1994 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress · waters. The National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress sum-marizes the water quality informa-tion submitted by

National Summary of Water Quality Conditions

Section I

2

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

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

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

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

The Quality of Our Nation’s Water

IntroductionThe contents of this section

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

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

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

Paul

Goe

tz, C

ary,

NC

and swimmable water quality goalsof the Act.

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

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

Aquatic Life Support

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

Key Concepts

Measuring WaterQuality

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

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

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

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

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

Barr

y Bu

rgan

, U.S

. EPA

3

4

Water Quality MonitoringWater quality monitoring consists of data collection and sample

analysis performed using accepted protocols and quality control proce-dures. Monitoring also includes subsequent analysis of the body of data to support decisionmaking. Federal, Interstate, State, Territorial, Tribal,Regional, and local agencies, industry, and volunteer groups withapproved quality assurance programs monitor a combination of chemi-cal, physical, and biological water quality parameters throughout thecountry.

■ Chemical data often measure concentrations of pollutants and otherchemical conditions that influence aquatic life, such as pH (i.e., acidi-ty) and dissolved oxygen concentrations. The chemical data may beanalyzed in water samples, fish tissue samples, or sediment samples.

■ Physical data include measurements of temperature, turbidity (i.e., light penetration through the water column), and solids in the water column.

■ Biological data measure the health of aquatic communities. Biologicaldata include counts of aquatic species that indicate healthy ecologicalconditions.

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

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

waterborne diseases from rawsewage contamination).

Secondary ContactRecreation

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

Agriculture

The water quality issuitable for irrigating

fields or watering livestock.

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

Ground WaterRecharge

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

Wildlife Habitat

Water quality sup-ports the waterbody’s

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

Tribes may designate theirwaters for special cultural andceremonial uses:

Drinking Water Supply

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

Primary ContactRecreation – Swimming

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

Fish Consumption

The waterbody sup-ports fish free from

contamination that could pose ahuman health risk to consumers.

Shellfish Harvesting

The waterbody sup-ports a population

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

Table 1. Levels of Use Support

Fully Supporting Good Water quality meets designated use criteria.

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

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

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

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

Culture

Water quality sup-ports the waterbody’s

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

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

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

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

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

are fully supported.

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

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

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

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

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

bodies are considered impaired.

5

Water Quality Symbol Use Support Level Condition Definition

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

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

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

How Many of OurWaters WereSurveyed for 1994?

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

ditches that were previouslyexcluded from estimates of totalstream miles.

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

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

6

RiversandStreams

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

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

Lakes,Ponds,andReservoirs

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

Estuaries

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

OceanShorelineWaters

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

Great LakesShoreline

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

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

aExcluding estuarine waters in Alaska because no estimate was available.

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

Pollutants andProcesses ThatDegrade WaterQuality

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

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

■ 5,559 miles of Great Lakes shoreline

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

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

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

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

7

The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality

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

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

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

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

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

Rank Rivers Lakes Estuaries

1 Bacteria Nutrients Nutrients

2 Siltation Siltation Bacteria

3 Nutrients Oxygen-Depleting Oxygen-DepletingSubstances Substances

4 Oxygen-Depleting Metals Habitat AlterationsSubstances

5 Metals Suspended Solids Oil and Grease

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

Low Dissolved OxygenDissolved oxygen is a basic

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

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

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

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

8

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

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

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

Table 2. Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sediment and SiltationIn a water quality context, sedi-

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

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

NutrientsNutrients are essential building

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

9

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Foun

datio

n, R

ichm

ond,

VA

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

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

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

Bacteria and PathogensSome waterborne bacteria,

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

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

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

pHAcidity, the concentration of

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

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

Toxic Organic Chemicals and Metals

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

10

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Foun

datio

n, R

ichm

ond,

VA

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

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

Sources of Water Pollution

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

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

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

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

■ Stream burial

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

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

Habitat Modification/Hydrologic Modification

Habitat modifications includeactivities in the landscape, on

11

Table 3. Pollution Source Categories Used in This Report

Category Examples

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

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

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

discharge untreated wastes into surface waters.

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

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

Silvicultural Forest management, tree harvesting, logging road construction

Construction Land development, road construction

Resource Mining, petroleum drilling, runoff from mine tailing sitesExtraction

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

Hydrologic Channelization, dredging, dam construction, streambankModification modification

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

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

conveyance, including but notlimited to any pipe, ditch,

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

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

storm water discharges and return flows fromirrigated agriculture.“

Clean Water Act, Section 502(14)

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

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

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

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

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

12

Rank Rivers Lakes Estuaries

1 Agriculture Agriculture Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers

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

3 Hydrologic/Habitat Urban Runoff/ AgricultureModification Storm Sewers

4 Urban Runoff/ Unspecified Nonpoint Industrial Point SourcesStorm Sewers Sources

5 Resource Extraction Hydrologic/Habitat Petroleum ActivitiesModification

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


Rivers and Streams

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

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

Overall Water QualityFor the 1994 Report, 58 States,

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

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

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

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

13

Figure 2. River Miles Surveyed

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

17% Surveyed

83% Not Surveyed

Figure 3. Levels of Overall UseSupport – Rivers

Good(Fully Supporting)57%

Good(Threatened)7%

Fair(Partially Supporting)22%

Poor(Not Supporting)14%

Poor(Not Attainable)<1%

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

Barr

y Bu

rgan

, U.S

. EPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many States reported declinesin pollution from sewage treatment

Agriculture is the leadingsource of impairment in

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

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

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

What Is Polluting OurRivers and Streams?

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

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

14

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

Bacteria and siltation are the most widespread

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

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

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

Where Does ThisPollution Come From?

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

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

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

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

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

15

34Bacteria

Total surveyed = 615,806 miles

Surveyed17%

Good64%

Impaired36%

Leading Pollutants

Moderate/MinorMajor

Percent of Impaired River Miles

Not Specified

Impaired %

23

16

14

18

17

Suspended Solids

Habitat Alterations

Metals

Oxygen-Depleting Sub.

Nutrients

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Leading Sources


60

17

17

10

9

12

11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Forestry

Removal of Streamside Veg.

Resource Extraction

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers

Hydro/Habitat Mod.

Municipal Point Sources

Agriculture

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

Total rivers = 3.5 million milesNotSurveyed

83%

Total impaired = 224,236 miles

34Siltation

Impaired %

Figure 4. Impaired River Miles: Pollutants and Sources


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

Overall Water QualityForty-eight States, Tribes, and

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

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

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

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

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

Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs

16

Figure 5. Lake Acres Surveyed

Total lakes = 40.8 million acresTotal surveyed = 17.1 million acres

42% Surveyed

58% Not Surveyed

Figure 6. Levels of Overall UseSupport – Lakes


Good(Threatened)13%





John

The

ilgar

d, B

ynum

, NC

What Is Polluting Our Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

17

Trophic StatesOligotrophic Clear waters with little organic matter or sediment

and minimum biological activity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acid Effects on LakesIncreases in lake acidity can

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

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

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

More States reported impairments due to

nutrients than any other single pollutant.

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

18

Unspecified Nonpoint Sources


Hydro/Habitat Modification

Agriculture

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers

Industrial Point Sources

Land Disposal

Percent of Impaired Lake Acres

Priority Organic Toxic Chemicals

Pesticides

Suspended Solids

Metals

Oxygen-Depleting Substances

Siltation

Nutrients

Surveyed18%

Total surveyed = 17.1 million acres

Surveyed42%

Good63%

Impaired37%

Leading Pollutants Impaired %

Leading Sources

Total lakes = 40.8 million acresNotSurveyed

58%

Total impaired = 6.7 million acres

43

28

24

11

8

21

14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

1950

15Moderate/MinorNot Specified

Percent of Impaired Lake Acres

Not Specified

18

11

12

11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Impaired %

Figure 7. Impaired Lake Acres: Pollutants and Sources



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

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

impaired lake acres.

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

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

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

19

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Foun

datio

n, R

ichm

ond,

VA

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

Overall Water QualityThe States surveyed 94% of the

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

The Great Lakes

20

Figure 8. Great Lakes Shore MilesSurveyed

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

94% Surveyed

6% Not Surveyed

Figure 9. Levels of Overall UseSupport – Great Lakes


Good(Threatened)1%



Poor(Not Attainable)0%

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

Paul

Goe

tz, C

ary,

NC

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

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

still subject to the effects of toxic pollutants.

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

What Is Polluting the Great Lakes?

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

21

98

21

20

6

6

6Oxygen-Depleting Substances

Metals

Nutrients

Nonpriority Organic Chemicals

Pesticides

Priority Toxic Organic Chemicals

21

20

15

4

9

6

Urban Runoff/Storm Sew.

Agriculture

Unspecified NPS

Land Disposal of Wastes

Contaminated Sediment

Discontinued Discharges

Air Pollution

4

Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline

Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline

Total impaired = 5,077 miles

Total shoreline = 5,559 miles

%

Surveyed94%

Good3%

Impaired97%


Leading Sources

NotSurveyed

6%

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

0 20 40 10060 80

0 5 10 15 20 25

Impaired %

Figure 10. Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline: Pollutants and Sources

Total surveyed = 5,224 miles



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

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

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

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

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

22

Phil

John

son,

U.S

. EPA

, Reg

ion

8

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

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

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

Overall Water QualityTwenty-five coastal States and

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

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

Estuaries

23

Figure 11. Estuary Square MilesSurveyed

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

78% Surveyed

22% Not Surveyed

Figure 12. Levels of Overall UseSupport – Estuaries


Good(Threatened)6%





Bria

n M

urph

y, W

alnu

t C

reek

, CA

What Is Polluting Our Estuaries?

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

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

inputs of nutrients from humanactivities destabilize estuarineecosystems.

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

24

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


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

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

25

Total impaired = 9,700 square miles

Total estuaries = 34,388 square miles

%

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not Specified

Moderate/MinorMajor

Not SpecifiedPriority Toxic Chemicals 10

4746

32

16

14Oil and Grease

Habitat Alterations

Oxygen-Depleting Sub.

Bacteria

Nutrients

Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles

9Metals

Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles

39

34

27

13

Construction

Petroleum Activities

Industrial Point Sources

Agriculture


Urban Runoff/Storm Sew.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Surveyed18%

Surveyed78%

Good63%

Impaired37%


Leading Sources

NotSurveyed

22%

Land Disposal of Wastes

46

13

13

Impaired %

Total surveyed = 26,847square miles

Figure 13. Impaired Estuaries: Pollutants and Sources

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


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

Overall Water QualityThirteen of the 27 coastal

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

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

the shoreline for activities such asswimming and shellfishing.

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

Ocean Shoreline Waters

26

Figure 14. Ocean Shoreline WatersSurveyed

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

9% Surveyed

91% Not Surveyed

Figure 15. Levels of Overall UseSupport – Ocean ShorelineWaters


Good(Threatened)4%




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

Paul

Goe

tz, C

ary,

NC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wetlands

27

Aud

rey

Moo

re, U

.S. E

PA, R

egio

n 2

commercially valuable fish andshellfish depend directly orindirectly on coastal wetlands.

Overall Water QualityThe States, Tribes, and other

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

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

What Is Polluting Our Wetlands andWhere Does ThisPollution Come From?

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

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

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

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

Wetlands Loss: A Continuing Problem

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

28

Sediment

Flow Alterations

Habitat Alterations

Filling and Draining

PesticidesNutrients

PathogensMetals

Unknown Toxicity

8

5

5

5

32

22

2

0 5 10 15Number of States Reporting

TotalCauses

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

1-800-832-7828.

29

Number of States Reporting

8

54

6

4


Urban Runoff

Road Construction

Hydrologic Modification

Agriculture

4

0 5 10 15

Construction

TotalSources

4Land Disposal

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

Kings Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA


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

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

Ground Water UseNationally, 51% of the popula-

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

Ground water providesdrinking water for 51%

of the population.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ground Water QualityAlthough the 1994 Section

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

Ground Water

30

Jeff

Reyn

olds

, Ral

eigh

, NC

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

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

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

31

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

Kings Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA

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

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

Under the WatershedProtection Approach

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

For example, a WPAwatershed may be a river

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

watershed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water Quality Protection Programs

32

Mik

e St

euar

t, M

inne

sota

Pol

lutio

n C

ontr

ol A

genc

y

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

The Clean Water ActA number of laws provide the

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

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

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

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

33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting LakesManaging lake quality often

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

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

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

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

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

34

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

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

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

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

The National EstuaryProgram

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

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

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

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

Successful lake programsrequire strong commitment from

Lake Restoration and PollutionControl Measures


Total

22

18

14

12

Figure 18

13

12

Local Ordinances and Zoning

Biological Weed Control

Mechanical Weed Harvesting

Chemical Weed and Algae Controls

Lake Drawdown

Shoreline Stabilization/Rip Rap

Modified Discharge Permits

DredgingImplement NPS Controls (total)a

0 5 10 15 20 25

11

11

10

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

35

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

support development of CCMPs.With the addition of seven

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

Protecting WetlandsA variety of public and private

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

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

Management Plan (CCMP) torestore and protect the estuary.

The NEP currently supports28 estuary projects.

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

36

PRVI

Figure 19. Locations of National Estuary Program Sites

StateProgrammatic

Permits Others

that do not require notification ofthe COE at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

37

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

The Administration’s WetlandsPlan emphasizes improvingFederal wetlands policy by

■ Streamlining wetlands permit-ting programs

■ Increasing cooperation withprivate landowners to protectand restore wetlands

■ Basing wetlands protection ongood science and soundjudgment

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

General Permits Individual(streamlined permit review procedures) Permits

Nationwide Regional ProgrammaticPermits Permits Permits

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

Table 5. Federal Section 404 Permits

• Required for major projectsthat have the potential tocause significant adverseimpacts

• Project must undergointeragency review

• Opportunity for publiccomment

• Opportunity for 401certification review

• COE defers permitdecisions to Stateagency whilereserving authorityto require anindividual permit

• Special ManagementAgencies

• Watershed PlanningCommissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

38

Under DevelopmentProposed

In Place


25 States and Tribes Reporting

0 5

Antidegradation

Use Classification

Narrative Biocriteria

Numeric Biocriteria

Figure 20. Development of State Water Quality Standards for Wetlands

10 15 20

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting the Great Lakes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

39

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

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

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

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

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

first phase of the initiative seeks toeliminate new contributions ofmercury.

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

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

40

Julie

Fou

ntai

n, Y

oung

svill

e, N

C

The Chesapeake BayProgram

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41

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

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

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

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

The Gulf of MexicoProgram

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

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

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

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

42

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Foun

datio

n, R

ichm

ond,

VA

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

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

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

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

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

Take-Action Projects in the five Gulf States

primarily address sewagetreatment, pollution

prevention, and habitatprotection and

restoration.

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

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

■ Significantly reduce the rate ofloss of coastal wetlands

■ Achieve an increase in Gulf Coastseagrass beds

■ Enhance the sustainability of Gulf commercial and recreationalfisheries

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

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

■ Ensure that all Gulf beaches aresafe for swimming and recreationaluses

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

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

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

■ Reduce critical coastal andshoreline erosion.

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

43

44

Ground Water Protection Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff

Reyn

olds

, Ral

eigh

, NC

Comprehensive State Ground WaterProtection Programs

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

■ Establishing a prevention-oriented goal

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

■ Defining roles, responsibilities, resources, and coordinating mechanisms

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

■ Coordinating information collection and management to measureprogress and reevaluate priorities

■ Improving public education and participation.

45

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

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

Comprehensive Stateground water protectionprograms support State-

directed priorities inresource protection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

The

ilgar

d, B

ynum

, NC

46

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

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

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

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

Be InvolvedAs a citizen and a voter there is

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

Become involved in your com-munity election processes. Listenand respond to candidates’ viewson water quality and environmentalissues. Many communities haverecycling programs; find out aboutthem, learn how to recycle, andvolunteer to help out if you can.One of the most important thingsyou can do is find out how yourcommunity protects water quality,and speak out if you see problems.

Volunteer Monitoring:You Can Become Part of the Solution

In many areas of the country,citizens are becoming personallyinvolved in monitoring the qualityof our Nation’s water. As a volun-teer monitor, you might beinvolved in taking ongoing waterquality measurements, tracking the

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

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

Be InformedYou should learn about water

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

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

Be ResponsibleIn your yard, determine

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

What You Can Do

John

The

ilgar

d, B

ynum

, NC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alice MayioVolunteer Monitoring

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

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

47

Jimm

y C

raw

ford

, Ral

eigh

, NC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

48

Fish Consumption Advisories

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Foun

datio

n, R

ichm

ond,

VA

Interstate Commissions providea forum for joint administration oflarge waterbodies that flow throughor border multiple States and otherjurisdictions, such as the Ohio Riverand the Delaware River and Estua-rine System. Each Commission hasits own set of objectives and proto-cols, but the Commissions share acooperative framework thatembodies many of the principlesadvocated by EPA’s watershedmanagement approach. For exam-ple, Interstate Commissions canexamine and address factorsthroughout the basin that con-tribute to water quality problemswithout facing obstacles imposedby political boundaries. The infor-mation presented here summarizesthe data submitted by four Inter-state Commissions in their 1994Section 305(b) reports.

Interstate Commission Summaries

201

Barr

y Bu

rgan

, U.S

. EPA

This section provides individualsummaries of the water quality sur-vey data reported by six AmericanIndian Tribes in their 1994 Section305(b) reports. Tribal participationin the Section 305(b) process grewfrom two Tribes in 1992 to sixTribes during the 1994 reportingcycle, but Tribal water qualityremains unrepresented in thisreport for the hundreds of otherTribes established throughout thecountry. Many of the other Tribesare in the process of developingwater quality programs and stand-ards but have not yet submitted aSection 305(b) report. As Tribalwater quality programs becomeestablished, EPA expects Tribalparticipation in the Section 305(b)process to increase rapidly. Toencourage Tribal participation, EPAhas sponsored water quality moni-toring and assessment training ses-sions at Tribal locations, preparedstreamlined 305(b) reporting guide-lines for Tribes that wish to partici-pate in the process, and publisheda brochure, Knowing Our Waters:Tribal Reporting Under Section305(b). EPA hopes that subsequentreports to Congress will containmore information about waterquality on Tribal lands.

Tribal Summaries

187

Phil

John

son,

U.S

. EPA

Reg

ion

8

188

Campo Indian Reservation

For a copy of the Campo IndianReservation 1994 305(b) report,contact:

Stephen W. JohnsonMichael L. ConnollyCampo Environmental Protection

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

Surface Water QualityThe Campo Indian Reservation

covers 24.2 square miles in south-eastern San Diego County, Cali-fornia. The Campo Indian Reserva-tion has 31 miles of intermittentstreams, 80 acres of freshwaterwetlands, and 10 lakes with acombined surface area of 3.5 acres.

The natural water quality ofTribal streams, lakes, and wetlandsranges from good to excellent.There are no point source dis-charges within or upstream of the

Reservation, but grazing livestockhave degraded streams, lakes, andwetlands with manure containingfecal coliform bacteria, nutrients,and organic wastes. Livestock alsotrample streambeds and riparianhabitats. Septic tanks and construc-tion also threaten water quality.

Ground Water QualityGround water supplies 100%

of the domestic water consumed onthe Campo Indian Reservation.Nitrate and bacteria from nonpointsources occasionally exceed drink-ing water standards in somedomestic wells. The proximity ofindividual septic systems to drinkingwater wells poses a human healthrisk because Reservation soils do nothave good purification properties.Elevated iron and manganese levelsmay be due to natural weatheringof geologic materials.

Programs to RestoreWater Quality

The Campo EnvironmentalProtection Agency (CEPA) hasauthority to administer three CleanWater Act programs. The Section106 Water Pollution ControlProgram supports infrastructure, the 305(b) assessment process, anddevelopment of a Water QualityManagement Plan. The Tribe isinventorying its wetlands withfunding from the Section 104(b)(3)State Wetlands Protection Program.The Tribe has used funding from

California

Location of Reservation

the Section 319 Nonpoint SourceProgram to stabilize stream banks,construct sediment retentionstructures, and fence streams andriparian zones to exclude livestock.CEPA will promulgate water qualitystandards in 1995 that will establishbeneficial uses, water quality crite-ria, and antidegradation provisionsfor all Tribal waters.

In 1994, the General Councilpassed a resolution to suspendcattle grazing on the Reservationfor at least 2 years and to concur-rently restore degraded recreationalwater resources by creating fishingand swimming ponds for Tribal use.

Programs to AssessWater Quality

Streams, wetlands, and lakes onTribal lands were not monitoreduntil CEPA initiated its Water Pollu-tion Control Program in 1992.Following EPA approval of CEPA’sQuality Assurance Project Plan inMay 1993, CEPA conducted short-term intensive surveys to meet theinformation needs of the 305(b)assessment process. Based on theresults of the 1994 305(b) assess-ment, CEPA will develop a long-term surface water monitoring pro-gram for implementation in 1995.CEPA will consider including biolog-ical monitoring, physical and chem-ical monitoring, monthly bacterialmonitoring in lakes, toxicity testing,and fish tissue monitoring in itsmonitoring program.

189

aA subset of Campo Indian Reservation’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to theTribe’s 305(b) report for a full description of the Tribe’s uses.

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

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

22 0

100

0

016 0

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 31)b

Lakes (Total Acres = 3.5)

-

-

-

Total AcresAssessed

<1 00 0

Designated Usea

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100

100

100

0

0

0

0

0

Individual Use Support in Campo Indian Reservation

Highw

ay 101

Forsythe Creek

Russian River

California


Coyote Valley Reservation

190

For a copy of the Coyote ValleyReservation 1994 305(b) report,contact:

Jean Hunt or Eddie KnightThe Coyote Valley ReservationP.O. Box 39Redwood Valley, CA 95470

Surface Water QualityThe Coyote Valley Band of the

Pomo Indians is a federally recog-nized Indian Tribe, living on a 57-acre parcel of land in Mendo-cino County, California. Segmentsof the Russian River and ForsytheCreek flow past the Reservation,although flow diminishes in thesummer and fall. Fishing, recrea-tion, and religion are importantuses for surface waters within theReservation.

Currently, the Tribe is con-cerned about bacteria contamina-tion in the Russian River, potentialcontamination of Forsythe Creekfrom a malfunctioning septicsystem leachfield, and habitatmodifications in both streams thatimpact aquatic life. Past gravelmining operations removed gravelspawning beds, altered flow, andcreated very steep banks. In thepast, upstream mining also elevatedturbidity in Forsythe Creek. TheTribe is also concerned about apotential trend of increasing pHvalues and high water temperaturesin Forsythe Creek during thesummer.

Ground Water QualityThe Coyote Valley Reservation

contains three known wells, butonly two wells are operable, andonly one well is in use. The oldshallow irrigation well (Well A) wasabandoned because it went dryafter the gravel mining operationon Forsythe Creek lowered thewater table. Well B, located adja-cent to Forsythe Creek, is used toirrigate a walnut orchard. Well C,located on a ridge next to theReservation’s housing units, is notin use due to severe iron and tasteproblems. Sampling also detectedhigh levels of barium, total dis-solved solids, manganese, and con-ductivity in Wells B and C. How-ever, samples from Well B did notcontain organic chemicals, pesti-cides, or nitrate in detectable

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

191

amounts. Human waste contamina-tion from septic systems may posethe greatest threat to ground waterquality.


Codes and ordinances for theReservation will be established tocreate a Water Quality and Man-agement Program for the Reserva-tion. With codes in place, theCoyote Valley Tribal Council willgain the authority to restrain thedischarge of pollutants that couldendanger the Reservation watersupply and affect the health andwelfare of its people, as well aspeople in the adjacent communi-ties.


The Tribal Water Quality Mana-ger will design a monitoring systemwith assistance from environmentalconsultants. The Water QualityManager will sample a temporarymonitoring station on ForsytheCreek and a proposed samplingstation on the Russian River everymonth. A fisheries biologist willsurvey habitat on the rivers everyother year, as funding permits.

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


Total MilesAssessed

Percent

Designated Usea

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 0.56)b

0

0

77

23

23

0

77

77

0

0

0

23

0

0

0

0.52

0.52

0.52

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

Individual Use Support in Coyote Valley Reservation

NYPA

WV

VA

MDPA

DEL

NJ

Washington, D.C.Dover

N.Y.City

TrentonHarrisburg

Albany

Philadelphia

202

Delaware River Basin Commission

For a copy of the Delaware RiverBasin Commission 1994 305(b)report, contact:

Robert KauschDelaware River Basin CommissionP.O. Box 7360West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360(609) 883-9500, ext. 252

Surface Water QualityThe Delaware River Basin covers

portions of Delaware, New Jersey,New York, and Pennsylvania. TheDelaware River system consists of a207-mile freshwater segment, an 85-mile tidal reach, and the Dela-ware Bay. Nearly 8 million peoplereside in the Basin, which is also thehome of numerous industrial facili-ties and the port facilities of Phila-delphia, Camden, and Wilmington.

All of the riverine waters and94% of the estuarine waters in theBasin have good water quality thatfully supports aquatic life uses.Three percent of the riverine watersdo not support fish consumptionand 2% have fair quality that par-tially supports swimming. In estuar-ine waters, poor water qualityimpairs shellfishing in 29% of thesurveyed waters. Low dissolvedoxygen concentrations and toxiccontaminants in sediment degradeportions of the lower tidal river andestuary. Fecal coliform bacteria andhigh pH values impair a few milesof the Delaware River. As of April1994, fish consumption advisorieswere posted on about 6 miles ofthe Delaware River and 22 squaremiles of the tidal river, cautioningthe public to restrict consumptionof channel catfish, white perch, andAmerican eels contaminated withPCBs and chlordane.

In general, water quality hasimproved since the 1992 305(b)assessment period. Tidal river oxy-gen levels were higher during thecritical summer period, residues oftoxic chemicals in fish and shellfishdeclined, and populations of impor-tant fish species (such as stripedbass and American shad) increasedduring the 1994 assessment period.


For many years, the DelawareRiver Basin Commission and thesurrounding States have implement-ed an aggressive program to reduce

Basin Boundaries(USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit)

point source discharges of oxygen-depleting wastes and other pollut-ants. These programs will continue,in addition to new efforts to deter-mine the role of stormwater runoff.The Commission also adopted newSpecial Protection Waters regula-tions to protect existing high waterquality in the upper reaches of thenontidal river from the effects offuture population growth anddevelopment. The Commission alsopromotes a comprehensive water-shed management approach tocoordinate several layers of govern-mental regulatory programsimpacting the Delaware River Basin.


The Commission conducts anintensive monitoring programalong the entire length of theDelaware River and Estuary. At leasta dozen parameters are sampled atmost stations, located about 7 milesapart. The new Special ProtectionWaters regulations require evenmore sophisticated monitoring andmodeling, such as biological moni-toring and continuous water qualitymonitoring. The Combined SewerOverflow Study and the ToxicsStudy will both require additionalspecialized water quality analyses inorder to understand how and whywater quality is affected. New man-agement programs will very likelyrequire customized monitoringprograms.

203

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

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

207

86

140 0 0

0207

98

0 2

Designated Usea

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 206)

Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 866)

216 0

132 0

Total SquareMiles Assessed

216

88

0 12 0

0

0

0

8 06

86

205 0

100

0 0

29

71

0

0

207 0 0

97

30

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

Individual Use Support in the Delaware River Basin

Surface Water QualityThe Gila River Indian Commu-

nity occupies 580 square miles inCentral Arizona adjacent to themetropolitan Phoenix area. About8,500 members of the Pima andMaricopa Tribes live in 22 smallvillages inside the Community. TheGila River is the major surface waterfeature in the Community, but itsflow is interrupted by upstreamdiversions outside of the Commu-nity. Arid conditions and little

Gila River Indian Community

192

For a copy of the Gila River IndianCommunity 1994 305(b) report,contact:

Errol BlackwaterGila River Indian CommunityWater Quality Planning OfficeCorner of Pima and Main StreetsSacaton, AZ 85247(602) 562-3203

vegetative cover cause suddenrunoff with high suspended sedi-ment loads.

Surface water was evaluatedwith qualitative information due tothe lack of monitoring data. Mostof the Community’s surface watershave fair water quality that partiallysupports designated uses becauseof turbidity, siltation, salinity, andmetals loading from rangeland,agriculture, irrigation return flows,and upstream mining. Informationwas not available for assessingeffects of toxic contaminants andacid rain. There is no informationabout water quality conditions inwetlands.

Ground Water QualityCommunity ground water qual-

ity generally complies with EPA’sMaximum Contaminant Levels, butconcentrations of total dissolvedsolids often exceed recommendedconcentrations. However, membersof the Community have eitheradjusted to the aesthetic problemof high dissolved solids or begunpurchasing bottled water, as haveother ground water users in themetropolitan Phoenix area. Occa-sionally, concentrations of coliformbacteria, nitrates, and fluorideexceed recommended criteria inisolated wells. Pathogens fromonsite sewage disposal systemshave been detected in groundwater and pose the primary publichealth concern. Other concernsinclude salinity and pesticides from

Arizona

Location of Community

Basin BoundariesIntermittent and Ephemeral StreamsIrrigation Canals

large-scale agriculture and potentialfuel or solvent leaks.


The Gila River Indian Commu-nity needs a comprehensive waterquality protection program, espe-cially as nearby urban growth andagricultural expansion create addi-tional pollution and place newdemands on aquatic resources. As afirst step, the Community’s WaterQuality Planning Office intends toaddress point sources of pollutionthrough a Ground Water ProtectionStrategy. The Strategy will seek toeliminate all discharges that couldreach ground water or require rapidmitigation if a discharge cannot beavoided. Principles of Arizona’sAquifer Protection Permit Programmay serve as a basis for theCommunity’s Strategy, but theStrategy will be streamlined andsimple to implement. The Strategymay include technology-based orstandards-based protocols for facili-ties and conditions for land usepermits.


The Community needs moni-toring programs for ground water,surface water, and wetlands inorder to assess use support and tosupport a water pollution controlprogram.

- Not reported.aA subset of Gila River Indian Community’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the

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

0

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

196 0 0

31

69

0

0196 0 0

31

Designated Usea


Lakes (Total Acres = 153)

153

82

0

153

100

0 0

15318

82

00

Total AcresAssessed

69

0 018

0 0

– – – – ––

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

Individual Use Support in Gila River Indian Community

193

Surface Water QualityThe Hoopa Valley Indian

Reservation covers almost 139square miles in Humboldt Countyin northern California. The Reserva-tion contains 133 miles of riversand streams, including a section ofthe Trinity River, and 3,200 acres ofwetlands. The Reservation does notcontain any lakes.

Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation

194

For a copy of the Hoopa ValleyIndian Reservation 1994 305(b)report, contact:

Colleen GoffP.O. Box 1314Hoopa, CA 95546(916) 625-4275

Surface waters on the Reserva-tion appear to be free of toxicorganic chemicals, but poor forestmanagement practices and miningoperations, both on and off theReservation, have caused significantsiltation that has destroyed gravelspawning beds. Water diversions,including the damming of theTrinity River above the Reservation,have also stressed the fishery bylowering stream volume and flowvelocity. Low flows raise water tem-peratures and reduce flushing ofaccumulated silt in the gravel beds.Upstream dams also stop gravelfrom moving downstream toreplace excavated gravel. Elevatedfecal coliform concentrations alsoimpair drinking water use on theReservation.

Ground Water QualityGround water sampling

revealed elevated concentrations oflead, cadmium, manganese, iron,and fecal coliforms in some wells.The Tribe is concerned aboutpotential contamination of groundwater from leaking undergroundstorage tanks, septic system leach-fields, and abandoned hazardouswaste sites with documented soilcontamination. These sites containdioxins, herbicides, nitrates, PCBs,metals, and other toxic organicchemicals. The Tribe’s environmen-tal consultants are designing aground water sampling program tomonitor potential threats to groundwater.

Not AssessedNot SupportingPartially SupportingSupporting

Scale0 1 2 3

Tish Tang A Tang

Hostler Creek

Mill

Creek

Supply Cree

k

Pine Creek

Trinity River

Trinity River

California



In 1990, EPA approved theHoopa Valley Tribe’s application fortreatment as a State under theSection 106 Water Pollution ControlProgram of the Clean Water Act.Following approval, the Tribereceived Section 106 funding toconduct a Water Quality Planningand Management Program on theReservation. The Tribal Water Qual-ity Manager is developing waterquality criteria for the Reservation,with the help of environmental con-sultants. The proposed criteria willbe reviewed by the Hoopa ValleyPlanning Department and the TribalCouncil.


In June of 1992, the Tribal Plan-ning Office and its hired consultantssampled eight surface water sitesand six ground water sites. TheTribe measured different pollutantsat each site, depending on the sur-rounding land use activities, includ-ing conventional pollutants, toxicorganic pollutants, metals, and fecalcoliforms. The Tribe plans to estab-lish fixed monitoring sites in thenear future, which will complementongoing biological monitoring con-ducted by the Hoopa Valley Fisher-ies Department on the Trinity River.

- Not reported.aA subset of Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the

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

195

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

Designated Usea


0100

100

12

0

0

88

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

77

77

77

Wetlands (Total Acres = 3,200)

3,200

Total AcresAssessed

–

–

0

–

–

0

–

–

100

–

–

0

–

–

0

–

–

12

67

21077 0

3,200 0 0 0 0

100

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

Individual Use Support in Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation

Hopi Tribe

196

For a copy of the Hopi Tribe’s 1994 305(b) report, contact:

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

In addition to the intermittentand ephemeral washes and streams,surface water on the Hopi Reserva-tion occurs as springs whereground water discharges as seepsalong washes or through fracturesand joints within sandstone forma-tions. The Hopi Tribe assessed 18springs in 1992 and 1993. Theassessment revealed that severalsprings had one or more exceed-ances of nitrate, selenium, totalcoliform, or fecal coliform. The pri-mary potential sources of surfacewater contamination on the HopiReservation include mining activitiesoutside of the Reservation, livestockgrazing, domestic refuse, andwastewater lagoons.

Ground Water QualityIn general, ground water qual-

ity on the Hopi Reservation is good.Ground water from the N-aquiferprovides drinking water of excellentquality to most of the Hopi villages.The D-aquifer, sandstones of theMesaverde Group, and alluviumalso provide ground water to shal-low stock and domestic wells, butthe quality of the water from thesesources is generally of poorer qual-ity than the water supplied by the N-aquifer.

Mining activities outside of theReservation are the most significantthreat to the N-aquifer. Extensivepumping at the Peabody CoalCompany Black Mesa mine mayinduce leakage of poorer quality D-aquifer water into the N-aquifer.This potential problem is being

Surface Water QualityThe 2,439-square-mile Hopi

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

Arizona

Location of Hopi Tribe

investigated under an ongoingmonitoring program conducted bythe U.S. Geological Survey. In addi-tion, the U.S. Department of Energyis investigating ground waterimpacts from abandoned uraniumtailings at Tuba City. Other poten-tial sources of contamination inshallow wells include domesticrefuse, underground storage tanks,livestock grazing, wastewaterlagoons, and septic tanks.


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


The Tribe focused on monitor-ing springs and ground waterduring the 1994 reporting cycle.Future surface water monitoringwill assess aquatic life in springs,lakes, and streams; baseflow andstorm flow in streams; and biolog-ical, sediment, and chemicalcontent of streams and springs.

- Not reported.aA subset of the Hopi Tribe’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Tribe’s 305(b)

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

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

Designated Usea


0100

28

0

-

29

0

-

0

0

-

0

0

51

22

-

-- -

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

Springs (Total Number = 175)

19

Total NumberAssessed

–

–

–

–

0

–

–

89

–

–

0

–

–

0

–

–

19 00 0

- - -

-

0

43

11

68

32

Individual Use Support in Hopi Reservation

197

Interstate Sanitation Commission

204

For a copy of the Interstate Sanita-tion Commission 1994 305(b)report, contact:

Howard GolubInterstate Sanitation Commission311 West 43rd StreetNew York, NY 10036(212) 582-0380

Surface Water QualityEstablished in 1936 by Federal

mandate, the Interstate SanitationCommission (ISC) is a tristate envi-ronmental agency of the States ofNew Jersey, New York, and Con-necticut. The Interstate SanitationDistrict encompasses approximately797 square miles of estuarinewaters in the Metropolitan Areashared by the States, including theArthur Kill/Kill Van Kull, LowerHudson River, Newark Bay, Raritan

Bay, Sandy Hook Bay, and UpperNew York Bay.

In general, water quality in theDistrict waters improved during the1992-1993 reporting cycle. Dis-solved oxygen concentrationsincreased and bacteria densitiesdecreased. The reduction in bacte-ria is due to the Commission’s year-round disinfection regulations(which took effect in 1986), andthe elimination of discharges receiv-ing only primary treatment atMiddlesex and Hudson Counties.

Topics of concern to the ISCinclude compliance with ISC regula-tions, toxic contamination in Dis-trict waters, pollution from com-bined sewer overflows, closed shell-fish waters, and wastewater treat-ment capacity to handle growingflows from major building projects.

Ground Water QualityThe ISC’s primary focus is on

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


The ISC actively participates inthe Long Island Sound Study, theNew York-New Jersey HarborEstuary Program (HEP), the NewYork Bight Restoration Plan, and theDredged Material ManagementPlan for the Port of New York andNew Jersey. The ISC has represen-tatives on the Management

NJ

NY

Man

hatt

an

StatenIsland

CT

Long Island

NY


205

Committees and various work-groups for each program. For theHEP, the ISC organized a meetingentitled “Current Beach ClosurePractices in New York, New Jersey,and Connecticut: Review andRecommendations” in November1993. Representatives of State,county, and municipal healthdepartments and environmentalagencies were invited to discussbathing beach monitoring andclosure policies. The public andenvironmental advocacy groupswere also invited. The ISC reportedthe results to the HEP PathogensWork Group.

During 1993, the ISC inspected71 CSO outfalls in an effort to iden-tify and eliminate all dry weatherdischarges. The ISC notified theStates of dry weather dischargesdetected during field investigationsand worked with the States toeliminate dry weather discharges.


The ISC performs intensiveambient water quality surveys andsamples effluent discharged bypublicly owned and private waste-water treatment facilities and indus-trial facilities into District water-ways. By agreement, the ISC’s efflu-ent requirements are incorporatedinto the individual discharge per-mits issued by the participatingStates.

aA subset of the Interstate Sanitation Commission’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the Commission’s 305(b) report for a full description of the Commission’s uses.

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

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

-

-

Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 72)

-

Designated Usea

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Individual Use Support in Interstate SanitationCommission Waters

Soboba Band of Mission Indians

198

For a copy of the Soboba Band ofMission Indians 1994 305(b) report,contact:

Jamie S. MegeeSoboba Band of Mission IndiansP.O. Box 487San Jacinto, CA 92581(909) 654-2765

water withdrawals outside of theReservation have reduced the flowto intermittent status for manyyears.

The chemical quality of surfacewater on the Soboba Reservation isexcellent and remains unimpairedto date, based on very limited data.The quality of surface water, to theextent it is available, fully supportsthe existing uses of ground waterrecharge, wildlife habitat, andrecreation. Overall, the greatestthreat to water quality on theSoboba Reservation is the reductionof surface flows and ground waterstorage by off-Reservation diver-sions and pumping.

Ground Water QualityThree major water supply wells

extract water from two aquifers onthe Soboba Reservation. Groundwater overdraft outside the Reserva-tion has seriously reduced the with-drawal capacity of the Reservation’swells and aquifers. The chemicalquality of ground water on theSoboba Reservation is excellent andremains unimpaired to date. Thesingle most critical threat to waterquality is a proposal by the EasternMunicipal Water District to routine-ly recharge treated effluent at a sitewithin 600 feet of an existingSoboba well.

Surface Water QualityThe Soboba Reservation

encompasses about 9.2 squaremiles in southern California about80 miles east of Los Angeles. TheSan Jacinto River is the major sur-face water feature on the Reserva-tion. At one time, the San JacintoRiver flowed year-round, butupstream diversions and ground

Indian Creek

Pow

pet

Cre

ek

Juar

o Ca

nyon


California

SanJacinto

River

Reservation Boundaries


There are no formal water pol-lution control programs in place onthe Reservation. However, the Bandhas achieved compliance with EPAmonitoring and treatment require-ments for its domestic groundwater supply system and the Bandis considering development of awellhead protection program. Inaddition, the Band is seeking assist-ance from EPA under the IndianEnvironmental General AssistanceProgram to educate the Bandabout water quality issues, establishwater resource protection ordi-nances, and undertake other waterprotection initiatives.

The Soboba Band is continuingits struggle to assert and defend itswater rights. The Soboba Band hasstarted negotiating with the majorwater users outside of the Reserva-tion to fairly apportion the watersof the basin. Nondegradation ofwater quality will be a basic ele-ment of the Band’s position in thesenegotiations.


The Band advocates sharingand cooperative analysis of data onthe hydrology and water quality ofthe San Jacinto watershed to facili-tate water rights negotiations. Thisaffirmative approach to waterresource management should leadto a systematic, integrated waterquality monitoring program for thebasin that will benefit all users.

aA subset of Soboba Band of Mission Indians’ designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to theBand’s 305(b) report for a full description of the Band’s uses.


199

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

Designated Usea

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 7.4)b

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

2.9

100

0 0 00

2.9

7.4

100

0 0 00

100

0 0 00

Individual Use Support in Soboba Band of Mission Indians

Surface Water QualityThe Susquehanna River drains

27,510 square miles from parts ofNew York, Pennsylvania, andMaryland, and delivers over half ofthe fresh water entering the Chesa-peake Bay. The Susquehanna RiverBasin Commission (SRBC) surveyed17,464 miles of the 31,193 miles ofrivers and streams in the Susque-hanna River Basin. Over 90% of thesurveyed river miles fully supportdesignated uses, 4% partiallysupport uses, and 6% do not

Susquehanna River Basin Commission

208

For a copy of the SusquehannaRiver Basin Commission 1994305(b) report, contact:

Robert E. EdwardsSusquehanna River Basin

CommissionResource Quality Management

and Protection1721 North Front StreetHarrisburg, PA 17102-0423(717) 238-0423

support one or more designateduses. Metals, low pH, and nutrientsare the primary causes of streamimpacts in the Basin. Coal minedrainage is the source of most ofthe metals and pH problemsdegrading streams. Sources of nutri-ents include municipal and domes-tic wastewater discharges, agricul-tural runoff, and ground waterinflow from agricultural areas.

During past reporting cycles,SRBC did not conduct any lake orreservoir assessments. However, a 2-year project funded by EPA andPennsylvania should provide a foun-dation of lake data upon whichSRBC can launch its lake assessmentprogram.

Ground Water QualityGround water in the Basin is

generally of adequate quality formost uses. Many of the groundwater quality problems in the Basinare related to naturally dissolvedconstituents (such as iron, sulfate,and dissolved solids) from the geo-logic unit from which the wateroriginates. The SRBC is concernedabout ground water contaminationfrom septic systems and agriculturalactivities.


The Susquehanna River BasinCompact assigns primary responsi-bility for water quality managementand control to the signatory States.The SRBC’s role is to provide a

Pennsylvania

Maryland

New York

Pennsylvania

Conestoga River

Chesap

eake

Bay

NYPA

WV

VA

MDPA

DEL

NJ

Location of Commission Jurisdiction

Susq

uehanna

Juniata River

Susquehan

na River

Susquehanna

Rive

r

Chemung River

Susquehanna River


regional perspective for coordinat-ing local, State, and Federal waterquality management efforts. Forexample, the SRBC reviews pro-posed discharge permits (issued bythe States) and evaluates potentialinterstate and regional impacts. TheSRBC also recommends modifica-tions to State water quality stand-ards to improve consistency amongthe States.


The SRBC’s role in interstateand regional issues shaped theCommission’s monitoring program.The SRBC’s fixed-station monitoringnetwork collects base flow data andseasonal-storm nutrient data on theSusquehanna mainstem and majortributaries to assist the ChesapeakeBay Program in evaluating nutrientreduction projects. The SRBC alsoestablished an interstate streamwater quality network to evaluatestreams crossing State boundariesfor compliance with State waterquality standards. Biological moni-toring is conducted annually at 29 sites. The SRBC also conductsintensive subregional surveys toanalyze regional water quality andbiological conditions.

- Not reported.aOverall use support is presented in this figure because the Commission did not report individ-

ual use support in their 1994 Section 305(b) report.bIncludes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year.

209

Total MilesAssessed

Percent

17,464

Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 31,193)b

Lakes (Total Acres = 79,687)

-

Total AcresAssessed

Good(Fully

Supporting)Good

(Threatened)

Fair(Partially

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Supporting)

Poor(Not

Attainable)

- -

- - - - -

90

4 6

Overalla Use Support in theSusquehanna River Basin

Basinwide Survey:Ohio and Tennessee River Valley

Section II

Basinwide Survey: Ohio and Tennessee River Valley

ORS

AN

CO

50

IntroductionThe U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) requestedthat the Ohio River Valley WaterSanitation Commission (ORSANCO)and the Tennessee Valley Authority(TVA) produce a prototype basin-wide assessment of water qualityconditions in the Ohio andTennessee River Valley. This basin-wide assessment illustrates how EPAmight present information in theNational Water Quality InventoryReport to Congress in future years.The information in this assessmentwas drawn from several sources,primarily the most recent Section305(b) reports submitted by theindividual States in the Ohio andTennessee River Valley. This assess-ment illustrates how EPA can com-pile State water quality informationinto assessments of conditions inmajor basins throughout theUnited States.

The Ohio and Tennessee Riverbasin assessment also illustratesmany of the recommendations pro-posed by the IntergovernmentalTask Force on Monitoring WaterQuality (ITFM). The ITFM wasestablished to develop a strategicplan for effective collection, inter-pretation, and presentation ofwater quality data nationwide andto improve its availability for deci-sion making (see sidebar).

The three major sections in thisreport are: (1) an overview of con-ditions throughout the entire Ohioand Tennessee River basin; (2) amore detailed analysis of waterquality conditions in the AlleghenyRiver subbasin; and (3) a discussionof special concerns and

recommendations. The basinoverview describes how well water-sheds throughout the basin supportfour basic stream uses—aquatic lifesupport, contact recreation (such asswimming), public drinking watersupply, and fish consumption. Theoverview also identifies pollutantsimpairing the use of streams andthe sources of these pollutants. Thesection on the Allegheny RiverWatershed illustrates the level ofdetail that can be presented forsmaller individual watersheds with-in a large basin. Finally, this reportdescribes special issues of concernin the Ohio and Tennessee Riverbasin and recommends changes tomonitoring and reporting methodsthat should make it easier to inte-grate water quality informationsubmitted by multiple agenciesinto an interstate basinwide waterquality assessment.

Basin DescriptionThe Ohio and Tennessee River

basin covers more than 200,000square miles in 14 States and con-stitutes 6.5% of the continentalUnited States (Figure 1). The OhioRiver mainstem extends 981 milesfrom Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, toCairo, Illinois, where it joins theMississippi River. Along the way,the Ohio River forms the borderbetween Ohio, Indiana, and Illinoisto the north and West Virginia andKentucky to the south.

The basin’s topography variesfrom the Appalachian Mountains inthe east to the midwestern prairiesin the west. Land use patterns gen-erally follow topographic character-istics. Forests, agriculture, andmining dominate the land use inthe northeastern portion of thebasin; most of the land is forestedin the southeastern portion; and

agricultural cropland dominates thewestern areas of the basin. Almostthree-fourths of the Nation’s identi-fied coal reserves are located withinthe basin. Due in part to this fact,there are a considerable number ofelectric power plants located in thebasin. Other major industriesinclude steel and petrochemicalproduction.

Over 26 million people live inthe Ohio and Tennessee Riverbasin. Large cities include Pitts-burgh, Cincinnati, and Louisville onthe Ohio River mainstem, as well asColumbus, Indianapolis, Chatta-nooga, and Nashville. Major tribu-taries to the Ohio River include the Allegheny, Monongahela,Kanawha, Kentucky, Green,Wabash, Cumberland, and Tennes-see Rivers.

Water Use in theBasin

Abundant rainfall in the Ohioand Tennessee River Valley main-tains steady flows in the Ohio Riverand its tributaries that supportmany uses, such as transportation,drinking water supply, and indus-trial uses. Over 40% of the Nation’swaterborne commerce is trans-ported on more than 2,500 milesof commercially navigable water-ways in the Ohio and TennesseeRiver basin. Coal and petroleumproducts are the most commoncommodities carried by barge onthe navigable waterways. Streamsand lakes in the basin also providewater for a variety of industrialpurposes, including processing andcooling. Numerous coal-firedpower plants and nuclear facilitiesuse large amounts of water to cool

51

About This SectionCommunicating information about environmental conditions to the

public is a challenging task for scientists and engineers. They are trained tofocus on details and use precise technical terms so others can repeat theirexperiments and analyses. As a result, most scientific papers are nearlyincomprehensible to anyone except narrowly focused specialists. But thepublic and elected officials are interested in environmental conditions.Furthermore, the public ultimately pays for most environmental research andmonitoring, either through taxes or by purchasing consumer goods withthose costs embedded in the prices.

Recognizing these facts, in 1992 the Intergovernmental Task Force onMonitoring (ITFM), a multiagency group examining ways to improve waterquality monitoring throughout the United States, began identifying commoncharacteristics of successful environmental reports. They found reports thateffectively communicate environmental information to the public usecommon guidelines taught in journalism:

■ Put the most important information at the beginning.

■ Draw significant conclusions without too many qualifications.

■ Write in a conversational style that is easy to read.

■ Avoid technical terms as much as possible and keep sentences relatively short.

■ When technical terms must be used, define them directly or through context.

■ Use clear and accurate graphics that help illustrate the ideas presented in the text.

■ Avoid complex figures that try to convey too much information.

■ If possible, use color to increase appeal to readers, to make figures easier to understand, and to tie common elements together throughout the report.

■ Be brief—know how long a report your audience is likely to actually read.

■ Have enough “white space” to make text pages less intimidating to readers.

■ Use a multicolumn format, which helps make text pages more “friendly.”

■ Use a serif typeface for text and a san-serif typeface for headings.

Most audiences are interested in reports that integrate environmentalinformation across scientific disciplines and political boundaries. They maywant to pull the information apart to get a State-by-State picture or to seeresults for one scientific discipline such as fisheries. However, they first wantto see how the different pieces fit together to form a complete picture ofenvironmental conditions.

52

Allegheny River

YoughioghenyRiver

MonongahelaRiver

BeaverRiver

MuskingumRiver

SciotoRiver

HockingRiver

L. MiamiRiver

G. MiamiRiver

W. ForkWhite River

Wabash River

E. ForkWhite River

EmbarassRiver

L. WabashRiver

L. KanawhaRiver

Kanawha River

GuyandotteRiver

New River

Big SandyRiverLicking

River

Kentucky RiverSalt River

Green River

CumberlandRiver

ClinchRiver

HolstonRiver

French BroadRiver

L. TennesseeRiver

HiwasseeRiver

Tennessee River

Elk River

Duck River

TennesseeRiver

Saline River

Ohio River

OhioRiver

Ohio River

Ohio River

Figure 1. Ohio and Tennessee River Basin

MississippiRiver

steam produced by these plants.There are also a number of hydro-electric power plants in the basin,particularly on the Tennessee andCumberland Rivers.

Water uses of primary concernin this assessment are those thatdepend on good water qualityconditions (e.g., public watersupply, water contact recreation,aquatic life use, and fish consump-tion). Most of the rivers, streams,and lakes in the basin are classifiedfor more than one of these uses.

About 10 million people in thebasin receive drinking water frompublic water supply systems thatuse surface water as a source. Mostof the designated swimmingbeaches are located on the manylakes and reservoirs in the basin,but many people also water ski onand swim in the larger rivers.Whitewater canoeing, kayaking,and rafting are popular activities onseveral rivers, including the Newand the Gauley in West Virginia,the Ocoee in Tennessee, and theNantahala in North Carolina.

Most of the waters of the basinare capable of supporting warmwater aquatic communities thatinclude bass, catfish, sauger, andsunfish. Sport fishing is steadilyincreasing throughout the basin,and there is a significant commer-cial fishing and mussel industry onthe Tennessee and lower OhioRivers.

Rating Water QualityConditions in theBasin

EPA and the States rate waterquality conditions by comparingwater quality data and narrative

TVA focused on four basic desig-nated uses—aquatic life support,contact recreation (such as swim-ming), public water supply, andfish consumption. These uses wereselected because they are moresensitive to water quality condi-tions than other uses (such astransportation), and the Stateshave designated most of the rivers,streams, and lakes in the basin forone or more of these uses.

In addition, ORSANCO andTVA compiled assessment informa-tion concerning water quality con-ditions in individual watershedswithin the Ohio and TennesseeRiver basin. Where possible,ORSANCO and TVA organized theStates’ use support information bywatersheds defined by the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS). USGSdivides the United States (includingthe Ohio and Tennessee Riverbasin) into many watersheds, eachidentified with a unique 8-digithydrologic unit code (HUC). Eachwatershed unit consists of a set ofconnected rivers, lakes, and otherwaterbodies that drain about 1,000square miles. A few States did notreport their 305(b) information bystandardized 8-digit HUCs, soORSANCO and TVA summarizedtheir data by larger watershed unitswhen possible. In some cases, datahad to be excluded from thewatershed assessments for thoseStates that did not associate theirwater quality information with anywatershed units.

Each watershed contains multi-ple rivers and streams, some ofwhich are typically in excellentcondition while others are in fair orpoor condition. For this report,ORSANCO and TVA developed fivecategories for rating general water

information with water qualitycriteria established by the States.Water quality criteria define condi-tions that must be met to supportdesignated beneficial uses (such asbacteria limits for safe swimminguse). Each State is responsible forassigning (i.e., designating) uses toeach of the waterbodies within itsborders. A State may designate awaterbody for multiple uses, andeach designated use may have dif-ferent criteria. At a minimum, theClean Water Act requires thatStates designate their waters foruses that protect swimming andaquatic life.

EPA encourages the States touse consistent use support cate-gories for rating water qualityconditions in their waterbodies:

■ Fully supporting – goodwater quality meets criteria fordesignated uses.

■ Threatened – good waterquality meets designated use crite-ria now, but may not in the future.

■ Partially supporting – fairwater quality fails to meet desig-nated use criteria at times.

■ Not supporting – poor waterquality frequently fails to meetdesignated use criteria.

The States survey use supportstatus in their waterbodies andsubmit the results to EPA in theirSection 305(b) reports every 2 years. ORSANCO and TVAassessed basinwide water qualityconditions by pooling the use sup-port information submitted by theOhio and Tennessee River basinStates in their most recent Section305(b) reports (most of which weresubmitted in 1994). ORSANCO and

53

54

quality conditions in watershedsbased on the combination of rivermiles in good, fair, or poor condi-tion (i.e., fully supporting uses orthreatened, partially supportinguses, or not supporting uses).Watersheds with a high percentageof river miles fully supporting des-ignated uses received the bestwater quality rating. The worstwater quality rating was assignedto watersheds with a high percent-age of river miles not supportingdesignated uses. The remainingwatersheds received three inter-mediate water quality ratings. Thecriteria for each rating categorywere derived by ranking conditionsin streams and assigning an equalnumber of assessed stream miles toeach category.

This approach to rating waterquality conditions provides a goodpicture of relative conditionsamong watersheds. It should beapplicable for evaluating conditionsin other large river basins; however,rating categories for other basinswill not necessarily correspond to

States within the basin presentedaquatic life use information in their1994 Section 305(b) reports in aformat that enabled ORSANCOand TVA to isolate the data pertain-ing to the Ohio and TennesseeRiver basin from statewide

those used for the Ohio andTennessee River basin. Redefinitionof rating categories may be neces-sary.

Overview ofConditions in theOhio and TennesseeRiver BasinAquatic Life UseSupport

Basinwide AssessmentDuring 1992-1994, the States

surveyed aquatic life use supportstatus in approximately one-third(33%) of all rivers and streamswithin the Ohio and TennesseeRiver basin (Figure 2), or almosthalf (45%) of the perennial riversand streams (those that flow yearround) in the basin. The Statesassessed aquatic life use support inmore river miles than any otherdesignated use. Eleven of the 14

What is Aquatic Life Use?Waters that fully support aquatic life use provide suitable habitat for

the protection and propagation of a healthy community of fish, shellfish,and other aquatic organisms. In general, healthy aquatic communitiessupport many different species of organisms, many of which are intoler-ant to pollution. Each State establishes its own criteria for measuringhow well its waters support aquatic life uses. Some States have biologicalcriteria that directly measure the health of the aquatic community (suchas species diversity measurements). However, many States still relyprimarily on physical and chemical criteria that define habitat require-ments for a healthy aquatic community (such as minimum dissolvedoxygen concentrations and maximum concentrations of toxicchemicals). Physical and chemical measurements provide an indirectmeasure of aquatic community health.

Figure 2. River Miles Surveyed

Total rivers = 255,330 milesTotal surveyed = 83,366 miles

33% Surveyed

67% Not Surveyed

Figure 3. Levels of Overall UseSupport – Rivers


Good(Threatened)5%





contain a few streams that do notsupport aquatic life. However,when examined as a group, morerivers and streams in the bestwatersheds support aquatic lifeuses. Watersheds that appear redcontain the greatest percentage ofstreams not supporting aquatic lifeuse, although several streams inthese watersheds may fully supporta diverse aquatic community.

Figure 4 suggests that Ohiocontains many of the watershedswith the worst aquatic life use sup-port status, but it is very unlikelythat water quality conditions in

Watershed AssessmentsFigure 4 illustrates aquatic life

use support ratings for individualwatersheds in the Ohio andTennessee River basin. The ratingsrange from the best use supportstatus (blue) to the worst use sup-port status (red), with three inter-mediate ratings (light blue, green,and gold). The use support ratingssummarize general conditions ineach watershed. The best water-sheds contain the highest percent-age of rivers and streams that fullysupport aquatic life use, eventhough these watersheds may

assessment data. Additional infor-mation was retrieved from WestVirginia’s 1992 Waterbody Systemdatabase.

Approximately 70% of thesurveyed streams in the Ohio andTennessee River basin fully supportaquatic life (Figure 3). These riversand streams provide suitable condi-tions for the survival and reproduc-tion of fish and other aquaticorganisms. An additional 5% of thesurveyed streams were classified asthreatened because these streamsfully support aquatic life uses now,but sources of pollution may jeop-ardize that support if they are notadequately controlled. Only 15% ofthe surveyed streams partially sup-port aquatic life, and 10% do notmeet State criteria for supportingaquatic life uses.

Best Water Quality

Worst Water Quality

Figure 4. Aquatic Life Use Support: Ohio and Tennessee River Basin

NOTE: For this report,ORSANCO, TVA, and EPAassumed that overall use supportinformation in the Section305(b) reports and the Water-body System represents aquaticlife use support information.Overall use support is a com-bined measure of how well awaterbody supports all of itsindividual uses. Overall use isimpaired if poor water qualityconditions impair one or moreindividual uses. For many water-bodies, aquatic life use supportstatus equates with the overalluse support rating becauseaquatic life use is more sensitiveto pollution than other desig-nated uses.

55

56

Ohio are much different than in theadjacent States. It is more likelythat Ohio contains a lot of water-sheds with poor ratings becauseOhio uses primarily biological mon-itoring data and strict criteria toassess aquatic life use support sta-tus in its rivers and streams. OhioEnvironmental Protection Agencystudies show that using biologicaldata to evaluate aquatic life usesupport identifies 35% to 50%more rivers and streams that donot support aquatic life use thanassessments that rely exclusively onchemical and physical data. Conse-quently, aquatic life use supportratings depend not only on thehealth of biological communitiesand the water quality of the riversand streams, but also on the usesupport criteria and assessmenttechniques used by each State.

Another example of how differ-ences in State assessment methodsaffect the use support assessmentscan be seen along the Kentucky-Tennessee border. Here, the aquaticlife use attainment in the Kentuckyportion of the Cumberland Riverwatershed is designated as “best,”while the Tennessee portion of thewatershed is shown as havinglower degrees of aquatic lifesupport. Similar “State line faults”occur throughout the basin, partic-ularly along the borders betweenIndiana and Illinois and betweenVirginia and North Carolina.

Pollutants Impairing Riversand Streams

Eleven States reported bothaquatic life use assessments andestimates of river miles impaired byspecific pollutants.* These Statesreported that siltation and organicenrichment are the most commonpollutants impacting aquatic lifethroughout the Ohio and Tennes-see River basin (Figure 5). Siltationimpairs over half of the river milesthat fail to fully support aquatic lifeuse. Silt and sediments deposited inrivers and streams destroy the habi-tat of many aquatic organisms,including nesting and spawningareas of important fish species. Siltalso smothers benthic organisms,

* This report attempts to discriminate among pollutants impairing aquatic life uses and pollutants impairing other designated uses, such ascontact recreation and drinking water supply. However, many States reported total miles of pollutants rather than miles of pollutants for individ-ual uses. As a result, this report assumes that pollutants that impaired the overall use support of a stream also impacted an equal mileage ofstreams designated for aquatic life use.



Figure 5. Pollutants Found in Surveyed Rivers and Stream

MajorModerate/MinorNot Specified 19%

19%

29%

32%

57%

pH

Nutrients

Metals

Organic Enrichment/DO

Siltation

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

NOTE: The sum of river milesimpaired by all pollutants mayexceed the estimate of rivermiles that do not fully supportdesignated uses because multi-ple pollutants may impact anindividual river segment. Forexample, both siltation andnutrients may pollute a 1-mileriver reach. In such cases, a Statemay report that 1 mile is notfully supporting its designateduses, 1 mile is impaired by silta-tion, and 1 mile is impaired bynutrients. In this example, only1 stream mile is impaired, butthe State identifies pollutantsimpairing a total of 2 streammiles.

and materials suspended in waterinterfere with respiration and diges-tion. In addition, contaminatedsediments act as a reservoir fordifferent types of pollutants thatmay be released into the watercolumn over time.

Organic enrichment impacts32% of the river miles that fail tofully support aquatic life use in theOhio and Tennessee River basin.Organic enrichment depletes thedissolved oxygen content in thewater column. Many desirable fishand other aquatic species cannotsurvive or propagate in waters withlow oxygen concentrations.

Following siltation and organicenrichment, the most commonpollutants of rivers and streamswithin the Ohio River basin aremetals, nutrients, and pH (a mea-sure of acidity). Elevated metalsconcentrations and acidicconditions, often associated withabandoned mining operations, canbe lethal to aquatic communities.Excessive inputs of nutrients canharm aquatic communities by trig-gering the growth of algae popula-tions (i.e., algae blooms) thatdestabilize dissolved oxygen con-centrations in the water column.

Based on data submitted by 11 States, ORSANCO and TVAidentified the most common pollut-ant in each of the watershed unitsthroughout the basin (Figure 6).Insufficient data were available todetermine the major pollutants inIndiana, Georgia, and Mississippi.Figure 6 illustrates that siltation isthe most prevalent pollutant in thegreatest number of watersheds.

Sources of PollutantsImpairing Rivers andStreams

Eleven States also reported thesources of pollutants impairingrivers and streams of the Ohio andTennessee River basin. The Statesidentified resource extraction,which includes mining and petrole-um activities, as the most commonsource of pollution (Figure 7).Resource extraction accounts forsiltation, low pH (i.e., high acidity),

This watershed analysis confirmsthat siltation is a widespread prob-lem throughout the Ohio andTennessee River Valley. In contrast,impacts from metals appear to beconcentrated in Pennsylvaniawatersheds and a few isolatedwatersheds in areas that supportmining activities. Impacts fromorganic enrichment and low dis-solved oxygen are most commonin Ohio, Kentucky, and theAlabama portion of the TennesseeRiver subbasin.

No ImpairmentSiltationOrganic EnrichmentMetalsNutrientspHOtherInsufficient Data

Figure 6. Major Pollutants of Ohio and Tennessee River Basin

57

58

Acid Mine Drainage(29%)

PetroleumActivities(26%)

Mine Tailings(10%)

Dredge Mining(<1%)

Mill Tailings(<1%)

Figure 8. Resource Extraction Activities Polluting Rivers and Streams

Mining(34%)

Nonirrigated Crops(30.8%)

AnimalHolding/Mgt.

(20.5%)

Feedlots(7.4%)

Manure Lagoons(1.4%)

Other (0.2%)

Figure 9. Agricultural Activities Polluting Rivers and Streams

Pastureland(31.7%)

Irrigated Crops(5.7%)

Specialty Crops(2.3%)

and high levels of metals in almosthalf of all impaired rivers andstreams. Some States reported themiles of rivers polluted by specificresource extraction activities,including surface and subsurfacemining, acid mine drainage, mineand mill tailings, and petroleumactivities (Figure 8). Both activemining and acid mine drainagefrom active and abandoned minesare significant sources of concern inthe Ohio and Tennessee Riverbasin.

Agriculture is the second lead-ing source of pollutants impactingthe rivers and streams of the Ohioand Tennessee River basin. Approxi-mately 40% of the impaired riversand streams do not achieve fullaquatic life use support as a resultof agricultural activities. SeveralStates reported impacts from morespecific agricultural activities, suchas nonirrigated crop productionand feedlots (Figure 9). Based onmore limited data, these States

reported that pastureland is themost common agricultural sourceof impairment in rivers and streamsin the Ohio and Tennessee Riverbasin, followed by nonirrigatedcrop production.

Urban activities also impactmany rivers and streams in thebasin. Municipal point sourcespollute 23% of the impaired rivermiles in the basin (the third largestsource of pollution followingresource extraction and agriculturalactivities). Combined sewer over-flows, storm sewers, and urbanrunoff also impact 18% of theimpaired rivers and streams.

ORSANCO and TVA also identi-fied the most common sources ofpollutants in each watershed (insuf-ficient data were available to deter-mine the major sources of pollut-ants in Indiana, Georgia, andMississippi) (Figure 10). The topthree sources of pollution basin-wide also generate significant waterquality problems within individual


Leading Sources Impaired %

Figure 7. Sources of Pollutants Found in Surveyed Rivers and Streams

MajorModerate/MinorNot SpecifiedHydrologic/Habitat

Modifications

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers/CSOs


Agriculture

Resource Extraction

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

18%

18%

23%

40%

48%

watersheds. Resource extraction isby far the most significant pollu-tion source in the upper part ofthe basin (Pennsylvania, WestVirginia, Virginia, and eastern Ohioand Kentucky), while agricultureand municipal point sources pre-dominate in the rest of the basin.Agricultural runoff is a particularconcern throughout the TennesseeRiver basin and the Illinois portionof the Wabash River basin. Waterspolluted by municipal point source

miles of rivers and streams desig-nated for contact recreation use.Almost three-fourths of the streamsassessed fully support contactrecreation use (Figure 11). In addi-tion, 5% of the stream miles fullysupport contact recreation use butare threatened.

Only four States andORSANCO reported the mostsignificant pollutants and sources of pollution preventing theirstreams from fully supportingwater contact recreation. Bacteriaare clearly the most significant pol-lutant impairing contact recreationuse in streams and are responsiblefor 86% of the stream milesimpaired for this use. Urban

State’s 1992 Section 305(b) report,but contact recreation data werenot available for the remaining sixStates. ORSANCO and TVA com-bined primary contact recreation(i.e., swimming) and secondarycontact recreation (activities thatinvolve occasional contact with thewater, such as boating) into a sin-gle assessment because only oneState reported separate informationabout secondary contact recreationuse.

The Ohio and Tennessee Riverbasin States assessed over 44,000

discharges are most common inthe Scioto, Little Miami, and GreatMiami watersheds within the Stateof Ohio.

Contact Recreation UseSupport

Seven of the 14 States withinthe Ohio and Tennessee River basinassessed contact recreation usesupport for rivers and streams intheir 1994 Section 305(b) reports.ORSANCO and TVA extracted con-tact recreation data from another

No ImpairmentResource ExtractionAgricultureMunicipal Point SourcesHydromodificationIndustrial Point SourcesOtherInsufficient Data

Figure 10. Major Sources of Pollutants – Ohio and Tennessee River Basin

Figure 11. Levels of Primary ContactRecreation (Swimming)Use Support – Rivers


Good(Threatened)5%





59

60

runoff/storm sewers and combinedsewer overflows are the leadingsources of pollutants impairingcontact recreation use (Figure 12).

Drinking Water SupplyUse Support

The States provided minimalinformation about support of drink-ing water supply use. Six of thefourteen States in the Ohio andTennessee River basin assesseddrinking water supply use supportin just 2% of the river miles in thebasin. ORSANCO and TVA acquireddata from a 1992 Section 305(b)report for one additional State, butdata about drinking water supplyuse support were not available forthe remaining seven States. Due tothe limited amount of informationavailable, ORSANCO and TVAcould not prepare a basinwidesummary of drinking water usestatus; however, the available dataare summarized here.

Nearly three-fourths of theassessed stream reaches fully sup-port drinking water supply use,with an additional 5% classified asfully supporting but threatened(Figure 13). Fifteen percent of theassessed streams partially supportdrinking water supply use, and 7%do not support the use.

Even less information was avail-able in the States’ Section 305(b)reports regarding the pollutantsimpacting drinking water supplyuses or their sources. Only twoStates and ORSANCO provided

Fish Consumption UseSupport

Only three States within theOhio and Tennessee River basinassessed fish consumption use sup-port in their 1994 305(b) reports;however, information about fishconsumption advisories was avail-able for each State. States issueadvisories to protect the public

pollutant and source information.The minimal data available indicatethat pesticides are the most signifi-cant pollutants, followed by priori-ty organics, siltation, nutrients,other habitat alterations, and sus-pended solids. Agricultural runoffwas reported as the most commonsource of pollutants, followed byground water loadings, channeliza-tion, and resource extraction.

Where Are Lakes, Wetlands,and Ground Water?

Except for a short discussion on lakes in the Allegheny Riversubbasin, this report does not describe water quality conditions in lakes,wetlands, or ground water. The States report less information aboutthese waters because lakes, wetlands, and ground water aquifers presentgreater water quality monitoring challenges than rivers and streams.Lakes and aquifers have much larger horizontal and vertical water qualityvariations than do streams. The variation makes it difficult to ensure thatsamples really reflect conditions throughout the lake or aquifer. Lakesand aquifers also respond to environmental stresses differently thanstreams and in different time frames. Even when high-quality data areavailable, there is less agreement on whether they are the right data andon how they should be interpreted.

In lakes, factors such as lake shape, lake basin shape, average andmaximum depths, flushing rate, and inflow quality profoundly affectconditions for aquatic life. Reservoirs (lakes formed by damming rivers orstreams) are even more complicated because they sometimes behave asnatural lakes, while at other times or at other locations in the lake, theyact more like rivers.

Because of the complexities, EPA and the States have not yet devel-oped clear guidelines for lakes, specifically, what variables to monitor forparticular objectives or how best to analyze and present the results. AnEPA workgroup composed of representatives from universities, States,and Federal agencies is currently working on these issues. Recommen-dations from this group will help guide future lake monitoring programsand will help make different organizations’ assessments of use supportmore comparable. Other interagency groups are working on recommen-dations for ground water and wetlands monitoring and assessmentprotocols. Future versions of this report should summarize lake, groundwater, and wetlands information using these assessment guidelines.

from consuming unsafe quantitiesof contaminated fish caught in cer-tain waters. States issue advisories ifmonitoring data indicate that con-centrations of toxic contaminantsin fish tissue samples exceed Stateand Federal criteria. The criteria forissuing advisories may vary fromState to State. Therefore, neighbor-ing States may issue different advi-sories for interstate waters that flowbetween them, which can confusethe public.

Figure 14 illustrates the distri-bution of fish consumption advi-sories across the basin. Each circlednumber in Figure 14 represents aspecific advisory. More specificinformation on each advisory is

Why Monitor? Why Report?Water quality monitoring is technically demanding and expensive.

Furthermore, ideas about what indicators should be monitored and howto interpret the results continue to change. So why should we investpublic funds in monitoring, and who wants the information that isproduced?

The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality(ITFM) defined monitoring as “. . . an integrated activity for evaluatingthe physical, chemical, and biological character of water in relation tohuman health, ecological conditions, and designated water uses.” Itwent on to say that monitoring “. . . is a means for understanding thecondition of water resources and providing a basis for effective policiesthat promote the wise use and management of this vital resource” (ITFM, 1992).

This link with resource management policies is why water qualitymonitoring is important. Monitoring provides information that helps setpolicies and programs to protect and improve the quality of our Nation’sstreams, rivers, and lakes. It provides a basis for prioritizing needs so lim-ited funds can be effectively allocated to improve conditions. Monitoringalso provides the basis both for determining whether those policies andprograms actually result in measurable environmental improvements,and for changing policies and programs to increase their effectiveness.Because funding required for water quality protection and improvementis large, and because protection and improvement activities can haveprofound implications to private citizens, water quality monitoring is asound investment to guide development and ensure effectiveness ofwater quality policies and programs.

Figure 13. Levels of Drinking WaterSupply Use Support – Rivers


Good(Threatened)5%





Percent of Stream MilesImpaired by Pollutants

pH (7.0%)Siltation (5.0%)

Other (2.0%)

Bacterial Contaminants –Pathogens

(86%)

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers/CSOs

(38%)Land Disposal –

Septic Tanks, Package Plants, etc.(25%)

Agriculture(20%)

Municipal (10%)Other (7.0%)

Percent of Stream MilesImpaired by Pollutant Sources

Figure 12. Contact Recreation Use Support: Percentage of Pollutants and Their Sources

61

62

4243

4139

40

47

48

44 50 515352

54 5556

5737 37

31

37

37

49

31

37 31

2827

3

6062

6163

756564

32

33

69

70

74

76 78

34

3135

Fish Consumption Advisory – One Species of Fish

Fish Consumption Advisory – Multiple Species of Fish

Specific information for each numbered advisoryis provided in Appendix A.

Figure 14. Fish Consumption Advisories – Ohio and Tennessee River Basin

2

9

611

46 45

38

18

59

1020

17 17

45

81

192221

2423

1712

1217

25

1712

2526

132917 17

12 15163131

1717

3136

6766

7372

71

68

77

Source: EPA National Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories, September 1994.

include petroleum and coal, rubberand plastic products, stone andclay products, primary and fabricat-ed metals, leather and apparel, andelectrical and other machinery. Inthe southern portion of the sub-basin, a chain of industrial rivervalleys and mining towns wind

Mining and manufacturing arethe major economic activities with-in the subbasin, followed byagriculture and forestry. Coal, oil,natural gas, sand, gravel, lime-stone, sandstone, clay, and shaleare extracted from the subbasin.Principal manufacturing products

provided in Appendix A. Currently,78 advisories are in effect in theOhio and Tennessee River basin.Twenty-seven advisories restrict theconsumption of all fish species; 19 restrict consumption of one fishspecies. Carp and catfish are thesubject of more advisories than anyother fish species; 70 advisoriesrestrict consumption of carp and/orcatfish. The most common pollut-ants responsible for fish consump-tion advisories are PCBs and chlor-dane. Metals (particularly mercury),dioxin, and other pollutantsaccount for the remainder of theadvisories. Several advisories havebeen issued for combinations oftwo or more contaminants.

The Allegheny RiverSubbasinBackground

The Allegheny River drains justover 11,500 square miles of theheadwaters of the Ohio River basinin the States of New York andPennsylvania (Figure 15). It con-tains about 14,000 stream miles, ofwhich 10,162 miles are classified asperennial. The Allegheny River orig-inates in the mountains of north-central Pennsylvania, then flowsnorthwest into New York, turnssouthwest, and reenters Pennsyl-vania. From its headwaters, theAllegheny flows 325 miles to itsmouth in Pittsburgh, where it joinswith the Monongahela River toform the Ohio River. Major tribu-taries include the Kiskiminetas River,Conemaugh River, Clarion River,Conewango Creek, and FrenchCreek.

Figure 15. Allegheny River Basin

KinzuaLake

FrenchCreek

AlleghenyRiver

ClarionRiver

Allegheny River

AlleghenyRiver

Kiskiminetas River

MahoningCreek

Oil Creek

ConewangoCreek

ChautauquaLake

Pennsylvania

New York

ConemaughRiver

Upper Allegheny

Central Allegheny

Lower Allegheny

63

64

westward toward Pittsburgh, theindustrial heart of the subbasin.Due to the decline of the coalindustry and the mechanization ofmines and steel mills, unemploy-ment is a significant problem inthese areas.

State AssessmentTechniques

New York and Pennsylvania usedifferent terms and assessmentmethods to rate use support statusin their rivers and streams. Pennsyl-vania rates its waters as either fullysupporting, partially supporting, ornot supporting designated uses.New York rates its waters as threat-ened, stressed, impaired, or pre-cluded.* To consolidate the datafrom the two States, ORSANCOand TVA assumed that “threat-ened” waters in New York arecomparable to “fully supporting”waters in Pennsylvania, “stressed”and “impaired” waters are compa-rable to “partially supporting”waters, and “precluded” watersare comparable to “not support-ing” waters (Table 1).

New York and Pennsylvaniaalso use different criteria for inter-preting water quality data.

individual watersheds in theAllegheny River subbasin (Figure16) using the same criteria devel-oped for ranking watersheds basin-wide in Figure 4. One feature thatclearly stands out is the sharpcontrast between aquatic life usesupport ratings in watersheds thatstraddle the border betweenPennsylvania and New York. InNew York, most of the borderwatersheds have an intermediateaquatic life use support rating. Incontrast, the same watersheds havethe best rating on the Pennsylvaniaside of the border. This State linefault is most likely due to differ-ences in State water quality assess-ment criteria rather than real differ-ences in water quality.

Within Pennsylvania, thestreams with the best aquatic lifeuse support ratings are located in

Differences in State assessment cri-teria can have dramatic effects oninterstate water quality assess-ments. Based on different criteria,each State may assign different usesupport ratings to streams withvery similar water quality. As aresult, a stream that crosses theState border may fully support usesin Pennsylvania and partially sup-port uses after it flows into NewYork, even though water qualitydata are the same on both sides ofthe State border. EPA is workingwith the States to address inconsis-tent assessment criteria (see SpecialState Concerns and Recommenda-tions).

Aquatic Life UseOver 6,600 miles (65%) of

perennial rivers and streams in theAllegheny River subbasin wereassessed for the 1994 305(b)reporting cycle. Of the streams thatwere assessed, 72% (3,851 miles)fully support aquatic life use, 12%(660 miles) partially supportaquatic life use, and 15% (820miles) do not support aquatic lifeuse.

ORSANCO and TVA also ratedaquatic life use support status in

New York Ratings Pennsylvania Ratings

Threatened Fully Supporting

Stressed Partially Supporting

Impaired Partially Supporting

Precluded Not Supporting

Table 1. Equivalent Use Support Ratings in New York and Pennsylvania

* According to New York’s terminology, threatened streams fully support designated uses but could become impaired in the future due toexisting activities. Impaired stream segments partially support one or more uses, and stressed streams are intermittently impaired. Precludedstreams do not support one or more uses.

ORS

AN

CO

the upper Allegheny River andFrench Creek watersheds. TheClarion River and middle AlleghenyRiver watersheds are slightly moreimpaired, while the lower Alle-gheny River watershed, includingthe Conemaugh and KiskiminetasRivers, is the most impaired water-shed in the subbasin. It should be

Approximately 56% of the assessedstream miles in the French Creekwatershed were identified as“stressed” by New York, which, forthe purposes of this report, wereassumed to be equivalent to “par-tially supporting” streams (the usedesignation utilized byPennsylvania). However, if the usesupport ratings were furtherdefined, the “stressed” streammiles could be classified as havingonly minor partial impairment,which would most likely result in abetter use support rating for thewatershed.

Pollutants and TheirSources

Both States identified specificpollutants and sources of pollutantsimpairing rivers and streams. Figure17 presents the percentage ofstream miles impaired by particularpollutants in four portions of theAllegheny River subbasin, eachcomprised of several watersheds.Metals are the major pollutant of

noted that the depiction of theNew York portion of the FrenchCreek watershed as having thelowest degree of use support isprimarily due to differences in theStates’ use support ratings and theproblems that follow when tryingto compare separate sections of aninterstate watershed.

New York

Figure 16. Allegheny River Subbasin – Aquatic Life Use

Worst Water QualityStreams

Pennsylvania

Best Water Quality

Upper Allegheny

Central Allegheny

Lower Allegheny

ORS

AN

CO

65

66

concern in the Pennsylvaniaportion of the subbasin, and sus-pended solids are the most com-mon pollutant identified in theNew York portion of the subbasin.New York reported that suspendedsolids impact over three-fourths ofthe rivers and streams impaired byidentified pollutants. Throughoutthe entire Allegheny River subbasin,metals are the most common pol-lutant (impacting 598 streammiles), followed closely by siltationand suspended solids (impacting547 miles). Other pollutants

the subbasin, which impacts 202miles) and hydrologic/habitat mod-ifications (impacting 157 miles).

Additional Stream UsesORSANCO and TVA could not

rate the status of contact recreationuse and drinking water use in theAllegheny River subbasin becausePennsylvania did not report the sta-tus of these individual uses in itsSection 305(b) report. New Yorkassessed contact recreation anddrinking water use support state-wide, but in the Allegheny Riversubbasin, New York’s assessedwaters included only 42 miles ofConewango Creek (fully supportingcontact recreation use) and 7.5miles of the Allegheny River (par-tially supporting drinking watersupply use).

Fish ConsumptionAdvisories

The only fish consumptionadvisory in the Allegheny River sub-basin advises the public to avoidconsumption of carp and channelcatfish in the lower 14.5 miles ofthe Allegheny River (in Pennsyl-vania) due to contamination byPCBs and chlordane.

Lake Water QualityAssessments

The Allegheny River subbasincontains 665 lakes and reservoirscovering a total surface area of53,212 acres. Only five of theselakes are larger than 1,000 acres.Six lakes in the subbasin do notfully support designated uses.Nutrients impact five lakes in New

impacted less than 5% of theimpaired rivers and streams.

By far, resource extraction isthe largest source of pollution inthe Allegheny River subbasin(Figure 18). Throughout the sub-basin, resource extraction impactsover 900 miles of streams, nearlyall of which are located inPennsylvania. Of these, 775 milesare impacted by acid mine drain-age. Other significant sources ofpollution in the subbasin includeagriculture (the major pollutantsource in the New York portion of

Metals(2.6%)Organic

Enrichment/DO(7.9%)

Other(1.7%)

ThermalModifications

(9.2%)

SuspendedSolids

(78.5%)

Metals(52%)

Other(15%)

Natural(3.0%)

pH(3.2%)

Suspended Solids(26%)

Metals(53%)

Other(8.5%)

OtherInorganics

(11%)

pH(12%)

Suspended Solids(16%)Metals

(39%)

Other(38%)

OrganicEnrichment/

DO(6.1%)

Suspended Solids(9.1%)

Other Inorganics(7.8%)

Figure 17. Pollutants of Concern in Impaired Streams – Allegheny River Basin

Upper Allegheny Basin – PA130 Miles Impaired

Central Allegheny Basin – PA440 Miles Impaired

Lower Allegheny Basin – PA583 Miles Impaired

Allegheny River Basin – NY339 Miles Impaired

York (totaling 631 acres), andPennsylvania classified TamarackLake (556 acres) as eutrophic. Eightother lakes, covering nearly 17,000acres, are classified as threatened(by Pennsylvania) or stressed (byNew York), including ChautauquaLake (13,400 acres) and Beaver RunReservoir (1,125 acres).

as oligotrophic (very clear andnutrient poor), mesotrophic(moderate clarity and nutrientcontent), or eutrophic (relativelymurky and nutrient rich). Manyeutrophic lakes are naturally nutri-ent rich and support healthy fishcommunities, but eutrophic condi-tions may indicate that a lake isreceiving an overdose of nutrientsfrom unnatural sources.

Pennsylvania classified eightlakes as eutrophic and eight lakesas mesotrophic, including KinzuaLake (12,100 acres). New Yorkrated three lakes as mesotrophicand five lakes as eutrophic, includ-ing Chautauqua Lake. None of thelakes in the subbasin were classifiedas oligotrophic.

As of 1995, EPA had sponsoredstudies on two lakes in theAllegheny River subbasin,Chautauqua Lake in New York andConneaut Lake in Pennsylvania. Anongoing study on ChautauquaLake, the largest lake in the sub-basin, is identifying pollutantsources and evaluating lake protec-tion options. Weed growth andalgal blooms in Chautauqua Lakeare the greatest concerns, whileconstruction impacts have alsobeen high due to the intensivedevelopment in the area. ConneautLake once was a popular touristattraction but now has nuisancelevels of aquatic weeds and severeoxygen depletion. A study inprogress for Conneaut Lake isdetermining pollutant budgets forphosphorus, nitrogen, and sus-pended solids to help in drafting amanagement plan.

New York and Pennsylvaniaused Carlson’s Trophic State Indexto rate the trophic status of 24lakes in the Allegheny River sub-basin (Table 2). Carlson’s TrophicState Index is based on phospho-rus, chlorophyll, and water clarity(i.e., secchi disk) data. Carlson’sTrophic State Index classifies lakes

Other(2.9%)

Silviculture(10.0%)

Construction(5.2%)

ResourceExtraction

(3.3%)

Agriculture(37.4%)

ResourceExtraction(81.3%)

Other(9.1%)

Natural(3.0%)

ResourceExtraction(77.2%)

Industrial(1.7%)

Other(3.1%)

Natural(6.3%)

Agriculture(10.4%)Resource

Extraction(59.2%)

Industrial(6.5%)

Other(6.1%)

Natural(8.0%)

Unknown(10.5%)

Figure 18. Sources of Pollution in Impaired Streams – Allegheny River Subbasin

Upper Allegheny Subbasin – PA130 Miles Impaired

Central Allegheny Subbasin – PA440 Miles Impaired

Lower Allegheny Subbasin – PA583 Miles Impaired

Allegheny River Subbasin – NY349 Miles Impaired

Hydrologic/HabitatModifications

(41.3%)

Agriculture(2.2%)

Urban Runoff(2.2%)

Land Disposal(2.1%)

Unknown(1.3%)

Agriculture(9.7%)

67

68

Special StateConcerns andRecommendations

Ten States reported specialwater quality concerns and/or rec-ommendations for improving waterpollution control programs in theirSection 305(b) reports. The follow-ing five issues were listed by threeor more States; some of the issuesare especially relevant to the Ohioand Tennessee River basin, but allfive issues are applicable to waterquality assessments at the State,watershed, basin, or national level.

2. A coordinated frameworkfor ground water protection.

A number of Federal and Stateagencies have authority andresponsibility for ground water pro-tection. To coordinate their efforts,several States are developingground water management strate-gies that set forth overall objectivesand principles and define eachagency’s role.

3. Pollution from resourceextraction.

In the 1994 National WaterQuality Inventory Report toCongress, the 14 Ohio and Tennes-see River basin States accounted foralmost half of the river milesreported as impaired due toresource extraction. Most of theimpairment was attributed to minedrainage, while a much smallerportion was related to oil and gasdrilling. The States note that inade-quate funding to address pollutionfrom abandoned mines is a specialconcern.

4. Human health criteria.Several States raised concerns

about criteria to protect humanhealth from contamination in waterand fish. These States identified aneed to establish criteria for addi-tional harmful substances and addi-tional guidance on the use of crite-ria. The States are particularly con-cerned that changing to risk-level-based criteria will result in manynew locations being classified asimpaired for fish consumption orwater supply use.

1. The need for coordinatedefforts to address nonpointsources of pollution.

States noted the complexitiesof controlling pollution that origi-nates from numerous diversesources, each of which contributesa small amount of pollution.Coordination among differentagencies and the different layerswithin government agencies—Federal, State, local, and regional—is critical to avoid duplication ofefforts and conflict among pro-grams. Agencies need to considerthe effects of waste generation anddisposal on the total environmentin their regulatory decisions.

Mesotrophic Eutrophic

Lake Acres Lake Acres

Conneaut Lake (PA) 929 Bear Lake (NY) 44

Cuba Lake (NY) 184 Beaver Run Reservoir (PA) 1,125

Hemlock Lake (PA) NR Canadohta Lake (PA) 170

Justus Lake (PA) NR Cassadaga Lake, Lower (NY) 34

Keystone Lake 880 Cassadaga Lake, Upper (NY) 41(Westmoreland County, PA)

Keystone Lake 78 Chautauqua Lake, North (NY) 5,434(Armstrong County, PA)

Kinzua Lake (PA portion) 12,100 Edinboro Lake (PA) 240

Quaker Lake (NY) 92 Findley Lake (NY) 124

Quemahoning Reservoir (PA) 900 Hinckston Reservoir (PA) NR

Red House Lake (NY) 44 Loyalhanna Reservoir (PA) 210

Saltlick Reservoir (PA) NR North Park Lake (PA) 75

Tamarack Lake (PA) 556

Yellow Creek Lake (PA) 740

Table 2. Trophic Status of Allegheny River Subbasin Lakes

NR = Not reported.

5. Watershed planning andmanagement.

Several States reported on theirown initiatives toward watershed-based pollution abatementprograms. The States expressedconcern that a transition to awatershed approach might disruptor delay current programs. TheStates consistently requested thatEPA provide incentives for States toadopt watershed-basedapproaches.

Recommendationsfor Reporting from a Basinwide Assess-ment Perspective

Inconsistencies in the States’305(b) information presentedobstacles to developing this waterquality assessment of a large, inter-state basin. The inconsistenciesincluded the geographic bases ofthe assessments, the designateduses assessed, the identification ofcauses and sources of use impair-ment, and the assessment method-ologies themselves. State-to-Statedifferences in assessment methods,interpretation, and reporting mustbe reduced if information in futureSection 305(b) reports is to beaggregated into large regional orinterstate basin assessments ofwater quality conditions. The fol-lowing section describes severalrecommendations to address theseproblems.

conditions, however, is difficult tojustify. At a minimum, Statesshould assess waters that serve assources for public supplies. Toimprove reporting of fish consump-tion use support status, EPA shouldrequest that the States identify thewatershed in which each advisoryoccurs. EPA already requests thateach State submit a list of fish con-sumption advisories, but EPA doesnot currently request watershedidentification with this information.

Causes and Sources of UseImpairment

Most States report causes andsources of use impairment, butmany do so only on an overallbasis; most do not identify the indi-vidual use impaired by a cause orsource. Some States report thetotal waters impaired by causesand sources statewide and do notidentify the size of waters impairedby causes and sources in individualwatersheds. Most States cannotidentify the causes and sourcesresponsible for degrading all oftheir impaired waters. These incon-sistencies seriously compromise anyeffort to report such informationon a multistate basis. EPA’s 305(b)Consistency Workgroup shouldaddress these issues and developappropriate recommendations.

Assessment byWatershed

Some States present theirassessments on a statewide basis,some provide summaries by largewatersheds, and others presentinformation for individual streams.To facilitate reporting on an inter-state basis, States need to reporttheir information at a consistentlevel of watershed units. Water-sheds identified by USGS 8-digitHUCs should be the minimumreporting units. States may chooseto aggregate their information bysmaller watershed units (i.e., 11-digit HUC codes), or they may, insome instances, combine adjacentunits where necessary for their ownreporting purposes.

Assessment of AllDesignated Uses

Many States assess only aquaticlife use support; others report a sin-gle, overall use support assessmentthat is usually based on aquatic lifeuse support status. Since the goalof the Clean Water Act is for allwaters to support aquatic life andrecreation, each State should atleast address both of these uses.The lack of information on watersupply use support probably resultsfrom a historic separation of pro-grams that address water supplyissues and water pollution control.The absence of such information in a report on water quality

69

70

Consistent AssessmentMethodologies

Assessments of lakes, groundwater, and wetlands were extreme-ly inconsistent among the 14 Statesthat share the Ohio and TennesseeRiver basin. EPA’s guidelines forpreparing the Section 305(b)reports are less precise for lakes,wetlands, and ground water thanfor rivers and streams; as a result,States have developed their ownapproaches for assessing thesewaters. If interstate basins are to bea basis for reporting in futurenational water quality summaries, itwill be necessary to fine-tunereporting requirements for lakes,wetlands, and ground water.

Even though the assessmentmethods for rivers and streams areclearly specified in the 305(b)guidelines, this report shows thatthere are differences in how theStates interpret and apply theguidelines. This was noted in thesection on the Allegheny River sub-basin where waters of similar quali-ty conditions received very differentassessments by the States of NewYork and Pennsylvania. It also wasapparent in several other instanceswhere abrupt changes in the levelof use support appeared to occurat State lines.

States arrive at different usesupport ratings because the Statesmonitor different water quality indi-cators and use different use supportcriteria. For example, some Statesbase their aquatic life use support

Initiating WatershedAssessments

All of the difficulties and incon-sistencies described above can beovercome if they are addressedearly in the assessment process.Where river basin organizationsexist, they are ideally suited to takea lead role in coordinating inter-state watershed assessments. Theprocess used by ORSANCO toprepare a Section 305(b) report forthe Ohio River mainstem on behalfof six States might serve as anexample. Preparation for the OhioRiver assessment begins 7 monthsprior to the April due date for thereport. A proposed outline of theassessment, including descriptionsof the methodologies to be used, isdistributed to the States and is dis-cussed in one or more teleconfer-ences. A preliminary draft is distrib-uted approximately 3 monthsbefore the due date and, if com-ments warrant, is discussed inanother teleconference.

For watersheds where an inter-state river basin agency does notexist, it may be necessary for theEPA Region to take the lead role incoordinating the States’ assess-ments. Regardless of who assumesthe lead role, coordination early inthe process will result in more con-sistent and comprehensive assess-ments.

assessments primarily on biologicalsurvey results while others use onlyphysical and chemical data. Studieshave shown that biological moni-toring data often detect morewater quality impairments thanchemical and physical monitoringdata alone. In addition, States canarrive at different use supportratings if some States monitor dis-solved metals concentrations whileothers continue to measure totalrecoverable metal concentrations.Even if neighboring States monitorcomparable indicators and use sim-ilar criteria, they may be evaluatinginformation collected in differentyears.

Contact recreation use isassessed primarily on the basis ofbacteria levels, but the States basetheir recreation use support ratingson a variety of indicator bacteria.Some States have adopted criteriafor E. coli and/or Enterococcuswhile others continue to monitorfecal coliforms. Support of publicwater supply use is subject togreater inconsistencies. For watersupply utilities, the parametersregulated under the Federal SafeDrinking Water Act are mostimportant. Many of those parame-ters are not specifically regulatedunder the Clean Water Act and arenot routinely monitored by Statewater quality agencies.

EPA’s 305(b) ConsistencyWorkgroup has addressed severalof these issues in the 305(b) guide-lines for the 1996 report cycle.

71

72

73

74

Documents

1994 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress · waters. The National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress sum-marizes the water quality informa-tion submitted by