1996 national water quality inventory report to congress · the national water quality inventory...

National Summary ofWater Quality Conditions

Section I

Clif

f Haa

c, C

hape

l Hill

, NC

The Quality of Our Nation’s Water

National 305(b) ConsistencyWorkgroup and the National WaterQuality Monitoring Council. Theseactions will enable States and otherjurisdictions to share data acrosspolitical boundaries as they developwatershed protection strategies.

EPA recognizes that nationalinitiatives alone cannot clean up ourwaters; water quality protection andrestoration must happen at the localwatershed level, in conjunction withState, Tribal, and Federal activities.Similarly, this document alone can-not provide the detailed informationneeded to manage water quality atall levels. This document should beused together with the individualSection 305(b) reports (see theinside back cover for information onobtaining the State and TribalSection 305(b) reports), watershedmanagement plans, and other localdocuments to develop integratedwater quality management options.

Tribes, and other jurisdictions favorflexibility in the 305(b) process toaccommodate natural variability intheir waters, but there is a trade-offbetween flexibility and consistency.Without known and consistent sur-vey methods in place, EPA must usecaution in comparing data or deter-mining the accuracy of data submit-ted by different States and jurisdic-tions. Also, EPA must use cautionwhen comparing water qualityinformation submitted during differ-ent 305(b) reporting periodsbecause States and other jurisdic-tions 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

IntroductionThe National Water Quality

Inventory Report to Congress is theprimary vehicle for informing Con-gress and the public about generalwater 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 summa-rizes the water quality informationsubmitted by 58 States, AmericanIndian Tribes, Territories, InterstateWater Commissions, and the Districtof Columbia (hereafter referred to as States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-tions) in their 1996 water qualityassessment reports. As such, thereport identifies water quality issuesof concern to the States, Tribes, andother jurisdictions, not just the issues of concern to the U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (EPA).Section 305(b) of the Clean WaterAct (CWA) requires that the Statesand other participating jurisdictionssubmit water quality assessmentreports every 2 years. Most of thesurvey information in the 1996Section 305(b) reports is based onwater quality information collectedand evaluated by the States, Tribes,and other jurisdictions during 1994and 1995.

It is important to note that thisreport is based on information sub-mitted by States, Tribes, and otherjurisdictions that do not use identicalsurvey methods and criteria to ratetheir water quality. The States,

2

3

The Index of Watershed Indi-cators (IWI) is a compilation ofinformation on the condition ofaquatic resources in the UnitedStates. Using data from manysources, IWI maps 15 indicators ona watershed basis. Together theseindicators point to whether thesewatersheds are "healthy" andwhether activities on the surround-ing lands are making these watersmore vulnerable to pollution (seemap).

While this new assessment toolis broader and more inclusive thanthe National Water Quality Inven-tory, State 305(b) assessment infor-mation is the most important datasource in the IWI.

State 305(b) information isincluded as one of the 15 indicatormaps in IWI as: Assessed RiversMeeting All Designated Uses Set inState/Tribal Water Quality Stand-ards. The IWI uses data compiledon a watershed basis from anumber of national assessmentprograms from several EPAprograms, from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-tration (NOAA), U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS), the Corps of

periodically. In October 1997, 16%of the watersheds had good waterquality problems, 36% had moder-ate water quality problems, 21%had more serious problems, andsufficient data were lacking to fullycharacterize the remaining 27%. Inaddition, 1 in 14 watersheds in allareas was vulnerable to furtherdegradation from pollution, primar-ily from urban and rural runoff.

The IWI enables managers andcommunity residents to understandand help protect the watershedwhere they live. The information iseasily available on the Internet athttp://www.epa.gov/surf/iwi.

Engineers, and the Nature Conserv-ancy, and from the States, Tribesand other jurisdictions. Six otherindicator maps show EPA’s rating ofthe condition of watersheds; eightadditional indicator maps showEPA’s rating of the vulnerability ofwatersheds. Vulnerability factorsinclude, for example, the rate ofpopulation growth, the potential of various forms of nonpoint sourcepollution, and compliance facilitypermits. Using this approach, theIWI characterizes nearly three-quarters of the 2,111 watersheds in the 48 contiguous States.

The IWI was released inOctober 1997 and is updated

Better Water Quality – Low VulnerabilityBetter Water Quality – High VulnerabilityLess Serious Water Quality Problems – Low VulnerabilityLess Serious Water Quality Problems – High VulnerabilityMore Serious Water Quality Problems – Low VulnerabilityMore Serious Water Quality Problems – High VulnerabilityData Sufficiency Threshold Not Met

Watershed Classification

Analysis of Alaska andHawaii reserved for Phase 2.

Index of WatershedIndicators

http://www.epa.gov.surf

National Watershed Characterization

Index of Watershed Indicators

4

Geo

rgia

Min

nich

, Dur

ham

, NC

Key Concepts

The CWA allows States, Tribes,and other jurisdictions to set theirown standards but requires that allbeneficial uses and their criteria com-ply with the goals of the Act. At aminimum, beneficial uses must pro-vide for “the protection and propa-gation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife”and provide for “recreation in andon the water” (i.e., the fishable andswimmable goals of the Act), whereattainable. The Act prohibits Statesand other jurisdictions from desig-nating waste transport or wasteassimilation as a beneficial use, assome States did prior to 1972.

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 encouragesStates, Tribes, and other jurisdictionsto survey waterbodies for support ofthe following individual beneficialuses:

Aquatic Life Support

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

Fish Consumption

The waterbody sup-ports fish free from

contamination that could pose ahuman health risk to consumers.

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 designateduse has a unique set of water qualityrequirements or criteria that must be met for the use to be realized.States, Tribes, and other jurisdictionsmay designate an individual water-body for multiple beneficial uses.

■ Numeric water quality criteriaestablish the minimum physical,chemical, and biological parametersrequired to support a beneficial use.Physical and chemical numericcriteria may set maximum concen-trations of pollutants, acceptableranges of physical parameters suchas flow, and minimum concentra-tions of desirable parameters such asdissolved oxygen. Numeric biologi-cal criteria describe the expectedattainable community attributes andestablish values based on measuressuch as species richness, presence or absence of indicator taxa, anddistribution 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 character-istics expected to occur within awaterbody. For example, “Aquaticlife shall be as it naturally occurs,” or “Ambient water quality shall besufficient to support life stages of all indigenous aquatic species.”Narrative criteria may also describeconditions that are desired in awaterbody, such as, “Waters mustbe free of substances that are toxicto humans, aquatic life, andwildlife.”

■ Antidegradation statements,where possible, protect existing usesand prevent waterbodies from dete-riorating even if their water quality isbetter than the fishable and swim-mable goals of the Act.

5

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., acidity)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. Biological data include counts of aquatic species that indicate healthy ecological conditions.

■ 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.

Wildlife Habitat

Water quality sup-ports the water-

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

Tribes may designate theirwaters for special cultural andceremonial uses:

Ground Water Recharge

The surfacewaterbody plays a significant role in replenishing ground water, andsurface water supply and quality are adequate to protect existing orpotential uses of ground water.

ShellfishHarvesting

The waterbodysupports a population of shellfishfree from toxicants and pathogensthat could pose a human health riskto consumers.

Drinking Water Supply

The waterbody can supply safe drinking water withconventional treatment.

Primary ContactRecreation –Swimming

People can swim in the waterbodywithout risk of adverse humanhealth effects (such as catchingwaterborne diseases from rawsewage contamination).

Secondary ContactRecreation

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

Agriculture

The water quality issuitable for irrigat-

ing fields or watering livestock.

States, Tribes, and other jurisdic-tions may also define their ownindividual uses to address specialconcerns. For example, many Tribesand States designate their waters forthe following beneficial uses:

6

Culture

Water quality sup-ports the water-

body’s role in Tribal culture and pre-serves the waterbody’s religious,ceremonial, or subsistence signifi-cance.

The States, Tribes, and otherjurisdictions assign levels of usesupport to each of their waterbodies(Table 1). If possible, the States,Tribes, and other jurisdictions deter-mine the level of use support bycomparing monitoring data withnumeric criteria for each use desig-nated for a particular waterbody. Ifmonitoring data are not available,the State, Tribe, or other jurisdictionmay determine the level of usesupport with qualitative information.Valid qualitative information includesland use data, fish and game sur-veys, and predictive model results.Monitored assessments are basedon recent monitoring data collectedduring the past 5 years. Evaluatedassessments are based on qualita-tive information or monitored infor-mation 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 summary usesupport determination:

Good/Fully SupportingAll Uses – All designatedbeneficial uses are fullysupported.

Not Attainable – TheState, Tribe, or otherjurisdiction has per-formed a use-attainability

analysis and demonstrated that usesupport of one or more designatedbeneficial uses is not attainable dueto one of six biological, chemical,physical, or economic/social condi-tions specified in the Code of FederalRegulations (40 CFR Section 131.10).These conditions include naturallyhigh concentrations of pollutants(such as metals); other natural physi-cal features that create unsuitable

Good/Threatened forOne or More Uses – Oneor more designated bene-ficial uses are threatened

and the remaining uses are fullysupported.

Impaired for One or More Uses – One ormore designated bene-ficial uses are partially or

not supported and the remaininguses are fully supported or threat-ened. These waterbodies are consid-ered impaired.

Table 1. Levels of Summary Use Support

Fully Supporting Good Water quality meets All Uses designated use criteria.

Threatened for One Good Water quality supports or More Uses beneficial uses now

but may not in the future unless action is taken.

Impaired for One Impaired Water quality fails to meetor More Uses designated use criteria at times.

Not Attainable ________ The State, Tribe, or other jurisdiction has performed ause-attainability analysis anddemonstrated that use supportis not attainable due to one ofsix biological, chemical, physical,or economic/social conditions specified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Water Quality Symbol Use Support Level Condition Definition

7

Figure 1. Percentage of Total Waters Surveyed for the 1996 Report

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 thatcannot 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 – Waterbodieseither partially supporting uses ornot supporting uses.

The EPA then aggregates theuse support information submittedby the States, Tribes, and other juris-dictions into a national assessmentof the Nation’s water quality.

How Many of OurWaters WereSurveyed for 1996?

National estimates of the totalwaters of our country provide thefoundation for determining the per-centage of waters surveyed by theStates, Tribes, and other jurisdictionsand the portion impaired by pollu-tion. For the 1992 reporting period,EPA provided the States with esti-mates of total river miles and lakeacres derived from the EPA ReachFile, a database containing traces ofwaterbodies adapted from1:100,000 scale maps prepared bythe U.S. Geological Survey. TheStates modified these total waterestimates where necessary. Based onthe 1992 EPA/State figures, the

■ More than 3.6 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 41.7 million acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs

■ About 39,839 square miles ofestuaries (excluding Alaska)

national estimate of total river milesdoubled in large part because theEPA/State estimates includednonperennial streams, canals, andditches that were previouslyexcluded from estimates of totalstream miles.

Estimates for the 1996 reportingcycle are a minor refinement of the1992 figures and indicate that theUnited States has:

Rivers and Streams 693,905 – 19% surveyed (53% of perennial miles)Total perennial miles: 1,306,121Total miles: 3,634,152

16,819,769 – 40% surveyedTotal acres: 41,684,902

Lakes, Ponds,and Reservoirs

28,819 – 72% surveyedTotal square miles: 39,839a

Estuaries

3,651 – 6% surveyedTotal miles: 58,585 miles, including Alaska's36,000 miles of shoreline

Ocean ShorelineWaters

5,186 – 94% surveyedTotal miles: 5,521

Great LakesShoreline

Source: 1996 Section 305(b) reports submitted by the States, Tribes, Territories, and Commissions.

aExcluding estuarine waters in Alaska because no estimate was available.

8

often focus on surveying majorperennial rivers, estuaries, and publiclakes with suspected pollutionproblems in order to direct scarceresources to areas that could posethe greatest risk. Many States,Tribes, and other jurisdictions lackthe resources to collect use supportinformation for nonperennialstreams, small tributaries, andprivate ponds. This report does not predict the health of theseunassessed waters, which include anunknown ratio of pristine waters topolluted 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 are pre-sented in Table 2. Pollutants includesediment, nutrients, and chemicalcontaminants (such as dioxins andmetals). Processes that degradewaters include habitat modification(such as destruction of streamsidevegetation) and hydrologic modifi-cation (such as flow reduction).Indicators of water quality degrada-tion include physical, chemical, andbiological parameters. Examples ofbiological parameters includespecies diversity and abundance.Examples of physical and chemicalparameters include pH, turbidity,and temperature. Following are

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 jurisdictions

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

■ 5,521 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.

The National Water QualityMonitoring Council

In 1992, the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring WaterQuality (ITFM) convened to prepare a strategy for improving waterquality monitoring nationwide. The ITFM was a Federal/State partner-ship of 10 Federal agencies, 9 State and Interstate agencies, and 1American Indian Tribe. The EPA chaired the ITFM with the USGS asvice chair and Executive Secretariat as part of their Water InformationCoordination Program pursuant to OMB memo 92-01.

The mission of the ITFM was to develop and aid implementationof a national strategic plan to achieve effective collection, interpreta-tion, and presentation of water quality data and to improve the avail-ability of existing information for decisionmaking at all levels of gov-ernment and the private sector. A permanent successor to the ITFM,the National Monitoring Council provides 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 National Monitoring Council is also producing products thatcan be used by monitoring programs nationwide, such as an outlinefor a recommended monitoring program, environmental indicatorselection criteria, and a matrix of indicators to support assessment of State and Tribal designated uses.

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

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

9

descriptions of the effects of the pol-lutants and processes most com-monly identified in rivers, lakes,estuaries, coastal waters, wetlands,and ground water.

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) areadapted to low oxygen conditions,but most desirable fish species (suchas trout and salmon) suffer if dis-solved oxygen concentrations fallbelow 3 to 4 mg/L (3 to 4 milli-grams of oxygen dissolved in 1 literof water, or 3 to 4 parts of oxygenper million parts of water). Larvaeand juvenile fish are more sensitiveand require even higher concentra-tions 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 cansuffocate adult fish or reduce theirreproductive survival by suffocatingsensitive eggs and larvae or canstarve fish by killing aquatic insectlarvae and other prey. Low dissolvedoxygen concentrations also favoranaerobic bacterial activity that pro-duces noxious gases or foul odorsoften associated with pollutedwaterbodies.

Oxygen concentrations in thewater column fluctuate under natu-ral conditions, but severe oxygen

from chemical reactions that do notinvolve bacteria. Some pollutantstrigger chemical reactions that placea chemical oxygen demand onreceiving 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 cleanwaters because warm water cannothold as much oxygen as cold water.Warm conditions further aggravateoxygen depletion by stimulatingbacterial activity and respiration infish, which consume oxygen.Removal of streamside vegetationeliminates shade, thereby raisingwater temperatures, and acceleratesrunoff of organic debris. Under suchconditions, minor additions ofpollution-containing organic materi-als can severely deplete oxygen.

NutrientsNutrients are essential building

blocks for healthy aquatic communi-ties, but excess nutrients (especiallynitrogen and phosphorus com-pounds) overstimulate the growthof aquatic weeds and algae. Exces-sive growth of these organisms, in

depletion usually results fromhuman activities that introduce largequantities of biodegradable organicmaterials into surface waters.Biodegradable organic materialscontain plant, fish, or animal matter.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-contain-ing organic wastes provide a contin-uous glut of food for the bacteria,which accelerates bacterial activityand population growth. In pollutedwaters, bacterial consumption ofoxygen can rapidly outpace oxygenreplenishment from the atmosphereand photosynthesis performed byalgae and aquatic plants. The resultis a net decline in oxygen concen-trations 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 also result

Table 2. Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment

Source: Based on 1996 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories,Commissions, and the District of Columbia.

Rank Rivers Lakes Estuaries

1 Siltation Nutrients Nutrients

2 Nutrients Metals Bacteria

3 Bacteria Siltation Priority ToxicOrganic Chemicals

4 Oxygen-Depleting Oxygen-Depleting Oxygen-DepletingSubstances Substances Substances

5 Pesticides Noxious Aquatic Plants Oil and Grease

10

Suza

nne

Ung

er, C

hape

l Hill

, NC

turn, can clog navigable waters,interfere with swimming and boat-ing, outcompete native submergedaquatic vegetation (SAV), and, withexcessive decomposition, lead tooxygen depletion. Oxygen concen-trations can fluctuate daily duringalgal blooms, rising during the dayas algae perform photosynthesis,and falling at night as algae contin-ue to respire, which consumesoxygen. Beneficial bacteria alsoconsume oxygen as they decom-pose the abundant organic foodsupply 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. Very high 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.

carry other pollutants into water-bodies. Nutrients and toxic chemi-cals may attach to sediment parti-cles on land and ride the particlesinto surface waters where the pollut-ants may settle with the sediment ordetach and become soluble in thewater column.

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 organisms

Sedimentation and SiltationIn a water quality context,

sedimentation usually refers to soilparticles that enter the water col-umn from eroding land. Sedimentconsists of particles of all sizes,including fine clay particles, silt,sand, and gravel. Water qualitymanagers use the term “siltation” todescribe the suspension and deposi-tion of small sediment particles inwaterbodies.

Sedimentation and siltation canseverely alter aquatic communities.Sediment may clog and abrade fishgills, suffocate eggs and aquaticinsect larvae on the bottom, and fill in the pore space betweenbottom cobbles where fish lay eggs.Suspended silt and sediment inter-fere with recreational activities andaesthetic enjoyment at waterbodiesby reducing water clarity and fillingin waterbodies. Sediment may also

11

Paul

Kaz

yac,

Mar

ylan

d D

epar

tmen

t of

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es

may enter waters through a numberof routes, including inadequatelytreated sewage, stormwater drains,septic systems, runoff from livestockpens, and sewage dumped over-board from recreational boats.Because it is impossible to testwaters 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 andaccumulate in the environmentbecause they do not readily breakdown in natural ecosystems. Manyof these compounds cause cancer inpeople 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 distributionof metals in the environment. Inmost reported cases of metals con-tamination, high concentrations of

Habitat Modification/Hydrologic Modification

Habitat modifications includeactivities in the landscape, on shore,and in waterbodies that alter thephysical structure of aquatic ecosys-tems and have adverse impacts onaquatic life. Examples of habitatmodifications to streams include:

■ Removal of streamside vegetationthat 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.

metals appear in fish tissues ratherthan the water column because themetals accumulate in greaterconcentrations in predators near thetop of the food chain.

pHAcidity, the concentration of

hydrogen ions, drives many chemi-cal reactions in living organisms. Thestandard measure of acidity is pH,and a pH value of 7 represents aneutral 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.

12

origins. Nonpoint sources includeurban runoff, agricultural runoff,and atmospheric deposition of con-taminants in air pollution. Habitatalterations, such as hydromodifica-tion, dredging, and streambankdestabilization, can also degradewater quality.

Throughout this document, EPArates the significance of causes andsources of pollution by the percent-age of impaired waters impacted by each individual cause or source(obtained from the Section 305(b)reports submitted by the States,Tribes, and other jurisdictions). Notethat the cause and source rankingsdo not describe the condition of allwaters in the United States becausethe States identify the causes andsources degrading some of theirimpaired waters, which are a smallsubset of surveyed waters, whichare a subset of the Nation’s totalwaters. For example, the Statesidentified sources degrading someof the 248,028 impaired river miles,which represent 36% of the sur-veyed river miles and only 7% ofthe Nation’s total stream miles.

extraction, processing, or transportor leaked from underground storagetanks.

Sources of Water Pollution

Sources of impairment gener-ate the pollutants that violate usesupport criteria (Table 3). Pointsources discharge pollutants directly into surface waters from aconveyance. Point sources includeindustrial facilities, municipalsewage treatment plants, andcombined sewer overflows.Nonpoint sources deliver pollutantsto surface waters from diffuse

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 during

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 Sewer Single facilities that treat both storm water and sanitary sewage,Overflows (CSOs) 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, and other paved areas.

Agricultural Crop production, pastures, rangeland, feedlots, animaloperations

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, flow regulationModification

Habitat Removal of riparian vegetation, streambank modification,Modification drainage/filling of wetlands

13

“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)

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, forestry activ-ities, 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 in soils thatleach into surface and groundwaters

apparent sources degrading water-bodies. Local management prioritiesmay focus monitoring budgets onother water quality issues, such asidentification of contaminated fishpopulations that pose a humanhealth risk. Management prioritiesmay also direct monitoring effortsto larger waterbodies and overlooksources impairing smaller waterbod-ies. As a result, the States, Tribes,and other jurisdictions do not asso-ciate every impacted waterbodywith a source of impairment in their305(b) reports, and the summarycause and source information pre-sented in this report applies exclu-sively to a subset of the Nation’simpaired 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.

With so many potential sourcesof pollution, it is difficult and expen-sive for States, Tribes, and otherjurisdictions to identify specificsources responsible for water qualityimpairments. Many States and otherjurisdictions lack funding for moni-toring to identify all but the most

Rank Rivers Lakes Estuaries

1 Agriculture Agriculture Industrial Discharges

2 Municipal Point Unspecified Urban Runoff/Sources Nonpoint Sources Storm Sewers

3 Hydrologic Atmospheric Municipal PointModification Deposition Sources

4 Habitat Urban Runoff/ Upstream SourcesModification Storm Sewers

5 Resource Municipal Point AgricultureExtraction Sources

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


14

Figure 2. River Miles Surveyed

Total rivers = 3.6 million milesTotal surveyed = 693,905 miles

19% Surveyed

81% Not Surveyed

Figure 3. Levels of Overall SummarySupport – Rivers

Good(Fully Supporting All Uses)56%

Impaired(Impaired for Oneor More Uses)36%

Not Attainable<1%

Source: Based on 1996 State Section 305(b)reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories, Commissions, and the District of Columbia.

Good(Threatened for Oneor More Uses)8%

Geo

rgia

Min

nich

, Dur

ham

, NC

Rivers and Streams

Rivers and streams are charac-terized by flow. Perennial rivers andstreams flow continuously, all yearround. Nonperennial rivers andstreams stop flowing for some peri-od of time, usually due to dryconditions or upstream withdrawals.Many rivers and streams originate innonperennial headwaters that flowonly during snowmelt or heavyshowers. Nonperennial streamsprovide critical habitats for nonfishspecies, such as amphibians anddragonflies, as well as safe havensfor juvenile fish to escape frompredation 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, in turn,affects the availability of dissolvedoxygen in the water column for fishand other aquatic organisms.

Overall Water QualityFor the 1996 Report, 54 States,

Territories, Tribes, Commissions, andthe District of Columbia surveyed693,905 miles (19%) of theNation’s total 3.6 million miles ofrivers and streams (Figure 2). Thesurveyed rivers and streams repre-sent 53% 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 information tocover a greater portion of theNation’s rivers and streams.

Altogether, the States and Tribessurveyed 78,099 more river miles in1996 than in 1994. Although mostStates surveyed about the samenumber of river miles in bothreporting cycles, Illinois, Maryland,North Dakota, and Tennessee col-lectively account for an increase ofover 75,000 surveyed river miles.Since 1994, Illinois, North Dakota,and Tennessee have refined theirstream estimates, increasing themileages associated with surveyedstreams.

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

15

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

■ Animal Operations – generallylivestock facilities other than largecattle feedlot operations.

■ 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 operations.

Many States reported declinesin pollution from sewage treatment

Agriculture is the leadingsource of impairment in the Nation’s rivers,

contributing to impairmentof 25% of the surveyed

river miles.

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 35,087 miles) because popula-tion growth increases the burden on our municipal facilities.

Hydrologic modifications andhabitat alterations are a growingconcern to the States. Hydrologicmodifications include activities thatalter the flow of water in a stream,

Of the Nation’s 693,905surveyed river miles, the States,Tribes, and other jurisdictions foundthat 64% have good water quality.Of these waters, 56% fully supporttheir designated uses, and an addi-tional 8% support uses but arethreatened and may becomeimpaired if pollution control actionsare not taken (Figure 3). Some formof pollution or habitat degradationprevents the remaining 36%(248,028 miles) of the surveyedriver miles from fully supporting ahealthy aquatic community orhuman activities all year round.

What Is Polluting OurRivers and Streams?

The States and Tribes reportthat siltation, composed of tiny soilparticles, remains one of the mostwidespread pollutants impactingrivers and streams, impairing126,763 river miles (18% ofsurveyed river miles (Figure 4).

Siltation is the most widespread

pollutant in rivers andstreams, affecting 18% of the surveyed 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, theStates and Tribes also reported thatnutrients, bacteria, oxygen-deplet-ing substances, habitat alterations,

and metals impact more miles ofrivers and streams than other pollut-ants and processes. Often, severalpollutants and processes impact asingle river segment. For example, aprocess, such as removal of shore-line vegetation, may accelerateerosion of sediment and nutrientsinto 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 173,629 rivermiles (25% of the surveyed rivermiles) in 50 States and Tribes.

Twenty-four States reported thesize of rivers impacted by specifictypes of 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 by theapplication of fertilizers or pesticides,although managers sometimesmodify plant species to a limitedextent.

■ Pastureland – land upon which a crop (such as alfalfa) is raised tofeed animals, either by grazing the animals among the crops orharvesting the crops.

16

such as channelization, dewatering,and damming of streams. Habitatalterations include removal ofstreamside vegetation that protectsthe stream from high temperaturesand 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 thatresource extraction impairs 33,051river miles (5% of the surveyedrivers), and urban runoff and stormsewers impair 32,637 river miles(5% of the surveyed rivers).

The States, Tribes, and otherjurisdictions also report that “natural” 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.

18Siltation

Total surveyed = 693,905 miles

NotSurveyed

82%

Surveyed 19%

Total rivers = 3.6 million miles

Good(12%)

Impaired(7%)

Not Surveyed81%

Leading Pollutants/Stressors

Percent of Surveyed River Miles

Surveyed %

12

7

7

10

7

Suspended Solids

Habitat Alterations

Pesticides

Oxygen-Depleting Substances

Bacteria

0 5 10 15

Leading Sources

25

5

5

5

3

5

5

0 5 10 15 20 25

Removal of Streamside Veg.

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers

Resource Extraction

Habitat Modification

Hydromodification

Municipal Point Sources

Agriculture


20 25

14Nutrients

Surveyed %

6Metals

3Industrial Point Sources

Based on 1996 State Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, Territories, Commissions,and the District of Columbia.

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may impair a river segment.

Figure 4. Surveyed River Miles: Pollutants and Sources

17

Gre

g D

espo

poul

os, R

alei

gh, N

C

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 on next page). Theeutrophication process alters basiclake characteristics such as depth,biological productivity, oxygen lev-els, and water clarity. Eutrophicationis commonly defined by a series oftrophic states as described in thesidebar.

Overall Water QualityForty-five States, Tribes, and

other jurisdictions surveyed overalluse support in more than 16.8 mil-lion lake acres representing 40% ofthe approximately 41.7 million totalacres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirsin the Nation (Figure 5). For 1996,the States surveyed about 300,000fewer lake acres than in 1994.

The number of surveyed lakeacres declined because severalStates faced funding constraints that limited the number of lakessampled.

The States and Tribes reportedthat 61% of their surveyed 16.8million lake acres have good waterquality. Waters with good qualityinclude 51% of the surveyed lakeacres fully supporting uses and 10%of the surveyed lake acres that arethreatened and might deteriorate ifwe fail to manage potential sourcesof pollution (Figure 6). Some formof pollution or habitat degradationimpairs the remaining 39% of thesurveyed lake acres.

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.

The States and Puerto Ricoidentified more lake acres pollutedby nutrients and metals than otherpollutants or processes (Figure 7). The States and Puerto Ricoreported that metals and extra nutri-ents pollute 3.3 million lake acres(51% of the impaired lake acres).Healthy lake ecosystems containnutrients in small quantities, butextra inputs of nutrients fromhuman activities unbalance lakeecosystems. States consistentlyreport metals as a major cause ofimpairment to lakes. This is mainly

Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs

Figure 5. Lake Acres Surveyed

Total lakes = 41.7 million acresTotal surveyed = 16.8 million acres

40% Surveyed

60% Not Surveyed

Figure 6. Levels of Summary UseSupport – Lakes



Not Attainable<1%



18

due to the widespread detection ofmercury in fish tissue samples.States are actively studying theextent of the mercury problem,which is complex because it involvestransport from power-generatingfacilities and other sources.

In addition to nutrients andmetals, the States, Puerto Rico, andthe District of Columbia report thatsiltation pollutes 1.6 million lakeacres (10% of the surveyed lakeacres), enrichment by organic

Thirty-seven States also sur-veyed trophic status, which is asso-ciated with nutrient enrichment, in8,951 of their lakes. Nutrient enrich-ment tends to increase the propor-tion of lakes in the eutrophic andhypereutrophic categories. TheseStates reported that 16% of thelakes they surveyed for trophicstatus were oligotrophic, 38% were

wastes that deplete oxygen impacts1.4 million lake acres (8% of thesurveyed lake acres), and noxiousaquatic plants impact 1.0 millionacres (6% of the surveyed lakeacres).

States reported more impairments due to metals and nutrients

than other pollutants.

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. EighteenStates reported the results oflake acidification assessments.These States assessed pH (ameasure of acidity) at 5,269lakes and detected acidic condi-tions in 194 lakes and a threat ofacidic conditions in 1,087 lakes.Most of the States that assessedacidic conditions are located inthe Northeast, upper Midwest,and the South.

Only 13 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, Mary-land, Oklahoma, Tennessee, andWest Virginia reported that acidmine drainage resulted in acidiclake conditions or threatenedlakes with the potential togenerate acidic conditions.

19

mesotrophic, 36% were eutrophic,9% were hypereutrophic, and lessthan 1% were dystrophic. Thisinformation may not be representa-tive of national lake conditionsbecause States often assess lakes inresponse to a problem or publiccomplaint or because of their easyaccessibility. It is likely that moreremote lakes—which are probablyless impaired—are underrepresentedin these assessments.


Forty-one States and PuertoRico reported sources of pollution insome 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 interfere withpublic use of 3.2 million lake acres(19% of the surveyed lake acres).

Agriculture is the leadingsource of impairment in

lakes, affecting 19% of surveyed lake acres.

The States and Puerto Rico alsoreported that unspecified nonpointsources pollute 1.6 million lake acres(9% of the surveyed lake acres),atmospheric deposition of pollutantsimpairs 1.4 million lake acres (8% of the surveyed lake acres), urbanrunoff and storm sewers pollute 1.4 million lake acres (8% of thesurveyed lake acres), municipal

Total surveyed = 16.8 million acres

Surveyed 40%

Total lakes = 41.7 million acres

Good(61%)

Impaired(39%)

Not Surveyed60%

Leading Pollutants/Stressors Surveyed %

Leading Sources

9Unspecified Nonpoint Sources

19

8


Agriculture

Percent of Surveyed Lake Acres

8Atmospheric Deposition

5Hydromodification

7

4

0 5 10 15 20



20

20

10

5

5

8

6

Total Toxics

Suspended Solids

Noxious Aquatic Plants


Siltation

Metals

Nutrients

0 5 10 15 20

25

25

Surveyed %

4

Construction

Land Disposal


Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may impair a lake.

Figure 7. Surveyed Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources

20

Ed C

arne

y, K

ansa

s D

epar

tmen

t of

Hea

lth a

nd E

nviro

nmen

t

sewage treatment plants pollute 1.2 million lake acres (7% of thesurveyed lake acres), and hydrologicmodifications degrade 924,000 lakeacres (5% of the surveyed lakeacres). Many more States reportedlake degradation from atmosphericdeposition in 1996 than in pastreporting cycles. This is due, in part,to a growing awareness of themagnitude of the atmosphericdeposition problem.

The States and Puerto Rico list-ed numerous sources that impactseveral hundred thousand lakeacres, including land disposal ofwastes, construction, industrial pointsources, onsite wastewater systems(including septic tanks), forestryactivities, habitat modification, flowregulation, contaminated sedi-ments, highway maintenance andrunoff, resource extraction, andcombined sewer overflows.

Sam Baskir, 1st grade, Estes Hills Elementary, Chapel Hill, NC

21

John

The

ilgar

d, B

ynum

, NC

The Great Lakes contain one-fifth of the world’s fresh surfacewater and are stressed by a widerange of pollution sources, includingair pollution. Many of the pollutantsthat reach the Great Lakes remain inthe system indefinitely because theGreat Lakes are a relatively closedwater system with few natural out-lets. Despite dramatic declines inthe occurrence of algal blooms, fishkills, and localized “dead” zonesdepleted of oxygen, less visibleproblems continue to degrade theGreat Lakes.

Overall Water QualityThe States surveyed 94% of the

Great Lakes shoreline miles for 1996and reported that fish consumptionadvisories and aquatic life concernsare the dominant water qualityproblems, overall, in the Great Lakes(Figure 8). The States reported thatmost of the Great Lakes nearshorewaters are safe for swimming andother recreational activities and canbe used as a source of drinkingwater with normal treatment.However, only 2% of the surveyednearshore waters fully supportdesignated uses, and 1% support alluses but are threatened for one ormore uses (Figure 9). About 97% ofthe surveyed waters do not fullysupport designated uses becausefish consumption advisories areposted throughout the nearshorewaters of the Great Lakes and waterquality conditions are unfavorablefor supporting aquatic life in manycases. Aquatic life impacts resultfrom persistent toxic pollutant bur-dens in birds, habitat degradationand destruction, and competition

The Great Lakes

Figure 8. Great Lakes Shore Miles Surveyed

Total Great Lakes = 5,521 milesTotal surveyed = 5,186 miles

94% Surveyed

6% Not Surveyed

Figure 9. Levels of Summary UseSupport – Great Lakes



Not Attainable<1%



22

and predation by nonnative speciessuch as the zebra mussel and thesea 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 impact 32%of the surveyed Great Lakes shore-line miles. Other leading causes ofimpairment include pesticides,affecting 21%; nonpriority organicchemicals, affecting 20%; nutrients,affecting 7%; metals, affecting 6%;and oxygen-depleting substances,affecting 6% (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources

31

20

20

6

6

6Oxygen-Depleting Substances

Metals

Nutrients

Nonpriority Organic Chemicals

Pesticides

Priority Toxic Organic Chemicals

0 5 10 15 20 25

20

20

15

4

9

6


Other Point Sources

Unspecified NPS

Land Disposal of Wastes

Contaminated Sediment

Discontinued Discharges from Pipes

Atmospheric Deposition

0 20

6

5 10 15


Surveyed 94%

Total shoreline = 5,521 miles

Impaired

Not Surveyed6%

Leading Pollutants Surveyed %

Leading Sources

Percent of Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline

Percent of Surveyed Great Lakes Shoreline

30 35

Good

Surveyed %


23

Barr

y Bu

rgan

, U.S

. EPA


Only three 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 atmosphericdeposition and discontinued dis-charges as a source of pollutantscontaminating all 1,017 of theirsurveyed shoreline miles. Wisconsinalso identified smaller areasimpacted by contaminated sedi-ments, nonpoint sources, industrialand municipal discharges, agricul-ture, urban runoff and stormsewers, combined sewer overflows,and land disposal of waste.

■ Ohio reports that nonpointsources pollute 86 miles of its 236miles of shoreline, contaminatedsediment impacts 33 miles, andland disposal of waste impacts 24 miles of shoreline.

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

24

©M

eg T

urvi

lle-H

eitz

, Mad

ison,

Wi,

1996

Estuaries are areas partially sur-rounded by land where rivers meetthe sea. They are characterized byvarying degrees of salinity, complexwater movements affected by oceantides and river currents, and highturbidity levels. They are also highlyproductive ecosystems with a rangeof 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 the par-ticularly 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-three coastal States and

jurisdictions surveyed 72% of theNation’s total estuarine waters in1996 (Figure 11). The States and other jurisdictions reported that62% of the surveyed estuarinewaters have good water quality thatfully supports designated uses(Figure 12). Of these waters, 4% are threatened and might dete-riorate if we fail to manage potentialsources of pollution. Some form ofpollution or habitat degradationimpairs the remaining 38% of thesurveyed estuarine waters.

What Is Polluting Our Estuaries?

The States identified moresquare miles of estuarine waters pol-luted by nutrients than any otherpollutant or process (Figure 13).Eleven States reported that extranutrients pollute 6,254 square milesof estuarine waters (57% of theimpaired estuarine waters). As inlakes, extra inputs of nutrients fromhuman activities destabilize estuar-ine ecosystems.

Twenty-one States reported thatbacteria pollute 4,634 square milesof estuarine waters (22% of theimpaired estuarine waters). Bacteriaprovide evidence that an estuary iscontaminated with sewage that maycontain numerous viruses and bacte-ria that cause illness in people.

Estuaries

Figure 11. Estuary Square Miles Surveyed

Total estuaries = 39,839 square milesTotal surveyed = 28,819 square miles

72% Surveyed

28% Not Surveyed

Figure 12. Levels of Summary UseSupport – Estuaries



Not Attainable<1%



25

The States also report that prior-ity organic toxic chemicals pollute4,398 square miles (15% of thesurveyed estuarine waters); oxygendepletion from organic wastesimpacts 3,586 square miles (12% of the surveyed estuarine waters);oil and grease pollute 2,170 squaremiles (8% of the surveyed estuarinewaters); salinity, total dissolvedsolids, and/or chlorine impact 1,944square miles (7% of the surveyedestuarine waters); and habitat alter-ations degrade 1,586 square miles(6% of the surveyed estuarinewaters).


Twenty-one States reported thatindustrial discharges are the mostwidespread source of pollution inthe Nation’s surveyed estuarinewaters. Pollutants in industrialdischarge degrade aquatic life orinterfere with public use of 6,145square miles of estuarine waters(21% of the surveyed estuarinewaters) (Figure 13).

Sydney Locker, Quaker Ridge School, Scarsdale, NY

Total surveyed = 28,819 square miles

Surveyed 72%

Total estuaries = 39,839 square miles

Good(45%)

Impaired(28%)

Not Surveyed28%


Leading Sources

Salinity 7

22

16

15

12

8Oil and Grease



Bacteria

Nutrients

0 5 10 15 20Percent of Surveyed Estuarine

Square Miles

6Habitat Alterations

Percent of Surveyed EstuarineSquare Miles

21

18

17

8

11

10

0 5 10 15 20

Combined Sewer Overflows

Agriculture

Industrial Discharges



25

25

Land Disposal of Wastes 7

Surveyed %

Upstream Sources

Figure 13. Surveyed Estuaries: Pollutants and Sources


Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may impair an estuary.

26

The States also reported thaturban runoff and storm sewerspollute 5,099 square miles of estuar-ine waters (18% of the surveyedestuarine waters), municipal

Dana Soady, 4th Grade, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC

discharges pollute 4,874 squaremiles of estuarine waters (17% ofthe surveyed estuarine waters), andupstream sources pollute 3,295square miles (11% of the surveyed

estuarine waters). Urban sourcescontribute more to the degradationof estuarine waters than agriculturebecause urban centers are locatedadjacent to most major estuaries.

27

Although the oceans are expan-sive, they are vulnerable to pollutionfrom numerous sources, includingcity storm sewers, ocean outfallsfrom sewage treatment plants,overboard disposal of debris andsewage, 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 QualityTen of the 27 coastal States and

Territories surveyed only 6% of theNation’s estimated 58,585 miles ofocean coastline (Figure 14). Most ofthe surveyed waters (3,085 miles, or87%) have good quality that sup-ports a healthy aquatic communityand public activities (Figure 15). Of these waters, 315 miles (9%of the surveyed shoreline) arethreatened and may deteriorate inthe future. Some form of pollution

or habitat degradation impairs theremaining 13% of the surveyedshoreline (467 miles).

Only six of the 27 coastal Statesidentified pollutants and sources ofpollutants degrading ocean shore-line waters. General conclusionscannot be drawn from this limitedsource of information. The six Statesidentified impacts in their oceanshoreline waters from bacteria,turbidity, nutrients, oxygen-depleting substances, suspendedsolids, acidity (pH), oil and grease,and metals. The six States reportedthat urban runoff and storm sewers,land disposal of wastes, septic sys-tems, municipal sewer discharges,industrial discharges, recreationalmarinas, and spillls and illegaldumping pollute their coastalshoreline waters.

Ocean Shoreline Waters

Figure 14. Ocean Shoreline WatersSurveyed

Total ocean shore = 58,585 miles including Alaska’s shorelineTotal surveyed = 3,651 miles

6% Surveyed

94% Not Surveyed

Figure 15. Levels of Summary UseSupport – Ocean ShorelineWaters



Not Attainable0%


Note: Percentages may not add up to 100%due to rounding.


Paul

Goe

tz, C

ary,

NC

28

Sam

Bec

ker,

Sten

nis,

MS

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

Wetlands are now recognized assome 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 potholes,cypress-gum swamps, and south-western 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,

urban areas are especially valuablefor 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 on

and 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 vege-tation help slow the speed of floodwaters. This action, combined withwater storage, can lower floodheights and reduce the water’serosive potential. In agriculturalareas, wetlands can help reduce thelikelihood of flood damage to crops.Wetlands within and upstream of

Wetlands

29

freshwater and saltwater fishing. It isestimated that 71% of commerciallyvaluable fish and shellfish dependdirectly or indirectly on coastalwetlands.

Overall Water QualityThe States, Tribes, and other

jurisdictions are making progress indeveloping specific designated usesand water quality standards for wet-lands, but many States and Tribesstill lack specific water quality crite-ria and monitoring programs forwetlands. Without criteria and mon-itoring data, most States and Tribescannot evaluate use support. Todate, only nine States and Tribesreported the designated use supportstatus for some of their wetlands.Only Kansas used quantitative dataas a basis for the use supportdecisions.

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 fewer datato quantify the extent of pollutantsdegrading wetlands and the sourcesof these pollutants. Although most

wetlands drained and converted tofarmland and urban development.Today, less than half of our originalwetlands remain. The losses amountto an area equal to the size ofCalifornia. 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 percentage ofwetlands 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.

States cannot quantify wetlandsarea impacted by individual causesand sources of degradation, nineStates identified causes and sourcesknown to degrade wetlands integ-rity to some extent. These Stateslisted sediment and nutrients as themost widespread causes of degrada-tion impacting wetlands, followedby draining and pesticides (Figure16). Agriculture and hydrologicmodifications topped the list ofsources degrading wetlands, fol-lowed by urban runoff, draining,and construction (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 original

Sedimentation/Siltation

Nutrients

Filling and Draining

Pesticides

Flow Alterations

Habitat Alterations

Metals

Salinity/TSS/Chlorides

6

6

5

5

5

5

4

4

0 4 8 10Number of States Reporting

TotalCauses

Figure 16. Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity (10 States Reporting)

2 6


30

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 wetlandswere lost on non-Federal landsbetween 1982 and 1992 for a yearlyloss estimate of 70,000 to 90,000acres. This net loss is the result ofgross losses of 1,561,300 acres ofwetlands 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

public interest and support for wet-lands protection; and (5) implemen-tation of wetlands restoration pro-grams at the Federal, State, andlocal level.

Twelve States listed sources ofrecent wetlands losses in their 1996305(b) reports. Residential develop-ment and urban growth was citedas the leading source of currentlosses. Other losses were due toagriculture; construction of roads,highways, and bridges; hydrologicmodifications; channelization; andindustrial development. In additionto human activities, a few Statesalso reported that natural sources,such as 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 wetlandsresource 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, 1990, and 1996Farm Bills that denied crop subsidybenefits to farm operators who con-verted wetlands to cropland after1985; (3) presence of the CWASection 404 permit programs aswell as development of Statemanagement programs; (4) greater

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

1-800-832-7828.

Number of States Reporting

9

7

5

8

4


Hydrologic Modification

Natural

Urban Runoff

Agriculture

4

0 4 6 8

Construction

TotalSources

4Dredging

Figure 17. Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity (9 States Reporting)

4Resource Extraction

2

Livestock Grazing

91 5 73

Dorothy Scott, 4th Grade, Burton GeoWorld,Durham, NC


31

Jeff

Reyn

olds

, Ral

eigh

, NC

Although 75% percent of theearth's surface is covered by water,only 3% is fresh water available forour use. It has been estimated thatmore than 90% of the world's freshwater reserve is stored in the earthas ground water. Ground water—water found in natural undergroundrock formations called aquifers—is avital national resource that is usedfor myriad purposes. Unfortunately,this resource is vulnerable tocontamination, and ground watercontaminant problems are beingreported throughout the country.

To ascertain the extent to whichour Nation’s ground water resourceshave been impacted by humanactivities, Section 106(e) of theClean Water Act requests that eachState monitor ground water qualityand report the findings to Congressin their 305(b) State Water QualityReports. Recognizing that an accu-rate representation of our Nation’sambient ground water quality con-ditions required developing guide-lines that would ultimately yieldquantitative data, EPA, in partner-ship with interested States, devel-oped new guidelines for assessingground water quality. It was theseguidelines that were used by Statesfor reporting the 1996 305(b)ground water data.

Despite variations in reportingstyle, the 1996 305(b) State WaterQuality Reports represent a first stepin improving the assessment ofState ambient ground water quality.Forty States, one Territory, and twoTribes used the new guidelines toassess and report ground waterquality data. For the first time,States provided quantitative datadescribing ground water quality.

resources were indeed vulnerable to contamination resulting fromhuman activities. The potential for acontaminant to affect ground waterquality is dependent upon its beingintroduced to the environment andits ability to migrate through theoverlying soils to the underlyingground water resource.

Ground water contaminationcan occur as relatively well definedplumes emanating from specificsources such as spills, landfills, wastelagoons, and/or industrial facilities.Contamination can also occur as ageneral deterioration of groundwater quality over a wide area dueto diffuse nonpoint sources such asagricultural fertilizer and pesticideapplications, septic systems, urbanrunoff, leaking sewer networks,application of lawn chemicals, high-way deicing materials, animal feed-lots, salvage yards, and miningactivities. Ground water qualitydegradation from diffuse nonpointsources affects large areas, making itdifficult to specify the exact sourceof the contamination.

Ground water contamination ismost common in highly developedareas, agricultural areas, and indus-trial complexes. Frequently groundwater contamination is discoveredlong after it has occurred. Onereason for this is the slow move-ment of ground water throughaquifers, sometimes on the order ofless than an inch per day. Contam-inants in the ground water do notmix or spread quickly, but remainconcentrated in slow-movingplumes that may persist for manyyears. This often results in a delay inthe detection of ground watercontamination. In some cases,contaminants introduced into the

Furthermore, States provided quan-titative information pertaining tocontamination sources that haveimpacted ground water quality.

Ground WaterContamination

Not too long ago, it wasthought that soil provided a protec-tive "filter" or "barrier" that immobi-lized the downward migration of

Ground water providesdrinking water for 51%

of the population.

contaminants released on the landsurface and prevented groundwater resources from being adverse-ly impacted or contaminated. Thediscovery of pesticides and othercontaminants in ground waterdemonstrated that ground water

Ground Water

32

subsurface more than 10 years agoare only now being discovered.

Ground WaterContaminant Sources

As reported by States, it is evi-dent that ground water quality maybe adversely impacted by a varietyof potential contaminant sources. In1996, EPA requested each State toindicate the 10 top sources thatpotentially threaten their groundwater resources. The list was notconsidered comprehensive andStates added sources as was neces-sary based on State-specific con-cerns. Factors that were consideredby States in their selection includethe number of each type of sourcein the State, the location of the var-ious sources relative to groundwater used for drinking waterpurposes, the size of the populationat risk from contaminated drinkingwater, the risk posed to humanhealth and/or the environment fromreleases, hydrogeologic sensitivity(the ease with which contaminantsenter and travel through soil andreach aquifers), and the findings ofthe State’s ground water protectionstrategy and/or related studies.

Thirty-seven States providedinformation related to contaminantsources. Those most frequentlyreported by States include:

■ Leaking underground storagetanks. Leaking underground storagetanks (USTs) were cited as the high-est priority contaminant source ofconcern to States. The primary caus-es of leakage in USTs are faulty

installation and corrosion of tanksand pipelines. As of March 1996,more than 300,000 releases fromUSTs had been confirmed. EPAestimates that nationally 60% ofthese leaks have impacted groundwater quality, and, in some States,the percentage is as high as 90%.

■ Landfills. Landfills were cited byStates as the second highestcontaminant source of concern.Landfills are used to dispose of sani-tary (municipal) and industrialwastes. Municipal wastes, someindustrial wastes, and relatively inertsubstances such as plastics are dis-posed of in sanitary landfills. Com-mon materials that may be disposedof in industrial landfills include plas-tics, metals, fly ash, sludges, coke,tailings, waste pigment particles,low-level radioactive wastes, poly-propylene, wood, brick, cellulose,ceramics, synthetics, and other simi-lar substances. States indicated thatthe most common contaminantsassociated with landfills were metals,halogenated solvents, and petrole-um compounds. To a lesser extent,organic and inorganic pesticideswere also cited as a contaminant ofconcern.

■ Septic systems. Septic systemswere cited by 29 out of 37 States asa potential source of ground watercontamination. Ground water maybe contaminated by releases fromseptic systems when the systems arepoorly designed (tanks are installedin areas with inadequate soils orshallow depth to ground water),poorly constructed; have poor well

seals; are improperly used, located,or maintained; or are abandoned.Typical contaminants from domesticseptic systems include bacteria,nitrates, viruses, phosphates fromdetergents, and other chemicals thatmight originate from householdcleaners.

Ground Water Quality Assessments

Thirty-three States reported datasummarizing ground water quality.In total, data were reported for 162specific aquifers and other hydro-geologic settings. States used datafrom ambient monitoring networks,public water supply systems (PWSs),private and unregulated wells, andspecial studies. Nationally, moreStates reported data for nitrates,metals, volatile organic compounds(VOCs), and semivolatile organiccompounds (SVOCs) than any otherparameter grouping. Nitrates,metals, SVOCs, and VOCs generallyrepresent instances of ground waterdegradation resulting from humanactivities.

Due to the importance ofground water as a drinking waterresource, many of the aquifers thatwere evaluated for 1996 are used tosupply water for public and privateconsumption. The aquifers are alsoused for irrigation, commercial, live-stock, and industrial purposes. Ingeneral, water quality problemsaffected irrigation, commercial, live-stock, and industry uses less fre-quently than drinking water. Thismay reflect the high water qualitystandards set for drinking water.

33

John

The

ilgar

d, B

ynum

, NC

Although significant strides havebeen made in reducing the impactsof discrete pollutant sources, ouraquatic resources remain at riskfrom a combination of point sourcesand complex nonpoint sources,including air pollution. Since 1991,EPA has promoted the watershedprotection approach as a holisticframework for addressing complexpollution 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 watershedbecause water carries the effects of

support of the watershed protectionapproach. Since then, EPA’s waterprogram managers, under the direc-tion of the Watershed ManagementPolicy Committee, evaluated theirprograms 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 andbuild upon its experience withestablished place-based programs,such as the Chesapeake Bay Pro-gram and the Great Lakes NationalProgram to eliminate barriers to theapproach. These integrated pro-grams laid the foundation for theAgency’s shift toward comprehen-sive watershed management andcontinue to provide models forimplementing the “place-based”approach to environmentalproblem-solving.

human 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 EPA Assis-tant Administrator for Water, RobertPerciasepe, created the WatershedManagement Policy Committee tocoordinate the EPA water program’s

Water Quality Protection Programs

34

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, andcoastal waters is the Federal WaterPollution Control Act of 1972, com-monly known as the Clean WaterAct.

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 waterbodies.Standards consist of designatedbeneficial uses to be made ofthe water, criteria to protectthose uses, and antidegradationprovisions to protect existingwater quality.

Effluent guidelines – EPA devel-ops nationally consistent guide-lines limiting pollutants in dis-charges from industrial facilitiesand municipal sewage treat-ment plants. These guidelinesare then used in permits issuedto dischargers under theNational Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES)program. Additional controlsmay be required if receiving

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

■ Place-based focus – Resource management activities are directedwithin specific geographic 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. Water-shed initiatives also establish partnerships between Federal, State, andlocal agencies and nongovernment organizations with interests in thewatershed.

■ Environmental objectives – The stakeholders and partners identifyenvironmental objectives (such as “populations of striped bass willstabilize or increase”) rather than programmatic objectives (such as “the State 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 andpartners use sound scientific data and methods to identify and prioritizethe primary threats to human and ecosystem health within the water-shed. Consistent with the Agency’s mission, EPA views ecosystems as theinteractions 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 nongovernment organizations to maximize efficient use of limited resources.

35

waters are still affected by waterquality problems after permitlimits are met.

Total Maximum Daily Loads –The development of Total Maxi-mum Daily Loads, or TMDLs,establishes the link betweenwater quality standards andpoint/nonpoint source pollutioncontrol actions such as permitsor Best Management Practices(BMPs). A TMDL calculatesallowable loadings from thecontributing point and non-point sources to a given water-body and provides the quantita-tive basis for pollution reductionnecessary to meet water qualitystandards. States, Tribes, andother jurisdictions develop andimplement TMDLs for high-priority impaired or threatenedwaterbodies.

Permits and enforcement – Allindustrial and municipal facilitiesthat discharge wastewater musthave an NPDES permit and areresponsible for monitoring andreporting levels of pollutants intheir discharges. EPA issuesthese permits or can delegatethat permitting authority toqualifying States or other juris-dictions. The States, other quali-fied jurisdictions, and EPAinspect facilities to determine iftheir discharges comply withpermit limits. If dischargers arenot in compliance, enforcementaction is taken.

Loans – The Clean Water StateRevolving Fund (CW-SRF) is aninnovative water quality financ-ing program that is designed to

identified $138.4 billion inneeds over the next 20 years.EPA is currently working withthe States to set up theirdrinking water SRFs.

Grants – EPA provides Stateswith financial assistance to helpsupport many of their pollutioncontrol programs. The pro-grams funded include waterquality monitoring, permitting,and enforcement; nonpointsource; ground water; NationalEstuary Program; and wetlands.

Nonpoint source control – EPA provides program guid-ance, technical support, andfunding 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 establishedpollution control and preventionprograms for specific waterbodycategories, such as the Clean LakesProgram. Other statutes that alsoguide the development of waterquality protection programs include:

■ 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.

provide low-cost project financ-ing to solve important waterquality problems. The SRF pro-gram is made up of 51 state-level infrastructure funds (PuertoRico has one, too) that operatemuch like banks. These fundswere created by the 1987Amendments to the CleanWater Act and are intended toprovide permanent and inde-pendent sources of funding formunicipal sewage treatment,nonpoint source, and estuaryprojects. EPA and the States arecapitalizing or providing “seedmoney” to establish theserevolving funds. The goal is tocapitalize the 51 programs sothat they can provide in excessof $2 billion in loans for waterquality projects each year forthe foreseeable future. The CW-SRF is, by far, the most powerfulfinancial tool available to thewater quality program.

The 1996 Amendments tothe Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) created the newDrinking Water State RevolvingFund (DW-SRF) program. Theprimary purpose of this pro-gram is to upgrade drinkingwater infrastructure to facilitatecompliance with the SDWA.Congress has appropriated $2 billion to begin the capital-ization of this program. Thelong-term strategy is to con-tinue capitalization of this pro-gram so that the SRFs will beable to provide in excess of$500 million each year in assist-ance for priority drinking waterprojects. In January 1997, EPAreleased the first DrinkingWater Needs Survey, which

36

Jero

me

Pitt

, U.S

. EPA

, Reg

ion

9

■ The Resource Conservation andRecovery Act, which establishesState and EPA programs for groundwater and surface water protectionand cleanup and emphasizes pre-vention of releases through manage-ment standards in addition to otherwaste 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 topromote pollutant source reductionrather than focus on controllingpollutants after they enter theenvironment.

Protecting andRestoring Lakes

Since the 1980s, EPA hasencouraged States to develop lakeprojects with a watershed perspec-tive. This ensures that protectionand restoration activities are longterm and comprehensive. EPA offerssources of funding assistance for lakeprojects and also encourages Statesto develop their own independentmechanisms to provide resources fortheir lake management programs.

A good example of a State-based lakes initiative is the IllinoisConservation 2000 Clean Lakes pro-gram. Illinois’ system adopted majorfeatures of the Federal Clean Lakesprogram. The process leading to theConservation 2000 program can betraced back to legislative actions inthe late 1980s that set up the basicframework and identified agency

projects through Nonpoint Source319(h) grants included under StateNonpoint Source ManagementPrograms. Other EPA resources maybe available under provisions of thereauthorized Safe Drinking WaterAct, with its emphasis on sourcewater protection.

roles and responsibilities. The pro-gram now has assured ongoingfunding to support lake restorationprojects and to underwrite a varietyof technical support and educationalactivities.

At the Federal level, EPA offerssupport for watershed-oriented lake

37

Successful lake programs requirelocal stakeholder support and anawareness on the part of stake-holders of how to identify pollutionconcerns as well as knowledge ofappropriate lake protection andrestoration management measures.EPA provides support for a variety oflocal stakeholder outreach and edu-cation initiatives. A good example isthe Great American Secchi Dip-In,an event held for the past 4 years, inwhich volunteer lake and reservoirmonitoring programs from acrossthe country take a Secchi diskmeasurement on one day in a peri-od surrounding July 4th. Secchidisks are typically flat, black andwhite disks that are used to measurethe transparency of water. Transpar-ency is one indicator of the impactof human activity on lake waterquality.

demonstrate a likelihood of successin protecting candidate estuariesand provide evidence of institution-al, financial, and political commit-ment to solving estuarine problems.

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 andmanage natural resources in theestuarine basin. Each managementconference develops and initiatesimplementation of a Comprehen-sive Conservation and ManagementPlan (CCMP) to restore and protectthe estuary.

The NEP currently supports28 estuary projects.

The NEP integrates science andpolicy by bringing water qualitymanagers, elected officials, andstakeholders together with scientistsfrom government agencies, aca-demic institutions, and the privatesector. Because the NEP is not aresearch program, it relies heavilyon past and ongoing research ofother agencies and institutions tosupport development of CCMPs.

With the addition of sevenestuary sites in July of 1995, theNEP currently supports 28 estuaryprojects (see Figure 18). These 28estuaries are nationally significant intheir economic value as well as intheir ability to support living

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. TheNEP adopts a geographic or water-shed approach by planning andimplementing pollution abatementactivities for the estuary and itssurrounding land area as a whole.

The NEP embodies the ecosys-tem approach by building coali-tions, addressing multiple sources of contamination, pursuing habitatprotection as a pollution controlmechanism, and investigating cross-media transfer of pollutants from air and soil into specific estuarinewaters. Under the NEP, a Stategovernor nominates an estuary inhis or her State for participation inthe program. The State must

PRVI

Figure 18. Locations of National Estuary Program Sites

38

StateProgrammatic

Permits Others

General Permits Individual(streamlined permit review procedures) Permits

Nationwide Regional ProgrammaticPermits Permits Permits

• Cover 39 types of • Developed by COEactivities that the District Offices toCOE determines cover activities into have minimal a specified regionadverse impactson the environment

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 over-seeing Section 404 permit programsassumed by individual States. Todate, only two States (Michigan andNew Jersey) have assumed theSection 404 permit program fromthe COE. The COE and EPA shareresponsibility for enforcing Section404 requirements.

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 Fisheries

resources. The project sites alsorepresent 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.

Each of the 28 estuaries in theNEP is unique. Yet the estuariesshare common threats and stressors.Each estuary faces expandinghuman activity near its shores thatmay degrade water quality andhabitat. Eutrophication, toxic sub-stances (including metals), patho-gens, and changes to livingresources and habitats top the list ofproblems being addressed by NEPManagement Conferences.

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 1993 Wetlands PlanShortly after coming into

office, 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 improving Federalwetlands policy by

■ Streamlining wetlands permit-ting programs

■ Increasing cooperation with private landowners to protect and restore wetlands

■ Basing wetlands protection on good science and sound judgment

■ Increasing participation by States, Tribes, local govern-ments, and the public in wetlands protection.

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

39

Service), State agencies, and thepublic to comment. However, thevast majority of activities proposedin wetlands are covered by Section404 general permits. For example,in FY96, over 64,000 people appliedto the COE for a Section 404 per-mit. Eighty-five percent of theseapplications were covered by gener-al permits and were processed in anaverage of 14 days. It is estimatedthat another 90,000 activities arecovered by general permits that donot require notification of the COEat all.

General permits allow the COEto permit certain activities withoutperforming a separate individualpermit review. Some generalpermits require notification of theCOE before an activity begins. Thereare three 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.Under a programmatic generalpermit, the COE defers its permitdecision to the regulating entity but

guidance to States for the develop-ment of wetlands water qualitystandards. Water quality standardsconsist of designated beneficial uses,numeric criteria, narrative criteria,and antidegradation statements.Figure 19 indicates the State’sprogress in developing thesestandards.

Standards provide the founda-tion for a broad range of waterquality management activities underthe CWA including, but not limitedto, monitoring for the Section305(b) report, permitting underSections 402 and 404, water qualitycertification under Section 401, andthe control of nonpoint sourcepollution under Section 319.

States, Territories, and Tribes arewell 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, andthey are uniquely equipped to helpresolve local and regional conflicts

reserves 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 proposedin wetlands. Each SPGP is a uniquearrangement developed by a Stateand the COE to take advantage ofthe strengths of the individual Statewetlands program. Several Stateshave adopted comprehensive SPGPsthat replace many or all COE-issuednationwide general permits. SPGPssimplify the regulatory process andincrease State control over theirwetlands resources. Carefully devel-oped SPGPs can improve wetlandsprotection while reducing regulato-ry demands on landowners.

Water quality standards forwetlands ensure that the provisionsof CWA Section 303 that apply toother surface waters are also appliedto wetlands. In July 1990, EPA issued

Under DevelopmentProposed

In Place


30 States and Tribes Reporting

0 5

Antidegradation

Use Classification

Narrative Biocriteria

Numeric Biocriteria

Figure 19. Development of State Water Quality Standards for Wetlands

10 15 20

40

and identify the local economic andgeographic factors that may influ-ence wetlands protection.

Section 401 of the CWA givesStates and eligible American IndianTribes the authority to grant, condi-tion, or deny certification of feder-ally permitted or licensed activitiesthat 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 waterquality standards for wetlands orcodified regulations for implement-ing their 401 certification programinto State law. Now, most Statesreport that they use the Section 401 certification 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 Federal

■ In many cases, the States use theSection 401 certification process toadd conditions to Section 404permits that minimize the size ofwetlands 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 unimpactedwetlands to establish baselineconditions 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 jurisdictionswill continue to pursue new mecha-nisms for protecting wetlands thatrely less on regulatory tools.

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, as

permits or licenses, such as someground water withdrawals, are notcovered.

State/Tribal Wetlands Conserva-tion Plans (SWCPs) are strategiesthat integrate regulatory and coop-erative 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 reporting:

■ Most States have defined wet-lands as waters of the State, whichoffers general protection throughantidegradation clauses and desig-nated uses that apply to all watersof 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 401certification process relies heavily onantidegradation clauses to preventsignificant degradation of wetlands.

41

Paul

Goe

tz, C

ary,

NC

well as in other countries, andpollutants enter the lakes via multi-ple media (i.e., air, ground water,and surface water). The Interna-tional Joint Commission (IJC), estab-lished by the 1909 Boundary WatersTreaty, provides a framework for thecooperative management of theGreat Lakes. Representatives fromthe United States and Canada, theProvince of Ontario, and the eightStates bordering the Lakes sit on theIJC’s Water 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 activities within the UnitedStates at all government levels andworks with academia, industry, andnongovernment organizations toprotect and restore the lakes. TheGLNPO provides leadership throughits annual Great Lakes ProgramPriorities and Funding Guidance.The GLNPO also serves as a liaisonto the Canadian members of the IJCand the Canadian environmentalagencies.

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 desig-nated waterbodies around the GreatLakes that show symptoms of

substances. As part of the efforts toprotect Lake Superior, EPA, theStates, and Canada are implement-ing a virtual elimination initiative forLake Superior that seeks to eliminatenew contributions of critical pollut-ants, especially mercury.

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 GreatLakes System. The Act also requiresthe Great Lakes States to adopt pro-visions that are consistent with theEPA final guidance within 2 years ofEPA’s publication. In addition, IndianTribes authorized to administer anNPDES program in the Great LakesBasin must also adopt provisionsconsistent with EPA’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 from

serious water quality degradation.Most of the 42 Areas of Concern arelocated 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 since FY93. The GLNPOis targeting its grant dollars to sup-port projects that further the goal ofvirtual elimination of persistent toxic

42

over 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 was amilestone in EPA’s move towardincreasing stakeholder participationin the development of innovativeand comprehensive programs forprotecting and restoring our naturalresources.

The Chesapeake BayProgram

The Chesapeake Bay is an enor-mously complex and dynamic sys-tem of fish, waterfowl, and vegeta-tion in an estuary where salt waterfrom the Atlantic Ocean and freshwater from its many tributaries inthe 64,000-square-mile watershedcome together. The extremely shal-low and productive Bay presentsformidable challenges to the under-standing and management of thisgreat estuary. In many areas of theBay, water quality is not sufficient tosupport living resources year round.In the warmer months, large por-tions of the Bay contain little or nodissolved oxygen, which may causefish eggs and larvae to die. Thegrowth and reproduction of oysters,

Bay Commission; and EPA. TheChesapeake Executive Council,made up of the governors of Mary-land, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; themayor of the District of Columbia;the EPA administrator; and the chairof the Chesapeake Bay Commission,provides leadership for the BayProgram and establishes programpolicies to restore and protect theBay and its living resources.

The Bay Program has set itselfapart by adopting strong numericalgoals and commitments with dead-lines, and tracking progress with anextensive array of environmentalindicators. In the 1987 ChesapeakeBay Agreement, Chesapeake BayProgram partners set a goal toreduce the nutrients nitrogen andphosphorus entering the Bay by40% by the year 2000. In the 1992amendments to the Agreement,partners agreed to maintain the40% goal beyond the year 2000and to attack nutrients at theirsource—upstream in the tributaries.Recent agreements have outlined aregional focus to address toxicproblem areas, set specific goals andcommitments for federally ownedlands throughout the watershed,involved the 1,650 local govern-ments in the Bay restoration effort,and addressed land use manage-ment in the watershed, including ariparian buffer initiative.

Since its inception, the Chesa-peake Bay Program's highest priorityhas been the restoration of the Bay'sliving resources—its finfish, shellfish,Bay grasses, and other aquatic lifeand wildlife. Now, the Chesapeake isclearly on the upswing. Bay grasseshave increased by 70% since 1984,with recent population changessuggesting that many of these

clams, and other bottom-dwellinganimals are impaired. Adult fish findtheir habitat reduced and theirfeeding inhibited.

Many areas of the Bay also havecloudy water from excess sedimentin the water or an overgrowth ofalgae (stimulated by excessive nutri-ents in the water). Turbid watersblock the sunlight needed to sup-port the growth and survival of Baygrasses, also known as submergedaquatic vegetation (SAV). WithoutSAV, critical habitat for fish andcrabs is lost. Although there hasbeen a recent resurgence of SAV insome areas of the Bay, most areasstill do not support abundant popu-lations as they once did.

The main causes of the Bay’spoor water quality and aquatic habi-tat loss are elevated levels of thenutrients nitrogen and phosphorus.Both are natural fertilizers found inanimal wastes, soil, and even theatmosphere. These nutrients havealways existed in the Bay, but not atthe present elevated concentrations.When the Bay was surroundedprimarily by forests and wetlands,very little nitrogen and phosphorusran off the land into the water. Mostof it was absorbed or held in placeby the natural vegetation. As theuse of the land has changed andthe watershed’s population hasgrown, the amount of nutrientsentering the Bay has increasedtremendously.

The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional partnershipleading and directing the restorationof Chesapeake Bay since 1983. TheChesapeake Bay Program partnersinclude the States of Maryland,Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the Dis-trict of Columbia; the Chesapeake

43

populations may rebound if waterquality conditions are improved andmaintained. Striped bass popula-tions have reached historically highlevels and wild shad are increasingin numbers as hatchery-reared shadsuccessfully reproduce and theiroffspring make their runs back upinto tributaries. Bald eagles are alsoreturning to the Chesapeake Bay,with over 500 young produced in1996, up from only 63 young in1977.

Other improvements have alsobeen observed in the Bay. The BayProgram, through 1996, hasreopened 272 miles of fish spawn-ing habitat through its fish passageinitiative. According to the ToxicsRelease Inventory, chemical releasesin the Bay watershed have shown a 55% drop between 1988 and 1994, and Toxics of Concern havedeclined by 62% during the sameperiod.

In spite of near record-highflows in 3 of the past 4 years, mostof the Bay’s major rivers are runningcleaner than they were 10 yearsago. Phosphorus concentrationshave shown significant reductionsthroughout most of the Bay, andnitrogen levels have remainedsteady in spite of the high flows andpopulation increases. Overall, thesenutrient trends indicate that waterquality conditions in this importanttributary are improving basinwide.

Despite these promising trendsin nutrients, dissolved oxygen levelsare still low enough to cause severeimpacts and stressful conditions inthe mainstem of the Bay and severalof the larger tributaries. A long-termdecline in the abundance of thenative waterfowl is also of greatconcern. The necessary corrective

the changes such growth bringsabout in land use. However, theconcentrated restoration and man-agement effort begun 12 years agohas produced tangible results. Whentaken as a whole, results from coop-erative monitoring of input from theBay's rivers generally show veryencouraging signs.

The Gulf of MexicoProgram

The Gulf of Mexico Program(GMP) was established in August1988 as a partnership to provide abroad geographic focus on themajor environmental issues in theGulf before they become irreversibleor too costly to correct. Its mainpurpose is to develop and imple-ment strategies for protecting,restoring, and maintaining thehealth and productivity of the Gulfof Mexico in ways consistent withthe economic well being of the

action to reverse this trend is habitatimprovement and resurgence ofSAV.

The blue crab is currently themost important commercial andrecreational fishery in the Bay. Withincreasing fishing pressures and rela-tively low harvests in recent years,there is growing concern for thehealth of the stocks. While scientistsagree that neither the crab popula-tion nor the fishery are on the vergeof collapse, they concur that thestock is fully exploited. The 1997Blue Crab Fisheries ManagementPlan contains recommendations tomaintain regulations, limit access tothe fishery, prevent exploitation andimprove research and monitoringand incorporates an enhanced habi-tat section recommending protec-tion and restoration of Bay grassesand water quality.

Overall, the Chesapeake Bay stillshows symptoms related to stressfrom an expanding population and

Sam Mohar, 4th Grade, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC

44

Region. This partnership alsoincludes representatives from Stateand local government, Federal agen-cies, and the citizenry in each of thefive Gulf States, the private sector(business, industry, and agriculture),and the academic community. Thepartnership provides:

■ A mechanism for addressing com-plex problems that cross Federal,State, and international jurisdictionallines

■ Better coordination amongFederal, State, and local programs,increasing the effectiveness andefficiency of the long-term commit-ment to manage and protect Gulfresources

■ A regional perspective to accessand provide the information andaddress research needs required foreffective management decisions

■ A forum for affected groups usingthe Gulf, for public and privateeducational institutions, and for thegeneral public to participate in thesolution process.

Through its partnerships, theGMP is working with the scientificcommunity, policy makers at theFederal, State and local levels, andthe public to help preserve andprotect America’s abundant sea. Ithas made significant progress iden-tifying the environmental issues inthe Gulf Ecosystem and organizing a program to address those issues.Eight issue areas were initially iden-tified as Program concerns:

■ Habitat degradation in such areasas coastal wetlands, seagrass beds,and sand dunes

problems that emerged as theProgram concerns were character-ized. The current focus is on nutri-ent enrichment, shellfish restoration,critical habitat, and introduction ofexotic species. Other operationalefforts provide public education andoutreach and data and informationtransfer.

Since its formation in 1988, theGMP has been committed to spon-soring projects that will benefit theenvironmental health of the region.These projects, numbering over200, vary immensely, from “shovel-in-the-ground” demonstrationprojects to scientific research topublic education. Examples includea wetlands restoration project inTexas’ Galveston Bay System, a BayRambo Artificial Oyster Reef projectin Louisiana, a Shellfish GrowingWater Restoration project inMississippi, a demonstration projectin sewage management in Alabama,and a health professional educationprogram in Florida.

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 have foundthat there are real cost advantagesto promoting protection of ourNation’s ground water resources.

Numerous laws, regulations,and programs play a vital role inprotecting ground water. The fol-lowing Federal laws and programsenable, or provide incentives for,

■ Freshwater inflow changes in thevolume and timing of flow resultingfrom reservoir construction; diver-sions for municipal, industrial, andagricultural purposes; and modifica-tions to watersheds with concomi-tant alteration of runoff patterns

■ Nutrient enrichment resultingfrom such sources as municipalwastewater treatment plants, stormwater, industries, and agriculture

■ Toxic substances and pesticidescontamination originating fromindustrial, urban, and agriculturalsources

■ Coastal and shoreline erosioncaused by natural and human-related activities

■ Public health threats from swim-ming in, and eating seafood prod-ucts coming from, contaminatedwater

■ Marine debris from land-basedand marine recreational andcommercial sources

■ Sustainability of the living aquaticresources of the Gulf of Mexicoecosystem.

The current focus of the GMP is on nutrientenrichment, shellfish

restoration, critical habitat,and introduction of

exotic species.

The GMP is now focusing itslimited resources on implementa-tion of actions to address specific

45

Jeff

Reyn

olds

, Ral

eigh

, NC

EPA and/or States to regulate orvoluntarily manage and monitorsources of ground water pollution:

■ The Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) authorizes EPA to ensurethat water is safe for human con-sumption. One of the most funda-mental ways to ensure consistentlysafe drinking water is to protect thesource of that water (i.e., groundwater). Source water protection isachieved through three SDWAprograms: the Wellhead ProtectionProgram, the Sole Source AquiferProgram, and the UndergroundInjection Control Program. The1996 Amendments to the SDWAalso created the Source WaterAssessment Program to ensure thatStates conduct assessments todetermine the vulnerability of drink-ing water to contamination.

nated ground water. Restoration ofcontaminated ground water is oneof the primary goals of the Super-fund program. As stated in theNational Contingency Plan, EPAexpects to return usable groundwaters to their beneficial uses, wher-ever possible, within a time framethat is reasonable given the particu-lar circumstances of the site.

■ Clean Water Act Sections 319(h)and (i) and 518 provide funds toState agencies and Indian Tribes toimplement EPA-approved nonpointsource management programs andground water protection activities.Such activities include assessing andcharacterizing ground waterresources; delineating wellhead pro-tection areas; and addressingground water protection priorities.

■ The Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA) addresses theproblem of safe disposal of the hugevolumes of solid and hazardouswaste generated nationwide eachyear. RCRA is part of EPA’s compre-hensive program to protect groundwater resources through the devel-opment of regulations and methodsfor handling, storing, and disposingof hazardous material and throughthe regulation of undergroundstorage tanks—the most frequentlycited source of ground watercontamination.

■ The Comprehensive Environ-mental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act (CERCLA) and theSuperfund Amendments and Reau-thorization Act of 1986 createdseveral programs operated by EPA,States, Territories, and Tribes thatact to protect and restore contami-

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.

46

Meg

Tur

ville

-Hei

tz, M

adiso

n, W

I

■ Section 102 of the Clean WaterAct grants States the authority todevelop Comprehensive StateGround Water Protection Programs(CSGWPPs) tailored to their goalsand priorities for the protection ofground water resources. CSGWPPsattempt to combine all of the aboveefforts and emphasize contamina-tion prevention. The programs pro-vide a framework for EPA to givegreater flexibility to a State for man-agement and protection of itsground water resources. CSGWPPsguide the future implementation ofall State and Federal ground waterprograms and provide a frameworkfor States to coordinate and setpriorities for all ground-water-relatedactivities.

Another means of protectingour Nation’s ground water resourcesis through the implementation ofWellhead Protection Plans (WHPs). EPA's Office of Ground Water andDrinking Water is supporting thedevelopment and implementationof WHP Programs at the local levelthrough many efforts. For example,EPA-funded support is providedthrough the National Rural WaterAssociation (NRWA) Ground Water/Wellhead Protection programs. As of December 31, 1996, over 2,600communities had become involvedin developing local WHP plans.

Comprehensive Stateground water protectionprograms support State-

directed priorities inresource protection.

These 2,600 communities representover 6 million people. Over 1,600 ofthese communities have completedtheir plans and are managing theirwellhead protection areas to ensurethe community that their watersupplies are protected.

As a result of the 1996 Amend-ments to the SDWA, source waterprotection has become a nationalpriority. Accordingly, EPA included asource water protection goal in adraft of Environmental Goals forAmerica With Milestones for 2005,which was released in January 1996.The draft goal states that “by theyear 2005, 60% of the populationserved by community water systemswill receive their water from systemswith source water protection

programs in place.” This goal willbe achieved using a three-phasedapproach, which builds upon keyaccomplishments and foundations,such as the WHP Program, andmaximizes the use of new tools andresources provided for under the1996 Amendments. The newemphasis on public involvementand new State Source Water Assess-ment Programs should lead to StateSource Water Protection Programs.Also, the Amendments provideStates an unprecedented opportuni-ty for source water assessment andprotection programs to use newfunds from the Drinking Water StateRevolving Fund (DW-SRF) programfor eligible set-aside activities.

47

Paul

Kaz

yak,

Mar

ylan

d D

epar

tmen

t of

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es

promote infiltration of water intothe soil. Restore bare patches inyour lawn to prevent erosion. If youown 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 inshower heads and toilets. Alwaysfollow directions on labels for useand disposal of household chemi-cals. Take used motor oil, paints,and other hazardous household

materials to proper disposal sitessuch as approved service stations or designated landfills.

Be InvolvedAs a citizen and a voter there is

much you can do at the communitylevel to help preserve and protectour Nation’s water resources. Lookaround. Is soil erosion being con-trolled at construction sites? Is thecommunity sewage plant beingoperated efficiently and correctly? Is the 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, and vol-unteer to help out if you can. Oneof the most important things youcan do is find out how your

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

Examine your everyday activitiesand think about how you are con-tributing to the pollution problem.Here are some suggestions on howyou 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-ing trees and plant new trees andshrubs to help prevent erosion and

What You Can Do

48

community protects water quality,and speak out if you see problems.

Volunteer Monitoring:You Can Become Part of the Solution

In many areas of the country,citizens are becoming personallyinvolved in monitoring the qualityof our Nation’s water. As a volunteermonitor, you might be involved intaking ongoing water quality mea-surements, tracking the progress ofprotection and restoration projects,or reporting special events, such asfish kills and storm damage.

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 ownneighborhood, you are also more

For Further ReadingEPA’s Volunteer Monitoring Program.EPA-841-F-95-001. February 1995.Contains a brief description of EPAactivities to promote volunteermonitoring.

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

National Directory of Citizen Volun-teer 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 on the Internet athttp://www.epa.gov/volunteer/epasvmp.html.

likely to spot unusual occurrencessuch as fish 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 moreabout 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 at the

back of this document. Additionalwater quality information may beobtained from the Regional officesof the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (see inside back cover).

Nan

cy M

alm

gren

, Sea

ttle

, WA

49

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 consumptionadvisory database tracks advisoriesissued by States and Tribes. For1996, the database listed 2,196 fishconsumption advisories in effect in47 States, the District of Columbia,and American Samoa. Fish con-sumption advisories are unevenly

commonly detected in elevatedconcentrations 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 microorga-nisms are a serious human healthconcern, particularly if consumedraw.

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 1996, 10 States reportedthat shellfish harvesting restrictionswere in effect for 4,804 squaremiles of estuarine and coastalwaters during the 1994-1996reporting period. Five Statesreported that nonpoint sources,point sources, urban runoff andstorm sewers, municipal wastewatertreatment facilities, marinas, septictanks, and industrial dischargesrestricted shellfish harvesting.

distributed among the Statesbecause the States use their owncriteria to determine if fish tissueconcentrations of toxics pose ahealth risk that justifies an advisory.States also vary the amount of fishtissue monitoring they conduct andthe number of pollutants analyzed.States that conduct more monitor-ing and use strict criteria will issuemore advisories than States thatconduct less monitoring and useweaker criteria. For example, 70%of the advisories active in 1996were issued by the States surround-ing the Great Lakes, which supportextensive fish sampling programsand follow strict criteria for issuingadvisories.

Most of the fish consumptionadvisories (76%) are due to mer-cury. The other pollutants most

Fish Consumption Advisories

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Foun

datio

n, R

ichm

ond,

VA

Presenting Water Quality Information

Section II

52

Presenting Water Quality Information:305(b) and the Index of Watershed Indicators

Paul

Goe

tz, C

ary,

NC

IntroductionWater quality data can be

interpreted by resource managers,researchers, conservation groups,and other interested parties in avariety of ways, depending on howthe data are collected, compiled,and presented. Because of thesedifferences in data gathering andpresentation, similar data gatheredby different agencies might not bedirectly comparable. This sectionfocuses on two ways water qualitydata are presented — through the305(b) process and in EPA’s Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI).Examples from South Carolina areused to illustrate the two methodsof data presentation.

There are important linksbetween the 305(b) process and theIWI. 305(b) data are an integral partof the indices used in the IWI. Both305(b) and the IWI report on thecondition and vulnerability of water-bodies. Condition indicatorsdescribe the current status and func-tions of a waterbody while vulnera-bility is influenced by environmentalfactors or activities that can placestress on the resource, thoughperhaps not to the point that itsvalues or functions are impaired.

What is the Index of WatershedIndicators?

The Index of Watershed Indi-cators (IWI) is a compilation of infor-mation on the condition of aquaticresources in the United States. Justas a physician might take your tem-perature and blood pressure, check

your pulse, and listen to your heart-beat and respiration to determinethe status of your health, the Indexlooks at a variety of indicators thatpoint to whether rivers, lakes,streams, wetlands, and coastal areasare “well” or “ailing” and whetheractivities on the surrounding landsare placing these waters at risk.

The Index is in large part basedon the June 1996 EnvironmentalIndicators of Water Quality in theUnited States, developed by EPA inpartnership with States, Tribes,private organizations, and otherFederal agencies. The IndicatorsReport presents 18 national indica-tors of the health of our waterresources. The Index evaluates asimilar set of indicators, categorizedas “condition” and “vulnerability”indicators, for each of 2,111 water-sheds in 48 States. (Alaska, Hawaii,and the Territories will be added infuture versions of the Index.)

Why Watersheds?A watershed is defined in

nature by topography. It is the landarea that drains to a body of water,such as a lake, an estuary, or a river.The watershed’s drainage affects thewater flow or water level and, inmany cases, the overall condition ofdownstream bodies of water. Thus,a lake, river, or estuary is a reflectionof its watershed. EPA's Office ofWater, along with many localgroups and State agencies, hasbeen emphasizing the importanceof organizing water quality improve-ment efforts on a watershed basis.Downstream conditions are affectedby all contributing input fromupstream tributaries and adjacentland use activities.

53

What Is the Size ofThese Watersheds?

The U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) has developed and mappeda geographic Hydrologic UnitClassification (HUC) System ofwatersheds at four different scales.The lower 48 States, for example,are comprised of 18 basins knownas regions. Subregions, identifiedwith a 4-digit number, nest withinthe regions, and 6-digit accountingunits are smaller yet. Within thoseaccounting units are 8-digit cata-loging units, which define water-sheds that are generally greaterthan 700 square miles in drainagearea. For the Index, watersheds aredepicted at the 8-digit scale — thesmallest unit in the nationally con-sistent HUC System. South Carolina,for example, has 31 catalogingunits, which vary in size from about500 to 1,800 square miles.

What Are theIndicators?

Phase I of the IWI project uses15 indicators or data layers. Theywere selected because they areappropriate to the IWI objectives,they have relatively uniform avail-ability across the Nation, and theycan be depicted at the 8-digit HUCscale. Seven of the indicators arerelated to the condition of theaquatic resources, and eight arerelated to vulnerability. Phase II willinclude Alaska, Hawaii, and PuertoRico and will add more data layerssuch as ground water.

Condition Indicators1. Assessed Rivers Meeting All

Designated Uses Establishedby State or Tribal WaterQuality Standards (§305(b)):Information reported by Statesand Tribes on the percentage ofwaters within the watershed thatmeet all uses established forthose waters as reported in 1994or 1996 reports to Congressrequired under Clean Water ActSection 305(b).

2. Fish and Wildlife ConsumptionAdvisories: Advisories recom-mended by States to restrictconsumption of locally harvestedfish or game due to the pres-ence of contaminants. (datafrom EPA’s National Listing ofFish and Wildlife ConsumptionAdvisories)

3. Indicators of Source WaterQuality for Drinking WaterSystems: Three data sets com-bined to give insight on theextent to which waters fromrivers, lakes, or reservoirs requiretreatment before use as drinkingwater based on (1) attainmentof the “water supply” desig-nated use under Section 305(b)based on river and lake water-bodies, (2) community watersupply systems with treatment inplace beyond conventional treat-ment or systems that were inviolation of source-related stan-dards in 1995 (Safe DrinkingWater Information System[SDWIS]), and (3) presence of

contaminants in source water atlevels that exceed one-half themaximum contaminant level(MCL). (The MCL is the level towhich a contaminant must beremoved from drinking water tomeet Safe Drinking Water Actsafety requirements.) (data fromEPA’s STORET database)

4. Contaminated Sediments: Thelevel of potential risk to humanhealth and the environmentderived from sediment chemicalanalysis, sediment toxicity data,and fish tissue residue data. (datafrom EPA’s National SedimentInventory)

5. Ambient Water Quality Data —Four Toxic Pollutants: Ambientwater quality data showingpercent exceedances of nationalcriteria levels, over a 6-yearperiod (1990-1996), of copper,hexavalent chromium, nickel,and zinc. (data from STORET)

Condition IndicatorsCondition indicators describe thecurrent status and functions of awaterbody. In the 305(b) process,States and Tribes evaluate condi-tions in a waterbody and reporton whether it supports, partiallysupports, or does not supportbeneficial uses. The Index reportson a number of condition indica-tors, including fish consumptionadvisories, contaminated sedi-ment, and wetlands loss.

54

6. Ambient Water Quality Data —Four Conventional Pollutants:Ambient water quality datashowing percent exceedances of national reference levels, overa 6-year period (1990-1996), of ammonia, dissolved oxygen,phosphorus, and pH. (data fromSTORET)

7. Wetlands Loss Index: Percent-age of wetlands loss over ahistoric period (1870-1980) and more recently (1986-1996).(data from U. S. Fish and WildlifeService’s National WetlandInventory and Natural ResourcesConservation Service’s NationalResource Inventory, respectively)

12. Index of Agricultural RunoffPotential: A composite indexcomposed of (1) a nitrogenrunoff potential index, (2) mod-eled sediment delivery to riversand streams, and (3) a pesticiderunoff index. (data from NaturalResources Conservation Service)

13. Population Change: Popula-tion growth rate as a surrogateof many stress-producing activi-ties from urbanization. (datafrom Census Bureau)

14. Hydrologic Modification —Dams: An index that showsrelative reservoir impoundmentvolume in the watershed. Theprocess of impounding streamschanges their characteristics,and the reservoirs and lakesformed in the process can bemore susceptible to pollutionstress. (data from Corps ofEngineers)

15. Estuarine Pollution Suscepti-bility Index: An index thatmeasures an estuary's suscepti-bility to pollution based on itsphysical characteristics and itspropensity to concentratepollutants. (data from NationalOceanic and AtmosphericAdministration)

Vulnerability Indicators8. Aquatic/Wetlands Species at

Risk: Watersheds with highoccurrences of species at risk.(data from The Nature Conser-vancy and State Heritage data-bases)

9. Pollutant Loads DischargedAbove Permitted DischargeLimits — Toxic Pollutants:Discharges over a 1-year periodfor toxic pollutants, combinedand expressed as a percentageabove or below the total dis-charges allowed under theNational Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES)permitted amount. (data fromEPA's Permit ComplianceSystem)

10. Pollutant Loads DischargedAbove Permitted DischargeLimits — ConventionalPollutants: Discharges over a1-year period for conventionalpollutants combined andexpressed as a percentageabove or below the totaldischarges allowed under theNPDES permitted amount.(data from EPA's PermitCompliance System)

11. Urban Runoff Potential: Anestimate of the potential forurban runoff impacts based onthe percentage of impervioussurface in the watershed, e.g.,roads, paved parking, and roofs.(data from USGS and CensusBureau)

Vulnerability IndicatorsVulnerability indicators describeenvironmental factors or activitiesthat can place stress on theresource, though perhaps not tothe point that its values or func-tions are impaired. In the 305(b)process, States and Tribes reporton waterbodies that currentlysupport a beneficial use, but arethreatened for that use do tocircumstances in the surroundingwatershed. The Index reports ona number of vulnerability indica-tors, including species at risk, pol-lutant loads, runoff potential, etc.

55

Where Can YouView the IWI?

The Index of Watershed Indica-tors can be viewed on the Internetat http://www.epa.gov/surf/iwi andin a hard copy report available fromthe National Center for Environ-mental Publications and Information(NCEPI). The Index includes a mapof the United States with color-coded information on the overallcondition/vulnerability of eachwatershed, as well as national mapsdepicting each data layer for allwatersheds. The Internet version ofthe Index provides links to a broadrange of support material.

How Is the OverallWatershed ScoreDeveloped?

Each watershed is identified ashaving good quality, less serious ormore serious problems, and high orlow vulnerability. There is a separatecategory for watersheds with toolittle data for a valid characteriza-tion. Condition and vulnerabilityindicators are evaluated separatelyfor each watershed.

For the indicators, a minimumnumber of observations is necessaryto assign a “score.” If data for a par-ticular indicator are insufficient, thatis displayed on the map and indi-cated in the Profile. At least 4 of 7condition indicators and 6 of 8 vul-nerability indicators must be presentto calculate the overall index for anygiven watershed.

In aggregating the 15 indicatorsinto the overall Index, Indicator 1,Assessed Rivers Meeting All Desig-nated Uses, is weighted more heav-ily than other indicators because it isa comprehensive assessment andEPA believes considerable weightshould be given to the State andTribal 305(b) assessment process.

For instance, an individualWatershed Profile page (see examplefrom South Carolina) presents amap of each Cataloging Unit shownin relation to adjacent watershedsand the boundary of the State inwhich it is primarily located. Thisprofile also describes the physicalfeatures and demographics of thewatershed and display its OverallWatershed Score (one of sevencategories) and the scores for eachindividual indicator.

NOTE: Detailed information onsources of data, the method usedto characterize each data layer,and the method for combiningindividual indicators into theoverall Index is available throughthe Internet at www.epa.gov/surf.

What are Some of the Benefitsof the Index?

■ A focus on watershed resources: The Index provides easy-to-getinformation from many sources about local watersheds and theirneeds.

■ Knowledge is power: The Index enables managers and residents tounderstand, and therefore act responsibly about, their watershed.

■ Progress: Together, many organizations and people have beenworking to maintain and improve our water quality, and they have been successful in many areas, while maintaining population andeconomic growth.

■ Partners: Various Federal, State and nongovernmental organizationshave begun to combine their information to tell a coordinated story.Using this information, the combined forces of these organizationscan work together to better address our remaining problems andprotection needs.

■ Missing data: Indicators with too little data are clearly shown ingrey, indicating where information needs to be collected.

■ Monitoring: IWI uses information from many public and privatesources to provide a full picture of watershed health.

All other indicators are weightedequally. If Indicator 1 is not avail-able, the values of the other condi-tion indicators are increased by afactor of 3 to derive an Index score.

How Are 305(b) DataUsed in the IWI?

The IWI map of “assessed riversmeeting all designated uses estab-lished by state or tribal water qualitystandards” (Figure 1) presents a

national picture of the overall healthcondition of individual watersheds.Correctly read, the information pro-vided is interpreted as follows: “InX watershed, Y percent (as a range)of the assessed stream miles in thewatershed meet all designateduses.” Watersheds in which a highpercentage of waterbodies meetdesignated uses generally havebetter water quality than watershedsin which the percentage is low.Designated uses can be drinking

water supply, aquatic life support,fish and shellfish consumption, pri-mary and secondary contact recre-ation, and agriculture. Where awatershed shows a lower degree ofoverall designated use attainment, itis helpful to be able to break outdata summaries for specific uses.Different uses employ differentbenchmarks to define use attain-ment (e.g., bacteria counts forswimming use and dissolvedoxygen levels for aquatic life use).

80 - 100% Met50 - 79% Met20 - 49% Met< 20% MetInsufficient Data

Percent of Cataloging Unit WaterbodiesMeeting All Designated Uses:

Analysis of Alaska andHawaii reserved for Phase 2.

Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:National Water Quality Inventory


Figure 1. Assessed Rivers Meeting All Designated Uses Set in State/Tribal Water Quality Standards 1994/1996

56

57

Data summaries on such pollutionstressors or the sources of the stres-sors may also be needed for manymanagement decisions. The poten-tials of such supplemental datapresentations are illustrated below.

Data Presentations —South CarolinaExample

While the 305(b) process andthe IWI depict similar water qualitydata, they differ both in scope andscale. As discussed, the Index dealswith a variety of indicators, a num-ber of which draw on data gatheredthrough means other than the305(b) process. IWI and 305(b) dataare also presented at different scales.305(b) data are typically gathered atthe waterbody level and then aggre-gated to the State level for reportingin the National Water Quality Inven-tory, while IWI presents data at theHUC level. The following exampleusing data from South Carolinademonstrates how data are reportedthrough IWI and the 305(b) processand compares and contrasts the twopresentations.

Figure 2 is a table of individualuse support in South Carolina taken

0

Total MilesSurveyed

Percent

26,314

91

0 4 5 0

0

63

016

Designated Use

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 35,461)

Lakes (Total Acres = 525,000)

Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 945)

211,244 0

<1 <1 0

99

343 0

Total AcresSurveyed

Total SquareMiles Surveyed

21

0 0

01312

75

0

86

80

99

6

1

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

– – – – ––

– – – – ––

– – – – ––

– – – – ––

343

26,314

211,245

Figure 2. Individual Use Support in South Carolina in 1994

Aquatic LifeUse Support

Fish ConsumptionUse Support

ShellfishingUse Support

Contact RecreationUse Support

58

The map in Figure 3 was gener-ated through a process called reachindexing, whereby waterbody-level305(b) use support data were linkedto a map of South Carolina’s hydro-graphy. Reach indexing is theprocess of linking water qualityinformation to the EPA Reach File, a hydrography dataset at the1:100,000 scale that will eventuallybecome part of a Federal standardNational Hydrography Dataset(NHD). The link between the mapand the water quality data is madeusing a geographic informationsystem (GIS). Reach indexing givesStates powerful mapping and spa-cial analysis capabilities for specificstreams within a watershed.

Figure 3, also taken from the1994 National Water Quality Inven-tory summary document, representsanother depiction of 305(b) data.This figure shows a map of SouthCarolina’s Edisto watershed. Eachstream in the watershed is color-coded to its corresponding usesupport status. This type of map isparticularly helpful to watershedresource managers who need toprioritize water quality monitoringand restoration projects in a water-shed. For example, red areas (whichdo not support all beneficial uses)might be targeted for improvementmeasures or additional research.

from the 1994 National WaterQuality Inventory summary docu-ment. These data were originallygathered at the waterbody level. In other words, State resourcemanagers assessed particular rivers,lakes, and estuaries in South Caro-lina, then compiled statistics at thestatewide level. For example, thedata show that 91% of rivers inSouth Carolina fully support aquaticlife use, as opposed to 75% ofestuarine waters. In this format, thedata are useful to individuals inter-ested in general water quality condi-tions across the State, such as a con-cerned citizen or legislator.

Figure 3. South Carolina’s Edisto Watershed

Fully SupportingPartially SupportingNot SupportingBasin Boundaries(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)

59

score, there are also scores for boththe condition and vulnerability ofthe Edisto watershed. As discussedabove, 305(b) assessment data forthe watershed are used to deter-mine the designated use attainmentscore. This indicator is weighedmore heavily than the others.

Through Surf Your Watershed,the IWI makes available 305(b) dataaggregated at the watershed scale.Figures 7 and 8 display aquatic lifeuse support in the Edisto watershedfor rivers and estuarine waters,

A resource manager might alsowant to view information just for asingle watershed in South Carolina.Through EPA’s World Wide Webpage, Surf Your Watershed, individ-uals can choose a particular water-shed in a State and obtain IWI infor-mation. Figure 5 shows the optionof obtaining IWI information for theEdisto watershed.

Figure 6 presents the IWI indica-tors for the Edisto watershed as theyare displayed in Surf Your Watershed.In addition to an overall watershed

IWI displays information at thesame watershed scale as the map ofthe Edisto watershed shown above.Figure 4 is an example of one wayin which the IWI presents informa-tion. The figure shows all the water-sheds in South Carolina color-codedby the IWI indicator of the percentof the watershed meeting all desig-nated uses. A map at this scalemight benefit a State resourcemanager who needs information onhow to allocate resources acrossSouth Carolina.

Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:National Water Quality Inventory

80 - 100% Met50 - 79% Met20 - 49% Met< 20% MetInsufficient Data

Percent of Cataloging UnitWaterbodies Meeting AllDesignated Uses:

Figure 4. Assessed Rivers Meeting All Designated Uses in South Carolina


60

the area to have information on thecauses and sources of this impair-ment. The cause and source infor-mation for the Edisto watershedavailable through the IWI (Figures 9and 10) indicates that the mostprevalent causes of impairment inrivers are pathogens and turbidity,and the most prevalent sources ofpollution are agriculture, naturalsources, and municipal pointsources.

as a whole. This type of informationcan be helpful for a water qualitymanager interested in targetingresources across the State.

The IWI also makes available305(b) data on the causes andsources of impairment at the water-shed level. As Figure 3 demon-strates, there is a “hot spot” in theEdisto basin where a number ofstreams do not support all beneficialuses. It might be helpful forresource managers planning pro-grams to improve water quality in

respectively. The data show thatover 90% of the rivers and estuarinewaters in the watershed fully sup-port aquatic life use. It is interestingto compare these values to thestatewide numbers presented inFigure 2. While statewide, 91% ofSouth Carolina rivers fully supportedaquatic life use, only 75% of theState’s estuarine waters fully sup-ported this use. Thus, the data tellus that the Edisto watershed hasbetter than average estuarine waterquality than compared to the State

Figure 5. Surf Your Watershed World Wide Web Page for the Edisto Watershed

61

Figure 6. Water Quality Information Presented Graphically on Surf Your Watershed

As displayed in Surf YourWatershed, IWI indicatorsof the condition of thewatershed are scored andassigned to one of threecategories — better waterquality, water quality withless serious problems, andwater quality with moreserious problems. Second,indicators of vulnerabilityare scored to create twocharacterizations of vul-nerability — high and low.These two sets of indica-tors are then combined tocreate the Overall Water-shed Score illustrated atthe right.

62

Figure 7. Aquatic Life Use Support for Rivers in the Edisto Watershed

63

Figure 8. Aquatic Life Use Support for Estuarine Waters in the Edisto Watershed

64

ConclusionAs the South Carolina example

demonstrates, 305(b) and the IWIoffer many ways of viewing waterquality information. The scale atwhich data are aggregated, whetherit be at the National, regional, State,watershed, or waterbody level, pro-vides us with various “snapshots” ofwater quality conditions and vulner-ability. All of the presentations arevalid, but each is an attempt to pre-sent information in a different way,and each has strengths and weak-nesses. Determining which presenta-tion is best depends on the needs ofthe resource manager.

Figure 9. Major Causes of Impairment to Rivers in the EdistoWatershed

Figure 10. Major Sources of Impairment to Rivers in the Edisto Watershed

177

This section provides individualsummaries of the water quality sur-vey data reported by six AmericanIndian Tribes in their 1996 Section305(b) reports. Tribal participationin the Section 305(b) process grewfrom two Tribes in 1992 to sixTribes during the 1996 reportingcycle, but Tribal water qualityremains unrepresented in thisreport for the hundreds of otherTribes established throughout thecountry. Many of the other Tribesare in the process of developingwater quality programs and stand-ards but have not yet submitted aSection 305(b) report. As Tribalwater quality programs becomeestablished, EPA expects Tribalparticipation in the Section 305(b)process to increase rapidly. Toencourage Tribal participation, EPAhas sponsored water quality moni-toring and assessment training ses-sions at Tribal locations, preparedstreamlined 305(b) reporting guide-lines for Tribes that wish to partici-pate in the process, and publisheda brochure, Knowing Our Waters:Tribal Reporting Under Section305(b). EPA hopes that subsequentreports to Congress will containmore information about waterquality on Tribal lands.

Tribal Summaries

Phil

John

son,

U.S

. EPA

Reg

ion

8

178

Campo Indian Reservation

For information about water qualityon the Campo Indian Reservation,contact:

Stephen W. Johnson orMichael L. ConnollyCampo Environmental Protection

Agency36190 Church Road, Suite #4Campo, CA 91906(619) 478-9369

Surface Water Quality

The Campo Indian Reservationcovers 24.2 square miles in south-eastern San Diego County, Califor-nia. The Campo Indian Reservationhas 31 miles of intermittent streams,80 acres of freshwater wetlands, and10 lakes with a combined surfacearea of 3.5 acres.

The natural water quality ofTribal streams, lakes, and wetlandsranges from good to excellent. Thereare no point source discharges with-in or upstream of the Reservation,but grazing livestock have degradedstreams, lakes, and wetlands with

manure containing fecal coliformbacteria, nutrients, and organicwastes. Livestock also tramplestreambeds and riparian habitats.Septic tanks and construction alsothreaten water quality.

Ground Water QualityGround water supplies 100%

of the domestic water consumed on the Campo Indian Reservation.Nitrate and bacteria from nonpointsources occasionally exceed drinkingwater standards in some domesticwells. The proximity of individualseptic systems to drinking waterwells poses a human health riskbecause Reservation soils do nothave good purification properties.Elevated iron and manganese levelsmay be due to natural weathering ofgeologic materials.

Programs to RestoreWater Quality

The Campo EnvironmentalProtection Agency (CEPA) hasauthority to administer three CleanWater Act programs. The Section106 Water Pollution ControlProgram supports infrastructure, the305(b) assessment process, anddevelopment of a Water QualityManagement Plan. The Tribe isinventorying its wetlands with fund-ing from the Section 104(b)(3) StateWetlands Protection Program. TheTribe has used funding from theSection 319 Nonpoint SourceProgram to stabilize stream banks,

California

Location of Reservation

179

construct sediment retention struc-tures, and fence streams and riparianzones to exclude livestock. CEPApromulgated water quality standardsin 1995 to establish beneficial uses,water quality criteria, and antidegra-dation provisions for all Tribal waters.

In 1994, the General Councilpassed a resolution to suspend cattlegrazing on the Reservation for atleast 2 years and to concurrentlyrestore degraded recreational waterresources by creating fishing andswimming ponds for Tribal use.

Programs to AssessWater Quality

Streams, wetlands, and lakes on Tribal lands were not monitoreduntil CEPA initiated its WaterPollution Control Program in 1992.Following EPA approval of CEPA’sQuality Assurance Project Plan inMay 1993, CEPA conducted short-term intensive surveys to meet theinformation needs of the 305(b)assessment process. Based on theresults of the 1994 305(b) assess-ment, CEPA developed a long-termsurface water monitoring programin 1995. CEPA will consider includ-ing biological monitoring, physicaland chemical monitoring, monthlybacterial monitoring in lakes, toxicitytesting, and fish tissue monitoring inits monitoring program.

–Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.a A subset of Campo Indian Reservation’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the

Tribe’s 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe’s uses.bIncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

- - - -

-- -

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 31) b

Lakes (Total Acres = 3.5)

-

-

-

Total AcresAssessed

- -- -

Designated Use a

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Individual Use Support in Campo Indian Reservation

180

Highw

ay 101

Forsythe Creek

RussianRiver

Not AssessedNot SupportingPartially SupportingSupporting

LegendCalifornia

Location ofReservation

ParkingA CasinoB Education/Recreation Facility

A

B

Coyote Valley Reservation

For information about water qualityon the Coyote Valley Reservation,contact:

Jean Hunt or Sharon IbarraThe Coyote Valley ReservationP.O. Box 39Redwood Valley, CA 95470(704) 485-8723

Surface Water QualityThe Coyote Valley Band of the

Pomo Indians is a federally recog-nized Indian Tribe, living on a 57-acre parcel of land in MendocinoCounty, California. Segments of theRussian River and Forsythe Creekflow past the Reservation, althoughflow diminishes in the summer andfall. Fishing, recreation, and religionare important uses for surface waterswithin the Reservation.

Currently, the Tribe is concernedabout bacteria contamination in the

Russian River, potential contamina-tion of Forsythe Creek from a mal-functioning septic system leachfield,and habitat modifications in bothstreams that impact aquatic life. Pastgravel mining operations removedgravel spawning beds, altered flow,and created very steep banks. In thepast, upstream mining also elevatedturbidity in Forsythe Creek. The Tribeis also concerned about a potentialtrend of increasing pH values andhigh water temperatures in ForsytheCreek during the summer.

Ground Water QualityThe Coyote Valley Reservation

contains three known wells, but onlytwo wells are operable, and only onewell is in use. The old shallow irriga-tion well (Well A) was abandonedbecause it went dry after the gravelmining operation on Forsythe Creeklowered the water table. Well B,located adjacent to Forsythe Creek,is used as a water supply for aneducation/recreation facility on theReservation. Well C, located on aridge next to the Reservation’s hous-ing units, is not in use due to severeiron and taste problems. Samplingalso detected high levels of barium,total dissolved solids, manganese,and conductivity in Wells B and C.However, samples from Well B didnot contain organic chemicals, pesti-cides, or nitrate in detectableamounts. Human waste contamina-tion from septic systems may posethe greatest threat to ground waterquality.

181


Codes and ordinances for theReservation will be established tocreate a Water Quality and Manage-ment Program for the Reservation.With codes in place, the CoyoteValley Tribal Council will gain theauthority to restrain the discharge ofpollutants that could endanger theReservation water supply and affectthe health and welfare of its people,as well as people in the adjacentcommunities.


The Tribal Water QualityManager will design a monitoringsystem with assistance from environ-mental consultants. The WaterQuality Manager will sample atemporary monitoring station onForsythe Creek and a proposedsampling station on the RussianRiver every month. A fisheries biolo-gist will survey habitat on the riversevery other year, as funding permits.These activities will be fundedthrough an EPA General AssistanceProgram (GAP) grant. GAP grantsassist Tribes in increasing their capac-ity to administer environmentalprograms.

a A subset of Coyote Valley Reservation’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Tribe’s 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe’s uses.

bIncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

Designated Use a

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 0.56) b

0

0

77

23

23

0

77

77

0

0

0

23

0

0

0

0.52

0.52

0.52

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

Individual Use Support in Coyote Valley Reservation

182

Surface Water QualityThe Fort Berthold Indian

Reservation, located in northwesternNorth Dakota, was originally estab-lished by the Fort Laramie Treaty of1851. The current boundaries, asdetermined by an Act of Congress in1891, encompass approximately1,540 square miles of which abouthalf is held in trusts by the UnitedStates for either the Three AffiliatedTribes or individual Native Ameri-cans.

The large manmade lake, LakeSakakawea, occupies 242 squaremiles of land in the center of theReservation. Created by the con-struction of the Garrison Dam onthe Missouri River, the lake stretches

Fort Berthold Reservation

For information about water qualityat the Fort Berthold Reservation,contact:

Jim HeckmanThree Affiliated TribesEnvironmental Division, HC3 Box 2New Town, ND 58763(701) 627-4569

178 miles in length between Willis-ton and Riverdale, North Dakota,with a drainage area of 181,400square miles. The dam created a lakewith a surface area at full pool of575 square miles surrounded by1,300 miles of shoreline, six hundredof which lie within the Reservationboundaries.

Lake Sakakawea provides munic-ipal water for three of the sixReservation communities. Two addi-tional communities are in the con-struction phase. The lake is also amajor source of recreational oppor-tunities including fishing, boating,and water skiing. Industrial use ofthe lake resources is minimal due tothe lack of industrial developmenton the Reservation.

Aside from Lake Sakakawea,surface water resources include theLittle Missouri River on the southernborder of the Reservation, numeroussmall tributaries and ephemeralstreams, seasonal wetlands areas andsmall manmade impoundments, allof which are used to some extent bylivestock and/or wildlife.

A major concern of water qual-ity impairment on the Reservation isthat very few of the farmers andranchers are currently implementingbest management practices (BMPs).The majority of the livestock locatedwithin the Reservation boundariesare allowed to drink directly fromthe surface waters. This has causedthe riparian habitat of the surfacewaters to become denuded of vege-tation accelerating erosion of thebanks. The water quality is beingdegraded through increasedsedimentation, turbidity and fecalcoliform, and fecal streptococcibacteria.


North Dakota

183

Ground Water QualityThe Three Affiliated Tribes

Division of Environmental Quality’sprimary focus is currently on theReservation’s surface waters.


The draft water quality standardsfor the Fort Berthold IndianReservation have been submitted tothe EPA Region 8 for review andcomment. Once the standards are inplace, the Three Affiliated Tribes willbe able to write and enforce ordi-nances and codes to protect the sur-face and ground waters on theReservation.

An ecosystem protection initia-tive project is currently being imple-mented on the Reservation.


The surface water monitoringprogram established by the ThreeAffiliated Tribes Division of Environ-mental Quality is in the second yearof collecting monitoring data at sixmonitoring sites. Three additionalsites are in their first year of beingmonitored.

The U.S. Geological Survey hasthree continuous recording gagingstations and two miscellaneous dis-charge measurement sites on andadjacent to the Fort Berthold IndianReservation. The USGS reportVariations in Land Use and Non-pointSource Contamination on the FortBerthold Indian Reservation, WestCentral North Dakota, 1990-93,assesses water quality based on datafrom these sites.

184

Surface Water QualityThe Hoopa Valley Indian Reser-

vation covers almost 139 squaremiles in Humboldt County in north-ern California. The Reservation con-tains 133 miles of rivers and streams,including a section of the TrinityRiver, and 3,200 acres of wetlands.The Reservation does not containany lakes.

Surface waters on the Reserva-tion appear to be free of toxicorganic chemicals, but poor forestmanagement practices and miningoperations, both on and off theReservation, have caused significantsiltation that has destroyed gravelspawning beds. Water diversions,

Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation

For a copy of the Hoopa ValleyIndian Reservation 1996 305(b)report, contact:

Ken NortonP.O. Box 1348Hoopa, CA 95546(916) 625-5515

including the damming of the TrinityRiver above the Reservation, havealso stressed the fishery by loweringstream volume and flow velocity.Low flows raise water temperaturesand reduce flushing of accumulatedsilt in the gravel beds. Upstreamdams also stop gravel from movingdownstream to replace excavatedgravel. Elevated fecal coliform con-centrations also impair drinkingwater use on the Reservation.

Ground Water QualityGround water sampling revealed

elevated concentrations of lead,cadmium, manganese, iron, andfecal coliforms in some wells. TheTribe is concerned about potentialcontamination of ground water fromleaking underground storage tanks,septic system leachfields, and aban-doned hazardous waste sites withdocumented soil contamination.These sites contain dioxins, herbi-cides, nitrates, PCBs, metals, andother toxic organic chemicals. TheTribe’s environmental consultants aredesigning a ground water samplingprogram to monitor potential threatsto ground water.


In 1990, EPA approved theHoopa Valley Tribe’s application fortreatment as a State under Section106 of the Clean Water Act. In Mayof 1995 the Hoopa Valley TribalCouncil approved Reservation-widewater quality standards and benefi-cial uses for all waters within theReservation. EPA approved the Tribe’sapplication for Treatment as a State

Not AssessedNot SupportingPartially SupportingSupporting

Scale0 1 2 3

TishTang A Tang

Hostler Creek

Mill

Creek

Supply Creek

PineC

reek

TrinityRiver

TrinityRiver

California


185

with respect to Sections 303 and401 of the Clean Water Act. TheTribe currently issues dredge and fillpermits through the Tribe’s RiparianProtection and Surface MiningOrdinance and Section 401 of theClean Water Act. In July 1996 theTribe completed a Non-Point SourceAssessment and Non-Point SourceManagement Plan and applied forTreatment as a State under Sections404 and 319 of the Clean Water Act.This application is currently pendingapproval.


The Tribe is currently developingpermanent monitoring stations tocollect primary water quality dataand determine water quality trends.Currently, the Tribal Fisheries,Forestry, and EPA have been workingclosely together to coordinate thepurchase and installation of fivewater quality monitoring stationsand enhance the two existing sta-tions in upper and lower Mill Creek.The overall purpose of collectingwater quality information is to moni-tor forest management practices anddetermine if these practices impactfishery habitat. Substantial data fromthroughout northern California indi-cate that existing unmaintainedroads, new road construction, androad reconstruction have the largestimpacts on fisheries habitat com-pared to other forest managementpractices. The three departmentshave been working closely with theU.S. Forest Service, Pacific SouthwestForest and Range Experiment Stationin Arcata, which has installed manysimilar water quality monitoring sta-tions throughout northern California.

–Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.a A subset of Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Tribe’s 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe’s uses.

b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

Designated Use a


0100

-

12

0

-

88

0

-

0

0

-

0

0

-

90

78

-

Wetlands (Total Acres = 3,200)

3,200

Total AcresAssessed

-

-

0

-

-

0

-

-

100

-

-

0

-

-

0

-

-

0 0 085 0

3,200 0 0 0 0

100

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

100

Individual Use Support in Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation

186

Hopi Tribe

For a copy of the Hopi Tribe’s 1996 305(b) report, contact:

Phillip TuwaletstiwaThe Hopi TribeWater Resources ProgramBox 123Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039(520) 734-9307

surface water on the Hopi Reserva-tion occurs as springs where groundwater discharges as seeps alongwashes or through fractures andjoints within sandstone formations.The Hopi Tribe assessed 18 springsin 1992 and 1993. The assessmentrevealed that several springs had oneor more exceedances of nitrate, sele-nium, total coliform, or fecal col-iform. The primary potential sourcesof surface water contamination onthe Hopi Reservation include miningactivities outside of the Reservation,livestock grazing, domestic refuse,and wastewater lagoons.

Ground Water QualityIn general, ground water quality

on the Hopi Reservation is variable.Ground water from the N-aquiferprovides drinking water of excellentquality to most of the Hopi villages.The D-aquifer, sandstones of theMesaverde Group, and alluvium alsoprovide ground water to shallowstock and domestic wells, but thequality of the water from thesesources is generally of poorer qualitythan the water supplied by the N-aquifer.

Mining activities outside of theReservation are the most significantthreat to the N-aquifer. Extensivepumping at the Peabody CoalCompany Black Mesa mine mayinduce leakage of poorer quality D-aquifer water into the N-aquifer.This potential problem is beinginvestigated under an ongoingmonitoring program conducted bythe U.S. Geological Survey. In addi-tion, the U.S. Department of Energy

Surface Water QualityThe 2,439-square-mile Hopi

Reservation, located in northeasternArizona, is bounded on all sides bythe Navajo Reservation. Surfacewater on the Hopi Reservationconsists primarily of intermittent orephemeral streams. Only limiteddata regarding stream quality areavailable. The limited data indicatethat some stream reaches may bedeficient in oxygen, although thisconclusion has not been verified byrepeat monitoring.

In addition to the intermittentand ephemeral washes and streams,

Arizona

Location of Hopi Tribe

187

is investigating ground waterimpacts from abandoned uraniumtailings at Tuba City. Other potentialsources of contamination in shallowwells include domestic refuse, under-ground storage tanks, livestock graz-ing, wastewater lagoons, and septictanks.


Draft water quality standards(including an antidegradation pol-icy) were prepared for the Tribe in1993. The Tribe is also reviewing aproposed general maintenance pro-gram to control sewage lagoons.The Tribe has repeatedly applied forEPA grants to investigate nonpointsource pollution on the Reservation,but the applications were denied.


Several surface and groundwater assessment activities haveoccurred since the 1994 report wassubmitted. These include collectionsof water samples from shallow allu-vial wells, surface water samplesalong the main stem of the LittleColorado River, and surface watersamples from wetlands areas. Addi-tionally, the USGS completed a welland spring inventory, and the U.S.Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) con-ducted water quality assessmentactivities at selected wells andsurface water locations.

–Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.a A subset of the Hopi Tribe’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Tribe’s 305(b)

report for a full description of the Tribe’s uses.bIncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

Designated Use a


0100

28

0

-

29

0

-

0

0

-

0

0

51

22

-

-- -

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

Springs (Total Number = 175)

19

Total NumberAssessed

-

-

-

-

0

-

-

89

-

-

0

-

-

0

-

-

19 00 0

- - -

-

0

43

11

68

32

Individual Use Support in Hopi Reservation

188

Hopland Band of Pomo Indians

For a copy of the HoplandReservation 1996 305(b) report,contact:

R. Jake DeckerHopland Band of Pomo IndiansP.O. Box 610Hopland, CA 95449(707) 744-1647

fishing, shellfishing, agriculture, oraquatic life use support.

Ground Water QualityGround water at the Hopland

Reservation, and the largerMcDowell Valley area, is containedin two aquifers — fractured base-ment rocks of the FranciscanAssemblage and younger sedimen-tary deposits. This water is the solesource of supply for about 200 tribalmembers and non-Indian residentsliving in the developed area of thereservation at the north end ofMcDowell Valley.

Ground water contaminationfrom manmade sources is not amajor concern for water resourcesmanagement at the reservation.Water quality concerns at the Hop-land Reservation and elsewhere inMcDowell Valley are predominantlyrelated to natural chemical reactionsbetween ground water and therocks and sediments that composethe aquifers. Potential sources ofcontamination from human activitiesinclude agricultural activities at vine-yards, leachate from septic drainfields, and infiltration of contami-nants from dumping sites. To date,no pesticides or herbicides havebeen detected in samples from threewells near the reservation vineyardsand no pathogen indicators havebeen detected in public supply wells.Maximum contaminant levels for

Surface Water QualityThe jurisdictional boundary of

the Hopland Reservation includes2,070 acres in the Mayacmas Moun-tains of southeastern MendocinoCounty about 90 miles north of SanFrancisco. Surface water on thereservation is scarce. Streams areintermittent rather than perennial,rendering them unreliable as watersupply sources or for recreation,

California

Location ofReservation

189

secondary drinking water standards,which are designed to regulate thetaste, odor, or appearance of drink-ing water, were exceeded at threewells.


No ground water protectionprograms have been formalized onthe Hopland reservation other thanthe adoption of a no-dumping ordi-nance. The Tribe views their 1996305(b) report as an initial step in aground water protection program inthat it provides the hydrogeologicframework of aquifers at the reserva-tion and describes the ambientground water quality.


Ground water quality was deter-mined by analyzing samples ofground water from wells and springsin the reservation area during thesummers of 1993 and 1994.Samples were collected for analysisof common inorganic constituents(major ions), trace elements,radionuclides, common pesticidesand herbicides, and pathogen indi-cators. The Tribe reports on whethertested waters meet Federal primaryand secondary drinking waterstandards.

191

Interstate Commissions providea forum for joint administration oflarge waterbodies that flow throughor border multiple States and otherjurisdictions, such as the Ohio Riverand the Delaware River and Estua-rine System. Each Commission hasits own set of objectives and proto-cols, but the Commissions share acooperative framework thatembodies many of the principlesadvocated by EPA’s watershedmanagement approach. For exam-ple, Interstate Commissions canexamine and address factorsthroughout the basin that con-tribute to water quality problemswithout facing obstacles imposedby political boundaries. The infor-mation presented here summarizesthe data submitted by three Inter-state Commissions in their 1996Section 305(b) reports.

Interstate Commission Summaries

Ed C

arne

y, K

ansa

s D

epar

tmen

t of

Hea

lth a

nd E

nviro

nmen

t

192

NYPA

WV

VA

MDPA

DEL

NJ

Washington, D.C.Dover

N.Y.City

TrentonHarrisburg

Albany

Philadelphia

Delaware River Basin Commission

For a copy of the Delaware RiverBasin Commission 1996 305(b)report, contact:

Robert KauschDelaware River Basin CommissionP.O. Box 7360West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360(609) 883-9500, ext. 252e-mail: [email protected]

Surface Water QualityThe Delaware River Basin covers

portions of Delaware, New Jersey,New York, and Pennsylvania. TheDelaware River system consists of a206-mile freshwater segment, an 85-mile tidal reach, and theDelaware Bay. Nearly 8 millionpeople reside in the Basin, which isalso the home of numerous indus-trial facilities and the port facilities ofPhiladelphia, Camden, andWilmington.

All of the riverine waters andover 87% of the estuarine waters inthe Basin have good water qualitythat fully supports aquatic life uses.Over 26% percent of the riverinewaters do not fully support fish con-sumption. All riverine waters fullysupport swimming. In estuarinewaters, poor water quality impairsshellfishing in over 14% of the sur-veyed waters. Low dissolved oxygenconcentrations and toxic contami-nants in sediment degrade portionsof the lower tidal river and estuary.Toxic contaminants and metalsimpair a portion of the DelawareRiver. Shellfishing advisories affect 96 square miles of the Delaware Bay.

In general, water quality hasimproved since the 1994 305(b)assessment period. Tidal river oxygenlevels were higher during the criticalsummer period, and the level of pHand fecal coliforms dropped slightlyin some nontidal sections.


The Commission’s ToxicsManagement Program is designedto identify the substances (and theirsources) that impair fish consump-tion, aquatic life, and drinking water.Further, the relative contribution ofpoint and nonpoint sources to thepollution loading in the tidal reach of the river is being addressed by a3-year study of combined seweroverflows. The DRBC and the Stateshave carried out an aggressive pro-gram for many years to reduce pointsoures of oxygen-demanding mate-rials and other pollutants and will

Basin Boundaries(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)

193

continue to do so. As part of anongoing effort to provide moresupport for fish and aquatic life, theCommission is developing a newmodel to evaluate the impacts ofpoint and nonpoint pollutants ondissolved oxygen levels. TheCommission’s Special ProtectionWaters regulations protect existinghigh water quality in the upperreaches of the nontidal river fromthe effects of future populationgrowth and land development. Acomprehensive watershed manage-ment approach to pollution controlin this area will eliminate the occa-sional occurrence of elevated levelsof pH, bacteria, contaminants,nutrients, and BOD.


The Commission conducts anintensive monitoring program alongthe entire length of the DelawareRiver and Estuary. At least a dozenparameters are sampled at most sta-tions, located about 7 miles apart.The new Special Protection Watersregulations requires more compre-hensive monitoring and modeling,such as biological monitoring andcontinuous water quality monitor-ing. The Combined Sewer OverflowStudy and the Toxics Study haveused specialized water samplingprograms to acquire data for mathe-matical models. New managementprograms will very likely requirecustomized monitoring programs.

a A subset of the Delaware River Basin Commission’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Commission’s 305(b) report for a full description of the Commission’s uses.

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

206

>99

<1 0 0 0

0128

100

0 0

Designated Use a

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 206)


216 0

679 0

Total SquareMiles Assessed

866 0 0 7 0

0

93

5

3 130

84

201 0

96

0 0

9

86

0

4

206 0 0

73

422

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

Individual Use Support in the Delaware River Basin

194

Interstate Sanitation Commission

For a copy of the InterstateSanitation Commission 1996 305(b)report, contact:

Peter L. Sattler or Howard GolubInterstate Sanitation Commission311 West 43rd StreetNew York, NY 10036(212) 582-0380

Surface Water QualityEstablished in 1936 by Federal

mandate, the Interstate SanitationCommission (ISC) is a tristate envi-ronmental agency of the States ofNew Jersey, New York, and Connect-icut. The Interstate Sanitation Districtencompasses approximately 797square miles of estuarine waters inthe Metropolitan Area shared by theStates, including the Arthur Kill/Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, LowerHudson River, Raritan Bay, SandyHook Bay, Upper and Lower NewYork Bays, western Long IslandSound, and the Atlantic Ocean.

Notwithstanding the significantenvironmental gains that have been

made in recent years, a tremendousamount of work remains to be done.In the past several years, due to agreat degree to ISC’s year-round dis-infection requirement, which wentinto effect in 1986, thousands ofacres of shellfish beds have beenopened on a year-round basis and,during the last six bathing seasons,only a few beach closings occurreddue to elevated levels of coliformbacteria or washups of debris. How-ever, due to a combination offactors, including, but not limited to,habitat loss, hypoxia, and overfish-ing by commercial and recreationalinterests, bag limits and minimumsize restrictions for several finfishspecies (i.e., black sea bass andporgy) were promulgated by thecoastal States.

Topics of concern to the ISCinclude compliance with ISC regula-tions, toxic contamination in Districtwaters, pollution from combinedsewer overflows, closed shellfishwaters, and wastewater treatmentcapacity to handle growing flowsfrom major building projects.

Ground Water QualityThe ISC’s primary focus is on

surface waters shared by the Statesof New Jersey, New York, andConnecticut.


The ISC actively participates inthe Long Island Sound Study, theNew York-New Jersey Harbor EstuaryProgram (HEP), the New York BightRestoration Plan, and the DredgedMaterial Management Plan for thePort of New York and New Jersey.

NJ

NY

Man

hatt

an

StatenIsland

CT

Long Island

NY


195

The ISC has representatives on theManagement Committees and var-ious workgroups for each program.During the 1994-1995 reportingperiod, approximately 2.5 BGD oftreated sewage discharged in theInterstate Sanitation District receivedsecondary treatment. Yet to beaddressed are the untreateddischarges from combined seweroverflows and storm sewers.

The Commission’s water pollu-tion abatement programs continueto provide assistance for the effectivecoordination of approaches toregional problems. ISC’s long-stand-ing goal of making more areas avail-able for swimming and shellfishingremains a high priority. TheCommission’s programs includeenforcement, minimization of theeffects of combined sewers, partici-pation in the National EstuaryProgram, compliance monitoring,pretreatment of industrial wastes,toxics contamination, land-basedalternatives for sewage sludge dis-posal, ocean disposal of dredgedmaterial, and monitoring theambient waters.


The ISC performs intensiveambient water quality surveys andsamples effluents discharged bypublicly owned and private waste-water treatment facilities and indus-trial facilities into District waterways.The ISC’s effluent requirements areincorporated into the individual dis-charge permits issued by the partici-pating States.

– Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.a A subset of the Interstate Sanitation Commission’s designated uses appear in this figure.

Refer to the Commission’s 305(b) report for a full description of the Commission’s uses.

Note: All waters under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Sanitation Commission are estuarine.

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

-

-


-

Designated Use a

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Individual Use Support in Interstate SanitationCommission Waters

196

Surface Water QualityThe Ohio River Valley Water

Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)was established in 1948 by the sign-ing of the Ohio River Valley WaterSanitation Compact by Illinois,Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Virginia, and WestVirginia. ORSANCO is an interstateagency with multiple responsibilitiesthat include detecting interstatespills, developing waste treatmentstandards, and monitoring andassessing the Ohio River mainstem.The mainstem runs 981 miles from

Ohio River Valley Water SanitationCommission (ORSANCO)

For a copy of the ORSANCO 1996305(b) report, contact:

Jason HeathORSANCO5735 Kellogg AvenueCincinnati, OH 45228-1112(513) 231-7719e-mail: [email protected]

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Cairo,Illinois.

The most common problems inthe Ohio River are PCB and chlor-dane contamination in fish and bac-teria, pesticides, and metals in thewater column. The States haveissued fish consumption advisoriesalong the entire length of the OhioRiver based on ORSANCO data.ORSANCO also suspects that com-munity combined sewer overflowsalong the entire length of the riverelevate bacteria levels and impairswimming. ORSANCO detectedbacteria contamination at all sevenmonitoring stations downstream ofmajor urban areas with a largenumber of CSOs.

A majority of Ohio River manualsampling stations exhibited one toseveral violations of the chronicwarm water aquatic life criterion forlead. Sporadic violations for ammo-nia, chromium, copper, zinc, andnickel for selected waters, in con-junction with lead violations,resulted in a moderately supportingaquatic life use classification for theMarkland Pool.

Public water supply use of theOhio River is impaired by 1,2-dichloroethane near Paducah and byatrazine near Louisville and themouth of the River at Grand Chain,Illinois. The extent of atrazine con-tamination is unknown because fewsites are monitored for atrazine.

Ground Water QualityORSANCO does not have juris-

diction over ground water in theOhio River Basin.

Allegheny River

YoughioghenyRiver

MonongahelaRiver

BeaverRiver

MuskingumRiver

Scioto River

HockingRiver

L. MiamiRiver

G. MiamiRiver

W. ForkWhite River

Wabash River

E. ForkWhite River

Embarass River

L. WabashRiver

L. KanawhaRiver

Kanawha River

GuyandotteRiver

New River

Big ShadyRiverLicking

River

Kentucky RiverSalt River

Green River

Cumberland River

ClinchRiver

Holston River

French Broad River

L. TennesseeRiver

HiwasseeRiver

Tennessee River

Elk River

Duck River

TennesseeRiver

Saline River

Ohio River

OhioRiver

Ohio River

Ohio River


197


In 1992, an interagency work-group developed a CSO program forthe Ohio River Basin with generalrecommendations to improve coor-dination of State CSO strategies. In1993, ORSANCO added require-ments for CSOs to the PollutionControl Standards for the Ohio Riverand the Commissioners adopted astrategy for monitoring CSO impactson Ohio River quality. The Commis-sion also established a NonpointSource Pollution Abatement TaskForce composed of ORSANCOCommissioners, representatives fromState NPS control agencies, andrepresentatives from industries thatgenerate NPS pollution.

In 1995, an Ohio River Water-shed Pollutant Reduction Programwas established to address, on awhole-watershed basis, pollutantscausing or contributing to waterquality impairments. These pollut-ants include dioxin, PCBs, chlordane,atrazine, copper, lead, nitrogen, andphosphorous. The objective of theprogram is to determine the extentof impairment, identify sources,quantify impacts, and recommendto the States abatement scenariosnecessary to achieve water qualityobjectives. The program is beingimplemented following a phasedapproach without the establishmentof new regulatory structures toimplement controls that are environ-mentally meaningful, technicallysound, and economically reasonable.

– Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.a A subset of ORSANCO’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Commission’s

305(b) report for a full description of the Commission’s uses.

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

Designated Use a

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 981)

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

981 0 - 0 -

100

981 19 - 0 -

81

981 0 -18

-

82

Individual Use Support in theOhio River Valley Basin


ORSANCO operates severalmonitoring programs on the OhioRiver mainstem and several majortributaries, including fixed-stationchemical sampling, daily sampling ofvolatile organic chemicals at watersupply intakes, bacterial monitoring,fish tissue sampling, and fish com-munity monitoring. ORSANCO usesthe Modified Index of Well Being(MIwb) to assess fish communitycharacteristics, such as total biomassand species diversity. ORSANCO iscurrently developing a numericalbiological criteria.

Part II

Water Quality Assessments

Geo

rgia

Min

nich

, Dur

ham

, NC

2

Rivers and Streams

Forty-seven States, two Inter-state River Commissions, oneTerritory, the District of Columbia(hereafter collectively referred to asStates), and three American IndianTribes rated river water quality intheir 1996 Section 305(b) reports(see Appendix A, Table A-1, forindividual State and Tribal informa-tion). These States and Tribes sur-veyed conditions in 693,905 milesof rivers and streams; most of thesurveyed rivers and streams areperennial waterbodies that flow allyear. The surveyed rivers andstreams represent 53% of the1.3 million miles of perennialrivers and streams in the lower48 States, or 19% of the esti-mated 3.6 million miles of all

rivers and streams in the country,including nonperennial streams thatflow only during wet periods(Figure 2-1).

Altogether, the States andTribes surveyed 78,099 more rivermiles in 1996 than in 1994. Whilemost States surveyed about thesame number of river miles in bothreporting cycles, Illinois, Maryland,North Dakota, and Tennessee col-lectively account for an increase ofover 75,000 surveyed river miles.Since 1994, Illinois, North Dakota,

Figure 2-1

States and Tribes SURVEYED693,905 Miles of Rivers and Streamsfor the 1996 Report

Total Number of Miles:3.6 Million

MilesSurveyed

States and TribesSURVEYED

19%of their total river milesa

(53% of their perennialmiles) for the 1996 report

Total Number ofPerennial River Miles: 1.3 Million

Based on data contained in Appendix A, Table A-1.

River Miles Surveyed by Statesand Tribes

642,881 miles = 18% surveyedTotal miles: 3,551,247c

1992

647,066 miles = 36% surveyedTotal miles: 1,800,000d

1990

693,905 miles = 19% surveyedTotal miles: 3,634,152a

1996

19% Surveyed

81% Not Surveyed

aSource:

bSource:

cSource:

dSource:

1996 State and Tribal Section 305(b)reports.1994 State and Tribal Section 305(b)reports.1992 State and Tribal Section 305(b)reports.National Water Quality Inventory:1990 Report to Congress, U.S. EPA,1992.

615,806 miles = 17% surveyedTotal miles: 3,548,738b

1994

Note: In comparison with 1990, it appears thatthe States and Tribes assessed a smallerpercentage of the Nation’s rivers in1996. However, in 1996, most Statesand Tribes included intermittent streams,canals, and ditches that were excludedfrom the 1990 estimates of total streammiles. As a result, the national estimateof total stream miles almost doubledfrom 1.8 million miles in 1990 to morethan 3.6 million miles in 1996.

28 Chapter Two Rivers and Streams

and Tennessee have indexed all oftheir streams to the Reach File 3(RF3) level in order to perform1:100,000 scale geographic analy-ses (see sidebar for a description ofRF3). The refined stream estimateshave increased the mileage associ-ated with surveyed streams. TheseStates have also initiated new moni-toring projects since 1994. Illinoisnow assesses all RF3 streams exceptfor unnamed tributaries. NorthDakota has initiated a new biolog-ical monitoring program in the RedRiver basin. Tennessee has alsoexpanded its biological monitoringthanks to the Division of WaterPollution Control’s ecoregionproject and the Tennessee ValleyAuthority’s River Action Teams.Maryland reported on all waters of the State for their 1996 305(b)report, of which approximately11,000 river miles were not moni-tored or evaluated but were pre-sumed to be of good water quality.

The summary informationpresented in this chapter appliesstrictly to the portion of theNation’s rivers surveyed by theStates and Tribes. EPA cannot makegeneralizations about the health ofall of our Nation’s rivers based ondata extracted from the 305(b)reports because most States andTribes rate their waters with infor-mation obtained from water moni-toring programs designed to detectdegraded waterbodies. Very fewStates or Tribes select water sam-pling sites with a statistical designto represent a cross section of water quality conditions in theirjurisdictions. Instead, many Statesand Tribes direct their limited

monitoring resources toward waterswith suspected problems. As aresult, the surveyed rivers reflectconditions of targeted waters ratherthan a representative sampling ofall waters.

In the future, increased use of statistically based monitoringprograms will enable EPA and theStates and Tribes to report morecomprehensively on the generalhealth of the Nation’s waters.Examples of statistically basedprograms include probabilitydesigns implemented by Delaware,Maryland, and Indiana; EPA’sEnvironmental Monitoring andAssessment Program (EMAP); andEPA’s Regional EnvironmentalMonitoring and AssessmentProgram (R-EMAP). EMAP is a long-term monitoring program with aunique approach that combines aprobability-based sampling strategywith ecological indicators (quanti-fiable expressions of an environ-mental value) to assess the overallcondition of ecological resources. R-EMAP applies the concepts,methods, and approach developedby EMAP to resolve specific environ-mental issues of importance to theEPA Regions and the States. (Seehighlight)

National data from otherFederal agencies, such as the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) and theNational Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), and privateorganizations, such as The NatureConservancy, will also clarify nation-al water quality trends. (See Chap-ter 13 for additional informationabout monitoring and assessmentprograms.)

The EPA Reach File Version 3(RF3) is a database containingthe geographic locations of over3 million stream, lake, andestuary reaches in the conti-nental U.S. and Hawaii. Areach is a stretch of streambetween confluences or a seg-ment of lake or estuary shore-line. RF3 provides unique iden-tification numbers for pointson these surface waters andbuilt-in river mileages. WithRF3, users can prepare comput-erized maps of healthy andimpaired waters, monitoringsites, drinking water intakes,pollution sources, and manyother features. RF3 also allowscomputer modeling of themovement of pollutantsthrough its hydrologicallyconnected network of waters.

Chapter Two Rivers and Streams 29

Summary of UseSupport

The States and Tribes ratewhether their water quality is goodenough to fully support a healthycommunity of aquatic organisms aswell as human activities, such asswimming, fishing, and drinking.The States designate specific activ-ities for their rivers and streams,termed “individual designateduses.” EPA and the States use thefollowing terminology to rate theirwater quality:

■ Good/Fully Supporting: Goodwater quality supports a diversecommunity of fish, plants, andaquatic insects, as well as the arrayof human activities assigned to ariver by the State.

■ Good/Threatened: Good waterquality currently supports aquaticlife and human activities in and onthe river, but changes when factorssuch as land use threaten waterquality or data indicate a trend ofincreasing pollution in the river.

■ Fair/Partially Supporting: Fairwater quality supports aquaticcommunities with fewer species offish, plants, and aquatic insects,and/or occasional pollution inter-feres with human activities. Forexample, occasional siltation prob-lems may reduce the population of some aquatic species in a river,while other species are not affected.

■ Poor/Not Supporting: Poorwater quality does not support ahealthy aquatic community and/orprevents some human activities on

the river. For example, persistentPCB contamination in river sedi-ments (originating from discontin-ued industrial discharges) may con-taminate fish and make the fishinedible for years.

■ Not Attainable: The State hasperformed a use-attainability analy-sis and demonstrated that use sup-port of one or more designateduses is not attainable due to one of six specific biological, chemical,physical, or economic/social condi-tions (see Chapter 1 for additionalinformation).

Most States and Tribes ratehow well a river supports individualuses (such as swimming and aquat-ic life habitat) and then consolidateindividual use ratings into a table of summary use support data. Thistable divides rivers into those milesfully supporting all of their uses,those fully supporting all uses butthreatened for one or more uses,and those impaired for one or moreuses. Impaired waters are the sumof partially and not supportingwaters (see Chapter 1 for a com-plete discussion of use support).

Forty-three States, three Tribes,two Interstate Commissions, PuertoRico, and the District of Columbiareported summary use supportstatus for rivers and streams in their1996 Section 305(b) reports (seeAppendix A, Table A-2, for individ-ual State and Tribal information).Another four States reported indi-vidual use support status but didnot report summary use supportstatus. In such cases, EPA usedaquatic life use support status torepresent summary water qualityconditions in the State’s rivers andstreams.

64% OF SURVEYEDrivers have goodwater quality.


Altogether, States and Tribesreported that 64% of 693,905surveyed river miles fully support allof their uses. Of these waters, 56%fully support designated uses and8% have good water quality thatfully supports all uses but isthreatened for one or more uses.These threatened waters maydeteriorate if we fail to managepotential sources of pollution(Figure 2-2). Some form of pollu-tion or habitat degradation impairsthe remaining 36% of the surveyedriver miles.

Individual Use Support

Individual use support infor-mation provides additional detailabout water quality problems in ourNation’s surface waters. The Statesare responsible for designating theirrivers and streams for State-specific

uses, but EPA requests that theStates rate how well their riverssupport six standard uses so thatEPA can summarize the State data.

■ Aquatic life support – Is waterquality good enough to support ahealthy, balanced community ofaquatic organisms, including fish,plants, insects, and algae?

■ Fish consumption – Can peoplesafely eat fish caught in the river orstream?

■ Primary contact recreation(swimming) – Can people make fullbody contact with the water with-out risking their health?

■ Secondary contact recreation –Is there a risk to public health fromrecreational activities on the water,such as boating, that expose thepublic to minor contact with thewater?

■ Drinking water supply – Can theriver or stream provide a safe watersupply with standard treatment?

■ Agricultural uses – Can thewater be used for irrigating fieldsand watering livestock?

Only six States did not reportindividual use support status oftheir rivers and streams (see Appen-dix A, Table A-3, for individual Stateand Tribal information). The report-ing States and Tribes surveyed thestatus of aquatic life and swimminguses most frequently and identifiedmore impacts on aquatic life andswimming uses than on the otherindividual uses (Figure 2-3). TheseStates and Tribes reported that fair

Good(Threatened for One

or More Uses)8%

Impaired(For One or More Uses)

36%

Summary of Use Supportin Surveyed Rivers and Streams

Good(Fully Supporting All Uses)

56%

Figure 2-2

Of the surveyed miles:

19% surveyed81% not surveyed

Total rivers = 3.6 million milesa

Total surveyed = 693,905 milesb

• 51% were monitored• 41% were evaluated• 8% were not specified

Surveyed Waters

Surveyed Water Quality

36% Impaired for one or more uses

64% Good

aSource: 1996 State and Tribal Section 305(b)reports.

bDoes not include miles assessed as not attainable (<0.5% of total rivers).



or poor water quality impactsaquatic life in 201,558 stream miles(31% of the 641,611 miles sur-veyed for aquatic life support). Fairor poor water quality conditionsalso impair swimming activities in86,710 miles (20% of the 434,421miles surveyed for swimming usesupport).

Many States and Tribes did notrate fish consumption use supportbecause they have not codified fishconsumption as a use in theirstandards. Some of these Statesconsider fishing use as a compo-nent of aquatic life use, i.e., thatrivers and streams can provide ahealthy habitat to support fishingactivities even though anglers maynot be able to eat their catch inthese States. EPA encourages theStates to designate fish consump-tion as a use in their waterbodies to promote consistency in futurereporting. Most States report infor-mation on fish consumption advi-sories (species and size of fish thatshould not be eaten) to EPA (seeChapter 7).

Water QualityProblems Identifiedin Rivers and Streams

Figures 2-4 and 2-5 identify thepollutants and sources of pollutantsthat impair the most river miles(i.e., prevent them from fullysupporting designated uses), asreported by the States and Tribes.The two figures are based on thesame data (contained in AppendixA, Tables A-4 and A-5), but eachfigure provides a different perspec-tive on the extent of impairmentattributed to individual pollutantsand sources. Figure 2-4 compares

the impacts of the leading pollut-ants and sources in all surveyedrivers. Figure 2-5 presents the rela-tive impact of the leading pollut-ants and sources in impaired rivers,the subset of surveyed rivers withidentified water quality problems.

The following sectionsdescribe the leading pollutants

Secondary Contact

Good water qualityfully supports aquaticlife in 68% of theriver miles surveyed

MilesSurveyed

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

NotAttainable

Percent

641,611

379,261

434,421

257,393

194,660

314,099

DesignatedUse



Fish Consumption

Primary Contact –Swimming

Agriculture

Individual Use Support in Rivers and Streams

Figure 2-3

60

8 8 <1

1

84

142

76

3 10 10

78

216

4 <1

79

5 10

3

93

3 <1

6

<1

<1

<1

23

<1



18Siltation


NotSurveyed

82%

Surveyed 19%

Total rivers = 3.6 million miles

Good(12%)

Impaired(7%)

Not Surveyed81%



Surveyed %

12

7

7

10

7

Suspended Solids

Habitat Alterations

Pesticides


Bacteria

0 5 10 15

Leading Sources

25

5

5

5

3

5

5

0 5 10 15 20 25



Resource Extraction


Hydromodification


Agriculture


20 25

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

14Nutrients

Surveyed %

6Metals


Based on data contained in Appendix A, Tables A-4 and A-5.


AGRICULTURE is the leadingsource of pollution in surveyedrivers and streams. Accordingto the States, agriculturalpollution problems

■ affect 25% of all rivers and streams surveyed, and

■ contribute to 70% of all water quality problems identified in rivers and streams (see Figure 2-5).

Figure 2-4

SURVEYED River Miles: Pollutants and SourcesThe pollutants/processesand sources shown heremay not correspond direct-ly to one another (i.e., theleading pollutant may notoriginate from the leadingsource). This may occur fora number of reasons, suchas a major pollutant maybe released from manyminor sources or Statesmay not have the infor-mation to determine all the sources of a particularpollutant/stressor.


51Siltation

Surveyed18%


Surveyed19%

Good64%

Impaired36%


Moderate/MinorMajor

Percent of Impaired River Miles

Not Specified

Impaired %

32

19

18

29

21

Suspended Solids

Habitat Alterations

Pesticides


Bacteria

0

Leading Sources

Percent of Impaired River Miles

70

14

14

13

9

14

13

0



Resource Extraction


Hydromodification


Agriculture

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

Total rivers = 3.6 million milesNotSurveyed

81%

Total impaired = 248,028 miles

40Nutrients

Impaired %

16Metals


10 20 30 40 50 60 70

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Based on data contained in Appendix A, Tables A-4 and A-5.


Figure 2-5

IMPAIRED River Miles: Pollutants and Sources

SILTATION is the most com-mon pollutant affecting sur-veyed rivers and streams.Siltation

■ is found in 18% of all rivers and streams surveyed (see Figure 2-4),and

■ contributes to 51% of all the water quality problems.


and sources of impairment identi-fied in rivers. It is important to notethat the information about pollut-ants and sources is incompletebecause the States do not identifythe pollutant or source of pollutantsresponsible for every impaired riversegment.

In some cases, a State may rec-ognize that water quality does notfully support a designated use, butthe State may not have adequatedata to document that a specificpollutant or process is responsiblefor the impairment. Sources ofimpairment are even more difficult

to identify than pollutants andprocesses.

Pollutants and StressorsImpacting Rivers andStreams

Fifty-one States and Tribesreported the number of river milesimpacted by individual pollutantsand stressors, such as invasion byexotic species (see Appendix A,Table A-4, for individual State andTribal information). EPA ranks thepollutants and stressors by thegeographic extent of their impactson aquatic life and human activities(i.e., the number of river milesimpaired by each pollutant orstressor) rather than actual pollut-ant loads in rivers and streams. Thisapproach targets the pollutants andstressors causing the most harm toaquatic life and public use of ourwaters, rather than the most abun-dant pollutants in our rivers andstreams.

The States and Tribes reportthat siltation, composed of tiny soilparticles, remains one of the mostwidespread pollutants impactingrivers and streams, impairing126,763 river miles (18% of thesurveyed river miles). Siltation altersaquatic habitat and suffocates fisheggs and bottom-dwelling organ-isms (see Figure 2-6). Aquaticinsects live in the spaces betweencobbles, but their habitat isdestroyed when silt fills in thesespaces. The loss of aquatic insectsadversely impacts fish and otherwildlife that eat these insects. Excessive siltation can also interferewith drinking water treatmentprocesses and recreational use of ariver. Sources of siltation include

Sediment suffocates fish eggs and bottom-dwelling organisms

Sediment abrades gills

Sediment smothers cobbles where fish lay eggs

Healthy System

Impaired System

Figure 2-6

The Effects of Siltation in Rivers and Streams

Siltation is one of the leading pollution problems in the Nation’s riversand streams. Over the long term, unchecked siltation can alter habitatwith profound adverse effects on aquatic life. In the short term, siltcan kill fish directly, destroy spawning beds, and increase water turbid-ity resulting in depressed photosynthetic rates.


agriculture, urban runoff, construc-tion, and forestry.

Nutrient pollution emerges as a significant cause of water qualityimpairment in the 1996 305(b)reports, with States and Tribesreporting impacts to 98,040 rivermiles (14% of the surveyed rivermiles). While nutrient pollution hascommonly been a problem in theNation’s lakes and ponds (seeChapter 3), water quality managershave given significant attention toits effects on rivers and streams,particularly those that flow to sensi-tive estuarine and coastal waters(see Chapter 4). Excessive levels ofnitrogen and phosphorus mayaccelerate growth of algae andunderwater plants, depleting thewater column of dissolved oxygennecessary to maintain populationsof fish and desirable plant species.Nutrients may enter surface watersfrom municipal and industrialwastewater treatment dischargesand runoff from agricultural lands,forestry operations, and urbanareas.

The States and Tribes alsoreport that bacteria (pathogens)pollute 79,820 river miles (12% ofthe surveyed river miles). Bacteriaprovide evidence of possible fecalcontamination that may cause ill-ness if the public ingests the water.States use bacterial indicators todetermine if rivers are safe forswimming and drinking. Bacteriacommonly enter surface waters ininadequately treated sewage, fecalmaterial from wildlife, and runofffrom pastures, feedlots, and urbanareas.

In addition to siltation, nutri-ents, and bacteria, the States andTribes also reported that oxygen-depleting substances, pesticides,

habitat alterations, suspendedsolids, and metals impact moremiles of rivers and streams thanother pollutants and stressors.Often, several pollutants andprocesses impact a single riversegment. For example, a processsuch as removal of shoreline vegeta-tion may accelerate erosion of sedi-ment and nutrients into a stream. Insuch cases, the States and Tribescount a single mile of river undereach pollutant and process categorythat impacts the river mile.Therefore, the river miles impairedby each pollutant or process do notadd up to 100% in Figures 2-4 and2-5.

Most States and Tribes also ratepollutants and processes as major ormoderate/minor contributors toimpairment. A major pollutant orprocess is solely responsible for animpact or predominates over otherpollutants and processes. A moder-ate/minor pollutant or process isone of multiple pollutants and proc-esses that degrade aquatic life orinterfere with human use of a river.

Currently, EPA ranks pollutantsand processes by the geographicextent of their impacts (i.e., thenumber of miles impaired by eachpollutant or process). However, lessabundant pollutants or processesmay have more severe impacts onshort stream reaches. For example,a toxic chemical spill can eliminateaquatic life in a short stream whilewidely distributed bacteria do notaffect aquatic life but occasionallyindicate a potential human healthhazard from swimming. The individ-ual State and Tribal 305(b) reportsprovide more detailed informationabout the severity of pollution inspecific locations.

It is relatively easy to collect awater sample and identify pol-lutants causing impairments,such as fecal coliform bacteriaindicating pathogen contami-nation. However, detecting andranking sources of pollutantscan require monitoring pollut-ant movement from numerouspotential sources, such as fail-ing septic systems, agriculturalfields, urban runoff, municipalsewage treatment plants, andlocal waterfowl populations.Often, States are not able todetermine the particular sourceresponsible for impairment. Inthese cases, many States reportthe source of impairment as“unknown.”


Sources of PollutantsImpacting Rivers and Streams

Fifty-one States and Tribesreported sources of pollution relat-ed to human activities that impactsome of their rivers and streams(see Appendix A, Table A-5, forindividual State and Tribal informa-tion). These States and Tribesreported that agriculture is themost widespread source of pollu-tion in the Nation’s surveyed rivers.Agriculture generates pollutantsthat degrade aquatic life or interferewith public use of 173,629 rivermiles (which equals 25% of the sur-veyed river miles) in 50 States andTribes (Figures 2-4 and 2-5).

Twenty-two States reported thesize of rivers impacted by specifictypes of agricultural activities:

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

■ Irrigated Crop Production – cropproduction that uses irrigationsystems to supplement rainwater.

■ Rangeland – land grazed by ani-mals that is seldom enhanced bythe application of fertilizers or pesti-cides, although land managerssometimes modify plant species to a limited 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. Pastureland isactively managed to encourageselected plant species to grow, andfertilizers or pesticides may be

applied more often on pasturelandthan rangeland.

■ Feedlots – generally facilitieswhere animals are fattened. ByEPA’s definition, feedlots are largesites where many animals are con-fined at high densities for market.These facilities are often locatednear packing plants or railroadaccess points.

■ Animal Holding Areas – facilitiesfor confining animals briefly beforeslaughter. By EPA’s definition, ani-mal holding areas confine feweranimals than feedlots.

■ Animal Operations – generallylivestock facilities other than largecattle feedlot operations. They maycontain facilities for supplementalfeeding or rearing animals, primar-ily poultry or swine.

Nonirrigated crop productionleads the list of agricultural activitiesimpacting rivers and streams, fol-lowed by irrigated crop production,rangeland, pastureland, feedlots,animal operations, animal holdingareas, and riparian grazing (Figure2-7). Runoff from irrigated andnonirrigated cropland may intro-duce commercial fertilizers (thatcontain nitrogen and phosphorus),pesticides, and soil particles intorivers and streams. Manure appliedto cropland as a fertilizer may alsowash off of irrigated and nonirri-gated fields and prevent rivers andstreams from fully supporting desig-nated uses.

Sources of pollution fromintensive animal operations includefeedlots, animal operations, andanimal holding areas. Animal wasterunoff from these operations can

Some pollutant

sources play a more

significant role at a

regional level.


introduce pathogens, nutrients(including phosphorus and nitro-gen), and organic material to near-by rivers and streams. Rangelandmay generate both soil erosion andanimal waste runoff. Pasturelandusually has good ground cover thatprotects the soil from eroding, butpastureland can become a sourceof animal waste runoff if animalsgraze on impermeable frozenpastureland during winter. Ripariangrazing may generate streambankerosion and animal waste runoffand result in modification ofstreamside habitat.

The States and Tribes alsoreport that municipal sewage treat-ment plants pollute 35,087 rivermiles (5% of the surveyed rivermiles), hydrologic modificationsdegrade 34,190 river miles (5% ofthe surveyed river miles), habitatmodifications degrade 34,127 rivermiles (5% of the surveyed rivermiles), resource extraction (e.g.,mining and oil production) pollutes33,051 river miles (5% of the sur-veyed river miles), urban runoff andstorm sewers pollute 32,637 rivermiles (5% of the surveyed rivermiles), and removal of streamsidevegetation pollutes 23,349 rivermiles (3% of the surveyed rivermiles).

The States and Tribes alsoreport that “natural” sources impairmany miles of rivers and streams inthe absence of human activities.Natural sources include soils withnatural deposits of arsenic or saltsthat leach into waterbodies, water-fowl (a source of nutrients), andlow-flow conditions and elevatedwater temperatures caused bydrought. The total size of riversimpaired by natural sources isprobably exaggerated becausesome States may automatically

attribute water quality impairmentsto natural sources if the Statecannot identify a human activityresponsible for a water qualityproblem.

Sources such as mining andforestry activities can play a more

Rangeland 12

Leading Agricultural Sources %

Not Surveyed81%

Surveyed 19%

Impaired by Agriculture173,629 Miles

Animal Operations

Feedlots

Irrigated Crop Prod.

Nonirrigated Crop Prod.

Moderate/MinorMajor Impact

Not Specified

Percent of River Miles Impactedby Agriculture in General

0 10 20 30 35 40

36

22

8

5

Good 64%

Impaired 36%

Pastureland 11

15 255

Animal Holding Areas

7

Figure 2-7

Agricultural Impairment: Rivers and Streams(22 States Reporting Subcategories of Agricultural Sources)




significant role in degrading waterquality at a regional or local levelthan at the national level. Forexample, resource extraction(including acid mine drainage)contributes to the degradation of36% of the impaired river miles inthe coal belt States of Kentucky,Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, andWest Virginia. These States reportthat resource extraction impairsabout 6,550 miles of rivers andstreams. Yet, at the national level,resource extraction contributes tothe degradation of only 13% of allthe impaired river miles in theNation. At the local level, streamsimpacted by acid mine drainageare devoid of fish and other aquaticlife due to low pH levels and thesmothering effects of iron andother metals deposited on stream

beds. The primary sources of acidmine drainage are abandoned coalrefuse disposal sites and surface andunderground mines.

In the Pacific Northwest Stateof Washington, water quality man-agers identify forestry activities asresponsible for almost a third (32%)of the impaired river miles, but, atthe national level, States report thatforestry activities contribute to thedegradation of only 7% of theNation’s total impaired river miles.Forestry activities include harvestingtimber, constructing logging roads,and stand maintenance. California,Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi,Montana, and West Virginia alsoreport that forestry activitiesdegrade over 1,000 miles ofstreams in each State.


Many States reported declinesin pollution from sewage treatmentplants and industrial dischargessince enactment of the Clean WaterAct in 1972. The States attributedimprovements in water quality con-ditions to 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 becausepopulation growth increases theburden on our municipal facilities.

Several States reported thatthey detected more subtle impactsfrom nonpoint sources, hydrologicmodifications, and habitat

alterations as they reduced conspic-uous pollution from point sources.Hydrologic modifications and habi-tat alterations are a growing con-cern to the States. Hydrologic mod-ifications include activities that alterthe flow of water in a stream, suchas channelization, dewatering, anddamming of streams. Habitat alter-ations include removal of stream-side vegetation that protects thestream from high temperatures and scouring of stream bottoms.Additional gains in water qualityconditions that address theseconcerns will be more subtle andrequire innovative managementstrategies that go beyond pointsource controls.


HIGHLIGHT HIGHLIGHT HIGHLIGHTHI

The Maryland Biological StreamSurvey (MBSS), initiated by theMaryland Department of NaturalResources in 1993, is one of the firststatewide probability-based moni-toring networks in the UnitedStates. The MBSS is intended toprovide environmental decision-makers with the information theyneed to most effectively design

policies to protect and restoreMaryland’s rivers and streams.

The MBSS is different from mostother stream monitoring surveys inMaryland for three reasons. First,the probability-based samplingdesign allows accurate estimates of variables, such as the number of miles of stream with degradedhabitat, that can be extrapolated tothe watershed, drainage basin, orstatewide level. The design also per-mits reliable estimation of samplingvariance, so that estimates of statuscan be made with quantifiable con-fidence. Second, MBSS monitoringand assessments focus on biologicalindicators of response to stress;measures of pollutant stress andhabitat condition are taken simulta-neously to provide a context forinterpreting biological response.MBSS fish abundance estimatesallow the State to track the popula-tion of a living resource. Third, thescale of MBSS is basinwide andstatewide, rather than site-specific.

Objectives and Questions

The primary objectives of theMBSS are to assess the currentstatus of biological resources inMaryland’s nontidal streams andestablish a benchmark for long-termmonitoring of trends. The secondary

Maryland Biological Stream Survey

To meet its objectives, the MBSS has established a list of questions of interest to environmental decisionmakers. The survey is designedto answer these questions. Examples include:

Fishability

■ What is the size range of smallmouth bass in third-order streams inthe Patuxent basin? How many legal size smallmouth per mile ofstream are there?

■ What percentage of first- and second-order streams in thePatapsco basin support natural reproduction of brown trout?

Biological Integrity■ Does the percentage of streams with nonsupporting or partially

supporting habitat differ among basins in the State?■ Rare or endangered fish or amphibian species are most likely to

occur in what size of stream and in what basins of the State? What is the “best” basin for nongame species? The worst?

Holistic

■ Based on their observed impacts, which anthropogenic stressorsneed to receive intensified management and enforcementactivities?

■ What types of land use are compatible with preventing thedeterioration of water quality and stream resources?



objectives of the survey are toquantify the extent to which acidicdeposition has affected or may beaffecting critical biological resourcesin the State; examine which otherwater quality, physical habitat, andland use factors are important inexplaining the current status ofbiological resources in streams; and focus habitat protection andrestoration activities.

Sampling DesignOne common problem to many

monitoring projects is that there isoften no scientifically rigorous basisfor extrapolating monitoring resultsbeyond individual sampling sites.MBSS employs a special probability-based design called lattice samplingto schedule sampling of basins overa 3-year period. This design opti-mizes the efficiency of field effortsby minimizing the travel timebetween sampling locations.

The MBSS study area is dividedinto three geographic regions with five to seven basins each: western,central, and eastern. Each basin issampled at least once during agiven 3-year cycle, and all basinshave some probability of being resampled.

The MBSS survey design isbased on random selections from allstreams in the State that can be

physically sampled. Sampling withineach basin is restricted to nontidal,first-, second-, and third-orderstream reaches (i.e., headwaterstreams), excluding unwadeable or otherwise unsampleable areas.Stream reaches are further dividedinto nonoverlapping 75-metersegments for sampling.

About 300 stream segments areselected for sampling each year. Anapproximately equal number ofsegments are selected from each of the three stream orders acrossbasins. Within each basin, segments

Each basin consists of many watersheds with varying degreesof complexity. The smallest permanent flowing stream in awatershed is termed first-order, and the union of two first-order streams creates a second-order stream. A third-order isformed where two second-order streams join.

First First

First

First

First

First

First SecondSecond

Third



are randomly selected from thethree stream orders, with thenumber of segments selected for a particular stream order approxi-mately proportional to the numberof stream miles in the basin. Forexample, if Basin A has 200 miles of first-order streams, and Basin Bhas 100 miles of first-order streams,twice as many first-order segmentsare randomly selected from Basin Aas from Basin B.

This type of study design, oftenreferred to as subsampling withunits of unequal size, allows theestimation of summary statistics(e.g., means and proportions) forthe entire basin, or for subpopula-tions of special interest.

Data Collection and Measurement

The MBSS field studies involvecollecting biological, physicalhabitat, and water quality data.Biological measurements includeabundance, size, and health of fish;taxa composition of benthic inverte-brates; and presence of herpetofau-na (reptiles and amphibians). Waterchemistry samples include pH, acid-neutralizing capacity (ANC), sulfate,nitrate, conductivity, and dissolvedorganic carbon (DOC). Physicalhabitat measurements includestream gradient, maximum depth,wetted width, streamflow (dis-charge), embeddedness, in-streamhabitat structure, pool and riffle

quality, bank stability, shading, andriparian vegetation. Other qualita-tive habitat parameters includeaesthetic value, remoteness, andland use, based on the surroundingarea immediately visible from thesegment.

ResultsThe major findings of MBSS

projects to date include:

■ Low pH and low ANC streams were primarily limited to the eastern shore and to the mountainous western portion of the State.

■ Moderate sulfate and relatively low DOC values throughout the State suggest that acidic deposi-tion is far more prevalent as a source of low ANC than is acid mine drainage.

■ The abundance and diversity of fish was positively related to ANC.

■ Fish surveys detected a wider distribution of several fish species than have been reported previously, and two species thought to be extirpated were collected.

■ In four of the six basins sampled during 1995, more than 40% of stream miles were acidic or acid-sensitive (ANC ≤ 200 µeq/L).



■ In four of the six basins sampled during 1995, more than 50% of stream miles had in-stream habitat structure in poor to marginal condition.

■ A large percentage of streams sampled had impaired physical habitat.

For Further InformationPaul F. KazyakEcological Assessment ProgramMonitoring and Non-Tidal

Assessment DivisionMaryland Department of Natural

ResourcesTawes State Office Building, C-2Annapolis, Maryland 21401(410) [email protected]

Paul

Kaz

yak,

Mar

ylan

d D

epar

tmen

t of

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es

Gre

g D

espo

poul

os, R

alei

gh, N

C

3

Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds

Forty-five States, Puerto Rico,and the District of Columbia (here-after collectively referred to asStates), and one Tribe rated lakewater quality in their 1996 Section305(b) reports (see Appendix B,Table B-1, for individual State andTribal data). These States and Tribessurveyed over 16.8 million acres oflakes, reservoirs, and ponds, whichequals 40% of the 41.7 millionacres of lakes in the Nation (Figure3-1). The States and Tribes based74% of their survey on monitoreddata and evaluated 20% of thesurveyed lake acres with qualitativeinformation (including best profes-sional judgment by water qualitymanagers). The States did notspecify whether the remaining 7%

of the surveyed lake acres weremonitored or evaluated.a

The number of surveyed lakeacres declined from 17.1 millionacres to 16.8 million acres between1994 and 1996. Although Califor-nia surveyed almost 300,000 addi-tional lake acres in 1996 due torefined lake size estimates and newmonitoring, a number of States,including Nevada, Washington, andWisconsin, surveyed significantlyfewer lakes. Funding issues forcedNevada to limit lake sampling to

Total Acres:41,684,902

AcresSurveyed

States and Tribes SURVEYED17 Million Acres of the Nation's LakeWaters Excluding the Great Lakesfor the 1996 Report

States and TribesSURVEYED

40%of their total lake acresa

for the 1996 report

Figure 3-1

Based on data contained in Appendix B, Table B-1.

Lake, Reservoir, and Pond AcresSurveyed by the States and Tribes

18,300,000 acres = 46% surveyedTotal acres: 39,920,000c

1992

18,489,000 acres = 47% surveyedTotal acres: 39,400,000d

1990

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

1994

40% Surveyed

60% Not Surveyed

aSource:

bSource:

cSource:

dSource:

1996 State and Tribal Section305(b) reports.1994 State and Tribal Section305(b) reports.1992 State and Tribal Section305(b) reports.National Water Quality Inventory:1990 Report to Congress, U.S. EPA,1992.

16,819,769 acres = 40% surveyedTotal acres: 41,684,902a

1996

Note: Figures do not add to 100% due tothe rounding of individual numbers.

THE STATESSURVEYEDnearly 17 millionacres of lakes for 1996.

46 Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds

only those lakes near routine sam-pling locations on rivers andstreams. Due to staffing concerns,Washington State was only able touse water quality data collectedinternally at the Department ofEcology. In previous years the Stateincorporated data from other agen-cies into their 305(b) reports.Wisconsin now surveys its lakes as part of the State’s 5-year basinplanning cycle. Although the num-ber of lakes assessed varies fromyear to year, Wisconsin surveysalmost all the lakes in its monitoringprogram over the 5-year cycle.

Differences in State surveymethods undermine comparisonsof lake information submitted byindividual States. Lake data shouldnot be compared among States,which devote varying resources tomonitoring biological integrity,water chemistry, and toxic pollut-ants in fish tissues. The discrepan-cies in State monitoring and surveymethods, rather than actual differ-ences in water quality, oftenaccount for the wide range in waterquality ratings reported by theStates.

The summary information pre-sented in this chapter applies strict-ly to the portion of the Nation’slakes surveyed by the States andTribes. EPA cannot make generali-zations about the health of all ofour Nation’s lakes based on dataextracted from the 305(b) reportsbecause most States and Tribes ratetheir waters with informationobtained from water monitoringprograms designed to detectdegraded waterbodies. Very fewStates or Tribes randomly selectwater sampling sites to represent a cross section of water qualityconditions in their jurisdiction.Instead, many States and Tribes

direct their limited monitoringresources toward waters with sus-pected problems. As a result, thesurveyed lakes probably contain a higher percentage of pollutedwaters than all of the Nation’s lakes.


The States and Tribes ratewhether their water quality is goodenough to fully support a healthycommunity of aquatic organismsand human activities, such as swim-ming, fishing, and drinking wateruse. The States and Tribes designateindividual lakes for specific activi-ties, termed “individual designateduses.” EPA and the States use thefollowing terminology to rate theirwater quality:

■ Good/Fully Supporting: Goodwater quality supports a diversecommunity of fish, plants, andaquatic insects, as well as the arrayof human activities assigned to alake by the State.

■ Good/Threatened: Good waterquality currently supports aquaticlife and human activities in and onthe lake, but changes in suchfactors as land use threaten waterquality, or data indicate a trend ofincreasing pollution in the lake.

■ Fair/Partially Supporting: Fairwater quality supports aquaticcommunities with fewer species offish, plants, and aquatic insects,and/or occasional pollution inter-feres with human activities. Forexample, runoff during severethunderstorms may temporarily ele-vate fecal coliform bacteria densitiesand indicate that swimming is not

61% OF SURVEYED

lake acres have good

water quality.

Chapter Three Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds 47

safe immediately following summerstorms.

■ Poor/Not Supporting: Poorwater quality does not support ahealthy aquatic community and/orprevents some human activities onthe lake. For example, lake watersmay be devoid of fish for morethan a month each summerbecause excessive nutrients fromrunoff initiate algal blooms thatdeplete oxygen concentrations.

■ Not Attainable: The State hasperformed a use-attainability analy-sis and demonstrated that usesupport of one or more designatedbeneficial uses is not attainable dueto one of six specific biological,chemical, physical, or economic/social conditions (see Chapter 1 foradditional information).

Most States and Tribes ratehow well a lake supports individualuses (such as swimming and aquat-ic life) and then consolidate individ-ual use ratings into a summarytable. This table divides lake acresinto those fully supporting all oftheir uses, those fully supporting alluses but threatened for one ormore uses, and those impaired forone or more uses (see Chapter 1 for a complete discussion of usesupport).

Forty-two States, one Tribe,Puerto Rico, and the District ofColumbia reported summary usesupport status for lakes in their1996 Section 305(b) reports (seeAppendix B, Table B-2, for individ-ual State and Tribal information).Another four States reportedindividual use support status butdid not report summary use sup-port status. In such cases, EPA usedaquatic life use support status or

swimming use support status torepresent general water qualityconditions in the State’s lakes.

It is important to note that fourStates did not include the effects ofstatewide fish consumption advi-sories for mercury when calculatingtheir summary use support status.New Hampshire, Michigan, SouthCarolina, and Vermont excludedthe impairment associated withstatewide mercury advisories inorder to convey information thatwould have been otherwise maskedby the fish consumption advisories.If these advisories had beenincluded, all of the States’ waterswould receive an impaired rating.(See discussion of mercury in “Pol-lutants Impacting Lakes, Reservoirs,and Ponds” on page 55.)

The States and Tribes reportedthat 61% of their surveyed 16.8million lake acres have good waterquality (Figure 3-2). Waters with

Summary of Use Supportin Surveyed Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds

Figure 3-2


39%


or More Uses)10%


51%



Total lakes = 41,684,902 acresa

Total surveyed = 16,819,769 acresb

Of the surveyed acres:c

• 20% were monitored • 74% were evaluated • 7% were not specified

Surveyed Waters


39% Impaired for one or more uses

61% Good

aSource: 1996 State and Tribal Section305(b) reports.

bDoes not include acres assessed as not attainable (<0.01% of total lakes).

c Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.


good quality include 51% of thesurveyed lake acres that fullysupport all uses and 10% of thesurveyed lake acres that fully sup-port all uses but are threatened forone or more uses and might deteri-orate if we fail to manage potentialsources of pollution. Some form ofpollution or habitat degradationimpairs the remaining 39% of thesurveyed lake acres.

Individual UseSupport

Individual use support infor-mation provides additional detailabout water quality problems in ourNation’s surface waters. The Statesand Tribes are responsible for desig-nating their lakes for specific uses,but EPA requests that the Statesand Tribes rate how well their lakessupport six standard uses so thatEPA can summarize the State andTribal data. The standard usesconsist of aquatic life support, fishconsumption, primary contactrecreation (such as swimming anddiving), secondary contact recre-ation (such as boating), drinkingwater supply, and agricultural use(see Chapter 1 for a description ofeach individual use).

Forty-two States, one Tribe,Puerto Rico, and the District ofColumbia reported individual usesupport status of their lakes, reser-voirs, and ponds (see Appendix B,Table B-3, for individual State andTribal information). The reportingStates and Tribes rated aquatic lifeuse and swimming use in morelakes and identified more impactson aquatic life use and swimminguse than the other individual uses(Figure 3-3). These States and

governments reported that fair orpoor water quality impacts aquaticlife in over 4.4 million lake acres (31% of the 14.2 million acres sur-veyed for aquatic life support), andswimming criteria violations impact3.8 million lake acres (24% of the15.4 million acres surveyed forswimming use support).

Many States and Tribes did notrate fish consumption use supportbecause they have not codified fishconsumption as a use in theirstandards. Some of these Statesconsider fishing use as a compo-nent of aquatic life use–lakes thatprovide a healthy habitat for fishsupport fishing activities eventhough anglers may not be able toeat their catch in these States. EPAencourages the States to designatefish consumption as a separate usein their waterbodies to promoteconsistency in future reporting.

Water QualityProblems Identified in Lakes, Reservoirs,and Ponds

Figures 3-4 and 3-5 identify thepollutants/stressors and sources ofpollutants that impair (i.e., preventfrom fully supporting designateduses) the most acres of lakes, asreported by the States. The twofigures are based on the same data(contained in Appendix B, Tables B-4 and B-5), but each figure pro-vides a different perspective on theextent of impairment attributed toindividual pollutants/stressors andsources. Figure 3-4 shows the rela-tive impact of the leading pollut-ants/stressors and sources in allsurveyed lakes. Figure 3-5 presents

39% OF SURVEYED

lake acres are

impaired for one

or more uses


the relative impact of the leadingpollutants/stressors and sources inlakes with identified problems (i.e., impaired lakes), a subset ofsurveyed lakes.

The following sections describethe leading pollutants/stressors andsources of impairment identified inlakes. It is important to note thatthe information about pollutants/stressors and sources is incompletebecause the States do not identifythe pollutants/stressors or source ofpollutants impairing every impairedlake. In some cases, a State mayrecognize that water quality doesnot fully support a designated use,but the State may not have ade-quate data to document that a spe-cific pollutant or stressor is respon-sible for the impairment. Sourcesare even more difficult to identifythan pollutants and stressors.

Pollutants ImpactingLakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds

Forty-one States, the District ofColumbia, and Puerto Rico reportedthe number of lake acres impactedby individual pollutants and proc-esses, such as invasions by noxiousaquatic plants (see Appendix B,Table B-4, for individual State andTribal information). EPA measuresthe impact of each pollutant orprocess by summing the total lakeacres impaired (i.e., not fully sup-porting designated uses) by eachpollutant or process. EPA ranks thepollutants and processes by theextent of their impacts on aquaticlife and human activities rather thanactual pollutant loads in lakes. Thisapproach targets the pollutants andprocesses causing the most harm toaquatic life and public use of our

waters rather than the most abun-dant pollutants in our lakes, reser-voirs, and ponds.

The States, District ofColumbia, and Puerto Rico identi-fied more lake acres polluted bynutrients and metals than anyother pollutants or processes(Figures 3-4 and 3-5). They



Fish Consumption


Agriculture

Secondary Contact

AcresSurveyed

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

Percent

14,200,153

55

14 256 <1

<110,896,449

60

5 3

15,369,354

63

214

8,306,333

62

13 232 <1

8,466,958

81

10

4,712,268

84

0

DesignatedUse

12 <1

Individual Use Support in Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds

7 1 0

1105

32

Good lake waterquality supportsswimming in 75%of the acressurveyedFigure 3-3




Surveyed 40%

Total lakes = 41.7 million acres

Good(61%)

Impaired(39%)

Not Surveyed60%


Leading Sources

9Unspecified Nonpoint Sources

19

8


Agriculture


8Atmospheric Deposition

5Hydromodification

7

4

0 5 10 15 20



20

20

10

5

5

8

6

Total Toxics

Suspended Solids



Siltation

Metals

Nutrients

0 5 10 15 20

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

25

25

Surveyed %

4

Construction

Land Disposal

Based on data contained in Appendix B, Tables B-4 and B-5.


AGRICULTURE is the leadingsource of pollution in surveyedlakes. According to the States,agricultural pollution problems

■ affect 19% of all lakes surveyed, and

■ contribute to 49% of all water quality problems identified (see Figure 3-5).

The pollutants/processesand sources shown heremay not correspond direct-ly to one another (i.e., theleading pollutant may notoriginate from the leadingsource). This may occur fora number of reasons, suchas a major pollutant maybe released from manyminor sources or Statesmay not have the infor-mation to determine all the sources of a particularpollutant/stressor.

Figure 3-4

SURVEYED Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources



Unspecified Nonpoint Sources


Agriculture

Atmospheric Deposition

Hydromodification

Percent of Impaired Lake Acres

Total Toxics

Suspended Solids



Siltation

Metals

Nutrients


Surveyed40%

Good61%

Impaired39%

Leading Pollutants/Stressors Impaired %

Leading Sources

Total lakes = 41.7 million acresNotSurveyed

60%

Total impaired = 6.5 million acres

51

51

25

14

13

21

16

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

24

49

21MajorModerate/Minor

Percent of Impaired Lake Acres

Not Specified

21

14

18

11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Impaired %

11Land Disposal

Construction

Based on data contained in Appendix B, Tables B-4 and B-5.


Figure 3-5

IMPAIRED Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources

NUTRIENTS AND METALS arethe most common pollutantsaffecting surveyed lakes.Nutrients and metals

■ are found in 20% of all lakes surveyed (see Figure 3-4), and

■ contribute to 51% of all the water quality problems identified in lakes.


reported that metals and excessnutrients pollute 3.3 million lakeacres (which equals 20% of the sur-veyed lake acres and 51% of theimpaired lake acres).

Healthy lake ecosystems con-tain nutrients in small quantitiesfrom natural sources, but extrainputs of nutrients (primarily nitro-gen and phosphorus) unbalancelake ecosystems (Figure 3-6). Whentemperature and light conditionsare favorable, excessive nutrientsstimulate population explosions ofundesirable algae and aquaticweeds. The algae sink to the lake

bottom after they die, where bacte-ria consume the available dissolvedoxygen as the bacteria decomposethe algae. Fish kills and foul odorsmay result if dissolved oxygen isdepleted.

States consistently reportmetals as a major cause of impair-ment to lakes. This is mainly due tothe widespread detection of mer-cury in fish tissue samples. It is diffi-cult to measure mercury in ambientwater so most States rely on fishsamples to indicate mercurycontamination, since mercurybioaccumulates in tissue. States are

Nutrients cause nuisance overgrowth of algae as well as noxious aquatic plants, which leads to oxygendepletion via plant respiration and microbial decomposition of plant matter. If not properly managed andcontrolled, sources such as agriculture, industrial activities, municipal sewage, and atmospheric depositioncan contribute to excessive nutrients in lakes.

Figure 3-6

Noxious aquatic plantsclog shoreline and reduceaccess to lake

Bacteria deplete oxygen asthey decompose dead algae

Fish suffocate

Dead algae sinkto bottom

Algal blooms form matson surface. Odor andtaste problems result.

Lake Impaired by Excessive Nutrients Healthy Lake Ecosystem


actively studying the extent of themercury problem, which is complexbecause it involves atmospherictransport from power-generatingfacilities and other sources.

In addition to nutrients andmetals, the States, Puerto Rico, andthe District of Columbia report thatsiltation pollutes 1.6 million lakeacres (10% of the surveyed lakeacres), enrichment by organicwastes that deplete oxygen impacts1.4 million lake acres (8% of thesurveyed lake acres), and noxiousaquatic plants impact 1.0 millionacres (6% of the surveyed lakeacres).

Often, several pollutants andprocesses impact a single lake. Forexample, a process such as removalof shoreline vegetation may acceler-ate erosion of sediment and nutri-ents into a lake. In such cases, theStates and Tribes count a single lakeacre under each pollutant andprocess category that impacts thelake acre. Therefore, the lake acresimpaired by each pollutant andprocess do not add up to 100% inFigures 3-4 and 3-5.

Most States and Tribes also ratepollutants and processes as majoror moderate/minor contributors toimpairment. A major pollutant orprocess is solely responsible for animpact or predominates over otherpollutants and stressors. A moder-ate/minor pollutant or stressor isone of multiple pollutants and stres-sors that degrade aquatic life orinterfere with human use of a lake.The States report that metals arethe most widespread major causeof impairment in lakes.

Currently, EPA ranks pollutantsand stressors by the geographicextent of their impacts (i.e., thenumber of lake acres impaired by

each pollutant or process). How-ever, less abundant pollutants orprocesses may have more severeimpacts than the leading pollutantslisted above. For example, extremeacidity (also known as low pH) caneliminate fish in isolated lakes, butacid impacts on lakes are concen-trated in northeastern lakes andmining States and are not wide-spread across the country as awhole. The individual State 305(b)reports provide more detailed infor-mation about the severity of pollu-tion in specific locations.

Sources of PollutantsImpacting Lakes,Reservoirs, and Ponds

Forty-one States, the District ofColumbia, and Puerto Rico reportedsources of pollution related tohuman activities that impact someof their lakes, reservoirs, and ponds(see Appendix B, Table B-5, for indi-vidual State information). TheseStates and Puerto Rico reportedthat agriculture is the most wide-spread source of pollution in theNation’s surveyed lakes (Figures 3-4and 3-5). Agriculture generatespollutants that degrade aquatic lifeor interfere with public use of 3.2million lake acres (19% of thesurveyed lake acres).

The States and Puerto Rico alsoreported that unspecified nonpointsources pollute 1.6 million lakeacres (9% of the surveyed lakeacres), atmospheric deposition ofpollutants impairs 1.4 million lakeacres (8% of the surveyed lakeacres), urban runoff and stormsewers pollute 1.4 million lake acres(8% of the surveyed lake acres),municipal sewage treatment plantspollute 1.2 million lake acres


(7% of the surveyed lake acres),and hydrologic modificationsdegrade 924,000 lake acres (6% ofthe surveyed lake acres). Manymore States reported lake degrada-tion from atmospheric deposition in1996 than in past reporting cycles.This is due, in part, to a growingawareness of the magnitude of theatmospheric deposition problem.Researchers have found significantimpacts to ecosystem and humanhealth from atmospherically deliv-ered pollutants. See the “GreatWaters Program” section of

Chapter 12 for additional informa-tion on atmospheric deposition.

The States, the District ofColumbia, and Puerto Rico listednumerous sources that impactseveral hundred thousand lakeacres, including construction, landdisposal of wastes, industrial pointsources, onsite wastewater systems(including septic tanks), forestryactivities, habitat modification, flowregulation, contaminated sedi-ments, highway maintenance andrunoff, resource extraction, andcombined sewer overflows.

Sam Mohar, 4th Grade, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC

Paul

Goe

tz, C

ary,

NC

4

Tidal Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters

Rivers meet the oceans, Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes incoastal waters called estuaries. This chapter describes conditions in tidal estuaries, where tides mixfresh water from rivers with salinewater from the oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. Fresh water estua-ries around the Great Lakes arediscussed in Chapter 12.

Estuarine waters include baysand tidal rivers that serve as nurseryareas for many commercial fish andmost shellfish populations, includ-ing shrimp, oysters, crabs, andscallops. Most of our Nation’s fishand shellfish industry relies onproductive estuarine waters andtheir adjacent wetlands to providehealthy habitat for some stage of

fish and shellfish development.Recreational anglers also enjoy har-vesting fish that reproduce or feedin estuaries, such as striped bassand flounder.

EstuariesTwenty-three of the 27 coastal

States and other government enti-ties (hereafter collectively referredto as States) rated general waterquality conditions in some of theirestuarine waters (Appendix C, Table

Total Sq. Miles:39,839

Square MilesSurveyed

States SURVEYED28,819 Square Miles of EstuarineWaters for the 1996 Report

StatesSURVEYED

72%of their total estuarine

watersa for the 1996 report

Figure 4-1

Based on data contained in Appendix C, Table C-1.

Estuaries Surveyed by Statesand Territories

27,227 square miles = 74%surveyedTotal square miles: 36,890b

1992

26,692 square miles = 75%surveyedTotal square miles: 35,624c

1990

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

1994

72% Surveyed

28% Not Surveyed

aSource:bSource:cSource:dSource:

1996 State Section 305(b) reports.1994 State Section 305(b) reports.1992 State Section 305(b) reports.1990 State Section 305(b) reports.

28,819 square miles = 72%surveyedTotal square miles: 39,839a

1996

58 Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters

C-2, contains individual State data).In addition, Delaware reported indi-vidual use support status in estuar-ine waters but did not summarizegeneral water quality conditions.The EPA used aquatic life use sup-port status to represent generalwater quality conditions in Dela-ware’s estuarine waters.

Altogether, these States sur-veyed 28,819 square miles of estua-rine waters, which equals 72% ofthe 39,839 square miles of estuar-ine waters in the Nation (Figure 4-1). The States based 49% of theirsurvey on monitored data and eval-uated 35% of the surveyed estua-rine waters with qualitative informa-tion (including best professionaljudgment by water quality man-agers). The States did not specifywhether 16% of the surveyedestuarine waters were monitored or evaluated.

The States constantly revisetheir survey methods in an effort toimprove their accuracy and preci-sion. These changes limit thecomparability of summary datapresented herein and summarydata presented in previous Reportsto Congress. Similarly, discrepanciesin State survey methods underminecomparisons of estuarine informa-tion submitted by individual States.Estuarine data should not be com-pared among States, which devotevarying resources to monitoringbiological integrity, water chemistry,and toxic pollutants in fish tissues.The discrepancies in State monitor-ing and survey methods, ratherthan actual differences in waterquality, often account for the widerange in water quality ratingsreported by individual States.


EPA directs the States to ratewhether their water quality is goodenough to fully support a healthycommunity of aquatic organismsand human activities such as swim-ming, fishing, and drinking. TheStates designate individual estuariesfor specific activities, termed “indi-vidual designated uses.” EPA andthe States use the following termi-nology to rate their water quality:

■ Good/Fully Supporting: Goodwater quality supports a diversecommunity of fish, plants, andaquatic insects, as well as the arrayof human activities assigned to anestuary by the State.

■ Good/Threatened: Good waterquality currently supports aquaticlife and human activities on theestuary, but changes in such fea-tures as land use threaten waterquality, or data indicate a trend ofincreasing pollution in the estuary.

■ Fair/Partially Supporting: Fairwater quality supports aquatic com-munities with fewer species of fish,plants, and aquatic insects, and/oroccasional pollution interferes withhuman activities. For example,runoff during severe thunderstormsmay temporarily elevate fecal coli-form bacteria densities and indicatethat shellfish are not safe to harvestand eat immediately after summerstorms.

■ Poor/Not Supporting: Poorwater quality does not support ahealthy aquatic community and/or

62% OF SURVEYED

estuaries have good

water quality.

Chapter Four Estuaries and Ocean Shoreline Waters 59

prevents some human activities onthe estuary. For example, estuarinewaters may be devoid of fish forshort periods each summer becauseexcessive nutrients from runoffinitiate algal blooms that depleteoxygen concentrations.

■ Not Attainable: The State hasperformed a use-attainability analy-sis and demonstrated that usesupport of one or more designatedbeneficial uses is not attainable dueto one of six specific biological,chemical, physical, or economic/social conditions (see Chapter 1 for additional information).

Most States rate how well anestuary supports individual uses(such as swimming and aquatic life)and then consolidate individual useratings into a summary water qual-ity rating. This table divides estua-ries into those fully supporting all of

their uses, those fully supporting alluses but threatened for one ormore uses, and those impaired forone or more uses (see Chapter 1 for a complete discussion of usesupport).

The States reported that 62%of the surveyed estuarine watershave good water quality that fullysupports designated uses (Figure 4-2). Of these waters, 4% arethreatened and might deteriorate ifwe fail to manage potential sourcesof pollution. Some form of pollu-tion or habitat degradation impairsthe remaining 38% of the surveyedestuarine waters.


Individual use support informa-tion provides additional detailabout water quality problems in our

Summary of Use Supportin Surveyed Estuaries


58%


or More Uses)4%

Figure 4-2


38%


Of the surveyed estuarine waters:



Total estuaries = 39,839 square milesa

Total surveyed = 28,819 square milesb

Surveyed Waters

38% Impaired

62% Good


aSource: 1996 State Section 305(b) reports.bDoes not include square miles assessed

as not attainable (<0.1% total estuaries).


Nation’s surface waters. The Statesare responsible for designating theirestuaries for State-specific uses, butEPA requests that the States ratehow well their estuaries support fivestandard uses so that EPA can sum-marize the State data. The standarduses are aquatic life support, fishconsumption, shellfish harvesting,primary contact recreation (such as swimming and diving), andsecondary contact recreation (suchas boating) (see Chapter 1 for adescription of each individual use).Few States designate saline estua-rine waters for drinking water sup-ply use and agricultural use becauseof high treatment costs.

Nineteen States reported theindividual use support status oftheir estuarine waters (see Appen-dix C, Table C-3, for individualState information). Most often,these States examined aquatic lifeconditions and swimming use intheir estuarine waters (Figure 4-3).The States reported that pollutantsimpact aquatic life in 7,358 squaremiles of estuarine waters (31% ofthe 23,920 square miles surveyedfor aquatic life support) and violateshellfish harvesting criteria in 4,509square miles of estuarine waters(27% of the 15,794 square milessurveyed for shellfishing usesupport). Pollutants also violateswimming criteria in 3,839 squaremiles of estuarine waters (16% ofthe 24,087 square miles surveyedfor swimming use support).


Fish Consumption


Secondary Contact

SquareMiles

Surveyed

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Percent

23,921

61

827

3 0

015,821

75

122

2

16,567

69

16 12

24,087

83

115

14,086

76

220

DesignatedUse

Good water qualitysupports shellfishingin 74% of thewaters surveyed

4

Individual Use Support in Estuaries

0

1 <1

<1 2

Shellfishing

Poor(Not

Attainable)

Figure 4-3



Water QualityProblems Identified in Estuaries

Figures 4-4 and 4-5 identify thepollutants and sources of pollutantsthat impair (i.e., prevent from fullysupporting designated uses) themost square miles of estuarinewaters, as reported by the States.The two figures are based on thesame data (contained in AppendixC, Tables C-4 and C-5), but eachfigure provides a different perspec-tive on the extent of impairmentattributed to individual pollutantsand sources. Figure 4-4 shows therelative impact of the leadingpollutants and sources in surveyedestuarine waters. Figure 4-5 pre-sents the relative impact of theleading pollutants and sources inestuaries with identified problems(i.e., impaired estuaries), a subset ofsurveyed estuarine waters.

The following sections describethe leading pollutants and sourcesof impairment identified in estua-ries. It is important to note that theinformation about pollutants andsources is incomplete because theStates cannot identify the pollutantor source of pollutants impairingevery estuarine waterbody. In somecases, a State may recognize thatwater quality does not fully supporta designated use, but the State maynot have adequate data to docu-ment that a specific pollutant orstressor is responsible for theimpairment. Sources of impairmentare even more difficult to identifythan pollutants and stressors.

Pollutants and ProcessesImpacting Estuaries

Twenty-one States reported the number of estuarine watersimpacted by individual pollutantsand stressors such as habitat alter-ations (see Appendix C, Table C-4,for individual State information).EPA ranks the pollutants and stres-sors by the geographic extent oftheir impacts on aquatic life andhuman activities (measured asestuarine square miles impaired byeach pollutant or process) ratherthan actual pollutant loads enteringestuaries. This approach targets thepollutants and stressors causing themost harm to aquatic life and pub-lic use of our waters, rather thanthe most abundant pollutants inour estuaries.

Often, more than one pollutantor stressor impacts a single estua-rine waterbody. In such cases, theStates and other jurisdictions counta single square mile of estuaryunder each pollutant or stressorcategory that impacts the estuary.Therefore, the percentages of estua-rine waters impaired by all the pol-lutant and process categories donot add up to 100% in Figures 4-4and 4-5.

The States identified moresquare miles of estuarine waterspolluted by nutrients than anyother pollutant or stressor (Figures4-4 and 4-5). Eleven States report-ed that extra nutrients pollute6,254 square miles of estuarinewaters (22% of the surveyed estua-rine waters). As in lakes, extrainputs of nutrients destabilize



Surveyed 72%


Good(45%)

Impaired(28%)

Not Surveyed28%


Leading Sources

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not SpecifiedSalinity 7

22

16

15

12

8Oil and Grease



Bacteria

Nutrients

0 5 10 15 20Percent of Surveyed Estuarine

Square Miles


Percent of Surveyed EstuarineSquare Miles

21

18

17

8

11

10

0 5 10 15 20


Agriculture




25

25

Land Disposal of Wastes 7

Surveyed %

Upstream Sources

Based on data contained in Appendix C, Tables C-4 and C-5.


NUTRIENTS are the mostcommon pollutants affectingsurveyed estuaries. Nutrients

■ are found in 22% of all estuaries surveyed, and

■ contribute to 57% of all the water quality problems (see Figure 4-5).

Figure 4-4

SURVEYED Estuaries: Pollutants and SourcesThe pollutants/processesand sources shown heremay not correspond direct-ly to one another (i.e., theleading pollutant may notoriginate from the leadingsource). This may occur fora number of reasons, suchas a major pollutant maybe released from manyminor sources or Statesmay not have the infor-mation to determine all the sources of a particularpollutant/stressor.


Total impaired = 11,025 square miles


%

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not SpecifiedSalinity 18

57

42

40

33

20Oil and Grease


Priority Toxic OrganicChemicals

Bacteria

Nutrients

Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles


Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles

46

44

30

27


Agriculture

Upstream Sources




0 10 20 30 40 50

0 10 20 30 40 6050

Surveyed18%

Surveyed72%

Good62%

Impaired38%


Leading Sources

NotSurveyed

28%


56

20

19

Impaired %


60



Figure 4-5

IMPAIRED Estuaries: Pollutants and Sources

INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGESare the leading source of pol-lution in surveyed estuaries.According to the States, indus-trial discharges

■ affect 21% of all estuaries surveyed (see Figure 4-4), and

■ contribute to 56% of all water quality problems identified.


estuarine ecosystems. When tem-perature and light conditions arefavorable, excessive nutrients stimu-late population explosions of unde-sirable algae. Decomposition ofdead algae depletes oxygen, whichmay trigger fish kills and foul odors.Explosive growth of algal popula-tions can reduce light penetrationand inhibit growth of beneficialaquatic plants. Submerged aquaticplants provide critical habitat fordesirable shellfish, such as scallops.

Twenty-one States reportedthat bacteria pollute 4,634 squaremiles of estuarine waters (16% ofthe surveyed estuarine waters).Most States monitor harmlessbacteria, such as Escherichia coli,that inhabit the digestive tracts ofhumans and other warm-bloodedanimals and populate sewage in

high densities. Such bacteriaprovide evidence that an estuary iscontaminated with sewage thatmay contain numerous viruses andbacteria that cause illness in people.Most States monitor the indicatorbacteria rather than run multipletests to detect the numerous harm-ful viruses and bacteria in sewage.

Pathogenic viruses and bacteriaseldom impact aquatic organismssuch as fish and shellfish. However,shellfish can accumulate bacteriaand viruses from contaminatedwater and cause illness wheningested. Therefore, the Food andDrug Administration and the Statesrestrict the harvest and sale of shell-fish grown in waters polluted withindicator bacteria. Bacteria alsointerfere with recreational activitiesbecause some pathogens can be

Some bacteria, such as fecal coliforms, provide evidence that an estuary is contaminated with fecal material that maycontain pathogenic bacteria and viruses harmful to people. Often, the pathogenic viruses and bacteria do not adverselyimpact aquatic life such as fish and shellfish. However, shellfish may accumulate bacteria and viruses that causehuman diseases when ingested. Therefore, officials restrict shellfish harvesting in contaminated waters to protect publichealth. Bacteria also impair swimming uses because some pathogenic bacteria and viruses can be transmitted by contactwith contaminated water.

Figure 4-6

NOSHELLFISH

HARVESTINGNOSWIMMING

Urban runoff and storm sewers arethe leading source of impairmentin estuarine waters

Overloaded or improperly functioningsewage treatment plants may releasewaste that contains bacteria

Failing septic systemsmay release bacteria

Bacteria


transmitted by contact withcontaminated water or ingestionduring swimming (Figure 4-6).

The States also report thatpriority organic toxic chemicalspollute 4,398 square miles (15% of the surveyed estuarine waters),oxygen depletion from organicwastes impacts 3,586 square miles(12% of the surveyed estuarinewaters), oil and grease pollute2,170 square miles (8% of the sur-veyed estuarine waters), salinity,total dissolved solids, and/or chlo-rides impact 1,944 square miles(7% of the surveyed estuarinewaters), and habitat alterationsdegrade 1,586 square miles (6% of the surveyed estuarine waters).Priority organic toxic chemicalpollution and dissolved oxygendepletion are widespread problemsreported by more than 15 States. In contrast, only two States (Floridaand Louisiana) reported extensiveimpacts from habitat alterationsand oil and grease.

Most States rate pollutants andstressors as major or moderate/minor contributors to impairment.A major pollutant or stressor issolely responsible for an impact orpredominates over other pollutantsand stressors. A moderate/minorpollutant or stressor is one of multi-ple pollutants and stressors thatdegrade aquatic life or interferewith human use of estuarinewaters.

The States report that nutrientshave a major impact on moreestuarine waters than any otherpollutant or stressor. The individualState 305(b) reports provide moredetailed information about theseverity of pollution in specificlocations.

Sources of Pollutants Impacting Estuaries

Twenty-one States reportedsources of pollution related tohuman activities that impact someof their estuarine waters (seeAppendix C, Table C-5, for individ-ual State information). These Statesreported that industrial dischargesare the most widespread source ofpollution in the Nation’s surveyedestuarine waters. Pollutants inindustrial discharges degradeaquatic life or interfere with publicuse of 6,144 square miles of estua-rine waters (21% of the surveyedestuarine waters) (Figure 4-4).

The States also reported thatpollution from urban runoff andstorm sewers impacts 5,099 squaremiles of estuarine waters (18% ofthe surveyed estuarine waters),municipal sewage treatment plantspollute 4,874 square miles of estu-arine waters (17% of the surveyedestuarine waters), upstream sourcespollute 3,295 square miles of estua-rine waters (11% of the surveyedestuarine waters), agriculturepollutes 2,971 square miles of



What are the most commonproblems facing the 28 estuaries in

the National EstuaryProgram (NEP), and whatshould the public anddecision-makers knowabout those problems?These questions were thefocus of the NEP KeyManagement IssuesWorkshop held in SanFrancisco, California,February 26-28, 1997.Cosponsored by EPA and the Association of

National Estuary Programs (ANEP),the purpose of the workshop was tobegin a national dialogue to definethe key issues and identify themesthat should be conveyed in anupcoming Citizens’ Report to theNation.

The workshop employed aninteractive format, where over 125representatives from the local NEPsand EPA convened to exchangeideas and experiences concerningissues facing the NEPs. Attendeesincluded NEP directors, scientists,outreach coordinators, citizens, busi-ness representatives, local govern-ment officials, and EPA Headquartersand Regional managers and staff.

Common ManagementIssues

Toxic Chemicals

Changing the normal balanceof chemical concentrations in anecosystem can jeopardize the healthand reproductive capacity of theorganisms in that ecosystem. In themarine environment, toxics of thegreatest concern are polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), toxic metals, polychlorinated biphe-nols (PCBs), and pesticides. Severalclasses of toxic chemicals collect insediments, where bottom-dwellingorganisms can be exposed to themand pass the toxicity on through thefood web.

NEPs from every region of theUnited States identified chemicals asan important water quality manage-ment issue. A variety of manage-ment approaches are being under-taken by NEPs, including promotionof best management practices(BMPs), public education and out-reach, wasteload allocations, numer-ical criteria, and discharge permits.

Key Management Issues for the National Estuary Programs

ANEP is a newly orga-nized not-for-profitorganization whosepurpose is to promoteresponsible stewardshipand a common visionfor the preservation ofour Nation’s bays andestuaries.



Alteration of Natural Flow Regimes

Alteration of the natural flowregimes in tributaries can havesignificant effects on the waterquality and health and distributionof living resources in the receivingestuaries. Reduced inflow canreduce the total productivity andeconomic value of an estuary.

A number of NEPs identifiedflow alterations as a highly signifi-cant issue. The majority of theseNEPs were in the Southeast andGulf and Caribbean regions.Management approaches beingundertaken include establishment of minimum flows, promotion ofBMPs, wastewater reuse, andpromotion of more efficient use oflimited water supplies.

Declines in Fish and WildlifePopulations

The distribution and abundanceof fish and wildlife depend on fac-tors such as light, turbidity, nutrientavailability, temperature, salinity,habitat and food availability, as wellas natural and human-inducedevents that disturb or changeenvironmental conditions.

Most of the NEPs from across all regions identified declines in fishand wildlife as either a high or

medium programpriority. Managementapproaches to protectliving species includethe purchase ofecologically valuablelands, pollutantreduction, habitat restoration, and augmentation of existingpopulations.

PathogensPathogens commonly found

in marine waters include thosecausing gastroenteritis, salmonel-losis, and hepatitis A. Pathogencontamination, as suspected fromindicator organisms, results in theclosure of shellfishing areas andbathing beaches.

A majority of NEPs from everyregion of the United States identi-fied pathogens as a water qualitymanagement issue. Managementapproaches include stormwaterrunoff and combined sewer over-flow mitigation, land use controlsfor new developments, BMP imple-mentation, reduction of raw orinadequately treated sewage dis-charges, development of informa-tion clearinghouses, septic tankinspections, maintenance of sewerlines, and establishment of “nodischarge” zones.

For more information,see the NEP section inChapter 12.



Introduced SpeciesIntentional or accidental intro-

ductions of invasive species mayoften result in unexpected ecologi-cal, economic, and social impacts to the marine environment. Thesespecies may now constitute thelargest single threat to the biologicaldiversity of the world’s coastalwaters.

Management approachesinclude planting of native vegeta-tion, development of regulatorypermitting processes for maricultureoperations, and public outreach and education.

Nutrient OverloadingAlthough nutrients occur natu-

rally in animal wastes, soils, andeven the atmosphere, land usepractices and a growing populationhave greatly increased the amountof nutrients entering estuaries,resulting in nuisance algal condi-tions and low dissolved oxygen.

A large number of NEPs fromacross the United States identifiedthe impacts of nutrient overloadingas either a high or medium priority.Management approaches includepromotion of BMPs, land use con-trols, local education and outreach,dissolved oxygen targets, advancedwastewater treatment standards,septic tank replacement, point/non-point source trading, and improvingriparian buffer areas.

Habitat Loss and Degradation

The continued health and bio-diversity of marine and estuarinesystems depends on the mainte-nance of high-quality habitat. Thesame areas that often attract humandevelopment also provide essentialfood, cover, migratory corridors,and breeding and nursery areas fora broad array of coastal and marineorganisms.

A majority of the NEPs in allregions of the United States identi-fied habitat loss and degradation,including reduced or changed sub-merged aquatic vegetation, habitatalteration, and reduced or degradedwetlands, as a high-priority manage-ment issue. Management approach-es include habitat restoration andmanagement, wetlands protection,acquisition of ecologically valuablehabitat, management of futuregrowth, fisheries managementpractices, and public education.

Natural Resource ValuationAn understanding of the eco-

nomic value of natural resources iscritical in gaining the support ofcitizens, industry, and governmentin the preservation of the naturalenvironment. Natural resourcevaluation can help demonstrate tolocal communities the benefits ofinvestments in management actionsto sustain or improve the health ofthe ecosystem.



Many of the NEPs are begin-ning to collect natural resourcevaluation information. For example,researchers have estimated that theTampa Bay estuary supports morethan $1 billion in economic benefitsto residents, local governments, andbusinesses through recreational andcommercial fishing, boating, waste-water disposal, enhanced propertyvalues, savings in shipping costs,and power plant cooling.

Looking to the FutureAlthough these challenges are

being dealt with locally, manage-ment approaches have nationalimplications and applicability.Collectively, the NEPs have a signifi-cant knowledge base and wealth of experience in dealing with theserious problems that threaten the

health of these nationally significantestuaries.

The NEP workshop identifiednot only solutions, but also some of the obstacles to successful imple-mentation of management actions.The need for long-term commit-ment, support, and coordination atall levels of government, and strongpublic participation was identified asa critical component for NEP successin developing and implementingmanagement actions.

For More InformationDarrell Brown, ChiefCoastal Management Branch,

EPA(202) 260-6426email: brown.darrell@epamail.

epa.gov



State and Federal Partners in Integrated Estuarine Monitoring in the Mid-Atlantic (1997 & 1998)

BackgroundThe Mid-Atlantic Integrated

Assessment (MAIA) began as apartnership between EPA’s Region 3and the Office of Research andDevelopment (ORD) EnvironmentalMonitoring and AssessmentProgram (EMAP) to develop andrespond to the best available infor-mation on the condition of variousecological resources and to adaptenvironmental management overtime, based on careful monitoringof environmental indicators andrelated new information. Additionalpartnerships have been developedwith other Federal and State envi-ronmental organizations. MAIA hasimplemented an Assessment Frame-work that begins by definingrealistic environmental goals andrelated environmental assessmentquestions. MAIA then strives toanswer the assessment questionsand to characterize ecologicalresource conditions based on expo-sure and effect information.

MAIA is producing assessmentsat four levels of integration: (1) sin-gle resource assessments whichdetermine the status and trends inthe condition of individual eco-logical resources (e.g., estuaries); (2) within-resource associations for a

single resource group; (3) determin-ing landscape condition and theassociations between resource condition and landscapes; and (4) determining relationshipsamong multiple resources at variousspatial scales.

Initial efforts are ongoing forindividual resources (e.g., estuaries,surface waters, forests, and agricul-ture) between the Region, EMAP,other Federal agencies, and States.The Condition of the Mid-AtlanticEstuaries Report, written byORD/Atlantic Ecology Division hasbeen reviewed and is in final pro-duction. This report responded tospecific assessment questions devel-oped by the MAIA Estuaries Team,which fall into the following broadareas: (1) Is there a problem? (2) Where is the problem located?What is the magnitude, extent, anddistribution? (3) What is the causeof the problem? (4) Are thingschanging? (5) What does it mean tothe community? (6) What can wedo about it?

The data sources underlying thisreport were the ORD’s Environmen-tal Monitoring and AssessmentProgram (EMAP) and related moni-toring efforts (e.g., Regional-EMAP(REMAP) and other special ORDmonitoring efforts in the MAIA



geographic area), State programson the coastal and estuarineresource area, the Chesapeake BayProgram (CBP) and National EstuaryProgram (NEP) efforts.

Although the report answersmany of the assessment questions,data gaps remained—either becausethere has not been adequate moni-toring in some geographic areas(i.e., additional monitoring isrequired) or because there are noenvironmental indicators availableto adequately answer the question(i.e., additional research is required).

Development of anIntegrated MonitoringProgram

In 1997, MAIA began a coordi-nated monitoring effort of the mid-Atlantic estuaries to respond to thedata gaps identified during thedevelopment of the Condition of theMid-Atlantic Estuaries Report.

The integrated monitoring pro-gram built upon existing monitoringactivities conducted by the NationalOceanographic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA), the Chesa-peake Bay Program (CBP), theNational Park Service (NPS), theDelaware Estuary Program, and theStates, using a suite of commoncore indicators or measurements.Monitoring will be conducted inlarge estuarine systems, large tidalrivers, and small estuarine systems.

The goal of the integratedestuarine monitoring in MAIA is toassess the environmental condition

of large estuarine systems in theMid-Atlantic such as the ChesapeakeBay and the Delaware Bay includingspecific attention to their large rivercomponents such as the Susque-hanna, Potomac, James, andDelaware. The monitoring willassess the condition of smaller estu-arine systems as a whole with spe-cific attention to 10 small systemssuch as Virginia Coastal Bays,Pocomoke River, and Salem River.To reach this goal, existing monitor-ing programs will be guided, inte-grated, and leveraged to improvespatial coverage and strengthentheir capabilities to assess environ-mental condition through use of acore list of indicators. Field valida-tion will be conducted of new indi-cators and the feasibility assessed ofmerging alternative monitoringdesigns such as probabilistic (EMAP)and targeted (Chesapeake BayProgram) monitoring programs.

MAIA partners participated fullyin the planning and execution ofthe Integrated Estuarine Monitoring.The partners are:

■ EPA, Region 3 Office of Research and

Development, EMAP, Atlantic Ecology Division

Office of Research and Development, EMAP, Gulf Ecology Division

■ Chesapeake Bay Program■ National Oceanographic and

Atmospheric Administration■ National Park Service –

Assateague Island



■ Delaware River Basin Commission■ Maryland Department of Natural

Resources■ Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality

ProcessThe concept of using Integrated

Estuarine Monitoring was developedby the joint EPA Region3/ORD/EMAP Team. Representativesof the various Federal and Statemonitoring programs participated in

a series of work-shops in Annapolis,MD, to discuss howto integrate estua-rine monitoringefforts. The pur-pose of integratingmonitoring effortswas to better char-acterize estuariesacross the Regionand to design amonitoring pro-gram that alsoresponded to theinformation needsat all scales fromregional to smaller,local scales. Otherissues addressedinclude how theEMAP design couldbe linked to region-al and intensivesites and whether acore set of indica-tors can be identi-fied that all groupscould agree on.

The programs agreed to work together and to approachintegration through the assessmentprocess, not by comparing monitor-ing designs. Using the draft Condi-tion of the Mid-Atlantic EstuariesReport as a starting point, they wereable to identify assessment ques-tions that would help characterizethe condition of the estuaries. Inaddition, they identified questionsthat could not be answered becauseindicators had not yet been devel-oped or field-verified.

The group agreed to develop aset of core existing indicators thatwould be monitored by all parties.They determined the ideal set ofindicators would cover the foodchain, water quality, habitat quality,eutrophication, and chemicalcontamination.

The ORD Gulf Ecology Division(GED), with input from the partners,developed a comprehensive inte-grated monitoring design that metthe various goals identified. The finaldesign consists of more than 700stations throughout the mid-Atlanticestuaries (see Figures 1, 2, and 3).The partners agreed to providesummary tables of water quality andsediment monitoring, includingmethods, maps, outlines, measure-ments, and schedules and to pro-vide recent summary reports of theirown monitoring activities. Thisinformation will be compiled byORD/Atlantic Ecology Division (AED)into a summary overview of theMAIA integrated estuaries monitor-ing program, which will be put onthe EMAP homepage.

SamplingOrganization

CBP 534

EPA_ORD 154

MPS 18

Figure 1. MAIA 1997 Chesapeake BaySampling Stations

Location



ORD/AED also provided a cen-tral Information Management clear-inghouse, which includes a directo-ry, catalog, and summary data sets.Formats and file specifications fortransmission of summary data,including metadata requirements,were provided to the collaboratorsin the MAIA-Estuaries 1997 DataTransfer and Format Manual.

Using a Core List of Indicators

Selected parameters shownto be key indicators of overallenvironmental quality are mea-sured by the various monitoringprograms. These indicators arequantifiable and clearly related toecological condition.

The partners developed a listof core indicators. Each partnerinitially presented the suite ofindicators being used in theirmonitoring program. Detaileddiscussions about the choice of

indicators and the protocols for col-lection followed. The ultimate resultof these discussions was a detailedlist of core indicators (see Figure 4)for which all partners would moni-tor. It was agreed that all partnerswould monitor these core indicatorsbut could monitor additional indica-tors as required by their individualprogram. It was also agreed that,when monitoring for these coreindicators, all partners would usethe same protocols.


NOAA

UNC

Location

Figure 2. MAIA 1997 Albermarle / Pamlico Sound Sampling Stations



The partners will be collectingthe field data at over 700 sitesduring July, August, and Septemberof 1997. Data and assessmentreports are scheduled to be avail-able in 1998.

For Further Information

Pat Gant (410-573-2744)Kevin Summers (904-934-9244) Brian Melzian (401-782-3188)

Figure 3. MAIA 1997 Delaware Bay Sampling Stations

Location


EPA-ORD

NOAA



■ Location (latitude and longitude)■ Time and Date of Sampling■ Depth of Water Column■ Water Column Measurements

– Physical measurements (at surface and bottom; water column profiles at some stations): Temperature, Salinity, Dissolved oxygen, pH, Conductivity

– Water Clarity (Secchi disk or turbidity) (measured once per station) – Water Column Chemistry (Chesapeake Bay Program Protocol)

(surface and bottom): Dissolved silica (SI), Dissolved ammonia (NH4), Dissolved nitrite and nitrate (NO23), Dissolved nitrite (NO2), Particulate organic nitrogen (PON), Total dissolved nitrogen (TDN), Total dissolved phosphorous (TDP), Dissolved orthophosphate (PO4F), Total particulate phosphorous (PHOSP), Particulate organic carbon (POC), Total suspended solids (TSS), Chlorophyll a (CHLA), Pheaophytin (PHEA)

– Sediment Measurements(1) Benthic macroinvertebrates: Species composition and

enumeration, Biomass, Silt-clay content (%silt/clay) (2) Observational SAV (in conjunction with benthic gap)(3) Sediment chemistry (first year only): NOAA NS&T

contaminants, acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and simultaneously extractable metals (SEM), silt-clay content (%silt/clay), total organic carbon

(4) Sediment bioassay (first year only): Pore Water Concentrations of Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide, Microtox, Ampelisca, On a subsample of stations (MD initiative)–Leptocheirus plumulosis and Cyprinodon variegatus

– Fish Measurements (second year only)Fish tissue contaminants Fish communityExternal pathologyMacrophage aggregates

Figure 4. Core Indicators (EMAP ProtocolUnless Otherwise Specified)


estuarine waters (10% of the sur-veyed estuarine waters), pollutionfrom combined sewer overflowsimpairs 2,163 square miles of estu-arine waters (8% of the surveyedestuarine waters), and land disposalof wastes pollutes 2,093 squaremiles (7% of the surveyed estuarinewaters). Urban sources contributemore to the degradation of estua-rine waters than does agriculturebecause urban centers are locatedadjacent to most major estuaries.Upstream sources of pollution aresources across State lines or along ariver upstream of an estuary.

Ocean ShorelineWaters

Ten of the 27 coastal States and Territories rated general waterquality conditions in 3,651 miles of ocean shoreline. The surveyed

waters represent 6% of the Nation’scoastline (including Alaska’s 36,000miles of coastline), or 16% of the22,585 miles of national coastlineexcluding Alaska (see Appendix C,Table C-6, for individual State infor-mation). Most of the surveyedwaters (3,185 miles, or 87%) havegood quality that supports ahealthy aquatic community andpublic activities (Figure 4-7). Ofthese waters, 315 miles (9% of thesurveyed shoreline) are threatenedand may deteriorate in the future.Some form of pollution or habitat

Summary of Use Supporte

in Surveyed Ocean Shoreline Waters


79%


or More Uses)9%

Figure 4-7


13%


Of the surveyed ocean shoreline miles:


Ocean Shoreline Waters Surveyedby States

3,651 miles = 16% surveyedTotal ocean shoreline miles: 22,585a

1996

4,230 miles = 22% surveyedTotal ocean shoreline miles: 19,200d

1990

3,651 miles = 6%Total ocean shoreline miles: 58,585a

1996

6% Surveyed

94% Not Surveyed

Including Alaska's Ocean Shoreline

Excluding Alaska's Ocean Shoreline

3,398 miles = 17% surveyedTotal ocean shoreline miles: 20,121c

1992

16% Surveyed

84% Not Surveyed

aSource:bSource:cSource:dSource:eNote:

1996 State Section 305(b) reports.1994 State Section 305(b) reports.1992 State Section 305(b) reports.1990 State Section 305(b) reports.Figures may not add to 100% dueto rounding.

5,208 miles = 9%Total ocean shoreline miles: 58,421b

1994


13% Impaired

87% Good


degradation impairs the remaining13% of the surveyed shoreline (467 miles).


EPA requests that the Statesrate how well their ocean shorelinewaters support five standard uses sothat EPA can summarize the Statedata. The standard uses consist ofaquatic life support, fish consump-tion, shellfish harvesting, primarycontact recreation (such as swim-ming and diving), and secondarycontact recreation (such as boating)(see Chapter 1 for a description ofeach individual use). Few Statesdesignate saline ocean waters fordrinking water supply use and agri-cultural use because of high treat-ment costs.

The States provided limitedinformation on individual use sup-port in ocean shoreline waters(Appendix C, Table C-7, containsindividual State information). EightStates rated aquatic life support andnine rated swimming use in theirocean shoreline waters, but fewerStates rated their ocean waters forsupport of shellfishing, fish con-sumption, and secondary contactrecreation. General conclusionscannot be drawn from informationrepresenting such a small fractionof the Nation’s ocean shorelinewaters (Figure 4-8).

Water QualityProblems Identified in Ocean ShorelineWaters

Only six of the 27 coastal Statesidentified pollutants and sources ofpollutants degrading ocean shore-line waters (Appendix C, Tables C-8and C-9, contain individual Stateinformation). General conclusionscannot be drawn from this limited



Secondary Contact

MilesSurveyed

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

Percent

2,385

91

5 3 0

01,178

91

1,856

84

5

2,594

82

10 2 0

1,704

93

0

DesignatedUse

0

Individual Use Support in Ocean Shoreline Waters

Good water qualitysupports swimmingin 92% ofsurveyed waters

1

1 5 3

5 6

5

<1 25

Shellfishing

Figure 4-8


Leading Sources Surveyed %

3Recreational Activities


Surveyed 6%

Total ocean shoreline = 58,585miles (including Alaska'sshoreline)

Good(5%)

Impaired(1%)

Not Surveyed94%


Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified1

12

3

2

2

2

1

Percent of Surveyed Shoreline Miles


Nutrients

Turbidity

Bacteria

0 5

7

5

4

4

3Land Disposal of Wastes

Industrial Point Sources

Municipal Sewer Discharges

Septic Systems


0 5

10

Suspended Solids

pH

Oil and Grease

Percent of Surveyed Shoreline Miles15

3Marinas

1Metals

15

10


Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may impair a segment of ocean shoreline.

Figure 4-9

SURVEYED Ocean Shoreline: Pollutants and SourcesThe pollutants/processesand sources shown heremay not correspond direct-ly to one another (i.e., theleading pollutant may notoriginate from the leadingsource). This may occur fora number of reasons, suchas a major pollutant maybe released from manyminor sources or Statesmay not have the infor-mation to determine all the sources of a particularpollutant/stressor.


Recreational Activities

Total impaired = 467 miles

%

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

12

95

22

19

18

13

Percent of Impaired Shoreline Miles

11

Percent of Impaired Shoreline Miles

55

33

29

21

27

25

Surveyed6%

Good87%

Impaired13%


Leading Sources

NotSurveyed

94%


Nutrients

Turbidity

Bacteria


Industrial Point Sources

Municipal Sewer Discharges

Septic Systems


Suspended Solids

pH

Oil and Grease

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900 100

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Marinas

36

Total ocean shoreline = 58,585miles (including Alaska's shoreline)

Impaired %


10Metals


Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may impair a segment of ocean shoreline

Figure 4-10

IMPAIRED Ocean Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources


source of information. The sixStates identified impacts in theirocean shoreline waters from bacte-ria, turbidity, nutrients, oxygen-depleting substances, suspendedsolids, acidity (pH), oil and grease,and metals (Figures 4-9 and 4-10).The six States reported that urban

runoff and storm sewers, septic sys-tems, municipal sewer discharges,industrial discharges, land disposalof wastes, marinas, recreationalactivities, and spills and illegaldumping pollute their coastalshoreline waters (Figures 4-9 and 4-10).

Gabriel Eng-Goetz, 5th Grade, Burton GeoWorld, Durham, NC

Meg

Tur

ville

-Hei

tz, M

adiso

n, W

I

5

Wetlands

Introduction

Wetlands are areas that areinundated or saturated by surfaceor ground water at a frequency andduration sufficient to support (andthat under normal circumstancesdo support) a prevalence of vegeta-tion typically adapted for life in sat-urated soil conditions (Figure 5-1).Wetlands generally include swamps,marshes, bogs, and similar areas.This is the definition of wetlands asit appears in the regulations jointlyissued by the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S. EPA (33 CFR Part 328.3(b), 40 CFR Part 232.2 (r), and 40 CFR Part230.3(t)).

A wide variety of wetlandsexists across the country because of regional and local differences inhydrology, vegetation, water chem-istry, soils, topography, climate, and other factors. Wetlands type is determined primarily by localhydrology, the unique pattern ofwater flow through an area. Ingeneral, there are two broad cate-gories of wetlands: coastal andinland wetlands.

With the exception of the GreatLakes coastal wetlands, coastal wet-lands are closely linked to estuaries,where sea water mixes with freshwater to form an environment ofvarying salinity and fluctuatingwater levels due to tidal action.Coastal marshes dominated bygrasses, sedges, and rushes andhalophytic (salt-tolerant) plants aregenerally located along the Atlantic

and Gulf coasts due to the gradualslope of the land. Mangroveswamps, which are dominated byhalophytic shrubs and trees, arecommon in Hawaii, Puerto Rico,Louisiana, and southern Florida.

Inland wetlands are most com-mon on floodplains along riversand streams, in isolated depressionssurrounded by dry land, and alongthe margins of lakes and ponds.Inland wetlands include marshesand wet meadows dominated bygrasses, sedges, rushes, and herbs;shrub swamps; and woodedswamps dominated by trees, such as hardwood forests along

Figure 5-1

TerrestrialSystem

Wetland Waterbody

Dry

Generally Low

Intermittentlyto Permanently Flooded

Productivity

Hydrologic RegimeFluctuatingWater Level

High Water

Low Water

Permanently Flooded

Generally HighLow to Medium

Depiction of Wetlands Adjacent to Waterbody

Figure 5-1

Wetlands are often found at the interface between dry terrestrial eco-systems, such as upland forests and grasslands, and permanently wetaquatic ecosystems, such as lakes, rivers, bays, estuaries, and oceans.

Reprinted with modifications, by permission, from Mitsch/Gosselink: Wetlands 1986, fig. 1-4,p. 10. ©1986, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

84 Chapter Five Wetlands

floodplains. Some regional wetlandstypes include the pocosins of NorthCarolina, bogs and fens of thenortheastern and north centralStates and Alaska, inland saline andalkaline marshes and riparian wet-lands of the arid and semiarid West,vernal pools of California, playalakes of the Southwest, cypressgum swamps of the South, wettundra of Alaska, the South FloridaEverglades, and prairie potholes ofMinnesota, Iowa, and the Dakotas.

Functions and Valuesof Wetlands

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

products for human use and oppor-tunities for recreation, education,and research.

Wetlands are critical to thesurvival of a wide variety of animalsand plants, including numerousrare and endangered species.Wetlands are also primary habitatsfor many species, such as the woodduck, muskrat, and swamp rose.For others, wetlands provide impor-tant seasonal habitats where food,water, and cover are plentiful.

Wetlands are among the mostproductive natural ecosystems inthe world. They produce great vol-umes of food, such as leaves andstems, that break down in thewater to form detritus (Figure 5-2).This enriched material is the princi-pal food for many aquatic inverte-brates, various shellfish, and foragefish that are food for larger com-mercial and recreational fish speciessuch as bluefish and striped bass.

Wetlands help maintain andimprove water quality by intercept-ing surface water runoff before itreaches open water, removing orretaining nutrients, processingchemical and organic wastes, andreducing sediment loads to receiv-ing waters (Figure 5-3). As watermoves through a wetland, plantsslow the water, allowing sedimentand pollutants to settle out. Plantroots trap sediment and are thenable to metabolize and detoxifypollutants and remove nutrientssuch as nitrogen 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 wetland

Grass Shrimp

Blue Crab Clams

Oyster

Detritus

Zooplankton

Bass

Menhaden

Sheepshead Minnow

Bluefish

Mullet

Estuarine Waters

Coastal Wetlands Plants

Coastal Wetlands Produce Detritus that SupportFish and Shellfish

Figure 5-2

Chapter Five Wetlands 85

vegetation help slow the speed offlood waters. This action, combinedwith water storage, can lower floodheights and reduce the water’s ero-sive potential (Figure 5-4). In agri-cultural areas, wetlands can helpreduce the likelihood of flood dam-age to crops. Wetlands within andupstream of urban areas are espe-cially valuable for flood protection,since urban development increasesthe rate and volume of surfacewater runoff, thereby increasing therisk of flood damage.

Wetlands are often locatedbetween rivers and high ground(called uplands) and are thereforeable to store flood waters andreduce channel erosion. Wetlandsbind soil, dampen wave action, and

reduce current velocity throughfriction. These properties are veryvaluable for stabilizing shorelines(Figure 5-5).

Wetlands water storage capac-ity also allows recharge of groundwater, which may be used assources of water for drinking oragricultural uses (Figure 5-6). Ele-vated ground water tables andwater stored in wetlands are alsoimportant for maintaining streambase-flows. Water entering wetlandsduring wet periods is releasedslowly through ground water or asrunoff, moderating stream flowvolumes necessary for the survivalof fish, wildlife, and plants that relyon the stream (Figure 5-7).

Source: Washington State Department of Ecology.

Figure 5-3

Water Quality Improvement Functions in Wetlands

Figure 5-4

Flood ProtectionFunctions in Wetlands


Figure 5-5

Shoreline StabilizationFunctions in Wetlands



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 theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)in 1991 illustrates the economicvalue of some of the wetlands-dependent products. Over 9 billionpounds of fish and shellfish landedin the United States in 1991 had adirect dockside value of $3.3 billion.This served as the basis of a seafoodprocessing and sales industry thatgenerated total expenditures of$26.8 billion. In addition, 35.6 mil-lion anglers spent $24 billion onfreshwater and saltwater fishing. It is estimated that 71% of com-mercially valuable fish and shellfishdepend directly or indirectly oncoastal wetlands.

The abundant wildlife inwetlands also attracts outdoorrecreationists. Visits by outdoorrecreationists to national wildliferefuges (NWR), which often protectextensive wetlands, bring millionsof dollars and many jobs to adja-cent communities. The FWS esti-mated that in 1994, bird watchersand other outdoor recreationistsspent $636,000 in the communitiesaround the Quivara NWR in Kansas,$3.1 million around the Salton SeaNWR in California, and over $14million around the Santa Ana NWRin Texas.

Consequences ofWetlands Loss andDegradation

The loss or degradation of wet-lands can lead to serious conse-quences, including increased flood-ing; species decline, deformity, orextinction; and declines in waterquality. The following discussiondescribes several examples of theconsequences of wetlands loss anddegradation.

Floods continue to seriouslydamage the property and liveli-hoods of thousands of Americansdespite expenditures of billions oflocal, State, and Federal dollars overthe years to reduce flooding. Lossor degradation of wetlands intensi-fies flooding by eliminating theircapacity to absorb peak flows andgradually release flood waters.

■ In Massachusetts, the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers estimated thatover $17 million of annual flooddamage would result from thedestruction of 8,422 acres ofwetlands in the Charles River Basin.For this reason, the COE decided topreserve wetlands rather than con-struct extensive flood control facili-ties along a stretch of the CharlesRiver near Boston. Annual benefitsof the preservation project average$2.1 million while annual costsaverage $617,000.

■ The Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources estimated that itcosts the public $300 to replace thewater storage capacity lost bydevelopment of 1 acre of wetlands

Figure 5-6

Ground Water RechargeFunctions in Wetlands


Figure 5-7

Streamflow MaintenanceFunctions in Wetlands



that holds 12 inches of water. Thecost of replacing 5,000 acres ofwetlands would be $1.5 million,which exceeds the State’s annualappropriation for flood control.

■ In 1988, DuPage County, Illinois,found that 80% of all flood damagereports came from owners whosehouses were built in converted wet-lands. The county spends $0.5 to$1.0 million annually to correct theproblem.

Another consequence of wet-lands loss or degradation is decline,deformity from toxic contamina-tion, or extinction of wildlife andplant species. Forty-five percent of the threatened and endangeredspecies listed by the Fish andWildlife Service rely directly or indi-rectly on wetlands for their survival.The Nature Conservancy estimatesthat two-thirds of freshwater mus-sels and crayfishes are rare orimperiled and more than one-thirdof freshwater fishes and amphibiansdependent on aquatic and wet-lands habitats are at risk.

■ The destruction of wetlandsaround Merritt Island and St. John’sIsland in Florida has been identifiedas a major contributor to theextinction of the Dusky SeasideSparrow. The sparrow’s habitat wasdiked and flooded in an attempt to control mosquitos, then drainedand burned to promote ranching.The last Dusky Seaside Sparrowdied in captivity on June 16, 1987.

■ Overlogging of mature bottom-land hardwood forests is believedto have caused the extinction of theIvory Billed Woodpecker in the

United States. The clearing of bot-tomland hardwood forests has alsoaffected the Louisiana Black Bear, or swamp bear, by destroying thebear’s habitat. With its populationplummeting from the thousands to several hundred, the Fish andWildlife Service recently listed theLouisiana Black Bear as “threat-ened” under the EndangeredSpecies Act.

■ Populations of Mallard Ducksand Northern Pintail Ducks inNorth America declined continuallybetween 1955 and the early 1990s.In 1990, the number of MallardDucks in the prairies of the UnitedStates declined 60% from the num-ber counted in 1989 to the lowestpopulation figures on record. Thewell-being of waterfowl populationsis tied to the status and abundanceof wetlands. As waterfowl popula-tions are squeezed into the remain-ing wetlands, confined conditionsfavor outbreaks of avian choleraand other contagious diseases inwaterfowl. In 1996, breeding duckpopulations reached their highestlevels since 1979 because of con-secutive years of abundant precipi-tation and continued public andprivate efforts to maintain andrestore wetlands habitats.

■ The Arizona Game and FishDepartment estimates that 75% or more of all of Arizona’s nativewildlife species depend on healthyriparian systems during someportion of their life cycle.

Wetlands loss and degradationalso reduce water quality purifica-tion functions performed bywetlands.


■ The Congaree BottomlandHardwood Swamp in SouthCarolina provides valuable waterquality services, such as removingand stabilizing sediment, nutrients,and toxic contaminants. The totalcost of constructing, operating, andmaintaining a tertiary treatmentplant to perform the same func-tions would be $5 million.

■ Forested riparian wetlands playan important role in reducing nutri-ent loads entering the ChesapeakeBay. In one study, a riparian forestin a predominantly agriculturalwatershed removed about 80% ofthe phosphorus and 89% of thenitrogen from the runoff water

before it entered a tributary to theBay. Destruction of such areasadversely affects the water quality of the Bay by increasing undesirableweed growth and algae blooms.

■ A study of two similar sites on theHackensack River in New Jerseydemonstrated the increase in erosionthat results from the destruction ofmarshlands. In the study, marsh veg-etation was cut at one site and leftundisturbed at the other site. Thebank at the cut site eroded nearly 2 meters (more than 6 feet) in 1 yearwhile the uncut site exhibited negli-gible bank erosion.

These examples illustrate theintegral role of wetlands in ourecosystems and how wetlandsdestruction and degradation canhave expensive and permanent con-sequences. By preserving wetlandsand their functions, wetlands willcontinue to provide many benefits to people and the environment.

Extent of the Resource

Wetlands Loss in the United States

It is estimated that over 200million acres of wetlands existed inthe lower 48 States at the time ofEuropean settlement. Since then,extensive wetlands acreage has beenlost, with many of the original wet-lands drained and converted to farm-land and urban development. Today,less than half of our original wetlandsremain. The losses amount to anarea equal to the size of California(see Figure 5-8). According to theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’sWetlands Losses in the United States1780’s to 1980’s, the three States

PRVI

31

3856

27

5230

33

50

67

89

8124 42

59 23

54

37

35

9

20

2860

3956

90

49

2759

50

46

45

72

87

85 87

50

49

35

48

52

36

91

5042

12

74

73

3538

0.1

Percentage of Wetlands Acreage Lost,1780s-1980s

Figure 5-8

Twenty-two States have lost at least 50% of their original wetlands.Seven of these 22 (California, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky,and Ohio) have lost more than 80% of their original wetlands.

Source: Dahl, T.E., 1990, Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s,U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

STATES REPORT

that residential

development and

urban growth are the

leading sources of

recent wetlands loss.


that have sustained the greatestpercentage of wetlands loss areCalifornia (91%), Ohio (90%), andIowa (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 mid-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. These estimates are basedon aerial photographs.

A more recent estimate ofwetlands losses from the NationalResources Inventory (NRI), con-ducted 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 a yearly 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 estimates,although they are based on hydricsoils, are consistent with the trendof declining wetlands losses report-ed by FWS. Although losses havedecreased, we still have to makeprogress toward our interim goal ofno 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 is a result of the combined effect of several trends: (1) the decline inprofitability in converting wetlandsfor agricultural production; (2) pas-sage of Swampbuster in the 1985,

1990, and 1996 Farm Bills; (3) pres-ence of the CWA Section 404 per-mit programs as well as develop-ment of State management pro-grams (see Chapter 17); (4) greaterpublic interest and support for wet-lands protection; and (5) imple-mentation of wetlands restorationprograms at the Federal, State, andlocal level.

Twelve States listed sources ofrecent wetlands loss in their 1996305(b) reports (Figure 5-9). Resi-dential development and urbangrowth were cited as the leadingsources of current losses (seeAppendix D, Table D-1, for individ-ual State information). Other losseswere due to agriculture; construc-tion of roads, highways, andbridges; hydrologic modifications;filling and/or draining; channeliza-tion; and industrial development.

Several States and the Districtof Columbia reported on efforts to

Channelization

Filling and Draining(Unspecified)

Industrial Development


Road/Highway/BridgeConstruction

Agriculture

Residential Developmentand Urban Growth


10

9

6

5

4

4

4

TotalSources

0 10 15

Sources of Recent Wetlands Losses(12 States Reporting)

Figure 5-9

5

Based on data contained in Appendix D, Table D-4.


inventory wetlands. Some of theprograms are designed to augmentthe FWS’s National WetlandsInventory (NWI), while others aredesigned to produce independentstatus and trend information. Someof the programs have already beencompleted and others have beenauthorized but not funded.

■ Alabama is evaluating and map-ping wetlands habitats in a portionof the Lower Mobile-Tensaw RiverDelta and Mobile Bay. With fundingfrom USEPA’s Gulf of MexicoProgram, Alabama is digitizingwetlands habitats based on aerialphotography from 1955, 1979, and1988, using the NWI methodology.

■ Delaware is currently mappingwetlands area in the State based on1992 aerial photography.

■ In 1996, the District of Columbiacompleted mapping of its wetlandsbased on a 1994 estimate of totalwetlands acreage generated byapplying the Planogrid method toaerial NWI maps. The finer detailand resolution of the new method-ology almost doubled previous esti-mates of wetlands acreage.

■ New Hampshire recently com-pleted a wetlands mapping projectthat translated LANDSAT digitalimagery into a geographic informa-tion system (GIS) format. The proj-ect included extensive field verifica-tion and soils mapping in 7 of the10 counties. The GIS mapping sys-tem revealed many small wetlandsthat were overlooked by previoussurveys. As a result, NewHampshire’s estimate of totalwetlands acreage climbed from200,000 acres to between 400,000

and 600,000 acres of nontidalwetlands and 7,500 acres of tidalwetlands.

■ In 1996, New York completedcounty maps of fresh water wet-lands for all counties outside of theAdirondack Park. In addition, NewYork has completed its tidal wet-lands inventory that shows tidalwetlands on Long Island, in NewYork City, and in certain countiesalong the southern reaches of theHudson River.

■ In 1996, Georgia finished ananalysis of landcover based onLANDSAT TM imagery. Georgiareported acreage of 15 landcoverclasses for each county. Based onthese data, Georgia estimates that13% of its land area, nearly 5 million acres, is wetlands.

■ The Ohio Department of NaturalResources (DNR) is conducting astatewide inventory of wetlands aspart of its Remote Sensing Programwith cooperation from numerousagencies. The program utilizesdigital data from the LANDSATThematic Mapper, digitized soilsdata, low level aerial photographs,and topographic maps to identifyand map different types of wet-lands, including farmed wetlands.DNR plans to update the mapsevery 5 years.

Monitoring WetlandsFunctions and Values

Wetlands monitoring programsare critical to the achievement ofimportant national goals, such asno overall net loss of wetlands func-tions and values. With States and

More States are

monitoring

unimpacted wetlands

to define baseline

conditions in healthy

wetlands.


Tribes developing water qualitystandards for their wetlands, Stateand Tribal monitoring programs arecritical for determining if wetlandsare meeting their existing and des-ignated uses. Monitoring programsare also needed to prioritize wet-lands for protection and restorationand to develop performance stand-ards for successful mitigation andrestoration efforts.

Monitoring programs can pro-vide the data needed to identifydegradation of functions and valuesin wetlands and sources of thatdegradation, but specific wetlandsmonitoring programs are still intheir infancy. Currently, no State isoperating a statewide wetlandsmonitoring program, althoughseveral States include some wet-lands in their ambient monitoringprograms. A growing number ofStates are implementing monitor-ing projects at selected referencewetlands that are relatively freefrom impacts. These States will usethe data collected from referencewetlands to define baseline condi-tions in healthy wetlands and tocreate standards to protect wet-lands.

■ Minnesota initiated the ReferenceWetlands Project in 1993 to devel-op a basis for assessing the biolog-ical and chemical integrity ofwetlands. This project included 32relatively undisturbed wetlands andthree impacted wetlands to cali-brate biological metrics. In 1995,Minnesota began a second wet-lands project in depressional wet-lands. In the Impacted WetlandProject, 20 known impactedwetlands and six least-disturbedwetlands were sampled. In theImpacted Wetland Project the focus

was on calibrating biologicalmetrics across a gradient of disturb-ance. The disturbance gradient wasrepresented by two primary stres-sors, conventional agricultural prac-tice and storm water discharges.Both projects characterized theinvertebrate community, vegeta-tion, amphibians, water, and sedi-ment chemistry. This informationwill provide the basis for determin-ing use support status and evaluat-ing depressional wetlands health inMinnesota.

■ Montana sampled 80 wetlandsthroughout the State during 1993and 1994 to develop bioassessmentprotocols. Wetlands were sampledfor water column and sedimentchemistry, macroinvertebrates, anddiatoms. To partition natural varia-bility between wetlands types,Montana developed a classificationsystem to group reference wetlandsby ecoregion and hydrogeomor-phology. Montana used a multi-metric approach to develop amacroinvertebrate index to assesswetlands water quality. Preliminaryresults indicate detection of impair-ments caused by metals, nutrients,salinity, sediment, and fluctuatingwater levels.

■ North Dakota initiated a projectin 1995 to develop biocriteria andwater quality standards for wet-lands. North Dakota began sam-pling water chemistry, sediments,macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton,and vegetation in reference wet-lands of the prairie pothole region.Based on continued field sampling,North Dakota plans to develop bio-logical criteria for specific wetlandsclasses.

Wetlands Acres Surveyed byStates and Tribes

8,405,875 acres = 8% surveyedTotal acres (excluding Alaska)= 107 million

8,405,875 acres = 3% surveyedTotal acres (including Alaska)= 277 milliona

3% Surveyed

97% Not Surveyed

Including Alaska's Wetlands

Excluding Alaska's Wetlands

8% Surveyed

92% Not Surveyed

aFrom Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Source: 1996 Section 305(b) reportssubmitted by States, Tribes,Territories, and Commissions.


■ Ohio initiated a project in 1994to develop biocriteria for wetlands.Ohio is applying the sameapproach to wetlands that it usedto develop its stream biocriteriaprogram. Methodologies to assessvegetation, macroinvertebrates, andamphibian assemblages are underdevelopment. As with streams,Ohio is defining the biologicalintegrity of wetlands based on aframework of least-impacted refer-ence sites. Ohio will use wetlandbiocriteria to define the attainablecondition for a class of wetlands ina given region.

■ Every 3 years, Kansas collectswater quality samples from sevenwetlands (covering 25,069 acres)owned by the State or the Federalgovernment. The State monitorsone station per wetland for nutri-ents, minerals, heavy metals, clarity,suspended solids, pesticides, bacte-ria, algae, temperature, and dis-solved oxygen.

■ Kentucky added several wetlandsto its reference reach monitoringprogram to characterize chemicalwater quality, sediment quality, fishtissue concentrations of contami-nants, habitat conditions, and gen-eral biotic conditions in each phys-iographic region of the State. Theinformation will be used to developdesignated uses and biological cri-teria for wetlands.

Designated UseSupport in Wetlands

The States, Tribes, and otherjurisdictions are making progress indeveloping specific designated uses

and 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 (see Appendix D, Table D-1).Only Kansas used quantitative dataas a basis for use support decisions.

■ California reported that 12% ofthe 124,178 acres of surveyed wet-lands fully supports aquatic life useand 88% of the acres are impaireddue to metals, nutrients, oxygendepletion, and salinity. Sourcesimpacting wetlands include munici-pal wastewater treatment plants,urban runoff and storm sewers, andhydrologic and habitat modifica-tions.

■ The Coyote Valley Band of PomoIndians in northern California classi-fied all 1.6 acres of their wetlandsas partially supporting uses forwildlife and use as a riparian buffer.The use support analysis was basedon reconnaissance surveys ratherthan monitoring in the wetlands.The wetlands are impaired byexotic species, filling and draining,and other habitat alterations.

■ The Hoopa Valley Tribe in north-ern California reported that all of its3,200 acres of surveyed wetlandsare impaired for aquatic life use,religious use, wildlife habitat use,and use as a riparian buffer. Fillingand draining, flow alterations, otherhabitat alterations, and exoticspecies impair the wetlands.


Agriculture, forestry, construction,hydrologic modifications, andunknown sources have degradedwetlands on the Hoopa ValleyReservation.

■ Iowa used best professional judg-ment to determine the use supportof 26,062 wetlands acres during1994 and 1995. The State reportedthat 35% of the assessed wetlandsfully supported designated uses, ofwhich 32% are threatened for oneor more uses. The nonsupportingacres are impaired by pesticides,ammonia, nutrients, siltation, andhabitat alterations. Sources ofimpairment include agriculture,urban runoff and storm sewers,land disposal of wastes, and hydro-modification.

■ Kansas assessed and determinedthe use support of 35,597 wetlandsacres during this reporting cycle. Ofthe 35,597 acres, 10,458 acreswere of unknown use support. Ofthe remaining 26,139 acres, 9%fully support uses now but arethreatened and 91% are impairedand exceed chronic aquatic life sup-port criteria. Kansas used monitor-ing data to determine use supportin nine publicly owned wetlands(covering 25,069 acres) and quali-tative information to assess onewetland (covering 70 acres).

■ Louisiana assessed use support inover 1 million acres of its 8.7 mil-lion total acres of wetlands. TheState reported that 92% of theassessed wetland acres fully supportuses and 8% are impaired becauseof bacteria, siltation and suspendedsolids, and hydrologic modifications.Sources of impairment include

channelization, dredging, flow reg-ulation, drainage and filling, recre-ational activities, upstream sources,and natural sources.

■ Michigan assessed use supportfor 10 acres of wetlands. All 10acres are impaired and do not sup-port designated uses because ofnickel contamination.

■ Nevada surveyed use support in19,326 acres (25%) of its 136,650total acres of wetlands. Nevadareported that all of the surveyedwetlands fully supported designat-ed uses.

■ North Carolina used aerialphotographs and soil informationfrom a 1992-1993 survey to rateuse support by current land use.North Carolina rated wetlands onhydric soils with natural tree coveras fully supporting uses. Partiallysupporting wetlands have modified

Sedimentation/Siltation

Nutrients


Pesticides

Flow Alterations

Habitat Alterations

Metals

Salinity/TSS/Chlorides

6

6

5

5

5

5

4

4

0 4 8 10Number of States Reporting

TotalCauses

Causes Degrading Wetlands Integrity(10 States Reporting)

Figure 5-10

2 6


More information on wetlandscan be obtained from EPA’s Wetlands Hotline at 1-800-832-7828, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.Eastern Standard Time.


cover and hydrology but still retainwetlands status and support mostuses. For example, pine plantationsstill retain value for wildlife habitat,flood control, ground waterrecharge, nutrient removal, andaquatic habitat, although the modi-fied wetlands support these usesless effectively than undisturbedwetlands. Wetlands converted toagriculture or urban land use areclassified as not supporting originalwetlands uses. The State used thismethodology to survey use supportin over 7 million acres of wetlands.The State reported that 66% of thesurveyed wetlands fully supportuses and 34% are impaired for oneor more uses.

EPA cannot draw national con-clusions about water quality condi-tions in all wetlands because theStates used different methodologies

to survey only 3% of the total wet-lands in the Nation. SummarizingState wetlands data would alsoproduce misleading results becausetwo States (North Carolina andLouisiana) contain 98% of thesurveyed wetlands acreage. MoreStates and Tribes will assess usesupport in wetlands as they developstandards for wetlands. Many Statesare still in the process of developingwetlands water quality standards,which provide the baseline fordetermining beneficial use support(see Chapter 13). Improved stand-ards will also provide a firmer foun-dation for assessing impairments inwetlands in those States alreadyreporting use support in wetlands.

The States have even fewerdata to quantify the extent ofpollutants degrading wetlands andthe sources of these pollutants.Although most States cannot quan-tify wetlands area impacted by indi-vidual causes and sources of degra-dation, nine States identified causesand sources known to degradewetlands integrity to some extent(Figures 5-10 and 5-11). TheseStates listed sediment and habitatalterations as the most widespreadcauses of degradation impactingwetlands, followed by draining andnutrients. Agriculture and hydrolog-ic modifications topped the list ofsources degrading wetlands, fol-lowed by urban runoff, construc-tion, and draining (see Appendix D,Tables D-3 and D-4, for individualState information).


9

7

5

8

4



Natural

Urban Runoff

Agriculture

4

0 4 6 8

Construction

TotalSources

4Dredging

Sources Degrading Wetlands Integrity(9 States Reporting)

Figure 5-11

4Resource Extraction

2

Livestock Grazing

91 5 73



Summary

Currently, most States are notequipped to report on the integrityof their wetlands. Only six Statesand Tribes reported attainment ofdesignated uses for wetlands in1996. National trends cannot be

drawn from this limited informa-tion. This is expected to change,however, as States adopt wetlandswater quality standards andenhance their existing monitoringprograms to more accurately assessdesignated use support in theirwetlands.

Jeff

Reyn

olds

, Ral

eigh

, NC

6

Ground Water Quality

Ground water is a vital nationalresource that is used for myriadpurposes. It is used for public anddomestic water supply systems, forirrigation and livestock watering,and for industrial, commercial,mining, and thermoelectric powerproduction purposes. In many partsof the Nation, ground water servesas the only reliable source of drink-ing and irrigation water. Unfortu-nately, this vital resource is vulnera-ble to contamination, and groundwater contaminant problems arebeing reported throughout thecountry.

To ascertain the extent to whichour Nation’s ground water resourceshave been impacted by humanactivities, Section 106(e) of theClean Water Act requests that eachState monitor ground water qualityand report the findings to Congressin their 305(b) State Water QualityReports. Evaluation of our Nation’sground water quality is complexand early efforts to provide aNational assessment of groundwater quality relied on generalizedoverviews presented by the Stateresource managers. These overviewswere most frequently based onknown or suspected contaminationsites and on finished water qualitydata from public supply systems.Unfortunately, these early assess-ments did not always provide acomplete or accurate representationof ambient ground water qualityconditions. Nor did they provide anindication of the extent and severityof ground water contaminationproblems.

EPA recognized that an accuraterepresentation of our Nation’s ambi-ent ground water quality conditionsrequired developing a set of guide-lines that would ultimately yieldquantitative data for specific hydro-geologic units within a State. EPA, inpartnership with interested States,developed guidelines for assessingground water quality that took intoaccount the complex spatial varia-tions in aquifer systems, the differinglevels of sophistication among Stateprograms, and the expense of col-lecting ambient ground water data.It was these guidelines that wereused by States for reporting the1996 305(b) ground water data.

The most significant change for1996 was the request that Statesprovide ground water informationfor selected aquifers or hydrogeo-logic settings (e.g., watersheds)within the State. The focus onspecific aquifers or hydrogeologicsettings provides for a more quanti-tative assessment of ground waterquality than was possible in previousreporting cycles.

State response to the revisedground water guidelines was excel-lent. Forty States, one Territory, andtwo Tribes used the new guidelinesto assess and report ground waterquality data in 1996. Each of thesereporting entities (hereafter referredto as States) used the data that wasavailable to them and, as a conse-quence, there was wide variation in reporting style. This variation was anticipated by EPA and Statesinvolved in developing theguidelines as it is a direct reflection

98 Chapter Six Ground Water Quality

of the administrative, technical, andprogrammatic diversity among ourStates. This variation is expected todecrease in future 305(b) reportingcycles as many States have indicatedthey are developing plans toimprove their data management toprovide better coverage. Still otherStates indicated that the 1996Guidelines provided incentive tomodify their ground water programsto enhance their ability to providemore accurate and representativeinformation.

Despite variations in reportingstyle, the 1996 305(b) State WaterQuality Reports represent a first stepin improving the assessment of Stateambient ground water quality. Forthe first time, States provided quan-titative data describing groundwater quality. Furthermore, Statesprovided quantitative informationpertaining to contamination sourcesthat have impacted ground waterquality. This chapter presents theresults of data submitted by Statesin their 1996 305(b) Water QualityReports.

Ground Water Use in the United States

Although 75% of the earth'ssurface is covered by water, lessthan 1% is fresh water available forour use. It has been estimated thatapproximately 96% of the world'savailable fresh water reserve isstored in the earth as ground water.Figure 6-1 helps put these numbersinto perspective.

In the United States, groundwater is used for agricultural,domestic, industrial, and commercialpurposes. Ground water provides

Water75%

Land25%

Distribution of Water on Earth’s Surface

Figure 6-1

Ice Caps and Glaciers 1.97%

Surface Water 4%

Fresh WaterAvailable for Use

0.52%

GroundWater 96%

Other 0.01%

Salt Water97.5%

National Ground Water Use as aPercentage of Total Withdrawals

Figure 6-2

Source: Open-File Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey.

Irrigation 63%Thermoelectric 0.7%Commercial 1%Livestock Watering 3%Domestic 4%

Industrial 5%

Public DrinkingWater Supply 19%

Mining 4%

Chapter Six Ground Water Quality 99

water for drinking and bathing, irri-gation of crop lands, livestock water-ing, mining, industrial and commer-cial uses, and thermoelectric coolingapplications. Figure 6-2 illustrateshow ground water is used amongthese various categories. As shown,irrigation (63%) and public watersupply (19%) are the largest uses ofground water withdrawls.

In 1990, the United StatesGeological Survey reported thatground water supplied 51% of theNation's overall population withdrinking water. In rural areas of theNation, ground water supplied 95%of the population with drinkingwater. So our Nation’s dependenceon this valuable resource is obvious.In their 305(b) Water QualityReports, States emphasized theimportance of ground water as adrinking water resource.

Idaho is one of the topfive States in the coun-try for the volume ofground water used.Idahoans use an aver-age of 9 billion gallons

per day of ground water. Sixty per-cent of this water is used by agricul-ture for crop irrigation and stockanimals. Thirty-six percent is used byindustry, and 3% to 4% is used fordrinking water. Even though the vol-ume of ground water used for drink-ing water is relatively small in com-parison to total ground water use,more than 90% of the population inIdaho rely on ground water for theirdrinking water supply. Currently,approximately 70% of the State’spopulation is served by publicsystems regulated under the SafeDrinking Water Act (see descriptionin Chapter 18); the remaining 30%

obtain their drinking water throughprivate systems typically representedby private wells.

Approximately 95% ofthe 11.5 million people inIllinois rely on publicwater supplies as a sourceof drinking water. About4.1 million people use

ground water as a source of publicwater supply. Furthermore, anestimated 400,000 residences inIllinois are served by private wells.

Kansas relies onground waterresources for public,rural-domestic,

industrial, irrigation, and livestockwater supplies. Over 90% of allwater used within Kansas is suppliedby ground water. Although irriga-tion continues to be by far thelargest user of ground water,ground water provides approxi-mately 85% of the drinking water inrural areas. A total of 637 communi-ty public water supplies are depen-dent on ground water, either solelyor in combination with surfacewater sources. These supplies serve atotal of 1,717,464 people.

South Dakota isheavily dependenton ground water tomeet the needs of

its population. More than 75% ofthe population use ground water fordomestic needs. Over 80% of theState’s public water supply systemsrely on ground water and virtuallyeveryone not supplied by the publicwater supply systems is dependenton ground water.

In 1990, the United StatesGeological Survey reported thatground water supplied 51% of the Nation's overallpopulation with drinkingwater. In rural areas of theNation, ground water supplied95% of the population withdrinking water. So our Nation’sdependence on this valuableresource is obvious. In their305(b) Water Quality Reports,States emphasized the impor-tance of ground water as adrinking water resource.



Uses of Ground Water State Specific to Drinking Water Other Uses

Alabama 40% of water is obtained from ground water

Alaska 85% of public drinking water Ground water is the major systems in the State use ground source of fresh water for public water as their source and private drinking water

supply systems, industry, and agricultural development

Arkansas 47.2% of total ground water Between 1975 and 1980,withdrawals are used for ground water use increased drinking water from 2,596 to 4,056 million

gallons per day (a 56% increase); it increased from 4,056 to 4,708 million gallons per day between 1980 and 1990 (a 16% increase)

Colorado 59 of 63 counties use ground Ground water supplies approx- water for drinking water; 29 imately 18% of total water of these counties rely solely withdrawals; 96% is used for on ground water irrigation

Delaware 67% of the State’s population Overall, ground water use is dependent upon public and increased 13.31%, whereas private wells for domestic needs; overall surface water use Kent and Sussex Counties rely decreased 18.87% 100% on ground water for drinking water

Georgia In 1990, ground water made up In 1990, ground water made 24% of the public water supply up 60% of irrigation use and and 92% of rural drinking water 51% of the industrial and sources; for all practical purposes, mining use ground water is the dominant source of drinking water for areas outside the larger citiesof the Piedmont

Ground Water Use




Indiana Nearly 60% of the population Industry withdraws an average uses ground water for drinking 190 million gallons/day; water and other household irrigation consumes 200 million purposes; approximately 50% gallons/day during the cropof the population served by production season; and live- public water supplies depends stock depend on an average on ground water; over 0.5 of 45 million gallons/day million homes have private wells

Kentucky Approximately 14% of the Large ground water with-population (500,000 people) drawals (>10,000 gallons/day) rely on private wells for drinking increased from 37.8 million water; there are 362 public water gallons/day in 1980 to supply systems using ground 320 million gallons/day water as principal, partial, or in 1995 supplemental supplies

Maine More than 60% of all households Nearly 60% of water needed draw their drinking water from for livestock is supplied by ground water supplied from ground water; ground waterprivate or public wells; ground also supplies more than 60%water is the source of approxi- of industrial needsmately 98% of all water used by households with private supplies

Maryland Ground water supplied 450 public water supply systems in 1995, serving a population of 960,000

Missouri Ground water is the main source of drinking water in the Ozarks and Southeast Lowlands for both public and private supplies; the cities of Independence, Columbia, and St. Charles use ground water adjacent to the Missouri River




New York Approximately 6,000,000 people use ground water as a source of drinking water; 50% of these people are on Long Island and the remainder are in upstate New York

South Carolina Ground water is a source of drinking water for more than 60% of the population

Tennessee More than 50% of the population relies on ground water for drinking water supplies (one in five of these households relies on a private well or spring); community public water systems withdraw approximately 243 million gallons/day

Texas About 41% of municipal water In 1992, approximately 56% is derived from ground water of the water used for domestic, resources municipal, industrial, and agri-

cultural purposes was derived from ground water

Utah Ground water is a major source of public drinking water supplies with almost 67% of the popula-tion dependent upon this resource

Vermont Approximately 60% of the popu-lation depend on ground water to meet their drinking water needs; in rural communities, ground water dependence is nearly 100%

Virginia Ground water is used solely or in Ground water accounts for part to supply 80% of the popu- approximately 22% of thelation with drinking water water used exclusively for

hydroelectric and thermo-electric purposes

Wisconsin Ninety-seven percent of Wiscon-sin’s villages and cities use ground water for drinking water, and 70% of the State’s residents rely on ground water for their water supply


Ground water is thesource of drinkingwater for 60% to70% of the popula-

tion of Washington State. In largeareas east of the Cascade MountainRange, 80% to 100% of availabledrinking water is obtained fromground water resources. As a whole,over 95% of Washington’s publicwater supply systems use groundwater as their primary water source.

Ground water is also oftendirectly connected to rivers, streams,lakes, and other surface waterbod-ies, with water flowing back andforth from one resource to theother. In some areas of the country,ground water contributes signifi-cantly to the water in streams andlakes.

The volume of ground waterthat is discharged to surface water-bodies, thereby maintaining stream-flow during periods of low flow ordrought conditions, was previouslyunrecognized and unquantified. Thisvolume, estimated at 492 billiongallons per day, is measured usingspecial instruments or estimatedusing stream gaging and hydraulicgradient data. When ground watercontributing to stream baseflowmaintenance is included with theother ground water uses, it becomesevident just how important it canbe. As shown in Figure 6-3, streambaseflow maintenance accounts for54% of ground water discharges.This baseflow contributes to main-taining healthy aquatic habitats insurface water.

With ground water playing suchan important part in maintainingwater flow in streams and lakes, thequality of the ground water canhave an important effect on the

overall condition of the surfacewater. Surface waters can becomecontaminated if the ground waterserves as a means to transport con-taminants to the surface water (andvice versa). This could affect drink-ing water supplies drawn from sur-face water, fish and wildlife habitats,swimming, boating, and fishing.

Thus, it is evident that groundwater is a very important naturalresource. Preserving the quality ofour ground water resources ensuresthat our needs as a Nation will bemet now and into the future.

Ground WaterQuality

The evaluation of our Nation’sground water quality is complex. In evaluating ground water quality

Withdrawal and Discharge of Ground Wateras a Percentage of Contribution

Figure 6-3

Irrigation 29.0%

Thermoelectric 0.3%Commercial 0.5%Livestock Watering 1.4%

Domestic 1.9%Industrial 2.3%Public DrinkingWater Supply 8.7%

Stream BaseflowMaintenance 54.0%

Mining 1.9%

Source: Open-File Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey, and National Water Summary 1986,Source: Hydrologic Events and Ground-Water Quality, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-SupplySource: Paper 2325.



Ground Water/Surface WaterInteractions

Nationwide, many water qualityproblems may be caused by groundwater/surface water interactions.Substantial evidence shows that it isnot uncommon for contaminatedground water to discharge to andcontaminate surface water. In othercases, contaminated surface water isseeping into and contaminatingground water. In their most recentreports on water quality, severalstates reported ground water/surfacewater interactions leading to conta-mination of one medium by theother. A few examples follow:

■ The Arkansas Department ofHealth (ADH) is investigating casesof ground water contaminated bymicroscopic organisms normallyfound in surface water. Because sur-face water carries disease-causingprotozoa and other organisms resis-tant to the chlorination used to dis-infect most public wells, the ADHmust determine if public drinkingwater wells are supplied by sourcesof ground water under the directinfluence (GWUDI) to surface water.

The ADH has developed an objectivemethod to determine if a well issupplied by GWUDI. Water qualityinformation is used to determine thepotential for contamination andthen possible pathways of contami-nation are identified by evaluating

the well’s conformance to estab-lished construction standards. Twoprimary defects in well constructionthat provide possible pathways forsurface water contamination are: (1) unsuitable below-ground con-struction, particularly shallow casingsand insufficient grout; and (2) wellsites characterized by poor drainage,high soil infiltration rate, and highlypermeable outcrops.

Arkansas has more than 1,700public drinking water supply wells.In the 3 years since the GWUDIprogram began, the ADH has usedthe above method to determine that900 of these wells are not suppliedby sources of ground water underthe influence of surface water. Formany of the wells evaluated, theADH has recommended simple,above-ground construction repairsor site maintenance procedures thateffectively closed the pathways ofsurface water contamination.

■ In South Carolina, ground waterserves to recharge most of thestreams; thus, contaminated groundwater impacts surface waters moreoften than surface waters impactground water. In the State’s GroundWater Contamination Inventory, 79cases of contaminated ground waterdischarging from surficial aquifers tosurface water have been noted.



Detailed information on contami-nant concentrations in both theaquifer and surface water is notavailable. However, in most of thesecases, dilution of the contaminatedground water by uncontaminatedsurface water reduces the contami-nant concentrations in the surfacewater to low or not detectablelevels.

■ No single program addresses thewater quality concerns that arisefrom ground water/surface waterinteractions in Maine. However,contamination, or potential contami-nation, of surface water throughbaseflow of contaminated groundwater is being evaluated at severallocations. At an egg production facil-ity in Turner, Maine, past practicesthat included excessive land spread-ing of chicken manure, hen carcassdisposal, and septage disposalresulted in nitrate contamination oflarge areas of a sand and gravelaquifer. The majority of the shallowground water at the site dischargesto streams on the east and westsides of the property. Monitoring

points have been established onthese streams to evaluate the effectsof past practices and current waste-water disposal on surface waterquality. To date, surface waters with-in the property and along the prop-erty boundary show evidence ofnitrate contamination.

■ A similar situation occurs inDelaware. Past land-use practices,such as high septic system densityand poultry houses, have con-tributed to nitrate contamination ofground water. This nitrate-contami-nated groundwater discharges intothe Rehoboth and Indian River bayscontributing to eutrophication andalgal bloom problems. In fact, it isestimated that certain subbasinswithin the Indian River Bay water-shed contribute, through directground water discharge, almost50% of the total nitrogen load thatenters the bay. Furthermore, poultry-producing subbasins were found tobe the source of greater nitrate load-ing than non-poultry-producingbasins.


under Section 305(b) of the CleanWater Act, our goal is to assess if theresource has been adversely impact-ed or degraded as a result of humanactivities.

Not too long ago, it wasthought that soil provided a protec-tive "filter" or "barrier" that immobi-lized the downward migration ofcontaminants released on the landsurface and prevented ground waterresources from being adverselyimpacted or contaminated. The dis-covery of pesticides and other con-taminants in ground water demon-strated that ground water resourceswere indeed vulnerable to contami-nation resulting from human activi-ties. The potential for a contaminantto affect ground water quality isdependent upon its being intro-duced to the environment and its

ability to migrate through the over-lying soils to the underlying groundwater resource. Figure 6-4 illustratesa petroleum spill onto the groundsurface and the subsequent migra-tion of the petroleum through thesoils to the underlying groundwater.

Ground water contaminationcan occur as relatively well defined,localized plumes emanating fromspecific sources such as leakingunderground storage tanks, spills,landfills, waste lagoons, and/orindustrial facilities (Figure 6-5).Contamination can also occur as ageneral deterioration of groundwater quality over a wide area dueto diffuse nonpoint sources such asagricultural fertilizer and pesticideapplications, septic systems, urbanrunoff, leaking sewer networks,application of lawn chemicals,highway deicing materials, animalfeedlots, salvage yards, and miningactivities. Ground water qualitydegradation from diffuse nonpointsources affects large areas, making itdifficult to specify the exact sourceof the contamination.

Ground water contamination ismost common in highly developedareas, agricultural areas, and indus-trial complexes. Frequently, groundwater contamination is discoveredlong after it has occurred. Onereason for this is the slow move-ment of ground water throughaquifers, which, for finer-grainedaquifers may be less than 1 foot perday. Contaminants in the groundwater do not mix or spread quickly,but remain concentrated in slow-moving, localized plumes that maypersist for many years. This oftenresults in a delay in the detection of ground water contamination. In

Ground Water Contamination as a Resultof Petroleum Spillage

Ground Water Flow

Figure 6-4


some cases, contaminants intro-duced into the subsurface morethan 10 years ago are only nowbeing discovered. This also meansthat the practices of today may haveaffects on water quality well into thefuture.

Shallow, unconfined aquifers areespecially susceptible to contamina-tion from surface activities. Groundwater contamination in the surficialaquifers can also affect groundwater quality of the underlying con-fined aquifers. Confined aquifers aremost frequently susceptible to cont-amination when low-permeabilityconfining layers are thin or absent,thus enabling the unretarded down-ward migration of contaminants.Recent studies in southern NewCastle County of Delaware havedemonstrated the long-term suscep-tibility of the underlying aquifers tocontamination. In Delaware, stream

channels have cut down throughconfining layers at periods of lowsea level. When sea level rose, thestream channels were filled withsand and gravel. These highlypermeable channels can act asconduits for contaminant migration.

Ground water contaminantproblems are frequently serious andcan pose a threat to human healthand/or result in increased costs toconsumers. In the 1996 Guidelines,States were asked to indicate themajor uses (e.g., public water sup-ply, private water supply, irrigation,industry, livestock watering) forwater withdrawn from aquifers orhydrogeologic settings within theState. States were also asked torelate water use to uses that mayhave been affected by ground watercontamination.

Although this information wasconsidered optional, 20 States

Figure 6-5

Sources of Ground Water Contamination

SepticTank

CesspoolDischarge

InjectionWell

Irrigation

PumpingWell

Landfill, Dump,or Refuse Pile

Factory

PumpingWell

Sewer Leakage

Aquifer (fresh)

Confining Zone

Confining Zone

WaterTable

Pesticide

Discharge of Injection

Leakage

Ground Water MovementIntentional Input

Unintentional Input

Water Table Aquifer



Ground Water Along Our Nation’s Coasts

Communities along the U.S.coast have been attracting new resi-dents and more industry at an ever-rising rate during the past two or sodecades. This growth has beenbeneficial for the economy and taxbase of these areas. However, nowwe are seeing the beginning of whatcould be unwelcome, even danger-ous, effects on these communitiesand the environment. In fact, coastalcommunities may face critical watersupply issues within the decade ifground water protection andconservation are not aggressivelypursued.

EPA is forming a partnershipbetween its internal Offices ofGround Water and Drinking Waterand Wetlands, Oceans, and Water-sheds, the Ground Water ProtectionCouncil, and the State of Florida tobegin a water supply study inFlorida. The results of this study willform the basis of research to charac-terize current national water qualityand quantity in coastal areas.

The problem will be framed interms of current drinking waterneeds, human health, and economicimpact. EPA plans to share theresults of this research with coastal

communities through public out-reach. Beginning with the mostaffected localities and in partnershipwith local and community organiza-tions, EPA will inform coastalcommunities about the possibleproblems coming their way andhow to avoid them. EPA will developmethods to help communities pro-tect their source waters and drinkingwater and provide assistance tocommunities in putting thesemethods in place.

The problems of protectingcoastal source water and drinkingwater have been neglected for toolong—so long that real problems arearising. EPA hopes this project willsignificantly benefit ground waterand drinking water quality all alongthe coast through improved charac-terization of ground water in coastalareas and better watershed manage-ment. Public education about prob-lems in the coastal environment andhow to solve them will encouragepublic involvement. Better manage-ment of resources—environmental,financial, and human—will lead tonew and needed environmentalimprovements.


responded with information for atotal of 66 aquifers or hydrogeologicunits. Of these, 43 units reportedlysupplied water for PWS, 45 unitssupplied water for private use, and32 units supplied water for irriga-tion. Other important uses of thewater included commercial (12units), livestock (19 units), andindustry (10 units).

When evaluating the differentuses for ground water that havebeen affected by water quality prob-lems, water supply for public andprivate use were the most frequentlyaffected. Water supply to PWS wasaffected in 19 units (almost 45%)and water supply to private wellswas affected in 23 units (>50%).Irrigation, commercial, livestock, andindustry uses were less frequentlyaffected. This may reflect lowerwater quality standards for theseuses.

Ground WaterContaminant Sources

Ground water quality may beadversely impacted by a variety ofpotential contaminant sources. EPAdeveloped a list of potential contam-inant sources for the 1996 305(b)Guidelines and requested each Stateto indicate the 10 top sources thatpotentially threaten their groundwater resources. The list was notconsidered comprehensive andStates added sources as was neces-sary based on State-specific con-cerns. Factors that were consideredby States in their selection includethe number of each type of sourcein the State, the location of the vari-ous sources relative to ground water

used for drinking water purposes,the size of the population at riskfrom contaminated drinking water,the risk posed to human healthand/or the environment fromreleases, hydrogeologic sensitivity(the ease with which contaminantsenter and travel through soil andreach aquifers), and the findings ofthe State’s ground water protectionstrategy and/or related studies. Foreach of the indicated contaminantsources, States were also asked toidentify the contaminants impactingground water quality.

Thirty-seven States providedinformation related to contaminantsources. As requested in the 1996Guidelines, most States indicatedthe 10 top contaminant sourcesthreatening ground water quality. Insome cases, they not only specifiedthe 10 top sources, but providedadditional information on sources oflesser, but still notable, importance.In a few other cases, they providedinformation on the majority ofsources threatening ground waterquality within the State.

Figure 6-6 illustrates the sourcesmost frequently cited by States as apotential threat to ground waterquality. As shown, leaking under-ground storage tanks (USTs) werespecified by 35 out of 37 States asone of the top 10 potential sourcesof ground water contamination.Two other States noted that leakingUSTs were a source of ground watercontamination. Landfills, septicsystems, hazardous waste sites, andsurface impoundments were thenext most frequently cited sourcesof concern.


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Wastewater Treatment PlantEffluent

Figure 6-6

Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination

Storage Tanks (underground)

Septic Systems

Surface Impoundments

Industrial Facilities

Fertilizer Applications

Pipelines and Sewer Lines

Shallow Injection Wells

Animal Feedlots

Mining

Hazardous Waste Generators

Irrigation

Historic

Agricultural Activities

Abandoned Wells

Deep Injection Wells

Material Stockpiles

Federal or State Superfund

Injection Wells

Illegal Dumping Sites

Landfills

Hazardous Waste Sites

Storage Tanks (above ground)

Spills

Pesticide Applications

Agricultural Chemical Facilities

Salt Water Intrusion

Land Application

Urban Runoff

Salt Storage and Road Salting

Wastepiles

Waste Tailings

Oil and Gas Activities

Natural Sources

Material Transfer Operations

Transportation of Materials

Manufacturing/Repair Shops

Dry Cleaners

Land Applications

Total

Number of States, Tribes, and Territories Reporting

Sources

Number Reporting on ContaminantSources in Addition to the Top Ten

Number Reporting on Top TenContaminant Sources

37

35

34

27

25

20

18

20

18

19

15

15

14

13

12

15

14

10

9

11

6

7

4

4

4

4

3

3

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1


Underground StorageTanks

Leaking USTs were cited as thehighest priority contaminant sourceof concern to States in 1996 (Figure6-6). The high priority assigned toleaking USTs in 1996 is consistentwith information reported by Statesduring previous 305(b) cycles.

Although USTs are found in allpopulated areas, they are generallymost concentrated in the moreheavily developed urban and sub-urban areas of a State. USTs areprimarily used to hold petroleumproducts such as gasoline, dieselfuel, and fuel oil. Because they areburied underground, leakage can bea significant source of ground watercontamination that can goundetected for long periods of time(Figure 6-7).

States report that the organicchemicals associated with petroleumproducts are one of the most com-mon ground water contaminants.Petroleum-related chemicals haveadversely affected ground waterquality in aquifers across the Nation.The most significant affects generallyoccur in the uppermost aquifer,which is frequently shallow andoften used for domestic purposes.Petroleum-related chemicals threat-en the use of ground water forhuman consumption because some(e.g., benzene) are known to causecancer even at very low concentra-tions.

The primary causes of leakage inUSTs are faulty installation and cor-rosion of tanks and pipelines. As ofMarch 1996, more than 300,000releases from USTs had been con-firmed. EPA estimates that nationally60% of these leaks have impactedground water quality and, in some

States, the percentage is as high as90%.

In general, the threat from USTswas determined primarily based onthe sheer number of leaking USTs.

■ There were almost 61,000 facili-ties containing 155,308 registeredUSTs in Texas in 1994. During thatsame year, 4,894 cases of groundwater contamination were docu-mented as being under enforcementby the Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission. Fifty-twopercent of the contamination casesare within the 10 most populous

Figure 6-7

Ground Water Contamination as a Resultof Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Saturated Zone

Ground Water Flow

VaporsGasoline

Dissolved Gasoline

WaterTable



Frequently Considered Factors

When identifying a contaminantsource as a potential threat toground water quality, States mayconsider a number of differentfactors such as

■ Number of each type of source inthe State

■ Location of various sourcesrelative to ground water used fordrinking water purposes

■ Size of the population at risk fromcontaminated drinking water

■ Risk posed to human healthand/or the environment fromreleases

■ Hydrogeologic sensitivity (theease with which contaminants enterand travel through soil and reachaquifers)

■ Findings of the State’s groundwater protection strategy and/orrelated studies. States were asked inthe 1996 Guidelines to specify thefactors they considered in reportingcontaminant sources.

Number of States Reporting a Contaminant Groupingin Association with the Specified Source

Leaking SepticSource USTs Landfills Systems

Petroleum 31 18Compounds

Halogenated 9 19 5Solvents

Organic 5 12Pesticides

Metals 3 20

Nitrate 8 22

Bacteria 10 17

Inorganic 10Pesticides

Protozoa 9

Viruses 5 15



Unquestionably, human healthand the environment, the numberand/or size of the contaminantsources, and the location of a sourcerelative to a drinking water sourcewere the most important factorsconsidered. These three factors arereflected in the high priorityassigned to leaking USTs, landfills,and septic systems (see Figure 6-7 ofthis report). Large numbers of eachof these three contaminant sourceshave been documented in theStates. Adverse impacts to drinkingwater as a result of releases fromthese three sources have also been

reported. Releases are frequentlyknown to be hazardous to humanhealth.

The table shows the contami-nants that States specified in associa-tion with leaking USTs, landfills, andseptic systems. As shown, petroleumcompounds were most frequentlyassociated with leaking USTs.Nitrate, bacteria, and protozoa weremost frequently cited in associationwith septic systems. The variability incontaminants associated with land-fills reflects the diversity in disposedmaterials.

Jesse Xiong, 1st grade, Estes Hills Elementary, Chapel Hill, NC


counties in Texas. Furthermore, leak-age from storage tanks has beendocumented in 223 of 254 countiesin the State and either has affected,or has the potential to affect,virtually every major and minoraquifer in the State.

■ As of August 1996, the State ofArizona was tracking approximately8,960 facilities having 30,000 USTs.Of these 30,000 USTs, 5,935 havereported leaks and 917 have or mayhave contaminated ground water.

■ In the State of Delaware, thereare over 9,000 regulated USTs(3,516 of which are currently in use)located at over 2,000 facilities. Overthe period 1994-1995, 586 sites hadconfirmed releases with 80 havingconfirmed ground water releases.

■ As of December 31, 1995, a totalof 41,795 USTs have been registeredat approximately 14,000 facilities inthe State of Kentucky. Approxi-mately 400 of these registered siteshave ground water contaminationat levels above the maximum conta-minant levels for drinking water. Onaverage, about 20 new USTs peryear manifest ground water contam-ination above allowable limits.

The “registered USTs” and“facilities” described above repre-sent tanks used for commercial andindustrial purposes. Hundreds ofthousands of household fuel oil USTsare not included in the numberspresented above. Many of thesehousehold USTs, installed 20-to-30years ago as suburban communitieswere developed across the country,have reached or surpassed their nor-mal service lifespans. Some of these

tanks are undoubtedly leaking andthreatening ground water supplies.Because household tanks are notregulated as commercial facilitiesare, however, it is not possible todetermine the extent to whichground water quality is threatenedby them. In addition, since the costof replacing leaking USTs would beborne by the homeowner, there islittle incentive for the homeowner toinvestigate the soundness of his/herhome oil tank.

Recognizing the need toaddress and control the leaking USTsituation, States across the Nationhave taken action. One excellentexample is Maine. In 1985, theMaine Legislature passed a law toregulate all underground petroleumstorage tanks. This law required thatall tanks be registered with theMaine Department of EnvironmentalProtection (DEP) by May 1, 1986,regardless of size, use, or contents.This law also established proceduresfor abandonment of tanks and pro-hibited the operation, maintenance,or storage of petroleum in any stor-age facility or tank that is not con-structed of fiberglass, cathodicallyprotected steel, or other noncorro-sive material.

To date, approximately 39,850tanks have been registered, withonly an estimated 4,000 tanks pend-ing registration. Since 1986, approx-imately 27,750 inactive or old tankshave been removed from theground. Figures 6-8 and 6-9illustrate the effectiveness of thisprogram. In Figure 6-8, the numberof drinking water supply wells con-taminated by leaking USTs hasdropped dramatically. At the sametime, as shown in Figure 6-9, thenumber of nonconforming USTs has


decreased while the number ofprotected replacement USTs hasincreased. It is estimated by theMaine DEP that $3 of cleanup andthird-party damage claim costs areavoided for every $1 spent onpreventive measures.

LandfillsLandfills were cited by States as

the second highest contaminantsource of concern in 1996 (Figure 6-6). Landfills have consistentlybeen cited as a high-priority sourceof contamination by the States.Landfills may be used to dispose ofsanitary (municipal) and industrialwastes.

Municipal wastes, some indus-trial wastes, and relatively inertsubstances such as plastics are dis-posed of in sanitary landfills.Resulting contamination may be inthe form of high dissolved solids,chemical and biochemical oxygendemand, and some volatile organiccompounds.

Industrial landfills are site spe-cific as to the nature of the disposedmaterial. Common materials thatmay be disposed of in industriallandfills include plastics, metals, flyash, sludges, coke, tailings, wastepigment particles, low-level radio-active wastes, polypropylene, wood,brick, cellulose, ceramics, synthetics,and other similar substances. Con-tamination from these landfills maybe in the form of heavy metals, highsulfates, and volatile organic com-pounds. States indicated in their1996 305(b) Water Quality Reportsthat the most common contami-nants associated with landfills weremetals, halogenated solvents, andpetroleum compounds. To a lesserextent, organic and inorganic

pesticides were also cited as a conta-minant of concern.

Landfills of all types have longbeen used to dispose of wastes. Inthe past, little regard was given tothe potential for ground water con-tamination in site selection. Landfillswere generally sited on land consid-ered to have no other uses. Unlined

Number of Private Drinking Water Supply WellsContaminated by Leaking Underground Petroleum

Storage Facilities in Maine (1986-1993)

Figure 6-8

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

Num

ber

of

Wel

ls

Year

120

80

60

40

20

0

100

Changes in the Makeup of the MaineUST Population

Figure 6-9

Number of ProtectedReplacement USTs

Number of NonconformingUSTs Closed - Cumulative

Total Number ofNonconforming USTs86

8789

94Year

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

0

91


abandoned sand and gravel pits, old strip mines, marshlands, andsinkholes were often used. In manyinstances the water table was at, orvery near the surface, and thepotential for ground water contami-nation was high (Figure 6-10).Although regulations involving thesiting, construction, and monitoringof landfills have changed dramatic-ally, past practices continue to causea threat to ground water quality.

For example, although there areno currently active or operationalsolid waste disposal sites in theDistrict of Columbia, historic recordsindicate that about 80 sites withinthe District of Columbia had beenused as either a landfill or an opendump. Historic landfill sites continueto be discovered during routineenvironmental assessments and con-struction excavations. The exactlocation and materials disposed ofare frequently unknown. Landfillsites that remain undiscovered havethe potential to continue affecting

ground water quality. Past handlingand disposal practices cause concernbecause soil properties in the Districtof Columbia are unfavorable for useas a landfill. Specifically, soils arecharacterized by a relatively highpermeability. In addition, theshallow depth to bedrock, highseasonal ground water level, andsusceptibility to flooding make thearea even more unsuitable.

To better govern municipallandfills, the State of Texas estab-lished a regulatory program in 1969and began permitting new sites in1975. From 1977 to 1981, pre-viously existing landfills were eitherclosed, permitted as grandfatheredsites, or considered illegal/unautho-rized sites. Records indicate from1981 until 1994, 1,343 previouslyexisting landfills (dumps), 1,810 per-mitted and grandfathered landfills,and 2,549 illegal/unauthorized siteshave been closed. As a rule, groundwater monitoring is not required atthese 5,702 sites. In 1994, therewere 360 active landfills operatingunder the jurisdiction of the TexasNatural Resource ConservationCommission. Of these sites, 196were conducting ground watermonitoring, 27 of which had docu-mented ground water contamina-tion.

A total of 391 municipal landfillshave been identified in the State of Maine. As of December 1995,206 landfills have been closed andcapped. Seventeen landfills arepartially closed with 168 yet to beclosed. Of these 168 landfills, 45 arecurrently active sites and 123 areinactive sites that are no longerreceiving solid waste. In all:

Ground Water Contamination as a Resultof Unlined Landfill Disposal

Figure 6-10

Water Table Ground Water Surface

Unlined Landfill


■ 184 landfill sites are situated onsand and gravel aquifers andground water contamination hasbeen documented at 46 of thesesites

■ 60 other sites have contaminatedsurface water and/or ground water and are considered to besubstandard; 37 of these sites haveserious ground water contamina-tion.

■ Hazardous substances in theground water are confirmed or sus-pected at 41 municipal landfills.Public or private water supplies arethreatened at 13 of these sites.Public water supplies appear to bethreatened by hazardous contami-nants at three sites. Contaminants atthe remaining 10 sites appear tothreaten private water supplies.

Recognizing the problems asso-ciated with old, inactive landfill sites,States are taking action to ensurethat current and future landfills areless of a threat. In the State ofMaine, active landfills are requiredto be licensed by the Department ofEnvironmental Protection. Currently57 landfills are licensed to operate inMaine. Eight of these are licensed toaccept municipal solid waste only;22 are licensed to accept specialwastes (nonhazardous waste gener-ated by sources other than domesticand typical commercial establish-ments), and 27 are approved toaccept only construction and demo-lition debris. The landfills licensed toaccept municipal solid waste and/orspecial wastes are secure landfillswith leachate collection systems andtreatment, thereby greatly reducingthe risk of ground water contamina-tion.

Septic SystemsAs shown in Figure 6-6, septic

systems were cited by 29 out of 37States as a potential source ofground water contamination. Statesbased their decisions most heavilyon three factors, including the loca-tion of septic systems relative tosources of drinking water, the largenumber of residential septic tanksystems, and human health. Thesefindings are consistent with previous305(b) reporting cycles in whichseptic systems were consistentlyranked among the top five sourcesof ground water contamination.

Septic systems include buriedseptic tanks with fluid distributionsystems or leachfields. Septic sys-tems are designed to release fluidsor wastewaters into constructedpermeable leach beds, if present,and then to the shallow soil. Waste-waters are then expected to beattacked by biological organisms inthe soil and/or degraded by othernatural processes over time. Groundwater may be contaminated byreleases from septic systems whenthe systems are poorly designed(tanks are installed in areas withinadequate soils or shallow depth toground water); poorly constructedor sealed; are improperly used,located, or maintained; or areabandoned.

A variety of wastewaters aredisposed of in septic systems and, asa consequence, a variety of differentchemicals may be present in thesystem. States stressed that one ofthe more common uses is for dis-posal of domestic sewage and liquidhousehold wastes. Typical contami-nants from household septic systemsinclude bacteria, nitrates, viruses,phosphates from detergents, and


other chemicals that might originatefrom household cleaners.

Septic systems are generallyfound in rural areas of the Nation.For example, Vermont is character-ized by a large rural population. Dueto the rural setting, homes andindustries outside municipal serviceareas lack access to sewers. Septicsystems are now and probably willremain a significant nonpoint sourceof contamination with approxi-mately 220 indirect discharge sites.These sites represent discharges tothe subsurface of over 6,500 gallonsof sewage per day.

American households dispose ofan estimated 3.5 billion gallons ofliquid waste into these systems eachday. Although the use of domesticseptic systems is difficult to control,many States are initiating permittingprocesses. In addition, the local saleof products that pose a threat toground water quality may be dis-couraged. Support of local collec-tion programs may be encouragedthrough the increase in publicawareness.

Although States most frequentlycited domestic septic systems as athreat to ground water quality,

Figure 6-11

Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Commercial Septic Systems

PRINTING

Storm Drain

Storm Sewer

Dry Well

Septic Tank

Cesspool

Septic Tank

Drainfield

Source: U.S. EPA, 1997. Groundwater Bulletin.


similar systems are also used bycommercial and industrial facilitiesto dispose of process wastewaters(Figure 6-11). The most misusedseptic systems are those used by theautomotive repair/service businessesthat dispose of engine fluids, fuels,and cleaning solvents. As much as 4 million pounds of waste per yearare disposed of by commercial sitesinto septic systems that have affect-ed the drinking water of approxi-mately 1.3 million Americans. Thecosts needed to clean up the conta-mination and supply new sources ofdrinking water have ranged from$30,000 to $3.8 million. States arecurrently enforcing waste manage-ment programs requiring businessesto properly dispose of their chemicalwaste.

State Overview ofContaminant Sources

For the first time in 1996, Stateswere asked to provide informationon the types and numbers of con-taminant sources within a specifiedreporting area. Reporting contami-nant source information for specificareas within States is new and notall States track this information in aneasily accessible format. Of theStates that do, 29 provided thisinformation. The information is tab-ulated on a nationwide basis inTable 6-1.

Requesting this type of informa-tion served two purposes. First, itwas possible to determine whatcontaminant sources have the great-est potential to impact groundwater quality based on the sheernumber of such sites in a given area.Second, it was possible to determinehow many of these sites actuallyimpacted ground water quality.

As shown in Table 6-1, leakingUSTs represent the highest numberof potential sources. Over 100,000leaking UST sites have been identi-fied in 80 different areas of theNation. Of these, over 17,000 haveconfirmed releases of ground watercontamination. The next big cate-gory of potential contaminantsources are septic systems. Statesreported the presence of 10,656sources in a total of eight areas. Of these, 10,594 have confirmedreleases. The next highest categorywere State sites, with a total of2,614 confirmed ground watercontamination incidents.


Ground WaterAssessments

For the first time in 1996,States were asked to report datafor aquifers or hydrogeologic set-tings (e.g., watersheds) within theState. Reporting data for specificaquifers or hydrogeologic settingswithin States is new. EPA recog-nized that not every State wouldbe able to report ground waterdata on an aquifer-specific basis.

EPA also anticipated that therewould be wide variation in report-ing style. The information reportedby States in their 1996 State WaterQuality Reports reflects the diver-sity of our Nation's individualground water managementprograms.

Due to the diversity inreported data, evaluation ofground water quality on a nationalbasis for 1996 is not possible atthis time. However, the positive

Table 6-1. Summary of Contaminant Source Type and Number

Sites Listed Sites with Sites that areUnits for and/or with Confirmed Stabilized orWhich Sites Confirmed Ground Water Site with Source

Information Reported Releases Contamination Investigations RemovedSource Type Was Reported Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide Nationwide

Leaking UST 80 100,921 40,363 17,827 22,362 9,367

UST Sites (no releases found) 21 2,210 — — — —

Septic Systems 8 10,656 10,594 — — —

State Sites 65 7,017 5,751 2,614 5,348 2,935

Underground Injection 49 5,006 1,077 911 116 62

CERCLIS (non-NPL) 54 2,399 1,332 645 1,154 374

RCRA Corrective Action 74 2,114 283 289 54 37

MN Dept of Agriculture 1 600 164 50 119 —

DOD/DOE 77 404 234 166 115 53

Miscellaneous 55 229 905 514 72 40

Nonpoint Sources 17 171 190 62 32 27

NPL 63 167 250 204 57 22

Landfills 4 149 78 74 136 3

Wastewater Land Application 21 116 — 24 24 —

CERCLIS = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information SystemDOD/DOE = Department of Defense/Department of EnergyMN = MinnesotaNPL = National Priority List (or Superfund)RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery ActUST = Underground Storage Tank— = Not available


Sites with Sites with Sites withCorrective Active Cleanup

Action Plans Remediation CompletedNationwide Nationwide Nationwide

6,143 6,301 19,379

— — —

— — —

791 1,216 3,166

32 28 204

41 21 49

37 79 52

— — —

26 22 39

12 5 32

3 21 36

25 38 24

— — 0

7 5 0

response from States showed theywelcomed the changes made in1996 and are developing andimplementing plans to report moreaquifer-specific information in thefuture.

Diversity of ReportingUnits

Thirty-three States reporteddata summarizing ground water quality. In total, data were

reported for 162 specific aquifersand other hydrogeologic settings.States that were unable to reportground water quality data forspecific aquifers assessed groundwater quality using a number ofdifferent hydrogeologic settings or “reporting units,” includingstatewide summaries, reporting by county, watershed, basin, andsites or areas chosen for specificreasons such as potential vulner-ability to contamination.


Figure 6-12 presents an overviewof the States that were able to pro-vide ground water quality data forspecific or “differentiated hydro-geologic units” within the State. Abrief description of several groundwater assessment methods andtheir rationale follows.

Florida – Very IntenseStudy Area

Florida’s Very Intense StudyArea (VISA) Network, consisting ofabout 450 wells, began operatingin 1990. The VISA Network moni-tors the effects of various land useson ground water quality in specificaquifers in selected areas. Themajor land uses represented are

intensive agriculture, mixed urban/suburban, industrial, and lowimpact. The VISAs were chosenbased on their relative susceptibil-ity to contamination. Currently,Florida has data on 23 VISAs and isin the process of analyzing theresults of the first two rounds ofsampling.

Wells in the VISA and Florida’sbackground networks are sampledin the same year for various waterchemistry indicators and groups ofcontaminants. By comparing VISAand background results in thesame aquifer system, lists of con-taminants commonly associatedwith different kinds of land use canbe developed. This process helpsFlorida to plan for and regulateland uses that are a threat toground water quality.

For the 1996 report, Floridachose to present information forthe North Lake Apopka VISA(Figure 6-13), which consists of 36 square miles in the Lake ApopkaBasin. The vulnerability to contami-nation of the surficial and Floridianaquifers and Lake Apopka was animportant consideration in choos-ing the study area. Because landuse in the Lake Apopka Basin isover 50% agricultural, this VISAhelps Florida evaluate the impactsof intensive agricultural growing,processing, and packing onground water quality.

DC

Hawaii

Virgin IslandsPuerto Rico

American Samoa

1996 305(b) Ground Water Report Not ProvidedDifferentiated Into Hydrogeologic Units Within the StateNot Differentiated, Reported on a Statewide BasisTabulated Ground Water Monitoring Data Not Provided

Summary of How Ground WaterData Were Reported

Figure 6-12


Arkansas – AmbientGround Water MonitoringProgram

The Arkansas Department ofPollution Control and Ecology ini-tiated an Ambient Ground WaterMonitoring Program in 1986 inorder to gather background,ground-water quality data fromvarious aquifers in the State.Samples are collected every 3 yearsand analyzed for general waterquality indicators, including metals,petroleum hydrocarbons, andpesticides. Three rounds ofsampling and analysis have beencompleted in some areas sinceinception of this program.

For 1996, Arkansas presentedinformation for the nine currentlyactive monitoring areas (Figure 6-14). The areas are in differentcounties covering the diverse geo-logic, hydrologic, and economicregimes within the State. Each areawas chosen for a particular reasonand with particular objectives inmind. For example, one area ischaracterized by the largestcommunity using ground water tomeet all of its needs and oneobjective of the monitoring pro-gram is to monitor water qualitywithin an area of the underlyingaquifer that is affected by publicand commercial well use.

Locations and Descriptions of Very IntenseStudy Areas (VISA) in Florida

Figure 6-13

LakeApopka

VISA

Urban/Suburban AreasIndustrial AreasAgricultural AreasMixed Land Uses

Arkansas Ambient Ground WaterMonitoring Program

Figure 6-14

Existing Monitoring Areas

Proposed MonitoringAreas

4 10

6

72

3

85

1

11

Existing monitoring areas include Ouachita (1), Lonoke (2), Pine Bluff (3), Omaha (4),El Dorado (5), Jonesboro (6), Brinkley (7), Chicot (8), and Buffalo River Watershed (9).Expansion areas will include Hardy (10) and Athens Plateau (11).

9


Wyoming – CountySummary

In 1992, the Wyoming Depart-ment of Environmental Quality,Water Resources Center and theState Engineer’s Office imple-mented a prioritized approach forassessing aquifer sensitivity andground water vulnerability at thecounty level on a statewide basis.Goshen County was selected as a pilot project area based on (1) the existence of recent studiesand reports on ground waterquality and aquifer characteristics;(2) Federal, State, and local interestin ground water and wellheadprotection programs; and (3) the

amount of related data andinformation available to completesensitivity and vulnerability maps.Goshen County also ranked fourthout of 23 counties in overall vul-nerability to contamination frompesticides. For 1996, Wyomingfocused ground water assessmenton the North Platte River alluvialaquifer located in Goshen County.

Indiana – HydrogeologicSetting

To avoid the evaluation ofground water quality data acrosssimilar political boundaries, Indianadeveloped a system that allows fordata to be analyzed according tosimilar surface and subsurface envi-ronments. This was achieved byfirst producing a document thatdescribes all the hydrogeologicsettings found in Indiana. Thesehydrogeologic settings provide aconceptual model to interpret thesensitivity to contamination ofground water in relation to thesurface and subsurface environ-ments. For ground water qualitydata for 1996, the State of Indianaselected five hydrogeologicsettings considered to be highlyvulnerable to contamination (i.e.,principally outwash deposits orfans of glacial origin) and occur-ring in largely populated areas(i.e., areas of greatest waterdemand).

Idaho’s Hydrogeologic Subareas

Figure 6-15

1

2

3

45

6

7/8

9

10

20

15 16

13

13

14 18

17

19

12

11

Subarea BoundariesMajor Aquifers

Hydrogeologic Subareas

1. North Idaho2. Palouse3. Clearwater4. Long Valley/Meadows5. Weiser6. Payette7. Boise Valley-Shallow8. Boise Valley- Deep9. Mountain Home10. North Owyhee11. Salmon12. Central Valley13. Snake River Plain Alluvium14. Snake River Plain Basalt15. Twin Falls16. Cassia Power17. Portneuf18. Upper Snake19. Bear River20. Boise Mountains21. Central Mountains22. Southwestern Owyhee

Note: Boise Valley Shallow overlies BoiseValley Deep. Snake River Plain Alluvium(SRP) overlies SRP Basalt.

21

22


Idaho – HydrogeologicSubareas

The State of Idaho is dividedinto 22 hydrogeologic subareas(Figure 6-15) for Statewide moni-toring purposes. These subareasrepresent geologically similar areasand generally encompass one ormore of the 70 major groundwater flow systems identifiedwithin the State. Each flow systemincludes at least one major aquifer,with some systems being com-prised of several aquifers that maybe interconnected.

Idaho reported ground waterquality data for 20 of the 22hydrogeologic subareas. Subareas21 and 22 were not included in1996 because the ground water inthese subareas is used by fewpeople and the aquifer systems areisolated from other major aquifers.

Arizona – Watershed ZoneArizona presented ground

water quality data for all 10“watershed zones” within the State(Figure 6-16). The watershed zonesare delineated along USGS Hydro-logic Unit boundaries and corre-spond to the State’s 13 surfacewater basins. A few surface waterbasins were combined and onewas split to form the 10 watershedzones. Each watershed zone ischaracterized in terms of several

features, including size, populationbase, hydrologic provinces, eco-regions, ground water basins,hydrology, and geology. Investi-gations of potential ground watercontamination problems have ledto site remediation efforts throughvarious State and Federalprograms.

Arizona Watersheds

Figure 6-16


Alabama – Tuscumbia FortPayne Aquifer

Alabama provided groundwater quality data for the Tuscum-bia Fort Payne Aquifer outcrop arealocated in northern Alabama adja-cent to the Tennessee River (Figure6-17). This area is underlain by theTuscumbia Limestone and the FortPayne Chert geologic formations. It is considered to be a uniquekarst area that is highly susceptibleto contamination from surfacesources. Surface and ground waterinteraction is fairly rapid due torecharge through sinkholes andother karst features. Because the

area is heavily farmed and pesti-cides associated with farming areused, the Alabama Department ofEnvironmental Management hasaccumulated ground water moni-toring data for this area.

Texas – Trinity and DockumAquifers, Rio GrandeAlluvium, and LaredoFormation

Ambient ground water qualitymonitoring is conducted continu-ously and extensively throughoutthe State of Texas. As a conse-quence, boundaries and variouscharacteristics of all the State'smajor and minor aquifers havebeen identified, including wateravailability, recharge, and geologicformation. In addition, major enti-ties using ground water have beenidentified within each river basinand the aquifer(s) used, the qualityof water being developed, and thequantity of water needed for a 50-year planning period.

For 1996, Texas selected theTrinity and Dockum Aquifers, RioGrande Alluvium, and LaredoFormation for assessment. Theseselections represent one major, oneminor, and two undifferentiated/local aquifers, respectively. Themain selection criterion was toselect a range of recently moni-tored aquifers and to develop aninitial methodology for the assess-ment of the aquifers. The refine-ment of the assessment method-ology for subsequent 305(b)reporting cycles is of primaryimportance.

Alabama Physiographic Provinces

Figure 6-17

Piedmont

Tuscumbia FortPayne Aquifer Outcrop

Interior LowPlateau

AppalachianPlateaus

Ridge andValley

Coastal Plain


Extent of CoverageStates were encouraged to

report ground water data forselected aquifers or hydrogeologicsettings as part of the 1996 305(b)reporting cycle. EPA recognizedthat this was not always plausibleand as a consequence, recom-mended that State ground waterresources be assessed incrementallyover time.

The extent of State coveragewill increase as individual Statesdevelop and implement plans toassess ground water quality on anaquifer-specific basis. Greaterquantities of ground water moni-toring data will also become avail-able as States complete sourcewater delineations and sourceinventory/susceptibility analyses forpublic water supplies under theSource Water Assessment Program(see Chapter 18).

Ground Water QualityData Sources

EPA recognizes that datacollection and organization variesamong the States, and that asingle data source for assessingground water quality does notexist for purposes of the 1996Report to Congress. As a conse-quence, EPA suggested severaltypes of data that could be usedfor assessment purposes (e.g.,ambient ground water monitoringdata, untreated water from privateor unregulated wells, untreatedwater from public water supplywells, and special studies).

States were encouraged to useavailable data that they believebest reflects the quality of theresource. Depending upon dataavailability and the judgment ofthe State ground water profession-als, one or multiple sources of datawere used in the assessments. Themajority of the States opted to usemultiple sources of data. As shownin Figure 6-18, States used datacollected from ambient monitoringnetworks, public water supplysystems, private and unregulated

Hawaii

Virgin IslandsPuerto Rico

American Samoa

Sources of Ground Water Data

Figure 6-18

Finished Water from PWS WellsUntreated Water from PWS WellsAmbient Monitoring NetworksOther Ground Water Monitoring DataUntreated Water from Private or Unregulated WellsSpecial StudiesFacility Monitoring Wells1996 305(b) Ground Water Report Not ProvidedTabulated Ground Water Monitoring Data Not Provided

DC


wells, facility monitoring wells, andspecial studies.

Finished water quality datafrom public water supply systemswere the most frequently usedsource of data (Figure 6-19).Ambient monitoring networks anduntreated water quality data fromprivate and unregulated wells werethe next frequently used sources ofdata.

States used a variety of datasources to report on ground waterquality. Although there was astrong reliance on finished waterquality data from public watersupply systems, these data werefrequently reported in conjunctionwith other sources of data toprovide a more meaningful assess-ment of ground water quality thanwas possible in previous reportingcycles.

ParameterGroups/Analytes

The primary basis for assessingground water quality is the com-parison of chemical concentrationsmeasured in ground water towater quality standards. For 1996,EPA suggested that States considerusing maximum contaminant lev-els (MCLs) defined under the SafeDrinking Water Act. In general,most States used the MCL concen-trations for comparison purposes.Exceptions occurred when State-specific standards were available.

It was not possible for States tosample and analyze ground waterfor every known constituent. Forease of reporting, EPA suggestedthat the ground water quality databe summarized into parametergroups. Parameter groups

Finished Water Quality Data from PWS Wells

Untreated Water from PWS

Special Studies

Ambient Monitoring Network

Untreated Water from Privateor Unregulated Wells

Not Specified

24

52

61

Percentage of States

36

21

6

0 10 20 30 50 70

% Total

Aquifer Monitoring Data

Figure 6-19

Note: Percentages based on a total of 33 States submitting data. Some States utilized multipledata sources.

40 60


recommended in the 1996 Guide-lines include volatile organic com-pounds (VOCs), semivolatile organ-ic compounds (SVOC), and nitrate.These three groups were recom-mended because they are generallyindicative of contamination origi-nating as a result of human activi-ties. States were also encouragedto report data for any otherconstituents of interest.

Nationally, more States report-ed data for VOCs, SVOCs, nitrates,and metals than any other con-stituent or group of constituents.Parameter groups and individualconstituents identified by States intheir 1996 305(b) reports aresummarized in Table 6-2.

As shown, States reported datafor a wide variety of constituents.Organic as well as inorganic andmicrobial constituents wereincluded in the ground waterassessments depending upon Stateinterests and priorities. Althoughthe greatest quantity of data wasreported for nitrate and VOCs, itwas clear that States were alsoconcerned with SVOCs, pesticides,metals, and bacteria.

Ground Water Quality Data

Ground water quality datareported by States in 1996 repre-sent different sources, often withdifferent monitoring purposes. As a consequence, national

Table 6-2. Summary of Parameter Groups/Constituents Reported by States in 1996

NitrateVOCSVOCBacteriaPesticidesRadioactivityMetals

Arsenic Lead MercuryIron Antimony CopperManganese Beryllium ZincBarium Nickel StrontiumSelenium Thallium Vanadium Cadmium Cobalt SilverChromium Molybdenum Sodium

InorganicsChloride Magnesium BoronFluoride Potassium HardnessTDS Aluminum SilicaAlkalinity Bromide BicarbonateCalcium Lithium Specific Conductivity

OtherNutrients Orthophosphorous TOC

comparisons are not appropriate.Rather, ground water qualityassessments are performed usingcomparable data groupings. Datamost closely approximating actualground water quality conditions(e.g., untreated ground water) aregiven special consideration in theseassessments. Specifically, thisreport focuses on nitrate, VOCs,SVOCs, pesticides, bacteria, andmetals. These parameter groups/constituents were selected as theyare indicative of ground waterdegradation as a result of humanactivities.


NitrateStates reported data for nitrate

more frequently than for any otherparameter or parameter group. Itwas the second most frequentlycited ground water contaminantafter petroleum compounds.Twelve States specifically refer-enced nitrate as a widespread andsignificant cause of ground watercontamination in their 1996 StateWater Quality Reports.

The focus on nitrate as aground water contaminant is justi-fied. It is soluble in water, andconsequently, is easily transportedfrom the soil surface to the under-lying ground water resource.Extensive application of nitrate infertilizer to agricultural lands, resi-dential lawns, and golf courses hasresulted in widespread degradationof ground water resources. Themisuse of septic systems and

improper disposal of domesticwastewater and sludge have alsocaused ground water contamina-tion. At exposures greater than 10milligrams per liter, its presence inwater can lead to methemoglo-binemia or “blue-baby syndrome”(an inability to fix oxygen in theblood). It is also an environmentalconcern as a potential source ofnutrient enrichment in coastalwaters.

Table 6-3 presents groundwater quality information fornitrate. As shown, 15 States report-ed nitrate data for ambient moni-toring networks. Nitrate was mea-sured at concentrations exceedingthe MCL of 10 milligrams per literin 8 of the 15 States for a total of26 units and 267 wells impactedby nitrate. Thus, approximately50% of the reporting States indi-cated elevated levels of nitrate inground water collected from

Table 6-3. Nitrates

Highest AverageNumber of Number of

States Units Wells Wells That Wells ThatReporting Impacted Impacted Exceeded Exceeded

Monitoring States MCL by MCL by MCL the MCL the MCLType Reporting Exceedances Exceedances Exceedances within a within a

Single Unit Single Unit

Ambient 15 8 26 267 81 10Monitoring out of 681Network

Untreated 7 5 5 85 38 17Water from out of 346PWS

Untreated 10 9 10 2,233 2,000 23Water from out ofPrivate/Unregu- 250,000lated Wells

Finished Water 18 11 18 230 101 13from PWS out of 2,806

Special 2 2 4 309 288 NoStudies out of 9,000 meaningful

average


ambient monitoring networks. Thispercentage is even higher forStates reporting data for untreatedwater from PWS and from pri-vate/unregulated wells (i.e., nitratelevels exceeding the MCL werereported by five out of seven Statesfor untreated water from PWS and by nine out of ten States foruntreated water from private/unregulated wells).

VOC/SVOCs/Pesticides

VOCs and SVOCs (includingpesticides) were cited by States asamong the top five contaminantsof concern. This is not unexpectedgiven that the number of identifiedman-made organic compoundstotaled near 2 million in 1977 and

was believed to be growing at arate of about 250,000 new formu-lations annually.*

Organic compounds can bereleased to the environmentthrough a number of differentavenues. Generally, organic com-pounds are released to groundwater via pesticide applications,disposal practices, and spills. Asreported in their 1996 State WaterQuality Reports, it was disposalpractices that generated the mostconcern among States. Disposalpractices that were cited as havingthe potential to adversely impactground water quality includedlandfills, hazardous waste sites,surface impoundments, andshallow injection wells.

* Giger, W., and P.V. Roberts. 1977. Characterization of refractory organic carbon. In Water Pollution Microbiology, Volume 2, Ralph Mitchell (ed.). New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Table 6-4. VOCs







Untreated 3 2 5 96 52 20Water from out of 80Private/Unregu-lated Wells

Finished Water 17 6 13 152 114 12from PWS out of 603

Special 1 1 2 19 9 5Studies out of 720


The organic compounds thatpose the greatest threat to groundwater quality are those that arerelatively soluble, not easily con-verted to the vapor state, and notsubject to chemical or biologicaldegradation. Their presence inground water is becoming increas-ingly pervasive and a cause fornational concern due to the car-cinogenic effects of many of theorganic compounds.

Tables 6-4 through 6-6 presentdata related to VOCs, SVOCs, andpesticides. As shown, more Statesreported information for VOCsthan for either SVOCs or pesti-cides. This is consistent with thefact that VOCs are the most fre-quently detected class of organic

priority pollutants and they are themost frequently detected individ-ual compounds impacting groundwater quality at RCRA and CERCLAsites.*

Based on the informationpresented in Tables 6-4 through 6-6, it appears that ground watercontamination by VOCs is indeedmore prevalent than either SVOCsor pesticides. Seventy percent ofthe reporting States (i.e., 7 out of10 States) indicated that VOCswere measured at levels exceedingMCL values in ground water col-lected from ambient monitoringnetworks as opposed to 43% (3 out of 7 States) for SVOCs and25% (2 out of 8 States) for pesti-cides. Furthermore, VOCs were

Table 6-5. SVOCs








Finished Water 14 3 3 18 14 6from PWS out of 10,985

Special 0 0 0 0 0 0Studies

* Plumb, R.H. 1985. Disposal site monitoring data: observations and strategy implications. In Proceedings: Second Canadian/American Conference on Hydrogeology, Hazardous Wastes in Ground Water: A Soluble Dilemma, June 25-29, 1995, Banff, Alberta, Canada.


measured at levels exceeding MCLvalues in a total of 16 units and 30wells. Again, this can be comparedto SVOCs impacting three unitsand five wells and pesticidesimpacting two units and five wells.

As was noted with nitrates,elevated levels of VOCs were foundmore frequently in untreatedground water collected from PWSand private/unregulated wells.Although VOCs were measured atlevels exceeding MCL levels inground water collected from PWSand private/unregulated wells inonly five and two States, respec-tively, a total of 77 and 96 wellswere impacted (Table 6-4). Thesame pattern was not observed forSVOCs (Table 6-5). Although ele-vated levels of pesticide were mea-sured in untreated ground watercollected from private/unregulated

wells, these data include one areaknown to have been heavily conta-minated by pesticide usage (Table6-6).

Metals States identified metals as the

fourth highest contaminant of con-cern with respect to ground waterdegradation. As shown in Table 6-7, metals comprise a broad cate-gory of individual constituents thatmay be present in ground watersingularly or in combination,depending on the contaminantsource. Although normal back-ground ground water conditionsmay be characterized by elevatedmetal concentrations in some partsof the Nation (e.g., southwesternUnited States), metals are generallyconsidered an indicator of ground

Figure 6-6. Pesticides








Finished Water 1 0 0 0 0 0from PWS



water contamination resulting fromhuman activities.

Metals are present in numer-ous commercial and industrialprocess and waste streams.Depending on handling and dis-posal practices, metals can bereleased to the environment andcan impact ground water quality.Because metals are not easilybroken down, they tend to bepersistent and can affect groundwater quality for long periods oftime.

Ground water contaminationby metals most frequently occursas a result of improper operationand/or inappropriate design oflandfills, disposal of liquid or solidmining wastes or tailings, orineffective containment of nuclearwastes. States cited landfills,

hazardous waste sites, surfaceimpoundments, shallow injectionwells, land application, industrialfacilities, and mining as primesources of metal contamination inground water.

Table 6-7 presents the informa-tion reported by States for metals.Metals were most frequently testedand detected in ground watercollected from ambient monitoringnetworks. Eleven States reportedmetal data for ambient monitoringnetworks. Metals were measured atconcentrations exceeding MCLvalues in 7 of the 11 States for atotal of 33 units and 195 wellsimpacted by metal contamination.Thus, approximately 65% of thereporting States indicated elevatedlevels of metals in ground watercollected from ambient monitoringnetworks.

Figure 6-7. Metals








Finished Water 6 4 10 175 135 17from PWS out of 706

Special 0 0 0 0 0 0Studies


Metals were less frequentlytested in ground water collectedfrom either PWS or private/unregu-lated wells. Still, a total of 100wells were found to exceed MCLvalues for metals in untreatedground water collected from PWSwells.

Bacteria The sixth most common

ground water contaminant cited inthe 1996 State Water QualityReports was bacteria. One of themost common sources of bacteriain ground water is septic systems.Other important sources includelandfills, animal feedlots, surfaceimpoundments, and pipelines andsewers.

High concentrations of disease-causing bacteria in ground water

may be a source of human healthproblems. The most common dis-eases spread by these pathogenicbacteria are related to the con-sumption of contaminated drink-ing water (e.g., gastroenteritis,campylobacteriosis, and hepatitis).

For purposes of their 1996State Water Quality Reports, Statesfocused less on bacteria than onother contaminant groupings. Still,one out of the three States report-ing data on bacteria indicated lev-els that exceeded MCL values. Asshown in Table 6-8, ground waterwas impacted by bacteria in 10ambient monitoring wells. In aspecial study conducted in theBoise River Valley by the State ofIdaho, total coliform bacteria weredetected at levels exceeding MCLvalues in 95 out of 720 samples.

Figure 6-8. Bacteria







Untreated 1 0 0 0 0 0Water fromPrivate/Unregu-lated Wells

Finished Water 3 3 3 404 381 Mean-from PWS out of 3,854 ingless



This study focused on some of themore densely populated areas inIdaho and documented the threatto shallow ground water resourcesfrom historic and current land andwater use practices.

ConclusionAssessing the quality of our

Nation's ground water resources isno easy task. An accurate and rep-resentative assessment of ambientground water conditions ideallyrequires a well planned and wellexecuted monitoring plan. Suchplans are expensive and may notbe compatible with State adminis-trative, technical, and program-matic initiatives. As a consequence,EPA and interested States devel-oped guidelines for the assessmentof ground water quality that tookinto account the complex spatialvariations in aquifer systems, thediffering levels of sophisticationamong State programs, and theexpense of collecting ambientground water monitoring data.The newly developed guidelinesincorporated the flexibility neces-sary to accommodate differencesin State programs.

State response to the newguidelines was excellent. Thirty-three States reported ground waterquality data for 162 aquifers andother hydrogeologic settings. Fromthis response, it was evident thatStates welcomed the changesmade in 1996. It was also evidentthat the flexibility purposely incor-porated into the 1996 GroundWater Assessment Guidelinesyielded a diversity in reported data.This diversity presented a challengein assessing ground water quality.

Some of the more challengingaspects were highlighted in thisreport. Following are changes thatare expected to occur over time toimprove our picture of groundwater quality:

■ State reporting styles variedsignificantly in 1996. Although thisvariability was expected, final datainterpretation was challengingbecause data compilations requiredthe use of a single defined datastructure. When State data did notexactly conform to this structure,some interpretation on the part ofEPA was necessary. With more spe-cific directions and definitions inthe Guidelines, States’ ability torespond in a more structuredreporting style will improve andthe need for outside interpretationwill lessen.

■ As the direction and focus of ground water assessmentsbecomes clearer, State responsewill grow and more accuratecharacterization of ground waterquality will be possible.

■ Because ground water monitor-ing is expensive, few States haveaccess to ambient ground waterquality data. EPA suggested a num-ber of data sources that could beused in the absence of ambientground water monitoring data.Although finished water qualitydata from PWS were one of thosesources, these data do not providethe most accurate representationof ground water quality. As Statescontinue to develop new sourcesof ground water data, the relianceon finished water quality data will decrease. Furthermore, it is


expected that the variability indata sources and types will deceaseas States continue program devel-opment.

As the direction and focus ofground water assessment in the

305(b) program becomes clearer,State response will grow and moreaccurate characterization ofground water quality will result.The 1996 305(b) State WaterQuality Reports were the first steptoward that goal.

1996 national water quality inventory report to congress · the national water quality inventory...

Documents