Alabama - Guam
Shared by: zud45877
272 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries coastal waters. The leading sources Alabama of river pollution include agriculture, municipal wastewater treatment plants, and urban runoff and storm sewers. In coastal waters, the lead- ing sources of pollution are urban runoff and storm sewers, municipal point sources, and collection system failures. Toxic priority organic chemicals impact the most lake acres, usually in the form of a fish consumption advisory. These pollutants may accumulate in fish tissue at a concentration that greatly exceeds the concentration in the surround- ing water. Unknown sources and industrial dischargers are responsible for the greatest acreage of impaired lake waters. Special state concerns include impacts from forest clearcutting and lack of streamside management zones. Animal waste runoff is another special concern that is being dealt with through an opera- tion registration rule. Alabama did not report on the Basin Boundaries (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit) condition of wetlands. Ground Water Quality For a copy of the Alabama 1998 Surface Water Quality 305(b) report, contact: The Geological Survey of Since enactment of the Clean Alabama monitoring well network Michael J. Rief Water Act of 1972, water quality indicates relatively good ground Alabama Department of has substantially improved near water quality. However, the number Environmental Management industrial and municipal facilities. of ground water contamination Water Quality Branch However, pollution still prevents incidents has increased significantly P.O. Box 301463 about 5% of the surveyed stream in the past few years due to better Montgomery, AL 36130-1463 miles from fully supporting state- reporting under the Underground (334) 271-7829 defined overall use. In addition, Storage Tank Program and e-mail: email@example.com 19% of surveyed lake acres do not increased public awareness of fully support aquatic life use and ground water issues. Alabama has The report is also available on the established pesticide monitoring 84% of surveyed estuarine square Internet at: http://www.adem.state. miles do not fully support shellfish- and a Wellhead Protection Program al.us/305bwebpg.html ing use. Oxygen-depleting wastes to identify nonpoint sources of and pathogens are the most com- ground water contamination and mon pollutants impacting rivers and further protect public water supplies. Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 273 Programs to Restore Summary of Use Support in Alabama Water Quality Percent Alabama’s nonpoint source Good Good Impaired (Fully (Threatened) (For One management program initiated Supporting) or More Uses) a 5-year rotational watershed management schedule approach Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 77,274)b beginning in 1996. The approach Total Miles 95 involves assessing and identifying Assessed the causes and sources of nonpoint 2,987 - 5 source impacts, prioritizing impact- ed watersheds, and providing resources to protect or improve Individual Use Support in Alabama water quality. The first river basin Percent assessments were conducted in 1996-1997 in the Lower Cahaba Good Fair Poor Not (Fully Good (Partially (Not Attainable and Black Warrior River basins. Designated Usea Supporting) (Threatened) Supporting) Supporting) Other priorities of the nonpoint source program include demon- Lakes (Total Acres = 490,472) strating best management practices Total Acres Assessed 67 (BMPs); raising public awareness through education, training, and 463,115 15 17 2 0 initiatives; and developing, priori- tizing, and implementing nonpoint 78 source total daily maximum loads. 463,111 5 9 7 0 Programs to Assess 77 Water Quality 19 4 415,036 <1 0 During the 1980s, Alabama implemented a multifaceted Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 610) approach to surface water quality Total Square 100 monitoring. This approach included Miles Assessed a fixed-station monitoring network, 610 0 0 0 0 reservoir monitoring, intensive waterbody-specific studies, fish tis- 100 sue sampling, and compliance mon- itoring of point source discharges. In 610 0 <1 0 0 1996, the state proposed ASSESS, a 84 watershed-based strategy to inte- grate surface water quality monitor- 16 ing with defined water quality 497 0 0 0 objectives and associated environ- 100 mental indicators. The objectives of ASSESS include improving monitor- 583 0 0 <1 0 ing coverage within river basins, improving spatial detail of water – Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown. quality assessments, and increasing a A subset of Alabama’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 305(b) report total stream miles monitored over for a full description of the state’s uses. b the 5-year rotation period. Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year. Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. 274 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries Alaska did not report on the Alaska condition of wetlands. Ground Water Quality Ground water is one of Alaska’s least understood natural resources. It is the major source of fresh water for public and private drinking water supply systems, industry, and agricultural development. Although ground water is presumed to be of excellent quality in most areas of the state, specific areas of generally good ground water quality have been degraded by human activities. Ground water impairment has been documented in various areas of the state and has been linked predomi- nantly to aboveground and subsur- face petroleum storage facilities, as well as operational and abandoned military installations. Other sources, such as failed septic systems, also contribute to ground water contam- ination. Basin Boundaries (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit) Programs to Restore Water Quality For a copy of the Alaska 1998 Surface Water Quality The Alaska Department of 305(b) report, contact: Environmental Conservation (ADEC) The vast majority of Alaska’s has developed the Watershed Man- Drew Grant watersheds, while not being moni- agement Section, within the Divi- Alaska Department of Environmental tored, are presumed to be in rela- sion of Air and Water Quality, to Conservation tively pristine condition due to implement the watershed protec- Division of Air and Water Quality Alaska’s size, sparse population, tion approach that has been used 410 Willoughby Street - Suite 105 and general remoteness. However, successfully in other states. The Juneau, AK 99801-1795 Alaska has localized water pollution. purpose of this approach is to cost- (907) 465-5304 Surface water quality has been effectively improve the water quality e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org found to be impaired or threatened of Alaska’s polluted waterbodies and from sources such as urban runoff to protect its healthy watersheds in (Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau), cooperation with other agencies, mining operations in the Interior industry, interest groups, and the and Northwest Alaska, seafood public. The process to be used to processing facilities in the Aleutian advance the watershed protection Islands, and forest products facilities approach in Alaska is outlined in the in southeast Alaska. document Watershed Partnerships in Alaska. Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 275 ADEC also supports numerous additional water quality projects and Summary of Use Supporta in Alaskab programs statewide, including: pol- Percent lution prevention, leaking under- Good Impaired ground storage tanks, contaminated (Fully Good (For One Supporting) (Threatened) or More Uses) sites, industrial permitting, water- body assessments and recovery Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 365,000) plans, water quality monitoring, Total Miles 99 water quality technical services, and Assessed public outreach and education from 513 1 - statewide public service offices. Lakes (Total Acres = 12,787,200 Programs to Assess Total Acres 100 Water Quality Assessed The Alaska Watershed Moni- 4,719 0 - - toring and Assessment Project (AWMAP) is a statewide water Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 33,257) quality monitoring project involving Total Square 99 local, state, and federal agencies; Miles Assessed industry; schools; the University of 1 237 - Alaska; and other entities conduct- ing water quality monitoring. A Ocean Shoreline (Total Miles = 44,226) recent AWMAP report identified 100 areas of the state (by USGS hydro- Total Shoreline Miles Assessed logic unit) where water quality monitoring is either absent or 4 0 - insufficient to address the potential pollution sources. – Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown. Other water quality monitoring a A summary of use support data is presented because Alaska did not report individual use activities are conducted by ADEC, support in their 1998 Section 305(b) report. b other agencies, industry, and the Alaska notes its assessments are biased toward those waters with known impairments. public. Applicant self-monitoring Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. of receiving waters is a common permit requirement associated with Alaska’s major point source dischargers. ADEC, in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), has peri- odically conducted water quality monitoring related to placer mining. Implementation of the State Ground Water Quality Protection Strategy is continuing, encouraging increased ground water monitoring. 276 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries sources (stormwater runoff, erosion, American Samoa agricultural practices, road building, careless solid waste disposal, and individual sewer systems) contribute to a reduction in stream quality. This has resulted in a loss of aquatic habi- tat as well as increased sedimenta- tion, and turbidity. Monitoring data for fecal coliform indicate that the water quality of almost every stream consistently exceeds the established standards. Coastal waters immediately adjacent to villages show limited water quality degradation, so the protected uses for open coastal and ocean waters appear to be met. Two to five miles out from the islands, American Samoa’s tuna canneries are permitted to dump cannery sludge and other wastes. In general, compliance with the Ocean Dumping permit has been satisfac- tory. Because it is subjected to the greatest amount of anthropogenic or human-generated pollution, Pago Basin Boundaries Pago Harbor has been identified as (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit) an impaired waterbody due to ele- vated levels of lead and tributlytin in For a copy of the American Samoa sediment and fish tissue. Also, large Surface Water Quality oil spills occur several times a year. 1998 305(b) report, contact: The Territory of American To reduce the impacts of the spills, Carl Goldstein Samoa (AS) is located about 2,300 the U.S. Coast Guard and AS EPA USEPA Region 9 miles southwest of Hawaii and worked together to develop an Oil 75 Hawthorne Street consists of five islands with a total Spill Protocol and a 24-hour harbor San Francisco, CA 94105 of 116 miles of shoreline and surveillance program. (415) 744-2170 approximately 160 streams. American Samoa did not report e-mail: email@example.com Although becoming more west- on the condition of wetlands. ernized, American Samoa still retains traditional Polynesian systems of Ground Water Quality leadership, land tenure, and family alliances. Due to cultural differences, The majority of potable water environmental policies are not for the government water system always effective. comes from ground water in the Streams in American Samoa Tafuna-Leone Plain on Tutuila. In a serve as sources of potable water 1987 study, ground water contami- and places for recreational and sub- nation was attributed to soil bacte- sistence fishing for many villages. ria, particulates, human and animal While there are no significant point wastes, poor well construction, sources of pollutants, nonpoint and the high permeability/low soil Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 277 filtration capacity. A 1989 study found that total coliform bacteria Individual Use Support in American Samoa concentrations in well waters are Percent readily detectable after heavy rain- Good Good Fair Poor Not fall; otherwise, all regulated con- (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable a taminants are within EPA Safe Designated Use Supporting) Supporting) Supporting) Drinking Water Standards. Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = unknown) Total Miles Programs to Restore Assessed Water Quality - - - - - - Based on a 1988 assessment report, the Nonpoint Source Management Program was created - - - - - - to encourage best management practices. Completed projects include soil stabilization demonstra- tion projects, septic tank training, - - - - - - waste oil collection, soil erosion regulations, plan guidelines for developers, watershed cleanup Ocean Shoreline (Total Miles = 116) projects, storm water planning, Total Miles and public education. In 1990, the Assessed American Samoa Coastal Nonpoint - - - - - - Pollution Control Program required BMPs for sediment and erosion, stormwater, and construction site controls for all new development. - - - - - - A Wetlands Management Plan has initiated delineation and restora- tion programs and the ASEPA has begun riparian habitat restoration - - - - - - projects for 10 streams on Tutuila Island. Ground water restoration efforts include sewer and sewage treatment - - - - - - plant construction, public education, and a water conservation program. – Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown. a A subset of American Samoa’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 305(b) Programs to Assess report for a full description of the state’s uses. Water Quality A baseline water quality study in 1979 led to the completion of the first water monitoring strategy in 1984. Five rivers and 13 Pago Pago Harbor sites are sampled for physical and chemical parameters, and 15 streams and 21 beaches are tested for biological contamination. 278 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries and turbidity. Natural sources, Arizona agriculture, and resource extraction were the three most common sources of stressors in streams. In lake assessments, flow regulation is added as a primary source of stressors. Arizona did not report on the condition of wetlands. Ground Water Quality Arizona monitors a network of ambient water quality index wells and compiles data from other moni- toring programs, which are primar- ily targeted in areas of known or suspected contamination. Data were reviewed in two watersheds and five “active management areas” (areas targeted as imperiled by over- draft of ground water resources by Fully Supporting Threatened the Arizona Department of Natural Partially Supporting Resources). Not Supporting Ground water contamination Not Assessed Basin Boundaries varies significantly across the state. (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit) Natural fluoride levels exceed stand- This map depicts aquatic life use support status. ards and are a major drinking water concern in several basins. In the metropolitan areas, volatile and For a copy of the Arizona 1998 Surface Water Quality semivolatile organic compound 305(b) report, contact: (VOC and SOC) contamination Good water quality fully sup- Diana Marsh areas are being remediated by the ports aquatic life uses in 62% of Arizona Department of federal and state Superfund pro- Arizona's assessed stream miles and Environmental Quality grams. 66% of its surveyed lake acres. This 3033 North Central Avenue means that 38% of its assessed Phoenix, AZ 85012 stream miles and over 33% of its Programs to Restore (602) 207-4545 lake acres do not fully support Water Quality e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org aquatic life uses. Turbidity, metals, pathogens, and pH were the four Arizona’s nonpoint source con- The report is also available on the stressors most frequently identified trol program integrates regulatory Internet at: http://www.adeq.state. in streams. The leading stressors in controls with nonregulatory educa- az.us/water/assess lakes were metals, pH, inorganics, tion and demonstration projects. Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 279 Regulatory programs include the Aquifer Protection Permit Program, Individual Use Support in Arizona the Pesticide Contamination Preven- Percent tion Program, and best manage- Good Good Fair Poor Not ment requirements for controlling a (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable Designated Use Supporting) Supporting) Supporting) nitrogen at concentrated animal feeding operations. The state is also Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 90,373)b, c developing best management prac- Total Miles tices for timber activities, grazing Assessed 55 activities, urban runoff, and sand 21 17 4,120 7 - and gravel operations. Arizona’s point source control program 90 encompasses planning, facility construction loans, permits, 6 3 3,703 1 - pretreatment, inspections, permit compliance, and enforcement. 85 Additionally, the state’s Water Protection Fund provides a source 3,675 7 6 2 - of funding to restore rivers and associated riparian habitats. Lakes (Total Acres = 352,588)c Total Acres Programs to Assess Assessed 48 32 Water Quality 77,102 18 1 - Federal and state agencies con- 69 tinue efforts to coordinate monitor- 27 ing, provide more consistent moni- 77,080 3 1 - toring protocols, and provide mech- 90 anisms to share data, spurred by tightened budgets. Monitoring programs in Arizona include a fixed 76,863 7 2 1 - station network, stream ecosystem monitoring, priority pollutant moni- – Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown. a toring, and monitoring to support A subset of Arizona’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 305(b) report for a full description of the state’s uses. development of criteria. Biological b Includes 2,531 miles of nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year. and physical integrity criteria are c Does not include waters on tribal lands, which total 37,130 stream miles and 65,128 lake being developed by the Arizona acres. Department of Environmental Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. Quality, which will recognize region- al differences in biological communi- ty structure and stream morphology. 280 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries turbidity are the most frequently Arkansas identified pollutants impairing Arkansas’ rivers and streams, fol- lowed by bacteria, nutrients, and metals. Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in the state’s rivers and streams and has been identified as a source of pollution in four lakes. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, mining, industrial discharges, and construction also impact rivers and streams. Arkansas has limited data on the extent of pollution in lakes. Special state concerns include the development of TMDLs and more effective methods to identify nonpoint source impacts. Arkansas is also concerned about impacts from the expansion of confined animal production operations and major sources of turbidity and silt Fully Supporting including road construction, road Waters of Concern maintenance, riparian land clearing, Not Supporting streambed gravel removal, and Not Assessed Basin Boundaries urban construction. (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit) Arkansas did not report on the This map depicts aquatic life use support status. condition of wetlands. Ground Water Quality For a copy of the Arkansas 1998 Surface Water Quality 305(b) report, contact: Aquifer monitoring indicates The Arkansas Department of that ground water quality in Arkan- Bill Keith Environmental Quality reported that sas is generally good. Secondary Arkansas Department of 69% of their surveyed rivers and maximum contaminant wells were Environmental Quality streams and 100% of their surveyed exceeded in a number of locations P.O. Box 8913 lake acres have good water quality for parameters such as pesticides, Little Rock, AR 72219-8913 that fully supports aquatic life uses. iron, and manganese. Potential (501) 682-0660 Good water quality also fully sup- sources of contamination include e-mail: email@example.com ports swimming use in 93% of the disposal sites, underground storage surveyed river miles and 100% of sites, agriculture, and mining opera- the surveyed lake acres. Siltation and tions. Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 281 Programs to Restore Individual Use Support in Arkansas Water Quality Percent The Arkansas Nonpoint Source Good Good Fair Poor Not Pollution Management Program is a (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable Designated Use Supporting) Supporting) Supporting) currently being revised to include all categories of NPS pollution. It Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 87,617)b provides for continued monitoring Total Miles 69 of water quality, research into the Assessed effectiveness of BMPs, and imple- 22 8,668 - 8 - mentation strategies for BMPs. Beginning in 1997, a Priority Water 95 Program was developed to target NPS-impacted watersheds for BMP 8,668 - <1 5 - implementation. Ten watersheds 93 were selected for either more inten- sive survey activities or BMP imple- 7,479 - 7 <1 - mentation activities. Lakes (Total Acres = 514,245) Programs to Assess Total Acres 100 Water Quality Assessed Arkansas classifies its water 356,254 - 0 0 - resources by ecoregion with similar 95 physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. There are six eco- regions including the Delta, Gulf 356,254 - - 5 - Coastal, Ouchita Mountain, Arkan- 100 sas River Valley, Boston Mountain, and Ozark Mountain Regions. By 356,254 - 0 0 - classifying water resources in this manner, Arkansas can identify the – Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown. most common land uses within a A subset of Arkansas’ designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 305(b) report for each region and address the issues a full description of the state’s uses. b that threaten the water quality. Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year. The state’s ambient monitoring Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. network includes 133 stations moni- tored monthly for several key water quality parameters. Many of these stations have been monitored for 15 to 20 years or longer. In addi- tion, 103 additional stations sam- pled quarterly were added in 1994 to assess previously unassessed waters or waters that have not been monitored in several years. The data analyzed for this report were collected from October 1995 through September 1997. 282 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries Metals, pesticides, PCBs, and California priority organics are the most frequently identified pollutants in estuaries, harbors, and bays. Urban runoff and storm sewers are the leading source of pollution in California’s coastal waters, followed by spills, agriculture, resource extraction, and septage disposal. Ground Water Quality Salinity, total dissolved solids, and chlorides are the most frequently identified pollutants impairing use of ground water in California, followed by priority organic chemicals, nutrients, non- priority organic chemicals, and pesticides. Leading sources are septage disposal, agriculture, and Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and dairies. Potential sources of ground Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses water contamination include leaking 80% - 100% Meeting All Uses 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses underground storage tanks, septage 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses disposal, agriculture, and industrial 0% - 19% Meeting All Uses point sources. Insufficient Assessment Coverage Basin Boundaries (USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit) Programs to Restore Water Quality For a copy of the California 1998 Surface Water Quality Through California’s stormwater 305(b) report, contact: permit program, two statewide Siltation, metals, nutrients, general permits have been adopted Nancy Richard bacteria, and pesticides impair the California State Water Resources addressing stormwater discharges most river miles in California. The associated with industrial activities. Control Board, M&A leading sources of degradation in Division of Water Quality Dischargers are required to elimi- California’s rivers and streams are nate most nonstormwater dis- P.O. Box 944213 agriculture, forestry activities, urban Sacramento, CA 94244-2130 charges, develop a stormwater runoff and storm sewers, and pollution prevention plan to identify (916) 657-0642 municipal point sources. In lakes, e-mail: RICHN@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov and implement control measures siltation, metals, and nutrients are to minimize pollutants in storm- the most common pollutants. water runoff, and monitor their Hydrologic and habitat modifica- discharges. tions, along with urban runoff/ The State Water Resources storm sewers, construction, highway Control Board and Regional Water maintenance and runoff, and Quality Control Boards are imple- atmospheric deposition pose the menting a Watershed Management greatest threat to lake water quality. Initiative to better coordinate and Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 283 focus limited public and private resources to address both point Individual Use Support in California and nonpoint source water quality Percent problems especially in high-priority Good Good Fair Poor Not targeted watersheds. (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable Designated Usea Supporting) Supporting) Supporting) Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 211,513)b Programs to Assess Total Miles Assessed Water Quality 24 12 49 16 12,289 - California has developed a number of programs to monitor 59 29 9 water quality in fresh, estuarine, 8,075 2 - and marine waters of the state. These include a Toxic Substances 24 48 11 17 Monitoring Program that focuses 12,066 - on areas with known or suspected Lakes (Total Acres = 1,672,684) impairment; the Toxicity Testing Total Acres Program for the identification of Assessed 48 high-risk areas as well as the spatial 25 8 19 683,248 - and temporal extent of water qual- ity problems and their causes and 35 sources; an underground storage 490,343 28 12 26 - tank program to study the cleanup of leaking tanks; and volunteer 46 monitoring. 675,736 25 11 19 - Programs that focus on salt- water monitoring include the Cali- Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 1,008)c fornia State Mussel Watch Program Total Square Miles Assessed 67 to detect toxic substances in bays, 27 harbors, and estuaries and the Bay 870 <1 5 - Protection and Toxic Cleanup Pro- 65 gram to identify toxic hot spots in 30 2 enclosed bays and estuaries. Cali- 880 3 - fornia is also developing a compre- 60 hensive program for monitoring 36 3 1 and reducing pollution in Califor- 749 - nia’s coastal zone. 65 34 785 <1 1 - – Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown. Wetlands (Total Acres = 275,812) a A subset of California’s designated uses Total Acres appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s Assessed 55 43 305(b) report for a full description of the 27,117 1 <1 - state’s uses. b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year. 51 49 c Includes bays and harbors. 338 0 0 - Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. 61 36 24,869 2 1 - 284 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries Ground Water Quality Colorado Ground water quality in Colo- rado ranges from excellent in mountain areas where snow fall is heavy, to poor in certain alluvial aquifers of major rivers. Naturally occurring soluble minerals along with human activities are responsi- ble for significant degradation of some aquifers. Nitrates and salts from agricultural activities have contaminated many of Colorado’s shallow, unconfined aquifers. In mining areas, acidic water and metals contaminate aquifers. Colo- rado protects ground water quality with statewide numeric criteria for organic chemicals, a narrative stand- ard to maintain ambient conditions or maximum contaminant levels of inorganic chemicals and metals, and specific use classifications and standards for ground water areas. Colorado also regulates discharges to ground water from wastewater Basin Boundaries treatment impoundments and land (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit) application systems with a permit system. For a copy of the Colorado 1998 Surface Water Quality Programs to Restore 305(b) report, contact: Colorado reports that 96% of its Water Quality Sarah Johnson surveyed river miles and 88% of its Colorado Department of Public Colorado’s Water Quality surveyed lake acres have good water Control Division recently reorga- Health and Environment quality that fully support aquatic life Water Quality Control Division nized to streamline the Division and uses. Metals are the most frequently to make it more responsive to major 4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South identified pollutant in rivers and Denver, CO 80222-1530 new trends in water quality man- lakes. Mining and agriculture are agement. The cornerstone of the (303) 692-3609 leading sources of pollution in both e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org new organization is the creation rivers and lakes. of watershed coordinators and Colorado did not report on the watershed teams for the four major condition of wetlands. watersheds in the state: Arkansas/ Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 285 Rio Grande, Lower Colorado, Upper Colorado, and South Platte. The Individual Use Support in Colorado watershed coordinators make the Percent Division more responsive to local Good Good Fair Poor Not communities and their concerns. a (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable Designated Use Supporting) Supporting) Supporting) The watershed teams give the Division the ability to address key Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 107,403)b issues using an integrated approach, Total Miles 96 which will lead to more effective Assessed solutions. - - 29,363 4 1 Other programs in Colorado include the state’s Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, nonpoint source control program, and - - - - - - permits programs. 99 Programs to Assess c - - 18,952 1 <1 Water Quality In 1992, Colorado changed its Lakes (Total Acres = 164,029) monitoring approach from a state- Total Acres 88 wide network of routine sites and Assessed special studies to basin-specific 11 59,660 - 1 - monitoring of one major watershed per year. During the 1996-1997 cycle, the Lower Colorado/Gunni- 50 50 son and Upper Colorado basins 12,155 - <1 - were monitored. The basin monitor- ing program has several long-term objectives such as ensuring there is an adequate database to study - - - - - - changes over time, addressing spatial and temporal variability in – Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown. a water quality, evaluating the impact A subset of Colorado’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 305(b) report of point and nonpoint sources on for a full description of the state’s uses. b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year. water quality, determining lake c All of Colorado’s rivers marked not attainable for swimming were not necessarily surveyed. trophic status, and developing a Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. database for biological water quality criteria. Colorado plans to devote more resources to monitoring tar- geted watersheds in the four basins to support the development of TMDLs. 286 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries ammonia, nutrients, toxics, and Connecticut habitat alteration. Sources of these pollutants include urban runoff and storm sewers, industrial dischargers, municipal sewage treatment plants, and in-place contaminants. Threats to Connecticut’s reservoir and lake quality include atmospheric deposi- tion, upstream impoundments, and municipal sewage treatment plants. Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen) is a widespread problem in Connecticut’s estuarine waters in Long Island Sound. Bacteria also prevent shellfish harvesting and an advisory restricts consumption of bluefish and striped bass contami- nated with PCBs. Connecticut’s estuarine waters are impacted by municipal sewage treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, indus- trial discharges and runoff, failing Segment 80% -100% Fully Supporting septic systems, urban runoff, recre- Segment 50% - 79% Fully Supporting ational activities, and atmospheric Segment 20% - 49% Fully Supporting deposition. Historic waste disposal Segment 0% - 19% Fully Supporting Basin Boundaries practices also contaminated sedi- (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit) ments in Connecticut’s harbors and This map depicts aquatic life use support status. bays. Connecticut did not report on the condition of wetlands. For a copy of the Connecticut 1998 Surface Water Quality 305(b) report, contact: Ground Water Quality Connecticut has restored over Ernest Pizzuto 300 miles of large rivers since enact- The state and U.S. Geological Bureau of Water Management, PERD ment of Connecticut’s State Clean Survey (USGS) have identified about Connecticut Department of Water Act in 1967. Back in 1967, 1,600 contaminated public and Environmental Protection about 663 river miles (or 74% of private wells since the Connecticut 79 Elm Street the state’s 893 miles of large rivers Department of Environmental Pro- Hartford, CT 06106-5127 and streams) were unfit for fishing tection (DEP) began keeping (860) 424-3715 and swimming. In 1998, Connecti- records in 1980. Connecticut’s e-mail: email@example.com cut reported that 161 river miles Wellhead Protection Program incor- (17%) do not fully support aquatic porates water supply planning, dis- life uses and 220 miles (23%) do charge permitting, water diversion, not support swimming due to site remediation, prohibited activi- stressors such as bacteria, PCBs, ties, and numerous nonpoint source metals, oxygen-demanding wastes, controls. Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 287 Programs to Restore Individual Use Support in Connecticut Water Quality Percent Ensuring that all citizens can Good Good Fair Poor Not (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable share in the benefits of clean water Designated Usea Supporting) Supporting) Supporting) will require continued permit enforcement, additional advanced Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 5,830)b wastewater treatment, combined Total Miles sewer separation, continued aquatic Assessed 54 toxicity control, and resolution of 29 14 948 3 <1 nonpoint source issues. To date, 14 sewage treatment facilities have 85 installed advanced treatment to remove nutrients. Nonpoint source 948 0 10 5 0 management includes education projects and a permitting program 67 for land application of sewage, 948 9 16 7 agricultural sources, and solid waste <1 management facilities. Wetlands are protected by Lakes (Total Acres = 64,973) the state’s Clean Water Act and Total Acres 88 Standards of Water Quality. Each Assessed municipality has an Inland Wetlands 10 27,108 1 0 0 Agency that regulates filling and establishes regulated buffer areas 88 with DEP training and oversight. Connecticut’s courts have strongly 27,108 0 12 0 0 upheld enforcement of the wetlands acts and supported regulation of 64 buffer areas to protect wetlands. 35 27,108 1 0 0 Programs to Assess Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 612) Water Quality Total Square Miles Assessed 60 Connecticut samples physical 30 and chemical parameters at 27 fixed 612 0 10 0 stream sites and biological param- 100 eters at 47 stream sites. Other activities include intensive biological surveys, toxicity testing, and fish 612 0 0 0 0 and shellfish tissue sampling for accumulation of toxic chemicals. 47 53 – Not reported in a quantifiable format or 612 0 0 0 unknown. a A subset of Connecticut’s designated uses 97 appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 305(b) report for a full description of the 612 0 1 2 0 state’s uses. b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year. Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. 288 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries resulted in 14 fish consumption Delaware restrictions in three basins, including Red Clay Creek, Red Lion Creek, the St. Jones River, and the Delaware Estuary. Agricultural runoff, urban runoff, municipal sewage treatment plants, and industrial dischargers are the primary sources of nutrients and toxics in Delaware’s surface waters. Delaware did not report on the condition of wetlands. Ground Water Quality High-quality ground water provides two-thirds of Delaware’s domestic water supply. However, nitrates, synthetic organic chemi- cals, saltwater, and iron contaminate isolated wells in some areas. In the agricultural areas of Kent and Sussex counties, nitrates in ground water Fully Supporting Threatened are a potential health concern and Partially Supporting a potential source of nutrient Not Supporting contamination in surface waters. Not Assessed Basin Boundaries Synthetic organic chemicals have (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit) entered some ground waters from This map depicts aquatic life use support status. leaking industrial underground storage tanks, landfills, abandoned hazardous waste sites, chemical For a copy of the Delaware 1998 Surface Water Quality spills and leaks, septic systems, and 305(b) report, contact: agricultural activities. Delaware’s rivers and streams Brad Smith generally meet standards for aquatic Delaware Department of Natural Programs to Restore life uses, but 98% of the assessed Resources and Environmental stream miles and 80% of the sur- Water Quality Control veyed lake acres do not meet bacte- Division of Water Resources The Department of Natural ria criteria for swimming. Bacteria Resources and Environmental Con- P.O. Box 1401 are the most widespread contami- Dover, DE 19903 trol (DNREC) adopted a watershed nant in Delaware’s surface waters, approach to determine the most (302) 739-4590 but nutrients and toxics pose the e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org effective and efficient methods for most serious threats to aquatic life protecting water quality or abating and human health. Excessive nutri- existing problems. Under the ents stimulate algal blooms and watershed approach, DNREC will growth of aquatic weeds. Toxics Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 289 evaluate all sources of pollution that may impact a waterway and target Individual Use Support in Delaware the most significant sources for Percent management. DNREC has targeted Good Good Fair Poor Not five basins for development of inte- a (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable Designated Use Supporting) Supporting) Supporting) grated pollution control strategies: Appoquinimink River, Christina Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 2,509)b River, Indian River Bay/Rehoboth Total Miles Bay/Little Assawomen Bay, Murder- Assessed 63 kill River, and Nanticoke River. 17 20 Delaware’s Wellhead Protection 2,510 - - Program establishes cooperative arrangements with local govern- ments to manage sources of ground - - - - - - water contamination. The state may assist local governments in enacting 75 zoning ordinances, site plan reviews, 22 operating standards, source prohibi- 2,005 2 - - tions, public education, and ground water monitoring. Lakes (Total Acres = 2,954) Total Acres Programs to Assess Assessed 70 Water Quality 2,954 - 16 14 - Delaware’s Ambient Surface Water Quality Program includes fixed-station monitoring and biolog- - - - - - - ical surveys employing rapid bio- assessment protocols. Monitoring within the Fixed Station Network is 40 40 20 conducted monthly to quarterly for 2,954 - - each basin in Delaware. Delaware is developing and testing new proto- Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 812)c cols for sampling biological data in Total Square 100 order to determine whether specific Miles Assessed biological criteria can be developed 29 0 - 0 - to determine support of designated uses. - - - - - - 98 – Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown. a 30 2 A subset of Delaware’s designated uses - 0 - appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 305(b) report for a full description of the state’s uses. 41 44 b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up 15 and do not flow all year. 30 - - c Does not include waters under jurisdiction of the Delaware River Basin Commission. Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. 290 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries habitat for aquatic life were at least District of Columbia partially supported. For example, the Anacostia River remains aestheti- cally and chemically polluted. How- ever, the pollution is at a level that supports fish and other wildlife. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is found in the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers, with the Potomac supporting a diverse groups of SAV species. The Potomac River contin- ues to benefit from improvements at the city’s wastewater treatment plant and combined sewer overflow system improvements. Major causes of impairment common to the District’s water- bodies are organic enrichment and pathogens. The sources of impair- ment with major impacts are combined sewer overflows, urban Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and runoff/storm sewers, and municipal Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses point sources. These sources are 80% - 100% Meeting All Uses 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses associated with the land uses 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses common in an urban area. 0% - 19% Meeting All Uses The District of Columbia did Insufficient Assessment Coverage Basin Boundaries not report on the condition of (USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit) wetlands. Ground Water Quality For a copy of the District of Surface Water Quality Columbia 1998 305(b) report, The drinking water source for contact: Water quality in the District of the District of Columbia is surface Columbia continues to be impaired. water. The intake is located in the James Collier Each of the waterbodies monitored Potomac River north of the city’s Environmental Health was impaired for one or more of its boundary. Consequently, ground Administration designated uses. The uses that relate water is not monitored on a regular, Water Quality Division directly to human use of the water- intensive basis. However, compli- Suite 200 bodies were generally not sup- ance monitoring data are scruti- 2100 Martin Luther King Jr. ported, while those uses that nized for ground water related Avenue, SE directly affected the quality of information whenever it is available. Washington, DC 20020 (202) 645-6601 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 291 Programs to Restore Individual Use Support in the District of Columbia Water Quality Percent The District’s water quality Good Good Fair Poor Not programs are involved in the a (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable Designated Use Supporting) Supporting) Supporting) process of identifying and evaluat- ing CSO control methods; the initia- Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 39)b tion of the TMDL process; the iden- Total Miles tification and support of projects Assessed 44 56 to control stormwater runoff; and 0 0 - 38.4 cleanups of trash and debris. Efforts 100 to restore the ground water quality include underground storage tanks, pesticide certification, and enforce- 24.3 0 0 - ment programs. 100 Programs to Assess 27.7 0 0 - Water Quality Lakes (Total Acres = 238) The District performs monthly physical and chemical sampling at Total Acres Assessed 57 56 fixed stations on the Potomac 43 and Anacostia rivers and their tribu- 238 0 0 0 taries. At each water chemistry 100 station, four samples a year are collected for heavy metals analysis. Biological monitoring is also imple- 238 0 0 0 0 mented in the District’s tributaries. 100 Twenty-seven sites are sampled at least once every 2 years for 238 0 0 0 0 biological, fish, morphological, and water quality parameters. Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 6) Total Square Miles Assessed 58 42 6 0 0 - 100 6 0 0 0 - – Not reported in a quantifiable format or - - - - - - unknown. a 100 A subset of District of Columbia’s desig- nated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the District’s 305(b) report for a full description of the District’s uses. 6 0 0 0 - b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year. Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. 292 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries The state recognizes the integrity Florida of the following ecosystems as special state concerns: Everglades system, Florida Bay, Florida Keys, and Apala- chicola River and Bay. Other issues of special concern are widespread mer- cury contamination in both marine and freshwater fish, protection of coastal areas and estuaries because of their ecological importance and signif- icant contribution to Florida’s econo- my, and integration of water quantity and quality decisions. Ground Water Quality Data from over 2,900 monitoring wells and 1,300 private water supply wells in Florida’s ambient monitoring network indicate generally good water quality, but local ground water conta- mination problems exist. Agricultural chemicals, including aldicarb, alachlor, Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and bromacil, simazine, and ethylene Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses dibromide (EDB) have caused local 80% - 100% Meeting All Uses and, in the case of EDB, regional 50% - 79% Meeting All Uses problems. Other threats include petro- 20% - 49% Meeting All Uses 0% - 19% Meeting All Uses leum products from leaking under- Insufficient Assessment Coverage ground storage tanks, nitrates from Basin Boundaries dairy and other livestock operations, (USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit) fertilizers and pesticides in stormwater runoff, toxic chemicals in leachate from hazardous waste sites, dry clean- For a copy of the Florida 1998 Surface Water Quality er operations, and landfills. The state 305(b) report, contact: requires periodic testing of all commu- The overall majority of Florida’s nity water systems for 118 toxic Joe Hand surface waters are of good quality, but organic chemicals. Florida Department of Environ- problems exist around densely popu- mental Protection lated urban areas, primarily in central Mail Station 3565 and southern Florida. In rivers, nutri- Programs to Restore 2600 Blair Stone Road ent enrichment, low dissolved oxy- Water Quality Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 gen/organic enrichment, siltation, and pathogens are the leading causes of Florida’s point source permitting (850) 921-9441 process was modified in 1995 with e-mail: email@example.com degraded water quality. In lakes, the leading problems result from nutrients the delegation of the National Pollut- and algae. In estuaries, nutrient ant Discharge Elimination System enrichment, metals, and algae (NPDES) program to Florida, but does degrade quality. Urban stormwater, not include stormwater permitting. agricultural runoff, industrial and The state wastewater program issues municipal point sources, and construc- permits for facilities that discharge to tion are the major sources of water either surface or ground water. The pollution in Florida. state permit for surface water dis- chargers now serves as the NPDES permit. Florida permits about 4,794 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 293 ground water and surface water dis- charge facilities. The state also encour- Individual Use Support in Florida ages reuse of treated wastewater Percent (primarily for irrigation) and the use Good Good Fair Poor Not of constructed and natural wetlands (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable for treatment of wastewater as alter- Designated Usea Supporting) Supporting) Supporting) natives to direct discharge. Florida has established several Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 51,858)b programs focused on the restoration Total Miles or preservation of state waters. The Assessed 53 37 1987 Surface Water Improvement and 4,947 4 7 - Management Act requires manage- ment and restoration plans for pre- 80 serving or restoring priority waterbod- ies and setting of Pollutant Load 20 Reduction Goals (PLRGs) for those 772 0 0 - waterbodies. The 1999 Florida Legis- lature enacted the Florida Watershed 53 37 Restoration Act to provide a process 4,947 4 7 - for restoring waters through the establishment and implementation of TMDLs for pollutants of impaired Lakes (Total Acres = 2,085,120) waters. The state has also purchased Total Acres environmentally sensitive lands for Assessed 46 35 protection since 1963. 642,432 7 12 - Programs to Assess 100 Water Quality 69,504 0 0 0 - Florida’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program was integrated with the Ground Water Ambient 46 36 Monitoring Program in 1996, while 642,504 7 12 - SWAMP’s biocriteria and bioassess- ment work was moved to a separate Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 4,298) section. Florida has adopted a tiered Integrated Water Resources Monitor- Total Square Miles Assessed ing Network, which includes sampling 45 45 of both surface and ground waters, to 601 10 0 - assess state waters. Tier 1 answers 100 questions on a statewide or regional scale. Tier II addresses basin-specific or waterbody-specific questions. Tier III 319 0 0 0 - includes monitoring associated with regulatory permits and evaluations of 74 TMDLs and BMPs. 26 Florida is developing assessment 818 0 0 - methods and criteria for wetlands. a A subset of Florida’s designated uses 45 45 appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 601 0 10 305(b) report for a full description of the - state’s uses. b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. and do not flow all year. 294 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries and storm sewers, industrial non- Georgia point sources, and other nonpoint sources. Of Georgia’s estuarine waters, 88% of the assessed square miles fully support aquatic life use, 12% partially support the use, and less than 1% do not support aquatic life use. Fifty-four percent of the assessed shellfishing area fully sup- ports shellfishing use while 46% does not support this use. Patho- gens and low dissolved oxygen levels were the major causes of impairment. Urban runoff and storm sewers, along with other non- point sources, are the major sources of impairment to Georgia’s estuarine waters. Georgia did not report on the condition of wetlands. Ground Water Quality Georgia’s ambient Ground Water Monitoring Network consists of approximately 185 wells sampled Basin Boundaries periodically. To date, increasing (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit) nitrate concentrations in the Coastal Plain are the only adverse trend detected by the monitoring net- For a copy of the Georgia 1998 Surface Water Quality work, but nitrate concentrations are 305(b) report, contact: still well below harmful levels in The Georgia Environmental W.M. Winn, III most wells. Additional nitrate sam- Protection Division (GAEPD) Georgia Environmental Protection pling in over 5,000 wells since 1991 reported that, of the river miles Division revealed that nitrate concentrations assessed, 55% fully support aquatic Watershed Planning and Monitoring exceeded EPA’s maximum contami- life use, 30% partially support this Program nant level in less than 1% of the use, and 16% do not support 4220 International Parkway – tested wells. Pesticide monitoring aquatic life use. Major causes of indicates that pesticides do not Suite 101 impairment for rivers include metals, threaten Georgia’s drinking water Atlanta, GA 30354 pathogens, and low dissolved oxy- aquifers at this time. (404) 675-6236 gen levels. For lakes, 73% of the assessed acres fully support aquatic life use, 25% partially support Programs to Restore the use, and 2% do not support Water Quality aquatic life use. The major causes of impairment for lakes are metals, During the 1996-1997 report- acidity, and pathogens. For both ing cycle, river basin management rivers and lakes, the major sources planning was a priority for the of impairment include urban runoff GAEPD. The state completed work Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 295 on the final draft basin plans for the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers in Individual Use Support in Georgia 1997, and the plans were adopted Percent in 1998. GAEPD is also working Good Good Fair Poor Not with EPA on a Savannah River a (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable Designated Use Watershed Project and with the Supporting) Supporting) Supporting) Florida Department of Environmen- Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 70,150)b tal Protection and the Suwannee Total Miles River Water Management District in Assessed 55 Florida to implement basin planning 30 16 for the Suwannee River basin. 6,186 - - In addition to basin planning, the state also placed emphasis dur- ing 1996-1997 on NPDES permit- ting and enforcement, nonpoint - - - - - - source pollution abatement, moni- toring and assessment, Chattahoo- 63 chee River modeling, fish consump- 18 19 5,351 - - tion guidance, stormwater permit- ting, treatment plant funding, and public participation projects. Lakes (Total Acres = 425,382) Total Acres Programs to Assess Assessed 73 25 Water Quality 399,300 - 2 - The GAEPD conducts long-term 74 ambient trend monitoring through 10 15 a fixed station network, toxicity 361,416 - - studies, intensive surveys, fish tissue 95 monitoring, lake water quality stud- ies, facility compliance sampling, aquatic toxicity testing at NPDES 399,295 - 5 0 - discharges. In the assessment process, GAEPD also draws upon Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 854) biotic data from the state’s Depart- Total Square ment of Natural Resources (DNR). Miles Assessed 88 The DNR uses the Index of Biotic 12 Integrity (IBI) to identify impacted 854 - <1 - fish populations. 98 854 - 0 2 - – Not reported in a quantifiable format or 54 46 unknown. a 850 - 0 - A subset of Georgia’s designated uses appear in this figure. Refer to the state’s 100 305(b) report for a full description of the state’s uses. b Includes nonperennial streams that dry up 854 - <1 0 - and do not flow all year. Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. 296 Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries samples in 187 out of 1,647 sam- Guam ples. Since 1991, only one Guam beach has been closed to the public because of toxicity of algae con- sumed from that site. Main sources of pollution problems are siltation, sedimentation, and turbidity due to stormwater-caused erosion and treated sewage discharges, all of which impact valuable coral reefs. Guam did not report on the condition of wetlands. Ground Water Quality The Northern Guam Lens is an aquifer under the northern half of the island fed by rainwater that has percolated through porous lime- stone and floats on top of denser seawater. It was designated a princi- pal source aquifer by EPA in 1978 and is the major source of water for the over 150,000 inhabitants and over 1 million annual visitors to Guam. Guam Waterworks Authority Basin Boundaries pumps approximately 27 million (USGS 6-Digit Hydrologic Unit) gallons per day of this high-quality ground water for public supply in addition to smaller levels produced privately and by the U.S. Navy and For a copy of the Guam 1998 Surface Water Quality Air Force. From 1995 to 1997, 5 of 305(b) report, contact: Guam is free from pollution the over 125 production wells were Mike Gawel of neighboring land masses due to closed because of contamination by Guam Environmental Protection its remote location adjacent to the TCE, PCE, and EDB. A few wells Agency deepest ocean depths. Its shores are have shown chloride increases in Planning and Environmental Review washed by tropical ocean currents, recent years. Division and air is freshened by unpolluted P.O. Box 22439 GMF trade winds. Therefore, water pollu- Programs to Restore Barrigada, GU 96921 tion on Guam is locally generated (671) 475-1662 Water Quality and quickly dissipated into the vast Western Pacific Ocean. Guam’s The Guam Environmental single lake has been a continuous Protection Agency (GEPS) regularly safe source of drinking water to the revises the Guam Water Quality U.S. Navy and some of the public. Standards. It administers permits for Coastal recreation waters tested sewer connections, individual waste weekly at 35 beach sites in 1997 water systems, clearing and grading showed violation of bacterial Chapter Twelve State and Territory Summaries 297 (for erosion control), well drilling, wetland use, 401 Water Quality Individual Use Support in Guam Certification, and feedlot waste Percent Good Good Fair Poor Not management, while supporting (Fully (Threatened) (Partially (Not Attainable Designated Usea Supporting) Supporting) Supporting) NPDES permit administration and Rivers and Streams (Total Miles = 228)a coordinating with others in applying Total Miles the Federal Consistency, land use, Assessed and seashore use permits. GEPA - - - - - - policies require each development to contain 20-year stormwaters within its lot, for nonpoint control - - - - - - and recharge of ground waters, and to limit density of unsewered - - - - - - dwellings. Guam’s new Land Use Plan applies performance standards Lakes (Total Acres = 27) to protect water quality. Filtration Total Acres Assessed systems have been installed for - - - - - - removal of the contaminants found at four production wells, while investigations continue on the - - - - - - sources of contamination. - - - - - - Programs to Assess Estuaries (Total Square Miles = 1,530) Water Quality Total Square Miles Assessed GEPA’s Surface Water Monitor- - - - - - - ing System, in place over 20 years, was redesigned with emphasis on watershed management in 1997. - - - - - - It assesses quality of high public use waters including 52% of all rivers - - - - - - and representative reef, estuary, and marine waters as well as all major public beach areas. Updated micro- - - - - - - biological methods were established Ocean Shoreline (Total Shore Miles = 117) 1,530 0 <1 - in 1996 and a marine biological Total Miles monitoring program is being pur- Assessed sued to correlate with physical and - chemical monitoring. The GEPA laboratory increased capabilities to test water in 1997 and will institute - electronic reporting for the 305(b) Program in 1999. The Guam Hydro- - logic Survey, which produces and 77 manages water data, was estab- 20 lished by law in 1998. 13.6 0 3 0 – Not reported in a quantifiable format or unknown. a Includes nonperennial streams that dry up and do not flow all year. Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.