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 lakes—which
   are probably  less impaired—are
   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 I—I 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 tanks—the 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 uses—aquatic 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 brief—know 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 uses—aquatic 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 quality—the 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?               I—I
   Please list topics:	.	
3. Was the organization of the report adequate?                              I	I        I—I
   How could the organization be improved?
4.  In general, were the figures and graphics easy to understand?               I—I        I—I
    Which figures were most effective at conveying information to you?
 5.  Were there any figures that were difficult to understand?                    I—I       I—I
    Please list figures:	
 6.  Do you have any other suggestions for improving the content               I—I       I—I
    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)

I—I  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)

I—I  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.

-------