Water Quality - Red River Basin Commission

S
ource: Red River Basin Disaster Information Network (www.rrbdin.org)
Inventory Team Report
January 2001
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................................................................iii
I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................................1
Goal & Objectives...........................................................................................................................................................................1
II. WATER QUALITY CONCERNS.........................................................................................................................................2
Public Health Concerns .................................................................................................................................................................2
Water Consumption & Contact.............................................................................................................................................2
Consumption of Aquatic Life ................................................................................................................................................2
Aquatic Ecosystem Concerns......................................................................................................................................................3
Pollution ........................................................................................................................................................................................3
Habitat............................................................................................................................................................................................4
Nutrient Enrichment ..................................................................................................................................................................4
Sediment Contamination .........................................................................................................................................................4
Major Pollutants & Stressors Impacting Water Quality .....................................................................................................5
Oxygen-Depleting Substances...............................................................................................................................................5
Nutrients ........................................................................................................................................................................................5
Sedimentation and Siltation ....................................................................................................................................................6
Bacteria and Pathogens ............................................................................................................................................................6
Toxic Organic Chemicals and Metals .................................................................................................................................6
Habitat Modification/Hydrologic Modification ..............................................................................................................7
Suspended Solids, Turbidity and Acidity ..........................................................................................................................7
Oil and Grease.............................................................................................................................................................................8
III. GROUND WATER & SURFACE WATER - A SINGLE RESOURCE................................................................9
Surface Waters .................................................................................................................................................................................9
Rivers and Streams ....................................................................................................................................................................9
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds ..............................................................................................................................................13
Wetlands ......................................................................................................................................................................................15
Ground Waters ...............................................................................................................................................................................19
Ground Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................................20
Sources of Ground Water Contamination ........................................................................................................................20
Ground Water Use in Canada ..............................................................................................................................................23
Ground Water Use in the United States ...........................................................................................................................24
IV. WATER QUALITY MONITORING................................................................................................................................25
Canada...............................................................................................................................................................................................25
Federal Agencies......................................................................................................................................................................26
Provincial Agencies ................................................................................................................................................................31
The United States ..........................................................................................................................................................................36
Federal Agencies......................................................................................................................................................................36
State Agencies...........................................................................................................................................................................37
International....................................................................................................................................................................................39
V. WATER QUALITY IN THE RED RIVER OF THE NORTH..................................................................................40
Background .....................................................................................................................................................................................40
Basin Setting..............................................................................................................................................................................40
Basin Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................................................41
Red River Basin Water Quality Data ................................................................................................................................42
Background Water Quality ...................................................................................................................................................42
Water Quality & Aquatic Habitat.......................................................................................................................................43
Human-Induced Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................43
Sediment in the Red River ....................................................................................................................................................43
Agriculture & Water Quality ...............................................................................................................................................44
ii
Non-Agricultural Sources of Water Quality Contamination ....................................................................................46
Effects of Non-point Sources of Toxic Compounds ....................................................................................................47
VI. CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................................................................................48
VII. REFERENCES CITED .........................................................................................................................................................49
APPENDIX A - WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE RED RIVER BASIN..............................................................................51
APPENDIX B - MANITOBA WATER QUALITY INDEX..................................................................................................................75
APPENDIX C - UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 305(B) REPORTS.........................................81
Minnesota 305(b) 1998 Report Summary .......................................................................................................................83
North Dakota 305(b) 1998 Report Summary.................................................................................................................84
South Dakota Water 305(b) 1998 Report Summary....................................................................................................85
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Bioaccumulation of Pollutants in the Food Chain (EPA) .............................................................3
Figure 2. Effects of Siltation in Rivers and Streams.................................................................................10
Figure 3. The Importance of Nutrients in a Healthy Lake Ecosystem........................................................14
Figure 4. Depiction of Wetlands Adjacent to Water-body........................................................................15
Figure 5. Flood Protection Functions in Wetlands ...................................................................................17
Figure 6. Ground Water Recharge Functions in Wetlands ........................................................................17
Figure 7. Streamflow Maintenance Functions in Wetlands .......................................................................17
Figure 8. Shoreline Stabilization Functions in Wetlands ..........................................................................17
Figure 9. Water Quality Improvement Functions in Wetlands ..................................................................18
Figure 10. Ground Water.......................................................................................................................19
Figure 11. Sources of Ground Water Contamination ...............................................................................20
Figure 12. Ground Water Contamination Due to Leaking Underground Storage Tanks..............................21
Figure 13. Map of the Red River of the North.........................................................................................40
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Ranking of Agricultural Activities Impacting Rivers and Lakes (EPA)........................................12
Table 2. Categories of Water Quality and Associated Index Ranges.........................................................34
Table 3. Manitoba's Water Quality Index Variables.................................................................................35
iii
I. INTRODUCTION
Water is the life-blood of the environment. Without water no living thing can survive. Water is also
a commodity: a renewable resource. The availability of an adequate and usable water supply underpins our
whole economy. Water is used for transportation and hydro-electric power generation, for waste disposal,
recreation, agriculture, and fisheries, and is essential in both the manufacturing and the service sector.
Fortunately, water can be used without depleting its supply, but it is a fundamental component of a complex
ecosystem. Evidence of over-exploitation and, with it, evidence of the linked effect of environmental stress
is all too clear. Pollution from human activities has impaired aquatic life, inhibited the reproductive capacity
of mammals and birds, and threatens human health. Poor use of water resources has caused widespread
degradation of soils and the disruption of potable water supplies generating massive economic losses. The
movement of pollutants from the land to the water and into the air presents the world's ecosystems with a
common threat.
Goal & Objectives
Goal:
The purpose of this report is to develop a baseline inventory of water quality criteria, impairments,
and activities in the Red River Basin for use by the Red River Basin Board to formulate a basin-wide water
quality strategy.
Objectives:
1.
Develop a tabular summary of ambient water quality criteria in the Basin, as measured by
each of four jurisdictions.
2.
Assess the environmental conditions influencing water quality in the Basin.
3.
Examine, assess and identify gaps in water quality monitoring and assessment activities in
the Basin.
4.
Identify know water quality impairments in the Basin.
5.
Investigate the pollutants and their sources that are causing water quality impairments in the
Basin.
The bulk of the background information on water quality has been taken from the 1998 United States
Environmental Protection Agency's Report to Congress.
1
II. WATER QUALITY CONCERNS
There are many contaminants present in our environment that are potentially harmful to human
health. Public health may be threatened directly or indirectly through the consumption of, or exposure to,
food and water contaminated with toxic chemicals, and viral and bacteria pathogens. While aquatic
organisms can tolerate most viruses and bacteria that are harmful to humans, they can be more severely
affected by the presence of toxic chemicals in their environment.
Public Health Concerns
Toxic chemicals that persist in the environment months and years after they arrive are of particular
concern for human health as they have been linked to human birth defects, cancer, and neurological
disorders. In addition, inadequately treated sewage water can contain harmful virus and bacteria that can
cause diseases such as infectious hepatitis, gastroenteritis, dysentery, and cholera.
Water Consumption & Contact
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science Advisory Board concluded that
drinking water contamination is one of the greatest environmental risks to human health. This conclusion is
due, in part, to the variability in the quality of available drinking water. It is also due to the potential for
contamination during the time between treatment and consumption. Most people in North America get their
drinking water from public water supplies. Although most of these supplies meet drinking water standards,
there are many undetectable contaminants capable of affecting drinking water quality. The greatest risk from
unsafe drinking water is exposure to water-borne viral and bacterial pathogens that can cause acute health
problems requiring medical treatment. For systems serving large populations, a waterborne disease outbreak
can have a devastating impact. The 1993 Cryptosporidium spp. outbreak in Milwaukee affected more than
400,000 people, making it the largest waterborne disease outbreak ever reported in North America.
Exposure to contaminated water is not limited to drinking water. Physical contact such as swimming and
bathing, are other ways by which pathogens can enter the human system.
Consumption of Aquatic Life
EPA data provided by the individual states showed that mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
chlordane, dioxins, and DDT (and associated by-products) caused 99% of all fish consumption advisories in
the United States in 1998. These chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds were banned or restricted more than a
decade ago, yet they still threaten human health as they persist in the environment, particularly in sediment
and fish tissue. Through bio-accumulation, the concentration of some toxic chemicals in fish may be up to
one million times the concentration of the surrounding water. In the 1990's, reports began to appear
regarding widespread mercury contamination in fish including fish inhabiting remote lakes that had
previously been considered pristine. The source of elevated mercury concentrations is difficult to identify
because mercury occurs naturally in soils and rock formations and natural processes, such as weathering can
release some mercury into surface waters. Experts believe that human activities, particularly industrial air
emissions and acid rain, have accelerated the rate at which mercury is accumulating in our waters and
entering the food chain (Figure 1).
2
Figure 1. Bioaccumulation of Pollutants in the Food Chain (EPA)
Aquatic Ecosystem Concerns
A primary use of all waters is to support aquatic life, specifically that the water-body provides for the
"protection and propagation" of desirable fish species as well as other aquatic organisms. Aquatic
contaminants include not just toxic chemicals but environmental stressors as well. These stressors include
habitat alterations such as flow modifications, excessive siltation, nutrient enrichment, and persistent
sediment contamination. Low oxygen concentrations, high temperatures, and acidity can impair aquatic
communities.
Pollution
A fish kill is one of the most visible impacts of pollution on aquatic life. These events are normally
attributed to exceptionally low dissolved oxygen levels or to the discharge of toxic contaminants in the water
column. A less observable impact is stress on the resident aquatic organisms. An observable impact would
be a shift in the physical characteristics of a water-body. For example, land use practices in a watershed
cause an increase in water temperature and sedimentation along with a decrease in dissolved oxygen and
result in a cold-water trout stream becoming a warm-water carp-dominated stream. Physical impairments to
aquatic life can be measured in terms of an individual organism's growth, the presence of lesions, and eroded
fins or an accumulation of toxic chemicals and their by-products in the organism itself. Whole aquatic
communities can be altered. Pollutants and stressors can kill parts or all of an aquatic community, increase
susceptibility to disease, interfere with reproductive fecundity, and reduce the viability of offspring.
3
Habitat
A habitat is where an organism, or community of organisms, lives and includes both living and
nonliving elements. The immediate habitat (or microhabitat) for aquatic life is the local ambient water and
its physical and chemical characteristics, including temperature, flow rate, and dissolved oxygen content. It
also includes the substrate or bottom of the water-body. The larger-scale habitat (or macro-habitat) is the
overall watershed within which the water-body and the aquatic organisms reside. The macro-habitat plays an
important role in protecting water quality and aquatic life as acts as a buffer for the aquatic system and
diminishes the impact of human disturbance.
Stable habitat is critical for the protection and propagation of balanced indigenous aquatic
communities. Habitat evaluation is one tool used to assess the vulnerability of such ecosystems. The
information helps target where limited ambient monitoring resources would be best spent. The limitation of
this approach is that, although poor habitat is usually an indicator of impaired aquatic life, acceptable habitat
quality does guarantee that the aquatic life therein is healthy.
Nutrient Enrichment
Nutrients are essential building blocks for healthy aquatic communities as they are necessary for
metabolism. Excess nutrients, however, can have detrimental effects on water quality resulting in excessive
growth of algae and other aquatic vegetation and potentially harmful algal blooms. Elevated levels of algae
are associated with depressed levels of dissolved oxygen and can lead to fish kills, decreased water clarity,
changes in water chemistry, and a loss of natural biodiversity. Of particular importance is the loss of
submerged aquatic vegetation that is vital fish and wildlife habitat and nursery areas.
Nitrogen and phosphorus are transported to water-bodies via stream networks, rain, overland runoff,
ground water, drainage networks, and industrial and residential wastewater discharges. Sources of nitrogen
and phosphorus include fertilizers, sewage treatment plants, septic systems, combined sewer overflows,
sediment mobilization, runoff from animal feeding operations, atmospheric transport, and aerobic/anaerobic
nutrient recycling from sediments to the water column.
Sediment Contamination
Certain types of chemicals in water tend to settle and collect in sediment. For example, chemicals
such as petroleum products and chlorinated solvents do not mix with water. Metals such as lead and mercury
can settle out due to gravity or can be adsorbed onto sediment particles. These types of contamination often
persist longer than those found in the water column, either because they tend to resist natural degradation or
because local conditions do not encourage natural degradation. In the water column, these pollutants may be
too dilute to measure, but because currents tend to deposit sediments in distinct depositional zones,
contaminated sediment can reach toxic levels at certain locations. Contaminants can also be released from
the sediment back into the water column. In both cases, excessive levels of chemicals in sediment can
become hazardous to aquatic life and humans. According to studies, areas of sediment contamination occur
in clusters around larger municipal and industrial centres and in regions affected by agricultural and urban
runoff (EPA 1998).
4
Major Pollutants & Stressors Impacting Water Quality
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
Dissolved oxygen is a basic requirement for a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Most fish and aquatic
insects “breathe” oxygen dissolved in the water column. Some fish and aquatic organisms (such as carp and
sludge worms) are adapted to low-oxygen conditions (2 milligrams or less of oxygen dissolved in 1 litre of
water), but most game fish species (such as trout and salmon) suffer if dissolved oxygen concentrations fall
below 3 to 4 mg/L. Larvae and juvenile fish are more sensitive and require even higher concentrations (5 - 8
mg/L) of dissolved oxygen. Many aquatic organisms are resilient enough to survive short periods of low
dissolved oxygen but prolonged episodes can result in "dead" water-bodies. Prolonged exposure to low
dissolved oxygen will impair entire biological communities. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations also
promote anaerobic bacterial activity that produces noxious gases/foul odours often associated with polluted
water-bodies.
Oxygen concentrations in the water column fluctuate under natural conditions, but severe oxygen
depletion usually results from human activities that introduce large quantities of biodegradable organic
materials into surface waters. Biodegradable organic materials contain plant, fish, or animal matter. In both
pristine and polluted waters, beneficial bacteria use oxygen to decompose organic materials. Often, water
quality managers measure the biochemical oxygen demand (or BOD) of pollution in water. BOD is a
measure of how much oxygen is consumed during the degradation of organic matter and the oxidation of
some inorganic matter. Pollution-containing organic wastes provide a continuous food supply for the
bacteria, which in turn accelerates bacterial activity and population growth. In polluted waters, bacterial
consumption of oxygen can rapidly outpace oxygen replenishment from the atmosphere and photosynthesis
performed by algae and aquatic plants. Leaves, lawn clippings, sewage, manure, milk solids, and other food
processing wastes are types of biodegradable organic materials that enter our surface waters. Toxic
pollutants can indirectly elevate BOD by killing algae, aquatic weeds, or fish, providing an abundance of
food for oxygen-consuming bacteria. Oxygen depletion can also result from chemical reactions that do not
involve bacteria. Some pollutants trigger chemical reactions that place a chemical oxygen demand on
receiving waters. The result is a net decline in oxygen concentrations in the water.
Other factors, such as temperature and salinity, influence the amount of oxygen dissolved in water.
Because warm water cannot hold as much dissolved oxygen as cold water, prolonged hot weather will
depress oxygen concentrations and may cause fish kills even in clean waters. Warm conditions further
aggravate oxygen depletion by stimulating bacterial activity and respiration in fish, which consumes oxygen.
Removal of streamside vegetation eliminates shade, thereby increasing runoff of organic debris. Under such
conditions, minor additions of organic materials can severely deplete oxygen. Oxygen concentrations can
fluctuate daily during algae blooms, rising during the day as algae perform photosynthesis and falling at
night as algae continue to respire and consumes oxygen. Beneficial bacteria also consume oxygen as they
decompose the abundant organic food supply in dying algal cells.
Nutrients
Nutrients are essential building blocks for healthy aquatic communities, but excess nutrients
(especially nitrogen and phosphorus compounds) over-stimulate the growth of aquatic weeds and algae.
Excessive growth of these organisms, in turn, can clog navigable waters, interfere with swimming and
boating, out-compete native submerged aquatic vegetation, and, ultimately lead to oxygen depletion. Lawn
and crop fertilizers, sewage, manure, and detergents all contain nitrogen and phosphorus, the nutrients most
often responsible for water quality degradation. Rural areas are vulnerable to ground water contamination
5
from nitrates (a compound containing nitrogen) found in fertilizer and manure. High concentrations of
nitrates in drinking water can cause methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome), an inability to fix oxygen in
the blood.
Nutrients in polluted lake systems are difficult to control because ecosystems recycle nutrients.
Rather than leaving the ecosystem, the nutrients cycle through the water column, algae and plant tissues, and
the bottom sediments. For example, algae may temporarily remove all the nitrogen from the water column,
but the nutrients will return to the water column when the algae die and are decomposed by bacteria.
Therefore, gradual inputs of nutrients tend to accumulate over time rather than leave the system.
Sedimentation and Siltation
In a water quality context, sediment usually refers to soil particles that enter the water column
through erosion and consists of particles of all sizes, including fine clay particles, silt, sand, and gravel.
Water quality managers use the term “siltation” to describe the suspension and deposition of small sediment
particles in water-bodies.
Sedimentation and siltation can severely alter aquatic communities by clogging or abrading fish gills,
suffocating aquatic insect eggs and larvae, and by filling in the pore space between bottom cobbles where
fish lay their eggs. Suspended silt and sediment interfere with recreational activities and aesthetic enjoyment
of water-bodies by reducing water clarity and filling in water-bodies. Sediment may also carry other
pollutants into water-bodies. Nutrients and toxic chemicals can become attached to sediment particles, settle
to the bottom, and become soluble in the water column.
Bacteria and Pathogens
Some waterborne bacteria, viruses, and protozoa cause human illnesses ranging from typhoid and
dysentery to minor respiratory and skin diseases. These organisms may enter waters through a number of
pathways, including inadequately treated sewage, storm water drains, septic systems, runoff from livestock
pens, and sewage dumped over-board from watercraft. Because it is impossible to test waters for every
possible disease-causing organism, measurements are usually taken of indicator bacteria that are found in the
stomachs and intestines of humans and other mammals. The presence of indicator bacteria suggests that a
water-body may be contaminated with untreated sewage and that other, more dangerous, organisms may be
present.
Toxic Organic Chemicals and Metals
Toxic organic chemicals are synthetic compounds that contain hydrocarbons, such as PCBs, dioxins,
and DDT. These synthesized compounds often persist and accumulate in the environment because they do
not readily break down in natural ecosystems. Many of these compounds cause cancer and birth defects in
people and adversely affect species near the top of the food chain, such as birds and fish.
Pesticides are used to control or eliminate insect, fungal, or other organisms that seriously reduce
crop yields or impact the health of livestock. When pesticides run off the land and enter water-bodies, they
may become toxic to aquatic life. Some newer pesticide agents decompose rapidly after application;
however, many older types are more persistent. These longer-lived agents can pollute larger areas and many
6
forms (e.g., DDT or chlordane) can build up in sediments or bio-accumulate in food chains, posing health
risks to wildlife or humans. At present, more than 100 different compounds are commercially available for
use as pesticides.
A survey of pesticide residues in the aquatic environment conducted by Fisheries & Oceans Canada
has revealed that significant concentrations of these compounds are found in sediments and biota of rivers
and streams as well as in the water. It is from sediments that many of these chemicals enter the food chain.
Limited information is currently available on pesticide levels in stream sediments and biota, but surveys are
being initiated to measure pesticides in these media. Indeed, because of the difficulty in measuring some
pesticides in water at or near the detection limit, it may be necessary to measure these routinely in sediment
rather than in water (Fisheries & Oceans Canada 1977).
“Total toxics” is a term used by a number of U.S. states to describe various combinations of toxic
pollutants identified in water-bodies. These may include pesticides, toxic organic chemicals, metals, unionized ammonia, and chlorine. In some instances, laboratory tests with plankton, minnows, or other target
species may show the presence of toxicity, but more work may be required to identify the specific toxicants.
Metals occur naturally in the environment, but human activities (such as industrial processes and
mining) have altered the distribution of metals in the environment. In most reported cases of metals
contamination, high concentrations appear in fish tissues rather than the water column because the metals
accumulate in greater concentrations in predators near the top of the food chain (bio-accumulation). Metals
currently measured include arsenic, boron, cadmium, strontium, vanadium, barium, silver, selenium,
chromium, lead, zinc, and copper (Fisheries & Oceans Canada 1977).
Habitat Modification/Hydrologic Modification
Habitat modifications include activities in the landscape, on shore, and in water-bodies that alter the
physical structure of aquatic ecosystems and have adverse impacts on aquatic life. Examples of habitat
modifications to streams include:
•
Removal of streamside vegetation that stabilizes the shoreline and provides shade, which
moderates in-stream temperatures
•
Excavation of cobbles from a stream bed that provide nesting habitat for fish
•
Burying streams
•
Excessive development sprawl that alters the natural drainage patterns by increasing the
intensity, magnitude, and energy of runoff waters.
Hydrologic modifications alter the flow of water. Examples of hydrologic modifications include
channelization, dewatering, damming, and dredging.
Suspended Solids, Turbidity and Acidity
Suspended solids are a measure of the weight of relatively insoluble materials in the ambient water
(EPA 1998). Suspended solids can include both organic and inorganic constituents. These materials enter
the water column as soil particles from land surfaces or sand, silt, and clay from stream bank erosion. Under
7
low-flow conditions, excessively high suspended solids can become siltation problems as the materials settle
out in the substrate on rivers or fill in reservoirs.
Turbidity is an optical property of very small particles that scatter light and reduce clarity in waterbodies. Although algal blooms can make waters turbid, turbidity is usually related to the smaller inorganic
suspended solids, primarily clay particles. In addition to creating aesthetically undesirable conditions,
turbidity helps trap heat which can become a problem in cold water streams where fish are adapted to a
particular temperature gradient. Turbidity also reduces the amount of solar radiation available for aquatic
plants.
Acidity, the concentration of hydrogen ions, drives many chemical reactions. The standard measure
of acidity is pH, and a pH value of 7 represents a neutral condition. A low pH value (less than 5) indicates
acidic conditions; a high pH (greater than 9) indicates alkaline conditions. Many biological processes, such
as reproduction, cannot function in acidic alkaline waters. Acidic conditions also aggravate toxic
contamination problems because sediments release toxicants in acidic waters. Common sources of acidity
include mine drainage, runoff from mine tailings, and atmospheric deposition.
Oil and Grease
The presence of oil and grease in a water-body can be documented quantitatively from chemical tests
or qualitatively through observations of surface films with distinctive oily sheens. Oil and grease problems
are usually related to spills or other releases of petroleum products. The most dramatic cases are associated
with accidents involving oil tankers or major pipeline breaks. Minor oil and grease problems can result from
wet weather runoff from highways or the improper disposal in storm drains of motor oil. Large amounts of
oil can be toxic to fish and wildlife, but even persistent surface films may decrease re-aeration rates and
cause damage to the gills or other exposed surface membranes of fishes and macro-invertebrates.
8
III. GROUND WATER & SURFACE WATER - A SINGLE RESOURCE
Traditionally, surface and ground water have been treated as separate entities in water resource
management. More recently, however, it has become apparent that all water-body interactions are
interrelated. Water in lakes, wetlands, and streams recharge ground water reservoirs, and ground water
discharges back into lakes, wetlands, and streams, providing base-flow maintenance.
Ground water contributes to most streams, thereby maintaining stream-flow during periods of low
flow or drought. The ground water component of stream-flow is variable across the country. In one USGS
study, daily stream flow values for the 30-year period (1961 to 1990) indicated an average of 52% of all the
stream-flow in the nation was contributed by ground water. Ground water contributions ranged from 14% to
90% (Stoner et al 1998).
Development of surface water resources can affect ground water resources and vice versa. Large
withdrawals of ground water can reduce the amount of ground water inflow to surface water and
substantially reduce surface water available to downstream users. The use of large volumes or amounts of
ground water for irrigation has often been identified as the cause of drying riverbeds and wetlands. Today,
conservation and changes in agricultural practices are restoring flow to these rivers and also to ecologically
important wetland areas.
The water quality of each of these resources can also be affected by their interactions. Water quality
can be adversely affected when nutrients and contaminants are transported between ground water and surface
water. For example, contaminants in streams can affect ground water quality during periods of recharge and
flooding. Polluted ground water can affect surface water-bodies when contaminated ground water discharges
into a river or stream. Because contamination is not restricted to either water-body, both ground water and
surface water must be considered in water quality assessments.
Co-ordination between surface water and ground water programs will be essential to adequately
evaluate the quality and quantity of drinking water. Ground water and surface water interactions have a
major role in affecting chemical and biological processes in lakes, wetlands, and streams, which in turn affect
water quality throughout the system. An understanding of these interactions is critical in our water
protection and conservation efforts. It is evident that protection of ground water and surface water is of
major importance for sustaining uses such as drinking water supply, fish and wildlife habitats, and
recreational activities.
Surface Waters
Rivers and Streams
Rivers and streams are characterized by flow. Perennial rivers and streams flow continuously.
Intermittent or ephemeral (non-perennial) rivers and streams stop flowing for some period of time, usually
due to dry conditions or upstream withdrawals. Many rivers and streams originate in non-perennial
headwaters that flow only during snowmelt or heavy rains. Non-perennial streams provide critical habitats
for non-fish species, such as amphibians and dragonflies, as well as safe havens for juvenile fish escaping
predation by larger fish.
9
Non-perennial waters pose challenges to monitoring programs because the flow is unpredictable.
Some intermittent waters' flows recur predictably during particular times of the year, for example, following
spring snowmelt. Ephemeral waters are the most difficult to monitor because their flow is so unpredictable.
Most jurisdictions focus monitoring activities in perennial waters, although many monitor intermittent waters
during periods of predictable flow.
The health of rivers and streams is directly linked to the integrity of habitat along the river corridor
and in adjacent wetlands. Stream quality will deteriorate if human or natural activities damage vegetation
along riverbanks and in nearby wetlands. Trees, shrubs, and grasses filter pollutants from runoff and reduce
soil erosion. Removal of vegetation also eliminates shade that moderates stream temperature. Stream
temperature, in turn, affects the availability of dissolved oxygen in the water column for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
Pollutants and Stressors
Siltation is one of the most widespread pollutants impacting rivers and streams (Figure 2). Siltation
alters aquatic habitat and suffocates fish eggs and bottom-dwelling organisms. Aquatic insects live in the
spaces between "cobbles" and their habitat is altered when silt fills in these spaces. The loss of aquatic
insects adversely impacts fish and other wildlife that eat these insects. Excessive siltation can also interfere
with drinking water treatment processes and recreational use of a river. Sources of siltation include
agriculture, urban runoff, construction, and forestry.
Figure 2. Effects of Siltation in Rivers and Streams
10
Bacteria (fecal coliform) is a major pollutant providing evidence of possible fecal contamination that
may cause illness if the water is ingested. Bacteria commonly enter surface waters in the form of
inadequately treated sewage, fecal material from wildlife, and runoff from pastures, feedlots, and urban
areas.
Nutrient pollution, especially in agricultural areas, is also a substantial cause of river water quality
impairment. Although an ongoing problem in lakes, nutrient pollution is getting increased attention from
managers and regulators because of it's effects on rivers. Excessive levels of nitrogen and phosphorus may
accelerate growth of algae and underwater plants, depleting the water column of dissolved oxygen necessary
to maintain populations of fish and certain plant species. Nutrients may enter rivers from municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment discharges and runoff from agricultural lands, forestry operations, and urban
areas.
Sources of Pollutants
It is relatively easy to collect a water sample and identify the pollutants causing impairment, such as
fecal coliform bacteria. However, detecting and ranking the sources of pollutants can require monitoring
pollutant movement from numerous potential sources, such as failing septic systems, agricultural fields,
urban runoff, municipal sewage treatment plants, and local waterfowl populations. Often the source of
impairment can not be determined. Agriculture is the most widespread source of river water quality
impairment followed by hydrologic modifications, urban runoff and storm sewers, municipal discharges,
land disposal of wastes, and habitat modifications (EPA 1998).
Agriculture
The table below identifies the most common agriculture-related water impairments as reported to the
EPA. The EPA reports that non-irrigated crop production is the source of most pollution entering rivers
followed by irrigated crop production, animal-feeding operations and finally grazing activities (EPA 1998).
Runoff from irrigated and non-irrigated cropland contains nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus),
pesticides, and soil particles. Nutrients occur naturally in the soil but are also added in the form of chemical
fertilizers and manure. Rainwater and irrigation carry excess nutrients to surface waters and shallow ground
water. The transport of nutrients, pesticides, and sediments from cropland can be prevented or reduced by
ensuring the proper use and application of chemicals, encouraging the infiltration of water and discouraging
runoff, and minimizing soil disturbance.
Sources of pollution from animal feeding operations include both point and non-point sources.
Animal waste from these operations can introduce pathogens, nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), and
organic matter directly (runoff) and indirectly (ground water contamination) to nearby rivers and streams.
Pollution from animal facilities can be mitigated through the proper siting and management of the operation.
Many facilities implement a comprehensive plan for handling, storing, and using all wastes produced.
11
Improper grazing practices on range and pasture can introduce both soil particles and animal waste
into receiving streams. Implementing a comprehensive grazing management plan helps reduce contributions
of pollutants by:
•
Maintaining sufficient soil cover
•
Protecting riparian areas from trampling
•
Minimizing the direct deposition of wastes into streams
Table 1. Ranking of Agricultural Activities Impacting Rivers and Lakes (EPA)
Agricultural Activity
Non-irrigated Crop
Production
Irrigated Crop
Production
Specialty Crop
Production
River
s
1
Lakes Description
2
2
3
---
6
4
1
4
4
3
5
Range Grazing
Pasture Grazing
Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations
Animal Feeding
3
5
Operations
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
crop production that relies on rain as the sole source
of
water.
crop
production that uses irrigation systems to
supplement rainwater.
crop production that involves growing food items
other than small grains or forage crops as well as
ornamental plants. Specialty crops may involve more
intensive production practices (e.g., fertilizer,
land grazed by animals that is seldom enhanced by
the application of fertilizers or pesticides, although
land managers sometimes modify plant species to a
land upon which a crop is raised to feed animals,
either by grazing the animals among the crops or
harvesting the crops. Pasture-land is actively
managed to encourage selected plant species to
grow,
and
or pesticides
may be
facilities
infertilizers
which animals
are confined,
fedapplied
and
maintained for some period of time throughout the
year where discharges are regulated.
facilities in which animals are confined, fed, and
maintained for some period of time throughout the
Range grazing can also generate soil erosion and animal waste runoff. Land used for pasture grazing
usually has good ground cover that protects the soil from eroding; however, pasture grazing can become a
source of animal waste runoff if animals graze on impermeable frozen pastureland during winter.
Hydrologic Modifications – Hydrologic modifications (or hydro-modifications) include flow regulation and
modification, channelization, dredging, and dam construction. These activities may alter riverine habitat in
such a way that it becomes less suitable for aquatic life. For example, dredging may destroy the river-bottom
habitat where fish lay their eggs.
Urban Runoff and Storm Sewers – In urban areas, runoff from impervious surfaces may include sediment,
bacteria (e.g., from pet waste), toxic chemicals, and other pollutants. Development in urban areas can
increase erosion that results in higher sediment loads to rivers and streams. Storm sewer systems may also
release pollutants particularly during wet weather events.
12
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) – Municipal wastewater treatment plants treat incoming
wastewater from domestic sources and wastewater inputs from industrial and commercial establishments.
Although they treat this waste before discharging to rivers and streams, discharges may still contain toxic
chemicals, nutrients, and other pollutants. In some cases, during wet weather events, plants discharge
untreated wastewater because of operation and maintenance problems.
Land Disposal of Wastes – Various forms of land-based waste disposal, such as septic tanks, landfills, and
application of sludge, may result in the runoff of pollutants to rivers and streams. These pollutants can
include bacteria, hazardous wastes, organic materials, and sediment.
Habitat Modifications – Changes to a river’s habitat, such as removal of riparian vegetation, riverbank
modification, and alteration of wetlands, can make it less suitable for the organisms inhabiting it and can
create conditions favourable for invasive species, or can limit its ecosystem function.
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds
Lakes, reservoirs, and ponds are depressions that hold water for extended periods of time. These
water-bodies may receive water-borne pollutants from rivers and streams, melting snow, runoff, or ground
water. Lakes may also receive pollution directly from the air.
Pollutants become trapped in lakes, reservoirs, and ponds because water generally exits these waterbodies at a slower rate. Therefore, they are especially vulnerable to additional inputs of pollutants from
human activities. Even under natural conditions, sediment, nutrients, and organic materials accumulate in
lakes and ponds as part of a natural ageing process called eutrophication. Increased loads of nutrients from
human activities such as wastewater discharges, septic systems, and agricultural runoff can accelerate
eutrophication. Algal blooms, depressed oxygen levels, and aquatic weeds are symptoms of accelerated
eutrophication from excessive nutrients.
Pollutants and Stressors
Healthy lake ecosystems contain nutrients in small quantities from natural sources. Extra inputs of
nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) disrupt the balance of lake ecosystems (figure 3). Excessive
nutrients stimulate population explosions of harmful algae and aquatic weeds. The algae sink to the lake
bottom after they die, where bacteria decompose them. The bacteria consume dissolved oxygen in the water
while decomposing the dead algae. This, in turn, deprives fish and other organisms of oxygen. Fish kills and
foul odours may result if dissolved oxygen is depleted.
After nutrients, metals are the next most common pollutant, due mainly to the widespread detection
of mercury in fish tissue samples. It is difficult to measure mercury in ambient water. Jurisdictions are
actively studying the extent of the mercury problem, which is complex because it involves atmospheric
transport from power-generating facilities, waste incinerators, and other sources. Most jurisdictions rely on
fish tissue samples to indicate mercury contamination, since mercury bio-accumulates in tissue.
13
Figure 3. The Importance of Nutrients in a Healthy Lake Ecosystem
Sources of Pollutants
Agriculture
As is the case with rivers, agriculture is the most widespread source of pollution in lakes. Of the
agricultural activities identified (figure 3), the EPA reports that range-grazing is responsible for causing the
most degradation to lakes followed by non-irrigated crop production, irrigated crop production, pasturegrazing, animal-feeding operations, and specialty-crop production (EPA 1998).
Eutrophication is a natural process, but human activities can accelerate eutrophication by increasing
the rate at which nutrients and organic substances enter lakes from their surrounding watersheds.
Agricultural runoff, urban runoff, leaking septic systems, sewage discharges, eroded stream-banks, and
similar sources can enhance the flow of nutrients and organic substances into lakes. Enhanced
eutrophication from nutrient enrichment due to human activities in one of the leading problems. There are
five naturally occuring trophic states in lakes:
Oligotrophic
Mesotrophic
Eutrophic
Hypereutrophic
Dystrophic
Clear waters with little organic matter or sediment. Low biological productivity.
Waters with more nutrients and, therefore, medium biological productivity.
Waters extremely rich in nutrients, high biological productivity.
Murky, highly productive waters, closest to wetlands status. Many clear-water
species cannot survive.
Low nutrients, highly coloured with dissolved organic matter (i.e. humus).
14
Hydrologic Modifications
Hydrologic modifications have been identified as the second most common source of water quality
impairment in lakes (EPA 1998). Hydrologic modifications include flow regulation and modification,
dredging, and the construction of dams. These activities may alter a lake’s habitat in such a way that it
becomes less suitable for aquatic life. For example, flow regulation and modification for the purpose of
flood control, drinking water supply, or hydroelectric power can cause fluctuation in lake levels that destabilizes shoreline habitat. Other pollution sources due to hydrologic modification include urban runoff and
storm sewers, municipal sewage treatment plants, and atmospheric deposition.
Wetlands
In general, wetlands are a transition zone between land and water where the soil is occasionally or
permanently saturated with water (Figure 4). Wetlands are populated by plants that are specially adapted to
grow in standing water or saturated soils (EPA 1998). There are many different types of wetlands, including
marshes, bogs, fens, swamps, mangroves, prairie potholes, and bottomland hardwood forests. Wetlands may
not always appear to be wet, in fact many wetlands are dry for extended periods of time. Other wetlands
may appear dry on the surface but may be saturated underneath. Wetlands can be physically destroyed by
filling, draining, and de-watering. Wetlands can also be damaged by the same pollutants that degrade other
water-bodies, such as toxic chemicals and oxygen-demanding substances.
Figure 4. Depiction of Wetlands Adjacent to Water-body
All wetlands, however, are flooded or have water just below the ground surface long enough during
the growing season to develop oxygen-poor soils, approximately 14 days. This is important because almost
all animals and plants use oxygen to convert sugar, protein, and other organic molecules into the energy
necessary to survive and grow. Normally, when bacteria and microbes in the soil decompose dead plants and
animals, the oxygen they use is replaced from the air. However, oxygen moves through the water about ten
thousand times slower than the air. When wetland soils become saturated or flooded, the oxygen used by the
bacteria and microbes is not replaced fast enough. As a result, most plants cannot grow there because they
15
do not have enough oxygen for their roots. Wetland plants, such as cattails and water lilies, have special
adaptations to temporarily survive without oxygen in their roots or to transfer oxygen from the leaves or stem
to the roots (EPA 1998).
Inland wetlands are most common on floodplains along rivers and streams, in isolated depressions
surrounded by dry land, and along the margins of lakes and ponds. Inland wetlands include marshes and wet
meadows dominated by grasses, sedges, rushes, and herbs; shrub swamps; and wooded swamps dominated
by trees, such as hardwood forests along floodplains.
Functions and Values of Wetlands
In their natural condition, wetlands provide essential ecological processes (or functions) that are also
beneficial for surrounding ecosystems and people. Wetland functions can be grouped into several broad
categories:
•
Storage of water
•
Storage of sediment and nutrients
•
Growth and reproduction of plants and animals
•
Diversity of plants and animals
The location and size of a wetland in a watershed helps determine what functions it will perform.
Not all wetlands perform all functions nor do they perform all functions at equivalent levels. For example,
some wetlands have a greater capacity to store water because of their landscape position. Many other factors
can influence how well a wetland will perform these functions, including weather conditions, quantity, and
quality of water entering a wetland, and human alteration of a wetland or surrounding landscape.
Storage and Filtering of Water
Wetlands help prevent floods by storing and slowing the flow of water through a watershed (EPA
1998). Many wetlands act like natural basins and hold water from rainstorms, overland flow, and from
flooding rivers. As water passes through a wetland, it is slowed by the wetland’s vegetation (Figure 5).
Through the combined effects of retaining and slowing water, wetlands allow water to percolate through the
soil into the ground water and slowly move through the watershed (Figure 6). In watersheds that have lost
most of their wetlands, the rainfall flows quickly into streams and rivers and overloads their capacity to
transport water through the watershed. Increasing the amount of pavement in a watershed can cause similar
problems resulting in flooding that can damage homes, farms, and businesses. In addition, streams and rivers
are severely damaged as banks erode and channels become flatter and deeper. Downstream lakes can also be
damaged by the large influx of silt that makes the water cloudy, buries plants and animals, and prevents
submerged aquatic vegetation from getting the light they need.
16
Figure 5. Flood Protection Functions in Wetlands
Figure 6. Ground Water Recharge Functions in Wetlands
Figure 7. Streamflow Maintenance Functions in Wetlands
Figure 8. Shoreline Stabilization Functions in Wetlands
Restoring wetlands in a watershed can help prevent the amount and severity of flooding (EPA 1998).
Restoring wetlands can also improve the flow of water during dry seasons by allowing water to percolate into
the ground water and gradually enter a stream rather than having rapid runoff (Figure 7). Water entering
wetlands during wet periods is released slowly through ground water, thereby moderating stream flow
volumes necessary for the survival of fish, wildlife, and plants that rely on the stream.
17
Figure 9. Water Quality Improvement Functions in Wetlands
Wetlands also act like filters that purify water in a watershed (EPA 1998). Often the water leaving a
wetland is much cleaner than the water that entered. When water is slowed or stored in a wetland, much of
the sediment settles out and remains behind (Figure 9). Wetlands also trap nutrients that are attached to the
sediment or dissolved in water. Nutrients are either stored in the wetland soil or are used by plants to grow.
Wetlands on the fringes of lakes keep the larger waters clean by trapping sediment and preventing shoreline
erosion. Marsh plants help to dissipate wave energy and their extensive root networks anchor the marsh
(Figure 8). Without the plants, waves would eat away at the shore and cause extensive erosion. Marsh
plants also slow the movement of water, allowing sediment and nutrients to settle and remain in the marsh.
Wetland loss and degradation impairs or eliminates the water quality purification function performed by
wetlands.
Diversity of Plants and Animals
Wetlands are critical to the survival of a wide variety of animals and plants, including numerous rare
and/or endangered species. When wetlands are removed from a landscape or damaged by human activities,
there is a decline in the biological "health" of a watershed. The result is the decline of many species of plants
and animals. Wetlands provide primary habitats for many species, such as the wood duck, muskrat, and
swamp rose. Wetlands also provide important seasonal habitats where food, water, and cover are plentiful.
The abundant wildlife in wetlands also attracts outdoor enthusiasts. National wildlife refuges in particular,
are often responsible for protecting extensive wetlands, attracting visitors and bringing millions of dollars
and many jobs to adjacent communities.
Monitoring Wetland Health
Currently most jurisdictions in the United States are not equipped to report on the integrity of their
wetlands although Minnesota and North Dakota have begun developing methods to evaluate wetland health.
Causes that are known to degrade wetland integrity are sedimentation, draining, habitat alterations, and flow
alterations. Agriculture and hydrologic modifications are the primary sources for this degradation, followed
by development and draining (EPA 1998).
Minnesota has developed a Wetland Index of Biological Integrity (WIBI) using macro-invertebrates
and a Wetland Index of Vegetative Integrity (WIVI) using plants for depressional wetlands. Minnesota plans
18
to use these tools to evaluate the biological integrity and aquatic life use support criteria of depressional
wetlands. They are also partnering with local governments to train volunteers to use simpler versions of
these methods to evaluate wetland condition.
North Dakota started its pilot project in 1993. They are developing bio-assessment methods for
depressional wetlands that are temporarily or seasonally flooded. They have also developed a preliminary
index of biological integrity for the plant community (Fritz 1997).
Ground Waters
Beneath the land’s surface, water resides in two general zones, the saturated zone and the unsaturated
zone (Figure 10). The unsaturated zone lies directly beneath the land surface, where air and water fill in the
pore spaces between soil and rock particles. Water saturates the pore spaces in the saturated zone beneath
the unsaturated zone in most cases. The term “ground water” applies to water in the saturated zone. This
water is an important natural resource and is used for myriad purposes, including drinking water, irrigation,
and livestock.
Surface water replenishes (or recharges) ground water by percolating through the unsaturated zone.
Therefore, the unsaturated zone plays an important role in ground water hydrology and may act as a pathway
for ground water contamination. Ground water can move laterally and emerge at discharge sites, such as
springs on hillsides or seeps in the bottoms of streams, lakes, wetlands, and oceans. Therefore, ground water
affects surface water quantity and quality because polluted ground water can contaminate surface waters.
Conversely, some surface waters, such as wetlands, contain floodwaters and replenish ground waters. Loss
of wetlands reduces ground water recharge.
Figure 10. Ground Water
Ground water is a vital national resource. It is used for public and domestic water supply systems;
irrigation and livestock watering; industrial, commercial, mining, and thermoelectric power production
purposes.
In many areas, ground water serves as the only reliable source of drinking and irrigation water.
Unfortunately, this vital resource is vulnerable to contamination, and ground water contaminant problems are
being reported throughout the country (EPA 1998).
19
Ground Water Quality
Ground water quality can be adversely affected or degraded as a result of human activities that
introduce contaminants into the environment. It can also be affected by natural processes that result in
elevated concentrations of certain constituents in the ground water. For example, elevated metal
concentrations can result when metals are leached into the ground water from minerals present in the earth.
High levels of arsenic and uranium are frequently found in ground water in some western states.
Not too long ago, it was thought that soil provided a protective “filter” or “barrier” that immobilized
the downward migration of contaminants released on the land surface. Soil was supposed to prevent ground
water resources from being contaminated. Recently, the detection of pesticides and other contaminants in
ground water demonstrated that these resources were indeed vulnerable to contamination. The potential for a
contaminant to affect ground water quality is dependent upon its ability to migrate through the overlying
soils to the underlying ground water resource.
Ground water contamination can occur as relatively well-defined, localized plumes emanating from
specific sources such as leaking underground storage tanks, spills, landfills, waste lagoons, and/or industrial
facilities (Figure 11). Contamination can also occur as a general deterioration of ground water quality over a
wide area due to diffuse non-point sources such as agricultural fertilizer and pesticide applications. Ground
water quality degradation from diffuse non-point sources affects large areas, making it difficult to specify the
exact source of the contamination.
Ground water contamination is most common in highly developed areas, agricultural areas, and
industrial complexes. Frequently, ground water contamination is discovered long after it has occurred. One
reason for this is the slow movement of ground water through aquifers, sometimes as little as fractions of a
foot per day. This often results in a delay in the detection of ground water contamination. In some cases,
contaminants introduced into the subsurface decades ago are only now being discovered. This also means
that the environmental management practices of today will have effects on ground water quality well into the
future.
Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Figure 11. Sources of Ground Water Contamination
20
Ground water quality may be adversely impacted by a variety of potential contaminant sources. It
can be difficult to identify which sources have the greatest impact on ground water quality because each
source varies in the amount of ground water it contaminates. In addition, each source impacts water quality
differently. If similar sources are combined, there appear to be four important potential sources of ground
water contamination: fuel storage, waste disposal practices, agricultural, and industrial practices.
1. Fuel Storage Practices
Fuel storage practices include the storage of petroleum products in underground and aboveground
storage tanks. Although tanks exist in all popula ted areas, they are generally most concentrated in heavily
developed urban and suburban areas.
Storage tanks are primarily used to hold petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and fuel
oil. Leakages can be a significant source of ground water contamination (Figure 12). The primary causes of
tank leaks are faulty installation or corrosion of tanks and pipelines.
Petroleum products are actually complex mixtures of hundreds of different compounds. Over 200
gasoline compounds can be separated in the mixture. Compounds characterized by a higher water-solubility
are frequently detected in ground water resources. Four compounds, in particular, are associated with
petroleum contamination: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. Petroleum-related chemicals
threaten the use of ground water for human consumption because some (e.g., benzene) are known to cause
cancer even at very low concentrations.
Figure 12. Ground Water Contamination Due to Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Compounds are added to some fuel products to improve performance. For example, methyl tertbutyl ether (MTBE) is added to boost octane and to reduce carbon monoxide and ozone levels.
Unfortunately, this compound is highly water-soluble and incidents of MTBE contamination in ground water
21
are widely reported across the nation. MTBE is frequently being added to the list of compounds monitored
at petroleum release sites, demonstrating that new threats to ground water quality continue to be identifie d.
2. Waste Disposal Practices
Any practice involving the handling and disposal of waste has the potential to impact the
environment if protective measures are not taken. Contaminants most likely to impact ground water include
metals, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, nitrates, radio-nuclides, and
pathogens. Waste disposal practices include septic systems, landfills, surface impoundments, deep and
shallow injection wells, waste-piles, waste tailings, land application and un-permitted disposal.
Improperly constructed and poorly maintained septic systems are believed to cause substantial and
widespread nutrient and microbial contamination in ground water (Novotny & Olem 1994). Landfills have
long been used to dispose of wastes and, in the past, little regard was given to the potential for ground water
contamination in site selection. Landfills were generally sited on land considered to have no other uses and
unlined, abandoned sand and gravel pits, old strip mines, marshlands, and sinkholes were often used. In
many instances, the water table was at, or very near, the ground surface, and the potential for ground water
contamination was high. Generally, the greatest concern is associated with practices or activities that
occurred prior to establishment of construction standards for landfills. Present-day landfills are now required
to adhere to stringent construction guidelines and ground water monitoring standards.
Generally, discharges to surface impoundments such as pits, ponds, and lagoons are under-regulated.
Class V injection wells are used to dispose of waste-waters directly into the ground. Because they are not
designed to treat the waste-waters released through them, ground water supplies can become contaminated.
Class V injection wells include shallow wastewater disposal wells, septic systems, storm water drains, and
agricultural drainage systems. The large number and diversity of Class V injection wells pose a significant
potential threat to ground water.
3. Agricultural Practices
Modern agricultural operations are a major source of ground water contamination and can be a result
of routine applications, spillage, misuse of pesticides and fertilizers during handling and storage, manure
storage/spreading, improper storage of chemicals, and irrigation return drains serving as a direct conduit to
ground water. Fields with over-applied and/or misapplied fertilizers and pesticides can introduce nitrogen,
pesticides, cadmium, chloride, mercury, and selenium into the ground water.
Animal feeding operations can also pose a number of risks to water quality and public health, mainly
because of the amount of animal manure and wastewater they generate. The high concentration of manure in
feedlot areas is of concern as a contributor source of ground water contamination. Animal feedlots often
have impoundments from which wastes may infiltrate to ground water. Livestock waste is a source of
nitrate, bacteria, total dissolved solids, and sulphates (EPA 1998).
Shallow unconfined aquifers have become contaminated from the application of fertilizer. Crop
fertilization is the primary agricultural practice that contributes nitrate to the environment (EPA 1998).
Nitrate contamination is considered by many to be the most widespread ground water contaminant. Humaninduced salinity also occurs in agricultural regions where irrigation is used extensively. Irrigation water
continually flushes nitrate-related compounds from fertilizers into the shallow aquifers along with high levels
of chloride, sodium, and other metals, thereby increasing the salinity of the underlying aquifers.
Pesticide use and application practices are also of great concern. The primary routes of pesticide
transport to ground water are through leaching or by spills and direct infiltration through drainage controls.
Pesticide infiltration is generally greatest when rainfall is intense and occurs shortly after the pesticide is
22
applied. Within sensitive areas, ground water monitoring has shown fairly widespread detections of
pesticides, specifically the pesticide atrazine (EPA 1998).
4. Industrial Practices
Raw materials and waste handling in industrial processes can pose a threat to ground water quality.
The storage of raw materials is a problem if the materials are stored improperly and leaks or spills occur
(EPA 1998). Examples include chemical drums that are carelessly stacked or damaged and/or dry materials
that are exposed to rainfall. Material transport and transfer operations at these facilities can also be a cause
for concern. If a tanker operator is careless when delivering raw materials to a facility, spills may occur.
The most common contaminants are metals, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds,
and petroleum compounds. Spills are a source of grave concern. On average in the U.S., approximately 15
percent of these spills require extensive cleanup and follow-up ground water monitoring. Spills will never
become entirely preventable, but industry, local governments, and state/provincial agencies are co-operating
to control spills when they do occur so that the environmental impact is minimized.
Ground Water Use in Canada
Groundwater is an essential and vital resource for about a quarter of all Canadians. It is their sole
source of water for drinking, washing, farming and manufacturing. Yet for the majority of Canadians - those
who do not depend on it - groundwater is a hidden resource whose value is not well understood or
appreciated. The image of Canada is of a land of sparkling lakes, rivers and glaciers. Groundwater, which
exists everywhere under the surface of the land, is not part of this picture. Not surprisingly, the concerns of
Canadians about water quality focus primarily on surface waters. The less visible, but equally important,
groundwater resources have received little public attention, except in regions where people depend on them
(Environment Canada 1999).
In Canada, 7.9 million people, or 26 percent of the population, rely on ground water for domestic use
(Environment Canada 1999). Approximately two-thirds (or four million) of these users live in rural areas. In
many areas, wells produce more reliable and less expensive water supplies than those obtained from nearby
lakes, rivers and streams. The remaining two million users are located primarily in smaller municipalities
where groundwater provides the primary source for their water supply systems. In Manitoba, the
predominant use of groundwater is for livestock watering.
Contamination can render groundwater unsuitable for use. Although the overall extent of the
problem across Canada is unknown, many individual cases of contamination have been investigated
including ones involving pesticide contamination in the Prairie Provinces. In many cases, contamination is
recognized only after groundwater users have been exposed to potential health risks. The cost of cleaning up
contaminated water supplies is usually extremely high. Contamination problems are, however, increasing in
Canada primarily because of the large and growing number of toxic compounds used in industry and
agriculture. In rural Canada, scientists suspect that many household wells are contaminated by substances
from such common sources as septic systems, underground tanks, used motor oil, road salt, fertilizer,
pesticides, and livestock wastes. Scientists also predict that in the next few decades more contaminated
aquifers will be identified, and more contaminated groundwater will be discharged into wetlands, streams
and lakes. Once an aquifer is contaminated, it may be unusable for decades. The length of time water
spends in the groundwater portion of the hydrologic cycle varies enormously, so an aquifer can be
contaminated from anywhere between two weeks and 10,000 years (Environment Canada 1999).
Several studies have documented the migration of contaminants from disposal or spill sites to nearby
lakes and rivers as the ground water passes through the hydrologic cycle, but these processes are not as yet
23
well understood (Environment Canada 1999). In Canada, pollution of surface water by groundwater is
probably at least as serious as the direct contamination of groundwater supplies. Preventing contamination in
the first place is by far the most practical solution to the problem. This can be accomplished by the adoption
of effective groundwater management practices by governments, industries and all Canadians. Although
progress is being made in this direction, efforts are hampered by a serious shortage of groundwater experts
and a general lack of knowledge about how groundwater behaves.
All levels of government in Canada are starting to take actions necessary to protect groundwater
supplies, but there is a long way to go before these measures are fully effective. At the same time,
universities and government research institutes are investigating what happens to water underground and
what can be done to preserve, and even improve its availability to (Environment Canada 1999).
Ground Water Use in the United States
The use of ground water is of fundamental importance to human life. Its availability and purity are
important to economic vitality and an important component of the nation's fresh water resources. Inventories
of ground water and surface water use patterns in the United States emphasize the importance of ground
water. The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) compiles national water-use information every 5 years
and publishes a report that summarizes this information. The latest report was issued in October 1998 for the
1995 water year. This report shows that ground water provides water for drinking and bathing, irrigation of
crop lands, livestock watering, mining, industrial and commercial uses, and thermoelectric cooling
applications. Irrigation (63%) and public water supply (20%) are the largest uses of ground water in the
United States (Stoner et al 1998).
In 1995, the USGS reported that groundwater supplied 46 percent of the nation’s overall population
and 99 percent of the population in rural areas with drinking water (USGS, 1996). That equals about 77,500
million gallons of ground water withdrawn daily. The nation’s dependence on this valuable resource is clear.
Every state uses some amount of ground water. Nineteen states obtain more than 25 percent of their overall
water supply from ground water. Ten states obtain more than 50 percent of their total water supply from
ground water. The current national decline in water use, including ground water use, is attributed primarily
to growing recognition in recent years that water is not an unlimited resource. Conservation programs
championed by state and local communities have succeeded in lowering public supply per capita use over the
same 15-year period.
The evaluation of ground water quality falls under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, the goal
of which is to determine if the resource meets the requirements for its many different uses. Assessing the
quality of ground water is, however, no easy task. An accurate and representative assessment of ambient
ground water quality requires a well-planned and well-executed monitoring plan. Although the 305(b)
program is definitely moving in the direction of more and better ground water quality assessments, there is
still much more that needs to be done. Coverage, both in terms of the area within a state and the number of
states reporting ground water quality monitoring data, needs to be enlarged. States also need to focus on
collecting ground water data that are most representative of the resource itself. Specifically, states need to
rely less on finished water quality data and more on ambient ground water quality data.
Although ground water quality assessments are being performed and reported under the Clean Water
Act 305(b) program, vast differences in ground water management are apparent. Several states have
implemented monitoring programs designed to characterize ground water quality and identify and address
potential threats to ground water. Other states have only just begun to implement ground water protection
strategies. One of the most important factors in deciding state priorities concerning the assessment of ground
water quality is economic constraints (EPA 1998). Characterizing and monitoring ground water quality is
24
expensive and few states have the economic resources to undertake large-scale ground water quality
assessment across an entire state. Therefore, states are applying different approaches to ground water
protection. These approaches are based on each state’s individual challenges and economic constraints.
Approaches range from implementing statewide ambient ground water monitoring networks to monitoring
selected aquifers on a rotating basis. States determine the approach based on the use of the resource,
vulnerability to contamination, and state management decisions.
Based on ground water quality data reported by states during the 1996 and 1998 305(b) cycles,
ground water quality in the nation is good and continues to support the various identified uses. Ground water
contamination incidents are being reported in aquifers across the Nation. Leaking underground storage tanks
have consistently been reported as an important source of ground water contamination for all 305(b) cycles
for which data were reported. In general, the threat from leaking underground storage tanks is due to the
sheer number of tanks buried above water tables across the nation. Other important sources of ground water
contamination include septic systems, landfills, hazardous waste sites, surface impoundments, industrial
facilities, and agricultural land practices.
Petroleum chemicals, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides,
nitrate, and metals have been measured at elevated levels in ground water across the Nation. The most
frequently cited contaminants of concern were volatile organic compounds and petroleum chemicals. These
classes of chemicals have consistently been reported as ground water contaminants (Stoner et al 1998).
States have also reported increasing detections of chemicals not previously measured in ground water (for
example, MTBE and metals). The recent detection of these chemicals may represent emerging trends in
ground water contamination.
IV. WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Canada
In Canada, the federal government has developed conservation strategie s that integrate
environmental conservation and economic development. This was in response to the World Conservation
Strategy published in 1980 by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN) in conjunction with the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Wildlife
Fund (WWF). The report maintained that one of the six major obstacles to achieving conservation was the
"belief that living resource conservation is a limited sector, rather than a process that cuts across and must be
considered by all sectors" (IUCN 1980).
The United Nations General Assembly created the World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED) "to re-examine the critical issues of environment and development and to formulate
innovative, concrete and realistic proposals to deal with them" (WCED 1987). Also known as the
Brundtland Commission, its general conclusion was that all human activities should be directed towards
achieving the goal of "sustainable development". Like the World Conservation Strategy, sustainable
development views the environment as an integral component that must be addressed if effective economic
and social policies are to be implemented and sustained. In the overview of its report, Our Common Future,
the WCED suggested that "hope for the future [was] conditional on decisive political action to begin
managing environmental to ensure both sustainable human progress and human survival". This report
identified a number of principles to guide decision-making, and strategies to implement sustainable
development.
25
The Canadian government responded to the challenges posed in Our Common Future by forming
Round Tables on Environment and Economy. Comprised of federal, provincial, and territorial politicians,
public administrators, private sector interests, and representatives from interest groups, these Round Tables
undertook "to consider how environment and development issues could be integrated into all levels of
decision-making" (Manitoba Environment 1997). In addition to the National Round Table, the federal
government introduced the Green Plan (1990) whose primary goal is to ensure a healthy environment and a
prosperous economy for current and future generations. Central to achieving this goal is wise and efficient
water use and the provision of clean water (Mitchell & Shrubsole 1994).
In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was attended
by 178 governments (including Canada) and produced five important international agreements, two of which,
the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, addressed the inter-dependence of the environment and human
development. The Rio Declaration contains 27 principles including the need for development, equitable
trade and the role of special groups. Agenda 21 is intended to be the means to implement sustainable
development, and is "perhaps best seen as a collection of agreed negotiated wisdom as to the nature of
problems, relevant principles, and a sketch of desirable and feasible paths toward solutions, taking into
account national and other interests". In particular, there are calls for the protection of the quality and supply
of freshwater resources through the application of integrated approaches to the development, management
and use of water resources. Other water quality related subjects raised in Agenda 21 include toxic chemicals,
hazardous wastes and solid wastes, and sewage-related issues.
Federal Agencies
Environment Canada
The mission statement released in February 1994 states that Environment Canada will provide
leadership to achieve sustainable development. To achieve this goal it will, among other initiatives: (1) act
to understand, protect and restore the integrity of Canada's ecosystems, (2) advocate the sustainable use of
resources, (3) protect Canada's natural and cultural heritage, and (4) promote environmental stewardship
throughout the Government of Canada. One of its key operating principles will be to "work together and
with others in ways that enhance the efforts of all partners".
Environment Canada has gone through both a reorientation and restructuring exercise in an attempt
to respond to global forces for change as well as the desire to achieve sustainable development. Specifically,
a number of factors have been incorporated within the agency to allow it to function more effectively
(Mitchell & Shrubsole 1994).
The mandate of the Environmental Conservation Service is:
(1)
to understand the factors that determine ecosystem health and biodiversity, and develop
conservation strategies to promote those conditions.
(2)
to develop wetlands expertise in conserving.
(3)
to provide scientific support to the regional flagships, and resource economics support to the
benefit-cost analysis of response strategies.
26
The intent of the Service is to emphasize three management assumptions. First, It is believed that if
water managers can get the price right regarding delivering water to users and reflecting its real intrinsic
value, then water would be allocated and used more effectively. Second, more attention will be given to
creating partnerships so that stakeholders can be involved and accountable. The era of a paternalistic
approach is long gone. The need is to combine users, consumers, and experts in a "conspiracy" for better
management. Third, more effort will be given to information, specifically to improve knowledge about
ecosystem science and to ensure that information is useful and accessible to decision-makers. It is believed
that there is still much to be done before decision-makers can actually use ecological information. The
Environmental Conservation Service believes that if these three assumptions - pricing, partnerships, and
information - were strengthened, then management would be more effective and taxpayers would be well
served. They also believe there is a need for a forum in which these matters can be examined in an ongoing
manner, and thinks that NGOs have a valuable role in facilitating such discussion (Mitchell & Shrubsole
1994).
The Environmental Protection Service is involved in water-quality management and focuses on:
(1)
providing a single window for the development of policies and development of response
strategies for the prevention, control and remediation of pollution of air, land, and water.
(2)
developing and deploying a broad range of voluntary, market-based and regulatory
instruments.
(3)
having responsibility for management and policy direction on national programs.
Health Canada
Health Canada is the federal department responsible for helping the people of Canada maintain and
improve their health. In partnership with provincial and territorial governments, Health Canada provides
national leadership to develop health policy, enforce health regulations, promote disease prevention and
enhance healthy living for all Canadians. It also works closely with other federal departments, agencies and
health stakeholders to reduce health and safety risks to Canadians. By making Canadians more aware of
dangers to their health, protecting them from avoidable risks and encouraging them to take a more active role
in their health, Health Canada fosters a healthier population and contributes to a more productive country
(Health Canada, 2000).
Health Canada does not have a mandate to address water management specifically. However, its
Environmental Health Directorate is responsible for programs concerning the health significance of drinking
water quality and recreational water quality in Canada. Key initiatives include:
1.
Facilitating passage of the Drinking Water Safety Act and developing regulations.
2.
Development and revision of the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality and the
Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality, in collaboration with the provinces and
territories.
3.
Water quality surveillance and research to assess exposure of the Canadian public to selected
contaminants in ground and surface water supplies.
4.
Toxicological and epidemiological studies to provide databases for the development of
guidelines.
27
5.
Evaluation of appropriate water treatment technologies and their impact on human health.
6.
Health assessment of devices, chemicals, and system components used in drinking water
treatment.
7.
Development of a framework for determining the health and economic impact of water quality
guidelines.
8.
Development and dissemination of informational materials, and participation in the
organization of the biennial national conferences on drinking water.
9.
Provision of health advice upon request under the Environmental Assessment and Review
Process (EARP) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Canadian Water Quality Guidelines
One of the major obstacles in assessing the magnitude of the threats facing water quality in Canada is
the difficulty of defining water quality for specific beneficial uses. As a result, federal, provincial, and
territorial water managers rely on water quality guidelines from various sources, both Canadian and foreign.
The Guidelines were developed to provide basic, scientific information about the effects of water
quality parameters on varying water uses in order to assess water quality issues and concerns and to establish
site-specific water quality objectives (Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers (CCREM)
1987). The Canadian Water Quality Guidelines document addressed the following major uses of water:
•
raw water for drinking water
•
recreational water quality and aesthetics
•
freshwater aquatic life
•
agricultural uses
•
industrial water supplies
The guidelines for drinking water and recreational water uses are prepared by Health Canada while
the remainder are developed by Environment Canada under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment, Water Quality Guidelines Task Force. Revisions of these guidelines are produced on an ongoing basis.
As mentioned, the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines were developed from a review of existing
guidelines and a variety of sources. If these guidelines were found to be appropriate for Canadian
environmental conditions, they were adopted. If not, attempts were made to modify them for Canadian
waters or no guideline was recommended for that particular parameter. The Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines should not be regarded as a "blanket value" for water quality nation-wide. Variations in
environmental conditions will affect water quality in different ways and many of the guidelines may require
modification to meet specific local conditions. Site-specific water quality objectives are developed to reflect
the local environment and may be adopted by a jurisdiction into legislation to become standards.
28
The use of Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for site-specific water quality objectives is predicated
on possessing an understanding of the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of the water-body
and an understanding of the behaviour of a substance once it is introduced into the aquatic environment.
Factors affecting the application of the guidelines include:
•
the general characteristics of the rivers, lakes, and ground water
•
the effect of local environmental conditions on water quality
•
processes affecting the concentration of parameters in water
•
factors that modify toxicity to aquatic organisms
Guidelines for Raw Water for Drinking Water Supply
Raw public water supplies refer to waters that are used as the intake source of water for public use
and can include surface water and ground water. The majority of Canadians obtain their drinking water from
piped water supplies, most of which include some form of treatment between the use and the raw water
supply. The purpose of the treatment process is to provide the use with drinking water that is safe, palatable,
and aesthetically appealing. However, there is a minority of Canadians including individual dwellings in
rural communities, farms, and some towns that depend entirely on untreated groundwater.
The Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality 1996 were prepared by the Federal-Provincial
Subcommittee on Drinking Water of the Federal-Provincial Committee on Environmental and Occupational
Health. These guidelines recommend limits for physical, chemical, radiological, and microbiological
characteristics of drinking water in terms of maximum acceptable concentrations. Drinking water that
contains substances in concentrations greater than these limits either is capable of producing deleterious
health effects or is aesthetically objectionable.
The Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water advised the Task Force on Water Quality
Guidelines that treatment technology is available to produce drinking water from water of almost any quality.
Therefore, the Task Force decided that it was not appropriate to recommend numerical guidelines for raw
public water supplies at this time (CCME 1992). It must also be considered that degradation of raw water
quality could result in an increased risk to consumers if health-related constituents are involved. The Task
Force considered it prudent to protect raw public water supplies to ensure that they are maintained as good
sources of drinking water.
The maintenance of good quality drinking water can be achieved both by protecting the raw water
supply and by water treatment. It is possible to protect the raw water supply by means of pollution control
measures to prevent undesirable constituents from entering the raw water and by good watershed
management practices. A wide range of treatment technologies is available to produce acceptable drinking
water from almost any raw water source.
Guidelines for Freshwater Aquatic Life
Within an aquatic ecosystem there is a complex interaction of physical and biochemical cycles.
Changes do not occur in isolation. However, an ecosystem has evolved over long periods of time and the
organisms have become adapted to their environment. The system may be unbalanced by natural factors
29
including drastic climatic variations, or disease, or by factors due to human activity and any changes,
especially rapid ones, could have detrimental or disastrous effects.
When developing and using guidelines for aquatic life protection, ideally there should be complete
information on the parameter of concern. This should include "form and fate" in the aquatic environment,
quantitative exposure/effect relationships, and fate within organisms over a wide range of exposure
concentrations. A relevant information base for a particular parameter is rarely complete and there are often
many gaps in knowledge. Generally, the more information that is available, the more reliable the guideline
(CCREM 1987).
Guidelines for Recreational Water Quality and Aesthetics
Recreational water refers to surface waters that are used primarily for sports in which the user comes
into frequent direct contact with the water, either as part of the activity or incidental to the activity, e.g.
swimming and board-sailing. Other recreational uses include boating, canoeing, and fishing which generally
have less frequent body contact with water.
The guidelines for this use deal mainly with potential health hazards related to recreational water
use, but also relate to aesthetics and nuisance conditions. Health hazards associated with direct recreational
contact with water include infections transmitted by pathogenic micro-organisms and injures resulting from
impaired visibility in turbid waters.
The local setting of recreational water bodies is of prime importance, as the surrounding countryside
has a strong visual effect on the enjoyment of lakes and rivers. In northern waters, swimming is not a major
recreational activity, and factors other than microbiological are major components when determining the
suitability of lakes and rivers and their environs as recreational areas. To society, the visual impact of the
whole area is as important as the quality of the water.
Impacts on a water source come from many activities, including logging, mining, drainage of
wetlands, dredging, dam construction, agricultural runoff, industrial and municipal wastes, land erosion, road
construction, and land development. These factors all have to be considered in areas of natural beauty which
are used for the many recreational activities engaged in by Canadians and visitors to Canada (CCREM 1987).
Fisheries & Oceans Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the federal department responsible for the administration of the
Fisheries Act, which is the legislative base for the federal government's constitutional responsibility for
inland fisheries. The Fisheries Act contains a number of provisions for fish habitat protection and pollution
prevention. The implications of the Fisheries Act for aquatic systems are considerable as the protection of
fish habitat under the Act provides substantial protection for both water quality and levels.
The habitat sections of the Fisheries Act include prohibition of the harmful alteration, disruption, and
destruction of fish habitat without an authorization for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and provisions
for minimum flow requirements, screened water intakes and unobstructed fish passage. The pollution
prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, which are administered by Environment Canada, prohibit the
deposit of deleterious substances into water frequented by fish (Mitchell & Shrubsole 1994).
30
Agriculture Canada: Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration
The Prairie farm Rehabilitation Administration's (PFRA) mandate with respect to water is derived
from the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which directs the agency to develop and promote systems of farm
practice, tree culture, and water supply, land utilization, and land settlement that will afford greater economic
security to the prairie provinces. As a result, PFRA has been involved in a wide variety of water
management activities, including on-farm water supply, irrigation, municipal water supply, and large-scale
multiple-purpose water supply projects.
PFRA has recently been restructured to reflect three ideas. First, in order to improve client service,
the re-organization includes the creation of two new Regional Offices (bringing the total to five) and an
increased number of staff in the 23 District Offices. Next, to improve integration, the restructuring included
moving the delivery of soil and water programs into one unit. From a water management perspective, the
key administrative units are the Regional and District Offices. Most program delivery actually occurs
through the District Offices and is supported by technical units (e.g., water quality, groundwater, irrigation)
in the Engineering and Sustainability Service. Third, to increase the responsiveness to the client, the reorganization included increased delegation of authority and a decrease in centralized control (Mitchell &
Shrubsole 1994).
Provincial Agencies
Manitoba Conservation
Manitoba Conservation (formerly the Manitoba Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of the Environment) strives to maintain, enhance, and protect the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of all surface waters in the province. Achievement of this goal will ensure that the
present and potential surface water uses are maintained in concordance with the social and economic
development of the province. To this end, surface water quality objectives were formulated which define
minimum levels of quality required for various uses.
All surface waters of the Province of Manitoba such as streams, lakes, marshes, swamps, lowlands,
etc., should be free of constituents attributable to sewage, industrial, agricultural, and other land-use
practices, or other human-induced point or non-point source discharges such that the following general
objectives are met as minimum conditions at all times and in all places.
Terms such as criteria, guidelines, objectives, standards, site-adapted guidelines, site-specific
standards, site-specific guidelines, site-specific objectives, plus others are in common use. Of these various
terms, only water quality standards are legally enforceable. Water quality standards are required by U.S.
federal law for all state jurisdictions within the United States. All terms generally represent a sequential
refinement of the initial scientific toxicological information to fit the specific circumstances at a single site.
Within Manitoba, the following definition applies:
"The Manitoba Surface Water Quality Objectives define minimum levels of quality
necessary for the protection of the important water uses in Manitoba. The objectives, when
not exceeded will protect an organism, a community of organisms, or other designated multipurpose water uses."
Thus the Manitoba Surface Water Quality Objectives are analagous to the Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines with the exception that they have been site-adapted for general use in Manitoba.
31
Manitoba Surface Water Objectives
In 1976, Manitoba Conservation developed a proposal outlining a system of surface water quality
objectives and watershed classifications for the province that would form the basis of a surface water quality
management program. This proposal was critically reviewed by the Clean Environment Commission (CEC)
following widespread public review as proscribed by the Clean Environment Act. It was subsequently
implemented with some modifications as a result of this public consultation process. A number of technical
revisions were proposed in 1983 (Williamson 1983a & 1983b). The proposed revisions were again widely
circulated both provincially and federally, and so that all interested partie s would have the opportunity to
comment, the CEC convened a public hearing in Winnipeg in 1984. Further revisions were proposed for a
number of parameters and were circulated to a variety of industries, municipalities, recognized technical
experts and the CEC. The revised document was released in July of 1988. The most recent proposals to the
Province's water quality objectives program is slated for release in 2001. As a result of the development of
provincial sustainable development water strategies, there was government-wide support for the development
and implementation of provincial water quality objectives.
The document reflects the best scientific judgement of Manitoba Conservation with regard to
protecting the various uses of Manitoba's surface waters. Where water quality parameters could not be
defined in quantitative terms due to lack of scientific information, general narrative (free form) statements
were developed that reflect the necessary and desirable quality. Surface water quality objectives are
designated concentrations of constituents that, when not exceeded, will protect an organism, a community of
organisms, a prescribed water use, or a designated multiple -purpose water use with an adequate degree of
safety. If the objectives do not offer adequate protection surface water quality may be degraded, or if they
are too restrictive, an unnecessarily high burden may be imposed on both industry and the public in order to
finance the required additional water treatment. These objectives, therefore, impact all Manitobans, since
they may affect the operation of industries, municipalities and agriculture (Manitoba Conservation in press).
Appendix 8 contains a listing of Manitoba's revised Surface Water Quality Objectives (2000).
Sustainable Development Coordination Unit
The thrust world-wide is to evolve toward sustainable development reporting. In 1990, Manitoba’s
government made a commitment to sustainable development - "development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." In March 1994, the
provincial government released its Sustainable Development Strategy in which the environment is clean,
safe, and healthy; the economy is able to provide the wealth, goods, and services required by present and
future generations; and social needs are met by offering equitable opportunities to all citizens. Existing
State-of-the Environment (SOE) reports provide timely, accurate, and accessible information on ecosystem
conditions and trends as well as their significance and society's response. Sustainable development reporting
goes beyond SOE reporting in that it links environmental conditions with socio-economic factors reflecting
the interdependent relationship that exists between humans and their environment.
For the purposes of reporting, an ecological classification system that divides Canada into 15 regions
or "ecozones" each having common biophysical characteristics. The use of ecozones for reporting is
consistent with national SOE reporting and with reporting in many other Canadian jurisdictions. Manitoba
encompasses an area of 650,087 square kilometres, 54.8 million terrestrial hectares and 10.2 million aquatic
hectares. The landscape of the Province ranges from prairie grassland in the south, through to broadleaf
mixed-wood and boreal forest, to tundra in the north. Manitoba has six ecozones.
32
Manitobans need to be kept informed about the conditions and changes in their environment, and
they need to make decisions based on this information to ensure the sustainability of the province. The
information must show the relationship between environmental protection, economic growth and human
well-being. By reporting regularly on a range of issues, an evaluation of changes in environmental
conditions can be made and preventive or corrective measures can be taken.
Environmental indicators are statistics that represent or summarize important aspects of the state of
the environment. They focus on trends related to environmental stress, ecological conditions, ecological
response to changes, and responses by society to prevent or reduce these stresses (Dovetail Consulting 1995).
These indicators are described as "measurements of the key vital signs of the economy, environment, human
health, and society" and are intended for the purpose of:
•
facilitating the assessment of Manitoba's long-term economic, environmental, human health and
community well-being
•
facilitating the establishment and adjustment of provincial economic, environmental, human
health and community goals, objectives, targets and policies
•
providing a measure of performance in achieving goals, objectives, targets and polices
•
providing the framework for the preparation of a provincial sustainable development report
Developing a Water Quality Index
Despite Manitoba's water quality management efforts, there are regions where quality is
deteriorating or threatened. Even in areas with sufficient water, the quality can vary affecting its use and
value as a resource (Province of Manitoba 1995).
Typically, water quality is assessed by measuring a number of variables, including bacterial
organisms, plant nutrients, major ions, trace elements, industrial organic chemicals, and agricultural
pesticides. About 70 variables are analyzed in most samples collected during routine water quality
monitoring in Manitoba. All variables need to be examined individually to (1) compare with water quality
guidelines established by the province, (2) assess changes between upstream and downstream locations, (3)
identify changes that may be occurring over time and (4) to develop focused maintenance, protection, or
enhancement programs (Manitoba Environment 1997).
Describing water quality conditions in simple, useful terms is difficult because of the complexity
associated with many of the variables being analyzed. Jurisdictions have tried to develop water quality
indices to address this difficulty but in doing so they have oversimplified the water quality conditions or
failed to include key elements. In 1995 however, an index was developed by the British Columbia Ministry
of Environment, Lands and Parks that achieves a balance between simplification, quantification, and
communication. This index makes "complex issues quantifiable so that information can be communicated"
(Department of the Environment 1996).
The index presumes water quality is excellent when all water quality objectives are met all the time.
With each failure to meet an objective, water quality becomes progressively poorer. This index
mathematically incorporates information on water quality from three factors:
•
the number of water quality variables for which objectives or guidelines are not met
33
•
the percentage of time they are not met
•
the magnitude of exceedances
Manitoba's Water Quality Index
Manitoba's Water Quality Index incorporates information on water quality based on comparisons to
guidelines or objectives. The resulting index should be useful for tracking water quality changes. Also, it
conveys complex scientific information in terms that are easily understood (Table 2). Twenty-five indicator
variables were chosen for use in the index because they provide direct information on important concerns or
because they represent related variables (Table 3). National water quality guidelines and Manitoba-specific
water quality objectives were then used to calculate the index (Williamson 1988; Treloar 1997).
Table 2. Categories of Water Quality and Associated Index Ranges.
Water Quality
Rank
Excellent
•
Good
•
•
Fair
•
•
•
Marginal
•
•
Poor
•
•
•
•
Description
all water uses protected with a virtual absence of
impairment
no water uses ever interrupted
all water uses protected, with only a minor degree of
impairment
no water uses ever interrupted
most water uses protected, but a few may be impaired
a single water use may be temporarily interrupted
conditions
sometimes
from desirable quality
several water
uses maydepart
be impaired
more than one water use may be temporarily interrupted
conditions often depart from desirable quality
most water uses impaired
several water uses may be temporarily interrupted
conditions usually depart from desirable quality
Index
0-3
4 - 17
18 - 43
44 - 59
60 - 100
•
Source: Manitoba Environment
Not all variables were measured in each of Manitoba's six ecozones. For example, agricultural
pesticides used in southern Manitoba are not routinely measured in northern ecozone. Differences in the
number of variables measured among ecozones do not affect the Water Quality Index. However, index
ratings may appear to vary more from year to year when fewer water quality variables are used and when
fewer samples are collected.
34
Table 3. Manitoba's Water Quality Index Variables.
Raw
Water for
General Chemistry
Conductivity
Dissolved Oxygen
Fecal coliform
Iron
Manganese
Nitrate - nitrite
Ph
Phosphorus
Total suspended solids
Un-ionized ammonia
Trace Elements
Aluminium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Pesticides
2,4-D
Atrazine
Bromoxynil
Dicamba
Lindane
MCPA
Simazine
Trifluralin
Aquatic and
Wildlife
Agricultu
ral
Livestoc
k
Recreationa
l Use
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
- water uses protected by guidelines or objectives for individual variables
O - water uses protected by the most restrictive guideline or objective
All data are compared to the most restrictive guideline or objective. If the most restrictive
guideline or objective has been met, then all other guidelines or objectives will also be met.
Source: Manitoba Environment
35
O
The United States
In 1972, Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA), which establishes a framework to “restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” Where attainable,
water quality “provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the water.” These goals are referred to as the “fishable and swimmable” goals of the
Act.
The Act required states, tribes, and other jurisdictions to develop water quality standards to guide the
restoration and protection of all waters of the United States. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency regulations require that, wherever attainable, they include, at a minimum, the "fishable and
swimmable" goals of the Act. States must submit their standards for approval. Once approved, water quality
standards are the benchmark against which monitoring data are compared to assess the health of waters under
Section 305(b), to list impaired waters under Section 303(d), and to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads in
impaired waters.
Water quality standards have three elements:
1. Designated uses are the beneficial uses that water quality should support. Each designated use has a
unique set of water quality criteria that must be met for the use to be realized. Where attainable, all
waters should support drinking water supply, recreation, aquatic life, and fish consumption. Additional
important uses include agriculture, industry, and navigation. Each designated use has a unique set of
water quality criteria that must be met for the use to be realized.
2. Water use protection criteria come in two forms, numeric criteria and narrative criteria.
•
Numeric criteria include aquatic life criteria, human health criteria, biological criteria, and
sediment quality guidelines. They establish thresholds for the physical conditions, chemical
concentrations, and biological attributes required to support a beneficial use.
•
Narrative criteria define, rather than quantify, conditions that must be maintained to support a
designated use. For example, a narrative criterion might be “waters must be free of substances
that are toxic to humans, aquatic life, and wildlife.” Narrative biological criteria address the
expected characteristics of aquatic communities within a waterbody. For example, “ambient
water quality shall be sufficient to support life stages of all indigenous aquatic species.”
3. Anti-degradation policies are intended to protect existing uses and prevent waterbodies from
deteriorating even if their water quality is better than the fishable and swimmable goals of the Act.
Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and to safeguard the
natural environment — air, water, and land — upon which life depends. Specifically the agency's purpose is
to ensure that all Americans are "protected from significant risks to human health and the environment"
(EPA, 2000).
36
In 1997, EPA and the states set a goal and develop a strategy to assess all surface and ground waters
in the United States within 5 years. This strategy embraces a variety of monitoring approaches to reflect the
diversity among state monitoring programs. Most jurisdictions are using a rotating basin approach to achieve
their initial survey of rivers and streams. Other types of water bodies are being included as the assessments
continue.
Other programs to monitor water quality in the United States include:
•
National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish – In 1998, EPA and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) initiated a study to estimate the national distribution of the
mean levels of selected persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemical residues in fish tissue in U.S.
waters. Fish studies will continue through 2002 and are being coordinated with state and tribal
efforts as part of President Clinton’s Clean Water Action Plan.
•
The National Fish Survey is using a probability-based monitoring design to sample fish tissue in
lakes and reservoirs. For these waterbodies, the survey will identify the chemicals found in the
fish and characterize the levels of contamination in agricultural and nonagricultural areas of the
United States.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
The U.S. Geological Survey has actively been undertaking the National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program for more than a decade. The program is designed to describe the status and trends in the
quality of our nation’s water resources and to provide a sound understanding of the natural and human
factors that affect the quality of these resources. Investigations are being conducted in 59 areas called “study
units” including the Red River Basin. These investigations throughout the nation will provide a framework
for national and regional water quality assessment. Regional and national synthesis of information from
study units will consist of comparative studies of specific water quality issues using nationally consistent
information. Research and field-work were conducted in the Red River Basin Study Unit from 1991 to 1994
and the findings were published in 1996 (USGS, 1996).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Although not directly involved in water quality management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
embarked upon the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) to generate information about the characteristics,
extent, and status of the Nation’s wetlands and deepwater habitats. The NWI has mapped 89 percent of the
lower 48 states and 31 percent of Alaska. About 39 percent of the lower 48 states and 11 percent of Alaska
are digitized. Congressional mandates require the NWI to produce status and trends reports to Congress at
10-year intervals. In 1982, the NWI produced the first comprehensive, statistically valid estimate of the
status of the nation’s wetlands and wetland losses and in 1990 produced the first update. Future national
updates are scheduled for 2000, 2010, and 2020 (EPA 1998).
State Agencies
Every state is responsible for conducting water quality monitoring programs and the EPA provides
pollution control and environmental management grants to help establish and maintain these programs. The
37
states use the data to review and revise existing water quality standards and develop new ones. Many states
are monitoring conditions in pristine waters to help develop standards that protect biological integrity.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires the states to use monitoring data on biological
integrity, physical conditions, and chemical concentrations and list threatened and impaired waters. States
are also required to use chemical concentration data and water-body flow data to develop pollutant-specific
total maximum daily loads (TMDL) to design water quality standards for impaired waters. States also
conduct monitoring in response to citizen complaints or catastrophic events such as fish kills and chemical
spills.
State water quality assessments are based on five types of monitoring data, each of which provides
useful information about the quality of water resources and when used in conjunction with one another help
managers identify and address water quality problems. They include:
1.
Biological Integrity Data represent an objective measurement of aquatic biological communities,
including aquatic insects, fish, or algae, used to evaluate the health of an aquatic ecosystem with
respect to the presence of human disturbance. While most states use biological integrity data to
interpret narrative criteria or qualitative descriptions, a few have adopted numeric biological criteria
into their water quality standards.
Over the past few years, EPA has provided advice to states wishing to develop numeric
biological criteria for rivers, streams, and lakes. It describes the process of combining individual
measures of biological health into a single value or index. "Eight to twelve of the metrics are
selected for inclusion in the index. They are selected based on their ability to predict associations
between environmental quality and biological integrity." These measures fall into the following
categories of biological health:
•
Species composition
•
Species richness
•
Community structure and function
•
Individual organism health
When a numeric biological criteria is used, individual measurements are collected, an index
score is calculated, and the resulting index score is compared to the threshold of biological integrity
desired for waters in the same use category. The individual measurements are also examined as each
provides information on biological health and can be an early sign of change.
2.
Chemical Pollutant Data is included in all state water quality standards. These pollutants include
metals, organic chemicals, nutrients, and bacteria. Numeric criteria exist for over 150 pollutants.
These criteria establish thresholds for pollutant concentrations in ambient waters and protect specific
uses. Each use has its own specific numeric criteria. States compare ambient monitoring data to
chemical criteria when assessing whether water quality supports water quality standards. Monitoring
for specific chemicals in water-bodies helps states identify the specific pollutants causing
impairment. It also helps states trace the source of impairment.
3.
Physical Attribute Data includes characteristics such as temperature, flow, dissolved oxygen,
suspended solids, turbidity, conductivity, and pH. Most states have adopted numeric criteria in their
water quality standards defining acceptable levels or ranges for specific physical attributes. Physical
38
attributes are useful screening indicators of potential problems. Many of them work together with
chemical pollutants to mediate or exaggerate the toxic effects of chemicals.
4.
Habitat Data monitoring provides information about the ability of a water-body to support a variety
of aquatic life. The quality and quantity of available habitat affects the structure and function of
biological communities. Habitat assessments generally include a description of the site and
surrounding land use, description of the water-body origin and type, summary of the riparian
vegetation along the shoreline and the aquatic vegetation, and measurement of parameters such as
width, depth, flow, and substrate. Habitat assessment typically supplements other types of water
quality monitoring. The combination of habitat assessments, biological assessments, and chemical
and physical data provides insight into the presence of chemical and non-chemical stressors to the
aquatic ecosystem.
5.
Toxicity Data testing is used to determine whether aquatic life beneficial use is being attained.
Toxicity data are generated by exposing selected organisms to known dilutions of wastewater
discharge or ambient water samples in order to determine the presence of a toxicity effect at either an
acute or chronic concentration. Acute effects will lead to increased mortality rates over the short
term while chronic toxicity involves the exposure of the most sensitive life stage of an organism and
assess the effects of longer-term exposure. This kind of ambient water testing is valuable when nonpoint source contamination is suspected as it can help to determine whether "poor" biological
integrity is related to toxins, poor habitat, or a combination of the two.
Listings of the Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota water quality standards are listed in
appendices 8.1.2 to 8.1.4.
International
International Joint Commission
The IJC is an independent, international organization established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of
1909. The Commission has three members appointed by the President of the United States and three
appointed by the Governor-in-Council in Canada. Headquarter offices are in Ottawa and Washington, D.C.,
with another office in Windsor which is responsible for the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972.
It is a key organization in many aspects of Canada-United States boundary and transboundary water
management, and it is involved with aquatic systems as diverse as the Columbia River basin, the St. MaryMilk Rivers basin, the Souris-Red Rivers basin, the Lake-of-the-Woods basin, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
River basin, and the St. Croix River basin.
The IJC issues approval orders regarding applications for the use, obstruction, or diversion of waters
that flow along, and in certain cases across, the boundary if such issues affect the natural water levels or
flows on the other side. The IJC also undertakes studies of specific issues when requested by the American
and Canadian Governments. It maintains continuing surveillance on the water quality for specific waterways
and oversees the allocation of water in keeping with its Orders of Approval or other arrangements made by
the Governments (Mitchell & Shrubsole 1994).
In 1996, the International Joint Commission Red River Pollution Board decided that it should
investigate establishing a biological monitoring program for the international border. The program would be
a co-operative project between the United States and Canada, and their state and provincial agencies.
39
V. WATER QUALITY IN THE RED RIVER OF THE NORTH
Background
Basin Setting
The Red River Basin is approximately 45,000 square miles in size, exclusive of the Assiniboine
River and it's tributary, the Souris, and is located in parts of southern Manitoba, western Minnesota, eastern
North Dakota, and northern South Dakota (Figure 13). The Red River of the North (hereafter referred to as
the Red River) is one of the few in the world that flows north. It begins in north-eastern South Dakota and
flows north along the border between North Dakota and Minnesota. The Red River eventually crosses the
international boundary into Manitoba and eventually flows into Lake Winnipeg.
Figure 13. Map of the Red River of the
North
The Red River flows down a gradient of only 229 feet from the point it begins near Wahpeton, North
Dakota until it reaches Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba, a distance of approximately 545 river miles (885
kilometers); its slope averages le ss than one-half foot per mile. Because of the flatness of the entire basin,
the low gradient river channel and flows northwards, the Red River is prone to flooding. Because the basin
is located in what was once a glacial lake bottom, adjacent to the river clay-rich sediments can be found
along with moraines, glacial drift, and till plains. Small lakes and wetland areas characteristic of this
landscape with prairie potholes common in the western reaches.
40
In addition to the basin setting, it is also important to have a basic understanding of the climate with
the Red River Basin as climate is the "dominant natural factor in determining water availability in the basin"
(Krenz & Leitch 1993). Cold winters and moderately warm summers are characteristic of climate with in the
basin. Temperatures have ranged from -50o F in January to well over 100o in August. Approximately twothirds of the Basin's precipitation occurs from May to July, with the driest months occurring between
November and February. The average annual precipitation ranges from between 24 inches in the south-east
to 17 inches in the western portion.
Much of the temporal variation in water quality is seasonal. Seasonally, winter brings cold
temperatures, snow, and ice. Surface waters tend to have less dissolved oxygen, lower concentrations of
suspended sediment, and higher concentrations of nutrients than during other seasons. Ammonia and
dissolved phosphorus concentrations can be high under ice conditions. Spring brings cool temperatures,
melting snow and ice, flooded fields, and high flows into rivers along with a corresponding increase in
dissolved-oxygen, suspended-sediment, and nutrient concentrations. Snowmelt and precipitation runoff
delivers nutrients, pesticides, and sediment to streams. Soil preparation and the application of chemicals
relative to the occurrence of precipitation accounts for some of the variability in the amount of contaminants
that reaches rivers and streams. Agricultural chemicals such as triallate, a herbicide applied in the fall, may
reach their highest concentrations during spring. Summer brings warm temperatures, thunderstorms, and
generally declining water levels in rivers. Periodic rainstorms increase suspended sediment and the transport
pesticides applied in spring and summer to surface waters. Fall brings cool temperatures, falling leaves, and
low stream-water levels. Streamflows approach the annual minimum and correspond to reduced suspendedsediment, nutrient, and pesticide concentrations (Stoner et al 1998).
Basin Hydrology
When water hits the surface of the earth there are several paths that it can follow. Krenz and Leitch
(1993) describe three main routes: water can travel downhill to large bodies of water, it can evaporate into
the atmosphere, or it can infiltrate into the surface of the earth. Water is also exchanged between surface and
subsurface water-bodies through the processes of recharge and discharge.
The main components of the Red River Basin's runoff system are the rivers and their tributaries
within the basin (Krenz & Leitch 1993). Flows can range significantly, both between and within the
different rivers, depending upon climatic conditions. As a result, the amount of water reaching the main
stem of the Red River and eventually Lake Winnipeg varies from season to season and year to year. Lakes
and managed reservoirs are also important components of the runoff system within the Basin.
There are three main factors controlling the timing and amount of stream-flow within the Red River
Basin. These include water availability, water excess, and water routing. Most of the stream flow within the
Basin is a result of snowmelt and rains that occur during snowmelt. Water quality can be affected by the
timing and the magnitude of stream-flow, both of which are variable.
There are a total of twenty-four sub-basins in the Red River Basin; nine in North Dakota, ten in
Minnesota and five in Manitoba. Within these sub-basins, discharge and other hydrologic data is collected
through a network of gauging stations. Data collection ranges from short- to long-term and can be
permanent, temporary, high-flow, low-flow or continuous monitoring (Krenz & Leitch 1993). These stations
are maintained through the support of federal, state, provincial, and local funding.
The ground water available to wells, springs and streams within the Red River Basin is supplied by
sand and gravel aquifers located either near the surface (shallow aquifers) or buried within the glacial drift
(buried aquifers). There are also bedrock aquifers located beneath the glacial drift. The quality of the fresh
41
ground water within the Basin varies from poor in the west to excellent in the east; this is especially true in
Manitoba (Red River Basin Board 2000).
Red River Basin Water Quality Data
Water quality data has been collected by the Province and States from various locations along the
Red River over the past several decades. This data is analyzed to determine compliance with the individual
jurisdiction's water quality guidelines, monitor changes over time, and to identify major influences
(pollutants, stressors, and sources) on water quality. In Manitoba, data is collected annually by Manitoba
Conservation, while in the U.S., monitoring efforts are the responsibility of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, the North Dakota Department of Health, and the South Dakota Department of Natural Resources.
Each agency produces a report of its findings on a regular basis. For the purposes of this discussion, U.S.
data has been provided by the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Report (1996) while the Manitoba
data has been gleaned from a variety of reports produced by Manitoba Conservation, the International Joint
Commission Red River Pollution Control Board, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Background Water Quality
Defining background conditions of water quality is important for water and land managers to assess
the effects of human activities on water resources. The ambient dissolved solids in rivers and ground water
in the Red River Basin include the major cations (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium), the major
anions (bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate), trace elements (including iron and manganese), and radionuclides (uranium, radium, and radon). The most common ions in ground water from shallow and buried
glacial aquifers are calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate, all at fairly low concentrations. Common ions in
the deeper bedrock aquifers are sodium and chloride (the components of table salt), and are at much higher
concentrations (Stoner et al 1998).
Groundwater studies by the USGS demonstrated that water quality in shallow aquifers in the west
and central regions of the basin is considerably different than that found southeast (Cowdery in press). These
differences are in the concentrations of dissolved solids, sodium, sulfate, silica, potassium, uranium, and
radium. The west and central regions have higher concentrations of all of these ions except radium, which is
higher in the east. Variations in water quality are related to natural differences in geology and hydrology.
The sedimentary bedrock aquifers slope gently upward to the east, in the direction of regional ground-water
flow. Saline water from these aquifers is primarily discharged toward the area of the international border.
Saline ground water from deep aquifers seeping into some shallow and buried aquifers in the west and
central regions can affect the quality and use of water from these aquifers. This saline ground water also can
discharge into streams and degrade water quality. This effect can be greatest during periods of extremely
low streamflow (Stoner et al 1998).
The NAWQA study found that some constituents of groundwater exceed EPA drinking-water
standards. These standards were exceeded in concentrations of primarily naturally occurring substances.
Iron and manganese, which commonly occur in soluble minerals within glacial sediments, result in numerous
exceedances of secondary maximum contaminant levels for these constituents in ground water. More
shallow groundwater in the west and central regions exceeds standards than does groundwater in the
southeast region. More water from buried sand and gravel aquifers exceeds standards than does water in
shallow aquifers. In fact, more than 50 percent of the water in buried sand and gravel aquifers sampled
exceeded the dissolved-solids standard and ranked among the highest nationally in the United States.
42
Although nitrate does occur naturally in ground water, background concentrations were not established in
this study. Ground-water nitrate concentrations ranked among the lowest nationally (Stoner et al 1998).
Historically, water in the Red River had mean dissolved-solids concentrations of 347 mg/L near the
headwaters and 406 mg/L at the international boundary near Emerson, Manitoba (Stoner et al 1993).
Water Quality & Aquatic Habitat
Fish communities and stream habitat can be indicators of overall stream quality. For example,
greater fish species diversity and abundance coincide with higher quality streams. Fish diversity and
abundance in the streams of the basin are influenced by both human and natural factors. Three factors
explain about 60 percent of the variability in fish distribution: (1) the abundance and diversity of fish habitat
within a stream, (2) the variability in the amount of water in the stream, and (3) the amount of relatively
undisturbed land (forest or wetland) within about a mile of a stream. Habitat and stream variability are
mostly natural factors, although both are influenced by human activities.
Fish community composition correlated well with stream size, habitat availability, and hydrologic
variability, but not with geographic provinces and ecoregions (Goldstein et al 1996). Species in small
streams, medium streams, and large rivers tend to differ. The source of species for tributary streams was the
Red River, so any given species has potential access to most tributaries. The number of fish species (one
measure of community health) increased with the size of streams and the number of ecoregions through
which a stream flowed (Goldstein 1995). Approximately 60 percent of the variability in fish community
composition can be attributed to factors such as habitat, streamflow, water temperature, minimum dissolvedoxygen concentration, nutrients, and suspended sediment (Goldstein et al 1996). Additional variation was
due to both human influence from land-use practices and biological interactions (competition, predation,
disease, and parasitism). No patterns could be found to interpret cause-and-effect relations. Biological
communities have adapted to take advantage of the environmental conditions that occur during each season:
increased habitat volume and dissolved-oxygen concentrations during the spring for reproduction; increased
water temperatures and productivity during summer for growth; lower water levels during fall for
concentration of prey; and reduced activity and return to deep-water refuges during low water and dissolvedoxygen concentrations in winter (Goldstein et al 1996). A biological monitoring program that relies on
periodically sampling communities under the same seasonal environmental conditions has been developed
for the Red River Basin Study Unit (Stoner et al 1998).
Human-Induced Water Quality
Sediment in the Red River
Water in the Red River is turbid, resulting from the fine suspended sediments (clay and silt).
Suspended-sediment concentrations vary greatly throughout the basin due to factors such as landscape
characteristics, streamflow, season, and land use (Williamson 1988). High suspended-sediment
concentrations characterize streams that flow through heavily farmed, erodible lands, and erodible stream
channels (especially the Pembina River). In contrast, low sediment concentrations characterize most streams
that drain the basin's upland areas. Most of these streams flow through reservoirs, lakes, and wetlands where
the suspended sediments settle in these slow-moving waters (Stoner et al 1998).
43
Suspended sediment in streams affects the chemical water quality. Within the intensively farmed
Red River Basin, runoff can contain agricultural chemicals such as plant nutrients and pesticides. At high
sediment concentrations, a significant portion of phosphorus and nitrogen in streams is attached to sediment.
Organochlorines such as DDT and PCBs, and trace elements such as mercury and lead, adhere tightly to
sediments, which can settle to the bottom of streams, lakes, and reservoirs. Organochlorines and trace
elements have been found throughout the basin (Williamson, 1998; Stoner et al 1998). The highest sediment
concentrations in each stream typically accompanied high flows (Figure 13). Therefore, sediment
concentrations in streams are highest in the spring or after heavy summer rains.
As discussed previously, land-use practices that facilitate rapid runoff can impair water quality by
increasing suspended sediment in streams in two ways. First, runoff erodes bare soils, which contributes
sediment to streams and second, higher streamflows associated with runoff events will more readily erode
sediments from the channel and stream-banks.
Agriculture & Water Quality
Agriculture, particularly crop production, is the primary use of land in the Red River Basin. Both
surface and groundwater resources are vulnerable to the effects of these activities. Streams draining areas of
extensive cropland had the highest concentrations of nutrients (dissolved phosphorus, nitrate, and organic
nitrogen) and the most detections of herbicides (Tornes et al 1997). Generally, water in aquifers sampled for
the NAWQA report is safe to drink relative to nutrients and herbicides. Concentrations of pesticides and
nutrients in water from the buried aquifers, naturally protected by overlying sediments, indicated no
significant contamination from irrigation (Cowdery in press).
The NAWQA document reported that twenty-seven percent of the groundwater sampled in the
western region and eight percent of the ground water in the southeast region exceeded the 10-mg/L drinkingwater standard for nitrate (Cowdery in press). None of the ground water in the central region exceeded the
drinking-water standard for nitrate. Nutrient concentrations were relatively low, but cropland activity has
increased the amount of nutrients (particularly phosphorus) available to aquatic plants in streams.
Phosphorus concentrations occasionally were high enough to produce eutrophic conditions in streams and
receiving waters, such as lakes and wetlands. For example, streams draining the western and central parts of
the basin (mostly cropland) had the highest concentrations of total phosphorus. Streams draining the eastern
part of the basin (where the percent of cropland is smaller) had the lowest total phosphorus concentrations.
Concentrations of dissolved and suspended phosphorus increased substantially during runoff after snowmelt
and rainfall. High phosphorus concentrations in the Pembina River probably resulted from agricultural
applications and naturally occurring phosphorus in soils that are readily delivered to this river because of
steep terrain in the watershed (Stoner et al 1998). From 1975 to 1988, 60 percent of the phosphorus load to
Lake Winnipeg by the Red River came from the U.S. portion of the Red River Basin (Brigham et al 1996).
The median concentration of nitrate was higher in the Red River than in the tributaries. These values
indicate that human activities in and near the Red River are contributing to the nitrate concentrations in the
river. These activities could be both agricultural and nonagricultural.
Despite having a drainage area composed of 64 percent cropland, the Red River delivered relatively
low concentrations and loads of pesticides into Canada (Stoner et al 1998). EPA drinking-water standards
exist for 7 of the 44 pesticides detected in the basin. No ground water exceeded any of the existing
standards. The most heavily applied pesticides (2,4-D, MCPA, bromoxynil, and trifluralin) are not always
the most frequently detected (Williamson 1988; Stoner et al 1998). Pesticide persistence and regional
differences in soils, geology, and climate, govern the distribution of these water-quality indicators in the Red
River Basin (Tornes et al 1997; Cowdery 1997; Cowdery in press). The infrequency of 2,4-D (the most
44
commonly used herbicide used in the basin) detection may be related to factors such as the following (Tornes
et al 1997):
(1)
2,4-D is applied as a post-emergent herbicide and mostly is taken up by plants where it is
metabolized to other compounds.
(2)
Soil microbes effectively degrade 2,4-D.
(3)
Soils retain 2,4-D instead of allowing it to run off or seep downward into ground water.
Atrazine, applied on corn in southern parts of the basin, and its metabolite, deethylatrazine, were the
most frequently detected pesticides in streams throughout the basin (Stoner et al 1998). Atrazine was
detected in nearly every stream sample collected from the basin, even during winter months. Simazine,
commonly applied for weed control in rights-of-way, also was detected frequently in streams and shallow
ground water. Although DDT was banned for use in Canada and the U.S. more than 20 years ago, low
concentrations of DDT and its metabolites were detected in stream sediments and fish tissues (Goldstein et al
1996a; Brigham et al 1996). The metabolite p,p'-DDE was detected in some ground water and streams. DDT
and its metabolites are more prevalent in agricultural areas, indicating that residue from past DDT use is a
more prevalent source than atmospheric transport from distant sources (outside of the Red River Basin)
(Stoner et al 1998).
Data from the NAWQA study as well as data from Manitoba have not been sufficient to determine
changes in pesticide levels over time. No stream water exceeded any of the existing U.S. drinking-water
standards for pesticides or nutrients (Stoner et al 1998), however, a single sample from the Snake River
contained a triallate concentration of 0.28 microgram per liter mg/L), which exceeded the interim Canadian
guidelines for the protection of freshwater aquatic life (CCME 1992). Triallate is usually applied during
autumn and reached streams during spring snowmelt runoff (Stoner et al 1998). Currently, drinking-water
standards are set only for individual pesticides. However, pesticides commonly occur in mixtures of up to
nine compounds in surface water that is a potential source of drinking water. Although most shallow ground
water did not contain detectable concentrations of pesticides, more than one pesticide commonly was
detected in water where there were detectable concentrations. The health effects of such combinations of
pesticides in drinking water are not well understood, and the effects of various pesticides on human health
may differ when pesticides are present in combination, even at low concentrations, in drinking water (Stoner
et al 1998).
Irrigation has enhanced crop production in some areas by allowing for increased yields and a greater
variety of crops. Increased applications of fertilizer and pesticides are sometimes associated with irrigation.
Irrigation has also been associated with pesticides and nutrients reaching parts of some surficial aquifers.
The concentrations of pesticides in shallow ground water in the irrigated parts of the Otter Tail outwash
aquifer are higher than elsewhere in the U.S. portion of the Basin and indicate the potential for contamination
in deeper ground water (Stoner et al 1998).
Fish have long been studied as part of an overall assessment of river water quality. The detailed
analysis of the NAWQA study showed both chemical and physical factors affect the composition of fish
communities in the streams of the Red River Basin Study Unit. Specific cause-and-effect relations could not
be established. Differences in fish communities could not be explained directly by differences in
concentrations of nutrients and pesticides in streams in agricultural areas (Goldstein et al 1996b). Only one
pesticide (triallate) was detected in one stream sample that exceeded a level of concern for acute toxicity to
aquatic organisms (Tornes et al 1997). The NAWQA report questioned whether fish distribution and
abundance is a good indicator of the impact of nutrients on stream quality. Most of the nutrients enter the
stream early in the spring when temperatures are low and most metabolic rates for aquatic plants and animals
45
likewise are low. Therefore, the amount of nutrients applied in a watershed correlated poorly with fish
distribution and abundance (Stoner et al 1998).
Nitrate concentrations in streams tended to be highest in the central subregion of the Basin where
fertilizer application was the greatest (Tornes & Brigham 1994; Tornes et al 1997). Total phosphorus also
was higher in the central subregion than in the other subregions (Tornes et al 1997). Atrazine and associated
herbicides were detected mostly in the southern part of the basin where corn is a major crop. Streams in the
western subregion had the highest concentrations of sulfate and usually the highest concentrations of
dissolved solids. Dissolved-solids concentrations ranged from 300 mg/L in the upper Otter Tail River to
about 800 mg/L in the Bois de Sioux River (Tornes et al 1997; Stoner et al 1998).
Non-Agricultural Sources of Water Quality Contamination
Although the major land use in the basin is agriculture, urban areas also can affect water quality.
The primary sources of contamination from urban areas are storm-water runoff, municipal wastewater
discharge, and industrial discharge. The NAWQA report did not focus specifically on point discharges, but
generally, water quality downstream from Fargo can be compared to the water quality upstream. In
Manitoba, water quality downstream of Winnipeg and Selkirk are available.
The effect of municipal wastewater discharges on the total nitrogen concentration can be estimated
through a mass balance model. In this model, the total nitrogen concentration is computed from the
concentration in the average daily municipal wastewater-treatment outflow and the concentration in
streamflow at the time of measurement. Adding the municipal wastewater outflow from Fargo and
Moorhead increases the median total nitrogen concentration from 1.41 mg/L upstream from the FargoMoorhead area to 1.68 mg/L downstream (Tornes et al 1997). The effect on the Red River is difficult to
assess farther downstream because the streamflow nearly doubles between the Fargo-Moorhead area and
Halstad, Minnesota (Stoner et al 1998).
In recent years nitrite plus nitrate concentrations have been found to be slightly higher than historical
concentrations at sites along the Red River (Stoner et al 1998). Median ammonia concentrations for the Red
River at Halstad, downstream from the Fargo-Moorhead urban area, were about 0.16 mg/L in historical
samples, but were only 0.08 mg/L in samples collected for this study (Tornes et al 1997). Increases in nitrate
and decreases in ammonia have been identified in several streams nationwide, particularly downstream from
urban areas. These trends likely reflect improved aeration of wastewater effluent, whereby ammonia is
nitrified to nitrate. It is also possible that reduced loading of oxygen-demanding materials is allowing
streams to remain aerated, decreasing the in-stream production of ammonia (Stoner et al 1998).
Although urban areas contribute only a portion of the phosphorus in the Red River, it is a major issue
in Red River water quality (Williamson 1988; Stoner et al 1998). Eutrophication due to high concentrations
of phosphorus is possible and apparent in streams and in Lake Winnipeg (Nielsen et al 1996). From 1969 to
1974, the Red River contributed about 58 percent of the total phosphorus but only 9 percent of the total flow
to Lake Winnipeg (Brunskill et al 1980). More recently, from 1975 to 1988 the Red River contributed, on
average, twice the phosphorus load but only one-fifth the flow of the Winnipeg River (the other major
tributary to the southern part of Lake Winnipeg), furthermore, about 60 percent of the phosphorus load at the
outflow of the Red River comes from the U.S. portion of the Red River Basin (Brigham et al 1996).
Manitoba reports that a slightly decreasing trend is evident for fecal coliform bacteria. While the
decline has not been substantial, it nevertheless is encouraging in the presence of the increasing human
population within the drainage basin and more specifically, within the City of Winnipeg. Generally, the
densities of fecal coliform bacteria in the Red River at the Selkirk are well above those levels generally
46
accepted in other water-bodies in Canada, the U.S., and elsewhere. This represents a complex and
controversial management issues since disinfection to remove bacteria from the various City of Winnipeg
effluent streams is extremely costly. It may also not be entirely successful in reducing densities to Manitoba
Surface Water Quality Objectives because disinfection has its own unique environmental consequences
(Williamson 1988).
Effects of Non-point Sources of Toxic Compounds
The NAWQA report also examined fish tissues, streambed sediments, and shallow aquifer waters for
the types of toxic chemicals commonly associated with modern industry. In the predominantly rural Red
River Basin, such industries are relatively rare.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a class of industrial compounds banned in Canada and the
United States because of their toxicity and persistence in the environment. PCBs are synthetic so there are
no natural or background levels of these compounds. Atmospheric transport of mercury and PCBs may carry
these contaminants far from their sources. PCBs were detected in low concentrations in fish samples.
Volative organic compounds include both synthetic chlorinated compounds and compounds of natural origin,
such as components of petroleum. Volatile organic compounds were rarely detected in shallow ground water
and, when detected, were at concentrations well below EPA drinking-water standards. These compounds
have been widely dispersed in the environment by human activity. Many of the contaminants detected in the
NAWQA Red River Basin Study Unit are present in aquatic ecosystems worldwide (Stoner et al 1998).
Mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) occur naturally but also are released to the
environment from industrial activities such as fossil-fuel combustion and garbage incineration. Both were
found to be present in streambed sediment. Bed sediment samples at few sites had PAH levels that were
potentially high enough to adversely affect aquatic organisms, based on published toxicity studies (Stoner et
al 1998). Medium-sized carp (about 2–4 pounds) in the Red River had an average mercury concentration of
0.31 part per million (ppm) in the muscle (fillet) tissue. Smaller channel catfish (about 0.5–1 pound) had
lower mercury levels, averaging 0.18 ppm (Goldstein et al 1996a). These concentrations are in the moderate
range of Minnesota’s fish-consumption guidelines. Although fish from this study had mercury
concentrations lower than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 1-ppm standard, larger catfish and other
game fish from the Study Unit analyzed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (1994) exceeded
this standard (Stoner et al 1998).
47
VI. CONCLUSION
Although the overall quality of the Red River Basin's surface water is generally good and suitable for
most uses, there is a need to continue monitoring and examining causes and sources of water quality
impairment. Some pollutants, including PCBs, pesticides, and trace elements become adsorbed on
suspended solids and settle out of the water column rapidly accumulating in the bottom muds and benthic
organisms. Excessive build-up of these materials in the sediments and biota can cause serious ramifications
in the food chain. Contaminants in the water column are of equal concern because of the threat they pose to
human and aquatic life. And while guidelines for water quality safety exist in the basin, each jurisdiction's is
unique as is assessment and enforcement.
Water quality monitoring is essential for an understanding of the condition of water resources and to
provide a basis for effective policies that promote wise use and management of those resources.
48
VII. REFERENCES CITED
Brigham, M.E., T. Mayer, G.K. McCullough & L.H. Tornes (1996) Transport and speciation of nutrients in
tributaries to southern Lake Winnipeg, Canada. North American Lake Management Society, 16th
Annual International Symposium - Final Program, November 13-16, 1996.
Brunskill, G.J., S.E.M, Elliott & P. Campbell (1980) Morphometry, hydrology, and watershed data pertinent
to the limnology of Lake Winnipeg: Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
1556.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (1992) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, Appendix XI
- updates (April, 1992). (Ottawa: Task Force on Water Quality Guidelines of the Canadian Council
of Ministers of the Environment).
Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers (1987) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines.
(Ottawa: Task Force on Water Quality Guidelines of the Canadian Council of Resource and
Environment Ministers).
Cowdery, T.K. (1997) Shallow groundwater quality beneath cropland in the Red River of the North Basin,
Minnesota and North Dakota, 1993-95. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 97-4001.
Cowdery , T.K. (in press) Ground-water quality in the Red River Basin, Minnesota and North Dakota, 199395. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report.
Department of the Environment (1996) Indicators of Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom: A
set of indicators produced for discussion and consultation by an interdepartmental working group,
following a commitment in the UK's Sustainable Development strategy, 1994. Environmental
Protection Statistics and Information Management Division. Indicators Working Group Secretariat,
London, England.
Dovetail Consulting (1995) State of the Environment Reporting Guidelines for CCME Member
Jurisdictions. Prepared for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, State of the
Environment Reporting Task Group, December 1995.
Environment Canada (1999) Ground Water - Nature's Hidden Treasure. Environment Canada Freshwater
Series Document A-5.
Environmental Protection Agency (1998) National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress.
Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/305b/98report/.
Fisheries & Oceans (1977) Surface Water Quality in Canada - An Overview. (Ottawa: Environment
Canada).
Fritz, C. (1997)
Goldstein, R.M. (1995) Aquatic communities and contaminants in fish from streams of the Red River of the
North Basin, Minnesota and North Dakota. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations
Report 95-4047.
49
Goldstein, R.M., M.E. Brigham & J.C. Stauffer (1996a) Comparison of mercury concentrations in liver,
muscle, whole bodies and composites of fish from the Red River of the North. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53(2): 244-252.
Goldstein, R.M., J.C. Stauffer, P.R. Larson & D.L. Lorenz (1996b) Relation of physical and chemical
characteristics of streams to fish communities in the Red River of the North Basin, Minnesota and
North Dakota, 1993-95. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4227.
Krenz, G. & J. Leitch (1993) A River Runs North. (St. Paul: Red River Water Resources Council).
Health Canada (2000) World Wide Web: http://www.hc-cs.gc.ca/.
Manitoba Environment (1997) Moving Toward Sustainable Development Reporting, State of the
Environment Report for Manitoba, 1997. (Winnipeg: Manitoba Environment).
Mitchell, B. & D. Shrubsole (1994) Canadian Water Management: Visions for Sustainability. (Cambridge:
Canadian Water Resources Association).
Nielsen, E. K.D. McLeod, E. Pip & J.C. Doering (1996) Late Holocene environmental changes in southern
Manitoba - Field trip guidebook A2. Geological Association of Canada / Mineralogical Association
of Canada Annual Meeting, Winnipeg, Manitoba, May 27-29.
Novotny, V. & H.Olem (1994) Water quality prevention, identification, and management of diffuse
pollution. (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold).
Province of Manitoba (1995) Applying Manitoba's Natural Lands and Special Places Policies. (Winnipeg:
Sustainable Development Coordination Unit).
Red River Basin Board (2000) Hydrology Inventory Team Report. (Moorhead: Red River Basin Board).
Stoner, J.D., D.L. Lorenz, G.J. Wiche & R.M. Goldstein (1993) Red River of the North Basin, Minnesota,
North Dakota and South Dakota. American Water Resources Association Monograph Series No. 19
and Water Resources Bulletin, 29(4): 575-615.
Stoner, J.D, D.L. Lorenz, R.M. Goldstein, M.E. Brigham & T.K. Cowdery (1998) Water Quality in the Red
River of the North Basin, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, 1992-95. U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1169. (Denver: United States Geological Survey).
Tornes, L.H., M.E. Brigham & D.L. Lorenz (1997) Nutrients suspended sediment, and pesticides in streams
in the Red River of the North Basin, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, 1993-95. U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4053.
Treloar, N. (1997) Background Information on Ozone Depeletion. (Winnipeg: Environment Canada
Atmospheric Environment Service).
Williamson, D.A. (1988) A Synopsis of Red River Water Quality. (Winnipeg: Manitoba Environment)
Williamson, D.A. (1988) Manitoba Surface Water Quality Objectives. (Winnipeg: Manitoba Environment,
Water Quality Management).
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press).
50
APPENDIX A - WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE RED RIVER BASIN
51
Appendix A - Water Quality Criteria for the Red River Basin
Manitoba Surface Water Standards
MANITOBA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Name
Synomyns
Categories
Drinking Water (a)
Units
m.a.c.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethene
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1-1,Dichloroethene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-Methyl-4-chloro phenoxy acetic acid
3-Iodo-2-propynyl butyl carbamate
4-Chloro-2-metyl phenoxy acetic acid
Acenaphthene
Acridine
Aldicarb
Aldrin
Aluminum
Ammonia (un-ionized as N)
Aniline
Anthracene
Antimony
Antimony
Arsenic
Atrazine
Azinphos-methyl
Barium
Bendiocarb
Benzo(a)anthracene
Beryllium
chlorinated ethene
chlorinated ethene
chlorinated benzene
chlorinated benzene
chlorinated benzene
chlorinated benzene
chlorinated ethane
chlorinated benzene
chlorinated benzene
chlorinated ethene
chlorinated phenol
chlorinated phenol
chlorinated phenol
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
IPBC
PAHs
PAHs
i.m.a.c
Aquatic Life (b)
a.o.
30
50
200
<= 3
5
5
14
100
5
900
<= 1
t.r.
111
21
1.8
8
24
0.7
100
150
26
<= 1
<= 2
0.3
1.9
2.6
1
5.8
4.4
9
0.7
5-100
see tier II
Antimony-125
ug/L
ug/L
ug/l
Bq/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
PAHs
radioactive material
Total Antimony
Acid Soluble Arsenic
Total Barium
1,2-benzanthracene
PAHs
52
2.2
6
0.012
100
25
5
20
1000.0
40
5
0.01
1.8
370
0.015
5000
Boron
Total Boron
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Bq/L
Bromacil
Bromoxynil
Cadmium
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Name
Carbon tetrachloride
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Cesium
Chloride
Chloroform
Chlorothalonil
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Cobalt
Colour
Copper
Cyanazine
Cyanide
DDD & DDE & DDT
Deltamethrin
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diazinon
Dicamba
Dichlorophenol
Diclofop-methyl
Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride
Dieldrin
Dimethoate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinoseb
Dioxin
Diquat
Diuron
Endosulfan
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene glycol
Synomyns
Categories
Units
Cesium 134
Cesium 144
Cesium 141
Cesium 137
halogenated methane
radioactive material
radioactive material
radioactive material
radioactive material
Trichloromethane
halogenated methane
ug/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
5
5
see tier II
1.3
0.2
1.8
5
5
90
90
7
m.a.c.
Drinking Water (a)
i.m.a.c
Aquatic Life (b)
a.o.
5
20
100
10
13.3
<= 250,000
0.18
1.8
0.0035
see tier II
90
Chromium III
Chromium VI
ug/L
50
Total Chronium
see tier II
TCU
ug/L
<= 15
<= 1000
10
2
see tier II
0.0004
200
Total Organochlorides
t.r.
ug/L
ug/kg
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
organochloride
phthalate ester
chlorinated phenol
5,000(c)
20
16
10
6.1
0.2
15
120
9
0.7
20
6.2
0.05
19
10
phthalate ester
ug/L
ug/kg
ug/L
ug/L
0.02(d)
70
150
ug/L
2.4
0.02
90
1,500 ug/L
glycol
ug/L
53
150,000 ug/kg(d)
192,000
PAHs
PAHs
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Fluoride
Furan
Glyphosate
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobutadiene
ug/L
ug/L
ug/kg
ug/L
Heptachlor epoxide
Name
Synomyns
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Iodine
Iodine
Iron
Iron
Lead
Lead
Linuron
Lithium
Malathion
Manganese
Manganese
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Methylene chloride
Metolachlor
Metribusin
Molybdenum
Molybdenum
Monochlorobenzene
Monochlorophenol
Naphthalene
Nickel
Niobium
Nitrate & Nitrite
Nitrate (as NO3)
Nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA)
Nitrite
Oxygen
Paraquat (as dichloride)
Parathion
Particulate Matter
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
pH
Lindane
Iodine-131
Iodine-125
Total Iron
Iron-59
Lead-210
0.04
3
0.02(d)
280
65
ug/L
Categories
Units
1.3
m.a.c.
Total Manganese
Manganese-54
radioactive material
Dichloromethane
halogenated methane
ug/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
ug/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Bq/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
radioactive material
chlorianted benzene
chlorinated phenol
PAHs
ug/L
Bq/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
radioactive material
Bq/L
200
ug/L
ug/L
45,000
radioactive material
radioactive material
radioactive material
radioactive material
Drinking Water (a)
i.m.a.c
Aquatic Life (b)
a.o.
<= 300
6
10
10
40
0.1
t.r.
300
see tier II
7
190
<= 50
200
1
900
0.1
50
7.8
98.1
1
50
80
1.5(e)
Total Molybdenum
Molybdenum-99
Niobium -95
73
70
80
<= 30
1.3
7
1.1
see tier II
see tier II
400
3,200
Total Dissolved Oxygen
Total Particulate Matter
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
particulate matter
chlorinated benzene
chlorinated phenol
see tier II
10
50
<= 500,000
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
54
500 ug/kg(d)
60
<= 30
6
0.5
6.5-8.5
6.5-9.0
500 ug/kg(c)
Phenanthrene
Phenols
Phenoxy herbicides
Phorate
Picloram
Propylene glycol
Pyrene
Name
Quinoline
Radium
Radium
Radium
Reactive Chlorine
Reactive Chlorine
Ruthenium
Ruthenium
Selenium
Silver
Simazine
Sodium
Strontium
Styrene
Sulphate
Sulphide (as H2S)
Suspended sediments
Tebuthiuron
Temperature
Terbufos
Thallium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Thorium
Toluene
Toxaphene
Triallate
Tributyltin
trichlorophenol
Trifluralin
Trihalomethane
Triphenyltin
Tritium
Turbidity
PAHs
glycol
PAHs
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Synomyns
Categories
Units
Radium -228
Radium -226
Radium -224
Total Reactive Chlorine
Chloramine
Ruthenium -106
Ruthenium -103
PAHs
radioactive material
radioactive material
radioactive material
reactive chlorine species
reactive chlorine species
radioactive material
radioactive material
ug/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
Strontium-90
2
29
500,000
0.025
m.a.c.
Drinking Water (a)
i.m.a.c
Aquatic Life (b)
a.o.
t.r.
3.4
0.5
0.6
2
see tier II
ug/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
u
Bq/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
oC
ug/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
ug/L
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Bq/L
NTU
radioactive material
particulate matter
Thorium-228
Total Thorium
Thorium-234
Thorium-232
Thorium-230
organotins
chlorinated phenol
Total Trihalomethanes
0.4
4
4
halogenated methane
organotins
radioactive material
particulate matter
55
3,000
10
100
190
2000 ug/kg(c)
0.1
10
10
<= 200,000
5
72
<= 500,000
50
<= 15oC
1
see tier II
1.6
see tier II
0.8
20
0.1
0.4
2
<= 24
2
200-1,600 ug/kg (f)
0.24
0.008
18
0.2
100
0.022
7,000
1
<= 5
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene
Zinc
Uranium -238
Uranium -235
Uranium -234
Total Uranium
radioactive material
radioactive material
radioactive material
Zinc-65
radioactive material
Bq/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Bq/L
Name
Synomyns
Categories
Units
chlorinated ethene
4
4
4
<= 300
40
Drinking Water (a)
m.a.c.
Zinc
Zirconium
Total Zinc
Zirconium-95
ug/L
Bq/L
radioactive material
45
100
2
i.m.a.c
Aquatic Life (b)
a.o.
t.r.
<= 5,000
100
NOTES
mac
imac
ao
tr
maximum acceptable concentration
interim maximum acceptable concentration
aesthetics objectives
tissue residue - human consumption
a
b
c
d
e
Further information on Guidelines for Cana.dian Drinking Water Quality is available from Health Canada's website at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/bch/water_quality.htm
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (1999). Further information on CCME's Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines is available from their website at http://www.ccme.ca.
Health Canada's guidelines for residues in fish tissue (personal communication, Dr. John Salminen, Head, Additives & Contaminants Section, Health Canada).
Health Canada's regulations for residues in fish tissue (Division 15, Food & Drugs Act). Further information is available on the Food & Drugs Act from Health Canada's website at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca.
f
Ontario Ministry of Environment (1999), derived from Health Canada's Provisional Tolerable Daily Intake of 0.2 ug/kg x bw/day (personal communication, Dr. John Salminen). Further information on Ontario's consumption guide for sport
fish is available from their website at http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/.
The guidelines for Microcystin LR has not yet been finalized by teh Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water, but is included here at this early stage because of its continued usefulness for assisting to interpret water quality data generated from on-going
monitoring programs.
56
Minnesota Water Quality Standards
MINNESOTA - AQUATIC LIFE & RECREATION
Name
Units
CS
2A
MS
FAV
CS
2Bd
MS
FAV
CS
Classes
2B
MS
FAV
CS
2C
MS
FAV
CS
2D
MS
FAV
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethylene
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
263
1.1
2
2628
1127
1.2
5256
2253
203
263
1.1
2
2628
1127
1.2
5256
2253
203
263
13
120
2628
1127
6988
5256
2253
19376
263
13
120
2628
1127
6988
5256
2253
19376
263
13
120
2628
1127
6988
5256
2253
19376
1,2-Dichloroethane
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Acenaphtene
Acrylonitrile
Alachlor
Aluminum
Ammonia (un-ionized as N)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Atrazine
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloride
Chlorine (residual) (as Cl2)
Chloroform
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium VI
Cobalt
Colour
Cyanide, free
di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
Dieldrin
di-n-octyl phthalate
Dissolved Oxygen
Endosulfan
Endrin
Ethyl Benzene
Fluoranthene
Heptachlor
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3.5
----12
0.38
3.8
87
16
0.029
5.5
2
3.4
9.7
33
1.9
0.000073
230
6
49
0.041
11
2.8
30
5.2
1.9
0.00011
0.0000065
30
7
0.0076
0.0039
68
7.1
0.0001
45050
----41
1140
800
748
---0.78
90
360
323
4487
2900
1750
1.2
860
19
2235
0.083
16
436
----22
----0.55
1.3
825
----0.084
0.09
1859
199
0.26
90100
----81
2281
1600
1496
---1.6
180
720
645
8974
5800
3500
2.4
1720
38
4471
0.117
32
872
----45
----1.1
2.5
1650
----0.17
0.18
3717
398
0.52
3.8
----12
0.38
4.2
125
16
0.029
5.5
2
3.4
9.7
41
1.9
0.00029
230
6
55
0.041
11
2.8
---5.2
1.9
0.0017
0.000026
30
5
0.029
0.016
68
20
0.00039
45050
----41
1140
800
1072
---0.78
90
360
323
4487
2900
1750
1.2
860
19
2235
0.083
16
436
----22
----0.55
1.3
825
----0.28
0.09
1859
199
0.26
90100
----81
2281
1600
2145
---1.6
180
720
645
8974
5800
3500
2.4
1720
38
4471
0.117
32
872
----45
----1.1
2.5
1650
----0.56
0.18
3717
398
0.52
190
2.0
12
0.89
59
125
40
0.029
31
53
10
114
466
5.9
0.00029
230
6
224
0.041
11
5
----5.2
2.1
0.0017
0.000026
30
5
0.031
0.016
68
20
0.00039
45050
102
41
1140
800
1072
----0.78
90
360
323
4487
2900
1750
1.2
860
19
2235
0.083
16
436
----22
---0.55
1.3
825
----0.28
0.09
1859
199
0.26
90100
203
81
2281
1600
2145
----1.6
180
720
645
8974
5800
3500
2.4
1720
38
4471
0.17
32
872
----45
---1.1
2.5
1650
----0.56
0.18
3717
398
0.52
190
2.0
12
0.89
59
125
40
0.029
31
53
10
114
466
5.9
0.00029
230
6
224
0.041
11
5
----5.2
2.1
0.0017
0.000026
30
5
0.031
0.016
68
20
0.00039
45050
102
41
1140
800
1072
----0.78
90
360
323
4487
2900
1750
1.2
860
19
2235
0.083
16
436
----22
---0.55
1.3
825
----0.28
0.09
1859
199
0.26
90100
203
81
2281
1600
2145
----1.6
180
720
645
8974
5800
3500
2.4
1720
38
4471
0.17
32
872
----45
---1.1
2.5
1650
----0.56
0.18
3717
398
0.52
190
2.0
12
0.89
59
125
40
0.029
31
53
10
114
466
5.9
0.00029
230
6
224
0.041
11
5
----5.2
2.1
0.0017
0.000026
30
----0.031
0.016
68
20
0.00039
45050
102
41
1140
800
1072
----0.78
90
360
323
4487
2900
1750
1.2
860
19
2235
0.083
16
436
----22
---0.55
1.3
825
----0.28
0.09
1859
199
0.26
90100
203
81
2281
1600
2145
----1.6
180
720
645
8974
5800
3500
2.4
1720
38
4471
0.17
32
872
----45
---1.1
2.5
1650
----0.56
0.18
3717
398
0.52
57
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane
Mercury
Methylene Chloride
Chlorobenzene
Napthalene
Oil
Parathion
pH
Phenanthrene
Phenols
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
Selenium
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
Toxaphene
Turbidity Value
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
0.0012
0.000061
0.0087
0.069
45
10
81
500
0.013
----2.1
123
0.000014
----3.8
0.28
253
0.00031
10
0.17
166
0.27
----1
2.4
9600
423
409
5000
0.07
----29
2214
1
----428
64
1352
0.73
--------1407
0.53
----2.0
4.9
19200
846
818
10000
0.13
----58
4428
2.0
----857
128
2703
1.5
--------2814
0.00048
0.00024
0.032
0.069
46
10
81
500
0.013
2.1
123
0.000029
----3.8
0.28
253
0.00031
10
0.17
166
0.27
----4.4
2.4
9600
423
409
5000
0.07
6.5-9.0
29
2214
1
----428
64
1352
0.73
--------1407
0.53
----8.8
4.9
19200
846
818
10000
0.13
58
4428
2.0
----857
128
2703
1.5
--------2814
0.00048
0.00024
0.036
0.0069
1561
10
81
500
0.013
----2.1
123
0.000029
5
8.9
0.56
253
0.0013
25
9.2
166
0.27
----4.4
2.4
9600
423
409
5000
0.07
----29
2214
1.0
20
428
64
1352
0.73
--------1407
0.53
----8.8
4.9
19200
846
818
10000
0.13
----58
4428
2.0
40
857
128
2703
1.5
--------2814
0.00048
0.00024
0.036
0.0069
1561
10
81
500
0.013
----2.1
123
0.000029
5
8.9
0.56
253
0.0013
25
9.2
166
0.27
----4.4
2.4
9600
423
409
5000
0.07
----29
2214
1.0
20
428
64
1352
0.73
--------1407
0.53
----8.8
4.9
19200
846
818
10000
0.13
----58
4428
2.0
40
857
128
2703
1.5
--------2814
0.00048
0.00024
0.036
0.0069
1561
10
81
500
0.013
----2.1
123
0.000029
5
8.9
0.56
253
0.0013
25
9.2
166
0.27
----4.4
2.4
9600
423
409
5000
0.07
----29
2214
1.0
20
428
64
1352
0.73
--------1407
0.53
----8.8
4.9
19200
846
818
10000
0.13
----58
4428
2.0
40
857
128
2703
1.5
--------2814
General
The numerical and narrative water quality standards in this part prescribe the qualities or properties of the waters of the state that are necessary for the aquatic life and recreation designated public uses and benefits. If the
standards in this part are exceeded in waters of the state that have the Class 2 designation, it is considered indicative of a polluted condition which is actually o r potentially deleterious, harmful, detrimental, or injurious with respect to
the designated uses.
Class 2A
The quality for Class 2A surface waters shall be such as to permit the propagation and maintenance of a healthy community fo cold water sport or commercial fish and associated aquatic life, and their habitats. These waters shall
be suitable for aquatic recreation of all kinds, including bathing, for which the waters may be usable. This class of surface waters i s also protected as a source of drinking water.
Class 2Bd
The quality of Class 2Bd surface waters shall be such as to permit the propagation and maintenance of a healthy community of cool or warm water sport or commercial fish and associated aquatic life and their habitats. These
waters shall be suitable for aquatic recreation of all kinds, including bathing, for which the waters may be usuable. This class of surface waters are also protected as a source of drinking water.
Class 2B
The quality of Class 2B surface waters shall be such as to permit the propagation and maintenance of a healthy community of cool or warm water sport or commercial fish and associated aquatic life and th eir habitats. These waters
shall be suitable for aquatic recreation of all kinds, including bathing, for which the waters may be usuable. This class of surface water is not protected as a source of drinking water.
Class 2C
The quality of Class 2C surface waters shall be such as to permit the propagation and maintenance of a healthy community of indigenous fish and associated aquatic life, and their habitats. These waters shall be suitable for boating
and other forms of aquatic recreation for which the waters may be usuable.
Class 2D
58
The quality of Class 2D wetlands shall be such as to permit the propagation and maintenance of a healthy community of aquatic and terrestrial species indigenous to wetlands, and their habitats. Wetlands also add to the biological
diversity of the landscape. These waters shall be suitable for boating and other forms of aquatic recreation for which the wetland may be usable.
CS
MS
or "chronic standard"
or "maximum standard"
the highest water concentration of a toxicant to which organisms can be exposed indefinitely without causing chronic toxicity.
the highest concentration of a toxicant in water to which aquatic organisms can be exposed for a brief time with zero to slight mortality. The MS equals the FAV divided by 2.
FAV
or "final acute value"
an estimate of the concentration of a pollutant corresponding to the cumulative probability of 0.05 in the distribution of all the acute toxicity values of the genera or species from the acceptable acute toxicity
tests conducted on a pollutant.
DRINKING WATER - MINNESOTA
Name
Units
Classes
1A
1B
1C
1D
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1
mg/L
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1
mg/L
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1
1
mg/L
mg/L
0.07
0.005
0.07
0.005
0.07
0.005
0.07
0.005
1,2-Dichloropropane
1
mg/L
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
Alachlor
1
mg/L
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
Aldicarb
1
mg/L
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
Aldicarb Sulfone
1
mg/L
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
Aldicarb Sulfoxide
Aluminum
1
2
mg/L
mg/L
0.004
0.05 - 0.2
0.004
0.05 - 0.2
0.004
0.05 - 0.2
0.004
0.05 - 0.2
Antimony
1
mg/L
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
Arsenic
3
mg/L
Asbestos
1
Atrazine
1
Barium
1
Benzene
1
Benzo(a)pyrene
1
Beryllium
1
Beta particle
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
7 million
7 million
7 million
7 million
mg/L
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
mg/L
2
2
2
1
mg/L
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
mg/L
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
mg/L
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
4
mrem
4
4
4
4
Bromate
Cadmium
1
mg/L
mg/L
0.01
0.005
0.01
0.005
0.01
0.005
0.01
0.01
Carbofuran
Carbon Tetrachloride
1
mg/L
mg/L
0.04
0.005
0.04
0.005
0.04
0.005
0.04
0.005
Chloramines (as Cl 2)
Chlordane
1
mg/L
mg/L
4.0
0.002
4.0
0.002
4.0
0.002
4.0
0.002
1
1
1
59
Chloride
2
mg/L
250
250
250
250
Chlorinated Camphene
1
mg/L
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
Chlorine (residual) (as Cl2)
1
mg/L
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Chlorine Dioxide (as ClO2)
1
mg/L
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
Chlorite
Chromium III
1
mg/L
mg/L
1.0
0.1
1.0
0.1
1.0
0.1
1.0
0.1
1
Chromium VI
mg/L
Cis -1,2-dichloroethylene
1
Colour
2
Copper
Corrosivity
Cyanide, free
0.05
mg/L
0.07
15
15
15
15
2
mg/L
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
mg/L
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Dalapon
1
mg/L
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Di(2-ethylhexyl) Adipate
Di-2-ethylhexyl Phthalate
1
mg/L
mg/L
0.4
0.006
0.4
0.006
0.4
0.006
0.4
0.006
Dibromochloropropane
Dichloromethane
1
1
mg/L
mg/L
0.0002
0.005
0.0002
0.005
0.0002
0.005
0.0002
0.005
Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
1
mg/L
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
Dinoseb
Dioxin
1
mg/L
mg/L
0.007
3 x 108
0.007
3 x 108
0.007
3 x 108
0.007
3 x 108
Diquat
1
mg/L
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Endothall
Endrin
1
1
mg/L
mg/L
0.1
0.002
0.1
0.002
0.1
0.002
0.1
0.002
Ethyl Benzene
1
mg/L
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Ethylene Dibromide
Fecal Coliform Organisms
1
mg/L
0.00005
0.00005
0.00005
0.00005
Fluoride
5
mg/L
2.0 - 4.0
2.0 - 4.0
2.0 - 4.0
1.5
0.07
0.07
mg/L
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
mg/L
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
pCi/L
15
15
15
15
non-corrosive
1
1
1
Foaming Agents
Glyphosate
0.07
1
Gross alpha particle activity including radium 226 but excluding radon and
uranium
0-5%
Haloacetic Acids
Heptachlor
1
1
mg/L
mg/L
0.06
0.0004
0.06
0.0004
0.06
0.0004
0.06
0.0004
Heptachlor Epoxide
1
mg/L
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
Hexachlorobenzene
1
mg/l
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
1
mg/L
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Hydrogen
6
pCi/L
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
Iron
2
mg/L
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
60
Lead
mg/L
0.05
Lindane
1
mg/L
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
Manganese
2
mg/L
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Mercury
1
mg/L
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
Methoxychlor
1
mg/L
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Monochlorobenzene
1
mg/L
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Nitrogen (Nitrate)
1
mg/L
1
1
1
1
Nitrogen (Nitrite)
7
mg/L
10
10
10
10
Nitrogen, total (Nitrate & Nitrite)
1
mg/L
10
10
10
10
O-dichlorobenzene
1
mg/L
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Odour
2
3
3
3
3
Oxamyl
Para-dichlorobenzene
1
mg/L
mg/L
0.2
0.075
0.2
0.075
0.2
0.075
0.2
0.075
mg/L
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
6.5 - 8.5
6.5 - 8.5
6.5 - 8.5
6.5 - 8.5
1
Pentachloro-Phenol
pH
2
Photon Radioactivity
8
mrem
4
4
4
4
Picloram
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
1
mg/L
mg/L
0.5
0.0005
0.5
0.0005
0.5
0.0005
0.5
0.0005
1
Radium
pCi/L
5
5
5
5
Selenium
1
mg/L
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.01
Silver
2
mg/L
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
Silvex
1
mg/L
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Simazine
Strontium 90
1
mg/L
pCi/L
0.004
8
0.004
8
0.004
8
0.004
8
Styrene
Sulphate
1
2
mg/L
mg/L
0.1
250
0.1
250
0.1
250
0.1
250
Tetrachloroethylene
1
mg/L
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
Thallium
Toluene
1
1
mg/L
mg/L
0.002
1.0
0.002
1.0
0.002
1.0
0.002
1.0
Total Dissolved Solids
2
mg/L
500
500
500
500
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1
mg/L
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Trichloroethylene
1
mg/L
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
Trihalomethandes
10
mg/L
0.08 - 0.1
0.08 - 0.1
0.08 - 0.1
0.08 - 0.1
Turbidity Value
11
tu
1-5
1-5
25 mg/L
25 mg/L
Vinyl Chloride
1
mg/L
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
Vinylidene Chloride
1
mg/L
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
Xylene
1
mg/L
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
mg/L
5
5
5
5
Zinc
9
61
Class 1A
The quality of Class 1A waters of the state shall be such that without treatment of any kind the raw waters will meet in all respects both the primary (maximum contaminant levels) and secondary
drinking water standards issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (40.141 & 40.143) These Environmental Protection Agency
standards are adopted and incorporated by reference. These standards will ordinarily be restricted to underground waters with a high-degree of natural protection.
Class 1B
The quality of Class 1B waters of the state shall be such that with approved disinfection, such as simple chlorination or its equivalent, the treated water will meet both the primary (maximum
contaminant levels) and secondary drinking water standards issued by teh United States Environmental Protection Agency as contained in the Code fo Fedral Regulations (40.141 & 40.143) except as
modified in this part. These standards will ordinarily be restricted to surface and underground waters with a moderately high degree of natural protection and apply to these waters in the untreated
state.
Class 1C
The quality of Class 1C waters of the state shall be such that with treatment consisting of coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, storage, and chlorination, or other equivalent treatment processes, the
treated water will meet both the primary (maximum contaminant levels) and secondary drinking water standards issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as contained in the Code
of Federal Regulations (40.141 & 40.143) except as modified in this part. These standards will ordinarily be restricted to surface waters and groundwaters in aquifers not considered to afford adequate
protection against contamination from surface and other sources of pollution. Such aquife rs normally would include fractured and channeled limestone, unprotected impervious hard rock where water is
obtained from mechanical fractures or joints with surface connections, and coarse gravels subjected to surface water infiltration. These standards shall also apply to these waters in the untreated state.
Class 1D
The quality of Class 1D waters of the state shall be such that after treatment consisting of coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, storage, and chlorination, plus additional pre, post or intermediate states
of treatment, or other equivalent treatment processes, the treated water will meet both the primary (maximum contaminant levles) and secondary drinking water standards issued by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency as contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (40.141 & 40.143) except as modified in this part. These standards will ordinarily be restricted to surface waters, and
groundwaters in aquifers not considered to afford adequate protection against conta mination from surface or other sources of pollution. Such aquifers normally would include fractured and channeled
limestone, unprotected impervious hard rock where water is obtained from mechanical fractures or joints with surface connections, and coarse gravels subjected to surface water infiltration. These
standards shall not be exceeded in the raw waters before treatment.
NOTES
1
maximum contaminant levels for organic contaminants apply to community and non-transient, non-community water systems.
2
secondary maximum contaminant levels for public water systems
3
the maximum contaminant level for arsenci applies only to community water systems - compliance with the MCL for arsenic is calculated pursuant to Sec. 141.23
4
the average annual concentration of beta particle from man-made radionuclides in drinking water shall not produce an annual dose equivalent to the total body or any internal organ greater than 4
millirem/year.
5
4.0 is the primary maximum contaminant levels for inorganic contaminants apply to community and non-transient, non-community water systems; 2.0 is the secondary maximum contaminant level for
public water systems.
6
average annual concentrations assumed to produce a total body dose of 4 millirem per year.
62
7
At the discretion of the State, nitrate levels not to exceed 20 mg/L may be allowed in a non-community water system of water demonstrates to the satisfaction of the state that: 1) such water will not be
available to children under 6 months of age; and 2) there will be continuous posting of the fact that nitrate levels exceed 10 mg/L and the potential health effects of exposure; and 3) local and state
public health authorities will be notified annually of nitrate levles that exceed 10 mg/L; and 4) no adverse health effects shall result.
8
the average annual concentration of photon radioactivity from man-made radionuclides in drinking water shall not produce an annual dose equivalent to the total body or any internal organ greater than
4 millirem/year.
9
average annual concentration assumed to produce a critical organ (bone marrow) dose of 4 millirem per year.
10
the sum of the concentrations of bromodichlroromethane, dibromochloromethane, tribromomethane [bromoform], and trichloromethane [chlorofo rm] is 0.1; the total trihalomethanes MCL for disinfection
byproducts is 0.08.
11
applicable to both community water systems and non-community water systems using surface water sources in whole or in part; 1 tu as determined by a montly average pursuant to Sec 141.22, except
that five or fewer tu may be allowed if the supplier of water can demonstrate to the State that the higher turbidity does not do any of the following: 1) interfere with disinfection; 2) prevent maintenance of
an effective disinfectant agent throughout the distribution system; or 3) interfere with microbiological determinations; 5 tu based on an average of two consecutive days pursuant to Sec 141.22.
63
North Dakota Water Quality Standards
NORTH DAKOTA - DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Name
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
1,2-trans-dichloroehylene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
2,4,-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chlorophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Acenaphtene
Acenaphthylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
alpha-Endosulfan
Anthracene
Antimony
Arochlor 1016
Arochlor 1221
Arochlor 1232
Arochlor 1242
Arochlor 1248
Arochlor 1254
Arochlor 1260
Arsenic
Asbestos
Synomyns
1,3-dichloropropylene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
4,6-dintiro-2-methylphenol
p-Chloro-m-cresol
PCB-1016
PCB 1221
PCB 1232
PCB 1242
PCB 1248
PCB 1254
PCB-1260
fibers/L
Units
Class I
Class IA
Class II
Class III
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
200
0.17
0.61
0.057
2700
0.38
0.04
700
400
10
75
2.1
93
400
70
0.11
120
0.039
13.4
3000
20
0.0028
320
0.059
0.00013
0.93
0.0028
14
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.018
30000
200
0.17
0.61
0.057
2700
0.38
0.04
700
400
10
75
2.1
93
400
70
0.11
120
0.039
13.4
3000
20
0.0028
320
0.059
0.00013
0.93
0.0028
14
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.018
30000
200
0.17
0.61
0.057
2700
0.38
0.04
700
400
10
75
2.1
93
400
70
0.11
120
0.039
13.4
3000
20
0.0028
320
0.059
0.00013
0.93
0.0028
14
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.018
30000
170000
11
42
3.2
17000
99
0.54
140000
2600
1700
2600
6.5
790
na
14000
9.1
400
0.077
765
na
na
0.0311
780
0.66
0.00014
2
0.0311
4300
0.000045
0.000045
0.000045
0.000045
0.000045
0.000045
0.000045
0.14
na
64
Barium
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Name
total
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Beryllium
beta-Endosulfan
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Bis-chloroisopropyl ether
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloride
Chlorinated Camphene
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chrysene
Copper
Cyanide
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibutyl Phthalate
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
Dichloromethane
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthlate
Dioxin
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Ethyl Benzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
3,4-benzopyrene
3,4-benzofluoranthene
1,12-Benzoperylene
11,12-benzofluoranthene
1,2-benzanthracene
Synomyns
tetrachloromethane
total
Toxaphene
Chromium III
Chromium VI
total
total
1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene
di-n-butyl phthalate
DDD
DDE
DDT
Methylene Chloride
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Gross alpha particle activity including radium 226 but excluding radon and uranium
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Units
1.0
1.2
0.00012
0.0028
Class I
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0077
0.93
0.031
1.8
1400
3000
10
0.25
0.00058
100
0.00073
50
50
0.05
0.0028
1000
200
0.0028
2700
0.0083
0.00059
0.0083
4.7
0.00014
23000
313000
0.000000013
0.93
0.2
0.2
3100
42
0.0028
pCi/L
15
65
1.2
0.00012
0.0028
Class IA
1.2
0.00012
0.0028
Class II
71
0.00054
0.0311
Class III
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0077
0.93
0.031
1.8
1400
3000
10
0.25
0.00058
175
0.00073
50
50
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0077
0.93
0.031
1.8
1400
3000
10
0.25
0.00058
250
0.00073
50
50
0.0311
0.0311
0.0311
0.0311
0.13
2
1.4
5.9
170000
5200
170
4.4
0.0059
0.00075
670000
3400
0.0028
1000
200
0.0028
2700
0.0083
0.00059
0.0083
4.7
0.00014
23000
313000
0.000000013
0.93
0.2
0.2
3100
42
0.0028
0.0028
1000
200
0.0028
2700
0.0083
0.00059
0.0083
4.7
0.00014
23000
313000
0.000000013
0.93
0.2
0.2
3100
42
0.0028
0.0311
na
220000
0.0311
12000
0.0083
0.0059
0.0059
1600
0.00014
120000
2900000
0.000000014
2
0.81
0.81
29000
54
0.0311
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Name
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclohexane / (Lindane)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Lead
Mercury
Methyl Bromide (HM)
Methyl Choride (HM)
Nickel
Nitro-Benzene
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodipropylamine
Pentachloro-Phenol
pH
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phenyl Chloride
Pyrene
Radium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Sulphate
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Trihalomethanes
Trihalomethanes
Trihalomethanes
Trihalomethanes
Vinyl Chloride
Zinc
Synomyns
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Bromomethane
Chloromethane
nitrobenzene
n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
pentachlorophenol
total
Chlorobenzene
226 & 228 - combined total
(as SO4) - total
1,1,2-trichloroethylene
Bromoform
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Units
0.00021
0.0001
0.00072
0.44
Class I
0.00021
0.0001
0.00072
0.44
Class IA
0.00021
0.0001
0.00072
0.44
Class II
0.00021
0.00011
0.00074
50
Class III
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pCi/L
mg/L
mg/L
mEq/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.0039
0.014
0.019
240
1.9
0.0028
8.4
50
0.144
48
5.7
610
17
0.00069
5
0.005
1000
0.0039
0.014
0.019
240
1.9
0.0028
8.4
50
0.144
48
5.7
610
17
0.00069
5
0.005
1000
0.0039
0.014
0.019
240
1.9
0.0028
8.4
50
0.144
48
5.7
610
17
0.00069
5
0.005
1000
6.0-9.0
0.0028
21000
680
0.0028
0.013
0.046
0.063
17000
8.9
0.0311
600
na
0.144
4000
470
4600
1900
8.1
16
8.5
29000
0.0311
4600000
21000
0.0311
10
50
65000
na
0.8
13
6800
2.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
2
5000
8.85
48
200000
80.7
470
470
470
470
525
na
66
0.0028
0.01
680
0.0028
5
10
50
50% of total
250
0.8
13
6800
2.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
2
5000
0.0028
21000
680
0.0028
10
50
60% of total cations
450
0.8
13
6800
2.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
2
5000
AQUATIC LIFE - NORTH DAKOTA
1
CAS
Name
------4,4-DOT
309-00-2
Aldrin
7664-41-7 Ammonia (un-ionized as N)
7440-38-2 Arsenic
7440-39-3 Barium
7440-42-8 Boron
7440-43-9 Cadmium
12789-03-6 Chlordane
16887-00-6 Chloride
8001-35-2 Chlorinated Camphene
7782-50-5 Chlorine (residual)
16065-83-1 Chromium
15723-28-1 Chromium
7440-47-3 Chromium
7440-50-8 Copper
57-12-5
Cyanide
60-57-1
Dieldrin
------Dissolved Oxygen
959-98-8
Endosulfan
33213-65-9 Endosulfan
------Endosulfan
72-20-8
Endrin
------Fecal coliform organisms
------Gross alpha particle activity including radium 226 but excluding radon and uranium
76-44-8
Heptachlor
1024-57-3 Heptachlor Epoxide
58-89-9
Hexachlorocyclohexane / (Lindane)
7439-92-1 Lead
7439-97-6 Mercury
7440-02-0 Nickel
7727-37-9 Nitrogen
87-86-5
Pentachloro-Phenol
------pH
108-95-2
Phenols
------phosphorus
11104-28-2 Polychlorinated Biphenyl
11141-16-5 Polychlorinated Biphenyl
553469-21-9 Polychlorinated Biphenyl
c2a
(dissolved)7
2a
total
total
c
mg/L
mg/L
c2a
mg/L
c2a
mg/L
c2a
alpha-Endosulfan
beta-Endosulfan
total
(gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane)
Nitrates (dissolved) 5
pentachlorophenol
ug/L
pCi/L
c2a
c2a
c2a
0.001
-----
0.55
1.5
0.001
-----
0.55
1.5
0.001
-----
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
360
1.0
190
1
360
1.0
190
1
360
1.0
190
1
360
1.0
190
1
0.75
9
3.9
1.2
9
1.1
0.0043
3.9
1.2
0.73
0.019
1700
16
0.0002
0.011
210
11
0.73
0.019
1700
16
----22
1.25
18
5.2
0.0019
----22
1.25
0.11
0.11
0.056
0.056
100
1.1
0.0043
9
3.9
1.2
9
1.1
0.0043
9
3.9
1.2
9
1.1
0.0043
0.0002
0.011
210
11
0.73
0.019
1700
16
0.0002
0.011
210
11
0.73
0.019
1700
16
0.0002
0.011
210
11
18
5.2
0.0019
----22
1.25
18
5.2
0.0019
0.056
0.056
0.06
0.0023
0.11
0.11
0.22
0.09
0.056
0.056
0.06
0.0023
0.26
0.26
1
9
82
2.4
9
1400
0.0038
0.0038
0.08
9
3.2
0.012
9
160
0.26
0.26
1
9
82
2.4
9
1400
0.0038
0.0038
0.08
9
3.2
0.012
9
160
20
7
20
7
-------------
0.014
0.014
0.014
175
0.05
18
----5.2
22
0.0019
1.25
not less than 5 mg/L
0.056
0.11
0.056
0.11
0.06
0.22
0.0023
0.09
2
200 fecal coliforms per 100 mL
0.22
0.06
0.09
0.0023
0.11
0.11
0.22
0.09
15
0.26
0.26
2
9
82
2.4
9
1400
0.0038
0.0038
0.06
9
3.2
0.012
9
160
0.26
0.26
1
9
82
2.4
9
1400
0.0038
0.0038
0.08
9
3.2
0.012
9
160
20
7
20
7
1
8
67
9
250
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
c2a
c2a
c2a
Class III
Acute
Chronic
0.55
1.5
7.0 - 9.0
total
total5
PCB 1221
PCB 1232
PCB 1242
1d
Class II
Acute
Chronic
0.001
1.5
mg/L
total
1c
Class IA
Acute
Chronic
0.55
1.5
9
total
Toxaphene - total - ug/L
total
Chromium III
Chromium VI
total
1b
Class I
Acute
Chronic
Other Names
6.0 - 9.0
0.01
0.1
-------------
0.014
0.014
0.014
-------------
0.014
0.014
0.014
-------------
0.014
0.014
0.014
12672-29-6 Polychlorinated Biphenyl
11097-69-1 Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCB 1248
PCB 1254
CAS
Name
Other Names
------7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-23-5
14808-79-8
------7440-66-6
Radium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Sulphate
Temperature
Zinc
226 & 228 - combined total
c2a
c2a
---------
0.014
0.014
1
Class I
Acute
Chronic
0.014
0.014
---------
1b
0.014
0.014
1c
Class IA
Acute
Chronic
pCi/L
Class II
Acute
Chronic
---------
0.014
0.014
1d
Class III
Acute
Chronic
5
20
9
4.1
(as SO4) - total
---------
5
-----
mEq/L
50% of total cations
mg/L
250
120
9
11
9
20
9
4.1
120
9
5
-----
20
5
9
4.1
----60% of total cations
450
o
o
6
85 F (29.44 C)
9
9
11
120
20
9
4.1
5
----750
11
9
120
9
11
9
For Rivers & Streams:
Chemical -based assessment (indirect assessment):
Fully Supporting
For DO, the standard of 5 mg/L (minimum) was not exceeded at any time. For unionized ammonia and other toxic pollutants (e.g., trace elements and organics), the acute or chronic standard was not violated
at any time between 1993 and 1997.
Fully Supporting but Threatened
For DO, the standard of 5 mg/L was exceeded in less than 10% of the samples. For unionized ammonia and other individual toxic pollutants, no more than one violation of the acute chronic standard occurred
during any consecutive 3-year period between 1993 and 1997. Aquatic life use support was also assessed as fully supporting but threatened where land use, stram condition, or habitat were believed (using
best professional judgement) to cause a threat to aquatic life.
Partially Supporting
For DO, the standard of 5 mg/L was exceeded in 11 to 25% of the measurements taken between 1993 and 1997. For unionized ammonia and other toxic pollutants the acute or chronic standard was
exceeded more than once, but in less than 10% of the samples within an consecutive 3 -year period between 1993 and 1997.
Not Supporting
For DO, the 5 mg/L standard was exceeded in more than 25% of the samples collected between 1993 and 1997. For unionized ammonia and other toxic pollutants, the acute or chronic standard was
exceeded in more than 10% of the samples collected between 1993 and 1997.
For Rivers & Streams:
The department has adopted the "multi-metric" approach to assess biological integrity or aquatic life use support for rivers and streams. This approach assumes that various measures of the biological community respond to habitat alterations or pollutant loadings induced by
humans. Each measure of the biological community, called a "metric", is evaluated and scored on a 1,3, 5 point scale. The higher the score, teh better the biological condition. The Health Department uses 12 metrics for assessment of fish community with a total possible
score of 60. Assessments of the macroinvertebrate community are done using 8 metrics with a total possible score of 40.
Fully Supporting
Macroinvertebrate: 30-40
Fish: 51-60
Fully Supporting but Threatened
Macroinvertebrate: 20-29
Fish: 31-50
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
Macroinvertebrate: 10-19
Macroinvertebrate: 0-9
Fish: 21-30
Fish: 12-20
Except for the aquatic life values for metals, the values given in this appendix refer to the total (dissolved plus suspended) amount of each substance. For the aquatic life values for metals, the values refer to the acid soluble portion which is derived as teh fraction that passes
through a 0.45 um membrane filter after the sample is acidified to pH 1.5 - 2.0 with nitric acid.
NOTES
reference: Standards of Water Quality for State of North Dakota: Rule 33-16-02: North Dakota State Department of Health: adopted by North Dakota State Health Council Jan 16, 1985; effective date Feb 1, 1991; prepared under the supervision of Francis J. Schwindt,
M.S., R.P.E., Chief
68
1a
Class I streams: The quality of waters in this class shall be such as to permit the propagation of life, or both, of resident fish species and other aquatic biota and shall be suitable for boating, swimming, and other water recreation. The
quality shall be such that after treatment consisting of coagulation, settling, filtration, and chlorination, or equivalent treatment processes, the treated water shall meet the bacteriological, physical, and chemical requirements of the
department for municipal use. The quality of water shall be such as to permit its use for all irrigation, stock watering, and wildlife use without injurious effects.
1b
Class IA streams: The quality of this class of waters shall be such that its uses shall be the same as those idenified for Class I, except that treatment for municipal use may also require softening to meet the chemical requirements of the
deparment. The physical and chemical criteria shall be those for class I, with some excpetions as noted above.
1c
Class II streams: The quality of this class of waters shall be such that its uses shall be the same as those for class I, except that additonal treatment may be required over that noted in class IA to meet the drinking water requirements of
the department. Streams in this classification may be intermittent in nature which would make some of these waters of questionable value for beneficial uses, such as irrigation, municipal water supplies, or fish life. The physical and
chemical criteria shall be those for class IA, with the exceptions noted above.
1d
Class III streams: The quality of this class of waters shall be suitable for industrial and agricultural uses, ie: cooling, washing, irrigation, and stock watering. These streams all have low average flows, and generally, prolonged periods of
no flow and are of marginal or seasonal value for immersion recreation and fish aquatic biota. The quality of the water must be maintained to protect recreation, fish, and aquatic biota. The physical and chemical criteria shall be those
for class II, with the exceptions noted above.
2a
Substance classified as a carcinogen, with the value on an incremental risk of one additional instance of cancer in one million person.
2b
Chemicals which are not individually classified as carcinogens but which are contained within a class of chemicals, with carcinogenicity as the basis for the criteria drivation for that class of chemicals; an individual carcinogenicity
assessment for these chemicals is pending.
3
The NH3-N in mg/L concentration resulting from intermittent wast discharges cannot exceed the numerical value given by 0.427/FT/FPH/2 where:
FT = 100.03(20-TCAP)
= 10
FPH = 1
TCAP <= T<=30
0.03(20-T)
0<= T <= TCAP
8 <= pH <= 9
= 1+107.4-pH / 1.25
6.5 <= pH <= 8
TCAP = 20o C - salmonids or other sensitive cold water species present
TCAP = 25o C - salmonids and other sensitive cold water species absent
The NH3-N in mg/L concentration from a continuous wast discharge cannot exceed the n umerical value given by 0.658/FT/FPH/ratio where:
Ratio = 16
7.7 <= pH <= 9
= 24(107.7-pH / 1+107.4-pH )
6.5 <= pH <= 7.7
TCAP = 15o C - salmonids or other sensitive cold water species present
TCAP = 20o C - salmonids and other sensitive cold water species absent
4
This standard shall apply only during the recreation season May 1 to September 30.
5
The standards for nitrates (N) and phosphorus (P) are intended as interim guideline limits. Since each stream or lake has unique characteristics which determine the levles of these constituents that will cause excessive plant growth (eutrophication), the
department reserves the right to review these standards after additional study and to set specific limitations on any waters of the state. However, in no case shall the standard for nitrates (N) exceed ten milligrams per liter for any waters used as a municipal or
domestic drinking water supply.
6
The maximum increase shall not be greater than 5 oF (2.78oC) above natural background conditions.
69
7
More restrictive criteria than specified may be necessary to protect fish and aquatic biota. These criteria will be developed according to the procedures in subdivision b of subsection 2 of section 33-16-02-07.
8
Limitation is a pH dependent calculated value using the formula e [1.005(pH)-5.29] ; pH = 7.8 was used for listed value as an example. For exact limitation, receiving water pH value must be used.
9
Hardness dependent criteria. Value given is an example only and is based on a CaCO3 hardness of 100 mg/L. Criteria for each case must be calculated using the following formula:
CMC = Criterion Maximum Concentration (acute exposure value): The threshold value at or below which ther should be no unacceptable effects to freshwater aquatic organisms and their uses if the one-hour concentraion does not exceed that CMC value more
than once every three years on the average.
CMC = exp (ma [in (hardness) + ba)
ma
Cadmium
1.128
Copper
0.9422
Chromium III
0.819
Lead
Nickel
1.273
0.846
Silver
1.72
Zinc
0.8473
ba
-3.828
-1.464
3.688
1.46
3.3612
-6.52
0.8604
CCC = Criterion Continuous Concentration (chronic exposure value): The threshold value at or below which there should be no unacceptable effects to freshwater aquatic organisms and their uses if the four-day concentration does not exceed that CCC value
more than once every three years on the average.
CCC = exp (mc [in (hardness)] + bc)
mc
Cadmium
0.7852
Copper
0.8545
Chromium III
0.819
Lead
Nickel
1.273
0.846
Silver
-----
Zinc
0.8473
10
pH dependent criteria: Value given is an example only and is based on a pH of 7.8. Criteria for each case must be calculated using th e following formula:
Freshwater aquatic life criteria for pentachlorophenol are expressed as a function of pH. Values displayed in the table correspond to a pH of 7.8 and are calculated as follows:
CMC = exp [1.005 (pH) - 4.830]
CCC = exp [1.005 (pH) - 5.290]
70
bc
-3.49
-1.465
1.561
-4.705
1.1645
----0.7614
South Dakota Water Quality Standards
SOUTH DAKOTA - DRINKING WATER & AQUATIC LIFE
Name
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
2,4,-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2-chloronaphthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
2-chlorophenol
2-chlorophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Alachlor
Aldrin
Anthracene
Antimony
Arochlor 1016 (h) (o)
Arochlor 1221 (h) (o)
Arochlor 1232 (h) (o)
Arochlor 1242 (h) (o)
Arochlor 1248 (h) (o)
Arochlor 1254 (h) (o)
Arochlor 1260 (h) (o)
Arsenic
Asbestos
Synonyms
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
PCB-1016
PCB 1221
PCB 1232
PCB 1242
PCB 1248
PCB 1254
PCB-1260
71
Unit
Human Health
Use (a)
Uses (b)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
----0.17
0.6
0.057
2700
0.38
0.52
0.04
700
400
10
400
2.1
93
540
70
0.11
1700
1700
120
120
0.04
1200
----320
0.059
----0.00013
9600
14
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.000044
0.018
7000000
----11
42
3.2
17000
99
39
0.54
----2600
1700
2600
6.5
790
2300
14000
9.1
4300
4300
400
400
0.077
2700
----780
0.66
----0.00014
110000
4300
0.000045
0.000045
0.000045
0.000045
0.000045
0.000045
0.000045
0.14
-----
Aquatic Life
Acute CMC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
------------------------------------360
-----
Chronic CMC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
190
-----
Barium
Benzene
Name
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Beryllium
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
bis -chloroisopropyl ether
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Cadmium (c) (d)
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloride (e)
Chlorinated Camphene
Chlorine (residual)
Chromium (d) (f)
Chromium (d) (f)
Chrysene
Copper (d) (g)
Cyanide
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (h)
Dichloromethane
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthlate
di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitro-o-cresol
dioxin
Di-sec-octyl Phthalate
Endosulfan
Endosulfan
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Ethyl Benzene
Fecal coliform organisms (i)
mg/L
mg/L
Synonyms
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Toxaphene
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Weak Acid Dissociable
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Methylene Chloride
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,3,7,8-TCDD
di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate
alpha-Endosulfan
beta-Endosulfan
Ethylbenzene
per 100 mL
72
1
1.2
Human Health
Use (a)
0.00012
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
----0.0028
----0.031
1400
3000
----0.25
0.00057
250:438
0.00073
------------0.0028
1300
700
0.0028
0.00083
0.00059
0.00059
4.7
0.00014
23000
313000
2700
13.4
0.000000013
1.8
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.76
0.76
3100
5000:20000
----71
Uses (b)
0.00054
0.031
0.031
0.031
----0.031
----1.4
170000
5200
----4.4
0.00059
----0.00075
------------0.031
----220000
0.031
0.00084
0.00059
0.00059
1600
0.00014
120000
29000000
12000
765
0.000000014
5.9
2
2
2
0.81
0.81
29000
-----
--------Aquatic Life
Acute CMC
----------------------------------------3.7
----2.4
----0.73
19
550
15
----17
22
------------1.1
----2.5
------------------------0.22
0.22
----0.18
-------------
--------Chronic CMC
----------------------------------------1
----0.0043
----0.0002
11
180
10
----11
5.2
------------0.001
----0.0019
------------------------0.056
0.056
----0.0023
-------------
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Fluoride
Name
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane-alpha
Hexachlorocyclohexane-beta
Hexachlorocyclohexane-gamma
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Lead (d) (j)
Mercury (k)
Methyl Bromide (HM)
Methyl Choride (HM)
Nickel (d) (l)
Nitro-Benzene
Nitrogen
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodipropylamine
Oil
Pentachloro-phenol (m) (n)
pH
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phenyl Chloride
Pyrene
Selenium (h)
Silver (d) (p)
Sulphate
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
total dissolved solids
Trichloroethylene
Trihalomethanes
Trihalomethanes
Trihalomethanes
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Synonyms
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Nitrate
Pentachlorophenol
Chlorobenzene
1,1,2-trichloroethylene
Bromoform
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
73
300
1300
4
Human Health
Use (a)
0.00021
0.0001
0.00075
0.44
0.0039
0.0014
0.019
240
1.9
0.0028
8.4
----0.14
48
----610
17
10
0.00069
5
0.005
1
0.28
6.5-9.0
----21000
680
960
--------500:875
0.8
1.7
6800
1000:1750
2.7
4.3
0.41
5.7
370
14000
----Uses (b)
0.00021
0.00011
0.00077
50
0.13
0.46
0.063
17000
8.9
0.0311
600
----0.15
4000
----4600
1900
----8.1
16
1.4
----8.2
--------4600000
21000
11000
------------8.5
6.3
200000
----81
360
34
470
------------Aquatic Life
Acute CMC
0.52
0.52
----------------2
----------------65
2.1
--------1400
------------------------20
--------------------20
3.4
-------------------------------------
------------Chronic CMC
0.0038
0.0038
----------------0.08
----------------2.5
0.012
--------160
------------------------13
--------------------5
-----------------------------------------
Trihalomethanes
Vinyl Chloride
Zinc (d) (q)
Dichlorobromomethane
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.27
2
-----
22
525
-----
--------110
--------100
NOTES
The aquatic life values for arsenic, cadmium, chromium (III), chromium (VI), copper, lead, mercury (acute), nickel, selenium, silver and zinc given in this document refer to the dissolved amount of each substance unless otherwise noted. All surface water discharge permit
effluent limits for metals shall be expressed and measured in accordance with 74:52:03:16
a
b
Drinking Water - Use C lass 1 - based on two routes of exposure - ingestion of contaminated aquatic organisms and drinking water
Drinking Water - Use Classes 2 through 6 - based on one route of exposure - ingestion of aquatic organisms only
c
Cadmium, ug/L: chronic=(*0.909)e(o.7852[in(hardness)]-3.490); Acute=(*0.944)e(1.128[in(hardness)]-3.828)
d
hardness-dependent criteria in ug/L. Value given is an example only and is based on a CaCO3 hardness of 100 mg/L. Criteria for each case must be calculated using the following e quations taken from Quality Criteria for Water
1986 (Gold Book):
e
30 day average: daily maximum
f
Chromium (III), ug/L: chronic=(0.860)e(0.8190[in(hardness)]+1.561); Acute=(0.316)e(0.8190[in(hardness)]+3.688)
g
Copper, ug/L: chronic=(0.960)e(0.8545[in(hardness)]-1.465); Acute=(0.960)e(0.9422[in(hardness)]-1.460)
h
i
also applies to all waters of the state
j
Lead, ug/L: chronic=(*0.791)e(1.273[in(hardness)]-4.705); Acute=(*0.791)e(1.273[in(hardness)]-1.460)
k
l
these criteria are based on the total-recoverable fraction of the metal
Nickel, ug/L: chronic=(0.997)e(0.8460[in(hardness)]+1.1645); Acute=(0.998)e(0.8460[in(hardness)]+3.3612)
m
n
o
geometric mean of a minimu of 5 samples during separate 24-hour periods for a 30-day period and may not exceed this value in more than 20 percent of the samples examined in the same 30-day period: in any one sample
pH-dependent criteria in ug/L. Value given is an example only and is based on a pH of 7.8. Criteria in each case must be calculated using the following equation taken from Quality Criteria for Water 1986 (Gold Book):
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) ug/L: chronic = e[1.005(pH) - 5.290]; acute = e[1.005(pH) - 4.830].
Apply to the beneficial uses as designated but do not supersede those standards for certain toxic pollutants as previously established in 74:51:01:31, 74:51:01:44 to 74:51:01:54, inclusive and 74:51:01:56 and 74:51:01:57.
p
Silver, ug/L: Acute=(0.85)e(1.72[in(hardness)]-6.52)
q
Zinc, ug/L: chronic=(0.986)e(0.8473[in(hardness)]+0.7614); Acute=(0.978)e(0.8473[in(hardness)]+0.8604)
74
APPENDIX B - MANITOBA WATER QUALITY INDEX
75
Appendix B - Manitoba Water Quality Index
Concern over waster quality is a growing public issue in Manitoba. Previous State of the
Environment Reports for Manitoba have identified many water quality concerns. As development expands
and technologies advance, so too does the potential for pollution of our water resources.
Despite Manitoba's good record of water quality management, there are regions where quality is
deteriorating or threatened. Even in areas with sufficient water, the quality can vary which affects its use and
value as a resource.
Typically, water quality is assessed by measuring a large number of variables including:
•
various types of bacteria (e.g., Escherichia coli)
•
plant nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus)
•
major ions (e.g., sodium and chloride)
•
trace elements (e.g., arsenic and zinc)
•
industrial organic chemicals
•
agricultural pesticides
About 70 variables are analysed in most samples collected during routine water quality monitoring in
Manitoba. All variables need to be examined individually:
•
to compare with water quality guidelines established by the province
•
to assess changes between upstream and downstream locations
•
to identify changes that may be occurring over time
•
to develop focused maintenance, protection or enhancement programs
Developing a Water Quality Index
Describing water quality conditions in simple terms is difficult because of the complexity associated
with so many variables. Some jurisdictions have attempted to develop water quality indices to overcome this
problem.
In 1995, the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks developed a Water Quality
Index that shows great promise for use in other Canadian jurisdictions. This index has been adapted for use in
Manitoba. The index may undergo modifications in the future as all Canadian jurisdictions work to reach
consensus on a single national Water Quality Index.
This index mathematically incorporates information on water quality from three factors:
76
•
the number of water quality variables for which objectives or guidelines are not met
•
the percentage of time they are not met
•
the magnitude of exceedances
The basic premise of the index is that water quality is excellent when all guidelines or objectives are
met virtually all of the time. With each failure to meet an objective, water quality becomes progressively
poorer.
The resulting index should be useful for tracking water quality changes. Also, it conveys complex
scientific information in terms that are easily understood.
Water Quality Index
Twenty-five variables were selected for use in Manitoba's Water Quality Index. Water quality
objectives or guidelines have been set for these variables that include bacteria, dissolved minerals, suspended
sediments, plant nutrients related to eutrophication, toxic materials, trace metals and agricultural chemicals.
National water quality guidelines and Manitoba-specific water quality objectives were used to calculate the
index.
Not all variables were measured in all ecozones. For example, some materials such as agricultural
pesticides commonly used in southern Manitoba, are not measured routinely in northern ecozones.
Differences in the number of variables measured among ecozones do not affect the Water Quality Index.
However, index ratings may appear to vary more from year to year when fewer water quality variables are
used and when fewer samples are collected.
Water quality data were used from sampling sites located within the five major ecozones.
Information is presented for the Prairie ecozone, Boreal Shield, Boreal Plains, Taiga Shield and Hudson
Plains.
Manitoba Water Quality Index Score
Human activity that affects the land will ultimately affect water bodies. Water provides habitat for
aquatic organisms from algae and bacteria to fish and wildlife. Agricultural uses, such as irrigation and
livestock watering, are also prominent. Other uses include recreation and human consumption. Most
communities in the Prairie ecozone are connected to municipal water systems while most homesteads rely on
their own water supply, mainly private wells. A considerable number of Manitobans, unless they use
sophisticated water purifiers, are affected directly by water quality change. Water used for watering livestock
is usually not purified; therefore, the animals are affected directly as well.
The Prairie ecozone extends across the Prairie Provinces and into the midwestern United States.
Within Manitoba, the Prairie ecozone covers 74,000 square kilometres (12% of the province), making it one
of the smaller of the province's six ecozones. Located in the southern part of the province, this ecozone
extends from the Saskatchewan border to the Red River Valley. As of the 1991 census, 944,552 people live
in Manitoba's Prairie ecozone, including the 616,790 people who live in Winnipeg. If the city's population is
excluded, approximately 27% of the province's total population of 1.1 million people live within the ecozone.
This ecozone is unique in that the original prairie ecosystem has virtually vanished. The prairie ecosystem
77
today is an ecosystem reconstructed by human activity. Fertile soils that once sustained vast, mixed
grassland and tall-grass prairie now support a three billion dollar agricultural industry, one of the province's
most vial economic sectors. Human activity that affects the land will ultimately affect water bodies. Water
provides habitat for a wide-range of organisms, from algae and bacteria to fish and wildlife. Agricultural
uses, irrigation and livestock watering in particular, are very prominent in the Prairie ecozone. Other uses
include recreation and drinking water. Most communities in the Prairie ecozone are connected to municipal
water systems while most homesteads rely on their own water supply, mainly private wells. A considerable
number of Manitobans, unless they use sophisticated water purifiers, are affected directly by water quality
change. Water used for watering livestock is usually not purified; therefore, the animals are affected directly
as well.
78
Manitoba Water Quality Index Ranks
1991
33
33
41
28
29
32
28
27
41
34
33
31
29
31
16
23
Assiniboine River downstream of Portage la
Prairie
Assiniboine River upstream of Brandon
Assiniboine River upstream of Portage la Prairie
Assiniboine River at Headingley
Boyne River near Carman
La Salle River near St. Norbert
Little Saskatchewan River near Rivers
Rat River near Otterburne
Red River downstream of Winnipeg
Red River upstream of Winnipeg
Roseau River upstream of Winnipeg
Seine River upstream of Winnipeg
Souris River near Treesbank
Turtle River near Ste. Rose du Lac
Valley River north of Dauphin
Whitemud River at Westburne
1992
36
32
36
28
33
37
23
28
41
31
27
30
34
32
16
17
1993
34
34
35
35
26
36
22
34
39
35
32
36
30
25
24
25
1994
32
32
31
37
31
34
26
33
34
30
35
39
34
28
27
30
1995
36
32
33
41
30
35
27
28
36
30
24
37
36
28
25
27
Water Quality Ranks: Excellent (0-3), Good (4-17), Fair (18-43), Marginal (44-59),
Poor (60-100)
Source:
Manitoba Environment
Overall water quality is fair and has shown little change across the Prairie ecozone from 1991 to
1995. Water quality reflects agricultural activities, natural sediment load carried by prairie rivers and
streams, and seasonal variation of prairie rivers. On occasion, the herbicide dicamba exceeds the guidelines
for irrigation at every sampling location in the Prairie ecozone.
Exceedances are most frequent at the Red River north of Winnipeg and in the La Salle River.
Guidelines or objectives for the Red River downstream of Winnipeg were exceeded on occasion, for almost
all substances analysed over the five-year period. As a result, the WQI for the Red River downstream of
Winnipeg is consistently at the high end of the "fair" rating and is of slightly poorer quality than the Red
River upstream of Winnipeg.
The WQI for the Assiniboine River at Headingley increases steadily each year within the "fair"
rating, indicating a possible trend. However, levels of aluminum, iron and manganese - which have
exceeded water quality guidelines and objectives consistently - are available for only the last three years.
The WQI at this location may, in fact, be relatively constant over this period.
Periodically, fecal coliform levels higher than the water quality objective appear at each monitoring
location in the ecozone. They occur more frequently in the Red River downstream of Winnipeg where 67
percent of all measurements exceed the guidelines. Fecal coliform densities reflect the impact of population
centres and agricultural activities near water-courses.
Several herbicides evaluated were found to exceed the water quality guidelines in the ecozone. They
include the herbic ides dicamba, MCPA, bromoxynil, simazine, and trifluralin. Dicamba exceeded the
79
guidelines at every location sampled, while MCPA exceeded guidelines at approximately half the locations
sampled. The presence of a variety of herbicides in the watercourses reflects the high degree of agricultural
activity in the Prairie ecozone.
Implications For Sustainable Development
Conventional agriculture on the Prairies today necessitates the use of various production-enhancing
chemicals; fertilizers and pesticides serve to make farming an economically viable lifestyle choice for many
families in the ecozone. Above certain concentrations, however, many of these products may have harmful
effects on the land, water, wildlife and humans. Given that most prairie farmers live on or near the land they
farm, it is reasonable to assume that they strive to use farm chemicals wisely. However, much research
continues to be devoted to the assessment of chemical use over the long-term. There is currently no
information available on the quantity of pesticides used in the ecozone.
To maintain and protect water quality, Manitoba works cooperatively with upstream jurisdictions
through various forums such as the Prairie Provinces Water Board and the International Joint Commission.
80
APPENDIX C - UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 305(B)
REPORTS
81
Appendix C - United States Environmental Protection Agency 305(b) Reports
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that states evaluate the extent to which their state
waters meet water quality standards and achieve the fishable and swimmable goals of the Act. This section
calls for states to report the results to EPA every 2 years. The States, designated beneficial uses. They
determine designated use support by comparing water quality data to the narrative and numeric criteria
developed to ensure use support.
82
Minnesota 305(b) 1998 Report Summary
Surface Water Quality
As part of its basin management approach, Minnesota reported on three basins for the state’s 1998
305(b) report—the Upper Mississippi, Lower Mississippi, and St. Croix River basins. More than 50 percent
of the state-assessed river miles have good quality that fully supports aquatic life uses, and 26 percent of the
state-assessed rivers and over 67 percent of the state-assessed lake acres fully support swimming. The most
common problems identified in rivers are bacteria, turbidity, nutrients, siltation, and dissolved oxygen.
Nonpoint sources generate most of the pollution in rivers. Minnesota’s 272 miles of Lake Superior shoreline
have fish consumption advisories. These advisories recommend some limits on fish meals consumed for
certain species and size classes. Most of the pollution originated from point sources has been controlled, but
runoff (especially in agricultural regions) still degrades water quality.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water supplies the drinking water needs of 70 percent of Minnesota’s population. The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment Program
evaluates the quality of ground water. The program published several major reports in 1998, including
statewide assessments of 100+ ground water constituents and of nitrates specifically. The program has now
shifted emphasis to problem investigation and effectiveness monitoring, at local and small-regional scales.
Programs to Restore Water Quality
Basin Information Documents (BIDs) will include the 305b water-body assessments as well as
information on a wide variety of water resource issues and subjects. The BIDs will also include GIS maps
depicting the locations of permitted feedlots in the state system and relative numbers of animal units per
feedlot by major watershed. Based on the BIDs, teams will target specific waterbodies and watersheds for
protection, restoration, or monitoring. Specific strategies will be spelled out.
Programs to Assess Water Quality
In the 1998 assessments, in addition to monitoring data collected by MPCA, data from the
Metropolitan Council, U.S. Geological Survey, Long-Term Resource Monitoring Project, Mississippi
Headwaters Board, local Clean Water Partnership projects, and Hennepin County were used. Minnesota
maintains an Ambient Stream Monitoring Program with 82 sampling stations, and approximately 40 sites are
visited each year. The state also performs fish tissue sampling, sediment monitoring, intensive surveys, and
lake assessments and supports a citizen lake monitoring program.
In 1996, Minnesota piloted a statistically based water-quality monitoring program in the St. Croix
River basin. The program used multiple indicators to evaluate resource quality including fish and
macroinvertebrate community structure, habitat, flow, and basic water chemistry. Additional sites provided
the data to develop regional biocriteria. The state is developing biological assessment methods and criteria
for depressional and riparian wetlands. A pilot effort is underway to develop a citizen wetland assessment
program in cooperation with selected local governments. The MPCA continues to be involved with field
investigations into the cause of frog malformities. Partnerships with the National Institute of Environmental
Health and the USGS Water Resources Division and Biological Resources Division have been particularly
useful in carrying out teratogenic assays, histopathological studies, and water flow patterns at study sites.
83
North Dakota 305(b) 1998 Report Summary
Surface Water Quality
North Dakota reports that 71 percent of its assessed rivers and streams have good water quality that
fully supports aquatic life uses now, but good conditions are threatened in most of these streams. Sixtyseven percent of the assessed streams fully support swimming. Siltation, nutrients, pathogens, oxygendepleting wastes, and habitat alterations impair aquatic life use support in 29 percent of the surveyed rivers
and impair swimming in over 32 percent of the surveyed rivers. The leading sources of contamination are
agriculture, drainage, and filling of wetlands, hydromodification, and upstream impoundments. Natural
conditions, such as low flows caused by water regulation, also contribute to aquatic life use impairment. In
lakes, 96 percent of the surveyed acres have good water quality that fully supports aquatic life uses, and 85
percent of the surveyed acres fully support swimming. Siltation, nutrients, metals, and oxygen-depleting
substances are the most widespread pollutants in North Dakota’s lakes. The leading sources of pollution in
lakes are agricultural activities (including nonirrigated crop production, pasture land, and confined animal
operations), urban runoff/storm sewers, hydromodification, and habitat modification. Natural conditions also
prevent some waters from fully supporting designated uses.
Ground Water Quality
North Dakota has not identified widespread ground water contamination, although some naturally
occurring compounds may make the quality of ground water undesirable in a few aquifers. Where humaninduced ground water contamination has occurred, the impacts have been attributed primarily to petroleum
storage facilities, agricultural storage facilities, feedlots, poorly designed wells, abandoned wells, wastewater
treatment lagoons, landfills, septic systems, and the underground injection of waste. Assessment and
protection of ground water continue through ambient ground water quality monitoring activities, the
implementation of wellhead protection projects, the Comprehensive Ground Water Protection Program, and
the development of a State Management Plan for Pesticides.
Programs to Restore Water Quality
North Dakota’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program has provided financial support to
50 projects since 1990. Although the size, type, and target audience of these proje cts vary, the projects share
the same basic goals: (1) increase public awareness of non-point source pollution, (2) reduce or prevent the
delivery of NPS pollutants to waters of the state, and (3) disseminate information on effective solutions to
NPS pollution.
Programs to Assess Water Quality
The North Dakota Department of Health monitors physical and chemical parameters (such as
dissolved oxygen, pH, total dissolved solids, nutrients, and toxic metals), toxic contaminants in fish, whole
effluent toxicity, and fish and macroinvertebrate community structure. North Dakota’s ambient water quality
monitoring network consists of 27 sampling sites on 24 rivers and streams. The Department’s biological
assessment program has grown since 1993. Currently, biosurveys are conducted at approximately 50 sites
each year. North Dakota is developing biological assessment methods and criteria for depressional and
riparian wetlands.
84
South Dakota Water 305(b) 1998 Report Summary
Surface Water Quality
Thirty-six percent of South Dakota’s assessed rivers and streams fully support aquatic life uses and
37 percent of the assessed rivers also support swimming. The most common pollutants impacting South
Dakota streams are suspended solids due to water erosion from crop-lands, gully erosion from range-lands,
streambank erosion, and other natural forms of erosion.
Other impacts to streams were due to elevated total dissolved solids, low dissolved oxygen, elevated
pH, and water temperature. Sixteen percent of South Dakota’s assessed lake acres fully support aquatic life
uses and 99 percent of the assessed lake acres fully support swimming. The most common pollutants are
nutrients and siltation from agricultural runoff and other non-point sources that produce dense algal blooms
in many of the State’s lakes.
The high water conditions that prevailed in South Dakota for most of this reporting period and last
greatly increased watershed erosion and sedimentation in lakes and streams. Suspended solids criteria were
severely violated in many rivers and streams, and there was an increase in the incidence of fecal coliform
bacteria in swimming areas at lakes. However, water quality improved in some lakes that experienced low
water levels during the late 1980s, and high flows diluted bacteria in some rivers and streams. South Dakota
did not report on the condition of wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
More than three-quarters of South Dakota’s population use ground water for domestic needs.
General ground water quality is good, with only a few aquifers having naturally occurring contamination.
Deeper aquifers generally have poorer water quality than shallow aquifers but are also generally less
susceptible to pollution. The most significant ground water quality problems in South Dakota are humaninduced ground water degradation from petroleum, nitrate, and other chemicals through accidental releases
and product mishandling, poor management practices, improper locating of pollutant-producing facilities,
and contamination of shallow wells due to poor construction or location adjacent to pollutant sources.
Programs to Restore Water Quality
South Dakota regulates point sources through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
As part of the State’s point source program, South Dakota regulates concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs). The state offers two general permits, one for concentrated swine operations and one for other
CAFOs.
South Dakota relies primarily on voluntary implementation of best management practices to control
non-point source pollution. However, the State acknowledges that the technical and financial assistance
currently available is not sufficient to solve all the NPS problems in the state. Other solutions may be
explored, including enforcement to increase compliance with state and federal requirements.
Programs to Assess Water Quality
South Dakota conducts ambient water quality monitoring at established stations, special intensive
surveys, intensive fish surveys, TMDL wasteload allocation surveys, and individual non-point source
projects. Biological sampling is also conducted for special studies and diagnostic/feasibility studies. The
U.S. Geological Survey, Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Forest Service also conduct routine monitoring
85
throughout the State. Water samples are analyzed for chemical, physical, biological, and bacteriological
parameters.
86