| US EPA ARCHIVE DOCUMENT...municipal wastewater treatment plants, and urban runoff and storm sewers. In coastal waters, the lead-ing sources of pollution are urban runoff and storm

272 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries

For a copy of the Alabama 1998305(b) report, contact:

Michael J. RiefAlabama Department of

Environmental ManagementWater Quality BranchP.O. Box 301463Montgomery, AL 36130-1463(334) 271-7829e-mail: [email protected]

The report is also available on theInternet at: http://www.adem.state.al.us/305bwebpg.html

coastal waters. The leading sourcesof river pollution include agriculture,municipal wastewater treatmentplants, and urban runoff and stormsewers. In coastal waters, the lead-ing sources of pollution are urbanrunoff and storm sewers, municipalpoint sources, and collection systemfailures.

Toxic priority organic chemicalsimpact the most lake acres, usuallyin the form of a fish consumptionadvisory. These pollutants mayaccumulate in fish tissue at aconcentration that greatly exceedsthe concentration in the surround-ing water. Unknown sources andindustrial dischargers are responsiblefor the greatest acreage of impairedlake waters.

Special state concerns includeimpacts from forest clearcutting and lack of streamside managementzones. Animal waste runoff isanother special concern that isbeing dealt with through an opera-tion registration rule.

Alabama did not report on thecondition of wetlands.

Ground Water QualityThe Geological Survey of

Alabama monitoring well networkindicates relatively good groundwater quality. However, the numberof ground water contaminationincidents has increased significantlyin the past few years due to betterreporting under the UndergroundStorage Tank Program andincreased public awareness ofground water issues. Alabama hasestablished pesticide monitoringand a Wellhead Protection Programto identify nonpoint sources ofground water contamination andfurther protect public watersupplies.

Surface Water QualitySince enactment of the Clean

Water Act of 1972, water qualityhas substantially improved nearindustrial and municipal facilities.However, pollution still preventsabout 5% of the surveyed streammiles from fully supporting state-defined overall use. In addition,19% of surveyed lake acres do notfully support aquatic life use and84% of surveyed estuarine squaremiles do not fully support shellfish-ing use. Oxygen-depleting wastesand pathogens are the most com-mon pollutants impacting rivers and

Alabama

Basin Boundaries(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)

Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 273

19

Lakes (Total Acres = 490,472)

Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 610)

463,115 2 0

463,111 5 0

415,036 4 <1 0

77

610 0

100

0 0610 0<1

0497 0

Total AcresAssessed

Total SquareMiles Assessed

67

17

78

9

0 00

100

0583 0

100

0 <1

16

15

7

84

0

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

NotAttainable

Percent

Designated Usea

Programs to RestoreWater Quality

Alabama’s nonpoint sourcemanagement program initiated a 5-year rotational watershedmanagement schedule approachbeginning in 1996. The approachinvolves assessing and identifyingthe causes and sources of nonpointsource impacts, prioritizing impact-ed watersheds, and providingresources to protect or improvewater quality. The first river basinassessments were conducted in1996-1997 in the Lower Cahabaand Black Warrior River basins.Other priorities of the nonpointsource program include demon-strating best management practices(BMPs); raising public awarenessthrough education, training, andinitiatives; and developing, priori-tizing, and implementing nonpointsource total daily maximum loads.

Programs to AssessWater Quality

During the 1980s, Alabamaimplemented a multifacetedapproach to surface water qualitymonitoring. This approach includeda fixed-station monitoring network,reservoir monitoring, intensivewaterbody-specific studies, fish tis-sue sampling, and compliance mon-itoring of point source discharges. In1996, the state proposed ASSESS, awatershed-based strategy to inte-grate surface water quality monitor-ing with defined water qualityobjectives and associated environ-mental indicators. The objectives ofASSESS include improving monitor-ing coverage within river basins,improving spatial detail of waterquality assessments, and increasingtotal stream miles monitored overthe 5-year rotation period.

Summary of Use Support in Alabama

Total MilesAssessed

2,987

95

- 5

Percent

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 77,274)b

Good(Fully

Supporting)

Good(Threatened)

Impaired(For One

or More Uses)

Individual Use Support in Alabama

– Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.a A subset of Alabama’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 305(b) reportfor a full description of the state’s uses.

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

Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.


For a copy of the Alaska 1998305(b) report, contact:

Drew GrantAlaska Department of Environmental

ConservationDivision of Air and Water Quality410 Willoughby Street - Suite 105Juneau, AK 99801-1795(907) 465-5304e-mail: [email protected]

Alaska did not report on thecondition of wetlands.

Ground Water QualityGround water is one of Alaska’s

least understood natural resources.It is the major source of fresh waterfor public and private drinkingwater supply systems, industry, andagricultural development. Althoughground water is presumed to be ofexcellent quality in most areas ofthe state, specific areas of generallygood ground water quality havebeen degraded by human activities.Ground water impairment has beendocumented in various areas of thestate and has been linked predomi-nantly to aboveground and subsur-face petroleum storage facilities, aswell as operational and abandonedmilitary installations. Other sources,such as failed septic systems, alsocontribute to ground water contam-ination.


The Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (ADEC)has developed the Watershed Man-agement Section, within the Divi-sion of Air and Water Quality, toimplement the watershed protec-tion approach that has been usedsuccessfully in other states. Thepurpose of this approach is to cost-effectively improve the water qualityof Alaska’s polluted waterbodies andto protect its healthy watersheds incooperation with other agencies,industry, interest groups, and thepublic. The process to be used toadvance the watershed protectionapproach in Alaska is outlined in thedocument Watershed Partnerships inAlaska.

Surface Water QualityThe vast majority of Alaska’s

watersheds, while not being moni-tored, are presumed to be in rela-tively pristine condition due toAlaska’s size, sparse population, and general remoteness. However,Alaska has localized water pollution.Surface water quality has beenfound to be impaired or threatenedfrom sources such as urban runoff(Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau),mining operations in the Interiorand Northwest Alaska, seafoodprocessing facilities in the AleutianIslands, and forest products facilitiesin southeast Alaska.

Alaska


Summary of Use Supporta in Alaskab


Total MilesAssessed

Percent

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 365,000)

Lakes (Total Acres = 12,787,200

Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 33,257)

Total AcresAssessed

513

-4,719


Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Impaired(For One

or More Uses)

Ocean Shoreline (Total Miles = 44,226)

Total ShorelineMiles Assessed

237 -

4 -0

1

99

-

100

0 -

1

99

100

ADEC also supports numerousadditional water quality projects andprograms statewide, including: pol-lution prevention, leaking under-ground storage tanks, contaminatedsites, industrial permitting, water-body assessments and recoveryplans, water quality monitoring,water quality technical services, andpublic outreach and education fromstatewide public service offices.


The Alaska Watershed Moni-toring and Assessment Project(AWMAP) is a statewide waterquality monitoring project involvinglocal, state, and federal agencies;industry; schools; the University ofAlaska; and other entities conduct-ing water quality monitoring. Arecent AWMAP report identifiedareas of the state (by USGS hydro-logic unit) where water qualitymonitoring is either absent orinsufficient to address the potentialpollution sources.

Other water quality monitoringactivities are conducted by ADEC,other agencies, industry, and thepublic. Applicant self-monitoring of receiving waters is a commonpermit requirement associated with Alaska’s major point sourcedischargers. ADEC, in cooperationwith the Alaska Department ofNatural Resources (ADNR), has peri-odically conducted water qualitymonitoring related to placer mining.Implementation of the State GroundWater Quality Protection Strategy iscontinuing, encouraging increasedground water monitoring.

– Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.a A summary of use support data is presented because Alaska did not report individual usesupport in their 1998 Section 305(b) report.

bAlaska notes its assessments are biased toward those waters with known impairments.



For a copy of the American Samoa1998 305(b) report, contact:

Carl GoldsteinUSEPA Region 975 Hawthorne StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105(415) 744-2170e-mail: [email protected]

sources (stormwater runoff, erosion,agricultural practices, road building,careless solid waste disposal, andindividual sewer systems) contributeto a reduction in stream quality. Thishas resulted in a loss of aquatic habi-tat as well as increased sedimenta-tion, and turbidity. Monitoring datafor fecal coliform indicate that thewater quality of almost every streamconsistently exceeds the establishedstandards.

Coastal waters immediatelyadjacent to villages show limitedwater quality degradation, so theprotected uses for open coastal andocean waters appear to be met.Two to five miles out from theislands, American Samoa’s tunacanneries are permitted to dumpcannery sludge and other wastes. Ingeneral, compliance with the OceanDumping permit has been satisfac-tory.

Because it is subjected to thegreatest amount of anthropogenicor human-generated pollution, PagoPago Harbor has been identified asan impaired waterbody due to ele-vated levels of lead and tributlytin insediment and fish tissue. Also, largeoil spills occur several times a year.To reduce the impacts of the spills,the U.S. Coast Guard and AS EPAworked together to develop an OilSpill Protocol and a 24-hour harborsurveillance program.

American Samoa did not reporton the condition of wetlands.

Ground Water QualityThe majority of potable water

for the government water systemcomes from ground water in theTafuna-Leone Plain on Tutuila. In a1987 study, ground water contami-nation was attributed to soil bacte-ria, particulates, human and animalwastes, poor well construction, and the high permeability/low soil

Surface Water QualityThe Territory of American

Samoa (AS) is located about 2,300miles southwest of Hawaii andconsists of five islands with a total of 116 miles of shoreline andapproximately 160 streams.

Although becoming more west-ernized, American Samoa still retainstraditional Polynesian systems ofleadership, land tenure, and familyalliances. Due to cultural differences,environmental policies are notalways effective.

Streams in American Samoaserve as sources of potable waterand places for recreational and sub-sistence fishing for many villages.While there are no significant pointsources of pollutants, nonpoint


American Samoa


filtration capacity. A 1989 studyfound that total coliform bacteriaconcentrations in well waters arereadily detectable after heavy rain-fall; otherwise, all regulated con-taminants are within EPA SafeDrinking Water Standards.


Based on a 1988 assessmentreport, the Nonpoint SourceManagement Program was createdto encourage best managementpractices. Completed projectsinclude soil stabilization demonstra-tion projects, septic tank training,waste oil collection, soil erosionregulations, plan guidelines fordevelopers, watershed cleanupprojects, storm water planning, and public education. In 1990, theAmerican Samoa Coastal NonpointPollution Control Program requiredBMPs for sediment and erosion,stormwater, and construction sitecontrols for all new development.

A Wetlands Management Planhas initiated delineation and restora-tion programs and the ASEPA hasbegun riparian habitat restorationprojects for 10 streams on TutuilaIsland.

Ground water restoration effortsinclude sewer and sewage treatmentplant construction, public education,and a water conservation program.


A baseline water quality study in 1979 led to the completion of thefirst water monitoring strategy in1984. Five rivers and 13 Pago PagoHarbor sites are sampled for physicaland chemical parameters, and 15streams and 21 beaches are testedfor biological contamination.

Individual Use Support in American SamoaPercent

Designated Usea

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = unknown)

Total MilesAssessed

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Good(Fully

Supporting)

Good(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

NotAttainable

Ocean Shoreline (Total Miles = 116)

Total MilesAssessed

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

– Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.a A subset of American Samoa’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 305(b)report for a full description of the state’s uses.


For a copy of the Arizona 1998305(b) report, contact:

Diana MarshArizona Department of

Environmental Quality3033 North Central AvenuePhoenix, AZ 85012(602) 207-4545e-mail: [email protected]

The report is also available on theInternet at: http://www.adeq.state.az.us/water/assess

and turbidity. Natural sources,agriculture, and resource extractionwere the three most commonsources of stressors in streams. Inlake assessments, flow regulation is added as a primary source ofstressors.

Arizona did not report on thecondition of wetlands.

Ground Water QualityArizona monitors a network of

ambient water quality index wellsand compiles data from other moni-toring programs, which are primar-ily targeted in areas of known orsuspected contamination. Datawere reviewed in two watershedsand five “active management areas”(areas targeted as imperiled by over-draft of ground water resources bythe Arizona Department of NaturalResources).

Ground water contaminationvaries significantly across the state.Natural fluoride levels exceed stand-ards and are a major drinking waterconcern in several basins. In themetropolitan areas, volatile andsemivolatile organic compound(VOC and SOC) contaminationareas are being remediated by thefederal and state Superfund pro-grams.


Arizona’s nonpoint source con-trol program integrates regulatorycontrols with nonregulatory educa-tion and demonstration projects.

Surface Water QualityGood water quality fully sup-

ports aquatic life uses in 62% ofArizona's assessed stream miles and66% of its surveyed lake acres. Thismeans that 38% of its assessedstream miles and over 33% of itslake acres do not fully supportaquatic life uses. Turbidity, metals,pathogens, and pH were the fourstressors most frequently identifiedin streams. The leading stressors inlakes were metals, pH, inorganics,

Arizona

Fully SupportingThreatenedPartially SupportingNot SupportingNot AssessedBasin Boundaries(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)

This map depicts aquatic life use support status.

Individual Use Support in Arizona


Total MilesAssessed

Percent

4,120 -

-3,675

Designated Usea

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 90,373)b, c

Lakes (Total Acres = 352,588)c

77,102 -

77,080 -

76,863 -

Total AcresAssessed

3,703 -

85

7 6 2

55

7 21 17

90

6 1 3

1848 32

1

69

273 1

90

7 2 1

Good(Fully

Supporting)

Good(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

NotAttainable

Regulatory programs include theAquifer Protection Permit Program,the Pesticide Contamination Preven-tion Program, and best manage-ment requirements for controllingnitrogen at concentrated animalfeeding operations. The state is alsodeveloping best management prac-tices for timber activities, grazingactivities, urban runoff, and sandand gravel operations. Arizona’spoint source control programencompasses planning, facilityconstruction loans, permits,pretreatment, inspections, permitcompliance, and enforcement.

Additionally, the state’s WaterProtection Fund provides a source of funding to restore rivers andassociated riparian habitats.


Federal and state agencies con-tinue efforts to coordinate monitor-ing, provide more consistent moni-toring protocols, and provide mech-anisms to share data, spurred bytightened budgets. Monitoringprograms in Arizona include a fixedstation network, stream ecosystemmonitoring, priority pollutant moni-toring, and monitoring to supportdevelopment of criteria. Biologicaland physical integrity criteria arebeing developed by the ArizonaDepartment of EnvironmentalQuality, which will recognize region-al differences in biological communi-ty structure and stream morphology.

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

for a full description of the state’s uses.bIncludes 2,531 miles of nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.c Does not include waters on tribal lands, which total 37,130 stream miles and 65,128 lakeacres.



For a copy of the Arkansas 1998305(b) report, contact:

Bill KeithArkansas Department of

Environmental QualityP.O. Box 8913Little Rock, AR 72219-8913(501) 682-0660e-mail: [email protected]

turbidity are the most frequentlyidentified pollutants impairingArkansas’ rivers and streams, fol-lowed by bacteria, nutrients, andmetals. Agriculture is the leadingsource of pollution in the state’srivers and streams and has beenidentified as a source of pollution infour lakes. Municipal wastewatertreatment plants, mining, industrialdischarges, and construction alsoimpact rivers and streams. Arkansashas limited data on the extent ofpollution in lakes.

Special state concerns includethe development of TMDLs andmore effective methods to identifynonpoint source impacts. Arkansasis also concerned about impactsfrom the expansion of confinedanimal production operations andmajor sources of turbidity and siltincluding road construction, roadmaintenance, riparian land clearing,streambed gravel removal, andurban construction.

Arkansas did not report on thecondition of wetlands.

Ground Water QualityAquifer monitoring indicates

that ground water quality in Arkan-sas is generally good. Secondarymaximum contaminant wells wereexceeded in a number of locationsfor parameters such as pesticides,iron, and manganese. Potentialsources of contamination includedisposal sites, underground storagesites, agriculture, and mining opera-tions.

Surface Water QualityThe Arkansas Department of

Environmental Quality reported that69% of their surveyed rivers andstreams and 100% of their surveyedlake acres have good water qualitythat fully supports aquatic life uses.Good water quality also fully sup-ports swimming use in 93% of thesurveyed river miles and 100% ofthe surveyed lake acres. Siltation and

Arkansas

Fully SupportingWaters of ConcernNot SupportingNot AssessedBasin Boundaries(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)


Individual Use Support in Arkansas


-

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

8,668

69

-22

8 -

-7,479 - 7

Designated Usea



356,254 0 -

356,254 - -

356,254 0 0 -

100

Total AcresAssessed

8,668

95

- -

<1

100

<1

- 0

95

5

5

93

-

Good(Fully

Supporting)

Good(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

NotAttainable


The Arkansas Nonpoint SourcePollution Management Program iscurrently being revised to include all categories of NPS pollution. Itprovides for continued monitoringof water quality, research into theeffectiveness of BMPs, and imple-mentation strategies for BMPs.Beginning in 1997, a Priority WaterProgram was developed to targetNPS-impacted watersheds for BMPimplementation. Ten watershedswere selected for either more inten-sive survey activities or BMP imple-mentation activities.


Arkansas classifies its waterresources by ecoregion with similarphysical, chemical, and biologicalcharacteristics. There are six eco-regions including the Delta, GulfCoastal, Ouchita Mountain, Arkan-sas River Valley, Boston Mountain,and Ozark Mountain Regions. Byclassifying water resources in thismanner, Arkansas can identify themost common land uses withineach region and address the issuesthat threaten the water quality.

The state’s ambient monitoringnetwork includes 133 stations moni-tored monthly for several key waterquality parameters. Many of thesestations have been monitored for 15 to 20 years or longer. In addi-tion, 103 additional stations sam-pled quarterly were added in 1994to assess previously unassessedwaters or waters that have not beenmonitored in several years. The data analyzed for this report werecollected from October 1995through September 1997.

– Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.a A subset of Arkansas’ designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 305(b) report fora full description of the state’s uses.




For a copy of the California 1998305(b) report, contact:

Nancy RichardCalifornia State Water Resources

Control Board, M&ADivision of Water QualityP.O. Box 944213Sacramento, CA 94244-2130(916) 657-0642e-mail: [email protected]

Metals, pesticides, PCBs, andpriority organics are the mostfrequently identified pollutants inestuaries, harbors, and bays. Urbanrunoff and storm sewers are theleading source of pollution inCalifornia’s coastal waters, followedby spills, agriculture, resourceextraction, and septage disposal.

Ground Water QualitySalinity, total dissolved solids,

and chlorides are the mostfrequently identified pollutantsimpairing use of ground water inCalifornia, followed by priorityorganic chemicals, nutrients, non-priority organic chemicals, andpesticides. Leading sources areseptage disposal, agriculture, anddairies. Potential sources of groundwater contamination include leakingunderground storage tanks, septagedisposal, agriculture, and industrialpoint sources.


Through California’s stormwaterpermit program, two statewidegeneral permits have been adoptedaddressing stormwater dischargesassociated with industrial activities.Dischargers are required to elimi-nate most nonstormwater dis-charges, develop a stormwaterpollution prevention plan to identifyand implement control measures to minimize pollutants in storm-water runoff, and monitor theirdischarges.

The State Water ResourcesControl Board and Regional WaterQuality Control Boards are imple-menting a Watershed ManagementInitiative to better coordinate and

Surface Water QualitySiltation, metals, nutrients,

bacteria, and pesticides impair themost river miles in California. Theleading sources of degradation inCalifornia’s rivers and streams areagriculture, forestry activities, urbanrunoff and storm sewers, andmunicipal point sources. In lakes,siltation, metals, and nutrients arethe most common pollutants.Hydrologic and habitat modifica-tions, along with urban runoff/storm sewers, construction, highwaymaintenance and runoff, andatmospheric deposition pose thegreatest threat to lake water quality.

California

80% - 100% Meeting All Uses50% - 79% Meeting All Uses20% - 49% Meeting All Uses0% - 19% Meeting All UsesInsufficient Assessment CoverageBasin Boundaries(USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)

Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, andEstuaries Meeting All Designated Uses

Individual Use Support in California


Total MilesAssessed

Percent

12,289 -

-12,066

Designated Usea


Lakes (Total Acres = 1,672,684)

683,248 -

490,343 -

675,736 -

Total AcresAssessed

8,075 -

24 1148

17

24 1249

16

29 9

59

2

25 848

19

28 1235 26

25 1146

19

Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 1,008)c

870 -

880 -

749 -


27<1

67

5

302

65

3

363

60

1

78534

<1

65

1 -

Good(Fully

Supporting)

Good(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

NotAttainable

Wetlands (Total Acres = 275,812)

27,117 -

338 -

-

Total AcresAssessed

55 43

24,869

1 <1

51

0 049

6136

12

focus limited public and privateresources to address both point and nonpoint source water qualityproblems especially in high-prioritytargeted watersheds.


California has developed anumber of programs to monitorwater quality in fresh, estuarine, and marine waters of the state.These include a Toxic SubstancesMonitoring Program that focuses on areas with known or suspectedimpairment; the Toxicity TestingProgram for the identification ofhigh-risk areas as well as the spatialand temporal extent of water qual-ity problems and their causes andsources; an underground storagetank program to study the cleanupof leaking tanks; and volunteermonitoring.

Programs that focus on salt-water monitoring include the Cali-fornia State Mussel Watch Programto detect toxic substances in bays,harbors, and estuaries and the BayProtection and Toxic Cleanup Pro-gram to identify toxic hot spots inenclosed bays and estuaries. Cali-fornia is also developing a compre-hensive program for monitoringand reducing pollution in Califor-nia’s coastal zone.

– Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.

a A subset of California’s designated usesappear in this figure. Refer to the state’s305(b) report for a full description of thestate’s uses.

bIncludes nonperennial streams that dry upand do not flow all year.

c Includes bays and harbors.



For a copy of the Colorado 1998305(b) report, contact:

Sarah JohnsonColorado Department of Public

Health and EnvironmentWater Quality Control Division4300 Cherry Creek Drive, SouthDenver, CO 80222-1530(303) 692-3609e-mail: [email protected]

Ground Water QualityGround water quality in Colo-

rado ranges from excellent inmountain areas where snow fall isheavy, to poor in certain alluvialaquifers of major rivers. Naturallyoccurring soluble minerals alongwith human activities are responsi-ble for significant degradation ofsome aquifers. Nitrates and saltsfrom agricultural activities havecontaminated many of Colorado’sshallow, unconfined aquifers. Inmining areas, acidic water andmetals contaminate aquifers. Colo-rado protects ground water qualitywith statewide numeric criteria fororganic chemicals, a narrative stand-ard to maintain ambient conditionsor maximum contaminant levels of inorganic chemicals and metals,and specific use classifications andstandards for ground water areas.Colorado also regulates dischargesto ground water from wastewatertreatment impoundments and landapplication systems with a permitsystem.


Colorado’s Water QualityControl Division recently reorga-nized to streamline the Division andto make it more responsive to majornew trends in water quality man-agement. The cornerstone of thenew organization is the creation of watershed coordinators andwatershed teams for the four majorwatersheds in the state: Arkansas/

Surface Water QualityColorado reports that 96% of its

surveyed river miles and 88% of itssurveyed lake acres have good waterquality that fully support aquatic lifeuses. Metals are the most frequentlyidentified pollutant in rivers andlakes. Mining and agriculture areleading sources of pollution in bothrivers and lakes.

Colorado did not report on thecondition of wetlands.

Colorado


Individual Use Support in Colorado


Total MilesAssessed

Percent

29,363

18,952c

Designated Usea



59,660

12,155

-

Total AcresAssessed

-

-----

--

--

--

-----

--

96

4 1

1 <1

99

88

11 1

50 50

<1

Good(Fully

Supporting)

Good(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

NotAttainable

Rio Grande, Lower Colorado, UpperColorado, and South Platte. Thewatershed coordinators make theDivision more responsive to localcommunities and their concerns.The watershed teams give theDivision the ability to address keyissues using an integrated approach,which will lead to more effectivesolutions.

Other programs in Coloradoinclude the state’s Water PollutionControl Revolving Fund, nonpointsource control program, andpermits programs.


In 1992, Colorado changed itsmonitoring approach from a state-wide network of routine sites andspecial studies to basin-specificmonitoring of one major watershedper year. During the 1996-1997cycle, the Lower Colorado/Gunni-son and Upper Colorado basinswere monitored. The basin monitor-ing program has several long-termobjectives such as ensuring there isan adequate database to studychanges over time, addressingspatial and temporal variability inwater quality, evaluating the impactof point and nonpoint sources onwater quality, determining laketrophic status, and developing adatabase for biological water qualitycriteria. Colorado plans to devotemore resources to monitoring tar-geted watersheds in the four basinsto support the development ofTMDLs.

– Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.a A subset of Colorado’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 305(b) reportfor a full description of the state’s uses.

bIncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.c All of Colorado’s rivers marked not attainable for swimming were not necessarily surveyed.



For a copy of the Connecticut 1998305(b) report, contact:

Ernest PizzutoBureau of Water Management, PERDConnecticut Department of

Environmental Protection79 Elm StreetHartford, CT 06106-5127(860) 424-3715e-mail: [email protected]

ammonia, nutrients, toxics, andhabitat alteration. Sources of thesepollutants include urban runoff andstorm sewers, industrial dischargers,municipal sewage treatment plants,and in-place contaminants. Threatsto Connecticut’s reservoir and lakequality include atmospheric deposi-tion, upstream impoundments, andmunicipal sewage treatment plants.

Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen)is a widespread problem inConnecticut’s estuarine waters inLong Island Sound. Bacteria alsoprevent shellfish harvesting and anadvisory restricts consumption ofbluefish and striped bass contami-nated with PCBs. Connecticut’sestuarine waters are impacted bymunicipal sewage treatment plants,combined sewer overflows, indus-trial discharges and runoff, failingseptic systems, urban runoff, recre-ational activities, and atmosphericdeposition. Historic waste disposalpractices also contaminated sedi-ments in Connecticut’s harbors andbays.

Connecticut did not report onthe condition of wetlands.

Ground Water QualityThe state and U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) have identified about1,600 contaminated public andprivate wells since the ConnecticutDepartment of Environmental Pro-tection (DEP) began keepingrecords in 1980. Connecticut’sWellhead Protection Program incor-porates water supply planning, dis-charge permitting, water diversion,site remediation, prohibited activi-ties, and numerous nonpoint sourcecontrols.

Surface Water QualityConnecticut has restored over

300 miles of large rivers since enact-ment of Connecticut’s State CleanWater Act in 1967. Back in 1967,about 663 river miles (or 74% ofthe state’s 893 miles of large riversand streams) were unfit for fishingand swimming. In 1998, Connecti-cut reported that 161 river miles(17%) do not fully support aquaticlife uses and 220 miles (23%) donot support swimming due tostressors such as bacteria, PCBs,metals, oxygen-demanding wastes,

Connecticut

Segment 80% -100% Fully SupportingSegment 50% - 79% Fully SupportingSegment 20% - 49% Fully SupportingSegment 0% - 19% Fully SupportingBasin Boundaries(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)


Individual Use Support in Connecticut


Total MilesAssessed

Percent

948 <1

<1948

Designated Usea



27,108 0

27,108 0

27,108 0

Total AcresAssessed

948 0


612 0

612 0

612 0


612

5429 14 3

67

9 16 7

85

10 50

88

10

88

12

6435

1

1 0

0 0

0

1

6030

10

100

47

97

20

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

53

Good(Fully

Supporting)

Good(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

NotAttainable


Ensuring that all citizens canshare in the benefits of clean waterwill require continued permitenforcement, additional advancedwastewater treatment, combinedsewer separation, continued aquatictoxicity control, and resolution ofnonpoint source issues. To date, 14 sewage treatment facilities haveinstalled advanced treatment toremove nutrients. Nonpoint sourcemanagement includes educationprojects and a permitting programfor land application of sewage,agricultural sources, and solid wastemanagement facilities.

Wetlands are protected by the state’s Clean Water Act andStandards of Water Quality. Eachmunicipality has an Inland WetlandsAgency that regulates filling andestablishes regulated buffer areaswith DEP training and oversight.Connecticut’s courts have stronglyupheld enforcement of the wetlandsacts and supported regulation ofbuffer areas to protect wetlands.


Connecticut samples physicaland chemical parameters at 27 fixedstream sites and biological param-eters at 47 stream sites. Otheractivities include intensive biologicalsurveys, toxicity testing, and fishand shellfish tissue sampling foraccumulation of toxic chemicals.


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

bIncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year. Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.


For a copy of the Delaware 1998305(b) report, contact:

Brad SmithDelaware Department of NaturalResources and Environmental

ControlDivision of Water ResourcesP.O. Box 1401Dover, DE 19903(302) 739-4590e-mail: [email protected]

resulted in 14 fish consumptionrestrictions in three basins, includingRed Clay Creek, Red Lion Creek, theSt. Jones River, and the DelawareEstuary. Agricultural runoff, urbanrunoff, municipal sewage treatmentplants, and industrial dischargers arethe primary sources of nutrients andtoxics in Delaware’s surface waters.

Delaware did not report on thecondition of wetlands.

Ground Water QualityHigh-quality ground water

provides two-thirds of Delaware’sdomestic water supply. However,nitrates, synthetic organic chemi-cals, saltwater, and iron contaminateisolated wells in some areas. In theagricultural areas of Kent and Sussexcounties, nitrates in ground waterare a potential health concern and a potential source of nutrientcontamination in surface waters.Synthetic organic chemicals haveentered some ground waters fromleaking industrial undergroundstorage tanks, landfills, abandonedhazardous waste sites, chemicalspills and leaks, septic systems, andagricultural activities.


The Department of NaturalResources and Environmental Con-trol (DNREC) adopted a watershedapproach to determine the mosteffective and efficient methods forprotecting water quality or abatingexisting problems. Under thewatershed approach, DNREC will

Surface Water QualityDelaware’s rivers and streams

generally meet standards for aquaticlife uses, but 98% of the assessedstream miles and 80% of the sur-veyed lake acres do not meet bacte-ria criteria for swimming. Bacteriaare the most widespread contami-nant in Delaware’s surface waters,but nutrients and toxics pose themost serious threats to aquatic lifeand human health. Excessive nutri-ents stimulate algal blooms andgrowth of aquatic weeds. Toxics

Delaware

Fully SupportingThreatenedPartially SupportingNot SupportingNot AssessedBasin Boundaries(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)


Individual Use Support in Delaware


-

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

2,510 -20

63

-

-2,005 2 -22

Designated Usea



Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 812)c

2,954 14 -

- -- -

2,95440 40

-20

29 -

-

Total AcresAssessed


- - - - -

75

-

-

- -

98

- 00

30 -

4115

0-

-

70

- - -- --

17

16

100

44

230

Good(Fully

Supporting)

Good(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

NotAttainable

evaluate all sources of pollution thatmay impact a waterway and targetthe most significant sources formanagement. DNREC has targetedfive basins for development of inte-grated pollution control strategies:Appoquinimink River, ChristinaRiver, Indian River Bay/RehobothBay/Little Assawomen Bay, Murder-kill River, and Nanticoke River.

Delaware’s Wellhead ProtectionProgram establishes cooperativearrangements with local govern-ments to manage sources of groundwater contamination. The state mayassist local governments in enactingzoning ordinances, site plan reviews,operating standards, source prohibi-tions, public education, and groundwater monitoring.


Delaware’s Ambient SurfaceWater Quality Program includesfixed-station monitoring and biolog-ical surveys employing rapid bio-assessment protocols. Monitoringwithin the Fixed Station Network isconducted monthly to quarterly foreach basin in Delaware. Delaware isdeveloping and testing new proto-cols for sampling biological data inorder to determine whether specificbiological criteria can be developedto determine support of designateduses.


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


c Does not include waters under jurisdictionof the Delaware River Basin Commission. Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.


For a copy of the District ofColumbia 1998 305(b) report,contact:

James CollierEnvironmental Health

AdministrationWater Quality DivisionSuite 2002100 Martin Luther King Jr.

Avenue, SEWashington, DC 20020(202) 645-6601

habitat for aquatic life were at leastpartially supported. For example,the Anacostia River remains aestheti-cally and chemically polluted. How-ever, the pollution is at a level thatsupports fish and other wildlife.Submerged aquatic vegetation(SAV) is found in the Anacostia andPotomac Rivers, with the Potomacsupporting a diverse groups of SAVspecies. The Potomac River contin-ues to benefit from improvementsat the city’s wastewater treatmentplant and combined sewer overflowsystem improvements.

Major causes of impairmentcommon to the District’s water-bodies are organic enrichment andpathogens. The sources of impair-ment with major impacts arecombined sewer overflows, urbanrunoff/storm sewers, and municipalpoint sources. These sources areassociated with the land usescommon in an urban area.

The District of Columbia didnot report on the condition ofwetlands.

Ground Water QualityThe drinking water source for

the District of Columbia is surfacewater. The intake is located in thePotomac River north of the city’sboundary. Consequently, groundwater is not monitored on a regular,intensive basis. However, compli-ance monitoring data are scruti-nized for ground water relatedinformation whenever it is available.

Surface Water QualityWater quality in the District of

Columbia continues to be impaired.Each of the waterbodies monitoredwas impaired for one or more of itsdesignated uses. The uses that relatedirectly to human use of the water-bodies were generally not sup-ported, while those uses thatdirectly affected the quality of

District of Columbia



Individual Use Support in the District of Columbia


Total MilesAssessed

Percent

38.4

27.7

Designated Usea

Lakes (Total Acres = 238)

238 0

238

238

Total AcresAssessed

24.3


6 -

6 -

-


6

44

-

56

100

100

0

0

0

0

0

0

00

0

-

0

0

-

0

0

-

0

-

-

-

-

0

0

0

0

0

00

0

0

0

5743

100

100

58 42

100

100

-

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 39)b

Good(Fully

Supporting)

Good(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

NotAttainable


The District’s water qualityprograms are involved in theprocess of identifying and evaluat-ing CSO control methods; the initia-tion of the TMDL process; the iden-tification and support of projects to control stormwater runoff; andcleanups of trash and debris. Effortsto restore the ground water qualityinclude underground storage tanks,pesticide certification, and enforce-ment programs.


The District performs monthlyphysical and chemical sampling at56 fixed stations on the Potomacand Anacostia rivers and their tribu-taries. At each water chemistrystation, four samples a year arecollected for heavy metals analysis.Biological monitoring is also imple-mented in the District’s tributaries.Twenty-seven sites are sampled at least once every 2 years forbiological, fish, morphological, and water quality parameters.


a A subset of District of Columbia’s desig-nated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the District’s 305(b) report for a full description of the District’s uses.




For a copy of the Florida 1998305(b) report, contact:

Joe HandFlorida Department of Environ-

mental ProtectionMail Station 35652600 Blair Stone RoadTallahassee, FL 32399-2400(850) 921-9441e-mail: [email protected]

The state recognizes the integrityof the following ecosystems as specialstate concerns: Everglades system,Florida Bay, Florida Keys, and Apala-chicola River and Bay. Other issues ofspecial concern are widespread mer-cury contamination in both marineand freshwater fish, protection ofcoastal areas and estuaries because oftheir ecological importance and signif-icant contribution to Florida’s econo-my, and integration of water quantityand quality decisions.

Ground Water QualityData from over 2,900 monitoring

wells and 1,300 private water supplywells in Florida’s ambient monitoringnetwork indicate generally good waterquality, but local ground water conta-mination problems exist. Agriculturalchemicals, including aldicarb, alachlor,bromacil, simazine, and ethylenedibromide (EDB) have caused localand, in the case of EDB, regionalproblems. Other threats include petro-leum products from leaking under-ground storage tanks, nitrates fromdairy and other livestock operations,fertilizers and pesticides in stormwaterrunoff, toxic chemicals in leachatefrom hazardous waste sites, dry clean-er operations, and landfills. The staterequires periodic testing of all commu-nity water systems for 118 toxicorganic chemicals.


Florida’s point source permittingprocess was modified in 1995 withthe delegation of the National Pollut-ant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) program to Florida, but doesnot include stormwater permitting.The state wastewater program issuespermits for facilities that discharge toeither surface or ground water. Thestate permit for surface water dis-chargers now serves as the NPDESpermit. Florida permits about 4,794

Surface Water QualityThe overall majority of Florida’s

surface waters are of good quality, butproblems exist around densely popu-lated urban areas, primarily in centraland southern Florida. In rivers, nutri-ent enrichment, low dissolved oxy-gen/organic enrichment, siltation, andpathogens are the leading causes ofdegraded water quality. In lakes, theleading problems result from nutrientsand algae. In estuaries, nutrientenrichment, metals, and algaedegrade quality. Urban stormwater,agricultural runoff, industrial andmunicipal point sources, and construc-tion are the major sources of waterpollution in Florida.

Florida



Individual Use Support in Florida


Total MilesAssessed

Percent

4,947

53

4

377 -

-4,947

53

437

Designated Usea


Lakes (Total Acres = 2,085,120)


642,432 12 -

642,504 -

46

601

818

Total AcresAssessed


7

35

601 -

45100

46

0

772 0 020

-

80

69,504

319

7

-

100

00

736

12

45

74

026

0 -

-

45100

45

00

100

-0

Good(Fully

Supporting)

Good(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

NotAttainable

ground water and surface water dis-charge facilities. The state also encour-ages reuse of treated wastewater(primarily for irrigation) and the use of constructed and natural wetlandsfor treatment of wastewater as alter-natives to direct discharge.

Florida has established severalprograms focused on the restorationor preservation of state waters. The1987 Surface Water Improvement andManagement Act requires manage-ment and restoration plans for pre-serving or restoring priority waterbod-ies and setting of Pollutant LoadReduction Goals (PLRGs) for thosewaterbodies. The 1999 Florida Legis-lature enacted the Florida WatershedRestoration Act to provide a processfor restoring waters through theestablishment and implementation of TMDLs for pollutants of impairedwaters. The state has also purchasedenvironmentally sensitive lands forprotection since 1963.


Florida’s Surface Water AmbientMonitoring Program was integratedwith the Ground Water AmbientMonitoring Program in 1996, whileSWAMP’s biocriteria and bioassess-ment work was moved to a separatesection. Florida has adopted a tieredIntegrated Water Resources Monitor-ing Network, which includes samplingof both surface and ground waters, toassess state waters. Tier 1 answersquestions on a statewide or regionalscale. Tier II addresses basin-specific orwaterbody-specific questions. Tier IIIincludes monitoring associated withregulatory permits and evaluations ofTMDLs and BMPs.

Florida is developing assessmentmethods and criteria for wetlands.

a A subset of Florida’s designated usesappear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 305(b) report for a full description of the state’s uses.




For a copy of the Georgia 1998305(b) report, contact:

W.M. Winn, IIIGeorgia Environmental Protection

DivisionWatershed Planning and Monitoring

Program4220 International Parkway –

Suite 101Atlanta, GA 30354(404) 675-6236

and storm sewers, industrial non-point sources, and other nonpointsources.

Of Georgia’s estuarine waters,88% of the assessed square milesfully support aquatic life use, 12%partially support the use, and lessthan 1% do not support aquatic life use. Fifty-four percent of theassessed shellfishing area fully sup-ports shellfishing use while 46%does not support this use. Patho-gens and low dissolved oxygenlevels were the major causes ofimpairment. Urban runoff andstorm sewers, along with other non-point sources, are the major sourcesof impairment to Georgia’s estuarinewaters.

Georgia did not report on thecondition of wetlands.

Ground Water QualityGeorgia’s ambient Ground

Water Monitoring Network consistsof approximately 185 wells sampledperiodically. To date, increasingnitrate concentrations in the CoastalPlain are the only adverse trenddetected by the monitoring net-work, but nitrate concentrations arestill well below harmful levels inmost wells. Additional nitrate sam-pling in over 5,000 wells since 1991revealed that nitrate concentrationsexceeded EPA’s maximum contami-nant level in less than 1% of thetested wells. Pesticide monitoringindicates that pesticides do notthreaten Georgia’s drinking wateraquifers at this time.


During the 1996-1997 report-ing cycle, river basin managementplanning was a priority for theGAEPD. The state completed work

Surface Water QualityThe Georgia Environmental

Protection Division (GAEPD)reported that, of the river milesassessed, 55% fully support aquaticlife use, 30% partially support thisuse, and 16% do not supportaquatic life use. Major causes ofimpairment for rivers include metals,pathogens, and low dissolved oxy-gen levels. For lakes, 73% of theassessed acres fully support aquaticlife use, 25% partially support the use, and 2% do not supportaquatic life use. The major causes of impairment for lakes are metals,acidity, and pathogens. For bothrivers and lakes, the major sourcesof impairment include urban runoff

Georgia



on the final draft basin plans for theChattahoochee and Flint Rivers in1997, and the plans were adoptedin 1998. GAEPD is also workingwith EPA on a Savannah RiverWatershed Project and with theFlorida Department of Environmen-tal Protection and the SuwanneeRiver Water Management District inFlorida to implement basin planningfor the Suwannee River basin.

In addition to basin planning,the state also placed emphasis dur-ing 1996-1997 on NPDES permit-ting and enforcement, nonpointsource pollution abatement, moni-toring and assessment, Chattahoo-chee River modeling, fish consump-tion guidance, stormwater permit-ting, treatment plant funding, andpublic participation projects.


The GAEPD conducts long-termambient trend monitoring througha fixed station network, toxicitystudies, intensive surveys, fish tissuemonitoring, lake water quality stud-ies, facility compliance sampling,aquatic toxicity testing at NPDESdischarges. In the assessmentprocess, GAEPD also draws uponbiotic data from the state’s Depart-ment of Natural Resources (DNR).The DNR uses the Index of BioticIntegrity (IBI) to identify impactedfish populations.

Individual Use Support in Georgia

-

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

Designated Usea




399,300

399,295

18 19-

63

854 -

Total AcresAssessed


850 - -

100

- <112

88

854 --

361,416

-

6,186

854 2

98

- 0 -

5,351

54

-

73

- 2 -

- -

95

05

25

10

74

15-

55

-30

16-

- - - - -

046

<1 0

Good(Fully

Supporting)

Good(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

NotAttainable


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




For a copy of the Guam 1998305(b) report, contact:

Mike GawelGuam Environmental Protection

AgencyPlanning and Environmental Review

DivisionP.O. Box 22439 GMFBarrigada, GU 96921(671) 475-1662

samples in 187 out of 1,647 sam-ples. Since 1991, only one Guambeach has been closed to the publicbecause of toxicity of algae con-sumed from that site. Main sourcesof pollution problems are siltation,sedimentation, and turbidity due to stormwater-caused erosion andtreated sewage discharges, all ofwhich impact valuable coral reefs.

Guam did not report on thecondition of wetlands.

Ground Water QualityThe Northern Guam Lens is an

aquifer under the northern half ofthe island fed by rainwater that haspercolated through porous lime-stone and floats on top of denserseawater. It was designated a princi-pal source aquifer by EPA in 1978and is the major source of water forthe over 150,000 inhabitants andover 1 million annual visitors toGuam. Guam Waterworks Authoritypumps approximately 27 milliongallons per day of this high-qualityground water for public supply inaddition to smaller levels producedprivately and by the U.S. Navy andAir Force. From 1995 to 1997, 5 ofthe over 125 production wells wereclosed because of contamination byTCE, PCE, and EDB. A few wellshave shown chloride increases inrecent years.


The Guam EnvironmentalProtection Agency (GEPS) regularlyrevises the Guam Water QualityStandards. It administers permits forsewer connections, individual wastewater systems, clearing and grading

Surface Water QualityGuam is free from pollution

of neighboring land masses due toits remote location adjacent to thedeepest ocean depths. Its shores arewashed by tropical ocean currents,and air is freshened by unpollutedtrade winds. Therefore, water pollu-tion on Guam is locally generatedand quickly dissipated into the vastWestern Pacific Ocean. Guam’ssingle lake has been a continuoussafe source of drinking water to theU.S. Navy and some of the public.Coastal recreation waters testedweekly at 35 beach sites in 1997showed violation of bacterial


Guam


(for erosion control), well drilling,wetland use, 401 Water QualityCertification, and feedlot wastemanagement, while supportingNPDES permit administration andcoordinating with others in applyingthe Federal Consistency, land use,and seashore use permits. GEPApolicies require each developmentto contain 20-year stormwaterswithin its lot, for nonpoint controland recharge of ground waters, and to limit density of unsewereddwellings. Guam’s new Land UsePlan applies performance standardsto protect water quality. Filtrationsystems have been installed forremoval of the contaminants foundat four production wells, whileinvestigations continue on thesources of contamination.


GEPA’s Surface Water Monitor-ing System, in place over 20 years,was redesigned with emphasis onwatershed management in 1997. It assesses quality of high public usewaters including 52% of all riversand representative reef, estuary, andmarine waters as well as all majorpublic beach areas. Updated micro-biological methods were establishedin 1996 and a marine biologicalmonitoring program is being pur-sued to correlate with physical andchemical monitoring. The GEPAlaboratory increased capabilities totest water in 1997 and will instituteelectronic reporting for the 305(b)Program in 1999. The Guam Hydro-logic Survey, which produces andmanages water data, was estab-lished by law in 1998.

Individual Use Support in Guam

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

Designated Usea

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 228)a

Lakes (Total Acres = 27)

Total AcresAssessed

Good(Fully

Supporting)

Good(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

NotAttainable

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-



0 -<11,530

-

Ocean Shoreline (Total Shore Miles = 117)

Total MilesAssessed

-

-

13.6

77

20030

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

– Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown.a Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.


Documents

| US EPA ARCHIVE DOCUMENT...municipal wastewater treatment plants, and urban runoff and storm sewers. In coastal waters, the lead-ing sources of pollution are urban runoff and storm