s EDA x'crM The Quality of Our Nation's Water: 1992 ------- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 305(b) Coordinators For more information about the National Water Quality Inventory Report or for additional copies of this summary document, contact: Barry Burgan National 305(b) Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503 F) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-7060 (202) 260-1977 (fax) For information on water quality in the EPA Regions, contact: Diane Switzer EPA Region 1 (EMS-LEX) 60 Westview Street Lexington, MA 02173 (617) 860-4377 Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont Xuan-Mai T. Iran EPA Region 2 (SWQB) 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278 (212) 264-3188 New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands Charles A. Kanetsky EPA Region 3 (3ESII) 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 597-8176 Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, District of Columbia Larinda Tervelt 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 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75202 (214) 655-6646 Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas John Houlihan EPA Region 7 726 Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 (913) 551-7432 Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska Phil Johnson EPA Region 8 (8WM-WQ) One Denver Place 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 293-1581 Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming Edwin H. Liu EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St. San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 744-2012 Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Guam Alan Henning EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 553-8293 Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington ------- 11 14 17 19 21 23 24 27 29 39 Contents The Quality of Our Nation's Water Key Concepts Rivers and Streams Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs The Great Lakes Estuaries The Chesapeake Bay Ocean Coastal Waters Wetlands Ground Water Water Quality Protection Programs What You Can Do ------- The Quality of Our Nation's Water Introduction The 1992 Report to Congress describes the geographic extent of water pollution across the country and identifies specific pollutants and sources of pollutants contaminating our waters. This national snapshot of water quality conditions summa- rizes information submitted by the States, the District of Columbia, Territories, Interstate Water Basin Commissions, and one American Indian Tribe in their 1992 water quality assessment reports (required under Clean Water Act Section 305 (b)). The 1992 Section 305 (b) reports contain assessments of each State's water quality during 1990 and 1991. This report displays and sum- marizes data provided by the States to EPA. EPA has not determined the accuracy of these data. It is important to note that these State- reported data are intended to provide a snapshot of the quality of the waters they assessed and can- not be used to determine trends in our Nation's water resources. These limitations are due to major differ- ences from year to year in assess- ment methods within and between States as well as differences in the waters assessed in each 2-year period. In addition, not all States follow EPA's guidance on proce- dures for determining whether waters are supporting the uses des- ignated in their water quality stan- dards. EPA and the States are taking many steps toward transforming the 305(b) process into one that pro- vides comparable data with known accuracy. These steps include imple- menting the recommendations of the National 305(b) Consistency Workgroup and the Intergovern- mental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality, as well as improving the Section 305(b) guidelines and implementing the Office of Water's Monitoring Strategy. These efforts will foster consistency and accuracy among the States and allow better sharing of data for watershed pro- tection and across political boundaries. Why Is It Important To Learn About Water Pollution? The EPA encourages each citi- zen to become a steward of our precious natural resources. Complex environmental threats and diminish- ing funds for pollution control force us to jointly solve the pollution problems that foul our beaches and lakes or close our favorite fishing sites. We need to understand these problems and become a part of their solution. Once we understand these pollution problems and what is needed to combat them, we will be better able to prioritize our efforts, devise sound solutions, take appropriate action, monitor progress after solutions are imple- mented, and modify behavior that contributes to the problems. This document provides funda- mental water quality information needed to resolve our persistent water pollution problems. This Report to Congress: • Defines key water quality concepts Discusses the leading pollution problems in rivers and streams, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, wetlands, and ground water as reported to EPA by the States Briefly describes major State and Federal activities to control water pollution Offers several water quality protection actions for every citizen to adopt. ------- Key Concepts Measuring Water Quality The States assess the quality of their waters by determining if their waters attain State water quality standards. Water quality standards consist of beneficial uses, numeric and narrative criteria for supporting each use, and an antidegradation statement: Designated beneficial uses are the desirable uses that water quality should support. Examples are drink- ing water supply, primary contact recreation (such as swimming), and aquatic life support. Each desig- nated use has a unique set of water quality requirements or criteria that must be met for the use to be real- ized. States may designate an indi- vidual waterbody for multiple ben- eficial uses. Numeric water quality criteria establish the minimum physical, chemical, and biological parameters required to support a beneficial use. Physical and chemical numeric criteria may set maximum concen- trations of pollutants, acceptable ranges of physical parameters, and minimum concentrations of desir- able parameters, such as dissolved oxygen. Numeric biological criteria describe the expected attainable community attributes and establish values based on measures such as species richness, presence or absence of indicator taxa, and distri- bution of classes of organisms. Narrative water quality criteria define, rather than quantify, condi- tions and attainable goals that must be maintained to support a desig- nated use. Narrative biological cri- teria establish a positive statement about aquatic community character- istics expected to occur within a waterbody; for example, "Ambient water quality shall be sufficient to support life stages of all indigenous aquatic species." Narrative criteria may also describe conditions that are desired in a waterbody, such as, "Waters must be free of substances that are toxic to humans, aquatic life, and wildlife." • Antidegradation statements protect existing designated uses and prevent high-quality waterbodies from deteriorating below the water quality necessary to maintain exist- ing or anticipated designated bene- ficial uses. The Clean Water Act provides primary authority to States to set their own standards but requires that all State beneficial uses and their criteria comply with the "fish- able and swimmable" goals of the Act. At a minimum, State beneficial uses must support aquatic life and recreational use. In effect, States cannot designate "waste assimila- tion" as a beneficial use, as some States did prior to 1972. The EPA recommends that States assess support of the follow- ing individual beneficial uses: Aquatic Life Support The waterbody pro- vides suitable habitat for survival and reproduction of desirable fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organ- isms. Fish Consumption The waterbody sup- ports a population of fish free from contamination that could pose a human health risk to consumers. Shellfish Harvesting The waterbody sup- ports a population of shellfish free from toxicants and pathogens that could pose a human health risk to consumers. Drinking Water Supply The waterbody can supply safe drinking water with conventional treatment. ------- Primary Contact Recreation - Swimming People can swim in the waterbody without risk of adverse human health effects (such as catching waterborne diseases from raw sewage contamination). Secondary Contact Recreation People can perform activities on the water (such as canoeing) without risk of adverse human health effects from occa sional contact with the water. The water quality is suitable for irrigating fields or watering livestock. EPA recognizes five levels of use support. If possible, the States deter- mine the level of use support by comparing monitoring data with numeric criteria for each use desig- nated for a particular waterbody. If monitoring data are not available, the State may determine the level of use support with qualitative infor- mation. Valid qualitative information includes land use data, fish and game surveys, and predictive model results. Monitored assessments are based on monitoring data. Evalu- ated assessments are based on qualitative information or monitored data more than 5 years old. After the States determine the level of use support for each indi- vidual designated use in each waterbody, the States consolidate individual use support assessments to determine the level of overall use support for each waterbody. Fully Supporting Overall Use - All designated beneficial uses are fully supported. Threatened Overall Use - One or more designated beneficial uses are threatened and the remaining uses are fully supported. • Partially Supporting Overall Use - One or more designated beneficial uses are partially supported and the remaining uses are fully supported. Not Supporting Overall Use - One or more designated beneficial uses are not supported. Not Attainable - The State has performed a use-attainability study and documented that use support of one or more designated bene- ficial uses is not achievable due to natural conditions or human activity that cannot be reversed without imposing widespread economic and social impacts. 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 chemical, physical, and biological water quality parameters throughout the country. • Chemical data often measure concentrations of pollutants and other chemical conditions that influence aquatic life, such as pH (i.e., acid- ity) 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 con- straints. Sampling may occur at regular intervals (such as monthly, quarterly, or annually), irregular intervals, or during one-time intensive surveys. Sampling may be conducted at fixed sampling stations, ran- domly selected stations, stations near suspected water quality prob- lems, or stations in pristine waters. ------- • Impaired Waters - The sum of waterbodies partially supporting uses and not supporting uses. The EPA then aggregates the State use support information into a national assessment of the Nation's water quality. How Many of Our Waters Were Assessed for 1992? National estimates of the total waters of our country provide the foundation for determining the per- centage of waters assessed by the States and the portion impaired by pollution. In 1992, EPA provided the States with estimates of total river miles and lake acres derived from Overall use support is a general description of water quality conditions in a waterbody based on evaluation of individual use support. Overall use sup- port determinations sum- marize multiple individual use determinations into a single measure of water quality conditions. 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 neces- sary. Based on the new EPA/State figures, the national estimate of total river miles doubled in 1992 in large part because the EPA/State estimates included nonperennial streams, canals, and ditches that were previously excluded from esti- mates of total stream miles. Current estimates indicate that the United States has: • More than 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams, which range in size from the Mississippi River to small streams that flow only when wet weather conditions exist (i.e., intermittent streams) Levels of Use Support • Approximately 40 million acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs • About 37,000 square miles of estuaries (excluding Alaska) • More than 56,000 miles of ocean shoreline, including 36,000 miles in Alaska • 5,382 miles of Great Lakes shoreline • More than 277 million acres of wetlands such as marshes, swamps, bogs, and fens, including 170 million acres of wetlands in Alaska. Symbol ^> £ 1 $* LSI 5 Use Support Level Fully Supporting Threatened Partially Supporting Not Supporting Not Attainable Water Quality Condition Good Good Fair (Impaired) Poor (Impaired) Poor Definition Water quality meets designated use criteria. Water quality supports designated 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 has performed a use- attainability study and docu- mented that use support is not achievable due to natural conditions or human activity that cannot be reversed with- out imposing widespread economic and social impacts. ------- Due to factors such as funding limitations, most States assess a subset of their total water resources during each 2-year reporting cycle required under Clean Water Act Section 305 (b). States are more capable of assessing all of their waters over a 5- to 10-year period. The figure to the right presents the percentage of total waters assessed by the States for the 1992 report. It should be noted that the percent- age of perennial rivers and streams assessed is much greater than the percentage of total rivers and streams assessed. The summary information based on assessed waters may not repre- sent overall conditions in the Nation's total waters because States often focus on monitoring and assessing major perennial rivers, estuaries, and public lakes with sus- pected pollution problems. Many States lack the resources to collect use support information for inter- mittent streams, small tributaries, and private ponds. EPA cannot pre- dict the health of these unassessed waters. Pollutants That Degrade Water Quality Where possible, States identify the pollutants or processes that degrade water quality and indicators that document impacts of water quality degradation. Pollutants include sediment, nutrients, and chemical contaminants (such as dioxin and metals). Processes that degrade waters include habitat modification (such as destruction of streamside vegetation) and Percent of Total Waters Assessed for the 1992 Report Rivers and Streams Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs Estuaries Ocean Coastal Waters Great Lakes Shoreline Wetlands 642,881 - 18% assessed Total miles: 3,551,247a 18,300,000 - 46% assessed Total acres: 39,920,000b 27,227 - 74% assessed Total square miles: 36,890C 3,398 - 6% assessed (including Alaska) Total miles: 56,121 miles, including Alaska's 36,000 miles of shorelined 5,319 - 99% assessed Total miles: 5,382 10.5 million - 4% assessed (including Alaska) Total acres: 277 million acres, including Alaska's 170 million acres of wetlands Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. NOTE: These figures were reported by the States. See explanation of changes in total water estimates on page 5. a Does not include river miles in American Samoa and Guam, which did not report total river miles. b Does not include lake acreages in American Samoa, Guam, Kentucky, and the Virgin Islands, which did not report total lake acreages. c Does not include estuarine areas in Alaska, American Samoa, and Guam. d Does not include shoreline miles in American Samoa and Guam. ------- hydrologic modification (such as flow reduction). Indicators of water quality degradation include physical, chemical, and biological parameters. Examples of biological parameters include species diversity and abun- dance. Examples of physical and chemical parameters include pH, turbidity, and temperature. Follow- ing are descriptions of the effects of the pollutants and processes most commonly identified in rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, wetlands, and ground water. Nutrients include nitrates found in sewage and fertilizers and phosphates found in detergents and fertilizers. In excess levels, nutrients overstimulate the growth of aquatic plants and algae. Excessive growth of these 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 implement a national strategic plan to achieve effective collection, interpretation, and presen- tation 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 will provide guide- lines 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 is also producing products that can be used by monitor- ing programs nationwide, such as a framework for monitoring pro- grams, environmental indicator selection criteria, and a matrix of indi- cators to support assessment of State designated uses. The ITFM will complete its recommendations in January 1995. For a copy of the first- and second-year ITFM reports, contact: The USGS Office of Water Data Coordination 417 National Center Reston, VA 22092 (703) 648-5023 organisms, in turn, can clog navigable waters, use up dis- solved oxygen as they decom- pose, and block light to deeper waters. This seriously affects the respiration of fish and aquatic invertebrates, leads to a decrease in animal and plant diversity, and affects our use of the water for fishing, swim- ming, and boating. In ground water, fertilizers and nitrates are among the principal contami- nants that can lead to drinking water well closures. Silt and other suspended solids wash off plowed fields, construction and logging sites, urban areas, strip-mined land, and eroded stream banks when it rains. As these sediments enter rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and wetlands, fish respi- ration is impaired, plant produc- tivity and water depth are reduced, aquatic organisms and their habitats are smothered, and our aesthetic enjoyment of the water is reduced. Pathogens (certain waterborne bacteria, viruses, and protozo- ans) can cause human illnesses that range from typhoid and dysentery to minor respiratory and skin diseases. These organ- isms can enter waterways through a number of routes, including inadequately treated sewage, storm water drains, septic systems, runoff from livestock pens, and boats that dump sewage. Because it is impossible to test water for every type of disease-causing ------- organism, States usually mea- sure indicator bacteria such as fecal coliforms that suggest the water may be contaminated with untreated sewage and that other, more dangerous, organ- isms may be present. Organic material may enter waterways in many different forms-as sewage, as leaves and grass clippings, or as runoff from livestock feedlots and pas- tures. When natural bacteria and protozoans in the water break down this organic mate- rial, they begin to use up the oxygen dissolved in the water. Many types of fish and bottom- dwelling animals cannot survive when levels of dissolved oxygen drop below 2 to 5 parts per million. Metals (such as mercury, lead, and cadmium) and toxic or- ganic chemicals (such as PCBs and dioxin) may originate in industrial discharges, runoff from city streets, mining activi- ties, leachate from landfills, and a variety of other sources. These toxic chemicals, which are gen- erally persistent in the environ- ment, can cause death or repro- ductive failure in fish, shellfish, and wildlife. In addition, they can accumulate in animal and fish tissue, be absorbed in sedi- ments, or find their way into drinking water supplies, posing long-term health risks to humans. Pesticides and herbicides used on croplands, lawns, and in termite control can be washed into ground and surface waters by rainfall, snowmelt, and irriga- tion practices. These contami- nants are generally very persis- tent in the environment and may accumulate in fish, shell- fish, and wildlife to levels that pose a risk to human health and the environment. Pesticides are among the principal Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Rivers Siltation Nutrients Pathogens Pesticides Organic Enrichment/ Low DO Lakes Metals Nutrients Organic Enrichment/ Low DO Siltation Priority Organic Chemicals Estuaries Nutrients Pathogens Organic Enrichment/ Low DO Siltation Suspended Solids Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. Fish Kills Fish kill reporting is a voluntary process; States are not required to report on how many fish kills occur, or what might have caused them. In many cases it is the public-fishermen and hunters, recreational boat- ers, or hikers-who first notice fish kills and report them to game war- dens or other State officials. Many fish kills go undetected or unre- ported, and others may be difficult to investigate, especially if they occur in remote areas. This is because dead fish may be carried quickly downstream or may be difficult to count because of turbid conditions. It is therefore likely that the statistics presented by the States under- estimate the total number of fish kills that occurred nationwide between 1990 and 1992. Despite these problems, fish kills are an important consideration in water quality assessments, and State reporting on the number and causes of kills is improving. In 1992, 43 States reported a total of 1,620 fish kill incidents. These States attributed 930 of the fish kills to pollution, 369 to unknown causes, and 586 to natural conditions, such as low flow and high temperatures. Pollutants most often cited as the cause of kills include biochemical oxygen-demanding substances, pesti- cides, 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, and pesticide applications. ------- contaminants causing drinking water well closures in the south- ern and western regions of the country. Habitat modification results from activities such as grazing, farming, channelization, dam construction, and dredging. Typical examples of the effects of hydrologic modification include loss of streamside vege- tation, siltation, smothering of bottom-dwelling organisms, and increased water temperatures. Other pollutants include salts, acidic contaminants, and oil and grease. Fresh waters may 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 op- erations, and the intrusion of sea water into ground and sur- face waters in coastal areas. Acidity problems are of concern in areas with many abandoned mines (acid mine drainage) and areas susceptible to acid rain. Changes in acidity (measured as pH) can alter the toxicity of other chemicals in water and can render lakes and streams unfit for aquatic life. 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, textile manufacturers, food processing plants Publicly owned sewage treatment plants that may receive indirect discharges from industrial facilities or businesses Single facilities that treat both stormwater and sanitary sewage, which may become overloaded during storm events and discharge untreated wastes into surface waters. Runoff from impervious surfaces including streets, buildings, lawns, and other paved areas that enters a sewer, pipe, or ditch before discharge into surface waters Crop production, pastures, rangeland, feedlots, other animal holding areas Forest management, tree harvesting, logging road construction Land development, road construction Mining, petroleum drilling, runoff from mine tailing sites Leachate or discharge from septic tanks, landfills, and hazardous waste sites Channelization, dredging, dam construction, streambank modification Other pollutants of concern include crude oil and processed petroleum products spilled dur- ing extraction, processing, or transport or leaked from under- ground storage tanks; noxious aquatic plants, particularly intro- duced species that compete against native plants; and increased water temperatures resulting from industrial cooling processes or habitat modification. Sources of Water Pollution Often we associate water pollu- tion with images of oil spills or raw sewage and toxic chemicals spew- ing from pipes at industrial facilities and sewage treatment plants. Al- though point source discharges still produce some pollution, most are controlled with specific permit con- ditions that they usually meet. Cur- rently, less visible nonpoint sources of pollution are more widespread and introduce vast quantities of pollutants into our surface and ground waters. Nonpoint sources deliver pollutants to waterbodies in a dispersed manner rather than from a discrete pipe or other con- veyance. Nonpoint sources include atmospheric deposition, contami- nated sediments, and many land activities that generate polluted runoff, such as agriculture, logging, and onsite sewage disposal. In contrast, point sources dis- charge wastes into waterbodies from a discrete point that is easily identified. The most common point sources are industrial facilities, ------- municipal treatment plants, and combined sewers. Diffuse runoff is a point source if it enters and is discharged from a conveyance such as those described in CWA Section 502(14) (such as pipes, ditches, and canals). "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) The table on the previous page defines the categories of pollution sources most frequently cited in this document. The table on this page lists the leading sources of impair- ment reported by States for their rivers, lakes, and estuaries. Other sources cited less frequently include atmospheric deposition, in-place contaminants, and natural sources. Atmospheric deposition refers to contaminants entering waters from polluted air. In-place contaminants were generated by past activities, such as discontinued industrial dis- charges, logging, or one-time spills. In-place contaminants often reside in sediments but continue to release pollutants back into the water col- umn. Natural sources refer to an assortment of water quality prob- lems: • Natural deposits of salts, gypsum, nutrients, and metals in soils that leach into surface and ground waters • Warm weather and dry condi- tions that raise water temperatures, depress dissolved oxygen concen- trations, and dry up shallow waterbodies • Low-flow conditions and tannic acids from decaying leaves that lower pH and dissolved oxygen concentrations in swamps draining into streams. With so many potential sources of pollution, it is difficult and expensive for States to identify spe- cific sources responsible for water quality impairments. Many States lack funding for monitoring to iden- tify all but the most apparent sources degrading waterbodies. State management priorities may focus monitoring budgets on other water quality issues, such as identifi- cation of contaminated fish popula- tions that pose a human health risk. Management priorities may also direct monitoring efforts to larger waterbodies and overlook sources impairing smaller waterbodies. As a result, the States 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. Five Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Rivers Agriculture Municipal Point Sources Urban Runoff/ Storm Sewers Resource Extraction Industrial Point Sources Lakes Agriculture Urban Runoff/ Storm Sewers Hydrologic/Habitat Modification Municipal Point Sources Onsite Wastewater Disposal Estuaries Municipal Point Sources Urban Runoff/ Storm Sewers Agriculture Industrial Point Sources Resource Extraction Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. 10 ------- Rivers and Streams Pollutants discharged upstream often become the problem of some- one who lives downstream (or of the aquatic life that exists instream), and all of the activities that take place in a watershed can have a water quality impact elsewhere in the watershed. The term watershed simply refers to a geographic area in which water, sediments, and dis- solved materials (contaminants) drain to a common outlet such as a point on a larger river, lake, ground water aquifer, or ocean. It is there- fore important to remember that rivers and streams are connected- by hydrology, ecology, geology, and social and economic consider- ations-to the lakes, wetlands, and coastal and ground waters we discuss later in this document. Do Our Rivers and Streams Support Uses? For the 1992 Report, 54 States, Territories, Tribes, Commissions, and the District of Columbia (hereafter collectively referred to as "States") assessed 642,881 miles (18%) of the Nation's total 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams. The States assessed about 4,000 fewer river miles in 1992 than in 1990. EPA expected the percentage and amount of waters assessed to decline in 1992 because EPA advised the States to no longer include waters in the assessed cat- egories for which the State lacked specific information. The percentage of waters assessed dropped because the baseline estimate of total waters increased. Conditions in unassessed rivers cannot be estimated with summary information based on assessed waters because unassessed rivers include an unknown combination of pristine and impaired rivers. Therefore, the following discussion applies exclusively to assessed wa- ters and cannot be extrapolated to describe conditions in the Nation's rivers as a whole. EPA is working with the States to expand assess- ment coverage of the Nation's waters and expects future assess- ment information to cover a greater portion of the Nation's rivers and streams. Of the Nation's 642,881 assessed river miles, the States found that 56% fully support their designated uses, and an additional 6% support uses but are threatened and may become impaired if pollu- tion control actions are not taken. The States reported that 25% of the assessed river miles partially support uses, and 13% of the assessed river miles do not support designated uses. Only 125 miles (less than one- tenth of 1 %) of the assessed waters could not attain designated uses. River Miles Assessed Total rivers = 3.5 million miles Total assessed = 642,881 miles 18% Assessed 82% Unassessed Levels of Overall Use Support - Rivers Fully Supporting 56% Threatened 6% Partially Supporting 25% Not Supporting 13% Not Attainable Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305 (b) reports. 11 ------- What Is Polluting Our Rivers and Streams? The States reported that silt- ation and nutrients impair more miles of rivers and streams than any other pollutants, affecting 45% and 37% of impaired stream miles in the States reporting causes, respectively. Other leading causes Siltation is the leading cause of impairment in rivers and streams, affecting 45% of the impaired river miles. of impairment include indicators of pathogens, affecting 27%; pesti- cides, affecting 26%; and organic enrichment and resultant low levels of dissolved oxygen, affecting 24% of impaired stream miles. Where Does This Pollution Come From? Forty-eight States identified sources contributing to the impair- ment of 221,877 miles of their rivers and streams not fully support- ing designated uses. These States reported that agricultural runoff is the leading source of pollutants in rivers and streams. Forty-five States identified almost 160,000 river miles impaired by agricultural sources, including nonirrigated crop produc- tion, irrigated crop production, rangeland, and animal holding areas. These States found that agri- cultural activities contribute substan- tially to the impairment of 72% of the impaired stream miles in the Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired by Pollutants (222,370 assessed river miles impaired) PolUtaifts Siltation Nutrient Pathogen Indicator Pesticides Organic Enrichment/DO 0 10 Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. 20 30 Percent 1? ------- 48 States reporting sources. The States identified other sources of impairment far less frequently, such as municipal point sources, affecting 15%; urban runoff and storm Agriculture is the leading source of impairment in the Nation's rivers, affecting 72% of the impaired river miles. sewers, affecting 11%; and resource extraction, affecting 11% of the impaired waters. Although this summary provides the best picture of national impacts from sources available to EPA at this time, it has limitations. The informa- tion provided applies to only 18% of our Nation's total rivers and streams because the States cannot assess all 3.5 million miles of this Nation's rivers and streams in a 2-year period and they cannot specify the source of pollution impairing each waterbody assessed. In addition, national summary infor- mation can obscure sources with regional or State significance. For example, Oregon reports that silvi- culture (forestry activity) contributes to the impairment of 46% of their rivers and streams that do not fully support designated uses. Nationally, silviculture impacts only 7% of the impaired rivers and streams. There- fore, it is important to refer to the individual State data presented in the National Water Quality Inven- tory: 1992 Report to Congress for detailed information on significant sources in individual States. Percent of Assessed River Miles Impaired by Sources of Pollution (221,877 assessed river miles impaired) Polutfon Sources Agriculture Municipal Point Sources Urban Runoff/ Stomn Sewers Resource Extraction Industrta I Point Sources 3 iK-'t urture Hydrologt/l-ta bitat Modification Total 72 15 11 11 I I I 1O 2O 3O 4Q 50 Percent 60 TO -SO Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. 13 ------- Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs Lakes are sensitive to pollution inputs because lakes flush out their contents relatively slowly. Even under natural conditions, lakes undergo eutrophication, an aging process that slowly fills in the lake with sediment and organic matter (see following sidebar). The eutro- phication process alters basic lake characteristics such as depth, bio- logical productivity, oxygen levels, and water clarity. The eutrophica- tion process is commonly defined by a series of trophic states as described in the sidebar. Do Our Lakes and Reservoirs Support Uses? Forty-nine States assessed over- all use support in more than 18 million lake acres representing 46% of the approximately 40 million total acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds in the Nation. For 1992, the Lake Acres Assessed Total lakes = 39,920,000 acres Total assessed = 18,300,000 acres 46% Assessed 54% Unassessed Levels of Overall Use Support - Lakes Fully Supporting 43% Threatened 13% Partially Supporting 35% Not Supporting 9% Not Attainable Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. 14 ------- States assessed about 180,000 fewer lake acres than in 1990. Overall, 43% of the assessed lake acres fully support designated uses such as swimming, fishing, and drinking water supply. An additional 13% were identified as threatened and could soon become impaired if pollution control actions are not taken. The States reported that 35% of assessed lake acres partially sup- port designated uses, 9% do not support uses, and less than 1 % cannot attain uses. What Is Polluting Our Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds? Forty-seven States reported causes of impairment in their lakes. Overall, these States reported that metals and nutrients are the most common causes of nonsupport in assessed lakes, affecting 47% and 40% of impaired lake acres, respec- tively. However, impairments due to metals were concentrated in several States with large numbers of lakes 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 accelerate eutrophication by increasing the rate at which nutrients and organic substances enter lakes from their surrounding watersheds. Agri- cultural runoff, urban runoff, leaking septic systems, sewage discharges, eroded streambanks, and similar sources can enhance the flow of nutri- ents and organic substances into lakes. These substances can over- stimulate the growth of algae and aquatic plants, creating conditions that interfere with the recreational use of lakes and the health and diversity of indigenous fish, plant, and animal populations. Enhanced eutrophication from nutrient enrichment due to human activities is one of the leading problems facing our Nation's lakes and reservoirs. (primarily Minnesota), while nutrient problems were widely reported by More States reported impairments due to nutrients than any other single pollutant. 41 States. Other leading causes of lake impairment were organic enrichment, affecting 24% of impaired lake acres; siltation, 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-four States reported the results of lake acidification assessments. These States assessed pH (a measure of acidity) at more than 6,800 lakes and detected a threat of acidic conditions in 1,038 lakes (15% of the assessed lakes). Most of the States that assessed acidic conditions are located in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and the South. Only 11 States identified sources of acidic conditions. States in the Northeast attrib- uted most of their acid lake con- ditions to acid deposition from acidic rain, fog, or dry deposi- tion in conjunction with natural conditions that limit a lake's capacity to neutralize acids. Only two States, Tennessee and Ala- bama, reported that acid mine drainage resulted in acidic lake conditions. 15 ------- affecting 22%; and priority organ- ics, affecting 20% of impaired lake acres. Forty-one States also assessed trophic status, which is associated with nutrient enrichment, in 11,477 of their lakes. Nutrient enrichment tends to increase the proportion of lakes in the eutrophic and hyper- eutrophic categories. These States reported that 17% of the lakes they assessed for trophic status were oligotrophic, 35% were mesotro- phic, 32% were eutrophic, 7.5% were hypereutrophic, and 8.5% were dystrophic. This information may not be representative of national lake conditions because States often assess lakes in response to a problem or public complaint or because of their easy accessibility. It is likely that more remote lakes- which are probably less impaired- are underrepresented in these assessments. Where Does This Pollution Come From? Forty-five States identified indi- vidual sources degrading some of their 5.5 million impaired lake acres. These States reported that agricul- ture impairs more lake acres than any other source. Thirty-eight States found that agriculture contributes Agriculture is the leading source of impairment in lakes, affecting 56% of impaired lake acres. to the impairment of 3 million lake acres, or 56% of the impaired lake acres in the 45 States reporting sources of pollution in lakes. The States also reported that urban runoff and storm sewers con- tribute to impairments in 24% of their impaired lake acres, hydrologic modifications and habitat modifica- tions affect 23%, municipal point sources affect 21%, and onsite wastewater disposal (such as septic systems) affect 16% of the impaired lake acres. Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired by Pollutants (7,958,064 assessed lake acres impaired) Pollutants Metals Nutrients Organic Enrichment/DO Siltation Priority Organic Chemicals i i 20 30 Percent Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. Percent of Assessed Lake Acres Impaired by Sources of Pollution (5,543,987 assessed lake acres impaired) Pollution Sources Agriculture Urban Runoff/ Storm Sewers Hydrologic/Habitat Modification Municipal Point Sources Onsite Wastewater Disposal 10 20 30 40 Percent 50 Total 56 24 23 21 16 I 60 Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. 16 ------- The Great Lakes The Great Lakes contain one- fifth of the world's fresh surface water and are stressed by a wide range of pollution sources associ- ated with the large urban centers located on their shores. Many of the pollutants that reach the Great Lakes remain in the system indefi- nitely because the Great Lakes are a relatively closed water system. Do the Great Lakes Support Uses? The States assessed 99% of the Great Lakes shoreline miles in 1992. Less than 3% of the assessed shore- line miles fully support uses due to conditions that also generate fish consumption advisories issued by the Great Lakes States and the Prov- ince of Ontario for the nearshore waters of the Great Lakes. Thirty percent of assessed shoreline miles Great Lakes Shore Miles Assessed Total Great Lakes = 5,382 miles Total assessed = 5,319 miles 99% Assessed 1% Unassessed Levels of Overall Use Support - Great Lakes Fully Supporting Partially Supporting 30% Not Supporting 67% ra Not Attainable 0% Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305 (b) reports. 17 ------- partially support uses, and the re- maining 67% do not support uses. Considerable success 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? Most of the Great Lakes shore- line is polluted by toxic organic chemicals-primarily PCBs and DDT-that are often found in fish tissue samples. The Great Lakes States reported that toxic organic chemicals impact 99% of the impaired Great Lakes shoreline miles. Other leading causes of impairment include metals, affecting 11%; organic enrichment and low dissolved oxygen, affecting 7%; nutrients, affecting 5%; and silt- ation, affecting 3%. Where Does This Pollution Come From? Although information on sources of pollution in the Great Lakes is sketchy, the reported infor- mation suggests that atmospheric deposition and contaminated sediments are the leading sources impairing Great Lakes waters. Sedi- ment contamination is a major prob- lem in nearshore waters and harbors. Other sources cited by the States include landfills, urban runoff, and combined sewer overflows. Percent of Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles Impaired by Pollutants (5,171 assessed Great Lakes shore miles impaired) Pollutants Priority Organics Metals Organic Enrichment/DO Nutrients Siltation | Total 99 11 7 5 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. Percent of Assessed Great Lakes Shore Miles Impaired by Sources of Pollution (1,884 assessed Great Lakes shore miles impaired) Pollution Sources Atmospheric Deposition Contaminated Sediments Land Disposal Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Combined Sewer Overflows 0 10 20 30 Percent Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. 40 18 ------- 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 spe- cies of plants, shellfish, fish, and animals. Many species permanently inhabit the estuarine ecosystem; others, such as shrimp, use the nutrient-rich estuarine waters as nurseries before traveling to the sea. Estuaries are stressed by the particularly wide range of activities located within their watersheds. They receive pollutants carried by rivers from agricultural lands and cities; they often support marinas, harbors, and commercial fishing fleets; and their surrounding lands are highly prized for development. These stresses pose a continuing threat to the survival of these boun- tiful waters. Estuaries are our richest aquatic ecosystems and also the most susceptible to cumulative contamination. Do Our Estuaries Support Uses? Twenty-five coastal States assessed roughly three-quarters of the Nation's total estuarine waters in 1992. Of these, 56% were found to fully support designated uses. An additional 12% are fully supporting uses but are threatened and could become impaired if pollution con- trol actions are not taken. Twenty- three percent of assessed estuarine square miles partially support uses, and the remaining 9% do not support uses. What Is Polluting Our Estuaries? States report that the most common causes of nonsupport of designated uses in our Nation's estuaries are nutrients, affecting 55% of the 8,572 impaired square miles; followed by pathogens, affecting 42%; organic enrichment and resulting low levels of dissolved oxygen, affecting 34%; and silt- ation, affecting 12%. Pathogen Estuary Square Miles Assessed Total estuaries = 36,890 square miles Total assessed = 27,227 square miles Assessed 74% Unassessed 26% Levels of Overall Use Support - Estuaries Fully Supporting 56% Threatened 12% Partially Supporting 23% Not Supporting 9% Not Attainable Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305 (b) reports. 19 ------- contamination is responsible for the closure of shellfishing beds in many areas of the country. Where Does This Pollution Come From? States report that municipal sewage treatment plants, urban runoff/storm sewers, and agriculture are the leading sources of pollution State water quality standards must support the fishable and swim- mable goals of the Clean Water Act. in their estuarine waters, affecting 53%, 43%, and 43% of impaired estuarine square miles, respectively. Other leading sources cited by the States include industrial point sources, affecting 23%, and resource extraction, affecting 12%. Point sources continue to have a significant impact on estuarine water quality because concentrated population centers and industrial operations are located adjacent to major estuarine systems. In contrast, rivers and lakes are more dispersed in rural and urban areas throughout the country and tend to support more diverse land uses that gener- ate nonpoint source pollution. Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles Impaired by Pollutants (8,572 assessed estuarine square miles impaired) Pollutants Nutrients Pathogen Indicators Organic Enrichment/DO Siltation Suspended Solids 0 10 20 30 Percent 40 50 Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. Percent of Assessed Estuary Square Miles Impaired by Sources of Pollution (8,303 assessed estuarine square miles impaired) Pollution Sources Municipal Point Sources Urban Runoff/ Storm Sewers Agriculture Industrial Point Sources Resource Extraction Total 53 43 43 23 12 10 20 30 Percent 40 50 60 Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. 20 ------- The Chesapeake Bay Since its inception in 1975, the Chesapeake Bay Program has coor- dinated numerous studies by the Chesapeake Bay States, the EPA, and other Federal agencies (see page 35 for programmatic informa- tion). These studies have defined water quality problems in the Bay, identified sources of water quality degradation, and documented water quality improvements in the Bay. The Problem Studies completed in the 1970s substantiated that increases in agri- cultural development, population growth, and sewage treatment plant flows were generating large quantities of nutrients (primarily phosphorus and nitrogen) flowing into the Bay. The nutrients cause excessive algae growth that initiates a chain reaction with two effects: • In shallow areas, the excess algae shade underwater bay grasses, blocking light essential for plant growth. The habitat degradation causes the eventual loss of grass beds that provide food for water- fowl and critical habitat for other creatures, such as juvenile blue crabs and Bay scallops. In deeper areas, the algae die and sink to the bottom where their decomposition consumes oxygen. During the warm summer months, oxygen in the bottom waters can be depleted. Bottom-dwelling organisms, such as oysters, clams, and worms, which provide food for fish and crabs, cannot survive this prolonged period of low oxgen concentrations. The Sources Point sources, nonpoint sources, and atmospheric deposition gener- ate the nutrients that enter Chesa- peake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program developed a model to estimate the 1985 base load of nutrients entering the Bay because it was not feasible to monitor the wide array of nonpoint sources generating nutrients. The model estimates that nonpoint sources contribute 51% of the total nitro- gen load into the Chesapeake Bay, followed by atmospheric deposition (26%) and point sources (23%). Atmospheric loads of nitrogen include nitrogen deposited on the tidal waters of the Bay (9%) and nitrogen deposited on the water- shed lands surrounding the Bay that wash into Bay waters (17%). The model also estimates that nonpoint sources contribute 61% of the 91 ------- phosphorus load entering the Bay, followed by point sources (34%) and atmospheric deposition (5%). Improvements in Bay Water Quality Annual discharges of phospho- rus into Chesapeake Bay dropped by 40% (4.7 million pounds) between 1985 and 1991 as a result of wastewater plant upgrades, enhanced compliance with permits, and bans on phosphorus detergents in the Bay watersheds. Overall, water quality monitoring data confirm that the reduction in phos- phorus loading is reducing phos- phorus concentrations in Bay waters. Total phosphorus concentra- tions in the Bay decreased by 16% between 1984 and 1992. However, total nitrogen concentrations have remained stable in the mainstem of the Bay and increased in some tributaries. 1985 Total Nutrient Base Load Distribution Nitrogen Phosphorus Atmospheric Deposition 26% Atmospheric Deposition 5% Point Sources 23% Nonpoint Sources 51% Point Sources 34% Nonpoint Sources 61% Total Load = 376 Million Pounds Total Load = 27 Million Pounds Source: 1991 Watershed Model, September 30, 1992. Point Source Phosphorus Reduction Progress c o Cl- io O 1 /I 10 8 6 4 2 Nutrient X. Reduction ^s. .Progress Goal 4.65(1992) i i i i i 85 88 91 94 97 Year i 200 Source: Progress of the Baywide Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation, February 1992. 22 ------- Ocean Coastal Waters We know less about the condi- tion of our ocean coastal waters than we do about our estuarine or inland waters. In part, this may be because we tend to think that only oil spills or similar disastrous events could possibly affect a resource as vast as an ocean. In fact, we are seeing evidence that our ocean waters-particularly the waters near our coasts-suffer from the same pollution problems that affect our inland waters. Beach debris cleanups are cataloging tons of trash carried into the oceans by rivers, washed in from city storm sewers, thrown in by beach visitors, or dumped overboard by boaters. Beaches are closed to swimming every summer due to pathogens from inadequately treated wastes. Marine mammals are suffering from pollution-related stresses. Fragile coral reefs in Florida and Hawaii show signs of pollution impacts. Coastal development is increasing at a rapid rate. Clearly we can no longer assume that the oceans can take care of themselves. Do Ocean Shores Support Uses? Twelve of the 29 coastal States assessed only 6% of the Nation's estimated 56,121 miles of ocean coastline. Of these, 80% were found to fully support their designated uses, and 7% are supporting uses but are threatened and likely to Ocean Coastal Waters Assessed Total ocean shore = 56,121 miles Total assessed = 3,398 miles r 6% Assessed 94% Unassessed Levels of Overall Use Support - Ocean Coastal Waters become impaired if pollution con- trol actions are not taken. Nine percent of assessed ocean shore miles partially support designated uses, and 5% do not support uses. These figures do not necessarily represent water quality conditions in the Nation's ocean coastal waters as a whole because they apply to only 6% of the Nation's coastline miles. Data on pollutants and sources of pollution are too sparse to be included in this report. Fully Supporting 80% Threatened 7% Partially Supporting 9% Not Supporting 5% Not Attainable 0% Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. 23 ------- Wetlands Stftft Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a fre- quency and duration sufficient to support (and that under normal circumstances do support) a preva- lence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally in- clude swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Often in the past, wetlands were considered wastelands-the source of mosquitoes, flies, and unpleasant odors-to be filled or drained and put to "better use." When European settlers first arrived in America, over 200 million acres of wetlands existed in the contermi- nous States. Today, half of our Nation's wetlands have been de- stroyed by filling, draining, pollut- ing, channelizing, grazing, clearing, and other modifications resulting from human activity. Wetlands are now recognized as some of the most unique and important natural areas on earth. They vary in type according to dif- ferences in local and regional hydrology, vegetation, water chem- istry, soils, topography, and climate. Coastal wetlands include estuarine marshes; mangrove swamps found in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Florida; and Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Inland wetlands, which may be adjacent to a waterbody or isolated, include marshes and wet meadows, bottomland hardwood forests, Great Plains prairie potholes, cypress-gum swamps, and southwestern playa lakes. Wetlands provide food and shelter to countless animal species including many fishes, birds, reptiles, and mammals. A high percentage of federally listed threat- ened or endangered animals and plants depend directly or indirectly on wetlands for their survival. Wet- lands also provide spawning habitat and nursery grounds for an esti- mated 71% of commercially valu- able fish and shellfish consumed in this country. In addition, they also serve as feeding areas along migra- tion routes for waterfowl and other wildlife. Wetlands soil and vegetation help in flood control by acting as natural sponges that attenuate flooding water. Wetlands plants also help control erosion in two ways: their roots bind the soil and their leaves slow the movement of water. Wetlands help purify water by proc- essing nutrients and other pollutants and filtering suspended materials. They also help regulate water quan- tity by absorbing water in wet sea- sons and releasing it through seeps, springs, and open outlets during dry seasons. In addition, wetlands are widely enjoyed by hikers, birdwatchers, hunters, fishermen, photographers, and boaters and play an important role in our Nation's natural and cultural heritage. Millions of people spend nearly $10 billion each year observing and photographing wet- lands-dependent wildlife. Do Our Wetlands Support Uses? In 1992, most States could not assess use support in wetlands because they were still developing wetlands water quality standards. As a result, only eight States (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, North Carolina, and Okla- homa) reported use support for 10.5 million acres of their wetlands. These States assessed use support in approximately 4% of the Nation's 277 million acres of wetlands. North Carolina assessed 98% of the assessed wetlands; therefore, the summary information on use sup- port describes conditions primarily in North Carolina's wetlands rather than the Nation's wetlands as a whole. These States reported that 50% of the assessed wetlands fully sup- port designated uses, less than 1% are threatened, 26% partially sup- port uses, and 24% do not support designated uses. However, this information does not accurately reflect water quality conditions in the Nation's wetlands due to the ------- Wetlands Acres Assessed Total wetlands = 277 million acres Total assessed = 10,516,754 acres 4% Assessed 96% Unassessed Levels of Overall Use Support - Wetlands Fully Supporting Partially Supporting 26% Not Supporting 24% Not Attainable 0% Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. NOTE: The information on designated use support represents data from only eight States so national trends should not be drawn from these data. skewed distribution of the assessed wetlands. Despite limitations in the data, the summary information sug- gests that water quality problems exist in our remaining wetlands. What is Polluting Our Wetlands? Of the eight States reporting overall use support in wetlands, only three States (Iowa, Kansas, and Nevada) quantified the wetlands acreage degraded by specific pollutants or processes causing wet- lands impairment. Although the data submitted by these States are not representative of national condi- tions in wetlands, these States did report that metals impair over 60,000 acres of wetlands, salinity and chlorides impair over 42,000 acres of wetlands, and siltation impairs almost 29,000 acres of wet- lands. Fourteen States did not quan- tify the acreage affected but did identify pollutants and processes that degrade some unknown quantity of their wetlands. Most of these States cited sediment and nutrients as pollutants of concern in wetlands. Fewer States reported that water diversions, pesticides, salinity, heavy metals, ponding, weeds, low dissolved oxygen, and pH impact their wetlands. Where Does This Pollution Come From? Iowa, Kansas, and Nevada also reported that agriculture impairs 76,000 acres of wetlands, hydro- logic habitat modification impairs 48,000 acres, and municipal point sources impair over 11,000 acres of wetlands. Fourteen States did not quantify the acreage affected but did identify sources of pollutants that degrade some unknown quan- tity of wetlands. Most of these States reported that agriculture, development, channelization, and road construction degrade wetlands integrity. These States also reported that urban runoff, resource Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity (14 States Reporting) Causes Sediment Nutrient Wate r D we rsbns Pesticide; Salinity Total B S 6 5 4 S 10 Numberof States Reporting Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. ------- extraction, landfills, natural conditions, industrial runoff, onsite systems, irrigation, recreation, point sources, and silviculture impact wetlands. Wetlands Loss: A Continuing Problem Despite what we have learned about the value of our wetlands, these national treasures continue to be threatened by a variety of human activities. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study of wetlands loss found that 2.6 million acres of wetlands were lost over the 9-year study period from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, or 290,000 acres a year. This is an improvement from the 1950s to the 1970s when wet- lands were lost at a rate of 458,000 acres per year. Serious conse- quences have resulted nationwide from the loss and degradation of wetlands, including species decline and extinction, water quality de- cline, and increased incidences of flooding. In 1992, 27 States reported on sources of current wetlands losses. These include agriculture, commer- cial development, residential devel- opment, highway construction, impoundments, resource extraction, industry, and dredge disposal. More information on wetlands can be obtained from the EPA Wetlands Hotline at 1-800-832-7828. Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity (14 States Reporting) Soirees Agriculture Development Channelization Road Co ret met ion Urban Runoff lotal 11 9 9 8 7 I 5 10 Number of Slates Reporting 15 Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. ------- Ground Water Ninety-five percent of all fresh water available on earth (exclusive of icecaps) is ground water. Ground water-water found in natural under- ground rock formations called aqui- fers-is a vital natural resource with many uses. The extent of the Nation's ground water resources is enormous. At least 60% of the land area in the conterminous United States overlies aquifers. Usable ground water exists in every State. Aquifers can range in size from thin surficial formations that yield small quantities of ground water to large systems such as the High Plains aquifer that underlies eight western States and provides water to millions. Although most of the Nation's ground water is considered to be of good quality, an increasing number of pollution events have threatened the integrity of the resource. Ground Water Use Nationally, 53% of the popula- tion relies to some extent on ground water as a source of drink- ing water. This percentage is even Ground water provides drinking water for 53% of the population. higher in rural areas where most residents rely on potable or treat- able ground water as an economical source of drinking water. Eighty-one percent of community water systems are dependent on ground water. Seventy-four percent of community water systems are small ground water systems serving 3,300 people or less. Ninety-five percent of the approximately 200,000 noncommunity water systems (serv- ing schools, parks, etc.) are ground water systems. Irrigation accounts for approxi- mately 64% of national ground water withdrawals. Public drinking water supplies account for approxi- mately 19% of the Nation's total ground water withdrawals. Domes- tic, commercial, livestock, industrial, mining, and thermoelectric with- drawals together account for approximately 17% of national ground water withdrawals. Ground Water Quality Although the 1992 Section 305(b) State Water Quality Reports indicate that, overall, the Nation's ground water quality is good to excellent, many local areas have experienced significant ground water contamination. Although the sources and types of ground water contamination vary depending upon the region of the country, those most frequently reported by States include: Leaking underground storage tanks. About 400,000 of an esti- mated 5 to 6 million underground storage tanks in the United States are thought to be leaking. About 30% of all tanks store petroleum or hazardous materials. Septic tanks. Approximately 23 million domestic septic systems are in operation in the United States. About half a million new systems are installed each year. • Municipal landfills. Of the quar- ter million solid waste disposal facili- ties in the United States, about 6,000 are municipal solid waste facilities. Approximately 25% of these municipal facilities have ground water monitoring capabilities. Agricultural activities. Seventy- seven percent of the 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides produced annually in the United States is ap- plied to land in agricultural produc- tion, which often overlies aquifers. 27 ------- Abandoned hazardous waste sites. Approximately 33,000 sites have been identified as abandoned hazardous waste sites, of which 42% involve ground water contamination. The most common contami- nants associated with these sources include nitrates, metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and pesticides. EPA has been working with States to develop a set of ground water quality indicators. These indi- cators will allow the characterization of trends in ground water quality 29 States judged their ground water quality to be good or excellent. over space and time. Examples of preliminary indicators include the number of maximum contaminant level violations in public water sys- tems, detections of VOCs in ground water, and the extent of leachable agricultural pesticide use. EPA will continue to work with the States to refine these ground water quality indicators. Additional ground water moni- toring initiatives have been under- taken in numerous States. These initiatives are aimed at characteriz- ing the overall quality of ground water resources and typically include the establishment of ambient monitoring networks, regional monitoring networks that focus on sensitive aquifers, or site- specific monitoring efforts that focus on known or suspected contamina- tion sources. ?ft ------- Water Quality Protectic The EPA works in partnership with State and local governments to improve and protect water quality. Since the 1990 Report to Congress, EPA and many States have moved toward a more geographically oriented approach to water quality management. They share a growing consensus that the Nation's remain- ing water quality problems can be solved most effectively at the basin or watershed level. In 1991, EPA highlighted the Watershed Protection Approach (WPA), a framework for focusing and integrating water quality moni- toring and management activities 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. in a watershed of concern. The WPA is not a new government pro- gram, but rather a means of pulling together the resources and expertise of existing programs at all levels, from Federal to State and local levels. The EPA, other Federal agen- cies, State pollution control agen- cies, and local governments are applying the WPA to existing monitoring and assessment pro- grams as well as water quality pro- tection programs (see sidebar next page). A number of laws provide the authority to develop and imple- ment pollution control programs. The primary statute providing for water quality protection in the Nation's rivers, lakes, wetlands, estu- aries, and coastal waters is the Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act of 1972 and its amendments are the driving force behind many of the water quality improvements we have witnessed in recent years. Key provisions of the Clean Water Act provide the following pollution con- trol programs. Water quality standards and criteria - States adopt EPA- approved standards for their waters that define water quality goals for individual waterbodies. Standards consist of designated beneficial uses to be made of the water, criteria to protect those uses, and antidegradation provisions to protect existing water quality. Effluent guidelines - The EPA develops nationally consistent guidelines limiting pollutants in discharges from industrial facilities and municipal sewage treatment plants. These guide- lines are then used in permits issued to dischargers under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Additional controls may be required if receiving waters are still affected by water quality problems after permit limits are met. Total Maximum Daily Loads- The development of Total Maxi- mum Daily Loads, or TMDLs, establishes the link between water quality standards and point/nonpoint source pollution control actions such as permits or Best Management Practices (BMPs). A TMDL calculates allowable loadings from the contributing point and nonpoint sources to a given waterbody and provides the quantitative basis for pollution ------- reduction necessary to meet water quality standards. States develop and implement TMDLs for high-priority impaired or threatened waterbodies. Permits and enforcement - All industrial and municipal facilities that discharge wastewater must have an NPDES permit and are responsible for monitoring and reporting levels of pollutants in their discharges. EPA issues these permits or can delegate that permitting authority to qualifying States. The States and EPA inspect facilities to deter- mine if their discharges comply with permit limits. If dischargers are not in compliance, enforce- ment action is taken. In 1990, EPA promulgated per- mit application requirements for municipal sewers that carry storm water separately from other wastes and serve popula- tions of 100,000 or more and for storm water discharges asso- ciated with some industrial activities. The EPA is developing regulations to establish a com- prehensive program to regulate storm sewers, including require- ments for State storm water management programs. Grants - The EPA provides States with financial assistance to help support many of their pollution control programs. These programs include the State Revolving Fund program for construction and upgrading of municipal sewage treatment plants; water quality monitor- ing, permitting, and The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) Several key features characterize the WPA: • The WPA encourages managers to examine all the factors contribut- ing to water quality problems in a watershed and apply a coordi- nated, holistic approach to resolving the problems. • The WPA advocates restoring and protecting ecological integrity in addition to protecting human health and meeting water quality standards. • The WPA fosters a high level of interprogram coordination. A State that is using the WPA: • Targets those watersheds where pollution poses the greatest risk to human health, ecological resources, or desirable uses of the water • Involves all parties with a stake in the watershed in the analysis of problems and the implementation of solutions • Draws on the full range of methods and tools available, integrating them into a coordinated, multiorganizational attack on the problems. enforcement; and developing and implementing nonpoint source pollution controls, com- bined sewer and storm water controls, ground water strate- gies, lake assessment, protec- tion, and restoration activities, estuary and near coastal man- agement programs, and wet- lands protection activities. Nonpoint source control - The EPA provides program guid- ance, technical support, and funding to help the States con- trol nonpoint source pollution. The States are responsible for analyzing the extent and severity of their nonpoint source pollution problems and devel- oping and implementing needed water quality manage- ment actions. Control of combined sewer overflows - Under the National Combined Sewer Overflow Con- trol Strategy of 1989, States develop and implement mea- sures to reduce pollution dis- charges from combined storm and sanitary sewers. The EPA works with the States to imple- ment the national strategy. 30 ------- The CWA also established pollution control and prevention programs for specific waterbody categories, 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 stan- dards 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 promote pollutant source reduction rather than focus on controlling pollutants after they enter the environment. The Clean Lakes Program EPA's Clean Lakes Program pro- vides Federal funds to help States carry out diagnostic studies of lake The Clean Lakes Program and the States focus on highly used lakes. problems, determine necessary protection and restoration measures, implement those measures, and monitor the long-term impacts and effectiveness of those measures. The Clean Lakes Program provides grants for four types of cooperative agreements: Lake Water Quality Assess- ments strengthen State lake management programs and improve water quality information. Phase I Diagnostic/Feasibility Studies investigate the causes of water quality decline in a publicly owned lake and deter- mine the most feasible proce- dures for controlling pollutants and restoring the lake. Phase II Projects implement the restoration and pollution control methods identified in a Phase I study. In-Lake Treatment Techniques Implemented by the States (22 States Reporting) Techniques Dredging Lake Drawdown Chemical Weed and Algae Controls Mechanical Weed Control Biological Weed Control Circulation/Hypolimnetic Aeration _L _L _L _L _L J 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Number of States Reporting Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. 31 ------- Phase III Postrestoration Monitoring Projects sponsor long-term monitoring to verify the longevity and effectiveness of restoration and control mea- sures implemented during a Phase II project. Managing lake quality often requires a combination of in-lake restoration measures and pollution controls, including watershed man- agement measures: Restoration measures are implemented to reduce existing pollution problems. Examples of in-lake restoration measures include harvesting aquatic weeds, dredging sediment, and adding chemicals to precipitate nutrients out of the water col- umn. Restoration measures 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, regu- latory actions, and implementa- tion of BMPs to reduce nonpoint 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 1992 Section 305(b) reports, the States report a shift toward watershed planning techniques and nonpoint source controls to reduce pollutant loads responsible for aquatic weed growth and algal blooms. Watershed man- agement plans simultaneously ad- dress multiple sources of pollutants, such as runoff from urbanized areas, agricultural activities, and failing septic systems along the lake shore. 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. The States reported that they most frequently rely on their NPDES permit programs and their Section 319 nonpoint source (NPS) man- agement programs to control pol- lutants entering lakes. Through the State NPDES permit programs, States often impose stricter nutrient limits for effluents discharged into lakes than into rivers and streams. Seven States reported that phospho- rus detergent restrictions enhanced sewage treatment plant compliance with NPDES nutrient limits. Twenty- two States reported that they use their Section 319 NPS programs to implement BMPs in watersheds surrounding impaired or threatened lakes. Successful lake programs require strong commitment from local citi- zens and cooperation from natural resource agencies at the local, State, and Federal levels. Forty-nine States, Puerto Rico, and 18 American Indian Tribes have established coop- erative frameworks for managing lakes under the Clean Lakes Program. The National Estuary Program Section 320 of the Clean Water Act (as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987) established the National Estuary Program (NEP) to Management Options for Lake Restoration and Pollution Control (35 States Reporting) Options Modified NPDES Permits Rely on 319 NPS Program State Lake Water Quality Standards Watershed Management Plans Phosphate Detergent Restrictions Number of States Reporting Source: Based on 1992 State Section 305(b) reports. 32 ------- Locations of National Estuary Program Sites Source: U.S. EPA National Estuary Program. protect and restore water quality and living resources in estuaries. The NEP adopts a geographic or water- shed approach by planning and implementing pollution abatement activities for the estuary and its surrounding land area as a whole. Through the NEP, States nomi- nate estuaries of national signifi- cance that are threatened or impaired by pollution, development, or overuse. EPA evaluates the nominations and selects those that show evidence of a committed citi- zenry, political support, a range of government involvement (State, Federal, regional, and local), and available scientific and technical expertise to tackle the problem. The EPA convenes management confer- ences with representatives from all interested groups (e.g., industry, agriculture, conservation organiza- tions, and State agencies) to more VI fully characterize the problems and seek solutions. The NEP is also a national dem- onstration program. There are more than 150 estuaries in the United States and only a small fraction can be targeted for action through the NEP. It is therefore important that the lessons learned through the NEP be communicated to estuarine water quality managers throughout The NEP currently supports 21 estuary projects. the country. As of June 1993, 21 estuaries are included in the NEP. Protecting Wetlands Section 404 of the CWA remains the primary Federal vehicle for protecting wetlands. Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. EPA continues to promote other mechanisms to protect wetlands including: • Incorporating wetlands consider- ations into traditional water pro- grams and other EPA programs • Working with other Federal agencies • Helping to build State and local government programs to protect wetlands • Improving wetlands science • Promoting outreach and education • Developing voluntary partner- ships with landowners • Coordinating international wet- lands protection. In addition, EPA has awarded wetlands grants since 1990 to sup- port the development of State and Tribal wetlands protection pro- grams. States and Tribes have used these grants to develop water qual- ity standards, monitor trends in wetlands loss, coordinate State and local planning agencies, and dis- seminate educational materials on wetlands. Overall, States reported that they are making considerable progress in protecting the quantity and quality of their wetlands through regulatory and nonregula- tory approaches. States were asked to report on several key areas, 33 ------- including the application of Section 401 certification authority to protect wetlands, their progress in develop- ing water quality standards for wet- lands, and efforts to incorporate wetlands considerations into other States are making progress in developing wetlands water quality standards. programs. In addition, 18 States and one Territory reported on efforts to inventory the physical acreage of their wetlands. According to State-reported information, no State is currently operating a statewide wetlands monitoring program. However, five States did describe water quality and habitat monitoring efforts for some portion of their wetlands. EPA recognizes that the devel- opment of biological monitoring and assessment methods for wetlands is a critical need for State wetlands managers so that they can begin to monitor their wetlands. To this end, EPA is developing assess- ment protocols for freshwater emer- gent wetlands as part of its 5-year research plan. However, more research on other wetlands systems is needed on both the Federal and State levels. State monitoring programs are critical for determining whether wetlands are meeting their desig- nated and existing uses as well as for prioritizing restoration once impairment is identified. Wetlands monitoring information is also important for making Section 401 certification decisions, determining mitigation success for Section 404, and supporting other management decisions. Protecting the Great Lakes The Great Lakes are coopera- tively managed by the United States and Canada under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 (as amended in 1987). The Interna- tional Joint Commission, established by the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, is responsible for identifying actions to protect the Great Lakes. Representatives from State and Fed- eral agencies and universities work together on the Commission's two boards to identify problem areas, plan programs to reduce pollution, and publish findings and issue papers. Since 1973, 43 Areas of Con- cern have been identified in the Great Lakes basin where environ- mental quality is substantially degraded. Most Areas of Concern are harbors, bays, and river mouths. Remedial Action Plans are being developed for each Area of Con- cern. These plans identify impaired uses and examine management options to restore the areas. In 1989, the EPA launched the Great Lakes Initiative to provide a framework for Federal assistance in pursuing the goal of whole-system restoration based on an ecosystem perspective. The Initiative empha- sizes areas in which EPA can provide State governments and other stake- holders with technical support. The Initiative envisions EPA making the following technical contributions: ------- • Develop guidance for identifying toxic hot spots • Develop guidance for tracking the relative contributions of toxic and acidic pollutants from surface water and atmospheric sources • Develop guidance for determin- ing the relative roles of point and nonpoint source contributions to conventional and toxic pollutant burdens • Suggest innovative approaches for the protection of critical habitat areas • Support the development of special wildlife standards. To help implement the goals of the Great Lakes Initiative, EPA Region 5 and the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office coordinate a Steering Committee, Technical Workgroup, and Public Participation Group. The States have played an active role in the development of draft criteria and policies. By late 1992, EPA had reviewed a draft of the Great Lakes Initiative Guidance. When issued in final form, this major guidance docu- ment will assist in updating the Great Lakes Strategy, which pro- vides the framework for implement- ing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Specific policies under the Great Lakes Initiative will help integrate the development of Remedial Action Plans for desig- nated Areas of Concern with the more holistic goals of Lakewide Management Plans and pollution prevention strategies for the Great Lakes as a whole. The Chesapeake Bay Program In 1975, the Chesapeake Bay became the Nation's first estuary targeted for protection and restora- tion when Congress directed EPA to study the causes of environmental declines in the Bay. Section 117(a) of the 1987 CWA amendments required that the EPA Administrator continue the Chesapeake Bay Program to: • Collect and distribute information about the Bay's environmental quality • Coordinate Federal and State efforts to improve the Bay's water quality • Determine impacts from environ- mental changes such as inputs of nutrients, chlorine, oxygen- demanding substances, toxic pollut- ants, and acid precipitation. A system of committees, sub- committees, work groups, and task forces have evolved under the Chesapeake Executive Council, which consists of the Governors of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylva- nia, the Administrator of EPA, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and the Chairman of the Chesa- peake Bay Commission. The Coun- cil coordinates program implemen- tation, establishes policy directions, and provides oversight for the resto- ration and protection of the Bay and its living resources. On August 6, 1991, the Chesapeake Executive Council adopted four action steps, building on the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loads entering the Bay by 40%. The four action steps commit the Council to: • Reevaluating and accelerating the nutrient reduction program • Adopting pollution prevention • Restoring and enhancing living resources and their habitats, such as submerged aquatic vegetation beds • Broadening participation in the Bay Program. The Chesapeake Bay Program has implemented programs to reduce impacts from nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and pathogens. To date, three elements of the Chesapeake Bay Program's point source control strategy are responsible for reductions in nutri- ent loadings: • Ugrading wastewater treatment plants • Improving compliance with dis- charge and pretreatment permits • Pollution prevention actions such as prohibiting the sale of detergents containing phosphorus. As a result of these measures, annual discharges of phosphorus into the Bay dropped by 40% (4.7 million pounds) between 1985 and 1991. The Chesapeake Bay Program's nonpoint source program empha- sizes controls for runoff generated by agricultural activities, paved 35 ------- surfaces, and construction in urban areas. The program includes nutri- ent management for applying ani- mal wastes and fertilizers to crop- land in amounts calculated to meet Annual discharges of phosphorus into the Chesapeake Bay dropped by 40% between 1985 and 1991. crop requirements without contami- nating ground and surface waters. Overall, water quality monitor- ing data confirm significant progress in reducing phosphorus loads into Chesapeake Bay. Total phosphorus concentrations in the Bay decreased by 16% between 1984 and 1992. However, total nitrogen concentrations have re- mained stable in the mainstem of the Bay and increased in some tributaries, indicating a need for additional progress in reducing nitrogen loadings. The Gulf of Mexico Program In 1988, the Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) was established with EPA as the lead Federal agency to develop and help implement a strategy to protect, restore, and maintain the health and productiv- ity of the Gulf. The GMP is a grass roots program that serves as a cata- lyst 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 destruction of the Gulf. The GMP mobilizes State, Federal, and local government; busi- ness and industry; academia; and the community at large through public awareness and information dissemination programs, forum dis- cussions, citizen committees, and technology applications. A Policy Review Board and a newly formed Management Com- mittee determine the scope and focus of GMP activities. The pro- gram also receives input from a Technical Advisory Committee and a Citizen's Advisory Committee. The GMP Office and 10 Issue Com- mittees coordinate the collection, integration, and reporting of perti- nent data and information. The Issue Committees are responsible for documenting environmental prob- lems and management goals, avail- able resources, and potential solu- tions for a broad range of issues, including habitat degradation, pub- lic health, freshwater inflow, marine debris, shoreline erosion, nutrients, toxic pollutants, and living aquatic resources. The Issue Committees publish their findings in Action Agendas. Two additional commit- tees provide operational support and information transfer activities for the entire GMP. On December 10, 1992, the Governors of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas; EPA; the Chair of the Citizen's Advi- sory Committee; and representatives of 10 other Federal agencies signed the Gulf of Mexico Program Partner- ship for Action agreement for protecting, restoring, and enhanc- ing the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent lands. The agreement commits the signatory agencies to pledge their efforts, over the next 5 years, to obtain the knowledge and resources to: • Significantly reduce the rate of loss of coastal wetlands • Achieve an increase in Gulf Coast seagrass beds • Enhance the sustainability of Gulf commercial and recreational fisher- ies Protect human health and food supply by reducing input of nutri- ents, toxic substances, and patho- gens to the Gulf Increase Gulf shellfish beds avail- able for safe harvesting by 10% Ensure that all Gulf beaches are safe for swimming and recreational uses ------- • Reduce by at least 10% the amount of trash on beaches • Improve and expand coastal habitats that support migratory birds, fish, and other living resources • Expand public education/out- reach tailored for each Gulf Coast county or parish. During 1992, the GMP also launched Take-Action Projects in each of the five Gulf States to dem- onstrate that program strategies and methods could achieve rapid results. The Take-Action Projects primarily address inadequate sewage treat- ment, pollution prevention, and habitat protection and restoration. Several projects aim to demonstrate the effectiveness of innovative sewage treatment technologies to control pathogenic contamination Take-Action Projects in the five Gulf States primarily address sewage treatment, pollution prevention, and habitat protection and restoration. of shellfish harvesting areas. Other projects aim to restore wetlands, sea grass beds, and oyster reefs. The Take-Action Projects are designed to have Gulf-wide application. Ground Water Protection Programs Numerous laws, regulations, and programs play a role in protect- ing ground water. The following Federal laws and programs 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) regulates solid and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal as well as underground storage tanks, the source of ground water contamina- tion most frequently cited by the States. • The Comprehensive Environmen- tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) regulates cleanup of abandoned waste sites, many of which contain contami- nated ground water. • The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates subsurface injection of fluids that can contami- nate 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 disposal 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 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 mecha- nisms • Implementing all necessary efforts to accomplish the State's ground water protection goal • Coordinating information collection and management to measure progress and reevaluate priorities • Improving public education and participation. 37 ------- State agencies to implement EPA- approved nonpoint source manage- ment programs that include ground water protection activities. Several States have developed programs that focus on ground water con- tamination resulting from agriculture and septic tanks. 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 pesticides. Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) will integrate all of the above efforts and emphasize contamination prevention. Comprehensive State ground water protection programs support State- directed priorities in resource protection. CSGWPPs will improve coordination of Federal, State, Tribal, and local ground water programs and enable distribution of resources to estab- lished priorities. Once EPA endorses a CSGWPP, the Agency will seek to provide more consistent deference to State priorities. EPA's Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy emphasizes preven- tion and protection of the Nation's ground water resources and pro- vides a flexible framework for tailor- ing State Management Plans for the management and control of pesti- cide use to the needs of each State. In addition, EPA has established a Restricted Use classification for pesti- cides, which is intended to reduce both the risks of point source causes of ground water contamination and nonpoint source causes of contami- nation. A number of mechanisms have been developed to manage the ever-growing volume of information on the Nation's ground water resources. These include the development of standard elements for collecting ground water data called the Minimum Set of Data Elements (MSDE) for Ground Water Quality. The MSDE is intended to improve access to ground water data and to increase information- sharing capabilities by standardizing the elements used in databases that contain ground water data. Addi- tional mechanisms include the development of a geographic infor- mation system (CIS) to integrate ground water data that have been collected under different programs, the development and management of two databases concerning pesti- cides and ground water, and the inclusion of ground water data in a modernized STORET (EPA's water database). ------- What You Can Do Federal and State programs have helped clean up many waters and slow the degradation of others. But government alone cannot solve the entire problem, and water qual- ity concerns persist. Nonpoint source pollution, in particular, is everybody's problem, and every- body needs to solve it. Examine your everyday activities and think about how you are con- tributing to the pollution problem. Here are some suggestions on how you can make a difference. Be Informed You should 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 can- not 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 fertil- izers might run off into surface waters. Consider selecting plants and grasses that have low mainte- nance requirements. Water your lawn conservatively. Preserve existing trees and plant new trees and shrubs to help prevent erosion and promote infiltration of water into the soil. Restore bare patches in your lawn to prevent erosion. If you own or 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 plant- ing buffer strips of native vegeta- tion. Around your house, keep litter, pet waste, leaves, and grass clip- pings out of gutters and storm drains. Use the minimum amount of water needed when you wash your car. Never dispose of any house- hold, automotive, or gardening wastes in a storm drain. Keep your septic tank in good working order. Within your home, fix any drip- ping faucets or leaky pipes and 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 community level to help preserve and protect our Nation's water resources. Look around. Is soil erosion being con- trolled at construction sites? Is the community sewage plant being operated efficiently and correctly? Is the community trash dump in or along a stream? Is road deicing salt being stored properly? Become involved in your com- munity election processes. Listen and respond to candidates' views on water quality and environmental issues. Many communities have recycling programs; find out about them, 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 39 ------- in taking ongoing water quality measurements, tracking the 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 volun- teer monitoring programs in your State, contact your State depart- ment of environmental quality, or write to: Alice Mayio U.S. EPA Volunteer Monitoring (4503F) 401 M St. SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-7018 For further information on water quality in your State, write to your State department of environmental quality. Additional water quality information may be obtained from the Regional offices of the U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (see inside front cover). For Further Reading U.S. EPA. 1988. America's Wet- lands: Our Vital Link Between Land and Water. Office of Water. EPA 87-016. U.S. EPA. 1988. Environmental Backgrounder: Wetlands. Office of Water. U.S. EPA. 1989. EPA Journal: Can Our Coasts Survive More Growth? Volume 15, Number 5. U.S. EPA. 1991. EPA Journal: Nonpoint Source Pollution: Runoff of Rain and Snowmelt, Our Biggest Water Quality Problem. Volume 17, Number 5. U.S. EPA. 1992. National Water Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to Congress. Office of Water. EPA 503/99-92-006. 40 ------- 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 contaminated 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 fish con- sumption from specific waterbodies. The States tailor individual advisories to minimize health risks based on contaminant data collected in their fish tissue sampling programs. Advi- sories may completely ban fish con- sumption in severely polluted waters or limit fish consumption to several meals per month or year in cases of less severe contamination. Advisories may target a subpopulation at risk (such as children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers), specific fish species, or larger fish that may have accumulated high concentrations of a pollutant over a longer lifetime than a smaller, younger fish. The EPA fish consumption advisory database tracks advisories issued by each State. For 1993, the database listed 1,279 fish consump- tion advisories in effect in 47 States. Fish consumption advisories are unevenly distributed among the States because the States use their own criteria to determine if fish tissue concentrations of toxics pose a health risk that justifies an advi- sory. States also vary the amount of fish tissue monitoring they conduct and the number of pollutants ana- lyzed. States that conduct more monitoring and use strict criteria will issue more advisories than States that conduct less monitoring and use weaker criteria. For example, 66% of the advisories active in 1993 were issued by the States surround- ing the Great Lakes, which support extensive fish sampling programs and follow strict criteria for issuing advisories. Most of the fish consumption advisories are due to mercury, 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 microorgan- isms are a serious human health concern, particularly if consumed raw. States currently sample water from shellfish harvesting areas to measure indicator bacteria, such as total coliform and fecal coliform bacteria. These bacteria serve as indicators of the presence of poten- tially pathogenic microorganisms associated with untreated or undertreated sewage. States restrict shellfish harvesting to areas that maintain these bacteria at concen- trations in sea water below estab- lished health limits. In 1992, 18 States reported that shellfish harvesting restrictions were in effect for more than 3,455 square miles of estuarine and coastal waters during the 1990-1992 reporting period. Nine States reported that urban runoff and storm sewers, municipal wastewater treatment facilities, marinas, and industrial discharges restricted shellfish harvesting. ------- State 305(b) Coordinators For State-specific water quality information, contact: Michael J. Rief Alabama Department of Environmental Management Water Quality Branch P.O. Box 301463 Montgomery, AL 36130-1463 (205) 271-7829 Earl Hubbard Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Street - Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801-1795 (907) 465-2653 Pat Young Project Officer for American Samoa U.S. EPA Region 9 MC E-4 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 744-1591 Diana Marsh Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 3033 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012 (602) 207-4545 Bill Keith Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology P.O. Box 8913 Little Rock, AR 72219-8913 (501) 562-7444 Nancy Richard California State Water Resources Control Board, M&A Division of Water Quality P.O. Box 944213 Sacramento, CA 94244-2130 (916) 657-0642 John Farrow Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South Denver, CO 80222-1530 (303) 692-3575 Donald Gonyea Bureau of Water Management PERD Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 (203) 566-2588 Sergio Huerta Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control P.O. Box 1401 Dover, DE 19903 (302) 739-4590 Warren Huff Delaware River Basin Commission P.O. Box 7360 West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360 (609) 883-9500 Dr. Hamid Karimi Water Quality Monitoring Branch Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs 2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20032 (202) 404-1120 Joe Hand Florida Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 (904) 921-9926 W. M. Winn, III Georgia Environmental Protection Division Water Quality Management Program 205 Butler Street, S.E. Floyd Towers, East Atlanta, GA 30334 (404) 656-4905 Errol Blackwater Gila River Indian Community Water Quality Planning Office Corner of Main and Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247 (602) 562-3203 Eugene Akazawa, Monitoring Supervisor Hawaii Department of Health Clean Water Branch P.O. Box 3378 Honolulu, HI 96801 (808) 586-4309 Don Zaroban Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Division of Environmental Quality 1410 North Hilton Statehouse Mall Boise, ID 83720 (208) 334-5860 Mike Branham Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Division of Water Pollution Control 2200 Churchill Road Springfield, IL 62704 (217) 782-3362 Dennis Clark Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office of Water Management 5500 W. Bradbury Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46241 (317) 243-5037 John Olson Iowa Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Section 900 East Grand Avenue Wallace State Office Building Des Moines, IA 50319 (515) 281-8905 Mike Butler Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Water Protection Forbes Field, Building 740 Topeka, KS 66620 (913) 296-5575 Tom VanArsdall Department for Environmental Protection Division of Water 14 Reilly Road Frankfort Office Park Frankfort, KY 40601 (502) 564-3410 Emelise S. Cormier, Acting Program Manager Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Office of Water Resources Water Quality Division P.O. Box 82215 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215 (504) 765-0511 Phil Garwood Maine Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Quality Control State House Station 17 Augusta, ME 04333 (207) 287-7695 Shermer Garrison Maryland Department of the Environment Chesapeake Bay and Special Projects Program 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD 21224 (410) 631-3580 Warren Kimball Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Pollution Control Technical Services Branch 1 Winter Street - 8th Floor Boston, MA 02108 (617) 292-5968 Greg Goudy Michigan Department of Natural Resources Surface Water Quality Division P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, Ml 48909 (517) 335-3310 Catherine Malave MPCA, Division of Water Quality 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 (612) 296-8861 Randy Reed Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Office of Pollution Control P.O. Box 10385 Jackson, MS 39289-0385 (601) 961-5158 John Ford Missouri Department of Natural Resources Water Pollution Control Program P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (314) 751-7024 Christian J. Levine Montana Department of Health and Environmental Science Water Quality Bureau Cogswell Building, Room A206 1400 Broadway Helena, MT 59620 (406) 444-5342 Steven Walker, Section Supervisor Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 (402) 471-2875 42 ------- Glen Gentry Bureau of Water Quality Planning Division of Environmental Protection 123 West Nye Lane Carson City, NV 89710 (702) 687-4670 Greg Comstock Water Quality Section New Hampshire WSPCD/DES P.O. Box 95 Concord, NH 03301-6528 (603) 271-2457 Kevin Berry Office of Land and Water Planning New Jersey DEPE 401 East State Street 4th Floor Trenton, NJ 08625 (609) 633-1179 Erik Galloway Surface Water Quality Bureau New Mexico Environment Department P.O. Box 26110 Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110 (505) 827-2923 George K. Hansen, P.E. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233 (518) 457-8819 Carol Metz North Carolina Division of Environmental Management P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 (919) 733-5083 Mike Ell North Dakota Department of Health Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control P.O. Box 5520 Bismarck, ND 58502-5520 (701) 221-5210 Ed Rankin Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water 1685 Westbelt Drive Columbus, OH 43228 (614) 777-6264 Jason Heath ORSANCO 5735 Kellogg Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45230 (513) 231-7719 John Dyer Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division 1000 NE Tenth Streeth Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212 (405) 271-5205 Elizabeth Thomson Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 (503) 229-5358 Robert Frey Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Water Quality Management Division of Assessment and Standards P.O. Box 8465, 10th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465 (717) 783-2959 Eric H. Morales Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board Water Quality Area P.O. Box 11488 Santurce, PR 00910 (809) 751-5548 Connie Carey Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Division of Water Resources 291 Promenade Street Providence, Rl 02908-5767 (401) 277-6519 Zach Corontzes South Carolina DHEC 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 (803) 734-5300 Andrew Repsys South Dakota Department of the Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Resource Management 523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building, Room 425 Pierre, SD 57501-3181 (605) 773-3696 Greg Denton Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control 401 Church St., L&C Annex, 6th Floor Nashville, TN 37243-1534 (615) 532-0699 Steve Twidwell Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 (512) 908-1000 Thomas W. Toole Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality P.O. Box 144870 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 (801) 538-6146 Jerome J. McArdle Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation Water Quality Division 103 South Main Street Building 10 North Waterbury, VT 05671-0408 (802) 244-6951 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 Steve Butkus Washington Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98503-7600 (206) 407-6482 Carrie Gorsuch Department of Environmental Quality - Water Division Office of Water Resources Management P.O. Box 11143 Richmond, VA 23230-1143 (804) 762-4290 Michael A. Arcuri West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection Office of Water Resources 1201 Greenbrier Street Charleston, WV 25311 (304) 558-2108 Meg Turville-Heitz Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wl 53707-7921 (608) 266-0152 Robert Gumtow Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division Herschler Building - 4th Floor 122 West 25th Street Cheyenne, WY 82002 (307) 777-7098 43 ------- Order Form For a copy of the National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to Congress (EPA841-R-94-001), return this form to: NCEPI 11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Fax (513) 891-6685 Due to limited supply, we can send you only one copy of this publica- tion. Please print clearly. Allow 2-3 weeks for delivery. Ship to: Title: Organization: Address: City, State, Zip: Daytime Phone: (Please include area code) ------- |