Ohio River mainstem on behalf
of six States might serve as an
example. Preparation for the Ohio
River assessment begins 7 months
prior to the April due date for the
report. A proposed outline of the
assessment, including descriptions
of the methodologies to be used, is
distributed to the States and is dis-
cussed in one or more teleconfer-
ences. A preliminary draft is distrib-
uted approximately 3 months
before the due date and, if com-
ments warrant, is discussed in
another teleconference.
For watersheds where an inter-
state river basin agency does not
exist, it may be necessary for the
EPA Region to take the lead role in
coordinating the States' assess-
ments. Regardless of who assumes
the lead role, coordination early in
the process will result in more con-
sistent and comprehensive assess-
ments.
70
-------
Appendix A
Ohio and Tennessee River Basin Fish Consumption Advisories
PENNSYLVANIA
Advisory
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Waterbody
Ohio River
Allegheny River
Cheat River
Monongahela River
Monongahela River
Monongahela River
Chartiers Creek
L. Chartiers Creek
Shenango River
Beaver River
N. Fork Dunkard Fork
of Wheeling Creek
Location
RM 40.0 to 0.0
RM14.5 toRMO.O
Fayette County
Fayette/Washington
Counties
RM 1 1 .2 to RM 0.0
Fayette/Creene Counties
Canonsburg to mouth
Canonsburg L. to mouth
Mercer County
Beaver County
All
Miles/Acres
40.0
14.5
11.2
HUCs
5030101,5030106
5020004
5020005
5020005
5020005
5030101
5030101
5030102
5030104
5030106
Fish Species
Carp; Channel Catfish
Carp; Channel Catfish
White Bass
Carp; Channel Catfish
Carp; Channel Catfish
White Bass
Carp; Largemouth Bass
Carp; Largemouth Bass
Carp
Carp; Channel Catfish
Smallmouth Bass
Contaminants
PCB^s; Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs
Type
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
WEST VIRGINIA
Advisory
No.
12
13
14
15
Waterbody
Ohio River
Kanawha River
Pocatalico River
Flat Fork Creek
Armour Creek
Location
Entire WV length
Coal River to Point Pleasant
RM 2.0 to RM 0.0
Harmony
RM 2.0 to RM 0.0
Miles/Acres
277.0
46.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
HUCs
5030101,5030106
5030201,5030202
5030901
5050008
5050008
5050008
5050008
Fish Species
Carp; Channel Catfish
Bottom Feeders
Bottom Feeders
Carp; Channel Catfish;
Suckers
Bottom Feeders
Contaminants
PCBs; Chlordane
Dioxin
Dioxin
PCBs
Dioxin
OHIO
Advisory
No.
17
18
19
Waterbody
Ohio River
Ohio River
Middle Fork
L. Beaver Cr.
Location
PA border to Greenup Dam
Cincinnati/Mill Creek
confluence
RM 39.1 to RM 9.1
Miles/Acres
307
0.5
30.0
HUCs
5030101,5030106
5030201,5030202
5090101
5090203
5030101
Fish Species
Carp; Catfish
Largemouth/
Smallmouth/Spotted
Bass; Sauger
White Bass
Hybrid Striped Bass;
Flathead Catfish
Catfish
All Species
Contaminants
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Mirex; Chlordane;
Photomirex
Type
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
Type
No Consumption
One Meal/Week
One Meal/Month
Six Meals/Year
One Meal/Month
No Consumption
-------
OHIO (continued)
Advisory
No.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Waterbody
Mahoning River
Tuscarawas River
Portage (Ohio Canal)
Lake Nesmith
Summit Lake
Scioto River
Scippo Creek
Great Miami River
Ford Hydraulic Canal
Little Scioto River
Mill Creek
Location
NW Bridge Street
to PA border
RM 1 12.8 to RM 55.0
All Waters
All Waters
All Waters
Greenland Dam
to Ohio River
Kingston Pike
to Scioto R.
Lowhead Dam to RM 0.0
Power Plant to G. Miami R.
RM 6.6 to RM 2.7
1-275 to Ohio River
Miles/Acres
29.2
57.8
134.0
5.3
80.7
2.0
3.9
HUCs
5030103
5040001
5040001
5040001
5040001
5060001,5060002
5060002
5080002
5080002
5090103
5090203
Fish Species
All Species
Largemouth/Rock Bass
Channel Catfish;
Smallmouth Bass;
Yellow Bullhead
Carp
Carp; Catfish
Carp; Catfish
Carp; Catfish
Carp; Catfish
All Species
Carp; Catfish; Suckers
All Species
All Species
All Species
Contaminants
PAHs; PCBs;
Phthalate esters;
Mirex
PCBs;
Hexachlorobenzene
PCBs;
Hexachlorobenzene
PCBs;
Hexachlorobenzene
PCBs
PCBs; Tetrachloro-
benzene
PCBs
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs;
Organometallics
PAHs; Metals
PCBs
Type
No Consumption
One Meal/Week
One Meal/Month
Six Meals/Year
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
RGP
KENTUCKY
Advisory
No.
31
32
33
34
35
36
Waterbody
Ohio River
Green River Lake
W. Fork Drakes Creek
Town Branch/
Mud River
Little Bayou Creek
West Kentucky Wildlife
Management Area
Location
Entire Kentucky border
Taylor, Adair Counties
Simpson, Warren Co.
Logan, Butler,
Muhlenberg Co.
McCracken Co.
McCracken Co.
Miles/Acres
663.9
46.9
71.5
6.5
5 ponds
HUCs
5090103,5090201
5090203,5140101
5140104,5140201
5140202-3,5140206
5110001
5110002
5110003
5140206
5140206
Fish Species
Carp; Channel Catfish;
Paddlefish; White Bass
Carp; Channel Catfish
All Species
All Species
All Species
Largemouth Bass
Contaminants
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Mercury
Type
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
Key: RGP Restricted consumption - general population
NCSP No consumption - special population (e.g., nursing mothers and children)
RSP Restricted consumption - special population (e.g., nursing mothers and children)
72
-------
INDIANA
Advisory
No.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Waterbody
Ohio River
Great Miami River
Little Mississinewa R.
Mississinewa River
Wildcat Creek
Little Sugar Creek
Sugar Creek
Dugger Lake
White River
Buck Creek
West Fork White River
Stoney Creek
Sand Creek
Clear Creek
Salt Creek
Salt Creek
Pleasant Run Creek
Elliot Ditch/
Wea Creek
East Fork White River
East Fork White River
Pigeon Creek
Kokomo Creek
Location
Entire Indiana border
Dearborn County
Randolph County
One mile above
L Mississinewa to
downstream of
Ridgeville, IN
Waterworks Dam
to Wabash River
Montgomery County
Montgomery County;
1-74 to SR 32 bridge
Sullivan County
Delaware County
Delaware County
Noblesville, IN to Hamilton/
Marion County line
Downstream of Wilson
Ditch in Noblesville, IN
Below Creensburg, IN
Monroe County
Monroe Reservoir to
Peerless, IN
Peerless, IN to
E. Fork White R.
Lawrence County
Tippecanoe County
Bedford, IN to
Williams Dam
Below Williams Dam
Vanderburgh County
Howard County
Miles/Acres
356.0
1.6
7.6
11.0
2.7
15.3
8.7
6.7
18.6
10.0
0.8
15
14.3
11.1
14.9
4.6
10.8
11.9
79.0
31.9
HUCs
5090203, 5140101,
5140104, 5140201
5140202
5080002
5120103
5120103
5120107
5120110
5120110
5120111
5120201
5120201
5120201
5120201
5120206
5120208
5120208
5120208
5120208
5120208
5120208
5120208
5140202
5120107
Fish Species
Carp; Channel
Catfish < 19"
Channel Catfish > 1 9"
Channel Catfish
All Species
Carp; Catfish
All Species
All Species
All Species
Carp; Catfish
Carp
Carp
All Species
All Species
All Species
All Species
Carp; Catfish; Drum
All Species
All Species
All Species
All Species
Carp; Channel Catfish
Carp; Channel Catfish
All Species
ILLINOIS
Advisory
No.
59
Waterbody
Lake Vermillion
Location
Vermillion County
Miles/Acres
608.0 acres
HUCs
5120109
Fish Species
Channel Catfish
Contaminants
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Chlordane
PCBs
PCBs, Chlordane
Chlordane
Chlordane
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Contaminants
Chlordane
Type
NCSP, RGP
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
NCSP; RGP
NCSP; RGP
No Consumption
NCSP; RGP
No Consumption
..
NCSP; RGP
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
NCSP; RGP
No Consumption
Type
No Consumption
NEW YORK No fish consumption advisories for the Allegheny River basin.
~:
-------
VIRGINIA
Advisory
No.
60
Waterbody
North Fork Holston
River
Location
Mites/Acres
80.0
HUCs
6010101
Fish Species
All Species
Contaminants
Mercury
Type
No Consumption
MARYLAND No fish consumption advisories for the Youghiogheny River basin.
TENNESSEE
Advisory
No.
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Waterbody
North Fork Holston
River
Boone Reservoir
Pigeon River
East Fork Poplar
Creek
Fort Loudon Reservoir
Fort Loudon Reservoir
Little River Embayment
Watts Bar Reservoir
Watts Bar Reservoir
Watts Bar Reservoir
Tellico Lake
Melton Hill Reservoir
Chattanooga Creek
Nickajack Reservoir
Woods Reservoir
Location
TN/VA Line to Holston
River
All waters
NC state line to Douglas
Reservoir
Anderson/Roane Counties
Loudon/Knox/Blount
Counties
Embayment of
Ft. Loudon Res.
Tennessee River portion
Tennessee River portion
Roane, Meigs, Rhea,
Loudon counties
Clinch River arm
All Waters
All Waters
Mouth to CA state line
All Waters
All Waters
Miles/Acres
6.2
4400
20.4
15.0
14600
16500
5690
19730
3908
HUCs
6010101
6010102
6010106
6010201
6010201
6010201
6010201
6010201
6010201
6010202
6010207
6020001
6020001
6030003
Fish Species
All Species
Carp; Catfish
All Species
All Species
Catfish and Largemouth
Bass over 2 pounds
Largemouth Bass
Striped Bass
Smallmouth Buffalo;
Sauger
Largemouth Bass;
White Bass;
Carp
Catfish; Hybrid Bass
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
All Species
Catfish
Catfish
Contaminants
Mercury
PCBs; Chlordane
Dioxin
Mercury; Metals;
Organics
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs; Chlordane
PCBs
PCBs
Type
No Consumption
Precautionary*
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
Precautionary*
Precautionary*
No Consumption
Precautionary*
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
Precautionary*
No Consumption
' Precautionary Advisory - Children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers should not consume the fish species named. All other persons should limit consumption of the
named species to 1.2 pounds per month.
NORTH CAROLINA
Advisory
No.
75
Waterbody
Pigeon River
Location
Haywood County
Miles/Acres
HUCs
6010106
Fish Species
Carp; Catfish
Contaminants
Dioxin
Type
No Consumption
G EORGIA No fish consumption advisories for the Tennessee River basin.
74
-------
ALABAMA
Advisory
No.
76
77
78
Waterbody
Tennessee River
Tennessee River
Indian Creek and
Huntsville Spring Br.
Location
RM 320.9 to RM 309.6
One mile around
cnfl with Indian Creek
Miles/Acres
11.9
2
13
HUCs
6030002
6030002
6030002
Fish Species
Channel Catfish
Largemouth and
Smallmouth Buffalo;
Channel Catfish
Bigmouth and Small-
mouth Buffalo; Channel,
Bullhead, and Brown
Catfish; White Bass
Contaminants
DDT
DDT
DDT
Type
No Consumption
No Consumption
No Consumption
MISSISSIPPI No fish consumption advisories for the Tennessee River basin.
-------
76
-------
Section
State and Territorial, Tribal, and
Interstate Commission Summaries
-------
Section III photo by Nancy Mueller, Planning
Department, Cortland County, New York
-------
State and Territorial Summaries
This section provides individual
summaries of the water quality
survey data reported by the States
and Territories in their 1994 Section
305(b) reports. The summaries
provide a general overview of water
quality conditions and the most
frequently identified water quality
problems in each State and Terri-
tory. However, the use support data
contained in these summaries are
not comparable because the States
and Territories do not use compara-
ble criteria and monitoring strate-
gies to measure their water quality.
States and Territories with strict
criteria for defining healthy waters
are more likely to report that a high
percentage of their waters are in
poor condition. Similarly, States
with progressive monitoring pro-
grams are more likely to identify
water quality problems and to
report that a high percentage of
their waters do not fully support
designated uses. As a result, one
cannot assume that water quality is
worse in those States and Territories
that report a high percentage of
impacted waters in the following
summaries.
-------
Alabama
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Alabama 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Michael j. Rief
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
Water Quality Branch
P.O. Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
(334)271-7829
Surface Water Quality
Since enactment of the Clean
Water Act of 1972, water quality
has substantially improved near
industrial and municipal facilities.
However, pollution still prevents
about 29% of the surveyed stream
miles, 15% of the surveyed lake
acres, and 20% of the surveyed
estuaries from fully supporting
aquatic life use. Oxygen-depleting
wastes and nutrients are the most
common pollutants impacting rivers
and coastal waters. The leading
sources of river pollution include
agriculture, municipal wastewater
treatment plants, and resource
extraction. In coastal waters, the
leading sources of pollution are
urban runoff and storm sewers,
municipal sewage treatment plants,
and combined sewer overflows.
Toxic priority organic chemicals
impact the most lake acres, usually
in the form of a fish consumption
advisory. These pollutants may
accumulate in fish tissue at a con-
centration that greatly exceeds the
concentration in the surrounding
water. Unknown sources and indus-
trial dischargers are responsible for
the greatest acreage of impaired
lake waters.
Special State concerns include
impacts from the poultry broiler
industry, forestry activities, animal
waste runoff, and hydroelectric
generating facilities.
Ground Water Quality
The Geological Survey of
Alabama monitoring well network
indicates relatively good ground
water quality. However, the number
of ground water contamination
incidents has increased significantly
in the past few years due to better
reporting under the Underground
Storage Tank Program and
increased public awareness of
ground water issues. Alabama has
established pesticide monitoring
and a Wellhead Protection Program
to identify nonpoint sources of
ground water contamination and
further protect public water
supplies.
-
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1992, the Alabama
Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) initiated the
Flint Creek watershed project to
simultaneously manage the many
sources degrading Flint Creek,
including intensive livestock and
poultry operations, crop produc-
tion, municipal dischargers, house-
hold septic systems, widespread lit-
tering, and urban runoff. Numerous
Federal, State, and local agencies
play a role in the watershed project,
which includes data collection
activities, public education and out-
reach, and development of a total
maximum daily load (TMDL) model
for the watershed. The model
output will show the mix of point
and nonpoint loadings that can be
permitted without violating
instream water quality standards.
ADEM expects to increase use of
the watershed protection approach.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Alabama's surface water monitoring
program includes a fixed station
ambient network, reservoir sam-
pling, fish tissue sampling, intensive
wasteload allocation surveys, water
quality demonstration surveys, and
compliance monitoring of point
source discharges. As a first step in
establishing biological criteria,
ADEM is assessing the habitats and
corresponding resident biota at
several candidate reference streams.
aA subset of Alabama's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Alabama
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 77,274)b
Total Miles 70
Surveyed
Lakes (Total Acres = 490,472)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 610)
Total Square °°
Miles Surveyed
-------
Alaska
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For information about water quality
in Alaska, contact:
Eric Decker
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Street - Suite 105
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
(907) 465-5328
The State of Alaska did not
submit a 305(b) report to EPA in
1994.
82
-------
Overall Use Support in Alaska (1992)
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 365,ooo)
:
19
Lakes (Total Acres = 12,787,200)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles ^Unknown)
"Overall use support data from 1992 are presented because Alaska did not submit a 305(b)
report to EPA in 1994.
83
-------
Arizona
Fully Supporting
- Threatened
- Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Arizona 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Diana Marsh
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 207-4545
Surface Water Quality
Good water quality fully sup-
ports swimming uses in 59% of
Arizona's surveyed river miles and
94% of their surveyed lake acres.
However, Arizona reported that
51% of their surveyed stream miles
and 28% of their surveyed lake
acres do not fully support aquatic
life uses. Arizona reported that
metals, turbidity, salinity, and sus-
pended solids were the stressors
most frequently identified in
streams. The leading stressors in
lakes were salinity, metals, inorgan-
ics, and low dissolved oxygen.
Natural sources, agriculture, and
hydrologic modification (stream
bank destabilization, channelization,
dam construction, flow regulation,
and removal of shoreline vegeta-
tion) were the most common
sources of stressors in both streams
and lakes, followed by resource
extraction (mining) in streams and
urban runoff in lakes. Nonpoint
sources played a role in degrading
96% of the impaired river miles and
93% of the impaired lake acres.
Ground Water Quality
Arizona is gradually establishing
a network of water quality index
wells in principal aquifers to mea-
sure ground water quality condi-
tions and document future trends.
Existing data indicate that ground
water generally supports drinking
water uses, but nitrates, petroleum
products, volatile organic chemi-
cals, heavy metals, pesticides,
radioactive elements, and bacteria
cause localized contamination in
Arizona. Both natural sources and
human sources (including agricul-
ture, leaking underground storage
tanks, and septic tanks) generate
these contaminants.
The State has established 50
ground water basin boundaries,
four of which are designated Active
Management Areas because they
encompass the largest population
centers with the greatest ground
water demands. A Comprehensive
State Croundwater Protection
Program has been initiated as a
demonstration project in Tucson.
Under this program, the State will
work with all interested parties to
set priorities for ground water
management and mitigate existing
water quality problems.
84
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Arizona's nonpoint source con-
trol program integrates regulatory
controls with nonregulatory educa-
tion and demonstration projects.
Regulatory programs include the
Aquifer Protection Permit Program,
the Pesticide Contamination
Program, and best management
requirements for controlling nitro-
gen at concentrated animal feeding
operations. The State is also devel-
oping best management practices
for timber activities, grazing activi-
ties, urban runoff, and sand and
gravel operations. Arizona's point
source control program encom-
passes planning, facility construc-
tion loans, permits, pretreatment,
inspections, permit compliance,
and enforcement.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Recently, Federal and State agencies
increased efforts to coordinate
monitoring, provide more consis-
tent monitoring protocols, and pro-
vide mechanisms to share data,
spurred by tightened budgets.
Monitoring programs in Arizona
include a fixed station network,
complaint investigations and special
studies, priority pollutant monitor-
ing, and monitoring to support
biocriteria development. ADEQ will
develop narrative biological criteria
with biological, physical, and chem-
ical data collected at over TOO
biological reference sites in 1992,
1993, and 1994.
Individual Use Support in Arizona
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = I04,20o)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 302,000)
J A subset of Arizona's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
85
-------
Arkansas
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Arkansas 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Bill Keith
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 891 3
Little Rock, AR 72219-891 3
(501)562-7444
Surface Water Quality
The Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology
(DPCE) reported that 56% of their
surveyed rivers and streams and
100% of their surveyed lake acres
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses. Good
water quality also fully supports
swimming use in 81% of the sur-
veyed river miles and 100% of the
surveyed lake acres. Siltation and
turbidity are the most frequently
identified pollutants impairing
Arkansas' rivers and streams, fol-
lowed by bacteria and nutrients.
Agriculture is the leading source of
pollution in the State's rivers and
streams and has been identified as
a source of pollution in four lakes.
Municipal wastewater treatment
plants, mining, and forestry also
impact rivers and streams. Arkansas
has limited data on the extent of
pollution in lakes.
Special State concerns include
the protection of natural wetlands
by mechanisms other than dis-
charge permits and the develop-
ment of more effective methods to
identify nonpoint source impacts.
Arkansas is also concerned about
impacts from the expansion of con-
fined animal production operations
and major sources of turbidity and
silt including road construction,
road maintenance, riparian land
clearing, streambed gravel removal,
and urban construction.
Ground Water Quality
Nitrate contamination was
detected in some domestic wells
sampled in portions of the State
undergoing rapid expansion of
poultry and livestock operations,
including northwest Arkansas, the
Arkansas River Valley, and southwest
Arkansas. In northwest Arkansas,
nitrate contamination was docu-
mented in 5% to 7% of the domes-
tic wells sampled. Wells sampled in
pristine areas of northwest Arkansas
were not contaminated.
86
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Arkansas has focused nonpoint
source management efforts on
controlling waste from confined
animal production operations.
Arkansas utilizes education, techni-
cal assistance, financial assistance,
and voluntary and regulatory activi-
ties to control nonpoint source
pollution from poultry, swine, and
dairy operations. Liquid waste
systems are regulated by permit
and dry waste systems are con-
trolled by voluntary implementation
of BMPs in targeted watersheds.
Water quality is monitored during
watershed projects to evaluate the
effectiveness of the BMPs.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Arkansas classifies its water
resources by ecoregion with similar
physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics. There are seven
ecoregions including the Delta,
Gulf Coastal, Ouchita Mountain,
Arkansas River Valley, Boston
Mountain, and Ozark Mountain
Regions. By classifying water
resources in this manner, Arkansas
can identify the most common land
uses within each region and address
the issues that threaten the water
quality.
The State has increased surface
water and ground water monitoring
to determine the fate of animal
waste applied to pastures. Arkansas
also conducted 10 water quality
surveys in watersheds throughout
the State to determine point and
nonpoint sources of pollution
impacting water quality.
Individual Use Support in Arkansas
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 87,6i?)b
56
32
12
Lakes (Total Acres = 514,245)
a A subset of Arkansas' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
87
-------
California
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the California 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Nancy Richard
California State Water Resources
Control Board, M&A
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 94421 3
Sacramento, CA 94244-21 30
(916)657-0642
Surface Water Quality
Siltation, pesticides, nutrients,
and bacteria impair the most river
miles in California. The leading
sources of degradation in Cali-
fornia's rivers and streams are agri-
culture, unspecified nonpoint
sources, forestry activities, urban
runoff and storm sewers, and
resource extraction. In lakes, silta-
tion, metals, and nutrients are the
most common pollutants. Construc-
tion and land development pose
the greatest threat to lake water
quality, followed by urban runoff
and storm sewers, forestry, and land
disposal of wastes.
Metals, pesticides, trace ele-
ments, and unknown toxic contam-
inants are the most frequently
identified pollutants in estuaries,
harbors, and bays. Urban runoff
and storm sewers are the leading
source of pollution in California's
coastal waters, followed by munici-
pal sewage treatment plants, agri-
culture, hydrologic and habitat
modifications, resource extraction,
and industrial dischargers. Oceans
and open bays are degraded by
urban runoff and storm sewers,
agriculture, and atmospheric
deposition.
Ground Water Quality
California assigns beneficial uses
to its ground water. Salinity, total
dissolved solids, and chlorides are
the most frequently identified
pollutants impairing use of ground
water in California. The State also
reports that trace inorganic ele-
ments, flow alterations, and nitrates
degrade over 1,000 square miles of
ground water aquifers.
88
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
No information was provided in
the 1994 305(b) report.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
No information was provided in
the 1994 305(b) report.
Individual Use Support in California
aA subset of California's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 211,513)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 1,672,684)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 731.1)
89
-------
Colorado
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Colorado 1994
305(b) report, contact:
John Farrow
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-3575
Surface Water Quality
Colorado reports that 89%
of its surveyed river miles and 91%
of its surveyed lake acres have good
water quality that fully supports
designated uses. Metals are the
most frequently identified pollutant
in rivers and lakes. High nutrient
concentrations also degrade many
lake acres. Agriculture and mining
are the leading sources of pollution
in rivers. Agriculture, construction,
urban runoff, and municipal sewage
treatment plants are the leading
sources of pollution in lakes.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality in
Colorado ranges from excellent in
mountain areas where snow fall is
heavy, to poor in alluvial aquifers of
major rivers. Naturally occurring
soluble minerals along with human
activities are responsible for signifi-
cant degradation of some aquifers.
Nitrates and salts from agricultural
activities have contaminated many
of Colorado's shallow aquifers. In
mining areas, acidic water and
metals contaminate aquifers.
Colorado protects ground water
quality with statewide numeric
criteria for organic chemicals, a
narrative standard to maintain
ambient conditions or Maximum
Contaminant Levels of inorganic
chemicals and metals, and specific
use classifications and standards for
ground water areas. Colorado also
regulates discharges to ground
water from wastewater treatment
impoundments and land applica-
tion systems with a permit system.
90
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Colorado's nonpoint source
program supports a wide range of
projects. Ten projects were funded
to identify appropriate treatment
options for waters polluted by
abandoned mines. Several projects
identified and funded implementa-
tion of good management practices
for riparian (streamside) areas.
Under another project, Colorado
developed agreements with the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
and the U.S. Forest Service to
ensure that these agencies apply
effective best management prac-
tices to control nonpoint runoff
from grazing, timber harvesting,
and road construction activities on
Federal lands.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
During the 1994 305(b) report-
ing cycle, Colorado switched over
from a statewide monitoring pro-
gram to a basinwide monitoring
strategy. The basinwide monitoring
strategy allows that State to inten-
sify monitoring in one basin per
year, rather than perform infre-
quent sampling statewide. Colo-
rado retained some of the old fixed-
station sampling sites to monitor
statewide trends in water quality
conditions.
Overall3 Use Support in Colorado
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = ios,58i)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 143,019)
-Not reported.
aOverall use support is presented because Colorado did not report individual use support in
their 1994 Section 305(b) report.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
91
-------
Connecticut
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Connecticut 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Donald Gonyea
Bureau of Water Management,
PERD
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(860) 424-3827 or (860) 424-3020
Surface Water Quality
Connecticut has restored over
300 miles of large rivers since
enactment of Connecticut's State
Clean Water Act in 1967. Back in
1967, about 663 river miles (or
74% of the State's 893 miles of
large rivers and streams) were unfit
for fishing and swimming. In 1994,
Connecticut reported that 222 river
miles (25%) do not fully support
aquatic life uses and 248 miles
(28%) do not support swimming
due to bacteria, PCBs, metals,
oxygen-demanding wastes, ammo-
nia, nutrients, and habitat alter-
ation. Sources of these pollutants
include urban runoff and storm
sewers, industrial dischargers,
municipal sewage treatment plants,
and in-place contaminants. Threats
to Connecticut's reservoir and lake
quality include failing septic sys-
tems, erosion and sedimentation
from construction and agriculture,
agricultural wastes, fertilizers, and
stormwater runoff.
Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen)
is the most widespread problem in
Connecticut's estuarine waters in
Long Island Sound. Bacteria also
prevent shellfish harvesting and an
advisory restricts consumption of
bluefish and striped bass contami-
nated with PCBs. Connecticut's
estuarine waters are impacted by
municipal sewage treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows, industri-
al discharges and runoff, failing
septic systems, urban runoff, and
atmospheric deposition. Historic
waste disposal practices also con-
taminated sediments in Connect-
icut's harbors and bays.
Ground Water Quality
The State and USCS have iden-
tified about 1,600 contaminated
public and private wells since the
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP)
began keeping records in 1980.
Connecticut's Wellhead Protection
Program incorporates water supply
planning, discharge permitting,
water diversion, site remediation,
prohibited activities, and numerous
nonpoint source controls.
92
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Ensuring that all citizens can
share in the benefits of clean water
will require continued permit
enforcement, additional advanced
wastewater treatment, combined
sewer separation, continued aquatic
toxicity control, and resolution of
nonpoint source issues. To date,
14 sewage treatment facilities have
installed advanced treatment to
remove nutrients. Nonpoint source
management includes education
projects and a permitting program
for land application of sewage, agri-
cultural sources, and solid waste
management facilities.
Wetlands are protected by the
State's Clean Water Act and
Standards of Water Quality. Each
municipality has an Inland Wetlands
Agency that regulates filling and
establishes regulated buffer areas
with DEP training and oversight.
Connecticut's courts have strongly
upheld enforcement of the wet-
lands acts and supported regulation
of buffer areas to protect wetlands.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Connecticut samples physical
and chemical parameters at 27
fixed stream sites and biological
parameters at 47 stream sites.
Other activities include intensive
biological surveys, toxicity testing,
and fish and shellfish tissue sam-
pling for accumulation of toxic
chemicals.
- Not reported
aA subset of Connecticut's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Connecticut
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = s,830)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 64,973)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 600)
93
-------
Delaware
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Delaware 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Brad Smith
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
Division of Water Resources
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 739-4590
Surface Water Quality
Delaware's rivers and streams
generally meet standards for
aquatic life uses, but 93% of the
surveyed stream miles and 76% of
the surveyed lake acres do not
meet bacteria criteria for swim-
ming. Bacteria are the most wide-
spread contaminant in Delaware's
surface waters, but nutrients and
toxics pose the most serious threats
to aquatic life and human health.
Excessive nutrients stimulate algal
blooms and growth of aquatic
weeds. Toxics result in six fish
consumption restrictions in three
basins, including Red Clay Creek,
Red Lion Creek, the St. Jones River,
and the Delaware Estuary. Agricul-
tural runoff, septic systems, urban
runoff, municipal sewage treatment
plants, and industrial dischargers
are the primary sources of nutrients
and toxics in Delaware's surface
waters.
Ground Water Quality
High-quality ground water
provides two-thirds of Delaware's
domestic water supply. However,
nitrates, synthetic organic chemi-
cals, saltwater, and iron contami-
nate isolated wells in some areas.
In the agricultural areas of Kent and
Sussex counties, nitrates in ground
water are a potential health
concern and a potential source of
nutrient contamination in surface
waters. Synthetic organic chemicals
have entered some ground waters
from leaking industrial under-
ground storage tanks, landfills,
abandoned hazardous waste sites,
chemical spills and leaks, septic
systems, and agricultural activities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control (DNREC) adopted a water-
shed approach to determine the
most effective and efficient meth-
ods for protecting water quality or
abating existing problems. Under
the watershed approach, DNREC
will evaluate all sources of pollution
that may impact a waterway and
target the most significant sources
for management. The Appoquini-
mink River subbasin, the Nanticoke
River subbasin, the Delaware's
94
-------
Inland Bays subbasin, and the
Christina River subbasin are priority
watersheds targeted for develop-
ment of integrated pollution
control strategies.
Delaware's Wellhead Protection
Program establishes cooperative
arrangements with local govern-
ments to manage sources of
ground water contamination. The
State may assist local governments
in enacting zoning ordinances, site
plan reviews, operating standards,
source prohibitions, public educa-
tion, and ground water monitoring.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Delaware's Ambient Surface
Water Quality Program includes
fixed-station monitoring and bio-
logical surveys employing rapid
bioassessment protocols. Delaware
is developing and testing new
protocols for sampling biological
data in order to determine whether
specific biological criteria can be
developed to determine support of
designated uses.
Individual Use Support in Delaware
Percent
-Not reported.
aA subset of Delaware's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
cExcludes waters under jurisdiction of the
Delaware River Basin Commission.
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 3,i58)b
80
Lakes (Total Acres = 4,499)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 29)c
-------
District of Columbia
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the District of
Columbia 1994 305(b) report,
contact:
Dr. Hamid Karimi
Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs
Environmental Regulation
Administration
Water Quality Monitoring Branch
2100 Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20020
(202) 645-6601
Surface Water Quality
Poor water quality still charac-
terizes the District's surface waters,
but water quality has stabilized and
is improving in some areas. The
recovery of submerged aquatic
vegetation and fish communities in
the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers
provides qualitative evidence that
water quality is improving. How-
ever, a fish consumption advisory
and a swimming ban remain in
effect for all District surface waters,
and sediment contamination
degrades aquatic life on the
Anacostia River. Combined sewer
overflows are the main source of
bacterial pollution that causes
unsafe swimming conditions. Urban
runoff may be the source of high
concentrations of cadmium,
mercury, lead, PCBs, PAHs, and
DDT found in sediment samples.
Ground Water Quality
During the 1994 305(b) assess-
ment period, the District initiated
ground water monitoring. The first
round of sampling revealed that the
ground water is potable. Some
pollutants were detected at low
concentrations in isolated cases.
Ground water is not a public drink-
ing water source in the District, but
the District has a comprehensive
State ground water protection
program to assess and manage the
resource. The program includes an
ambient ground water sampling
network, ground water quality
regulations (including numerical
and narrative criteria), and guide-
lines for preventing and remediat-
ing ground water quality degrada-
tion.
96
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The District is implementing
innovative stormwater runoff con-
trols for urban areas and promoting
the watershed protection approach
to clean up waterbodies that cross
political boundaries, such as the
Anacostia River. The District needs
Maryland's cooperation to control
pollution entering upstream tribu-
taries located in Maryland. Addi-
tional funds will be needed to
implement urban stormwater
retrofits, CSO controls, and revege-
tation projects in both the District
and Maryland to improve water
quality in the Anacostia River.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The District performs monthly
physical and chemical sampling at
80 fixed stations on the Potomac
River, the Anacostia River, and their
tributaries. The District samples
phytoplankton (microscopic plants)
monthly at 15 stations and zoo-
plankton at 3 stations. The District
samples metals in the water column
four times a year and analyzes toxic
pollutants in fish tissue once a year.
In 1992 and 1993, the District
conducted rapid bioassessments
on 29 waterbodies.
Individual Use Support in District of Columbia
aA subset of District of Columbia's desig-
nated uses appear in this figure. Refer to
the District's 305(b) report for a full
description of the District's uses.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 39)'
Total Miles
Surveyed
,;.
Lakes (Total Acres = 251)
100
96
Total Acres
Surveyed 57
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 5.8)
Total Square °6
Miles Surveyed
97
-------
Florida
Fully Supporting
Threatened
- Partially Supporting
- Not Supporting
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Florida 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Joe Hand
Florida Dept. of Environmental
Regulation
Twin Towers Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904)921-9926
Surface Water Quality
Overall, the majority of Florida's
surface waters are of good quality,
but problems exist around densely
populated urban areas, primarily in
central and southern Florida. In
rivers, nutrient enrichment, low
dissolved oxygen, high bacteria
counts, turbidity, and suspended
solids degrade water quality. In
lakes, the leading problems include
algal blooms, turbidity, and nutrient
enrichment. In estuaries, algal
blooms, nutrient enrichment, low
dissolved oxygen, and turbidity
degrade quality. Urban stormwater,
agricultural runoff, domestic waste-
water, industrial wastewater, and
hydrologic modifications are the
major sources of water pollution in
Florida.
Special State concerns include
massive fish kills (as much as 20
tons of fish) in the Pensacola Bay
system, widespread toxic contami-
nation in sediments, widespread
mercury contamination in fish,
bacterial contamination in the
Miami River, and algal blooms and
extensive die-off of mangroves and
seagrasses in Florida Bay.
Ground Water Quality
Data from 1,919 wells in
Florida's ambient monitoring
network indicate generally good
water quality, but local ground
water contamination problems
exist. Agricultural chemicals, includ-
ing aldicarb, alachlor, bromacil,
simazine, and ethylene dibromide
(EDB) have caused local and region-
al (in the case of EDB) problems.
Other threats include petroleum
products from leaking underground
storage tanks, nitrates from dairy
and other livestock operations,
fertilizers and pesticides in storm-
water runoff, and toxic chemicals in
leachate from hazardous waste
sites. The State requires periodic
testing of all community water
systems for 118 toxic organic
chemicals.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Florida controls point source
pollution with its own discharge
permitting process similar to the
NPDES program. The State permits
about 4,600 ground water and
98
-------
surface water discharge facilities.
The State also encourages reuse of
treated wastewater (primarily for
irrigation) and discharge into con-
structed wetlands as an alternative
to direct discharge into natural
surface waters and ground water.
Florida's Stormwater Rule and
implementing regulations are the
core of the State's nonpoint source
program. These regulations require
all new developments to retain the
first inch of runoff water in ponds
to settle out sediment and other
pollutants. Ongoing contracts focus
on best management practices for
other nonpoint sources, including
agriculture, septic tanks, landfills,
mining, and hydrologic modifica-
tion.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Florida's Surface Water
Assessment Program (SWAMP) will
identify ecoregion subregions and
develop community bioassessment
protocols; develop and implement
a sampling network to monitor
water quality trends and determine
current conditions; and perform
special water quality assessments if
funds are available. The State
defined 13 ecological subregions
for the State and has established 66
reference stream sites for develop-
ing bioassessment protocols.
- Florida does not designate waterbodies for
this use.
aA subset of Florida's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Florida
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fjlly Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 5l,858)b
Total Miles
Surveyed
Lakes (Total Acres = 2,085,120)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 4,298)
Total Square
Miles Surveyed 52
99
-------
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Georgia 1994
305(b) report, contact:
W.M. Winn, III
Georgia Environmental Protection
Division
Water Quality Management
Program
Floyd Towers, East
205 Butler Street, SE
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-4905
Surface Water Quality
Improvements in wastewater
treatment by industries and munic-
ipalities have made it possible for
Georgians to fish and swim in areas
where water quality conditions
were unacceptable for decades.
Water quality in Georgia streams,
lakes, and estuaries during 1992
and 1993 was good, but the num-
ber of stream miles and lake acres
not fully supporting designated
uses increased. The number of fish
advisories also grew from four to
nine during 1992-1994. However,
this is a result of more stringent
stream standards, increased
sampling, and access to additional
data. Persistent problems include
mud, litter, bacteria, pesticides,
fertilizers, metals, oils, suds, and
other pollutants washed into rivers
and lakes by stormwater.
Ground Water Quality
Georgia's ambient Ground
Water Monitoring Network consists
of 150 wells sampled periodically.
To date, increasing nitrate concen-
trations in the Coastal Plain are the
only adverse trend detected by the
monitoring network, but nitrate
concentrations are still well below
harmful levels in most wells. Addi-
tional nitrate sampling in 500 wells
revealed that nitrate concentrations
exceeded EPA's Maximum Contami-
nant Level (MCL) in less than 1 % of
the tested wells. Pesticide monitor-
ing indicates that pesticides do not
threaten Georgia's drinking water
aquifers at this time.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Comprehensive river basin
management planning will provide
a basis for integrating point and
nonpoint source water protection
efforts within the State and with
neighboring States. In 1992, the
Georgia General Assembly passed
Senate Bill 637, which requires the
Department of Natural Resources to
100
-------
develop management plans for
each river basin in the State. The
State began developing compre-
hensive plans for the Chattahoo-
chee and Flint River Basins in 1992
and the Oconee and Coosa River
Basins in 1993. Georgia is also par-
ticipating in a Tri-State Compre-
hensive Study with the Corps of
Engineers, Alabama, and Florida to
develop interstate agreements for
maintaining flow and allocating
assimilative capacity. Other inter-
state basin projects include the
Savannah Watershed Project with
South Carolina and the Suwannee
River Basin Planning Project with
the Georgia and Florida Soil
Conservation Services.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Georgia continued sampling at
145 fixed monitoring stations, con-
ducted 14 intensive surveys, and
performed over 600 compliance
sampling inspections during 1992
and 1993. Georgia also sampled
toxic substances in effluent from
point source dischargers, streams,
sediment, and fish tissues at select-
ed sites throughout the State. The
State assessed the overall toxicity in
wastewater effluent with both acute
and chronic aquatic toxicity tests.
Individual Use Support in Georgia
- Not reported.
"A subset of Georgia's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blndudes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 70,i50)fc
Total Miles
Surveyed
Lakes (Total Acres = 425,382)
Total Acres
Surveyed JQ
23 27
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 854)
101
-------
Hawaii
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Hawaii 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Eugene Akazawa, Monitoring
Supervisor
Hawaii Department of Health
Clean Water Branch
919 Ala Moana Blvd.
Honolulu, HI 96814
(808) 586-4309
Molokai
Maui
Hawaii
Surface Water Quality
Most of Hawaii's waterbodies
have variable water quality due to
stormwater runoff. During dry
weather, most streams and estuar-
ies have good water quality that
fully supports beneficial uses, but
the quality declines when storm-
water runoff carries pollutants into
surface waters. The most significant
pollution problems in Hawaii are
siltation and turbidity, nutrients,
fertilizers, toxics, pathogens, and
pH from nonpoint sources,
including agriculture and urban
runoff. Very few point sources dis-
charge into Hawaii's streams; most
industrial facilities and wastewater
treatment plants discharge into
coastal waters. Other concerns
include explosive algae growth in
West Maui and Kahului Bay, a fish
consumption advisory for lead in
talipia caught in Manoa Stream,
and sediment contamination from
discontinued wastewater discharges
at Wailoa Pond and Hilo Bay.
Ground Water Quality
Compared to mainland States,
Hawaii has very few ground water
problems due to a long history of
land use controls for ground water
protection. Prior to 1961, the State
designated watershed reserves to
protect the purity of rainfall
recharging ground water. The
Underground Injection Control
Program also prohibits wastewater
injection in areas surrounded by
"no-pass" lines. However, aquifers
outside of reserves and no-pass lines
may be impacted by injection wells,
household wastewater disposal
systems, such as seepage pits and
cesspools, landfills, leaking under-
ground storage tanks, and agricul-
tural return flows.
102
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
County governments are
required to set erosion control
standards for various types of soil
and land uses. These standards
include criteria, techniques, and
methods for controlling sediment
erosion from land-disturbing activi-
ties. The State would like to enact
ordinances that require the rating
of pesticides on their potential to
migrate through soil into ground
water. The State would regulate the
use of pesticides that pose a threat
to ground water. Until more strin-
gent ordinances can be enacted,
the State recommends using alter-
natives to pesticides, such as natural
predators and other biological
controls. The State also encourages
the use of low-toxicity, degradable
chemicals for home gardens,
landscaping, and golf courses.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Hawaii has scaled back its water
quality monitoring program
because of budgetary constraints.
The State has halted toxics moni-
toring, fish tissue contamination
monitoring, and biological monitor-
ing and eliminated sampling at
numerous fixed monitoring
stations. The State also reduced the
frequency of bacterial monitoring at
coastal beaches. The State does not
expect conditions to change in the
near future.
Overall3 Use Support in Hawaii
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams
Total Miles
Surveyed
32
(Total Miles = 249)b
69
25
0 0 [
6
_ m^m
Lakes (Total Acres = 2,168)
Total Acres
Surveyed
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 380 )
Oceans (Total Miles = 1,053)
Total Shoreline
Miles Surveyed
943
88
- Not reported.
a Overall use support is presented because Hawaii did not report individual use support in their
1994 Section 305(b) report.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
103
-------
Idaho
Basin Boundaries
(U5GS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Idaho 1994
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
Surface Water Quality
Idaho omitted its water quality
assessment for surface waters in
their 1994 305(b) report because
the State is in the middle of a major
overhaul of its water quality
management program. Idaho is
restructuring its program around
the watershed protection approach.
As a first step, Idaho is redesignat-
ing its waterbodies and expanding
its assessment database to include
smaller streams that previously were
not assessed. The State postponed
its water quality assessment until all
surface waters are designated and
classified under a consistent system.
Idaho's Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ) identified
several waterbodies with significant
problems. Heavy metals and nutri-
ents impact the Coeur d'Alene River
drainage, while nutrients and sedi-
ment impact Henry's Fork. The
middle Snake River exhibits severe
eutrophication from nutrient enrich-
ment. Mercury contaminates fish
tissue in Brownlee Reservoir, and
the Cascade Reservoir does not
support agricultural uses due to
overenrichment with nutrients.
Ground Water Quality
The Idaho Statewide Monitor-
ing Program for Ground Water
samples over 800 wells. This pro-
gram and other specific projects
have indicated that nitrates, petro-
leum products, solvents, and pesti-
cides are the most prevalent pollut-
ants in ground water. The Idaho
Legislature adopted the Ground
Water Quality Plan in 1992. This
plan sets four priority issues:
(1) evaluation of existing ground
water programs, (2) development
of State ground water standards,
(3) development of a State
wellhead protection program,
and (4) classification of Idaho's
aquifers. Ground water quality
protection programs in Idaho
include underground injection
control, ground water vulnerability
mapping, and management for
animal waste, landfills, pesticides
application, underground storage
tanks, and sewage disposal.
104
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
EPA has primary responsibility
for issuing NPDES permits in Idaho.
Idaho's DEQ is concerned that EPA
is not issuing permits for minor
point source dischargers, and
inspections of permitted and unper-
mitted dischargers are rare. Neither
DEQ nor EPA have sufficient staff to
conduct compliance inspections.
Without oversight, there are no
assurances that these facilities are
being properly operated and meet
water quality standards.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DEQ operates a water quality moni-
toring program that measures bio-
logical, physical, and chemical
parameters. Data collection varies
in intensity, from desktop reviews of
existing data (Basic or Level I),
through qualitative surveys and
inventories that cannot be repeated
with confidence (Reconnaissance or
Level II), to quantitative measure-
ments that can be repeated and
yield data suitable for statistical
analysis (Intensive or Level III).
Individual Use Support in Idaho
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Designated Use3 Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting)
Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = ns,595)b
2^
Total Miles
Surveyed
Lakes (Total Acres = 700,000)
^T^^
2^
Total Acres
Surveyed
- Not reported.
a A subset of Idaho's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for
a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
105
-------
Illinois
Full Support or Full Threatened
Partial Minor Support
Partial Moderate Support
Not Supporting
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Illinois 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Mike Branham
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(21 7) 782-3362
Surface Water Quality
Overall water quality has stead-
ily improved over the past 24 years
since enactment of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
Trend analysis generally indicates
stable or improving trends in
stream concentrations of dissolved
oxygen, oxygen-depleting wastes,
and ammonia consistent with the
continued decline in point source
impacts. However, dissolved oxy-
gen depletion and ammonia still
impair streams, as do nutrients,
siltation, habitat/flow alterations,
metals, and suspended solids. The
State is also concerned about
upward trends in nutrient
concentrations detected in several
basins that probably result from
nonpoint sources. Other major
sources of river pollution include
persistent point sources, hydro-
logic/habitat modification, urban
runoff, and resource extraction.
Trend analysis also indicates
improving water quality in lakes.
The most prevalent causes of
remaining pollution in lakes include
nutrients, suspended solids, and
siltation. The most prevalent
sources of pollution in lakes include
contaminated sediments, agricul-
ture, and hydrologic/habitat
alterations.
Water quality also continues to
improve in the Illinois portion of
Lake Michigan. Trophic status
improved from mesotrophic/
eutrophic conditions in the 1970s
to oligotrophic conditions today.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality is gener-
ally good, but past and present
activities contaminate ground water
in isolated areas. Ground water is
contaminated around leaking
underground gasoline storage
tanks, large aboveground petrole-
um storage facilities, agricultural
chemical operations, salt piles,
landfills, and waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities.
106
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA), Bureau of
Water, is committed to implement-
ing a Targeted Watershed Approach
in which high-risk watersheds are
identified, prioritized, and selected
for integrated and cooperative
assessment and protection. This
approach represents an expansion
and evolution of their previous
efforts in geographic targeting.
Current nonpoint source program
activities focus on improving public
awareness and adding land use
data to the nonpoint source
database available statewide.
Illinois established a Great Lakes
Program Office in FY93 to oversee
all Lake Michigan programs on a
multimedia basis. Activities include
promotion of pollution prevention
for all sources of toxics in all media
(such as air and water).
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Division of Water Pollution
Control spent $5.5 million on a
diverse set of monitoring programs
during 1992 and 1993. These pro-
grams include ambient and toxicity
monitoring, pesticide monitoring,
intensive river basin surveys, fish
contaminant monitoring, and
volunteer lake monitoring. These
programs generate a rich inventory
of monitoring data for assessing
water quality conditions across the
State. IEPA based their 1994 assess-
ments on data from nearly 3,500
stations.
Individual Use Support in Illinois
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Designated Use3
Rivers and Streams
SS
Total Miles
Surveyed
14,159
Supporting)
(Total Miles
47
Threatened Supporting) Supporting)
= 32,190)b
2 1
Attainable)
0
2.833
27
2,907
Lakes (Total Acres = 309,340)
Total Acres
Surveyed
187.742
127.814
77
17
14
187.742
Great Lakes (Total Shore Miles = 63)
Total Square
Miles Surveyed
63
100
100
63
79
21
11A subset of Illinois' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for
a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
107
-------
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Indiana 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Dennis Clark
Indiana Department of Environ-
mental Management
Office of Water Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317)243-5037
Surface Water Quality
Over 99% of the surveyed lake
acres and 79% of the surveyed river
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life. However,
only 18% of the surveyed river
miles support swimming due to
high bacteria concentrations. A fish
consumption advisory impairs all of
Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline.
The pollutants most frequently
identified in Indiana waters include
bacteria, priority organic
compounds, oxygen-depleting
wastes, pesticides, metals, cyanide,
and ammonia. The sources of these
pollutants include industrial facili-
ties, municipal/semipublic waste-
water systems, combined sewer
overflows, and agricultural non-
point sources.
Indiana identified elevated
concentrations of toxic substances
in about 8% of the river miles
monitored for toxics. High concen-
trations of PCBs, pesticides, and
metals were most common in
sediment samples and in fish tissue
samples. Less than 1 % of the
surveyed lake acres contained
elevated concentrations of toxic
substances in their sediment.
Ground Water Quality
Indiana has a plentiful ground
water resource serving 60% of its
population for drinking water and
filling many of the water needs of
business, industry, and agriculture.
Although most of Indiana's ground
water has not been shown to be
adversely impacted by human activ-
ities, the State has documented
over 863 sites of ground water
contamination. Nitrates are the
most common pollutant detected
in wells, followed by volatile organic
chemicals and heavy metals. In
agricultural regions, data indicate
that 7% to 10% of the rural drink-
ing water wells contain unaccept-
able nitrate concentrations and
some detectable quantity of pesti-
cides. Heavy metal contamination is
associated with waste disposal sites.
108
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Since 1972, Indiana has spent
over $1.4 billion in Federal con-
struction grants, $207 million in
State funds, and $190 million in
matching local funds to construct
or upgrade sewage treatment facili-
ties. As a result of these expendi-
tures, 53% of Indiana's population
is now served by advanced sewage
treatment. The State issues NPDES
permits to ensure that these new
and improved facilities control
pollution. Indiana is increasing
enforcement activities to ensure
compliance with permit require-
ments.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Indiana initiated a 5-year base-
line biological sampling program in
1989. As of 1994, the State had
collected 2,000 aquatic insect
samples at 439 sites representing
81% of the State's geographical
area. In the future, the State will be
able to detect deviations from the
baseline dataset. Indiana and EPA
Region 5 are also developing fish
community measurements for
evaluating biological integrity in
Indiana's rivers and streams.
Individual Use Support in Indiana
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 35,673)c
Total Miles
Surveyed
Lakes (Total Acres = 142,871)
f^w
l£y.
Total Miles
Surveyed
43 0
100
0 0
0
100
-A subset of Indiana's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
109
-------
Iowa
Fully Supporting
Threatened
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Iowa 1994 305(b)
report, contact:
John Olson
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Water Resources Section
900 East Grand Avenue
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515)281-8905
Surface Water Quality
Sediment and plant nutrients
from agricultural sources, modifica-
tions to stream habitat and hydrol-
ogy, and natural conditions (such as
shallowness in lakes) impair aquatic
life uses in 48% of the surveyed
rivers, 35% of the surveyed lakes,
and 33% of the surveyed flood
control reservoirs. Swimming use is
impaired in 92% of the 556 sur-
veyed river miles and 27% of the
surveyed lakes, ponds, and reser-
voirs. Saylorville, Coralville, and
Rathburn Reservoirs have good
water quality that fully supports all
designated uses, but siltation
severely impacts Red Rock
Reservoir. Point sources still pollute
about 5% of the surveyed stream
miles and one lake.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies about
80% of all Iowa's drinking water.
Agricultural chemicals, under-
ground storage tanks, agricultural
drainage wells, livestock wastes,
and improper management of
hazardous substances all contribute
to some degree to ground water
contamination in Iowa. Nitrate
concentrations exceed the EPA's
Maximum Contaminant Level in
10 of the State's 1,140 public
ground water supplies. Several
studies have detected low levels of
common agricultural pesticides and
synthetic organic compounds, such
as solvents and degreasers, in both
untreated and treated ground
water. In most cases, the contami-
nants appear in small concentra-
tions thought to pose no immedi-
ate threat to public health, but little
is known about the health effects of
long-term exposure to low concen-
trations of these chemicals.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1979, Iowa began imple-
menting its agricultural nonpoint
control strategy with education
projects and cost-share programs
to control sediment, the greatest
pollutant, by volume, in the State.
Later, Iowa adopted rules that
require that land disposal of animal
wastes not contaminate surface and
ground waters. Landfill rules
establish specific siting, design,
110
-------
operation, and monitoring criteria,
and require annual inspections and
permit renewals every 3 years. Iowa
also regulates construction in flood-
plains to limit soil erosion and
impacts on aquatic life.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Iowa's DNR maintains a fixed
sampling network and conducts
special intensive studies at selected
sites. The State routinely monitors
metals, ammonia, and residual
chlorine at the fixed sampling sites,
but not pesticides. However, pesti-
cides were monitored for special
studies examining the fate of pesti-
cides in Iowa rivers and levels of
pesticides in water supply reser-
voirs. Limited monitoring for toxics
in sediment was conducted as part
of a special study in 1992 and
1993. Routine sampling has not
included biological sampling in the
past, but the role of biological sam-
pling continues to grow. In 1994,
Iowa initiated a pilot study to estab-
lish biologically based water quality
criteria for wadeable streams in
each ecoregion.
Individual Use Support in Iowa
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 71,665)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 129,666)
Flood Control Reservoirs (Total Acres = 31,700)
aA subset of Iowa's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for a
full description of the State's uses.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
cExcludes flood control reservoirs.
Ill
-------
Kansas
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Kansas 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Mike Butler
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Office of Science and Support
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620 "
(91 3) 296-5580
Surface Water Quality
Suspended solids and dissolved
solids impair aquatic life uses in
93% of Kansas' surveyed streams.
Bacteria also prevent 95% of the
surveyed streams from fully support-
ing swimming uses. Runoff from
feedlots, animal holding areas, and
pastureland introduce pathogen
bacteria into rivers and streams.
Discharges of undertreated or
untreated wastewater from sewage
treatment plants also elevate
pathogen bacteria levels in Kansas
waters. Erosion of farmland soils
and urban runoff are the principal
sources of suspended solids.
Irrigation return flows, oil and
natural gas extraction activities, and
natural sources introduce dissolved
solids.
Cultural eutrophication is
responsible for 34% of poor water
quality conditions in Kansas' sur-
veyed lakes, and pesticides impair
an additional 23% of the surveyed
lakes. Overall, agricultural activities
are responsible for almost half of
the pollution in the State's lakes.
Agricultural activities and hydro-
modification are the major sources
of impacts in wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
The Kansas Department of
Health and Environment (DHE)
has documented ground water
contamination from human activi-
ties at nearly 350 sites in the State.
Underground storage tanks, oil and
natural gas operations, and agricul-
ture are the most significant sources
of ground water contamination in
Kansas. Kansas maintains a ground
water monitoring network of 242
wells. During 1990-1993, nitrate
concentrations exceeded EPA's
Maximum Contaminant Level in
11 % of 618 ground water samples.
A State Wellhead Protection
Program is still under development,
and several Kansas communities are
developing local plans.
112
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Kansas requires permits for live-
stock operations that utilize waste-
water control facilities (such as
manure pits, ponds, or lagoons);
confine 300 or more head of cattle,
hogs, sheep, or a combination of all
three; or house a commercial poul-
try flock of 1,000 or more birds.
DHE may also require permits for
other livestock operations that have
the potential to create pollution
problems, such as open lots located
adjacent to creeks or operations
with a history of improper waste-
water disposal practices. The major
elements of the Kansas Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program
include interagency coordination,
information and education, techni-
cal assistance, enforcement, and
water quality certification.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Every year, DHE collects and
analyzes about 1,500 surface water
samples, 50 aquatic insect samples,
and 40 composite fish tissue sam-
ples from stations located through-
out the State. Wastewater samples
are collected at about 50 municipal
sewage treatment plants, 20 indus-
trial facilities, and 3 Federal facilities
to evaluate compliance with dis-
charge permit requirements. DHE
also conducts special studies and
prepares about 100 site-specific
water quality summaries at the
request of private citizens or other
interested parties.
Individual Use Support in Kansas
Percent
Designated Use9
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = I34,338)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 173,801)
- Not reported.
JA subset of Kansas' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
113
-------
Fully Supporting
Threatened
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Kentucky 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Tom VanArsdall
Department for Environmental
Protection
Division of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)564-3410
Surface Water Quality
About 83% of Kentucky's sur-
veyed rivers (including the Ohio
River) and 95% of surveyed lake
acres have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life. Swim-
ming use is fully supported in 100%
of the surveyed lake acres, but 52%
of the surveyed river miles do not
fully support swimming due to
elevated bacteria levels. Fecal
coliform bacteria, siltation, and
oxygen-depleting substances are
the most common pollutants in
Kentucky rivers. Sewage treatment
facilities are still a leading source of
fecal coliform bacteria and oxygen-
depleting substances, followed by
agricultural runoff, septic tanks, and
straight pipe discharges. Surface
mining and agriculture are the
major sources of siltation. Nutrients
from agricultural runoff and septic
tanks have the most widespread
impacts on lakes.
Declining trends in chloride
concentrations and nutrients pro-
vide evidence of improving water
quality in Kentucky's rivers and
streams. The State also lifted a
swimming advisory on 76 miles of
the North Fork Kentucky River,
although the advisory remains in
effect on 86 miles. Fish consump-
tion advisories remain posted on
three creeks for PCBs and on the
Ohio River for PCBs and chlordane.
The State issued new advisories for
the Green River Lake because of
PCB spills from a gas pipeline com-
pressor station and for five ponds
on the West Kentucky Wildlife
Management Area because of mer-
cury contamination from unknown
sources.
Ground Water Quality
Underground storage tanks,
septic tanks, abandoned hazardous
waste sites, agricultural activities,
and landfills are estimated to be the
top five sources of ground water
contamination in Kentucky. Bacteria
is the major pollutant in ground
water. The State is concerned about
the lack of ground water data,
absence of ground water regula-
tions, and the potential for ground
water pollution in karst regions of
the State.
114
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Kentucky's revolving fund pro-
gram supported 26 wastewater
treatment projects completed in
1992-93 and another 25 ongoing
projects. These projects either
replaced outdated or inadequate
treatment facilities or provided cen-
tralized treatment for the first time.
Kentucky requires toxicity testing of
point source discharges and permits
for stormwater outfalls and com-
bined sewer overflows. The non-
point source program oversees
projects addressing watershed
remediation, education, training,
technical assistance, and evaluation
of best management practices.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Kentucky sampled 44 ambient
monitoring stations characterizing
about 1,432 stream miles during
the reporting period. The State
performed biological sampling at
24 of these stations. Seven lakes
were sampled to detect eutrophica-
tion trends and 2 lakes were sam-
pled to analyze the impact of sus-
pended solids on recreational activi-
ties. The State also performed five
intensive studies to evaluate point
source and nonpoint source
impacts, establish baseline water
quality measurements, and reevalu-
ate water quality in several streams.
Individual Use Support in Kentucky
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 89,431 )e
10
Lakes (Total Acres = 228,385 )
23
<1
'A subset of Kentucky's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
''Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
115
-------
Fully Supporting
Threatened
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
Not Assessed
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Louisiana 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Albert E. Hindrichs
Louisiana Department of Environ-
mental Quality
Office of Water Resources
Water Quality Management
Division
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
(504) 765-0511
Surface Water Quality
About 49% of the surveyed
stream miles, 40% of the surveyed
lake acres, and 70% of the surveyed
estuarine waters have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life. Fecal coliform bacteria continue
to be the most common pollutant
in Louisiana's rivers and streams,
followed by low dissolved oxygen
concentrations and nutrients. As a
result of violation of fecal coliform
bacteria standards, 55% of the
surveyed river miles do not fully
support swimming and other con-
tact recreational activities. Thirty-six
percent of the surveyed lake acres
and 28% of the surveyed estuarine
waters also do not fully support
swimming. Sources of bacteria
include sewage discharges from
municipal treatment plants, subdivi-
sions, trailer parks, and apartment
complexes. Septic tanks, sewage/
stormwater overflows, pastures, and
rangeland also generate bacterial
pollution. Agricultural runoff gener-
ates oxygen-depleting substances
and nutrients.
In lakes, noxious aquatic plants
(which result from high nutrient
loads) are the most common prob-
lem, followed by bacteria, low dis-
solved oxygen, nutrients, and oil
and grease. Upstream sources of
pollutants impact the most lake
acres (primarily in Lake Pontchar-
train), followed by municipal point
sources, industrial point sources,
and petroleum extraction activities.
In estuaries, oil and grease, nutri-
ents, and bacteria are the most
common pollutants. Upstream
sources of contamination, petro-
leum extraction activities, municipal
discharges, sewer/stormwater over-
flow, and septic tanks are the lead-
ing sources of pollution in estuaries.
Hydrologic modification impacts
one surveyed wetland.
Ground Water Quality
The quality of water in the
State's major aquifer systems
remains excellent. Of special con-
cern, however, are the shallow
aquifers and the water-bearing
zones that are not used as major
sources of water. These strata con-
tribute significantly to the water
balance of the deeper aquifers, but
the shallow aquifers are increasingly
threatened.
116
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Currently, most reductions in
nonpoint source pollution result
from cooperative demonstration
projects due to a lack of regulatory
authority in Louisiana to control
nonpoint source pollution. These
projects have demonstrated alterna-
tive rice farming management prac-
tices to reduce sediment and nutri-
ents in the Mermentau River Basin,
advocated lawn care management
to reduce erosion and runoff in the
Bayou Vermilion watershed, and
reduced fecal coliform concentra-
tions in the Tangipahoa River by
implementing septic tank and dairy
waste lagoon education programs
and upgrading municipal waste-
water treatment systems.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The surface water monitoring
program consists of a fixed-station
monitoring network, intensive sur-
veys, special studies, and waste-
water discharge compliance sam-
pling. The fixed network includes at
least one long-term trend analysis
station on the major stream in each
basin of the State. The State posi-
tioned other fixed sampling sites to
monitor targeted sources of pollu-
tion or waterbodies. Louisiana does
not maintain a regular fish tissue
sampling program.
- Not reported.
aA subset of Louisiana's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Louisiana
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 66,294)b
22
Lakes (Total Acres = 1,078,031)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 7,656)
117
-------
Maine
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Maine 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Phil Garwood
Maine Department of Environ-
mental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Control
State House Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-7695
Surface Water Quality
Maine's water quality has sig-
nificantly improved since enact-
ment of the Clean Water Act in
1972. Atlantic salmon and other
fish now return to Maine's rivers,
and waters that were once open
sewers are now clean enough to
swim in. Ninety-nine percent of the
State's river miles, 81 % of the lake
acres, and 90% of the estuarine
waters have good water quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses.
Dioxin in fish tissue is the most sig-
nificant problem in major rivers.
Oxygen-depleting substances from
nonpoint sources and bacteria from
inadequate sewage treatment are
the most significant problem in
smaller rivers and streams. Lakes are
impacted by oxygen-depleting
substances from nonpoint sources,
including urban runoff, agriculture,
and forestry activities. Bacteria from
municipal treatment plants and
small dischargers contaminate shell-
fish beds in estuarine waters.
Ground Water Quality
The most significant ground
water impacts include petroleum
compounds from leaking under-
ground and aboveground storage
tanks, other organic chemicals from
leaking storage facilities or disposal
practices, and bacteria from surface
disposal systems or other sources.
Maine requires that all under-
ground tanks be registered and that
inadequate tanks be removed.
About 23,000 tanks have been
removed since 1986. Maine also
regulates installation of under-
ground storage tanks and closure
of landfills to protect ground water
resources from future leaks.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Maine restored designated uses
in 20 miles of rivers by working
with kraft pulp and paper mills to
reduce the levels of dioxin in their
discharges. Construction of small
wastewater treatment systems also
eliminated some bacteria problems
and dissolved oxygen problems on
small streams. However, as the
118
-------
State makes progress in restoring
waters impacted by point sources,
new water quality problems
emerge from nonpoint sources.
Therefore, the most important
water quality initiatives for the
future include implementing pollu-
tion prevention, nonpoint source
management, watershed-based
planning, coordinated land use
management, and water quality
monitoring. The State is linking pol-
lution prevention with the water-
shed protection approach in a pilot
project within the Androscoggin
River basin. The State is providing
local officials and citizen groups
with technical assistance to identify
problem areas and develop local
solutions for reducing pollution
generation throughout the water-
shed.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Maine's surface water monitor-
ing program includes ambient
water quality monitoring, assimila-
tive capacity and wasteload alloca-
tion studies, diagnostic studies,
treatment plant compliance moni-
toring, and special investigations.
Due to budgetary constraints, some
of these activities are much more
limited in scope than is desirable for
accurately characterizing water
quality conditions in Maine.
Individual Use Support in Maine
Percent
-Not reported.
aA subset of Maine's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 3i,672)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 986,776)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 1,633)
119
-------
Maryland
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Maryland 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Sherm Garrison
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
Chesapeake Bay and Watershed
Program
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)974-2951
Surface Water Quality
Overall, Maryland's surface
waters have good quality, but
excess nutrients, suspended sedi-
ments, bacteria, toxic materials, or
stream acidity impact some waters.
The most serious water quality
problem in Maryland is the contin-
uing accumulation of nutrients in
estuaries and lakes from agricultural
runoff, urban runoff, natural non-
point source runoff, and point
source discharges. Excess nutrients
stimulate algal blooms and low dis-
solved oxygen levels that adversely
impact water supplies and aquatic
life.
Sources of sediment include
agricultural runoff, urban runoff,
construction activities, natural ero-
sion, dredging, forestry, and mining
operations. In western Maryland,
abandoned coal mines release
acidic waters that severely impact
some streams. Agricultural runoff,
urban runoff, natural runoff, and
failing septic systems elevate bacte-
ria concentrations and cause con-
tinuous shellfish harvesting restric-
tions in about 104 square miles of
estuarine waters and cause tempo-
rary restrictions in another 72.3
square miles after major rainstorms.
Ground Water Quality
Maryland's ground water
resource is of generally good quali-
ty. Localized problems include
excess nutrients (nitrates) from fer-
tilizers and septic systems; bacteria
from septic systems and surface
contamination; saline water intru-
sion aggravated by ground water
withdrawals in the coastal plain;
toxic compounds from septic tanks,
landfills, and spills; petroleum prod-
ucts from leaking storage facilities;
and acidic conditions and metals
from abandoned coal mine drain-
age in western Maryland. Control
efforts are limited to implementing
agricultural best management prac-
tices and enforcing regulations for
septic tanks, underground storage
tanks, land disposal practices, and
well construction.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Maryland manages nonpoint
sources with individual programs
120
-------
for each individual nonpoint source
category. Urban runoff is addressed
through stormwater and sediment
control laws that require develop-
ment projects to maintain predevel-
opment runoff patterns through
implementation of best manage-
ment practices (BMPs), such as
detention ponds or vegetated
swales. The Agricultural Water
Quality Management Program sup-
ports many approaches, including
Soil Conservation and Water Quality
Plans, implementation of BMPs, and
education. The Agricultural Cost
Share Program has provided State,
and some Federal, funds to help
offset the costs of implementing
almost 8,000 agricultural BMPs
since 1983. An Animal Waste Permit
Program requires discharge permits
for facilities that will have a defin-
able discharge to waters of the
State.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Maryland's monitoring program
includes a fixed-station network,
compliance sampling at point
source discharges, bioassay tests of
effluent toxicity, special intensive
sampling programs on the Potomac
and Patuxent Rivers, acid deposition
monitoring, fish tissue and shell-
stock sampling, bacterial sampling
in shellfish waters, phytoplankton
sampling, biological monitoring,
and habitat assessments.
a A subset of Maryland's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blndudes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Maryland
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = i7,ooo)b
Total Miles
Surveyed
29
Lakes (Total Acres = 77,965)
Total Acres
Surveyed
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 2,522)
Total Square
Miles Surveyed
121
-------
Massachusetts
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Massachusetts
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Warren Kimball
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Office of Watershed Management
40 Institute Road
North Grafton, MA 01536
(508) 792-7470
Surface Water Quality
The 1994 report does not
reflect the progress made in clean-
ing up Massachusetts' rivers and
lakes because reporting total miles
free of all contaminants obscures
progress in removing some
contaminants from many waters.
The method of reporting survey
results obscures the statewide
reduction in oxygen-depleting
wastes because bacteria, nutrients,
toxic pollutants, ammonia, and
acidity still impact about half of the
surveyed river miles, lake acres, and
estuarine waters in the State. The
leading sources of contamination in
Massachusetts' surface waters are
stormwater runoff, combined sewer
overflows, and municipal sewage
treatment plants.
Quabbin Reservoir's 25,000
acres support swimming and aquat-
ic life, but high levels of mercury in
sport fish restrict fish consumption.
Unlike other waterbody types,
coastal water bacterial quality has
deteriorated over the past 10 years,
especially in areas such as Cape
Cod where nonpoint source pollu-
tion has resulted in a tenfold
increase in shellfish bed closures.
Ground Water Quality
Contaminants have been
detected in at least 206 ground
water suppy wells in 87 municipali-
ties. Organic chemicals (especially
TCE) contaminate 60% of these
wells. Other contaminants include
metals, chlorides, bacteria, inorgan-
ic chemicals, radiation, nutrients,
turbidity, and pesticides. Since
1983, Massachusetts has required
permits for all industrial discharges
into ground waters and sanitary
wastewater discharges of 15,000
gallons or more per day. The per-
mits require varying degrees of
wastewater treatment based on the
quality and use of the receiving
ground water. Additional controls
are needed to eliminate contamina-
tion from septic systems and sludge
disposal.
122
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Wastewater treatment plant
construction has resulted in signifi-
cant improvements in water quality,
but $7 billion of unfunded waste-
water needs remain. The Nonpoint
Source Control Program has imple-
mented 35 projects to provide tech-
nical assistance, implement best
management practices, and edu-
cate the public. The State has also
adopted a combined sewer over-
flow policy that provides engineer-
ing targets for cleanup and is
presently addressing several CSO
abatement projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Department of Environ-
mental Protection (DEP) adopted a
watershed planning approach to
coordinate stream monitoring with
wastewater discharge permitting,
water withdrawal permitting, and
nonpoint source control on a 5-year
rotating schedule. The DEP is also
adapting its monitoring strategies
to provide information on nonpoint
source pollution. For example, DEP
will focus more on wet-weather
sampling and biological monitoring
and less on chemical monitoring
during dry periods in order to gain
a more complete understanding of
the integrity of water resources.
aA subset of Massachusetts^ designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
cExcluding Quabbin Reservoir.
Individual Use Support in Massachusetts
Percent
Designated Use8
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 8,229)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 151,173)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 223)
Total Square
Miles Surveyed 54
123
-------
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Michigan 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Greg Coudy
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909-7528
(517) 335-3310
Surface Water Quality
Ninety-eight percent of
Michigan's surveyed river miles and
99% of Michigan's surveyed lake
acres fully support aquatic life uses.
Swimming use is also fully support-
ed in 98% of the surveyed rivers
and all of the surveyed lake acres.
Priority organic chemicals (in fish)
are the major cause of nonsupport
in more river miles than any other
pollutant, followed by siltation and
sedimentation, metals, and bacte-
ria. Leading sources of pollution in
Michigan include unspecified
nonpoint sources, agriculture,
municipal and industrial discharges,
combined sewers, and atmospheric
deposition.
Very few lakes in Michigan
completely fail to support fishing
and swimming, but there is no
doubt that both point and non-
point sources have increased the
rate of eutrophication (overenrich-
ment), altered biological communi-
ties, and degraded the overall
aesthetic and recreational quality of
a great number of Michigan's frag-
ile lake resources. Many more lakes
are threatened by long-term, cumu-
lative pollutant loads, especially in
the rapidly growing communities
on northern lower Michigan.
Four of the five Great Lakes
border Michigan. The open waters
of Lakes Superior, Michigan, and
Huron have good quality. Poor
water quality is restricted to a few
degraded locations near shore. Lake
Erie's water quality has improved
dramatically in the last two
decades. Once declared dead, Lake
Erie now supports the largest
walleye sport fishery on the Great
Lakes. The dramatic improvements
are due primarily to nutrient con-
trols applied to sewage treatment
plants, particularly in the Detroit
area.
Ground Water Quality
Most of the ground water
resource is of excellent quality, but
certain aquifers have been contami-
nated with toxic materials leaking
from waste disposal sites, business-
es, or government facilities. The
Michigan Ground Water Protection
Strategy and Implementation Plan
124
-------
identifies specific program initia-
tives, schedules, and agency
responsibilities for protecting the
State's ground water resources.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Major point source reductions
in phosphorus and organic material
loads have reduced or eliminated
water quality problems in many
Michigan waters. However, expand-
ed efforts are needed to control
nonpoint source pollution, elimi-
nate combined sewer overflows,
and reduce toxic contamination.
Michigan has implemented an
industrial pretreatment program,
promulgated rules on the discharge
of toxic substances, and regulated
hazardous waste disposal facilities,
but many toxicity problems are due
to past activities that contaminated
sediments.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Between 1989 and 1993, the
Department of Natural Resources
devoted a significant amount of
staff time to documenting water
quality impacts from nonpoint
sources of pollution and verifying
information in the Michigan
Nonpoint Source Assessment.
Chemical, biological, and physical
surveys were conducted to identify
water quality standards violations
and degraded biological communi-
ties in numerous watersheds.
aA subset of Michigan's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Michigan
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 51,438)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 887,019)
Great Lakes (Total Miles = 3,288)
125
-------
Minnesota
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Minnesota 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Elizabeth Brinsmade
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Water Quality Division
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612)296-8861
Surface Water Quality
About 73% of the surveyed
river miles have good quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses and
39% of the surveyed rivers fully
support swimming. Seventy-nine
percent of the surveyed lake acres
fully support swimming. The most
common pollutants identified in
rivers were bacteria, oxygen-deplet-
ing substances, pH (acidity), salini-
ty/total dissolved solids/chlorides,
and metals. Nonpoint sources
generate most of the pollution in
rivers. Minnesota's 272 miles of
Lake Superior shoreline have fish
consumption advisories. These advi-
sories recommend some limits on
fish meals consumed for certain
species and size classes. Most of the
pollution originated from point
sources has been controlled, but
runoff (especially in agricultural
regions) still degrades water quality.
Ground Water Quality
The State maintains a Ground
Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program to evaluate the quality of
ground waters that supply domes-
tic water to 70% of Minnesota's
population. The Program sampled
368 wells in the southeastern and
southwestern regions of the State
during 1992 and 1993. The sam-
ples were analyzed for 43 inorganic
parameters and 68 volatile organic
compounds. Monitoring detected
nitrates in 62% of the wells and low
levels of VOCs in 41 wells. Seven
percent of the sampled wells
contained nitrate concentrations
exceeding EPA's Maximum
Contaminant Level. Natural sources
of manganese, iron, and arsenic
also interfere with uses of ground
water.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
During the 1994 reporting
cycle, Minnesota revised its Non-
point Source (NPS) Management
Program with new strategies for
addressing agricultural sources,
forestry, urban runoff, contami-
nated sediments, feedlots, mining,
and septic systems. The State also
revised strategies for monitoring
and assessing NPS impacts, educat-
ing the public, implementing BMPs,
and applying the watershed
protection approach to NPS
management.
126
-------
Minnesota adopted rules to
implement the State's Wetlands
Conservation Act and developed
wetlands water quality standards
during 1992 and 1993. The Wet-
land Conservation Act rules require
that local governments regulate
drain and fill activities in wetlands
that are not designated public
waters wetlands, which are listed
on the Protected Waters Inventory.
The rules allow the local govern-
ments to grant one or more of 25
exemptions for proposed activities
on smaller wetlands with less inun-
dation.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Minnesota maintains an Ambi-
ent Stream Monitoring Program
with 78 sampling stations. The
State also performs fish tissue sam-
pling, sediment monitoring, inten-
sive surveys, biological surveys, and
lake assessments and supports a
citizen lake monitoring program.
In 1994, the State completed the
Minnesota River Assessment Project,
a comprehensive study involving
over 30 Federal, State, and local
agencies. The project incorporated
intensive biological monitoring and
habitat assessments with traditional
chemical monitoring to identify
multiple sources and their impacts.
A pilot use support methodology
was used for rivers in the Minnesota
River basin that reflected this
comprehensive monitoring.
-Not reported.
aA subset of Minnesota's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Minnesota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 91,944)6
Total Miles
Surveyed
!/
Lakes (Total Acres = 3,290,101)
Great Lakes (Total Miles = 272)
46
17
21
37
16
12
127
-------
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Mississippi 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Randy Reed
Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601)961-5158
fully support swimming. Nutrients,
siltation, pesticides, and oxygen-
depleting substances are the most
common pollutants in Mississippi
lakes. Agriculture is also the
dominant source of pollution in
Mississippi's lakes.
In estuaries, 74% of the sur-
veyed waters have good quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses,
but shellfishing activities are
impaired in all of the surveyed
estuarine waters. Bacteria and
metals cause most of the impacts
observed in estuaries. High bacteria
levels are associated with shellfish
harvesting restrictions. The State
attributes impacts in estuarine
waters to urban runoff/storm
sewers, septic systems, and land
disposal activities.
The State has posted six fish
consumption advisories, including
three commercial fishing bans due
to elevated concentrations of PCBs,
PCP, and dioxins detected in fish
tissues.
Surface Water Quality Around Water Quality
Mississippi reported that 81%
of its surveyed rivers have fair water
quality that periodically does not
support aquatic life uses and
another 5% have poor water qual-
ity that does not support aquatic
life uses. About 35% of the sur-
veyed rivers do not fully support
swimming. The most common
pollutants identified in Mississippi's
rivers include nutrients, pesticides,
siltation, oxygen-depleting sub-
stances, and bacteria. Agriculture is
the most common source of pollu-
tion in rivers, followed by municipal
sewage treatment plants.
About 65% of the surveyed
lake acres have good water quality
that fully supports aquatic life uses
and 97% of the surveyed lake acres
Extensive contamination of
drinking water aquifers and public
water supplies remains uncommon
in Mississippi although localized
ground water contamination has
been detected at various facilities
across the State. The most fre-
quently identified sources of con-
tamination are leaky underground
storage tanks and faulty septic
systems. Brine contamination is also
a problem near oil fields. Little data
exist for domestic wells that are
seldom sampled. Ground water
protection programs include the
Pesticide Container Recycling
Program, the Underground Storage
Tank Program, the Underground
Injection Control Program, the
Agrichemical Ground Water
128
-------
Monitoring Program, and the
Wellhead Protection Program
(approved by EPA in 1993).
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
During 1993 and 1994,
Mississippi developed regulations
for conducting Section 401 Water
Quality Certifications. The regula-
tions enable the State to review
Federal licenses and permits for
compliance with State water quality
standards. The comprehensive reg-
ulations went through public
review and were adopted in Febru-
ary 1994. Mississippi also expanded
its definition of waters of the State
to include wetlands and ground
waters.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Each year, the State samples
about 25 of their 57 historical fixed
monitoring stations on a rotating
schedule. The State monitors physi-
cal and chemical parameters
bimonthly, metals in the water col-
umn twice a year, and biological
parameters once a year. The devel-
opment and implementation of a
rapid bioassessment methodology
has significantly increased coverage
of State waters beyond the historic
fixed stations. Several stations are
also sampled annually for metals
and pesticides in fish tissues. The
State monitoring program is
supplemented by a network of 27
stations operated by the USGS.
-Not reported.
aA subset of Mississippi's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Mississippi
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 84,003)"
81
Lakes (Total Acres = 500,000)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 133)
129
-------
Missouri
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Missouri 1994
305(b) report, contact:
John Ford
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 1 76
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
(314) 751-7024
Surface Water Quality
Almost half of Missouri's rivers
and streams have impaired aquatic
habitat due to a combination of
factors, including natural geology,
climate, and agricultural land use.
As a result of these factors, many
streams suffer from low water vol-
ume, low dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, high water temperatures,
and excessive siltation. In lakes, low
dissolved oxygen from upstream
dam releases, taste and odor prob-
lems, and pesticides are the most
common ailments. Agriculture,
urban runoff, and reservoir releases
are the leading sources of lake
degradation.
The Missouri Department of
Health advises that the public
restrict consumption of bottom-
feeding fish (such as catfish, carp,
and suckers) from non-Ozark
streams or lakes to 1 pound per
week due to high concentrations of
chlordane, PCBs, and other
contaminants in these fish.
Ground Water Quality
In general, ground water quan-
tity and quality increase from north
to south and west to east. Deep
ground water aquifers in northern
and western Missouri are not suit-
able for drinking water due to high
concentrations of natural minerals.
Nitrates and, to a much lesser
extent, pesticides also contaminate
wells in this region. About one-third
of the private wells exceed drinking
water standards for nitrates, and
about 2% of private wells exceed
drinking water standards for either
atrazine or alachlor. Statewide, the
highest priority concerns include
ground water contamination from
septic tanks, feedlots and pasture-
land, and underground storage
tanks.
130
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Sewage treatment plant con-
struction has restored many surface
waters in Missouri, but overloaded
older facilities still impact about
62 stream miles. Nonpoint source
efforts have been less successful at
restoring water quality. To date, the
most successful activity has been
the reclamation of abandoned coal
mine lands, which is funded by a
tax on coal that generates $1 mil-
lion to $2 million annually. Stream
miles impacted by abandoned coal
mines fell from 100 miles to 42
miles as a result of reclamation
projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Missouri's water quality moni-
toring strategy features fixed-station
chemical sampling, short-term
intensive chemical surveys, rapid
visual/bioassessments, and detailed
biological monitoring to advance
the development of biological crite-
ria. The State also conducts toxicity
testing and samples fish tissues for
toxic chemicals. During 1992-94,
four watershed projects featured
concentrated monitoring activities
designed to answer specific ques-
tions about animal waste manage-
ment and farm chemical reduction
options.
Individual Use Support in Missouri
Percent
Designated Use"
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 51,015)"
Total Miles
Surveyed
53
Lakes (Total Acres = 288,315)
46
<1
Total Acres
Surveyed
288,315
38
288,315
261,227
100
62
aA subset of Missouri's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
131
-------
Montana
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Montana 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Christian J. Levine
Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Science
Water Quality Bureau
Cogswell Building
1400 Broadway
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-5342
Surface Water Quality
Most of Montana's rivers and
streams (74%) have fair water qual-
ity that periodically fails to support
aquatic life uses. Another 5% have
poor water quality that consistently
fails to support aquatic life uses.
About 14% of the surveyed lake
acres have good water quality that
fully supports fish and aquatic life,
57% fully support swimming, and
62% fully support drinking water
use. Agriculture (especially irrigated
crop production and rangeland)
impairs 60% of the surveyed stream
miles and 45% of the surveyed lake
acres. In general, nonpoint sources
are a factor in 90% of the impaired
rivers and 80% of the impaired
lakes. Resource extraction, forestry,
and municipal sewage treatment
plants have less widespread impacts
on water quality.
Ground Water Quality
More than 50% of Montanans
get their domestic water supply
from ground water sources. Ground
water is plentiful and the quality is
generally excellent, but Montana's
aquifers are very vulnerable to
pollution from human activities
that will expand as the population
expands throughout the river
valleys. The Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences and
the Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation are
jointly preparing a Comprehensive
Ground Water Protection Plan to
protect ground water quality and
quantity.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Montana is actively pursuing
interagency/interdisciplinary water-
shed planning and management.
Currently, five large watershed proj-
ects are under way in Montana:
132
-------
the Flathead Lake Watershed
Management Plan, the Blackfoot
River Watershed Management
Project, the Grassroots Planning
Process for the Upper Clark Fork
Basin, the Tri-State Clark Fork Pend
Oreille Watershed Management
Plan, and the Kootenai River Basin
Program. Each program advocates
collaboration by all interested
parties to devise comprehensive
management options that simulta-
neously address all major factors
threatening or degrading water
quality.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Montana will need to expand
its monitoring and assessment pro-
gram to adequately measure the
effectiveness of the State's nonpoint
source control program and other
watershed management programs.
To date, only 10% of the State's
stream miles and 2% of the lakes
have been assessed. Fixed-station
monitoring is limited to three of the
State's 16 river basins: the Flathead
and upper and lower Clark Fork
basins. The Department will ask the
State Legislature to fund additional
staff and operating expenses to
expand ambient monitoring in the
State. The State is also concerned
that the U.S. Geological Survey may
discontinue trend monitoring in
Montana.
Individual Use Support in Montana
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Designated Use3
Rivers and Streams
tc>
Total Miles
Surveyed
17,680
Supporting)
(Total Miles
20
_^B_
(Threatened) Supporting) Supporting)
= 176,750)b
74
1 5
Attainable)
0
Lakes (Total Acres = 844,802)
- Not reported.
aA subset of Montana's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
133
-------
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Nebraska 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Steven Walker
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division,
Surface Water Section
P.O. Box 98922, State House
Station
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402)471-2875
Surface Water Quality
Agriculture is the most wide-
spread source of water quality
problems in Nebraska, but urban
runoff also impacts the State's rivers
and streams. Agricultural runoff
introduces excess silt, bacteria,
suspended solids, pesticides, and
nutrients into surface waters.
Municipal and industrial facilities
may contribute ammonia, bacteria,
and metals. Channelization and
hydrologic modifications have
impacted aquatic life in Nebraska
streams by reducing the diversity
and availability of habitat.
Elevated concentrations of
metals, primarily arsenic, were the
most common water quality prob-
lem identified in lakes, followed by
siltation, low dissolved oxygen, and
nutrients. Pesticides, primarily
atrazine, also degraded 18 lakes.
Nebraska applies more atrazine to
crops than any other State in the
United States. Sources of pollution
in lakes include municipal sewage
treatment plants, agriculture,
construction, urban runoff, and
hydrologic habitat modifications.
Ground Water Quality
Although natural ground water
quality in Nebraska is good, hun-
dreds of individual cases of ground
water contamination have been
documented in Nebraska and the
number of contaminated wells
increases every year. Major sources
of ground water contamination
include agricultural activities, indus-
trial facilities, leaking underground
storage tanks, oil or hazardous sub-
stance spills, solid waste landfills,
wastewater lagoons, brine disposal
pits, and septic systems.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Until recently, Nebraska's
Nonpoint Source (NPS) Manage-
ment Program concentrated on
protecting ground water resources.
Surface water protection efforts
134
-------
consisted primarily of two federally
funded demonstration projects on
Long Pine Creek and Maple Creek.
Now, Nebraska is evaluating the
role of NPS pollution statewide. In
1994, Nebraska supported 35 NPS
projects throughout the State.
Nebraska recently revised wet-
lands water quality standards to
protect beneficial uses of aquatic
life, aesthetics, wildlife, and agricul-
tural water supply. The State also
protects wetlands with the water
quality certification program, per-
mit requirements for underground
injection activities and mineral
exploration, and water quality
monitoring.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The State's Nonpoint Source
Management Program cannot be
effective without monitoring infor-
mation to identify and prioritize
waters impacted by NPS, develop
NPS control plans, and evaluate the
effectiveness of implemented best
management practices. In response
to this need, Nebraska developed
an NPS surface water quality moni-
toring strategy to guide NPS moni-
toring projects. During 1992 and
1993, the State conducted 100
NPS screening assessments, 2 fol-
lowup intensive NPS watershed
assessments, BMP effectiveness
studies in 10 watersheds, and a
pesticide reconnaissance survey in
the Big and Little Blue River Basin.
Individual Use Support in Nebraska
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Designated Use3
Rivers and Streams
5>
Total Miles
Surveyed
7,448
Supporting)
(Total Miles
26
___
(Threatened) Supporting) Supporting)
= 81,573)b
55
10 9
^
Attainable)
0
I
Lakes (Total Acres = 280,000)
aA subset of Nebraska's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
135
-------
Nevada
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Nevada 1994
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
Surface Water Quality
Only 10% (about 15,000 miles)
of Nevada's rivers and streams flow
year round, and most of these
waters are inaccessible. For this
reporting period, Nevada surveyed
1,440 miles of the 3,000 miles of
accessible perennial streams with
designated beneficial uses. Thirty
percent of the surveyed stream
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses; 18%
have fair water quality that some-
times does not support aquatic life
uses; and 52% have poor water
quality that does not support
aquatic life uses. Thirty-eight per-
cent of the surveyed streams fully
support swimming and 62% do not
fully support swimming. In lakes,
29% of the surveyed acres fully
support aquatic life and swimming,
and 71% partially support these
uses.
Agricultural practices (irrigation,
grazing, and flow regulation) have
the greatest impact on Nevada's
water resources. Agricultural sources
generate large sediment and nutri-
ent loads. Urban drainage systems
contribute nutrients, heavy metals,
and organic substances that deplete
oxygen. Flow reductions also have a
great impact on streams, limiting
dilution of salts, minerals, and pol-
lutants.
Ground Water Quality
Nevada lacks comprehensive
ground water protection legislation,
but the State does have statutes
that control individual sources of
contamination, including mining,
underground storage tanks, septic
systems, handling of hazardous
materials and waste, solid waste dis-
posal, underground injection wells,
agricultural practices, and waste-
water disposal. Land use statutes
also enable local authorities to
implement Wellhead Protection
Plans by adopting zoning ordi-
nances, subdivision regulations, and
site plan review procedures. Local
authorities can implement certain
source control programs at the local
level.
136
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Nevada's Nonpoint Source
Management Plan aims to reduce
NPS pollution with interagency
coordination, education programs,
and incentives that encourage vol-
untary installation of best manage-
ment practices. During 1992-1994,
the State continued updating the
Handbook of Best Management
Practices and supported NPS assess-
ment activities in each of the State's
six major river basins. The State also
completed a Wellhead Protection
Plan for the State and began
developing a State Ground Water
Protection Policy.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Several State, Federal, and local
agencies regularly sample chemical
and physical parameters at over
100 sites in the 14 hydrologic
regions of the State. Nevada hopes
to add biological monitoring at
several routine sampling sites after
the State adapts rapid bioassess-
ment protocols to the arid condi-
tions in Nevada. The State also
coordinates intensive field studies
on Nevada's major river systems,
the Truckee River Basin, Carson
River Basin, Walker River Basin, and
the Humboldt River Basin. The
State also monitors a number of
lakes and reservoirs in conjunction
with the Section 314 Clean Lakes
Program.
Individual Use Support in Nevada
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair
(Fully Good (Partially
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting)
Poor Poor
(Not (Not
Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 143,578)"
Total Miles
Surveyed
Lakes (Total Acres = 533,239)
18
11
71
71
- Not reported.
aA subset of Nevada's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
137
-------
New Hampshire
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the New Hampshire
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Gregg Comstock
State of New Hampshire
Department of Environmental
Services
Water Supply & Pollution Control
Division
64 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2457
Surface Water Quality
Overall, the quality of New
Hampshire's surface waters is excel-
lent. Over 99% of the State's river
miles and 95% of the lake acres
have excellent or good water quali-
ty that fully supports aquatic life
uses and swimming. Poor water
quality conditions are more wide-
spread in estuaries; high bacterial
levels interfere with shellfish harvest-
ing in 66% of the estuarine waters.
Bacteria is also the leading cause of
impairment in rivers where high
bacteria levels indicate unsafe swim-
ming conditions. Nutrients are the
major cause of impairment in lakes
and ponds. The State suspects that
nonpoint sources are responsible for
most of the pollution entering the
State's waters.
New Hampshire advises the
public to restrict consumption of
fish caught in the Androscoggin
River below Berlin, the Connecticut
River, Horseshoe Pond, and the
Great Bay Estuary. One fish
consumption advisory is posted on
the Androscoggin River below
Berlin due to elevated concentra-
tions of dioxins in fish tissue. The
James River Corporation paper mill
in Berlin is the suspected source of
the dioxins.
Ground Water Quality
New Hampshire's overall
ground water quality is very good.
In some localized areas, naturally
occurring arsenic, fluoride, and
radionuclides (principally radon)
exceed drinking water standards.
Releases from petroleum facilities,
industrial operations, and landfills
have contaminated isolated areas
with petroleum or volatile organic
compounds. Sodium is the only
contaminant that has exhibited an
increasing presence in ground
water due to the widespread appli-
cation of road salts in winter. New
Hampshire is developing a
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program to coordinate
their various ground water assess-
ment, prevention, and restoration
programs.
138
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Over the past 20 years, New
Hampshire has eliminated or abat-
ed all significant untreated munici-
pal and industrial wastewater dis-
charges in State waters. Recently,
the Department of Environmental
Services (DES) initiated a watershed
protection approach to identify and
resolve remaining pollution prob-
lems. DES will compile watershed
maps and land use data, identify
major sources of pollution, model
total maximum daily loads for
pollutants, and revise discharge
permits as needed in the State's five
basins. DES estimates that each
basin assessment will require 2
years to complete at current fund-
ing levels.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DES implemented a rotating
watershed monitoring program in
1989. In 1993, the rotation was
temporarily halted so that the State
could intensify monitoring at sites
violating standards. During 1994
and 1995, DES will investigate
sources of violations confirmed by
the 1993 data.
Individual Use Support in New Hampshire
Percent
-Not reported.
aA subset of New Hampshire's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
State's 305(b) report for a full description
of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 10,881)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 163,012)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 28)
139
-------
New Jersey
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrdogic Unit)
For a copy of the New Jersey 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Kevin Berry
N) Department of Environmental
Protection
Office of Environmental Planning
401 East State St.
Trenton, N) 08625
(609) 633-11 79
Surface Water Quality
Sixty-eight percent of the 1,617
surveyed stream miles have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life, but New Jersey's high
population density threatens these
waters. Bacteria (which indicates
unsafe swimming conditions) and
nutrients are the most common
pollutants in rivers and streams. All
of the State's lakes are believed to
be threatened or actively deteriorat-
ing. Bacterial contamination is the
most widespread problem in
estuaries, impairing both shellfish
harvesting and swimming. Other
problems include nutrients, low
dissolved oxygen concentrations,
pesticides, and priority organic
chemicals. Major sources impacting
New Jersey's waters include munici-
pal treatment plants, industrial facil-
ities, combined sewers, urban
runoff, construction, agriculture,
and land disposal of wastes (includ-
ing septic tanks).
Ground Water Quality
There are currently over 6,000
ground water pollution investiga-
tions under way in New Jersey. The
most common pollutants found in
ground water are volatile organic
compounds, metals, base neutral
chemicals, acid-extractable chemi-
cals, PCBs, and pesticides. Under-
ground storage tanks are the most
common source of ground water
contamination, followed by land-
fills, surface spills, and industrial/
commercial septic systems. New
Jersey adopted new ground water
quality standards in 1993 that
revise the ground water classifica-
tion system and establish numerical
criteria for many pollutants. The
standards also protect good ground
water quality from degradation by
future activities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
New Jersey's Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) is
adopting a watershed approach to
water quality and quantity manage-
ment. The watershed approach
coordinates monitoring, modeling,
planning, permitting, and enforce-
ment activities within a geographic
140
-------
area that drains into a major river,
lake, or estuary. The watershed
approach allows all interested
parties to participate in the devel-
opment of consensus-based man-
agement options. DEP is currently
conducting a watershed protection
pilot project in the Whippany River
watershed with local governments,
permittees, regional interest
groups, and private citizens.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DEP's current monitoring pro-
gram is centered around physical
and chemical sampling at fixed sta-
tions designed to monitor long-
term trends. Unfortunately, the
fixed-station network cannot pro-
vide data to address other manage-
ment needs, such as identifying
specific sources of pollution and
measuring the effectiveness of
specific pollution control actions.
Therefore, DEP recommends sup-
plementing the fixed-station moni-
toring program with intensive
watershed surveys to support
watershed protection management
projects. Intensive surveys would
collect data to profile water quality
over 24-hour periods, identify pol-
lution sources, quantify pollution
impacts, compare water quality
data to flow conditions, model
wasteload allocations, and deter-
mine assimilative capacity of water-
bodies.
aA subset of New jersey's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
includes tidal portions of coastal rivers.
Individual Use Support in New jersey
Percent
Designated Use9
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 6,450)b
Total Miles
Surveyed
1,617
19
13
525
15
Lakes (Total Acres = 24,000)
^r^^
§*
Total Acres
Surveyed
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 420)
141
-------
New Mexico
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the New Mexico
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Erik Galloway
New Mexico Environment
Department
Surface Water Quality Bureau
Evaluation and Planning Section
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110
(505) 827-2923
Surface Water Quality
About 93% of New Mexico's
surveyed stream miles have good
water quality that fully supports
aquatic life uses. Ninety-nine per-
cent of the surveyed river miles fully
support swimming. The leading
problems in streams include habitat
alterations (such as removal of
streamside vegetation), siltation,
metals, and nutrients. Nonpoint
sources are responsible for over
93% of the degradation in New
Mexico's 3,255 impaired stream
miles. Municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants impair about 4% of
the degraded waters (124 stream
miles).
Agriculture and recreational
activities are the primary sources of
nutrients, siltation, reduced shore-
line vegetation, and bank destabi-
lization that impairs aquatic life use
in 91 % of New Mexico's surveyed
lake acres. Mercury contamination
from unknown sources appears in
fish caught at 22 reservoirs. How-
ever, water and sediment samples
from surveyed lakes and reservoirs
have not detected high concentra-
tions of mercury. Fish may contain
high concentrations of mercury in
waters with minute quantities of
mercury because the process of bio-
magnification concentrates mercury
in fish tissue.
Ground Water Quality
About 88% of the population
of New Mexico depends on ground
water for drinking water. The Envi-
ronment Department has identified
at least 1,745 cases of ground
water contamination since 1927.
The most common source of
ground water contamination is
small household septic tanks and
cesspools. Leaking underground
storage tanks, injection wells, land-
fills, surface impoundments, oil and
gas production, mining and milling,
dairies, and miscellaneous industrial
sources also contaminate ground
water in New Mexico. New Mexico
operates a ground water discharger
permit program that includes
ground water standards for inten-
tional discharges and a spill cleanup
provision for other discharges.
142
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
New Mexico's Nonpoint Source
Management Program contains a
series of implementation milestones
that were designed to establish
goals while providing a method to
measure progress and success of
the program. Implementation con-
sists of the coordination of efforts
among NPS management agencies,
promotion and implementation of
best management practices, coordi-
nation of watershed projects,
inspection and enforcement activi-
ties, consistency reviews, and
education and outreach activities.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
New Mexico relies heavily on
chemical and physical data to
assess water quality. Fish tissue data
became available in 1991, and data
from biological surveys and bioas-
say tests were incorporated into the
1994 assessments where possible.
The State also conducts extensive
monitoring to determine the
effectiveness of best management
practices implemented under the
Nonpoint Source Management
Program. During the current 305(b)
reporting cycle, New Mexico com-
pleted two special water quality
surveys along the Rio Hondo and
the Red River in Taos County.
Individual Use Support in New Mexico
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 110,741 )b
Lakes (Total Acres = 151,320)
aA subset of New Mexico's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
143
-------
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the New York 1994
305(b) report, contact:
George K. Hansen, RE.
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Monitoring and
Assessment
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518)457-8819
Surface Water Quality
Ninety-one percent of New
York's rivers and streams, 74% of
the State's lake acres, 97% of the
State's Great Lakes shoreline, and
99% of the bays and tidal waters
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses. Swim-
ming is fully supported in 99% of
the surveyed rivers, 78% of the
surveyed lakes, 80% of the Great
Lakes shoreline, and 93% of the
surveyed estuarine waters. Eighty-
five percent of New York's Great
Lake's shoreline does not fully sup-
port fish consumption use because
of a fish consumption advisory.
Agriculture is a major source of
nutrients and silt that impair New
York's rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
Hydrologic modification and habitat
modification are also a major source
of water quality impairment in
rivers and lakes. Urban runoff is a
major source of pollution in the
State's estuaries. Bacteria from
urban runoff and other sources
close about 200,000 acres (16%)
of potential shellfishing beds.
Contaminated sediments are
the primary source of 7% of the
impaired rivers and lakes, 76% of
the impaired Great Lake's shoreline,
and 27% of the impaired estuarine
waters in New York State. Sedi-
ments are contaminated with PCBs,
chlorinated organic pesticides, mer-
cury, cadmium, mirex, and dioxins
that bioconcentrate in the food
chain and result in fish consump-
tion advisories.
Sewage treatment plant
construction and upgrades have
had a significant impact on water
quality. Since 1972, the size of
rivers impacted by municipal sew-
age treatment facilities has declined
from about 2,000 miles to 300
miles.
Ground Water Quality
About 3% of the State's public
water supply system wells (160
wells) are closed or abandoned due
to contamination from organic
chemicals. The most common con-
taminants are synthetic solvents
and degreasers, gasoline and other
petroleum products, and agricultur-
al pesticides and herbicides
(primarily aldicarb and carbofuran).
144
-------
The most common sources of
organic solvents in ground water
are spills, leaks, and improper
handling at industrial and commer-
cial facilities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Virtually every county of the
State has a county water quality
coordinating committee composed
of local agencies (such as Cornell
Cooperative Extension and soil and
water conservation districts), local
representatives from State and
Federal agencies, and public inter-
est groups. The county committees
meet regularly to discuss local prior-
ities and fashion local strategies to
address nonpoint source pollution.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1987, New York State imple-
mented the Rotating Intensive Basin
Studies (RIBS), an ambient monitor-
ing program that concentrates
monitoring activities on one-third
of the State's hydrologic basins for
2-year periods. The DEC monitors
the entire State every 6 years.
Intensive monitoring clarifies cause-
and-effect relationships between
pollutants and water quality,
measures the effectiveness of
implemented pollution controls,
and supports regulatory decisions.
Individual Use Support in New York
Percent
aA subset of New York's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Designated Use9
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (P.rtlally (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 52,337)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 790.782)
Great Lakes (Total Miles = 577)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 1,530)
145
-------
North Carolina
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the North Carolina
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Carol Metz
NC DEHNR
Division of Environmental
Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
(919)733-5083
Surface Water Quality
About 70% of the State's sur-
veyed freshwater rivers and streams
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses, 25% have
fair water quality that partially sup-
ports aquatic life uses, and 5% have
poor water quality that does not
support aquatic life uses. Eighteen
percent of the surveyed rivers do
not fully support swimming. The
major sources of impairment are
agriculture (responsible for 56% of
the impaired river miles), urban
runoff (responsible for 13%), point
sources (responsible for 12%), and
construction (responsible for 11%).
These sources generate siltation,
bacteria, and organic wastes that
deplete dissolved oxygen.
Only 3% of the surveyed lakes
in North Carolina are impaired for
swimming and aquatic life uses. A
few lakes are impacted by dioxin,
metals, and excessive nutrient
enrichment. The Champion Paper
mill on the Pigeon River is the
source of dioxin contamination in
Waterville Lake. The State and the
mill implemented a dioxin mini-
mization program in the mid-1980s
and completed a modernization
program in 1993 that will reduce
water usage and discharges.
About 93% of the estuaries and
sounds in North Carolina fully sup-
port designated uses. Agriculture,
urban runoff, septic tanks, and
point source discharges are the
leading sources of nutrients, bacte-
ria, and low dissolved oxygen that
degrade estuaries.
Ground Water Quality
About half of the people in
North Carolina use ground water as
their primary supply of drinking
water. Ground water quality is
generally good, but new cases of
ground water contamination affect-
ed 276 public water supplies during
1992-1993. The leading source of
ground water contamination is
leaking underground storage tanks,
which contaminate ground water
with gasoline, diesel fuel, and heat-
ing oil. During 1992 and 1993,
North Carolina adopted new regu-
lations for administering Leaking
Underground Storage Tank funds
and amended ground water
standards.
146
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1992-1993, North Carolina
continued its aggressive program to
control nonpoint source pollution.
North Carolina adopted a nondis-
charge rule for animal waste man-
agement, implemented an innova-
tive nutrient trading program
between point and nonpoint
sources in the Tar-Pamlico river
basin, signed 2,500 new contracts
under the Agricultural Cost Share
Program to implement best man-
agement practices, and reclassified
about 200 water supply watersheds
for special protection.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Surface water quality in North
Carolina was primarily evaluated
using physical and chemical data
collected by the Division of Envi-
ronmental Management (DEM)
from a statewide fixed-station net-
work and biological assessments.
These include macroinvertebrate
(aquatic insect) community surveys,
fish community structure analyses,
phytoplankton analyses, bioassays,
and limnological review of lakes
and watersheds. Other sources of
information were point source
monitoring data, shellfish closure
reports, lake trophic state studies,
and reports prepared by other
local, State, and Federal agencies.
- Not reported.
aA subset of North Carolina's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
State's 305(b) report for a full description
of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in North Carolina
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 37,600)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 306,584)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 3,122)
147
-------
North Dakota
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the North Dakota
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Michael Ell
North Dakota Department of Health
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 5520
Bismark, ND 58502
(701) 328-5210
Surface Water Quality
North Dakota reports that 78%
of its surveyed rivers and streams
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses now, but
good conditions are threatened in
most of these streams. Eighty-nine
percent of the surveyed streams
fully support swimming. Elevated
siltation, nutrients, ammonia,
pathogens, oxygen-depleting
wastes, and habitat alterations
impair aquatic life use support in
22% of the surveyed rivers and
impair swimming in 11% of the
surveyed rivers. The leading sources
of contamination are agriculture,
removal of streamside vegetation,
municipal sewage treatment plants,
and other habitat alterations.
Natural conditions, such as low
flows, also contribute to violations
of standards.
In lakes, 95% of the surveyed
acres have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses, and
98% of the surveyed acres fully sup-
port swimming. Siltation, nutrients,
oxygen-depleting substances, and
suspended solids are the most wide-
spread pollutants in North Dakota's
lakes. The leading sources of pollu-
tion in lakes are agricultural activi-
ties (including nonirrigated crop
production, pastureland, irrigated
crop production, and feedlots),
municipal sewage treatment plants,
and urban runoff/storm sewers.
Natural conditions also prevent
some waters from fully supporting
designated uses.
Ground Water Quality
North Dakota has not identified
widespread ground water contami-
nation, although some naturally
occurring compounds may make
the quality of ground water
undesirable in a few aquifers.
Where human-induced ground
water contamination has occurred,
the impacts have been attributed
primarily to petroleum storage
facilities, agricultural storage facili-
ties, feedlots, poorly designed wells,
abandoned wells, wastewater
treatment lagoons, landfills, septic
systems, and the underground
injection of waste. Assessment and
148
-------
protection of ground water contin-
ue through ambient ground water
quality monitoring activities, the
implementation of wellhead protec-
tion projects, the Comprehensive
Ground Water Protection Program,
and the development of a State
Management Plan for Pesticides.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
North Dakota's Nonpoint
Source Pollution Management
Program has provided financial
support to 26 projects over the past
4 years. Although the size, type,
and target audience of these
projects vary, the projects share
the same basic goals: (1) increase
public awareness of nonpoint
source pollution, (2) reduce or
prevent the delivery of NPS pollut-
ants to waters of the State, and
(3) disseminate information on
effective solutions to NPS pollution.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The North Dakota Department
of Health monitors physical and
chemical parameters (such as dis-
solved oxygen, pH, total dissolved
solids, and nutrients), toxic contam-
inants in fish, whole effluent toxic-
ity, and fish community structure.
North Dakota's ambient water qual-
ity monitoring network consists of
61 sampling sites on 31 rivers and
streams.
Individual Use Support in North Dakota
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Designated Usea
Rivers and Streams
2^
Total Miles
Surveyed
7,120
Supporting)
(Total Miles
3
(Threatened)
= 11,868)b
75
Supporting) Supporting)
22
°
Attainable)
0
100
Lakes (Total Acres = 632,016)
Total Acres
Surveyed
aA subset of North Dakota's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
149
-------
Ohio
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Ohio 1994 305(b)
report, contact:
Ed Rankin
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Surface Water
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614) 728-3385
Surface Water Quality
Ohio based their 1994 assess-
ments on data collected between
1988 and 1994. Ohio's assessment
methods compare observed ecolog-
ical characteristics (including data
on aquatic insects, fish species,
habitat, and streamside vegetation)
with background conditions found
at least-impacted reference sites for
a given ecoregion and stream type.
Ohio identified ecological
impacts from organic enrich-
ment and low dissolved oxygen
concentrations, siltation, habitat
modification, metals, ammonia,
and flow alterations. Fecal coliform
bacteria indicate impaired swim-
ming conditions in 9% of the sur-
veyed river miles. These impacts
stem from municipal discharges,
runoff from agriculture, hydromodi-
fication, industrial discharges, min-
ing, urban runoff, and combined
sewer overflows.
Ohio estimates that wastewater
treatment plant construction and
upgrades have restored aquatic life
to about 1,000 river miles since the
1970s. Since 1988, the percentage
of surveyed river miles fully fit for
swimming also grew from 49% to
60%. However, increasing threats
from nonpoint sources could erode
gains made with point source
controls and slow the rate of
restoration.
The most common impacts
on Ohio lakes include nutrients,
volume loss due to sedimentation,
organic enrichment, and habitat
alterations. Nonpoint sources,
including agriculture, urban runoff,
and septic systems, generate most
of these impacts. However, munici-
pal point sources still affect 63% of
the surveyed lake acres.
Most of the Lake Erie shoreline
is fit for recreational use, but a fish
consumption advisory for channel
catfish and carp remains in effect
along the entire shoreline. Ohio
also issued fish consumption advi-
sories for all species of fish caught
on 137 river miles and documented
elevated levels of PCBs in fish
caught at two small lakes.
150
-------
Ground Water Quality
About 4.5 million Ohio
residents depend upon wells for
domestic water. Waste disposal
activities, underground storage tank
leaks, and spills are the dominant
sources of ground water contami-
nation in Ohio.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
To fully restore water quality,
Ohio EPA advocates an ecosystem
approach that confronts degrada-
tion on shore as well as in the
water. Ohio's programs aim to cor-
rect nonchemical impacts, such as
channel modification and the
destruction of shoreline vegetation.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Ohio pioneered the integration
of biosurvey data, physical habitat
data, and bioassays with water
chemistry data to measure the
overall integrity of water resources.
Biological monitoring provides the
foundation of Ohio's water pro-
grams because traditional chemical
monitoring alone may not detect
episodic pollution events or non-
chemical impacts. Ohio EPA found
that biosurvey data can increase the
detection of aquatic life use impair-
ment by about 35% to 50%.
aA subset of Ohio's designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Ohio
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 55,059)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 240,378)
Great Lakes (Total Miles = 236)
^^^
2^
100
Total Miles
Surveyed
236 0 0 00
100
236
236
98
151
-------
Oklahoma
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Oklahoma 1994
305(b) report, contact:
John Dyer
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
1000 NE 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
(405)271-5205
Surface Water Quality
Fifty-eight percent of the sur-
veyed river miles have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life uses and 65% fully support
swimming. The most common pol-
lutants found in Oklahoma rivers
are siltation, pesticides, nutrients,
and suspended solids. Agriculture is
the leading source of pollution in
the State's rivers and streams,
followed by petroleum extraction
and hydrologic/habitat modifica-
tions.
Fifty-seven percent of the
surveyed lake acres fully support
aquatic life uses and 60% fully
support swimming. The most wide-
spread pollutants in Oklahoma's
lakes are siltation, nutrients, sus-
pended solids, and oxygen-deplet-
ing substances. Agriculture is also
the most common source of pollu-
tion in lakes, followed by contami-
nated sediments and flow regula-
tion. Several lakes are impacted by
acid mine drainage, including the
Gaines Creek arm of Lake Eufaula
and the Lake O' the Cherokees.
Ground Water Quality
Ambient ground water moni-
toring has detected elevated nitrate
concentrations in monitoring wells
scattered across the State. Monitor-
ing has also detected isolated cases
of hydrocarbon contamination,
elevated selenium and fluoride con-
centrations (probably due to natur-
al sources), chloride contamination
from discontinued oil field activities,
metals from past mining opera-
tions, and gross alpha activity
above maximum allowable limits.
Industrial solvents contaminate a
few sites near landfills, storage pits,
and Tinker Air Force Base. The State
rates agriculture, injection wells,
septic tanks, surface impound-
ments, and industrial spills as the
highest priority sources of ground
water contamination.
152
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Oklahoma's nonpoint source
control program is a cooperative
effort of State, Federal, and local
agencies that sponsors demonstra-
tion projects. The demonstration
projects feature implementation of
agricultural best management prac-
tices, water quality monitoring
before and after BMP implementa-
tion, technical assistance, educa-
tion, and development of compre-
hensive watershed management
plans. Currently, Oklahoma is
conducting five IMPS projects in
Comanche County, Greer and
Beckham Counties, Custer County,
Tillman County, and the Illinois
River Basin.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Oklahoma's Conservation
Commission is conducting five
large watershed studies in the
Illinois River Basin, the Little River
Basin, the Neosho (Grand) River
Basin, the Southeast Oklahoma
Multiple Basin, and the Poteau
River/Wister Lake Project (a cooper-
ative effort with the LeFlore Conser-
vation District, the Water Board,
and the USGS). Altogether, 385
sites will be sampled for chemical
parameters and one-third of these
sites will also be sampled for
biological integrity.
Individual Use Support in Oklahoma
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 78,778)b
Total Miles
Surveyed
6,718
46
22
13
Lakes (Total Acres = 1,041,884)
- Not reported.
aA subset of Oklahoma's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
153
-------
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Oregon 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Robert Baumgartner
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-6962
Surface Water Quality
Forty-three percent of Oregon's
surveyed rivers have good water
quality that fully supports desig-
nated uses, 30% have fair water
quality that partially supports uses,
and 27% have poor water quality
that does not support uses. The
most widespread problems in
Oregon's streams are habitat alter-
ations, high temperatures, and silta-
tion from grazing, other agricultural
activities, forestry, and recreation.
In lakes, 74% of the surveyed
acres fully support uses, 12%
partially support uses, and 14% do
not support uses. The most
common problems in Oregon's
lakes are excess nutrients, pH (acidi-
ty), and low dissolved oxygen. DEQ
suspects that agriculture and natur-
al conditions (including shallow
depth and high evaporation rates)
are the most significant sources of
lake problems.
Six percent of Oregon's estuar-
ine waters have good quality and
94% have fair water quality due to
periodic violations of bacteria
standards. High concentrations of
fecal bacteria usually result from
bypasses at municipal wastewater
treatment plants during rainfall
events or improper management of
animal wastes.
Ground Water Quality
Monitoring has detected
nitrates, benzene, other volatile
organic compounds, bacteria,
herbicides, and pesticides in ground
water. Suspected sources include
septic systems, agriculture, highway
maintenance, industry, and com-
merce. During 1992 and 1993,
DEQ conducted statewide ground
water monitoring, developed a
ground water data management
system, and issued 16 grants for
research and education projects
designed to protect ground water
from nonpoint sources of pollution.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Oregon recently initiated a
Watershed Health Program to
encourage public/private partner-
ships for managing water quality
and ecosystem enhancement.
154
-------
Under the Watershed Health
Program, field-based technical
teams work closely with watershed
councils composed of local resi-
dents and stakeholders to set priori-
ties and fund projects. DEQ and
other State agencies targeted the
Grand Ronde Basin and the
combined South Coast and Rogue
Basins to begin implementing the
Watershed Health Program with
$10 million in State funds for 1994
and 1995. These basins were
selected because of existing Total
Maximum Daily Load programs.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
DEQ routinely monitors about
3,500 miles of streams in its ambi-
ent river monitoring program.
These streams receive about 90% of
the wastewater discharged by point
sources throughout the State.
During 1992 and 1993, DEQ
increased the number of ambient
river monitoring stations and
expanded other monitoring pro-
grams, including ground water
studies, continuous monitoring,
mixing zone studies, and bioassess-
ments. Recently, Oregon also initiat-
ed the Coos Bay toxics study, the
Tillamook Bay National Estuary
Program, and the Lower Columbia
River Bi-State Program to provide
more information on estuarine
water quality.
Overall9 Use Support in Oregon
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 114,823)"
:'
27
Lakes (Total Acres = 618,934)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 206)
- Not reported.
a Overall use support is presented in this figure because Oregon did not report individual use
support in their 1994 Section 305(b) report.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
155
-------
Pennsylvania
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Pennsylvania
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Bureau of Water Quality
Management
Division of Assessment and
Standards
P.O. Box 8465
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
(71 7) 783-3638
Surface Water Quality
Over 81% of the surveyed river
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses and
swimming. About 8% have fair
water quality that partially supports
these uses, and 11 % have poor
water quality that does not support
aquatic life uses and swimming.
The most widespread pollutants are
metals, which impact over 2,092
miles. Pollutants identified less fre-
quently include suspended solids
(impacting 603 miles), nutrients
(impacting 586 miles), and pH
(impacting 273 miles).
Abandoned mine drainage is
the most significant source of
surface water quality degradation in
Pennsylvania. Drainage from mining
sites pollutes at least 2,404 miles of
streams representing 52% of all
degraded streams in the Common-
wealth. Other sources of degrada-
tion include agriculture (impacting
694 miles), municipal sewage treat-
ment plants (impacting 241 miles),
and industrial point sources
(impacting 206 miles).
Pennsylvania has issued fish
consumption advisories on 23
waterbodies. Most of the advisories
are due to elevated concentrations
of PCBs and chlordane in fish tissue,
but a few advisories have been
issued for mirex and mercury. In
1994, the State deactivated two
advisories for dioxins on Codurus
Creek and the South Branch of
Codurus Creek as well as one advi-
sory for chlordane on the Delaware
River.
Ground Water Quality
Major sources of ground water
contamination in Pennsylvania
include leaking underground
storage tanks, containers from
hazardous materials facilities, and
improper handling or overuse of
fertilizer. Petroleum and petroleum
byproducts are the most common
pollutants in ground water. Coal
mining and oil and gas production
have also elevated concentrations
of several elements (including chlo-
rides, iron, barium, and strontium)
in some regions of the Common-
wealth. A Ground Water Quality
Protection Strategy was adopted
and released to the public in
February 1992, and an Implemen-
tation Task Force was formed in
156
-------
August 1992. The Task Force
reviewed all program regulations
and scheduled revisions that will
advance the Strategy goal of
nondegradation of ground water
quality.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Eliminating acid mine drainage
from abandoned mines will require
up to $5 billion. The cost, difficulty,
magnitude, and extent of the
problem have hampered progress.
To date, the Commonwealth has
funded studies to determine the
effectiveness of alternative tech-
niques for treating mine drainage
and preventing contamination. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Natural Resources Conser-
vation Service's Rural Abandoned
Mines Program also reconstructs
abandoned mine sites in Pennsyl-
vania.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Water Quality Network
monitors chemical and physical
parameters almost monthly and
biological parameters annually at
168 fixed stations on rivers,
streams, and Lake Erie. In 1991,
Pennsylvania began annual sam-
pling at 15 to 20 lakes for 5 years.
After 5 years, another set of lakes
will be sampled annually for 5 years
until 90 lakes have been monitored.
The Commonwealth also conducts
ambient ground water monitoring
at 537 monitoring sites.
Individual Use Support in Pennsylvania
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 53,962)b
Total Miles
Surveyed
24,948
24,948
24,948
11
11
11
Lakes (Total Acres = 161,445)
^r^^
2^
Total Acres
Surveyed
-Not reported.
a A subset of Pennsylvania's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
157
-------
Puerto Rico
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Puerto Rico 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Eric H. Morales
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board
Water Quality Area
Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
(809)751-5548
Surface Water Quality
In rivers and streams, 17% of
the surveyed miles have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life uses, 32% partially support
aquatic life uses, and 51% do not
support aquatic life uses. Swimming
is impaired in 79% of the surveyed
rivers and streams. Low dissolved
oxygen, pesticides, flow alteration,
bacteria, and nutrients are the most
widespread problems in rivers and
streams. In lakes, 30% of the
surveyed acres fully support aquatic
life uses, 19% partially support
these uses, and 51% do not
support aquatic life uses. Swimming
is impaired in 55% of the surveyed
lake acres. Uses are impaired by
inorganic chemicals, low dissolved
oxygen concentrations, bacteria,
priority organic chemicals, metals,
and pesticides.
Only 16% of the assessed estu-
arine waters fully support aquatic
life uses and only 17% fully support
swimming due to oxygen-depleting
organic substances, bacteria, and
habitat alterations. Land disposal of
wastes, urban runoff, agriculture,
municipal sewage treatment plants,
and natural conditions are the most
common sources of water quality
degradation in rivers, lakes, and
estuaries. Industrial and municipal
discharges also pollute beaches.
Ground Water Quality
Organic compounds, including
dichloromethane, 1,1,2-trichloro-
ethane, and toluene were detected
below maximum contaminant
levels in several wells. Four wells
were closed due to bacterial con-
tamination and high turbidity and
two wells were shut down due to
contamination from volatile organic
compounds. The major sources of
ground water contamination are
septic tanks, livestock operations,
agriculture, storage tanks, and land-
fills. Puerto Rico adopted ground
water use classifications and water
quality standards in 1990. In 1993,
the Environmental Quality Board
completed the ground water
priority list that ranks critical areas
for remediation and protection
activities.
158
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Puerto Rico requires permits or
certificates for ground water and
surface water discharges, under-
ground storage tanks, and livestock
operations. Certificates require
livestock operations to implement
animal waste management systems
and other best management prac-
tices. During the 1992-1993 report-
ing period, Puerto Rico issued 194
certificates for livestock operations;
inspected 427 livestock operations;
implemented 77 BMPs in priority
watersheds; offered 15 conferences
to educate the public about non-
point source pollution and controls;
and monitored the effectiveness of
BMPs implemented at poultry,
dairy, and hog farms.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Under a cooperative agreement
with the government of Puerto
Rico, the USGS collects bimonthly
samples at 57 fixed surface water
monitoring stations. The samples
are analyzed for dissolved oxygen,
nutrients, bacteria, and convention-
al parameters. Twice a year, the
samples are analyzed for metals and
several toxic substances. Puerto
Rico also maintains a Permanent
Coastal Water Quality Network of
88 stations and the San Juan Beach-
front Special Monitoring Network
of 22 stations sampled monthly for
bacterial contamination.
- Not reported.
aA subset of Puerto Rico's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the
Commonwealth's 305(b) report for a full
description of the Commonwealth's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Puerto Rico
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 5,385)"
>
Lakes (Total Acres = 10,887)
Estuaries (Total Miles = 175)
159
-------
Rhode Island
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Rhode Island
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Connie Carey
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade St.
Providence, Rl 02908-5767
(401)277-6519
Surface Water Quality
Eighty-four percent of Rhode
Island's rivers, 81 % of lakes, and
96% of estuarine waters support
aquatic life uses. However, many of
these waters are considered threat-
ened. About 80% of rivers, 94% of
lakes, and 93% of estuaries fully
support swimming. The most sig-
nificant pollutants in Rhode Island's
waters are heavy metals (especially
copper and lead), priority organic
chemicals (PCBs), bacteria, low
dissolved oxygen, excess nutrients,
and low pH/low buffering capacity.
Recurring algae blooms, high nutri-
ents, and high turbidity threaten
the use of several surface waters for
drinking water supplies.
Rivers and estuaries are
impacted by industrial and munici-
pal discharges, combined sewer
overflows, urban runoff, highway
runoff, failed septic systems, and
contaminated sediments. Lakes are
primarily impacted by nonpoint
sources, including septic systems,
atmospheric deposition, and land
and road runoff.
Ground Water Quality
About 24% of the State's popu-
lation is supplied with drinking
water from public and private wells.
Overall, Rhode Island's ground
water has good to excellent quality,
but over 100 contaminants have
been detected in localized areas.
Twenty-one community and eight
noncommunity wells have been
closed and 400 private wells have
required treatment due to contami-
nation. The most common pollut-
ants are petroleum products, cer-
tain organic solvents, and nitrates.
Significant pollution sources include
leaking underground storage tanks,
hazardous and industrial waste
disposal sites, illegal or improper
waste disposal, chemical and oil
spills, landfills, septic systems, road
salt storage and application, and
fertilizer application.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Rhode Island's Nonpoint Source
Management Program sponsored
the following activities during
1992-1993: (1) preparation of NPS
management plans for 10 surface
water supply watersheds; (2) devel-
opment of a Community NPS
160
-------
Management Guide; (3) develop-
ment of a Stormwater Design and
Installation Manual; (4) preparation
of a manual for selecting best
management practices for marinas;
(5) development of a Community
Wastewater Management Guidance
Manual; (6) mitigation projects at
Greenwich Bay, including septic sys-
tem inspections and replacements;
(7) technical assistance to commu-
nities developing zoning or NFS
control ordinances; and (8) revising
and updating the Rhode Island NPS
Management Plan.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Rhode Island's monitoring
program consists of: (1) discharge
effluent monitoring, (2) the Beach
Monitoring Program, (3) the Shell-
fish Growing Area Monitoring
Program, (4) USGS Water Quality
Trend Monitoring Fixed Stations,
(5) supplemental monitoring sta-
tions sampled by the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental
Management, (6) biological moni-
toring, and (7) limited expansion
of ambient water quality stream
biological and chemical monitoring.
During the 1992-1993 reporting
cycle, Rhode Island added 25 toxics
monitoring stations to previously
unmonitored streams.
Individual Use Support in Rhode Island
- Not reported.
aA subset of Rhode Island's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
clncludes ocean waters.
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = i,i06)b
Total Miles
Surveyed 47
Lakes (Total Acres = 17,328)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 139)
37
25
II
16
161
-------
South Carolina
Fully Supporting
Threatened
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
Not Assessed
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the South Carolina
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Gina Lowman
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental
Control
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-5153
Surface Water Quality
Ninety-one percent of surveyed
rivers, 99% of surveyed lakes, and
75% of estuaries have good water
quality that fully supports aquatic
life uses. Sixty-three percent of
rivers, 99% of lakes, and 86% of
estuaries fully support swimming.
Unsuitable water quality is responsi-
ble for shellfish harvesting prohibi-
tions in only 2% of the State's
coastal shellfish waters. Another
11 % of shellfish waters are closed
as a precaution due to potential
pollution from nearby marinas or
point source discharges.
Bacteria are the most frequent
cause of impairment (i.e., partial or
nonsupport of designated uses) in
rivers and streams; metals are the
most frequent cause of impairment
in lakes, but only 1 % of lakes do
not fully support uses; and low dis-
solved oxygen is the most frequent
cause of impairment in estuaries.
Toxic contaminants do not appear
to be a widespread problem in
South Carolina surface waters. Of
all waters assessed, only 5% had
elevated levels of metals and only
3% had concentrations of PCBs,
pesticides, and organics above the
assessment criteria.
Ground Water Quality
Overall ground water quality
remains excellent, although the
number of reported ground water
contamination cases rose from
60 cases in 1980 to 2,207 cases in
1993. The increase in the number
of contaminated sites is primarily
due to expanded monitoring at
underground storage tank sites.
Leaking underground storage tanks
are the most common source of
contamination, impacting 1,741
sites, followed by leaking pits,
ponds, and lagoons.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental
Control (DHEC) initiated a Water-
shed Water Quality Management
Strategy (WWQMS) to integrate
monitoring, assessment, problem
162
-------
identification and prioritization,
water quality modeling, planning,
permitting, and other management
activities by river drainage basins.
DHEC has delineated five major
drainage basins encompassing
280 minor watersheds. Every year,
DHEC will develop or revise a man-
agement plan and implementation
strategy for one basin. It will take
5 years to assess all basins in the
State. The basin strategies will
refocus water quality protection
and restoration priorities for alloca-
tion of limited resources.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Year round, DHEC samples
chemical and physical parameters
monthly at fixed primary stations
located in or near high-use waters.
DHEC samples secondary stations
(near discharges and areas with a
history of water quality problems)
monthly from May through
October for fewer parameters. Each
year, DHEC adds new watershed
stations within the specific basin
under investigation. Watershed
stations are sampled monthly for
1 year corresponding with the
WWQMS schedule.
Individual Use Support in South Carolina
Percent
- Not reported.
aA subset of South Carolina's designated
uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
State's 305(b) report for a full description
of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 35,461 )b
Lakes (Total Acres = 525,000)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 945)
Total Square 75
Miles Surveyed
163
-------
South Dakota
Note: All blue colored streams in the western-
most basins of South Dakota are considered
Fully Supporting, not Threatened. Trend
analyses for the Threatened category have
not been evaluated, so South Dakota does
not report streams as Threatened.
Fully Supporting
Threatened
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
Not Assessed
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit, as modified by South Dakota)
For a copy of the South Dakota
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Andrew Repsys
South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Division of Financial and Technical
Assistance
Watershed Protection Program
523 East Capitol, joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-3882
Surface Water Quality
Seventeen percent of South
Dakota's surveyed rivers and
streams fully support aquatic life
uses and 83% do not fully support
aquatic life uses. Thirty-five percent
of the surveyed rivers also support
swimming, and 65% of the sur-
veyed rivers do not fully support
swimming. The most common pol-
lutants impacting South Dakota
streams are suspended solids due to
water erosion from croplands, gully
erosion from rangelands, stream-
bank erosion, and other natural
forms of erosion. Ninety-eight
percent of South Dakota's surveyed
lake acres fully support aquatic life
uses now, but the quality of these
lakes is threatened. Similarly, 100%
of the surveyed lake acres fully sup-
port swimming, but these waters
are threatened. The most common
pollutants in lakes are nutrients and
sediments from agricultural runoff.
The high water conditions that
prevailed in South Dakota for most
of this reporting period greatly
increased watershed erosion and
sedimentation in lakes and streams.
Suspended solids criteria were
severely violated in many rivers and
streams, and there was an increase
in the incidence of fecal coliform
bacteria in swimming areas at lakes.
However, water quality improved in
some lakes that experienced low
water levels during the late 1980s,
and high flows diluted bacteria in
rivers and streams.
Ground Water Quality
Nitrates exceed EPA Maximum
Contaminant Levels in more wells
than any other pollutant. About
15% of the samples collected at
three eastern State aquifers during
1988-1993 had nitrate concentra-
tions that exceeded the State crite-
ria of 10 mg/L. More than 7% of
the samples collected from the Big
Sioux aquifer consistently exceeded
the nitrate standard. Potential
sources of nitrate include commer-
cial fertilizer use and manure
applications. There were no viola-
tions of drinking water standards
164
-------
for petroleum products reported
during 1992-1993, but petroleum
products were involved in 81% of
the spills reported during the
period.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Compliance with municipal
wastewater discharge permit
requirements has steadily risen from
37% in 1979 to 75% statewide in
1993 following construction of
162 wastewater treatment facilities.
Compliance is even higher (97%)
among the plants completed with
EPA Construction Grants. South
Dakota relies primarily on voluntary
implementation of best manage-
ment practices to control pollution
from nonpoint sources, such as
agricultural activities, forestry opera-
tions, and mining. The State has
initiated over 50 BMP development
and implementation projects.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
South Dakota conducts ambi-
ent water quality monitoring at
established stations, special inten-
sive surveys, intensive fish surveys,
wasteload allocation surveys, and
individual nonpoint source projects.
The USCS, Corps of Engineers, and
U.S. Forest Service also conduct
routine monitoring throughout the
State. Water samples are analyzed
for chemical, physical, biological,
and bacteriological parameters.
Individual Use Support in South Dakota
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 9,937)
Total Miles
Surveyed
3,352
17
14
53
839
12
Lakes (Total Acres = 750,000)
ir^,
2^
Total Acres
Surveyed
685,071 0 0 -
100
685,071
- Not reported.
aA subset of South Dakota's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
165
-------
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Tennessee 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Greg Denton
Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation
Division of Water Pollution Control
401 Church Street, L&C Annex
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
(615)532-0699
Surface Water Quality
Sixty-five percent of surveyed
rivers and streams fully support
aquatic life uses, 25% partially
support these uses, and 10% are
not supporting aquatic life uses due
to severe pollution. Conventional
pollutants (such as siltation,
suspended solids, nutrients, and
oxygen-depleting substances) affect
the most river miles. Toxic materi-
als, bacteria, and flow alterations
impact rivers to a lesser extent.
Major sources of pollutants include
agriculture, hydromodification, and
municipal point sources. Intense
impacts from mining occur in the
Cumberland Plateau region, and
poor quality water discharged from
dams impacts streams in east and
middle Tennessee.
In lakes, 421,407 acres (78%)
fully support aquatic life uses, 2,668
acres (less than 1 %) are threatened,
27,987 acres (5%) partially support
aquatic life uses, and 87,126 acres
(16%) do not support these uses
due to severe pollution. The most
widespread problems in lakes
include nutrients, low dissolved
oxygen, siltation, and priority
organics. Major sources of these
pollutants are agriculture, municipal
wastewater treatment plants,
stream impoundments, hydrologic
modification, mining, and nutrient
addition.
Fish consumption advisories are
posted on 142 miles of rivers and
streams and over 84,000 acres of
lakes due to elevated concentra-
tions of chlordane, PCBs, dioxins,
mercury, and other toxics in fish
tissue samples. Swimming and
wading are restricted in Chatta-
nooga Creek and East Fork Poplar
Creek due to toxic contamination
from discontinued waste disposal
practices.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality is gener-
ally good, but pollutants contami-
nate (or are thought to contami-
nate) the resource in localized
areas. These pollutants include, but
are not limited to, volatile and
166
-------
semivolatile organic chemicals,
bacteria, metals, petroleum
products, pesticides, and radio-
active materials.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Tennessee is considering issuing
discharge permits on a rotating
basis for each of the State's major
river basins and is studying region-
alized standards that take into
account natural background condi-
tions. The permits in each basin
would be evaluated and reissued
together on a 5-year cycle. Tennes-
see is also conducting several Total
Maximum Daily Load studies that
use a watershed approach to allo-
cate maximum pollutant loading
among all the point sources dis-
charging into a stream or its tribu-
taries.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Tennessee's ambient monitor-
ing network consists of 156 active
stations sampled quarterly for
conventional pollutants (such as
dissolved oxygen, bacteria, and
suspended solids), nutrients, and
selected metals. The State also per-
forms intensive surveys at streams
where State personnel suspect that
human activities are degrading
stream quality. Intensive surveys
often include biological monitoring.
The State samples toxic chemicals
in fish and sediment at sites with
suspected toxicity problems.
Individual Use Support in Tennessee
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 19,124)b
Total Miles
Surveyed
Lakes (Total Acres = 539,188)
25
Total Acres 73
Surveyed
539,188
539,188
539,188
16
15
i
a A subset of Tennessee's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
167
-------
Texas
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Texas 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Steve Twidwell
Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512)239-1000
Surface Water Quality
About 89% of the surveyed
stream miles fully support aquatic
life uses, 4% partially support these
uses, and 6% do not support
aquatic life uses. Swimming is
impaired in 27% of the surveyed
rivers and streams. The most com-
mon pollutants degrading rivers
and streams are bacteria, metals,
and oxygen-depleting substances.
Major sources of pollution include
municipal sewage treatment plants,
unknown sources, pastureland
runoff, and urban runoff.
In reservoirs, 98% of the sur-
veyed surface acres fully support
aquatic life uses and 2% partially
support these uses. Less than 1 %
do not support aquatic life uses.
Ninety-nine percent of the surveyed
lake acres fully support swimming.
The most common problems in
reservoirs are low dissolved oxygen
and elevated bacteria concentra-
tions. Major sources that con-
tributed to nonsupport of uses
include unknown sources, natural
sources (such as high temperature
and shallow conditions), municipal
sewage treatment plants, and
industrial point sources.
The leading problem in estuar-
ies is bacteria from unknown
sources that contaminate shellfish
beds. Fifty-nine percent of the
surveyed estuarine waters fully sup-
port shellfishing use, 8% partially
support this use, and 33% do not
support shellfishing.
Ground Water Quality
About 44% of the municipal
water is obtained from ground
water in Texas. Natural contamina-
tion affects the quality of more
ground water in the State than all
other sources of contamination
combined. Natural leaching from
the aquifer matrix can elevate
minerals, metals, and radioactive
substances in ground water. The
most common ground water
contaminants from human activities
are gasoline, diesel, and other
petroleum products. Less common
contaminants include volatile
organic compounds and pesticides.
168
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC)
launched a basin approach to water
resource management with the
Clean Rivers Program (CRP). The
CRP is a first step in the develop-
ment of a long-term, comprehen-
sive and integrated geographic
management approach aimed at
improving coordination of natural
resource functions in the agency.
The basin approach will provide a
framework for identifying problems,
involving stakeholders, and inte-
grating actions. The basin approach
also allows for the use of risk-based
targeting to prioritize issues and
better allocate finite public
resources.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The TNRCC samples about 700
fixed stations as part of its Surface
Water Quality Monitoring Program
(SWQMP). The TNRCC samples
different parameters and varies the
frequency of sampling at each site
to satisfy different needs. The
TNRCC also conducts intensive
surveys to evaluate potential
impacts from point source discharg-
ers during low flow conditions and
special studies to investigate specific
sources and pollutants. About
3,000 citizens also perform volun-
teer environmental monitoring in
the Texas Watch Program.
a A subset of Texas' designated uses appear
in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's
uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Texas
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = i9i,228)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 3,065,600)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 1,991)
^
98
Total Square MBH
Miles Surveyed I
1,991 || 0
2 <1 0
1,991
96
59
1,971
29
1,987
99
169
-------
Utah
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Utah 1994 305(b)
report, contact:
Thomas W. Toole
Utah Department of Environmental
Quality
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801)538-6859
introduce metals and sediments to
streams in some areas. Resource
extraction and associated activities,
such as road construction, also
impact Utah's rivers and streams.
About 61 % of the surveyed
lake acres fully support aquatic life
uses, 32% partially support these
uses, and 7% do not support
aquatic life uses. The leading
problems in lakes include nutrients,
siltation, low dissolved oxygen,
suspended solids, organic enrich-
ment, noxious aquatic plants, and
violations of pH criteria. The major
sources of pollutants are grazing
and irrigation, industrial and munic-
ipal point sources, drawdown of
reservoirs, and natural conditions.
Fish and wildlife consumption
advisories are posted on the lower
portion of Ashley Creek drainage
and Stewart Lake in Uintah County
due to elevated levels of selenium
found in fish, ducks, and American
coots.
Surface Water Quality Ground Water Quality
Of the 5,726 river miles sur-
veyed, 75% fully support aquatic
life uses, 20% partially support
these uses, and 5% are not sup-
porting aquatic life uses. The most
common pollutants impacting
rivers and streams are siltation and
sediments, total dissolved solids,
nutrients, and metals. Agricultural
practices, such as grazing and irri-
gation, elevate nutrient and sedi-
ment loading into streams. Point
sources also contribute to nutrient
loads, while natural conditions
In general, the quality of
ground water in Utah has remained
relatively good throughout the
State, although some ground water
degradation occurs in south central
Utah in the metropolitan area of
Salt Lake City and along the
Wasatch Front area from Payson
north to Brigham City. Sources of
ground water degradation include
irrigation, urbanization, landfills,
mining and mine tailings, and
drawdown. In 1994, new ground
water regulations went into effect.
170
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The State's Nonpoint Source
Task Force is responsible for coordi-
nating nonpoint source programs
in Utah. The Task Force is a broad-
based group with representatives
from Federal, State, and local agen-
cies; local governments; agricultural
groups; conservation organizations;
and wildlife advocates. The Task
Force helped State water quality
and agricultural agencies prioritize
watersheds in need of NPS pollu-
tion controls. As best management
practices are implemented, the Task
Force will update and revise the
priority list.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1993, Utah adopted a basin-
wide water quality monitoring
approach. Utah initiated basinwide
intensive studies in the Weber River
Basin in 1993 and the Utah Lake-
Jordan River Basin in 1994. A fixed-
station network was also developed
to evaluate general water quality
across the State. Utah's surface
water quality monitoring program
consists of about 200 ambient sta-
tions, 7 salinity monitoring stations,
and 30 biological monitoring sites.
In addition, 1 35 industrial and
municipal sites were monitored.
Individual Use Support in Utah
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 85,916)b
75
'
Lakes (Total Acres = 481,638)
a A subset of Utah's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report for
a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
171
-------
Vermont
Fully Supporting
Threatened
_ Partially Supporting
__ Not Supporting
__ Not Assessed
_ Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit, as modified by South Dakota)
Note: Streams not shown on this map are Fully Supporting.
For a copy of the Vermont 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Jerome J. McArdle
Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
Water Quality Division
103 South Main Street,
Building 10 North
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
(802) 244-6951
Surface Water Quality
Of the 5,264 miles of surveyed
rivers and streams, 81% fully sup-
port aquatic life uses, 15% partially
support these uses, and 4% do not
support aquatic life uses. Ten
percent of the surveyed rivers and
streams do not fully support
swimming. The most widespread
impacts include siltation, thermal
modifications, organic enrichment
and low dissolved oxygen, nutri-
ents, pathogens, and other habitat
alterations. The principal sources of
impacts are agricultural runoff,
streambank destabilization and
erosion, removal of streamside
vegetation, upstream impound-
ments, flow regulation, and land
development.
Sixty-four percent of the sur-
veyed lake acres (excluding Lake
Champlain) fully support aquatic
life uses, 27% partially support
these uses, and 9% do not support
aquatic life uses. The most common
problems in lakes include fluctuat-
ing water levels, nutrient enrich-
ment, algal blooms, organic enrich-
ment and low dissolved oxygen,
siltation, and aquatic weeds.
Eurasian water milfoil, an aquatic
weed, infests 1 3% of the State's
lakes that are 20 acres or larger.
Runoff from agricultural lands,
roads, and streambank erosion are
the most frequently identified
sources of lake problems.
In Lake Champlain, nutrients
are the major cause of impairment,
followed by fish consumption advis-
ories posted for trout contaminated
with PCBs and walleye contami-
nated with mercury. Discovery of
the zebra mussel in 1993 threatens
all uses.
Ground Water Quality
The quality of Vermont's
ground waters is not well under-
stood due to a lack of resources
required to gather and assess
ground water data. Ground water
contamination has been detected at
hazardous waste sites. Other
sources of concern include failing
septic systems, old solid waste dis-
posal sites, agriculture, road salt,
leaking underground storage tanks,
and landfills. The State needs to
implement a Comprehensive
Ground Water Protection Program,
172
-------
but lacks the financial and technical
resources to do so.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
During the reporting period,
Vermont implemented dechlorina-
tion at 18 publicly owned sewage
treatment plants, which improved
water quality in about 47 miles of
rivers and streams. The State also
completed construction of the last
two planned sewage treatment
plants and upgraded four other
plants. To prevent habitat modifica-
tions, the State used the Section
401 water quality certification
process to require minimum stream
flows at four hydroelectric facilities.
The stream flow requirements
should improve water quality on
11 miles of streams.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Vermont's monitoring activities
balance short-term intensive and
long-term trend monitoring. Not-
able monitoring activities include
fixed-station monitoring on lakes
and ponds, citizen monitoring,
long-term acid rain lake monitor-
ing, compliance monitoring for per-
mitted dischargers, toxic discharge
monitoring, fish contamination
monitoring, and ambient biomoni-
toring of aquatic insects and fish.
aA subset of Vermont's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes perennial streams only.
GExcluding Lake Champlain.
Individual Use Support in Vermont
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 5,264)b
Total Miles
59
Lakes (Total Acres = 54,208)
22
15
- i
1
13
32
27
Lake Champlain (Total Acres = 174,175)
51
52,318
27
10
12
Total Acres
Surveyed
174,175
174,175 0
68
13
100
83
174,175 0
173
-------
Virginia
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Virginia 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Carrie Gorsuch
Department of Environmental
Quality
Water Division
Office of Water Resources
Management
P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
(804) 762-4290
Surface Water Quality
Of the 34,575 river miles sur-
veyed, 90% fully support aquatic
life use, another 5% fully support
this use now but are threatened,
and 5% do not fully support this
use. As in past years, fecal coliform
bacteria are the most widespread
problem in rivers and streams.
Agriculture and pastureland con-
tribute much of the fecal coliform
bacteria in Virginia's waters. Urban
runoff also is a significant source of
impacts in both rivers and estuaries.
Ninety-nine percent of Virginia's
publicly owned lakes fully support
their designated uses, and about
1% do not fully support uses. The
most common problems in lakes
include dissolved oxygen depletion,
coliform bacteria, pH, and tempera-
ture, primarily from nonpoint
sources.
In estuaries, 31% of the sur-
veyed waters fully support aquatic
life use, 64% support this use but
are threatened, and 5% partially
support this use. Nutrients are the
most common problem in Virginia's
estuarine waters, followed by
organic enrichment and low
dissolved oxygen concentrations.
All of Virginia's Atlantic Ocean
shoreline fully supports designated
uses.
Six advisories limit fish con-
sumption on 369 miles of Virginia's
rivers and an undetermined num-
ber of miles of tidal tributaries to
the James River. The Common-
wealth lifted one advisory that had
restricted fish consumption on the
Jackson River and the Upper James
River.
Ground Water Quality
Sampling by the Virginia
Department of Health detected
bacterial concentrations exceeding
Maximum Contaminant Levels at
1 33 ground-water-based communi-
ty public water systems in 1993.
Nitrates and pesticides were also
detected in a small percentage of
the private wells sampled in a pilot
study in Northampton County.
Virginia revised ground water pro-
tection rules with the Ground Water
Management Act of 1992.
174
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Virginia's Department of
Environmental Quality recommends
control measures for water quality
problems identified in the 305(b)
report in their Water Quality
Management Plans (WQMPs).
WQMPs establish a strategy for
bringing impaired waters up to
water quality standards and pre-
venting the degradation of high-
quality waters. Control measures
are implemented through Virginia's
point source permit program and
application of best management
practices for nonpoint sources.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Ambient Water Quality
Monitoring Program grew to 896
monitoring stations, a 26% increase
since the previous reporting period.
These stations are sampled for
chemical and physical parameters
on a variable schedule. The Core
Monitoring Program consists of a
subset of 51 stations that are sam-
pled for pesticides, metals, and
organic chemicals in fish and sedi-
ment on a 3-year cycle. About
150 biological stations were also
sampled during the 1992-1993
reporting cycle.
-Not reported.
aA subset of Virginia's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
cSize of significant publicly owned lakes,
a subset of all lakes in Virginia.
Individual Use Support in Virginia
Percent
Designated Use8
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 44,852)"
Lakes (Total Acres = 161,888)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 2,500)
175
-------
Virgin Islands
\
St. Thomas St. John
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Virgin Islands
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Anne Hanley
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of
Planning and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental
Protection
P.O. Box 4340
St. Thomas, VI 00801
(809) 773-0565
St. Croix
Surface Water Quality
The U.S. Virgin Islands consist
of three main islands (St. Croix, St.
Thomas, and St. )ohn) and over 50
smaller islands and cays located in
the Caribbean Sea. The islands lack
perennial streams or large fresh-
water lakes or ponds. Water quality
in the U.S. Virgin Islands is generally
good but declining due to an
increase in point source discharges
and nonpoint source pollution
entering the marine environment.
The Virgin Islands municipal
sewage treatment plants, operated
by the Virgin Islands Department of
Public Works, are the major source
of water quality violations in the
Territory. Neglect, combined with
a lack of qualified operators and
maintenance staff, results in fre-
quent breakdowns of lift stations,
pump stations, and pipelines.
Clogged and collapsed lines
frequently cause unpermitted
discharges into surface waters.
Stormwater also overwhelms
sewage treatment facilities and
results in bypasses of raw or under-
treated sewage into bays and
lagoons.
Other water quality problems
result from unpermitted discharges,
permit violations by private industri-
al dischargers, oil spills, and unper-
mitted filling activities in mangrove
swamps. Nonpoint sources of con-
cern include failing septic systems,
erosion from development, urban
runoff, waste disposal from vessels,
and spills.
Ground Water Quality
The Virgin Islands' ground
water is contaminated with bacte-
ria, saltwater, and volatile organic
compounds. Septic tanks, leaking
municipal sewer lines, and sewage
bypasses contaminate ground water
with bacteria. Overpumping of
aquifers causes saltwater intrusion.
VOC contamination is due to
underground storage tanks and
indiscriminate discharges of waste
oil.
176
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Territorial Pollution
Discharge Elimination System
(TPDES) requires permits for all
point source discharges, but not all
permitted facilities are in compli-
ance with their permit require-
ments. During the 1992-1993
reporting period, the Division of
Environmental Protection brought
four major violators into compli-
ance. The Virgin Islands is also
developing new regulations for
citing and constructing onsite
sewage disposal systems and advo-
cating best management practices
in the Revised Handbook for
Homebuilders and Developers.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Ambient Monitoring
Program performs quarterly sam-
pling at 64 fixed stations around St.
Croix, 57 stations around St.
Thomas, and 19 stations around St.
John. Samples are analyzed for fecal
coliforms, turbidity, dissolved
oxygen, and temperature. Twenty
stations on St. Croix were also sam-
pled for phosphorus, nitrogen, and
suspended solids. Intensive studies,
which include biological sampling,
are conducted at selected sites that
may be affected by coastal develop-
ment. The Virgin Islands does not
monitor bacteria in shellfish waters
or toxics in fish, water, or sediment.
Overall3 Use Support in Virgin Islands
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 5.9)
Total Square
Ocean Shoreline (Total Miles = 173)
a Overall use support is presented in this figure because the Virgin Islands did not report indi-
vidual use support in their 1994 Section 305(b) report.
NOTE: The Virgin Islands report that there are no perennial streams or significant lakes under
their jurisdiction.
177
-------
Washington
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Washington 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Steve Butkus
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia;WA 98504-7600
(360) 407-6482
Surface Water Quality
Washington reports that 18%
of their surveyed river miles fully
support aquatic life uses, 22%
partially support these uses, and
60% do not support aquatic life
uses. In lakes, 35% of the surveyed
acres fully support aquatic life uses,
and 65% do not support aquatic
life uses. Thirty-two percent of the
surveyed estuarine waters fully sup-
port aquatic life uses, 24% partially
support these uses, and 44% do
not support aquatic life uses.
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
impairment in estuaries. Major
causes of impairment in lakes
include nutrients, pesticides, silta-
tion, flow alteration, and low dis-
solved oxygen. Agricultural produc-
tion is the predominant 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 quali-
ty impairment from these sources
include thermal modification,
pathogen indicators, and ammonia.
Ground Water Quality
The highest priority ground
water issues in Washington are
nitrates, pesticides, and other agri-
cultural chemicals from fertilizer
applications, pesticide applications,
and septic tanks.
178
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
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 develop-
ing, funding, and implementing
nonpoint source pollution preven-
tion and control programs since the
early 1970s. The State has devel-
oped nonpoint source control plans
with best management practices
for forest practices, dairy waste, irri-
gated agriculture, dryland agricul-
ture, and urban stormwater. The
State is now focusing attention on
watershed planning. Efforts are cur-
rently geared toward prioritizing
watersheds and developing com-
prehensive plans for the priority
watersheds.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
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
identify desirable adjustments to
the programs.
a A subset of Washington's designated uses
appear in this figure. Refer to the State's
305(b) report for a full description of the
State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up
and do not flow all year.
Individual Use Support in Washington
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 73,886)
Lakes (Total Acres = 466,296)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 2,943)
179
-------
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For information about water quality
in West Virginia, contact:
Mike Arcuri
West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection
Office of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304)558-2108
Surface Water Quality
West Virginia reported that 42%
of their surveyed river and stream
miles have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses, and
75% fully support swimming. In
lakes, 32% of the surveyed acres
have good water quality that fully
supports aquatic life uses and 100%
fully support swimming.
Metals and siltation are the
most common water quality prob-
lems in West Virginia's rivers and
lakes. Fecal coliforms and acidity
also impair a large number of river
miles. In lakes, oxygen-depleting
substances, acidity, nutrients, and
algal blooms also impair a signifi-
cant number of acres. Coal mining
impaired the most stream miles,
followed by municipal point sources
and agriculture. Coal mining was
also the leading source of degraded
water quality in lakes, followed by
forestry and agriculture.
West Virginia reported that fish
consumption advisories are posted
for the Kanawha River, Pocatalico
River, Armour Creek, Ohio River,
Shenandoah River, North Branch of
the Potomac River, the Potomac
River, and Flat Fork Creek. Five of
the advisories were issued because
of elevated dioxin concentrations in
bottom feeders. The other advis-
ories address PCBs and chlordane in
suckers, carp, and channel catfish.
Ground Water Quality
West Virginia ranked mining
and mine drainage as the highest
priority source of ground water
contamination in the State, fol-
lowed by municipal landfills, surface
water impoundments (including oil
and gas brine pits), abandoned
hazardous waste sites, and industri-
al landfills. West Virginia has docu-
mented or suspects that ground
water has been contaminated by
pesticides, petroleum compounds,
other organic chemicals, bacteria,
nitrates, brine/salinity, arsenic, and
other metals.
180
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
No information was available
from the State.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
No information was available
from the State.
Individual Use Support in West Virginia
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 32,2/8)
Lakes (Total Acres = 21,523)
a A subset of West Virginia's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b)
report for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
181
-------
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Wisconsin 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Meg Turville-Heitz
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
(608)266-0152
Surface Water Quality
The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) found
that 78% of the surveyed river
miles fully support aquatic life uses,
2% support these uses now but are
threatened, 14% partially support
aquatic life uses, and 6% do not
support aquatic life uses. WDNR
believes that the survey process
underestimated the number of
threatened river miles. The most
prevalent problems in rivers are
habitat and flow alterations, silta-
tion, excessive nutrients, and
oxygen-depleting substances. The
sources of these problems are often
polluted runoff, especially in agri-
cultural areas, and river modifica-
tions, such as ditching, straighten-
ing, and the loss of wetlands along-
side streams. Wastewater discharges
also moderately impair more than
1,000 miles of streams.
About 57% of the surveyed
lake acres fully support aquatic life
uses, 3% support these uses but are
threatened, 15% partially support
these uses, and 25% do not sup-
port aquatic life uses. The primary
source of lake degradation is depo-
sition of airborne pollutants, espe-
cially mercury, and polluted runoff.
All of Wisconsin's Great Lakes'
shoreline partially supports fish con-
sumption use due to fish consump-
tion advisories posted throughout
the Great Lakes. Bacteria from
urban runoff also impair swimming
along 60 miles of shoreline.
Ground Water Quality
The primary sources of ground
water contamination in Wisconsin
are agricultural activities, municipal
landfills, leaking underground stor-
age tanks, abandoned hazardous
waste sites, and spills. Other sources
include septic tanks and land appli-
cation of wastewater. Nitrate-
nitrogen is the most common
ground water contaminant. Nitrates
come from fertilizers, animal waste
storage sites and feedlots, municipal
and industrial wastewater and
sludge disposal, refuse disposal
areas, and leaking septic systems.
182
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
WDNR is integrating multiple
agencies, programs, interests, and
jurisdictions in an "ecosystem
approach" that looks at all parts of
the ecosystem when addressing
water qualitythe land that drains
to the waterbody, the air above it,
the plants, animals, and people
using it. Since the 1970s, WDNR
has prepared water quality man-
agement plans for each of the
State's river basins that summarize
the condition of waters in each
basin, identify improvements and
needs, and make recommendations
for cleanup or protection. WDNR
updates the plans every 5 years and
uses the plans to rank watersheds
for priority projects under the
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program and
to address wastewater discharge
concerns.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In 1992, Wisconsin implement-
ed a surface water monitoring strat-
egy to support river basin planning.
The strategy integrates monitoring
and management activities in each
of the State's river basins on the
5-year basin planning schedule. In
recent years, Wisconsin has placed
more emphasis on monitoring pol-
luted runoff and toxic substances in
bottom sediments and tissues of
fish and wildlife.
Individual Use Support in Wisconsin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 57,698)b
Total Miles 78
Surveyed
NA NA NA NA
Lakes (Total Acres = 982,163)
Total Acres
Surveyed
Great Lakes (Total Miles = 1,01?)
Total Miles
Surveyed
1,017
79
21
100
1,017
NA = Not applicable because use is not designated in State standards.
aA subset of Wisconsin's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
183
-------
Fully Supporting
- Threatened
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
Not Assessed
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
Note: The Powder River Basin was selected for illustration based
on its high percentage of assessed waters.
For a copy of the Wyoming 1996
305(b) report, contact:
Beth Pratt
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7079
Surface Water Quality
Of the 6,091 river miles sur-
veyed, 13% fully support aquatic
life uses, 22% fully support these
uses now but are threatened, 63%
partially support aquatic life uses,
and 2% do not support aquatic life
uses. The most widespread prob-
lems in rivers and streams are silta-
tion and sediment, nutrients, total
dissolved solids and salinity, flow
alterations, and habitat alterations.
The most prevalent sources of
water quality problems in rivers
and streams are rangeland, natural
sources, irrigated cropland,
pastureland, and construction of
highways, roads, and bridges.
In lakes, 31% of the surveyed
acres fully support aquatic life uses,
47% partially support these uses,
and 22% do not support aquatic
life uses. The leading problems in
lakes are low dissolved oxygen con-
centrations and organic enrich-
ment, nutrients, sediment and silta-
tion, other inorganic substances,
and metals. The most prevalent
sources of water quality problems in
lakes are natural sources, rangeland,
irrigated cropland, flow regulation,
and municipal sewage treatment
plants.
The State's water quality survey
is designed to identify water quality
problems, so it is reasonable to
assume that most of the unassessed
waters are not impacted. However,
the State lacks definitive informa-
tion to that effect.
Ground Water Quality
Some aquifers in Wyoming
have naturally high levels of fluo-
ride, selenium, and radionuclides.
Petroleum products and nitrates are
the most common pollutants in
Wyoming's ground water, and leak-
ing underground storage tanks are
the most numerous source of con-
tamination. Other sources include
uranium and trona mineral mining,
agricultural activities, mill tailings,
spills, landfills, commercial and
industrial sumps, septic tank leach-
fields, wastewater disposal ponds at
coal-fired power plants and other
industrial sites, and commercial
oilfield disposal pits.
184
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Wyoming requires discharger
permits and construction permits
for all wastewater treatment facili-
ties. The Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ) reviews
proposed plans and specifications
to ensure that plants meet mini-
mum design criteria. Wyoming's
nonpoint source program is a non-
regulatory program that promotes
better management practices for all
land use activities, including graz-
ing, timber harvesting, and hydro-
logic modifications.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Wyoming is currently monitor-
ing reference stream sites around
the State in order to define charac-
teristics of relatively undisturbed
streams in each ecoregion. The
State is sampling chemical and
biological parameters, such as dis-
solved oxygen, nutrients, aquatic
insect species composition, species
abundance, and habitat conditions
at the candidate reference stream
sites. Once established, the refer-
ence site conditions will serve as the
basis for assessing other streams in
the same ecoregion or subecore-
gion. Wyoming will use the refer-
ence conditions to establish a
volunteer biological monitoring
program.
Individual Use Support in Wyoming
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = H3,422)b
Total Miles
Surveyed
4,284
63
13
4,128
93
Lakes (Total Acres = 372,309)
Total Acres
Surveyed
114,149
47
99,469
100
- Not reported.
aA subset of Wyoming's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the State's 305(b) report
for a full description of the State's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
185
-------
186
-------
Tribal Summaries
This section provides individual
summaries of the water quality sur-
vey data reported by six American
Indian Tribes in their 1994 Section
305(b) reports. Tribal participation
in the Section 305(b) process grew
from two Tribes in 1992 to six
Tribes during the 1994 reporting
cycle, but Tribal water quality
remains unrepresented in this
report for the hundreds of other
Tribes established throughout the
country. Many of the other Tribes
are in the process of developing
water quality programs and stand-
ards but have not yet submitted a
Section 305(b) report. As Tribal
water quality programs become
established, EPA expects Tribal
participation in the Section 305(b)
process to increase rapidly. To
encourage Tribal participation, EPA
has sponsored water quality moni-
toring and assessment training ses-
sions at Tribal locations, prepared
streamlined 305(b) reporting guide-
lines for Tribes that wish to partici-
pate in the process, and published
a brochure, Knowing Our Waters:
Tribal Reporting Under Section
305(b). EPA hopes that subsequent
reports to Congress will contain
more information about water
quality on Tribal lands.
187
-------
Campo Indian Reservation
For a copy of the Campo Indian
Reservation 1994 305(b) report,
contact:
Stephen W. Johnson
Michael L Connolly
Campo Environmental Protection
Agency
36190 Church Road, Suite #4
Campo, CA 91906
(619)478-9369
Location of Reservation
Surface Water Quality
The Campo Indian Reservation
covers 24.2 square miles in south-
eastern San Diego County, Cali-
fornia. The Campo Indian Reserva-
tion has 31 miles of intermittent
streams, 80 acres of freshwater
wetlands, and 10 lakes with a
combined surface area of 3.5 acres.
The natural water quality of
Tribal streams, lakes, and wetlands
ranges from good to excellent.
There are no point source dis-
charges within or upstream of the
Reservation, but grazing livestock
have degraded streams, lakes, and
wetlands with manure containing
fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients,
and organic wastes. Livestock also
trample streambeds and riparian
habitats. Septic tanks and construc-
tion also threaten water quality.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies 100%
of the domestic water consumed on
the Campo Indian Reservation.
Nitrate and bacteria from nonpoint
sources occasionally exceed drink-
ing water standards in some
domestic wells. The proximity of
individual septic systems to drinking
water wells poses a human health
risk because Reservation soils do not
have good purification properties.
Elevated iron and manganese levels
may be due to natural weathering
of geologic materials.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Campo Environmental
Protection Agency (CEPA) has
authority to administer three Clean
Water Act programs. The Section
106 Water Pollution Control
Program supports infrastructure,
the 305(b) assessment process, and
development of a Water Quality
Management Plan. The Tribe is
inventorying its wetlands with
funding from the Section 104(b)(3)
State Wetlands Protection Program.
The Tribe has used funding from
188
-------
the Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Program to stabilize stream banks,
construct sediment retention
structures, and fence streams and
riparian zones to exclude livestock.
CEPA will promulgate water quality
standards in 1995 that will establish
beneficial uses, water quality crite-
ria, and antidegradation provisions
for all Tribal waters.
In 1994, the General Council
passed a resolution to suspend
cattle grazing on the Reservation
for at least 2 years and to concur-
rently restore degraded recreational
water resources by creating fishing
and swimming ponds for Tribal use.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
Streams, wetlands, and lakes on
Tribal lands were not monitored
until CEPA initiated its Water Pollu-
tion Control Program in 1992.
Following EPA approval of CEPA's
Quality Assurance Project Plan in
May 1993, CEPA conducted short-
term intensive surveys to meet the
information needs of the 305(b)
assessment process. Based on the
results of the 1994 305(b) assess-
ment, CEPA will develop a long-
term surface water monitoring pro-
gram for implementation in 1995.
CEPA will consider including biolog-
ical monitoring, physical and chem-
ical monitoring, monthly bacterial
monitoring in lakes, toxicity testing,
and fish tissue monitoring in its
monitoring program.
Individual Use Support in Campo
Indian Reservation
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Designated Use3
Rivers and Streams
Tr^
IC^
Total Miles
Assessed
22
Supporting)
(Total Miles
0
(Threatened)
= 31)b
0
Supporting) Supporting)
100
Attainable)
0
100
Lakes (Total Acres = 3.5)
a A subset of Campo Indian Reservation's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
Tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
189
-------
Coyote Valley Reservation
Location of Reservation
For a copy of the Coyote Valley
Reservation 1994 305(b) report,
contact:
jean Hunt or Eddie Knight
The Coyote Valley Reservation
P.O. Box 39
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
Fully Supporting
Threatened
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
Not Assessed
^ Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrdogk Unit)
Surface Water Quality
The Coyote Valley Band of the
Porno Indians is a federally recog-
nized Indian Tribe, living on a
57-acre parcel of land in Mendo-
cino County, California. Segments
of the Russian River and Forsythe
Creek flow past the Reservation,
although flow diminishes in the
summer and fall. Fishing, recrea-
tion, and religion are important
uses for surface waters within the
Reservation.
Currently, the Tribe is con-
cerned about bacteria contamina-
tion in the Russian River, potential
contamination of Forsythe Creek
from a malfunctioning septic
system leachfield, and habitat
modifications in both streams that
impact aquatic life. Past gravel
mining operations removed gravel
spawning beds, altered flow, and
created very steep banks. In the
past, upstream mining also elevated
turbidity in Forsythe Creek. The
Tribe is also concerned about a
potential trend of increasing pH
values and high water temperatures
in Forsythe Creek during the
summer.
Ground Water Quality
The Coyote Valley Reservation
contains three known wells, but
only two wells are operable, and
only one well is in use. The old
shallow irrigation well (Well A) was
abandoned because it went dry
after the gravel mining operation
on Forsythe Creek lowered the
water table. Well B, located adja-
cent to Forsythe Creek, is used to
irrigate a walnut orchard. Well C,
located on a ridge next to the
Reservation's housing units, is not
in use due to severe iron and taste
problems. Sampling also detected
high levels of barium, total dis-
solved solids, manganese, and con-
ductivity in Wells B and C. How-
ever, samples from Well B did not
contain organic chemicals, pesti-
cides, or nitrate in detectable
190
-------
amounts. Human waste contamina-
tion from septic systems may pose
the greatest threat to ground water
quality.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Codes and ordinances for the
Reservation will be established to
create a Water Quality and Man-
agement Program for the Reserva-
tion. With codes in place, the
Coyote Valley Tribal Council will
gain the authority to restrain the
discharge of pollutants that could
endanger the Reservation water
supply and affect the health and
welfare of its people, as well as
people in the adjacent communi-
ties.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Tribal Water Quality Mana-
ger will design a monitoring system
with assistance from environmental
consultants. The Water Quality
Manager will sample a temporary
monitoring station on Forsythe
Creek and a proposed sampling
station on the Russian River every
month. A fisheries biologist will
survey habitat on the rivers every
other year, as funding permits.
Individual Use Support in Coyote
Valley Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair
(Fully Good (Partially
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting)
Poor Poor
(Not (Not
Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles
^^
2*
Total Miles
Assessed
0.52 0
= 0.56)b
77
23
0
0
77
23
0.52
77
0.52
23
aA subset of Coyote Valley Reservation's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the Tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
191
-------
Gila River Indian Community
^ Basin Boundaries
Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams
^~ Irrigation Canals
For a copy of the Gila River Indian
Community 1994 305(b) report,
contact:
Errol Blackwater
Gila River Indian Community
Water Quality Planning Office
Corner of Pima and Main Streets
Sacaton, AZ 85247
(602) 562-3203
Surface Water Quality
The Gila River Indian Commu-
nity occupies 580 square miles in
Central Arizona adjacent to the
metropolitan Phoenix area. About
8,500 members of the Pima and
Maricopa Tribes live in 22 small
villages inside the Community. The
Gila River is the major surface water
feature in the Community, but its
flow is interrupted by upstream
diversions outside of the Commu-
nity. Arid conditions and little
vegetative cover cause sudden
runoff with high suspended sedi-
ment loads.
Surface water was evaluated
with qualitative information due to
the lack of monitoring data. Most
of the Community's surface waters
have fair water quality that partially
supports designated uses because
of turbidity, siltation, salinity, and
metals loading from rangeland,
agriculture, irrigation return flows,
and upstream mining. Information
was not available for assessing
effects of toxic contaminants and
acid rain. There is no information
about water quality conditions in
wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
Community ground water qual-
ity generally complies with EPA's
Maximum Contaminant Levels, but
concentrations of total dissolved
solids often exceed recommended
concentrations. However, members
of the Community have either
adjusted to the aesthetic problem
of high dissolved solids or begun
purchasing bottled water, as have
other ground water users in the
metropolitan Phoenix area. Occa-
sionally, concentrations of coliform
bacteria, nitrates, and fluoride
exceed recommended criteria in
isolated wells. Pathogens from
onsite sewage disposal systems
have been detected in ground
water and pose the primary public
health concern. Other concerns
include salinity and pesticides from
192
-------
large-scale agriculture and potential
fuel or solvent leaks.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Gila River Indian Commu-
nity needs a comprehensive water
quality protection program, espe-
cially as nearby urban growth and
agricultural expansion create addi-
tional pollution and place new
demands on aquatic resources. As a
first step, the Community's Water
Quality Planning Office intends to
address point sources of pollution
through a Ground Water Protection
Strategy. The Strategy will seek to
eliminate all discharges that could
reach ground water or require rapid
mitigation if a discharge cannot be
avoided. Principles of Arizona's
Aquifer Protection Permit Program
may serve as a basis for the
Community's Strategy, but the
Strategy will be streamlined and
simple to implement. The Strategy
may include technology-based or
standards-based protocols for facili-
ties and conditions for land use
permits.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Community needs moni-
toring programs for ground water,
surface water, and wetlands in
order to assess use support and to
support a water pollution control
program.
Individual Use Support in Gila River
Indian Community
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = i96)b
Total Miles
Assessed
196
Lakes (Total Acres = 153)
153
153
- Not reported.
aA subset of Gila River Indian Community's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
Community's 305(b) report for a full description of the Community's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
193
-------
Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation
Location of
Reservation
For a copy of the Hoopa Valley
Indian Reseivation 1994 305(b)
report, contact:
Colleen Goff
P.O. Box 1314
Hoopa, CA 95546
(916)625-4275
Not Assessed
Not Supporting
- Partially Supporting
Supporting
Surface Water Quality
The Hoopa Valley Indian
Reservation covers almost 139
square miles in Humboldt County
in northern California. The Reserva-
tion contains 133 miles of rivers
and streams, including a section of
the Trinity River, and 3,200 acres of
wetlands. The Reservation does not
contain any lakes.
Surface waters on the Reserva-
tion appear to be free of toxic
organic chemicals, but poor forest
management practices and mining
operations, both on and off the
Reservation, have caused significant
siltation that has destroyed gravel
spawning beds. Water diversions,
including the damming of the
Trinity River above the Reservation,
have also stressed the fishery by
lowering stream volume and flow
velocity. Low flows raise water tem-
peratures and reduce flushing of
accumulated silt in the gravel beds.
Upstream dams also stop gravel
from moving downstream to
replace excavated gravel. Elevated
fecal coliform concentrations also
impair drinking water use on the
Reservation.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water sampling
revealed elevated concentrations of
lead, cadmium, manganese, iron,
and fecal coliforms in some wells.
The Tribe is concerned about
potential contamination of ground
water from leaking underground
storage tanks, septic system leach-
fields, and abandoned hazardous
waste sites with documented soil
contamination. These sites contain
dioxins, herbicides, nitrates, PCBs,
metals, and other toxic organic
chemicals. The Tribe's environmen-
tal consultants are designing a
ground water sampling program to
monitor potential threats to ground
water.
194
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1990, EPA approved the
Hoopa Valley Tribe's application for
treatment as a State under the
Section 106 Water Pollution Control
Program of the Clean Water Act.
Following approval, the Tribe
received Section 106 funding to
conduct a Water Quality Planning
and Management Program on the
Reservation. The Tribal Water Qual-
ity Manager is developing water
quality criteria for the Reservation,
with the help of environmental con-
sultants. The proposed criteria will
be reviewed by the Hoopa Valley
Planning Department and the Tribal
Council.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
In June of 1992, the Tribal Plan-
ning Office and its hired consultants
sampled eight surface water sites
and six ground water sites. The
Tribe measured different pollutants
at each site, depending on the sur-
rounding land use activities, includ-
ing conventional pollutants, toxic
organic pollutants, metals, and fecal
coliforms. The Tribe plans to estab-
lish fixed monitoring sites in the
near future, which will complement
ongoing biological monitoring con-
ducted by the Hoopa Valley Fisher-
ies Department on the Trinity River.
Individual Use Support in Hoopa Valley
Indian Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = I33)b
^r^s^:
V^J^
Total Miles
Assessed
77 0
88
12 0 0
77
100
100
77
Wetlands (Total Acres = 3,200)
1 00
f^^
^'
lotai Acres
Assessed
3,200 00 00
100
3,200
- Not reported.
a A subset of Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
Tribe's 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
195
-------
Hopi Tribe
For a copy of the Hopi Tribe's
1994 305(b) report, contact:
Phillip Tuwaletstiwa
The Hopi Tribe
Water Resources Program
Box 123
Kykotsmobi, AZ 86039
(520) 734-9307
Surface Water Quality
The 2,439-square-mile Hopi
Reservation, located in northeastern
Arizona, is bounded on all sides by
the Navajo Reservation. Surface
water on the Hopi Reservation
consists primarily of intermittent or
ephemeral streams. Only limited
data regarding stream quality are
available. The limited data indicate
that some stream reaches may be
deficient in oxygen, although this
conclusion has not been verified by
repeat monitoring.
In addition to the intermittent
and ephemeral washes and streams,
surface water on the Hopi Reserva-
tion occurs as springs where
ground water discharges as seeps
along washes or through fractures
and joints within sandstone forma-
tions. The Hopi Tribe assessed 18
springs in 1992 and 1993. The
assessment revealed that several
springs had one or more exceed-
ances of nitrate, selenium, total
coliform, or fecal coliform. The pri-
mary potential sources of surface
water contamination on the Hopi
Reservation include mining activities
outside of the Reservation, livestock
grazing, domestic refuse, and
wastewater lagoons.
Ground Water Quality
In general, ground water qual-
ity on the Hopi Reservation is good.
Ground water from the N-aquifer
provides drinking water of excellent
quality to most of the Hopi villages.
The D-aquifer, sandstones of the
Mesaverde Group, and alluvium
also provide ground water to shal-
low stock and domestic wells, but
the quality of the water from these
sources is generally of poorer qual-
ity than the water supplied by the
N-aquifer.
Mining activities outside of the
Reservation are the most significant
threat to the N-aquifer. Extensive
pumping at the Peabody Coal
Company Black Mesa mine may
induce leakage of poorer quality
D-aquifer water into the N-aquifer.
This potential problem is being
196
-------
investigated under an ongoing
monitoring program conducted by
the U.S. Geological Survey. In addi-
tion, the U.S. Department of Energy
is investigating ground water
impacts from abandoned uranium
tailings at Tuba City. Other poten-
tial sources of contamination in
shallow wells include domestic
refuse, underground storage tanks,
livestock grazing, wastewater
lagoons, and septic tanks.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
Draft water quality standards
(including an antidegradation pol-
icy) were prepared for the Tribe in
1993. The Tribe is also reviewing a
proposed general maintenance pro-
gram to control sewage lagoons.
The Tribe has repeatedly applied for
EPA grants to investigate nonpoint
source pollution on the Reservation,
but the applications were denied.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Tribe focused on monitor-
ing springs and ground water
during the 1994 reporting cycle.
Future surface water monitoring
will assess aquatic life in springs,
lakes, and streams; baseflow and
storm flow in streams; and biolog-
ical, sediment, and chemical
content of streams and springs.
Individual Use Support in Hop! Reservation
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 280)°
Total Miles
Assessed
Springs (Total Number = 175)
a A subset of the Hopi Tribe's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Tribe's 305(b)
report for a full description of the Tribe's uses.
Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
197
-------
Soboba Band of Mission Indians
Reservation Boundaries
For a copy of the Soboba Band of
Mission Indians 1994 305(b) report,
contact:
Jamie S. Megee
Soboba Band of Mission Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
(909) 654-2765
Surface Water Quality
The Soboba Reservation
encompasses about 9.2 square
miles in southern California about
80 miles east of Los Angeles. The
San Jacinto River is the major sur-
face water feature on the Reserva-
tion. At one time, the San Jacinto
River flowed year-round, but
upstream diversions and ground
water withdrawals outside of the
Reservation have reduced the flow
to intermittent status for many
years.
The chemical quality of surface
water on the Soboba Reservation is
excellent and remains unimpaired
to date, based on very limited data.
The quality of surface water, to the
extent it is available, fully supports
the existing uses of ground water
recharge, wildlife habitat, and
recreation. Overall, the greatest
threat to water quality on the
Soboba Reservation is the reduction
of surface flows and ground water
storage by off-Reservation diver-
sions and pumping.
Ground Water Quality
Three major water supply wells
extract water from two aquifers on
the Soboba Reservation. Ground
water overdraft outside the Reserva-
tion has seriously reduced the with-
drawal capacity of the Reservation's
wells and aquifers. The chemical
quality of ground water on the
Soboba Reservation is excellent and
remains unimpaired to date. The
single most critical threat to water
quality is a proposal by the Eastern
Municipal Water District to routine-
ly recharge treated effluent at a site
within 600 feet of an existing
Soboba well.
198
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
There are no formal water pol-
lution control programs in place on
the Reservation. However, the Band
has achieved compliance with EPA
monitoring and treatment require-
ments for its domestic ground
water supply system and the Band
is considering development of a
wellhead protection program. In
addition, the Band is seeking assist-
ance from EPA under the Indian
Environmental General Assistance
Program to educate the Band
about water quality issues, establish
water resource protection ordi-
nances, and undertake other water
protection initiatives.
The Soboba Band is continuing
its struggle to assert and defend its
water rights. The Soboba Band has
started negotiating with the major
water users outside of the Reserva-
tion to fairly apportion the waters
of the basin. Nondegradation of
water quality will be a basic ele-
ment of the Band's position in these
negotiations.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Band advocates sharing
and cooperative analysis of data on
the hydrology and water quality of
the San Jacinto watershed to facili-
tate water rights negotiations. This
affirmative approach to water
resource management should lead
to a systematic, integrated water
quality monitoring program for the
basin that will benefit all users.
Individual Use Support in Soboba Band
of Mission Indians
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 7.4)b
Total Miles
Assessed
2.9
2.9
7.4
100
100
100
aA subset of Soboba Band of Mission Indians' designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the
Band's 305(b) report for a full description of the Band's uses.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
199
-------
200
-------
Interstate Commission Summaries
Interstate Commissions provide
a forum for joint administration of
large waterbodies that flow through
or border multiple States and other
jurisdictions, such as the Ohio River
and the Delaware River and Estua-
rine System. Each Commission has
its own set of objectives and proto-
cols, but the Commissions share a
cooperative framework that
embodies many of the principles
advocated by EPA's watershed
management approach. For exam-
ple, Interstate Commissions can
examine and address factors
throughout the basin that con-
tribute to water quality problems
without facing obstacles imposed
by political boundaries. The infor-
mation presented here summarizes
the data submitted by four Inter-
state Commissions in their 1994
Section 305(b) reports.
201
-------
Delaware River Basin Commission
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Delaware River
Basin Commission 1994 305(b)
report, contact:
Robert Kausch
Delaware River Basin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360
(609) 883-9500, ext. 252
Surface Water Quality
The Delaware River Basin covers
portions of Delaware, New Jersey,
New York, and Pennsylvania. The
Delaware River system consists of a
207-mile freshwater segment, an
85-mile tidal reach, and the Dela-
ware Bay. Nearly 8 million people
reside in the Basin, which is also the
home of numerous industrial facili-
ties and the port facilities of Phila-
delphia, Camden, and Wilmington.
All of the riverine waters and
94% of the estuarine waters in the
Basin have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses.
Three percent of the riverine waters
do not support fish consumption
and 2% have fair quality that par-
tially supports swimming. In estuar-
ine waters, poor water quality
impairs shellfishing in 29% of the
surveyed waters. Low dissolved
oxygen concentrations and toxic
contaminants in sediment degrade
portions of the lower tidal river and
estuary. Fecal coliform bacteria and
high pH values impair a few miles
of the Delaware River. As of April
1994, fish consumption advisories
were posted on about 6 miles of
the Delaware River and 22 square
miles of the tidal river, cautioning
the public to restrict consumption
of channel catfish, white perch, and
American eels contaminated with
PCBs and chlordane.
In general, water quality has
improved since the 1992 305(b)
assessment period. Tidal river oxy-
gen levels were higher during the
critical summer period, residues of
toxic chemicals in fish and shellfish
declined, and populations of impor-
tant fish species (such as striped
bass and American shad) increased
during the 1994 assessment period.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
For many years, the Delaware
River Basin Commission and the
surrounding States have implement-
ed an aggressive program to reduce
202
-------
point source discharges of oxygen-
depleting wastes and other pollut-
ants. These programs will continue,
in addition to new efforts to deter-
mine the role of stormwater runoff.
The Commission also adopted new
Special Protection Waters regula-
tions to protect existing high water
quality in the upper reaches of the
nontidal river from the effects of
future population growth and
development. The Commission also
promotes a comprehensive water-
shed management approach to
coordinate several layers of govern-
mental regulatory programs
impacting the Delaware River Basin.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The Commission conducts an
intensive monitoring program
along the entire length of the
Delaware River and Estuary. At least
a dozen parameters are sampled at
most stations, located about 7 miles
apart. The new Special Protection
Waters regulations require even
more sophisticated monitoring and
modeling, such as biological moni-
toring and continuous water quality
monitoring. The Combined Sewer
Overflow Study and the Toxics
Study will both require additional
specialized water quality analyses in
order to understand how and why
water quality is affected. New man-
agement programs will very likely
require customized monitoring
programs.
Individual Use Support in the
Delaware River Basin
Percent
Designated Use3
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 206)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 866)
JA subset of the Delaware River Basin Commission's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the Commission's 305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
203
-------
Interstate Sanitation Commission
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Interstate Sanita-
tion Commission 1994 305(b)
report, contact:
Howard Golub
Interstate Sanitation Commission
311 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
(212)582-0380
Surface Water Quality
Established in 1936 by Federal
mandate, the Interstate Sanitation
Commission (ISC) is a tristate envi-
ronmental agency of the States of
New Jersey, New York, and Con-
necticut. The Interstate Sanitation
District encompasses approximately
797 square miles of estuarine
waters in the Metropolitan Area
shared by the States, including the
Arthur Kill/Kill Van Kull, Lower
Hudson River, Newark Bay, Raritan
Bay, Sandy Hook Bay, and Upper
New York Bay.
In general, water quality in the
District waters improved during the
1992-1993 reporting cycle. Dis-
solved oxygen concentrations
increased and bacteria densities
decreased. The reduction in bacte-
ria is due to the Commission's year-
round disinfection regulations
(which took effect in 1986), and
the elimination of discharges receiv-
ing only primary treatment at
Middlesex and Hudson Counties.
Topics of concern to the ISC
include compliance with ISC regula-
tions, toxic contamination in Dis-
trict waters, pollution from com-
bined sewer overflows, closed shell-
fish waters, and wastewater treat-
ment capacity to handle growing
flows from major building projects.
Ground Water Quality
The ISC's primary focus is on
surface waters shared by the States
of New jersey, New York, and
Connecticut.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The ISC actively participates in
the Long Island Sound Study, the
New York-New Jersey Harbor
Estuary Program (HEP), the New
York Bight Restoration Plan, and the
Dredged Material Management
Plan for the Port of New York and
New Jersey. The ISC has represen-
tatives on the Management
204
-------
Committees and various work-
groups for each program. For the
HEP, the ISC organized a meeting
entitled "Current Beach Closure
Practices in New York, New jersey,
and Connecticut: Review and
Recommendations" in November
1993. Representatives of State,
county, and municipal health
departments and environmental
agencies were invited to discuss
bathing beach monitoring and
closure policies. The public and
environmental advocacy groups
were also invited. The ISC reported
the results to the HEP Pathogens
Work Group.
During 1993, the ISC inspected
71 CSO outfalls in an effort to iden-
tify and eliminate all dry weather
discharges. The ISC notified the
States of dry weather discharges
detected during field investigations
and worked with the States to
eliminate dry weather discharges.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The ISC performs intensive
ambient water quality surveys and
samples effluent discharged by
publicly owned and private waste-
water treatment facilities and indus-
trial facilities into District water-
ways. By agreement, the ISC's efflu-
ent requirements are incorporated
into the individual discharge per-
mits issued by the participating
States.
Individual Use Support in Interstate Sanitation
Commission Waters
Percent
Designated Use3
Good
(Fully
Supporting)
Good
(Threatened)
Fair
(Partially
Supporting)
Poor
(Not
Supporting)
Poor
(Not
Attainable)
Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 72)
Total Miles
Assessed
3 A subset of the Interstate Sanitation Commission's designated uses appear in this figure.
Refer to the Commission's 305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
Note: All waters under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Sanitation Commission are estuarine.
205
-------
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO)
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the ORSANCO 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Jason Heath
ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45228-1112
(513)231-7719
Surface Water Quality
The Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
was established in 1948 by the
signing of the Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Compact by
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and West Virginia. ORSANCO is an
interstate agency with multiple
responsibilities that include
detecting interstate spills, develop-
ing waste treatment standards, and
monitoring and assessing the Ohio
River mainstem. The mainstem runs
981 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania, to Cairo, Illinois.
The most common problems in
the Ohio River are PCB and chlor-
dane contamination in fish and
bacteria, pesticides, and metals in
the water column. The States have
issued fish consumption advisories
along the entire length of the Ohio
River based on ORSANCO data.
ORSANCO also suspects that com-
munity combined sewer overflows
along the entire length of the river
elevate bacteria levels and impair
swimming. ORSANCO detected
bacteria contamination at all seven
monitoring stations downstream of
major urban areas with a large
number of CSOs.
Copper, lead, and zinc
exceeded criteria for protecting
warm water aquatic life in waters
near the Gallipolis-Huntington area,
Cincinnati, Louisville, and the Padu-
cah area. Acid mine drainage is a
suspected source of some metals in
the Ohio River.
Public water supply use of the
Ohio River is impaired by 1,2-
dichloroethane near Paducah and
by atrazine near Louisville and the
mouth of the River at Grand Chain,
Illinois. The extent of atrazine con-
tamination is unknown because few
sites are monitored for atrazine.
Ground Water Quality
ORSANCO does not have juris-
diction over ground water in the
Ohio River Basin.
NOTE: A more detailed account of water quality throughout the entire Ohio River Basin is presented in Section
206
-------
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
In 1992, an interagency work-
group developed a CSO program
for the Ohio River Basin with gener-
al recommendations to improve
coordination of State CSO strate-
gies. In 1993, ORSANCO added
requirements for CSOs to the Pollu-
tion Control Standards for the Ohio
River and the Commissioners adopt-
ed a strategy for monitoring CSO
impacts on Ohio River quality. The
Commission also established a
Nonpoint Source Pollution Abate-
ment Task Force composed of
ORSANCO Commissioners, repre-
sentatives from State NPS control
agencies, and representatives from
industries that generate NPS pollu-
tion.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
ORSANCO operates several
monitoring programs on the Ohio
River mainstem and several major
tributaries, including fixed-station
chemical sampling, daily sampling
of volatile organic chemicals at
water supply intakes, bacterial
monitoring, fish tissue sampling,
and fish community monitoring.
ORSANCO uses the Modified Index
of Well Being (Mlwb) to assess fish
community characteristics, such as
total biomass and species diversity.
Individual Use Support in the
Ohio River Valley Basin
Percent
Designated Usea
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully Good (Partially (Not (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 981)
aA subset of ORSANCO's designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Commission's
305(b) report for a full description of the Commission's uses.
tHnetttdes nonpefennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
207
-------
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
New York
Pennsylvania
>, Location of Commission
Jurisdiction
Basin Boundaries
(USCS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
For a copy of the Susquehanna
River Basin Commission 1994
305(b) report, contact:
Robert E. Edwards
Susquehanna River Basin
Commission
Resource Quality Management
and Protection
1721 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102-0423
(71 7) 238-0423
Surface Water Quality
The Susquehanna River drains
27,510 square miles from parts of
New York, Pennsylvania, and
Maryland, and delivers over half of
the fresh water entering the Chesa-
peake Bay. The Susquehanna River
Basin Commission (SRBC) surveyed
1 7,464 miles of the 31,193 miles of
rivers and streams in the Susque-
hanna River Basin. Over 90% of the
surveyed river miles fully support
designated uses, 4% partially
support uses, and 6% do not
support one or more designated
uses. Metals, low pH, and nutrients
are the primary causes of stream
impacts in the Basin. Coal mine
drainage is the source of most of
the metals and pH problems
degrading streams. Sources of nutri-
ents include municipal and domes-
tic wastewater discharges, agricul-
tural runoff, and ground water
inflow from agricultural areas.
During past reporting cycles,
SRBC did not conduct any lake or
reservoir assessments. However, a
2-year project funded by EPA and
Pennsylvania should provide a foun-
dation of lake data upon which
SRBC can launch its lake assessment
program.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water in the Basin is
generally of adequate quality for
most uses. Many of the ground
water quality problems in the Basin
are related to naturally dissolved
constituents (such as iron, sulfate,
and dissolved solids) from the geo-
logic unit from which the water
originates. The SRBC is concerned
about ground water contamination
from septic systems and agricultural
activities.
Programs to Restore
Water Quality
The Susquehanna River Basin
Compact assigns primary responsi-
bility for water quality management
and control to the signatory States.
The SRBC's role is to provide a
208
-------
regional perspective for coordinat-
ing local, State, and Federal water
quality management efforts. For
example, the SRBC reviews pro-
posed discharge permits (issued by
the States) and evaluates potential
interstate and regional impacts. The
SRBC also recommends modifica-
tions to State water quality stand-
ards to improve consistency among
the States.
Programs to Assess
Water Quality
The SRBC's role in interstate
and regional issues shaped the
Commission's monitoring program.
The SRBC's fixed-station monitoring
network collects base flow data and
seasonal-storm nutrient data on the
Susquehanna mainstem and major
tributaries to assist the Chesapeake
Bay Program in evaluating nutrient
reduction projects. The SRBC also
established an interstate stream
water quality network to evaluate
streams crossing State boundaries
for compliance with State water
quality standards. Biological moni-
toring is conducted annually at
29 sites. The SRBC also conducts
intensive subregional surveys to
analyze regional water quality and
biological conditions.
Overall3 Use Support in the
Susquehanna River Basin
Percent
Good Fair Poor Poor
(Fully GOOd (Partially (Noi (Not
Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Attainable)
Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 3i,i93)b
Lakes (Total Acres = 79,687)
- Not reported.
a Overall use support is presented in this figure because the Commission did not report individ-
ual use support in their 1994 Section 305(b) report.
blncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.
209
-------
OMB Control No. 2090-0019
Expires on 10/31/97
What Do You Think About This Report?
EPA constantly seeks to improve the content and presentation of information in the National Water
Quality Inventory Report to Congress. Your response to the following questions will help EPA tailor the
content and presentation of future reports to address your needs. Please pull out this page and return
your comments to the address on the reverse. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
YES NO
1. Are there additional topics that you would like to see covered I I I I
in this document?
Please list topics: _
2. Are there topics that should be removed from this document? II
Please list topics: .
3. Was the organization of the report adequate? I I II
How could the organization be improved?
4. In general, were the figures and graphics easy to understand? II II
Which figures were most effective at conveying information to you?
5. Were there any figures that were difficult to understand? II II
Please list figures:
6. Do you have any other suggestions for improving the content II II
and presentation of information in this Report to Congress?
-------
second fold
Barry Burgan
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
first fold
Public reporting burden is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, gathering
information, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to: Director, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St., S.W., Washington, DC 20460. Include the OMB control number in
any correspondence. Do not send the completed questionnaire to this address.
-------
Order Form
Additional copies of this report and related water quality assessment documents can be ordered from the
National Center for Environmental Publication and Information (NCEPI) or accessed electronically on the
Internet through EPA's Water Information Network at http://www.epa.gov/OW/305b. To order hard copies,
please check the boxes beside the documents that you would like to order and return this form to the address
on the reverse, or fax this form to NCEPI at (513) 891 -6685. Due to limited supply, we can send you only one
copy of each publication. Allow 2 to 3 weeks for delivery.
pi The National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. EPA841 -R-95-005. December 1995.
The complete report containing discussions of water quality information submitted by States, Tribes,
and other jurisdictions as well as full descriptions of EPA programs to maintain and restore water quality.
(572 pages)
II The National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress - Appendixes. EPA841 -R-95-006.
December 1995. This document contains the data tables used to generate the information presented in
the 1994 Report to Congress.
(216 pages)
II The Quality of Our Nation's Water: 1994, Executive Summary of the National Water Quality
Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. EPA841 -S-95-004. December 1995. A summary of the complete
Report to Congress, including individual summaries of the Section 305(b) reports submitted by the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions.
(200 pages)
P| Fact Sheet: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. EPA841-F-95-011. December
1995. Brief synopsis of the water quality data submitted by the States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions in
their 1994 Section 305(b) reports.
(12 pages)
pi Water Quality Conditions in the United States. EPA841 -F-95-010. December 1995. A short profile of the
National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress.
(2 pages)
p| Guidelines for Preparation of the 1994 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports).
"' EPA841 -B-93-004. May 1993.
(300 pages)
pi Guidelines for Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports).
EPA841 -B-95-001. May 1995.
(350 pages)
pi Knowing Our Waters: Tribal Reporting Under Section 305(b). EPA841 -B-95-003. May 1995.
(17 pages)
Ship to:.
Address: _
City, State, ZIP:.
Daytime Phone:.
(Please include area code)
-------
fold
NCEPI
11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5
Cincinnati, OH 45242
fold
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices
For additional information about water quality in your Region, please visit EPA's Water
Channel on the World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/OW/305b or contact:
Barry Burgan
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20760
Internet:
burgan.barry@epamail.epa.gov
(202) 260-7060
(202) 260-1977 (FAX)
Diane Switzer
EPA Region 1 (EMS-LEX)
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
(61 7) 860-4377
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
Jane Leu
EPA Region 2 (SWQB)
290 Broadway, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212)637-3741
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Margaret Passmore
EPA Region 3 (3ES11)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-6149
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, District of
Columbia
David Melgaard
EPA Region 4
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)347-2126
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
Dave Stoltenberg
EPA Region 5 (SQ-14J)
77 West Jackson Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-5784
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Russell Nelson
EPA Region 6 (6W-QT)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)665-6646
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
Robert Steiert
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7433
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Phil Johnson
EPA Region 8 (8WM-WQ)
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)312-6275
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Janet Hashimoto
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1933
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam
Curry Jones
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-6912
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
U.S. EPA Regions
Virgin Islands
Puerto Rico
For additional information about water quality in your State or other jurisdiction,
please contact your Section 305(b) Coordinator listed in Section III.
------- |