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. ------- |