Federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments work in close cooperation to implement a wide range of programs to protect and restore water quality. Over the past 25 years, the combined effect of these efforts has been to restore the environmental, recreational, and economic benefits of waters around the nation.

Implementation of existing programs at the current pace, however, will not eliminate threats to public health and the health of aquatic systems. If the nation is to continue to make steady progress in reducing water pollution, government, the private sector, and the public must renew their commitment to the original goal of the Clean Water Act -- fishable, swimmable waters for all Americans -- and chart a new course to achieve that goal.

The centerpiece of this Action Plan is a new initiative to integrate existing efforts to restore and protect water quality and related natural resources on a watershed basis. Organizing restoration and protection on a watershed basis creates the opportunity to achieve clean water goals in many more places, more quickly. This new initiative is described in Chapter III.

At the same time, strengthening and enhancing existing programs with specific new actions is an essential element of a renewed effort to restore and protect water quality. Many clean water programs are basically sound and effective. These programs, however, need to be strengthened and expanded to:

• protect public health;
• enhance stewardship of natural resources;
• strengthen polluted runoff standards and controls; and
• improve information and citizens' right to know.

Specific actions to immediately expand and improve existing water quality programs are described below. Implementation of these key actions by federal, tribal, and state agencies is supported by a long-term commitment of billions of dollars and is designed to support the watershed work outlined in Chapter III. The FY 1999 budget includes a Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Initiative that provides increased funding to support key elements of this Action Plan.

Clean Waters: Healthy People

People depend on clean water for their health and well- being. Safe drinking water is critical to good health. While most people get drinking water from a system that treats it to ensure safety, there is growing recognition of the value of protecting the high quality of drinking water sources. Recreational fishermen, low-income people, ethnic minorities, and others who regularly catch and consume fish and shellfish from nearby rivers, lakes, and coastal waters are more highly exposed to mercury and other pollutants. The greatest risk of harm exists for women of child-bearing age, as fetal nervous systems are more sensitive than adult systems.

Millions of people enjoy the beach each year, but growing evidence indicates that sewage and other pollutants pose serious health risks to children and other recreational swimmers. In addition, new research suggests that some water pollutants disrupt the endocrine systems of fish, wildlife, and humans, and are a threat to reproduction and development.

Actions to ensure that the nation's waters support healthy people are needed in four key areas:

(1) ensure effective public notice of fish and shellfish consumption risks and reduce contamination to levels which assure that locally caught fish and shellfish are safe to eat on a regular basis;
(2) improve safeguards for the health of children and other recreational swimmers at beaches;
(3) ensure that sources of drinking water are adequately protected; and
(4) respond to the impact of endocrine disrupting chemicals on reproduction and development of fish, wildlife, and humans.

Improve Assurance that Fish and Shellfish are Safe to Eat

In 1996, 2,193 public advisories restricting the consumption of locally caught fish were in effect. States and tribes issue advisories to notify and protect their citizens from unsafe levels of contaminants in fish tissue that make the fish unsafe to eat or unsafe to eat in large quantities. Fish consumption advisories now apply to 15 percent of the nation's lake acres and to five percent of river miles. In addition, 100 percent of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, a large portion of the nation's coastal waters, and about 20 percent of the National Wildlife Refuges with fishing are also under fish consumption advisories.

Although advisories in the United States have been issued for a total of 45 chemicals, most include mercury. As it cycles between the atmosphere, land, and water, mercury undergoes a series of complex chemical and physical transformations. The Mercury Study Report to Congress (December 1997) outlines these scientific issues.

Mercury: A Complex Environmental Challenge Mercury cycles in the environment as a result of natural and human activities. The amount of mercury released into the biosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial age. Mercury in the atmosphere can be transported thousands of miles from sources of emission and can circulate in the atmosphere for up to a year. Most of the mercury in water, soil, sediments, or plants and animals is in the form of inorganic mercury salts and organic mercury (e.g. methylmercury). The inorganic form of mercury, when either bound to airborne particles or in a gaseous form, is readily removed from the atmosphere by precipitation and is also dry deposited. As it cycles between the atmosphere, land and water, mercury undergoes a series of complex chemical and physical transformations, many of which are not completely understood. Mercury accumulates most efficiently in the aquatic food web. Predatory organisms at the top of the food web generally have higher mercury concentrations. Nearly all of the mercury that accumulates in fish tissue is methylmercury. Fish consumption dominates the pathway for human and wildlife exposure to methylmercury. The Mercury Report to Congress supports a plausible link between anthropogenic releases of mercury from industrial and combustion sources in the United States and methylmercury in fish. However, these fish methylmercury concentrations also result from existing background concentrations of mercury (which may consist of mercury from natural sources, as well as mercury which has been re-emitted from the oceans or soils) and deposition from the global reservoir (which includes mercury emitted by other countries). Given the current scientific understanding of the environmental fate and transport of this element, it is not possible to quantify how much of the methylmercury in fish consumed by the U.S. population is contributed by U.S. emissions relative to other sources of mercury (such as natural sources and re-emissions from the global pool). The typical U.S. consumer eating fish from restaurants and grocery stores is not in danger of consuming harmful levels of methylmercury from fish and is not advised to limit fish consumption. The levels of methylmercury found in the most frequently consumed commercial fish are low, especially compared to levels that might be found in some non-commercial fish from fresh water bodies that have been affected by mercury pollution. While most U.S. consumers need not be concerned about their exposure to methylmercury, some exposures may be of concern. Those who regularly and frequently consume large amounts of fish --either marine species that typically have much higher levels of methylmercury than the rest of seafood, or freshwater fish that have been affected by mercury pollution-- are more highly exposed. Because the developing fetus may be the most sensitive to the effects from methylmercury, women of child-bearing age are regarded as the population of greatest interest. Excerpts from the Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997,(Volume 1, Executive Summary), http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercury.html

Cost-effective opportunities to deal with mercury during the product lifecycle, rather than just at the point of disposal, need to be pursued. A balanced strategy that integrates end-of-pipe control technologies with material substitution and separation, design-for-environment, and fundamental process change approaches is needed.

Water quality improvements have led to reopened shellfish beds in Greenwich Bay, Rhode Island, providing an economic boost for the local shellfish industry.

In addition, international efforts to reduce mercury emissions as well as greenhouse gases will play an important role in reducing inputs to the global reservoir of mercury.

EPA proposes to take the following actions in consultation with other federal agencies and with the involvement of states, tribes, and other stakeholders.

• Control emissions from air point sources. EPA has taken several important steps to reduce the levels of mercury and other pollutants in fish, including reducing emissions from municipal waste combustors and medical waste incinerators. These actions, once fully implemented, will reduce mercury emissions caused by human activities by 50 percent from 1990 levels. Actions to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide to control climate change will also have a significant co-benefit in reduced mercury emissions. Additional work is being done in EPA's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program to evaluate the linkage of air emissions to water quality impacts, to help determine appropriate reduction actions.

• Water-related mercury actions. EPA will publish new analytical methods for mercury, expand compliance and enforcement activities for direct and indirect dischargers of mercury into surface waters, expand outreach to publicly owned treatment works about preventing mercury pollution in sewage discharges, and revise water quality criteria development plans, as appropriate.

• Seek reductions in uses of mercury and improve information and citizens' right to know. These use-reduction measures will reduce the levels of mercury in waste streams as well as the danger of accidental releases. Generally, EPA will look to voluntary rather than regulatory approaches to reduce mercury use. Additionally, EPA is considering changing the reporting requirements for mercury under the Toxic Release Inventory which could result in additional reporting of mercury releases.

• An environmentally acceptable disposal method for mercury wastes designated as hazardous wastes. This will allow many hazardous mercury wastes to be safely treated and permanently disposed, and therefore will reduce the amount of mercury being recovered (which is the current requirement) for which there may be no demand. This will also reduce emissions from the recovery processes.

• Seek reduction in exposure to highly exposed populations. Because it will take a long time before reductions in mercury releases are reflected in lower fish-tissue levels, EPA will continue public information and outreach programs, including continued support and strengthening of the states' and tribes' fish advisory programs.

• Encourage international efforts to reduce mercury releases. The global circulation of mercury requires concerted efforts by all countries to solve the mercury problem in any one country.

• Further research on all aspects of the mercury problem. A research strategy will permit targeting of federal research on the most important data gaps.

KEY ACTION: EPA and NOAA will conduct a national survey of mercury and other contaminant levels in fish and shellfish throughout the country during the period 1998-2000. This effort will be coordinated with state and tribal efforts to maximize geographic coverage.

Fish advisories have also been issued for other long-lasting toxic pollutants, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlordane, dioxins, and DDT, even though the use of PCBs, chlordane, and DDT was banned or drastically restricted many years ago. Many of these pollutants settle into the sediments where they can remain as a source of contamination well after the original source is controlled.

KEY ACTION: By 1998, EPA will develop a multimedia strategy addressing mercury and other persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic pollutants that cannot be fully addressed through single media controls and approaches. The strategy will include enforcement and compliance efforts to address noncompliance associated with contaminated fish and shellfish areas.

KEY ACTION: EPA will release its Contaminated Sediment Strategy that will coordinate its programs to address the following goals: (1) preventing the volume of contaminated sediment from increasing; (2) reducing the volume of existing contaminated sediment; (3) ensuring that sediment dredging and disposal are managed in an environmentally sound manner consistent with the needs of waterborne commerce; and (4) developing scientifically sound sediment management tools for use in pollution prevention, source control, remediation, and dredged material management.

KEY ACTION: In 1998, EPA will initiate place-based contaminated sediment recovery demonstration projects in five watersheds selected from those identified in EPA's National Inventory of Sediment Quality as being of the greatest concern. Remediation efforts will be coordinated with federal natural resource trustees.

Even with aggressive implementation of measures to reduce the levels of mercury and other pollutants that cause fish to be unsafe to eat, it will take many years to stop and then reverse the buildup of these pollutants. In the period before pollution reduction measures reduce pollutant levels in fish to safe levels, federal, state, and tribal agencies need to work together to ensure that the public has accurate information about the health risks of consuming fish from specific waters.

KEY ACTION: EPA will work with NOAA and other federal agencies, states, tribes, and other interested parties to adopt, by December 1999, nationally consistent processes for monitoring water quality and fish tissue, and review EPA guidelines for decision-making on issuance of fish consumption advisories. EPA will support state actions and, after consultation with the state, will issue fish consumption advisories if a state fails to do so.

KEY ACTION: The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) will contribute additional funding and coordinate epidemiology studies in the Great Lakes to improve understanding of the health effects associated with exposure to contaminants in locally caught fish.

KEY ACTION: In 1998, EPA and ATSDR will develop a brochure in Spanish and Asian languages explaining how to reduce the health risks of exposure to contaminants in locally caught fish and shellfish. The brochure will be given to pediatricians, obstetricians, and health care organizations for distribution to the public, particularly women with children.

KEY ACTION: In 1998, EPA and ATSDR will develop outreach materials for health care professionals, identifying the health risks of eating noncommercial fish and shellfish contaminated with PCBs and explaining how women and children can reduce these risks.

Contaminated shellfish or diseased fish stocks can have serious repercussions for the seafood and aquaculture industries and the public's faith in the quality of the food supply. Current shellfish bed closures signal serious regional problems with environmental contamination. The 1995 National Shellfish Register reports that 6.7 million acres of shellfish-growing waters are restricted nationally. For 72 percent of those (4.9 million acres), water pollution was the cause.

KEY ACTION: In 1998, NOAA will report on the status of shellfish bed conditions nationally and the factors contributing to areas of harvest limitation. This report will link shellfish bed conditions and watersheds for use in assessments.

KEY ACTION: EPA will direct enforcement and compliance assistance efforts, together with state and local authorities, at regulated sources contributing to conditions leading to closures of shellfish areas. These efforts will address sanitary sewer overflows, combined sewer overflows, storm water discharges, wet-weather discharges that contain substantial amounts of contaminants, and other point sources that are not discharging in compliance with applicable requirements.

Shellfish Harvests Resume in Navesink River, NJ The Navesink River in New Jersey was closed to shellfishing in the early 1970s because of extensive pollution from industrial, marina, and agricultural sources. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the New Jersey Departments of Environmental Protection and Agriculture, EPA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and 12 county, municipal, academic, and private organizations to restore recreational and commercial shellfish harvesting to the Navesink by reducing the amount of bacteria that enters the river. After years of implementing innovative pollution control measures, the Navesink was re-opened to shellfishing in 1997 and now generates an estimated $10 million annually for the local economy.

Ensure Beaches Are Safe for Swimming

In 1996, over 2,500 beaches in the United States were posted with warnings or closed for at least one day due to bacteriological or other types of contamination. Many other beaches, however, are either not monitored adequately or not monitored at all. Illness can result from swimming or playing in water that is contaminated with disease-causing microorganisms. Illnesses range from minor gastrointestinal upsets and skin rashes to hepatitis and more severe infections. Children tend to be at increased risk because of longer exposure times and incidental ingestion.

For many years, beaches on Long Island Sound were closed due to sewage pollution. Because of improvements in sewage treatment, more beaches are now open.

The most frequent sources of recreational water contaminants are sewage overflows, polluted storm water runoff, boating wastes, and malfunctioning septic systems. Numerous federal, state, tribal, and local partners work to control these sources, reduce the contamination, monitor recreational waters, and inform the public when a health threat exists. The Coast Guard, for example, helps protect marine environments through ballast water management enforcement, promotion of marine sanitation devices for use by recreational boaters, enforcement of sewage discharge prohibitions, and reduction and prevention of oil and hazardous materials spills. Also, EPA's new Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure and Health (BEACH) Program is designed to dramatically improve the information available to the public about the quality of water at recreational beaches.

KEY ACTION: In early 1998, EPA will release a BEACH Action Plan describing priority actions for federal, state, tribal, and local implementation of beach monitoring and notification programs. The BEACH Action Plan will include priority research, training, and guidance needs for the implementing agencies.

KEY ACTION: In May 1998, EPA will release the first Internet-based, federal database on beach advisories and closings in the United States. In addition to advisories and closings, this database will list which beaches provide monitoring and which do not.

KEY ACTION: In 1998, EPA will develop a specific plan and schedule for the development of a new generation of microbiological criteria for nationally protective beach water quality standards. New standards will be issued by 2003. The plan will include necessary research and interagency coordination, and describe the transition from the total coliforms/fecal coliforms currently in most state and tribal water quality standards to EPA's recommended E. coli and Enterococcus criteria, and new indicators for ear, skin, and respiratory infections. To ensure a nationally consistent system, EPA will establish a schedule for federal promulgation of standards where states fail to enact protective measures.

KEY ACTION: EPA will direct enforcement and compliance assistance efforts, together with state and local authorities, at regulated sources contributing to beach closings. These efforts will address sanitary sewer overflows, combined sewer overflows, storm water discharges, wet weather discharges that contain substantial amounts of contaminants, and other point sources that are not discharging in compliance with applicable requirements.

Ensure Water is Safe to Drink

Drinking water in the United States is typically safe. However, there are a number of threats to the safety of drinking water, including both chemical and microbialcontamination. There is growing recognition of the value of protecting the high quality of waters that are a source of drinking water as a means of reducing the cost of treatment systems required under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Clean and safe drinking water is something we enjoy each day.

Microbial contamination of drinking water, such as bacteria, viruses, and pathogens, is an area of special concern. While filtration and disinfection of drinking water can effectively remove microbiological contaminants, the reliability of these microbial treatment systems is not as high as some chemical treatment systems. Ensuring the high quality of sources of drinking water is especially important for reducing risks from microbial contamination. Microbiological contaminants are of greatest concern because they can cause immediate and sometimes deadly health threats, especially to sensitive members of the population. Because children, especially infants, may drink more fluids per pound of body weight than adults, they could be more vulnerable to these contaminants.

The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act provided for new efforts to identify sources of drinking water and to protect these sources. Such efforts can be enhanced by improved coordination with the water pollution control programs implemented under the Clean Water Act and other water quality protection laws, especially efforts to protect critical watersheds. As part of this effort, federal, state, and tribal agencies need to assess, on a watershed basis, the problems that impair the designated uses of waters, with a priority on waters designated for use as drinking water. These agencies need to ensure the effective coordination of tools available under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act, as well as other federal programs to help protect watersheds. Finally, federal, state, and tribal agencies need to gather information to support standard-setting and targeting of priorities in the future.

KEY ACTION: In October 1998, EPA will lead an agreement among federal agencies for directing program authorities, technical assistance, data, and enforcement resources to help states, tribes, and local communities design and implement their drinking water source water assessment and protection programs within the unified watershed protection and restoration efforts described in Chapter III. This agreement will draw on program authorities under relevant laws to assign priority to drinking water source water areas needing protection.

KEY ACTION: EPA will increase enforcement and compliance assistance in those watersheds where sources of drinking water are contaminated or threatened.

Reduce Exposure to Endocrine - Disrupting Pollutants

A growing body of research indicates that many industrial chemicals and pesticides may interfere with the normal functioning of human and wildlife endocrine systems. The endocrine or hormone system is a body's chemical control mechanism found in nearly all animals, including mammals, insects, fish, and birds. Consequently, endocrine, or hormone, disruptors may cause a variety of problems with development and reproduction.

Further research, monitoring, and testing are needed to improve understanding of the potential impacts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Environment and Natural Resources convened a working group led by EPA, DOI, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, that included NOAA and other federal agencies. This working group has developed a multi-agency research strategy for endocrine disruptors. Federal agencies are working with others to implement this research strategy.

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 require EPA to develop and present to Congress a screening program for endocrine disruptors by 1998 and to implement the program by 1999. EPA has asked a multi-stakeholder, public-private Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee to provide advice on how to structure such a program. Several federal agencies including NOAA, DOI, and the Department of Health and Human Services are represented on the committee. The committee's report is due to be completed in late 1998. In addition, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences is conducting a major study of endocrine disruption that is scheduled for release later this year.

KEY ACTION: In response to the requirements of the Food Quality Protection Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA will publish in 1998 a strategy for evaluating chemicals for their potential to cause effects through endocrine disruption, will implement the strategy no later than 1999, and provide Congress with a status report on this work by the end of 2000.

KEY ACTION: EPA will address recommendations in the National Academy of Sciences' report on endocrine disruption and develop an appropriate national strategy.