environmental indicators of water quality in the united...

United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency

EPA 841-R-96-002June 1996

Office of Water(4503F)

Environmental Indicatorsof Water Quality in theUnited States

This report describes water quality in the United States using a set of 18environmental indicators that measure progress toward national watergoals and objectives.

The indicators were chosen through an intensive multi-year process involvingpublic and private partners including EPA’s Office of Water in collaboration with theCenter for Marine Conservation; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;EPA’s Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation and Office of Research and Devel-opment; the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality; NativeAmerican Tribes; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; The NatureConservancy; the States; the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service; and the U.S. Geological Survey.

JUNE 1996

Environmental Indicators of WaterQuality in the United States

National Environmental Goals and Objectives for Water................................ ii

Water Quality Objectives and Indicators.......................................................... iii

I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................1

II. Water Resources ......................................................................................................... 2

III. Human Activities and Their Effect on Water Quality ............................................ 4

IV. Water Quality Objectives and Indicators ................................................................ 5

Objective I: Conserve and Enhance Public Health......................................... 5

Objective II: Conserve and Enhance Aquatic Ecosystems..............................10

Objective III: Support Uses Designated by the States and Tribesin Their Water Quality Standards................................................ 11

Objective IV: Conserve and Improve Ambient Conditions............................. 13

Objective V: Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadingsand Other Stressors................................................................... 19

V. Water Quality Monitoring and Information Management .................................. 23

VI. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 23

VII. References .................................................................................................................. 23

National Environmental Goals for WaterCLEAN WATERS America's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters will support healthy communities of fish, plants, andother aquatic life, and will support uses such as fishing, swimming, and drinking water supply for people. Wetlands willbe protected and rehabilitated to provide wildlife habitat, reduce floods, and improve water quality. Ground waters willbe cleaner for drinking and other beneficial uses.

SAFE DRINKING WATER Every American public water system will provide water that is consistently safe to drink.

Note: Goals taken from Environmental Goals for America With Milestones for 2005: A Proposal from the EnvironmentalProtection Agency. Government Review Draft. EPA 230-D-96-002. Washington, DC: USEPA. In press.

Water Management Programs and Human Activities Affect Our Waters

Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadingsand Other Stressors

Conserve and ImproveAmbient Conditions

Conserve& Enhance

Public HealthSupport Uses Designated by States & Tribes

in Their Water Quality Standards

The objectives adopted by EPA’s Office of Water and its partners are shown above. These objectives are like building blocks in apyramid, where success in reaching the goals at the top is dependent on successful attainment of those lower in the pyramid. Forexample, by reducing pollutant loads to waters, the overall quality, or ambient condition, of the water and sediment is improved.Consequently, the waters can support the uses designated for them by states and tribes in their water quality standards. Ultimately,the health of both the general public and aquatic ecosystems is protected.

Indicator Data Completeness

Indicators are used to show changes in environmental conditions and are only as good as the quality of the measurements thatsupport them. The indicators presented in this report contain measurements of varying quality. These measurements might differ inprecision, accuracy, statistical representativeness, and completeness. This comprehensive national report uses data from manyagencies. While these data sources have undergone data quality assessment by their respective agencies, this first national reportmakes no attempt to describe data quality attributes other than completeness for the indicators. This report includes data of varyingquality for two reasons: (1) the indicator describes an important, if as yet imperfect, way to measure a national objective, and (2)efforts are under way to improve indicator measurements in future reports. Further details on the data used to support each indicatorare presented in individual fact sheets available from EPA in hard copy or on the Internet at the address at the end of this report .Each indicator graphic in this report shows the level of data completeness using the following symbols:

Data consistent/sufficient data collected w Data somewhat consistent/additional data needed

Data need to be much more consistent/much additional data needed

Water Objectives to Meet These GoalsObjectives are measured by indicators presented in this report

Conserve& EnhanceAquatic Ecosystems

ii

Water Quality Objectives and IndicatorsObjective I: Conserve and Enhance Public Health

1. Population served by community drinking water systems violating health-based requirementsPopulationserved by drinking water systems with one or more violations of health-based requirements.

2. Population served by unfiltered surface water systems at risk from microbiological pollutionPopulationserved by, and number of, systems that have not met the requirements to filter their water to remove microbio-logical contaminants.

3. Population served by drinking water systems exceeding lead action levelsPopulation served by, and numberof, systems with lead levels in drinking water exceeding the regulatory threshold.

4. Source water protectionNumber of community drinking water systems using ground water that have pro-grams to protect them from pollution.

5. Fish consumption advisoriesPercentage of rivers and lakes with fish that states have determined should notbe eaten, or should be eaten in only limited quantities.

6. Shellfish growing water classificationPercentage of estuarine and coastal shellfish growing waters approvedfor harvest for human consumption.

Objective II: Conserve and Enhance Aquatic Ecosystems

7. Biological integrityPercentage of rivers and estuaries with healthy aquatic communities.8. Species at riskPercentage of aquatic and wetland species currently at risk of extinction.9. Wetland acreageRate of wetland acreage loss.

Objective III: Support Uses Designated by the States and Tribes in Their Water Quality Standards

10. Designated uses in state and tribal water quality standardsa. Drinking water supply designated usePercentage of assessed waterbodies that can support safe drinking

water supply use, as designated by the states and tribes.b. Fish and shellfish consumption designated usePercentage of assessed waterbodies that can support fish and

shellfish consumption, as designated by the states and tribes.c. Recreation designated usePercentage of assessed waterbodies that can support safe recreation, as designated

by the states and tribes.d. Aquatic life designated usePercentage of assessed waterbodies that can support healthy aquatic life, as

designated by the states and tribes.

Objective IV: Conserve and Improve Ambient Conditions

11. Ground water pollutantsPopulation exposed to nitrate in drinking water. In the future, the indicator willreport the presence of other chemical pollutants in ground water.

12. Surface water pollutantsTrends of selected pollutants found in surface water.13. Selected coastal surface water pollutants in shellfishThe concentration levels of selected pollutants in oysters

and mussels.14. Estuarine eutrophication conditionsTrends in estuarine eutrophication conditions.15. Contaminated sedimentsPercentage of sites with sediment contamination that might pose a risk to humans

and aquatic life.

Objective V: Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings and Other Stressors

16. Selected point source loadings to (a) surface water and (b) ground waterTrends for selected pollutantsdischarged from point sources into surface water, and underground injection control wells that are sources ofpoint source loadings into ground water.

17. Nonpoint source loadings to surface waterAmount of soil eroded from cropland that could run into surfacewaters. Future reports will include additional nonpoint source surface water pollutants as well as sources ofnonpoint source ground water pollution.

18. Marine debrisTrends and sources of debris monitored in the marine environment.

Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States

I. Introduction

Our waters are one of our most valuable re-sources. They support human, plant, and ani-mal life and the natural environment; promote

economic opportunity; and provide beauty and enjoy-ment to us all.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),working with other federal, state, tribal, regional, lo-cal, and nongovernmental groups, has proposed na-tional goals for many aspects of environmental pro-tection. These goals include Clean Waters and SafeDrinking Water. To check our progress toward the na-tional goals, EPA developed a series of milestones foreach goal that set a 10-year target to be reached by theyear 2005. In addition, EPA’s Office of Water and itspartners have adopted five objectives for meeting theClean Waters and Safe Drinking Water national goalsand have developed a series of indicators to measureprogress toward those objectives. The relationshipamong goals, milestones, objectives, and indicators isexplained in Figure 1.

This report describes the indicators EPA and its part-ners have chosen to measure progress toward waterquality objectives. The EPA-proposed national goalsand milestones are described in detail in a separate re-port. This report is the first in a series that, taken to-gether, will show trends over time. For some indica-tors, the data presented here currently provide a baselinefor trends. For other indicators, improvements in dataare needed to provide a baseline for trends in futurereports. By documenting water quality status and trends,EPA will be able to determine whether national waterprograms are meeting their objectives and to adjust man-agement strategies accordingly. This report will alsoprovide the public with a better understanding of thecondition of our waters, whether they meet the uses wewish to make of them, and what affects their quality.

Many people at all levels of government have beenworking together to choose and describe the indicators.In addition to EPA data, specific data from states, Na-tive American tribes, the Centers for Disease Controland Prevention, the Center for Marine Conservation,The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. De-partment of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) are included. Many others were alsointegral to the development of the indicators through aseries of public meetings and review comments.

The indicators in this first national report will improveif a strong partnership is maintained among the agen-cies working together to report water quality trends overtime.

FIGURE 1 : Relationship of Water Quality Goals,Objectives, Milestones, and Indicators

National Goals : A set of 12 national environmen-tal goals with supporting milestones is proposed byEPA in the draft report Environmental Goals forAmerica With Milestones for 2005: A Proposal fromthe United States Environmental Protection Agency.Two of the goals from this report relate specificallyto water:

(1) Safe Drinking Water - Every American publicwater system will provide water that is consistentlysafe to drink.

(2) Clean Waters - America’s rivers, lakes, andcoastal waters will support healthy communitiesof fish, plants, and other aquatic life, and will sup-port uses such as fishing, swimming, and drink-ing water supply for people. Wetlands will be pro-tected and rehabilitated to provide wildlife habi-tat, reduce floods, and improve water quality.Ground waters will be cleaner for drinking andother beneficial uses.

Milestones: EPA is proposing milestones as 10-yeartargets in its national goals report. They express howfar the Nation will have progressed toward the na-tional goals by the year 2005, starting from thebaseline year of 1995. Each Clean Waters and SafeDrinking Water milestone uses a water quality indi-cator to measure progress toward the 2005 target.Most of the indicators have a related milestone inthe national goals report.

Water Objectives : The Office of Water and its part-ners have adopted five water quality objectives thatfurther specify how to meet the national goals. Theobjectives are to (1) conserve and enhance publichealth; (2) conserve and enhance ecosystems; (3)support uses designated by the states and tribes intheir water quality standards; (4) conserve and im-prove ambient conditions; and (5) prevent or reducepollutant loadings and other stressors.

Indicators : Indicators measure progress towardwater quality goals, milestones, and objectives. In-dicators provide information on environmental andecosystem quality or give reliable evidence of trendsin quality.

1


DELAWARE RIVER

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER

POTOMAC RIVER

HUDSON RIVER

TENNESSEE RIVER

ALABAMA-COOSA RIVER

OHIO RIVER

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

MISSOURI RIVER

ARKANSAS RIVER

RED RIVER

BRAZOSRIVER

RIO GRANDE

COLORADO RIVER

COLUMBIA RIVER

SNAKE RIVER

SACRAMENTO RIVER

WILLAMETTERIVER

FIGURE 2: Selected Major Rivers of the United States

YUKON RIVER

Source: U.S. EPA

Environmental Indicators

Understanding the condition of our nation’s water re-sources, identifying what causes problems, and deter-mining how to solve these problems are essential butdifficult undertakings. The natural water cycle is itselfintricate, and the addition of human activities increasesthis complexity. Consequently, answering the basicquestion “How clean and safe is our water?” is not easy.

One way to present the condition of our water resourcesand the impacts of related human activities is to de-velop understandable measures, or indicators, that sin-gly or in combination provide information on waterquality. Managers and scientists can then use this in-formation to develop effective solutions and makesound decisions to protect our water resources. In ad-dition, all Americans can use this information to betterunderstand the condition of our waters. It is importantto note that environmental indicators can be used tomeasure a variety of phenomena. Indicators can presentinformation on status or trends in the state of the envi-ronment, can measure pressures or stressors that de-grade environmental quality, and can evaluate society'sresponses aimed at improving environmental condi-tions. The first two types of indicators (state of the en-vironment and pressure) deal with information mostclosely associated with environmental results. The thirdtype measures program and policy responses to envi-ronmental problems and is primarily administrative.

While all three types of indicatorsare valuable for measuring progresstoward goals, this report concen-trates on the actual condition of ourwater resources. Thus, the indica-tors presented are predominatelystate of the environment and pres-sure indicators. Societal responsesto environmental problems aresummarized in this report and in-cluded in the accompanying indi-cator fact sheets.

This report describes our nation'swater resources, human activitiesand natural events and their effecton water quality, and the indicatorsthat will be used to measure progresstoward goals and objectives.

II. Water Resources

Water resources in the United States takemany formsrunning freely as rivers andstreams; washing against coastlines and into

estuaries; pooling as lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands;and moving under the land as ground water. We usethese waters for many different purposes, includingdrinking, swimming, fishing, agriculture, and indus-try. Water resources are affected by many activities,both natural, such as rain, and human, such as waterwithdrawal and urbanization. Following is a brief de-scription of our water resources and events that affectthem.

Rivers and Streams

There are 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams in thecountry. About one-third of these flow all the time, andtwo-thirds flow only periodically and are dry during aportion of the year. Figure 2 shows selected major U.S.river systems. Rivers and streams supply water fordrinking, agriculture, industrial processes, and irriga-tion and support aquatic habitats, fishing, and recre-ation. Rivers and streams are impacted by pollution dis-charged directly into the water, as well as by pollutiongenerated by activities occurring on land, which rain-water or snowmelt carries into these waterways in theform of runoff.

2


Estuaries

Estuaries are coastal waters where the tides mix freshriver water with ocean salt water. For example, theChesapeake Bay is a large estuary that receives fresh-water flow from several rivers in Virginia and Mary-land and connects with the Atlantic Ocean. There aremany other smaller estuaries all along the coastline ofthe United Statesin total, over 34,000 square miles

of estuaries. Estuaries are notedfor their unique aquatic habitats,as well as for the fishing,shellfishing, and other recre-ational and economic opportuni-ties they provide. Estuaries are inincreasing danger of pollutionconsidering that almost half theU.S. population now lives incoastal areas, many on estuaries.Figure 3 shows the location of theestuaries identified by EPA andstates under the National EstuaryProgram (NEP). An NEP desig-nation recognizes the national sig-nificance of these estuaries andinitiates a consensus- based, com-prehensive management processto protect these resources.

Ground Water

Because ground water flows be-neath the earth’s surface, it is hardto map the aquifers in which it re-sides or to know the overall qual-ity of ground water in the UnitedStates. Figure 4 shows the esti-mated location of the principalground water aquifers of theUnited States. Ground water flowsare usually slower than surfacewaters and are replenished by in-teraction with streams, rivers, andwetlands and by precipitation thatseeps through the soil. Ground wa-ter also can replenish other water-bodies by maintaining base flowto streams, rivers, and wetlands.Ground water provides almost

Lakes and Reservoirs

There are 41 million acres of lakes and reservoirs inthe country. Lakes and reservoirs support the same usesas rivers and streams and are affected by the same typesof pollution. These impacts, however, can be more se-vere because lakes and reservoirs do not have the natu-ral flushing process characteristic of flowing streamsand rivers.

FIGURE 3: Estuaries Designated by EPA and States Under the National Estuary Program

PUGET SOUND, WA

TILLAMOOK BAY, OR

SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY, CA

SANTA MONICA BAY, CA

CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX

GALVESTON BAY, TX

BARATARIA-TERREBONNE ESTUARY, LA

MOBILE BAY, AL

CHARLOTTE HARBOR, FL

TAMPA BAY, FL

ALBEMARLE-PAMLICO SOUNDS, NC

MARYLAND COASTAL BAYS

DELAWARE ESTUARY, DE

NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR

NARRAGANSETT BAY, RI

MASSACHUSETTS BAYS, MA

CASCO BAY, ME

Source: U.S. EPA

BARNEGAT BAY

LONG ISLAND SOUND

PECONIC BAY

BUZZARDS BAY

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

SARASOTA BAY

NEW HAMPSHIRE ESTUARIES

DELAWAREINLAND BAYS

COLUMBIA RIVER

SAN JUAN BAY, PR

MORRO BAY

FIGURE 4: Principal Ground Water Aquifers of the United States

Source: U.S. Geological Survey

3


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1960 1970 1980 1990

FIGURE 5: U.S. Population and Economic Growth 1960 - 1990

Source: U.S. Census and U.S. Department of Commerce

Pop

ulat

ion

(Mill

ions

)

Gross Domestic Product1987 Dollars (trillions)

1.9

4.9

3.8

2.8

Population

one-fourth of all water used in the country, serving agri-cultural, industrial, and drinking water needs. Waste dis-posal, contaminated runoff, and polluted surface waterscan degrade ground water quality.

Wetlands

Wetlands include swamps, marshes, tundra, bogs, andother areas that are saturated with water for varyingperiods of time. Under normal circumstances, theseareas support plants specifically adapted to saturatedconditions. Seeping water from wetlands can rechargeground water supplies. Unaltered wetlands in a flood-plain can reduce flooding. The natural water filtrationand sediment control capabilities of wetlands help main-tain surface and ground water quality. More than 200million acres of wetlands existed in the lower 48 statesduring colonial times. Less than half remain today, how-ever, largely due to conversion to agricultural, urban,or suburban land. Wetland water quality can be im-pacted by many of the same sources that affect othersurface water resources.

III. Human Activities andTheir Effect on WaterQuality

Human activities have aprofound effect on ourwater resources. The

population in the United Stateshas grown from approximately30 million in 1860 to 260 mil-lion in 1990. At the same time,the U.S. economy has expanded.Figure 5 shows both populationand economic growth over thelast four decades. Althougheconomic growth can occurhand-in-hand with environmen-tal protection and restoration, itcan alter both our land and wa-ter. As a result, it is importantthat we work to understand theseeffects in order to capitalize onbeneficial changes and preventor minimize harmful ones.

Urbanization, dams, forestry practices, and agriculturaldevelopment all impact the quality of our waters. Rain-fall and snowmelt runoff from urban areas those ar-eas dominated by paved roads, parking lots, rooftops,and other similar impervious surfaces where pollutioncollectscan alter stream characteristics and habitats,increase pollutant loads and water temperature, and re-duce the diversity of aquatic life. As the percentage ofimperviousness in an area increases, the quality of ad-jacent or receiving waterbodies decreases. Highly de-veloped commercial and business districts are estimatedto be 85 percent impervious, while even our least de-veloped urban areassuburban residential districtswith 1-acre lotsare considered to be about 20 per-cent impervious. Distinct water quality problems areobserved at relatively low levels of imperviousness (10to 20 percent).

Similarly, agriculture and forestry practices can lead towater quality problems. Clear-cutting forests andremoving streambank vegetation result in increased ero-sion rates, as well as more severe and frequent flood-ing, as the natural runoff storage capacity in vegeta-tion, wetlands, and soil is reduced. Figure 6, from theU.S. Department of Agriculture’s National ResourcesInventory, depicts the amount of surface area in theUnited States that is developed land (urban), agricul-tural land, forest land, or a mix of these uses, and fed-eral land. Each land use type results in different im-

4


Reducing the risk of drinking contaminated water hasbeen a priority for public health agencies and EPA formany years. Public water systems manage surface andground water supplies across the country to make themsafe to drink. Most Americans can safely drink theirtap water, although the number of water systems con-tinuing to violate health standards and posing a risk topublic health remains too high. Figure 7 shows the num-ber of community water systems in each state that areregulated by EPA and the states under the Safe Drink-ing Water Act. Although most of these systems useground water as their principal water supply source,approximately 63 percent of the population served isprovided water from systems using surface water.

Fish and shellfish have become more widely used as asource of low-fat, high-quality protein foods. Consump-tion of contaminated fish and shellfish, however, canpose a risk to human health. As fish prey on the speciesbelow them in the food chain, concentrations of chemi-cal contaminants can increase, reaching levels manytimes greater than those found in the water and increas-ing the risk to humans and other animals higher in thefood chain. Also, microbial contamination of shellfishremains a problem.

We sometimes take for granted that our favorite beachesand swimming holes are safe for swimming, water-ski-ing, and boating. However, waters that become pollutedcan pose a health risk to people who choose to play in

them. At times, states or towns areforced to close beaches due to highlevels of bacterial contamination.These closures are undertaken asprecautionary measures to preventthe outbreak or spread of diseaseresulting from swimming in pol-luted waters.

State health departments track thenumber of disease outbreaks fromswimming in all kinds of waters.EPA is encouraging states to re-port information on beach closuresand disease outbreaks to obtain anational perspective on these is-sues

In the future, EPA would like toadd nationwide indicators on thequality of our recreational waters.

pacts that must be addressed by appropriate federal,state, tribal, local, and individual efforts to improveand conserve the quality of our waters.

IV. Water QualityObjectives and Indicators

In the following section, indicators of water qualityare discussed according to how they measure theirrespective water quality objectives: public health,

ecosystem health, designated uses, ambient conditions,and pollutant loadings. Although the indicators are pre-sented on a national level, they also can be used at astate or watershed level. These indicators could pro-vide a consistent core set of data to be used at all geo-graphic levels. Managers at the state and watershedlevels, however, will probably want to add specific in-dicators of their own.

Objective I: Conserve and EnhancePublic Health

We use many of our waters to supply drinking waterand fish and shellfish for human consumption, as wellas for recreation. There are times, however, when poorwater quality limits these uses.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

FIGURE 6: Dominant Cover/Use Types, 1992

5


0 - 600 Community Water Systems


FIGURE 7: Number of Community Drinking Water Systems by State

Source: Safe Drinking Water Information System, 1995


> 1800 Community Water Systems

55,633 Total Community Water Systems

Such information is available from individual states andtribes, but not on a consistent nationwide level. In themeantime, state and local health departments should becontacted for information on conditions in particularareas.

INDICATOR 1: Population served bycommunity drinking water systems violatinghealth-based requirements

EPA and the states regulate approximately 200,000 pub-lic drinking water systems that serve over 240 millionpeople. (Public water systems are defined as systemsthat provide piped water for human consumption to atleast 15 service connections or serve an average of atleast 25 people for at least 60 days each year. Approxi-mately 60,000 of these water systems are known as com-munity drinking water systems—systems that providewater to the same population year-round. The remain-ing 120,000 are non-community water systems that pro-vide drinking water for non-residential use (e.g., work-places, schools, restaurants)).

The concentration of contaminants in drinking water sys-tems is strictly controlled by health-based requirementsestablished to minimize or eliminate risk to human health.These health-based requirements address several areasincluding surface water treatment, total coliform, leadand copper treatment, and chemical/radiological con-tamination. When violations of these requirements oc-cur, water systems must removethe contaminants and notify thepublic or face severe penalties un-der EPA and state regulatory pro-grams.

This indicator displays the popu-lation served by community drink-ing water systems in 1994 thatviolated one or more health-basedrequirements. More than 80 per-cent of the population is served bycommunity drinking water sys-tems that reported no violationsof these requirements during thepast year. Indicators 2 and 3 showmore detailed information on twoof the health-based requirements ,filtration treatment and lead indrinking water.

81%

9%1%

8%

1%

Percent of Population Served by Systems with:

No reported violations 81%Surface water treatment violations 9%Total coliform violations 8%Lead and copper treatment violations 1%Chemical/radiological contamination violations 1%

INDICATOR 1: Population Served byCommunity Drinking Water Systems Violating

Health-Based Requirements

Source: State data in EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System, 1994

Proposed Milestone: By 2005, the population served by community watersystems in violation of health requirements will be reduced from 19 to 5 percent.

Note: As many as one-fourth of the water systems did not complete all requiredmonitoring. The compliance status of some of these could not be assessed fromreported data. 243 million people were served by community drinking water systemsin 1994

●Data

Completeness

Note: Related Milestone-The U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices (HHS) in its Healthy People 2000 report has established asimilar target for the year 2000 that complements the EPA milestonerelated to Indicator 1. The HHS target is: [By 2000,] Increase to atleast 85 percent the porportion of people who receive a supply of drink-ing water that meets the safe drinking water standards established byEPA.

6


INDICATOR 2: Population served byunfiltered surface water systems at risk frommicrobiological pollution

Drinking water systems supplied by surface waters cansometimes withdraw water that contains harmful lev-els of disease-causing microbiological contaminants,such as Giardia lamblia, Legionella, and viruses. Un-der the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), EPAand the states require all inadequately protected drink-ing water systems using surface water sources to disin-fect and install filtration treatment to remove these mi-crobiological contaminants from the drinking water.Compliance with the rule will dramatically reduce theprobability of human exposure to harmful levels of mi-crobiological contaminants from surface water sources.

This indicator displays the population provided waterby unfiltered community water systems that did notcomply with the SWTR in 1993. In 1993, over 12 mil-lion people were provided drinking water from morethan 1,000 unfiltered community water systems not incompliance with the SWTR. Through aggressive ac-tion by EPA, the states, and the water systems, the riskof human exposure to microbiological contaminants isbeing reduced. By the end of fiscal year 1995, the num-ber of water systems not complying with the SWTRwas reduced from 1,000 to 400, with most of theprogress being made in small and medium water sys-tems. However, the population at risk has not droppedas dramaticallyfrom 12 million to 9.9 millionprimarily because of the time needed for completing in-frastructure improvements.

INDICATOR 3: Population served bycommunity drinking water systemsexceeding lead action levels

EPA estimates that 20 percent of human exposure tolead is attributable to lead in drinking water. Lead en-ters drinking water through pipes in the distributionsystem, service lines, and household plumbing, includ-ing faucets and other fixtures. Lead in drinking wateris controllable through actions taken by water systemsand their customers.

EPA, under its Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), requiresthat water systems follow a series of steps to reducethe likelihood of lead entering the drinking water fromdistribution system materials. Water systems are re-

INDICATOR 2: Population Served byUnfiltered Surface Water Systems at Risk

from Microbiological Pollution

0

5

10

15

1993 1994 1995

Pop

ulat

ion

(mill

ions

)


Proposed Milestone: By 2005, every person served by a public water systemthat draws from an unprotected river, lake, or reservoir will receive drinkingwater that is adequately filtered.

●Data

Completeness

1,000Systems

750Systems

400Systems

INDICATOR 3: Population Served byCommunity Drinking Water Systems

Exceeding Lead Action Levels

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

15-30 31-80 81-130 >130Lead Action Level Exceedance (ppb)

Pop

ulat

ion

Ser

ved

(mill

ions

)


◗Data

Completeness

4,167Systems

2,162Systems

723Systems

390 Systems

7


threat to the drinking water source, and (4) developinga source management plan to control potential sourcesof contamination. In the future, the Source Water Pro-tection Program will be extended to surface waters.

This indicator shows that approximately 18,700 of al-most 60,000 surface and ground water community drink-ing water systems (31 percent) have initiated the SourceWater Protection Program and 3,800 systems (6 per-cent) are covered by all four parts of the ground waterprotection program. EPA has established a milestonefor 60 percent of the population, which corresponds to50 percent (30,000) of all community drinking watersystems, to have source water protection programs inplace by 2005.

INDICATOR 5: Fish consumption advisories

States issue fish consumption advisories to alert an-glers of risks associated with eating fish from riversand lakes that are contaminated by chemical pollutants.Some tribes also use state advisories on their own wa-ters. A fish consumption advisory can involve one ormore of the following warnings: (1) do not eat any fish

quired to monitor for lead in their distribution systems,and to take action when lead in more than 10 percent ofthe samples taken at the tap exceeds the regulatory ac-tion level of 15 parts per billion (ppb). Depending onthe size and type of the system, remedial actions rangefrom establishing a public education program to imple-menting corrosion control treatment or replacing leadpipes. EPA requires large systems to install lead con-trols regardless of sampling results.

This indicator measures the population provided waterby community water systems that have exceeded leadaction levels and are required to take corrective action.It is not a precise predictor of the risk of exposure tothe general population provided water by the targetedwater systems. The monitoring results reflect the situa-tion in only the worst portions of the distribution sys-tem and represent only the relative probability of riskfor consumers who rely on those targeted water sys-tems.

Based on the results of lead monitoring through fiscalyear 1995, 69.1 million people were provided drinkingwater by water systems that exceeded the action levelof 15 ppb at least once. Of that number, 42.8 millionpeople were provided water by systems where samplingresults showed lead levels between 15 and 30 ppb, and26.3 million people received water from systems wheresampling results showed lead levels over 30 ppb, whichEPA views as a significant exceedance. About 2.1 mil-lion people received water from water systems wheresampling results showed lead levels greater than 130ppb. Higher exceedances increase the probability thatpeople consuming water are at risk.

INDICATOR 4: Source water protection

To protect our sources of drinking water even beforewater is withdrawn by a drinking water supplier, EPA,states, and tribes have instituted the Source Water Pro-tection Program. EPA also continues to promote groundwater protection efforts through legislation, grants, andpartnerships for state programs. Currently, EPA’s fo-cus in the Source Water Protection Program is on pro-tecting ground water used for drinking water. The re-sulting Wellhead Protection Program covers four prin-cipal activities: (1) delineating a wellhead protectionarea (the protected area around a drinking water sup-ply well), (2) identifying potential sources of contami-nation, (3) developing a contingency plan in case of a

18,700

7,2004,289 3,840

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Delineations SourceInventories

ContingencyPlanning

SourceManagement

Num

ber o

f Com

mun

ity D

rinki

ng W

ater

Sys

tem

sw

ith S

ourc

e W

ater

Pro

tect

ion

INDICATOR 4:Source Water Protection

Source: State Biennial Wellhead Reports to EPA, 1993

Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 60 percent of the population served bycommunity water systems will receive their water from systems with sourcewater protection programs in place.

IDENTIFYING TAKING ACTION

Note: Source water protectionprograms for 30,000 community

drinking water systems is the2005 milestone

DataCompleteness

8


caught in a certain area; (2) eat only a specified limitedamount of fish, particularly if you are in a high-riskgroup (e.g., pregnant women or young children); or(3) eat fish only after special preparation.

States and tribes report that 14 percent of total lakeacres and 4 percent of total river miles have one or morefish consumption advisories. EPA is working with stateand tribal agencies to link fish consumption advisoryinformation with assessments of the fish and shellfishconsumption designated use set by state water qualitystandards.

INDICATOR 6: Shellfish growing waterclassification

Shellfish growing waters are classified by individualstates using the guidelines set forth in the National Shell-fish Sanitation Program (NSSP) manuals of operation.These manuals are written and periodically updated bythe Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission (ISSC),which includes representatives from the states, theshellfishing industry, and the federal government.

Every 5 years, the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, in cooperation with the ISSC and EPA,produces the National Shellfish Register of ClassifiedEstuarine Waters. The Register reports the classifica-tions of all coastal and estuarine shellfish growing wa-ters. These waters are classified as one of the follow-ing: (1) approved (harvest is allowed at all times), (2)conditionally approved (harvest is allowed at certaintimes depending on environmental conditions), (3) re-stricted (harvest is allowed if shellfish undergo a cleans-ing or purification process), (4) conditionally restricted(harvest is allowed at certain times depending on envi-ronmental conditions and whether the shellfish undergoa cleansing or purification process, or (5) prohibited(harvest is not allowed at any time). The Register alsoreports on the actual and potential sources of pollutionthat cause a shellfish growing water to be classified asanything other than approved.

In 1990, there were 17 million acres of classified shell-fish growing waters in U.S. coastal areas, with 63 per-cent approved for shellfish harvesta 6 percent de-cline from 1985. Of the other 37 percent, 9 percentwere conditionally approved for harvest, 3 percent wereclassified as restricted, and 25 percent were classifiedas prohibited.

INDICATOR 6:Shellfish Growing Water Classification

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1990

9%

63%

3%

25%

ApprovedConditionally ApprovedRestrictedProhibited

17,152,000 Acres ofClassified Shellfish Growing

Waters Nationwide

● Data

Completeness

INDICATOR 5:Fish Consumption Advisories

Source: State data reported to EPA’s Office of Science andTechnology, 1994

14%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Lakes Rivers

Per

cent

age

of L

ake

Acr

es a

nd R

iver

Mile

sw

ith F

ish

Con

sum

ptio

n A

dvis

ores

◗Data

Completeness

9


grams in streams and wadeable rivers and (2) EPA’sEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment Program(EMAP), which uses biological monitoring to evaluateestuaries. States were able to assess only 9 percent oftheir rivers for biological integrity; of those, 50 percentwere found to have healthy aquatic communities. EMAPassessed 50 percent of the Nation's estuaries using astatistically representative sampling design and foundthat 74 percent of estuaries have healthy aquatic com-munities.

Methods for biological monitoring in lakes are underdevelopment; consequently, there are not enough datayet to confidently report the number of lakes that sup-port healthy aquatic life. EPA and its partners are work-ing together to strengthen biological monitoring pro-grams, assess more waters in this fashion, and gatherbetter data for supporting this indicator.

INDICATOR 8: Species at risk

In assessing the biological diversity and integrity of awaterbody, it is important to determine whether theaquatic species that should naturally exist in the watersare actually there and at the expected population size.

INDICATOR 7:Biological Integrity

Source: EPA EMAP, 1994, and state biological monitoring data, 1992-1994

50%

74%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Rivers Estuaries

Per

cent

of A

sses

sed

Wat

erbo

dies

that

Sup

port

Hea

lthy

Aqu

atic

Com

mun

ities

Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 80 percent of the Nation's surface waters willsupport healthy aquatic communities.

9% Assessed 55% Assessed

DataCompleteness

EPA and NOAA are considering how NOAA’s shell-fish growing waters data can be correlated with stateassessments of attainment of the fish and shellfish con-sumption designated use set by state water quality stan-dards (see Indicator 10b).

Objective II: Conserve and EnhanceAquatic Ecosystems

Clean water is also critical to the health and survival ofmost plant and animal species. Water quality encom-passes not only the chemical composition of the water,but also its physical and biological properties. Impairedaquatic habitats can cause a severe decline or even ex-tinction of an aquatic species and aquatic-dependentwildlife. The quality of the biological communities canbe used as an indicator of the cumulative effect of allchemical and physical stressors on the waterbody.

Sometimes the conditions in a waterbody might appearsuitable for aquatic life, but the absence of healthy anddiverse aquatic life might indicate water quality prob-lems that have gone undetected. Assessing the abilityof the waterbody to support aquatic life is the first stepin ensuring healthy biological communities, referredto as “biological integrity.” The next step is determin-ing the kind and abundance of plants and animals foundin the waterbody, referred to as “biological diversity.”Aquatic plant and animal habitats that are degraded ormodified can also be indicators of poor water quality.

INDICATOR 7: Biological integrity

Assessing a waterbody for healthy biological communi-ties is a complex process, and the science to do so isnewer than that used in chemical monitoring. Biologicalintegrity can be measured using fish, macroinvertebrates,or plants, including algae. The Intergovernmental TaskForce on Monitoring Water Quality recommends that atleast two of these three assemblages be used together tomake an accurate assessment. The extent of biologicalintegrity is determined by comparing the monitored siteagainst a “reference site” that exhibits the desired char-acteristics. Assessing waterbodies for biological integ-rity is important because it takes into account the cumu-lative effects of a wide variety of stressors.

This indicator shows data from (1) 31 states that cur-rently have comprehensive biological monitoring pro-

10


INDICATOR 8:Aquatic and Wetland Species at Risk

Source: The Nature Conservancy and State Natural Heritage Data Centers, 1996

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Mus

sels

Cra

yfis

h

Fish

Am

phib

ians

Dra

gonf

lies

Pla

nts

Rep

tiles

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Per

cent

at R

isk

5%

67%

18% 18%14%

9%

35%

65%

37%

◗Data

Completeness

Oftentimes, declines in natural aquatic species can beattributed to factors such as poor water quality and habitatloss.

Both The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service (USFWS), in cooperation withstates and tribes, keep data that show which native plantand animal species are at risk (TNC) or are legally listedas endangered (USFWS). This indicator uses data fromTNC and the state Natural Heritage Network and showsthe proportion of species dependent on freshwateraquatic or wetland habitats that are at risk. Currently,the groups of animals at greatest risk overall are thosedependent on aquatic systems. More than 60 percent offreshwater mussels and crayfish are at risk, the highestimperilment ratio documented for any group of plantsand animals in the United States.

INDICATOR 9: Wetland acreage

Wetlands are especially important habitats for many dif-ferent kinds of aquatic species. An estimated 80 percentof the Nation’s coastal fisheries and one-third of its en-dangered species depend on wetlands for spawning, nurs-ery areas, and food sources. Wetlands are home to mil-lions of waterfowl and other birds, plants, mammals, andreptiles. Protecting the quantity and quality of wetlandsis important to the continued abundance of healthy anddiverse aquatic species.

This indicator shows historical wetland loss, which hasbeen significant. The average annual rate of wetland loss,however, has slowed to less than 90,000 acres per year.Ultimately, there will be a net increase in wetland acre-age.

Objective III: Support Uses Designatedby the States and Tribes in Their WaterQuality Standards

The Clean Water Act requires states and, if authorized,Native American tribes to adopt water quality standardsthat include uses they designate for their waterbodies orwaterbody segments. These designated uses reflect theway we want to use our waterbodies and include suchthings as supplying clean drinking water, providing fishand shellfish safe for human consumption, allowing safeswimming and other forms of recreation, and supportinghealthy aquatic life. State/tribal water quality standards

INDICATOR 9:Wetland Acreage

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990 (Data includes federal lands) U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1992 (Data excludes federal lands)

458

290

70-90

0

200

400

600

mid 1950s -mid 1970s

mid 1970s -mid 1980s

mid 1980s -early 1990s

Ann

ual R

ate

of W

etla

nd L

oss

(in th

ousa

nds

of a

cres

)

Proposed Milestone: By 2005, there will be an annual net increase of at least100,000 acres of wetlands, thereby supporting valuable aquatic life, improvingwater quality, and preventing health- and property-damaging floods and drought.

● Data

Completeness

* *

*

**

**

11


INDICATOR 10a:Drinking Water Supply Designated Use

Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress ,1995; 17 percent of all river and stream miles (48 percent of constantlyflowing miles), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent ofestuarine square miles were assessed.

83%87%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Rivers Lakes

Per

cent

of A

sses

sed

Wat

erbo

dies

that

Mee

tD

rinki

ng W

ater

Sup

ply

Des

igna

ted

Use

Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 90 percent of the Nation's rivers, streams, lakes,and reservoirs designated as drinking water supplies will provide water that issafe to use after conventional treatment.

◗Data

Completeness

establish the goals of and provide the requirements forthe Nation's water quality-based improvement programs.

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires thatstates survey, assess, and report on the degree to whichtheir surface waters support the designated uses. SomeNative American tribes also submit this information.The results of the assessments are reported to EPA ev-ery 2 years. Data from the reports are then aggregatedto form the National Water Quality Inventory Report toCongress (the national 305(b) Report), which portraysthe status of the Nation’s waters assessed during thatperiod.

Most states cannot assess all their waters in a 2-yearperiod. As a result, EPA is working with the states tochange the 305(b) Report to a 5-year report that de-scribes national, state, and tribal waters comprehen-sively. For the 2-year period reported in the 1994 305(b)report, states and tribes assessed 42 percent of lakesand reservoirs, 78 percent of estuaries, and 17 percentof all rivers and streams, usually targeting their moni-toring efforts to areas of particular interest. The assess-ment figure for rivers and streams rises to 48 percent ifthe intermittent waters that are dry during portions ofthe year are excluded.

INDICATOR 10a: Drinking water supplydesignated use

States and tribes evaluate the quality of their waters assources for drinking water supplies. This does not meanthat the water is safe to drink directly from the source,but rather that with conventional treatment the watercan be safely distributed for public consumption. In theEPA guidance to the states for the fiscal year 1996 305(b)Report, EPA defines conventional treatment as disin-fection and filtration treatment only.

This indicator shows that of the rivers and lakes assessedand reported on for the 1994 305(b) Report, 87 percentof the lake acres and 83 percent of the river miles thatsupply drinking water systems support this use.

INDICATOR 10b: Fish and shellfishconsumption designated use

Just as the states and tribes report to EPA on the qualityof their waters for supplying drinking water systems,

INDICATOR 10b: Fish and ShellfishConsumption Designated Use

95%

82%

92%

74%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Rivers (fish) Lakes (fish) Estuaries(fish)

Estuaries(shellfish)

Per

cent

of A

sses

sed

Wat

erbo

dies

that

Mee

t Fis

han

d S

hellf

ish

Con

sum

ptio

n D

esig

nate

d U

se

Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 90 to 98 percent of the Nation's fish and shellfishharvest areas will provide food safe for people and wildlife to eat.

Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress ,1995; 17 percent of all river and stream miles (48 percent of constantlyflowing miles), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent ofestuarine square miles were assessed.

◗Data

Completeness

12


they also report on the quality for fish and shellfishconsumption. This indicator shows that 74 percent ormore of all assessed river miles, lake acres, and estua-rine square miles are safe for fish and shellfish con-sumption. EPA is working with the state agencies thatissue fish consumption advisories (Indicator 5) to linkadvisory information with fish and shellfish consump-tion designated use data.

INDICATOR 10c: Recreation designated use

States and tribes also report to EPA how many of theirwaters support recreational uses, especially swimmingand boating. Currently, 77 percent or more of all rivermiles, lake acres, and estuarine square miles that thestates and tribes have assessed are safe for all forms ofrecreation.

INDICATOR 10d: Aquatic life designated use

The states and tribes also provide EPA with informa-tion on whether their waters can support their aquaticlife designated use. Approximately 70 percent of theNation’s assessed river miles, lake acres, and estua-rine square miles can support the designated aquaticlife use.

Objective IV: Conserve and ImproveAmbient Conditions

Measures of ambient water quality evaluate the overallimpacts of various sources and causes of pollution andother stressors. Measures of ambient conditions inground water, surface water, and wetlands—both in thewater column and in sediments—cover a range of physi-

77%81%

85%87% 86%83%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Rivers Lakes Estuaries

Per

cent

of A

sses

sed

Wat

erbo

dies

that

Mee

tS

wim

min

g an

d O

ther

Rec

reat

ion

Des

igna

ted

Use

Swimming Other Recreation

INDICATOR 10c:Recreation Designated Use

Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 95 percent of the Nation's surface waters will besafe for recreation.

Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress ,1995; 17 percent of all river and stream miles (48 percent of constantlyflowing miles), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent ofestuarine square miles were assessed

◗Data

Completeness

69% 69% 70%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Rivers Lakes Estuaries

Per

cent

of A

sses

sed

Wat

erbo

dies

that

Mee

tA

quat

ic L

ife D

esig

nate

d U

se

INDICATOR 10d:Aquatic Life Designated Use

Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress ,1995; 17 percent of all river and stream miles (48 percent of constantlyflowing miles), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent ofestuarine square miles were assessed

◗Data

Completeness

Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 80 percent of the Nation’s surface waters willsupport healthy aquatic communities.

Note: Related Milestones - The U.S. Department of Health and Hu-man Services (HHS) in its Healthy People 2000 report has estab-lished targets for the year 2000 that complement the EPA mile-stones related to Indicators 10b and 10c. The HHS targets are: [By2000,] reduce potential risks to human health from surface water,as measured by an increase in the proportion of assessed rivers,lakes, and estuaries that support beneficial uses. For recreation use,from 1992 to 2000 the percentages would improve as follows: Riv-ers (from 71 percent to 85 percent), Lakes (from 77 percent to 88percent), and Estuaries (from 83 percent to 91 percent). For con-sumable fishing use the improvement would be: Rivers (from 89percent to 94 percent), Lakes (from 64 percent to 82 percent), andEstuaries (from 94 percent to 97 percent).

13


cal, chemical, and biological characteristics of thewaterbody. These measures provide critical informa-tion about potential risk to human and ecosystem health(Objectives I and II) and often are evaluated to deter-mine the degree to which there is impairment of awaterbody’s designated use (Objective III). By provid-ing the link to causes and sources of pollution and pol-lutant loadings (Objective V), ambient water qualityindicators complete the picture of how the water ob-jectives support and build on oneanother (see page ii).

The United States does not havea linked national ambient waterquality monitoring network thatcan produce a statistically validpicture of all our waters. In lieuof a complete and representativenational data set on ambient con-ditions, several sources of infor-mation taken together can pro-vide a national picture of waterresource conditions.

States and some tribes report toEPA the leading pollutants andother stressors they find in theambient waters they assess, andthe leading sources that producethese stressors. EPA publishesthis information in the 305(b) re-port. Figure 8 shows the percentand quality of waterbodies as-sessed, and Figures 9a and 9bshow the leading stressors andsources of impairment in as-sessed rivers, streams, lakes, res-ervoirs, and estuaries reported bystates in 1994.

This report uses several sets ofthese data as indicators. Usingthese data, we can summarizeand evaluate trends for selectedparameters (Indicators 12, Sur-face Water Pollutants, and 13 and14, Pollutants in Coastal Watersand Estuaries). In some cases,only a 1-year baseline is pre-sented (Indicators 11, Ground

Water Pollutants, and 15, Contaminated Sediments),with trends to be established at a later date.

Based on discussions at the last national water indica-tors workshop in June 1995, potential parameters wereselected to express national ambient water quality.Many of the parameters are presented in these indica-tors. Participants in these discussions expressed the im-portance of tracking both ambient water quality and

0% 20% 40% 60%

EstuariesLakesRivers

Nutrients

Bacteria

Siltation

Oxygen- DepletingSubstances

Metals

Habitat Alterations

Suspended Solids

Oil & Grease

Pesticides

Priority Organic ToxicChemicals

47%

23%46%

34%

28%34%

43%

21%9%

18%24%

32%

10%

11%

14%14%

16%

14%

16%17%

8%

FIGURE 9a: Leading Stressors Causing Water Quality Impairment

Source: U.S. EPA, 1995

Percent of Impaired River Miles, Lake Acres, and Estuarine Square Miles

Note: This graph shows the percentage of river miles, lake acres, and estuarine square miles that are affected by a particular stressor. The affected waters include only those which have been assessed by states and tribes and identified as impaired (see Figure 8).

Waters Assessed

Total River Miles

Lake Acres

Estuarine Miles

17%

42%

22%

83%

58%

78%

3.5 million total miles

40.8 million total acres

34,388 total sq. miles

Quality of Assessed Estuary Sq. Miles

Quality of Assessed River Miles

Quality of Assessed Lake Acres

Impaired37%

Impaired37%

Impaired36%

Good63%

Good63%

Good64%

FIGURE 8: Percent and Quality of Waterbodies Assessed

Waters Not Assessed


48% 52%Constantly Flowing

River Miles

1.3 million total miles

14


INDICATOR 11:Ground Water Pollutants: Nitrate

Source: National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells, 1990.

1.5

3.0

0

1

2

3

4

RuralDomestic

Wells

CommunityWater

SystemWells

Mill

ions

of P

eopl

e P

oten

tially

Exp

osed

to N

itrat

e in

Gro

und

Wat

er a

t Lev

els

abov

e 10

mg/

L

Proposed Milestone: By 2005, the number of Americans served by communityand rural water wells containing high concentrations of nitrate, which can causeillness, will be reduced.

DataCompleteness

INDICATOR 11: Ground water pollutants:Nitrate

Many contaminants in ground water are naturally oc-curring. Some, however, are from human activity.Because ground water monitoring is expensive, infor-mation on ground water quality is usually obtained fromthe monitoring of known or suspected contaminatedsites or from specific studies designed to monitor forvarious contaminants in limited areas. Available data,therefore, do not always provide a complete and accu-rate representation of ambient ground water conditionsor the extent and severity of ground water contamina-tion problems.

In the meantime, one of the best available sources ofground water data is studies of drinking water supplies.Indicator 11 uses information from rural wells and com-munity water systems to determine the number of peopleexposed to nitrate in ground water. According to theNational Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells ,a total of 4.5 million people are estimated to be ex-posed to elevated levels of nitrate in drinking waterwells (approximately one-third from rural domesticwells and two-thirds from community water systemwells). The survey also found nitrate to be the mostwidespread agricultural contaminant in drinking waterwells.

Nitrate is a human health concern because it can causemethemoglobinemia or “blue-baby syndrome." Nitrate

is also an environmental concernas a potential source of nutrientenrichment of coastal waters. Ni-trate contamination of groundwater can result from the inap-propriate application of fertiliz-ers to cropland, where excessnitrate filters down into theground during rainfall; from themisuse of septic systems; andfrom the improper disposal ofwastewater.

Improved understanding of thenatural and human-induced fac-tors affecting ground water qual-ity will come about only throughresearch at the federal, state, andprivate levels. Research isneeded to better understand what

0% 20% 40% 60%

EstuariesLakesRivers

Agriculture

Municipal Point Sources

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers

Hydrologic/Habitat Modification

Industrial Point Sources

Land Disposal

Petroleum Activities

Construction

Resource Extraction

Streamside Vegetation Loss

Forestry

Unspecified Nonpoint Source

34%

12%

50%60%

39%17%19%

46%18%

17%27%

12%

13%11%

11%13%

13%

15%

9%

10%

11%

FIGURE 9b: Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment


Percent of Impaired River Miles, Lake Acres, and Estuarine Square Miles

Note: This graph shows the percentage of river miles, lake acres, and estuarine square miles that are affected by a particular source. The affected waters include only those which have been assessed by states and tribes and identified as impaired (see Figure 8).

pollutant loadings (the amount of a pollutant deliveredto a waterbody) from both point and nonpoint sources(see Objective V). Future efforts will continue to en-hance and expand ambient monitoring coverage to in-clude key parameters and define methods for summa-rizing data for national reporting.

15


activities affect changes in ground water conditions, toguide monitoring and management priorities, and toevaluate the effectiveness of land and water manage-ment practices and programs. The results of such re-search will be more cost-effective monitoring and a sig-nificant expansion and improvement in the informa-tion that can be used for decision making.

EPA and other federal, state, and local agencies con-tinue to promote ambient ground water monitoring tocharacterize the existing condition of the Nation’s aqui-fers. Many recent monitoring studies, especially fromthe U.S Geological Survey, have focused on nitrate asan indicator for the presence of other contaminants. Inaddition, many studies have targeted other contaminantsas indicators of specific types of land use or industrialactivities. EPA plans to review all of these studies anduse them as a follow-up to the information currentlycovered by this indicator. Thus, in the future, this indi-cator will provide a more accurate picture of overallground water quality by including other contaminants,such as pesticides or industrial contaminants, and usesother than drinking water supply.

INDICATOR 12: Surface water pollutants

EPA and its partners have chosen to track a few of themany constituents that have significant effects on oursurface waters. This indicator currently presents thechange in concentration levels of six constituents, in-cluding dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, nitrate, totalphosphorus, fecal coliform, and suspended sediments.Data from the U.S. Geological Survey on ambient sur-face water quality are the best current representationfor this indicator. These data show trends in the con-centration levels of the six constituents from 1980 to1989. Increases in the concentration level of dissolvedoxygen, which is necessary for fish and aquatic plantlife, indicate an improvement in ambient water quality.In contrast, increases in the concentration level of allof the other constituents reflect a decrease in ambientwater quality. In the future, trends of other constituentsmight be added to improve this indicator.

INDICATOR 13: Selected coastal surfacewater pollutants in shellfish

Pollution in coastal areas is of particular concern giventhe population concentration in coastal regions and the

Trends in River andStream Water Quality

1980 -1989

Suspended Sediment

Fecal coliform

Total phosphorus

Nitrate

Dissolved solids

Dissolved Oxygen

INDICATOR 12:Surface Water Pollutants

Downward trend No trend Upward trend

Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 1990

0% 50% 100%% of Stations Showing Changes

in Concentration Levels

11% 87%

5%73%22%

3%

86%

84%

2%

13%

8%

78%14%

9%85%6%

8%

6%

Note: The presence of an upward trend indicates an increase in the concentrationof a particular constituent while a downward trend indicates a decrease in the concentration. Analyses were made on data from USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network stations. Trend data for phosphorus are from 1982-1989.

● Data

Completeness

324 TotalStations

313 TotalStations

344 TotalStations

410 TotalStations

340 TotalStations

424 TotalStations

DataCompleteness


INDICATOR 13: Selected Coastal SurfaceWater Pollutants in Shellfish

4.6%9.1%

-9.3%

-41.9%

-53.8%

3.6%

-70%

-50%

-30%

-10%

10%

30%

50%

70%

Copper Mercury Lead DDT PCB PAH

Per

cent

cha

nge

from

198

6/87

to 1

992/

93P

AH

is 1

988-

89

16


INDICATOR 14: Estuarine eutrophicationconditions

This indicator shows changes in specific constituentsrelated to water quality that together can be used toassess the extent of eutrophication within an estuary,and thus assess its health and condition. Eutrophica-tion is a process by which a body of water begins tosuffocate from receiving more nutrients, such as nitro-gen and phosphorus, than it can handle. The excessnutrients fuel the heavy growth of microscopic aquaticplants. As these plants die and decompose, the supplyof dissolved oxygen in the water is depleted. Oxygen isthen no longer available to other aquatic organisms,especially those which live on the bottom. Symptomsof eutrophication include low levels of dissolved oxy-gen, extensive algal blooms, fish kills and reduced popu-lations of fish and shellfish, high turbidity in the water,and diebacks of seagrasses and corals. Estuarine andcoastal waters are monitored to determine if they arereceiving too many nutrients and becoming eutrophic.Parameters that are monitored include chlorophyll a,nitrogen, other nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and thespatial coverage of seagrassess (or submerged aquaticvegetation).

This indicator shows trends in eutrophication-relatedconditions from the 1960s to 1995 in selected estuar-ies throughout the country as measured by two differ-ent data sets. The nationwide framework for the indi-cator of estuarine eutrophication is NOAA’s NationalEstuarine Inventory. The 129 estuaries contained inthe inventory represent a consistent and completeframework for characterizing the Nation’s estuarineresource base. NOAA is collecting information on16 eutrophication-related water quality parameters foreach estuary in the inventory through a knowledge-based consensus process with over 400 estuarine sci-entists. In 1990, NOAA estimated that nearly halfthe Nation’s estuaries were susceptible to eutrophica-tion. In 1992, NOAA initiated its National EstuarineEutrophication Survey to evaluate which estuaries hadproblems in the following regions: North Atlantic (16estuaries), Mid-Atlantic (22 estuaries), South Atlan-tic (21 estuaries), Gulf of Mexico (36 estuaries), andthe West Coast (34 estuaries).

This indicator also uses data from EPA’s National Es-tuary Program (NEP). Currently, there are 28 estuariesaround the country in the NEP. In many of these estuar-ies, state and local managers have identified eutrophi-

worse better no trend


INDICATOR 14:Estuarine Eutrophication Conditions

DataCompleteness

Note: EPA and NOAA data should not be compared.

Hudson River

Delaware Bay

Chesapeake Bay

Neuse River

St. Johns River

Biscayne Bay

Chlorophyll a Nitrogen Anoxia

SubmergedAquatic

Vegetation

Trends observed from 1974 to 1995

NOAA DATA

importance of coastal waters as nurseries for aquaticlife. NOAA collects data on the concentration and ef-fect of persistent pollutants in the coastal waters of theUnited States. This indicator shows the average con-centration levels of six pollutants in shellfish (oystersand mussels) collected from about 140 locations aroundthe Nation’s coastline. Shellfish serve as good indica-tors because they filter water as they feed and tend toaccumulate pollutants.

The pollutants shown are six of the toxic chemicalsof greatest concern in terms of their effects on fishand other organisms in U.S. estuaries. Three metalsand three groups of organic chemicals are included.The metals copper, mercury, and lead are commonlyused in our society for many purposes. The use oftwo of the organic chemicals, the DDT pesticides andthe industrially important polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs), was very common until about 20 years ago.Although these chemicals are now banned, they canstill be found in the environment. The carcinogenicpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are com-mon constituents of oil and are also produced by theburning of coal and wood.

17


cation and excess nutrients as critical problems. NEPsare collecting historical and baseline monitoring in-formation to assess the effectiveness of corrective ac-tions being undertaken. Taken together, the NOAA andEPA efforts will provide the most comprehensive andcomplete information base possible for the foresee-able future.

INDICATOR 15: Contaminated sediments

Certain types of chemicals in water tend to bind toparticles and collect in sediment. Chemicals often per-sist longer in sediment than in water because condi-tions might not favor natural degradation. Whenpresent at elevated concentrations in sediment, pollut-ants can be released back to water. Pollutants can alsoaccumulate in bottom-dwelling organisms and in fishand shellfish and move up the food chain. In both cases,excessive levels of chemicals in sediment might be-come hazardous to aquatic life and humans.

This indicator shows the percent of measurementsof contaminated sediments that indicate potential riskto ecological and human health by chemical or chemi-cal group. Of the 37 percent of measurements thatdetected contaminant levels, 14 percent exhibited apotential risk to human or ecological health due tosubstances such as mercury, pesticides, PCBs, andPAHs. These levels of concern are based on field sur-veys, laboratory toxicity tests, and studies of the be-havior of chemicals in the environment and in livingfish tissue. EPA collects and analyzes sediment andfish tissue data from state, EPA region, and othermonitoring programs as part of the National Sedi-ment Inventory (NSI). The goals of the NSI are tosurvey data regarding sediment quality nationwide,identify locations that are potentially contaminated,and describe the sources of contaminants.

The Importance of Habitat

Habitat is an additional indicator that measures ambi-ent conditions. Without healthy habitat, plants and ani-mals cannot survive. Habitat is the area where livingand nonliving factors interact to provide at least mini-mal life support for a given species. Habitat importantto water quality begins instream (factors such as wa-ter flow rate), includes the riparian zone (habitat bor-dering water), and extends into dry-land habitats where

INDICATOR 14:Estuarine Eutrophication Conditions

EPA DATA

Source: Data from EPA’s National Estuary Program, 1996

DataCompleteness

Note: EPA and NOAA data are not comparable. For EPA’s NEP data, collection periods varied from 15 to 30 years, seasonal or short-term trends are not reflected, and individual NEPs are not comparable.

Massachusetts Bays

Long Island Sound

Delaware Inland Bays

Albemarle-PamlicoSounds

Tampa Bay

Barataria-Terrebonne

Chlorophyll a Nitrogen Anoxia

SubmergedAquatic

Vegetation

1960s to 1995

worse better no trend not known non applicable

PCBs22%

OtherOrganics

5%

Other Metals16%

Mercury7%

Pesticides31%

PAHs19%

Percentage ofmeasurements

of sediment(including fish

tissue)contaminant

levels thatindicate

potential riskto ecological

and humanhealth by

chemical orchemical

group.

No RiskIndicated

63%

PotentialRisk14%

NotEvaluated

23%

NotDetected

63%

Detected37%

◗ Data

Completeness

Source: National Sediment Inventory fromEPA’s Office of Science and Technology, 1993

Proposed Milestone: By 2005, point sources of contamination will be controlledin 10 percent of the watersheds where sediment contamination has beendetermined to be widespread.

INDICATOR 15:Contaminated Sediments

18


rainwater and snowmelt carry pollutants over land intowater.

Although healthy habitat is a key link in understandingour water resources, we are currently unable to reporton habitat quality nationally. It is important, however,to use habitat as an indicator regionally. EPA hopes tobe able to include a national habitat quality indicator infuture reports. To fill this information gap, EPA and itspartners are placing increased emphasis on supportinghabitat quality assessments and developing a habitatquality indicator.

One of the first documents issued by EPA encourag-ing states to assess habitat quality is Rapid Bioassess-ment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers . TheRapid Bioassessment Protocols evaluate the qualityof the riparian corridor habitat by comparing the moni-tored stream to a “reference condition” that expressesthe desired condition of the water. Habitat data, to-gether with traditional chemical and toxicity data,enable researchers to evaluate biological monitoringdata and understand the environmental stressors to theaquatic ecosystem.

Some habitat quality stressor information is reportedin the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Con-gress. According to the 1994 305(b) Report, states andtribes ranked hydromodification and habitat alteration

as a leading source of water quality impairment in as-sessed waters (see Figure 9b).

Objective V: Reduce or PreventPollutant Loadings and OtherStressors

Water is affected by stressors from both natural andhuman activities. Habitat alteration, for instance, cancause major water quality degradation. However, de-termining where the stressors come from is not al-ways easy. Stressor indicators are the link betweenmanagement programs, which are usually designedto prevent or reduce stressors, and the condition ofthe environment. The following indicators present in-formation on the sources of pollutant loads for se-lected pollutants. A pollutant load is the mass of apollutant (e.g., tons of sediment) delivered to thewaterbody.

Sources of pollution to surface and ground waters arecharacterized as point and nonpoint. Point source pol-lution usually enters waters through a specific point,such as a pipe. Ground water can be contaminated bypoint source pollution through underground injectionof waste. Nonpoint source pollution typically is car-ried in rainwater and snowmelt runoff over andthrough land to surface water, or in water that seeps

through soils to undergroundaquifers.

Major accomplishments of thepast several decades include con-trolling industrial discharges,providing adequate wastewatertreatment to a growing popula-tion, and protecting drinkingwater supplies from undergroundinjection of waste. EPA usesregulations and permit limits tocontrol these point source dis-charges. The sections that followpresent indicators to measure ourprogress in controlling bothpoint and nonpoint source pol-lution, which continue to persist.To demonstrate the relative con-tribution of point and nonpointsources, Figure 10 illustrates

South Platte River, CO Trinity River, TX White River, AR Apalachicola River, FL

Altamaha River, GA

Tar River, NC

Potomac River, VA

ConnecticutRiver, CTSusquehanna River, PAWhite River, INRed River, MN & NDPlatte River, NEPalouse River, WA

Willamette River, OR

Snake River, ID

San Joaquin River, CA

FIGURE 10: Estimated Share of Nitrogen Delivered to Streams by Point and Nonpoint Sources

Source: U.S. Geological Survey

Nonpoint Source

Point Source

19


how the mix of point and nonpoint sources of nitrogenentering our streams varies across the Nation.

INDICATOR 16a: Selected point sourceloadings to surface water

For surface waters, the major point sources of pollu-tion are sewage treatment plants, industrial facilities,and “wet weather” sources like combined sewer over-flows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), andstorm water sewers. Sewage treatment plants treat anddischarge wastewater from homes, public buildings,commercial establishments, some storm water sewers,and some industries. Many industrial facilities treat anddischarge their own wastewater, either directly to nearbywaters or to sewage treatment plants. Combined sew-ers combine storm water and sewage in one system and,during periods of intense rainfall, can overflow directlyto nearby waters without treatment. Figure 11 illustratesthe annual amount of pollution discharged by thesesources.

Many pollutants have been identified as a priority or ofparticular concern. EPA and other agencies with pointsource loading information have identified a group oftoxic and conventional pollutants to track as indicatorsof progress toward reducing point source pollution insurface waters. Information about these pollutants iscontained in EPA’s Permit Compliance System (PCS).EPA is working to improve thequality of data entered into PCSin order to extract more usefulinformation for each state onwhether the amount of these con-taminants being discharged is in-creasing, decreasing, or remain-ing stable. EPA is working withother federal agencies likeNOAA and USGS to improvethe tracking of point source load-ings nationwide. Improvementswill include the ability to projectexpected loadings from sourcesnot covered in national databaseslike PCS.

For illustrative purposes, thegraph above presents data ex-tracted from PCS on two pol-

INDICATOR 16a: Selected Point SourceLoadings to Surface Water

Source: Permit Compliance System, 1995

18%

34%

16% 18%

24%

4%

42% 44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BiochemicalOxygenDemand

Lead

Per

cent

of S

tate

s

Significantly increasing loads (<100%)Increasing loadsStable loadsDecreasing loads

Proposed Milestone: By 2005, annual pollutant discharges from key pointsources that threaten public health and aquatic ecosystems will be reduced by3 billion pounds, or 28 percent.

DataCompleteness

◗

lutants to be tracked under this indicatorbiochemicaloxygen demand (BOD) and lead. BOD is a mea-sure of pollution expressed in terms of the amountof oxygen needed by micro-organisms to breakdown waste material. A high level of BOD in-

0

50

100

150

0

1500

3000

4500

6000

0

1500

3000

4500

6000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

1992

19951992

1995

Combined Sewer Overflows 3

Toxic Industrial 2Sewage Treatment Plants 1

Conventional Industrial 4

FIGURE 11: Annual Amount of Pollution Discharged by Selected Point Sources


3318

41705340

146

33

Po

lluti

on

Dis

char

ged

(m

illio

ns

of

po

un

ds)

Po

lluta

nts

Dis

char

ged

(m

illio

ns

of

po

un

ds)

Po

lluta

nts

Dis

char

ged

(mill

ion

s o

f p

ou

nd

s)P

ollu

tan

ts D

isch

arg

ed(m

illio

ns

of

po

un

ds)

Pollution settling into sediments

1. The indicator pollutant is biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), the degradable organics typically controlled by discharge permits.2. Pollutants include priority pollutants (e.g., PCBs, lead, mercury) defined by the CWA and some nonconventional pollutants (e.g.. chlorine).3. Pollutants include total suspended solids, BOD, total nitrogen, orthophosphate, metals, and toxic volatile organics.4. Pollutants include oil and grease, total suspended solids, and BOD.

20


cals can pass through septic systems unchanged andeventually enter ground water aquifers while still toxic.As much as 1 billion gallons of untreated chemicals,therefore, have the potential to degrade the water re-sources of 60,000 community water systems and halfthe U.S. population.

One million new septic systems are constructed everyyear. The number of these systems that will be used fordisposal of industrial and commercial wastewater is notknown. Stopping the misuse of these systems is bestleft in the hands of the public health agencies or otherlocal government agencies that regulate them.

Through the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Pro-gram, EPA works with other federal agencies, states,tribes, and local governments to address this major pointsource of pollution. Aside from technical and financialassistance to regulators, the UIC program will providecompliance assistance to commercial and industrial op-erations as part of source water protection programsthat will be developed for 30,000 community water sup-plies by the year 2005. EPA will collect annual reportsfrom states that describe the number of septic systemsno longer used for industrial waste disposal (Class Vwell closures). In the future, EPA expects to report re-ductions in specific point source pollutants to groundwater as this indicator is further developed.

INDICATOR 17: Nonpoint source sedimentloadings from cropland

Nonpoint source pollution is a diffuse source that is dif-ficult to measure and is highly variable due to differentrain patterns and other climatic conditions. In many ar-eas, however, nonpoint source pollution is the greatestsource of water quality degradation. Presently, states andtribes identify nonpoint source pollution from croplandand livestock, urban runoff, and storm sewers as the great-est water quality threat to the Nation’s surface waters.Other nonpoint sources of pollution to surface water in-clude runoff from roads, construction sites, mining, andlogging; drainage from waste disposal sites and land-fills; and airborne pollutants that settle in the water.

In the absence of direct national measures of nonpointsource pollution, national figures can only be estimated.The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimatessoil erosion with field measurements and statisticalmodels, such as the universal soil loss equation. USDA

dicates that there will be lower levels of oxygen avail-able for fish and other aquatic life. A high BOD alsoindicates possible bacterial contamination from sew-age released into the waterbody. In 1995, 66 percent ofthe states reported BOD as either decreasing or stable,while 34 percent reported increasing or significantlyincreasing BOD levels. In addition, 48 percent of thestates reported either decreasing or stable lead levels,while 52 percent reported increasing or significantlyincreasing lead levels.

INDICATOR 16b: Sources of point sourceloadings through class V wells to ground water

Major sources of pollution to ground water are septicsystems, cesspools, or dry wells used to dispose of in-dustrial and commercial wastewater. Businesses in stripmalls and industrial parks and areas that are not servedby municipal sewer systems are likely to dispose ofindustrial and commercial wastewater in shallow wellsor in septic systems that are designed to treat only sani-tary wastes. EPA studies show that approximately 10percent of the 10 billion gallons of this wastewater con-tains chemicals, such as ethylene glycol. These chemi-

5 0 0

2 , 4 0 0

0

5 0 0

1 , 0 0 0

1 , 5 0 0

2 , 0 0 0

2 , 5 0 0

1 9 8 9 - 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 - 1 9 9 5

Num

ber o

f Sha

llow

Indu

stria

l Was

te

Dis

posa

l (C

lass

V) W

ells

Clo

sed

INDICATOR 16b: Sources of Point SourceLoadings Through Class V Wells

to Ground Water

Source: EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1995

Note: As well closuresincrease, loadings or discharges to ground

water decrease.

DataCompleteness

Proposed Milestone: By 2005, wellhead protection areas and vulnerable groundwater resources will no longer receive industrial wastewater discharges fromseptic systems.

21


tracks and reports progress in reducing erosion ratesfrom the Nation’s agricultural lands through the Na-tional Resources Inventory.

This indicator shows the amount of erosion from agri-cultural cropland. Cropland erosion is often, but notalways, associated with the delivery of sediment, nu-trients, and pesticides to receiving waters. Other na-tional measures for nonpoint source loadings are underconsideration and may be developed as more nationaldata become available.

INDICATOR 18: Marine debris

Marine debris includes trash left behind by visitors tothe beach, discarded from boats, carried by inland wa-terways to the coast, or conveyed by overflowing seweror storm systems. As an indicator, marine debris canbe useful in ascertaining (1) early warning signs of pos-sible human health risk associated with pollution,(2) biological health risk such as entanglement or in-gestion by wildlife, (3) limits on coastal recreation andfishing, (4) the effectiveness of programs to control orprevent marine debris, (5) the aesthetic value of acoastal area and the economy it supports, (6) ambientconditions, and (7) human health risks through en-tanglement injury or exposure to medical waste.

EPA chairs an interagency workgroup on marine de-bris that includes representatives from the National Oce-anic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. ParkService, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other organizations.The workgroup has developed a statistically valid meth-odology for monitoring the trends and sources of ma-rine debris. This monitoring effort will begin in 1996,and data from that year will be used as the baseline forthis indicator. Past data, although not collected using astatistically designed protocol, are presented in this re-port to give an indication of the problem.

INDICATOR 17: Nonpoint Source SedimentLoadings from Cropland

Source: USDA, National Resource Inventory, 1992

1,926

1,725

1,505

1,185

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

1977 1982 1987 1992A

nnua

l Rat

e of

Sed

imen

t Ero

sion

(in m

illio

n to

ns)

Proposed Milestone: By 2005, the annual rate of soil erosion from agriculturalcroplands will be reduced 20 percent from 1992 levels to a total of 948 milliontons per year.

DataCompleteness

INDICATOR 18:Marine Debris

Source: Center for Marine Conservation, 1995.

2.6

2.92.8

3.2

2.8

0

1

2

3

4

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Mill

ions

of P

ound

s of

Mar

ine

Deb

ris C

olle

cted

Dur

ing

an A

nnua

l Eve

nt

Note: Data in this graph are variable by number of beaches cleaned,number of volunteers participating, and weather conditions on the day ofcleanup.

◗Data

Completeness

22


V. Water QualityMonitoring andInformation Management

Water quality monitoring supplies the data andinformation that are the backbone of eachof the indicators described in this report.

Each indicator is supported by a monitoring networkand data systems that provide and store the data. Insome cases, we need better, more efficient monitoring,easier ways to access and understand data, and betterprograms to analyze and present water quality infor-mation.

Many public and private organizations, states, tribes, andfederal agencies are working to improve monitoring pro-grams across the country to provide better informationto measure these indicators. The Intergovernmental TaskForce on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) has alreadyadopted a nationwide water quality monitoring strategythat, when fully implemented, will provide better datafor many of the indicators presented in this report.

VI. Conclusion

The indicators presented here are keys to answer-ing the question “How clean is our water?” Al-though we know water resources in this country

have improved considerably since the formation of EPAin 1970, the passage of the Clean Water Act and SafeDrinking Water Act, and as a result of the hard work ofmany public and private partners, we still have prob-lems to address. All levels of government and public andprivate entities need to work together closely to improveour understanding of the environment and our ability toprotect and enhance it. A critical part of that process isimproving the collection and assessment of data. Thesteps we are taking to improve the indicators are de-scribed in individual fact sheets for each indicator, avail-able from EPA at the address on the inside back cover.

As the indicators are improved, we should be able tomore precisely track changes, both positive and nega-tive, in water quality. The status and trends indicator datawill be invaluable for targeting resources and for man-aging and improving key water quality programs thatprotect and enhance public health and the environment.

VII. ReferencesObjective I: Conserve and EnhancePublic Health

Indicator 1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1994. Data ex-tracted from the Safe Drinking Water InformationSystem on the population served by community drink-ing water systems in violation of health-based require-ments.


Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1994 Data ex-tracted from the Safe Drinking Water InformationSystem on drinking water systems and populationserved by these systems not meeting filtration require-ments.


Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1994. Data ex-tracted from the Safe Drinking Water InformationSystem on drinking water systems and populationserved by these systems exceeding lead action levels.


Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1993. Data fromState Biennial Wellhead Reports on the number ofstates with source water protection programs.

Indicator 5U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sci-

ence and Technology. 1994. National Listing of FishConsumption Advisories . Geo-referenced data ofstate-issued fish consumption advisories.

Indicator 6National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

1990 Data extracted from the 1990 National Shell-fish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters on thenumber of estuaries providing shellfish approved,conditionally approved, and not approved for humanconsumption.

23


Objective II: Conserve and EnhanceAquatic Ecosystems


Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. 1996. Summary ofState Biological Assessment Programs for Streamsand Wadeable Rivers. Draft. 1992 and 1994 data onthe percent of assessed streams and wadeable riverswith good biological integrity determined throughbiological monitoring.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Re-search and Development. 1995. Data extracted fromEMAP Estuaries: A Report on the Condition of theEstuaries of the United States in 1990-1993 - A Pro-gram in Progress on the percent of assessed estuar-ies with good biological integrity determined throughbiological monitoring.

Indicator 8The Nature Conservancy. 1994. Data extracted from

the Heritage Program Database on the percent of se-lected aquatic species at risk of extinction, criticallyimperiled, and apparently secure.

Indicator 9Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States

1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fishand Wildlife Service. Data on the amount of wetlandacreage loss from 1780 to mid-1980s.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser-vice. 1992. Summary Report National Resources In-ventory. Data on the amount of wetland loss frommid-1980s to mid-1990s.

Objective III: Support Uses Designatedby the States and Tribes in Their WaterQuality Standards

Indicator 10a - 10dU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wa-

ter. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994Report to Congress. 1994 data on the percent ofassessed rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, and es-tuaries that can support (1) drinking water supply,(2) fish and shellfish consumption, (3) swimming

and recreation, and (4) aquatic life. EPA-841-R-94-001.

Objective IV: Conserve and ImproveAmbient Conditions

Indicator 11U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of

Drinking Water and Office of Pesticide Programs.1990. National Survey of Pesticides in DrinkingWater. Data on the potential number of people drink-ing water with high levels of nitrate and pesticides.

Indicator 12U.S. Geological Survey. 1993. National Water Sum-

mary 1990-1991, Hydrologic Events and StreamWater Quality. U.S. Geological Survey Water Sup-ply Paper 2400. Data on trends of selected pollut-ants found in surface water.


1995. Data on selected coastal surface water qualitypollutants in shellfish.


1995. Data presented in NOAA’s National estuarineinventory: Data atlas, Volume 1: Physical and hy-drologic characteristics.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assess-ment. 1995. Data from NOAA's National EstuarineEutrophication Survey Project.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996. NEPdata extracted as of 1996 from continuing monitor-ing programs and synthesis of historical data in in-dividual estuaries.

Indicator 15U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sci-

ence and Technology. 1993 Data from National Sedi-ment Inventory on the percentage of sites with sedi-ment contamination that might pose a risk to humansand aquatic life.

24


Objective V: Prevent or ReducePollutant Loadings and OtherStressors

Indicator 16aU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of En-

forcement and Compliance Assurance. 1995 Datafrom the Permit Compliance System on lead and BODloadings from permitted facilities.

Indicator 16bU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1995. Data fromunderground injection control state reporting formson the number of shallow (Class V) injection wellsclosed annually.

Indicator 17U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser-

vice. 1992. National Resources Inventory SummaryReport. Data on the annual rate of sediment erodedfrom agricultural cropland.

Indicator 18Center for Marine Conservation. 1995. 1994 U.S. Na-

tional Coastal Cleanup Results . Data on the amountof marine debris annually collected from cleanupevents from 1990 to 1994.

Figures

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Goalstatements taken from Environmental Goals forAmerica With Milestones for 2005: A Proposal from the United States Environmental Protection Agency . Government Review Draft. EPA 230-D96-002.

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater. 1996. Selected major rivers of the UnitedStates.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater. 1995. Estuaries designated by EPA and statesunder the National Estuary Program.

4. U.S. Geological Survey. 1996. Principal ground wa-ter aquifers of the United States.

5. U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Com-merce. 1996. Data on U.S. population and economicgrowth from 1960 to 1990.

6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural ResourcesConservation Service. 1996. Dominant Cover/UseTypes. Map ID:RWH.1429. Data extracted from the1992 National Resources Inventory.

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater. 1995. Data extracted from the Safe DrinkingWater Information System on the population servedby primary water supply sources.

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994Report to Congress. 1994 data on the percent andquality of waterbodies assessed.

9a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994Report to Congress. 1994 data on the leading stres-sors causing water quality impairment.

9b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994Report to Congress. 1994 data on the leading sourcesof water quality impairment.

10. U.S. Geological Survey. 1995. Data on the estimatedshare of nitrogen delivered to streams by point andnonpoint sources.

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofWater. 1996. Analyses based on EPA support docu-ments for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreat-ment Standards and Toxic Release Inventory data.

25

Water Environmental IndicatorsEPA Office of WaterMail Code 4503F401 M Street, SWWashington, DC 20460Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic

Comments and requests for indicator fact sheetsshould be sent to the address below:

environmental indicators of water quality in the united...

Documents