The Water Encyclopedia: Hydrologic Data and Internet Resources - Chapter 10 ppsx

From United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, National Water QualityInventory 2000 Report, EPA-841-R-02-001,www.epa.gov... FromUnited States Environmental Protection Agency,

10 Environmental Problems Katherine L Thalman

CONTENTS

Section 10A Pollution Sources and Pathways 10-2 Section 10B Surface Water Pollution 10-7 Section 10C Groundwater Contamination 10-121 Section 10D Solid Waste 10-160 Section 10E Agricultural Activities 10-179 Section 10F Urban Runoff/Deicing Materials 10-277 Section 10G Air Emissions/Acid Rain/Sea Level Rise 10-280 Section 10H Offshore Waste Disposal 10-309 Section 10I Energy Development 10-312 Section 10J Waterborne Diseases/Health Hazards 10-316

10-1

SECTION 10A POLLUTION SOURCES AND PATHWAYS

Hydro soil

Figure 10A.1 Pollutant pathways from soil to man (From Dacre, I.C., Rosenblatt, D.H., and Cogley, D.R., 1980, Preliminary Pollutant

Limit Values for Human Health Effects, Environmental Technology 14: 778–783, Copyright American Chemical Society,Washington, DC.)

Climate change Pathogens Pesticides

Algal toxins

Acidification

Global trends

Genetically modified organisms

Nutrients

Municipal wastewater

Industrial discharges

Persisent organic pollutants

Endocrine disrupting substances Landfills and

Waste Disposal

Natural sources

Urban runoff

Agricultural/Forestry land use

SOURCES

CONTAMINANTS

WATER QUANTITY IMPACTS

Figure 10A.2 Threats to water sources (From Threats to Sources of Drinking Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Health in Canada, page x,

Environment Canada, 2001 Reproduced with permission from the National Water Research Institute, EnvironmentCanada, 2006.)

Types of Waste Wastewater Sources Water-Quality Measures Effects on Water Quality Effects on Aquatic Life Effects on RecreationDisease-carrying agents

— human feces,

warm-blooded animal feces

Municipal discharges, watercraftdischarges, urban runoff, agriculturalrunoff, feedlot wastes, combined seweroverflows, industrial discharges

Fecal coliform, fecalstreptococcus, othermicrobes

Health hazard for humanconsumption and contact

Inedibility of shellfish forhumans

Reduced contactrecreation

Biochemical oxygendemand, dissolvedoxygen, volatile solidssulfides

Deoxygenation, potentialfor septic conditions

Suspended solids,turbidity, biochemicaloxygen demand, sulfides

Reduced light penetration,deposition on bottom,benthic deoxygenation

Reduced photosynthesis,changed bottom organismpopulation, reduced fishproduction, reduced sportfish population, increasednonsport fish population

Reduced game fishing,aesthetic appreciation

Inorganic materials,

mineral substances —

metal, salts, acids, solid

matter, other chemicals,

oil

Mining discharges, acid mine drainage,industrial discharges, municipaldischarges, combined sewer overflows,urban runoff, oil fields, agriculturalrunoff, irrigation return flow, naturalsources, cooling tower blowdown,transportation spills, coal gasification

pH, acidity, alkalinity,dissolved solids, chlorides,sulfates, sodium, specificmetals, toxicity bioassay,visual (oil spills)

Acidity, salination, toxicity

of heavy metals, floatingoils

Reduced biologicalproductivity, reduced flow,fish kills, reducedproduction, tainted fish

Reduced recreational use,fishing, aestheticappreciation

Cyanides, phenols, toxicitybioassay

Toxicity of naturalorganics, biodegradable orpersistent syntheticorganics

Fish kills, tainted fish,reduced reproduction,skeletal development

Reduced fishing, inediblefish for humans

Nutrients — nitrogen,

phosphorus

Municipal discharges, agriculturalrunoff, combined sewer overflows,industrial discharges, urban runoff,natural sources

Nitrogen, phosphorus Increased algal growth,

dissolved oxygenreduction

Increased production,reduced sport fishpopulation, increasednonsport fish population

Tainted drinking water,reduced fishing andaesthetic appreciation

Radioactive materials Industrial discharges, mining Radioactivity Increased radioactivity Altered natural rate of

genetic mutation

Reduced opportunities

discharges, municipal discharges,cooling tower blowdown

reduced capacity toabsorb oxygen

Fish kills, altered speciescomposition

Possible increased sportfishing by extendedseason for fish, whichmight otherwise migrateSource: From Council of Environmental Quality, 1981, Environmental Trends

Table 10A.2 Point- and Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution

POINT SOURCESMunicipal sewage treatment plants BOD; bacteria; nutrients;

ammonia; toxics

Combined sewer overflows BOD; bacteria; nutrients;

turbidity; total dissolved solids;

ammonia; toxics; bacteriaNONPOINT SOURCES

dissolved solids; toxics; bacteria

dissolved solids; toxics

dissolved solids

substances

Source: From U.S Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Quality Inventory,

1986 Report to Congress

a BOD, Biological Oxygen Demand.

b

PAH, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

c PCB, Polycyclic Chlorinated Bi-Phenyls

d

COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand

Source: From Ongley, E.D., 1996, Control of water pollution from agriculture-FAO irrigation and drainage paper 55, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

Reprinted with permission

Table 10A.4 Contamination Sources Reported by Public Water-Supply Systems in the United States

Agricultural runoff (pesticides,

fertilizers, etc.)

Natural contamination (radionuclides,

salinity, etc.)

Note: Number of utilities reporting in each category

Source: From American Water Works Association, 1984 Water Utility Operating Data; Copyright AWWA

Table 10A.5 Anthropogenic Sources of Pollutants in the Aquatic Environment

TraceElements

Pesticides/

Herbicides

IndustrialOrganic MicroPollutants

Oils andGreases

SECTION 10B SURFACE WATER POLLUTION

Percent of impairedwaters by 8-digithydrologic unit code

Figure 10B.3 Percentage of impaired waters in the United States by 8-digit hydrologic unit code (From United States Environmental

Protection Agency, 2000, Atlas of America’s Polluted Waters, EPA-840-B-00-002, May 2000,www.epa.gov.)

MilesLeading pollutants/stressors

Pathogens (bacteria)Siltation

Habitat alterations

NutrientsThermal modificationsMetals

Flow alterationsOxygen-Depleting substances

Percent of IMPAIRED river miles

Percent of ASSESSED river miles

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

93,43184,50358,80755,39852,87044,96241,40025,355

AgricultureHydrologic modificationHabitat modificationUrban runoff/Storm sewersForestry

Municipal point sourcesResource extraction

Percent of IMPAIRED river miles

Percent of ASSESSED river miles

0

10 20 30 40 50

128,85953,85037,65434,87128,15627,98827,695

Total rivers and streams3,692,830 miles

81%

NotAssessed

269,258miles

39%

IMPAIRED

Figure 10B.4 Leading pollutants and sources of river and stream impairment in the United States.aExcluding unknown and natural

sources.bIncludes miles assessed as not attainable Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant

or source may impair a river segment (From United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, National Water QualityInventory 2000 Report, EPA-841-R-02-001,www.epa.gov.)

Fragrances: 4.3

Fragrances Solvant

Other prescr

iption drugs

Antio

xidantsHor

mones

PAHs

Detergent metabolies: 55.6Non prescription drugs: 17.4

Nonprescription dr

ugsSteroids

Insects repellentDetergent metabolites

Plasticiz

ersDisinfects

Fire retardants

Figure 10B.5 Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in United States streams (From Buxton, H.T and

Kolpin, D.W., 2002, Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S Streams, USGSFact Sheet FS-027-02, June 2002,www.usgs.gov.)

Alaska Hawaii Puerto Rice Total Number of Stations: 8,348

Figure 10B.6 Sampling stations classified as tier 1 (associated adverse effects are probable) (From USEPA, 2004, The incidence and

severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey: SecondEdition, EPA 823-R-04-007,www.epa.gov.)

WHIT

RIOG

TRINREDN WMIC

0

Figure 10B.7 Geographic distribution of total polychlorinated biphenyls in sediment samples in the United States (From Wong, C.S.,

Capel, P.D., and Nowell, L.H., 2000, Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs in Stream Sediment and Aquatic Biota—InitialResults from the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, 1992–1995, Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-

Figure 10B.8 PAH trends throughout the United States using sediment core data from 1970 to top of core (From USEPA, 2004, The

incidence and severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey:Second Edition, EPA 823-R-04-007,www.epa.gov.)

Decreasing trend

No trend

Figure 10B.9 Lead trends throughout the United States using sediment core data from 1975 to top of core (From USEPA, 2004, The

incidence and severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey:Second Edition, EPA 823-R-04-007,www.epa.gov.)

21.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20A/FMine

AgUrbBkg

HgTot sediment/100MeHg sedimentMeHg water × 10

Hg fishHgTot water/10

Ag = Agriculture A/F = Mixed agriculture and forestBkg = BackgroundUrb = Urban

Figure 10B.10 Geometric mean of mercury and methylmercury in fish (mg/g wet), water (mg/L), and sediment (hg/g dry) for land use

categories: mixed agriculture and forest, mine, agriculture, urban or industrial activity, and background (Number ofobservationZ13, 42, 23, 15, and 34 for A/F, Mine, Ag, Bkg and Urb, respectively Excludes South Florida Basin.) (FromBrumbaugh, W.G et al., 2001, A national pilot study mercury contamination of aquatic ecosystems along multiplegradients: Bioaccumulation in Fish, USGS, Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2001-0009,www.usgs.gov.)

Leading pollutants/stressors

MetalsPesticidesOxygen-depleting substancesPathogens (bacteria)Priority toxic organic chemicalsPCBs

Total dissolved solids

Percent of IMPAIRED estuarine square miles

Percent of ASSESSED estuarine square miles

0 10

0 5 10 15 20 25

20 30 40 50

8,0775,9855,3244,7643,6522,6222,494

Square miles

Municipal point sourcesUrban runoff/storm sewersIndustrial dischargesAtmospheric depositionAgriculture

Hydrologic modificationsResource extraction

Percent of IMPAIRED estuarine square miles

Percent of ASSESSED estuarine square miles

Figure 10B.11 Leading pollutants and sources of estuary impairment in the United States.aExcludes unknown, natural, and “other

sources.” Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or source may impair an estuary (FromUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, National Water Quality Inventory 2000 Report, EPA-841-R-02-

001,www.epa.gov.)

Leading sourcesb Miles

Present of IMPAIRED shoreline miles

Present of ASSESSED shoreline miles

Urban runoff/stormsewers

Nonpoint sourcesLand disposalSeptic tanksMunicipal point sourcesIndustrial dischargesConstruction

241142123103897629

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Leading pollutants/stressors Miles

Present of IMPAIRED shoreline miles

Present of ASSESSED shoreline miles

0Pathogens (bacteria)Oxygen-depletingsubstancesTurbiditySuspended solidsOil and greaseMetalsNutrients

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

3841025350484643

Good

94%

NotAssessed

6%

ASSESSED

Figure 10B.12 Leading pollutants and sources of ocean shoreline water impairment in the United States.aIncludes miles assessed as not

attainable.bExcludes natural sources Percentages do not add up to 100% because more than one pollutant or sourcemay impair a segment of ocean shoreline (From United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, National WaterQuality Inventory 2000 Report, EPA-841-R-02-001,www.epa.gov.)

Nonpoint sources (general)Municipal dischargesMarinas

Industrial dischargesCombined sewer overflows

Square miles impacted

1004927108

Figure 10B.13 Sources associated with shellfish harvesting restrictions (From United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2002,

National Water Quality Inventory 2000 Report, EPA-841-R-02-001,www.epa.gov.)

OverallWest

OverallGreat Lakes

OverallGulf

OverallSoutheast

OverallNortheast

OverallWest

OverallGreat Lakes

OverallGulf

OverallSoutheast

OverallNortheast

Overall National

Coastal Condition

Surveys completed, but no indicator data available until the next report

OverallPuerto Rico

*

*

Ecological Health

Water Quality Index

Sediment Quality Index

Benthic Index

Coastal Habitat Index

Fish Tissue Index

*Surveys completed, but no indicator data available until the next report

OverallPuerto Rico

Figure 10B.14 Overall United States national coastal condition (From United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, National

Coastal Condition Report II, EPA-620/R-03/002, December 2004,www.epa.gov.)

The area and duration of hypoxia are tracked in the Gulf of Mexico and Long Island Sound as indicators of the natural variability in those bodies to determine whether actions to control nutrients are having the desired effect and how local species are affected.

water-The largest of oxygen-depleted coastal waters in the U.S is in the northern Gulf of Mexico on the Louisiana/Texas continental shelf Hypoxic waters are most prevalent from late spring through late summer and are more widespread and persistent in some years that in others, depending

on river flow, winds, and other environmental variables Hypoxia occurs mostly in the lower water column, but can encompass as much as the lower half to two-thirds of the entire column

The midsummer bottom area extent of hypoxic water in the Gulf of Mexico increased from 3,500 mi2 (9,000 km2) in 1985

to 8,500 mi2 (22,000 km2) in July 2002 (Exhibit 2-3) The primary cause of the hypoxic conditions is probably the

eutrophication of those waters from nutrient enrichment delivered to the Gulf by the Mississippi River and its drainage basin.13,14

The maximum area of hypoxia in Long

Island Sound averaged 201 mi2

(521 km 2) from 1987 through

2001 The largest area was 395 mi2

(1,023 km 2) in 1994, and the smallest

was 30 mi2 (78 km 2) in 1997

(Exhibit 2-4) The duration

of hypoxia averaged 56 days

during the same period, with a low of

34 days in 1996 and a high of 82 days

in 1989 Hypoxia is typically more

severe in the western portions of the

sound, where the nitrogen load is

higher and mixing of fresh and salt

water is more restricted.15

Exhibit 2-3: Area extent of midsummer hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, 1985−2002

19850

Annual Midsummer cruises have been conducted systematically over the past 15 years (with the exception of 1989) Hypoxia in bottom waters covered an

average of 8,000 − 9,000 km 2 in 1985 − 92 but increased to 16,000 − 20,000 km 2 in 1993 − 99.

450400350300250200150100500

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

0102030

405060708090

Note: Hypoxia in Long Island Sound is defined as less than 3.0 parts per million (ppm).

Area of hypoxia Duration of hypoxia

Figure 10B.15 Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and Long Island Sound (From United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2003,

EPA’s Draft Report on the Environment, 2003, EPA 600-R-03-050,www.epa.gov.)

SouthernCaliforniaGulf ofMexicoSouthFlorida

Southeast

Atlantic

Mid-U.S

Percent area

80Metals

8246

40

7528

29

939953

5911

34

776346

7545

40

Pesticides PCBs

100 120

Figure 10B.16 Regional sediment enrichment (1990–1997) in United States coastal waters due to human sources (From United States

Enviornmental Protection Agency, 2003, EPA’s Draft Report on the Environment, 2003, EPA 600-R-03-050,

www.epa.gov.) Original Source: USEPA, National Coastal Condition Report, September 2001

Coverage: United States east coast (excluding waters north of Cape Cod) and Gulf of Mexico

Contaminant Concentrations with Adverse Effects on Organisms

89% < ERL76% < ERL

70% < ERL

29%

betweenERL and ERM

23%

betweenERL and ERM

1% > ERM1% > ERM

1% > ERM

10%

between ERLand ERM

Below Levels Associated with Adverse Affects Effects Possible but Unlikely Effects Likely

Figure 10B.17 Distribution of sediment contaminant concentrations in sampled estuarine sites, 1990–1997 ERL, NOAA Effects Range

Low; ERM, NOAA Effects Range median (From United States Enviornmental Protection Agency, 2003, EPA’s DraftReport on the Environment, 2003, EPA 600-R-03-050, www.epa.gov.) Original Source: USEPA, National CoastalCondition Report, September 2001

1.41.21.00.8

0.40.6

0.20.0

HMWPAHButyltin

Figure 10B.18 Trends in contaminant concentrations measured in NOAA’s mussel water project since 1986 (From United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, National Coastal Condition Report II, EPA-620/R-03/002, December 2004,

www.epa.gov.)

Leading pollutants/stressors

NutrientsMetalsSiltationTotal dissolved solidsOxygen-depleting substancesExcess algal growthPesticides

Percent of IMPAIRED lake acres

Percent of ASSESSED lake acres0

Acres

AgricultureHydrologic modificationsUrban runoff/storm sewersNonpoint sourcesAtmospheric depositionMunicipal point sourcesLand disposal

Percent of IMPAIRED lake acres

Percent of ASSESSED lake acres

0 10 20 30 40 50

3,158,3931,413,6241,369,3271,045,036983,936943,715856,586

Total lakes40.6 million acres

45%

IMPAIRED7.7 million acres

9.4 millionacres

57%

NotAssessed

Eleven states did not include the effects of statewide fish consumption advisories when reporting the pollutants and sources responsible for impairment Therefore, certain pollutants and sources, such as metals and atmospheric deposition, may be under represented.

*

Excluding unknown, natural, and "other" sources.

Includes acres assessed as not attainable.

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

Figure 10B.19 Leading pollutants and sources in impaired lakes in the United States (From United States Environmental Protection

Agency, 2002, National Water Quality Inventory 2000 Report, EPA-841-R-02-001,www.epa.gov.)

Leading sources Miles

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

5191527571626161

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Percent of IMPAIRED Great Lakes shoreline miles

Percent of ASSESSED Great Lakes shoreline miles

Contaminated sediments Urban runoff/storm sewers Agriculture

Atmospheric deposition Habitat modification Land disposal Septic tanks

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

Priority toxic organic chemicals

Percent of IMPAIRED Great Lakes shoreline miles

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

14 1649710910298735343

Percent of ASSESSED Great Lakes shoreline miles

Nutrients Pathogens (bacteria) Sedimentation/siltation Oxygen-depleting substances Taste and odor

ASSESSED Great Lakes shoreline

5,066 mi

Figure 10B.20 Leading pollutants and sources in impaired Great Lakes shoreline waters in the United States (From United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, National Water Quality Inventory 2000 Report, EPA-841-R-02-001,

www.epa.gov.)

Proposed TP Guideline(Phosphorus Management Strategies Tast Force, 1980)

30 25 20 15

10 5 0

30 25 20 15

10 5 0

71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

30 25 20 15

0

30 25 20 15

10 5 0

30 25 20 15

10 5 0

30 25 20 15

10 5 0

71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97

OntarioHuron

ErieFigure 10B.21 Total phosphorous trends in the Great Lakes from 1971 to 1997 (spring, open lake surface) (From International Joint

Commission, 2004, 12th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, September 2004,www.ijc.org.)

Figure 10B.22 Comparison of Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes atmospheric depositional fluxes (From United States Environmental

Protection Agency, 1997, Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters Second Report to Congress, EPA-453/R-97-011,

www.epa.gov.) Original Source: Baker et al., 1996 (Chesapeake Bay) and Eisenreich and Strachen 1992 (Great Lakes)

2000 1000 500

Vapor Phase Total PCBs (pg/m 3 )

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0 42 84 126 168 210

Sediment Total PCBs (ng/g)

AIR

WATER

SEDIMENT

Water Column Diss TotalPCBs (ng/L) 0.637

Figure 10B.23 Concentrations of total PCBs in the atmosphere, tributaries, water column and sediments of Lake Michigan (From

McCarty, H.B et al., United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, Results of the Lake Michigan Mass BalanceStudy: Polychlorinated Biphenyls and trans-Nonachlor Data Report, EPA 905 R-01-011, April 2004,www.epa.gov.)

Atmospheric deposition of (PCBs) and DDT

in the great lakes, 1992−1998

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)trends in great lakes fish tissue,* 1972−2000

Total Atmospheric Inputs (Wet + Dry + Gaseous Absorption)

correlation.

Lake Michigan polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) sources, 1970 and 1995values in kilograms per year

1995Atmosphere Sediment

Figure 10B.24 Bioaccumulation of PCBs and DDT in the Great Lakes (From United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2003,

EPA’s Draft Report on the Environment, 2003, EPA 600-R-03-050,www.epa.gov.)

Figure 10B.25 Loading estimates of benzo(a)pyrene to the Great Lakes (kg/yr) (From United States Environmental Protection Agency,

2000, Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters Third Report to Congress, EPA-453/R-00-005,www.epa.gov.)

100010010

0.10.010.0010.0001

Figure 10B.26 Mercury concentrations in various components of the Lake Michigan ecosystem (From McCarty, H.B., Brent, R.N.,

Schofield, J., and Rossmann, R., 2004, Results of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study: Mercury Data Report, EPA

905 R-01-012,www.epa.gov.)

Mackinaw City

Charlevoix

Lake Michigan Mass BalanceProject 1994−1996 SurficialSediment (0−1 cm) MercuryConcentrations (ng/g)

Saugatuck

South HavenBenton Harbor

Michigan CityGary

ChicagoWaukeganRacineMilwaukee

SheboyganManitowocGreen BayMenominee

EscanabaScale

N

0 km 50 km 100 km 150 km

Door Peninsula

20 20

20

20

20

60 60 60

100 100

100

140 140

140 140

Figure 10B.27 Mercury concentrations (mg/kg) in Lake Michigan surficial sediments (1994–1996) (From McCarty, H.B et al., 2004,

Results of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study: Mercury Data Report, EPA 905 R-01-012,www.epa.gov.)

Figure 10B.28 Trends in the number of fish consumption advisories issued for various pollutants (From United States Environmental

Protection Agency, 2001, Fact Sheet Update: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories, EPA-823-F-01-010, April

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 10B.29 Trends in percentage of river miles and lake acres under fish consumption advisory, 1993–2001 (From United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, EPA’s Draft Report on the Environment, 2003, EPA 600-R-03-050,

www.epa.gov.)

Number of stations

Note: Data were taken over the period 1990 to 2002

These Water Quality Index (WQI) results are preliminary and should not be regarded as a benchmark or startingpoint for future trends Rather, this pilot study provides a first approximation for a national picture of ambient freshwater quality in Canada Improvements in consistency of application and representation will be sought in the nearfuture

The WQI values have been calculated by each province and territory (except Quebec) using the methodologydeveloped and endorsed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) in September 2001.According to the CCME user’s manual,1the specific variables, objectives and time periods used in the index arenot specified by the methodology and, because of differences in local conditions, monitoring programs and waterquality issues, they vary from one jurisdiction to another In this regard, it is expected that the variables andobjectives chosen to calculate the index provide relevant information about a particular site

In Quebec, water quality was evaluated using an index other than the CCME WQI: L’indice de la qualite´bacte´riologique et physico-chimique The results between the two indexes have a reasonable degree ofcomparability The premise is that the evaluation of water quality in one jurisdiction by water quality expertsfamiliar with the local conditions should be comparable with a similar evaluation by experts in another jurisdiction,even though the index tools may have some variation

The national portrayal of the WQI results includes information from all provinces and territories except Nunavutand the Yukon, for which suitable data were unavailable at this time The water bodies included in the WQIcalculations do not provide uniform coverage across Canada, but rather tend to be concentrated in the morepopulated areas of the country where the potential threats to water quality are generally greatest The coverageand the density of sites are also higher in some provinces than in others

1 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2001, Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection

of Aquatic Life; CCME Water Quality Index 1.0, User’s Manual

Figure 10B.30 Canadian freshwater quality indicator by quality class Data were taken over the period 1990–2002 (From Produced by

Environment Canada based on the Index values or water quality data supplied by the provinces and territories under theauspices of the Water Quality Task Group of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Environment Canada,National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 2003, Environment and Sustainable Development Indicatorsfor Canada, Ottawa.)

Latvia (2000)Slovak Rep (2000)UK—Northern Ireland (2000)

Germany (2000)Ireland (1997)UK—England and Wales (2000)

Czech Rep (1996)Poland (2000)Sweden (2000)France (1999)Slovak Rep (2000)UK—Northern Ireland (2000)

Albania (2001)UK—England and Wales (2000)

Latvia (2000)Poland (2000)Finland (1997)Bosnia and Herzegovina (2000)

Romania (2000)UK—Scotland (2000)

%

BiologicalPhysicochemicalCombined

Figure 10B.32 Percentage of European rivers classified as less than good, by country (From Trent, Z, European Environment Agency,

Indicator Fact Sheet, National River Classification System (WEC04e), Version 13.10.03, eeaeuropa.eu Reprinted withpermission q EEA.)

*Provincewide advisories in effect in 1997 for Nova Scotia(all rivers and lakes) and New Brunswick (all lakes)

222

0

01*

Figure 10B.31 Total number of fish advisories in effect in Canada (From United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, Fact

Sheet Update: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories, EPA-823-F-01-010, April 2001,www.epa.gov.)

UK—Northern Ireland

AlbaniaIrelandBosnia and Herzegovina

LatviaCzech Rep

UK—ScotlandCzech Rep

SloveniaLuxembourgPolandFranceLatviaUK—England and Wales

PolandCzech Rep

UK—England and Wales

RomaniaAustriaGermanyUK—Northern Ireland

Spain

% change per year of reporting period

BiologicalPhyscio-chemicalCombined

Figure 10B.33 Rate of change in rivers classified as less than good and good as a percentage of the total river classified (From European

Environment Agency, 2003, Europe’s Water: An Indicator-Based Assessment Summary, EEA, Copenhagen,

www.eea.europa.eu Reprinted with permission q EEA.)

0Very good Good Fairly good

199019952000

5101520

Figure 10B.34 Biological quality of United Kingdom rivers, 1990–2000 (From United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization, 2003, Water for People Water for Life, The United Nations World Water Development, United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and Berghahn Books,www.unesco.org Reprinted withpermission.) Original Source: Adapted from Environmental Agency, UK, 2002

0.050.1

0.15

CadmiumMercury

0.20.25

Figure 10B.35 Trends in concentrations of cadmium and mercury at river stations included in the European Union exchange of

information decision The EU environmental quality standards for cadmium and mercury in inland waters are 5mg/L and1mg/L as annual averages, respectively In less polluted areas in e.g Nordic countries concentrations of cadmium andmercury are only 10% and 1% of these values Average of country annual average concentrations Cadmium data fromBelgium, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, UK Mercury data from Belgium, France Germany,Ireland, Netherlands, UK (From EEA, Indicator fact sheet, Hazardous Substances in River Water (WHS02),

www.eea.europa.eu Reprinted with permission q EEA.)

The Netherlands

GermanyUnited Kingdom

ItalySpain

GreeceFranceBelgium

Cadmium

0,00,30,60,91,2

1980s1991–96µg/L

The Netherlands

GermanyUnited Kingdom

ItalySpainGreeceFrance

Belgium

Mercury

Figure 10B.36 Annual average concentrations of cadmium and mercury in European Union rivers between late 1970s and 1996 (From

EEA, 2003, Europe’s Environment, The Third Assessment, Environmental Assessment Report No 10, EE1,Copenhagen, eea.Reprinted with permission q EEA.)

0.05290.0117

0.03550.03350.03490.01990.020.003

0.01750.00880.01710.0080.01230.0070.00990.0050.00910.0044

Figure 10B.37 Median and mean concentrations of the 10 most highly ranked substances in the water framework directive priority list

in European rivers (From EEA, Indicator fact sheet, Hazardous Substances in River Water (WHS02),

www.eea.europa.eu Reprinted with permission q EEA.)

μg P/L450400350300250200150100500

y (73)Denmar

Note: Average of annual median concentrations Number of stations in brackets:

*UK figures for orthophosphate-p

Figure 10B.38 Total phosphorus concentrations in rivers, selected European Union and accession countries (From European

Environmental Agency (EEA), 2002, Environmental Signals 2002—Benchmarking the Millennium, EnvironmentalAssessment Report No 9,www.eea.europa.eu Reprinted with permission q EEA.)

μg N/L76543210

United

k (32)German

y (104)Hungar

Note: Average of annual median concentrations Number of stations in brackets

early 1990smid 1990slate 1990s

Figure 10B.39 Nitrate concentrations in rivers, selected European Union and accession countries (From European Environmental

Agency (EEA), 2002, Environmental Signals 2002—Benchmarking the Millennium, Environmental Assessment Report

No 9,www.eea.europa.eu Reprinted with permission q EEA.)

Phosphate mg P/L160

140120100806040200(a)

(b)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

mg NO3/L14

12

10

8

64

2

0

AC (387)Western (319)Northern (127)

AC (446)Western (337)

Northern (138) Note: Data collected by

Note: Data collected byEurowaternet: Western:

Denmark, Germany, Franceand the UK, Northern:

Finland and Sweden andAC: Slovenia, Poland, Latvia,Lithuania, Hungary, Estoniaand Bulgaria Number ofstations in brackets

Figure 10B.40 Phosphate and nitrate in European rivers (From European Environment Agency, 2003, Europe’s Water: An

Indicator-Based Assessment Summary, EEA Copenhagen q EEA,www.eea.europa.eu.)

Major Issue—Greater than 33%

of the draniage basin has notmet phosphorus guidelines for

"good" surface water qualitySignificant Issue—5% to 33% ofthe drainage basin has not metphosphorus guidelines for

"good" surface water qualityNot a Significant Issue—Greaterthan 50% of the drainage basinhas monitoring coverage andless than 5% of the drainagebasin exceeds phosphorusguidelines for "good" surfacewater quality

Undetermined Issue—Lessthan 50% of the drainage basin hasmonitoring coverage

phosphorus guidelines for

"good" surface water qualityexceeded in less than 5%

of the drainage basin

No monitoring coverage/Datanot available

Figure 10B.41 Australian river systems where phosphorous levels exceed state or territory guidelines for the protection of ecosystems

(From Ball, J et al., 2001, Inland Waters, Australia State of Environment Report 2001 (Theme Report), CSIRO Publishing

on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra,www.deh.gov.au Reprinted with permission.)Original Source: National Land and Water Resources Audit, 2001a

This figure is based on a sample of 93 lakes

Although there has been improvement of lake water condition

in some areas of all regions, the overwhelming trend illustratedhere is deterioration in quality, most notably in Central andSouth America where close to 80 percent of sampled lakesdeteriorated in the studied period

Note:

Figure 10B.42 Changes in world lake conditions, 1960–1990 (From United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,

2003, Water for People Water for Life, The United Nations World Water Development, United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and Berghahn Books,www.unesco.org.) Original Source: Data collatedfor Loh et al., 1998

300

LakeComo(IT)Mälaren(SE) Bodensee(CH, DE, AT)

050100150200250

300

Ijsselmeer(NL)Erne(GB)Neagh(GB)

050100150200250

300

Cheboksarskijreservoir (RU)Lekshm (RU)Ladoga (RU)

1970 1980 1990 19991960

Figure 10B.43 Trends in total phosphorous concentrations in some large European lakes (From EEA, 2003, Europe’s Environment, The

Third Assessment, Environmental Assessment Report No 10, EE1, Copenhagen Reprinted with permission q EEA,

www.eea.europa.eu.)

120100806040200

Direct and riverine input

Figure 10B.44 Change (%) in direct riverine and atmospheric inputs of cadmium, mercury, lead, lindane, and PCB in the Northeast

Atlantic (From Green, N et al., 2003, Hazardous Substances in the European Marine Environment: Trends in Metals andPersistent Organic Pollutants, European Environment Agency, Topic Report 2/2003,www.eea.europa.eu Reprinted withpermission q EEA.)

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Index 1990 = 100

Mediterranean — Mytilus galloprovincialis

CadminumLeadMercury

050100150200250300350400

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Index 1990 = 100

Baltic — Clupea harengus

050100150200250300

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Index 1990 = 100

NE Atlantic — Gadus morhua

0306090120150

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Index 1990 = 100

NE Atlantic — Mytilus edulis

Figure 10B.45 Concentrations of selected metals and synthetic organic substances in marine organisms in the Mediterranean and Baltic

Sea, and in the North East Atlantic Ocean (From European Environmental Agency (EEA), 2003, Europe’s Environment,The Third Assessment, Environmental Assessment Report No 10, EE1, Copenhagen,www.eea.europa.eu Reprintedwith permission q EEA.)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

2000 1985

Agriculture UWWT Industry

Other sources

´000 tons/year Nitrogen discharge in North sea

´000 tons/year Nitrogen discharge in Black sea

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

1995 Late 1980s

Agriculture UWWT Industry

Nitrogen discharge in Baltic sea

´000 tons/year

Aquaculture

2000 1985 Phosphorus discharge in North sea

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Agriculture UWWT Industry

Other sources

´000 tons/year

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

1995 Late 1980s

Aquaculture Agriculture UWWT Industry

´000 tons/year Phosphorus discharge in Baltic sea

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Domestic Industry Riverine

0 5 10 15 20 25

´000 tons/year Nitrogen discharge in Caspian sea

Industry Municipalities

Municipalities Riverine

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

´000 tons/year Phosphorus discharge in Caspian sea

Figure 10B.46 Source apportionment of nitrogen and phosphorus discharges in Europe’s seas and percentage reductions (From

European Environmental Agency (EEA), 2003, Europe’s Environment, The Third Assessment, EnvironmentalAssessment Report No 10, EE1, Copenhagen,www.eea.europa.eu Reprinted with permission.) Original Source:North Sea progress report 2002; Finnish Environmental Insitute 2002, Black Sea Commission, 2002; Caspian

Note : For each station or sampling point in the subregions of the Baltic and North Seas, a

trend analysis of winter nutrient concentrations in water from 1985 to 1997/2000 was carried

out.The bars in the graph show, at how many sampling points (as %) a decrease or an

increase in nutrient concentrations at the 5 % significance level is observed

020406080

KattegatDanish estuaries

Belt Sea

020406080100

Decreasing

No trend

Increasing

Figure 10B.47 Trends in nutrients in the Baltic Sea and coastal North Sea waters, 1985–1997/2000 (From European Environmental

Agency (EEA), 2002, Environmental Signals 2002—Benchmarking the Millenium, Environmental Assessment Report

No 9,www.eea.europa.eu Reprinted with permission q EEA.)

Global average nitrate levelsconcentrations at major river mouths

Global dissolved phosphate levelsconcentrations at major river mouths

Insufficient data for analysis

or region not included in study

0.25 0.5 1 2 4 NO3-N mg/L

Insufficient data for analysis

or region not included in study

Insufficient data for analysis

or region not included in study

Decreased levels High Medium Low

No change Increased levels

High Medium Low

Insufficient data for analysis

or region not included in study

Changes between

1976−1990 and 1991−2000

Changes between

1976−1990 and 1991−2000

Figure 10B.48 Global average nitrate and dissolved phosphate levels (From United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Vital

Water Graphics, Global Average Nitrate Levels and Global Dissolved Phosphate Levels, Downloaded 9/22/05,

www.unep.org.)