| us epa archive document · waters; water quality protection and restoration must happen at the...

National Summary of Water Quality Conditions

Section I

2

National 305(b) ConsistencyWorkgroup and the Intergovern-mental Task Force on MonitoringWater Quality. These actions willenable States and other jurisdictionsto share data across political bound-aries as they develop watershedprotection strategies.

EPA recognizes that national ini-tiatives alone cannot clean up ourwaters; water quality protection andrestoration must happen at thelocal watershed level, in conjunc-tion with State, Tribal, and Federalactivities. Similarly, this documentalone cannot provide the detailedinformation needed to managewater quality at all levels. This docu-ment should be used together withthe individual Section 305(b)reports (see the inside back coverfor information on obtaining theState and Tribal Section 305(b)reports), watershed managementplans, and other local documents todevelop integrated water qualitymanagement options.

other jurisdictions that do not useidentical survey methods and crite-ria to rate their water quality. TheStates, Tribes, and other jurisdic-tions favor flexibility in the 305(b)process to accommodate naturalvariability in their waters, but thereis a trade-off between flexibility andconsistency. Without known andconsistent survey methods in place,EPA must use caution in comparingdata or determining the accuracy ofdata submitted by different Statesand jurisdictions. Also, EPA must usecaution when comparing waterquality information submitted dur-ing different 305(b) reporting peri-ods because States and other juris-dictions may modify their criteria orsurvey different waterbodies every 2 years.

For over 10 years, EPA has pur-sued a balance between flexibilityand consistency in the Section305(b) process. Recent actions byEPA, the States, Tribes, and otherjurisdictions include implementingthe recommendations of the

The Quality of Our Nation’s Water

IntroductionThe contents of this section

summarize the information con-tained in the National Water QualityInventory: 1994 Report to Congress.The National Water QualityInventory Report to Congress is theprimary vehicle for informingCongress and the public about gen-eral water quality conditions in theUnited States. This document char-acterizes our water quality, identifieswidespread water quality problemsof national significance, anddescribes various programs imple-mented to restore and protect ourwaters.

The National Water QualityInventory Report to Congress sum-marizes the water quality informa-tion submitted by 61 States,American Indian Tribes, Territories,Interstate Water Commissions, andthe District of Columbia (hereafterreferred to as States, Tribes, andother jurisdictions) in their 1994water quality assessment reports. As such, the report identifies waterquality issues of concern to theStates, Tribes, and other jurisdic-tions, not just the issues of concernto the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA). Section 305(b)of the Clean Water Act (CWA)requires that the States and otherparticipating jurisdictions submitwater quality assessment reportsevery 2 years. Most of the surveyinformation in the 1994 Section305(b) reports is based on waterquality information collected andevaluated by the States, Tribes, andother jurisdictions during 1992 and1993.

It is important to note that thisreport is based on informationsubmitted by States, Tribes, and

Paul

Goe

tz, C

ary,

NC

and swimmable water quality goalsof the Act.

The CWA allows States, Tribes,and other jurisdictions to set theirown standards but requires that allbeneficial uses and their criteriacomply with the goals of the Act. At a minimum, beneficial uses mustprovide for “the protection andpropagation of fish, shellfish, andwildlife” and provide for “recreationin and on the water” (i.e., the fish-able and swimmable goals of theAct), where attainable. The Act pro-hibits States and other jurisdictionsfrom designating waste transport orwaste assimilation as a beneficialuse, as some States did prior to1972.

Section 305(b) of the CWArequires that the States bienniallysurvey their water quality for attain-ment of the fishable and swimmablegoals of the Act and report theresults to EPA. The States, participat-ing Tribes, and other jurisdictionsmeasure attainment of the CWAgoals by determining how well theirwaters support their designatedbeneficial uses. EPA encourages thesurveying of waterbodies for sup-port of the following individualbeneficial uses:

Aquatic Life Support

The waterbody pro-vides suitable habitat for protectionand propagation of desirable fish,shellfish, and other aquatic organ-isms.

Key Concepts

Measuring WaterQuality

The States, participating Tribes,and other jurisdictions survey thequality of their waters by determin-ing if their waters attain the waterquality standards they established.Water quality standards consist ofbeneficial uses, numeric and narra-tive criteria for supporting each use,and an antidegradation statement:

■ Designated beneficial uses arethe desirable uses that water qualityshould support. Examples are drink-ing water supply, primary contactrecreation (such as swimming), andaquatic life support. Each designat-ed use has a unique set of waterquality requirements or criteria thatmust be met for the use to be real-ized. States, Tribes, and other juris-dictions may designate an individ-ual waterbody for multiple benefi-cial uses.

■ Numeric water quality criteriaestablish the minimum physical,chemical, and biological parametersrequired to support a beneficial use.Physical and chemical numeric cri-teria may set maximum concentra-tions of pollutants, acceptableranges of physical parameters, andminimum concentrations of desir-able parameters, such as dissolvedoxygen. Numeric biological criteriadescribe the expected attainablecommunity attributes and establishvalues based on measures such asspecies richness, presence orabsence of indicator taxa, and dis-tribution of classes of organisms.

■ Narrative water quality criteriadefine, rather than quantify, condi-tions and attainable goals that mustbe maintained to support a desig-nated use. Narrative biological crite-ria establish a positive statementabout aquatic community charac-teristics expected to occur within awaterbody. For example, “Ambientwater quality shall be sufficient tosupport life stages of all nativeaquatic species.” Narrative criteriamay also describe conditions thatare desired in a waterbody, such as“Waters must be free of substancesthat are toxic to humans, aquaticlife, and wildlife.”

■ Antidegradation statements,where possible, protect existinguses and prevent waterbodies fromdeteriorating, even if their waterquality is better than the fishable

Barr

y Bu

rgan

, U.S

. EPA

3

4

Water Quality MonitoringWater 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 withapproved quality assurance programs monitor a combination of chemi-cal, physical, and biological water quality parameters throughout thecountry.

■ Chemical data often measure concentrations of pollutants and otherchemical conditions that influence aquatic life, such as pH (i.e., acidi-ty) and dissolved oxygen concentrations. The chemical data may beanalyzed 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. Biologicaldata include counts of aquatic species that indicate healthy ecologicalconditions.

■ Habitat and ancillary data (such as land use data) help interpret theabove monitoring information.

Monitoring agencies vary parameters, sampling frequency, andsampling site selection to meet program objectives and fundingconstraints. Sampling may occur at regular intervals (such as monthly,quarterly, or annually), irregular intervals, or during one-time intensivesurveys. Sampling may be conducted at fixed sampling stations,randomly selected stations, stations near suspected water qualityproblems, or stations in pristine waters.

waterborne diseases from rawsewage contamination).

Secondary ContactRecreation

People can performactivities on the water (such asboating) without risk of adversehuman health effects from ingestionor contact with the water.

Agriculture

The water quality issuitable for irrigating

fields or watering livestock.

States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-tions may also define their own indi-vidual uses to address special con-cerns. For example, many Tribesand States designate their waters forthe following beneficial uses:

Ground WaterRecharge

The surface water-body plays a significant role inreplenishing ground water, andsurface water supply and quality areadequate to protect existing orpotential uses of ground water.

Wildlife Habitat

Water quality sup-ports the waterbody’s

role in providing habitat andresources for land-based wildlife aswell as aquatic life.

Tribes may designate theirwaters for special cultural andceremonial uses:

Drinking Water Supply

The waterbody cansupply safe drinking water with con-ventional treatment.

Primary ContactRecreation – Swimming

People can swim in the waterbodywithout risk of adverse humanhealth effects (such as catching

Fish Consumption

The waterbody sup-ports fish free from

contamination that could pose ahuman health risk to consumers.

Shellfish Harvesting

The waterbody sup-ports a population

of shellfish free from toxicants andpathogens that could pose a humanhealth risk to consumers.

Table 1. Levels of Use Support

Fully Supporting Good Water quality meets designated use criteria.

Threatened Good Water quality supports beneficial uses now but may not in the future unless action is taken.

Partially Supporting Fair Water quality fails to meet(Impaired) designated use criteria at times.

Not Supporting Poor Water quality frequently fails (Impaired) to meet designated use criteria.

Not Attainable Poor The State, Tribe, or other juris-diction has performed a use-attainability analysis and demonstrated that use supportis not attainable due to one of six biological, chemical, physi-cal, or economic/social condi-tions specified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Culture

Water quality sup-ports the waterbody’s

role in Tribal culture and preservesthe waterbody’s religious, ceremoni-al, or subsistence significance.

The States, Tribes, and otherjurisdictions assign one of five levelsof use support categories to each oftheir waterbodies (Table 1). If possi-ble, the States, Tribes, and otherjurisdictions determine the level ofuse support by comparing monitor-ing data with numeric criteria foreach use designated for a particularwaterbody. If monitoring data arenot available, the State, Tribe, orother jurisdiction may determinethe level of use support with quali-tative information. Valid qualitativeinformation includes land use data,fish and game surveys, and predic-tive model results. Monitoredassessments are based on monitor-ing data. Evaluated assessments arebased on qualitative information ormonitored information more than 5 years old.

For waterbodies with more thanone designated use, the States,Tribes, and other jurisdictions con-solidate the individual use supportinformation into a single overall usesupport determination:

Good/Fully SupportingOverall Use – All desig-nated beneficial uses arefully supported.

Good/ThreatenedOverall Use – One ormore designated benefi-cial uses are threatenedand the remaining uses

are fully supported.

Poor/Not Attainable –The State, Tribe, orother jurisdiction hasperformed a use-attain-ability analysis and

demonstrated that use support ofone or more designated beneficialuses is not attainable due to one ofsix biological, chemical, physical, oreconomic/social conditions specifiedin the Code of Federal Regulations(40 CFR Section 131.10). Theseconditions include naturally highconcentrations of pollutants (suchas metals); other natural physicalfeatures that create unsuitable

Fair/PartiallySupporting Overall Use – One or more des-ignated beneficial usesare partially supported

and the remaining uses are fullysupported or threatened. Thesewaterbodies are consideredimpaired.

Poor/Not SupportingOverall Use – One ormore designated bene-ficial uses are notsupported. These water-

bodies are considered impaired.

5

Water Quality Symbol Use Support Level Condition Definition

aquatic life habitat (such as inade-quate substrate, riffles, or pools);low flows or water levels; dams andother hydrologic modifications thatpermanently alter waterbody char-acteristics; poor water quality result-ing from human activities that can-not be reversed without causingfurther environmental degradation;and poor water quality that cannotbe improved without imposingmore stringent controls than thoserequired in the CWA, which wouldresult in widespread economic andsocial impacts.

■ Impaired Waters – The sum ofwaterbodies partially supportinguses and not supporting uses.

The EPA then aggregates theuse support information submittedby the States, Tribes, and otherjurisdictions into a national assess-ment of the Nation’s water quality.

How Many of OurWaters WereSurveyed for 1994?

National estimates of the totalwaters of our country provide thefoundation for determining the per-centage of waters surveyed by theStates, Tribes, and other jurisdic-tions and the portion impaired bypollution. For the 1992 reportingperiod, EPA provided the Stateswith estimates of total river milesand lake acres derived from the EPAReach File, a database containingtraces of waterbodies adapted from1:100,000 scale maps prepared bythe U.S. Geological Survey. The

ditches that were previouslyexcluded from estimates of totalstream miles.

Estimates for the 1994 report-ing cycle are a minor refinement ofthe 1992 figures and indicate thatthe United States has:

States modified these total waterestimates where necessary. Basedon the 1992 EPA/State figures, thenational estimate of total river milesdoubled in large part because theEPA/State estimates includednonperennial streams, canals, and

6

RiversandStreams

615,806 – 17% surveyedTotal miles: 3,548,738

17,134,153 – 42% surveyedTotal acres: 40,826,064

Lakes,Ponds,andReservoirs

26,847 – 78% surveyedTotal square miles: 34,388a

Estuaries

5,208 – 9% surveyedTotal miles: 58,421 miles, including Alaska's36,000 miles of shoreline

OceanShorelineWaters

5,224 – 94% surveyedTotal miles: 5,559

Great LakesShoreline

Figure 1. Percentage of Total Waters Surveyed for the 1994 Report

Source: 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by the States, Tribes, Territories, and Commissions.

aExcluding estuarine waters in Alaska because no estimate was available.

Most States do not survey all oftheir waterbodies during the 2-yearreporting cycle required under CWASection 305(b). Thus, the surveyedwaters reported in Figure 1 are asubset of the Nation’s total waters.In addition, the summary informa-tion based on surveyed waters maynot represent general conditions inthe Nation’s total waters becauseStates, Tribes, and other jurisdic-tions often focus on surveyingmajor perennial rivers, estuaries,and public lakes with suspected pol-lution problems in order to directscarce resources to areas that couldpose the greatest risk. Many States,Tribes, and other jurisdictions lackthe resources to collect use supportinformation for nonperennialstreams, small tributaries, and pri-vate ponds. This report does notpredict the health of theseunassessed waters, which includean unknown ratio of pristine watersto polluted waters.

Pollutants andProcesses ThatDegrade WaterQuality

Where possible, States, Tribes,and other jurisdictions identify thepollutants or processes that degradewater quality and indicators thatdocument impacts of water qualitydegradation. The most widespreadpollutants and processes identifiedin rivers, lakes, and estuaries arepresented in Table 2. Pollutantsinclude sediment, nutrients, andchemical contaminants (such asdioxins and metals). Processes that

■ More than 58,000 miles of oceanshoreline, including 36,000 miles inAlaska

■ 5,559 miles of Great Lakes shoreline

■ More than 277 million acres ofwetlands such as marshes, swamps,bogs, and fens, including 170million acres of wetlands in Alaska.

■ More than 3.5 million miles ofrivers and streams, which range insize from the Mississippi River tosmall streams that flow only whenwet weather conditions exist (i.e., nonperennial streams)

■ Approximately 40.8 million acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs

■ About 34,388 square miles ofestuaries (excluding Alaska)

7

The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality

In 1992, the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring WaterQuality (ITFM) convened to prepare a strategy for improving waterquality monitoring nationwide. The ITFM is a Federal/State partnershipof 10 Federal agencies, 9 State and Interstate agencies, and 1 Ameri-can Indian Tribe. The EPA chairs the ITFM with the USGS as vice chairand Executive Secretariat as part of their Water Information Coordina-tion Program pursuant to OMB memo 92-01.

The mission of the ITFM is to develop and aid implementation of a national strategic plan to achieve effective collection, interpretation,and presentation of water quality data and to improve the availabilityof existing information for decisionmaking at all levels of governmentand the private sector. A permanent successor to the ITFM, theNational Monitoring Council will provide guidelines and support forinstitutional collaboration, comparable field and laboratory methods,quality assurance/quality control, environmental indicators, datamanagement and sharing, ancillary data, interpretation andtechniques, and training.

The ITFM and its successor, the National Monitoring Council, arealso producing products that can be used by monitoring programsnationwide, such as an outline for a recommended monitoringprogram, environmental indicator selection criteria, and a matrix ofindicators to support assessment of State and Tribal designated uses.

For a copy of the first, second, and final ITFM reports, contact:

The U.S. Geological Survey417 National CenterReston, VA 220921-800-426-9000

Rank Rivers Lakes Estuaries

1 Bacteria Nutrients Nutrients

2 Siltation Siltation Bacteria

3 Nutrients Oxygen-Depleting Oxygen-DepletingSubstances Substances

4 Oxygen-Depleting Metals Habitat AlterationsSubstances

5 Metals Suspended Solids Oil and Grease

degrade waters include habitatmodification (such as destruction ofstreamside vegetation) and hydro-logic modification (such as flowreduction). Indicators of water qual-ity degradation include physical,chemical, and biological parame-ters. Examples of biological parame-ters include species diversity andabundance. Examples of physicaland chemical parameters includepH, turbidity, and temperature.Following are descriptions of theeffects of the pollutants andprocesses most commonly identi-fied in rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastalwaters, wetlands, and groundwater.

Low Dissolved OxygenDissolved oxygen is a basic

requirement for a healthy aquaticecosystem. Most fish and beneficialaquatic insects “breathe” oxygendissolved in the water column.Some fish and aquatic organisms(such as carp and sludge worms)are adapted to low oxygen condi-tions, but most desirable fishspecies (such as trout and salmon)suffer if dissolved oxygen concen-trations fall below 3 to 4 mg/L (3 to4 milligrams of oxygen dissolved in1 liter of water, or 3 to 4 parts ofoxygen per million parts of water).Larvae and juvenile fish are moresensitive and require even higherconcentrations of dissolved oxygen.

Many fish and other aquaticorganisms can recover from shortperiods of low dissolved oxygenavailability. However, prolongedepisodes of depressed dissolvedoxygen concentrations of 2 mg/L or less can result in “dead”water-bodies. Prolonged exposure to lowdissolved oxygen conditions can

dissolved oxygen concentrationsalso favor anaerobic bacterial activi-ty that produces noxious gases orfoul odors often associated withpolluted waterbodies.

suffocate adult fish or reduce theirreproductive survival by suffocatingsensitive eggs and larvae or canstarve fish by killing aquatic insectlarvae and other prey. Low

8

Fish KillsFish kill reporting is a voluntary process; States, Tribes, and other

jurisdictions are not required to report on how many fish kills occur, orwhat might have caused them. In many cases it is the public–anglers,and hunters, recreational boaters, or hikers–who first notice fish killsand report them to game wardens or other State officials. Many fishkills go undetected or unreported, and others may be difficult to inves-tigate, especially if they occur in remote areas. This is because deadfish may be carried quickly downstream or may be difficult to countbecause of turbid conditions. It is therefore likely that the statistics pre-sented by the States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions underestimate thetotal number of fish kills that occurred nationwide between 1992 and1994.

Despite these problems, fish kills are an important consideration inwater quality assessments. In 1994, 32 States, Tribes, and other juris-dictions reported a total of 1,454 fish kill incidents. These States attrib-uted 737 of the fish kills to pollution, 257 to unknown causes, 263 tonatural conditions (such as low flow and high temperatures), and 229kills to ambiguous causes. Pollutants most often cited as the cause ofkills include oxygen-depleting substances, sewage, pesticides, manureand silage, oil and gas, chlorine, and ammonia. Leading sources of fishkills include agricultural activities, industrial discharges, municipalsewage treatment plant discharges, spills, runoff, and pesticideapplications.

Table 2. Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment

Source: Based on 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,Commissions, and the District of Columbia.

Oxygen concentrations in thewater column fluctuate under natu-ral conditions, but severe oxygendepletion usually results fromhuman activities that introducelarge quantities of biodegradableorganic materials into surface wat-ers. Biodegradable organic materialscontain plant, fish, or animal mat-ter. Leaves, lawn clippings, sewage,manure, shellfish processing waste,milk solids, and other food process-ing wastes are examples of oxygen-depleting organic materials thatenter our surface waters.

In both pristine and pollutedwaters, beneficial bacteria use oxy-gen to break apart (or decompose)organic materials. Pollution-containing organic wastes provide acontinuous glut of food for the bac-teria, which accelerates bacterialactivity and population growth. Inpolluted waters, bacterial consump-tion of oxygen can rapidly outpaceoxygen replenishment from theatmosphere and photosynthesisperformed by algae and aquaticplants. The result is a net decline inoxygen concentrations in the water.

Toxic pollutants can indirectlylower oxygen concentrations bykilling algae, aquatic weeds, or fish,which provides an abundance offood for oxygen-consuming bacte-ria. Oxygen depletion can alsoresult from chemical reactions thatdo not involve bacteria. Some pol-lutants trigger chemical reactionsthat place a chemical oxygendemand on receiving waters.

Other factors (such as tempera-ture and salinity) influence theamount of oxygen dissolved inwater. Prolonged hot weather willdepress oxygen concentrations andmay cause fish kills even in clean

concentrations can fluctuate dailyduring algal blooms, rising duringthe day as algae perform photosyn-thesis, and falling at night as algaecontinue to respire, which con-sumes oxygen. Beneficial bacteriaalso consume oxygen as theydecompose the abundant organicfood supply in dying algae cells.

Lawn and crop fertilizers,sewage, manure, and detergentscontain nitrogen and phosphorus,the nutrients most often responsiblefor water quality degradation. Ruralareas are vulnerable to groundwater contamination from nitrates(a compound containing nitrogen)found in fertilizer and manure. Veryhigh concentrations of nitrate (>10 mg/L) in drinking water causemethemoglobinemia, or blue babysyndrome, an inability to fix oxygenin the blood.

Nutrients are difficult to controlbecause lake and estuarine ecosys-tems recycle nutrients. Rather thanleaving the ecosystem, the nutrientscycle among the water column,algae and plant tissues, and thebottom sediments. For example,algae may temporarily remove allthe nitrogen from the water col-umn, but the nutrients will return tothe water column when the algaedie and are decomposed by bacte-ria. Therefore, gradual inputs ofnutrients tend to accumulate overtime rather than leave the system.

Sediment and SiltationIn a water quality context, sedi-

ment usually refers to soil particlesthat enter the water column fromeroding land. Sediment consists ofparticles of all sizes, including fineclay particles, silt, sand, and gravel.Water quality managers use the

waters because warm water cannothold as much oxygen as cold water.Warm conditions further aggravateoxygen depletion by stimulatingbacterial activity and respiration infish, which consumes oxygen.Removal of streamside vegetationeliminates shade, thereby raisingwater temperatures, and acceleratesrunoff of organic debris. Under suchconditions, minor additions of pol-lution-containing organic materialscan severely deplete oxygen.

NutrientsNutrients are essential building

blocks for healthy aquatic commu-nities, but excess nutrients (especial-ly nitrogen and phosphorus com-pounds) overstimulate the growthof aquatic weeds and algae. Exces-sive growth of these organisms, inturn, can clog navigable waters,interfere with swimming and boat-ing, outcompete native submergedaquatic vegetation (SAV), and leadto oxygen depletion. Oxygen

9

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Foun

datio

n, R

ichm

ond,

VA

term “siltation” to describe the sus-pension and deposition of smallsediment particles in waterbodies.

Sediment and siltation canseverely alter aquatic communities.Sediment may clog and abrade fishgills, suffocate eggs and aquaticinsect larvae on the bottom, and fillin the pore space between bottomcobbles where fish lay eggs. Silt andsediment interfere with recreationalactivities and aesthetic enjoyment atwaterbodies by reducing water clar-ity and filling in waterbodies. Sedi-ment may also carry other pollut-ants into waterbodies. Nutrientsand toxic chemicals may attach tosediment particles on land and ridethe particles into surface waterswhere the pollutants may settlewith the sediment or detach andbecome soluble in the watercolumn.

Rain washes silt and other soilparticles off of plowed fields, con-struction sites, logging sites, urbanareas, and strip-mined lands intowaterbodies. Eroding stream banksalso deposit silt and sediment inwaterbodies. Removal of vegetationon shore can accelerate streambankerosion.

Bacteria and PathogensSome waterborne bacteria,

viruses, and protozoa cause humanillnesses that range from typhoidand dysentery to minor respiratoryand skin diseases. These organismsmay enter waters through a num-ber of routes, including inadequate-ly treated sewage, stormwaterdrains, septic systems, runoff fromlivestock pens, and sewage dumpedoverboard from recreational boats.Because it is impossible to test

accumulate in the environmentbecause they do not readily breakdown in natural ecosystems. Manyof these compounds cause cancerin people and birth defects in otherpredators near the top of the foodchain, such as birds and fish.

Metals occur naturally in theenvironment, but human activities(such as industrial processes andmining) have altered the distribu-tion of metals in the environment.In most reported cases of metalscontamination, high concentrationsof metals appear in fish tissuesrather than the water columnbecause the metals accumulate ingreater concentrations in predatorsnear the top of the food chain.

pHAcidity, the concentration of

hydrogen ions, drives many chemi-cal reactions in living organisms.The standard measure of acidity is

waters for every possible disease-causing organism, States and otherjurisdictions usually measure indica-tor bacteria that are found in greatnumbers in the stomachs andintestines of warm-blooded animalsand people. The presence of indica-tor bacteria suggests that the water-body may be contaminated withuntreated sewage and that other,more dangerous organisms may bepresent. The States, Tribes, andother jurisdictions use bacterialcriteria to determine if waters aresafe for recreation and shellfishharvesting.

Toxic Organic Chemicals and Metals

Toxic organic chemicals aresynthetic compounds that containcarbon, such as polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and thepesticide DDT. These synthesizedcompounds often persist and

10

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Foun

datio

n, R

ichm

ond,

VA

Hydrologic modifications alterthe flow of water. Examples ofhydrologic modifications includechannelization, dewatering,damming, and dredging.

Other pollutants include saltsand oil and grease. Fresh watersmay become unfit for aquatic lifeand some human uses when theybecome contaminated by salts.Sources of salinity include irrigationrunoff, brine used in oil extraction,road deicing operations, and theintrusion of sea water into groundand surface waters in coastal areas.Crude oil and processed petroleumproducts may be spilled duringextraction, processing, or transportor leaked from underground stor-age tanks.

Sources of Water Pollution

Sources of impairment generatethe pollutants that violate use sup-port criteria (Table 3). Point sourcesdischarge pollutants directly intosurface waters from a conveyance.Point sources include industrial facil-ities, municipal sewage treatmentplants, and combined sewer over-flows. Nonpoint sources deliverpollutants to surface waters fromdiffuse origins. Nonpoint sourcesinclude urban runoff, agriculturalrunoff, and atmospheric depositionof contaminants in air pollution.Habitat alterations, such as hydro-modification, dredging, andstreambank destabilization, can alsodegrade water quality.

shore, and in waterbodies that alterthe physical structure of aquaticecosystems and have adverseimpacts on aquatic life. Examples of habitat modifications include:

■ Removal of streamside vegeta-tion that stabilizes the shoreline andprovides shade, which moderatesinstream temperatures

■ Excavation of cobbles from astream bed that provide nestinghabitat for fish

■ Stream burial

■ Excessive suburban sprawl thatalters the natural drainage patternsby increasing the intensity, magni-tude, and energy of runoff waters.

pH, and a pH value of 7 representsa neutral condition. A low pH value(less than 5) indicates acidic condi-tions; a high pH (greater than 9)indicates alkaline conditions. Manybiological processes, such asreproduction, cannot function inacidic or alkaline waters. Acidicconditions also aggravate toxiccontamination problems becausesediments release toxicants in acidicwaters. Common sources of acidityinclude mine drainage, runoff frommine tailings, and atmosphericdeposition.

Habitat Modification/Hydrologic Modification

Habitat modifications includeactivities in the landscape, on

11

Table 3. Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report

Category Examples

Industrial Pulp and paper mills, chemical manufacturers, steel plants,metal process and product manufacturers, textile manufacturers, food processing plants

Municipal Publicly owned sewage treatment plants that may receive indirect discharges from industrial facilities or businesses

Combined Single facilities that treat both storm water and sanitary sewage,Sewers which may become overloaded during storm events and

discharge untreated wastes into surface waters.

Storm Sewers/ Runoff from impervious surfaces including streets, parkingUrban Runoff lots, buildings, lawns, and other paved areas.

Agricultural Crop production, pastures, rangeland, feedlots, other animalholding areas

Silvicultural Forest management, tree harvesting, logging road construction

Construction Land development, road construction

Resource Mining, petroleum drilling, runoff from mine tailing sitesExtraction

Land Disposal Leachate or discharge from septic tanks, landfills, andhazardous waste sites

Hydrologic Channelization, dredging, dam construction, streambankModification modification

Throughout this document, EPArates the significance of causes andsources of pollution by the percent-age of impaired waters impacted byeach individual cause or source(obtained from the Section 305(b)reports submitted by the States,Tribes, and other jurisdictions).Note that the cause and sourcerankings do not describe the condi-tion of all waters in the UnitedStates because the States identifythe causes and sources degradingsome of their impaired waters,which are a small subset of sur-veyed waters, which are a subset ofthe Nation’s total waters. For exam-ple, the States identified sourcesdegrading some of the 224,236impaired river miles, which repre-sent 36% of the surveyed rivermiles and only 6% of the Nation’stotal stream miles.

“The term ‘point source’ means any discernible, confined, and discrete

conveyance, including but notlimited to any pipe, ditch,

channel, tunnel, conduit, well,discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated

animal feeding operation, orvessel or other floating craft,from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This termdoes not include agricultural

storm water discharges and return flows fromirrigated agriculture.“

Clean Water Act, Section 502(14)

With so many potential sourcesof pollution, it is difficult andexpensive for States, Tribes, andother jurisdictions to identify specif-ic sources responsible for waterquality impairments. Many Statesand other jurisdictions lack fundingfor monitoring to identify all butthe most apparent sources degrad-ing waterbodies. Local manage-ment priorities may focus monitor-ing budgets on other water qualityissues, such as identification of con-taminated fish populations thatpose a human health risk. Manage-ment priorities may also directmonitoring efforts to larger water-bodies and overlook sources impair-ing smaller waterbodies. As a result,the States, Tribes, and other juris-dictions do not associate everyimpacted waterbody with a sourceof impairment in their 305(b)reports, and the summary causeand source information presentedin this report applies exclusively toa subset of the Nation’s impairedwaters.

Table 4 lists the leading sourcesof impairment related to humanactivities as reported by States,Tribes, and other jurisdictions fortheir rivers, lakes, and estuaries.Other sources cited include removalof riparian vegetation, forestryactivities, land disposal, petroleumextraction and processing activities,and construction. In addition tohuman activities, the States, Tribes,and other jurisdictions also reportedimpairments from natural sources.Natural sources refer to an assort-ment of water quality problems:

■ Natural deposits of salts,gypsum, nutrients, and metals insoils that leach into surface andground waters

■ Warm weather and dry condi-tions that raise water temperatures,depress dissolved oxygen concen-trations, and dry up shallow water-bodies

■ Low-flow conditions and tannicacids from decaying leaves thatlower pH and dissolved oxygenconcentrations in swamps draininginto streams.

12

Rank Rivers Lakes Estuaries

1 Agriculture Agriculture Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers

2 Municipal Sewage Municipal Sewage Municipal SewageTreatment Plants Treatment Plants Treatment Plants

3 Hydrologic/Habitat Urban Runoff/ AgricultureModification Storm Sewers

4 Urban Runoff/ Unspecified Nonpoint Industrial Point SourcesStorm Sewers Sources

5 Resource Extraction Hydrologic/Habitat Petroleum ActivitiesModification

Table 4. Five Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment Related to Human Activities


Rivers and Streams

Rivers and streams are charac-terized by flow. Perennial riversand streams flow continuously, allyear round. Nonperennial riversand streams stop flowing for someperiod of time, usually due to dryconditions or upstream withdraw-als. Many rivers and streams origi-nate in nonperennial headwatersthat flow only during snowmelt orheavy showers. Nonperennialstreams provide critical habitats fornonfish species, such as amphibiansand dragonflies, as well as safehavens for juvenile fish to escapefrom predation by larger fish.

The health of rivers and streamsis directly linked to habitat integrityon shore and in adjacent wetlands.Stream quality will deteriorate ifactivities damage shoreline (i.e.,riparian) vegetation and wetlands,which filter pollutants from runoffand bind soils. Removal of vegeta-tion also eliminates shade thatmoderates stream temperature aswell as the land temperature thatcan warm runoff entering surfacewaters. Stream temperature, inturn, affects the availability of dis-solved oxygen in the water columnfor fish and other aquatic organ-isms.

Overall Water QualityFor the 1994 Report, 58 States,

Territories, Tribes, Commissions,and the District of Columbia sur-veyed 615,806 miles (17%) of theNation’s total 3.5 million miles ofrivers and streams (Figure 2). Thesurveyed rivers and streams repre-sent 48% of the 1.3 million miles ofperennial rivers and streams thatflow year round in the lower 48States.

coverage of the Nation’s waters andexpects future survey informationto cover a greater portion of theNation’s rivers and streams.

Altogether, the States andTribes surveyed 27,075 fewer rivermiles in 1994 than in 1992. Individ-ually, most States reported thatthey surveyed more river miles in1994, but their increases were off-set by a decline of 85,000 surveyedriver miles reported by Montana,Mississippi, and Maryland. For1994, these States reported usesupport status for only those rivermiles that they surveyed in directmonitoring programs or evaluationsrather than using inferences forunsurveyed waters.

The following discussion appliesexclusively to surveyed waters andcannot be extrapolated to describeconditions in the Nation’s rivers as awhole because the States, Tribes,and other jurisdictions do not con-sistently use statistical or probabilis-tic survey methods to characterizeall their waters at this time. EPA isworking with the States, Tribes, andother jurisdictions to expand survey

13

Figure 2. River Miles Surveyed

Total rivers = 3.5 million milesTotal surveyed = 615,806 miles

17% Surveyed

83% Not Surveyed

Figure 3. Levels of Overall UseSupport – Rivers

Good(Fully Supporting)57%

Good(Threatened)7%

Fair(Partially Supporting)22%

Poor(Not Supporting)14%

Poor(Not Attainable)<1%

Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)reports submitted by States, Tribes,Territories, Commissions, and theDistrict of Columbia.

Barr

y Bu

rgan

, U.S

. EPA

Twenty-one States reported the sizeof rivers impacted by specific typesof agricultural activities:

■ Nonirrigated Crop Production –crop production that relies on rainas the sole source of water.

■ Irrigated Crop Production – cropproduction that uses irrigation sys-tems to supplement rainwater.

■ Rangeland – land grazed by ani-mals that is seldom enhanced bythe application of fertilizers or pesti-cides, although managers some-times modify plant species to a lim-ited extent.

■ Pastureland – land upon which acrop (such as alfalfa) is raised tofeed animals, either by grazing theanimals among the crops or har-vesting the crops.

■ Feedlots – facilities where animalsare fattened and confined at highdensities.

■ Animal Holding Areas – facilitieswhere animals are confined brieflybefore slaughter.

The States reported that non-irrigated crop production impairedthe most river miles, followed byirrigated crop production, range-land, feedlots, pastureland, andanimal holding areas.

Many States reported declinesin pollution from sewage treatment

Agriculture is the leadingsource of impairment in

the Nation’s rivers, affecting 60% of the impaired river miles.

Of the Nation’s 615,806 sur-veyed river miles, the States, Tribes,and other jurisdictions found that64% have good water quality. Ofthese waters, 57% fully supporttheir designated uses, and an addi-tional 7% support uses but arethreatened and may becomeimpaired if pollution control actionsare not taken (Figure 3).

Some form of pollution orhabitat degradation prevents theremaining 36% (224,236 miles) ofthe surveyed river miles from fullysupporting a healthy aquatic com-munity or human activities all yearround. Twenty-two percent of thesurveyed river miles have fair waterquality that partially supports desig-nated uses. Most of the time, thesewaters provide adequate habitat foraquatic organisms and supporthuman activities, but periodic pollu-tion interferes with these activitiesand/or stresses aquatic life. Four-teen percent of the surveyed rivermiles have poor water quality thatconsistently stresses aquatic lifeand/or prevents people from usingthe river for activities such as swim-ming and fishing.

What Is Polluting OurRivers and Streams?

The States and Tribes reportthat bacteria pollute 76,397 rivermiles (which equals 34% of theimpaired river miles) (Figure 4).Bacteria provide evidence of possi-ble fecal contamination that maycause illness if the public ingests thewater.

Siltation, composed of tiny soilparticles, remains one of the mostwidespread pollutants impacting

14

rivers and streams. The States andTribes reported that siltation impairs75,792 river miles (which equals34% of the impaired river miles).

Bacteria and siltation are the most widespread

pollutants in rivers andstreams, affecting 34% of the impaired river miles.

Siltation alters aquatic habitat andsuffocates fish eggs and bottom-dwelling organisms. Excessive silta-tion can also interfere with drinkingwater treatment processes andrecreational use of a river.

In addition to siltation and bac-teria, the States and Tribes alsoreported that nutrients, oxygen-depleting substances, metals, andhabitat alterations impact moremiles of rivers and streams thanother pollutants and processes.Often, several pollutants andprocesses impact a single river seg-ment. For example, a process, suchas removal of shoreline vegetation,may accelerate erosion of sedimentand nutrients into a stream.

Where Does ThisPollution Come From?

The States and Tribes reportedthat agriculture is the most wide-spread source of pollution in theNation’s surveyed rivers (Figure 4).Agriculture generates pollutantsthat degrade aquatic life or interferewith public use of 134,557 rivermiles (which equals 60% of theimpaired river miles) in 49 Statesand Tribes.

plants and industrial discharges as aresult of sewage treatment plantconstruction and upgrades andpermit controls on industrial dis-charges. Despite the improvements,municipal sewage treatment plantsremain the second most commonsource of pollution in rivers (impair-ing 37,443 miles) because popula-tion growth increases the burdenon our municipal facilities.

Hydrologic modifications andhabitat alterations are a growingconcern to the States. Hydrologicmodifications include activities thatalter the flow of water in a stream,such as channelization, dewatering,and damming of streams. Habitatalterations include removal ofstreamside vegetation that protectsthe stream from high temperatures,and scouring of stream bottoms.Additional gains in water qualityconditions will be more subtle andrequire innovative managementstrategies that go beyond pointsource controls.

The States, Tribes, and otherjurisdictions also reported thaturban runoff and storm sewersimpair 26,862 river miles (12% ofthe impaired rivers), resourceextraction impairs 24,059 rivermiles (11% of the impaired rivers),and removal of streamside vegeta-tion impairs 21,706 river miles(10% of the impaired rivers).

The States, Tribes, and otherjurisdictions also report that “natur-al” sources impair significantstretches of rivers and streams.“Natural” sources, such as low flowand soils with arsenic deposits, canprevent waters from supportinguses in the absence of humanactivities.

15

34Bacteria

Total surveyed = 615,806 miles

Surveyed17%

Good64%

Impaired36%

Leading Pollutants

Moderate/MinorMajor

Percent of Impaired River Miles

Not Specified

Impaired %

23

16

14

18

17

Suspended Solids

Habitat Alterations

Metals

Oxygen-Depleting Sub.

Nutrients

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Leading Sources

Percent of Impaired River Miles

60

17

17

10

9

12

11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Forestry

Removal of Streamside Veg.

Resource Extraction

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers

Hydro/Habitat Mod.

Municipal Point Sources

Agriculture

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

Total rivers = 3.5 million milesNotSurveyed

83%

Total impaired = 224,236 miles

34Siltation

Impaired %

Figure 4. Impaired River Miles: Pollutants and Sources


Lakes are sensitive to pollutioninputs because lakes flush out theircontents relatively slowly. Evenunder natural conditions, lakesundergo eutrophication, an agingprocess that slowly fills in the lakewith sediment and organic matter(see sidebar). The eutrophicationprocess alters basic lake characteris-tics such as depth, biological pro-ductivity, oxygen levels, and waterclarity. The eutrophication processis commonly defined by a series oftrophic states as described in thesidebar.

Overall Water QualityForty-eight States, Tribes, and

other jurisdictions surveyed overalluse support in more than 17.1 mil-lion lake acres representing 42% ofthe approximately 40.8 million totalacres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirsin the Nation (Figure 5). For 1994,the States surveyed about 1 millionfewer lake acres than in 1992.

The number of surveyed lakeacres declined because severalStates separated fish tissue datafrom their survey of overall use sup-port. Some of these States, such asMinnesota, have established mas-sive databases of fish tissue contam-ination information (which is usedto establish fish consumption advi-sories), but lack other types ofwater quality data for many of theirlakes. In 1994, these States chosenot to assess overall use supportentirely with fish tissue data alone,which is a very narrow indicator ofwater quality.

The States and Tribes reportedthat 63% of their surveyed 17.1million lake acres have good water

quality. Waters with good qualityinclude 50% of the surveyed lakeacres fully supporting uses and 13%of the surveyed lake acres that arethreatened and might deteriorate ifwe fail to manage potential sourcesof pollution (Figure 6).

Some form of pollution or habi-tat degradation impairs the remain-ing 37% of the surveyed lake acres.Twenty-eight percent of the sur-veyed lake acres have fair waterquality that partially supports desig-nated uses. Most of the time, thesewaters provide adequate habitat foraquatic organisms and supporthuman activities, but periodic pollu-tion interferes with these activitiesand/or stresses aquatic life. Ninepercent of the surveyed lake acressuffer from poor water quality thatconsistently stresses aquatic lifeand/or prevents people from usingthe lake for activities such as swim-ming and fishing.

Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs

16

Figure 5. Lake Acres Surveyed

Total lakes = 40.8 million acresTotal surveyed = 17.1 million acres

42% Surveyed

58% Not Surveyed

Figure 6. Levels of Overall UseSupport – Lakes


Good(Threatened)13%





John

The

ilgar

d, B

ynum

, NC

What Is Polluting Our Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs?

Forty-one States, the District ofColumbia, and Puerto Rico reportedthe number of lake acres impactedby individual pollutants andprocesses.

Thirty-seven States and PuertoRico identified more lake acres pol-luted by nutrients than any otherpollutant or process (Figure 7). The

lake acres), enrichment by organicwastes that deplete oxygen impacts1.6 million lake acres (which equals24% of the impaired lake acres),and metals pollute 1.4 million acres(which equals 21% of the impairedlake acres).

Metals declined from the mostwidespread pollutant impairinglakes in the 1992 305(b) reporting

States and Puerto Rico reportedthat extra nutrients pollute 2.8 mil-lion lake acres (which equals 43%of the impaired lake acres). Healthylake ecosystems contain nutrients insmall quantities, but extra inputs ofnutrients from human activitiesunbalance lake ecosystems.

In addition to nutrients, theStates, Puerto Rico, and the Districtof Columbia report that siltationpollutes 1.8 million lake acres(which equals 28% of the impaired

17

Trophic StatesOligotrophic Clear waters with little organic matter or sediment

and minimum biological activity.

Mesotrophic Waters with more nutrients and, therefore, more biological productivity.

Eutrophic Waters extremely rich in nutrients, with high biologicalproductivity. Some species may be choked out.

Hypereutrophic Murky, highly productive waters, closest to the wetlandsstatus. Many clearwater species cannot survive.

Dystrophic Low in nutrients, highly colored with dissolved humic organic matter. (Not necessarily a part of the natural trophic progression.)

The Eutrophication ProcessEutrophication is a natural process, but human activities can acceler-

ate eutrophication by increasing the rate at which nutrients and organicsubstances enter lakes from their surrounding watersheds. Agriculturalrunoff, urban runoff, leaking septic systems, sewage discharges, erodedstreambanks, and similar sources can enhance the flow of nutrients andorganic substances into lakes. These substances can overstimulate thegrowth of algae and aquatic plants, creating conditions that interfere withthe recreational use of lakes and the health and diversity of native fish,plant, and animal populations. Enhanced eutrophication from nutrientenrichment due to human activities is one of the leading problems facingour Nation’s lakes and reservoirs.

Acid Effects on LakesIncreases in lake acidity can

radically alter the community offish and plant species in lakesand can increase the solubility of toxic substances and magnifytheir adverse effects. Twenty-eight States reported the resultsof lake acidification assessments.These States assessed pH (ameasure of acidity) at more than5,933 lakes and detected acidicconditions in 526 lakes and athreat of acidic conditions in423 lakes. Most of the Statesthat assessed acidic conditionsare located in the Northeast,upper Midwest, and the South.

Only 11 States identifiedsources of acidic conditions.Maine and New Hampshireattributed most of their acid lakeconditions to acid depositionfrom acidic rain, fog, or drydeposition in conjunction withnatural conditions that limit alake’s capacity to neutralizeacids. Alabama, Kansas,Maryland, Montana, Oklahoma,and Tennessee reported thatacid mine drainage resulted inacidic lake conditions or threat-ened lakes with the potential togenerate acidic conditions.

cycle to the fourth leading pollutantimpairing lakes in 1994. Thedecline is due to changes in Statereporting and assessment methodsrather than a measured decrease inmetals contamination. In 1994, sev-eral States chose to no longer assessoverall use support with fishcontamination data alone. Much ofthat data consisted of measure-ments of metals in fish tissue. As aresult of excluding these fish tissuedata, the national estimate of lakeacres impaired by metals fell byover 2 million acres in 1994.

More States reported impairments due to

nutrients than any other single pollutant.

Forty-one States also surveyedtrophic status, which is associatedwith nutrient enrichment, in 9,735of their lakes. Nutrient enrichmenttends to increase the proportion oflakes in the eutrophic and hypereu-trophic categories. These Statesreported that 18% of the lakes theysurveyed for trophic status wereoligotrophic, 32% were mesotroph-ic, 36% were eutrophic, 6% werehypereutrophic, and 3% were dys-trophic. This information may notbe representative of national lakeconditions because States oftenassess lakes in response to a prob-lem or public complaint or becauseof their easy accessibility. It is likelythat more remote lakes—which are probably less impaired—areunderrepresented in these assess-ments.

18

Unspecified Nonpoint Sources


Hydro/Habitat Modification

Agriculture

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers

Industrial Point Sources

Land Disposal

Percent of Impaired Lake Acres

Priority Organic Toxic Chemicals

Pesticides

Suspended Solids

Metals

Oxygen-Depleting Substances

Siltation

Nutrients

Surveyed18%

Total surveyed = 17.1 million acres

Surveyed42%

Good63%

Impaired37%

Leading Pollutants Impaired %

Leading Sources

Total lakes = 40.8 million acresNotSurveyed

58%

Total impaired = 6.7 million acres

43

28

24

11

8

21

14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

1950

15Moderate/MinorNot Specified

Percent of Impaired Lake Acres

Not Specified

18

11

12

11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Impaired %

Figure 7. Impaired Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources



Forty-two States and PuertoRico reported sources of pollutionin some of their impacted lakes,ponds, and reservoirs. These Statesand Puerto Rico reported that agri-culture is the most widespreadsource of pollution in the Nation’ssurveyed lakes (Figure 7). Agricul-ture generates pollutants thatdegrade aquatic life or interferewith public use of 3.3 million lakeacres (which equals 50% of theimpaired lake acres).

Agriculture is the leadingsource of impairment inlakes, affecting 50% of

impaired lake acres.

The States and Puerto Rico alsoreported that municipal sewagetreatment plants pollute 1.3 millionlake acres (19% of the impairedlake acres), urban runoff and stormsewers pollute 1.2 million lake acres(18% of the surveyed lake acres),unspecified nonpoint sources impair989,000 lake acres (15% of the

The States and Puerto Rico list-ed numerous sources that impactseveral hundred thousand lakeacres, including land disposal ofwastes, construction, flow regula-tion, highway maintenance andrunoff, contaminated sediments,atmospheric deposition of pollut-ants, and onsite wastewater systems(including septic tanks).

impaired lake acres), hydrologicmodifications and habitat alter-ations degrade 832,000 lake acres(12% of the impaired lake acres),and industrial point sources pollute759,000 lake acres (11% of theimpaired lake acres). Many Statesprohibit new point source dis-charges into lakes, but existingmunicipal sewage treatment plantsremain a leading source of pollutionentering lakes.

19

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Foun

datio

n, R

ichm

ond,

VA

The Great Lakes contain one-fifth of the world’s fresh surfacewater and are stressed by a widerange of pollution sources, includ-ing air pollution. Many of thepollutants that reach the GreatLakes remain in the system indefi-nitely because the Great Lakes are arelatively closed water system withfew natural outlets. Despite dramat-ic declines in the occurrence ofalgal blooms, fish kills, and localized“dead” zones depleted of oxygen,less visible problems continue todegrade the Great Lakes.

Overall Water QualityThe States surveyed 94% of the

Great Lakes shoreline miles for1994 and reported that fish con-sumption advisories and aquatic lifeconcerns are the dominant waterquality problems, overall, in theGreat Lakes (Figure 8). The Statesreported that most of the GreatLakes nearshore waters are safe forswimming and other recreationalactivities and can be used as asource of drinking water with nor-mal treatment. However, only 2%of the surveyed nearshore watersfully support designated uses, over-all, and 1% support uses but arethreatened (Figure 9). About 97%of the surveyed waters do not fullysupport designated uses, overall,because fish consumption advi-sories are posted throughout thenearshore waters of the Great Lakesand water quality conditions areunfavorable for supporting aquaticlife in many cases. Aquatic lifeimpacts result from persistent toxicpollutant burdens in birds, habitatdegradation and destruction, and

The Great Lakes

20

Figure 8. Great Lakes Shore MilesSurveyed

Total Great Lakes = 5,559 milesTotal surveyed = 5,224 miles

94% Surveyed

6% Not Surveyed

Figure 9. Levels of Overall UseSupport – Great Lakes


Good(Threatened)1%



Poor(Not Attainable)0%

Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)reports.

Paul

Goe

tz, C

ary,

NC

competition and predation bynonnative species such as the zebramussel and the sea lamprey.

Considerable progress hasbeen made in controllingconventional pollutants, but the Great Lakes are

still subject to the effects of toxic pollutants.

These figures do not addresswater quality conditions in thedeeper, cleaner, central waters ofthe Lakes.

What Is Polluting the Great Lakes?

The States reported that mostof the Great Lakes shoreline ispolluted by toxic organic chemi-cals–primarily PCBs–that are oftenfound in fish tissue samples. TheGreat Lakes States reported thattoxic organic chemicals impact98% of the impaired Great Lakesshoreline miles. Other leading caus-es of impairment include pesticides,affecting 21%; nonpriority organicchemicals, affecting 20%; nutrients,affecting 6%; and metals, affecting6% (Figure 10).

21

98

21

20

6

6

6Oxygen-Depleting Substances

Metals

Nutrients

Nonpriority Organic Chemicals

Pesticides

Priority Toxic Organic Chemicals

21

20

15

4

9

6

Urban Runoff/Storm Sew.

Agriculture

Unspecified NPS

Land Disposal of Wastes

Contaminated Sediment

Discontinued Discharges

Air Pollution

4

Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline

Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline

Total impaired = 5,077 miles

Total shoreline = 5,559 miles

%

Surveyed94%

Good3%

Impaired97%


Leading Sources

NotSurveyed

6%

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

0 20 40 10060 80

0 5 10 15 20 25

Impaired %

Figure 10. Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources

Total surveyed = 5,224 miles



Only four of the eight GreatLakes States measured the size oftheir Great Lakes shoreline pollutedby specific sources. These Stateshave jurisdiction over one-third ofthe Great Lakes shoreline, so theirfindings do not necessarily reflectconditions throughout the GreatLakes Basin.

■ Wisconsin identifies air pollutionand discontinued discharges as asource of pollutants contaminatingall 1,017 of their surveyed shorelinemiles. Wisconsin also identifiedsmaller areas impacted by contami-nated sediments, nonpoint sources,industrial and municipal discharges,agriculture, urban runoff and stormsewers, combined sewer overflows,and land disposal of waste.

■ Indiana attributes all of the pollu-tion along its entire 43-mile shore-line to air pollution, urban runoffand storm sewers, industrial andmunicipal discharges, and agricul-ture.

■ Ohio reports that nonpointsources pollute 86 miles of its 236miles of shoreline, in-place contami-nants impact 33 miles, and landdisposal of waste impacts 24 milesof shoreline.

■ New York identifies many sourcesof pollutants in their Great Lakeswaters, but the State attributes themost miles of degradation tocontaminated sediments (439miles) and land disposal of waste(374 miles).

22

Phil

John

son,

U.S

. EPA

, Reg

ion

8

Estuaries are areas partially sur-rounded by land where rivers meetthe sea. They are characterized byvarying degrees of salinity, complexwater movements affected byocean tides and river currents, andhigh turbidity levels. They are alsohighly productive ecosystems with arange of habitats for many differentspecies of plants, shellfish, fish, andanimals.

Many species permanentlyinhabit the estuarine ecosystem;others, such as shrimp, use thenutrient-rich estuarine waters asnurseries before traveling to the sea.

Estuaries are stressed by theparticularly wide range of activitieslocated within their watersheds.They receive pollutants carried byrivers from agricultural lands andcities; they often support marinas,harbors, and commercial fishingfleets; and their surrounding landsare highly prized for development.These stresses pose a continuingthreat to the survival of these boun-tiful waters.

Overall Water QualityTwenty-five coastal States and

jurisdictions surveyed 78% of theNation’s total estuarine waters in1994 (Figure 11). The States andother jurisdictions reported that63% of the surveyed estuarinewaters have good water quality thatfully supports designated uses(Figure 12). Of these waters, 6%are threatened and might deterio-rate if we fail to manage potentialsources of pollution.

Some form of pollution or habi-tat degradation impairs the remain-ing 37% of the surveyed estuarinewaters. Twenty-seven percent of thesurveyed estuarine waters have fairwater quality that partially supportsdesignated uses. Most of the timethese waters provide adequate habi-tat for aquatic organisms and sup-port human activities, but periodicpollution interferes with these activi-ties and/or stresses aquatic life. Ninepercent of the surveyed estuarinewaters suffer from poor water quali-ty that consistently stresses aquaticlife and/or prevents people fromusing the estuarine waters foractivities such as swimming andshellfishing.

Estuaries

23

Figure 11. Estuary Square MilesSurveyed

Total estuaries = 34,388 square milesTotal surveyed = 26,847 square miles

78% Surveyed

22% Not Surveyed

Figure 12. Levels of Overall UseSupport – Estuaries


Good(Threatened)6%





Bria

n M

urph

y, W

alnu

t C

reek

, CA

What Is Polluting Our Estuaries?

The States identified moresquare miles of estuarine waterspolluted by nutrients and bacteriathan any other pollutant or process(Figure 13). Fifteen States reportedthat extra nutrients pollute 4,548square miles of estuarine waters(which equals 47% of the impairedestuarine waters). As in lakes, extra

The States also report that oxy-gen depletion from organic wastesimpacts 3,127 square miles (whichequals 32% of the impaired estuar-ine waters), habitat alterationsimpact 1,564 square miles (whichequals 16% of the impaired estuar-ine waters), and oil and grease pol-lute 1,344 square miles (whichequals 14% of the impaired estuar-ine waters).

inputs of nutrients from humanactivities destabilize estuarineecosystems.

Twenty-five States reported thatbacteria pollute 4,479 square milesof estuarine waters (which equals46% of the impaired estuarinewaters). Bacteria provide evidencethat an estuary is contaminatedwith sewage that may containnumerous viruses and bacteria thatcause illness in people.

24

Chris Inghram, age 8, Bruner Elementary, North Las Vegas, NV


Twenty-three States reportedthat urban runoff and storm sewersare the most widespread source ofpollution in the Nation’s surveyedestuarine waters. Pollutants in urbanrunoff and storm sewer effluentdegrade aquatic life or interferewith public use of 4,508 squaremiles of estuarine waters (whichequals 46% of the impaired estuar-ine waters) (Figure 13).

The States also reported thatmunicipal sewage treatment plantspollute 3,827 square miles of estu-arine waters (39% of the impairedestuarine waters), agriculture pol-lutes 3,321 square miles of estuar-ine waters (34% of the impairedestuarine waters), and industrial dis-charges pollute 2,609 square miles(27% of the impaired estuarinewaters). Urban sources contributemore to the degradation of estuar-ine waters than agriculture becauseurban centers are located adjacentto most major estuaries.

25

Total impaired = 9,700 square miles

Total estuaries = 34,388 square miles

%

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not SpecifiedPriority Toxic Chemicals 10

4746

32

16

14Oil and Grease

Habitat Alterations

Oxygen-Depleting Sub.

Bacteria

Nutrients

Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles

9Metals

Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles

39

34

27

13

Construction

Petroleum Activities

Industrial Point Sources

Agriculture


Urban Runoff/Storm Sew.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Surveyed18%

Surveyed78%

Good63%

Impaired37%


Leading Sources

NotSurveyed

22%

Land Disposal of Wastes

46

13

13

Impaired %

Total surveyed = 26,847square miles

Figure 13. Impaired Estuaries: Pollutants and Sources

Krista Rose, age 8, Bruner Elementary,North Las Vegas, NV


Although the oceans are expan-sive, they are vulnerable to pollu-tion from numerous sources,including city storm sewers, oceanoutfalls from sewage treatmentplants, overboard disposal of debrisand sewage, oil spills, and bilge dis-charges that contain oil and grease.Nearshore ocean waters, in particu-lar, suffer from the same pollutionproblems that degrade our inlandwaters.

Overall Water QualityThirteen of the 27 coastal

States and Territories surveyed only9% of the Nation’s estimated58,421 miles of ocean coastline(Figure 14). Most of the surveyedwaters (4,834 miles, or 93%) havegood quality that supports ahealthy aquatic community andpublic activities (Figure 15). Ofthese waters, 225 miles (4% of thesurveyed shoreline) are threatenedand may deteriorate in the future.

Some form of pollution or habi-tat degradation impairs the remain-ing 7% of the surveyed shoreline(374 miles). Five percent of the sur-veyed estuarine waters have fairwater quality that partially supportsdesignated uses. Most of the time,these waters provide adequatehabitat for aquatic organisms andsupport human activities, but peri-odic pollution interferes with theseactivities and/or stresses aquatic life.Only 2% of the surveyed shorelinesuffers from poor water quality thatconsistently stresses aquatic lifeand/or prevents people from using

the shoreline for activities such asswimming and shellfishing.

Only six of the 27 coastal Statesidentified pollutants and sources ofpollutants degrading ocean shore-line waters. General conclusionscannot be drawn from the informa-tion supplied by these Statesbecause these States border lessthan 1% of the shoreline along thecontiguous States. The six Statesidentified impacts in their oceanshoreline waters from bacteria,metals, nutrients, turbidity, siltation,and pesticides. The six Statesreported that urban runoff andstorm sewers, industrial discharges,land disposal of wastes, septic sys-tems, agriculture, unspecified non-point sources, and combined seweroverflows (CSOs) pollute theircoastal shoreline waters.

Ocean Shoreline Waters

26

Figure 14. Ocean Shoreline WatersSurveyed

Total ocean shore = 58,421 miles including Alaska's shorelineTotal surveyed = 5,208 miles

9% Surveyed

91% Not Surveyed

Figure 15. Levels of Overall UseSupport – Ocean ShorelineWaters


Good(Threatened)4%



Poor(Not Attainable)0%

Source: Based on 1994 State Section 305(b)reports submitted by States andTerritories.

Paul

Goe

tz, C

ary,

NC

Wetlands are areas that areinundated or saturated by surfacewater or ground water at a fre-quency and duration sufficient tosupport (and that under normalcircumstances does support) aprevalence of vegetation typicallyadapted for life in saturated soilconditions. Wetlands, which arefound throughout the UnitedStates, generally include swamps,marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

Wetlands are now recognizedas some of the most unique andimportant natural areas on earth.They vary in type according todifferences in local and regionalhydrology, vegetation, water chem-istry, soils, topography, and climate.Coastal wetlands include estuarinemarshes; mangrove swamps foundin Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Louisiana,and Florida; and Great Lakes coastalwetlands. Inland wetlands, whichmay be adjacent to a waterbody orisolated, include marshes and wetmeadows, bottomland hardwoodforests, Great Plains prairie pot-holes, cypress-gum swamps, andsouthwestern playa lakes.

In their natural condition,wetlands provide many benefits,including food and habitat for fishand wildlife, water quality improve-ment, flood protection, shorelineerosion control, ground waterexchange, as well as natural prod-ucts for human use and opportuni-ties for recreation, education, andresearch.

Wetlands help maintain andimprove water quality by intercept-ing surface water runoff before itreaches open water, removing orretaining nutrients, processingchemical and organic wastes, and

for flood protection because urbandevelopment increases the rate andvolume of surface water runoff,thereby increasing the risk of flooddamage.

Wetlands produce a wealth ofnatural products, including fish andshellfish, timber, wildlife, and wildrice. Much of the Nation’s fishingand shellfishing industry harvestswetlands-dependent species. Anational survey conducted by theFish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in1991 illustrates the economic valueof some of the wetlands-dependentproducts. Over 9 billion pounds offish and shellfish landed in theUnited States in 1991 had a direct,dockside value of $3.3 billion. Thisserved as the basis of a seafoodprocessing and sales industry thatgenerated total expenditures of$26.8 billion. In addition, 35.6million anglers spent $24 billion onfreshwater and saltwater fishing. It is estimated that 71% of

reducing sediment loads toreceiving waters. As water movesthrough a wetland, plants slow thewater, allowing sediment andpollutants to settle out. Plant rootstrap sediment and are then able tometabolize and detoxify pollutantsand remove nutrients such as nitro-gen and phosphorus.

Wetlands function like naturalbasins, storing either floodwaterthat overflows riverbanks or surfacewater that collects in isolateddepressions. By doing so, wetlandshelp protect adjacent and down-stream property from flood dam-age. Trees and other wetlands veg-etation help slow the speed of floodwaters. This action, combined withwater storage, can lower floodheights and reduce the water’s ero-sive potential. In agricultural areas,wetlands can help reduce the likeli-hood of flood damage to crops.Wetlands within and upstream ofurban areas are especially valuable

Wetlands

27

Aud

rey

Moo

re, U

.S. E

PA, R

egio

n 2

commercially valuable fish andshellfish depend directly orindirectly on coastal wetlands.

Overall Water QualityThe States, Tribes, and other

jurisdictions are making progress indeveloping specific designated usesand water quality standards forwetlands, but many States andTribes still lack specific water qualitycriteria and monitoring programsfor wetlands. Without criteria andmonitoring data, most States andTribes cannot evaluate use support.To date, only nine States and Tribesreported the designated use sup-port status for some of their wet-lands. Only one State used quanti-tative data as a basis for the usesupport decisions.

EPA cannot derive national con-clusions about water quality condi-tions in all wetlands because theStates used different methodologiesto survey only 3% of the total wet-lands in the Nation. SummarizingState wetlands data would alsoproduce misleading results becausetwo States (North Carolina andLouisiana) contain 91% of thesurveyed wetlands acreage.

What Is Polluting Our Wetlands andWhere Does ThisPollution Come From?

The States have even fewerdata to quantify the extent ofpollutants degrading wetlands andthe sources of these pollutants.Although most States cannotquantify wetlands area impacted byindividual causes and sources of

farmland and urban development.Today, less than half of our originalwetlands remain. The lossesamount to an area equal to the sizeof California. According to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service’s WetlandsLosses in the United States 1780’s to1980’s, the three States that havesustained the greatest percentageof wetlands loss are California(91%), Ohio (90%), and Iowa(89%).

According to FWS status andtrends reports, the average annualloss of wetlands has decreased overthe past 40 years. The averageannual loss from the mid-1950s tothe mid-1970s was 458,000 acres,and from the mid-1970s to themid-1980s it was 290,000 acres.Agriculture was responsible for 87%of the loss from the mid-1950s tothe mid-1970s and 54% of the lossfrom the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.

degradation, 12 States identifiedcauses and 13 States identifiedsources known to degrade wetlandsintegrity to some extent. TheseStates listed sediment as the mostwidespread cause of degradationimpacting wetlands, followed byflow alterations, habitat modifica-tions, and draining (Figure 16).Agriculture topped the list ofsources degrading wetlands, fol-lowed by urban runoff, hydrologicmodification, and municipal pointsources (Figure 17).

Wetlands Loss: A Continuing Problem

It is estimated that over 200million acres of wetlands existed inthe lower 48 States at the time ofEuropean settlement. Since then,extensive wetlands acreage hasbeen lost, with many of the originalwetlands drained and converted to

28

Sediment

Flow Alterations

Habitat Alterations

Filling and Draining

PesticidesNutrients

PathogensMetals

Unknown Toxicity

8

5

5

5

32

22

2

0 5 10 15Number of States Reporting

TotalCauses

Figure 16. Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity (12 States Reporting)


A more recent estimate of wet-lands losses from the NationalResources Inventory (NRI), conduct-ed by the Natural ResourcesConservation Service (NRCS), indi-cates that 792,000 acres of wet-lands were lost on non-Federallands between 1982 and 1992 for ayearly loss estimate of 70,000 to90,000 acres. This net loss is theresult of gross losses of 1,561,300acres of wetlands and gross gains of768,700 acres of wetlands over the10-year period. The NRI estimatesare consistent with the trend ofdeclining wetlands losses reportedby FWS. Although losses havedecreased, we still have to makeprogress toward our interim goal of

interest and support for wetlandsprotection; and (5) implementationof wetlands restoration programs atthe Federal, State, and local level.

Nineteen States listed sourcesof recent wetlands losses in their1994 305(b) reports. Residentialdevelopment and urban growthwere cited as the leading sources ofcurrent losses. Other losses weredue to commercial development;construction of roads, highways,and bridges; agriculture; and indus-trial development. In addition tohuman activities, a few States alsoreported that natural sources, suchas rising lake levels, resulted inwetlands losses and degradation.

no overall net loss of the Nation’sremaining wetlands and the long-term goal of increasing the quantityand quality of the Nation’s wet-lands resource base.

The decline in wetlands losses isa result of the combined effect ofseveral trends: (1) the decline inprofitability in converting wetlandsfor agricultural production; (2) passage of Swampbuster provi-sions in the 1985 and 1990 FarmBills that denied crop subsidy bene-fits to farm operators who convert-ed wetlands to cropland after 1985;(3) presence of the CWA Section404 permit programs as well asdevelopment of State managementprograms; (4) greater public

More information on wetlands can be obtained from the EPA Wetlands Hotline at

1-800-832-7828.

29

Number of States Reporting

8

54

6

4


Urban Runoff

Road Construction

Hydrologic Modification

Agriculture

4

0 5 10 15

Construction

TotalSources

4Land Disposal

Figure 17. Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity (12 States Reporting)

Kings Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA


Ninety-five percent of all freshwater available on earth (exclusiveof icecaps) is ground water. Groundwater–water found in naturalunderground rock formations calledaquifers–is a vital natural resourcewith many uses. The extent of theNation’s ground water resources isenormous. At least 60% of the landarea in the conterminous UnitedStates overlies aquifers that may besusceptible to contamination.Usable ground water exists in everyState.

Aquifers can range in size fromthin surficial formations that yieldsmall quantities of ground water tolarge systems such as the HighPlains aquifer that underlies eightwestern States and provides waterto millions. Although the Nation’sground water is of good quality, itis recognized that ground water ismore vulnerable to contaminationthan previously reported and thatan increasing number of pollutionevents and contamination sourcesare threatening the integrity of theresource.

Ground Water UseNationally, 51% of the popula-

tion relies to some extent onground water as a source of drink-ing water. This percentage is even

Ground water providesdrinking water for 51%

of the population.

higher in rural areas where mostresidents rely on potable or treat-able ground water as an economi-cal source of drinking water. Eighty-one percent of community water

ground water is of good quality,many local areas have experiencedsignificant ground water contami-nation. The sources and types ofground water contamination varydepending upon the region of thecountry. Those most frequentlyreported by States include:

■ Leaking underground storagetanks. Approximately 1.2 millionfederally regulated undergroundstorage tanks are buried at over500,000 sites nationwide. An esti-mated 139,000 tanks have leakedand impacted ground water quality.

■ Agricultural activities. Seventy-seven percent of the 1.1 billionpounds of pesticides producedannually in the United States isapplied to land in agriculturalproduction, which usually overliesaquifers.

■ Superfund sites. More than85% of all Superfund sites havesome degree of ground watercontamination. Most of these sitesimpact aquifers that are currentlyused, or potentially may be used,for drinking water purposes.

■ Septic tanks. Approximately 23million domestic septic tanks are inoperation in the United States.These tanks impact ground waterquality through the discharge offluids into or above aquifers.

The most common contami-nants associated with these sourcesinclude petroleum compounds,nitrates, metals, volatile organiccompounds (VOCs), and pesticides.

States are reporting thatground water quality is most likelyto be adversely affected bycontamination in areas of high

systems are dependent on groundwater. Seventy-four percent ofcommunity water systems are smallground water systems serving3,300 people or less. Ninety-fivepercent of the approximately200,000 noncommunity water sys-tems (serving schools, parks, andother small facilities) are groundwater systems.

Irrigation accounts for approxi-mately 63% of national groundwater withdrawals. Public drinkingwater supplies account for approxi-mately 19% of the Nation’s totalground water withdrawals. Domes-tic, commercial, livestock, industrial,mining, and thermoelectric with-drawals together account forapproximately 18% of nationalground water withdrawals.

Ground Water QualityAlthough the 1994 Section

305(b) State Water Quality Reportsindicate that, overall, the Nation’s

Ground Water

30

Jeff

Reyn

olds

, Ral

eigh

, NC

demand or stress. To combat theseproblems, States are developingprograms designed to evaluate theoverall quality and vulnerability oftheir ground water resources, toidentify potential threats to groundwater quality, and to identify meth-ods to protect their ground waterresources. Thirty-three States indi-cate that they have implementedstatewide ground water monitoringprograms.

Ground water monitoringprograms vary widely among theStates, depending upon the specialneeds of each of the States. Forexample, some States choose tomonitor ground water quality inspecific areas that are especially vul-nerable to contamination, whereasother States may choose to monitorground water quality on a statewidebasis. When it comes to selectingchemicals to test for in the groundwater, some States monitor for alarge suite of chemicals, whereasother States limit monitoring to oneor two specific chemicals that are adefinite threat to ground waterquality.

Ground water monitoring pro-vides a great deal of informationabout the nature and quality of ourNation’s ground water resources.Still, there is much we do not knowabout how human activities influ-ence ground water quality. Ourcontinued quest for informationabout the status of our groundwater will help protect and preservethis vast and vulnerable resource.Through a greater understanding ofhow human activities influenceground water quality, we can betterensure the long-term availability ofhigh-quality water for futuregenerations.

31

Alisha Batten, age 8, Bruner Elementary, North Las Vegas, NV

Kings Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA

Although significant strideshave been made in reducing theimpacts of discrete pollutantsources, our aquatic resourcesremain at risk from a combinationof point sources and complex non-point sources, including air pollu-tion. Since 1991, EPA has promotedthe watershed protection approachas a holistic framework for address-ing complex pollution problems.

The watershed protectionapproach is a place-based strategythat integrates water quality man-agement activities within hydrologi-cally defined drainage basins–water-sheds–rather than areas defined bypolitical boundaries. Thus, for agiven watershed, the approachencompasses not only the waterresource (such as a stream, lake,estuary, or ground water aquifer),but all the land from which waterdrains to the resource. To protect

Under the WatershedProtection Approach

(WPA), a “watershed” is a hydrogeologic areadefined for addressingwater quality problems.

For example, a WPAwatershed may be a river

basin, a county-sizedwatershed, or a smalldrinking water supply

watershed.

water resources, it is increasinglyimportant to address the conditionof land areas within the watershed

Watershed Management PolicyCommittee to coordinate the EPAwater program’s support of thewatershed protection approach.During 1995, EPA’s water programmanagers, under the direction ofthe Watershed Management PolicyCommittee, evaluated their pro-grams and identified additionalactivities needed to support thewatershed protection approach inan action plan.

EPA’s Office of Water will con-tinue to promote and support thewatershed protection approach atlocal, State, Tribal, Territorial, andFederal levels. The Office of Waterrecognizes that the watershed pro-tection approach relies on activeparticipation by local governmentsand citizens who have the mostdirect knowledge of local problemsand opportunities in their water-sheds. However, the Office of Waterwill look to the States, Tribes, and

because water carries the effects ofhuman activities throughout thewatershed as it drains off the landinto surface waters or leaches intothe ground water.

EPA’s Office of Water envisionsthe watershed protection approachas the primary mechanism forachieving clean water and healthy,sustainable ecosystems throughoutthe Nation. The watershed protec-tion approach enables stakeholdersto take a comprehensive look atecosystem issues and tailor correc-tive actions to local concerns withinthe coordinated framework of anational water program. Theemphasis on public participationalso provides an opportunity toincorporate environmental justiceissues into watershed restorationand protection solutions.

In May of 1994, the EPAAssistant Administrator for Water,Robert Perciasepe, created the

Water Quality Protection Programs

32

Mik

e St

euar

t, M

inne

sota

Pol

lutio

n C

ontr

ol A

genc

y

Territories to create the frameworkfor supporting local efforts becausemost EPA programs are implement-ed by the States, Tribes, andTerritories.

The Clean Water ActA number of laws provide the

authority to develop and implementpollution control programs. Theprimary statute providing for waterquality protection in the Nation’srivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries,and coastal waters is the FederalWater Pollution Control Act of1972, commonly known as theClean Water Act.

The CWA and its amendmentsare the driving force behind manyof the water quality improvementswe have witnessed in recent years.Key provisions of the CWA providethe following pollution controlprograms.

Water quality standards andcriteria – States, Tribes, andother jurisdictions adopt EPA-approved standards for theirwaters that define water qualitygoals for individual waterbod-ies. Standards consist of desig-nated beneficial uses to bemade of the water, criteria toprotect those uses, and anti-degradation provisions to pro-tect existing water quality.

Effluent guidelines – The EPAdevelops nationally consistentguidelines limiting pollutants indischarges from industrial facili-ties and municipal sewagetreatment plants. These guide-lines are then used in permitsissued to dischargers under the

33

The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA)Several key principles guide the watershed protection approach:

■ Place-based focus – Resource management activities are directedwithin specific geographical areas, usually defined by watershed bound-aries, areas overlying or recharging ground water, or a combination of both.

■ Stakeholder involvement and partnerships – Watershed initiativesinvolve the people most likely to be affected by management decisionsin the decision making process. Stakeholder participation ensures thatthe objectives of the watershed initiative will include economic stabilityand that the people who depend on the water resources in the water-shed will participate in planning and implementation activities.Watershed initiatives also establish partnerships between Federal, State,and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations with interests inthe watershed.

■ Environmental objectives – The stakeholders and partners identifyenvironmental objectives (such as “populations of striped bass willstabilize or increase”) rather than programmatic objectives (such as “theState will eliminate the backlog of discharge permit renewals”) tomeasure the success of the watershed initiative. The environmentalobjectives are based on the condition of the ecological resource and theneeds of people in the watershed.

■ Problem identification and prioritization – The stakeholders and part-ners use sound scientific data and methods to identify and prioritize theprimary threats to human and ecosystem health within the watershed.Consistent with the Agency’s mission, EPA views ecosystems as the inter-actions of complex communities that include people; thus, healthyecosystems provide for the health and welfare of humans as well asother living things.

■ Integrated actions – The stakeholders and partners take correctiveactions in a comprehensive and integrated manner, evaluate success, and refine actions if necessary. The watershed protection approachcoordinates activities conducted by numerous government agenciesand nongovernmental organizations to maximize efficient use of limitedresources.

National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES)program. Additional controlsmay be required if receivingwaters are still affected bywater quality problems afterpermit limits are met.

Total Maximum Daily Loads–The development of TotalMaximum Daily Loads, orTMDLs, establishes the linkbetween water quality stand-ards and point/nonpoint sourcepollution control actions suchas permits or Best ManagementPractices (BMPs). A TMDL cal-culates allowable loadings fromthe contributing point andnonpoint sources to a givenwaterbody and provides thequantitative basis for pollutionreduction necessary to meetwater quality standards. States,Tribes, and other jurisdictionsdevelop and implement TMDLsfor high-priority impaired orthreatened waterbodies.

Permits and enforcement – Allindustrial and municipal facili-ties that discharge wastewatermust have an NPDES permitand are responsible for moni-toring and reporting levels ofpollutants in their discharges.EPA issues these permits or candelegate that permittingauthority to qualifying States orother jurisdictions. The States,other qualified jurisdictions, andEPA inspect facilities to deter-mine if their discharges complywith permit limits. If discharg-ers are not in compliance,enforcement action is taken.

■ The Safe Drinking Water Act,under which States establishstandards for drinking water quality,monitor wells and local watersupply systems, implement drinkingwater protection programs, andimplement Underground InjectionControl (UIC) programs.

■ The Resource Conservation andRecovery Act, which establishesState and EPA programs for groundwater and surface water protectionand cleanup and emphasizes pre-vention of releases through man-agement standards in addition toother waste management activities.

■ The Comprehensive Environ-mental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act (SuperfundProgram), which provides EPA withthe authority to clean up contami-nated waters during remediation atcontaminated sites.

■ The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, which requires EPA to pro-mote pollutant source reductionrather than focus on controllingpollutants after they enter the envi-ronment.

Protecting LakesManaging lake quality often

requires a combination of in-lakerestoration measures and pollutioncontrols, including watershed man-agement measures:

Restoration measures areimplemented to reduce existingpollution problems. Examplesof in-lake restoration measuresinclude harvesting aquaticweeds, dredging sediment,

Grants – The EPA providesStates with financial assistanceto help support many of theirpollution control programs.These programs include theState Revolving Fund programfor construction and upgradingof municipal sewage treatmentplants; water quality monitor-ing, permitting, and enforce-ment; and developing andimplementing nonpoint sourcepollution controls, combinedsewer and stormwater controls,ground water strategies, lakeassessment, protection, andrestoration activities, estuaryand near coastal managementprograms, and wetlands pro-tection activities.

Nonpoint source control –The EPA provides programguidance, technical support,and funding to help the States,Tribes, and other jurisdictionscontrol nonpoint source pollu-tion. The States, Tribes, andother jurisdictions are responsi-ble for analyzing the extent and severity of their nonpointsource pollution problems anddeveloping and implementingneeded water quality manage-ment actions.

The CWA also established pollu-tion control and prevention pro-grams for specific waterbody cate-gories, such as the Clean LakesProgram. Other statutes that alsoguide the development of waterquality protection programsinclude:

34

and adding chemicals toprecipitate nutrients out of thewater column. Restorationmeasures focus on restoringuses of a lake and may notaddress the source of thepollution.

Pollution control measuresdeal with the sources of pollut-ants degrading lake water qual-34ity or threatening to impairlake water quality. Control mea-sures include planning activities,regulatory actions, and imple-mentation of BMPs to reducenonpoint sources of pollutants.

During the 1980s, most Statesimplemented chemical andmechanical in-lake restoration mea-sures to control aquatic weeds andalgae. In their 1994 Section 305(b)reports, the States and Tribes reporta shift toward nonpoint source

local citizens and cooperation fromnatural resource agencies at thelocal, State, and Federal levels.

The National EstuaryProgram

Section 320 of the Clean WaterAct (as amended by the WaterQuality Act of 1987) established theNational Estuary Program (NEP) toprotect and restore water qualityand living resources in estuaries.The NEP adopts a geographic orwatershed approach by planningand implementing pollution abate-ment activities for the estuary andits surrounding land area as awhole.

The NEP embodies the ecosys-tem approach by building coali-tions, addressing multiple sources ofcontamination, pursuing habitatprotection as a pollution control

mechanism, andinvestigating cross-media transfer ofpollutants from airand soil into specificestuarine waters.Under the NEP, aState governor nom-inates an estuary inhis or her State forparticipation in theprogram. The Statemust demonstrate alikelihood of successin protecting candi-date estuaries andprovide evidence ofinstitutional, finan-cial, and politicalcommitment tosolving estuarineproblems.

controls to reduce pollutant loadsresponsible for aquatic weedgrowth and algal blooms (Figure18). Twenty-two States reportedthat they implemented best man-agement practices to control non-point source pollution enteringmore than 171 lakes. The Statesreported that they implementedagricultural practices to control soilerosion, constructed retention anddetention basins to control urbanrunoff, managed animal waste,revegetated shorelines, and con-structed or restored wetlands toremove pollutants from runoff.Although the States reported thatthey still use in-lake treatments, theStates recognize that sourcecontrols are needed in addition toin-lake treatments to restore lakewater quality.

Successful lake programsrequire strong commitment from

Lake Restoration and PollutionControl Measures


Total

22

18

14

12

Figure 18

13

12

Local Ordinances and Zoning

Biological Weed Control

Mechanical Weed Harvesting

Chemical Weed and Algae Controls

Lake Drawdown

Shoreline Stabilization/Rip Rap

Modified Discharge Permits

DredgingImplement NPS Controls (total)a

0 5 10 15 20 25

11

11

10

aIncludes best management practices, such as conservation tillage, sediment detention basins, vegetated buffers, and animal waste management.

35

If an estuary meets the NEPguidelines, the EPA Administratorconvenes a management confer-ence of representatives from inter-ested Federal, Regional, State, andlocal governments; affected indus-tries; scientific and academic institu-tions; and citizen organizations. Themanagement conference definesprogram goals and objectives, iden-tifies problems, and designs strate-gies to control pollution and man-age natural resources in the estuar-ine basin. Each management con-ference develops and initiatesimplementation of a Compre-hensive Conservation and

support development of CCMPs.With the addition of seven

estuary sites in July of 1995, theNEP currently supports 28 estuaryprojects (see Figure 19). These 28estuaries are nationally significant intheir economic value as well as intheir ability to support livingresources. The project sites also rep-resent a broad range of environ-mental conditions in estuariesthroughout the United States andits Territories so that the lessonslearned through the NEP can beapplied to other estuaries.

Protecting WetlandsA variety of public and private

programs protect wetlands. Section404 of the CWA continues toprovide the primary Federal vehiclefor regulating certain activities inwetlands. Section 404 establishes apermit program for discharges ofdredged or fill material into watersof the United States, includingwetlands.

The U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (COE) and EPA jointlyimplement the Section 404 pro-gram. The COE is responsible forreviewing permit applications andmaking permit decisions. EPA estab-lishes the environmental criteria formaking permit decisions and hasthe authority to review and vetoSection 404 permits proposed forissuance by the COE. EPA is alsoresponsible for determining geo-graphic jurisdiction of the Section404 permit program, interpretingstatutory exemptions, and

Management Plan (CCMP) torestore and protect the estuary.

The NEP currently supports28 estuary projects.

The NEP integrates science andpolicy by bringing water qualitymanagers, elected officials, andstakeholders together with scientistsfrom government agencies,academic institutions, and the pri-vate sector. Because the NEP is nota research program, it relies heavilyon past and ongoing research ofother agencies and institutions to

36

PRVI

Figure 19. Locations of National Estuary Program Sites

StateProgrammatic

Permits Others

that do not require notification ofthe COE at all.

General permits allow the COEto permit certain activities withoutperforming a separate individualpermit review. Some general per-mits require notification of the COEbefore an activity begins. There arethree types of general permits:

■ Nationwide permits (NWPs)authorize specific activities acrossthe entire Nation that the COEdetermines will have only minimalindividual and cumulative impactson the environment, including con-struction of minor road crossingsand farm buildings, bank stabiliza-tion activities, and the filling of upto 10 acres of isolated or headwaterwetlands.

■ Regional permits authorize typesof activities within a geographicarea defined by a COE DistrictOffice.

■ Programmatic general permitsare issued to an entity that the COEdetermines may regulate activitieswithin its jurisdictional wetlands.

overseeing Section 404 permit pro-grams assumed by individualStates. To date, only two States(Michigan and New Jersey) haveassumed the Section 404 permitprogram from the COE. The COEand EPA share responsibility forenforcing Section 404 require-ments.

The COE issues individualSection 404 permits for specificprojects or general permits (Table5). Applications for individual per-mits go through a review processthat includes opportunities for EPA,other Federal agencies (such as theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service andthe National Marine FisheriesService), State agencies, and thepublic to comment. However, thevast majority of activities proposedin wetlands are covered by Section404 general permits. For example,in FY94, over 48,000 peopleapplied to the COE for a Section404 permit. Eighty-two percent ofthese applications were covered bygeneral permits and were processedin an average of 16 days. It is esti-mated that another 50,000 activi-ties are covered by general permits

37

Shortly after coming intooffice, the Clinton Administrationconvened an interagency workinggroup to address concerns withFederal wetlands policy. After hear-ing from States, developers, farm-ers, environmental interests, mem-bers of Congress, and scientists,the working group developed acomprehensive 40-point plan forwetlands protection to make wet-lands programs more fair, flexible,and effective. This plan was issuedon August 24, 1993.

The Administration’s WetlandsPlan emphasizes improvingFederal wetlands policy by

■ Streamlining wetlands permit-ting programs

■ Increasing cooperation withprivate landowners to protectand restore wetlands

■ Basing wetlands protection ongood science and soundjudgment

■ Increasing participation byStates, Tribes, local govern-ments, and the public inwetlands protection.

General Permits Individual(streamlined permit review procedures) Permits

Nationwide Regional ProgrammaticPermits Permits Permits

• Cover 36 types of • Developed by COEactivities that the District Offices toCOE determines cover activities into have minimal a specified regionadverse impactson the environment

Table 5. Federal Section 404 Permits

• Required for major projectsthat have the potential tocause significant adverseimpacts

• Project must undergointeragency review

• Opportunity for publiccomment

• Opportunity for 401certification review

• COE defers permitdecisions to Stateagency whilereserving authorityto require anindividual permit

• Special ManagementAgencies

• Watershed PlanningCommissions

Under a programmatic generalpermit, the COE defers its permitdecision to the regulating entity butreserves its authority to require anindividual permit.

Currently, the COE and EPA arepromoting the development ofState programmatic general permits(SPGPs) to increase State involve-ment in wetlands protection andminimize duplicative State andFederal review of activities pro-posed in wetlands. Each SPGP is aunique arrangement developed bya State and the COE to take advan-tage of the strengths of the individ-ual State wetlands program. SeveralStates have adopted comprehensiveSPGPs that replace many or allCOE-issued nationwide general per-mits. SPGPs simplify the regulatoryprocess and increase State controlover their wetlands resources.Carefully developed SPGPs canimprove wetlands protection whilereducing regulatory demands onlandowners.

Water quality standards forwetlands ensure that the provisionsof CWA Section 303 that apply toother surface waters are alsoapplied to wetlands. In July 1990,EPA issued guidance to States forthe development of wetlands waterquality standards. Water qualitystandards consist of designatedbeneficial uses, numeric criteria,narrative criteria, and antidegrada-tion statements. Figure 20 indicatesthe State’s progress in developingthese standards.

Standards provide the founda-tion for a broad range of water

that may result in a discharge toU.S. waters, including wetlands.Such activities include discharge ofdredged or fill material permittedunder CWA Section 404, pointsource discharges permitted underCWA Section 402, and FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission’shydropower licenses. States reviewthese permits to ensure that theymeet State water quality standards.

Section 401 certification can bea powerful tool for protecting wet-lands from unacceptable degrada-tion or destruction especially whenimplemented in conjunction withwetlands-specific water qualitystandards. If a State or an eligibleTribe denies Section 401 certifica-tion, the Federal permitting orlicensing agency cannot issue thepermit or license.

Until recently, many Stateswaived their right to review andcertify Section 404 permits becausethese States had not defined water

quality management activitiesunder the CWA including, but notlimited to, monitoring for theSection 305(b) report, permittingunder Section 402 and 404, waterquality certification under Section401, and the control of nonpointsource pollution under Section 319.

States, Territories, and Tribesare well positioned between Federaland local government to take thelead in integrating and expandingwetlands protection and manage-ment programs. They are experi-enced in managing federally man-dated environmental programs,and they are uniquely equipped tohelp resolve local and regional con-flicts and identify the local econom-ic and geographic factors that mayinfluence wetlands protection.

Section 401 of the CWA givesStates and eligible American IndianTribes the authority to grant, condi-tion, or deny certification of federal-ly permitted or licensed activities

38

Under DevelopmentProposed

In Place


25 States and Tribes Reporting

0 5

Antidegradation

Use Classification

Narrative Biocriteria

Numeric Biocriteria

Figure 20. Development of State Water Quality Standards for Wetlands

10 15 20

quality standards for wetlands orcodified regulations for implement-ing their 401 certification programinto State law. Now, most Statesreport that they use the Section 401certification process to reviewSection 404 projects and to requiremitigation if there is no alternativeto degradation of wetlands. Ideally,401 certification should be used toaugment State programs becauseactivities that do not require Federalpermits or licenses, such as someground water withdrawals, are notcovered.

State Wetlands ConservationPlans (SWCPs) are strategies thatintegrate regulatory and coopera-tive approaches to achieve Statewetlands management goals, suchas no overall net loss of wetlands.SWCPs are not meant to create anew level of bureaucracy. Instead,SWCPs improve government andprivate-sector effectiveness andefficiency by identifying gaps inwetlands protection programs and identifying opportunities toimprove wetlands programs.

States, Tribes, and other juris-dictions protect their wetlands witha variety of other approaches,including permitting programs,coastal management programs,wetlands acquisition programs,natural heritage programs, and inte-gration with other programs. Thefollowing trends emerged fromindividual State and Tribal report-ing:

■ Most States have defined wet-lands as waters of the State, whichoffers general protection throughantidegradation clauses and desig-nated uses that apply to all waters

jurisdictions will continue to pursuenew mechanisms for protectingwetlands that rely less on regulatorytools.

Protecting the Great Lakes

Restoring and protecting theGreat Lakes requires cooperationfrom numerous organizationsbecause the pollutants that enterthe Great Lakes originate in boththe United States and Canada, aswell as in other countries. TheInternational Joint Commission(IJC), established by the 1909Boundary Waters Treaty, provides aframework for the cooperative man-agement of the Great Lakes.Representatives from the UnitedStates and Canada, the Province ofOntario, and the eight States bor-dering the Lakes sit on the IJC’sWater Quality Board. The WaterQuality Board recommends actionsfor protecting and restoring theGreat Lakes and evaluates the envi-ronmental policies and actionsimplemented by the United Statesand Canada.

The EPA Great Lakes NationalProgram Office (GLNPO) coordi-nates Great Lakes managementactivities conducted by all levels ofgovernment within the UnitedStates. The GLNPO also works withnongovernmental organizations toprotect and restore the Lakes. TheGLNPO provides leadershipthrough its annual Great LakesProgram Priorities and FundingGuidance. The GLNPO also servesas a liaison to the Canadianmembers of the IJC and theCanadian environmental agencies.

of a State. However, most Stateshave not developed specific wet-lands water quality standards anddesignated uses that protect wet-lands’ unique functions, such asflood attenuation and filtration.

■ Without specific wetlands usesand standards, the Section 401 cer-tification process relies heavily onantidegradation clauses to preventsignificant degradation of wetlands.

■ In many cases, the States use theSection 401 certification process toadd conditions to Section 404 per-mits that minimize the size of wet-lands destroyed or degraded byproposed activities to the extentpracticable. States often add condi-tions that require compensatorymitigation for destroyed wetlands,but the States do not have theresources to perform enforcementinspections or followup monitoringto ensure that the wetlands areconstructed and functioningproperly.

■ More States are monitoringselected, largely unimpacted wet-lands to establish baseline condi-tions in healthy wetlands. TheStates will use this information tomonitor the relative performance ofconstructed wetlands and to helpestablish biocriteria and waterquality standards for wetlands.

Although the States, Tribes, andother jurisdictions report that theyare making progress in protectingwetlands, they also report that thepressure to develop or destroy wet-lands remains high. EPA and theStates, Tribes, and other

39

The 1978 Great Lakes WaterQuality Agreement (as amended in1987) lay the foundation for on-going efforts to restore and protectthe Great Lakes. The Agreementcommitted the United States andCanada to developing RemedialAction Plans (RAPs) for Areas ofConcern and Lakewide Manage-ment Plans (LaMPs) for each Lake.Areas of Concern are specially des-ignated waterbodies around theGreat Lakes that show symptoms ofserious water quality degradation.Most of the 42 Areas of Concernare located in harbors, bays, or rivermouths entering the Great Lakes.RAPs identify impaired uses andexamine management options foraddressing degradation in an Areaof Concern. LaMPs use an ecosys-tem approach to examine waterquality issues that have more wide-spread impacts within each GreatLake. Public involvement is a criticalcomponent of both LaMP develop-ment and RAP development.

EPA advocates pollution preven-tion as the most effective approachfor achieving the virtual eliminationof persistent toxic discharges intothe Great Lakes. The GLNPO hasfunded numerous pollution preven-tion grants throughout the GreatLakes Basin during the past 3 years.EPA and the States also implement-ed the 38/50 Program in the GreatLakes Basin, under which EPAreceived voluntary commitmentsfrom industry to reduce the emis-sion of 17 priority pollutants by50% by the end of 1995. In addi-tion, EPA, the States, and Canadaare implementing a virtual elimina-tion initiative for Lake Superior. The

Lakes System. The Act also requiresthe Great Lakes States to adoptprovisions that are consistent withthe EPA final guidance within 2years of EPA’s publication. In addi-tion, Indian Tribes authorized toadminister an NPDES program inthe Great Lakes Basin must alsoadopt provisions consistent withEPA’s final guidance.

To carry out the Act, EPA pro-posed regulations for implementingthe guidance on April 16, 1993,and invited the public to comment.The States and EPA conducted pub-lic meetings in all of the Great LakesStates during the comment period.As a result, EPA received over26,500 pages of comments fromover 6,000 commenters. EPAreviewed all of the comments andpublished the final guidance inMarch of 1995.

The final guidance prioritizescontrol of long-lasting pollutantsthat accumulate in the food web—bioaccumulative chemicals of con-cern (BCCs). The final guidanceincludes provisions to phase outmixing zones for BCCs (except inlimited circumstances), more exten-sive data requirements to ensurethat BCCs are not underregulateddue to a lack of data, and waterquality criteria to protect wildlifethat feed on aquatic prey. Publica-tion of the final guidance is a mile-stone in EPA’s move toward increas-ing stakeholder participation in thedevelopment of innovative andcomprehensive programs for pro-tecting and restoring our naturalresources.

first phase of the initiative seeks toeliminate new contributions ofmercury.

The Great Lakes Water QualityInitiative is a key element of theenvironmental protection effortsundertaken by the United States inthe Great Lakes Basin. The purposeof the Initiative is to provide a con-sistent level of protection in theBasin from the effects of toxicpollutants. In 1989, the Initiativewas organized by EPA at the requestof the Great Lakes States to pro-mote consistency in their environ-mental programs in the Great LakesBasin with minimum requirements.

Initiative efforts were well underway when Congress enacted theGreat Lakes Critical Programs Act of1990. The Act requires EPA to pub-lish proposed and final water qualityguidance that specifies minimumwater quality criteria for the Great

40

Julie

Fou

ntai

n, Y

oung

svill

e, N

C

The Chesapeake BayProgram

In many areas of theChesapeake Bay, the quality is notsufficient to support living resourcesyear round. In the warmer months,large portions of the Bay containlittle or no dissolved oxygen. Lowoxygen conditions may cause fisheggs and larvae to die. The growthand reproduction of oysters, clams,and other bottom-dwelling animalsare impaired. Adult fish find theirhabitat reduced and their feedinginhibited.

Many areas of the Bay alsohave cloudy water from excesssediment in the water or an over-growth of algae (stimulated byexcessive nutrients in the water).Turbid waters block the sunlightneeded to support the growth andsurvival of Bay grasses, also knownas submerged aquatic vegetation(SAV). Without SAV, critical habitatfor fish and crabs is lost. Althoughthere has been a recent resurgenceof SAV in some areas of the Bay,most areas still do not supportabundant populations as they oncedid.

The main causes of the Bay’spoor water quality and aquatichabitat loss are elevated levels ofthe nutrients nitrogen and phos-phorus. Both are natural fertilizersfound in animal wastes, soil, andthe atmosphere. These nutrientshave always existed in the Bay, butnot at the present elevated concen-trations. When the Bay was sur-rounded primarily by forests andwetlands, very little nitrogen andphosphorus ran off the land intothe water. Most of it was absorbed

beyond the year 2000, and agreedto attack nutrients at their sourceby applying the 40% reductiongoal to the 10 major tributaries ofthe Bay. The amendments alsostressed managing the Bay as awhole ecosystem. The amendmentsalso spell out the importance ofreducing atmospheric sources ofnutrients and broadening regionalinterstate cooperation.

Protection and restoration offorests is a critical component ofthe Chesapeake Bay Programbecause scientific data clearly showthat forests are the most beneficialland cover for maintaining cleanwater, especially forests alongsidewaterbodies in the riparian zone.Through the Chesapeake BayProgram, unique partnerships havebeen formed among the Bayregion’s forestry agencies, forestmanagers, and interested citizengroups. Since 1990, the U.S. ForestService has assigned a ForestryProgram Coordinator to theChesapeake Bay Program to assistboth the EPA and Bay Programcommittees in developing strategiesand projects that will contribute tothe Bay restoration goals. A ForestryWork Group, formed under theNonpoint Source Subcommittee,raises and addresses issues relatedto forests and the practice offorestry in the watershed.

In addition, State foresters andlocal governments have developedand implemented numerous pro-grams and projects aimed at theprotection and restoration offorests. Forestry incentive programsin all of the Bay States have resultedin the planting of millions of trees,the restoration of nearly 50 miles of

or held in place by the naturalvegetation. As the use of the landhas changed and the watershed’spopulation has grown, the amountof nutrients entering the Bay hasincreased tremendously.

Now in its twelfth year, theChesapeake Bay Program is aregional partnership of Federal,State, and local participants thathas directed and coordinatedrestoration of the Bay since thesigning of the historic 1983Chesapeake Bay Agreement.Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,the District of Columbia, theChesapeake Bay Commission, EPA,and advisory groups form the part-nership. The Chesapeake ExecutiveCouncil provides leadership for theBay Program and establishes pro-gram policies to restore and protectthe Bay and its living resources. TheCouncil consists of the governors ofMaryland, Virginia, and Pennsyl-vania, the mayor of the District ofColumbia, the administrator of EPA,and the chairperson of theChesapeake Bay Commission.

Considered a national andinternational model for estuarinerestoration and protection pro-grams, the Chesapeake BayProgram is still a “work inprogress.” Since 1983, milestonesin the evolution of the programinclude the 1987 Chesapeake BayAgreement and the 1992 amend-ments to the Agreement. The 1987Agreement set a goal to reduce thequantity of nutrients entering theBay by 40% by the year 2000. Inthe 1992 amendments to theAgreement, the partners reaffirmedthe 40% nutrient reduction goal,agreed to cap nutrient loadings

41

riparian forest, the development ofstewardship plans, and forestenhancement projects onthousands of acres within the Baywatershed.

On the positive side, the extentof Bay grasses has increased by75% since 1978. The current extentof SAV attains 64% of the goalestablished by the Chesapeake BayProgram. Striped bass, or rockfish,have made a remarkable recoveryover the past decade due toimproved reproduction and bettercontrol of the harvest. There hasbeen a modest increase in thenumber of American shad returningto the Bay to spawn. Controls onthe harvest of American shad, cre-ation of fish passages at blockages,stocking programs, and habitatrestoration are expected to yieldincreases in the American shadpopulation and similar fish speciesthat inhabit the Bay during part oftheir life cycle.

Phosphorus levels continue todecline and, after many years ofincreasing nitrogen concentrations,most of the Bay’s tributaries areshowing a leveling off of this trend.Some tributaries are showingdeclining trends in nitrogen con-centrations. These trends indicatethat both point and nonpointsource pollution abatement pro-grams are working.

Despite the promising trends innutrient concentrations, oxygenconcentrations are still low enoughto cause severe impacts or stressfulconditions in the mainstem of theBay and several larger tributaries.Prospects for the Bay’s oyster popu-lations remain poor. Overharvest-ing, habitat loss, and disease have

The Gulf of MexicoProgram

The Gulf of Mexico Program(GMP) was established in 1988with EPA as the lead Federal agencyin response to signs of long-termenvironmental damage throughoutthe Gulf’s coastal and marineecosystem. The main purpose ofthe GMP is to develop and helpimplement a strategy to protect,restore, and maintain the healthand productivity of the Gulf. TheGMP is a grass roots program thatserves as a catalyst to promotesharing of information, pooling ofresources, and coordination ofefforts to restore and reclaimwetlands and wildlife habitat, cleanup existing pollution, and preventfuture contamination and destruc-tion of the Gulf. The GMP mobilizesState, Federal, and local govern-ment; business and industry;

severely depleted oyster stocks.New management efforts havebeen developed to improve thissituation.

The blue crab is currently themost important commercial andrecreational fishery in the Bay.There is growing concern about thehealth of the blue crab populationdue to increasing harvesting pres-sures and relatively low harvests inrecent years. Both Maryland andVirginia have recently implementednew regulations on commercial andrecreational crabbers to protect thisimportant resource.

Overall, the Chesapeake Baystill shows symptoms of stress froman expanding population andchanges in land use. However, con-ditions in the Chesapeake Bay haveimproved since the Chesapeake BayProgram was launched, and contin-uation of the Program promises aneven brighter future for the Bay.

42

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Foun

datio

n, R

ichm

ond,

VA

academia; and the community atlarge through public awareness andinformation dissemination pro-grams, forum discussions, citizencommittees, and technologyapplications.

A Policy Review Board and theManagement Committee determinethe scope and focus of GMP activi-ties. The program also receivesinput from a Technical AdvisoryCommittee and a Citizen’s AdvisoryCommittee. The GMP Office, eighttechnical issue committees, and theoperations and support committeescoordinate the collection, integra-tion, and reporting of pertinentdata and information. The issuecommittees are composed of indi-viduals from Federal, State, andlocal agencies and from industry,science, education, business, citizengroups, and private organizations.

The issue committees areresponsible for documenting envi-ronmental problems and manage-ment goals, available resources, andpotential solutions for a broadrange of issues, including habitatdegradation, public health,freshwater inflow, marine debris,shoreline erosion, nutrient enrich-ment, toxic pollutants, and livingaquatic resources. The issuecommittees publish their findings in Action Agendas.

On December 10, 1992, theGovernors of Alabama, Florida,Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas;EPA; the Chair of the Citizen’sAdvisory Committee; and represen-tatives of 10 other Federal agenciessigned the Gulf of Mexico ProgramPartnership for Action agreementfor protecting, restoring, andenhancing the Gulf of Mexico and

inadequate sewage treatment,pollution prevention, and habitatprotection and restoration. Severalprojects aim to demonstrate theeffectiveness of innovative sewagetreatment technologies to controlpathogenic contamination of shell-fish harvesting areas. Other projectsaim to restore wetlands, sea grassbeds, and oyster reefs. The Take-Action Projects are designed tohave Gulf-wide application.

Take-Action Projects in the five Gulf States

primarily address sewagetreatment, pollution

prevention, and habitatprotection and

restoration.

Since 1992, EPA has streamlinedand restructured its managementscheme for the GMP to increaseRegional involvement and bettermeet the needs of the 5-year envi-ronmental challenges. The GMP hasalso expanded efforts to integrateMexico and the Caribbean Islandsinto management of the Gulf.These activities include technologytransfer and development of inter-national agreements that prohibitthe discharge of ship-generatedwastes and plastics into waters ofthe Gulf and Caribbean Sea.

adjacent lands. The agreementcommitted the signatory agenciesto pledge their efforts, over 5 years,to obtain the knowledge andresources to:

■ Significantly reduce the rate ofloss of coastal wetlands

■ Achieve an increase in Gulf Coastseagrass beds

■ Enhance the sustainability of Gulf commercial and recreationalfisheries

■ Protect human health and foodsupply by reducing input ofnutrients, toxic substances, andpathogens to the Gulf

■ Increase Gulf shellfish beds avail-able for safe harvesting by 10%

■ Ensure that all Gulf beaches aresafe for swimming and recreationaluses

■ Reduce by at least 10% theamount of trash on beaches

■ Improve and expand coastalhabitats that support migratorybirds, fish, and other livingresources

■ Expand public education/out-reach tailored for each Gulf Coastcounty or parish

■ Reduce critical coastal andshoreline erosion.

Beginning in 1992, the GMPalso launched Take-Action Projectsin each of the five Gulf States todemonstrate that program strate-gies and methods could achieverapid results. The Take-ActionProjects primarily address

43

44

Ground Water Protection Programs

The sage adage that “An ounceof prevention is worth a pound ofcure” is being borne out in the fieldof ground water protection. Studiesevaluating the cost of preventionversus the cost of cleaning up con-taminated ground water havefound that there are real costadvantages to promoting protec-tion of our Nation’s ground waterresources.

Numerous laws, regulations,and programs play a vital role inprotecting ground water. Thefollowing Federal laws and pro-grams enable, or provide incentivesfor, EPA and/or States to regulate orvoluntarily manage and monitorsources of ground water pollution:

■ The Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA) addresses theproblem of safe disposal of the

■ The Federal Insecticide, Fungi-cide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)controls the use and disposal ofpesticides, some of which havebeen detected in ground waterwells in rural communities.

■ The Toxic Substances Control Act(TSCA) controls the use and dispos-al of additional toxic substances,thereby minimizing their entry intoground water. Other Federal lawsestablish State grants that may beused to protect ground water.

■ Clean Water Act Sections 319(h)and (i) and 518 provide funds toState agencies to implement EPA-approved nonpoint source manage-ment programs that includeground water protection activities.Several States have developed pro-grams that focus on ground watercontamination resulting from agri-culture and septic tanks.

huge volumes of solid and haz-ardous waste generated nationwideeach year. RCRA is part of EPA’scomprehensive program to protectground water resources throughthe development of regulations andmethods for handling, storing, anddisposing of hazardous material andthrough the regulation of under-ground storage tanks—the mostfrequently cited source of groundwater contamination.

■ The Comprehensive Environ-mental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act (CERCLA) regulatesthe restoration of contaminatedground water at abandonedhazardous waste sites.

■ The Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) regulates subsurface injec-tion of fluids that can contaminateground water.

Jeff

Reyn

olds

, Ral

eigh

, NC

Comprehensive State Ground WaterProtection Programs

A Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP) is composed of six “strategic activities.” They are:

■ Establishing a prevention-oriented goal

■ Establishing priorities, based on the characterization of the resource and identification of sources of contamination

■ Defining roles, responsibilities, resources, and coordinating mechanisms

■ Implementing all necessary efforts to accomplish the State’s groundwater protection goal

■ Coordinating information collection and management to measureprogress and reevaluate priorities

■ Improving public education and participation.

45

■ The Pollution Prevention Act of1990 allows grants for researchprojects to demonstrate agriculturalpractices that emphasize groundwater protection and reduce theexcessive use of fertilizers and pesti-cides.

Comprehensive State GroundWater Protection Programs(CSGWPPs) attempt to combine allof the above efforts and emphasizecontamination prevention.

Comprehensive Stateground water protectionprograms support State-

directed priorities inresource protection.

CSGWPPs improve coordination ofFederal, State, Tribal, and localground water programs and enabledistribution of resources to estab-lished priorities.

Another means of protectingour Nation’s ground waterresources is through the implemen-tation of Wellhead Protection Plans.EPA’s Office of Ground Water andDrinking Water is supporting thedevelopment and implementationof Wellhead Protection Plans at thelocal level through many efforts. Forexample, EPA-funded support isprovided through the NationalRural Water Association GroundWater/Wellhead Protection pro-grams. At the conclusion of the first4 years of this program, over 2,000communities in 26 States were

actively involved in protecting theirwater supplies by implementingwellhead protection programs.These 2,000 communities representalmost 4 million people in the ruralareas of the United States who willhave better-protected water sup-plies.

Recognizing the importanceand cost-effectiveness of protectingour Nation’s ground waterresources, States are participating innumerous activities to preventfuture impairments of the resource.These activities include enactinglegislation aimed at the develop-ment of comprehensive Stateground water protection programsand promulgating protection regu-lations. More than 80% of theStates indicate that they have cur-rent or pending legislation geared

specifically to ground water protec-tion. Generally, State legislationfocuses on the need for programdevelopment, increased data collec-tion, and public education pro-grams. In addition, States also maymandate strict technical controlssuch as discharge permits, under-ground storage tank registrations,and protection standards.

All of these programs areintended to provide protection to avaluable, and often vulnerable,resource. Through the promotionof ground water protection on bothState and Federal levels, ourNation’s ground water resourceswill be safeguarded againstcontamination, thereby protectinghuman health and the environ-ment.

John

The

ilgar

d, B

ynum

, NC

46

ing trees and plant new trees andshrubs to help prevent erosion andpromote infiltration of water intothe soil. Restore bare patches inyour lawn to prevent erosion. Ifyou own or manage land throughwhich a stream flows, you maywish to consult your local countyextension office about methods ofrestoring stream banks in your areaby planting buffer strips of nativevegetation.

Around your house, keep litter,pet waste, leaves, and grass clip-pings out of gutters and stormdrains. Use the minimum amountof water needed when you washyour car. Never dispose of anyhousehold, automotive, or garden-ing wastes in a storm drain. Keepyour septic tank in good workingorder.

Within your home, fix anydripping faucets or leaky pipes andinstall water-saving devices in

shower heads and toilets. Alwaysfollow directions on labels for useand disposal of household chemi-cals. Take used motor oil, paints,and other hazardous householdmaterials to proper disposal sitessuch as approved service stations ordesignated landfills.

Be InvolvedAs a citizen and a voter there is

much you can do at the communi-ty level to help preserve and pro-tect our Nation’s water resources.Look around. Is soil erosion beingcontrolled at construction sites? Isthe community sewage plant beingoperated efficiently and correctly? Isthe community trash dump in oralong a stream? Is road deicing saltbeing stored properly?

Become involved in your com-munity election processes. Listenand respond to candidates’ viewson water quality and environmentalissues. Many communities haverecycling programs; find out aboutthem, learn how to recycle, andvolunteer to help out if you can.One of the most important thingsyou can do is find out how yourcommunity 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 personallyinvolved in monitoring the qualityof our Nation’s water. As a volun-teer monitor, you might beinvolved in taking ongoing waterquality measurements, tracking the

Federal and State programshave helped clean up many watersand slow the degradation of others.But government alone cannot solvethe entire problem, and water qual-ity concerns persist. Nonpointsource pollution, in particular, iseverybody’s problem, and every-body needs to solve it.

Examine your everyday activi-ties and think about how you arecontributing to the pollution prob-lem. Here are some suggestions onhow you can make a difference.

Be InformedYou should learn about water

quality issues that affect the com-munities in which you live andwork. Become familiar with yourlocal water resources. Where doesyour drinking water come from?What activities in your area mightaffect the water you drink or therivers, lakes, beaches, or wetlandsyou use for recreation?

Learn about procedures fordisposing of harmful householdwastes so they do not end up insewage treatment plants thatcannot handle them or in landfillsnot designed to receive hazardousmaterials.

Be ResponsibleIn your yard, determine

whether additional nutrients areneeded before you apply fertilizers,and look for alternatives wherefertilizers might run off into surfacewaters. Consider selecting plantsand grasses that have low mainte-nance requirements. Water yourlawn conservatively. Preserve exist-

What You Can Do

John

The

ilgar

d, B

ynum

, NC

progress of protection and restora-tion projects, or reporting specialevents, such as fish kills and stormdamage.

Volunteer monitoring can be ofgreat benefit to State and local gov-ernments. Some States stretch theirmonitoring budgets by using datacollected by volunteers, particularlyin remote areas that otherwisemight not be monitored at all.Because you are familiar with thewater resources in your own neigh-borhood, you are also more likelyto spot unusual occurrences such asfish kills.

The benefits to you of becom-ing a volunteer are also great. Youwill learn about your local waterresources and have the opportunityto become personally involved in anationwide campaign to protect avital, and mutually shared, resource.If you would like to find out more

For Further ReadingVolunteer Monitoring. EPA-800-F-93-008. September 1993. A brieffact sheet about volunteer moni-toring, including examples of howvolunteers have improved theenvironment.

Starting Out in Volunteer WaterMonitoring. EPA-841-B-92-002.August 1992. A brief fact sheetabout how to become involved involunteer monitoring.

National Directory of CitizenVolunteer Environmental MonitoringPrograms, Fourth Edition. EPA-841-B-94-001. January 1994. Containsinformation about 519 volunteermonitoring programs across theNation.

Volunteer Stream Monitoring: AMethods Manual. EPA-841-D-95-001. 1995. Presents informationand methods for volunteer moni-toring of streams.

Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: AMethods Manual. EPA-842-B-93-004. December 1993. Presentsinformation and methods for vol-unteer monitoring of estuarinewaters.

Volunteer Lake Monitoring: AMethods Manual. EPA-440/4-91-002. December 1991. Discusseslake water quality issues andmethods for volunteer monitoringof lakes.

Many of these publications canalso be accessed through EPA’sWater Channel on the Internet.From the World Wide Web orGopher, enter http://www.epa.gov/OWOW to enterWIN and locate documents.

about organizing or joiningvolunteer monitoring programs inyour State, contact your Statedepartment of environmentalquality, or write to:

Alice MayioVolunteer Monitoring

Coordinator U.S. EPA (4503F)401 M St. SWWashington, DC 20460(202) 260-7018

For further information onwater quality in your State or otherjurisdiction, contact your Section305(b) coordinator listed in SectionIII. Additional water quality infor-mation may be obtained from theRegional offices of the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(see inside back cover).

47

Jimm

y C

raw

ford

, Ral

eigh

, NC

States issue fish consumptionadvisories to protect the public from ingesting harmful quantities of toxic pollutants in contaminatedfish and shellfish. Fish may accumu-late dangerous quantities of pollut-ants in their tissues by ingestingmany smaller organisms, each con-taminated with a small quantity ofpollutant. This process is calledbioaccumulation or biomagnifica-tion. Pollutants also enter fish andshellfish tissues through the gills orskin.

Fish consumption advisoriesrecommend that the public limitthe quantity and frequency of con-sumption of fish caught in specificwaterbodies. The States tailor indi-vidual advisories to minimize healthrisks based on contaminant datacollected in their fish tissue sam-pling programs. Advisories maycompletely ban fish consumption inseverely polluted waters, or limitfish consumption to several mealsper month or year in cases of lesssevere contamination. Advisoriesmay target a subpopulation at risk(such as children, pregnant women,and nursing mothers), specific fishspecies, or larger fish that may haveaccumulated high concentrations ofa pollutant over a longer lifetimethan a smaller, younger fish.

The EPA fish consumption advi-sory database tracks advisoriesissued by each State. For 1994, thedatabase listed 1,531 fish consump-tion advisories in effect in 49 States.Fish consumption advisories areunevenly distributed among the

concentrations in fish tissue samplesare polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs), chlordane, dioxins, andDDT (with its byproducts).

Many coastal States reportrestrictions on shellfish harvesting inestuarine waters. Shellfish–particu-larly oysters, clams, and mussels–are filter-feeders that extract theirfood from water. Waterborne bacte-ria and viruses may also accumulateon their gills and mantles and intheir digestive systems. Shellfishcontaminated by these micro-organisms are a serious humanhealth concern, particularly ifconsumed raw.

States currently sample waterfrom shellfish harvesting areas tomeasure indicator bacteria, such astotal coliform and fecal coliformbacteria. These bacteria serve asindicators of the presence of poten-tially pathogenic microorganismsassociated with untreated or under-treated sewage. States restrict shell-fish harvesting to areas that main-tain these bacteria at concentrationsin sea water below establishedhealth limits.

In 1994, 15 States reportedthat shellfish harvesting restrictionswere in effect for more than 6,052square miles of estuarine andcoastal waters during the 1992-1994 reporting period. Six Statesreported that urban runoff andstorm sewers, municipal wastewatertreatment facilities, nonpointsources, marinas, industrialdischarges, CSOs, and septic tanksrestricted shellfish harvesting.

States because the States use theirown criteria to determine if fishtissue concentrations of toxics posea health risk that justifies an advis-ory. States also vary the amount offish tissue monitoring they conductand the number of pollutantsanalyzed. States that conduct moremonitoring and use strict criteriawill issue more advisories thanStates that conduct less monitoringand use weaker criteria. For exam-ple, 62% of the advisories active in1994 were issued by the Statessurrounding the Great Lakes, whichsupport extensive fish samplingprograms and follow strict criteriafor issuing advisories.

Most of the fish consumptionadvisories (73%) are due tomercury. The other pollutants mostcommonly detected in elevated

48

Fish Consumption Advisories

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Foun

datio

n, R

ichm

ond,

VA

| us epa archive document · waters; water quality protection and restoration must happen at the...

Documents