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)
------- |